Hello All,
This applet is interesting as it shows plane waves in a refractive medium, which
is what each slit actually is....a refractive medium.
http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo12.htm
http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo0.htm
Further discussion welcomed.
LL
Hi Laserlight
Yes the slit is a refractive medium, however, the refractive index is not uniform across the slit. It is stronger at the sides than at the center of the slit.
Yes the slit is a refractive medium, however, the refractive index is not uniform across the slit. It is stronger at the sides than at the center of the slit.
Hi Montec,
You are correct. I had proposed this and a theoretical "mechanism" in some prior
posts.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156668
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156946
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156789
Comments welcome,
LL
You are correct. I had proposed this and a theoretical "mechanism" in some prior
posts.
QUOTE
Yes the slit is a refractive medium, however, the refractive index is not uniform across the slit. It is stronger at the sides than at the center of the slit.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156668
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156946
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156789
Comments welcome,
LL
Hi Laserlight,Montec,TRoc et al,
My lack of enthusiasm for the 'slit as cavity' theory arises from the Russian soldier analagy .. the soldiers must emerge with a zero (or consistent ) phase change regardless of reasonable changes in the geometry of the slit.
An alternative comes from the uncertainty principle .. having defined the position to be 'at the slit' you gain an uncertanty in momentum (direction).
Or good old Huygens .. it might be interesting to try to show that the uncertainty principle and Huygens spreading are both the same thing.
Best wishes,
-C2.
My lack of enthusiasm for the 'slit as cavity' theory arises from the Russian soldier analagy .. the soldiers must emerge with a zero (or consistent ) phase change regardless of reasonable changes in the geometry of the slit.
An alternative comes from the uncertainty principle .. having defined the position to be 'at the slit' you gain an uncertanty in momentum (direction).
Or good old Huygens .. it might be interesting to try to show that the uncertainty principle and Huygens spreading are both the same thing.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Montec, TRoc, Jal, Duaity, Yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
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. [...]My lack of enthusiasm for the 'slit as cavity' theory arises from the Russian soldier analogy .. the soldiers must emerge with a zero (or consistent ) phase change regardless of reasonable changes in the geometry of the slit.
An alternative comes from the uncertainty principle .. having defined the position to be 'at the slit' you gain an uncertanty in momentum (direction).
Or good old Huygens .. it might be interesting to try to show that the uncertainty principle and Huygens spreading are both the same thing.
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. [...]My lack of enthusiasm for the 'slit as cavity' theory arises from the Russian soldier analogy .. the soldiers must emerge with a zero (or consistent ) phase change regardless of reasonable changes in the geometry of the slit.
An alternative comes from the uncertainty principle .. having defined the position to be 'at the slit' you gain an uncertanty in momentum (direction).
Or good old Huygens .. it might be interesting to try to show that the uncertainty principle and Huygens spreading are both the same thing.
Lets consider this from another point of view... from the point of view of Special Relativity. These are not "soldiers" they are "photons" traveling at the speed of light. In their own frame of reference you tell me just how much time it takes them to travel to their final destination? Naturally a rhetorical question since I will "assist" and suggest that it takes them zero time in their own frame of reference. You can't object since these "objects" are traveling at the speed of light not one meter per second of the speed of the Russian Army. Now you may object and cry foul and speak of "reason"... what I say is lets try and understand this a bit better.
You introduced the uncertainty principle well they are in step or they are not... you choose. We already know that there are self organization of photons on wavefronts from synchronized "coherent" sources... even from monochromatic "unsynchronized" sources they will spontaneously develop "coherency". You have uncertainty wrong... that only occurs when you make a measurement so if you do not make that measurement there is "no uncertainty"... A rotten trick you may say but I do not make the rules since you want to introduce this all of the time. Provided you do not disturb the quantum process "perfection exists" and as long as interactions are avoided information may be transferred... this is apparently an "experimental fact".
The next interesting effect that since our photons are traveling in zero of their time they also suffer the most extreme form of "length contraction", I prefer to think of this as a "rotation" but call it whatever you want the distance from source to sink in the frame of the photon is a distance of zero. I conclude that source and sink are united (along with everything on the way) in that one event of the emission and the absorption. Not only that but "all points in the Universe (at least in the forward direction) are similarly united" think of that.... infinite length contraction brings not only source and sink into direct contact but every point in the "available" Universe as well... totally non-local. Think of this geometry, it closes the Universe in the rest frame of the photon... toroidally... this is how the Universe looks to a "free photon". How "big" is this toroid? How "free" is this photon? Our photon is moving on this "hypersurface". This happens for all photons for all time everywhere. This also coincidently solves any topology problems about there being two slits since all points in both slits and the screen are all brought together into a single micro surface. where the individual photon ends up depends on some "geometrical factor" as previously discussed. This affects the way the geometry of our Universe works since photons are the exchange particle, the "connection" for all the electromagnetic forces. I also think this is "only" real force but that is another story about the Holographic Universe.
Now we have those slits in the way do you think that if a single event taking a single instant in the life of a photon has time to care how to avoid that obstruction. The photon is "seeking all paths" (irrespective of time) so it does that but for the photons that are not intercepted by the barrier(s).. that is all the photons that pass bye without an exchange of energy with that barrier(s).... Quite a few make it and they end up... due to the dual slit... distributed over quite a large surface area of the screen. Now if they were seeing all paths how did they end up not going straight through like your Russian Army? My take on this is the photons "instant" encompasses everything in the Universe not just the sequential events as you may think since the photon does not end up in just any port in the "storm"... sequence does not really matter as the DCQE Experiment has shown... the mere proximity of a "photon" event to the source does not determine the outcome, nor the number of paces across the paths. TRoc did make some very valid statements and he has collected some highly useful inferences. The DCQE Experiment is a fact and not fiction.
As in the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment (DCQE), the experiment does not apply just for "entangled photons"... entangled photons simply "teaches" us what photon events are all about, so lets generalize this concept. They are a frozen instant... a single event... and time from that context means literally "nothing" and interpreting it in the narrow context of "our time" simply leads to temporal contradictions. This is very clear... do you agree? This is the very reason why it holds so much interest to science. It is really our chauvinism and thinking that our point of view of the Universe actually should be the predominant one. Looking at it in "photon time" which is a single "instant"... all distance... all "forward" space... all history... are all part of this equation. In that sense the photon is entangled with more than what we are viewing as a "single flash of light".
There is something which prevents the photon from simply being absorbed at the first point at which it "arrives"... remember it "arrives" at all possible paths, the tiny flash is happening at just one point. Why choose one which may be far away from the "direct path" at all? The fact is that it does not matter about all the other paths, there is something which selects for the most "suitable" path irrespective of time or space since "time" and "space" is only something we are aware of and not photons.
Cheers
PS: Let me also add... Special Relativity is not a quantum theory ... it is a Theory that is independent of Quantum Theory and does not demand a quantum interpretation by itself. We must be more open minded than we have been and this will lead to a completely different geometry to that which we are comfortably accustomed.
You introduced the uncertainty principle well they are in step or they are not... you choose. We already know that there are self organization of photons on wavefronts from synchronized "coherent" sources... even from monochromatic "unsynchronized" sources they will spontaneously develop "coherency". You have uncertainty wrong... that only occurs when you make a measurement so if you do not make that measurement there is "no uncertainty"... A rotten trick you may say but I do not make the rules since you want to introduce this all of the time. Provided you do not disturb the quantum process "perfection exists" and as long as interactions are avoided information may be transferred... this is apparently an "experimental fact".
The next interesting effect that since our photons are traveling in zero of their time they also suffer the most extreme form of "length contraction", I prefer to think of this as a "rotation" but call it whatever you want the distance from source to sink in the frame of the photon is a distance of zero. I conclude that source and sink are united (along with everything on the way) in that one event of the emission and the absorption. Not only that but "all points in the Universe (at least in the forward direction) are similarly united" think of that.... infinite length contraction brings not only source and sink into direct contact but every point in the "available" Universe as well... totally non-local. Think of this geometry, it closes the Universe in the rest frame of the photon... toroidally... this is how the Universe looks to a "free photon". How "big" is this toroid? How "free" is this photon? Our photon is moving on this "hypersurface". This happens for all photons for all time everywhere. This also coincidently solves any topology problems about there being two slits since all points in both slits and the screen are all brought together into a single micro surface. where the individual photon ends up depends on some "geometrical factor" as previously discussed. This affects the way the geometry of our Universe works since photons are the exchange particle, the "connection" for all the electromagnetic forces. I also think this is "only" real force but that is another story about the Holographic Universe.
Now we have those slits in the way do you think that if a single event taking a single instant in the life of a photon has time to care how to avoid that obstruction. The photon is "seeking all paths" (irrespective of time) so it does that but for the photons that are not intercepted by the barrier(s).. that is all the photons that pass bye without an exchange of energy with that barrier(s).... Quite a few make it and they end up... due to the dual slit... distributed over quite a large surface area of the screen. Now if they were seeing all paths how did they end up not going straight through like your Russian Army? My take on this is the photons "instant" encompasses everything in the Universe not just the sequential events as you may think since the photon does not end up in just any port in the "storm"... sequence does not really matter as the DCQE Experiment has shown... the mere proximity of a "photon" event to the source does not determine the outcome, nor the number of paces across the paths. TRoc did make some very valid statements and he has collected some highly useful inferences. The DCQE Experiment is a fact and not fiction.
As in the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment (DCQE), the experiment does not apply just for "entangled photons"... entangled photons simply "teaches" us what photon events are all about, so lets generalize this concept. They are a frozen instant... a single event... and time from that context means literally "nothing" and interpreting it in the narrow context of "our time" simply leads to temporal contradictions. This is very clear... do you agree? This is the very reason why it holds so much interest to science. It is really our chauvinism and thinking that our point of view of the Universe actually should be the predominant one. Looking at it in "photon time" which is a single "instant"... all distance... all "forward" space... all history... are all part of this equation. In that sense the photon is entangled with more than what we are viewing as a "single flash of light".
There is something which prevents the photon from simply being absorbed at the first point at which it "arrives"... remember it "arrives" at all possible paths, the tiny flash is happening at just one point. Why choose one which may be far away from the "direct path" at all? The fact is that it does not matter about all the other paths, there is something which selects for the most "suitable" path irrespective of time or space since "time" and "space" is only something we are aware of and not photons.
Cheers
PS: Let me also add... Special Relativity is not a quantum theory ... it is a Theory that is independent of Quantum Theory and does not demand a quantum interpretation by itself. We must be more open minded than we have been and this will lead to a completely different geometry to that which we are comfortably accustomed.
Hi C2,
I think you should look at it differently. What happens if your Russian
soldiers each start off with either foot and have random step length, and one
leg shorter than the other?
They will take different paths. Those with similar physical attributes should
arrive at generally the same location. They are "entangled" by virtue of their
common traits. The way that they have to negotiate the geometry of the
slits will determine the direction of their new path. A wide slit means that they
can go thru with minimal impedance, a narrow slit means that they must turn
to one side, or the other, to get thru and they will deviate from a true straight
course.
LL
QUOTE
My lack of enthusiasm for the 'slit as cavity' theory arises from the Russian soldier analagy .. the soldiers must emerge with a zero (or consistent ) phase change regardless of reasonable changes in the geometry of the slit.
I think you should look at it differently. What happens if your Russian
soldiers each start off with either foot and have random step length, and one
leg shorter than the other?
They will take different paths. Those with similar physical attributes should
arrive at generally the same location. They are "entangled" by virtue of their
common traits. The way that they have to negotiate the geometry of the
slits will determine the direction of their new path. A wide slit means that they
can go thru with minimal impedance, a narrow slit means that they must turn
to one side, or the other, to get thru and they will deviate from a true straight
course.
LL
Hello LL, C2, GoodElf, et al.
I like the shorter leg analogy for the Russian soldier . Matter affects the permeability/permittivity of space (via charge for example) and hence the speed of light. This affect extends beyond matter's surface. Charge collects at sharp edges, hence sharp edges will produce better diffraction patterns. The width of the slit with respect to the wavelength of light (or matter wave) determines the amount of diffraction observed.
As for two or more slits, the sensor's atom/molecule (or individual electron) as a whole acts as a integrating/summing device for all incident EM waves. It is just that this summing is tied to the energy states within the atom/molecule (electron trap). The slit width and spacing are chosen to maximize the effect observed.
As a side note has anyone run across an experiment that introduces a charge to the slits ?
I like the shorter leg analogy for the Russian soldier
. Matter affects the permeability/permittivity of space (via charge for example) and hence the speed of light. This affect extends beyond matter's surface. Charge collects at sharp edges, hence sharp edges will produce better diffraction patterns. The width of the slit with respect to the wavelength of light (or matter wave) determines the amount of diffraction observed.As for two or more slits, the sensor's atom/molecule (or individual electron) as a whole acts as a integrating/summing device for all incident EM waves. It is just that this summing is tied to the energy states within the atom/molecule (electron trap). The slit width and spacing are chosen to maximize the effect observed.
As a side note has anyone run across an experiment that introduces a charge to the slits ?
Hi Montec,
I'm believing that localized EM proximity fields of matter do interact with the
EM fields of photons, especially near sharp edges as I elaborated in link #3 cited
in my previous post.
Sharp edges and small dimension geometries tend to focus field energies along
their boundaries, this is a known effect in the semiconductor production industry
and is most prevalent when high energy gas species (like SiH4) or RF fields are
used during a thin film deposition process. The result is a thicker, variable, or
non-conformal film deposition "bulge" in the immediate area of the exposed sharp
edges of the geometries being deposited on. I see the potential for a similar
phenomenon to occur in certain types of closely spaced geometries, but I have
no "proofs" or papers that reference how the phenomenon might affect photons.
I suspect that the theory of diffraction grating can explain the phasing
mechanism.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...grating.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ffracon.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...t/dslit.html#c1
Regards,
LL
I'm believing that localized EM proximity fields of matter do interact with the
EM fields of photons, especially near sharp edges as I elaborated in link #3 cited
in my previous post.
Sharp edges and small dimension geometries tend to focus field energies along
their boundaries, this is a known effect in the semiconductor production industry
and is most prevalent when high energy gas species (like SiH4) or RF fields are
used during a thin film deposition process. The result is a thicker, variable, or
non-conformal film deposition "bulge" in the immediate area of the exposed sharp
edges of the geometries being deposited on. I see the potential for a similar
phenomenon to occur in certain types of closely spaced geometries, but I have
no "proofs" or papers that reference how the phenomenon might affect photons.
I suspect that the theory of diffraction grating can explain the phasing
mechanism.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...grating.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ffracon.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...t/dslit.html#c1
Regards,
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jan 1 2007, 10:24 PM)
Hi Montec,
I'm believing that localized EM proximity fields of matter do interact with the
EM fields of photons, especially near sharp edges as I elaborated in link #3 cited
in my previous post.
Sharp edges and small dimension geometries tend to focus field energies along
their boundaries, this is a known effect in the semiconductor production industry
and is most prevalent when high energy gas species (like SiH4) or RF fields are
used during a thin film deposition process. The result is a thicker, variable, or
non-conformal film deposition "bulge" in the immediate area of the exposed sharp
edges of the geometries being deposited on. I see the potential for a similar
phenomenon to occur in certain types of closely spaced geometries, but I have
no "proofs" or papers that reference how the phenomenon might affect photons.
I suspect that the theory of diffraction grating can explain the phasing
mechanism.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...grating.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ffracon.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...t/dslit.html#c1
Regards,
LL
Montec, can you tell me about yourself? I'm involved in the materials science field myself.
I'm believing that localized EM proximity fields of matter do interact with the
EM fields of photons, especially near sharp edges as I elaborated in link #3 cited
in my previous post.
Sharp edges and small dimension geometries tend to focus field energies along
their boundaries, this is a known effect in the semiconductor production industry
and is most prevalent when high energy gas species (like SiH4) or RF fields are
used during a thin film deposition process. The result is a thicker, variable, or
non-conformal film deposition "bulge" in the immediate area of the exposed sharp
edges of the geometries being deposited on. I see the potential for a similar
phenomenon to occur in certain types of closely spaced geometries, but I have
no "proofs" or papers that reference how the phenomenon might affect photons.
I suspect that the theory of diffraction grating can explain the phasing
mechanism.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...grating.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ffracon.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...t/dslit.html#c1
Regards,
LL
Montec, can you tell me about yourself? I'm involved in the materials science field myself.
Hi Laserlight, Montec, TRoc, Jal, Duaity, Yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,
I regret the introduction of the Russian soldiers .. they seem to be (partly) responsible for an all time low on this thread.
Before getting too carried away with the properties of the slits I think it might be helpful to look at an interferometer using a partially silvered mirror .. the result (the interference) is the same as that observed in the DSE.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../michel.html#c1
Some insight into 'coherence' might be gained by considering that light split into two paths by a partially silvered mirror is automatically coherent whereas the two slits of the DSE need a coherent source (eg a narrow slit) to generate the same interference effect.
The Michaelson Interferometer simply needs a monochromatic source**.
The Kennedy-Thorndyke interferometer is similar to the Michaelson version but no attempt is made to keep the path lengths equal. As in the DSE .. the interference effect does not rely on equal path lengths although this is not obvious from the discussion of the Michaelson interferometer.
Best wishes,
-C2.
** if the path lengths are almost precisely equal it seems whit light will work just as well.. this gives further insight into 'coherence'.
I regret the introduction of the Russian soldiers .. they seem to be (partly) responsible for an all time low on this thread.
Before getting too carried away with the properties of the slits I think it might be helpful to look at an interferometer using a partially silvered mirror .. the result (the interference) is the same as that observed in the DSE.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../michel.html#c1
Some insight into 'coherence' might be gained by considering that light split into two paths by a partially silvered mirror is automatically coherent whereas the two slits of the DSE need a coherent source (eg a narrow slit) to generate the same interference effect.
The Michaelson Interferometer simply needs a monochromatic source**.
The Kennedy-Thorndyke interferometer is similar to the Michaelson version but no attempt is made to keep the path lengths equal. As in the DSE .. the interference effect does not rely on equal path lengths although this is not obvious from the discussion of the Michaelson interferometer.
Best wishes,
-C2.
** if the path lengths are almost precisely equal it seems whit light will work just as well.. this gives further insight into 'coherence'.
Hi Good Elf,
Whatever theory we might or might not have I hope we can agree that the results of the DSE are consistent with the same phase interference that one observes in the rippple tank and elsewhere.
Maxwell's Equations seem to be accepted as giving a good prediction of the effects of an EM wave in General Relativity and as such I don't feel they can be discarded lightly. The prediction of Maxwell's equations would appear to be that the speed of light is 'c' in any frame. Sources (not least Mr Homm) suggest that the electromagnetic equation is 'true' as h->0 . With h>0 we have quantized EM .. subtly but significantly different from a simplified picture of EM as being literally 'made up of discrete photons'.
A bit of a theme has emerged on this thread .. can a photon only interfere with itself? My own interest in the answer is not whether a research team with the right equipment can prepare two photons in such a way that they may (or may not) actually interfere. My real interest in is the bog standard situation where it appears (as far as I see) a photon can only interfere with itself. If a photon can only interfere with itself then it remains unclear whether this is a result of quantisation of EM or whether this is truly a 'photon' result.
Whatever theory we might or might not have I hope we can agree that the results of the DSE are consistent with the same phase interference that one observes in the rippple tank and elsewhere.
Maxwell's Equations seem to be accepted as giving a good prediction of the effects of an EM wave in General Relativity and as such I don't feel they can be discarded lightly. The prediction of Maxwell's equations would appear to be that the speed of light is 'c' in any frame. Sources (not least Mr Homm) suggest that the electromagnetic equation is 'true' as h->0 . With h>0 we have quantized EM .. subtly but significantly different from a simplified picture of EM as being literally 'made up of discrete photons'.
A bit of a theme has emerged on this thread .. can a photon only interfere with itself? My own interest in the answer is not whether a research team with the right equipment can prepare two photons in such a way that they may (or may not) actually interfere. My real interest in is the bog standard situation where it appears (as far as I see) a photon can only interfere with itself. If a photon can only interfere with itself then it remains unclear whether this is a result of quantisation of EM or whether this is truly a 'photon' result.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
We already know that there are self organization of photons on wavefronts from synchronized "coherent" sources... even from monochromatic "unsynchronized" sources they will spontaneously develop "coherency".
Please give (or repeat) any reference that might have lead to this conclusion.
I suspect the 'Uncertainty Principle' is itself a metaphor for something rather deeper. Heisenberg developed a method from it which it seems Dirac (?)was able to show was equivalent to the Schrodinger equation .. nothing is going to be simple and nothing may be quite what it seems at the level of analysis we are able to apply.
TRoc (quite rightly) demanded that the books must be shown to balance - hopefully I gave an acceptable account. Always the books must be shown to balance or you are not in business. I have a little bit more maths than I generally attempt to apply .. if I can help then just say what you want .. someone else might help if I can't. Everything must 'couple together' one way or another.. nothing seems to get lost here.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Please give (or repeat) any reference that might have lead to this conclusion.
I suspect the 'Uncertainty Principle' is itself a metaphor for something rather deeper. Heisenberg developed a method from it which it seems Dirac (?)was able to show was equivalent to the Schrodinger equation .. nothing is going to be simple and nothing may be quite what it seems at the level of analysis we are able to apply.
TRoc (quite rightly) demanded that the books must be shown to balance - hopefully I gave an acceptable account. Always the books must be shown to balance or you are not in business. I have a little bit more maths than I generally attempt to apply .. if I can help then just say what you want .. someone else might help if I can't. Everything must 'couple together' one way or another.. nothing seems to get lost here.
Best wishes,
-C2.
C2,
I looked at the experiments that you referenced. IMO, the mirrors are refractive
cavities since the phase reference of the incident light is shifted from the
normal. There is a phase timing delay when light traverses a medium or
a plane interface between mediums other than vacuum. There are also
standing wave cavities between the two end mirrors of each beam.
In a past career, we used MM interferometry to measure thin film growth or
film removal using a laser reference beam. As the target thin film reflective
surface grew or shrank, the dimensional change in thickness of the thin film
material caused an interference waveform that accurately determined
the "endpoint" thickness desired. We required film accuracies if about an angstrom
of film thickness and a computer program determined process endpoint timing.
The commercial tunable laser interferometer was extremely accurate and
expensive and was temperature controlled to insure long term frequency
stability.
Regards,
LL
I looked at the experiments that you referenced. IMO, the mirrors are refractive
cavities since the phase reference of the incident light is shifted from the
normal. There is a phase timing delay when light traverses a medium or
a plane interface between mediums other than vacuum. There are also
standing wave cavities between the two end mirrors of each beam.
In a past career, we used MM interferometry to measure thin film growth or
film removal using a laser reference beam. As the target thin film reflective
surface grew or shrank, the dimensional change in thickness of the thin film
material caused an interference waveform that accurately determined
the "endpoint" thickness desired. We required film accuracies if about an angstrom
of film thickness and a computer program determined process endpoint timing.
The commercial tunable laser interferometer was extremely accurate and
expensive and was temperature controlled to insure long term frequency
stability.
Regards,
LL
truncated by author system error
truncated by author system error
truncated by author system error
truncated by author system error
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE
Hi Good Elf,
Whatever theory we might or might not have I hope we can agree that the results of the DSE are consistent with the same phase interference that one observes in the rippple tank and elsewhere.
Sorry but I do not think we are communicating here... no they are not... I have said this many times and I really do not have to demonstrate this again do I? "Cavities" occur even with sources deep in space... across the void as it were... these are standing waves not progressive waves and they establish "instantly" across all space.Whatever theory we might or might not have I hope we can agree that the results of the DSE are consistent with the same phase interference that one observes in the rippple tank and elsewhere.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hi Good Elf, Whatever theory we might or might not have I hope we can agree that the results of the DSE are consistent with the same phase interference that one observes in the rippple tank and elsewhere. |
Sorry but I do not think we are communicating here... no they are not... I have said this many times and I really do not have to demonstrate this again do I? "Cavities" occur even with sources deep in space... across the void as it were... these are standing waves not progressive waves and they establish "instantly" across all space.
Maxwell's Equations seem to be accepted as giving a good prediction of the effects of an EM wave in General Relativity and as such I don't feel they can be discarded lightly.
Maxwell's Equations seem to be accepted as giving a good prediction of the effects of an EM wave in General Relativity and as such I don't feel they can be discarded lightly.
Absolute rubbish, I am not "discarding" anything... I am not saying that Maxwell's Equations are not applicable... I am saying that they refer to 100% conservative systems... and non-stationary systems where you can deal with the Lagrangian of the System as if it was a closed "Black Box". I suggest that Quanta are not covered while in this state of "stationary systems" since no energy exchange is occuring and this is why Quantum Theory Postulates have been introduced... they are the "breakers" of the classical treatment. Maxwell's Equation if applied in a really dumb way DICTATES that an electron in "orbit" around an atom would spiral into the nucleus because according to Maxwell's Equations the "energy" radiates away... I know this is pure "BS" but this is the basis for the Quantum Postulate of "stationary states"... it is your proposal not mine!!!... It is part of Quantum Mechanics. What I sugest is that the spectra of quantum mechanical oscellators is "discrete" and for very good reason since these are "resonant" states of the system. No "ultraviolet divergences" but definite discrete emissions of "energy" defined by E = hf. But I also say there is considerable evidence that "something is happening" between source and sink as indicated in the experiment which I am sure you had a look at that I referenced previously.
Experimental Synchronization of Independent Entangled Photon Sources
Experimental Synchronization of Independent Entangled Photon Sources
QUOTE (Confused2+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
We already know that there are self organization of photons on wavefronts from synchronized "coherent" sources... even from monochromatic "unsynchronized" sources they will spontaneously develop "coherency".
Please give (or repeat) any reference that might have lead to this conclusion.
Regarding references on the Net about spontaneous coherence in the vacuum... there are few but they do exist. The reason for this is very simple... it is not a popular area of investigation since the effects of LASERs and other phenomena make the investigation not a very high priority. I have found a couple of dozen references, most of which require the outlay of significant amounts of money. I found out about this in my own researches using non-US based references into Bosonic States ... usually from Russia. They have clearly been more interested in this area of investigation.
One reference I have used on these threads before was This Amazingly Symmetrical World by L.Tarasov (Mir Publishers).
Western Research focuses on Condensed Matter since this is more amenable to "High Energy Applications" such as "Star Wars" etc..
This is on "excitons" (spin 1 Boson states) which are pseudo-particles or "lattice charge holes" created in solid or liquid state. It also has direct application to the behavior of many other phenomena such as the Bose-Einstein Condensate.... Spontaneous coherency...
Wikipedia: Exciton
One reference I have used on these threads before was This Amazingly Symmetrical World by L.Tarasov (Mir Publishers).
Western Research focuses on Condensed Matter since this is more amenable to "High Energy Applications" such as "Star Wars" etc..
This is on "excitons" (spin 1 Boson states) which are pseudo-particles or "lattice charge holes" created in solid or liquid state. It also has direct application to the behavior of many other phenomena such as the Bose-Einstein Condensate.... Spontaneous coherency...
Wikipedia: Exciton
QUOTE (Physicists Observe Spontaneous Production of Coherence within Excitons+)
"What we found was the emergence of spontaneous coherence in an exciton gas," added Butov. "This is evidenced by the behavior of the coherence length we were able to extract from the light pattern (as shown in the figure) emitted by excitons as they recombine. Below the temperature of about five degrees Kelvin above absolute zero, the coherence length becomes clearly resolved and displays a steady and rapid growth as temperature decreases. This occurs in concert with the formation of the beads of the 'pearl necklace.' The coherence length reaches about two microns at the coldest point available in the experiment."
http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=3298
But if you really want to understand what is the more important phenomena is Raman Scattering in the near vacuum....
http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=3298
But if you really want to understand what is the more important phenomena is Raman Scattering in the near vacuum....
QUOTE (Correspondence of classical and quantum irreversibilities+)
Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 10 No 3 (June 1998) 35-39
PII: S1355-5111(98)89298-3
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Jacques Moret-Bailly
Laboratoire de physique, Université de Bourgogne, BP 400, F21011 Dijon Cedex, France
Received 6 November 1997, in final form 10 December 1997
Abstract:
The reversibility of classical mechanics is broken by the Carnot principle; in quantum mechanics, the time inversion invariance is broken by the principle of state decoherence. In both cases, a greater complexity produces a faster irreversibility. These principles are applied to problems related to absorption and diffusion of light. It appears that Raman scattering in extremely low-pressure gases shifts the frequency of the incident light, is space coherent and thus may be confused with the Doppler effect: the Raman scattering produces at least a part of the galactic redshift; the expansion of the universe is reduced or possibly canceled.
Following the original hypothesis of the Copenhagen school, Schrödinger's cat would be both dead and alive up to its observation. To solve this paradox, a spontaneous `decorrelation of coherent states' was introduced explicitly for complicated-enough systems. This complication is required for the irreversibility of a classical frictionless mechanical system, so that it seems like a thermodynamic property. We cannot compute the times of decorrelations of coherent states by quantum mechanics; thus, we shall use the correspondences with the classical problems to derive these times. Three examples, in the field of interaction of light with identical gaseous molecules (or atoms) will be given.
[...] Raman scattering
The decorrelation of the coherent states was probably introduced first, implicitly, in the computation of ordinary Raman scattering: the semiclassical computation of the field scattered by all atoms on a wave surface is exactly the same, so that these fields should interfere and produce coherent Raman scattering; to obtain the observed incoherence older books [4] introduce the decorrelation without an explanation through a stochastic phase factor in the off-diagonal elements of the density matrix (not in the diagonal elements, as required to obtain the refraction!).
[...]
If the time between two collisions is longer than 100 ns, ordinary monochromatic light (with a coherence duration of the order of 30 ns) may be considered as made up of short pulses, and the Raman scattering by the gas is coherent, but the gas pressure is so low that the scattered light cannot be observed in a laboratory.
[...] Coherence and decoherence of photons
Consider the interference of two pulses of `monochromatic' light of different frequency. If the length of the pulse is larger than the period of the beats between the sources, according to Rayleigh's criterion, a spectrometer is able to separate the two lines. Suppose now that we reduce the length of the pulse; a spectrometer becomes unable to separate the two wavelengths, but the wave, within the pulse, is not exactly a sine wave. Is it possible, however, to consider with sufficient precision the sum of the two waves is a sine wave during the pulse? If it is possible, the states of the two corresponding photons will be coherent, if the pulse becomes too long, we get a decoherence of the photon states.
[...] Application to the Raman effect in space
As the pressure is low in space, collisions are rare and the Raman effect is space coherent; thus, the frequencies of the images are changed without loss of sharpness of the images (except that the diffraction may be larger at longer wavelengths).
The amplitude scattered by a volume much larger than the cube of the wavelength is very small, so that the coefficient a of equation (1) is very small; if the Raman frequency (ν - μ) is not too large, the scattered photons are coherent with the incident one, so that we get a shift of the line in place of the emergence of satellite lines.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1355-5111/10.../qs10003l2.html
PII: S1355-5111(98)89298-3
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Jacques Moret-Bailly
Laboratoire de physique, Université de Bourgogne, BP 400, F21011 Dijon Cedex, France
Received 6 November 1997, in final form 10 December 1997
Abstract:
The reversibility of classical mechanics is broken by the Carnot principle; in quantum mechanics, the time inversion invariance is broken by the principle of state decoherence. In both cases, a greater complexity produces a faster irreversibility. These principles are applied to problems related to absorption and diffusion of light. It appears that Raman scattering in extremely low-pressure gases shifts the frequency of the incident light, is space coherent and thus may be confused with the Doppler effect: the Raman scattering produces at least a part of the galactic redshift; the expansion of the universe is reduced or possibly canceled.
Following the original hypothesis of the Copenhagen school, Schrödinger's cat would be both dead and alive up to its observation. To solve this paradox, a spontaneous `decorrelation of coherent states' was introduced explicitly for complicated-enough systems. This complication is required for the irreversibility of a classical frictionless mechanical system, so that it seems like a thermodynamic property. We cannot compute the times of decorrelations of coherent states by quantum mechanics; thus, we shall use the correspondences with the classical problems to derive these times. Three examples, in the field of interaction of light with identical gaseous molecules (or atoms) will be given.
[...] Raman scattering
The decorrelation of the coherent states was probably introduced first, implicitly, in the computation of ordinary Raman scattering: the semiclassical computation of the field scattered by all atoms on a wave surface is exactly the same, so that these fields should interfere and produce coherent Raman scattering; to obtain the observed incoherence older books [4] introduce the decorrelation without an explanation through a stochastic phase factor in the off-diagonal elements of the density matrix (not in the diagonal elements, as required to obtain the refraction!).
[...]
If the time between two collisions is longer than 100 ns, ordinary monochromatic light (with a coherence duration of the order of 30 ns) may be considered as made up of short pulses, and the Raman scattering by the gas is coherent, but the gas pressure is so low that the scattered light cannot be observed in a laboratory.
[...] Coherence and decoherence of photons
Consider the interference of two pulses of `monochromatic' light of different frequency. If the length of the pulse is larger than the period of the beats between the sources, according to Rayleigh's criterion, a spectrometer is able to separate the two lines. Suppose now that we reduce the length of the pulse; a spectrometer becomes unable to separate the two wavelengths, but the wave, within the pulse, is not exactly a sine wave. Is it possible, however, to consider with sufficient precision the sum of the two waves is a sine wave during the pulse? If it is possible, the states of the two corresponding photons will be coherent, if the pulse becomes too long, we get a decoherence of the photon states.
[...] Application to the Raman effect in space
As the pressure is low in space, collisions are rare and the Raman effect is space coherent; thus, the frequencies of the images are changed without loss of sharpness of the images (except that the diffraction may be larger at longer wavelengths).
The amplitude scattered by a volume much larger than the cube of the wavelength is very small, so that the coefficient a of equation (1) is very small; if the Raman frequency (ν - μ) is not too large, the scattered photons are coherent with the incident one, so that we get a shift of the line in place of the emergence of satellite lines.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1355-5111/10.../qs10003l2.html
Not the best reference but convincing enough provided you do a little research on you own. These "short pulses" are the photon sync pulses in the incoherent state as I have been indicating with my illustration...
... which shows this "impulse" and this is the "short pulse" in the frequency domain...
The way spontaneous coherence occurs in low density media is shown by my construction...
Where we see the temporal coherence under conditions where there would otherwise be "satellite lines" as indicated in the reference. Also you will see that the reference admits that Quantum Mechanics does not explain these observations successfully and I totally agree.
You really should simply do a little reading around since I have discussed this many times before... well at least "a couple"... I know our collective attention spans are better than you admit on this one. I am not responsible for the results of experiments but when I see them I use them. This is not "elf physics".
Cheers
... which shows this "impulse" and this is the "short pulse" in the frequency domain...
The way spontaneous coherence occurs in low density media is shown by my construction...
Where we see the temporal coherence under conditions where there would otherwise be "satellite lines" as indicated in the reference. Also you will see that the reference admits that Quantum Mechanics does not explain these observations successfully and I totally agree.
You really should simply do a little reading around since I have discussed this many times before... well at least "a couple"... I know our collective attention spans are better than you admit on this one. I am not responsible for the results of experiments but when I see them I use them. This is not "elf physics".
Cheers
All,
I want to revisit a topic that Yquantum originally suggested. Plasmon's,
and also a related topic of surface plasmon resonance (polaritons).
I think that these phenomena have bearing on how photons interact with matter
while negotiating the slits. Keep in mind that these topics "suggest" how a phase
delay might be induced into photons to change their characteristics, mixing, and
flight trajectories. It is only part of the story, since I think it has been
satisfactorily proven that the geometrical relationships of the slits determine
the dispersion patterns projected onto the screen.
Here are links describing plasmons and plasmon resonance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_plasmon_resonance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
I want to revisit a topic that Yquantum originally suggested. Plasmon's,
and also a related topic of surface plasmon resonance (polaritons).
I think that these phenomena have bearing on how photons interact with matter
while negotiating the slits. Keep in mind that these topics "suggest" how a phase
delay might be induced into photons to change their characteristics, mixing, and
flight trajectories. It is only part of the story, since I think it has been
satisfactorily proven that the geometrical relationships of the slits determine
the dispersion patterns projected onto the screen.
Here are links describing plasmons and plasmon resonance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_plasmon_resonance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jan 2 2007, 08:06 AM)
...I want to revisit a topic that Yquantum originally suggested. Plasmon's, and also a related topic of surface plasmon resonance (polaritons)...
LOL: plasmons, polarons, dilatons, excitons, radions, solitons, magnetons, phonons, singletons, partons, pokemons...
If we don't understand something, we can give it a name, at least..
LOL: plasmons, polarons, dilatons, excitons, radions, solitons, magnetons, phonons, singletons, partons, pokemons...
If we don't understand something, we can give it a name, at least..
Hello Zephir,
Well, is this another "hit and run" post by you, or do you have a better
scientific explanation of the exposed surface EM fields exhibited by matter?
Do you agree that matter couples energy to "space"? Can you explain the
mechanism? Please, no foam....
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
LOL: plasmons, polarons, dilatons, excitons, radions, solitons, magnetons, phonons, singletons, partons, pokemons...
If we don't understand something, we can give it a name, at least..
If we don't understand something, we can give it a name, at least..
Well, is this another "hit and run" post by you, or do you have a better
scientific explanation of the exposed surface EM fields exhibited by matter?
Do you agree that matter couples energy to "space"? Can you explain the
mechanism? Please, no foam....
Regards,
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jan 2 2007, 09:08 AM)
Do you agree that matter couples energy to "space"?
What should I have to imagine under "coupling energy to space by matter"? Until you'll explain it, I cannot decide about my final stance.
What should I have to imagine under "coupling energy to space by matter"? Until you'll explain it, I cannot decide about my final stance.
Hi Laserlight et al,
I will cop a bit of flack for this but I am going to tell it like it is...
We should always recognize that the concept of "polarons, plasmons and excitons... etc" are the study of "deficiencies" in Quantum Mechanics to understand the greater concept. These are all "quasiparticles"... "quasi" means "false"... these are the particles you are having when you are not having a particle. Without these pure inventions quantum mechanics could not survive since it could not answer the factual existence of any system resonant conditions. When you examine the concept (in general) they are all relate to "resonances". In electromagnetic terms it is like saying that a resonant circuit is a "pseudoparticle".
