QUOTE
A wave starts where it begins and stiops when it arrives. All waves do this.
No problem with that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A wave starts where it begins and stiops when it arrives. All waves do this. |
No problem with that.
If it is of more than one frequency then it must be more than one wave.
That's why they have the term "wave packet"; and the "wave" has TWO parts ( an E and B component) with an orthogonal relationship. They are NOT in the same place, at the same time.
QUOTE
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.
You are failing to understand the dualistic nature of OSCILLATION. It is HERE for a 1/2 cycle, and THEN it is THERE, for a total of one cycle, but NOT all at the same time (therefore PLACE too, if moving with velocity > 0 )
You are also failing to understand the act of measuring. It is a "picture" frozen in time. We do NOT have "video" capability for this size scale. (everything is SIMULATED, like the "sine wave") When you take a measurement of these things, it is AT a specific moment in time, and can NEVER have both 1/2 cycles happening at the same time. So it is "blurred" in space, or the distance parameter.
It is like we have the BEST (fastest) film possible for our camera, but the picture is still BLURRY when we develop it. Everything on this scale is vibrating at incredible rates.
regards,
T.Roc
TRoc,
You had me worried. I wasn't sure where you were going.
LL
You had me worried. I wasn't sure where you were going.LL
Parp, Parp .... Ahoy there!,
Thought it time to reiterate my far from mainstream suppositions, might help with what going on @ the mo':
Electromagnetism is a reciprocal duality stemming from endo/exo wave propagation with regards to an event horizon produced by condesation of the said wave in lower dimensionality. The ultimate state of condensation is the waves occupance of zero space i.e a zero-space singularity (electric maxima/point charge/mass), a point at which the event reversal component (magnetism) reaches it's minima as its energy/wave now occupies it's original high dimensional 'birth-space' therefore is at it most diffuse. Imagine our 'perceived' universe was just a propagating 'magnetic' wavefront produced by nothing more than a super high energy sub atomic wave approaching singularity state . All matter on this 'magnetic' wavefront component, simply an affect of embedded singularities from 'offsping' wavicles as this 'field/wavefront' undergoes 'in-transit' dimensional decay. Our perspective: singularities within a magnetic wavefront appearing infinitely huge but @ the same time being near infinitely small.
Thought it time to reiterate my far from mainstream suppositions, might help with what going on @ the mo':
Electromagnetism is a reciprocal duality stemming from endo/exo wave propagation with regards to an event horizon produced by condesation of the said wave in lower dimensionality. The ultimate state of condensation is the waves occupance of zero space i.e a zero-space singularity (electric maxima/point charge/mass), a point at which the event reversal component (magnetism) reaches it's minima as its energy/wave now occupies it's original high dimensional 'birth-space' therefore is at it most diffuse. Imagine our 'perceived' universe was just a propagating 'magnetic' wavefront produced by nothing more than a super high energy sub atomic wave approaching singularity state . All matter on this 'magnetic' wavefront component, simply an affect of embedded singularities from 'offsping' wavicles as this 'field/wavefront' undergoes 'in-transit' dimensional decay. Our perspective: singularities within a magnetic wavefront appearing infinitely huge but @ the same time being near infinitely small.
Hi Duality, Laserlight, Yquantum, Fivedoughnut, Confused2, TRoc, Jal et al,
You may recall this illustration I prepared previously to illustrate how continuous wave is generated from discrete photons that "emulate" the simplest of functions possible ... the Sync Function.
What we see is since this is a complex function in reality the wavelets "jostle" for position after undergoing "stimulated emission" from a source. They immediately arrange themselves "perfectly" on the wave to propagate as a bosonic "disturbance". More than one photon can occupy the same space ... in fact an infinity of photons can occupy the same space that is the beauty of being a photon. I also call your attention to the fact that the photon is its own "antiparticle" or rather the photon does not have an "antiparticle" but can be in either phase. Not so fermions (like electrons for instance). Fermions are distinct entities and only two can occupy the same place at the same time. This is "space quantization" as we all know, it occurs with great predictability on the quantum scale. There is also another factor... a very important factor that has great bearing on this problem you are all alluding to here ... "Dirac's Party Trick". It is very easy to show that all "hard" particles have a symmetry in spacetime (that even includes you) that to return any fermion or collection of fermions to its original "state" it must be rotated exactly twice in its own space. It is very hard to get people to truly understand this topological anomaly. I kid you not. You literally "must" rotate yourself twice before you can occupy the same state in space. This is not true of photons which require only a single rotation in space to return a photon to its original position. I have spoken of this property many times and we are not speaking of esotericism here "it was Dirac's Party Trick"... and he did it at parties after he had knocked a couple down. He he he!
You may recall this illustration I prepared previously to illustrate how continuous wave is generated from discrete photons that "emulate" the simplest of functions possible ... the Sync Function.
What we see is since this is a complex function in reality the wavelets "jostle" for position after undergoing "stimulated emission" from a source. They immediately arrange themselves "perfectly" on the wave to propagate as a bosonic "disturbance". More than one photon can occupy the same space ... in fact an infinity of photons can occupy the same space that is the beauty of being a photon. I also call your attention to the fact that the photon is its own "antiparticle" or rather the photon does not have an "antiparticle" but can be in either phase. Not so fermions (like electrons for instance). Fermions are distinct entities and only two can occupy the same place at the same time. This is "space quantization" as we all know, it occurs with great predictability on the quantum scale. There is also another factor... a very important factor that has great bearing on this problem you are all alluding to here ... "Dirac's Party Trick". It is very easy to show that all "hard" particles have a symmetry in spacetime (that even includes you) that to return any fermion or collection of fermions to its original "state" it must be rotated exactly twice in its own space. It is very hard to get people to truly understand this topological anomaly. I kid you not. You literally "must" rotate yourself twice before you can occupy the same state in space. This is not true of photons which require only a single rotation in space to return a photon to its original position. I have spoken of this property many times and we are not speaking of esotericism here "it was Dirac's Party Trick"... and he did it at parties after he had knocked a couple down. He he he!
QUOTE (Candle Dances "2pi-rotated electron" and Atoms+)
One must begin with the understanding that rotation (more specifically extended-object or orbital angular momentum) components are quantized in units of hbar (Planck's constant/2π = 1.05×10^-34 joule seconds). Modern physics students might convince themselves of this by calculating the energy eigenvalues for a bead on a loop (i.e. a particle in a periodic box, cf. Garrod, 20th Century Physics, Faculty Publishing 1984 p.138). As a result, the minimum projected angular velocity ω of something with moment of inertia I obeys hbar = I ω.
This means that the maximum period of rotation τmax = 2π/ω for such an object about that axis is 2πI/hbar . Hence a spinning person can rotate about a vertical axis no less than once every 6×10^34 seconds, a spinning virus several hundred Angstroms on a side can rotate no less than once every second, and a spinning O2 molecule can rotate no less than once every 5×10^-12 seconds. As you can see from these examples, the effects of this quantization belong more to the physics of the nano-world, than to the microscopic or macroscopic ones. [...] In addition to orbital angular-momentum, elementary particles have intrinsic (a.k.a. spin) angular momenta. Some of these (like photons) can take on integer hbar values for spin, while others (like electrons, protons and neutrons) can have only half-integral hbar values. The weird thing about the half-integral spin particles (also known as fermions) is that when you rotate one of them by 360 degrees, it's wavefunction changes sign. For integral spin particles (also known as bosons), the wavefunction is unchanged.
The mathematical origins for this property were discovered in the early part of this century, and are often derived by solving an eigenvalue problem with Pauli spin matrices (cf. Shiff, Quantum Mechanics, McGraw-Hill 1968 p. 205). One finds that the 360 degree rotation operator multiplies a wavefunction by Exp[i×2π×spin], which is -1 if spin is half-integral. However, reasons to suspect this might be the case were already in the hands of Balinese candle dancers, who for centuries have known that 360 degree rotations are incomplete when it comes to your connection to the outside world. You can convince yourself of this by trying to rotate your hand palm-side up by 360 degrees. A second 360 degree rotation in the same direction is needed to undo the arm twist that results from the first. The drawing below illustrates the effect as well. Note that three strings are needed to make it rigorous.
[...]Half-integral spin particles thus seem to be somehow connected to the world around in such a way that their wavefunction's deBroglie phase is inverted after a 360 degree rotation, as in the diagram above. (You might want to ask a string theorist if this connection to the external world can be seen as involving one or more wrapped-up spatial dimensions.) Quantum mechanics confirms this connection by associating with these particles half-integral "intrinsic" spin angular-momenta. Fortunately, this particular weird thing is not true for extended spinning objects, like us. Otherwise, we might have to count the number of turns during a dance, to make sure the number is even at the end of the night!
http://newton.umsl.edu/philf//candles.html
You could easily do this with a tennis ball and a card with a few strings. The truth is even though the last statement "seems" to be true we can understand that in principle and as a point of fact topologically it is not true and this property must extend to macroscopic objects too... like the tennis ball.
So in the case of all objects as they move in space through time, depending on their size they must "rotate" and for fermions they not only rotate but for identical particles two may occupy a single state if they have sustained different integer rotations. This is indeed the case for "Cooper Pairs" and paired electrons in orbitals. Not only that even numbers of "Cooper Pairs" form de facto bosons and take on some of the characteristics of bosons... even atoms can be bosons since the spins can add to integers. Some atoms are naturally bosons and others can have a bosonic state ""thrust upon them" by combining two half integer particles to make an integer particle. It should be acknowledged that everything is "connected" to some "invisible" background state from which things take an "orientation".
Now I would like you to confirm this for yourselves and to realize this world is not all it initially seems.
Then you need to also think about the nature of the deBroglie Wave on an electron and how this internal "structure" of a circulating photon that needs to circulate twice before it returns to the original state... due to spin 1/2 symmetry. Unlike the photon that travels through "space" as a frozen instant in time where the group and phase velocity remain both "locked" at the speed of light and while it does not "change" between source and destination, what must happen is it must also "rotate" as well but as integer rotations in space to return the particle to its original state. I would like to also say that the photon is entirely spacelike and has no timelike worldline component (no time expires in the frame of the photon, from source to destination). This rotation will define an internal phase that allows identical particles to occupy the same state... the state of "propagating light". An infinity of these can occupy that state. On the other hand the deBroglie particle (such as an electron) works in a reciprocal space where we have the relationship...
The group and the phase velocity have quite a different relationship... The group velocity remains usually far below the speed of light and the phase velocity remains far above the speed of light, sometimes reaching an infinite speed. What happens is that this disturbance "fades" rapidly with distance from the source and is entirely "evanescent". Nothing that I have just said is in dispute, it is simply "ignored". It is at the very foundation of Quantum Theory. Can we say this "wavefunction" is not something we can understand as being related to the electromagnetic wave? I think we can identify the wavefunction with an electromagnetic wave in all cases with different topology especially in the case of the photon and the electrom and most probably in the case of other fermions.
Now we came to these "vacuoles" hanging in space whose size depends on the wavelength of the "excitation" of the light and we need to understand just "where" these photons are to be located in space and just how orientation affects the nature of these particles and their attendant energy. I will leave that for you to contemplate for a little while.
Laserlight remarked just how illusory light can really be when Land Theory of Color Mixing shows that you can reconstruct all sensible colors from just two separate images taken taken with a camera filtered by two interference filters set at two nearby separate frequencies "mixing" them in space in only the "red" end of the spectrum. A spectrometer "observing" this phenomena sees only the two component frequencies but the human eye sees the entire rainbow of light we take for granted that composed the original scene. I just thought I would throw that in to add "mystery" as to those of you who actually believe what you see is "real"... he he he!
http://www.greatreality.com/PrimaryFrame.htm
http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-7/p43.html
"There is no place like home... There is no place like home... There is no place like home... " [...] "Gee, Toto, I don't think we are in Kansas anymore..." ~ Dorothy Gayle
Cheers
This means that the maximum period of rotation τmax = 2π/ω for such an object about that axis is 2πI/hbar . Hence a spinning person can rotate about a vertical axis no less than once every 6×10^34 seconds, a spinning virus several hundred Angstroms on a side can rotate no less than once every second, and a spinning O2 molecule can rotate no less than once every 5×10^-12 seconds. As you can see from these examples, the effects of this quantization belong more to the physics of the nano-world, than to the microscopic or macroscopic ones. [...] In addition to orbital angular-momentum, elementary particles have intrinsic (a.k.a. spin) angular momenta. Some of these (like photons) can take on integer hbar values for spin, while others (like electrons, protons and neutrons) can have only half-integral hbar values. The weird thing about the half-integral spin particles (also known as fermions) is that when you rotate one of them by 360 degrees, it's wavefunction changes sign. For integral spin particles (also known as bosons), the wavefunction is unchanged.
The mathematical origins for this property were discovered in the early part of this century, and are often derived by solving an eigenvalue problem with Pauli spin matrices (cf. Shiff, Quantum Mechanics, McGraw-Hill 1968 p. 205). One finds that the 360 degree rotation operator multiplies a wavefunction by Exp[i×2π×spin], which is -1 if spin is half-integral. However, reasons to suspect this might be the case were already in the hands of Balinese candle dancers, who for centuries have known that 360 degree rotations are incomplete when it comes to your connection to the outside world. You can convince yourself of this by trying to rotate your hand palm-side up by 360 degrees. A second 360 degree rotation in the same direction is needed to undo the arm twist that results from the first. The drawing below illustrates the effect as well. Note that three strings are needed to make it rigorous.
[...]Half-integral spin particles thus seem to be somehow connected to the world around in such a way that their wavefunction's deBroglie phase is inverted after a 360 degree rotation, as in the diagram above. (You might want to ask a string theorist if this connection to the external world can be seen as involving one or more wrapped-up spatial dimensions.) Quantum mechanics confirms this connection by associating with these particles half-integral "intrinsic" spin angular-momenta. Fortunately, this particular weird thing is not true for extended spinning objects, like us. Otherwise, we might have to count the number of turns during a dance, to make sure the number is even at the end of the night!
http://newton.umsl.edu/philf//candles.html
You could easily do this with a tennis ball and a card with a few strings. The truth is even though the last statement "seems" to be true we can understand that in principle and as a point of fact topologically it is not true and this property must extend to macroscopic objects too... like the tennis ball.
So in the case of all objects as they move in space through time, depending on their size they must "rotate" and for fermions they not only rotate but for identical particles two may occupy a single state if they have sustained different integer rotations. This is indeed the case for "Cooper Pairs" and paired electrons in orbitals. Not only that even numbers of "Cooper Pairs" form de facto bosons and take on some of the characteristics of bosons... even atoms can be bosons since the spins can add to integers. Some atoms are naturally bosons and others can have a bosonic state ""thrust upon them" by combining two half integer particles to make an integer particle. It should be acknowledged that everything is "connected" to some "invisible" background state from which things take an "orientation".
Now I would like you to confirm this for yourselves and to realize this world is not all it initially seems.
Then you need to also think about the nature of the deBroglie Wave on an electron and how this internal "structure" of a circulating photon that needs to circulate twice before it returns to the original state... due to spin 1/2 symmetry. Unlike the photon that travels through "space" as a frozen instant in time where the group and phase velocity remain both "locked" at the speed of light and while it does not "change" between source and destination, what must happen is it must also "rotate" as well but as integer rotations in space to return the particle to its original state. I would like to also say that the photon is entirely spacelike and has no timelike worldline component (no time expires in the frame of the photon, from source to destination). This rotation will define an internal phase that allows identical particles to occupy the same state... the state of "propagating light". An infinity of these can occupy that state. On the other hand the deBroglie particle (such as an electron) works in a reciprocal space where we have the relationship...
The group and the phase velocity have quite a different relationship... The group velocity remains usually far below the speed of light and the phase velocity remains far above the speed of light, sometimes reaching an infinite speed. What happens is that this disturbance "fades" rapidly with distance from the source and is entirely "evanescent". Nothing that I have just said is in dispute, it is simply "ignored". It is at the very foundation of Quantum Theory. Can we say this "wavefunction" is not something we can understand as being related to the electromagnetic wave? I think we can identify the wavefunction with an electromagnetic wave in all cases with different topology especially in the case of the photon and the electrom and most probably in the case of other fermions.
Now we came to these "vacuoles" hanging in space whose size depends on the wavelength of the "excitation" of the light and we need to understand just "where" these photons are to be located in space and just how orientation affects the nature of these particles and their attendant energy. I will leave that for you to contemplate for a little while.
Laserlight remarked just how illusory light can really be when Land Theory of Color Mixing shows that you can reconstruct all sensible colors from just two separate images taken taken with a camera filtered by two interference filters set at two nearby separate frequencies "mixing" them in space in only the "red" end of the spectrum. A spectrometer "observing" this phenomena sees only the two component frequencies but the human eye sees the entire rainbow of light we take for granted that composed the original scene. I just thought I would throw that in to add "mystery" as to those of you who actually believe what you see is "real"... he he he!
http://www.greatreality.com/PrimaryFrame.htm
http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-7/p43.html
"There is no place like home... There is no place like home... There is no place like home... " [...] "Gee, Toto, I don't think we are in Kansas anymore..." ~ Dorothy Gayle
Cheers
ALL,
Just interesting information I believe that will go with what Good Elf has given? Sometimes the old papers are the best, you do not have to pay for them.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/FermiNews98-05-15.pdf
Happy Holidays
Try and not find out the classical side until I return,
Duality/Lisa
Just interesting information I believe that will go with what Good Elf has given? Sometimes the old papers are the best, you do not have to pay for them. http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/FermiNews98-05-15.pdf
Happy Holidays
Try and not find out the classical side until I return,
Duality/Lisa
Hi Duality,.... et al,
At least someone is thinking about this here... what if there are no magnetic monopoles that leaves the electric charges as the anomaly and there should not be any "electric monopoles" either... This is the whole box and dice for "particle theory".
Cheers
At least someone is thinking about this here... what if there are no magnetic monopoles that leaves the electric charges as the anomaly and there should not be any "electric monopoles" either... This is the whole box and dice for "particle theory".
Cheers
Hi Laserlight, Yquantum, Fivedoughnut, Duality, TRoc, jal et al,
Setting up the the ripple tank like this
Bigger
suggests the slits are not firing blanks in some directions .. the addition/subtraction (interference) from the two slits is 'constructed' at the point of detection.
The ripple tank is just showing solutions in space of the construction shown here.
http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.html
Or 'The DSE Equation' see http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
Best wishes,
C2.
Setting up the the ripple tank like this
Bigger
suggests the slits are not firing blanks in some directions .. the addition/subtraction (interference) from the two slits is 'constructed' at the point of detection.
The ripple tank is just showing solutions in space of the construction shown here.
http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.html
Or 'The DSE Equation' see http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
Best wishes,
C2.
Anyone having a look at this thread for the first time ..
This is the experiment we have been considering for some time now.
Best wishes,
-C2.
This is the experiment we have been considering for some time now.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi all,
Although it's very hard to tell, I think GE is supporting my statement that Newton's theory of light is wrong, or at least, just part of the whole picture.
Newton: "Light contains all colors"
This is patently false, for anyone who ponders it in 'light' of modern knowledge. (pun)
Although we know that "photons" (energy) can superimpose with "no limit", we also know, in the REAL Universe, that the energy is NOT all in one place, nor could be, and still be referred to as "the Universe". (at least by the then non-existent observers)
Since we NOW know that energy and frequency are inter-related, we can NOT have an arbitrarily high frequency, or sum of frequencies in one "place" and "time". This statement is within the limits of what we would then call mass, and the "black hole". We are NOT talking about black holes here, for sure.
My statement is this: Light CAN be ANY color (frequency).
This requires a model that has the correct geometry to be changeable, in a very specific, repetitive way.
This is regardless of human (or any "eye") perception, unlike Newton's claim, which ONLY includes the colors that we can see.
What is hard for some people to understand, is that the pattern that exists is what we can see, exists in the next octave above visible light, and the next octave below visible light. This pattern extends down into audible levels; this pattern extends down into consciousness itself.
From the Universe, and on down, there is a pattern. It requires a fundamental understanding of duality, and of singularity. This fundamental understanding is missing from the Textbooks; many parts of it can be found "scattered around" in various Texts, some very new, and others very old.
D/L's link to the Fermi-lab news.pub was great! I see that GE has commented on that as well. No monopoles found yet, so some theories are left quite short of being "correct". Charge is not the same, so that is a key difference between the "entanglement" of the E and B components.
SO, let's chat a bit about what we know.
At the "fundamental" level of "matter" we have the Hydrogen atom (H). The ground state of H, which is the ONLY example (in the Table of Elements) that has this "charge singularity" at the nucleus, which for H, is just the positively charged Proton. Of course, in "orbit" of this fundamental Proton, is one electron. The orbit shape is circular.
While the nucleus is a charge "monopole", the atom is not. It achieves a balanced state. It is interesting, that the Neutron decays when it is not part of a nucleus. Its' neutrality does not suit the Universe; while balance does. Given the size ratio between the proton and the electron, it's safe to say that balance does NOT always come from "equal" parts. This is also clearly demonstrated by the energy to frequency (& wavelength) relationship, with smaller wavelengths having more energy.
All the elements taken as a whole, show that the "perfect circle" is the exception, and NOT the rule. A few dozen pages ago, I talked about the problem with depending on pi for so much, and for it forcing Physics down the "hard way". Again, historically, this story has already played out with Kepler, and the "new" idea of elliptical orbits.
We (on Earth) are NOT in a circular orbit; while this (hopefully) is not news to you, the story of "why" might not be in your mind.
It is because we are not alone. No, not "x-files stuff", I'm talking about our neighboring Planets. As it works out, the interactions of the other masses affects our orbit, causing it to "change" from circular, to elliptical.
(emphasis added)
Tuck that bold note "the semi-major axis is an adiabatic invariant" away, it will be VERY important later, when we talk about thermodynamics.
Now, I KNOW that the historical model of comparing the atomic orbital to planetary orbits was "a mistake", but according to the Texts, they still include it for students, because "it helps understanding of the basics". That doesn't sound like bad medicine, does it?
Although it's very hard to tell, I think GE is supporting my statement that Newton's theory of light is wrong, or at least, just part of the whole picture.
Newton: "Light contains all colors"
This is patently false, for anyone who ponders it in 'light' of modern knowledge. (pun)
Although we know that "photons" (energy) can superimpose with "no limit", we also know, in the REAL Universe, that the energy is NOT all in one place, nor could be, and still be referred to as "the Universe". (at least by the then non-existent observers)
Since we NOW know that energy and frequency are inter-related, we can NOT have an arbitrarily high frequency, or sum of frequencies in one "place" and "time". This statement is within the limits of what we would then call mass, and the "black hole". We are NOT talking about black holes here, for sure.
My statement is this: Light CAN be ANY color (frequency).
This requires a model that has the correct geometry to be changeable, in a very specific, repetitive way.
This is regardless of human (or any "eye") perception, unlike Newton's claim, which ONLY includes the colors that we can see.
What is hard for some people to understand, is that the pattern that exists is what we can see, exists in the next octave above visible light, and the next octave below visible light. This pattern extends down into audible levels; this pattern extends down into consciousness itself.
From the Universe, and on down, there is a pattern. It requires a fundamental understanding of duality, and of singularity. This fundamental understanding is missing from the Textbooks; many parts of it can be found "scattered around" in various Texts, some very new, and others very old.
D/L's link to the Fermi-lab news.pub was great! I see that GE has commented on that as well. No monopoles found yet, so some theories are left quite short of being "correct". Charge is not the same, so that is a key difference between the "entanglement" of the E and B components.
SO, let's chat a bit about what we know.
At the "fundamental" level of "matter" we have the Hydrogen atom (H). The ground state of H, which is the ONLY example (in the Table of Elements) that has this "charge singularity" at the nucleus, which for H, is just the positively charged Proton. Of course, in "orbit" of this fundamental Proton, is one electron. The orbit shape is circular.
While the nucleus is a charge "monopole", the atom is not. It achieves a balanced state. It is interesting, that the Neutron decays when it is not part of a nucleus. Its' neutrality does not suit the Universe; while balance does. Given the size ratio between the proton and the electron, it's safe to say that balance does NOT always come from "equal" parts. This is also clearly demonstrated by the energy to frequency (& wavelength) relationship, with smaller wavelengths having more energy.
All the elements taken as a whole, show that the "perfect circle" is the exception, and NOT the rule. A few dozen pages ago, I talked about the problem with depending on pi for so much, and for it forcing Physics down the "hard way". Again, historically, this story has already played out with Kepler, and the "new" idea of elliptical orbits.
We (on Earth) are NOT in a circular orbit; while this (hopefully) is not news to you, the story of "why" might not be in your mind.
It is because we are not alone. No, not "x-files stuff", I'm talking about our neighboring Planets. As it works out, the interactions of the other masses affects our orbit, causing it to "change" from circular, to elliptical.
QUOTE
If the Earth were the only planet orbiting our Sun, the eccentricity of its orbit would not vary in time. The Earth's eccentricity varies primarily due to interactions with the gravitational fields of Jupiter and Saturn. As the eccentricity of the orbit evolves, the semi-major axis of the orbital ellipse remains unchanged. From the perspective of the perturbation theory used in celestial mechanics to compute the evolution of the orbit, the semi-major axis is an adiabatic invariant. Following the Third of Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, the period of the orbit is determined by the semi-major axis. It follows that the Earth's orbital period, the length of a sidereal year, also remains unchanged as the orbit evolves.
-Wikipedia, Orbital Shape(emphasis added)
Tuck that bold note "the semi-major axis is an adiabatic invariant" away, it will be VERY important later, when we talk about thermodynamics.
Now, I KNOW that the historical model of comparing the atomic orbital to planetary orbits was "a mistake", but according to the Texts, they still include it for students, because "it helps understanding of the basics". That doesn't sound like bad medicine, does it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If the Earth were the only planet orbiting our Sun, the eccentricity of its orbit would not vary in time. The Earth's eccentricity varies primarily due to interactions with the gravitational fields of Jupiter and Saturn. As the eccentricity of the orbit evolves, the semi-major axis of the orbital ellipse remains unchanged. From the perspective of the perturbation theory used in celestial mechanics to compute the evolution of the orbit, the semi-major axis is an adiabatic invariant. Following the Third of Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, the period of the orbit is determined by the semi-major axis. It follows that the Earth's orbital period, the length of a sidereal year, also remains unchanged as the orbit evolves. |
-Wikipedia, Orbital Shape
(emphasis added)
Tuck that bold note "the semi-major axis is an adiabatic invariant" away, it will be VERY important later, when we talk about thermodynamics.
Now, I KNOW that the historical model of comparing the atomic orbital to planetary orbits was "a mistake", but according to the Texts, they still include it for students, because "it helps understanding of the basics". That doesn't sound like bad medicine, does it?
The shape of the Earth's orbit varies from being nearly circular (low eccentricity of 0.005) to being mildly elliptical (high eccentricity of 0.058) and has a mean eccentricity of 0.028.
(emphasis added)
Tuck that bold note "the semi-major axis is an adiabatic invariant" away, it will be VERY important later, when we talk about thermodynamics.
Now, I KNOW that the historical model of comparing the atomic orbital to planetary orbits was "a mistake", but according to the Texts, they still include it for students, because "it helps understanding of the basics". That doesn't sound like bad medicine, does it?
The shape of the Earth's orbit varies from being nearly circular (low eccentricity of 0.005) to being mildly elliptical (high eccentricity of 0.058) and has a mean eccentricity of 0.028.
-Wikipedia, Orbital Shape
(emphasis added)
People with good memory, and who understand numerical "uncertainty" (how HUP affects measurements, aka "numbers") will probably not argue that I have strayed "too far" from these values, with "Z" and "R" (1.026, 1.059).
People with a decent imagination will be able to "see" the affect, on a sine wave's circular motion, that amplitude has on its' "shape". It make the circle change towards elliptical, in a steady (due to constant velocity) manner.
Now, from D/L's link http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/FermiNews98-05-15.pdf
Department of (Missing) Energy
Now, from D/L's link http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/FermiNews98-05-15.pdf
Department of (Missing) Energy
The very shape the universe takes depends on the amount of “stuff” it contains, in the form of matter and energy. A universe containing more than a certain critical energy density would curve positively, like the surface of a baseball. A universe with less than the critical amount would curve negatively, like the seat of a saddle. But a universe with neither more nor less than the critical density of matter and energy would be geometrically flat.
Among workshop participants were members of two research teams that recently presented startling evidence that the expansion of the universe is not only not slowing down, as everyone thought it should, but in fact appears to be speeding up. If they prove right and the universe really is accelerating, the effect on the critical density problem will be profound. The missing component of the critical density will have to exhibit a property called “negative pressure” that tends to push the universe apart, rather than pulling it together.
Only a Fundamental force will do this. Resonance, by "constructive", or "destructive" interference, has this feature.
Perhaps my cynical "surprised" response was misunderstood. Having a "full color" photo assembled from 2 wavelengths is to be expected, when you see that the pattern does form from such simple, oscillating, dualistic properties.
Light and dark are dualistic, and the shades in between represent everything in existence. Only on the MOST minuscule level, like our own bodies, and our planet, does something like "color" mean anything specific.
The pattern is pure, simple math. As long as the "units" are the same, the patterns holds true. When you cast light through an aperture, you make a clear "image" of the light, upon a dark background. At the edge of these 2 dualities, there "should be" a sharp line, but there is NOT. There are distinct bands of different shades.
The Eye of Yin, is the Body of Yang, and vice versa, as far as "colors" go.
The Yin/Yang shape is circular; yet, they would have an elliptical shape, if "in orbit". Unseen masses, then, help to maintain the balance of things.
How does the H atom not have this, otherwise decaying (destructive interaction with the background radiation) neutral part of the picture? (the Neutron) Could it be that the orbiting electron in the H atom absorbs this "missing" radiation, and is able to achieve "the perfect circle" thusly? That "anomaly" would disappear as soon as another electron was able to perform that duty.
The Universe, Energy, and Matter are all non-linear. Linearity is an illusion of frame of reference.
regards,
T.Roc
(emphasis added)
People with good memory, and who understand numerical "uncertainty" (how HUP affects measurements, aka "numbers") will probably not argue that I have strayed "too far" from these values, with "Z" and "R" (1.026, 1.059).
People with a decent imagination will be able to "see" the affect, on a sine wave's circular motion, that amplitude has on its' "shape". It make the circle change towards elliptical, in a steady (due to constant velocity) manner.
QUOTE
As the Earth spins around its axis and orbits around the Sun, several quasi-periodic variations occur. Although the curves have a large number of sinusoidal components, a few components are dominant.
..
Such changes in movement and orientation change the amount and location of solar radiation reaching the Earth. This is known as solar forcing (an example of radiative forcing).
..
Such changes in movement and orientation change the amount and location of solar radiation reaching the Earth. This is known as solar forcing (an example of radiative forcing).
Now, from D/L's link http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/FermiNews98-05-15.pdf
Department of (Missing) Energy
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As the Earth spins around its axis and orbits around the Sun, several quasi-periodic variations occur. Although the curves have a large number of sinusoidal components, a few components are dominant. .. Such changes in movement and orientation change the amount and location of solar radiation reaching the Earth. This is known as solar forcing (an example of radiative forcing). |
Now, from D/L's link http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/FermiNews98-05-15.pdf
Department of (Missing) Energy
The very shape the universe takes depends on the amount of “stuff” it contains, in the form of matter and energy. A universe containing more than a certain critical energy density would curve positively, like the surface of a baseball. A universe with less than the critical amount would curve negatively, like the seat of a saddle. But a universe with neither more nor less than the critical density of matter and energy would be geometrically flat.
QUOTE
In particular, the cosmological books don’t balance. Adding up all the matter, both luminous and dark, in the universe yields only about a third of the critical density required to flatten the universe. If the universe is indeed flat — it might not be, but persuasive theoretical models and some experimental evidence suggest that it is—then something must be making up the other two-thirds of the critical density. That “something” is the so-called missing energy ..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In particular, the cosmological books don’t balance. Adding up all the matter, both luminous and dark, in the universe yields only about a third of the critical density required to flatten the universe. If the universe is indeed flat — it might not be, but persuasive theoretical models and some experimental evidence suggest that it is—then something must be making up the other two-thirds of the critical density. That “something” is the so-called missing energy .. |
Among workshop participants were members of two research teams that recently presented startling evidence that the expansion of the universe is not only not slowing down, as everyone thought it should, but in fact appears to be speeding up. If they prove right and the universe really is accelerating, the effect on the critical density problem will be profound. The missing component of the critical density will have to exhibit a property called “negative pressure” that tends to push the universe apart, rather than pulling it together.
QUOTE
Candidates for Turner’s “funny energy,” the missing two thirds of the critical energy density, include the cosmological constant, a background energy density, first proposed by Einstein, that remains the same over space and time. Or it could come from something more dynamical that changes and interacts with
matter as it evolves.
matter as it evolves.
Only a Fundamental force will do this. Resonance, by "constructive", or "destructive" interference, has this feature.
Perhaps my cynical "surprised" response was misunderstood. Having a "full color" photo assembled from 2 wavelengths is to be expected, when you see that the pattern does form from such simple, oscillating, dualistic properties.
Light and dark are dualistic, and the shades in between represent everything in existence. Only on the MOST minuscule level, like our own bodies, and our planet, does something like "color" mean anything specific.
The pattern is pure, simple math. As long as the "units" are the same, the patterns holds true. When you cast light through an aperture, you make a clear "image" of the light, upon a dark background. At the edge of these 2 dualities, there "should be" a sharp line, but there is NOT. There are distinct bands of different shades.
The Eye of Yin, is the Body of Yang, and vice versa, as far as "colors" go.
The Yin/Yang shape is circular; yet, they would have an elliptical shape, if "in orbit". Unseen masses, then, help to maintain the balance of things.
How does the H atom not have this, otherwise decaying (destructive interaction with the background radiation) neutral part of the picture? (the Neutron) Could it be that the orbiting electron in the H atom absorbs this "missing" radiation, and is able to achieve "the perfect circle" thusly? That "anomaly" would disappear as soon as another electron was able to perform that duty.
The Universe, Energy, and Matter are all non-linear. Linearity is an illusion of frame of reference.
regards,
T.Roc
All,
It looks like until the weather gets better, I am still looking for a way to bring both camps together. I have not given up on this post, now the other just might be another story?
Still digging and that can be taken literally or figuratively, will check back, unless it warms up.
Duality/Lisa
It looks like until the weather gets better, I am still looking for a way to bring both camps together. I have not given up on this post, now the other just might be another story?
Still digging and that can be taken literally or figuratively, will check back, unless it warms up.
Duality/Lisa
Hi TRoc and All,
I think your hydrogen atomic model is missing how the orbit of the electron
really is moving around the nucleus. It is likely a twisting torus orbit, not
a pure "spherical" or elliptical orbit. The electron should be spiraling around
the nucleus in the shape of a moving toroid, IMO. The orbit should not be
in any one "plane" of alignment. Why, or how, its directional orbital "plane"
changes is likely due to the spins of the nucleus and the electron and the
oscillations of the induced EM fields changing polaries, Changes in EM field
polarities would change the electron's angular "thrust" vector . Basically,,
there are dynamic moving EM fileds that are induced by the movement of the
electron that cause the energy fields of the atom to "vibrate".
Perhaps someone can clearly and briefly elaborate on the physics
of the mechanism.
LL
I think your hydrogen atomic model is missing how the orbit of the electron
really is moving around the nucleus. It is likely a twisting torus orbit, not
a pure "spherical" or elliptical orbit. The electron should be spiraling around
the nucleus in the shape of a moving toroid, IMO. The orbit should not be
in any one "plane" of alignment. Why, or how, its directional orbital "plane"
changes is likely due to the spins of the nucleus and the electron and the
oscillations of the induced EM fields changing polaries, Changes in EM field
polarities would change the electron's angular "thrust" vector . Basically,,
there are dynamic moving EM fileds that are induced by the movement of the
electron that cause the energy fields of the atom to "vibrate".
Perhaps someone can clearly and briefly elaborate on the physics
of the mechanism.
LL
C2,
The java applet that you posted has some very compelling "explanations"
for the interference mechanism, if all of the features of the applet are
utilized. There are some issues in the way it is presented though. If you
move the slit wall away from the screen, the wavelength increases. The
wavelength decreases as the slit wall and screen come closer together.
The frequency and wavelength will remain the same.
It also shows the angle of the "rays" changing, relative to the screen, when the
slit gap spacing is changed.
This model will only work if the photon waves are spherical wavefronts so
that they can maintain a phase angle relationship that is indifferent to
gap spacing. I think other applets convey this idea of spherical wavefronts
much better, like your wavetank and the dynamic multi-wave applet. Waves
always radiate from a source in a circular or spherical shape, depending upon
the media conducting the energy wavefront. In any case it has an "arc" to it.
In this model, the slit gap spacing provides the phase change to the waves
depending upon the gap distance of the slits.
There is still the issue of how a single photon (particle model...
) DSE could
work. A single photon wave model does not have that problem, if a portion
of the photon's total wave energy goes thru both slits. This would be problematic
as it would require a change to the conceptualization of the "mechanics"
(physics) of a single photon.
2 problems:
1. If a single photon is a "wavefront" that "seeks all paths" but at the same time
is discreet and "indivisible", how can the photon's energy equally "divide" to go
thru 2 separate slit paths and still maintain geometric symmetry and EM field
balance?
2. If a single photon is a single wavefront, an experimenter should be able
to fire a single photon at the wall, exactly between the 2 slits, or at any
area of the wall outside of the slits, and it should still go thru both slits and
interfere at the wall.
Discussion, comments welcome.
LL
The java applet that you posted has some very compelling "explanations"
for the interference mechanism, if all of the features of the applet are
utilized. There are some issues in the way it is presented though. If you
move the slit wall away from the screen, the wavelength increases. The
wavelength decreases as the slit wall and screen come closer together.
The frequency and wavelength will remain the same.
It also shows the angle of the "rays" changing, relative to the screen, when the
slit gap spacing is changed.
This model will only work if the photon waves are spherical wavefronts so
that they can maintain a phase angle relationship that is indifferent to
gap spacing. I think other applets convey this idea of spherical wavefronts
much better, like your wavetank and the dynamic multi-wave applet. Waves
always radiate from a source in a circular or spherical shape, depending upon
the media conducting the energy wavefront. In any case it has an "arc" to it.
In this model, the slit gap spacing provides the phase change to the waves
depending upon the gap distance of the slits.
There is still the issue of how a single photon (particle model...
) DSE couldwork. A single photon wave model does not have that problem, if a portion
of the photon's total wave energy goes thru both slits. This would be problematic
as it would require a change to the conceptualization of the "mechanics"
(physics) of a single photon.
2 problems:
1. If a single photon is a "wavefront" that "seeks all paths" but at the same time
is discreet and "indivisible", how can the photon's energy equally "divide" to go
thru 2 separate slit paths and still maintain geometric symmetry and EM field
balance?
2. If a single photon is a single wavefront, an experimenter should be able
to fire a single photon at the wall, exactly between the 2 slits, or at any
area of the wall outside of the slits, and it should still go thru both slits and
interfere at the wall.
Discussion, comments welcome.
LL
LL,
You are right about the "twisting" movement of the electron -- IN a circular orbit around the nucleus. I am talking about the apparent movement of the electron in relation to its' center, or radius. I could be helical, or even something else, but that is not what I was talking about.
I am talking about the progression of QM, with "Bohr orbits" matching the Balmer formula, etc. Using the circle as a starting point, and going through spherical harmonics.
The thing about pi, is that it is the ratio of the circumference to the 2 x radius, so the "pattern" must already be in the radius, and pi simply takes you to another model, and way of understanding. I am using a step lower in complexity, to describe this.
