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

Laserlight
GE,

QUOTE
Spreading of a wavefront does not mean that individual photon energies can be "split". I thought that my point of view was becoming clear too but ... alas!  I hope that text book pictures of expanding spherical shells of light only occur in regions where there is unrestricted opportunity to do so and in regions where the geometry of the space is limited or the frame of reference is separate, we often picture these "events" (which are unseen), far too idealistically. Recall that photon events have a distinct "non-local" nature so a particle interpretation is not strictly possible. Feynman's "Many Paths Interpretation" is still the rule.


IMO, you seem to be hung up on the "straight line" trajectory of a photon, per
your previous post, however you state that a photon seeks all paths while
propagating but does not divide. That seems "logically" inconsistent in view of
the interference results of the DSE and of interferometers. Interference cannot
occur if the energy of a photon cannot divide and then recombine in some
superposition with a phase and timing difference.

IF a single photon can only interfere with itself and cannot be divided, how
do you explain that it is possible to split the energy that exists in that
single photon and pass it thru widely separated mirrors and then see the
interference that results as the energy is superposed at some target screen.

The result of the DSE creates an interference pattern because the photon
does divide as it passes thru physically isolated slits. Each divided portion
maintains the same emission frequency and its propensity to spread, but it is now
spacially separated from its original expanding wave path.

I also again refer to the results obtained by a large array telescope with individual
reflectors all reflecting the same photon at some focal point in order to
concentrate and amplify the distributed energy of the photon wavefront at a single
location. http://www.nrao.edu/whatisra/radiotel.shtml I also still contend that
separate antennas can simultaneously detect the same long wavelength photon
while located at different locations parallel to the advancing wavefront.

We seem to have come full circle in this argument, yet again. I think it is a
matter of interpretation of exactly what a photon "is". A pulse of energy
of any dimension can be detected at the same energy intensity at multiple
evenly space locations from the source.....yeah, I remember... E=hf, but IMO
energy is relative to the point where it is measured along the wavefront
according to the ISL.

Regards,
LL




Good Elf
Hi laserlight,

QUOTE
IMO, you seem to be hung up on the "straight line" trajectory of a photon, per your previous post, however you state that a photon seeks all paths while propagating but does not divide. That seems "logically" inconsistent in view of the interference results of the DSE and of interferometers. Interference cannot occur if the energy of a photon cannot divide and then recombine in some superposition with a phase and timing difference.
OK... I have lost you with this so let me try and put it another way. Lets think of that photon in its own frame of infinite length contraction/rotation of the external spaces and infinite time dilation relative to its own frame of reference (except for a small "period" when the photon is being emitted and when it is being absorbed).

Wherever the photon has been or will go "for all eternity" is within a "single point and a single instant of its time". As far as it is concerned the photon is without extent and without a dynamic. This means that without the passage of time no interaction or energy process can occur. That photon is a stationary state eternally. The path a photon takes is immaterial to the photon since it is but a single point so whatever occurs to it takes place there in that one and only instant. The "extent of time and its spread in space" is a phenomenon we see and not it. We are creatures of time and we inhabit space as a result. A photon in its frame of reference does neither. The reality for a photon is what it experiences and not what we see. Like a frozen image on the event horizon of a black hole this is a changeless instant stretched to infinity like some "rubber band" stretched in space and time. Also the photon may appear to be a caustic and be split according to our perception of things and for quanta that have not been "collapsed" these "bits" you seem to be worried about in the frame of the photon are all in the one spot and it is only "interfering" with itself.

This "shape" the particle such as a photon exhibits actually define the dimensional space it is existing within. For the one photon there is nothing beyond the confines of that "horizon"... nothing.... nothing.... absolutely nothing at all... Since if there was, this being the edge of a light cone... to pass it whatever it is... would need to travel faster than light.

Like a Captain aboard a Space Ship traveling "near the speed of light", his life is not extended for even a second, it is merely "stretched out" relative to the events happening in frames at a vastly different velocity relative to him. The edge of his light cone defines the events that can reach him as well... no more and no less than it would even for us at this moment we are reading this note (same laws for all). This leads to visual phenomena that from the perspective of the one observer cannot be easily interpreted. The twin paradox is no paradox it is the very nature of measurement. And also as we close on the speed of light the Universe contracts to a single point of light in the forward direction due to "stellar aberration"....
Seeing Relativity... ANU
Check it out and see if you can understand it... If you can't get it maybe this stuff is beyond you and you need to watch a lot more Science Fiction Movies. wink.gif

Cheers
Good Elf
Hi Laserlight, Confused2, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Zephir et al,

I will make no detailed comments here since we have covered this in depth already... but have a look at this development...
In tiny supercooled clouds, physicists exchange light and matter
And of course this forum thread...
Exchange of light and matter, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news90077438.html
We have been discussing this stuff for many months now. Experiment finally catches up with the theory....

Think about it carefully and also try and see just what this implies. This is no surprise. Soon we may be creating other interesting particles through "Singular Optics". The relation with Lorentz-CPT is assured. Soon "string theory" on a macroscopic scale may be possible through "optical resonances"... as I have been stating.

Time to go build a Universe from Photons...
User posted image
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach

Cheers
Laserlight
GE,

QUOTE
OK... I have lost you with this so let me try and put it another way.....

Check it out and see if you can understand it... If you can't get it maybe this stuff is beyond you and you need to watch a lot more Science Fiction Movies.


Oh, I see how it is...when someone dares to confront you with an argument that contradicts
or conflicts with your theory and beliefs you become obnoxious,
condescending, and spiteful. You have done this to several on this board who
dare to disagree with your interpretation. You are obviously a pretty
intelligent fellow, but I think your "ego" can't accept alternative interpretations of
the same information that you have no ready answer for, so you close your
mind and fall back into the defense mechanism of "conventional" thinking/training.
I am disappointed and insulted by your recent approach to "conversational" topics
on this open forum, where apparently alternative viewpoints and discussion that do
not agree with yours, and identify "flaws" in your model, are met with such tactics.

Good day, no need to reply.
LL
Laserlight
Hi C2 and All,

C2 said:
QUOTE
Let's fiddle about with the controls until we find the one that sets Planck's constant. Assuming we find the Planck's constant control before we switch either ourselves or the universe off .. try setting it to zero. Does the electromagnetic wave equation change? Does it make photons 'go away'? .. etc.


I think that this question that you posed follows with my earlier posts on the
question/nature/proposal of why a black hole radiates no light.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Let's fiddle about with the controls until we find the one that sets Planck's constant. Assuming we find the Planck's constant control before we switch either ourselves or the universe off .. try setting it to zero. Does the electromagnetic wave equation change? Does it make photons 'go away'? .. etc.


I think that this question that you posed follows with my earlier posts on the
question/nature/proposal of why a black hole radiates no light.

The release of energy is a function of time that an event occured. Energy IS information.
The reason black holes do not provide information is that they do not allow the
formation of photon patterns of information. Light is never emitted as a pattern
because atoms are so densely packed by gravity that electrons are locked
or "immobilized" in their orbits and cannot change energy levels to radiate
photons, but the core mass can radiate massive gravity and magnetic fields.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=165278


QUOTE
I have often wondered if the reason that black holes don't radiate light is perhaps
because the intense gravitational fields that are present at the surface of the
dense core, located at the center of the black hole energy vortex, modifies
or prevents EM fields from forming a balanced energy EM wave "structure".

To further develop the idea, perhaps the gravitational energy is so compressive
that the normal atomic energy "gap" structure of the atom does not exist as we
know it and therefore electrons cannot jump energy levels to produce EM waves.

All of the concentrated electrical and magnetic energy that is available has
been concentrated to maintain the core's regenerative energy "dynamo".
The potential energy of the core's mass is concentrated as magnetic and
gravitational fields, while the kinetic energy component is maintained as the mass rotates on its axis. The event horizon is the energy point where normal
space ends and gravitationally warped space begins. It is the point where light,
travelling thru the vacuum of space, becomes diffracted due to the effects of gravity bending the path from the normal.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=161986

In further developing C2's question/proposal, do the intense gravitational and
energy fields of a black hole modify, "turn off", or incapacitate the Plank length
relationship that is theorized to exist between subatomic charges/particles?

Other discussion, opinions welcomed
LL
jal
TIME OUT.
Read and learn and assimilate.

http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926969-6.pdf
Quantum Gravity Meets Structuralism: Interweaving Relations in the Fundation of Physics
by Dean Rickles and Steven French

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00...1/QGbook-SF.pdf
Time and Structure in Canonical Gravity.1
Dean Rickles
Division of History & Philosophy of Science,
University of Leeds.
phldpr@leeds.ac.uk
An abridged version of this paper is to appear in Structural Foundations of Quantum Gravity.
Edited by S. French, D. Rickles, and J. Saatsi. Oxford University Press (2005).
jal smile.gif
Laserlight
Jal,

What is the point that you are trying to make by presenting these papers?

Is there some argument or proposal/theory that you wish to present and
discuss to further this topic?

Thanks,
LL
Good Elf
Hi Laserlight,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Oh, I see how it is...when someone dares to confront you with an argument that contradicts or conflicts with your theory and beliefs you become obnoxious, condescending, and spiteful. You have done this to several on this board who dare to disagree with your interpretation. You are obviously a pretty intelligent fellow, but I think your "ego" can't accept alternative interpretations of the same information that you have no ready answer for, so you close your mind and fall back into the defense mechanism of "conventional" thinking/training. I am disappointed and insulted by your recent approach to "conversational" topics on this open forum, where apparently alternative viewpoints and discussion that do not agree with yours, and identify "flaws" in your model, are met with such tactics.

Good day, no need to reply.
LL
smile.gif It is my pleasure to reply. We all become disparaged when it appears we are unable to get a point across and no progress is being made. All right then... no sense of humor. Yes... I have an ego... Not so much that it stops me from sharing anything I know with others. It is good to have ego but it is not so good if this blinds us from listening and sharing. I have not expressed "spite"... You should see some of your statements from my "end"... he he he! About "ego"... "Ego" is just a disparaging name for "self worth". Regards science... I also fall back on existing theory and experiment when it is available. I do not think anyone has presented any flaws to me other than they happen to not accept the point of view or the papers I present. I would happily accept criticism from you when it takes the form of experimental evidence to the contrary. To prove this point I will answer the question below that you proposed as "criticism".
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I also again refer to the results obtained by a large array  telescope with individual reflectors all reflecting the same photon at some focal point in order to concentrate and amplify the distributed energy of the photon wavefront at a single location. http://www.nrao.edu/whatisra/radiotel.shtml
I also still contend that separate antennas can simultaneously detect the same long wavelength photon while located at different locations parallel to the advancing wavefront.

We seem to have come full circle in this argument, yet again. I think it is a matter of interpretation of exactly what a photon "is". A pulse of energy of any dimension can be detected at the same energy intensity at multiple evenly space locations from the source.....yeah, I remember... E=hf, but IMO energy is relative to the point where it is measured along the wavefront according to the ISL.
Photodetectors detect single photons as "clicks", "flashes" or "pulses" limited in both extent and time... or in the case of radio waves the signal is continuous due solely to their immense numbers being collected. The collection of these "clicks" or "flashes" are also spatially distributed and can form an "image" of the source distributed over a two dimensional detector. Remember photographic plates are such a detector. The images created from this process at a particular frequency (if you choose), on close examination, is made from a large number of very tiny darkened spots (darkened micro-crystals) on the plate after developing and fixing. I am sure that you are familiar with the theory that photons are emitted as packets of energy and also absorbed as a packet of energy. The concentration of energy by large dishes would be an obvious consequence of that theory... many photons of the same wavelength are gathered not just more of the one single photon. Your eye is also an example of "collection" of photons proportional to the size of the collecting surface. It is easy enough to show that individual photons actually spread. A diverging lens can do this... but what the lens does not do is normally change the frequency of the light... only its spatial distribution. The density of energy does drop off in an inverse square relationship but the photons are absorbed "whole". This suggests that despite "seeking all paths" they are only detected in one place in the end with an equal effect for each one at the detector. This does not mean that we have collected and detected every one.