IMHO Resonances are a much simpler concept but because Quantum Mechanics only deals with quantum chaos and statistical behaviour it is "lame" when trying to explain coordinated sympathetic processes since they "refine" the chaos and replace it with self-order. Nobody can "isolate" these "quasiparticles" since they are non-existent and made to fill a gap in the theory. Sure... you can create resonant states and so forth but we really should not be "creating" particles to fill hte hole. Go check... you will not find them in any books on quantum mechanics... it is "back filling" by a deficient theory. When you think about it even the Higgs Mechanism is such a mechanism as well. Peter Higgs has based this mechanism on a solid state equivalent of this mechanism by analogy with Cooper Pairs propagating in a crystal structure. These sorts of models were also inspired by work in condensed matter theory, notably by Lev Landau and Vitaly Ginzburg. It is no wonder why this "solution" is so appealing since it holds hope of plugging a gap in the theory. Read this...
I will cop a bit of flack for this but I am going to tell it like it is...
We should always recognize that the concept of "polarons, plasmons and excitons... etc" are the study of "deficiencies" in Quantum Mechanics to understand the greater concept. These are all "quasiparticles"... "quasi" means "false"... these are the particles you are having when you are not having a particle. Without these pure inventions quantum mechanics could not survive since it could not answer the factual existence of any system resonant conditions. When you examine the concept (in general) they are all relate to "resonances". In electromagnetic terms it is like saying that a resonant circuit is a "pseudoparticle".
IMHO Resonances are a much simpler concept but because Quantum Mechanics only deals with quantum chaos and statistical behaviour it is "lame" when trying to explain coordinated sympathetic processes since they "refine" the chaos and replace it with self-order. Nobody can "isolate" these "quasiparticles" since they are non-existent and made to fill a gap in the theory. Sure... you can create resonant states and so forth but we really should not be "creating" particles to fill hte hole. Go check... you will not find them in any books on quantum mechanics... it is "back filling" by a deficient theory. When you think about it even the Higgs Mechanism is such a mechanism as well. Peter Higgs has based this mechanism on a solid state equivalent of this mechanism by analogy with Cooper Pairs propagating in a crystal structure. These sorts of models were also inspired by work in condensed matter theory, notably by Lev Landau and Vitaly Ginzburg. It is no wonder why this "solution" is so appealing since it holds hope of plugging a gap in the theory. Read this...
QUOTE (Quartic Interaction+)
An interesting feature can occur if m^2 happens to be negative, but with λ still positive. Below the phase transition, the vacuum superselection sector splits into two, each of which is in the ordered phase, spontaneously breaking the Z2 global symmetry of the original theory. Also, interesting collective states like domain walls can appear.
Wikipedia: Quartic interaction
See what happens under "spontaneous symmetry breaking".
Now look into Wick Rotation...
Feel free to add in extra boxes .. (eg cavities etc) to suit your own ideas.
I'll fill in my version in the near future.
-C2.
( Note the gain can be less than 1 )
You can (of course) just add in a [ cavity ] as a black box and assume we can work out the relationship between input and output when we feel strong enough.
Wikipedia: Quartic interaction
See what happens under "spontaneous symmetry breaking".
Now look into Wick Rotation...
QUOTE (Wikipedia on Wick Rotation+)
Wick rotation is a method of finding a solution to a problem in Minkowski space from a solution to a related problem in Euclidean space, by analytic continuation.
It is motivated by the observation that the Minkowski metric
ds^2 = - (dt^2) + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
and the four-dimensional Euclidean metric
ds^2 = dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
are not distinct if one permits the coordinate t to take on complex values. The Minkowski metric becomes Euclidean when t is restricted to the imaginary axis, and vice versa. Taking a problem expressed in Minkowski space with coordinates x,y,z,t, and substituting w = it, sometimes yields a problem in real Euclidean coordinates x,y,z,w which is easier to solve. This solution may then, under reverse substitution, yield a solution to the original problem.
Wick rotation connects quantum mechanics to statistical mechanics in a surprising way. The Schrödinger equation and the heat equation are related by Wick rotation, for example. However, there is a slight difference. Statistical mechanics n-point functions satisfy positivity whereas Wick rotated quantum field theories satisfy reflection positivity.
Wick rotation is named after Gian-Carlo Wick. It is called a rotation because when we represent complex numbers as a plane, the multiplication of a complex number by i is equivalent to rotating the vector representing that number by an angle of π/ 2.
When Stephen Hawking wrote about "imaginary time" in his famous book A Brief History of Time, he was referring to Wick rotation.
Wickipedia: Wick Rotation
Why do we need to invent new non-existent particles to explain a phenomenon that has been around for well over a century? I prefer not to view this as "imaginary time" but simply "imaginary extra space" with those "domain walls". This "space" is no more "imaginary" than it is in any other discipline such as electronics for instance and we see it displayed effectively in animations of the time dependent solutions of the Complex Schroinger Wave Equation. Personal preference I suppose but makes more sense to me.
Cheers
It is motivated by the observation that the Minkowski metric
ds^2 = - (dt^2) + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
and the four-dimensional Euclidean metric
ds^2 = dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
are not distinct if one permits the coordinate t to take on complex values. The Minkowski metric becomes Euclidean when t is restricted to the imaginary axis, and vice versa. Taking a problem expressed in Minkowski space with coordinates x,y,z,t, and substituting w = it, sometimes yields a problem in real Euclidean coordinates x,y,z,w which is easier to solve. This solution may then, under reverse substitution, yield a solution to the original problem.
Wick rotation connects quantum mechanics to statistical mechanics in a surprising way. The Schrödinger equation and the heat equation are related by Wick rotation, for example. However, there is a slight difference. Statistical mechanics n-point functions satisfy positivity whereas Wick rotated quantum field theories satisfy reflection positivity.
Wick rotation is named after Gian-Carlo Wick. It is called a rotation because when we represent complex numbers as a plane, the multiplication of a complex number by i is equivalent to rotating the vector representing that number by an angle of π/ 2.
When Stephen Hawking wrote about "imaginary time" in his famous book A Brief History of Time, he was referring to Wick rotation.
Wickipedia: Wick Rotation
Why do we need to invent new non-existent particles to explain a phenomenon that has been around for well over a century? I prefer not to view this as "imaginary time" but simply "imaginary extra space" with those "domain walls". This "space" is no more "imaginary" than it is in any other discipline such as electronics for instance and we see it displayed effectively in animations of the time dependent solutions of the Complex Schroinger Wave Equation. Personal preference I suppose but makes more sense to me.
Cheers
Possibly some background might help. Looking up system analysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_analysis we see "it is a subject often studied by electrical engineers" .. this might explain part of my approach to the DSE.
In my (ex) world we would spend quite a lot of time analysing complex systems with a view to working out the relationship between inputs and outputs. One of the most powerful tools is the 'black box' .. you neither know nor care what is inside the box but you do know the output it gives in response to a given set of inputs. A system may consist of many 'black boxes' and the object of the exercise is model the whole system as one single black box.
If you are a designer then you are told about the inputs and what the required outputs are and you set about implementing the required 'black box' using the cheapest possible components, in the design process each component is a black box in it's own right.
The things in square brackets are functions .. the letters are the signal after the box (specify your definition of 'signal').
A suggested black box DSE ..
[ Source ]
a|
[ slit0 ]
b|
-----<----->-----
c| d|
[ Path s/2 ] [ Path s/2 ]
e| f|
[ Slit1 ] [ Slit2 ]
g| h|
[ Path1 ] [ Path2]
i| j|
------>[ Sum ]<------
k|
(Output)
In my (ex) world we would spend quite a lot of time analysing complex systems with a view to working out the relationship between inputs and outputs. One of the most powerful tools is the 'black box' .. you neither know nor care what is inside the box but you do know the output it gives in response to a given set of inputs. A system may consist of many 'black boxes' and the object of the exercise is model the whole system as one single black box.
If you are a designer then you are told about the inputs and what the required outputs are and you set about implementing the required 'black box' using the cheapest possible components, in the design process each component is a black box in it's own right.
The things in square brackets are functions .. the letters are the signal after the box (specify your definition of 'signal').
A suggested black box DSE ..
CODE
[ Source ]
a|
[ slit0 ]
b|
-----<----->-----
c| d|
[ Path s/2 ] [ Path s/2 ]
e| f|
[ Slit1 ] [ Slit2 ]
g| h|
[ Path1 ] [ Path2]
i| j|
------>[ Sum ]<------
k|
(Output)
Feel free to add in extra boxes .. (eg cavities etc) to suit your own ideas.
I'll fill in my version in the near future.
-C2.
An optical cavity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_cavity )
(Source)
|
[ Sum ]---<-----
| ^
[ Thayng ] [ Gain A ]
| ^
| [Delay]
|->-------->-|
|
( Output )
CODE
(Source)
|
[ Sum ]---<-----
| ^
[ Thayng ] [ Gain A ]
| ^
| [Delay]
|->-------->-|
|
( Output )
( Note the gain can be less than 1 )
You can (of course) just add in a [ cavity ] as a black box and assume we can work out the relationship between input and output when we feel strong enough.
Hi Confused2,
Sometimes when we disassemble things we really do not know how they should be put back in order to recreate the whole. For instance even a single living cell we can certainly disassemble but we do not yet possess the ability to put it back together into a completely working cell again. What I am saying is just knowing the parts does not allow us the authority to say we understand it completely. A "black box" approach to physics has some merit but in order for the box to really work you need to do more than just "simulate the outputs"....
The Universe has "emergent behavior" which can be appreciated but not necessarily able to be duplicated. I like the last line of your "model" of the DSE.... it says simply "OUTPUT".
Sometimes when we disassemble things we really do not know how they should be put back in order to recreate the whole. For instance even a single living cell we can certainly disassemble but we do not yet possess the ability to put it back together into a completely working cell again. What I am saying is just knowing the parts does not allow us the authority to say we understand it completely. A "black box" approach to physics has some merit but in order for the box to really work you need to do more than just "simulate the outputs"....
The Universe has "emergent behavior" which can be appreciated but not necessarily able to be duplicated. I like the last line of your "model" of the DSE.... it says simply "OUTPUT".
QUOTE (The Hunting of the Snark+)
"Fit the Second: THE BELLMAN'S SPEECH"
The Bellman himself they all praised to the skies --
Such a carriage, such ease and such grace!
Such solemnity, too! One could see he was wise,
The moment one looked in his face!
He had bought a large map representing the sea,
Without the least vestige of land:
And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be
A map they could all understand.
"What's the good of Mercator's North Poles and Equators,
Tropics, Zones, and Meridian Lines?"
So the Bellman would cry: and the crew would reply
"They are merely conventional signs!
"Other maps are such shapes, with their islands and capes!
But we've got our brave Captain to thank:"
(So the crew would protest) "that he's bought us the best --
A perfect and absolute blank!"[...]
The Bellman himself they all praised to the skies --
Such a carriage, such ease and such grace!
Such solemnity, too! One could see he was wise,
The moment one looked in his face!
He had bought a large map representing the sea,
Without the least vestige of land:
And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be
A map they could all understand.
"What's the good of Mercator's North Poles and Equators,
Tropics, Zones, and Meridian Lines?"
So the Bellman would cry: and the crew would reply
"They are merely conventional signs!
"Other maps are such shapes, with their islands and capes!
But we've got our brave Captain to thank:"
(So the crew would protest) "that he's bought us the best --
A perfect and absolute blank!"[...]
Don't worry I am a "Bellman" too!
Optical "Dimensional" Cavity ==> Stationary States ==> "Extra Dimensions"
I can't do it with a "soundbyte"! The story I am telling needs to be more than something a child can understand it has a "life of its own" and when you ask it to be described it is going to be very difficult since the "sum" is much more than the "parts". Maybe it will be possible for others at some later stage in their understanding of these matters to "summarize" but a word like "OUTPUT" meaning the sum total of the response of the Universe to those "INPUTS" even Feynman and Einstein could not explain. Do you really think that this approach can work? What we really need is a "Black Box" that simulates the Universe as a series of inputs and outputs but at the same time a subset of this "box" shows us how this DSE works too.... Not just for one slit or two but for any number of slits in whatever place you care to put them. Do you really think this description you are trying to make us accept as the "last word" on the DSE is the only approach?
Quite frankly we have the Ptolemaic Model (Quantum Mechanics) of the Universe that is not concerned with mechanism and with a heap of "smaller black boxes" (Quantum Postulates) we can simulate a lot of the outputs. But what happens when we discover some outputs missing I fear you will just pencil them in... but I want something more. Your "model" must come to "life" like Pinocchio and behave not like a collection of articulated lumber attached to strings you can pull... but as a real "child". Do that and I will listen attentively.
Cheers
Optical "Dimensional" Cavity ==> Stationary States ==> "Extra Dimensions"
I can't do it with a "soundbyte"! The story I am telling needs to be more than something a child can understand it has a "life of its own" and when you ask it to be described it is going to be very difficult since the "sum" is much more than the "parts". Maybe it will be possible for others at some later stage in their understanding of these matters to "summarize" but a word like "OUTPUT" meaning the sum total of the response of the Universe to those "INPUTS" even Feynman and Einstein could not explain. Do you really think that this approach can work? What we really need is a "Black Box" that simulates the Universe as a series of inputs and outputs but at the same time a subset of this "box" shows us how this DSE works too.... Not just for one slit or two but for any number of slits in whatever place you care to put them. Do you really think this description you are trying to make us accept as the "last word" on the DSE is the only approach?Quite frankly we have the Ptolemaic Model (Quantum Mechanics) of the Universe that is not concerned with mechanism and with a heap of "smaller black boxes" (Quantum Postulates) we can simulate a lot of the outputs. But what happens when we discover some outputs missing I fear you will just pencil them in... but I want something more. Your "model" must come to "life" like Pinocchio and behave not like a collection of articulated lumber attached to strings you can pull... but as a real "child". Do that and I will listen attentively.
Cheers
Good Elf..
Assuming a slit just 'coheres and spreads' the input waveform .. without delays or phase changes in the network it would appear that whatever function is applied to the input simply rips through and appears in attenuated form at the output. We could (for example) excite the network with a function F( a,b ) and add something at any point (or many points) that is a function of b , and so on .. I don't understand your model well enough to guess how to approach this.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Assuming a slit just 'coheres and spreads' the input waveform .. without delays or phase changes in the network it would appear that whatever function is applied to the input simply rips through and appears in attenuated form at the output. We could (for example) excite the network with a function F( a,b ) and add something at any point (or many points) that is a function of b , and so on .. I don't understand your model well enough to guess how to approach this.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Good Elf,
Sorry, I missed your quick response ..
Sorry, I missed your quick response ..
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Do you really think this description you are trying to make us accept as the "last word" on the DSE is the only approach?
I may be stupid but I'm not THAT stupid! No, this is just another instrument to prod the beast with. Define, refine etc.
Best wishes,
C2.
I may be stupid but I'm not THAT stupid! No, this is just another instrument to prod the beast with. Define, refine etc.
Best wishes,
C2.
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Sorry, I missed your quick response ..
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Do you really think this description you are trying to make us accept as the "last word" on the DSE is the only approach?
I may be stupid but I'm not THAT stupid! No, this is just another instrument to prod the beast with. Define, refine etc.
Best wishes,
C2.
Best wishes,
C2.
No disrespect intended... What I am saying is your answer that you continually refer back to is not offering any advance on a purely unenlightened view of this problem. You can come up with a number but not the meaning of that number. The analogy of marching Russian Soldiers would be a 19th Century view of this problem. We understand that other than the "creation" and "annihilation" events the photons personal clock is not progressing... All that is progressing is a "spreading" relative to our time. Take for instance the Special Theory of Relativity did not just answer a rather "trivial" problem in the interpretation of the interference fringes seen in the Michelson-Morley Experiment... no... it still answers novel problems to this day without any additions or amendments. It expresses a very "sublime" concept that is very near to the real nature of the meaning of this entire Universe. We know it does not answer it all but we know that there must be more sublime information to be had "out there". That is what Einstein searched for and I think that his search failed but it was a noble search.
Quantum Mechanics does express some very important points about our Universe and this is not something I am trying to "gloss over". What I am saying is that Quantum Mechanics is part of a much larger theory of everything. This theory must actually explain these stationary states that exist beyond our "time" as we seem to know.
Define,refine. Going through all signals as marked (still original drawing)
Note position and time MAY be synonymous ???? (define,refine)
Let's zap it with an impulse..
a. - signal position./momentum not well defined (waves hands)
b. - signal position defined .. momentum (direction) ill-defined.(waves hands)
c,d,e,f. - signal 'b' is divided .. position still well defined.. momentum (direction) ill-defined (waves hands)
g,h - position well defined , momentum ill-defined (waves hands)
i,j - signals are delayed by path (looks aggressively round for contradiction)
They arrive at the sum box at the wrong time .. simulation fail... this is why I discard the GE suggestion.
If we gave a continuous sinewave excitation we'd get the 'right answer'
output = f (Path1,Path2) .. as for the ripple tank.
If we reduce the initial signal amplitude to photon (wave hands) level we have the problem that the output from any of the slits isn't organised so we can get the right answer (easily?) and the propagation rate problem emerges as with the impulse excitation.
The only way (to me) looks like a wavefunction excitation .. after the 'sum' we have a magic button marked 'decohere' .. if anyone at a point presses the magic button they get the photon. Since there is nobody there to press the button .. who..what.. how .. when... why.. ????
Pretty convincing? Not. A glimpse into my world .. I hope it wasn't too painful.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Quantum Mechanics does express some very important points about our Universe and this is not something I am trying to "gloss over". What I am saying is that Quantum Mechanics is part of a much larger theory of everything. This theory must actually explain these stationary states that exist beyond our "time" as we seem to know.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Assuming a slit just 'coheres and spreads' the input waveform .. without delays or phase changes in the network it would appear that whatever function is applied to the input simply rips through and appears in attenuated form at the output. We could (for example) excite the network with a function F( a,b ) and add something at any point (or many points) that is a function of b , and so on .. I don't understand your model well enough to guess how to approach this.
As long as the photon carries the qubit it has not suffered any tampering and is still pristine. Phase change is possible and so is the change in wavelength but some operations in "condensed matter" are not reversible. Seen from the point of view of the photon the edge of the slit is "transparent" to the photons and they will pass them as if they were not there but they may undergo an apparent velocity change relative to observers ... of course there can be no actual observers for this quantum process to really work. A similar situation will occur in any photon conservative state where the photon retains the qubit. There is a class of "interactions" where the photon "interacts" through a photon to particle interaction and the photon is scattered. In this situation the qubit will be lost. This particular photon cannot partake in any ordered process such as the coherent interference on the screen. It may still strike the screen, but it will not contain a matching qubit of information and thus will not add any coherent signal to the outcome of this event. It ends up as pure noise.
From a Special Relativity point of view, all "coherent" photons are always traveling at the speed of light. I "assume" even when it travels inside perfectly transparent matter, some photons are interacting along the way but many remain "invisible" and unscattered. These unscattered photons retain their qubit and react to the medium as if it was the vacuum of space (time is still suspended for them) but external observers see nothing of them but of those photons that do pass through it (such as a block of glass) this affects the internal dimensions of the apparent space and also the apparent velocity relative to external observers. The clear block of glass is also a kind of cavity as well. The process is one photon at a time and that individual photon carrying a qubit from the source is the basis of the interference pattern.
Three Experiments in One
The coherence from the source is simply for each photon at each frequency... and there is not an infinite number of these frequencies... a "cavity" exists from source to final sink with appropriate nodes and anti-nodes. This is a standing wave cavity not a progressive wave as might be suspected. This is idealized since in the real Universe things are moving around but for each event (emission of a single photon at a single frequency) this "cavity" is uniquely established as a standing wave phenomenon that links source to sink that despite the period of propagation that light is forced to take, actually is "atemporal" and completely fixed at that moment and it effectively "predicts" the standing wave pattern for all time and all places "accessed" in the space. Our Universe is therefore a series of overlapping events echoing through a series of dimensional cavities which define the total geometry and the electromagnetic forces that are exchanged within it. The theory that currently most closely predicts this is Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory.
Here is a follow up on an earlier idea...
UC San Diego Physicists Observe New Property of Matter November 1, 2006
Notice how "excitons" are referred to as "particles" in their own right. I suggest that the reference...
Cheers
As long as the photon carries the qubit it has not suffered any tampering and is still pristine. Phase change is possible and so is the change in wavelength but some operations in "condensed matter" are not reversible. Seen from the point of view of the photon the edge of the slit is "transparent" to the photons and they will pass them as if they were not there but they may undergo an apparent velocity change relative to observers ... of course there can be no actual observers for this quantum process to really work. A similar situation will occur in any photon conservative state where the photon retains the qubit. There is a class of "interactions" where the photon "interacts" through a photon to particle interaction and the photon is scattered. In this situation the qubit will be lost. This particular photon cannot partake in any ordered process such as the coherent interference on the screen. It may still strike the screen, but it will not contain a matching qubit of information and thus will not add any coherent signal to the outcome of this event. It ends up as pure noise.
From a Special Relativity point of view, all "coherent" photons are always traveling at the speed of light. I "assume" even when it travels inside perfectly transparent matter, some photons are interacting along the way but many remain "invisible" and unscattered. These unscattered photons retain their qubit and react to the medium as if it was the vacuum of space (time is still suspended for them) but external observers see nothing of them but of those photons that do pass through it (such as a block of glass) this affects the internal dimensions of the apparent space and also the apparent velocity relative to external observers. The clear block of glass is also a kind of cavity as well. The process is one photon at a time and that individual photon carrying a qubit from the source is the basis of the interference pattern.
Three Experiments in One
The coherence from the source is simply for each photon at each frequency... and there is not an infinite number of these frequencies... a "cavity" exists from source to final sink with appropriate nodes and anti-nodes. This is a standing wave cavity not a progressive wave as might be suspected. This is idealized since in the real Universe things are moving around but for each event (emission of a single photon at a single frequency) this "cavity" is uniquely established as a standing wave phenomenon that links source to sink that despite the period of propagation that light is forced to take, actually is "atemporal" and completely fixed at that moment and it effectively "predicts" the standing wave pattern for all time and all places "accessed" in the space. Our Universe is therefore a series of overlapping events echoing through a series of dimensional cavities which define the total geometry and the electromagnetic forces that are exchanged within it. The theory that currently most closely predicts this is Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory.
Here is a follow up on an earlier idea...
UC San Diego Physicists Observe New Property of Matter November 1, 2006
Notice how "excitons" are referred to as "particles" in their own right. I suggest that the reference...
QUOTE
“What we found was the emergence of spontaneous coherence in an exciton gas,” added Butov. “This is evidenced by the behavior of the coherence length we were able to extract from the light pattern (as shown in the figure) emitted by excitons as they recombine. Below the temperature of about five degrees Kelvin above absolute zero, the coherence length becomes clearly resolved and displays a steady and rapid growth as temperature decreases. This occurs in concert with the formation of the beads of the ‘pearl necklace.’ The coherence length reaches about two microns at the coldest point available in the experiment.”
The "pearl necklace" is actually "ringing" and standing waves are nothing more as the coherence length spreads through the Bose-Einstein Matter Wave System. The matter waves are related to the same matter waves mentioned by deBroglie and is the "low velocity" end of Special Relativity...Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
Sorry GE .. I see you've posted but I had this prepared so I'll post it and then respond to your last post shortly.
[ Source ]
a|
[ slit0 ]
b|
-----<----->-----
c| d|
[ Path s/2 ] [ Path s/2 ]
e| f|
[ Slit1 ] [ Slit2 ]
g| h|
[ Path1 ] [ Path2]
i| j|
------>[ Sum ]<------
k|
(Output)
Sorry GE .. I see you've posted but I had this prepared so I'll post it and then respond to your last post shortly.
CODE
[ Source ]
a|
[ slit0 ]
b|
-----<----->-----
c| d|
[ Path s/2 ] [ Path s/2 ]
e| f|
[ Slit1 ] [ Slit2 ]
g| h|
[ Path1 ] [ Path2]
i| j|
------>[ Sum ]<------
k|
(Output)
Define,refine. Going through all signals as marked (still original drawing)
Note position and time MAY be synonymous ???? (define,refine)
Let's zap it with an impulse..
a. - signal position./momentum not well defined (waves hands)
b. - signal position defined .. momentum (direction) ill-defined.(waves hands)
c,d,e,f. - signal 'b' is divided .. position still well defined.. momentum (direction) ill-defined (waves hands)
g,h - position well defined , momentum ill-defined (waves hands)
i,j - signals are delayed by path (looks aggressively round for contradiction)
They arrive at the sum box at the wrong time .. simulation fail... this is why I discard the GE suggestion.
If we gave a continuous sinewave excitation we'd get the 'right answer'
output = f (Path1,Path2) .. as for the ripple tank.
If we reduce the initial signal amplitude to photon (wave hands) level we have the problem that the output from any of the slits isn't organised so we can get the right answer (easily?) and the propagation rate problem emerges as with the impulse excitation.
The only way (to me) looks like a wavefunction excitation .. after the 'sum' we have a magic button marked 'decohere' .. if anyone at a point presses the magic button they get the photon. Since there is nobody there to press the button .. who..what.. how .. when... why.. ????
Pretty convincing? Not. A glimpse into my world .. I hope it wasn't too painful.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Good Elf,
I suspect our metaphors might be merging. It seems increasingly as though my wavefunction-psi has to remain suspended until someone presses the button .. do you not have the same problem with your standing wave?
Best wishes,
-C2.
I suspect our metaphors might be merging. It seems increasingly as though my wavefunction-psi has to remain suspended until someone presses the button .. do you not have the same problem with your standing wave?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Zephir,
"Space" and matter share "proximity", they have an interactive energy
interface. That interface is where energy is mututally coupled between them.
Mass couples EM fields (energy) and gravity into space. Conversely, free energy in
the form of radiation and gravity that is propagating thru space couples that free
form energy to matter across that interface.
I'm talking about how the energy is tranferred between them via the atomic
dipoles residing on the surface of matter. Those dipoles are constantly vibrating
and generating energy by virtue of their movement. That is the energy coupling
point at tbe surface interface. Any external energy applied to that interface
will cause some energy-matter reaction to occur either in the form of reflection,
absorption, scattering, or refraction.
Do you have a different opinion or mechanism to explain the energy interface?
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
QUOTE
What should I have to imagine under "coupling energy to space by matter"? Until you'll explain it, I cannot decide about my final stance.
"Space" and matter share "proximity", they have an interactive energy
interface. That interface is where energy is mututally coupled between them.
Mass couples EM fields (energy) and gravity into space. Conversely, free energy in
the form of radiation and gravity that is propagating thru space couples that free
form energy to matter across that interface.
I'm talking about how the energy is tranferred between them via the atomic
dipoles residing on the surface of matter. Those dipoles are constantly vibrating
and generating energy by virtue of their movement. That is the energy coupling
point at tbe surface interface. Any external energy applied to that interface
will cause some energy-matter reaction to occur either in the form of reflection,
absorption, scattering, or refraction.
Do you have a different opinion or mechanism to explain the energy interface?
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
Hi GE and All,
GE, I agree with your assessment of faux particles to fill in the gaps of QM. I
think it is natural for humans to give something a name, like Zephir says,
if we don't understand the mechanism we give it a name. These faux particles
are merely titles that represent some form of energy conversion or transfer
process that is understood to occur between energy systems, but is difficult to
explain simply.
There is notoriety and fame for assigning a name to some new theoretical
process or explanation. It makes for "headlines" and justification for seeking
experimental grant money.
I actually agreed with Zephir's earlier comment and baited him to join the
conversation rather than just make an off the wall comment and leave us hanging.
Sorry Zephir...it was a dirty trick.
Regards,
LL
GE, I agree with your assessment of faux particles to fill in the gaps of QM. I
think it is natural for humans to give something a name, like Zephir says,
if we don't understand the mechanism we give it a name. These faux particles
are merely titles that represent some form of energy conversion or transfer
process that is understood to occur between energy systems, but is difficult to
explain simply.
There is notoriety and fame for assigning a name to some new theoretical
process or explanation. It makes for "headlines" and justification for seeking
experimental grant money.
I actually agreed with Zephir's earlier comment and baited him to join the
conversation rather than just make an off the wall comment and leave us hanging.
Sorry Zephir...it was a dirty trick.
Regards,
LL
C2,
Someone must design the black box to meet a set of specialized requirements.
Not just any ole black box will do. It must be engineered to meet the specifications.
This requires a detailed understanding of how the internal system operates.
We know the inputs and the outputs, we are reverse engineering the black box
so that we can understand how it really operates.
Physics is the understanding of the details of the black box.
I have a computer, consider it a black box, I instruct it to do something and it
does it (most of the time). This was not enough for me, I had to know how a
computer works internally, so I used my electronics background, learned a lot
about internal computer systems and built numerous computers of my own.
Of course each of the components internal to the computer are individual black
boxes similar to your analogy.
Now as for software...to complicated...I don't care as long as it works, the
ultimate black box.
Regards,
LL
Someone must design the black box to meet a set of specialized requirements.
Not just any ole black box will do. It must be engineered to meet the specifications.
This requires a detailed understanding of how the internal system operates.
We know the inputs and the outputs, we are reverse engineering the black box
so that we can understand how it really operates.
Physics is the understanding of the details of the black box.
I have a computer, consider it a black box, I instruct it to do something and it
does it (most of the time). This was not enough for me, I had to know how a
computer works internally, so I used my electronics background, learned a lot
about internal computer systems and built numerous computers of my own.
Of course each of the components internal to the computer are individual black
boxes similar to your analogy.
Now as for software...to complicated...I don't care as long as it works, the
ultimate black box.
Regards,
LL
Hello All,
If we really want to get to the minutia of how matter and photons interact at the
slits we need to understand some details about the underlying nature of matter.
Link to Lattice Vibrations and Crystal Lattice:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...lattice.html#c2
Link to the magnetic properties of solids. ferromagnetic, diamagnetic,
paramagnetic:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...s/magpr.html#c2
Nuclear Spin:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...r/nspin.html#c2
Electric Dipoles:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...polecon.html#c1
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
If we really want to get to the minutia of how matter and photons interact at the
slits we need to understand some details about the underlying nature of matter.
Link to Lattice Vibrations and Crystal Lattice:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...lattice.html#c2
Link to the magnetic properties of solids. ferromagnetic, diamagnetic,
paramagnetic:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...s/magpr.html#c2
Nuclear Spin:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...r/nspin.html#c2
Electric Dipoles:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...polecon.html#c1
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
Hi Good Elf, Laserlight, Montec, TRoc, Jal, Duality, yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,
Just making the point that, as far as I know (could be wrong) everything only goes bananas in region D.
We can have a 'nice' theory for most of B and C .. which must predict the craziness in region D.
Feynman-Wheeler ..
http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/dtime/node2.html
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics...an-lecture.html
The advance 'probe' with two paths .. forwards and backwards .. ????
If we go with 'cavities' .. I suspect you might need two sitting on top of each other.
Comments, thoughts welcome.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Just making the point that, as far as I know (could be wrong) everything only goes bananas in region D.
We can have a 'nice' theory for most of B and C .. which must predict the craziness in region D.
Feynman-Wheeler ..
http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/dtime/node2.html
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics...an-lecture.html
The advance 'probe' with two paths .. forwards and backwards .. ????
If we go with 'cavities' .. I suspect you might need two sitting on top of each other.
Comments, thoughts welcome.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2,
Let me suggest something to you. Expand your drawing 3x.
Take a drawing compass and draw 10 small concentric arcs expanding
inside each conic section radiating from each slit until they contact the screen.
When drawing the arcs, place the point of the compass needle on each corner of the slit output and draw the overlapping offset arcs. At the points of intersection at the screen draw a small circle around that intersection point and you will have your interference pattern with its phase shift induced by
the slits.
Regards,
LL
Let me suggest something to you. Expand your drawing 3x.
Take a drawing compass and draw 10 small concentric arcs expanding
inside each conic section radiating from each slit until they contact the screen.
When drawing the arcs, place the point of the compass needle on each corner of the slit output and draw the overlapping offset arcs. At the points of intersection at the screen draw a small circle around that intersection point and you will have your interference pattern with its phase shift induced by
the slits.
Regards,
LL
Off topic but of interest re: search for dark matter.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070103/sc_...rkmattervisible
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070103/sc_...rkmattervisible
Hello All,
Another off topic post:
I just read an article about astronomers finding a new black hole in a star cluster
50M light years from us.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070103/sc_...inunlikelyplace
I have often wondered if the reason that black holes don't radiate light is perhaps
because the intense gravitational fields that are present at the surface of the
dense core, located at the center of the black hole energy vortex, modifies
or prevents EM fields from forming a balanced energy EM wave "structure".
To further develop the idea, perhaps the gravitational energy is so compressive
that the normal atomic energy "gap" structure of the atom does not exist as we
know it and therefore electrons cannot jump energy levels to produce EM waves.
All of the concentrated electrical and magnetic energy that is available has
been concentrated to maintain the core's regenerative energy "dynamo".
The potential energy of the core's mass is concentrated as magnetic and
gravitational fields, while the kinetic energy component is maintained as the mass rotates on its axis. The event horizon is the energy point where normal
space ends and gravitationally warped space begins. It is the point where light,
travelling thru the vacuum of space, becomes diffracted due to the effects of gravity bending the path from the normal.
LL
Another off topic post:
I just read an article about astronomers finding a new black hole in a star cluster
50M light years from us.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070103/sc_...inunlikelyplace
I have often wondered if the reason that black holes don't radiate light is perhaps
because the intense gravitational fields that are present at the surface of the
dense core, located at the center of the black hole energy vortex, modifies
or prevents EM fields from forming a balanced energy EM wave "structure".
To further develop the idea, perhaps the gravitational energy is so compressive
that the normal atomic energy "gap" structure of the atom does not exist as we
know it and therefore electrons cannot jump energy levels to produce EM waves.
All of the concentrated electrical and magnetic energy that is available has
been concentrated to maintain the core's regenerative energy "dynamo".
The potential energy of the core's mass is concentrated as magnetic and
gravitational fields, while the kinetic energy component is maintained as the mass rotates on its axis. The event horizon is the energy point where normal
space ends and gravitationally warped space begins. It is the point where light,
travelling thru the vacuum of space, becomes diffracted due to the effects of gravity bending the path from the normal.
LL
Hi Laserlight,
Yes.. I may well have been making a point that refers only to one of the ways I have been attempting to analyse the DSE.
Looking at http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif we can see that the centres of the slits are at about 5.8 and 6.5 on the scale. (I seem to remember calculating the separation to be 0.5mm but the calculation is near enough not to worry me). As far as the double slit interference is concerned the single slit outputs are virtually on top of each other and the single slit diffraction patterns turns into double slit interference when both slits are open. If the slits were further apart then (most of) the diffraction pattern would be the same except where the outputs of the slits overlaps. Point being :- the single slit condition runs smoothly into the double slit condition rather than replacing it. If we imagine deformed and drunken Russian soldiers dashing through the slits we see them forming a very organised pattern in the double slit interference region .. how would they manage to do that?
Diffraction/interference .. there doesn't sem to be much to choose between them except that the two slit interference is spectacular.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Yes.. I may well have been making a point that refers only to one of the ways I have been attempting to analyse the DSE.
Looking at http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif we can see that the centres of the slits are at about 5.8 and 6.5 on the scale. (I seem to remember calculating the separation to be 0.5mm but the calculation is near enough not to worry me). As far as the double slit interference is concerned the single slit outputs are virtually on top of each other and the single slit diffraction patterns turns into double slit interference when both slits are open. If the slits were further apart then (most of) the diffraction pattern would be the same except where the outputs of the slits overlaps. Point being :- the single slit condition runs smoothly into the double slit condition rather than replacing it. If we imagine deformed and drunken Russian soldiers dashing through the slits we see them forming a very organised pattern in the double slit interference region .. how would they manage to do that?
Diffraction/interference .. there doesn't sem to be much to choose between them except that the two slit interference is spectacular.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2,
Now that's funny! The Russian army is really in bad shape.
I don't think we are going to get "there" with your example. I suggest that
we leave the Russian army alone so that they can "recuperate" and get back
to EM wavefunctions. Soldiers represent "particles", not EM wavefronts that
exhibit interference.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
If we imagine deformed and drunken Russian soldiers dashing through the slits we see them forming a very organised pattern in the double slit interference region .. how would they manage to do that?
Now that's funny! The Russian army is really in bad shape.
I don't think we are going to get "there" with your example. I suggest that
we leave the Russian army alone so that they can "recuperate" and get back
to EM wavefunctions. Soldiers represent "particles", not EM wavefronts that
exhibit interference.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jan 4 2007, 12:22 AM)
Hi C2,
Now that's funny! The Russian army is really in bad shape.
I don't think we are going to get "there" with your example. I suggest that
we leave the Russian army alone so that they can "recuperate" and get back
to EM wavefunctions. Soldiers represent "particles", not EM wavefronts that
exhibit interference.
Regards,
LL
What ridiculous pursuit?
Now that's funny! The Russian army is really in bad shape.
I don't think we are going to get "there" with your example. I suggest that
we leave the Russian army alone so that they can "recuperate" and get back
to EM wavefunctions. Soldiers represent "particles", not EM wavefronts that
exhibit interference.
Regards,
LL
What ridiculous pursuit?
Open PM to Laserlight.
I would be very grateful for your assistance to keep this thread roughly 'on topic'. It is bigger than any of us. If we cannot go forwards then we need to look back over what might have been missed.
Best wishes-C2.
I would be very grateful for your assistance to keep this thread roughly 'on topic'. It is bigger than any of us. If we cannot go forwards then we need to look back over what might have been missed.
Best wishes-C2.
C2-
IMO, the horse that we beat to death some weeks ago is now flayed to the bone,
and we are just rehashing past discussion points. I will now just become an
"observer" since, IMO, I have nothing "productive" to contribute to further
discussion on this topic.
Regards,
LL
IMO, the horse that we beat to death some weeks ago is now flayed to the bone,
and we are just rehashing past discussion points. I will now just become an
"observer" since, IMO, I have nothing "productive" to contribute to further
discussion on this topic.
Regards,
LL
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Montec, TRoc, Jal, Duality, yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,
The Rayleigh Criterion for uncorrelated sources...
This is nothing like what really happens. This may be where much of the misunderstanding is coming from... The "spread" depends on wavelength and slit width and separation and can be literally dozens of times larger in proportion to that "illustration" of the Airy Disks you have there.
The two "intensities" from the Fraunhofer Sources combine not as intensities but as correlated phased "arrays" and this is the whole point. There is no neat "overlap region" as you would get in the situation of uncorrelated sources and the Rayleigh Criterion where the first Airy minimum falls on the peak of the other source's central maximum. This would be the case for instance through a telescope where you are viewing two separated optical objects like two different stars separated by a small angular displacement, each one produces an Airy Disk but they do not correlate. While I can show you an Airy Disk I defy you to draw the interference pattern to the same scale on the same page for certain separations and slit width's for correlated sources.
This is not what happens... this is nothing like what happens... The "output" is nothing like "superimposing" the two Airy Disks because these are complex phases and they "mix" and spatially "beat" with themselves....
