To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Problem with the two slit experiment
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Physics > Physics General
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44

Laserlight
27th December 2006 - 07:57 AM
TRoc,

QUOTE
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...


Well, now you've gone and upset the applecart.

No detector = no mixing = no beat frequency. The detector becomes the
point of quantum interaction and frequency mixing.

I think it is fairly obvious that photon EM energy affects the "steady state" EM
fields of matter (electrons) by displacing them from their ground states. This
causes new frequencies to be emitted as the result of those EM enegy fields
interacting, as they mix, by altering the vibrational frequency of the electrons and
atoms.

The resultant frequency is determined by the electrons in the atomic structure
vibrating in "harmony", additively, with the electrical energy of the applied EM
fields and forming a composite (mixed) EM field output frequency.

Can the EM energy of a sinusoidal wavefunction displace or modify
the sinusoidal EM energy of another wavefunction in open space? No way to
prove that it can happen unless the result can be measured. We can, however,
isolate each wavefunction just prior to the detection point to verify if it still
maintains its discrete wavefunction characteristics. This being the case, I
say there is no signal mixing prior to the point of detection.

smile.gif
LL
TRoc
27th December 2006 - 08:48 AM
LL,


Just a note, regarding a past conversation, re. color monitors, etc.

Interpolation and Gamma Correction
http://home.no.net/dmaurer/~dersch/gamma/gamma.html

QUOTE
Digital images are usually gamma-corrected. This is a correction required by the video display, which is no linear device. It means that the RGB-data comprising a pixel of a digital image do not directly correspond to the light intensities. When dealing with real images, manipulations like overlaying images, transforming images or filtering images usually affect the light intensity, so doing the same with digitized images should include a reverse gamma correction to first yield these intensities.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Digital images are usually gamma-corrected. This is a correction required by the video display, which is no linear device. It means that the RGB-data comprising a pixel of a digital image do not directly correspond to the light intensities. When dealing with real images, manipulations like overlaying images, transforming images or filtering images usually affect the light intensity, so doing the same with digitized images should include a reverse gamma correction to first yield these intensities.

The interpolated value between Magenta and Green is mathematically this dark, almost black color, but in the real world this is quite different. It is an artefact of working with gamma-corrected data.


Mathematically dark, .. but not "real world". hmmm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aliasing
QUOTE
In most real-world systems, gamma correction is required to linearise the response curve of the sensor and display systems. If this is not taken into account, the resultant non-linear distortion will defeat the purpose of anti-aliasing calculations based on the assumption of a linear system response.



All,

Back to the "black and white" version of explaining the S/DSE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aliasing
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
In most real-world systems, gamma correction is required to linearise the response curve of the sensor and display systems. If this is not taken into account, the resultant non-linear distortion will defeat the purpose of anti-aliasing calculations based on the assumption of a linear system response.



All,

Back to the "black and white" version of explaining the S/DSE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aliasing
When sampling is performed without removing this part of the signal, it causes undesirable artifacts such as the black-and-white noise near the top of figure 1-a.


Our wall is sampling the laser frequency, after having gone through a slit (or 2). Nothing has been "removed".

QUOTE
The idealized image has infinite detail, and we represent it using a function f(x,y) where x and y are real numbers defining coordinates.

There are infinitely many such functions. However, the computer screen is capable of displaying only finitely many different images.


Hey, good news! Our screen/wall has an finite amount of electrons. Only a finite number of "dots" on the screen.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The idealized image has infinite detail, and we represent it using a function f(x,y) where x and y are real numbers defining coordinates.

There are infinitely many such functions. However, the computer screen is capable of displaying only finitely many different images.


Hey, good news! Our screen/wall has an finite amount of electrons. Only a finite number of "dots" on the screen.

The Fourier transform decomposes our signal into basic waves of different frequencies, and gives us the amplitude of each wave in our signal.


ouch! amplitude = intensity ; not corresponding to the different energies, of the different frequencies

How about trying an "Energy Transform"? wink.gif

QUOTE
The numbers j and k together are the frequency of the wave: j is the frequency in the x direction, and k is the frequency in the y direction.

It has been observed (by Harry Nyquist) that to uniquely specify a signal of not more than n frequencies, you need at least 2n sample points (assuming the inclusion of the sines that we omitted above).


Great! Someone else agrees that we always need AT LEAST 2n (or 2f) to "sample" (measure). Since the Fourier method HAS j & k, then we are up to 4 frequencies. Methods CAUSE results; theories PREDICT them. Separate the method from the theory to unravel the truth.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The numbers j and k together are the frequency of the wave: j is the frequency in the x direction, and k is the frequency in the y direction.

It has been observed (by Harry Nyquist) that to uniquely specify a signal of not more than n frequencies, you need at least 2n sample points (assuming the inclusion of the sines that we omitted above).


Great! Someone else agrees that we always need AT LEAST 2n (or 2f) to "sample" (measure). Since the Fourier method HAS j & k, then we are up to 4 frequencies. Methods CAUSE results; theories PREDICT them. Separate the method from the theory to unravel the truth.

The goal of sharply cutting off frequencies above a certain limit, known as the Nyquist frequency, can not be realized exactly, even with Fourier techniques, so it is always approximated, with many different choices of detailed algorithm.


That truth applies to filters too, as I have said numerous times. We are dealing with "approximations" already. Do we want to improve this?

QUOTE
The basic waves need not be cosine waves. See, for instance, wavelets. If one uses basic waves which are not cosine waves, one obtains a slightly different image. Some basic waves yield anti-aliasing algorithms which are not so good (for instance, the Haar wavelet gives the uniform averaging algorithm). However, some wavelets are good, and it is possible that some wavelets are better at approximating the functioning of the human brain than the cosine basis.


cool.gif mmm... wavelets... g o o d

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The basic waves need not be cosine waves. See, for instance, wavelets. If one uses basic waves which are not cosine waves, one obtains a slightly different image. Some basic waves yield anti-aliasing algorithms which are not so good (for instance, the Haar wavelet gives the uniform averaging algorithm). However, some wavelets are good, and it is possible that some wavelets are better at approximating the functioning of the human brain than the cosine basis.


cool.gif mmm... wavelets... g o o d

If the resolution is not limited by the rectangular sampling rate of either the source or the target image, then one should ideally use rotationally symmetrical filter or interpolation functions, as though the data were a two dimensional function of continuous x and y. The sinc function of the radius, in the second figure, has too long a tail to make a good filter (not square integrable). A more appropriate analog to the one-dimensional sinc might be the two-dimensional Airy disc amplitude, the 2D Fourier transform of a circular region in 2D frequency space, as opposed to a square region.

User posted image


But if the SOURCE is rectangular, back to the "wavelets". Notice the presence of "destructive/constructive" interference crests.

User posted image


How would that look if it were also spinning? Can we get a look at the "counter rotational", dualistic vibration, that would enter BOTH slits with an opposing, symmetrically balanced, angular momentum? Yes, we CAN! And, we can use a REAL example of a light source. None other than the Sun itself, with its' entangled E and B fields.

User posted image
(all images from Wikipedia)


smile.gif

ciao,

T.Roc

TRoc
27th December 2006 - 09:54 AM
LL,

QUOTE
Well, now you've gone and upset the applecart.

No detector = no mixing = no beat frequency. The detector becomes the
point of quantum interaction and frequency mixing.


Well, you asked the question! tongue.gif


Again, I am not arguing that the electron positions (lattice) are not a point of mixing. You will have to put a detector there, if you want to see the interaction. Just like with the super-colliders.


But, now you've gone and upset the applecart too!

I can use your statement to "disprove" the "photon" transaction altogether! Anywhere there is NOT a detector, then there is NOT a "photon", correct? We could NOT put a detector at any unit of length along the path, and NOT measure anything! laugh.gif

But if we DID, we WOULD. So, what is the difference?

It seems you have erected a fence between GE's "dimensions", and my "Resonant Interactions", and you're standing on it. tongue.gif

Is there "something traveling" between source and detector, or not? It (a "photon") either exists between events, or not, IMO.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Well, now you've gone and upset the applecart.

No detector = no mixing = no beat frequency. The detector becomes the
point of quantum interaction and frequency mixing.


Well, you asked the question! tongue.gif


Again, I am not arguing that the electron positions (lattice) are not a point of mixing. You will have to put a detector there, if you want to see the interaction. Just like with the super-colliders.


But, now you've gone and upset the applecart too!

I can use your statement to "disprove" the "photon" transaction altogether! Anywhere there is NOT a detector, then there is NOT a "photon", correct? We could NOT put a detector at any unit of length along the path, and NOT measure anything! laugh.gif

But if we DID, we WOULD. So, what is the difference?

It seems you have erected a fence between GE's "dimensions", and my "Resonant Interactions", and you're standing on it. tongue.gif

Is there "something traveling" between source and detector, or not? It (a "photon") either exists between events, or not, IMO.


Can the EM energy of a sinusoidal wavefunction displace or modify
the sinusoidal EM energy of another wavefunction in open space? No way to
prove that it can happen unless the result can be measured.


Does Doppler redshift change the wave? It shows that way when we measure it. Does Gravity, from a large mass (large energy), bend the path? It shows that when we do the measurements. Do AM stations "fight each other" for the space their amplitude is modulating in? The signal coming from the speaker says they do. What about potential energies (mass) of free particles interacting (colliding) directly? What about watching interference happen through a prism? The rainbow?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0603/0603048.pdf
Experimental interference of independent photons
QUOTE
We report an observation of non-classical interference of two single photons originating from two independent, separated sources, which were actively synchronized with an r.m.s. timing jitter of 260 fs. The resulting (two-photon) interference visibility was 83 ± 4 %.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
We report an observation of non-classical interference of two single photons originating from two independent, separated sources, which were actively synchronized with an r.m.s. timing jitter of 260 fs. The resulting (two-photon) interference visibility was 83 ± 4 %.


First, consider two independent classical sources. Any correlation between intensities at two detectors placed in the joint far-field of the sources is a manifestation of standard interference of classical waves and shows at most 50 % visibility [3].


50% visibility = light/dark bands

QUOTE
A well-known example is the stellar interferometry method introduced by Hanbury-Brown and Twiss [8].


QM predicted this would NOT happen. In 1956, it did; stellar diameters were measured with beat-frequencies.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
A well-known example is the stellar interferometry method introduced by Hanbury-Brown and Twiss [8].


QM predicted this would NOT happen. In 1956, it did; stellar diameters were measured with beat-frequencies.

Quantum interference of two fully independent photons has thus far never been observed. Since the 1960s, however, interference of light from independent sources has been addressed in many experiments. In [9] two independent He-Ne lasers were used to observe the beating of their superposed outputs. Later [10], transient spatial interference fringes between beams from independent ruby lasers were reported. In both cases the interference was classically explainable. Partly motivated by the often overinterpreted quotation from Dirac that each photon interferes only with itself [11], follow-up experiments
[12, 13] investigated the question whether one can observe interference of two photons if each one was generated by a different source. This was done by simply
attenuating the laser beams. However, attenuation does not affect the statistical nature of laser light. The only quantum aspect was that the detection involved licks due to photon registrations. Consequently, the observed effects could “not readily be described in terms of one photon from one source interfering with one from the other” [12].

(emphasis added)

QUOTE
Our experiment demonstrates the feasibility of interference of two single photons originating from independent, spatially separated sources, which were actively time-synchronized.
..
Moreover, the use of such independent sources might also provide conceptual advantages for experiments on the foundations of quantum physics [24].


Here! Here! We need a "conceptual advantage".


regards,

T.Roc


BTW: My model is "classical" and undiscovered. It is the WHY for quanta, and already has a 2500 year (written) track record.
Confused2
27th December 2006 - 11:16 AM
Hi TRoc,


QUOTE (TRoc+)

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.




Just to make sure we're looking at the same experiment..

Clicker
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/cricket/index.shtml

Clicks when a photon is detected

Instrument specification
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...fications.shtml

Needs a counter of at least 0-1Mhz (supply your own). The counter counts when a photon is detected. After (say) 1 second the the counter displays how many it has counted .. leaves that number (eg 2400) displayed while it resets it's count and counts up again for another second .. then displays the new number.. etc.

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif

Looking at the counts when the detector is 6.1mm from the origin..

Slit A only .. 600 photons per second
Slit B only .. 600 photons per second
Both open 2400 photons/second

Of the original (say 1 million/second) that actually pass through the slits ..
We're never seeing 4 photons being counted .. the photomultiplier can only respond to one photon at a time. We're seeing that the probability of 1 photon being found at a particular location has increased by a factor of four at a point of constructive interference.

Clearly there are less photons being counted when the detector is at 5.6mm and 6.5 mm .. this is the reason why we can count 4 times as many when the detector is at 6.1mm and say that both the counter and our (my) theory looks pretty good.

TRoc theory will have to predict the same result if it is to agree with the result of this experiment.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Confused2
27th December 2006 - 01:22 PM
Evidence that a photon can only interfere with itself..

We happen to think of the DSE as a laser effect and we know lasers give a coherent output but the DSE works with thermal sources .. light bulbs and the Sun. (after monochromatic filter)... regardless of intensity. If non-phase matched photons interfered with each other then there would be no possibility of cancellation... the observed interference result requires perfect phase matching at the slits and that only leaves one obvious possibility. For this explanation to 'work' you have to accept that the cancellation (dark bits) are the result of the difference in path length from the slit to the detector... see the DSE Equation . We have two slits .. the only thing that we can be virtually sure has a fixed phase relationship at these two points is a single photon..

IMHO just looking at the DSE equation reveals a great deal about the DSE and interference in general.

-C2.
Confused2
27th December 2006 - 02:46 PM
Hi Good Elf,

QUOTE (Good Elf+)
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".


You imply that a single expanding wave (of any form) can simulate the effects of the DSE equation which suggests that interference is an effect caused by the path difference between two points (the slits) .. this would bring us back to the result we see in the DSE. If there are expanding spheres then to get the right result I think there must be two of them and they are centered on the slits.

Best wishes,

C2.

jal
27th December 2006 - 04:36 PM
Good Day!
Keep going, now we are getting into the inside of things.
Question: I interpret "classical" to mean particle-like. Correct?
jal
Confused2
27th December 2006 - 04:42 PM
Hi jal,

My 'classical' means electromagnetism .. Faraday, ripple tank etc. I'm not sure about anyone else though.

Best wishes,

-C2.
Laserlight
27th December 2006 - 05:47 PM
TRoc,

QUOTE
It seems you have erected a fence between GE's "dimensions", and my "Resonant Interactions", and you're standing on it. 


Yep, I am standing in a node. laugh.gif


You might find these of interest.

http://www.csm.astate.edu/music.html


http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/wave...eDiagrams1.html

http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/wave...dingWaves1.html

http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/viewtopic.php?t=35

http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/wave...erference2.html

http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/applist/beats/b.htm

http://webphysics.davidson.edu/applets/Sou...t/SoundOut.html

http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph14e/beats.htm

cool.gif
LL



TRoc
27th December 2006 - 06:52 PM
C2,


I can't believe it, but here we go again. The last time around, I bashed you so hard with truth and logic, you ran crying down the hall, yelling "TRoc's gone amuck in the lab!" Funny once, but NOT twice.

YOU
QUOTE
Just to make sure we're looking at the same experiment..


GUESS WHAT? YOU are NOT looking at the same experiment.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Just to make sure we're looking at the same experiment..


GUESS WHAT? YOU are NOT looking at the same experiment.

Confused2 Posted on Today at 11:16 AM
  Hi TRoc,

QUOTE (TRoc)
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. 

(emphasis added)

I am talking about "1-at-time-photons" C2.

So, all of the first post (Confused2 Posted on Today at 11:16 AM) is pointless. If you are talking about "2400 photons/second", then the STATISTICS model works.

Not "one photon"; No more comment.


Your next post (Posted on Today at 1:22 PM), starts with:
QUOTE
Evidence that a photon can only interfere with itself..


First of all, your "evidence" can ONLY be isolated, "1-at-a-time photons", otherwise, the statement is PLURAL, and has an ENTIRELY different meaning. You then go on to say all of this:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Evidence that a photon can only interfere with itself..


First of all, your "evidence" can ONLY be isolated, "1-at-a-time photons", otherwise, the statement is PLURAL, and has an ENTIRELY different meaning. You then go on to say all of this:

For this explanation to 'work' you have to accept that the cancellation (dark bits) are the result of the difference in path length from the slit to the detector... see the DSE Equation . We have two slits .. the only thing that we can be virtually sure has a fixed phase relationship at these two points is a single photon..


Since my argument is that the COUNTER is flawed, then YOUR argument (QM) falls apart. There is nothing close to a guarantee that "1-at-a-time photons" are being produced. The Sun, a light bulb, and the laser have ONE thing in common: they produce HOARDS of "photons". Get a single atom, excite it by ONE orbital, and THEN you get ONE "photon".

Light casts evenly in a cone past the slit. The banding is made by the dual nature of light, and the ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC fields that MAKE it work. These two things DO NOT ever go together, they remain AT 90 degrees to each other. When you take away 1 degree of freedom (dimension), that is from "free-flight" 3D, to impacting the wall 2D, that is what happens. They can NOT remain at 90 degrees, so they end up in separate areas. That completely explains the light and dark bands. Just break up a bar magnet into several pieces, and line them up. S,N,S,N,S,N ... get it? No math or geometry is necessary, just a basic understanding of EM. My theory does not need "proof", it predicts the outcome from the MOST simple explanation, that is ALREADY accepted.


From YOUR link: http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml

QUOTE
"As anyone who has ever used a light dimmer can attest, decreasing the light output of a given incandescent bulb shifts the spectrum toward the longer, red wavelengths."


Here is the first point: a shift in wavelength is a change in frequency. There is now more than 1 frequency in the experiment, just by lowering the intensity. (among other reasons)

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
"As anyone who has ever used a light dimmer can attest, decreasing the light output of a given incandescent bulb shifts the spectrum toward the longer, red wavelengths."


Here is the first point: a shift in wavelength is a change in frequency. There is now more than 1 frequency in the experiment, just by lowering the intensity. (among other reasons)

"In the photomultiplier both the high-voltage (operating voltage) and the pulse-height discriminator threshold voltage must be properly selected to optimize the operation of the photon counting unit."


Arranging the parameters to SHOW the desired outcome. This is not Science, it is dramatization.

QUOTE
  "They must be set so that the photomultiplier will optimally count green photons and optimally reject the dark current." 


C2, they "MUST BE SET" to "REJECT THE DARK CURRENT". This is direct EVIDENCE for the FACT that there is MORE THAN ONE FREQUENCY to account for.
"Dark current" is code-word for other "photons".

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
  "They must be set so that the photomultiplier will optimally count green photons and optimally reject the dark current." 


C2, they "MUST BE SET" to "REJECT THE DARK CURRENT". This is direct EVIDENCE for the FACT that there is MORE THAN ONE FREQUENCY to account for.
"Dark current" is code-word for other "photons".

"(This can be done by the instructor or can be an opportunity for students to learn how to use a photomultiplier for proper photon counting.)"