You appear to propose that the individual photons are absorbed in part according to the amount of the wavefront "captured". This is not an experimental fact. You only need to reduce the intensity of the light to one photon at a time to see that. If it was "spread" then it would not produce tiny flashes of light at discrete spots on a zinc sulphide screen or Selenium Photo array(which is observed)... What you propose is the "intensity" would be lowered to an almost imperceptible level over the entire collecting surface. Aside from the fact that this absorption process needs a whole photon to work... This is not what is observed... we observe individual flashes coming from a very small area on the zinc screen, of equal intensity regardless of the "brightness" of the source. You can count these flashes with a video scanning system from behind the ZnS screen, Potassium Iodide Crystal or Selenium array. A computer can be left to count them "dispassionately" recording not only the brightness but the spatial and temporal distribution. What is found is the flashes are of the same overall physical size and only the density of the flashes vary with source brightness and not the overall intensity. You probably need to see it to believe it. I have seen it.

Sensor systems used to record images or to record intensity and wavelength respond to this phenomenon. In the simplest case a photographic emulsion is sensitive at particular frequencies to light. This is because of a reverse photo-electric effect leading to a "photochemical reaction" where a single photon is accepted into a crystal of silver halide in a tiny crystal releasing the electron and changing the color center of the crystal from "clear" to "dark". More photons of the same wavelength increase the effect by continuing this process "atom by atom" ever darkening the crystal. They are simple systems. Large array optical telescopes collect co-moving photons and concentrate them at a focus where a sensor "transduces" these individual photons into a cumulative effect on a photographic plate placed there or a optical sensor similar to those found in digital cameras. In the case of Radio Astronomy a longitudinal temporal signal at a particular wavelength (or frequency) is detected by a single sensor at that focus (usually a tuned cavity). These are separate ways to do it ... one records spatial distributions of photons (the optical telescopes) and the other records the temporal distribution of photons (the radio telescope). These are not the same picture. To build up a picture for a radio telescope the image is scanned in the heavens in a similar fashion to the way an image on a TV screen was originally scanned, the antenna rocks back and forth across the heavens to create a two dimensional intensity "chart" of all the sources in a small region of the heavens. This type picture necessarily loses the temporal information (eg: ET calling home). These photons all exhibit spatial coherence for reasons that bosons of the same frequency tend to be in the same common state. The photons all start out from such a large source like a sun or star as totally incoherent but the further they travel together the more they exhibit some spatial coherence with surrounding photons of the same wavelength.

Planck's Black Body radiation clearly demonstrates that the photons are discrete and do not form continuous distributions of energy... I have mentioned this here before. Neither are they absorbed as "continuous distributions" as you suggest (that is my interpretation of your statement). It is a one by one photon at a time affair. It was one of the great triumphs of physics to completely understand that quanta were emitted at discrete "finite" frequencies and were absorbed the same way leaving nothing "over" to be mopped up by other processes... whatever they may be. This theory avoided the "ultraviolet catastrophe" that earlier continuous theories such as your own could not avoid. Later Einstein Published his paper on the Photoelectric Effect resolving an experimental fact that was needed to complete the picture about the nature of the energy of a photon.
QUOTE (Wikipedia: Planck's law of black body radiation+)
Many popular science accounts of quantum theory, as well as some physics textbooks, contain some serious errors in their discussions of the history of Planck's Law. Although these errors were pointed out over forty years ago by historians of physics, they have proved to be difficult to eradicate. An article by Helge Kragh[4] gives a lucid account of what actually happened.

Contrary to popular opinion, Planck did not quantize light. This is evident from his original 1901 paper [3] and the references therein to his earlier work. It is also plainly explained in his book "Theory of Heat Radiation," where he explains that his constant refers to Hertzian oscillators. The idea of quantization was developed by others into what we now know as quantum mechanics. The next step along this road was made by Albert Einstein, who, by studying the photoelectric effect, proposed a model and equation whereby light was not only emitted but also absorbed in packets or photons. Then, in 1924, Satyendra Nath Bose developed the theory of the statistical mechanics of photons, which allowed a theoretical derivation of Planck's law.

Contrary to another myth, Planck did not derive his law in an attempt to resolve the "ultraviolet catastrophe", the name given to the paradoxical result that the total energy in the cavity tends to infinity when the equipartition theorem of classical statistical mechanics is applied to black body radiation. Planck did not consider the equipartition theorem to be universally valid, so he never noticed any sort of "catastrophe" — it was only discovered some five years later by Einstein, Lord Rayleigh, and Sir James Jeans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_..._body_radiation
As you can see here Planck had solved a problem that fate decreed he had not fully understood. This is why Einstein got a 'gong" and is better known than Planck. Planck never really accepted Quantum Theory. Please do not think that I disagree that quantization occurs... it is only the reason why it occurs and the way this information should be treated is where I differ very strongly from pure particle theories. A great deal of experimental evidence shows that the theory of the quantum is correct and aside from how this arises I am in total agreement with Einstein and also Planck.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I also still contend that separate antennas can simultaneously detect the same long wavelength photon while located at different locations parallel to the advancing wavefront.
I am not sure what you mean by "long wavelength photon" since wavelength is only measured in a direction perpendicular to the direction of propagation not transverse to it. This wavelength (or frequency) measurement does not change no matter how far a photon propagates. The exception is when an observer is in motion relative to the frame of reference in which the photon was emitted. This relative motion translates to a "shift" in frequency of the source (Relativistic Doppler Shift). This was also a triumph for Einstein and is an important part of the basis of Special Relativity. I also strongly support Special Relativity as one of the greatest achievements of the human mind.

The other great experimental and intellectual theoretical result IMHO was de Broglie's Hypothesis of the Matter Wave. I have always contended this is the complementary result to Special Relativity and I think is of supreme truth and as important as the contributions made by Einstein.

I am still interested in your response to the experimental results I reported above.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=175138
QUOTE (Physorg News+)
In tiny supercooled clouds, physicists exchange light and matter
Physicists have for the first time stopped and extinguished a light pulse in one part of space and then revived it in a completely separate location. They accomplished this feat by completely converting the light pulse into matter that travels between the two locations and is subsequently changed back to light.
In that post there is a link to commentary. I hope you think about it and respond. This illustrates many things we have been speaking about over the months.

If you really think that there are problems with my theories then you will need to be more specific. If you specify and present a good argument based on experiment then I will always listen.

If I really did not respect you or your opinions, as you suggest, I would not have persisted so long. But if you really believe that you are wasting your time with me I can accept that and I will move on.

Cheers

PS: What do you mean by "ISL"?
Laserlight
Good Elf.

Much Better! I appreciate the thoughtfulness and "tone" of your reply.

It appears that we still do not have concensus on the "size" or dimensions of a
photon as it propagates in x,y,z dimensions along an expanding dipole emission
parabolic wavefront "envelope". Also, apparently I have not been convincing in my
argument that when the EM fields of a discrete photon wavelet collapse that they
do so at the "null point" centerline of propagation of that discrete photon's EM
field envelope
which represents the directional vector flight path of the
wavelet. IMO, that is the focal point for "quantization" of the energy of the photon
when it "stimulates" the dipole of a receiving atom during detection.

I do think that perhaps we are agreeing on what constitutes a wave pulse,
which is a myriad of individual coherent photon wavelets in an expanding wavefront
that propagate together in near synchronous phase timing but with different
spacial and temporal locations within the wave envelope bandwidth.
Or, do you have a different conceptualization/description than I do?

QUOTE
I am not sure what you mean by "long wavelength photon" since wavelength is only measured in a direction perpendicular to the direction of propagation not transverse to it. This wavelength (or frequency) measurement does not change no matter how far a photon propagates.


What is the "breadth" of a photon wavefront of specific frequency? We know
the measurement peak to peak is the frequency, but how wide is a photon from
an AM radio tower? The width, height, breadth, and power is a function of the
Inverse Square Law and describes an expanding "parabolic" shape according to the
distance from the source.

Regards,
LL
Good Elf
Hi Laserlight, Confused2, Jal et al,

QUOTE
Good Elf.

Much Better! I appreciate the thoughtfulness and "tone" of your reply.
Well the tone is not "actually" altered, I have never been, in my mind, disrespectful... perhaps my attempt at "humor" in the future will be more considered. wink.gif It appears not to translate "on the Web". I have only the greatest appreciation for your input.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Good Elf.

Much Better! I appreciate the thoughtfulness and "tone" of your reply.
Well the tone is not "actually" altered, I have never been, in my mind, disrespectful... perhaps my attempt at "humor" in the future will be more considered. wink.gif It appears not to translate "on the Web". I have only the greatest appreciation for your input.

QUOTE (Good Elf+)
I am not sure what you mean by "long wavelength photon" since wavelength is only measured in a direction perpendicular to the direction of propagation not transverse to it. This wavelength (or frequency) measurement does not change no matter how far a photon propagates.
What is the "breadth" of a photon wavefront of specific frequency? We know the measurement peak to peak is the frequency, but how wide is a photon from an AM radio tower? The width, height, breadth, and power is a function of the Inverse Square Law and describes an expanding "parabolic" shape according to the distance from the source.
Hmm.. it still seems to be a real problem. I will try and answer again but remember when I am referring to photons as "waves" this is something apart from the photons as "particles"... the waves are like shadows on the landscape and the particle is contained only within an "evanescent space" around the emission point (source) and the absorption point (sink). Weather the photon actually "travels" as a wave across space is debatable... this is because it always interacts as a particle (at the end of its "mission"). I concede true particles appear to travel across space but I think the Jury is out about "photon travel". Photons are the Universes "exchange force" and that is its role.

My concept has always been that of a "boson wave" where all "coherent" photons (on the same wavefront) "fill the available space" at the speed of light expanding on the edge of the lightcone as far as they can go into that space. This is an "unseen space" but it "has an inner product into our space" upon collapse of the state. This is as seen from the photons limited point of view. The photon temporal "location" is on a Feynman path which may fold on itself or separate into caustics depending on "obstructions" and cavity proportions and the arrangements of reflecting, refracting and absorbing boundary conditions. This means all "ideal" photons not suffering the above, from the one emitter of coherent photons, produce patterns that look like this...
user posted image
Of course this illustration is for continuous sinusoidal sources but the space that each individual photon fills "ideally" remains the same as always.... All coherent photons in the same "mode" occupy the same space this is as much space as the photon can expand into at the speed of light. The modes are those expanding "pancakes" for each individual photon. There is the possibility of multiple modes where higher frequencies in the emitted packets cause the annular number of those pancakes to increase forcing nodal lines between each pancake. There are always two opposing phases minimum on opposite sides of the source and this is a basic symmetry consideration for sources of electromagnetism.