Wikipedia: Angular resolution - Rayleigh Criterion
This is for the Airy Disks of two separate sources that are NOT correlated and this...
Wikipedia: Phased array
... is for correlated sources.... This is the same theory as we have been discussing for Fraunhofer Diffraction with 'multiple slits". Read up there on it, sync pulses again as before.
Whatever the disputed cause... the "final resting place" of individual photons are the result of "photon one-on-one beam steering". This is why photons end up almost anywhere and not just "along the line of sight". I cannot predict "exactly" which photon goes where but it is the result of some intrinsic property such as the Berry Phase of the individual photon which you just can't "individually" measure.
The Rayleigh Criterion for uncorrelated sources...
This is nothing like what really happens. This may be where much of the misunderstanding is coming from... The "spread" depends on wavelength and slit width and separation and can be literally dozens of times larger in proportion to that "illustration" of the Airy Disks you have there.
The two "intensities" from the Fraunhofer Sources combine not as intensities but as correlated phased "arrays" and this is the whole point. There is no neat "overlap region" as you would get in the situation of uncorrelated sources and the Rayleigh Criterion where the first Airy minimum falls on the peak of the other source's central maximum. This would be the case for instance through a telescope where you are viewing two separated optical objects like two different stars separated by a small angular displacement, each one produces an Airy Disk but they do not correlate. While I can show you an Airy Disk I defy you to draw the interference pattern to the same scale on the same page for certain separations and slit width's for correlated sources.
This is not what happens... this is nothing like what happens... The "output" is nothing like "superimposing" the two Airy Disks because these are complex phases and they "mix" and spatially "beat" with themselves....
Wikipedia: Angular resolution - Rayleigh Criterion
This is for the Airy Disks of two separate sources that are NOT correlated and this...
Wikipedia: Phased array
... is for correlated sources.... This is the same theory as we have been discussing for Fraunhofer Diffraction with 'multiple slits". Read up there on it, sync pulses again as before.
Whatever the disputed cause... the "final resting place" of individual photons are the result of "photon one-on-one beam steering". This is why photons end up almost anywhere and not just "along the line of sight". I cannot predict "exactly" which photon goes where but it is the result of some intrinsic property such as the Berry Phase of the individual photon which you just can't "individually" measure.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
... If we gave a continuous sinewave excitation we'd get the 'right answer'
output = f (Path1,Path2) .. as for the ripple tank.
output = f (Path1,Path2) .. as for the ripple tank.
Take one single photon in isolation and emit it from a very distant source (assuming we call this "travel", as you know I think this is not the photon itself that is moving in the vacuum). It "travels" to the screen through a series of nodes and anti-nodes already existing in the space (and defined by it) as if it was moving in a "cavity". After a period of time this tiny expanding wavelet (a single sync function, seeking all available paths, but complex in nature) arrives at the screen somewhere. There is a flash of light.
At a later time this same source now emits another "isolated" photon with exactly the same physical phase at source (t=0 φ=0) since all photons from this one atomic orbital emit photons with a "beginning" phase which is identical but a sufficiently long time from the first emission so it no longer correlates (the source is not being continuously "stimulated" to emit coherent radiation... in exact step). The photon could emit in any direction and the time of this emission is not related (correlated) with the previous emission's time as a frequency. The two emissions differ only in temporal phase not spatial phase ... they are "orphan lone emission lines". The progress "could" be identical to the first photon. Lets say the photon emits by chance into the same direction. Provided there has been no change in the geometry this second photon encounters the same nodes and anti-nodes on the way to the screen. It gets the same ride along the way and strikes the screen. There is a second flash of light. This photon will fall on the screen and be part of an interference pattern... but not the same pattern as the first photon. It will not "correlate" with the photons already there (just that first one at this stage) so there is no guarantee that it will "construct" the same pattern "with" the former photon. Remember the "construction" causes the photon pattern to be found over an extremely wide area in general. There will also be "sidebands" as well to these lone photons that are the result of the extra frequencies in a single photon packet. These extra frequencies cannot be on the same interference pattern as the other photons since they do not correlate and so fall on their own separate interference patterns which overlap the main interference patterns. The result will be "chromatic aberration" and individual line broadening. Not a big effect but a measurable one.
Next example... A hot incandescent lamp globe is covered with an interference filter which only allows photons of a single discrete frequency out since there are also band blocking filters above and below the interference frequency... one is a high frequency blocking filter and the other is a low frequency blocking filter so only photons of that one monochromatic frequency are able to escape. There are many being emitted but they are not correlated... some are heading toward the slit. They all have the same spatial source phase and frequency but they have different temporal phases (photons emitted at "irregular times". These will subsequently partially cohere "spontaneously" through free space Raman Scattering. This is like all your Russian Soldiers slightly changing step to form up along "spatial" lines rather than choosing to move chaotically. By the time they get to our first slit most have encountered the same nodes and anti-nodes as the first two photons but this time the space is resonating like a bell being repeatedly struck at a critical repetition rate of twice the frequency but each successive strike is opposite in phase to the previous strike which correlate to the "UP" phase followed by a "DOWN" phase. In the analogy of the Russian Soldiers ... first with the left foot then with the right foot etc... This "gaits" the photons spatially on their way to the slits. Unlike Russian Soldiers many of them can occupy the same temporal and spatial position on this "wave". No longer are these photons isolated lines with a wide band of temporal "jitter" being equal to or greater than a period of the base frequency but they now have refined their "timebase" so they form a single narrow line "resonant" at a single spatial and temporal frequency "lockstep" in time and in space. After the first few instants of propagation those sidebands "clean up" and we are dealing with almost "pure" single frequency light but composed essentially of individual complex sync pulses.
We can place a "neutral density (ND) filter" in the way of the first slit to block almost all of the coherent photons... Now there is only one a second passing the slit. What we find is these individual photons still fall on a single diffraction pattern "constructively" since the "timebase" still correlates even though a large number of temporal frequency intervals have passed since the previous photons have passed that ND Filter. The temporal frequency that correlates the source with the sinks on the screen has a repetition rate where the clock can be reset over and over.
Cheers
At a later time this same source now emits another "isolated" photon with exactly the same physical phase at source (t=0 φ=0) since all photons from this one atomic orbital emit photons with a "beginning" phase which is identical but a sufficiently long time from the first emission so it no longer correlates (the source is not being continuously "stimulated" to emit coherent radiation... in exact step). The photon could emit in any direction and the time of this emission is not related (correlated) with the previous emission's time as a frequency. The two emissions differ only in temporal phase not spatial phase ... they are "orphan lone emission lines". The progress "could" be identical to the first photon. Lets say the photon emits by chance into the same direction. Provided there has been no change in the geometry this second photon encounters the same nodes and anti-nodes on the way to the screen. It gets the same ride along the way and strikes the screen. There is a second flash of light. This photon will fall on the screen and be part of an interference pattern... but not the same pattern as the first photon. It will not "correlate" with the photons already there (just that first one at this stage) so there is no guarantee that it will "construct" the same pattern "with" the former photon. Remember the "construction" causes the photon pattern to be found over an extremely wide area in general. There will also be "sidebands" as well to these lone photons that are the result of the extra frequencies in a single photon packet. These extra frequencies cannot be on the same interference pattern as the other photons since they do not correlate and so fall on their own separate interference patterns which overlap the main interference patterns. The result will be "chromatic aberration" and individual line broadening. Not a big effect but a measurable one.
Next example... A hot incandescent lamp globe is covered with an interference filter which only allows photons of a single discrete frequency out since there are also band blocking filters above and below the interference frequency... one is a high frequency blocking filter and the other is a low frequency blocking filter so only photons of that one monochromatic frequency are able to escape. There are many being emitted but they are not correlated... some are heading toward the slit. They all have the same spatial source phase and frequency but they have different temporal phases (photons emitted at "irregular times". These will subsequently partially cohere "spontaneously" through free space Raman Scattering. This is like all your Russian Soldiers slightly changing step to form up along "spatial" lines rather than choosing to move chaotically. By the time they get to our first slit most have encountered the same nodes and anti-nodes as the first two photons but this time the space is resonating like a bell being repeatedly struck at a critical repetition rate of twice the frequency but each successive strike is opposite in phase to the previous strike which correlate to the "UP" phase followed by a "DOWN" phase. In the analogy of the Russian Soldiers ... first with the left foot then with the right foot etc... This "gaits" the photons spatially on their way to the slits. Unlike Russian Soldiers many of them can occupy the same temporal and spatial position on this "wave". No longer are these photons isolated lines with a wide band of temporal "jitter" being equal to or greater than a period of the base frequency but they now have refined their "timebase" so they form a single narrow line "resonant" at a single spatial and temporal frequency "lockstep" in time and in space. After the first few instants of propagation those sidebands "clean up" and we are dealing with almost "pure" single frequency light but composed essentially of individual complex sync pulses.
We can place a "neutral density (ND) filter" in the way of the first slit to block almost all of the coherent photons... Now there is only one a second passing the slit. What we find is these individual photons still fall on a single diffraction pattern "constructively" since the "timebase" still correlates even though a large number of temporal frequency intervals have passed since the previous photons have passed that ND Filter. The temporal frequency that correlates the source with the sinks on the screen has a repetition rate where the clock can be reset over and over.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf, Laserlight, Montec, TRoc, Jal, Duality, yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,
Starting off with optics and waves..
Would it be possible (as a matter of convenience) to select possible diffraction effects from the menu shown here..
http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyo...ffracon.html#c1
It seems Fresnel Diffraction is simply a more detailed analysis of the effect known as Frauenhoffer Diffraction .. it isn't the effect that does or doesn't include a phase component .. it's the rigour of the chosen method of analysis.
I have no particular objection to the existence of Airy discs, the reference here ( http://support.svi.nl/wiki/AiryDisk ) suggests they are normally measured at the focal plane of the lens .. and we have no lens and no focal plane.
I suspect 'Fresnel Diffraction' (Physics) is the same as 'Airy Discs' (Optics). The reference here http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/fresli.html#c1 includes a neat trick with the Cornu spiral which is explained in more detail here http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/fresgeo.html#c2 ..
Sooo.. to me it looks like a Frauenhofer source is really a Fresnel source and a Fresnel source does include phase information.
I see no reason why two of these ( http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/sinslit.html#c1 ) can not be sat next to each other (any distance apart) and as long as we proceed carefully we can get a good analysis without any problems, in particular the two slit result will appear without difficulty. It would simplify the analysis enormously if we consider each slit to have a width that is substantially less than a wavelength and would still give a good physical prediction. There is tedium but no magic in such an analysis.
Starting off with optics and waves..
Would it be possible (as a matter of convenience) to select possible diffraction effects from the menu shown here..
http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyo...ffracon.html#c1
It seems Fresnel Diffraction is simply a more detailed analysis of the effect known as Frauenhoffer Diffraction .. it isn't the effect that does or doesn't include a phase component .. it's the rigour of the chosen method of analysis.
I have no particular objection to the existence of Airy discs, the reference here ( http://support.svi.nl/wiki/AiryDisk ) suggests they are normally measured at the focal plane of the lens .. and we have no lens and no focal plane.
I suspect 'Fresnel Diffraction' (Physics) is the same as 'Airy Discs' (Optics). The reference here http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/fresli.html#c1 includes a neat trick with the Cornu spiral which is explained in more detail here http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/fresgeo.html#c2 ..
QUOTE
the In the Fresnel diffraction case where the curvature of the wavefront is included, the relative phase is not constant and the amplitude elements bend into the spiral curve.
We can go into the calculation of the Cornu spiral if desired .. IMHO it already looks sufficiently evil to cover the requirements of a reasonably full analysis. Sooo.. to me it looks like a Frauenhofer source is really a Fresnel source and a Fresnel source does include phase information.
I see no reason why two of these ( http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/sinslit.html#c1 ) can not be sat next to each other (any distance apart) and as long as we proceed carefully we can get a good analysis without any problems, in particular the two slit result will appear without difficulty. It would simplify the analysis enormously if we consider each slit to have a width that is substantially less than a wavelength and would still give a good physical prediction. There is tedium but no magic in such an analysis.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the In the Fresnel diffraction case where the curvature of the wavefront is included, the relative phase is not constant and the amplitude elements bend into the spiral curve. |
We can go into the calculation of the Cornu spiral if desired .. IMHO it already looks sufficiently evil to cover the requirements of a reasonably full analysis.
Sooo.. to me it looks like a Frauenhofer source is really a Fresnel source and a Fresnel source does include phase information.
I see no reason why two of these ( http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/sinslit.html#c1 ) can not be sat next to each other (any distance apart) and as long as we proceed carefully we can get a good analysis without any problems, in particular the two slit result will appear without difficulty. It would simplify the analysis enormously if we consider each slit to have a width that is substantially less than a wavelength and would still give a good physical prediction. There is tedium but no magic in such an analysis.
This is the same theory as we have been discussing for Fraunhofer Diffraction with 'multiple slits". Read up there on it, sync pulses again as before.
As I work through your post .. up to this point there has been no consideration of anything other than continuous sinewave excitation... at this point there is no justification for claiming a sync pulse would give the same result and a great deal for claiming it wouldn't.
Sooo.. to me it looks like a Frauenhofer source is really a Fresnel source and a Fresnel source does include phase information.
I see no reason why two of these ( http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/sinslit.html#c1 ) can not be sat next to each other (any distance apart) and as long as we proceed carefully we can get a good analysis without any problems, in particular the two slit result will appear without difficulty. It would simplify the analysis enormously if we consider each slit to have a width that is substantially less than a wavelength and would still give a good physical prediction. There is tedium but no magic in such an analysis.
This is the same theory as we have been discussing for Fraunhofer Diffraction with 'multiple slits". Read up there on it, sync pulses again as before.
As I work through your post .. up to this point there has been no consideration of anything other than continuous sinewave excitation... at this point there is no justification for claiming a sync pulse would give the same result and a great deal for claiming it wouldn't.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Whatever the disputed cause... the "final resting place" of individual photons are the result of "photon one-on-one beam steering". This is why photons end up almost anywhere and not just "along the line of sight". I cannot predict "exactly" which photon goes where but it is the result of some intrinsic property such as the Berry Phase of the individual photon which you just can't "individually" measure.
I see this too .. if we knew what steered a photon and how it was organised to steer through two paths of different lengths such that it gives the observed result I think we'd have the answer... not today, I fear.
Enough length and controversy for one post.. more will probably follow in the fullness of time.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I see this too .. if we knew what steered a photon and how it was organised to steer through two paths of different lengths such that it gives the observed result I think we'd have the answer... not today, I fear.
Enough length and controversy for one post.. more will probably follow in the fullness of time.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
if we knew what steered a photon and how it was organised to steer through two paths of different lengths such that it gives the observed result I think we'd have the answer... not today, I fear.
There are no two paths... the photon only travels on one path but it self interferes.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
It seems Fresnel Diffraction is simply a more detailed analysis of the effect known as Fraunhofer Diffraction .. it isn't the effect that does or doesn't include a phase component .. it's the rigour of the chosen method of analysis.
Wikipedia: Fresnel diffraction or near-field diffraction
... The "evanescent region".
Caption: The Fresnel zone is one of a (theoretically infinite) number of a concentric ellipsoids of revolution which define volumes in the radiation pattern of a (usually) circular aperture.
Wikipedia: Huygens-Fresnel principle
Wikipedia: Fraunhofer diffraction or far-field diffraction
A "bit from column A and a bit from column B" depending on the distance from "sources"... primary or secondary.
Wikipedia: Fresnel diffraction or near-field diffraction
... The "evanescent region".
Caption: The Fresnel zone is one of a (theoretically infinite) number of a concentric ellipsoids of revolution which define volumes in the radiation pattern of a (usually) circular aperture.
Wikipedia: Huygens-Fresnel principle
Wikipedia: Fraunhofer diffraction or far-field diffraction
A "bit from column A and a bit from column B" depending on the distance from "sources"... primary or secondary.
QUOTE (Wikipedia: Huygens-Fresnel principle+)
Fourier transforms
The qualitative argument we used to glean some understanding of single slit diffraction using only Huygens' principle is difficult to apply in general to apertures of truly arbitrary shape. The wave that emerges from a point source has amplitude ψ at location r that is given by the solution of the wave equation for a point source. That's exactly what we mean by the Green's function for the wave equation, which is in spherical coordinates
Therefore, if we approximate the amplitude from an aperture as coming from many point sources, we should sum together an infinite number of point sources. But that just describes a surface integral. Thus,
which is simply the spatial Fourier transform of the aperture. Huygens' principle when applied to an aperture simply says that the far-field diffraction pattern is the Fourier transform of the aperture.
Wikipedia: Huygens-Fresnel principle
The sync function is the most simplest function possible to simulate an impulse of finite energy and duration.... that is it! Not only that it actually works!
Please note that this is a spatially distributed complex function and is represented by a complex plane 6 dimensional function (x,y,z,ix,iy,iz) in the real most general three dimensional case. In the same way I can't show you a Fourier Transform in a single snapshot either.
Cheers
The qualitative argument we used to glean some understanding of single slit diffraction using only Huygens' principle is difficult to apply in general to apertures of truly arbitrary shape. The wave that emerges from a point source has amplitude ψ at location r that is given by the solution of the wave equation for a point source. That's exactly what we mean by the Green's function for the wave equation, which is in spherical coordinates
Therefore, if we approximate the amplitude from an aperture as coming from many point sources, we should sum together an infinite number of point sources. But that just describes a surface integral. Thus,
which is simply the spatial Fourier transform of the aperture. Huygens' principle when applied to an aperture simply says that the far-field diffraction pattern is the Fourier transform of the aperture.
Wikipedia: Huygens-Fresnel principle
The sync function is the most simplest function possible to simulate an impulse of finite energy and duration.... that is it! Not only that it actually works!
Please note that this is a spatially distributed complex function and is represented by a complex plane 6 dimensional function (x,y,z,ix,iy,iz) in the real most general three dimensional case. In the same way I can't show you a Fourier Transform in a single snapshot either.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
You've nipped in again! .. I'll post before I lose this then read yours
Coherence and collimation
Let us imagine we have a laser source... we know (because we're told) that this is a reasonably good source of well collimated coherent monochromatic light. The beam from our laser is 1mm across and our slits are 2mm apart .. clearly we can't shine it on both slits at once. This would be an example of a photon that likes a particular path and has no interest in seeking other paths. How does such a photon differ from the more adventurous 'seeking all paths' type photon (or sync pulse if you insist?)
Tests..
1/ We use a half silvered mirror to slit the laser into two paths and create two beams and we shine one beam onto one slit and one onto the other slit. Quantumly divided coherent collimated beams? Interference Yes/No? (My guess is yes.. the pattern may be slighty shifted because using the two beams may introduce an effective path difference before the slits .. this will have the same effect as a path difference after the slit.. a maximum shift of half a wavelength )
2/ We shine the beam onto a translucent glass bead and use this as a source. Interference Yes/No? (My guess is that there will be interference 'in principle' but in practice the random path differences will make it statistically undetectable.)
3/ We shine the beam onto a narrow slit (as usual). This turns our coherent collimated beam into a coherent non-collimated beam .. exactly what we want. The slit would even turn a non-collimated non-coherent beam into a coherent beam.
You've nipped in again! .. I'll post before I lose this then read yours
Coherence and collimation
Let us imagine we have a laser source... we know (because we're told) that this is a reasonably good source of well collimated coherent monochromatic light. The beam from our laser is 1mm across and our slits are 2mm apart .. clearly we can't shine it on both slits at once. This would be an example of a photon that likes a particular path and has no interest in seeking other paths. How does such a photon differ from the more adventurous 'seeking all paths' type photon (or sync pulse if you insist?)
Tests..
1/ We use a half silvered mirror to slit the laser into two paths and create two beams and we shine one beam onto one slit and one onto the other slit. Quantumly divided coherent collimated beams? Interference Yes/No? (My guess is yes.. the pattern may be slighty shifted because using the two beams may introduce an effective path difference before the slits .. this will have the same effect as a path difference after the slit.. a maximum shift of half a wavelength )
2/ We shine the beam onto a translucent glass bead and use this as a source. Interference Yes/No? (My guess is that there will be interference 'in principle' but in practice the random path differences will make it statistically undetectable.)
3/ We shine the beam onto a narrow slit (as usual). This turns our coherent collimated beam into a coherent non-collimated beam .. exactly what we want. The slit would even turn a non-collimated non-coherent beam into a coherent beam.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Take one single photon in isolation and emit it from a very distant source (assuming we call this "travel", as you know I think this is not the photon itself that is moving in the vacuum). It "travels" to the screen through a series of nodes and anti-nodes already existing in the space (and defined by it) as if it was moving in a "cavity". After a period of time this tiny expanding wavelet (a single sync function, seeking all available paths, but complex in nature) arrives at the screen somewhere. There is a flash of light.
In here is a nice account of photons from distant sources .. http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=ap...cl-th%2F0510049 No Raman scattering .. no lots of things .. just a bit of quantum.
Best wishes, -C2.
In here is a nice account of photons from distant sources .. http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=ap...cl-th%2F0510049 No Raman scattering .. no lots of things .. just a bit of quantum.
Best wishes, -C2.
Hi Confused2,
I am getting tired of repeating myself and I am beginning to lose interest. Maybe I am beginning to black out from sheer repetition!!
I am getting tired of repeating myself and I am beginning to lose interest. Maybe I am beginning to black out from sheer repetition!!
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Coherence and collimation
Let us imagine we have a laser source... we know (because we're told) that this is a reasonably good source of well collimated coherent monochromatic light. The beam from our laser is 1mm across and our slits are 2mm apart .. clearly we can't shine it on both slits at once. This would be an example of a photon that likes a particular path and has no interest in seeking other paths. How does such a photon differ from the more adventurous 'seeking all paths' type photon (or sync pulse if you insist?)
Let us imagine we have a laser source... we know (because we're told) that this is a reasonably good source of well collimated coherent monochromatic light. The beam from our laser is 1mm across and our slits are 2mm apart .. clearly we can't shine it on both slits at once. This would be an example of a photon that likes a particular path and has no interest in seeking other paths. How does such a photon differ from the more adventurous 'seeking all paths' type photon (or sync pulse if you insist?)
Use a diverging lens then a collimating lens. This will give you a much wider "parallel" beam, this is implicit in all of this discussion. Otherwise just step back a couple of hundred meters you will find that the beam will still spread eventually. Of course there are "always" sidelobes to the radiation pattern of every source so there is always that effect regardless of collimation or divergence (just considerably weaker). What do you want to know... Fraunhofer Diffraction or Double Slit Interference??? Illuminating a single slit or small circular aperature is just applying a "spatial filter" to the beam. You know what the results are for each. Just remember that a pinhole is a very small optical lens of any nominated focal length except you have applied a very "tight" spatial filter to it.... that is all.
This fact can be used by people with gross deficient optical ability to enable them to see in bright light tightly focussed images of everything up close to infinity with nearly infinite depth of field. A pair of cardboard glasses with one pinhole at the center of each cardboard eyepiece works as well as $100 set of optical frames and lenses in the bright sunlight for "everyone" and for all focal problems.
You must illuminate both slits evenly for really successful double slit interference. Please exercise some "common sense" with your questions. You really need to find out for yourself and therefore you need to read up on some stuff. I do my homework so you should do yours as well so that you ask "non-trivial" questions. The Hanbury-Brown-Twiss Results have no bearing on this thread and though it had some relevance to coherence length we are not doing stellar interferometry here... we are dealing with Young's Double Slit Experiment. I just would like to say I have probably said enough on this thread for any reasonable person to connect up the dots without my writing some kind of Tertiary Textbook. I have provided all the necessary cross-references you need to find out everything you have requested (several times over).
Cheers
This fact can be used by people with gross deficient optical ability to enable them to see in bright light tightly focussed images of everything up close to infinity with nearly infinite depth of field. A pair of cardboard glasses with one pinhole at the center of each cardboard eyepiece works as well as $100 set of optical frames and lenses in the bright sunlight for "everyone" and for all focal problems.
You must illuminate both slits evenly for really successful double slit interference. Please exercise some "common sense" with your questions. You really need to find out for yourself and therefore you need to read up on some stuff. I do my homework so you should do yours as well so that you ask "non-trivial" questions. The Hanbury-Brown-Twiss Results have no bearing on this thread and though it had some relevance to coherence length we are not doing stellar interferometry here... we are dealing with Young's Double Slit Experiment. I just would like to say I have probably said enough on this thread for any reasonable person to connect up the dots without my writing some kind of Tertiary Textbook. I have provided all the necessary cross-references you need to find out everything you have requested (several times over).
Cheers
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Montec, TRoc, Jal, Duality, yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,
I am sorry that I got a little "tetchy" last time but I was a little overtired. We are going in circles and it is difficult to see if we are making any progress at all. I think all we will ever be able to do is supply an alternative to a pure quantum approach as long as the model is confined to three spatial dimensions. It is my contention that there is an indeterminacy in the system which can never be resolved simply due to the process of measurement. Quantum Mechanics makes no attempt to resolve it and "semi-classical" approaches can only show that these photons are simply "consistent" with individual destinies without being able to determine them.
It is a historical fact that Quantum Mechanics "chose" this path at a time when resonance was not considered a primary motivation in explaining outcomes. Since all resonances lead to statistically insignificant outcomes because over time a resonance averages out to a simple "lower density" due to the effect of "frequency", it was probably ignored.
+ 
= 
This is the time dependent part of cavity resonance for an S orbital.
A single proton will produce this cavity resonance anywhere in space... where ever you put it. The proton is not apparently a completely primitive object and is composed of three fractionally charged "quarks" which have different influences on each other and cannot be separated any great distances from each other before the energy of that separation is sufficient to create a new "quark system". The fractional charges and the large masses of the individual quarks are not strictly scalers as we consider charge and mass in the real world. What I mean is all particle theories must bend over backwards to make this all work. Quantum Mechanics offers no mechanism for this other than saying that it just happens.
The 6 quarks and their most likely decay modes. Mass decreases moving from right to left. (Shown are quarks .... there are also anti-quarks)
There are large numbers of other "resonances" and there are two conventional ways to interpret the menagerie of entities... one is the "particle" the other is the "excited state" both "explanations" decay in the time light takes to cross them. If you accept that the "excited state" is the explanation then the answer lies in a unified electromagnetic theory where the individual states we term particles are analogous to the excited states in "optical cavities" in QED. This can lead to a novel interpretation of "supersymmetry".
Once again I apologize for my loss of patience. Lets all try and break new ground not wear a circular patch on it by going in around in circles.
Cheers
I am sorry that I got a little "tetchy" last time but I was a little overtired. We are going in circles and it is difficult to see if we are making any progress at all. I think all we will ever be able to do is supply an alternative to a pure quantum approach as long as the model is confined to three spatial dimensions. It is my contention that there is an indeterminacy in the system which can never be resolved simply due to the process of measurement. Quantum Mechanics makes no attempt to resolve it and "semi-classical" approaches can only show that these photons are simply "consistent" with individual destinies without being able to determine them.
It is a historical fact that Quantum Mechanics "chose" this path at a time when resonance was not considered a primary motivation in explaining outcomes. Since all resonances lead to statistically insignificant outcomes because over time a resonance averages out to a simple "lower density" due to the effect of "frequency", it was probably ignored.
+ = This is the time dependent part of cavity resonance for an S orbital.
A single proton will produce this cavity resonance anywhere in space... where ever you put it. The proton is not apparently a completely primitive object and is composed of three fractionally charged "quarks" which have different influences on each other and cannot be separated any great distances from each other before the energy of that separation is sufficient to create a new "quark system". The fractional charges and the large masses of the individual quarks are not strictly scalers as we consider charge and mass in the real world. What I mean is all particle theories must bend over backwards to make this all work. Quantum Mechanics offers no mechanism for this other than saying that it just happens.
The 6 quarks and their most likely decay modes. Mass decreases moving from right to left. (Shown are quarks .... there are also anti-quarks)
There are large numbers of other "resonances" and there are two conventional ways to interpret the menagerie of entities... one is the "particle" the other is the "excited state" both "explanations" decay in the time light takes to cross them. If you accept that the "excited state" is the explanation then the answer lies in a unified electromagnetic theory where the individual states we term particles are analogous to the excited states in "optical cavities" in QED. This can lead to a novel interpretation of "supersymmetry".
QUOTE
There are two explanations for the peaks, both involving resonances. In one view, the peaks themselves are resonant states or resonances. The resonance is the peak itself, not a particle. Resonances are simply energies at which the cross section of a particle reaches a maximum. In this view, resonances are similar to atomic energy levels, the only difference being that energy levels can be explained by quantum electro-magnetic theory and the need for discussing peak electron levels at certain energies is gone. Elementary particles are not as well understood, so most of the information we have comes from the resonances.
What is a Resonance Particle?
This "second interpretation" of "particles" as "resonances" hardly ever occurs in the literature. It "explains" such things as the mass oscellations in neutrinoes and the way mass is shown to be the result of the "strong interaction" above in the illustration where lower more stable configurations of the "particles" lead to lower masses through "resonance decay". Notice also how there is an indirect relationship between "charge" and "mass".What is a Resonance Particle?
Once again I apologize for my loss of patience. Lets all try and break new ground not wear a circular patch on it by going in around in circles.
Cheers
Good Elf,
Tetchy? My fault entirely, sorry, too caught up in the topic. I will take a break from it.
Best wishes, -C2.
Tetchy? My fault entirely, sorry, too caught up in the topic. I will take a break from it.
Best wishes, -C2.
Whoa. Silence is NOT golden on this topic ! What happened?
Thought experiment: If a single electron generates exactly one wavelength of RF energy from an antenna, and this antenna is surrounded by multiple, exactly equidistant antennas, will all the other antennas see the wave / photon or will just one of them see it ? How? Why?
Thought experiment: If a single electron generates exactly one wavelength of RF energy from an antenna, and this antenna is surrounded by multiple, exactly equidistant antennas, will all the other antennas see the wave / photon or will just one of them see it ? How? Why?
Hi Aerohead, Confused2, Laserlight, Montec, TRoc, Jal, Duality, yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,
QUOTE (Aerohead+)
Whoa. Silence is NOT golden on this topic ! What happened?
As for me... I was just taking a break. My view is that if we all hammer a single topic too hard we become too close to the problem and cannot see the solution anymore. A lot has been said already and to correctly develop a new approach sometimes you just got to step out of a set of circular questions and answers.
I was getting "tetchy"... it is entirely due to my impatience with myself and no fault of anyone else.
I was getting "tetchy"... it is entirely due to my impatience with myself and no fault of anyone else.
QUOTE (Aerohead+)
Thought experiment: If a single electron generates exactly one wavelength of RF energy from an antenna, and this antenna is surrounded by multiple, exactly equidistant antennas, will all the other antennas see the wave / photon or will just one of them see it ? How? Why?
You may be right but what I think may be happening is a single excited photon produces a sync pulse (or this is what it is in the "far field"). This is a fundamental 1/2 a wavelength plus the higher frequency components due to truncation of the sinewave in time. Similar to this cylindrical Cavity Resonator only a spherical one...
Cavity Resonators
(Click to enlarge). What I must do is to remind everyone about is this "abstraction" of this function. This little "wiggly line" has a great deal of "character" and extends far beyond this one dimensional line and is a truly complex "three dimensional form".
Now a slight digresion... A hologram is depth encoded as a volumetric set of three dimensional interference fringes. In the case of photographic emulsions this depth is "imprinted" in the emulsion as light and dark fringing. Illuminating this interference pattern with a reference beam "restores" the original image (or their sources??). The third dimension is required to create the reconstructed image. In the same way the phased array is effectively a "synthetic hologram" substituting phased sources for the holographic pattern.
Creation of the 3D image and restoration. Click to enlarge...
What can this tell us about the phased array? If the phased array sources are accurately correlated they behave as a single large coherent source. Now if single photons can only interfere with themselves then this array effectively behaves like single photon far field sources by reconstructing the wavefront for far field "single photons". The interference pattern from a phased array's nodes and anti-nodes "construct" the far field wavefront of single photons even though they are "near field" sources.
The "reverse" of this phenomenon is where this far field interference pattern is established "inside a block of recording material" such as photo-emulsion or even DVD Medium. The light and dark exposures of the fringes volumetrically inside the material lead to a "negative" of real original wavefront sources interference pattern. A blackened area in the emulsion blocks the waves from a construction beam and the clear unexposed areas now become the new sources (the reverse), This is only a wave number away from the original dark area so we can't distinguish the difference between the original and constructed beam. We could "easily" replace the reconstruction beam with many individual sources driven in synchronization reproducing the original "light and dark" (anti-nodes and nodes) regions of the beam with synchronous phase-related single 1/2 wavelength dipole oscillators place at each anti-node (how to make these oscellators emit one phased photon at a time is still a big problem). These continuous distributed sources appear to be able to "construct" many "in-place" photons propagating in the original direction of the "hologram" and substituting for that original source providing it was "Continuous Wave", in general this is not the case.
In a "Gedanken Experiment" I could build this array right on through a pair of slits with a "rule" that stipulates that where the slits physically are placed the "signal" is passed only on the far side of that slit and blocked elsewhere. What we would find is "double slit interference". The main advantage of this process is "signal amplification" and beam steering. In "free space there is no "signal amplification" so the signal is composed of individual photons that have the ability to "propagate through two holes at once". This is very similar to the "rule" being observed by a series of "slave emitters" on the far side of the slits working in accordance with this "rule" except there is no signal gain. That is at the one frequency of "excitation" one photon approaches the array from the near side of the slit and is absorbed by a "gedanken repeater" and repeated without phase change by all the array "sources" knowing, almost in advance, that this photon is coming and synchronizing the array to retransmit this one photon with the temporal phase and frequency and the central berry phase "intact".
The array knows about the wavefront of this single photon extending a considerable distance from the center of the "disturbance" and repeats it and continues the wavefront forward. It comes to the slit and the "center" of the disturbance either passes through the slit or hits on the mask somewhere else and "dissipating it instantly". If its central point hits on an open slit it repeats the wavefront that this one lone photon had on the far side of the slit but masked by the inter-slit and surrounding slit masks. These are "simulated" by new resonant dipole 1/2 wavelength arrays on the far side creating the characteristic standing wave pattern.
Click to enlarge...
For "two single point source slits" this is the construction for two simple sources (horizontal slice). A and B producing "nodes" at C D E F. Remember these are standing waves not progressive waves... that means the pattern does not move with time as we see in some "water trough illustrations" but only oscellate at antinodes in amplitude... light is "quite different" in that respect.
Or in the case of a single wide slit this construction occurs for each of two slits in the DSE...
Or "something" that causes the same effect. Click to enlarge...
For this process to actually occur the gedanken transmitters at each anti-node must know "instantly" when the photon is coming and permit no delay in the "feed forward" signal and to replicate this standing wave instantly from the individual "sources". If there were any delay this would be seen in the wavefront and this is not possible to detect in experiments so obviously does not occur. The phenomenon is analogous to "LASEING" and in that respect is the "unpumped" equivalent of the same if you think carefully about it and must be an expression of "photon population inversion" in cavities.
Next question... what in nature... in deep intersteller space for instance... where no atoms are permanently stationed... is there to create these "Huygens Signal Repeaters"... the answer is there is no material substances there. All that exists is some kind of physical cavity that exists wherever there are anti-nodes and "non-cavity" in between... the nodes. I realize that zephir will say "the ether" but I reject that as a physical medium.
I think this answers the question you posed by a different analogy to those I have used in the past. Once again the answer is the ability of empty space to communicate "instantly" throughout the universe and to construct "holographically" these standing waves in the traversed medium (or non-medium... the vacuum). Are these cavities "repeating" the signal or are they resonant to the frequency of the incoming signal? Are they physically real and represent some volumetric element we are unable to detect in our three dimensional space? Certainly light takes the same time to cross them as it does all frequencies. Since a cavity needs to be a certain size for each resonant frequency of light, what this is telling us is this "space" is separate from the "space" between points as determined by optics. In empty space light is not dispersed being forced to travel a different path for each frequency. In one case "space" does not enclose cavities being a "3D flatspace" and in this other case it is resonant depending on the exciting frequency... yet light would take longer to travel through it if volumetric space was in the physical shape of a cavity and not "flat". so it would seem that space we view is not the one in which light is "moving" and this overall effect we see is like a shadow on our "spacetime". The question is how does space "know" to signal ahead and keep everything in step? We know it does this from the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment results. Is it because these cavities are really a reflection of the geometry of our "external " universe...
Cavity Resonators
(Click to enlarge). What I must do is to remind everyone about is this "abstraction" of this function. This little "wiggly line" has a great deal of "character" and extends far beyond this one dimensional line and is a truly complex "three dimensional form".
Now a slight digresion... A hologram is depth encoded as a volumetric set of three dimensional interference fringes. In the case of photographic emulsions this depth is "imprinted" in the emulsion as light and dark fringing. Illuminating this interference pattern with a reference beam "restores" the original image (or their sources??). The third dimension is required to create the reconstructed image. In the same way the phased array is effectively a "synthetic hologram" substituting phased sources for the holographic pattern.
Creation of the 3D image and restoration. Click to enlarge...
What can this tell us about the phased array? If the phased array sources are accurately correlated they behave as a single large coherent source. Now if single photons can only interfere with themselves then this array effectively behaves like single photon far field sources by reconstructing the wavefront for far field "single photons". The interference pattern from a phased array's nodes and anti-nodes "construct" the far field wavefront of single photons even though they are "near field" sources.
The "reverse" of this phenomenon is where this far field interference pattern is established "inside a block of recording material" such as photo-emulsion or even DVD Medium. The light and dark exposures of the fringes volumetrically inside the material lead to a "negative" of real original wavefront sources interference pattern. A blackened area in the emulsion blocks the waves from a construction beam and the clear unexposed areas now become the new sources (the reverse), This is only a wave number away from the original dark area so we can't distinguish the difference between the original and constructed beam. We could "easily" replace the reconstruction beam with many individual sources driven in synchronization reproducing the original "light and dark" (anti-nodes and nodes) regions of the beam with synchronous phase-related single 1/2 wavelength dipole oscillators place at each anti-node (how to make these oscellators emit one phased photon at a time is still a big problem). These continuous distributed sources appear to be able to "construct" many "in-place" photons propagating in the original direction of the "hologram" and substituting for that original source providing it was "Continuous Wave", in general this is not the case.
In a "Gedanken Experiment" I could build this array right on through a pair of slits with a "rule" that stipulates that where the slits physically are placed the "signal" is passed only on the far side of that slit and blocked elsewhere. What we would find is "double slit interference". The main advantage of this process is "signal amplification" and beam steering. In "free space there is no "signal amplification" so the signal is composed of individual photons that have the ability to "propagate through two holes at once". This is very similar to the "rule" being observed by a series of "slave emitters" on the far side of the slits working in accordance with this "rule" except there is no signal gain. That is at the one frequency of "excitation" one photon approaches the array from the near side of the slit and is absorbed by a "gedanken repeater" and repeated without phase change by all the array "sources" knowing, almost in advance, that this photon is coming and synchronizing the array to retransmit this one photon with the temporal phase and frequency and the central berry phase "intact".
