Permittivity is a physical quantity that describes how an electric field affects and is affected by a dielectric medium, and is determined by the ability of a material to polarize in response to the field, and thereby reduce the field inside the material. Thus, permittivity relates to a material's ability to transmit (or "permit") an electric field.
It is directly related to electric susceptibility. For example, in a capacitor, an increased permittivity allows the same charge to be stored with a smaller electric field (and thus a smaller voltage), leading to an increased capacitance.
Permittivity LinkWikipedia[/URL]
QUOTE
Laserlight et al seem happy with anything (eg plasmids) that might possibly explain bright bits and dark bits .. I reject most such explanations because I don't see how they can possibly give the same result for all materials when in reality we know the only thing that matters is the width of the slit.
Do you expect us to accept that there will be dark bands and light bands with
gaps that are are millimeters apart and in these bands there will be perfect
cancellation or overlap without bleeding into each zone?
Just to put things into perspective:
A 1mm gap = 1,000,000nm = 1729 wavelengths(@ 700nm wavelength).
A 2mm gap = 2,000,000nm = 2857 wavelengths (@ 700nm)
What you are claiming is that there is perfect signal mixing/cancellation
across the detection screen in multiple equal spaced bands.
A 50nm slit width is equal to 71 wavelengths for each slit. (@700nm WL)
-----
If we consider the wave front pulse as a single, continuous, coherent, and
mutually coupled alignment of EM fields, then in actuality there are only 2 wave front portions that are entering the slits, which are restricting or retarding
their continuous energy "flow". These wave fronts are being "deformed" from their
normal propagating and expanding unitary shape and "ooze" thru the open
geometries of the slits. The impinging coherent wave front EM field is being
sheared at the corners of the slits. The leading edge part of the wave front
pulse that is being reflected from the slit wall is being inverted and folding back
into the main "body" of the arriving pulse changing the timing and phase
relationship "integrity" of the arriving pulse, setting up EM field distortions
between the advancing and reflecting wavelet "components" that comprise the
time duration of the wave pulse.
The 2 wave fronts that are advancing thru the slit cavities are attempting to
continue to expand as they traverse the slits. The wavelets of the advancing wave, that
are in immediate proximity to the sidewalls of the slits, are coupling to the surface EM
fields (plasmons, optical phonons) established by the dipoles of the atoms residing in the
sidewalls that normally couple the constantly oscillating atomic level EM fields into
“space”.
The atomic dipoles oscillate at a natural harmonic frequency and maintain
a constantly cycling phase relationship between them which supports energy equilibrium
in the atomic structure of the slit wall material. These are crystal lattice vibrations
at the atomic level, which are present in all solid materials. The oscillations vibrate
at the specific frequency of the atoms that make up the material.
Lattice Vibrations
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...lattice.html#c2There is a naturally occurring dielectric film that grows on all materials that have
exposure to the oxygen environment in the atmosphere. This native oxide monolayer
represents a very thin dielectric coating on any exposed surface. In addition,
all materials have their own relative dielectric constant, which is defined as:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Laserlight et al seem happy with anything (eg plasmids) that might possibly explain bright bits and dark bits .. I reject most such explanations because I don't see how they can possibly give the same result for all materials when in reality we know the only thing that matters is the width of the slit. |
Do you expect us to accept that there will be dark bands and light bands with
gaps that are are millimeters apart and in these bands there will be perfect
cancellation or overlap without bleeding into each zone?
Just to put things into perspective:
A 1mm gap = 1,000,000nm = 1729 wavelengths(@ 700nm wavelength).
A 2mm gap = 2,000,000nm = 2857 wavelengths (@ 700nm)
What you are claiming is that there is perfect signal mixing/cancellation
across the detection screen in multiple equal spaced bands.
A 50nm slit width is equal to 71 wavelengths for each slit. (@700nm WL)
-----
If we consider the wave front pulse as a single, continuous, coherent, and
mutually coupled alignment of EM fields, then in actuality there are only 2 wave front portions that are entering the slits, which are restricting or retarding
their continuous energy "flow". These wave fronts are being "deformed" from their
normal propagating and expanding unitary shape and "ooze" thru the open
geometries of the slits. The impinging coherent wave front EM field is being
sheared at the corners of the slits. The leading edge part of the wave front
pulse that is being reflected from the slit wall is being inverted and folding back
into the main "body" of the arriving pulse changing the timing and phase
relationship "integrity" of the arriving pulse, setting up EM field distortions
between the advancing and reflecting wavelet "components" that comprise the
time duration of the wave pulse.
The 2 wave fronts that are advancing thru the slit cavities are attempting to
continue to expand as they traverse the slits. The wavelets of the advancing wave, that
are in immediate proximity to the sidewalls of the slits, are coupling to the surface EM
fields (plasmons, optical phonons) established by the dipoles of the atoms residing in the
sidewalls that normally couple the constantly oscillating atomic level EM fields into
“space”.
The atomic dipoles oscillate at a natural harmonic frequency and maintain
a constantly cycling phase relationship between them which supports energy equilibrium
in the atomic structure of the slit wall material. These are crystal lattice vibrations
at the atomic level, which are present in all solid materials. The oscillations vibrate
at the specific frequency of the atoms that make up the material.
Lattice Vibrations
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...lattice.html#c2There is a naturally occurring dielectric film that grows on all materials that have
exposure to the oxygen environment in the atmosphere. This native oxide monolayer
represents a very thin dielectric coating on any exposed surface. In addition,
all materials have their own relative dielectric constant, which is defined as:
The relative dielectric constant of a material under given conditions is a measure of the extent to which it concentrates electrostatic lines of flux. It is the ratio of the amount of stored electrical energy when a potential is applied, relative to the permittivity of a vacuum. It is also called relative permittivity.
The dielectric constant is represented as εr or sometimes κ or K. It is defined as
where εs is the static permittivity of the material, and ε0 is vacuum permittivity. Vacuum permittivity is derived from Maxwell's equations by relating the electric field intensity E to the electric flux density D. In vacuum (free space), the permittivity ε is just ε0, so the dielectric constant is 1.
The relative permittivity of a medium is related to its electric susceptibility, χe by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_constantDielectric Constant:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_...onst/dicon.htmlOne of the characteristics of dielectrics is that they exhibit the phenomenon of
capacitance, or the ability to isolate electron flow/currents. Dielectrics are insulators
that can store electric charges applied on their surfaces by external fields.
QUOTE
A dielectric tends to concentrate an applied electric field (e-field) within itself. As the dielectric interacts with the applied electric field, charges are redistributed within the atoms or molecules of the dielectric. This redistribution alters the shape of the applied electrical field both inside and in the region near the dielectric material.... When a dielectric material is placed between two electric charges it decreases the effective force between them and, when an electromagnetic wave travels through a dielectric, the velocity of the wave will be reduced and it will behave as if it had a shorter wavelength.
When a static electric field is applied to a dielectric medium, a current flows. The total current flowing in a real dielectric is, in general, made up of two parts: a conduction and a displacement current. The displacement current can be considered the elastic response of the dielectric material to the applied electric field. As the magnitude of the electric field is increased, the additional displacement is stored as potential energy within the dielectric. When the electric field is decreased, the dielectric releases some of the stored energy as a displacement current. The electric displacement can be separated into a vacuum contribution and one arising from the dielectric by
where P is the polarization of the medium, E is the electric field, D is the electric flux density (or displacement), and χ its electric susceptibility. It follows that the relative permittivity and susceptibility of a dielectric are related, .
So in effect, we have an increasing EM field being induced onto the sidewall dielectrics
that is building in intensity (field strength) as the main peak of the photon wave pulse is propagating thru the slit cavity.
As the pulse intensity rises the electrical field inductively couples to the dipole EM fields
in the dielectric of the sidewalls raising the surface currents and simultaneously causing
phase and timing delays to the individual EM wavelets in the advancing pulse. As the
zenith of the main peak of the pulse enters the slit cavity, maximum voltage is applied to
the sidewall dielectric and the surface charge reaches its maximum potential level and the
dielectric dipoles become fully charged.
As the peak of the pulse passes thru its maximum phase angle and starts decreasing in
amplitude, the stored surface charges in the dielectric fields release their energy back
into the pulse which extends and retards the timing of the peak of the pulse. This
creates a time delay in the peak energy of the pulse that extends and retards the pulse wave front from the normal pulse timing. This pulse timing delay compresses the
normal wavelength separation between it and the wave pulse following immediately
behind in the photon pulse train and generates "feedback" to the newly arriving
wave pulse.
----
I will leave it here for now for your evaluation/discussion/argument/comments:
LL
Confused2
12th February 2007 - 12:34 PM
QUOTE (Montec+)
Correct me if I am wrong
Path A is from the splitter .. along leg A .. reflected back down leg A a few other bits and bobs and then to a point C on the screen
Path B is from the splitter .. along leg B .. reflected back down leg B a few other bits and bobs and then to point C on the screen.
If ( A-B ) is an integer number of wavelengths then we have full constructive interference (it adds) .. if ( A-B ) is an integer number of wavelengths +- a half wavelength then we have destructive interference (it subtracts)..
There's an experiment here (
http://felix.physics.sunysb.edu/~allen/252..._Michelson.html ) which changes the effective path length of one leg by removing the air from part of it.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Do you expect us to accept that there will be dark bands and light bands with
gaps that are are millimeters apart and in these bands there will be perfect
cancellation or overlap without bleeding into each zone?
It is very difficult to know what people will and won't accept. The brightness at a point is given by an equation (probably cos^2(2 pi delta / lambda) where delta is the path difference and lambda is the wavelength) .. it's not just black and white. BP (before plasmons) we used the wavelength of light and the separation between the peaks to calculate that the slits in the Teachspin apparatus are 0.5 mm apart. As we increase the slit separation the bands get closer together (that DSE equation again) and there's probably going to be some theoretical limits to do with apertures and so on but at present I feel it would be a great start if we could just establish that Alice isn't a penguin.
If we make the assumption that we have all been blind from birth then there is a fair chance that we will have no idea what elephants looks like or how they behave. If we were sent into a forest and told there was an elephant in the forest then there's every chance that we might think every tree we bump into is the elephant. If we are then told that trees are not elephants then we might assume that the elephant is living somewhere up a tree where we can't see it. It would not be unreasonable to try to climb every tree in the hope of finding the elephant. The cries echo through the forest "Hey man I've found the elephant" and it's a bat or a spider or a lizard or a piece of grass or a wombat or a figment of the imagination.
Let's add a clue,, elephants leave a trail of evidence, dung if you like. If you can put you finger on the source of the trail then you may not have found the whole elephant but you are at least close .. possibly too close from the elephant's PoV. Unfortunately lots of things leave a similar sort of trail .. you can even end up following yourself around the forest.. worst of all .. you can even find yourself.
One of the tests for 'finding yourself' is to see whether or not you can predict anything. If the number of plasmons increased by a factor of ten or you change the thickness of the material in which the slits are cut .. does it make any difference?
Alternatively you could just look at the actual results of the DSE and the equations that predict those results and you'd have the elephant right there in front of you.
-C2.
Laserlight
12th February 2007 - 04:38 PM
Hi C2,
I liked your analogy!
QUOTE
Let's add a clue, elephants leave a trail of evidence, dung if you like. If you can put you finger on the source of the trail then you may not have found the whole elephant but you are at least close .. possibly too close from the elephant's PoV
"Clues" lead you toward the elephant, and elephants leave
"huge clues",
but just stepping in the obvious "clues" doesn't mean that you have actually found
the elephant. If every "clue" looks the same, smells the same, and leaves the
same residue on your shoes that still doesn't mean it is the true "essence" of
the elephant.