I also meant to reference this link, for further reading.
Does A Uniformly Accelerating Charge Radiate?
ciao,
T.Roc
You are right about the "twisting" movement of the electron -- IN a circular orbit around the nucleus. I am talking about the apparent movement of the electron in relation to its' center, or radius. I could be helical, or even something else, but that is not what I was talking about.
I am talking about the progression of QM, with "Bohr orbits" matching the Balmer formula, etc. Using the circle as a starting point, and going through spherical harmonics.
The thing about pi, is that it is the ratio of the circumference to the 2 x radius, so the "pattern" must already be in the radius, and pi simply takes you to another model, and way of understanding. I am using a step lower in complexity, to describe this.
I also meant to reference this link, for further reading.
Does A Uniformly Accelerating Charge Radiate?
ciao,
T.Roc
Lisa, TRoc, and All,
Regarding the "flat" universe and the suspected "missing energy" component
that is required to maintain a flat shape. I have a wonderful analogy that
might easily explain the "missing energy".
Everything in the universe has an inherent natural spin. Atomic particles spin,
planets spin, stars spin, galaxies spin....it seems apparent that spin is
a requirement (or an artifact) of the "natural order" to maintain energy balance.
It seems logical to me that the UNIVERSE MUST SPIN (ROTATE), it is just that the
scale is so large and we are so localized with the spin that we cannot measure
or observe it because of the distances involved.
Consider the old pizza "throwers" in this analogy. You take a ball of dough
that represents some "fixed" amount of energy. After a bit of flattening it
is thrown into the air and is twirled to induce spin. As it rotates it expands
in size, along the rotational "plane" (axis) of spin. As the pizza dough expands,
the outer edges are accelerating rotationally. The edge is also moving away from
the center as it expands, so you have 2 acceleration components happening
at the same time. Rotational acceleration and linear acceleration.
The original energy of the mass of the "steady state" ball of dough has now
increased due to the centrifugal forces of acceleration and angular momentum.
There is more "apparent" energy in the dough disk due to the dynamics of motion
than was originally contained in the mass of the ball of dough.
Now, think what would be the observed effects if there were raisins in the original
dough ball. Initially they would be randomly "clustered" in the ball, but as
the disk flattens out they start moving away from each other at an increasing
acceleration that matches the "expansion" of the disk. The raisins that are
closest together, are not moving away from each other at the same rate as
those that are located further away. Those raisins on the opposite sides of the
disk are moving away at an accelerating rate, much faster than those in the
immediate vicinity of the "observer" raisin.
Sound familiar? The universe is expanding. Galaxies in our near vicinity are
moving away from us slowly*, but those that are further away on the disk
are moving away at an accelerating rate.
(*I know some are moving toward us, this may be a form of physical "parallax",
or a function of universal flattening bringing us together)
The pizza dough model of the universe would work to explain the observed
expansion, the acceleration of distant galaxies, the missing energy, and the
flat universe.
Comments, discussion welcome.
LL
Regarding the "flat" universe and the suspected "missing energy" component
that is required to maintain a flat shape. I have a wonderful analogy that
might easily explain the "missing energy".
Everything in the universe has an inherent natural spin. Atomic particles spin,
planets spin, stars spin, galaxies spin....it seems apparent that spin is
a requirement (or an artifact) of the "natural order" to maintain energy balance.
It seems logical to me that the UNIVERSE MUST SPIN (ROTATE), it is just that the
scale is so large and we are so localized with the spin that we cannot measure
or observe it because of the distances involved.
Consider the old pizza "throwers" in this analogy. You take a ball of dough
that represents some "fixed" amount of energy. After a bit of flattening it
is thrown into the air and is twirled to induce spin. As it rotates it expands
in size, along the rotational "plane" (axis) of spin. As the pizza dough expands,
the outer edges are accelerating rotationally. The edge is also moving away from
the center as it expands, so you have 2 acceleration components happening
at the same time. Rotational acceleration and linear acceleration.
The original energy of the mass of the "steady state" ball of dough has now
increased due to the centrifugal forces of acceleration and angular momentum.
There is more "apparent" energy in the dough disk due to the dynamics of motion
than was originally contained in the mass of the ball of dough.
Now, think what would be the observed effects if there were raisins in the original
dough ball. Initially they would be randomly "clustered" in the ball, but as
the disk flattens out they start moving away from each other at an increasing
acceleration that matches the "expansion" of the disk. The raisins that are
closest together, are not moving away from each other at the same rate as
those that are located further away. Those raisins on the opposite sides of the
disk are moving away at an accelerating rate, much faster than those in the
immediate vicinity of the "observer" raisin.
Sound familiar? The universe is expanding. Galaxies in our near vicinity are
moving away from us slowly*, but those that are further away on the disk
are moving away at an accelerating rate.
(*I know some are moving toward us, this may be a form of physical "parallax",
or a function of universal flattening bringing us together)
The pizza dough model of the universe would work to explain the observed
expansion, the acceleration of distant galaxies, the missing energy, and the
flat universe.
Comments, discussion welcome.
LL
TRoc,
Regarding your elliptical sinusoid EM field:
If you consider how the helical twisting element, when added to the spin, would
affect the shape of the propagating EM fields, I think you might be able to
model your "elliptical" sinusoidal waveform shape more descriptively or
accurately. What would happen if the electron (and the photon) were both
spinning around their respective axes while simultaneously twisting in a helical
tumbling motion. Think of the "degrees of freedom" that a propagating waveform
might take. Also instead of prescribing a circle, you now have a moving
spherical waveform that prescribes a cylindrical shape as it
propagates over a distance. If you artificially accelerate the twisting rotational
component over a distance you wind up with a corkscrew cylindrical shape...a
circularly polarized photon.
Quick question. Does a photon maintain a constant EM polarization plane over
a long distance, or is there some twist component that is not observed when
it is measured by equipment over a short detection distance. What keeps
a photon's EM polarization reference plane from twisting over long
distances, like between stars? Perhaps it does, and we can't measure or
detect it due to the short detection distance in our equipment.
I know this goes against the expanding dipole spherical wavefront model, which
should cause a photon to maintain a constant plane (polarity) relationship
perpendicular to the centerline of the dipole. Maybe I answered my own
question.
Any thoughts, comments?
LL
Regarding your elliptical sinusoid EM field:
If you consider how the helical twisting element, when added to the spin, would
affect the shape of the propagating EM fields, I think you might be able to
model your "elliptical" sinusoidal waveform shape more descriptively or
accurately. What would happen if the electron (and the photon) were both
spinning around their respective axes while simultaneously twisting in a helical
tumbling motion. Think of the "degrees of freedom" that a propagating waveform
might take. Also instead of prescribing a circle, you now have a moving
spherical waveform that prescribes a cylindrical shape as it
propagates over a distance. If you artificially accelerate the twisting rotational
component over a distance you wind up with a corkscrew cylindrical shape...a
circularly polarized photon.
Quick question. Does a photon maintain a constant EM polarization plane over
a long distance, or is there some twist component that is not observed when
it is measured by equipment over a short detection distance. What keeps
a photon's EM polarization reference plane from twisting over long
distances, like between stars? Perhaps it does, and we can't measure or
detect it due to the short detection distance in our equipment.
I know this goes against the expanding dipole spherical wavefront model, which
should cause a photon to maintain a constant plane (polarity) relationship
perpendicular to the centerline of the dipole. Maybe I answered my own
question.
Any thoughts, comments?
LL
GE, and all
Another quote fro D/L's link http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/FermiNews98-05-15.pdf
Good V‘s
The fundamental particles of matter, the quarks and the leptons, are cousins. Each group contains six of the 12 fundamental fermions that are the building blocks of our universe. The three flavors of neutrinos, together with
their charged partners, electron, muon, and tau, are the six leptons.
I understand that, from the "outside", this looks like more "coincidences", or circumstantial. Hopefully, by the end, I will be able to convey the message.
Others are already "seeing the light", which is encouraging.
I understand that, from the "outside", this looks like more "coincidences", or circumstantial. Hopefully, by the end, I will be able to convey the message.
Others are already "seeing the light", which is encouraging.
Studying neutrino oscillations is a powerful method to learn about the
10 fundamental lepton constants. We already know three of them well: the masses of the electron, muon and tau. Oscillations can teach us about the other seven, the three neutrino masses and the four mixing parameters. Specifically, the wavelength associated with the oscillations (how far a neutrino of a given energy has to go before it changes from one flavor to another and back again) is inversely related to the difference of mass squared of two neutrino mass states. More precisely, the wavelength is proportional to E_v/d_m^2. Thus if the mass squared difference is small, we must go far away from a neutrino source to observe the oscillations. The amplitude of the oscillation (what fraction of one flavor converts into another flavor at the optimum location) teaches us about the four mixing parameters.
It would seem rather "Fundamental" that the "particle" that may be responsible for mass would have the same "pattern" as that of light and matter.
When we look at these three sets of results, a difficulty emerges.
..not compatible with originating from only three different masses, which could give only two independent mass squared values. At least one of the experiments is wrong, or the observed effect is not neutrino oscillations, or there is some exotic theoretical possibility.
Food for thought.
Regards,
T.Roc
Another quote fro D/L's link http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/FermiNews98-05-15.pdf
Good V‘s
QUOTE
Changing flavors. Consider next the oscillation situation. Oscillation is a phenomenon that causes neutrinos of one flavor to change into neutrinos of another flavor as a neutrino beam propagates through space. A most general
neutrino beam can be described as a superposition of the three neutrino flavors: ..
neutrino beam can be described as a superposition of the three neutrino flavors: ..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Changing flavors. Consider next the oscillation situation. Oscillation is a phenomenon that causes neutrinos of one flavor to change into neutrinos of another flavor as a neutrino beam propagates through space. A most general neutrino beam can be described as a superposition of the three neutrino flavors: .. |
The fundamental particles of matter, the quarks and the leptons, are cousins. Each group contains six of the 12 fundamental fermions that are the building blocks of our universe. The three flavors of neutrinos, together with
their charged partners, electron, muon, and tau, are the six leptons.
QUOTE
Currently, we have no idea where these numbers come from; we rely on
experiments to measure them. In the future, an as-yet-unformulated theory may explain their values.
experiments to measure them. In the future, an as-yet-unformulated theory may explain their values.
I understand that, from the "outside", this looks like more "coincidences", or circumstantial. Hopefully, by the end, I will be able to convey the message.
Others are already "seeing the light", which is encouraging.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Currently, we have no idea where these numbers come from; we rely on experiments to measure them. In the future, an as-yet-unformulated theory may explain their values. |
I understand that, from the "outside", this looks like more "coincidences", or circumstantial. Hopefully, by the end, I will be able to convey the message.
Others are already "seeing the light", which is encouraging.
Studying neutrino oscillations is a powerful method to learn about the
10 fundamental lepton constants. We already know three of them well: the masses of the electron, muon and tau. Oscillations can teach us about the other seven, the three neutrino masses and the four mixing parameters. Specifically, the wavelength associated with the oscillations (how far a neutrino of a given energy has to go before it changes from one flavor to another and back again) is inversely related to the difference of mass squared of two neutrino mass states. More precisely, the wavelength is proportional to E_v/d_m^2. Thus if the mass squared difference is small, we must go far away from a neutrino source to observe the oscillations. The amplitude of the oscillation (what fraction of one flavor converts into another flavor at the optimum location) teaches us about the four mixing parameters.
It would seem rather "Fundamental" that the "particle" that may be responsible for mass would have the same "pattern" as that of light and matter.
QUOTE
The Earth is constantly bombarded by energetic cosmic rays, mainly
protons and heavier nuclei. As they enter the atmosphere, they interact with oxygen or nitrogen nuclei, typically some 20 km above the Earth’s surface. These interactions produce secondary particles, which in turn also interact or decay, and so on. The resulting cosmic ray shower contains both electron and muon neutrinos resulting from pion and muon decays. We can calculate their ratio from our knowledge of how these particles decay and from the knowledge of muon and pion lifetimes.
protons and heavier nuclei. As they enter the atmosphere, they interact with oxygen or nitrogen nuclei, typically some 20 km above the Earth’s surface. These interactions produce secondary particles, which in turn also interact or decay, and so on. The resulting cosmic ray shower contains both electron and muon neutrinos resulting from pion and muon decays. We can calculate their ratio from our knowledge of how these particles decay and from the knowledge of muon and pion lifetimes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Earth is constantly bombarded by energetic cosmic rays, mainly protons and heavier nuclei. As they enter the atmosphere, they interact with oxygen or nitrogen nuclei, typically some 20 km above the Earth’s surface. These interactions produce secondary particles, which in turn also interact or decay, and so on. The resulting cosmic ray shower contains both electron and muon neutrinos resulting from pion and muon decays. We can calculate their ratio from our knowledge of how these particles decay and from the knowledge of muon and pion lifetimes. |
When we look at these three sets of results, a difficulty emerges.
..not compatible with originating from only three different masses, which could give only two independent mass squared values. At least one of the experiments is wrong, or the observed effect is not neutrino oscillations, or there is some exotic theoretical possibility.
Food for thought.
Regards,
T.Roc
TRoc,
3, 6, 12....Hmmmmm packing circles and spheres. Jal will love that.
Funny how the conservation of energy is described in the geometry based
on the circle, and how the geometry of space is described in the geometry
of a sphere. Good ole' Pi, the radius, and the circumference as they
relate to motion and energy over time.
Tie them all together with how they harmonize and balance when combined.....
Just musing.
LL
3, 6, 12....Hmmmmm packing circles and spheres. Jal will love that.
Funny how the conservation of energy is described in the geometry based
on the circle, and how the geometry of space is described in the geometry
of a sphere. Good ole' Pi, the radius, and the circumference as they
relate to motion and energy over time.
Tie them all together with how they harmonize and balance when combined.....
Just musing.
LL
Hi all,
LL
I have forgotten that you are still "new" with us. We (C2, Good Elf) and others, have gone over the form that you are talking about before. It's not that I don't want to go there again, but (believe it or not) I try to keep my posts as short as possible!
Let me just add a few other ideas, and then, as I mentioned a few pages (many?) ago, let's talk about the form.
Potential Flow and d'Alembert's Paradox
I have forgotten that you are still "new" with us. We (C2, Good Elf) and others, have gone over the form that you are talking about before. It's not that I don't want to go there again, but (believe it or not) I try to keep my posts as short as possible!
Let me just add a few other ideas, and then, as I mentioned a few pages (many?) ago, let's talk about the form.
Potential Flow and d'Alembert's Paradox
Jean Le Rond d'Alembert (1717-1783) performed a series of experiments to measure the drag on a sphere in a flowing fluid, and on the basis of the potential flow analysis he expected that the force would approach zero as the viscosity of the fluid approached zero. However, this was not the case. The net force seemed to converge on a non-zero value as the viscosity approached zero. Hence the vanishing of the net force in the potential flow analysis is known as d'Alembert's Paradox.
Interestingly, this is really just another form of the well-known "limit paradox" in elementary calculus, a paradox that is also historically associated with d'Alembert. The resolution becomes clear when we realize that any non-zero viscosity, no matter how small, will result in a boundary layer that forces the tangential flow velocity to vanish at the surface of the sphere. As we lower the viscosity, the thickness of the boundary layer is reduced, but the flow velocity still drops to zero across that layer (the "no-slip" condition), and the results of this boundary layer, with its vorticity, mixing, and possible separation, lead to losses in the momentum of the flowing fluid and the transference of momentum to the sphere, i.e., to a net unbalanced force, roughly proportional to the velocity of the freestream flow (for relatively slow flow velocities). The correspondence with the limit paradox from calculus is obvious, i.e., the limiting condition of a sequence need not possess all the properties possessed by all the members of the sequence.
Quantum Dots Glossary - Evident Technologies
http://www.evidenttech.com/applications/qu...rmoelectric.php
http://www.evidenttech.com/applications/qu...rmoelectric.php
The field of thermoelectrics has its origins in Seebeck's 1822 discovery of the effect that bears his name. Seebeck discovered that in an open circuit composed of two different conductors with a temperature difference between the ends, a voltage is created. This voltage is proportional to the temperature difference by a factor called the Seebeck coefficient - the larger the temperature difference, the larger the induced voltage.
A closely related phenomenon is the Peltier effect, discovered in 1834, which can be roughly understood as similar to the Seebeck effect, but in reverse. The Peltier effect states that when an electrical current is passed through a circuit of two different conductors, the junction of the two conductors will either absorb or release heat, depending on the current direction. The amount of heat generated is proportional to the current flowing in the conductors by a factor called the Peltier coefficient - the larger the current flowing, the larger the induced heat flow.
There are the "beat-frequencies" again, as "heat", and/or infra red photons.
http://www.evidenttech.com/applications/so...sible-light.php
More background for examining the relationship between light (energy) and matter (mass).
ciao,
T.Roc
LL
QUOTE
If you consider how the helical twisting element, when added to the spin, would affect the shape of the propagating EM fields, I think you might be able to model your "elliptical" sinusoidal waveform shape more descriptively or
accurately.
accurately.
I have forgotten that you are still "new" with us. We (C2, Good Elf) and others, have gone over the form that you are talking about before. It's not that I don't want to go there again, but (believe it or not) I try to keep my posts as short as possible!
Let me just add a few other ideas, and then, as I mentioned a few pages (many?) ago, let's talk about the form.
Potential Flow and d'Alembert's Paradox
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you consider how the helical twisting element, when added to the spin, would affect the shape of the propagating EM fields, I think you might be able to model your "elliptical" sinusoidal waveform shape more descriptively or accurately. |
I have forgotten that you are still "new" with us. We (C2, Good Elf) and others, have gone over the form that you are talking about before. It's not that I don't want to go there again, but (believe it or not) I try to keep my posts as short as possible!
Let me just add a few other ideas, and then, as I mentioned a few pages (many?) ago, let's talk about the form.
Potential Flow and d'Alembert's Paradox
Jean Le Rond d'Alembert (1717-1783) performed a series of experiments to measure the drag on a sphere in a flowing fluid, and on the basis of the potential flow analysis he expected that the force would approach zero as the viscosity of the fluid approached zero. However, this was not the case. The net force seemed to converge on a non-zero value as the viscosity approached zero. Hence the vanishing of the net force in the potential flow analysis is known as d'Alembert's Paradox.
Interestingly, this is really just another form of the well-known "limit paradox" in elementary calculus, a paradox that is also historically associated with d'Alembert. The resolution becomes clear when we realize that any non-zero viscosity, no matter how small, will result in a boundary layer that forces the tangential flow velocity to vanish at the surface of the sphere. As we lower the viscosity, the thickness of the boundary layer is reduced, but the flow velocity still drops to zero across that layer (the "no-slip" condition), and the results of this boundary layer, with its vorticity, mixing, and possible separation, lead to losses in the momentum of the flowing fluid and the transference of momentum to the sphere, i.e., to a net unbalanced force, roughly proportional to the velocity of the freestream flow (for relatively slow flow velocities). The correspondence with the limit paradox from calculus is obvious, i.e., the limiting condition of a sequence need not possess all the properties possessed by all the members of the sequence.
Quantum Dots Glossary - Evident Technologies
QUOTE
EXCITON
An exciton is the term used to describe the electron-hole pair created when an electron leaves the valence band and enters the conduction band. Excitons have a natural physical separation between the electron and the hole that varies from substance to substance; this average distance is called the Exciton Bohr Radius. In a large semiconductor crystal, the Exciton Bohr Radius is small compared to the crystal, and the exciton is free to wander throughout the crystal. In a quantum dot, the Exciton Bohr Radius is on the order of the physical dimension of the dot or smaller, and the exciton is confined. This second set of conditions is called quantum confinement, which is synonymous with having discrete, rather than continuous energy levels.
An exciton is the term used to describe the electron-hole pair created when an electron leaves the valence band and enters the conduction band. Excitons have a natural physical separation between the electron and the hole that varies from substance to substance; this average distance is called the Exciton Bohr Radius. In a large semiconductor crystal, the Exciton Bohr Radius is small compared to the crystal, and the exciton is free to wander throughout the crystal. In a quantum dot, the Exciton Bohr Radius is on the order of the physical dimension of the dot or smaller, and the exciton is confined. This second set of conditions is called quantum confinement, which is synonymous with having discrete, rather than continuous energy levels.
http://www.evidenttech.com/applications/qu...rmoelectric.php
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| EXCITON An exciton is the term used to describe the electron-hole pair created when an electron leaves the valence band and enters the conduction band. Excitons have a natural physical separation between the electron and the hole that varies from substance to substance; this average distance is called the Exciton Bohr Radius. In a large semiconductor crystal, the Exciton Bohr Radius is small compared to the crystal, and the exciton is free to wander throughout the crystal. In a quantum dot, the Exciton Bohr Radius is on the order of the physical dimension of the dot or smaller, and the exciton is confined. This second set of conditions is called quantum confinement, which is synonymous with having discrete, rather than continuous energy levels. |
http://www.evidenttech.com/applications/qu...rmoelectric.php
The field of thermoelectrics has its origins in Seebeck's 1822 discovery of the effect that bears his name. Seebeck discovered that in an open circuit composed of two different conductors with a temperature difference between the ends, a voltage is created. This voltage is proportional to the temperature difference by a factor called the Seebeck coefficient - the larger the temperature difference, the larger the induced voltage.
A closely related phenomenon is the Peltier effect, discovered in 1834, which can be roughly understood as similar to the Seebeck effect, but in reverse. The Peltier effect states that when an electrical current is passed through a circuit of two different conductors, the junction of the two conductors will either absorb or release heat, depending on the current direction. The amount of heat generated is proportional to the current flowing in the conductors by a factor called the Peltier coefficient - the larger the current flowing, the larger the induced heat flow.
There are the "beat-frequencies" again, as "heat", and/or infra red photons.
http://www.evidenttech.com/applications/so...sible-light.php
QUOTE
Recent research has also demonstrated that when quantum dots are irradiated with energy that is to 2 - 4 times their band gap energy, they produce excitons that correspond to the second, third or forth excited states depending on the energy of the incident photon. The absorbed energy from this single photon produces two or more excitons in the quantum dot, which means that quantum yields, e.g., the percent of excitons produced/photons absorbed, up to 300% have been achieved.3 This phenomenon is referred to as multiple exciton generation (MEG). In 2004, researchers at Los Alamos were the first to demonstrate that if the photon energy is more than three times the band gap of PbSe quantum dots, two or more excitons can be produced with up to 100% efficiency.4 Since that time, researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), University of Colorado and Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) collaboratively demonstrated ultra-efficient MEG in colloidal PbSe and PbS quantum dots, producing three excitons per photon at photon energies at four times the quantum dots band gap.3
More background for examining the relationship between light (energy) and matter (mass).
ciao,
T.Roc
TRoc,
FWIW, except for the quantum dots (I've read about them), I am VERY intimate
with the other phenomena that you mentioned.
Thermocouples, peltier plates, semiconductor manufacturing, electron-hole
pairing in semiconductor devices, laminar flow, slip streams, drag, etc......brings back many fond
memories of some of the technologies that I have direct experience with. I
suspect that we will get to robotics and RF induced gaseous plasmas soon
enough.
I'm pleasantly amazed at how so many technologies are so different, but at the
same time so similar in underlying fundamental physics "mechanisms".
LL
FWIW, except for the quantum dots (I've read about them), I am VERY intimate
with the other phenomena that you mentioned.
Thermocouples, peltier plates, semiconductor manufacturing, electron-hole
pairing in semiconductor devices, laminar flow, slip streams, drag, etc......brings back many fond
memories of some of the technologies that I have direct experience with. I
suspect that we will get to robotics and RF induced gaseous plasmas soon
enough.
I'm pleasantly amazed at how so many technologies are so different, but at the
same time so similar in underlying fundamental physics "mechanisms".
LL
Hi all,
LL, I can't say enough how nice it is to have both your expertise, and your perspective, to be genuinely involved in this thread.
Two more here, and very good ones. Right to the heart of what you are saying, about the EM fields of the slit. We had no takers (yet) on the "standard" QM take of the photon absorption. We may have to just quote sources, as usual.
Spectral response of plasmon resonant nanoparticles with a non-regular shape
I am going to try to link a couple of movie clips, but you will probably want to see all of them, and there are many. (EDIT: it didn't work, you'll have to just go to the link, and watch them there. They are in Quicktime)
(sample) http://www.opticsexpress.org/oevideo/709.mov
Again this is VERY good to see. (edit #2: the link works, but I was trying to show a clip here. You will need to see 3 videos of energy hitting different shapes, because they compare 3 different vectors (orthogonal & 45 deg), and you'll want to read the captions too.)
Analysis of optical-signal processing using an arrayed-waveguide grating
I am going to try to link a couple of movie clips, but you will probably want to see all of them, and there are many. (EDIT: it didn't work, you'll have to just go to the link, and watch them there. They are in Quicktime)
(sample) http://www.opticsexpress.org/oevideo/709.mov
Again this is VERY good to see. (edit #2: the link works, but I was trying to show a clip here. You will need to see 3 videos of energy hitting different shapes, because they compare 3 different vectors (orthogonal & 45 deg), and you'll want to read the captions too.)
Analysis of optical-signal processing using an arrayed-waveguide grating
Abstract: We analyzed optical-signal processing based on time-space
conversion in an arrayed-waveguide grating (AWG). General expressions for the electric fields needed to design frequency filters were obtained. We took into account the effects of the waveguides and clearly distinguished the temporal frequency axis from the spatial axis at the focal plane, at which frequency filters were placed. Using the analytical results, we identified the factors limiting the input-pulse width and clarified the windowing effect and the effect of phase fluctuation in the arrayed waveguide.
2000 Optical Society of America
An advantage of the AWG is that the diffraction order, m, is determined by the difference in path lengths between adjacent waveguides
Effect of windowing in arrayed waveguide
In Sec. 2, we explained why the beam profile at the focal plane depends on the distribution function. The shape of the distribution function depends on the spot size of the I/O waveguide. To estimate the effect of the distribution on the output signal, we examined the output by using an amplitude filter with a narrow-stripe mirror. We assumed that the width of the stripe corresponds to the temporal frequency resolution, shown in Fig. 3(a). If the temporal frequency is ideally resolved at the focal plane, the narrow-stripe mirror reflects only one temporal frequency component, and the output is constant over T0 . In practice, however, the stripe mirror is illuminated by a few (or more than a few) temporal frequency components because each component has a finite spot size, as shown in Fig. 3(
. Therefore, the temporal frequency spectrum reflected by the filter is like that shown in Fig. 3©, and the temporal shape of the output is restricted, as shown in Fig. 3(d). Therefore, it is reasonable to define the figure of merit, F , as the ratio of the maximum point of the output waveform to the minimum point.
The figure that the above paragraph is referring to is a MUST see. It shows precisely the "shadow" (light/dark bands) effect that I talked about with the prism. It doesn't matter whether it's black and white, or color: same effect, same pattern. The "tooth" between the slits is creating this shadow.
The figure is on page 9 (of the PDF) of THIS LINK.
Pause for comments.
T.Roc
LL, I can't say enough how nice it is to have both your expertise, and your perspective, to be genuinely involved in this thread.
Two more here, and very good ones. Right to the heart of what you are saying, about the EM fields of the slit. We had no takers (yet) on the "standard" QM take of the photon absorption. We may have to just quote sources, as usual.
Spectral response of plasmon resonant nanoparticles with a non-regular shape
QUOTE
Abstract: We study the plasmon resonances of 10−100 (nm) two dimensional metal particles with a non-regular shape. Movies illustrate the spectral response of such particles in the optical range. Contrary to particles with a simple shape (cylinder, ellipse) non-regular particles exhibit many distinct resonances over a large spectral range. At resonance frequencies, extremely large enhancements of the electromagnetic fields occur near the surface of the particle, with amplitudes several hundredfold that of the incident field. Implications of these strong and localized fields for nano-optics and surface enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) are also discussed.
c 2000 Optical Society of America
c 2000 Optical Society of America
I am going to try to link a couple of movie clips, but you will probably want to see all of them, and there are many. (EDIT: it didn't work, you'll have to just go to the link, and watch them there. They are in Quicktime)
(sample) http://www.opticsexpress.org/oevideo/709.mov
Again this is VERY good to see. (edit #2: the link works, but I was trying to show a clip here. You will need to see 3 videos of energy hitting different shapes, because they compare 3 different vectors (orthogonal & 45 deg), and you'll want to read the captions too.)
Analysis of optical-signal processing using an arrayed-waveguide grating
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract: We study the plasmon resonances of 10−100 (nm) two dimensional metal particles with a non-regular shape. Movies illustrate the spectral response of such particles in the optical range. Contrary to particles with a simple shape (cylinder, ellipse) non-regular particles exhibit many distinct resonances over a large spectral range. At resonance frequencies, extremely large enhancements of the electromagnetic fields occur near the surface of the particle, with amplitudes several hundredfold that of the incident field. Implications of these strong and localized fields for nano-optics and surface enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) are also discussed. c 2000 Optical Society of America |
I am going to try to link a couple of movie clips, but you will probably want to see all of them, and there are many. (EDIT: it didn't work, you'll have to just go to the link, and watch them there. They are in Quicktime)
(sample) http://www.opticsexpress.org/oevideo/709.mov
Again this is VERY good to see. (edit #2: the link works, but I was trying to show a clip here. You will need to see 3 videos of energy hitting different shapes, because they compare 3 different vectors (orthogonal & 45 deg), and you'll want to read the captions too.)
Analysis of optical-signal processing using an arrayed-waveguide grating
Abstract: We analyzed optical-signal processing based on time-space
conversion in an arrayed-waveguide grating (AWG). General expressions for the electric fields needed to design frequency filters were obtained. We took into account the effects of the waveguides and clearly distinguished the temporal frequency axis from the spatial axis at the focal plane, at which frequency filters were placed. Using the analytical results, we identified the factors limiting the input-pulse width and clarified the windowing effect and the effect of phase fluctuation in the arrayed waveguide.
2000 Optical Society of America
QUOTE
Figure 1 shows schematic diagrams of time-space-conversion optical-signal processing systems using (a) DGs and ( AWGs. In both systems, the temporal input waveform is converted into a spatial waveform by a dispersive element, then spatially decomposed into temporal frequency components at the focal plane. The amplitude and/or phase of these components can be manipulated with the spatial filter array placed at the focal plane. The modulated frequency components are reassembled by reversing the process, and a temporal output waveform is obtained as a convolution of the input temporal waveform and the impulse response of the spatial filter.
AWGs. In both systems, the temporal input waveform is converted into a spatial waveform by a dispersive element, then spatially decomposed into temporal frequency components at the focal plane. The amplitude and/or phase of these components can be manipulated with the spatial filter array placed at the focal plane. The modulated frequency components are reassembled by reversing the process, and a temporal output waveform is obtained as a convolution of the input temporal waveform and the impulse response of the spatial filter. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Figure 1 shows schematic diagrams of time-space-conversion optical-signal processing systems using (a) DGs and ( AWGs. In both systems, the temporal input waveform is converted into a spatial waveform by a dispersive element, then spatially decomposed into temporal frequency components at the focal plane. The amplitude and/or phase of these components can be manipulated with the spatial filter array placed at the focal plane. The modulated frequency components are reassembled by reversing the process, and a temporal output waveform is obtained as a convolution of the input temporal waveform and the impulse response of the spatial filter. |
An advantage of the AWG is that the diffraction order, m, is determined by the difference in path lengths between adjacent waveguides
QUOTE
In the following analysis, we treat the temporal input signal as its Fourier coefficient so that we can easily distinguish the temporal and spatial frequencies at the focal plane, as discussed below. This will also make it easy to take some temporal-frequency-dependent effects, for example, chromatic dispersion, into account. We do not distinguish between the center optical frequency of the input waveform and the designed center frequency of the AWG because these two frequencies are often the same in practice. The model and definition of the axes used for the analysis are shown in Fig. 2. The model is based on a reflection-type AWG. The eigen modes of the channel waveguides in the array are approximated by a Gaussian function. By using slowly varying envelope approximation, we can represent the temporal input waveform ..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In the following analysis, we treat the temporal input signal as its Fourier coefficient so that we can easily distinguish the temporal and spatial frequencies at the focal plane, as discussed below. This will also make it easy to take some temporal-frequency-dependent effects, for example, chromatic dispersion, into account. We do not distinguish between the center optical frequency of the input waveform and the designed center frequency of the AWG because these two frequencies are often the same in practice. The model and definition of the axes used for the analysis are shown in Fig. 2. The model is based on a reflection-type AWG. The eigen modes of the channel waveguides in the array are approximated by a Gaussian function. By using slowly varying envelope approximation, we can represent the temporal input waveform .. |
Effect of windowing in arrayed waveguide
In Sec. 2, we explained why the beam profile at the focal plane depends on the distribution function. The shape of the distribution function depends on the spot size of the I/O waveguide. To estimate the effect of the distribution on the output signal, we examined the output by using an amplitude filter with a narrow-stripe mirror. We assumed that the width of the stripe corresponds to the temporal frequency resolution, shown in Fig. 3(a). If the temporal frequency is ideally resolved at the focal plane, the narrow-stripe mirror reflects only one temporal frequency component, and the output is constant over T0 . In practice, however, the stripe mirror is illuminated by a few (or more than a few) temporal frequency components because each component has a finite spot size, as shown in Fig. 3(
. Therefore, the temporal frequency spectrum reflected by the filter is like that shown in Fig. 3©, and the temporal shape of the output is restricted, as shown in Fig. 3(d). Therefore, it is reasonable to define the figure of merit, F , as the ratio of the maximum point of the output waveform to the minimum point.The figure that the above paragraph is referring to is a MUST see. It shows precisely the "shadow" (light/dark bands) effect that I talked about with the prism. It doesn't matter whether it's black and white, or color: same effect, same pattern. The "tooth" between the slits is creating this shadow.
The figure is on page 9 (of the PDF) of THIS LINK.
Pause for comments.
T.Roc
LL
QUOTE (LL+)
The java applet that you posted has some very compelling "explanations" for the interference mechanism, if all of the features of the applet are utilized. There are some issues in the way it is presented though. If you move the slit wall away from the screen, the wavelength increases.
The DSE does magnify, part of the magic of it (see DSE equation). In the one we've looked at .. by about 2000.. hence light with a wavelength of 500nm gives interference fringes about 1mm apart. Hence my attempts to explain that we are not looking at a wavelength of light .. but INTO it .
An undeclared motive for this thread is to try to find alternatives to QT. My own feeling is that we would all benefit from knowing more about QT but I also see the potential to lose part of the original plot.
My 'line' is that if anyone else can see what I see in the DSE then it becomes fair game for discussion .. at present I seem to be the only one* seeing photons and the possibility that an EM wave might be made out of them.
TRoc might be heading in the direction of quantizing his wave .. interesting.
Best wishes,
-C2.
* I have not counted the extremely honourable exception(s).
The DSE does magnify, part of the magic of it (see DSE equation). In the one we've looked at .. by about 2000.. hence light with a wavelength of 500nm gives interference fringes about 1mm apart. Hence my attempts to explain that we are not looking at a wavelength of light .. but INTO it .
An undeclared motive for this thread is to try to find alternatives to QT. My own feeling is that we would all benefit from knowing more about QT but I also see the potential to lose part of the original plot.
My 'line' is that if anyone else can see what I see in the DSE then it becomes fair game for discussion .. at present I seem to be the only one* seeing photons and the possibility that an EM wave might be made out of them.
TRoc might be heading in the direction of quantizing his wave .. interesting.
Best wishes,
-C2.
* I have not counted the extremely honourable exception(s).
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, Duality, Jal, Fivedoughnut et al,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Hence my attempts to explain that we are not looking at a wavelength of light .. but INTO it .
An undeclared motive for this thread is to try to find alternatives to QT. My own feeling is that we would all benefit from knowing more about QT but I also see the potential to lose part of the original plot.
An undeclared motive for this thread is to try to find alternatives to QT. My own feeling is that we would all benefit from knowing more about QT but I also see the potential to lose part of the original plot.
Here is what photons do when it is incoherent light...
Flash Animation of photons... not brilliant but close enough to start the ball rolling Their wave view of it is absurd when you consider this is not coherent light and that it shows circular polarization which is an ancillary phenomena. Nothing like "red herrings" when you want to teach something to ruin a good mind. I have not seen anything on the web that approaches a realistic attempt to describe this in any truly consistent way since Quantum Mechanics has "lobotomized" everyone into believing that it would be "futile". The main difference I would say is that light will spread and the photon will occupy the surface of a wavefront yet extend in time as shown in this animation... A large number of coherent photons will lead to these photons doing this...
and the way they do it is something like this...
click to enlarge...
If the photons are not doing this before they reach the slit (collimated in some way) most certainly after the slit they will be expanding on the surface of a sphere due to the secondary source.
The result is (allowing for the results of DSQE Experiment)...
There are a couple of minor problems with it since this is electron diffraction not photon diffraction, photons do not "bounce" too well against "black bodies"... First point is the photon undergoes "pancakeification" as in the blue animation. The energy of a "beam" will usually obey an inverse square relationship of energy and the energy will occupy an enlarging "patch"... even in the case of concentrated directed sources like lasers. Additional "optic elements and directors" do not change the basics only modify the "sidebands". Since the standing waves in space are always there even for the very first photon (see arguement for DSQE), the entire field is the result of standing waves and the progress of the photon is like simply "illuminating" successive parts of an existing picture already in place.
On an additional point
Which one is the electron packet and which one is the photon packet?... If you have been listening you will know the difference. Hint: It is not showing "spreading" or "pancakification" or exhibiting "standing waves" but it is showing one characteristic.
Let us make this quite clear I studied Quantum Theory a considerable number of years ago and nothing has changed since then. I didn't like it then and I still do not like it now. It is very clear that present day Quantum Theorists have no understanding of the simple optics in the system and will not accept that optics of waves contain a lot more information than precious particles. Quantum Theory offers no new insights and it has failed to resolve the clear inconsistencies in the theory despite being given ample opportunity... getting close to a Century now. String Theories are also incorrect. I can quickly demonstrate that 9 linear dimensions are not dynamically capable of answering any problems in physics, when you start adding linear dimensions to the current three plus time you suddenly end up breaking all kinds of conservation laws by "opening the box". Yet the mainstream string theorists seem to not be able to understand that this will be the case. All the pretty maths in the world will not save this "stupid" current sting theory with straight "compact dimensions". So any theory of everything must integrate dimensions in a consistent way that leads to conservative physics and the Lagrangian. Tell me how to introduce more dimensions to our real world without breaking any current physics? I have a experimentally consistent way to do this that will not lead to any "dynamic" problems. So it is a little more complicated but that is the price for any progress.
The single fact Quantum Electrodynamics gives good answers is almost irrelevant in the end since this theory has reached the limits of usefulness and can only answer a limited set of questions confined to three dimensions and time. Sure it will continue to be used even it we had a better theory but you do not get blood from stones by just squeezing a lot harder. I think the most important insight into Quantum Theory is the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment and the insight that it gives into the dimension of time itself. Quantum Theory is incapable of any answers regarding single photon events... that is a bottom line. The best approach is a modified Feynman Many paths method plus Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. What I maintain is you all should come up with the answer based on your precious particle theory or otherwise start talking about individual events and how they can be described. The "Optics" theory does exist and it is definitely "not wrong" and is based on waves not particles. Photons are made of waves... truncated waves... but they also have unique collective properties and ordering effects when coming from coherent sources as is the case here. Alternatively show where the "dice throwing" comes into the real world when we are speaking about coherent radiation incident on a double slit.
