Problem with the two slit experiment

TRoc

16th January 2007 - 04:15 PM

Hi all,

C2, First, you have quoted LL, and attributed this to me:

"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? "

and

"QUOTE (TRoc) Would you say that the slit(s) are functioning like lenses with an index of refraction? "

so, you should answer to him.

BTW, the link you gave in your "attempt" to explain "how diffraction works" doesn't use the word "path length" at all. You also strongly claimed to "not need the slit width" parameter, yet the link you gave to "make your point" uses it. So, basically, you are saying you have no idea, correct?

Your "huge" answer was at the same level; I have no idea what it is that you really want to say. It definitely is not an "answer".

[ 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 ]

C2: "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. "

??

??

"Pardon me sir, will you kindly step out of the way; I'm in the middle of doing what you say can't be done".

The "triple vague negative": this may set a new record! "not even close" to "starting" to "attempt" to explain something. What you are describing sounds like "a pre-thought" to me, not the pages of "words" that fill this thread. Just speak for yourself, please.

I think in much the same way that you "exposed" your particle beliefs well into this thread, we have now a second disclosure: you are a faithful, and die-hard believer in ________, and you won't be swayed by any "proof", or "logic", those things died with Feynman! "now here this": The Copenhagen "surrender" will now be postponed until after Feynman. Hooray!!!

The far field method requires the "empty space" of the slit width the same as the near field method. They both use the slit as the KEY to shifting geometry, so that the angles change, and the path lengths change. Diffraction is the "at the slit" explanation, there is no getting around it: arbitrary points across the slit width = ad hoc = you can not explain the phenomenon completely with this method.

regards,

T.Roc

jal

16th January 2007 - 04:55 PM

Good Day EVERYONE!
I have spent 2 days catching up. I have 3 pages of quotes from all of you which leads to this presentation.
© is a constant.
Therefore, the distance, (l), that light travels is a constant. It has always been a constant.
-------------------------------------

Experiment # 1
Get a pack of sticky circles from your office supply store.
Mark six of them with a big “E”. It represents Energy in all its possible forms.
The circle represents the smallest possible scale at which energy is contained. It is the Planck Area. It is the smallest distance that energy can travel. Your circles will look like the following arrangement. (energy_nodes)
User posted image

You cannot put the Planck scale energy nodes any closer than shown. They must be separated by a “nul” node of no energy. Therefore, the minimum total surface area is 24 Planck units.
----------------------------------------

Experiment # 2
Get an orange that has a circumference of those six circles. Stick your circle on the orange.
You have now proven that the minimum size of a Planck Sphere is 24,(l) in area and that there can only be six Planck size ENERGY in a Planck size sphere.
Play with it. You will be able to find all kinds of quantum geometry relationships, like Hex. packing.
--------------------------------

Experiment # 3
Now, lets go to 3d. From the 2d arrangement, we will take one ENERGY node and 3 “nul” nodes and place them on the X plane. Then one ENERGY node and 3 “nul” nodes and place them on the Y plane. Then one ENERGY node and 3 “nul” nodes and place them on the Z plane.
Mathematically, Good Elf says, “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.”
To me, it is just the real location of the 2d energy in a 3d configuration.

That will make a total of 6 energy nodes and 18 “nul” nodes.
Here is my picture of one energy node and 3 “nul” nodes. (energy_nodes_2)
User posted image

This will make a 3d sphere that has 3 energy nodes and 9 “nul” nodes. From the previous 2d energy distribution we can get two (2) 3d spheres that contain 3 energy nodes and 9 “nul” nodes. Each sphere will have a total of 12 nodes.(3d rotation) user posted image

How many energy nodes does a proton or a neutron have?
We call them “quarks”.
Do you have a model that can generate “quarks”?
A physicist will quickly point out that the total energy of a proton or a neutron is not the sum of the 3 quarks. There is something else making up the total energy.
How right!
Let’s put the proton into the 3d spacetime configuration that I have worked out, the 12 hex. packing of 12 spheres. There is plenty of room.
12 spheres X 12 nodes = 144 nodes that are available. A proton will only use 12 nodes.
User posted image

All of the above has been derived for “first principles”. The speed of light is CONSTANT. If you change the speed of light then you have changed the distance, (l), that light must travel. © as a constant depend directly on (l) the distance. It does not depend on the size of (l). Therefore, (l) can be 10^-33 or even 10^-18.
User posted image

Do you need your quotes?
Laserlight

I don't think that there is evidence that subatomic fundamental particles exhibit
cyclical movement, but I could be wrong about that.
TRoc
that they didn't find the "mathematical" explanation for the chord.
all that was necessary to tweak the whole thing into producing the constant c with any symmetrical pair of values. This is reminiscent of Maxwell's (original) quaternion notation. The symmetries always have an angle, like a matrix, that produces a "unity", in this case, c .
Physics has only looked at this from the "form" of the wave, as it appears.
You just need a starting point (background "noise" of the Universe), and one, expanding, geometrically progressive "measuring stick".
TRoc
More to your question of the "vibration of particles". Just like the "photon", the electron, neutron, and proton are also localized wave centers, and not really "particles". They do have mass, however, and Einstein has worked out the details on the energy, which I'll remind you that is defined by mc^2 = E = hf, where f=frequency, that each of these "particles" posses. The free electons and protons can be used in the S/DSE, with the same results that we have been talking about.
TRoc
We can only measure "note for note" resonance between electrons, and it is called the "photon". The electron has the Compton wavelength (derived one way), and the deBroglie wave (another way). Take c , and divide it by this wavelength, and you get the frequency of the electron c /w = f . This frequency will match its' mass equivalent, figured by m * c^2 . It all ties together, and is rock solid; if you take this away, we have nothing left. It is not "my opinion", it is Physics.
What my model is about is WHY these fundamental vibrations exist in the first place, and HOW the interactions "conserve".
TRoc
You can see the next question is, "how are the electron and proton produced?", and on down the line, as far as chasing "harmonics" from collisions. I would say that the electron is the lowest energy, stable mass, and it is derived as the smallest stable harmonic of the radius of The Cavity (Universe). This equation has been derived already, by Wolff, in his WSM theory, and dubbed "the equation of the cosmos".
Good Elf
the Raman scattering produces at least a part of the galactic redshift; the expansion of the universe is reduced or possibly canceled.
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.
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.
It "travels" to the screen through a series of nodes and anti-nodes already existing in the space
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.
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
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.
Good Elf
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"
Quantum Mechanics offers no mechanism for this other than saying that it just happens
Lets all try and break new ground not wear a circular patch on it by going in around in circles.

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.
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?
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...
I would say “really a reflection of the geometry of our spacetime.”
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.
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.
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.
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).
Other mechanisms will not fit my model simply because the mechanisms do not address the experimental issues.
Jal
The mechanisms fits my model.
Good Elf One of these days, I’m going to show up on your doorstep with a six pack of beer to clear the air.
As yquantum said, “Where do we go from here?”

Laserlight

16th January 2007 - 04:59 PM

Hi GE,

QUOTE

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).

I believe that this can be stated to be maximum energy (1), zero energy (0),
while the superposition is any analog component of energy between zero and
one.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

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).

I believe that this can be stated to be maximum energy (1), zero energy (0),
while the superposition is any analog component of energy between zero and
one.

"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.

Potential energy represents the stored energy equivalent available
to do work.

Concentrated energy is the mass equivalent potential energy
(invariant energy) at rest. Think about it. Mass is nothing more than
condensed "potential" energy accumulated into some dense concentrated system.
The density of the mass is directly proportional to the amount of gravity it
possesses. The mass equivalence represents the total energy contained and
follows Einsteins E=mc^2 where m=E/c^2.

The total combined energy "displacement" this mass density represents is directly
proportional to its gravitational component. A tablespoon volume of a neutron
star weighs about 2 Million tons (4T pounds) That represents a lot of potential
energy (mass) and a tremendous gravitational spacial displacement.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/0...quarkstars.html

QUOTE

What if we think this way... spacetime curvature is "mass" (symmetric) and spacetime spin is electromagnetism (anti-symmetric). Their interdependence is "something like" this... The symmetric part is the "curvature" on the surface and the "spin" keeps it "open". ..... 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".

IMO, spacetime curvature is the "displacement" caused by the potential energy
that mass represents. What is curvature? It is the warping of normal space-time
and follows the ISL relative to the position of the mass generating the
displacement. Energy density should be directly proportional to gravitational
pull. A pound of lead weighs the same as a pound of feathers. Even though their
volumes and total surface areas are different, their relative densities and the
energy equivalence that they represent (displace) are the same. The distribution
of the volume that they displace spreads the gravitational component they
represent over a larger total area, but it is the same equivalent value.

IMO, if you displace space, you "warp" it. The observed result is the curvature of
spacetime.

I think we are saying the same thing from different perspectives. I guess the
question is, "Does warped space represent an extra dimension, or is it just
a deformation of normal space that causes time to slow down relative to
an external point of observation, due to light following the warp curvature rather
than a following a straight line?"

In the case of light, time is stopped, but time is relative to an external observer
who is making a comparison of the same source of light travelling thru normal
space relative to curved space. Light following a curved trajectory takes longer
to negotiate the distance between 2 points relative to light traveling along a
straight line.

Comments, discussion encouraged.
LL

Confused2

16th January 2007 - 05:25 PM

Hi TRoc,

Very sorry about the wrong attribution..

Hopefully there is a reasonably satisfactory description of diffraction here..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...inslitd.html#c1

QUOTE

the condition for minimum light intensity is that light from these two elements arrive 180° out of phase, or a half wavelength different in pathlength.

Clearly there is a maximum where the pathlength difference is zero or a whole wavelength.

The superior Fresnel analysis gives virtually the same result for the same reason (path length difference) but allows that the phase is not precisely uniform across the slit.

Interference ... diffraction .. phase difference .. pathlength difference .. all part of the same thing.

Are we in agreement this far? (I fear we are horribly not in agreement .. we shall see)

Best wishes,

-C2.

Edit

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

the condition for minimum light intensity is that light from these two elements arrive 180° out of phase, or a half wavelength different in pathlength.

Yes! << big letters.

Confused2

16th January 2007 - 06:18 PM

Hi TRoc,

QUOTE (TRoc+)

You also strongly claimed to "not need the slit width" parameter,

Not an ill-founded claim. It we look at the picture of diffraction here
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...inslitd.html#c1
and then at http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif
hopefully we see that the entire game of the DSE is (or can be) played out where the main diffraction 'humps' from the two slits are overlapping .. provided the two slits are narrow enough to generate wide enough 'humps' we don't need to know anything more about their geometry... the DSE equation (based on path length difference) holds.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Edit .. with regret

I have to offer the suggestion the absence of any link between the effect and precise geometry of either of the slits suggests (to me) that the precise geometry of either of the slits is not the cause of the effect.

Laserlight

16th January 2007 - 06:52 PM

Hi C2 and All,

QUOTE

Clearly there is a maximum where the pathlength difference is zero or a
whole wavelength.

Again the question comes down to the slit geometry interfering with the
arriving coherent photons and causing them to spread according to how
wide the slit is. A narrower slit causes more interference (diffraction)
which causes more spread. The pattern of interference, occuring at the slit,
is projected onto the screen.

Keep in mind that we are talking about a wavelength of ~700 nm, but if
you look at the screen, the light and dark bands are many millimeters apart. We are observing a dark band that has no apparent photon energy
for many thousands of times the wavelength of light we are using.

If you move the screen further away from the slits the light and dark gaps
increase proportionally, just like a projector. It is my contention that each slit acts
like the refraction occurring as light passes thru a lens, just as in the camera
obscura. The phase and mixing interference is produced as the photons are
being diffracted and the light phases are interfering with each other within the
aperature of the slit "lens".

A single slit acts as a new source for the mixed (phased) photons, some have
been interfered with constructively, some destructively, and some pass straight
thru without any phase shift.

Think about a movie projector, if you focus it on a screen and then move the
screen away the image gets larger. There has been no phase mixing of the
photons anywhere but within the nearfield focal plane of the lens,
but the angles between the screen and the lens maintain the same geometrical
relationship.

In the case of 2 slits (the DSE), we are taking a curved 3 dimensional wavefront,
separating it spacially and temporaly across a 2 dimensional barrier, while
allowing 2 separate parts of that 3D wavefront to continue onward thru the slits.

The slits, which act as signal mixing points, offer some time and spacial delays to the
wavefronts (refractive index), and then the mixed, phase delayed 3D wavefronts
expand from each of the new slit sources toward the screen. The advancing
wavefronts have the same phase and timing offsets that overlap as they spread
toward the screen. Keep in mind that the advancing wavefronts are 3D while
the screen is 2D. I mentioned before that if the screen were curved we should
see straight lines representing the projected interference bands, which would
better represent the curved focal plane of the lens action of the slits and the
curved photon wavefront

Added because of your edit:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Clearly there is a maximum where the pathlength difference is zero or a
whole wavelength.

The path length difference is a function of the diffraction occuring at the slits.
The path length inteference occurs in the slits and is projected onto the screen.

JMHO!

Comments and discsussion welcome.

LL

TRoc

16th January 2007 - 07:03 PM

C2,

QUOTE

Interference ... diffraction .. phase difference .. pathlength difference .. all part of the same thing.

I think that you are saying that now, and we are in agreement.

HOWEVER,

you ARE NOT getting it C2. That is why we are asking you IF you can explain it: not because we don't know, but because we can't believe that you do know. Referring us to another diagram does not convince anyone that you do, and neither do any of your statements.

You CAN NOT operate your model, or solve your equation WITHOUT making arbitrary points in which to draw new paths of different lengths from the slit to the screen. These new points ARE equal (or symmetric) distance apart, which CREATES the relationship of whole or half wavelengths to the light and dark bands.

At least you changed your link reference; but you still fail to see the blunt, obvious truth. Look at this picture:
User posted image

Do you see that lines #1, 2, and 4 all go to different, arbitrary points along the width of the slit? The slit (already) MUST have a certain ratio to the wavelength of light passing through, and NOW, with the addition of "points" to measure from the slit to the screen, WHOLE FRACTION RATIOS are introduced into the equation, WITHOUT explanation. For now, just keep it simple, and ADMIT that you can see the red dots that are ADDED to the experiment (there are NO real barriers there) between the sides of the slit.

User posted image

You have to ask yourself some questions like:

"WHY on Earth does line #4 go from the center of the slit, to the far left (to meet #3, which started from one side)??"
"WHY do lines 1 and 2 move in opposite directions??"
"WHY do lines 1 and 3 start from the same point, and move in opposite directions??"

There is a world of difference in "mapping out" what is happening, versus Physics.

regards,

T.Roc

ChaosTheory

16th January 2007 - 07:22 PM

Deflection and refraction have also some based claim as to what angle the refraction or deflection takes place in.
Remember angles are like the bread to lights butter and must abide by specific rules when being defracted.

Even though light is spaced to spew forth at chaotic degree's and angles not alot of particles can attain they still must be deflected off something whether it be a lengthy distance or a shortened one.
They also need to be specific in how they refract, some light may catch itself being bounced off at another angle or be absorbed into a spectrum of light akin to its own particle make-up.

TRoc

16th January 2007 - 08:27 PM

LL,

Just trying to address your question as to atomic transitions, electron orbitals, etc.

You can see my last post to C2 (above), what I call the "see-saw" equation approach to Science that is used to replace "understanding". Measuring what happens at the measurement, and then inferring an ad hoc "cause" at the "source".

It can be logical, but not always 100% true.

Drawing lines from a dark band in the diffraction pattern to "the middle" of the slit, and then deeming the middle of the slit as "negative", or causing destructive interference does not speak of the cause, it speaks to the effect.

The reason I say that now, is that just saying that "adding at least as much weight to 1 side of the see-saw will cause the other side to come down" doesn't explain WHY. (the Physics)

So, your statement:

QUOTE

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?

is true to the extent that the Fraunhofer method is "true" for the DSE.

You must clearly define your "a photon": the emission photon will have exactly the same amount of energy (frequency) as the photon that was absorbed, by the orbital of the electron.

That statement is a process.

The discreet "jump" in energy is described as instantaneous, and the subsequent emission of the photon, as spontaneous relaxation, in a finite amount of time (yet to be accurately measured/predicted). These terms could be different, of course, but that's the basics.

If you are asking "does the orbital radius increase by the wavelength of the photon, in terms of distance", I think the answer is no.

The current method takes the "bound" energy of the atom, -13.6 eV for the H atom, and then, with every jump in energy, the electron becomes more loosely bound, until it is ionized, and "free".

We talked a little about the "frequency" of the crystal, or glass (transparent) being resonant with visible light (other specific frequencies). That is simple matter frequency resonance with energy frequency. Both parameters are able to change, and either would affect the results.

In a perfect world, with perfect black-bodies, perfect circles, etc., we could use Hydrogen to measure Hydrogen, and get ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE results.

However, in our world, we end up measuring things like Copper with Silicon, or whatever you can imagine. Everything that is not "identically" resonant, is what I term, a beat-frequency, which is always described as the difference between energy levels.

So, when Schroedinger attempted to set out to explain the quantum world with his "beat frequency" method, he was "swatted down" by "Boltzmann's Last Stand. Things were not going to be so "tidy".

However, I feel that they were actually looking at the "effects" only, and not the "cause". This was Einsteins complaint of Bohr's' "don't ask" response to questions of "why"; Bohr insisted that we ONLY look at the things that we can MEASURE. We can NOT "measure" what is happenING, only what has hapenNED. This is the motivation for Dirac's desire to keep photons interfering only "with themselves", so as to not have to "explain" any "new" parameters, that only exist "between" cause and effect. He still had his "sea of virtual photons" to "fill in the middle", so I don't think his answer is any better.

When you look at the "foundational" methods of Maxwell, you MUST include the "fields" as an "in between" parameter. Yes, I think fields should be included, and maybe even amended to include the "frequency cascade" that seems to be indicated in so many places. These are "wavelets", beat-frequencies, heat, "virtual particles", etc. (anything but the "real" photon)

A black and white world must include grey.

Positive/Negative/Neutral

The binary is built into the duality, but does not encompass it. The "third party" allows for the equilibrium state, as well as positive and negative, and "nothing".

I think that there is more to gleen at this point, from looking at theoretical causes, than from the "explanations" of the affects.

My "sidetrack" aside, did I answer your question?

ciao,

T.Roc

Confused2

16th January 2007 - 09:00 PM

Hi TRoc,ChaosTheory,
CT .. I think I preferred your schnozzle theory.
TRoc, at least least you continue to be 'evidence based'
For the present I can't find any better explanation of diffraction than hyperphysics .. clearly not good enough.
Here's a justification of the little sources
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~phy7c/huygens.html
Back to diffraction..
A fairly 'proper' integration job is done here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction where the source is assumed to be infinitely narrow and calculus is used to get the answer.. I'm not sure this will help that much.
As a plausibility argument .. imagine a slit with a plane wave arriving on one side and the slit is 2 wavelengths wide.
If we imagine dividing the slit in two we can see that half the energy comes from one side and half the energy from the other. If we look at this from the point of view of a screen on the non-excited side we can (hopefully) see that there will be points where the one side is (on average) half a wavelength further away than the other .. so waves arriving from one side of the slit will be cancelled out by the waves from the other. For fun let's both try to work out what that angle is .. and see if we get he same answer.
Best wishes,
-C2.

TRoc

16th January 2007 - 10:01 PM

C2,

QUOTE

For the present I can't find any better explanation of diffraction than hyperphysics ..

That is the point. We have fully explored the limitations of the Fraunhofer method. It works fine as a "generalization", and "up to a point". Then, we must turn elsewhere.

ciao,

T.Roc

Confused2

16th January 2007 - 10:08 PM

Hi TRoc,

I'm sorry, I just don't see the problem The Huygens sources seem a bit dubious but make sense (to me) in the light of having to add something from the other side .. is that the problem?

Your answer to the 2 wavelength wide slit .. ?

Best wishes,

-C2.

Confused2

16th January 2007 - 10:29 PM

Hi TRoc,

Check out Bragg Diffraction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_diffraction .

This 'works' for much the same reason .. I really think someone would have noticed by now if there was anything wrong with the analysis.

Best wishes,
-C2.

TRoc

16th January 2007 - 11:17 PM

C2,

How many times do I, GE, and LL all have to say "There is no "problem" with the Fraunhofer or Fresnel/Huygens methods" (F,F/H), before you "hear" it?

It will not take us "all the way through" the experiment, and provide us with a Fundamental understanding. NOBODY is saying "it is wrong".