Claiming the elephant is nothing more than the "clues" it leaves is like opening a
wrapped birthday gift to find nothing inside the box. It looks great on the outside
with lots of pretty wrappings and ornate ribbons and bows, but there is nothing of
substance on the inside.
Please take off your shoes outside......
LL
Laserlight
12th February 2007 - 04:56 PM
C2,
QUOTE
One of the tests for 'finding yourself' is to see whether or not you can predict anything. If the number of plasmons increased by a factor of ten or you change the thickness of the material in which the slits are cut .. does it make any difference?
Yes it does, that is why the pattern changes when the slit width or shape
changes. You have changed the "dynamics" of the geometry of the slits with
the geometry of the impinging light. If the length of a waveguide changes
the output will remain the same but will take longer to pass thru the length of the
waveguide, because the shape of the pulse energy travelling thru it will assume
some average distribution (standing waves) over the distance
of the waveguide, but if the width of the waveguide changes the output will have
a different shape relative to the output from the original waveguide.
The external x and y dimensions of the waveguide are what control the shape of
the projected pattern. The z dimension controls the delay of the signal moving
thru the waveguide. The time travelling thru the waveguide will take longer than
the time for the wave travelling in open space over the same distance.
Regards,
LL
Montec
12th February 2007 - 05:06 PM
Hello all
If the Michelson interferometer makes you scratch your head then this will cause you to pull out your hair.
http://www.phy.duke.edu/ugrad/thesis/crawf...wfordThesis.pdfHave a look.
TRoc
12th February 2007 - 06:52 PM
Hi all,
A side note: thanks to C2's analogy, we now have this "smart ad" appearing at the bottom of this page:
QUOTE
Ads by Google
Mr. Ellie Pooh
Looking for Elephant Dung Paper? Eco-Friendly, Exotic Gifts Items!
What a great world we live in!
C2, your reluctance to change is amazing, and your logic incomprehensible.
I mentioned "wavefronts" reforming a-la Huygens' method in the post prior to last, with the caveat that the reforming, expanding wavefront will hit the wall continuously. That means WITH EQUAL PATH LENGTHS from "new" (ad hoc) point sources. The FACT is, you CAN NOT use BOTH of these analogies: it is one or the other. MY main goal is to get everyone into their respective corners of "belief".
It's great that you have dropped the "particle" approach to the "photon".
If you are now going to switch to the Huygens' method (from the one you have consistently been proposing), then guess what? ... you MUST also accept that "photons" ARE able to interact in free space, as the method requires. You have consistently denied this possibility.
In fairness to the rest of us, you should choose a position, and stick with it. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind, but, if it contradicts your prior position, you should inform everyone so we know what arguments to use.
The good news is that regardless of which of these methods you prefer, we will still need a physical explanation for the results. "Predicting" that my car will start when I turn the key is lifetimes away from explaining WHY. To do that would require a cohesive, full understanding of several different systems, and "phenomena".
Even if we "keep it simple", and just admit Nitrogen and Oxygen into the real medium of the DSE, the "randomness" and degrees of freedom of these elements completely deny any "ordered structures" from existing. "Ordered structures" would include both "equidistant points across the slit width", and "new point sources at the symmetrical junction of spherical wave fronts".
LL was nice enough to point out the math of what the size of the bands should be according to theory, and didn't even divide by 2 (at 1/2 wavelength "destructive" interference). Simple point being: the diffraction pattern looks nothing like this:
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
with 350nm separation (that would render it "invisible" to the naked eye), using his 700nm light source analogy. That is why I suggested the "molecule as compass" analogy. The diffraction pattern is many orders of magnitude larger than sub-wavelengths required by your model. To the eye, this would just be a solid band of "gray" light. (not bright, not dark)
The real pattern has "speckle interference" between the light and dark bands, and is NOT clearly separated. There is an 5% accepted "noise" level in the pattern, that precludes sharp contrast lines that your method would produce.
Perhaps most importantly, if your model was "perfect" as you claim, Quantum Mechanics would not exist as we know it. It is YOU who needs to defend the position that "nothing else" is required for an explanation, NOT us.
Historically, Science had to move PAST these first several attempts at explaining the results, BECAUSE THEY WERE INADEQUATE. You act like we are still in the early 20th century, and QM doesn't exist.
The PROOF that "photons" are hitting the screen at the dark band locations is SIMPLE, and has been done. You just remove the screen, and insert a NEW slit, in the EXACT location where the dark band just was, and guess what? YOUR model predicts that NOTHING would pass through the new slit, yet, A NEW INTERFERENCE PATTERN EMERGES, from the light diffracting through the slit.
I recall that you stated earlier that "energy" was "shifted" from the dark bands to the light bands, at the screen. This contradicts your much professed model as well.
Please give up, you have no hope of overturning the overwhelming evidence that requires a more complex model than is used in introductory, high school Physics.
regards,
T.Roc
Laserlight
12th February 2007 - 07:42 PM
TRoc,
As much as it pains me to disagree on a couple of points, I feel that I must....
QUOTE
you MUST also accept that "photons" ARE able to interact in free space, as the method requires. You have consistently denied this possibility.
Without perfect spacial and temporal coherence, light cannot interact until it
"interferes" with the EM fields of matter that function as a "mixing" catalyst to
combine and unite the temporal and spacial factors at a common reference point.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| you MUST also accept that "photons" ARE able to interact in free space, as the method requires. You have consistently denied this possibility. |
Without perfect spacial and temporal coherence, light cannot interact until it
"interferes" with the EM fields of matter that function as a "mixing" catalyst to
combine and unite the temporal and spacial factors at a common reference point.
Even if we "keep it simple", and just admit Nitrogen and Oxygen into the real medium of the DSE, the "randomness" and degrees of freedom of these elements completely deny any "ordered structures" from existing. "Ordered structures" would include both "equidistant points across the slit width", and "new point sources at the symmetrical junction of spherical wave fronts".
So what do you suppose happens to the DSE carried out in a vaccum? I am
proposing that the results will be the same. Do you disagree?
Regards,
LL
Confused2
12th February 2007 - 07:42 PM
Just a recap for anyone who has recently joined this rather long thread ..
This is the experiment we have looked at in some detail..
1/
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtmlIn particular .. this is the graph of 'that which is to be explained...
2/
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gifThe amazing ripple tank is good for getting some grip on the problem
3/
http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htmAnd here we have two references which I have given many times..
4/
http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.htmlThis is the one known as 'The DSE equation'
5/
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.htmlPlease feel free to join in!
Best wishes,
-C2.
Laserlight
12th February 2007 - 08:15 PM
C2,
Look closely at your wave tank. Where is the signal mixing taking place?
As I look closely at the striated wave fronts emanating from area of the 2 slits, I can
follow them back to the area immediately between the 2 slits which is the mixing
point of the spacially separated wave front signals. Timing wise, the wavefronts
are virtually the same, but they are spacially separated by the gap between
the slits. The signals are mixing/combining and interfering between the slits.
From that point the mixed and interfered waves just radiate and expand outwards
toward the detection screen, which is just a projection angle from the focal point
where the mixing takes place. The light and dark bands are merely projections
of the interference mixing and focal actions that take place at the mixing point.
Other comments, opinions, observations, disagreements, welcomed.
LL
Confused2
12th February 2007 - 08:22 PM
Hi TRoc,
I have posted the DSE equation many times and yet you don't seem to have looked at it even once.
The classic DSE equation was the breakthrough that enabled Thomas Young to find the wavelength of light
Since we now know the wavelength of light
We have to recast
Wavelength = (Distance between peaks) x (slit separation) / (Distance to sceen)
To the form
(Distance between peaks) = (Wavelength) x (Distance to screen) / (Slit separation)
If the wavelength is (say) 700nm and the distance to the screen is (say) 700mm and the slit separation is (say) 0.5mm then
(Distance between peaks) = 700x10^-9 x 700x10^-3 / ( 0.5x10^-3)
= 980,000 x 10^-6
= 0.9mm ..
Since I have chosen (from memory) roughly the dimensions of the Teachspin setup we get
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gifand we see the bright bits are abot 0.9mm apart.
From the DSE equation. We predict, we look and we find that it is good.. It doesn't matter if I've got the dimensions slightly wrong .
the equation works every timeThe path length difference is (correctly) predicting how far apart the fringes .. please look at the drawing (
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html ).. just once. It's virtually the same as the one for diffraction... no new concepts.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Laserlight
12th February 2007 - 08:43 PM
C2,
So how does your model account for the single photon interference result?
Can you explain that, since photons are not mixing at the screen but have a
pattern of distribution. Where does your calculation of signal mixing overlap take
place?
LL
Confused2
12th February 2007 - 09:58 PM
Hi TRoc, Laserlight et al,
It has been a major mistake (of mine) to imagine we could usefully discuss the single photon result before we have reached any agreed understanding of the classical wave phenomena which produce interference and diffraction.
I'm sorry TRoc .. if we could just bear with spreading from the slit 'it happens' for a while.. (we have to start somewhere)
Even a 'beam of light' is not understood.
If you set up the ripple tank (
http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm ) for 'Setup Double Slit' then you see what are apparently 'beams' (of waves) propagating away from the slits. Also 'beams' of dark bits .. the beams of darkness are themselves an interference phenomenon .. take away the beam of brightness on one side of the dark line and you see that the remaining 'beam' spreads into that region because the 'other' wave that was producing the destructive interference has been removed.
I'm set up with
'Setup Double Slit'
'Mouse=Edit Walls'
I've drawn a wall at 45 degrees to reflect the central beam away to the right (starting about half way down the 'tank' ).. result as described above.
There is a nasty sting in the tail of this analysis (for me) .. unless I can think of a way round it I have to claim that ALL beams are an interference effect
.
Please play and report.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Aerohead
12th February 2007 - 10:04 PM
Yes, I think you're right, C2. All waves diffract as a result of boundary conditions. The question now is: what are the boundary conditions through the slit ? It seems others want a model that accounts for it in terms of photon / electron interaction. And I think it no doubt is.
From the "for what it's worth department" of fluid mechanist's. ~Jim
Confused2
13th February 2007 - 01:08 AM
HI TRoc,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
The PROOF that "photons" are hitting the screen at the dark band locations is SIMPLE, and has been done. You just remove the screen, and insert a NEW slit, in the EXACT location where the dark band just was, and guess what? YOUR model predicts that NOTHING would pass through the new slit, yet, A NEW INTERFERENCE PATTERN EMERGES, from the light diffracting through the slit.
Excellent point. If there are two paths to start with then there are always two paths .. they do not form a 'beam' with nothing in the regions of destructive interference as Good Elf, Laserlight and Montec seem to be claiming. Can you convince them of that?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Laserlight
13th February 2007 - 01:47 AM
C2,
draw a 4 inch line down the middle of the dark bands. The idea is to
put a center barrier between the bright bands.
The dark band does not change, which it should if there is signal mixing taking
place between the 2 bright bands on either side of the dark band. The signal
remains the same even when the supposed wave mixing has a barrier in the
way.
The bands are just projections from the mixing point, or beams as you called
them. Even without a screen the "beam" cones are "visible" in this model.
What is your assessment after doing as I suggested?
Regards,
LL
Confused2
13th February 2007 - 01:53 AM
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
So how does your model account for the single photon interference result?
