Based on what you just posted, I think we are pretty much in agreement. While
you consider the atoms of atmosphere as matter, I tend to think of them as
a constant medium that light is propagating in that don't have a significant
effect on the results as, for all intents and purposes, it is a "constant". Light
travelling thru it will not vary because of it, and can be disregarded as a significant
influencing factor, IMO. We are in agreement with nearfield evanescent EM field
effects where the path that EM photon energy takes is affected/redirected.
QUOTE
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?
1. A single photon wavefront has explicit time displacement from its point of
origin. It is an energy event that is relative to itself only. Each wavefront has
a discrete time displacement that is indicative of where and when that event
took place. Each photon wavefront is explicit "information" that emanates from
matter as a time/location/frequency quantum packet and it requires a point of
detection at a frequency receptive dipole in matter to transfer that energy back
into information. Of course that detected information is then converted to
some other form of energy/information. Remember that I formerly stated that
"Energy is Information". 2 photons are each conveying
their own information. Information cannot mix without a common physical
point of detection to combine the information that each contains.
I think that it is possible to delay or phase shift the information and still not
detect it. The act of detection "destroys" the original information.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
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? |
1. A single photon wavefront has explicit time displacement from its point of
origin. It is an energy event that is relative to itself only. Each wavefront has
a discrete time displacement that is indicative of where and when that event
took place. Each photon wavefront is explicit "information" that emanates from
matter as a time/location/frequency quantum packet and it requires a point of
detection at a frequency receptive dipole in matter to transfer that energy back
into information. Of course that detected information is then converted to
some other form of energy/information. Remember that I formerly stated that
"Energy is Information". 2 photons are each conveying
their own information. Information cannot mix without a common physical
point of detection to combine the information that each contains.
I think that it is possible to delay or phase shift the information and still not
detect it. The act of detection "destroys" the original information.
Does energy hit the screen in the dark band areas in your model?
If 2 separated focused laser beams are projected at different points on a wall
is there any energy from the beams in the dark space between the bright spots?
IMO, photons are detected at the point of focus, which is the
centerline null "node point" of the propagating EM fields... the point where the
electrical and magnetic field planes are at their zero correspondence which
represents the maximum resonance, beat signal, node point.
QUOTE
What is "harmonically superposed signals"?
How does that modify the field intensity and phase timing?
How does that modify the field intensity and phase timing?
IMO, the surface fields (surface plasmons, oscillons, phonons, polaritons, excitons, whatever) are resonating
at some specific energy EM frequency. When photon EM fields cross thru these
"localized" surface energy fields, the fields interact and there is some energy
transfer or resonance mixing (superposing) between the fields, that takes place. I'm proposing that this "harmonic superposing" causes timing delays/phase
shifts to the advancing photon wavefront and is the basis for self interference
in the wavelets contained within the propagating photon wavefront. This is
the diffraction mechanism that changes the phasing and center vector direction
of the passing photons, but the final mixing occurs as the expanding wavefronts
merge at the rear wall between the slits. IMO, this is the point where constructive
and destructive interference of the reassembling separated wavefronts takes place
at the surface plasmons, et al, of the rear wall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What is "harmonically superposed signals"? How does that modify the field intensity and phase timing? |
IMO, the surface fields (surface plasmons, oscillons, phonons, polaritons, excitons, whatever) are resonating
at some specific energy EM frequency. When photon EM fields cross thru these
"localized" surface energy fields, the fields interact and there is some energy
transfer or resonance mixing (superposing) between the fields, that takes place. I'm proposing that this "harmonic superposing" causes timing delays/phase
shifts to the advancing photon wavefront and is the basis for self interference
in the wavelets contained within the propagating photon wavefront. This is
the diffraction mechanism that changes the phasing and center vector direction
of the passing photons, but the final mixing occurs as the expanding wavefronts
merge at the rear wall between the slits. IMO, this is the point where constructive
and destructive interference of the reassembling separated wavefronts takes place
at the surface plasmons, et al, of the rear wall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton
In physics, polaritons are quasiparticles resulting from strong coupling of electromagnetic waves with an electric or magnetic dipole-carrying excitation. They are an expression of the common quantum phenomenon known as level repulsion, also known as the anti-crossing principle. Polaritons describe the crossing of the dispersion of light with any interacting resonance.
Thus, a polariton is the result of the mixing of a photon with an excitation of a material. The most discussed types of polaritons are phonon-polaritons, resulting from coupling of an infrared photon with an optic phonon; exciton-polaritons, resulting from coupling of visible light with an exciton; and surface plasmon-polaritons, resulting from coupling of surface plasmons with light (the wavelength
depends on the substance).
Other comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
Hello GE and All,
GE, you had made a comment in a recent post that indicated perhaps you were
changing your thinking and reevaluating plasmon's, phonon's, surface effects, etc.
I was wondering what is your current assessment of this surface reaction
phenomenon and have you reconsidered the proposed influence of it re the DSE
results?
IMO, it offers potential viable solutions to various mysteries/issues that we have
discussed over these past months.
Regards,
LL
GE, you had made a comment in a recent post that indicated perhaps you were
changing your thinking and reevaluating plasmon's, phonon's, surface effects, etc.
I was wondering what is your current assessment of this surface reaction
phenomenon and have you reconsidered the proposed influence of it re the DSE
results?
IMO, it offers potential viable solutions to various mysteries/issues that we have
discussed over these past months.
Regards,
LL
Hi all,
Let me respond a little to LL's (next to last) post.
I asked:
and the answer was: (briefly)
and the answer was: (briefly)2 photons are each conveying
their own information. Information cannot mix without a common physical
point of detection to combine the information that each contains.
I can't understanding how "re-naming" the properties assigned to the "photon" can answer my question. How is this information encoded into the "photon" in the first place? The only "real" hard data on the EM wave is that it is an orthogonally coupled electric and magnetic field, traveling at c . I assume that you mean that this E/M relationship is "encoding" the information.
We know that a change in 1, creates a change in the other. This happens at a constant velocity, with the further symmetrical, inverse relationship of the frequency and wavelength measurements. This is the Universal "perfect mix". This is the "mechanics" of the EM wave propagation. Which mechanistic property bears the information?
I don't have a problem with the "not detecting" part, but please explain HOW you are going to delay the timing, or shift the phase, without changing the frequency or wavelength? (or the E or B field, without changing the other)
Thanks for your patience!
ciao,
T.Roc
Let me respond a little to LL's (next to last) post.
I asked:
QUOTE
What is is about a "single photon" that can interfere with itself, that precludes 2 "photons" from interfering with each other?
and the answer was: (briefly)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What is is about a "single photon" that can interfere with itself, that precludes 2 "photons" from interfering with each other? |
and the answer was: (briefly)2 photons are each conveying
their own information. Information cannot mix without a common physical
point of detection to combine the information that each contains.
I can't understanding how "re-naming" the properties assigned to the "photon" can answer my question. How is this information encoded into the "photon" in the first place? The only "real" hard data on the EM wave is that it is an orthogonally coupled electric and magnetic field, traveling at c . I assume that you mean that this E/M relationship is "encoding" the information.
We know that a change in 1, creates a change in the other. This happens at a constant velocity, with the further symmetrical, inverse relationship of the frequency and wavelength measurements. This is the Universal "perfect mix". This is the "mechanics" of the EM wave propagation. Which mechanistic property bears the information?
QUOTE
I think that it is possible to delay or phase shift the information and still not
detect it.
detect it.
I don't have a problem with the "not detecting" part, but please explain HOW you are going to delay the timing, or shift the phase, without changing the frequency or wavelength? (or the E or B field, without changing the other)
Thanks for your patience!
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi Laserlight,
This would "excite" resonant modes in the gap. Plasma alone cannot stabilize these balls since like charges repel, but plasmons are resonances and they may have a chance. The more interesting question is just what structures stabilize the energy inside this ball. It is a conjecture that this is a quasi-stationary state... an unstable quasi-quantum process that is leaking its energy from an imperfect "trap". Of course these balls are initially driven by large currents of electricity. I am unsure that I understand anything about them for sure. Perhaps the stable aspect of this "ball" is not that it is plasma (although plasma is definitely associated) but the uncharged stable "light" which is a totally different "material".
I am unsure just what exact role these phenomena play in DSE but I think they will play an important part in the practical applications of the future.
Cheers
QUOTE
GE, you had made a comment in a recent post that indicated perhaps you were changing your thinking and reevaluating plasmon's, phonon's, surface effects, etc.
I was wondering what is your current assessment of this surface reaction phenomenon and have you reconsidered the proposed influence of it re the DSE results?
IMO, it offers potential viable solutions to various mysteries/issues that we have
discussed over these past months.
Well... yes. I think Surface Plasmons relate not to "gas" as such but a "Fermi gas" which is an entirely different thing related to the "Fermi Sea". I still think it is a phenomenon that is not directly responsible the DSE but will have some additional influence over the various "modes" that are produced. We know that the basic DSE can occur even without the metal that produces the appropriate conduction bands responsible for plasmons. The slit or the pinhole... which are equivalent phenomena... are possibly related to the more energetic 'Ball Lightning" Phenomena where these "resonances" result in free floating quasi-stationary plasma states as recently demonstrated in Brazil by a Scientist called Pavão based on some theoretical work by a New Zealander called Abrahamson. They speak of burning silicon wafers while this seems an implausible mechanism to stabilize a charged ball, I think the Plasmon theory may be a better and more likely option as these "balls" are formed when two wafers in contact are separated by a small gap. I was wondering what is your current assessment of this surface reaction phenomenon and have you reconsidered the proposed influence of it re the DSE results?
IMO, it offers potential viable solutions to various mysteries/issues that we have
discussed over these past months.
This would "excite" resonant modes in the gap. Plasma alone cannot stabilize these balls since like charges repel, but plasmons are resonances and they may have a chance. The more interesting question is just what structures stabilize the energy inside this ball. It is a conjecture that this is a quasi-stationary state... an unstable quasi-quantum process that is leaking its energy from an imperfect "trap". Of course these balls are initially driven by large currents of electricity. I am unsure that I understand anything about them for sure. Perhaps the stable aspect of this "ball" is not that it is plasma (although plasma is definitely associated) but the uncharged stable "light" which is a totally different "material".
I am unsure just what exact role these phenomena play in DSE but I think they will play an important part in the practical applications of the future.
Cheers
Hi TRoc et al,
We know light can display very complex patterns (eg from holograms) because we see them (eg on credit cards). If we accept that light is made up of photons (any sort) then the alternatives would seem to be
1/ Each photon contains all the information in the image
2/ The photons have some sort of committee structure which enables them to agree which part of the image each of them will be dealing with.
3/ Something else
As a 'least bad' alternative I vote for option 1/ .
Logic could also be applied to plasmons/plasmids .. if they are in any way responsible for the image then they have to be tremendously organised .. thermally stable, present in equal amounts in all materials etc. otherwise they'd mess the image up. Do they ever mess the image up?
The DSE just happens to be a two slit phenomenon which demonstrates some (many) of the properties of light that we see elsewhere.
Best wishes,
-C2.
We know light can display very complex patterns (eg from holograms) because we see them (eg on credit cards). If we accept that light is made up of photons (any sort) then the alternatives would seem to be
1/ Each photon contains all the information in the image
2/ The photons have some sort of committee structure which enables them to agree which part of the image each of them will be dealing with.
3/ Something else
As a 'least bad' alternative I vote for option 1/ .
Logic could also be applied to plasmons/plasmids .. if they are in any way responsible for the image then they have to be tremendously organised .. thermally stable, present in equal amounts in all materials etc. otherwise they'd mess the image up. Do they ever mess the image up?
The DSE just happens to be a two slit phenomenon which demonstrates some (many) of the properties of light that we see elsewhere.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi TRoc and All,
I consider a "photon" pulse as a collective wavefront of individual, "coherent",
atomic energy pulses all propagating simultaneously within the same wave cycle pulse.
The intensity/amplitude of this wave pulse (photon) is a function of the exposed
area of atoms that are synchronously coupling/emitting the pulse to free space.
The frequency of the photon wave train pulse is the atomic dipole oscillation
"cycle time"....the time for the atoms to change states from the stimulated high
energy state to the ground state and back again.
You asked what and how the information is encoded in each photon. Consider how
each wavelet in the photon wave pulse adds to the overall composition of the
total energy and information contained within the pulse. Each of the energetic
atoms in the exposed surface matrix represent a point in space, so each wavelet
represents one "bit" of information....location/position the point of
emission/coupling of energy to space by that single atom. Each individual wavelet
pulse also represents an explicit relative point in time that it was
emitted, which is the second bit of information being transported. Each atomic
wavelet pulse also represents the specific type of atomic energy signature or
frequency/color of the atom that spawned the pulse, the third bit of
information that it is carrying. The total energy intensity/amplitude
that the entire wave pulse is carrying is the 4th bit of information being conveyed.
The orientation/polarity of the photon pulse is the 5th "bit" of
information being conveyed. The coherenceof the wave is the 6th
bit of information being conveyed. The direction of propagation is
the 7th bit of information. The duration of the pulse train is the
8th "bit" of information being conveyed. The spatial distance from
point of origin is the 9th bit of information. The phase of the pulse
is the 10th bit. The pulse width is the 11th bit. The overall physical
size, shape, symmetry, and frequencies of the atomic matrix that is emitting the
wave fronts is also being transmitted by the continuous overlapping wave pulses.
I'm probably overlooking some information that a single wave pulse is transmitting
as it propagates from its point of emission, but you see my point. There is
quite a bit of information in each wave pulse, however, not all of the information
is necessarily decoded unless there is a matrix capable of organizing and
receiving all of the information being transported.
I consider a "photon" pulse as a collective wavefront of individual, "coherent",
atomic energy pulses all propagating simultaneously within the same wave cycle pulse.
The intensity/amplitude of this wave pulse (photon) is a function of the exposed
area of atoms that are synchronously coupling/emitting the pulse to free space.
The frequency of the photon wave train pulse is the atomic dipole oscillation
"cycle time"....the time for the atoms to change states from the stimulated high
energy state to the ground state and back again.
You asked what and how the information is encoded in each photon. Consider how
each wavelet in the photon wave pulse adds to the overall composition of the
total energy and information contained within the pulse. Each of the energetic
atoms in the exposed surface matrix represent a point in space, so each wavelet
represents one "bit" of information....location/position the point of
emission/coupling of energy to space by that single atom. Each individual wavelet
pulse also represents an explicit relative point in time that it was
emitted, which is the second bit of information being transported. Each atomic
wavelet pulse also represents the specific type of atomic energy signature or
frequency/color of the atom that spawned the pulse, the third bit of
information that it is carrying. The total energy intensity/amplitude
that the entire wave pulse is carrying is the 4th bit of information being conveyed.
The orientation/polarity of the photon pulse is the 5th "bit" of
information being conveyed. The coherenceof the wave is the 6th
bit of information being conveyed. The direction of propagation is
the 7th bit of information. The duration of the pulse train is the
8th "bit" of information being conveyed. The spatial distance from
point of origin is the 9th bit of information. The phase of the pulse
is the 10th bit. The pulse width is the 11th bit. The overall physical
size, shape, symmetry, and frequencies of the atomic matrix that is emitting the
wave fronts is also being transmitted by the continuous overlapping wave pulses.
I'm probably overlooking some information that a single wave pulse is transmitting
as it propagates from its point of emission, but you see my point. There is
quite a bit of information in each wave pulse, however, not all of the information
is necessarily decoded unless there is a matrix capable of organizing and
receiving all of the information being transported.
I don't have a problem with the "not detecting" part, but please explain HOW you are going to delay the timing, or shift the phase, without changing the frequency or wavelength? (or the E or B field, without changing the other)
Optics! Isn't diffraction and reflection doing just this? Diffraction...as light passes between
different optically "transparent" media the phase and speed, relative to vacuum
changes the propagation characteristics of the propagating wavefront. You can
change/delay the phase....true, the wavelength changes while in the medium of
transport, but only while travelling thru the medium. Phase and polarity can be
changed without destroying the information that the wave energy/information is
transporting.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
I can't understanding how "re-naming" the properties assigned to the "photon" can answer my question. How is this information encoded into the "photon" in the first place? The only "real" hard data on the EM wave is that it is an orthogonally coupled electric and magnetic field, traveling at c . I assume that you mean that this E/M relationship is "encoding" the information.
We know that a change in 1, creates a change in the other. This happens at a constant velocity, with the further symmetrical, inverse relationship of the frequency and wavelength measurements. This is the Universal "perfect mix". This is the "mechanics" of the EM wave propagation. Which mechanistic property bears the information?...
We know that a change in 1, creates a change in the other. This happens at a constant velocity, with the further symmetrical, inverse relationship of the frequency and wavelength measurements. This is the Universal "perfect mix". This is the "mechanics" of the EM wave propagation. Which mechanistic property bears the information?...
I consider a "photon" pulse as a collective wavefront of individual, "coherent",
atomic energy pulses all propagating simultaneously within the same wave cycle pulse.
The intensity/amplitude of this wave pulse (photon) is a function of the exposed
area of atoms that are synchronously coupling/emitting the pulse to free space.
The frequency of the photon wave train pulse is the atomic dipole oscillation
"cycle time"....the time for the atoms to change states from the stimulated high
energy state to the ground state and back again.
You asked what and how the information is encoded in each photon. Consider how
each wavelet in the photon wave pulse adds to the overall composition of the
total energy and information contained within the pulse. Each of the energetic
atoms in the exposed surface matrix represent a point in space, so each wavelet
represents one "bit" of information....location/position the point of
emission/coupling of energy to space by that single atom. Each individual wavelet
pulse also represents an explicit relative point in time that it was
emitted, which is the second bit of information being transported. Each atomic
wavelet pulse also represents the specific type of atomic energy signature or
frequency/color of the atom that spawned the pulse, the third bit of
information that it is carrying. The total energy intensity/amplitude
that the entire wave pulse is carrying is the 4th bit of information being conveyed.
The orientation/polarity of the photon pulse is the 5th "bit" of
information being conveyed. The coherenceof the wave is the 6th
bit of information being conveyed. The direction of propagation is
the 7th bit of information. The duration of the pulse train is the
8th "bit" of information being conveyed. The spatial distance from
point of origin is the 9th bit of information. The phase of the pulse
is the 10th bit. The pulse width is the 11th bit. The overall physical
size, shape, symmetry, and frequencies of the atomic matrix that is emitting the
wave fronts is also being transmitted by the continuous overlapping wave pulses.
I'm probably overlooking some information that a single wave pulse is transmitting
as it propagates from its point of emission, but you see my point. There is
quite a bit of information in each wave pulse, however, not all of the information
is necessarily decoded unless there is a matrix capable of organizing and
receiving all of the information being transported.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I can't understanding how "re-naming" the properties assigned to the "photon" can answer my question. How is this information encoded into the "photon" in the first place? The only "real" hard data on the EM wave is that it is an orthogonally coupled electric and magnetic field, traveling at c . I assume that you mean that this E/M relationship is "encoding" the information. We know that a change in 1, creates a change in the other. This happens at a constant velocity, with the further symmetrical, inverse relationship of the frequency and wavelength measurements. This is the Universal "perfect mix". This is the "mechanics" of the EM wave propagation. Which mechanistic property bears the information?... |
I consider a "photon" pulse as a collective wavefront of individual, "coherent",
atomic energy pulses all propagating simultaneously within the same wave cycle pulse.
The intensity/amplitude of this wave pulse (photon) is a function of the exposed
area of atoms that are synchronously coupling/emitting the pulse to free space.
The frequency of the photon wave train pulse is the atomic dipole oscillation
"cycle time"....the time for the atoms to change states from the stimulated high
energy state to the ground state and back again.
You asked what and how the information is encoded in each photon. Consider how
each wavelet in the photon wave pulse adds to the overall composition of the
total energy and information contained within the pulse. Each of the energetic
atoms in the exposed surface matrix represent a point in space, so each wavelet
represents one "bit" of information....location/position the point of
emission/coupling of energy to space by that single atom. Each individual wavelet
pulse also represents an explicit relative point in time that it was
emitted, which is the second bit of information being transported. Each atomic
wavelet pulse also represents the specific type of atomic energy signature or
frequency/color of the atom that spawned the pulse, the third bit of
information that it is carrying. The total energy intensity/amplitude
that the entire wave pulse is carrying is the 4th bit of information being conveyed.
The orientation/polarity of the photon pulse is the 5th "bit" of
information being conveyed. The coherenceof the wave is the 6th
bit of information being conveyed. The direction of propagation is
the 7th bit of information. The duration of the pulse train is the
8th "bit" of information being conveyed. The spatial distance from
point of origin is the 9th bit of information. The phase of the pulse
is the 10th bit. The pulse width is the 11th bit. The overall physical
size, shape, symmetry, and frequencies of the atomic matrix that is emitting the
wave fronts is also being transmitted by the continuous overlapping wave pulses.
I'm probably overlooking some information that a single wave pulse is transmitting
as it propagates from its point of emission, but you see my point. There is
quite a bit of information in each wave pulse, however, not all of the information
is necessarily decoded unless there is a matrix capable of organizing and
receiving all of the information being transported.
I don't have a problem with the "not detecting" part, but please explain HOW you are going to delay the timing, or shift the phase, without changing the frequency or wavelength? (or the E or B field, without changing the other)
Optics! Isn't diffraction and reflection doing just this? Diffraction...as light passes between
different optically "transparent" media the phase and speed, relative to vacuum
changes the propagation characteristics of the propagating wavefront. You can
change/delay the phase....true, the wavelength changes while in the medium of
transport, but only while travelling thru the medium. Phase and polarity can be
changed without destroying the information that the wave energy/information is
transporting.
Regards,
LL
Hi all,
I agree on the "hologram" depictions. Let's keep in mind that we have a very simple "picture" of a rectangular slit reproduced (poorly) on the screen.
The 2 things to notice are that the image is duplicated several times, with the strongest intensity and size in the center, and both of those qualities tapering off at the sides if the image.
Does this count for being "messed up"? It's certainly not what I would pay a photographer for.
LL
No, actually, I did not ask for "what" information, just HOW. You did not answer this. I am looking for mechanics, just as we have been for most of this thread.
Again, this is going to boil down to "measurable" properties. That is why I suggested the E and B fields, or frequency and wavelength. You could even go the "sine wave" route. Perhaps it would be better for me to ask you for an example, which you can choose whatever method you like. I would like to see some "numbers" though. Values for the beam, values at the slit, values "on the way", and values at the screen. Maybe I am crazy for asking this?
This fact stands between us: there is NO PROOF either way. You can not prove that these "interference/mixing" qualities are happening "at the screen", and I can not prove that they occur before the screen. When we measure, they are there. Because "where" we measure can affect what the image looks like (ie. in or out of the "Fresnel zone", the size scale changes), this is suggestive that it is not based entirely on (at) the screen.
All we can do (and are doing) is suggest logical ways that this happens. The explanation should be self-consistent, and explain as many of the measurable qualities as possible, under one "umbrella".
regards,
T.Roc
I agree on the "hologram" depictions. Let's keep in mind that we have a very simple "picture" of a rectangular slit reproduced (poorly) on the screen.
The 2 things to notice are that the image is duplicated several times, with the strongest intensity and size in the center, and both of those qualities tapering off at the sides if the image.
Does this count for being "messed up"? It's certainly not what I would pay a photographer for.
LL
QUOTE
You asked what and how the information is encoded in each photon.
No, actually, I did not ask for "what" information, just HOW. You did not answer this. I am looking for mechanics, just as we have been for most of this thread.
Again, this is going to boil down to "measurable" properties. That is why I suggested the E and B fields, or frequency and wavelength. You could even go the "sine wave" route. Perhaps it would be better for me to ask you for an example, which you can choose whatever method you like. I would like to see some "numbers" though. Values for the beam, values at the slit, values "on the way", and values at the screen. Maybe I am crazy for asking this?
This fact stands between us: there is NO PROOF either way. You can not prove that these "interference/mixing" qualities are happening "at the screen", and I can not prove that they occur before the screen. When we measure, they are there. Because "where" we measure can affect what the image looks like (ie. in or out of the "Fresnel zone", the size scale changes), this is suggestive that it is not based entirely on (at) the screen.
All we can do (and are doing) is suggest logical ways that this happens. The explanation should be self-consistent, and explain as many of the measurable qualities as possible, under one "umbrella".
regards,
T.Roc
TRoc,
You have this wrong. I have been saying all along that the mixing takes place
in the immediate vicinity of the slits and that the detection of that mixing process
that occured at the slit wall is projected onto and viewed/detected at the screen.
I have tried to illustrate the proof of this numerous times by using the varying the
distance of the screen from the slits and with the example of a projected image
that comes from a focusing lens as in a projector. If you move the screen back
and forth from the projected output signal coming from the slit "optics" the
size of the projected image light and dark bars varies directly with the distance,
just like the ISL says it should. This should provide proof that the image is
projecting from the combined interfering optical cavities. IMO. We should be able
to move the screen very close to the slit wall and still maintain separation
integrity of the projection, up to the focal point of mixing.
I will provide the mechanism, again, in a subsequent post.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
This fact stands between us: there is NO PROOF either way. You can not prove that these "interference/mixing" qualities are happening "at the screen", and I can not prove that they occur before the screen. When we measure, they are there. Because "where" we measure can affect what the image looks like (ie. in or out of the "Fresnel zone", the size scale changes), this is suggestive that it is not based entirely on (at) the screen.
You have this wrong. I have been saying all along that the mixing takes place
in the immediate vicinity of the slits and that the detection of that mixing process
that occured at the slit wall is projected onto and viewed/detected at the screen.
I have tried to illustrate the proof of this numerous times by using the varying the
distance of the screen from the slits and with the example of a projected image
that comes from a focusing lens as in a projector. If you move the screen back
and forth from the projected output signal coming from the slit "optics" the
size of the projected image light and dark bars varies directly with the distance,
just like the ISL says it should. This should provide proof that the image is
projecting from the combined interfering optical cavities. IMO. We should be able
to move the screen very close to the slit wall and still maintain separation
integrity of the projection, up to the focal point of mixing.
I will provide the mechanism, again, in a subsequent post.
Regards,
LL
Hi Everyone!
I think I am having an "eureka" moment, and want to make sure I am on the right wavelength (pun).
I have never understood the concept of a holographic universe, but with all the talk of it recently I think it may be sinking in, so help me out a bit if I am completely wrong.
Are you guys saying that just like a tiny part of the the holograph contains the information of the entire picture, that a photon would also contain the information of the entire universe?
Yes? No?
I think I am having an "eureka" moment, and want to make sure I am on the right wavelength (pun).
I have never understood the concept of a holographic universe, but with all the talk of it recently I think it may be sinking in, so help me out a bit if I am completely wrong.
Are you guys saying that just like a tiny part of the the holograph contains the information of the entire picture, that a photon would also contain the information of the entire universe?
Yes? No?
TRoc,
I think these prior posts provide an explanation of the mechanisms that you
inquired about. I will admit that since we have been developing this topic that
I have changed/tuned my interpretations of the cause and effect that creates
the DSE, as well as the nature of light. These are the most pertinent posts, IMO.
Regards,
LL
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=146993
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=167741
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156951
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156946
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156789
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156668
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156314
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=155404
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=154926
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=148104
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=147929
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=146908
I think these prior posts provide an explanation of the mechanisms that you
inquired about. I will admit that since we have been developing this topic that
I have changed/tuned my interpretations of the cause and effect that creates
the DSE, as well as the nature of light. These are the most pertinent posts, IMO.
Regards,
LL
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=146993
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=167741
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156951
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156946
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156789
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156668
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156314
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=155404
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=154926
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=148104
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=147929
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=146908
Hello "THEY" and "THEY2",
I'm not sure that GE's explanation will necessarily be in agreement with my
explanation but I will provide my interpretation of the holographic universe.
Energy radiates throughout the universe as sequential "patterns" travelling thru
space. These sequential patterns represent an image of events which
have occurred that are locked/frozen in time until they are detected/observed. We
observe this sequential flow of picture (frames) much like a "movie", they are
always changing. Each picture is differernt from the previous one in time and
spatial postion, which is the "relativity" aspect that Einstein developed. Each time
frame is relative to itself since it only occurred at a single instant in time. Also,
each frame is relative to the others that came before and after it, but it is
completely unique in its time placement in the flow of the "movie". The discrete
multitude of photons that produced that "picture" are a unique time event
and match no other photons because their relative frames of time are different.
If we observe the "movie" from different locations, we still see the same images
but viewed from a different parallax. The information being transmitted is the same
but is "altered"/skewed relative to our location. By the same token, if we
see the images viewed on a small screen they will be identical as those projected
onto a huge screen. We are just changing the focal length/plane (size) of the
identical same images.
I hope that isn't confusing. Let's see GE's explanation.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
Are you guys saying that just like a tiny part of the the holograph contains the information of the entire picture, that a photon would also contain the information of the entire universe?
I'm not sure that GE's explanation will necessarily be in agreement with my
explanation but I will provide my interpretation of the holographic universe.
Energy radiates throughout the universe as sequential "patterns" travelling thru
space. These sequential patterns represent an image of events which
have occurred that are locked/frozen in time until they are detected/observed. We
observe this sequential flow of picture (frames) much like a "movie", they are
always changing. Each picture is differernt from the previous one in time and
spatial postion, which is the "relativity" aspect that Einstein developed. Each time
frame is relative to itself since it only occurred at a single instant in time. Also,
each frame is relative to the others that came before and after it, but it is
completely unique in its time placement in the flow of the "movie". The discrete
multitude of photons that produced that "picture" are a unique time event
and match no other photons because their relative frames of time are different.
If we observe the "movie" from different locations, we still see the same images
but viewed from a different parallax. The information being transmitted is the same
but is "altered"/skewed relative to our location. By the same token, if we
see the images viewed on a small screen they will be identical as those projected
onto a huge screen. We are just changing the focal length/plane (size) of the
identical same images.
I hope that isn't confusing. Let's see GE's explanation.
Regards,
LL
LL,
I rather liked your last post, very poetic. In the DSE we make two paths between 'Then' (what happenned) and 'now' (what we see) and having separated the two paths we superimpose one on top of the other. When we look at the result of putting 'Then and 'Slightly before then' on top of each other we find that the poetic description we rather liked simply doesn't work. We get interference patterns between 'Then' and 'Slightly before then' which seem to show (beyond reasonable doubt) that 'Then' and 'Slightly before then' are not as separate as a poet might like them to be. If 'c' (the velocity of light) was operating properly then 'Then' would have no effect of 'Slightly before then'. BUT IT DOES.
The main thrust of the thread so far has been:-
1/ To show that the interference pattern is impossible
2/ To explain the effect as the result of a defect in the way the textbooks describe a photon.
3/ To explain the bright bits and dark bits with no apparent understanding of the real problem.
Possibility 2/ (that would be TRoc) looks by far the best to me (so far).
Best wishes,
-C2.
I rather liked your last post, very poetic. In the DSE we make two paths between 'Then' (what happenned) and 'now' (what we see) and having separated the two paths we superimpose one on top of the other. When we look at the result of putting 'Then and 'Slightly before then' on top of each other we find that the poetic description we rather liked simply doesn't work. We get interference patterns between 'Then' and 'Slightly before then' which seem to show (beyond reasonable doubt) that 'Then' and 'Slightly before then' are not as separate as a poet might like them to be. If 'c' (the velocity of light) was operating properly then 'Then' would have no effect of 'Slightly before then'. BUT IT DOES.
