Neil,
How about displaying some board courtesy and stop quoting the entire post to
which you are responding. We have asked you several times now.
Thanks,
LL
GE and Laserlight,
Is it possible that the alleged duality - the wave and particle nature of light - is an ANALOG for the ACTUAL physics which has yet to be discovered ? If that is the case, then you both share more in common in spite of the semantical argument that just transpired.
Think about it. You both are arguing for a new paradigm. If you can agree on terminology, perhaps I can revert to "living vicariously" with this forum where my continuum mechanical brain learns something from you guys.
Lighten up, fellas. A lot of people are reading here with high hopes regarding the rigor of your approach to this topic ! I have weird ideas too, but you guys are better qualified, I think. And TRoc....the "Confused Guy" is one of THE BEST PEOPLE on this forum. He's not rued and he's not trying to derail this discussion.
-Yours truly.
Is it possible that the alleged duality - the wave and particle nature of light - is an ANALOG for the ACTUAL physics which has yet to be discovered ? If that is the case, then you both share more in common in spite of the semantical argument that just transpired.
Think about it. You both are arguing for a new paradigm. If you can agree on terminology, perhaps I can revert to "living vicariously" with this forum where my continuum mechanical brain learns something from you guys.
Lighten up, fellas. A lot of people are reading here with high hopes regarding the rigor of your approach to this topic ! I have weird ideas too, but you guys are better qualified, I think. And TRoc....the "Confused Guy" is one of THE BEST PEOPLE on this forum. He's not rued and he's not trying to derail this discussion.
-Yours truly.
Aerohead,
You are right! I encourage and invite discourse, but would prefer comments and
opinions to be cordial and non-condescending in nature. I can accept criticism
that finds fault with the context of my post if it is wrong, but I will
not allow personal attacks, "slights", and blatant misrepresentations to go
unanswered without responding.
If I have a disagreement with someone's honest theory or conceptualization I state
my opinion/position/perspective without resorting to personal attacks. We all
have a lot to share, and learn.
LL
You are right! I encourage and invite discourse, but would prefer comments and
opinions to be cordial and non-condescending in nature. I can accept criticism
that finds fault with the context of my post if it is wrong, but I will
not allow personal attacks, "slights", and blatant misrepresentations to go
unanswered without responding.
If I have a disagreement with someone's honest theory or conceptualization I state
my opinion/position/perspective without resorting to personal attacks. We all
have a lot to share, and learn.
LL
Hi All,
QUOTE (Aerohead+)
GE and Laserlight,
Is it possible that the alleged duality - the wave and particle nature of light - is an ANALOG for the ACTUAL physics which has yet to be discovered ?
Is it possible that the alleged duality - the wave and particle nature of light - is an ANALOG for the ACTUAL physics which has yet to be discovered ?
I can certainly continue on with discussion of details but it would mean that without common ground and a common "technical language", it becomes a total disconnect and we then are no longer having a mutual discussion but each of us are then going our separate ways. Photons have attributes that relate to "particles" such as spin, orbital angular momentum, quantized energy they lack charge and rest mass and they always travel at the speed of light. They do possess instantaneous "displacement" charges in the electromagnetic wave and they can possess "matter waves" be localized like a particle as in the recent experiments and they can be used to exert "forces" at a distance in "arbitrary" directions using OAM... I think these are close analogs to charge and mass. All right... photons are special but you can't say that that are simply "nothing". According to Einstein mass and gravity is a pseudo-force and are not primary so may be the result of another "force". In nature there are not that many candidates.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
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.
As you have seen there is a strong possibility that bright matter solitons made from light (electromagnetic waves trapped in small spaces by local geometry) exhibit de Broglie waves which are in essence matter waves. Much of this discussion have not introduced the concept of mass and charge for light but it is very hard to perform tests on confined light and if a matter wave is proposed for a slow moving "corpuscle" of light then there is the distinct possibility that it is exhibiting mass. Rotating frames of reference even where light is involved have been discussed previously and these frames are undergoing strong length contraction and time dilation. As a wagon wheel that is rotating near the speed of light the circumference undergoes length contraction so at that radius according to external frames of reference a circle of radius R has a circumference less than 2ΠR. As I see it this is a condition for elastic deformation of spacetime in four dimensions that should lead to Einstein's Theory of Gravitation. Though this is only in one plane for a wagon wheel if extra dimensions exist (six extra dimensions to be exact) then it is conceivable this body could spin in three separate planes at the same time without incurring any material turbulence. This could be used for "symmetrizing" electromagnetism into mass and to supply a framework for gravity.
This idea flies in the face of current theory but so does the idea that charge is a topological phenomenon produced by the trapping of light in a confined "well". One such well is an optical well rather than a gravitational well. The reason this is so much more acceptable to me than gravity is the known mass of particles are insufficient for confinement but electromagnetism whose strength is 10^40 times more powerful than gravity is a strong contender. I also think that this would follow a strong Holographic Principle and may be the missing piece in the jigsaw for a Unified Field Theory. Extra dimensions then will show up at all scales of the Universe. The reason it has been missed to date is three dimensions plus time is "special" and confines energy across a special barrier... the light cone. So we would have "particles" made from light stabilized as special quantum solitons obeying Lorentz-CPT where the confinement creates the topological conditions for charge and has light trapped within an inverse "fourier space" bound by this curvature which is equatable with the actual mass of a particle. The internal properties of the particle space allow for only "evanescent" leakage of this wave from within this space as a de Broglie process. The energy cannot leak away since it is a stationary state (internal standing wave) but will exhibit the property of "matter waves".
These six extra linear dimensions do not connect to our space in a true linear fashion but represent orthogonal spaces... three at a time. To us we live in one of these "bosonic" three-space plus time and this is the extent of our apparent Universe. There are two other three-spaces in compact dimensions "nearby". Every "particle" seems to share our space with us and be the source of two other spaces which are "dual". For instance subatomic particles and their "shells". A single proton "particle" which we call "matter" automatically has a confining space associated at a different scale to the proton and to our Universe's space. It seems to me that the fermionic sub-atomic particles have an attendant boson which is a hybridized "electronic shell" missing only the electrons. While the fermions cannot occupy the identical space of other fermions they do form "Cooper Pairs" and electrons also form "Cooper Pairs" and these "rules" allow the fermions to exhibit boson properties. Whole atoms and even composite particles which otherwise would be "matter" partake in bosonic properties according to how their quantum states add... 1/2 integer are fermions and full integer are bosons... even clouds of "matter" exhibit this numerical "oddity" such as Bose-Einstein Condensates. Certain materials exhibit this special quantum property such as Palladium, Helium-4 and very cold Hydrogen and a host of others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson
The properties of subatomic particles have conjectured internal "reciprocal" states similar to the electronic shells of atoms and can absorb electrons into the internal nuclear shells too. All these "oddities" seem to be the missing supersymmetry in our Universe. Quantum theory as it stands does not allow for such transparency without extra dimensions. It is a Mexican Standoff.... No supersymmetry without additional dimensions. Additional dimensions require new physics because new dimensions are not simply extensions of the three dimensions we presently see which would break our laws of conservation at a level that would have been obvious with current physics. Yet this is exactly what seems to be the issue here. We can promote "particles" including light (photons) to other "energy shells" in meta-stable quantum states through "resonance".
This leads to atomic theory at two already known levels of quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics. These theories are closely related to each other through the common force of electromagnetism. Both theories lack a theory that incorporates symmetry breaking that leads to mass. Mass exists in our Universe concentrated in atomic particles (nowhere else)... even light is forced to follow the geodesics of spacetime (despite the fact that it has no rest mass). Remember the experiment with an eagle's feather a hammer on the Moon, both fall at the same rate... Well so does a particle of light. If light is not a particle why does it "fall along the geodesic" defined by Einstein. It should not if light was not related to mass. The only difference between the ways gravity treat a baseball and a light particle in our gravity field is that the two particles travel at greatly differing speed. Otherwise both obey the same laws of dynamics and "curve" in exactly the same way when projected or thrown. This is not just a coincidence it is a "bloody miracle".
Cheers
This idea flies in the face of current theory but so does the idea that charge is a topological phenomenon produced by the trapping of light in a confined "well". One such well is an optical well rather than a gravitational well. The reason this is so much more acceptable to me than gravity is the known mass of particles are insufficient for confinement but electromagnetism whose strength is 10^40 times more powerful than gravity is a strong contender. I also think that this would follow a strong Holographic Principle and may be the missing piece in the jigsaw for a Unified Field Theory. Extra dimensions then will show up at all scales of the Universe. The reason it has been missed to date is three dimensions plus time is "special" and confines energy across a special barrier... the light cone. So we would have "particles" made from light stabilized as special quantum solitons obeying Lorentz-CPT where the confinement creates the topological conditions for charge and has light trapped within an inverse "fourier space" bound by this curvature which is equatable with the actual mass of a particle. The internal properties of the particle space allow for only "evanescent" leakage of this wave from within this space as a de Broglie process. The energy cannot leak away since it is a stationary state (internal standing wave) but will exhibit the property of "matter waves".
These six extra linear dimensions do not connect to our space in a true linear fashion but represent orthogonal spaces... three at a time. To us we live in one of these "bosonic" three-space plus time and this is the extent of our apparent Universe. There are two other three-spaces in compact dimensions "nearby". Every "particle" seems to share our space with us and be the source of two other spaces which are "dual". For instance subatomic particles and their "shells". A single proton "particle" which we call "matter" automatically has a confining space associated at a different scale to the proton and to our Universe's space. It seems to me that the fermionic sub-atomic particles have an attendant boson which is a hybridized "electronic shell" missing only the electrons. While the fermions cannot occupy the identical space of other fermions they do form "Cooper Pairs" and electrons also form "Cooper Pairs" and these "rules" allow the fermions to exhibit boson properties. Whole atoms and even composite particles which otherwise would be "matter" partake in bosonic properties according to how their quantum states add... 1/2 integer are fermions and full integer are bosons... even clouds of "matter" exhibit this numerical "oddity" such as Bose-Einstein Condensates. Certain materials exhibit this special quantum property such as Palladium, Helium-4 and very cold Hydrogen and a host of others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson
The properties of subatomic particles have conjectured internal "reciprocal" states similar to the electronic shells of atoms and can absorb electrons into the internal nuclear shells too. All these "oddities" seem to be the missing supersymmetry in our Universe. Quantum theory as it stands does not allow for such transparency without extra dimensions. It is a Mexican Standoff.... No supersymmetry without additional dimensions. Additional dimensions require new physics because new dimensions are not simply extensions of the three dimensions we presently see which would break our laws of conservation at a level that would have been obvious with current physics. Yet this is exactly what seems to be the issue here. We can promote "particles" including light (photons) to other "energy shells" in meta-stable quantum states through "resonance".
This leads to atomic theory at two already known levels of quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics. These theories are closely related to each other through the common force of electromagnetism. Both theories lack a theory that incorporates symmetry breaking that leads to mass. Mass exists in our Universe concentrated in atomic particles (nowhere else)... even light is forced to follow the geodesics of spacetime (despite the fact that it has no rest mass). Remember the experiment with an eagle's feather a hammer on the Moon, both fall at the same rate... Well so does a particle of light. If light is not a particle why does it "fall along the geodesic" defined by Einstein. It should not if light was not related to mass. The only difference between the ways gravity treat a baseball and a light particle in our gravity field is that the two particles travel at greatly differing speed. Otherwise both obey the same laws of dynamics and "curve" in exactly the same way when projected or thrown. This is not just a coincidence it is a "bloody miracle".
Cheers
I've been reading your articles with great interest. Isn't the real problem our interprentation of matter f ex an electron contra wawes f ex light. We expect one behaviour from wawes and another from partickles so when they behave as both we get frustrated, and start to search for 'unknown factors' that hopefully can explain it
What if both particles and wawes are the product of one coherent force, what if there would be hyperspatial dimensions focusing into and creating our three(four)dimensional reality. I)'m thinking of a lot of focuspoints simultaneously dancing with us, where we are one very speccial kind of focus.
Kinda like Platons cave..
And yes in one way that wouldn't be one force as im thinking of interacting 'dimensions' that manifest themselves as our world. I know, pure SF, still if that was the case and we were some kind of specialised phenomena of an for us invisible reality (whatever). But who know,s maybe the uncertanity principle is an arketype and could create many from one, uh dimensions that is.
And Hey, it wasn't me creating string theory, so before you tell me it's absolut bull, just remember that string theory start with one??? dimensionell strings that somehow create us all..
Ah well, im almost serious to
What if both particles and wawes are the product of one coherent force, what if there would be hyperspatial dimensions focusing into and creating our three(four)dimensional reality. I)'m thinking of a lot of focuspoints simultaneously dancing with us, where we are one very speccial kind of focus.
Kinda like Platons cave..
And yes in one way that wouldn't be one force as im thinking of interacting 'dimensions' that manifest themselves as our world. I know, pure SF, still if that was the case and we were some kind of specialised phenomena of an for us invisible reality (whatever). But who know,s maybe the uncertanity principle is an arketype and could create many from one, uh dimensions that is.
And Hey, it wasn't me creating string theory, so before you tell me it's absolut bull, just remember that string theory start with one??? dimensionell strings that somehow create us all..
Ah well, im almost serious to
Hi yor_on,
QUOTE (yor_on+)
What if both particles and waves are the product of one coherent force
I agree entirely that there are no such things as "separate" particles and waves we are actually looking at a universal phenomenon. Wave Particle Duality is saying just this... whatever we are referring to, nothing is all wave, and nothing is all particle. At different times they behave as one or the other and it is only the "property" that distinguishes them... the result of an "observation". "Particles" exhibit "wave" properties... this is not in dispute.. the same as "waves" like light exhibit "particle" properties. It seems "obvious" to me that nature has no respect for our hard and fast definitions (based on Democritus and his "atoms"), and those who are unable to listen to nature and hear what is being said just do not get it. The extra advantage we have over Democritus is the recourse to the Scientific Method rather than pure Intellectual Speculation and Philosophy. This involves Theory followed by rigorous Experimental verification. In some cases the opposite of an Experiment leading to the Theory.
As I see it there is only light anyway and geometry with the intervention of time. Still we need "vocabulary" to deal with the different ways these laws exhibit in our world. Words are only what we mean them to be and to convey a concept we still need them for communication. For instance Democritus thought of immutable tiny "atoms" with fixed properties. We still think that we can classify everything in terms of this concept. IMHO quanta at all levels of the Universe will resist this "atomicity" because everything is endowed with some small difference that allows everything to be distinguished. This is because each time we try and pigeonhole things into classes in the sub-atomic world we find that there are even smaller "parts", for want of a better description, to sub-divide our original classification. This is a Holographic principle ... a small part of the whole contains the whole but not entirely everything of the whole. To get everything you actually need the whole, so to find out "everything" about one of those "billiard ball" particles even though a "billiard ball" contains a lot of information about "itself", it is missing an essential aspect that only the "whole" has for a complete explanation. We understand this as "entanglement". It is also possible that two "billiard balls" are entangled with each other and also with the "whole". This is an expression of the non-local nature of our Universe and any TOE must contain this principle. This is no "mysticism" but it comes dangerously close... I am sure this concept did not enhance David Bohm's reputation, it is very uncomfortable but it also indicates an underlying order we are ignoring... a "wave nature" not a "particle nature".
One small example... consider reflections in a mirror... lets take two mirrors parallel or almost parallel to each other creating a "Hall of Mirrors" effect. Each and every reflection appears to be identical to the previous reflection. Nothing could be further from the truth. This "optical recursion" is not without limit and there is a factor which limits the resolution of successive images. If we consider what this factor is it must be related to possible retardations and delays in propagation. Without becoming too technical the exact sequence of events as portrayed in recursive reflections is not strictly defined and as the scale of successive images appears to shrink to the infinitesimally small the optical cutoff of the frequencies will take a toll blurring the acuity and removing the shorter wavelengths. So just what will be happening 'down there" among all those apparent copies? Who really knows?
Because our Universe and "matter wave" systems that concentrate not on optical frequencies but on matter wave frequencies can easily "create" on demand perfect copies of the matter wave source (according to certain NIST experiments), and our entire Universe is in some way a vast "Hall of Mirrors", we may not be the primary source of any events occurring here in our Universe. As in the "Hall of Mirrors" ... the matter wave equivalent of them... the source of every event seems to point backwards to a prior source and so on until there is an original event from which all the others have been merely a "reflection". If this first event was some "random" source and all of time and space has been the temporal evolution of this "source" with constant changes and by continuous application of the Laws of Physics to "images", then "History" and "Evolution" not only of living things but of the very matter and stuff from which all of us formed may be "a Hall of Mirrors".
What keeps us from 'dissipating"? Probably Lorentz-CPT and the quantum which leads to "stationary states" which can persist as long as the stars shine. Still all this activity around us must be the result of the way "first light" has been 'morphing" not under totally random processes but according to the strict Laws of "optics" in the Universe leading to order out of the initial chaos. If nothing else... the "Big Bang" is total chaos from which all this apparent order has "evolved" by some process of continuous change. Into this mix I add the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory.
I like to show this simple optical device that employs a holographic imaging process in two dimensions for image reproduction and processing. This uses optical frequencies but three dimensional matter wave imaging of fields of real particles into the 'lens" of a particle brane is what probably actually happens.
... Click to enlarge...
It has been shown if "matter waves" are imaged even chemical properties of atoms are reproduced. NIST Experiments have shown that such hyper-realistic "images" can even enter into temporary chemical bonds with real atoms creating part image part matter molecules. As long as the original imaging atom remains the "phantom" behaves exactly like the original and persists as long as the imaging system (quantum corrals) and the original atom are in place. So just what is a "particle" and what are "waves" now??
Cheers
As I see it there is only light anyway and geometry with the intervention of time. Still we need "vocabulary" to deal with the different ways these laws exhibit in our world. Words are only what we mean them to be and to convey a concept we still need them for communication. For instance Democritus thought of immutable tiny "atoms" with fixed properties. We still think that we can classify everything in terms of this concept. IMHO quanta at all levels of the Universe will resist this "atomicity" because everything is endowed with some small difference that allows everything to be distinguished. This is because each time we try and pigeonhole things into classes in the sub-atomic world we find that there are even smaller "parts", for want of a better description, to sub-divide our original classification. This is a Holographic principle ... a small part of the whole contains the whole but not entirely everything of the whole. To get everything you actually need the whole, so to find out "everything" about one of those "billiard ball" particles even though a "billiard ball" contains a lot of information about "itself", it is missing an essential aspect that only the "whole" has for a complete explanation. We understand this as "entanglement". It is also possible that two "billiard balls" are entangled with each other and also with the "whole". This is an expression of the non-local nature of our Universe and any TOE must contain this principle. This is no "mysticism" but it comes dangerously close... I am sure this concept did not enhance David Bohm's reputation, it is very uncomfortable but it also indicates an underlying order we are ignoring... a "wave nature" not a "particle nature".
One small example... consider reflections in a mirror... lets take two mirrors parallel or almost parallel to each other creating a "Hall of Mirrors" effect. Each and every reflection appears to be identical to the previous reflection. Nothing could be further from the truth. This "optical recursion" is not without limit and there is a factor which limits the resolution of successive images. If we consider what this factor is it must be related to possible retardations and delays in propagation. Without becoming too technical the exact sequence of events as portrayed in recursive reflections is not strictly defined and as the scale of successive images appears to shrink to the infinitesimally small the optical cutoff of the frequencies will take a toll blurring the acuity and removing the shorter wavelengths. So just what will be happening 'down there" among all those apparent copies? Who really knows?
Because our Universe and "matter wave" systems that concentrate not on optical frequencies but on matter wave frequencies can easily "create" on demand perfect copies of the matter wave source (according to certain NIST experiments), and our entire Universe is in some way a vast "Hall of Mirrors", we may not be the primary source of any events occurring here in our Universe. As in the "Hall of Mirrors" ... the matter wave equivalent of them... the source of every event seems to point backwards to a prior source and so on until there is an original event from which all the others have been merely a "reflection". If this first event was some "random" source and all of time and space has been the temporal evolution of this "source" with constant changes and by continuous application of the Laws of Physics to "images", then "History" and "Evolution" not only of living things but of the very matter and stuff from which all of us formed may be "a Hall of Mirrors".
What keeps us from 'dissipating"? Probably Lorentz-CPT and the quantum which leads to "stationary states" which can persist as long as the stars shine. Still all this activity around us must be the result of the way "first light" has been 'morphing" not under totally random processes but according to the strict Laws of "optics" in the Universe leading to order out of the initial chaos. If nothing else... the "Big Bang" is total chaos from which all this apparent order has "evolved" by some process of continuous change. Into this mix I add the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory.
I like to show this simple optical device that employs a holographic imaging process in two dimensions for image reproduction and processing. This uses optical frequencies but three dimensional matter wave imaging of fields of real particles into the 'lens" of a particle brane is what probably actually happens.
... Click to enlarge...
It has been shown if "matter waves" are imaged even chemical properties of atoms are reproduced. NIST Experiments have shown that such hyper-realistic "images" can even enter into temporary chemical bonds with real atoms creating part image part matter molecules. As long as the original imaging atom remains the "phantom" behaves exactly like the original and persists as long as the imaging system (quantum corrals) and the original atom are in place. So just what is a "particle" and what are "waves" now??
Cheers
Hi GE,
Doesn't this verify that particles have constant "contained" energy and EM waves
have transitory energy? Can two different faux matter waves react chemically?
LL
QUOTE
It has been shown if "matter waves" are imaged even chemical properties of atoms are reproduced. NIST Experiments have shown that such hyper-realistic "images" can even enter into temporary chemical bonds with real atoms creating part image part matter molecules. As long as the original imaging atom remains the "phantom" behaves exactly like the original and persists as long as the imaging system (quantum corrals) and the original atom are in place. So just what is a "particle" and what are "waves" now??
Doesn't this verify that particles have constant "contained" energy and EM waves
have transitory energy? Can two different faux matter waves react chemically?
LL
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE
Doesn't this verify that particles have constant "contained" energy and EM waves have transitory energy? Can two different faux matter waves react chemically?
Hmm... I don't know. NIST has not reported on that operation. I think it would be hard to arrange. What you are asking for are two separate real atoms that have two separate real "phantoms" that chemically combine. In the original experiment it was a chromium (phantom) atom and a oxygen (real) atom. There are technical problems using oxygen "sources". I doubt if the experiment could be arranged to fully test this conjecture. Of course I think molecules can be "imaged" too with quantum corrals but this is not as interesting. Being able to observe these "images" are technically complex... this is similar to being able to plot the Schroedinger Wave Function in free space as in those images and requires the imaging system (STEM) to be 'adiabatic". In plotting the Schrodinger Wave Function in free space this is done using a ferrite slug that makes the function no longer time symmetric. This 'trick" allows us to display the underlying "matter waves".QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Doesn't this verify that particles have constant "contained" energy and EM waves have transitory energy? Can two different faux matter waves react chemically? |
Hmm... I don't know. NIST has not reported on that operation. I think it would be hard to arrange. What you are asking for are two separate real atoms that have two separate real "phantoms" that chemically combine. In the original experiment it was a chromium (phantom) atom and a oxygen (real) atom. There are technical problems using oxygen "sources". I doubt if the experiment could be arranged to fully test this conjecture. Of course I think molecules can be "imaged" too with quantum corrals but this is not as interesting. Being able to observe these "images" are technically complex... this is similar to being able to plot the Schroedinger Wave Function in free space as in those images and requires the imaging system (STEM) to be 'adiabatic". In plotting the Schrodinger Wave Function in free space this is done using a ferrite slug that makes the function no longer time symmetric. This 'trick" allows us to display the underlying "matter waves".Doesn't this verify that particles have constant "contained" energy and EM waves have transitory energy?
I guess you would need to ask just where your "real" particle is being imaged from... The "images" appear to be as real as the parent image... the parent image may have it's own parent and so on... I would agree these "images" have no permanent persistence. Maybe these "images" qualify as "virtual photons"... I dunno. There is a theory in Physics that says "no cloning of particles". This would need an exception in this case where the 'clone" or "clones" are not required to have independent existence. This phenomenon only occurs rarely in our Universe when we have the existence of "virtual particles" imaged near "real or source" particles. Usually these exist for periods of time which are short relative to the Heisenberg Uncertainty product formed by the Period and the energy ∆E∆T. I suspect this is unknown behavior. These "phantoms" do not seem to be referenced in energy to any "absolute" level and exist only relation to others.
Cheers
Cheers
Hi Laserlight,
Some corrections to the fine points in the last reply (I "botched" the reference)... A couple of references to Quantum Mirages. This was an IBM set of experiments not NIST and I have missed a number of points as well...
Wilson Ho showed that a probe tip can be used to deliver carbon monoxide molecules one at a time to an iron atom, forming Fe(CO), then Fe(CO)2. In that experiment, Ho, who is now professor of physics and chemistry at the University of California, Irvine, used a scanning tunneling microscope to form chemical bonds, to image reactants and products, and to measure single-molecule vibrational spectra ( C&EN, Nov. 29, 1999, page 9 ).
New Tools For Tiny Jobs
Some corrections to the fine points in the last reply (I "botched" the reference)... A couple of references to Quantum Mirages. This was an IBM set of experiments not NIST and I have missed a number of points as well...
QUOTE
Quantum Mirages: The Coherent Projection of Electronic Structure
H. C. Manoharan, C. P. Lutz, D. M. Eigler (IBM Research Division, Almaden Research Center, 650 Harry Rd., San Jose, CA 95120)
While the correlated electron physics underlying the varied manifestations of magnetism have long been studied via macroscopic behavior, only recently have novel local probes opened the door to a new class of studies on the nanometer length scale. On top of these technological advances, the advent of controlled atomic and molecular manipulation has provided us with a unique opportunity not only to detect magnetism at atomic length scales, but to manipulate it as well. In this talk we present new results that exploit these techniques using low-temperature scanning tunneling microscopy. Using the detection of the Kondo resonance localized around an isolated magnetic moment on a surface, we demonstrate that the electronic structure around an atom may be sampled and projected to a distant location by means of a surrounding 2D electron gas confined in an engineered nanostructure. The "quantum mirage'' cast by a single magnetic atom can be refocused with coherent phase at a distinct point where it is detected as a phantom atom around which the electronic structure mimics that at the real atom.
^1H. C. Manoharan et al., to appear in Nature (1999).
After arranging a few dozen cobalt atoms as an ellipse on a copper surface and imaging the assembly (purple ring on orange, bottom), IBM researchers use a complimentary imaging technique to show that when a single cobalt atom is placed at one of the focus points of the ellipse, certain electronic properties (such as spin, indicated by spheres with arrows) are detected in the vicinity of the focus-point atom (large peak, top curve). A lower-intensity projection of those properties appears as a phantom atom at the other ellipse, even though that position is vacant.
H. C. Manoharan, C. P. Lutz, D. M. Eigler (IBM Research Division, Almaden Research Center, 650 Harry Rd., San Jose, CA 95120)
While the correlated electron physics underlying the varied manifestations of magnetism have long been studied via macroscopic behavior, only recently have novel local probes opened the door to a new class of studies on the nanometer length scale. On top of these technological advances, the advent of controlled atomic and molecular manipulation has provided us with a unique opportunity not only to detect magnetism at atomic length scales, but to manipulate it as well. In this talk we present new results that exploit these techniques using low-temperature scanning tunneling microscopy. Using the detection of the Kondo resonance localized around an isolated magnetic moment on a surface, we demonstrate that the electronic structure around an atom may be sampled and projected to a distant location by means of a surrounding 2D electron gas confined in an engineered nanostructure. The "quantum mirage'' cast by a single magnetic atom can be refocused with coherent phase at a distinct point where it is detected as a phantom atom around which the electronic structure mimics that at the real atom.
^1H. C. Manoharan et al., to appear in Nature (1999).
After arranging a few dozen cobalt atoms as an ellipse on a copper surface and imaging the assembly (purple ring on orange, bottom), IBM researchers use a complimentary imaging technique to show that when a single cobalt atom is placed at one of the focus points of the ellipse, certain electronic properties (such as spin, indicated by spheres with arrows) are detected in the vicinity of the focus-point atom (large peak, top curve). A lower-intensity projection of those properties appears as a phantom atom at the other ellipse, even though that position is vacant.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Quantum Mirages: The Coherent Projection of Electronic Structure H. C. Manoharan, C. P. Lutz, D. M. Eigler (IBM Research Division, Almaden Research Center, 650 Harry Rd., San Jose, CA 95120) While the correlated electron physics underlying the varied manifestations of magnetism have long been studied via macroscopic behavior, only recently have novel local probes opened the door to a new class of studies on the nanometer length scale. On top of these technological advances, the advent of controlled atomic and molecular manipulation has provided us with a unique opportunity not only to detect magnetism at atomic length scales, but to manipulate it as well. In this talk we present new results that exploit these techniques using low-temperature scanning tunneling microscopy. Using the detection of the Kondo resonance localized around an isolated magnetic moment on a surface, we demonstrate that the electronic structure around an atom may be sampled and projected to a distant location by means of a surrounding 2D electron gas confined in an engineered nanostructure. The "quantum mirage'' cast by a single magnetic atom can be refocused with coherent phase at a distinct point where it is detected as a phantom atom around which the electronic structure mimics that at the real atom. ^1H. C. Manoharan et al., to appear in Nature (1999). After arranging a few dozen cobalt atoms as an ellipse on a copper surface and imaging the assembly (purple ring on orange, bottom), IBM researchers use a complimentary imaging technique to show that when a single cobalt atom is placed at one of the focus points of the ellipse, certain electronic properties (such as spin, indicated by spheres with arrows) are detected in the vicinity of the focus-point atom (large peak, top curve). A lower-intensity projection of those properties appears as a phantom atom at the other ellipse, even though that position is vacant. |
Wilson Ho showed that a probe tip can be used to deliver carbon monoxide molecules one at a time to an iron atom, forming Fe(CO), then Fe(CO)2. In that experiment, Ho, who is now professor of physics and chemistry at the University of California, Irvine, used a scanning tunneling microscope to form chemical bonds, to image reactants and products, and to measure single-molecule vibrational spectra ( C&EN, Nov. 29, 1999, page 9 ).