The array knows about the wavefront of this single photon extending a considerable distance from the center of the "disturbance" and repeats it and continues the wavefront forward. It comes to the slit and the "center" of the disturbance either passes through the slit or hits on the mask somewhere else and "dissipating it instantly". If its central point hits on an open slit it repeats the wavefront that this one lone photon had on the far side of the slit but masked by the inter-slit and surrounding slit masks. These are "simulated" by new resonant dipole 1/2 wavelength arrays on the far side creating the characteristic standing wave pattern.
Click to enlarge...
For "two single point source slits" this is the construction for two simple sources (horizontal slice). A and B producing "nodes" at C D E F. Remember these are standing waves not progressive waves... that means the pattern does not move with time as we see in some "water trough illustrations" but only oscellate at antinodes in amplitude... light is "quite different" in that respect.
Or in the case of a single wide slit this construction occurs for each of two slits in the DSE...
Or "something" that causes the same effect. Click to enlarge...
For this process to actually occur the gedanken transmitters at each anti-node must know "instantly" when the photon is coming and permit no delay in the "feed forward" signal and to replicate this standing wave instantly from the individual "sources". If there were any delay this would be seen in the wavefront and this is not possible to detect in experiments so obviously does not occur. The phenomenon is analogous to "LASEING" and in that respect is the "unpumped" equivalent of the same if you think carefully about it and must be an expression of "photon population inversion" in cavities.
Next question... what in nature... in deep intersteller space for instance... where no atoms are permanently stationed... is there to create these "Huygens Signal Repeaters"... the answer is there is no material substances there. All that exists is some kind of physical cavity that exists wherever there are anti-nodes and "non-cavity" in between... the nodes. I realize that zephir will say "the ether" but I reject that as a physical medium.
I think this answers the question you posed by a different analogy to those I have used in the past. Once again the answer is the ability of empty space to communicate "instantly" throughout the universe and to construct "holographically" these standing waves in the traversed medium (or non-medium... the vacuum). Are these cavities "repeating" the signal or are they resonant to the frequency of the incoming signal? Are they physically real and represent some volumetric element we are unable to detect in our three dimensional space? Certainly light takes the same time to cross them as it does all frequencies. Since a cavity needs to be a certain size for each resonant frequency of light, what this is telling us is this "space" is separate from the "space" between points as determined by optics. In empty space light is not dispersed being forced to travel a different path for each frequency. In one case "space" does not enclose cavities being a "3D flatspace" and in this other case it is resonant depending on the exciting frequency... yet light would take longer to travel through it if volumetric space was in the physical shape of a cavity and not "flat". so it would seem that space we view is not the one in which light is "moving" and this overall effect we see is like a shadow on our "spacetime". The question is how does space "know" to signal ahead and keep everything in step? We know it does this from the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment results. Is it because these cavities are really a reflection of the geometry of our "external " universe...
Good Elf (and all),
Thank you for your intriguing answer to my question. A variant to the original geometry posed above would be : any mix of randomly placed antennas in the far field. For a single pulse at any frequency from our lone transmitter, my problem is this: does the "wave" travel the "field" or does a single (random?) antenna collapse the wave function and produce the "dot on the screen," as it were? If the latter, is there any residual signal ?
Again, thanks. I'll be retiring thinking about your explanation ! ~Jim
Thank you for your intriguing answer to my question. A variant to the original geometry posed above would be : any mix of randomly placed antennas in the far field. For a single pulse at any frequency from our lone transmitter, my problem is this: does the "wave" travel the "field" or does a single (random?) antenna collapse the wave function and produce the "dot on the screen," as it were? If the latter, is there any residual signal ?
Again, thanks. I'll be retiring thinking about your explanation ! ~Jim
Hi Aerohead (Jim), Confused2, Laserlight, Montec, TRoc, Jal, Duality, yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,
Click to enlarge...
It is no calculation but a measurement of the system. You can see the scale and this is a "slice" through a waveguide which is being probed by a STEM providing a two dimensional psi squared value (not probability but electromagnetic field density). These taken from the solution of this equation (Shen's Paper above)...
and not this one (Schrodinger's Equation)...
Since no instrument can directly measure "probability". Click to enlarge images...
QUOTE
A variant to the original geometry posed above would be : any mix of randomly placed antennas in the far field. For a single pulse at any frequency from our lone transmitter, my problem is this: does the "wave" travel the "field" or does a single (random?) antenna collapse the wave function and produce the "dot on the screen," as it were? If the latter, is there any residual signal ?
Others who have viewed this thread understand my point of view (some disagree with it). Here is a solution of the space for the electromagnetic equivalent of Schrodinger's Equation.Click to enlarge...
It is no calculation but a measurement of the system. You can see the scale and this is a "slice" through a waveguide which is being probed by a STEM providing a two dimensional psi squared value (not probability but electromagnetic field density). These taken from the solution of this equation (Shen's Paper above)...
and not this one (Schrodinger's Equation)...
Since no instrument can directly measure "probability". Click to enlarge images...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A variant to the original geometry posed above would be : any mix of randomly placed antennas in the far field. For a single pulse at any frequency from our lone transmitter, my problem is this: does the "wave" travel the "field" or does a single (random?) antenna collapse the wave function and produce the "dot on the screen," as it were? If the latter, is there any residual signal ? |
Others who have viewed this thread understand my point of view (some disagree with it). Here is a solution of the space for the electromagnetic equivalent of Schrodinger's Equation.
Click to enlarge...
It is no calculation but a measurement of the system. You can see the scale and this is a "slice" through a waveguide which is being probed by a STEM providing a two dimensional psi squared value (not probability but electromagnetic field density). These taken from the solution of this equation (Shen's Paper above)...
and not this one (Schrodinger's Equation)...
Since no instrument can directly measure "probability". Click to enlarge images...
A Scanned Perturbation Technique For Imaging Electromagnetic Standing Wave Patterns of Microwave Cavities
Ali Gokirmak, Dong-Ho Wu, J. S. A. Bridgewater, and Steven M. Anlage
Center for Superconductivity Research, Department of Physics, University of
Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-4111
Abstract
We have developed a method to measure the electric field standing wave distributions in a microwave resonator using a scanned perturbation technique. Fast and reliable solutions to the Helmholtz equation (and to the Schrodinger equation for two dimensional systems) with arbitrarily-shaped boundaries are obtained. We use a pin perturbation to image primarily the microwave electric field amplitude, and we demonstrate the ability to image broken time-reversal symmetry standing wave patterns produced with a magnetized ferrite in the cavity. The whole cavity, including areas very close to the walls, can be imaged using this technique with high spatial resolution over a broad range of frequencies.
41.20.-q, 03.65.Ge, 84.40.Zc, 73.23.-b, 74.40.+k
To emphasize the point here is the same cavity at a different frequency...
It is my view that these standing wave patterns exist in "empty" space for each and every frequency a photon can be and is the result of a cavity resonance on the membrane of our Universe (perhaps by that photon). It is also why photons one at a time, with great gaps between, can create a fully consistent standing wave pattern on the screen or in the "bulk" in the Double Slit Interference Experiment. Standard theory suggests that you need many photons to do this... experiment says "NO". They exist inside lasers, inside any confined space and between a "source" and "cavities" and are the result of "deBroglie Matter Waves". I also believe they represent "compact dimensional spaces" that can be excited into existence not by "power" but are the result of events which is actually information in the space. Each anti-node could be a potential source as well as a sink. Each node could be a point of reflection. I think much depends on where the photon's "still point" actually passes. The "still point" is the center around which the spin angular momentum and any orbital angular momentum are focussed.
RADIATION — Waves and Quanta: Note of Louis de Broglie, presented by Jean Perrin.
(Translated from Comptes rendus, Vol. 177, 1923, pp. 507-510)
Now take notice of the comment...
Click to enlarge...
It is no calculation but a measurement of the system. You can see the scale and this is a "slice" through a waveguide which is being probed by a STEM providing a two dimensional psi squared value (not probability but electromagnetic field density). These taken from the solution of this equation (Shen's Paper above)...
and not this one (Schrodinger's Equation)...
Since no instrument can directly measure "probability". Click to enlarge images...
A Scanned Perturbation Technique For Imaging Electromagnetic Standing Wave Patterns of Microwave Cavities
Ali Gokirmak, Dong-Ho Wu, J. S. A. Bridgewater, and Steven M. Anlage
Center for Superconductivity Research, Department of Physics, University of
Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-4111
Abstract
We have developed a method to measure the electric field standing wave distributions in a microwave resonator using a scanned perturbation technique. Fast and reliable solutions to the Helmholtz equation (and to the Schrodinger equation for two dimensional systems) with arbitrarily-shaped boundaries are obtained. We use a pin perturbation to image primarily the microwave electric field amplitude, and we demonstrate the ability to image broken time-reversal symmetry standing wave patterns produced with a magnetized ferrite in the cavity. The whole cavity, including areas very close to the walls, can be imaged using this technique with high spatial resolution over a broad range of frequencies.
41.20.-q, 03.65.Ge, 84.40.Zc, 73.23.-b, 74.40.+k
To emphasize the point here is the same cavity at a different frequency...
It is my view that these standing wave patterns exist in "empty" space for each and every frequency a photon can be and is the result of a cavity resonance on the membrane of our Universe (perhaps by that photon). It is also why photons one at a time, with great gaps between, can create a fully consistent standing wave pattern on the screen or in the "bulk" in the Double Slit Interference Experiment. Standard theory suggests that you need many photons to do this... experiment says "NO". They exist inside lasers, inside any confined space and between a "source" and "cavities" and are the result of "deBroglie Matter Waves". I also believe they represent "compact dimensional spaces" that can be excited into existence not by "power" but are the result of events which is actually information in the space. Each anti-node could be a potential source as well as a sink. Each node could be a point of reflection. I think much depends on where the photon's "still point" actually passes. The "still point" is the center around which the spin angular momentum and any orbital angular momentum are focussed.
RADIATION — Waves and Quanta: Note of Louis de Broglie, presented by Jean Perrin.
(Translated from Comptes rendus, Vol. 177, 1923, pp. 507-510)
Now take notice of the comment...
QUOTE (Comptes rendus: Louis de Broglie+)
The demonstration of this important result rests uniquely on the principle of special relativity and on the correctness of the quantum relationship as much for the fixed observer as for the moving observer.
Let us apply this to an atom of light. I showed elsewhere (2) that the atom of light should be considered as a moving object of a very small mass (<10^-50 g) that moves with a speed very nearly equal to C (although slightly less). We come therefore to the following conclusion: The atom of light, which is equivalent by reason of its total energy to a radiation of frequency ν , is the seat of an internal periodic phenomenon that, seen by the fixed observer, has at each point of space the same phase as a wave of frequency ν propagating in the same direction with a speed very nearly equal (although very slightly greater) to the constant called the speed of light.
Let us apply this to an atom of light. I showed elsewhere (2) that the atom of light should be considered as a moving object of a very small mass (<10^-50 g) that moves with a speed very nearly equal to C (although slightly less). We come therefore to the following conclusion: The atom of light, which is equivalent by reason of its total energy to a radiation of frequency ν , is the seat of an internal periodic phenomenon that, seen by the fixed observer, has at each point of space the same phase as a wave of frequency ν propagating in the same direction with a speed very nearly equal (although very slightly greater) to the constant called the speed of light.
This "fictitious" velocity is the phase velocity of the "photon wave" at the moment of being "absorbed" or "scattered". It is not "inconceivable that at this instant in the near field of the absorbing system that the "stopped clock" of the photon begins to "run" (this phenomenon also happens when the photon was created well within the evanescent field of the source or the sink) a phenomenon that does not occur when the photon is in the "far field" and still propagating.
Another interesting paper in regard to this discussion is this one that I have just discovered..
Cheers
Another interesting paper in regard to this discussion is this one that I have just discovered..
QUOTE
Soliton Solutions to the Einstein Equations in Five Dimensions
R. Clarkson1, R. B. Mann2
Department of Physics, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada
We present a new class of solutions in odd dimensions to Einstein’s equations containing either a positive or negative cosmological constant. These solutions resemble the even-dimensional Eguchi-Hanson–(anti)-de Sitter ((A)dS) metrics, with the added feature of having Lorentzian signatures. They provide an affirmative answer to the open question as to whether or not there exist solutions with negative cosmological constant that asymptotically approach AdS5/Γ, but have less energy than AdS5/Γ. We present evidence that these solutions are the lowest-energy states within their asymptotic class.
arXiv:hep-th/0508109 v2 2 Mar 2006
I am not suggesting that the Universe is only 5 dimensional but this approach is bearing "fruit".R. Clarkson1, R. B. Mann2
Department of Physics, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada
We present a new class of solutions in odd dimensions to Einstein’s equations containing either a positive or negative cosmological constant. These solutions resemble the even-dimensional Eguchi-Hanson–(anti)-de Sitter ((A)dS) metrics, with the added feature of having Lorentzian signatures. They provide an affirmative answer to the open question as to whether or not there exist solutions with negative cosmological constant that asymptotically approach AdS5/Γ, but have less energy than AdS5/Γ. We present evidence that these solutions are the lowest-energy states within their asymptotic class.
arXiv:hep-th/0508109 v2 2 Mar 2006
Cheers
Hi GE, all,
What happens if we put magnifying lenses in the slits? Is there still interference?
What happens if we put magnifying lenses in the slits? Is there still interference?
Hi Bee,
QUOTE (Bee+)
What happens if we put magnifying lenses in the slits? Is there still interference?
The interference is there regardless. I assume that you mean inserting two small lenses in the slits? Just to clarify the "process" here, the slits can be replaced by two small apertures (tiny circular holes) which are effectively a "camera obscura" or pinhole camera. These "holes" behave like a lens... the central part of a lens. Clarifying... like putting any lens at all in front or behind the tiny hole (which acts like a spatial filter). In the central portion (at least a pinhole area of any lens) the lens always behaves just like a pane of glass since both surfaces of the lens are "almost" parallel and would still converge light to the focal length. If we replace this "lens" with just the hole this central region behaves like the "rays" are passing only through the central part of a lens and the focal length is "anywhere". It is not a perfect lens but it does work like one to a "convincing" extent. In the world of Optical and Radio Astronomy large "virtual lenses" are constructed from a series of smaller lenses or mirrors and combined "electronically". These are "arrays" and they need to meet the exacting requirements of path length addition and subtraction before they can be used to "construct" larger virtual "mirrors" or "apertures". In this sense a double slit is an "array" of two matched sources they behave the same regardless of the material they are constructed. A "slit" is simply a "sub-array" of a linear series of closely spaced "pinhole" elements. Two of these "sub-arrays" are used to construct the classic Young's Experiment of double slit interference. For this array to behave as one large single source signal the individual "sources" need to be combined using a suitable delay line between them. Then the "electronic sum" can be used to produce larger intensities than just a single source. The question is do we want to produce a single image or do we simply want to produce interference fringing due to the separation? This is a decision made by the experimenter and the application.
In the case of "telescopes" we do not want to produce a stack of interference lines from one isolated source, we want to produce a "polychromatic" or "monochromatic" image of the multiple sources (a star field or clusters of stars or galaxies) reconstructed by "adding" all the signals from all dedicated radio or optical receivers to produce a very large synthetic aperture image. We do this latter trick by adding a "delay" to all the signals equivalent to the individual delays between the separate receivers based on their different spatial positions (radio receivers of even optical lenses) producing an "effective" single array of two dimensional information that all lie in the one "effective optical plane" (adjusted for propagation times) within a tiny fraction of a wavelength of the observing frequency. It is far easier to build and to point and "sum" a large number of smaller diameter (aperture) receivers than to make a single large diameter (aperture) receiver and then finding a way to point it easily without the whole thing sagging under its own colossal weight. The biggest optical (and radio) telescopes in the world are nowadays "arrays".
Cheers
In the case of "telescopes" we do not want to produce a stack of interference lines from one isolated source, we want to produce a "polychromatic" or "monochromatic" image of the multiple sources (a star field or clusters of stars or galaxies) reconstructed by "adding" all the signals from all dedicated radio or optical receivers to produce a very large synthetic aperture image. We do this latter trick by adding a "delay" to all the signals equivalent to the individual delays between the separate receivers based on their different spatial positions (radio receivers of even optical lenses) producing an "effective" single array of two dimensional information that all lie in the one "effective optical plane" (adjusted for propagation times) within a tiny fraction of a wavelength of the observing frequency. It is far easier to build and to point and "sum" a large number of smaller diameter (aperture) receivers than to make a single large diameter (aperture) receiver and then finding a way to point it easily without the whole thing sagging under its own colossal weight. The biggest optical (and radio) telescopes in the world are nowadays "arrays".
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jan 10 2007, 11:11 PM)
Hi Bee,
QUOTE (Bee+)
What happens if we put magnifying lenses in the slits? Is there still interference?
The interference is there regardless. I assume that you mean inserting two small lenses in the slits? Just to clarify the "process" here, the slits can be replaced by two small apertures (tiny circular holes) which are effectively a "camera obscura" or pinhole camera. These "holes" behave like a lens... the central part of a lens. Clarifying... like putting any lens at all in front or behind the tiny hole (which acts like a spatial filter). In the central portion (at least a pinhole area of any lens) the lens always behaves just like a pane of glass since both surfaces of the lens are "almost" parallel and would still converge light to the focal length. If we replace this "lens" with just the hole this central region behaves like the "rays" are passing only through the central part of a lens and the focal length is "anywhere". It is not a perfect lens but it does work like one to a "convincing" extent. In the world of Optical and Radio Astronomy large "virtual lenses" are constructed from a series of smaller lenses or mirrors and combined "electronically". These are "arrays" and they need to meet the exacting requirements of path length addition and subtraction before they can be used to "construct" larger virtual "mirrors" or "apertures". In this sense a double slit is an "array" of two matched sources they behave the same regardless of the material they are constructed. A "slit" is simply a "sub-array" of a linear series of closely spaced "pinhole" elements. Two of these "sub-arrays" are used to construct the classic Young's Experiment of double slit interference. For this array to behave as one large single source signal the individual "sources" need to be combined using a suitable delay line between them. Then the "electronic sum" can be used to produce larger intensities than just a single source. The question is do we want to produce a single image or do we simply want to produce interference fringing due to the separation? This is a decision made by the experimenter and the application.
In the case of "telescopes" we do not want to produce a stack of interference lines from one isolated source, we want to produce a "polychromatic" or "monochromatic" image of the multiple sources (a star field or clusters of stars or galaxies) reconstructed by "adding" all the signals from all dedicated radio or optical receivers to produce a very large synthetic aperture image. We do this latter trick by adding a "delay" to all the signals equivalent to the individual delays between the separate receivers based on their different spatial positions (radio receivers of even optical lenses) producing an "effective" single array of two dimensional information that all lie in the one "effective optical plane" (adjusted for propagation times) within a tiny fraction of a wavelength of the observing frequency. It is far easier to build and to point and "sum" a large number of smaller diameter (aperture) receivers than to make a single large diameter (aperture) receiver and then finding a way to point it easily without the whole thing sagging under its own colossal weight. The biggest optical (and radio) telescopes in the world are nowadays "arrays".
Cheers
Someone has found a nanostructured mirror that reverses the magnetic field component of a lightwave instead of the electric field component. If the the sides of the slits which have thickness of a a few microns are made to reflect light wave magnetic components it might affect the resulting diffraction patterns. Reducing the reflectivity of the sides of the slits to close to zero might affect the resulting diffraction patterns.
In the case of "telescopes" we do not want to produce a stack of interference lines from one isolated source, we want to produce a "polychromatic" or "monochromatic" image of the multiple sources (a star field or clusters of stars or galaxies) reconstructed by "adding" all the signals from all dedicated radio or optical receivers to produce a very large synthetic aperture image. We do this latter trick by adding a "delay" to all the signals equivalent to the individual delays between the separate receivers based on their different spatial positions (radio receivers of even optical lenses) producing an "effective" single array of two dimensional information that all lie in the one "effective optical plane" (adjusted for propagation times) within a tiny fraction of a wavelength of the observing frequency. It is far easier to build and to point and "sum" a large number of smaller diameter (aperture) receivers than to make a single large diameter (aperture) receiver and then finding a way to point it easily without the whole thing sagging under its own colossal weight. The biggest optical (and radio) telescopes in the world are nowadays "arrays".
Cheers
Someone has found a nanostructured mirror that reverses the magnetic field component of a lightwave instead of the electric field component. If the the sides of the slits which have thickness of a a few microns are made to reflect light wave magnetic components it might affect the resulting diffraction patterns. Reducing the reflectivity of the sides of the slits to close to zero might affect the resulting diffraction patterns.
Hi GE and All!
GE we are in agreement....
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=158695
Regards,
LL
GE we are in agreement....
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=158695
Regards,
LL
Hi Laserlight,
Click to enlarge...
While this would at first sight provide a reasonable facsimile of the "outside world" using a transparency(input space signal) and substituting pinholes for some of the Fourier lenses... It is not a real perfect synthesis since it lacks the third dimension and source phase information. This substitution is at best imperfect and at worst is wrong. Individual sources must be constructed as by holographic technique on the Fourier plane of the holes or slits. In effect the Fourier Transform Plane of the pinholes are Holographic sources of the original sources (identical in all respects) encoded in the third dimension (standing waves providing those fringes in depth in that unseen space", one at each anti-node in that space.
Since these antinodes are "individually discrete" this means this holographic wave can "pass" through the barrier. Don't you agree?
Actually this reference shows these fringes and interferences a little better... encoded in the "empty space"...
This shows a recording medium but in actual fact in "free space" these are nodes and anti-nodes.
Cheers
PS: I would also like to correct a misconception as well about Holographic Recording and Re-construction. The reference beam is not necessary in general and you can make perfectly good holograms with a single beam (the original beam). This is because lasers produce instant standing waves in space without further interferences. Better illumination may be afforded with more than one beam but not necessary. I can show you references for that. You then use an illuminating beam to reconstruct from directly forward. This is where some misconceptions might arise. Thus "fringes" are the nodes and anti-nodes and their light sensitive boundaries. In an interferometer for instance the "fringes" occur between anti-nodes as dark lines but they actually are part of the combined surfaces around an optical cavity.
Look at this...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mo...n_of_bricks.jpg
Look at the badly down sampled image of them....
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mo...ricks_small.jpg
QUOTE
Yep... I am sure we are. The small "bone of contention" remains in the preservation of the qubit. It is my view that a photon cannot be interfered with without loss of the qubit. The "synthetic" process I outlined only mimics the real process in which a qubit cannot be lost for this to work. The single sources in the DSE are "simple" in that they are "amorphous" point sources. So in a way you can substitute another single amorphous point source for the original but I believe that the qubit is then lost. This qubit relates to the source information, right back to the "original source". In the case of a single pinhole source (a camera obscura) you can understand that the original source is all the distributed sources on the other side of the pinhole. There is a complex array of sources "out there" that combine to form the final image. You could simulate this distributed source using an optical slide of "outside" then doing a 2D transform of this source and passing it through this optical spatial filter to "converge" to the image on the screen. Click to enlarge...
While this would at first sight provide a reasonable facsimile of the "outside world" using a transparency(input space signal) and substituting pinholes for some of the Fourier lenses... It is not a real perfect synthesis since it lacks the third dimension and source phase information. This substitution is at best imperfect and at worst is wrong. Individual sources must be constructed as by holographic technique on the Fourier plane of the holes or slits. In effect the Fourier Transform Plane of the pinholes are Holographic sources of the original sources (identical in all respects) encoded in the third dimension (standing waves providing those fringes in depth in that unseen space", one at each anti-node in that space.
Since these antinodes are "individually discrete" this means this holographic wave can "pass" through the barrier. Don't you agree?
Actually this reference shows these fringes and interferences a little better... encoded in the "empty space"...
This shows a recording medium but in actual fact in "free space" these are nodes and anti-nodes.
Cheers
PS: I would also like to correct a misconception as well about Holographic Recording and Re-construction. The reference beam is not necessary in general and you can make perfectly good holograms with a single beam (the original beam). This is because lasers produce instant standing waves in space without further interferences. Better illumination may be afforded with more than one beam but not necessary. I can show you references for that. You then use an illuminating beam to reconstruct from directly forward. This is where some misconceptions might arise. Thus "fringes" are the nodes and anti-nodes and their light sensitive boundaries. In an interferometer for instance the "fringes" occur between anti-nodes as dark lines but they actually are part of the combined surfaces around an optical cavity.
Look at this...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mo...n_of_bricks.jpg
Look at the badly down sampled image of them....
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mo...ricks_small.jpg
Hi Good Elf and All,
Hmmm, not sure that I agree with this. IMO, the DSE slits are "phased"
point sources. I say "phased" meaning that it is relative to distance and timing
of the signal, which provides 2 points of perspective for the same transmitted
information. They represent a phase separation of the "coincidence" of the signal.
The original qubit information that each slit transmits is the same but is phase
shifted in time and distance. This would have to be true if photons radiate/propagate
as expanding "dipole" waves from an originating point source.
Hmmm, not sure that I agree with this. IMO, the DSE slits are "phased"
point sources. I say "phased" meaning that it is relative to distance and timing
of the signal, which provides 2 points of perspective for the same transmitted
information. They represent a phase separation of the "coincidence" of the signal.
The original qubit information that each slit transmits is the same but is phase
shifted in time and distance. This would have to be true if photons radiate/propagate
as expanding "dipole" waves from an originating point source.
PS: I would also like to correct a misconception as well about Holographic Recording and Re-construction. The reference beam is not necessary in general and you can make perfectly good holograms with a single beam (the original beam). This is because lasers produce instant standing waves in space without further interferences. Better illumination may be afforded with more than one beam but not necessary. I can show you references for that. You then use an illuminating beam to reconstruct from directly forward. This is where some misconceptions might arise. Thus "fringes" are the nodes and anti-nodes and their light sensitive boundaries. In an interferometer for instance the "fringes" occur between anti-nodes as dark lines but they actually are part of the combined surfaces around an optical cavity.
Instant standing waves? IMO, only due to the fact that they are coherent from
a relative time perspective. In other words, the EM waves are time phase aligned,
relative to each other. They are progressing in perfectly ordered phase sequence.
due to their beam "confinement".
Perhaps this could be considered standing waves, but standing waves typically only
occur when there is coherence due to "reflection" from matter. Standing waves
are a timing over cavity dimension "coincidence" factor.
In the case of holographic interference, that only occurs when matter has been
displaced from its atomically "structured" matrix position in a
symmetrically "organized" lattice.
Amorphous materials shouldn't exhibit any signs of interference since their
atomic structure is randomized and no "phase" relationship exists between atoms.
If the atoms get displaced you couldn't detect it without establishing some
organized atomic pattern or using a reference beam to provide some relative
atomic or timing relationship symmetry.
Comments, discussion welcomed.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
The "synthetic" process I outlined only mimics the real process in which a qubit cannot be lost for this to work. The single sources in the DSE are "simple" in that they are "amorphous" point sources.
Hmmm, not sure that I agree with this. IMO, the DSE slits are "phased"
point sources. I say "phased" meaning that it is relative to distance and timing
of the signal, which provides 2 points of perspective for the same transmitted
information. They represent a phase separation of the "coincidence" of the signal.
The original qubit information that each slit transmits is the same but is phase
shifted in time and distance. This would have to be true if photons radiate/propagate
as expanding "dipole" waves from an originating point source.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The "synthetic" process I outlined only mimics the real process in which a qubit cannot be lost for this to work. The single sources in the DSE are "simple" in that they are "amorphous" point sources. |
Hmmm, not sure that I agree with this. IMO, the DSE slits are "phased"
point sources. I say "phased" meaning that it is relative to distance and timing
of the signal, which provides 2 points of perspective for the same transmitted
information. They represent a phase separation of the "coincidence" of the signal.
The original qubit information that each slit transmits is the same but is phase
shifted in time and distance. This would have to be true if photons radiate/propagate
as expanding "dipole" waves from an originating point source.
PS: I would also like to correct a misconception as well about Holographic Recording and Re-construction. The reference beam is not necessary in general and you can make perfectly good holograms with a single beam (the original beam). This is because lasers produce instant standing waves in space without further interferences. Better illumination may be afforded with more than one beam but not necessary. I can show you references for that. You then use an illuminating beam to reconstruct from directly forward. This is where some misconceptions might arise. Thus "fringes" are the nodes and anti-nodes and their light sensitive boundaries. In an interferometer for instance the "fringes" occur between anti-nodes as dark lines but they actually are part of the combined surfaces around an optical cavity.
Instant standing waves? IMO, only due to the fact that they are coherent from
a relative time perspective. In other words, the EM waves are time phase aligned,
relative to each other. They are progressing in perfectly ordered phase sequence.
due to their beam "confinement".
Perhaps this could be considered standing waves, but standing waves typically only
occur when there is coherence due to "reflection" from matter. Standing waves
are a timing over cavity dimension "coincidence" factor.
In the case of holographic interference, that only occurs when matter has been
displaced from its atomically "structured" matrix position in a
symmetrically "organized" lattice.
Amorphous materials shouldn't exhibit any signs of interference since their
atomic structure is randomized and no "phase" relationship exists between atoms.
If the atoms get displaced you couldn't detect it without establishing some
organized atomic pattern or using a reference beam to provide some relative
atomic or timing relationship symmetry.
Comments, discussion welcomed.
Regards,
LL
Hi Laserlight,
I agree that it is "phased" sources... I do not agree there are such things as "point sources". Considering that a single photon can carry Orbital Angular Momentum and that OAM can have an infinite number of quantum states, it is possible to think there is a single photon traveling toward us this instant from a distant interstellar source which has encoded on it the sum total of knowledge of that advanced civilization. It is irrelevant to know that our civilization can decode at best only the first few primary modes. It is well to know that there is much we do not know about "some" sources. You are saying this information is transferable using your "imperfect process"?
As to the existence of "matter waves" it is difficult to say what exists between two atoms existing at highly separated points in space. If a series of "coherent" nodes and anti-nodes "pre-exist" it is possible to understand an information transfer will be possible. You have concentrated on "energy", I prefer to say that the Universe is more about information and it would appear according to many theories there is a law of conservation of information (even inside "black holes"). If "events" are the defining "atom" in our Universe then this supercedes energy processes and these quantum states are the "messengers" of information connecting points through these "events". Where you see chaos and disorder I see an underlying order that is difficult to determine but may be the reason why we experience time itself.
Irreconcilable differences of opinion.
Though I would have thought that the nature of the quantum is "stock standard".
Cheers
I agree that it is "phased" sources... I do not agree there are such things as "point sources". Considering that a single photon can carry Orbital Angular Momentum and that OAM can have an infinite number of quantum states, it is possible to think there is a single photon traveling toward us this instant from a distant interstellar source which has encoded on it the sum total of knowledge of that advanced civilization. It is irrelevant to know that our civilization can decode at best only the first few primary modes. It is well to know that there is much we do not know about "some" sources. You are saying this information is transferable using your "imperfect process"?
As to the existence of "matter waves" it is difficult to say what exists between two atoms existing at highly separated points in space. If a series of "coherent" nodes and anti-nodes "pre-exist" it is possible to understand an information transfer will be possible. You have concentrated on "energy", I prefer to say that the Universe is more about information and it would appear according to many theories there is a law of conservation of information (even inside "black holes"). If "events" are the defining "atom" in our Universe then this supercedes energy processes and these quantum states are the "messengers" of information connecting points through these "events". Where you see chaos and disorder I see an underlying order that is difficult to determine but may be the reason why we experience time itself.
Irreconcilable differences of opinion.
Though I would have thought that the nature of the quantum is "stock standard".Cheers
Hi Good Elf, Laserlight ..
Nothing from me recently as my ideas come and go too quickly to be worth posting.
"Instant standing waves?"
One of the commonest aerials is the quarter wave whip .. this is a quarter wave ( ) length of wire standing vertically up from a conductive 'ground plane'. The thing is fed from the bottom ( 50 ohm impedance ). The E field meets the conductor at 90 degrees and forms an 'image' which is the 'other half' of the dipole. The image is 180 degrees out of phase with the 'real' pole. I don't know if this helps anyone else .. it certainly doesn't help me.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Nothing from me recently as my ideas come and go too quickly to be worth posting.
"Instant standing waves?"
One of the commonest aerials is the quarter wave whip .. this is a quarter wave (
) length of wire standing vertically up from a conductive 'ground plane'. The thing is fed from the bottom ( 50 ohm impedance ). The E field meets the conductor at 90 degrees and forms an 'image' which is the 'other half' of the dipole. The image is 180 degrees out of phase with the 'real' pole. I don't know if this helps anyone else .. it certainly doesn't help me.Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Good Elf, C2, and All,
Let me provide an example of a point source. I have lots of experience with
RF induced, low pressure, plasma's. In my example each individual gas molecule in a vacuum
chamber is irradiated with an applied RF energy field that exists between an
anode and a cathode. Each stimulated gas atom emits light of a specific wavelength (color).
The intensity of the light emitted is directly proportional to the power of the
energy applied and the number of atoms (pressure) available in the vacuum
chamber. Each stimulated atom emits a constant wavelength of photons, which
can be considered an information "bit". Together all these emitted photons
provide a continuous "movie" of the state of the energized plasma over a time
base. The only information being emitted is energy output, wavelength, and plasma position/condition at some period of time.
If you think about watching a recorded movie, we are seeing a record of an
organized pattern of wavelengths that have produced a continuous stream of
images in time. The image is a continuous dynamic occurance, since it varies in
intensity, position, and information relative to time. A single photon, radiated from
a single atomic location, represents an information "pixel" about that location
at a specific point in time. All of the photon "pixels", that are recorded at that
same exact point in time, represent a snapshot of the radiating state of each atom
at that same moment.
My point being that an individual photon only provides a very limited amount
of information, which is location and point in time. An individual point source atom is being
stimulated and is radiating, or it isn't. In order to convey usable position and
atomic "state" information requires a constant stream of time relavant and detectable pattern information. Individual bits of information only provide a tiny
amount of information. It is emission "patterns", over time, that provide
decipherable and useful information.
Let me provide an example of a point source. I have lots of experience with
RF induced, low pressure, plasma's. In my example each individual gas molecule in a vacuum
chamber is irradiated with an applied RF energy field that exists between an
anode and a cathode. Each stimulated gas atom emits light of a specific wavelength (color).
The intensity of the light emitted is directly proportional to the power of the
energy applied and the number of atoms (pressure) available in the vacuum
chamber. Each stimulated atom emits a constant wavelength of photons, which
can be considered an information "bit". Together all these emitted photons
provide a continuous "movie" of the state of the energized plasma over a time
base. The only information being emitted is energy output, wavelength, and plasma position/condition at some period of time.
If you think about watching a recorded movie, we are seeing a record of an
organized pattern of wavelengths that have produced a continuous stream of
images in time. The image is a continuous dynamic occurance, since it varies in
intensity, position, and information relative to time. A single photon, radiated from
a single atomic location, represents an information "pixel" about that location
at a specific point in time. All of the photon "pixels", that are recorded at that
same exact point in time, represent a snapshot of the radiating state of each atom
at that same moment.
My point being that an individual photon only provides a very limited amount
of information, which is location and point in time. An individual point source atom is being
stimulated and is radiating, or it isn't. In order to convey usable position and
atomic "state" information requires a constant stream of time relavant and detectable pattern information. Individual bits of information only provide a tiny
amount of information. It is emission "patterns", over time, that provide
decipherable and useful information.
You have concentrated on "energy", I prefer to say that the Universe is more about information and it would appear according to many theories there is a law of conservation of information (even inside "black holes"). If "events" are the defining "atom" in our Universe then this supercedes energy processes and these quantum states are the "messengers" of information connecting points through these "events". Where you see chaos and disorder I see an underlying order that is difficult to determine but may be the reason why we experience time itself.
Now you are putting words in my mouth.
The release of energy is a function of time that an event occured. Energy IS information.
The reason black holes do not provide information is that they do not allow the
formation of photon patterns of information. Light is never emitted as a pattern
because atoms are so densely packed by gravity that electrons are locked
or "immobilized" in their orbits and cannot change energy levels to radiate
photons, but the core mass can radiate massive gravity and magnetic fields.
Comments, discussion, other opinions welcomed.
LL
QUOTE
I agree that it is "phased" sources... I do not agree there are such things as "point sources". Considering that a single photon can carry Orbital Angular Momentum and that OAM can have an infinite number of quantum states, it is possible to think there is a single photon traveling toward us this instant from a distant interstellar source which has encoded on it the sum total of knowledge of that advanced civilization.
Let me provide an example of a point source. I have lots of experience with
RF induced, low pressure, plasma's. In my example each individual gas molecule in a vacuum
chamber is irradiated with an applied RF energy field that exists between an
anode and a cathode. Each stimulated gas atom emits light of a specific wavelength (color).
The intensity of the light emitted is directly proportional to the power of the
energy applied and the number of atoms (pressure) available in the vacuum
chamber. Each stimulated atom emits a constant wavelength of photons, which
can be considered an information "bit". Together all these emitted photons
provide a continuous "movie" of the state of the energized plasma over a time
base. The only information being emitted is energy output, wavelength, and plasma position/condition at some period of time.
If you think about watching a recorded movie, we are seeing a record of an
organized pattern of wavelengths that have produced a continuous stream of
images in time. The image is a continuous dynamic occurance, since it varies in
intensity, position, and information relative to time. A single photon, radiated from
a single atomic location, represents an information "pixel" about that location
at a specific point in time. All of the photon "pixels", that are recorded at that
same exact point in time, represent a snapshot of the radiating state of each atom
at that same moment.
My point being that an individual photon only provides a very limited amount
of information, which is location and point in time. An individual point source atom is being
stimulated and is radiating, or it isn't. In order to convey usable position and
atomic "state" information requires a constant stream of time relavant and detectable pattern information. Individual bits of information only provide a tiny
amount of information. It is emission "patterns", over time, that provide
decipherable and useful information.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I agree that it is "phased" sources... I do not agree there are such things as "point sources". Considering that a single photon can carry Orbital Angular Momentum and that OAM can have an infinite number of quantum states, it is possible to think there is a single photon traveling toward us this instant from a distant interstellar source which has encoded on it the sum total of knowledge of that advanced civilization. |
Let me provide an example of a point source. I have lots of experience with
RF induced, low pressure, plasma's. In my example each individual gas molecule in a vacuum
chamber is irradiated with an applied RF energy field that exists between an
anode and a cathode. Each stimulated gas atom emits light of a specific wavelength (color).