When considering the Java Applet you are using...
http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.html
it is not realistic and shows no angular fading from the slit. In the real situation there is an envelope that contains this result such that the brightness falls off as the angle from the slits increases. It once again shows the incorrect aspect that "only direct rays count" when in fact there is always considerable inter-cavity interference that is not shown there. Width of slit and thickness of slit are not important in this model and also does not concede that more than one ray will penetrate the slits (slit width effect) with dramatically different effect depending on proximity to the slit edge which leads to phase phenomena that are not able to be shown. It is vastly oversimplified to the point of being a child's toy not a helpful scientific tool.
One slit mode results in the entire field being illuminated with field of uniform and equally bright lines. In reality this should show the Fraunhofer diffraction limit with a central peak or "spot" and a rapidly attenuated series of Airy Disks very close in. I know you have been pushing this "toy" model Confused2 a couple of times but you and I both know this is nothing like a realistic model of twin slits. What is your point in persisting with this simplistic approach? You can't learn anything from this. You complain about my approach and give no reason why it may be wrong just that these models are all the answers you seem to need.
http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm
This other animation is a little better with it's dipole "targets" that you can move around to show the effect of the size of the source... but still it shows progressive waves unless you edit walls to create standing waves. The "dipole" is made up of same phase sources creating plane waves at the slit... this is non-physical, electromagnetic waves cannot be created with such sources. How does your "one photon at a time" create the standing wave pattern? I think it is unable to demonstrate near field vs far field effects with the over simplistic model.
None of these models indicate single photons, you claim that only you can see individual photons here... where? Remember I just want you to explain why you are using this "toy" approach and is there any payoff for dumbing it this far down? No criticism, but I just want to know am I having a discussion or am I talking with a closed set of premises?
On a more general issue I can't see where this is taking us on this thread. There appears to be no structure to any of your approaches. I may have to find another thread to provide some framework to this discussion or some other more productive area of investigation. Writing more words does not help if they do not tell a "story". This is the holiday syndrome and you have all lost me by burying this thread in a lot of detail that is not related to the double slit in the ultimate analysis and I am certain that nobody is following any of my arguments here either.
I have presented the wave approach to this problem and the particle approach will not answer any of the larger questions and nobody here has any argument to place before any of us to convince me or anyone else of a compelling argument other than you all read it all in a book somewhere or got it off the Internet.
I want to see relevance and I want to see critical scientific analysis not people flaying around in verbose discussion that seems to have no point. I may be verbose but I retain relevance.
Laserlight... I fail to see what relevance waveguide signal filtering will be to this discussion. With all due respect to our Japanese friends this paper is one of those "publish or perish" papers seen in the literature. Never mind the quality just try and lift a bound copy of all the papers the guys have published in the last year. I would prefer to see this extracted to give your interpretation. Of course this may be related to a private discussion with TRoc but I am unsure. Waveguides will naturally suppress certain signals that can propagate through them. This discussion is best confined to discrete signal processing using fast Fourier transforms. This is the basis of all these discussions.
Jal's sphere packing exercise you mentioned nay have some relevance to the "spatial vacuoles". People seem to be unable to cope with this issue and want it to go away.
All those who thing "god" made hard little charged particles and forgot to make the same in magnetic monopoles as a necessary complement... put up their hands... Then you need to explain why.
Cheers
Flash Animation of photons... not brilliant but close enough to start the ball rolling Their wave view of it is absurd when you consider this is not coherent light and that it shows circular polarization which is an ancillary phenomena. Nothing like "red herrings" when you want to teach something to ruin a good mind. I have not seen anything on the web that approaches a realistic attempt to describe this in any truly consistent way since Quantum Mechanics has "lobotomized" everyone into believing that it would be "futile". The main difference I would say is that light will spread and the photon will occupy the surface of a wavefront yet extend in time as shown in this animation... A large number of coherent photons will lead to these photons doing this...
and the way they do it is something like this...
click to enlarge...
If the photons are not doing this before they reach the slit (collimated in some way) most certainly after the slit they will be expanding on the surface of a sphere due to the secondary source.
The result is (allowing for the results of DSQE Experiment)...
There are a couple of minor problems with it since this is electron diffraction not photon diffraction, photons do not "bounce" too well against "black bodies"... First point is the photon undergoes "pancakeification" as in the blue animation. The energy of a "beam" will usually obey an inverse square relationship of energy and the energy will occupy an enlarging "patch"... even in the case of concentrated directed sources like lasers. Additional "optic elements and directors" do not change the basics only modify the "sidebands". Since the standing waves in space are always there even for the very first photon (see arguement for DSQE), the entire field is the result of standing waves and the progress of the photon is like simply "illuminating" successive parts of an existing picture already in place.
On an additional point
Which one is the electron packet and which one is the photon packet?... If you have been listening you will know the difference. Hint: It is not showing "spreading" or "pancakification" or exhibiting "standing waves" but it is showing one characteristic.
Let us make this quite clear I studied Quantum Theory a considerable number of years ago and nothing has changed since then. I didn't like it then and I still do not like it now. It is very clear that present day Quantum Theorists have no understanding of the simple optics in the system and will not accept that optics of waves contain a lot more information than precious particles. Quantum Theory offers no new insights and it has failed to resolve the clear inconsistencies in the theory despite being given ample opportunity... getting close to a Century now. String Theories are also incorrect. I can quickly demonstrate that 9 linear dimensions are not dynamically capable of answering any problems in physics, when you start adding linear dimensions to the current three plus time you suddenly end up breaking all kinds of conservation laws by "opening the box". Yet the mainstream string theorists seem to not be able to understand that this will be the case. All the pretty maths in the world will not save this "stupid" current sting theory with straight "compact dimensions". So any theory of everything must integrate dimensions in a consistent way that leads to conservative physics and the Lagrangian. Tell me how to introduce more dimensions to our real world without breaking any current physics? I have a experimentally consistent way to do this that will not lead to any "dynamic" problems. So it is a little more complicated but that is the price for any progress.
The single fact Quantum Electrodynamics gives good answers is almost irrelevant in the end since this theory has reached the limits of usefulness and can only answer a limited set of questions confined to three dimensions and time. Sure it will continue to be used even it we had a better theory but you do not get blood from stones by just squeezing a lot harder. I think the most important insight into Quantum Theory is the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment and the insight that it gives into the dimension of time itself. Quantum Theory is incapable of any answers regarding single photon events... that is a bottom line. The best approach is a modified Feynman Many paths method plus Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. What I maintain is you all should come up with the answer based on your precious particle theory or otherwise start talking about individual events and how they can be described. The "Optics" theory does exist and it is definitely "not wrong" and is based on waves not particles. Photons are made of waves... truncated waves... but they also have unique collective properties and ordering effects when coming from coherent sources as is the case here. Alternatively show where the "dice throwing" comes into the real world when we are speaking about coherent radiation incident on a double slit.
When considering the Java Applet you are using...
http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.html
it is not realistic and shows no angular fading from the slit. In the real situation there is an envelope that contains this result such that the brightness falls off as the angle from the slits increases. It once again shows the incorrect aspect that "only direct rays count" when in fact there is always considerable inter-cavity interference that is not shown there. Width of slit and thickness of slit are not important in this model and also does not concede that more than one ray will penetrate the slits (slit width effect) with dramatically different effect depending on proximity to the slit edge which leads to phase phenomena that are not able to be shown. It is vastly oversimplified to the point of being a child's toy not a helpful scientific tool.
One slit mode results in the entire field being illuminated with field of uniform and equally bright lines. In reality this should show the Fraunhofer diffraction limit with a central peak or "spot" and a rapidly attenuated series of Airy Disks very close in. I know you have been pushing this "toy" model Confused2 a couple of times but you and I both know this is nothing like a realistic model of twin slits. What is your point in persisting with this simplistic approach? You can't learn anything from this. You complain about my approach and give no reason why it may be wrong just that these models are all the answers you seem to need.
http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm
This other animation is a little better with it's dipole "targets" that you can move around to show the effect of the size of the source... but still it shows progressive waves unless you edit walls to create standing waves. The "dipole" is made up of same phase sources creating plane waves at the slit... this is non-physical, electromagnetic waves cannot be created with such sources. How does your "one photon at a time" create the standing wave pattern? I think it is unable to demonstrate near field vs far field effects with the over simplistic model.
None of these models indicate single photons, you claim that only you can see individual photons here... where? Remember I just want you to explain why you are using this "toy" approach and is there any payoff for dumbing it this far down? No criticism, but I just want to know am I having a discussion or am I talking with a closed set of premises?
On a more general issue I can't see where this is taking us on this thread. There appears to be no structure to any of your approaches. I may have to find another thread to provide some framework to this discussion or some other more productive area of investigation. Writing more words does not help if they do not tell a "story". This is the holiday syndrome and you have all lost me by burying this thread in a lot of detail that is not related to the double slit in the ultimate analysis and I am certain that nobody is following any of my arguments here either.
I have presented the wave approach to this problem and the particle approach will not answer any of the larger questions and nobody here has any argument to place before any of us to convince me or anyone else of a compelling argument other than you all read it all in a book somewhere or got it off the Internet.
I want to see relevance and I want to see critical scientific analysis not people flaying around in verbose discussion that seems to have no point. I may be verbose but I retain relevance.
Laserlight... I fail to see what relevance waveguide signal filtering will be to this discussion. With all due respect to our Japanese friends this paper is one of those "publish or perish" papers seen in the literature. Never mind the quality just try and lift a bound copy of all the papers the guys have published in the last year. I would prefer to see this extracted to give your interpretation. Of course this may be related to a private discussion with TRoc but I am unsure. Waveguides will naturally suppress certain signals that can propagate through them. This discussion is best confined to discrete signal processing using fast Fourier transforms. This is the basis of all these discussions.
Jal's sphere packing exercise you mentioned nay have some relevance to the "spatial vacuoles". People seem to be unable to cope with this issue and want it to go away.
All those who thing "god" made hard little charged particles and forgot to make the same in magnetic monopoles as a necessary complement... put up their hands... Then you need to explain why.
Cheers
TRoc,
That was a GREAT find! We have discussed the EM effects of plasmons
around small orifices in the past. According to the applets they definitely
affect the energy coupling, and phasing of EM signals near sharp corners and
edges, which provides some validity to my previous post. Very interesting!
The AWG info is very interesting also since it affects wave shape, bandpass,
EM wavefunction timing, phase delays, etc.
Good Stuff! I think we are finally associating micro affects occuring in the
vicinity of the cavities that have been "overlooked" by science in the
analysis of the intricacies of the DSE.
LL
That was a GREAT find! We have discussed the EM effects of plasmons
around small orifices in the past. According to the applets they definitely
affect the energy coupling, and phasing of EM signals near sharp corners and
edges, which provides some validity to my previous post. Very interesting!
The AWG info is very interesting also since it affects wave shape, bandpass,
EM wavefunction timing, phase delays, etc.
Good Stuff! I think we are finally associating micro affects occuring in the
vicinity of the cavities that have been "overlooked" by science in the
analysis of the intricacies of the DSE.
LL
Hi C2,
Chicken or the egg?? Is a photon made up of EM fields, or are EM fields made
up of photons?
YES! ROTFLMAO!
Best Regards,
LL
QUOTE
My 'line' is that if anyone else can see what I see in the DSE then it becomes fair game for discussion .. at present I seem to be the only one* seeing photons and the possibility that an EM wave might be made out of them.
Chicken or the egg?? Is a photon made up of EM fields, or are EM fields made
up of photons?
YES!
ROTFLMAO!Best Regards,
LL
if the light is brighter on one wavelength wouldn't the photon gain more energy (more than the light) then move at a quicker pace?
Also, I'm not sure I know enough about wavelenth frequency so this may be a crazy question is there any possibility that it could be the same and cancel out? Forgive my ignorance. Just trying to learn.
Also, I'm not sure I know enough about wavelenth frequency so this may be a crazy question is there any possibility that it could be the same and cancel out? Forgive my ignorance. Just trying to learn.
Hi Oracle1,
I think that you are refering to "brighter" bands, meaning higher intensity of the light. More photons in a fixed area means more intensity, but each photon
maintains its same unique intensity (power) level. When there are more
photons of the same frequency there is more intensity, but their frequency remains
the same.
The light will always travel the same speed in a fixed media. It will change
speed depending upon the density of the material it is traveling thru.
Some good references that provide an excellent simplified way of looking at
light to help better understand the difficulties science is grappling with.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/light.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction
http://science.howstuffworks.com/framed.ht...frn/u14l2b.html
LL
I think that you are refering to "brighter" bands, meaning higher intensity of the light. More photons in a fixed area means more intensity, but each photon
maintains its same unique intensity (power) level. When there are more
photons of the same frequency there is more intensity, but their frequency remains
the same.
The light will always travel the same speed in a fixed media. It will change
speed depending upon the density of the material it is traveling thru.
Some good references that provide an excellent simplified way of looking at
light to help better understand the difficulties science is grappling with.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/light.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction
http://science.howstuffworks.com/framed.ht...frn/u14l2b.html
LL
thanks LL will read. What I was suggesting is that if light was more intense would that exicite the photon and increase it's energy without effecting the energy of the light. ...but I know I have lots to learn so I'll read on.
Also when I was referring to the frequency I meant the frequency of the light and the proton although I'm admit that I'm not even sure thats possible. SORRY if the question is elementary. Just learning. I will read what you sent though.
Hi Good Elf,
So many problems!
Looking at the wave/particle applet
wave/particle
Are these 'photons' travelling at the speed of light?
In the DSE we have looked at the slits are about 1000 wavelengths apart .. and yet the type of photon you suggest ALWAYS hits both slits .. never one not the other .. and it would seem with equal 'intensity' (for want of a better word at this stage). Pancakeification I think you call it .. perhaps we should take a vote on that one.
It is unclear (to me) quite what
this applet is intended to convey.
Looking at the ripple tank
we see the interference effects don't even start to settle down until the detector is several wavelengths away from the slits .. this isn't electricity (or water) getting tired .. it is the output of one slit interfering destructively with the output of the other.. this what the DSE is all about. We might understand this better (not much) by looking at the next applets.
Looking at the sinewave prong applet sinewave prong .
So many problems!
Looking at the wave/particle applet
wave/particle
Are these 'photons' travelling at the speed of light?
In the DSE we have looked at the slits are about 1000 wavelengths apart .. and yet the type of photon you suggest ALWAYS hits both slits .. never one not the other .. and it would seem with equal 'intensity' (for want of a better word at this stage). Pancakeification I think you call it .. perhaps we should take a vote on that one.
It is unclear (to me) quite what
this applet is intended to convey.Looking at the ripple tank
we see the interference effects don't even start to settle down until the detector is several wavelengths away from the slits .. this isn't electricity (or water) getting tired .. it is the output of one slit interfering destructively with the output of the other.. this what the DSE is all about. We might understand this better (not much) by looking at the next applets.
Looking at the sinewave prong applet sinewave prong .
QUOTE (Good_Elf+)
In the real situation there is an envelope that contains this result such that the brightness falls off as the angle from the slits increases.
A photon always has the same amount of energy .. their brightness doesn't 'fall off'. There are less of them where it is darker.
The applet shows how interference is (again) a consequence of the output of both slits. Any explanation needs to show how (say) a photon can take a long path and a short path at the same time .. it isn't just two paths .. they are different lengths.. If the photons in your first applet travelled at the speed of light .. what is going on this time? We see both prongs need to be of consistent amplitude .. there can be no errors made in your pancakeification process.
If you are happy to say that you feel a photon can be very large (to hit both slits the same way every time), very small (to get through the slits), does not need to travel at 'c' .. enough perhaps.
The text hereshows that the distance between the bright bits is not influenced by the precise width or geometry of the individual slits and that the 'wavelength' is magnified (2000 times in the example we have looked at) in the ratio of D/s where D is the distance to the screen and s is the separation between the slits. The equation is valid as long as we are far enough away for the sin a = a approximation to apply .. not otherwise. The pattern isn't a projection of something that has already happened at the slits.
A photon always has the same amount of energy .. their brightness doesn't 'fall off'. There are less of them where it is darker.
The applet shows how interference is (again) a consequence of the output of both slits. Any explanation needs to show how (say) a photon can take a long path and a short path at the same time .. it isn't just two paths .. they are different lengths.. If the photons in your first applet travelled at the speed of light .. what is going on this time? We see both prongs need to be of consistent amplitude .. there can be no errors made in your pancakeification process.
If you are happy to say that you feel a photon can be very large (to hit both slits the same way every time), very small (to get through the slits), does not need to travel at 'c' .. enough perhaps.
The text hereshows that the distance between the bright bits is not influenced by the precise width or geometry of the individual slits and that the 'wavelength' is magnified (2000 times in the example we have looked at) in the ratio of D/s where D is the distance to the screen and s is the separation between the slits. The equation is valid as long as we are far enough away for the sin a = a approximation to apply .. not otherwise. The pattern isn't a projection of something that has already happened at the slits.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Since the standing waves in space are always there even for the very first photon
You claim there are standing waves in space .. you may have made the same claim before but that doesn't support it .. it's the same thing twice.
Of the ripple tank ..
This other animation is a little better with it's dipole "targets" that you can move around to show the effect of the size of the source... but still it shows progressive waves unless you edit walls to create standing waves.
It is you who are claiming there are standing waves in space .. not me .. where (in space) are the walls that create standing waves?
-C2.
You claim there are standing waves in space .. you may have made the same claim before but that doesn't support it .. it's the same thing twice.
Of the ripple tank ..
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
This other animation is a little better with it's dipole "targets" that you can move around to show the effect of the size of the source... but still it shows progressive waves unless you edit walls to create standing waves.
It is you who are claiming there are standing waves in space .. not me .. where (in space) are the walls that create standing waves?
-C2.
Quote C2,
"A photon always has the same amount of energy .. their brightness doesn't 'fall off'. There are less of them where it is darker."
C2,
Does this apply to photons from the supposed 'Big-Bang' ... I thought frequency plummets with time, therefore 'strictly speaking' does not have the same energy from one moment to the next
"A photon always has the same amount of energy .. their brightness doesn't 'fall off'. There are less of them where it is darker."
C2,
Does this apply to photons from the supposed 'Big-Bang' ... I thought frequency plummets with time, therefore 'strictly speaking' does not have the same energy from one moment to the next
Hi LL,
After your rather unkind remark about my suggestion that photons might not be made out of electromagnetic waves ..
back to ..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=149272
Might I be suggesting all Maxwell's stuff about displacement currents and so on is all handwaving nonsense that just happens to give the right result?
The DSE is the the place to look to find out... but you have to look .. not assume.
Best wishes,
-C2.
After your rather unkind remark about my suggestion that photons might not be made out of electromagnetic waves ..
back to ..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=149272
Might I be suggesting all Maxwell's stuff about displacement currents and so on is all handwaving nonsense that just happens to give the right result?
The DSE is the the place to look to find out... but you have to look .. not assume.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi all,
Just as, about 40 pages ago, we all saw the differences causing our differing statements to be to be partly from just being clear (or not) on WHICH experiment we were talking about, here we are again.
This needs to be said:
There is a HISTORICAL version of this experiment, and its' accompanying explanation. The explanation is fine, there is nothing wrong with the answers it gives. The HISTORICAL version is polychromatic, in terms of the FREQUENCIES present in the light. The HISTORICAL version is just ONE or TWO slits, and that's basically it.
The MODERN version is laser based, and added a couple of "twists" to the basic, historical one. The MODERN version is commonly referred to (as was the HISTORIC) as "monochromatic". It is not.
This is Physics, not art school. HISTORICALLY, the term "monochromatic" means WE can't SEE more than one color, and that's IT.
It was not until much later, that WE realized that "color" is a perception, and is just a tiny fragment of the range of frequencies in the EM spectrum. SO, it terms of "what we can see", yes, the laser is "red", or "blue", whatever. But in strict Scientific terms, this light is NOT monochromatic. I have proved this to those who don't WANT to BELIEVE, over and aver, in several different ways, but they don't want to change their mind. If you disagree with this, do some homework, and do "show and tell" (PROVE IT!).
As far as the conversation goes, I think some of us are talking exclusively about the HISTORIC version, and others are talking exclusively about the MODERN version. It would be good to make this distinction, if it applies to your argument.
I am talking about both, and the simple explanation for all of it. The only reason for having to go "so deep" with some of the data, is the lack of attention to the readers. If you don't want to hear the story, don't feign interest. Don't ask questions, and then not bother to read the answers. It just doesn't make sense. You don't have to if you don't want to.
regards,
T.Roc
Just as, about 40 pages ago, we all saw the differences causing our differing statements to be to be partly from just being clear (or not) on WHICH experiment we were talking about, here we are again.
This needs to be said:
There is a HISTORICAL version of this experiment, and its' accompanying explanation. The explanation is fine, there is nothing wrong with the answers it gives. The HISTORICAL version is polychromatic, in terms of the FREQUENCIES present in the light. The HISTORICAL version is just ONE or TWO slits, and that's basically it.
The MODERN version is laser based, and added a couple of "twists" to the basic, historical one. The MODERN version is commonly referred to (as was the HISTORIC) as "monochromatic". It is not.
This is Physics, not art school. HISTORICALLY, the term "monochromatic" means WE can't SEE more than one color, and that's IT.
It was not until much later, that WE realized that "color" is a perception, and is just a tiny fragment of the range of frequencies in the EM spectrum. SO, it terms of "what we can see", yes, the laser is "red", or "blue", whatever. But in strict Scientific terms, this light is NOT monochromatic. I have proved this to those who don't WANT to BELIEVE, over and aver, in several different ways, but they don't want to change their mind. If you disagree with this, do some homework, and do "show and tell" (PROVE IT!).
As far as the conversation goes, I think some of us are talking exclusively about the HISTORIC version, and others are talking exclusively about the MODERN version. It would be good to make this distinction, if it applies to your argument.
I am talking about both, and the simple explanation for all of it. The only reason for having to go "so deep" with some of the data, is the lack of attention to the readers. If you don't want to hear the story, don't feign interest. Don't ask questions, and then not bother to read the answers. It just doesn't make sense. You don't have to if you don't want to.
regards,
T.Roc
C2-
I was not making fun of you.....I was trying to be funny! We are too uptight
on this thread and need to loosen up a bit. This is a discussion board and
all opinions, thoughts, personal theories, and "humor" need to be tolerated.
I took your "sarcastic" remark about a photon and EM as humorous, wasn't
that what you intended"
Regards,
LL
I was not making fun of you.....I was trying to be funny! We are too uptight
on this thread and need to loosen up a bit. This is a discussion board and
all opinions, thoughts, personal theories, and "humor" need to be tolerated.
I took your "sarcastic" remark about a photon and EM as humorous, wasn't
that what you intended"
Regards,
LL
Hello All,
Has anyone even read or understood my universal rotation and missing energy
"pizza dough" analogy? It is a bit off topic, but maybe has some deeper
implications about how light and energy travels in the universe, and why
outer galaxies are moving away from us at an increasing acceleration.
GE, TRoc, D/L??? Beuler? Bueler?.......Anyone?*
LL
*("From Ferris Buelers Day Off")
Has anyone even read or understood my universal rotation and missing energy
"pizza dough" analogy? It is a bit off topic, but maybe has some deeper
implications about how light and energy travels in the universe, and why
outer galaxies are moving away from us at an increasing acceleration.
GE, TRoc, D/L??? Beuler? Bueler?.......Anyone?*
LL
*("From Ferris Buelers Day Off")
Hi all,
A thread titled something like "How QM interprets the DSE", would be fine with a few pages. Then people could argue about the details.
This thread title is "Problem with the 2 slit experiment". The "problem" is the MODERN additions, and subsequent interpretations of the modified experiment. In short, anything that underlines a problem with QM, especially its' "foundation", is fair game, IMO. All the "giants" have said that this is the key "mystery" behind Quantum Mechanics. So, again, whatever problems START here, are only further compounded later, in terms of understanding. Again, all the "giants" say NONE of them understand. This (lack of understanding) is not controversial.
Saying that achieving this understanding is "hopeless", and any attempts to do so for the "misguided", "uneducated", etc. is wrong, IMO.
Trying to formulate the "corrections" necessary, on TOP of the existing framework is also wrong, IMO. You have to address the very small errors at the beginning. Adding more layers, each more complex than the last, has not done any good.
I invite critiques; yet, please, do a good job of it! Saying you don't like it doesn't do much good, as far as coming to a better understanding. There is much truth in the statement that the most simple thing are the most overlooked. There has been a "challenge" loosely thrown down here: explain the range of results of ALL the experiments in the most simple manner. I think that I have done that.
ciao,
T.Roc
PS. Yes, LL, I am going to comment on some of your last posts.
A thread titled something like "How QM interprets the DSE", would be fine with a few pages. Then people could argue about the details.
This thread title is "Problem with the 2 slit experiment". The "problem" is the MODERN additions, and subsequent interpretations of the modified experiment. In short, anything that underlines a problem with QM, especially its' "foundation", is fair game, IMO. All the "giants" have said that this is the key "mystery" behind Quantum Mechanics. So, again, whatever problems START here, are only further compounded later, in terms of understanding. Again, all the "giants" say NONE of them understand. This (lack of understanding) is not controversial.
Saying that achieving this understanding is "hopeless", and any attempts to do so for the "misguided", "uneducated", etc. is wrong, IMO.
Trying to formulate the "corrections" necessary, on TOP of the existing framework is also wrong, IMO. You have to address the very small errors at the beginning. Adding more layers, each more complex than the last, has not done any good.
I invite critiques; yet, please, do a good job of it! Saying you don't like it doesn't do much good, as far as coming to a better understanding. There is much truth in the statement that the most simple thing are the most overlooked. There has been a "challenge" loosely thrown down here: explain the range of results of ALL the experiments in the most simple manner. I think that I have done that.
ciao,
T.Roc
PS. Yes, LL, I am going to comment on some of your last posts.
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, Duality, Jal, Fivedoughnut et al,
Sorry if I am getting a little short with everyone it seems that the ideas are not being transferred as TRoc is saying. C2...
Electromagnetic Waves
I disagree with some details but looking at fig 12.3 we see a picture composed of fig 12.2a "core" with a fig. 12.2b as surrounding space. We know that if this was a "driven antenna" then this is a before and after shot of 1/2 a wavelength. Now without the nasties of the evanescent field maths the "transition" could be shown as this... Fig 12.4. The "dotted zone" shows the field lines being disconnected from the source and becoming "completed" electric field loops. Once in "free space" beyond the evanescent region they propagate outwards maintaining the distance between the forward half of the wavefront and the rear portion of the wavefront ... that is maintaining the wavelength of the "disturbance"... clearly regardless if this was a "one off" photon or "stimulated emission" of billions this is the mechanism all photons have in common. We can see this is the basic sync function... an impulse of finite duration and of finite energy.
Fig 12.3
Fig 12.4 Click to enlarge.
I would also point out that these "free floating propagating loops" of electric fields (though the lines are imaginary) do indicate the dynamics of the propagating fields and they continuously extend themselves and are unable to "shorten" until they "ground" themselves on a suitable 'conductive medium" or "matched cavity". Before they are "snipped" off from the source they are inductive fields and potentially could return their energy to the source "inductively". In that state the photons are called "virtual" and are responsible for the "classic" forces of electromagnetism. In an almost symmetric operation the reverse happens when the wave's field lines impinge on suitable "sinks"... This happens one photon at a time.
This is a sync pulse in the frequency domain and in the time domain...
One is the Fourier transform of the other and visa versa. Basically it is identical to a blow with a hammer or a condensed 'pop" of energy... idealized for sure but just trying to keep this "as simple as is possible". In either case of non-ideal emission or ideal emission the speed of light "barrier"... both from above and from below sandwich the escaping particle (photon) between the wavefronts but allow a significant portion of it to penetrate a significant "period" on either side of one 1/2 wave of the disturbance as the wave is attenuated in the "near field" of individual "free photons". It will spread in the "lateral" directions to satisfy the inverse square law, this is "spreading". This leading and trailing aspect of the wavelet is the result of temporal truncation... No matter what wave you have it will always have a beginning and an end. To "fore" this natural truncation actually creates all wavepacket phenomena... all of them... this is without exception at all frequencies and all natural processes in the Universe.
You will note that each individual packet cannot have any more than a "core" of exactly 1/2 a wavelength due to the universal mechanism by which all photons are produced "in the wild". Note also that the sync function is not symmetric above and below a central horizontal dividing line .... this is because it always has nett positive energy which is quite unlike a "pure sine wave" which cannot carry energy. A photon "cooper pair" can join up along the temporal direction and mix apparently canceling some of the "ripples" between them and forming a complete wavelength of light with those before and after ripples "pushed" to the beginning and the end of the wave now but in actual fact this only suppresses them but still not mutually interfere since their creation date stamps are different their energy is unable to mix and this is expressed as the CPT set of relationships. They represent two different "events" and no matter what you may think this is "causality" and can result in sensible "radio broadcasts" with "AM modulation and so on. Here is my construction for this process for as much as three and a half wavelengths using the bare minimum of seven consecutive photons.
Click to enlarge.
Sorry if I am getting a little short with everyone it seems that the ideas are not being transferred as TRoc is saying. C2...
QUOTE
Are these 'photons' traveling at the speed of light?
When we are speaking about the photons ... is there any other speed? It is always traveling at the "local" speed of light regardless. Naturally all we are discussing except the condensed matter stuff is assumed by me to be in a vacuum. It would really confuse matters to begin to discuss any dispersive processes. While the dimension of a photon in time is extended since that is the way it was created at source single "dipole" emissions must spread... that is the same as in the blue animation. All emissions from atoms or from most antennae are dipole in origin and this results in source disconnection as local fields must pass through a zero or node. This can be thought of as the positive charges being considered as stationary while the negative charges execute at least one half of a cycle of Simple Harmonic Motion at source. Following that "creative" event the photons might be in physical proximity and be "ordered" to emit in a single "coherent" event, or perhaps at each successive half wavelength. This is not connected with the basic source emission mechanism. You can think of the field lines "crossing" at the source "snipping off" "loops" of electric field that are now disconnected from that source. If you do not want to think of that then this idea might strike you as being "more plausible"...Electromagnetic Waves
I disagree with some details but looking at fig 12.3 we see a picture composed of fig 12.2a "core" with a fig. 12.2b as surrounding space. We know that if this was a "driven antenna" then this is a before and after shot of 1/2 a wavelength. Now without the nasties of the evanescent field maths the "transition" could be shown as this... Fig 12.4. The "dotted zone" shows the field lines being disconnected from the source and becoming "completed" electric field loops. Once in "free space" beyond the evanescent region they propagate outwards maintaining the distance between the forward half of the wavefront and the rear portion of the wavefront ... that is maintaining the wavelength of the "disturbance"... clearly regardless if this was a "one off" photon or "stimulated emission" of billions this is the mechanism all photons have in common. We can see this is the basic sync function... an impulse of finite duration and of finite energy.
Fig 12.3
Fig 12.4 Click to enlarge.
I would also point out that these "free floating propagating loops" of electric fields (though the lines are imaginary) do indicate the dynamics of the propagating fields and they continuously extend themselves and are unable to "shorten" until they "ground" themselves on a suitable 'conductive medium" or "matched cavity". Before they are "snipped" off from the source they are inductive fields and potentially could return their energy to the source "inductively". In that state the photons are called "virtual" and are responsible for the "classic" forces of electromagnetism. In an almost symmetric operation the reverse happens when the wave's field lines impinge on suitable "sinks"... This happens one photon at a time.
This is a sync pulse in the frequency domain and in the time domain...
One is the Fourier transform of the other and visa versa. Basically it is identical to a blow with a hammer or a condensed 'pop" of energy... idealized for sure but just trying to keep this "as simple as is possible". In either case of non-ideal emission or ideal emission the speed of light "barrier"... both from above and from below sandwich the escaping particle (photon) between the wavefronts but allow a significant portion of it to penetrate a significant "period" on either side of one 1/2 wave of the disturbance as the wave is attenuated in the "near field" of individual "free photons". It will spread in the "lateral" directions to satisfy the inverse square law, this is "spreading". This leading and trailing aspect of the wavelet is the result of temporal truncation... No matter what wave you have it will always have a beginning and an end. To "fore" this natural truncation actually creates all wavepacket phenomena... all of them... this is without exception at all frequencies and all natural processes in the Universe.
You will note that each individual packet cannot have any more than a "core" of exactly 1/2 a wavelength due to the universal mechanism by which all photons are produced "in the wild". Note also that the sync function is not symmetric above and below a central horizontal dividing line .... this is because it always has nett positive energy which is quite unlike a "pure sine wave" which cannot carry energy. A photon "cooper pair" can join up along the temporal direction and mix apparently canceling some of the "ripples" between them and forming a complete wavelength of light with those before and after ripples "pushed" to the beginning and the end of the wave now but in actual fact this only suppresses them but still not mutually interfere since their creation date stamps are different their energy is unable to mix and this is expressed as the CPT set of relationships. They represent two different "events" and no matter what you may think this is "causality" and can result in sensible "radio broadcasts" with "AM modulation and so on. Here is my construction for this process for as much as three and a half wavelengths using the bare minimum of seven consecutive photons.
Click to enlarge.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are these 'photons' traveling at the speed of light? |
When we are speaking about the photons ... is there any other speed? It is always traveling at the "local" speed of light regardless. Naturally all we are discussing except the condensed matter stuff is assumed by me to be in a vacuum. It would really confuse matters to begin to discuss any dispersive processes. While the dimension of a photon in time is extended since that is the way it was created at source single "dipole" emissions must spread... that is the same as in the blue animation. All emissions from atoms or from most antennae are dipole in origin and this results in source disconnection as local fields must pass through a zero or node. This can be thought of as the positive charges being considered as stationary while the negative charges execute at least one half of a cycle of Simple Harmonic Motion at source. Following that "creative" event the photons might be in physical proximity and be "ordered" to emit in a single "coherent" event, or perhaps at each successive half wavelength. This is not connected with the basic source emission mechanism. You can think of the field lines "crossing" at the source "snipping off" "loops" of electric field that are now disconnected from that source. If you do not want to think of that then this idea might strike you as being "more plausible"...
Electromagnetic Waves
I disagree with some details but looking at fig 12.3 we see a picture composed of fig 12.2a "core" with a fig. 12.2b as surrounding space. We know that if this was a "driven antenna" then this is a before and after shot of 1/2 a wavelength. Now without the nasties of the evanescent field maths the "transition" could be shown as this... Fig 12.4. The "dotted zone" shows the field lines being disconnected from the source and becoming "completed" electric field loops. Once in "free space" beyond the evanescent region they propagate outwards maintaining the distance between the forward half of the wavefront and the rear portion of the wavefront ... that is maintaining the wavelength of the "disturbance"... clearly regardless if this was a "one off" photon or "stimulated emission" of billions this is the mechanism all photons have in common. We can see this is the basic sync function... an impulse of finite duration and of finite energy.
Fig 12.3
Fig 12.4 Click to enlarge.
I would also point out that these "free floating propagating loops" of electric fields (though the lines are imaginary) do indicate the dynamics of the propagating fields and they continuously extend themselves and are unable to "shorten" until they "ground" themselves on a suitable 'conductive medium" or "matched cavity". Before they are "snipped" off from the source they are inductive fields and potentially could return their energy to the source "inductively". In that state the photons are called "virtual" and are responsible for the "classic" forces of electromagnetism. In an almost symmetric operation the reverse happens when the wave's field lines impinge on suitable "sinks"... This happens one photon at a time.
This is a sync pulse in the frequency domain and in the time domain...
One is the Fourier transform of the other and visa versa. Basically it is identical to a blow with a hammer or a condensed 'pop" of energy... idealized for sure but just trying to keep this "as simple as is possible". In either case of non-ideal emission or ideal emission the speed of light "barrier"... both from above and from below sandwich the escaping particle (photon) between the wavefronts but allow a significant portion of it to penetrate a significant "period" on either side of one 1/2 wave of the disturbance as the wave is attenuated in the "near field" of individual "free photons". It will spread in the "lateral" directions to satisfy the inverse square law, this is "spreading". This leading and trailing aspect of the wavelet is the result of temporal truncation... No matter what wave you have it will always have a beginning and an end. To "fore" this natural truncation actually creates all wavepacket phenomena... all of them... this is without exception at all frequencies and all natural processes in the Universe.
You will note that each individual packet cannot have any more than a "core" of exactly 1/2 a wavelength due to the universal mechanism by which all photons are produced "in the wild". Note also that the sync function is not symmetric above and below a central horizontal dividing line .... this is because it always has nett positive energy which is quite unlike a "pure sine wave" which cannot carry energy. A photon "cooper pair" can join up along the temporal direction and mix apparently canceling some of the "ripples" between them and forming a complete wavelength of light with those before and after ripples "pushed" to the beginning and the end of the wave now but in actual fact this only suppresses them but still not mutually interfere since their creation date stamps are different their energy is unable to mix and this is expressed as the CPT set of relationships. They represent two different "events" and no matter what you may think this is "causality" and can result in sensible "radio broadcasts" with "AM modulation and so on. Here is my construction for this process for as much as three and a half wavelengths using the bare minimum of seven consecutive photons.
Click to enlarge.It is unclear (to me) quite what image this applet is intended to convey.
Electromagnetic Waves
I disagree with some details but looking at fig 12.3 we see a picture composed of fig 12.2a "core" with a fig. 12.2b as surrounding space. We know that if this was a "driven antenna" then this is a before and after shot of 1/2 a wavelength. Now without the nasties of the evanescent field maths the "transition" could be shown as this... Fig 12.4. The "dotted zone" shows the field lines being disconnected from the source and becoming "completed" electric field loops. Once in "free space" beyond the evanescent region they propagate outwards maintaining the distance between the forward half of the wavefront and the rear portion of the wavefront ... that is maintaining the wavelength of the "disturbance"... clearly regardless if this was a "one off" photon or "stimulated emission" of billions this is the mechanism all photons have in common. We can see this is the basic sync function... an impulse of finite duration and of finite energy.
Fig 12.3
Fig 12.4 Click to enlarge.
I would also point out that these "free floating propagating loops" of electric fields (though the lines are imaginary) do indicate the dynamics of the propagating fields and they continuously extend themselves and are unable to "shorten" until they "ground" themselves on a suitable 'conductive medium" or "matched cavity". Before they are "snipped" off from the source they are inductive fields and potentially could return their energy to the source "inductively". In that state the photons are called "virtual" and are responsible for the "classic" forces of electromagnetism. In an almost symmetric operation the reverse happens when the wave's field lines impinge on suitable "sinks"... This happens one photon at a time.
This is a sync pulse in the frequency domain and in the time domain...
One is the Fourier transform of the other and visa versa. Basically it is identical to a blow with a hammer or a condensed 'pop" of energy... idealized for sure but just trying to keep this "as simple as is possible". In either case of non-ideal emission or ideal emission the speed of light "barrier"... both from above and from below sandwich the escaping particle (photon) between the wavefronts but allow a significant portion of it to penetrate a significant "period" on either side of one 1/2 wave of the disturbance as the wave is attenuated in the "near field" of individual "free photons". It will spread in the "lateral" directions to satisfy the inverse square law, this is "spreading". This leading and trailing aspect of the wavelet is the result of temporal truncation... No matter what wave you have it will always have a beginning and an end. To "fore" this natural truncation actually creates all wavepacket phenomena... all of them... this is without exception at all frequencies and all natural processes in the Universe.