New Tools For Tiny Jobs
Sorry that I used my memory when I should have used a reference... Also note that it was an Atomic Force Microscope not a STEM (a similar beast)
Fermi Liquid Theory: Principles
Theory of Quantum Corrals and Quantum Mirages
Wikipedia: Quantum Mirage
"Quantum mirage" may enable atom-scale circuits
Wikipedia: Dynamical billiards
These mirages are "resonances" not unlike plasmons we have discussed resulting in matter waves that "some say mimic" atoms in a Fermi sea of electrons where the electrons become quasiparticles - a non-interacting ideal gas or liquid state - in either one two or three dimensions and will be stationary solutions of Schrodinger's Equation when expressed as the interior of a cavity (see Dynamical billiards above). The technique allows for imaging the effect. Ho showed that chemical reactions were also possible. "Whenever the "classical billiards" are integrable then the corresponding quantum systems are completely solvable. If a "billiard" has a smooth convex caustics then there exists an infinite series of eigenfunctions localized in the vicinity." Another interesting "billiard" is the Quantum Mirage. That should clear up a few points I left "dangling"...
Cheers
Fermi Liquid Theory: Principles
Theory of Quantum Corrals and Quantum Mirages
Wikipedia: Quantum Mirage
"Quantum mirage" may enable atom-scale circuits
Wikipedia: Dynamical billiards
These mirages are "resonances" not unlike plasmons we have discussed resulting in matter waves that "some say mimic" atoms in a Fermi sea of electrons where the electrons become quasiparticles - a non-interacting ideal gas or liquid state - in either one two or three dimensions and will be stationary solutions of Schrodinger's Equation when expressed as the interior of a cavity (see Dynamical billiards above). The technique allows for imaging the effect. Ho showed that chemical reactions were also possible. "Whenever the "classical billiards" are integrable then the corresponding quantum systems are completely solvable. If a "billiard" has a smooth convex caustics then there exists an infinite series of eigenfunctions localized in the vicinity." Another interesting "billiard" is the Quantum Mirage. That should clear up a few points I left "dangling"...
Cheers
You know it's funny how everything seems to go in circles
One believe that one has thought about something really hard and tried to build on what one collected, in form of experiences and thoughts over some time. And then one finds out that the idea have been there for like a thousand years.
Life can be such a bore, I don't know about you EM but i believe that the only really original thinker i know of was Einstein. I'm not saying that he had all his marbles under control, but on the other hand, is that necessarily bad ?
And yes, you should think about teaching EM, i strongly believe you have it in you.
What i mean is that i found your explanation both awesome and promising...
Maybe you folks know some others, feel free to correct me then. And hey, i love this universe. Never a dull moment
One believe that one has thought about something really hard and tried to build on what one collected, in form of experiences and thoughts over some time. And then one finds out that the idea have been there for like a thousand years.
Life can be such a bore, I don't know about you EM but i believe that the only really original thinker i know of was Einstein. I'm not saying that he had all his marbles under control, but on the other hand, is that necessarily bad ?
And yes, you should think about teaching EM, i strongly believe you have it in you.
What i mean is that i found your explanation both awesome and promising...
Maybe you folks know some others, feel free to correct me then. And hey, i love this universe. Never a dull moment
Hi Confused2 and Laserlight et al,
QUOTE (Confused2 +)
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 sine wave 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.
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 sine wave 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.
This line of questioning deserves an answer that is very involved and complex but I will "bite the bullet" and try and answer it here. This involves the concepts of Feynman's Many Paths concepts but I will be discussing it in terms of waves and wave packets. All and every part of your question may require several books to fully treat with anything but the most simple aspects so I will leave to your technical capacities to fill in the blanks. I will eventually get to the topics and try and integrate this as a whole. I am warning you there is some "elf physics" here but it is unavoidable since there is nothing out there I can access to set this all down. About Feynman there are two distinct theories... his many paths treatment and his collaboration with Wheeler in "Absorber Theory" which involves advanced potentials are quite different. This latter one is the Nobel Prize effort and earlier but is a "semi-classical theory". His more "useful" theory, his "many paths method", does not involve advanced potentials. I think "both" have application.
Regarding your reference to "impulses" their propagation and to "cavities" and not treating them at one and the same time is complex. If light propagates through space and interferes with itself (creating cavities in three dimensions and fringes in two dimensions) on (and through) the emulsion of a photographic plate, and these fringes are captured by developing them, then without an illuminating beam to give form to this "image" nothing appears to be there. If I illuminate this hologram (which is not a real hologram but a kind of template formed from the real hologram, that are the original standing waves in the space inside the emulsion), I can reconstruct the object as a fully three dimensional "source". In the real Universe both exist... the Hologram and the image as a source. The presence of "material" arranged in space (like the photographic plate with fringes) or of any physical objects, can act as diffraction elements to construct "sources" and "images" from a physical "template" which behaves holographically. In nature slits, holes are places where holograms can influence the light waves to act as complex sources but I could equally focus a real image into the empty space using a lens. This arrangement using a couple of lenses, a laser and a "template" can be used to create a free standing hologram in the image plane.
As to why the Kennedy-Thorndyke Interferometer seems to rule out the idea of a photon interfering with itself I would try and stress that the interference is not with the instrument it is within the wave packet itself so it is related to the internal Topology of the individual packets and not to "paths" as you so like to refer to ... Just think of it like this illustration I have used previously (above)..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=177115
There you will see how (with commentary) it is the relative internal phase relationships that cause the packets to phase add and phase cancel not actually due to "travel". The packet internal "fiber bundles" (not rays) all "flex" relative to each other just like when you bend a very thick sheathed wire cable containing hundreds of strands of parallel wires... they move relative to each other but retain their intrinsic "length"... and light is "very flexible". Imagine that you could take this "phase bundle" and move it around in space and note the physical positions of each fiber... at times the fiber signals all cancel at certain places in space and at others the fibers all sum at different points in space. You then need a plot that shows what this "phase bundle "does throughout all space ... including our entire Universe at all times and places. A single photon can only fill some of these positions at any instant and this is at the forefront of an advancing wave.
The KT Interferometer connects paths in different arms of the instrument, actually what you are trying to do is to ask the "which path question" which says if you do ask it you have reduced the photon to a "billiard ball" which can only travel one path. Don't ask this question and the photon can still interact as a qubit and the waves travel everywhere until they strike the screen and form an interference pattern. What you are trying to say is the photon may be exceedingly long compared with the instrument. It is possible (as discussed below)... it is not very likely that a photon from a very different wavefront can interfere with a photon that originated from its past or its future, since when it was created the influence of such events does not seem to me to be able to have an effect on a photon that is "timeless". These photons cross in the night oblivious to each others existence and have no way to exchange any energy process. It may be possible if the photons passed through a secondary source (or slit) while they were correlated or they became correlated during this process of passing through a slit or passing a beamsplitter. I would like to resolve this point but I don't entirely see how. What I will do is something "close".
Lets look at the problem of the shape and duration of a wave packet of a single photon. For light (and not other particles) the component frequencies which include the fundamental frequencies and other internal higher frequencies which define the packet are fixed during the period of propagation relative to each other. This is because of relativity and the propagation of light on the wall of the light cone. Any packet shape changes and internal packet "dynamics" can only occur either during the emission process or during the absorption process. At all other times during propagation, aside from "spreading" with the Inverse Square Law (ISL) "nothing is happening". We have the equation E=hf which fixes the energy and the frequency of a single packet of light to a fixed quantity of energy. Lets think about how much this energy depends on this event. An Impulse is "similar to" a square pulse of some finite height (energy) and width (time) making a total "product" ΔEΔT => h/2Π
Notice the equation suggests this product is actually greater than this strict product... only in the limiting case could it possibly "equal" h/2Π. So the photon usually carries more energy than h/2Π. What is the difference in this product? At a particular frequency the packet contains many more higher frequencies at multiples of the fundamental frequency... maybe even an infinity of them each adding to the wave form's packet shape at the moment of creation that once it is "launched" as a propagating wave, at the speed of light, it is "frozen in" until the packet is in the process of "assimilation" at the sink.
The units of Planck's Constant are units of "action" in some locales.
It is a rate of exchange of energy. Now lets look at this impulse as a time function...
This is sometimes called the "boxcar function" this is because the area under the curve is the uncertainty relationship of Heisenberg... ΔEΔT. The Fourier transform of this "ideal function" is an infinite ensemble of sinusoidal components which would repeat periodically if extended to plus and minus infinity in time. What we know is the fundamental frequency of this "boxcar" is strictly defined by its period ΔT. The fundamental frequency of the "envelope" of this function in the frequency is 1/ΔT... a frequency. A different shaped "boxcar" with the exactly same area under the curve (ΔEΔT) has a totally different fundamental frequency because that is the way Fourier transforms work. Also we know for light and other quantum phenomena E=hf. There is only one energy for a photon at one frequency... this is the way the universe responds to impulsive energy is in an impulse response. This "response" is the wave packet which in its simplest form is the Fourier transform. They complement each other and form a dual.
This is all very "simple" but suddenly we have a problem... what might happen if instead of a sudden short "impulse" the "packet" envelope extended for thousands of "cycles" in the direction of propagation and the impulse (ΔEΔT) is spread not in a single cycle (or wavelength) but over thousands of cycles (wavelengths) at the fundamental frequency, but at such a very low peak level that it almost vanishes... the energy evenly distributed between all those peaks and troughs at the fundamental frequency over a vast time? This looks like a single photon of a single wavelength or frequency may even persist over "hours"
while it is traveling between source and sink? For a particular photon of a particular wavelength or frequency this will never happen because once it has been emitted its "envelope" is frozen relative to all the internal frequencies (group velocity = speed of light) and the internal component phase velocities also equal the speed of light for light. Since they all have the velocity of the speed of light they do not have any opportunity to "rearrange" the internal energy as particles can do.... like electrons for instance.
However at the moment of emission in the evanescent region near the source of the emerging packet, before it becomes a propagating wave, a number of things can happen... the energy can rearrange from the straight impulse it can accept Orbital Angular Momentum and transverse momentum interchanges. This may also distribute the energy of that one packet longitudinally in the spatial propagating direction. While the "pulse" was initially very confined now it may take on other dynamics depending on the geometry of the source. In order for a photon to be absorbed at the sink the entire photon must still be absorbed over a long period of that multi-cycle photon as it arrives or alternatively it will be mismatched with the sink and cannot be absorbed at all. At the sink "perhaps" the electron "spirals" up to the next energy level over a period of time instead of "quantum leaps" soaking up this incremental photon. This would need to match the source's mode of emission in some way or alternatively when the photon is completely absorbed at the E=hf frequency, there is some energy left over of spin momentum or transverse momentum that may materially affect the sink atom in some way. These have been formally described as "virtual photon" processes.
Some Frequently Asked Questions About Virtual Particles
Clearly virtual photons are very dependent on phase and their "interactions" are strongly related to source and sink processes and are not related to propagation phenomena.
So now we have some rather "odd looking photons" that still contain only one quanta of energy at the E=hf frequency but require "time" to be absorbed or emitted and these added "modes" result in redistribution of the energy and spin within the packet. The packet in the evanescent regions will have dynamic properties. This will also happen when for instance a plane wave of photons meet up with a pinhole or slit and the momentum is internally redistributed due to the slits action of being a secondary source. The process is explained in a very simple way here but a more complex treatment would lead to the science of singular optics as we have recently discussed.
Optical Analog of Uncertainty Principle
We see the slit or the secondary source redistributing the linear momentum as transverse momentum. So when the is absorbed from its packet there may be some of that high frequency energy in excess or the momentum may be distributed in unusual ways or the energy may be spread out not only spatially like this...
Transverse modes are classified into different types:
* TE modes (Transverse Electric) have no electric field in the direction of propagation.
* TM modes (Transverse Magnetic) have no magnetic field in the direction of propagation.
* TEM modes (Transverse ElectroMagnetic) have no electric nor magnetic field in the direction of propagation.
* Hybrid modes are those which have both electric and magnetic field components in the direction of propagation.
Wikipedia:Transverse Modes
but may be spread out in various longitudinal modes...
Wikipedia: Longitudinal Modes
These modes have direct bearing on Young's Double Slit Experiment and to other variants of the experiment.
The next important point is the way in which this surplus energy can be reused by "up conversion" of these small bits of energy on the one wavefront into whole packets or quanta at a "secondary source". Here is a classic example of a case in which strongly correlated photons can be used to "reconstruct" a high frequency "source" from some low frequency left over energy from BBO Down Conversion.
Some Frequently Asked Questions About Virtual Particles
Clearly virtual photons are very dependent on phase and their "interactions" are strongly related to source and sink processes and are not related to propagation phenomena.
So now we have some rather "odd looking photons" that still contain only one quanta of energy at the E=hf frequency but require "time" to be absorbed or emitted and these added "modes" result in redistribution of the energy and spin within the packet. The packet in the evanescent regions will have dynamic properties. This will also happen when for instance a plane wave of photons meet up with a pinhole or slit and the momentum is internally redistributed due to the slits action of being a secondary source. The process is explained in a very simple way here but a more complex treatment would lead to the science of singular optics as we have recently discussed.
Optical Analog of Uncertainty Principle
We see the slit or the secondary source redistributing the linear momentum as transverse momentum. So when the is absorbed from its packet there may be some of that high frequency energy in excess or the momentum may be distributed in unusual ways or the energy may be spread out not only spatially like this...
Transverse modes are classified into different types:
* TE modes (Transverse Electric) have no electric field in the direction of propagation.
* TM modes (Transverse Magnetic) have no magnetic field in the direction of propagation.
* TEM modes (Transverse ElectroMagnetic) have no electric nor magnetic field in the direction of propagation.
* Hybrid modes are those which have both electric and magnetic field components in the direction of propagation.
Wikipedia:Transverse Modes
but may be spread out in various longitudinal modes...
Wikipedia: Longitudinal Modes
These modes have direct bearing on Young's Double Slit Experiment and to other variants of the experiment.
The next important point is the way in which this surplus energy can be reused by "up conversion" of these small bits of energy on the one wavefront into whole packets or quanta at a "secondary source". Here is a classic example of a case in which strongly correlated photons can be used to "reconstruct" a high frequency "source" from some low frequency left over energy from BBO Down Conversion.
Measurement of the de Broglie Wavelength of a Multiphoton Wave Packet
E. J. S. Fonseca, C. H. Monken, and S. Pádua*
Departamento de Fý´sica, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Caixa Postal 702, 30123-970 Belo Horizonte MG, Brazil
(Received 23 March 1998)
A fourth-order Young interference experiment was done to demonstrate a practical way to measure the de Broglie wavelength of a two-photon wave packet. A two-photon collinear beam is generated by type-II spontaneous parametric down-conversion. By modifying the transverse field profile of the pump laser beam that generates the two-photon beam we demonstrate that it is possible to measure the de Broglie wavelength of the single-photon constituents of the two-photon wave packet, the de Broglie wavelength of the two-photon wave packet as a whole and an ill defined intermediate de Broglie wavelength between the two cases. [S0031-9007(99)08826-2]
Measurement of the de Broglie Wavelength of a Multiphoton Wave Packet
Here we are able to distinguish the de Broglie wavepacket for a pair of entangled photons of light from the individual wavepackets of each photon. I realize this will give you a headache following this argument and you have a choice here of using my analysis which I think is more "transparent" or you can accept the far more convoluted argument proposed by the authors. Either way it is not easy but I promise you will find this very instructive about the "inner nature" of photons.
My explanation will follow the figures in the paper but take a "Holographic" Constructional approach to the problem. First read the paper to understand the experimental setup.
Referring to figure 1: We note that S1 is Young's standard classic double slit and S2 is a "scanning" single slit that is used by the two photon detector. The two photon detector can be used to "sort" two photon interference patterns from one photon interference patterns. The laser is a "classic" 351.1 nm "green" laser which impinges in the birefringent "clear" block of BBO down conversion crystal cut such that both entangled photons exit along the same path. Between the laser and the crystal is a single "wire" and a lens whose focal length is such that the wire has a real image focussed smack between the two slits S1. We can adjust the distance to the slits such that the focal point falls slightly short of the slits or it can actually produce an exact image on the "bar" between the slits in perfect focus.
There is a "gotcha"... between the crystal and S1 is a prism which can "sort" the BBO down converted "red" photons from the "green" laser primary beam. The photons that are still "green" and not down converted are shunted into a "brick wall" where they are all lost. Only the "red" photons still continue on to fall upon the S1 double slit. What this means since the image of the wire is entirely due to "green" photons in the original beam then the real image on or near the slits have no component green photons to illuminate it... right... What is there are only red photons. So what is the purpose of this "image" that has no light cast to see it in its original wavelength? It is there to supply the fringes in space ... the Hologram devoid of light as a "shell" built of 351.1 nm fringes or standing wave cavities. What happened to the green photons that make the red photons? they had their wavelengths doubled to 702.2 nm and now since they were not filtered out and were "created" on the far side of the wire from the laser they now "illuminate" the double slits. Look at the boxcar function above and what has happened is the boxcar has been split down the center to make two "touching boxcars"... each of which result in one entangled photon of a pair at twice the wavelength and half the temporal overlap. As I have said previously these are like interlocked rings as far as their field lines go. These photons move through the space in which an interference pattern at twice the frequency (green frequency) is just "hanging there". These red entangled photons, each one occupies the space of two "green" fringes, and each alternate entangled photon is staggered by a half wavelength spatially from the next "twin". This is because each half of the original wider boxcar pulse has been split into a half width pulse which has partitioned the energy into two lower energy photons. These photon pairs can interfere with each other because they are correlated. They reach the slit and in that secondary Holographic source they remix synthesizing the older 351.1 nm frequency from two 702.2 nm photons using the holographic template of the wire as a "scaffolding". A transparent 351.1 nm hologram of the wire could also be place there but this is more interesting showing that real holograms in space are invisible (as always).
Figure 2a and 2b show the primary beam with an uninterrupted 352.2 nm interference pattern scanned by the detectors at S2 when the IF's, BBO Crystal and the prism are all "removed ", we have all seen this before. Fig 3a and Fig 3c indicate the focussed image without the prism removing the "green" image of the wire from near the slit. The first Fig 3a the "Hologram" falls slightly short of the slit and Fig 3b falls exactly on the bar between the slits being "out of the way" of the red photons and not participating in the red interference pattern.
Fig 3d (bottom right) shows a perfectly normal two slit diffraction pattern produced by red photons. Fig 3b shows when the empty "hologram" produced by the wire falls in the way of the red photons just as they "mix" and redistribute at the "slit source". Compare 2b with 3b and you will see the remarkable effect where the interference pattern changes from a red pattern in Fig 3d to a green pattern in Fig 3b simply by shifting the focus off the "card" into the immediate space in front of the slit where the red "correlated" photons at 702.2 nm are forced to mix in the slit region as a secondary source with the "empty standing waves" of the wire source at 351.1 nm. Capisci?
Interpretation: Photons normally only mix with themselves but there are exceptions.. such as these entangled correlated photons. Note that they have a special phase relationship to each other. This happens because the photons are undergoing energy and momentum changes due to the slits so it is analogous to photon being "absorbed" but in the case of slits we actually see what will happen to these "interior processes" when they go on to form interference patterns on a screen.
Cheers
Regarding your reference to "impulses" their propagation and to "cavities" and not treating them at one and the same time is complex. If light propagates through space and interferes with itself (creating cavities in three dimensions and fringes in two dimensions) on (and through) the emulsion of a photographic plate, and these fringes are captured by developing them, then without an illuminating beam to give form to this "image" nothing appears to be there. If I illuminate this hologram (which is not a real hologram but a kind of template formed from the real hologram, that are the original standing waves in the space inside the emulsion), I can reconstruct the object as a fully three dimensional "source". In the real Universe both exist... the Hologram and the image as a source. The presence of "material" arranged in space (like the photographic plate with fringes) or of any physical objects, can act as diffraction elements to construct "sources" and "images" from a physical "template" which behaves holographically. In nature slits, holes are places where holograms can influence the light waves to act as complex sources but I could equally focus a real image into the empty space using a lens. This arrangement using a couple of lenses, a laser and a "template" can be used to create a free standing hologram in the image plane.
As to why the Kennedy-Thorndyke Interferometer seems to rule out the idea of a photon interfering with itself I would try and stress that the interference is not with the instrument it is within the wave packet itself so it is related to the internal Topology of the individual packets and not to "paths" as you so like to refer to ... Just think of it like this illustration I have used previously (above)..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=177115
There you will see how (with commentary) it is the relative internal phase relationships that cause the packets to phase add and phase cancel not actually due to "travel". The packet internal "fiber bundles" (not rays) all "flex" relative to each other just like when you bend a very thick sheathed wire cable containing hundreds of strands of parallel wires... they move relative to each other but retain their intrinsic "length"... and light is "very flexible". Imagine that you could take this "phase bundle" and move it around in space and note the physical positions of each fiber... at times the fiber signals all cancel at certain places in space and at others the fibers all sum at different points in space. You then need a plot that shows what this "phase bundle "does throughout all space ... including our entire Universe at all times and places. A single photon can only fill some of these positions at any instant and this is at the forefront of an advancing wave.
The KT Interferometer connects paths in different arms of the instrument, actually what you are trying to do is to ask the "which path question" which says if you do ask it you have reduced the photon to a "billiard ball" which can only travel one path. Don't ask this question and the photon can still interact as a qubit and the waves travel everywhere until they strike the screen and form an interference pattern. What you are trying to say is the photon may be exceedingly long compared with the instrument. It is possible (as discussed below)... it is not very likely that a photon from a very different wavefront can interfere with a photon that originated from its past or its future, since when it was created the influence of such events does not seem to me to be able to have an effect on a photon that is "timeless". These photons cross in the night oblivious to each others existence and have no way to exchange any energy process. It may be possible if the photons passed through a secondary source (or slit) while they were correlated or they became correlated during this process of passing through a slit or passing a beamsplitter. I would like to resolve this point but I don't entirely see how. What I will do is something "close".
Lets look at the problem of the shape and duration of a wave packet of a single photon. For light (and not other particles) the component frequencies which include the fundamental frequencies and other internal higher frequencies which define the packet are fixed during the period of propagation relative to each other. This is because of relativity and the propagation of light on the wall of the light cone. Any packet shape changes and internal packet "dynamics" can only occur either during the emission process or during the absorption process. At all other times during propagation, aside from "spreading" with the Inverse Square Law (ISL) "nothing is happening". We have the equation E=hf which fixes the energy and the frequency of a single packet of light to a fixed quantity of energy. Lets think about how much this energy depends on this event. An Impulse is "similar to" a square pulse of some finite height (energy) and width (time) making a total "product" ΔEΔT => h/2Π
Notice the equation suggests this product is actually greater than this strict product... only in the limiting case could it possibly "equal" h/2Π. So the photon usually carries more energy than h/2Π. What is the difference in this product? At a particular frequency the packet contains many more higher frequencies at multiples of the fundamental frequency... maybe even an infinity of them each adding to the wave form's packet shape at the moment of creation that once it is "launched" as a propagating wave, at the speed of light, it is "frozen in" until the packet is in the process of "assimilation" at the sink.
The units of Planck's Constant are units of "action" in some locales.
It is a rate of exchange of energy. Now lets look at this impulse as a time function...
This is sometimes called the "boxcar function" this is because the area under the curve is the uncertainty relationship of Heisenberg... ΔEΔT. The Fourier transform of this "ideal function" is an infinite ensemble of sinusoidal components which would repeat periodically if extended to plus and minus infinity in time. What we know is the fundamental frequency of this "boxcar" is strictly defined by its period ΔT. The fundamental frequency of the "envelope" of this function in the frequency is 1/ΔT... a frequency. A different shaped "boxcar" with the exactly same area under the curve (ΔEΔT) has a totally different fundamental frequency because that is the way Fourier transforms work. Also we know for light and other quantum phenomena E=hf. There is only one energy for a photon at one frequency... this is the way the universe responds to impulsive energy is in an impulse response. This "response" is the wave packet which in its simplest form is the Fourier transform. They complement each other and form a dual.
This is all very "simple" but suddenly we have a problem... what might happen if instead of a sudden short "impulse" the "packet" envelope extended for thousands of "cycles" in the direction of propagation and the impulse (ΔEΔT) is spread not in a single cycle (or wavelength) but over thousands of cycles (wavelengths) at the fundamental frequency, but at such a very low peak level that it almost vanishes... the energy evenly distributed between all those peaks and troughs at the fundamental frequency over a vast time? This looks like a single photon of a single wavelength or frequency may even persist over "hours"
while it is traveling between source and sink? For a particular photon of a particular wavelength or frequency this will never happen because once it has been emitted its "envelope" is frozen relative to all the internal frequencies (group velocity = speed of light) and the internal component phase velocities also equal the speed of light for light. Since they all have the velocity of the speed of light they do not have any opportunity to "rearrange" the internal energy as particles can do.... like electrons for instance.However at the moment of emission in the evanescent region near the source of the emerging packet, before it becomes a propagating wave, a number of things can happen... the energy can rearrange from the straight impulse it can accept Orbital Angular Momentum and transverse momentum interchanges. This may also distribute the energy of that one packet longitudinally in the spatial propagating direction. While the "pulse" was initially very confined now it may take on other dynamics depending on the geometry of the source. In order for a photon to be absorbed at the sink the entire photon must still be absorbed over a long period of that multi-cycle photon as it arrives or alternatively it will be mismatched with the sink and cannot be absorbed at all. At the sink "perhaps" the electron "spirals" up to the next energy level over a period of time instead of "quantum leaps" soaking up this incremental photon. This would need to match the source's mode of emission in some way or alternatively when the photon is completely absorbed at the E=hf frequency, there is some energy left over of spin momentum or transverse momentum that may materially affect the sink atom in some way. These have been formally described as "virtual photon" processes.
QUOTE
Virtual photons
The electron and nucleon interact by the electromagnetic force, the carrier of this is the virtual photon as has different properties to ordinary photons. Take for example two electrons. These repel each other due to the electromagnetic force, we say that there is a mediator or exchange particle which is transferred between them, the photon. If one imagines two ice skaters facing each other and one throws a ball to the other person both skaters will move apart, just as two electrons would repel each other.
When delving inside the proton (or neutron) it is not the electron which actually 'probes' the nucleon but the photon. An electron gives some of its energy (and so loses some of its momentum) to the photon. The more momentum which is transferred to the photon, the more energy it has and so the shorter the wavelength of the photon. One can imagine that a longer wavelength photon will only 'see' the whole nucleon and so be elastically scattered, but for shorter wavelength photons it can 'see' the constituents of the nucleon, the quarks inside. This is why physicists want to build larger and larger accelerators, so that they can see more and more of the structure of particles.
Virtual Photons
The electron and nucleon interact by the electromagnetic force, the carrier of this is the virtual photon as has different properties to ordinary photons. Take for example two electrons. These repel each other due to the electromagnetic force, we say that there is a mediator or exchange particle which is transferred between them, the photon. If one imagines two ice skaters facing each other and one throws a ball to the other person both skaters will move apart, just as two electrons would repel each other.
When delving inside the proton (or neutron) it is not the electron which actually 'probes' the nucleon but the photon. An electron gives some of its energy (and so loses some of its momentum) to the photon. The more momentum which is transferred to the photon, the more energy it has and so the shorter the wavelength of the photon. One can imagine that a longer wavelength photon will only 'see' the whole nucleon and so be elastically scattered, but for shorter wavelength photons it can 'see' the constituents of the nucleon, the quarks inside. This is why physicists want to build larger and larger accelerators, so that they can see more and more of the structure of particles.
Virtual Photons
Some Frequently Asked Questions About Virtual Particles
Clearly virtual photons are very dependent on phase and their "interactions" are strongly related to source and sink processes and are not related to propagation phenomena.
So now we have some rather "odd looking photons" that still contain only one quanta of energy at the E=hf frequency but require "time" to be absorbed or emitted and these added "modes" result in redistribution of the energy and spin within the packet. The packet in the evanescent regions will have dynamic properties. This will also happen when for instance a plane wave of photons meet up with a pinhole or slit and the momentum is internally redistributed due to the slits action of being a secondary source. The process is explained in a very simple way here but a more complex treatment would lead to the science of singular optics as we have recently discussed.
Optical Analog of Uncertainty Principle
We see the slit or the secondary source redistributing the linear momentum as transverse momentum. So when the is absorbed from its packet there may be some of that high frequency energy in excess or the momentum may be distributed in unusual ways or the energy may be spread out not only spatially like this...
Transverse modes are classified into different types:
* TE modes (Transverse Electric) have no electric field in the direction of propagation.
* TM modes (Transverse Magnetic) have no magnetic field in the direction of propagation.
* TEM modes (Transverse ElectroMagnetic) have no electric nor magnetic field in the direction of propagation.
* Hybrid modes are those which have both electric and magnetic field components in the direction of propagation.
Wikipedia:Transverse Modes
but may be spread out in various longitudinal modes...
Wikipedia: Longitudinal Modes
These modes have direct bearing on Young's Double Slit Experiment and to other variants of the experiment.