This (DSE) experiment is considered the START of QM, and there is NO QM explanation for it! "Your" way (F,F/H) is "classical", and the WORST thing is,

TREATING "SELF CREATED", ARBITRARY POINTS ACROSS THE WIDTH OF THE SLIT IS "CREATING NEW PHOTONS FOR EACH NEW POINT. THESE NEW PHOTONS ARE LITERALLY CREATED "OUT OF THIN AIR" BETWEEN THE SIDES OF THE SLIT.

So, from a QM perspective, NO MATTER was involved in this "new emission". That is a big problem. Now you can see why they HAD TO say (out loud) that this is still "just one photon" interfering with itself. Adding arbitrary photons is not allowed, AFAIK. So, now the problem becomes, HOW did this "single photon" come to divide itself, by hitting "nothing" between the slit sides. This is what forced the "1-at-a-time" experiment, to "prove" which slit the PARTICLE was going through. WRONG again: NO particle. Then they imply "1-at-a-time" thinking, and determine that the WAVE is NOT interfering with "something else", so it must be interfering with "itself" (divided into parts). Not a very good story, not very good Science, IMO.

The thing that is missing from ALL of this is the WHY, and I have been offering "tidbits" along the way, concerning resonance, and the "interaction" of waves.

ciao,

T.Roc

Laserlight

16th January 2007 - 11:29 PM

Hi TRoc,

Thanks for the theoretical explanation of photon development across an
atomic energy level voltage drop. I think it has potentially spawned more
questions than answers.

QUOTE

The discreet "jump" in energy is described as instantaneous, and the subsequent emission of the photon, as spontaneous relaxation, in a finite amount of time (yet to be accurately measured/predicted). These terms could be different, of course, but that's the basics.

If you are asking "does the orbital radius increase by the wavelength of the photon, in terms of distance", I think the answer is no.

The 1st issue has to do with the "instantaneous" transition from 1 orbital to either
a higher or lower orbital. Due to the orbital velocity of an electron in its orbital
"cloud" approaching the speed of light, it seems logical that there must be some
gradient "slope" (inclination-declination) or transition time latency as the
orbital "jump" or drop takes place. If so, this electron orbital transition should
prescribe an arc in both "directions", which may explain the photon's amplitude
pulse from zero to maximum crest and back to zero over a timebase. (wavelength)

I'm also wondering how this affects the other electron orbitals by changing the
localized atomic field charge distributions, especially other electrons in the same
energy orbital level? Do these shared orbital electrons also generate photons
by orbital displacement, or can only 1 electron per atom perform this photon
generation function at a time.?

No need to answer these theoretical questions, unless someone feels that they
have valid conceptual answers.

So many questions, so few answers.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I understand Bohr's hesitancy to "speculate" when he had no way to prove it
and any real answers might conflict with his "brainchild" theory. Measurables
provide accurate predictability of results, but don't explain the underlying physics.

QUOTE

A black and white world must include grey.

Positive/Negative/Neutral.... The binary is built into the duality, but does not encompass it. The "third party" allows for the equilibrium state, as well as positive and negative, and "nothing".....I think that there is more to gleen at this point, from looking at theoretical causes, than from the "explanations" of the affects.

Neutral is just a mean between extremes, an average. I agree with your
comment about theoreticals, these are the mysteries that hold the answers and
the truths that physics seeks to understand.

Regards,
LL

Good Elf

16th January 2007 - 11:33 PM

Hi Jal, Aerohead, Confused2, Laserlight, Montec, TRoc, Duality, yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,

QUOTE (Jal+)

The mechanisms fits my model.
Good Elf One of these days, I’m going to show up on your doorstep with a six pack of beer to clear the air.
As yquantum said, “Where do we go from here?”

You are welcome Jal... anytime. I feel the acute problems of trying to carry on discussion like this too. One of the big (or is that small...) points of contention is the Planck Length. I believe in Planck's Constant for sure, but I cannot have any faith in a "Planck Length" as some defining point at which the Universe somehow breaks free from its former bounds to allow just about anything to happen (very conveniently for all those theories that need anything to happen at just about this point). One of the main objections is it is far too small to test for its existence experimentally. Small in this context means "real big" in energy (it is a "reciprocal"). More energy than our civilization will be able to harness for the next 10 million years if we last as long. The other main point is it doesn't fit my theory of reciprocal space.

It is my belief that people who build theories (even me) based on untestable ideas (at this point in human development) are trying to out think "god". We all have enough problems without that.

You have an interesting idea Jal but it remains "philosophy" if it beyond testing. I agree with nodes and anti-nodes and "stuff" but I think we are at crossed purposes when we want to actually test it at the Planck Length. The nodes and anti-nodes I am speaking about I can map with an atomic force microscope and measure with genuine "measuring rods". Look at the scale on these "pictures"... it says "inches"...
Good Elf on nodes and anti-nodes
Rotating frames of reference distinguishes bosons from fermions very quickly and relative to us "solid" particles (fermions) are rotating frames of reference with "mass".
Good Elf on rotating frames of reference
We have QED at one level of our Universe then we have QCD at the next level of our Universe and I am sure we have QXD at the next level of the Universe where X is the unknown quantity. What I "hope" is the "X" is the same as the "E" seen from another (closer) frame of reference. That while you can go on like this "indefinitely" we are not learning any more since this is "Holographic Information" where a small bit of the whole can reconstruct the "whole" but with less information just as a fragment of a hologram can reconstruct the entire hologram but with less detail.. We are "stuck" in the lab frame of the Universe... photons are stuck in the atomic scale of the universe even though photons can be very large indeed. The other forces such as the Strong Force and the Weak Force are at a sub-nuclear range in the Universe but we observe then from an accelerated frame (our own). Warning: there is a "tiny experimental overlap" between these scales and the different levels of scale in the Universe can overlap (this has been noted experimentally). The quantum (atomic level) and our level... and the sub-nuclear QCD with QED (electron-electron "weak" interactions etc). What is the defining separation point??? It is mass... the more mass the less the systems overlap. Mass is intrinsic angular acceleration... or closely related to it. "Gravity" is extrinsic acceleration ... linear or angular... it does not matter. This is just an extension of Einstein's Equivalence Principle. Does everyone agree??

Consider this comment on how to convert "bosons" into "fermions" and visa versa...

QUOTE (American Institute of Physics Bulletins 2002+)

http://webplaza.pt.lu/public/fklaess/html/AIP02.HTML
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 606 September 25, 2002 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein, and James
Riordon

MAKING BOSONS ACT LIKE FERMIONS. In what would represent an unprecedented manipulation of matter, physicists in Germany and Austria have proposed ways of making bosons, one of the two major classes of matter, act like fermions, the other kind of matter. Fermions (such as electrons) obey the Pauli exclusion principle: If you put multiple electrons in a box, they all must differ from each other in some way, for example by being in a different place or having a different value of a quantum property such as spin. Bosons (such as photons and the hydrogen atom) have no such restrictions: a limitless number of them can be in the identical quantum state. Physics is replete with examples of making the fussy fermions behave like the more easygoing bosons, thanks to the phenomena of superconductivity and superfluidity. Causing fermions to pair up, as they do in superconductors, gives the pairs the same key properties as bosons, and so they act just like bosons.

But the reverse--making the normally indiscriminating bosons act like picky fermions--has never been done before. Now, researchers (Belen Paredes, Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics, Belen.Paredes@mpq.mpg.de) have a couple of proposals for accomplishing this. One way, they suggest, would be to rotate a Bose-Einstein condensate. At rest, the BEC has several different low-energy levels due to different possible values of angular momentum in the atoms. However, rotating the BEC at just the right rate causes these levels to become equal to one another in energy since the rotation will cancel out the energy gains due to angular momentum. All stuck in the low-energy well, the atoms would be forced to minimize their repulsions with one another, and they'd do this by assuming slightly different values of angular momentum, thereby acting like fermions. Rotating BECs is now possible with lasers or mechanical devices. But to observe "fermionization" in BECs with currently obtainable rotation speeds, researchers would need to create a BEC with only a handful of atoms, say 5, instead of the typical 10,000 or so. But in case this turns out to be infeasible, the researchers have another proposal: rotate an optical lattice, a light-based web of atom traps, containing 5 atoms in each trap. Such a situation is experimentally possible and could produce a stronger signal than that from a single BEC. (Paredes, Zoller and Cirac, Physical Review A, tent. September 2002; also
Paredes and Cirac, cond-mat/0207040)

Consider this as a general process that converts bosons to fermions and there is another process that can convert fermions to bosons when you pair up Fermionic Quantum States (like Cooper Poirs) to make them even (experimentally known already). This is a "Holographic Process" converting from different (non inertial) rotational frames of reference. The property of "boson" and "fermion" are attributes not intrinsic features of systems and are depending on observations from different frames of reference. There is another process, as we have discussed, to convert uncharged photons into charges and this involves topology. Putting this another way "soft" particles such as bosons can be converted to "hard" particles... the fermions... using a simple change of frame of reference (boosts and spins).

P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach (Click to enlarge... )
So question is where do we go from here... Yquantum posed a question and he proposed that the answer must involve the Lorentz-CPT problem. I agree but it is going to get "sticky" and involves "Holographic Principles" and "anti-deSitter Universes".

I would like ANYONE to comment on this since it is very important to be on the same "page". It's the "Big Picture" folks and I am trying not to focus on the fine details now. Optics is an "aspect" of this so is "holograpy" etc... Just do not get lost "in the woods".

Cheers

jal

17th January 2007 - 12:19 AM

Confused2
Extract from
http://www.citycollegiate.com/interference_braggs.htm

QUOTE

DIFFRACTION OF X-RAYS THROUGH CRYSTALS www.citycollegiate.com
The nature of x-rays is electromagnetic i.e. they are electromagnetic waves. X-rays have very short wavelength of the order of 10 x 10 -10 m. Therefore it is not possible to produce interference fringes of x-rays by Young's double slit experiment or by thin film method. The reason is that the fringe spacing is
D x = lL/d and unless the slits are separated by a distance of 10 x 10 -10 m, the fringes so obtained will be closed together that they can not be observed.
How ever it is possible to obtain x-rays diffraction by making use of crystals such as rock salt in which the atoms are uniformly spaced in planes and separated by a distance of order of 2 A to 5A. Therefore, the diffraction of x-rays takes place when they incident on the surface of crystals.

Good Elf

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Good Elf
Small in this context means "real big" in energy (it is a "reciprocal").

You missed one of the key point.

QUOTE

jal
It does not depend on the size of (l). Therefore, (l) can be 10^-33 or even 10^-18.

You don’t need to go to “real big energy” or Planck Scale.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

jal
It does not depend on the size of (l). Therefore, (l) can be 10^-33 or even 10^-18.

You don’t need to go to “real big energy” or Planck Scale.
Good Elf
You have an interesting idea Jal but it remains "philosophy" if it beyond testing.

It is a “testable idea”. It even produces “quarks” from basic principle …. The speed of light being a constant.

QUOTE

jal
Do you have a model that can generate “quarks”?
A physicist will quickly point out that the total energy of a proton or a neutron is not the sum of the 3 quarks. There is something else making up the total energy.
How right!
Let’s put the proton into the 3d spacetime configuration that I have worked out, the 12 hex. packing of 12 spheres. There is plenty of room.
12 spheres X 12 nodes = 144 nodes that are available. A proton will only use 12 nodes.

You also missed where the "extra" ENERGY comes from.( ...separation point???)

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

You also missed where the "extra" ENERGY comes from.( ...separation point???)
Good Elf
What is the defining separation point??? It is mass... the more mass the less the systems overlap. Mass is intrinsic angular acceleration... or closely related to it. "Gravity" is extrinsic acceleration ... linear or angular... it does not matter. This is just an extension of Einstein's Equivalence Principle. Does everyone agree??

The citrus crop of California has been 80% destroyed by freezing. Get your orange before the price goes up.
I wonder if “THEY2” would understand my explanation?
No insults intended with that comment. I just think that my explanation is soooo simple.
jal

I'm commenting

Good Elf

17th January 2007 - 12:57 AM

Hi Jal,

QUOTE (Jal today+)

You also missed where the "extra" ENERGY comes from.( ...separation point???)

Not really Jal. If I am reading you correctly on this... Unsuitable measuring frames to determine energy. As discussed in an earlier post energy is not "absolute" and you need to choose a reference frame to compare it fairly. Rotating reference frames are a problem since they are undergoing space contraction and time dilation at the same time and energy comparisons need the same yardsticks to compare "like with like".

Being simple is not sufficient for a theory it must be so simple that you can quote experiments that indicate that it is true. For instance this statement is strange...

Using quotes from this reference...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=166952

QUOTE (Jal+)

I have spent 2 days catching up. I have 3 pages of quotes from all of you which leads to this presentation.
© is a constant.
Therefore, the distance, (l), that light travels is a constant. It has always been a constant.

This is a "non-sequitur" for me. What proof do you have for this arbitrary statement "out of the blue". I may have missed a vital point there but I think a lot of others might have gotten lost there too. After that statement everything else just "glazes over". The next point is your theory makes no attempt to be rest frame independent to coincide with Special Relativity. I believe that all theories to have any chance of being correct must be in accord with Special Relativity and with Electromagnetic Theory.

QUOTE (Jal+)

You cannot put the Planck scale energy nodes any closer than shown. They must be separated by a “nul” node of no energy. Therefore, the minimum total surface area is 24 Planck units.

Nodes and anti-nodes are not like that... your M&M's are separated already by "nodes"... the spaces between. There is not just one way to do space packing and this does not explain interference fringes which are irregular and distributed.

Cheers

jal

17th January 2007 - 01:40 AM

Hi Good Elf!
The spacetime structure and the yet unmeasurable and undetermined dynamics would contribute the"remaining/other" energy.

QUOTE

Good Elf
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"
Quantum Mechanics offers no mechanism for this other than saying that it just happens
Lets all try and break new ground not wear a circular patch on it by going in around in circles.

So.... new grounds?? Did you mean yours or anybody?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

So.... new grounds?? Did you mean yours or anybody?
jal
Therefore, the distance, (l), that light travels is a constant. It has always been a constant.

QUOTE

Good Elf
This is a "non-sequitur" for me. What proof do you have for this arbitrary statement "out of the blue".

You missed the "node" concept. It represents minimum distance, (l), that light can travel and still be ©
Sorry that you don't see it.

You even have a quote that can also explain the expansion/red shift.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Good Elf
This is a "non-sequitur" for me. What proof do you have for this arbitrary statement "out of the blue".

You missed the "node" concept. It represents minimum distance, (l), that light can travel and still be ©
Sorry that you don't see it.

You even have a quote that can also explain the expansion/red shift.
the Raman scattering produces at least a part of the galactic redshift; the expansion of the universe is reduced or possibly canceled.

Also, Any expansion would require the addition of more spacetime units that were the same size as the existing units.
Dammm, .... that case of beer would sure help.
jal

Laserlight

17th January 2007 - 01:46 AM

Hi GE,

QUOTE

Mass is intrinsic angular acceleration... or closely related to it. "Gravity" is extrinsic acceleration ... linear or angular... it does not matter. This is just an extension of Einstein's Equivalence Principle. Does everyone agree??

Isn't "intrinsic angular acceleration" a property or consequence of a charged mass
that is interacting with an opposite charged mass via EM field "confinement". The
opposing polarized masses complement each other via their opposite charges
(ying-yang). EM fields link the opposing charges and provide the angular acceleration via the right hand rule.

The opposing charges do not collapse and annihilate each other, they establish
angular acceleration via their established interactive field(s) and "neutralize" each
other to establish a "steady" state. In that regard they could be
considered "entangled". The charge attraction keeps the particles locked together
while the fields are the mechanism to provide angular acceleration that keeps the
charges apart. Spin is a component of each particle's charge and mass.

JMHO!
Other opinions, discussion welcomed.
LL

Good Elf

17th January 2007 - 02:03 AM

Hi Laserlight,

QUOTE (laserlight+)

Isn't "intrinsic angular acceleration" a property or consequence of a charged mass

Angular acceleration is like linear acceleration in the sense that it not force. Ma is a linear force and mV²/r is a centripetal force that "presumes" a mass. What if mass is the influence of electromagnetic retardation in rotating systems due to the Sagnac Effect. In other words the toroidal analog of Lenz's Law. Consider a simpler but analogous system, a "light" magnet in uniform motion inside a very long "linear" DC electric solenoid. As long as motion internal to the solenoid is constant (constant velocity or "zero" velocity) the magnet will feel no force due to the solenoid. "Accelerate" the magnet (negative or positive) relative to the solenoid and a "restoring force" will exist depending on the acceleration and it will be equal and opposite. Even if the magnet was "massless" it would behave along that linear dimension just like a hunk of mass. This is due to EM retardation. This is "like" a person co-moving with the "light" magnet giving it a sudden push and noting an equal but opposite force in accordance with Newtons Laws... What do you think? Note that Electromagnetism is perfectly in accord with Special Relativity.

Cheers

Laserlight

17th January 2007 - 02:14 AM

Hi GE and Jal,

QUOTE

Jal said: © is a constant....Therefore, the distance, (l), that light travels is a constant. It has always been a constant.

GE said:
Nodes and anti-nodes are not like that... your M&M's are separated already by "nodes"... the spaces between. There is not just one way to do space packing and this does not explain interference fringes which are irregular and distributed.

Jal, I was scratching my head trying to understand what this meant, I see that
I was not alone. I tried to reason it to mean how far light travels over a specific
precise time interval. If the speed of light in vacuum is constant, then the time that
it travels, regardless of wavelength, will equal the same distance. But I fail to
see the nuance of the point that you were trying to make.

GE, packing only works for lowest energy "unentangled" spherical systems, I don't
think it works for systems with entangled fields or shared electrons where the
symmetry of the atomic structure has covalent characteristics. The packing in a
non-linear or non-symmetrical atomic arrangement should be denser as in a high
gravity environment like a neutron star core or a black hole. Now that represents energy efficiency, where packing density is maximized. IMO, the mass is basically
fused into a single crystal solid core.

JMHO.
LL

Aerohead

17th January 2007 - 02:27 AM

Hi Good Elf, and all !

Well, GE put the open question to comment about "where to go from here." So, as a reader - but relative non-contributor - to this topic, here's something from "the for-what-it's-worth-department" of your devoted fans :

In college, I stood up in class and asked my physics professor: "How big is a photon?" (We did that back "then" - standing up, that is!). You could hear a pin drop in the classroom. After one of the most puzzled looks I've ever seen from a scientist, he stuttered an answer I shall never forget: "You can't ask that question."

For the last 35 years, I've been trying to figure out WHY? Did he mean that it couldn't even be "characterized?" Not even "estimated?" Can't even venture a best guess? (His answer seems to imply that you can't even imply a shape!)

When the DSE was first presented in college physics, we just looked at it and said, "Ok, fine. It makes sense that a 'wave' would do that." But they're not JUST waves, they're also "particles" (seeming to imply, once again, that things are so weird in physics that questions of mere size alone are "out of the question!"). Once again, QM was saying to us, "Don't ask questions!" And now, "delayed choice" and "quantum erasure." These seem to make my simple question even more insignificant.

I'm still asking questions (but in life as a curious engineer), and I really would like to understand the behavior - the mechanism - the coupling - between the electron and the photon. After all, it really comes down to an electro-mechanical phenomenon, it seems to me. This is why I asked the multiple, single electron antenna question. If you shake a single electron at RF frequencies, will only a single electron antenna "out there" pick it up (as in the single dot on the screen) ? That would, indeed confirm in my mind that the photon is indeed BOTH wave AND particle. Should not the mechanism of RF antennas be the same basic phenomenon as the electron orbital when it comes to the emission and absorption of the single photon ? I've never really been confident enough to say YES ! The spectrum of photons emitted by bound electrons indicates a finite number of permitted frequencies. But we prove otherwise everyday with radios, wireless networks, etc., by shaking zillions of covalent electrons in copper to produce zillions of individual photons of RF energy.

I'll wager, there are literally MILLIONS of people out there with the same dilemma that I have. So, where to go, Good Elf ? ANY plausible direction that explores the real mechanism. And YOU ALL ARE UP TO BAT !! I'll go back to reading !

~Jim

Neil Farbstein

17th January 2007 - 02:31 AM

QUOTE (Laserlight+Jan 17 2007, 02:14 AM)

Hi GE and Jal,

Jal, I was scratching my head trying to understand what this meant, I see that
I was not alone. I tried to reason it to mean how far light travels over a specific
precise time interval. If the speed of light in vacuum is constant, then the time that
it travels, regardless of wavelength, will equal the same distance. But I fail to
see the nuance of the point that you were trying to make.