The main thrust of the thread so far has been:-
1/ To show that the interference pattern is impossible
2/ To explain the effect as the result of a defect in the way the textbooks describe a photon.
3/ To explain the bright bits and dark bits with no apparent understanding of the real problem.
Possibility 2/ (that would be TRoc) looks by far the best to me (so far).
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2,
I think you are misinterpreting what I said. To put it in your terms, "then and
slightly before then" have different relative time references and cannot
spontaneously interfere. They have different causal events.
http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/kap13/cd372.htm
http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/kap13/cd371.htm
http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/kap27...TwoSlit/app.htm
The speed of light is constant according to the medium it is propagating in.
Why do you doubt the speed of light?
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
We get interference patterns between 'Then' and 'Slightly before then' which seem to show (beyond reasonable doubt) that 'Then' and 'Slightly before then' are not as separate as a poet might like them to be. If 'c' (the velocity of light) was operating properly then 'Then' would have no effect of 'Slightly before then'. BUT IT DOES.
The main thrust of the thread so far has been:-
1/ To show that the interference pattern is impossible
2/ To explain the effect as the result of a defect in the way the textbooks describe a photon.
3/ To explain the bright bits and dark bits with no apparent understanding of the real problem.
The main thrust of the thread so far has been:-
1/ To show that the interference pattern is impossible
2/ To explain the effect as the result of a defect in the way the textbooks describe a photon.
3/ To explain the bright bits and dark bits with no apparent understanding of the real problem.
I think you are misinterpreting what I said. To put it in your terms, "then and
slightly before then" have different relative time references and cannot
spontaneously interfere. They have different causal events.
http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/kap13/cd372.htm
http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/kap13/cd371.htm
http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/kap27...TwoSlit/app.htm
The speed of light is constant according to the medium it is propagating in.
Why do you doubt the speed of light?
Regards,
LL
Hi "THEY", Laserlight, Confused2, TRoc, yquantum et al,
QUOTE ("THEY"+)
Are you guys saying that just like a tiny part of the the holograph contains the information of the entire picture, that a photon would also contain the information of the entire universe?
I can't speak for everyone here but Laserlight is on target as far as it goes and I will simply add to his words (because I am "obsessive"). Every portion of a Hologram is a small part of the entire hologram of the Universe. Remember the Hologram is not 'really" a glass plate with a thick emulsion it is really a series of standing waves everywhere in space in which photons are "seeking all paths". Every photon emitted from a source at a fixed point in space must in some way create a frozen pattern centered on the instant of that "creation" which then appears to spread as a single wavefront from the source at that one frequency. Einstein shows us the most sublime interpretation of his Special Relativity Theory is this wavefront spreads in empty space as a perfectly expanding spherical shell that contains information about the source. While everything in the Universe is in "motion" this "event" brings all the points in its space that the photon "explores" into a single place and time through the most extreme form of space contraction and time dilation.
The individual photon has an intrinsic "knowledge" of the cavity of the entire Universe. This means where everything is and when it was there in that frozen and expanding event contains the essence of the "past" and the "future" at every point that the photon ever reaches. It is "hopeless" to think that simply by moving an object in the Universe you can create a different standing wave pattern for that one photon and perhaps "confuse" it. The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment has shown that events "everywhere" are linked beyond our immediate time to the rest of our Universe forever. Changing anything anywhere in the universe "should" lead to ripples in the interference pattern propagating and "destroying the stationary nature" of the cavity Universe. Experiment has shown that this is not so. There is NOTHING we can do to modify this "instant" that originates from some point and then propagates to some distant point regardless how far away and how long it takes. This "event" also incorporates a geometry of that "Universal Cavity". Observations in time show that ripples do indeed propagate provided we select a sequence of these frozen moments and string them together in the way we determine "time". What everyone is missing here is that the single instant is then lost and its timeless nature unappreciated. It would seem that the photons emitted from a single point source also tells us all the information we need to reconstruct the rest of the Universe as well. You now see every other point in the Universe that this wavefront is "bounced" off now becomes a coherent correlated secondary source and this modifies the first wavefront only refreshing and rebuilding the full interference pattern that we are trying to record. We are getting not only information about the first source but also information about everywhere else in the Universe that this photon has been "seeking all paths".
Consider what may be recorded by a sheet of glass with a photographic emulsion placed inside a busy airport terminal and exposed. The plate would be too sensitive to capture anything but a blur. The blur would be due to a very large number of photons expanding on spherical surfaces... each originating from a unique source expanding and passing through the emulsion exposing it. Each photon from a different source spatially and temporally, each one representing only one frequency out of an enormous number of separate wavelengths (all the various colors). Each photon recording only one single spot of one type of hologram whose source is only one single atomic process at one specific frequency at one point in time along with all possible information this photon has been able to encode from all possible paths. The mind "boggles".
The way this information is encoded is through a quantum process where the modified wavefront is altered by the waves of all secondary sources in the volumetric space interacting are undiscovered and still "secret". These correlated secondary sources can only exist so long as we do not "collapse" them. These are not photons that have been absorbed and re-emitted ... destroying the nature of the original source... No! These are the photons that are still correlated with the original source and still make up this grand interference pattern of standing waves throughout the entire space by "seeking all paths". For each one photon emitted from the original source only one photon is ever "collapsed" anywhere in the Universe. Some of these photons end up in our glass photographic plate and this grand process will end as a single flash of light somewhere inside the emulsion in the surface of an anti-node.
Yet this is the sort of information we need to record Holograms in emulsions. We choose to specify the single wavelength of light and the position of the source. To get a good hologram the area of interest must be otherwise completely dark and the beam of the "LASER" needs to be diverged to illuminate the entire scene. A number of other secondary sources may also be employed to increase the depth of our holographic process. It is very important to understand that these additional sources must be correlated and coherent with the original source in order that it complement it. A mirror is one way in which to "duplicate" correlated sources without any expenditure of additional energy. I have spoken of this many times. These secondary sources duplicate the original source since they do not collapse the state and the photon loses no energy in this duplication process being correlated with that original source. An uncorrelated source at exactly the same LASER frequency but positioned in a different place ... will produce a second interference pattern in space and potentially expose our photographic plate at some intermediate fractional wavelength between the 'fringes" of the first pattern and thus effectively destroying the entire optical impression (because we have no easy way to separate them). To be useful it must be correlated, one way is to use the original source another way is to use a LASER which is "artificially correlated", this would "boost the original source" and also feed back into it as well (I have added that point only for completeness.. do not allow me to confuse you with that).
This means for success that other "source" must be correlated so that it only adds to the standing wave pattern already existing in the space. A great deal of attention must be made to remove any vibrations from the scene and the recording plate as this would remove the "quasi-stationary" nature of the Hologram and render it a blur since a very large number of correlated photons are needed to "paint" the Hologram and that will mean a long exposure. We are talking about "stationary" to a small fraction of a wavelength of light here, over the entire period of the exposure. They often use a "sandbox" to stabilize components in the practical case.
So just one frequency of light from one single source position in space is sufficient to encode a Universe, and all of its physically arranged components, to a resolution of a fraction of a wavelength. Of course the real Universe is made up of an infinity of wavelengths (or nearly so) and include the unseen matter waves as well. This "geometry of interference fringes" is impressed into the emulsion "everywhere", photon by photon. I can reconstruct this group of wavelets that exposed the plate by simply illuminating this "emulsion pattern" with light of the appropriate wavelength. If I then go and snap/break a corner of the Hologram off, it too will contain information about the entire Universe as if it was seen through this much smaller "window". You could imagine that we could make a 10 meter by 10 meter hologram of some scene and then with a glass cutter split it into 10000 10X10 cm plates. They would differ only in the relative physical position in that 10X10 meter space they were in but otherwise would all contain the full scene of the original as if each was a little window on our entire visible Universe.
Human Technology is unable to record all the information presented to us in our normal visible Universe. We have two separate ways to record electromagnetic waves accurately. The first is the "optical system" that uses a "sensitive plate". This "plate" could be the retina of our eye when we look into a microscope or into a telescope, or it could be a photographic plate or electronic sensor array (the latter can record changes in time). It records intensity over a surface and ignores phase.
Then we have the "interferometer" which is usually a single sensor that dynamically records phase information from a single source or in some cases multiple sources. This could be a basic Radio Receiver. It is tuned to a single frequency and depending on the requirement has a highly directional antenna which allows the user to "scan" an area of interest. It can record either intensity or phase or both for a single point or one or other at over an solid angle of interest and also resolve time. What is important to realize is the incomplete descriptions regards the information recovered in each case.
What science has not been (reportedly) able to do is to create an instrument that records the phase and the intensity over a solid angle of interest for all relevant frequencies for all time. What we are able to do in certain intelligence areas is to produce "scanners" that find those bright sources and to record a number of them (up to a point) simultaneously. Even these usually do not record the mass of data "Holographically" but some do a portion of this using phased arrays.
What we really need to understand just what the hell is going on is a "technological recording plate" that is capable of discriminating every single frequency of the natural "light" and to record a hologram for each one of the sources at this plate. This would be a photon by photon record of the entire scene recording each photon's position and wavelength "in depth" on the plate, and thus recording the phase. This would be continuously recorded over a long period of time. A single conventional "Hologram Plate" could then be reconstructed by choosing the data/information from all correlated photons from a single source as a density pattern over the entire plate with the depth information and to switch this on as a three dimensional fine pixel pattern using a high definition LCD screen with "significant pixel depth" by which we may illuminate as a transmission Hologram showing us that single instant in time. By this means using powerful computers we could understand that our Universe is not made up of discrete parts but is a single whole. What we formerly thought of as "billiard ball particles" would now be seen as secondary waves originating from secondary "unseen" sources (like "mirrors" in the dark... all the other particles arranged in space) that contribute to the overall standing wave pattern. What we are primarily interested in is that original "billiard ball" source but we have taken a blind eye to what other information is riding on this wavefront that has formed into standing waves. A rich tapestry of wisdom that the "eye" can behold only once... a single tiny flash that contains a "snapshot" of the whole Universe as a single "event".
Cheers
The individual photon has an intrinsic "knowledge" of the cavity of the entire Universe. This means where everything is and when it was there in that frozen and expanding event contains the essence of the "past" and the "future" at every point that the photon ever reaches. It is "hopeless" to think that simply by moving an object in the Universe you can create a different standing wave pattern for that one photon and perhaps "confuse" it. The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment has shown that events "everywhere" are linked beyond our immediate time to the rest of our Universe forever. Changing anything anywhere in the universe "should" lead to ripples in the interference pattern propagating and "destroying the stationary nature" of the cavity Universe. Experiment has shown that this is not so. There is NOTHING we can do to modify this "instant" that originates from some point and then propagates to some distant point regardless how far away and how long it takes. This "event" also incorporates a geometry of that "Universal Cavity". Observations in time show that ripples do indeed propagate provided we select a sequence of these frozen moments and string them together in the way we determine "time". What everyone is missing here is that the single instant is then lost and its timeless nature unappreciated. It would seem that the photons emitted from a single point source also tells us all the information we need to reconstruct the rest of the Universe as well. You now see every other point in the Universe that this wavefront is "bounced" off now becomes a coherent correlated secondary source and this modifies the first wavefront only refreshing and rebuilding the full interference pattern that we are trying to record. We are getting not only information about the first source but also information about everywhere else in the Universe that this photon has been "seeking all paths".
Consider what may be recorded by a sheet of glass with a photographic emulsion placed inside a busy airport terminal and exposed. The plate would be too sensitive to capture anything but a blur. The blur would be due to a very large number of photons expanding on spherical surfaces... each originating from a unique source expanding and passing through the emulsion exposing it. Each photon from a different source spatially and temporally, each one representing only one frequency out of an enormous number of separate wavelengths (all the various colors). Each photon recording only one single spot of one type of hologram whose source is only one single atomic process at one specific frequency at one point in time along with all possible information this photon has been able to encode from all possible paths. The mind "boggles".
The way this information is encoded is through a quantum process where the modified wavefront is altered by the waves of all secondary sources in the volumetric space interacting are undiscovered and still "secret". These correlated secondary sources can only exist so long as we do not "collapse" them. These are not photons that have been absorbed and re-emitted ... destroying the nature of the original source... No! These are the photons that are still correlated with the original source and still make up this grand interference pattern of standing waves throughout the entire space by "seeking all paths". For each one photon emitted from the original source only one photon is ever "collapsed" anywhere in the Universe. Some of these photons end up in our glass photographic plate and this grand process will end as a single flash of light somewhere inside the emulsion in the surface of an anti-node.
Yet this is the sort of information we need to record Holograms in emulsions. We choose to specify the single wavelength of light and the position of the source. To get a good hologram the area of interest must be otherwise completely dark and the beam of the "LASER" needs to be diverged to illuminate the entire scene. A number of other secondary sources may also be employed to increase the depth of our holographic process. It is very important to understand that these additional sources must be correlated and coherent with the original source in order that it complement it. A mirror is one way in which to "duplicate" correlated sources without any expenditure of additional energy. I have spoken of this many times. These secondary sources duplicate the original source since they do not collapse the state and the photon loses no energy in this duplication process being correlated with that original source. An uncorrelated source at exactly the same LASER frequency but positioned in a different place ... will produce a second interference pattern in space and potentially expose our photographic plate at some intermediate fractional wavelength between the 'fringes" of the first pattern and thus effectively destroying the entire optical impression (because we have no easy way to separate them). To be useful it must be correlated, one way is to use the original source another way is to use a LASER which is "artificially correlated", this would "boost the original source" and also feed back into it as well (I have added that point only for completeness.. do not allow me to confuse you with that).
This means for success that other "source" must be correlated so that it only adds to the standing wave pattern already existing in the space. A great deal of attention must be made to remove any vibrations from the scene and the recording plate as this would remove the "quasi-stationary" nature of the Hologram and render it a blur since a very large number of correlated photons are needed to "paint" the Hologram and that will mean a long exposure. We are talking about "stationary" to a small fraction of a wavelength of light here, over the entire period of the exposure. They often use a "sandbox" to stabilize components in the practical case.
So just one frequency of light from one single source position in space is sufficient to encode a Universe, and all of its physically arranged components, to a resolution of a fraction of a wavelength. Of course the real Universe is made up of an infinity of wavelengths (or nearly so) and include the unseen matter waves as well. This "geometry of interference fringes" is impressed into the emulsion "everywhere", photon by photon. I can reconstruct this group of wavelets that exposed the plate by simply illuminating this "emulsion pattern" with light of the appropriate wavelength. If I then go and snap/break a corner of the Hologram off, it too will contain information about the entire Universe as if it was seen through this much smaller "window". You could imagine that we could make a 10 meter by 10 meter hologram of some scene and then with a glass cutter split it into 10000 10X10 cm plates. They would differ only in the relative physical position in that 10X10 meter space they were in but otherwise would all contain the full scene of the original as if each was a little window on our entire visible Universe.
Human Technology is unable to record all the information presented to us in our normal visible Universe. We have two separate ways to record electromagnetic waves accurately. The first is the "optical system" that uses a "sensitive plate". This "plate" could be the retina of our eye when we look into a microscope or into a telescope, or it could be a photographic plate or electronic sensor array (the latter can record changes in time). It records intensity over a surface and ignores phase.
Then we have the "interferometer" which is usually a single sensor that dynamically records phase information from a single source or in some cases multiple sources. This could be a basic Radio Receiver. It is tuned to a single frequency and depending on the requirement has a highly directional antenna which allows the user to "scan" an area of interest. It can record either intensity or phase or both for a single point or one or other at over an solid angle of interest and also resolve time. What is important to realize is the incomplete descriptions regards the information recovered in each case.
What science has not been (reportedly) able to do is to create an instrument that records the phase and the intensity over a solid angle of interest for all relevant frequencies for all time. What we are able to do in certain intelligence areas is to produce "scanners" that find those bright sources and to record a number of them (up to a point) simultaneously. Even these usually do not record the mass of data "Holographically" but some do a portion of this using phased arrays.
What we really need to understand just what the hell is going on is a "technological recording plate" that is capable of discriminating every single frequency of the natural "light" and to record a hologram for each one of the sources at this plate. This would be a photon by photon record of the entire scene recording each photon's position and wavelength "in depth" on the plate, and thus recording the phase. This would be continuously recorded over a long period of time. A single conventional "Hologram Plate" could then be reconstructed by choosing the data/information from all correlated photons from a single source as a density pattern over the entire plate with the depth information and to switch this on as a three dimensional fine pixel pattern using a high definition LCD screen with "significant pixel depth" by which we may illuminate as a transmission Hologram showing us that single instant in time. By this means using powerful computers we could understand that our Universe is not made up of discrete parts but is a single whole. What we formerly thought of as "billiard ball particles" would now be seen as secondary waves originating from secondary "unseen" sources (like "mirrors" in the dark... all the other particles arranged in space) that contribute to the overall standing wave pattern. What we are primarily interested in is that original "billiard ball" source but we have taken a blind eye to what other information is riding on this wavefront that has formed into standing waves. A rich tapestry of wisdom that the "eye" can behold only once... a single tiny flash that contains a "snapshot" of the whole Universe as a single "event".
Cheers
Hi GE,
Good monolog.
The single instant is not lost, it merely continues to travel into the past from
our perspective. It is out of our relative timeframe of "now". It has passed
our timeline, but could be perceived at some point in the future from
some other observers perspective located light years further out from the
source than we are. Relativity is a tricky subject. Time is relative across some
distance between two points in space....
In the case of a hologram, size and image resolution are directly proportional.
The larger the size of the hologram the more information it contains and the
better the pattern resolution that can be stored and later obtained from viewing
it. It is the sum of the parts.
Regarding the information contained in a hologram from primary and
secondary "universal sources".... there is an issue of path lengths as they relate to
the time domain being recorded. Only those events that have reached the
recording medium will be recorded and they will reflect the period of time and
finite amount of information that will be recorded. Information is a slice of time
and "distance".
As an aside, did you read my outline "analysis" of finite space vs infinite space
and time? Any thoughts? Comments?
Regards,
LL
Good monolog.
QUOTE
What everyone is missing here is that the single instant is then lost and its timeless nature unappreciated. It would seem that the photons emitted from a single point source also tells us all the information we need to reconstruct the rest of the Universe as well. You now see every other point in the Universe that this wavefront is "bounced" off now becomes a coherent correlated secondary source and this modifies the first wavefront only refreshing and rebuilding the full interference pattern that we are trying to record. We are getting not only information about the first source but also information about everywhere else in the Universe that this photon has been "seeking all paths".
The single instant is not lost, it merely continues to travel into the past from
our perspective. It is out of our relative timeframe of "now". It has passed
our timeline, but could be perceived at some point in the future from
some other observers perspective located light years further out from the
source than we are. Relativity is a tricky subject. Time is relative across some
distance between two points in space....
In the case of a hologram, size and image resolution are directly proportional.
The larger the size of the hologram the more information it contains and the
better the pattern resolution that can be stored and later obtained from viewing
it. It is the sum of the parts.
Regarding the information contained in a hologram from primary and
secondary "universal sources".... there is an issue of path lengths as they relate to
the time domain being recorded. Only those events that have reached the
recording medium will be recorded and they will reflect the period of time and
finite amount of information that will be recorded. Information is a slice of time
and "distance".
As an aside, did you read my outline "analysis" of finite space vs infinite space
and time? Any thoughts? Comments?
Regards,
LL
After thinking about this I have changed my mind....
As the exposed surface area of a hologram doubles the amount of information that
it can contain quadruples (4x). So the resolution of the recorded image should
also magnify 4x.
LL
QUOTE
In the case of a hologram, size and image resolution are directly proportional.
The larger the size of the hologram the more information it contains and the
better the pattern resolution that can be stored and later obtained from viewing
it. It is the sum of the parts.
The larger the size of the hologram the more information it contains and the
better the pattern resolution that can be stored and later obtained from viewing
it. It is the sum of the parts.
As the exposed surface area of a hologram doubles the amount of information that
it can contain quadruples (4x). So the resolution of the recorded image should
also magnify 4x.
LL
Hi LL,
Sorry I botched that last one up a bit. Really, the measurement problem is "all of our" problem, and the way I said it sort of pitted us against each other. It doesn't matter at all to me if someone changes their mind along the way, it means this is all worth while.
The result is that I still don't really understand how the "mixing" takes place in your thinking, without (temporarily at least) changing what I had termed "the measurable qualities"
At any rate, I am still trying to complete a post on superposition, as I think it applies to energy.
ciao,
T.Roc
Sorry I botched that last one up a bit. Really, the measurement problem is "all of our" problem, and the way I said it sort of pitted us against each other. It doesn't matter at all to me if someone changes their mind along the way, it means this is all worth while.
The result is that I still don't really understand how the "mixing" takes place in your thinking, without (temporarily at least) changing what I had termed "the measurable qualities"
At any rate, I am still trying to complete a post on superposition, as I think it applies to energy.
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc and All,
I had hinted at this mixing point on numerous occasions but never really provided
a detailed explanation of the proposed mechanism. I was waiting for the right
time...now seems appropriate.
Good Elf has stated, and I agree, that photons radiate as radiating dipole fields
from their source atoms. En masse, coherent photon wavefronts
radiate from dipole source "antennas" across some distance/length. As a wavefront
is emitted it expands and seeks all paths, both forward and laterally. The photon
"wavelet" pulses that are synchronously emanating from their individual atoms
along the wavefront have phase "interlocking" self regenerative EM fields
that they are "sharing". If we could scale up the proposed EM field sharing
model and watch it as a slow motion movie at the atomic level as photons are
being emitted from the source, we would observe that adjacent atoms along
the emission surface are sharing electrons. At any instant, these bipolar atomic
pairs are oppositely polarized to their immediate neighbors. I'm referring to
electron-hole movement/sharing throughout the atomic lattice, which is one of the
causes of atomic vibration as "charge dislocations" move thru the lattice. The
atoms of the lattice vibrate as a consequence of overall "moving" charge
interactions that exist between them.
Atomic dipoles form when an atom has a full complement of electrons that are
necessary to fill its outermost energetic shell. The atom has a balanced positive
and negative polar charge relationship that forms a temporary dipole antenna that
can function as a transmitter or receiver for photons while it is in that dipole
"state". However, its neighbor atom has an energy vacancy and has a net positive
potential but lacks the ability to absorb or emit photon energy. The point being that
there is a length gap between surface atoms that can emit or receive photons.
At any instantaneous point in time, every other atom in the surface matrix has a
charge relationship to form a dipole, and it oscillates back and forth as the atomic
charges shift in relation to the oscillations created by the electron hole pairing.
So at any one time every other atom can form a dipole and emit a photon. There
is atomic spacial separation between emitted photon wavelets, but there is also
complementary EM field interactions ongoing between adjacent wavelets. The
propagating electrical field of one wavelet crosses the developing magnetic field of
an adjacent emitted wavelet, while at the same time other complementary fields are mutually interacting. Because these fields are not perfectly aligned, due to
spatial and timing differences there is a slight phase and timing mismatch that
exists between them as they develop. This creates the spin/rotation of the
wavefront, and enables the self regeneration/propagation of the wave to occur.
Slight phase and timing mismatches in the wavelet EM fields act like the moving
and phase crossing EM fields of a motor that are responsible for creating
"displacement". In this case, the displacement is observed as wave propagation.
Now to answer the original question of where the mixing takes place in the DSE.
One of Taco Visser's papers made reference to surface plasmons that exist
on the gold exit wall between the two slits. If we agree that a photon expands
at the speed of light and seeks all paths, and again using the slow motion
atomic scaled up model, we can watch as the synchronous but spatially separated
photon wavefronts emerge from the two slit cavities.
As the wave fronts emerge from the confined cavity of each slit which act as
dual energy focal points, they instantaneously expand at the speed of light in all
directions. The wave front is seeking all paths, in all directions, at the speed of
light. This means that the wavefront is also expanding along the exposed rear
surface of the slit wall. The area between the two slits which has vibrating atomic
surface plasmons (et al) represents the point of mixing between the two formerly
spatially separated but focused (concentrated) wavefronts. These overlapping but
slightly phase and timing delayed "focused" EM wave fronts emerging from the
slits are also being interfered with (modulated) as they harmonically mix with the
phase delaying EM fields of the dipoles of the surface plasmons that exist between
the slits. This slight mismatch of phase and timing is the wave front interference
mixing point and the interfered wave front continues to propagate and project
forward (and spread laterally) from this mixing location, with expanding
interference bands "intact". The expanding interference wave fronts are projected
onto the screen where the alternating constructive and destructive energy patterns
of the wavefront are discriminated/detected.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/plasmons.pdf
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/naturephyscomment.pdf
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/mu.pdf
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/twoslits.pdf
Let the arguments/discussion begin.
LL
QUOTE
The result is that I still don't really understand how the "mixing" takes place in your thinking, without (temporarily at least) changing what I had termed "the measurable qualities"
I had hinted at this mixing point on numerous occasions but never really provided
a detailed explanation of the proposed mechanism. I was waiting for the right
time...now seems appropriate.
Good Elf has stated, and I agree, that photons radiate as radiating dipole fields
from their source atoms. En masse, coherent photon wavefronts
radiate from dipole source "antennas" across some distance/length. As a wavefront
is emitted it expands and seeks all paths, both forward and laterally. The photon
"wavelet" pulses that are synchronously emanating from their individual atoms
along the wavefront have phase "interlocking" self regenerative EM fields
that they are "sharing". If we could scale up the proposed EM field sharing
model and watch it as a slow motion movie at the atomic level as photons are
being emitted from the source, we would observe that adjacent atoms along
the emission surface are sharing electrons. At any instant, these bipolar atomic
pairs are oppositely polarized to their immediate neighbors. I'm referring to
electron-hole movement/sharing throughout the atomic lattice, which is one of the
causes of atomic vibration as "charge dislocations" move thru the lattice. The
atoms of the lattice vibrate as a consequence of overall "moving" charge
interactions that exist between them.
Atomic dipoles form when an atom has a full complement of electrons that are
necessary to fill its outermost energetic shell. The atom has a balanced positive
and negative polar charge relationship that forms a temporary dipole antenna that
can function as a transmitter or receiver for photons while it is in that dipole
"state". However, its neighbor atom has an energy vacancy and has a net positive
potential but lacks the ability to absorb or emit photon energy. The point being that
there is a length gap between surface atoms that can emit or receive photons.
At any instantaneous point in time, every other atom in the surface matrix has a
charge relationship to form a dipole, and it oscillates back and forth as the atomic
charges shift in relation to the oscillations created by the electron hole pairing.
So at any one time every other atom can form a dipole and emit a photon. There
is atomic spacial separation between emitted photon wavelets, but there is also
complementary EM field interactions ongoing between adjacent wavelets. The
propagating electrical field of one wavelet crosses the developing magnetic field of
an adjacent emitted wavelet, while at the same time other complementary fields are mutually interacting. Because these fields are not perfectly aligned, due to
spatial and timing differences there is a slight phase and timing mismatch that
exists between them as they develop. This creates the spin/rotation of the
wavefront, and enables the self regeneration/propagation of the wave to occur.
Slight phase and timing mismatches in the wavelet EM fields act like the moving
and phase crossing EM fields of a motor that are responsible for creating
"displacement". In this case, the displacement is observed as wave propagation.
Now to answer the original question of where the mixing takes place in the DSE.
One of Taco Visser's papers made reference to surface plasmons that exist
on the gold exit wall between the two slits. If we agree that a photon expands
at the speed of light and seeks all paths, and again using the slow motion
atomic scaled up model, we can watch as the synchronous but spatially separated
photon wavefronts emerge from the two slit cavities.
As the wave fronts emerge from the confined cavity of each slit which act as
dual energy focal points, they instantaneously expand at the speed of light in all
directions. The wave front is seeking all paths, in all directions, at the speed of
light. This means that the wavefront is also expanding along the exposed rear
surface of the slit wall. The area between the two slits which has vibrating atomic
surface plasmons (et al) represents the point of mixing between the two formerly
spatially separated but focused (concentrated) wavefronts. These overlapping but
slightly phase and timing delayed "focused" EM wave fronts emerging from the
slits are also being interfered with (modulated) as they harmonically mix with the
phase delaying EM fields of the dipoles of the surface plasmons that exist between
the slits. This slight mismatch of phase and timing is the wave front interference
mixing point and the interfered wave front continues to propagate and project
forward (and spread laterally) from this mixing location, with expanding
interference bands "intact". The expanding interference wave fronts are projected
onto the screen where the alternating constructive and destructive energy patterns
of the wavefront are discriminated/detected.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/plasmons.pdf
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/naturephyscomment.pdf
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/mu.pdf
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/twoslits.pdf
Let the arguments/discussion begin.
LL
Hi,
Do atomic force/field frequencies and wavelengths vary categorically between the periodic table elements?
Do atomic force/field frequencies and wavelengths vary categorically between the periodic table elements?
Hello Guest,
I'm not exactly sure what your question is, but each different element vibrates at a
specific atomic frequency. The light emitted by each different type of elemental
atom, when stimulated, has a unique color frequency that can be detected
spectroscopically. Since each type of element can be determined by the color/
frequency of light that it emits then I would say yes to your original question
frequency should correlate according to the energy level of the element as to its
placement on the atomic chart.
http://loke.as.arizona.edu/~ckulesa/camp/s...copy_intro.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
If you are asking if frequency bands/ranges vary by different group categories
such as metals, non-metals, halogens, etc.....I don't know the answer to that.
Regards,
LL
I'm not exactly sure what your question is, but each different element vibrates at a
specific atomic frequency. The light emitted by each different type of elemental
atom, when stimulated, has a unique color frequency that can be detected
spectroscopically. Since each type of element can be determined by the color/
frequency of light that it emits then I would say yes to your original question
frequency should correlate according to the energy level of the element as to its
placement on the atomic chart.
QUOTE
the electron clouds surrounding the nuclei of atoms can have only very specific energies dictated by quantum mechanics. Each element on the periodic table has its own set of possible energy levels, and with few exceptions the levels are distinct and identifiable.
Atoms will also tend to settle to the lowest energy level (in spectroscopist's lingo, this is called the ground state). This means that an excited atom in a higher energy level must `dump' some energy. The way an atom `dumps' that energy is by emitting a wave of light with that exact energy.
Atoms will also tend to settle to the lowest energy level (in spectroscopist's lingo, this is called the ground state). This means that an excited atom in a higher energy level must `dump' some energy. The way an atom `dumps' that energy is by emitting a wave of light with that exact energy.
http://loke.as.arizona.edu/~ckulesa/camp/s...copy_intro.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
If you are asking if frequency bands/ranges vary by different group categories
such as metals, non-metals, halogens, etc.....I don't know the answer to that.
Regards,
LL
Hi Laserlight,
Re:Your detailed explanation..
We differ in that I see the DSE as an instrument that analyses 'reality'. We have an exemplary experiment here http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml and an exemplary result here http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif . We can use 'other knowledge' to establish that the slits do not need to be very accurately cut and do not need to be made of any specific material.
Among many other things the DSE is in apparatus that enables us to measure the wavelength of light as long as we know the distance between the slits and the distance to the screen. It is generally accepted that the single slit before the pair of slits is an important part of the apparatus as it seems to be required to ensure both slits receive the same information and that is 'in phase'. ( see ripple tank http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm ).