The individual photons emitted differ in "Berry Phase" which ultimately determines where their "cores" or "still points" end up on that expanding surface. Practically speaking I conjecture that they arrange their "cores" or "central nodes" to be uniformly arranged in that surface in such a way that it reflects the Pointing Energy Density Flux Vector... so when the photons are absorbed somewhere beyond in the far field, along any individual wavefront, the intensity of photons recorded there (by a detection system of some sort) is proportional to this cross product of this "gross" instantaneous electric and magnetic field. Remember they are propagating through those "instantaneous standing wave cavities", the cavity longitudinal modes, and their "cores" are executing non-abelian separate geometric phase "rotations" due to spin.

The space of all waves expands (as in the blue animation) to fill the cavity as does each and every photon in that one mode that also occupy "exactly" the same space (when the photons are coherent). In the case of the cavity of the Universe it may take a very long time to completely fill it but ultimately a single photon will "fill" the cavity of the Universe if not absorbed. At first though the newly created photon occupies an infinitesimally smaller volume and this volume increases with time as if expanding on the surface of a sphere at the speed of light. This "electromagnetic pancake" is not a full sphere but is a small "patch" on that surface that undergoes "expansion" and its extent depends on the modes involved in the transmission. The expansion always increases with distance propagated but in the complex geometry of our Universe with reflecting, absorbing and refracting interfaces the exact way in which it proceeds depends on the longitudinal modes that are established already in the volumetric space. This is provided it is a zero mode oscillation. Higher order modes confine the "photon particle" to smaller spatial volumes.

The reason I say this is regardless if one photon is emitted every hundred years or trillions of photons a second (relative strength of the source) the way that photon interferes with itself is the same because in the Double Slit Experiment these photons always build up exactly the same interference pattern. "Common sense" tells us this should not be the case since it takes time in dynamic systems to establish all the remaining primary modes in a complex cavity and reduce them to the minimum number, what I am saying is a single photon exhibits the final mode at the moment it was created and propagates unaltered forever. Source dynamics give the appearance of "change" but the photons during propagation do not exhibit any change at all. Yet experiment shows that photons one at a time at irregularly long periods "see" the pattern in all the cavities even if only one photon is involved. All that can change this situation is an absorber or scattering event.

It is true that we actually "see" nothing otherwise this photon will be absorbed or scattered and will not reach the intended target so it is only the photons that have not been interfered with that reach the "goal" and make interference patterns in the DSE. This is a very subtle point and I am sure that its significance is lost to most. The reason why the cavity does not interact in a temporal sense, "cleaning up" all the spurious modes, is because each individual photon produces "all" the information to make up the final pattern, the only limitation is it can only do this one photon at a time. So the final pattern is built up one tiny flash at a time and each and every photon is only interacting (interfering) with itself if the flux through the resonant space is only one photon a second say... or even one photon a century.

It is no wonder that some interpretations of Quantum Physics such as Yquantum's Relational Quantum Mechanics where only the relationships between things (the particles including photons) are important seem plausible. This leads to a theory that really has no matter waves in it as I see it. A particle theory without the waves. Of course there are real wavelike phenomena that are measurable that make us understand that the waves are real.

Check out "electromagnetic modes"...
Wikipedia: Transverse mode
Wikipedia: Longitudinal mode
This reference may assist as well...
Wikipedia: Normal Mode
This is what some optical modes look like "spatially"...
User posted image

There are spin modes as well and these can be derived from the fact that a transverse mode (according to a well known Superposition Theorem in Electromagnetics) is composed of (at least) two circularly polarized waves with opposite phase propagating in the same direction... This is within that one "particle". Photons propagating in one of the modes ... stay in that mode confined by the lightcone wall. Even if the photons were forced to cross each other they would still be in different dimensional spaces relative to each other.

I hope this helps and everything at your end is still "cool".. smile.gif I was wondering if you are able to respond to my questions regarding "light to mass to light" conversions.
It appears I got the link wrong last time so this is a correction...
Exchange of light and matter
... and the meaning of "ISL"?

Cheers
jal
Good Day everyone!
Maybe somebody is reading my common sense comments?

Good Elf
I do not accept YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of the experiments.
I do not accept the INTERPRETATIONS of Relational_quantum_mechanics
I do not accept the INTERPRETATIONS of quantum mechanics
I do not accept the INTERPRETATIONS of Many-worlds
I do not accept the INTERPRETATIONS of particles.
I do not accept the INTERPRETATIONS of waves.

Everybody is guessing based on a few experimental observations.

This discussion has explained the experiments adequately.
This discussion is now rehashing a 50 year old debate.

NOBODY KNOWS THE DYNAMICS INVOLVED.
We do not have experiments to reveal the dynamics that are happening at the speed of light.

NOBODY KNOWS IF WE HAVE AL THE FACTORS OF A QUANTUM MECHANICS SYSTEM.

It does not matter how many times that you repeat your interpretation, it is improvable AND it does not affect how the universe works or how it is made.
Your interpretation will not yield new technological innovations.

I repeat, …. read … learn … assimilate.
The fun is in the journey.
jal smile.gif
Good Elf
Hi Jal,

QUOTE (Jal+)
Good Elf
I do not accept YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of the experiments. ... etc.

Thought for the Day??
Information without interpretation is useless. The CIA and other Government Agencies have known this for years. The prime purpose and activity of these agencies is in "interpretation" since raw information is readily available. Are you suggesting the hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year on "interpretation" is wasted money? Since most people have very poor interpretational skills the World is a great mystery to them. It results in compartmentalization of knowledge. Behind the scenes "interpretation" is everything...

In the end your opinions must have an influence on your own ideas... don't you agree? An opinion.. even this one you have given here is an "interpretation"... Therefore what you are now giving us is "spin"! The statements you made are not wrong but the conclusions you have derived are not right.

I never guess Jal... people begin to guess when they lack an understanding of processes. Physics is a process and we do not need to guess. Our minds can grasp concepts when uncertainty has been removed.
QUOTE (Jal+)
I repeat, …. read … learn … assimilate.
Without the "interpretation" nobody really cares... So Interpret for them and suddenly you can spark an interest. Sometimes we make mistakes and I will admit it when I find out but that is how we learn things.
QUOTE (Jal+)
This discussion has explained the experiments adequately. This discussion is now rehashing a 50 year old debate.
NOBODY KNOWS THE DYNAMICS INVOLVED.
We do not have experiments to reveal the dynamics that are happening at the speed of light. NOBODY KNOWS IF WE HAVE AL THE FACTORS OF A QUANTUM MECHANICS SYSTEM.
Since Young originally performed his experiment we have learned a lot of independently verifiable "information"... a lot more than even 50 years ago. Using your argument the Wright Brothers should never have tried to build a plane since nobody ever built one before and there were no authorities to lean on to tell them how to do it. As to debates... what about the results of those experiments? If the "interpretations" we hold are inconsistent with those experimental results, even just one result, we must change our opinions. Do you agree?

Cheers
Laserlight
Hi GE,

I just read your post and am hoping others will join into the forum "discussion".

If there are others still reading this board how about chiming in so we know that
anyone else cares about the discussion at hand.

Re your other topic of light and matter, I read that several days ago and several
times since but have not come to a final conclusion of the what the experiment
is actually accomplishing. I need more time to think about it, but my inclination
is to agree with bluehigh. The supercooled sodium cloud is acting like a
dynamic "recording" medium that "freezes" the phase and amplitude information
in a BEC matter matrix which can be reconstructed when an external projection
source (secondary laser) is modulated by the information the recording matrix
contains.

LL
jal
Hi Good Elf!
The problems are as I have stated.
The interpretation of the "Wave" has been observed at the electron level and we don't know how big the electron happens to be or very much else about it.
You are expanding that observation to the size of the universe which has no experimental validation.
What is happening at the quantum level and how is unknown. The macro is not behaving as being in quantum states.
You should therefore be asking what is the mechanism that is preventing the whole universe from being in quantum states.
The key word is mechanism. ( a math answer is not a mechanism.)
There IS a dividing line between quantum effects and macro observations.
jal smile.gif
Aerohead
Hi LaserLight and All,

Well, I'm still reading here with great interest but I note there is a problem evident here that is characteristic of EM theory itself regardless of perspective : "It is ... but it isn't !" This thread appears to be "stuck." Not surprising since this very well could be the hardest problem in all of physics. ~Jim
TRoc
Hi all,


I'm still following along every other day or so. I don't have as much time as in the previous "fiscal year"; that ironic relationship between time and money. dry.gif


I think we can make progress, but it needs to be "controlled" somehow. If we could all agree to discuss ONE very specific topic at a time, it would be better.

The problem will always be WHEN to move to the next (sub)-topic. If we all agree on something, then it is clear that we can go to the next step. If we don't all agree, then how we proceed becomes problematic.

Leaving "open questions" is not good; this is more than "etiquette", it is the proper procedure for a "Socratic" style discussion. When a clear confirmation of "truth" is not evident, the logical elimination of what we can prove "false" is always the best approach. In this particular topic, there is a host of empirical data, but an obvious lack of a "1 equation/approach that fits all". I believe that it will take the combined approaches of several "specializations" to solve this problem; if it were "easy", it would not be such a problem (and we wouldn't be on page 115!).


regards,

T.Roc

Laserlight
Hi Aerohead,

Glad to see you still "vicariously" participating...LOL!

As I have stated previously I am proposing "workable" theoretical explanations to
try to get us over the "hump" so that we can see alternative possibilites to
conventional thinking. Conventional thinking has reached a dead end, an
"impasse" IMO, but the experimental work of Visser, et al, have opened some
intriquing possibilities. All we need is one spark of insight using intuitive logical
processes to define a workable model and new paths to a solution will open up.
They may not have proof as GE insists upon, but neither did the first flight
of the Wright brothers. They followed their intuition and defied the wisdom of
the "experts" and made it happen despite the constraints of conventional thinking.

The only way to solve the DSE "problem" is to think out of the box of
conventionalism and propose alternative perspectives for scrutiny and
anaysis. The ideas and conceptualizations presented will either pass muster
or fail to meet all of the requirements of a workable theoretical mechanism.

I encourage all to participate in this gedanken process and not be afraid to
voice alternative perspectives or face peer "critique" of your ideas, that is
a normal part of the elimination process.

Regards,
LL


jal
Everyone does the TALK but nobody does the WALK.

Minimum length.
It is being done wrong and it affect all of your INTERPRETATIONS.


I have shown two ways of understanding minimum length.
User posted image
The uncertainty (location of the energy density, 6 of them) can only be at one of those 24 locations.
and
User posted image
The uncertainty is at the location … 1, 2, 3, or 4.
Let’s see if you have been paying attention. The devil is in the details.
If the energy density is at position # 1 then the uncertainty will be between position #1 and position # 3. Why? Because position # 2 is too close for minimum scale and position # 4 is too far for minimum scale and too close to position # 1.
Therefore, the uncertainty will be between position # 1 and # 3.
There is a minimum length. Here is the structure.
User posted image

There is NO uncertainty of the minimum length and of the minimum structure.
The only uncertainty is the measurement. The uncertainty is in determining position # 1 or position # 3. The uncertainty principle does not apply to the “actual” structure only to its measurement. It is not an appropriate use of the Uncertainty Principle.
QUOTE
I encourage all to participate in this gedanken process and not be afraid to
voice alternative perspectives or face peer "critique" of your ideas, that is
a normal part of the elimination process.