You will note that each individual packet cannot have any more than a "core" of exactly 1/2 a wavelength due to the universal mechanism by which all photons are produced "in the wild". Note also that the sync function is not symmetric above and below a central horizontal dividing line .... this is because it always has nett positive energy which is quite unlike a "pure sine wave" which cannot carry energy. A photon "cooper pair" can join up along the temporal direction and mix apparently canceling some of the "ripples" between them and forming a complete wavelength of light with those before and after ripples "pushed" to the beginning and the end of the wave now but in actual fact this only suppresses them but still not mutually interfere since their creation date stamps are different their energy is unable to mix and this is expressed as the CPT set of relationships. They represent two different "events" and no matter what you may think this is "causality" and can result in sensible "radio broadcasts" with "AM modulation and so on. Here is my construction for this process for as much as three and a half wavelengths using the bare minimum of seven consecutive photons.
Click to enlarge.It is unclear (to me) quite what image this applet is intended to convey.
Aside from the fact that I can't find anything better to show it... it actually is an electron with photon properties, I am trying to indicate the photon aspect of it. I do not need to change the animation to show standing waves in the cavity and also outside the cavity. They are always there. If they were not the results for single photons one at a time for the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment would have different results depending on how many photons were entering the cavity at the same time. Experiment has shown it is independent of the photon flux... even if the photon flux is one an hour or a billion a second. The ripple tank will show "waves" interfering with itself time and time again continually altering the picture (that is if you "draw in" the walls). Individual photons do not interfere with any photons other than itself... that is the Dirac criterion. In the "coherent Continuous wave picture" this wholesale mutual interference just does not happen... the interference picture exists "in total" for each photon event and the photon "spreads" to illuminate where it is at successive moments of our time... the standing wave patterns are "constant" for all photons and at all fluxes ... possibly without limit. what you see changing is the way the photon optically navigates the various cavities... big and small. The single photon is what it is all about regardless of the fact it is part of a wave or a complete loner as seen in that pretty dumb flashlight animation previously the same interference picture will be the result leading to the appropriate photon counts distributed arond the plane of the screen.
QUOTE (C2+)
we see the interference effects don't even start to settle down until the detector is several wavelengths away from the slits .. this isn't electricity (or water) getting tired .. it is the output of one slit interfering destructively with the output of the other.. this what the DSE is all about. We might understand this better (not much) by looking at the next applets.
In that applet...
http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm
... the interference effects NEVER settle down. Carefully inspect the nodes and anti-nodes. There are a number of features of this double slit version of this applet that complicate what is happening to photons "in the wild". Two things you can do... First you can "draw" walls to confine the ripples to produce the actual standing waves. And second ... look carefully at the very top where we see the "source generators"... you can change the position of these at will by dragging to modify the nature of the source. I would caution everyone to understand what this kind of source is actually doing. Drag the generators to the center of the screen and observe. This is not an electromagnetic source. What the applet will always show is temporal transition effects when the cavity is first started which cannot occur in reality while the cavity is fixed in its dimensions. This is an experimental fact and is shown by Wheeler's Gedanken Experiment .... A photon travels at the speed of light and so is immune to influences beyond its personal "event" because in its own frame of reference no time is passing so it cannot do anything (no temporal dynamics... it is a "stationary state" in the true quantum meaning of this phenomena) to any other photons anywhere. From our frame of reference where time is indeed passing we "assume" dynamics and so end up with "an anomaly" that the photon never confronts in its own frame of reference.
http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm
... the interference effects NEVER settle down. Carefully inspect the nodes and anti-nodes. There are a number of features of this double slit version of this applet that complicate what is happening to photons "in the wild". Two things you can do... First you can "draw" walls to confine the ripples to produce the actual standing waves. And second ... look carefully at the very top where we see the "source generators"... you can change the position of these at will by dragging to modify the nature of the source. I would caution everyone to understand what this kind of source is actually doing. Drag the generators to the center of the screen and observe. This is not an electromagnetic source. What the applet will always show is temporal transition effects when the cavity is first started which cannot occur in reality while the cavity is fixed in its dimensions. This is an experimental fact and is shown by Wheeler's Gedanken Experiment .... A photon travels at the speed of light and so is immune to influences beyond its personal "event" because in its own frame of reference no time is passing so it cannot do anything (no temporal dynamics... it is a "stationary state" in the true quantum meaning of this phenomena) to any other photons anywhere. From our frame of reference where time is indeed passing we "assume" dynamics and so end up with "an anomaly" that the photon never confronts in its own frame of reference.
QUOTE (C2+)
A photon always has the same amount of energy .. their brightness doesn't 'fall off'. There are less of them where it is darker.
True but the "spatial density" of photons will certainly fall off. What that German Applet seems to show is Continuous Wave "beams" interfering at the screen. This is not what happens. If the picture is to show either "brightness" or "numbers" the answer would show a dropping off at higher angular positions. It shows neither "brightness nor numbers" and it is certainly not about "global" interference, just interference at a line of points on the screen. Can you argue that this phenomena is not occurring...
These are actual STM image taken from a cavity showing the standing waves. I realize this is not the double slit experiment but the DSE will also fill the cavity with similar non spreading "vacuoles" obeying Schrodinger's Equation for waves... Electromagnetic Waves.
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
This equation shows simple lines only. It does not indicate any more than that. It is incapable of describing any subtle feature of DSE. It belongs where it is found in the primary school along with Dalton's theory of atoms. There is absolutely nothing precise about this equation. and if you had done it with different slit widths you would already know.
These are actual STM image taken from a cavity showing the standing waves. I realize this is not the double slit experiment but the DSE will also fill the cavity with similar non spreading "vacuoles" obeying Schrodinger's Equation for waves... Electromagnetic Waves.
QUOTE
it isn't just two paths .. they are different lengths.. If the photons in your first applet traveled at the speed of light .. what is going on this time? We see both prongs need to be of consistent amplitude .. there can be no errors made in your pancakeification process.
If you are happy to say that you feel a photon can be very large (to hit both slits the same way every time), very small (to get through the slits), does not need to travel at 'c' .. enough perhaps.
Pancakes can be folded and stretched... the only law is these "photon" pancakes remain the same "thickness"... the wavelength. The speed of light is a vector and the wavefront is perpendicular to the vector. The photon can be dispersed as we view it and may double back over its own path ... but it always travels at the speed of light. I have no idea where you seem to be digging this statement about the inconstancy of the speed of light from. Light is light but it can expand in different directions as a wave. It will do that but in the end a photon will be absorbed in one point, then the rest of the imaginary picture will disappear right along the wavefront instantly.If you are happy to say that you feel a photon can be very large (to hit both slits the same way every time), very small (to get through the slits), does not need to travel at 'c' .. enough perhaps.
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
This equation shows simple lines only. It does not indicate any more than that. It is incapable of describing any subtle feature of DSE. It belongs where it is found in the primary school along with Dalton's theory of atoms. There is absolutely nothing precise about this equation. and if you had done it with different slit widths you would already know.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| it isn't just two paths .. they are different lengths.. If the photons in your first applet traveled at the speed of light .. what is going on this time? We see both prongs need to be of consistent amplitude .. there can be no errors made in your pancakeification process. If you are happy to say that you feel a photon can be very large (to hit both slits the same way every time), very small (to get through the slits), does not need to travel at 'c' .. enough perhaps. |
Pancakes can be folded and stretched... the only law is these "photon" pancakes remain the same "thickness"... the wavelength. The speed of light is a vector and the wavefront is perpendicular to the vector. The photon can be dispersed as we view it and may double back over its own path ... but it always travels at the speed of light. I have no idea where you seem to be digging this statement about the inconstancy of the speed of light from. Light is light but it can expand in different directions as a wave. It will do that but in the end a photon will be absorbed in one point, then the rest of the imaginary picture will disappear right along the wavefront instantly.
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
This equation shows simple lines only. It does not indicate any more than that. It is incapable of describing any subtle feature of DSE. It belongs where it is found in the primary school along with Dalton's theory of atoms. There is absolutely nothing precise about this equation. and if you had done it with different slit widths you would already know.
It is you who are claiming there are standing waves in space .. not me .. where (in space) are the walls that create standing waves?
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
This equation shows simple lines only. It does not indicate any more than that. It is incapable of describing any subtle feature of DSE. It belongs where it is found in the primary school along with Dalton's theory of atoms. There is absolutely nothing precise about this equation. and if you had done it with different slit widths you would already know.
It is you who are claiming there are standing waves in space .. not me .. where (in space) are the walls that create standing waves?
Precisely... Do the experiment and see what you find. Then tell me there are no walls.
Cheers
Cheers
TRoc,
I agree with you and invite critiques or alternate opinions or factual data
that either supports, refutes, or corrects posts that I make. That is how
discussion is suppose to work. No one is above learning something from
others.
Discussion opens new doors for exploration and possibly alternative
ways of describing or understanding the overly complicated "scientific" way
of saying something simply, elegantly, and clearly.
One of the major "flaws" of many scientific papers, IMO, is that fledgeling PHd's
overcomplicate simple language and ideas with grandiloqent and superfluous
terminology in an effort to appear intelligent. Who do you know that talks like
that?
My goal is to open doors that have been overlooked or not considered, but
primarily to learn, and perhaps share some information that might help
someone else to learn something new. I like the idea of looking at problems
from multiple perspectives and then zeroing in on the correct solution, even
if it does not necessarily follow the beaten path or my "preconceptions"
LL
I agree with you and invite critiques or alternate opinions or factual data
that either supports, refutes, or corrects posts that I make. That is how
discussion is suppose to work. No one is above learning something from
others.
Discussion opens new doors for exploration and possibly alternative
ways of describing or understanding the overly complicated "scientific" way
of saying something simply, elegantly, and clearly.
One of the major "flaws" of many scientific papers, IMO, is that fledgeling PHd's
overcomplicate simple language and ideas with grandiloqent and superfluous
terminology in an effort to appear intelligent. Who do you know that talks like
that?
My goal is to open doors that have been overlooked or not considered, but
primarily to learn, and perhaps share some information that might help
someone else to learn something new. I like the idea of looking at problems
from multiple perspectives and then zeroing in on the correct solution, even
if it does not necessarily follow the beaten path or my "preconceptions"
LL
Good Day everyone!
I did a lot of reading ... on and off this thread
I want to see a definition of two things.
I believe it will help to advance the discussion.
If we cannot measure it/see it .... do we call it a "hidden variable"?
Re-define "dimension" and "degree of freedom"
It must accomodate my model and Good Elf and "hidden variable".
I speak of degrees of freedom GE speaks of "maybe" the same thing as dimensions.
My way is geometrically measurable but so far is a ""hidden variable".
GE is a "hidden variable" and cannot be quantified and measured.
Let's define.
Only then can we talk the same language.
jal
I did a lot of reading ... on and off this thread
I want to see a definition of two things.
I believe it will help to advance the discussion.
If we cannot measure it/see it .... do we call it a "hidden variable"?
Re-define "dimension" and "degree of freedom"
It must accomodate my model and Good Elf and "hidden variable".
I speak of degrees of freedom GE speaks of "maybe" the same thing as dimensions.
My way is geometrically measurable but so far is a ""hidden variable".
GE is a "hidden variable" and cannot be quantified and measured.
Let's define.
Only then can we talk the same language.
jal
Hi Jal,
So in their own domain each separate distinct coexistent mirror universe is separate from the others. Each one uses the same units of space as we might in their own frame of reference but views the co-terminal universes as reciprocal quantum states where there are only stationary states and no energy exchange processes occurring other than quantum promotion and quantum demolition occurring and the effects that we see as the deBroglie waves.
Why are there three orders?
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
Click to enlarge.
Cheers
QUOTE
If we cannot measure it/see it .... do we call it a "hidden variable"?
Re-define "dimension" and "degree of freedom"
It must accommodate my model and Good Elf and "hidden variable".
I speak of degrees of freedom GE speaks of "maybe" the same thing as dimensions.
My way is geometrically measurable but so far is a ""hidden variable".
GE is a "hidden variable" and cannot be quantified and measured.
Hidden variables can be dimensions but actual dimensions are more than just any old hidden variables. There are a number of "parametric" theories around this is not one of them because it relies on three dimensions plus time to define "spaces" that are spanned by the dimensions in which energy processes operate as they do in our Universe. All string theories need a minimum of 10 dimensions for them to operate. Like I said just taking three dimensional space plus time and adding more dimensions will not work since how can these extra dimensions be discriminated against if they are there and if there were really nine spatial dimensions then our laws of conservation of energy would not apply because the energy would escape into higher dimensions leaving no closed boundary for the Lagrangian to operate within. The mathematics of the extra dimensions is defined by Fourier Theory. These are obvious "reciprocal spaces" compared with our space, and they operate in reciprocal time ... or frequency relative to our time here. It is clear that crossing this boundary cannot occur without a "jump" relying on "resonance". Within these three "domains" they are the obvious three dimensional spaces with time and relative to their spaces we are reciprocal spaces and frequency in a separately spanned space co-terminal with their space. Processes involving energy as seen from the reciprocal domains are "stationary states" which lead to a "quantum space". Three of these spaces orthogonally linked lead to our 10 dimensional local Universe. This does not prevent embeddings further of more and more of these entities in a holographically extendable Universe working on the "hyper-surfaces" of Anti-de Sitter Universes. This is the Ads/CFT proposition.Re-define "dimension" and "degree of freedom"
It must accommodate my model and Good Elf and "hidden variable".
I speak of degrees of freedom GE speaks of "maybe" the same thing as dimensions.
My way is geometrically measurable but so far is a ""hidden variable".
GE is a "hidden variable" and cannot be quantified and measured.
So in their own domain each separate distinct coexistent mirror universe is separate from the others. Each one uses the same units of space as we might in their own frame of reference but views the co-terminal universes as reciprocal quantum states where there are only stationary states and no energy exchange processes occurring other than quantum promotion and quantum demolition occurring and the effects that we see as the deBroglie waves.
Why are there three orders?
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
Click to enlarge.
Cheers
Hi all,
I wanted to comment on a few posts by LL.
Hopefully not me!
We have been lucky in this thread; there have almost no posts by a few of the worst.
Hopefully not me!
We have been lucky in this thread; there have almost no posts by a few of the worst.
Everything in the universe has an inherent natural spin. Atomic particles spin, planets spin, stars spin, galaxies spin....it seems apparent that spin is a requirement (or an artifact) of the "natural order" to maintain energy balance.
It seems logical to me that the UNIVERSE MUST SPIN (ROTATE), it is just that the
scale is so large and we are so localized with the spin that we cannot measure
or observe it because of the distances involved.
I agree with that. I think there is evidence that the Universe does rotate. I am going to have to dig...
I agree with that too. I'll post some pics and info on that.
I agree with that too. I'll post some pics and info on that.
Quick question. Does a photon maintain a constant EM polarization plane over a long distance, or is there some twist component that is not observed when it is measured by equipment over a short detection distance. What keeps a photon's EM polarization reference plane from twisting over long distances, like between stars? Perhaps it does, and we can't measure or detect it due to the short detection distance in our equipment.
I know this goes against the expanding dipole spherical wavefront model, which should cause a photon to maintain a constant plane (polarity) relationship perpendicular to the centerline of the dipole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization
I'm out of time.. sorry I can't comment more. There is a wealth of unexpected info at that page.
ciao,
T.Roc
I wanted to comment on a few posts by LL.
QUOTE
..over-complicate simple language and ideas with grandiloqent and superfluous terminology in an effort to appear intelligent. Who do you know that talks like that?
Hopefully not me!
We have been lucky in this thread; there have almost no posts by a few of the worst.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ..over-complicate simple language and ideas with grandiloqent and superfluous terminology in an effort to appear intelligent. Who do you know that talks like that? |
Hopefully not me!
We have been lucky in this thread; there have almost no posts by a few of the worst.
Everything in the universe has an inherent natural spin. Atomic particles spin, planets spin, stars spin, galaxies spin....it seems apparent that spin is a requirement (or an artifact) of the "natural order" to maintain energy balance.
It seems logical to me that the UNIVERSE MUST SPIN (ROTATE), it is just that the
scale is so large and we are so localized with the spin that we cannot measure
or observe it because of the distances involved.
I agree with that. I think there is evidence that the Universe does rotate. I am going to have to dig...
QUOTE
If you consider how the helical twisting element, when added to the spin, would affect the shape of the propagating EM fields, I think you might be able to
model your "elliptical" sinusoidal waveform shape more descriptively or accurately. What would happen if the electron (and the photon) were both spinning around their respective axes while simultaneously twisting in a helical tumbling motion. Think of the "degrees of freedom" that a propagating waveform might take. Also instead of prescribing a circle, you now have a moving spherical waveform that prescribes a cylindrical shape as it propagates over a distance. If you artificially accelerate the twisting rotational component over a distance you wind up with a corkscrew cylindrical shape...a circularly polarized photon.
model your "elliptical" sinusoidal waveform shape more descriptively or accurately. What would happen if the electron (and the photon) were both spinning around their respective axes while simultaneously twisting in a helical tumbling motion. Think of the "degrees of freedom" that a propagating waveform might take. Also instead of prescribing a circle, you now have a moving spherical waveform that prescribes a cylindrical shape as it propagates over a distance. If you artificially accelerate the twisting rotational component over a distance you wind up with a corkscrew cylindrical shape...a circularly polarized photon.
I agree with that too. I'll post some pics and info on that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you consider how the helical twisting element, when added to the spin, would affect the shape of the propagating EM fields, I think you might be able to model your "elliptical" sinusoidal waveform shape more descriptively or accurately. What would happen if the electron (and the photon) were both spinning around their respective axes while simultaneously twisting in a helical tumbling motion. Think of the "degrees of freedom" that a propagating waveform might take. Also instead of prescribing a circle, you now have a moving spherical waveform that prescribes a cylindrical shape as it propagates over a distance. If you artificially accelerate the twisting rotational component over a distance you wind up with a corkscrew cylindrical shape...a circularly polarized photon. |
I agree with that too. I'll post some pics and info on that.
Quick question. Does a photon maintain a constant EM polarization plane over a long distance, or is there some twist component that is not observed when it is measured by equipment over a short detection distance. What keeps a photon's EM polarization reference plane from twisting over long distances, like between stars? Perhaps it does, and we can't measure or detect it due to the short detection distance in our equipment.
I know this goes against the expanding dipole spherical wavefront model, which should cause a photon to maintain a constant plane (polarity) relationship perpendicular to the centerline of the dipole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization
I'm out of time.. sorry I can't comment more. There is a wealth of unexpected info at that page.
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi Good Elf!
Things a rather busy at this time of the year.
As a result I'm going to have to slow down on my posting and preparing answers.
Your answer is the generally accepted definition and needs to be evaluated.
I will and try to make some sense of something to accomodate all our views.
Later.
If others have got time. I should be able to sneak some time read the answers.
jal
Things a rather busy at this time of the year.
As a result I'm going to have to slow down on my posting and preparing answers.
Your answer is the generally accepted definition and needs to be evaluated.
I will and try to make some sense of something to accomodate all our views.
Later.
If others have got time. I should be able to sneak some time read the answers.
jal
QUOTE (Good Elf+Dec 20 2006, 06:55 AM)
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
At what price confinement?
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
At what price confinement?
QUOTE (Good Elf+Dec 20 2006, 06:55 AM)
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
At what price confinement? It is credible that the energy stored in empty space via the casimir virtual particle mechanism is sufficient to cause a big explosion and it is simply a matter of probabaility like the whale that fell out of the sky in Hitchikers guide to the galaxy.
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
At what price confinement? It is credible that the energy stored in empty space via the casimir virtual particle mechanism is sufficient to cause a big explosion and it is simply a matter of probabaility like the whale that fell out of the sky in Hitchikers guide to the galaxy.
Hi Neil,
Long time no see... he he he! I hope your business is still doing well despite the problems.
Long time no see... he he he! I hope your business is still doing well despite the problems.
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)
At what price confinement? It is credible that the energy stored in empty space via the casimir virtual particle mechanism is sufficient to cause a big explosion and it is simply a matter of probability like the whale that fell out of the sky in Hitchikers guide to the galaxy.
Forget particles, forget everything you ever learned... all photons could be "synthetic" in our "Holographic Universe"... thanks to Edmund Land and his researches. The missing piece of the jigsaw of our Universe are the "colors" representing all that energy of all those photons you speak about ... this is a "topology" that we are experiencing... colors when there are no colors.
http://www.greatreality.com/ColorDidMKnow.htm
http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm
Consider the "Holographic Universe" where all colors and hence all photons are "synthetic"... made from two very narrow "excitations" of almost adjacent frequencies in the spectrum as Land had done only in an Anti-deSitter Hilbert Space.... no UV divergences and as far as "observers" are concerned... though "seen by our eyes" cannot be "detected" using our photometers. Physics of a "full colored" AdS/CFT "flatspace "Holographic Universe" would retain quantum colors that are perceived in our Universe but not able to be measured... he he he!
Shades of the Holodeck in Startrek TNG...
Cheers
http://www.greatreality.com/ColorDidMKnow.htm
http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm
Consider the "Holographic Universe" where all colors and hence all photons are "synthetic"... made from two very narrow "excitations" of almost adjacent frequencies in the spectrum as Land had done only in an Anti-deSitter Hilbert Space.... no UV divergences and as far as "observers" are concerned... though "seen by our eyes" cannot be "detected" using our photometers. Physics of a "full colored" AdS/CFT "flatspace "Holographic Universe" would retain quantum colors that are perceived in our Universe but not able to be measured... he he he!
Shades of the Holodeck in Startrek TNG...
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Dec 23 2006, 03:58 PM)
Hi Neil,
Long time no see... he he he! I hope your business is still doing well despite the problems.
Long time no see... he he he! I hope your business is still doing well despite the problems.
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)
At what price confinement? It is credible that the energy stored in empty space via the casimir virtual particle mechanism is sufficient to cause a big explosion and it is simply a matter of probability like the whale that fell out of the sky in Hitchikers guide to the galaxy.
Forget particles, forget everything you ever learned... all photons could be "synthetic" in our "Holographic Universe"... thanks to Edmund Land and his researches. The missing piece of the jigsaw of our Universe are the "colors" representing all that energy of all those photons you speak about ... this is a "topology" that we are experiencing... colors when there are no colors.
http://www.greatreality.com/ColorDidMKnow.htm
http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm
Consider the "Holographic Universe" where all colors and hence all photons are "synthetic"... made from two very narrow "excitations" of almost adjacent frequencies in the spectrum as Land had done only in an Anti-deSitter Hilbert Space.... no UV divergences and as far as "observers" are concerned... though "seen by our eyes" cannot be "detected" using our photometers. Physics of a "full colored" AdS/CFT "flatspace "Holographic Universe" would retain quantum colors that are perceived in our Universe but not able to be measured... he he he!
Shades of the Holodeck in Startrek TNG...
Cheers
Can a "cavity" cause an explosion? If the quantum fluctions build up to the point they "break the camel's back?
http://www.greatreality.com/ColorDidMKnow.htm
http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm
Consider the "Holographic Universe" where all colors and hence all photons are "synthetic"... made from two very narrow "excitations" of almost adjacent frequencies in the spectrum as Land had done only in an Anti-deSitter Hilbert Space.... no UV divergences and as far as "observers" are concerned... though "seen by our eyes" cannot be "detected" using our photometers. Physics of a "full colored" AdS/CFT "flatspace "Holographic Universe" would retain quantum colors that are perceived in our Universe but not able to be measured... he he he!
Shades of the Holodeck in Startrek TNG...
Cheers
Can a "cavity" cause an explosion? If the quantum fluctions build up to the point they "break the camel's back?
QUOTE (Good Elf+Dec 23 2006, 03:58 PM)
Hi Neil,
Long time no see... he he he! I hope your business is still doing well despite the problems.
Long time no see... he he he! I hope your business is still doing well despite the problems.
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)
At what price confinement? It is credible that the energy stored in empty space via the casimir virtual particle mechanism is sufficient to cause a big explosion and it is simply a matter of probability like the whale that fell out of the sky in Hitchikers guide to the galaxy.
Forget particles, forget everything you ever learned... all photons could be "synthetic" in our "Holographic Universe"... thanks to Edmund Land and his researches. The missing piece of the jigsaw of our Universe are the "colors" representing all that energy of all those photons you speak about ... this is a "topology" that we are experiencing... colors when there are no colors.
http://www.greatreality.com/ColorDidMKnow.htm
http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm
Consider the "Holographic Universe" where all colors and hence all photons are "synthetic"... made from two very narrow "excitations" of almost adjacent frequencies in the spectrum as Land had done only in an Anti-deSitter Hilbert Space.... no UV divergences and as far as "observers" are concerned... though "seen by our eyes" cannot be "detected" using our photometers. Physics of a "full colored" AdS/CFT "flatspace "Holographic Universe" would retain quantum colors that are perceived in our Universe but not able to be measured... he he he!
Shades of the Holodeck in Startrek TNG...
Cheers
My business is booming! Work is under way on our joint project with a biopharmceutical firm. Vulvox will be making history with a breakthrough system for making silencer RNA and DNA for gene therapy on a scale never before imagined. We can also make DNA for the growing nanoelectronics industry. New uses for DNA such as for templatees to grow ZnO nanowires have emerged in the recent literature. Vulvox will supply that industry.
http://www.greatreality.com/ColorDidMKnow.htm
http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm
Consider the "Holographic Universe" where all colors and hence all photons are "synthetic"... made from two very narrow "excitations" of almost adjacent frequencies in the spectrum as Land had done only in an Anti-deSitter Hilbert Space.... no UV divergences and as far as "observers" are concerned... though "seen by our eyes" cannot be "detected" using our photometers. Physics of a "full colored" AdS/CFT "flatspace "Holographic Universe" would retain quantum colors that are perceived in our Universe but not able to be measured... he he he!
Shades of the Holodeck in Startrek TNG...
Cheers
My business is booming! Work is under way on our joint project with a biopharmceutical firm. Vulvox will be making history with a breakthrough system for making silencer RNA and DNA for gene therapy on a scale never before imagined. We can also make DNA for the growing nanoelectronics industry. New uses for DNA such as for templatees to grow ZnO nanowires have emerged in the recent literature. Vulvox will supply that industry.
Hi all,
I think GET and VRT just got a little closer!
Let's see:
GE:" all photons could be "synthetic" in our "Holographic Universe"... "
TRoc: "Photons" are not real (also then, not a particle).
GE: " made from two very narrow "excitations" of almost adjacent frequencies in the spectrum "
TRoc: "less than monochromatic light" is enough to create the S/DSE pattern
GE: "though "seen by our eyes" cannot be "detected" using our photometers"
TRoc: if there are "photons" in the bright bands, there are "photons" in the dark bands
Our eyes are, in this case, better than the machines! The "naked eye" sees the black and white bands, and the same scene, through a prism, "enables" the perception of color. Same pattern, HUGE clue!
GE asked about another "clue" recently. What about the "charge" existing in the "separate" positive & negative (duality)? Does that mean we will find a "magnetic monopole"? Dirac (QM) predicts we will find this. I don't think it will be found.
Does "mono-charge" really exist? I don't think it does; it is the dualistic nature, and perspective (frame of reference) that create this impression.
magnetism and relativity
So, if magnetism is "relative", then we already have the answer.
Consider the Faraday cage: all of one side of the duality on the inside, and the other charge on the outside. It is reasonable to postulate the electron as the same phenomenon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
The Duality is Fundamental, in form and function. You can take the "malleable" nature of this (energy) and turn it inside out (toroidally) and turn it into a vibration displaying charge and mass. Hopefully, GE will show the pic of the electron modeled this way again.
The Toroid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toroid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Toroid.jpg
The next point is also Fundamental: the "triad". It can maintain this Duality as well. The Proton is our example; the same feature (w/ reversed charge), except now there are 3 separate vibrations in the sphere.
A little help from our ancestors to illustrate this.
Triskelion-spiral:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Triskel...ed-inspiral.svg
The triangle in the center maintains the balance: on the inside, the 3 "negative" charges align, and the outside joins as a circle, of "positive charge".
As to Neil's question, "Can a "cavity" cause an explosion?". I would say "yes". One look at sonoluminescence will confirm this. Certain crabs and shrimp know this; they mechanically create cavitations that stun their prey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence
That, and just the everyday Bragg diffractor, clearly demonstrate that there is a COMMON pattern to Sound and Light. The positions of electron in a lattice can be "quantumly" moved by sound, and change the diffraction of light. The "quanta" MUST be mathematically the same.
If we seek a Science that describes our reality, what we can see, feel, and hear, are all good clues, but a little creativity, and logic / deductive reasoning are also necessary. A common point is that these all occur in the same place, our minds.
regards,
T.Roc
I think GET and VRT just got a little closer!
Let's see:
GE:" all photons could be "synthetic" in our "Holographic Universe"... "
TRoc: "Photons" are not real (also then, not a particle).
GE: " made from two very narrow "excitations" of almost adjacent frequencies in the spectrum "
TRoc: "less than monochromatic light" is enough to create the S/DSE pattern
GE: "though "seen by our eyes" cannot be "detected" using our photometers"
TRoc: if there are "photons" in the bright bands, there are "photons" in the dark bands
Our eyes are, in this case, better than the machines! The "naked eye" sees the black and white bands, and the same scene, through a prism, "enables" the perception of color. Same pattern, HUGE clue!
GE asked about another "clue" recently. What about the "charge" existing in the "separate" positive & negative (duality)? Does that mean we will find a "magnetic monopole"? Dirac (QM) predicts we will find this. I don't think it will be found.
Does "mono-charge" really exist? I don't think it does; it is the dualistic nature, and perspective (frame of reference) that create this impression.
magnetism and relativity
So, if magnetism is "relative", then we already have the answer.
Consider the Faraday cage: all of one side of the duality on the inside, and the other charge on the outside. It is reasonable to postulate the electron as the same phenomenon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
The Duality is Fundamental, in form and function. You can take the "malleable" nature of this (energy) and turn it inside out (toroidally) and turn it into a vibration displaying charge and mass. Hopefully, GE will show the pic of the electron modeled this way again.
The Toroid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toroid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Toroid.jpg
QUOTE
“A toroid is a doughnut-shaped object whose surface is a torus. Its annular shape is generated by revolving a circle around an axis external to the circle.”
“Toroidal coils reduce resistance, due to the larger diameter and smaller number of turns in the winding. The magnetic flux in a toroid is confined to the core, preventing its energy from being absorbed by nearby objects.
In the geometry of torus-shaped magnetic fields, the poloidal flux direction threads the "donut hole" in the center of the torus, while the toroidal flux direction is parallel the core of the torus.
In fluid mechanics, a toroid-shaped flow is called a vortex ring.”
“Toroidal coils reduce resistance, due to the larger diameter and smaller number of turns in the winding. The magnetic flux in a toroid is confined to the core, preventing its energy from being absorbed by nearby objects.
In the geometry of torus-shaped magnetic fields, the poloidal flux direction threads the "donut hole" in the center of the torus, while the toroidal flux direction is parallel the core of the torus.
In fluid mechanics, a toroid-shaped flow is called a vortex ring.”
The next point is also Fundamental: the "triad". It can maintain this Duality as well. The Proton is our example; the same feature (w/ reversed charge), except now there are 3 separate vibrations in the sphere.
A little help from our ancestors to illustrate this.
Triskelion-spiral:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Triskel...ed-inspiral.svg
The triangle in the center maintains the balance: on the inside, the 3 "negative" charges align, and the outside joins as a circle, of "positive charge".
As to Neil's question, "Can a "cavity" cause an explosion?". I would say "yes". One look at sonoluminescence will confirm this. Certain crabs and shrimp know this; they mechanically create cavitations that stun their prey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence
That, and just the everyday Bragg diffractor, clearly demonstrate that there is a COMMON pattern to Sound and Light. The positions of electron in a lattice can be "quantumly" moved by sound, and change the diffraction of light. The "quanta" MUST be mathematically the same.
If we seek a Science that describes our reality, what we can see, feel, and hear, are all good clues, but a little creativity, and logic / deductive reasoning are also necessary. A common point is that these all occur in the same place, our minds.
regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE (Confused2+Dec 22 2006, 10:11 PM)
It is unclear (to me) quite what this applet is intended to convey.
Energy density profile of neighboring vacuum foam during particle motion (the brighter, the more denser). You can found a live Java applet here.
Energy density profile of neighboring vacuum foam during particle motion (the brighter, the more denser). You can found a live Java applet here.
Hello ! from an edge-of-his-seat passive reader of this thread.
From TRoc:
I, for one (and for what it's worth) can't wait to see where you and Good Elf go with this. Are we witnessing the birth of a new notion, i.e., a multi-dimensional QED where particles and their charge (force) carriers are finally explained ? ! And with notions - and formalism - that will intrigue us in beautiful ways ? There simply HAS to be an underlying geometry that makes QM the statistical side of what we observe.
A wonderful forum, this. Thanks to you all for intriguing me "no end" to think about Physics in new ways.
Best Wishes,
Jim
From TRoc:
QUOTE
If we seek a Science that describes our reality, what we can see, feel, and hear, are all good clues, but a little creativity, and logic / deductive reasoning are also necessary. A common point is that these all occur in the same place, our minds.
I, for one (and for what it's worth) can't wait to see where you and Good Elf go with this. Are we witnessing the birth of a new notion, i.e., a multi-dimensional QED where particles and their charge (force) carriers are finally explained ? ! And with notions - and formalism - that will intrigue us in beautiful ways ? There simply HAS to be an underlying geometry that makes QM the statistical side of what we observe.
A wonderful forum, this. Thanks to you all for intriguing me "no end" to think about Physics in new ways.
Best Wishes,
Jim
Hello Aerohead and ALL,
Well, it seems like we are constantly exploring the bounds of extra-dimensional
"theoretical" reality to explain phenomena that originate in our
4 dimensional universe because we cannot easily quantify or measure certain
natural phenomena that we observe.
While I am open to the concept of "parallel" universes or dimensions, I believe
that anyone who pushes those theoretical approaches must provide a "FULL Conceptual Model" of the "fabric' of those extra dimensions.
Just stating that those extra dimensions interact with our own is not enough.
By necessity, if we need to include those additional dimensions as extensions
of our reality, then there must exist some formalization and boundaries(rules)
that clearly and simply explain the geometry and physics that exists there. There must be causality "linkage" and it must work under ALL circumstances.
There are numerous multi-dimensional string theory models that attempt to
do this but whenever a problem arises in the model someone just adds another
dimension as the explanation.....this isn't science it is science fiction or fantasy,
IMO. I'm waiting for someone to theorize that extra-dimensions is where
ghosts, and fairies, come from.
As I pointed out to Good Elf before, when a real "problem" can't be proved
by the physical measurement limitations of our equipment, people start looking
for other options that also cannot be proved. Answering one riddle with another
riddle is not a solution.
All natural phenomena have a causality, a cause and effect. We often
observe the effect, but cannot observe the cause, due to the "magnitude" of the
scaling. Since we cannot currently observe the "cause", we are forced to
make some predictions of possible solutions. Let us hope that we are dealing
with possibilites that are realities and not just creative fantasies.
This is why a simple, elegant, consistent, and easily explained model must be
formalized.
JMHO.
Regards,
LL
Well, it seems like we are constantly exploring the bounds of extra-dimensional
"theoretical" reality to explain phenomena that originate in our
4 dimensional universe because we cannot easily quantify or measure certain
natural phenomena that we observe.
While I am open to the concept of "parallel" universes or dimensions, I believe
that anyone who pushes those theoretical approaches must provide a "FULL Conceptual Model" of the "fabric' of those extra dimensions.
Just stating that those extra dimensions interact with our own is not enough.
By necessity, if we need to include those additional dimensions as extensions
of our reality, then there must exist some formalization and boundaries(rules)
that clearly and simply explain the geometry and physics that exists there. There must be causality "linkage" and it must work under ALL circumstances.
There are numerous multi-dimensional string theory models that attempt to
do this but whenever a problem arises in the model someone just adds another
dimension as the explanation.....this isn't science it is science fiction or fantasy,
IMO. I'm waiting for someone to theorize that extra-dimensions is where
ghosts, and fairies, come from.
As I pointed out to Good Elf before, when a real "problem" can't be proved
by the physical measurement limitations of our equipment, people start looking
for other options that also cannot be proved. Answering one riddle with another
riddle is not a solution.
All natural phenomena have a causality, a cause and effect. We often
observe the effect, but cannot observe the cause, due to the "magnitude" of the
scaling. Since we cannot currently observe the "cause", we are forced to
make some predictions of possible solutions. Let us hope that we are dealing
with possibilites that are realities and not just creative fantasies.
This is why a simple, elegant, consistent, and easily explained model must be
formalized.
JMHO.
Regards,
LL
LaserLight,
I'm not so sure a new theory would be "simple" or "easly explained." But I'd love it if it would be "elegant" and "consistent" and explained everything we observe with photons and electrons "to a T."
The notions (descriptive mechanisms? analogies?) of such a theory might be so bizare as to make the Double Slit Experiment discussed in the previous 77 pages seem minor by comparison.
That would be fine - if it worked. It might not even suggest any experiments to test it. Wouldn't THAT be odd ? Would it mean no one would take it as "Physics ?"
R/Jim
QUOTE
This is why a simple, elegant, consistent, and easily explained model must be
formalized.
formalized.
I'm not so sure a new theory would be "simple" or "easly explained." But I'd love it if it would be "elegant" and "consistent" and explained everything we observe with photons and electrons "to a T."
The notions (descriptive mechanisms? analogies?) of such a theory might be so bizare as to make the Double Slit Experiment discussed in the previous 77 pages seem minor by comparison.
That would be fine - if it worked. It might not even suggest any experiments to test it. Wouldn't THAT be odd ? Would it mean no one would take it as "Physics ?"
R/Jim
Hi!
I've had a chance to sneek away and make a quick post.
The closest point of course!!!
Do the DSE in a rectangular box.
If the wave is absorbed and collapse on the sides of the box I would be inclined to believe that it expands as a sphere.
If the wave does not absorbed and collapse on the sides of the box it would require a further explanation.
jal
I've had a chance to sneek away and make a quick post.
QUOTE
good elf
Light is light but it can expand in different directions as a wave. It will do that but in the end a photon will be absorbed in one point, then the rest of the imaginary picture will disappear right along the wavefront instantly.
Light is light but it can expand in different directions as a wave. It will do that but in the end a photon will be absorbed in one point, then the rest of the imaginary picture will disappear right along the wavefront instantly.
The closest point of course!!!
Do the DSE in a rectangular box.
If the wave is absorbed and collapse on the sides of the box I would be inclined to believe that it expands as a sphere.
If the wave does not absorbed and collapse on the sides of the box it would require a further explanation.
jal
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Aerohead, TRoc, Zephir, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Yquantum, Duality et al,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
As I pointed out to Good Elf before, when a real "problem" can't be proved by the physical measurement limitations of our equipment, people start looking for other options that also cannot be proved. Answering one riddle with another riddle is not a solution.[...]All natural phenomena have a causality, a cause and effect. We often observe the effect, but cannot observe the cause, due to the "magnitude" of the scaling. Since we cannot currently observe the "cause" we are forced to make some predictions of possible solutions. Let us hope that we are dealing with possibilities that are realities and not just creative fantasies.
As the resident "Elf" here I am responsible to no one. Everything is here simply for your consideration. If you can substantiate that what I say is wrong then you can do so anytime. As elves always say "I am all ears"! This most recent offering is not a joke since if you consider Juan Maldacena's AdS/CFT which is currently the most quoted paper in Theoretical Physics, a "Holographic Universe" requires a single principle to produce within a lower dimensional form the full gamut of phenomena of our Universe on a "inner surface" of a conjugate reality. While I cannot completely justify this latest "offering" I can substantiate that this "offering" is not a wild claim since Edmund Land has indeed confirmed that some things we "see" cannot be measured.