GE, packing only works for lowest energy "unentangled" spherical systems, I don't
think it works for systems with entangled fields or shared electrons where the
symmetry of the atomic structure has covalent characteristics. The packing in a
non-linear or non-symmetrical atomic arrangement should be denser as in a high
gravity environment like a neutron star core or a black hole. Now that represents energy efficiency, where packing density is maximized. IMO, the mass is basically
fused into a single crystal solid core.

JMHO.
LL

my furnace tube devitrified! apparently the copper powder i put into it reacted with the quartz wall and it cracked when i exposed it to air. The neutron star has untold numbers of neutrons packed into a small dense space. What are the quantum dynamics of quarks confined to their "quark bags" inside a neutron star?
Can the quarks tunnel from one "bag"" to another? Will there be a bag? Will the interior look like neutonium or quarkonium? If the universe abhored physics "geeks" as much as the average person, would all of them be compacted into a single mass of nerd-tronium?

Neil Farbstein

17th January 2007 - 02:35 AM

QUOTE (jal+Jan 17 2007, 01:40 AM)

Hi Good Elf!
The spacetime structure and the yet unmeasurable and undetermined dynamics would contribute the"remaining/other" energy.

So.... new grounds?? Did you mean yours or anybody?

You missed the "node" concept. It represents minimum distance, (l), that light can travel and still be ©
Sorry that you don't see it.

You even have a quote that can also explain the expansion/red shift.

Also, Any expansion would require the addition of more spacetime units that were the same size as the existing units.
Dammm, .... that case of beer would sure help.
jal

Nerdtronium- nerd-tro-nee-um: A pun of astronomical proportions!

I was drawing an analogy; between the crystal structure of a neutron star and
vitrified quartz process tube that crcked on exposure to air. Can a neutron star devitrify? Where does all the wierdness go when the quark bags all merge and all the barriers come down?

Laserlight

17th January 2007 - 02:46 AM

Hi GE,

QUOTE

This is due to EM retardation

Interesting, kind of like the photonic analog of the Coriolis effect where the
spin of the earth affects water and weather pattern rotation depending upon
which hemisphere is observed.

EM retardation, is basically EM field "recoil" that opposes the acceleration of
a mass. In electric motors it is a counter torque phenomenon. I guess the
point being that this occurs at every size geometry where forces interact. There
will always be an opposing force proportional to the size of the masses involved
and the acceleration component that exists between them.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

This is due to EM retardation

.

Elegantly simple and "unified", IMO.

Regards,
LL

jal

17th January 2007 - 02:51 AM

Hi Laserlight

QUOTE

Jal, I was scratching my head trying to understand what this meant, I see that
I was not alone. I tried to reason it to mean how far light travels over a specific
precise time interval.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Jal, I was scratching my head trying to understand what this meant, I see that
I was not alone. I tried to reason it to mean how far light travels over a specific
precise time interval.

NO... its over a precise specific distance. Each unit must be the same "size" or there will be fluctuations in the time taken to travel from point A to point B.
If you don't start with the right model you will not get the right answers.
Refresh ...
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node2.html
First, space and time form a unified whole which can be thought of geometrically. Second, the quantities whose values we seek to predict are localized. That is, we can measure them in small regions of spacetime (sometimes idealized as points). Physicists call such quantities `local degrees of freedom'. And third, to predict the value of a quantity that can be measured in some region , we only need to use values of quantities measured in regions that stand in a certain geometrical relation to . This relation is called the `causal structure' of spacetime. For example, in a relativistic field theory, to predict the value of the fields in some region , it suffices to use their values in any other region that intersects every timelike path passing through . The common way of summarizing this idea is to say that nothing travels faster than light. I prefer to say that a good theory of physics should have local degrees of freedom propagating causally.

Hopefully.... everyone will see the relevance of this to this thread and where we go from here.
jal
I don't understand Neil Farbstein

Laserlight

17th January 2007 - 03:05 AM

Neil,

QUOTE

If the universe abhored physics "geeks" as much as the average person, would all of them be compacted into a single mass of nerd-tronium?

ROTFLMAO! Nerd-tronium! Priceless!

LL

Laserlight

17th January 2007 - 03:11 AM

Neil,
To answer your quark bag question....LOL!

THis short article on quark stars should help.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/0...quarkstars.html

Confused2

17th January 2007 - 12:00 PM

Hi Aerohead,TRoc,Laserlight, Good Elf,yquantum,Niel Farbstein et al,

Edit .. and jal of course! sorry (age).

QUOTE (Aerohead+)

If you shake a single electron at RF frequencies, will only a single electron antenna "out there" pick it up

For a given frequency it is generally agreed that a photon has an energy given by E=hf, ( eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect ) and it seems photons are absorbed 'whole' or not at all so if two antenna picked up one photon then there would be a serious energy conservation violation which would probably have been noticed by now. I'm pretty sure that one photon transmitted will (at best) give you one photon received.
In the experiment we've been looking at ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml ) the results show that the number of photons counted with both slits open is the same (within 5%) as the sum of the counts for each slit individually ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) while this result doesn't actually prove anything .. it would have been worrying if it had not been the case.
A possible explanation of the 'one in one out' rule might be that the field is quantised at the point of origin and detection but not at the points in between. Clearly this raises more questions than it answers but I thought it might be worth mentioning it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_(physics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
Best wishes,
-C2.

jal

17th January 2007 - 04:31 PM

Good Day All!
Good Elf
You are putting up strawmen to refuse to accept the validity of my approach. (Particle-like) There is a large body of work that has been done and is being done by respected people in String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity and Quantum Geometry. There is even a new math approach being investigated. (See the last link in my summary thread. http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/pdf/Spacetim...y.w.GC.proc.pdf )
I have only added just one tiny little piece …. A model which is derived from 2d and 3d packing.
I believe that the review/link to J. Baez should have cleared the air. If not then anyone who has the inclination can read the links provided in my summary thread. (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5203&st=45&#entry166956 )
It is not that my explanation is too hard to understand. Rather, the problem resides in the unwillingness of the brain to accept the particle-like and quantum geometry approach because it overthrow the establish concepts that have been proposed of how the universe is made and operate.

QUOTE

Aerohead
….. That would, indeed confirm in my mind that the photon is indeed BOTH wave AND particle.
….I'll wager, there are literally MILLIONS of people out there with the same dilemma that I have.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Confused2
…. so if two antenna picked up one photon then there would be a serious energy conservation violation which would probably have been noticed by now

The last two links which you have just provided on your post should help to clarify the validity of a particle-like and quantum geometry approach.
jal

Neil Farbstein

17th January 2007 - 04:46 PM

QUOTE (jal+Jan 17 2007, 02:51 AM)

Hi Laserlight

NO... its over a precise specific distance. Each unit must be the same "size" or there will be fluctuations in the time taken to travel from point A to point B.
If you don't start with the right model you will not get the right answers.
Refresh ...
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node2.html

Hopefully.... everyone will see the relevance of this to this thread and where we go from here.
jal
I don't understand Neil Farbstein

YOU HAVE A GOOD DEFINITION OF A GOOD THEORY. Now i understand where you were coming from and hwere you are leading

Confused2

17th January 2007 - 11:53 PM

Hi TRoc,
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~phy7c/huygens.html
The argument suggests why a wave spreads at an opening by using an argument based on the source(s) that would cancel out the wave at the opening .. which (clearly?) represent spreading sources.
I can see you don't like it... it is a 'construction' not 'new photons'.
My post suggesting the EM wave might be quantised at emission and detection may help to sort out the number of photons required .. probably (?) just the one will suffice.
Please bear in mind I am just prodding the swamp with a stick at this point

. I suspect your posts have far more influence on me than vice-versa.
Best wishes,
-C2.

Confused2

18th January 2007 - 12:08 AM

What now?
How about..

Edit .. sorry, I meant this link really..
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/spr/1999-02/msg0014938.html

Baez points out .. you need an ensemble of photons .. I suspect that's exactly what we've got.
Baez who?
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/baez.html
Wavefunction?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction
Please bear in mind that (as stated in my last post) .. I am just prodding the swamp with a stick to see if the path ahead is safe.
Best wishes,
-C2.

jal

18th January 2007 - 01:22 AM

Good Day All!
Thanks Neil Farbstein.

Some links, for the students, that show you how to do the calculation. No theory (well very little.)
http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/optics421/mo...nterference.htm
http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/optics421/mo...Diffraction.htm
http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/optics421/mo...5/Coherence.htm
jal

TRoc

18th January 2007 - 01:54 AM

Hi all,

C2,

Thanks for 'staying on target', and the links. I think we agree now that, basically, the HF method is 'classical', and we (GE, LL, I) are trying to 'tweak' QM here or there. The HF method describes and maps out the DSE very well, and in a simple way. In the process, however, it breaks a commandment of QM, and 'creates' "photons" (QM's baby) from an 'area' with no electrons.

I often take up the 'devils' advocate' position, in order to show where I think a problem, inconsistency, or redundancy exists.

The "in between" argument that I have thrown out so many times, is directed at the WHOLE "photon" method (QM). The "photon" is the field, or, the electrons (emitter and receiver) are the field. When you 'adopt' the QM baby (the "photon"), you take the baggage too!

If your model describes a 'communication' between 2 electrons with the "photon" being the mediator, then the "photon" IS what is interacting, because what is SENT is not the same as what is RECEIVED (in interferometry).

If your model describes the 'communication' as just 'energy' waves, then the properties of sender and receiver can interact directly, through resonance.

The problem with the latter model is, that this 'violates' our causal mindset. They WANT the problem to be described as an 'in between' explanation, so it is 'causal'. The problem then, becomes MEASURING: you can't measure a "photon" while it is 'in flight'. The method for measuring is AT the screen, so our answers are only about "what happened" at the screen. They can not answer what happens 'on the way'.

We have talked a little about some of these 'other' methods, that use new 'virtual particles', and can completely describe the phenomenon from THE SCREEN. The different frequencies that hit the electrons in the screen act in unison to produce the pattern, and intensity of 'diffraction'.

This 'back door' approach is too good to overlook, and is supported by more and more experiments. I say 'back door' because they have (again), arbitrarily added some 'new toys' to the box, without prior prediction. They are speaking of 'electron to electron' interactions, and NOT mentioning "photons". They 'get away with it' because its' happening in the 'lattice', and never becomes 'free radiation'.

To me, I have no problem with the idea of 'action at a distance'; if they want to develop the full theory of 'electron to electron' interactions, and 'do away' with the "photon", that's fine.

Either way, I have a "virtual model", that lets the energy ("photons") superimpose, and interact (while superposed) in certain ways, that become causal for the measured differences between emitter and receiver.

I said, quite a ways back, that this (the DSE) is a 'side show' for me, meaning that it was not my intention to come and throw out the 'perfect answer', but rather, to point out what I consider the "problems" with the DSE interpretations.

A quote from the link in C2's last post:

QUOTE

Anyway, I suspect I'm not telling you any new physics here: I'm just
trying to explain my use of language, because now I suspect that
much of our quarrel so far was semantic in nature. Of course quantum
mechanics is famous for getting people into fights about language. It's
rather tiring... everyone has their own way of talking about quantu
mechanics and sometimes it seems nobody understands anyone else: it's
only when it comes down to making predictions in well-defined situations
that everyone - at least everyone who is any good! - gets the same answers.
What a quagmire! Right now I'd like nothing better than to never talk
about this stuff ever again. I hope whatever I said in this thread was
more enlightening than confusing to you... I'm not at all sure of it.

could have been said by any of us !!

..Onwards!!

ciao,

T.Roc

Good Elf

18th January 2007 - 03:41 AM

Hi Aerohead, Confused2, Laserlight, Jal, Montec, TRoc, Duality, yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,

Aerohead's Reference with "question"
Aerohead has struck a very important question. We all think we know what a photon 'looks" like but do we really agree on this concept. I will post a two part answer to what I think a photon looks like and I am pretty sure that most people will not be able to find any common ground ... yet I base most of what I say on sound research that seems never to trickle down to "Joe Public". So at the end so we can all agree on a common "idea" about just what photons are and how much makes up a photon please respond constructively....

QUOTE (Aerohead+)

In college, I stood up in class and asked my physics professor: "How big is a photon?" (We did that back "then" - standing up, that is!). You could hear a pin drop in the classroom. After one of the most puzzled looks I've ever seen from a scientist, he stuttered an answer I shall never forget: "You can't ask that question."

Any question can be asked it is just that not any answer is acceptable. I just do not think that "answer" is acceptable... he he he! The standard answer for this because it is a quantum process the question is that it is irrelevant... end of story. See... You did indeed ask the wrong question.

It is an interesting question and gets to the heart of what people believe about photons. You are correct to consider the size of the receiving antenna (or even the transmitting antenna) to determine a couple of things right off about photons. Antennas are "tuned" to capture photons. Their size is related to some property of the photon since it is related to the wavelength of the "particle". We know that a wavelength of the photon does not change in the far field. This is during propagation successive crests and troughs in the electromagnetic intensity of a monochromatic beam retain this dimension. The other important property of light is it spreads. While it is propagating it is also spreading and the intensity of the beam for a standard 1/2 wavelength dipole radiator falls "effectively" on the surface of a sphere... actually in the case of a dipole this is the surface of an expanding irregular shaped torus.
user posted image

This shows a cross section.

There are a couple of factors that many educators gloss over along the way and these are that photons are bosons and an infinite number of them can occupy the same state. The next point is when they travel they travel as waves and when they interact they interact as particles. They do not do both at the same time. The next point is as far as can be known the group velocity of light is equal to the phase velocity of light... this is an important consideration since everything that moves slower than light has a group velocity less than light and a phase velocity greater than light.

Incoherent light is a situation where photons are emitted one at a time without any organizing principle. There are two ways to "organize" the emission of photons one is through LASER population inversion and the other is through amplifying resonance in either an optical or electronic cavity or "resonator". Obviously there are certain problems in producing coherent radiations that are solved by techniques that work in other frequencies. We have several basic techniques. We still do not have reasonably powerful radiators of coherent radiation in the Tera hertz range and because of the great usefulness, research is still underway in that region. Some LASERS require the detonation of a small atomic bomb to work effectively.

In all cases light is primarily a force carrier. Light is also a transverse wave when sufficiently far from the source. While the wavelength of the wave is "fixed" the amplitude can be "modulated" and this is done at a certain frequency by simply increasing the number of coherent photons "in the wave". Each individual "packet" of light could be considered as the result of a fundamental process. An energetic Electron in a high energy quantum state "falls" to a lower energy state releasing a single photon. This is similar to a a hammer striking a nail. It is "unidirectional and polarized" impulse... a sync function like sin(x)/x...

Click to enlarge...
This is the simplest case possible. In some practical cases the photon will be formed by a more complex wave function. If you consider this process as that electron "shifting shells" it goes from a higher energy shell to a smaller lower energy one.
user posted image

In the "cavity" it creates an impulse (this cavity is a cylinder)... more typically in an atom it is often a sphere or other regular cavity shape. here is a reference to cavity resonators...
Cavity Resonators
Here is the cavity resonator simulated from a series of "tank circuits"... made from 1/4 wave sections...
User posted image

each one the equivalent of this one...
user posted image

In the spherical case the sections are "C" shaped, the "bit" on the left a rudimentary inductor (a short) and the bit on the right a rudimentary capacitor (open circuit). Two "C" shapes make up a single section of a spherical cavity.

In the case of radio transmitters continuous waves are produced as shown in the top blue animation (produced by Zephir from an original by Dr 'Bas' Lago). IMHO a process of wave construction occurs through the summation of sync pulses in this fashion...

Click to enlarge...
We see that the higher frequency content of the sync pulses are constructively interfered with in the temporal direction of propagation to suppress the higher frequencies and only the primary 1/2 wavelength "pulse" remains in a construction.

So in one sense of the description a classical view would have photons all being produced in step from a source which is "periodic" or "resonant". Individually the photons are sync packets but they propagate on a wave and then finally interact with the "sink". I have exhausted my access to images so to access more images I will now carry on into the next post... keep reading ... this is the best part.

Cheers

Good Elf

18th January 2007 - 04:20 AM

Hi Aerohead, Confused2, Laserlight, Jal, Montec, TRoc, Duality, yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,

Continued from my previous post...

Annotated explanation of photon propagation in free space with MIT Animations

Below are a number of professionally developed animations that should be set to "loop" to show how these features develop. It is "amazing" to me that there are few sites that take accurate representations with any seriousness. In almost all cases there is a tendency to "guild the lily" as to processes. I could show some of these incorrect representations but you would learn nothing from them since they are dead wrong. I have selected these animations from a MIT site. First some explanation about how atomic oscillators work... Please focus on the emitted photon moving off into the far field and do not be distracted by the inductive fields in the near (evanescent) region...
User posted image

The dipole that "turns on" releases a photon into the far field (just one photon... a single impulse) The "far field" extends only as far as the external geometry permits (stays within a dimensional cavity). With atoms this could be limited to the next "shell" where the photon is then "re-absorbed", or in some instances, a higher energy transition could create a free photon that may pass beyond the bounds of the atom into the external spaces as a "single free photon". Notice that the "far field single photon" has only one major maxima in the "packet" (a sync pulse). In this process shown the electric field rises from a zero to a maxima "inside the shell". This is now an "excited high energy state".
User posted image

The dipole that "turns off" also releases a photon into the far field (just one photon... a single impulse) The "far field" extends only as far as the external geometry permits (stays within a dimensional cavity). With atoms this could be limited to the next "shell" where the photon is then "re-absorbed", or in some instances, a higher energy transition, could create a free photon that may pass beyond the bounds of the atom into the external spaces as a single free photon. Notice that the single photon has only one major maxima in the "packet" (a sync pulse). In this process shown the electric field falls from a maxima "inside the shell". This is now a "un-excited low energy state"..

Each of these photons are opposite in phase in relationship to each other. Below... a succession of accurate computer generated animations show each of these conditions as seen from within the appropriate frame of reference. No animation can show accurately both processes since the rest frames are quite different. As long as you can understand that you will begin to get the gist of how this all happens.

The entire process involves both stages of "turning on" of the field followed by also "turning off" of the field... these processes occur within different shells usually where we have electron "transitions" from one low level to the next higher level (by absorbing a photon... a "turning on" process). This is then followed by a "turning off" process from a totally different shell which releases the electron to "fall" to a lower energy state through a conversion of its excited energy and liberates the photon. Each separate process is seen from different shells when they are usually "internal" transitions. The transitions can be "free" or "forced". In "free" transitions the photons are excited by absorption of an external photon and win lose the excited state at some arbitrary time period later. A "forced" transition is one driven by some periodic process and sometimes this periodic process even "forces" the direction in which the photon may propagate. In a forced system the energy that drives the system "fills" the states and so absorption and emissions occur simultaneously as oppositely phased photons rather than "internal" processes hiding the transitions from external observers.

In the case of where one of these transitions becomes an "external" process and the photon totally escapes from the shell structure of an atom, there is no "closure" for the atom. The photon is usually in an "excited" state or higher shell or cavity and then "turns off" allowing the electron to fall to a lower "unobserved" shell releasing the far field photon which escapes the atom shells altogether becoming a free photon.

The animations below do not show the fact that the direction of the photon emission from one atom is not totally spherical and in a particular case will always emit in a certain "random" direction depending on unknown initial parameters. In coherent systems this random factor is removed by an external process such as in the case of LASERS is "stimulated emission" which ensures that this direction is not random but directed.what this means is the photon phases are "aligned" with an external boson field of co-moving photons. Liken this to a "transverse wave" at the beach in deepish water "plucking" you "up" from the bottom and moving you forward with it as it passes (unlike photons you are left behind after being "plucked" but photons travel always at the speed of light and so ... "off they go"... all in the one direction). In the case of radio wave transmitters this is an EM Resonator that causes free electrons to move in sympathy to an impressed electric field which is generated from a "resonant tank circuit" fed with electrical energy.. In this case the transverse wave is launched from a wire in which charge centers in the wire are displaced from one end to the other end sympathetically in oscillation. As the charge centers on the wire "cross" the field drops to zero and if you have gotten it right (not doing this too slow so it will be reabsorbed entirely) some of the energy will be "launched" as photons of the appropriate frequency... the rest of the energy oscellates in the inner near field and remains behind as electric and magnetic fields "pulsing back and forth". In dipole systems where currents move along wires to launch photons the field loops develop from instantaneous nett charges are "pushed" to either end of the antenna and with a suitable regenerative energy feed are allowed to rush back and forth under simple harmonic motion "nipping off electric field loops" as the respective positive and negative centers cross each other near the geometric middle of this "bouncing motion". These electric field "loops" contain energy since they can be used to drive charges in circuits, but in "free space" these complete propagating loops cannot "earth themselves" on any suitable material to dissipate their stored energy. Therefore the radiation patterns which are "atomically" the traveling photons "carry" energy from "source" to the "sinks". When the "loops" reach a suitable destination they "touch" the surface of a suitable "conductor" and snap into a open loop with both ends "grounded" on the conductive medium. These loops then shrink in virtual photon processes dissapating their energy in driving electrons in an external circuit in a process similar to the original creation process in the near field. An analogous process occurs inside the individual atoms for atomically derived processes like visible light but accounting for scale and for available "systems".