At this level of education, THE STUDENT ALREADY KNOWS "PROPER" COUNTING METHODS. The reality here is that this is INDOCTRINATION into the QM world. This is the "seed" that is going to generate the "desire to purchase"

QUOTE
  "Interpreting the Data to Validate Single Photon Production"


Directly from THEIR mouth: "single photon" requires "special" interpretation to be valid. Logic is not allowed here, apparently.


Jal, when I say "classical", I mean Maxwell & EM; NOT a particle.


regards,

T.Roc

jal
27th December 2006 - 07:16 PM
Good Day!
"classical" to me is not particle but particle-like which includes both your interpretations. Okay!

I want to try to improve the particle-like picture of a photon.
In order to get what we want in the DSE we must remove the extra/unwanted/noise that would “blur” the result that we want to achieve.
TRoc has illustrated this point to my satisfaction.
QUOTE
Arranging the parameters to SHOW the desired outcome

This is what we do to any signal that we want to receive/produce. (radio,laser, DSE etc.)
So what you are doing is looking at how you are manipulating the photon prior it being sent out by the transmitter. (Signal processing)

Due to treating the photon as particle-like we got a lot of technology. For a start look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_tracing
What happens in nature
In nature, a light source emits a ray of light which travels, eventually, to a surface that interrupts its progress. One can think of this "ray" as a stream of photons travelling along the same path. In a perfect vacuum this ray will be a straight line. In reality, any combination of three things might happen with this light ray: absorption, reflection, and refraction. A surface may reflect all or part of the light ray, in one or more directions. It might also absorb part of the light ray, resulting in a loss of intensity of the reflected and/or refracted light. If the surface has any transparent or translucent properties, it refracts a portion of the light beam into itself in a different direction while absorbing some (or all) of the spectrum (and possibly altering the color). Between absorption, reflection, and refraction, all of the incoming light must be accounted for, and no more. A surface cannot, for instance, reflect 66% of an incoming light ray, and refract 50%, since the two would add up to be 116%. From here, the reflected and/or refracted rays may strike other surfaces, where their absorptive, refractive, and reflective properties are again calculated based on the incoming rays. Some of these rays travel in such a way that they hit our eye, causing us to see the scene and so contribute to the final rendered image.
For the application of lens design two special cases of interference is important. In a focus rays from a point light source meet again. In a closeup of the focal region all rays are replaced by plane waves. They inherit their direction from the rays. The optical path length from the light source is used for the phase. The derivative of the position of the ray in the focal region on the source position is used to get the width of the ray and from that the amplitude of the plane wave. The result is the point spread function, it Fourier transform is the MTF, and from the former the Strehl ratio can be calculated also. The other case is wavefront calculation of a plane wavefront. Of course when the rays come to close together or even cross the wavefront approximation breaks down. Interference of spherical waves is usually not combined with ray tracing thus diffraction at an aperture cannot be calculated.
This is used to optimize the design of the instrument by minimizing aberrations, for photography, and for longer wavelength applications such as designing microwave or even radio systems, and for shorter wavelengths, such as ultraviolet and X-ray optics.
Before the advent of the computer, ray tracing calculations were performed by hand using trigonometry and logarithmic tables. The optical formulas of many classic photographic lenses were optimized by rooms full of people, each of whom handled a small part of the large calculation. Now they are worked out in optical design software such as OSLO or TracePro from Lambda Research, Code-V or Zemax. A simple version of ray tracing known as ray transfer matrix analysis is often used in the design of optical resonators used in lasers.

Hopefully this will help the readers if it does not help the debaters. biggrin.gif
jal
TRoc
27th December 2006 - 07:19 PM
Hi LL,


Thanks for the links; they were interesting.


I noticed in ALL of them, that the "phenomenon" of wave motion, nodes & anti-nodes, superposition, constructive & destructive interference can ONLY be described by an "on the way" process. Something that is happening BETWEEN point A and B (source and detector).

Was that your point?
cool.gif


ciao,

T.Roc

Laserlight
27th December 2006 - 08:35 PM
TRoc,

Good observation! The point is that it takes standing waves for
wavefunctions to interact. The actual result of the interaction is at the reflecting
wall. Everything else showing wave interaction in free space is theoretical.

Have you ever used a stereo spectrum analyzer? It is able to separate out
the desired discrete frequency (band) from the musical score. True, all
frequencies within its selected bandwidth are detected and cannot be individually
isolated. The electronic isolation filtering cannot resolve identical frequencies
because they are mixed at the detector....we have been thru this scenario before.

My point being that other frequencies outside of the selected band are not
distorted and can be similarly "isolated" within the accuracy of the filtration to
resolve them.

IMO, it is the same with photons. Different frequencies of photons cannot
interact since they are phased and oriented differently. They cannot mix (blend)
together or else they would become distorted and not transport the qubit
information that each is carrying. Signal mixing distortion would cause
blurring, attenuation, and loss of qubit information. tongue.gif

LL
Confused2
27th December 2006 - 08:56 PM
Hi TRoc,

If my efforts produce a result then hopefully (in time) they might be slightly better understood.

Maybe we have a result......

QUOTE (TRoc+)
Light casts evenly in a cone past the slit. The banding is made by the dual nature of light, and the ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC fields that MAKE it work. These two things DO NOT ever go together, they remain AT 90 degrees to each other. When you take away 1 degree of freedom (dimension), that is from "free-flight" 3D, to impacting the wall 2D, that is what happens. They can NOT remain at 90 degrees, so they end up in separate areas. That completely explains the light and dark bands.


We can separate the DSE Equation from any theoretical concept .. let it just tell us that (empirically) the bright bits are where the path difference adds up to a whole wavelength and the dark bits are where they add up to half a wavelength. We could (conversely) use the same equation (as Thomas Young did) to tell us the wavelength of the phenomenon that creates it.

Can you extend your explanation to predict how far apart the bright regions will be?

Best wishes,

-C2.
Duality
27th December 2006 - 09:37 PM
Confused2, all,

Just a review of what I have read and see if this summarizes most of what has been expressed? ohmy.gif

I think Laidback and others were saying this if not it is not my intentions to put any interpretation or misconstrue a thought.

Interference can be demonstrated by placing a thin slit in front of a light source, stationing a double slit farther away, and looking at a screen spaced some distance behind the double slit. Instead of showing a uniformly illuminated image of the slits, the screen will show equal spaced light and dark bands. Particles coming from the same source and arriving at the screen via the two slits could not produce different light intensities at different points and could certainly not cancel each other to yield dark spots. Light waves, however, can produce such an effect.

Now I know what they say about 'assuming', but as did Huygens, that each of the double slits acts as a new source, emitting light in all directions, the two wave trains arriving at the screen at the same point will not generally arrive in phase, though they will have left the two slits in phase. Depending on the difference in their paths, “positive” displacements arriving at the same time as “negative” displacements of the other will tend to cancel out and produce darkness, while the simultaneous arrival of either positive or negative displacements from both sources will lead to reinforcement or brightness. Each apparent bright spot undergoes a time wise variation as successive in-phase waves go from maximum positive through zero to maximum negative displacement and back.

This seems to be important to the DSE, neither the eye nor any classical instrument, however, can determine this rapid “flicker,” which in the visible-light range has a frequency from 4 × 1014 to 7.5 × 1014 Hz, or cycles per second. Although it cannot be measured directly, the frequency can be inferred from wavelength and velocity measurements. The wavelength can be determined from a simple measurement of the distance between the two slits, and the distance between adjacent bright bands on the screen; it ranges from 4 × 10-5 cm (1.6 × 10-5 in) for violet light to 7.5 × 10-5 cm (3 × 10-5 in) for red light with intermediate wavelengths for the other colors.

Hope I have it right on the post? unsure.gif
Happy New Year
Duality/Lisa wub.gif
Confused2
27th December 2006 - 11:23 PM
Should auld experiments be forgot
and never brought to mind?
Should auld experiments be forgot
and days of auld lang syne?
For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we'll take a cup of kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.

Robert Burns (+?)

Best wishes (as always0

-C2.

yquantum
27th December 2006 - 11:48 PM
To new friends and OLD, laugh.gif Happy New Year! 2006->07

Then sing, young hearts that are full of cheer,
With never a thought of sorrow;
The old goes out, but the glad young year
Comes merrily in tomorrow.

Emily Miller

ciao_
yquantum

yquantum
27th December 2006 - 11:57 PM
user posted image

yq
bdnelson
28th December 2006 - 12:08 AM
The double slit experiment is a form of quantum entanglement, or, nonlocal simultaneous states of a particle. How did the photon travel through both slits, interfere with itself and form on the other side? Simple. It didn't. A particle is both center (occupying a posiiton) and many waves. The waves (light speed) travel out ahead of the particle centers which don't move until the waves find a more stable position, then it reforms on the waves instantly (hyperlight speed). It can all be explained on my website www.quantumpulse.com. Read through it, it makes sense.
Good Elf
28th December 2006 - 12:29 AM
Hi Laserlight, Confused2, TRoc, Duality, Yquantum et al,

I will give my opinion on a couple of points that TRoc has made, TRoc is thinking "overtime"... but this is good. I saw TRoc equating dark current with "more photons".
QUOTE (TRoc+)
"Dark current" is code-word for other "photons".
I really do not think so... dark current is sensor current drain and it is not related to incident photons. You can use a two foot thick block of lead to shield the light from the photoreceptor and the dark current will still flow.

TRoc also quoted an experiment in which beats were measured across a distributed source such as a star. I think Duality has that point covered in that T. Young originally did the experiment with obviously originally uncorrelated photons from the Sun. It is my contention that correlation does occur when photons are in transit. The distant star is after all subtending a very small angle at the "experiment". Partial correlation will most certainly have occurred even though originally sources may have been tens of thousands of kilometers away from each other. The geometry of a "source" can be "condensed" and still produce a speckle pattern. Take for instance a streetlight seen from a distance a polychromatic speckle pattern occurs at the eye. This source is usually a gas discharge or an incandescent globe, provided the source subtends a small angle it will have some correlation due to the self organizing effect above. It will occur one individual frequency at a time. The way to prove that these photons are interfering with themselves and not other photons is to use a pair of polarizers at right angles to each other at each slit. Doing this immediately removes the interference effect while arranged parallel at any angle the interference effect remains. You can do this with Thomas Young's original experiment using the Sun with this result. This proves that for some reason the interference effect can only occur with photons of identical polarizations. This is some "happy accident" or a strong indicator it must be the same photons involved with the event.

Two signals can be made to beat in a non-classical sense using an appropriate instrument such as an oscilloscope. This does not prove that the same signal is in both channels it only means the signals are "correlated". without the full reference I can't comment.

Getting back to your original comments that I think still will need to be explained...
Laserlight's Questions
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
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.
The black body radiator is after all a copious emitter of photons at all wavelengths. In actual fact there always is a little non-classical stuff going on there. The Sun and various stars have a number of emission and absorption lines not noted in a purely thermal spectrum. But the main argument for linking the photon individually with an electron event is the Photoelectric Effect. Incident light of a particular frequency on certain metals will not release photoelectrons until the frequency reaches a threshold frequency. After that the photons are released depending only on the amount of light at the shorter frequency. A single photon can only eject a single electron, as the energy of one photon may only be absorbed by one electron. The energy of the ejected electron is proportional to the left over energy of the energy required to just eject the electron from the surface.
user posted image
Where phi is the "work function" of the surface and the energy and...
user posted image
Check out...
Wikipedia: Photoelectric Effect
So this energy is associated with the individual photon absorbed at any frequency since there is a one to one relationship.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
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.
Half right... and as it is with something which is only half right it is also half wrong. The absorption of a photon will involve a scattering event and thereby some kinetic energy will be lost to the absorbing system so the photon cannot re-emit at exactly the same frequency. This will result in "line broadening" as light propagates through the medium. The Berry Phase is the result of another totally energy conservative influence but does result in that "rotation"... which is "geometrical phase". Experiments do not record (nor cannot record accurately) that property.

Now I know I use Wikipedia a lot but the quote you use I choose not to use because I believe in this case it is "wrong". I realize this is what many people believe but it mixes up what is happening to bulk photons with the event as recorded by discrete photons...
QUOTE (Wikipedia on "Index of Refraction" or "actual scattering"+)
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).
It is my view that the velocity of light in condensed matter can be sullied by many issues. I take exception to tossing everything into one basket saying one cause and one effect for everything. Getting back to photons that carry the qubits and those that are damaged in transit... the pristine photons have no knowledge of the change in velocity through the medium, as far as they are concerned they are still in the vacuum of space, we are simply seeing them propagating at a lower velocity from our "non-inertial" vantage point. We are chauvinistic about the freedom to move in solids and in "space" and the different nature of bosons versus fermions. Some photons are indeed damaged losing their qubits. These photons have suffered this effect as described. Those that have not can still partake in a double slit experiment and they alone can be used for such a purpose. The other photons are uncorrelated. There are a number of "knock on" effects and consequence of this that I described in...
Perpetual motion?, Cyclic photon reflections: StevenA

I think I have answered these loose ends...

Cheers

Good Elf
28th December 2006 - 12:33 AM
Hi Yquantum,

He he he .... you are in very early with the New Years Cheer. I will have to think of something to top that... Until then I hope that you enjoy the rest of 2006. biggrin.gif

Good Health from the "Good Elf".
yquantum
28th December 2006 - 12:47 AM
Good Elf, "THEY" "2", C2, jal, LL, and all that would take up this page?

user posted image

There are 4.2 until 2007!

The Romans continued to observe the new year in late March, but their calendar was continually tampered with by various emperors so that the calendar soon became out of synchronization with the sun.

In order to set the calendar right, the Roman senate, in 153 BC, declared January 1 to be the beginning of the new year. But tampering continued until Julius Caesar, in 46 BC, established what has come to be known as the Julian Calendar. It again established January 1 as the new year. But in order to synchronize the calendar with the sun, Caesar had to let the previous year drag on for 445 days.

Your right Good Elf, just afraid I would forget to drop in before it all started, hope the family is fine & doing well.

Best to my friends,
ciao_
yquantum
Confused2
28th December 2006 - 01:10 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbury-Brown_and_Twiss_effect

The immensity of the propensity
For intensity to correlate
Is surprisingly great
The speed of light
Is always right
It's always 'c'
Until you look
At the ohmy.gif DSE.
Good Elf
28th December 2006 - 01:15 AM
Hi Yquantum,

The family is fine though there was a murmur from my son this morning about an earache which has mysteriously "cleared up" after I made an appointment with the Doctor. Still... Queensland in places is having the coldest days ever recorded and Brisbane the coldest December day for over a Century and snow is still gracing some more southerly places... This is madness? We are not supposed to have a White Christmas on mainland Australia. biggrin.gif Well Tasmania is different but they have two heads down there! Still it is nice, I only wish I was in Victoria to experience it right now.

I see that picture of a "Wild Haggis" served up for New Year's Treat. Though my ancestry would perish the thought, I do not think I can stomach it myself... he he he!

That is after I saw a rare photo of a live Haggis still in the wild...
User posted image
Click to enlarge...
I do not think I would have the heart to shoot it.

Here is a "true" account of this endangered species...
"Upon a hill there was a coo, it must hae gone cause it's no there noo"
For those who like that ... there are more "true tales" to be found on the left column there...


Cheers
Neil Farbstein
28th December 2006 - 01:33 AM
QUOTE (Laserlight+Dec 27 2006, 07:57 AM)
TRoc,



Well, now you've gone and upset the applecart.

No detector = no mixing = no beat frequency. The detector becomes the
point of quantum interaction and frequency mixing.

I think it is fairly obvious that photon EM energy affects the "steady state" EM
fields of matter (electrons) by displacing them from their ground states. This
causes new frequencies to be emitted as the result of those EM enegy fields
interacting, as they mix, by altering the vibrational frequency of the electrons and
atoms.

The resultant frequency is determined by the electrons in the atomic structure
vibrating in "harmony", additively, with the electrical energy of the applied EM
fields and forming a composite (mixed) EM field output frequency.

Can the EM energy of a sinusoidal wavefunction displace or modify
the sinusoidal EM energy of another wavefunction in open space? No way to
prove that it can happen unless the result can be measured. We can, however,
isolate each wavefunction just prior to the detection point to verify if it still
maintains its discrete wavefunction characteristics. This being the case, I
say there is no signal mixing prior to the point of detection.

smile.gif
LL

another EM wavefunction, or another wavefunction such as the weak interaction or colored gluons? A lot of the variables that are assumed to be negligible in most approximations become critically important local phenomena in ultra intense laser physics.
Neil Farbstein
28th December 2006 - 01:36 AM
QUOTE (Good Elf+Dec 28 2006, 01:15 AM)
Hi Yquantum,

The family is fine though there was a murmur from my son this morning about an earache which has mysteriously "cleared up" after I made an appointment with the Doctor. Sill... Queensland in places is having the coldest days ever recorded and Brisbane the coldest December day for over a Century and snow is still gracing some more southerly places... This is madness? We are not supposed to have a White Christmas on mainland Australia. biggrin.gif Well Tasmania is different but they have two heads down there! Still it is nice, I only wish I was in Victoria to experience it right now.

I see that picture of a "Wild Haggis" served up for New Year's Treat. Though my ancestry would perish the thought, I do not think I can stomach it myself... he he he!

That is after I saw a rare photo of a live Haggis still in the wild...
User posted image
Click to enlarge...
I do not think I would have the heart to shoot it.

Here is a "true" account of this endangered species...
"Upon a hill there was a coo, it must hae gone cause it's no there noo"


Cheers

It has no eyes. Maybe it's a sheep haggis.
Good Elf
28th December 2006 - 02:15 AM
No Neil... I think this is a little "bull"!
yquantum
28th December 2006 - 02:32 AM
Good Elf, Neil F, Duality, C2, jal -if still around?, et al,

Well, while we are having a little fun I will just toss this in for clearafacation. laugh.gif

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0602/0602060.pdf

Now you must read it all in order to enjoy biggrin.gif the article + it would help to understand some of my background. blink.gif

ciao_
yquantum

User posted image

http://www.particlephysics.ac.uk/news/pict...f-the-week.html
Laserlight
28th December 2006 - 06:26 AM
Has anyone performed the DSE in a smoke/cloud chamber? It might be
very revealing.

LL
Aerohead
28th December 2006 - 06:34 AM
Or with all slits cooled to near absolute zero ?

Smoke chamber ? I think the smoke particles would become the detectors. How about a class cone containing the smoke with photon detectors outside measuring the light ?
Laserlight
28th December 2006 - 07:12 AM
Aerohead,

QUOTE
Smoke chamber ? I think the smoke particles would become the detectors.


That is the intention. We already know what will happen at the screen, it is the
cavity between the slits and screen that we seem to be questioning. A movie
of this experiment might clear up some of the mystery of what happens in the
cavity region.......or not. rolleyes.gif

LL
yquantum
28th December 2006 - 09:24 AM
Laserlight, Aerohead,, Good Elf, C2, NF, T. Roc, et al,

Smoke [it would need to be defined] because it is made of molecules which in turn would destroy the experiment due to the fact of interference.

http://www.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/dantu...ications/76.pdf

Duality/Lisa please take over on this if you have the time, thanks. wink.gif

ciao_
yquantum
Good Elf
28th December 2006 - 01:47 PM
Hi Laserlight, Aerohead, Yquantum, Duality et al,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)
QUOTE (Aerohead+)
Smoke chamber ? I think the smoke particles would become the detectors.
That is the intention. We already know what will happen at the screen, it is the cavity between the slits and screen that we seem to be questioning. A movie of this experiment might clear up some of the mystery of what happens in the cavity region.......or not.
Save you some time Laserlight, Aerohead and Yquantum are right. The smoke become detectors and you will see the cavities. This tells you nothing more than what you already know. a teeny bit of smoke would show the standing waves. Smoke particles are bigger than the wavelength of visible light so they will influence optical experiments.