Can you explain that, since photons are not mixing at the screen but have a
pattern of distribution. Where does your calculation of signal mixing overlap take
place?
Detection of anything that is there to be detected takes place at the point of detection. Always. Whether photon or EM .. it is the same .. because EM is photons. If there are two paths between the source and the point of detection then there are two paths between the source and the point of detection.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Laserlight
13th February 2007 - 02:08 AM
QUOTE (Confused2+Feb 13 2007, 01:08 AM)
HI TRoc,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
The PROOF that "photons" are hitting the screen at the dark band locations is SIMPLE, and has been done. You just remove the screen, and insert a NEW slit, in the EXACT location where the dark band just was, and guess what? YOUR model predicts that NOTHING would pass through the new slit, yet, A NEW INTERFERENCE PATTERN EMERGES, from the light diffracting through the slit.
Excellent point. If there are two paths to start with then there are
always two paths .. they do not form a 'beam' with nothing in the regions of destructive interference as Good Elf, Laserlight and Montec seem to be claiming. Can you convince
them of that?
Best wishes,
-C2.
C2 and TRoc,
I drew an inverted funnel with the thin neck centered on the dark band. I got
no secondary waveform interference. The center of the funnel stayed black.
It appears that there is no energy propagating thru the center of the dark band.
What results do you get doing the same set up.
Regards,
LL
Good Elf
13th February 2007 - 02:37 AM
Hi All,
Forgive me for butting in but can you actually explain just what the problem is here? I would have expected that a simple understanding of the DSE would have resulted by now. Does anyone dispute that the photons seek all paths? That photons do not pass through slits one at a time so they are not 'billiard balls". Interference (in the main... specifically all the situations noted here) occurs only "within" a single photon at a time otherwise how do you explain single photons building up complete interference patterns? The "photon wave" must pass both slits ... all slits or semi-reflect off all semi-mirrored surfaces (this means that the "wave" propagates through as many paths available... like a wave should) ... providing you do not need "which way" information this is the final result unequivocally. A "semi-reflecting" surface means there are two possible paths there so the "photon wave" takes both. So photon "particles" do not "exist" when they travel as waves. When you "insist" that you know which way a "particle" has traveled then it will naturally resolve which slit the photon actually passes through but not at all in other circumstances. When that happens do not be surprised that the photon has passed only one slit and so there is no double slit interference.
Surface Plasmon Resonance may or may not produce any visible effects. Plasmons do not occur unless you are working with metals in the slits in contact with gas or liquids. Most double slit experiments work fine using the standard kits using smoked glass cover slips with a fine line inscribed on them. I am certain that they work in a vacuum as well. Since it is a limited phenomenon I doubt if surface plasmons are the answer to all the questions raised here. I think it is a given that DSE occurs without the existence of plasmon action at the slits, the phenomenon of interference is to be sought elsewhere.. Am I missing something?
Cheers
Laserlight
13th February 2007 - 03:50 AM
Hello GE, you are not butting in. This is an open forum for discussion and opinion.
QUOTE
Surface Plasmon Resonance may or may not produce any visible effects. Plasmons do not occur unless you are working with metals in the slits in contact with gas or liquids. most double slit experiments work fine using the standard kits using smoked glass cover slips with a fine line inscribed on them. I am certain that they work in a vacuum as well. Since it is a limited phenomenon I doubt if surface plasmons are the answer to all the questions raised here. I think it is a given that DSE occurs without the existence of plasmon action at the slits, the phenomenon of interference is to be sought elsewhere.. Am I missing something?
Are you completely ignoring atomic dipoles and dielectric effects? As Aerohead
so perfectly stated
"All waves diffract as a result of boundary conditions".
Every solid material, whether it is metal or otherwise, has surface dielectric
properties that couple it to "space" and externally applied EM sources. Under the
right conditions, any material can become an energy emitter or receiver via
atomic dipole action. Is there a reason to want to disregard permittivity and
susceptibility and EM field coupling inside the slit "cavities"? The conceptual
model that I am proposing by "modeling" with a single wavepulse also accounts
for continuous cycle EM wavefronts. Whether you call them plasmons,
optical phonons, or dipole moments, there is always an energy "exchange"
when, and where, different energy systems "meet". If you add momentum
to that energy exchange the force of the interaction is increased.
I am curious about your conceptualization of how wave pulse fronts maintain
regular temporal frequency "spacing"
You were ambiguous in whom you were addressing specific issues to with your
comments, so I can only assume that you were addressing your "particle" comments to C2, since I have made it clear that I support EM wave theory and
also apply the concept to the EM fields of matter.
I would ask that if you disagree with specific comments that you quote them and
post your opinion or rebuttal comments.
Regards,
LL
Laserlight
13th February 2007 - 04:42 AM
GE, some further comments...
QUOTE
I think it is a given that DSE occurs without the existence of plasmon action at the slits, the phenomenon of interference is to be sought elsewhere.. Am I missing something?
My explanation was ended within the confines of the slits and has not yet actually
gotten to the signal mixing/interference point. My conceptualization was to
describe the mechanism of what causes diffraction spreading and intaction of
of a photon wavefront with matter as it passes thru the geometry of the slits.
I have already previoulsy stated that the mixing/interference point is the
rear wall area between the slits where the expanding EM waves combine/intefere.
One of Visser's papers that showed a micrograph of poynting vector field lines
seemed to support this "theory" and provided their own analysis using a
gold slit wall and surface plasmon's. IMO, if it works under those conditions
then a "similar" phenomenon must be at work when other wall materials are
used.
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
Montec
13th February 2007 - 05:02 AM
Hello all
From my reading of this
link it appears that DSE is a measure of spacial coherence while the Michelson Interferometer measures temporal coherence. Would these facts shed some light on this subject.
Laserlight
13th February 2007 - 05:37 AM
Hi Montec,
IMO, spacial dislocation sets up temporal mismatches in the timing of the
wave fronts that cause wave interference.
Can't the spacial dislocation be negated by "realigning" the timing of the wave
front signals. Isn't that what the paper that you referenced is doing...
realigning/overlapping the signal timing? I know that if you invert the
signals and make them time coincident their equal amplitude components
will "cancel" and any unequal amplitude delta existing between the
inverted signals will yield a "remainder" signal.
Regards,
LL
Confused2
13th February 2007 - 08:22 AM
Hi Laserlight,
Replacing the dark bits with walls.. (in the ripple tank) .. yes, the 'walls' are modelled as perfect reflectors so you're building a waveguide. That is why I suggested reflecting the central bright wave off to the right using a wall at 45 degrees .. then you see what happens when the left hand 'beam' is neither guided nor an interference effect.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Good Elf
13th February 2007 - 03:00 PM
Hi Laserlight, (others may find this interesting as well)...
I will try and reference specific issues where possible but things have certainly become "confused" to say the least... at least in the manner I view things.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I am curious about your conceptualization of how wave pulse fronts maintain regular temporal frequency "spacing"
IMHO the temporal frequency is fixed by the rate of propagation. Electromagnetic Waves spread at the speed of light but this is constrained by the transverse modes of propagation which involve OAM. This maintains the shape of the "pulse" in the temporal direction and confines it in the spatial transverse direction respectively. The most important aspect about a single photon and its ability to form in a unique diffraction pattern is to originate from a single coherent source (or near to one). Lasers solve this problem since all the photons emitted from the the resonant chamber all have the same longitudinal mode (standing wave pattern) regardless of when the photon is emitted.
I use the term "wave" very loosely since any electromagnetic pulse will propagate at the speed of light in a vacuum. Of course pulse "spreading" cannot occur without wavefront curvature. This is a natural consequence of waves... and true plane waves cannot exist... this is an abstraction to make our calculations easier in the same way that "point sources" help with calculations as well. The energy of successive wavefronts remains constant as T increases however photons are absorbed out of the "pool" and this relationship is the ISL (Inverse Square Law). No part of the wave or pulse can depart from its place in time where it originated from so this is what the various places in the pulse are maintaining... there is the light cone wall between any point forward of the pulse and any point aft of the propagating wavefront cannot be influenced by what is now on the wavefront (an arbitrary defined position).
It is possible to think of a completely inverted frame of reference where the "photon wave" is a "constant size and shape" and our Universe around it is what is progressively shrinking relative to it if the "wave" is allowed to expand. Such a "finite frame" that retains its physical proportions and allows the evolution of time is a true particle field where mass is one of the consequences. If everything is made of "light" then this possibility is what we experience as our reality. Experiment seems to indicate this is indeed the case in a special frame of reference.
QUOTE
Are you completely ignoring atomic dipoles and dielectric effects? As Aerohead so perfectly stated "All waves diffract as a result of boundary conditions".
While this is true... the actual interference occurs
inside the body of the wave and the effects are seen at distance from the slits (holes). This "mechanism" illustrated below may be helpful in understanding how the "plane" wave once passing through an aperture begins to diverge from a different apparent source through "spreading". I am going to quote from this source...
Dispersion, Diffraction and Diffraction GratingsAnd I am going to use this image below (click to enlarge)... Please pay "no attention" to the depiction of the source since it will only confuse the situation (assume incident plane waves)...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are you completely ignoring atomic dipoles and dielectric effects? As Aerohead so perfectly stated "All waves diffract as a result of boundary conditions". |
While this is true... the actual interference occurs
inside the body of the wave and the effects are seen at distance from the slits (holes). This "mechanism" illustrated below may be helpful in understanding how the "plane" wave once passing through an aperture begins to diverge from a different apparent source through "spreading". I am going to quote from this source...
Dispersion, Diffraction and Diffraction GratingsAnd I am going to use this image below (click to enlarge)... Please pay "no attention" to the depiction of the source since it will only confuse the situation (assume incident plane waves)...
Diffraction When we talked about sound waves we learned that diffraction is the bending of waves that occurs when a wave passes through a single narrow opening. The analysis of the resulting diffraction pattern from a single slit is similar to what we did for the double slit. With the double slit, each slit acted as an emitter of waves, and these waves interfered with each other. For the single slit, each part of the slit can be thought of as an emitter of waves, and all these waves interfere to produce the interference pattern we call the diffraction pattern.
After we do the analysis, we'll find that the equation that gives the angles at which fringes appear for a single slit is very similar to the one for the double slit, one obvious difference being that the slit width (W) is used in place of d, the distance between slits. A big difference between the single and double slits, however, is that the equation that gives the bright fringes for the double slit gives dark fringes for the single slit.
To see why this is, consider the diagram below, showing light going away from the slit in one particular direction.
... Click to enlarge...
In the diagram above, let's say that the light leaving the edge of the slit (ray 1) arrives at the screen half a wavelength out of phase with the light leaving the middle of the slit (ray 5). These two rays would interfere destructively, as would rays 2 and 6, 3 and 7, and 4 and 8. In other words, the light from one half of the opening cancels out the light from the other half. The rays are half a wavelength out of phase because of the extra path length traveled by one ray; in this case that extra distance is :
The factors of 2 cancel (ed: this is important to note that the edges of the slit are not the important factor but "matching rays"), leaving:
The argument can be extended to show that :
... Click to enlarge...
The bright fringes fall between the dark ones, with the central bright fringe being twice as wide, and considerably brighter, than the rest.