Address the problem of minimum length. If you need references go look at my thread.
jal smile.gif
"THEY"
Hi all!

When time permits, I too am reading, but have missed a lot over the last two months. December, January and February are supposed to be my slowest months, but NOT THIS YEAR! But since I am the most uneducated blink.gif I prefer to stay out of the conversation unless I can't contain my female chatty self. laugh.gif

This thread DOES need some direction from above though... Where did Duality and yquantum go? (sigh)

Just remember, not even the most well respected top physicists know with 100% certainty the stuff this thread is delving into. So yes, everyone will be speculating and stating opinions. That is to be expected and needs to be respected by all. The day you all agree on EVERYTHING will either be the day that you SOLVE THE MYSTERIES OF THE UNIVERSE, or find out you are all DEAD WRONG. wink.gif

Work begs me to finish my lunch and get back to work....

GROUP HUG!!!!!! laugh.gif tongue.gif
Laserlight
Jal,
I have been to your board. What you are illustrating is atomic packing density
which can be arranged in 1-1-1, 1-0-0, or 101 atomic lattice distributions. This
packing density determines the maximum number of sphere's (which represent
the lowest energy density state) of a solid crystal matrix that will fit into a
unity sphere or a unity circle. TRoc discussed this phenomenon at a very early
point in this discussion.

Isn't this what the Plank length is all about, which is the minimum energy level
attainable at the atomic scale of a single atom? Doesn't the ambient temperature
environment of an atom affect the lowest energy level that can be attained
in that ambient environment. Mimimum energy can only be attained at absolute
zero K which is impossible to reach in a confined atomic energy system.

Ok, now how do we apply this information? You are proposing some good
theoretical concepts but why is the minimum measurable length important to
our objectives?

Please explain your line of thinking so that we can all try to comprehend what
you want us understand and how we should apply it. I had asked you to explain
your intentions or thought processes on a previous post also. You are leaving
us hanging with ambiguities and we don't know how to answer because we
don't understand what you want us to do with the information that you are
offering. Try to fit the information puzzle pieces together with us, just dumping
new pieces on the table just adds to the unsolved pieces already there.

Regards,
LL
Laserlight
Hi THEY!

Glad to see you are still around too! You are right, we need fresh perspectives,
but I found some "contributors" just drop in, stir the pot, and then disappear,
which isn't really helpful if they are not willing to put in the effort required to
guide the discussion toward a workable solution. Hit and run posting without
long term commitment is counterproductive, IMO.

Hello also to "THEY2", I hope school is going well!

Regards,
LL
Laserlight
GE,

You had asked about the ISL, but I'm not sure what you were asking?

http://www.isvr.soton.ac.uk/SPCG/Tutorial/...s/Squarelaw.bmp

The intensity I is the power W in the wave divided by the area A over which it is spread:

I = W/A

LL


Confused2
Hi Laserlight,

I have to admit I have problems staying with your posts. Clearly ISL is not a problem .. a lot is not a problem .. but then you dive off into plasmoidification of subwavelengthal slits in [gold/titanium/barium arsenate] and it all slips away. The DSE is elegant, soooooo elegant. It is telling you the answer, it IS the answer to what is going on, it is the TEST of any answer you propose.

Best wishes,

-C2.
Confused2
Hi jal, Good Elf, THEY(2), Aerohead, rabbits and anyone else I've missed,

I'm a bit distracted by domestic problems (kitchens .. who needs them?) and other stuff. I'd like to see a model of the problem .. to me it looks like continuous sinewave excitation.. it doesn't matter whether or not we think this is impossible .. we are seeking to explain what we see .. no more and no less.

I think it would be helpful if Good Elf could give an unmodified account of the Bohm view without adding in any extras of his own.

Best wishes,

-C2.
Laserlight
Hi C2,

QUOTE
I have to admit I have problems staying with your posts. Clearly ISL is not a problem .. a lot is not a problem .. but then you dive off into plasmoidification of subwavelengthal slits in [gold/titanium/barium arsenate] and it all slips away. The DSE is elegant, soooooo elegant. It is telling you the answer, it IS the answer to what is going on, it is the TEST of any answer you propose


Do you have an explanation for the mechanics of how the DSE works?..That is
what we are seeking, not some mathematical postulation that explains the
result. We know the result, we don't know why or how it occurs.
What happens to photons/light at the micro level as they interact with the
geometry of the matter of the slits to make them yield this interference result.
I agree that it is elegant, can you explain why? If you have an answer/theory
please enlighten us.

As for the exotic materials that you mentioned....what are you refering to?

Regards,
LL
Good Elf
Hi Laserlight, Jal, "THEY", TRoc, Confused2 plus lots of othrs,

First I would like to say thanks to Laserlight and the meaning of ISL... Inverse Square Law... Little point but it had confused me. I saw it also on Jal's Theory Page so I understand now.

The thread is wandering and is heading into topics that have nothing to do (directly) with understanding the Double Slit Experiment and "Observing later". I could "mince my words" and not address the real question or I can do this...

Jal, I have been in trouble a lot on this thread and I want to distinguish from what is about to be said from what I think of you as a thinking individual. I have the greatest respect for you in all the areas of you are researching but regardless how much you promote this theory of yours it is without any experimental vindication. This is a real problem. It is not able to answer simple experimental questions about our Universe. For instance your theory does not answer the question at hand... the Double Slit Experiment (DSE).

I have gained no insight from the DSE in this thread trying to use your concepts. A theory that does not answer real questions and agrees with experimental results breaks the most fundamental measure of practicality... It is a physical theory of no practical use to humankind. I lump it alongside Loop Quantum Gravity and most String Theories and also with a heap of "crackpot theories"... maybe even my own. Mine differs only in that it is a Modified Theory of Optics and as such can be tested at all ranges of scale and so has that "saving grace". I have noted with disdain that Quantum Theory does not allow for any dissent and ignores a "gathering storm" of data that just does not fit its "billiard ball" Universe. It and the Standard Model fail as Theories that are able to be all encompassing. They work when applied "within a very small box" and no further. The numbers they are able to produce are excellent... but as numbers go, that is the way it was designed and is not a Theory of Physics and is only a behavioral model. You know the analogy... The Ptolemaic view of the Universe worked "perfectly" and I am sure if a very smart individual was to take it right now and add 24 or so movable parameters, it will fit our Universe "perfectly"... that is until the next inconsistency appears. That is the value and the failing of all models. It is time to extend some theory to answer all the questions for which we have supporting experimental data. Einstein's Approach was very productive and still leads to insight that other theories fail to recognize AT THEIR PERIL.

First the good news... Jal, I totally agree that the Double Simplex Particle view of Chris Quigg is very suggestive.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0509037
I think maybe someday there will be evidence for it but like all particle theories they are based on "point sources" and rigid particles without underlying mechanism. The symmetry is fine and I can't argue with that "scheme" but remember it is only a "scheme" it is not a true Physics, it is a model, and it can be altered at the drop of a hat. What a real predictive theory needs is underlying principle that is always right and where experiment always supports it. Not as "sexy" but it keeps us from speculations beyond what is observed or measured. It is a particle interpretation of the World and it lacks the interconnectiveness of the real world... the 'entanglement" and non-local physical reality that is completely omitted from this picture. It is "steady as she goes and full speed ahead". It is ignoring the developments in the experimental sciences around it at its own expense.

Now the bad news... It seems a big jump to go from point particle construction schemes based on a very incomplete identification of all the issues, to the very uniform structure of spacetime based on a rigid hexagonally arranged matrix of closely packed perfectly arranged sphere shaped cells. This is very "classical" and mechanically based mostly on a desire to fit "Platonic Solids" into a clockwork Universe. It hearkens back to Ptolemy and the view of the Universe with his nested perfect circles. This was fine when we had nothing better, today we have a sophisticated Physics and do not need "magic clockwork" to move the "celestial spheres" by way of "heavenly music". It has a certain poetic sense and indeed the ancients saw the relevance of "resonance" and pattern to the way the Universe worked, but they were not experimentalists. We have come too far to rely on "magic". We perform "wizardry" on a scale no ancients ever witnessed and all because we became "observers" of the the Universe and incorporated these observations into our "Philosophy" with a devastating capacity to finally achieve permanent continuous progress... The Scientific Method.

So what about experiment? Your theory has a number of issues that are unresolvable such as Lorentz Covariancy at any velocity. What you are appearing to say is we need to reject all of Einstein's Special Relativity and all experimental evidence and accept a theory that has no present experimental basis for the vacuum state. I like Supersymmetry but I reject the rigid mechanical embedding you have proposed. This is not "personal"... but you have nothing practical to justify it. The appellation to the Planck Length as the region for these processes seems to me wholly irrational since the smaller the scale the greater the energy of the processes involved. This is one of the failings of the Loop Quantum Gravity Theories as well especially where they need to break many Laws at that scale of the Universe to fit all their facts in. All that without a reference to the current understanding of Physics. You are "covering" for your models deficiencies using the smallness of the scale and the understanding that nobody can prove it wrong. It is an intellectual fortress designed to imprison those who crave "ultimate understanding"... It is the "God of the Gaps" Theory when the "gaps" finally reach the Planck Length. I could just as easily say that pixies live at the Planck Length and they create all the Physics we see at our level of the Universe... I can't accept arcane areas of research while we have so much experimental physics already to work with. This is the "Holy of Holies" where high priests of Loop Quantum Gravity work telling their acolytes to simply believe and all will be made clear. Sorry, don't buy it, they will soon be inviting you all to be part of the "Away Team" and handing around the paper cups with grape juice. My advice ... don't drink!

It is great to be innovative but unless you are writing for some religious group you will need to convince people that we are speaking about the same universe we are living in here and it relates to the same experimental science. It is the method... Theory plus Experiment... and to be able to keep them in touch with each other. It is also the real issue that is at fault with most present day String Theories, they too want to "hide" their physics below the Planck Length so it too becomes beyond reproach. Your geometrical arguments are not "isotropic" as is space. Of course you might argue it is... but diagonals are different in "length" from "perpendiculars".

The next issue seems to be a graphical analog to SU2 and SU3 symmetry that leads you to a physical analog that you have not justified. These geometries and symmetries can be accommodated already without invoking new physics and so your argument of invoking Occam's Razor fails right there in being unable to be shown to be both simple and in accord with experiment, at our scale of the Universe, at the same time. Like so many, including those who wanted to "solve" the riddle of the Quantum, they went wrong by having a lot of unsubstantiated postulates without first having done much of the physics to prove they were on the right track. Instead of checking to see if they had not made gross errors they simply carried on regardless with the Standard Particle Model... No real Physics, just a lot of symmetry. Good work in its own way but it became the rod for Science's Back being the only interpretation for the behavior of our Universe.

Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theories both suffer the same fate of trying too hard and not working from the top down. They all work from the bottom up without reference to existing theory and experiment. If neither LQG or String Theories can explain how they fit into the Universe at our scale they are not a theory of everything at all. As Leonard Susskind once said "String theory is a theory of everything or it is a theory of nothing"... the same goes for all theories that cannot primarily satisfy a real physical purpose in our Universe.

The other basis of many theories is the Anthropic Principle which I believe is all "bunk". The Anthropic Principle is a belief system that has no place in Physics Theory in much the same way that "Intelligent Design" has no place in Evolutionary Theory. There are venues on this Forum to discuss unanswered questions with more questions elsewhere. The concept of a "spot" is extended to include things that are not spots. Do you have a "point source" or do you have "extended points"? Spot theories need to be one or the other . String and LQG Theories are not point source theories, in that sense I agree this is a far better approach. That too seems a stretch beyond my ideas of a definition.

