Laserlight
22nd January 2007 - 05:03 AM
GE,
GE:
QUOTE
If the qubit is "lost" then thats "unfortunate" and you can go split the jolly thing up as much as you like since you have allowed it to suffer a particle interaction. What I can say is that photon will not form part of an interference pattern anymore but only part of a Gaussian distribution. Capisci?
With all due respect:
There is no particle interaction until the wavefunction collapses and all of the
potential energy of the photon becomes kinetic energy at the detecting atom
due to displacement of an electron at the point of energy focus/collapse.
I think that the idea to keep in mind is that the photon will collapse at the
vector junction of the E and M planes. This is the center point of symmetry, the
centerline of propagation. If the EM fields collapse, they must do so at the null
energy point, since they depend upon each other to provide energy symmetry. If
either field collapses, they both collapse together at the energy centerpoint of
the wavefunction, which is the null point. IMO.
As for Gaussian distribution, isn't that exactly what the bright bands are depicting,
within the overall distribution of the single slit interference bandwidth? All of the
photons fall under the general single diffraction Gaussian distribution, and the
interference induced by the DSE slits are sub order gaussian distributions
according to their phase angle relationships. They align according to their
additive angular displacements equally on either side of the center of the
fundamental Gaussian curve .
To me it seems pretty obvious, but I am open to another interpretation if it
makes sense.
Do you have another explanation for the ordered distribution pattern that explains
the result of the DSE?
GE:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If the qubit is "lost" then thats "unfortunate" and you can go split the jolly thing up as much as you like since you have allowed it to suffer a particle interaction. What I can say is that photon will not form part of an interference pattern anymore but only part of a Gaussian distribution. Capisci? |
With all due respect:
There is no particle interaction until the wavefunction collapses and all of the
potential energy of the photon becomes kinetic energy at the detecting atom
due to displacement of an electron at the point of energy focus/collapse.
I think that the idea to keep in mind is that the photon will collapse at the
vector junction of the E and M planes. This is the center point of symmetry, the
centerline of propagation. If the EM fields collapse, they must do so at the null
energy point, since they depend upon each other to provide energy symmetry. If
either field collapses, they both collapse together at the energy centerpoint of
the wavefunction, which is the null point. IMO.
As for Gaussian distribution, isn't that exactly what the bright bands are depicting,
within the overall distribution of the single slit interference bandwidth? All of the
photons fall under the general single diffraction Gaussian distribution, and the
interference induced by the DSE slits are sub order gaussian distributions
according to their phase angle relationships. They align according to their
additive angular displacements equally on either side of the center of the
fundamental Gaussian curve .
To me it seems pretty obvious, but I am open to another interpretation if it
makes sense.
Do you have another explanation for the ordered distribution pattern that explains
the result of the DSE?
GE:
They can start out with different phases but they will attempt to get into step with co-moving same frequency photons. This is an attempt to create a boson state from chaos on that one wavefront. This is just a path of least action and least energy. Remember this photon excitation exists for each photon but a common state can evolve in a period small with the time the co-moving photon takes to be emitted. They will do this by line broadening and as the "mode" propagates the broadening will minimize as coherency develops from simple monochromaticity. The line width is a collective property not an individual property.
I'm not so sure that I necessarily agree with your assessement. The reason that
a photon wave propagates as a conical wavefront is because the phase timing is
different along each degree of arc radiating from the centerpoint. The centerline
of the conical lobe wavefront is the first order fundamental, the peak energy focal
point of the advancing wave. It should represent the center of the photon
wavefront energy radiated from the dipole. If you have multiple dipoles arranged
in a physical matrix that are radiating under less than extreme conditions (normal
radiating conditions) the energy will radiate in a lobe shape according to the
symmetry of the physical arrangement, but will always have a high center pulse
shape, unless there is non-linear distortion of the radiating signal.
IMO, photons will maintain their phase angle relationship but will spread until they
appear as a flat wavefront, but there will always be a centerline of symmetry, until
matter gets in the way to distort the advancing signal. This is necessary to sustain
an energy pulse. As you know and have illustrated, with the sync pulse drawing
that C2 despises, (that's a joke C2) there will be leading wavelets that are out
in front, followed by the main energy pulse, and followed by trailing wavelets.
The wavelets represent the phase angle differences of the pulse, IMO.
Other opinions, discussion welcomed.
LL
Good Elf
22nd January 2007 - 06:24 AM
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE
I think that the idea to keep in mind is that the photon will collapse at the
vector junction of the E and M planes. This is the center point of symmetry, the
centerline of propagation.
Quaint idea but I don't think so. This point is disputable since the "crossing of the E and M planes" is almost everywhere. There really is no such planes since the E and M "field lines" are closed loops in three dimensions as shown in many illustrations (including some of those I have shown). The magnetic field lines "thread" those electric field loops and complete their own loops. The relation is a right hand grip rule with fingers curling not straight (I being in the direction of E).
Right Hand Grip Rule
This shows the relationship of the electric and magnetic fields in DC situations and you can swap these for the opposite situation. In reality the electric and magnetic fields are similar to interlinked hoops as it were. The electric field in concentric toroidal loops whose directions reverse on opposite sides of the loop with the magnetic field running annually through the "packets".
Here is a vertical cross-section through only the electric field lines in the vertical plane when the dipole is in the vertical plane. Seen from "above" these are concentric expanding torii.
This does not actually show the direction of the electric field lines with little arrows but suffice to say they run in one direction around in those loops so the electric field along one chosen radial axis the electric field will execute sinusoids. Remember this is how it looks off the axis which is of course only purely imaginary anyway. The instantaneous directions of the field are tangents to the loops at all points in space and the same with the magnetic field lines too. The crusty old "flying E&B butterflies" do not show the instantaneous directions anywhere but on a rather arbitrary symmetric horizontal axis. Here is the direction of the magnetic fields but it only shows two lines associated with the electric field loops... the dotted one for a negative field line and the solid one for a positive field line (only the direction is changed in that case). They form complete loops as well but linking the electric field loops and at right angles.
Short Dipole Radiation Pattern... see fig 2 (blue line is "one" magnetic field line) the strongest oneIt is a different characteristic that distinguishes the individual photons from each other and where they eventually end up... it is related to source information and is related to "spin orientation" but it would be impossible to measure this successfully (I think... Berry Phase when passing through the standing wave patterns).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I think that the idea to keep in mind is that the photon will collapse at the
vector junction of the E and M planes. This is the center point of symmetry, the
centerline of propagation. |
Quaint idea but I don't think so. This point is disputable since the "crossing of the E and M planes" is almost everywhere. There really is no such planes since the E and M "field lines" are closed loops in three dimensions as shown in many illustrations (including some of those I have shown). The magnetic field lines "thread" those electric field loops and complete their own loops. The relation is a right hand grip rule with fingers curling not straight (I being in the direction of E).
Right Hand Grip RuleThis shows the relationship of the electric and magnetic fields in DC situations and you can swap these for the opposite situation. In reality the electric and magnetic fields are similar to interlinked hoops as it were. The electric field in concentric toroidal loops whose directions reverse on opposite sides of the loop with the magnetic field running annually through the "packets".
Here is a vertical cross-section through only the electric field lines in the vertical plane when the dipole is in the vertical plane. Seen from "above" these are concentric expanding torii.
This does not actually show the direction of the electric field lines with little arrows but suffice to say they run in one direction around in those loops so the electric field along one chosen radial axis the electric field will execute sinusoids. Remember this is how it looks off the axis which is of course only purely imaginary anyway. The instantaneous directions of the field are tangents to the loops at all points in space and the same with the magnetic field lines too. The crusty old "flying E&B butterflies" do not show the instantaneous directions anywhere but on a rather arbitrary symmetric horizontal axis. Here is the direction of the magnetic fields but it only shows two lines associated with the electric field loops... the dotted one for a negative field line and the solid one for a positive field line (only the direction is changed in that case). They form complete loops as well but linking the electric field loops and at right angles.
Short Dipole Radiation Pattern... see fig 2 (blue line is "one" magnetic field line) the strongest oneIt is a different characteristic that distinguishes the individual photons from each other and where they eventually end up... it is related to source information and is related to "spin orientation" but it would be impossible to measure this successfully (I think... Berry Phase when passing through the standing wave patterns).
As for Gaussian distribution, isn't that exactly what the bright bands are depicting, within the overall distribution of the single slit interference bandwidth? All of the photons fall under the general single diffraction Gaussian distribution, and the
interference induced by the DSE slits are sub order Gaussian distributions according to their phase angle relationships.
No... it is usually mostly Gaussian for those photons that have had their qubit "randomized", this is because this distribution of random qubits no longer represent even partially coherent light so it is now a Gaussian Distribution (statistically valued). In the case of Fraunhofer Diffraction (and Fresnel Diffraction) the sources are at least partially spatially coherent so there will be a spatial phase relationship which when converted through an inner product of EXH gives Airy Disks. At first sight they look similar but they are not. I know that the texts often screw this up but it is not my fault. In fact the Airy disks are an inner product version of the sync function with coherent sources and a Gaussian Function with fully incoherent sources (over short distances) yet still largely monochromatic. As this function "evolves" and mixes with other standing wave patterns it slowly develops partial spatial and temporal coherence with co-moving photons of the same wavelength..
Comments and input welcome...
Cheers
Good Elf
22nd January 2007 - 09:05 AM
Hi
TRoc, Confused2, Laserlight and Neil Farbstein et al,
QUOTE
TRoc,
Re: the "floating" electrons above the copper plate. IMO, there must be a
repelling "space charge" with sufficient negative charge level on the copper
surface to totally eject electrons, otherwise they are still attracted to the ground
state of the metal. This is a fundamental known effect in tube theory where
the voltage of the filament generates excess current flow and develops a repelling
space charge on the cathode filament. The electrons ejected from the cathode
are attracted by a postively charged anode at some distance from the filament
(simple diode). If the amount of ejected electrons exceed the capacity of the
anode to absorb excess electrons, a negative repelling "space charge" can develop
on the surface of the anode and current flow becomes self limiting on the anode.
Just a different perspective...
Regards,
LL
TRoc do you think that since these "stationary states exist around atoms they may capture photons and capture electrons... the stationary states ... nodes and anti-nodes which reside between atoms in the vacuum provide rudimentary stationary states where an electron can park itself. This would not be the result of "charge" but simply a primitive low energy resonant cavity. Too much energy they simply pop out? At present I have photons finding these pattern of spacial cavities simply an undulating ride but electrons may see them as little "golf holes" in space.
Cheers
Confused2
22nd January 2007 - 12:56 PM
Another WHAT NOW? ( DSE orientated )..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotonQUOTE (wiki+)
In modern physics , the photon is the elementary particle responsible for electromagnetic phenomena. It mediates electromagnetic interactions and makes up all forms of light.
Using one hand to describe the EM wave and the other to describe a photon .. when both hands are waving in the same way then we have a possible description of both.
In fairness we may well only need a subset of the actual properties of a photon .. to have anything
definite would at least be a start.
The DSE should help
Looking at
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml .. after the laser/lightbulb there is a monochromatic filter (not shown). Next there is a single slit.
What is the function of the first slit? We've had fun looking at diffraction patterns .. is there more to this first slit?
Suggestions..
If we used a laser source .. we don't want to (later) end up with a result that is effectively a picture of the internal workings of a laser.
The first slit is destroying information.
The information is destroyed by the magic of Huygens-Fresnel (HF) ( see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens'_principle )
If there is information to be destroyed then what was it?
The most obvious information the photon carries MIGHT be momentum .. this would tell us which direction the photon came from and we don't want that to mess up what happens later.
In reality I think we guess the photon contains more information than that .. if we ever get past this point then we're going to use two slits to introduce a very precisely controlled amount of 'information' and from that we might gain greater insight into what information might really be destroyed by this first slit.
We are also using the magic of Huygens-Fresnel to ensure that each slit has an equal probability of seeing the photon .. we need to be sure that each slit is 'seeing' the same photon issued from the same point at the same time.
By reducing the intensity of the source we are reasonably confident that there is only one photon to be seen. The only reason for using single photons is because we want to count our photons individually rather than use a lightmeter .. if we are right that EM is made of photons then both should give the precisely the same distribution regardless of whether we use one or a billion photons per second.
Any comments/objections/additions/subtractions?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Edit .. by starting from this slit we should be able to remove all approximations about the path-length from our predictions. It is important that everybody is happy that the DSE starts at this slit .. we can make this first slit as narrow as we wish to give a result to any required degree of accuracy.
Good Elf
22nd January 2007 - 01:37 PM
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
What is the function of the first slit? [...] The first slit is destroying information.
The first slit is to reduce the number of spatial modes (eg. suppress sidelobes in Radio Terminology) and leave only the primary mode of propagation. It is usually called a "spatial filter".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_filterCheers
PS: The use of "slits" as opposed to "pinholes" is simply to improve the amount of light passed and to make measurements easier.
Confused2
22nd January 2007 - 01:53 PM
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
The first slit is to reduce the number of spatial modes (eg. suppress sidelobes in Radio Terminology) and leave only the primary mode of propagation. It is usually called a "spatial filter".
Are you happy that it gives every photon a 'clean slate' for the purposes of the DSE?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Good Elf
22nd January 2007 - 02:31 PM
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Are you happy that it gives every photon a 'clean slate' for the purposes of the DSE?
I am unsure what you are getting at here. The DSE does not give us much to deal with. It is what it is! A simple clean pinhole or slit is usually not entirely sufficient for the best optical effect. It is a trade off (see the Wikipedia reference in my last post). You need to have slits (or pinholes) close together and thin or small for DSE... this limits the use of of "lenses" with diaphragms (spatial filters) which if corrected properly actually provide a better optical condition.
The better way to image any optical system is not to use a lens at all or even a pinhole and use some super-resolution method (of which there are nowadays quite a few). It really comes down to what the problem is that you need to solve and then find the optimum way to do it.
Cheers
Laserlight
22nd January 2007 - 08:06 PM
TRoc, GE, C2, and All
You might find this interesting:
SPACE CHARGE AND PHOTONS
By Bo Lehnert and Sisir Roy, Reviewed by Hal Fox
QUOTE
SPACE CHARGE AND PHOTONS
A Book Review, by Hal Fox
Extended Electromagnetic Theory, Space-Charge in vacuo and the Rest Mass of the Photon, Bo Lehnert and Sisir Roy, World Scientific Series in Contemporary Chemical Physics - Vol 16, Publ. by World Scientific, River Edge, NJ 07661, c1998, 160 pages, illus., 100 refs, indexed, ISBN 981-02-3395-7.
In this timely monograph, the authors develop important equations using modified forms of Maxwell's equations. Some of the conditions developed are for a nonzero divergence of the electric field and for nonzero mass of the photon coupled with the concept of a nonzero electrical conductivity of the vacuum. The end result is some important new concepts that can be tested in the laboratory. The conditions by which the photon had previously been shown to have zero mass are carefully presented and shown not to a binding constraint. With the photon shown to have a nonzero mass, it is shown that such photons can interact with a nonzero conductivity of space with the result that photons can lose energy. The energy lost is shown to be reasonably close to the measured low-frequency microwave radiation which appears to penetrate all space. The end result is consistent with observed experimental evidence; can be shrunk to approach the concept of a point charge; fits much of the data of the neutrino; appears consistent with an earlier proposed string model of hadron structures and leads to further development.