Here is the Main site...
Visualizing Electricity and Magnetism at MIT
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm

Magnetic Dipole Radiation From a Dipole That Turns Off

The field lines of a magnetic dipole for the case where the dipole moment falls to zero over a time scale T. The specific time dependence of the dipole moment is proportional to (Pi/2-arctan(t/T))/Pi, which is a function which is 1 at t = -infinity and zero at t = + infinity, and falls to zero in a characteristic time T.

http://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/off.html
(image shown above)... please run animation in Loop to show the full process.
Two dimensional Slice

Magnetic Dipole Radiation From a Dipole That Turns On

The field lines of a magnetic dipole for the case where the dipole moment rises from zero to a constant over a time scale T. The specific time dependence of the dipole moment is proportional to (Pi/2+arctan(t/T))/Pi, which is a function which is 0 at t = -infinity and 1 at t = + infinity, and increases in a characteristic time T.

http://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/on.html
(image shown above)... please run animation in Loop to show the full process.
Two dimensional Slice

Magnetic Dipole Radiation From A Sinusoidally Varying Dipole--The Near/Transition Zone

The field lines of a magnetic dipole for the case where the dipole varies sinusoidally in time by 10% in amplitude (20% peak to peak). That is, the dipole is always oriented along the vertical axis, and its dipole moment varies in time in a manner proportional to (1.0 + 0.1 sin(2 Pi t/T) ).

The animation runs over one period of the oscillation. The radiation terms begin to dominate at about cT. Well inside that distance, the field is quasi-static.

The motion of the field lines is given by the ExB drift motion, which is also the direction (but not the magnitude!) of the Poynting flux. By looking at the motion of the field lines one can see that the energy flow in the quasi-static region is first away from and then toward the origin, as energy is first put into and recovered from the magnetic field. However, in the radiation zone, the energy flow (and field line motion) is consistently away from the origin, representing the irreversible energy loss to radiation.

http://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/sin.html

User posted image

Two dimensional Slice... please run animation in Loop to show the full process.

User posted image

Three Dimensional View (one electric field line view)... please run animation in Loop to show the full process.
A 3D representation of this same radiation, but choosing only one field line per loop and replicating it every 15 degrees in azimuth, to give a field for the 3D structure of the field. In general this may be split into many individual photon "zones" depending on geometry of the antenna.

User posted image

Three Dimensional View ( Sited inside a room to give some perspective ... actual frequency. 70 MHz Dipole Radiation, shown to show physical scale relative to desks)... ... please run animation in Loop to show the full process.

Magnetic Dipole Radiation From A Sinusoidally Varying Dipole--The Transition/Far Zone

The field lines of a magnetic dipole for the case where the dipole varies sinusoidally in time by 10% in amplitude (20% peak to peak). That is, the dipole is always oriented along the vertical axis, and its dipole moment varies in time in a manner proportional to (1.0 + 0.1 sin(2 Pi t/T) ). The animation runs over one period of the oscillation.

http://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/sin_far.html

User posted image

Two dimensional Slice... please run animation in Loop to show the full process.

Together these "sync pulses" construct as shown in my illustration previously. Annually these "photons" expanding on an irregular torus, will be "segmented" into single photon "spatial zones" or nodal boundaries depending on the way the photons have been generated. Some "lobes" of the radiation pattern are suppressed and others are accentuated as indicated in regular antenna theory. Remember also that bosons can all occupy the one state so what you see for one photon actually apply to all photons from the one source. This means they all occupy the same apparent space. Some energy is radiated and some energy is "stored" inductively within the evanescent zone as seen in the near field animation. In the near field the photons remain "virtual" and connected to their sources by their field lines and are involved in doing work when they are allowed to discharge into their surrounds.

Note: I have an interesting story to tell about magnetic fields and static fields that also makes sense ... but not here.

Other points to watch is that these "patterns" are wave patterns and they cannot be observed without damaging the overall photon structure and information each photon carries about the source. That would be an entirely different story.

Comment welcome and any ideas people have other than really difficult ones that are so far from standard theory they cannot be accommodated are welcome. Remember the "devil" is in the detail and both the near and the far field need to be understood to truly grasp what geometry and phenomena we are dealing with here but you should now be able to understand a little about the actual "shape" of propagating photons. The shape is "based" on the single sync pulse and because the field "nips" off between cycles the quantum are not continuous between cycles. Once "nipped" off the energy of the loops is fixed. As discussed previously individual photons interfere with themselves and not with any other photons. The "temporal" mixing is not "joining" the photons in any permanent way but simply minimizing the spatial distribution of energy.

Cheers

PS: If you do not look at the animations carefully you probably will not understand a single word I am saying.

Laserlight

18th January 2007 - 07:56 AM

Hi GE,

Good post! I have seen those animations before.

Would you say that the advancing wavefront of the toroidal impulse "bubble"
(which I consider an energy pulse) becomes "conformal" to objects
in its path as it advances/propagates? This is an alternative way of stating
that the wave "seeks all paths" or seeks the path of least resistance (like an
advancing wave) to topography in its path.

The reason that I phrased my question this way is that, I have been trying to
make a point that you have either disagreed with, or not understood, in trying
to explain how a photon advances thru the separate slits of the DSE. This actually
somewhat supports C2's advancing water wave scenario and Feynman's seeks
all paths statement.

If we agree that a photon wavefront "seeks all paths" by becoming conformal
to obstructions and openings that are in its path, then it seems logical that
a portion of the advancing wavefront must deform and pass thru each open slit
in its path.

You have fought this concept by believing that the energy of a photon cannot
be divided. I contend that the if the amplitude or power of an advancing wavefront
becomes spacially "uncoupled" (but it still retains its temporal phase relationship)
and that it can travel thru both slits simultaneously, like any advancing wavefront.

The openings of the slits become new sources for the 2 advancing and expanding
wavefronts that are still phase matched (coherent) but they are separated spatially
and have some delay (or phase shift) from negotiating the slits.

For the sake of discussion, an example with a slight twist:
In this "model" we use a fair sized blob of mercury
to represent the closed energy system of a conformal advancing wavefront.
We also have an enlarged DSE configuration with a very slightly inclined
baseboard to provide momentum for the mercury as it moves downhill toward the
slits.

The mercury "wavefront" will strike the slit wall and will go thru both slits, similar
to the water wave. The wavefront will become conformal to the slits
and will "compress" to pass thru each of the slits. The individual mercury blobs will
attempt to expand and recombine as they pass thru the 2 slits toward the screen.

The process of "compression" while passing thru the slits will induce some timing
delays to each mercury "wavefront" energy system, but the total closed energy
system of the original mercury blob is still "intact" and it will attempt to reform
into a single blob again.... I know that it doesn't illustrate the interference aspects
of the DSE, but my intention was to describe how a conformal wavefront
could "divide" as it seeks all paths and would incur timing delays that set up the
mechanics/physics of the interference phenomenon.

Constructive comments, opinions, discusson welcomed.

LL

Confused2

18th January 2007 - 09:18 AM

Hi Good Elf, Laserlight et al,

I have seen these animations many times.

Is what follows a reasonable analagy for a GE photon?

You fire off a small explosive charge ... the result is a sudden increase in pressure .. either side of the pressure wave the pressure is normal. The pressure wave expands 'seeking all paths' .. let us say it grows to become a sphere 1 mile in radius. OK so far? BUT .. if the pressure wave is detected .. eg somebody 'hears it' .. the pressure wave is instantly removed from everywhere else to ensure the wave is never detected twice. If the pressure wave were to meet two slits the pressure would expand on the other side of the slits .. there would be a meeting of the two expanding wavefronts from which it would seem to be extremely difficult to extract the observed DSE effect .. and the conceptual problem remains that detection of the pressure wave after the two slits apparently causes a cancelling wave to pass back through the slits to ensure the pressure wave isn't detected anywhere else.

Comparison with a QM photon (hopefully reasonably accurate0 ..

In fairness the main difference between GE and QM analysis is that QM tackles the problem head on.. this leaves..

The applets are substantially OK except they don't claim to represent anything other than the probability of detection (the psi-wavefunction ).. this means there is no need to 'nip off' the wavefront .. the probability of detection behind the wavefront simply reduces as the wavefront expands. On encountering the slits the wavefunction expands from the slits as before but because the probability of detection doesn't fall to zero behind the wavefront we just need a simple vector addition to get the interference pattern. If the photon is detected at any point then that is simply the end of the game .. the wavefunction has no purpose or physical existence (arguably) beyond its ability to predict the probability of detection.

The psi wavefunction and the classical EM waveforms look pretty much the same because a psi-wavefunction IS an EM wave except that the EM wave assumes many 'photons' and shows the distribution of photon counts (or intensity) and a psi-wavefunction shows the probability of finding a single photon at the same point. With enough photons .. they should look the same.

Hopefully this has highlighted one or two problems.

Best wishes,

-C2.

jal

18th January 2007 - 04:17 PM

Good Day!
Good Elf
It is a good presentation of what has served us well in the past and until now.

There are more at animations from them at
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour02.htm
Visualizing Electricity and Magnetism at MIT
As you guessed, I like
The Ion Trap since it is another step towards understanding my model.

Twelve identical charges in a potential well that forces them together against their mutual repulsion. Press "s" for a bounding polygon after the charges have settled down.
---------------------

QUOTE

Good Elf
The animations below do not show the fact that the direction of the photon emission from one atom is not totally spherical and in a particular case will always emit in a certain "random" direction depending on unknown initial parameters

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

We do not know…. It is a theory and a model.
The day is approaching when we will need to “know” in which direction the photon is emitted.
guiding_light found an interesting article.
http://newsroom.spie.org/x5251.xml
…the HF principle has guided us quite successfully without assuming photons to be indivisible packets of energy.
Because most light emitters are space, time, and energy finite atoms and molecules, the emitted photons must also be space, time, and energy finite. Do photons propagate as indivisible packets of energy or as spreading and diffracting wave packets?

Also, see his paper http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/DivisiblePhoton-Final.pdf
Do we count indivisible photons or discrete quantum events experienced by detectors?
Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri
SPIE Photonics East,1-3 October 2006

If photons are indivisible packets of energy/particle-like then a new model will be needed to be able to do new technological improvements. That day is fast approaching. (hehehe I have a model that just might be the answer. Hehehehe)
This is the same question that has been posed by

QUOTE

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Confused2
…. so if two antenna picked up one photon then there would be a serious energy conservation violation which would probably have been noticed by now

To this day, we have not had the technology or the need to determine if a photon was particle-like for our applications. ( Therefore, shut up and calculate, attitude)
I expect that in the near future the LHC will be able to give us an answer.
Read on
http://www.symmetrymag.org/cms/?pid=1000358
Extracting Physics From The LHC

QUOTE

Both ATLAS and CMS are general-purpose detectors. They are designed to fully enclose the collision points at the center of each detector, leaving no gaps for emerging particles to escape through. Each performs the same set of measurements on the particles bursting out of a collision: their paths, their energies, and their identities. With some high-tech sleuthing, physicists will use the information they record to reconstruct what happened in the collision.
At the core of each detector, closest to the collision point, are trackers that record particle trajectories with great precision. Both detectors use silicon technology for the innermost tracking devices. Charged particles traversing silicon wafers give rise to electrical signals that betray their passage. In the case of CMS, the total surface area of the silicon wafers stacked inside the tracker is large enough to cover a 25-meter swimming pool. These new behemoths of detectors are only possible now that silicon technology has matured and become cheap enough that this vast quantity of silicon detector is affordable.

It will take a few years to analyze the data …. I’m willing to wait.
jal

Good Elf

18th January 2007 - 04:30 PM

Hi Laserlight and Confused2,

The main problem with Laserlight's answer is a question of topology. While the system behaves in some respects like the model I once suggested this is only a behavioral model not the solution to the problem. I realize that this is good enough for many but it is not acceptable to me. At this stage the problem could be solved "easily" by adding dimensions to our enclosed box.

I realize this is not acceptable to some. With higher dimensions at my disposal I could enter a completely sealed room... no problem. The electric field lines can't be fragmented so I would prefer to do something else. This example is not here to to "solve" our problem only to settle what we all think a photon really is. As I have been saying the "real" photon really does not go through the slits anyway only "waves" which are like shadows on the ground. There is a reality behind that "shadow" but it is not to be found in 4 dimensional spacetime. A single pinhole is not a barrier to a wavefront and two pinholes also are not a barrier to a wavefront. Each photon only interferes with itself and we need both pinholes to have self interference. The rest is a resolution based on internal logic. It may be that the wave is actually a superposition of states and not just a simple wave. For instance a plane polarized wave is also the superposition of two circularly polarized waves ... one left hand polarized and the other right hand polarized (at the same time). Believe it or not. For instance there is the small matter of "isospin"... it is "real" spin since it affects things and can make them spin in two dimensions but it is certainly not our kind of two dimensional spin that is only supported in our three dimensions and time. Leave this point for the moment it is in the "too hard" box just now.

Confused2 is talking probability again... and while there is probability I also want to speak about coherence. Incoherent systems are subject to some probability but coherent systems are "noise reduced". Hydrodynamic waves are not a true analogy. The collapse of the wavefront is "nothing"... If this wave's "shadow" covers half the galaxy (you can't actually see it anyway without disrupting it), the particle interaction is when the electric field lines begin to interact in a virtual photon mode and when this happens there are no longer any wave "shadows" to worry about (they are just not around anymore).

The other point is light travels wherever it is permitted to travel. Do not worry about canceling of wavefronts since these are not particles they are waves and they do what they will do without any problem. Do not try and use "matter" analogies to describe "real" wave phenomena. Real science would use the light analogy to describe water waves not water waves to describe light... there is no comparison between "moving condensed matter" and pure light... no disrespect but that is the sort of thing we enjoy at the beach not in the vacuum of space.

In a way all of our so called contradictions are only when we try and describe light using a matter analogy... by now we should understand light is not to be treated in such a way (Light is Special Relativity expressed in electromagnetic terms... one and the same). Look at the problems most people have with Special Relativity! In kindergarten the teacher would council the child that kept trying to knock the square peg into the round hole. In real life if we keep doing something that is akin to this they would think we are mad... the world is filled with a lot of strange people including Heaven's Gate Away Teams.

There really is no contradiction it is just that you want to hold to matter analogies that are totally inappropriate to light. There is only one analogy that will work is to work from the other end... understand how light works and you can eventually understand how matter works not the other way around.

The "animations" are not about psi waves they are electric field simulations of near and far field electromagnetism. The initial added commentary is my own and represents something new (... and in that sense a little radical... just a little!!). As I have always said that these fields indicate not just the propagation of large numbers of photons but also of single photons as well because of ordered boson states. The switch on and switch off "fields" are impulse functions and the "waves" that result from these have a "atomistic" interpretation in that within one single atom one transition will occur liberating one single photon. This is the basis of E = hf. The field falling to zero in this process allows the "loop" to pinch off and propagate away.

While the energy of a single photon extends further temporally than 1/2 wavelength and may average to about 1 whole wavelength it is not composed of 2 pi "snippet" of a sine wave but a single sync function (critically damped with all internal frequencies). The "nipping off" the wavefront is crucial to the understanding of the generation of how a quanta is produced... it is a truncated continuous wave... nature cannot produce any real continuous waves at all since there are no natural mechanisms to do this (at least none that I know). What we end up with are individual photons that can combine to form what simulates our continuous waves. The near field spreading at the speed of light is "interrupted" by the spatial field falling to a zero. This signals detachment of the virtual photon from the source creating a propagating photon with an energy of exactly hf.

QUOTE (Confused2+)

The psi wavefunction and the classical EM waveforms look pretty much the same because a psi-wavefunction IS an EM wave except that the EM wave assumes many 'photons' and shows the distribution of photon counts (or intensity) and a psi-wavefunction shows the probability of finding a single photon at the same point. With enough photons .. they should look the same.

Psi "waveforms" do not exist... psi is "probability"... a scalar quantity... electromagnetic waves are vector quantities... you cannot measure instantaneous probability. Electric and magnetic fields can be measured with a meter... that is the difference. I know that we are not going to agree that photons can be emitted "on demand" since an analysis of Quantum Mechanics can be used to show how random statistics can be used to produce non-random output. What I am saying is statistics is a group property that has no physical mechanism and because it is not a physical mechanism it does not need one either. What I say is I only want to deal with the physics and the mechanism that results in this statistics you are so fond of.

No amount of argument you put forward can indicate to anyone the dynamics of individual photons one at a time yet individually an individual photon does have a "dynamic" that we can determine after the event. Statistics deals with large numbers. What if I only allow you to see 10 disconnected photons... where is your statistics now. I have mentioned Ptolemaic Systems before that give good answers but cannot help with understanding the mechanism. This is what I am saying about my approach... it is all about internal mechanism... QM can't help understand anything about our universe except what the "big numbers" all do... no mechanism required. For instance Special Relativity is a "mechanism" based on electromagnetism and not based on Quantum Mechanics Statistics. I have indicated previously where QM is wrong and there are significant studies to show that it has a fatal flaw (see Canonical Typicality). We can limp along for another 100 years with that fatal flaw or we can move on now and look for some other way forward based on a physical mechanism.

It is my view that having a physical mechanism is better than not having one since the science will continue to hold some relevance to human society. Incomprehensibility is a very bad problem for mankind and I think we can have our cake and eat it too since particle descriptions are not exclusive of wave descriptions... It just means that the "Billiard Ball Universe" has some limitations some folks find very hard to see past and they will do anything to to fit that square peg into a round hole to confound human common sense.

Cheers

Neil Farbstein

18th January 2007 - 04:38 PM

QUOTE (Good Elf+Jan 18 2007, 04:30 PM)

QUOTE (Confused2+)

you might be right about do something that doesnt work again and again but dont bring "mechanisms" into this you're gunnna get worse results.

Good Elf

18th January 2007 - 04:57 PM

Hi Jal,

QUOTE (Jal+)

It is a good presentation of what has served us well in the past and until now.

The secret is to be only "slightly" ahead of your time Jal.

Your idea is too far out on the fringe for the rest of us to see tying into all the other "stuff" around.

For instance there are no space filling structures that have really equidistant points throughout. The Universe uses Pythagoris' Theorem not some rewrite of equilateral triangles. Every means of stacking produce different lattices planes depending on orientation. I am familiar with X Ray Crystallography and have analyzed these lattices in my practical work year ago. I understand Bragg Law etc.. It was one of the subjects I did. The body centered structure you indicate has nothing to do with the model you are using in your theory. You can't use just any old crystal structure to support your concept. Crystals are important but as a basic structure in spacetime.... I just can't see it. You will need to do much more than that to convince me there is a hexagonal structure just hanging in space organizing where all the energy is going.

Maybe you are right Jal but you need to prove it with a real experiment that shows your principle being the only solution to a real problem that nobody else has answers for. Until then you have a great deal of difficulty making people believe you. At this stage of the game I am more comfortable with the ideas I am holding than to abandon them in favor of an idea that I can't think of a single practical reason why I should adopt. Prove to me why we need your theory Jal? It must be convincing and because it is so radical an idea your proof needs to be quite deeply profound in the way it answers all the major questions that other theories do in a "doddle".

Cheers

Aerohead

18th January 2007 - 05:10 PM

Hi Good Elf, Confused2 and all !

Thank you, GE, for answering (partially!) my question about the single RF electron / photon. I promised I'd go back to reading - but this topic is "exploding" and I'm so pleased to be reading it that I feel like I'm back in school learning physics again. YES ! Maybe there's hope for us "old guys" after all.