The next important point is the way in which this surplus energy can be reused by "up conversion" of these small bits of energy on the one wavefront into whole packets or quanta at a "secondary source". Here is a classic example of a case in which strongly correlated photons can be used to "reconstruct" a high frequency "source" from some low frequency left over energy from BBO Down Conversion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Virtual photons The electron and nucleon interact by the electromagnetic force, the carrier of this is the virtual photon as has different properties to ordinary photons. Take for example two electrons. These repel each other due to the electromagnetic force, we say that there is a mediator or exchange particle which is transferred between them, the photon. If one imagines two ice skaters facing each other and one throws a ball to the other person both skaters will move apart, just as two electrons would repel each other. When delving inside the proton (or neutron) it is not the electron which actually 'probes' the nucleon but the photon. An electron gives some of its energy (and so loses some of its momentum) to the photon. The more momentum which is transferred to the photon, the more energy it has and so the shorter the wavelength of the photon. One can imagine that a longer wavelength photon will only 'see' the whole nucleon and so be elastically scattered, but for shorter wavelength photons it can 'see' the constituents of the nucleon, the quarks inside. This is why physicists want to build larger and larger accelerators, so that they can see more and more of the structure of particles. Virtual Photons |
Some Frequently Asked Questions About Virtual Particles
Clearly virtual photons are very dependent on phase and their "interactions" are strongly related to source and sink processes and are not related to propagation phenomena.
So now we have some rather "odd looking photons" that still contain only one quanta of energy at the E=hf frequency but require "time" to be absorbed or emitted and these added "modes" result in redistribution of the energy and spin within the packet. The packet in the evanescent regions will have dynamic properties. This will also happen when for instance a plane wave of photons meet up with a pinhole or slit and the momentum is internally redistributed due to the slits action of being a secondary source. The process is explained in a very simple way here but a more complex treatment would lead to the science of singular optics as we have recently discussed.
Optical Analog of Uncertainty Principle
We see the slit or the secondary source redistributing the linear momentum as transverse momentum. So when the is absorbed from its packet there may be some of that high frequency energy in excess or the momentum may be distributed in unusual ways or the energy may be spread out not only spatially like this...
Transverse modes are classified into different types:
* TE modes (Transverse Electric) have no electric field in the direction of propagation.
* TM modes (Transverse Magnetic) have no magnetic field in the direction of propagation.
* TEM modes (Transverse ElectroMagnetic) have no electric nor magnetic field in the direction of propagation.
* Hybrid modes are those which have both electric and magnetic field components in the direction of propagation.
Wikipedia:Transverse Modes
but may be spread out in various longitudinal modes...
Wikipedia: Longitudinal Modes
These modes have direct bearing on Young's Double Slit Experiment and to other variants of the experiment.
The next important point is the way in which this surplus energy can be reused by "up conversion" of these small bits of energy on the one wavefront into whole packets or quanta at a "secondary source". Here is a classic example of a case in which strongly correlated photons can be used to "reconstruct" a high frequency "source" from some low frequency left over energy from BBO Down Conversion.
Measurement of the de Broglie Wavelength of a Multiphoton Wave Packet
E. J. S. Fonseca, C. H. Monken, and S. Pádua*
Departamento de Fý´sica, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Caixa Postal 702, 30123-970 Belo Horizonte MG, Brazil
(Received 23 March 1998)
A fourth-order Young interference experiment was done to demonstrate a practical way to measure the de Broglie wavelength of a two-photon wave packet. A two-photon collinear beam is generated by type-II spontaneous parametric down-conversion. By modifying the transverse field profile of the pump laser beam that generates the two-photon beam we demonstrate that it is possible to measure the de Broglie wavelength of the single-photon constituents of the two-photon wave packet, the de Broglie wavelength of the two-photon wave packet as a whole and an ill defined intermediate de Broglie wavelength between the two cases. [S0031-9007(99)08826-2]
Measurement of the de Broglie Wavelength of a Multiphoton Wave Packet
Here we are able to distinguish the de Broglie wavepacket for a pair of entangled photons of light from the individual wavepackets of each photon. I realize this will give you a headache following this argument and you have a choice here of using my analysis which I think is more "transparent" or you can accept the far more convoluted argument proposed by the authors. Either way it is not easy but I promise you will find this very instructive about the "inner nature" of photons.
My explanation will follow the figures in the paper but take a "Holographic" Constructional approach to the problem. First read the paper to understand the experimental setup.
Referring to figure 1: We note that S1 is Young's standard classic double slit and S2 is a "scanning" single slit that is used by the two photon detector. The two photon detector can be used to "sort" two photon interference patterns from one photon interference patterns. The laser is a "classic" 351.1 nm "green" laser which impinges in the birefringent "clear" block of BBO down conversion crystal cut such that both entangled photons exit along the same path. Between the laser and the crystal is a single "wire" and a lens whose focal length is such that the wire has a real image focussed smack between the two slits S1. We can adjust the distance to the slits such that the focal point falls slightly short of the slits or it can actually produce an exact image on the "bar" between the slits in perfect focus.
There is a "gotcha"... between the crystal and S1 is a prism which can "sort" the BBO down converted "red" photons from the "green" laser primary beam. The photons that are still "green" and not down converted are shunted into a "brick wall" where they are all lost. Only the "red" photons still continue on to fall upon the S1 double slit. What this means since the image of the wire is entirely due to "green" photons in the original beam then the real image on or near the slits have no component green photons to illuminate it... right... What is there are only red photons. So what is the purpose of this "image" that has no light cast to see it in its original wavelength? It is there to supply the fringes in space ... the Hologram devoid of light as a "shell" built of 351.1 nm fringes or standing wave cavities. What happened to the green photons that make the red photons? they had their wavelengths doubled to 702.2 nm and now since they were not filtered out and were "created" on the far side of the wire from the laser they now "illuminate" the double slits. Look at the boxcar function above and what has happened is the boxcar has been split down the center to make two "touching boxcars"... each of which result in one entangled photon of a pair at twice the wavelength and half the temporal overlap. As I have said previously these are like interlocked rings as far as their field lines go. These photons move through the space in which an interference pattern at twice the frequency (green frequency) is just "hanging there". These red entangled photons, each one occupies the space of two "green" fringes, and each alternate entangled photon is staggered by a half wavelength spatially from the next "twin". This is because each half of the original wider boxcar pulse has been split into a half width pulse which has partitioned the energy into two lower energy photons. These photon pairs can interfere with each other because they are correlated. They reach the slit and in that secondary Holographic source they remix synthesizing the older 351.1 nm frequency from two 702.2 nm photons using the holographic template of the wire as a "scaffolding". A transparent 351.1 nm hologram of the wire could also be place there but this is more interesting showing that real holograms in space are invisible (as always).
Figure 2a and 2b show the primary beam with an uninterrupted 352.2 nm interference pattern scanned by the detectors at S2 when the IF's, BBO Crystal and the prism are all "removed ", we have all seen this before. Fig 3a and Fig 3c indicate the focussed image without the prism removing the "green" image of the wire from near the slit. The first Fig 3a the "Hologram" falls slightly short of the slit and Fig 3b falls exactly on the bar between the slits being "out of the way" of the red photons and not participating in the red interference pattern.
Fig 3d (bottom right) shows a perfectly normal two slit diffraction pattern produced by red photons. Fig 3b shows when the empty "hologram" produced by the wire falls in the way of the red photons just as they "mix" and redistribute at the "slit source". Compare 2b with 3b and you will see the remarkable effect where the interference pattern changes from a red pattern in Fig 3d to a green pattern in Fig 3b simply by shifting the focus off the "card" into the immediate space in front of the slit where the red "correlated" photons at 702.2 nm are forced to mix in the slit region as a secondary source with the "empty standing waves" of the wire source at 351.1 nm. Capisci?
Interpretation: Photons normally only mix with themselves but there are exceptions.. such as these entangled correlated photons. Note that they have a special phase relationship to each other. This happens because the photons are undergoing energy and momentum changes due to the slits so it is analogous to photon being "absorbed" but in the case of slits we actually see what will happen to these "interior processes" when they go on to form interference patterns on a screen.
Cheers
"what might happen if instead of a sudden short "impulse" the "packet" envelope extended for thousands of "cycles" in the direction of propagation and the impulse (ΔEΔT) is spread not in a single cycle (or wavelength) but over thousands of cycles (wavelengths) at the fundamental frequency, but at such a very low peak level that it almost vanishes..."
Em can you explain exactly what are you talking about ?
Is it photons ? then they are supposed to be quantified (light quantas), or ?
Or are you talking in form of 'diffuse' wawes ?
I think i got lost there ;)
But what is light really, well really and reality don't seem to mix.. really ?
Awh it's to late for me to be serious..
But i believe in your thoughts man, to me (what i can get, at least ;) they point in the right direction. The only thing i might get semantic about is 'holographic'. I have this feeling. Yeah i know, it's me and Barry Manilow, that it's more than that. What you're trying to describe is a reality, and for me 'holographic' is just a new 'force' if you get what i mean. It's sounds like a wide description but in fact i find it restricting.
Sorry guys, i think i should hit the sack..
It's soon five in the morning here ;)
I'll read it better tomorrow ..
PS: ha, i think i found out how to turn of those yellow perils ;)
Em can you explain exactly what are you talking about ?
Is it photons ? then they are supposed to be quantified (light quantas), or ?
Or are you talking in form of 'diffuse' wawes ?
I think i got lost there ;)
But what is light really, well really and reality don't seem to mix.. really ?
Awh it's to late for me to be serious..
But i believe in your thoughts man, to me (what i can get, at least ;) they point in the right direction. The only thing i might get semantic about is 'holographic'. I have this feeling. Yeah i know, it's me and Barry Manilow, that it's more than that. What you're trying to describe is a reality, and for me 'holographic' is just a new 'force' if you get what i mean. It's sounds like a wide description but in fact i find it restricting.
Sorry guys, i think i should hit the sack..
It's soon five in the morning here ;)
I'll read it better tomorrow ..
PS: ha, i think i found out how to turn of those yellow perils ;)
Hi yor_on, Confused2, Laserlight et al,
QUOTE (yor_on+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
"what might happen if instead of a sudden short "impulse" the "packet" envelope extended for thousands of "cycles" in the direction of propagation and the impulse (ΔEΔT) is spread not in a single cycle (or wavelength) but over thousands of cycles (wavelengths) at the fundamental frequency, but at such a very low peak level that it almost vanishes..."
Em can you explain exactly what are you talking about ? Is it photons ? then they are supposed to be quantified, or ? Or are you talking in form of 'diffuse' waves ?
Em can you explain exactly what are you talking about ? Is it photons ? then they are supposed to be quantified, or ? Or are you talking in form of 'diffuse' waves ?
It was addressing the problem that Confused2 was inquiring about where we have the Kennedy-Thorndike Interferometer Experiment which is almost identical to the Michelson-Morley Interferometer Experiment except the arms are wildly different in length. The premiss is if photons interfere with themselves then if the arms of the interferometer were vastly different then the paths of the individual packets could not cross themselves and thus self interfere. We know from other experimental work that individual photons do in fact build up interference patterns even if the time between individual photons passing through the instrument is "hours" ... well sort of ... at least we can be sure that only one photon at a time is inside the interferometer by simply blocking the light almost off so the "flux" is really small. This means that the simplistic assumption that waves need to physically "cross" to interfere is not tenable. The individual photons can still be counted with a photon counter even if only one is hitting the detector. Also the detector can determine exactly where, as if a pinprick, just where each photon hits one at a time on a screen.
The resolution is it has nothing to do with actual photons traveling specific paths, in particular two separate paths, it is a phenomenon that is entirely internal to the single photon. As I mentioned it is as though there are fibers inside the wave packet whose length and relative phase determines if the fibers cancel in pairs or reinforce in pairs at any specific position in space. Of course in these Double Slit experiments we are only concerned with the summing or cancellation at the screen but in fact every other point inside the "cavity" is subject to standing waves which are adding or subtracting totally unseen.
In the case in question it is possible to "smear" a packet out in principle over many basic wavelengths such that the wave packet envelope is no longer a maximum compact pulse (remember it must start that way) but the internal energy is redistributed over many dozens or hundreds of cycles during the evanescent phase near to the source. This would have to be a process that occur at or near the sources or at least secondary sources such as at slits or pinholes or other atoms. Think of a photon emitted from the sun may have some problem escaping from the interior of the star and a packet may get "smeared". The packet would contain the same E=hf energy but it would be spread over many wavelengths.
According to Fourier Theory if the initial impulse had a perfect boxcar function and now the single packet still contains the original primary frequency, the energy is now spread out over several wavelengths with a much lower peak field strength but the E=hf energy is now in the form of not just one single sync pulse approximately one wavelength long it now "inhabits" maybe hundreds of cycles at the same frequency just at a much lower absolute peak amplitude. For something to actually absorb this frequency it would still need to absorb the entire wave over hundreds of wavelengths just to get that one photon (remember to absorb a photon of a particular frequency it is all or nothing).
It is possible that this particularly "long" photon may not be easily absorbed in a process similar to the one in which it was created so the absorption of this photon may occur at a frequency equivalent to the overall envelope of this high frequency low average energy density wave. This would be infrared energy envelope or as mechanical modes of energy such as causing the atom to spin or vibrate or "heat up". The photoelectric effect says that a wave must have a minimum frequency to be absorbed and eject an electron. If this energetic photon's energy is spread over a large radial distance the sink may not be able to absorb all of it for one reason or another. But to release the photon it must absorb this entire photon, so it would not eject that specific photon at the E=hf frequency. It can however absorb energy for a much longer wavelength photon using the higher frequency photon as a base. In this way the electron emitted would need to come from a metal with a much lower work function. Failing that it may produce heat or kinetic activity as rotation or vibration in the material.
As for Holography... it is not so difficult. It will be in all our computers in a couple of years with the Holographic Versatile Disk. A product has just been released this week with 300 GB of storage on one special "CD sized" blank. The storage is touted to rise to 1.6 TB within a year or so using the same blank. Bit expensive at the moment but the price will come down.
Here is a link to understanding the HVD and Holography in general.
http://broadcastengineering.com/digital_ha...rage/index.html
http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/optics421/mo...5/Coherence.htm
I would also note that any sync function have "tails" that can extend to infinity in both directions that usually we omit to draw because the amplitudes are too small to show. These "theoretically" go on forever.... it is possible that on passing through a source these "tails" may pick up a considerable redistribution of average energy at the expense of the central "spike".
Cheers
... well sort of ... at least we can be sure that only one photon at a time is inside the interferometer by simply blocking the light almost off so the "flux" is really small. This means that the simplistic assumption that waves need to physically "cross" to interfere is not tenable. The individual photons can still be counted with a photon counter even if only one is hitting the detector. Also the detector can determine exactly where, as if a pinprick, just where each photon hits one at a time on a screen.The resolution is it has nothing to do with actual photons traveling specific paths, in particular two separate paths, it is a phenomenon that is entirely internal to the single photon. As I mentioned it is as though there are fibers inside the wave packet whose length and relative phase determines if the fibers cancel in pairs or reinforce in pairs at any specific position in space. Of course in these Double Slit experiments we are only concerned with the summing or cancellation at the screen but in fact every other point inside the "cavity" is subject to standing waves which are adding or subtracting totally unseen.
In the case in question it is possible to "smear" a packet out in principle over many basic wavelengths such that the wave packet envelope is no longer a maximum compact pulse (remember it must start that way) but the internal energy is redistributed over many dozens or hundreds of cycles during the evanescent phase near to the source. This would have to be a process that occur at or near the sources or at least secondary sources such as at slits or pinholes or other atoms. Think of a photon emitted from the sun may have some problem escaping from the interior of the star and a packet may get "smeared". The packet would contain the same E=hf energy but it would be spread over many wavelengths.
According to Fourier Theory if the initial impulse had a perfect boxcar function and now the single packet still contains the original primary frequency, the energy is now spread out over several wavelengths with a much lower peak field strength but the E=hf energy is now in the form of not just one single sync pulse approximately one wavelength long it now "inhabits" maybe hundreds of cycles at the same frequency just at a much lower absolute peak amplitude. For something to actually absorb this frequency it would still need to absorb the entire wave over hundreds of wavelengths just to get that one photon (remember to absorb a photon of a particular frequency it is all or nothing).
It is possible that this particularly "long" photon may not be easily absorbed in a process similar to the one in which it was created so the absorption of this photon may occur at a frequency equivalent to the overall envelope of this high frequency low average energy density wave. This would be infrared energy envelope or as mechanical modes of energy such as causing the atom to spin or vibrate or "heat up". The photoelectric effect says that a wave must have a minimum frequency to be absorbed and eject an electron. If this energetic photon's energy is spread over a large radial distance the sink may not be able to absorb all of it for one reason or another. But to release the photon it must absorb this entire photon, so it would not eject that specific photon at the E=hf frequency. It can however absorb energy for a much longer wavelength photon using the higher frequency photon as a base. In this way the electron emitted would need to come from a metal with a much lower work function. Failing that it may produce heat or kinetic activity as rotation or vibration in the material.
As for Holography... it is not so difficult. It will be in all our computers in a couple of years with the Holographic Versatile Disk. A product has just been released this week with 300 GB of storage on one special "CD sized" blank. The storage is touted to rise to 1.6 TB within a year or so using the same blank. Bit expensive at the moment but the price will come down.
Here is a link to understanding the HVD and Holography in general.
http://broadcastengineering.com/digital_ha...rage/index.html
http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/optics421/mo...5/Coherence.htm
I would also note that any sync function have "tails" that can extend to infinity in both directions that usually we omit to draw because the amplitudes are too small to show. These "theoretically" go on forever.... it is possible that on passing through a source these "tails" may pick up a considerable redistribution of average energy at the expense of the central "spike".
Cheers
I should sleep but this is such lovely thoughts ;)
Ah ok, that somewhat the same as the identical spins over vast distances right. Now? You're not thinking of something alike one dimensional strings binding them together, are you? How can one photon contain several wavelengths.
And if it did the wavelengths would have to be infinitesimally small/fast or? i mean if we are talking about 'containers' photon-packets ;) that in themselves vibrate.
Or are you using some kind of dual concept? Still that wouldn't be any problem if they only were the 'focal points' of something else, then those waves would be allowed to behave as if they were of a total different 'wavelength', as it only would be a localized phenomena for us but not necessarily for the 'photons', and that would be true for both concepts i think. As they not (and here it comes;) r e a l l y would be totally there, somewhat like me I'm afraid.
So those "smeared" photons would behave in a more 'hard-melted' way right. sounds reasonable. you know sometimes i get this 'B M' feeling that the way to treat whatever kind of particles/photons (massless) etc, is to see them as constrained bubbles, or better still, as 'bends' in space time. And what's inside those bubbles are something that is very difficult to describe as it may not belong in our universe at all, even though it seems to create us. And that would also explain how object can touch each other over vast distances, as those distances don't exist for 'that' which make the 'bends' in our spacetime.
Yeah i know, Beam me up Scott ;)
You know, the last ten years I've been waitin for those crystals IBM was rumored to have made, it was said that they could store three/thirty? terrabyte inside them. They just couldn't solve how to make them RW-able if i remember it right. Goggle on it, it's as true as those who wrote it ;)- But my idea there was that with that and laser we could finally get a logic system wih very few (macroscopically speaking, that is) moving parts. We could emulate a OS with boolean logic and change our cmptas PS/MAC/LINUX as girls change their dresses ;) just by connecting those crystals to some other computers, and then we would use intersecting lasers for painting three dimensional pictures in the air. It would probably lead to a lot of stumbling ;)
ah well, can't help it.
Hey keep it up guys.
And thanks for the explanation EM-
Ah ok, that somewhat the same as the identical spins over vast distances right. Now? You're not thinking of something alike one dimensional strings binding them together, are you? How can one photon contain several wavelengths.
And if it did the wavelengths would have to be infinitesimally small/fast or? i mean if we are talking about 'containers' photon-packets ;) that in themselves vibrate.
Or are you using some kind of dual concept? Still that wouldn't be any problem if they only were the 'focal points' of something else, then those waves would be allowed to behave as if they were of a total different 'wavelength', as it only would be a localized phenomena for us but not necessarily for the 'photons', and that would be true for both concepts i think. As they not (and here it comes;) r e a l l y would be totally there, somewhat like me I'm afraid.
So those "smeared" photons would behave in a more 'hard-melted' way right. sounds reasonable. you know sometimes i get this 'B M' feeling that the way to treat whatever kind of particles/photons (massless) etc, is to see them as constrained bubbles, or better still, as 'bends' in space time. And what's inside those bubbles are something that is very difficult to describe as it may not belong in our universe at all, even though it seems to create us. And that would also explain how object can touch each other over vast distances, as those distances don't exist for 'that' which make the 'bends' in our spacetime.
Yeah i know, Beam me up Scott ;)
You know, the last ten years I've been waitin for those crystals IBM was rumored to have made, it was said that they could store three/thirty? terrabyte inside them. They just couldn't solve how to make them RW-able if i remember it right. Goggle on it, it's as true as those who wrote it ;)- But my idea there was that with that and laser we could finally get a logic system wih very few (macroscopically speaking, that is) moving parts. We could emulate a OS with boolean logic and change our cmptas PS/MAC/LINUX as girls change their dresses ;) just by connecting those crystals to some other computers, and then we would use intersecting lasers for painting three dimensional pictures in the air. It would probably lead to a lot of stumbling ;)
ah well, can't help it.
Hey keep it up guys.
And thanks for the explanation EM-
Hi yor_on, Confused2, Laserlight et al,
QUOTE (yor_on+)
How can one photon contain several wavelengths.
And if it did the wavelengths would have to be infinitesimally small/fast or? i mean if we are talking about 'containers' photon-packets that in themselves vibrate.
And if it did the wavelengths would have to be infinitesimally small/fast or? i mean if we are talking about 'containers' photon-packets
that in themselves vibrate.The composition of a wave packet is more like a "fuzzy ball of spreading energy". The way they can be considered as the superposition of a number of component wavelets as in Fourier theory.
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/F...er/Fourier.html
To get an idea run this applet and see what you get when you choose a simple function like a square wave and push the number of components to one component and see that it is a simple sine wave . With two components you get two sine waves synthesis at the basic frequency and twice the frequency... each time you add extra components the closer you approach the perfect synthesis of the chosen wave shape. Any wave shape can be synthesized with enough Fourier components. You can "sculpt" this basic wave shape with your mouse. Here is a page of fourier applets which may be instructive and help in the understanding.
http://www.educypedia.be/electronics/javafourier.htm
Here is one treatment of wave packets as a decomposition into its fourier components...
Derivation of the group velocity of a wave packet using Fourier transforms
For instance EM waves are a regimented "army" of photons that can "associate" with each other to create a continuous "Mexican Wave" as it were.
Here is a two dimensional representation of what it might look like only photons can all be in the same place at the same time unlike "atomic particles".
... Click to enlarge...
Here is seven simple photons joined together on successive wavefronts to make 3 1/2 wavelengths of Continuous wave... all the little bits in between get added into the wave to make a seamless continuous entity with just a little "untidiness" at the beginning and at the end of the wave train. When they interact they just unhitch themselves from the "boson wave" and are absorbed as if they were the only photon there.
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/F...er/Fourier.html
To get an idea run this applet and see what you get when you choose a simple function like a square wave and push the number of components to one component and see that it is a simple sine wave . With two components you get two sine waves synthesis at the basic frequency and twice the frequency... each time you add extra components the closer you approach the perfect synthesis of the chosen wave shape. Any wave shape can be synthesized with enough Fourier components. You can "sculpt" this basic wave shape with your mouse. Here is a page of fourier applets which may be instructive and help in the understanding.
http://www.educypedia.be/electronics/javafourier.htm
Here is one treatment of wave packets as a decomposition into its fourier components...
Derivation of the group velocity of a wave packet using Fourier transforms
For instance EM waves are a regimented "army" of photons that can "associate" with each other to create a continuous "Mexican Wave" as it were.
Here is a two dimensional representation of what it might look like only photons can all be in the same place at the same time unlike "atomic particles".
... Click to enlarge...
Here is seven simple photons joined together on successive wavefronts to make 3 1/2 wavelengths of Continuous wave... all the little bits in between get added into the wave to make a seamless continuous entity with just a little "untidiness" at the beginning and at the end of the wave train. When they interact they just unhitch themselves from the "boson wave" and are absorbed as if they were the only photon there.
The wavepacket model of a photon has been around for many years.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
The resolution [ of the Kennedy Thorndike experiment ] is it has nothing to do with actual photons traveling specific paths, in particular two separate paths, it is a phenomenon that is entirely internal to the single photon. As I mentioned it is as though there are fibers inside the wave packet whose length and relative phase determines if the fibers cancel in pairs or reinforce in pairs at any specific position in space.
To explain the Kennedy Thorndike result the wavepacket would seem to have developed a pair of fibers.
To explain the Kennedy Thorndike result the wavepacket would seem to have developed a pair of fibers.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
According to Fourier Theory if the initial impulse had a perfect boxcar function and now the single packet still contains the original primary frequency, the energy is now spread out over several wavelengths with a much lower peak field strength but the E=hf energy is now in the form of not just one single sync pulse approximately one wavelength long it now "inhabits" maybe hundreds of cycles at the same frequency just at a much lower absolute peak amplitude. For something to actually absorb this frequency it would still need to absorb the entire wave over hundreds of wavelengths just to get that one photon (remember to absorb a photon of a particular frequency it is all or nothing).
It is possible that this particularly "long" photon may not be easily absorbed in a process similar to the one in which it was created so the absorption of this photon may occur at a frequency equivalent to the overall envelope of this high frequency low average energy density wave. This would be infrared energy envelope or as mechanical modes of energy such as causing the atom to spin or vibrate or "heat up".
I know of no change of frequency in the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment :- like the DSE it effectively measures both the frequency and phase of the 'wave' to great accuracy and as far as I know nothing unusual has ever been reported. Do you have any evidence to support your 'energy loss' suggestion?
The type of wavepacket that reads and writes holograms must be even more complicated .. it must have many 'fibers' (a near infinite number) and it must also be extremely 'long'. As the number of 'fibers' and the 'length' approach infinity then surely - the wavepacket ceases to look like a wavepacket.
We may have failed with the DSE but by considering experiments that take results of the DSE to more extreme limits perhaps we might see why Feynman's 'Sum over paths' is so powerful and why it might (?) give the right answer every time.
Best wishes,
-C2.
It is possible that this particularly "long" photon may not be easily absorbed in a process similar to the one in which it was created so the absorption of this photon may occur at a frequency equivalent to the overall envelope of this high frequency low average energy density wave. This would be infrared energy envelope or as mechanical modes of energy such as causing the atom to spin or vibrate or "heat up".
I know of no change of frequency in the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment :- like the DSE it effectively measures both the frequency and phase of the 'wave' to great accuracy and as far as I know nothing unusual has ever been reported. Do you have any evidence to support your 'energy loss' suggestion?
The type of wavepacket that reads and writes holograms must be even more complicated .. it must have many 'fibers' (a near infinite number) and it must also be extremely 'long'. As the number of 'fibers' and the 'length' approach infinity then surely - the wavepacket ceases to look like a wavepacket.
We may have failed with the DSE but by considering experiments that take results of the DSE to more extreme limits perhaps we might see why Feynman's 'Sum over paths' is so powerful and why it might (?) give the right answer every time.
Best wishes,
-C2.
QUOTE (your_on+Feb 18 2007, 06:32 AM)
Em can you explain exactly what are you talking about?
GoodElf don't know about it with certainty. He's just blindly mixing different experiments. many concepts and intepretations together in the (futile) hope, somebody else will understand his vague babbling instead of him. For example, if the Prof. Feynman would be able to explain/interpret the two slit experiment by all these naive pictures and analogies, he wouldn't never said:
"..I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics..."
Frankly, I don't think, Mr. GoodElf is more clever, then Feynman - the question is, what he's trying to do here, after then... You should realize, these old lonely guys are just using the PhysOrg forum as a social club, i.e. like the tool of personal self fulfillment and the filling of time and as such they're not really interested about logic, thus effectively prohibiting the other people to really understand the problems here.
GoodElf don't know about it with certainty. He's just blindly mixing different experiments. many concepts and intepretations together in the (futile) hope, somebody else will understand his vague babbling instead of him. For example, if the Prof. Feynman would be able to explain/interpret the two slit experiment by all these naive pictures and analogies, he wouldn't never said:
"..I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics..."
Frankly, I don't think, Mr. GoodElf is more clever, then Feynman - the question is, what he's trying to do here, after then...
You should realize, these old lonely guys are just using the PhysOrg forum as a social club, i.e. like the tool of personal self fulfillment and the filling of time and as such they're not really interested about logic, thus effectively prohibiting the other people to really understand the problems here.
EM , first of all, my knowledge of math are at best slight ;).
So symbolic math sort of leaves me on that plane where one confusedly looks around muttering under ones breath, "well yeeah, uh uh don't think so ". I like symbolic math though, it's like a different language and i wished... etc etc.
Om the other hand, when you create a theory you put up certain permutations/propositions right. Like creating a matrix of rules, and if you can prove the relevancy of those rules inside your matrix and how they will act, then that theory proves out. Right? Mathematically i mean. Weren't it one french guy who created a mathematical concept/proof of how parallel lines a l l w a y s will meet in the end (end of 1800?). And it was perfectly correct to, as far as I've read.
So for me math is a two edged sword in a way
If i get it right you're expecting those Fourier transformations to explain matter ?
Matter would be a special form of 'bounded and bound waves?' or am i totally out in the blue?
But where the heck will those waves come from? Are you superimposing dimensions that's creating those waves. In that case how many will you end up with? And those dimensions in it's turn, how are we going to get an inkling of what they are?
I love your idea though, if i understand it, it's a nice way of collecting 'wayward' experiments that points in different directions. But consider it this way then. To every force there seems to be a reaction. So if we have this wave transformations. what would be it's opposite. Like the absence of light as you place an object in it's path. Is it even possible to deduct something like that from the math you're using.
Because if you look at it as waves and i play with the idea of bubbles, then maybe mine bubbles would be the opposite of your waves ;). What if there only are one force under pressure, where the pressure points are, our universe gets created, and maybe more universes to (which would make it two forces? pressure and ..).The bubbles by the way would relate to your photons.