In addition, new types of electromagnetic wave phenomena can be described. This leads to a better method to handle both wave and particle behavior and can explain total reflection of light. Both longitudinal and transverse waves are handled. The new approach developed may lead to a deeper insight to the transition of a beam of photons to macroscopic light waves.
Of most interest to this reviewer is the development of the concept of "tired" light: light which loses some of its energy without distortion so that the visual field (such as photos of distant stars) is essentially unaffected. It is shown that the photons can have mass; that the interaction of such a nonzero mass of photons with space-charge in the vacuum of space can result in lower photon energy (a red shift). Further, it is shown that the lost energy appears to closely match the observed microwave energy in space. Thus the two bastions of evidence for the Big Bang (red shift, and microwave radiation) are analytically explained. This analytical development is sufficient reason for any thoughtful scientist to ensure that this book is purchased and read. The list price of $32 should not be a barrier for such an important contribution to the advancement of our understanding of new aspects of electromagnetic radiation.
http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_6_10_13.htmlSpace charge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_chargeLL
Good Elf
22nd January 2007 - 11:52 PM
Hi Laserlight,
I am not that keen on the tired light concept. That cropped up some decades ago and I thought was tested and found to be a "no goer". The idea of space charge is always around and was the theory of preference back in the valve era. Obviously this does have merit since the charge can indeed be measured. The question is what more should be said of it??? There must be somethings there that have not been looked into for a very long time. For instance the walls of the valve itself would have formed a cavity and yet I have not heard of anyone speaking of the possibility of "stationary states " within that kind of cavity. Clearly valves are often used (even today) as resonators up to the microwave region. Things often slip bye. Hmmm... thanks for that Laserlight... I will give it some thought.
Cheers
Confused2
23rd January 2007 - 01:08 AM
Valves .. ah .. those were the days..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klystron#Two-...tron_oscillatorIf you look at the drawings you'll see 'cavities' .. REAL cavities .. this might explain part of my puzzlement when I was recently introduced to invisible cavities .
Many years ago I was sent to repair one of those Klystron type beasts
.. in those days electronics had doors and you could walk about inside it
. The downside of wandering about inside a microwave cooker
is that the last thing you want is for the damn thing to start working. As a point of interest that might save the life/career of someone else .( if these beasts
still exist ) .. the heater must have drawn 'undreds of Amps and the contacts at the base of the beast had somehow extracted a non-conductive gunk from the 5th dimension. A good scrape with a Swiss Army knife and all was well . Praise and honours? Nah.. I'd already got to the point of ordering a replacement before I spotted the problem .. the 'C2 curse' .. shame, disgrace
.. as then so now.. nothing changes.
-C2.
Good Elf
23rd January 2007 - 01:36 AM
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, Jal, Fivedoughnut, Yquantum et al,
He he he... Interesting story.
Getting back to business I have discovered a new way of looking at the Young's DSE. I have not fully read this yet and I am one to view "plasmons" as strictly "resonant" pseudo-particles not essential to QM. Nevertheless this treatment indicates a way to approach the problem from the slit end and not the screen end (who knows this may be right... as far as it goes)...
QUOTE
Plasmon-Assisted Two-Slit Transmission: Young’s Experiment Revisited
H. F. Schouten,1 N. Kuzmin,2 G. Dubois,2 T. D. Visser,1 G. Gbur,3 P. F. A. Alkemade,4 H. Blok,5 G.W. ’t Hooft,2,6
D. Lenstra,1,7 and E. R. Eliel2,*
1 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Free University, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2 Huygens Laboratory, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9504, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
3 Department of Physics & Optical Science, UNC Charlotte, 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 29223, USA
4 Kavli Institute of Nanoscience, Applied Physics, Delft University of Technology, Lorentzweg 1, 2628 CJ, Delft, The Netherlands
5 Department of Electrical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 4, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlands
6 Philips Research Laboratories, Prof. Holstlaan 4, 5656 AA Eindhoven, The Netherlands
7 COBRA Research Institute, Eindhoven Univerity of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
(Received 24 September 2004; published 7 February 2005)
We present an experimental and theoretical study of the optical transmission of a thin metal screen perforated by two subwavelength slits, separated by many optical wavelengths. The total intensity of the far-field double-slit pattern is shown to be reduced or enhanced as a function of the wavelength of the incident light beam. This modulation is attributed to an interference phenomenon at each of the slits, instead of at the detector. The interference arises as a consequence of the excitation of surface plasmons propagating from one slit to the other.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/plasmons.pdf Taco has an Open University Web page where he has placed many very useful links to "free" information.
Taco Visser's Web PageThis is not to mean that just because it is "free" it is "worthless"... this seems to be the assumption taken by many scientists today... especially those that are inspired only by money (nobody here included... you guys and gals are all inspired by only the "holiest" of ideals eh?). I think there is a quote I can drop here that shows what I mean ...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Plasmon-Assisted Two-Slit Transmission: Young’s Experiment Revisited
H. F. Schouten,1 N. Kuzmin,2 G. Dubois,2 T. D. Visser,1 G. Gbur,3 P. F. A. Alkemade,4 H. Blok,5 G.W. ’t Hooft,2,6
D. Lenstra,1,7 and E. R. Eliel2,*
1 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Free University, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2 Huygens Laboratory, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9504, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
3 Department of Physics & Optical Science, UNC Charlotte, 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 29223, USA
4 Kavli Institute of Nanoscience, Applied Physics, Delft University of Technology, Lorentzweg 1, 2628 CJ, Delft, The Netherlands
5 Department of Electrical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 4, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlands
6 Philips Research Laboratories, Prof. Holstlaan 4, 5656 AA Eindhoven, The Netherlands
7 COBRA Research Institute, Eindhoven Univerity of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
(Received 24 September 2004; published 7 February 2005)
We present an experimental and theoretical study of the optical transmission of a thin metal screen perforated by two subwavelength slits, separated by many optical wavelengths. The total intensity of the far-field double-slit pattern is shown to be reduced or enhanced as a function of the wavelength of the incident light beam. This modulation is attributed to an interference phenomenon at each of the slits, instead of at the detector. The interference arises as a consequence of the excitation of surface plasmons propagating from one slit to the other.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/plasmons.pdf |
Taco has an Open University Web page where he has placed many very useful links to "free" information.
Taco Visser's Web PageThis is not to mean that just because it is "free" it is "worthless"... this seems to be the assumption taken by many scientists today... especially those that are inspired only by money (nobody here included... you guys and gals are all inspired by only the "holiest" of ideals eh?). I think there is a quote I can drop here that shows what I mean ...
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats: Howard AikenWikipedia: Plasmon"surface plasmons have the unique capacity to confine light to very small dimensions which could enable many new applications."
Cheers
Addendum: This could help as well ... Visser believes in topological charge too...
QUOTE
Creation and annihilation of phase singularities near a sub-wavelength slit
Hugo F. Schouten1, Taco D. Visser1∗, Greg Gbur1,
Daan Lenstra1, and Hans Blok2
1 Department of Physics and Astronomy
Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2 Department of Electrical Engineering
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
∗tvisser@nat.vu.nl
Abstract: The anomalously-high transmission of light through subwavelength apertures is a phenomenon which has been observed in numerous experiments, but whose theoretical explanation is incomplete.
In this article we present a numerical analysis of the power flow (characterized by the Poynting vector)of the electromagnetic field near a sub-wavelength sized slit in a thin metal plate, and demonstrate that the enhanced transmission is accompanied by the annihilation of phase singularities in the power flow near the slit.
2003 Optical Society of America
OCIS codes: (260.2910) Electromagnetic theory, (050.1220) Apertures, (050.1960)
Diffraction theory, (999.9999) Singular Optics
http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?URI=OPEX-11-4-371
Laserlight
23rd January 2007 - 01:37 AM
Hi C2,
I've found that one never gets the praise due. Someone else always wants to
take credit for hard work, initiative, originality, long hours, etc. Those with
prof's or egocentric self serving bosses know what I mean.
It's just a fact of life.....
Best Regards,
LL
Good Elf
23rd January 2007 - 01:46 AM
Hi Confused2, Laserlight et al,
While we are discussing these "little disappointments" in life it goes almost without saying... No good deed goes unpunished. I know!
Cheers
PS: Refresh your browser on my recent previous post
Neil Farbstein
23rd January 2007 - 02:00 AM
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jan 23 2007, 01:46 AM)
Hi Confused2, Laserlight et al,
While we are discussing these "little disappointments" in life it goes almost without saying... No good deed goes unpunished. I know!
Cheers
How do you know. I guess you've been disappointed a lot yourself good elf.
Like buying a good looking car and watching it fall apart. Or crashing it into a bridge the day after it was bought.
Corollary; If you do a good deed you will be taken for granted.
Who's disappointed? What's everybody talking about?
I wrote a patent application recently.
If you are writing a patent, my friends told me to leave out a detail or two.
That way they'll have to pay me consulting fees to figure out why its not working perfectly.
Good Elf
23rd January 2007 - 02:10 AM
Hi Neil,
Previous comment removed...
Still ... has anyone given my other post some serious consideration?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=169312Cheers
Neil Farbstein
23rd January 2007 - 02:22 AM
[QUOTE=Good Elf,Jan 23 2007, 02:10 AM] Hi Neil,
"... taken for granted" is that an euphemism for "totally sequestered from sane society"... he he he! If it is not "punishment" it usually "hurts like punishment"... eh? He he he!
You have received a lot of "stick" and few "carrots" lately Neil.
Still ... has anyone given my other post some serious consideration?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=169312I'm not sure i know what you are talking about. Have you been totally sequestered from sane society lately? I have had some very good luck lately. I told you the contract I won was the biggest break of my life.
I have not received the stick you
thought I have. What are you talking about? I counted you among my friends.
I would not you expect you to be gloating about my misfortunes. Incidentally,
I was talking about somebody else's misfortunes today. I was not talking about you when I mentioned sky high car repair bills. I feel you owe me an apology good elf. It seems you may have tarred my reputation a bit Elf.
Good Elf
23rd January 2007 - 02:37 AM
Hi Neil,
Statement deleted...
It is I that "have been totally sequestered from society" for "doing good deeds" and in keeping with the sentiment "no good deed goes unpunished"... if you have never suffered that process then I humbly apologize for any incorrect inference that you have interpreted from that statement and I will remove it instantly...
I will remove the statement immediately... and I have done it. I thought we were friends here...
To clarify... In the past I have used my knowledge in certain circumstances to save others reputations but in the process it certainty angered those higher up in authority that I just did not go "along for the ride" and accept the "due process" handed out to the luckless victim. I was the technical expert in the Laboratory and I disagreed with the summary processes handed out by non-technical and legal people. I then demonstrated to all that it was not the fault of the Officer concerned but that the Instrument, worth nearly 1/2 Million dollars, had a design fault. This was confirmed by independent investigation by an authority in the field. The company finally paid out on the Warranty and the mans reputation was exonerated... and as far as that went it was the end of the story. Can we put a "price" on that? In reality it was not the end of the story and the mans reputation was so badly damaged he had to leave and obtain a position somewhere else and I was "sequestered away in a sub-basement room" without a "permanent" position (my position declared "redundant"), for several years. True story ... and I would have some others as well. Things have improved "marginally" but I would not do things in any other way. This is not something I would normally tell but this is a special case and every word is true.
Now we both understand what prompted my comments. You can gloat over me instead. I value our friendship and I see ... so do you.
Laserlight
23rd January 2007 - 03:04 AM
Hi GE,
RE: your recent posts on plasmons and surface fields. I would like to continue
along this vein since I have been a proponent of these phenomena as the most
likely candidates for explaining diffraction and localized phase interference at
the slits.
I appreciate the fact that you have posted the papers and are willing to
re-examine the possibilities presented.
There are many interesting papers in the link you referenced that seem to
support various theoretical elements applicable to the DSE.
You know my theories already, and I am looking forward to your interpretation
of the information provide in the papers, as it applies to the DSE.
Perhaps we can collaborate to seek a solution, via developmental discussions.
Regards,
LL
Neil Farbstein
23rd January 2007 - 03:11 AM
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jan 23 2007, 02:37 AM)
Hi Neil,
I remember your good luck but I can recall a number of times when things were not as good. I was not trying to comment on any "mental condition" on the contrary you have made numerous statements in the past where you have been the victim of authoritative behavior. It is I that have "have been totally sequestered from society" for "doing good deeds" and in keeping with the sentiment "no good deed goes unpunished"... if you have never suffered that process then I humbly apologize for any incorrect inference that you have interpreted from that statement and I will remove it instantly...
I will remove the statement immediately. I thought we were friends here...
To clarify... In the past I have used my knowledge in certain circumstances to save others reputations but in the process it certainty angered those higher up in authority that I just did not go "along for the ride" and accept the "due process" handed out to the luckless victim. I was the technical expert in the Laboratory and I disagreed with the summary processes handed out by non-technical and legal people. I then demonstrated to all that it was not the fault of the Officer concerned but that the Instrument, worth nearly 1/2 Million dollars, had a design fault. The company finally paid out on the Warranty and the mans reputation was exonerated... and as far as that went it was the end of the story. In reality it was not the end of the story and the mans reputation was so badly damaged he had to leave and obtain a position somewhere else and I was "sequestered away in a sub-basement room" without a "permanent" position, for several years. True story ... and I would have some others as well.
I dont know what prompted that remark Good Elf. I have had my share of troubles but I'm no Sakarov. I'm not sure what you mean by "authoritarian behavior" I have run into 5 times as much red tape as anyone else I know at the Department of Energy. There is going to be a big suit about that. It bothers me that my ongoing run around from the DOE seems to be something you are gloating about. Remove it Elf. I'm insulted.
Good Elf
23rd January 2007 - 03:15 AM
removed
Neil Farbstein
23rd January 2007 - 03:32 AM
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jan 23 2007, 03:15 AM)
Hi Neil,
What statement are you now referring to. As I said I removed my comment to you about my life, and that is the end of the matter. It was never aimed at you and you should realize that by now. I think this public discussion of my affairs would indicate my sincerity. What more do you want... if you have anything more just ask!
Do you want me to remove the comment I made about the comment?? There has been a lot of editing and re-editing here by both of us. I am still smarting from some of your edited comments about me. I have removed the comment about things "in the past". Does this help???
Remove the comment about the comment and that will be the end of it.
Neil Farbstein
23rd January 2007 - 03:34 AM
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jan 23 2007, 03:15 AM)
Hi Neil,
What statement are you now referring to. As I said I removed my comment to you about my life, and that is the end of the matter. It was never aimed at you and you should realize that by now. I think this public discussion of my affairs would indicate my sincerity. What more do you want... if you have anything more just ask!
Do you want me to remove the comment I made about the comment?? There has been a lot of editing and re-editing here by both of us. I am still smarting from some of your edited comments about me. I have removed the comment about things "in the past". Does this help???
Remove the comment about the comment and that will be the end of it.
jal
23rd January 2007 - 03:36 AM
Hi Good Elf!
Thanks for those plasmon links.
I would hate to be a physics teachers and have this kind of info brought to me by a smart student reading the web.
Everything is different with the web.
jal
ps I'm sure that admin. would help with "editing" past the dead line
Good Elf
23rd January 2007 - 03:38 AM
Hi Neil,
I already deleted all reference to you but do you want me to leave my apology and my explanation?
Too late about my apology and personal details... I hope this is all you need. Only your comments really indicate anything happened at all. Just remember that nothing I said was directly aimed at you. They were my experiences not yours. I thought you would understand. Unfortunately "good will" and intent cannot be guaranteed in this form of anonymous communication.