This is not to be a sanction it is a "wake up call" to consider relevance to a problem ... In this case the Double Slit Experiment and to especially consider the "Observing later" aspect of the experiment. This is as everyone may remember has to do with the very important experimental fact of the Double Slit Experiment with entangled photons operates without reference to causality as we measure it. This is the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment as originally devised by J. A. Wheeler and has particular inference to the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory and the Cramer Quantum Transactional Interpretation. The existence of waves that completely disappear and can be revived elsewhere in our universe with the information that was thought missing completely revived is an indication of just how important this process is to the DCQE. The experimental fact that a boson can be converted to a pseudo-fermion and then back again to a boson has significance beyond a "simple experiment" and is of the highest significance to the way we view our Universe and the processes in it. This is pure optics ... obviously not of the common variety. It is also a lossless process that defies the quantum randomness that many would have you believe exists.

Many say we are losing direction but we must retain focus and separate theories that are not answering this particular question from those that can. I obviously have a preference to treat this concept of the Double Slit Experiment and the issue of the quantum information as "Advanced Optics" and waves, while others want to deal with it as "Billiard Balls" or a pure particle theory and statistics. Some of us do not want to pursue a logical path beyond this junction simply because it goes beyond what we know. My view is we need to refer back to these new experiments to derive new theory and not simply accept the limitations of those Scientists of 50 or more years ago. What did they know of the Science of Today... Nothing. Only a few figures stand abover the rest... they include Einstein, Feynman, Wheeler, de Broglie, Schrodinger. All of them believed that their theories were basically flawed and that Quantum Theory was at best a stop gap. Of course there were dissenters but if you examine their arguments in the light of new knowledge their answers are now as dated as their theories.

There is a vast store of information beyond the Heisenberg Uncertainty Limit... This is no conjecture it is a fact and is supported by optical experiments that show super-resolution. Quantum Electrodynamic Theory has a basic tenant that says this is not possible. Who are you going to believe? ... those with only a limited numbers of questions that are allowed to be asked or the open ended series of questions that are being asked with staggeringly penetrating insight into the nature of our Universe beyond the "quantum". Quantization is a simple property and not a limiting condition. Somewhere on the edge of that envelope lies new ways and new ideas that will be able to meet the next generation of thinking seekers of truth. The Wright Brothers with the "Right Stuff"... or the Wrong Brothers with chaos and an ever narrowing focus on the arcane and unprovable? wink.gif Nobody ever said it was going to be easy.

One last point...
QUOTE (Jal+)
PARTICLES FIT INTO SPACETIME LIKE A HAND INTO A GLOVE--YIN_YANG
This is "absolutely correct" as far as I see. We need to ask where do you get your supply of hands and gloves from and to specify the relationships and "materials".

Cheers
Good Elf
Hi Confused2,

QUOTE (Confused2+)
I think it would be helpful if Good Elf could give an unmodified account of the Bohm view without adding in any extras of his own.
I have never added anything of my own that others have not tried in the past. Some of the events unfolding right now could have been predicted by a number of sources using various theories. I always initially justify mine with experiment or where experiment is lacking I fill it in with theory and sources that are as respected as I can find, given the resource available and the "zero cost" download requirement. It is not "Elf Theory", it is current theory when you try and integrate Photonics and other Geometrodynamic Theories together. If you like go and search it out, I am the only one on the web that is expressing these ideas in this way so you will not be able to read this elsewhere. There has been a strong compartmentalization that separate information into little categories. All I am trying to add is to show we are still speaking about the one Physics here and not several different theories. The other point I am stressing is working from the top down rather than the bottom up. Science knows absolutely nothing that may or may not exist at the Planck Length so all the speculation there is hubris. This is the reason all the mathematical theories seem to be of only "heavenly concerns" and of no "earthly good".

This establishment "blindsight" is leading to various groups not speaking to each other. For instance the HEP Area could well look carefully into the new Photonic developments. What is happening at the LHC is couched in "self reflexive" terms and has already been decided on... and whatever is found will be carefully "tooled" to fit the edifice already developed to hold their existing structure. Nobody wants to use the paradigms of Photonics to explain High Energy Physics. I would say the reverse is also true but I guess "money talks". I am not complaining but Science is no "Democracy".

David Bohm developed his theory in a different historical period with the information to hand at that time. Many groups working in different countries today are proceeding with the principles he has established but NOT with his original "ansatz"...
Wikipedia:Ansatz
A lot that the "Elf" does is also an ansatz but is trying to take in a wider context. I would also include Einstein Unified Field Theories as also various "ansatz's" waiting for something better to come along. What I would say is if the tests of Einstein Theories in the 1950's had been couched in a modern context and used modern results, some of the negative results found then would now have tested positive. The same with Bohm... time has moved on and a new theory is needed since the old theory is no longer fully "viable".

Cheers
Laserlight
GE,

QUOTE
I obviously have a preference to treat this concept of the Double Slit Experiment and the issue of the quantum information as "Advanced Optics" and waves,


I think most of us agree with this. My attempt to describe a conceptualization
of what happens in the first cavity from emission to the cavity wall got very little
response. My very brief description of wave interaction inside the slit
cavities and dielectric plasmon fields met with some disagreement, but no one
offered an alternative, and I would like to pursue this further.

IMO, the slit cavities act as optical geometrical "lenses" to light wavefronts and
like a lens, inverts the the incoming light similar to what occurs when a reflecting
wave is inverted.

http://physicslearning.colorado.edu/Movies/3B25.20dv.mpg
wave superposition
http://physicslearning.colorado.edu/Movies/3B27.15dv.mpg

I think we should explore why and how a narrow slit manipulates photons/light
and acts like an optical lens on a projector. Optics and lenses would be the
preferred topic of discussion and how they cause diffraction, if others are in agreement.

LL
Confused2
Hi Good Elf,

Of David Bohm.. (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation ). Would I be wrong to suspect that 'pancakeification' is your own addition to the theory? It seems reasonable that there might be an identifiable expanding 'shell' (at the speed of light) and we expect there to be no link between anything inside that shell and anything beyond it. The problem I have with your exposition of the Bohm theory is that you seem to claim interaction only happens at the 'front' of the expanding shell. By modifying the original idea I feel you have created the situation where the DSE tells us more about Elf Theory than Elf Theory can tell us about the DSE. Because of the way the DSE is arranged it would seem all waveforms are reduced to sinewaves (the equations show this) .. into this happy zone of sinusoidal harmony you introduce your impulse. The need for the impulse would seem to stem from the assumption that the only interaction occurs at the 'front' and the DSE is telling us a different story. I appreciate it is not easy to review a belief that is firmly held but I would suggest at least trying to see it as others see it.

Best wishes,

-C2.
Confused2
Hi Laserlight, Good Elf , jal, THEY, Aerohead, TRoc et al,

Looking at the DSE I think we (mostly) agree that the results show the main effect (the interference) is only affected by the difference in path length betwen the two slits and the screen. Sometimes you seem to see the relevence of the ripple tank and other times you don't .. I don't understand how you can exist in both states apparently simultaneously.

There are certainly interesting effects caused by the slits themselves -- most obviously the first slit changes the situation from looking up the barrel of a laser to one where the photons (waveforms if you must) are reduced to a level of simplicity which we could possibly attempt to analyse if we wanted to. We have heard a lot about complexity .. holograms etc .. but by ignoring the simplest of states I fear we gain no insight into the origin of the more complex states.

Should we ignore the effects seen in the DSE and look at something else or should we try to draw some sort of conclusion from the result before us?

I have already mentioned Feynman's 'sum over paths' analysis which gives the right answer .. might this be worth looking at in more detail?

-C2.
Confused2
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I think we should explore why and how a narrow slit manipulates photons/light
and acts like an optical lens on a projector. Optics and lenses would be the
preferred topic of discussion and how they cause diffraction, if others are in agreement.


We've been here before ..

Spreading from the slit ...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...t/sinslitd.html
"The spreading of the waves into the area of the geometrical shadow can be modeled by considering small elements of the wavefront in the slit and treating them like point sources. "
The 'point sources' are chosen so they cancel the wave behind and become the new wavefront.

Diffraction

The slit obviously has 'width' .. the difference in path length from the 'sources' (see spreading) to any point is the cause of the of the constructive and destructive interference known as diffraction patterns.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...sinslit.html#c1

Can you (anyone) clarify the bit that you feel has not been satisfactorily dealt with already?

Best wishes,
-C2.

jal
Good day Everyone!
It going to be a lot of reading for “THEY” when she gets back on Monday.
LL
You are trying to apply the “minimum length” concept without trying to understand how it works.
Confused2
I agree.
It looks like everyone is trying to avoid looking at “minimum length” and want to go back to the rehashing the old arguments that gets us nowhere.

Good Elf
You gave a good expose of where you stand.
You want "Advanced Optics" and waves.
You made it clear that you do not think that any math approach being done by LQG, strings and others will lead to anything.
I do not have a rigid mechanical embedding. It is very dynamic (so is my thinking and learning).
In my thread, I use the term “packing”. You can substitute it with “minimum length” since it results in “packing”.
Minimum length does not mean that it is equal to Planck length. Many have said it in their own ways. (see their quotes in my thread.)
I thought that the links and the explanations in my thread were clear.
(If I do not come across clearly, then those who understand can try to explain it better.)
(point… particle ….wave …energy density … all mean the same thing.)

QM assumes a point of origin for a wave function etc.
A point cannot exist unless it is the size of the minimum length/area.
Refer to the paper
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0702/0702016.pdf
Multi-Particle States in Deformed Special Relativity
QUOTE
through the very introduction of a minimal length – implies a generalized uncertainty principle, which forbids it to localize a particle to a point. Therefore, already this formulation must be interpreted as a theory for an energy distribution with maximally possible localization, and the momentum space properties for space-time points inside this space-time volume.
…. We can use box modes and shrink the box as small as possible, that is as small as a Planck-
volume….
note: see my model for the proper application of minimum length. It is a sphere NOT a box. It is not necessary to input anything by hand.
If one wants to construct a field theory that consistently incorporates DSR, the transformation behavior for
a classical particle with four momentum p cannot independently be transferred to each of the single field’s
modes, since superposition of these modes implies that the properties at a point in spacetime - and therefore the momentum space at this point - depend not only on the single mode but on the energy density of all the present excitations.


To have a point smaller than minimum length is meaningless.
You cannot place two points side by side.
They must be separated by the minimum length.
As a result you will end up with the structure that I have shown.
This will mean that you will end up with an energy distribution pattern.
There are “places” which will not have any energy densities (no waves).

This, I’m sure, will also be shown to be the case with TRoc’s approach.

… depends not only on the single mode but on the energy density of all the present excitations.

If you try to make a sphere with “minimum lengths” then you will realize that there must be 6 point… particle ….wave …energy density.
There is no interpretation or speculations no unsubstantiated postulates. It is the only way that minimum scale works.
I even explain the proper application of the uncertainty principle for “minimum length”.