There are cases where you can calculate or determine this directly as I have already indicated. What it doesn't tell you is what happens when we are "not looking". I am still digesting and reading around Yquantum's reference.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0602/0602060.pdf
It is subtlety more inscrutable than the idea that I have been pursuing. Yet it is one step further. It is in total denial about the unobserved or uncollapsed "reality". I prefer to think of our "reality" being an emergent phenomena created from an unseen potential... a gestalt.

As a first point I am finding difficulty with is the non-existence of "matter waves" I see that Yquantum really believes in waves of "nothing"... It is a very "sparse" theory but I feel that it tells us even less than Quantum Mechanics does about "what lies beneath". It is a Quantum Zen Theory... wink.gif Personally I am as concerned with the unobserved reality as much as Yquantum is concerned with only observed particles interactions and their interconnectedness as the only reality. It solves the measurement problem at a very high price.

I will get back to it soon and finish the paper... pretty scary though!

I feel it comes down to making a claim... I claim that an Optical Theory of Everything has priority to Quantum Mechanics since it was there before Quantum Mechanics even existed. The fact that Optical Theory of the 18 and 1900's was unable to explain "quantum processes" is an "historical artifact", an accident of history created by the excess attention QM was afforded. A revised Optics Theory explains as much and perhaps even more than Quantum Theory. So without really knowing the consequences I will make a blind conjecture that an Optical Theory revised with modern insight can explain all Quantum Processes, claim priority all without resorting to this "extremity".

I think that Yquantum's Relational Quantum Mechanics can actually do better in explaining the double slit experiment and maybe cleanly explain entanglement, "evades" the measurement problem (I think that point is good) but in doing so sacrifices the last remaining meaning that Quantum Mechanics actually held. It seems to do this without extra dimensions and without time itself. I am unsure if there are even "dimensions" as we know them at all... Is a theory without any human meaning "useful"?... I really do not know yet. I will finish reading this paper first. I would like to know if this revised particle theory can remove the artifice of Renormalization that Quantum Mechanics can't do but an Optical Theory can. I believe that the meaning of events described by the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser is "viable" without this more extreme view of events. I agree that quantum systems are relative to the frame of the observer and some of this may be applicable but to go the whole nine yards is very scary. Must have a "little thinky" about all this and suck on my tassel a bit....

Cheers
jal
28th December 2006 - 03:43 PM
Good Day Everyone! smile.gif
I'm still here ...reading and making a pest of myself. biggrin.gif
Yquantum is not going to like me after this post.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0602/0602060.pdf
Relational interpretation of the wave function and a possible way around Bell’s theorem
Thomas Filk

QUOTE
Summary
It is argued that if we treat the position of a particle not as an embedding
into some background space but as an expression of the relations between this
particle and spatial points, and if we interprete the wave function in quantum
mechanics as encoding these relations, we arrive at a relational interpretation of
quantum mechanics which not only solves some of its “mysteries” (the particlewave
duality or the spooky action at a distance) but which might also be a way
to circumvent the restrictions set by Bell’s inequalities on “local realism” in a
hidden variable theory. The aim of the present article was to show that in such a
framework the formalism of quantum mechanics remains almost unchanged, but
the interpretation of many expressions becomes more natural.

Now let’s take a look at what kind of universe that the above scenario implies.
Something that I spent a lot of time doing a few years ago and rejecting for lack of evidence.
Short version
All particles are embedded into a fixed position in the “bulk”. Spacetime is a void in the “bulk” that was created by the expansion of spacetime. All “communications between particles (those that we observe … EMF) are via/through that void/our spacetime. The particles are only in direct communication at the Planck Scale.
Rephrasing, ….. we are on the inside of a solid sphere that contains our spacetime. All around us is the bulk.
There is no need to stop the speculation at this stage. Continuing …. We are observing 10^80 manifestations of the ONE BASIC FUNDAMENTAL UNIT.
Conclusion
The “MATRIX” movie has a better plot.
My 4S Model is a good tool to use to be able to figure out how the universe works so that I can make some manifestations of my own.
jal smile.gif
Laserlight
28th December 2006 - 03:54 PM
Hi GE, Aerohead, YQ, and All,

QUOTE
Save you some time Laserlight, Aerohead and Yquantum are right. The smoke become detectors and you will see the cavities. This tells you nothing more than what you already know. a teeny bit of smoke would show the standing waves. Smoke particles are bigger than the wavelength of visible light so they will influence optical experiments.


That is the reason that I want to modify the experiment, to gain additional
factual information. Whether the results of an experiment is successful, or not, it
is an opportunity to gather additional data, which is what science is all about.

There are a number of ways my suggestion could be carried out that might
provide insight into what is going on in the cavity region. I am well aware that
the smoke will interfere with the results, that is not important.

Don't be so quick to poo poo original ideas. When you do that it means that
you are making assumptions about things rather than seeking true answers.

The DSE is real, the results are real, the mechanism that creates the results is
real. As I see it, we are arguing over the details of how the mechanism functions
to provide the results. So far we have lots of speculation and theory, with little
"factual" information to support either, other than the results. I am proposing
an easy method to perhaps provide that proof.

LL
Confused2
28th December 2006 - 05:08 PM
H Laserlight,
I can't see any problem with your smoke experiment.
As long as the source is bright and the smoke is weak I'd expect to see a gostly image of the ripple tank .. except you wouldn't (obviously) see individual waves .. there'd just be bright and dark 'channels'
User posted image
Checking with the
Ripple Tank
The effect is fairly 'robust' .. adding a few dots doesn't make much difference .. it's a shame we can't put little absorbers in .. but I suspect it would survive them quite happily.
Best wishes,
-C2.

Before anyone complains that the effect is really 3D .. we all have immensely powerful software behind our eyes which would probably enable us to 'see' what is going on in the plane we normally (as a matter of convenience) choose to display.
TRoc
28th December 2006 - 07:07 PM
Hi all,

A good round of posting. I (for 1) am a little less "stressed" now that the holiday rush is past.

LL's idea to "see" the field interactions by filling the medium with some low visibility smoke is good. Of course, we all know that it will interfere with the light, and THAT is what we want to see. It could resolve the "on the way" question." C2 is right as well, the CW laser is strong enough to "push" through the smoke.

I think that GE and YQ are trying to point out that any "1-at-a-time photon" experiments would not make it to the screen. But then, we wouldn't try to assume "1-at-a-time photons" could be produced by a continuous, coherent beam of light, would we? tongue.gif

What happens when you "chop, squeeze, and strain" a laser beam can NEVER be considered as Fundamental, especially for theorists. The same goes for smashing them together. This does NOT mean that these experiments are not very important, and good tools for learning about the phenomenon, because they ARE. Just the way that they are interpreted, is a little "off" these days.


Guess where I am going to suggest that we turn to for a "real world", visible reference to vibrating fields? rolleyes.gif

Everybody who answered "sound waves" gets a cookie.

There is an old experiment (I'm not sure exactly HOW old) where you use a "Chladni Plate", and some sand (or salt, etc), and a violin bow. The Chladni Plate is a small sheet of thin metal, and by arrangement of a center bolt, vibrates at specific frequencies when the bow is moved across it, just like a string. The sand will also move in a very specific pattern, for these specific frequencies.

This is the beginning (visually) where we can see FORM of RESONANCE. Finding a geometric pattern that arises from the interactions of waves is extremely Fundamental. This is the Path that I want to take you on.

Chladni Plate - Video


regards,

T.Roc

TRoc
28th December 2006 - 07:42 PM
Hi all,


I need to answer C2's question
QUOTE
..We could (conversely) use the same equation (as Thomas Young did) to tell us the wavelength of the phenomenon that creates it.

Can you extend your explanation to predict how far apart the bright regions will be?


Very good question. I said in the very beginning, that we can't replace correct theories, but we can add to them, even if just for better understanding. If you want to know certain details of the DSE, like "how far apart ", etc. then USE the Young, or Fresnel/Huygens methods. I have also said that since the INVERSE relationship between wavelength and frequency is SO well understood, that ANY method that uses WAVELENGTH (the previously mentioned methods) has an "inverse method". So, there is a method for frequency, too; they are EQUIVALENT.

Why improve what we have? Well, for starters, the wavelength (slit distance arbitrarily divided) method DOES NOT follow energy conservation laws. That is HUGE. Where does the energy go? They have absolutely NO IDEA "why" this is happening. Just "saying" the words "constructive or destructive" does NOT cut it. They have NO MATH to describe this phenomenon. Energy can not be destroyed.. PERIOD. There is energy hitting the dark area, unless "ON THE WAY" it is somehow "transferred" to another part of the system. The overly simplistic "constructive or destructive" explanation does NOT explain it with ANY detail; this is just "belief".


GE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
..We could (conversely) use the same equation (as Thomas Young did) to tell us the wavelength of the phenomenon that creates it.

Can you extend your explanation to predict how far apart the bright regions will be?


Very good question. I said in the very beginning, that we can't replace correct theories, but we can add to them, even if just for better understanding. If you want to know certain details of the DSE, like "how far apart ", etc. then USE the Young, or Fresnel/Huygens methods. I have also said that since the INVERSE relationship between wavelength and frequency is SO well understood, that ANY method that uses WAVELENGTH (the previously mentioned methods) has an "inverse method". So, there is a method for frequency, too; they are EQUIVALENT.

Why improve what we have? Well, for starters, the wavelength (slit distance arbitrarily divided) method DOES NOT follow energy conservation laws. That is HUGE. Where does the energy go? They have absolutely NO IDEA "why" this is happening. Just "saying" the words "constructive or destructive" does NOT cut it. They have NO MATH to describe this phenomenon. Energy can not be destroyed.. PERIOD. There is energy hitting the dark area, unless "ON THE WAY" it is somehow "transferred" to another part of the system. The overly simplistic "constructive or destructive" explanation does NOT explain it with ANY detail; this is just "belief".


GE QUOTE (TRoc) "Dark current" is code-word for other "photons".

I really do not think so... dark current is sensor current drain and it is not related to incident photons. You can use a two foot thick block of lead to shield the light from the photoreceptor and the dark current will still flow.


Well, the latter part of your statement is very telling. "the dark current will still flow". This is the background ENERGY that is NOT accounted for in current theory. It is "tossed out" at Hamiltonian St., because "it doesn't matter" and "it can't be measured". That, I disagree with. This IS still ENERGY, and according to QM postulate, comes in "discreet quanta" of nhf . ("photons")

And, C2 provided you (& all) with a link that EVERYONE needs to "remember". The "status quo" wishes this one would be forgotten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbury-Brown_and_Twiss_effect

There is EXCELLENT info about this "alternate" way of looking at this here:
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/astro/starsiz.htm

I don't have time to quote from it right now, but I will later. Too many important things are "uncovered" (again).


ciao,

T.Roc

Confused2
28th December 2006 - 07:50 PM
TRoc (mostly)

A photon can only interfere with itself - Take Two.

We start off in a dark room (it's sunny outside BTW). We make a leetle slit to let the sunshine in and put a good narrow band (say green) filter in the beam. Then we put our (previously prepared) DSE in the blast cool.gif of (green filtered) light from the sun. We look at the screen the DSE is projecting the result onto.
BECAUSE the photons are not arriving in phase or correlated (unless the surface of the sun is somehow phase locked) AND we still get dark bits we say each photon can only interfere with itself . If any old bit of one photon could interfere with any old bit of any other photon then there would be no dark bits .. the dark bits REQUIRE phase matching at the slits. (See DSE equation, Lisa's applet or any description of the DSE except any that have so far appeared in this thread). The only photon a photon is likely to be phase matched to is itself. In fairness this result does not prove that a photon that is precisely in phase with another photon cannot interfere .. something slightly odd has to happen in that case .. to me the result of interference between (identical) photon A and B looks like it might have to generate a second result .. that of photon B with A. Not important at this stage.
Best wishes,
-C2.

If a photon can only interfere with itself then all we ever see is single photon interference rolleyes.gif .. just repeated many times smile.gif smile.gif .

Edit .. please ask if you do not see why phase matching is important sad.gif
Confused2
28th December 2006 - 08:02 PM
TRoc (again!)

http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/astro/starsiz.htm

QUOTE
The amplitudes from different sources add at any point, and the energy received is the average value of the square of the resultant amplitude. Any effects caused by the adding of amplitudes are traditionally called interference, but amplitudes do not "interfere" with each other in the usual sense of the word, but seem blissfully independent of each other.


The immensity of the propensity
For intensity to correlate
Is surprisingly great
This isn't an interference effect. Interference is when A + B = 0.
Best wishes,
-C2.
TRoc
28th December 2006 - 08:27 PM
Hi all,

OK, my "test run" linking video worked. Just FYI, I now have a "right clicker" on my new mouse! I have been "limping along" for so long without this, that I didn't even know what I was missing! laugh.gif No wonder I could never post pictures & such. rolleyes.gif Watch out now!


Hopefully, the Chladni Plate video was a good place to begin, especially if you have never seen that before.

Now, I'm going to "kick it up a notch" or 2.

Dr, Hans Jenny did a lot of work in this area. Yes, there were many "esoteric" applications of what he was doing, but let's not throw the baby out here. He video taped experiments of "matter" such as sand, being vibrated a specific frequencies, and taking on specific, active FORM -- IN 3D . This "seeing is believing" effect of video can not be matched with any amount of words, or math.

Dr. Hans Jenny in his study of Cymatics 1

Dr. Hans Jenny in his study of Cymatics 2

Dr. Hans Jenny in his study of Cymatics 3

Dr. Hans Jenny in his study of Cymatics 4

This is seeing the Dynamics of Resonance in action. You can see properties, such as "duality", "spin", "dimension", "energy flow" happen in real time. Geometry forms from this Fundamental property.

Now, I know that this is not EM fields, but it IS waves of energy causing matter to take geometrical form. These notions of "standing waves", "superposition", and nodes/anti-nodes" all have roots in simple Vibrational Resonance.

GE's often shown picture of the microwave cavity Nodes is a glimpse into this "unseen" world.

Take a look at the SIMILARITY in this "grand-daddy" tunable sound wave resonance experiment:

rice resonance


Finally, stemming from the great experimentalist, Faraday, this sound wave experiment, in a LIQUID (instead of particulate) medium. You won't believe your eyes at the end: slow motion "rogue waves" mimicking "fingers" (or worms, IMO).

What Sound Looks Like


I think, in the end, we must face this question: if we insist that "matter" is present to "see" the interaction-dynamics, AND that EM waves do not need a "medium" (matter) to propagate in, then where does that leave us?

If the "proof" says there is no ether, or at least that it can not be measured, then we are acting on "faith" that the EM wave "propagates" at constant velocity through the "properties" of space set forth by Maxwell. Does not this same faith compel us to see the "fields" as a medium for their opposite (dualistic) selves? Waves of E and B fields superimposed onto waves of "nothing", as it were. This means the waves of "nothing" ARE the medium, and that the INTERACTIONS can take place there. Bunching and anti-bunching ? Push (repel) and pull (attract) ? Resonant jumps in geometry, from 1 form to the next, changing the "distance" parameter.


regards,

T.Roc

TRoc
28th December 2006 - 09:05 PM
C2,

We just are not seeing eye to eye here.


I am the one arguing for interference; at least we are making progress in that direction.

I believe that the "photon" propagates via self-interference, so I don't need any convincing of it being able to self-interfere.

QUOTE
If a photon can only interfere with itself then all we ever see is single photon interference  .. just repeated many times   .


If you're saying that, then you TOTALLY agree with me! These "photons" are indistinguishable from each other, there is ABSOLUTELY no way to tell "which ones" are interacting.

This quote you gave:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
If a photon can only interfere with itself then all we ever see is single photon interference  .. just repeated many times   .


If you're saying that, then you TOTALLY agree with me! These "photons" are indistinguishable from each other, there is ABSOLUTELY no way to tell "which ones" are interacting.

This quote you gave:

"The amplitudes from different sources add at any point, and the energy received is the average value of the square of the resultant amplitude. Any effects caused by the adding of amplitudes are traditionally called interference, but amplitudes do not "interfere" with each other in the usual sense of the word, but seem blissfully independent of each other.  "


is entirely out of context of the paper. Saying "This isn't an interference effect. Interference is when A + B = 0" disregards the 1+1=4 math of the interaction, that is also present.

Let me include just a little ahead of your quote, and a little past it to convey the truth.

QUOTE
Observation teaches that if one candle gives a certain amount of illumination, then two candles give twice as much. The energy comes out on the light rays and just piles up where it is received, like so much snow. This reasonable and common-sense view is, of course, totally wrong, like the concept that matter is continuous, like cheese. It is useful in practice, but does not lead to understanding, only off into the weeds of speculation.

..
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Observation teaches that if one candle gives a certain amount of illumination, then two candles give twice as much. The energy comes out on the light rays and just piles up where it is received, like so much snow. This reasonable and common-sense view is, of course, totally wrong, like the concept that matter is continuous, like cheese. It is useful in practice, but does not lead to understanding, only off into the weeds of speculation.

..
An amplitude can be represented by A(t) = Ae2πiνt aeiφe2πiνt, where the complex amplitude A has been given in polar form, with an amplitude a and phase φ. Unfortunately, we have to use the same word for what we have called a generalized amplitude and the modulus of a complex number. It would have been better to call a the modulus, but this is not usually done. The two meanings for "amplitude" are not easy to confuse, fortunately. This form of the amplitude is not typical of most light sources, and is a kind of idealization. However, it is approached closely by laser light, so it is easy for us to experience. When we do use laser illumination, the light-as-snow illusion is shattered, and there are fringes and spots everywhere. These are, of course, results of interference, and show that our amplitude picture is correct. Complex values are the easiest way to reflect the phase properties of an amplitude (in the general sense), and we need not be dismayed by their appearance.

Let's suppose we have two amplitudes, A = aei0 and B = be2πix/λ, where λ is the wavelength λ = c/ν, and x is a linear distance. When x = 0, the two amplitudes will be in phase, and the net amplitude will be A + B = a + b. The intensity I = (a + B )2, while the intensities in the unmixed beams are a2 and b2. The intensity in the mixed beam is the sum of the intensities in each beam alone, plus the amount 2ab, the interference term. If the two beams have equal amplitudes, then when the two beams fall together, the total intensity is four times the intensity of one beam, or (one candle) + (one candle) = (four candles), or 1 + 1 = 4. We never see this with candles, but we do with lasers, so the strange mathematics is quite valid. Energy is conserved, of course, so this extra intensity must come from somewhere else, where the intensity is less


QUOTE
If x = λ/2, then A = a and B = beiπ = -b. Now when we superimpose the two beams, the resultant amplitude is a - b, and the intensity is I = (a - B )2. The intensity is the sum of the separate intensities plus the interference term -2ab. If a = b, the intensity I = 0. Here, we have (one candle) + (one candle) = (zero candles), or 1 + 1 = 0. It is clear where the intensity came from for x = 0. As x increases steadily, the intensity forms bright fringes for x = 0, λ, 2λ, etc. and dark fringes for x = λ/2, 3λ/2, etc. If the amplitudes of the two beams are equal, the dark fringes are black, and the bright fringes are 4 times the average value. This gives the maximum contrast or visibility to the fringes. If b is less than a, the maxima are not as bright and the minima are not as dark. If b = 0, then the fringes disappear, and their visibility is zero. Michelson defined the visibility of fringes as V = (Imax - Imin)/(Imax + Imin), which ranges from 0 to 1.