Exploratory Experimentation: Goethe, Land, and Color Theory: Physics Today
Note there... what the eye "sees" the photometer cannot measure. While you might not wish to consider this point others such as Ed Witten and Stephen Hawking and Leonard Susskind might find these ideas "interesting" since their other theories are in concurrence with the Anti-deSitter Universe... just one that I think is not yet "physical". This phenomenon is just so important that it is hard to think it does not have a deeper significance beyond the primitive experiments. Consider two holograms of "Our Universe" separated by just 20nm in wavelength synthetically generating all the "color" we take for granted is coming from "real photons" with energy equals "hf". This is an "energy" you can have when you are not having an "energy"...
As to everything having a "cause and an effect"... I thought that since an individual quantum event cannot be "tracked" to an individual cause, then you would be tending to believe the argument that cause and effect are not related except through pure chance??? As for myself I accept the "Transactional Interpretation" of our Universe. Single events as well as particles and their anti-particles can be anti-causal. This also relates back to Wheeler and Feynman's Emitter-Absorber Theory. There is a big jump from saying every effect has a cause to saying you can explain every effect and you are able to demonstrate the underlying cause... unequivocally. Our Quantum Physics has not been so bold as to insist that such a thing is possible. While it may be able to predict the possibility of an event it is totally unable to predict on demand certain classes of events. This may be that there are some things we can never really measure... that is not ever. That regardless of our attempts to do so, an "inverse" problem of predicting an outcome given the causes will always be beyond us. Consider the "Butterfly Effect". This is not a worry to me since all I want to show is "a posteriori" a train of physical events was the cause of a known outcome. I have shown in previous posts ... probably a period before you have been on this forum... that Special Relativity is just such a system. What we see is certainly not what happens and that the best frame of reference is not always the Laboratory Frame when discussing an event that is unfolding near the speed of light. To determine the causes of events it is necessary to make 'local" measurements at several "non-local" positions. After the event you can "compare notes" and resolve the anomaly. What I did establish was "seeing is certainly not the same as believing" and furthermore you should not necessarily believe what you see when you are not "a local". One typically example of this is the nature of the Lorentz Contraction which is actually a 'rotation". One other anomaly are the "apparent" mass increase as a particle approaches the speed of light... even Einstein cautioned against this interpretation. Other issues include the position and momentum of a particle and the particles locality even in its own frame of reference... the other end of Special Relativity.... that velocity zone where the mass and the velocity tend to zero...
I will say this much... what has been written even in text books is often technically wrong. Usually it is presented in an "over favorable light" that leaves out much of the background and the hard yards of "experimentation" to present a "sound-byte" of "instruction" that must be accepted as "universally passed down from on high". Most authorities grasp the easy question and ignore the much harder ones... and please accept that there are very many "hard questions" standard Physics has completely ignored and does not try to integrate into the greater tapestry that is Science. We are at the same turning point at the beginning of the 21st Century as "man" was at the beginning of the 20th Century... then "he" too though that all questions were answered and the limits of human knowledge was known and all that remained were a couple of difficult but unanswered problems to address and the job of Physics would all be over. Happy to say they were very seriously mistaken. And that is also not just about the change in that "gender issue" too... so much more has changed and still changes day by day. As we all know ... along came Einstein and nothing was the same after that. That did not mean that everyone accepted what he said was the truth ... No... quite the opposite. Many on this Forum still will not accept his Theory to this very day. It is not the purpose of science to convince everyone that something is true... it is to tap into the applications and exploit the "New Frontier" and to continue to move on. Knowledge and understanding is a personal thing... you either want it or you do not. We all have inbuilt limits and we are ruled by "Principalities and Powers"... I hope you feel I am not dissing you about this?
It is the "clash of cultures" that result in outcomes in our History. Those cultures that refuse to abandon "old ways" are supplanted by those who seem more aggressive and hungry for new knowledge and to defeat and even crush those who refuse to change.
Inside all of us there are two imperatives. This is indicated in Richard Dawkins new "anti-God" book "The God Delusion"...
Exploratory Experimentation: Goethe, Land, and Color Theory: Physics Today
Note there... what the eye "sees" the photometer cannot measure. While you might not wish to consider this point others such as Ed Witten and Stephen Hawking and Leonard Susskind might find these ideas "interesting" since their other theories are in concurrence with the Anti-deSitter Universe... just one that I think is not yet "physical". This phenomenon is just so important that it is hard to think it does not have a deeper significance beyond the primitive experiments. Consider two holograms of "Our Universe" separated by just 20nm in wavelength synthetically generating all the "color" we take for granted is coming from "real photons" with energy equals "hf". This is an "energy" you can have when you are not having an "energy"...
As to everything having a "cause and an effect"... I thought that since an individual quantum event cannot be "tracked" to an individual cause, then you would be tending to believe the argument that cause and effect are not related except through pure chance??? As for myself I accept the "Transactional Interpretation" of our Universe. Single events as well as particles and their anti-particles can be anti-causal. This also relates back to Wheeler and Feynman's Emitter-Absorber Theory. There is a big jump from saying every effect has a cause to saying you can explain every effect and you are able to demonstrate the underlying cause... unequivocally. Our Quantum Physics has not been so bold as to insist that such a thing is possible. While it may be able to predict the possibility of an event it is totally unable to predict on demand certain classes of events. This may be that there are some things we can never really measure... that is not ever. That regardless of our attempts to do so, an "inverse" problem of predicting an outcome given the causes will always be beyond us. Consider the "Butterfly Effect". This is not a worry to me since all I want to show is "a posteriori" a train of physical events was the cause of a known outcome. I have shown in previous posts ... probably a period before you have been on this forum... that Special Relativity is just such a system. What we see is certainly not what happens and that the best frame of reference is not always the Laboratory Frame when discussing an event that is unfolding near the speed of light. To determine the causes of events it is necessary to make 'local" measurements at several "non-local" positions. After the event you can "compare notes" and resolve the anomaly. What I did establish was "seeing is certainly not the same as believing" and furthermore you should not necessarily believe what you see when you are not "a local". One typically example of this is the nature of the Lorentz Contraction which is actually a 'rotation". One other anomaly are the "apparent" mass increase as a particle approaches the speed of light... even Einstein cautioned against this interpretation. Other issues include the position and momentum of a particle and the particles locality even in its own frame of reference... the other end of Special Relativity.... that velocity zone where the mass and the velocity tend to zero...
I will say this much... what has been written even in text books is often technically wrong. Usually it is presented in an "over favorable light" that leaves out much of the background and the hard yards of "experimentation" to present a "sound-byte" of "instruction" that must be accepted as "universally passed down from on high". Most authorities grasp the easy question and ignore the much harder ones... and please accept that there are very many "hard questions" standard Physics has completely ignored and does not try to integrate into the greater tapestry that is Science. We are at the same turning point at the beginning of the 21st Century as "man" was at the beginning of the 20th Century... then "he" too though that all questions were answered and the limits of human knowledge was known and all that remained were a couple of difficult but unanswered problems to address and the job of Physics would all be over. Happy to say they were very seriously mistaken.
And that is also not just about the change in that "gender issue" too... so much more has changed and still changes day by day. As we all know ... along came Einstein and nothing was the same after that. That did not mean that everyone accepted what he said was the truth ... No... quite the opposite. Many on this Forum still will not accept his Theory to this very day. It is not the purpose of science to convince everyone that something is true... it is to tap into the applications and exploit the "New Frontier" and to continue to move on. Knowledge and understanding is a personal thing... you either want it or you do not. We all have inbuilt limits and we are ruled by "Principalities and Powers"... I hope you feel I am not dissing you about this?It is the "clash of cultures" that result in outcomes in our History. Those cultures that refuse to abandon "old ways" are supplanted by those who seem more aggressive and hungry for new knowledge and to defeat and even crush those who refuse to change.
Inside all of us there are two imperatives. This is indicated in Richard Dawkins new "anti-God" book "The God Delusion"...
QUOTE (National Post+)
Dawkins and people like him pour ridicule on believers. But, as evolutionists, they can't credibly explain why hundreds of different civilizations across the globe have felt the need to believe in a divine force. Billions of people have accepted what Dawkins considers are stupid, easily refutable and harmful ideas. How did those beliefs evolve? Were they an evolutionary advantage?
Dawkins thinks they may be the result of a misfiring or by-product similar to the reason moths immolate themselves in candles. Over eons, moths evolved a system of navigation based on light from the moon; this still usually works, but sometimes light from a candle (or another source) fatally tricks them. In the same way, Dawkins suggests, humans evolved a system of thought that has led them astray.
Children who obey adults have a "selective advantage" in evolution. They are more likely than disobedient children to survive because they won't have to learn on their own that, for instance, crocodile infested rivers are dangerous. "Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them." But this valuable quality can go wrong, allowing parents to pass on their crazy religious ideas to the young. Dawkins has more trouble explaining how, in each civilization, the first wave of parents acquires religious convictions.
National Post: Atheism's army of the smug
I am not going to engage in "Magical Thinking"
Wikipedia: Magical Thinking
I would commend to all the Book/DVD of the Mini series by Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers... "The Power of Myth"...
Follow your Bliss: Joseph Campbell
...and what has spawned in mankind we can all attest that there is a tendency toward magical thinking in all of us. I... as an "elf"... would be the last to dismiss "real magic"... I can truly tell you all here and now such "magic" really does exist. This primitive mechanism still "fires" in our brains today as an "ancient reflex" to scientific rationalism. The modern "gurus" of Science couch their magic in different terms but still there is the need for acceptance since from that comes "the power". I am not worried about this "power" but there is a kind of Darwinian Selection at work in the World that also selects for the most suitable and advantageous method above "the old ways". What is important is to know yourselves and gain a synergy or a "gestalt" from what we were and what we will all come to be ... even if it requires "the passing of the generation" as the only answer in the end to clear the "old ways" from our collective memory. As a counterbalance to this obvious one sided view I have this "retort" also taken from a Dawkins opponent...
Dawkins thinks they may be the result of a misfiring or by-product similar to the reason moths immolate themselves in candles. Over eons, moths evolved a system of navigation based on light from the moon; this still usually works, but sometimes light from a candle (or another source) fatally tricks them. In the same way, Dawkins suggests, humans evolved a system of thought that has led them astray.
Children who obey adults have a "selective advantage" in evolution. They are more likely than disobedient children to survive because they won't have to learn on their own that, for instance, crocodile infested rivers are dangerous. "Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them." But this valuable quality can go wrong, allowing parents to pass on their crazy religious ideas to the young. Dawkins has more trouble explaining how, in each civilization, the first wave of parents acquires religious convictions.
National Post: Atheism's army of the smug
I am not going to engage in "Magical Thinking"
Wikipedia: Magical Thinking
I would commend to all the Book/DVD of the Mini series by Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers... "The Power of Myth"...
Follow your Bliss: Joseph Campbell
...and what has spawned in mankind we can all attest that there is a tendency toward magical thinking in all of us. I... as an "elf"... would be the last to dismiss "real magic"... I can truly tell you all here and now such "magic" really does exist. This primitive mechanism still "fires" in our brains today as an "ancient reflex" to scientific rationalism. The modern "gurus" of Science couch their magic in different terms but still there is the need for acceptance since from that comes "the power". I am not worried about this "power" but there is a kind of Darwinian Selection at work in the World that also selects for the most suitable and advantageous method above "the old ways". What is important is to know yourselves and gain a synergy or a "gestalt" from what we were and what we will all come to be ... even if it requires "the passing of the generation" as the only answer in the end to clear the "old ways" from our collective memory. As a counterbalance to this obvious one sided view I have this "retort" also taken from a Dawkins opponent...
QUOTE (SperoNews+)
I believe in God and have faith in God because of the “local traditions of private revelations.” I don't know if it is right to call it evidence since we are considering beliefs whose truth cannot be seen. Nor do I criticize anyone for not believing in revelation. Saying it is wrong not to believe would be an unfair criticism.
But I do criticize Dawkins and say he is wrong because it is apparent from this book that he has simply assumed religion isn't true. There are many who make this assumption, unaware that it is just an assumption, but who keep their lack of faith to themselves and give faith to their children. Not only doesn't Dawkins believe, he believes those who believe are wrong and that mankind would be better off without religion.
By way of refutation, I'd like to quote from a letter Saint Ambrose wrote to Emperor Theodosius in 390 AD after Roman troops massacred a big crowd of people, who happened to be in a stadium in Thessalonia, to retaliate against a protest of a tax increase that was already severely punished by the local authorities:
When it was first heard of, a synod had met because of the arrival of the Gallican Bishops. There was not one who did not lament it, not one who thought lightly of it; your being in fellowship with Ambrose was no excuse for your deed. Blame for what had been done would have been heaped more and more on me, had no one said that your reconciliation to our God was necessary.
Are you ashamed, O Emperor, to do that which the royal prophet David, the forefather of Christ, according to the flesh, did? To him it was told how the rich man who had many flocks seized and killed the poor man’s one lamb, because of the arrival of his guest, and recognizing that he himself was being condemned in the tale, for that he himself had done it, he said: “l have sinned against the Lord.” Bear it, then, without impatience, O Emperor, if it be said to you: You have done that which was spoken of to King David by the prophet. For if you listen obediently to this, and say: “I have sinned against the Lord,” if you repeat those words of the royal prophet: “O come let us worship and fall down before Him, and mourn before the Lord our God. Who made us,” it shall be said to you also: “Since thou repentest, the Lord putteth away thy sin, and thou shalt not die.” (Internet Medieval Sourcebook: Ambrose to Theodosius I 390 [Letter 51])
Emperor Theodosius repented.
The God Delusion
But I do criticize Dawkins and say he is wrong because it is apparent from this book that he has simply assumed religion isn't true. There are many who make this assumption, unaware that it is just an assumption, but who keep their lack of faith to themselves and give faith to their children. Not only doesn't Dawkins believe, he believes those who believe are wrong and that mankind would be better off without religion.
By way of refutation, I'd like to quote from a letter Saint Ambrose wrote to Emperor Theodosius in 390 AD after Roman troops massacred a big crowd of people, who happened to be in a stadium in Thessalonia, to retaliate against a protest of a tax increase that was already severely punished by the local authorities:
When it was first heard of, a synod had met because of the arrival of the Gallican Bishops. There was not one who did not lament it, not one who thought lightly of it; your being in fellowship with Ambrose was no excuse for your deed. Blame for what had been done would have been heaped more and more on me, had no one said that your reconciliation to our God was necessary.
Are you ashamed, O Emperor, to do that which the royal prophet David, the forefather of Christ, according to the flesh, did? To him it was told how the rich man who had many flocks seized and killed the poor man’s one lamb, because of the arrival of his guest, and recognizing that he himself was being condemned in the tale, for that he himself had done it, he said: “l have sinned against the Lord.” Bear it, then, without impatience, O Emperor, if it be said to you: You have done that which was spoken of to King David by the prophet. For if you listen obediently to this, and say: “I have sinned against the Lord,” if you repeat those words of the royal prophet: “O come let us worship and fall down before Him, and mourn before the Lord our God. Who made us,” it shall be said to you also: “Since thou repentest, the Lord putteth away thy sin, and thou shalt not die.” (Internet Medieval Sourcebook: Ambrose to Theodosius I 390 [Letter 51])
Emperor Theodosius repented.
The God Delusion
It's good to repent!... He he he! I would also remark in passing the Holy Roman Empire is reduced to a Hunderd Acres and is ruled by God's Rottweiler ... Cardinal Ratzinger... an ex Natzi and former head of the Papal Inquisition. This is how you guard the "old ways". Science and its "High Priests" will also repent as well in the end... It always does. There is a clash between accepted wisdom handed down through our mother's milk and classrooms and conforming to doctrine and the many "out of place" discoveries that have been "sequestered" on a shelf as being "too hard to accept". In the meantime a rabble will always exist in the "academic streets" to "put down" those who dissent. This is why I am an Elf and prefer to stay out of the way of "chaos". Who am I to say what is right and what is wrong... you will already have decided for yourselves.
Cheers
Cheers
Good Elf, hope all is well, "THEY" & "2", Duality/Lisa, jal, C2, Aerohead -welcome to a great post, TRoc, LL, Neil Farbstein best wishes in your company, wish you all the very best and hope I did not leave to many out, been gone awhile, et al.
Happy Holidays 2007 may it bring in a great year for us all.
ciao_
yquanutm
Information can tell us everything. It has all the answers. But they are answers to questions we have not asked, and which doubtless don’t even arise. This I know will not apply to anyone on this post I believe you have turned the DSE upside down.
"THEY"2, hope you have a wonderful Christmas and Happy New Year to you both.
Happy Holidays 2007 may it bring in a great year for us all.
ciao_
yquanutm
Information can tell us everything. It has all the answers. But they are answers to questions we have not asked, and which doubtless don’t even arise. This I know will not apply to anyone on this post I believe you have turned the DSE upside down.
"THEY"2, hope you have a wonderful Christmas and Happy New Year to you both.
Hi Jal, and a few other "Xmas Elves" on the net...
QUOTE (Jal+)
QUOTE ( good elf+)
Light is light but it can expand in different directions as a wave. It will do that but in the end a photon will be absorbed in one point, then the rest of the imaginary picture will disappear right along the wavefront instantly.
boys will be boys
The closest point of course!!!
Do the DSE in a rectangular box. If the wave is absorbed and collapse on the sides of the box I would be inclined to believe that it expands as a sphere. If the wave does not absorbed and collapse on the sides of the box it would require a further explanation.
jal
Do the DSE in a rectangular box. If the wave is absorbed and collapse on the sides of the box I would be inclined to believe that it expands as a sphere. If the wave does not absorbed and collapse on the sides of the box it would require a further explanation.
jal
The "box" I am referring to is a dimensional box... a closed space... a Hilbert Space. That means these "errant" photons cannot even find the "edge" of this most perfect "box". What is the closest point??... since a single sub-atomic "site" is where it will finally end up in. Who is to say this one site is not already perfectly reflecting or transparent at that one frequency the incident photon possesses. The suggestion is many photons are reflected or refracted as in clear glass or a perfect mirror surface by atomic features whose doors are already closed because it is a "full house at this inn". You may have to go and find the nearest stable to have your baby... he he he! Expansion on the surface of a sphere is fine but you must see this from the geometry the photon is finding itself inside. This is the problem of the optically closed cavity and the way things inside this cavity map the internal coordinates to its own space. This is not a shoebox in the corner you are putting these photons inside... eh Jal?
Merry Xmas all and best wishes to everyone...
That includes "THEY" and "THEY"2 and of course Yquantum, Neil, C2, Laserlight, TRoc and everyone else.
Xmas Cheers
Merry Xmas all and best wishes to everyone...
That includes "THEY" and "THEY"2 and of course Yquantum, Neil, C2, Laserlight, TRoc and everyone else.
Xmas Cheers
QUOTE (jal+Dec 24 2006, 01:10 AM)
Hi!
I've had a chance to sneek away and make a quick post.
The closest point of course!!!
Do the DSE in a rectangular box.
If the wave is absorbed and collapse on the sides of the box I would be inclined to believe that it expands as a sphere.
If the wave does not absorbed and collapse on the sides of the box it would require a further explanation.
jal
It expands as a cylinder! The box does too!
New support for the standard model. Neutrons emit photons when they decay,
and the top quark was found. I want to stick my tounge in a box. Who's excited? Lisa, laidback? Anyone else?
I've had a chance to sneek away and make a quick post.
The closest point of course!!!
Do the DSE in a rectangular box.
If the wave is absorbed and collapse on the sides of the box I would be inclined to believe that it expands as a sphere.
If the wave does not absorbed and collapse on the sides of the box it would require a further explanation.
jal
It expands as a cylinder! The box does too!
New support for the standard model. Neutrons emit photons when they decay,
and the top quark was found. I want to stick my tounge in a box. Who's excited? Lisa, laidback? Anyone else?
QUOTE (yquantum+Dec 24 2006, 01:27 AM)
Good Elf, hope all is well, "THEY" & "2", Duality/Lisa, jal, C2, Aerohead -welcome to a great post, TRoc, LL, Neil Farbstein best wishes in your company, wish you all the very best and hope I did not leave to many out, been gone awhile, et al.
Happy Holidays 2007 may it bring in a great year for us all.
ciao_
yquanutm
Information can tell us everything. It has all the answers. But they are answers to questions we have not asked, and which doubtless don’t even arise. This I know will not apply to anyone on this post I believe you have turned the DSE upside down.
"THEY"2, hope you have a wonderful Christmas and Happy New Year to you both.
Happy new year everyone!
Happy Holidays 2007 may it bring in a great year for us all.
ciao_
yquanutm
Information can tell us everything. It has all the answers. But they are answers to questions we have not asked, and which doubtless don’t even arise. This I know will not apply to anyone on this post I believe you have turned the DSE upside down.
"THEY"2, hope you have a wonderful Christmas and Happy New Year to you both.
Happy new year everyone!
Hi Neil (and of course Yquantum) et al,
The walls of a cylinder is one mapping but do not be too literal about this. I am excited about the interior resonant structure of Neutrons and of course all particles. There has been a theory for many years that all particles have interior structures (even all fermions) which are just the "dual" of the atomic bosonic state of individual particles ... the electron shells. I have been a big advocate of the "supersymmetry" of this "boson - fermion" duality. So too has the electron been conjectured to have "inner structure". There are arguments I have given here to suggest the same such as the "evanescent dipole magnetic field" and its ability to absorb photons into its inner structure as well. They are not "mainstream" but at least it is a "stream" of sorts. The Standard Model can tack anything on and so a triumph can be claimed every time something new turns up... a test of "Truth" must be... did it unequivocally predict this eventuality before there was any evidence as this being the sole solution to it's internal consistency??
Cheers
The walls of a cylinder is one mapping but do not be too literal about this. I am excited about the interior resonant structure of Neutrons and of course all particles. There has been a theory for many years that all particles have interior structures (even all fermions) which are just the "dual" of the atomic bosonic state of individual particles ... the electron shells. I have been a big advocate of the "supersymmetry" of this "boson - fermion" duality. So too has the electron been conjectured to have "inner structure". There are arguments I have given here to suggest the same such as the "evanescent dipole magnetic field" and its ability to absorb photons into its inner structure as well. They are not "mainstream" but at least it is a "stream" of sorts.
The Standard Model can tack anything on and so a triumph can be claimed every time something new turns up... a test of "Truth" must be... did it unequivocally predict this eventuality before there was any evidence as this being the sole solution to it's internal consistency??Cheers
Sometimes just gently rocking the cradle is all that is required.
Best wishes to all. C2.
Best wishes to all. C2.
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Dec 24 2006, 01:58 AM)
I want to stick my tounge in a box. Who's excited? Lisa, laidback? Anyone else?
Neil,
Lisa might be excited if you put your tongue in her box.
Neil,
Lisa might be excited if you put your tongue in her box.
boys will be boys
Hi Jal and All,
Now you are revisiting the issue that I have with the explanation of the dipole
radiating model. The "Seeks All Paths" analogy seems contradictory.
I totally agree that a photon wave travels along a spherical wavefront (planar
over large distances). I am not so sure how the spread of the dipole
"beamwidth" of a photon comes into play over distance. It depends upon the axis
of its polarity, how it is radiated from the source.
Herein lies the problem. The real DSE's that we have read about were conducted
in a rectangular enclosed "box" but the photon(s) did not collapse anywhere
along the blocking wall of the two slits or the center post, they went right thru
the only open cavities (the slits) and were projected onto the screen beyond
the wall. The spherical photon wavefronts did not collapse at the slit wall or
center post.
Part of the wavefronts reflected back toward the source and part of them
went thru the slits and interfered as shown on the screen.
If a spherical wavefront energy seeks all paths, part of its contained energy must also be
divisible. An expanding spherical wavefront should have collapsed at the nearest contact with matter, yet part of it continued on thru to the screen.
Is this implying that the wavefront energy has properties like water, or pressure in a
confined vessel, and always seeks the path of least resistance until it can proceed
no further?
But then, this scenario presents another problem. If the slits were located
at the ends of the walls rather than in the center, would the light propagate
thru them or collapse on the wall where the center of the beam (cylinder) is
directed.
IMO, beamwidth of the applied energy is a controlling/limiting factor.
The focal point (centerline) of the energy determines locality and limits
the spread of the photon's energy to that of the beam.
LL
QUOTE
The closest point of course!!!
Do the DSE in a rectangular box.
If the wave is absorbed and collapse on the sides of the box I would be inclined to believe that it expands as a sphere.
If the wave does not absorbed and collapse on the sides of the box it would require a further explanation.
Do the DSE in a rectangular box.
If the wave is absorbed and collapse on the sides of the box I would be inclined to believe that it expands as a sphere.
If the wave does not absorbed and collapse on the sides of the box it would require a further explanation.
Now you are revisiting the issue that I have with the explanation of the dipole
radiating model. The "Seeks All Paths" analogy seems contradictory.
I totally agree that a photon wave travels along a spherical wavefront (planar
over large distances). I am not so sure how the spread of the dipole
"beamwidth" of a photon comes into play over distance. It depends upon the axis
of its polarity, how it is radiated from the source.
Herein lies the problem. The real DSE's that we have read about were conducted
in a rectangular enclosed "box" but the photon(s) did not collapse anywhere
along the blocking wall of the two slits or the center post, they went right thru
the only open cavities (the slits) and were projected onto the screen beyond
the wall. The spherical photon wavefronts did not collapse at the slit wall or
center post.
Part of the wavefronts reflected back toward the source and part of them
went thru the slits and interfered as shown on the screen.
If a spherical wavefront energy seeks all paths, part of its contained energy must also be
divisible. An expanding spherical wavefront should have collapsed at the nearest contact with matter, yet part of it continued on thru to the screen.
Is this implying that the wavefront energy has properties like water, or pressure in a
confined vessel, and always seeks the path of least resistance until it can proceed
no further?
But then, this scenario presents another problem. If the slits were located
at the ends of the walls rather than in the center, would the light propagate
thru them or collapse on the wall where the center of the beam (cylinder) is
directed.
IMO, beamwidth of the applied energy is a controlling/limiting factor.
The focal point (centerline) of the energy determines locality and limits
the spread of the photon's energy to that of the beam.
LL
Open cavities .... slits?.... could this be where Farbstein's tongue is at the mo'?
Good Elf and All,
I think it is an individuals "right" to question authority. I have often found that
"authoritarian" thinkers were locked into a self imposed closed box of rigid
inflexibility which limited their options..... Call me a rebel.
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. How true!
There have literaly been tens of thousands of highly educated individuals that were
trained in "traditional" physics and were successful disciples in their chosen
career fields. Then there are a handful who theoretically delve deeper into the
abyss of the unknown, looking for solutions. Some theories move physics
ahead, incrementally, while others hinder progress because they offer
"theoretical detours" that lead in the wrong direction or to a dead end.
There have been many "solutions", most of them wrong. Very few got it right, to
some limited degree. Those few are Nobel laureates. There is still no unifying,
perfect theory or all encompassing model. There may never be, because of all
the potential variables that affect the possible solutions.
In the end, the proof is in the pudding! We must decide if the proposed theoretical
"solutions" are real or just time wasting detours.
Never underestimate the capability of the human mind, to propose the correct
solution, even if it comes from unconventional, non-traditional perspectives.
When one thinks he knows everything, he will soon be humbled, once he
finds out just what he doesn't know. Like I said before it only takes one
spark, one idea, one comment, that might ignite a new spontaneous
way of solving a complicated problem. The trick is knowing how to identify,
develop, and use that spark. The other approach is to stamp it out, and limit
the possibilites and opportunities that it presents.
Regards,
LL
I think it is an individuals "right" to question authority. I have often found that
"authoritarian" thinkers were locked into a self imposed closed box of rigid
inflexibility which limited their options..... Call me a rebel.
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. How true!
There have literaly been tens of thousands of highly educated individuals that were
trained in "traditional" physics and were successful disciples in their chosen
career fields. Then there are a handful who theoretically delve deeper into the
abyss of the unknown, looking for solutions. Some theories move physics
ahead, incrementally, while others hinder progress because they offer
"theoretical detours" that lead in the wrong direction or to a dead end.
There have been many "solutions", most of them wrong. Very few got it right, to
some limited degree. Those few are Nobel laureates. There is still no unifying,
perfect theory or all encompassing model. There may never be, because of all
the potential variables that affect the possible solutions.
In the end, the proof is in the pudding! We must decide if the proposed theoretical
"solutions" are real or just time wasting detours.
Never underestimate the capability of the human mind, to propose the correct
solution, even if it comes from unconventional, non-traditional perspectives.
When one thinks he knows everything, he will soon be humbled, once he
finds out just what he doesn't know. Like I said before it only takes one
spark, one idea, one comment, that might ignite a new spontaneous
way of solving a complicated problem. The trick is knowing how to identify,
develop, and use that spark. The other approach is to stamp it out, and limit
the possibilites and opportunities that it presents.
Regards,
LL
Hi Laserlight et al,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Like I said before it only takes one spark, one idea, one comment, that might ignite a new spontaneous way of solving a complicated problem. The trick is knowing how to identify, develop, and use that spark. The other approach is to stamp it out, and limit the possibilities and opportunities that it presents.
The one "sure" thing about Physics is you can always test it because it is grounded in "natural" processes. That is the real meaning of Physics as aside from "Pure Mathematics". You can find a bogus Theory every time when you can't test the underlying Process, there are many Theories that can fall for this error. The best theory always wins ... it is the one that answers the most questions while still still remaining testable. No exceptions and no excuses. The criterion is not how accurate the Theory is but how many questions it can answer.
There is one other small thing I would add (and this is personal)... it must be humanly relevant. This is because humans must stay within the process to retain meaning for humankind. The moment this evolving process ceases to be progressed by mankind is the moment mankind ceases to be of any further use to the Universe that created it. If in the next moment we have no answers and our species "blinked out of existence" nothing and nobody would care. It is actually down to mankind itself to choose the relevance and meaning, that is actually our own individual purpose, all the rest is already there waiting for us.
Cheers
There is one other small thing I would add (and this is personal)... it must be humanly relevant. This is because humans must stay within the process to retain meaning for humankind. The moment this evolving process ceases to be progressed by mankind is the moment mankind ceases to be of any further use to the Universe that created it. If in the next moment we have no answers and our species "blinked out of existence" nothing and nobody would care. It is actually down to mankind itself to choose the relevance and meaning, that is actually our own individual purpose, all the rest is already there waiting for us.
Cheers
GE,
Can you imagine the wonder and amazement that Einstein, Bohr, Faraday,
Newton, and a host of other physics pioneers would have, seeing what their original
ideas, concepts, and proofs have wrought? They had no frame of reference
just curiosity about the fine details of how the natural world works.
In the historical scheme of things, from original theory to the point of useful
adaptation, to create a "product" from the idea, has taken 40-50 years until the
1950's. Now, from theoretical proof til commercial adaptation takes 10-15
years. With the advent of complex computer systems and manufacturing prowess,
that should drop to 5 years in the not too distant future.
To put things in perspective, my grandparents grew up with the horse as the
main mode of transportation. The airplane had not yet been invented, nor
the radio, there were no paved roads and cars were just curiosities....just think of the "progress" that has occured in 3 generations. Now think of how much
technological progress will occur in 3 more generations.
My point being, that in reality, the human race has not been at this game for
very long, and look how far we have come technologically. Socially, as
a species, we are not much more "civilized" than we were 2000 years ago.
We just have different values. Now, if our "humanity" could just catch up with
our technical prowess.....
LL
Can you imagine the wonder and amazement that Einstein, Bohr, Faraday,
Newton, and a host of other physics pioneers would have, seeing what their original
ideas, concepts, and proofs have wrought? They had no frame of reference
just curiosity about the fine details of how the natural world works.
In the historical scheme of things, from original theory to the point of useful
adaptation, to create a "product" from the idea, has taken 40-50 years until the
1950's. Now, from theoretical proof til commercial adaptation takes 10-15
years. With the advent of complex computer systems and manufacturing prowess,
that should drop to 5 years in the not too distant future.
To put things in perspective, my grandparents grew up with the horse as the
main mode of transportation. The airplane had not yet been invented, nor
the radio, there were no paved roads and cars were just curiosities....just think of the "progress" that has occured in 3 generations. Now think of how much
technological progress will occur in 3 more generations.
My point being, that in reality, the human race has not been at this game for
very long, and look how far we have come technologically. Socially, as
a species, we are not much more "civilized" than we were 2000 years ago.
We just have different values. Now, if our "humanity" could just catch up with
our technical prowess.....
LL
Hi All,
When an electron shifts to a lower energy level in an atom (Laser, whatever) we expect a photon to be emitted. You could call it a dipole if you really really insisted ..no point in arguing.
We know E = pc . Momentum must have a direction .. there must be a recoil in the opposite direction. Or has it already gone wrong long before we even start to look at what happens after the slits?
Best wishes,
-C2.
When an electron shifts to a lower energy level in an atom (Laser, whatever) we expect a photon to be emitted. You could call it a dipole if you really really insisted ..no point in arguing.
We know E = pc . Momentum must have a direction .. there must be a recoil in the opposite direction. Or has it already gone wrong long before we even start to look at what happens after the slits?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Yquantum et al,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
When an electron shifts to a lower energy level in an atom (Laser, whatever) we expect a photon to be emitted. You could call it a dipole if you really really insisted ..no point in arguing.
I am not arguing. What I am saying is when an electron "jumps" from one "orbit" (state) to another it is "similar" to you "jumping" from the top of a table down to the floor. What happens is an impulse. It is no coincidence that in truly natural units the units of Planck's Constant h are in units of impulse (Joule X seconds). This impulse is universally describable as this...
These are the time and frequency domain of the same process (in fact every process in which an impulse is the cause). It just so happens this is the same function we see with photons.
In dipole radiation we are simply emitting copious quantities of photons using "stimulated emission" but "atomically" each photon emission "mechanism" is this simple "jump". I have shown with my construction how these separate "impulses" are "stitched together to form a Coherent Continuous Wave Emission... a Boson Wave.
This is modeled on the sync function, and it can only be a sync function of sorts. The only material difference is this impulse has "electromagnetic" consequences. My simplified diagrams do not show this electric and coupled magnetic influences for the benefit of pure simplicity. The impulse response of the "membrane of our Universe" is this "electromagnetism". Everything else follows.... This includes all quantization since all photons and all quantum processes involve this "temporal truncation".
The next question is turn your attention to the electric field lines and physically their extent around a dipole source of radiation. They expand on the surface of a sphere. This is not theoretical, it is a practical consequence of dipole emission be they from the electronic shells of individual atoms or the 100 ft masts of Long-wave Audio Broadcast. Now arrays of emitters may modify the directionality of this "multiple source" but the atomic source remains as the primary means of emission and is the basis of all the other treatments. You can have passive or active arrays of emitters which "direct" and select or even steer the "beam" but each primary receptor or transmitter is still a dipole radiator/absorber. This goes also from Laser sources too.
This is the "Big Picture". Everyone is focusing on the "Little Pictures" and not seeing the woods for the trees.
These are the time and frequency domain of the same process (in fact every process in which an impulse is the cause). It just so happens this is the same function we see with photons.
In dipole radiation we are simply emitting copious quantities of photons using "stimulated emission" but "atomically" each photon emission "mechanism" is this simple "jump". I have shown with my construction how these separate "impulses" are "stitched together to form a Coherent Continuous Wave Emission... a Boson Wave.
This is modeled on the sync function, and it can only be a sync function of sorts. The only material difference is this impulse has "electromagnetic" consequences. My simplified diagrams do not show this electric and coupled magnetic influences for the benefit of pure simplicity. The impulse response of the "membrane of our Universe" is this "electromagnetism". Everything else follows.... This includes all quantization since all photons and all quantum processes involve this "temporal truncation".
The next question is turn your attention to the electric field lines and physically their extent around a dipole source of radiation. They expand on the surface of a sphere. This is not theoretical, it is a practical consequence of dipole emission be they from the electronic shells of individual atoms or the 100 ft masts of Long-wave Audio Broadcast. Now arrays of emitters may modify the directionality of this "multiple source" but the atomic source remains as the primary means of emission and is the basis of all the other treatments. You can have passive or active arrays of emitters which "direct" and select or even steer the "beam" but each primary receptor or transmitter is still a dipole radiator/absorber. This goes also from Laser sources too.
This is the "Big Picture". Everyone is focusing on the "Little Pictures" and not seeing the woods for the trees.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I totally agree that a photon wave travels along a spherical wavefront (planar over large distances). I am not so sure how the spread of the dipole "beam-width" of a photon comes into play over distance. It depends upon the axis of its polarity, how it is radiated from the source.
Laserlight is right we have "launched electromagnetic waves" inside "cavities". A little "expedition" in to coherent phased arrays would reveal all. Thus we can have "Synthetic Aperture" sources which can "scan" a landscape producing millimeter resolution imagery using a vastly more complex type of "Fraunhofer multiple phased array". These are all "details".
Check out Sandia Labs and see just how fine a detailed image can be "constructed" with these complex sources but at the bottom of all this is a simple dipole. These images can resolve phase and dimensional data in three dimensions in a reverse holographic process.
Check out Sandia Labs and see just how fine a detailed image can be "constructed" with these complex sources but at the bottom of all this is a simple dipole. These images can resolve phase and dimensional data in three dimensions in a reverse holographic process.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Herein lies the problem. The real DSE's that we have read about were conducted in a rectangular enclosed "box" but the photon(s) did not collapse anywhere along the blocking wall of the two slits or the center post, they went right thru the only open cavities (the slits) and were projected onto the screen beyond the wall. The spherical photon wavefronts did not collapse at the slit wall or center post.
Part of the wavefronts reflected back toward the source and part of them went thru the slits and interfered as shown on the screen.
If a spherical wavefront energy seeks all paths, part of its contained energy must also be divisible. An expanding spherical wavefront should have collapsed at the nearest contact with matter, yet part of it continued on thru to the screen.
Is this implying that the wavefront energy has properties like water, or pressure in a
confined vessel, and always seeks the path of least resistance until it can proceed
no further?
Part of the wavefronts reflected back toward the source and part of them went thru the slits and interfered as shown on the screen.
If a spherical wavefront energy seeks all paths, part of its contained energy must also be divisible. An expanding spherical wavefront should have collapsed at the nearest contact with matter, yet part of it continued on thru to the screen.
Is this implying that the wavefront energy has properties like water, or pressure in a
confined vessel, and always seeks the path of least resistance until it can proceed
no further?
All external "collapsed" photons pay no part in the final screen image. In actual fact if you used not slits but two single tiny circular apertures you would see the camera obscura effect and that would show the original sources far far away not just "at the slit", the real meaning of this for you is to still be grasped. The photons can tunnel through a lot of a "system" and will not "collapse" just because there is an obstacle in the way like the center bar of the two slit experiment. In fact it must be significantly thick in order to interfere with the wave. In fact in specifically constructed experiments in theory a thick bar of steel can be made "transparent" to a particular frequency of incident light and the bar or wall would appear "transparent" at the window frequency allowing the light through without any "interference". In that special circumstance you would not have any DSE. This is called Electromagnetically Induced Transparency. It will not happen by simply waiting for it, you must invoke a special set of circumstances to "force" nature to behave "atypically".
Wikipedia: Electromagnetically induced transparency
You could theoretically tunnel clean though any barrier ... even space itself... and it has been demonstrated using the new meta-materials. Look up Optical anti-matter. This is similar to the tunneling you have already seen on this thread.
Light's Most Exotic Trick Yet: So Fast it Goes ... Backwards?
This same trick can and has been done with Negative Refractive Index Materials. Forget all the technical details there are simple explanations for all this. Alright the light partially goes backwards but the result is it "jumps" the "block of negative refractive material" as if two points are joined across space by a very short path. This is because there really is no such thing as "matter" just electromagnetism and the virtual photons as the "forces". Every force and all phenomena can be brought within a single description... this is "for want of a better word"... optics.