The intensity of the light emitted is directly proportional to the power of the
energy applied and the number of atoms (pressure) available in the vacuum
chamber. Each stimulated atom emits a constant wavelength of photons, which
can be considered an information "bit". Together all these emitted photons
provide a continuous "movie" of the state of the energized plasma over a time
base. The only information being emitted is energy output, wavelength, and plasma position/condition at some period of time.
If you think about watching a recorded movie, we are seeing a record of an
organized pattern of wavelengths that have produced a continuous stream of
images in time. The image is a continuous dynamic occurance, since it varies in
intensity, position, and information relative to time. A single photon, radiated from
a single atomic location, represents an information "pixel" about that location
at a specific point in time. All of the photon "pixels", that are recorded at that
same exact point in time, represent a snapshot of the radiating state of each atom
at that same moment.
My point being that an individual photon only provides a very limited amount
of information, which is location and point in time. An individual point source atom is being
stimulated and is radiating, or it isn't. In order to convey usable position and
atomic "state" information requires a constant stream of time relavant and detectable pattern information. Individual bits of information only provide a tiny
amount of information. It is emission "patterns", over time, that provide
decipherable and useful information.
You have concentrated on "energy", I prefer to say that the Universe is more about information and it would appear according to many theories there is a law of conservation of information (even inside "black holes"). If "events" are the defining "atom" in our Universe then this supercedes energy processes and these quantum states are the "messengers" of information connecting points through these "events". Where you see chaos and disorder I see an underlying order that is difficult to determine but may be the reason why we experience time itself.
Now you are putting words in my mouth.
The release of energy is a function of time that an event occured. Energy IS information.
The reason black holes do not provide information is that they do not allow the
formation of photon patterns of information. Light is never emitted as a pattern
because atoms are so densely packed by gravity that electrons are locked
or "immobilized" in their orbits and cannot change energy levels to radiate
photons, but the core mass can radiate massive gravity and magnetic fields.
Comments, discussion, other opinions welcomed.
LL
Hi Laserlight, Good Elf et al,
[quote=Laserlight] [.. of a hot plasma.. ] If you think about watching a recorded movie, we are seeing a record of an organized pattern of wavelengths that have produced a continuous stream of images in time. The image is a continuous dynamic occurance, since it varies in intensity, position, and information relative to time. A single photon, radiated from a single atomic location, represents an information "pixel" about that location at a specific point in time. All of the photon "pixels", that are recorded at that same exact point in time, represent a snapshot of the radiating state of each atom at that same moment.[quote]
If you look at your hot plasma you can't tell which atom emitted a photon .. you can't triangulate in on one atom because you've only got one photon to go on. You might stand a chance statistically but I get the impression fields are in and statistics are out. What you could do is put one atom in a known location and when it emitted a photon .. would you know more than you did before about where it was?
Best wishes,
-C2.
[quote=Laserlight] [.. of a hot plasma.. ] If you think about watching a recorded movie, we are seeing a record of an organized pattern of wavelengths that have produced a continuous stream of images in time. The image is a continuous dynamic occurance, since it varies in intensity, position, and information relative to time. A single photon, radiated from a single atomic location, represents an information "pixel" about that location at a specific point in time. All of the photon "pixels", that are recorded at that same exact point in time, represent a snapshot of the radiating state of each atom at that same moment.[quote]
If you look at your hot plasma you can't tell which atom emitted a photon .. you can't triangulate in on one atom because you've only got one photon to go on. You might stand a chance statistically but I get the impression fields are in and statistics are out. What you could do is put one atom in a known location and when it emitted a photon .. would you know more than you did before about where it was?
Best wishes,
-C2.
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jan 11 2007, 09:41 AM)
The release of energy is a function of time that an event occured. Energy IS information.
Nice to hear someone else say that!
Better yet, nice to see this thread going again. I missed you guys!!!!!!!
the only good thread around, really.
Nice to hear someone else say that!
Better yet, nice to see this thread going again. I missed you guys!!!!!!!
the only good thread around, really.
Hi C2, THEY, GE, and All!
C2, you are exactly correct! Atoms in a plasma are extremely
dynamic...constantly moving, and being moved, by gas collisions, RF field displacements, DC voltage biases, and thermal effects. My point being that
each atom is individually radiating energy as a point source, but the light being
emitted is detected as a visual pattern similar to what you might see in a
nebula. FWIW, fluorescent bulbs conduct current via a plasma.
The key to deriving any useful information from light is from the pattern that is
radiated, which provides a 4D perspective image of the original spacial event at a
specific point in time.
Here is a still image of an event that happened 6000 light years ago as seen by
the Hubble Space Telescope. All of the individual photons emitted were detected
as a detailed composite picture of the event that occurred then.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
If you look at your hot plasma you can't tell which atom emitted a photon .. you can't triangulate in on one atom because you've only got one photon to go on. You might stand a chance statistically but I get the impression fields are in and statistics are out. What you could do is put one atom in a known location and when it emitted a photon .. would you know more than you did before about where it was?
C2, you are exactly correct! Atoms in a plasma are extremely
dynamic...constantly moving, and being moved, by gas collisions, RF field displacements, DC voltage biases, and thermal effects. My point being that
each atom is individually radiating energy as a point source, but the light being
emitted is detected as a visual pattern similar to what you might see in a
nebula. FWIW, fluorescent bulbs conduct current via a plasma.
The key to deriving any useful information from light is from the pattern that is
radiated, which provides a 4D perspective image of the original spacial event at a
specific point in time.
Here is a still image of an event that happened 6000 light years ago as seen by
the Hubble Space Telescope. All of the individual photons emitted were detected
as a detailed composite picture of the event that occurred then.
Regards,
LL
Hi Laserlight,
(Glad you're back too)
(Glad you're back too)
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
My point being that each atom is individually radiating energy as a point source, but the light being
emitted is detected as a visual pattern similar to what you might see in a nebula.
My point is precisely the opposite .. that the photon is an invention of the devil designed to prevent you from getting any sensible answer from a single measurement. Given time and opportunity I would suggest that what you would call 'resolving power' is what I would call .. perhaps another day.
The Hubble telescope gathers lots of photons .. it wouldn't work if it didn't. If the camera taking the picture you posted (nice one) had only collected a hundred photons then you couldn't tell which were from the brighter bits and which were from the darker bits cos all you've got is photons. You can't tell how far away they come from because a photon doesn't lose energy in transit.
Not even 1D from a single photon .. just a photon.
Comments welcome.
Best wishes,
-C2.
emitted is detected as a visual pattern similar to what you might see in a nebula.
My point is precisely the opposite .. that the photon is an invention of the devil designed to prevent you from getting any sensible answer from a single measurement. Given time and opportunity I would suggest that what you would call 'resolving power' is what I would call .. perhaps another day.
The Hubble telescope gathers lots of photons .. it wouldn't work if it didn't. If the camera taking the picture you posted (nice one) had only collected a hundred photons then you couldn't tell which were from the brighter bits and which were from the darker bits cos all you've got is photons. You can't tell how far away they come from because a photon doesn't lose energy in transit.
Not even 1D from a single photon .. just a photon.
Comments welcome.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2 and All,
I guess I am a "troublemaker" but then that makes for spirited conversation!
The devil is in the details! This goes back to my earlier discussion where
I emphasized the idea of a pattern of individualized photons at a specific point in
time (or over a long time base) as a requirement to provide a complete pattern
and information transfer from one location to another.
I kind of relate it to having a 1000 piece puzzle and only looking at 1 single piece
to try to determine what the completed puzzle would look like. One piece only gives
you a bit of information that by itself is fairly useless other than it represents a
position of the composite finalized picture. You need all of the discrete pieces (bits)
and they must be assembled in the correct interlocking postions in order to see
the completed and total information being provided. Light without form, or
organized structure does not convey information. A puzzle dumped out onto the
floor, and scattered randomly about, represents fragmented information that cannot
be used until is properly assembled. A single emitted photon only represents
position of an event. There must be a relative time and spacial coincidence
(structure) for photons to provide useable information.
JMHO!
Regards,
LL
I guess I am a "troublemaker" but then that makes for spirited conversation!
QUOTE
My point is precisely the opposite .. that the photon is an invention of the devil designed to prevent you from getting any sensible answer from a single measurement.
The devil is in the details!
This goes back to my earlier discussion whereI emphasized the idea of a pattern of individualized photons at a specific point in
time (or over a long time base) as a requirement to provide a complete pattern
and information transfer from one location to another.
I kind of relate it to having a 1000 piece puzzle and only looking at 1 single piece
to try to determine what the completed puzzle would look like. One piece only gives
you a bit of information that by itself is fairly useless other than it represents a
position of the composite finalized picture. You need all of the discrete pieces (bits)
and they must be assembled in the correct interlocking postions in order to see
the completed and total information being provided. Light without form, or
organized structure does not convey information. A puzzle dumped out onto the
floor, and scattered randomly about, represents fragmented information that cannot
be used until is properly assembled. A single emitted photon only represents
position of an event. There must be a relative time and spacial coincidence
(structure) for photons to provide useable information.
JMHO!
Regards,
LL
Hi Laserlight, Confused2, THEY, Aerohead et al,
Welcome back all. I am also feeling a little "refreshed" and thinking a little more widely now. Particular salutations to THEY (and THEY2). Of course Confused2 naturally.
One of the most important "discoveries" that precipitated the Quantum Mechanical Interpretation of Phenomena was the discovery that the Planckian Black Body Radiation Curve is composed not of an infinite number of sources but of a finite number of Oscillators. This interpretation avoided the "Ultra-Violet" Catastrophe in the summation over all "energies". This was by far the best bit of Planck's work... the recent "extensions" are another story altogether. What we can see is that each oscillator is "unique" and discrete and has an energy of...
E = hf
But not just "any" energy.
From this discretization of the energy we now understand that energy of each and every photon emitted by a "hot" source is related to the Planck's Black Body Radiation Formula for the average energy of the photons as...
but this summation is derived from "specific" photons of energy...
E = nhf where n is a quantum number and is an integer and this "hf" is the "lowest" quanta of energy. The significance of this is no matter what we do we will not create photons with energy "in between" the very specific frequencies. Thus we have "stationary states"... States that cannot shift even incrementally from their "base" frequency.
Then we have the Photoelectric Effect where above a certain excitation energy (the "work function") the intensity of photon radiation is directly proportional to the number of ejected electrons. Doubling the number of photons doubles the number of ejected electrons. For a particular wavelength of irradiated light the kinetic energy of each electron is "identical" and the zero sum of "one photon in to one electron out" is strictly maintained. Thus we can see that photons are absorbed one at a time and that the ejection of an electron subtracts an exact quanta of energy leaving the residual energy as kinetic energy of the electron. Clearly continuing to increase the incident radiation at that fixed frequency will not increase the emission of electrons without limit since there are only so many available electrons to eject. So what happens to the excess photons over some threshold intensity limit? They cannot be absorbed and yet there they are. They will not be absorbed at other frequencies or do they convert simply to "heat"... I don't think so.
One conclusion would be that the material becomes "transparent" to the photons since the state is an inverted population at saturation. Unfortunately this is giving me a headache since so many things can happen inside of "condensed matter". What I would "guess" is the opportunity to lose the qubit is now suppressed and the tendency to tunnel is enhanced. Now these photons cannot "visit" atoms in the inverted population state so they "pass on" as if the atoms did not exist sensing only "optical properties" of the material of refraction, reflection and transmission until a suitable site is found to be absorbed. What I would hope does not happen is scattering of these "excess" photons. With this "quantum" process it is my contention that this information of the source is retained by photons that are not absorbed. All photons that are absorbed in inverting the population and saturating it have lost their qubit and only those who have avoided this process retain their qubit.
In the DSE the photons that are scattered no longer partake in any interference pattern... Whatever the information these new photons are carrying they do not relate to the primary source but only to these secondary sources. Where did the information go? It is somehow stored inside the optical "sink" but in some way is not lost. Our technology has no present way to recover this information but I believe that it still exists and is some organizing principle that is possible to harness given some advanced technical process. I would liken this to recent discoveries that internal processes of even the orbital paths of electrons inside atoms may be observed using Atomic Force Microscopy... This is despite the fact that this is the realm of the quantum and this should not be theoretically possible.
Observing The 'Wings" Of Atoms: Study Indicates It Is Possible To See Electrons' Orbital Paths Around Atoms
This information translates to this phenomenon...
This phenomena can encode a very large amount of data that we are not presently capable of accessing but may be accessible in the future. I am reminded of a TV Science Show from the BBC which showed a device which had two cylinders of the same length and different diameters, made of perspex, fixed on a common axle one inside the other. The inner cylinder had a handle to turn. The "gap" between the cylinders were filled with glycerin and then a single drop of dye was introduced into the body of the fluid by a long micro-pipette. Then the handle was turned around many times until the spot of dye was completely dispersed into the body of the glycerin. Then the winding was reversed and the process was completely reversed with the spot of dye completely reforming after the same number of turns in the opposite direction. believe it or not?
Drum in glycerine rotates to smear line of dye into a plane and back.
The experiment is to show an analog of the phenomenon of "photon echo". The picture is not good but it illustrates a point about information and its accessibility.
Cheers
Welcome back all. I am also feeling a little "refreshed" and thinking a little more widely now. Particular salutations to THEY (and THEY2). Of course Confused2 naturally.
One of the most important "discoveries" that precipitated the Quantum Mechanical Interpretation of Phenomena was the discovery that the Planckian Black Body Radiation Curve is composed not of an infinite number of sources but of a finite number of Oscillators. This interpretation avoided the "Ultra-Violet" Catastrophe in the summation over all "energies". This was by far the best bit of Planck's work... the recent "extensions" are another story altogether. What we can see is that each oscillator is "unique" and discrete and has an energy of...
E = hf
But not just "any" energy.
From this discretization of the energy we now understand that energy of each and every photon emitted by a "hot" source is related to the Planck's Black Body Radiation Formula for the average energy of the photons as...
but this summation is derived from "specific" photons of energy...
E = nhf where n is a quantum number and is an integer and this "hf" is the "lowest" quanta of energy. The significance of this is no matter what we do we will not create photons with energy "in between" the very specific frequencies. Thus we have "stationary states"... States that cannot shift even incrementally from their "base" frequency.
Then we have the Photoelectric Effect where above a certain excitation energy (the "work function") the intensity of photon radiation is directly proportional to the number of ejected electrons. Doubling the number of photons doubles the number of ejected electrons. For a particular wavelength of irradiated light the kinetic energy of each electron is "identical" and the zero sum of "one photon in to one electron out" is strictly maintained. Thus we can see that photons are absorbed one at a time and that the ejection of an electron subtracts an exact quanta of energy leaving the residual energy as kinetic energy of the electron. Clearly continuing to increase the incident radiation at that fixed frequency will not increase the emission of electrons without limit since there are only so many available electrons to eject. So what happens to the excess photons over some threshold intensity limit? They cannot be absorbed and yet there they are. They will not be absorbed at other frequencies or do they convert simply to "heat"... I don't think so.
One conclusion would be that the material becomes "transparent" to the photons since the state is an inverted population at saturation. Unfortunately this is giving me a headache since so many things can happen inside of "condensed matter". What I would "guess" is the opportunity to lose the qubit is now suppressed and the tendency to tunnel is enhanced. Now these photons cannot "visit" atoms in the inverted population state so they "pass on" as if the atoms did not exist sensing only "optical properties" of the material of refraction, reflection and transmission until a suitable site is found to be absorbed. What I would hope does not happen is scattering of these "excess" photons. With this "quantum" process it is my contention that this information of the source is retained by photons that are not absorbed. All photons that are absorbed in inverting the population and saturating it have lost their qubit and only those who have avoided this process retain their qubit.
In the DSE the photons that are scattered no longer partake in any interference pattern... Whatever the information these new photons are carrying they do not relate to the primary source but only to these secondary sources. Where did the information go? It is somehow stored inside the optical "sink" but in some way is not lost. Our technology has no present way to recover this information but I believe that it still exists and is some organizing principle that is possible to harness given some advanced technical process. I would liken this to recent discoveries that internal processes of even the orbital paths of electrons inside atoms may be observed using Atomic Force Microscopy... This is despite the fact that this is the realm of the quantum and this should not be theoretically possible.
Observing The 'Wings" Of Atoms: Study Indicates It Is Possible To See Electrons' Orbital Paths Around Atoms
This information translates to this phenomenon...
This phenomena can encode a very large amount of data that we are not presently capable of accessing but may be accessible in the future. I am reminded of a TV Science Show from the BBC which showed a device which had two cylinders of the same length and different diameters, made of perspex, fixed on a common axle one inside the other. The inner cylinder had a handle to turn. The "gap" between the cylinders were filled with glycerin and then a single drop of dye was introduced into the body of the fluid by a long micro-pipette. Then the handle was turned around many times until the spot of dye was completely dispersed into the body of the glycerin. Then the winding was reversed and the process was completely reversed with the spot of dye completely reforming after the same number of turns in the opposite direction. believe it or not?
Drum in glycerine rotates to smear line of dye into a plane and back.
The experiment is to show an analog of the phenomenon of "photon echo". The picture is not good but it illustrates a point about information and its accessibility.
Cheers
Hi, and Happy 2007,
I am excited that this post is still alive but where to, now that is the question?
Patience and tenacity of purpose are worth more than twice their weight of cleverness.
Thomas Henry Huxley
ciao_
yquantum
I am excited that this post is still alive but where to, now that is the question?
Patience and tenacity of purpose are worth more than twice their weight of cleverness.
Thomas Henry Huxley
ciao_
yquantum
QUOTE (Nick+May 18 2006, 03:17 AM)
You don't have to look because it is not an observer created reality. What do you think the real answer is?
I'll tell you.
Its simple. Its a phenomenon.
Sometimes there is no matter wave.
Does'nt matter.
I'll tell you.
Its simple. Its a phenomenon.
Sometimes there is no matter wave.
Does'nt matter.
Hi Yquantum, Confused2, Laserlight, Neil Farbstein, THEY, Aerohead et al,
I can't overcome the stalemate on the reluctance by Laserlight to accept the totally stationary states of a quantum. I doubt if I can overcome Confused2's reluctance to deal with the Double Slit Interference Experiment in any more detail than the most simple construction technique. I know they both know my point of view and I see theirs but that is where it stops.
I even have a problem with your "Relational Quantum Mechanics" abstraction which does not appear to deal with anything other than particle interactions and a bare bones relationships between particle events. This is getting as close to Nihilism as I would ever wish to get... he he he! Any closer and I doubt that I would exist at all. I will say that I agree that the measurement problem is solved by that approach but at a high cost. I look for "meaning" in it and find it "lacking". The problem of the observation of frames is solved by encapsulating "Universes" in which observation is limited by quantum boundaries beyond these boundaries no information is currently able to be known and the collapse of states from our reference frame provides us with information leading to internal consistency but not to further relative information.
On all three counts I have struck an impasse even though I think I have presented some very good points based not only on theory but based on the interpretation of the experiments. Science always fails in the end, the unknown foot soldier out front takes a slug right between the eyes while the Generals plan behind the scenes, but that is my "job"... he he he! . There is only one scientific method, to break with it leads to "opinions" which are indefensible as we can easily prove but do have their appeal that is hard to ignore. You remarked once before that no matter how good a "philosophy" is Godel showed that it was impossible to prove the basic tenants and arrive at an absolute truth. Godel may have been a complete fruitcake but he was right as far as he goes... he proved none of us has anything that can be considered an absolute truth. Of course his Theory suffers from a fatal flaw and reflectively cannot be proven to be "absolutely correct" as well attested by his own hypothesis... he he he! No wonder he "lost it". What I truly disagree with is if science keeps to the rules regarding theory and experiment then it will "approach" a better description of reality than any alternative "Philosophy" that seeks an "Ultimate Truth". The Theory that explains the most "wins" provided "IFF" it is tested with progressive experiment. This "ideal" physical "Theory" is the "best" because the Universe is "consulted" as to it's opinion when we perform experiments. The cleverer these experiments are and the smarter the people that interpret them... the sooner we all approach a better description of reality. Of course I can't do this and all I can do is reflect on our past and a number of experiments that were designed to solve different problems and try and draw the threads together.
The corollary is if the results of experiment are not accepted as the only way to determine relative validity, I might as well be talking with politicians, prelates or a garden wall... not that anyone here is in any of these categories. I will say though the last one is the "most honest" and the "most easy" to persuade... Ha! This is the realm of "opinion" and I can't dispute opinions. People will have to make up their own minds. We live in a totally irrational world why should I expect Science to be any different? Can anyone out there explain to me just why I should expect any more from current science than what we are getting in the editorial column of newspapers? Many of us are just shills and we are shilling for a living. We may present our "products" in the most favorable light possible. I guess the spin we put on our Science is to be expected since everything else in society has this "spin". It is deeply comforting to have theories that everyone else believes in and it is a wonderful "marketing tool" that sells itself easily. This is the very reason why I chose a different approach.
To get that perspective on quantum mechanics and the "inner" meaning of the Double Slit Experiment I have pushed the wave concept a very long way and IMHO I think that, provided some experimental aspects of the quantum phenomena are accepted and then dutifully incorporated into a theory, it is possible to show that a very "quantum realistic" theory can be constructed out of a semi-classical wave theory... This is a very "minimal" requirement and is far less of a proposition than the many "postulates" of Quantum Mechanics. It flies in the face of current wisdom where current wisdom reflects "expert opinion". This is not the job for an elf.
"Relational Quantum Mechanics" deals with our Universe as a series of abstract Hilbert Spaces but fails to identify these spaces with our "real Universe" being abstracted from our reality without meaning. It is my view that Bracket Notation is unable to deal with the "bra" and "ket"'s as separate entities dealing with only the "collapsed" functions. There is no way to un-scramble this egg... This is a Humpty Dumpty Problem where all the Kings Horses and all the Kings Men will ultimately fail poor old "Humpty". We fail to see that we live in such an "reciprocal" space all the time and these Fourier transformations are simply changing the basis between two orthogonal sets which are "almost" equivalent but actually radically very distinct. For instance I will quote from Wikipedia's definition of Hilbert Space...
QUOTE
Hi, and Happy 2007,
I am excited that this post is still alive but where to, now that is the question?
It is good to hear from you again and I thought you may have given up on this thread totally. You have a very good point there and I have spent a lot of time trying to come up with a credible action plan but in the end I cannot give any convincing answer. Without personal criticism of individual beliefs (that includes my own) it is difficult to argue further. I admit I can't be utterly convincing in this matter.I am excited that this post is still alive but where to, now that is the question?
I can't overcome the stalemate on the reluctance by Laserlight to accept the totally stationary states of a quantum. I doubt if I can overcome Confused2's reluctance to deal with the Double Slit Interference Experiment in any more detail than the most simple construction technique. I know they both know my point of view and I see theirs but that is where it stops.
I even have a problem with your "Relational Quantum Mechanics" abstraction which does not appear to deal with anything other than particle interactions and a bare bones relationships between particle events. This is getting as close to Nihilism as I would ever wish to get... he he he! Any closer and I doubt that I would exist at all. I will say that I agree that the measurement problem is solved by that approach but at a high cost. I look for "meaning" in it and find it "lacking". The problem of the observation of frames is solved by encapsulating "Universes" in which observation is limited by quantum boundaries beyond these boundaries no information is currently able to be known and the collapse of states from our reference frame provides us with information leading to internal consistency but not to further relative information.
On all three counts I have struck an impasse even though I think I have presented some very good points based not only on theory but based on the interpretation of the experiments. Science always fails in the end, the unknown foot soldier out front takes a slug right between the eyes while the Generals plan behind the scenes, but that is my "job"... he he he!
. There is only one scientific method, to break with it leads to "opinions" which are indefensible as we can easily prove but do have their appeal that is hard to ignore. You remarked once before that no matter how good a "philosophy" is Godel showed that it was impossible to prove the basic tenants and arrive at an absolute truth. Godel may have been a complete fruitcake but he was right as far as he goes... he proved none of us has anything that can be considered an absolute truth. Of course his Theory suffers from a fatal flaw and reflectively cannot be proven to be "absolutely correct" as well attested by his own hypothesis... he he he! No wonder he "lost it". What I truly disagree with is if science keeps to the rules regarding theory and experiment then it will "approach" a better description of reality than any alternative "Philosophy" that seeks an "Ultimate Truth". The Theory that explains the most "wins" provided "IFF" it is tested with progressive experiment. This "ideal" physical "Theory" is the "best" because the Universe is "consulted" as to it's opinion when we perform experiments. The cleverer these experiments are and the smarter the people that interpret them... the sooner we all approach a better description of reality. Of course I can't do this and all I can do is reflect on our past and a number of experiments that were designed to solve different problems and try and draw the threads together.The corollary is if the results of experiment are not accepted as the only way to determine relative validity, I might as well be talking with politicians, prelates or a garden wall... not that anyone here is in any of these categories. I will say though the last one is the "most honest" and the "most easy" to persuade... Ha!
This is the realm of "opinion" and I can't dispute opinions. People will have to make up their own minds. We live in a totally irrational world why should I expect Science to be any different? Can anyone out there explain to me just why I should expect any more from current science than what we are getting in the editorial column of newspapers? Many of us are just shills and we are shilling for a living. We may present our "products" in the most favorable light possible. I guess the spin we put on our Science is to be expected since everything else in society has this "spin". It is deeply comforting to have theories that everyone else believes in and it is a wonderful "marketing tool" that sells itself easily. This is the very reason why I chose a different approach.To get that perspective on quantum mechanics and the "inner" meaning of the Double Slit Experiment I have pushed the wave concept a very long way and IMHO I think that, provided some experimental aspects of the quantum phenomena are accepted and then dutifully incorporated into a theory, it is possible to show that a very "quantum realistic" theory can be constructed out of a semi-classical wave theory... This is a very "minimal" requirement and is far less of a proposition than the many "postulates" of Quantum Mechanics. It flies in the face of current wisdom where current wisdom reflects "expert opinion". This is not the job for an elf.
"Relational Quantum Mechanics" deals with our Universe as a series of abstract Hilbert Spaces but fails to identify these spaces with our "real Universe" being abstracted from our reality without meaning. It is my view that Bracket Notation is unable to deal with the "bra" and "ket"'s as separate entities dealing with only the "collapsed" functions. There is no way to un-scramble this egg... This is a Humpty Dumpty Problem where all the Kings Horses and all the Kings Men will ultimately fail poor old "Humpty". We fail to see that we live in such an "reciprocal" space all the time and these Fourier transformations are simply changing the basis between two orthogonal sets which are "almost" equivalent but actually radically very distinct. For instance I will quote from Wikipedia's definition of Hilbert Space...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hi, and Happy 2007, I am excited that this post is still alive but where to, now that is the question? |
It is good to hear from you again and I thought you may have given up on this thread totally. You have a very good point there and I have spent a lot of time trying to come up with a credible action plan but in the end I cannot give any convincing answer. Without personal criticism of individual beliefs (that includes my own) it is difficult to argue further. I admit I can't be utterly convincing in this matter.
I can't overcome the stalemate on the reluctance by Laserlight to accept the totally stationary states of a quantum. I doubt if I can overcome Confused2's reluctance to deal with the Double Slit Interference Experiment in any more detail than the most simple construction technique. I know they both know my point of view and I see theirs but that is where it stops.
I even have a problem with your "Relational Quantum Mechanics" abstraction which does not appear to deal with anything other than particle interactions and a bare bones relationships between particle events. This is getting as close to Nihilism as I would ever wish to get... he he he! Any closer and I doubt that I would exist at all. I will say that I agree that the measurement problem is solved by that approach but at a high cost. I look for "meaning" in it and find it "lacking". The problem of the observation of frames is solved by encapsulating "Universes" in which observation is limited by quantum boundaries beyond these boundaries no information is currently able to be known and the collapse of states from our reference frame provides us with information leading to internal consistency but not to further relative information.
On all three counts I have struck an impasse even though I think I have presented some very good points based not only on theory but based on the interpretation of the experiments. Science always fails in the end, the unknown foot soldier out front takes a slug right between the eyes while the Generals plan behind the scenes, but that is my "job"... he he he! . There is only one scientific method, to break with it leads to "opinions" which are indefensible as we can easily prove but do have their appeal that is hard to ignore. You remarked once before that no matter how good a "philosophy" is Godel showed that it was impossible to prove the basic tenants and arrive at an absolute truth. Godel may have been a complete fruitcake but he was right as far as he goes... he proved none of us has anything that can be considered an absolute truth. Of course his Theory suffers from a fatal flaw and reflectively cannot be proven to be "absolutely correct" as well attested by his own hypothesis... he he he! No wonder he "lost it". What I truly disagree with is if science keeps to the rules regarding theory and experiment then it will "approach" a better description of reality than any alternative "Philosophy" that seeks an "Ultimate Truth". The Theory that explains the most "wins" provided "IFF" it is tested with progressive experiment. This "ideal" physical "Theory" is the "best" because the Universe is "consulted" as to it's opinion when we perform experiments. The cleverer these experiments are and the smarter the people that interpret them... the sooner we all approach a better description of reality. Of course I can't do this and all I can do is reflect on our past and a number of experiments that were designed to solve different problems and try and draw the threads together.
The corollary is if the results of experiment are not accepted as the only way to determine relative validity, I might as well be talking with politicians, prelates or a garden wall... not that anyone here is in any of these categories. I will say though the last one is the "most honest" and the "most easy" to persuade... Ha! This is the realm of "opinion" and I can't dispute opinions. People will have to make up their own minds. We live in a totally irrational world why should I expect Science to be any different? Can anyone out there explain to me just why I should expect any more from current science than what we are getting in the editorial column of newspapers? Many of us are just shills and we are shilling for a living. We may present our "products" in the most favorable light possible. I guess the spin we put on our Science is to be expected since everything else in society has this "spin". It is deeply comforting to have theories that everyone else believes in and it is a wonderful "marketing tool" that sells itself easily. This is the very reason why I chose a different approach.
To get that perspective on quantum mechanics and the "inner" meaning of the Double Slit Experiment I have pushed the wave concept a very long way and IMHO I think that, provided some experimental aspects of the quantum phenomena are accepted and then dutifully incorporated into a theory, it is possible to show that a very "quantum realistic" theory can be constructed out of a semi-classical wave theory... This is a very "minimal" requirement and is far less of a proposition than the many "postulates" of Quantum Mechanics. It flies in the face of current wisdom where current wisdom reflects "expert opinion". This is not the job for an elf.
"Relational Quantum Mechanics" deals with our Universe as a series of abstract Hilbert Spaces but fails to identify these spaces with our "real Universe" being abstracted from our reality without meaning. It is my view that Bracket Notation is unable to deal with the "bra" and "ket"'s as separate entities dealing with only the "collapsed" functions. There is no way to un-scramble this egg... This is a Humpty Dumpty Problem where all the Kings Horses and all the Kings Men will ultimately fail poor old "Humpty". We fail to see that we live in such an "reciprocal" space all the time and these Fourier transformations are simply changing the basis between two orthogonal sets which are "almost" equivalent but actually radically very distinct. For instance I will quote from Wikipedia's definition of Hilbert Space...
The inner product allows one to adopt a "geometrical" view and use geometrical language familiar from finite-dimensional spaces. Of all the infinite-dimensional topological vector spaces, the Hilbert spaces are the most "well-behaved" and the closest to the finite-dimensional spaces.
One goal of Fourier analysis is to write a given function as a (possibly infinite) sum of multiples of given base functions. This problem can be studied abstractly in Hilbert spaces: every Hilbert space has an orthonormal basis, and every element of the Hilbert space can be written in a unique way as a sum of multiples of these base elements. The Fourier transform then corresponds to a change of basis.
I can't overcome the stalemate on the reluctance by Laserlight to accept the totally stationary states of a quantum. I doubt if I can overcome Confused2's reluctance to deal with the Double Slit Interference Experiment in any more detail than the most simple construction technique. I know they both know my point of view and I see theirs but that is where it stops.
I even have a problem with your "Relational Quantum Mechanics" abstraction which does not appear to deal with anything other than particle interactions and a bare bones relationships between particle events. This is getting as close to Nihilism as I would ever wish to get... he he he! Any closer and I doubt that I would exist at all. I will say that I agree that the measurement problem is solved by that approach but at a high cost. I look for "meaning" in it and find it "lacking". The problem of the observation of frames is solved by encapsulating "Universes" in which observation is limited by quantum boundaries beyond these boundaries no information is currently able to be known and the collapse of states from our reference frame provides us with information leading to internal consistency but not to further relative information.
On all three counts I have struck an impasse even though I think I have presented some very good points based not only on theory but based on the interpretation of the experiments. Science always fails in the end, the unknown foot soldier out front takes a slug right between the eyes while the Generals plan behind the scenes, but that is my "job"... he he he!
. There is only one scientific method, to break with it leads to "opinions" which are indefensible as we can easily prove but do have their appeal that is hard to ignore. You remarked once before that no matter how good a "philosophy" is Godel showed that it was impossible to prove the basic tenants and arrive at an absolute truth. Godel may have been a complete fruitcake but he was right as far as he goes... he proved none of us has anything that can be considered an absolute truth. Of course his Theory suffers from a fatal flaw and reflectively cannot be proven to be "absolutely correct" as well attested by his own hypothesis... he he he! No wonder he "lost it". What I truly disagree with is if science keeps to the rules regarding theory and experiment then it will "approach" a better description of reality than any alternative "Philosophy" that seeks an "Ultimate Truth". The Theory that explains the most "wins" provided "IFF" it is tested with progressive experiment. This "ideal" physical "Theory" is the "best" because the Universe is "consulted" as to it's opinion when we perform experiments. The cleverer these experiments are and the smarter the people that interpret them... the sooner we all approach a better description of reality. Of course I can't do this and all I can do is reflect on our past and a number of experiments that were designed to solve different problems and try and draw the threads together.The corollary is if the results of experiment are not accepted as the only way to determine relative validity, I might as well be talking with politicians, prelates or a garden wall... not that anyone here is in any of these categories. I will say though the last one is the "most honest" and the "most easy" to persuade... Ha!
This is the realm of "opinion" and I can't dispute opinions. People will have to make up their own minds. We live in a totally irrational world why should I expect Science to be any different? Can anyone out there explain to me just why I should expect any more from current science than what we are getting in the editorial column of newspapers? Many of us are just shills and we are shilling for a living. We may present our "products" in the most favorable light possible. I guess the spin we put on our Science is to be expected since everything else in society has this "spin". It is deeply comforting to have theories that everyone else believes in and it is a wonderful "marketing tool" that sells itself easily. This is the very reason why I chose a different approach.To get that perspective on quantum mechanics and the "inner" meaning of the Double Slit Experiment I have pushed the wave concept a very long way and IMHO I think that, provided some experimental aspects of the quantum phenomena are accepted and then dutifully incorporated into a theory, it is possible to show that a very "quantum realistic" theory can be constructed out of a semi-classical wave theory... This is a very "minimal" requirement and is far less of a proposition than the many "postulates" of Quantum Mechanics. It flies in the face of current wisdom where current wisdom reflects "expert opinion". This is not the job for an elf.
"Relational Quantum Mechanics" deals with our Universe as a series of abstract Hilbert Spaces but fails to identify these spaces with our "real Universe" being abstracted from our reality without meaning. It is my view that Bracket Notation is unable to deal with the "bra" and "ket"'s as separate entities dealing with only the "collapsed" functions. There is no way to un-scramble this egg... This is a Humpty Dumpty Problem where all the Kings Horses and all the Kings Men will ultimately fail poor old "Humpty". We fail to see that we live in such an "reciprocal" space all the time and these Fourier transformations are simply changing the basis between two orthogonal sets which are "almost" equivalent but actually radically very distinct. For instance I will quote from Wikipedia's definition of Hilbert Space...
The inner product allows one to adopt a "geometrical" view and use geometrical language familiar from finite-dimensional spaces. Of all the infinite-dimensional topological vector spaces, the Hilbert spaces are the most "well-behaved" and the closest to the finite-dimensional spaces.
One goal of Fourier analysis is to write a given function as a (possibly infinite) sum of multiples of given base functions. This problem can be studied abstractly in Hilbert spaces: every Hilbert space has an orthonormal basis, and every element of the Hilbert space can be written in a unique way as a sum of multiples of these base elements. The Fourier transform then corresponds to a change of basis.
Consider the geometry of our finite dimensional space and the collapse of states being an incomplete description "before" a collapse and results in irretrievable information "after" the collapse. The QM "particle" description must deal with points and the wave description does not deal with points. Is our Universe really consisting of points or does it have a more transcendent meaning? I have tried to deal with the distributed sources using an optical Fourier Paradigm and there are no points there since the transform of the sync wave is not a "point".
So here is my advice on this topic to all you boys and girls... Muster some of your research dollars this holiday season and drop into your Video Store and hire out the secret of the Universe... "Thank You For Smoking".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_You_For_Smoking
This graphically illustrates just what the world accepts as "The Truth" when you are not Scientists. It is humorous but it does not poke fun at the central character, I think it is poking fun at all of us everywhere. There is a deeper secret there. Get your money's worth out of it and even watch the supplementary material and then it will show what a World is without Science and even more importantly... it's method. From my part I have tried to not put a spin on what I am saying and I try and present nothing without some experimental evidence. Maybe I am putting a spin on it as much as anyone else... I cannot say from my own perspective. We can all lighten up and watch this movie and realize we are all spitting into the wind.
For all of us this is going to be an important year of discovery... as long as we are seeking "The Truth" and not overselling the content with "spin", we can do no wrong. Enough of the "Philosophy" already...
A Happy New Year to all.
So here is my advice on this topic to all you boys and girls... Muster some of your research dollars this holiday season and drop into your Video Store and hire out the secret of the Universe... "Thank You For Smoking".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_You_For_Smoking
This graphically illustrates just what the world accepts as "The Truth" when you are not Scientists. It is humorous but it does not poke fun at the central character, I think it is poking fun at all of us everywhere. There is a deeper secret there. Get your money's worth out of it and even watch the supplementary material and then it will show what a World is without Science and even more importantly... it's method. From my part I have tried to not put a spin on what I am saying and I try and present nothing without some experimental evidence. Maybe I am putting a spin on it as much as anyone else... I cannot say from my own perspective. We can all lighten up and watch this movie and realize we are all spitting into the wind.
For all of us this is going to be an important year of discovery... as long as we are seeking "The Truth" and not overselling the content with "spin", we can do no wrong. Enough of the "Philosophy" already...
A Happy New Year to all.
Good Elf,
I don't know whether to laugh or cry!
That was the most melodramatic discourse of personal frustration posted on this
thread.
I agree that you have devoted a tremendous amount of time and energy to
try to "support" your theory with much background research, perhaps too much
so. As you indicated, you attempted to draw threads together but, you also
dragged too much extraneous and often confusing information into the discussion,
which, IMO was unnecessary and clouded the objective of finding a workable
concensus solution, which we still don't have.