You don't make any attempt to show that your assumptions can predict the observed result. With all due respect I think it is evident that a device operating in the way you describe could not be used to measure the wavelength of light therefore you are not describing the DSE that we know and love. It is certainly interesting to consider the type of second order effect that you have described. With a proper explanation of the DSE we could try to answer the question "Why do these effects have so little influence on the observed result?" but at present we lack that proper explanation.
Re:Your detailed explanation..
We differ in that I see the DSE as an instrument that analyses 'reality'. We have an exemplary experiment here http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml and an exemplary result here http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif . We can use 'other knowledge' to establish that the slits do not need to be very accurately cut and do not need to be made of any specific material.
Among many other things the DSE is in apparatus that enables us to measure the wavelength of light as long as we know the distance between the slits and the distance to the screen. It is generally accepted that the single slit before the pair of slits is an important part of the apparatus as it seems to be required to ensure both slits receive the same information and that is 'in phase'. ( see ripple tank http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm ).
You don't make any attempt to show that your assumptions can predict the observed result. With all due respect I think it is evident that a device operating in the way you describe could not be used to measure the wavelength of light therefore you are not describing the DSE that we know and love. It is certainly interesting to consider the type of second order effect that you have described. With a proper explanation of the DSE we could try to answer the question "Why do these effects have so little influence on the observed result?" but at present we lack that proper explanation.
QUOTE (LL+)
The wave front is seeking all paths, in all directions, at the speed of light. This means that the wavefront is also expanding along the exposed rear surface of the slit wall.
I assume 'seeking all paths' originally came (probably) from Feynman, subsequently used by Good Elf. I think it would be fair to say that both intend 'seeking all paths' to mean exactly that. There is nothing special about the path between the slits .. it has no greater or lesser probability than any other path .. in particular it has no greater probability than a path that heads directly for the screen. 'Seeking all paths' is one of the reasons why your proposed explanation fails.
I assume 'seeking all paths' originally came (probably) from Feynman, subsequently used by Good Elf. I think it would be fair to say that both intend 'seeking all paths' to mean exactly that. There is nothing special about the path between the slits .. it has no greater or lesser probability than any other path .. in particular it has no greater probability than a path that heads directly for the screen. 'Seeking all paths' is one of the reasons why your proposed explanation fails.
QUOTE (LL+)
The expanding interference wave fronts are projected onto the screen where the alternating constructive and destructive energy patterns of the wavefront are discriminated/detected.
Are you claiming the distribution of these 'patterns' follows the same pattern as that observed in the DSE? You have given no reason why that might be so.
I see no problem with Visser's papers as analyses of experiments conducted using gold materials and very narrow slits which are separated by just a few wavelengths of light.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Here is yet another DSE applet which predicts the observed result.
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.../youngexpt4.htm
Are you claiming the distribution of these 'patterns' follows the same pattern as that observed in the DSE? You have given no reason why that might be so.
I see no problem with Visser's papers as analyses of experiments conducted using gold materials and very narrow slits which are separated by just a few wavelengths of light.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Here is yet another DSE applet which predicts the observed result.
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.../youngexpt4.htm
Hi all,
Well C2, if given the choice between your preferred "classical" explanation, and the current "quantum" explanation, I too would choose the classical. The lesser of 2 evils, as it were.
I just wanted to comment right now, on your statement:
Most of the papers, authored by Visser (et al), that were presented, were NOT concerning slits of a few wavelengths, they were sub-wavelengths; an important distinction.
regards,
T.Roc
ps: on this last link to another DSE, click "show path difference", and notice the "evolving triangles" that I have tried to explain with words (not too well)
Well C2, if given the choice between your preferred "classical" explanation, and the current "quantum" explanation, I too would choose the classical. The lesser of 2 evils, as it were.
I just wanted to comment right now, on your statement:
QUOTE
I see no problem with Visser's papers as analyses of experiments conducted using gold materials and very narrow slits which are separated by just a few wavelengths of light.
Most of the papers, authored by Visser (et al), that were presented, were NOT concerning slits of a few wavelengths, they were sub-wavelengths; an important distinction.
regards,
T.Roc
ps: on this last link to another DSE, click "show path difference", and notice the "evolving triangles" that I have tried to explain with words (not too well)
Hi TRoc,
[quote=TRoc]Well C2, if given the choice between your preferred "classical" explanation, and the current "quantum" explanation, I too would choose the classical. The lesser of 2 evils, as it were.[/TRoc]
I am hoping that one day we might see the classical solution as being no more and no less than the superposition of many 'quantum' solutions, for this to happen (obviously) we must get the right quantum solution. If we had both solutions then we would have an immensely powerful tool for exploring the relationship between the 'classical' and the 'quantum' world.
One day maybe someone will post "Hey .. I can see where the E field comes from!", or maybe not.
And I suspect that is just of the tip of the iceberg of what is to be seen in the DSE.
Best wishes,
-C2.
[quote=TRoc]Well C2, if given the choice between your preferred "classical" explanation, and the current "quantum" explanation, I too would choose the classical. The lesser of 2 evils, as it were.[/TRoc]
I am hoping that one day we might see the classical solution as being no more and no less than the superposition of many 'quantum' solutions, for this to happen (obviously) we must get the right quantum solution. If we had both solutions then we would have an immensely powerful tool for exploring the relationship between the 'classical' and the 'quantum' world.
One day maybe someone will post "Hey .. I can see where the E field comes from!", or maybe not.
And I suspect that is just of the tip of the iceberg of what is to be seen in the DSE.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2,
I think that you are looking at things too simplistically, and incorrectly.
The results at the screen are the second order effect....they are the result
of events taking place at the slits, which is the first order mixing
event.
IMO, the wavelength of light can be fairly easily derived as was done by Young.
I do not need to prove the wavelength of light to understand the mechanism
of why waves of light interfere. They will interfere regardless of the wavelengths
used in the DSE, and present different interference bands as a consequence of
the frequency used.
Probability has nothing to do with interference or the bands, they will always
present the same pattern if the same wavelength and same slit geometry is
used. Trying to explain the physical mechanism that creates a consistent result
by using math is like trying to explain how a car goes from point A to point B
by using Pi to count the revolutions of the wheels. It doesn't explain the
actual physics, the underlying mechanisms, it only provides the formulas that yield
a result.
Visser's paper(s) were designed and constructed to find out the mechanisms using
some exotic methods to highlight the underlying phenomena at work in the
DSE. Did you read them? The idea is that if you can understand how and why
a phenomenon responds under idealized and designed conditions then you have
a fundamental baseline model from which you can make predictions and control
the experiment. That is what experiments are....controlled, designed tests that
are used to gather useful information from which the observed results allow one to
make and apply predictions to similar conditions that cannot be easily observed.
Visser's paper showed exactly how the peak intensity interference patterns
between the slits correspond to the banding results imaged on the screen. Same
number of interference intensity patterns at both locations.... Coincidence? I don't
think so.
You keep throwing up math as the answer. Math isn't a physical phenomenon,
it is merely number patterns that yield number results. Math is used to verify
predictable results, it has nothing to do with the physical mechanisms that
generate the predictable results. Contrary to your beliefs, the cancellation of
overlapping wavelengths is NOT HAPPENING AT THE SCREEN. The interference
is happening at/between the slits which is the point of constructive and destructive
interference signal mixing.
Are you expecting us to believe that 700nm wavelengths of light are perfectly
cancelling across an area of 1-2 millimeters and don't change their phasing relationship when the screen is moved back and forth, regardless of the position
of the screen? Why do you think the apex of the triangles that are used to
generate the mathematical results have their focal point at the slits? It is the
focal point of projection, the same as you would get with a movie projector,
nothing more.
Regards,
LL
I think that you are looking at things too simplistically, and incorrectly.
The results at the screen are the second order effect....they are the result
of events taking place at the slits, which is the first order mixing
event.
IMO, the wavelength of light can be fairly easily derived as was done by Young.
I do not need to prove the wavelength of light to understand the mechanism
of why waves of light interfere. They will interfere regardless of the wavelengths
used in the DSE, and present different interference bands as a consequence of
the frequency used.
Probability has nothing to do with interference or the bands, they will always
present the same pattern if the same wavelength and same slit geometry is
used. Trying to explain the physical mechanism that creates a consistent result
by using math is like trying to explain how a car goes from point A to point B
by using Pi to count the revolutions of the wheels. It doesn't explain the
actual physics, the underlying mechanisms, it only provides the formulas that yield
a result.
Visser's paper(s) were designed and constructed to find out the mechanisms using
some exotic methods to highlight the underlying phenomena at work in the
DSE. Did you read them? The idea is that if you can understand how and why
a phenomenon responds under idealized and designed conditions then you have
a fundamental baseline model from which you can make predictions and control
the experiment. That is what experiments are....controlled, designed tests that
are used to gather useful information from which the observed results allow one to
make and apply predictions to similar conditions that cannot be easily observed.
Visser's paper showed exactly how the peak intensity interference patterns
between the slits correspond to the banding results imaged on the screen. Same
number of interference intensity patterns at both locations.... Coincidence? I don't
think so.
You keep throwing up math as the answer. Math isn't a physical phenomenon,
it is merely number patterns that yield number results. Math is used to verify
predictable results, it has nothing to do with the physical mechanisms that
generate the predictable results. Contrary to your beliefs, the cancellation of
overlapping wavelengths is NOT HAPPENING AT THE SCREEN. The interference
is happening at/between the slits which is the point of constructive and destructive
interference signal mixing.
Are you expecting us to believe that 700nm wavelengths of light are perfectly
cancelling across an area of 1-2 millimeters and don't change their phasing relationship when the screen is moved back and forth, regardless of the position
of the screen? Why do you think the apex of the triangles that are used to
generate the mathematical results have their focal point at the slits? It is the
focal point of projection, the same as you would get with a movie projector,
nothing more.
Regards,
LL
Hi TRoc,
It's always easier taking the traveled path because you know what to expect,
but familiarity breeds complacency and offers no challenge.
Anyone can drive a car by turning the key and pushing the pedal, and for
some that is enough. For true seekers, it isn't. It depends on your comfort zone.
To coin an old phrase....."Ignorance is bliss".....LOL!
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
Well C2, if given the choice between your preferred "classical" explanation, and the current "quantum" explanation, I too would choose the classical. The lesser of 2 evils, as it were.
It's always easier taking the traveled path because you know what to expect,
but familiarity breeds complacency and offers no challenge.
Anyone can drive a car by turning the key and pushing the pedal, and for
some that is enough. For true seekers, it isn't. It depends on your comfort zone.
To coin an old phrase....."Ignorance is bliss".....LOL!
Regards,
LL
Hi all,
LL,
Don't take what I just said for: I (or we should) give up, the classical explanation is the final answer, or your version = the quantum version. To that, I mean the "probabilistic" method.
I do have reservations as to the plasma (plasmon) at the slit idea. I am not an expert in Polaritonics, but I know that there are several versions that have been proposed. One difference is the direction of propagation in the lattice; I believe the Surface Plasmons run perpendicular to the surface. That would make "coupling" hard, but shouldn't be enough to kill the idea. Also, keep in mind that the phonon speed will not be fast enough to couple with an EM wavefront, which is where the effect would seem to be required.
The slit wall thickness to slit width ratio does play a role, not commonly mentioned.
versus
versus
Here, the screen thickness of the filter is much more than the slit width. In this limit the slit filter behaves like a planar waveguide; the filtering results from the modal cut-off frequency of the waveguide, not the diffraction after the pulse leaves the filter.
Indeed, if you watch the pulse as it passes between the edges of the slit, you can see the pulse spread out as the modal dispersion causes it to fall apart.
The adjustable slit filter was formed between the edges of two copper sheets oriented parallel to the direction of polarization of the THz pulse. The thickness of the copper sheet was 1.7 mm and the slit width was 0.5 mm. The filter was 10 cm from the emitter, ensuring an approximately planar wavefront over the slit widths of interest.
To verify our experimental findings, we numerically simulated the propagation of the THz pulse through the slit using the Finite - Difference Time - Domain method (FDTD). To facilitate direct comparison of experiments and simulations, we used actual experimental parameters together with the measured input field as the starting point for these simulations.
http://www.optics.rochester.edu:8080/users.../diffthick.html
More information on the diffraction of terahertz radiation by an aperture can be found in the papers:
Spatiotemporal shaping of terahertz pulses
http://www.optics.rochester.edu:8080/users.../bromage971.pdf
Jake Bromage, Stojan Radic, G. P. Agrawal, C. R. Stroud, Jr.,
P. M. Fauchet, and Roman Sobolewski
Opt. Lett. 22, 627 (1997).
Spatiotemporal shaping of half-cycle terahertz pulses by diffraction through conductive apertures of finite thickness
http://www.optics.rochester.edu:8080/users.../bromage981.pdf
Jake Bromage, Stojan Radic, G. P. Agrawal, C. R. Stroud, Jr.,
P. M. Fauchet, and Roman Sobolewski.
JOSA B 15, 1953 (1998).
For the general debate, I will add this as well:
In the most basic, and general sense, we have these 2 thoughts. 1.) without the slit(s), we get no pattern at the screen. 2.) without the screen, we get no pattern from the slits. What I mean here (again), is the measurement problem. We can not "prove" either because it takes both, with certain distances/properties, to get the desired result. This is why I say that energy is a "verb", or 2 party interaction. What we are talking about, is the appearance of the pattern on the screen, which may, or may not match the energy levels there. Here, I'll remind C2, that I am not talking about "intensity" only (#'s of "photons"); we have a "dark energy" as well. (aka negative frequencies, negative energy, retarded solutions, whatever dualistic symmetrical properties/anti-properties that have been put forth).
ciao,
T.Roc
LL,
Don't take what I just said for: I (or we should) give up, the classical explanation is the final answer, or your version = the quantum version. To that, I mean the "probabilistic" method.
I do have reservations as to the plasma (plasmon) at the slit idea. I am not an expert in Polaritonics, but I know that there are several versions that have been proposed. One difference is the direction of propagation in the lattice; I believe the Surface Plasmons run perpendicular to the surface. That would make "coupling" hard, but shouldn't be enough to kill the idea. Also, keep in mind that the phonon speed will not be fast enough to couple with an EM wavefront, which is where the effect would seem to be required.
The slit wall thickness to slit width ratio does play a role, not commonly mentioned.
QUOTE
Here, the screen thickness of the filter is much less than the slit width, so the filtering results from the longer wavelengths diffracting more severely after the pulse leaves the filter.
The adjustable slit filter was formed between the edges of two razor blades oriented parallel to the direction of polarization of the THz pulse. The slit width shown above was 0.5 mm. The filter was 10 cm from the emitter, ensuring an approximately planar wavefront over the slit widths of interest.
The adjustable slit filter was formed between the edges of two razor blades oriented parallel to the direction of polarization of the THz pulse. The slit width shown above was 0.5 mm. The filter was 10 cm from the emitter, ensuring an approximately planar wavefront over the slit widths of interest.
versus
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Here, the screen thickness of the filter is much less than the slit width, so the filtering results from the longer wavelengths diffracting more severely after the pulse leaves the filter. The adjustable slit filter was formed between the edges of two razor blades oriented parallel to the direction of polarization of the THz pulse. The slit width shown above was 0.5 mm. The filter was 10 cm from the emitter, ensuring an approximately planar wavefront over the slit widths of interest. |
versus
Here, the screen thickness of the filter is much more than the slit width. In this limit the slit filter behaves like a planar waveguide; the filtering results from the modal cut-off frequency of the waveguide, not the diffraction after the pulse leaves the filter.
Indeed, if you watch the pulse as it passes between the edges of the slit, you can see the pulse spread out as the modal dispersion causes it to fall apart.
The adjustable slit filter was formed between the edges of two copper sheets oriented parallel to the direction of polarization of the THz pulse. The thickness of the copper sheet was 1.7 mm and the slit width was 0.5 mm. The filter was 10 cm from the emitter, ensuring an approximately planar wavefront over the slit widths of interest.
To verify our experimental findings, we numerically simulated the propagation of the THz pulse through the slit using the Finite - Difference Time - Domain method (FDTD). To facilitate direct comparison of experiments and simulations, we used actual experimental parameters together with the measured input field as the starting point for these simulations.
http://www.optics.rochester.edu:8080/users.../diffthick.html
More information on the diffraction of terahertz radiation by an aperture can be found in the papers:
Spatiotemporal shaping of terahertz pulses
http://www.optics.rochester.edu:8080/users.../bromage971.pdf
Jake Bromage, Stojan Radic, G. P. Agrawal, C. R. Stroud, Jr.,
P. M. Fauchet, and Roman Sobolewski
Opt. Lett. 22, 627 (1997).
Spatiotemporal shaping of half-cycle terahertz pulses by diffraction through conductive apertures of finite thickness
http://www.optics.rochester.edu:8080/users.../bromage981.pdf
Jake Bromage, Stojan Radic, G. P. Agrawal, C. R. Stroud, Jr.,
P. M. Fauchet, and Roman Sobolewski.
JOSA B 15, 1953 (1998).
For the general debate, I will add this as well:
In the most basic, and general sense, we have these 2 thoughts. 1.) without the slit(s), we get no pattern at the screen. 2.) without the screen, we get no pattern from the slits. What I mean here (again), is the measurement problem. We can not "prove" either because it takes both, with certain distances/properties, to get the desired result. This is why I say that energy is a "verb", or 2 party interaction. What we are talking about, is the appearance of the pattern on the screen, which may, or may not match the energy levels there. Here, I'll remind C2, that I am not talking about "intensity" only (#'s of "photons"); we have a "dark energy" as well. (aka negative frequencies, negative energy, retarded solutions, whatever dualistic symmetrical properties/anti-properties that have been put forth).
ciao,
T.Roc
(disregard the board error above)
Hi all,
From that last paper, "Spatiotemporal shaping of half-cycle terahertz pulses by diffraction through conductive apertures of finite thickness"
http://www.optics.rochester.edu:8080/users.../bromage981.pdf
Add that to my point that we are propagating light in this experiment through a mixed "random" medium of air.
Now, take "Anderson localization", which has made a "shift" (localization-delocalization transition), and our "random" medium becomes "not so random" anymore. In fact, it becomes comparable to bandgaps in other materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_localization
Hi all,
From that last paper, "Spatiotemporal shaping of half-cycle terahertz pulses by diffraction through conductive apertures of finite thickness"
http://www.optics.rochester.edu:8080/users.../bromage981.pdf
QUOTE
A particularly interesting form of subcycle optical radiation is a half-cycle pulse. Ideally, one creates a half-cycle pulse by limiting the duration of a perfect harmonic wave to half of its optical period. The spectrum of such a half-cycle pulse, however, includes a strong dc component that does not propagate.
(emphasis added)Add that to my point that we are propagating light in this experiment through a mixed "random" medium of air.
Now, take "Anderson localization", which has made a "shift" (localization-delocalization transition), and our "random" medium becomes "not so random" anymore. In fact, it becomes comparable to bandgaps in other materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_localization
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A particularly interesting form of subcycle optical radiation is a half-cycle pulse. Ideally, one creates a half-cycle pulse by limiting the duration of a perfect harmonic wave to half of its optical period. The spectrum of such a half-cycle pulse, however, includes a strong dc component that does not propagate. |
(emphasis added)
Add that to my point that we are propagating light in this experiment through a mixed "random" medium of air.
Now, take "Anderson localization", which has made a "shift" (localization-delocalization transition), and our "random" medium becomes "not so random" anymore. In fact, it becomes comparable to bandgaps in other materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_localization
Anderson localization is a general wave phenomenon that applies to the transport of electromagnetic wave, acoustic wave, quantum wave and spin wave, etc. This phenomenon is to be distinguished from weak localization, which is the precursor effect of Anderson localization. This phenomenon finds its origin in the wave interference between multiple-scattering paths. In strong scattering limit, the severe interferences can completely halt the waves inside the random medium.
Add that to my point that we are propagating light in this experiment through a mixed "random" medium of air.
Now, take "Anderson localization", which has made a "shift" (localization-delocalization transition), and our "random" medium becomes "not so random" anymore. In fact, it becomes comparable to bandgaps in other materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_localization
Anderson localization is a general wave phenomenon that applies to the transport of electromagnetic wave, acoustic wave, quantum wave and spin wave, etc. This phenomenon is to be distinguished from weak localization, which is the precursor effect of Anderson localization. This phenomenon finds its origin in the wave interference between multiple-scattering paths. In strong scattering limit, the severe interferences can completely halt the waves inside the random medium.
(emphasis added)
GE has pointed out this "fixed mode" in our cavity, but you can see that he is "right, but for the wrong reasons". (just like Mr Huygens; not bad for an elf!) The modes are fixed, but they certainly will change, from the equilibrium state prior to turning on the laser (or opening the slit to a light source), and the commencement of the experiment.
More, from "The Encyclopedia of Nonlinear Science" (Routledge 04) - Anderson localization
If we take both solutions of the EM wave, like a Cramer transaction, we have a connection between both ends. Ge has also alluded to the modes, and conductivity in air for such electrical phenomena as ball lightning. At any rate, we are certainly providing "thermal activation" in the DSE, so we can expect some changes in the conductivity of the medium. (refractions, absorptions/transmissions, etc.)
If we take both solutions of the EM wave, like a Cramer transaction, we have a connection between both ends. Ge has also alluded to the modes, and conductivity in air for such electrical phenomena as ball lightning. At any rate, we are certainly providing "thermal activation" in the DSE, so we can expect some changes in the conductivity of the medium. (refractions, absorptions/transmissions, etc.)
The mixing between states localized in different wells will be very weak because states with significant spatial overlap will have very different energies, while states with similar energies are spatially well separated so that the wave
function overlaps are exponentially small.
A little "semantic filtering", and we have different energies = dissonant; similar energies = resonant. This means the resonant energies are spatially separated, like our bright bands, while beat-frequencies contribute to the darkness between the energies. "Photons" are hitting the screen everywhere, but Resonance gives us the pattern we see.
These last 2 quotes seem to suggest that the distance between the slit and the screen is all that is needed to cause the scaling of the pattern, due to the amount of overlaps created in the "triangle pattern" of the spread. It is also critical to realize that we can change materials in EITHER the slits OR the screen, and still get our diffraction pattern. The only constant (regarding mass, or electrons) is the air that exists "in between". This is also (IMO) the ONLY explanation for the "1-at-a-time" RANDOM build up of the diffraction pattern. The only real thing changing in that set-up, is the "thermal activation levels" are lowered as far as possible. The same process takes place however, because the "probability" for a quanta of energy to hit/interact with the SAME electron in the post-slit medium >>0. This means the pattern is STILL going to appear, albeit "chisled out of randomness", one bit, by one bit.
These last 2 quotes seem to suggest that the distance between the slit and the screen is all that is needed to cause the scaling of the pattern, due to the amount of overlaps created in the "triangle pattern" of the spread. It is also critical to realize that we can change materials in EITHER the slits OR the screen, and still get our diffraction pattern. The only constant (regarding mass, or electrons) is the air that exists "in between". This is also (IMO) the ONLY explanation for the "1-at-a-time" RANDOM build up of the diffraction pattern. The only real thing changing in that set-up, is the "thermal activation levels" are lowered as far as possible. The same process takes place however, because the "probability" for a quanta of energy to hit/interact with the SAME electron in the post-slit medium >>0. This means the pattern is STILL going to appear, albeit "chisled out of randomness", one bit, by one bit.
In three dimensions, the eigenstates at the center of a band are truly extended while those in the low- and high-energy tails are localized. It is believed that there are two well-defined critical energies within the band at which the nature of the states changes so that localized and extended states do not co-exist at a given energy.
In this model, they use the term "mobility edges" to describe the "area" between the extended, and localized states of a wave packet. In my terms, this is the beat-frequency, which can only "wholly" reconstruct itself through specific ratio combinations, as is logically called for.
regards,
T.Roc
GE has pointed out this "fixed mode" in our cavity, but you can see that he is "right, but for the wrong reasons". (just like Mr Huygens; not bad for an elf!) The modes are fixed, but they certainly will change, from the equilibrium state prior to turning on the laser (or opening the slit to a light source), and the commencement of the experiment.
More, from "The Encyclopedia of Nonlinear Science" (Routledge 04) - Anderson localization
QUOTE
Over the last 10 years, more attention has been focused on other wave phenomena in random media, particularly optical phenomena.
..
The eigenstates of an electron subject to a random potential may be of two types. Some are extended, although there may be strong local modulations in the amplitude. These states can contribute to electrical conduction through the material, even at zero temperature, as they connect the two ends of a sample. Other states, however, are localized in that their amplitude vanishes exponentially outside a specific finite region. These states are referred to as Anderson localized and can only contribute to conduction via thermal activation.
..
The eigenstates of an electron subject to a random potential may be of two types. Some are extended, although there may be strong local modulations in the amplitude. These states can contribute to electrical conduction through the material, even at zero temperature, as they connect the two ends of a sample. Other states, however, are localized in that their amplitude vanishes exponentially outside a specific finite region. These states are referred to as Anderson localized and can only contribute to conduction via thermal activation.
If we take both solutions of the EM wave, like a Cramer transaction, we have a connection between both ends. Ge has also alluded to the modes, and conductivity in air for such electrical phenomena as ball lightning. At any rate, we are certainly providing "thermal activation" in the DSE, so we can expect some changes in the conductivity of the medium. (refractions, absorptions/transmissions, etc.)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Over the last 10 years, more attention has been focused on other wave phenomena in random media, particularly optical phenomena. .. The eigenstates of an electron subject to a random potential may be of two types. Some are extended, although there may be strong local modulations in the amplitude. These states can contribute to electrical conduction through the material, even at zero temperature, as they connect the two ends of a sample. Other states, however, are localized in that their amplitude vanishes exponentially outside a specific finite region. These states are referred to as Anderson localized and can only contribute to conduction via thermal activation. |
If we take both solutions of the EM wave, like a Cramer transaction, we have a connection between both ends. Ge has also alluded to the modes, and conductivity in air for such electrical phenomena as ball lightning. At any rate, we are certainly providing "thermal activation" in the DSE, so we can expect some changes in the conductivity of the medium. (refractions, absorptions/transmissions, etc.)
The mixing between states localized in different wells will be very weak because states with significant spatial overlap will have very different energies, while states with similar energies are spatially well separated so that the wave
function overlaps are exponentially small.
A little "semantic filtering", and we have different energies = dissonant; similar energies = resonant. This means the resonant energies are spatially separated, like our bright bands, while beat-frequencies contribute to the darkness between the energies. "Photons" are hitting the screen everywhere, but Resonance gives us the pattern we see.
QUOTE
The scale on which the wave functions of localized states decay to zero defines the localization length ξ , which depends on the energy of the state and the
strength of the disorder. The balance between extended and localized states depends on the strength of the disorder and the spatial dimensionality of the system.
strength of the disorder. The balance between extended and localized states depends on the strength of the disorder and the spatial dimensionality of the system.
These last 2 quotes seem to suggest that the distance between the slit and the screen is all that is needed to cause the scaling of the pattern, due to the amount of overlaps created in the "triangle pattern" of the spread. It is also critical to realize that we can change materials in EITHER the slits OR the screen, and still get our diffraction pattern. The only constant (regarding mass, or electrons) is the air that exists "in between". This is also (IMO) the ONLY explanation for the "1-at-a-time" RANDOM build up of the diffraction pattern. The only real thing changing in that set-up, is the "thermal activation levels" are lowered as far as possible. The same process takes place however, because the "probability" for a quanta of energy to hit/interact with the SAME electron in the post-slit medium >>0. This means the pattern is STILL going to appear, albeit "chisled out of randomness", one bit, by one bit.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The scale on which the wave functions of localized states decay to zero defines the localization length ξ , which depends on the energy of the state and the strength of the disorder. The balance between extended and localized states depends on the strength of the disorder and the spatial dimensionality of the system. |
These last 2 quotes seem to suggest that the distance between the slit and the screen is all that is needed to cause the scaling of the pattern, due to the amount of overlaps created in the "triangle pattern" of the spread. It is also critical to realize that we can change materials in EITHER the slits OR the screen, and still get our diffraction pattern. The only constant (regarding mass, or electrons) is the air that exists "in between". This is also (IMO) the ONLY explanation for the "1-at-a-time" RANDOM build up of the diffraction pattern. The only real thing changing in that set-up, is the "thermal activation levels" are lowered as far as possible. The same process takes place however, because the "probability" for a quanta of energy to hit/interact with the SAME electron in the post-slit medium >>0. This means the pattern is STILL going to appear, albeit "chisled out of randomness", one bit, by one bit.
In three dimensions, the eigenstates at the center of a band are truly extended while those in the low- and high-energy tails are localized. It is believed that there are two well-defined critical energies within the band at which the nature of the states changes so that localized and extended states do not co-exist at a given energy.
In this model, they use the term "mobility edges" to describe the "area" between the extended, and localized states of a wave packet. In my terms, this is the beat-frequency, which can only "wholly" reconstruct itself through specific ratio combinations, as is logically called for.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
I appreciated the graphics....now imagine what would happen in the top version
if you had 2 closely spaced slits as the expanding wavefronts mix between them.
If you look closely at the graphic as the wave expands along the rear wall as it
departs the cavity of the slit, you will notice that it is nearly perpendicular to
the surface of the wall. If, as you suggest, dipolar plasmons are also perpendicular
to the wall, then the wavefront will cut across the dipole field at right angles and
the fields will interact....do you agree, or no? To carry this further, if you now
consider 2 fields approaching from 2 spatially separated slits they will mix
according to their mutual phase relationship at various points as they cut cross the
dipole field(s) oriented at 90 degrees to their "lateral" expansion. IMO, these are
"fixed" atomic standing waves that represent interference mixing points between the
slits.
I am not so sure how to interpret Visser' plasmon travelling between the slits because it seems logical that if plasmons were travelling they would move toward
each other from each slit and meet in the middle between the slits where they
would superpose and double the energy at that point.....this does however, offer
a possible explanation of why the high intensity point observed on the screen is
always centered between the slits, but that could also just be the maximum
superposition point where the two laterally expanding wavefronts are "overlapping"
at the centerpoint between the slits.
I am proposing that the number of EM field dipoles that are manifest between the
slits arrange their locations by charge equalization according to the dimension of
the center wall. The number of equally spaced plasmons determines the number
of harmonic signal mixing points along the slit wall. The wider the wall between
the slits, the more plasmons that are equally spaced along it, which yields more
mixing points and interference bands that are detected at the screen. The
narrower the slit gap the fewer plasmons and the fewer interference bands
projected onto the screen.
These plasmon dipole locations are the signal cancellation points between the
expanding lateral wave fronts and represent the nodes of the standing waves
that are projected onto the screen. The slit output wall and the number of
plasmons spaced on it establishes standing waves between the two wavefronts.
The areas between the plasmons are superposition points of signal mixing, where
the intensity/energy of the two wavefronts constructively add. These become the
maximum energy radiation superposition points of the interfered wavefronts.
http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/wave...erference1.html
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schro.../two-slit2.html
note: Change the superpositon phasing with the pulldown by clicking in the
waveform box. There are several types of waveform/phase mixing possible.
Other comments, analysis, discussion welcomed.
LL
I appreciated the graphics....now imagine what would happen in the top version
if you had 2 closely spaced slits as the expanding wavefronts mix between them.