My method give a much more detailed explanation of "visibility" (resonance), by expanding the "range from zero to one" method. Music (chords) would be IMPOSSIBLE if this were the "only results" of interactions. So would our "extra-dimensional" existence.


regards,

T.Roc

"THEY"
28th December 2006 - 09:05 PM
Perfect timing Troc, I was able to watch your movies on my lunch break.

Two comments..... on this movie Cynematics 1 towards the end the bubble "spirals". Could that be a good example of the circular polarization of light?

2nd comment on last movie (What Sound looks like first off it looks like C2's ripple tank, but the end part (your "fingers") reminds me of "they"2's favorite movie Brian Greene's Elegant Universe when they are talking about the quantum weirdness. Has a computer generated thingy with those jumpy fingers.

Now lunch is over and I sadly will probably not have any more time to read until next week..... I know I have missed a ton of awesome viewpoints over the last week and will only miss more. But oh well.

Happy New Year to all!
Laserlight
28th December 2006 - 09:23 PM
TRoc,

I will make a "blanket" statement again. This will be controversial, but I am not
one to shy away from controversy. It stimulates thought and generates
answers or alternative perspectives. (cognitive sparks)

QUOTE
Energy cannot be destroyed or "spontaneously" change its base wavefunction
"form"*, but its "form" can be modified in the presence of a matter
"catalyst" that acts as the focal point of energy mixing.


Energy "mixing" only takes place when different discrete photon waveforms
are mixed across some fixed physical atomic structure (medium).

Free form energy cannot spontaneously displace other free form energy but they
both can react by displacing matter that contains potential energy, by adding
to the available potential energy of the "system" being affected.
Potential energy only exists when matter is present, otherwise it is free form
energy.

The affected atom's normal potential energy "ground state" is altered by
the different photon energy levels that are interacting with it.

The total energy applied, by the arriving photon energies, is added to the already
existing potential energy of the electron in its stable orbit. The electron can be
boosted into any available higher orbital shell according to the total energy being
applied by the arriving photons.

The energy gap (distance) "drop" of the electron will determine the amplitude
and frequency of the new photon that it emits. This is where the energy mixing
transformation takes place, depending upon what higher energy shell the electron
is displaced to.

Definitions:

* "form" means frequency and wavelength, which represents the quantum energy
level radiating from the electron as it changes from a higher energy orbital back
to its ground state around its host atom.

Freeform energy is propagating waveform energy.


Comments, disagreements, other opinions and discussion welcomed.

LL
Confused2
28th December 2006 - 09:41 PM
Hi TRoc,

I agree the article doesn't make it entirely clear ..
( http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/astro/starsiz.htm )

Of interference - I think he/she is talking combining a beam that has been split from the same laser - the suggestion is that the same photon is in both beams .. just as in the DSE .. a bit of a pig (flying?) .. but there it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_dynami...slit_experiment

"Some time before the discovery of quantum mechanics people realized that the connexion between light waves and photons must be of a statistical character. What they did not clearly realize, however, was that the wave function gives information about the probability of one photon being in a particular place and not the probable number of photons in that place. The importance of the distinction can be made clear in the following way. Suppose we have a beam of light consisting of a large number of photons split up into two components of equal intensity. On the assumption that the beam is connected with the probable number of photons in it, we should have half the total number going into each component. If the two components are now made to interfere, we should require a photon in one component to be able to interfere with one in the other. Sometimes these two photons would have to annihilate one another and other times they would have to produce four photons. This would contradict the conservation of energy. The new theory, which connects the wave function with probabilities for one photon gets over the difficulty by making each photon go partly into each of the two components. Each photon then interferes only with itself. Interference between two different photons never occurs." Paul Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Fourth Edition, Chapter 1

There seems to be some evidence that entangled photons may interfere .. possibly even two lasers.. so I don't dismiss such interference as 'impossible' .. but in the general case that we observe I am fairly sure that a photon only interferes with itself.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Edit .. I'm not sure this result actually 'matters' except that it gives a greater insight into the nature of the beast we are looking at.. which is the object of the game at present.
Confused2
28th December 2006 - 09:51 PM
yquantum's paper not forgotten..

Good Elf,Lisa,jal,LL,TRoc,THEY(2) et al,

I'm still looking at Relational Interpretation. ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0602/0602060.pdf )
jal, .. I get the impression you are reading it precisely the wrong way round .. I could be wrong.
I will need to read it many more times..
Is it powerful enough to explain the DSE? (I was warned the DSE can drive you mad sad.gif )
Best wishes,
C2.
u-quark
28th December 2006 - 10:50 PM
how do numbers relate to each other?

1 to 4 has the relation 1:4

relational = ratios

TROC is already there

ohmy.gif
Laserlight
29th December 2006 - 12:14 AM
GE, TRoc, C2, Duality, YQ, and All,

There seems to be a theoretical waving of hands regarding "entanglement",
or as Einstein called it "Spooky action at a distance".

I know that there are claims that atomic scale "interactions" can occur between
widely separated localized events where, for example, changing the spin state of
1 electron directly and oppositely effects another "sychronized" distant electron.

IMO, this can only happen if their energy fields are in close enough proximity
to directly interact and influence each other, or if they can interact with
EM fields of other nearby atomic structures that are within the boundaries of
the EM field influences.

Any EM field interactions outside of their direct fields of influence would require a
latency time delay. An example of this would be a radio antenna that radiates
EM fields that are coupled into space. Those EM fields will propagate "forever" but
at a weaker field strength per the ISL. Someone on Proxima Centauri is just
now tuning into "The Mary Tyler Moore" show that was broadcast in the '70's. Their
TV antennas didn't instantaneously detect the show when originally broadcast.

Is their any factual evidence that photons can spontaneously
exhibit "entanglement"? To me,
entanglement is a pure direct EM field interaction, nothing more, nothing less.
Electrons moving around atoms, and in an atomic matrix, exhibit this phenomenon
because their EM fields are constantly "entangled" due to their proximity and
atomic character.

IMO, photons cannot exhibit entanglement unless their EM fields are directly
interacting with the EM fields of matter, otherwise we would not be able to
discriminate their individual frequency and wavelength from white light since
they would be entangled and thereby incoherent.

JMHO. Other opinions welcomed.

LL
Duality
29th December 2006 - 12:29 AM
QUOTE
IMO, this can only happen if their energy fields are in close enough proximity
to directly interact and influence each other, or if they can interact with
EM fields of other nearby atomic structures that are within the boundaries of
the EM field influences.
quoted by Laidback

I just have a simple question for you? Let us just take a common wave used by most -
UHF 9 300–3000 MHz
1 m – 100 mm television broadcasts, mobile phones, wireless LAN, Bluetooth, and Two-Way Radios such as FRS and GMRS Radios. what is it proximity or boundaries?

Now I know you must amplified the singles -- but with the right conditions, say low atmosphere conditions you could hear a radio signal from thousand miles away! Yes?

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/radio/broadcasting/low-power-faq/

Not to trap you - just a question, you told me all is open on this post for such inquires correct?

Duality/Lisa wub.gif
fivedoughnut
29th December 2006 - 12:58 AM
LL,

I regard everything as entangled, or just manifestations of one sole thing; move any of its 'components' and you affect the whole system, which to me is an in-progress (atemporal) multidimensional wavefront collapse interaction courtesy of event horizons & singularities.

now back to my straight jacket .... laugh.gif

Laserlight
29th December 2006 - 02:03 AM
Hi Lisa,

Hmmm...Laidback...I was wondering who that reference was meant for? biggrin.gif

QUOTE
I just have a simple question for you? Let us just take a common wave used by most -.....what is it proximity or boundaries?

Now I know you must amplified the singles -- but with the right conditions, say low atmosphere conditions you could hear a radio signal from thousand miles away! Yes?


That is a fair question, but you must concede that the waves from multiple
transmission sources, transmittting at the same frequency, do not "entangle" or mix
until they interact in the cavity of a receiving antenna. The signals can propagate
for thousands of miles and maintain their indivuality and the information that they
contain, under the right atmospheric "waveguide" conditions.

Keep in mind that these are radiating sources operating at very low frequencies
with long bandwidths and very high power, when compared to atomic scale EM
fields.

Are you suggesting that atomic scale EM fields are radiating their energy fields at
some extreme range, beyond their local proximity?

If that were the case, the ambient atomic background EM noise would interact with
all matter and there would be atomic level signal "chaos" of conflicting free
radiating EM sources. Basically, a "static" white out of mixed signal overlap.

Since each atom in the atomic chart vibrates at its own discrete
resonant frequency, because of its "structure", its telltale signal can be easily
detected by spectrographic (and other) techiques.

Do you have another analysis or explanation? I'd appreciate your personal
analysis and not another pdf research link to read.

rolleyes.gif
LL
Confused2
29th December 2006 - 02:22 AM
Hi Duality, LL, TRoc et al,

We have several words without proper definition floating about..

Words:- interference, non-linear mixing, standing waves, linear superposition, spooky action, correlation and entanglement. At any point cavities and/or resonances can appear which seem to be a places where any one or more of the first terms can be converted into any other term. Clarification please!

Best wishes,

-C2.
Duality
29th December 2006 - 02:48 AM
Laserlight, Confused [I did not want to cause confusion on this, and to put everything down that is spinning in my head -- well that could drive you] unsure.gif, u-quark, all,

As I tried to explained above this is some of the research I have read dealing with how involved matter/waves has to to with any experiment, the speed your talking about is about [c] and is not likely to be remedied in the interim.

For the passage from atomic to macroscopic scales the detectors is determined by the frequency of atomic vibrations, and this really was all I wanted you to think about.

Everyone seems to want to look at this DSE from every perspective & if it has any relevance that is up to the group to decide.

The oscillations on the atomic scale that was just a thought, but they are of extremely short duration compared to the macro - radio waves - just an analogy in looking into the micro and is there any effect that has been overlooked.

These phenomena involve a still large collection of rare events each of which occurs only after many vibrational periods, again I do not want to leave any variable out..

There are so many issues dealing with this test because of the technology used, you have a rigorous derivation of statistical mechanics that have led to important mathematical theory which could apply -- but that can come later if you run across it, but have ultimately resisted a completely satisfying resolution and that is why this post is doing well.

There is the possibility of new ideas in this area springing from many different fields - atomic physics, nonlinear dynamics, numerical analysis, materials science, wave propagation, statistical physics. - such as the temperature-accelerated dynamics methods of so many, and combined quantum and classical methods should be included I believe - I wish I could spend more time with you guys on this..

It is hoped that the simplifications afforded by separation of scales, together with the special features of atomistic problems, can in some way lead to new ways of understanding micro dynamics dealing with all frequency's but please remember it could be solvable or beyond our technology and intellect to explain.

Let me see if I can find any experiment that shows interference by the very cavity in which the DSE is tested.

I know I have not made much of this, but it has been a long 18 so let me collect my few brain cells/REST and see if I can find time to do some research. Yquantum, you sure do not ask for much. laugh.gif

Duality/Lisa wub.gif
Laserlight
29th December 2006 - 03:25 AM
C2-

Since you have raised the issue of specific definitions for terms used, you should
be the one to post their meanings. tongue.gif

LL
Laserlight
29th December 2006 - 03:45 AM
Lisa,

QUOTE

For the passage from atomic to macroscopic scales the detectors is determined by the frequency of atomic vibrations, and this really was all I wanted you to think about.



We have had very lengthy discussions and examples regarding the interaction
of photonic energy and matter as it relates to the act of detection and how
it affects measured results.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

For the passage from atomic to macroscopic scales the detectors is determined by the frequency of atomic vibrations, and this really was all I wanted you to think about.



We have had very lengthy discussions and examples regarding the interaction
of photonic energy and matter as it relates to the act of detection and how
it affects measured results.


It is hoped that the simplifications afforded by separation of scales, together with the special features of atomistic problems, can in some way lead to new ways of understanding micro dynamics dealing with all frequency's but please remember it could be solvable or beyond our technology and intellect to explain.


Believe me, we are leaving no stone unturned, but so far we have a plowed
field full of upturned stones. The problem is not confined to finding the ultimate
technical explanation for the DSE, it is getting everyone to see things the same
way and reach total agreement that we have a final solution. Like scientists
over the last 150+ years, we have lots of theory and proposed solutions but no definitive final answer, but I think we have collectively accomplished more to
analyze the fine "dynamics" of the experiment than anyone before.

LL


Good Elf
29th December 2006 - 07:50 AM
Hi Laserlight, TRoc, Duality, Yquantum, Confused2 et al,

I have read the article on stellar interference and it is not an interference experiment it is "signal mixing" experiment. The optical signals are converted to analog intensities and then these intensity signals are mixed "electronically" as volts perhaps . This is not "interference" from coherent sources though such distant sources will have spatial coherence. Any two synchronized sine waves can be mixed or displayed symultaneously on a screen or on an XY Plotter and this has nothing to do with interference.
user posted image
This indicates that some sources have no idea what interference is all about. The PM tubes convert the separate signals to electron currents and therefore are not an exercise in interference. The PM tubes convert intensity to a sinewave. You can do this trick because there are standing waves leading to spatial variation in "intensity" not EM phase.

Entanglement is different to the process of simple local interaction.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Is their any factual evidence that photons can spontaneously exhibit "entanglement"? To me, entanglement is a pure direct EM field interaction, nothing more, nothing less.
This is not the case and shows that the subtlety is being glossed over. Photons are not all entangled but they may still be all coherent. Photons can be entangled in a couple of ways... spin and polarization. The difference between entangled photons and ordinary photons is that entangled photons are formed (usually in pairs?) in single non-parametric source events. My explanation is the magnetic field lines are linked at source topologically. Each photon of the pair is capable of being used in the DSE. The entanglement is "global", that is it is totally non-local and relates to the geometry of our entire Universe. Reading one photon's qubit instantly communicates to the second photon from an observer point of view "along the wavefront" where phase velocity can be infinite, the instantaneous state of the first photon's polarization. Now I do not know if the polarization state of both photons were set from the start or is only set when you read one of the photons (I plug for this second case... a "superposition of both states") the result has been shown to be communicated at near infinite speed. Rhis communication is not really "spooky" since this velocity has always been infinite in all classical theory and what remains to be determined is how or why the correlation of polarizations or spins occur... well this is my explanation is that the magnetic field lines are interlinked at source and 'collapese" of one leads to an example of Lenz's Law and "flipping" the result in the other "linked" conjugate photon. This results in the polarization being conjugate to the first photon. The big problem is you are unable to signal using this process since you cannot know beforehand (before the measurement) which way the first photon was originally polarized.
Wikipedia: Lenz's Law

Here is a conundrum for those who believe that interactions are required for information transfer...
Experimental Synchronization of Independent Entangled Photon Sources
QUOTE (Conclusion+)
In summary, in the experiment we have exploited two synchronized femtosecond lasers to report for the first time an experimental demonstration of entangle-ment swapping with independent entangled photon pairs. Whereas our experiment presents a strict experimental realization of entangling photons that never interacted, the techniques developed in the experiment can be readily used to generate synchronized entangled photon pairs in all segments by cascading the coupling between the lasers, hence taking a significant step towards realistic
linear optical realization of quantum repeaters and quantum computation.

Here we can see entanglement of photons without any "interaction" through strong correlation. This proves that something goes on between source and destination even in quantum "events"... I can see no other explanation than Relational Quantum Mechanics cannot be the whole answer since it virtually says that everything important happens in interactions and nothing else matters. What this experiment shows is "waves" are the underlying reality and "interactions" are Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory like events. This elevates Aharonov-Bohm Effect and other "spooky" phenomena to a much higher level and more "fundamentally primitive" than particle "interactions".

Cheers
Confused2
29th December 2006 - 10:32 AM
Hi TRoc,

QUOTE (TRoc+)
There is energy hitting the dark area, unless "ON THE WAY" it is somehow "transferred" to another part of the system. The overly simplistic "constructive or destructive" explanation does NOT explain it with ANY detail; this is just "belief".


From here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_dynami...slit_experiment

From the Dirac quote
QUOTE (Dirac+)
What they did not clearly realize, however, was that the wave function gives information about the probability of one photon being in a particular place and not the probable number of photons in that place.


The subtlety of the point escaped me until you pointed it out .. the 'claim' is quite definitely that energy (a photon) is transferred to another part of the system .. the DSE shows photons being 'shifted' by the opening of the second slit.

A while back I did a graphical integration on the result of the single photon DSE ..
( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif )
In no particular units
Slit A only 112
Slit B only 106
( Slit A + B 218 )
Both slits open 209
To get the same result within a 5 percent seems reasonable given the likely errors involved (not least in my graphical integration)

While hardly conclusive it confirms my/(our?) expectation that no photons are lost and energy is conserved.

Best wishes,
-C2.
Confused2
29th December 2006 - 12:59 PM
In the light of the paper posted by yquantum about Relational Interpretation..
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0602/0602060.pdf
Take a 'normal' nicely set up DSE and replace the screen with a black screen with the letters 'a'.. 'z' written in white ink where the bright bits were. Illuminate the screen with the same frequency you set it up with and look down it the wrong way. Are the letters on top of each other? Can each letter be resolved in any way?
Does this tell us anything .. if so then what?
Best wishes,
C2.
Duality
29th December 2006 - 04:19 PM
Hi everyone, {to many to name which is great for this post.}

I am doing my best to think out of the traditional fundamental training that I have had and what is said I do not always agree with but I want to open up the door to new ways of thinking for all. dry.gif

Good Elf, I know how interference and sine waves behave but this has not answered the question that everyone seems to be looking for so I will just toss out the idea not expecting an rational explanation but in hopes of a serendipity moment for someone.

EXAMPLE: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#hv
You seem to be thinking in this vein of thought and how would you measure the pilot wave, you cannot and that is what I was getting out. I am doing my best on this but it is out of my way of rationalizing!

Confused2, I deal with the micro and QM on a daily basis and agree that until we come up with a better theory we will have to use the SM, QM, QED, etc., the well defined and data to extreme precision is the tool of the day.

Some enjoyable reading on the subject not deep just a way of thinking.

http://s162044184.onlinehome.us/lib/05jf/pdf/0105-50.pdf

Duality/Lisa wub.gif

Good Elf
29th December 2006 - 04:26 PM
Hi Confused2,

Sorry Confused2, you will need to explain to me... if the slits are left to right are the letters left to right? Do you mean that the screen is a "perfect absorber" and no individual photon flashes can be seen on the black part? What is the "wrong way" to look at this?? Do you mean that certain of the tiny individual flashes of light "illuminate" the white letters allowing us to read them? Letters on top of each other?... I do not understand. Is this a reference to the paper cited?