(And by the way, only a slightly reta.. would refer to thinking as something relating to age ;). You'll do it to you death boy, and be pleased with that. Because if you didn't, where would that leave you? So there may be different thoughts, and some of them may be lacking in maturity, still they all will have values. At least that's my opinion ;)
*** I'm to old for this ;)
So symbolic math sort of leaves me on that plane where one confusedly looks around muttering under ones breath, "well yeeah, uh uh don't think so ". I like symbolic math though, it's like a different language and i wished... etc etc.
Om the other hand, when you create a theory you put up certain permutations/propositions right. Like creating a matrix of rules, and if you can prove the relevancy of those rules inside your matrix and how they will act, then that theory proves out. Right? Mathematically i mean. Weren't it one french guy who created a mathematical concept/proof of how parallel lines a l l w a y s will meet in the end (end of 1800?). And it was perfectly correct to, as far as I've read.
So for me math is a two edged sword in a way
If i get it right you're expecting those Fourier transformations to explain matter ?
Matter would be a special form of 'bounded and bound waves?' or am i totally out in the blue?
But where the heck will those waves come from? Are you superimposing dimensions that's creating those waves. In that case how many will you end up with? And those dimensions in it's turn, how are we going to get an inkling of what they are?
I love your idea though, if i understand it, it's a nice way of collecting 'wayward' experiments that points in different directions. But consider it this way then. To every force there seems to be a reaction. So if we have this wave transformations. what would be it's opposite. Like the absence of light as you place an object in it's path. Is it even possible to deduct something like that from the math you're using.
Because if you look at it as waves and i play with the idea of bubbles, then maybe mine bubbles would be the opposite of your waves ;). What if there only are one force under pressure, where the pressure points are, our universe gets created, and maybe more universes to (which would make it two forces? pressure and ..).The bubbles by the way would relate to your photons.
(And by the way, only a slightly reta.. would refer to thinking as something relating to age ;). You'll do it to you death boy, and be pleased with that. Because if you didn't, where would that leave you? So there may be different thoughts, and some of them may be lacking in maturity, still they all will have values. At least that's my opinion ;)
*** I'm to old for this ;)
QUOTE (your_on+Feb 18 2007, 07:52 PM)
I get it right you're expecting those Fourier transformations to explain matter? Matter would be a special form of 'bounded and bound waves?' or am i totally out in the blue?
Nope, not at all. Just these Fourier transformations cannot explain the matter, the DSE the less. But this is not the problem of yours, but the author of this concept.
The bubble concept as such cannot explain the matter as well, but the concept of foam composed from such bubbles can. These bubbles aren't the opposite of waves, but the dense blobs of undulating foam can. Because the soap foam turns to become more dense after introducing of some energy (i.e. under the shaking in constrained volume), so it behaves exactly like the light in vacuum: it can generate the dense blobs of inertia, i.e. the matter "from nothing", just by organizing of chaotic motion of environment into surfaces constrained by geometry.
Nope, not at all. Just these Fourier transformations cannot explain the matter, the DSE the less. But this is not the problem of yours, but the author of this concept.
The bubble concept as such cannot explain the matter as well, but the concept of foam composed from such bubbles can. These bubbles aren't the opposite of waves, but the dense blobs of undulating foam can. Because the soap foam turns to become more dense after introducing of some energy (i.e. under the shaking in constrained volume), so it behaves exactly like the light in vacuum: it can generate the dense blobs of inertia, i.e. the matter "from nothing", just by organizing of chaotic motion of environment into surfaces constrained by geometry.
By the foam i understand you to refer to the 'fuzzy weave of possibilities' underlying our reality. Well maybe you're right ;). But for me I'm more into EM:s kind of universe.
For me the big question would be if we exists at all ;)
You can always use foam and if you like *many worlds theory' to explain our universe as one among a multitude, but i prefer it to be more ordered. Just a matter of opinion off course. But i stand in awe of symbolic math, mostly it's been used after experiments if you follow me (i know, when you have a finished theory you'll roll out your math to proof the wider concepts:). But correct me if I'm wrong here, hasn't string theory been the first to explain whats going on inside the event horizon of black holes?
And string theory as I've understood it speaks of one dimensional strings held under enormous pressure and vibrating (waves:)
And where does that speak about that primordial foam ;)
For me the big question would be if we exists at all ;)
You can always use foam and if you like *many worlds theory' to explain our universe as one among a multitude, but i prefer it to be more ordered. Just a matter of opinion off course. But i stand in awe of symbolic math, mostly it's been used after experiments if you follow me (i know, when you have a finished theory you'll roll out your math to proof the wider concepts:). But correct me if I'm wrong here, hasn't string theory been the first to explain whats going on inside the event horizon of black holes?
And string theory as I've understood it speaks of one dimensional strings held under enormous pressure and vibrating (waves:)
And where does that speak about that primordial foam ;)
Zephir,
I was going to stay out of this, but your "comments" force me to speak out.
1st, All theories, even yours, are compilations of other theories and scientific proofs. Einstein used the works of many of his contemporaries and predecessors
and compiled their work using his interpretations and modifications to construct
his theories. He used the work of the pioneers of physics who had done the
acutal experimentation and written their interpretations. Einstein tied it all together
using deductive and intuitive logic. You, GE, and everyone else posting here
is doing the same. Feynman, did experimentation but also used classical theories
and new QM and QED theories to reinterpret the results that he achieved, with
great success.
2nd, what makes you think that your theories are any more correct than those
of GE or others? Many of us on this board have been, and are, professionals
with many years of first hand experiences in the sciences and industry that
bring our advanced training and insight to this discussion. We don't always
agree, and despite our sometimes "heated" debates and conflicting interpretations
of what the evidence suggests, there is respect for the opinions of others.
You should learn from this, perhaps someone here will offer an insight, a clue,
that completes your "theory" or manages to change your interpretation and ideas.
Are you too proud and stubborn to learn from others? One of the benefits that
comes with age is real life experience and accumulated knowledge. Don't be
so quick to insult the interpretations and experience of others who are also seeking
the truth. I suspect that it lies somewhere between our collective interpretations
and just needs some single bit of insight to be finally exposed.
Regards,
LL
I was going to stay out of this, but your "comments" force me to speak out.
QUOTE
GoodElf don't know about it with certainty. He's just blindly mixing different experiments. many concepts and intepretations together in the (futile) hope, somebody else will understand his vague babbling instead of him. For example, if the Prof. Feynman would be able to explain/interpret the two slit experiment by all these naive pictures and analogies, he wouldn't never said:
"..I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics..."
Frankly, I don't think, Mr. GoodElf is more clever, then Feynman - the question is, what he's trying to do here, after then... You should realize, these old lonely guys are just using the PhysOrg forum as a social club, i.e. like the tool of personal self fulfillment and the filling of time and as such they're not really interested about logic, thus effectively prohibiting the other people to really understand the problems here.
"..I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics..."
Frankly, I don't think, Mr. GoodElf is more clever, then Feynman - the question is, what he's trying to do here, after then... You should realize, these old lonely guys are just using the PhysOrg forum as a social club, i.e. like the tool of personal self fulfillment and the filling of time and as such they're not really interested about logic, thus effectively prohibiting the other people to really understand the problems here.
1st, All theories, even yours, are compilations of other theories and scientific proofs. Einstein used the works of many of his contemporaries and predecessors
and compiled their work using his interpretations and modifications to construct
his theories. He used the work of the pioneers of physics who had done the
acutal experimentation and written their interpretations. Einstein tied it all together
using deductive and intuitive logic. You, GE, and everyone else posting here
is doing the same. Feynman, did experimentation but also used classical theories
and new QM and QED theories to reinterpret the results that he achieved, with
great success.
2nd, what makes you think that your theories are any more correct than those
of GE or others? Many of us on this board have been, and are, professionals
with many years of first hand experiences in the sciences and industry that
bring our advanced training and insight to this discussion. We don't always
agree, and despite our sometimes "heated" debates and conflicting interpretations
of what the evidence suggests, there is respect for the opinions of others.
You should learn from this, perhaps someone here will offer an insight, a clue,
that completes your "theory" or manages to change your interpretation and ideas.
Are you too proud and stubborn to learn from others? One of the benefits that
comes with age is real life experience and accumulated knowledge. Don't be
so quick to insult the interpretations and experience of others who are also seeking
the truth. I suspect that it lies somewhere between our collective interpretations
and just needs some single bit of insight to be finally exposed.
Regards,
LL
Yor,
If I may make a suggestion...start reading from about page 95 or early January
to catch up with discussions that have relevance to where we are now. We
have discussed a tremendous amount of physics theories and phenomena since
the thread began and have tied quite a bit of it together to where we are now.
We are dancing around a final analysis because our interpretations have not
been defined to the satisfaction of all, but we are narrowing the evidence toward
that goal.
Regards,
LL
If I may make a suggestion...start reading from about page 95 or early January
to catch up with discussions that have relevance to where we are now. We
have discussed a tremendous amount of physics theories and phenomena since
the thread began and have tied quite a bit of it together to where we are now.
We are dancing around a final analysis because our interpretations have not
been defined to the satisfaction of all, but we are narrowing the evidence toward
that goal.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE (your_on+Feb 18 2007, 08:22 PM)
You can always use foam and if you like *many worlds theory' to explain our universe as one among a multitude...
I'm not talking about many worlds interpretations of QM and parallel universes, just about normal mechanical foam. Of course, the concept of many worlds is self-contained in the foam concept too, but the AWT doesn't relies on it.
I'm not talking about many worlds interpretations of QM and parallel universes, just about normal mechanical foam. Of course, the concept of many worlds is self-contained in the foam concept too, but the AWT doesn't relies on it.
QUOTE (Laserlight+Feb 18 2007, 08:22 PM)
..don't be so quick to insult the interpretations and experience of others who are also seeking the truth...
I'm not so fast, because I'm repeating this here for more then one year. GoodElf doesn't seeks the truth, he just promotes his own view, like many others here. Well, and I'm just saying, his view is naive and stupid, because the Fourier transform is just a formal decomposition of wave mixture into its spectral component. It doesn't explain anything, despite of my theory or any other theory. The PhysOrg forum is supposed to be discussion forum, not just the list of monologues of some frustrated freaks. If you don't won't listen some negative feedbacks here, then you're probably on wrong place - this is not private web site.
I'm not so fast, because I'm repeating this here for more then one year. GoodElf doesn't seeks the truth, he just promotes his own view, like many others here. Well, and I'm just saying, his view is naive and stupid, because the Fourier transform is just a formal decomposition of wave mixture into its spectral component. It doesn't explain anything, despite of my theory or any other theory. The PhysOrg forum is supposed to be discussion forum, not just the list of monologues of some frustrated freaks. If you don't won't listen some negative feedbacks here, then you're probably on wrong place - this is not private web site.
Zephir,
You have repeatedly
just jumped into the middle of an ongoing discussion out of the blue to make
insulting comments. I have invited you to actively participate on more than one
occasion, but you randomly jump in and apparently haven't stayed current with
the ongoing discussion at hand. You have made your disagreements with GE
a personal vendetta due to conflicts in your different approaches. If you want
to be taken seriously, then become fully engaged in the conversation and quit
taking pot shots from the hip.
LL
You have repeatedly
just jumped into the middle of an ongoing discussion out of the blue to make
insulting comments. I have invited you to actively participate on more than one
occasion, but you randomly jump in and apparently haven't stayed current with
the ongoing discussion at hand. You have made your disagreements with GE
a personal vendetta due to conflicts in your different approaches. If you want
to be taken seriously, then become fully engaged in the conversation and quit
taking pot shots from the hip.
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Feb 18 2007, 09:35 PM)
..I have invited you to actively participate on more than one occasion...
What I'm saying is, the Good Elf didn't explained anything about topic so far. Can you prove some different opinion? This is not the matter of some personal vendetta, just the common confrontation with the human stupidity. And please, you're not supposed to invite anybody here, as you're not the owner of this forum. Wake up - you're one of the users, like the others. Here's a public anonymous forum, not the closed social club, private web site or mailbox. If you're not comfortable with this, you're probably on wrong place here.
What I'm saying is, the Good Elf didn't explained anything about topic so far. Can you prove some different opinion? This is not the matter of some personal vendetta, just the common confrontation with the human stupidity. And please, you're not supposed to invite anybody here, as you're not the owner of this forum. Wake up - you're one of the users, like the others. Here's a public anonymous forum, not the closed social club, private web site or mailbox. If you're not comfortable with this, you're probably on wrong place here.
Zephir,
Will you stay engaged in the ongoing conversation on this topic like I and others
have since September? If you have something constructive to add then you are
welcomed to participate, as is anyone else. If you merely want to drop in
and insult then perhaps you are wasting your, and our, time.
I have read your theories, you propose some intriquing concepts and theories,
but are quick to dismiss the interpretations of others that evaluate the same
information in a different way. Yes, I agree it is an open forum but you are
not helping the discussion with your personal attacks and closed opinions.
LL
Will you stay engaged in the ongoing conversation on this topic like I and others
have since September? If you have something constructive to add then you are
welcomed to participate, as is anyone else. If you merely want to drop in
and insult then perhaps you are wasting your, and our, time.
I have read your theories, you propose some intriquing concepts and theories,
but are quick to dismiss the interpretations of others that evaluate the same
information in a different way. Yes, I agree it is an open forum but you are
not helping the discussion with your personal attacks and closed opinions.
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Feb 18 2007, 09:53 PM)
Will you stay engaged in the ongoing conversation on this topic like I and others have since September?
This is not your business at all. If you're believing, the GoodElf's Fourier theory is able to explain something in double slit experiment, you can try to prove this, that's all.
If not, then you're serving as an evidence of my claim and you can just express thanks for my attempt to streamline the discussion from the off-topic babbling about everything and nothing at the same time. My question can sound instead, why you're feeling so comfortable in participating on such discussion, after then?
This is not your business at all. If you're believing, the GoodElf's Fourier theory is able to explain something in double slit experiment, you can try to prove this, that's all.
If not, then you're serving as an evidence of my claim and you can just express thanks for my attempt to streamline the discussion from the off-topic babbling about everything and nothing at the same time. My question can sound instead, why you're feeling so comfortable in participating on such discussion, after then?
Zephir,
This is pointless. If you want to engage and present your arguments, for or
against a point made by others, you are invited to do so. Present us with
your side of the argument and why it disagrees with GE's. I don't necessarily
agree with everything that GE proposes, but then again I have adapted some
of his arguments to improve my interpretation and to present my arguments.
Can you do the same? Perhaps some of your arguments will change our
perspective.
LL
This is pointless. If you want to engage and present your arguments, for or
against a point made by others, you are invited to do so. Present us with
your side of the argument and why it disagrees with GE's. I don't necessarily
agree with everything that GE proposes, but then again I have adapted some
of his arguments to improve my interpretation and to present my arguments.
Can you do the same? Perhaps some of your arguments will change our
perspective.
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Feb 18 2007, 10:26 PM)
Present us with your side of the argument and why it isagrees with GE's.
The problem is, you have no perspective in Fourier theory. Like I've said, the Fourier transform is just formal decomposition of the wave mixture into its spectral components, it cannot bring nothing new into quantum physic. Every function can be expressed by the summa or product of another functions - and so what?
The problem is, you have no perspective in Fourier theory. Like I've said, the Fourier transform is just formal decomposition of the wave mixture into its spectral components, it cannot bring nothing new into quantum physic. Every function can be expressed by the summa or product of another functions - and so what?
Hi all,
LL, I've compiled a list of your statements that run counter to your arguing against my statement that "photons" can interact/interfere outside of "matter". I don't expect a thorough answer for every one, but I've included many, so that you can perhaps see that I am right on this.
To restate my parameters: "photons" have the ability to interact with 3 results, 1.) a constructive, 2.) destructive, and 3.) null ; all within the volume of the interaction zone. For the DSE, this is the "cone" from the slit to the screen (pretty much the whole experiment). This follows my simple mathematical rules of Resonance, which occur for the presence of 3 or more frequencies (which, I think everyone now agrees are involved, even with "monochromatic" light). The desctructive and constructive results have a gradient, that is limited by the octave. In this manner, energy is conserved by the process of the interactions of beat-frequencies.
LL (Jan 25 2007, 12:04 AM)
Jan 25 2007, 07:39 AM
Jan 25 2007, 07:39 AM So it seems logical that when EM fields interact with localized plasmon fields there is a timing and phase delay induced where the surface interactions occur.
Jan 25 2007, 04:49 PM
Jan 26 2007, 12:11 AM
Jan 26 2007, 12:11 AM Remember, a wavefront has a fixed timing relationship to itself only.
This is very problematic. Time is fixed, everything that happens has this fixed relationship to everything else. Any wave will have a beat frequency, or a new frequency that is the "overlap" of the fixed timing relationship of any other wave it is interacting with (sharing space).
Jan 27 2007, 05:06 AM
Jan 28 2007, 03:35 AM
Jan 28 2007, 03:35 AM This implies that separate photon “wavelets” that have radiated from some series-parallel atomic source emission events, are closely matched in their EM rotational phase angles and timing relationship to each other. It is the time and phase relative EM components of the individual coherent wavelets that are responsible for self interference. .. When combined these
individual overlapping photon waves propagate as a coherent “unit” wave front at a specific time synchronous pulse frequency. .. The advancing unit wave fronts will conform to the shape and size of the cavity..
Feb 3 2007, 04:13 AM
Feb 4 2007, 10:00 PM
Feb 4 2007, 10:00 PM Any wave can be related to every other waveform, they have similar characteristics and obey similar natural "rules". Waves are fundamental mechanisms for transporting pure energy forces that have been physically “coupled” to some energy system that acts as a conveyance “medium” for energy transportation. .. 6. A wave has: a.) a leading “energy accumulation” phase, as the medium “aligns” to conduct/transport the arriving energy pulse. This can be considered a leading edge bow wave that precedes the actual wave energy impulse. b.) a rising, and increasing leading edge “amplification” phase that is conveying the main “bulk” momentum of the advancing energy displacement. The wave energy rises exponentially over some limited time period and eventually reaches a peak level as it propagates past a physical fixed location in the medium which is being displaced. c.) an exponentially declining subsidence phase as the propagating peak energy level passes beyond a fixed reference point in the transporting medium. The physical vertical and horizontal displacement of the medium, caused by the pulse, releases the kinetic energy component that has been induced into it, back into the passing pulse. After the pulse has passed the medium contracts releasing the kinetic energy induced into it by the pulse. This releasing energy helps to push the wave along and assists in the forward propagation of the wave as the medium tries to reestablish its normal steady state energy equilibrium level. d.) a relaxation ringing phase or a “bounce” caused by contraction “overshoot” or hysteresis of the medium that is trying to reestablish energy equilibrium. .. Just because you cannot understand the interactions of different forms of energy doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't happen.
Feb 5 2007, 04:34 AM
Feb 7 2007, 01:36 AM
Feb 7 2007, 01:36 AM When two systems are put in contact with each other, there will be a net exchange of energy between them unless or until they are in thermal equilibrium.
Feb 12 2007, 06:13 AM
Feb 12 2007, 07:42 PM
Feb 12 2007, 07:42 PM 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.
It is worth pointing out here, that the "photon" IS the EM field, correct? I also have no problem with the "virtual" answers that QM has added along the way, to "patch up" the theory. I just prefer to "clean things up" a bit, and SIMPLIFY. This debate centers on FIELD~FIELD interactions, which in many situations, is NULL. This has led to misinterpretations in QM, which describes only the light~matter interactions of "photons" and the state of the electron. The current wave mechanics do not take Resonance into consideration, and this has resulted in "mysterious" answers, and very complex (and still inadequate) solutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton_%28optics%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillon The experimental procedure is similar to that used to form Chladni figures of sand on a vibrating plate. Researchers realized that these figures say more about the vibrations in the plate than in the sand and created an experimental set-up..
Nonlinear electrostatic oscillations on a plasma boundary can also appear in the form of oscillons.
This was why I included the videos of this phenomenon, so many pages ago.
So, are you still saying that "photons" do not interact the way that I have put forth? If so, please explain your statements above.
regards,
T.Roc
Hmmm... does 'quantum foam' produce 'mach lines'?
You can say the motion and momentum of the pairs produce the foam, because from there you can introduce concepts such as polarization, charge, spin, etc...
But the pairs remain more fundamental than the foam.
LL, I've compiled a list of your statements that run counter to your arguing against my statement that "photons" can interact/interfere outside of "matter". I don't expect a thorough answer for every one, but I've included many, so that you can perhaps see that I am right on this.
To restate my parameters: "photons" have the ability to interact with 3 results, 1.) a constructive, 2.) destructive, and 3.) null ; all within the volume of the interaction zone. For the DSE, this is the "cone" from the slit to the screen (pretty much the whole experiment). This follows my simple mathematical rules of Resonance, which occur for the presence of 3 or more frequencies (which, I think everyone now agrees are involved, even with "monochromatic" light). The desctructive and constructive results have a gradient, that is limited by the octave. In this manner, energy is conserved by the process of the interactions of beat-frequencies.
LL (Jan 25 2007, 12:04 AM)
QUOTE
..what is considered a single photon is really an energy pulse of some finite duration, with lead timing wavelets, followed by a buildup of bulk energy wavelets that exponentially peak at some maximum intensity level and then exponentially "decay" until the last wavelet energy oscillations tail off and end.
Jan 25 2007, 07:39 AM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ..what is considered a single photon is really an energy pulse of some finite duration, with lead timing wavelets, followed by a buildup of bulk energy wavelets that exponentially peak at some maximum intensity level and then exponentially "decay" until the last wavelet energy oscillations tail off and end. |
Jan 25 2007, 07:39 AM So it seems logical that when EM fields interact with localized plasmon fields there is a timing and phase delay induced where the surface interactions occur.
Jan 25 2007, 04:49 PM
QUOTE
IMO, certain of these phenomena are the direct result of asynchronous standing wave reflections causing "pre-entry interference" anomalies in the structure of the fields immediately in the vicinity in front of the subwavelength slit. Since a coherent wavefront can interfere with itself, and because the synchronous incident waves are being met with distorted reflected waves due to timing mismatches, caused by the open area of the slit cavity, there are distortions induced into the fields in front of the slit.
Jan 26 2007, 12:11 AM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| IMO, certain of these phenomena are the direct result of asynchronous standing wave reflections causing "pre-entry interference" anomalies in the structure of the fields immediately in the vicinity in front of the subwavelength slit. Since a coherent wavefront can interfere with itself, and because the synchronous incident waves are being met with distorted reflected waves due to timing mismatches, caused by the open area of the slit cavity, there are distortions induced into the fields in front of the slit. |
Jan 26 2007, 12:11 AM Remember, a wavefront has a fixed timing relationship to itself only.
This is very problematic. Time is fixed, everything that happens has this fixed relationship to everything else. Any wave will have a beat frequency, or a new frequency that is the "overlap" of the fixed timing relationship of any other wave it is interacting with (sharing space).
Jan 27 2007, 05:06 AM
QUOTE
The delayed and modified photon wavefronts "couple" to free space beyond the slits and continue propagating till they hit the screen. .. the wavefunction "reassembles" from 2 different point sources, but slightly spatially and phase shifted due to the slit geometries and the gap between the slits.
Jan 28 2007, 03:35 AM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The delayed and modified photon wavefronts "couple" to free space beyond the slits and continue propagating till they hit the screen. .. the wavefunction "reassembles" from 2 different point sources, but slightly spatially and phase shifted due to the slit geometries and the gap between the slits. |
Jan 28 2007, 03:35 AM This implies that separate photon “wavelets” that have radiated from some series-parallel atomic source emission events, are closely matched in their EM rotational phase angles and timing relationship to each other. It is the time and phase relative EM components of the individual coherent wavelets that are responsible for self interference. .. When combined these
individual overlapping photon waves propagate as a coherent “unit” wave front at a specific time synchronous pulse frequency. .. The advancing unit wave fronts will conform to the shape and size of the cavity..
Feb 3 2007, 04:13 AM
QUOTE
If a photon energy wavefront "pulse" has a leading and trailing energy component, doesn't that logically infer that there is a phase and "timing" difference that exists between the extreme leading "neck" and the extreme trailing tail of the pulse? .. the wavelets whose individual EM fields are "phasing" and cross coupling in 3D within the "confines" of the propagating energy pulse. .. IMO, the total energy of the photon "wavefunction" is self regenerating because the individual phasing and timing coupling interactions, occurring between the leading and trailing wavelet EM fields, are creating a propagating EM feedback "loop" that sustains itself. .. Now conceptualize millions of wavelets in parallel, all mutually cross coupling their E and B fields, synchronously and regeneratively. As the discrete EM wavelet fields couple and integrate, they "move" and change phases by closed loop self propagation.
Feb 4 2007, 10:00 PM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If a photon energy wavefront "pulse" has a leading and trailing energy component, doesn't that logically infer that there is a phase and "timing" difference that exists between the extreme leading "neck" and the extreme trailing tail of the pulse? .. the wavelets whose individual EM fields are "phasing" and cross coupling in 3D within the "confines" of the propagating energy pulse. .. IMO, the total energy of the photon "wavefunction" is self regenerating because the individual phasing and timing coupling interactions, occurring between the leading and trailing wavelet EM fields, are creating a propagating EM feedback "loop" that sustains itself. .. Now conceptualize millions of wavelets in parallel, all mutually cross coupling their E and B fields, synchronously and regeneratively. As the discrete EM wavelet fields couple and integrate, they "move" and change phases by closed loop self propagation. |
Feb 4 2007, 10:00 PM Any wave can be related to every other waveform, they have similar characteristics and obey similar natural "rules". Waves are fundamental mechanisms for transporting pure energy forces that have been physically “coupled” to some energy system that acts as a conveyance “medium” for energy transportation. .. 6. A wave has: a.) a leading “energy accumulation” phase, as the medium “aligns” to conduct/transport the arriving energy pulse. This can be considered a leading edge bow wave that precedes the actual wave energy impulse. b.) a rising, and increasing leading edge “amplification” phase that is conveying the main “bulk” momentum of the advancing energy displacement. The wave energy rises exponentially over some limited time period and eventually reaches a peak level as it propagates past a physical fixed location in the medium which is being displaced. c.) an exponentially declining subsidence phase as the propagating peak energy level passes beyond a fixed reference point in the transporting medium. The physical vertical and horizontal displacement of the medium, caused by the pulse, releases the kinetic energy component that has been induced into it, back into the passing pulse. After the pulse has passed the medium contracts releasing the kinetic energy induced into it by the pulse. This releasing energy helps to push the wave along and assists in the forward propagation of the wave as the medium tries to reestablish its normal steady state energy equilibrium level. d.) a relaxation ringing phase or a “bounce” caused by contraction “overshoot” or hysteresis of the medium that is trying to reestablish energy equilibrium. .. Just because you cannot understand the interactions of different forms of energy doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't happen.
Feb 5 2007, 04:34 AM
QUOTE
The CMB permeates all of the observable universe as does all of the unabsorbed energy that has been emitted since energy came into "existence". Is it unfathomable to think that this background energy IS the medium, .. The theory of a self propagating EM field, that we have all seen, and been taught, is "incomplete" because it cannot explain how the energy continuously and regeneratively self circulates.
Feb 7 2007, 01:36 AM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The CMB permeates all of the observable universe as does all of the unabsorbed energy that has been emitted since energy came into "existence". Is it unfathomable to think that this background energy IS the medium, .. The theory of a self propagating EM field, that we have all seen, and been taught, is "incomplete" because it cannot explain how the energy continuously and regeneratively self circulates. |
Feb 7 2007, 01:36 AM When two systems are put in contact with each other, there will be a net exchange of energy between them unless or until they are in thermal equilibrium.
Feb 12 2007, 06:13 AM
QUOTE
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. .. 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. .. 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.
Feb 12 2007, 07:42 PM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. .. 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. .. 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. |
Feb 12 2007, 07:42 PM 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.
It is worth pointing out here, that the "photon" IS the EM field, correct? I also have no problem with the "virtual" answers that QM has added along the way, to "patch up" the theory. I just prefer to "clean things up" a bit, and SIMPLIFY. This debate centers on FIELD~FIELD interactions, which in many situations, is NULL. This has led to misinterpretations in QM, which describes only the light~matter interactions of "photons" and the state of the electron. The current wave mechanics do not take Resonance into consideration, and this has resulted in "mysterious" answers, and very complex (and still inadequate) solutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton_%28optics%29
QUOTE
The optical waveguide the soliton creates while propagating is not only a mathematical model, but it actually exists and can be used to guide other waves at different frequencies. This way it is possible to let light interact with light at different frequencies (this is impossible in linear media)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillon
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The optical waveguide the soliton creates while propagating is not only a mathematical model, but it actually exists and can be used to guide other waves at different frequencies. This way it is possible to let light interact with light at different frequencies (this is impossible in linear media) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillon The experimental procedure is similar to that used to form Chladni figures of sand on a vibrating plate. Researchers realized that these figures say more about the vibrations in the plate than in the sand and created an experimental set-up..
Nonlinear electrostatic oscillations on a plasma boundary can also appear in the form of oscillons.
This was why I included the videos of this phenomenon, so many pages ago.
So, are you still saying that "photons" do not interact the way that I have put forth? If so, please explain your statements above.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi Zephir and all.
Maybe your theory should have a space of it's own ;)
Still,
---------------------------
" he math background of Aether Wave theory (AWT) consist in the common solution of two equations:
1) the wave equation user posted image
2) the mass-energy equivalence principle user posted image
These equations are describing the oscillations of massive elastic string, where the mass density of string is always proportional to it's energy density in each moment & location. Here's lot of ways, how to solve such system and such solution is job for math, not for physic. "
-------------------------------
OK Aether, why not, space seems wobbly right ;)
But here your talking about strings ? What happened with the foam ?