Even solid matter is just "optics", like "quantum mirages". All this has been proposed as an alternative to "conventional" particle teleportation by Pendry, without the need for particle duplication, and can be shown already in existing optical systems. Look up my references on the Aharanov-Bohm Effect. You can see from the "movie" the speed of transport is "very high"... he he he! What photons can do so can particles (mostly) - the main obstacle is the particle's mass. Nothing I am saying here is new or novel... What is "new" is I am saying this is the basis of a Non-Classical Optical Theory of Everything.
Wikipedia: Electromagnetically induced transparency
You could theoretically tunnel clean though any barrier ... even space itself... and it has been demonstrated using the new meta-materials. Look up Optical anti-matter. This is similar to the tunneling you have already seen on this thread.
Light's Most Exotic Trick Yet: So Fast it Goes ... Backwards?
This same trick can and has been done with Negative Refractive Index Materials. Forget all the technical details there are simple explanations for all this. Alright the light partially goes backwards but the result is it "jumps" the "block of negative refractive material" as if two points are joined across space by a very short path. This is because there really is no such thing as "matter" just electromagnetism and the virtual photons as the "forces". Every force and all phenomena can be brought within a single description... this is "for want of a better word"... optics.
Even solid matter is just "optics", like "quantum mirages". All this has been proposed as an alternative to "conventional" particle teleportation by Pendry, without the need for particle duplication, and can be shown already in existing optical systems. Look up my references on the Aharanov-Bohm Effect. You can see from the "movie" the speed of transport is "very high"... he he he! What photons can do so can particles (mostly) - the main obstacle is the particle's mass. Nothing I am saying here is new or novel... What is "new" is I am saying this is the basis of a Non-Classical Optical Theory of Everything.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
[...]If a spherical wavefront energy seeks all paths, part of its contained energy must also be divisible.[...]
This is the error. Photons interfere with themselves and no others.. they are not splittable... causality prevents this. Photons cannot be usually split up or divide except in special "scattering" situations such as in BBO Crystals... there are always exceptions but never make the exception the rule.. think of the "exceptions" like "loopholes" in Civil Law... they are there for those who know they are there to use to their advantage. "Loopholes" are not "accidents" and they exist as part of a whole that most people usually are not able to harness. In our "practical" society Criminal Law sometimes frees the guilty and incarcerates the innocent, if used badly (and it often is). It all hinges on "The Knowledge" and using it in the way it was originally intended. With Science it is the same thing... everyone knows "Science" but to most it incarcerates them and to those who know where the "loopholes" are it sets them free. I believe this has a "moral" dimension. We build our own Jails and then we slam the doors behind us. This is as it should be otherwise Scientific Knowledge would enable unworthy groups to harness great power against the innocent. As Stan Lee once said ... "With great power comes great responsibility"... there are also penalties for ignoring this aphorism.
The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing
Believe me ... he sure "knows" about "trouble"....
Cheers
QUOTE
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. — Mark Twain
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. — Mark Twain |
The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing
Believe me ... he sure "knows" about "trouble"....
Cheers
Merry Christmas GE, C2, TRoc, and ALL!
GE, we are not talking about Electromagnetically Induced Transparency with
the frequencies at which the DSE experiments are being conducted. There is
nothing "transparent" except for the open area of the slits.
IMO, you are skirting the issues that I raised about the spherical wavefront
"exploring all paths" but not immediately collapsing upon interacting with matter.
I know that a definitive explanation would solve the dilemma and answer the
questions that science has been trying to solve since the DSE was first
scientifically observed.
A "directionalized" beam of energy, with a spherical wavefront, is developed
around an energy centerline vector. The entire EM field propagates evenly along
this "zero" polarity reference line which is the direction of travel. The only
place the EM energy can "collapse" is exactly on the vector centerline when
its direction of travel is obstructed by opaque matter, where its energy can be
absorbed and converted to another form (frequency) of EM energy.
This is the point of "collapse" of the original waveform. A new waveform is
propagated upon absorption, typically as an IR photon in a black body, or at a
different wavelength, plus IR, depending upon the atomic structure of the matter
absorbing the applied energy.
My point being that, a spherical wave front will only collapse along the centerline
of the direction of propagation, but a wavefront can be "distorted", as evidenced
by a wave being able to diffract or "go around" corners, or small obstructions,
that are within the confines of the beam EM profile.
This is what I mean regarding the energy of the photon being "divisible". The
EM fields can be "distorted", depending upon the wavelength of the photon.
If the EM field distortion is not severe enough to cause total wavefunction collapse,
the waveform will "reconstruct" its normal electrical and magnetic fields. It
will maintain the same frequency, but it may have diminished energy amplitude,
and it might exhibit a phase shift under the right conditions.
JMHO.
Regards,
LL
GE, we are not talking about Electromagnetically Induced Transparency with
the frequencies at which the DSE experiments are being conducted. There is
nothing "transparent" except for the open area of the slits.
IMO, you are skirting the issues that I raised about the spherical wavefront
"exploring all paths" but not immediately collapsing upon interacting with matter.
I know that a definitive explanation would solve the dilemma and answer the
questions that science has been trying to solve since the DSE was first
scientifically observed.
A "directionalized" beam of energy, with a spherical wavefront, is developed
around an energy centerline vector. The entire EM field propagates evenly along
this "zero" polarity reference line which is the direction of travel. The only
place the EM energy can "collapse" is exactly on the vector centerline when
its direction of travel is obstructed by opaque matter, where its energy can be
absorbed and converted to another form (frequency) of EM energy.
This is the point of "collapse" of the original waveform. A new waveform is
propagated upon absorption, typically as an IR photon in a black body, or at a
different wavelength, plus IR, depending upon the atomic structure of the matter
absorbing the applied energy.
My point being that, a spherical wave front will only collapse along the centerline
of the direction of propagation, but a wavefront can be "distorted", as evidenced
by a wave being able to diffract or "go around" corners, or small obstructions,
that are within the confines of the beam EM profile.
This is what I mean regarding the energy of the photon being "divisible". The
EM fields can be "distorted", depending upon the wavelength of the photon.
If the EM field distortion is not severe enough to cause total wavefunction collapse,
the waveform will "reconstruct" its normal electrical and magnetic fields. It
will maintain the same frequency, but it may have diminished energy amplitude,
and it might exhibit a phase shift under the right conditions.
JMHO.
Regards,
LL
Hi Laserlight,Good Elf,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
My point being that, a spherical wave front will only collapse along the centerline
of the direction of propagation,
The experimental result here http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif does show the photon counts for a single slit .. the result is fairly trivial and suggests the number of photons counted is a simple function of the classical diffraction explanation except 'intensity' has been replaced by counts. We could (you might object) suggest that the 'intensity' of an EM wave at a point IS the number of photons that will be counted at that point. We see that photons are not just found in the full ahead direction.
With both slits open the situation is more complicated (!) ..
The photon count still follows the 'classical wavefront' intensity (allowing for interference) .. but the interference is not just between a single wavefront from slit A and the same wavefront from slit B... they each interfere with any wavefront from the other slit .. by doing this they continue to suggest that the photon count is the same thing as the 'intensity' of an EM wave. We might suggest (many people do) that the classical concept of 'intensity' of a classical EM wave simply tells you where you are most likely to detect a photon. Since we don't know where the photon will be detected we have to wait and see. Once the photon is detected it canot be detected anywhere else .. hence the use of the words 'collapse of the wavefunction(-psi)' .. the 'collapse' is the removal of the probability of the photon being detected anywhere else .. it is unclear what you mean by 'collapse'.
Good Elf seeks to avoid wavefunction(-psi) collapse by suggesting the intensity map is already set up in advance and each photon has a property (from the start) that disposes it to choose one path from the many available to it.
To find what options are available all paths must be 'explored' in some way .. Good Elf has attempted to explain how this can be done in advance but seems to have a problem finding suitable walls to establish a standing wave solution for the real photons to follow. The other 'exploring' option is to accept that it MUST have happened to explain the results .. well that would be just another starting point if we wanted one.
Best wishes (happy Xmas)
-C2.
of the direction of propagation,
The experimental result here http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif does show the photon counts for a single slit .. the result is fairly trivial and suggests the number of photons counted is a simple function of the classical diffraction explanation except 'intensity' has been replaced by counts. We could (you might object) suggest that the 'intensity' of an EM wave at a point IS the number of photons that will be counted at that point. We see that photons are not just found in the full ahead direction.
With both slits open the situation is more complicated (!) ..
The photon count still follows the 'classical wavefront' intensity (allowing for interference) .. but the interference is not just between a single wavefront from slit A and the same wavefront from slit B... they each interfere with any wavefront from the other slit .. by doing this they continue to suggest that the photon count is the same thing as the 'intensity' of an EM wave. We might suggest (many people do) that the classical concept of 'intensity' of a classical EM wave simply tells you where you are most likely to detect a photon. Since we don't know where the photon will be detected we have to wait and see. Once the photon is detected it canot be detected anywhere else .. hence the use of the words 'collapse of the wavefunction(-psi)' .. the 'collapse' is the removal of the probability of the photon being detected anywhere else .. it is unclear what you mean by 'collapse'.
Good Elf seeks to avoid wavefunction(-psi) collapse by suggesting the intensity map is already set up in advance and each photon has a property (from the start) that disposes it to choose one path from the many available to it.
To find what options are available all paths must be 'explored' in some way .. Good Elf has attempted to explain how this can be done in advance but seems to have a problem finding suitable walls to establish a standing wave solution for the real photons to follow. The other 'exploring' option is to accept that it MUST have happened to explain the results .. well that would be just another starting point if we wanted one.
Best wishes (happy Xmas)
-C2.
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
GE, we are not talking about Electromagnetically Induced Transparency with
the frequencies at which the DSE experiments are being conducted. There is
nothing "transparent" except for the open area of the slits.
the frequencies at which the DSE experiments are being conducted. There is
nothing "transparent" except for the open area of the slits.
True... just emphasizing that the existence of barriers of "matter" is a very strong "illusion". It may take considerable technical expertize to dispel that "illusion".
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
IMO, you are skirting the issues that I raised about the spherical wavefront "exploring all paths" but not immediately collapsing upon interacting with matter.
Consider all the surface atoms of the cavity only one atom and one shell is capable of actually absorbing that photon... if a number of photons are already been absorbed they will stay absorbed for a small fraction of time. That is enough to ensure that most sites are actually "filled" along the direct line. If the photon is not actually a "bullet" traveling through the space of the cavity like in some of those stupid animations then I maintain the photon is still in "quantum space" where nothing really changes, still in a stationary state. The diffraction without loss of the qubit "costs nothing" only interactions which rob the photon of the qubit "cost anything" and so until it loses its qubit it is totally untouched. This is the experimental fact. If a photon undergoes interaction it must lose its original qubit then it will simply not take part in the ordered process of interference "fringing". That is a bottom line, there is no compromise, a photon can't interact and take part in fringes it is a quantum law you must accept and it is entirely logical. The qubit contains the phase information that is needed to connect it to the original source. The connection to the original source is linked with the standing waves. The optical distortion is simply that... a distortion in optics.
A short time after absorption the photon may re-emit as light ... that is what we are seeing as observers... the tiny flash. It no longer has the original qubit and this light is now "diffuse". The effect of the qubit can be seen as the image in the screen... a residual of the information. If instead of two small apertures there was only one this would show that image with its colors and form. Since we have two "correlated" sources then they will interfere. It makes sense to reduce the source to a point source and of a single frequency. In such cases you get the experiment that Thomas Young performed. Correlation will occur naturally due to the ordering process I have mentioned previously. It is better to use a relatively pure source with the correlation built in but that is entirely incidental to the original experiment.
Naturally if you can believe me when I say that the wave phenomena is actually "not" the photon but simply a shadow from higher dimensions of the deBroglie "stationary state" then each photon is propagating "one at a time" as a sync pulse expanding on the surface of a sphere at the speed of light, just one little ripple at a time, on and through the slits... It is in the seek all paths mode, a wave only. Its crest strikes a large portion of the screen, not actually being absorbed but able to penetrate as much as a wavelength into the surface. Somewhere a suitable site will be found depending on some dynamic of the original emission at source. While all photons on the one crest move as one in the boson state they are still dynamically individuals. Remember the eye of the hurricane analogy. That center for all the photons on this crest must be distributed according to specific phase rotation as if on the surface of a sphere. This is the Berry Phase.
A short time after absorption the photon may re-emit as light ... that is what we are seeing as observers... the tiny flash. It no longer has the original qubit and this light is now "diffuse". The effect of the qubit can be seen as the image in the screen... a residual of the information. If instead of two small apertures there was only one this would show that image with its colors and form. Since we have two "correlated" sources then they will interfere. It makes sense to reduce the source to a point source and of a single frequency. In such cases you get the experiment that Thomas Young performed. Correlation will occur naturally due to the ordering process I have mentioned previously. It is better to use a relatively pure source with the correlation built in but that is entirely incidental to the original experiment.
Naturally if you can believe me when I say that the wave phenomena is actually "not" the photon but simply a shadow from higher dimensions of the deBroglie "stationary state" then each photon is propagating "one at a time" as a sync pulse expanding on the surface of a sphere at the speed of light, just one little ripple at a time, on and through the slits... It is in the seek all paths mode, a wave only. Its crest strikes a large portion of the screen, not actually being absorbed but able to penetrate as much as a wavelength into the surface. Somewhere a suitable site will be found depending on some dynamic of the original emission at source. While all photons on the one crest move as one in the boson state they are still dynamically individuals. Remember the eye of the hurricane analogy. That center for all the photons on this crest must be distributed according to specific phase rotation as if on the surface of a sphere. This is the Berry Phase.
QUOTE (Wikipedia: Geometric Phase+)
Any ''vector'' object which is parallel-transported along a path back to the original place, may acquire an angle with respect to its initial direction prior to transport. This angle is a geometric property. Here, I illustrate (at a fairly elementary level) the basics and a few selected consequences of this almost ubiquitous phenomenon. [...] The reason for this rotation is purely geometrical-topological. In fact, it is connected to the intrinsic curvature of the sphere. No such phenomenon would appear if vectors are parallel-transported along a flat manifold, such as a plane or a cylinder. The rotation angle is in fact related to the integral of the curvature on the surface bounded by the loop.
http://www.mi.infm.it/manini/berryphase.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_phase
http://www.mi.infm.it/manini/berryphase.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_phase
This "phase" is due to optical rotations in the "cavity" time and time again parallel transporting the vector around a loop as in spin... over and over until the dice being rolled so many times they can be analyzed using the Monte-Carlo method. These relate back to the isospin and orbital angular quantum numbers. This can be simply put as inflicting a nett transverse "kick" to the source such that some component of momentum of the photon becomes transverse to the slit. This does not affect the scalar plane image. What it means is this "center" is deflected randomly (as far as we can determine) through a phase angle from the direct path. This is exactly what the Feynman Many-Paths method is able to simulate.
Optical Analog of Uncertainty Principle This is the "dumbed down" version of this story for "undergrads" but is "partially true".
Optical Analog of Uncertainty Principle This is the "dumbed down" version of this story for "undergrads" but is "partially true".
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
It will maintain the same frequency, but it may have diminished energy amplitude, and it might exhibit a phase shift under the right conditions.
JMHO.
JMHO.
No energy loss EVER in photons that partake in the diffraction pattern... just check this point out and you will need to accept that experiment and theory are at one with this most important point.
Think of this as if the photon "wave" in their own frame of reference "appear" to be like expanding "beachballs" that has a printed surface pattern and not like "pancakes" as I see them from our frame of reference, then this is like rolling that "ball" around "en route" and it finally coming up with a pattern "on top" depending on the path that it took to get there.. The photon still has the same energy but the center of the pattern is in a physically different rotation than the "straight through path".
Cheers
Think of this as if the photon "wave" in their own frame of reference "appear" to be like expanding "beachballs" that has a printed surface pattern and not like "pancakes" as I see them from our frame of reference, then this is like rolling that "ball" around "en route" and it finally coming up with a pattern "on top" depending on the path that it took to get there.. The photon still has the same energy but the center of the pattern is in a physically different rotation than the "straight through path".
Cheers
Sorry.. I should have put in a reference to wavefunction(-psi) collapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse -C2.
Sorry GE ..
Please disregard mny comments about GE setting up his waves in advance .. he states his case in the post before this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse -C2.
Sorry GE ..
Please disregard mny comments about GE setting up his waves in advance .. he states his case in the post before this one.
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
We could (you might object) suggest that the 'intensity' of an EM wave at a point IS the number of photons that will be counted at that point. We see that photons are not just found in the full ahead direction.
No objection, I welcome it. All I would say is you have now identified the electromagnetic fields with the quantum uncertain numbers of psi squared for many particles. That means that that pretty blue picture with the expanding "pancakes" is a measure of the quantum waves position for each and every "coherent" photon.
Now if the electric field loops are as shown then the photons are also as shown... just that they can co-habit the same space. This is "good" since it admits that there is a classical equivalent to the quantum result. Now I realize this method of analysis is difficult but it admits more data to analyse. But if we have a one to one mapping of the wave, and its "pancakes", to the expanding photon "shadow" in our physical space we have made huge progress. The matter of just where the photon ends up is given by the discussion of Berry Phase in my previous post... Not that I would actually know in an individual case exactly which photon ends where since any physical measurement will critically alter this parameter and lead to "dephasing".
Another analogy of Berry Phase is a spinning top forced to execute an irregular path (different paths) across a hemispherical depression. The final "tilt" of the axis will depend on the path taken even if the top ends up on the same final spot. This is in a totally conserved system where no energy is actually lost (at least in theory). I would also point out Berry Phase is a "Classical Parameter" and is also critical to understanding such phenomena as Aharanov-Bohm Geometric Phase Effect actually being demonstrated. This "sphere" and its attendant Berry Phase is a Universal Global Phenomena... a "dislocation" that effects "everywhere" in our Universe.
Cheers
Now if the electric field loops are as shown then the photons are also as shown... just that they can co-habit the same space. This is "good" since it admits that there is a classical equivalent to the quantum result. Now I realize this method of analysis is difficult but it admits more data to analyse. But if we have a one to one mapping of the wave, and its "pancakes", to the expanding photon "shadow" in our physical space we have made huge progress. The matter of just where the photon ends up is given by the discussion of Berry Phase in my previous post... Not that I would actually know in an individual case exactly which photon ends where since any physical measurement will critically alter this parameter and lead to "dephasing".
Another analogy of Berry Phase is a spinning top forced to execute an irregular path (different paths) across a hemispherical depression. The final "tilt" of the axis will depend on the path taken even if the top ends up on the same final spot. This is in a totally conserved system where no energy is actually lost (at least in theory). I would also point out Berry Phase is a "Classical Parameter" and is also critical to understanding such phenomena as Aharanov-Bohm Geometric Phase Effect actually being demonstrated. This "sphere" and its attendant Berry Phase is a Universal Global Phenomena... a "dislocation" that effects "everywhere" in our Universe.
Cheers
Hi GE,LL et al,
I have to go and enjoy Christmas with as much 'good grace' as I can muster. My wife wants me 'off the net' for a while. Rats!
Best to all,
-C2.
I have to go and enjoy Christmas with as much 'good grace' as I can muster. My wife wants me 'off the net' for a while. Rats!
Best to all,
-C2.
Hi Confused2,
Merry Xmas and have a good time. I will be back and we can discuss these points later.
That goes for everyone, time to call a break. Down here in Australia we are having a White Christmas in Victoria... this is pretty crazy stuff at this time of the year. Even elves may need to rug up if this strange weather spreads. It is the height of midsummer here... He he he!
Xmas Cheers to all
Merry Xmas and have a good time. I will be back and we can discuss these points later.
That goes for everyone, time to call a break. Down here in Australia we are having a White Christmas in Victoria... this is pretty crazy stuff at this time of the year. Even elves may need to rug up if this strange weather spreads.
It is the height of midsummer here... He he he!Xmas Cheers to all
Hi GE and C2, I think we are the only ones online today.
GE
Ok, now we are getting to the "meat" of the issue. We have finally skinned this
"critter". I had stated this photon "phase rotation" orientation in a post many
weeks ago and you seemed to not accept the idea. Each photon in an expanding
wavefront is at a slightly different phase timing orientation due to timing and
proximity delays from the original atomic matrix that propagated it. It is the photon emission "latency" issue.
I will post some commentary that I have been keeping in reserve, a bit later.
Ok, now we are getting to the "meat" of the issue. We have finally skinned this
"critter". I had stated this photon "phase rotation" orientation in a post many
weeks ago and you seemed to not accept the idea. Each photon in an expanding
wavefront is at a slightly different phase timing orientation due to timing and
proximity delays from the original atomic matrix that propagated it. It is the photon emission "latency" issue.
I will post some commentary that I have been keeping in reserve, a bit later.
If a photon undergoes interaction it must lose its original qubit then it will simply not take part in the ordered process of interference "fringing". That is a bottom line, there is no compromise, a photon can't interact and take part in fringes it is a quantum law you must accept and it is entirely logical. The qubit contains the phase information that is needed to connect it to the original source. The connection to the original source is linked with the standing waves. The optical distortion is simply that... a distortion in optics.
I think that only when a photon undergoes a total wave collapse, where the E and
B fields lose their mutual regenerative propagation capabilities, is where a photon
is converted into another EM form and is absorbed (detected).
Perhaps we should "test" this statement with a couple of "gedanken" experiments.
Let me set the scenarios.
Photons arranged in a fixed timing relative "pattern" have been travelling,
unimpeded, for billions of years thru the vacuum of space. Now consider that
there is an optical telescope, here on earth, that is observing the light arriving
from that far away galaxy. The qubit (timing, phase, and position) information
travels thru the cavity of the lens of the telescope with minimal distortion, even though the
photon has interacted with the matter and changed direction while passing thru
the lens. The energies of the arriving photons have been "modified" but not
absorbed. They maintained their EM wavefunction integrities and qubit information.
The arriving photons have been collected, focused, and concentrated into an
image that represents the original, but on a vastly smaller scale. If there were
another telescope immediately next to the 1st it would observe the exact same
image with the exact same wavefronts and the cubit information that they
contain. Massive array telescopes use a similar technique to improve resolutions
and maximize the concentration/amplification of arriving photons.
2nd scenario: A radio wave (photon), with a wavelength 10 meters long, is
propagating its wavefront from a dipole antenna. The transmitted RF photon energy
from the same wavefront can be received by multiple receiving antennas. The
wavefunction did not completely collapse, some of the energy continued on
and was received at a later relative time and phase reference. The wavefront
did not totally collapse, except that portion of EM energy that was resonating
in the tuned cavity of the antenna.
In the case of linearly "staggered" antennas, each successive dipole antenna receives a
reduced portion of the total energy being propagated in the wavefront because
a portion of it was absorbed in preceding antennas. The wavefront has lost
amplitude from the first antenna to the last antenna. The signal was attenuated
by losses. Same photon wavefront, same frequency, but a different power
amplitude.
So a photon's energy can be "divided" without a total collapse of the wavefunction
taking place.
Standing waves are a cavity phase, and timing, effect. As we know, waves that
are constructive, add their energies together. Those that are out of phase
cancel the portion of the energy that is out of phase. The constructive and
destructive interference is observed at the detector, but the phase relationship
is established enroute via the DSE or a lens/mirror array. A lens, a mirror,
or multiple slits changes the relative timing of the EM phasing of photons but
do not collapse their wavefunctions or change their frequency, they just modify their timing relationships.
Not sure that I totally agree with this. The energy of a "photon" can be
attenuated, while still maintainting the same frequency. It just has a lower
energy db level. Any time that energy and matter interact there will be some
losses usually in the form of IR or signal scattering due to atomic phase
mismatches. A photon pulse, propagating thru a fiberoptic cable (or a
spectral filter) always suffers db energy losses. There is never 100%
transmission efficiency thru anything except vacuum.
I do agree that the phase rotation is changed when a photon's direction is
changed (redirected) by interacting with matter.
LL
GE
QUOTE
Naturally if you can believe me when I say that the wave phenomena is actually "not" the photon but simply a shadow from higher dimensions of the deBroglie "stationary state" then each photon is propagating "one at a time" as a sync pulse expanding on the surface of a sphere at the speed of light, just one little ripple at a time, on and through the slits... It is in the seek all paths mode, a wave only. Its crest strikes a large portion of the screen, not actually being absorbed but able to penetrate as much as a wavelength into the surface. Somewhere a suitable site will be found depending on some dynamic of the original emission at source. While all photons on the one crest move as one in the boson state they are still dynamically individuals. Remember the eye of the hurricane analogy. That center for all the photons on this crest must be distributed according to specific phase rotation as if on the surface of a sphere.
Ok, now we are getting to the "meat" of the issue. We have finally skinned this
"critter". I had stated this photon "phase rotation" orientation in a post many
weeks ago and you seemed to not accept the idea. Each photon in an expanding
wavefront is at a slightly different phase timing orientation due to timing and
proximity delays from the original atomic matrix that propagated it. It is the photon emission "latency" issue.
I will post some commentary that I have been keeping in reserve, a bit later.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Naturally if you can believe me when I say that the wave phenomena is actually "not" the photon but simply a shadow from higher dimensions of the deBroglie "stationary state" then each photon is propagating "one at a time" as a sync pulse expanding on the surface of a sphere at the speed of light, just one little ripple at a time, on and through the slits... It is in the seek all paths mode, a wave only. Its crest strikes a large portion of the screen, not actually being absorbed but able to penetrate as much as a wavelength into the surface. Somewhere a suitable site will be found depending on some dynamic of the original emission at source. While all photons on the one crest move as one in the boson state they are still dynamically individuals. Remember the eye of the hurricane analogy. That center for all the photons on this crest must be distributed according to specific phase rotation as if on the surface of a sphere. |
Ok, now we are getting to the "meat" of the issue. We have finally skinned this
"critter". I had stated this photon "phase rotation" orientation in a post many
weeks ago and you seemed to not accept the idea. Each photon in an expanding
wavefront is at a slightly different phase timing orientation due to timing and
proximity delays from the original atomic matrix that propagated it. It is the photon emission "latency" issue.
I will post some commentary that I have been keeping in reserve, a bit later.
If a photon undergoes interaction it must lose its original qubit then it will simply not take part in the ordered process of interference "fringing". That is a bottom line, there is no compromise, a photon can't interact and take part in fringes it is a quantum law you must accept and it is entirely logical. The qubit contains the phase information that is needed to connect it to the original source. The connection to the original source is linked with the standing waves. The optical distortion is simply that... a distortion in optics.
I think that only when a photon undergoes a total wave collapse, where the E and
B fields lose their mutual regenerative propagation capabilities, is where a photon
is converted into another EM form and is absorbed (detected).
Perhaps we should "test" this statement with a couple of "gedanken" experiments.
Let me set the scenarios.
Photons arranged in a fixed timing relative "pattern" have been travelling,
unimpeded, for billions of years thru the vacuum of space. Now consider that
there is an optical telescope, here on earth, that is observing the light arriving
from that far away galaxy. The qubit (timing, phase, and position) information
travels thru the cavity of the lens of the telescope with minimal distortion, even though the
photon has interacted with the matter and changed direction while passing thru
the lens. The energies of the arriving photons have been "modified" but not
absorbed. They maintained their EM wavefunction integrities and qubit information.
The arriving photons have been collected, focused, and concentrated into an
image that represents the original, but on a vastly smaller scale. If there were
another telescope immediately next to the 1st it would observe the exact same
image with the exact same wavefronts and the cubit information that they
contain. Massive array telescopes use a similar technique to improve resolutions
and maximize the concentration/amplification of arriving photons.
2nd scenario: A radio wave (photon), with a wavelength 10 meters long, is
propagating its wavefront from a dipole antenna. The transmitted RF photon energy
from the same wavefront can be received by multiple receiving antennas. The
wavefunction did not completely collapse, some of the energy continued on
and was received at a later relative time and phase reference. The wavefront
did not totally collapse, except that portion of EM energy that was resonating
in the tuned cavity of the antenna.
In the case of linearly "staggered" antennas, each successive dipole antenna receives a
reduced portion of the total energy being propagated in the wavefront because
a portion of it was absorbed in preceding antennas. The wavefront has lost
amplitude from the first antenna to the last antenna. The signal was attenuated
by losses. Same photon wavefront, same frequency, but a different power
amplitude.
So a photon's energy can be "divided" without a total collapse of the wavefunction
taking place.
Standing waves are a cavity phase, and timing, effect. As we know, waves that
are constructive, add their energies together. Those that are out of phase
cancel the portion of the energy that is out of phase. The constructive and
destructive interference is observed at the detector, but the phase relationship
is established enroute via the DSE or a lens/mirror array. A lens, a mirror,
or multiple slits changes the relative timing of the EM phasing of photons but
do not collapse their wavefunctions or change their frequency, they just modify their timing relationships.
QUOTE
The photon still has the same energy but the center of the pattern is in a physically different rotation than the "straight through path".
Not sure that I totally agree with this. The energy of a "photon" can be
attenuated, while still maintainting the same frequency. It just has a lower
energy db level. Any time that energy and matter interact there will be some
losses usually in the form of IR or signal scattering due to atomic phase
mismatches. A photon pulse, propagating thru a fiberoptic cable (or a
spectral filter) always suffers db energy losses. There is never 100%
transmission efficiency thru anything except vacuum.
I do agree that the phase rotation is changed when a photon's direction is
changed (redirected) by interacting with matter.
LL
QUOTE (Confused2+Dec 25 2006, 10:16 AM)
Hi Laserlight,Good Elf,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
My point being that, a spherical wave front will only collapse along the centerline
of the direction of propagation,
The experimental result here http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif does show the photon counts for a single slit .. the result is fairly trivial and suggests the number of photons counted is a simple function of the classical diffraction explanation except 'intensity' has been replaced by counts. We could (you might object) suggest that the 'intensity' of an EM wave at a point IS the number of photons that will be counted at that point. We see that photons are not just found in the full ahead direction.
With both slits open the situation is more complicated (!) ..
The photon count still follows the 'classical wavefront' intensity (allowing for interference) .. but the interference is not just between a single wavefront from slit A and the same wavefront from slit B... they each interfere with any wavefront from the other slit .. by doing this they continue to suggest that the photon count is the same thing as the 'intensity' of an EM wave. We might suggest (many people do) that the classical concept of 'intensity' of a classical EM wave simply tells you where you are most likely to detect a photon. Since we don't know where the photon will be detected we have to wait and see. Once the photon is detected it canot be detected anywhere else .. hence the use of the words 'collapse of the wavefunction(-psi)' .. the 'collapse' is the removal of the probability of the photon being detected anywhere else .. it is unclear what you mean by 'collapse'.
Good Elf seeks to avoid wavefunction(-psi) collapse by suggesting the intensity map is already set up in advance and each photon has a property (from the start) that disposes it to choose one path from the many available to it.
To find what options are available all paths must be 'explored' in some way .. Good Elf has attempted to explain how this can be done in advance but seems to have a problem finding suitable walls to establish a standing wave solution for the real photons to follow. The other 'exploring' option is to accept that it MUST have happened to explain the results .. well that would be just another starting point if we wanted one.
Best wishes (happy Xmas)
-C2.
Its' possible that the photon was a little closer to one of the slits than the other and the photon went through the closer of the two slits.
of the direction of propagation,
The experimental result here http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif does show the photon counts for a single slit .. the result is fairly trivial and suggests the number of photons counted is a simple function of the classical diffraction explanation except 'intensity' has been replaced by counts. We could (you might object) suggest that the 'intensity' of an EM wave at a point IS the number of photons that will be counted at that point. We see that photons are not just found in the full ahead direction.
With both slits open the situation is more complicated (!) ..
The photon count still follows the 'classical wavefront' intensity (allowing for interference) .. but the interference is not just between a single wavefront from slit A and the same wavefront from slit B... they each interfere with any wavefront from the other slit .. by doing this they continue to suggest that the photon count is the same thing as the 'intensity' of an EM wave. We might suggest (many people do) that the classical concept of 'intensity' of a classical EM wave simply tells you where you are most likely to detect a photon. Since we don't know where the photon will be detected we have to wait and see. Once the photon is detected it canot be detected anywhere else .. hence the use of the words 'collapse of the wavefunction(-psi)' .. the 'collapse' is the removal of the probability of the photon being detected anywhere else .. it is unclear what you mean by 'collapse'.
Good Elf seeks to avoid wavefunction(-psi) collapse by suggesting the intensity map is already set up in advance and each photon has a property (from the start) that disposes it to choose one path from the many available to it.
To find what options are available all paths must be 'explored' in some way .. Good Elf has attempted to explain how this can be done in advance but seems to have a problem finding suitable walls to establish a standing wave solution for the real photons to follow. The other 'exploring' option is to accept that it MUST have happened to explain the results .. well that would be just another starting point if we wanted one.
Best wishes (happy Xmas)
-C2.
Its' possible that the photon was a little closer to one of the slits than the other and the photon went through the closer of the two slits.
Hi Neil Farbstein et al,
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)
Its' possible that the photon was a little closer to one of the slits than the other and the photon went through the closer of the two slits.
You may be right but I really do not know what to call a photon. Do you mean that the photon is a little round billiard ball that must go through one hole of the other? Firing BB's eh? That view can be supported using standard quantum theory that has the "billiard ball" passing through one hole and still able to interfere with itself on the probability of passing through the other hole. This "irks me"! All the gymnastics that quantum physics must perform to make it work and still remains disconnected with our normal physics.
It is one thing to say that large populations of people behave in a statistical fashion. We can say the typical earth dweller lives near a capital city 90% of the time and is 50% male and 50% female and its average life expectancy is 59.3425687 years. (I am guessing those figures). What I mean to say is individuals have specific characteristics that depend on genetics and nature/nurture factors. They really do not individually have "bulk properties". This is where classical optics can fill in far more than quantum mechanics provided you move on from 19th century physics as being the only classical physics out there.
My view is actual physics does determine the direction of photons, it is just that measuring these "influences" a priori is totally out of the question. That this "influence" obeys statistics is simply a consequence of the large numbers involved and the lack of individual analysis. I do not disagree that it is not possible to do this analysis... no... this is not my point... it is that physics itself and not mathematical statistics that is determining the outcomes... even with individual photons. Full analysis of this proposition has been done by others and it is not in conflict with the results of Quantum Theory. Quantum Theory itself is based on a particle version of optical theory and nothing more. This was sensible to use since it leads to simple solutions for many simple problems.
Yet it is flawed despite the accuracy, it is unable to account for many features of the Universe without incorporating more and more of the "orphaned optical theory". It is usually snuck into the papers like a "Trojan Horse" so that most will not notice this is just an optical theory in disguise. So what is wrong with Quantum Theory... Nothing!
There is nothing wrong since it is a semantic trap... accept all the premises and you can't argue with the result. As to the accuracy of the result... it is as good as it gets, it would be as good as any optical result given the same provisions. The quantum Theory is a "Ptolemaic" System... it does not deal with mechanism... it deals with outcomes. And it is "damn good" at what it does. What I would say is that photons and all other particles are not tiny little disconnected billiard balls that individually behave "locally" but are in reality global waves interfering with each other through space and time... sometimes vast reaches of space to "individually" provide outcomes. I have provided many reasons why I think these things and they are not based on quantum mysticism but on the known results of experiments documented in the literature. Unfortunately it is "not enough" to win the day such is the entrenched views of the establishment. You can repeat all the reasons and proofs until the cows come home and they will say it is never enough to abandon the quantum particle approach.
The quantum approach grew up in a period where computational ability was small and experiments were few on the ground. It answered a set of problems that science desperately wanted to answer at that time. It provided the numerical results by having a number of what seemed to be 'unreasonable" postulates to arrive at those result. These postulates were not justified by physics but introduced to "correct" the classically "incorrect" figures. One of them was the "stationary states"... in the model they chose such states were not classically possible but they introduced them anyway. The ruse worked. Out came the answers but it posed some deep philosophical questions that remain unanswered to this day .
One view of this process is Bohmian Mechanics which is a three dimensional theory to show that "hidden variables" are the way forward. In the past bogus proofs have been submitted as evidence to show that "hidden variables" were untenable. They all omitted the non-local aspect of these theories. Slowly the quantum picture is introducing "non-local" aspects to retro-fit a lame theory to account for the new experimental results. Now your "billiard balls" have grown "tentacles"... he he he!
One thing is certain these non-local aspects are optical in origin and to graft them on to particle theories IMHO is a fraud. The answer to all this is to be found in Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory. This is a wave theory and it works very well. Quantum Electrodynamics is a cut down version of this concept using only the retarded potentials so while it gives all the answers for light in three dimensional space it will be missing the extra information that is always there as "interferences" that reach all through space and time a-temporally. Throw in Cramer's Transactional Interpretation and provided these were referring to waves we might have a full picture.
Cheers
All the gymnastics that quantum physics must perform to make it work and still remains disconnected with our normal physics.It is one thing to say that large populations of people behave in a statistical fashion. We can say the typical earth dweller lives near a capital city 90% of the time and is 50% male and 50% female and its average life expectancy is 59.3425687 years. (I am guessing those figures). What I mean to say is individuals have specific characteristics that depend on genetics and nature/nurture factors. They really do not individually have "bulk properties". This is where classical optics can fill in far more than quantum mechanics provided you move on from 19th century physics as being the only classical physics out there.
My view is actual physics does determine the direction of photons, it is just that measuring these "influences" a priori is totally out of the question. That this "influence" obeys statistics is simply a consequence of the large numbers involved and the lack of individual analysis. I do not disagree that it is not possible to do this analysis... no... this is not my point... it is that physics itself and not mathematical statistics that is determining the outcomes... even with individual photons. Full analysis of this proposition has been done by others and it is not in conflict with the results of Quantum Theory. Quantum Theory itself is based on a particle version of optical theory and nothing more. This was sensible to use since it leads to simple solutions for many simple problems.
Yet it is flawed despite the accuracy, it is unable to account for many features of the Universe without incorporating more and more of the "orphaned optical theory". It is usually snuck into the papers like a "Trojan Horse" so that most will not notice this is just an optical theory in disguise. So what is wrong with Quantum Theory... Nothing!
There is nothing wrong since it is a semantic trap... accept all the premises and you can't argue with the result. As to the accuracy of the result... it is as good as it gets, it would be as good as any optical result given the same provisions. The quantum Theory is a "Ptolemaic" System... it does not deal with mechanism... it deals with outcomes. And it is "damn good" at what it does. What I would say is that photons and all other particles are not tiny little disconnected billiard balls that individually behave "locally" but are in reality global waves interfering with each other through space and time... sometimes vast reaches of space to "individually" provide outcomes. I have provided many reasons why I think these things and they are not based on quantum mysticism but on the known results of experiments documented in the literature. Unfortunately it is "not enough" to win the day such is the entrenched views of the establishment. You can repeat all the reasons and proofs until the cows come home and they will say it is never enough to abandon the quantum particle approach.
The quantum approach grew up in a period where computational ability was small and experiments were few on the ground. It answered a set of problems that science desperately wanted to answer at that time. It provided the numerical results by having a number of what seemed to be 'unreasonable" postulates to arrive at those result. These postulates were not justified by physics but introduced to "correct" the classically "incorrect" figures. One of them was the "stationary states"... in the model they chose such states were not classically possible but they introduced them anyway. The ruse worked. Out came the answers but it posed some deep philosophical questions that remain unanswered to this day .
One view of this process is Bohmian Mechanics which is a three dimensional theory to show that "hidden variables" are the way forward. In the past bogus proofs have been submitted as evidence to show that "hidden variables" were untenable. They all omitted the non-local aspect of these theories. Slowly the quantum picture is introducing "non-local" aspects to retro-fit a lame theory to account for the new experimental results. Now your "billiard balls" have grown "tentacles"... he he he!