Cheers
jal
29th December 2006 - 04:52 PM
Good Day everyone!
biggrin.gif Duality biggrin.gif I was preparing a post while you were posting.
This is really ....really weird dry.gif Are we entangled? biggrin.gif

An experiment suggestion for DSE (if it has not already been done).
TRoc has been maintaining that there are other waves that could influence the outcome of the DSE.
Why has no one brought up the Casimir effect?
The two slits are only two casmir experiments. Letting a visible photon go between the slits is no different then having two plates (SLE) and then having another parrallel two plates (DSE) to observe what is happening. The Casimir effect is due to resonance of all-pervasive energy fields in the intervening space between the objects.

Has anyone combined and studied the two experiments?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
Casimir effect
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/itamp/casimirabstracts.html
Casimir Forces: Recent Developments in Experiment and Theory

http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens...mir/casimir.htm
The Casimir Force – Neutral or Electrostatic?
jal
Confused2
29th December 2006 - 05:15 PM
Hi Good Elf.

Sorry all was not clear in my last post.

Normally you have a light source and you look at the screen .. the 'wrong way round' would be to illuminate the screen and look at it from where the light source would normally be.

Looking at http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif we have six bright bits
.. write 'a'..'f' at the location of each peak. using white letters on a black background.. illuminate the screen. .. peer at it from where the laser would normally have been .. some sort of magnification might be useful.

Can we tease any sort of information about the nature of the forward path by looking at the reverse path(s)?

For example .. if we illuminated just the bit of the screen with the letter 'a' on it we'd (I think) see a bright bit and we'd 'know' it came from the 'a' peak. With all peaks uniformly illuminated by a very distant point source (insignificant path difference over the screen) what would we see?

Can we get extra information (eg about paths) by looking at the DSE backwards?

Best wishes,

-C2.
Good Elf
29th December 2006 - 06:51 PM
Hi Duality,

All images Click to enlarge...
The idea of "pilot waves" does not appeal to me since I cannot think of anything like a "particle" confined to move as a wave.
User posted image
As I see it... it must be a metaphor since a wave is certainly not a particle "bobbing up and down" or "pushed along"as it moves. My view of "particles" is a packet that has two separate descriptions according to Fourier Theory... The time domain (impulse) and the frequency domain (the wave) both descriptions describe the one phenomena and the truncation in time is the quantization. My theory is purely geometrodynamic... it has waves and "particles" are nothing other than "bright solitons".

Here is the particle description as proposed by David Bohm...
User posted image
where different "particles" are "bobbing along" after they have passed through one slit or the other "guided" by the waves as seen in the illustration above. This is very graphic where the actual position of the particle is shown by the lines (obviously extrapolated into three dimensional space). My view is there are really two cases the most important is the photon. It is not a tiny little spherical particle like a billiard ball but it is the waves themselves are spreading as in this illustration below and the space they are traveling in (if the geometry is fixed) is a series of fixed cavities formed by standing waves of resonance at each and every frequency defined by the source and the sink for each photon.
user posted image
This is a "seek all paths" answer since each and every photon occupies the same volumetric space (this does not coincide with the nodes and antinodes).

I will cut and paste some ideas from James Taylor's Home Page on Bhomian Mechanics... I will also modify them a bit to emphasize certain things I see are very important...
QUOTE
user posted imageBohmian mechanics is a deterministic theory which agrees completely with the predictions of quantum mechanics. It assumes that particles exist and have definite positions. The above formula indicates that the particles are guided by the wave function. To model a situation using these dynamics, simply write down those two equations, an initial wave function and the initial positions of the particles. There are no axioms about operators or collapse.

This is the theory that inspired J.S. Bell's work into the non-locality of nature. It also is an example of a "hidden variables theory" although the hidden variable here is the position of the particle. The theory is extremely natural if you assume that a particle actually has a definite position. The uncertainty principle, spin, identical particles, and operators as observables all come out of the theory very naturally. Standard QM appears as simply a statistical tool of this deterministic theory. BM has the advantage over QM because it is actually well defined. It also has the advantage of bringing to the forefront the most interesting current conceptual problem: how to reconcile the non-locality of the quantum world with relativity.
I would add that Schrodinger's Wave Equation can be interpreted in purely electromagnetic terms like this...
This is the traditional Schrodinger Equation...

This is an Electromagnetic Version of the same equation in which you may associate the same terms directly with each other
... and they are taken from page three of this paper...
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory Jian Qi Shen
A particle can then be considered as an electromagnetic soliton created and held in place by CPT. Just purely electromagnetic in origin.

Unfortunately the "space" of Quantum Physics does not map into the "real space" of the electromagnetic theory above. Bohmian Mechanics uses an intermediate space called "configuration space" to do the mapping.
User posted image
As mentioned above the "hidden variables" simply represent a position in on our three dimensional space projected from a quantum space. Now the particle description is not really necessary if we consider the matter waves being related to a "wave function" being confined within cavities... some as big as our Universe. It is a non-local theory and so the main cavity is the Universe itself and what we have is Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory.
http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/gat_80/
Consider what I have said about Special Relativity being a theory of low velocity particles as well ... the low velocity limit is deBroglie's Theory.
user posted image
And that these particles exist on the outer "membrane" of our Universe ... on the lightcone which exists "everywhere" locally yet represents only a compact surface "globally"... a tiny pebble universe connecting "everywhere" to its hyper-surface.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
user posted imageBohmian mechanics is a deterministic theory which agrees completely with the predictions of quantum mechanics. It assumes that particles exist and have definite positions. The above formula indicates that the particles are guided by the wave function. To model a situation using these dynamics, simply write down those two equations, an initial wave function and the initial positions of the particles. There are no axioms about operators or collapse.

This is the theory that inspired J.S. Bell's work into the non-locality of nature. It also is an example of a "hidden variables theory" although the hidden variable here is the position of the particle. The theory is extremely natural if you assume that a particle actually has a definite position. The uncertainty principle, spin, identical particles, and operators as observables all come out of the theory very naturally. Standard QM appears as simply a statistical tool of this deterministic theory. BM has the advantage over QM because it is actually well defined. It also has the advantage of bringing to the forefront the most interesting current conceptual problem: how to reconcile the non-locality of the quantum world with relativity.
I would add that Schrodinger's Wave Equation can be interpreted in purely electromagnetic terms like this...
This is the traditional Schrodinger Equation...

This is an Electromagnetic Version of the same equation in which you may associate the same terms directly with each other
... and they are taken from page three of this paper...
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory Jian Qi Shen
A particle can then be considered as an electromagnetic soliton created and held in place by CPT. Just purely electromagnetic in origin.

Unfortunately the "space" of Quantum Physics does not map into the "real space" of the electromagnetic theory above. Bohmian Mechanics uses an intermediate space called "configuration space" to do the mapping.
User posted image
As mentioned above the "hidden variables" simply represent a position in on our three dimensional space projected from a quantum space. Now the particle description is not really necessary if we consider the matter waves being related to a "wave function" being confined within cavities... some as big as our Universe. It is a non-local theory and so the main cavity is the Universe itself and what we have is Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory.
http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/gat_80/
Consider what I have said about Special Relativity being a theory of low velocity particles as well ... the low velocity limit is deBroglie's Theory.
user posted image
And that these particles exist on the outer "membrane" of our Universe ... on the lightcone which exists "everywhere" locally yet represents only a compact surface "globally"... a tiny pebble universe connecting "everywhere" to its hyper-surface.
Nonlocality
The Bohmian particles are guided by a wave on configuration space. We have seen that this high-dimensional space, as opposed to the phase space of classical mechanics, is not merely an abstract mathematical tool but an element of the theory crucial to the understanding of the behaviour of Bohmian particles.

In particular, the motion of a particle depends on the positions of all the other particles, no matter how distant they are!

At first sight, this non-local behaviour seems to be in conflict with the principles of the theory of relativity, since we always assumed that physical effects can at most travel at the speed of light.

The seminal work of J.S. Bell however, together with the incompleteness argument of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, shows that every theory that agrees with the statistics predicted by quantum mechanics (and thus with experiment) must be nonlocal. http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~boh...post/postE.html


So my theory is not actually David Bohm's idea but an extension into a particle free description based on pure optics. Within this "Universe" an uncollapsed reality exists by virtue of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory based on a "classical" theory of holographic higher dimensional "flatspace" surfaces, the boundaries exist on the edge of our known Universe and on embedded sub-atomic particles which are also higher dimensional objects. Gravity becomes a geometric effect due to percieved curvature... a pseudo-force. The confinement of our Universe and other particles is on the surface of the light-cone. An optical analog of this might be this instrument...
User posted image
This is only two dimensional but illustrates the general "optics". This leads to reciprocal spaces and reciprocal times (frequency) for the dual complex fourier domains.

Cheers
jal
29th December 2006 - 07:19 PM
Hi Good Elf!
I think that you have identified the differences between our two approaches.
QUOTE
As I see it... it must be a metaphor since a wave is certainly not a particle "bobbing up and down" or "pushed along"as it moves.

I see it as a particle-like that IS PUSHED ALONG BY THE STRUCTURE OF SPACETIME. It is not a metaphor.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
As I see it... it must be a metaphor since a wave is certainly not a particle "bobbing up and down" or "pushed along"as it moves.

I see it as a particle-like that IS PUSHED ALONG BY THE STRUCTURE OF SPACETIME. It is not a metaphor.
Here is the particle description as proposed by David Bohm...
where different "particles" are "bobbing along" after they have passed through one slit or the other "guided" by the waves as seen in the illustration above.

My views are that the above mentioned "waves" are the dynamic movements of spacetime which has not been identified ... YET.
When we find it ... it will no longer be a "hidden variable".
QUOTE
The Bohmian particles are guided by a wave on configuration space.

Not quite right.
The particle-like photons are guided by the dynamics of the configuration space.
I willing to wait for the CERN results to give us the evidence of who has the right interpretation. smile.gif
(for images go to my thread)
jal
TRoc
29th December 2006 - 08:25 PM
Hi all,

It seems this conversation is back in the same rut.
ph34r.gif

C2
QUOTE
We have several words without proper definition floating about..

Words:- interference, non-linear mixing, standing waves, linear superposition, spooky action, correlation and entanglement. At any point cavities and/or resonances can appear which seem to be a places where any one or more of the first terms can be converted into any other term. Clarification please!


This is the problem with CURRENT theory. They will NOT get any closer to understanding with these "definition" problems, and neither will anyone who blindly follows the admittedly blind. (Copenhagen)


GE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
We have several words without proper definition floating about..

Words:- interference, non-linear mixing, standing waves, linear superposition, spooky action, correlation and entanglement. At any point cavities and/or resonances can appear which seem to be a places where any one or more of the first terms can be converted into any other term. Clarification please!


This is the problem with CURRENT theory. They will NOT get any closer to understanding with these "definition" problems, and neither will anyone who blindly follows the admittedly blind. (Copenhagen)


GE I have read the article on stellar interference and it is not an interference experiment it is "signal mixing" experiment. The optical signals are converted to analog intensities and then these intensity signals are mixed "electronically" as volts perhaps .


Are we supposed to take a statement, ending in "perhaps", as definitive? You did the same thing as C2, read part of this until you find something vague enough to support your cause, and then quote out of context.

The picture is even wrong, you have NOT included a schematic of the device we are talking about. That is why I am so bold as to say you haven't read enough of this paper to make a statement like the one you did.

QUOTE
This indicates that some sources have no idea what interference is all about. The PM tubes convert the separate signals to electron currents and therefore are not an exercise in interference.


If we are to EXCLUDE all experiments that "convert signals to electron currents", where will that leave us, GE? If you were listening to me at all, you would realize that this conversion process is susceptible to superposition, and that "counts" are not accurate. If the remainder of the process REQUIRES "counts" to PROVE a theory, IT HASN"T. The picture you posted IS showing THAT fact. They superimposed the signal, at the cathode, and THAT is what I pointed out about the so-called "counting" going on INSIDE the apparatus of the so-called "1-at-a-time photon" experiment.

From the paper:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
This indicates that some sources have no idea what interference is all about. The PM tubes convert the separate signals to electron currents and therefore are not an exercise in interference.


If we are to EXCLUDE all experiments that "convert signals to electron currents", where will that leave us, GE? If you were listening to me at all, you would realize that this conversion process is susceptible to superposition, and that "counts" are not accurate. If the remainder of the process REQUIRES "counts" to PROVE a theory, IT HASN"T. The picture you posted IS showing THAT fact. They superimposed the signal, at the cathode, and THAT is what I pointed out about the so-called "counting" going on INSIDE the apparatus of the so-called "1-at-a-time photon" experiment.

From the paper: The output of the multiplier was integrated for periods of about one hour. If repeated today, the experiment could not be done with a laser, because the source incoherence is essential to the effect. The experiment clearly showed that correlation was observed when the cathodes were superimposed, which disappeared when they were separated.


Let me introduce some more of the paper to the flow (?) of this thread. At least there will be enough info to perhaps make a conclusion. I am putting emphasis in bold throughout.

QUOTE
In 1920, A. A. Michelson and F. G. Pease measured the angular diameter of Betelgeuse, α Orionis, with the 100-inch reflector at Mount Wilson. From its distance, they directly inferred its diameter, confirming that it was a huge star. This was the first direct measurement of stellar diameter; all other methods had been indirect and subject to uncertainty. Attempts to enlarge the phase interferometer to make the method applicable to a larger number of stars undertaken by Pease in later years were unsuccessful. In 1956 Hanbury Brown and Twiss applied a method they had devised for radio astronomy to visual astronomy and measured the angular diameter of Sirius, α Canis Majoris. This was the intensity interferometer, which removed most of the limitations of the phase interferometer, allowing measurements on a much larger sample of stars


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
In 1920, A. A. Michelson and F. G. Pease measured the angular diameter of Betelgeuse, α Orionis, with the 100-inch reflector at Mount Wilson. From its distance, they directly inferred its diameter, confirming that it was a huge star. This was the first direct measurement of stellar diameter; all other methods had been indirect and subject to uncertainty. Attempts to enlarge the phase interferometer to make the method applicable to a larger number of stars undertaken by Pease in later years were unsuccessful. In 1956 Hanbury Brown and Twiss applied a method they had devised for radio astronomy to visual astronomy and measured the angular diameter of Sirius, α Canis Majoris. This was the intensity interferometer, which removed most of the limitations of the phase interferometer, allowing measurements on a much larger sample of stars


These important and interesting developments are largely ignored in astronomy textbooks. The Michelson experiment is usually only briefly acknowledged, and the Hanbury Brown interferometer is not mentioned at all. One reason for this is the difficulty of explaining the method, especially without mathematics. Optics texts usually give a reasonable explanation, because the measurements are valuable examples of the wave nature of light, but the astronomy is slighted.


QUOTE
The other important preparation for our task is the understanding of interference, interferometry and coherence. This is a big job, which requires reference to Optics texts for a thorough attack. Here we can only present the fundamentals in an abbreviated form. This should be sufficient for our purpose, however.


No theory of "the movement of vibrating strings" (our CURRENT model), that DID NOT even cover the INTERACTIONS of said strings, can be described as "complete", or "whole"; it is LAME. This "system" for describing a LONE, isolated vibration is INCOMPLETE. There is no isolation in our Universe.

"Something else", like "dark current", CMB, ZPE, is always there, and unaccounted for currently.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The other important preparation for our task is the understanding of interference, interferometry and coherence. This is a big job, which requires reference to Optics texts for a thorough attack. Here we can only present the fundamentals in an abbreviated form. This should be sufficient for our purpose, however.


No theory of "the movement of vibrating strings" (our CURRENT model), that DID NOT even cover the INTERACTIONS of said strings, can be described as "complete", or "whole"; it is LAME. This "system" for describing a LONE, isolated vibration is INCOMPLETE. There is no isolation in our Universe.

"Something else", like "dark current", CMB, ZPE, is always there, and unaccounted for currently.

Unfortunately, we have to use the same word for what we have called a generalized amplitude and the modulus of a complex number. It would have been better to call a the modulus, but this is not usually done. The two meanings for "amplitude" are not easy to confuse, fortunately. This form of the amplitude is not typical of most light sources, and is a kind of idealization. However, it is approached closely by laser light, so it is easy for us to experience. When we do use laser illumination, the light-as-snow illusion is shattered, and there are fringes and spots everywhere. These are, of course, results of interference, and show that our amplitude picture is correct.


user posted image
QUOTE
This experiment uses some little-known characteristics of diffraction. If you look at a wire held at some distance from a pinhole, with your eye in the shadow of the wire, two short bright lines will be seen at the top and bottom edges of the wire. These act a line sources of light, producing two beams that interfere to make fringes in the shadow. There are also fringes outside the shadow, with different phase relations (the pattern is not continuous at the shadow edges), but are difficult to see in the glare. This gives a much larger intensity than two slits would in the same places, and made the experiment possible for Young.


You should note here, that what I did (and Goethe), is to COMBINE the Young "slit" (wire), and the Newton prism versions of diffraction experiments. If you look directly at the "Young" picture, through a prism, you get the REST OF THE STORY. I don't need conjecture to explain what can be clearly seen. This is not biological, or an effect of our eye, ANY MORE than the actual BANDS of light and dark, WHICH are "colored" to EVERYTHING else in the Universe.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
This experiment uses some little-known characteristics of diffraction. If you look at a wire held at some distance from a pinhole, with your eye in the shadow of the wire, two short bright lines will be seen at the top and bottom edges of the wire. These act a line sources of light, producing two beams that interfere to make fringes in the shadow. There are also fringes outside the shadow, with different phase relations (the pattern is not continuous at the shadow edges), but are difficult to see in the glare. This gives a much larger intensity than two slits would in the same places, and made the experiment possible for Young.


You should note here, that what I did (and Goethe), is to COMBINE the Young "slit" (wire), and the Newton prism versions of diffraction experiments. If you look directly at the "Young" picture, through a prism, you get the REST OF THE STORY. I don't need conjecture to explain what can be clearly seen. This is not biological, or an effect of our eye, ANY MORE than the actual BANDS of light and dark, WHICH are "colored" to EVERYTHING else in the Universe.

Actual light disturbances are not as simple as the sinusoidal variations with constant amplitude and phase that we have discussed above. Laser light may approximate such disturbances, but not the light from candles or stars. This light is the resultant of a multitude of amplitudes from individual atomic emissions, which take place independently. Two signals of different frequencies get out of step quickly, the more quickly the more they are different in frequency. Random phase changes between two signals of the same frequency cause interference fringes to move. The light from thermal sources--candles and stars--is in the nature of a noise signal, with a wide frequency spectrum and constantly fluctuating phase. It is no surprise that we do not observe interference fringes in the usual conditions.