Good Elf
23rd January 2007 - 08:32 AM
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, Jal, Fivedoughnut, Yquantum, Neil et al,
I have been looking at "Singular Optics" and this reference is highly instructive on the matter. It refers to experimentally derived observations not just theory...
Creation and annihilation of phase singularities near a sub-wavelength slitIn particular where practical dislocations can occur in the vacuum state where the sign of polarization and magnitude of the field falls naturally to zero. It would seem this can occur in
free space as well as in materials. These behave in ways not described by the general interpretation of the Electromagnetic Wave Equations where sources and nodes do not just appear in free space without a good reason. It seems the good reason is the appearance of topological charge makes this possible in regions where the div and curl of the field drop anomalously to zero. Light can then do some very strange things...
QUOTE
The phase of the field in the neighborhood of such singular points can exhibit a rich variety of behaviors, such as vortices and dislocations. Furthermore, it is well-known that these singular points possess certain conserved quantities, such as topological charge, and may only be created and annihilated in ways which satisfy
certain conservation laws.
Certain cavity sub-wavelength structures in materials create anomalous transmission of light... these are indirectly related to left and right handed vortex structures existing in the space on the far side of the slit from the source. These take the role of both sourceless field curls and sourceless field saddle points. These "defects" in the local space merge slowly as the slit width increases resulting in anomalous enhanced propagation through the region freed of these "defects". A movie of these processes are linked from within the pdf file above showing an animation on a website. It is strongly reminiscent of the formation of particles and antiparticles which form when energetic photons are dispersed around stray nuclei to produce particles and antiparticles.
The existence of localized topological charge of opposite signs around each of these vortices also indicate that a general optical principle is involved in those spaces and these relate to the law in particle physics akin to Lorentz-CPT Conservation Laws. It is also the analog in optics of those Falaco Solitons previously mentioned where the centers are "zeros" of the curl singularity... in Falaco Solitons these lead to a "string" linking the two structures.
Funny that most of the literature neglect to mention these experimentally derived electromagnetic phenomena grouped under a class of studies called "Singular Optics". These phenomena are not Quantum Related since they are dealt with using pure Classical Field Theory and to "force" this into a particle picture fails to recognize that at this stage of the process no particles have yet formed. The anomalous transmission of light (another experimentally derived phenomenon) is seen in these regions after the defect is removed incrementally where the
refractive index of light is then altered in the open space to effectively focus the light through this "gap" anomalously... . I feel this is related to the cavities stated in the reference in solid matter only this is occurring in free space... This is the first instance I have heard in the literature of where the refractive index of "free space" can be modified by a propagating field. The residual effect is a zone of anomalous optical properties different from the surrounding space. All other cases of such "modification" have occurred inside dielectrics. Now this throws dielectrics into a totally new light (figuratively speaking... no pun here). Obviously this has great bearing on the Double Slit Experiment since it does not take any of these phenomena into account. Figure 3 show an array of these structures existing in the space behind the slit.
Funny how there is little or no mention of this experimentally derived "semi-classical" phenomena... is there such prejudice against this measurable and repeatable phenomena that the particle theory is already showing a flaw in its impenetrable wall even on bench tops?
Of course this does sort of relate to the surface plasmons as well but I am unsure which could be termed primary in this process. Comment welcome and any ideas will not be dismissed out of hand.
Cheers
PS: A certain elf I know is modifying some ideas to settle in with the new terminology and practical results. Everything old is new again.
jal
23rd January 2007 - 06:11 PM
Good Day All!
I did a search of this thread .... its now a good source of info.
QUOTE
yquantum Posted: Oct 17 2006, 08:53 PM
there is a flavor of D. Bohm which I believe if it had not been for the trials that he refused to participate in, many scientist of today might have seen the light © in a different perspective today as of today in 2006.
…. I believe is being researched in many labs around the world because the papers that are now coming out on the subject.
Oct 24 2006,
Is Young's experiment complete in it's assumptions I do not think so.
Nov 10 2006,
From my "Frame of Reference" after all that has been said and I do hope I did not miss to many post is each photon, electron, atom or any other microscopic particle it does not matter, must be in a superposition of two states. (particle/wave)
…. to describe the weirdness of QM, it is orchestrated by their wavelike alter ego.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
yquantum Posted: Oct 17 2006, 08:53 PM
there is a flavor of D. Bohm which I believe if it had not been for the trials that he refused to participate in, many scientist of today might have seen the light © in a different perspective today as of today in 2006.
…. I believe is being researched in many labs around the world because the papers that are now coming out on the subject.
Oct 24 2006,
Is Young's experiment complete in it's assumptions I do not think so.
Nov 10 2006,
From my "Frame of Reference" after all that has been said and I do hope I did not miss to many post is each photon, electron, atom or any other microscopic particle it does not matter, must be in a superposition of two states. (particle/wave)
…. to describe the weirdness of QM, it is orchestrated by their wavelike alter ego. |
Confused2 Nov 14 2006
Possibly this has some bearing on the point made by yquantum about plasma .. an extreme version of the problem?
QUOTE
yquantum Nov 14 2006,
I believe I understand now, thank you C2, taking the second statement first plasma is very chaotic at best due to the dynamics it possesses so I should not have put this on the table of your post.
23 pages later We are now into p.104
plasmons is what we should have been looking at.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/PWslits.pdf Yes, ....It has been said for about 100 pages the electrons in the material making up the slit do set up waves that interact with the photon that make up the pattern that we see in the DSE. The experiments have been carried out with gold and the calculations have been done.
And now…. From the same source Good Elf is suggesting that spacetime is also involved
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
yquantum Nov 14 2006,
I believe I understand now, thank you C2, taking the second statement first plasma is very chaotic at best due to the dynamics it possesses so I should not have put this on the table of your post. |
23 pages later We are now into p.104
plasmons is what we should have been looking at.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/PWslits.pdf Yes, ....It has been said for about 100 pages the electrons in the material making up the slit do set up waves that interact with the photon that make up the pattern that we see in the DSE. The experiments have been carried out with gold and the calculations have been done.
And now…. From the same source Good Elf is suggesting that spacetime is also involved
This is the first instance I have heard in the literature of where the refractive index of "free space" can be modified by a propagating field.
However, I disagree with you Good Elf
QUOTE
Funny how there is little or no mention of this experimentally derived "semi-classical" phenomena... is there such prejudice against this measurable and repeatable phenomena that the particle theory is already showing a flaw in its impenetrable wall even on bench tops?
We need both. Review
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/DivisiblePhoton-Final.pdf and
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#hv Bohmian Mechanics
Are we approaching a new level of agreement?
jal
Good Elf
23rd January 2007 - 08:45 PM
Hi
Jal, Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, Fivedoughnut, Yquantum, Neil et al,
Thanks Jal for the reply. I am still seeing something different in that paper. This does not divide any photons up but it obviously rearranges the pointing vectors in space. As to Bohmian Mechanics The "guiding waves " they are purely "defect free" and the illustration of the Bohmian DSE on the page of your reference indicates a very "unimaginative" interpretation. However since these pages were not written by David Bohm I cannot completely say he did not understand that implication. He saw enough to understand the manipulation of this defect in the Aharanov-Bohm Effect so maybe he did envision "Singular Optics". What I would like to say to all is that"Singular Optics" is not quantum Theory it is "semi-classical" optics.... this is in keeping with the thrust of my arguments. I still think that the modification of the free space refractive index is an insight that I would have thought have been noted in the literature very early. This offers a strong Geometrodynamic Flavor to the problem.
I suppose everyone was able to view the defect animations.
This shows how the defects migrate relative to each other in the zone close to the slit or pinhole. Then after that you see the streaming defects developing from the widening slit geometry.Click on Figure 4 or click here...
http://www.opticsexpress.org/view_media.cfm?umid=3815Click on Figure 6 or click here...
http://www.opticsexpress.org/view_media.cfm?umid=3816These animations are able to be saved as gif's. The second shows a field of spreading defects "periodically" filling space as the slit widens, each side a mirror symmetric image of the other side of the slit. More importantly though is the first illustration which shows how the defects "merge" as the slit is dynamically widened to produce "superbrightening" in the
residual zone if everything is correctly arranged. The phenomenon is very exciting and I am truly stunned that these phenomena have largely escaped a lot of public scrutiny. The "superbrightening" is clearly due to the change in refractive index in free space and this is very interesting and shows an interesting light cone effect. The existence of the "string" now needs to be confirmed experimentally. This treatment is only two dimensional a better three dimensional treatment is required to indicate solutions for single circular orifices. I do not think we can assume that this solution can be simply projected into figure of rotation rotating the plane through the symmetry axis by 2 pi radians??
All these "non-particles" are clearly requiring more than a particle solution for description and need a better treatment. I wonder if Taco Visser has been able to do some more work on this problem. In the case of pseudo particle production this throws the recent production of ball lightning into a totally different light (no pun again). The use of two silicon wafers being widened and subjected to "excitation" may very well produce a ball defect as stated.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?fee...=mg19325863.500These solitons can last up to 8 seconds in the lab environment and with sizes between a ping-pong ball to a grapefruit. Obviously the excitation of surface "plasmons" can generate these very stable solitons.
It is not far from that to true particle production with pairs of "appropriately" energetic solitons.... "Let there be Light"... and you could see for bloody miles... he he he! Has anyone got some information from either the
Visser Home Page Site... his Journal Page...
Journal Page of Taco Visser... or elsewhere about the analog of the "Falaco String Defect" that just must be there.
... Click to enlarge ...
Other input welcome. Maybe yquantum could comment on this turn up if he is still watching.
As an afterthought these link with Orbital Angular Momentum and the Holographic Defect Creation of "twisted light" and "optical tweezers".
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/res...cs/oamgp/gp.htmWhat those references do not say is anything about the "very interesting" aspects of this phenomena. This leads to a very important aspect of the Holographic Universe concept the emergence of charge and solitons created in part by this kind of holographic defect...
... A holo-image that can generate these defects on that page referenced. The emergence of free space "artifacts" such as the modification to the refractive index and to the emergence of topological charge is also very intellectually pleasing.
Experiments in this field could be done in your basement on a bench top... he he he!
Now we have pure optics generating defects in space and these defects lead to charge and to remote forces (these are the source of optical tweezers you realize) on objects by manipulating the velocity of light in free space the way a hunk of glass can bend light inside matter . These "cavities... and they are definitely cavities that can trap light in some fashion have all been demonstrated in laboratories around the world. So now you have an experimental basis for a phenomenon that can produce force at a distance and charge and optical cavities all seamlessly related to a very weak field Lorentz-CPT Principle in optics. This will transition to real particles and so on obviously when certain conditions in the curl of the three dimensional field results in "real particles".
In the extreme case this is particle production however this is a linear process that leads gradually to more and more free space phenomena as the curl in the defects are two pi radians and multiples of that... a primary condition for stationary states. Below a certain threshold these soliton states are not stable and so are not stationary but when particles are produced they become stable. All through this evolution the Lorentz-CPT laws are maintained in the defects. This offers a path to solve that mystery that Einstein wondered about... "To solve the riddle of the electron would be enough".
All this theory though very appealing still does not completely solve the mystery of the Double Slit Interference Experiment or the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser since the informational side of these interference patterns is not a part of this theory. We have been on a separate course that merges here with Visser's concepts. many threads have pulled together and I can see that this is going to be a "complete" theory.
Cheers
Laserlight
23rd January 2007 - 11:37 PM
GE, C2, Jal, TRoc and All,
As you know, I have proposed that different sized slit aperture of the DSE act as a rectangularly
shaped "lenses", each with an individual index of refraction with a spacially
separated focal plane (gap between slits), that projects a mixed signal gaussian
distribution interference "image" onto the "screen".
I have also proposed the idea that the slit surface "edge effects" (light interacting
with surface "plasmon's") change the phase relationship (superposition) between
the
unobstructed EM field's wavefront and the delayed "sides" of the
wavefront that are interacting with the edges of the slits, which causes interference
as the wavefront "edge wavelets" are rephased and mixed, due to plasmon
timing delays. My contention has been that the relationship of the
variable
geometry of the wavefront is interacting with the
fixed geometry of the
slit(s) which is responsible for the observed diffraction and interference of the
spacially divided, but "time coherent", wavefronts that propagate thru the slits.
There are several interesting papers, referenced by GE on Taco Visser's website,
that deal with light interacting with various optical arrangements. IMO, several
of them are compelling in that they "indirectly", and directly, support some of the
proposals that I have suggested. There is a lot of advanced mathematics in these
papers, but interspersed within there is quite a bit of text, especially in the introductions and conclusions that generalizes the discussion.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/jump.pdfhttp://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/diffraction.pdfhttp://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/PRE02355.pdfhttp://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/comparison.pdfhttp://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/shifts.pdfhttp://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/phase.pdfhttp://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/material.pdfIf we all agree that the slit aperatures act like projection lenses, each with its own
index of refraction, focal plane, and inherent timing delays, and if we agree that an
advancing EM wavefront can simultaneously propagate thru multiple slits, then I believe we will all
be on the same "sheet of music" and can formalize the theoretical "mechanics" of
the DSE.
IMO, we are close to finally achieving some general "agreements" as to what
is really happening to explain the DSE.
Edit added:
Of interest re:
QUOTE
2 separate sources thru 2 pinholes-
Equation (20) shows that, for any pair of points
P1r, P2r2 that are mirror images of each other in
the plane containing the two pinholes and that is
perpendicular to the screen, the spectral degree of
coherence of the field is unity, irrespective of the state
of coherence of the f ield at the two pinholes; i.e., it
shows that the light is fully coherent and cophasal at
such a pair of points
It is to be noted that the light that is incident on
each of the two pinholes may originate in two different
sources. In particular, each pinhole might be illuminated
by a different laser. Our results imply that
even in such a case the light that two such independent
lasers generate in the bisecting plane P will be
spatially completely coherent at every frequency contained
in the spectra of both the lasers
Comments, discussion, constructive opinions welcomed.
LL
Good Elf
24th January 2007 - 12:51 AM
Hi Jal, Confused2,
Laserlight, TRoc, Fivedoughnut, Yquantum, Neil et al,
Laserlight I am sure we are agreeing on most points but I have two "small" issues now. The shape of any aperture does condition the output from that secondary source. Optical theory still says that any shaped aperture can be "constructed" or "synthesized" from a large number of "identical primitives" which are the standard function obtained from a small diffraction hole... they are not usually perfectly Gaussian but are a sync function (normalized for an intensity).
They are Gaussian if the source is wholly incoherent. Alternatively if the holes are large enough the "apparent Gaussian" envelope swamps the small scale periodic structure. Individually you can decide just what size the individual primitives are so long as when you sum them vectorially they result in the exact slit mask you require. So a square aperture (or any other shaped aperture) is simply the coherent correlated sum of an large number of individual pinholes which would as completely as required "punch out " a mask for your square hole... each "punch hole" is a perfect circular "perforation". This is the way Feynman Many Paths Method would construct it and it is the way optics in either the near or far field would construct it. The models in each case are different but they arrive at a similar answer. This works for one hole or perforation or many ... distributed or clumped into a single or many shapes. This model does not work for uncorrelated sources. Each "source" in the "image plane" ... perhaps the distant stars... is a separate partially correlated source at any of the co-traveling optical frequencies. To generate the total scene a very large number of superpositions for each frequency would be needed to arrive at the image plane result. The DSE is usually just one frequency and just two "small" holes or slits, and most importantly just one single source.
http://www.phy.davidson.edu/StuHome/cabell...experiments.htmThe only assumption is the single source you are using is the one "point" source and that it is a correlated (coherent) source... in a worst case it may be only partially coherent. In every other respect that statement you made is correct.