Diffraction effects with a double slitNote that diffraction can be observed in a double-slit interference pattern. Essentially, this is because each slit emits a diffraction pattern, and the diffraction patterns interfere with each other. The shape of the diffraction pattern is determined by the width (W) of the slits, while the shape of the interference pattern is determined by d, the distance between the slits. If W is much larger than d, the pattern will be dominated by interference effects; if W and d are about the same size the two effects will contribute equally to the fringe pattern. Generally what you see is a fringe pattern that has missing interference fringes; these fall at places where dark fringes occur in the diffraction pattern.
The idealized "Fraunhofer" wavefronts which have "no apparent curvature" exhibit "classically" no clumping of the energy about a central point (zero mode). When the "plane wave" passes through a "slit or hole" it then begins to exhibit clumping naturally (transverse modes) as a result of this phenomena (Gibbs phenomena).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_phenomenonThis is the result of curvature of the wavefront "seeking all paths". This leads to the light and dark "patching" due to spatial "dispersion". Special phenomena around the "edges" are not necessary since this phenomena are within the body of the photon wave and not along the edges. I do not deny "edge effects" but these are lower order phenomena and we can safely neglect them when they do not involve particle to wave interactions resulting in a loss of qubit. The ones of concern to the interference pattern are those that have not lost their qubit. This is a form of dispersion not seen in natural light propagating from very distant sources and light packets "in the wild" do not exhibit dispersion when propagating in a vacuum. A new free standing source in space with a physical "extent" exhibits the identical phenomena without the slit mask. Such a source could be a single photon emitted from an atom somewhere in empty space. Once more I still maintain that there are no "particles" propagating as waves without "dispersion". The "photon particle" is truly not in the space the "photon waves" are traversing otherwise it could not effect "interference".
Call this "higher dimensions" or something else but the matter wave is not there. A true "particle" like an electron must be moving in a similar space without appreciable "spreading" as long as it has some relative velocity... this is the de Broglie wavelength.
Does this help clarify my point of view? If others want to contribute or extend please feel free...
Cheers
Laserlight
13th February 2007 - 05:20 PM
HI GE,
QUOTE
Once more I still maintain that there are no "particles" propagating as waves without "dispersion". The "photon particle" is truly not in the space the "photon waves" are traversing otherwise it could not effect "interference".
Call this "higher dimensions" or something else but the matter wave is not there. A true "particle" like an electron must be moving in a similar space without appreciable "spreading" as long as it has some relative velocity... this is the de Broglie wavelength.
I'm confused by this statement. Why do you keep bringing up the "photon
particle"? I do not believe in "photon particles". I do, however, believe
that a wavefront is comprised of nearly synchronous, coherent, EM wavelets.
Each EM wavelet is the individual energy pulse emitted from a single atom dipole
during the development of the wavefront from the emitting matter matrix.
The entire composite wavefront pulse propagates as a single coherent photon wave
comprised of individual wavelets. Because the individual EM wavelet pulses are
coherent with every other wavelet pulse in the main propagating photon pulse they
can interfere with each other, within the photon pulse, if they become phase
inverted by reflecting from matter. Basically, a photon is a major EM pulse
comprised of a plethora of minor nearly synchronous EM "pulselets" that are
temporally intertwined but spacially separated in the pulse.
In this description wavelets = corpuscles, with corpuscles not being a physical
particle but another name for an EM wavelet dipole pulse. Perhaps this is
where you are getting the idea of "particles". I think Newton's original meaning
was particles, because the idea of EM wave energy was unknown by him. He had
the right basic idea but the wrong mechanism so he termed it using the
vernacular of the time. In any case we are talking propagating wavelet EM energy
and not particles.
Discussion welcomed,
Regards,
LL
TRoc
13th February 2007 - 07:25 PM
Hi all,
LL
QUOTE
TRoc,
As much as it pains me to disagree on a couple of points, I feel that I must....
QUOTE
you MUST also accept that "photons" ARE able to interact in free space, as the method requires. You have consistently denied this possibility.
First, you must put my statement
back into context...
I specifically said to the Confused guy that IF you want to use the Huygens model, then you must accept that "photons" are able to interact in free space, because that IS what the model does. There are no "rules" in the Huygens model that says "go to the first mass that you find, and make it a new source of light". It just simply says where the nodes are can be treated as new point sources.
The larger point being, that the Confused guy was being his usual rude self in this conversation, and was changing the subject, changing his stance, or in any other way possible, to obstruct the thread from moving past the inadequate models of the past.
The Fraunhofer method, and the Huygens method can NOT be used interchangeably. If you have made an "argument" based on one, you have no legs to stand on if you "jump ship" to the other in mid-stream.
The "all or nothing" model of "constructive/destructive interference" would produce sharp contrast lines; the results differ from that prediction. Enter "QM", with a lowered expectation approach of "probabilistic/statistical" predictions, and we can "look the other way", because they "just can't understand" (their words) QM.
If whole wavelengths = "constructive", and 1/2 wavelengths = "destructive", the
WHAT is a 1/4 wavelength (or 3/4) going to do? Have fun trying to answer that with the inadequate models.
If you ask a parabolic curve when it's going to "settle down" (zero), you will die waiting for the answer. Dividing by 2 (harmonics) requires an entirely different approach. Enter the mathematical "limit", with examples like "Nyquist", and the "Frequency Comb", and yes, the "Octave" and my Chord model.
Next question: LL asks
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
TRoc,
As much as it pains me to disagree on a couple of points, I feel that I must....
QUOTE
you MUST also accept that "photons" ARE able to interact in free space, as the method requires. You have consistently denied this possibility.
|
First, you must put my statement
back into context...
I specifically said to the Confused guy that IF you want to use the Huygens model, then you must accept that "photons" are able to interact in free space, because that IS what the model does. There are no "rules" in the Huygens model that says "go to the first mass that you find, and make it a new source of light". It just simply says where the nodes are can be treated as new point sources.
The larger point being, that the Confused guy was being his usual rude self in this conversation, and was changing the subject, changing his stance, or in any other way possible, to obstruct the thread from moving past the inadequate models of the past.
The Fraunhofer method, and the Huygens method can NOT be used interchangeably. If you have made an "argument" based on one, you have no legs to stand on if you "jump ship" to the other in mid-stream.
The "all or nothing" model of "constructive/destructive interference" would produce sharp contrast lines; the results differ from that prediction. Enter "QM", with a lowered expectation approach of "probabilistic/statistical" predictions, and we can "look the other way", because they "just can't understand" (their words) QM.
If whole wavelengths = "constructive", and 1/2 wavelengths = "destructive", the
WHAT is a 1/4 wavelength (or 3/4) going to do? Have fun trying to answer that with the inadequate models.
If you ask a parabolic curve when it's going to "settle down" (zero), you will die waiting for the answer. Dividing by 2 (harmonics) requires an entirely different approach. Enter the mathematical "limit", with examples like "Nyquist", and the "Frequency Comb", and yes, the "Octave" and my Chord model.
Next question: LL asks So what do you suppose happens to the DSE carried out in a vacuum? I am proposing that the results will be the same. Do you disagree?
No disrespect, but this is a "nonsense" question, IF you wish to maintain the integrity of absolute definitions in the realm of sub-atomic Physics.
The "Vacuum" means "no matter (mass) is present". So, by your own suggestion, no mass means no interaction. We can't have massless slits, or a screen, so there is no DSE.
However, for arguments' sake, lets' say we evacuate all (almost) of the air (N, O, etc.) from the standard set-up DSE. First off, we are going to have problems with the electrons that make up the materials of the equipment. If you will notice that ALL electron (mass) diffraction experiments, as well as photoelectric, etc. are done in vacuum, and ALL "photon" diffraction experiments ARE NOT done in vacuum, you have to ask yourself WHY?
If you want to propose that the results will be the same, then I suggest that you submit a reference to this experiment being done (pre-supposing that you will not be able to do this "at home"). That's all that I would ask: show me.
If you don't find it strange that you will not be able to find this experiment already having been done, then maybe you'll just "march on" and ignore the potential for problems. If we "unbind" electrons, they are going to "get in the way". My hunch is that we would get the same results as when we put a "detector" (mass) behind 1 slit in the DSE: NO diffraction pattern.
regards,
T.Roc
Confused2
13th February 2007 - 11:55 PM
Hi TRoc,
I admit my forest post was not exactly complimentary .. I wanted to make the point that people (Good Elf, Laserlight, Montec et al .. you can include me in the list if you like ) don't seem to be relating what they write to what they seeing in the DSE.
Just waves to start with ..
Reluctantly I have to admit that the msn Encarta page on light seems excellent :-
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579230_5/Light.htmlOne of the things it does not make clear is that a 'ray' of light is (by definition) perpendicular to the wavefront (and vice-versa). So the ray diagrams that 'explain' interference can leave out the waves themselves because they are there by implication (at right angles to the line). The Huygens and the ray diffraction diagrams are the
same (for the same reason) but are drawing different 'bits' for clarity or, as you point out, lack of clarity.
This seems pretty good on Huygens:-
http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/5...html#Section5.4To understand Huygens it is vital to understand superposition .. so more on superposition:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principleIn particular
QUOTE (wiki+)
Time-varying signals
For time-varying signals, the principle of superposition states that the total response at a given place and time caused by two or more signals propagating in the same space is the sum of the separate responses which would have been produced by the individual signals.
Huygens, superposition, ray diagrams .. all very much part of the same thing. Apologies for any confusion caused.
What happens between full constructive interference and full cancellation?
We're adding (superposition) two waves to get a result .. for frequency wt and general phase difference a,b and amplitudes X,Y it looks like this:-
1/ X sin(wt + a) + Y sin(wt +b)
The result is always a new sinewave with a new phase and amplitude .. do you really want me to do this? .. OK ..
2/ To save my sanity let's
assume X and Y are the same .
3/ sin(wt + a) + sin(wt +b)
4/ Obviously if a=b then they are 'in phase' and we get
5/ 2sin(wt+a) .. twice the amplitude of either term
6/ And if a=-b (out of phase) we get
7/ 0
8/ For any other a and and be we get ..whoopee..
9/ sin(wt+a) + sin(wt+b) = 2 sin((wt + a + wt + b)/2)cos((wt + a - wt - b)/2)
10/ = 2 sin(wt + (a+b)/2))cos(wt+ ((a-b)/2))
11/ = 2 (sin(wt)cos((a+b/)2) + cos(wt)sin(((a+b/)2))(cos(wt)cos((a-b)/2) - sin(wt)sin((a-b)/2))
12/ = 2 (sin(wt)cos((a+b/)2)cos(wt)cos((a-b)/2) - sin(wt)cos((a+b/)2)sin(wt)sin((a-b)/2) + cos(wt)sin(((a+b/)2)cos(wt)cos((a-b)/2)- cos(wt)sin(((a+b/)2)sin(wt)sin((a-b)/2)
Collecting up a bit
14/ = 2( sin(wt)cos(wt) cos((a+b/)2)cos((a-b)/2) - sin(wt)sin(wt) cos((a+b/)2)sin((a-b)/2) + cos(wt)cos(wt) sin(((a+b/)2)cos((a-b)/2) -cos(wt)sin(wt)sin(((a+b/)2)sin((a-b)/2))
15/ = 2( sin(wt)cos(wt)cos((a+b/)2)cos((a-b)/2) - sin^2(wt) cos((a+b/)2)sin((a-b)/2) +cos^2(wt) sin(((a+b/)2)cos((a-b)/2) - cos(wt)sin(wt)sin(((a+b/)2)sin((a-b)/2))
16/ = this is a real pig .. will we REALLY be any further forward if it works out?