QUOTE
When the light from two points can be made to form fringes, the signals are said to be coherent. When no fringes are seen, the signals are called incoherent. In the two-aperture experiment, if we make the pinhole larger and larger, the fringes lose contrast or visibility, and eventually disappear. The light falling on the apertures becomes less and less coherent as this takes place. This simple observation shows the basis for determining stellar diameters by interferometry. We only have to find the limits of the region where the light from the star is coherent, using interference, and this is directly related to the apparent angular extent of the source. We take apertures farther and farther apart, and find out where the fringes disappear.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
When the light from two points can be made to form fringes, the signals are said to be coherent. When no fringes are seen, the signals are called incoherent. In the two-aperture experiment, if we make the pinhole larger and larger, the fringes lose contrast or visibility, and eventually disappear. The light falling on the apertures becomes less and less coherent as this takes place. This simple observation shows the basis for determining stellar diameters by interferometry. We only have to find the limits of the region where the light from the star is coherent, using interference, and this is directly related to the apparent angular extent of the source. We take apertures farther and farther apart, and find out where the fringes disappear.


To analyze this quantitatively, we introduce a quantity called the degree of coherence, ..

They go in to some equations, which don't copy over, so I'll leave them out. If you want the math, go to the link: http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/astro/starsiz.htm

QUOTE
Van Cittert-Zernike Theorem  ..  We now have all the theory we need to understand stellar interferometry. It is clear that we are looking for the radius at which the illumination has zero coherence, and this radius gives us the angular diameter. The linear diameter is obtained by multiplying by the distance. If we knew the diameter to start with, inverting this method would give us the distance.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Van Cittert-Zernike Theorem  ..  We now have all the theory we need to understand stellar interferometry. It is clear that we are looking for the radius at which the illumination has zero coherence, and this radius gives us the angular diameter. The linear diameter is obtained by multiplying by the distance. If we knew the diameter to start with, inverting this method would give us the distance.


The Correlation , or Narrabri Interferometer

user posted image
QUOTE
The correlation or intensity stellar interferometer was invented in about 1954 by two remarkable investigators, R. Hanbury Brown and R. Q. Twiss. A large interferometer was completed in 1965 at Narrabri, Australia, and by the end of the decade had measured the angular diameters of more than 20 stars, including main sequence stars, down to magnitude +2.0. This interferometer was equivalent to a 617-foot Michelson stellar interferometer, was much easier to use, and gave repeatable, accurate results.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The correlation or intensity stellar interferometer was invented in about 1954 by two remarkable investigators, R. Hanbury Brown and R. Q. Twiss. A large interferometer was completed in 1965 at Narrabri, Australia, and by the end of the decade had measured the angular diameters of more than 20 stars, including main sequence stars, down to magnitude +2.0. This interferometer was equivalent to a 617-foot Michelson stellar interferometer, was much easier to use, and gave repeatable, accurate results.


It works on the same fundamental principle of determining the coherence of starlight as a function of the distance between two points, but the means of finding the coherence is totally different, and relies on some esoteric properties of quasi-monochromatic light.


QUOTE
The theory of how the correlation in this case is related to the degree of coherence is similar to what we explained in connection with the Michelson instrument, but happens to be more involved, so only the idea will be sketched here. The filtered starlight is a quasi-monochromatic signal, in which the closely-space frequency components can be considered to beat against one another to create fluctuations in intensity, <AA*>. This is a general and familiar aspect of narrow-band noise. There are also accompanying fluctuations in phase, but these are not important here. The correlation measured in the intensity interferometer is proportional to <ΔI1ΔI2>, where ΔI = I = Iav is the fluctuation in I. If expressions for the quantities are inserted in terms of the amplitudes, it is found that the normalized correlation is proportional to |γ12|2, the square of the fringe visibility in the Michelson case. The phase information is gone, but the magnitude of the degree of coherence is still there, and that is enough for the measurement of diameters.

Advantages of the Brown and Twiss interferometer include: larger light-gathering capacity permitting use on dimmer stars; ease of adjusting the time delays of the channels to equality; electronic instead of visual observation; immunity to scintillation; much larger practical separations; and the elimination of the need for a large, sturdy telescope as a mount.


Then they go on to discuss the photoelectric effect, which is where GE quoted from (diagram). This is just talking about superposition at the collector.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The theory of how the correlation in this case is related to the degree of coherence is similar to what we explained in connection with the Michelson instrument, but happens to be more involved, so only the idea will be sketched here. The filtered starlight is a quasi-monochromatic signal, in which the closely-space frequency components can be considered to beat against one another to create fluctuations in intensity, <AA*>. This is a general and familiar aspect of narrow-band noise. There are also accompanying fluctuations in phase, but these are not important here. The correlation measured in the intensity interferometer is proportional to <ΔI1ΔI2>, where ΔI = I = Iav is the fluctuation in I. If expressions for the quantities are inserted in terms of the amplitudes, it is found that the normalized correlation is proportional to |γ12|2, the square of the fringe visibility in the Michelson case. The phase information is gone, but the magnitude of the degree of coherence is still there, and that is enough for the measurement of diameters.

Advantages of the Brown and Twiss interferometer include: larger light-gathering capacity permitting use on dimmer stars; ease of adjusting the time delays of the channels to equality; electronic instead of visual observation; immunity to scintillation; much larger practical separations; and the elimination of the need for a large, sturdy telescope as a mount.


Then they go on to discuss the photoelectric effect, which is where GE quoted from (diagram). This is just talking about superposition at the collector.

The best test of the interferometer would be the measurement of a star of known diameter. However, there are no such stars. Therefore, the only tests are the consistency of repeated measurements. The interferometer measures the angular diameter directly, and the linear diameter depends on knowing the distance, which in many cases is uncertain. All astronomical data is subject to error, revision and misinterpretation, though the current quoted figures always look firm and reliable enough.


The bottom line: this method produces the same results as MM method, as far as stellar measurements.


regards,

T.Roc


TRoc
29th December 2006 - 08:57 PM
C2,


QUOTE
QUOTE (Dirac)
What they did not clearly realize, however, was that the wave function gives information about the probability of one photon being in a particular place and not the probable number of photons in that place. 

The subtlety of the point escaped me until you pointed it out .. the 'claim' is quite definitely that energy (a photon) is transferred to another part of the system .. the DSE shows photons being 'shifted' by the opening of the second slit.



First of all, why are you using "wave functions", when your argument centers around the "DSE equation" that you keep bringing up? These are totally different models. Fresnel/Huygens (F/H) does not need "probabilities".

Second, saying that "..photons being 'shifted' by the opening of the second slit..", is erroneous. The correct way to explain this is, you get one "picture" of interference with 1 slit, and another with 2 slits. The "opening" of the 2nd slit starts a process of BOTH "new" sources interfering with each other on the way to, OR at the screen. Both of these slits are new and EQUIVALENT sources; you can not give "shifting power" to just one of them.

Also, DON'T FORGET, we get a THIRD result when we BLOCK the second slit; just one spot on the wall. This is where F/H, and QM falls apart; they have no reasonable explanation.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
QUOTE (Dirac)
What they did not clearly realize, however, was that the wave function gives information about the probability of one photon being in a particular place and not the probable number of photons in that place. 

The subtlety of the point escaped me until you pointed it out .. the 'claim' is quite definitely that energy (a photon) is transferred to another part of the system .. the DSE shows photons being 'shifted' by the opening of the second slit.



First of all, why are you using "wave functions", when your argument centers around the "DSE equation" that you keep bringing up? These are totally different models. Fresnel/Huygens (F/H) does not need "probabilities".

Second, saying that "..photons being 'shifted' by the opening of the second slit..", is erroneous. The correct way to explain this is, you get one "picture" of interference with 1 slit, and another with 2 slits. The "opening" of the 2nd slit starts a process of BOTH "new" sources interfering with each other on the way to, OR at the screen. Both of these slits are new and EQUIVALENT sources; you can not give "shifting power" to just one of them.

Also, DON'T FORGET, we get a THIRD result when we BLOCK the second slit; just one spot on the wall. This is where F/H, and QM falls apart; they have no reasonable explanation.

While hardly conclusive it confirms my/(our?) expectation that no photons are lost and energy is conserved.


OK, so now explain where the LOSS of "photons" comes from? (the dark bands). The "textbook" explanation, "destructive interference", says the dark bands are where "photons" canceled each other out. This should result in a "lower count".

In order to answer the WHOLE question, you need a "mechanism". Your DSE equation says nothing about "counts", so it is missed there. Now, with advances in technology, you are "counting" "photons" ( rolleyes.gif ) .

The simple "constructive/destructive" analogy DOES NOT account for the EXTRA photons. 1 + 1 = 4 has been talked about bt LL as well. Higher intensity is from MORE "photons"; IF there was just "one photon" in the chamber, where did the extra energy come from?

Also, from Dirac's quote (and theory): they say that PART of the original "photon" goes through EACH slit. What happens to the OTHER part? What makes up for the "rest of the photon" that comes through each slit. This is so stupid it is hilarious. It is handwaving at its' finest. The fact is, by the model/method used, WHOLE "photons" exit each slit. You can't have it both ways! (remember, this is their justification for "one photon" only interfering with itself, because dividing it in TWO still leaves you with ONE) I guess it's safe to say then, that 1/2 "photons" can interfere with each other? There is your holy "monopole" quest again. Call me when they find one! laugh.gif


ciao,

T.Roc


jal
29th December 2006 - 10:31 PM
TRoc!
Your info concerning astronomy .... DSE .... and "The Casimir Force – Neutral or Electrostatic?" seems to indicate that we are about to illiminate some of the "weirdness" associated from both.
Comments ... analysis.
jal
Laserlight
29th December 2006 - 11:15 PM
All,

I think this chart will be useful for those interested in The Standard Model of
Fundamental Particles and Their Interactions.

http://particleadventure.org/particleadven...hart_frame.html

User posted image

LL
Neil Farbstein
30th December 2006 - 12:02 AM
QUOTE (Laserlight+Dec 29 2006, 11:15 PM)
All,

I think this chart will be useful for those interested in The Standard Model of
Fundamental Particles and Their Interactions.

http://particleadventure.org/particleadven...hart_frame.html

User posted image

LL

What would it mean if the axion was discovered? What ramifications would it have if the standard model were discovered to be not dead.
Neil Farbstein
30th December 2006 - 12:21 AM
QUOTE (TRoc+Dec 29 2006, 08:57 PM)
C2,





First of all, why are you using "wave functions", when your argument centers around the "DSE equation" that you keep bringing up? These are totally different models. Fresnel/Huygens (F/H) does not need "probabilities".

Second, saying that "..photons being 'shifted' by the opening of the second slit..", is erroneous. The correct way to explain this is, you get one "picture" of interference with 1 slit, and another with 2 slits. The "opening" of the 2nd slit starts a process of BOTH "new" sources interfering with each other on the way to, OR at the screen. Both of these slits are new and EQUIVALENT sources; you can not give "shifting power" to just one of them.

Also, DON'T FORGET, we get a THIRD result when we BLOCK the second slit; just one spot on the wall. This is where F/H, and QM falls apart; they have no reasonable explanation.



OK, so now explain where the LOSS of "photons" comes from? (the dark bands). The "textbook" explanation, "destructive interference", says the dark bands are where "photons" canceled each other out. This should result in a "lower count".

In order to answer the WHOLE question, you need a "mechanism". Your DSE equation says nothing about "counts", so it is missed there. Now, with advances in technology, you are "counting" "photons" ( rolleyes.gif ) .

The simple "constructive/destructive" analogy DOES NOT account for the EXTRA photons. 1 + 1 = 4 has been talked about bt LL as well. Higher intensity is from MORE "photons"; IF there was just "one photon" in the chamber, where did the extra energy come from?

Also, from Dirac's quote (and theory): they say that PART of the original "photon" goes through EACH slit. What happens to the OTHER part? What makes up for the "rest of the photon" that comes through each slit. This is so stupid it is hilarious. It is handwaving at its' finest. The fact is, by the model/method used, WHOLE "photons" exit each slit. You can't have it both ways! (remember, this is their justification for "one photon" only interfering with itself, because dividing it in TWO still leaves you with ONE) I guess it's safe to say then, that 1/2 "photons" can interfere with each other? There is your holy "monopole" quest again. Call me when they find one! laugh.gif


ciao,

T.Roc

there's is obviously a long distance effect from opening a second slit. Discover Magazine
showed an Iranian physicist that says he has observed new properties of two slit experiments- he made certain claims about the distribution of photons and the photos they showed in the magazine seemed to show something different than what he was claiming. I fogot his exact claims, but he seemed to be interpreting the data wrong.
Laserlight
30th December 2006 - 04:04 AM
Hi Neil,

How about not quoting the whole post of the person that you are replying to....it
churns pages too fast.

Thanks,
LL
Good Elf
30th December 2006 - 05:41 AM
Hi Laserlight, Confused2, TRoc, Duality, Jal, Yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,

TRoc is right about my lack of attention to the detail when I made a comment about Stellar Interferometry. Just shows how sloppy elves get around Xmas. Temporal Coherence is a very important concept and I missed some points in trying to read this page intelligently... I blew it there. I have even been to the Narrabri Interferometer and I must not have been listening that day either.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
QUOTE (C2+)
"They must be set so that the photomultiplier will optimally count green photons and optimally reject the dark current."
C2, they "MUST BE SET" to "REJECT THE DARK CURRENT". This is direct EVIDENCE for the FACT that there is MORE THAN ONE FREQUENCY to account for.
"Dark current" is code-word for other "photons".

I still disagree about the photoelectric dark current being due to invisible photons... or have I got that wrong as well? The dark curent is something that happens with all vacuum tube photomultiplers and photodiodes, this base current just keeps growing as the tubes age.

Laserlight where is the chart of "Fundamental Particles and Their non-Interactions"... biggrin.gif I am not joking about this. That is the quantum behavior of "particles".

Consider that "non-interactions" can exchange information without an exchange of energy.... experimentally proven. It is also happening during the "secret quantum life" of "particles" or should we call them waves that have particle-like behavour?

I will return to these points later... thanks for keeping me "honest" TRoc...

Cheers
Neil Farbstein
30th December 2006 - 06:12 AM
QUOTE (Good Elf+Dec 30 2006, 05:41 AM)
Hi Laserlight, Confused2, TRoc, Duality, Jal, Yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,

TRoc is right about my lack of attention to the detail when I made a comment about Stellar Interferometry. Just shows how sloppy elves get around Xmas. Temporal Coherence is a very important concept and I missed some points in trying to read this page intelligently... I blew it there. I have even been to the Narrabri Interferometer and I must not have been listening that day either.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
QUOTE (C2+)
"They must be set so that the photomultiplier will optimally count green photons and optimally reject the dark current."
C2, they "MUST BE SET" to "REJECT THE DARK CURRENT". This is direct EVIDENCE for the FACT that there is MORE THAN ONE FREQUENCY to account for.
"Dark current" is code-word for other "photons".

I still disagree about the photoelectric dark current being due to invisible photons... or have I got that wrong as well? The dark curent is something that happens with all vacuum tube photomultiplers and photodiodes, this base current just keeps growing as the tubes age.

Laserlight where is the chart of "Fundamental Particles and Their non-Interactions"... biggrin.gif I am not joking about this. That is the quantum behavior of "particles".

Consider that "non-interactions" can exchange information without an exchange of energy.... experimentally proven. It is also happening during the "secret quantum life" of "particles" or should we call them waves that have particle-like behavour?

I will return to these points later... thanks for keeping me "honest" TRoc...

Cheers

3/5th of a photon
Neil Farbstein
30th December 2006 - 06:29 AM
QUOTE (TRoc+Dec 29 2006, 08:57 PM)
C2,





First of all, why are you using "wave functions", when your argument centers around the "DSE equation" that you keep bringing up? These are totally different models. Fresnel/Huygens (F/H) does not need "probabilities".

Second, saying that "..photons being 'shifted' by the opening of the second slit..", is erroneous. The correct way to explain this is, you get one "picture" of interference with 1 slit, and another with 2 slits. The "opening" of the 2nd slit starts a process of BOTH "new" sources interfering with each other on the way to, OR at the screen. Both of these slits are new and EQUIVALENT sources; you can not give "shifting power" to just one of them.

Also, DON'T FORGET, we get a THIRD result when we BLOCK the second slit; just one spot on the wall. This is where F/H, and QM falls apart; they have no reasonable explanation.



OK, so now explain where the LOSS of "photons" comes from? (the dark bands). The "textbook" explanation, "destructive interference", says the dark bands are where "photons" canceled each other out. This should result in a "lower count".

In order to answer the WHOLE question, you need a "mechanism". Your DSE equation says nothing about "counts", so it is missed there. Now, with advances in technology, you are "counting" "photons" ( rolleyes.gif ) .

The simple "constructive/destructive" analogy DOES NOT account for the EXTRA photons. 1 + 1 = 4 has been talked about bt LL as well. Higher intensity is from MORE "photons"; IF there was just "one photon" in the chamber, where did the extra energy come from?

Also, from Dirac's quote (and theory): they say that PART of the original "photon" goes through EACH slit. What happens to the OTHER part? What makes up for the "rest of the photon" that comes through each slit. This is so stupid it is hilarious. It is handwaving at its' finest. The fact is, by the model/method used, WHOLE "photons" exit each slit. You can't have it both ways! (remember, this is their justification for "one photon" only interfering with itself, because dividing it in TWO still leaves you with ONE) I guess it's safe to say then, that 1/2 "photons" can interfere with each other? There is your holy "monopole" quest again. Call me when they find one! laugh.gif


ciao,

T.Roc

3/5 of a photon. Dark matter
Neil Farbstein
30th December 2006 - 06:48 AM
The material the slits are made of might make a difference. So might the color and the absorbance and reflectivity of those slits. Photons coming near the slits are surely causing infinitesimal surface plasmon resonances and maybe even bigger surface plasmon resonances, that might affect the trajectory of photons moving through the slits. The slits themselves are not two dimensional objects, there is a certain depth to them that should affect the field equations. The photons that are absorbed by the material comprising the structure that the slits are cut into (on either or both sides or between the slits) will be absorbing some of the photons that miss the slits changing the temperature of the slits and causing infrared photons to be emitted that should interfere with the light source photons to some degree. All of those variables are usually assumed to be negligible yet neglecting them might result in a deterioration of our theoretical understanding of those phenomena.
Laserlight
30th December 2006 - 07:06 AM
TRoc, GE, C2, They, and All,

It's a musical universe....
http://www.svpvril.com/musicuni.html#TOP%20musicuni

LL
fivedoughnut
30th December 2006 - 07:26 AM
LL etc,

Interesting stuff, has an initial progentior and interacting offspring frequencies just as in my model; thought I was the only quack doing this stuff ..... sure his name isn't actually Duck Pond? laugh.gif
TRoc
30th December 2006 - 07:52 AM
Hi all,


Don't worry, GE. It's the same for all of us. The irony didn't miss me, though. Having to tell a "cupla blokes frem dan unda" (my best Aussie accent) about the gizmo in Narrabri. I have a pile of papers to read, and my computer always has a maximum # of pages open, etc. Jal gave a link a while back that was very interesting, and I wanted to comment on at his thread, but I've "lost it" somewhere.

Someone, I think it was YQ, gave a link to a great source of current info on "interactions, interference, SHG, etc. I haven't had enough time to "snip" some good stuff to share. http://www.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/dantu...ications/76.pdf
Experimental Coherent Laser Control of Physicochemical Processes
Chem. Rev. 2004, 104, 1813-1859
Marcos Dantus* and Vadim V. Lozovoy
QUOTE
In particular, we highlight the fact that some of the highest resolution spectroscopic measurements being carried out employ femtosecond laser pulses. These experiments, specifically those taking advantage of rotational coherence, provide resolution that rivals microwave spectroscopy. The reason spectroscopic
information is not lost in femtochemistry experiments is coherence, a property that can be manipulated to control physicochemical processes by a number of different approaches, which will be reviewed here.