The other issue is I think some of that last reference you are quoting may be experimentally incorrect or at best "incomplete" unless the distributed sources are correlated at source. I have indicated that sources can be correlated artificially by connecting the pump sources or correlated spatially through co-travel to the screen. Some work has been done in an experimental sense. What that reference may have implied is that each separate source is coherent and together they form two "separate" spatially distributed interference patterns through the two slits each one is displaced from the other by a scaled source to screen distance laterally. In many cases of a practical concern this lateral displacement is too small to be measured. Alternatively the reference did not stipulate that the light from each coherent source was actually in high angular proximity to each other and may be forming a bosonic state if allowed to co-travel some distance together. It does suggest that the distances are sufficient to have the primary mode of the beams (merged or otherwise) larger than the footprint of the two slits. For instance if one of the laser beams was too wide of the aperture and the beam width collimated such that the probability of photons from one of the beams was small to actually pass through the slit then this may not be an observable effect.
Could you nominate the specific source that you are quoting from please LL and I will look into it and avoid having me guess about it.
Cheers
jal
24th January 2007 - 02:16 AM
Good Day Everyone!
Particles are wave-like and waves are particle-like Bohmian Mechanics needs improving and the standard understanding of “waves” need improving to get to the next level of a model that can give us greater understanding of how the universe works.
Do we agree?
Good ElfQUOTE
The "superbrightening" is clearly due to the change in refractive index in free space and this is very interesting and shows an interesting light cone effect. The existence of the "string" now needs to be confirmed experimentally. This treatment is only two dimensional a better three dimensional treatment is required to indicate solutions for single circular orifices. I do not think we can assume that this solution can be simply projected into figure of rotation rotating the plane through the symmetry axis by 2 pi radians??
…. This leads to a very important aspect of the Holographic Universe concept the emergence of charge and solitons created in part by this kind of holographic defect...
You always discount Planck Scale as being beyond the reach of experiment.
Therefore, YOU must also discount two other ways of looking at how the universe works.
1. The size of the holographic units do not have to be Planck size or Planck energy.
They must be smaller than 0.05 mm. As a result, packing comes into the arrangement of these units.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The "superbrightening" is clearly due to the change in refractive index in free space and this is very interesting and shows an interesting light cone effect. The existence of the "string" now needs to be confirmed experimentally. This treatment is only two dimensional a better three dimensional treatment is required to indicate solutions for single circular orifices. I do not think we can assume that this solution can be simply projected into figure of rotation rotating the plane through the symmetry axis by 2 pi radians??
…. This leads to a very important aspect of the Holographic Universe concept the emergence of charge and solitons created in part by this kind of holographic defect... |
You always discount Planck Scale as being beyond the reach of experiment.
Therefore, YOU must also discount two other ways of looking at how the universe works.
1. The size of the holographic units do not have to be Planck size or Planck energy.
They must be smaller than 0.05 mm. As a result, packing comes into the arrangement of these units.
I do not think we can assume that this solution can be simply projected into figure of rotation rotating the plane through the symmetry axis by 2 pi radians??
Then you need to make your own diagram. I’ll bet that when you do make your diagram, you will get my SPOT.
( See my thread or previous post on this thread.) Vacuum effects (ZPE etc.) do not need to come from Planck Size. They only need to be all the same size.
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.
It does not depend on Planck size. They only need to be the same size. http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/res...cs/oamgp/gp.htmQUOTE
A recent project that we have been working on involves the geometric phase that results from cyclic changes in the modes of a higher-order Gaussian beam.
Without comments …. Phase shift
2. You postulate a time frame ( let’s call it e-time ) for the photon that you have not identified. It has no definition or parameters that can ever be reached by experiments. The creation of a photon or vaccum effects is instantaneous by your definition, and therefore happens in e-time by something ( an electron ) in real time, which does not exist in e-time and which should not be visible in e-time. Since the photon is created in e-time, which is no time in our frame of reference, then it would not get created. Then you say that the photon does not go to another electron by using our time frame but rather by using e-time. In e-time the electron creating the photon would be the same at the electron receiving the photon. There is no separation of time and distance in e-time. Therefore, there is only one electron. The photon would never leave “its” electron. It would only stay in “its” electron. As a result, there is no need to have more than one electron or more than one photon. What we “see” in our time frame is just an illusion of “nothing” happening since it is happening in e-time which we will never be able to detect.
If you can suspend those two concepts we will be able to be in closer agreement.
We should, therefore, be able to apply some solutions such as TRoc’s approach and quantum geometry.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A recent project that we have been working on involves the geometric phase that results from cyclic changes in the modes of a higher-order Gaussian beam. |
Without comments …. Phase shift
2. You postulate a time frame ( let’s call it e-time ) for the photon that you have not identified. It has no definition or parameters that can ever be reached by experiments. The creation of a photon or vaccum effects is instantaneous by your definition, and therefore happens in e-time by something ( an electron ) in real time, which does not exist in e-time and which should not be visible in e-time. Since the photon is created in e-time, which is no time in our frame of reference, then it would not get created. Then you say that the photon does not go to another electron by using our time frame but rather by using e-time. In e-time the electron creating the photon would be the same at the electron receiving the photon. There is no separation of time and distance in e-time. Therefore, there is only one electron. The photon would never leave “its” electron. It would only stay in “its” electron. As a result, there is no need to have more than one electron or more than one photon. What we “see” in our time frame is just an illusion of “nothing” happening since it is happening in e-time which we will never be able to detect.
If you can suspend those two concepts we will be able to be in closer agreement.
We should, therefore, be able to apply some solutions such as TRoc’s approach and quantum geometry.
We have been on a separate course that merges here with Visser's concepts. many threads have pulled together and I can see that this is going to be a "complete" theory.
Did you make orange juice?
Here is more work from E.J. Galvez, N. Smiley, and N. Fernandes
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/fac...cles/spie06.pdf Composite Optical Vortices Formed by Collinear
Laguerre-Gauss Beams
QUOTE
The study of optical beams bearing phase singularities is interesting from fundamental and applied perspectives.
Rich in physical phenomena, optical singularities provide an important setting for discovering new wave phenomena.
1 The angular momentum carried by beams with phase vortices also adds a new dimension to the topic.
Phase vortices have their main application in the transfer of orbital angular momentum from light to matter in optical tweezers.2 More recently, it has been shown that the quantization of this angular momentum has the potential for encoding multiple quantum bits of information.
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/res...amgp/geomph.htm QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The study of optical beams bearing phase singularities is interesting from fundamental and applied perspectives.
Rich in physical phenomena, optical singularities provide an important setting for discovering new wave phenomena.
1 The angular momentum carried by beams with phase vortices also adds a new dimension to the topic.
Phase vortices have their main application in the transfer of orbital angular momentum from light to matter in optical tweezers.2 More recently, it has been shown that the quantization of this angular momentum has the potential for encoding multiple quantum bits of information. |
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/res...amgp/geomph.htm Geometric phase arises when a physical system undergoes a closed path in state space or parameter space.
The formalism for this phase was first developed by Michael Berry for quantum systems [1]. Since then this phase has been known as Berry's phase. The initial formalism of Berry was limited to quantum systems. Since then it has been generalized and shown to have a classical counterpart, sometimes referred to as the Hannay angle [2]. This concept applies to a large range of quantum and classical systems, from the Aharonov-Bohm effect to the Foucault pendulum. It also loosely referred to as geometric phase.
http://www.mi.infm.it/manini/berryphase.html Berry's phase
http://www.mi.infm.it/manini/offdiagonal.html Off-Diagonal Geometric Phases
This material is rich in potential and well worth the time to investigate.
Jal
Laserlight
24th January 2007 - 02:42 AM
GE,
You are correct, I meant to post the link to that quote but got distracted...
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/neweffects.pdfI am pleased that our paths are merging, perhaps we will all soon "be in phase"
(pun intended).
The articles on Visser's website are very intriquing and have provided many
answers to topics that we have discussed over these many months. Their
experimental approach and theoretical discussions offer formal proof of concept
regarding diffraction, plasmons, wavefunctions, EM phasing, local field effects,
optical effects, etc. This should be consolidated into a single volume and
be required reading, IMO. Personally, I want the "Readers Digest" layman's
version as the math is way too tedious for general information purposes.
I'm wondering just how many physicists and scientists are even aware of the
findings presented in these papers?
LL
Laserlight
24th January 2007 - 05:54 AM
TRoc,
You should find this interesting. It follows some of your color spectrum and
low energy field zone cancellation discussions.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/physicsworld.pdfhttp://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/hidden.pdfhttp://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/threepoint.pdfLL
Laserlight
24th January 2007 - 08:14 AM
Hi C2 and All,
Well, it appears that we have taken a very roundabout detour in our discussions
about the base nature of photons/light and have come full circle, right back to
your early insistence that light propagates like a water wave thru the slits.
IMO C2, YOU WERE RIGHT that wavefronts propagate and divide to go thru the
slits, and we were wrong to discount your beliefs. Some very good information
and education has come out of the circuitous journey over the past many months,
and we are all the better for having taken the journey, even though it was often
at times a painful exercise in mental futility and frustration.
In retrospect, the hardest thing to comprehend was the concept of particle vs.
wavefront and how localized quantum energy of atoms/electrons interact with
propagating EM fields, and just where and why the interference phenomenon is
occuring. IMO, we now have a workable model of the mechanics of the DSE phenomenon that can be explained. Conceptually, that seems pretty clear now.
The puzzle pieces are finally aligningand interlocking to show the correct picture,
even though there was no reference picture on the outside of the box. There are
still some pieces that need to be inserted, but at least the difficult part of
the "quest" seems to be nearly complete.
I believe that an abbreviated, simple, and clearly worded summary needs to be
written to sequentially tie all of the information into a "story" that anyone can
understand. This should be a collaborative effort, IMO.
Other comments, discussion, opinions welcomed
LL
Good Elf
24th January 2007 - 09:07 AM
Hi
Laserlight, Confused2, Aerohead, TRoc, Fivedoughnut, Yquantum, Neil et al,
QUOTE
GE,
You are correct, I meant to post the link to that quote but got distracted...
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/neweffects.pdfI am pleased that our paths are merging, perhaps we will all soon "be in phase"
(pun intended). [...] I'm wondering just how many physicists and scientists are even aware of the findings presented in these papers?
Waaa... at!!
I am totally shocked but pleased... I wonder if anyone else out there is following other than the list at the top here?... Yes.. your question is intriguing about "others". I will now digress into some elven speculation for a change... warning regards this "uncertain information".
As for myself I have been scratching in the dust and circling without the crucial bit of experimental fact for a long time. Without it ... I was not quite hitting the mark. I realized that the spaces were filled with something and the possibility of light cones resulting in infinite refractive indices and providing free standing "bubbles" in space. TRoc and I had a lengthy thread some months ago on just this subject and much of this was discussed there but the "connection" eluded me. I had no positive inkling about the possibility of free standing spatial refractive indices altered from the normal vacuum state because I never saw it stated at any time such things were possible. I guess I hoped that it may occur since spacetime contraction and extreme time dilation were a necessary feature of true particle creation. All that discussion about Special Relativity and rotating frames of reference and "wheels made of light" on the edge of the lightcone.
I thought if they had nothing then this must have occurred during that "collapse of the state" when the particle is detected ... after that happens it is difficult to know if there was any in-between state that ever existed. but I really never found anything to confirm these ideas. Obviously Visser has known for quite a long time about this and "Singular Optics". I realized from Jal's reference that solutions to Schrodinger's Equations exist in free space in a real practical sense, the tricky bit is there is no indication in Schrodinger's Solutions that topologic charges might occur at spontaneous null points appearing in the vacuum.
There is the obvious case of Berry (Geometric) Phase and special mappings. Visser's 2D solutions will yield to 3D solutions similar to Williamson's Paper, I hope that these nulls, vortices and saddle points have "spatial and temporal extension".. None of this makes any sense unless some unusual topology is taking place in those "vacuoles" and in and around those "defects". What is most important is to understand that this is not Loop Quantum Gravity... It is something based entirely on "optics" and Lorentz-CPT Conservation Laws... In ohter words "electromagnetism" as originally proposed by Einstein. He could never have advanced without the practical experimental findings of a Unified Field Theory for sources. The issue of sources went mostly in the direction of particles so charge was considered the "primitive" and there was a 30 year hunt for magnetic monopoles that continues to this day. What hey never wanted to see was that magnetic monopoles were the fiction and thus charges was the fiction as well leading to "topological charge" which have no source. These "properties" are simply "added" to the fields and they surround singularities. String Theory tried to remove those singularities by having very tiny curled up dimensions but failed because the vision was too constricted to allow many to see "strings" at the dimensions we find around us in our world and also at those very low energies. And these energies are indeed low since these defects and zeros in the field have never been fully reported probably because they do not fit certain pet ideas. Youa re right to say just what would a lecturer in Physics do if he/she was confronted with a question regarding these ideas... as Aerohead previously stated.
The maths is not that formidable and basically resolves itself into various null points in the field and the fields themselves either circulating ("curl") or converging or diverging ("div"). The existence of surface polarons is "debatable" and Visser himself admits that the actual existence of "resonant quasi-particles" seem unlikely and in some cases un-necessary. However Visser does see the need for the resonances seen in those spaces. It may be that the desire to interpret everything as particles is holding back a wave interpretation because at this point in time there is no wave Theory of Everything. This theory is purely "semi-classical" and does not fit with particle interpretations since particles sometime do not exist in this paradigm but physical properties do turn up that highly resemble the full blown particle properties but "toned down" as a continuous extension of that theory. particles do not have "in between" states and this is one of the problems of only particle interpretations.
The extreme case is Yquantum's Relational Quantum Mechanics where nothing other than particles, relationships and their interactions exist... so all this would be "fairyland" to him at this stage. But that would be the logical extension of particle physics and most of use have dabbled with particle physics and accepted the current view. I am dead sure we are way outside the envelope of respectability in this and other matters. Yet experiments do exist which are not particle interactions that are related to "quanta" that "nearly became particles". One such non-particle are all those neo-particles such as "bright matter solitons" and even "ball lightning". These "cannot exist" and will be hotly disputed for some time. The topological charge aspect of all this is the intriguing part. I have understood about this for along time with radio transmitters and I am sure Confused2 also can remember some very odd things happening inside and out of the screen of high power RF Transmitters.
Still I think it would be possible to understand that there are groups who have known about all this for a very long time with the information locked up ... perhaps never to be revealed. Maybe we can all have a quiet soirée someday and discuss "travelers tales".
All this is part of a "String Theory" based on "Optics" and "Geometry". These "artifacts" and the interpretation may have been understood by some I am sure, there are smarter people than us out there (Maybe even Feynman knew but decided to go with the flow... he had an earlier theory... The Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory but to this day nobody takes this theory as being the real deal (I do though... and the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment as devised originally by Wheeler is an "intelligence test" for our species... the conclusions are still inescapable). It took Feynman's version of "Seeking all paths" particle theory to gain some acceptance, It still competes with other ideas such as Quantum Field Theory.