Several points about "mechanism:"

QUOTE

"When the "loops" reach a suitable destination they "touch" the surface of a suitable "conductor" and snap into a open loop with both ends "grounded" on the conductive medium. These loops then shrink in virtual photon processes dissipating their energy in driving electrons in an external circuit in a process similar to the original creation process in the near field. An analogous process occurs inside the individual atoms for atomically derived processes like visible light but accounting for scale and for available "systems"."

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

This sounds like real physical "mechanism" to me. I just can't help (and have for years) that there is an ENORMOUS clue here at the often overlooked RF end of photon production. Add to this from Confused2:

"...it seems photons are absorbed 'whole' or not at all so if two antenna picked up one photon then there would be a serious energy conservation violation which would probably have been noticed by now."

So, I think the remainder of the answer to me question is : only ONE antenna in the far field will detect the single RF photon produced from the single electron. Exactly WHAT happens as those field lines "break" is a BIG mystery, isn't it ? ! The instant the break is made, the other antennas don't get to play. I wonder how THAT is communicated spatially across large distances as the break surely consumes virtually zero time.

Jim

Laserlight

18th January 2007 - 05:24 PM

GE,

I think that your description of the "pinching off" of the electric field is a
consequence of the collapse of the "charged" atomic dipole arrangement
that exists between the electron and its corresponding positron.

As opposing charges of the electron and positron come closer together an
EM voltage and current is induced and released as an EM pulse, a photon,
as the dipole steady state "ground" is achieved. When the atomic dipole
becomes "charged" again, by the addition of energy to the atom, the dipole
arrangement and atomic "charge level" is reestablished.

An analogy:
Think of it like bringing your statically charged finger close to a ground point.
As your finger moves closer towards ground, the voltage builds up until a
breakdown occurs and the electrons seek the ground state. The result is an
energy pulse, a spark that radiates an EM signal component.....photons, that can
be detected as a crackle at a receiver. They can be detected in every
perpendicular direction from the "dipole" created by the spark.

If the spark is contained within a Faraday box with spaced holes in it, the EM
signal can be detected at the output of each of the holes. The EM energy seeks
the path of least resistance and leaks thru the holes and couples to "space".
.....

I had written a photon and EM wave generation "process", similar to the one you
detailed in the prior post, that I have not posted, but will do so for comparison
purposes and to further discussion. TRoc has seen the "unedited version" a couple of months ago. I will post it shortly, once I locate it from the files saved from a
recently failed hard disk.

Constructive comments and discussion welcomed.
LL

jal

18th January 2007 - 05:27 PM

Good Day All!
Good Elf You gave me a respectfull answer about my model. You are right much work needs to be done. It is being done by the the string, and quantum geometry people.

Aerohead's questions and millions of others need a "mechanical" response of what is actually happening. Your way is too nubulous to answer the "how" to make it possible to go to the next level of technical development.

Do not forget to read the paper that I mentioned http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/DivisiblePhoton-Final.pdf
It does represent a lot of what we have been discussing. I also undermines some of your points.
It does support some of the points made by the other participants of this thread.
jal

Laserlight

18th January 2007 - 05:37 PM

GE,

QUOTE

In a way all of our so called contradictions are only when we try and describe light using a matter analogy... by now we should understand light is not to be treated in such a way (Light is Special Relativity expressed in electromagnetic terms... one and the same)

One thing that seems "constant" in physics is the nature of certain phenomena.
A wave, is a wave, is a wave. It is energy transport across some medium.
The method and degree of energy transport is a matter of scaling, IMO. I don't
think we can close our minds to this point. Some things just follow a natural
order and we must see the similarities between these physical characteristics.

An example:
The rotation of a galaxy has the same general characteristics as the rotation
of a star, the rotation of a planet, or a ball, or an electron, etc. Rotation is
natural phenomenon that follows natural laws. So do waves, IMO.

There are many other naturally occuring phenomena that follow this natural
"scaling". It is the "natural order" of the universe.

Other constructive opinions welcomed.
LL

Laserlight

18th January 2007 - 06:00 PM

GE,
I originally wrote this as a response to one of your posts some time ago and
have held off posting it until I felt that it was the right time to do so. Since
you have "opened the door", so to speak, now seems like the right time.

This is the "layman’s" perspective, so bear with me.

At the atomic level, the atoms must be “synchronous” or in phase in order to share
outer shell electrons . This can be considered a form of atomic “harmonic balance” in that
charges and fields must synchronize across the atomic matrix to insure localized field stability
atom to atom. The net energy and charges of the “unexcited” steady state atomic matrix must be
equal. This could be considered the steady state energy “strain” level of the atomic lattice.

Let’s start with the electron.

Doesn't it seem apparent that it is the state of the atom/electron, either excited or
at its normal ground state, that is the issue here? The electron is "free" only in
the sense that it is "mobile". Electrons move by virtue of moving “charge dislocations” in the
atomic lattice structure.. That infers that there are other “extra” mobile electrons
existing in the atomic matrix and on the exposed surface plane of the atomic matrix.
I contend that excess electrons in an “unbalanced” atomic matrix will migrate toward the
exposed surface plane(s) where they can couple to “free space” and generate charge forces.
The atoms/electrons on the exposed surface planes are photo "reactive" because most of the
surface atoms are already at a higher net energy level and act like atomic dipole antennas that
absorb complementary phased arriving EM photon energy. In RF terms this is the "skin" effect
where RF frequency currents travel only on the exposed outer surface area of the atomic matrix.
Consider it a Faraday cage effect.
…………
How photon energy with a specific frequency interacts with matter:

Photons, of specific spectral frequency, harmonically couple radiating EM fields (energy waves)
from free space to atoms of matter that are oscillating at an identical harmonic frequency and are
sensitive (tuned) to the electrical component. of the arriving photon energy frequency EM wave..

In the case of the photoelectric effect the receiving atomic "dipoles" must be properly
oriented at some point during their orbital excursion to be perpendicular to the EM fields of the
arriving photons. I believe the photoelectric effect is the antithesis of the dipole radiation effect.
One is an antenna absorption effect at the atomic level, while the other is the antenna radiation
effect. These must be complementary effects.

Arriving photon EM fields, of the proper frequency, simply cannot penetrate any deeper than
atoms at the surface layer of an opaque atomic matrix, because their electrical fields are
"detected" and converted to electrical energy by the dipole arrangements of the surface
atoms and their electron orbital relationship. This is a constantly changing instantaneous phase
relationship. There is a cyclical latency time period for this dipole phasing alignment to occur.

At some applied maximum energy point the electrons and atoms at the surface achieve an energy "saturation" level. They simply cannot perform the oscillations/transitions between the higher
energy orbital and the ground state energy level faster than the transition latency will allow.
This is the "resistance" of the atom to accept any more energy than it can "process".

This energy “saturation level” is also the negative ionization potential, where the atoms are
excited to their maximum energy absorption level. This would correspond to the maximum
negative charge potential that the atom/electron can attain.
The excited atom can absorb no more applied energy and is stripped of its outermost shell’s
highly negatively charged electron by nearby positively charged ions that have similarly lost
their outer electrons. Electrons flow from a negatively charged, excited ionic state, to a
positively charged ionic state across a potential that is the “ground” state for the atom.

After the ionized, highly charged, electron has “departed” its high energy state atom, the atom
assumes a net positive potential.. It also loses its dipole charge relationship that existed between
the proton and the electron, and “steals” or attracts another highly charged negative electron
from nearby atoms that are in a highly energetic charge state.

When the newly attracted, excited, electron falls into the ground state of the accepting
atom, a photon is emitted as excess charge energy is released, (I’ll call it a “quantum shock”
energy wave), and the dipole antenna arrangement is reestablished. The atom can now
absorb incoming energy again. It can only do this at a specific oscillating ionization cycle
frequency that is determined by the net charge energy level which is established by the positive
charge of the proton and other bound orbital electrons.

This ionic charge electron transport mechanism is an atomic level “chain reaction”
event occurring at the surface plane of a photo conductor that is sensitive to a specific frequency
or tight band of frequencies. When net electrical charges at the surface of a conductor are out of
balance they are easily influenced by externally applied, complementary induced, electrical charges that add energy to their already unbalanced charge states.

There must be a net ground potential for electron flow to occur.

The photon energy transfer is an electrical induction process, at the atomic level.
………………

How the photon induced electron flow “chain reaction” works:

The electron-atom dipoles must be aligned in phase with the arriving EM fields of the photons to
allow for full energy absorption and to induce the orbital level “step” transitions of the electrons.
This means that other nearby atoms must be out of phase, from a charge perspective, in order for
there to be current flow. There must also be a difference of net charge, “potential drop”, across
the atomic matrix in order to provide directionality of current flow.

This is where “harmonic balance” of the atomic-electron structure comes into play.

The atoms must be in a phase relationship such that as 1 atom loses an electron, another electron
takes its place in sequence. This is current flow, atom to atom, and is caused by sequential
net charge changes at the atomic level, up thru and to the macro level.

Once you exceed the “saturation point”, or the ability of the atoms to absorb additional excess
energy and complete their normal orbital “step” oscillations, the electrons become temporarily
charge "suspended" in their outer orbitals. The application of even more energy charge leads to
higher ionization levels of the atoms. The result is intensified photon radiation emission.

If excessive “external” energy is applied to the surface of the atomic matrix, beyond the
capability of the atoms to absorb the excess energy, and if maximum current flow capability is
exceeded, there will be too many high energy state electrons and negative charge saturation will
occur. Excessive negative charge accumulation on the exposed surface will cause the excess
electrons to be ejected from the exposed surface of the atomic “matrix” by the build up of localized repelling "space charges".

The emitted electrons couple to free space and radiate away from the highly charged electric
dipoles. Too many electrons creates an accumulating net negative charge at the surface
of the matrix. Electrons that cannot fall back into the atomic ground orbital state are ejected
(emitted) by the accumulated build up of excess charge.

Electron current flow, in excess of the of the atomic matrix's ability to cycle atom to atom,
generates different forms of radiation as byproducts There are byproduct emissions, caused by
excessive applied energy levels, above the ability of the atoms/electrons to execute their normal
orbital displacement cycles. The byproducts are IR photons (heat) from secondary deep lattice
atom-electron interactions, photons (visible light), and excess electrons. The magnitude and type
of emissions depend upon the total energy operating in the system

An example:
Electrons, IR, and visible photons are ejected from the surface, as in a vacuum tube
filament, whenever there is excessive electrical energy applied to the filaments
cross-sectional ability to handle the amount of current applied. The more excess
energy that is applied, the more electrons and photons that are ejected. (good ole light bulb).

This is a surface ejection phenomenon, created by the atomic dipoles that are coupling
to space.

If you get too much current flow, the resistance of the atomic lattice of the filament generates too
much heat and the filament burns out.

Photon emission and electron emission is a function of the energy applied to the cross-sectional
area of the filament.

Electron currents can travel within the cross-sectional atomic matrix of a conductor
by virtue of electron-"hole" ionic pairing. Electrons and photons are "sequentially” displaced
and replaced across the atomic lattice. This is current flow. Once the atoms of the atomic matrix
reach the energy saturation (ionization) level and the ability to efficiently handle current flow,
photon emission/radiation of the excess energy occurs.

The frequency of the photons generated is directly proportional to the latency of the ionization
charge cycle. The photon emission frequency is the time for the atom/electron to change energy
levels and cycle from the high energy level to the ground state.

Other constructive comments, opinions, disagreements, discussion welcomed.
LL

jal

18th January 2007 - 07:04 PM

Off topic...
Since Good Elf wants extra dimensions .... the following info should interest him.
http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/01/13/short...-still-the-man/
Extra dimensions must be smaller than .045mm
jal
edit: If you need an idea on how to intergrate them into our universe then look at my "packing" solution.

Laserlight

18th January 2007 - 07:45 PM

Hi Jal,

My compliments! I am astounded. That was one of clearest and best written
theoretical papers that I have read. It was logical, thoughtful, and I could
easily meld, and identify, with the ideas and arguments that were presented. Hopefully,
the author will continue his line of reasoning and upset the status quo of
science. The implications of his arguments, if correct, will shake the foundations
of physics.

QUOTE

Do not forget to read the paper that I mentioned http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/DivisiblePhoton-Final.pdf
It does represent a lot of what we have been discussing. I also undermines some of your points.
It does support some of the points made by the other participants of this thread.
jal

Thanks for posting it.

Regards,
LL

Confused2

18th January 2007 - 08:15 PM

Hi jal, Laserlight et al,

From
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/DivisiblePhoton-Final.pdf
Top of page 5

QUOTE (CM+)

But we do record and measure the absence of any EM field energy at the dark fringes due to superposition of coherent beams on a detector array or a photographic plate. For two superposed coherent beams of equal amplitude with a delay , the detector response produces sinusoidal fringes:
Eqation (6)
At a location where the two equal amplitudes fields are undulating with opposite phases, the detector dipoles cannot execute opposing dipolar undulations at the same time. So they are not stimulated and hence they cannot absorb energy from superposed fields. EM field energy passes through them since they cannot redistribute their field energy by themselves [11].

The experiment here http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml and in particular the result here http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif would seem to show that there are inherently no photons where the beams are of opposite phase for the simple reason that these 'lost' photons are counted in the region where the beams add up 'in phase'. If photons (energy) were 'lost' then I might take Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri's suggestion more seriously .. but it isn't .. all the photons are there and accounted for. If the results don't seem to agree with the CM theory .. need I say what that suggests (to me) about CM's theory?

Best wishes,

-C2.

Confused2

18th January 2007 - 08:30 PM

Hi Good Elf,

QUOTE (Good Elf+)

The animations below do not show the fact that the direction of the photon emission from one atom is not totally spherical and in a particular case will always emit in a certain "random" direction depending on unknown initial parameters.

Looking at the experiment here.. http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml whatever the qaulities of the source it would seem that the single slit (after the light bulb) is intended to act as a new source.

The result here http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif shows that there is a perfectly good path through either slit individually yet with both slits open it would seem the photon (whatever that might be) is always randomly emitted through both slits (the slits are 0.5mm apart). Is there a reason for this?

Best wishes,

-C2.

More..

QUOTE (Good Elf+)

the particle interaction is when the electric field lines begin to interact in a virtual photon mode and when this happens there are no longer any wave "shadows" to worry about (they are just not around anymore).

This "just not around anymore' Don't worry about C2 .. "he's just not around anymore" .. something has to have happened .. you can't just wave your hands and say "just not around anymore".

Aerohead

18th January 2007 - 08:56 PM

Hi All,

If Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri is correct in Jal's link:

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/DivisiblePhoton-Final.pdf

then what many people have been suspecting for YEARS is true: It's just the BOUND electron that is quantized. If so, is it possible that the unbound electron is not and THAT is why classical EM theory is enough to describe RF photons ?

Perhaps ALL the single-electron antennas can respond to the RF photon. Are we witnessing the regrowth / rebirth of continuum mechanics at the QM level of the photon?

If so, this is gonna keep me up nights. That paper was my own personal hunch 35 years ago !

Jim

jal

18th January 2007 - 11:39 PM

Good Day!
The link came from the article provided by guiding_light.
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/DivisiblePhoton-Final.pdf

QUOTE

We believe that nothing in the universe can happen instantaneously or continue over an infinite duration. So it is physically impossible to start the rise of a pulse envelope at the peak exponential value instantaneously. It must start from zero value and very rapidly rise to the required exponential peak value and die down exponentially.
Both the proponents and opponents of photons (spontaneous emission from individual atoms or molecules) as indivisible packets of energy concur with the experimental observations that the transition time required for a photo induced transition is extremely short. For visible range (ν ~ 1015 Hz) it is in the domain of 10-15 seconds or around one femto second.

Check my calculations.
I get .05mm
Speculation
This would be within the range of Good Elves' possible "other dimensions", .045mm.

and would be a specific distance that light needs to travel as per my packing model.
jal

Good Elf

19th January 2007 - 12:15 AM

Hi Neil Farbstein,

QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)

you might be right about do something that doesnt work again and again but dont bring "mechanisms" into this you're gunnna get worse results.

Sorry Neil, it is just the way I do business. I like everyone else have no genuine insight into Quantum Mechanics. That does not mean that I do not understand the maths... It means that without "Physics" and dealing with only the statistics you can gain nothing about what a next step might mean. Surely you can put up with me since I am the only one here that uses this "technique". Like Richard Feynman once said:

QUOTE

"The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."
- Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate 1965

Renormalization is the heart of Quantum Mechanics. No matter how good the answers are the infinities will not go away just by wishing. Statistics tells us "something" about systems but it is not good describing a system entirely by its statistics since our Universe is process driven and when you are not dealing with processes you cannot have any underlying understanding about the meaning of those "numbers". Have a look at Canonical Typicality. We can learn something all the time as long as we do not switch our collective brains off.

Cheers

Laserlight

19th January 2007 - 01:01 AM

GE,

Well stated! Just keep on the track that you have been following. We are all
learning.

Regards,
LL

Good Elf

19th January 2007 - 01:08 AM

Hi Jal,

Thanks for the reference I will have a good read. The ability to redistribute energy is not in dispute. I hope this is not about that almost trivial process. It is a challenging area when it comes to single photon interactions. What I am interested in is not "indestructibility" but information coherence over "time". All detectors change the qubit. This is not just a "click" as many seem to suggest. I hope we all understand that subtle distinction.

QUOTE (Jal from the paper"Do we count indivisible photons or discrete quantum events experienced by detectors?" Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri+)

Such a belief can be easily thwarted when you are not believing the experimental results being reported. Provided the speed of information transfer is not greater than light anything is indeed possible and is seen. I have seen these dogged ideas crop up over and over and anyone can really argue black is white if they are "cleaver". The Fourier process is denied by many for good reason... because it can potentially undermine Quantum Mechanics. The Universe is "non-local" and in that sense superluminal speed is always happening. What I say is many experiments actually do record superluminal signals and I have reported them in the past, they are a reality in experimental science. This is not to be rejected but incorporated. I am no Harvey Wallbanger and I fully accept classes of information transfer and non-transfer where superluminal signals are definitely involved. It all depends on what you are defining as "speed".

I have not read it yet but I will and I am sure that it will be interesting. Thanks Jal.

Cheers

Confused2

19th January 2007 - 01:32 AM

Hi jal at al,

The paper ( http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/DivisiblePhoton-Final.pdf ) seems to be entirely opinion/speculation.

QUOTE (Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri+)

Panarella [5] has experimentally demonstrated that a minimum of four photon equivalent energy is required to detect discernable diffraction pattern at very low light levels. This clearly raises doubt regarding one-to-one correspondence for photoelectron emission.

I have my own doubts too http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=142798

IMHO The most interesting bit comes at the end ..

QUOTE (Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri+)

One should recognize that if photons were really indivisible and independent packets of energy and they can use their non-local properties to determine which place in an interferometer to appear or disappear from, then we should not have required any phase coherence property for superposition measurements (interferometry).

I get the impression he has a major problem with the QM metaphor for a photon... this does not make it 'wrong' .. only that at least one of us has not understood it.

QUOTE (Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri+)

The phase coherence is required by the detecting dipoles when they try to sum the induced dipole undulation amplitudes due to all the superposed fields at the same time. This is why the superposition effects necessarily have to be local (volume of the participating detecting molecules).

In this quote Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri seems to be denying the existence of the increased photon count at the point of constructive interference ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) .. seen half a millimetre away from the point of destructive interference .. where does he think these counts come from? Is he attempting to show that the QM metaphor is 'wrong' by claiming that we do not see what we see? What do you (or anyone else) think explains the increased count at the point of constructive interference (2 x the sum of the single slit count). His speculation about dipoles would seem to confirm the speculative nature of the whole.

He might be right .. I reckon good old http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml is pretty compelling evidence that he isn't. If you have an interpretation of the data that supports his view .. I'd be pleased to hear it.

Best wishes,

-C2.

"THEY"

19th January 2007 - 01:36 AM

Pardon the interruption here.... there is a possible? youngster here that has a question on DSE wave interferrence. I was hoping to find C2's wave tank applet but have not had the time. He/she needs explanations kept simple. Just hate seeing someone with a good question get ignored because everyone who knows is busy HERE!

Good Elf

19th January 2007 - 02:06 AM

Hi Laserlight,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)

GE,

One thing that seems "constant" in physics is the nature of certain phenomena.
A wave, is a wave, is a wave. It is energy transport across some medium.
The method and degree of energy transport is a matter of scaling, IMO. I don't
think we can close our minds to this point. Some things just follow a natural
order and we must see the similarities between these physical characteristics.