One thing is certain these non-local aspects are optical in origin and to graft them on to particle theories IMHO is a fraud. The answer to all this is to be found in Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory. This is a wave theory and it works very well. Quantum Electrodynamics is a cut down version of this concept using only the retarded potentials so while it gives all the answers for light in three dimensional space it will be missing the extra information that is always there as "interferences" that reach all through space and time a-temporally. Throw in Cramer's Transactional Interpretation and provided these were referring to waves we might have a full picture.
Cheers
Hi Laserlight,
I have discussed Berry Phase years ago on this forum. Berry Phase is "Geometric Phase"... not the wave phase or even spatial phase... it is a topological phase similar to that which is responsible for charge and is "path dependent" even when the energy process is not. It is not a "latency issue". You need to read up on Berry Phase.
Perhaps we should "test" this statement with a couple of "gedanken" experiments.
Let me set the scenarios.
I have discussed Berry Phase years ago on this forum. Berry Phase is "Geometric Phase"... not the wave phase or even spatial phase... it is a topological phase similar to that which is responsible for charge and is "path dependent" even when the energy process is not. It is not a "latency issue". You need to read up on Berry Phase.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
QUOTE
If a photon undergoes interaction it must lose its original qubit[...]
I think that only when a photon undergoes a total wave collapse, where the E and B fields lose their mutual regenerative propagation capabilities, is where a photon is converted into another EM form and is absorbed (detected).Perhaps we should "test" this statement with a couple of "gedanken" experiments.
Let me set the scenarios.
I know you think that but it is clearly wrong and this is the result of timeless experiments. Photons do not interact and still retain their original qubit. Optical phenomena while the photon is still in quantum space do not involve the exchange of energy. There is no use trying to "out-think nature". This is the way "she" works. It is the basis of many other interesting quantum effects and they are all totally quantum and "hidden" from view. The "waves" are like shadows and they do not interact energetically they negotiate the "optical landscape" without loss of energy.
The idea that you may have a Quantum Zeno Effect in free space or on a boundary that resets the energy requires a state capable of this regeneration at that site. When the "reset" occurs this resets the phase as well and this is tantamount to collapsing the quantum state. You do this frequently enough the state is "frozen" but continually reset. I really do not think this occurs this is usually happening in a trapped cavity where the state can be regeneratively fed with a source of energy as in the Circuit QED Theory. There the photon is "reborn" every cycle and the quantum state is reset to "starting parameters".
Quantum Zeno Effect: Wayne M. Itano et al
The idea that you may have a Quantum Zeno Effect in free space or on a boundary that resets the energy requires a state capable of this regeneration at that site. When the "reset" occurs this resets the phase as well and this is tantamount to collapsing the quantum state. You do this frequently enough the state is "frozen" but continually reset. I really do not think this occurs this is usually happening in a trapped cavity where the state can be regeneratively fed with a source of energy as in the Circuit QED Theory. There the photon is "reborn" every cycle and the quantum state is reset to "starting parameters".
Quantum Zeno Effect: Wayne M. Itano et al
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If a photon undergoes interaction it must lose its original qubit[...] |
I think that only when a photon undergoes a total wave collapse, where the E and B fields lose their mutual regenerative propagation capabilities, is where a photon is converted into another EM form and is absorbed (detected).
Perhaps we should "test" this statement with a couple of "gedanken" experiments.
Let me set the scenarios.
Perhaps we should "test" this statement with a couple of "gedanken" experiments.
Let me set the scenarios.
I know you think that but it is clearly wrong and this is the result of timeless experiments. Photons do not interact and still retain their original qubit. Optical phenomena while the photon is still in quantum space do not involve the exchange of energy. There is no use trying to "out-think nature". This is the way "she" works. It is the basis of many other interesting quantum effects and they are all totally quantum and "hidden" from view. The "waves" are like shadows and they do not interact energetically they negotiate the "optical landscape" without loss of energy.
The idea that you may have a Quantum Zeno Effect in free space or on a boundary that resets the energy requires a state capable of this regeneration at that site. When the "reset" occurs this resets the phase as well and this is tantamount to collapsing the quantum state. You do this frequently enough the state is "frozen" but continually reset. I really do not think this occurs this is usually happening in a trapped cavity where the state can be regeneratively fed with a source of energy as in the Circuit QED Theory. There the photon is "reborn" every cycle and the quantum state is reset to "starting parameters".
Quantum Zeno Effect: Wayne M. Itano et al
The idea that you may have a Quantum Zeno Effect in free space or on a boundary that resets the energy requires a state capable of this regeneration at that site. When the "reset" occurs this resets the phase as well and this is tantamount to collapsing the quantum state. You do this frequently enough the state is "frozen" but continually reset. I really do not think this occurs this is usually happening in a trapped cavity where the state can be regeneratively fed with a source of energy as in the Circuit QED Theory. There the photon is "reborn" every cycle and the quantum state is reset to "starting parameters".
Quantum Zeno Effect: Wayne M. Itano et al
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
The photon still has the same energy but the center of the pattern is in a physically different rotation than the "straight through path".
Not sure that I totally agree with this. The energy of a "photon" can be attenuated, while still maintaining the same frequency. It just has a lower energy db level. Any time that energy and matter interact there will be some losses usually in the form of IR or signal scattering due to atomic phase mismatches. A photon pulse, propagating thru a fiberoptic cable (or a spectral filter) always suffers db energy losses. There is never 100% transmission efficiency thru anything except vacuum.
If we are concerned with preservation of the qubit on a photon it can suffer no losses in a waveguide, it is one of the problems of sending individual photons containing qubits long distances to retain their "entangled" state. That transmission efficiency is only a "bulk property" for lots of photons, it does not apply to each individual photon. It is a real problem digging the signal from the noise of entangled photons. A qubit is definitely not a bit... they are nothing like each other.
Some photons interact and others do not depending on some "dynamic property". The ones that interact are lost to the pristine interference pattern and those that do not have photon to particle interactions will still be in a pure quantum state ... untouched.. a stationary state... even though the photon has been "deviated" and undergone "optical" processes that are not "particle interaction" processes. If a photon was partially absorbed and lost some energy then the relationship E = hf would no longer hold.
Cheers
Some photons interact and others do not depending on some "dynamic property". The ones that interact are lost to the pristine interference pattern and those that do not have photon to particle interactions will still be in a pure quantum state ... untouched.. a stationary state... even though the photon has been "deviated" and undergone "optical" processes that are not "particle interaction" processes. If a photon was partially absorbed and lost some energy then the relationship E = hf would no longer hold.
Cheers
Good Elf,
Perhaps you can elaborate on this. Isn't Planck's constant only relevant for
the energy of black body radiators as it relates to frequency and time from
a harmonic oscillator radiating into free space? E=hv
Doesn't the propagation latency delay of photon energy in a different medium,
like a lens or an optical fiber, possess a different energy level while in that
medium. The photons are slowed down (delayed) while negotiating the atoms
of the medium, so their energy should be different. The index of refraction of
the material slows the phase velocity of photons traveling thru the medium,
relative to the same photons propagating in vacuum, so the photons are
slowed down while in the media. They resume their original frequency, energy
level and phase relationship upon leaving the medium that slowed them.
From Wikipedia:
Perhaps you can elaborate on this. Isn't Planck's constant only relevant for
the energy of black body radiators as it relates to frequency and time from
a harmonic oscillator radiating into free space? E=hv
Doesn't the propagation latency delay of photon energy in a different medium,
like a lens or an optical fiber, possess a different energy level while in that
medium. The photons are slowed down (delayed) while negotiating the atoms
of the medium, so their energy should be different. The index of refraction of
the material slows the phase velocity of photons traveling thru the medium,
relative to the same photons propagating in vacuum, so the photons are
slowed down while in the media. They resume their original frequency, energy
level and phase relationship upon leaving the medium that slowed them.
From Wikipedia:
At the microscale, an electromagnetic wave's phase velocity is slowed in a material because the electric field creates a disturbance in the charges of each atom (primarily the electrons) proportional to the permittivity. The charges will, in general, oscillate slightly out of phase with respect to the driving electric field. The charges thus radiate their own electromagnetic wave that is at the same frequency but with a phase delay. The macroscopic sum of all such contributions in the material is a wave with the same frequency but shorter wavelength than the original, leading to a slowing of the wave's phase velocity. Most of the radiation from oscillating material charges will modify the incoming wave, changing its velocity. However, some net energy will be radiated in other directions (see scattering).
QUOTE
Some photons interact and others do not depending on some "dynamic property". The ones that interact are lost to the pristine interference pattern and those that do not have photon to particle interactions will still be in a pure quantum state ... untouched.. a stationary state... even though the photon has been "deviated" and undergone "optical" processes that are not "particle interaction" processes. If a photon was partially absorbed and lost some energy then the relationship E = hf would no longer hold.
Perhaps you can elaborate on this. Isn't Planck's constant only relevant for
the energy of black body radiators as it relates to frequency and time from
a harmonic oscillator radiating into free space? E=hv
Doesn't the propagation latency delay of photon energy in a different medium,
like a lens or an optical fiber, possess a different energy level while in that
medium. The photons are slowed down (delayed) while negotiating the atoms
of the medium, so their energy should be different. The index of refraction of
the material slows the phase velocity of photons traveling thru the medium,
relative to the same photons propagating in vacuum, so the photons are
slowed down while in the media. They resume their original frequency, energy
level and phase relationship upon leaving the medium that slowed them.
From Wikipedia:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Some photons interact and others do not depending on some "dynamic property". The ones that interact are lost to the pristine interference pattern and those that do not have photon to particle interactions will still be in a pure quantum state ... untouched.. a stationary state... even though the photon has been "deviated" and undergone "optical" processes that are not "particle interaction" processes. If a photon was partially absorbed and lost some energy then the relationship E = hf would no longer hold. |
Perhaps you can elaborate on this. Isn't Planck's constant only relevant for
the energy of black body radiators as it relates to frequency and time from
a harmonic oscillator radiating into free space? E=hv
Doesn't the propagation latency delay of photon energy in a different medium,
like a lens or an optical fiber, possess a different energy level while in that
medium. The photons are slowed down (delayed) while negotiating the atoms
of the medium, so their energy should be different. The index of refraction of
the material slows the phase velocity of photons traveling thru the medium,
relative to the same photons propagating in vacuum, so the photons are
slowed down while in the media. They resume their original frequency, energy
level and phase relationship upon leaving the medium that slowed them.
From Wikipedia:
At the microscale, an electromagnetic wave's phase velocity is slowed in a material because the electric field creates a disturbance in the charges of each atom (primarily the electrons) proportional to the permittivity. The charges will, in general, oscillate slightly out of phase with respect to the driving electric field. The charges thus radiate their own electromagnetic wave that is at the same frequency but with a phase delay. The macroscopic sum of all such contributions in the material is a wave with the same frequency but shorter wavelength than the original, leading to a slowing of the wave's phase velocity. Most of the radiation from oscillating material charges will modify the incoming wave, changing its velocity. However, some net energy will be radiated in other directions (see scattering).
Good Day everyone!
I hope everyone is rested from their celebrations.
Let’s look at a few FACTS to advance this discussion.
Nobody knows of any mechanism that makes a “wave”. ( A hidden variable?)
The bubble does not go to the side of the “box”. ( A hidden variable?)
There is no firework in the heavens. ( A hidden variable?)
The sun does not have extra photons that need to be explained. ( A hidden variable?)
Let’s move on to definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_fr...nd_chemistry%29
In mechanics, for each particle belonging to a system, and for each independent direction in which movement is possible, two degrees of freedom are defined, one describing the particle's momentum in that direction, the other describing the particle's position along an axis defined by that direction.
In 3D, there are 6 degrees of freedom associated to the movement of a mechanical particle, 3 for its position, and 3 for its momentum.
There are 6 degrees of freedom in total. Another way to justify this figure is to consider that the movement of the molecule will be described by the movement of the two mechanical particles representing its two atoms, and 6 degrees of freedom are attached to each particle, as above. With this alternative breakdown, it appears that different sets of degrees of freedom can be defined to describe the movement of the molecule. In fact a set of degrees of freedom for a mechanical system is a set of independent axes in the phase space of the system, and that allows the generation of the whole phase space. For a multidimensional space like phase space, there is more than one possible set of axes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space
In mathematics and physics, phase space is the space in which all possible states of a system are represented, with each possible state of the system corresponding to one unique point in the phase space.
A phase space may contain very many dimensions. For instance, a gas containing many molecules may require a separate dimension for each particle's x, y and z positions and velocities as well as any number of other properties.
Do I need to repeat it?
Other dimensions are needed to mathemathically describe more than one particle. NO PARTICLES … NO OTHER DIMENSIONS.
Waves cannot be described by the use of other dimensions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation_quantization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-commutative_geometry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-commutative_geometry
In mathematics, non-commutative geometry is concerned with the possible spatial interpretations of algebraic structures for which the commutative law fails; that is, for which xy does not always equal yx. The challenge of the theory is to get around the lack of commutative multiplication, which is a requirement of previous geometric theories of such structures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_quantization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram
Feynman diagrams are really a graphical way of keeping track of deWitt indices
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_...um_mechanics%29
Worth repeating …. Read it agains … too idealized to adequately describe most systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
Worth repeating …. Read it agains … too idealized to adequately describe most systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
The quantum harmonic oscillator is the quantum mechanical analogue of the classical harmonic oscillator. It is one of the most important model systems in quantum mechanics because, as in classical mechanics, a wide variety of physical situations can be reduced to it either exactly or approximately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_...antum_mechanics
------------------------------
Are we limited to “waves”/quantum mechanics to understand the quantum universe? ( A hidden variable?)
Can an understanding or a formulation of quantum activity be represented by any other way then by “waves”?
By using a particle? ( Bohmian deterministic particle trajectories), (classical mechanics)
If you are interested you can check out the following article. Don’t be fooled by the title. It is applicable to this discussion.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0611/0611037.pdf
Cosmological constant, semiclassical gravity, and foundations of quantum mechanics
Hrvoje Nikoli´
6 nov 2006
------------------------------
Are we limited to “waves”/quantum mechanics to understand the quantum universe? ( A hidden variable?)
Can an understanding or a formulation of quantum activity be represented by any other way then by “waves”?
By using a particle? ( Bohmian deterministic particle trajectories), (classical mechanics)
If you are interested you can check out the following article. Don’t be fooled by the title. It is applicable to this discussion.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0611/0611037.pdf
Cosmological constant, semiclassical gravity, and foundations of quantum mechanics
Hrvoje Nikoli´
6 nov 2006
The old cosmological-constant (CC) problem indicates an inconsistency of the usual formulation
of semiclassical gravity. The usual formulation of semiclassical gravity also seems to be inconsistent with the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics based on the discontinuous wave-function collapse.
By reformulating semiclassical gravity in terms of Bohmian deterministic particle trajectories,
the resulting semiclassical theory avoids both the old CC problem and the discontinuous
collapse problem of the usual semiclassical theory. The relevance to the new CC problem and to
particle creation by classical gravitational fields is also discussed.
Using a particle-like? ( Bohmian deterministic particle trajectories), (classical mechanics)
-------------------------------
Good Elf insist that we do not talk about particles, only quantum mechanics and waves.
Yet, dimensions are determined by assigning the position of X,Y,Z to a particle. If we want to talk about three particles we must assign each of them a dimension. Therefore, it means that for three particles there are 3 dimensions with three times the degree of movement, for a total of 18 degrees of freedom.
Problems:
1. So Good elf gets 9 dimensions plus time. However, time is included when one is describing the particle's momentum and the particle's position along an axis defined by that direction. So why is time added one more time? ( A hidden variable?)
2. The positions and velocities as well as any number of other properties are now diluted/reduced/difused from 6 degrees of freedom to 18 degrees of freedom. This means that a particle/properties can go in any of the 18 directions/values. This also means that if we wanted to find out the combined initial energy we would have to sum up all of the 18 vectors that have not been identified. ( A hidden variable?) (Feynman_diagram)
3. In physics, phase space is the space in which all possible states of a system are represented. Therefore, you cannot get specific and must generalize. You have too many unknown/hidden variables.
Your model is on par with the AWT description. It cannot be submitted to evaluation/experimentation. Good Elf’s model has too many "hidden variables" and cannot be quantified and measured.
Good Elf
What I say is unless you concede that the mechanism is "higher dimensions" then you cannot adequately work with this problem.
I respect all of your opinions but we need to be "flexible".
when you start adding linear dimensions to the current three plus time you suddenly end up breaking all kinds of conservation laws by "opening the box".
Tell me how to introduce more dimensions to our real world without breaking any current physics? I have a experimentally consistent way to do this that will not lead to any "dynamic" problems. So it is a little more complicated but that is the price for any progress.
Light is light but it can expand in different directions as a wave. It will do that but in the end a photon will be absorbed in one point, then the rest of the imaginary picture will disappear right along the wavefront instantly.
Pancakes can be folded and stretched... the only law is these "photon" pancakes remain the same "thickness"... the wavelength
it is the one that answers the most questions while still still remaining testable. No exceptions and no excuses. The criterion is not how accurate the Theory is but how many questions it can answer.
I just want to know am I having a discussion or am I talking with a closed set of premises?
The one "sure" thing about Physics is you can always test it because it is grounded in "natural" processes.
Now, my turn … I repeat ….I just want to know if I’m having a discussion or if I’m talking with a closed set of premises?
CONCLUSION
The quantum mechanics/wave approach has been studied and did not solve the DSE.
The particle-like approach has left us with the same unresolved issues.
It’s time to move on to quantum geometry.
Check out the “natural” processes of my model.
The dynamics of a 2 dimensional phase space is sufficient to create the illusion of 3 dimension and to explain the quantum world and DSE.
Out of respect of the standard opinions of yquantum and Duality and since I do not want to antagonize them, … the remainder of this presentation is at
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...45&#entry153822
LL, TRoc … You should find the remainder interesting since your approaches can be accomodated.
jal
I hope everyone is rested from their celebrations.
Let’s look at a few FACTS to advance this discussion.
Nobody knows of any mechanism that makes a “wave”. ( A hidden variable?)
The bubble does not go to the side of the “box”. ( A hidden variable?)
There is no firework in the heavens. ( A hidden variable?)
The sun does not have extra photons that need to be explained. ( A hidden variable?)
Let’s move on to definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_fr...nd_chemistry%29
QUOTE
In mechanics, for each particle belonging to a system, and for each independent direction in which movement is possible, two degrees of freedom are defined, one describing the particle's momentum in that direction, the other describing the particle's position along an axis defined by that direction.
In 3D, there are 6 degrees of freedom associated to the movement of a mechanical particle, 3 for its position, and 3 for its momentum.
There are 6 degrees of freedom in total. Another way to justify this figure is to consider that the movement of the molecule will be described by the movement of the two mechanical particles representing its two atoms, and 6 degrees of freedom are attached to each particle, as above. With this alternative breakdown, it appears that different sets of degrees of freedom can be defined to describe the movement of the molecule. In fact a set of degrees of freedom for a mechanical system is a set of independent axes in the phase space of the system, and that allows the generation of the whole phase space. For a multidimensional space like phase space, there is more than one possible set of axes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
In mechanics, for each particle belonging to a system, and for each independent direction in which movement is possible, two degrees of freedom are defined, one describing the particle's momentum in that direction, the other describing the particle's position along an axis defined by that direction. In 3D, there are 6 degrees of freedom associated to the movement of a mechanical particle, 3 for its position, and 3 for its momentum. There are 6 degrees of freedom in total. Another way to justify this figure is to consider that the movement of the molecule will be described by the movement of the two mechanical particles representing its two atoms, and 6 degrees of freedom are attached to each particle, as above. With this alternative breakdown, it appears that different sets of degrees of freedom can be defined to describe the movement of the molecule. In fact a set of degrees of freedom for a mechanical system is a set of independent axes in the phase space of the system, and that allows the generation of the whole phase space. For a multidimensional space like phase space, there is more than one possible set of axes. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space
In mathematics and physics, phase space is the space in which all possible states of a system are represented, with each possible state of the system corresponding to one unique point in the phase space.
A phase space may contain very many dimensions. For instance, a gas containing many molecules may require a separate dimension for each particle's x, y and z positions and velocities as well as any number of other properties.
Do I need to repeat it?
Other dimensions are needed to mathemathically describe more than one particle. NO PARTICLES … NO OTHER DIMENSIONS.
Waves cannot be described by the use of other dimensions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation_quantization
QUOTE
In mathematics and physics, in the area of quantum mechanics, Weyl quantization is a method for associating a "quantum mechanical" Hermitian operator with a "classical" distribution in phase space.
Insofar as the algebra of functions on a space determines the geometry of that space, the study of the Moyal product leads to the study of non-commutative geometry.
Insofar as the algebra of functions on a space determines the geometry of that space, the study of the Moyal product leads to the study of non-commutative geometry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-commutative_geometry
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In mathematics and physics, in the area of quantum mechanics, Weyl quantization is a method for associating a "quantum mechanical" Hermitian operator with a "classical" distribution in phase space. Insofar as the algebra of functions on a space determines the geometry of that space, the study of the Moyal product leads to the study of non-commutative geometry. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-commutative_geometry
In mathematics, non-commutative geometry is concerned with the possible spatial interpretations of algebraic structures for which the commutative law fails; that is, for which xy does not always equal yx. The challenge of the theory is to get around the lack of commutative multiplication, which is a requirement of previous geometric theories of such structures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_quantization
QUOTE
In mathematical physics, geometric quantization is a mathematical approach to defining a quantum theory corresponding to a given classical theory. It attempts to carry out quantization, for which there is in general no exact recipe, in such a way that certain analogies between the classical theory and the quantum theory remain manifest. For example, the similarity between the Heisenberg equation in the Heisenberg picture of quantum mechanics and the Hamilton equation in classical physics should be built in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In mathematical physics, geometric quantization is a mathematical approach to defining a quantum theory corresponding to a given classical theory. It attempts to carry out quantization, for which there is in general no exact recipe, in such a way that certain analogies between the classical theory and the quantum theory remain manifest. For example, the similarity between the Heisenberg equation in the Heisenberg picture of quantum mechanics and the Hamilton equation in classical physics should be built in. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram
Feynman diagrams are really a graphical way of keeping track of deWitt indices
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_...um_mechanics%29
QUOTE
Perturbation theory is an extremely important tool for describing real quantum systems, as it turns out to be very difficult to find exact solutions to the Schrödinger equation for Hamiltonians of even moderate complexity. The Hamiltonians to which we know exact solutions, such as the hydrogen atom, the quantum harmonic oscillator and the particle in a box, are too idealized to adequately describe most systems.
Worth repeating …. Read it agains … too idealized to adequately describe most systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Perturbation theory is an extremely important tool for describing real quantum systems, as it turns out to be very difficult to find exact solutions to the Schrödinger equation for Hamiltonians of even moderate complexity. The Hamiltonians to which we know exact solutions, such as the hydrogen atom, the quantum harmonic oscillator and the particle in a box, are too idealized to adequately describe most systems. |
Worth repeating …. Read it agains … too idealized to adequately describe most systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
The quantum harmonic oscillator is the quantum mechanical analogue of the classical harmonic oscillator. It is one of the most important model systems in quantum mechanics because, as in classical mechanics, a wide variety of physical situations can be reduced to it either exactly or approximately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_...antum_mechanics
QUOTE
The mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics is the body of mathematical formalisms which permits a rigorous description of quantum mechanics.
------------------------------
Are we limited to “waves”/quantum mechanics to understand the quantum universe? ( A hidden variable?)
Can an understanding or a formulation of quantum activity be represented by any other way then by “waves”?
By using a particle? ( Bohmian deterministic particle trajectories), (classical mechanics)
If you are interested you can check out the following article. Don’t be fooled by the title. It is applicable to this discussion.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0611/0611037.pdf
Cosmological constant, semiclassical gravity, and foundations of quantum mechanics
Hrvoje Nikoli´
6 nov 2006
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics is the body of mathematical formalisms which permits a rigorous description of quantum mechanics. |
------------------------------
Are we limited to “waves”/quantum mechanics to understand the quantum universe? ( A hidden variable?)
Can an understanding or a formulation of quantum activity be represented by any other way then by “waves”?
By using a particle? ( Bohmian deterministic particle trajectories), (classical mechanics)
If you are interested you can check out the following article. Don’t be fooled by the title. It is applicable to this discussion.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0611/0611037.pdf
Cosmological constant, semiclassical gravity, and foundations of quantum mechanics
Hrvoje Nikoli´
6 nov 2006
The old cosmological-constant (CC) problem indicates an inconsistency of the usual formulation
of semiclassical gravity. The usual formulation of semiclassical gravity also seems to be inconsistent with the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics based on the discontinuous wave-function collapse.
By reformulating semiclassical gravity in terms of Bohmian deterministic particle trajectories,
the resulting semiclassical theory avoids both the old CC problem and the discontinuous
collapse problem of the usual semiclassical theory. The relevance to the new CC problem and to
particle creation by classical gravitational fields is also discussed.
Using a particle-like? ( Bohmian deterministic particle trajectories), (classical mechanics)
-------------------------------
Good Elf insist that we do not talk about particles, only quantum mechanics and waves.
Yet, dimensions are determined by assigning the position of X,Y,Z to a particle. If we want to talk about three particles we must assign each of them a dimension. Therefore, it means that for three particles there are 3 dimensions with three times the degree of movement, for a total of 18 degrees of freedom.
Problems:
1. So Good elf gets 9 dimensions plus time. However, time is included when one is describing the particle's momentum and the particle's position along an axis defined by that direction. So why is time added one more time? ( A hidden variable?)
2. The positions and velocities as well as any number of other properties are now diluted/reduced/difused from 6 degrees of freedom to 18 degrees of freedom. This means that a particle/properties can go in any of the 18 directions/values. This also means that if we wanted to find out the combined initial energy we would have to sum up all of the 18 vectors that have not been identified. ( A hidden variable?) (Feynman_diagram)
3. In physics, phase space is the space in which all possible states of a system are represented. Therefore, you cannot get specific and must generalize. You have too many unknown/hidden variables.
Your model is on par with the AWT description. It cannot be submitted to evaluation/experimentation. Good Elf’s model has too many "hidden variables" and cannot be quantified and measured.
QUOTE
Good Elf
What I say is unless you concede that the mechanism is "higher dimensions" then you cannot adequately work with this problem.
I respect all of your opinions but we need to be "flexible".
when you start adding linear dimensions to the current three plus time you suddenly end up breaking all kinds of conservation laws by "opening the box".
Tell me how to introduce more dimensions to our real world without breaking any current physics? I have a experimentally consistent way to do this that will not lead to any "dynamic" problems. So it is a little more complicated but that is the price for any progress.
Light is light but it can expand in different directions as a wave. It will do that but in the end a photon will be absorbed in one point, then the rest of the imaginary picture will disappear right along the wavefront instantly.
Pancakes can be folded and stretched... the only law is these "photon" pancakes remain the same "thickness"... the wavelength
it is the one that answers the most questions while still still remaining testable. No exceptions and no excuses. The criterion is not how accurate the Theory is but how many questions it can answer.
I just want to know am I having a discussion or am I talking with a closed set of premises?
The one "sure" thing about Physics is you can always test it because it is grounded in "natural" processes.
Now, my turn … I repeat ….I just want to know if I’m having a discussion or if I’m talking with a closed set of premises?
CONCLUSION
The quantum mechanics/wave approach has been studied and did not solve the DSE.
The particle-like approach has left us with the same unresolved issues.
It’s time to move on to quantum geometry.
Check out the “natural” processes of my model.
The dynamics of a 2 dimensional phase space is sufficient to create the illusion of 3 dimension and to explain the quantum world and DSE.
Out of respect of the standard opinions of yquantum and Duality and since I do not want to antagonize them, … the remainder of this presentation is at
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...45&#entry153822
LL, TRoc … You should find the remainder interesting since your approaches can be accomodated.
jal
Hi Jal,
I would like you to address specific issues to me wherever possible. It is confusing when issues arise that I cannot identify with anythings that I have said in the past and you seem to attribute to me as being my approach.
I would like you to address specific issues to me wherever possible. It is confusing when issues arise that I cannot identify with anythings that I have said in the past and you seem to attribute to me as being my approach.
QUOTE (Jal+)
Let’s look at a few FACTS to advance this discussion.
Nobody knows of any mechanism that makes a “wave”. ( A hidden variable?)
The bubble does not go to the side of the “box”. ( A hidden variable?)
There is no firework in the heavens. ( A hidden variable?)
The sun does not have extra photons that need to be explained. ( A hidden variable?)
Nobody knows of any mechanism that makes a “wave”. ( A hidden variable?)
The bubble does not go to the side of the “box”. ( A hidden variable?)
There is no firework in the heavens. ( A hidden variable?)
The sun does not have extra photons that need to be explained. ( A hidden variable?)
Your statements are not facts that I have made and you may have made incorrect use of some of my terms. I will not be able to answer this strange group of unrelated statements. I can only say that perhaps something has gone very badly wrong with your interpretation of some of my statements. Your statements are very illogical.
We are obviously talking at crossed purposes. I really do not want to speak about "phase space" as any type of dimensional space. Physics operates only in dimensional space as I see it "phase space" is a mathematical artifice that can assist in some problems but I am not concerned with this "tool" as an explanation for higher dimensions. In particular three dimensional space plus time that you already know about is the only space that can support physics... end of story. If it can't work in three dimensions plus time then we can't treat it sanely. I have seen a lot of unusual discussion on the forum about time not being real and some very odd interpretations of Relativity but you will not find any of that here. Parametric variables and different sets of coordinates are fine as well as representations of "degrees of freedom" but it is really not my immediate interest. I can see that you do not have my concept of embedding other spaces inside our "normal" space.
OK ... you latched on to the idea of hidden variables. That is not the intention of my reference to them as this being the explanation for dimensional space. It is part of an argument that is about Bohmian Mechanics which is a description in only three dimensions and it is supposed to convince some that there are "hidden variables". Hidden variables do not automatically imply higher "real" dimensions. I have given many arguments over months as to why I think there are higher dimensions. A three dimensional theory of space would need "hidden variables" to explain higher dimensions in a three dimensional theory (unfortunately it would not be convincing as an argument for extra dimensions it would be just another parametric theory). I also have given many reasons and illustrations as to why they are not linear with our space... and just tacked on but "reciprocal".
We are obviously talking at crossed purposes. I really do not want to speak about "phase space" as any type of dimensional space. Physics operates only in dimensional space as I see it "phase space" is a mathematical artifice that can assist in some problems but I am not concerned with this "tool" as an explanation for higher dimensions. In particular three dimensional space plus time that you already know about is the only space that can support physics... end of story. If it can't work in three dimensions plus time then we can't treat it sanely. I have seen a lot of unusual discussion on the forum about time not being real and some very odd interpretations of Relativity but you will not find any of that here. Parametric variables and different sets of coordinates are fine as well as representations of "degrees of freedom" but it is really not my immediate interest. I can see that you do not have my concept of embedding other spaces inside our "normal" space.
OK ... you latched on to the idea of hidden variables. That is not the intention of my reference to them as this being the explanation for dimensional space. It is part of an argument that is about Bohmian Mechanics which is a description in only three dimensions and it is supposed to convince some that there are "hidden variables". Hidden variables do not automatically imply higher "real" dimensions. I have given many arguments over months as to why I think there are higher dimensions. A three dimensional theory of space would need "hidden variables" to explain higher dimensions in a three dimensional theory (unfortunately it would not be convincing as an argument for extra dimensions it would be just another parametric theory). I also have given many reasons and illustrations as to why they are not linear with our space... and just tacked on but "reciprocal".
QUOTE (Jal+)
1. So Good elf gets 9 dimensions plus time. However, time is included when one is describing the particle's momentum and the particle's position along an axis defined by that direction. So why is time added one more time? ( A hidden variable?)
2. The positions and velocities as well as any number of other properties are now diluted/reduced/difused from 6 degrees of freedom to 18 degrees of freedom. This means that a particle/properties can go in any of the 18 directions/values. This also means that if we wanted to find out the combined initial energy we would have to sum up all of the 18 vectors that have not been identified. ( A hidden variable?) (Feynman_diagram)
3. In physics, phase space is the space in which all possible states of a system are represented. Therefore, you cannot get specific and must generalize. You have too many unknown/hidden variables.
Your model is on par with the AWT description. It cannot be submitted to evaluation/experimentation. Good Elf’s model has too many "hidden variables" and cannot be quantified and measured.
2. The positions and velocities as well as any number of other properties are now diluted/reduced/difused from 6 degrees of freedom to 18 degrees of freedom. This means that a particle/properties can go in any of the 18 directions/values. This also means that if we wanted to find out the combined initial energy we would have to sum up all of the 18 vectors that have not been identified. ( A hidden variable?) (Feynman_diagram)
3. In physics, phase space is the space in which all possible states of a system are represented. Therefore, you cannot get specific and must generalize. You have too many unknown/hidden variables.
Your model is on par with the AWT description. It cannot be submitted to evaluation/experimentation. Good Elf’s model has too many "hidden variables" and cannot be quantified and measured.
Nine spatial and one temporal dimension are sufficient to fully embed one higher dimensional object in "three dimensional" spacetime. That is six extra spatial dimensions. Additional dimensions to these are needed to embed more than that just one particle in a universe. But these are not linear dimensions as seen in some simplistic examples of this shown on television such as in the Elegant Universe Program that can be viewed online. Time is not added at all it is always required and you cannot use any "universal" time but local times for different frames, this is not new since the Theory of Relativity. It exists in any self contained "spacetime" but relates to the frame in which it is recorded (... in a similar fashion where separate coordinates are required for different frames of reference with relativity).
The rest of your discussion cannot relate to my treatment. Is is something you have added to the discussion and there appears to be a number of difficult interpretation problems you are running with. I cannot argue along your lines since they have nothing to do with me and what I am speaking about. You are right... they are "problems" but you have never seen me discuss these issues because they are not part of any treatment of mine. I have never mentioned phase space once and I am not discussing parameters as if they were dimensions. I did mention "interference" and nodes and anti-nodes but not phase space.
What I have said is physics only works in three dimensions at a time, only in that dimensional environment can physics work and remain "conservative". 10 Dimensional "spacetime" can only work if they represent three orthogonal spaces each internally consistent and with barriers that do not normally allow any energy to cross.
Cheers
The rest of your discussion cannot relate to my treatment. Is is something you have added to the discussion and there appears to be a number of difficult interpretation problems you are running with. I cannot argue along your lines since they have nothing to do with me and what I am speaking about. You are right... they are "problems" but you have never seen me discuss these issues because they are not part of any treatment of mine. I have never mentioned phase space once and I am not discussing parameters as if they were dimensions. I did mention "interference" and nodes and anti-nodes but not phase space.
What I have said is physics only works in three dimensions at a time, only in that dimensional environment can physics work and remain "conservative". 10 Dimensional "spacetime" can only work if they represent three orthogonal spaces each internally consistent and with barriers that do not normally allow any energy to cross.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Dec 26 2006, 05:39 PM)
Hi Jal,
I would like you to address specific issues to me wherever possible. It is confusing when issues arise that I cannot identify with anythings that I have said in the past and you seem to attribute to me as being my approach.
I would like you to address specific issues to me wherever possible. It is confusing when issues arise that I cannot identify with anythings that I have said in the past and you seem to attribute to me as being my approach.
QUOTE (Jal+)
Let’s look at a few FACTS to advance this discussion.
Nobody knows of any mechanism that makes a “wave”. ( A hidden variable?)
The bubble does not go to the side of the “box”. ( A hidden variable?)
There is no firework in the heavens. ( A hidden variable?)
The sun does not have extra photons that need to be explained. ( A hidden variable?)
Nobody knows of any mechanism that makes a “wave”. ( A hidden variable?)
The bubble does not go to the side of the “box”. ( A hidden variable?)
There is no firework in the heavens. ( A hidden variable?)
The sun does not have extra photons that need to be explained. ( A hidden variable?)
Your statements are not facts that I have made and you may have made incorrect use of some of my terms. I will not be able to answer this strange group of unrelated statements. I can only say that perhaps something has gone very badly wrong with your interpretation of some of my statements. Your statements are very illogical.
We are obviously talking at crossed purposes. I really do not want to speak about "phase space" as any type of dimensional space. Physics operates only in dimensional space as I see it "phase space" is a mathematical artifice that can assist in some problems but I am not concerned with this "tool" as an explanation for higher dimensions. In particular three dimensional space plus time that you already know about is the only space that can support physics... end of story. If it can't work in three dimensions plus time then we can't treat it sanely. I have seen a lot of unusual discussion on the forum about time not being real and some very odd interpretations of Relativity but you will not find any of that here. Parametric variables and different sets of coordinates are fine as well as representations of "degrees of freedom" but it is really not my immediate interest. I can see that you do not have my concept of embedding other spaces inside our "normal" space.
OK ... you latched on to the idea of hidden variables. That is not the intention of my reference to them as this being the explanation for dimensional space. It is part of an argument that is about Bohmian Mechanics which is a description in only three dimensions and it is supposed to convince some that there are "hidden variables". Hidden variables do not automatically imply higher "real" dimensions. I have given many arguments over months as to why I think there are higher dimensions. A three dimensional theory of space would need "hidden variables" to explain higher dimensions in a three dimensional theory (unfortunately it would not be convincing as an argument for extra dimensions it would be just another parametric theory). I also have given many reasons and illustrations as to why they are not linear with our space... and just tacked on but "reciprocal".
We are obviously talking at crossed purposes. I really do not want to speak about "phase space" as any type of dimensional space. Physics operates only in dimensional space as I see it "phase space" is a mathematical artifice that can assist in some problems but I am not concerned with this "tool" as an explanation for higher dimensions. In particular three dimensional space plus time that you already know about is the only space that can support physics... end of story. If it can't work in three dimensions plus time then we can't treat it sanely. I have seen a lot of unusual discussion on the forum about time not being real and some very odd interpretations of Relativity but you will not find any of that here. Parametric variables and different sets of coordinates are fine as well as representations of "degrees of freedom" but it is really not my immediate interest. I can see that you do not have my concept of embedding other spaces inside our "normal" space.
OK ... you latched on to the idea of hidden variables. That is not the intention of my reference to them as this being the explanation for dimensional space. It is part of an argument that is about Bohmian Mechanics which is a description in only three dimensions and it is supposed to convince some that there are "hidden variables". Hidden variables do not automatically imply higher "real" dimensions. I have given many arguments over months as to why I think there are higher dimensions. A three dimensional theory of space would need "hidden variables" to explain higher dimensions in a three dimensional theory (unfortunately it would not be convincing as an argument for extra dimensions it would be just another parametric theory). I also have given many reasons and illustrations as to why they are not linear with our space... and just tacked on but "reciprocal".
QUOTE (Jal+)
1. So Good elf gets 9 dimensions plus time. However, time is included when one is describing the particle's momentum and the particle's position along an axis defined by that direction. So why is time added one more time? ( A hidden variable?)
2. The positions and velocities as well as any number of other properties are now diluted/reduced/difused from 6 degrees of freedom to 18 degrees of freedom. This means that a particle/properties can go in any of the 18 directions/values. This also means that if we wanted to find out the combined initial energy we would have to sum up all of the 18 vectors that have not been identified. ( A hidden variable?) (Feynman_diagram)
3. In physics, phase space is the space in which all possible states of a system are represented. Therefore, you cannot get specific and must generalize. You have too many unknown/hidden variables.