Is it there on a more macroscopic level then. And wide open to all kinds of possibilities? So what we have are those ( Onedimensionell? Oscillating? ) strings that go their merry way until they transform into foam whereupon they open themselves to all possibilities.
Whereupon we only can perceive our space time as that was the only possible solution we know of ? (my suggestion kind of:))
It's possible, but it gives me a headache.
.......................
Maybe your theory should have a space of it's own ;)
Still,
---------------------------
" he math background of Aether Wave theory (AWT) consist in the common solution of two equations:
1) the wave equation user posted image
2) the mass-energy equivalence principle user posted image
These equations are describing the oscillations of massive elastic string, where the mass density of string is always proportional to it's energy density in each moment & location. Here's lot of ways, how to solve such system and such solution is job for math, not for physic. "
-------------------------------
OK Aether, why not, space seems wobbly right ;)
But here your talking about strings ? What happened with the foam ?
Is it there on a more macroscopic level then. And wide open to all kinds of possibilities? So what we have are those ( Onedimensionell? Oscillating? ) strings that go their merry way until they transform into foam whereupon they open themselves to all possibilities.
Whereupon we only can perceive our space time as that was the only possible solution we know of ? (my suggestion kind of:))
It's possible, but it gives me a headache.
.......................
I'm curious...
I keep hearing the word 'quantum foam' brought up, and I realize it's a model of 'virtual' particle-antiparticle interactions at sub-planck length, but other than that I don't see much work done modelling it or expanding on the model.
These particle-antiparticle pairs are charged and they can also form 0-spin bosons, which amounts to 'bubbles' of quantum foam... correct?
I'm just curious, because I see links between this 'quantum foam' analogy and the Higg's Ocean or Dirac Sea.
I keep hearing the word 'quantum foam' brought up, and I realize it's a model of 'virtual' particle-antiparticle interactions at sub-planck length, but other than that I don't see much work done modelling it or expanding on the model.
These particle-antiparticle pairs are charged and they can also form 0-spin bosons, which amounts to 'bubbles' of quantum foam... correct?
I'm just curious, because I see links between this 'quantum foam' analogy and the Higg's Ocean or Dirac Sea.
QUOTE (your_on+Feb 18 2007, 10:56 PM)
But here your talking about strings ? What happened with the foam?
The strings are just the foam membranes and connections, i.e. the density fluctuations of the Aether. If you're considering the Aether concept. just to use it.
The important thing for interpretation of double slit experiment and whole the quantum mechanic is, the foam becomes more dense after introducing some energy by the same way, like the soap foam, shaken in evacuated vessel. It results into typical nonlinear behavior of quantum wave, which interferes with it's own density profile (compare the 1D, 2D simulation)
The common particles are just dense blobs of such foam, by AWT.
The strings are just the foam membranes and connections, i.e. the density fluctuations of the Aether. If you're considering the Aether concept. just to use it.
The important thing for interpretation of double slit experiment and whole the quantum mechanic is, the foam becomes more dense after introducing some energy by the same way, like the soap foam, shaken in evacuated vessel. It results into typical nonlinear behavior of quantum wave, which interferes with it's own density profile (compare the 1D, 2D simulation)
The common particles are just dense blobs of such foam, by AWT.
Hi all,
As Zephir stated, this is a Public Forum. As such, it is "regulated" in the same manner as out in the "real world": by the free will of the participants. Law and order is based on the participants "going along" with an ordered plan.
That said, could you please take the AWT discussions to the AWT thread?
Thanks,
T.Roc
Laserlight: just in case you missed my last post, directed towards you.. link
As Zephir stated, this is a Public Forum. As such, it is "regulated" in the same manner as out in the "real world": by the free will of the participants. Law and order is based on the participants "going along" with an ordered plan.
That said, could you please take the AWT discussions to the AWT thread?
Thanks,
T.Roc
Laserlight: just in case you missed my last post, directed towards you.. link
QUOTE (TRoc+Feb 18 2007, 11:21 PM)
That said, could you please take the AWT discussions to the AWT thread?
Of course, and I'd prefer, the Good Elf will take the Fourier Transform theory discussion in it's own thread, too. The AWT is linked beneath each the AWT word, so everybody is welcomed to continue here in further discussion. Of course, if somebody put the question concerning the AWT here, I can expect, he's expecting the answer at the same place, too.
My last entry into discussion wasn't about the AWT, but about the fact, the GoodElf is promoting his own theory too, although it cannot explain anything. I've no problem with the foreign concept, but at the case, they cannot explain anything I'd prefer more relevant and matter of fact discussion about subject.
Another question is, how do you want to explain/interpret the two slit experiment without introducing of any private concepts, because the common understanding of quantum mechanic by mainstream physic is, this theory has no viable explanation. Maybe you're more clever, then the Feynman and Dirac together and you can explain the quantum mechanic postulates just by using of quantum mechanic postulates - but frankly, I don't believe so,...
Of course, and I'd prefer, the Good Elf will take the Fourier Transform theory discussion in it's own thread, too. The AWT is linked beneath each the AWT word, so everybody is welcomed to continue here in further discussion. Of course, if somebody put the question concerning the AWT here, I can expect, he's expecting the answer at the same place, too.
My last entry into discussion wasn't about the AWT, but about the fact, the GoodElf is promoting his own theory too, although it cannot explain anything. I've no problem with the foreign concept, but at the case, they cannot explain anything I'd prefer more relevant and matter of fact discussion about subject.
Another question is, how do you want to explain/interpret the two slit experiment without introducing of any private concepts, because the common understanding of quantum mechanic by mainstream physic is, this theory has no viable explanation. Maybe you're more clever, then the Feynman and Dirac together and you can explain the quantum mechanic postulates just by using of quantum mechanic postulates - but frankly, I don't believe so,...
Zephir,
Understood. I was just trying to direct some of the "newer" members to your page, if they are interested. I agree with your statement regarding Fourier Transform, but at least it was in an attempt to explain the DSE.
I don't think that AWT makes any predictions about "foam diffraction patterns", but maybe I missed that? I understand the general mechanism that you talk about, but we need to know how "foam~foam" interactions would produce light and dark bands, on a "foam based screen/detector". Does each quanta of "foam" have an energy level, that would be described by a frequency?
No one here is expressly against "personal interpretations", to my knowledge. You are correct in saying that it is impossible to "explain the quantum mechanic postulates just by using of quantum mechanic postulates". People seem to forget this. It WILL be necessary to "falsify" some of their initial claims, that were later interpreted to mean "QM".
regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE
Of course, if somebody put the question concerning the AWT here, I can expect, he's expecting the answer at the same place, too.
Understood. I was just trying to direct some of the "newer" members to your page, if they are interested. I agree with your statement regarding Fourier Transform, but at least it was in an attempt to explain the DSE.
I don't think that AWT makes any predictions about "foam diffraction patterns", but maybe I missed that? I understand the general mechanism that you talk about, but we need to know how "foam~foam" interactions would produce light and dark bands, on a "foam based screen/detector". Does each quanta of "foam" have an energy level, that would be described by a frequency?
No one here is expressly against "personal interpretations", to my knowledge. You are correct in saying that it is impossible to "explain the quantum mechanic postulates just by using of quantum mechanic postulates". People seem to forget this. It WILL be necessary to "falsify" some of their initial claims, that were later interpreted to mean "QM".
regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE
I understand the general mechanism that you talk about, but we need to know how "foam~foam" interactions would produce light and dark bands, on a "foam based screen/detector". Does each quanta of "foam" have an energy level, that would be described by a frequency?
Hmmm... does 'quantum foam' produce 'mach lines'?
QUOTE (TRoc+Feb 18 2007, 11:33 PM)
we need to know how "foam~foam" interactions would produce light and dark bands
The problem is, I explained the DSE here by many times, but "thanks" to GoodElf and similar experts I'm forced to explain it again and again. Fortunately, the repetition is the mother of wisdom and the explanation is simple:
The rule No. 1: Every increasing of energy density in the foam makes the foam more dense (...well, like the shaking of the soap foam in the evacuated vessel, here's nothing about it, in prinicple.
The rule No. 2: Every energy wave prefers the more dense places of foam for the subsequent spreading.
This is why, the sound waves will spread along the iron rod submerged into water, not through the water directly. The iron rod is more dense place for the energy spreading, so that most of the sound energy will remain concentrated here. After all, this is why the particles are attracted by the other massive objects by AWT, because they're formed by the waves and the vacuum is more dense near the massive objects, so the waves are preffering to spread here, being deflected by the gravitational field of this object.
The rule No. 3: Every massive object moving through environment containing the transversal surface waves will generate the additional waves during it's motion, which are perpendicular to the object motion direction.
Well, exactly like the duck or fish swimming beneath the water surface. This wave is called the deBroglie wave by it's inventor. The important thing is, it makes the vacuum more dense like each additional shaking of Aether foam. In fact, it accumulates so called relativistic mass of fastly moving objects.
The rest is rather easy: The particle is moving towards the double slit. I creates the perpendicular waves around it like the duck or fish swimming through foam. This radius of these perpendicular waves is much larger then the particle, so it can interfere with both the slits at the same time under formation of flabelliform patterns. These patterns are making the Aether forms less and more dense in the places, given by common interference condition. The particle is formed by the standing wave too, so it prefers the more dense places for the further spreading by reproducible way. Therefore each the particles spreading in subsequent experiments will prefer the path of flabelliform patterns. That's all.
The problem is, I explained the DSE here by many times, but "thanks" to GoodElf and similar experts I'm forced to explain it again and again. Fortunately, the repetition is the mother of wisdom and the explanation is simple:
The rule No. 1: Every increasing of energy density in the foam makes the foam more dense (...well, like the shaking of the soap foam in the evacuated vessel, here's nothing about it, in prinicple.
The rule No. 2: Every energy wave prefers the more dense places of foam for the subsequent spreading.
This is why, the sound waves will spread along the iron rod submerged into water, not through the water directly. The iron rod is more dense place for the energy spreading, so that most of the sound energy will remain concentrated here. After all, this is why the particles are attracted by the other massive objects by AWT, because they're formed by the waves and the vacuum is more dense near the massive objects, so the waves are preffering to spread here, being deflected by the gravitational field of this object.
The rule No. 3: Every massive object moving through environment containing the transversal surface waves will generate the additional waves during it's motion, which are perpendicular to the object motion direction.
Well, exactly like the duck or fish swimming beneath the water surface. This wave is called the deBroglie wave by it's inventor. The important thing is, it makes the vacuum more dense like each additional shaking of Aether foam. In fact, it accumulates so called relativistic mass of fastly moving objects.
The rest is rather easy: The particle is moving towards the double slit. I creates the perpendicular waves around it like the duck or fish swimming through foam. This radius of these perpendicular waves is much larger then the particle, so it can interfere with both the slits at the same time under formation of flabelliform patterns. These patterns are making the Aether forms less and more dense in the places, given by common interference condition. The particle is formed by the standing wave too, so it prefers the more dense places for the further spreading by reproducible way. Therefore each the particles spreading in subsequent experiments will prefer the path of flabelliform patterns. That's all.
TRoc,
I am impressed! Someone actually took the time and patience to understand
my theoretical proposals....THANK YOU!!!
I think that you have either misinterpreted my position or else I have not
expressed it clearly so as to eliminate misunderstanding.
You are correct, the EM pulse is the photon, but the EM pulse
wavefunction is comprised of millions of coherent wavelet EM pulses from
discrete source atoms. The number of individual wavelet EM pulses are
synchronous but spacially displaced within the expanding wavefront. All of them
combined are what gives the wavefunction its intensity. They are all propagating
at the same frequency and their EM components are temporaly aligned and self
regenerating to the wave pulse.
I have stated that a photon can only interfere with itself and not other separate
photons pulses in free space, they pass right thru each other with no interaction.
They are not perfectly time and phase coincident and resonant to each other and
are separate timing events emanating from different causal events arising from matter releasing energy in the form of an EM pulse. Conversely, an individual
photon can interfere with itself or other photons when matter acts as an
energy mixing catalyst under the right resonance conditions. I have
agreed with this point that you made since you first presented the idea. I see no
conflict with this argument.
You initially proposed that when 2 separate frequencies merge there is a beat
frequency that occurs. IMO, this is only partially correct. A beat frequency only
occurs when both frequencies combine at a point of resonance that occurs
by interacting with physical matter. The separate frequencies will remain isolated
from each other but when combined together in the presence of a 3rd element
that mixes their individual components, the mixing will saturate/blend the signals
at the point of mixing and a new beat frequency will be the result. I'll provide a
simplified example. If you pour 2 separate paint colors together, they will not
spontaneously mix to form a blended color. However, if you add a 3rd
physical mixing component (ie a "mixing stick") and agitate the separate
colors, they will blend to form a whole new color. It is a dynamic process that
requires some external energy catalyst to stimulate a reaction to take place.
A photon will not constructively or destructively interfere with itself or other
photons unless some external "calatlytic reaction" has occured to alter the
inherent phase and timing relationships that normally exist in the photon(s).
This is the signal mixing point where the reaction takes place and is detected.
IMO, this point of signal mixing is the back exit wall of the DSE, and the mixed
interfered signals radiate outward from that location and are phase detected at the
screen.
Regards,
LL
I am impressed! Someone actually took the time and patience to understand
my theoretical proposals....THANK YOU!!!
QUOTE
LL, I've compiled a list of your statements that run counter to your arguing against my statement that "photons" can interact/interfere outside of "matter". I don't expect a thorough answer for every one, but I've included many, so that you can perhaps see that I am right on this.
To restate my parameters: "photons" have the ability to interact with 3 results, 1.) a constructive, 2.) destructive, and 3.) null ; all within the volume of the interaction zone. For the DSE, this is the "cone" from the slit to the screen (pretty much the whole experiment). This follows my simple mathematical rules of Resonance, which occur for the presence of 3 or more frequencies (which, I think everyone now agrees are involved, even with "monochromatic" light).
To restate my parameters: "photons" have the ability to interact with 3 results, 1.) a constructive, 2.) destructive, and 3.) null ; all within the volume of the interaction zone. For the DSE, this is the "cone" from the slit to the screen (pretty much the whole experiment). This follows my simple mathematical rules of Resonance, which occur for the presence of 3 or more frequencies (which, I think everyone now agrees are involved, even with "monochromatic" light).
I think that you have either misinterpreted my position or else I have not
expressed it clearly so as to eliminate misunderstanding.
You are correct, the EM pulse is the photon, but the EM pulse
wavefunction is comprised of millions of coherent wavelet EM pulses from
discrete source atoms. The number of individual wavelet EM pulses are
synchronous but spacially displaced within the expanding wavefront. All of them
combined are what gives the wavefunction its intensity. They are all propagating
at the same frequency and their EM components are temporaly aligned and self
regenerating to the wave pulse.
I have stated that a photon can only interfere with itself and not other separate
photons pulses in free space, they pass right thru each other with no interaction.
They are not perfectly time and phase coincident and resonant to each other and
are separate timing events emanating from different causal events arising from matter releasing energy in the form of an EM pulse. Conversely, an individual
photon can interfere with itself or other photons when matter acts as an
energy mixing catalyst under the right resonance conditions. I have
agreed with this point that you made since you first presented the idea. I see no
conflict with this argument.
You initially proposed that when 2 separate frequencies merge there is a beat
frequency that occurs. IMO, this is only partially correct. A beat frequency only
occurs when both frequencies combine at a point of resonance that occurs
by interacting with physical matter. The separate frequencies will remain isolated
from each other but when combined together in the presence of a 3rd element
that mixes their individual components, the mixing will saturate/blend the signals
at the point of mixing and a new beat frequency will be the result. I'll provide a
simplified example. If you pour 2 separate paint colors together, they will not
spontaneously mix to form a blended color. However, if you add a 3rd
physical mixing component (ie a "mixing stick") and agitate the separate
colors, they will blend to form a whole new color. It is a dynamic process that
requires some external energy catalyst to stimulate a reaction to take place.
A photon will not constructively or destructively interfere with itself or other
photons unless some external "calatlytic reaction" has occured to alter the
inherent phase and timing relationships that normally exist in the photon(s).
This is the signal mixing point where the reaction takes place and is detected.
IMO, this point of signal mixing is the back exit wall of the DSE, and the mixed
interfered signals radiate outward from that location and are phase detected at the
screen.
Regards,
LL
Zeph & LL,
I have to go; I hope not too many pages will be here when I can return this evening, I have comments for both of you.
Have fun!
T.Roc
I have to go; I hope not too many pages will be here when I can return this evening, I have comments for both of you.
Have fun!
T.Roc
QUOTE (Laserlight+Feb 18 2007, 11:54 PM)
..wave function is comprised of millions of coherent wavelet EM pulses from discrete source atoms...
At the first glance, the quantum mechanic effects are supposed to be working even for the particles, which doesn't interact with the photons at all (for example the so called neutrino oscillations are explained by qaantum mechanic phenomena) - so you should omit the photon concept from you explanation of quantum mechanic at all.
At the first glance, the quantum mechanic effects are supposed to be working even for the particles, which doesn't interact with the photons at all (for example the so called neutrino oscillations are explained by qaantum mechanic phenomena) - so you should omit the photon concept from you explanation of quantum mechanic at all.
Hey Zephirr and good Elf and.......LL... and......(h e lp)
I find your way of looking at photons very simmilar to GoodElf.
You both want to treat them as waves ok ok, foam then ;).
Sorry sloppy writing here, i meant strings not waves
But to my eye they seem alike
a string become foamy and then subverts itself into a wave???
And yes, when i jumped to this page i didn't realise how long this desscussion had been going on. Sorry about that. Still if you have been privately trying to create some new theory this long, you should be able to get a ' private room' kind of. Or would that be to egleterian? And GoodElf, you're good ;)
I find your way of looking at photons very simmilar to GoodElf.
You both want to treat them as waves ok ok, foam then ;).
Sorry sloppy writing here, i meant strings not waves
But to my eye they seem alike
a string become foamy and then subverts itself into a wave???
And yes, when i jumped to this page i didn't realise how long this desscussion had been going on. Sorry about that. Still if you have been privately trying to create some new theory this long, you should be able to get a ' private room' kind of. Or would that be to egleterian? And GoodElf, you're good ;)
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Feb 18 2007, 10:58 PM)
keep hearing the word 'quantum foam' brought up, and I realize it's a model of 'virtual' particle-antiparticle interactions at sub-planck length..
The quantum foam is in fact the quite normal foam, with the exception, it's not formed by the soap water, of course. But the soap foam is the special case of Aether foam. By such way, this foam is not the model of some abstract 'virtual' particle-antiparticle pairs, but these pairs are model of Aether foam, instead.
The quantum foam is in fact the quite normal foam, with the exception, it's not formed by the soap water, of course. But the soap foam is the special case of Aether foam. By such way, this foam is not the model of some abstract 'virtual' particle-antiparticle pairs, but these pairs are model of Aether foam, instead.
QUOTE
The quantum foam is in fact the quite normal foam, with the exception, it's not formed by the soap water, of course. But the soap foam is the special case of Aether foam. By such way, this foam is not the model of some abstract 'virtual' particle-antiparticle pairs, but these pairs are model of Aether foam, instead.
You can say the motion and momentum of the pairs produce the foam, because from there you can introduce concepts such as polarization, charge, spin, etc...
But the pairs remain more fundamental than the foam.
Hi Zephir,
First, thank you for joining and participating in the conversation at hand.
You have referred to photons as particles, a concept with which I totally disagree.
A photon wavelet is an EM energy pulse released from an atom. It has finite
energy and pulse width. A photon (wave) is a composite energy dislocation
that propagates as an energy pulse thru a medium and is made up of all of the
individual energy components that were displaced at the same time. Think of
a firecracker that explodes, there are thousands of grains of gunpowder that all
release their energy nearly simultaneously. The energy that they release is
propagated as an expanding energy wave pulse thru the medium of air. Actually
there are 2 separate pulses, a light pulse and a sound pulse. Each propagates
as an individual expanding wave pulse. Each pulse follows the inverse square law,
and each expands as a cohesive wave front from the source. My point being that
each grain of gunpowder released a very small amount of discrete energy that
when combined with all of the rest of the grains yielded a high intensity
energy wave front made up of the individual pulses with nearly simultaneous
timing, but with combined energy. If you look at a sample of the wave pulse on an
oscilloscope you see one pulse wave of finite time duration and at some amplitude.
The wave amplitude is proportional to the total combined micro explosions of
the individual grains that form the total energy of the event.
A photon is an energy wave event that can displace matter by adding kinetic
energy to the potential energy stored in matter.
Other opinions welcomed,
LL
First, thank you for joining and participating in the conversation at hand.
QUOTE
At the first glance, the quantum mechanic effects are supposed to be working even for the particles, which doesn't interact with the photons at all (for example the so called neutrino oscillations are explained by qaantum mechanic phenomena) - so you should omit the photon concept from you explanation of quantum mechanic at all.
You have referred to photons as particles, a concept with which I totally disagree.
A photon wavelet is an EM energy pulse released from an atom. It has finite
energy and pulse width. A photon (wave) is a composite energy dislocation
that propagates as an energy pulse thru a medium and is made up of all of the
individual energy components that were displaced at the same time. Think of
a firecracker that explodes, there are thousands of grains of gunpowder that all
release their energy nearly simultaneously. The energy that they release is
propagated as an expanding energy wave pulse thru the medium of air. Actually
there are 2 separate pulses, a light pulse and a sound pulse. Each propagates
as an individual expanding wave pulse. Each pulse follows the inverse square law,
and each expands as a cohesive wave front from the source. My point being that
each grain of gunpowder released a very small amount of discrete energy that
when combined with all of the rest of the grains yielded a high intensity
energy wave front made up of the individual pulses with nearly simultaneous
timing, but with combined energy. If you look at a sample of the wave pulse on an
oscilloscope you see one pulse wave of finite time duration and at some amplitude.
The wave amplitude is proportional to the total combined micro explosions of
the individual grains that form the total energy of the event.
A photon is an energy wave event that can displace matter by adding kinetic
energy to the potential energy stored in matter.
Other opinions welcomed,
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Feb 19 2007, 12:48 AM)
You have referred to photons as particles, a concept with which I totally disagree.
Here u can see the gamma ray photons in the spark chamber, or the result of double slit experiment with the photons... Of course, you can continue in the refusal of particle nature of photon, but I'm not obliged to believe you....
Nevertheless, we can imagine the radiation of the dipole antennae, which appears as a perfectly homogeneous spherical wave at the first sight - so we can ask, where are all these photons, after then??? The AWT just proposes an elegant solution of this dilemma in foam concept of energy wave spreading. Each the wave shakes the foam, thus making it temporarily more dense at this point. So we can have both the wave, both the particle blob at the same time and place. And everybody remains happy.
BTW The standard interpretation of the smooth dipole wave by the contemporary quantum mechanic (i.e. by the QED, be more specific) is, it's the result of the superposition of many quantum states of individual electrons in the antennae, which are releasing the photons by the non-coherent way.
Here u can see the gamma ray photons in the spark chamber, or the result of double slit experiment with the photons... Of course, you can continue in the refusal of particle nature of photon, but I'm not obliged to believe you....
Nevertheless, we can imagine the radiation of the dipole antennae, which appears as a perfectly homogeneous spherical wave at the first sight - so we can ask, where are all these photons, after then??? The AWT just proposes an elegant solution of this dilemma in foam concept of energy wave spreading. Each the wave shakes the foam, thus making it temporarily more dense at this point. So we can have both the wave, both the particle blob at the same time and place. And everybody remains happy.
BTW The standard interpretation of the smooth dipole wave by the contemporary quantum mechanic (i.e. by the QED, be more specific) is, it's the result of the superposition of many quantum states of individual electrons in the antennae, which are releasing the photons by the non-coherent way.
QUOTE (Laserlight+Feb 19 2007, 12:48 AM)
..My point being that each grain of gunpowder released a very small amount of discrete energy that when combined with all of the rest of the grains yielded a high intensity energy wave front made up of the individual pulses with nearly simultaneous timing, but with combined energy...
This idea is not very different from the concept of light spreading through Aether foam, where each the photon can be considered as the result of superposition of many smaller more fundamental bosons or quantum loops. But such insight doesn't exclude the existence of the photon wave packet neither. Nobody says, the photon must be some quite homogeneous wave.
This idea is not very different from the concept of light spreading through Aether foam, where each the photon can be considered as the result of superposition of many smaller more fundamental bosons or quantum loops. But such insight doesn't exclude the existence of the photon wave packet neither. Nobody says, the photon must be some quite homogeneous wave.
Long time everyone, [this is mostly for "THEY"2]
http://lizwaldner.wordpress.com/2006/06/16...uantum-physics/
ciao_
yquantum
http://lizwaldner.wordpress.com/2006/06/16...uantum-physics/
ciao_
yquantum
Zephir,
Can you explain the straight lines of the gamma rays (photon's) in the spark chamber? I don't know what the picture is showing. Is it a photo taken
perpendicular to the source, or parallel? As it is there is no way to describe
the events shown. Can you provide a reference that describes the picture?
How big is a photon particle? Consider a 10 meter wavelength radio transmission
vs an x-ray wavelength. Remember they are both wavelengths
not particles, also photons have no detectable mass and do not have collisions
with other photons that changes their direction of "flight".
We have analyzed the photo tube photon spot results....I'll let someone else
answer how we answered that result.
Regards,
LL
Can you explain the straight lines of the gamma rays (photon's) in the spark chamber? I don't know what the picture is showing. Is it a photo taken
perpendicular to the source, or parallel? As it is there is no way to describe
the events shown. Can you provide a reference that describes the picture?
How big is a photon particle? Consider a 10 meter wavelength radio transmission
vs an x-ray wavelength. Remember they are both wavelengths
not particles, also photons have no detectable mass and do not have collisions
with other photons that changes their direction of "flight".
We have analyzed the photo tube photon spot results....I'll let someone else
answer how we answered that result.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Feb 19 2007, 02:30 AM)
How big is a photon particle? Consider a 10 meter wavelength radio transmission vs an x-ray wavelength. Remember they are both wavelengths not particles, also photons have no detectable mass and do not have collisions with other photons that changes their direction of "flight".
By AWT the photons are the result of the interference of light wave with the carrier fluctuations of vacuum (gravitons waves), which are of Planck length size (10E-35). From this insight, the average size of the photon wave packets can be estimated easily, because the frequency of interference pattern is proportional to the ratio of frequencies.
For example, at the case of light of wavelength 10-9 meters (soft X-ray radiation) the corresponding photon size will be 10-9 x 10-9 / 10-35 = 10-17 meters (slightly above atom nuclei diameter range 10-18 m). This is the reason, why such photons will not be scattered by the electron orbitals (which are much more larger), but they will dispersed by the atom nuclei, thus forming the interference patterns as the result of X-ray diffraction, which can be used for determination of crystal structures, for example.
At the case of dipole antenae radiation, the average size of photon wave packets will be 10+1 x 10+1 / 10-35 = 10+33 meters, i.e. the substantially larger, then the estimated diameter of the whole observable Universe. We can consider the microwave bacground radiation as the waves, the photon size of which corresponds roughly the size of Universe, because they have had appeared as the result of primordial standing waves of the whole Universe. By such way, the photon size enables us to estimate the observable Universe diameter easily.
By AWT the photons are the result of the interference of light wave with the carrier fluctuations of vacuum (gravitons waves), which are of Planck length size (10E-35). From this insight, the average size of the photon wave packets can be estimated easily, because the frequency of interference pattern is proportional to the ratio of frequencies.
For example, at the case of light of wavelength 10-9 meters (soft X-ray radiation) the corresponding photon size will be 10-9 x 10-9 / 10-35 = 10-17 meters (slightly above atom nuclei diameter range 10-18 m). This is the reason, why such photons will not be scattered by the electron orbitals (which are much more larger), but they will dispersed by the atom nuclei, thus forming the interference patterns as the result of X-ray diffraction, which can be used for determination of crystal structures, for example.
At the case of dipole antenae radiation, the average size of photon wave packets will be 10+1 x 10+1 / 10-35 = 10+33 meters, i.e. the substantially larger, then the estimated diameter of the whole observable Universe. We can consider the microwave bacground radiation as the waves, the photon size of which corresponds roughly the size of Universe, because they have had appeared as the result of primordial standing waves of the whole Universe. By such way, the photon size enables us to estimate the observable Universe diameter easily.
Zephir,
All free form energy travels as waves. Even non-coherent (amorphous) light
is comprised of numerous discrete constant wave functions with each propagating
at their specific energy/frequency. Non-coherent light can be separated into
its coherent sub component frequencies by using bandpass filters to remove
unwanted frequencies. They are travelling together at the same speed but are
separated by their frequencies. The only reason that they look non-coherent is
because they are saturating the detectors of our eyes which cannot descriminate
each individual frequency from the high contrast "noise" caused by the entire
spectrum being received. Ever see pictures of nebuli in the universe? The
color of the pictures is resolved by using individual color filters and taking a long
exposure of each and then overlaying the individual colors to provide color
resolution.
By the way images on this link Hubble Images can be saved as desktop images for your computer screen.
LL
QUOTE
Nobody says, the photon must be some quite homogeneous wave.
All free form energy travels as waves. Even non-coherent (amorphous) light
is comprised of numerous discrete constant wave functions with each propagating
at their specific energy/frequency. Non-coherent light can be separated into
its coherent sub component frequencies by using bandpass filters to remove
unwanted frequencies. They are travelling together at the same speed but are
separated by their frequencies. The only reason that they look non-coherent is
because they are saturating the detectors of our eyes which cannot descriminate
each individual frequency from the high contrast "noise" caused by the entire
spectrum being received. Ever see pictures of nebuli in the universe? The
color of the pictures is resolved by using individual color filters and taking a long
exposure of each and then overlaying the individual colors to provide color
resolution.
By the way images on this link Hubble Images can be saved as desktop images for your computer screen.