An example:
The rotation of a galaxy has the same general characteristics as the rotation
of a star, the rotation of a planet, or a ball, or an electron, etc. Rotation is
natural phenomenon that follows natural laws. So do waves, IMO.

There are many other naturally occuring phenomena that follow this natural
"scaling". It is the "natural order" of the universe.

Other constructive opinions welcomed.
LL

Oooh... Ptolemy would be pleased that you still use "epicycles". Your "natural" universe is a quaint notion. What about the laying on of hands and psychic powers... all very natural.

It is also been a very long time since I divined the future by the examination of the entrails of a pig or the theory that I see things around me using "beams" that emanate from my eyes to touch things in the distance. Ancient ideas have their place but it is not in science.

QUOTE (Laserlight+)

He he he ... you holding out on me laserlight?

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=167741
Yep... sort of got that.

Much about an atom is"hidden" under the concept of "shielding". Why don't the electrons have discrete orbits or why do photons have a unique "line" when transitions occur? You have seen that animation I have placed in this thread showing an electron in a Bohr Orbit around an atom and the way it spreads and the way it develops "resonances". Accepting that the Bohr "Orbit" does not exist and what we are seeing are "stationary states" it is my view that the electron(s) (or "Bosonic" Cooper Pairs) is/are sitting in a resonant cavity in which the atom as a whole sees no charges on either the nuclear particles or the electrons. Being stationary quantum states especially inner electrons do not spiral into the nucleus because they do not sense any charges at all. Laboratory frame processes "discover" charges as the effect of non-inertial processes. Once you can accept stationary states then you must accept that the atom does not see the charges and in some way the internal frames of these particles (internally photons) are the internal frames of the internal photons which "think" they are propagating in straight lines and are not influenced by "charge". The "charge" is just an external "topology"... the emphasis is on the word "external". This is exemplified by the wavelike nature of the electron taking up a standing wave pattern according to the Bohr Hypothesis of integer numbers of wavelengths "around" the atom. Remember this is no "orbit", they are standing waves of interference. If the atoms exhibited charge right down to the core the system would continually radiate energy until it was all gone. Now I do not claim to have "access" to those special internal frames of reference but I have been single minded about this all along. Now from time to time I must use a paradigm that include charge and mass and other terms. If I did not do this it would be lost in technobabble. What I am saying is electron charges and the charge on protons was an early concept that is not well integrated into the physics. This is bound up with the biggest problem of all .... point sources... we all know there are no point sources yet we persist in using this paradigm to describe these things. This is why String Theory was developed to circumvent the infinities of point sources and mathematically at least it does that very well but it is a theory that is not grounded in physical reality yet.

My preferred paradigm is the Anti-DeSitter Universe, Fourier-Holographic Reality and forces as an expression of pure geometry. This does not mean you need to abandon everything in those text books but what I am saying is only one question at a time can be answered and it will depend on the paradigm that is adopted. If a question is couched in a particular paradigm I am obliged to answer with the same paradigm. This will produce paradox if you ask me to describe it with another paradigm next. We all see this problem bobbing up and down all the time because everyone wants to use different and sometimes incorrect paradigms to describe "everything". It's not my fault!

Cheers

Laserlight

19th January 2007 - 02:27 AM

Hello They2,

You can find the DSE and other physics applets here.

http://www.falstad.com/mathphysics.html

Regards,
LL

Laserlight

19th January 2007 - 03:03 AM

GE,

To deny the "charge" aspects of the atom flies in the face of chemistry and
electronics, where electron/atomic charge is of critical importance. This is not
to say that we can disregard the other known and "suspected" theoretical
attributes of the structure and nature of the atom and the photon. Point sources
are problematic, probably because our theoretical model is somehow flawed, or
incomplete to properly explain the observed phenomena associated with such a concept.
It is the total charges of the atom that make each kind unique.... then
there is the neutron......
There are many theories, some of them are way out there. I find solace with
those that are based in reality and have tangible explanations that exist in our
universe. Call me old fashioned.

As for the comment about "chicken entrails", what's for dinner?

Where did I put my tinfoil hat?

oracle1

19th January 2007 - 03:28 AM

Laserlight do you it's possible that the problem with observing the Fourier Holographic reality lies in our visual perspective within our time space plane?

what I imagine is that the big bang is like the opening of an eye that lets out light instead of taking it in.

Like an eye the plan of light (or sight) is in the shape of a cone.

The furthest point of the horizon of that cone is the present and the present moment of time is a flat time dimension. Like perceiving the furthest distance with your eye. Everything is flat. We cant see the future because it would be like our eye seeing behind its head.

We and all matter exist within that helix cone or vacuole of light at the big bang, and just as our eye has limitations to its visual plane based on distance of matter in its perspective plane so do we have limitations to see dimensions based on where we are in dimensional time within our time space plane .
The only way to view it would be use lasers to separate the bands of light within the waves and observe the hologram caused by the speed of the individual color band of light on out time plane or to step out of this time plane and view it from another perspective. That would require freezing a moment of time and observing the differences of lights and shadows that reflect off of specific color bands in light waves. {these bands however are only reflections and don't have mass.) This can be done in photography.

Why haven't we seen it then? It is because of our brains selective process related to optics. Is it visible? yes! You just have to learn how to see again!!!! All time exists where we are in its dimensional plane is relative to our speed through light

Laserlight

19th January 2007 - 03:54 AM

Oracle1,

You have broached too many topics in one post. They are highly "imaginative"
and are not aligned with the primary subject of discussion of this board. Ask
a question related to the DSE or along the line of how the physics of light
works and we will attempt to provide an answer or thoughtful "opinion".

Looking at all of the other boards that you comment on it appears that you are a
rather busy bee! How do you maintain focus?

Regards,
LL

oracle1

19th January 2007 - 04:12 AM

Sorry laserlight I do admit to rambling and being a constant thinker. Where Ibelieve my concept is relative is that if there was interference it may be possible that they traveled through light at different speeds due to the exciting of electrons . Could its reflection be hidden in a perspective of light?

Laserlight

19th January 2007 - 05:05 AM

QUOTE (oracle1+Jan 19 2007, 04:12 AM)

Hi Oracle,

We have been seeking an answer to the physical root cause of the mechanism
that creates interference when photons travel thru 2 slits for months. We still
don't have a definitive answer. There have been many arguments for and
against the ideas that photons are particles, waves, or both. To that end we have
explored colors, frequency mixing, beat signals, EM theory, atomic theory, string
theory, extra dimensions, and nearly everything in between to try to come up with
a workable solution that satisfies everyone.

Your question is a bit "nebulous" and I'm not exactly sure what you are asking.

The recent pdf paper posted by Jal explores whether a photon is
a single energy phenomenon, or if it can be divided and then be recombined at
a receiving atom whose electron dipole is properly aligned to accept all of the
energy of the EM pulse.

I have posed the possibility that the electrons around the slits are interacting
with the EM component of the "photons" and causing some propagation delay
and phase shift that causes the interference. The proposal is only an alternative
"theoretical" idea. I am not convinced about the idea of extra dimensions since
we can not physically touch or interact with them in our 4D space time.

Regards,
LL

Good Elf

19th January 2007 - 06:49 AM

Hi Laserlight,

QUOTE

To deny the "charge" aspects of the atom flies in the face of chemistry and
electronics, where electron/atomic charge is of critical importance. This is not
to say that we can disregard the other known and "suspected" theoretical
attributes of the structure and nature of the atom and the photon. Point sources
are problematic, probably because our theoretical model is somehow flawed, or
incomplete to properly explain the observed phenomena associated with such a concept.
It is the total charges of the atom that make each kind unique.... then
there is the neutron......
There are many theories, some of them are way out there....

Oh I dunno... I don't deny charge, I deny the interpretation of it. What I see are "inertial frames of reference" embedded in our accelerated Universe. The only real difference between what we term "solid" and "energy" is some kind of spin... A half integer supply of it determines if a particle is "solid" and the "full twist" allows it to behave like light and interpenetrate the space of similar "bosonic" particles.. The more we learn about "quanta" the less we seem to have known about these "attributes" in the past.

It was not that long ago when I was being told a whole heap of nonsense that no longer holds true about almost any subject you would care to name. If you went back to those sources and began to discuss "new developments" with them they would say they knew all along...

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

QUOTE

First they tell you you're wrong and they can prove it; then they tell you you're right but it isn't important; then they tell you it's important but they knew it all along: Charles Kettering

Cheers

oracle1

19th January 2007 - 06:59 AM

Laserlight, what I'm trying to tell you is that it IS visible when looking at light from a different visual perspective within the curves of light. I found it by studying optics and that is what I was trying to say in my rambling longwinded previous e mail. I guess seeing is believing. Are you willing to look at an example with an open mind. I won't get mad if you think I'm wrong after seeing it. In fact, I welcome another explanation.

Laserlight

19th January 2007 - 08:08 AM

Hi Oracle,

I'm not sure that I could even interpret it correctly. You would be better off
asking someone familiar with unusual optical phenomena who is intimate with
photographic effects. It could be something as simple as having a coated polarized
lens that picked up some stray "reflections"....

LL

TRoc

19th January 2007 - 05:10 PM

oracle1,

I have already gone over that information in this thread, and there were no takers. You will use up an inordinate amount of time trying to explain "the picture" that would do it automatically if it were seen. IT is important to realise just HOW MUCH information is standardly "discarded", because it makes some specific model/explanation "too hard" (or wrong). Read Newton's "Optics", and then watch how some things that were "written off" by him as "aberations", were never revisited. It is very easy to disregard some "negligble" quantity, or attribute, especially when doing so makes your theory more easy to "prove". Also look at the typical, historic Scientific treatment of "rogue signals", or "dark current", the "zero point", "infinities", etc. in any experiment not contained in "vacuum". (even that doesn't exist)

Nobody wants to follow "links", or read more papers, yet they want to answer one of the hardest "problems" in QM. If no one even has a prism at their disposal, it is of no use. It always boils down to "I already have my mind made up", for most people; they are just "filling the day" with something. (in between drinks)

I too am a slow learner; I plan on continuing, although at a little slower pace. I am only 1/2 way down my reference list, and I am not going to try to throw my "answer" on the table until, at least everyone has seen "how" the answer can be obtained.

We still have MANY things to (probably) disagree on, like "what is a photon", which, even the FRONT LINES of leading experts in Physics are STILL doing. (and we are supposed to "cite" them as "sources"?)

I'm not really sure on EXACTLY how much change in any of our minds has taken place over the last few months of this thread. If we can NOT all agree on the "problems", then I'm quite sure that we (all) will not reach an agreement on the "solutions".

regards,

T.Roc

jal

19th January 2007 - 05:26 PM

Good Day All!
Troc .... don't worry about me ....

Here are a few thoughts.
Duality 28 dec.

QUOTE

There is the possibility of new ideas in this area springing from many different fields - atomic physics, nonlinear dynamics, numerical analysis, materials science, wave propagation, statistical physics. - such as the temperature-accelerated dynamics methods of so many, and combined quantum and classical methods should be included I believe - I wish I could spend more time with you guys on this..
It is hoped that the simplifications afforded by separation of scales, together with the special features of atomistic problems, can in some way lead to new ways of understanding micro dynamics dealing with all frequency's but please remember it could be solvable or beyond our technology and intellect to explain.

For classical read http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#hv Bohmian Mechanics
We are in need of knowing what the photons etc. are doing at the atomic and quantum scale so that we can reach the next level of technological improvements. The discoveries will come from the fields that are trying to develop the new technology. They have the immediate need.
Have you read http://www.symmetrymag.org/cms/?pid=1000358
Extracting Physics From The LHC
-------------------------------------------
The present theory of “waves” can be compared to you looking at a picture in your computer “paint” program. We need to be able to get to the next scale “zoom” and look at where the pixels are within the structure. We need to be able to follow the pencil drawing a line pixel by pixel.
Without the right model you will not be able to get the right answers.
The “wave” model has done all that it can and it has served us well and will continue to serve us well.
Let’s move on to the next model that will be needed in the future to do the work at the “zoom scale”.
Let’s not be delusioned that we will be able to develop the next model that will be needed at the “zoom” level. We do not work in those fields.
(But ... we might come pretty close. heheh

)
However, none of us are stupid, we can look at their published work and discuss it. It will give us a greater understanding of how the universe is made and works.
Has anyone checked my numbers? .05 mm.
Question arizing from that is “How far did the electron travel while light was covering a distance of .05 mm?
jal

TRoc

19th January 2007 - 06:57 PM

QUOTE

Any set of sinusoidal waves whose frequencies belong to a harmonic series will combine to produce a periodic complex wave, whose repetition frequency is that of the series fundamental. The individual components may have any amplitudes and any relative phases. These amplitudes and phases determine the shape of the complex waveform.

According to Fourier analysis, an arbitrary periodical waveform can be regarded as a superposition of sinusoidal waves. Fourier synthesis means superimposing many sinusoidal waves to obtain the arbitrary periodic waveform.

Any set of sinusoidal waves whose frequencies do not belong to a harmonic series will combine to produce a complex wave that is not periodic. Any non-periodic waveform may be built from a set of sinusoidal waves. Each component must have just the right amplitude and relative phase to produce the desired waveform.

Fourier's theorem states that any periodic function with spatial period (wavelength) L can be synthesized by a sum of harmonic functions whose spatial periods (wavelengths) are integral submultiples of L, (such as L/2, L/3, ...).

http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/optics421/mo...5/Coherence.htm
(emphasis added; I have said this all along) (thanks for the good links, jal)

Mr. Roychoudhuri has written many papers on an 'alternate' perspective, and some of the problems with the "photon" model. C2 is 'overly suspicious' of his 'legitimacy'. He is a Professor at a respected University; he IS teaching students (right or wrong), and was a 'guest editor' in a back issue of OPN (optics & photon news), as well as the 2006 Industry conference on "what is a photon".

Here is the link to the special issue of OPN (2003) covering the "what is a photon" question. It contains 5 very good papers, covering the many different views on trying to answer this question. You have to invest the time to read these things (and others).

OPN "What is a photon" Issue

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

LL, maybe you are not seeing my point: if you wish to use a dipole to dipole method, you HAVE TO change the current "photon" (QM) model. That is why I have entered so many different topics; they all have a little to offer, but in the end, we must complete the puzzle with seemingly unconnected parts.

The "particle or wave" debate has taken the focus off of the big picture: the debate should be is "photon" a verb, or noun? I say verb.

However, this is not the 'current' paradigm. The "photon as a noun" model REQUIRES an interaction method. There are serious doubts as to the "interact-ability" of "photons" in flight, and that's fine. The theory that "wins" will explain the WHOLE story, and without contradictions (be self consistent).

GE, do you see how the Fourier transform IS photon interaction? It CHANGES the 'form' of the wave, by superimposing (sum) different frequencies. It doesn't 'matter' (lil' pun) if mass is or isn't involved, we are talking about methods and math here.

regards,

T.Roc

Neil Farbstein

19th January 2007 - 07:02 PM

QUOTE (TRoc+Jan 19 2007, 06:57 PM)

All,

Aerohead mentioned the "single electron" oscillation a while back, and (amusingly) no one even drew the line to what I have said already, about making "single photons".

The ONLY way to have a "single electron" is in a single Hydrogen atom. So, you will have to invent a Hydrogen antenna, if you want to take your "gedanken" style question to the next level.

For reminder/or knowledge, let me point out that the LOWEST (IR) frequency that we can obtain from Hydrogen spectra is (6 _>5 transition; Pfund) 4.05124e+13 Hz.
(7400nm)

That's a 'tad bit' off from being a "radio wave", wouldn't you agree?

You will find that there are SERIOUS PROBLEMS with the 'innocent' "EM spectrum chart" that adorns every Physics classroom or textbook, and treating ALL "photons" as the same. You can NOT maintain the "particle" definition here, because of "size" concepts. You get QM problems when you realize there are NO electron transitions that can produce the entire EM "spectrum". You even get definition problems, in "radio waves" at the ULF and below, where submarines have to use different technology to send and receive signals. The Earth Sciences too, have doubts as to the "full value" of the QM explanation. What are we supposed to do with the audible frequencies produced by earthquake frequencies of .1 to .001 Hz? How about Schuman resonances? Black hole radiation? (at least the latter gets some 'attention')

The point being that there are NOT always 'exact transfers' (100% resonant) going on, so we need a better explanation than one that REQUIRES 'a tit for a tat' communication.

Jal is correct about the limitations of the "wave model"; but keep in mind that there are BETTER models than the sine wave to choose from. LL wants to know the "angle" that the electron takes to its' next orbit, but in the circular (pi) domain, it just "jumps" to the next circle. Only the spiral will provide a "causal" description of this event (and still be measurable with pi). The sine wave and the Fourier (methods) are absolutely 'entwined', and have severe limitations as to 'modeling reality'.

http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/optics421/mo...5/Coherence.htm
(emphasis added; I have said this all along) (thanks for the good links, jal)

Mr. Roychoudhuri has written many papers on an 'alternate' perspective, and some of the problems with the "photon" model. C2 is 'overly suspicious' of his 'legitimacy'. He is a Professor at a respected University; he IS teaching students (right or wrong), and was a 'guest editor' in a back issue of OPN (optics & photon news), as well as the 2006 Industry conference on "what is a photon".

Here is the link to the special issue of OPN (2003) covering the "what is a photon" question. It contains 5 very good papers, covering the many different views on trying to answer this question. You have to invest the time to read these things (and others).

OPN "What is a photon" Issue

LL, maybe you are not seeing my point: if you wish to use a dipole to dipole method, you HAVE TO change the current "photon" (QM) model. That is why I have entered so many different topics; they all have a little to offer, but in the end, we must complete the puzzle with seemingly unconnected parts.

The "particle or wave" debate has taken the focus off of the big picture: the debate should be is "photon" a verb, or noun? I say verb.

However, this is not the 'current' paradigm. The "photon as a noun" model REQUIRES an interaction method. There are serious doubts as to the "interact-ability" of "photons" in flight, and that's fine. The theory that "wins" will explain the WHOLE story, and without contradictions (be self consistent).

regards,

T.Roc

Set your SETI radio telescopes to the hydrogen emission line and maybe the aliens will answer your physics questions.

TRoc

19th January 2007 - 07:18 PM

Come on Neil,

You DO NOT have to include a person's ENTIRE post in order to make a comment (especially 'off the wall' types).

You are CLUTTERING up posts, and taking up TOO MUCH space.

Just click "ADD REPLY" (at the bottom of the page), without clicking "QUOTE this post" (right next to the post you want to reply to).

If you can not figure that out, then AT LEAST use the DELETE key to SHORTEN the post down to what is minimally necessary.

Thank you (from ALL of us)

Neil Farbstein

19th January 2007 - 07:28 PM

QUOTE (TRoc+Jan 19 2007, 07:18 PM)

I though you shoud know what I was replying to TRoc? What are you? What are you about? And you should know that was funny post, not an off the wall comment. I guess you didnt get it. Everyone else laughs at my jokes.

Neil Farbstein

19th January 2007 - 07:35 PM

I thought a single electron in a hydrogen atom resonates at 1420 megahertz. (the hydrogen line) The first SETI sceintists thought it was the logical place to begin their search Troc.

Laserlight

19th January 2007 - 07:46 PM

Jal,

Dividing .00005M by c = 1.6678341505720671136462190199807e-13

What are you attempting to illustrate? The Plank length?

LL

Laserlight

19th January 2007 - 08:28 PM

TRoc,

QUOTE

The "particle or wave" debate has taken the focus off of the big picture: the debate should be is "photon" a verb, or noun? I say verb.

That is like calling an automobile a verb.

All kidding aside, I agree with what you are trying to do. A photon is a
simplified way of defining a QM process. The problem is that we have
not properly defined the action "process" (the physics) that accurately defines the
concept of the photon.

You are correct that the photon is an interactive and dynamic phenomenon, not
just a fixed "entity" (for lack of a better word). I posed the question before,
"how do you accurately define what energy is, beyond the ability to do work?"
Energy has many forms, to just cover them all with the same simple blanket
seems "uneducated" somehow, because to do so prevents a true understanding
of the different forces at play.

GE and I have been disagreeing about whether EM fields can be distorted or
if they are required to maintain perfect symmetry in order to transport energy.

IMO, the transport of energy must adapt to the environment that it is operating
in and can change to fit that local environment, up to a point. It stands to reason
that there must be some "flexibility" or adaptability as different energy systems
interact. That is how energy conversion takes place and where the Fourier
transform becomes applicable.