If you look closely at the graphic as the wave expands along the rear wall as it
departs the cavity of the slit, you will notice that it is nearly perpendicular to
the surface of the wall. If, as you suggest, dipolar plasmons are also perpendicular
to the wall, then the wavefront will cut across the dipole field at right angles and
the fields will interact....do you agree, or no? To carry this further, if you now
consider 2 fields approaching from 2 spatially separated slits they will mix
according to their mutual phase relationship at various points as they cut cross the
dipole field(s) oriented at 90 degrees to their "lateral" expansion. IMO, these are
"fixed" atomic standing waves that represent interference mixing points between the
slits.
I am not so sure how to interpret Visser' plasmon travelling between the slits because it seems logical that if plasmons were travelling they would move toward
each other from each slit and meet in the middle between the slits where they
would superpose and double the energy at that point.....this does however, offer
a possible explanation of why the high intensity point observed on the screen is
always centered between the slits, but that could also just be the maximum
superposition point where the two laterally expanding wavefronts are "overlapping"
at the centerpoint between the slits.
I am proposing that the number of EM field dipoles that are manifest between the
slits arrange their locations by charge equalization according to the dimension of
the center wall. The number of equally spaced plasmons determines the number
of harmonic signal mixing points along the slit wall. The wider the wall between
the slits, the more plasmons that are equally spaced along it, which yields more
mixing points and interference bands that are detected at the screen. The
narrower the slit gap the fewer plasmons and the fewer interference bands
projected onto the screen.
These plasmon dipole locations are the signal cancellation points between the
expanding lateral wave fronts and represent the nodes of the standing waves
that are projected onto the screen. The slit output wall and the number of
plasmons spaced on it establishes standing waves between the two wavefronts.
The areas between the plasmons are superposition points of signal mixing, where
the intensity/energy of the two wavefronts constructively add. These become the
maximum energy radiation superposition points of the interfered wavefronts.
http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/wave...erference1.html
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schro.../two-slit2.html
note: Change the superpositon phasing with the pulldown by clicking in the
waveform box. There are several types of waveform/phase mixing possible.
Other comments, analysis, discussion welcomed.
LL
TRoc,
Ok...now the coup de grace for air having a major effect on the dispersion pattern
of the DSE.
We still get the same pattern under vacuum conditions, where air has been
eliminated as a "variable". This is also true for observed electron interference
patterns. TOUCHE !
OUCH!
Comments?
LL
Ok...now the coup de grace for air having a major effect on the dispersion pattern
of the DSE.
We still get the same pattern under vacuum conditions, where air has been
eliminated as a "variable". This is also true for observed electron interference
patterns. TOUCHE !
OUCH!
Comments?
LL
Hi all,
LL, I thought that we had already covered this?
Let me re-state (with reference): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum
This time, I'll go all the way for you, including the "changes in the electrons" that I had mentioned before, that you didn't seem to catch.
This time, I'll go all the way for you, including the "changes in the electrons" that I had mentioned before, that you didn't seem to catch.
The quality of a vacuum is measured by how closely it approaches a perfect vacuum. The residual gas pressure is the primary indicator of quality, and it is most commonly measured in units of torr, even in metric contexts.
More fundamentally, quantum mechanics predicts that vacuum energy can never be exactly zero. The lowest possible energy state is called the zero-point energy and consists of a seething mass of virtual particles that have a brief existence. This is called vacuum fluctuation. While most agree that this represents a significant part of particle physics, it is a concept that would benefit from a deeper understanding than currently available. Vacuum fluctuations may also be related to the so-called cosmological constant in the theory of gravitation, if indeed this entity were to be observed in nature on a macroscopic scale.
Many variations of the positive displacement pump have been developed, and many other pump designs rely on fundamentally different principles.
There's your "huckleberry": we have to "prime" a vacuum pump with ...
GASES CONTAINING ELECTRONS !
There's your "huckleberry": we have to "prime" a vacuum pump with ...
GASES CONTAINING ELECTRONS !
In ultra high vacuum systems, some very odd leakage paths and outgassing sources must be considered. The water absorption of aluminium and palladium becomes an unacceptable source of outgassing, and even the adsorptivity of hard metals such as stainless steel or titanium must be considered. Some oils and greases will boil off in extreme vacuums. The porosity of the metallic chamber walls may have to be considered, and the grain direction of the metallic flanges should be parallel to the flange face.
Or the DSE !
Or the DSE !
Vacuum is primarily measured by its absolute pressure, but a complete characterization requires further parameters, such as temperature and chemical composition. One of the most important parameters is the mean free path (MFP) of residual gases, which indicates the average distance that molecules will travel between collisions with each other. As the gas density decreases, the MFP increases, and when the MFP is longer than the chamber, pump, spacecraft, or other objects present, the continuum assumptions of fluid mechanics do not apply. This vacuum state is called high vacuum, and the study of fluid flows in this regime is called particle gas dynamics.
So, again, if you can FIND an experiment with "photons" done in a DSE, please, DO TELL. I've looked extensively, and couldn't find anything. I did find one paper, that theoretically says the DSE WILL NOT work under vacuum, for much the same reasons as I've given. It is rather "poor quality" though (including translation), so I didn't include it. Here it is, if you're interested: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0212/0212103.pdf
This was PRECISELY why I said earlier, that this is WHY you don't find "photon" diffraction in vacuum, and you MUST find electron diffraction in vacuum. The interferences of these waves are opposite/complementary.
ciao,
T.Roc
PS. Perhaps we can think of lightning as a "staggered, muti-slit" diffraction of light, caused by the random orientations of electron bearing molecules in the atmosphere. Remember, we do not see lightning in space.
LL, I thought that we had already covered this?
Let me re-state (with reference): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum
QUOTE
A perfect vacuum with a gaseous pressure of absolute zero is a philosophical concept that is never observed in practice, not least because quantum theory predicts that no volume of space is perfectly empty in this way.
This time, I'll go all the way for you, including the "changes in the electrons" that I had mentioned before, that you didn't seem to catch.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A perfect vacuum with a gaseous pressure of absolute zero is a philosophical concept that is never observed in practice, not least because quantum theory predicts that no volume of space is perfectly empty in this way. |
This time, I'll go all the way for you, including the "changes in the electrons" that I had mentioned before, that you didn't seem to catch.
The quality of a vacuum is measured by how closely it approaches a perfect vacuum. The residual gas pressure is the primary indicator of quality, and it is most commonly measured in units of torr, even in metric contexts.
QUOTE
. In the late 20th century, this principle was understood to also predict a fundamental uncertainty in the number of particles in a region of space, leading to predictions of virtual particles arising spontaneously out of the void. In other words, there is a lower bound on vacuum which is dictated by the lowest possible energy state of the quantized fields in any region of space.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| . In the late 20th century, this principle was understood to also predict a fundamental uncertainty in the number of particles in a region of space, leading to predictions of virtual particles arising spontaneously out of the void. In other words, there is a lower bound on vacuum which is dictated by the lowest possible energy state of the quantized fields in any region of space. |
More fundamentally, quantum mechanics predicts that vacuum energy can never be exactly zero. The lowest possible energy state is called the zero-point energy and consists of a seething mass of virtual particles that have a brief existence. This is called vacuum fluctuation. While most agree that this represents a significant part of particle physics, it is a concept that would benefit from a deeper understanding than currently available. Vacuum fluctuations may also be related to the so-called cosmological constant in the theory of gravitation, if indeed this entity were to be observed in nature on a macroscopic scale.
QUOTE
Fluids cannot be pulled, so it is technically impossible to create a vacuum by suction. Suction is the movement of fluids into a vacuum under the effect of a higher external pressure, but the vacuum has to be created first. The easiest way to create an artificial vacuum is to expand the volume of a container
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Fluids cannot be pulled, so it is technically impossible to create a vacuum by suction. Suction is the movement of fluids into a vacuum under the effect of a higher external pressure, but the vacuum has to be created first. The easiest way to create an artificial vacuum is to expand the volume of a container |
Many variations of the positive displacement pump have been developed, and many other pump designs rely on fundamentally different principles.
QUOTE
They all share a difficulty in pumping low molecular weight gases, especially hydrogen, helium, and neon.
There's your "huckleberry": we have to "prime" a vacuum pump with ...
GASES CONTAINING ELECTRONS !
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They all share a difficulty in pumping low molecular weight gases, especially hydrogen, helium, and neon. |
There's your "huckleberry": we have to "prime" a vacuum pump with ...
GASES CONTAINING ELECTRONS !
In ultra high vacuum systems, some very odd leakage paths and outgassing sources must be considered. The water absorption of aluminium and palladium becomes an unacceptable source of outgassing, and even the adsorptivity of hard metals such as stainless steel or titanium must be considered. Some oils and greases will boil off in extreme vacuums. The porosity of the metallic chamber walls may have to be considered, and the grain direction of the metallic flanges should be parallel to the flange face.
QUOTE
Evaporation and sublimation into a vacuum is called outgassing. All materials, solid or liquid, have a small vapour pressure, and their outgassing becomes important when the vacuum pressure falls below this vapour pressure. In man-made systems, outgassing has the same effect as a leak and can limit the achievable vacuum. Outgassing products may condense on nearby colder surfaces, which can be troublesome if they obscure optical instruments or react with other materials. This is of great concern to space missions, where an obscured telescope or solar cell can ruin an expensive mission.
Or the DSE !
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Evaporation and sublimation into a vacuum is called outgassing. All materials, solid or liquid, have a small vapour pressure, and their outgassing becomes important when the vacuum pressure falls below this vapour pressure. In man-made systems, outgassing has the same effect as a leak and can limit the achievable vacuum. Outgassing products may condense on nearby colder surfaces, which can be troublesome if they obscure optical instruments or react with other materials. This is of great concern to space missions, where an obscured telescope or solar cell can ruin an expensive mission. |
Or the DSE !
Vacuum is primarily measured by its absolute pressure, but a complete characterization requires further parameters, such as temperature and chemical composition. One of the most important parameters is the mean free path (MFP) of residual gases, which indicates the average distance that molecules will travel between collisions with each other. As the gas density decreases, the MFP increases, and when the MFP is longer than the chamber, pump, spacecraft, or other objects present, the continuum assumptions of fluid mechanics do not apply. This vacuum state is called high vacuum, and the study of fluid flows in this regime is called particle gas dynamics.
So, again, if you can FIND an experiment with "photons" done in a DSE, please, DO TELL. I've looked extensively, and couldn't find anything. I did find one paper, that theoretically says the DSE WILL NOT work under vacuum, for much the same reasons as I've given. It is rather "poor quality" though (including translation), so I didn't include it. Here it is, if you're interested: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0212/0212103.pdf
This was PRECISELY why I said earlier, that this is WHY you don't find "photon" diffraction in vacuum, and you MUST find electron diffraction in vacuum. The interferences of these waves are opposite/complementary.
ciao,
T.Roc
PS. Perhaps we can think of lightning as a "staggered, muti-slit" diffraction of light, caused by the random orientations of electron bearing molecules in the atmosphere. Remember, we do not see lightning in space.
Hi TRoc,
LOL!....You are deep into one of my technololgy specialties now....
ultra high vaccum. I worked with high vacuum turbomolecular pumps and
cryogenic pumps for many years. Semiconductor processing and plasma
processes are done in this ultra-high vac environment. I am very experienced
working at vacuum ranges of 1 x 10^-9 (and ^-10)Torr. This was our baseline
pumping level with leak rates that were exceptionally low. With the right materials
and procedures in place, outgassing is a non issue. The mean free path of
gaseous molecules/collisions in this environment is on the order of miles....
FWIW, our cryo pumps operated at a temperature <9 K, and the pumping
efficiency was many thousands of liters/sec. Cryo pumps are basically freeze
traps for gas molecules. This is the realm of Bose Einstein Condensates at the
helium cold head collection array.
FWIW, I did plasma processing and worked with high tech RF plasma equipment
for many, many years. So I have a bit of insight into plasmas, vacuums, etc.
I don't have experience working in experimental laser technology, but have
used laser and spectral interferometer equipment for process endpoint detection.
The point being that the vast atomic spacing at these vacuum levels have
virtually no effect on photons or electrons travelling between them.
I looked for an experiment that I read sometime last year where the DSE was
done under vacuum conditions but could not relocate it. I'm sure it wasn't done
at the vacuum levels discussed above, but I would suspect that the electron,
neutron, and large particle DSE experiments were carried out near this low
vacuum level to minimize atmospheric contamination on the results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
Regards,
LL
LOL!....You are deep into one of my technololgy specialties now....
ultra high vaccum. I worked with high vacuum turbomolecular pumps and
cryogenic pumps for many years. Semiconductor processing and plasma
processes are done in this ultra-high vac environment. I am very experienced
working at vacuum ranges of 1 x 10^-9 (and ^-10)Torr. This was our baseline
pumping level with leak rates that were exceptionally low. With the right materials
and procedures in place, outgassing is a non issue. The mean free path of
gaseous molecules/collisions in this environment is on the order of miles....
FWIW, our cryo pumps operated at a temperature <9 K, and the pumping
efficiency was many thousands of liters/sec. Cryo pumps are basically freeze
traps for gas molecules. This is the realm of Bose Einstein Condensates at the
helium cold head collection array.
FWIW, I did plasma processing and worked with high tech RF plasma equipment
for many, many years. So I have a bit of insight into plasmas, vacuums, etc.
I don't have experience working in experimental laser technology, but have
used laser and spectral interferometer equipment for process endpoint detection.
The point being that the vast atomic spacing at these vacuum levels have
virtually no effect on photons or electrons travelling between them.
I looked for an experiment that I read sometime last year where the DSE was
done under vacuum conditions but could not relocate it. I'm sure it wasn't done
at the vacuum levels discussed above, but I would suspect that the electron,
neutron, and large particle DSE experiments were carried out near this low
vacuum level to minimize atmospheric contamination on the results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
Regards,
LL
TRoc,
If I'm not mistaken particle beam weapons travel thru vacuum very well, no
atmosphere required.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
PS. Perhaps we can think of lightning as a "staggered, muti-slit" diffraction of light, caused by the random orientations of electron bearing molecules in the atmosphere. Remember, we do not see lightning in space.
If I'm not mistaken particle beam weapons travel thru vacuum very well, no
atmosphere required.
Regards,
LL
Hi all,
Well, LL, I understand what you're saying, but the simple, and sad fact is this DSE SHOULD be done, but apparently hasn't. You CAN NOT keep "virtual particles" from popping up. These things MIMIC what was there, as the "ghosting" articles that GE has posted, state.
I said NOTHING of "propagation" in the "lightning" analogy. And NOTHING of "particle beams" in space. I know a laser will propagate in space, but will it diffract, and produce the "classic" pattern? The thin film (diffraction) experiments that I have seen, done in space by NASA, CONTRADICT current theory, point blank!
Certainly, with all of the equipment that you mentioned being necessary, we no longer have the "classic DSE", do we? The first post, that I mentioned Anderson localization in, specifically stated "even in zero temperature", so you have NOT alleviated my concerns here. What material(s) are you going to use in order to prevent the blocking of the slit? (by condensation) What about the key factor of conductivity?
Find that paper, and post it; otherwise, consider your "touche" parried.
regards,
T.Roc
Well, LL, I understand what you're saying, but the simple, and sad fact is this DSE SHOULD be done, but apparently hasn't. You CAN NOT keep "virtual particles" from popping up. These things MIMIC what was there, as the "ghosting" articles that GE has posted, state.
I said NOTHING of "propagation" in the "lightning" analogy. And NOTHING of "particle beams" in space. I know a laser will propagate in space, but will it diffract, and produce the "classic" pattern? The thin film (diffraction) experiments that I have seen, done in space by NASA, CONTRADICT current theory, point blank!
Certainly, with all of the equipment that you mentioned being necessary, we no longer have the "classic DSE", do we? The first post, that I mentioned Anderson localization in, specifically stated "even in zero temperature", so you have NOT alleviated my concerns here. What material(s) are you going to use in order to prevent the blocking of the slit? (by condensation) What about the key factor of conductivity?
Find that paper, and post it; otherwise, consider your "touche" parried.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi all,
Just a couple things that I would like to add to my last post.
Just about every other day, somebody posts a NEW and different source of DSE analogy. There is an ABUNDANCE of information available on the net, and elsewhere. Many, many experiments done in recent years are just creative variations on the theme. Why is it SO hard to find ONE experiment, with the DSE "photon" done in vacuum? This bothers me.
One thing that we have gone over many times, is "path length". I offered the "historical", lessor known "cornu spiral" (Fresnel Integrals) a few times.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CornuSpiral.html
A Cornu spiral describes diffraction from the edge of a half-plane.
A plot in the complex plane of the points
where S(t) and C(t) are the Fresnel integrals (von Seggern 1993, p. 210; Gray 1997, p. 65).
I find it hard to physically interpret the mean free path being "miles long", within the cavity of the DSE, although, I understand the MATH that says this should be. LL has recently questioned the abstract use of MATH to gain clear explanation of any particular phenomenon. If we are NOT removing ALL of the electrons (and positrons), then physically, they can't be "miles" apart, and still be in the "box". If they are "standing waves", then we have an infinite amount of harmonics that are symmetrically spaced from the center "point" to the end of the "miles long" path. As far as interference is concerned, these harmonic wavelets are still filling the space of the post-slit cavity. This is in agreement with the zero point fluctuations that was mentioned in the last post, as well as the indeterminacy of position of the electrons that appears in measurements.
regards,
T.Roc
Just a couple things that I would like to add to my last post.
Just about every other day, somebody posts a NEW and different source of DSE analogy. There is an ABUNDANCE of information available on the net, and elsewhere. Many, many experiments done in recent years are just creative variations on the theme. Why is it SO hard to find ONE experiment, with the DSE "photon" done in vacuum? This bothers me.
One thing that we have gone over many times, is "path length". I offered the "historical", lessor known "cornu spiral" (Fresnel Integrals) a few times.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CornuSpiral.html
A Cornu spiral describes diffraction from the edge of a half-plane.
A plot in the complex plane of the points
where S(t) and C(t) are the Fresnel integrals (von Seggern 1993, p. 210; Gray 1997, p. 65).
I find it hard to physically interpret the mean free path being "miles long", within the cavity of the DSE, although, I understand the MATH that says this should be. LL has recently questioned the abstract use of MATH to gain clear explanation of any particular phenomenon. If we are NOT removing ALL of the electrons (and positrons), then physically, they can't be "miles" apart, and still be in the "box". If they are "standing waves", then we have an infinite amount of harmonics that are symmetrically spaced from the center "point" to the end of the "miles long" path. As far as interference is concerned, these harmonic wavelets are still filling the space of the post-slit cavity. This is in agreement with the zero point fluctuations that was mentioned in the last post, as well as the indeterminacy of position of the electrons that appears in measurements.
regards,
T.Roc
TRoc,
Recall that I mentioned that I had experience with interferometers used to
detect process endpoint during thin film deposition and etching.....We used
interference patterns analyzed by a computer program that compared the
incident and reflected waves to yield an interference result. The phase
shifting between the incident and reflected laser beams was done by comparing
the reference beam to the reflected beam, that was changing "focal" length,
because of dimensional changes over time. Basically, it was a highly accurate
phase shift comparator...atmosphere had nothing to do with that result.
IMO, ambient atmospheric pressure only affects the speed of light travelling
thru it. Consider a lens where light travels thru that concentrating medium,
there is no interference observed in a good quality lens. The image concentrated
but inverted beyone the point of focus, but no interference is observed.
Regards,
LL
Recall that I mentioned that I had experience with interferometers used to
detect process endpoint during thin film deposition and etching.....We used
interference patterns analyzed by a computer program that compared the
incident and reflected waves to yield an interference result. The phase
shifting between the incident and reflected laser beams was done by comparing
the reference beam to the reflected beam, that was changing "focal" length,
because of dimensional changes over time. Basically, it was a highly accurate
phase shift comparator...atmosphere had nothing to do with that result.
IMO, ambient atmospheric pressure only affects the speed of light travelling
thru it. Consider a lens where light travels thru that concentrating medium,
there is no interference observed in a good quality lens. The image concentrated
but inverted beyone the point of focus, but no interference is observed.
Regards,
LL
HI TRoc,
I guess some explanations are in order.
In a vacuum the distance between gas molecules is described as mean free path,
which is the likelihood of two gas particles colliding over some linear distance. The
lower the vacuum, the longer the mean free path. In a confined vacuum chamber
the linear distance is comparable to the time between collisions that would represent that distance.
In a vacuum the distance between gas molecules is described as mean free path,
which is the likelihood of two gas particles colliding over some linear distance. The
lower the vacuum, the longer the mean free path. In a confined vacuum chamber
the linear distance is comparable to the time between collisions that would represent that distance.
If they are "standing waves", then we have an infinite amount of harmonics that are symmetrically spaced from the center "point" to the end of the "miles long" path. As far as interference is concerned, these harmonic wavelets are still filling the space of the post-slit cavity. This is in agreement with the zero point fluctuations that was mentioned in the last post, as well as the indeterminacy of position of the electrons that appears in measurements.
I don't understand what you mean by this???? I don't know how to interpret that
to offer a response.
Regards,
LL
I guess some explanations are in order.
QUOTE
I find it hard to physically interpret the mean free path being "miles long", within the cavity of the DSE, although, I understand the MATH that says this should be. LL has recently questioned the abstract use of MATH to gain clear explanation of any particular phenomenon. If we are NOT removing ALL of the electrons (and positrons), then physically, they can't be "miles" apart, and still be in the "box"...
In a vacuum the distance between gas molecules is described as mean free path,
which is the likelihood of two gas particles colliding over some linear distance. The
lower the vacuum, the longer the mean free path. In a confined vacuum chamber
the linear distance is comparable to the time between collisions that would represent that distance.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I find it hard to physically interpret the mean free path being "miles long", within the cavity of the DSE, although, I understand the MATH that says this should be. LL has recently questioned the abstract use of MATH to gain clear explanation of any particular phenomenon. If we are NOT removing ALL of the electrons (and positrons), then physically, they can't be "miles" apart, and still be in the "box"... |
In a vacuum the distance between gas molecules is described as mean free path,
which is the likelihood of two gas particles colliding over some linear distance. The
lower the vacuum, the longer the mean free path. In a confined vacuum chamber
the linear distance is comparable to the time between collisions that would represent that distance.
If they are "standing waves", then we have an infinite amount of harmonics that are symmetrically spaced from the center "point" to the end of the "miles long" path. As far as interference is concerned, these harmonic wavelets are still filling the space of the post-slit cavity. This is in agreement with the zero point fluctuations that was mentioned in the last post, as well as the indeterminacy of position of the electrons that appears in measurements.
I don't understand what you mean by this???? I don't know how to interpret that
to offer a response.
Regards,
LL
Hi all,
LL, first let me say that it is a pleasure to have this productive debate with you. I hope that the people following this agree.
I should say right up front, that I don't think that the "vacuum" is going to have the effect of making the medium "electron free", which seems to be what you want to say.
I'm glad that you are so experienced with this subject; it makes it a whole lot easier (because I can comfortably say that you know more than I do). You are aware then, that we are actually increasing pressure by creating the vacuum. I agree that what is physically happening to the molecules is that we are lessening their interactions (collisions). This is quite different than "removing" them.
I'm going to ask a "nonsense" question, to make a point. What do you think that the "collision rate" in the electrons in a crystal lattice is? It should be "null", correct? Yet, indeed, we can easily get refraction from this structure. So, the affect that I am suggesting may not change the results of the DSE. This is the part that I am not too confident on, and would love to see the results of an actual experiment. What I am saying, about the medium between the slit and the screen, may NOT change the DSE pattern. I have gotten a little sidetracked by my own conjecture (and the lone paper that I have found).
My argument then, need not change. The Anderson localization is a non-linear phenomenon. You have given the mean free path, which applies to linear effects. These are apples and oranges. I am saying that the presence of matter (electrons) is enough to produce the effect that I am suggesting. Again, we have different models to choose from; something working in one is not enough to disprove the other. I certainly would have a hard time believing that an electron would be prevented from absorbing/emitting a "photon" in vacuum.
What I am ultimately saying, is that a consistent set of node and anti-nodes is set up in the post-slit cavity, created by a the various energy ground states of the electrons that are present. (vacuum or not) These Nodes are conductive waveguides that, when many "photons" are sent through the slit (refracted by the "knife edges", like 2 prisms), the diffraction pattern builds up immediately, but "1-at-a-time", follows the randomness of the medium. Again, because the thermal activation is weak, the transport of the EM wave (conductivity) would make a transition from the "precursor effect", to the strong effect. The entropy would not be complete (maximum) until the system was in thermal equilibrium (all bodies @ the same energy level).
The statement "refracted by the "knife edges", like 2 prisms" leaves room for further interpretation. I am not making an argument against your slit ideas here. As I said in the very beginning of this thread, I am more concerned with "overturning" the QM postulates, where things get "mystical".
ciao,
T.Roc
LL, first let me say that it is a pleasure to have this productive debate with you. I hope that the people following this agree.
I should say right up front, that I don't think that the "vacuum" is going to have the effect of making the medium "electron free", which seems to be what you want to say.
I'm glad that you are so experienced with this subject; it makes it a whole lot easier (because I can comfortably say that you know more than I do). You are aware then, that we are actually increasing pressure by creating the vacuum. I agree that what is physically happening to the molecules is that we are lessening their interactions (collisions). This is quite different than "removing" them.
I'm going to ask a "nonsense" question, to make a point. What do you think that the "collision rate" in the electrons in a crystal lattice is? It should be "null", correct? Yet, indeed, we can easily get refraction from this structure. So, the affect that I am suggesting may not change the results of the DSE. This is the part that I am not too confident on, and would love to see the results of an actual experiment. What I am saying, about the medium between the slit and the screen, may NOT change the DSE pattern. I have gotten a little sidetracked by my own conjecture (and the lone paper that I have found).
My argument then, need not change. The Anderson localization is a non-linear phenomenon. You have given the mean free path, which applies to linear effects. These are apples and oranges. I am saying that the presence of matter (electrons) is enough to produce the effect that I am suggesting. Again, we have different models to choose from; something working in one is not enough to disprove the other. I certainly would have a hard time believing that an electron would be prevented from absorbing/emitting a "photon" in vacuum.
What I am ultimately saying, is that a consistent set of node and anti-nodes is set up in the post-slit cavity, created by a the various energy ground states of the electrons that are present. (vacuum or not) These Nodes are conductive waveguides that, when many "photons" are sent through the slit (refracted by the "knife edges", like 2 prisms), the diffraction pattern builds up immediately, but "1-at-a-time", follows the randomness of the medium. Again, because the thermal activation is weak, the transport of the EM wave (conductivity) would make a transition from the "precursor effect", to the strong effect. The entropy would not be complete (maximum) until the system was in thermal equilibrium (all bodies @ the same energy level).
The statement "refracted by the "knife edges", like 2 prisms" leaves room for further interpretation. I am not making an argument against your slit ideas here. As I said in the very beginning of this thread, I am more concerned with "overturning" the QM postulates, where things get "mystical".
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
I too am enjoying the discussion and feel that it is beneficial to the topic of the
DSE and the "mysteries" it presents.
FWIW, when you create the vacuum, you decrease the gaseous pressure density
in the vessel.
Can you explain your theoretical model? How or what initiates the nodes and
anti-nodes in the post slit cavity. Where do the electrons in the cavity originate
and what "sustains" them?
If air is your conductive medium that is providing the electrons, keep in mind that
the air is present before the slits also...IMO, in that regard air is just a refractive
medium...a constant medium that is present on both sides of the slits, for all
intents and purposes. Remember, vacuum also has permittivity and dielectric
properties and is a "medium" for the propagation of light.
I was hoping someone would analyze/disect the theoretical model that I proposed
regarding the plasmon dipoles and signal mixing on the slit output wall. I had
thought that when everyone read TD Visser's papers, after GE linked to them
in January, that the experimental results that he presented had given everyone
the same insight/answers that seemed apparent to me. Evidently, not everyone
interpreted his findings the same as me and my latest theoretical proposal
modifies and expands on the information provided by Visser.
Regards,
LL
I too am enjoying the discussion and feel that it is beneficial to the topic of the
DSE and the "mysteries" it presents.
FWIW, when you create the vacuum, you decrease the gaseous pressure density
in the vessel.
QUOTE
What I am ultimately saying, is that a consistent set of node and anti-nodes is set up in the post-slit cavity, created by a the various energy ground states of the electrons that are present. (vacuum or not) These Nodes are conductive waveguides that, when many "photons" are sent through the slit (refracted by the "knife edges", like 2 prisms), the diffraction pattern builds up immediately, but "1-at-a-time", follows the randomness of the medium.
Can you explain your theoretical model? How or what initiates the nodes and
anti-nodes in the post slit cavity. Where do the electrons in the cavity originate
and what "sustains" them?
If air is your conductive medium that is providing the electrons, keep in mind that
the air is present before the slits also...IMO, in that regard air is just a refractive
medium...a constant medium that is present on both sides of the slits, for all
intents and purposes. Remember, vacuum also has permittivity and dielectric
properties and is a "medium" for the propagation of light.
I was hoping someone would analyze/disect the theoretical model that I proposed
regarding the plasmon dipoles and signal mixing on the slit output wall. I had
thought that when everyone read TD Visser's papers, after GE linked to them
in January, that the experimental results that he presented had given everyone
the same insight/answers that seemed apparent to me. Evidently, not everyone
interpreted his findings the same as me and my latest theoretical proposal
modifies and expands on the information provided by Visser.
Regards,
LL
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I was hoping someone would analyze/disect the theoretical model that I proposed regarding the plasmon dipoles and signal mixing on the slit output wall.
You have to use your theory to predict results. If the results agree with your prediction then maybe you're on to something .. if they don't then that's the end of the story.
We have a set of results included here .. http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml . The curve is the same regardless of whether you are counting photons or measuring intensity.. maybe this has something to do with there being at least one elephant hiding in the results, maybe it doesn't.
Best wishes,
-C2.
You have to use your theory to predict results. If the results agree with your prediction then maybe you're on to something .. if they don't then that's the end of the story.
We have a set of results included here .. http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml . The curve is the same regardless of whether you are counting photons or measuring intensity.. maybe this has something to do with there being at least one elephant hiding in the results, maybe it doesn't.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, "THEY", yquantum et al,
I would like to say just how much I appreciated the animations that TRoc had linked here...
TRoc and the DSE with Thickness
It indicated just how much the longitudinal modal transmission can be affected by the thickness of the slits (acting as a secondary source) as well as separation and width... not to mention the materials for the purposes of the surface plasmon influences. What I would like to mention is the theoretical "ideal" approaches that of treating the DSE as if it was simply two spatially correlated "impulses". These pulses formed "ideally" from almost parallel to the outer surface wavelets impinging on the outer wall of the experiment's cavity. The resultant is then "simply" the Fourier transform of the two slits from a spatial pair of impulses into a spatial dispersion into its component sinusoidal frequencies. The individual optical "packet" would then be considered as a series superposition of higher frequency "wavelets" impinging on this double slit pattern with that fixed spatial configuration which results in totally differing interference patterns all acting simultaneously in the space and adding/subtracting to the "fundamental" packet frequency pattern (due to the basic wavelength of the photon). The packet contains a number of superpositions of Fourier "fundamental" all integer multiples of the basic frequency, which "delineate" spatially the packet in its longitudinal modes. Each one of these individual frequencies has its own diffraction pattern at it's own unique frequency. What you then see is a vector sum.. point for point... over the entire space of the cavity as a standing wave not as a progressive wave.