LL
Hello all
Last time I checked gamma rays are not cosmic rays. Cosmic ray are really just very high speed particles.
Last time I checked gamma rays are not cosmic rays. Cosmic ray are really just very high speed particles.
Montec,
You are correct! Thanks for stating that. They are accelerated electrons travelling
near the speed of light. Their speed is caused by electromagnetic fields from
high energy stellar events.
LL
You are correct! Thanks for stating that. They are accelerated electrons travelling
near the speed of light. Their speed is caused by electromagnetic fields from
high energy stellar events.
LL
Laserlight
I think most cosmic rays are actually protons, if I remember correctly.
I think most cosmic rays are actually protons, if I remember correctly.
Zephir,
So what size are 10 meter photon particles? I assume that you are not
suggesting that they are larger than the universe. You have resorted to
photon wave packets which seems to conflict with your prior statement about
particles.
We have hypothesized that the point where each discrete photon wavelet in a
photon wavefront releases the energy that it contains by resonating with a
receiving dipole in an atom(s), and a secondary photon is emitted by that atom.
It is detected thru atomic absorption/resonance and re-emits (reflects) that photon
wave pulse which we see. It is an absorption, re-emission/reflection process
of EM energy.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
At the case of dipole antenae radiation, the average size of photon wave packets will be 10+1 x 10+1 / 10-35 = 10+33 meters, i.e. the substantially larger, then the estimated diameter of the whole observable Universe.
So what size are 10 meter photon particles? I assume that you are not
suggesting that they are larger than the universe. You have resorted to
photon wave packets which seems to conflict with your prior statement about
particles.
We have hypothesized that the point where each discrete photon wavelet in a
photon wavefront releases the energy that it contains by resonating with a
receiving dipole in an atom(s), and a secondary photon is emitted by that atom.
It is detected thru atomic absorption/resonance and re-emits (reflects) that photon
wave pulse which we see. It is an absorption, re-emission/reflection process
of EM energy.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE (Montec+Feb 19 2007, 02:49 AM)
..I checked gamma rays are not cosmic rays. Cosmic ray are really just very high speed particles...
The small fraction of cosmic rays is formed by the photons directly. Nevertheless, the spark chamber is used just for the detection of gamma ray photons, which are difficult to detect by other ways. The another method of gamma and X-ray photons detection is the scintillation. Again, the sparks in scintillators occurs in pin-point places (the greek word "scintilla" just means the spark), therefore the short wavelength photons are really behaving like the pin-point particles.
The small fraction of cosmic rays is formed by the photons directly. Nevertheless, the spark chamber is used just for the detection of gamma ray photons, which are difficult to detect by other ways. The another method of gamma and X-ray photons detection is the scintillation. Again, the sparks in scintillators occurs in pin-point places (the greek word "scintilla" just means the spark), therefore the short wavelength photons are really behaving like the pin-point particles.
QUOTE (Montec+Feb 19 2007, 12:09 AM)
Laserlight
I think most cosmic rays are actually protons, if I remember correctly.
Montec,
I stand corrected! Thank you for correcting me.
Regards,
LL
From Wikipedia:
I think most cosmic rays are actually protons, if I remember correctly.
Montec,
I stand corrected! Thank you for correcting me.
Regards,
LL
From Wikipedia:
QUOTE
Almost 90% of all the incoming cosmic rays are protons, about 9% are helium nuclei (alpha particles) and about 1% are electrons.
Cosmic rays: Wikipwdia
QUOTE
Most cosmic rays originate from extrasolar sources within our own galaxy such as rotating neutron stars, supernovae, radio galaxies, quasars and black holes. However, the fact that some cosmic rays have extremely high energies provides evidence that a least some must be of extra-galactic origin, the local galactic magnetic field would not be able to contain particles with such a high energy.
Hello All,
The following is not necessarily directly relevant to the DSE but I thought that
I would offer it for your contemplation.
------
We often hear that the universe is expanding and the expansion appears to be
accelerating. Immediately, a question arises, what is the universe expanding into?
This outline overview is meant as a proposal that explores the meaning of space and the
extent and characteristics of the known physical domains that exist within it. The
purpose is to set a foundation and comparison to describe the attributes of infinite space
(without energy) vs. finite space that “contains” energy. It is important to differentiate
between the two separate conditions as they represent different relative energy “states”.
For purposes of comparison, finite space is proposed to be the “energetic universe” or
space-time continuum to which we belong, while infinite space is considered to be the dimensionless “void” that the “energetic universe” is attempting to fill by expanding into
it.
In order to try to understand the concepts of infinite space and finite space some
characteristic properties must be assigned to define the qualities that differentiate them. By defining the characteristics of each, it can be easily determined that their attributes are
diametrically opposed. Their is a Yin-Yang relationship that exists between them, a
“marriage” of opposites that follows the laws of thermodynamics and energy transfer.
Much of what follows is personal “conjecture” and opinion based on observation and
interpretation of other theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
“Attributes” of Infinite Space:
1. Infinite space has no orientation without a physical point of relative reference.
a. No up, down, left, or right
b. No dimensional reference, no x ,y, z planes of reference
c. No time reference
d. No temperature reference (absolute zero degrees K)
e. No energy signature reference (EM energy)
f. It is the void, total emptiness, a constant “state” of nothing
2. It is dimensionless and omnidirectional. It has no frame of temporal or spatial
reference.
3. It is infinite, it has no exterior bounds.
4. It has no mass and no physical quality that can be quantified or measured.
5. It has no time/infinite time. There can be no passage or reference to time without
incurring a “change of state”, which is relative to and caused by an exchange of
energy.
6. It is a “medium” for conveying free form energy. Space has permittivity and
permeability and changes state with the introduction of energy, such as:
a. magnetic fields
b. electric fields
c. gravitational fields
d. radiation (EM fields)
Attributes of Finite Space (the space-time continuum):
1. Finite Space has “volume”. Volume can be described as the “confinement” of energy
that is contained within a “finite” boundary region. The “boundary” is expanding
along a wave front bubble of propagating energy that is perpetually encroaching on, and
merging with, infinite space.
2. Finite space and infinite space are merging along an expanding energy wave front
where the dimension of time is being “created”. The dimension of time is produced
by the change of state from a dimensionless non-energetic condition, to an
energetically dynamic temporal state with time relevance.
3. The “universe”, as we know it, has time relevance because the dynamic energy
states that it contains within its expanding boundaries change form and relative
position as the universe expands and “ages”. Change, by its very nature is a
function of time as it relates to energy movement over distance.
4. Finite space has a temperature greater than absolute zero and contains all the
primordial energy released from the big bang. The echo's of this energy
signature is the cosmic microwave background radiation. This energy and the
energy released from stellar events is expanding into infinite space and is
contained within the confined 4D bubble of the known universe.
The Geometry of 4D space:
Requires at least 2 points of physical reference to determine a line
Requires at least 3 points of physical reference to determine the orientation of a plane
Requires at least 4 points of random offset reference to determine 2 intersecting planes
Requires a delta change over distance between any 2 points to determine time
Orientation of position requires 3 points of reference (triangulation).
LL
The following is not necessarily directly relevant to the DSE but I thought that
I would offer it for your contemplation.
------
We often hear that the universe is expanding and the expansion appears to be
accelerating. Immediately, a question arises, what is the universe expanding into?
This outline overview is meant as a proposal that explores the meaning of space and the
extent and characteristics of the known physical domains that exist within it. The
purpose is to set a foundation and comparison to describe the attributes of infinite space
(without energy) vs. finite space that “contains” energy. It is important to differentiate
between the two separate conditions as they represent different relative energy “states”.
For purposes of comparison, finite space is proposed to be the “energetic universe” or
space-time continuum to which we belong, while infinite space is considered to be the dimensionless “void” that the “energetic universe” is attempting to fill by expanding into
it.
In order to try to understand the concepts of infinite space and finite space some
characteristic properties must be assigned to define the qualities that differentiate them. By defining the characteristics of each, it can be easily determined that their attributes are
diametrically opposed. Their is a Yin-Yang relationship that exists between them, a
“marriage” of opposites that follows the laws of thermodynamics and energy transfer.
Much of what follows is personal “conjecture” and opinion based on observation and
interpretation of other theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
“Attributes” of Infinite Space:
1. Infinite space has no orientation without a physical point of relative reference.
a. No up, down, left, or right
b. No dimensional reference, no x ,y, z planes of reference
c. No time reference
d. No temperature reference (absolute zero degrees K)
e. No energy signature reference (EM energy)
f. It is the void, total emptiness, a constant “state” of nothing
2. It is dimensionless and omnidirectional. It has no frame of temporal or spatial
reference.
3. It is infinite, it has no exterior bounds.
4. It has no mass and no physical quality that can be quantified or measured.
5. It has no time/infinite time. There can be no passage or reference to time without
incurring a “change of state”, which is relative to and caused by an exchange of
energy.
6. It is a “medium” for conveying free form energy. Space has permittivity and
permeability and changes state with the introduction of energy, such as:
a. magnetic fields
b. electric fields
c. gravitational fields
d. radiation (EM fields)
Attributes of Finite Space (the space-time continuum):
1. Finite Space has “volume”. Volume can be described as the “confinement” of energy
that is contained within a “finite” boundary region. The “boundary” is expanding
along a wave front bubble of propagating energy that is perpetually encroaching on, and
merging with, infinite space.
2. Finite space and infinite space are merging along an expanding energy wave front
where the dimension of time is being “created”. The dimension of time is produced
by the change of state from a dimensionless non-energetic condition, to an
energetically dynamic temporal state with time relevance.
3. The “universe”, as we know it, has time relevance because the dynamic energy
states that it contains within its expanding boundaries change form and relative
position as the universe expands and “ages”. Change, by its very nature is a
function of time as it relates to energy movement over distance.
4. Finite space has a temperature greater than absolute zero and contains all the
primordial energy released from the big bang. The echo's of this energy
signature is the cosmic microwave background radiation. This energy and the
energy released from stellar events is expanding into infinite space and is
contained within the confined 4D bubble of the known universe.
The Geometry of 4D space:
Requires at least 2 points of physical reference to determine a line
Requires at least 3 points of physical reference to determine the orientation of a plane
Requires at least 4 points of random offset reference to determine 2 intersecting planes
Requires a delta change over distance between any 2 points to determine time
Orientation of position requires 3 points of reference (triangulation).
LL
Zephir, why does light have to be a particle?
Why can't it be existing as a energy which is passed along in the small sub-space between particles of the aether? Extra energy carried along as extra spin angular momentum.
The whole point of the aether for explaining the propagation of light is that light travels like a 'wave' over the surface of the aether.
If you're treating light purely as a particle, you don't need an Aether.
But if the photon is the aether vibration equivalent of the phonon, then it would pass through the aether in the same way heat is passed along as atomic vibration through carbon nanotubes.
Why can't it be existing as a energy which is passed along in the small sub-space between particles of the aether? Extra energy carried along as extra spin angular momentum.
The whole point of the aether for explaining the propagation of light is that light travels like a 'wave' over the surface of the aether.
If you're treating light purely as a particle, you don't need an Aether.
But if the photon is the aether vibration equivalent of the phonon, then it would pass through the aether in the same way heat is passed along as atomic vibration through carbon nanotubes.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Feb 19 2007, 10:35 AM)
Zephir, why does light have to be a particle?
Of course the light is not required to be particle, if you don't want to be. But you should propose some mechanism, hot to create the particle from the wave by the seamless and reversible way. Furthermore, you should consider the relativistic stance, which considers, the difference between the particle and wave is just in the observer perspective. At the end, you should explain/interpret the physical meaning of the mass-energy equivalence principle (E=mc^2). By using of the Aether foam concept such understanding is simple: the introducing of some energy into some place of Aether foam makes the foam more dense, then the rest of environment. The particle-wave duality manifests here by the easy and natural way.
Of course the light is not required to be particle, if you don't want to be. But you should propose some mechanism, hot to create the particle from the wave by the seamless and reversible way. Furthermore, you should consider the relativistic stance, which considers, the difference between the particle and wave is just in the observer perspective. At the end, you should explain/interpret the physical meaning of the mass-energy equivalence principle (E=mc^2). By using of the Aether foam concept such understanding is simple: the introducing of some energy into some place of Aether foam makes the foam more dense, then the rest of environment. The particle-wave duality manifests here by the easy and natural way.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Feb 19 2007, 10:35 AM)
..If you're treating light purely as a particle, you don't need an Aether...
But the light IS NOT "just a pure particle", it has a well pronounced wave character, too... The purpose of AWT is not to adhere on some particular perspective, but to comprehend all the existing views into single universal concept. I can understand the motivation of the people, which are believing, the light is just a wave or just a particle, but my motivation is to demonstrate, both these people can have it's own truth at the same time/place.
But the light IS NOT "just a pure particle", it has a well pronounced wave character, too...
The purpose of AWT is not to adhere on some particular perspective, but to comprehend all the existing views into single universal concept. I can understand the motivation of the people, which are believing, the light is just a wave or just a particle, but my motivation is to demonstrate, both these people can have it's own truth at the same time/place.
There's a bit of a recap here:-
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=176697
Here we see the prediction that there is interference between more than one wavefront ( http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.html )
And here ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) we have the result of a single photon DSE and we see that there really is still more than one wavefront involved.
Best wishes,
-C2.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=176697
Here we see the prediction that there is interference between more than one wavefront ( http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.html )
And here ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) we have the result of a single photon DSE and we see that there really is still more than one wavefront involved.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2, yquantum, Laserlight, "THEY", Montec, et al,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
we have the result of a single photon DSE and we see that there really is still more than one wavefront involved.
Regarding this applet...
http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.html
I don't quite understand what you mean? Do you mean that a single photon interferes with itself on another wavefront altogether? Wouldn't the photon individually define the individual photon's own wavefront? I will admit that it may be possible to spread the energy of the photon along the propagation direction provided there were some energy processes happening in the evanescent field or near a slit or pinhole or dispersive medium. However once it "arrives" in the non-dispersive vacuum of space the different wave components for light are "frozen" relative to each other and they all travel at exactly © together. Perhaps that in between state may be the result of the equivalent of "surface plasmons". Certainly some energy can be caught up in these surface resonances in some conductive materials in an electron gas (Fermi Sea). I may have misread plasmons and their influence in that region.
The interference pattern is simply the combined "sum" of millions of photons dispersed through the slits and these may be many photons from totally different unassociated times. After all the tiny flashes themselves are the actual photons and they are "real tiny" the sum of all such flashes over the entire scanned plane is the "interference pattern". In some respect that pattern "internally" defines a wave spatial pattern but in the end a single photon only ends up in one place and the flash there is a single brightness, The "intensity" is just the "density" of flashes. You previously demonstrated that on the whole the total number of photons are "constant" but their dispersion can vary spatially, that seems fine to me.
The interference pattern the applet is describing is not a "history" of a single photon it is a probability distribution over an extended time of many photons. The "phasing" of the photons individually does not affect individually the final brightness of any photon "flash"... they all have the same brightness. All the phasing seems to show is the average distribution so it predisposes the individual photon to strike a point on the screen where the phase is not totally canceled. That diagram then cannot be anything to do with how "bright" the photon appears due to internal summing or cancellation which is a wave property... it is finally detected in a particle event which loses that wave character.
Interested to hear what you think on that matter. The "devil is in this detail".
Cheers
http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.html
I don't quite understand what you mean? Do you mean that a single photon interferes with itself on another wavefront altogether? Wouldn't the photon individually define the individual photon's own wavefront? I will admit that it may be possible to spread the energy of the photon along the propagation direction provided there were some energy processes happening in the evanescent field or near a slit or pinhole or dispersive medium. However once it "arrives" in the non-dispersive vacuum of space the different wave components for light are "frozen" relative to each other and they all travel at exactly © together. Perhaps that in between state may be the result of the equivalent of "surface plasmons". Certainly some energy can be caught up in these surface resonances in some conductive materials in an electron gas (Fermi Sea). I may have misread plasmons and their influence in that region.
The interference pattern is simply the combined "sum" of millions of photons dispersed through the slits and these may be many photons from totally different unassociated times. After all the tiny flashes themselves are the actual photons and they are "real tiny" the sum of all such flashes over the entire scanned plane is the "interference pattern". In some respect that pattern "internally" defines a wave spatial pattern but in the end a single photon only ends up in one place and the flash there is a single brightness, The "intensity" is just the "density" of flashes. You previously demonstrated that on the whole the total number of photons are "constant" but their dispersion can vary spatially, that seems fine to me.
The interference pattern the applet is describing is not a "history" of a single photon it is a probability distribution over an extended time of many photons. The "phasing" of the photons individually does not affect individually the final brightness of any photon "flash"... they all have the same brightness. All the phasing seems to show is the average distribution so it predisposes the individual photon to strike a point on the screen where the phase is not totally canceled. That diagram then cannot be anything to do with how "bright" the photon appears due to internal summing or cancellation which is a wave property... it is finally detected in a particle event which loses that wave character.
Interested to hear what you think on that matter. The "devil is in this detail".
Cheers
Hi Good Elf, Laserlight, "THEY", Montec, et al, et yquantum?
Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography#Ho...cording_process .
Please try to avoid explaining it .. just say what you think it says about the speed of light. If photons can only interfere with themselves and the 'speed of light' is always 'c' then would it be possible to make holograms in this way?
Best wishes,
C2.
Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography#Ho...cording_process .
Please try to avoid explaining it .. just say what you think it says about the speed of light. If photons can only interfere with themselves and the 'speed of light' is always 'c' then would it be possible to make holograms in this way?
Best wishes,
C2.
Hi Confused2, yquantum, Laserlight, "THEY", Montec, et al,
So it's either moving as particles, moving as waves, or waving around particles... which is an Aether theory.
Why did this model get thrown out again?
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Please try to avoid explaining it .. just say what you think it says about the speed of light. If photons can only interfere with themselves and the 'speed of light' is always 'c' then would it be possible to make holograms in this way?
Of course... what is the problem? I am still not seeing your point here. The intervening space is "filled" with interference fringes (in two dimensions) and standing wave cavities (when considered as three dimensional entities). These are the transverse and longitudinal modes of the "resonance" in the "cavity". You can make a permanent record of a "slice through this experiment" using a photographic emulsion recorded as spatial as well as depth information since you can force photons to be absorbed throughout the volumetric space. After they are absorbed into the emulsion they no longer contribute to the interference pattern at the screen. The "illumination and the reference beams" are "effectively" a two "slit" interference pattern aren't they?
Using that "hologram" made during a real two slit interference Experiment and a reconstruction Laser beam, it should be possible to "reconstruct" the two slit experiment without the two slits and the cavity?? I think it would also include the screen itself as well as the observed pattern. Your input is welcome?
Is there something 'wrong" with attempting an explanation?
Cheers
Using that "hologram" made during a real two slit interference Experiment and a reconstruction Laser beam, it should be possible to "reconstruct" the two slit experiment without the two slits and the cavity?? I think it would also include the screen itself as well as the observed pattern. Your input is welcome?
Is there something 'wrong" with attempting an explanation?
Cheers
Hi C2,
I think this actually substantiates the claim that photons can only interfere with
themselves. That is why the reference beam and the object beam require
a common source, so they can interfere. Notice that there are not two separate
light sources, since they cannot interfere with each other.
Using a common source beam of photons establishes and sets a common dipole
moment in the atoms of the recording medium. This is caused by the superposition
of photon phasing in the light sensitive media. The light must establish a common
phase or amplitude superposition interference relationship that exists between the
photons in each discrete wave in order to provide a common phase and timing reference.
Notice the exposure and efficiency requirements shown on the chart for each
type of media and interference type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography#Ho...cording_process
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
Please try to avoid explaining it .. just say what you think it says about the speed of light. If photons can only interfere with themselves and the 'speed of light' is always 'c' then would it be possible to make holograms in this way?
I think this actually substantiates the claim that photons can only interfere with
themselves. That is why the reference beam and the object beam require
a common source, so they can interfere. Notice that there are not two separate
light sources, since they cannot interfere with each other.
Using a common source beam of photons establishes and sets a common dipole
moment in the atoms of the recording medium. This is caused by the superposition
of photon phasing in the light sensitive media. The light must establish a common
phase or amplitude superposition interference relationship that exists between the
photons in each discrete wave in order to provide a common phase and timing reference.
Notice the exposure and efficiency requirements shown on the chart for each
type of media and interference type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography#Ho...cording_process
Regards,
LL
Hi Laserlight,
Please humour me for a moment .. I think I might be 'seeing things'.
For the reference beam the length of the path from the beam splitter to the film is fixed ... yes?
For the illumination beam the length of the path is however far it is to the object plus all over the object.
The reference beam and the illumination beam meet (and interfere) at the photographic plate.
Let's say the length of the reference beam path is two metres. We don't really know the length of the path of the illumination beam .. it could be one metre or it could be three .. or (in reality) between (say) one metre AND three metres and all points in between. We know holograms work so all we have to do is look at the diagram .. measure the length of time it takes light to travel the distance (using a photodiode say) and we can work out the speed of light. Once we know how long it takes light to reach the plate (time = t) .. do we divide one metre by t or two metres by t or three metres by t, take the average? or something else?
Or is there perhaps a real problem with 'c'?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Please humour me for a moment .. I think I might be 'seeing things'.
For the reference beam the length of the path from the beam splitter to the film is fixed ... yes?
For the illumination beam the length of the path is however far it is to the object plus all over the object.
The reference beam and the illumination beam meet (and interfere) at the photographic plate.
Let's say the length of the reference beam path is two metres. We don't really know the length of the path of the illumination beam .. it could be one metre or it could be three .. or (in reality) between (say) one metre AND three metres and all points in between. We know holograms work so all we have to do is look at the diagram .. measure the length of time it takes light to travel the distance (using a photodiode say) and we can work out the speed of light. Once we know how long it takes light to reach the plate (time = t) .. do we divide one metre by t or two metres by t or three metres by t, take the average? or something else?
Or is there perhaps a real problem with 'c'?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2, yquantum, Laserlight, "THEY", Montec, et al,
Just an interesting technical "aside" which may assist in understanding... You really do not need two separate beams. I know many ideal lab setups show both beams. One diverged parallel source of laser light is sufficient to create very respectable holograms... this is because the beam diverges and reflects and absorbs just the same, you get a much better looking picture if you illuminate your subject from as many angles as possible but it is not entirely essential for interference fringes. These holograms do not have all the interesting character of multiple sources illuminating the target but they work all the same. Really neat holograms can be made with as many "beams" as you like just like in a studio portrait it still improves the overall "look". This works because in the "real world" the entire Universe is a cavity and various reflections, as weak and as feeble as they are, is entirely sufficient (from the Feynman Rule of "Seeking All Paths") to provide all the cavities the Hologram needs to reconstruct the sources and the objects.
What is essential to holograms is that the fringes formed in space are not "moving" but are "stationary" for stationary subjects. This is to get a consistent exposure, moving fringes would expose the plates uniformly and you could not see fringing after development of the plates. The wave tank would be composed of only moving fringes until some stationary state formed over time... as if it had to bounce around interfering with itself. We know from experiment this does not happen. Fortunately actual experiment shows that an individual photon already knows about all those fringes "already there" even when the cavity has had no light in it. Don't you agree? The very first photon in that light-less cavity "sees" a standing wave pattern and goes on to take its position in the final interference pattern as a speck of light possibly "guided" into place by "Berry Phase".
It depends if you believe if the photons are "guided" in flight or the wave and particle aspects are separate phenomena. I lean towards the latter interpretation that the "waves" are just a pattern like shadows on a wall and do not show where the actual photon really is. We only know where it finally ends up with that flash of light.
Cheers
Just an interesting technical "aside" which may assist in understanding... You really do not need two separate beams. I know many ideal lab setups show both beams. One diverged parallel source of laser light is sufficient to create very respectable holograms... this is because the beam diverges and reflects and absorbs just the same, you get a much better looking picture if you illuminate your subject from as many angles as possible but it is not entirely essential for interference fringes. These holograms do not have all the interesting character of multiple sources illuminating the target but they work all the same. Really neat holograms can be made with as many "beams" as you like just like in a studio portrait it still improves the overall "look". This works because in the "real world" the entire Universe is a cavity and various reflections, as weak and as feeble as they are, is entirely sufficient (from the Feynman Rule of "Seeking All Paths") to provide all the cavities the Hologram needs to reconstruct the sources and the objects.
What is essential to holograms is that the fringes formed in space are not "moving" but are "stationary" for stationary subjects. This is to get a consistent exposure, moving fringes would expose the plates uniformly and you could not see fringing after development of the plates. The wave tank would be composed of only moving fringes until some stationary state formed over time... as if it had to bounce around interfering with itself. We know from experiment this does not happen. Fortunately actual experiment shows that an individual photon already knows about all those fringes "already there" even when the cavity has had no light in it. Don't you agree? The very first photon in that light-less cavity "sees" a standing wave pattern and goes on to take its position in the final interference pattern as a speck of light possibly "guided" into place by "Berry Phase".
It depends if you believe if the photons are "guided" in flight or the wave and particle aspects are separate phenomena. I lean towards the latter interpretation that the "waves" are just a pattern like shadows on a wall and do not show where the actual photon really is. We only know where it finally ends up with that flash of light.
Cheers
For the reference beam the length of the path from the beam splitter to the film is fixed ... yes?
For the illumination beam the length of the path from the beam splitter to the object and then to the file is not fixed ... yes?
Both beams interfere at the surface of the photographic film.
So when you measure the length of time (T) it takes for light to arrive at the film and you try to calculate the speed of light which path are you going to use? .. the long one? .. the short one? .. the type of photographic film? the quality of the photograph? Please don't even try explain .. just choose what you think will give the best estimate of the speed of light..
Best wishes,
-C2.
For the illumination beam the length of the path from the beam splitter to the object and then to the file is not fixed ... yes?
Both beams interfere at the surface of the photographic film.
So when you measure the length of time (T) it takes for light to arrive at the film and you try to calculate the speed of light which path are you going to use? .. the long one? .. the short one? .. the type of photographic film? the quality of the photograph? Please don't even try explain .. just choose what you think will give the best estimate of the speed of light..
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2,
The speed of light is constant. It is relative to the medium in which it travels.
I see that you have modified your original post. There is an explanation below
that provides the anwer to the questions that you originally posed.
Since photons travel as a coherent wavefront there is a relative phase and timing
relationship to every temporal and spacial component in the wavefront. That
relationship is fixed in time and space. If those phase or timing relationships change (or are delayed) interference patterns result.
The reference wavefronts align the atomic/molecular dipoles in the recording
media all in the same initial reference direction. The dipoles are aligned because
their electric dipole moments are polarized by the electric fields of the incident
planar reference wave fronts. It is not just a surface reaction, it is throughout
the depth of the recording medium, in 3D.
The planar wavefronts being reflected off of the target object are subjected to
timing delays from the geometries of the reflecting surfaces. These timing delays
also change the phase relationship that normally exists spatially along the
wavefront. The phase and timing delays incurred by reflecting at different times
change the normally synchronous relationship of the reflected wavefront which
creates signal "offsets" in the object's reflecting wavefront. These offset EM
components realign the dipole moments that were established by the reference
wavefronts at the atomic dipole mixing points. In the recording media's atomic
matrix, where the reference wavefront and the reflected wavefront EM
components "mix", the dipoles realign in phase to the interference caused by
the superposed electrical fields of the separated but "synchronous" wavefront.
The atomic dipole moments of the recording media become "fixed" as an
interference pattern in the matrix.
Basically, the wavefront still interferes with itself in the media but with time and
phase changes due to reflections from the object. The timing is still relative
to the source.
You can associate the phase and timing delays to your old radar days and the
differences between the incident and reflected signals.
LL
The speed of light is constant. It is relative to the medium in which it travels.
I see that you have modified your original post. There is an explanation below
that provides the anwer to the questions that you originally posed.
QUOTE
Let's say the length of the reference beam path is two metres. We don't really know the length of the path of the illumination beam .. it could be one metre or it could be three .. or (in reality) between (say) one metre AND three metres and all points in between. We know holograms work so all we have to do is look at the diagram .. measure the length of time it takes light to travel the distance (using a photodiode say) and we can work out the speed of light. Once we know how long it takes light to reach the plate (time = t) .. do we divide one metre by t or two metres by t or three metres by t, take the average? or something else?
Since photons travel as a coherent wavefront there is a relative phase and timing
relationship to every temporal and spacial component in the wavefront. That
relationship is fixed in time and space. If those phase or timing relationships change (or are delayed) interference patterns result.
The reference wavefronts align the atomic/molecular dipoles in the recording
media all in the same initial reference direction. The dipoles are aligned because
their electric dipole moments are polarized by the electric fields of the incident
planar reference wave fronts. It is not just a surface reaction, it is throughout
the depth of the recording medium, in 3D.
The planar wavefronts being reflected off of the target object are subjected to
timing delays from the geometries of the reflecting surfaces. These timing delays
also change the phase relationship that normally exists spatially along the
wavefront. The phase and timing delays incurred by reflecting at different times
change the normally synchronous relationship of the reflected wavefront which
creates signal "offsets" in the object's reflecting wavefront. These offset EM
components realign the dipole moments that were established by the reference
wavefronts at the atomic dipole mixing points. In the recording media's atomic
matrix, where the reference wavefront and the reflected wavefront EM
components "mix", the dipoles realign in phase to the interference caused by
the superposed electrical fields of the separated but "synchronous" wavefront.
The atomic dipole moments of the recording media become "fixed" as an
interference pattern in the matrix.
Basically, the wavefront still interferes with itself in the media but with time and
phase changes due to reflections from the object. The timing is still relative
to the source.
You can associate the phase and timing delays to your old radar days and the
differences between the incident and reflected signals.
LL
QUOTE
It depends if you believe if the photons are "guided" in flight or the wave and particle aspects are separate phenomena.