When energy systems merge or interact there is a "byproduct" that results. The
byproduct must combine both (or all) energy systems into one, but that action
then changes the finalized form of the total energy applied. It is a metamorphosis,
a change from one form into another form, but has characteristics of each.
If the environment changes, so does the way energy transforms itself to
accomodate that environment.

JMHO.

Other constructive comments welcome.
LL

Laserlight

19th January 2007 - 08:38 PM

Neil,

QUOTE

I thought a single electron in a hydrogen atom resonates at 1420 megahertz. (the hydrogen line) The first SETI sceintists thought it was the logical place to begin their search Troc.

Much better. We will get you trained yet.

Regards,
LL

TRoc

19th January 2007 - 09:00 PM

Hi all,

Neil (THANK YOU for just posting YOUR statement), I am talking about the "event" of the SMALLEST relaxation possible in the orbit of an electron in the Hydrogen atom. Specifically, what QM states MUST happen in order for a "photon" to be emitted.

It seems that just "shaking" separated electrons and 'holes' is very different from QM photoelctron emission. "radio waves" vs "atomic transitions"

This "shaking" (or sub-vibration) is ALSO what is being used to describe "electron to electron" communications in the "less than 'photon' regime". Look at the excitons; and the host of other variations on theme: phonons, magnons, plasmons, etc.

"Shaking" the electron, as opposed to 'harmonic jumps', must be addressed. (I hope to do so a little at a time, in order to keep things 'shorter')

LL, I think your car analogy is terrible!

Your home is 'connected' to the rest of the world by 'roads'; therefore, if I show up at your door, I came by car, right?

NO

We just have the simple parameters, 'A' and 'B'. We do something to A, and then something happens to B. It is natural to put 'something' "in between, and I don't have a problem with that. The 'verb' is ACTION "in between" A and B. The 'noun' approach, puts 'C' into the equation, and makes C real and independent "particle". This is just wrong. The "photon" is NOT a particle, by any means. I KNOW that it can be mathematically modeled that way, and I don't care. It is not the "physical" description, that will lead us to understanding.

BTW, don't get too caught up with arguing about "information" (a parameter), and "consciousness" (an absorber = an observer). These are media statements, not Science. Popularization methods are not to be used by us. The media uses vague statements like "information" and "consciousness" because they don't want to take the time (and space) to be specific. Unfortunately, these words mean 'other' things to the rest of the world. You two should be very specific about WHAT info you mean, at any given point. (the consciousness thing was actually for other than you 2) You can see how the 'liberal' use of these vague, yet profound terms can easily mislead people into "new age" BS, and fills the pages of this (and other) forums with poor, uneducated, and pointless debates over misunderstanding of basic definitions.

ciao,

T.Roc

Laserlight

19th January 2007 - 09:30 PM

TRoc,

QUOTE

LL, I think your car analogy is terrible! ...Your home is 'connected' to the rest of the world by 'roads'; therefore, if I show up at your door, I came by car, right? NO

Exactly! You got the point it was trying to make....or did you?

An automobile (like a photon) is a very complex transportation mechanism that
follows certain rules of operation and constraints. It was satire. Maybe too
subtle.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

LL, I think your car analogy is terrible! ...Your home is 'connected' to the rest of the world by 'roads'; therefore, if I show up at your door, I came by car, right? NO

The "photon" is NOT a particle, by any means. I KNOW that it can be mathematically modeled that way, and I don't care. It is not the "physical" description, that will lead us to understanding.

Hold on there now....I have stated continuously that a photon is an EM wave,
not a physical particle. Energy has no fixed "form" it is a dynamic process.

?????? IMO, you are assigning some misinformation, pun intended. Information
from a photon is merely an on or off, "location" statement to me, nothing more.
There is action at the transmitting end and reception at the receiving end. How
and where the reception takes place forms a pattern that conveys the information.

jal

19th January 2007 - 09:33 PM

Hi Laserlight!

QUOTE

What are you attempting to illustrate? The Plank length?

No... I can demonstrate that from many links on the web.
The truth be known .... from past experience of misplacing the "point"

..... I don't want to build a "house" where I thought the "foundation" was located.

TRoc Has just pointed out our lack of knowledge/understanding of the photon.
I just wanted to point out the same for the electron.
If light traveled .05 mm then I don't know how you would (with our present models) be able to tell how far the electron traveled during that time period.
Here is what the text books have to say.
http://online.cctt.org/physicslab/content/...sandspectra.asp
A new a better model of what is happening will eventually be developed for us to be able to reach the next level of technical innovations.
jal

Neil Farbstein

19th January 2007 - 09:59 PM

QUOTE (jal+Jan 19 2007, 09:33 PM)

Hi Laserlight!

No... I can demonstrate that from many links on the web.
The truth be known .... from past experience of misplacing the "point"

..... I don't want to build a "house" where I thought the "foundation" was located.

What's your opinion? what better model can you point to Jal? The physicists of the past seem to have had a better understanding. The standard model has had two big successes in the past couple of months; the top quark discovery and the emission of photons by neutrons. The photon discovery was made by an independent physicist in Buffalo University Using a method he learned from a Nobel prize winning physicist. I forget his name it may have been one of the scientists who worked on the atomic bomb.

jal

19th January 2007 - 10:34 PM

TRoc!

QUOTE

OPN "What is a photon" Issue

did not work for me.
Neil Farbstein

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

OPN "What is a photon" Issue

did not work for me.
Neil Farbstein what better model can you point to Jal?

None. It's the one that will answer the questions needed for the next level of technical development.
See what I quoted from Duality. My own model maybe part of what is needed.
jal

Aerohead

19th January 2007 - 11:40 PM

Hi TRoc and All,

From TRoc:

QUOTE

The ONLY way to have a "single electron" is in a single Hydrogen atom. So, you will have to invent a Hydrogen antenna, if you want to take your "gedanken" style question to the next level.

It is interesting, don't you think(?), that the electron behavior of Hydrogen that produces photons at 1420.4058 MHz must be very mechanically similar to producing the same frequency from a copper antenna ! Perhaps the nature of the atomic oscilation differs from the dipole antenna, but surely it IS a "mechanical" oscillation. An electron oscillating in a 21 cm antenna - we can all relate to. What the electron is doing snapping back to its ground state from the next level - that's hard. However, to me, the clue is, that, what we call the photon must be the same in both cases.

High Regards.

Confused2

20th January 2007 - 02:34 AM

Hi TRoc, Aerohead et al,

Unfortunately I can only read Adobe 6 .pdf so the gods have spared me the burden of reading the OPN edition "What is a photon". In theory I would be grateful for any edited highlights but in practice I'm not sure I even want to know. It has already become clear that physics and optics are different and possibly unrelated disciplines.

As a poor analagy (spell checker doesn't like 'analagy' .. in the event that I have made the word up .. it means what I mean by it, no more and no less)...

If we drop a bag of sugar onto a concrete floor from a height of ten feet .. obviously it's going to 'splat'.

In a pointy particle world we might get a photon instead of a splat as the bag hits the floor. This doesn't immediately look 'resonant' but to cover this we could suggest that the bag of sugar is a bit bouncy so the photon has a bit of 'bounce' in it... the frequency of the photon would be the frequency of the bounce. As far as I know the 'frequency' (E=hf) of the photon is determined by its energy .. just the height of the drop.

-C2.

Laserlight

20th January 2007 - 02:37 AM

Hello TRoc, GE, C2, Aero, et al,

I want to change direction a little bit here, and approach the idea of the photon
from a different perspective. This may help "break the ice" in our theoretical
"impasse".

We have all seen and understand the concept of the development of the EM wave,
where we have an "electric field " sine component and a magnetic field cosine
component that vary periodically. Just what is the electric field of an EM wave?
What sustains it?

The electric field should be comprised of a voltage and a current component,
according to electrical theory. The concept of voltage implies a "delta" a difference of charge that can be measured, yet a photon has no net charge, but
the EM model says it must have a varying charge to form the field.

The only way that an EM field could self sustain a varying charge is if space itself
has some reciprocal electrical charge level that allows for cross coupling to occur
which would maintain the shape integrity of an EM field. This might be the extra
dimension(s) that Good Elf is so fond of, that earlier theorists considered
the "ether" or "medium" that light propagates thru. Regardless of what we call it
there must be some "conduction" mechanism or transport enabling phenomenon
that science has yet to detect.

We know that when an EM field crosses a conductor a current is induced into the
conductor as the electrical and magnetic fields couple from space, to matter, and
generate a current. The EM field displaces electrons, and current flows in the
conductor if there is a positive voltage gradient across the conductor to ground.
For energy to couple there must be some impedance matching between "space"
and matter to allow the coupling to occur.

I will leave current issues that I have raised on the table before raising others,
for the time being.

Comments, discussion, opinions welcomed.
LL

Neil Farbstein

20th January 2007 - 03:19 AM

Some very interesting things happen when you increase an electromagnetic field to pettiest levels. The coupling between the electric and magnetic fields becomes so intense that ions are accelerated to multi MeV energies, energetic enough to cause nuclear fusion.

The Lawrence Livermore Laboratory told me today they are canceling a nondisclosure agreement they signed with my company, Vulvox, last year.
Their excuse; nobody at the lab was interested in reading my report outlining our proposal. I told them that if there were a fire at your house how would you feel if they told you we cant put out the fire because nobody at the fire house wants to.

They are not doing their duty to inform the Secretary of energy about new developments that might mitigate the greenhouse crisis or increase national security. The laser fusion targets I invented can be used to detect atomic weapons smuggled into ports and airports and to provide us with energy without raising CO2 levels.

Blame them if a terrorist smuggles a nuclear bomb into your city or if a big storm closes your city!

Laserlight

20th January 2007 - 04:58 AM

Neil,

Sorry to hear about your disappointment with 3L. If you really want to get some
"notice" just inform some technical journal, via a press release, that you have developed a high technology
product/design and that you are seeking foreign investors or are willing license the development rights to foreign governments.

I guarantee that you will get all of the "exposure' and notoriety that you ever
dreamed of. Another technique is to apply for a license to sell high technology information to foreign governments. Either way will get a rapid response from
the US agencies (DOE) and from foreign "investors". Of course you will have to meet all
of the technology exchange rules and paperwork required.

Good Luck,
LL

TRoc

20th January 2007 - 08:49 AM

Hi all,

C2, and anyone else who had problems viewing the newer 'PDF' files (acrobat), here is a link to the free download (version 8).

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

I really do recommend reading these 5 papers, for a multi-perspective analogy of the many 'difficulties' in explaining just what a "photon" is.

Aerohead, about the 1420.4058 MHz Hydrogen line. This is a "spin" function, and not exactly what I was saying about actual 'transitions' between energy levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line

QUOTE

This transition is highly forbidden with an extremely small probability of 2.9×10−15 s−1. This means that the time for a single isolated atom of neutral hydrogen to undergo this transition is around 10 million (10e+7) years and so is unlikely to be seen in a laboratory on Earth.

Not likely that we can do a 'Science experiment' in that time frame.

The reason we 'receive' this frequency:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Not likely that we can do a 'Science experiment' in that time frame.

The reason we 'receive' this frequency:
However, as the total number of atoms of neutral hydrogen in the interstellar medium is very large, this emission line is easily observed by radio telescopes

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but this means the frequency (1420.4058 MHz "photon") that we receive is the SUM of a large #of "photons" all emitted at the same frequency, but at DIFFERENT times. So many different times, that the signal appears 'normal', and continuous. A great boon for astronomy, but not much help in defining a "photon".

Also, I forgot the "Humphrey" series transition @ 12368nm (2.42393e+13 Hz); still not quite a 'radio wave'.

regards,

T.Roc

Confused2

20th January 2007 - 11:55 AM

Hi Laserlight, TRoc Aerohead et al,

QUOTE (LL+)

Just what is the electric field of an EM wave? What sustains it?

Partly .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current (an illusion?) and partly pure 'faith' .. the EM equation works very nicely where it works. It has been suggested that the EM equation would be a perfect 'right answer' if Planck's Constant was zero. In our universe Planck's Constant isn't zero so the EM equation is 'wrong' but it still works very well for large numbers of photons. My impression is that our photonic friends would like to show that Planck's Constant IS zero .. which I don't think they will be able to do by 'conventional' means. Without Windows XP I can't read their efforts in the reference TRoc gave.. so maybe I'm wrong about them.

Re "Why doesn't the electron fall into the nucleus?" ..(you did ask about that?)
http://www.chem1.com/acad/webtut/atomic/WhyTheElectron.html

This is really for chemists but might be OK for opticians as well..(note the use of words like "can be thought of..")

QUOTE

The region of space where the electron is most likely to be found (the orbital) essentially "floats" at a location at which the potential energy and confinement energy exactly balance.

Hmm.. Planck's Constant came into that too.. call me a fool if you like .. but I suspect a pattern might be emerging.

We say E=hf where 'E' is the energy of the photon, 'h' is Planck's Constant and 'f' is the frequency, I suggest this might be another of those equations that is less helpful than it seems at first sight.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Neil Farbstein

20th January 2007 - 05:37 PM

Hey laserlight! I dont send proprietary secrets to people in other countries. There is no patent on it yet so it will be a long time before we sell it to "foreigners". There are other ways of getting the attention of the authorities. I'm planning a billion dollar suit against the DOE. I have a $100 million suit against NASA in the Federal Court of Appeals now,. NASA is giving Space Act user facility money to high school kids in Huntsville, but they wont fund my projects.

jal

20th January 2007 - 08:26 PM

Good Day All!
TRoc.... I did take your advise and downloaded the program.
You were right, those papers are well worth reading. They say much better what we have been trying to say.
I was planning to quote some interesting tid-bits and I found that I had too many to make any sense.
I can give my conclusions with a few quotes.
---------------
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/03-What...0Photon-OPN.pdf
Light reconsidered
Arthur Zajonc
Physics Department, Amherst College

QUOTE

....laser operation requires many photons to occupy a single
mode of the radiation field.

We need a model that can “zoom in”
----------------------
What is a photon?
Rodney Loudon
University of Essex, Colchester, UK

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

....laser operation requires many photons to occupy a single
mode of the radiation field.

We need a model that can “zoom in”
----------------------
What is a photon?
Rodney Loudon
University of Essex, Colchester, UK
However, in the real world of practical experiments, a
purely single-photon input is difficult to achieve. In addition
to the twin of the photon that opens the gate, n additional
‘rogue’ photons may enter the Brown–Twiss interferometer
during the period that the gate is open, as represented in Fig.
2. These rogue photons are emitted randomly by other atoms
in the cascade light source and their presence allows two or
more photons to pass through the beam splitter during the
detection period.
However, some of the concepts of single-mode theory need
modification. Thus, the single-mode photon creation operator
ˆ a† is replaced by the photon wavepacket creation operator
The examples outlined
here show how particle-like and wave-like aspects of the photon
may appear in suitable experiments, without any conflict
between the two.

-----------------------------
What is a photon?
David Finkelstein
School of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332

QUOTE

Under low resolution the transport of energy, momentum
and angular momentum by electromagnetic radiation often
passes for continuous but under sufficient resolution it breaks
down into discrete jumps, quanta.

We need a model that can “zoom in”

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

We need a model that can “zoom in”
The Standard Model, in particular,
gives the best account of the photon we have today,
combining expansions of quantum theory, special relativity,
and gauge theory, and it shows signs of impending expansions
as drastic as those of the past. Here we describe the
photon as we know it today and speculate about the photon of
tomorrow.
Some say that a photon is a bundle of energy. This statement
is not meaningful enough to be wrong.
When we speak of a reactor converting mass into energy,
we again speak elliptically and archaically. Strictly speaking,
we can no more heat our house by converting mass into energy
than by converting Centigrade into Fahrenheit. Since the
c expansion, mass is energy. They are the same conserved
stuff, mass-energy, in different units. Neither ox-carts nor nuclear
reactors convert mass into energy. Both convert rest
mass-energy into kinetic mass-energy.
Photons are the main probes in two of the three classic tests
of general relativity, which provided an example of a successful
gauge theory that ultimately inspired the gauge revolution
of the Standard Model. The next expansion that went into the
Standard Model is the h expansion.
The most economical way to stabilize the Heisenberg relations
is to close them on themselves as we have done here.
A more general stabilization might also couple each oscillator
to others. In the past the stabilizations that worked have
usually been economical but not always.
These transquantum relations describe a rotator, not an oscillator.
What we have thought were harmonic oscillators are
more likely to be quantum rotators. It has been recognized for
some time that oscillators can be approximated by rotators
and conversely.1, 2, 7 In particular, photons too are infinitely
more likely to be quanta of a kind of rotation than of oscillation.
If so, they can still have exact ladder operators, but their
ladders now have a top as well as a bottom, with 2l+1 rungs
for rotational transquantum number l.

We will probably never be able to visualize
a photon but we might soon be able to choreograph one; to
describe the process rather than the object.

Did anybody hear an echo of what I have been saying?( and what TRoc has been saying)
-----------------------------------
The concept of the photon—revisited
Ashok Muthukrishnan,1 Marlan O. Scully,1,2 and M. Suhail Zubairy1,3

QUOTE

Both wave and particle perspectives are present in the
quantum view – the former in the picture of a stochastic electromagnetic
field, and the latter in the language of particle
creation and annihilation. Combining these points of view,
one can think of the “photon” as a discrete excitation of a
set of modes {k} of the electromagnetic field in some cavity,
where the mode operators satisfy the boson commutation relation:
[ ˆ ak, ˆ a†k ]=1.
Questions such as how to define the cavity,
and what normal modes to use, cannot be answered once and
for all, but depend on the particular physical setup in the laboratory
(see quote by Willis Lamb at the beginning).
From semiclassical arguments, we saw how
this discreteness was related to finite energy spacings in the
atom. Here, we pursue this line of reasoning further to inquire
whether a fully quantized theory of matter-radiation interaction
can lend a characteristic of spatial discreteness to the
photon when it interacts with a finite-sized atom. This line of
thinking derives from the quantum theory of photodetection36
(which, incidentally, also relies on the photoelectric effect).
Closely related to the issue of photon localization is the
(much debated) question of the existence of a photon wave
function (r, t),2,7,8 analogous to that of an electron or neutrino
(cf. Figure 8).
Recall that the wave function of an electron in the coordinate
representation is given by (r, t) = _r|_, where |r_ is
the position state corresponding to the exact localization of
the electron at the point r in space. Now the question is, can
we write something like this for the photon? The answer is,
strictly speaking, “no,” because there is no |r_ state for the
photon, or more accurately, there is no particle creation operator
that creates a photon at an exact point in space. Loosely
speaking, even if there were, _r_|r_ _= (r−r_) on the scale
of a photon wavelength. Nevertheless, we can still define the
detection of a photon to a precision limited only by the size
of the atom (or detector) absorbing it, which can in principle
be much smaller than the wavelength. This gives precise,
operational meaning to the notion of “localizing” a photon in
space.

We need a model that can “zoom in”
----------------
A photon viewed from Wigner phase space
Holger Mack and Wolfgang P. Schleich

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

We need a model that can “zoom in”
----------------
A photon viewed from Wigner phase space
Holger Mack and Wolfgang P. Schleich
Find the mode functions appropriate for the problem at hand and
quantize every mode oscillator according to the canonical prescription
— that is the one-sentence summary of the quantum theory of
radiation. The excitations of these modes are the photons. The situation
when all mode oscillators are in their ground states defines the
vacuum of the electromagnetic field.
Today there exist many hints that the photon might again be ready
for suprises. For example, we do not have a generally accepted wave
function of the photon. Many candidates18 offer themselves: Should
we use the classical Maxwell field, the energy density, or the Glauber
coherence functions.4 The pros and cons of the various approaches
have been nicely argued in the paper by A. Muthukrishnan et al. in
this volume. But could it be that there is no such wave function at
all? Would this exception not point into a new direction?
Closely related to the problem of the proper photon wave function
is the question of the position operator of a photon.25 Might
there be a completely new aspect of the photon lurking behind these
questions?
D. Finkelstein’s article in this volume is even arguing that there is
still too much commutativity in quantum mechanics—restricting it
further might lead to an even richer land of quantum phenomena.
Make no mistake, we have learned a lot since Einstein’s famous
admission about his lack of deeper insight into the photon. Nevertheless,
we have only started to scratch the surface. Many more exciting
discoveries can be expected to appear in the next hundred years of a
photon’s life.

I can only conclude that it is our models that are inadequate. We need a model that can “zoom in”.
Include in your reading http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/DivisiblePhoton-Final.pdf and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#hv Bohmian Mechanics
jal

Confused2

21st January 2007 - 12:41 AM

Hi jal,

Many thanks for your last post

.