This review presents a summary of ome of the most salient contributions to the field of coherent laser control from an experimentalist’s perspective.  While a number of theoretical papers have made key contributions to the field, it is from the experimental successes, as well as failures, that we can best learn how to implement new strategies and develop future applications. Coherent laser control, in the context of this review, encompasses experiments in which the coherent properties of the laser and/or the molecule are required for controlling a particular physicochemical process.


We haven't even scratched the "rovibrational" resonances, and the "lessor photonic" family. These are the guys who don't have the energy to cause transitions. We have mentioned some, of course, and Neil just did again. So many solitons, magnons, spinons, excitons, etc.

I think that this is cheating. You don't find these "poor excuses for photons" in the Standard Family reunion pictures. What gives? They are "force carriers" of sorts, and I think that the "rules" have been side stepped. They should all be the same thing, just in different mediums. They are "electron to electron" vibrations, where, as GE said, more "rules" are being broken, by transferring information around the "network", like Chinese DVD's.

I think that "Chekhov" style radiation is the "outward" manifestation of this same "intra-lattice communication" that doesn't need to wait around for a "photon" to tell it what to do. My favorite phrase concerning that is "you can't ring 1/2 of a bell". When you do ring a bell, all of its' modes are simultaneously set off, superimposing the whole set (harmonics).

For jal, I think (from an earlier post) that the perpendicular "view" of the slit sides(energy going through it) is not enough like the parallel plates of the Casimir experiment. I think there are similarities though, where there is a "pressure" or density difference, I think "quasi cavity" conditions are set. LL touched on this idea earlier too. I always have such SIMPLE questions, that are usually IMPOSSIBLE to answer, unless you do the experiment yourself. Like, "is the slit made in metal?", if so, let's try wood, and glass. Let's put a round magnet behind and between the slits, etc. Change things around, and EXPERIMENT! (what a concept!)

My 2 favorite ideas are:
1. (somehow) channeling pulsed beams from different sources (3 or 4) into the same slits, to see if "self interference" can happen between them.
2. (somehow) arranging a "screen cascade", where each "1-at-a-time photon" went through the same slit, but landed on a different detector all together (by rotating, or ?) to see if the screen has anything to do with the "random" build-up of the pattern.

Maybe someday! wink.gif


regards,

T.Roc

TRoc
30th December 2006 - 08:44 AM
Hi all,


LL, that was pretty interesting. I find similar things MUCH more than I ever expect. Some key differences too. One of the (apparently) big things, is going to be about the "third harmonic". EVERYBODY uses this term (and the simple math it represents), in relation to the Fundamental f . While "technically" correct, if you take this a true, you WILL get to ERRORS later. It is easy to see, from a harmonic series, that too many values would be skipped in the beginning. I have went over this in the "toe / math insights" thread last year.

Simply put {1,2,4,8,16} are all TRUE harmonics, and you do not see "the third" in there. This is why I say (and challenge anyone) that you need 12 parts to CORRECTLY describe the visible spectrum. It can be "represented" by 7 colors, or whatever, but the "math" will not follow resonance. The "key player" that resides at the "center" is green; which is (in lowest terms) the 1.5 value (between 1 and 2). This is the start of the harmonic column of the 3rd: {1.5, 3, 6, 12, 24,..}


Anyway, here is a link to a very good paper on QM, and its "myths". I think it is well done, and truthful.

Quantum mechanics: Myths and facts
Hrvoje Nikoli´c
Theoretical Physics Division, Rudjer Boˇskovi´c Institute, P.O.B. 180, HR-10002 Zagreb, Croatia.
(Dated: September 21, 2006)
QUOTE
A common understanding of quantum mechanics (QM) among students and practical users is often plagued by a number of “myths”, that is, widely accepted claims on which there is not really a general consensus among experts in foundations of QM. These myths include wave-particle duality, time-energy uncertainty relation, fundamental randomness, the absence of measurement  independent reality, locality of QM, nonlocality of QM, the existence of well-defined relativistic QM, the claims that quantum field theory (QFT) solves the problems of relativistic QM or that QFT is a theory of particles, as well as myths on black-hole entropy. The fact is that the existence of various theoretical and interpretational ambiguities underlying these myths does not yet allow us to accept them as proven facts. I review the main arguments and counterarguments lying behind these myths and conclude that QM is still a not-yet-completely-understood theory open to further fundamental research.

(emphasis added)


ciao,

T.Roc

Good Elf
30th December 2006 - 02:59 PM
Hi TRoc,

I liked that paper...
Quantum Mechanics: Myths and Facts
Still looking at it... where do we go from here? I think there is a bit of a credibility gap. I still do not get your "musical theory of light" though.

Cheers
Confused2
30th December 2006 - 03:39 PM
Hi All,

I'm trying to catch up with posts.. there's another one to come after this before I catch up with Myths (I like it too).

I'm STILL not sure who has and has not understood the 'problem' with even the basic DSE. TRoc seems to deny the possibility of a 'single photon DSE'.. maybe more on this when I've gone through his next chronological post.

Going back to the paper TRoc discussed here..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=160219

(Paper at http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/astro/starsiz.htm )

I agree with TRoc .. it is extremely interesting.. there is certainly a point about 'coherence' that is part of the fundamental 'operation' of the DSE.

Looking at
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._schematicA.gif

we see the single slit just after the laser/source which gives the reuired degree of coherence to cover the separation of the two slits. It is a pity this aspect is not discussed in more detail in the description ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_slit/index.shtml ) but the results suggest the coherence is 'good' .. otherwise there would not be any interference to see.

Best wishes,

-C2.
Montec
30th December 2006 - 04:43 PM
Hello all

I came across this info in my ongoing search for truth. It seems to fit this topic. Have a look.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050124033547/..._twiss_1957.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbury-Brown_and_Twiss_effect Check out the links.
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0612278

smile.gif
jal
30th December 2006 - 05:02 PM
Good Day Everyone!
TRoc
I’m sure that “THEY” will enjoy that page and enjoy helping with her expertise.
http://www.svpvril.com/musicuni.html#TOP%20musicuni
It Really is a Musical Universe!

Your approach of trying to relate harmony to the speed of light rather than to “C” seems interesting and valid.
User posted image
I’m sure that there is enough science in the above presentation/links to be able to make some progress.

One of his links
http://www.svpvril.com/FAQ2.html#Triplet
refers to
The SVP Universal Cosmology.
http://www.svpvril.com/Cosmology/cosunityTOC.html
QUOTE
The modern quantum mechanics is based on de Broil's (deBroglie) idea about waves of a matter, which he has developed on musical (sound) analogies of vibrating string.
which has a similar approach to my 4S model.
However, my unit is not "3" but "6" in 2D and "12" in 3D.
Since you are trying to develop your harmony based on "12" I want to see the relationship that there might be with my model. smile.gif
user posted imageuser posted image
With the WEB…. You never know where knowledge is buried.
User posted image
I'm going off for two weeks and I hope that you will all have solved the universe in that time period. smile.gif
jal
Confused2
30th December 2006 - 09:17 PM
Hi TRoc et al,

OK you want some maths. Fair enough.

For simplicity this is done some distance from the slits .. where the DSE equation applies.

Let the output from the slit be a sinewave that has amplitude A at the screen

One slit open

Total POWER (amplitude squared) arriving at an element of width dx will be 1/2 A^2 dx

For convenience we will measure over a width of 2 pi where 2pi just 'happens' to be the distance between maxima

Total power received by area of width 2 pi from 1 slit = A^2 pi

Expected power from 2 slits (no interference) = 2 A^2 pi

Both slits open

I'll start at a bright bit

The amplitude of the wave received at element dx at d from where I first started is now 2 A cos (d)

so the power at element dx is now 2 A^2 cos^2(d) dx

(integral cos^2(x)dx = 1/2(x + cos(x)sin(x))

Total power received by area of width 2 pi from both slits (with interference) = 2 A^2 pi

So interference does not 'lose' power .. merely redistributes it.

Power is given by (amplitude)^2 and the amplitude (with interference) at the maxima is twice the amplitude of either slit individually .. and photons always carry the same amount of energy .. hence interference predicts there must be four times as many per unit time at the maxima as from either slit individually (per unit time)

Hope this helps,

Best wishes,

-C2.

There's a cheat integration parser at
http://integrals.wolfram.com/index.jsp (I needed it!)
Laserlight
30th December 2006 - 10:11 PM
TRoc,

I think we all agree that harmonic multiples of frequencies is a reality. Now,
how do you apply that to frequencies of light being emitted from different atoms
of matter?

The "drop" and oscillation displacement latency of the electrons between orbitals
determines the wavelength and amplitude (height) of each wave and its color, but
there are obviously additional "harmonic" influences internal to the atomic
structure that affect the energy and "harmony" of the system.

This is where your spectrographic colors come into play. The available
energy in the atom depends upon the number of electrons swirling around the
nucleus, and upon how many are in each energy shell, along with the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. The spectral color and atomic density is
determined by the total energy available in the atom.

Each type of atom vibrates according to the harmonic interaction of its constituent
parts, and each atom harmonically interacts with other nearby atoms in its
proximity in the atomic matrix.

Since each atom's fundamental frequency has its origins from the primordial
hydrogen atom do you think it is possible to determine the harmonic "orders"
internal to each type of atom in the atomic chart, or is this too complex based
upon all of the interactions at play? Has anyone looked at the wavelengths
of atoms to look for naturally occuring harmonic orders?

I'm assuming the frequency spectrum is showing these harmonic order
relationships.

Your thoughts?

LL
Duality
30th December 2006 - 10:36 PM
All,

Happy New Year!

So much to do but you guys are doing great, Good Elf still will find time to reply. Everyone please be-careful this time of the year. It has gone by fast, I know SR had something to do with it. laugh.gif

BTW, on the pdf -- just type in harmonic and see what you think?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0602/0602052.pdf

http://www.opticsexpress.org/DirectPDFAcce...FTOKEN=71086890

Duality/Lisa
TRoc
30th December 2006 - 11:46 PM
C2,


OK, good work. The energy is conserved, based on power collected at the bright bands, and not collected at the dark bands.


The big question for me is, "how"?

What happened to the wave, at the slit (or 2), that caused this "separation" of light and dark.

We know that the size of the slits, and the separation between them is critical, as should be known by the results, and models.

If the slit size is bigger, at some point the light will just all collect at one point.

So, some interaction with the wave, and the geometry and/or other properties (charge, magnetic moment, etc,) of the slit CAUSES certain angles to be void of "photons" when continued (path) to the screen.

F/H is ad hoc: the primary step in the method is ARBITRARY division of the slit width. It works, but "why"?

We "treat" the new source (slit) the same as a "real source", and divide it up. For NO reason, the "center" of this division is "negative" and the sides, "positive" (destr./constr.), and the bands are "explained".

If this WERE a "real" source (not through a small aperture) though, the LIGHT would spread out evenly at the screen.

So, again, I'm asking why does this happen.


Can (your) model help with that?


ciao,

T.Roc

TRoc
31st December 2006 - 01:05 AM
Hi all,


This one is "mainly" directed at jal and GE, and their last posts.

As you can see from the vast amount of info in that link "The SVP Universal Cosmology" http://www.svpvril.com/Cosmology/cosunityTOC.html , there is a lot to cover. More than any one person will do, I think.

You see the chart there, and (especially to the non-musician) this is very "complicated"; this is because it too, is "ad hoc". It is (still) hard to believe, after seeing the depth these people have gone, that they didn't find the "mathematical" explanation for the chord.

Jal has seen a key ingredient: the Fundamental Harmonic of the "system". This is simply the lowest positive value you can get. Very "Planck" like, after all, h = 1Hz. The "C" note falls into that position. (this should make one ponder HOW much our ancestors really knew, because there is NO explanation for the "musical alphabet" to start with "C", and end with "B", when it should "logically" start with "A", and end with "G".)

As far as "instincts" go, I have said this all along: our ears, and judgment of "pleasing" sounds, already had this tuning, with less than 1% error. I would not have been able to mathematically derive this if it were not for constructing a "Resonance Matrix" (magic square of sorts). From the center of the matrix, adjusting the values very slightly was all that was necessary to tweak the whole thing into producing the constant c with any symmetrical pair of values. This is reminiscent of Maxwell's (original) quaternion notation. The symmetries always have an angle, like a matrix, that produces a "unity", in this case, c .

Amazingly, if you "trace" back these values, they exhibit counter rotational symmetry as well. This is exactly like the "now" function of time: the past and the future spiral in opposing directions, to come together at a certain point, that is always changing, and observer dependent. Or, like the Balinese candle dance, or, more simply still, holding your arms out to your side, parallel with the ground, and rotating them, together, front to back. With your head turned to the right, if your right arm is turning "CW", then your left arm is turning "CCW". Yet from forward or back, your arms are turning the same way.

Another way to say that is: in the same manner that magnetism can be seen as electricity, from another frame of reference, SO can the dualistic, inverse pair of parameters "frequency and wavelength". When you "travel" from one to the other, it is inevitable that a "rotation" of sorts takes place. Mathematically speaking, they can NOT be "harmonics" of each other; you have to go "diagonally" to another column (symmetry).

I'll say again, this is not a "musical" rendition of the Universe. The mathematics of Vibration allow for music, chords, etc. I use musical terms so often, because they have a system fully developed to describe interactions of these different, fundamental, and limited (repeating) values. Physics has only looked at this from the "form" of the wave, as it appears.

Some links, showing different models, but using similar principles.

The Math Forum, © 1994-2006 Drexel University
http://mathforum.org/alejandre/magic.square.html

Earth Geometry Matrix, and Natural Matrix Law, Copyright © 2001 By G.D.Mutch
http://atl2.netfirms.com/engy/mutch/matrixlaw/earth.htm
http://atl2.netfirms.com/engy/mutch/matrixlaw/matrix.htm


LL
QUOTE
Since each atom's fundamental frequency has its origins from the primordial hydrogen atom do you think it is possible to determine the harmonic "orders" internal to each type of atom in the atomic chart, or is this too complex based upon all of the interactions at play?


I'm not clear as to what you mean here. Can I assume that you are NOT talking about "absorption/emission" spectra?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Since each atom's fundamental frequency has its origins from the primordial hydrogen atom do you think it is possible to determine the harmonic "orders" internal to each type of atom in the atomic chart, or is this too complex based upon all of the interactions at play?


I'm not clear as to what you mean here. Can I assume that you are NOT talking about "absorption/emission" spectra?

Has anyone looked at the wavelengths of atoms to look for naturally occurring harmonic orders?


This is what I have said that I have done, and even given several examples (in Hz). Every Particle and Isotope, as well as the visible spectrum, has this pattern in it. You just need a starting point (background "noise" of the Universe), and one, expanding, geometrically progressive "measuring stick".


regards,

T.Roc

Laserlight
31st December 2006 - 02:44 AM
TRoc,

QUOTE
This is what I have said that I have done, and even given several examples (in Hz). Every Particle and Isotope, as well as the visible spectrum, has this pattern in it. You just need a starting point (background "noise" of the Universe), and one, expanding, geometrically progressive "measuring stick".


I propose that the starting point is the oscillating frequency of a single hydrogen
atom, since that is the fundamental harmonic "basis" of all matter. All matter in
the universe originates from the atomic "symmetry" of the ground state
of hydrogen. It should be the base frequency, but I'm not sure if the base
frequency comes from the atomic oscillations of its steady state or, from the
frequency of light that hydrogen emits when excited as in an energetic plasma
state.

All other elements are just fusion byproducts of hydrogen made by stars, so
they should have some fundamental related "harmonic" basis that can be
regressively extracted.

Hydrogen - Wikipedia
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
This is what I have said that I have done, and even given several examples (in Hz). Every Particle and Isotope, as well as the visible spectrum, has this pattern in it. You just need a starting point (background "noise" of the Universe), and one, expanding, geometrically progressive "measuring stick".


I propose that the starting point is the oscillating frequency of a single hydrogen
atom, since that is the fundamental harmonic "basis" of all matter. All matter in
the universe originates from the atomic "symmetry" of the ground state
of hydrogen. It should be the base frequency, but I'm not sure if the base
frequency comes from the atomic oscillations of its steady state or, from the
frequency of light that hydrogen emits when excited as in an energetic plasma
state.

All other elements are just fusion byproducts of hydrogen made by stars, so
they should have some fundamental related "harmonic" basis that can be
regressively extracted.

Hydrogen - Wikipedia
It is composed of a single negatively-charged electron circling a single positively-charged proton which is the nucleus of the hydrogen atom.


Hydrogen is the simplest form atomic matter, so doesn't it make sense that
all other frequencies originate from that fundamental frequency? blink.gif

LL
TRoc
31st December 2006 - 04:58 AM
Hi all,


GE, LL, and I (AFAIK) all have at least spoken about the interaction happening "at the detector" being a part of this.

I think that this is one of the difficult things about getting to the answer, that there are models explaining this from many points of view. If we look just at the wall, we can get good approximations to the answer as well. C2 just mentioned the obvious relationship with pi in all of this.

QUOTE
The interference is constructive when the phase shift is proportional to 2pi; this condition can be expressed by Bragg's law:


n*wavelength = 2*d (spacing between planes in lattice) sin scattering angle

User posted image User posted image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg%27s_law

and an alternate as well

User posted image
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The interference is constructive when the phase shift is proportional to 2pi; this condition can be expressed by Bragg's law:


n*wavelength = 2*d (spacing between planes in lattice) sin scattering angle

User posted image User posted image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg%27s_law

and an alternate as well

User posted image
There will be a path difference between the 'ray' that gets reflected along AC' and the ray that gets transmitted, then reflected along AB and BC paths respectively. This path difference is: (AB+BC) - (AC')

If this path difference is equal to any integer value of the wavelength then the two separate waves will arrive at a point with the same phase, and hence undergo constructive interference. Expressed mathematically: (AB+BC) - (AC') = n wavelengths



So, it seems that we have another working model, this one "saying" (physical interpretation) that the interaction happens at the screen. If we can determine BOTH from the slits, and the screen, then it seems that we can also say that it is happening "in between":caused by the slits, and measured by the screen, in a 3 way relationship. The birth, life, and the death of a quanta of energy, or "photon".

Still more to do ...


ciao,

T.Roc

TRoc
31st December 2006 - 05:18 AM
LL,

QUOTE
Hydrogen - Wikipedia
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Hydrogen - Wikipedia
 
It is composed of a single negatively-charged electron circling a single positively-charged proton which is the nucleus of the hydrogen atom.

Hydrogen is the simplest form atomic matter, so doesn't it make sense that
all other frequencies originate from that fundamental frequency?



Well, since the electron and the proton make the H atom (and not vice versa), doesn't that make the "particles" more fundamental?

The frequency I am using, concerning atoms, is derived from the AMU, and is generally accepted to be less "uncertain" than the conversion from eV, according to NIST.