So it's either moving as particles, moving as waves, or waving around particles... which is an Aether theory.
Why did this model get thrown out again?
Hi all,
First thing's first: to Aerohead (sorry I forgot to respond before).
I don't think C2 is a bad guy at all. The "rudeness" I referred to was his not responding (repeatedly) to my answers to his questions. I was frustrated by that, but more so because of the excess "wheel-spinning" that goes on here (it's not just him). Anyway... all is well, I hope.
LL,
I was not too "moved" by your response, which basically you said that I had misinterpreted ALL those statements that you made. (my post, for reference)
Let me just ask the simple question: "were you saying that electrons' were absorbing "photons", and then (after "mixing") re-emitting them?" It didn't seem so; it seemed as if you were saying (in many different ways) that the fields were interacting with fields. IF the latter is the case, then I can not see how you are disagreeing with my stance.
You mentioned "wavefunction" in your response, so I am assuming that you are taking the QM (rather than "classical") approach. Wavefunction probabilities have no rules against interference, and in fact, require it. So does the "all paths" approach, because something causes all of those "virtual" waves, that are exploring all paths, to "zero out" of the picture, while summing to ONE place.
If your reluctance to this idea stems from Maxwell's equations, then it shouldn't be a surprise that we have a problem with looking at the QM perspective. They don't work nicely with each other. What is your reason?
regards,
T.Roc
First thing's first: to Aerohead (sorry I forgot to respond before).
I don't think C2 is a bad guy at all. The "rudeness" I referred to was his not responding (repeatedly) to my answers to his questions. I was frustrated by that, but more so because of the excess "wheel-spinning" that goes on here (it's not just him). Anyway... all is well, I hope.
LL,
I was not too "moved" by your response, which basically you said that I had misinterpreted ALL those statements that you made. (my post, for reference)
Let me just ask the simple question: "were you saying that electrons' were absorbing "photons", and then (after "mixing") re-emitting them?" It didn't seem so; it seemed as if you were saying (in many different ways) that the fields were interacting with fields. IF the latter is the case, then I can not see how you are disagreeing with my stance.
You mentioned "wavefunction" in your response, so I am assuming that you are taking the QM (rather than "classical") approach. Wavefunction probabilities have no rules against interference, and in fact, require it. So does the "all paths" approach, because something causes all of those "virtual" waves, that are exploring all paths, to "zero out" of the picture, while summing to ONE place.
If your reluctance to this idea stems from Maxwell's equations, then it shouldn't be a surprise that we have a problem with looking at the QM perspective. They don't work nicely with each other. What is your reason?
regards,
T.Roc
Hi Laserlight,
From one of Douglas Adams' books ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Dark...ime_of_the_Soul )
My Uncle Henry thinks he's a chicken.
So why don't you get the doctor to sort him out?
Because we need the eggs.
Reality seems to be in a rather worse state than Uncle Henry, the very best doctors have tried to sort it out but the eggs just keep on coming.
If we tried to measure the speed of light in the hologram example I think we would get a mixture of two results .. one for the the reference path and one for the illumination beam path and (of course) no interference. If you want a nice hologram you just have to leave it to get on with it .. same as with Uncle Henry and the eggs.
Clues here:-
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm
and more here
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm (gives a link to the actual experiment.)
Best wishes,
-C2.
Edit ..
I've just found this .. not read much but it looks good so far
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/chap2.html
From one of Douglas Adams' books ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Dark...ime_of_the_Soul )
My Uncle Henry thinks he's a chicken.
So why don't you get the doctor to sort him out?
Because we need the eggs.
Reality seems to be in a rather worse state than Uncle Henry, the very best doctors have tried to sort it out but the eggs just keep on coming.
If we tried to measure the speed of light in the hologram example I think we would get a mixture of two results .. one for the the reference path and one for the illumination beam path and (of course) no interference. If you want a nice hologram you just have to leave it to get on with it .. same as with Uncle Henry and the eggs.
Clues here:-
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm
and more here
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm (gives a link to the actual experiment.)
Best wishes,
-C2.
Edit ..
I've just found this .. not read much but it looks good so far
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/chap2.html
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, Yquantum, Solid State Universe, "THEY", Montec, et al,
I had a quick read of your reference...
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/chap2.html
As far as it goes that is pretty good. Doesn't all this indicate to you that photons or even electrons are not particles when they pass through the slits and they appear to go through them as a wave? That the "particulate" nature of the photon or electron (or other particle) arises when we detect it finally and absolutely. It is rather like our entire Universe is a flatspace in which wavelike "particles" are able to move from source to sinks sailing "over" the dimensional wall of the obstructions moving directly from source to sink, while the "waves" diverge from this "upper" space to intersect the geometry of the flatspace?
It is as though we are looking at an iconic "Lab Rats Maze" from an elevated position and little human "rats" wander around the maze of our flatspace Universe confined to the "maze plane". Every now and again we notice interference fringes which seem to relate to a "particle" emitting "waves" from above the plane of the maze. These expanding waves intersect with the maze obstacles casting ripples on some of the nicely arranged screens for the "human rats" to observe. The source of these "quantum processes" seem to originate from above the plane of the Universe leaving some to conclude that the particles (that radiate this wave-like disturbance) actually travel slightly above the maze in that "open space" while the wavelike ripples travel through the maze.
It appears to me inescapable that particles behaving in a quantum state are not where the waves are and visa versa. The waves and the particles are not "one" but "two".
I am also glad to see that Wheeler's original thought experiment appears here too alongside the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment as well. You have never really commented on some of my "interpretations". What do you think about the concept of a "single event" I have often mentioned and to how time and space connects the everything in that "Relativistic Frame of Reference"?
Despite Quantum Mechanics it should be possible to understand all this in a consistent way and at least I am "consistent". QM in its purest state does not provide anything more than the "grossest" interpretation of phenomena through the application of statistics. I am sure that because we cannot accept that unless we have a fully resolved concept of these processes, then QM will always have a difficulty with the underlying basis and it will always remain a theory that is internally inconsistent as Feynman used to say. This rigid model that has "quantum weirdness" built in at the ground floor, may have some "romantic" value, but restrains further developments... don't you agree? The answer is not to be found in observing isolated little balls bouncing around... this is just not how things really are. This connectedness that is maintaining all things in the Universe as a superimposed set of overlapping interferences, unseen and unmarked and critically dependent of separation and phase, can only be determined indirectly through "observations".
Cheers
I had a quick read of your reference...
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/chap2.html
As far as it goes that is pretty good. Doesn't all this indicate to you that photons or even electrons are not particles when they pass through the slits and they appear to go through them as a wave? That the "particulate" nature of the photon or electron (or other particle) arises when we detect it finally and absolutely. It is rather like our entire Universe is a flatspace in which wavelike "particles" are able to move from source to sinks sailing "over" the dimensional wall of the obstructions moving directly from source to sink, while the "waves" diverge from this "upper" space to intersect the geometry of the flatspace?
It is as though we are looking at an iconic "Lab Rats Maze" from an elevated position and little human "rats" wander around the maze of our flatspace Universe confined to the "maze plane". Every now and again we notice interference fringes which seem to relate to a "particle" emitting "waves" from above the plane of the maze. These expanding waves intersect with the maze obstacles casting ripples on some of the nicely arranged screens for the "human rats" to observe. The source of these "quantum processes" seem to originate from above the plane of the Universe leaving some to conclude that the particles (that radiate this wave-like disturbance) actually travel slightly above the maze in that "open space" while the wavelike ripples travel through the maze.
It appears to me inescapable that particles behaving in a quantum state are not where the waves are and visa versa. The waves and the particles are not "one" but "two".
I am also glad to see that Wheeler's original thought experiment appears here too alongside the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment as well. You have never really commented on some of my "interpretations". What do you think about the concept of a "single event" I have often mentioned and to how time and space connects the everything in that "Relativistic Frame of Reference"?
Despite Quantum Mechanics it should be possible to understand all this in a consistent way and at least I am "consistent". QM in its purest state does not provide anything more than the "grossest" interpretation of phenomena through the application of statistics. I am sure that because we cannot accept that unless we have a fully resolved concept of these processes, then QM will always have a difficulty with the underlying basis and it will always remain a theory that is internally inconsistent as Feynman used to say. This rigid model that has "quantum weirdness" built in at the ground floor, may have some "romantic" value, but restrains further developments... don't you agree? The answer is not to be found in observing isolated little balls bouncing around... this is just not how things really are. This connectedness that is maintaining all things in the Universe as a superimposed set of overlapping interferences, unseen and unmarked and critically dependent of separation and phase, can only be determined indirectly through "observations".
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
It appears to me inescapable that particles behaving in a quantum state are not where the waves are and visa versa. The waves and the particles are not "one" but "two".
Agreed.
Yes again.
Yes again.
What do you think about the concept of a "single event" I have often mentioned and to how time and space connects the everything in that "Relativistic Frame of Reference"?
Where can I find more on this subject?
Agreed.
QUOTE
This rigid model that has "quantum weirdness" built in at the ground floor, may have some "romantic" value, but restrains further developments... don't you agree?
Yes again.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This rigid model that has "quantum weirdness" built in at the ground floor, may have some "romantic" value, but restrains further developments... don't you agree? |
Yes again.
What do you think about the concept of a "single event" I have often mentioned and to how time and space connects the everything in that "Relativistic Frame of Reference"?
Where can I find more on this subject?
Hi TRoc,
I normally read your posts very carefully. Your approach is so unconventional that I tend to think it is best to wait and see what comes of it rather than try to contaminate it with my own ideas. I'm sorry if this seems like 'nothing' .. it is intended as a constructive 'nothing' rather than a 'nothing' nothing.. if you see what I mean.
Conspicuously you are the only person who has asked for any maths .. I gave you maths.. I hope that was OK. There's more maths in the pipeline but I need to find a suitable applet so everyone can play with it .. I'm not sure many people can be bothered to read through many lines of 'proof' so there's not much point in including it (??). The bits of maths I've given have included some mistakes and could certainly have been done more elegantly .. yet nobody comments.(!??)
Best wishes,
-C2.
I normally read your posts very carefully. Your approach is so unconventional that I tend to think it is best to wait and see what comes of it rather than try to contaminate it with my own ideas. I'm sorry if this seems like 'nothing' .. it is intended as a constructive 'nothing' rather than a 'nothing' nothing.. if you see what I mean.
Conspicuously you are the only person who has asked for any maths .. I gave you maths.. I hope that was OK. There's more maths in the pipeline but I need to find a suitable applet so everyone can play with it .. I'm not sure many people can be bothered to read through many lines of 'proof' so there's not much point in including it (??). The bits of maths I've given have included some mistakes and could certainly have been done more elegantly .. yet nobody comments.(!??)
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2,
Well, let's not beat the dead horse. It was never "nothing"; it was refusal to answer a "yes/no" question with a yes or a no. You have been asking GE and LL for this same type of response as of late, saying "please don't explain", so I know that you understand what I'm saying here.
Just like lawyers, we are all occasionally trying to make a point by asking questions that will lead to the answer that we believe is correct. Unfortunately, we do not have a mediator (Judge) to say "just answer the question Mr. Smith". This is why I have asked for "manners" to be self-regulated, so that we can actually have a flow of information.
It's water under the bridge, as far as I'm concerned.
ciao,
T.Roc
Well, let's not beat the dead horse. It was never "nothing"; it was refusal to answer a "yes/no" question with a yes or a no. You have been asking GE and LL for this same type of response as of late, saying "please don't explain", so I know that you understand what I'm saying here.
Just like lawyers, we are all occasionally trying to make a point by asking questions that will lead to the answer that we believe is correct. Unfortunately, we do not have a mediator (Judge) to say "just answer the question Mr. Smith". This is why I have asked for "manners" to be self-regulated, so that we can actually have a flow of information.
It's water under the bridge, as far as I'm concerned.
ciao,
T.Roc
RE: New particle-wave experimental work
Did anybody follow this guy’s (Shahriar Afshar) new work on the particle-wave experiment recently reported in NewScientist? I read his simple experimental setup in a paper-issue of the magazine (February 17, 2007).
Best wishes, Mong 2/20/7usct12:11p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Did anybody follow this guy’s (Shahriar Afshar) new work on the particle-wave experiment recently reported in NewScientist? I read his simple experimental setup in a paper-issue of the magazine (February 17, 2007).
Best wishes, Mong 2/20/7usct12:11p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
' it is throughout the depth of the recording medium, in 3D. '
Lost again ;)
Are you saying LaserLight that those 'photons' wanders thru all, just to make us happy?
I thought holographic images were reflected of macroscopic planes of reflection._But not doing 3D scans 'inside' while reading/constructing the information?
One learns one hopes ;)
Lost again ;)
Are you saying LaserLight that those 'photons' wanders thru all, just to make us happy?
I thought holographic images were reflected of macroscopic planes of reflection._But not doing 3D scans 'inside' while reading/constructing the information?
One learns one hopes ;)
How easily particle-wave duality would have been rectified with the assumption of an aether.
Light as a wave guided around particles. When we register it as a 'photon' we're really just registering the energy in the space between the particles of the aether.
Light as a wave guided around particles. When we register it as a 'photon' we're really just registering the energy in the space between the particles of the aether.
Hi yor_on,
What happens is there is an effect with the depth of the emulsion where some areas inside it are never exposed but adjacent areas are exposed and you can see these if you use the right type of emulsion using a microscope. Photons do not just simply expose the emulsion where they pass into it they pick their way until there is an antinode where they can then 'dissipate" into a silver halide crystal. A tiny fraction of a wavelength in front or behind that position is unsuitable for the photons to be absorbed. This leads to a "labyrinth of interference "surfaces" which look like fringing or like a grating. What is actually happening is this emulsion is recording the nodes and antinodes just "hanging" in the space at that wavelength. Obviously at different wavelengths there are different nodes and antinodes there depending on the wavelength of illuminating light.
Optical Lenses can also be part of the picture. I have a really neat high quality hologram at home in which a real image of a microscope is focussed on a butterfly's wing. The really great part about it is I can actually look down this "virtual microscope"... through the eyepiece and see the magnified wing of the butterfly at high resolution. The entire optic system of the microscope with all internal components and lenses are "frozen" into the emulsion ... The entire 'object" is a real erect image in front of the emulsion plane... all that it lacks is a movable slide and focusing knob... he he he!
Cheers
QUOTE
"it is throughout the depth of the recording medium, in 3D. '
Lost again
Are you saying LaserLight that those 'photons' wanders thru all, just to make us happy?
I thought holographic images were reflected of macroscopic planes of reflection._But not doing 3D scans 'inside' while reading/constructing the information?
I hope I am not taking anything from Laserlight here. I am sure that he means that the way most good quality Holograms are recorded is "in depth" with "thick" emulsions that record the fringes in depth into the emulsion. This is why it is very difficult to make copies of real high quality Holograms, you cannot simply make a "print".. Unlike ordinary photos which try and concentrate an image into a single plane, a hologram does not normally utilize a lens to effect its 'process"... what it does is the standing waves "in space" imprints and exposes the film emulsion with depth such that inside that emulsion what is there is a faithful record of the wavefronts found where the emulsion is placed. obviously light is required to expose the emulsion so even though these standing waves may exist in some sense before an emulsion has been exposed, it is only when the coherent light from some source creates these stationary patterns inside the emulsion can it expose it. It then becomes a "little window" on that Universe, frozen in time, showing a perfect faithful reconstruction, at the one illumination frequency, as seen from the position of the Hologram.Lost again
Are you saying LaserLight that those 'photons' wanders thru all, just to make us happy?
I thought holographic images were reflected of macroscopic planes of reflection._But not doing 3D scans 'inside' while reading/constructing the information?
What happens is there is an effect with the depth of the emulsion where some areas inside it are never exposed but adjacent areas are exposed and you can see these if you use the right type of emulsion using a microscope. Photons do not just simply expose the emulsion where they pass into it they pick their way until there is an antinode where they can then 'dissipate" into a silver halide crystal. A tiny fraction of a wavelength in front or behind that position is unsuitable for the photons to be absorbed. This leads to a "labyrinth of interference "surfaces" which look like fringing or like a grating. What is actually happening is this emulsion is recording the nodes and antinodes just "hanging" in the space at that wavelength. Obviously at different wavelengths there are different nodes and antinodes there depending on the wavelength of illuminating light.
Optical Lenses can also be part of the picture. I have a really neat high quality hologram at home in which a real image of a microscope is focussed on a butterfly's wing. The really great part about it is I can actually look down this "virtual microscope"... through the eyepiece and see the magnified wing of the butterfly at high resolution. The entire optic system of the microscope with all internal components and lenses are "frozen" into the emulsion ... The entire 'object" is a real erect image in front of the emulsion plane... all that it lacks is a movable slide and focusing knob... he he he!
Cheers
Yor_on,
Are you saying LaserLight that those 'photons' wanders thru all, just to make us happy?
I thought holographic images were reflected of macroscopic planes of reflection._But not doing 3D scans 'inside' while reading/constructing the information?
Holographic media are optically "transparent". Light passes thru the medium
except where it interferes with itself and leaves an interference pattern. If you
take a sliver of a hologram it will have the full holographic image recorded on it,
not just a portion of the original "scene". This is what I meant by 3D. The image
is recorded thru the full depth of the media as the light passes thru and interferes
across the entire atomic lattice. This gives the recorded image the 3D depth
effect when observed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hologram
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
Are you saying LaserLight that those 'photons' wanders thru all, just to make us happy?
I thought holographic images were reflected of macroscopic planes of reflection._But not doing 3D scans 'inside' while reading/constructing the information?
Holographic media are optically "transparent". Light passes thru the medium
except where it interferes with itself and leaves an interference pattern. If you
take a sliver of a hologram it will have the full holographic image recorded on it,
not just a portion of the original "scene". This is what I meant by 3D. The image
is recorded thru the full depth of the media as the light passes thru and interferes
across the entire atomic lattice. This gives the recorded image the 3D depth
effect when observed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hologram
Regards,
LL
Hi Good Elf,
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Doesn't all this indicate to you that photons or even electrons are not particles when they pass through the slits and they appear to go through them as a wave? That the "particulate" nature of the photon or electron (or other particle) arises when we detect it finally and absolutely.
I can't raise much of an argument about that.
It all looks very constrained by our 3 dimensions to me. In the DSE all you need to know is the wavelength of the light and the geometry and you can predict the result. If you're really smart (eg Thomas Young ) you can even use the geometry to work out the wavelength. If extra dimensions are not required to predict the result I don't see how/why they become involved except (possibly) as spectators. I apply the same logic to dimensions as to plasmids and plasmons .. if you don't need to know about them to predict the result then they are irrelevant to the 'solution' of the DSE.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I can't raise much of an argument about that.
QUOTE
It is rather like our entire Universe is a flatspace in which wavelike "particles" are able to move from source to sinks sailing "over" the dimensional wall of the obstructions
It all looks very constrained by our 3 dimensions to me. In the DSE all you need to know is the wavelength of the light and the geometry and you can predict the result. If you're really smart (eg Thomas Young ) you can even use the geometry to work out the wavelength. If extra dimensions are not required to predict the result I don't see how/why they become involved except (possibly) as spectators. I apply the same logic to dimensions as to plasmids and plasmons .. if you don't need to know about them to predict the result then they are irrelevant to the 'solution' of the DSE.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Mong H Tan,
Without being a subscriber I can only read the opening bit of the New Scientist article. Has he moved on from putting wires in the 'dark bits'? Any other source for this?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Without being a subscriber I can only read the opening bit of the New Scientist article. Has he moved on from putting wires in the 'dark bits'? Any other source for this?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi TRoc,
I was disagreeing with your contention that light or sound in free space interferes without
first having some interaction with matter that acts as a signal mixing point/catalyst.
Separate propagating EM Fields will not mix or interact unless there is a physical
point of mixing provided by matter. A "balanced" atomic EM field that is osillating
at a specific fundamental frequency will become "unbalanced" and resonate at
some mixed frequency when external EM fields are applied to it. It is a
superpostion point of signal mixing. Two (or more) discrete frequency
waveforms propagating thru open space, will maintain their individual waveshape, frequency, and EM signature, even if they are propagating together. Each
individual frequency can be filtered out of, and descriminated from, the white
noise of overlapping signals.
The output waveform, after mixing across some matter "catalyst", will be a
composite waveform. The shape of the mixed signal waveform will be the
additive result of the signals that were mixed, and will contain the constructive
and destructive elements of the original waveforms. You know how signal mixing
works.
A wavefunction is determined by the interaction of all the energy fields acting on it.
It is a statistical "change of state" from some ambient normal operational state,
to some "altered" state by the application of external influences (fields).
IMO, if an EM field of atomic matter is normally oscillating at some normal
frequency and then an external EM field is applied, the fundamental wavefunction
will be modified/blended. Is this what you were asking?
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
Let me just ask the simple question: "were you saying that electrons' were absorbing "photons", and then (after "mixing") re-emitting them?" It didn't seem so; it seemed as if you were saying (in many different ways) that the fields were interacting with fields. IF the latter is the case, then I can not see how you are disagreeing with my stance.
You mentioned "wavefunction" in your response, so I am assuming that you are taking the QM (rather than "classical") approach. Wavefunction probabilities have no rules against interference, and in fact, require it. So does the "all paths" approach, because something causes all of those "virtual" waves, that are exploring all paths, to "zero out" of the picture, while summing to ONE place.
If your reluctance to this idea stems from Maxwell's equations, then it shouldn't be a surprise that we have a problem with looking at the QM perspective. They don't work nicely with each other. What is your reason?
You mentioned "wavefunction" in your response, so I am assuming that you are taking the QM (rather than "classical") approach. Wavefunction probabilities have no rules against interference, and in fact, require it. So does the "all paths" approach, because something causes all of those "virtual" waves, that are exploring all paths, to "zero out" of the picture, while summing to ONE place.
If your reluctance to this idea stems from Maxwell's equations, then it shouldn't be a surprise that we have a problem with looking at the QM perspective. They don't work nicely with each other. What is your reason?
I was disagreeing with your contention that light or sound in free space interferes without
first having some interaction with matter that acts as a signal mixing point/catalyst.
Separate propagating EM Fields will not mix or interact unless there is a physical
point of mixing provided by matter. A "balanced" atomic EM field that is osillating
at a specific fundamental frequency will become "unbalanced" and resonate at
some mixed frequency when external EM fields are applied to it. It is a
superpostion point of signal mixing. Two (or more) discrete frequency
waveforms propagating thru open space, will maintain their individual waveshape, frequency, and EM signature, even if they are propagating together. Each
individual frequency can be filtered out of, and descriminated from, the white
noise of overlapping signals.
The output waveform, after mixing across some matter "catalyst", will be a
composite waveform. The shape of the mixed signal waveform will be the
additive result of the signals that were mixed, and will contain the constructive
and destructive elements of the original waveforms. You know how signal mixing
works.
A wavefunction is determined by the interaction of all the energy fields acting on it.
It is a statistical "change of state" from some ambient normal operational state,
to some "altered" state by the application of external influences (fields).
IMO, if an EM field of atomic matter is normally oscillating at some normal
frequency and then an external EM field is applied, the fundamental wavefunction
will be modified/blended. Is this what you were asking?
Regards,
LL
Laserlight & Good Elf . Thanks if i get it right you mean that the picture is superimposed on every part of emulsion, and while that gives me a headache i will accept it as a fact :) Also that it catches it in depth (3D) a little like the newer types of dvd:s but not really as it contains a whole everywhere. If i keep up with you guys I'm gonna start sounding like a mystic ;)
By the way Good Elf you are almost bardic in your explanations. As i said before, you should teach, ahhh but you already does, right ;)
By the way Good Elf you are almost bardic in your explanations. As i said before, you should teach, ahhh but you already does, right ;)
Hi C2,
I don't think the speed of light is an issue here. I see no reason why it should
be. If you have an amorphous emulsion with a randomly organized atomic
orientation, it is difficult to discern patterns in such a randomized environment.
However, by aligning all of the atoms in a uniform coherent direction any
interference changes in the organized/polarized lattice arrangement are clearly
observed. An example, if you paint a picture on the back side of a pane of
frosted glass you can see the picture but it is fuzzy. However, if you paint the
same picture on a clear piece of glass the picture is very clear and details
can be easily observed. I know I'll get some comments on this since glass is
also amorphous...it was just an analogy.
In the case of a hologram, remember there is an "exposure" time and countless
photon wavefronts are interacting across/thru the emulsion media providing the
overall signal "intensity"/density to insure the interference patterns throughout
the depth of the recording emulsion.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
If we tried to measure the speed of light in the hologram example I think we would get a mixture of two results .. one for the the reference path and one for the illumination beam path and (of course) no interference. If you want a nice hologram you just have to leave it to get on with it .. same as with Uncle Henry and the eggs.
I don't think the speed of light is an issue here. I see no reason why it should
be. If you have an amorphous emulsion with a randomly organized atomic
orientation, it is difficult to discern patterns in such a randomized environment.
However, by aligning all of the atoms in a uniform coherent direction any
interference changes in the organized/polarized lattice arrangement are clearly
observed. An example, if you paint a picture on the back side of a pane of
frosted glass you can see the picture but it is fuzzy. However, if you paint the
same picture on a clear piece of glass the picture is very clear and details
can be easily observed. I know I'll get some comments on this since glass is
also amorphous...it was just an analogy.
In the case of a hologram, remember there is an "exposure" time and countless
photon wavefronts are interacting across/thru the emulsion media providing the
overall signal "intensity"/density to insure the interference patterns throughout
the depth of the recording emulsion.
Regards,
LL
C2,
AAArrrrrggghhh! I can predict that the sun will rise again in the morning too, but
that doesn't explain WHY it does.
You keep insisting that the reason why is not important. Why do you put on
clothes before you go to work? Of course, I'm assuming that you do. LOL!
I'm predicting that you do put on clothes to go to work, and I will even wager
I can tell you why you do it.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
I apply the same logic to dimensions as to plasmids and plasmons .. if you don't need to know about them to predict the result then they are irrelevant to the 'solution' of the DSE.
AAArrrrrggghhh! I can predict that the sun will rise again in the morning too, but
that doesn't explain WHY it does.
You keep insisting that the reason why is not important. Why do you put on
clothes before you go to work? Of course, I'm assuming that you do. LOL!
I'm predicting that you do put on clothes to go to work, and I will even wager
I can tell you why you do it.
Regards,
LL
Hello Mong,
I think you will find the papers of Taco Visser very interesting re the DSE.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/Pubs.html
Regards,
LL
I think you will find the papers of Taco Visser very interesting re the DSE.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/Pubs.html
Regards,
LL
Thanks, Laserlight!
C2, I got some info from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment
Best wishes, Mong 2/20/7usct9:22p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
C2, I got some info from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment
Best wishes, Mong 2/20/7usct9:22p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Yquantum, Mong H Tan, PhD, yor_on, TRoc, et al,
It is rather like our entire Universe is a flatspace in which wavelike "particles" are able to move from source to sinks sailing "over" the dimensional wall of the obstructions
QUOTE (Confused2+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
It is rather like our entire Universe is a flatspace in which wavelike "particles" are able to move from source to sinks sailing "over" the dimensional wall of the obstructions
It all looks very constrained by our 3 dimensions to me. In the DSE all you need to know is the wavelength of the light and the geometry and you can predict the result. If you're really smart (eg Thomas Young ) you can even use the geometry to work out the wavelength. If extra dimensions are not required to predict the result I don't see how/why they become involved except (possibly) as spectators. I apply the same logic to dimensions as to plasmids and plasmons .. if you don't need to know about them to predict the result then they are irrelevant to the 'solution' of the DSE.
It seems Laserlight is with me on this. It is constrained by our three dimensions as I have often said... it goes in "3's". Within this structure of three dimensions plus time, energy processes are confined by "particle light cone walls". These underspecified resonant regions of the electromagnetic field are areas of emergence of topological charge. If these regions are so "uninteresting" and EM Theory cannot "predict" what is there without actually placing "sources" in those regions, surely this is "interesting"? OK it is a kind of energy "barrier" but it appears "passable" through resonant processes.
http://www.ibiblio.org/e-notes/Perc/inst.htm
The Java Applet seems very plausible and involves Instantons which can connect across the space instantly. I suggest that in physics such regions are not irrelevant to field solutions and most people would think that this sort of "stuff" is interesting. You need to ask why standard EM Theory cannot provide solutions to these "solitons" and the "defects" turn up in space in the region of our double slits. There are simple experiments anyone with a little equipment can do that show real physical phenomenon...
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/res...cs/oamgp/gp.htm
These things do interesting things in three dimensions that have little interest in only two dimensions. Highly "spun" light is a real effect that went un-noticed for many years before some thought that it was interesting enough to take some interest in. It seems to me this is a whole new field that still seems to be related to "bright matter solitons". This connects Lorentz-CPT with EM Theory. With null boundaries these energy processes are in stationary states.
http://www.ibiblio.org/e-notes/Perc/inst.htm
The Java Applet seems very plausible and involves Instantons which can connect across the space instantly. I suggest that in physics such regions are not irrelevant to field solutions and most people would think that this sort of "stuff" is interesting. You need to ask why standard EM Theory cannot provide solutions to these "solitons" and the "defects" turn up in space in the region of our double slits. There are simple experiments anyone with a little equipment can do that show real physical phenomenon...
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/res...cs/oamgp/gp.htm
These things do interesting things in three dimensions that have little interest in only two dimensions. Highly "spun" light is a real effect that went un-noticed for many years before some thought that it was interesting enough to take some interest in. It seems to me this is a whole new field that still seems to be related to "bright matter solitons". This connects Lorentz-CPT with EM Theory. With null boundaries these energy processes are in stationary states.