There are many stories in his books and about him by others that showed that he understood more than he was letting on but seemed constrained ... perhaps by convention. His reputation was formidable and I would find it difficult if I were him to throw it all away on a "crackpot theory" that may lead to a Holographic Universe and time converted to a frequency and even reciprocal space.I think that conventional physicists just did not want to speak up and possibly lose their tenure and Feynman wanted to be only a little ahead of his time because to leap way out there on the edge of the envelope is to be totally isolated from the mainstream. The Holographic idea Bohmian Mechanics and Aharanov-Bohm Effect did not constrain David Bohm (Einstein's protege and a genius in his own right was swayed by religious concepts) but he was so far out in left field that nobody wanted to take him seriously. People would speak about him as being "cr*zy" in "hushed tones"... Well maybe they wont speak as harshly in the future.
If we wanted to straddle both "worlds"... the accepted paradigm and this rogue theory at the same time we would use it as a "secret tool" to help them to see just what kind of predictions in the particle world fit with this "Optics". Otherwise we may never know about your question. What I will say is this... if it was a secret in the past there will be a flurry to publish now since those who come after will "steal their thunder".... and you know that in the World of Physics it is "publish or perish".
Cheers
jal
24th January 2007 - 04:05 PM
Good Day Everyone!
Good Elf! Like you I am amazed at the wealth of information from here.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/threepoint.pdf QUOTE
Abstract
A three-point source model is used to study the interference of wavefields which are mutually partially coherent. It is shown that complete destructive interference of the fields is possible in such a ‘‘three-pinhole interferometer’’ even if the sources are not fully coherent with respect to each other. An explanation of this surprising effect is given, and conditions necessary for complete destructive interference are stated.
See Fig. 4. The (a) geometry of a three-pinhole system arranged as an equilateral triangle, and ( b ) the spectral density produced by such a system, with a=1 mm, k=9921 mm_1 and z=2 m.
It shows my 2d packing.Can anyone explain it?
JAL
Laserlight
24th January 2007 - 06:39 PM
Hi Jal,
QUOTE
See Fig. 4. The (a) geometry of a three-pinhole system arranged as an equilateral triangle, and ( b ) the spectral density produced by such a system, with a=1 mm, k=9921 mm_1 and z=2 m.
It shows my 2d packing.
Can anyone explain it?
IMO, since there are 3 symmetrically spaced pinholes on a 2D (x,y) plane surface, and
considering that we are sampling a 3D wavefront with x, y, z coordinate
references at symmetrical "points" along the wavefront, it appears that the
equal geometric spacing of the holes are sampling the wavefunction by applying equal spacial "dimensional" separation. To simplify this, the holes are sampling
equal portions of the standing wavefront energy that are equally separated. This
"spacial" separation also represents a timing separation of the wave at the points
sampled.
IMO, this seems to indicate that the wave lengths along the wavefront are being
phase matched by the geometry of the holes. Instead of our standard 2D
Gaussian curve with the zero baseline along the x axis, this geometric
arrangement of the holes has established 3 overlapping Gaussian curves with their
zero baselines 120 degrees out of phase (a delta configuration), which matches
the sides of the equilateral triangle of the hole pattern. If you were only looking
at any 2 holes in any orientation, we should expect to see the normal interference
bars of the DSE. If you overlap the individual 2D Gaussian distributions at 120
degree offset angles to each other and combine their signals, the overlapping
signals should provide the interference pattern that is shown in the paper.
This is only my interpretation/opinion, and it could be very wrong or partially correct.
Other opinions and discussion welcomed.
LL
jal
24th January 2007 - 08:07 PM
Hi Laserlight!
We have just gotten over the weirdness of two slits.
Now we are into canceling superimposing etc. for three holes.
I suspect that this simple explanation is really complicated.
Would you not subscribe to a really,really simpler idea?
There is validity to my simple packing model.
jal
Laserlight
24th January 2007 - 08:26 PM
Hi Jal,
Perhaps, but IMO your packing spheres model does't describe how or why
the packing relates to a propagating light wavefront. Can you provide a
simple and elegant verbal description to describe the relationship without
resorting to posting circle diagrams? If you can easily and simply explain
the phenomenon so that everyone can understand it, then I will certainly listen and
consider your conceptualization.
Regards,
LL
jal
24th January 2007 - 08:37 PM
Laserlight!
I'm still stunned from seeing the 2d packing of photons.
There's discussions on cancellations that I think will help TRoc in his approach that will also shed light on why there is 2d packing.
I'm keeping an open mind with my model in the back of my mind as the final simplest explanation.
I eagerly await everyones analysis.
jal
Laserlight
24th January 2007 - 09:07 PM
Jal,
My intuition tells me that if the 3 holes were equally separated further apart that
the circles would get larger, and if the holes were spaced closer together that
the circles would get smaller. If true, what that infers is that the circle spacing is a
purely geometrical relationship that can uniformly set up overlapping interference
patterns that cancel or add according the 120 degree phase relationship established
by the holes. I know that GE will bring up the Airy rings and the relationship that
120 degree offsets offer to that overlap as presented by the circular apertures.
I am not sure that we are actually seeing any packing density, since the circles
are not physically touching each other, there is separation due to cancellation
effects.
IMO, if we cover any one of the holes, the Airy Rings will be seen in the same
baseline angle orientation as the line that exists between the remaining two holes.
Obviously, there must also be some vertical and horizontal wavefunction polarity
considerations that come into play that help determine where the cancellation
takes place, but the triangular geometrical relationship seems like the first order
issue here.
Regards,
LL
Confused2
24th January 2007 - 09:46 PM
Hi Laserlight et al,
That link ..
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/neweffects.pdf .. I can see there are a lot of new effects there.
That fig 1
That might be what Lisa's applet was all about ..
http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.html .. but with the applet you can only see how the phases add up .. it doesn't actually tell you.
Equation (20)
Looks like .. if you took a point that was say 10 wavelengths from the first pinhole and 25 wavelengths away from the second pinhole then they'd add up in phase .. then try 25 wavelengths from the first pinhole and 10 wavelengths away from the second pinhole and that would be in phase too .. like the DSE equation but with pinholes.
One of the other works recently quoted points out that cancellation occurs between points where the wave goes flibber-flobber on one side and and flobber-flibber on the other .. a phase change of pi (or 180 degrees). Just like the ripple tank where you see a red peak next to a yellow peak with the cancellation between the two...
[ Sorry if I stoop to sarcasm .. I am (clearly) far from perfect. ]
Unfortunately Scouten,Visser and Wolf and Lisa's applet and the ripple tank and the DSE equation are all assuming continuous sinewave excitation.
The problem that puzzled Feynman and practically everyone else would seem to be .. How does a
single photon do it? My feeling is that we have certainly collectively failed to explain and/or understand the problem .. let alone answer it.
I think even Good Elf would agree that the amount of information to be relayed back to the starting point would be prodigious .. depending on how accurately the pilot wave identifies the target. If we accept the possibility of a pilot wave then it would would seem to operating on the basis of continuous sinewave excitation .. how does it do that? My best stab at answering this would be a more careful examination of the way the path divides .. ie the analysis must start
before the slits .. perhaps that is too dull.
A thousand or so posts ago I proposed lining a box with CD's and shining a light into it and seeing what came out through a hole in a face at 90 degrees to the point the light entered. Unfortunately it turns out that CD's are a lot mirror and not a lot diffraction grating .. if CD's were a bit more diffraction grating then I think it can be seen that the problem would be beyond the power of the greatest of our supercomputers .. yet intuitively I think we can see that a photon would solve the problem 'instantly' .. can we asses the amount of information required to 'solve' such a problem.. all with continuous sinewave excitation?
IMHO the DSE gives one of the best shots at understanding what is actually happening in reality .. if I'm the only one left feeling "I know nothing" then so be it for the present.
Best wishes,
-C2.
jal
24th January 2007 - 11:10 PM
Hi C2!
QUOTE
How does a single photon do it?
Just because we can mathematically reduce any photon to many composite waves, does it mean that the actual photon can be so reduced? Is a photon made up of an irreducible number of waves? Do we have the equipment to test it out and observe?
Due to technological restraints, do we have to live with a photon being a “packet of waves”?
The following might help answer or not.
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/fac...les/Absence.pdf Existence and Absence of Geometric Phases Due to Mode
Transformations of High-Order Modes
Enrique J. Galvez and Megan A. O'Connell
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How does a single photon do it? |
Just because we can mathematically reduce any photon to many composite waves, does it mean that the actual photon can be so reduced? Is a photon made up of an irreducible number of waves? Do we have the equipment to test it out and observe?
Due to technological restraints, do we have to live with a photon being a “packet of waves”?
The following might help answer or not.
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/fac...les/Absence.pdf Existence and Absence of Geometric Phases Due to Mode
Transformations of High-Order Modes
Enrique J. Galvez and Megan A. O'Connell
Geometric phase or Berry phase is a topological phase that appears when a physical system undergoes a cyclic change in the space of parameters or states.1 Since Berry's original discovery, geometric phases have been discovered in many physical contexts.
Because of the low dimension of the spaces studied thus far, the phase has always been represented geometrically in terms of paths in a spherical geometry. A geometric phase has been found in all cases.
Van Enk's original conjecture stated that if a geometric phase is mediated by angular momentum exchange,
(note:there must be something to make the exchange) then a cyclic path between states of the same orbital angular momentum would not produce a geometric phase. In all previous studies the low dimensionality of the space forced exchanges of angular momentum for any closed topological path.
jal
Laserlight
25th January 2007 - 12:04 AM
Hi C2,
QUOTE
The problem that puzzled Feynman and practically everyone else would seem to be .. How does a single photon do it? My feeling is that we have certainly collectively failed to explain and/or understand the problem .. let alone answer it.
I think even Good Elf would agree that the amount of information to be relayed back to the starting point would be prodigious .. depending on how accurately the pilot wave identifies the target. If we accept the possibility of a pilot wave then it would would seem to operating on the basis of continuous sinewave excitation .. how does it do that? My best stab at answering this would be a more careful examination of the way the path divides .. ie the analysis must start before the slits .. perhaps that is too dull.
I think that the idea of a single propagating photon is somewhat incorrect in that
it assumes that an electron only makes a single transition from steady state to
excited state and back to steady and ends at that point. It seems that this is
improbable to only consider only a single electron step transition when
energy is applied to an atom. It is more likely that the atom/electron makes
millions/billions of oscillations, depending upon the amount and frequency of energy
applied to energize the atom which results in a continuous sequence of energy
pulses, each of which is a component of the continuous photon wave energy being
released. The question immediately arises, is the notion of a photon a single EM
pulse, or a stream of sequential EM pulses of finite duration, commonly called a
ray but which is really an expanding EM wavefront of overlapping, partially
coherent, frequency events? Then one must also consider that other
nearby atoms in any excited matter matrix must also be acting the same but with
slightly different timing and phase relationships relative to the lead "pilot" photon
pulses. If so, an EM wavefront is a phase progressive series of individual and
nearly coherent photon EM wavelet sequences.
If the above is true, then what is considered a single photon is really an energy
pulse of some finite duration, with lead timing wavelets, followed by a buildup of
bulk energy wavelets that exponentially peak at some maximum intensity level
and then exponentially "decay" until the last wavelet energy oscillations tail off and
end. So the size of a photon might better be considered the time duration and
intensity of a photon.
Individual EM pulses (photons) will have a different timing, phase, and origination
point relationship from those that come before and after. If standing waves are
established in the cavity in front of the slits (a question that I raised about 4-5 pages ago) then that might have some bearing on the phase relationship of subsequent photons as they enter the slits.
Edit added: Jal, I think you and I are in agreement on your comment about
how far a single photon can be "reduced". What is a single photon?
Other comments, opinions welcomed.
LL
jal
25th January 2007 - 12:29 AM
Laserlight!
QUOTE
I know that GE will bring up the Airy rings and the relationship that
120 degree offsets offer to that overlap as presented by the circular apertures.
Two holes do not make
Airy rings ???
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I know that GE will bring up the Airy rings and the relationship that
120 degree offsets offer to that overlap as presented by the circular apertures.
|
Two holes do not make
Airy rings ???
I think you and I are in agreement on your comment about
how far a single photon can be "reduced". What is a single photon?
Which implies that even though we can calculate that an electron gives off a specific wave/energy level that there is more to the photon than that ONE energy level. (a packet of energy???)
I wonder????
jal
Laserlight
25th January 2007 - 12:39 AM
Jal,
QUOTE
Two holes do not make Airy rings ???
Of course they do, but the 3 hole layout geometry and the interference patterns
are the primary issues, IMO.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Two holes do not make Airy rings ??? |
Of course they do, but the 3 hole layout geometry and the interference patterns
are the primary issues, IMO.
Which implies that even though we can calculate that an electron gives off a specific wave/energy level that there is more to the photon than that ONE energy level. (a packet of energy???)
It would seem logical that a "photon" pulse could be divided all the way down to
one single sinewave transition, a wavelet, of some low energy intensity level.
LL
jal
25th January 2007 - 12:58 AM
QUOTE
It would seem logical that a "photon" pulse could be divided all the way down to one single sinewave transition, a wavelet, of some low energy intensity level.
Calling for TRoc
jal
Good Elf
25th January 2007 - 01:06 AM
Hi
Confused2, Laserlight, Aerohead, TRoc, Fivedoughnut, Yquantum, Neil et al,
I am as surprised as anyone about this information. I only wish I knew about it years ago. What I now realize is the significance of this theory is to particle creation... not the full significance... some of the significance. What we must all realize is the solutions that Taco Visser supply are two dimensional and the real world is three dimensional. It just so happens that the symmetry of our Universe (for highly symmetric situations) provide very symmetric answers to the many of the questions we ask. One very simple example are the "linear" equations of motion (in a plane) seem to closely represent motion in our real complex world. It is less useful to "capture" the complex relationships that three dimensions of a real world provide unless we really need to such as the influence of large masses relative to the mass of the Earth, the variation in gee with altitude and density and volumetric distribution and three dimensional non-inertial modifications to the path in space to break that simple symmetry. The underlying principle remains but it requires some discernment to understand just what the simplification really means.
Confused2 asks what about what happens before the slits?... well
obviously if you look at Visser's animations (see my link previously) the process at the slits starts well before the slits., even on the other side of the slits, and this is part of just the "one slit problem". The animation
does not show the "evolution of the defects in time but the way the defects multiply, divide and migrate for a large number of "constant" slit width and wavelengths at just that one frequency. The two dimensional analysis only looks at that single slit as a source of the phenomenon (this is not a real world just as the simplification to only two dimensions is not real either but a solution based on the symmetry as noted above. The next obvious extension to this process is one that extends to global space not to a single slit. The theory is not "just about slits" it is the behavior of electromagnetic waves at whatever frequency and at whatever scale. Separate nodes and anti-nodes occur at all excitation frequencies and we only see one wavelength and one slit width when in fact in our real world there are many sources and many slits and many different wavelengths of photons. Naturally it is scale dependent but it is a general principle starting at any source such as the original laser that excited to slit in the first place as well as the space between the ends of the resonant laser tube and then extending between the tube (through the slit of the end of the Laser) into the space between the laser and the spatial filter near the apparatus (another slit) and then into the space beyond that to the double slit (more slits... etc).