In this notation we take any magnitudes A,B and any phases a,b and it works out in three lines
Ae^j(wt + a) + Be^j(wt + b)
= Ae^ja e^jwt + Ba^jb e^jwt
= ( Ae^ja + Be^jb ) e ^jwt
such is the power of notation.
NB j_electronics= i_maths ( sqrt(-1) ) would you like more on this?
We have the problem of whether we want the result to be 'Intensity' .. do we mean power? .. or amplitude.. one is the square of the other .. if we understand neither then it really doesn't matter so I post power.
With what I have given above
And the EM equation .. ( I used to be able to get some sense out of it but I've really forgotten how to do it.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equationit's all pretty sewn up.
------------------- UNTIL ----------------------------
----------- The single photon DSE ----------------
The result agrees precisely with continuous sinewave excitation. Good Elf seems to think that's impossible so he doesn't seem to see it and tries to explain what he thinks is more likely than the reality. And so it goes on.
Despite outward appearances I think your comments have been the wisest and your approach has been the best on the thread so far.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I hope I've clarified a few bits.
Good Elf
14th February 2007 - 12:46 AM
Hi Laserlight, Confused2 and TRoc and other friends,
Please understand that when I reply to a question I am addressing two audiences, the individual as well as the others who may be reading this occasionally so I am trying to develop a general language that everyone understands rather than using "in-speak" that only two people can make any sense of. I expect that everyone who claims to understand science use the lingo provided and not to bury themselves in "private" interpretations... at least when communicating. When I refer to "particles" and "waves" in inverted commas I mean fermionic and bosonic properties respectively. The only way we can distinguish is by the manner in which we can measure these properties and measurement often changes things critically. In some respects we can measure both separately but not at the same time. Photons do exhibit both properties of bosons and fermions at different times. I keep repeating myself because there is no consensus on terminology here. Laserlight is continuing to speak in "either-or" notation and suggesting strongly that photons are never particles. I also refer to photons as "waves" but they will interact as "particles" at the source and sinks where they behave as the force carriers (exchange particles) in our Universe also in the role of "virtual photons".
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I do not believe in "photon particles".
This is not tenable since photons exhibit both properties at times, those of "waves" and those of "particles". This is not open for "debate" since it has strong experimental support regardless of personal belief. This is long understood as the "wave-particle duality". Any theory must incorporate both and not explain the other away as some kind of "delusion".
TRoc is only half right about speaking of "you MUST also accept that 'photons' ARE able to interact in free space" since you must be more specific than simply saying "interact" when you say these things. It is confusing to many since what TRoc actually means is "wavelike" interactions not "particlelike" interactions. Wavelike interactions involve superposition of states (a boson "property") while collapse of many superimposed states to one state is a fermion "property". There is a "tradition" that has arisen that refers to what is happening in "free space" as if we actually knew what was going on there by "observation". Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is very important to separate what is an "observation" from a "mental picture" that we have which is simply an aide to understanding. I accept that waves do propagate in space but continuously observing that a single photon actually creates 'waves' hanging in space from source to destination, is very hard to prove and indeed may even be "contradictory" in its very proposition. We must be careful to distinguish and explain what it is we are referring to. If you are trying to explain 'waves" in space then when we measure them we collapse the wave and measure that collapsed state not the original "propagating" state.
It is like saying that space was filled with "invisible rabbits" that run from one bunny hole to the next. The only way we are allowed to prove this is to "accidentally" shoot a bunny between holes which can be an "observation". Once we have shot a number of bunnies we believe we have shown that our thesis is proven... that bunnies are running from hole to hole unobserved... but all we have to show for it are dead bunnies that can run nowhere. The existence of "dead bunnies" tell us nothing positive about the "live" invisible bunnies actually apparently running between holes in a similar way to visible bunnies. We have assumed that a bunny is a bunny is a bunny.
Photons are not entirely particles so the way they "travel" cannot be inferred from the way other particles apparently travel. It goes back to our assumptions about the nature of particles which is a very old concept that is not rooted in good science but in the idea that we have four "elements"... Earth, Air, Fire, Water. Democritus realized that this "Earth" had properties different from the "void" which we all tend to agree with today (out of ignorance ... not out of a deeper understanding). He coined the idea of "Atoms".
QUOTE (Wikipedia on Democritus+)
Furthermore, he believed that the real properties of atoms determine the perceived properties of matter--for example, something that tastes sharp is made of small, pointy atoms, while something sweet is made of large, round atoms; the interactions of those atoms with the atoms of the tongue give the impression of taste. Some types of matter are particularly solid because their atoms have hooks to attach to each other; some are oily because they are made of very fine, small atoms which can easily slip past each other. In Democritus' own words, "By convention sweet, by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color: but in reality atoms and void."
Advanced thinking for 2500 years ago but many people still think this way in the 21st century. "Particles" according to Democritus were "Earth" and "Light" would be "Fire". In fact I can absolutely guarantee that this is very wrong from the result of our experiments. Because we can intercept photons between source and a possible sink does not mean that they are "traveling" in the space between in a conventional sense. The inference would be this is a "particle"... this is wrong... we know this is a "wave". A "which way" experiment quickly will convince you this is dead wrong.
If we all use inclusive rather than exclusive terminology then more people will understand what it is we are saying. At present imprecision is leading to confusion and to "battles" none of us need. The other point I would like to say is because this discussion has degenerated into a trivial understanding and bickering about particles and waves, the more important concepts are totally lost. No progress is possible until we understand each other and are able to communicate at the same level. I think am saying very important things here and it draws a blank because of this "distraction".
Cheers
Good Elf
14th February 2007 - 01:34 AM
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
The result agrees precisely with continuous sinewave excitation. Good Elf seems to think that's impossible so he doesn't seem to see it and tries to explain what he thinks is more likely than the reality. And so it goes on.
There are no continuous sine waves in nature. Photon emission are associated with "packets" which are not "sine waves". Packets can be considered as a superposition of wavelets... this is not the same thing. What you are probably referring to is phase matching of the wave packet to the "line"... is this correct? When I say "line"... I can mean "empty space" with boundaries through which EM can propagate. A "resonant line" has an impulse response and the best way to analyze the way in which a waveform will propagate along a "line" is to start with the impulse response. Many points I have discussed have involved this "standing wave pattern" which are 'longitudinal modes" in space. With this concept and with the impulse response any "waveform" (even wave packets) can be constructed and the "line" response is simply the sum of the responses as a superposition.
Mathematics does not recognize "nearly a sine wave". Everything starts and stops so it is no sine wave since by definition a sine wave goes on forever in both directions. What we actually have are waveforms. One waveform is the "wave packet" ideally a wave packet of a single photon, but may be more complicated functions.... It has a beginning and an end... sometimes there are great difficulties in defining the "beginning and the end" but we must live with it. There are also the other ways to deal with photons such as the two separate methods of Feynman (& Wheeler) but since this has not been mentioned this is ignored for the time being but is retained in the back of my mind as a possible "complication".
Cheers
TRoc
14th February 2007 - 07:05 AM
Hi all,
Good points GE. Reminders that we do NOT know what is happening between 2 electrons, when a quanta of energy is transferred between them. I do not believe that the "separate" definition that "creates" the "photon" is justified. Just a historical glitch, that can be corrected.
I'll say again (because it wasn't included in the quote you made of me), that IN THE HUYGENS MODEL, where the new points are "created", and become new "sources" of light, we can conclude that there was an interaction between "photons" (EM waves) that resulted in ONE new wave.
In the eyes of QM, this is wrong. Only an electron can create a "photon" in that model. However, the Huygens model works very well. At the "last new point", before hitting the screen, the vectors are perpendicular to the screen. Point being: there are no angles involved (from the slit). The dark bands are just the midpoints of 2 incident waves.
The fact that Young "reverse engineered" a good estimate of the wavelength of the EM wave by the size of the diffraction pattern is also very good. (I think Fresnel or Fraunhofer had more to do with that, but its' not important for this conversation)
The point on that model is, that it is REVERSE engineering. It is looking at the results, and developing a system that works well enough to "predict" it, for the next person to perform the experiment. The problem is, that is suggests "rays", because lines are arbitrarily drawn from arbitrary points that symmetrically divide the width of the slit. They (in the development of the model) were drawn from the light or dark bands on the screen, back to these "new points" along the distance of the slit width. In practice (for everyone else after its' creation), these lines are drawn from the slit to the screen.
Both of these models work, and can be said to be "predictive". They are ad hoc though, and in some way or another, fall short in matching other known qualities of EM waves. If we are allowed to do "whatever" we would like, even more "predictive" models could be produced. It would make very many people happy (myself included), if a predictive model could be created that follows the "rules" of EM waves in general. For one, the "self regeneration", and propagation at c , of the coupled electric and magnetic oscillations. Some mathematical, and geometrical recursive process.
Had Young's experiment NOT been done until the early 20th century, who knows what might have been proposed.
Perhaps __________. .________ slit
---------------------------------------------------------------- screen
where we could account for spreading, intensity, the light and dark bands, and an autopoietic equilateral triangle. I think this would fall short in other places though. It still wouldn't satisfy the questions of WHY, and HOW. That doesn't mean that some people might not find it more pleasing than what we have now. I would still be trying to find a spiral in there somewhere!
ciao!
T.Roc
Laserlight
14th February 2007 - 07:21 AM
Hi TRoc, C2, GE, and Everyone,
GE said:
QUOTE
Laserlight is continuing to speak in "either-or" notation and suggesting strongly that photons are never particles. I also refer to photons as "waves" but they will interact as "particles" at the source and sinks where they behave as the force carriers (exchange particles) in our Universe also in the role of "virtual photons".
QUOTE (Laserlight)
I do not believe in "photon particles".
This is not tenable since photons exhibit both properties at times, those of "waves" and those of "particles". This is not open for "debate" since it has strong experimental support regardless of personal belief. This is long understood as the "wave-particle duality". Any theory must incorporate both and not explain the other away as some kind of "delusion".
IMO, the idea of wave-particle duality is an outdated and old fashioned notion that
is really misleading and totally inaccurate and should go the way of the
buggy whip and dinosaurs.
Photons are pulses of energy,
PERIOD! They originate from source atoms
as energy pulses that propagate as a wave and at some point, if they are absorbed
by an atom, the energy and momentum that they contain increases the energy
state of that atom, at which time energy transfer/conversion takes place. Yes,
I agree that photon waves are force carriers, but that does not make them
"particles" in the true meaning of the word. Particles have mass, photons don't.
If you want to consider an energy wave as a particle, then sound waves, shock
waves, and ocean waves should be particles too. I think that you see my point.
TRoc,QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Laserlight is continuing to speak in "either-or" notation and suggesting strongly that photons are never particles. I also refer to photons as "waves" but they will interact as "particles" at the source and sinks where they behave as the force carriers (exchange particles) in our Universe also in the role of "virtual photons".
QUOTE (Laserlight)
I do not believe in "photon particles".
This is not tenable since photons exhibit both properties at times, those of "waves" and those of "particles". This is not open for "debate" since it has strong experimental support regardless of personal belief. This is long understood as the "wave-particle duality". Any theory must incorporate both and not explain the other away as some kind of "delusion". |
IMO, the idea of wave-particle duality is an outdated and old fashioned notion that
is really misleading and totally inaccurate and should go the way of the
buggy whip and dinosaurs.
Photons are pulses of energy,
PERIOD! They originate from source atoms
as energy pulses that propagate as a wave and at some point, if they are absorbed
by an atom, the energy and momentum that they contain increases the energy
state of that atom, at which time energy transfer/conversion takes place. Yes,
I agree that photon waves are force carriers, but that does not make them
"particles" in the true meaning of the word. Particles have mass, photons don't.