You speak of evidence … I can extrapolate my model from the quantum world and see it everywhere.
You see the evidence at the triple slit

I can only quote T.D. Visser.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/threepoint.pdf
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
through the very introduction of a minimal length – implies a generalized uncertainty principle, which forbids it to localize a particle to a point. Therefore, already this formulation must be interpreted as a theory for an energy distribution with maximally possible localization, and the momentum space properties for space-time points inside this space-time volume.
…. We can use box modes and shrink the box as small as possible, that is as small as a Planck-
volume….
note: see my model for the proper application of minimum length. It is a sphere NOT a box. It is not necessary to input anything by hand.
If one wants to construct a field theory that consistently incorporates DSR, the transformation behavior for
a classical particle with four momentum p cannot independently be transferred to each of the single field’s
modes, since superposition of these modes implies that the properties at a point in spacetime - and therefore the momentum space at this point - depend not only on the single mode but on the energy density of all the present excitations.


To have a point smaller than minimum length is meaningless.
You cannot place two points side by side.
They must be separated by the minimum length.
As a result you will end up with the structure that I have shown.
This will mean that you will end up with an energy distribution pattern.
There are “places” which will not have any energy densities (no waves).

This, I’m sure, will also be shown to be the case with TRoc’s approach.

… depends not only on the single mode but on the energy density of all the present excitations.

If you try to make a sphere with “minimum lengths” then you will realize that there must be 6 point… particle ….wave …energy density.
There is no interpretation or speculations no unsubstantiated postulates. It is the only way that minimum scale works.
I even explain the proper application of the uncertainty principle for “minimum length”.

You speak of evidence … I can extrapolate my model from the quantum world and see it everywhere.
You see the evidence at the triple slit

I can only quote T.D. Visser.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/threepoint.pdf
Two of the roots of this cubic equation are unity, as might be expected – if the fields at the pinholes are fully coherent with respect to each other, destructive interference is possible. However, the third root of the equation is l0=_1/2. We therefore have the surprising result that in a three-pinhole interferometer, complete destructive interference is possible even if the field fluctuations at the three pinholes are not fully coherent with respect to each other.
4. Physical interpretation and conclusions
We have demonstrated that it is possible to produce complete destructive interference in partially coherent fields even if the fields are not completely correlated with each other. An example of such a situation is a three-pinhole interferometer with the spectrum at the three pinholes being equal and the spectral degree of coherence of the light at each pair of pinholes having the value l0=_1/
2. The existence of such an effect with partially coherent fields is surprising, but has a clear physical explanation, as we now show.
It is to be noted that although the fields from a pair of point sources may be individually partially coherent with respect to each other and with respect to the field from a third point source, it is possible for the sum of the fields from the pair of point sources to be fully correlated with the field of the third. In this case, the sum of the fields from the pair of point sources can destructively interfere with the field of the third source.

Look at his picture, you will see the minimum length structure.

I can extrapolate my model from the quantum world and see the minimum length structure in the arrangements of the atoms ….. in the arrangement of the molecules …. In the arrangement of everything.

Your model does not extrapolate from the quantum world. There is no evidence of quantum effect above the size of an electron. Your model is "a god particle" requiring 10 dimensions that will never be detected.
Sorry, but its your model that has no proof and never will.


Once you have understood the concept of “minimum length” you will be able to see that it is the fundamental building block of EVERYTHING and that it is observable everywhere., including giving an insight into the Double Slit Experiment (DSE).
Read the links on “Structuralism”. You will find the explanations much better than my efforts.
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926969-6.pdf
Quantum Gravity Meets Structuralism: Interweaving Relations in the Fundation of Physics
by Dean Rickles and Steven French

Many are searching paths that are parallel to my model. (All those that you feel are wasting their time.)
I agree with you …. Our approaches are different …. BUT I do not want to always look at your approach to try to find answers? Give everyone a chance to present their approach.
I would also like to get a look at TRoc’s approach to get an insight into the Double Slit Experiment (DSE).

Therefore,until TRoc presents his approach ….. Any comment on “minimum length”?

There is a minimum length. Here is the structure.
JAL rolleyes.gif
User posted image

Laserlight
Jal,

QUOTE
LL
You are trying to apply the “minimum length” concept without trying to understand how it works.


I think I have a pretty good idea of how minimum length "works", but I don't see
how it is important with the DSE. Minimum length is nothing more than
particle packing density of an atomic structure. It is the
minimum energy (field) state that can be attained in a matter matrix and
represents the maximum energy potential that the matrix can "store" at some
ambient background temperature. Different ambient temperatures have a
direct proportional relationship to the minimum packing density that can be
attained in any matter matrix. I guarantee you that the volume of a packing
density at 1000 degrees C is hugely different than the packing density at
0 degrees K. You can verify this in any materials reference. The packing density
volume is directly proportional to temperature.

Your argument has not presented how this is important in EM field theory where
the field "flux" density follows the ISL, or how the geometry of the slits affects
the result. There is no way to correlate the two.

Once EM energy departs the immediate confines of the surface matter that emitted
it packing density becomes time or pulse overlap density. Let me provide you with
a real life scenario. A semiconductor vacuum chamber can be "fed" with
various mixtures of specialty gases at various ambient pressures. The chamber
pressure can be controlled via an exhaust throttle valve to maintain some desired
chamber pressure (gas packing density). Into this wide range of operating
pressures an external RF energy source is introduced to ionize the gases present.
A byproduct of the ionized gases is light (photons) that yield an exact range
of spectral wavelengths, depending upon which gas(es) are being ionized. If the
chamber pressure is varied, the only difference in spectral output is the intensity
of the light emitted. The point being the packing density only affects the total
energy contained in the closed energy system in which it operates.

What happens when you have an alloy? Your packing system model must change
to include the mixture of atoms in the alloy, and the structure and the energy
density of the alloy has different intrinsic characteristics than a pure matrix has.

You still have not provided a convincing argument as to how packing density
can be applied to the DSE. How does a structural phenomenon relate to an
energy distribution phenomenon?

Regards,
LL
Laserlight
C2,

QUOTE
"The spreading of the waves into the area of the geometrical shadow can be modeled by considering small elements of the wavefront in the slit and treating them like point sources. "
The 'point sources' are chosen so they cancel the wave behind and become the new wavefront.


Sorry, but you are missing the "essence" of the DSE and only focusing on the
results that it provides. The "essence" is, what happens at the point sources,
between the geometries of light and matter, that cause the interference results.

What you are failing to see or understand, is that when you move the screen back
and forth the pattern size changes even though the angle also changes. We
are merely observing a projection of an image onto a screen, just like a
projector when you move the movie screen back and forth. The focusing
lens (slit) is where the actual signal alteration/mixing is taking place. There
is a focal point in the cavity beyond the slit(s) where the image applied to the
front of the slit(s) is inverted. There is signal crossover. You are completely
ignoring this phenomenon. Think about what happens in a camera obscura,
the image is inverted by passing thru a pinhole due to the optical characteristics
of the aperture. A similar effect is occuring in the SSE/DSE. In the case of
the DSE, these overlapping focal points is where TRoc's harmonic signal mixing is
being finalized, but the optical nature of the slits themselves introduce timing
and phase changes into the incident signals and modify those relationships.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
"The spreading of the waves into the area of the geometrical shadow can be modeled by considering small elements of the wavefront in the slit and treating them like point sources. "
The 'point sources' are chosen so they cancel the wave behind and become the new wavefront.


Sorry, but you are missing the "essence" of the DSE and only focusing on the
results that it provides. The "essence" is, what happens at the point sources,
between the geometries of light and matter, that cause the interference results.

What you are failing to see or understand, is that when you move the screen back
and forth the pattern size changes even though the angle also changes. We
are merely observing a projection of an image onto a screen, just like a
projector when you move the movie screen back and forth. The focusing
lens (slit) is where the actual signal alteration/mixing is taking place. There
is a focal point in the cavity beyond the slit(s) where the image applied to the
front of the slit(s) is inverted. There is signal crossover. You are completely
ignoring this phenomenon. Think about what happens in a camera obscura,
the image is inverted by passing thru a pinhole due to the optical characteristics
of the aperture. A similar effect is occuring in the SSE/DSE. In the case of
the DSE, these overlapping focal points is where TRoc's harmonic signal mixing is
being finalized, but the optical nature of the slits themselves introduce timing
and phase changes into the incident signals and modify those relationships.

The slit obviously has 'width' .. the difference in path length from the 'sources' (see spreading) to any point is the cause of the of the constructive and destructive interference known as diffraction patterns.


Why does the signal spread by different amounts depending upon the slit width or
the wavelength applied? There is a geometrical and physics explanation of why
photon energy and matter interact to cause scattering and spreading.

Why can't you see this phenomenon? It is very obvious? Why do you insist on
disregarding the underlying physics responsible for the results of the SSE/DSE?

Baffled,
LL
jal
Laserlight
QUOTE
.... Minimum length is nothing more than particle packing density of an atomic structure ....
.... How does a structural phenomenon relate to an energy distribution phenomenon?

If nobody speaks up and explains it to LL then I'm gone.
Jal smile.gif
Laserlight
Jal,

QUOTE

If nobody speaks up and explains it to LL then I'm gone.
Jal 


You have not provided a convincing argument for the issues that I raised. It
appears that you cannot do so and are looking for someone else to explain
your position as to how minimum length applies to the SSE/DSE. If you can't
do it that is ok, just say so.

IMO, you are looking for answers to questions/phenomena that have nothing to
do with the DSE. Prove me wrong and I'll gladly listen, but your argument must
be convincing. So far it isn't.

The DSE will not solve the mysteries of the universe, but may provide some
clues to help in the relationships that exist between energy and matter.
IMO, packing spheres and minimum length do not offer the "key" that you are
seeking, but I could be wrong if you can convince me otherwise.

What is the minimum packing density of the core matter in a black hole, and
does your packing density/minimum length theory work there? If you can
apply your packing density length theory there then I would admit that yes you
are holding one of the fundamental keys. I challenge you to convince me/us.

Regards,
LL

jal
I can lead a horse to water but I cannot make him drink.
You know dam well that I'm not a "math kid".
I can make the links to the work being done.
If you don't want to read ... learn ... assimilate
Then stay on your knees and worship the god particle and 10 dimensions.
jal mad.gif
Laserlight
Jal,

QUOTE
I can lead a horse to water but I cannot make him drink.


What do you expect to happen if you lead a horse to salt water? He won't
drink if it is unhealthy to do so. You drink it first, and show me/us why we
should also. I am not a big fan of "spiked" cool aid. tongue.gif

BTW, I am not of the equine persuasion, but perhaps I do have some
mule-like stubborn qualities, and on occasion been accused of being a
horses arse. biggrin.gif

I am not asking you to provide mathematical proof, just a verbal argument
of your position. If you cannot defend a conceptualization of your argument
so that anyone can understand what you are proposing, then how do you
expect us to link your minimum distance to its importance to the SSE/DSE
and other physics phenomena that we have been discussing?

I'm asking you to defend your argument and subject it to peer scrutiny and
analysis. Either your proposal has merit, or it doesn't.....defend it! No math
required! Energy will tend to move to where the least energy exists, like
water seeks the lowest level. When equilibrium is established energy "flow"
stops.

Remember Ying-Yang, it is the fundamental law of the universe.
When opposites can no longer define their bounds, and their individual
energy components have merged to become "one state", that represents field
unity. Infinity cannot attain unity as long as it can be divided. So exactly what
is the minimum length of infinity?

LL
Confused2
Hi jal,Laserlight,

Two horses meet in a field.One asks the other "Why the long face?".
Sorry jal, I don't see the relevence of a minimum distance either.