QUOTE (Wikipedia: Instanton+)
An instanton or pseudoparticle is a notion appearing in theoretical and mathematical physics. It is a classical solution to equations of motion with a finite, non-zero action, either in quantum mechanics or in quantum field theory. More precisely, it is a solution to the equations of motion of the classical field theory on a Euclidean spacetime. In such a theory, solutions to the equations of motion may be thought of as critical points of the action. The critical points of the action may be local maxima of the action, local minima, or saddle points. Instantons are important in quantum field theory because (a) they appear in the path integral as the leading quantum corrections to the classical behavior of a system, and (b ) they can be used to study the tunneling behavior in various systems such as a Yang-Mills theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instanton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instanton
Note that these quasi-particles "correct quantum theory" to make the quantum system into a classical system. They are the classical solutions in the real universe of the quantum process. Where in the past people placed quantum processes there you can now show this can be described as a classical field. These are solutions for the basic quantum states. Remember this:
Spherical Harmonics and Quantum Numbers
This also has relevance to the recent experiments for the conversion of light into matter-waves and then back to light again (retaining the qubit). You must admit this is pretty interesting?
Harvard Experiments of Leni Hau: Light and matter united
Cheers
Spherical Harmonics and Quantum Numbers
This also has relevance to the recent experiments for the conversion of light into matter-waves and then back to light again (retaining the qubit). You must admit this is pretty interesting?
Harvard Experiments of Leni Hau: Light and matter united
Cheers
Hi all,
LL, I think your answer was that the interaction that you spoke of was NOT including a NEW "photon" then (according to QM). That, without ever being "absorbed" by an electron (causing orbital excitation), the fields ("photons") induced changes in another "photon", near electrons.
You are misunderstanding what I have said about vibrations, or waves of energy. Perhaps others have too; some people's eyes glaze over when they enter into new territory. Let me restate some of the "indirect" requirements, and I would ask everyone to "try again" to understand what I'm saying here. (it's not hard at all)
1. In superposition, we get a "resonant interaction zone" the size of which, is dictated by the angles involved. At a screen, or other "reflective" area, we have a chance for the 90 degree re-emission, that would maximally align the incident beam with the exiting beam. These beams interact. The only other way to get this type of alignment is to have "spontaneous emission", as in the laser. This is simply 2 "photons" leaving the same place, at the same time, becoming superimposed, or "entangled".
2. For most other "trajectories", we can not "observe" these interactions, because we are not "in the zone". For crossing beams, the interaction is extremely feeble, and short lived. Once out of the zone, the original form is assumed again. You and Good Elf are correct, of course, in mentioning the starlight getting to us "un-perturbed". However, in the near field (interaction zone), there is clearly interaction taking place. [diffraction pattern, refraction "rainbow, etc.]
3. The real power in what I'm talking about is with 3+ frequencies. Within the limit of the octave (>1, <2), there are just a few ratio combinations, that create a "virtual" geometry. This geometric area is now non-linear, even when the path, and the "medium" is linear; and has the special property of "accessing" lower harmonics (which is not possible in linear form). Since the fundamental form of a vibration/wave is non-localized, true "single frequencies" do not exist. (other than perhaps the Universe itself) GE has described this very well, under the model of Fourier. The rule, then, creates a 3rd frequency from the fundamental 2 that are propagating (also fundamental due to HUP). The 3 party Resonance is responsible for keeping the packet centered at an "average" frequency.
This is what "maintains" the "packet", what creates a "soliton", what creates a musical chord, what is responsible for the self propelled, regenerating ability of the EM wave itself. This is an "undiscovered" (until "now") model of Resonance, and is responsible for "quantum jumps", as well as the diffraction pattern we are talking about. It has the ability for exposing the emperor, as it were, and removing the skirting from the foundation of QM, showing that it is just a "mobile home" after all.
regards,
T.Roc
LL, I think your answer was that the interaction that you spoke of was NOT including a NEW "photon" then (according to QM). That, without ever being "absorbed" by an electron (causing orbital excitation), the fields ("photons") induced changes in another "photon", near electrons.
You are misunderstanding what I have said about vibrations, or waves of energy. Perhaps others have too; some people's eyes glaze over when they enter into new territory. Let me restate some of the "indirect" requirements, and I would ask everyone to "try again" to understand what I'm saying here. (it's not hard at all)
1. In superposition, we get a "resonant interaction zone" the size of which, is dictated by the angles involved. At a screen, or other "reflective" area, we have a chance for the 90 degree re-emission, that would maximally align the incident beam with the exiting beam. These beams interact. The only other way to get this type of alignment is to have "spontaneous emission", as in the laser. This is simply 2 "photons" leaving the same place, at the same time, becoming superimposed, or "entangled".
2. For most other "trajectories", we can not "observe" these interactions, because we are not "in the zone". For crossing beams, the interaction is extremely feeble, and short lived. Once out of the zone, the original form is assumed again. You and Good Elf are correct, of course, in mentioning the starlight getting to us "un-perturbed". However, in the near field (interaction zone), there is clearly interaction taking place. [diffraction pattern, refraction "rainbow, etc.]
3. The real power in what I'm talking about is with 3+ frequencies. Within the limit of the octave (>1, <2), there are just a few ratio combinations, that create a "virtual" geometry. This geometric area is now non-linear, even when the path, and the "medium" is linear; and has the special property of "accessing" lower harmonics (which is not possible in linear form). Since the fundamental form of a vibration/wave is non-localized, true "single frequencies" do not exist. (other than perhaps the Universe itself) GE has described this very well, under the model of Fourier. The rule, then, creates a 3rd frequency from the fundamental 2 that are propagating (also fundamental due to HUP). The 3 party Resonance is responsible for keeping the packet centered at an "average" frequency.
This is what "maintains" the "packet", what creates a "soliton", what creates a musical chord, what is responsible for the self propelled, regenerating ability of the EM wave itself. This is an "undiscovered" (until "now") model of Resonance, and is responsible for "quantum jumps", as well as the diffraction pattern we are talking about. It has the ability for exposing the emperor, as it were, and removing the skirting from the foundation of QM, showing that it is just a "mobile home" after all.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
1. In superposition, we get a "resonant interaction zone" the size of which, is dictated by the angles involved. At a screen, or other "reflective" area, we have a chance for the 90 degree re-emission, that would maximally align the incident beam with the exiting beam. These beams interact. The only other way to get this type of alignment is to have "spontaneous emission", as in the laser. This is simply 2 "photons" leaving the same place, at the same time, becoming superimposed, or "entangled".
Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle :-
Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle :-
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.
or maybe..
Vector fields
For vector fields , the principle of superposition states that the net displacement at a given place and time caused by two or more waves traversing the same space is the vector sum of the displacements which would have been produced by the individual waves separately. If the resultant sum is greater than either (displacement of an) individual wave, the event occurring when the waves meet is called constructive interference , and amplitude at that point is increased. When the resultant sum is less than either displacement, then destructive interference occurs, and overall amplitude decreases. If the superposition of waves brings the amplitude to zero, complete destructive interference has occurred.
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.
or maybe..
QUOTE (wiki+)
Vector fields
For vector fields , the principle of superposition states that the net displacement at a given place and time caused by two or more waves traversing the same space is the vector sum of the displacements which would have been produced by the individual waves separately. If the resultant sum is greater than either (displacement of an) individual wave, the event occurring when the waves meet is called constructive interference , and amplitude at that point is increased. When the resultant sum is less than either displacement, then destructive interference occurs, and overall amplitude decreases. If the superposition of waves brings the amplitude to zero, complete destructive interference has occurred.
QUOTE (wiki+)
Quantum mechanics
In quantum mechanics , the superposition principle is applied to attain a general solution of Schrödinger's wave equation , a linear homogeneous differential equation. The solution is a linear combination of particular solutions - possibly infinitely many.
The TRoc definition of superposition would appear to bear no relationship to any of the accepted definitions of 'superposition'.
The Principle of Superposition is what tells us that the field distribution of a dipole is the sum of the fields from two (theoretical) monopoles of opposite phase.
The Principle of Superposition is what allows us to represent any vector as the sum of any number of other vectors. As waves cross in a linear medium we could add the vectors representing the waves and then resolve them back into the original waves but it would be a rather tedious waste of time. ( Possibly more interesting than at first sight .. might explain why Huygens doesn't work in two dimensions .. if anyone wants to go there)
The Principle of Superposition is what suggests the image we see in the mirror is a full and faithful representation of what we actually look like (except 'flipped' left to right )
The Principle of Superposition is what suggests that the image we see of the moon is a fair representation of the actual colour of the surface of the moon despite the fact that our eyes are receiving light from all over the surface .. there is no change of frequency in either the air above us or the vacuum of space.
Edit ..
The Principle of Superposition is .. well..
Resonant interaction zones don't seem to have anything to do with the principle of superposition.
We know (hopefully) the basic rule of reflection .. angle of incidence = angle of reflection. Please explain how a resonant interaction zone can produce this result.
2... later
In quantum mechanics , the superposition principle is applied to attain a general solution of Schrödinger's wave equation , a linear homogeneous differential equation. The solution is a linear combination of particular solutions - possibly infinitely many.
The TRoc definition of superposition would appear to bear no relationship to any of the accepted definitions of 'superposition'.
The Principle of Superposition is what tells us that the field distribution of a dipole is the sum of the fields from two (theoretical) monopoles of opposite phase.
The Principle of Superposition is what allows us to represent any vector as the sum of any number of other vectors. As waves cross in a linear medium we could add the vectors representing the waves and then resolve them back into the original waves but it would be a rather tedious waste of time. ( Possibly more interesting than at first sight .. might explain why Huygens doesn't work in two dimensions .. if anyone wants to go there)
The Principle of Superposition is what suggests the image we see in the mirror is a full and faithful representation of what we actually look like (except 'flipped' left to right )
The Principle of Superposition is what suggests that the image we see of the moon is a fair representation of the actual colour of the surface of the moon despite the fact that our eyes are receiving light from all over the surface .. there is no change of frequency in either the air above us or the vacuum of space.
Edit ..
The Principle of Superposition is .. well..
Resonant interaction zones don't seem to have anything to do with the principle of superposition.
We know (hopefully) the basic rule of reflection .. angle of incidence = angle of reflection. Please explain how a resonant interaction zone can produce this result.
2... later
Hi C2,
Can we be more specific as to "Time-varying signals"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_%28ele..._engineering%29
Discrete-time and continuous-time signals
If for a signal, the quantities are defined only on a discrete set of times, we call it a discrete-time signal. In other words, a discrete-time real (or complex) signal can be seen as a function from the set of integers to the set of real (or complex) numbers.
A continuous-time real (or complex) signal is any real-valued (or complex-valued) function which is defined for all time t in an interval, most commonly an infinite interval.
Analog and digital signals
Less formally than the theoretical distinctions mentioned above, two main types of signals encountered in practice are analog and digital. In short, the difference between them is that digital signals are discrete and quantized, as defined below, while analog signals possess neither property.
I will continue after clearing this up.
ciao,
T.Roc
Can we be more specific as to "Time-varying signals"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_%28ele..._engineering%29
QUOTE
Signals are often scalar-valued functions of time (waveforms), but may be vector valued and may be functions of any other relevant independent variable.
The concept is broad, and hard to define precisely. Definitions specific to subfields are common.
The concept is broad, and hard to define precisely. Definitions specific to subfields are common.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Signals are often scalar-valued functions of time (waveforms), but may be vector valued and may be functions of any other relevant independent variable. The concept is broad, and hard to define precisely. Definitions specific to subfields are common. |
Discrete-time and continuous-time signals
If for a signal, the quantities are defined only on a discrete set of times, we call it a discrete-time signal. In other words, a discrete-time real (or complex) signal can be seen as a function from the set of integers to the set of real (or complex) numbers.
A continuous-time real (or complex) signal is any real-valued (or complex-valued) function which is defined for all time t in an interval, most commonly an infinite interval.
Analog and digital signals
Less formally than the theoretical distinctions mentioned above, two main types of signals encountered in practice are analog and digital. In short, the difference between them is that digital signals are discrete and quantized, as defined below, while analog signals possess neither property.
QUOTE
Since a sound is a vibration of a medium (such as air), a sound signal associates a pressure value to every value of time and three space coordinates. A microphone converts sound pressure at some place to just a function of time, using a voltage signal as an analog of the sound signal.
I will continue after clearing this up.
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
I'm trying to comprehend just exactly what you are saying. It seems circuitous
somehow and I find myself trying to read between the lines to interpret your
meanings. I will interpret and offer my rebuttal. Please correct me if
your meanings are misinterpreted.
I have established 2 different scenario's. One is an EM field interaction as
fields cut thru each other in the presence of matter (slit walls) and harmonically
superpose their signals which modifies the field intensity and phase timing. The
second is an absorption reemission "detection" phenomenon occuring at the
dipoles of the screen, which is what we observe as bright bits as they are
reemitted "reflected" back toward the viewer.
I have established 2 different scenario's. One is an EM field interaction as
fields cut thru each other in the presence of matter (slit walls) and harmonically
superpose their signals which modifies the field intensity and phase timing. The
second is an absorption reemission "detection" phenomenon occuring at the
dipoles of the screen, which is what we observe as bright bits as they are
reemitted "reflected" back toward the viewer.
. In superposition, we get a "resonant interaction zone" the size of which, is dictated by the angles involved. At a screen, or other "reflective" area, we have a chance for the 90 degree re-emission, that would maximally align the incident beam with the exiting beam. These beams interact. The only other way to get this type of alignment is to have "spontaneous emission", as in the laser. This is simply 2 "photons" leaving the same place, at the same time, becoming superimposed, or "entangled".
Isn't a laser a stimulated emission phenomenon that uses a cascade effect to
generate 2nd+ photons within a harmonically regenerative cavity? The energy
applied to the laser medium is just concentrated and coherently phased in the
cavity medium due to reflections. The energy in = the energy out, just phase
coherent and concentrated.
By "in the zone" you mean in the line of sight focal plane. I'm not sure that I
agree with the rest of your contention. Rainbows, diffration patterns, etc, only
happen if there is matter present to act as a "reaction" point. Rainbows do not
occur (or have never been observed) without some interaction with light
thru a refracting medium.
By "in the zone" you mean in the line of sight focal plane. I'm not sure that I
agree with the rest of your contention. Rainbows, diffration patterns, etc, only
happen if there is matter present to act as a "reaction" point. Rainbows do not
occur (or have never been observed) without some interaction with light
thru a refracting medium.
3. The real power in what I'm talking about is with 3+ frequencies. Within the limit of the octave (>1, <2), there are just a few ratio combinations, that create a "virtual" geometry. This geometric area is now non-linear, even when the path, and the "medium" is linear; and has the special property of "accessing" lower harmonics (which is not possible in linear form). Since the fundamental form of a vibration/wave is non-localized, true "single frequencies" do not exist. (other than perhaps the Universe itself) GE has described this very well, under the model of Fourier. The rule, then, creates a 3rd frequency from the fundamental 2 that are propagating (also fundamental due to HUP). The 3 party Resonance is responsible for keeping the packet centered at an "average" frequency.
I'm not sure that I understand this at all. Individual frequencies maintain their
discrete qualities (tone, amplitude, frequency, color, etc) until they interact at
some common detection point in matter. An example, if you look at a white light
source you cannot descriminate individual colors. However, if you sequence a
series of different filters and look at the white light source you will only see
the colors that pass thru each spectral filter. For sound, if you run a bow across
all the strings of a violin and create a horrible din, you can separate each
string frequency with a spectrum analyzer that filters out unwanted frequencies.
I doesn't matter where you do the signal discrimation/separation the result
will always be the same. Upper and lower harmonics are just the composite
remaining signals after mixing at a detector. Up to the point of detection there
is no mixing. However, if the same frequency from separate signal sources
are overlapping, we will not be able to discriminate/separate them because they
have the same signal "response" to the filter.
Wave self regeneration is a form of self coherence/self resonance within the
confines of the wave. All parts of a wavefront are coherent to themselves in
phase timing. I proposed an explanation of this mechanism in a prior post.
I have been trying to develop a regenerative "helical" wave propagation model
that might explain the self regenerative process. Ever see a manual push type
mower with a helical blade arrangement? Think about entangled EM fields rotating
in such a helical fashion, just slightly out of phase with each other but sustaining
each other because of phase interactions. This would be similar to what causes
displacement in a rotating electric motor where separate electric and magnetic
fields interact to attract and repel each other according to their phase and
timing relationship.
Comments, clarifications welcomed.
LL
I'm trying to comprehend just exactly what you are saying. It seems circuitous
somehow and I find myself trying to read between the lines to interpret your
meanings. I will interpret and offer my rebuttal. Please correct me if
your meanings are misinterpreted.
QUOTE
LL, I think your answer was that the interaction that you spoke of was NOT including a NEW "photon" then (according to QM). That, without ever being "absorbed" by an electron (causing orbital excitation), the fields ("photons") induced changes in another "photon", near electrons.
I have established 2 different scenario's. One is an EM field interaction as
fields cut thru each other in the presence of matter (slit walls) and harmonically
superpose their signals which modifies the field intensity and phase timing. The
second is an absorption reemission "detection" phenomenon occuring at the
dipoles of the screen, which is what we observe as bright bits as they are
reemitted "reflected" back toward the viewer.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| LL, I think your answer was that the interaction that you spoke of was NOT including a NEW "photon" then (according to QM). That, without ever being "absorbed" by an electron (causing orbital excitation), the fields ("photons") induced changes in another "photon", near electrons. |
I have established 2 different scenario's. One is an EM field interaction as
fields cut thru each other in the presence of matter (slit walls) and harmonically
superpose their signals which modifies the field intensity and phase timing. The
second is an absorption reemission "detection" phenomenon occuring at the
dipoles of the screen, which is what we observe as bright bits as they are
reemitted "reflected" back toward the viewer.
. In superposition, we get a "resonant interaction zone" the size of which, is dictated by the angles involved. At a screen, or other "reflective" area, we have a chance for the 90 degree re-emission, that would maximally align the incident beam with the exiting beam. These beams interact. The only other way to get this type of alignment is to have "spontaneous emission", as in the laser. This is simply 2 "photons" leaving the same place, at the same time, becoming superimposed, or "entangled".
Isn't a laser a stimulated emission phenomenon that uses a cascade effect to
generate 2nd+ photons within a harmonically regenerative cavity? The energy
applied to the laser medium is just concentrated and coherently phased in the
cavity medium due to reflections. The energy in = the energy out, just phase
coherent and concentrated.
QUOTE
2. For most other "trajectories", we can not "observe" these interactions, because we are not "in the zone". For crossing beams, the interaction is extremely feeble, and short lived. Once out of the zone, the original form is assumed again. You and Good Elf are correct, of course, in mentioning the starlight getting to us "un-perturbed". However, in the near field (interaction zone), there is clearly interaction taking place. [diffraction pattern, refraction "rainbow, etc.]
By "in the zone" you mean in the line of sight focal plane. I'm not sure that I
agree with the rest of your contention. Rainbows, diffration patterns, etc, only
happen if there is matter present to act as a "reaction" point. Rainbows do not
occur (or have never been observed) without some interaction with light
thru a refracting medium.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2. For most other "trajectories", we can not "observe" these interactions, because we are not "in the zone". For crossing beams, the interaction is extremely feeble, and short lived. Once out of the zone, the original form is assumed again. You and Good Elf are correct, of course, in mentioning the starlight getting to us "un-perturbed". However, in the near field (interaction zone), there is clearly interaction taking place. [diffraction pattern, refraction "rainbow, etc.] |
By "in the zone" you mean in the line of sight focal plane. I'm not sure that I
agree with the rest of your contention. Rainbows, diffration patterns, etc, only
happen if there is matter present to act as a "reaction" point. Rainbows do not
occur (or have never been observed) without some interaction with light
thru a refracting medium.
3. The real power in what I'm talking about is with 3+ frequencies. Within the limit of the octave (>1, <2), there are just a few ratio combinations, that create a "virtual" geometry. This geometric area is now non-linear, even when the path, and the "medium" is linear; and has the special property of "accessing" lower harmonics (which is not possible in linear form). Since the fundamental form of a vibration/wave is non-localized, true "single frequencies" do not exist. (other than perhaps the Universe itself) GE has described this very well, under the model of Fourier. The rule, then, creates a 3rd frequency from the fundamental 2 that are propagating (also fundamental due to HUP). The 3 party Resonance is responsible for keeping the packet centered at an "average" frequency.
I'm not sure that I understand this at all. Individual frequencies maintain their
discrete qualities (tone, amplitude, frequency, color, etc) until they interact at
some common detection point in matter. An example, if you look at a white light
source you cannot descriminate individual colors. However, if you sequence a
series of different filters and look at the white light source you will only see
the colors that pass thru each spectral filter. For sound, if you run a bow across
all the strings of a violin and create a horrible din, you can separate each
string frequency with a spectrum analyzer that filters out unwanted frequencies.
I doesn't matter where you do the signal discrimation/separation the result
will always be the same. Upper and lower harmonics are just the composite
remaining signals after mixing at a detector. Up to the point of detection there
is no mixing. However, if the same frequency from separate signal sources
are overlapping, we will not be able to discriminate/separate them because they
have the same signal "response" to the filter.
QUOTE
This is what "maintains" the "packet", what creates a "soliton", what creates a musical chord, what is responsible for the self propelled, regenerating ability of the EM wave itself. This is an "undiscovered" (until "now") model of Resonance, and is responsible for "quantum jumps", as well as the diffraction pattern we are talking about. It has the ability for exposing the emperor, as it were, and removing the skirting from the foundation of QM, showing that it is just a "mobile home" after all.
Wave self regeneration is a form of self coherence/self resonance within the
confines of the wave. All parts of a wavefront are coherent to themselves in
phase timing. I proposed an explanation of this mechanism in a prior post.
I have been trying to develop a regenerative "helical" wave propagation model
that might explain the self regenerative process. Ever see a manual push type
mower with a helical blade arrangement? Think about entangled EM fields rotating
in such a helical fashion, just slightly out of phase with each other but sustaining
each other because of phase interactions. This would be similar to what causes
displacement in a rotating electric motor where separate electric and magnetic
fields interact to attract and repel each other according to their phase and
timing relationship.
Comments, clarifications welcomed.
LL
Hi TRoc,
Superposition and time varying signals .. wiki .. as quoted above..
"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."
ANY sort of time varying signal provided the response is a linear function of the excitation. There are certainly exceptions to the rule .. but in optics I can't think of any that don't involve high powered lasers .. which doesn't mean there aren't any .. just I can't think of them. Moon, mirrors and dipoles all fit nicely into the superposition zone.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Superposition and time varying signals .. wiki .. as quoted above..
"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."
ANY sort of time varying signal provided the response is a linear function of the excitation. There are certainly exceptions to the rule .. but in optics I can't think of any that don't involve high powered lasers .. which doesn't mean there aren't any .. just I can't think of them. Moon, mirrors and dipoles all fit nicely into the superposition zone.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi you all :)
I kind a like this theory, it's a different concept from most. An harmonic world, it's a cool world view :) Then again, as I'm totally lacking in math i have the freedom to enjoy in a greater variety than most here :). And yes I'm interested in what may develop.
I kind a like this theory, it's a different concept from most. An harmonic world, it's a cool world view :) Then again, as I'm totally lacking in math i have the freedom to enjoy in a greater variety than most here :). And yes I'm interested in what may develop.
Hi C2,
I agree with you on this. A response is a reaction at a detection point from an
external stimulous/stimuli. Signals can overlap, but they do not mix until
something responds to the total phase energy that they impart to it.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
Superposition and time varying signals .. wiki .. as quoted above..
"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."
"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."
I agree with you on this. A response is a reaction at a detection point from an
external stimulous/stimuli. Signals can overlap, but they do not mix until
something responds to the total phase energy that they impart to it.
Regards,
LL
Hi Yor_on,
TRoc provided a very nice theoretical conceptualization of harmonics and how
it relates to sound and color interactions. If you click on TRoc's name you will be able to pull up all of his posts.
Also FYI....Musical Universe:
http://www.svpvril.com/musicuni.html#TOP%20musicuni
Regards,
LL
TRoc provided a very nice theoretical conceptualization of harmonics and how
it relates to sound and color interactions. If you click on TRoc's name you will be able to pull up all of his posts.
Also FYI....Musical Universe:
http://www.svpvril.com/musicuni.html#TOP%20musicuni
Regards,
LL
Since you're getting into harmonics and all...
Did I post a link to D.L. Hotson's analysis of Dirac's Relativistic Wave Equation in here yet?
You might find it interesting. He deal with a lot of analysis of the harmonic nodes formed around various planetary bodies and how they effect the overall dynamics of the solar system.
The section highlighting a theoretical model for how Io and Jupiter mediate the Solar Cycle was particularly interesting, and bears looking into as we're approaching a new Solar Maximum in 2012. Venus transits have also been known to increase sunspot activity.
http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf
http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart2.pdf
Don't let the openseti website address fool you. I think someone's searching for intelligent life down here on Earth.
Did I post a link to D.L. Hotson's analysis of Dirac's Relativistic Wave Equation in here yet?
You might find it interesting. He deal with a lot of analysis of the harmonic nodes formed around various planetary bodies and how they effect the overall dynamics of the solar system.
The section highlighting a theoretical model for how Io and Jupiter mediate the Solar Cycle was particularly interesting, and bears looking into as we're approaching a new Solar Maximum in 2012. Venus transits have also been known to increase sunspot activity.
http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf
http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart2.pdf
Don't let the openseti website address fool you. I think someone's searching for intelligent life down here on Earth.
Hi all,
Sorry for the delay, there was some computer issues yesterday.
LL, in regards to your postulate, I was not being "cryptic" at all; nothing was meant that wasn't said. The plain point I was/am trying to make, is that if the "photon" is not absorbed at the slit, and re-emitted, then you are talking about field~field interactions, and that is the same thing that I am saying.
This view is not completely common, but not new or solo either. How many fields should we have? If the change in state of an electron creates a "photon", which is an EM field, then a "field~field" interaction is a "photon~photon" interaction. That is my contention. A near field, or evanescent reaction should not require a new definition, the field density should suffice. The more waves that are present in a given area, the more interactions will take place.
Also worth pointing out here, is that we are not talking about "free space", we are talking about Physics on Earth. That should be the first goal of Science; not to say that we don't need to know what's going on "out there". Just keep in mind, that there is no such thing as a "vacuum"; that is a mathematical simplification that has outlived its' usefulness. You keep mentioning "in the absence of matter"; WHERE is this place? Matter is everywhere, in some quantity. Certainly, on the surface of this Planet, we have some "near field" anomalies. Why doesn't the DSE work if we turn the slits sideways? The current paradigm says that a large mass will bend the path of light. Do you recall the link that I provided where the DSE was performed with a large mass in the path, and a predictable shift in the diffraction pattern was observed? So, here is yet another "hidden variable", that is not included in the textbook explanation of the DSE. C2 will be quick to point out the "simplified" answer does not need these "extras", and probably, the affects are not great enough to worry about. Yet, at the "final frontier", we seek the "ultimate answers", and understanding that the ad hoc postulates can not give us.
When Science was still searching the "frontier", these simplifications were fine, even necessary. But now, we are AT the "final frontier", these "simplifications" MUST be removed. My top candidates: the "photon", "monochromatic" light, the "vacuum", "black-body" (perfect absorber), "white" light.
So...
some questions regarding your perspective:
What is is about a "single photon" that can interfere with itself, that precludes 2 "photons" from interfering with each other?
Does energy hit the screen in the dark band areas in your model?
If not, HOW does a "self re-forming" wavefront keep from "re-forming" in just those places?
What is "harmonically superposed signals"?
How does that modify the field intensity and phase timing?
I'll post this and work on the other questions that you and C2 posted.
regards,
T.Roc
Sorry for the delay, there was some computer issues yesterday.
LL, in regards to your postulate, I was not being "cryptic" at all; nothing was meant that wasn't said. The plain point I was/am trying to make, is that if the "photon" is not absorbed at the slit, and re-emitted, then you are talking about field~field interactions, and that is the same thing that I am saying.
This view is not completely common, but not new or solo either. How many fields should we have? If the change in state of an electron creates a "photon", which is an EM field, then a "field~field" interaction is a "photon~photon" interaction. That is my contention. A near field, or evanescent reaction should not require a new definition, the field density should suffice. The more waves that are present in a given area, the more interactions will take place.
Also worth pointing out here, is that we are not talking about "free space", we are talking about Physics on Earth. That should be the first goal of Science; not to say that we don't need to know what's going on "out there". Just keep in mind, that there is no such thing as a "vacuum"; that is a mathematical simplification that has outlived its' usefulness. You keep mentioning "in the absence of matter"; WHERE is this place?
Matter is everywhere, in some quantity. Certainly, on the surface of this Planet, we have some "near field" anomalies. Why doesn't the DSE work if we turn the slits sideways? The current paradigm says that a large mass will bend the path of light. Do you recall the link that I provided where the DSE was performed with a large mass in the path, and a predictable shift in the diffraction pattern was observed? So, here is yet another "hidden variable", that is not included in the textbook explanation of the DSE. C2 will be quick to point out the "simplified" answer does not need these "extras", and probably, the affects are not great enough to worry about. Yet, at the "final frontier", we seek the "ultimate answers", and understanding that the ad hoc postulates can not give us.When Science was still searching the "frontier", these simplifications were fine, even necessary. But now, we are AT the "final frontier", these "simplifications" MUST be removed. My top candidates: the "photon", "monochromatic" light, the "vacuum", "black-body" (perfect absorber), "white" light.
So...
some questions regarding your perspective:
What is is about a "single photon" that can interfere with itself, that precludes 2 "photons" from interfering with each other?
Does energy hit the screen in the dark band areas in your model?
If not, HOW does a "self re-forming" wavefront keep from "re-forming" in just those places?
What is "harmonically superposed signals"?
How does that modify the field intensity and phase timing?
I'll post this and work on the other questions that you and C2 posted.
regards,
T.Roc
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.