If you want to consider an energy wave as a particle, then sound waves, shock
waves, and ocean waves should be particles too. I think that you see my point.
TRoc,Laserlight said
So what do you suppose happens to the DSE carried out in a vacuum? I am proposing that the results will be the same. Do you disagree? - end
No disrespect, but this is a "nonsense" question, IF you wish to maintain the integrity of absolute definitions in the realm of sub-atomic Physics.
The "Vacuum" means "no matter (mass) is present". So, by your own suggestion, no mass means no interaction. We can't have massless slits, or a screen, so there is no DSE.
However, for arguments' sake, lets' say we evacuate all (almost) of the air (N, O, etc.) from the standard set-up DSE. First off, we are going to have problems with the electrons that make up the materials of the equipment. If you will notice that ALL electron (mass) diffraction experiments, as well as photoelectric, etc. are done in vacuum, and ALL "photon" diffraction experiments ARE NOT done in vacuum, you have to ask yourself WHY?
You are tap dancing....good show!
I took your prior post, which I responded to as quoted above, to infer that the
DSE results were significantly affected by the atmosphere. I was pointing out
that the photon DSE results would/should be the same regardless of atmospheric
conditions short of fog.
You know as well as I do why electron DSE
experiments are done in vacuum. They collide and react with matter, like air
molecules. Photons can fairly easily propagate thru transparent matter and
electrons can't, due to charge interactions. I'm not aware of a need for
photoelectric experiments to be done in vacuum, since solar cells/ photo cells
work quite well in any non-extreme ambient environment. I am baffled by your
claim that the electrons of the equipment used in the DSE, that operate in vacuum,
will have "problems". I cannot accept this "claim" as you have stated it. The
electrons of the slits and screen will respond the same within an infinitesimal
range.
Disagreement, conversation welcomed,
LL
Laserlight
14th February 2007 - 07:51 AM
Hello All,
I am still waiting for someone to offer a conceptualization regarding the results
of the single photon DSE interference experiment and to directly correlate it to
the standard plane wave DSE. I have offered a conceptualization that, if mostly
correct, accounts for the results of both experiments, actually all 3 experiments.
I am finding it difficult to accept the insitu wave cancellation at the screen
argument, that most here seem to support, since it doesn't fit both experiments
nor does it fit the electron interference DSE experimental result.
In order to have a viable and acceptable conceptual model that works, all 3 of
these experiments must have a "common" explanation that works in all
cases.
You basically "know" my explanation. I am waiting for an acceptable alternative
that works.
Any takers?
LL
TRoc
14th February 2007 - 10:14 AM
Hi all,
LL, let's try the "easy way" first, keeping it as simple as possible, with a few general questions. If you are not satisfied, I will try to add details until you agree, or alleviate my concerns.
The "hidden variables" are just the things that are not accounted for in an experiment. In the DSE (let's stick to "photons") experiment, since its' not done in "vacuum", we have a
serious amount of electrons between the slit and the screen, primarily in the Nitrogen and Oxygen molecules.
You mentioned "transparency" in your last post, and I have talked a bit about this before. That is another very ambiguous term, that should be clearly understood before dismissing it.
We
know that the speed of light is slower in air, than it is in a vacuum.
Something is happening "on the way", and it must be in the form of absorption and re-emission.
I think we can safely take the Nitrogen "out of the equation" for now, because of 2 things: 1. "Molecular nitrogen (14.N.2) is largely transparent to infrared and visible radiation because it is a homonuclear molecule and thus
has no dipole moment to couple to electromagnetic radiation at these wavelengths". (the typical wavelength range of lasers)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen, and 2. It is of a symmetrical, hexagonal structure. (this equates to "green" in terms of nanoparticle resonance, in the
unexplained results I have linked earlier:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mbarbic/plasnano.htm) "The triple bond in molecular nitrogen (N2) is the strongest in nature."
Oxygen, however, is a different story. In addition to the properties concerning oxidation, and its' effect on plasmon resonance, that you mentioned, we have these: 1. "Oxygen presents two spectrophotometric absorption bands peaking at the wavelengths 687 and 760 nanometers." 2. "The electron configuration of the molecule has two unpaired electrons occupying two degenerate molecular orbitals".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OxygenIf we start tinkering around with trying to create a vacuum (which we will not be able to achieve perfectly), we start to change the "index of refraction", or the degree of "transparency" of these molecules, under pressure. Whatever is allowing the diffraction pattern to happen, it must pass through these "slits" as well.
Towards your other question:
Hertz's spark gaps
"A glass panel placed between the source of EM waves and the receiver absorbed ultraviolet radiation that assisted the electrons in jumping across the gap. When removed, the spark length would increase."
We don't want anything to absorb the energy needed for the effect.JJ Thomson: electrons
" In the research, Thomson enclosed a metal plate (a cathode)
in a vacuum tube, and exposed it to high frequency radiation. It was thought that the oscillating electromagnetic fields caused the atoms' field to resonate and, after reaching a certain amplitude, caused a subatomic "corpuscle" to be emitted, and current to be detected. The amount of this current varied with the intensity and color of the radiation. Larger radiation intensity or frequency would produce more current."
Von Lenard's observations
"His experiment directly measured potentials, not electron kinetic energy: he found the electron energy by relating it to the maximum stopping potential (voltage)
in a phototube. He found that the calculated maximum electron kinetic energy is determined by the frequency of the light." ("A
phototube is a type of gas-filled or vacuum tube that is sensitive to light. These devices operate according to the photoelectric effect: incoming photons strike a photocathode, generating electrons, which are attracted toward the anode."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phototube) ".. the difficulty in performing the experiments:
the experiments needed to be done on freshly cut metal so that the pure metal was observed, but it oxidized in a matter of minutes even in the partial vacuums he used."
"Solar cells (used in solar power) and light-sensitive diodes
use a variant of the photoelectric effect, but not ejecting electrons out of the material. In semiconductors, light of even relatively low energy, such as visible photons, can kick electrons out of the valence band and into the higher-energy conduction band, where they can be harnessed, creating electric current at a voltage related to the bandgap energy."
"Photoelectron spectroscopy is done in a high vacuum environment, since the electrons would be scattered by air."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect - above quotes
So, I'm not concerned with the screen, it is the metal slit that would have significant changes in properties in vacuum conditions, as well as the medium the light must pass through on the way to the screen. If we have a "unified", equally spread wave hitting the screen, we should get no diffraction pattern. If the wavelets/beat-frequencies are "mixed up" on the way, the receiving dipoles should give a "binary" light/dark pattern*. Intensity pattern would result from SHG of "photons" passing through excited Oxygen, resulting in a superposition of the "passing photon", and the "emission photon" (just as in the lasing process). That part IS statistical, because more wavelets go through the slit unchanged, than any other angle.
*
(common to all lattice structures)
regards,
T.Roc
Confused2
14th February 2007 - 02:24 PM
Hi Good Elf,
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
There are no continuous sine waves in nature. Photon emission are associated with "packets" which are not "sine waves". Packets can be considered as a superposition of wavelets... this is not the same thing. What you are probably referring to is phase matching of the wave packet to the "line"... is this correct? When I say "line"... I can mean "empty space" with boundaries through which EM can propagate. A "resonant line" has an impulse response and the best way to analyze the way in which a waveform will propagate along a "line" is to start with the impulse response.
In the DSE we see photons interfering between several wavefronts .. I'm not sure whether or not you agree to this so confirmation that you can see this would be welcome.
Unfortunately I can't find a statement as to the difference in the length of the legs in the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment and I'd have to pay to get the original paper. I think it would be unreasonable to suppose it would be less than a metre.. (dispute if you wish). Given the wavelength of light it would seem (beyond reasonable doubt?) that we have (single photon) interference where one path length is millions of wavelengths shorter (or longer) than the other. If a photon is to be viewed as any sort of em wave that obeys anything like the rules of EM propagation then it looks like the packet must be at least several millions of cycles long.
You mention 'Sum over paths' from time to time. I assume you are referring to Feynman's analysis where we accept that a single photon is 'long' enough to fill the entire universe (with sinusoidal intent) and we need (in theory) ALL of that information to predict the (probable) outcome and that the outcome is itself an interference effect between all paths .. no matter how short or long they are .. an infinitely long sinewave .. you might say. Fortunately most paths cancel out so we can ignore them and the infinitely long sinewave approach agrees with 'normal' theory and experimental results which are (normally) based on continuous sinewave excitation (a good sign).
An impulse is (by definition) very short. It is difficult to see how anything resembling an impulse can fit in with the KT result or Feynman's theory which (as far as I know) is 'correct'.
An impulse will (theoretically) excite all resonant systems with their natural frequency. A glance at Bohm in the paper below suggests that Bohm would have us solve the Schrodinger equation (or similar) and then feed a 'particle' into the result to see where it came out. Is it just that you mention the impulse but do not mention the Schrodinger equation?
Could there be some equivalence between 'Sum over paths', The Schrodinger Equation and your 'Cavities and extra dimensions'? It doesn't look impossible to me. What makes it difficult is that you don't seem to draw the right conclusions from it. I suspect if you looked at what the historical opposition has done and incorporated the right (in my opinion) conclusions it might look a lot better... I could be wrong of course.
Quantum Mechanics .. Myths:-
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0609/0609163.pdfBest wishes,
-C2.
Good Elf
14th February 2007 - 02:52 PM
Hi Laserlight, Confused2 and TRoc and other friends,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
IMO, the idea of wave-particle duality is an outdated and old fashioned notion that is really misleading and totally inaccurate and should go the way of the buggy whip and dinosaurs.
Photons are pulses of energy, PERIOD! They originate from source atoms as energy pulses that propagate as a wave and at some point, if they are absorbed by an atom, the energy and momentum that they contain increases the energy state of that atom, at which time energy transfer/conversion takes place. Yes, I agree that photon waves are force carriers, but that does not make them "particles" in the true meaning of the word. Particles have mass, photons don't. If you want to consider an energy wave as a particle, then sound waves, shock waves, and ocean waves should be particles too. I think that you see my point.
Yes I see your point, this is total stupidity, a total lack of deep analysis followed by an emotional tirade... All "spin" and no substance.
Science is no debate, go ask the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki... Governments go in for debate and their illogic and spin result in tragedy and total despair with a great loss of lives. Being before the light of ten thousand suns is not a "philosophy" and it will either "burn" or "illuminate". Does this mean you turn your back on all the benefits over the last couple of hundred years of scientific advancement and evidence based science? If particle wave duality is absolute nonsense then by what authority or defining moment do you come bye this truth? In science, not only are there theories that can stack up mathematically but they should be backed by scientific experiment...
evidence based science nothing less.
Our school systems are failing us all in producing minds that are unable to asses relative worth and to see the errors in our theses based on the results of the Universe itself speaking out loud and clear. To be able to rightfully criticize those that go before you must travel many miles in their moccasins. To see further than they you must first stand on their shoulders. To ignore all the current experimental evidence is the height of "bad form" and poor judgment. I cannot "debate" the nature of truth or of relevance with people that do not have the humility to accept the very same Universe speaking louder than their rhetoric and hubris. If you have conclusive "evidence" in experiment that what you say is true then present it unequivocally and forcefully right now and end this foolish and empty "opinion". There are impressionable minds out there that seek answers to real questions not just "elliptic conflicts".