This explains MOST of what is seen. As has been pointed out sub-wavelength phenomena in the evanescent zone is still a "mystery" and I think we are dealing with quantum Instantons in that region which "break" with conventional electromagnetism and is the "big" secret, they can be understood as "null" regions in which energy and time are held in stasis since for as long as they are stable they are phenomena in free space that are the quantum effect itself... the stationary states such as found in atoms and even in the sub-atomic particles themselves. Are these the prelude to higher dimensions? I think so and are non-local by their very nature.
These "underspecified sources" indicate something of an unknown nature in that region since EM sources must be introduced where there are those quantum "nodes" there which are stationary states. This study of "Singular Optics" is highly significant and is a very important feature pointed to by Dr. Taco Visser and others. This is the crucial element in the overall particle formation process and to bright matter solitons. You already know that I think we are dealing with regions in space where there is a standing light cone wall where energy processes cannot cross. These regions can be accounted for "classically" and are the missing ingredient in most quantum theories.
The principle of superposition is very very important in understanding the basic principle of double slits. I would also like to add that slits in time work as well as slits in space... two burst from a single correlated source separated by a very short propagation time produce double "slit" interference in the temporal sense. I have not mentioned specifically this phenomenon but it is also part of the symmetry and is in the literature. Once again this effect can only occur in wholly correlated phenomena.
I would like to apologize that I have not been as active recently but rest assured that I am trying to get a handle on the overall phenomena including the diffraction of electrons and how they differ from the photons. There is some significant differences but there are also some important similarities. This all goes back to the the way in which the photon is packaged as we have already seen with the "Topological Photon"...
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?:J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
It is very clear that the electron is a "corkscrew spiral" whose spatial K number is inversely related to the "pitch" of the corkscrew and the "rotational frequency" is the temporal frequency (top formula).
These relate back to the de Broglie particle. This "spiral" hides the fact that it too is simply an electromagnetic wave in reciprocal space with a "twist", and is a presentation of the features I have already mentioned above and in previous posts. Since a pure electromagnetic "wave" is not a "corkscrew" but is ideally a plane polarized phenomenon, it is therefore a superposition of two "corkscrews" of opposite spatial and temporal phase. In turn this must relate to the odd spin of the electron and the even spin of the photon.
All these phenomena are related to each other and are telling a story about the real nature of the quantum... it is a largely untold story.
Cheers
I would like to say just how much I appreciated the animations that TRoc had linked here...
TRoc and the DSE with Thickness
It indicated just how much the longitudinal modal transmission can be affected by the thickness of the slits (acting as a secondary source) as well as separation and width... not to mention the materials for the purposes of the surface plasmon influences. What I would like to mention is the theoretical "ideal" approaches that of treating the DSE as if it was simply two spatially correlated "impulses". These pulses formed "ideally" from almost parallel to the outer surface wavelets impinging on the outer wall of the experiment's cavity. The resultant is then "simply" the Fourier transform of the two slits from a spatial pair of impulses into a spatial dispersion into its component sinusoidal frequencies. The individual optical "packet" would then be considered as a series superposition of higher frequency "wavelets" impinging on this double slit pattern with that fixed spatial configuration which results in totally differing interference patterns all acting simultaneously in the space and adding/subtracting to the "fundamental" packet frequency pattern (due to the basic wavelength of the photon). The packet contains a number of superpositions of Fourier "fundamental" all integer multiples of the basic frequency, which "delineate" spatially the packet in its longitudinal modes. Each one of these individual frequencies has its own diffraction pattern at it's own unique frequency. What you then see is a vector sum.. point for point... over the entire space of the cavity as a standing wave not as a progressive wave.
This explains MOST of what is seen. As has been pointed out sub-wavelength phenomena in the evanescent zone is still a "mystery" and I think we are dealing with quantum Instantons in that region which "break" with conventional electromagnetism and is the "big" secret, they can be understood as "null" regions in which energy and time are held in stasis since for as long as they are stable they are phenomena in free space that are the quantum effect itself... the stationary states such as found in atoms and even in the sub-atomic particles themselves. Are these the prelude to higher dimensions? I think so and are non-local by their very nature.
These "underspecified sources" indicate something of an unknown nature in that region since EM sources must be introduced where there are those quantum "nodes" there which are stationary states. This study of "Singular Optics" is highly significant and is a very important feature pointed to by Dr. Taco Visser and others. This is the crucial element in the overall particle formation process and to bright matter solitons. You already know that I think we are dealing with regions in space where there is a standing light cone wall where energy processes cannot cross. These regions can be accounted for "classically" and are the missing ingredient in most quantum theories.
The principle of superposition is very very important in understanding the basic principle of double slits. I would also like to add that slits in time work as well as slits in space... two burst from a single correlated source separated by a very short propagation time produce double "slit" interference in the temporal sense. I have not mentioned specifically this phenomenon but it is also part of the symmetry and is in the literature. Once again this effect can only occur in wholly correlated phenomena.
I would like to apologize that I have not been as active recently but rest assured that I am trying to get a handle on the overall phenomena including the diffraction of electrons and how they differ from the photons. There is some significant differences but there are also some important similarities. This all goes back to the the way in which the photon is packaged as we have already seen with the "Topological Photon"...
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?:J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
It is very clear that the electron is a "corkscrew spiral" whose spatial K number is inversely related to the "pitch" of the corkscrew and the "rotational frequency" is the temporal frequency (top formula).
These relate back to the de Broglie particle. This "spiral" hides the fact that it too is simply an electromagnetic wave in reciprocal space with a "twist", and is a presentation of the features I have already mentioned above and in previous posts. Since a pure electromagnetic "wave" is not a "corkscrew" but is ideally a plane polarized phenomenon, it is therefore a superposition of two "corkscrews" of opposite spatial and temporal phase. In turn this must relate to the odd spin of the electron and the even spin of the photon.
All these phenomena are related to each other and are telling a story about the real nature of the quantum... it is a largely untold story.
Cheers
Hi GE,
If you watch the thin screen animation provided by TRoc, one obvious
consequence of the propagating wave is that the main power lobe of the
propagating pulse remains centered on the slit gap. If you compare this to the
results of the DSE, you will see that the brightest and widest energy band
shown on the screen is directly centered between the two slits. It remains
centered in this position regardless of the screen distance from the slit wall.
This does not correlate with your comment:
If the issue was merely superposition "signal overlap" occuring at the screen the
final pattern would shift to match the standing wave patterns in the cavity when
the screen was moved, but it doesn't. All that happens when the screen is moved
is the bands on the screen expand or contract according to the change in
distance, even when traversing across multiple standing wave nodes/antinodes in
your proposal. Your early discussion also doesn't transfer to the single photon
pulse interference pattern model as you have described it.
I think that your discussion of the evanescent zone is moving in the right direction
and I agee that this zone has some significant influence on the optical
characteristics observed in the DSE.
If the issue was merely superposition "signal overlap" occuring at the screen the
final pattern would shift to match the standing wave patterns in the cavity when
the screen was moved, but it doesn't. All that happens when the screen is moved
is the bands on the screen expand or contract according to the change in
distance, even when traversing across multiple standing wave nodes/antinodes in
your proposal. Your early discussion also doesn't transfer to the single photon
pulse interference pattern model as you have described it.
I think that your discussion of the evanescent zone is moving in the right direction
and I agee that this zone has some significant influence on the optical
characteristics observed in the DSE.
As has been pointed out sub-wavelength phenomena in the evanescent zone is still a "mystery" and I think we are dealing with quantum Instantons in that region which "break" with conventional electromagnetism and is the "big" secret, they can be understood as "null" regions in which energy and time are held in stasis since for as long as they are stable they are phenomena in free space that are the quantum effect itself....
These "underspecified sources" indicate something of an unknown nature in that region since EM sources must be introduced where there are those quantum "nodes" there which are stationary states. This study of "Singular Optics" is highly significant and is a very important feature pointed to by Dr. Taco Visser and others. This is the crucial element in the overall particle formation process and to bright matter solitons.
I think we have some agreement here. Unfortunately, unless I can find a paper
that records the slit spacing vs. the number of bands projected onto the screen
so that I can correlate the number of null points between the slits, I will be
unable to "predict" the results as C2 has required. This is unfortunate, since the
evidence is very compelling that there is a very high correlation between slit
spacing and the number of interference bands.
It seems that perhaps we are thinking similarly about a helical torroidal topology
of a photon wave pulse as I alluded to TRoc with my helical push mower blade
description to account for photon "spin". Perhaps this helicity of the EM waves
would be measurable across several spatially separated sampling wave imaging
detectors, looking at the same source, as slightly progressive time delays of the
pulse amplitude over time. Perhaps this has not been detected because we
typically only look at/measure at a single sample detection point. Of course there
would have to be exact positioning of the equipment to compensate for timing
variance caused by the arc radius of the spherical wavefront.
Your thoughts?
LL
If you watch the thin screen animation provided by TRoc, one obvious
consequence of the propagating wave is that the main power lobe of the
propagating pulse remains centered on the slit gap. If you compare this to the
results of the DSE, you will see that the brightest and widest energy band
shown on the screen is directly centered between the two slits. It remains
centered in this position regardless of the screen distance from the slit wall.
This does not correlate with your comment:
QUOTE
The individual optical "packet" would then be considered as a series superposition of higher frequency "wavelets" impinging on this double slit pattern with that fixed spatial configuration which results in totally differing interference patterns all acting simultaneously in the space and adding/subtracting to the "fundamental" packet frequency pattern (due to the basic wavelength of the photon).
If the issue was merely superposition "signal overlap" occuring at the screen the
final pattern would shift to match the standing wave patterns in the cavity when
the screen was moved, but it doesn't. All that happens when the screen is moved
is the bands on the screen expand or contract according to the change in
distance, even when traversing across multiple standing wave nodes/antinodes in
your proposal. Your early discussion also doesn't transfer to the single photon
pulse interference pattern model as you have described it.
I think that your discussion of the evanescent zone is moving in the right direction
and I agee that this zone has some significant influence on the optical
characteristics observed in the DSE.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The individual optical "packet" would then be considered as a series superposition of higher frequency "wavelets" impinging on this double slit pattern with that fixed spatial configuration which results in totally differing interference patterns all acting simultaneously in the space and adding/subtracting to the "fundamental" packet frequency pattern (due to the basic wavelength of the photon). |
If the issue was merely superposition "signal overlap" occuring at the screen the
final pattern would shift to match the standing wave patterns in the cavity when
the screen was moved, but it doesn't. All that happens when the screen is moved
is the bands on the screen expand or contract according to the change in
distance, even when traversing across multiple standing wave nodes/antinodes in
your proposal. Your early discussion also doesn't transfer to the single photon
pulse interference pattern model as you have described it.
I think that your discussion of the evanescent zone is moving in the right direction
and I agee that this zone has some significant influence on the optical
characteristics observed in the DSE.
As has been pointed out sub-wavelength phenomena in the evanescent zone is still a "mystery" and I think we are dealing with quantum Instantons in that region which "break" with conventional electromagnetism and is the "big" secret, they can be understood as "null" regions in which energy and time are held in stasis since for as long as they are stable they are phenomena in free space that are the quantum effect itself....
These "underspecified sources" indicate something of an unknown nature in that region since EM sources must be introduced where there are those quantum "nodes" there which are stationary states. This study of "Singular Optics" is highly significant and is a very important feature pointed to by Dr. Taco Visser and others. This is the crucial element in the overall particle formation process and to bright matter solitons.
I think we have some agreement here. Unfortunately, unless I can find a paper
that records the slit spacing vs. the number of bands projected onto the screen
so that I can correlate the number of null points between the slits, I will be
unable to "predict" the results as C2 has required. This is unfortunate, since the
evidence is very compelling that there is a very high correlation between slit
spacing and the number of interference bands.
It seems that perhaps we are thinking similarly about a helical torroidal topology
of a photon wave pulse as I alluded to TRoc with my helical push mower blade
description to account for photon "spin". Perhaps this helicity of the EM waves
would be measurable across several spatially separated sampling wave imaging
detectors, looking at the same source, as slightly progressive time delays of the
pulse amplitude over time. Perhaps this has not been detected because we
typically only look at/measure at a single sample detection point. Of course there
would have to be exact positioning of the equipment to compensate for timing
variance caused by the arc radius of the spherical wavefront.
Your thoughts?
LL
Hi Laserlight,
Sorry .. this goes back a bit..
Sorry .. this goes back a bit..
QUOTE (LL+)
I think you are misinterpreting what I said. To put it in your terms, "then and slightly before then" have different relative time references and cannot spontaneously interfere. They have different causal events.
In the past on this thread there's been a lot of talk about photons only interfering with themselves. While there is often smoke without an actual fire it might be interesting to consider the possibility that a single photon does meet your requirement of being the result of the same causal event.
The speed of light is constant according to the medium it is propagating in.
Why do you doubt the speed of light?
Because I'm looking at the results of the DSE .
Best wishes,
-C2.
In the past on this thread there's been a lot of talk about photons only interfering with themselves. While there is often smoke without an actual fire it might be interesting to consider the possibility that a single photon does meet your requirement of being the result of the same causal event.
QUOTE (LL+)
The speed of light is constant according to the medium it is propagating in.
Why do you doubt the speed of light?
Because I'm looking at the results of the DSE
.Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi TRoc,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
In the most basic, and general sense, we have these 2 thoughts. 1.) without the slit(s), we get no pattern at the screen. 2.) without the screen, we get no pattern from the slits. What I mean here (again), is the measurement problem. We can not "prove" either because it takes both, with certain distances/properties, to get the desired result. This is why I say that energy is a "verb", or 2 party interaction. What we are talking about, is the appearance of the pattern on the screen, which may, or may not match the energy levels there.
With one path (no slits) we get no interference at the screen. With two paths (the slits) we get interference at the screen. To make the DSE work 'nicely' we need an extra slit before the 'real' pair of slits to ensure that both slits can see the source as though from the same distance.
The conventional approach to single slit diffraction is to (simply) look at the difference in path length from either side of the slit to the screen or (better) across the whole width of the slit. This 'path difference' approach gives good predictions of the result.
The conventional approach to the DSE is consider the path differences between the two slits .. ignoring the additional path difference due to the width of the slits themselves simply because it makes the maths very difficult and (making reasonable assumptions) has little effect on the final result. This 'path difference' approach gives good predictions.
The conventional approach to the Michelson-Morley and Kennedy-Thorndike experiments is to consider the difference in length between the two paths that the beam splitter has created. This 'path difference' approach gives good predictions.
Looking at diffraction gratings in general we find the conventional approach is to look at the difference between the paths to the screen. This 'path difference' approach gives good predictions.
There isn't a great deal in common between the ways the different paths are created .. only that once more than one path has been created we see interference effects.
Is it possible that the reason for the interference effect doesn't lie in how a path is created? Could it be that two (or more) paths between source and screen might be enough to cause the interference effect regardless of how the paths are created?
Best wishes,
-C2.
With one path (no slits) we get no interference at the screen. With two paths (the slits) we get interference at the screen. To make the DSE work 'nicely' we need an extra slit before the 'real' pair of slits to ensure that both slits can see the source as though from the same distance.
The conventional approach to single slit diffraction is to (simply) look at the difference in path length from either side of the slit to the screen or (better) across the whole width of the slit. This 'path difference' approach gives good predictions of the result.
The conventional approach to the DSE is consider the path differences between the two slits .. ignoring the additional path difference due to the width of the slits themselves simply because it makes the maths very difficult and (making reasonable assumptions) has little effect on the final result. This 'path difference' approach gives good predictions.
The conventional approach to the Michelson-Morley and Kennedy-Thorndike experiments is to consider the difference in length between the two paths that the beam splitter has created. This 'path difference' approach gives good predictions.
Looking at diffraction gratings in general we find the conventional approach is to look at the difference between the paths to the screen. This 'path difference' approach gives good predictions.
There isn't a great deal in common between the ways the different paths are created .. only that once more than one path has been created we see interference effects.
Is it possible that the reason for the interference effect doesn't lie in how a path is created? Could it be that two (or more) paths between source and screen might be enough to cause the interference effect regardless of how the paths are created?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, "THEY", yquantum et al,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
It remains centered in this position regardless of the screen distance from the slit wall. This does not correlate with your comment:
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
The individual optical "packet" would then be considered as a series superposition of higher frequency "wavelets" impinging on this double slit pattern with that fixed spatial configuration which results in totally differing interference patterns all acting simultaneously in the space and adding/subtracting to the "fundamental" packet frequency pattern (due to the basic wavelength of the photon).
Umm... Sorry ... totally different subjects. The "Fourier Transform" only relates to DSE and ideal slits. Some knowledgeable people believe that this decomposition is all that the DSE is about.
The case that TRoc has demonstrated from Rochester U. is not an ideal case but it does demonstrate clearly, earlier statements about longitudinal "spreading" within a single wavepacket. What started out as an almost impulsive function has been spread over the longitudinal mode. I made no statement about transverse modes there anyway. In the ideal case of "perfect" slits or pinholes, whatever, the slits transform the spatial impulses into a series of spatial frequencies through the reciprocal transform. As soon as you add wall thickness of those other factors the experiment becomes "slightly" non-ideal. There are ways to deal with all those cases but the "thick slits" is by far the least ideal situation and one in which a lot of influences can come to bear. Each set of fundamental packet frequencies has a different DSE which produces a different set of interference fringes. Obviously these are a much lower overall energy than at the primary frequency. That adds that interesting fine detail to the interference effect that is not present in constructions using a protractor.
In the ideal case (I stress "ideal"), a wavepacket is a superposition of wavelets truncating the wavefunction. In the case of light these higher frequency phase components are frozen relative to the fundamental frequency of the packet .... the equation that says E = hf ... the f is the fundamental frequency. Note that the value of E depends on a number that is still a bit of a mystery to me but is fixed for all wavepackets of light. There is a difference when we deal with electrons where the phase components are traveling "within the packet" at a relatively different velocity.
I am still thinking about it so I can't be sure about any comparisons at this stage but I welcome any input LL.
Cheers
The case that TRoc has demonstrated from Rochester U. is not an ideal case but it does demonstrate clearly, earlier statements about longitudinal "spreading" within a single wavepacket. What started out as an almost impulsive function has been spread over the longitudinal mode. I made no statement about transverse modes there anyway. In the ideal case of "perfect" slits or pinholes, whatever, the slits transform the spatial impulses into a series of spatial frequencies through the reciprocal transform. As soon as you add wall thickness of those other factors the experiment becomes "slightly" non-ideal. There are ways to deal with all those cases but the "thick slits" is by far the least ideal situation and one in which a lot of influences can come to bear. Each set of fundamental packet frequencies has a different DSE which produces a different set of interference fringes. Obviously these are a much lower overall energy than at the primary frequency. That adds that interesting fine detail to the interference effect that is not present in constructions using a protractor.
In the ideal case (I stress "ideal"), a wavepacket is a superposition of wavelets truncating the wavefunction. In the case of light these higher frequency phase components are frozen relative to the fundamental frequency of the packet .... the equation that says E = hf ... the f is the fundamental frequency. Note that the value of E depends on a number that is still a bit of a mystery to me but is fixed for all wavepackets of light. There is a difference when we deal with electrons where the phase components are traveling "within the packet" at a relatively different velocity.
I am still thinking about it so I can't be sure about any comparisons at this stage but I welcome any input LL.
Cheers
Hi C2,
QUOTE (LL)
The speed of light is constant according to the medium it is propagating in.
Why do you doubt the speed of light?.....
Because I'm looking at the results of the DSE.
The interference results on the screen have timing changes/delays, from the center
outward, because the screen is flat....2 dimensional, while the wave fronts
are spherical. If the screen was spherically curved to match the curvature of the
wave fronts then the interference bars would be equally spaced.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
QUOTE (LL)
The speed of light is constant according to the medium it is propagating in.
Why do you doubt the speed of light?.....
Because I'm looking at the results of the DSE.
The interference results on the screen have timing changes/delays, from the center
outward, because the screen is flat....2 dimensional, while the wave fronts
are spherical. If the screen was spherically curved to match the curvature of the
wave fronts then the interference bars would be equally spaced.
Regards,
LL
C2,
You raise an interesting question?
It makes me wonder what we would see on the screen if we used a laser
aimed at a beam spitter whose beams hit two separated mirrors that were
equidistant apart. Would the beams reflected off the two mirrors interfere at the
screen? This satisfies your two path lengths question. IMO, there will not be
any interference unless there is a difference in phasing/timing between the two
beams which would be observed if the reflecting mirrors had different path
lengths to create the phasing change. In this case, the phase change would
exist between the two mirrors but would be detected at the screen where
the phase signal differences are superposed.
Regards,
LL
You raise an interesting question?
QUOTE
There isn't a great deal in common between the ways the different paths are created .. only that once more than one path has been created we see interference effects.
Is it possible that the reason for the interference effect doesn't lie in how a path is created? Could it be that two (or more) paths between source and screen might be enough to cause the interference effect regardless of how the paths are created?
Is it possible that the reason for the interference effect doesn't lie in how a path is created? Could it be that two (or more) paths between source and screen might be enough to cause the interference effect regardless of how the paths are created?
It makes me wonder what we would see on the screen if we used a laser
aimed at a beam spitter whose beams hit two separated mirrors that were
equidistant apart. Would the beams reflected off the two mirrors interfere at the
screen? This satisfies your two path lengths question. IMO, there will not be
any interference unless there is a difference in phasing/timing between the two
beams which would be observed if the reflecting mirrors had different path
lengths to create the phasing change. In this case, the phase change would
exist between the two mirrors but would be detected at the screen where
the phase signal differences are superposed.
Regards,
LL
Hi GE,
There is a difference when we deal with electrons where the phase components are traveling "within the packet" at a relatively different velocity.
I am still thinking about it so I can't be sure about any comparisons at this stage but I welcome any input LL.
An electron has a "charge distribution envelope" that concentrically surrounds
the electron's centerpoint as a "voltage potential" sphere, if it were at
rest/immobilized. However, if you observe an electron you should find
contained within this "charge-potential envelope" that effectively there is an
electrical field component that is not electrically neutral and that forms a charge
field component to the electron. By its nature, charge has to be the result
of some inequality, some difference between two points of reference. Perhaps
the difference is between the electron and its relation to the permittivity of "space".
If space is at some relative dielectric value and an electron represents a pure
"short" to that dielectric constant, then the fields that separate them represent
charge displacement. This conceivably could be an interaction with the "space
charge" between the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the field charge of
the electron.
If you subject the electron to an electrical field it will unbalance the CMB field
phase alignment and the electron will deviate from a linear path. Similarly,
if you subject the electron to a magnetic field the electron will also deviate
according to the field strength. So it appears that localized E and B fields
change the CMB background dielectric constant which changes the normal
charge relationship that exists between the electron and the CMB.
Of course you realize what the implications of my proposal are....I know that
you will cringe when I mention the word................... Aether!
I still consider the dielectric constant of space as the lowest level background
baseline energy plateau that all other higher energy states relate to and are scaled
from.
Any comments, discussion, welcomed!
LL
QUOTE
There is a difference when we deal with electrons where the phase components are traveling "within the packet" at a relatively different velocity.
I am still thinking about it so I can't be sure about any comparisons at this stage but I welcome any input LL.
An electron has a "charge distribution envelope" that concentrically surrounds
the electron's centerpoint as a "voltage potential" sphere, if it were at
rest/immobilized. However, if you observe an electron you should find
contained within this "charge-potential envelope" that effectively there is an
electrical field component that is not electrically neutral and that forms a charge
field component to the electron. By its nature, charge has to be the result
of some inequality, some difference between two points of reference. Perhaps
the difference is between the electron and its relation to the permittivity of "space".
If space is at some relative dielectric value and an electron represents a pure
"short" to that dielectric constant, then the fields that separate them represent
charge displacement. This conceivably could be an interaction with the "space
charge" between the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the field charge of
the electron.
If you subject the electron to an electrical field it will unbalance the CMB field
phase alignment and the electron will deviate from a linear path. Similarly,
if you subject the electron to a magnetic field the electron will also deviate
according to the field strength. So it appears that localized E and B fields
change the CMB background dielectric constant which changes the normal
charge relationship that exists between the electron and the CMB.
Of course you realize what the implications of my proposal are....I know that
you will cringe when I mention the word................... Aether!
I still consider the dielectric constant of space as the lowest level background
baseline energy plateau that all other higher energy states relate to and are scaled
from.
Any comments, discussion, welcomed!
LL
Hi all,
C2, your questioning the speed of light (being constant) of late, is valid. I have talked about this before, but ??
The ORDERING of frequencies is enough to require that our concept of velocity gives different answers, for different frequencies, from a single "event".
The logic is this: frequency & wavelength are symmetric measurements. They are "wave" properties; they will start at the same "point" of a cycle, and they will all COMPLETE the last cycle, at the point of measurement.
If they leave from slightly different points, as in from a prism, or other refraction, then they will arrive at slightly different times, as measured from a common point.
This is enough to cause the phase difference that LL speaks of.
Everyone insists (because of the results of the measurement) that the frequency remains the same in these transactions. I say that it just ends up the same.
C is a constant; f and w produce that constant. If f is constant, and we adjust the wavelength to compensate, then our previous "constant" can not remain "constant". c must change, slightly, in this perspective.
I also have mathematical reason to believe that there is a very small velocity difference, base on frequency. I won't go into it here, because it is "off topic". But I will say this, for you to ponder. The square root of c is an irrational number.
sq.rt. c = 17314.515817660047983788339758548
If we put this number in for "wavelength", and calculate for frequency ( c / w ), we get:
c /
17314.515817660047983788339758548 =
17314.515817660047983788339758556
which is the same order of difference that I get from calculating a fundamental frequency, wavelength, and velocity, from first principles. This shows the simple reason why a traveling wave can not be "perfectly symmetrical", as is indicated by the "ideal model" that Fourier produces.
Now, this is only out to 27 digits, so maybe, if we calculate this way, out to 34 digits, we would end up with an h .
FYI, the derivation of h relied on Boltzmann's S = k Log W , the "statistical" version of The Second Law of Thermodynamics. The equation that Planck started with was
"...........C_1 f^5..............."
E = ---------------------------
"......exp (-C_2 f / T) -1...."
where C_1 and C_2 were "chosen" by Planck to "fit the experiments". IMO, this whole procedure is nothing more than "reducing" (by division) a quantity down to a number so small, that it "escapes" our ability to calculate "accurately", as my above sq.rt. c similarly shows. Certainly, it leaves me with "a bad taste in my mouth", when they tell me then, that we are going to get "even numbers" (whole integers) from this exceedingly small irrational number. It just doesn't physically interpret to something "tasty" to me.
ciao,
T.Roc
C2, your questioning the speed of light (being constant) of late, is valid. I have talked about this before, but ??
The ORDERING of frequencies is enough to require that our concept of velocity gives different answers, for different frequencies, from a single "event".
The logic is this: frequency & wavelength are symmetric measurements. They are "wave" properties; they will start at the same "point" of a cycle, and they will all COMPLETE the last cycle, at the point of measurement.
If they leave from slightly different points, as in from a prism, or other refraction, then they will arrive at slightly different times, as measured from a common point.
This is enough to cause the phase difference that LL speaks of.
Everyone insists (because of the results of the measurement) that the frequency remains the same in these transactions. I say that it just ends up the same.
C is a constant; f and w produce that constant. If f is constant, and we adjust the wavelength to compensate, then our previous "constant" can not remain "constant". c must change, slightly, in this perspective.
I also have mathematical reason to believe that there is a very small velocity difference, base on frequency. I won't go into it here, because it is "off topic". But I will say this, for you to ponder. The square root of c is an irrational number.
sq.rt. c = 17314.515817660047983788339758548
If we put this number in for "wavelength", and calculate for frequency ( c / w ), we get:
c /
17314.515817660047983788339758548 =
17314.515817660047983788339758556
which is the same order of difference that I get from calculating a fundamental frequency, wavelength, and velocity, from first principles. This shows the simple reason why a traveling wave can not be "perfectly symmetrical", as is indicated by the "ideal model" that Fourier produces.
Now, this is only out to 27 digits, so maybe, if we calculate this way, out to 34 digits, we would end up with an h .
FYI, the derivation of h relied on Boltzmann's S = k Log W , the "statistical" version of The Second Law of Thermodynamics. The equation that Planck started with was
"...........C_1 f^5..............."
E = ---------------------------
"......exp (-C_2 f / T) -1...."
where C_1 and C_2 were "chosen" by Planck to "fit the experiments". IMO, this whole procedure is nothing more than "reducing" (by division) a quantity down to a number so small, that it "escapes" our ability to calculate "accurately", as my above sq.rt. c similarly shows. Certainly, it leaves me with "a bad taste in my mouth", when they tell me then, that we are going to get "even numbers" (whole integers) from this exceedingly small irrational number. It just doesn't physically interpret to something "tasty" to me.
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi Laserlight,
I agree.
I agree.
It makes me wonder what we would see on the screen if we used a laser aimed at a beam spitter whose beams hit two separated mirrors that were equidistant apart. Would the beams reflected off the two mirrors interfere at the screen?
A bit like the Michelson Morley experiment? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment ) Again the wavefronts are spherical and the screen is flat .. if all the geometry were perfect and the paths were exactly the same length then the wavefronts would sit on top of each other and 'add' .. change either path by half a wavelength and they would subtract. Make the paths very nearly the same length and the wavefronts are very nearly on top of each other .. giving fringes on the screen which are (say) a foot apart and which would move by a foot for every wavelength change in the path length (or equivalent change in velocity along one arm). Is that the sort of thing you are suggesting?
Best wishes,
-C2.
QUOTE
The interference results on the screen have timing changes/delays, from the center outward, because the screen is flat....2 dimensional, while the wave fronts are spherical.
I agree.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The interference results on the screen have timing changes/delays, from the center outward, because the screen is flat....2 dimensional, while the wave fronts are spherical. |
I agree.
It makes me wonder what we would see on the screen if we used a laser aimed at a beam spitter whose beams hit two separated mirrors that were equidistant apart. Would the beams reflected off the two mirrors interfere at the screen?
A bit like the Michelson Morley experiment? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment ) Again the wavefronts are spherical and the screen is flat .. if all the geometry were perfect and the paths were exactly the same length then the wavefronts would sit on top of each other and 'add' .. change either path by half a wavelength and they would subtract. Make the paths very nearly the same length and the wavefronts are very nearly on top of each other .. giving fringes on the screen which are (say) a foot apart and which would move by a foot for every wavelength change in the path length (or equivalent change in velocity along one arm). Is that the sort of thing you are suggesting?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi TRoc,
How do you evenly divide infinity? You can't! There will always be a progression
that can be added to any result. Mathematics has its "limitations" in that regard.
You cannot perfectly define the infinite by using a finite numerical measurement. Math works well enough in a finite closed set of solutions but
cannot describe an infinite "open" set that is a perpetually changing variable.
Comments welcomed.
LL
How do you evenly divide infinity? You can't! There will always be a progression
that can be added to any result. Mathematics has its "limitations" in that regard.
You cannot perfectly define the infinite by using a finite numerical measurement. Math works well enough in a finite closed set of solutions but
cannot describe an infinite "open" set that is a perpetually changing variable.
Comments welcomed.
LL
Hi all,
C2 has also mentioned the need for the beam to travel through a first slit, for this whole thing to work "better". This is true, and cause for the 1/2 wave harmonic, that I have show to be a source for the "standing wave" phenomena in the post-slit cavity.