Please don't get me wrong, this is not a personal attack and I have learned much
about many different subjects that you referenced, which were new to me. I will
mention though, that you seemed to completely disregard other opinions or
proposed mechanisms that did not fit your theoretical model, which we are all guilty
of to some degree.
How can a dynamic and interactive system be "stationary". Nothing in the
universe is stationary, everything is relative to some frame of reference,
so I think this is incorrect assumption on your part.
Please explain the "totally stationary states of a quantum". Are you referring to
fixed numerical values/quantities or fixed states of "existance"? I would like to
discuss this further, once I understand what your definition is.
I still don't know what your explanation is for what happens during the interaction
of photons with the matter of the slits. The slits cause diffraction, but you have not
presented your interpretation/explanation of how that mechanism works at the
quantum-mechanical/EM wave interaction level, to my satisfaction. I also still don't know your answer
to exactly where you believe that the interference of photons takes place. Is it
at the slits, in standing waves of the cavity, or at the screen?
I think part of my "frustration" is that I prefer to deal with clear, concise
statements that make a point, rather than trying to wade thru overly verbose
and often distracting theoretical discourse, where the intended meaning isn't
obvious. I am use to working with engineers and professionals in a business
environment, where there is no room for ambiguity or confusion.
Best Regards,
LL
I don't know whether to laugh or cry!
That was the most melodramatic discourse of personal frustration posted on this
thread.
I agree that you have devoted a tremendous amount of time and energy to
try to "support" your theory with much background research, perhaps too much
so. As you indicated, you attempted to draw threads together but, you also
dragged too much extraneous and often confusing information into the discussion,
which, IMO was unnecessary and clouded the objective of finding a workable
concensus solution, which we still don't have.
Please don't get me wrong, this is not a personal attack and I have learned much
about many different subjects that you referenced, which were new to me. I will
mention though, that you seemed to completely disregard other opinions or
proposed mechanisms that did not fit your theoretical model, which we are all guilty
of to some degree.
QUOTE
I can't overcome the stalemate on the reluctance by Laserlight to accept the totally stationary states of a quantum.
How can a dynamic and interactive system be "stationary". Nothing in the
universe is stationary, everything is relative to some frame of reference,
so I think this is incorrect assumption on your part.
Please explain the "totally stationary states of a quantum". Are you referring to
fixed numerical values/quantities or fixed states of "existance"? I would like to
discuss this further, once I understand what your definition is.
I still don't know what your explanation is for what happens during the interaction
of photons with the matter of the slits. The slits cause diffraction, but you have not
presented your interpretation/explanation of how that mechanism works at the
quantum-mechanical/EM wave interaction level, to my satisfaction. I also still don't know your answer
to exactly where you believe that the interference of photons takes place. Is it
at the slits, in standing waves of the cavity, or at the screen?
I think part of my "frustration" is that I prefer to deal with clear, concise
statements that make a point, rather than trying to wade thru overly verbose
and often distracting theoretical discourse, where the intended meaning isn't
obvious. I am use to working with engineers and professionals in a business
environment, where there is no room for ambiguity or confusion.
Best Regards,
LL
Good Elf,
Loved that last post, you've an exceptional gift for putting things into perspective. ...... and remember: "When the going gets tough, the tough get going!" 
Loved that last post, you've an exceptional gift for putting things into perspective.
...... and remember: "When the going gets tough, the tough get going!"
Hi Good Elf,Laserlight,yquantum(!),Niel Farbstein,Dulaity(?),TRoc et al,
Good Elf.. (all IMHO)
It seems you start with Feynman's 'Sum over paths' method and AFTER the event claim the process is the result of a single path... I would agree this is arguably 'not wrong' but I feel it subtracts rather than adds any power to Feynman's original analysis. If a path divides you offer no justification for it ever turning back into a single path.. Instead of 'wheel turning' we have cavities which are claimed to be a property of space at a particular frequency rather than of the photon itself .. to what extent this switch is justified remains unclear. The 'sum over paths' method generates a relative probability .. by refusing to attempt an analysis in advance of the event you seem to have a sort 'I expected that but I can't say why'.
If the analysis is to produce the same (or similar) results to the 'Sum over paths' method then the forcing function would seem to need to be a continuous sinewave. Given that you have 'removed' time I'd be tempted to go for a somewhat unphysical 'atom' of sinewave (a photon?) .. my feeling is that the sync pulse creates a great deal more problems than it solves.
As elsewhere commented .. I have difficulty sorting out the wood from the trees in your posts .. I may well have missed or misinterpreted some or all of this .. comments welcome.
Laserlight .. (all IMHO)
seems to be dealing with E and B fields without really getting to grips with quantisation or 'photons' .. hence no solution at this stage.
TRoc ... (all IMHO)
has gone quiet .. I like to think this might be because he can make peaks and troughs but they don't fit the simple geometric construction which I have posted so many times.
Confused2
Absolutely baffled, temporarily given up. The chances of two paths of unequal lengths meeting at a single atom seem so small that it would never happen. Can you explain interference using interference?
My insistence on the simplest construction technique is because it shows what the answer is and highlights the problems to be overcome or 'explained'.
---------------------
Good Elf has already mentioned Black Body radiation .. historically this looks like the start of 'quantisation' and it might be fertile ground for ideas. It looks pretty ugly (to me) but might already have lead to one misunderstanding .. that only certain energy levels are permitted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation .. the summation for the ideal 'square box' turns into an integration for a number of reasons which we could examine if anybody wants to.
A recurring worry of mine is the way that Bose-Einstein statistics relates to N indistinguishable particles (bosons) .. is this an insight into interference .. lack of interference or something else?
Best wishes,
C2.
Good Elf.. (all IMHO)
It seems you start with Feynman's 'Sum over paths' method and AFTER the event claim the process is the result of a single path... I would agree this is arguably 'not wrong' but I feel it subtracts rather than adds any power to Feynman's original analysis. If a path divides you offer no justification for it ever turning back into a single path.. Instead of 'wheel turning' we have cavities which are claimed to be a property of space at a particular frequency rather than of the photon itself .. to what extent this switch is justified remains unclear. The 'sum over paths' method generates a relative probability .. by refusing to attempt an analysis in advance of the event you seem to have a sort 'I expected that but I can't say why'.
If the analysis is to produce the same (or similar) results to the 'Sum over paths' method then the forcing function would seem to need to be a continuous sinewave. Given that you have 'removed' time I'd be tempted to go for a somewhat unphysical 'atom' of sinewave (a photon?) .. my feeling is that the sync pulse creates a great deal more problems than it solves.
As elsewhere commented .. I have difficulty sorting out the wood from the trees in your posts .. I may well have missed or misinterpreted some or all of this .. comments welcome.
Laserlight .. (all IMHO)
seems to be dealing with E and B fields without really getting to grips with quantisation or 'photons' .. hence no solution at this stage.
TRoc ... (all IMHO)
has gone quiet .. I like to think this might be because he can make peaks and troughs but they don't fit the simple geometric construction which I have posted so many times.
Confused2
Absolutely baffled, temporarily given up. The chances of two paths of unequal lengths meeting at a single atom seem so small that it would never happen. Can you explain interference using interference?
My insistence on the simplest construction technique is because it shows what the answer is and highlights the problems to be overcome or 'explained'.
---------------------
Good Elf has already mentioned Black Body radiation .. historically this looks like the start of 'quantisation' and it might be fertile ground for ideas. It looks pretty ugly (to me) but might already have lead to one misunderstanding .. that only certain energy levels are permitted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation .. the summation for the ideal 'square box' turns into an integration for a number of reasons which we could examine if anybody wants to.
A recurring worry of mine is the way that Bose-Einstein statistics relates to N indistinguishable particles (bosons) .. is this an insight into interference .. lack of interference or something else?
Best wishes,
C2.
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I think part of my "frustration" is that I prefer to deal with clear, concise statements that make a point, rather than trying to wade thru overly verbose
and often distracting theoretical discourse, where the intended meaning isn't
obvious. I am use to working with engineers and professionals in a business
environment, where there is no room for ambiguity or confusion.
and often distracting theoretical discourse, where the intended meaning isn't
obvious. I am use to working with engineers and professionals in a business
environment, where there is no room for ambiguity or confusion.
Don't worry I still work with professionals and scientists in a "Business Environment" but I have almost always worked "alone". I can't help that, it is a part of me and the way my mind operates. The short "pithy" answers most seem able to accept do not work for me... And I know you are not trying to be in anyway abusive and I totally agree with your assessment. The reason I am "focussed" on some rather fine details is what I see is the significance of these finer points.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
I can't overcome the stalemate on the reluctance by Laserlight to accept the totally stationary states of a quantum.
How can a dynamic and interactive system be "stationary". Nothing in the universe is stationary, everything is relative to some frame of reference, so I think this is incorrect assumption on your part. Please explain the "totally stationary states of a quantum". Are you referring to fixed numerical values/quantities or fixed states of "existence"? I would like to discuss this further, once I understand what your definition is.
What I mean by truly stationary states is one in which dynamic process are "impossible". Light which travels "at the speed of light" relative to all frames of reference is at rest in only one frame of reference... it's own frame. In that frame it has undergone 100% time dilation. This means "practically" there can be no exchange of any energetic process while it actually travels at that speed. It also means that it can neither lose or gain energy as well when no time is passing no energy can change either. There are a number of non-energetic states which support this process and not all quantum processes are "perfect" but light is one that is. There are at least five ways I can envision "stationary states" (mostly when dealing with photons and geometry). They have their origin in the wave nature of "particles" and not in their particle properties which are "incomplete".
1. Light Propagation
2. Rindler Foliations
3. Brane Walls of a dimensional relativistic "spinspace"
4. Black Holes
5. Quantum Tunneling Processes
You may be able to think of other processes. In all of these processes photons all "have their clocks stopped" and if you check out Feynman this is the condition for his QED many paths theory. Now I fully realize this state is fragile but there are conditions in which it can be made more robust. Why are there stationary states? There is no passage of time executing in at least one state so without time nothing "dynamic" can occur such as a force for instance which requires the exchange of a "carrier" (that takes time). These "walls" define regions where the Lagrangian operates and carrier particles cannot usually cross. These regions are dimensionally closed.... they all are.
1. Light Propagation
2. Rindler Foliations
3. Brane Walls of a dimensional relativistic "spinspace"
4. Black Holes
5. Quantum Tunneling Processes
You may be able to think of other processes. In all of these processes photons all "have their clocks stopped" and if you check out Feynman this is the condition for his QED many paths theory. Now I fully realize this state is fragile but there are conditions in which it can be made more robust. Why are there stationary states? There is no passage of time executing in at least one state so without time nothing "dynamic" can occur such as a force for instance which requires the exchange of a "carrier" (that takes time). These "walls" define regions where the Lagrangian operates and carrier particles cannot usually cross. These regions are dimensionally closed.... they all are.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I still don't know what your explanation is for what happens during the interaction of photons with the matter of the slits. The slits cause diffraction, but you have not presented your interpretation/explanation of how that mechanism works at the quantum-mechanical/EM wave interaction level, to my satisfaction. I also still don't know your answer to exactly where you believe that the interference of photons takes place. Is it at the slits, in standing waves of the cavity, or at the screen?
I thought I explained that adequately so many times (in this one thread maybe 10 times already or even more). There are no particle interactions with the slits since that would cause the loss of the qubit. Only photons that do not interact will produce a coherent pattern when they finally do interact with the screen. Other photons are simply noise. It is that simple. The standing waves are everywhere in all the "cavities" and create a space filling "invisible" holographic pattern (standing waves). Actually this pattern is not really "space filling" as I have previously explained, they are like "shadows on the walls". It is just that there is no recording medium there.... for instance in the places where there are slits or apertures. Consider an Michaelson Interferometer or a complete Double Slit experiment completely "filled" with a very transparent uniform photographic emulsion. Some photons will expose this medium (and be destroyed) but leave behind the space filling waves (fringes) and providing it could be developed in bulk you could cut thin slices through it in all directions to provide you with all the standing waves in all the directions you would need. It could even include this slice.
This would be a literal slice through "everything" in the experiment and then develop this exposure in a darkroom. Some technical details would also need to be provisioned. It could be the basis of a Holographic "reconstruction" using a primary LASER illumination beam.
This would be a literal slice through "everything" in the experiment and then develop this exposure in a darkroom. Some technical details would also need to be provisioned. It could be the basis of a Holographic "reconstruction" using a primary LASER illumination beam.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I will mention though, that you seemed to completely disregard other opinions or proposed mechanisms that did not fit your theoretical model, which we are all guilty of to some degree.
I have heard of a couple of proposed gedanken mechanisms but you have not supported these with examples of successful experiments. What am I to say? I am not simply quoting some "Elf Science" I am providing the mechanisms from the results of existing experiment. Other mechanisms will not fit my model simply because the mechanisms do not address the experimental issues. If you showed me how your models conceptually address the Physics and then show experiments where your mechanism follows directly ... how could I ignore it? Like now for instance where you continually ask a question I have answered many times before... this is no criticism but there is a total "disconnect" here don't you agree?
The practical fact is photons do not change their energy and still retain their qubit. This is just an experimental fact. Show me one confirmed experiment where they do.
Cheers
The practical fact is photons do not change their energy and still retain their qubit. This is just an experimental fact. Show me one confirmed experiment where they do.
Cheers
C2-
Mathematics and statistics are theoretical attempts to explanation a function of
reality. They are a mathematical "description" of real events and offer
a form of predictability if the specific "variables" have absolute working
solutions.
Statistics is not a "fixed" solution just a predictability, a likelihood, that under the
ideal right conditions (which are not absolute) that possible solutions should fall
under some bell curve solution set. It describes a result, not why the result
happened. That is what we are after....the "mechanics", the details, the physical
events that created the solutions. That is the "essence" of the DSE. How do
photons interact with the geometry of matter to yield some statistical solution?
Laserlight .. (all IMHO)
seems to be dealing with E and B fields without really getting to grips with quantisation or 'photons' .. hence no solution at this stage.
I thought I was extremely descriptive and thoughtful in elaborating what a photon
is, and how it interacts with the matter and localized field effects of the stlit cavities, at the EM field level. Apparently, my attempts
to offer specific details with "absolute" solutions was not "clear" enough, was
misunderstood, or just plain rejected. At the very least, I offered a working
theoretical model that incorporated all of the relevant individual physics topics
advanced by active participants on this board. I think that these "concepts" were
rejected without really attempting to understand the details of the mechanism,
because the ideas were "unique" and did not follow mainstream philosophy or
educational brain washing.
If you think about it, most original ideas that eventually changed the accepted
paradigm, met with severe skepticism from the "brightest" minds. Unfortunately,
those minds were often closed and inflexible, which I blame on fear of being
ridiculed by peers. True genius is willing to step out of the box of conventional
thinking and offer explanations (and proofs) that challenge the stoic thinking of
the status quo.
It is ok to make mistakes. Often the information learned from "mistakes" ultimately leads to the correct answer, in a round-about way. One must be willing
to take thoughtful calculated risks in order to advance "progress", but separating
fantasy from science can be a challenge.
Regards,
LL
Mathematics and statistics are theoretical attempts to explanation a function of
reality. They are a mathematical "description" of real events and offer
a form of predictability if the specific "variables" have absolute working
solutions.
Statistics is not a "fixed" solution just a predictability, a likelihood, that under the
ideal right conditions (which are not absolute) that possible solutions should fall
under some bell curve solution set. It describes a result, not why the result
happened. That is what we are after....the "mechanics", the details, the physical
events that created the solutions. That is the "essence" of the DSE. How do
photons interact with the geometry of matter to yield some statistical solution?
QUOTE
Laserlight .. (all IMHO)
seems to be dealing with E and B fields without really getting to grips with quantisation or 'photons' .. hence no solution at this stage.
I thought I was extremely descriptive and thoughtful in elaborating what a photon
is, and how it interacts with the matter and localized field effects of the stlit cavities, at the EM field level. Apparently, my attempts
to offer specific details with "absolute" solutions was not "clear" enough, was
misunderstood, or just plain rejected. At the very least, I offered a working
theoretical model that incorporated all of the relevant individual physics topics
advanced by active participants on this board. I think that these "concepts" were
rejected without really attempting to understand the details of the mechanism,
because the ideas were "unique" and did not follow mainstream philosophy or
educational brain washing.
If you think about it, most original ideas that eventually changed the accepted
paradigm, met with severe skepticism from the "brightest" minds. Unfortunately,
those minds were often closed and inflexible, which I blame on fear of being
ridiculed by peers. True genius is willing to step out of the box of conventional
thinking and offer explanations (and proofs) that challenge the stoic thinking of
the status quo.
It is ok to make mistakes. Often the information learned from "mistakes" ultimately leads to the correct answer, in a round-about way. One must be willing
to take thoughtful calculated risks in order to advance "progress", but separating
fantasy from science can be a challenge.
Regards,
LL
Hi Laserlight,
Sorry LL, I think I might easily have missed (not rejected) something! Please could you point me at the 'best' post or starting points so's I can go round again.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Sorry LL, I think I might easily have missed (not rejected) something! Please could you point me at the 'best' post or starting points so's I can go round again.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi GE,
Yes, I asked direct questions to issues that you have "answered" previously. I was
attempting to persuade you to make hard, definitive, clear cut, answers that were
not laced with "ambiguities" which were open to interpretation. I don't think that
you know how to do that. LOL! You seem to always want to drag a lot
of extraneous topics into the conversation which IMO is unnecessary and just
adds to the obfuscation that already exists. It is not helpful. Trying to describe
a tree by interjecting the life cycle of kelp doesn't really help in the understanding
of the essence of a tree.
Ok, I think we agree on this. A photon is dynamic but the "time pulse event" it represents
is fixed in time. Photon EM fields are dynamic, in the regard that they are self
regenerating and propagate thru space. They are energy, and time is relevant
to their unique frame of temporal reference. The instantaneous event "time lock"
that they are transporting is only unlocked when they fully interfere with matter.
Ok, I think we agree on this. A photon is dynamic but the "time pulse event" it represents
is fixed in time. Photon EM fields are dynamic, in the regard that they are self
regenerating and propagate thru space. They are energy, and time is relevant
to their unique frame of temporal reference. The instantaneous event "time lock"
that they are transporting is only unlocked when they fully interfere with matter.
There are no particle interactions with the slits since that would cause the loss of the qubit. Only photons that do not interact will produce a coherent pattern when they finally do interact with the screen.
Herein is a dilemma that you tend to vacillate on. You have posted your dipole
example numerous times and made statements about the wave nature of light,
but you keep coming back to the particle aspect of light, which seems
contradictory.
A photon is a unique, discrete, time relevant, energy "entity", but does that make
it a particle? Perhaps it does, when described as I have attempted. It has a
wave form, and propagates as an energy pulse wavefunction, but it is unique in time
relative to the atomic causal event that originally spawned it. The atomic event
occurred, but the energy "byproduct" of that physical event exists forever, however, it
changes form thru energy conversion when acted upon by other localized energy systems.
A "wave" of coherent photons carries mutual information at some total energy
level determined by the number of photons in the wave. This is the total signal amplitude/intensity. Individual photons
can be extracted from that total wave energy, at which point those detected
photons collapse and they lose their disctinct qubit of information that they
are transporting. They lose their discrete time and position relevance as it is combined
with the energy of the absorbing EM fields of matter. At that point the time element,
represented by the energy pulse, is unlocked as the discrete EM fields of the
photon and matter interact. The information/energy qubit is released.
I do agree that each individual photon travelling in a coherent wave is unique in its
discrete time relevance. It is merely travelling with similar photons that
are nearly time coincident in phase as it relates to distance timing between
peaks and troughs. In that regard, part of the total signal can be detected while
the rest of the coherent wave signal continues onward. If this is correct, then the
information cubit contained in the remaining part of the coherent wave is still
viable even though part of it has been detected. The individual photon has been
converted/released as another form of energy.
A "wave" of coherent photons carries mutual information at some total energy
level determined by the number of photons in the wave. This is the total signal amplitude/intensity. Individual photons
can be extracted from that total wave energy, at which point those detected
photons collapse and they lose their disctinct qubit of information that they
are transporting. They lose their discrete time and position relevance as it is combined
with the energy of the absorbing EM fields of matter. At that point the time element,
represented by the energy pulse, is unlocked as the discrete EM fields of the
photon and matter interact. The information/energy qubit is released.
I do agree that each individual photon travelling in a coherent wave is unique in its
discrete time relevance. It is merely travelling with similar photons that
are nearly time coincident in phase as it relates to distance timing between
peaks and troughs. In that regard, part of the total signal can be detected while
the rest of the coherent wave signal continues onward. If this is correct, then the
information cubit contained in the remaining part of the coherent wave is still
viable even though part of it has been detected. The individual photon has been
converted/released as another form of energy.
Like now for instance where you continually ask a question I have answered many times before... this is no criticism but there is a total "disconnect" here don't you agree?
The practical fact is photons do not change their energy and still retain their qubit. This is just an experimental fact. Show me one confirmed experiment where they do.
Like I said, I/we are attempting to get you to make absolute statements of fact
or opinion devoid of supposition and hypotheticals. I am asking for "clear cut"
statements with "yes or no" arguments. I think the term is COMMITMENT! LOL!
"Paint" a verbal picture that tells a "story" so that everyone can easily and
accurately retell the "story". Please don't start it with "Once upon a time...."
Re: photons changing energy and retaining their qubit.... Photons travelling thru
a lens or refractive medium change their instantaneous energy and direction while in that
medium, but still retain their information qubit. Their relative timing and phase has
changed but the information that they are transporting retains its original value. If
you take a linearly polarized photon (wave) and change it to a circularly polarized
wave doesn't it still convey the same information as the original? Do you agree?
Regards,
LL
Yes, I asked direct questions to issues that you have "answered" previously. I was
attempting to persuade you to make hard, definitive, clear cut, answers that were
not laced with "ambiguities" which were open to interpretation. I don't think that
you know how to do that. LOL!
You seem to always want to drag a lotof extraneous topics into the conversation which IMO is unnecessary and just
adds to the obfuscation that already exists. It is not helpful. Trying to describe
a tree by interjecting the life cycle of kelp doesn't really help in the understanding
of the essence of a tree.
QUOTE
What I mean by truly stationary states is one in which dynamic process are "impossible". Light which travels "at the speed of light" relative to all frames of reference is at rest in only one frame of reference... it's own frame. In that frame it has undergone 100% time dilation. This means "practically" there can be no exchange of any energetic process while it actually travels at that speed. It also means that it can neither lose or gain energy as well when no time is passing no energy can change either
Ok, I think we agree on this. A photon is dynamic but the "time pulse event" it represents
is fixed in time. Photon EM fields are dynamic, in the regard that they are self
regenerating and propagate thru space. They are energy, and time is relevant
to their unique frame of temporal reference. The instantaneous event "time lock"
that they are transporting is only unlocked when they fully interfere with matter.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What I mean by truly stationary states is one in which dynamic process are "impossible". Light which travels "at the speed of light" relative to all frames of reference is at rest in only one frame of reference... it's own frame. In that frame it has undergone 100% time dilation. This means "practically" there can be no exchange of any energetic process while it actually travels at that speed. It also means that it can neither lose or gain energy as well when no time is passing no energy can change either |
Ok, I think we agree on this. A photon is dynamic but the "time pulse event" it represents
is fixed in time. Photon EM fields are dynamic, in the regard that they are self
regenerating and propagate thru space. They are energy, and time is relevant
to their unique frame of temporal reference. The instantaneous event "time lock"
that they are transporting is only unlocked when they fully interfere with matter.
There are no particle interactions with the slits since that would cause the loss of the qubit. Only photons that do not interact will produce a coherent pattern when they finally do interact with the screen.
Herein is a dilemma that you tend to vacillate on. You have posted your dipole
example numerous times and made statements about the wave nature of light,
but you keep coming back to the particle aspect of light, which seems
contradictory.
A photon is a unique, discrete, time relevant, energy "entity", but does that make
it a particle? Perhaps it does, when described as I have attempted. It has a
wave form, and propagates as an energy pulse wavefunction, but it is unique in time
relative to the atomic causal event that originally spawned it. The atomic event
occurred, but the energy "byproduct" of that physical event exists forever, however, it
changes form thru energy conversion when acted upon by other localized energy systems.
QUOTE
The practical fact is photons do not change their energy and still retain their qubit. This is just an experimental fact. Show me one confirmed experiment where they do.
A "wave" of coherent photons carries mutual information at some total energy
level determined by the number of photons in the wave. This is the total signal amplitude/intensity. Individual photons
can be extracted from that total wave energy, at which point those detected
photons collapse and they lose their disctinct qubit of information that they
are transporting. They lose their discrete time and position relevance as it is combined
with the energy of the absorbing EM fields of matter. At that point the time element,
represented by the energy pulse, is unlocked as the discrete EM fields of the
photon and matter interact. The information/energy qubit is released.
I do agree that each individual photon travelling in a coherent wave is unique in its
discrete time relevance. It is merely travelling with similar photons that
are nearly time coincident in phase as it relates to distance timing between
peaks and troughs. In that regard, part of the total signal can be detected while
the rest of the coherent wave signal continues onward. If this is correct, then the
information cubit contained in the remaining part of the coherent wave is still
viable even though part of it has been detected. The individual photon has been
converted/released as another form of energy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The practical fact is photons do not change their energy and still retain their qubit. This is just an experimental fact. Show me one confirmed experiment where they do. |
A "wave" of coherent photons carries mutual information at some total energy
level determined by the number of photons in the wave. This is the total signal amplitude/intensity. Individual photons
can be extracted from that total wave energy, at which point those detected
photons collapse and they lose their disctinct qubit of information that they
are transporting. They lose their discrete time and position relevance as it is combined
with the energy of the absorbing EM fields of matter. At that point the time element,
represented by the energy pulse, is unlocked as the discrete EM fields of the
photon and matter interact. The information/energy qubit is released.
I do agree that each individual photon travelling in a coherent wave is unique in its
discrete time relevance. It is merely travelling with similar photons that
are nearly time coincident in phase as it relates to distance timing between
peaks and troughs. In that regard, part of the total signal can be detected while
the rest of the coherent wave signal continues onward. If this is correct, then the
information cubit contained in the remaining part of the coherent wave is still
viable even though part of it has been detected. The individual photon has been
converted/released as another form of energy.
Like now for instance where you continually ask a question I have answered many times before... this is no criticism but there is a total "disconnect" here don't you agree?
The practical fact is photons do not change their energy and still retain their qubit. This is just an experimental fact. Show me one confirmed experiment where they do.
Like I said, I/we are attempting to get you to make absolute statements of fact
or opinion devoid of supposition and hypotheticals. I am asking for "clear cut"
statements with "yes or no" arguments. I think the term is COMMITMENT! LOL!
"Paint" a verbal picture that tells a "story" so that everyone can easily and
accurately retell the "story". Please don't start it with "Once upon a time...."
Re: photons changing energy and retaining their qubit.... Photons travelling thru
a lens or refractive medium change their instantaneous energy and direction while in that
medium, but still retain their information qubit. Their relative timing and phase has
changed but the information that they are transporting retains its original value. If
you take a linearly polarized photon (wave) and change it to a circularly polarized
wave doesn't it still convey the same information as the original? Do you agree?
Regards,
LL
Good Elf, Confused2, Laserlight, Neil Farbstein, "THEY", "2", Aerohead et al
You are in good company with this paradox oh the conundrum's with paradoxes. That caustic which you handle in order to scorch others may happen to sear your own fingers and make one wonder if there is sanity or quality of things.
I completely understand this enigma of Young's experiment and the toll it has taken but until you deal with the UCP/T and it ramifications it will be impossible to come to a meeting of the minds on this.
I would like to give you my view but I feel that it is not relevant nor is it important for what everyone is seeking.
I enjoy reading this site in fact it is the only one because of time. Please do not leave a paper unturned and enjoy the ride as they say?
ciao_
yquantum
Carpe Diem
You are in good company with this paradox oh the conundrum's with paradoxes. That caustic which you handle in order to scorch others may happen to sear your own fingers and make one wonder if there is sanity or quality of things.
I completely understand this enigma of Young's experiment and the toll it has taken but until you deal with the UCP/T and it ramifications it will be impossible to come to a meeting of the minds on this.
I would like to give you my view but I feel that it is not relevant nor is it important for what everyone is seeking.
I enjoy reading this site in fact it is the only one because of time. Please do not leave a paper unturned and enjoy the ride as they say?
ciao_
yquantum
Carpe Diem
QUOTE (Confused2+Jan 13 2007, 05:24 PM)
Hi Laserlight,
Sorry LL, I think I might easily have missed (not rejected) something! Please could you point me at the 'best' post or starting points so's I can go round again.
Best wishes,
-C2.
C2- per your request....
My favorite personal description of the mechanics of the DSE:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156668
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156789
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156809
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156946
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156951
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=157052
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=157623
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=157769
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=158491
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=158938
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=159191
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=159395
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=159860
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=159912
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=160988
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=161091
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=161355
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=161450
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=161645
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=161685
Proposed DSE mechanics solutions:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=154926
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=155404
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156314
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156544
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156593
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156647
Sorry LL, I think I might easily have missed (not rejected) something! Please could you point me at the 'best' post or starting points so's I can go round again.
Best wishes,
-C2.
C2- per your request....
My favorite personal description of the mechanics of the DSE:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156668
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156789
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156809
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156946
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156951
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=157052
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=157623
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=157769
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=158491
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=158938
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=159191
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=159395
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=159860
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=159912
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=160988
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=161091
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=161355
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=161450
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=161645
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=161685
Proposed DSE mechanics solutions:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=154926
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=155404
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156314
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156544
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156593
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156647
Hi Laserlight,
Somewhere in the depths of Physorg is deep pool of 'something'. Yquantum and Good Elf are among the ones who originally created that pool. I am grateful to them without reservation. Nuff said.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...50&#entry156668
1. The slits are geometric "energy cavities" that harmonically mix the incoming
EM phase angle "instantaneous" energy.
You probably thought I was babbling about the absence of precision engineering for no reason whatsoever .. in reality the requirements for setting up the DSE include trying not to bleed into the cut you've just slashed into a bit of foil or film or whatever seemed like a good idea at the time.
2. The energy of the arriving photons add energy to the cavity(ies), which resonates
and creates a "phase timing delay" to the energy of the photons. Oscillations
take time....thus the phase delay. This is the EM "signal" phase mixing area.
Assuming the blood has congealed and we scrape out the slits (carefully - we don't want any more accidents) Phase .. that's going to be determined by the precise geometry, width, height and blood group of the slits. Phase delay .. could be anything.. you disagree?
3. The instantaneous phase angle of the arriving photon(s) determines its "apparent"
energy at the point of entry into the cavity. That "apparent" energy component
varies according to the EM field amplitude, and phase relationship, upon entry into
the cavity. (TRoc called it "signal clipping", I think it is the right description)
Bearing in mind that the other slit can be thousands of wavelengths away (but a constant distance) .. we have no control over the phase angle of arrival .. we can be reasonably sure there will be a contant relationship between the two slits though.
4. The amount of energy added to the cavity(ies) by the arriving photon varies
the power of its harmonic oscillations, which affects its phase "delaying"
characteristics and the resultant energy added to the photon passing thru.
Harmonic oscillations? 1st, 2nd 3rd or what? Energy added !.. the source could be a bicycle bulb .. not known for coherence. How does this addition at one slit and the other slit .. different distances .. no phase coherence ..
5. The fixed physical geometry of the cavities is reacting with the
variable energy geometry of the arriving photons, harmonically. This changes
their phasing and energy level and determines the trajectory of the photons as
they leave the confines of the slit cavities.
That equation I kept repeating .. about the peaks being where the path lengths were different by an integral number of wavelengths .. I was wasting my time wasn't I?
6. All harmonic mixing, phasing delays, and energy transfer takes place in the
cavities of the slits. The energy recombination and phasing delay, caused by the
cavities, determines the photon "projection" trajectories toward the screen.
That equation I kept repeating .. waste of time..
Next..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...65&#entry156789
Could the geometry of a single slit cut by an idiot be soooo well defined that it comes out to be like that equation .. the same one AGAIN .. about the peaks being where the path lengths were different by an integral number of wavelengths ..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=156809
Do you agree that the slit "cavities" are basically miniature "waveguides",
when compared to the wavelength of light?
As "waveguides", which are nothing more than extended cavities, they have
inherent physical and geometric properties that affect the way that energy
acts within their "confines". True, they are not exactly "tuned" to the photon
wavelengths that pass thru them, but you must concede that they can
have dramatic influence on electro-magnetic fields due to proximity field effects.
Isn't this how diffraction, reflection, absorption, and scattering work. It is
energy interaction on an atomic scale.
Holes, slits, slashes, sides of a pencil will do it if you've got a steady hand.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=156946
Notice that a single slit prescribes a 360 degree phase circle on the screen evenly
split down the waveforms centerline. The width of the slit determines the
amount of diffraction (phase shifiting/delay). A narrower slit phase shifts (delays)
part of the wave more than a wide slit, and wave "scattering" occurs as viewed on the
screen. A wider slit has less phase shifting (more unshifted energy gets thru
without a delay) and a narrower wave pulse is projected, centered on the screen.
This is another precision engineering job that slasher C2 doesn't really think is important.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=156951
The only variable is the rotational phase angle of the
propagating EM wave energy.
This doesn't have any relationship to that equation I kept repeating .. about the peaks being where the path lengths were different by an integral number of wavelengths . Even if this predict 'something' it doesn't predict the RIGHT thing. There's a difference .. it's important.
.. I suspect I have gone far enough ..
LL .. your comments please.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Somewhere in the depths of Physorg is deep pool of 'something'. Yquantum and Good Elf are among the ones who originally created that pool. I am grateful to them without reservation. Nuff said.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...50&#entry156668
1. The slits are geometric "energy cavities" that harmonically mix the incoming
EM phase angle "instantaneous" energy.
You probably thought I was babbling about the absence of precision engineering for no reason whatsoever .. in reality the requirements for setting up the DSE include trying not to bleed into the cut you've just slashed into a bit of foil or film or whatever seemed like a good idea at the time.
2. The energy of the arriving photons add energy to the cavity(ies), which resonates
and creates a "phase timing delay" to the energy of the photons. Oscillations
take time....thus the phase delay. This is the EM "signal" phase mixing area.
Assuming the blood has congealed and we scrape out the slits (carefully - we don't want any more accidents) Phase .. that's going to be determined by the precise geometry, width, height and blood group of the slits. Phase delay .. could be anything.. you disagree?
3. The instantaneous phase angle of the arriving photon(s) determines its "apparent"
energy at the point of entry into the cavity. That "apparent" energy component
varies according to the EM field amplitude, and phase relationship, upon entry into
the cavity. (TRoc called it "signal clipping", I think it is the right description)
Bearing in mind that the other slit can be thousands of wavelengths away (but a constant distance) .. we have no control over the phase angle of arrival .. we can be reasonably sure there will be a contant relationship between the two slits though.
4. The amount of energy added to the cavity(ies) by the arriving photon varies
the power of its harmonic oscillations, which affects its phase "delaying"
characteristics and the resultant energy added to the photon passing thru.
Harmonic oscillations? 1st, 2nd 3rd or what? Energy added !.. the source could be a bicycle bulb .. not known for coherence. How does this addition at one slit and the other slit .. different distances .. no phase coherence ..
5. The fixed physical geometry of the cavities is reacting with the
variable energy geometry of the arriving photons, harmonically. This changes
their phasing and energy level and determines the trajectory of the photons as
they leave the confines of the slit cavities.
That equation I kept repeating .. about the peaks being where the path lengths were different by an integral number of wavelengths .. I was wasting my time wasn't I?
6. All harmonic mixing, phasing delays, and energy transfer takes place in the
cavities of the slits. The energy recombination and phasing delay, caused by the
cavities, determines the photon "projection" trajectories toward the screen.
That equation I kept repeating .. waste of time..
Next..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...65&#entry156789
Could the geometry of a single slit cut by an idiot be soooo well defined that it comes out to be like that equation .. the same one AGAIN .. about the peaks being where the path lengths were different by an integral number of wavelengths ..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=156809
Do you agree that the slit "cavities" are basically miniature "waveguides",
when compared to the wavelength of light?
As "waveguides", which are nothing more than extended cavities, they have
inherent physical and geometric properties that affect the way that energy
acts within their "confines". True, they are not exactly "tuned" to the photon
wavelengths that pass thru them, but you must concede that they can
have dramatic influence on electro-magnetic fields due to proximity field effects.
Isn't this how diffraction, reflection, absorption, and scattering work. It is
energy interaction on an atomic scale.
Holes, slits, slashes, sides of a pencil will do it if you've got a steady hand.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=156946
Notice that a single slit prescribes a 360 degree phase circle on the screen evenly
split down the waveforms centerline. The width of the slit determines the
amount of diffraction (phase shifiting/delay). A narrower slit phase shifts (delays)
part of the wave more than a wide slit, and wave "scattering" occurs as viewed on the
screen. A wider slit has less phase shifting (more unshifted energy gets thru
without a delay) and a narrower wave pulse is projected, centered on the screen.
This is another precision engineering job that slasher C2 doesn't really think is important.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=156951
The only variable is the rotational phase angle of the
propagating EM wave energy.
This doesn't have any relationship to that equation I kept repeating .. about the peaks being where the path lengths were different by an integral number of wavelengths . Even if this predict 'something' it doesn't predict the RIGHT thing. There's a difference .. it's important.
.. I suspect I have gone far enough ..
LL .. your comments please.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi all,
It's nice to be back, and to see everyone still passionate.
C2,
I'm pretty sure that LL and GE both agree with me that your "DSE equation" works just fine for what you are talking about. Namely the "standard" DSE experiment. This is not where the "mystery" of QM lies, it is with the advanced DSE experiments, where some new twists have been added. "One at a time" has a "quasi-random pattern" that can NOT be explained with the standard DSE equation, and method, that you keep bringing up.
The other thing is, I think that GE, LL, and I are all seeking to explain ALL the versions and extensions of the DSE with a self similar, singular theory. The "textbook" has to use several different methods, even invoking such strange parameters as "wave particle duality", when there is arguably no such thing, to try to explain ONE simple experiment with waves. We can not get very far at all with the simple method and equation of the DSE.
What does it say about the "one-at-a-time, random build up" experiment?
What does it say about HOW or WHY arbitrary division of the slit width works?
What does it say about HOW or WHY path length differences would interact?
What does it say about WHICH arbitrary division will be the negative frequencies, and which "new sources" will be the positive?