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I think that the idea of a single propagating photon is somewhat incorrect in that
it assumes that an electron only makes a single transition from steady state to
excited state and back to steady and ends at that point. It seems that this is
improbable to only consider only a single electron step transition when
energy is applied to an atom. It is more likely that the atom/electron makes
millions/billions of oscillations, depending upon the amount and frequency of energy
applied to energize the atom which results in a continuous sequence of energy
pulses, each of which is a component of the continuous photon wave energy being
released. The question immediately arises, is the notion of a photon a single EM
pulse, or a stream of sequential EM pulses of finite duration, commonly called a
ray but which is really an expanding EM wavefront of overlapping, partially
coherent, frequency events? Then one must also consider that other
nearby atoms in any excited matter matrix must also be acting the same but with
slightly different timing and phase relationships relative to the lead "pilot" photon
pulses. If so, an EM wavefront is a phase progressive series of individual and
nearly coherent photon EM wavelet sequences.
If the above is true, then what is considered a single photon is really an energy
pulse of some finite duration, with lead timing wavelets, followed by a buildup of
bulk energy wavelets that exponentially peak at some maximum intensity level
and then exponentially "decay" until the last wavelet energy oscillations tail off and
end. So the size of a photon might better be considered the time duration of a
photon.
It is very important not to confuse people with inexact terminology and there is a tendency to unlearn everything here and I already see "unraveling" going on. Laserlight is speaking about "rays" and other concepts that have no place here, exact terms please. The idea that a single atom emitting "rays of photons"... all of that is not very helpful since you have no evidence of this. A single photon is emitted by a single atom during a single transition.. that is all (look back at virtual photons). Do not claim Visser is telling you to do it.
What seems to be the issue is the concept of "coherence" you referenced and indications that show that coherence between "rays" occurs on the basis on mixing theorems demonstrated in the paper of Visser (superposition etc.). This is not an "optical" ray but spatial coherence between individual photons (which we agree seeks all paths ... on both sides of a slit by spreading.. all photons fill the same physical spaces) which does indeed occur especially if this mixing is occurring. So "rays" are privileged points/lines in the "fields" only in relation to other points/lines. Remember each photon seeks all paths (therefore... as you have also previously mentioned... a single photon passes both slits so it interferes with itself... that has not changed)... it does not travel along rays but there are points along mirror planes where this photon superposition leads to symmetry between individual photons and correlation.
These photons are co-moving in the same spaces and not along so called rays.
I do not want to get too technical since once I start to do that everyone loses the plot and suddenly we are back into chaos. This is no time for thinking outside the box. We have a lot more unanswered questions and little very little experimental data to go on before we truly understand what is the next task. Just process accurately and coherently the information at hand using unambiguous terms. This is not "fairyland" or "quantum weirdness" but electromagnetism and everything is logical and you have sufficient maths between you all to make sense of this.
What Jal has said about Berry (Geometric) Phase is very true. We have discussed this previously and you are forgetting much in between. Jal is trying to remind us all here. It also must be remembered that Berry Phase is path sensitive ... very path sensitive. Remember the relativistic wagon wheel and the way there is time dilation and length contraction tied to that refractive index. Refractive index is another way about describing the speed of light "externally" to "outside observers".... consider "dimensions" and "speed" inside a block of glass ... check it out with parallax and distances. No glass here but the local speed of light has changed and "empty" space is behaving like glass. You have much to pick up with simple "Berry Phase". This goes further to the incidence of "slow light" and the way bosons move inside that space.
Very Important Point: What you are learning here is in addition to what we already know not instead of what you already know.
Remember the thread is about "Problem with the two slit experiment... Observing later" That last bit "observing later" is just as critical now as before. It is tied to Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory and related to events and how we can determine them. Without "events" and a way to compare them you really do not know if you are going back in time or forward in space... or both. Everyone keep a grip on thing please... I am only warning all of us here since this is a crucial area not to completely foul yourselves up. The difference between a scientist and a total crackpot is in this "detail".
Cheers
Montec
25th January 2007 - 02:55 AM
Hello all
After reading T.D. Visser's papers about the vortex action of the power pointing vectors, I recalled reading something similar about "super lenses". See what you think.
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/Ge...=cvips&gifs=yeshttp://www.ph.utexas.edu/~shvetsgr/lens.htmlhttp://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/te.../mg18624975.400There are plasmons here.
http://boss.solutions4theweb.com/Zhang_tal...pictures__1.pdfIs the evanescent waves being generated by the slits part of the solution?
Laserlight
25th January 2007 - 03:28 AM
GE,
QUOTE
So "rays" are privileged points/lines in the "fields" only in relation to other points/lines. Remember each photon seeks all paths (therefore... as you have also previously mentioned... a single photon passes both slits so it interferes with itself... that has not changed)... it does not travel along rays but there are points along mirror planes where this photon superposition leads to symmetry between individual photons and correlation. These photons are co-moving in the same spaces and not along so called rays.
You are correct...I actually thought about whether to use ray or beam ...from my old radar days...in retrospect "beam" or wavefront would have probably been
more descriptive to describe a type of expanding "light cone".
Re: a single atom oscillating
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So "rays" are privileged points/lines in the "fields" only in relation to other points/lines. Remember each photon seeks all paths (therefore... as you have also previously mentioned... a single photon passes both slits so it interferes with itself... that has not changed)... it does not travel along rays but there are points along mirror planes where this photon superposition leads to symmetry between individual photons and correlation. These photons are co-moving in the same spaces and not along so called rays. |
You are correct...I actually thought about whether to use ray or beam ...from my old radar days...in retrospect "beam" or wavefront would have probably been
more descriptive to describe a type of expanding "light cone".
Re: a single atom oscillating
The idea that a single atom emitting "rays of photons"... all of that is not very helpful since you have no evidence of this. A single photon is emitted by a single atom during a single transition.. that is all (look back at virtual photons). Do not claim Visser is telling you to do it.
Visser had nothing to do with it. It is self evident.. most energy systems have
some longevity aspect of continuous energy emission, like a nebula that radiates
a continuous output of light, or a picture that imprints on our memory.
Discrete, individual photons (like a cosmic "ray") occur so fast that without
specialized equipment they are nearly non-detectable.
Humans, and most detection equipment, observe energy patterns of extended
duration that imprint "pictures" on our consciousness. We are creatures that can
recognize patterns (pattern recognition) which stems from long term images provided by a continous stream of energy. We cannot process individual bits of
information that does not describe some pattern and make sense of it.
Single atoms combine their outputs to generate energy patterns that humans and
higher lifeforms can relate to. We are the culmination of billions of years of
adaptation and survival and our senses are finely tuned to natural events that
occur around us, even if we don't completely understand them. But our consciousness relys on pattern recognition not discrete, one off, random events.
Atoms and electrons oscillate in the presence of energy that is applied to them,
and energy has time relevance/duration. If you look at an orange, you are seeing
the energy of light stimulating the surface atoms of that orange and you see the
very finest of details of that orange. If you were to take an SEM of that orange
and zoom to 50KX power you would see the fine details of those oscillating
surface atoms as they respond to the electrons impinging upon their surface and
observe the finest details of that orange. The surface atoms of the orange
respond to the energy that interacts with them, and they oscillate continuously to
any energy applied to them.
IMO, you are either misinterpreting my discussion or misrepresenting my intention
of trying to simplify the discussion so that anyone can understand it on the
layman's level. Not everyone is a scientist or physicist and the discussion should
accomodate everyones comprehension level, within reason. If something is wrong
it is wrong, but please do not presume that everyone who reads this thread is
at your educational or professional level. To do so seems ostentatious and
counterproductive, IMO.
I suggest that we attempt to provide information so that anyone can easily
understand what we are proposing, otherwise we are not including everyone who
has an interest in this topic/subject.
Comments welcomed,
LL
Good Elf
25th January 2007 - 03:58 AM
Hi Laserlight,
You are right. Not everyone reading this needs this level of information and I am restricting freedom of expression.I apologize.
Cheers
Laserlight
25th January 2007 - 04:15 AM
GE,
No reason for you to apologize...we are all learning and communicating while
trying to solve complex problems that have been around for centuries. IMO,
we have done a remarkable job of attacking this problem and collaborating
to find a solution. I am quite pleased about our recent mutual "epiphany" about
some of the finer details that have recently "come to light."
Some of us can apply our education and life experiences to assemble the puzzle
pieces into a final picture, our goal should be to help others get to our individual
and collective level so that they can understand also.
I think that you understand my objective(s).
Best Regards,
LL
jal
25th January 2007 - 04:55 AM
A pause to get some background info.
Some links on Plasmons from easy to hard to understand.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s872457.htm Weird Light & Plasmons
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/3/17/1 Surface plasmons squeeze light
23 March 2006
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2006/split/770-1.html Two-Dimensional Light
I think that we are now past the “text book” knowledge. We are into “confidentiality agreement” territory. ( That includes new theory/models)
http://www.csulb.edu/~mbarbic/plasnano.htm http://128.200.94.85/high_frequency_(ghz_t...2d_plasmons.htm In this project we are seeking to harness the effects of 2d plasmons for high frequency (GHz to THz) electronic devices, including detectors, mixers, oscillators, an possibly amplifiers.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/8/...njp6_1_013.html Quantum superposition and entanglement of mesoscopic plasmons
jal
Good Elf
25th January 2007 - 06:03 AM
Hi
Laserlight, Confused2,
Montec, Aerohead, TRoc, Fivedoughnut, Yquantum, Neil et al,
Warning: extremely dangerous Elf Physics follows and you consider it at your own peril. Our "epiphany" as you put it really scares me. I am unaccustomed to having people in total agreement. So if people are now seeing this from my point of view then as Montec puts it .... "super resolution" of sources is possible way way down below the so called "quantum limit". Indeed this has been shown with the manufacture of some super lenses already. I do not have hands on experience with these negative refractive index metamaterials. Some have said initially they could not be built then they said they would not work now they say they cannot be made to resolve perfectly. What I would like to add to this is what we cannot fabricate "perfectly" we can still process the information with computers such that it will operate "perfectly" by a correction transform, by giving our technical eyes "computer generated spectacles".
Recently breakthroughs have enabled near optical and even some optical metamaterials to be produced and been acknowledged already. The technical hurdles are "formidable" to say the least but the
payoff could be almost beyond imagination. These "devices" can restore information deep in the heart of "inner space"... this gets me back to Kondo Phantoms and other interesting phenomena. Here we have "images" recovered from a "zero boundary" across which no energy passes. Information from "where"? The work of John Pendry and others have not discussed the defects that Taco Visser is discussing. It is my "conjecture", in the absence of other information, that these images and information is "recovered" from asynchronous temporal events... something similar to the evanescent waves being emitted from deBroglie Particles only in this case we are dealing with a "deBroglie Holographic Universe"?
New 'superlens' reveals hidden nanostructures Metamaterials found to work for visible lightAs far as I see so far John Pendry does not incorporate information about the "defects" of Taco Visser. All these materials do not involve "free standing" regions in space with these properties "projected" into them through the defect. This is something quite different. Taco Visser seems to suggest that the surface plasmons (resonances) are not the fundamental issue and I would have to agree this has an underlying explanation beyond our present physics which cannot reach beyond these null surfaces due to zero Poynting Energy Flow. This anti-logic does not seem to matter... it seems pure information can pass this barrier. You can forget about the effects of so called "quantum noise barriers" and now we will have to deal with "super quantum information" that can be decoded from the Fourier space of these optical systems.
Researchers use metamaterials to alter light's path, speedQUOTE
Elaborating, Soukoulis said, "When we have a metamaterial with a negative index of refraction at 1.5 micrometers that can disperse, or separate a wave into spectral components with different wavelengths, we can tune our lasers to play a lot of games with light. We can have a wavepacket hit a slab of negative index material, appear on the right-hand side of the material and begin to flow backward before the original pulse enters the negative index medium."
Continuing, he explained that the pulse flowing backward also releases a forward pulse out the end of the medium, a situation that causes the pulse entering the front of the material appear to move out the back almost instantly.
"In this way, one can argue that that the wave packet travels with velocities much higher than the velocities of light," said Soukoulis. "This is due to the dispersion of the negative index of refraction; there is nothing wrong with Einstein's theory of relativity." (These effects are clearly seen in simulations)
Source: Ames Laboratory
We have looked into these simulations on this thread before of actual recorded events and superluminal propagation via "optical anti-matter".
Backwards Light... faster than light propagation forward.Notice that you have a "zero singularity wall" on the left while a "reconstruction" is spontaneously created to the right at superluminal speed. It is certainly a kind of limited faster than light "space jump"... in these cases it is only light that make the jump... using the "defects" and a suitable manipulation of Lorentz-CPT maybe even particles can make the jump since these dislocations are occurring in free space. A couple of years ago I indicated how it may be possible using the Aharanov-Bohm Effect to teleport an electron across space. This seemed to defy causality. I dropped the matter. The possibility exists that regions of space may be made into electromagnetic singularities... optical black holes. These effects can be made to happen in free standing regions of space with appropriately located "defects" perhaps projecting information back or forward in time through the null surfaces. This state of affairs has always existed once the true basis of Lorentz-CPT Laws could be "revoked" in restricted regions of spacetime then time itself becomes "symmetric" regards to energy flow. Shades of "Deja vu"... he he he!
Who knows at this stage.
Cheers
fivedoughnut
25th January 2007 - 07:30 AM
Good Elf,
Welcome to the 5-D zone
....... dualities produced by chronorecursion; created by (energy/dimensional) condensation via endo event horizon transit towards the 0-D wavestate we fondly label singularity. Hey man, this is precisely what electromagnetism is; an event anti-event loop occurring in a 720 degree cycle; 360 positive, 360 negative.
Laserlight
25th January 2007 - 07:39 AM
GE,
QUOTE
I am unaccustomed to having people in total agreement. So if people are now seeing this from my point of view
I prefer to think of it as we came to a mutual understanding from opposite
directions. You are a theorist, I am a "conceptualist"....anyhow religions
aside
, local plasmon "fields" and EM fields do seem to interact as I had
speculated previously... According to some of the recent papers, it also appears
that plasmon's can transmit energy laterally along a surface plane when acted
upon by an applied EM field, and it seems that sharp corners/edges are
high energy points for plasmon fields. These effects are illustrated in Taco Visser's
papers.
So it seems logical that when EM fields interact with localized plasmon fields there
is a timing and phase delay induced where the surface interactions occur.
Plasmon fields appear to conduct or act as conduits for externally applied EM fields
by altering the index of refraction along conductive surface boundaries. IMO, the
plasmon fields should have an energy gradient that decreases in charge level as
distance increases from the surface.
Let the arguments begin!
Regards,
LL
stannrodd
25th January 2007 - 08:23 AM
Reality shows...
Light jumps hoops...!
Stann
Good Elf
25th January 2007 - 11:12 AM
Hi
Laserlight, Confused2, Montec, Aerohead, TRoc, Fivedoughnut, Yquantum, Neil et al,
QUOTE
it also appears that plasmon's can transmit energy laterally along a surface plane when acted upon by an applied EM field, and it seems that sharp corners/edges are high energy points for plasmon fields. These effects are illustrated in Taco Visser's papers.[...] So it seems logical that when EM fields interact with localized plasmon fields there is a timing and phase delay induced where the surface interactions occur. Plasmon fields appear to conduct or act as conduits for externally applied EM fields by altering the index of refraction along conductive surface boundaries. IMO, the plasmon fields should have an energy gradient that decreases in charge level as distance increases from the surface.