Just for the "fun factor", I'll show some pictures of diffraction, produced by a "tooth" (shadow), and the subsequent "rainbow" that we see in visible light. This is the SAME pattern folks, that can also appear in "black and white", or "monochromatic" (by intensity).
This is a "no screen" example of the DSE, without the upper and lower limit (dimensions) of the "slit rectangle" top and bottom. This is produced just using "the atmosphere", and diffraction of "white light".
©Vincent Lowe
Ringed Glory and Brocken Spectre shadow from Hopegill Head, English Lake District. Vincent Lowe (photography site) saw this spectacular apparition in February 2006. The "Spectre" is the photographer's distorted shadow. http://www.atoptics.co.uk/droplets/glory.htm
and, from a plane:
© Philip Laven
http://www.philiplaven.com/p2c.html
Again, the same pattern, produced with resonant ratios, gives bright bands from cyan & yellow waves, and dark bands from red and violet waves. Just "invert the vortex", or you can do inverse Newton prism experiments, to see this anytime.
LL asked "how this happens", in regards to the medium, the laser, and the difference between the pre-slit cavity, and post-slit cavity. The laser is kept at a "beam like" form, by an ionization path. The changing refractive index constantly changes the "focus" of the beam, mimicking the convex, and the concave lens, repeatedly, and alternatively, until finally, it "runs out of energy", or "collapses". This is not the best explanation, and I will do better when I have more time. For now, another picture. This phenomenon has MANY names, depending on the specialization that thinks they are "discovering" it. You might check into "filamentation", for now. I believe that the center of the wave packet (in 3D, not our sine-wave model), has a self-reflected, self generated "plasma like" state. More on that later. We need to establish 2 paths, in order for this interaction phenomenon to take place; that is ONLY after the 2 slits.
This is "man made lightning" (a form of EM wave transmission), having its' normal "chaotic" path controlled by a laser beam. The ionization path changes the conductivity of the medium.
Figure 10. Experiments with the Teramobile laser are advancing a decades-old quest to be able to trigger lightning discharges on command and to control their paths in such a way as to avoid damage on the ground. Here a normally erratic electrical discharge (top left), one created in a high-voltage test facility located at the Technische Universität Berlin, is successfully channeled along the path of ionization created by the laser beam (top right). Although the distance between electrodes in this test is only 3 meters (bottom), advances in laser technology might one day allow real lightning discharges to be manipulated over distances large enough to protect people and property.
Photographs courtesy of the Teramobile Project; illustration by Stephanie Freese
regards,
T.Roc
C2 has also mentioned the need for the beam to travel through a first slit, for this whole thing to work "better". This is true, and cause for the 1/2 wave harmonic, that I have show to be a source for the "standing wave" phenomena in the post-slit cavity.
Just for the "fun factor", I'll show some pictures of diffraction, produced by a "tooth" (shadow), and the subsequent "rainbow" that we see in visible light. This is the SAME pattern folks, that can also appear in "black and white", or "monochromatic" (by intensity).
This is a "no screen" example of the DSE, without the upper and lower limit (dimensions) of the "slit rectangle" top and bottom. This is produced just using "the atmosphere", and diffraction of "white light".
©Vincent Lowe
Ringed Glory and Brocken Spectre shadow from Hopegill Head, English Lake District. Vincent Lowe (photography site) saw this spectacular apparition in February 2006. The "Spectre" is the photographer's distorted shadow. http://www.atoptics.co.uk/droplets/glory.htm
and, from a plane:
© Philip Laven
http://www.philiplaven.com/p2c.html
Again, the same pattern, produced with resonant ratios, gives bright bands from cyan & yellow waves, and dark bands from red and violet waves. Just "invert the vortex", or you can do inverse Newton prism experiments, to see this anytime.
LL asked "how this happens", in regards to the medium, the laser, and the difference between the pre-slit cavity, and post-slit cavity. The laser is kept at a "beam like" form, by an ionization path. The changing refractive index constantly changes the "focus" of the beam, mimicking the convex, and the concave lens, repeatedly, and alternatively, until finally, it "runs out of energy", or "collapses". This is not the best explanation, and I will do better when I have more time. For now, another picture. This phenomenon has MANY names, depending on the specialization that thinks they are "discovering" it. You might check into "filamentation", for now. I believe that the center of the wave packet (in 3D, not our sine-wave model), has a self-reflected, self generated "plasma like" state. More on that later.
We need to establish 2 paths, in order for this interaction phenomenon to take place; that is ONLY after the 2 slits.This is "man made lightning" (a form of EM wave transmission), having its' normal "chaotic" path controlled by a laser beam. The ionization path changes the conductivity of the medium.
Figure 10. Experiments with the Teramobile laser are advancing a decades-old quest to be able to trigger lightning discharges on command and to control their paths in such a way as to avoid damage on the ground. Here a normally erratic electrical discharge (top left), one created in a high-voltage test facility located at the Technische Universität Berlin, is successfully channeled along the path of ionization created by the laser beam (top right). Although the distance between electrodes in this test is only 3 meters (bottom), advances in laser technology might one day allow real lightning discharges to be manipulated over distances large enough to protect people and property.
Photographs courtesy of the Teramobile Project; illustration by Stephanie Freese
regards,
T.Roc
LL,
I'm not sure why you're asking this? Did I use that word?
The speed of light is not infinite, so neither can frequency or wavelength be. OR anything that we measure. I think infinity is "still being counted", so it doesn't count for "measurement".
T.Roc
PS.
I'm not sure why you're asking this? Did I use that word?
The speed of light is not infinite, so neither can frequency or wavelength be. OR anything that we measure. I think infinity is "still being counted", so it doesn't count for "measurement".
T.Roc
PS. Math works well enough in a finite closed set of solutions but
cannot describe an infinite "open" set that is a perpetually changing variable.
Perhaps you missed where I stated that I am dealing with infinite harmonics, of a closed set? Just 12 resonant ratios, approximated closely by an recursive irrational, for an autopoietic matrix (infinite in 2 dimensions: the harmonics, and closed in 2: the Frequency Comb/Nyquist Theorem, etc.) All symmetric products in this "matrix" = c , with a uncertainty/margin of error similar to the sq.rt. c example I gave. All values can also be produced from just one constant; my "first principle", or fundamental natural.
QUOTE
How do you evenly divide infinity?
I'm not sure why you're asking this? Did I use that word?
The speed of light is not infinite, so neither can frequency or wavelength be. OR anything that we measure. I think infinity is "still being counted", so it doesn't count for "measurement".
T.Roc
PS.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How do you evenly divide infinity? |
I'm not sure why you're asking this? Did I use that word?
The speed of light is not infinite, so neither can frequency or wavelength be. OR anything that we measure. I think infinity is "still being counted", so it doesn't count for "measurement".
T.Roc
PS. Math works well enough in a finite closed set of solutions but
cannot describe an infinite "open" set that is a perpetually changing variable.
Perhaps you missed where I stated that I am dealing with infinite harmonics, of a closed set? Just 12 resonant ratios, approximated closely by an recursive irrational, for an autopoietic matrix (infinite in 2 dimensions: the harmonics, and closed in 2: the Frequency Comb/Nyquist Theorem, etc.) All symmetric products in this "matrix" = c , with a uncertainty/margin of error similar to the sq.rt. c example I gave. All values can also be produced from just one constant; my "first principle", or fundamental natural.
Hi C2,
Regardless of the differences of path length (distance) between the mirrors
the phase difference between them is all that will produce an interference
phenomena. It is the relationship of the frequency to itself as it relates to
the phase timing component. Interference results because of a timing shift
relative to a fixed time reference start point. If there is no fixed time relative
reference start point then there will be no interference, because the waves have
no common fixed time reference point.
If an event happens at a fixed relative start time, and another event happens at
a different fixed start time they have different relative points of timing reference.
The existence of each, in time, is unique. If both events have exactly the same
zero time reference start time, then the only difference they can have is spatial
dislocation, which represents a relative time difference between their locations.
This is a linear function...like two parallel lines that maintain equal spacing between
them forever. If that timing "spacing" between them changes, then there are
two simultaneous linear functions that cross at some point in time. The point
of crossing will always be in phase, unless some non-linear external influence
changes the relative timing that exists between them.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
Make the paths very nearly the same length and the wavefronts are very nearly on top of each other .. giving fringes on the screen which are (say) a foot apart and which would move by a foot for every wavelength change in the path length (or equivalent change in velocity along one arm). Is that the sort of thing you are suggesting?
Regardless of the differences of path length (distance) between the mirrors
the phase difference between them is all that will produce an interference
phenomena. It is the relationship of the frequency to itself as it relates to
the phase timing component. Interference results because of a timing shift
relative to a fixed time reference start point. If there is no fixed time relative
reference start point then there will be no interference, because the waves have
no common fixed time reference point.
If an event happens at a fixed relative start time, and another event happens at
a different fixed start time they have different relative points of timing reference.
The existence of each, in time, is unique. If both events have exactly the same
zero time reference start time, then the only difference they can have is spatial
dislocation, which represents a relative time difference between their locations.
This is a linear function...like two parallel lines that maintain equal spacing between
them forever. If that timing "spacing" between them changes, then there are
two simultaneous linear functions that cross at some point in time. The point
of crossing will always be in phase, unless some non-linear external influence
changes the relative timing that exists between them.
Regards,
LL
Hi TRoc,
dividing c, by an irrational number Ö2, shouldn't ever give a rational solution.
Doesn't that represent an infinite solution set?
I'm not a mathematician...
HUH???
Regards,
LL
dividing c, by an irrational number Ö2, shouldn't ever give a rational solution.
Doesn't that represent an infinite solution set?
I'm not a mathematician...
QUOTE
Perhaps you missed where I stated that I am dealing with infinite harmonics, of a closed set? Just 12 resonant ratios, approximated closely by an recursive irrational, for an autopoietic matrix (infinite in 2 dimensions: the harmonics, and closed in 2: the Frequency Comb/Nyquist Theorem, etc.) All symmetric products in this "matrix" = c , with a uncertainty/margin of error similar to the sq.rt. c example I gave.
HUH???
Regards,
LL
Hi Laserlight,
I really thought we might have been on to something there.
I really thought we might have been on to something there.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Interference results because of a timing shift relative to a fixed time reference start point. If there is no fixed time relative reference start point then there will be no interference, because the waves have no common fixed time reference point.
Within the limitations of shared language and experience I think we may be in agreement on this point. My comment about being 'a bit earlier in time' was my mistake. I agree the interference is a 'same event' phenomenon and in my book a photon is the consequence of 'an event'. I note that I use the word 'photon' and 'event' and you use use the word 'waves' (pleural) .. surprisingly still in agreement within the limitations of shared language and experience.
Hopefully we agree that the Michelson-Morley interferometer (same length path) and the Kennedy-Thorndike interferometer (very different length paths) will demonstrate interference. Since M-M and K-T both consist of a beam splitter and mirrors I'm interested to know which component(s) you feel are sufficiently different to explain how both give the same observed result (interference in both cases).
Best wishes,
-C2.
Within the limitations of shared language and experience I think we may be in agreement on this point. My comment about being 'a bit earlier in time' was my mistake. I agree the interference is a 'same event' phenomenon and in my book a photon is the consequence of 'an event'. I note that I use the word 'photon' and 'event' and you use use the word 'waves' (pleural) .. surprisingly still in agreement within the limitations of shared language and experience.
Hopefully we agree that the Michelson-Morley interferometer (same length path) and the Kennedy-Thorndike interferometer (very different length paths) will demonstrate interference. Since M-M and K-T both consist of a beam splitter and mirrors I'm interested to know which component(s) you feel are sufficiently different to explain how both give the same observed result (interference in both cases).
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2,
I've only seen the experimental set ups of these interferometers, other than the
kind that we used for thin film dielectric thickness changes over time. I can
think of a couple of issues that could provide interference results....
1. Thermal differences (expansion/contraction) between the mirrors or convection
currents in the air between them (TRoc will love that one).
2. Phase differences/delays induced by the photons passing thru the glass
medium of the angled mirrors....just the angular orientation of the glass or of
a perfect reflector will induce timing/phase delays in the wavelets that comprise
the beam since it represents a tapered conical cross sectional cut to the
normal perpendicular symmetry of the beam. Also, if we consider that there is
beam divergence/spread then any effects/changes will be effectively doubled in 2
directions and will be noticed when recombined resulting in misphasing or timing
misalignments and will yield an interference pattern since the beams can no longer be accurately realigned/focused because of spatially induced phase changes.
Dynamic interference will be observed if there is an incremental change in relative
phasing between the beams. If the beams are superposed and compared over
time, sine waves will result as a consequence of the the phasing changes between
the waves. We charted these phase changes and used them for determining
thickness endpoint of dynamically "moving" films over time.
-----
GE, I thought that you might appreciate this perspective....
From Wikipedia- Michelson morely interferometer:
I've only seen the experimental set ups of these interferometers, other than the
kind that we used for thin film dielectric thickness changes over time. I can
think of a couple of issues that could provide interference results....
1. Thermal differences (expansion/contraction) between the mirrors or convection
currents in the air between them (TRoc will love that one).
2. Phase differences/delays induced by the photons passing thru the glass
medium of the angled mirrors....just the angular orientation of the glass or of
a perfect reflector will induce timing/phase delays in the wavelets that comprise
the beam since it represents a tapered conical cross sectional cut to the
normal perpendicular symmetry of the beam. Also, if we consider that there is
beam divergence/spread then any effects/changes will be effectively doubled in 2
directions and will be noticed when recombined resulting in misphasing or timing
misalignments and will yield an interference pattern since the beams can no longer be accurately realigned/focused because of spatially induced phase changes.
Dynamic interference will be observed if there is an incremental change in relative
phasing between the beams. If the beams are superposed and compared over
time, sine waves will result as a consequence of the the phasing changes between
the waves. We charted these phase changes and used them for determining
thickness endpoint of dynamically "moving" films over time.
-----
GE, I thought that you might appreciate this perspective....
From Wikipedia- Michelson morely interferometer:
As late as 1920, Einstein himself still spoke of a type of ether that was not a “ponderable medium” but something of significance nonetheless:
“...More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether... Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether... According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
QUOTE
Hopefully we agree that the Michelson-Morley interferometer (same length path) and the Kennedy-Thorndike interferometer (very different length paths) will demonstrate interference. Since M-M and K-T both consist of a beam splitter and mirrors I'm interested to know which component(s) you feel are sufficiently different to explain how both give the same observed result (interference in both cases).
I've only seen the experimental set ups of these interferometers, other than the
kind that we used for thin film dielectric thickness changes over time. I can
think of a couple of issues that could provide interference results....
1. Thermal differences (expansion/contraction) between the mirrors or convection
currents in the air between them (TRoc will love that one).
2. Phase differences/delays induced by the photons passing thru the glass
medium of the angled mirrors....just the angular orientation of the glass or of
a perfect reflector will induce timing/phase delays in the wavelets that comprise
the beam since it represents a tapered conical cross sectional cut to the
normal perpendicular symmetry of the beam. Also, if we consider that there is
beam divergence/spread then any effects/changes will be effectively doubled in 2
directions and will be noticed when recombined resulting in misphasing or timing
misalignments and will yield an interference pattern since the beams can no longer be accurately realigned/focused because of spatially induced phase changes.
Dynamic interference will be observed if there is an incremental change in relative
phasing between the beams. If the beams are superposed and compared over
time, sine waves will result as a consequence of the the phasing changes between
the waves. We charted these phase changes and used them for determining
thickness endpoint of dynamically "moving" films over time.
-----
GE, I thought that you might appreciate this perspective....
From Wikipedia- Michelson morely interferometer:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hopefully we agree that the Michelson-Morley interferometer (same length path) and the Kennedy-Thorndike interferometer (very different length paths) will demonstrate interference. Since M-M and K-T both consist of a beam splitter and mirrors I'm interested to know which component(s) you feel are sufficiently different to explain how both give the same observed result (interference in both cases). |
I've only seen the experimental set ups of these interferometers, other than the
kind that we used for thin film dielectric thickness changes over time. I can
think of a couple of issues that could provide interference results....
1. Thermal differences (expansion/contraction) between the mirrors or convection
currents in the air between them (TRoc will love that one).
2. Phase differences/delays induced by the photons passing thru the glass
medium of the angled mirrors....just the angular orientation of the glass or of
a perfect reflector will induce timing/phase delays in the wavelets that comprise
the beam since it represents a tapered conical cross sectional cut to the
normal perpendicular symmetry of the beam. Also, if we consider that there is
beam divergence/spread then any effects/changes will be effectively doubled in 2
directions and will be noticed when recombined resulting in misphasing or timing
misalignments and will yield an interference pattern since the beams can no longer be accurately realigned/focused because of spatially induced phase changes.
Dynamic interference will be observed if there is an incremental change in relative
phasing between the beams. If the beams are superposed and compared over
time, sine waves will result as a consequence of the the phasing changes between
the waves. We charted these phase changes and used them for determining
thickness endpoint of dynamically "moving" films over time.
-----
GE, I thought that you might appreciate this perspective....
From Wikipedia- Michelson morely interferometer:
As late as 1920, Einstein himself still spoke of a type of ether that was not a “ponderable medium” but something of significance nonetheless:
“...More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether... Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether... According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
Hello All,
Did anyone read this? I was hoping to have some discussion about the idea's
presented.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=179490
My prior post, that referenced Einstein's opinion on the ether seems to fit
with the conceptualizations that I outlined/proposed in that post.
Any comments or thoughts would be appreciated....I know it is a slight
detour from the DSE....but since it applies to energy and light propagation
in space, I thought some new short term discussion would be good.
LL
Did anyone read this? I was hoping to have some discussion about the idea's
presented.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=179490
My prior post, that referenced Einstein's opinion on the ether seems to fit
with the conceptualizations that I outlined/proposed in that post.
Any comments or thoughts would be appreciated....I know it is a slight
detour from the DSE....but since it applies to energy and light propagation
in space, I thought some new short term discussion would be good.
LL
Hi TRoc et al,
The logic is this: frequency & wavelength are symmetric measurements. They are "wave" properties; they will start at the same "point" of a cycle, and they will all COMPLETE the last cycle, at the point of measurement.
Maybe time for a recap of difference of PoV.
Within the limits of my ability to understand and and interpret Feynman's "sum over paths" hopefully him and me are pretty much on the same track, I admit he may have gone just a tiny bit further down the track than I can...
I have read a story about de Broglie telling Dirac about his E=hf hypothesis and Dirac told him he was wrong. Later Dirac had to admit that 'in a way' De Broglie was right. I have no knowledge of the level at which de Broglie was posting but I'm pretty sure Dirac was posting at about the level of rpenner and possibly even higher.
My point being that the apparent simplicity of E=hf may conceal very much more than it reveals.
If we look at the relationship between electromagnetic waves and photons .. just note the way I have used pleural 'waves' and 'photons'. Being picky .. if you tried to define an electromagnetic wave (singular) what would it look like? Electromagnetic waves (by definition) can have a magnitude of anything between 0 and X whereas there are definite constraints placed on the 'magnitude' of a single photon .. not least by E=hf. What follows (hopefully) gives some insight into where I'm coming from on the EM/photon front. If I communicate it correctly and accurately then as far as I know it is at the roots of the best representation we have of a quantized EM wave.
Criticism is always welcome .. especially this next bit .. it would be nice to have it 'correct' .. no BS is intended...
Back to 'sum over paths' ... we're trying to calculate the probability of detecting a photon at a particular point. First we take the frequency 'f' from the de Broglie hypothesis, that would be the step that Dirac could not easily see why it was valid. Second we take the speed of light 'c' as appropriate depending on whether we're in (say) air or water, then we divide 'f' by 'c' to get a wavelength. This is Feynman's bit coming up, another guy posting at Dirac level. We fill the universe (ALL of it) with that wavelength, starting from the source. We apply the normal rules of reflection etc and we sum (vector sum) the result at the point we're interested in. In reality it's probably better to think in terms of a small area rather than a 'point' because it makes life easier. We take all the areas where the photon might be detected and multiply by the appropriate factor to reduce the total probability of detecting a photon to precisely 'one'. After all this we're pretty damn close to knowing how bright the lights are going to look.
Of particular interest is that the vectors we were adding looked like waves with a frequency and a wavelength. Rpenner draws attention to a paper in his post here .. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=171217 . .. the first reference ( http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html ) .. .. " a less than 0% chance" ..
Enough for one post.
Best wishes,
-C2.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
The logic is this: frequency & wavelength are symmetric measurements. They are "wave" properties; they will start at the same "point" of a cycle, and they will all COMPLETE the last cycle, at the point of measurement.
Maybe time for a recap of difference of PoV.
Within the limits of my ability to understand and and interpret Feynman's "sum over paths" hopefully him and me are pretty much on the same track, I admit he may have gone just a tiny bit further down the track than I can...
I have read a story about de Broglie telling Dirac about his E=hf hypothesis and Dirac told him he was wrong. Later Dirac had to admit that 'in a way' De Broglie was right. I have no knowledge of the level at which de Broglie was posting but I'm pretty sure Dirac was posting at about the level of rpenner and possibly even higher.
My point being that the apparent simplicity of E=hf may conceal very much more than it reveals.
If we look at the relationship between electromagnetic waves and photons .. just note the way I have used pleural 'waves' and 'photons'. Being picky .. if you tried to define an electromagnetic wave (singular) what would it look like? Electromagnetic waves (by definition) can have a magnitude of anything between 0 and X whereas there are definite constraints placed on the 'magnitude' of a single photon .. not least by E=hf. What follows (hopefully) gives some insight into where I'm coming from on the EM/photon front. If I communicate it correctly and accurately then as far as I know it is at the roots of the best representation we have of a quantized EM wave.
Criticism is always welcome .. especially this next bit .. it would be nice to have it 'correct' .. no BS is intended...
Back to 'sum over paths' ... we're trying to calculate the probability of detecting a photon at a particular point. First we take the frequency 'f' from the de Broglie hypothesis, that would be the step that Dirac could not easily see why it was valid. Second we take the speed of light 'c' as appropriate depending on whether we're in (say) air or water, then we divide 'f' by 'c' to get a wavelength. This is Feynman's bit coming up, another guy posting at Dirac level. We fill the universe (ALL of it) with that wavelength, starting from the source. We apply the normal rules of reflection etc and we sum (vector sum) the result at the point we're interested in. In reality it's probably better to think in terms of a small area rather than a 'point' because it makes life easier. We take all the areas where the photon might be detected and multiply by the appropriate factor to reduce the total probability of detecting a photon to precisely 'one'. After all this we're pretty damn close to knowing how bright the lights are going to look.
Of particular interest is that the vectors we were adding looked like waves with a frequency and a wavelength. Rpenner draws attention to a paper in his post here .. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=171217 . .. the first reference ( http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html ) .. .. " a less than 0% chance" ..
Enough for one post.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Laserlight, Good Elf et al,
Hopefully we may agree that the Michelson-Morley and Kennedy-Thorndike experiments are among the most carefully carried out (and examined) experiments in history.
At the heart of this is
1/ The notion held by Good Elf that photons can be represented by an impulse.
2/ The apparent (occasional) notion held by LL that interference requires the paths between source and detection add up to (nearly) equal delays.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy-Thorndike_experiment
For the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment do you think they had to ask for
Long leg mirrors?
Long leg beam splitters?
Or do you think the interference effect works anyway .. regardless of the total difference in path length .. the only important consideration being the relative phase of the 'whatever' at the point of detection.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hopefully we may agree that the Michelson-Morley and Kennedy-Thorndike experiments are among the most carefully carried out (and examined) experiments in history.
At the heart of this is
1/ The notion held by Good Elf that photons can be represented by an impulse.
2/ The apparent (occasional) notion held by LL that interference requires the paths between source and detection add up to (nearly) equal delays.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy-Thorndike_experiment
QUOTE
By making one arm of the experiment much shorter than the other, a change in speed of the earth would cause changes in the travel times of the light rays, from which a fringe shift would result except if the frequency of the light source would change to the same degree. In order to determine if such a fringe shift took place, the interferometer was made extremely stable and the interference patterns were photographed for later comparison. The tests were done over a period of many months.
For the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment do you think they had to ask for
Long leg mirrors?
Long leg beam splitters?
Or do you think the interference effect works anyway .. regardless of the total difference in path length .. the only important consideration being the relative phase of the 'whatever' at the point of detection.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2,
It is a difference in phase angle between the signals at the focal point of detection.
If you want to consider that "path length", what if both path lengths are exactly
identical...you have constructive interference...perfect signal superposition overlap
and no observed interference fringes.
Regards,
LL
It is a difference in phase angle between the signals at the focal point of detection.
If you want to consider that "path length", what if both path lengths are exactly
identical...you have constructive interference...perfect signal superposition overlap
and no observed interference fringes.
Regards,
LL
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (me+)
Make the paths very nearly the same length and the wavefronts are very nearly on top of each other .. giving fringes on the screen which are (say) a foot apart and which would move by a foot for every wavelength change in the path length (or equivalent change in velocity along one arm). Is that the sort of thing you are suggesting?
You didn't respond lats time round .. same question again except this time we add an integral number of wavelength's into the path length.
Predicted outcome?
Best wishes,
-C2.
You didn't respond lats time round .. same question again except this time we add an integral number of wavelength's into the path length.
Predicted outcome?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2,
I thought that I answered your question. Two perfectly overlapping synchronous
waves are in phase, regardless of the difference in path length and there will be no
interference fringes, but there will be constructive inteference and both of the
waves will add their energy at the point of mixing = double amplitude.
To get an interference fringe the waves must be out of phase by some
incremental amount. This is where the phase angle difference comes into play.
The signals will still add to yield some remainder/difference at the point of mixing.
DSE fringes only occur when two or more coherently synchronous diffracted
wavefronts interfere at some point of signal mixing. A single diffracted wavefront
will display phase differences along the wavefront but will be centered on the
aperture.
Regards,
LL
I thought that I answered your question. Two perfectly overlapping synchronous
waves are in phase, regardless of the difference in path length and there will be no
interference fringes, but there will be constructive inteference and both of the
waves will add their energy at the point of mixing = double amplitude.
To get an interference fringe the waves must be out of phase by some
incremental amount. This is where the phase angle difference comes into play.
The signals will still add to yield some remainder/difference at the point of mixing.
DSE fringes only occur when two or more coherently synchronous diffracted
wavefronts interfere at some point of signal mixing. A single diffracted wavefront
will display phase differences along the wavefront but will be centered on the
aperture.
Regards,
LL
Hello C2,LL,et al.
In order for us all to speak with the same meaning, I would like to discuss the following statement (which I believe is true).
An electromagnetic wave with a photon of energy has no size, only a frequency.
In order for us all to speak with the same meaning, I would like to discuss the following statement (which I believe is true).
An electromagnetic wave with a photon of energy has no size, only a frequency.
Hi Montec,
What is the amplitude of the frequency? Each photon has a discrete frequency
but what is the lowest quantum value that represents a single wavelet photon pulse emitted from an atom?
Regards,
LL
What is the amplitude of the frequency? Each photon has a discrete frequency
but what is the lowest quantum value that represents a single wavelet photon pulse emitted from an atom?
Regards,
LL
Hello LL
I would think that the amplitude would be tied to the energy of the photon and the permittivity and permeability of the local space. After all in the photoelectric effect the momentum of the expelled electron is tied to the frequency of the incident light and not to the intensity (amplitude) of the light.
I would think that the lowest frequency that can be emitted from an atom would be in the high infra red spectrum. Infrared lasers use molecules and the energy levels are tied to the vibration and rotational energy levels of said molecules (CO2 for instance).
I would think that the amplitude would be tied to the energy of the photon and the permittivity and permeability of the local space. After all in the photoelectric effect the momentum of the expelled electron is tied to the frequency of the incident light and not to the intensity (amplitude) of the light.
I would think that the lowest frequency that can be emitted from an atom would be in the high infra red spectrum. Infrared lasers use molecules and the energy levels are tied to the vibration and rotational energy levels of said molecules (CO2 for instance).
Hi Montec,
Do you agree that the same frequency can range in amplitude according to
the number of photon wavelets present in each wave pulse. The higher the wave
pulse amplitude at the correct energy/frequency, the more electrons that are
ejected. I don't think it is an electron current momentum issue. Electrons should
move according to the resistivity of the medium that they are traveling in, but to
be honest I'm not certain about all of the dynamics of this phenomenon.
Well, if you consider that each element on the atomic chart radiates a specific
frequency according to the latency of the time it takes for the electron in the
outer shell to transition between shell levels that is the frequency at which they
radiate photons. Each element has its own radiation signature, and in the case of
lasers, aren't different elements usually combined to enhance the energy
absorption and photon emission characteristics of the lasing medium?
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
I would think that the amplitude would be tied to the energy of the photon and the permittivity and permeability of the local space. After all in the photoelectric effect the momentum of the expelled electron is tied to the frequency of the incident light and not to the intensity (amplitude) of the light.
I would think that the lowest frequency that can be emitted from an atom would be in the high infra red spectrum. Infrared lasers use molecules and the energy levels are tied to the vibration and rotational energy levels of said molecules (CO2 for instance).
I would think that the lowest frequency that can be emitted from an atom would be in the high infra red spectrum. Infrared lasers use molecules and the energy levels are tied to the vibration and rotational energy levels of said molecules (CO2 for instance).
Do you agree that the same frequency can range in amplitude according to
the number of photon wavelets present in each wave pulse. The higher the wave
pulse amplitude at the correct energy/frequency, the more electrons that are
ejected. I don't think it is an electron current momentum issue. Electrons should
move according to the resistivity of the medium that they are traveling in, but to
be honest I'm not certain about all of the dynamics of this phenomenon.
Well, if you consider that each element on the atomic chart radiates a specific
frequency according to the latency of the time it takes for the electron in the
outer shell to transition between shell levels that is the frequency at which they
radiate photons. Each element has its own radiation signature, and in the case of
lasers, aren't different elements usually combined to enhance the energy
absorption and photon emission characteristics of the lasing medium?
Regards,
LL
Hello LL
Yes the amplitudes of EM waves can both add or subtract from the total EM field at any one point and time. AM (amplitude modulation) radio sends information by varying the intensity (number of photons) over time.
I am pretty sure that for the photoelectric effect the momentum of the ejected electrons is based on the frequency of the incident light. The number of electrons is based on the intensity (amplitude) of the light. See here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
Each element radiates at more than one frequency. This allows the use of spectroscopy to identify elements just by their frequency signatures (adsorption and emission).
In Helium/Neon gas lasers the Neon is exited by electric discharge and then by collision transfers said excited energy to the Helium atom. Chemical lasers use two or more gases to chemically generate an excited energy state in one of the resultant gases. It is possible that some multicolor lasers may use more than one lazing medium.
Yes the amplitudes of EM waves can both add or subtract from the total EM field at any one point and time. AM (amplitude modulation) radio sends information by varying the intensity (number of photons) over time.
I am pretty sure that for the photoelectric effect the momentum of the ejected electrons is based on the frequency of the incident light. The number of electrons is based on the intensity (amplitude) of the light. See here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
Each element radiates at more than one frequency. This allows the use of spectroscopy to identify elements just by their frequency signatures (adsorption and emission).