Best wishes,

-C2.
Montec
Hello everyone

Lets see if we can agree or disagree on the following points. This may help steer the discussion into more profitable lines of thought.

1) The DSE is just a limited (two element) diffraction grating.

2) Diffraction gratings and prisms separate light by frequency. Is there a common mechanism here?

3) The energy/power of light is held in the electric and magnetic fields that define said light.

4) The fields, both magnetic and electric, that are inherit in matter react to and emit EM radiation. The converse is also true.

5) The EM frequency of interaction is dependent on local resonant conditions.

6) There are many forms of resonant conditions. Atomic, molecular, velocity motion changes by static fields, etc. are all resonant conditions.

7) The amount of interaction between matter and EM radiation is dependent on how closely coupled the EM frequency is to the resonant condition.

8) The photon is a transitory phenomena. It only exists at the resonant condition interface.

9) Diffraction gratings apply to all forms of time varying electric and magnetic fields. Velocity will generate a time varying field.

smile.gif

Zephir
QUOTE (Good Elf+Feb 10 2007, 06:30 AM)
...Double Simplex Particle view of Chris Quigg is very suggestive...

The 3D variant of the double simplex model of quark generations for MS Internet Explorer browser 4.0+, I created before some time.... It can serve as an illustration, how to integrate the 3D graphic seamlessly into web page by using of MS DirectAnimation technology (the 3D model can be navigated by the mouse after pressing the left/right mouse button). For those, who are interested about this technology (which is pretty old and unknown in fact, it was introduced into MSIE 4.0 browser) I can create the dedicated topic about it in the OT section.

user posted image
Laserlight
Hello Montec...

Excellent! We are on the same wavelength! cool.gif

I have argued many of these points but have not convinced others of the
underlying mechanisms that influence the results.

Do you have a theory/argument to support our mutual conceptual model?
Perhaps your method of describing the local phenomena interactions will
be clearer and better accepted than mine.

Regards,
LL
TRoc
Hi all,


I can agree with Montec's points:
QUOTE
1) The DSE is just a limited (two element) diffraction grating.

2) Diffraction gratings and prisms separate light by frequency. Is there a common mechanism here?

3) The energy/power of light is held in the electric and magnetic fields that define said light.

4) The fields, both magnetic and electric, that are inherit in matter react to and emit EM radiation. The converse is also true.

5) The EM frequency of interaction is dependent on local resonant conditions.

6) There are many forms of resonant conditions. Atomic, molecular, velocity motion changes by static fields, etc. are all resonant conditions.

7) The amount of interaction between matter and EM radiation is dependent on how closely coupled the EM frequency is to the resonant condition.

8) The photon is a transitory phenomena. It only exists at the resonant condition interface.

9) Diffraction gratings apply to all forms of time varying electric and magnetic fields. Velocity will generate a time varying field.


I think #2 is the key to our quest. This is what is missing from the "standard" explanation, even though said explanation is "correct"; it does NOT provide the "mechanism".

I will highlight this with C2's post:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
1) The DSE is just a limited (two element) diffraction grating.

2) Diffraction gratings and prisms separate light by frequency. Is there a common mechanism here?

3) The energy/power of light is held in the electric and magnetic fields that define said light.

4) The fields, both magnetic and electric, that are inherit in matter react to and emit EM radiation. The converse is also true.

5) The EM frequency of interaction is dependent on local resonant conditions.

6) There are many forms of resonant conditions. Atomic, molecular, velocity motion changes by static fields, etc. are all resonant conditions.

7) The amount of interaction between matter and EM radiation is dependent on how closely coupled the EM frequency is to the resonant condition.

8) The photon is a transitory phenomena. It only exists at the resonant condition interface.

9) Diffraction gratings apply to all forms of time varying electric and magnetic fields. Velocity will generate a time varying field.


I think #2 is the key to our quest. This is what is missing from the "standard" explanation, even though said explanation is "correct"; it does NOT provide the "mechanism".

I will highlight this with C2's post:
Spreading from the slit ...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...t/sinslitd.html
"The spreading of the waves into the area of the geometrical shadow can be modeled by considering small elements of the wavefront in the slit and treating them like point sources. "
The 'point sources' are chosen so they cancel the wave behind and become the new wavefront.


"Modeling" is a representation, NOT an "explanation". This is what everyone is saying about a "mechanism". That will give us a CAUSE, not the EFFECT.

QUOTE
Diffraction

The slit obviously has 'width' .. the difference in path length from the 'sources' (see spreading) to any point is the cause of the of the constructive and destructive interference known as diffraction patterns.


Absolutely not. The difference in path length is the result of drawing lines from arbitrary points across the width of the slit, to different points (angles) of the screen. There is NO explanation here as to WHY these points were "chosen".

There is no such thing as "absolute" constructive or destructive interference. That would violate the conservation of energy. What we CAN do is "suppress" a signal, giving us a "node", or phase singularity; this "flatline" is not measurable in a system of curvature. We can also "boost" this level of energy with generation of "harmonics". Just basic methods of "sum and difference".

Does something cause "spreading" at the slit? Absolutely. However, unless you can disprove Huygens' method, we still end up with a continuous wave at the screen. Several links have been given throughout this long discussion on the dielectrics response to the incident fields. If you just imagine little compasses along the screen, it is easy to realize that any tiny magnets that land in between these compasses (perpendicularly) will cause a "binary" alternating response: they simply CANNOT simultaneously respond to both fields. This is the duality I have mentioned. When the needle is drawn in one direction (parallel to the screen), the other side of the needle automatically MUST be the opposite.

This is at the MOLECULE level, not sole electrons. There is no logical way for the "extended", non-localized, MUCH larger "photon" to act "singularly" with the tiny electron, one at a time. This is mediated by "virtual" "particles", which I prefer to just simply refer to as "vibrations", within the lattice structure of the screen.

Time is up for me, I will try to add more later.


ciao!

T.Roc

Confused2
I see how the wind is blowing .. sad.gif
I would request that you look at the MichelsonMorley experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
and the Kennedy Thorndike experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy-Thorndike_experiment
which use interference from alternative paths but instead of the two paths being generated by a piece of black card with two slits cut into it they use half silvered mirrors. Before giving too many strange and wonderful properties to a 'hole' please sad.gif look to see how a half silvered mirror and two holes might produce the same result.
Best wishes,
-C2 sad.gif .
Good Elf
Hi Jal, Laserlight, "THEY", TRoc, Confused2 plus lots of othrs,

I apologize for the criticism but in the end I know you could contribute to this discussion but we need to get focus on the actual topic. You have a topic about your theory of your own. I really do not see the relevance to this particular discussion of this minimum distance. I am also very unhappy of the treatment of the vacuum. I think you are also trying to structure the "empty space" using the same scheme. There are some interesting ideas there but it is not presently leading to any specific insight into the nature of our Universe. Your contributions are welcome in a joint effort to try and find out the answer to this problem. I would add this is not just a criticism that is unique to you but many aspects of LQG and many String Theories too. This "atomism" treats the Universe as if we could understand it better and better just by simply "smashing it into smaller and smaller fragments". It has had great success but it also leads to many thinking that ultimate understanding comes from understanding the smallest bits. Hence all those theories (unproven) that focus on the Planck Length. In our reciprocal Universe these supposed structures will tell us nothing other than a reflection of how much energy we are prepared to expend on an ever decreasing volume of space.

It is my conjecture (and it is not just the ideas of a single Elf) that our Universe is not a divisible unit and that like a hologram the part is reflected in the whole and visa versa. This means that to understand it and its structure the Universe is not made of "points" they are made of extended phenomena like waves that spread at the speed of light. Entanglement is an expression of this phenomenon. Alain Aspect's work indicates very strongly this "connection". Even Richard Feynman's Many Paths concept incorporates some of this concept within a particle domain. More importantly is the ideas of Wheeler and Feynman in a much older theory of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory.

Clearly the latest experiments echo a principle that indicate the disappearance of a wave from our "Universe" does not mean the information has been irretrievably lost, but at least in spirit, can be recovered and revived "elsewhere". This is a staggering notion that will eventually echo down through the centuries... believe me. I have indicated there is a special way to view the photon event in both its particle aspect and its wave aspect and that in some sense the photon actually travels "nowhere" at all and that "spreading of the photon event in its own frame" is a whole that has "no parts" in time or space, connecting source and sink seamlessly. This is as close to a "point" in time and space as the Universe gets. Even the evanescent information that we all thought lost and now permitting partial super-resolution that includes the original source, is now recoverable. This is not part of any "atomistic" theory.

Practical devices in Photonics are able to recover this information "semi-locally" and there are theories that suggest that this information may be recovered "globally" from anywhere in the Universe. This latter conjecture remains unproven but would be a vindication of the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory with the Cramer Quantum Transactional Interpretation modified with holographic notions of non-locality. I am waiting patiently for an experiment to do just this. The nature of time itself then becomes no longer a question of theory, but an experimental fact in which we may gain some limited control. Any "Theory of Everything" must include some aspect of this "dimension" and those who think a TOE is workable without it will be mistaken. Alternatively there may be no Theory of Everything at all... a possibility that needs to be tested before it is dismissed. So far our wildest speculations are becoming true and are not being dismissed as a pipe dream.

I also believe that this holographic principle goes much further than just this simple notion. The Young's Double Slit Experiment goes much further than this when it is examined in great detail. One consequence is the effect on entanglement... the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment (a most important consequence is observed there) and another idea is the Aharonov-Bohm Effect (also the Aharonov-Cashir and Aharonov-Anandan Effects). These are not theories, they are experimental facts that have earned the ones involved great accolade but they do not fit the standard picture and they have not been seamlessly incorporated. It is as though these phenomena had never occurred until someone asks a question.. "Ur what about..." and then there is a hasty band-aid approach that sticks itself over a widening chasm to hide the deficiency. I think we already have sufficient evidence in experiment to tell us the answer right now if we embrace the correct paradigm... only one paradigm can work in the end, so we need to choose wisely. The particle paradigm is insufficient to answer all the questions.

This problem is bigger than any of us and so it needs bright minds working in unison (just like a hologram as it were) to solve it. You are welcome to come on board and contribute. In my next post I will give a justification of just why we are doing this to see a point behind this particular investigation and why this single experiment is so important to understand.

Cheers
Montec
Hello Confused2. et al.

The Michelson interferometer uses a half silvered mirror. This is usually made of glass and a metal layer only a few dozen atoms thick. We now have an interface between two different dielectrics. This is where plasmons form. We now have to question at what point do we get interference at. Is it at the detector or at the mirror? Do the plasmons play a part in the interference effect?

Just a thought.

smile.gif

Laserlight
Hello All,

This link was originally posted by Montec on Dec 30, and I think it supports many
of the concepts that I have been proposing.
GE, TRoc, C2, I think that you will find this interesting.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050124033547/..._twiss_1957.pdf

Regards,
LL
TRoc
Hi all,


Another good point from C2.

User posted image

QUOTE
Before giving too many strange and wonderful properties to a 'hole' please  look ..


Exactly, C2. You'll note in the picture above, that we have a "real physical thing", called a mirror, that is AT AN ANGLE to the incident beam. This is an example of CAUSE of a change in path length.