Hmmm... let me see ... does this mean that you are not able to accept that these defects can occur beyond the conductive boundaries of the slits as indicated in Visser's illustrations and alter (apparently) the speed of light by forming topological charges there (induced null sources)? That's a "no" is it? Electromagnetic theory in a vacuum cannot conventionally "create" these singularities on demand. They need to be introduced in free space. You could "charge" matter (a dilectric) resulting in dielectric displacement charges with EM fields but you cannot charge the vacuum with external fields alone... this is where the theory has diverged from standard EM theory. Please confirm this is the "point of departure" now. You may have a very good point and these "sources" and "sinks" might only occur in dilectrics such as gases for instance. Interesting point. Of course Visser does not believe this but you may be right.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| it also appears that plasmon's can transmit energy laterally along a surface plane when acted upon by an applied EM field, and it seems that sharp corners/edges are high energy points for plasmon fields. These effects are illustrated in Taco Visser's papers.[...] So it seems logical that when EM fields interact with localized plasmon fields there is a timing and phase delay induced where the surface interactions occur. Plasmon fields appear to conduct or act as conduits for externally applied EM fields by altering the index of refraction along conductive surface boundaries. IMO, the plasmon fields should have an energy gradient that decreases in charge level as distance increases from the surface. |
Hmmm... let me see ... does this mean that you are not able to accept that these defects can occur beyond the conductive boundaries of the slits as indicated in Visser's illustrations and alter (apparently) the speed of light by forming topological charges there (induced null sources)? That's a "no" is it? Electromagnetic theory in a vacuum cannot conventionally "create" these singularities on demand. They need to be introduced in free space. You could "charge" matter (a dilectric) resulting in dielectric displacement charges with EM fields but you cannot charge the vacuum with external fields alone... this is where the theory has diverged from standard EM theory. Please confirm this is the "point of departure" now. You may have a very good point and these "sources" and "sinks" might only occur in dilectrics such as gases for instance. Interesting point. Of course Visser does not believe this but you may be right.
At stationary points of a complex scalar field, the phase is well-defined but its gradient vanishes. Stationary points includes both minima and maxima as well as saddles, to be referred to as phase saddles (Fig. 1©). Phase saddles of ˆEy correspond to saddle points of the power flow, as illustrated in Fig. 1(d). A phase maximum (Fig. 1(e)) of ˆEy corresponds to a sink of power flow (Fig. 1(f)), and a phase minimum corresponds to a source of power flow;
it is to be noted that sinks and sources do not occur in free space.Both phase singularities and stationary points are topological features of the complex field ˆEy, and several conserved quantities can be associated with each topological feature. The first of these is the so-called topological charge sE of the field, defined as the integral of ∇φE around a closed loop enclosing the feature such that... etc.
Is that it?? If so do you disagree with the experiments or the theory or both?
Cheers
Confused2
25th January 2007 - 11:56 AM
Hi All,
Just logging a protest..
I claimed the experimental result here:-
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif LOOKS LIKE the result of continuous sinewave excitation.
QUOTE (Confused2 (that's me)+)
Unfortunately Scouten,Visser and Wolf and Lisa's applet and the ripple tank and the DSE equation are all assuming continuous sinewave excitation.
Laserlight responds..
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
It is more likely that the atom/electron makes millions/billions of oscillations, depending upon the amount and frequency of energy applied to energize the atom which results in a continuous sequence of energy pulses
My logic may be completely faulty but it seems to me that Laserlight's suggestion might be linked (via my observation) to the actual experimental result.
Good Elf responds with..
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
..The idea that a single atom emitting "rays of photons"... all of that is not very helpful since you have no evidence of this.... This is not an "optical" ray but spatial coherence between individual photons...
Good Elf then introduces an applet showing something completely different. Laserlight attempts to justify his point but loses out and the discussion continues with an explanation of the applet as though this is the actual experimental result.
Once the applet has been fully explained I hope we may again look at the DSE
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif .
Protest over.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Good Elf
25th January 2007 - 04:05 PM
Hi Laserlight,
Confused2, Montec, Aerohead, TRoc, Fivedoughnut, Yquantum, Neil et al,
I am not tryiing to snow Laserlight or anyone on these matters... I am really trying to be as clear as possible.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
..The idea that a single atom emitting "rays of photons"... all of that is not very helpful since you have no evidence of this.... This is not an "optical" ray but spatial coherence between individual photons...
Good Elf then introduces an applet showing something completely different. Laserlight attempts to justify his point but loses out and the discussion continues with an explanation of the applet as though this is the actual experimental result.
You mean zephir's animated gif image? No... Visser's paper is a theoretical discussion (probably correct) I was discussing the paper... the gif was only a simple illustration I added as a "visual aid"... which still is a good illustration.
As we have discussed many times this "animated image" best represents propagation of light through an existing field of stationary cavities with curved arrangement symmetric to the direction of the local wavefront. Alright... different paradigms have different ideas about this but we hold with a pretty sophisticated idea and it needs a pretty sophisticated paradigm to explain it. The photon passes both slits and it then "seeks all paths" inside the interior cavity (and externally in this case too). It probably actually represents an electron being diffracted but it doesn't matter the principle is the same. Cavities are everywhere there, created on demand, and nulls elsewhere(remember the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment the results still hold even now).
You can also see that the intensity is concentrated within the cavities and reduced along "dispersion nodal lines". I do mot have any ideal example but this picture is the best I can show you.
Now I maintain, and still maintain, that all monochromatic photons on the same wavefront occupy the same state (or try to) so two sources of photons which are on the same wavefront will be coherent along certain lines not across the entire field but correspondence as in a symmetry on both sides of the slits and also between. Remember when a photon wave passes both slits regardless of the shape of the incident light wavefronts, on the two slits the wavefronts after the slits are now certainly highly curved. Ask the question at what positions in the plane can I guarantee two points to be in phase? Maybe Visser is saying superbright photons occur only at points of mutual coherence... I dunno! That may be one possible additional interpretation of the paper that Laserlight was discussing earlier.
QUOTE
New effects in Young’s interference experiment with partially coherent light
Hugo F. Schouten; Taco D. Visser; Emil Wolf... Received February 4, 2003
Maybe this paper was one of those minor points that are not too important in the big picture or it may have helped established those null points and how they must arrange around the slits.
Your Java applett never shows stationary states it always shows travelling waves which are not the case ...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=170101Confused2... I know you like the way those two programs depict this subject but it is inaccurate and leads to the wrong assumptions about photons. OK... you can use these examples but if they do not show features that I need to describe some important point I am "uneasy". I am also thinking about what others may think of this illustration. It is encumbrent upon us to present our best try at a mutual understanding. I could ask you why not accept my illustration instead of yours?
One program example you showed (the second one) had two very simplistic sine waves from two slits crossing at a screen (nothing happening in between... just at one point). It is OK to demonstrate some idea but it does not indicate in any way how light propagates.
Read my lips... Light is not a ray. Interference occurs even if only one photon is emitted... full stop. There are cavities throughout space as a result of propagation of photons "seeking all paths"... not just one path. They do not jostle for position and reorganize themselves as they go ... the "pattern" is literally
timeless and fixed for "eternity" for each photon it is just those Poynting Vectors still have to move around through space at the much lower speed of light to complete the full picture. True... the photon is absorbed at one point... but it truly "seeks all paths". Especially when you have an aperture (or two apertures). There is no sine wave snaking it's way through space with a single photon... a single photon is like a small fixed "wiggle" that never changes it's shape in the direction of propagation but spreads and can be "dispersed" in the direction perpendicular to the line of propagation. This area can be potentially massive.
Now I understand you are protesting against all this but I would like you to have a look at the phenomenon and not simply to imagine from primary school analogies what may be happening. Light does have "bosonic organizing principles" and does lead to various forms of coherence and light does "seek all paths"... at least all available paths depending on the modes of the propagation. In lasers we usually only want the primary mode but as soon as it hits those slits there will be more through dispersion spatially of some of the packet component frequencies. Coherence must be of photons on the one wavefront not on different wavefronts. No photon is ever coherent with a photon on a totally different wavefront. Coherence is about correlation of "co-moving photons".
You should remember back to your radio propagation days and realize this is something you already know. The paper describes one condition that links points on either side of the z axis which are literally mirror images of each other. Each pair of points chosen in that way (point by point on either side can be shown to be spatially coherent with each other. This does not mean that the neighboring points are related in the same way. Since the presumption is that these are totally unrelated separately coherent beams of laser light of the same wavelength co-moving in the same field it says something about specific points in the field and their relationship. Carefully inspect how the two "rays" are summed you can quickly identify that there will be a superposition of both fields at the two specific points and since they are "mirror images of each other" they will be "correlated" by their respective co-moving photons. They are different points on the wavefront curves so there needs to be a function on how they are summed.
All right I didn't know that but it does not change anything in the big picture. It shows that even though we know that individual photons only interfere with themselves many photons are correlated and are coherent at various pairs of points in the plane but the field is curved so the correlation is not geometrically symmetric. This says nothing about where photons are traveling in the field... what I do know is they are not traveling in optical "rays". They do not split and break up either and they are absorbed somewhere whole. Correlation (Coherence) does not mean that different photons mutually interfere... They just don't.
I am not going to fully answer this question again since I have done this a number of times and something is just not clicking into place for you on this one. You also have not established your experimental evidence for any concepts you retain in this matter. Remember applets and gifs are all "visual aids" to help us understand something we actually cannot truly see. This is the nature of the quantum. Many of these "illustrations" are made by people who do not even believe that they represent anything more than an aid to mathematics since there is nothing physical happening there and photons do not exist in that intervening space. I am not speaking about third grade students but some of the best minds on the planet completely believe that and very little could be done to dissuade them since within a certain paradigm they are right. I just hold a different paradigm and so do you.
Cheers
Laserlight
25th January 2007 - 04:49 PM
GE,
QUOTE
Hmmm... let me see ... does this mean that you are not able to accept that these defects can occur beyond the conductive boundaries of the slits as indicated in Visser's illustrations and alter (apparently) the speed of light by forming topological charges there (induced null sources)? That's a "no" is it? Electromagnetic theory in a vacuum cannot conventionally "create" these singularities on demand. They need to be introduced in free space. You could "charge" matter (a dilectric) resulting in dielectric displacement charges with EM fields but you cannot charge the vacuum with external fields alone... this is where the theory has diverged from standard EM theory. Please confirm this is the "point of departure" now. You may have a very good point and these "sources" and "sinks" might only occur in dilectrics such as gases for instance. Interesting point. Of course Visser does not believe this but you may be right.
Remember the experiment that you referenced is with a subwavelength slit
and with the field TE polarized.
Creation and annihilation of phase singularities near a sub-wavelength slit:http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?URI=OPEX-11-4-371Nowhere in that paper did Visser's group explain the mechanism that generated
the phase singularities, saddles, and vortices. IMO, certain of these phenomena
are the direct result of asynchronous standing wave reflections causing
"pre-entry interference" anomalies in the structure of the fields immediately in the
vicinity in front of the subwavelength slit. Since a coherent wavefront can interfere
with itself, and because the synchronous incident waves are being met with
distorted reflected waves due to timing mismatches, caused by the open area of
the slit cavity, there are distortions induced into the fields in front of the slit.
IMO, these timing and phasing mismatches create the wave anomalies cited by
Visser. When singularities and vorticies are cancelled in front of the slit, by
adjusting the slit width (and therefore the phase timing) which changes the standing wave properties, the resulting waveshape becomes "streamlined"
and "flows" easier thru the slit. However, this is not the surface plasmon effect
that I was proposing.
Here is what I was proposing re: surface plasmon gradient effects, from a link
provided by Jal.
Plasmonhttp://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/8/...njp6_1_013.htmlRegards, LL
Good Elf
25th January 2007 - 05:02 PM
Hi Laserlight, Confused2, Montec, Aerohead, TRoc, Fivedoughnut, Yquantum, Neil et al,
Here is a little interesting information that is not new but may interest you all.
Question: Take a double slit experiment, behind the slit in a totally enclosed black painted space with a white rear screen... what is the minimum size an object must be suspended within the space to significantly alter the interference pattern on the screen?
Answer: Four separate situations...
a) Significantly smaller than 1/4 wavelength has no effect on the pattern at all and the particle cannot be seen (does not scatter light) anywhere using that monochromatic radiation. Any number of these particles can be placed inside the cavity separated by significant distance without any additional significant effect.
Significantly larger than 1/4 wavelength but placed inside a nodal region... has a discernible effect on the pattern but cannot be seen using that monochromatic light.
c) Significantly larger than 1/4 wavelength but placed inside a anti-nodal region... has a discernible effect on the pattern but can be seen using that monochromatic light.
d) Exactly equal to 1/2 a wavelength (or multiple) has a very strong effect and resonates with energy from the incident beam and acts a strong additional source. Seen anywhere it is placed in the cavity.
Cheers
PS: I just saw your submission Laserlight... I will consider it tomorrow.... I must have a little shut eye now.
jal
25th January 2007 - 05:29 PM
Good Elf What I my going to do with you?
You ignored my warning sign.
I think that we are now past the “text book” knowledge. We are into “confidentiality agreement” territory. ( That includes new theory/models)
Should I have added? ... TOP SECRET RESTRICTED INFOYou went ahead and picked up the old worn out paint brush and painted the same old useless picture.
I thought that we had agreed that we needed to find the next generation of models and tools that would bring us to the next generation of technological development.
The links that I just finished providing in my last post all used the old paint brush.
The only NEW ( for us ) is Visser's and co authors on plasmons and that got LEEKED OUT from The Netherlands in 2003.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/threepoint.pdf Did you see any leeks from the military, that has been using spy technology in satelites?
The google earth still cannot give you the quality of pictures that the military was suppose to have 20 years ago. ( See a man smoking a cigarette).
I'm sure that today the military would be able to tell you what the man was smoking (pot or tobacco).
Laserlight, the picture that you posted from
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/8/...njp6_1_013.html came from a useless paper from Switzerland. They only used the old paint brush. There is no new work there. Their citations are even old ( Visser's and co authors ).
Laserlight, you asked that I produce more than pictures for my model. I have been and so did Visser.
Visser could not explain the 2d packing because it slipped by his observation or ???
jal
Laserlight
25th January 2007 - 06:11 PM
Jal,
QUOTE
Laserlight, you asked that I produce more than pictures for my model. I have been and so did Visser.
Visser could not explain the 2d packing because it slipped by his observation or ???
I'm still waiting for a verbal explanation on how you relate propagating photons
to packing circles/spheres. You should be able to defend your argument with
a conceptual model that anyone can easily comprehend. I have given you my
explanation as to why the 3 hole results look the way they do and am waiting for
your version to prove mine incorrect.
You are claiming packing circles, and I'm asking how and why packing circles
are related to the interference phenomenon. Do you have an explanation/reason
for the effect? Convince me/us.
Regards,
LL
jal
25th January 2007 - 06:47 PM
Laserlight
I can only quote T.D. Visser.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/threepoint.pdfQUOTE
Two of the roots of this cubic equation are unity, as might be expected – if the fields at the pinholes are fully coherent with respect to each other, destructive interference is possible. However, the third root of the equation is l0=_1/2. We therefore have the surprising result that in a three-pinhole interferometer, complete destructive interference is possible even if the field fluctuations at the three pinholes are not fully coherent with respect to each other.