In Helium/Neon gas lasers the Neon is exited by electric discharge and then by collision transfers said excited energy to the Helium atom. Chemical lasers use two or more gases to chemically generate an excited energy state in one of the resultant gases. It is possible that some multicolor lasers may use more than one lazing medium.
Hello LL
After a little digging I must change my assumption of the lowest frequency that an atom can adsorb/emit. The Humphreys series can generate emission lines in the far infrared.
After a little digging I must change my assumption of the lowest frequency that an atom can adsorb/emit. The Humphreys series can generate emission lines in the far infrared.
Hi Laserlight, Montec and all,
Laserlight..
Laserlight..
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I thought that I answered your question.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Interference results because of a timing shift relative to a fixed time reference start point. If there is no fixed time relative reference start point then there will be no interference, because the waves have no common fixed time reference point.
We agree! Examples of fixed time reference starting points would be
1/ A 'starting point' is when atom emits a photon.
Since that's what we're interested in at the moment perhaps we don't need more examples. The selected example has the benefit that the wave guys and gals are looking at exactly the same thing as the photon guys and gals.
2/ In the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment we take the difference in path lengths to an extreme and we still see interference.
Options..
3/ In the light of 2/ should we review 1/ (Didn't last long did it?)
4/ In the light of 2/ does the speed of light work like we expected?
5/ Maybe Kennedy and Thorndike have deceived many people but we're not going to fall into the trap
6/ Cancelled.
Going back to the DSE..
7/
We agree! Examples of fixed time reference starting points would be
1/ A 'starting point' is when atom emits a photon.
Since that's what we're interested in at the moment perhaps we don't need more examples. The selected example has the benefit that the wave guys and gals are looking at exactly the same thing as the photon guys and gals.
2/ In the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment we take the difference in path lengths to an extreme and we still see interference.
Options..
3/ In the light of 2/ should we review 1/ (Didn't last long did it?)
4/ In the light of 2/ does the speed of light work like we expected?
5/ Maybe Kennedy and Thorndike have deceived many people but we're not going to fall into the trap
6/ Cancelled.
Going back to the DSE..
7/
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
A single diffracted wavefront will display phase differences along the wavefront but will be centered on the aperture.
8/ When we look at the actual results of the DSE ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) we see several peaks.
Summary
Experimental results 2/ and 8/ are consistent, the rest (everything we might or might not claim to know?) is a complete mess.
We have not yet made any progress.
Best wishes,
-C2.
8/ When we look at the actual results of the DSE ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) we see several peaks.
Summary
Experimental results 2/ and 8/ are consistent, the rest (everything we might or might not claim to know?) is a complete mess.
We have not yet made any progress.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Montec, Laserlight et al,
I claim a new low for the lowest frequency from an atom ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfine_structure
used in atomic clocks.. ( http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html )
In cesium the wavelength is given as 3.26 cm (microwave)... other elements may produce even lower frequencies, not known.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I claim a new low for the lowest frequency from an atom ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfine_structure
used in atomic clocks.. ( http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html )
In cesium the wavelength is given as 3.26 cm (microwave)... other elements may produce even lower frequencies, not known.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, "THEY", yquantum, Montec et al,
Questions from Laserlight
Questions from Laserlight
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
An electron has a "charge distribution envelope" that concentrically surrounds the electron's centerpoint as a "voltage potential" sphere, if it were at rest/immobilized....
I question the idea that there is any "substance" to "charge". If anything the electron "appears" to have all it's so called "charge" concentrated in a perfect geometric "point" which means that the "charge intensity" just keeps climbing to infinity as you head toward that "point". This has been demonstrated to the highest energies that a particle accelerator can reach... no character ... no form... no apparent size or parts... just "something" that climbs to infinity. As a "blob" of something which is the basis of universal "electricity" I think it fails miserably. Electrons are "point singularities" which seem to exhibit a magnetic dipole. Now I understand the arguments put forward using the uncertainty principle to bring this "phantom" into existence and the conjuring trick works quite well for some. For me I remain totally unconvinced. I fail to see as a logical consequence of any realistic theory of anything in a space that can have an absolute zero extent that "hides" this "charge", "spin", "mass" and a "magnetic dipole" without having some kind of real physical extent. Go figure. This is not a problem without an answer, it is a "road block" to logical thought for what seems to be everyone. Clearly all these perfectly normal properties exist "beyond" our ability to probe... this is a "brick wall" to all energy processes and its size is clearly unable to be determined using any measuring rod that science can provide. It is like being on the outside of a very tall circular wall we can't see inside of, yet we can all hear that there are people in there having a party. We can identify all the processes in there but our GPS does not show this area on the "map". We can walk around it and it is as if we are doing a "pirouette" on the spot and the GPS shows only a single coordinate for every point on that wall. Well I wouldn't buy that for a buck!
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
... However, if you observe an electron you should find contained within this "charge-potential envelope" that effectively there is an electrical field component that is not electrically neutral and that forms a charge field component to the electron. By its nature, charge has to be the result of some inequality, some difference between two points of reference....
What you clearly have is a point in space where there are no two points ... on the contrary... there is a single point... a singularity... think about that. As far as our science is concerned our measuring rods fail and the appearance of forces have taken its place. This is an analogous situation to the fictitious force of gravity where we think that curved spacetime is to be replaced by a force. This results in infinities at certain places in spacetime with gravity.... Black Holes. With electrical "charges" we have Electromagnetic Black Holes. These are equivalent phenomena and we know in the first place the "Black Hole" is a singularity in three dimensional space. What this means is if you do not believe in "higher dimensions" ... then there is "nothing at all that lies beneath"... Grasp this concept... absolutely nothing at all beneath unless there are more dimensions. Now cast your minds to the electron... it is a singularity and without other dimensions there is only a single point containing all those startling hidden "properties"... and according to very sound theories of physics... nothing lies beneath. This is the greatest bit of Physics BS I have ever heard yet everyone takes this for granted and their heads nod up and down as if they think they understand this "gibberish". OK if you question it then we start to speak of infinite self energies and so on... then invoking the quantum as if this universal panacea can solve all problems. Sure you can just pull this answer out of the vacuum but I am telling all of you... it is not true.
What do we really know about the vacuum?... I think we know that it has space and it has volume and it actually does not contain charges. I do not think you can ask the vacuum to cough up charges just so that a electrically neutral photon with its electric and magnetic wave can propagate between the stars. So when we start finding that there are regions that "contains stuff" such as mass, charge, spin and a magnetic dipole which is just about everything that we can find in the universe (... if you can name something "fundamentally" else please tell me) and our measuring instruments can't show where that "stuff" lives in our space ... I just must think about higher dimensions.
Displacement charges also do not work if you have no "electrically neutral matter" to displace charges from. They are a fiction invented by our friends in the 19th Century to help understand something they were not able to understand at the time. I am sure we can do better now.
The so called Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is no "backdrop" to the Universe and it is not made of matter. It is the left over echo of the Big Bang (maybe?). So it is just a slight "warmth" to the intense cold of space ... it happens to be at microwave frequencies. So they are "photons" which have a relatively uniform distribution throughout space. They do not form a "frame of reference" for an "Aether". While there are "some" electrons in space they are "rare" as "Wandering Jews" without a home. The CMB is an afterglow and if you "look" far enough into space way back to the time of the Big Bang the source of all those now radically Doppler shifted photons (due to the Hubble Shift caused by "spreading" over 13 Billion Years or perhaps even more), is a single point source that has become too distorted by the massive intervening energetic processes over that period of time between first light and the cascade of all the particles into our Universe resulting in all our stars and galaxies. Every one of those photons has a source and in some respects they still "exist" as a primordial "image" of where everything originated from... that is it.... not a background but an optical origin for "everything". This "pattern" tells us what the "ultimate source" looked like. This is the exact analog of looking into the sky at night right now and seeing light originating from those point sources we have all wondered about that still burn in the sky tonight... the stars and galaxies. The CMB also have "sources", they are just a lot "darker" now, and they still contain a "picture", because they only interfere with themselves, of something we all want to "see" and understand... Our Universal Creation.
What do we really know about the vacuum?... I think we know that it has space and it has volume and it actually does not contain charges. I do not think you can ask the vacuum to cough up charges just so that a electrically neutral photon with its electric and magnetic wave can propagate between the stars. So when we start finding that there are regions that "contains stuff" such as mass, charge, spin and a magnetic dipole which is just about everything that we can find in the universe (... if you can name something "fundamentally" else please tell me) and our measuring instruments can't show where that "stuff" lives in our space ... I just must think about higher dimensions.
Displacement charges also do not work if you have no "electrically neutral matter" to displace charges from. They are a fiction invented by our friends in the 19th Century to help understand something they were not able to understand at the time. I am sure we can do better now.
The so called Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is no "backdrop" to the Universe and it is not made of matter. It is the left over echo of the Big Bang (maybe?). So it is just a slight "warmth" to the intense cold of space ... it happens to be at microwave frequencies. So they are "photons" which have a relatively uniform distribution throughout space. They do not form a "frame of reference" for an "Aether". While there are "some" electrons in space they are "rare" as "Wandering Jews" without a home. The CMB is an afterglow and if you "look" far enough into space way back to the time of the Big Bang the source of all those now radically Doppler shifted photons (due to the Hubble Shift caused by "spreading" over 13 Billion Years or perhaps even more), is a single point source that has become too distorted by the massive intervening energetic processes over that period of time between first light and the cascade of all the particles into our Universe resulting in all our stars and galaxies. Every one of those photons has a source and in some respects they still "exist" as a primordial "image" of where everything originated from... that is it.... not a background but an optical origin for "everything". This "pattern" tells us what the "ultimate source" looked like. This is the exact analog of looking into the sky at night right now and seeing light originating from those point sources we have all wondered about that still burn in the sky tonight... the stars and galaxies. The CMB also have "sources", they are just a lot "darker" now, and they still contain a "picture", because they only interfere with themselves, of something we all want to "see" and understand... Our Universal Creation.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Of course you realize what the implications of my proposal are....I know that you will cringe when I mention the word................... Aether! I think I am going to be "violently sick"... 
We really need to think wider than this concept. Relativity just does not have any preferred frames of reference... the Aether would be a preferred frame. Lets keep the Aether where it belongs as a "material substance" that fills all space that is supposedly needed to "conduct" light. In that context... it just does not exist and any other interpretations only encourage fringe beliefs that do not measure up (literally). I think charge will eventually become a similar phenomena and we will need to consider "electromagnetic prisons" made from "singularities"... the electrons. I think Einstein is on track and correctly interprets what is happening in this Universe. I think "charge" in the context of particles are as fictitious as the Magnetic Monopole and are entirely related to the topological structure of a photon wave trapped in a higher dimensional bubble that is just beyond the reach of all energetic processes in a singular mapping where the circumference and the surface area of an enclosed volume is measured as "exactly" zero due to length contraction (or rotation) and time dilation.
I think space and time maps far beyond that "singular point" and its "difficulty" is due only to the inadequate way we plot space and time in three dimensions. This all comes back to Singular Optics as well but that is another story.
Cheers
PS: This is the "Balloon Clown Universe". The Balloon Clown at the children's party takes an inflated balloon and twist it. You end up with a parasitic "bubble" connected to the rest of the balloon by a "twist". The size of the "bubble" according to an inhabitant inside the main balloon is zero volume. This would surely be an underestimate? The "bubble" contains an unknown volume that the Balloon Clown knows from his perspective on the Universe that the interior "inhabitants" cannot see.
I think I am going to be "violently sick"... We really need to think wider than this concept. Relativity just does not have any preferred frames of reference... the Aether would be a preferred frame. Lets keep the Aether where it belongs as a "material substance" that fills all space that is supposedly needed to "conduct" light. In that context... it just does not exist and any other interpretations only encourage fringe beliefs that do not measure up (literally). I think charge will eventually become a similar phenomena and we will need to consider "electromagnetic prisons" made from "singularities"... the electrons. I think Einstein is on track and correctly interprets what is happening in this Universe. I think "charge" in the context of particles are as fictitious as the Magnetic Monopole and are entirely related to the topological structure of a photon wave trapped in a higher dimensional bubble that is just beyond the reach of all energetic processes in a singular mapping where the circumference and the surface area of an enclosed volume is measured as "exactly" zero due to length contraction (or rotation) and time dilation.I think space and time maps far beyond that "singular point" and its "difficulty" is due only to the inadequate way we plot space and time in three dimensions. This all comes back to Singular Optics as well but that is another story.
Cheers
PS: This is the "Balloon Clown Universe". The Balloon Clown at the children's party takes an inflated balloon and twist it. You end up with a parasitic "bubble" connected to the rest of the balloon by a "twist". The size of the "bubble" according to an inhabitant inside the main balloon is zero volume. This would surely be an underestimate? The "bubble" contains an unknown volume that the Balloon Clown knows from his perspective on the Universe that the interior "inhabitants" cannot see.
Hello C2, LL, et al.
Thanks C2 The hyperfine structures are also used in MRI now that I think about it.
Thanks C2 The hyperfine structures are also used in MRI now that I think about it.
Hello all
There are many types of coherence and each type can use different machines to measure them. In this forum topic we are discussing (for the most part) two types of coherence. They are spacial and temporal coherence.
The Young’s double-slit measures spacial coherence.
The Michelson interferometer and Kennedy-Thorndike experiment measure temporal coherence. By the very definition of temporal coherence these devices can not measure coherence (interference patterns) with a single photon pulse. They require a train of photon pulses (continuous wave) to generate an interference pattern. It is possible to get an interference pattern with the Michelson interferometer from a single photon pulse but the length of the light paths must be nearly the same.
LaserLight's wavelet, if I may, can be defined as an electromagnetic wave with a photon of energy. This is the smallest amount of energy an emitted electromagnetic wave can have and still be a wave. A wavelet obeys all the rules associated with wave mechanics.
There are many types of coherence and each type can use different machines to measure them. In this forum topic we are discussing (for the most part) two types of coherence. They are spacial and temporal coherence.
The Young’s double-slit measures spacial coherence.
The Michelson interferometer and Kennedy-Thorndike experiment measure temporal coherence. By the very definition of temporal coherence these devices can not measure coherence (interference patterns) with a single photon pulse. They require a train of photon pulses (continuous wave) to generate an interference pattern. It is possible to get an interference pattern with the Michelson interferometer from a single photon pulse but the length of the light paths must be nearly the same.
LaserLight's wavelet, if I may, can be defined as an electromagnetic wave with a photon of energy. This is the smallest amount of energy an emitted electromagnetic wave can have and still be a wave. A wavelet obeys all the rules associated with wave mechanics.
Hi Montec and All,
That was an excellent reply and right on the money! Good Show!
Regards,
LL
That was an excellent reply and right on the money! Good Show!
Regards,
LL
Hi Montec,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Interference results because of a timing shift relative to a fixed time reference start point. If there is no fixed time relative reference start point then there will be no interference, because the waves have no common fixed time reference point.
Just some things to think about.
Let's just imagine that there is a possibility that Laserlight was actually writing something sensible. Mostly the sort of start point we'd be thinking of would be 'atom emits photon'. Is it possible that before lasers the 'atom emits photon' process was generally pretty disorganised? IF there's some truth so far then it's possible nothing other than 'single photon interference' could ever have been observed until the invention of the laser. That would mean the DSE, the M-M and the K-T experiments are all effectively (inevitably) single photon experiments.
Just some things to think about.
Let's just imagine that there is a possibility that Laserlight was actually writing something sensible. Mostly the sort of start point we'd be thinking of would be 'atom emits photon'. Is it possible that before lasers the 'atom emits photon' process was generally pretty disorganised? IF there's some truth so far then it's possible nothing other than 'single photon interference' could ever have been observed until the invention of the laser. That would mean the DSE, the M-M and the K-T experiments are all effectively (inevitably) single photon experiments.
QUOTE (Montec+)
By the very definition of temporal coherence these devices can not measure coherence (interference patterns) with a single photon pulse. They require a train of photon pulses (continuous wave) to generate an interference pattern.
You have a definition of a photon as a pulse. Despite this would it be possible for you to look at the results of the classic DSE, (also M-M and K-T ) as though your definition of a photon might possibly be wrong? Is it possible that a photon does not fit your 'definition' of a photon and a photon is really the thing we see in the results of the single photon DSE, the M-M and the K-T ?
It is (of course) possible to define a photon to be a pulse .. but does that fit in with the experimental results?
Best wishes,
-C2.
You have a definition of a photon as a pulse. Despite this would it be possible for you to look at the results of the classic DSE, (also M-M and K-T ) as though your definition of a photon might possibly be wrong? Is it possible that a photon does not fit your 'definition' of a photon and a photon is really the thing we see in the results of the single photon DSE, the M-M and the K-T ?
It is (of course) possible to define a photon to be a pulse .. but does that fit in with the experimental results?
Best wishes,
-C2.
C2,
You are chastising me? LOL! I'm not the one questioning the speed of light that
has been proved over and over again, and is a fundamental constant. Get real!
The DSE requires a coherent light source. You still haven't addressed the question
that I asked about how your model explains the "single photon" interference
results that you are so fond of referencing. What causes single photons to
construct an interference pattern in the DSE using your model? Either your
model can predict a result or it isn't viable.
You are chastising me? LOL! I'm not the one questioning the speed of light that
has been proved over and over again, and is a fundamental constant. Get real!
The DSE requires a coherent light source. You still haven't addressed the question
that I asked about how your model explains the "single photon" interference
results that you are so fond of referencing. What causes single photons to
construct an interference pattern in the DSE using your model? Either your
model can predict a result or it isn't viable.
It is (of course) possible to define a photon to be a pulse .. but does that fit in with the experimental results?
Perfectly!
LL
QUOTE
Let's just imagine that there is a possibility that Laserlight was actually writing something sensible.
You are chastising me? LOL! I'm not the one questioning the speed of light that
has been proved over and over again, and is a fundamental constant. Get real!
The DSE requires a coherent light source. You still haven't addressed the question
that I asked about how your model explains the "single photon" interference
results that you are so fond of referencing. What causes single photons to
construct an interference pattern in the DSE using your model? Either your
model can predict a result or it isn't viable.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Let's just imagine that there is a possibility that Laserlight was actually writing something sensible. |
You are chastising me? LOL! I'm not the one questioning the speed of light that
has been proved over and over again, and is a fundamental constant. Get real!
The DSE requires a coherent light source. You still haven't addressed the question
that I asked about how your model explains the "single photon" interference
results that you are so fond of referencing. What causes single photons to
construct an interference pattern in the DSE using your model? Either your
model can predict a result or it isn't viable.
It is (of course) possible to define a photon to be a pulse .. but does that fit in with the experimental results?
Perfectly!
LL
C2,
Perhaps you didn't read the part about a SINGLE DIFFRACTED WAVEFRONT.
The main energy diffracted from a single aperture is centered on the slit. On the
DSE the main energy "pulse" is centered between the slits.
LL
QUOTE
QUOTE (Laserlight)
A single diffracted wavefront will display phase differences along the wavefront but will be centered on the aperture.
8/ When we look at the actual results of the DSE ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) we see several peaks.
A single diffracted wavefront will display phase differences along the wavefront but will be centered on the aperture.
8/ When we look at the actual results of the DSE ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) we see several peaks.
Perhaps you didn't read the part about a SINGLE DIFFRACTED WAVEFRONT.
The main energy diffracted from a single aperture is centered on the slit. On the
DSE the main energy "pulse" is centered between the slits.
LL
Hi GE,
Charge is a quality/quantitative relative measurement, not a substance.
Charge is a quality/quantitative relative measurement, not a substance.
Electrons are "point singularities" which seem to exhibit a magnetic dipole.
Magnetic dipole? A point cannot be a dipole? A dipole requires 2 points with
opposite charges. Why do you prefer a magnetic characteristic over an
electrical field charge characteristic? IMO, to form a magetic characteristic
there must be an alignment of poles, + and - to form a polarity relationship.
An electron has a charge gradient that is uniformly radiating from some
centerpoint. I think this charge gradient gets deformed/unbalanced in the presence
of other fields or charges. Unbalanced charges are always trying to equalize
themselves resulting in charge dislocation/movement, which could result in spin
and angular momentum.
I never said that it has charges...it has permittivity/dielectric constant
when compared to the charges/qualities of matter. Again it is an inherent quality,
not a substance. In order to have comparison of qualities there must be at least
2 points of reference, that is the essence of relativity.
A photon also has inherent qualities and is relative to itself, space, and time.
I never said that it has charges...it has permittivity/dielectric constant
when compared to the charges/qualities of matter. Again it is an inherent quality,
not a substance. In order to have comparison of qualities there must be at least
2 points of reference, that is the essence of relativity.
A photon also has inherent qualities and is relative to itself, space, and time.
Displacement charges also do not work if you have no "electrically neutral matter" to displace charges from. They are a fiction invented by our friends in the 19th Century to help understand something they were not able to understand at the time. I am sure we can do better now.
I think I agree with the last part of this, but the concept of having electrically
neutral matter to displace charges is a non sequitur. Charge displacement
occurs between relative charges, either opposite charges (attraction) or the same
polarity charge (repulsion). In the case of a photon, it constantly changes its
EM "polarity" and phasing relative to the space it is traveling in.
I never said the CMB was made of matter. It is an energy "plateau".
I think you are contradicting yourself here. If there is energy there is "something"
filling space that can be, and has been, measured and quantified. So in my
mind that represents a background/backdrop. You can call it an echo, but in any
case it is tangible and "real" as it exhibits a pattern and other measureable
qualities. Saying it isn't so by providing examples of why it is, is not a credible
argument.
I never said the CMB was made of matter. It is an energy "plateau".
I think you are contradicting yourself here. If there is energy there is "something"
filling space that can be, and has been, measured and quantified. So in my
mind that represents a background/backdrop. You can call it an echo, but in any
case it is tangible and "real" as it exhibits a pattern and other measureable
qualities. Saying it isn't so by providing examples of why it is, is not a credible
argument.
I think Einstein is on track and correctly interprets what is happening in this Universe. I think "charge" in the context of particles are as fictitious as the Magnetic Monopole and are entirely related to the topological structure of a photon wave trapped in a higher dimensional bubble that is just beyond the reach of all energetic processes in a singular mapping where the circumference and the surface area of an enclosed volume is measured as "exactly" zero due to length contraction (or rotation) and time dilation
When you come up with a workable alternative that can be applied to every
applied science that currently uses this foundation....let us know.
In the meantime I will stay open to the idea of extra/intra dimensionality as you
are correct, in that there are ambiguities and inconsistencies in the current models
that fail to rationally explain the phenomena of atomic/quantum physics.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
I question the idea that there is any "substance" to "charge".
Charge is a quality/quantitative relative measurement, not a substance.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I question the idea that there is any "substance" to "charge". |
Charge is a quality/quantitative relative measurement, not a substance.
Electrons are "point singularities" which seem to exhibit a magnetic dipole.
Magnetic dipole? A point cannot be a dipole? A dipole requires 2 points with
opposite charges. Why do you prefer a magnetic characteristic over an
electrical field charge characteristic? IMO, to form a magetic characteristic
there must be an alignment of poles, + and - to form a polarity relationship.
An electron has a charge gradient that is uniformly radiating from some
centerpoint. I think this charge gradient gets deformed/unbalanced in the presence
of other fields or charges. Unbalanced charges are always trying to equalize
themselves resulting in charge dislocation/movement, which could result in spin
and angular momentum.
QUOTE
What do we really know about the vacuum?... I think we know that it has space and it has volume and it actually does not contain charges. I do not think you can ask the vacuum to cough up charges just so that a electrically neutral photon with its electric and magnetic wave can propagate between the stars.
I never said that it has charges...it has permittivity/dielectric constant
when compared to the charges/qualities of matter. Again it is an inherent quality,
not a substance. In order to have comparison of qualities there must be at least
2 points of reference, that is the essence of relativity.
A photon also has inherent qualities and is relative to itself, space, and time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What do we really know about the vacuum?... I think we know that it has space and it has volume and it actually does not contain charges. I do not think you can ask the vacuum to cough up charges just so that a electrically neutral photon with its electric and magnetic wave can propagate between the stars. |
I never said that it has charges...it has permittivity/dielectric constant
when compared to the charges/qualities of matter. Again it is an inherent quality,
not a substance. In order to have comparison of qualities there must be at least
2 points of reference, that is the essence of relativity.
A photon also has inherent qualities and is relative to itself, space, and time.
Displacement charges also do not work if you have no "electrically neutral matter" to displace charges from. They are a fiction invented by our friends in the 19th Century to help understand something they were not able to understand at the time. I am sure we can do better now.
I think I agree with the last part of this, but the concept of having electrically
neutral matter to displace charges is a non sequitur. Charge displacement
occurs between relative charges, either opposite charges (attraction) or the same
polarity charge (repulsion). In the case of a photon, it constantly changes its
EM "polarity" and phasing relative to the space it is traveling in.
QUOTE
The so called Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is no "backdrop" to the Universe and it is not made of matter. It is the left over echo of the Big Bang (maybe?). So it is just a slight "warmth" to the intense cold of space ... it happens to be at microwave frequencies. So they are "photons" which have a relatively uniform distribution throughout space. They do not form a "frame of reference" for an "Aether".
I never said the CMB was made of matter. It is an energy "plateau".
I think you are contradicting yourself here. If there is energy there is "something"
filling space that can be, and has been, measured and quantified. So in my
mind that represents a background/backdrop. You can call it an echo, but in any
case it is tangible and "real" as it exhibits a pattern and other measureable
qualities. Saying it isn't so by providing examples of why it is, is not a credible
argument.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The so called Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is no "backdrop" to the Universe and it is not made of matter. It is the left over echo of the Big Bang (maybe?). So it is just a slight "warmth" to the intense cold of space ... it happens to be at microwave frequencies. So they are "photons" which have a relatively uniform distribution throughout space. They do not form a "frame of reference" for an "Aether". |
I never said the CMB was made of matter. It is an energy "plateau".
I think you are contradicting yourself here. If there is energy there is "something"
filling space that can be, and has been, measured and quantified. So in my
mind that represents a background/backdrop. You can call it an echo, but in any
case it is tangible and "real" as it exhibits a pattern and other measureable
qualities. Saying it isn't so by providing examples of why it is, is not a credible
argument.
I think Einstein is on track and correctly interprets what is happening in this Universe. I think "charge" in the context of particles are as fictitious as the Magnetic Monopole and are entirely related to the topological structure of a photon wave trapped in a higher dimensional bubble that is just beyond the reach of all energetic processes in a singular mapping where the circumference and the surface area of an enclosed volume is measured as "exactly" zero due to length contraction (or rotation) and time dilation
When you come up with a workable alternative that can be applied to every
applied science that currently uses this foundation....let us know.
In the meantime I will stay open to the idea of extra/intra dimensionality as you
are correct, in that there are ambiguities and inconsistencies in the current models
that fail to rationally explain the phenomena of atomic/quantum physics.
Regards,
LL
Hello Confused2, LL, et al.
The emission of a photons of energy from any source is usually a steady state function of finite duration. If the energy input into the source does not change and the configuration of the source does not change then the output or emission from the source will not change. The period between wavelet emission and frequency of the wavelet is based on the harmonic oscillator configuration of the source. This applies to the entire EM spectrum.
Spectrum filters and pinholes can generate nearly coherent monochromatic light that is suitable to use in experiments to measure coherence. Lasers just allow the experimental results to be measured better. By better I mean with faster and more accurate results.
The equation for the photon is E=hf. This gives no clue on is shape, how it move from one location to another or how it maintains it shape and intensity (energy per unit area). It only defines that the energy contained in the photon is related to its frequency. It is generally accepted that when the word "photon" is mentioned then we are talking about electromagnetic radiation. EM radiation is a wave phenomena and as such obeys wave mechanics for transverse waves. This explains how light moves from one location to another and how its intensity can change over time.
Given that photon relates to the energy of a wave that is sufficient to overcome some work function at emission and a wave can have energy density changes over time then at absorption (another work function here) there may not be enough energy (local intensity) contained at that point in the wave to be detected. This is where constructive wave interference can come into play as this will increase the total intensity available. It is also possible to concentrate the intensity by making the apparent local area larger with optics or by summing the intensity over time as in photograph emulsions. (Notice the correlation with spatial and temporal coherence.)
The emission of a photons of energy from any source is usually a steady state function of finite duration. If the energy input into the source does not change and the configuration of the source does not change then the output or emission from the source will not change. The period between wavelet emission and frequency of the wavelet is based on the harmonic oscillator configuration of the source. This applies to the entire EM spectrum.
Spectrum filters and pinholes can generate nearly coherent monochromatic light that is suitable to use in experiments to measure coherence. Lasers just allow the experimental results to be measured better. By better I mean with faster and more accurate results.
The equation for the photon is E=hf. This gives no clue on is shape, how it move from one location to another or how it maintains it shape and intensity (energy per unit area). It only defines that the energy contained in the photon is related to its frequency. It is generally accepted that when the word "photon" is mentioned then we are talking about electromagnetic radiation. EM radiation is a wave phenomena and as such obeys wave mechanics for transverse waves. This explains how light moves from one location to another and how its intensity can change over time.
Given that photon relates to the energy of a wave that is sufficient to overcome some work function at emission and a wave can have energy density changes over time then at absorption (another work function here) there may not be enough energy (local intensity) contained at that point in the wave to be detected. This is where constructive wave interference can come into play as this will increase the total intensity available. It is also possible to concentrate the intensity by making the apparent local area larger with optics or by summing the intensity over time as in photograph emulsions. (Notice the correlation with spatial and temporal coherence.)
Looking at http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
QUOTE (Montec+)
The emission of a photons of energy from any source is usually a steady state function of finite duration.
QUOTE (Teachspin+)
As anyone who has ever used a light dimmer can attest, decreasing the light output of a given incandescent bulb shifts the spectrum toward the longer, red wavelengths. By placing a narrow band green filter in front of a standard light bulb, students use this "obvious" phenomenon to create a source of single photons.
A/ Let's assume a photon is emitted from somewhere on the bulb filament at t0, x0,y0.
B/ A narrow band filter is used as an attenuator .. I don't think it needs to have any other function.
C/ It gets through the green filter .. you can add in an extra step if you feel this might affect the result.
D/ Meets a single slit at t1,x1,y0
E/ Path diverges (Huygens)
F/ Photon now meets the pair of slits.. keeping it symmetrical for simplicity..
G/ Slit A at t2,x2,y2 and slit B at t2',x2,-y2
H/ We now look at a sample point on the screen .. say x3,y3
I/ The length of path from slit A (x2,y2) to (x3,y3) is given by
I1/ sqrt( (x3-x2)^2 + (y3-y2)^2 )
The length of path from slit B (x2',y2') to (x3,y3) is given by
I2/ sqrt( (x3-x2')^2 + (y3+y2')^2 )
What follows is just the derivation of the DSE equation using Pythagoras instead of angles
J/ Letting wavelength be λ and N is a positive or negative integer
We get bright bits where
J1/ sqrt( (x3-x2)^2 + (y3-y2)^2 ) - sqrt( (x3-x2)^2 + (y3+y2)^2 ) = N λ
and dark bits where
J2/ sqrt( (x3-x2)^2 + (Y-y2)^2 ) - sqrt( (x3-x2)^2 + (y3+y2)^2 ) = 1/2 N λ
If we say (x3-x2) = D (the distance to the screen) and y2 = t (HALF the distance between the slits) and y3=Y ... to make it prettier
sqrt(D^2 + (Y-t)^2) - sqrt(D^2 + (Y+t)^2) = λ
D(( sqrt(( 1 + ((Y-t)/D)^2) - sqrt(1 + ((Y+t)/D)^2) )) = λ
or
(( sqrt(1 + ((Y-t)/D)^2) - sqrt(1 + ((Y+t)/D)^2) )) = λ /D
Using the approximation sqrt(1+x)= 1 + x/2 + .. on the LHS
~ = 1 + ((Y-t)/D)^2)/2 - 1 - ((Y+t)/D)^2)/2)
= ((Y-t)/D)^2)/2 - ((Y+t)/D)^2)/2
= ((Y-t)^2 -(Y+t)^2)/(2D^2)
= (Y^2 - 2Y.t + t^2 - (Y^2 + 2Y.t + t^2))/(2D^2)
= -4Y.t/(2D^2) = λ/ D
hence - Y = 1/2 D λ/ t
if we substitute s =2t
we get
Y = D λ /s
Or
λ = s Y /(D )
Which is the DSE equation! http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
K/ We could rather tediously go further with our path length differences if anyone wants to but (to me) I'm happy with the result so far.