I found that link http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#hv to be a complete knockout ..

I may never know anything again

.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Good Elf

21st January 2007 - 04:09 AM

Hi Aerohead, Confused2, Laserlight, Jal, Montec, TRoc, Duality, yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,

I think I am seeing something in all the descriptions of light that is totally overlooked by most sources. The picture is "incomplete" as presented especially by those in the Quantum Mechanical Camp... Order from Chaos. TRoc's recent link to an article on
"Coherence" is quite useful...
Coherence
I was also taken with the link that Jal supplied and I promised to read in a little more detail by Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri. There has been a flurry in interpretation of how many photons can or should be absorbed simultaneously. Because we do not really agree just what a photon really is ... I mean really... statements can be made that drift right through our "defense perimeters" without setting off any alarms. I would like to "touch base" on a point that I have tried to stress at various times but it seems never really made my point (Yeah... I know... I am not too good at this).

After reading the "preamble" about Spatial and Temporal Coherence on this page ... very good I would say... it is drawn to say some things about incoherent sources. I would like to put it as a question "what is wrong with this picture" (actually two pictures).

QUOTE (Coherence+)

An incandescent light bulb is an example of very incoherent source.

We can produce coherent light from an incoherent source if we are willing to throw away a lot of the light. We do this by first spatially filtering the light from the incoherent source to increase the spatial coherence, and then spectrally filtering the light to increase the temporal coherence.

QUOTE (Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri+)

Let us briefly review the origin of the quantized photon concept. A little over a century years ago in 1903 Planck introduced the concept that light energy is emitted and absorbed by atoms and molecules with discrete quantized amount of energy hf and a unique carrier frequency f. His idea was to correctly map the measured energy distribution of frequency-continuous blackbody radiation. His proposal also easily accommodated the measured discrete frequency spectrum of many gas-discharge emissions, both terrestrial and cosmic, given by already known Rydberg formula. But Planck never accepted that the photons themselves, containing quantized energy at emission, were indivisible packets as they propagate out. Einstein proposed in 1905 that the photons might behave like indivisible packets of energy to explain the contemporary photoelectric emission experiments. However, he was strongly doubtful in the later part of his life whether he understood what a photon is [see, for example, the beginning of page S-2 of ref.1]. Because of such prevailing doubts, we took the effort to publish the reference-1 that brings together the views of five global experts in quantum optics. Recently Goulielmakis et. al. [2] has published a paper describing the successful direct measurement of the sinusoidal undulation of the electric field strength of a carefully generated laser pulse with Gaussian-like envelope containing barely five cycles of light. If this pulse consisted of indivisible photons, then the electric vectors of the photons in the pulse were marching in remarkable unison to each other mimicking Maxwell’s classical description of an EM pulse. Since laser pulses are manipulatable by various established techniques, one can conclude that the photons can have flexible temporal amplitude envelopes. Then we face the contradiction that a photon with a uniquely defined frequency f at the moment of emission can have different temporal envelopes as it propagates through different optical systems that manipulates the pulse shapes. This would conflict with the time-frequency Fourier theorem that customarily dictates what the spectrum of a time-finite signal should be. Lamb, whose work gave credence to the quantum electrodynamics, also has shown consistent critical views against associating a discrete photon with the emission of a discrete photo electron [3, 4]. Further, Panarella [5] has experimentally demonstrated that a minimum of four photon equivalent energy is required to detect discernable diffraction pattern at very low light levels. This clearly raises doubt regarding one-to-one correspondence for photoelectron emission. Comprehensive classical and quantum treatments of photo detection processes are given by Mandel and Wolf [6].
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/DivisiblePhoton-Final.pdf

I have also detected a reluctance to consider the "informational" side of photons as being linked with the "observer mysticism" of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Considering how "information" can be decoded from correlated sources via entanglement from individual qubits and that practical qubit communication systems exist... I really do not understand your collective reluctance.

Please read this single page from NIST (I am sure you all realize just how "erudite" their assessments of this issue are).
What is Quantum Information... NIST
No theory of light or photons is complete without this theory being accommodated. Note that while three "bits" can store only one number in digital systems... Qubits "store" all seven states. You can then "choose" which state to "parallel process". For just a few "bits" this would not be a valuable addition but for even a modest few hundred qubits stored in say quantum dots, very quickly "theoretically" this can outperform all the computers on the planet working on a problem simultaneously. This is not a joke since such systems are feasible and are in partial operation already. A very important sentence in that single NIST page is the very last sentence...
"Controlled entanglement is a unique quantum resource that offers, for example, a way of transmitting data or performing controlled interactions on distant quantum bits, as long as a classical communications channel is also available." Think about the "classical communications channel".

Recalling the two images above and the comments... the missing "bit" of information is how and why do individual photons seem to have an already existing standing wave in space in which these "photon particles" interact. You do not really need two photons (or even four as some sources suggest) in order to enable this "interference" to be self supporting. I think the "gymnastics" required in these novel papers is in excess of the "payoff" in return for the explanation. We must identify the underlying issues that are at stake here and recognize that while you can take an incoherent source such as an incandescent light source and spatially filter it then temporally filter it you just do not "conceptually" produce "coherent" light. You need more ... the photons need to "line up" spontaneously on the wavefronts. They can do this in only two ways that I can see...
1. They adjust their temporal phases in the evanescent zone where the speed of light can be greater than C.
2. They adjust their temporal phases in the Fraunhofer or Fresnel zones where the speed of light is a constant (or very close to a constant).
3. The photons "see" a dynamic pattern already there in space where the temporal and spatial phases already exist into which photons of a particular frequency are constrained to follow.

In the last case it is not that I actually "believe" that the Universe creates this special set of cavities for every possible photon and just waits for the photons to come along... no... the photon itself "excites" space globally to spontaneously break symmetry from its "degenerate" state and provide the cavities from otherwise "empty space". Where does this "template come from? It comes from a "surface" which is related to the light cone. Photons cannot travel faster than light (at least over large distances between "sparse" atoms) but what the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment shows is that in the frame of the photon and outside the evanescent region the photon has its own Rest Frame in which energy is referenced totally independently to any other frame of reference including the Laboratory Frame of reference. We always measure relative to this latter frame of reference but in reality a rest frame is the only way in which a measurement can be made. I state this as the "principle of the quantum" since the quanta must be measured in a non-inertial frame to enable a measurement to be extracted. Once this has been done the state has already been collapsed. For all other systems in which light itself is NOT being measured, we measure a measurable property in the frame of the inertial observer and then we use Einsteins Special Relativity Relationships to convert this to the measurable in the other inertial frame of reference. In the case of light this process will fail since the measurement in the rest frame of the photon does not exist... this means there is NO conversion for a measurement in any other frame regardless of what that frame is... that is aside from other co-moving photons.

The error is to "assume" that it is the wrong question and it is a "forbidden question". I maintain this is the ONLY question that really matters. It is not possible to reference the measurable properties of the photon from the Laboratory Frame without making a huge mistake. The photon is probably one of the few objects in the Universe that does not experience the passage of time. As an "object" no matter how long it travels in our time and no matter how far it travels... no process in the Universe can interfere with it. This is because all processes in our entire Universe that measure properties require time and this is the one thing light does not experience. So what we have are these "events" which evolve in time only during their creation stage and during their final particle interactions. In between there are no measurable energy processes capable of being experienced (we think there are waves there and I am willing to accept that idea being a concept that is observable and meaningful to humans). We "see" waves when we suitably arrange an experiment in which particle interactions "measure" properties of the photons in some other frame of reference (not the main frame ... its own inertial frame). So where has the photon gone? Can it be "physically" between the creation event and the interaction events. In a very real sense of the concept of "measurement"... the photon cannot be measured there at all. The photon can be "forced" there by "forcing" an interaction at that locality in space. To do that a Lab Frame determination can be made but the information the photon carries will be lost. The "determination" at intermediate positions cannot be made "anytime" and it cannot be made "anywhere" there is a relationship between the creation event and the interaction event that stipulates where it is possible to interact with a specific photon. Now call me "irresponsible" but you can make your measurement and simply not find a photon there in that intermediate position. When you fail to measure this photon what does it mean? Most people would say ... add more photons until you do find one there.. What I think is the answer to the question is I will have placed an absorber or scattering target into the free path and this will have altered the geometry of the space for that event that is to be absorbed. Will it be absorbed... yes but it is not the same event that would have occurred originally if that obstacle in that space had never existed. Why? Because if the photon was not absorbed in that intermediate point in space, for that one event the absorber was not there and this alters the geometry of the event critically since the presence of the absorber is the result of a particular geometry different from the geometry without that "obstacle". In fact this is a standing wave between a source and a sink where previously when there is no absorber no standing wave condition occurs.

Why is this?... because single photon events do not have any different outcomes than for many photon events. Proof of this is the Double Slit Experiment where the pattern on the screen is fixed for a fixed geometry. Interpose an obstacle between the slit and the screen and the outcomes are ALL modified. Event by event, the geometry of the system of the absorption process is fixed from the moment the event was initiated. Experiment also shows that an outcome (as far as information being transferred) can be "erased" by an event performed on a twin entangled photon even after the absorber event has occurred. Is time being reversed? Not really since for a photon the absorption events and the creation events occur in the same "internal" instant. The separation in time the Laboratory observes in its measurements is a total "fiction" as far as the photon is concerned. In this way especially for an entangled event the "future" is "fixed" and the flow of information in the system is not able to be altered by any changes we think we are making in the intervening period between the emission and the absorption of that photon since the source and the sink for this event must be there to capture the information.

So what makes these entangled photons "coherent"? We know they were created in the same event and from this argument they are both destroyed IN THE SAME EVENT. It appears to our frame of reference that these events are separate in time but in reality they are just "one" event and not "two". We can contrive to have these two "endpoints" to be separated by large distances in space but as far as the experiment (and the frame of the photons) is concerned the source emission of the entangled photons are always on a null time line in the photon frames between their final separate sinks despite the large spatial separating distances and the non-null time lines between the apparently separate ending sink events as measured in the laboratory.

Optically this must be an appropriate interference condition for the entomorphic twin photons already existing in the space. A null time line also implies (in the frame of the photons) an infinite length contraction factor which juxtaposes the events spatially from the photon frames. Two things on a "null time line" separated by a large distance works out as being a "non-local influence"[b]. [b]In actual fact they are not "causally" related, they are a single event happening in more than one place. Both photon "events" contain one and the same information qubit and it is not "shared" in any sense between the photons it is the one information qubit in both places. So if you read one of them this means the other has already been read. Spatially separating the two entangled photons does not create two events it simply delocalizes the "one" event into occurring in two "destinations" (as seen in the laboratory frame). The energy of the two photons is something else other than the information being carried. Two photons obviously carries twice the energy of one photon but we knew that when it was created. We took one photon and "split" it into two to create it as two lower frequency photons energy and now we see that the information is preserved and conserved. "Two photons" but only one "delocalized" state. Only one qubit is associated with that one state.

What about coherent light in general(not necessarily entangled)? This is the case of many photons, one state but many qubits. That is if the photons are all on the same wavefront. Successive wavefronts are internally coherent but only with photons on its own wavefront. Reading one qubit does not affect the other qubits because each photon carry individual qubits. Individual qubits mean the photons have individual destinies regarding the information they carry. As photons propagate into the far field the spread and potentially their pancake can cover both slits of the Double Slit Experiment. They can pass individually through one of the slits at a time but can one photon pass through both slits at the same time? Yes if they both have the same qubit of energy on the wavefront of light.

Lets say that one photon becomes "two photons" (actually the two separate parts of the wavefront, one part at each slit) but carries only one qubit of information. A single photon virtually passes through both slits simultaneously on the wavefront and provided the photon is not "measured" they will both reach the other side of the slit and reform still having that one qubit of information. How can this be since two photons would require twice the energy? Only in our "illegitimate" frame of reference and not in the frame of the photon. To the one traveling photon this is not a "sub-event" it is only a violation of the topology which has been temporally and dimensionally contracted to a zero (it is now a single point event happening in zero time). That paradox is occurring simply because we are viewing it from an invalid reference frame that cannot be observed. If we were to attempt to observe it we would discover the one and only qubit of information and the other photon cannot then exist. Do not read that qubit of information and this division of a photon into two parts is "easy" since the wave (any wave) can pass through both slits. A single particle cannot go through both slits and this is the paradox. Drop the paradox of the "particle" and everything works out fine.

That is the meaning of coherence... This is not in any source I have read. Coherence is "seeing" that standing wave pattern at the moment at which the photon is created and then the photon is simply forced to execute the causal relationship in time leading from source to sink as two ends of a standing wave system. This includes the situation above where a photon "wave" can go through both slits but the information can only be measured once. As Laserlight would like to see the point sources on the far side of the slit being secondary sources, each with their own qubits, being "regenerated" all the way through the space from source to sink. In reality it is like an unseen virtual photon "splitting" the wave and passing through both slits and instantly reforming. Why does it reform?... It must!... remember we "read" this one photon at the screen and provided we have not read it between source and destination, that qubit will ensure that only one qubit is recorded and for unentangled photons this means one photon.

So coherence is maintained by the spatial geometry and the source and destination phases. This is like an virtual flute existing in the intervening space when you blow air across it all the holes are part of the resonance. Between source and sink is "unseen territory" and the qubit is constrained to be read in a single particle interaction. Don't read this qubit and it can split into two photons and then pass through both slits because they are nothing but "curvy little waves" with only one qubit of information between them.

The next question is "Is the photon existing between the source and destination if a detecting sink is not available in the intervening position?" Well this question never arises since nothing can intervene in this process... it is atemporal by the argument above. All so called intervening sinks are actually foreknown and arranged to be an endpoint on a nodal standing wave system, already created in the space waiting for the "photons" to propagate through it. So what has happened here? The photon is created and it is absorbed in a "single " event and the information is conserved. There are no "intervening" events only "hypothetical" waves. These waves can be "sort of" shown to exist by sampling the photons in a large flux of them so in that sense they are "real"... these are the same character as "matter waves" of deBroglie. This argument works just as well for any other system including non-bosons by a consistent logical extension.

I believe I have solved this gedanken problem by linking the informational layer of the photon to the energy of the photon and shown that measurements of energy will always provide a consistent result since the outcomes are all foreknown. Individual photons are either one of these two "impulsive events"

Dipole "Turning on" or...

Dipole turning off...
The "time" between these two "ends" is irrelevant. A photon has no way to know another time between events and can only be considered in relationship to its own single "event". A single photon can be coherent since it "excites" the full standing wave pattern in space (all of space)... and the outcome is already known before the photon is "underway". In an individual case the photon even knows exactly where it will be "sinked", we can never know this since to be able to do that we would need a measurement. Nothing proceeding in our time will be able to change the outcome. This is all by virtue of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment, the outcome is "fixed". What is relevant is the intervening geometry and for coherent waves we have seen to construct a coherent continuous wave systems from "atomic" process that will be identical to this...

This "construction" does not truly "join the separate events up in any real way this is just a Fourier Synthesis of individual "wavelets" which are "atomically" only individual sync pulses arranging for minimum energy distribution. What is important is the frame of the photon in which time plays no role and the way our Lab Frame Measurements are unable to reconcile with the energy processes and with information processes of the qubit associated with the photon.

Please look back on what I have already stated about the nature of the photon in these two previous posts and to view animations created by MIT to show the evolution of these photon spreading fields.
Good Elf on the nature of Photons
This is also an the explanation from the Aharanoiv-Bohm Effect and it has also been an uncomfortable experimental fact where some unmeasured topological defect in the Universe can penetrate through time and space everywhere to reach beyond any Quantum Particle Process. No joke... it is a fact. It can all be tied back to the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory as I have discussed previously.

What has this to say about Lorentz-CPT? It says an event such as the creation of a particle using photons must have a geometry in which this standing wave pattern already exists to "fill", just like the standing waves in other emission absorption events only inside of a tightly closed geometry. If this pattern occurs inside/within a geometry that is "dimensionally closed", and there formed an internal closed world line, there is no immediate way, in the evolution of time, for a particle created in such a way to "collapse", it is a soliton that is "quantum stable". The standing wave has frozen that photon event forever within an event horizon which cannot dissipate. Time internally in that space becomes a periodic function and is now a frequency in that geometry (a "real" Complex Hilbert Reciprocal Space) ... repeating endlessly as a single trapped event. It leads to all the very useful results of Fourier Analysis and two separate reciprocal domains of frequency and time that we have discussed "ad nausium" as wave and particle natures. From all this we have "Optics" and this results in "Holography" and so on and on...

Quantum Mechanics is a particle version of this but cannot use the non-locality that waves inherently possess and so is limited in the end to an "inner produce space".

All input welcome and other ideas should address any shortcoming in this theory.

Cheers

Good Elf

21st January 2007 - 07:33 AM

Hii All,

As a postscript to my previous post, please have a look at storage of an entire image on a single photon.
Ultra-Dense Optical Storage -- on One Photon
Picture included. It is pretty clear that the information is stored "Holographically".The Cesium Vapor Cell is on a Fourier Plane. It is interesting to note that the single photon stays intact through the entire storage process and still retains (possibly) the qubit of information. If photons are not "particles" in an abstract sense of the word they certainly are carrying a heap of potential for data storage in their own right. Look back into the past and see that this was predicted in advance by This Group. This University was "famous" recently for backward light pulses produced by Boyd. Now do you see why it is so important to preserve that qubit of information?

Remember I have been telling you all that a single photon can potentially encode all of mankind's knowledge using Orbital Angular Momentum... It is just that we have not harnessed it yet. I think this example of information storage looks a fairly significant amount of data to put into a single photon and still keep its qubit... More than just a on or off switch that most have been talking about. In fact this density of information appears highly "classical" don't you think? Where did it say in quantum theory that you can store your "holiday snaps " in a single photon??? He he he !
http://www.optics.rochester.edu:8080/users.../tutorial6.html
I think this goes better than their wildest hopes... and it is still early days. Think on all of this... it is worth the effort. This is the double slit experiment on steroids.

Cheers

Laserlight

21st January 2007 - 08:02 AM

GE,

That was a long post, I will read it again tomorrow to try to tie it all together.
Some of it made sense, some of it was vague or unclear about what you were
trying to say. It is difficult to read between the lines to try to interpret the exact
meaning that you intended.

One thing that I think you need to consider, or incorporate into your "theory",
is the reason that different photons (EM waves) don't interact with each other.

The reason is because each discrete EM pulse of a photon is a unique
"time relative" event. In other words, the exact instant that an EM wave (pulse)
was generated is only relative, in time, to that explicit event. Since no other
atomic photon event is exactly time coincident to that unique event, that slice
of time, and because each event has its own unique "time stamp" (qubit), they
cannot interfere because each event exists with a different and unique inertial time reference. Time is relative only to the unique event that spawned it.

If this interpretation is correct, an EM wave (photon) can only interfere with itself if
it folds back onto itself as a result of a standing wave reflection, or if it is spacially
"divided" by an equilateral geometry that allows the "equal" conformal wave fronts
to reassemble. In that respect a photon is "coherent" with itself and nothing else because of its unique relative timing information that it alone contains. The timing
qubit can be delayed or constructively/destructively interfere with itself.

Other opinions, discussion welcomed.
LL

Laserlight

21st January 2007 - 08:19 AM

GE,
Regarding the "UR" experiment. It seems to prove the idea that a photon wavefront can be divided! It appears that a photon is a wavefront EM pulse that is conformal and will seek all path(s) of least resistance.

QUOTE

As a wave, it passed through all parts of the stencil at once, carrying the "shadow" of the UR with it. The pulse of light then entered a four-inch cell of cesium gas at a warm 100 degrees Celsius, where it was slowed and compressed, allowing many pulses to fit inside the small tube at the same time.

IMO, the cesium gas acted as secondary emission amplification sources for
each discrete part of the photon pulse which were then focused thru a lens
to coherently recombine them into a single output.

I think we are now getting somewhere in our discussion.

Thoughts?
LL

Laserlight

21st January 2007 - 08:45 AM

GE,

Re: Time.... everyone assumes that it is only a serial sequential set of events.
Apparently, it is also a parallel phenomenon that can be divided along the entire
expanding EM pulse wavefront.

Since it seems that a wavefront can become conformal to geometries in its way,
as it propagates and expands, that infers that every point along that expanding
wavefront has a "parallel" time coincident relationship.

Thoughts, comments?
LL

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.