What does your path length have to say about self interference? (same pathlength)
Why are there different equations for the "path length" explanation that happens AT the screen?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_pattern
Each point in the intensity pattern is a superposition of each point of the rough surface contributing with a random phase due to path length differences. If the surface is rough enough to create pathlength differences exceeding a wavelength, the statistics of the speckle field will correspond to a random walk in the complex plane. If the contributions are large, corresponding to a large illuminated surface, the field will follow a circular complex distribution, where both the real and imaginary parts are normally distributed with a zero expected value and the same standard deviations. Furthermore, the real and imaginary parts are uncorrelated. This gives a negative exponential distribution for the intensity. This is the root of the classic speckle appearance—mainly dark areas with bright islands.
The speckle phenomena also have analogues in other fields; examples are the reflection of radio waves from rough surfaces such as the ground, and ultrasonic imaging etc. The speckle pattern was initially considered the bane of holographers as holographic reconstructions were accompanied by grainy noise. It was later realized that these speckle patterns could carry information about the object's surface deformations, and that speckled wave fronts could interfere. The speckle pattern formed in the space due to self-interference among the propagating scattered waves is called “objective speckles”. The speckle pattern formed by imaging a diffuse object illuminated by a coherent beam is called a “subjective speckle pattern”.
(emphasis added)
(the last ones were for GE)
Even when the "slit" is so big that it can no longer be considered as any type of "barrier", we still see interference of the wave fronts. What does the arbitrary width division say about that, C2?
We need to move past the simple part of the DSE.
regards,
T.Roc
It's nice to be back, and to see everyone still passionate.
C2,
I'm pretty sure that LL and GE both agree with me that your "DSE equation" works just fine for what you are talking about. Namely the "standard" DSE experiment. This is not where the "mystery" of QM lies, it is with the advanced DSE experiments, where some new twists have been added. "One at a time" has a "quasi-random pattern" that can NOT be explained with the standard DSE equation, and method, that you keep bringing up.
The other thing is, I think that GE, LL, and I are all seeking to explain ALL the versions and extensions of the DSE with a self similar, singular theory. The "textbook" has to use several different methods, even invoking such strange parameters as "wave particle duality", when there is arguably no such thing, to try to explain ONE simple experiment with waves. We can not get very far at all with the simple method and equation of the DSE.
What does it say about the "one-at-a-time, random build up" experiment?
What does it say about HOW or WHY arbitrary division of the slit width works?
What does it say about HOW or WHY path length differences would interact?
What does it say about WHICH arbitrary division will be the negative frequencies, and which "new sources" will be the positive?
What does your path length have to say about self interference? (same pathlength)
Why are there different equations for the "path length" explanation that happens AT the screen?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_pattern
QUOTE
A speckle pattern is a random intensity pattern produced by the mutual interference of coherent wavefronts that are subject to phase differences and/or intensity fluctuations.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A speckle pattern is a random intensity pattern produced by the mutual interference of coherent wavefronts that are subject to phase differences and/or intensity fluctuations. |
Each point in the intensity pattern is a superposition of each point of the rough surface contributing with a random phase due to path length differences. If the surface is rough enough to create pathlength differences exceeding a wavelength, the statistics of the speckle field will correspond to a random walk in the complex plane. If the contributions are large, corresponding to a large illuminated surface, the field will follow a circular complex distribution, where both the real and imaginary parts are normally distributed with a zero expected value and the same standard deviations. Furthermore, the real and imaginary parts are uncorrelated. This gives a negative exponential distribution for the intensity. This is the root of the classic speckle appearance—mainly dark areas with bright islands.
QUOTE
The formation of such a speckle pattern is due to the high coherence of the laser light. Since variations in the surface are greater than the wavelength, coherent light scattered by the individual elements of the surface interferes to form a stationary pattern.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The formation of such a speckle pattern is due to the high coherence of the laser light. Since variations in the surface are greater than the wavelength, coherent light scattered by the individual elements of the surface interferes to form a stationary pattern. |
The speckle phenomena also have analogues in other fields; examples are the reflection of radio waves from rough surfaces such as the ground, and ultrasonic imaging etc. The speckle pattern was initially considered the bane of holographers as holographic reconstructions were accompanied by grainy noise. It was later realized that these speckle patterns could carry information about the object's surface deformations, and that speckled wave fronts could interfere. The speckle pattern formed in the space due to self-interference among the propagating scattered waves is called “objective speckles”. The speckle pattern formed by imaging a diffuse object illuminated by a coherent beam is called a “subjective speckle pattern”.
(emphasis added)
(the last ones were for GE)
Even when the "slit" is so big that it can no longer be considered as any type of "barrier", we still see interference of the wave fronts. What does the arbitrary width division say about that, C2?
We need to move past the simple part of the DSE.
regards,
T.Roc
C2-
As I stated before, there is nothing wrong with the equation that you have
posted many times, no one is disputing that. There is a geometrical relationship
that exists between the orientation of the slits and the screen. We already know that and accept it. But it doesn't explain the underlying mechanism.
What is missing from your argument, and that you seem to think is not important,
is WHY that geometrical relationship generates photon interference.
It is the interaction of the different geometries that exist between the photons and
the slits. If you use 2 different wavelengths of light while leaving the slits the
same, you get a different spacing result, according to the wavelength.
http://vsg.quasihome.com/interfer.htm
We are seeking the reason why, and how, the interference occurs, not the
mathematical solution. That does not detail the physical mechanisms at work.
Let me put it another way, we know that the moon revolves around the earth
and has phases which are mathematically predictable...so what? We know that.
The math provides a solution but does not answer why the effect happens.
We need to know the physics of why and how it happens and the physical
relationships that create the situation.
The answer to the underlying physics of the DSE has never been satisfactorily
explained or else it would not still be such a puzzle to science.
Something happens at the slits to change how photons interact and produce an
interference result. I am offering possible mechanisms as to why the physics
works. The math is unimportant. The physics existed before the math that
predicts an outcome.
Regards,
LL
As I stated before, there is nothing wrong with the equation that you have
posted many times, no one is disputing that. There is a geometrical relationship
that exists between the orientation of the slits and the screen. We already know that and accept it. But it doesn't explain the underlying mechanism.
What is missing from your argument, and that you seem to think is not important,
is WHY that geometrical relationship generates photon interference.
It is the interaction of the different geometries that exist between the photons and
the slits. If you use 2 different wavelengths of light while leaving the slits the
same, you get a different spacing result, according to the wavelength.
http://vsg.quasihome.com/interfer.htm
We are seeking the reason why, and how, the interference occurs, not the
mathematical solution. That does not detail the physical mechanisms at work.
Let me put it another way, we know that the moon revolves around the earth
and has phases which are mathematically predictable...so what? We know that.
The math provides a solution but does not answer why the effect happens.
We need to know the physics of why and how it happens and the physical
relationships that create the situation.
The answer to the underlying physics of the DSE has never been satisfactorily
explained or else it would not still be such a puzzle to science.
Something happens at the slits to change how photons interact and produce an
interference result. I am offering possible mechanisms as to why the physics
works. The math is unimportant. The physics existed before the math that
predicts an outcome.
Regards,
LL
TRoc,
Welcome back!
That was an interesting article on speckle "pattern" anomolies and does seem
to have some relevance to issues we are confronting with the DSE.
My understanding of the Wiki article was that the coherent laser beam only
exhibited the interference when reflected from a textured surface that
affected the phase relationship of the photons of the coherent beam.
Glad to see everyone back and posting.
Regards,
LL
Welcome back!
That was an interesting article on speckle "pattern" anomolies and does seem
to have some relevance to issues we are confronting with the DSE.
My understanding of the Wiki article was that the coherent laser beam only
exhibited the interference when reflected from a textured surface that
affected the phase relationship of the photons of the coherent beam.
Glad to see everyone back and posting.
Regards,
LL
Hi TRoc,Laserlight, Good Elf,yquantum,Niel Farbstein,Dulaity(?) et al,
I am suggesting the importance of the mathematical prediction about where the fringes will be is that it enables us to distinguish between something that is a plausible explanation and something that isn't.
TRoc's post highlights some points..
1/What does it say about the "one-at-a-time, random build up" experiment?
It says no photons will be detected where the difference in path length is half a wavelength
2/What does it say about HOW or WHY arbitrary division of the slit width works?
It says nothing about how or why the slit width doesn't matter .. only that it doesn't. If the path is divided either by slits or a half silvered mirror then the equation will apply because what is important is the difference in path length NOT the width of the slit(s). The DSE equation is 'one equation fits all experiments'.
3/What does it say about HOW or WHY path length differences would interact?
It says no photons will be detected where the difference in path length is half a wavelength... I think this is (possibly) the best clue we have.
4/What does it say about WHICH arbitrary division will be the negative frequencies, and which "new sources" will be the positive?
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. My guess at an answer is that your negative frequency is out of phase with your positive frequency??? If so then my best answer would be that there is the same frequency from both slits and it is in phase where the pathlength difference is zero or a whole number of wavelengths and out of phase where the pathlengths differ by half a wavelength... this would be pretty much the reason why the DSE equation 'works'.
5/What does your path length have to say about self interference? (same pathlength)
This is an indication that we are looking at different experiments. Let us number our photons. By implication you seem to be suggesting that the only point photon_1 is interacting with itself is where the path lengths are equal, hence the rest of the maxima would be due to (say) photon_2 interacting with (say) photon_3 and so on. This would be a multiple photon explanation of the single photon DSE. If you doubt that the experiment is 'as claimed' then we need to look at the setup again for evidence.
6/Why are there different equations for the "path length" explanation that happens AT the screen?
I'm not sure about the meaning of the 'different equations' .. the way the results agree with the single equation suggests very strongly that the only thing that really matters in the DSE is the difference in path lengths between each slit and the point of detection (or not, as the case may be). This takes us back to question 2/ which was along the lines of :- WHY does arbitrary division of the slit width not make any difference? .. clearly (to me at least) because only the difference in path length matters.
I am suggesting the importance of the mathematical prediction about where the fringes will be is that it enables us to distinguish between something that is a plausible explanation and something that isn't.
TRoc's post highlights some points..
1/What does it say about the "one-at-a-time, random build up" experiment?
It says no photons will be detected where the difference in path length is half a wavelength
2/What does it say about HOW or WHY arbitrary division of the slit width works?
It says nothing about how or why the slit width doesn't matter .. only that it doesn't. If the path is divided either by slits or a half silvered mirror then the equation will apply because what is important is the difference in path length NOT the width of the slit(s). The DSE equation is 'one equation fits all experiments'.
3/What does it say about HOW or WHY path length differences would interact?
It says no photons will be detected where the difference in path length is half a wavelength... I think this is (possibly) the best clue we have.
4/What does it say about WHICH arbitrary division will be the negative frequencies, and which "new sources" will be the positive?
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. My guess at an answer is that your negative frequency is out of phase with your positive frequency??? If so then my best answer would be that there is the same frequency from both slits and it is in phase where the pathlength difference is zero or a whole number of wavelengths and out of phase where the pathlengths differ by half a wavelength... this would be pretty much the reason why the DSE equation 'works'.
5/What does your path length have to say about self interference? (same pathlength)
This is an indication that we are looking at different experiments. Let us number our photons. By implication you seem to be suggesting that the only point photon_1 is interacting with itself is where the path lengths are equal, hence the rest of the maxima would be due to (say) photon_2 interacting with (say) photon_3 and so on. This would be a multiple photon explanation of the single photon DSE. If you doubt that the experiment is 'as claimed' then we need to look at the setup again for evidence.
6/Why are there different equations for the "path length" explanation that happens AT the screen?
I'm not sure about the meaning of the 'different equations' .. the way the results agree with the single equation suggests very strongly that the only thing that really matters in the DSE is the difference in path lengths between each slit and the point of detection (or not, as the case may be). This takes us back to question 2/ which was along the lines of :- WHY does arbitrary division of the slit width not make any difference? .. clearly (to me at least) because only the difference in path length matters.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Glad to see everyone back and posting.
I couldn't agree more .
Best wishes,
-C2.
I couldn't agree more
.Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2,
Can you explain to me how diffraction works? Why does light going thru a slit
spread and why does the width of the slit affect the amount of spread induced?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...inslitd.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...pt/refr.html#c2
Would you say that the slit(s) are functioning like lenses with
an index of refraction?
Regards,
LL
Can you explain to me how diffraction works? Why does light going thru a slit
spread and why does the width of the slit affect the amount of spread induced?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...inslitd.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...pt/refr.html#c2
Would you say that the slit(s) are functioning like lenses with
an index of refraction?
Regards,
LL
Hi all,
LL
Prominent examples include the seemingly random pattern created when a coherent laser beam is reflected off a rough surface, and the highly magnified image of a star through imperfect optics or through the atmosphere (see speckle imaging). Each point in the intensity pattern is a superposition of each point of the rough surface contributing with a random phase due to path length differences. If the surface is rough enough to create pathlength differences exceeding a wavelength, the statistics of the speckle field will correspond to a random walk in the complex plane.
The point that I want you to take home is that the "normal" path of the flow of light is blocked somehow. On the atomic scale, that we need to stay at, we are ALWAYS going to be talking about electrons (the nucleus for high energy photons). Keep in mind that our "photons" are on the order of 10e-7 m for these "visible" light experiments, and the electron is estimated to be around 10-15 m, and the "field" around 10e-12 m; atoms are about 10e-10 m. The interaction of light with electrons is always such that the "photon" is bigger, and will be "grated", "combed", or otherwise partially blocked by the electrons, and, the distance between these "solid" points is what determines (by ratio) how much light will pass through. This is our lattice, and everything has this property. We will always deal with either "homogeneous", or "random" spacing between electrons (in 3D). "Transparency" is ordered electrons, which lets light flow through in a "harmonic" way. This transparency can be induced by vibration of heat, electricity, etc, in materials that are not normally transparent.
There is mostly NOTHING between electrons, and there is NOTHING between the sides of the slit. There is a whole lot of NOTHING, doing things to our light beam. On that note, I'll segway to C2.
continued...
LL
QUOTE
"..the coherent laser beam only
exhibited the interference when reflected from a textured surface .."
exhibited the interference when reflected from a textured surface .."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "..the coherent laser beam only exhibited the interference when reflected from a textured surface .." |
Prominent examples include the seemingly random pattern created when a coherent laser beam is reflected off a rough surface, and the highly magnified image of a star through imperfect optics or through the atmosphere (see speckle imaging). Each point in the intensity pattern is a superposition of each point of the rough surface contributing with a random phase due to path length differences. If the surface is rough enough to create pathlength differences exceeding a wavelength, the statistics of the speckle field will correspond to a random walk in the complex plane.
QUOTE
The speckle phenomena also have analogues in other fields; examples are the reflection of radio waves from rough surfaces such as the ground, and ultrasonic imaging etc. The speckle pattern was initially considered the bane of holographers as holographic reconstructions were accompanied by grainy noise. It was later realized that these speckle patterns could carry information about the object's surface deformations, and that speckled wave fronts could interfere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_patternThe point that I want you to take home is that the "normal" path of the flow of light is blocked somehow. On the atomic scale, that we need to stay at, we are ALWAYS going to be talking about electrons (the nucleus for high energy photons). Keep in mind that our "photons" are on the order of 10e-7 m for these "visible" light experiments, and the electron is estimated to be around 10-15 m, and the "field" around 10e-12 m; atoms are about 10e-10 m. The interaction of light with electrons is always such that the "photon" is bigger, and will be "grated", "combed", or otherwise partially blocked by the electrons, and, the distance between these "solid" points is what determines (by ratio) how much light will pass through. This is our lattice, and everything has this property. We will always deal with either "homogeneous", or "random" spacing between electrons (in 3D). "Transparency" is ordered electrons, which lets light flow through in a "harmonic" way. This transparency can be induced by vibration of heat, electricity, etc, in materials that are not normally transparent.
There is mostly NOTHING between electrons, and there is NOTHING between the sides of the slit. There is a whole lot of NOTHING, doing things to our light beam. On that note, I'll segway to C2.
continued...
Hi All,
One issue that has been bothering me about the DSE that we have not really
explored is the idea of standing waves between the slit wall and the source.
Thus far we have only concentrated on effects that occur in the cavity beyond the
slits.
Are standing waves in this first "source cavity" having a phase shift effect on the
photons/waves prior to entering the slit cavities? Is there constructive or
destructive interference occuring that might have an effect on which phase angle
the photons enter the slits? How would any change in pre-slit interference affect
the index of refraction and dispersion created by the slits?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../standw.html#c1
Your thoughts or commentary appreciated.
LL
One issue that has been bothering me about the DSE that we have not really
explored is the idea of standing waves between the slit wall and the source.
Thus far we have only concentrated on effects that occur in the cavity beyond the
slits.
Are standing waves in this first "source cavity" having a phase shift effect on the
photons/waves prior to entering the slit cavities? Is there constructive or
destructive interference occuring that might have an effect on which phase angle
the photons enter the slits? How would any change in pre-slit interference affect
the index of refraction and dispersion created by the slits?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../standw.html#c1
Your thoughts or commentary appreciated.
LL
TRoc,
Are the dimensions that you referenced wave amplitude (height) and "gap"
distance dimensions?
I was under the impression that a photon's wave amplitude was
exactly the size of the electron's energy level drop dimension between shells?
Am I incorrect, or is the actual electron drop, which is moving along some angle
of declination between energy shells, creating a photon height that is larger than
the actual gap dimension?
Also, an electron's displacement when stimulated, should follow some angle of
inclination as it is displaced into a higher orbital level.
We must keep in mind that certain wavelengths of light have different
degrees of transparency to different types of materials. The point being, that
the wavelengths of matter must have some integral relationship relative to the
wavelength of light travelling thru it. Certain wavelengths get blocked while
others can pass right thru. This is pertinent to the index of refraction, the
transparency, and the opacity exhibited by a material.
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
Are the dimensions that you referenced wave amplitude (height) and "gap"
distance dimensions?
I was under the impression that a photon's wave amplitude was
exactly the size of the electron's energy level drop dimension between shells?
Am I incorrect, or is the actual electron drop, which is moving along some angle
of declination between energy shells, creating a photon height that is larger than
the actual gap dimension?
Also, an electron's displacement when stimulated, should follow some angle of
inclination as it is displaced into a higher orbital level.
We must keep in mind that certain wavelengths of light have different
degrees of transparency to different types of materials. The point being, that
the wavelengths of matter must have some integral relationship relative to the
wavelength of light travelling thru it. Certain wavelengths get blocked while
others can pass right thru. This is pertinent to the index of refraction, the
transparency, and the opacity exhibited by a material.
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
C2,
LL already asked a similar line of questioning. I want to ask specifically WHICH method, and equation are you referring to?
Do you want to treat the "photons" as entering the slits as a plane wave, or curved? It is instructive, I think, to first look at the near field method, so that we can see the logarithmic spiral wave nature as Fundamental to the linear approach. Only after some growth does this form create things like vector lines, x and y axis, 90 degree orthogonal, and circles & Pi .
LL already asked a similar line of questioning. I want to ask specifically WHICH method, and equation are you referring to?
Do you want to treat the "photons" as entering the slits as a plane wave, or curved? It is instructive, I think, to first look at the near field method, so that we can see the logarithmic spiral wave nature as Fundamental to the linear approach. Only after some growth does this form create things like vector lines, x and y axis, 90 degree orthogonal, and circles & Pi .
QUOTE
Aperture diffraction
A far-field pattern exists at distances that are large compared with s 2/λ, where s is a characteristic dimension of the source and λ is the wavelength. For example, if the source is a uniformly illuminated circle, then s is the radius of the circle.
The far-field diffraction pattern of a source may also be observed (except for scale) in the focal plane of a well-corrected lens. The far-field pattern of a diffracting screen illuminated by a point source may be observed in the image plane of the source.
If a light source and an observation screen are effectively far enough from a diffraction aperture (for example a slit), then the wavefronts arriving at the aperture and the screen can be considered to be collimated, or plane. Fresnel diffraction, or near-field diffraction occurs when this is not the case and the curvature of the incident wavefronts is taken into account.
In far-field diffraction, if the observation screen is moved relative to the aperture, the diffraction pattern produced changes uniformly in size. This is not the case in near-field diffraction, where the diffraction pattern changes both in size and shape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffractionA far-field pattern exists at distances that are large compared with s 2/λ, where s is a characteristic dimension of the source and λ is the wavelength. For example, if the source is a uniformly illuminated circle, then s is the radius of the circle.
The far-field diffraction pattern of a source may also be observed (except for scale) in the focal plane of a well-corrected lens. The far-field pattern of a diffracting screen illuminated by a point source may be observed in the image plane of the source.
If a light source and an observation screen are effectively far enough from a diffraction aperture (for example a slit), then the wavefronts arriving at the aperture and the screen can be considered to be collimated, or plane. Fresnel diffraction, or near-field diffraction occurs when this is not the case and the curvature of the incident wavefronts is taken into account.
In far-field diffraction, if the observation screen is moved relative to the aperture, the diffraction pattern produced changes uniformly in size. This is not the case in near-field diffraction, where the diffraction pattern changes both in size and shape.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Aperture diffraction A far-field pattern exists at distances that are large compared with s 2/λ, where s is a characteristic dimension of the source and λ is the wavelength. For example, if the source is a uniformly illuminated circle, then s is the radius of the circle. The far-field diffraction pattern of a source may also be observed (except for scale) in the focal plane of a well-corrected lens. The far-field pattern of a diffracting screen illuminated by a point source may be observed in the image plane of the source. If a light source and an observation screen are effectively far enough from a diffraction aperture (for example a slit), then the wavefronts arriving at the aperture and the screen can be considered to be collimated, or plane. Fresnel diffraction, or near-field diffraction occurs when this is not the case and the curvature of the incident wavefronts is taken into account. In far-field diffraction, if the observation screen is moved relative to the aperture, the diffraction pattern produced changes uniformly in size. This is not the case in near-field diffraction, where the diffraction pattern changes both in size and shape. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffraction
Fresnel Diffraction
Fraunhofer diffraction is the special case where the incoming light is assumed to be parallel and the image plane is assumed to be at a very large distance compared to the diffracting object. Fresnel diffraction refers to the general case where those restrictions are relaxed. This makes it much more complex mathematically. Some cases can be treated in a reasonable empirical and graphical manner to explain some observed phenomena.
For a bookmark, I will note here that I have talked considerably about the spiral form, and the elliptical model vs the "perfect pi". I am not going to use any of "my" ideas here, C2; everything will be from the book, and you are holding the reigns.
For a bookmark, I will note here that I have talked considerably about the spiral form, and the elliptical model vs the "perfect pi". I am not going to use any of "my" ideas here, C2; everything will be from the book, and you are holding the reigns.
Fresnel v Parameter
The v-parameter in Fresnel diffraction analysis can be thought of as the arclength along the amplitude vector diagram called the Cornu spiral. In the Fraunhofer diffraction case where the source wavefront was assumed to be planar, the different elements of the wavefront had a constant phase difference and the incremental amplitude elements added to form the arc of a circle. In the Fresnel diffraction case where the curvature of the wavefront is included, the relative phase is not constant and the amplitude elements bend into the spiral curve. Just as in the Fraunhofer case, the resultant amplitude is represented by the chord of the arc.
[URL=http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/fresgeo.html#c1]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...fresgeo.html#c1[/URL]
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...raungeo.html#c1
Now for responses to your last post:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...raungeo.html#c1
Now for responses to your last post:
1/What does it say about the "one-at-a-time, random build up" experiment?
(C2)It says no photons will be detected where the difference in path length is half a wavelength No, I mean the random locations that the "one-at-a-time photons" are measured at. You have only answered why they don't land in some places, not about why the "random" locations build up to produce the same pattern as when the full stream of "photons" arrives.
2/What does it say about HOW or WHY arbitrary division of the slit width works?
(C2) It says nothing about how or why the slit width doesn't matter .. only that it doesn't. If the path is divided either by slits or a half silvered mirror then the equation will apply because what is important is the difference in path length NOT the width of the slit(s). The DSE equation is 'one equation fits all experiments'. Here you have misunderstood; I am talking about the method of "arbitrary division" itself, not any function of the width of the actual slit. See the diagrams on this post for the geometry of "nothing" between 2 sides of a slit.
3/What does it say about HOW or WHY path length differences would interact?
(C2) It says no photons will be detected where the difference in path length is half a wavelength... I think this is (possibly) the best clue we have. Again, you did not answer the other half of the question/problem. What about every other path length ratio? At what point do we stop the "1/2 wave" destructive process, and start the "1/1 wave" constructive resonance? How does your analogy work for the single slit? Specifically HOW do we get different results from 1 slit vs 2+ slits? (look at intensity)
4/What does it say about WHICH arbitrary division will be the negative frequencies, and which "new sources" will be the positive?
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. My guess at an answer is that your negative frequency is out of phase with your positive frequency??? If so then my best answer would be that there is the same frequency from both slits and it is in phase where the pathlength difference is zero or a whole number of wavelengths and out of phase where the pathlengths differ by half a wavelength... this would be pretty much the reason why the DSE equation 'works'. See above, for "constructive/destructive" analogy. Also, see below.
6/Why are there different equations for the "path length" explanation that happens AT the screen?
(C2) I'm not sure about the meaning of the 'different equations' .. the way the results agree with the single equation suggests very strongly that the only thing that really matters in the DSE is the difference in path lengths between each slit and the point of detection (or not, as the case may be). This takes us back to question 2/ which was along the lines of :- WHY does arbitrary division of the slit width not make any difference? .. clearly (to me at least) because only the difference in path length matters. As I have said, your method requires arbitrary points across the slit width in order to change angles, or path lengths. The other equations and methods I am talking about are Bragg and Compton, to start with. I have already commented on those, would you like me to do so again?
http://130.191.21.201/multimedia/jiracek/d...nearsystem.html
Hopefully, you can see the comparison of the S/DSE with a bandpass and notch filters. The full barrier is the low pass filter, and the slit so large that the sides do not come into play is a high pass filter.
We have different domains to use as models.
Hopefully, you can see the comparison of the S/DSE with a bandpass and notch filters. The full barrier is the low pass filter, and the slit so large that the sides do not come into play is a high pass filter.
We have different domains to use as models.
2.5 Summary
Before closing this section, let’s repeat the two main points in this section:
The highest frequency observed in digital data is the Nyquist frequency given by fN = 1/2Dt (or 1/2Dx); signals with frequencies above fN end up being aliased (folded) into lower frequencies.
The frequencies resolved in finite-length, digital time domain data of length T are 0, 1/T, 2/T, …, 1/2Dt (or 0, 1/Lx, 2/Lx,…, 1/2Dx for space domain data of length Lx).
These points are so fundamental, so important, in digital recording that we will repeat them "in other words": These points are so fundamental, so important, in digital recording that we will repeat them "in other words"…
The sampling interval Dt (or Dx) determines the highest frequency recorded, 1/2Dt (or 1/2Dx) and the degree of aliasing at all recorded frequencies.
The length of data recorded (T or Lx) determines the lowest frequency recorded, (1/T or 1/Lx) which is also the frequency resolution Df or Dfx in digital spectra.
http://130.191.21.201/multimedia/jiracek/d...ng/summary.html
C2, when the path lengths are altered, is there a time difference of incidence at the screen? That is, from your "new source" (the slit), do all the "adjusted" path lengths travel at the same velocity?
C2, when the path lengths are altered, is there a time difference of incidence at the screen? That is, from your "new source" (the slit), do all the "adjusted" path lengths travel at the same velocity?
The symmetry properties inherent in complex Fourier transform pairs are very useful in practical applications. Symmetry refers to the even and odd parts of s(t) or S(f) in the time or frequency domains, respectively. A function, e(t) has even symmetry if it is a mirror image (symmetric) about the zero axis, i.e., e(-t) = e(t); a function has odd symmetry if the reflection about zero has an opposite sign (antisymmetric) where o(-t) = -o(t). Even and odd symmetries are illustrated in Figure 3.3a and b, respectively.
http://130.191.21.201/multimedia/jiracek/d...is/evenodd.html
Figure 3.4. Three cosine waves with amplitudes A1, A2, and A3 combine to form a composite signal with amplitude A1 + A2 + A3.
The last line looks "strikingly similar" to our DSE pattern, with equal amplitudes, and "light and dark" bands. This was created by the mixing of 3 harmonic waves. I won't say what that is typically called.
Negative Frequencies
Virtually every text book on Fourier analysis treats the introduction of negative frequencies as a natural occurrence, one that is merely a convention, not worthy of any justification. Yet, in our experience, this concept is one of the least understood basic tenants of Fourier analysis and, consequently, it is often ill-applied by students. Actually, as shown by the symmetry properties of a real-valued function in the time or space domain (Section 3.3), there is no new information in the negative frequency spectrum.
A common way to describe the idea of negative frequencies is to visualize a wheel rotating in one direction and then reversing the direction. Rotating in say the counterclockwise (CCW) direction illustrates positive frequency and clockwise (CW) rotation describes negative frequency. The rotating wheel view is a perfectly correct way of interpreting the + and - frequencies of the complex Fourier spectrum as we will now show.We will justify this statement by providing a detailed understanding of what the Fourier transform of A1 cos (2pf1t) in equation 3.10 actually means.
Fresnel Diffraction
Fraunhofer diffraction is the special case where the incoming light is assumed to be parallel and the image plane is assumed to be at a very large distance compared to the diffracting object. Fresnel diffraction refers to the general case where those restrictions are relaxed. This makes it much more complex mathematically. Some cases can be treated in a reasonable empirical and graphical manner to explain some observed phenomena.
QUOTE
Fresnel Geometry
For the Fresnel case, all length parameters are allowed to take comparable values, so all must be included as variables in the problem. The usual geometry assumes a monochromatic slit source and the problem is set up in terms of a parameter v as defined below. This parameter is used with the Cornu spiral or a table of elliptical integrals.
For the Fresnel case, all length parameters are allowed to take comparable values, so all must be included as variables in the problem. The usual geometry assumes a monochromatic slit source and the problem is set up in terms of a parameter v as defined below. This parameter is used with the Cornu spiral or a table of elliptical integrals.
For a bookmark, I will note here that I have talked considerably about the spiral form, and the elliptical model vs the "perfect pi". I am not going to use any of "my" ideas here, C2; everything will be from the book, and you are holding the reigns.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Fresnel Geometry For the Fresnel case, all length parameters are allowed to take comparable values, so all must be included as variables in the problem. The usual geometry assumes a monochromatic slit source and the problem is set up in terms of a parameter v as defined below. This parameter is used with the Cornu spiral or a table of elliptical integrals. |
For a bookmark, I will note here that I have talked considerably about the spiral form, and the elliptical model vs the "perfect pi". I am not going to use any of "my" ideas here, C2; everything will be from the book, and you are holding the reigns.
Fresnel v Parameter
The v-parameter in Fresnel diffraction analysis can be thought of as the arclength along the amplitude vector diagram called the Cornu spiral. In the Fraunhofer diffraction case where the source wavefront was assumed to be planar, the different elements of the wavefront had a constant phase difference and the incremental amplitude elements added to form the arc of a circle. In the Fresnel diffraction case where the curvature of the wavefront is included, the relative phase is not constant and the amplitude elements bend into the spiral curve. Just as in the Fraunhofer case, the resultant amplitude is represented by the chord of the arc.
[URL=http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/fresgeo.html#c1]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...fresgeo.html#c1[/URL]
QUOTE
Fraunhofer Diffraction Geometry
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...raungeo.html#c1
Now for responses to your last post:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Fraunhofer Diffraction Geometry |
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...raungeo.html#c1
Now for responses to your last post:
1/What does it say about the "one-at-a-time, random build up" experiment?
(C2)It says no photons will be detected where the difference in path length is half a wavelength No, I mean the random locations that the "one-at-a-time photons" are measured at. You have only answered why they don't land in some places, not about why the "random" locations build up to produce the same pattern as when the full stream of "photons" arrives.
2/What does it say about HOW or WHY arbitrary division of the slit width works?
(C2) It says nothing about how or why the slit width doesn't matter .. only that it doesn't. If the path is divided either by slits or a half silvered mirror then the equation will apply because what is important is the difference in path length NOT the width of the slit(s). The DSE equation is 'one equation fits all experiments'. Here you have misunderstood; I am talking about the method of "arbitrary division" itself, not any function of the width of the actual slit. See the diagrams on this post for the geometry of "nothing" between 2 sides of a slit.
3/What does it say about HOW or WHY path length differences would interact?
(C2) It says no photons will be detected where the difference in path length is half a wavelength... I think this is (possibly) the best clue we have. Again, you did not answer the other half of the question/problem. What about every other path length ratio? At what point do we stop the "1/2 wave" destructive process, and start the "1/1 wave" constructive resonance? How does your analogy work for the single slit? Specifically HOW do we get different results from 1 slit vs 2+ slits? (look at intensity)
4/What does it say about WHICH arbitrary division will be the negative frequencies, and which "new sources" will be the positive?
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. My guess at an answer is that your negative frequency is out of phase with your positive frequency??? If so then my best answer would be that there is the same frequency from both slits and it is in phase where the pathlength difference is zero or a whole number of wavelengths and out of phase where the pathlengths differ by half a wavelength... this would be pretty much the reason why the DSE equation 'works'. See above, for "constructive/destructive" analogy. Also, see below.
6/Why are there different equations for the "path length" explanation that happens AT the screen?
(C2) I'm not sure about the meaning of the 'different equations' .. the way the results agree with the single equation suggests very strongly that the only thing that really matters in the DSE is the difference in path lengths between each slit and the point of detection (or not, as the case may be). This takes us back to question 2/ which was along the lines of :- WHY does arbitrary division of the slit width not make any difference? .. clearly (to me at least) because only the difference in path length matters. As I have said, your method requires arbitrary points across the slit width in order to change angles, or path lengths. The other equations and methods I am talking about are Bragg and Compton, to start with. I have already commented on those, would you like me to do so again?
http://130.191.21.201/multimedia/jiracek/d...nearsystem.html
QUOTE
4.5 Linear System Filtering in Time and Frequency Domain
There is good reason why the convolution theorem was called "possibly the most important and powerful tool in modern scientific analysis" by Brigham (1974). We shall soon see that some of the most fundamental mathematical operations in the time or space domain, e.g., differentiation and integration, are simple multiplications in the frequency domain. In other words, they are filter operations. Correspondingly, ideal pass band filtering, clearly visualized in the frequency, domain is not nearly so easy to "see" in the time (or space) domain where it is a convolution.
There is good reason why the convolution theorem was called "possibly the most important and powerful tool in modern scientific analysis" by Brigham (1974). We shall soon see that some of the most fundamental mathematical operations in the time or space domain, e.g., differentiation and integration, are simple multiplications in the frequency domain. In other words, they are filter operations. Correspondingly, ideal pass band filtering, clearly visualized in the frequency, domain is not nearly so easy to "see" in the time (or space) domain where it is a convolution.
Hopefully, you can see the comparison of the S/DSE with a bandpass and notch filters. The full barrier is the low pass filter, and the slit so large that the sides do not come into play is a high pass filter.
We have different domains to use as models.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4.5 Linear System Filtering in Time and Frequency Domain There is good reason why the convolution theorem was called "possibly the most important and powerful tool in modern scientific analysis" by Brigham (1974). We shall soon see that some of the most fundamental mathematical operations in the time or space domain, e.g., differentiation and integration, are simple multiplications in the frequency domain. In other words, they are filter operations. Correspondingly, ideal pass band filtering, clearly visualized in the frequency, domain is not nearly so easy to "see" in the time (or space) domain where it is a convolution. |
Hopefully, you can see the comparison of the S/DSE with a bandpass and notch filters. The full barrier is the low pass filter, and the slit so large that the sides do not come into play is a high pass filter.
We have different domains to use as models.
2.5 Summary
Before closing this section, let’s repeat the two main points in this section:
The highest frequency observed in digital data is the Nyquist frequency given by fN = 1/2Dt (or 1/2Dx); signals with frequencies above fN end up being aliased (folded) into lower frequencies.
The frequencies resolved in finite-length, digital time domain data of length T are 0, 1/T, 2/T, …, 1/2Dt (or 0, 1/Lx, 2/Lx,…, 1/2Dx for space domain data of length Lx).
These points are so fundamental, so important, in digital recording that we will repeat them "in other words": These points are so fundamental, so important, in digital recording that we will repeat them "in other words"…
The sampling interval Dt (or Dx) determines the highest frequency recorded, 1/2Dt (or 1/2Dx) and the degree of aliasing at all recorded frequencies.
The length of data recorded (T or Lx) determines the lowest frequency recorded, (1/T or 1/Lx) which is also the frequency resolution Df or Dfx in digital spectra.
http://130.191.21.201/multimedia/jiracek/d...ng/summary.html
QUOTE
3.1 Fourier Analysis
In the previous section we said that most geophysical signals can be expressed as a decomposition of the signal into sine and cosine functions of different frequencies (also referred to as harmonics). This is called Fourier analysis. We are usually first exposed to this concept in a calculus or physics course where sine and cosine functions expressed as a Fourier series are used to represent a periodic function of time.
In the previous section we said that most geophysical signals can be expressed as a decomposition of the signal into sine and cosine functions of different frequencies (also referred to as harmonics). This is called Fourier analysis. We are usually first exposed to this concept in a calculus or physics course where sine and cosine functions expressed as a Fourier series are used to represent a periodic function of time.
C2, when the path lengths are altered, is there a time difference of incidence at the screen? That is, from your "new source" (the slit), do all the "adjusted" path lengths travel at the same velocity?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3.1 Fourier Analysis In the previous section we said that most geophysical signals can be expressed as a decomposition of the signal into sine and cosine functions of different frequencies (also referred to as harmonics). This is called Fourier analysis. We are usually first exposed to this concept in a calculus or physics course where sine and cosine functions expressed as a Fourier series are used to represent a periodic function of time. |
C2, when the path lengths are altered, is there a time difference of incidence at the screen? That is, from your "new source" (the slit), do all the "adjusted" path lengths travel at the same velocity?
The symmetry properties inherent in complex Fourier transform pairs are very useful in practical applications. Symmetry refers to the even and odd parts of s(t) or S(f) in the time or frequency domains, respectively. A function, e(t) has even symmetry if it is a mirror image (symmetric) about the zero axis, i.e., e(-t) = e(t); a function has odd symmetry if the reflection about zero has an opposite sign (antisymmetric) where o(-t) = -o(t). Even and odd symmetries are illustrated in Figure 3.3a and b, respectively.
http://130.191.21.201/multimedia/jiracek/d...is/evenodd.html
Figure 3.4. Three cosine waves with amplitudes A1, A2, and A3 combine to form a composite signal with amplitude A1 + A2 + A3.
The last line looks "strikingly similar" to our DSE pattern, with equal amplitudes, and "light and dark" bands. This was created by the mixing of 3 harmonic waves. I won't say what that is typically called.