In the "hole" (slit), the beam is perpendicular, and THERE IS NO CAUSE for the path length to be altered, unless we:

A. treat the beam as "flow" of a "perfect plasma" (or some fluid)
B. treat the sides of the slit walls as "new" (hidden) variables in the explanation
C. possibly, a combination of A and B
D. open to suggestion


Montec has also pointed out the inevitable question:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Before giving too many strange and wonderful properties to a 'hole' please  look ..


Exactly, C2. You'll note in the picture above, that we have a "real physical thing", called a mirror, that is AT AN ANGLE to the incident beam. This is an example of CAUSE of a change in path length.

In the "hole" (slit), the beam is perpendicular, and THERE IS NO CAUSE for the path length to be altered, unless we:

A. treat the beam as "flow" of a "perfect plasma" (or some fluid)
B. treat the sides of the slit walls as "new" (hidden) variables in the explanation
C. possibly, a combination of A and B
D. open to suggestion


Montec has also pointed out the inevitable question: ..at what point do we get interference at.  Is it at the detector or at the mirror?



Good enough, C2?


regards,

T.Roc

Confused2
Hi TRoc,

QUOTE (TRoc+)
Exactly, C2. You'll note in the picture above, that we have a "real physical thing", called a mirror, that is AT AN ANGLE to the incident beam. This is an example of CAUSE of a change in path length.


If we look at

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...sinslit.html#c1

The most important thing in the diagram is the little Greek 'delta' written at the bottom of the slit (as drawn). If we imagine rays of light leaving the top and bottom edges of the slit then the difference in the length of path to a point on the screen will be delta. If delta (still the difference between the length of the paths to the screen) is zero or the same length as the wavelength being used (or the wavelength times an integer) then the rays of light arriving at the screen will interfere constructively (add) .. if the difference in path length to a point on the screen (delta) is a half wavelength (or an integer times the wavelength plus half a wavelength) then the rays of light will interfere destructively at the screen (ie cancel out to leave a dark region). This is why the difference in path length (to the screen) is so important. Not only but also, this is how a 'hole' (or slit) causes the diffraction. effect. Clearly the narrower the slit the greater the angle (theta) has to be to cause a path difference of half a wavelength .. hence the narrower the slit the bigger the central region of constructive interference (the bright bit) will be. To get greater accuracy we should integrate over the whole slit rather than just use the edges .. but the principle remains the same.The reason this theory is generally accepted is that the equations predict what actually happens. Any alternative theory needs to predict the same result (the experimental result). 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.

In the two slit experiment the difference in path length is the difference between the distance from (say) slit A to the a point on the screen and the distance between slit B to the same point on the screen. I have repeated the DSE equation link many times and it will be as easy for you to find it as it is for me. The rules to predict constructive and destructive interference are EXACTLY the same as for the diffraction example already given. Getting the right result on two occasions using only the one rule is a fair indication that there isn't much wrong with the rule.

In the Michaelson-Morley interferometer the same rule applies .. if the difference in path lengths between the mirror and a particular point on the screen is a whole wavelength (or an integer number of wavelngths) then there will be constructive interference .. same rule three times. The MM equipment doesn't need to be set up so the path lengths are are the same to within a wavelength because the interference pattern repeats for every difference in pathlength that adds up to an integer number of wavelengths. The Kennedy Thorndike interferometer is deliberately set up so the paths are VERY different.. and the same rule about constructive interference being where the difference in path length is an integer number of wavelengths STILL applies.

No plasma. no plamoids, no plasmids, just simple geometry .. where was that link to the DSE equation..

*Sigh*

-C2.
TRoc
C2,

"SIGH" is right.

WHY are you explaining this again? I have said, REPEATEDLY, I (and everyone else) do NOT have a problem with understanding this "model". That model does NOT explain WHY.
User posted image

Why are there points across the slit width?

What do they represent?

Where did they come from?

Are they floating electrons, or molecules?

NO C2, THERE IS NOTHING THERE. ... NOTHING, do you get it?


Light does not just bend (symmetrically) for NO reason. There is literally NOTHING between the sides of the slit, and we need SOMETHING to explain WHY the laser did NOT continue in a straight line.

Why would the center of the slit, where NOTHING exists (in that model) cause ANY change to the path?
QUOTE
Before giving too many strange and wonderful properties to a 'hole'
YOUR MODEL is ALREADY doing what you are telling us NOT to do. The "hole" is NOTHING. Why would the side of the slit cause a left shift in the path on one side, and a right shift on the other? (as well as "sometimes" allowing a straight path?) THIS IS "BOGUS" as far as an expanation. Don't forget, QM uses the SAME set up, with a "theoretical" one-at-a-time "photon" as a "foundation". HOW would your model explain the "random" build up of the pattern? IT CAN'T.

You CAN NOT answer these questions, C2. The model you support INVENTS this "cause" so that it "works". If this model were proposed today, it would be LAUGHED OUT of the room, and NEVER published. The ONLY reason it is "still in the books" is because THERE IS NO OTHER ACCEPTED ANSWER. Please allow us to attempt a better explanation, and stop hamstringing this thread (unless you can answer the above questions).

smile.gif

T.Roc

Confused2
Hi TRoc.

May I replace *sigh* with *aaaarg".

Firstly .. we cannot mix wave and photon metaphors until we have at least some understanding of one or the other .. at present we understand neither.

Iwill proceed with the wave metaphor..

QUOTE (TRoc+)
THERE IS NOTHING THERE. ... NOTHING, do you get it?


The 'point spreading' analysis is absolutely universal. You take any point.. ANY POINT ANYWHERE .. and at that point you introduce the wave that totally cancels the wave that arrives at that point .. then you have a precise description of the wave that proceeds from that point It is no more and no less than a nightmare version of the principle of superposition. If there is an equivalent point to left and an equivalent point to the right then you see a 'wavefront' .. remove either and you see the spreading. It is just the principle of superposition.. no more, no less.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle )

-C2.

Montec
Hello Confused2

Correct me if I am wrong but the only lengths that are used in the Michaelson-Morley interferometer are lengths of the legs. The leg is measured from the beam-splitter to the mirror. By varying the length of a leg (it does not matter which one) the diffraction pattern nodes will move or scan across the detector. The distance between the beam-splitter and the detector does not matter. The distance between the light source and the beam-splitter does not matter. The mixing or interference occurs at the beam-splitter.

smile.gif

Laserlight
Hi C2, TRoc, and All,

C2, I sort of understand your position, but I think Montec just provided the correct
insight into the MM experimental results.

Now for some warped satire...
If you were to plot the pattern of where a fig lands each time
if falls from the same branch it will fall into generally the same area. A
mathematical expression could be written to prove that the fig will always
land in the same location. What you have not addressed is what influenced
the fig to fall
? Now Newton studied this phenomenon and thought long and
hard about this observation. Eventually he ccontrived a wonderful theory.
Because of that theory today we have.......
.
.
.
.
.
Fig Newtons.
-------
Sorry 'bout that! We needed some humor before someones loses an o-ring.

----

FWIW, I am rephrasing the conceptualization of what happens as the photon
pulse interacts with the slits.....hopefully, it will help explain the matter/photon
interaction.

LL
Laserlight
Hi C2, TRoc, Montec, GE, and All,

You mentioned that the DSE occurs regardless of the of the material that is used
for the slit wall. This is true, the atomic composition of both amorphous and
crystaline structured materials have localized atomic evanescent harmonic fields
that are coupling and projecting into the immediate local space along any exposed
surface. These localized fields are caused by atomic dipoles that are coupling to
the dielectric "interface" that exists between any two different energy states.
In matter to matter interfaces this is considered resistivity, but when matter
couples to vacuum or air this is called permittivity.


QUOTE
It is difficult to make a distinction between truly amorphous solids and crystalline solids in which the size of the crystals is very small (less than two nanometres). Even amorphous materials have some short-range order among the atomic positions (over length scales of less than five nanometres). Furthermore, in very small crystals a large fraction of the atoms are located at or near the surface of the crystal; relaxation of the surface and interfacial effects distort the atomic positions, decreasing the structural order. Even the most advanced structural characterization techniques, such as x-ray diffraction and transmission electron microscopy, have difficulty in distinguishing between amorphous and crystalline structures on these length scales.

Amorphous solid from

[URL=http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/dipole.html]Electric Dipole


From Wikipedia - Permittivity:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
It is difficult to make a distinction between truly amorphous solids and crystalline solids in which the size of the crystals is very small (less than two nanometres). Even amorphous materials have some short-range order among the atomic positions (over length scales of less than five nanometres). Furthermore, in very small crystals a large fraction of the atoms are located at or near the surface of the crystal; relaxation of the surface and interfacial effects distort the atomic positions, decreasing the structural order. Even the most advanced structural characterization techniques, such as x-ray diffraction and transmission electron microscopy, have difficulty in distinguishing between amorphous and crystalline structures on these length scales.

Amorphous solid from

[URL=http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/dipole.html]Electric Dipole


From Wikipedia - Permittivity:

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 Link

Wikipedia[/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#c2

There 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#c2

There 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
user posted image

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
user posted image


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

Dielectric Constant:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_...onst/dicon.html

One 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
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
Hi C2,

I liked your analogy! biggrin.gif

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...... rolleyes.gif

LL
Laserlight
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
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.pdf

Have a look.

smile.gif

TRoc
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! biggrin.gif


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
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
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.shtml
In particular .. this is the graph of 'that which is to be explained...
2/ http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif
The amazing ripple tank is good for getting some grip on the problem
3/ http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm
And here we have two references which I have given many times..
4/ http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.html
This is the one known as 'The DSE equation'
5/ http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html

Please feel free to join in!

Best wishes,

-C2.
Laserlight
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
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.gif

and 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 time

The 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
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
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 sad.gif .

Please play and report.

Best wishes,

-C2.
Aerohead
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 blink.gif
Confused2
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

smile.gif

Laserlight
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
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
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 Gratings
And 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 Gratings
And 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.
User posted image
... 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 : user posted image
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:user posted image
The argument can be extended to show that :User posted image
... 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 slit
Note 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_phenomenon
This 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".
user posted image
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
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
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. laugh.gif

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. laugh.gif

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
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.html

One 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#Section5.4

To understand Huygens it is vital to understand superposition .. so more on superposition:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

In 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_equation

it'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
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
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
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
User posted image
---------------------------------------------------------------- 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! tongue.gif


ciao!

T.Roc

Laserlight
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! laugh.gif

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. biggrin.gif 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
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
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/Oxygen

If 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.

*User posted image
(common to all lattice structures)


regards,

T.Roc

Confused2
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.pdf

Best wishes,

-C2.
Good Elf
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. huh.gif 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
GOOD ELF, dear friend!

With all due respect......PPphhhhhhffffffttttttt!!! "RASPBERRY!" tongue.gif 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
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.

smile.gif
Laserlight
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. biggrin.gif 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. cool.gif
LL


Laserlight
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
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
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/Soliton

Optical solitons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton_%28optics%29

Oscillons:

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

Regards,
LL
Confused2
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 unsure.gif ? Because it doesn't sad.gif .

See..
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.ph...ghlight=huygens

Best wishes,

-C2.
Good Elf
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. biggrin.gif

Cheers
Laserlight
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! ohmy.gif
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. laugh.gif
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
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! ohmy.gif
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. laugh.gif
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
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/Oxygen

If 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.

*User posted image
(common to all lattice structures)


regards,

T.Roc

Take physics ,you'll feel better.
Good Elf
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.. rolleyes.gif

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"... smile.gif

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.