4. Physical interpretation and conclusions
We have demonstrated that it is possible to produce complete destructive interference in partially coherent fields even if the fields are not completely correlated with each other. An example of such a situation is a three-pinhole interferometer with the spectrum at the three pinholes being equal and the spectral degree of coherence of the light at each pair of pinholes having the value l0=_1/
2. The existence of such an effect with partially coherent fields is surprising, but has a clear physical explanation, as we now show.
It is to be noted that although the fields from a pair of point sources may be individually partially coherent with respect to each other and with respect to the field from a third point source, it is possible for the sum of the fields from the pair of point sources to be fully correlated with the field of the third. In this case, the sum of the fields from the pair of point sources can destructively interfere with the field of the third source.
I'll have to wait for more info before I can decide if there is positive link to 2D packing and therefore my model.
It's on the back burner.
jal
Laserlight
25th January 2007 - 07:00 PM
Jal,
I have a suggestion that should be fairly easy to demonstrate.
Copy a 2D version of an Airy ring that GE has posted previously. Next copy and
paste the pictures at 120 degree (equilateral triangle) angles to each other but with
some separation to simulate the projection expansion represented by the gap
between the holes and the screen. Erase any areas that overlap that should be
out of phase....perhaps this will illustrate the phenomenon to your satisfaction.
Regards,
LL
Confused2
25th January 2007 - 09:15 PM
Hi Good Elf,
Oh dear. What a waste of a good ripple tank (
http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm ) ..what has clearly failed to become clear is that intensity is (loosely) given by the square of the height of the waves passing at any particular point .. actually the RMS value would be better .. the
waves move but the
intensity is static .. maybe ripple tank Mk2 will have a button for 'Show intensity'. Belatedly :- where the surface is undisturbed .. those are the interference minima .. in general the brighter the waves passing a particular point -> the greater the intensity or, in the case of the single photon DSE, the greater the chance of detecting a photon at that point.
Lisa's applet ..(
http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.html ) .. assumes the waves arriving at both slits are of the same phase and is intended to show how the intensity (the chance of detecting a photon) varies as the two paths vary from being in phase (maximum constructive interference) to 'out of phase' where there is maximum destructive interference.
By failing to apply a rigorous interpretation I think we both hoped they would be equally useful whether interpreted as waves, cavities or wavefunctions. It seems the result is that both were a complete waste of time .. sorry.
The DSE equation (
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html ) gives you everything you need to know to understand (or ignore) either or both of the above.
The DSE equation (and the others) clearly indicate that there is interference between waves from different 'waves' (technically phase difference > 360 degrees) .. if you wish to interpret this as (by definition) showing a photon has the properties of a ray .. then a photon quite definitely has the properties of a ray .. all you need to do is look at the geometry (
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html ) and results (
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ). After looking at the results for some time I have to conclude that the explanation will involve something far more subtle than any sort of pulse
We all have to accept that there may be people 'out there' with a greater understanding of the problem than we have. I hope we would all be willing to allow them a chance to increase our understanding without first subjecting them to a full and repetitious account of our views and theories. As we have just found out.. one person can see a solution to the problems as they see them while other people may be looking for a solution to a totally different set of problems.
Best wishes,
-C2.
"THEY"
25th January 2007 - 09:55 PM
Funny story, I finally found time last weekend to get somewhat caught up on this thread. I was going to post on Monday (but ran out of time and couldn't) that I thought you guys were arguing about the same thing but from different angles... I even had this cute analogy involving dust piles and Ed Witten..... But now in catching up over the last couple of days, you guys figured it out yourselves.
YIPPEEEEE!!!
Good Elf
25th January 2007 - 11:55 PM
Hi
Laserlight, Confused2, Montec, "THEY", Aerohead, TRoc, Fivedoughnut, Yquantum, Neil et al,
QUOTE
..what has clearly failed to become clear is that intensity is (loosely) given by the square of the height of the waves passing at any particular point .. actually the RMS value would be better .. the waves move but the intensity is static .. maybe ripple tank Mk2 will have a button for 'Show intensity'. Belatedly :- where the surface is undisturbed .. those are the interference minima .. in general the brighter the waves passing a particular point -> the greater the intensity or, in the case of the single photon DSE, the greater the chance of detecting a photon at that point.
OK... Maybe I should actually point out what I mean
exactly using this ripple tank applet...
http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htmStart Applet, Tick "Stopped". Click "Clear waves". Choose "Setup double slit". Untick "Stopped" for 1/4 second or less. After that 1/4 second or less tick "Stopped" again. Choose second row control that says "No Sources". Unclick "stopped" again and let it propagate... See how the ripples propagate to the lower margin as a very short "pulse train of ripples". The crests and troughs pass all points on the way to the lower margin. Everywhere (no nodes anymore) except the dispersion minima actually gets equal maxima and minima so all points are exposed almost equally on the screen margin (as if a photographic film was there). This is fine for a ripple tank but it is not what happens with light. No matter how many photons are in that one pulse it does not emulate in any way what light actually does... its impulse response.
In reality for a "real" coherent pulse of light you would get your "steady state" result for even the very shortest pulse... a single sync pulse (neglecting the point about each photon hits one point and builds up that pattern on a detector). If you were measuring intensity summed over time at the lower margin with a
storage photomultiplier array for that one single pulse, a very large areas receive a near uniform "pulse" illumination. This is what ripple tanks actually do. This response for light differs from the response the applet has for steady state continuous wave. In the real world one single photon or one single photon wavefront will still produce your complete interference pattern "seeking all paths" ... you do not need to wait for the system to reach equilibrium. Only spatial coherence is required to build up the interference pattern, not temporal coherence (if such a thing could be defined). For a series of photons or photon pulses from the same distant source (even if separated by large gaps of time) some areas of the screen would not receive any illumination ever.... while others will receive illumination as successive maxima and minima only if allowed to reach equilibrium over some time. This applies also to intervening regions as well. They also have this existing standing wave pattern.
What we see is the third image with "advanced and retarded waves" producing standing waves and not the first or second image here...
+
=
It is the only "sane" resolution... Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory with the Cramer Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics as I have been saying. This gives the expected impulse response of the system. Ripple Tanks do not give this result since they only involve "retarded waveforms".
You can run the sequence again by Ticking stopped. Clear waves. Choose "one plane source, one frequency". Untick "Stopped" for 1/4 second. Tick "Stopped" after 1/4 second. Select "No sources". Untick "Stopped". Run to completion again. You should see this image as a single moving wavelet...
Click to enlarge... I have stopped it but in fact it will be moving and without other "waves" to interfere with will not have a standing pattern.
This is crucial to understanding the DSE... absolutely crucial. Understand?
If you do understand and still disagree then we are unable to agree at all since I am using the observed experimental results and you are using something else.
Cheers
Laserlight
26th January 2007 - 12:11 AM
C2-
QUOTE
what has clearly failed to become clear is that intensity is (loosely) given by the square of the height of the waves passing at any particular point .. actually the RMS value would be better .. the waves move but the intensity is static ..
Hmmm, I disagree with this assessment. The
intensity of the wavefront
follows the ISL, the frequency remains the same, the momentum stays the same,
and the energy of an individual photon remains the same.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| what has clearly failed to become clear is that intensity is (loosely) given by the square of the height of the waves passing at any particular point .. actually the RMS value would be better .. the waves move but the intensity is static .. |
Hmmm, I disagree with this assessment. The
intensity of the wavefront
follows the ISL, the frequency remains the same, the momentum stays the same,
and the energy of an individual photon remains the same.
The DSE equation (and the others) clearly indicate that there is interference between waves from different 'waves' (technically phase difference > 360 degrees)
A wavefront can only interfere with itself. In the case of a standing wave, the wave
is reflecting back on itself and will either constructively or destructively interfere
with itself. Remember, a wavefront has a fixed timing relationship to itself only.
Subsequent wavefronts have a different relative timing relationship that is delayed
by at least a wavelength in timing and spacial distance. (think back to your
radar days and the finned dummy load waveguide configuration, that was
designed to reflect the incoming energy back onto itself causing self cancellation
and heat generation)
In the case of a radar signal, the reflected waves crossed thru the transmitted
waves and were still returned to the receiver as the phase relationships of the return signals changed, but did not cancel as long as the phase was changing.
My point being that each wavefront only interferes with itself
Regards,
LL
Laserlight
26th January 2007 - 12:32 AM
GE,
I think the stop motion picture of the wavefront that you posted shows that the
cancellation and phase timing shift has already occurred in the immediate wall
vicinity just behind the slits. The advancing wavefront clearly shows how the
signal cancellation has caused phase and timing distortions to the advancing
wavefront. The advancing (and already distorted) wavefront just projects the
distortions onto the screen as the wavefronts expand. The non-cancelled energy
bands light up the bright intensity bands on the screen.
Are we in agreement on this point?
LL
Good Elf
26th January 2007 - 03:53 AM
Hi
Laserlight, Confused2, Montec, "THEY", Aerohead, TRoc, Fivedoughnut, Yquantum, Neil et al,
QUOTE
GE,
I think the stop motion picture of the wavefront that you posted shows that the
cancellation and phase timing shift has already occurred in the immediate wall
vicinity just behind the slits. The advancing wavefront clearly shows how the
signal cancellation has caused phase and timing distortions to the advancing
wavefront. The advancing (and already distorted) wavefront just projects the
distortions onto the screen as the wavefronts expand. The non-cancelled energy
bands light up the bright intensity bands on the screen.
Are we in agreement on this point?
I think so... but you need to duplicate the applet setup, as I have shown, to indicate the particular effect I am trying to show... the spreading without nodes and antinodes in the first couple of cycles. These defects themselves are not the antinodes, they can form antinodes as they merge to form a "bubble".
You can see here the static pattern of nodes and anti-nodes "illuminated" by the passing wave packet envelope. I am not specifically discussing Visser's Analysis (no such details appear on this applet). I am discussing just what way the wave-tank does not emulate light... the most important aspects that are not shown by a simple wave tank that is programmed on a simple "Real Number" model of the waves interfering and mixing with themselves.
If you look at the defect animation you will see that these defects extend...
Click on Figure 4 or click here...
http://www.opticsexpress.org/view_media.cfm?umid=3815Click on Figure 6 or click here...
http://www.opticsexpress.org/view_media.cfm?umid=3816These animations are able to be saved as gif's. The second shows a field of spreading defects "periodically" filling space to the edge of the gif boundary... and obviously beyond but not shown. As the slit widens, each side a mirror symmetric image of the other side of the slit. Also importantly is the first illustration which shows how the defects "merge" as the slit is dynamically widened to produce "super-brightening" in the residual zone if everything is correctly arranged. See how the defects stream out from source at critical spacing and obviously other super-bright patches cannot be shown in this less detailed illustration... Fig 6.
As far as I can tell these defects extend to "infinity" well beyond the boundary of the gif image. The defects are of great importance near the actual slit especially when the slit is narrow. The super-bright (anti-nodes) zones continues to widen and form optical images on a screen of the external world as "pinhole cameras" within the envelope of defects which are along the margins of the widening aperture. These defects will continue to infinity if allowed but initially when the slit is exceedingly narrow they only appear as evanescent features near the slits and then they suddenly string out to infinity as far as the gif boundary permits. Clearly they are part of the issue of spatial packet frequency dispersion (packets are made up of more than one frequency and this extra frequencies lead to the defects as well). There are unseen nodes and anti-nodes throughout the space not represented at all. Aside from the topological charge these are already known to be the result of Orbital Angular Momentum (OAM)... also not discussed or dealt with. Remember this?
Optical Analog of Uncertainty PrincipleThis is where the spin comes in. There are two types of spin and one of them is OAM which is the symmetric packet orbital rotation as opposed to axial packet rotation... the Isospin. Because of Boson states the photons all have some of each. Only OAM can be zero but a photon must always have Isospin. So we have charge, spin and parity all occurring within the one packet (a single event)... Interfering with itself, resulting in all of this.
A lot is going on in these spaces with the refractive index as well. That is also not specifically shown and that point is extremely important... maybe the most important. Just recall that optics and electromagnetism does not allow for these defects in the first place to solve this array you need to "anomalously" introduce them. What this is saying is "Missing Theory Here... please insert". This is a null boundary. Some people are saying nothing is needed because this is a null. I would say not true... I have discussed why already.
Cheers
Laserlight
26th January 2007 - 05:00 AM
GE, C2, and All,
GE the morphology of the advancing wave is a direct byproduct of its interaction
with the matter and geometry of the slit(s). This is best illustrated by the varying
degrees of diffraction that is observed depending on the width of the slit(s) as well
as the separation of the slits.
The paper "Plasmons at Work?" presents some intriquing surface interactions
that have a profound effect on the cross signal mixing that takes place in the
environment just beyond the slits.
Look at the rear side of the slit wall in the illustration and think about the
mesomechanism that are theorized in this paper. IMO, plasmon "density"
and their ability to influence an impinging EM wave is directly correlated to
the slit width. The closer the edges of the slits are, the higher the interaction
with the EM wave and the higher the index of refraction and signal mixing that
takes place. The more intense the localized fields, the greater the wave dispersion
and interference mixing that occurs.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/naturephyscomment.pdfSlit widths vs beam dispersion.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...c/slitcomps.jpg
Regards,
LL
Confused2
26th January 2007 - 10:21 AM
Hi Good Elf,
Oh dear!
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
In reality for a "real" coherent pulse of light you would get your "steady state" result for even the very shortest pulse... a single sync pulse
If we have one observation and one assumption and the assumption is incompatible with the observation then what might this be trying to tell us?
I think you've found that any attempt at a pulse response gives the 'wrong answer' in the ripple tank .. this brings us back to the relative value of observations and assumptions. If we change our assumption in the direction of simulating the same steady state response that we observe in reality .. we need to use continuous sinewave excitation.. a possible clue?
I've magnified a bit of the ripple tank image you posted .. so you can see that I'm not cheating.
Despite your best attempts to mess this up there's already enough info present to establish some principles. The 'dark bits' (the destructive interference) are where the waves from the two slits are 180 degrees out of phase .. this is your basic DSE equation in action. If we were at school we'd be asked to measure the length of the blue lines so we know the difference is half a wavelength.
As Visser discovered recently .. if the waves are out of phase at a point (giving a 'zero') then they must be of opposite phases (a red and a yellow) either side of that point.
I have (rather crudely) drawn in the intensity that might be seen at a screen at the bottom of the box, based on the brightness of the wave arriving at that point. Hopefully the how and why and where are reasonably clear from this.
I think that's about the best I can do at present.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Confused2
26th January 2007 - 10:42 AM
And another one..
and a real one
Clearly the spreading algorithm in the ripple tank simulation is a bit enthusiastic .. despite this .. it's pretty fantastic.
-C2.
Good Elf
26th January 2007 - 03:46 PM
Hi Confused2,
I will agree that the ripple tank does an amazing job within its parameters. I am not criticizing it just indicating what I think is the biggest failing. I would caution... two wrongs do not make a right. The illumination is not a stationary condition it is a migrating one that provides traveling "uniform" energy distributions over broad zonal "rays" until reflection from a wall. For the purpose of showing that it is initially
non-stationary, the illustration with the ripple tank was adequate. It requires "time" to establish those stationary states with ripple tanks. Not so with individual photons... an important point that is overlooked... the main point.
I have already indicated EM Impulse Responses of a system in a previous post and that will do me as a visual aid.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=167556I am sure that the relevant work has been done there and shows that impulse responses are fine (both switch on and switch off modes in 1/2 wavelength dipoles). Anyhow I will not push "my barrow" any further.
Cheers
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.
This is a great disappointment.