We "elves" have opinions but I try and base them on proven phenomena you could test for yourself or failing that you would be able to follow others in their discoveries and see how they achieved such great heights though attentive listening to Nature and to great spirits that have challenged the nihilism and proved it wrong. Used correctly science is a "ratchet" that lifts man and his deeds above the featureless plain of despair and chaos of history. It is not down to us to reject the bits that we do not like and to accept those bits which appeal... we must accept anything that has the seal of Truth and we then apply the "torch" of our minds to the problem to seek out its exact meaning. At most, at any point in time, only one version of truth can be valid.
QUOTE
"It is possible to believe that all the past is but the beginning of a beginning, and that all that is and has been is but the twilight of the dawn. It is possible to believe that all that the human mind has ever accomplished is but the dream before the awakening. We can not see, there is no need for us to see, what this world will be like when the day has fully come. We are creature of the twilight. But it is out of our race and lineage that minds will spring, that will reach back to us in our littleness to know us better than we know ourselves, and that will reach forward fearlessly to comprehend this future that defeats our eyes. All this world is heavy with the promise of greater things, and a day will come, one day in the unending succession of days, when beings, beings who are now latent in our thoughts and hidden in our loins, shall stand upon this earth as one stands upon a footstool, and shall laugh and reach out their hands amidst the stars".
-- H.G. Wells; Nature February 6, 1902.
All this will happen but some of you will fail in your quest for truth because you have no hope or method to test the lies that abound around us. You will be the willing pawns of those who wish to manipulate you by simply the stroking of your egos. In ancient days the guru when faced with ignorance in his charge, would strenuously slap the face of the acolyte to remind him of his connection to reality, his humanity and to the line of authority and experience that reaches before him. Belief is not enough, you must truly understand before you can work any true "magic". I would grovel in dust to have a "blessed beating" that led to illumination. It is a pity this generation winces from any discomfort and wants comfortable lies instead of the harsh truths.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
"It is possible to believe that all the past is but the beginning of a beginning, and that all that is and has been is but the twilight of the dawn. It is possible to believe that all that the human mind has ever accomplished is but the dream before the awakening. We can not see, there is no need for us to see, what this world will be like when the day has fully come. We are creature of the twilight. But it is out of our race and lineage that minds will spring, that will reach back to us in our littleness to know us better than we know ourselves, and that will reach forward fearlessly to comprehend this future that defeats our eyes. All this world is heavy with the promise of greater things, and a day will come, one day in the unending succession of days, when beings, beings who are now latent in our thoughts and hidden in our loins, shall stand upon this earth as one stands upon a footstool, and shall laugh and reach out their hands amidst the stars".
-- H.G. Wells; Nature February 6, 1902. |
All this will happen but some of you will fail in your quest for truth because you have no hope or method to test the lies that abound around us. You will be the willing pawns of those who wish to manipulate you by simply the stroking of your egos. In ancient days the guru when faced with ignorance in his charge, would strenuously slap the face of the acolyte to remind him of his connection to reality, his humanity and to the line of authority and experience that reaches before him. Belief is not enough, you must truly understand before you can work any true "magic". I would grovel in dust to have a "blessed beating" that led to illumination. It is a pity this generation winces from any discomfort and wants comfortable lies instead of the harsh truths.
Making love with his ego
Ziggy sucked up into his mind
Like a leper messiah
When the kids had killed the man
We had to break up the band
Laserlight
14th February 2007 - 05:08 PM
GOOD ELF, dear friend!
With all due respect......PPphhhhhhffffffttttttt!!! "RASPBERRY!"
Quit eating
those "magic" mushrooms!
QUOTE
Yes I see your point, this is total stupidity, a total lack of deep analysis followed by an emotional tirade... All "spin" and no substance. Science is no debate, go ask the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki... Governments go in for debate and their illogic and spin result in tragedy and total despair with a great loss of lives. Being before the light of ten thousand suns is not a "philosophy" and it will either "burn" or "illuminate". Does this mean you turn your back on all the benefits over the last couple of hundred years of scientific advancement and evidence based science? If particle wave duality is absolute nonsense then by what authority or defining moment do you come bye this truth? In science, not only are there theories that can stack up mathematically but they should be backed by scientific experiment... evidence based science nothing less.
Our school systems are failing us all in producing minds that are unable to asses relative worth and to see the errors in our theses based on the results of the Universe itself speaking out loud and clear. To be able to rightfully criticize those that go before you must travel many miles in their moccasins. To see further than they you must first stand on their shoulders. To ignore all the current experimental evidence is the height of "bad form" and poor judgment. I cannot "debate" the nature of truth or of relevance with people that do not have the humility to accept the very same Universe speaking louder than their rhetoric and hubris. If you have conclusive "evidence" in experiment that what you say is true then present it unequivocally and forcefully right now and end this foolish and empty "opinion". There are impressionable minds out there that seek answers to real questions not just "elliptic conflicts".
Yep, there were lots of prominent scientists and scholars that believed that the
world was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, and that lead could
be turned into gold. They were taught such nonsense and dared not question
the authority of the "church", and taught it to their students too. That didn't make
it right. It appears that you dare not question the authority of the scientific status
quo lest you be criticized. We are men,
not sheep, and when new evidence
changes the paradigm of old fashioned thinking we must be willing to alter our
views, or else we just continue to promote ignorance with our "tacit" approval.
We live in a modern world, and if we are to continue to advance our knowledge
at some point we must cast off the misconceptions, quaint colloquialisms, and
scientific rhetoric that keeps us mired in the thinking of the past. I think that you
are afraid to do this, because of scientific indoctrination and professional peer
pressure, which are yokes that are imposed by scientific authority. Scientific
dogma has replaced the authoritarianism once held sway by the "church".
It is personal choice whether one wants to live in the box of "conventional
wisdom" or dare to step outside of those self imposed constraints.
Yeah, I imagine that it is warm and cuddly in that box. Thankfully, some have
left the box and forwarded scientific truth by challenging themselves and their
peers and have advanced science in spite of itself.
I will not condemn you for fearing to leave the box, but neither should your
arrogance condemn me and others for daring to not be clone disciples of someone
else's "religious" doctrine.
It really comes down to how we evaluate and interpret the information that is
available and provided. Any two individuals looking at the same information will
interpret it differently, ala the blind men and the elephant analogy. What makes
one more right than the other in their interpretation of the evidence? Eventually
the truth will be determined, and it will be obvious with a little extra insight,
presented from a different angle, having provided the critical clues.
I have found that looking at things from different "angles" and approaches, rather
than straight on, gives one a panoramic view of a situation. Others might not see
it at first, but eventually they are convinced to alter their perspective and
change their programmed thought patterns. I am waiting for you to quit
vacillating and to propose a working model that totally explains the phenomena of
the DSE results. We have seen a plethora of information and experimentation
that provide subtle clues that can be applied to this phenomenon.
Why are you afraid to offer a conceptual model that challenges the conventional
explanation of the DSE? Enough of the scientific rhetoric, take a position!
Slighted,
LL
Montec
14th February 2007 - 05:18 PM
Hello all
Can we agree that
refraction is the only way to change the direction of a energy wave (it does not matter what type of energy) that retains the phase relationship of the original wave. I know of no other way to change the direction of propagation that does not involve an abrupt change of direction .
Refraction is solely based on the differential propagation speed of the wave front. The wave can be any size but if you change the speed of propagation over the length of the wave front then the wave will change direction.
The speed of light is based on the permittivity and permeability of the space it is traveling through. Matter affects the permittivity and permeability of space. The question arises on whether or not these affects extend beyond the matter's surface. We must also ask how far the edge of the wave can intrude into matter before it is absorbed.
There is also the
optical kerr effect to take into consideration. The effect may be small at low energies but it is still there.
Laserlight
14th February 2007 - 05:30 PM
TRoc,
I will admit that the dielectric properties provided by the atmosphere, especially
in the confines of a small geometry could have some slight effect on the optical
lens characteristics observed in the camera obscura and the SSE/DSE, but IMO
those effects are likely 3rd or 4th order events. In the case of electrons,
ambient atmospheric conditions are 1st order "constraints" that must be
eliminated in order to achieve the observed results.
I concede that point.
Now, I throw down the same "gauntlet" that I offered to GE. Are you ready to
finalize your prior proposals and offer a conceptual mechanism to explain the
results of the DSE all the way from photon emission to detection?
The same challenge is offered to all! We know C2's position, but it is incomplete
and undetermined if it is correct. I suspect that he is rethinking some of it.
I have laid down the gauntlet.
LL
Laserlight
14th February 2007 - 05:43 PM
Hi Montec,
I agree with what you say, with some caveats. Refraction, dispersion, reflection,
and absorption occur when different energy states mutually interact. Refraction
is not a spontaneous self event.
Regards,
LL
Laserlight
14th February 2007 - 05:52 PM
Montec,
I offer the examples of capillary effect, surface adhesion of liquids on
polished glass, and other such boundary flow/turbulence effects as substantiation
of surface "field" interactions.
Disagreements and discussion welcomed,
LL
Laserlight
14th February 2007 - 07:38 PM
Hello All,
After reading the article posted by Montec on the Kerr effect, it led me again
back to solitons and optical solitons which seem to provide some credibility to
the influence of matter on wave properties caused by encountering dielectric
induced fields. Also of interest oscillons which may or may not have any
influence at atomic scales. That has yet to be proven.
Solitons:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolitonOptical solitons:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton_%28optics%29Oscillons:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OscillonRegards,
LL
Confused2
14th February 2007 - 08:09 PM
To TRoc, Good Elf and the other spreaders of light..
TRoc wins again.. why can't he see how Huygens principle works in two dimensions
? Because it doesn't
.
See..
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.ph...ghlight=huygensBest wishes,
-C2.
Good Elf
14th February 2007 - 11:02 PM
Hi laserlight,
QUOTE (laserlight+)
Yep, there were lots of prominent scientists and scholars that believed that the world was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, and that lead could be turned into gold. They were taught such nonsense and dared not question the authority of the "church", and taught it to their students too. That didn't make it right. It appears that you dare not question the authority of the scientific status quo lest you be criticized. We are men, not sheep, and when new evidence changes the paradigm of old fashioned thinking we must be willing to alter our views, or else we just continue to promote ignorance with our "tacit" approval.[..] I have found that looking at things from different "angles" and approaches, rather than straight on, gives one a panoramic view of a situation. Others might not see it at first, but eventually they are convinced to alter their perspective and change their programmed thought patterns.
It is great to tilt at authority and to think outside the box but what you are doing is redefining what Physics call 'a particle' and then you proceed to put photons inside a special intellectual box that says "no entry -- no particles here -- move along".
I have no specific respect for "authority" other than they "may" be the prime source of the best information currently available. What I really do respect is the results of direct experiment done even by total "unknowns", and I hold that information (especially if it has been duplicated and confirmed) over all other authority. Why?? - it is the touchstone we have that defines sciences above philosophy, religion and black magic... the authority of the Universe itself... the "finger of God" if you will, writing its own story on the "wall of human history". That kind of "graffiti" you cannot ignore or if you do, it is at your peril.
The only caveat is the level of "interpretation" since the quality of that interpretation" leads to the real advances in human thinking. A total fool may observe an important event, that seeing it does not provoke any intellectual awareness while in another enlightened mind triggers the gestalt that opens understanding. What you have not done is to show a level of scholarship so far that can rule out the results of a hundred years of careful painstaking experiment and interpretation at a single stroke by simply redefining what you believe is a "particle". What you are doing is similar to redefining what everyone in the world takes to be a "stop light" as a "go light" and then acting according to your "enlightened vision".