You can see the next question is, "how are the electron and proton produced?", and on down the line, as far as chasing "harmonics" from collisions. I would say that the electron is the lowest energy, stable mass, and it is derived as the smallest stable harmonic of the radius of The Cavity (Universe). This equation has been derived already, by Wolff, in his WSM theory, and dubbed "the equation of the cosmos".


regards,

T.Roc

Laserlight
31st December 2006 - 06:07 AM
TRoc,

QUOTE
Well, since the electron and the proton make the H atom (and not vice versa), doesn't that make the "particles" more fundamental?


Not from a frequency oscillation perspective. Frequency requires a cyclic
energy "transport mechanism" to generate harmonic motion. Atomic
oscillations provide the repetitive cyclic motion required via charge distribution
and kinetic energy interactions.

I don't think that there is evidence that subatomic fundamental particles exhibit
cyclical movement, but I could be wrong about that.

LL
Confused2
31st December 2006 - 12:16 PM
HI TRoc,

Many thanks for your kind response to my last post .. it makes a thread like this both possible and worthwhile.

This is a genuine attempt to clarify another bit of 'why does this happen'.

From the Russian army we select 100 soldiers who have precisely (within a scruton (!) ) a pace length of 1 metre. We mark two spots on the ground a hundred yards apart. We tell the soldiers that they must put their left boot on the start mark and then march to the end mark. We send them off one by one. Hopefully they will all arrive at the end mark with their left boot precisely on the mark.

In between the two marks we put a narrow opening. Get the soldiers back to the start point and send them off again. For some reason (unknown) the soldiers leave the slit in a random direction .. but if any (by chance) arrive at the finish mark we still find their left boot lands precisely on the mark. At this point we have no explanation of the slit .. but we can describe it in terms of what it does. Looking at 'real' optics .. any half decent slit .. cut, scribed or chewed .. causes our little soldiers to fan out without losing or gaining any distance. IF that suggests (to you) cavities, resonances and/or extra frequencies .. then so be it.

A minor point at this stage is that it doesn't matter when our soldiers set off ..as long as they always start with their left boot on the start mark .. we just look at them when they arrive.

New experiment. We set up a start mark, 10 metres away from that we put a 'slit' .. 20 metres further on we put 2 slits .. the slits are 10 metres apart. 20 metres further on we put a finish line. Note that to any point on the finish line there are only two possible paths. We set the soldiers marching through this setup .. the only rule is that they MUST start with their left boot on the start mark.

As our soldiers cross the finish line we mark off whether they finish with their left foot forward or their right foot forward. Still only two paths to each point on the finish line. Where the soldiers arrive from both paths with the same foot forwards we mark BRIGHT, and where they have different feet forwards (out of step) we mark DIM. Look at this from above and you will see the DSE equation.

Hopefully that explains why I see extra frequencies, cavities and resonances as being both unnecessary and unhelpful to any explanation of what is happening in the DSE.

Best wishes,

-C2.
TRoc
31st December 2006 - 05:31 PM
Hi all,

LL
QUOTE
I don't think that there is evidence that subatomic fundamental particles exhibit cyclical movement, ..

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I don't think that there is evidence that subatomic fundamental particles exhibit cyclical movement, ..

Frequency requires a cyclic energy "transport mechanism" to generate harmonic motion.


I will have to ask that you accept my proposal of this definition: Everything in the Universe vibrates. This is measured in different ways, depending on your frame of reference. Typically, the term "frequency" is used, as a rate of cycles per sec. "Orbit" can also be used, as a rate per unit of time; as can "spin", with each revolution have a rate per time.

We are mentally sure that we (on this planet) are spinning around the Earth's axis, and in orbit around the Sun, BOTH in the "form" of a circle. We physically know that we are "just standing here", neither "spinning" nor traveling in a circle. Here, we do not experience the circle, only the line, and it feels straight. This is due to the size difference, or relative scale of the "space" parameter.

If Vibration is an oscillation in "space" (measured in distance), from A to B, then the full "cycle" is the traversing from A to B, and back, from B to A. These 2 parameters both need to be addressed. Our "experience" in life tells us that cause and effect happen in that order, because we (all) are in this "fixed" frame, looking out. From the perspective of "B", he sees "A" coming, and also "causal". However, B also "knows" that A is "over there" (anywhere but B ), and this "knowledge", or information of "where A is" CHANGES from one 100% probability, to a new 100% probability. This "change" in probability, or certainty of knowledge, happens at a maximum velocity of c .

So, there are 2 simultaneous events happening: A is traveling to B, and the certainty of knowledge that A=A (as far as position) is collapsing to zero. This is the "anti-information" wave, when it arrives at A, A is not there anymore: it is at B, therefore, the "new" information that A=B (position) is 100%.

This is how I weave the ideas of Relativity, Transactional, QM, Resonance together. I haven't said much at all about the "2-way" communication; GE has been plugging it well. Mach, Wheeler, Feynman, Wolff, and others have worked these ideas out in detail. Some additions and modifications are needed though.

More to your question of the "vibration of particles". Just like the "photon", the electron, neutron, and proton are also localized wave centers, and not really "particles". They do have mass, however, and Einstein has worked out the details on the energy, which I'll remind you that is defined by mc^2 = E = hf, where f=frequency, that each of these "particles" posses. The free electons and protons can be used in the S/DSE, with the same results that we have been talking about.

sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
QUOTE
The periodic law states that the chemical properties of elements largely repeat themselves periodically and is the foundation of the periodic table of elements. The law itself was initially explained by the atomic mass of the elements. However, as there were anomalies in the periodic table, efforts were made to find a better explanation for it. In 1913, Henry Moseley introduced the concept of the atomic number and explained the periodic law in terms of the number of protons each element has. In the same year, Niels Bohr showed that electrons are the actual foundation of the table. In 1916, Gilbert Newton Lewis explained the chemical bonding of elements by electronic interactions.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The periodic law states that the chemical properties of elements largely repeat themselves periodically and is the foundation of the periodic table of elements. The law itself was initially explained by the atomic mass of the elements. However, as there were anomalies in the periodic table, efforts were made to find a better explanation for it. In 1913, Henry Moseley introduced the concept of the atomic number and explained the periodic law in terms of the number of protons each element has. In the same year, Niels Bohr showed that electrons are the actual foundation of the table. In 1916, Gilbert Newton Lewis explained the chemical bonding of elements by electronic interactions.

The electron is currently described as a fundamental particle or an elementary particle. It has no substructure (although British physicist Humphrey Maris claims to have found a way to split the electron into "electrinos" using an electron bubble). Hence, for convenience, it is usually defined or assumed to be a point-like mathematical point charge, with no spatial extension. However, when a test particle is forced to approach an electron, we measure changes in its properties (charge and mass). This effect is common to all elementary particles: Current theory suggests that this effect is due to the influence of vacuum fluctuations in its local space, so that the properties measured from a significant distance are considered to be the sum of the bare properties and the vacuum effects (see renormalization).

QUOTE
Scientists believe that the number of electrons existing in the known universe is at least 10^79. This number amounts to an average density of about one electron per cubic metre of space. Astronomers have determined that 90% of all of the detectable mass in the universe is hydrogen, which is made of one electron and one proton.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Scientists believe that the number of electrons existing in the known universe is at least 10^79. This number amounts to an average density of about one electron per cubic metre of space. Astronomers have determined that 90% of all of the detectable mass in the universe is hydrogen, which is made of one electron and one proton.

In relativistic quantum mechanics, the electron can be described by the Dirac Equation which defines the electron as a (mathematical) point. In quantum field theory, the behavior of the electron can be described by quantum electrodynamics (QED), a U(1) gauge theory.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_broglie_wavelength
QUOTE
The de Broglie relations show that the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum of a particle and that the frequency is directly proportional to the particle's kinetic energy.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The de Broglie relations show that the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum of a particle and that the frequency is directly proportional to the particle's kinetic energy.

The greater the energy, the larger the frequency and the shorter (smaller) the wavelength. Given the relationship between wavelength and frequency, it follows that short wavelengths are more energetic than long wavelengths.

QUOTE
Since the original Davisson-Germer experiment for electrons, the de Broglie hypothesis has been confirmed for other elementary particles. Recent experiments even confirm the relations for macromolecules, which are normally considered too large to undergo quantum mechanical effects. In 1999, a research team in Vienna demonstrated diffraction for molecules as large as fullerenes.[2]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dipole_moment
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Since the original Davisson-Germer experiment for electrons, the de Broglie hypothesis has been confirmed for other elementary particles. Recent experiments even confirm the relations for macromolecules, which are normally considered too large to undergo quantum mechanical effects. In 1999, a research team in Vienna demonstrated diffraction for molecules as large as fullerenes.[2]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dipole_moment
Electrons and many nuclei also have intrinsic magnetic moments, an explanation of which requires a quantum mechanical treatment and relates to the intrinsic angular momentum of the particles as discussed in the article electron magnetic dipole moment. It is these intrinsic magnetic moments that give rise to the macroscopic effects of magnetism, and other phenomena, such as nuclear magnetic resonance.

QUOTE
..if we imagine that the spin angular momentum is created by the electron mass spinning around some axis, the electric current that this rotation creates spins in the opposite direction, because of the negative charge of the electron; such current loops produce a magnetic moment which is antiparallel to the spin angular momentum..

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
..if we imagine that the spin angular momentum is created by the electron mass spinning around some axis, the electric current that this rotation creates spins in the opposite direction, because of the negative charge of the electron; such current loops produce a magnetic moment which is antiparallel to the spin angular momentum..

The nuclear system is a complex physical system consisting of nucleons, i.e., protons and neutrons. The quantum mechanical properties of the nucleons include the spin among others. Since the electromagnetic moments of the nucleus depends on the spin of the individual nucleons, one can look at these properties with measurements of nuclear moments, and more specifically the nuclear magnetic dipole moment.

The nuclear magnetic moment is very sensitive to the individual contributions from nucleons and a measurement or prediction of its value can reveal important information about the content of the nuclear wavefunction.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyromagnetic_ratio
QUOTE
In physics, the magnetogyric ratio (more commonly called the gyromagnetic ratio) of a particle or system is the ratio of its magnetic dipole moment to its angular momentum. Its SI units are hertz per tesla (Hz/T), and it is often denoted by the symbol γ.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
In physics, the magnetogyric ratio (more commonly called the gyromagnetic ratio) of a particle or system is the ratio of its magnetic dipole moment to its angular momentum. Its SI units are hertz per tesla (Hz/T), and it is often denoted by the symbol γ.

An isolated electron has an angular momentum and a magnetic moment resulting from its spin. While an electron's spin is sometimes visualized as a literal rotation about an axis, it is in fact a fundamentally different, quantum-mechanical phenomenon with no true analogue in classical physics.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-factor
QUOTE
There are three magnetic moments associated with an electron: The one from its spin angular momentum, the one from its orbital angular momentum, and the one from its total angular momentum (the quantum-mechanical sum of those two components). Corresponding to these three moments are three different g-factors.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
There are three magnetic moments associated with an electron: The one from its spin angular momentum, the one from its orbital angular momentum, and the one from its total angular momentum (the quantum-mechanical sum of those two components). Corresponding to these three moments are three different g-factors.

..the electron spin g-factor, .. the electron orbital g-factor, .. the total magnetic moment resulting from both spin and orbital angular momentum of an electron (lande)

QUOTE
Protons, neutrons, and many nuclei have spin and magnetic moments, and are therefore associated with g-factors.

Elementary Particle g-factor
Electron ge -2.002 319 304 3718
Neutron gn -3.826 085 46
Proton gp 5.585 694 701
Muon gμ -2.002 331 8396 [QUOTE]


All of the "particles" have a frequency, and all of their combinations (like chords).


regards,

T.Roc

Laserlight
31st December 2006 - 07:09 PM
TRoc,

I appreciate the time that you invested in locating all of those quotes.

I agree that spin/rotation is a fundamental component of any energy system,
which I have stated before. I am not so sure that spin necessarily represents a
fundamental frequency since spin is a particle specific localized event. In other
words, spin is a locally "confined" attribute of particles, which do not exhibit
harmonic interaction. Spin is a "fixed" quantity that does not change its timing
relationship, though it can change direction if externally influenced, so it does not cause harmonically interactive matter dislocations, IMO.

An example: A 1/2 spin particle does not generate a stairstep doubling of
increasing frequencies necessary for harmonic progressions. It retains its basic
spin characteristics as determined by its "relative" energy level.

IMO, only cyclical "mass displacement" of electrons, as related to their position to
protons (charge dislocations) can generate frequency response.

Different atoms, with different potential energy wells, generate different
frequencies according to the distance of the energy gap/drop that the electron
makes relative to the protons in the nucleus. The closer the electron is bound
to the proton/nucleus the higher the energy level that exists between them, and
the higher the frequency of the photon emitted if it is dislocated from its orbit
by some externally applied energy source.

Harmonics has to do with the cyclic displacement of energy as waves.
The key is waves and how they interact.

Off topic but possibly related to our current side discussion:

Can you have energy (photons) radiated without the
relative movement between electrons and protons. The reason that I ask this is
if the big bang occurred as theorized, as a flash of intense radiation, what mechanism radiated the heat and light energy (photons) if matter had not yet
condensed from the event. Spontaneous energy radiation? From what?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html

LL
Confused2
31st December 2006 - 08:07 PM
Hi TRoc,Laserlight et al,

I'm sure it's fairly clear I'm not entirely 'with' you.

There is a 'something' in what you are saying that I can see but not define at present.

I suspect spin/rotation/oscillation defines things in ways that are not quite like qualities that are purely relative and/or inertial. I don't know whether you can wave hands/arms in a way that makes any sense of this.

Best wishes,

-C2.
TRoc
31st December 2006 - 08:25 PM
C2,

I appreciate your analogy, but my question as to "why or how" remains unanswered.

Your wording even states this:
QUOTE
For some reason (unknown) the soldiers leave the slit in a random direction ..
and
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
For some reason (unknown) the soldiers leave the slit in a random direction ..
and At this point we have no explanation of the slit ..


That is what I'm looking for, so I'm not sure what you were trying to convey.

If the model you have doesn't explain WHY, then it is not an explanation, it is just a description. We all agree on the description now, there are no more questions as to the results.

If you don't want to know why, then you can just leave it at that. If you don't agree with my "why", that's ok too. But I don't think that you, or QM can say that they have the "final", or complete answer.


regards,

T.Roc

TRoc
31st December 2006 - 09:56 PM
LL,


Well, I asked if you were talking about the emission/absorption spectrum, and you didn't answer. That would have saved a little time, and words in my last post. wink.gif

When you ask
QUOTE

Can you have energy (photons) radiated without the relative movement between electrons and protons.


you are already addressing a much larger question, that I have been trying to convey. Physics does not call these things "photons", they go by excitons, solitons, phonons, etc. This is what I said is "cheating", because THERE IS energy being distributed through the lattice of electrons. The Quantum Postulate call for ALL energy to be "photons", in the manner that you are speaking of. I have given the sources of many of these, showing that the energy is still conserved among them.

So, if you are saying (and it is true) that a "photon" is what happens when an electron relaxes from an excited state, at a specific energy and frequency, then by RESONANCE, we can ONLY measure THOSE "photons". This is what I mean when I say, "we can ONLY use electron based technology" to measure energy, so we are LOCKED into the whole spectrum that is produced ed by the known elements, and their "eigenstates" (fundamental frequencies).

We can only measure "note for note" resonance between electrons, and it is called the "photon". The electron has the Compton wavelength (derived one way), and the deBroglie wave (another way). Take c , and divide it by this wavelength, and you get the frequency of the electron c /w = f . This frequency will match its' mass equivalent, figured by m * c^2 . It all ties together, and is rock solid; if you take this away, we have nothing left. It is not "my opinion", it is Physics.

Quantum Physics is primarily based on studying the colors (translated into frequency) that are emitted or absorbed when the atom is heated, or otherwise "energized" (or passing through a gas). This is where all of the "orbitals", and their energy levels are computed. I have no argument with this method, or the results. What my model is about is WHY these fundamental vibrations exist in the first place, and HOW the interactions "conserve".

When you say that Hydrogen should be the beginning, this is what you are talking about, and it's already explained. The periodic build-up, one electron or proton, etc. at a time. There has not been an explanation of WHY these fundamental masses/energy levels exist in the first place. That is what I am postulating, and it ALSO matches the "photon" spectrum, as well as the "resonant Nodes" that are "pleasing" to our ears.


regards,

T.Roc

Neil Farbstein
31st December 2006 - 11:20 PM
QUOTE (Laserlight+Dec 31 2006, 07:09 PM)
TRoc,

I appreciate the time that you invested in locating all of those quotes.

I agree that spin/rotation is a fundamental component of any energy system,
which I have stated before. I am not so sure that spin necessarily represents a
fundamental frequency since spin is a particle specific localized event. In other
words, spin is a locally "confined" attribute of particles, which do not exhibit
harmonic interaction. Spin is a "fixed" quantity that does not change its timing
relationship, though it can change direction if externally influenced, so it does not cause harmonically interactive matter dislocations, IMO.

An example: A 1/2 spin particle does not generate a stairstep doubling of
increasing frequencies necessary for harmonic progressions. It retains its basic
spin characteristics as determined by its "relative" energy level.

IMO, only cyclical "mass displacement" of electrons, as related to their position to
protons (charge dislocations) can generate frequency response.

Different atoms, with different potential energy wells, generate different
frequencies according to the distance of the energy gap/drop that the electron
makes relative to the protons in the nucleus. The closer the electron is bound
to the proton/nucleus the higher the energy level that exists between them, and
the higher the frequency of the photon emitted if it is dislocated from its orbit
by some externally applied energy source.

Harmonics has to do with the cyclic displacement of energy as waves.
The key is waves and how they interact.

Off topic but possibly related to our current side discussion:

Can you have energy (photons) radiated without the
relative movement between electrons and protons. The reason that I ask this is
if the big bang occurred as theorized, as a flash of intense radiation, what mechanism radiated the heat and light energy (photons) if matter had not yet
condensed from the event. Spontaneous energy radiation? From what?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html

LL

The unicerse could have started as a very dense substance many times denser than lead "primorium" that broke up into smaller fragments and accompnaied by the release of vast amounts of energy.
Laserlight
31st December 2006 - 11:42 PM
TRoc,

QUOTE
Well, I asked if you were talking about the emission/absorption spectrum, and you didn't answer. That would have saved a little time, and words in my last post. 


I'm sorry, I missed that. I guess I thought the point of my discussion was clear.
My bad.... sad.gif

Getting back to the DSE. I agree with the premise that something, as of
yet unsolved, happens when the variable phase geometry of the impinging EM
energy negotiates the fixed phase relationship(s) established by the geometry of
the slits.

When a dynamic energy system meets a fixed energy system an energy
interaction takes place. The degree, and type, of interaction depends upon the
energy residing in each discrete energy system and the geometrical relationships
that exists at the point of interaction.

What energy interactions are occuring between the EM fields of the photons and
the EM fields of the slits at the micro level? IMO, it is timing and phase delays
that I have described in previous posts.

Physics is a physical action-reaction reality. Mathematics is a theoretical
representation that proves the physical model.

We are seeking to understand the physics, the action-reaction dynamics that
takes place to yield the result.

Regards,
LL
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.