Your model is on par with the AWT description. It cannot be submitted to evaluation/experimentation. Good Elf’s model has too many "hidden variables" and cannot be quantified and measured.
2. The positions and velocities as well as any number of other properties are now diluted/reduced/difused from 6 degrees of freedom to 18 degrees of freedom. This means that a particle/properties can go in any of the 18 directions/values. This also means that if we wanted to find out the combined initial energy we would have to sum up all of the 18 vectors that have not been identified. ( A hidden variable?) (Feynman_diagram)
3. In physics, phase space is the space in which all possible states of a system are represented. Therefore, you cannot get specific and must generalize. You have too many unknown/hidden variables.
Your model is on par with the AWT description. It cannot be submitted to evaluation/experimentation. Good Elf’s model has too many "hidden variables" and cannot be quantified and measured.
Nine spatial and one temporal dimension are sufficient to fully embed one higher dimensional object in "three dimensional" spacetime. That is six extra spatial dimensions. Additional dimensions to these are needed to embed more than that just one particle in a universe. But these are not linear dimensions as seen in some simplistic examples of this shown on television such as in the Elegant Universe Program that can be viewed online. Time is not added at all it is always required and you cannot use any "universal" time but local times for different frames, this is not new since the Theory of Relativity. It exists in any self contained "spacetime" but relates to the frame in which it is recorded (... in a similar fashion where separate coordinates are required for different frames of reference with relativity).
The rest of your discussion cannot relate to my treatment. Is is something you have added to the discussion and there appears to be a number of difficult interpretation problems you are running with. I cannot argue along your lines since they have nothing to do with me and what I am speaking about. You are right... they are "problems" but you have never seen me discuss these issues because they are not part of any treatment of mine. I have never mentioned phase space once and I am not discussing parameters as if they were dimensions. I did mention "interference" and nodes and anti-nodes but not phase space.
What I have said is physics only works in three dimensions at a time, only in that dimensional environment can physics work and remain "conservative". 10 Dimensional "spacetime" can only work if they represent three orthogonal spaces each internally consistent and with barriers that do not normally allow any energy to cross.
Cheers
Are there unusual instances where energy can pass from one orthoganal space to another? Everyone here is always talking about extreme states such as black holes and the big bang. They seem to want to get past the limiting conditions of physical theories. That is natural since there are so many unexplained phenomena such as the creation and very existance of the universe that make people want to posit unusual sources of energy to account for the creation of matter and energy from nothing.
The rest of your discussion cannot relate to my treatment. Is is something you have added to the discussion and there appears to be a number of difficult interpretation problems you are running with. I cannot argue along your lines since they have nothing to do with me and what I am speaking about. You are right... they are "problems" but you have never seen me discuss these issues because they are not part of any treatment of mine. I have never mentioned phase space once and I am not discussing parameters as if they were dimensions. I did mention "interference" and nodes and anti-nodes but not phase space.
What I have said is physics only works in three dimensions at a time, only in that dimensional environment can physics work and remain "conservative". 10 Dimensional "spacetime" can only work if they represent three orthogonal spaces each internally consistent and with barriers that do not normally allow any energy to cross.
Cheers
Are there unusual instances where energy can pass from one orthoganal space to another? Everyone here is always talking about extreme states such as black holes and the big bang. They seem to want to get past the limiting conditions of physical theories. That is natural since there are so many unexplained phenomena such as the creation and very existance of the universe that make people want to posit unusual sources of energy to account for the creation of matter and energy from nothing.
Hi Good Elf!
I want to apologize for my brutal and insensitive rambling/presentation.
This thread has not advanced my search … understanding how the universe is made.
The links that I have posted in my “summary” are helping.
I will post some more links for those who are interested.
jal
I want to apologize for my brutal and insensitive rambling/presentation.
This thread has not advanced my search … understanding how the universe is made.
The links that I have posted in my “summary” are helping.
I will post some more links for those who are interested.
jal
Hello All,
This is interesting and may have some relevance to the SSE and the DSE
as it pertains to the geometry of the slits and the geometry of the wave function.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/pbox.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...um/pbox.html#c3
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/schr.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...um/hosc.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...tum/qm2.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...um/barr.html#c1
This is interesting and may have some relevance to the SSE and the DSE
as it pertains to the geometry of the slits and the geometry of the wave function.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/pbox.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...um/pbox.html#c3
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/schr.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...um/hosc.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...tum/qm2.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...um/barr.html#c1
Jal,
That was never the intent of this thread, though we have explored some
subtleties of the nature of the universe. Our goal is to find conceptual answers
to accurately explain the results of the DSE. We will search all phenomena that may help
provide possible solutions or explanations to that end. Who knows,
our learning process may uncover answers to mysteries beyond the immediate
realm of the problem at hand. I know that I have learned a tremendous
amount from the contributions of all who contribute to this board. There is
just so much more to learn....so much information, so little time.
LL
QUOTE
This thread has not advanced my search … understanding how the universe is made.
That was never the intent of this thread, though we have explored some
subtleties of the nature of the universe. Our goal is to find conceptual answers
to accurately explain the results of the DSE. We will search all phenomena that may help
provide possible solutions or explanations to that end. Who knows,
our learning process may uncover answers to mysteries beyond the immediate
realm of the problem at hand. I know that I have learned a tremendous
amount from the contributions of all who contribute to this board. There is
just so much more to learn....so much information, so little time.
LL
Hi Good Elf,Laserlight,jal, Aerolite, NF et al,
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
But if we have a one to one mapping of the wave, and its "pancakes", to the expanding photon "shadow" in our physical space we have made huge progress.
I fear we have made no progress because I'm not quite sure what you mean by mapping the pancake to the expanding photon shadow.
If you are suggesting that each photon is a new pancake then you are discarding the result of the DSE which shows that interference takes place between different wavefronts (pancakes?) even when there is only one photon.
The result of the DSE suggests that one photon is all of the wavefronts in your dipole picture. One photon is all of the waves in the ripple tank picture.
Check out Feynman's 'Sum over Paths' wheel method .. it identifies every path for every wavefront .. for each single photon... it needs to do this because that's what we see happening in the DSE.
Are you with me on this?
Best wishes,
-C2.
I fear we have made no progress because I'm not quite sure what you mean by mapping the pancake to the expanding photon shadow.
If you are suggesting that each photon is a new pancake then you are discarding the result of the DSE which shows that interference takes place between different wavefronts (pancakes?) even when there is only one photon.
The result of the DSE suggests that one photon is all of the wavefronts in your dipole picture. One photon is all of the waves in the ripple tank picture.
Check out Feynman's 'Sum over Paths' wheel method .. it identifies every path for every wavefront .. for each single photon... it needs to do this because that's what we see happening in the DSE.
Are you with me on this?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2 and All,
I see it differently. Each separate radiating wave represents a photon. I agree
with GE's contention that each wave (photon) only interferes with itself. Even
the ripple tank shows this relationship. The separated wavefronts
try to recombine the "fidelity" of the original waveform as they continue to
spread their energy, but their relative
timing and phasing have been shifted temporally and spacially from the
original. When the shifted wavefront sections re-mix, the timing and phase
interference delta's, from the timing and phase of the original wave, is the result.
LL
QUOTE
The result of the DSE suggests that one photon is all of the wavefronts in your dipole picture. One photon is all of the waves in the ripple tank picture.
I see it differently. Each separate radiating wave represents a photon. I agree
with GE's contention that each wave (photon) only interferes with itself. Even
the ripple tank shows this relationship. The separated wavefronts
try to recombine the "fidelity" of the original waveform as they continue to
spread their energy, but their relative
timing and phasing have been shifted temporally and spacially from the
original. When the shifted wavefront sections re-mix, the timing and phase
interference delta's, from the timing and phase of the original wave, is the result.
LL
Confused2 and Laserlight!
You may fing the following explanation helpfull.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0503/0503109.pdf
On the role of Planck’s oscillator in the construction of Heisenberg’s mechanics
Budh Ram
11 march 2005
jal
You may fing the following explanation helpfull.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0503/0503109.pdf
On the role of Planck’s oscillator in the construction of Heisenberg’s mechanics
Budh Ram
11 march 2005
QUOTE
Last, we may remark that the paper of Aitchison et al.1 and the present
note teach unequivocally the lesson – which every student must learn – that
creative work comes about via many routes, including (i) mathematical expertise
and sophistication, and (ii) physical insight and considerations.
note teach unequivocally the lesson – which every student must learn – that
creative work comes about via many routes, including (i) mathematical expertise
and sophistication, and (ii) physical insight and considerations.
jal
Hi Jal,
No problem. I get pretty frustrated at times as well. Sometimes it would be better to sit down around a table for half an hour with a cold beer and some scribble paper. The process here is pretty slow and tedious and non-interactive. I just do not know how points are missed and why I am unable to get an idea across.
You just carry on Jal. No problem this end I have been trying to follow but I am in trouble seeing stuff when it comes from others all the times.
Cheers
No problem. I get pretty frustrated at times as well. Sometimes it would be better to sit down around a table for half an hour with a cold beer and some scribble paper. The process here is pretty slow and tedious and non-interactive. I just do not know how points are missed and why I am unable to get an idea across.
You just carry on Jal. No problem this end I have been trying to follow but I am in trouble seeing stuff when it comes from others all the times.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
Beer?
The reason you are getting nowhere with me is because you are making no attempt to explain what I see. Your pancake can divide through the two slits .. the only time two bits if the pancake ever come together again is exactly between the two slits. .. one bright bit.
I see lots of bright bits.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Beer?
The reason you are getting nowhere with me is because you are making no attempt to explain what I see. Your pancake can divide through the two slits .. the only time two bits if the pancake ever come together again is exactly between the two slits. .. one bright bit.
I see lots of bright bits.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi all,
I have a post ready to go, about some possible "forms" of the "photon". This can mean either an "actual" self derived form, or just the "allowed" form that a medium gives the "photon". I don't want to interrupt this current vein though, so I'll wait just a bit.
It seems that an awful lot of postulates are riding on the assumption that "energy" can come in something that we can describe as "single". (like the plane wave)
The quantum postulates that stemmed from Planck & Einstein's initial mathematical conclusions, do not have evidence that supports individual "photon" models. It has only statistics, and probabilities.
Somebody help me here, please: doesn't QM say that you can NEVER use the "opposing" models/math from their self-labeled "wave-particle duality"? IE. use BOTH the wave version and the particle version together. It is always "either/or", which further allows for this to be described as a rule.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html
Going down the list that describes which classic experiments can not be described as a wave is a short walk: there is only one, the photoelectric effect.
"Creativity" has led to EITHER model to be used for most of these, but this is no guaranty that we (QM) are not just sitting on the fence, with a lack of information and understanding.
So, everybody line up, and give your testimony as to how we can allow the "energy" term, described by the frequency of the laser, in the "1-at-a-time photon" experiment, to be CHANGED to "intensity"?
The photoelectric effect (inside our counter) ONLY measures frequency!
The method for creating "1-at-a-time photons" is to reduce its' intensity, until the "probabilities" say that there is a damn good "chance" that there is only "1 photon" in the cavity. This DOES NOT change the "modulated" frequency! This is NOT Science of the exact nature that we are trying to accomplish. This is GUESSING, with a little help from the magnet under the roulette wheel: the voltage controlled electron "avalanche"! This is ADJUSTED to match expectations, and THAT voids any "confirmation" that there is "1 photon" present at any given time. If this were true, then SOMETIMES, there are also "zero photons", and sometimes "several photons" in the SAME readings.
In one of the previous links, the fact was pointed out that the DSE experiment itself it "not possible" according to QM.
Much of the arguments over the details of the DSE are ERASED by this truth.
ciao,
T.Roc
I have a post ready to go, about some possible "forms" of the "photon". This can mean either an "actual" self derived form, or just the "allowed" form that a medium gives the "photon". I don't want to interrupt this current vein though, so I'll wait just a bit.
It seems that an awful lot of postulates are riding on the assumption that "energy" can come in something that we can describe as "single". (like the plane wave)
The quantum postulates that stemmed from Planck & Einstein's initial mathematical conclusions, do not have evidence that supports individual "photon" models. It has only statistics, and probabilities.
Somebody help me here, please: doesn't QM say that you can NEVER use the "opposing" models/math from their self-labeled "wave-particle duality"? IE. use BOTH the wave version and the particle version together. It is always "either/or", which further allows for this to be described as a rule.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html
Going down the list that describes which classic experiments can not be described as a wave is a short walk: there is only one, the photoelectric effect.
"Creativity" has led to EITHER model to be used for most of these, but this is no guaranty that we (QM) are not just sitting on the fence, with a lack of information and understanding.
So, everybody line up, and give your testimony as to how we can allow the "energy" term, described by the frequency of the laser, in the "1-at-a-time photon" experiment, to be CHANGED to "intensity"?
The photoelectric effect (inside our counter) ONLY measures frequency!
The method for creating "1-at-a-time photons" is to reduce its' intensity, until the "probabilities" say that there is a damn good "chance" that there is only "1 photon" in the cavity. This DOES NOT change the "modulated" frequency! This is NOT Science of the exact nature that we are trying to accomplish. This is GUESSING, with a little help from the magnet under the roulette wheel: the voltage controlled electron "avalanche"! This is ADJUSTED to match expectations, and THAT voids any "confirmation" that there is "1 photon" present at any given time. If this were true, then SOMETIMES, there are also "zero photons", and sometimes "several photons" in the SAME readings.
In one of the previous links, the fact was pointed out that the DSE experiment itself it "not possible" according to QM.
Much of the arguments over the details of the DSE are ERASED by this truth.
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
Beer?
If you predict the counter will count four times as many photons with both slits open as what it does with either slit open .. and it does .. then to me that's pretty good proof the counter is counting photons like it claims. It doesn't matter what else it might be doing. The theory suggests the counter is good and the counter suggests the theory is good.
I rest my case.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Beer?
If you predict the counter will count four times as many photons with both slits open as what it does with either slit open .. and it does .. then to me that's pretty good proof the counter is counting photons like it claims. It doesn't matter what else it might be doing. The theory suggests the counter is good and the counter suggests the theory is good.
I rest my case.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2 and Laserlight et al,
I have been putting off Laserlight's question for a couple of urgent difficulties being encountered that is the result of some very serious misunderstandings. I will get to Laserlight the very next post...
I have been putting off Laserlight's question for a couple of urgent difficulties being encountered that is the result of some very serious misunderstandings. I will get to Laserlight the very next post...
QUOTE (Confused2+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
But if we have a one to one mapping of the wave, and its "pancakes", to the expanding photon "shadow" in our physical space we have made huge progress.
I fear we have made no progress because I'm not quite sure what you mean by mapping the pancake to the expanding photon shadow.
If you are suggesting that each photon is a new pancake then you are discarding the result of the DSE which shows that interference takes place between different wavefronts (pancakes?) even when there is only one photon.
The result of the DSE suggests that one photon is all of the wavefronts in your dipole picture. One photon is all of the waves in the ripple tank picture.
Check out Feynman's 'Sum over Paths' wheel method .. it identifies every path for every wavefront .. for each single photon... it needs to do this because that's what we see happening in the DSE.
Are you with me on this?
If you are suggesting that each photon is a new pancake then you are discarding the result of the DSE which shows that interference takes place between different wavefronts (pancakes?) even when there is only one photon.
The result of the DSE suggests that one photon is all of the wavefronts in your dipole picture. One photon is all of the waves in the ripple tank picture.
Check out Feynman's 'Sum over Paths' wheel method .. it identifies every path for every wavefront .. for each single photon... it needs to do this because that's what we see happening in the DSE.
Are you with me on this?
I think Laserlight is following. Each photon casts an exactly overlapping shadow to other co-moving photon shadows. That blue animation of the dipole indicates the process in which photons can be individually created.
In coherent sources like radio transmitters or lasers there is a process in which photons are launched in such a way that their mutual proximity and phase is such that they can form a boson wave. That animation shows the source "pinching off" and "launching" a pancake shaped photon. It becomes more and more pancake shaped as it spreads. It retains the wavelength but can spread laterally. The actual size of the blue animation waves mimic to a certain extent a cross-section through the individual photon wavelets. Some strong sources emit many photons at the same time and after a very short interval of travel they arrange themselves on the wavefront in the sequence I have shown in this illustration.
When I say "photon" I am mixing the idea that the photon "particle" I identify with the impulse and its wave is this same impulse viewed in the "frequency domain".. from the waves point of view ... our domain. It is clear to me that the wave is only a reflection or shadow of a process occurring in higher dimensions because it cannot transfer any energy from the "stationary state". It is a totally conservative process since we need to "destroy" photons in order to see this "pattern" otherwise we could know nothing about this process while it is "traveling" from source to destination. This destruction process or quantum demolition process "drags" the energy into our space ending the propagation phase of the photon. We make a reading but the source impulse is now localized in this sink. It suggests to me that the source and the sink are connected directly to each other for this process to operate. This process occurs with almost infinite speed and we call it the collapse of the state. This process is repeated for each photon one at a time. Since a wavefront has individually millions of photons and only one is being used to accomplish this reading it is a pretty good reading that is pretty representative of all the other bosons on that single wave at that instant in time (... considering they all probably come from separate nearby "atomic" sources). One thing we are unable to read is the Berry Phase itself for each of these photons it is hard to read "nothing", even if we did its significance would not be easy to evaluate since it can't help us determine the outcome for this one photon you are reading now.
The possibility that individual photons will occupy exactly the same space on the one expanding wave is almost inevitable, it is the nature of bosons to be able to occupy the same volumetric space even by the billions. This illustration only shows the "longitudinal direction" of single photons not the transverse direction which is the expanding spatial pancake. This "pancake" is an expanding torus whose wavefront lies on the surface of a sphere. There will be one point in this surface that is the "center of the hurricane" and around that the rest of the photon "spins" since there is only a topological "defect" at that point but that point holds great significance to particle theorists. This is the "point" they all recognize as being where the "point particle" emanates from. Nothing could be further from the truth, there is nothing at that position in space, it is the way in which this "optical" theory avoids "infinity" and the need for any renormalization. A very crude analogy is it is like throwing a Frisbee (umm... pancake?) with a hole in the center. The center of the Frisbee has "significance" since all theories of charge and magnetic field put an infinity there. This is like the topological "defect" in Mercator Projection Maps at the North and South Poles where the "field lines" come together at a single point and the "line density" reaches infinity at the north and South Pole. With particles there is an electro-magnetic potential there but it is unreferenced in the same way mass is unreferenced in the Theory of Relativity. All String Theories have this ability to remove these infinities by totally removing "point sources". It is the one "best" reason for pursuing a string theory when we have perfectly good "Non-String Theories" which must require renormalization. Non-String Theories usually neglect the source.
That is an issue perhaps because there is the possibility to confuse this idea with the way in which photons are created with the way they may have to propagate. Certain geometries of "distributed sources" such as a Laser Cavity or Dipole Antenna with its ancillary directors and reflectors or even Active Arrays result in confined beams. This is all within the "general source" but usually not within each individual dipole source which I claim is the fundamental origin of all "impulsively created" photons.
Now how "real" are the infinities at the center of point sources? As far as energy and particles are concerned they are very real. This is why we are building huge particle accelerators at Cern... to examine these very short distances. What we really are examining is the surface of the lightcone and seeing if by forcing large amounts of energy into this region that it will give up even more answers than it has done before. We are seeing some patterns developing on the surface of this lightcone whose extracted and summarized data can be considered the "Standard Model". We are missing some salient crucial detail to fully understand why this pattern exists... on a fundamental level. We are like children with a pocket watch and a very large hammer trying to understand what is inside. The more we strike it with the hammer the smaller the fragments we are getting. The hope is this information is "significant" and meaningful. What we are unable to do with this big machine is to examine the very fine and delicate information of the phase and its tenuous interactions with other particles which are not a "gross phenomenon".
LATE ADDITION
In coherent sources like radio transmitters or lasers there is a process in which photons are launched in such a way that their mutual proximity and phase is such that they can form a boson wave. That animation shows the source "pinching off" and "launching" a pancake shaped photon. It becomes more and more pancake shaped as it spreads. It retains the wavelength but can spread laterally. The actual size of the blue animation waves mimic to a certain extent a cross-section through the individual photon wavelets. Some strong sources emit many photons at the same time and after a very short interval of travel they arrange themselves on the wavefront in the sequence I have shown in this illustration.
When I say "photon" I am mixing the idea that the photon "particle" I identify with the impulse and its wave is this same impulse viewed in the "frequency domain".. from the waves point of view ... our domain. It is clear to me that the wave is only a reflection or shadow of a process occurring in higher dimensions because it cannot transfer any energy from the "stationary state". It is a totally conservative process since we need to "destroy" photons in order to see this "pattern" otherwise we could know nothing about this process while it is "traveling" from source to destination. This destruction process or quantum demolition process "drags" the energy into our space ending the propagation phase of the photon. We make a reading but the source impulse is now localized in this sink. It suggests to me that the source and the sink are connected directly to each other for this process to operate. This process occurs with almost infinite speed and we call it the collapse of the state. This process is repeated for each photon one at a time. Since a wavefront has individually millions of photons and only one is being used to accomplish this reading it is a pretty good reading that is pretty representative of all the other bosons on that single wave at that instant in time (... considering they all probably come from separate nearby "atomic" sources). One thing we are unable to read is the Berry Phase itself for each of these photons it is hard to read "nothing", even if we did its significance would not be easy to evaluate since it can't help us determine the outcome for this one photon you are reading now.
The possibility that individual photons will occupy exactly the same space on the one expanding wave is almost inevitable, it is the nature of bosons to be able to occupy the same volumetric space even by the billions. This illustration only shows the "longitudinal direction" of single photons not the transverse direction which is the expanding spatial pancake. This "pancake" is an expanding torus whose wavefront lies on the surface of a sphere. There will be one point in this surface that is the "center of the hurricane" and around that the rest of the photon "spins" since there is only a topological "defect" at that point but that point holds great significance to particle theorists. This is the "point" they all recognize as being where the "point particle" emanates from. Nothing could be further from the truth, there is nothing at that position in space, it is the way in which this "optical" theory avoids "infinity" and the need for any renormalization. A very crude analogy is it is like throwing a Frisbee (umm... pancake?) with a hole in the center. The center of the Frisbee has "significance" since all theories of charge and magnetic field put an infinity there. This is like the topological "defect" in Mercator Projection Maps at the North and South Poles where the "field lines" come together at a single point and the "line density" reaches infinity at the north and South Pole. With particles there is an electro-magnetic potential there but it is unreferenced in the same way mass is unreferenced in the Theory of Relativity. All String Theories have this ability to remove these infinities by totally removing "point sources". It is the one "best" reason for pursuing a string theory when we have perfectly good "Non-String Theories" which must require renormalization. Non-String Theories usually neglect the source.
That is an issue perhaps because there is the possibility to confuse this idea with the way in which photons are created with the way they may have to propagate. Certain geometries of "distributed sources" such as a Laser Cavity or Dipole Antenna with its ancillary directors and reflectors or even Active Arrays result in confined beams. This is all within the "general source" but usually not within each individual dipole source which I claim is the fundamental origin of all "impulsively created" photons.
Now how "real" are the infinities at the center of point sources? As far as energy and particles are concerned they are very real. This is why we are building huge particle accelerators at Cern... to examine these very short distances. What we really are examining is the surface of the lightcone and seeing if by forcing large amounts of energy into this region that it will give up even more answers than it has done before. We are seeing some patterns developing on the surface of this lightcone whose extracted and summarized data can be considered the "Standard Model". We are missing some salient crucial detail to fully understand why this pattern exists... on a fundamental level. We are like children with a pocket watch and a very large hammer trying to understand what is inside. The more we strike it with the hammer the smaller the fragments we are getting. The hope is this information is "significant" and meaningful. What we are unable to do with this big machine is to examine the very fine and delicate information of the phase and its tenuous interactions with other particles which are not a "gross phenomenon".
LATE ADDITION
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Hi Good Elf,
Beer?
The reason you are getting nowhere with me is because you are making no attempt to explain what I see. Your pancake can divide through the two slits .. the only time two bits if the pancake ever come together again is exactly between the two slits. .. one bright bit.
I see lots of bright bits.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Beer?
The reason you are getting nowhere with me is because you are making no attempt to explain what I see. Your pancake can divide through the two slits .. the only time two bits if the pancake ever come together again is exactly between the two slits. .. one bright bit.
I see lots of bright bits.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Lets focus on the electric field lines. I know they are imaginary but they do represent the way in which the energy arranges itself inside the "packets". These lines form complete circulating loops... they are conserved and require that they "dissipate" in a sink to destroy or absorb the photon. If the photon remains in the quantum state these "loops" occupy a position of minimum energy. They will otherwise never "break" or reform into energetically smaller or bigger loops while propagating. This also ensures that for photons that pass through two holes or two slits, provided they are not absorbed, perform a "trick"... the loop remains intact when it passes the two holes. Think of this as the loops passing over the holes not through them, after that they shake off the wrinkles and continue on their way as still intact loops. Yes... it can appear that it is dissipating and splitting into parts but it is in fact quite intact and internally cannot notice this process which is "cavity driven". The individual photons contorted shape is only our point of view and it is still a surface of minimum energy in that space just like the expanding sphere is "out in the open". If you think in only three dimensions the photon can't get through the two holes at once... the simple fact it does pass through the two holes is an experimental fact not simply a "hope". It is really only a topological "trick" in higher dimensions. Not topologically unlike this...
Light's Most Exotic Trick Yet: So Fast it Goes ... Backwards?
The photons "jump" from the left portion of the boundary to the far right without actually passing through the boundary. Notice the "particle" remains "intact" and the "reality" is the continuing "particle". The photon is distantly connected to its ongoing "continuation". This is equivalent to a caustic you can see any day when light reflects and refracts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caustic_(optics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephroid
Feel free to ask any questions or to fault any point that I have made.
Cheers
Light's Most Exotic Trick Yet: So Fast it Goes ... Backwards?
The photons "jump" from the left portion of the boundary to the far right without actually passing through the boundary. Notice the "particle" remains "intact" and the "reality" is the continuing "particle". The photon is distantly connected to its ongoing "continuation". This is equivalent to a caustic you can see any day when light reflects and refracts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caustic_(optics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephroid
Feel free to ask any questions or to fault any point that I have made.
Cheers
Hi all,
C2
If you are accepting that there are 4 photons past the slit, you MUST also accept that there were TWO before the slit. While the experimenters (in order to get published) are "assuring" us that there is ONLY one at a time.
If you are accepting that there are 4 photons past the slit, you MUST also accept that there were TWO before the slit. While the experimenters (in order to get published) are "assuring" us that there is ONLY one at a time.
It doesn't matter what else it might be doing. The theory suggests the counter is good and the counter suggests the theory is good.
NO, the COUNTER is ADJUSTED prior to the "final run" SO THAT the theoretical outcome IS produced. That is clearly a "set-up".
I'll have to say it again: the photoelectric effect does NOT rely on "counts", or intensity. No amount of "playing around" with this will produce an additional electron to be ejected. It takes a certain FREQUENCY to produce the ejected electron, which is the BEGINNING of a "counting" process.
Turning down the intensity of the laser does NOT change its' frequency.
The laser DSE is not a valid experiment for this phenomenon (1-at-a-time). The mechanics of the set-up are MADE to give the theoretical answer. That IS NOT the Scientific way. That is strictly "lets get published by making sure our results agree with everybody's expectations".
This is the same for Dirac's quote that the "photon" can only interfere with itself (AFTER saying that "dividing" it into TWO parts STILL counts as one). What differences, then, do THESE 2 parts of energy ("photons") have from ANY OTHER 2 "photons"? If the divided parts can interfere, then so can independent ones.
The wave functions interfere, by theory. The probabilities interfere, by theory. The Classical EM theory, too.
GE, you have said (again in your last posts) throughout, that "photons" can't interfere, by theory. BY WHAT THEORY? BY WHAT EVIDENCE? Please provide some. Your "dislike" isn't enough to convince me. You always SAY that there is plenty of evidence, but NOT ONCE have you posted any.
What makes you (now) believe that an "interference-less" result can RECONSTRUCT a picture from TWO frequencies? (I say "now" because of your latching onto Land's theory as evidence for the "holographic" Universe)
regards,
T.Roc
C2
QUOTE
If you predict the counter will count four times as many photons with both slits open as what it does with either slit open .. and it does .. then to me that's pretty good proof the counter is counting photons like it claims.
If you are accepting that there are 4 photons past the slit, you MUST also accept that there were TWO before the slit. While the experimenters (in order to get published) are "assuring" us that there is ONLY one at a time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you predict the counter will count four times as many photons with both slits open as what it does with either slit open .. and it does .. then to me that's pretty good proof the counter is counting photons like it claims. |
If you are accepting that there are 4 photons past the slit, you MUST also accept that there were TWO before the slit. While the experimenters (in order to get published) are "assuring" us that there is ONLY one at a time.
It doesn't matter what else it might be doing. The theory suggests the counter is good and the counter suggests the theory is good.
NO, the COUNTER is ADJUSTED prior to the "final run" SO THAT the theoretical outcome IS produced. That is clearly a "set-up".
I'll have to say it again: the photoelectric effect does NOT rely on "counts", or intensity. No amount of "playing around" with this will produce an additional electron to be ejected. It takes a certain FREQUENCY to produce the ejected electron, which is the BEGINNING of a "counting" process.
Turning down the intensity of the laser does NOT change its' frequency.
The laser DSE is not a valid experiment for this phenomenon (1-at-a-time). The mechanics of the set-up are MADE to give the theoretical answer. That IS NOT the Scientific way. That is strictly "lets get published by making sure our results agree with everybody's expectations".
This is the same for Dirac's quote that the "photon" can only interfere with itself (AFTER saying that "dividing" it into TWO parts STILL counts as one). What differences, then, do THESE 2 parts of energy ("photons") have from ANY OTHER 2 "photons"? If the divided parts can interfere, then so can independent ones.
The wave functions interfere, by theory. The probabilities interfere, by theory. The Classical EM theory, too.
GE, you have said (again in your last posts) throughout, that "photons" can't interfere, by theory. BY WHAT THEORY? BY WHAT EVIDENCE? Please provide some. Your "dislike" isn't enough to convince me. You always SAY that there is plenty of evidence, but NOT ONCE have you posted any.
What makes you (now) believe that an "interference-less" result can RECONSTRUCT a picture from TWO frequencies? (I say "now" because of your latching onto Land's theory as evidence for the "holographic" Universe)
regards,
T.Roc
TRoc,
This is the same for Dirac's quote that the "photon" can only interfere with itself (AFTER saying that "dividing" it into TWO parts STILL counts as one). What differences, then, do THESE 2 parts of energy ("photons") have from ANY OTHER 2 "photons"? If the divided parts can interfere, then so can independent ones.
The wave functions interfere, by theory. The probabilities interfere, by theory. The Classical EM theory, too.
GE, you have said (again in your last posts) throughout, that "photons" can't interfere, by theory. BY WHAT THEORY? BY WHAT EVIDENCE?
What makes you (now) believe that an "interference-less" result can RECONSTRUCT a picture from TWO frequencies? (I say "now" because of your latching onto Land's theory as evidence for the "holographic" Universe)
IMO, if photons could randomly and spontaneously interfere there would be
photon "static" observed from the light of distant galaxies and nebuli. By using
colored filters and overlapping the images that they produce at each color
frequency, extremely fine details and patterns can be observed that perfectly
reproduce the distant features being observed.
If photons did interfere over the millions and billions of light years that are
routinely observed, we should not be able to discern fine details, only
blurry "images" caused by interference en route.. We don't see that.
Another example is that if 2 different colored laser beams were crossed, we
should detect a different wavelength of light at the intersection point of the beams
as they interfere and form a new "composite" wavelength. We should also
observe some cancellation of the energy of each beam. We don't see that
either.
Can you show evidence that photons interfere without the benefit of first
interacting in the presence of matter? That is a loaded question, I
know you can't.... it impossible to prove, since the act of detection
affects the result.
Regarding the 2 colors "mixing" to generate all other colors. Only as a
consequence of their frequencies being reflected and absorbed
from the different refractive surface areas being saturated.
The frequency mixing takes place at the refractive surface, as the energy of the 2
applied frequencys is absorbed and a different composite wavelength is re-emitted
from the atoms being affected. In effect you have the 2 applied frequencies,
plus the frequency of vibrations at the surface of the atomic matrix. Each "color"
surface has a different vibrational frequency, and energy level, according to
its chemical composition. Basically, you still have 3 frequencies interacting to
generate a composite "output" emission frequency.
LL
QUOTE
This is the same for Dirac's quote that the "photon" can only interfere with itself (AFTER saying that "dividing" it into TWO parts STILL counts as one). What differences, then, do THESE 2 parts of energy ("photons") have from ANY OTHER 2 "photons"? If the divided parts can interfere, then so can independent ones.
The wave functions interfere, by theory. The probabilities interfere, by theory. The Classical EM theory, too.
GE, you have said (again in your last posts) throughout, that "photons" can't interfere, by theory. BY WHAT THEORY? BY WHAT EVIDENCE?
What makes you (now) believe that an "interference-less" result can RECONSTRUCT a picture from TWO frequencies? (I say "now" because of your latching onto Land's theory as evidence for the "holographic" Universe)
IMO, if photons could randomly and spontaneously interfere there would be
photon "static" observed from the light of distant galaxies and nebuli. By using
colored filters and overlapping the images that they produce at each color
frequency, extremely fine details and patterns can be observed that perfectly
reproduce the distant features being observed.
If photons did interfere over the millions and billions of light years that are
routinely observed, we should not be able to discern fine details, only
blurry "images" caused by interference en route.. We don't see that.
Another example is that if 2 different colored laser beams were crossed, we
should detect a different wavelength of light at the intersection point of the beams
as they interfere and form a new "composite" wavelength. We should also
observe some cancellation of the energy of each beam. We don't see that
either.
Can you show evidence that photons interfere without the benefit of first
interacting in the presence of matter?
That is a loaded question, Iknow you can't.... it impossible to prove, since the act of detection
affects the result.
Regarding the 2 colors "mixing" to generate all other colors. Only as a
consequence of their frequencies being reflected and absorbed
from the different refractive surface areas being saturated.
The frequency mixing takes place at the refractive surface, as the energy of the 2
applied frequencys is absorbed and a different composite wavelength is re-emitted
from the atoms being affected. In effect you have the 2 applied frequencies,
plus the frequency of vibrations at the surface of the atomic matrix. Each "color"
surface has a different vibrational frequency, and energy level, according to
its chemical composition. Basically, you still have 3 frequencies interacting to
generate a composite "output" emission frequency.
LL
Hi all,
This might apply to others, but I'll address it to LL, since he posted.
You are reading TOO much into my statement. You will need at least SOME of what I have said over these many pages to put together the "big picture", but I'm just trying to go point by point for now.
When I say "interference", I have ADDED a new result to the existing "constructive", or "destructive" options of current theory. This is the "neutral" interference of superposition that I have talked about. They can ALL be held under ONE umbrella: Resonance. That is why I suggest the term "interact".
I know that I can not PROVE that this interference happens "on the way", and have said enough on that, I think. My argument does not depend on it happening "on the way", but it DOES give us a MODEL that follows logic, is predictable, and easy to understand. Those things are lacking in the current model.
I also know that the opposite is true: there is NO proof that it is NOT happening "on the way", because we only KNOW when we measure, AT the detector. I am trying to show that saying energy quanta can NOT interact on the way will HINDER understanding. Not keeping this ASSUMPTION will help to rid the theory of problems.
I have already explained the "across the Universe" question. It is the SAME for the "across the symphony hall" set of waves NOT interfering "randomly" on the way to our fleshy, side-mounted detectors. The only exception (for BOTH examples) is Doppler shift, which is well supported. The FACT is, they DO interact, NEUTRALLY by superposition.
LL
If you put a detector at this intersection, you WILL get a new frequency. You will get the difference between them, termed a beat-frequency. I have given close to a dozen examples of this ALREADY. What happened? FWM...
If you put a detector at this intersection, you WILL get a new frequency. You will get the difference between them, termed a beat-frequency. I have given close to a dozen examples of this ALREADY. What happened? FWM...
We should also observe some cancellation of the energy of each beam. We don't see that either.
That part is correct, there is NO cancellation of either beam (signal and idler). Remember, we are dealing with a flow of energy; this is not "free", it is continually being replaced.
I'm well aware of that, after saying it so many times.
There is no "vacuum"; there are no "isolated" waves. There is just "harmony".
T.Roc
PS. Interacting in "another dimension" would count for "on the way".
There is no "vacuum"; there are no "isolated" waves. There is just "harmony".
T.Roc
PS. Interacting in "another dimension" would count for "on the way".
I soundly resonate with that stuff! ..... by the way ... "on the way" in my 'picture' of things is an illusion of singularity state transition, not of the photon, but of the carrier wave in which it's embedded ( electronic hypertoroidal wave prop').
This might apply to others, but I'll address it to LL, since he posted.
You are reading TOO much into my statement. You will need at least SOME of what I have said over these many pages to put together the "big picture", but I'm just trying to go point by point for now.
When I say "interference", I have ADDED a new result to the existing "constructive", or "destructive" options of current theory. This is the "neutral" interference of superposition that I have talked about. They can ALL be held under ONE umbrella: Resonance. That is why I suggest the term "interact".
I know that I can not PROVE that this interference happens "on the way", and have said enough on that, I think. My argument does not depend on it happening "on the way", but it DOES give us a MODEL that follows logic, is predictable, and easy to understand. Those things are lacking in the current model.
I also know that the opposite is true: there is NO proof that it is NOT happening "on the way", because we only KNOW when we measure, AT the detector. I am trying to show that saying energy quanta can NOT interact on the way will HINDER understanding. Not keeping this ASSUMPTION will help to rid the theory of problems.
I have already explained the "across the Universe" question. It is the SAME for the "across the symphony hall" set of waves NOT interfering "randomly" on the way to our fleshy, side-mounted detectors. The only exception (for BOTH examples) is Doppler shift, which is well supported. The FACT is, they DO interact, NEUTRALLY by superposition.
LL
QUOTE
Another example is that if 2 different colored laser beams were crossed, we should detect a different wavelength of light at the intersection point of the beams as they interfere and form a new "composite" wavelength.
If you put a detector at this intersection, you WILL get a new frequency. You will get the difference between them, termed a beat-frequency. I have given close to a dozen examples of this ALREADY. What happened? FWM...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Another example is that if 2 different colored laser beams were crossed, we should detect a different wavelength of light at the intersection point of the beams as they interfere and form a new "composite" wavelength. |
If you put a detector at this intersection, you WILL get a new frequency. You will get the difference between them, termed a beat-frequency. I have given close to a dozen examples of this ALREADY. What happened? FWM...
We should also observe some cancellation of the energy of each beam. We don't see that either.
That part is correct, there is NO cancellation of either beam (signal and idler). Remember, we are dealing with a flow of energy; this is not "free", it is continually being replaced.
QUOTE
Basically, you still have 3 frequencies interacting to
generate a composite "output" emission frequency.
generate a composite "output" emission frequency.
I'm well aware of that, after saying it so many times.
There is no "vacuum"; there are no "isolated" waves. There is just "harmony".
T.Roc
PS. Interacting in "another dimension" would count for "on the way".
QUOTE (TRoc+Dec 27 2006, 06:46 AM)
There is no "vacuum"; there are no "isolated" waves. There is just "harmony".
T.Roc
PS. Interacting in "another dimension" would count for "on the way".
I soundly resonate with that stuff!
..... by the way ... "on the way" in my 'picture' of things is an illusion of singularity state transition, not of the photon, but of the carrier wave in which it's embedded ( electronic hypertoroidal wave prop').
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.