QUOTE
This reveals an interesting aspect of the Fourier transform that we avoided talking about earlier, namely that there are values (spectra lines) at both positive and negative frequencies. In this case they appear where the delta functions are non-zero, i.e., where their arguments are zero, at f = +f1 and f = -f1.
The concept of negative frequencies is not widely understood, even though the proper handling of this concept is critical for practical applications of digital processing in the frequency domain. Therefore, we are compelled to convince you of the validity of both positive and negative frequencies so you will appreciate the subtleties when working with them.
The concept of negative frequencies is not widely understood, even though the proper handling of this concept is critical for practical applications of digital processing in the frequency domain. Therefore, we are compelled to convince you of the validity of both positive and negative frequencies so you will appreciate the subtleties when working with them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This reveals an interesting aspect of the Fourier transform that we avoided talking about earlier, namely that there are values (spectra lines) at both positive and negative frequencies. In this case they appear where the delta functions are non-zero, i.e., where their arguments are zero, at f = +f1 and f = -f1. The concept of negative frequencies is not widely understood, even though the proper handling of this concept is critical for practical applications of digital processing in the frequency domain. Therefore, we are compelled to convince you of the validity of both positive and negative frequencies so you will appreciate the subtleties when working with them. |
Negative Frequencies
Virtually every text book on Fourier analysis treats the introduction of negative frequencies as a natural occurrence, one that is merely a convention, not worthy of any justification. Yet, in our experience, this concept is one of the least understood basic tenants of Fourier analysis and, consequently, it is often ill-applied by students. Actually, as shown by the symmetry properties of a real-valued function in the time or space domain (Section 3.3), there is no new information in the negative frequency spectrum.
A common way to describe the idea of negative frequencies is to visualize a wheel rotating in one direction and then reversing the direction. Rotating in say the counterclockwise (CCW) direction illustrates positive frequency and clockwise (CW) rotation describes negative frequency. The rotating wheel view is a perfectly correct way of interpreting the + and - frequencies of the complex Fourier spectrum as we will now show.We will justify this statement by providing a detailed understanding of what the Fourier transform of A1 cos (2pf1t) in equation 3.10 actually means.
Hi all,
First, I forgot to "note" at the end of my last post, so I'll snip in here: "Actually, as shown by the symmetry properties of a real-valued function in the time or space domain (Section 3.3), there is no new information in the negative frequency spectrum." That might apply to the question GE and LL were just discussing.
LL
I did cover that LL, in the context of "1-at-a-time photons", and the cumulative "random" build up of the pattern. It was quite a ways back in this thread. Comparing the "pre slit cavity" to the laser itself is quite easy; the reflected waves stay in the chamber until they find resonance. In the laser, the lobes are filtered out, in the DSE, the lobes show up on the screen.
It is important to remember that the "tooth" between the 2 slits is in the CENTER of the source path, and is blocking that part of the signal, reflecting it back into the chamber. The result of NO pattern, when blocking ONE of the DSE slits, is critical. The SSE ALSO has the slit CENTERED, so the geometry is NOT the same from the SSE, and the "1-slit blocked" DSE, which is centered BETWEEN the slits.
LL
I did cover that LL, in the context of "1-at-a-time photons", and the cumulative "random" build up of the pattern. It was quite a ways back in this thread. Comparing the "pre slit cavity" to the laser itself is quite easy; the reflected waves stay in the chamber until they find resonance. In the laser, the lobes are filtered out, in the DSE, the lobes show up on the screen.
It is important to remember that the "tooth" between the 2 slits is in the CENTER of the source path, and is blocking that part of the signal, reflecting it back into the chamber. The result of NO pattern, when blocking ONE of the DSE slits, is critical. The SSE ALSO has the slit CENTERED, so the geometry is NOT the same from the SSE, and the "1-slit blocked" DSE, which is centered BETWEEN the slits.
LL We must keep in mind that certain wavelengths of light have different degrees of transparency to different types of materials. The point being, that the wavelengths of matter must have some integral relationship relative to the
wavelength of light travelling thru it. Certain wavelengths get blocked while others can pass right thru. This is pertinent to the index of refraction, the transparency, and the opacity exhibited by a material.
I agree with that, but I'm not clear on your question:
I would suggest cruising through wikipedia, or wherever, and using some quotes from there, so we can be very clear as to the topic. I do not like to be caught up in arguing over poor explanations put forth by QM, and I'm sure we'll find some more there!
An addition for C2: I should post this diagram as well, showing just how similar the Fresnel and Fraunhofer methods are (in results).
I would suggest cruising through wikipedia, or wherever, and using some quotes from there, so we can be very clear as to the topic. I do not like to be caught up in arguing over poor explanations put forth by QM, and I'm sure we'll find some more there!
An addition for C2: I should post this diagram as well, showing just how similar the Fresnel and Fraunhofer methods are (in results).
Fresnel Diffraction: Single Slit
The more accurate Fresnel treatment of the single slit gives a pattern which is similar in appearance to that of the Fraunhofer single slit except that the minima are not exactly zero.
Diagrams and quotes from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../fresli.html#c1
Let us know which method you want to "review".
regards,
T.Roc
First, I forgot to "note" at the end of my last post, so I'll snip in here: "Actually, as shown by the symmetry properties of a real-valued function in the time or space domain (Section 3.3), there is no new information in the negative frequency spectrum." That might apply to the question GE and LL were just discussing.
LL
QUOTE
One issue that has been bothering me about the DSE that we have not really explored is the idea of standing waves between the slit wall and the source.
I did cover that LL, in the context of "1-at-a-time photons", and the cumulative "random" build up of the pattern. It was quite a ways back in this thread. Comparing the "pre slit cavity" to the laser itself is quite easy; the reflected waves stay in the chamber until they find resonance. In the laser, the lobes are filtered out, in the DSE, the lobes show up on the screen.
It is important to remember that the "tooth" between the 2 slits is in the CENTER of the source path, and is blocking that part of the signal, reflecting it back into the chamber. The result of NO pattern, when blocking ONE of the DSE slits, is critical. The SSE ALSO has the slit CENTERED, so the geometry is NOT the same from the SSE, and the "1-slit blocked" DSE, which is centered BETWEEN the slits.
LL
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| One issue that has been bothering me about the DSE that we have not really explored is the idea of standing waves between the slit wall and the source. |
I did cover that LL, in the context of "1-at-a-time photons", and the cumulative "random" build up of the pattern. It was quite a ways back in this thread. Comparing the "pre slit cavity" to the laser itself is quite easy; the reflected waves stay in the chamber until they find resonance. In the laser, the lobes are filtered out, in the DSE, the lobes show up on the screen.
It is important to remember that the "tooth" between the 2 slits is in the CENTER of the source path, and is blocking that part of the signal, reflecting it back into the chamber. The result of NO pattern, when blocking ONE of the DSE slits, is critical. The SSE ALSO has the slit CENTERED, so the geometry is NOT the same from the SSE, and the "1-slit blocked" DSE, which is centered BETWEEN the slits.
LL We must keep in mind that certain wavelengths of light have different degrees of transparency to different types of materials. The point being, that the wavelengths of matter must have some integral relationship relative to the
wavelength of light travelling thru it. Certain wavelengths get blocked while others can pass right thru. This is pertinent to the index of refraction, the transparency, and the opacity exhibited by a material.
I agree with that, but I'm not clear on your question:
QUOTE
Are the dimensions that you referenced wave amplitude (height) and "gap"
distance dimensions? I was under the impression that a photon's wave amplitude was exactly the size of the electron's energy level drop dimension between shells? Am I incorrect, or is the actual electron drop, which is moving along some angle of declination between energy shells, creating a photon height that is larger than the actual gap dimension?
distance dimensions? I was under the impression that a photon's wave amplitude was exactly the size of the electron's energy level drop dimension between shells? Am I incorrect, or is the actual electron drop, which is moving along some angle of declination between energy shells, creating a photon height that is larger than the actual gap dimension?
I would suggest cruising through wikipedia, or wherever, and using some quotes from there, so we can be very clear as to the topic. I do not like to be caught up in arguing over poor explanations put forth by QM, and I'm sure we'll find some more there!
An addition for C2: I should post this diagram as well, showing just how similar the Fresnel and Fraunhofer methods are (in results).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are the dimensions that you referenced wave amplitude (height) and "gap" distance dimensions? I was under the impression that a photon's wave amplitude was exactly the size of the electron's energy level drop dimension between shells? Am I incorrect, or is the actual electron drop, which is moving along some angle of declination between energy shells, creating a photon height that is larger than the actual gap dimension? |
I would suggest cruising through wikipedia, or wherever, and using some quotes from there, so we can be very clear as to the topic. I do not like to be caught up in arguing over poor explanations put forth by QM, and I'm sure we'll find some more there!
An addition for C2: I should post this diagram as well, showing just how similar the Fresnel and Fraunhofer methods are (in results).
Fresnel Diffraction: Single Slit
The more accurate Fresnel treatment of the single slit gives a pattern which is similar in appearance to that of the Fraunhofer single slit except that the minima are not exactly zero.
QUOTE
Comparison: Fraunhofer & Fresnel Slit
The more accurate Fresnel treatment of the single slit gives a pattern which is similar in appearance to that of the Fraunhofer single slit except that the minima are not exactly zero.
The more accurate Fresnel treatment of the single slit gives a pattern which is similar in appearance to that of the Fraunhofer single slit except that the minima are not exactly zero.
Diagrams and quotes from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../fresli.html#c1
Let us know which method you want to "review".
regards,
T.Roc
TRoc,
LL: We must keep in mind that certain wavelengths of light have different degrees of transparency to different types of materials. The point being, that the wavelengths of matter must have some integral relationship relative to the
wavelength of light travelling thru it. Certain wavelengths get blocked while others can pass right thru. This is pertinent to the index of refraction, the transparency, and the opacity exhibited by a material.
TRoc: I agree with that, but I'm not clear on your question:
Just a "clarification" to your earlier statement that was too general regarding
transparency and atomic structure.
Just a "clarification" to your earlier statement that was too general regarding
transparency and atomic structure.
LL: Are the dimensions that you referenced wave amplitude (height) and "gap"
distance dimensions? I was under the impression that a photon's wave amplitude was exactly the size of the electron's energy level drop dimension between shells? Am I incorrect, or is the actual electron drop, which is moving along some angle of declination between energy shells, creating a photon height that is larger than the actual gap dimension?
TRoc: I would suggest cruising through wikipedia, or wherever, and using some quotes from there, so we can be very clear as to the topic. I do not like to be caught up in arguing over poor explanations put forth by QM, and I'm sure we'll find some more there!
I did search wikipedia but found no real discussion of the topic, but I did find some
interesting discussion comparing QFT, QM, QED, along with other topics on
various aspects of theoretical physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
I am still looking for information that may explain the answer to my question.
Perhaps GE has some references or discussion on the topic.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
LL: We must keep in mind that certain wavelengths of light have different degrees of transparency to different types of materials. The point being, that the wavelengths of matter must have some integral relationship relative to the
wavelength of light travelling thru it. Certain wavelengths get blocked while others can pass right thru. This is pertinent to the index of refraction, the transparency, and the opacity exhibited by a material.
TRoc: I agree with that, but I'm not clear on your question:
Just a "clarification" to your earlier statement that was too general regarding
transparency and atomic structure.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
LL: We must keep in mind that certain wavelengths of light have different degrees of transparency to different types of materials. The point being, that the wavelengths of matter must have some integral relationship relative to the wavelength of light travelling thru it. Certain wavelengths get blocked while others can pass right thru. This is pertinent to the index of refraction, the transparency, and the opacity exhibited by a material. TRoc: I agree with that, but I'm not clear on your question: |
Just a "clarification" to your earlier statement that was too general regarding
transparency and atomic structure.
LL: Are the dimensions that you referenced wave amplitude (height) and "gap"
distance dimensions? I was under the impression that a photon's wave amplitude was exactly the size of the electron's energy level drop dimension between shells? Am I incorrect, or is the actual electron drop, which is moving along some angle of declination between energy shells, creating a photon height that is larger than the actual gap dimension?
TRoc: I would suggest cruising through wikipedia, or wherever, and using some quotes from there, so we can be very clear as to the topic. I do not like to be caught up in arguing over poor explanations put forth by QM, and I'm sure we'll find some more there!
I did search wikipedia but found no real discussion of the topic, but I did find some
interesting discussion comparing QFT, QM, QED, along with other topics on
various aspects of theoretical physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
I am still looking for information that may explain the answer to my question.
Perhaps GE has some references or discussion on the topic.
Regards,
LL
Hi Yquantum, Laserlight, Confused2, TRoc, Neil Farbstein, THEY, Aerohead et al,
Welcome back TRoc. I think Neil, THEY and Aerohead are watching in the background too. I like TRoc's treatment of light. The distinction has been drawn between Fraunhofer and Fresnel Interference Patterns. Yep... this is correct. It is a slight modification for the situation where the rays are not parallel but still diverge slightly. It is well to remember this is an approximation unless we use Fresnel Calculations. The subtlety about the intensity at the nodes no longer going to zero is important to understanding. It indicates the region in which the simple formula C2 uses fails. See where variation of slit width leads to this...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...raungeo.html#c2
Exact solution using the Fresnel Limit leads to this Single Slit Approximations...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../sinvar.html#c2
All these results feed through into any real world result. They also feed "forward" to the Double slit "Fresnel" or "Fraunhofer" Interference Patterns through source summation previously noted. It is no simple analysis.
I would also remind all that simple "intensity" is a scalar and is the result of an "inner product" which can only be positive and never negative. The original magnitudes of the electric and magnetic fields can be both positive and negative (and both). This is "difficult" to show using primitive means... he he he!
Just to embellish a previous point I had made about spatial coherence I came across this "pretty" illustration of polychromatic speckle pattern...
http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/pages/pu...se/muse0705.asp
Comments made there are interesting. It all aids in the understanding of this phenomena which is in the end a quantum phenomena similar to monochromatic speckle pattern just a whole lot of superimposed patterns at each of the photon frequencies that make up the black-body radiation curve. Polychromatic Speckle Patterns in sunlight would not be possible if there were the possibility that "any frequency" could show up in the spectra and this reminds us that only discrete frequencies are actually in the spectra (this is NOT a trivial idea... think about it). It is impossible to cover everything and when you try to it becomes too much for some to be able to follow. The mental fatigue can be daunting. In the end to really understand if all the "bits" fall into place you have to know a "bit" about all of it so we can be sure that we are covering all bases.
Welcome back TRoc. I think Neil, THEY and Aerohead are watching in the background too. I like TRoc's treatment of light. The distinction has been drawn between Fraunhofer and Fresnel Interference Patterns. Yep... this is correct. It is a slight modification for the situation where the rays are not parallel but still diverge slightly. It is well to remember this is an approximation unless we use Fresnel Calculations. The subtlety about the intensity at the nodes no longer going to zero is important to understanding. It indicates the region in which the simple formula C2 uses fails. See where variation of slit width leads to this...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...raungeo.html#c2
Exact solution using the Fresnel Limit leads to this Single Slit Approximations...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../sinvar.html#c2
All these results feed through into any real world result. They also feed "forward" to the Double slit "Fresnel" or "Fraunhofer" Interference Patterns through source summation previously noted. It is no simple analysis.
I would also remind all that simple "intensity" is a scalar and is the result of an "inner product" which can only be positive and never negative. The original magnitudes of the electric and magnetic fields can be both positive and negative (and both). This is "difficult" to show using primitive means... he he he!
Just to embellish a previous point I had made about spatial coherence I came across this "pretty" illustration of polychromatic speckle pattern...
http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/pages/pu...se/muse0705.asp
Comments made there are interesting. It all aids in the understanding of this phenomena which is in the end a quantum phenomena similar to monochromatic speckle pattern just a whole lot of superimposed patterns at each of the photon frequencies that make up the black-body radiation curve. Polychromatic Speckle Patterns in sunlight would not be possible if there were the possibility that "any frequency" could show up in the spectra and this reminds us that only discrete frequencies are actually in the spectra (this is NOT a trivial idea... think about it). It is impossible to cover everything and when you try to it becomes too much for some to be able to follow. The mental fatigue can be daunting. In the end to really understand if all the "bits" fall into place you have to know a "bit" about all of it so we can be sure that we are covering all bases.
QUOTE (Yquantum+)
That caustic which you handle in order to scorch others may happen to sear your own fingers and make one wonder if there is sanity or quality of things.
I agree. Sometimes you just need to leave things for a while to deal with other topics. I have been very "close" to this question for far too long. Rather than re-discuss old points over and over I will try and widen the discussion as relevantly as I can make it without wandering off topic. The problem of the DSE is much wider than the bench experiment and I personally apologize for widening the discussion but any decent theory must answer "all" the questions and leave nothing out.
QUOTE (Yquantum+)
I completely understand this enigma of Young's experiment and the toll it has taken but until you deal with the UCP/T and it ramifications it will be impossible to come to a meeting of the minds on this.
Perhaps you are right there. This should rightly be a center for discussion aside from the other more obvious aspects of the theory. The question is "How" does Lorentz-CPT "work" and "why"? I will try and answer this "soon"... I have a number of strong leads I am following to draw this into a single theory but it is not quite ready yet.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
A photon is a unique, discrete, time relevant, energy "entity", but does that make it a particle? Perhaps it does, when described as I have attempted. It has a wave form, and propagates as an energy pulse wavefunction, but it is unique in time relative to the atomic causal event that originally spawned it. The atomic event occurred, but the energy "byproduct" of that physical event exists forever, however, it changes form thru energy conversion when acted upon by other localized energy systems.
I guess this is tied to the overall problem Yquantum has posed... Lorentz-CPT Conservation. I do not see any experiment in which the qubit is preserved after losing (or gaining) energy to a quanta. If photons are some sort of soliton how does it maintain the quantum of energy through sometimes billions of years of travel through interstellar space? Getting away from all the circular questions I would like to ask one question... Are there any particles at all other than photons plus their spins and boosts? I am including all phenomena here including sub-atomic forces and sub-atomic particles and even mass and gravity? Remove this entire "menagerie" and replace it all with the "simple photon" as a soliton propagating from different rest frames but "sandwiched" by the light cone walls (which must have 'special" properties). Everything in the Universe is "held together" by the simple photon and it's "wave" propagating within dimensional space created specifically for and used by the photons, as it were... "on demand".
If we accept that ultimately everything is composed of photons and there is no true "matter" we end up with this conclusion. I can't think of anything else that is truly primary (other than information itself). That there are only ultimately massless photons (well... particles which have no apparent rest mass). That all forces ultimately are electromagnetic in origin. That mass and gravity itself is a "property" and a "force" not unlike the influence of virtual photons and not of any intrinsic mass of the photon. Charge is a property of the geometry of the propagating photon wave and the way it is topologically wrapped.
What I would like to also say is if light is confined to travel an optical path that is curved due the presence to mass then this is the same path that mass is required to take in General Relativity (at different sub-luminal velocities). This apparently curved path is the straightest path in this geometry and represents the straight line in that space (the curved path can only be seen from another frame of reference)... remember you can't see light's photons without destroying them so the test is to view the geometry from within the reference frame. If it is forced to curve into a complete closed curve then the space is also finite bounded. They are "geodesics" and is one of the strongest arguments for the experimental fact that if light can be bent by "gravity" then "gravity" is a pseudo-force and is not a force related to the attraction between masses... agreed? I will have more to say about all this. Recall that light has no charge either. It is widening the arguments since I can no longer explain this phenomena using just simple optics.
Cheers
If we accept that ultimately everything is composed of photons and there is no true "matter" we end up with this conclusion. I can't think of anything else that is truly primary (other than information itself). That there are only ultimately massless photons (well... particles which have no apparent rest mass). That all forces ultimately are electromagnetic in origin. That mass and gravity itself is a "property" and a "force" not unlike the influence of virtual photons and not of any intrinsic mass of the photon. Charge is a property of the geometry of the propagating photon wave and the way it is topologically wrapped.
What I would like to also say is if light is confined to travel an optical path that is curved due the presence to mass then this is the same path that mass is required to take in General Relativity (at different sub-luminal velocities). This apparently curved path is the straightest path in this geometry and represents the straight line in that space (the curved path can only be seen from another frame of reference)... remember you can't see light's photons without destroying them so the test is to view the geometry from within the reference frame. If it is forced to curve into a complete closed curve then the space is also finite bounded. They are "geodesics" and is one of the strongest arguments for the experimental fact that if light can be bent by "gravity" then "gravity" is a pseudo-force and is not a force related to the attraction between masses... agreed? I will have more to say about all this. Recall that light has no charge either. It is widening the arguments since I can no longer explain this phenomena using just simple optics.
Cheers
GE,
I think we need to consider that when a quantum of energy "transforms" that the
information qubit isn't destroyed it is just "detected" which means that it is
converted from one form of kinetic energy into another form of either kinetic
or potential energy when interacting with matter.
We should consider how a discrete photon's quantum energy"pulse", that
propagates at a specific quantum frequency, stimulates an electrical response
when it interacts with and displaces the "balanced" EM fields that comprise matter.
Basically, IMO, it induces a voltage and current in an atom when it displaces an
atomic dipole that is some integral energy factor of the tuned photon energy pulse.
The voltage and current that is "induced", by charge displacement in the receiving atom, can either
become an absorbed mobile charge in an unfilled atomic shell, and migrate thru the atomic
matrix if a voltage potential charge differential exists, or the energy can be
"reflected" by absorption and re-emission from atoms whose atomic shells are
"filled" with balanced electrical charges. The third possibility is that, if the photon
pulse energy amplitude is smaller than any of the atomic dipole geometries
of the planetary electrons, it will pass thru the transparent "vacuum" of the empty atomic structure. Occasionally, there will be atomic collisions with other known
scattering effects.
I think we need to consider that when a quantum of energy "transforms" that the
information qubit isn't destroyed it is just "detected" which means that it is
converted from one form of kinetic energy into another form of either kinetic
or potential energy when interacting with matter.
We should consider how a discrete photon's quantum energy"pulse", that
propagates at a specific quantum frequency, stimulates an electrical response
when it interacts with and displaces the "balanced" EM fields that comprise matter.
Basically, IMO, it induces a voltage and current in an atom when it displaces an
atomic dipole that is some integral energy factor of the tuned photon energy pulse.
The voltage and current that is "induced", by charge displacement in the receiving atom, can either
become an absorbed mobile charge in an unfilled atomic shell, and migrate thru the atomic
matrix if a voltage potential charge differential exists, or the energy can be
"reflected" by absorption and re-emission from atoms whose atomic shells are
"filled" with balanced electrical charges. The third possibility is that, if the photon
pulse energy amplitude is smaller than any of the atomic dipole geometries
of the planetary electrons, it will pass thru the transparent "vacuum" of the empty atomic structure. Occasionally, there will be atomic collisions with other known
scattering effects.
Are there any particles at all other than photons plus their spins and boosts? I am including all phenomena here including sub-atomic forces and sub-atomic particles and even mass and gravity? Remove this entire "menagerie" and replace it all with the "simple photon" as a soliton propagating from different rest frames but "sandwiched" by the light cone walls (which must have 'special" properties). Everything in the Universe is "held together" by the simple photon and it's "wave" propagating within dimensional space created specifically for and used by the photons, as it were... "on demand".
As far as we know, a photon is a pure energy system with finite velocity ©,
which is a way to describe or assign to it an invariant "mass". What is interesting
though, is that the different energy levels of photons apparently have different
invariant masses, but maintain the same velocity in vacuum, however they have
different velocities when refracting thru matter, according to the atomic structure.
Now you seem to be agreeing with some of my stated beliefs about the base
nature of the EM universe that I posted previously.
Gravity is merely the dislocation of EM energy thru space. Lots of concentrated
energy = lots of gravity. No energy = no gravity. Energy and gravity follow the
ISL and have a directly proportional relative relationship.
Now you seem to be agreeing with some of my stated beliefs about the base
nature of the EM universe that I posted previously.
Gravity is merely the dislocation of EM energy thru space. Lots of concentrated
energy = lots of gravity. No energy = no gravity. Energy and gravity follow the
ISL and have a directly proportional relative relationship.
If it is forced to curve into a complete closed curve then the space is also finite bounded. They are "geodesics" and is one of the strongest arguments for the experimental fact that if light can be bent by "gravity" then "gravity" is a pseudo-force and is not a force related to the attraction between masses... agreed?
A side effect of concentrated energy (mass) is gravity. Matter displaces energy, that
displacement is gravity. Kind of like a ship displacing water = buoyancy. It is
the balance of opposite displacement forces, IMO.
Photons are not destroyed upon detection, atomic "matter" is displaced and
generates voltage and current from that displacement. Energy conversion takes
place from free form EM photonic kinetic energy to atomic potential energy and is
re-emitted as a different form of EM energy, IMO.
Photons are not destroyed upon detection, atomic "matter" is displaced and
generates voltage and current from that displacement. Energy conversion takes
place from free form EM photonic kinetic energy to atomic potential energy and is
re-emitted as a different form of EM energy, IMO.
Recall that light has no charge either
It is a dynamic self perpetuating "balanced" energy system without a specific
charge component.
Soliton, from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton
Comments, other opinions, and discussion welcomed.
LL
QUOTE
I do not see any experiment in which the qubit is preserved after losing (or gaining) energy to a quanta. If photons are some sort of soliton how does it maintain the quantum of energy through sometimes billions of years of travel through interstellar space?
I think we need to consider that when a quantum of energy "transforms" that the
information qubit isn't destroyed it is just "detected" which means that it is
converted from one form of kinetic energy into another form of either kinetic
or potential energy when interacting with matter.
We should consider how a discrete photon's quantum energy"pulse", that
propagates at a specific quantum frequency, stimulates an electrical response
when it interacts with and displaces the "balanced" EM fields that comprise matter.
Basically, IMO, it induces a voltage and current in an atom when it displaces an
atomic dipole that is some integral energy factor of the tuned photon energy pulse.
The voltage and current that is "induced", by charge displacement in the receiving atom, can either
become an absorbed mobile charge in an unfilled atomic shell, and migrate thru the atomic
matrix if a voltage potential charge differential exists, or the energy can be
"reflected" by absorption and re-emission from atoms whose atomic shells are
"filled" with balanced electrical charges. The third possibility is that, if the photon
pulse energy amplitude is smaller than any of the atomic dipole geometries
of the planetary electrons, it will pass thru the transparent "vacuum" of the empty atomic structure. Occasionally, there will be atomic collisions with other known
scattering effects.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I do not see any experiment in which the qubit is preserved after losing (or gaining) energy to a quanta. If photons are some sort of soliton how does it maintain the quantum of energy through sometimes billions of years of travel through interstellar space? |
I think we need to consider that when a quantum of energy "transforms" that the
information qubit isn't destroyed it is just "detected" which means that it is
converted from one form of kinetic energy into another form of either kinetic
or potential energy when interacting with matter.
We should consider how a discrete photon's quantum energy"pulse", that
propagates at a specific quantum frequency, stimulates an electrical response
when it interacts with and displaces the "balanced" EM fields that comprise matter.
Basically, IMO, it induces a voltage and current in an atom when it displaces an
atomic dipole that is some integral energy factor of the tuned photon energy pulse.
The voltage and current that is "induced", by charge displacement in the receiving atom, can either
become an absorbed mobile charge in an unfilled atomic shell, and migrate thru the atomic
matrix if a voltage potential charge differential exists, or the energy can be
"reflected" by absorption and re-emission from atoms whose atomic shells are
"filled" with balanced electrical charges. The third possibility is that, if the photon
pulse energy amplitude is smaller than any of the atomic dipole geometries
of the planetary electrons, it will pass thru the transparent "vacuum" of the empty atomic structure. Occasionally, there will be atomic collisions with other known
scattering effects.
Are there any particles at all other than photons plus their spins and boosts? I am including all phenomena here including sub-atomic forces and sub-atomic particles and even mass and gravity? Remove this entire "menagerie" and replace it all with the "simple photon" as a soliton propagating from different rest frames but "sandwiched" by the light cone walls (which must have 'special" properties). Everything in the Universe is "held together" by the simple photon and it's "wave" propagating within dimensional space created specifically for and used by the photons, as it were... "on demand".
As far as we know, a photon is a pure energy system with finite velocity ©,
which is a way to describe or assign to it an invariant "mass". What is interesting
though, is that the different energy levels of photons apparently have different
invariant masses, but maintain the same velocity in vacuum, however they have
different velocities when refracting thru matter, according to the atomic structure.
QUOTE
If we accept that ultimately everything is composed of photons and there is no true "matter" we end up with this conclusion. I can't think of anything else that is truly primary (other than information itself). That there are only ultimately massless photons (well... particles which have no apparent rest mass). That all forces ultimately are electromagnetic in origin. That mass and gravity itself is a "property" and a "force" not unlike the influence of virtual photons and not of any intrinsic mass of the photon. Charge is a property of the geometry of the propagating photon wave and the way it is topologically wrapped.
Now you seem to be agreeing with some of my stated beliefs about the base
nature of the EM universe that I posted previously.
Gravity is merely the dislocation of EM energy thru space. Lots of concentrated
energy = lots of gravity. No energy = no gravity. Energy and gravity follow the
ISL and have a directly proportional relative relationship.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If we accept that ultimately everything is composed of photons and there is no true "matter" we end up with this conclusion. I can't think of anything else that is truly primary (other than information itself). That there are only ultimately massless photons (well... particles which have no apparent rest mass). That all forces ultimately are electromagnetic in origin. That mass and gravity itself is a "property" and a "force" not unlike the influence of virtual photons and not of any intrinsic mass of the photon. Charge is a property of the geometry of the propagating photon wave and the way it is topologically wrapped. |
Now you seem to be agreeing with some of my stated beliefs about the base
nature of the EM universe that I posted previously.
Gravity is merely the dislocation of EM energy thru space. Lots of concentrated
energy = lots of gravity. No energy = no gravity. Energy and gravity follow the
ISL and have a directly proportional relative relationship.
If it is forced to curve into a complete closed curve then the space is also finite bounded. They are "geodesics" and is one of the strongest arguments for the experimental fact that if light can be bent by "gravity" then "gravity" is a pseudo-force and is not a force related to the attraction between masses... agreed?
A side effect of concentrated energy (mass) is gravity. Matter displaces energy, that
displacement is gravity. Kind of like a ship displacing water = buoyancy. It is
the balance of opposite displacement forces, IMO.
QUOTE
remember you can't see light's photons without destroying them so the test is to view the geometry from within the reference frame
Photons are not destroyed upon detection, atomic "matter" is displaced and
generates voltage and current from that displacement. Energy conversion takes
place from free form EM photonic kinetic energy to atomic potential energy and is
re-emitted as a different form of EM energy, IMO.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| remember you can't see light's photons without destroying them so the test is to view the geometry from within the reference frame |
Photons are not destroyed upon detection, atomic "matter" is displaced and
generates voltage and current from that displacement. Energy conversion takes
place from free form EM photonic kinetic energy to atomic potential energy and is
re-emitted as a different form of EM energy, IMO.
Recall that light has no charge either
It is a dynamic self perpetuating "balanced" energy system without a specific
charge component.
Soliton, from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton
Comments, other opinions, and discussion welcomed.
LL
A correction to my prior post...a photon has relativistic mass, not invariant
mass. LL
mass. LL
Hi TRoc,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
Can you explain to me how diffraction works? Why does light going thru a slit spread and why does the width of the slit affect the amount of spread induced?
Here..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...sinslit.html#c1
yet again it is the difference in path length between the left hand side and the right hand side that causes constructive/destructive interference. The superior person would doubtless attempt some sort of integration of the path lengths over the width of the slit .. which would give us the finer details (logs,curlies and spirals) .. the less superior person (like me) gives in to idleness and accepts the left/right path difference is close enough to establish the 'path difference' principle.
Here..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...sinslit.html#c1
yet again it is the difference in path length between the left hand side and the right hand side that causes constructive/destructive interference. The superior person would doubtless attempt some sort of integration of the path lengths over the width of the slit .. which would give us the finer details (logs,curlies and spirals) .. the less superior person (like me) gives in to idleness and accepts the left/right path difference is close enough to establish the 'path difference' principle.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
Would you say that the slit(s) are functioning like lenses with
an index of refraction?
No. Sorry.
[ quote=TRoc ] when the path lengths are altered, is there a time difference of incidence at the screen? That is, from your "new source" (the slit), do all the "adjusted" path lengths travel at the same velocity?[ /quote ]
As far as I know that pretty much defines the DSE problem .. the thing that is to be explained .. the thing Feynman gave up on .. the thing none of us are even close to starting to attempt to explain.
My reason for failing to 'commit' over the counts in between the regions of destructive interference was that I didn't want to get into (another) dispute with Good Elf about hidden variables. Hopefully we may agree the result is that the probability of detecting a photon is given by k (cos(2 pi delta/wavelength))^2 .. where delta is the path difference. If a near field analysis is attempted then it will be important to integrate over the width of each slit .. but the principle remains the same.
Best wishes,
-C2.
an index of refraction?
No. Sorry.
[ quote=TRoc ] when the path lengths are altered, is there a time difference of incidence at the screen? That is, from your "new source" (the slit), do all the "adjusted" path lengths travel at the same velocity?[ /quote ]
As far as I know that pretty much defines the DSE problem .. the thing that is to be explained .. the thing Feynman gave up on .. the thing none of us are even close to starting to attempt to explain.
My reason for failing to 'commit' over the counts in between the regions of destructive interference was that I didn't want to get into (another) dispute with Good Elf about hidden variables. Hopefully we may agree the result is that the probability of detecting a photon is given by k (cos(2 pi delta/wavelength))^2 .. where delta is the path difference. If a near field analysis is attempted then it will be important to integrate over the width of each slit .. but the principle remains the same.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Light refraction is accelerated by the size of the refraction index or ''slit'' because of the light being forced through a tiny space.
Pushing air through your nose would accelerate much much faster than say trying to push air through your mouth.
It all depends on size, usually size = greater output or input this is reverse in lights case.
Pushing air through your nose would accelerate much much faster than say trying to push air through your mouth.
It all depends on size, usually size = greater output or input this is reverse in lights case.
Hi Laserlight,
The quantum energy "pulse" is not a qubit. A qubit is the superposition of the "three possible states" a one a zero and a one and a zero (the superposition).
The quantum energy "pulse" is not a qubit. A qubit is the superposition of the "three possible states" a one a zero and a one and a zero (the superposition).
QUOTE (Wikipedia Qubit+)
A quantum bit, or qubit (sometimes qbit) ['kju.bɪt] or [k'bɪt] is a unit of quantum information. [...]
Bit versus qubit
A bit is the base of computer information. Regardless of its physical representation, it is always read as either a 0 or a 1. An analogy to this is a light switch - the down position can represent 0 (normally equated to off) and the up position can represent 1 (normally equated to on).
A qubit has some similarities to a classical bit, but is overall very different. Like a bit, a qubit can have only two possible values - normally a 0 or a 1. The difference is that whereas a bit must be either 0 or 1, a qubit can be 0, 1, or a superposition of both.
Just discussing energy for a tad... E = MC²
Energy is always referenced to a "zero level" ... what is this zero level? How do I measure it? IMHO the derivation of energy is subject to a "constant of integration", unless you measure relative to some frame it is "meaningless", energy is not "absolute". Your "relativistic mass" is difficult to define in a system that has not been measured. Einstein warned about this...
"Concentrated energy"... what is this? ... energy is defined as capacity for doing work nothing more... you speak as if it was a "liquid" or "fluid". It is ∫F.ds where F = Force and ds = displacement. You are probably referring to EM sources?? This is not "energy" as such. The ability to stretch a rubber band is "energy" because it is F.s but you can't "concentrate" it. It is more abstract than that. What if we think this way... spacetime curvature is "mass" (symmetric) and spacetime spin is electromagnetism (anti-symmetric). Their interdependence is "something like" this...
Click to enlarge...
The symmetric part is the "curvature" on the surface and the "spin" keeps it "open". That is the way Einstein thought of it in one of his "Unified Field Theories" of course it might get a little more complicated than this "today" but all forces will ultimately be "one" (we hope). Notice though "electromagnetism" (somehow) produces the mass and not the other way around. This we see with all fermions derived from bosons (photons). Notice also this "Universe" is more than the "surface".... "what lies beneath" is very important. And this is a lower dimensional "analog".
What say you Laserlight? (other comments welcome)
Cheers
Bit versus qubit
A bit is the base of computer information. Regardless of its physical representation, it is always read as either a 0 or a 1. An analogy to this is a light switch - the down position can represent 0 (normally equated to off) and the up position can represent 1 (normally equated to on).
A qubit has some similarities to a classical bit, but is overall very different. Like a bit, a qubit can have only two possible values - normally a 0 or a 1. The difference is that whereas a bit must be either 0 or 1, a qubit can be 0, 1, or a superposition of both.
Just discussing energy for a tad... E = MC²
Energy is always referenced to a "zero level" ... what is this zero level? How do I measure it? IMHO the derivation of energy is subject to a "constant of integration", unless you measure relative to some frame it is "meaningless", energy is not "absolute". Your "relativistic mass" is difficult to define in a system that has not been measured. Einstein warned about this...
"Concentrated energy"... what is this? ... energy is defined as capacity for doing work nothing more... you speak as if it was a "liquid" or "fluid". It is ∫F.ds where F = Force and ds = displacement. You are probably referring to EM sources?? This is not "energy" as such. The ability to stretch a rubber band is "energy" because it is F.s but you can't "concentrate" it. It is more abstract than that. What if we think this way... spacetime curvature is "mass" (symmetric) and spacetime spin is electromagnetism (anti-symmetric). Their interdependence is "something like" this...
Click to enlarge...
The symmetric part is the "curvature" on the surface and the "spin" keeps it "open". That is the way Einstein thought of it in one of his "Unified Field Theories" of course it might get a little more complicated than this "today" but all forces will ultimately be "one" (we hope). Notice though "electromagnetism" (somehow) produces the mass and not the other way around. This we see with all fermions derived from bosons (photons). Notice also this "Universe" is more than the "surface".... "what lies beneath" is very important. And this is a lower dimensional "analog".
What say you Laserlight? (other comments welcome)
Cheers
Hi ChaosTheory,
Naturally we need to test your shnozzle theory..
There's a flock of diffraction things here ..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ffracon.html#c1
The closest (simplified) version to shnozzle diffraction looks to be this
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...cirapp2.html#c2
Can you shnozzle the same result .. or something similar?
I think Huygens is the one to blame ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens_principle
Does that help?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Naturally we need to test your shnozzle theory..
There's a flock of diffraction things here ..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ffracon.html#c1
The closest (simplified) version to shnozzle diffraction looks to be this
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...cirapp2.html#c2
Can you shnozzle the same result .. or something similar?
I think Huygens is the one to blame ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens_principle
Does that help?
Best wishes,
-C2.
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.