I suggest you stay with ground rules and usage of language or the next semantic bus passing your intellectual intersection could have your name on it.
Cheers
Laserlight
15th February 2007 - 12:21 AM
GE,
Despite your best attempts to "deify" and place those wonderful individuals that
were responsible for forwarding our understanding of the natural world
on a pedestal that others should worship at, you must realize that they
were just men and women. Most of these individuals spent their entire lives
engaged in investigating curiousities that had no, or limited, formal description
or fundamental understanding. Science evolved by first asking the question
"Why?" and then testing various theories by trial and error and eliminating
the results that were obviously wrong, while compiling and adding to the bits of
information that were proven right. My point being that there is a tremendous
amount of accumulated information available that can be applied to
unsolved "questions" like the underlying phenomena that cause the results
yielded by the DSE. We do not have to reinvent the wheel each time that
we want to use it, we just apply our understanding of the principles involved and
use them as "tools"in our conceptual explanation. An ornate tapestry is nothing
but simple threads organized and woven together by someone skilled at doing
that task. It does not require genius, it just requires the application and skills of
perception and tying knots in the right place at the right time.
Science is a wonderful human accomplishment, but it is not a theological closed
club for men in robes speaking in latin any more. Pandora's box has been
opened for all to see.
QUOTE
What you have not done is to show a level of scholarship so far that can rule out the results of a hundred years of careful painstaking experiment and interpretation at a single stroke by simply redefining what you believe is
a "particle".
I make no claim of being a scholar, but neither do I worship at their feet.
Just because someone has a doctorate doesn't mean that he is any more
"enlightened" than someone with lots of practical experience in real world
applications who can bring lots of other skill sets and learned knowledge
to bear. Well educated doesn't necessarily mean well rounded from a
practical common sense point of view. I've had many learned colleagues
tell me something was impossible to do, and then done and proven what they said
was impossible, on lots of different occasions....but that is a different story.
I support higher education, it is very necessary, but I wouldn't necessarily let
a PHd work on my car, just because he was educated, any more than I would
let a mechanic perform surgery on me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
What you have not done is to show a level of scholarship so far that can rule out the results of a hundred years of careful painstaking experiment and interpretation at a single stroke by simply redefining what you believe is
a "particle". |
I make no claim of being a scholar, but neither do I worship at their feet.
Just because someone has a doctorate doesn't mean that he is any more
"enlightened" than someone with lots of practical experience in real world
applications who can bring lots of other skill sets and learned knowledge
to bear. Well educated doesn't necessarily mean well rounded from a
practical common sense point of view. I've had many learned colleagues
tell me something was impossible to do, and then done and proven what they said
was impossible, on lots of different occasions....but that is a different story.
I support higher education, it is very necessary, but I wouldn't necessarily let
a PHd work on my car, just because he was educated, any more than I would
let a mechanic perform surgery on me.
What you are doing is similar to redefining what everyone in the world takes to be a "stop light" as a "go light" and then acting according to your "enlightened vision"....
I suggest you stay with ground rules and usage of language or the next semantic bus passing your intellectual intersection could have your name on it.
The last thing I want is a myopic scholar behind the steering wheel of a bus!
They tend to get bogged down and distracted in the minutiae of how they should
drive, and fail to pay attention to the obvious that is in front of them.
Some of the brightest minds that I have had the pleasure to know and work with
were often very closed minded to thoughts and opinions that weren't their own.
IMO, that is due to the "Stoic" training and traditions promoted by academia.
A "closed" mind is of no use to anyone.
Just my observations and assessment based on experience.
The gauntlet is still on the ground waiting for a champion to come along and
take up the challenge issued previously. Any takers?
LL
Neil Farbstein
15th February 2007 - 02:01 AM
QUOTE (Laserlight+Feb 15 2007, 12:21 AM)
GE,
Despite your best attempts to "deify" and place those wonderful individuals that
were responsible for forwarding our understanding of the natural world
on a pedestal that others should worship at, you must realize that they
were just men and women. Most of these individuals spent their entire lives
engaged in investigating curiousities that had no, or limited, formal description
or fundamental understanding. Science evolved by first asking the question
"Why?" and then testing various theories by trial and error and eliminating
the results that were obviously wrong, while compiling and adding to the bits of
information that were proven right. My point being that there is a tremendous
amount of accumulated information available that can be applied to
unsolved "questions" like the underlying phenomena that cause the results
yielded by the DSE. We do not have to reinvent the wheel each time that
we want to use it, we just apply our understanding of the principles involved and
use them as "tools"in our conceptual explanation. An ornate tapestry is nothing
but simple threads organized and woven together by someone skilled at doing
that task. It does not require genius, it just requires the application and skills of
perception and tying knots in the right place at the right time.
Science is a wonderful human accomplishment, but it is not a theological closed
club for men in robes speaking in latin any more. Pandora's box has been
opened for all to see.
I make no claim of being a scholar, but neither do I worship at their feet.
Just because someone has a doctorate doesn't mean that he is any more
"enlightened" than someone with lots of practical experience in real world
applications who can bring lots of other skill sets and learned knowledge
to bear. Well educated doesn't necessarily mean well rounded from a
practical common sense point of view. I've had many learned colleagues
tell me something was impossible to do, and then done and proven what they said
was impossible, on lots of different occasions....but that is a different story.
I support higher education, it is very necessary, but I wouldn't necessarily let
a PHd work on my car, just because he was educated, any more than I would
let a mechanic perform surgery on me.
The last thing I want is a myopic scholar behind the steering wheel of a bus!
They tend to get bogged down and distracted in the minutiae of how they should
drive, and fail to pay attention to the obvious that is in front of them.
Some of the brightest minds that I have had the pleasure to know and work with
were often very closed minded to thoughts and opinions that weren't their own.
IMO, that is due to the "Stoic" training and traditions promoted by academia.
A "closed" mind is of no use to anyone.
Just my observations and assessment based on experience.
The gauntlet is still on the ground waiting for a champion to come along and
take up the challenge issued previously. Any takers?
LL
"HAW HAW HAW HAW We got it." The bus driver. And no-one took the keys away either.
Neil Farbstein
15th February 2007 - 02:04 AM
QUOTE (TRoc+Feb 14 2007, 10:14 AM)
Hi all,
LL, let's try the "easy way" first, keeping it as simple as possible, with a few general questions. If you are not satisfied, I will try to add details until you agree, or alleviate my concerns.
The "hidden variables" are just the things that are not accounted for in an experiment. In the DSE (let's stick to "photons") experiment, since its' not done in "vacuum", we have a
serious amount of electrons between the slit and the screen, primarily in the Nitrogen and Oxygen molecules.
You mentioned "transparency" in your last post, and I have talked a bit about this before. That is another very ambiguous term, that should be clearly understood before dismissing it.
We
know that the speed of light is slower in air, than it is in a vacuum.
Something is happening "on the way", and it must be in the form of absorption and re-emission.
I think we can safely take the Nitrogen "out of the equation" for now, because of 2 things: 1. "Molecular nitrogen (14.N.2) is largely transparent to infrared and visible radiation because it is a homonuclear molecule and thus
has no dipole moment to couple to electromagnetic radiation at these wavelengths". (the typical wavelength range of lasers)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen, and 2. It is of a symmetrical, hexagonal structure. (this equates to "green" in terms of nanoparticle resonance, in the
unexplained results I have linked earlier:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mbarbic/plasnano.htm) "The triple bond in molecular nitrogen (N2) is the strongest in nature."
Oxygen, however, is a different story. In addition to the properties concerning oxidation, and its' effect on plasmon resonance, that you mentioned, we have these: 1. "Oxygen presents two spectrophotometric absorption bands peaking at the wavelengths 687 and 760 nanometers." 2. "The electron configuration of the molecule has two unpaired electrons occupying two degenerate molecular orbitals".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OxygenIf we start tinkering around with trying to create a vacuum (which we will not be able to achieve perfectly), we start to change the "index of refraction", or the degree of "transparency" of these molecules, under pressure. Whatever is allowing the diffraction pattern to happen, it must pass through these "slits" as well.
Towards your other question:
Hertz's spark gaps
"A glass panel placed between the source of EM waves and the receiver absorbed ultraviolet radiation that assisted the electrons in jumping across the gap. When removed, the spark length would increase."
We don't want anything to absorb the energy needed for the effect.JJ Thomson: electrons
" In the research, Thomson enclosed a metal plate (a cathode)
in a vacuum tube, and exposed it to high frequency radiation. It was thought that the oscillating electromagnetic fields caused the atoms' field to resonate and, after reaching a certain amplitude, caused a subatomic "corpuscle" to be emitted, and current to be detected. The amount of this current varied with the intensity and color of the radiation. Larger radiation intensity or frequency would produce more current."
Von Lenard's observations
"His experiment directly measured potentials, not electron kinetic energy: he found the electron energy by relating it to the maximum stopping potential (voltage)
in a phototube. He found that the calculated maximum electron kinetic energy is determined by the frequency of the light." ("A
phototube is a type of gas-filled or vacuum tube that is sensitive to light. These devices operate according to the photoelectric effect: incoming photons strike a photocathode, generating electrons, which are attracted toward the anode."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phototube) ".. the difficulty in performing the experiments:
the experiments needed to be done on freshly cut metal so that the pure metal was observed, but it oxidized in a matter of minutes even in the partial vacuums he used."
"Solar cells (used in solar power) and light-sensitive diodes
use a variant of the photoelectric effect, but not ejecting electrons out of the material. In semiconductors, light of even relatively low energy, such as visible photons, can kick electrons out of the valence band and into the higher-energy conduction band, where they can be harnessed, creating electric current at a voltage related to the bandgap energy."
"Photoelectron spectroscopy is done in a high vacuum environment, since the electrons would be scattered by air."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect - above quotes
So, I'm not concerned with the screen, it is the metal slit that would have significant changes in properties in vacuum conditions, as well as the medium the light must pass through on the way to the screen. If we have a "unified", equally spread wave hitting the screen, we should get no diffraction pattern. If the wavelets/beat-frequencies are "mixed up" on the way, the receiving dipoles should give a "binary" light/dark pattern*. Intensity pattern would result from SHG of "photons" passing through excited Oxygen, resulting in a superposition of the "passing photon", and the "emission photon" (just as in the lasing process). That part IS statistical, because more wavelets go through the slit unchanged, than any other angle.
*
(common to all lattice structures)
regards,
T.Roc
Take physics ,you'll feel better.
Good Elf
15th February 2007 - 02:21 AM
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE
GE,
Despite your best attempts to "deify" and place those wonderful individuals that
were responsible for forwarding our understanding of the natural world
on a pedestal that others should worship at, you must realize that they
were just men and women.
Despite my best attempts... either mine or your communication skills seem totally inadequate to punch through this "fog". I was trying to say that I place my faith
mostly squarely in the lap of the existing experimental results and then in my own interpretations ... in the light of other opinions specifically of the experimentalists involved (regardless of their individual lack of fame)... and not in the personal opinions by scientists, experts, authorities, public servants, politicians, priests, movie stars, rock stars, Ouija boards or anything else from heaven or hell..
I reckon if "God" gets it wrong and the Universe stuffs up...there is little I can do about it... mostly (on balance) the Basic Laws of the Universe seem to work each and every time "pretty well"...
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.