L/ We seem have bright bits where the path difference is N λ .
M/ If a photon traveled at 'c' then the difference between the two paths (in time) would be N λ / c . In the results here ( edit http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml ) we only have a few bright bits .. so the observed time difference between paths (assuming 'c' ) is only (say) 3 λ/c . In the Kennedy-Thorndike we guess (without paying for the paper) that the path difference is at least one metre .. this would seem to give us a time difference between paths of 1/c .. about 3ns. Given that the photon is only detected once this leaves us to wonder whether the speed of light is 'the result' + 3ns or -3ns or something else. On an astronomical scale it would seem the difference in time taken to travel the alternative paths at 'c' can be 'astronomical'. (Reference already given .. to busy to find it now)
N/ So far (hopefully) we are in agreement that a photon can be at least as wide as the slits in the example used (0.5mm) and spread over anything from 3ns to ?.
M/ If we had replaced the first slit with a hologram of the Taj Mahal I suspect the DSE would have produced an interference picture of an interference picture .. I suspect the first slit is required to turn the actual source into a point source as well as spreading the photon evenly over the area which includes the two slits.
O/ So far as I am aware .. Good Elf and Montec are the only two people who have ever suggested that a photon is detected with any energy other than that which it was emitted with. The QM equivalent of 'loss of intensity' seems to be 'loss of probability of detection' .. this seems to satisfy the inverse square law and everything else.
Best wishes,
-C2.
A/ Let's assume a photon is emitted from somewhere on the bulb filament at t0, x0,y0.
B/ A narrow band filter is used as an attenuator .. I don't think it needs to have any other function.
C/ It gets through the green filter .. you can add in an extra step if you feel this might affect the result.
D/ Meets a single slit at t1,x1,y0
E/ Path diverges (Huygens)
F/ Photon now meets the pair of slits.. keeping it symmetrical for simplicity..
G/ Slit A at t2,x2,y2 and slit B at t2',x2,-y2
H/ We now look at a sample point on the screen .. say x3,y3
I/ The length of path from slit A (x2,y2) to (x3,y3) is given by
I1/ sqrt( (x3-x2)^2 + (y3-y2)^2 )
The length of path from slit B (x2',y2') to (x3,y3) is given by
I2/ sqrt( (x3-x2')^2 + (y3+y2')^2 )
What follows is just the derivation of the DSE equation using Pythagoras instead of angles
J/ Letting wavelength be λ and N is a positive or negative integer
We get bright bits where
J1/ sqrt( (x3-x2)^2 + (y3-y2)^2 ) - sqrt( (x3-x2)^2 + (y3+y2)^2 ) = N λ
and dark bits where
J2/ sqrt( (x3-x2)^2 + (Y-y2)^2 ) - sqrt( (x3-x2)^2 + (y3+y2)^2 ) = 1/2 N λ
If we say (x3-x2) = D (the distance to the screen) and y2 = t (HALF the distance between the slits) and y3=Y ... to make it prettier
sqrt(D^2 + (Y-t)^2) - sqrt(D^2 + (Y+t)^2) = λ
D(( sqrt(( 1 + ((Y-t)/D)^2) - sqrt(1 + ((Y+t)/D)^2) )) = λ
or
(( sqrt(1 + ((Y-t)/D)^2) - sqrt(1 + ((Y+t)/D)^2) )) = λ /D
Using the approximation sqrt(1+x)= 1 + x/2 + .. on the LHS
~ = 1 + ((Y-t)/D)^2)/2 - 1 - ((Y+t)/D)^2)/2)
= ((Y-t)/D)^2)/2 - ((Y+t)/D)^2)/2
= ((Y-t)^2 -(Y+t)^2)/(2D^2)
= (Y^2 - 2Y.t + t^2 - (Y^2 + 2Y.t + t^2))/(2D^2)
= -4Y.t/(2D^2) = λ/ D
hence - Y = 1/2 D λ/ t
if we substitute s =2t
we get
Y = D λ /s
Or
λ = s Y /(D )
Which is the DSE equation! http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
K/ We could rather tediously go further with our path length differences if anyone wants to but (to me) I'm happy with the result so far.
L/ We seem have bright bits where the path difference is N λ .
M/ If a photon traveled at 'c' then the difference between the two paths (in time) would be N λ / c . In the results here ( edit http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml ) we only have a few bright bits .. so the observed time difference between paths (assuming 'c' ) is only (say) 3 λ/c . In the Kennedy-Thorndike we guess (without paying for the paper) that the path difference is at least one metre .. this would seem to give us a time difference between paths of 1/c .. about 3ns. Given that the photon is only detected once this leaves us to wonder whether the speed of light is 'the result' + 3ns or -3ns or something else. On an astronomical scale it would seem the difference in time taken to travel the alternative paths at 'c' can be 'astronomical'. (Reference already given .. to busy to find it now)
N/ So far (hopefully) we are in agreement that a photon can be at least as wide as the slits in the example used (0.5mm) and spread over anything from 3ns to ?.
M/ If we had replaced the first slit with a hologram of the Taj Mahal I suspect the DSE would have produced an interference picture of an interference picture .. I suspect the first slit is required to turn the actual source into a point source as well as spreading the photon evenly over the area which includes the two slits.
O/ So far as I am aware .. Good Elf and Montec are the only two people who have ever suggested that a photon is detected with any energy other than that which it was emitted with. The QM equivalent of 'loss of intensity' seems to be 'loss of probability of detection' .. this seems to satisfy the inverse square law and everything else.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi all,
I'm behind quite a bit, in trying to keep up with questions to me, which are now buried a few pages back.
LL -
Now, I'm not "the great mathematician" either, so I can not definitively answer the infinite solution set question. I can say (fairly sure) that an irrational number is not an infinite number, per se. Just the quantity to the left of the decimal is what qualifies that. I am not a fan of "infinity" being used to describe something physically real; it means "there is no end", so at least in terms of MEASURING something, we can't use it with certainty. Infinite does have special place in the "big picture". I still can not see WHY you brought it up?
The fact is, that in the "triangle" relationship of c , f , and w , one of them will ALWAYS be an irrational (and it's not c ). That plays heavily in my approach. They ( f & w ) do not have "mathematical symmetry", but since they do have the inverse relationship, I looked for (and found) a "new" kind of mathematical symmetry, using Pythagoras principles, and the irrational 12th root of 2 (of which Pythagoreans were "afraid of") to approximate the set of ratios that can produce resonance. In my model, c is an irrational too, still being 299,792,458. .., and is produced as a natural consequence of symmtrically measuring vibration.
You can go to this thread, if you want to see more of my "set" idea. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=28953
It is not critical to the beat-frequency superposition/resonance ideas that I have been posting here, but does support it. The "matrix" is what really pushed the idea (for me) that there must be a mathematical equation, to make the musical chord, and define resonance better than has been done. I wasn't sure if I had said anything specific in this thread, but I know that C2 and GE have at least "heard" it (and probably don't want to hear it again! )
Two other points. (LL) Do you agree with me, in that we still have electrons present under "vacuum" conditions? This is a big deal, so I would like an answer, so it can be considered "dealt with".
The other thing is for everyone. NO ONE commented on the photos of glories. No screen, 2 very large slits (the curvature of the Earth, left and right of the "tooth", or shadow), light and dark bands (in color), a rainbow without green. A connection between Glories, Airy disks, and Arago spots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arago_spot), and don't forget Vissers' 3 slits in equilateral triangle, as well as "semi-coherent" light creating this pattern.
ciao,
T.Roc
I'm behind quite a bit, in trying to keep up with questions to me, which are now buried a few pages back.
LL -
QUOTE
dividing c, by an irrational number Ö2, shouldn't ever give a rational solution. Doesn't that represent an infinite solution set?
Now, I'm not "the great mathematician" either, so I can not definitively answer the infinite solution set question. I can say (fairly sure) that an irrational number is not an infinite number, per se. Just the quantity to the left of the decimal is what qualifies that. I am not a fan of "infinity" being used to describe something physically real; it means "there is no end", so at least in terms of MEASURING something, we can't use it with certainty. Infinite does have special place in the "big picture". I still can not see WHY you brought it up?
The fact is, that in the "triangle" relationship of c , f , and w , one of them will ALWAYS be an irrational (and it's not c ). That plays heavily in my approach. They ( f & w ) do not have "mathematical symmetry", but since they do have the inverse relationship, I looked for (and found) a "new" kind of mathematical symmetry, using Pythagoras principles, and the irrational 12th root of 2 (of which Pythagoreans were "afraid of") to approximate the set of ratios that can produce resonance. In my model, c is an irrational too, still being 299,792,458. .., and is produced as a natural consequence of symmtrically measuring vibration.
You can go to this thread, if you want to see more of my "set" idea. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=28953
It is not critical to the beat-frequency superposition/resonance ideas that I have been posting here, but does support it. The "matrix" is what really pushed the idea (for me) that there must be a mathematical equation, to make the musical chord, and define resonance better than has been done. I wasn't sure if I had said anything specific in this thread, but I know that C2 and GE have at least "heard" it (and probably don't want to hear it again!
)Two other points. (LL) Do you agree with me, in that we still have electrons present under "vacuum" conditions? This is a big deal, so I would like an answer, so it can be considered "dealt with".
The other thing is for everyone. NO ONE commented on the photos of glories. No screen, 2 very large slits (the curvature of the Earth, left and right of the "tooth", or shadow), light and dark bands (in color), a rainbow without green. A connection between Glories, Airy disks, and Arago spots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arago_spot), and don't forget Vissers' 3 slits in equilateral triangle, as well as "semi-coherent" light creating this pattern.
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
I didn't answer because your question was ambiguous.
If you mean electrons on the sidewalls of the slits and screen...absolutely.
If you mean electrons in the cavity open areas...No, I don't agree.
Which is it?
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
Two other points. (LL) Do you agree with me, in that we still have electrons present under "vacuum" conditions? This is a big deal, so I would like an answer, so it can be considered "dealt with".
I didn't answer because your question was ambiguous.
If you mean electrons on the sidewalls of the slits and screen...absolutely.
If you mean electrons in the cavity open areas...No, I don't agree.
Which is it?
Regards,
LL
Hi LL,
Bingo!
Of course, if we include the walls, etc., we have electrons, but I am talking about the gases in the "box" of the DSE, from our atmosphere.
You talked about the mean free path being greatly increased, by compressing the molecules. That does not imply that the molecules (& electrons) were removed. Do you have additional information?
I will add this question: Is any container of gas considered to be "in vacuum"? I think that that is true, but I'm not positive. I realize that there is a big difference in the pressure, and the entropy of the system, but is that true in general?
ciao,
T.Roc
PS. I should also ask if the Maxwell velocity distribution method will significantly change because we have 10 different "particles" involved?
QUOTE
If you mean electrons in the cavity open areas...No, I don't agree.
Bingo!
Of course, if we include the walls, etc., we have electrons, but I am talking about the gases in the "box" of the DSE, from our atmosphere.
You talked about the mean free path being greatly increased, by compressing the molecules. That does not imply that the molecules (& electrons) were removed. Do you have additional information?
I will add this question: Is any container of gas considered to be "in vacuum"? I think that that is true, but I'm not positive. I realize that there is a big difference in the pressure, and the entropy of the system, but is that true in general?
ciao,
T.Roc
PS. I should also ask if the Maxwell velocity distribution method will significantly change because we have 10 different "particles" involved?
Hi TRoc,
You have this confused....when a chamber goes under vacuum the gas molecules
spread apart, increasing the distance between them according to the level of vacuum attained. The further apart the gas molecules, the greater the mean
free path (the less the chance of gas molcules colliding). The extremely low
vacuum results are typically read on an ion gauge which is basically a heated
filament in close proximity to a detection wire. They are close to "space like"
vacuum levels. For all intents and purposes there are no free electrons inside
the chamber.
We relate vacuum as compared to sea level atmospheric conditions at 14.7 psi
(1013.25 millibarr) pressure or 760 Torr. Any pressure lower than this is under some vacuum level and represents a decreased energy level within the
container since reduced pressure decreases molecular collisions.
You have this confused....when a chamber goes under vacuum the gas molecules
spread apart, increasing the distance between them according to the level of vacuum attained. The further apart the gas molecules, the greater the mean
free path (the less the chance of gas molcules colliding). The extremely low
vacuum results are typically read on an ion gauge which is basically a heated
filament in close proximity to a detection wire. They are close to "space like"
vacuum levels. For all intents and purposes there are no free electrons inside
the chamber.
We relate vacuum as compared to sea level atmospheric conditions at 14.7 psi
(1013.25 millibarr) pressure or 760 Torr. Any pressure lower than this is under some vacuum level and represents a decreased energy level within the
container since reduced pressure decreases molecular collisions.
PS. I should also ask if the Maxwell velocity distribution method will significantly change because we have 10 different "particles" involved?
Can you further explain what you mean by this question?
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
You talked about the mean free path being greatly increased, by compressing the molecules. That does not imply that the molecules (& electrons) were removed. Do you have additional information?
I will add this question: Is any container of gas considered to be "in vacuum"? I think that that is true, but I'm not positive. I realize that there is a big difference in the pressure, and the entropy of the system, but is that true in general?
I will add this question: Is any container of gas considered to be "in vacuum"? I think that that is true, but I'm not positive. I realize that there is a big difference in the pressure, and the entropy of the system, but is that true in general?
You have this confused....when a chamber goes under vacuum the gas molecules
spread apart, increasing the distance between them according to the level of vacuum attained. The further apart the gas molecules, the greater the mean
free path (the less the chance of gas molcules colliding). The extremely low
vacuum results are typically read on an ion gauge which is basically a heated
filament in close proximity to a detection wire. They are close to "space like"
vacuum levels. For all intents and purposes there are no free electrons inside
the chamber.
We relate vacuum as compared to sea level atmospheric conditions at 14.7 psi
(1013.25 millibarr) pressure or 760 Torr. Any pressure lower than this is under some vacuum level and represents a decreased energy level within the
container since reduced pressure decreases molecular collisions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You talked about the mean free path being greatly increased, by compressing the molecules. That does not imply that the molecules (& electrons) were removed. Do you have additional information? I will add this question: Is any container of gas considered to be "in vacuum"? I think that that is true, but I'm not positive. I realize that there is a big difference in the pressure, and the entropy of the system, but is that true in general? |
You have this confused....when a chamber goes under vacuum the gas molecules
spread apart, increasing the distance between them according to the level of vacuum attained. The further apart the gas molecules, the greater the mean
free path (the less the chance of gas molcules colliding). The extremely low
vacuum results are typically read on an ion gauge which is basically a heated
filament in close proximity to a detection wire. They are close to "space like"
vacuum levels. For all intents and purposes there are no free electrons inside
the chamber.
We relate vacuum as compared to sea level atmospheric conditions at 14.7 psi
(1013.25 millibarr) pressure or 760 Torr. Any pressure lower than this is under some vacuum level and represents a decreased energy level within the
container since reduced pressure decreases molecular collisions.
PS. I should also ask if the Maxwell velocity distribution method will significantly change because we have 10 different "particles" involved?
Can you further explain what you mean by this question?
Regards,
LL
Hi LL,
My mistake in terminology.. "compressing"; should have said "decrease the gaseous pressure density", as you told me earlier.
Bear with me, this is like the child who learns there is no Santa Claus. Questions will inevitably follow, like "where do the presents come from", or "why does the guy at the mall dress up like this "make-believe" saint?
Again, what I've read, and what I'm hearing you say is, that "in time" between collisions, the equivalent is 5km, or whatever it is. We know that this is not "physically" true; the electrons are not removed, and transported away by truck.
Reducing the # of collisions between gas molecules is not the same as taking the molecules "out of the picture". When all the textbooks say "there is no such thing as a real vacuum", this (to me) is a "red flag". Something must give here. We have no way of knowing (by this method) of how many molecules are in the box.
1859: Maxwell develops the kinetic theory of gases. In a mole of gas, we've got 6 x 10^23 molecules, far too many to "measure" independent velocities. When Boltzmann put the finishing touch on the statistical method, he added the "theorem of equipartition of energy". So, to Maxwell's' measurements of probable velocity distribution, or "range of deviation from the average", Boltzmann added that the energy of the system will be distributed equally among all the degrees of freedom, at thermal equilibrium. As far as I know, these methods were used with like collections of gas. Again, I'm not positive, but I think that "statistical averages" need to be "of like entities".
This really is not too important, but you had asked why I asked about the velocity distribution. I wasn't sure about how that played into the way you measure (or verify) IF there are less molecules in the chamber, or just "less collisions" between the molecules that are still there.
These varied molecules have different masses/energies, so there is entropy going on, until equilibrium. The equipartition then, while being divided equally among the degrees of freedom, would NOT be divided equally among the 10 molecules likely present (en masse) in the chamber.
N2, O2, H2O, Ar, CO2, Ne, He, CH4, Kr, H2
But really, this just boils down to one easy question:
Does "vacuum" mean "nothing" is in there, or just that the usual process is not able to trigger our measuring device ("a heated filament in close proximity to a detection wire")?
You did say in your last post that there were no free electrons. Again, I am talking about bound electrons; more specifically the molecules of gas.
Just one more "go around", and if no direct answer is given, and no DSE in vacuum is referenced, I am going to drop this topic, because I feel it will detract from the progress of this thread.
regards,
T.Roc
My mistake in terminology.. "compressing"; should have said "decrease the gaseous pressure density", as you told me earlier.
Bear with me, this is like the child who learns there is no Santa Claus. Questions will inevitably follow, like "where do the presents come from", or "why does the guy at the mall dress up like this "make-believe" saint?
Again, what I've read, and what I'm hearing you say is, that "in time" between collisions, the equivalent is 5km, or whatever it is. We know that this is not "physically" true; the electrons are not removed, and transported away by truck.
Reducing the # of collisions between gas molecules is not the same as taking the molecules "out of the picture". When all the textbooks say "there is no such thing as a real vacuum", this (to me) is a "red flag". Something must give here. We have no way of knowing (by this method) of how many molecules are in the box.
1859: Maxwell develops the kinetic theory of gases. In a mole of gas, we've got 6 x 10^23 molecules, far too many to "measure" independent velocities. When Boltzmann put the finishing touch on the statistical method, he added the "theorem of equipartition of energy". So, to Maxwell's' measurements of probable velocity distribution, or "range of deviation from the average", Boltzmann added that the energy of the system will be distributed equally among all the degrees of freedom, at thermal equilibrium. As far as I know, these methods were used with like collections of gas. Again, I'm not positive, but I think that "statistical averages" need to be "of like entities".
This really is not too important, but you had asked why I asked about the velocity distribution. I wasn't sure about how that played into the way you measure (or verify) IF there are less molecules in the chamber, or just "less collisions" between the molecules that are still there.
These varied molecules have different masses/energies, so there is entropy going on, until equilibrium. The equipartition then, while being divided equally among the degrees of freedom, would NOT be divided equally among the 10 molecules likely present (en masse) in the chamber.
N2, O2, H2O, Ar, CO2, Ne, He, CH4, Kr, H2
But really, this just boils down to one easy question:
Does "vacuum" mean "nothing" is in there, or just that the usual process is not able to trigger our measuring device ("a heated filament in close proximity to a detection wire")?
You did say in your last post that there were no free electrons. Again, I am talking about bound electrons; more specifically the molecules of gas.
Just one more "go around", and if no direct answer is given, and no DSE in vacuum is referenced, I am going to drop this topic, because I feel it will detract from the progress of this thread.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
For all intents and purposes, consider almost nothing "physical" in the chamber.
Herein is the rub, there is vacuum potential energy in the chamber relative
to the atmosphere outside the chamber, and the vacuum is a good insulator.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
Does "vacuum" mean "nothing" is in there, or just that the usual process is not able to trigger our measuring device ("a heated filament in close proximity to a detection wire")?
You did say in your last post that there were no free electrons. Again, I am talking about bound electrons; more specifically the molecules of gas.
You did say in your last post that there were no free electrons. Again, I am talking about bound electrons; more specifically the molecules of gas.
For all intents and purposes, consider almost nothing "physical" in the chamber.
Herein is the rub, there is vacuum potential energy in the chamber relative
to the atmosphere outside the chamber, and the vacuum is a good insulator.
Regards,
LL
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
I question the idea that there is any "substance" to "charge".
Charge is a quality/quantitative relative measurement, not a substance.
I think I said that. 
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Electrons are "point singularities" which seem to exhibit a magnetic dipole.
Magnetic dipole? A point cannot be a dipole?
Not a debatable question... I am quoting an experimental fact, I said that in the post, electrons do have magnetic dipoles and up to the highest accelerator energies, has no "charge core" or "measurable size". You should be "getting it" by now. You should be asking the right questions and not ignoring my statements
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
An electron has a charge gradient that is uniformly radiating from some centerpoint. I think this charge gradient gets deformed/unbalanced in the presence of other fields or charges. Unbalanced charges are always trying to equalize themselves resulting in charge dislocation/movement, which could result in spin and angular momentum.
There are no measurable charge "gradients" in electrons, only "field gradients". I have never seen electric charges "neutralize" other than in matter anti-matter reactions then "everything" is "neutralized".
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I never said that it has charges...it has permittivity/dielectric constant when compared to the charges/qualities of matter.
You are having a "logical even bet both ways" when you compare it with your other statement in your post. Either charges have "gradients" as you have stated and is some amorphous blob of "charged something" or they are not. We know that photons exhibit fluctuations in field gradients of the electric and magnetic field which in other circumstances are the result of charges or "displacement charges". I don't believe in truly "fundamental" point charges or displacement charges. Displacement charges are simply the displacement of a fictitious charge center from a position of neutral equilibrium in otherwise electrically neutral "material". Electrical neutrality means that there are equal numbers of oppositely charged centers or particles which are in a dynamic equilibrium. For instance an "electrically neutral" atom does not mean there are no charges there, it just means that there are equal numbers of opposite charges and that the nett charge is zero. You must have missed a complete science along the way that refers to electrical neutrality. I would admit that it is possible to "displace" centers of so called charge but it is the "primitive notion" of charge itself that I disagree with.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I never said the CMB was made of matter.
What you said was that it formed a kind of inertial frame of reference. Remember you said...
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Of course you realize what the implications of my proposal are....I know that you will cringe when I mention the word................... Aether!
By the original definition of the Aether it was an inertial frame that could exist in space or be dragged along by the gravity field of a planet that light would require to propagate through. It is a "universal frame of reference". That is why I "cringed". It may be that you really harbor some of these heresies and this will mean that without a common experimental basis we are unable to proceed.
Good Elf
One of these links/papers should help explain your point of view.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getd...c-pub-12327.pdf
Signatures of Spherical Compactification at the LHC
Abstract
TeV-scale extra dimensions may play an important role in electroweak or supersymmetry breaking.
We examine the phenomenology of such dimensions, compactified on a sphere Sn, n ≥ 2, and show that they possess distinct features and signatures.
http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm
MATTER IS MADE OF WAVES
" The material Universe is purely made out of Aether "
jal
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
When you come up with a workable alternative that can be applied to every applied science that currently uses this foundation....let us know.
I doubt if I could at this rate. We need to use the same language first. It seems that I can't communicate a single concept to you at the moment. I appear to be "pitching way over your head". I apologize for that but maybe we are both becoming a bit "overwrought" and losing patience again. I am not making any headway here.
Cheers
Cheers
Good Elf
One of these links/papers should help explain your point of view.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getd...c-pub-12327.pdf
Signatures of Spherical Compactification at the LHC
Abstract
TeV-scale extra dimensions may play an important role in electroweak or supersymmetry breaking.
We examine the phenomenology of such dimensions, compactified on a sphere Sn, n ≥ 2, and show that they possess distinct features and signatures.
http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm
MATTER IS MADE OF WAVES
" The material Universe is purely made out of Aether "
jal
Hi all,
I guess LL and I will have to agree to disagree. For his intents and purposes, "consider almost nothing "physical" in the chamber"; not for mine, though. It does not directly affect the issue at hand anyway.
Motion detectors placed in various locations in a parking garage, according to the "vacuum" logic, will GUARANTEE that there are no cars in the garage, as long as the motion detectors give a "null" signal.
I'll just stick to the topic of "photon interference".
A light bulb, having a tungsten filament, and being in "VACUUM" (never mind that its' back-filled with argon gas) gives off "WHITE LIGHT". This is the MANTRA of Science.
Here is the constant emission spectrum of Tungsten:
click here for larger image
Depending on which contradicting mantra of Science you choose, we need either "all colors" (which is 7, according to Newton), or at least, "a combination of the 3 primaries", according to high school Physics texts, to get this "white light".
I'll leave it at that for now, and say, this riddle is solvable.
For the creative thinkers out there, I'll also add, don't confuse the temperature of the filament, and its' apparent "color" with the "color" of the light reflected off the walls in the room. Even the "near field" anomaly of appearing "yellow" is not backed up by the spectrum of Tungsten. If this simple version were true, all light bulbs could produce ANY color, simply by having their temperature regulated. We do not see "photons" in flight.
ciao,
T.Roc
I guess LL and I will have to agree to disagree. For his intents and purposes, "consider almost nothing "physical" in the chamber"; not for mine, though. It does not directly affect the issue at hand anyway.
Motion detectors placed in various locations in a parking garage, according to the "vacuum" logic, will GUARANTEE that there are no cars in the garage, as long as the motion detectors give a "null" signal.
I'll just stick to the topic of "photon interference".
A light bulb, having a tungsten filament, and being in "VACUUM" (never mind that its' back-filled with argon gas) gives off "WHITE LIGHT". This is the MANTRA of Science.
Here is the constant emission spectrum of Tungsten:
click here for larger image
Depending on which contradicting mantra of Science you choose, we need either "all colors" (which is 7, according to Newton), or at least, "a combination of the 3 primaries", according to high school Physics texts, to get this "white light".
I'll leave it at that for now, and say, this riddle is solvable.
For the creative thinkers out there, I'll also add, don't confuse the temperature of the filament, and its' apparent "color" with the "color" of the light reflected off the walls in the room. Even the "near field" anomaly of appearing "yellow" is not backed up by the spectrum of Tungsten. If this simple version were true, all light bulbs could produce ANY color, simply by having their temperature regulated. We do not see "photons" in flight.
ciao,
T.Roc
QUOTE (TRoc+Mar 1 2007, 04:50 PM)
Hi all,
I guess LL and I will have to agree to disagree. For his intents and purposes, "consider almost nothing "physical" in the chamber"; not for mine, though. It does not directly affect the issue at hand anyway.
Motion detectors placed in various locations in a parking garage, according to the "vacuum" logic, will GUARANTEE that there are no cars in the garage, as long as the motion detectors give a "null" signal.
I'll just stick to the topic of "photon interference".
A light bulb, having a tungsten filament, and being in "VACUUM" (never mind that its' back-filled with argon gas) gives off "WHITE LIGHT". This is the MANTRA of Science.
Here is the constant emission spectrum of Tungsten:
click here for larger image
Depending on which contradicting mantra of Science you choose, we need either "all colors" (which is 7, according to Newton), or at least, "a combination of the 3 primaries", according to high school Physics texts, to get this "white light".
I'll leave it at that for now, and say, this riddle is solvable.
For the creative thinkers out there, I'll also add, don't confuse the temperature of the filament, and its' apparent "color" with the "color" of the light reflected off the walls in the room. Even the "near field" anomaly of appearing "yellow" is not backed up by the spectrum of Tungsten. If this simple version were true, all light bulbs could produce ANY color, simply by having their temperature regulated. We do not see "photons" in flight.
ciao,
T.Roc
I found this article on two slit experiments and real world complications.
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/Ge...=Yes&type=ALERT
I guess LL and I will have to agree to disagree. For his intents and purposes, "consider almost nothing "physical" in the chamber"; not for mine, though. It does not directly affect the issue at hand anyway.
Motion detectors placed in various locations in a parking garage, according to the "vacuum" logic, will GUARANTEE that there are no cars in the garage, as long as the motion detectors give a "null" signal.
I'll just stick to the topic of "photon interference".
A light bulb, having a tungsten filament, and being in "VACUUM" (never mind that its' back-filled with argon gas) gives off "WHITE LIGHT". This is the MANTRA of Science.
Here is the constant emission spectrum of Tungsten:
click here for larger image
Depending on which contradicting mantra of Science you choose, we need either "all colors" (which is 7, according to Newton), or at least, "a combination of the 3 primaries", according to high school Physics texts, to get this "white light".
I'll leave it at that for now, and say, this riddle is solvable.
For the creative thinkers out there, I'll also add, don't confuse the temperature of the filament, and its' apparent "color" with the "color" of the light reflected off the walls in the room. Even the "near field" anomaly of appearing "yellow" is not backed up by the spectrum of Tungsten. If this simple version were true, all light bulbs could produce ANY color, simply by having their temperature regulated. We do not see "photons" in flight.
ciao,
T.Roc
I found this article on two slit experiments and real world complications.
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/Ge...=Yes&type=ALERT
Hi Jal,
That is an absolutely excellent site and animations. THANK YOU! Perhaps it will
change some thought processes here.
Glad to see that you are still around.
Regards,
LL
That is an absolutely excellent site and animations. THANK YOU! Perhaps it will
change some thought processes here.
Glad to see that you are still around.
Regards,
LL
Hi TRoc,
I prefer to think of it as a weight scale balanced under the floor of the parking
garage will tell you when there are no cars present.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
Motion detectors placed in various locations in a parking garage, according to the "vacuum" logic, will GUARANTEE that there are no cars in the garage, as long as the motion detectors give a "null" signal
I prefer to think of it as a weight scale balanced under the floor of the parking
garage will tell you when there are no cars present.
Regards,
LL
Hello all
I have been thinking about why the width of the slit defines the amount of refraction/diffraction as a function of frequency. A EM wave has no size. just a frequency. The energy is contained it the fields which are at right angles to the direction of propagation. The fields are also symmetrical about this direction. My thinking is if you can change this symmetry then you can change the direction of propagation.
In a transparent material it is generally believed that light is slowed down. The frequency remains the same so the period between peaks (wavelength) gets shorter. However the energy contained in the light must stay the same. For sine waves if you reduce the period and want to keep the area under the wave (energy) the same you have to increase the amplitude. With a slit width close to the wavelength of the incident light you now have a condition in which the EM fields of the wave are no longer symmetrical. This unbalanced symmetry causes the direction of propagation to change.
Of course this brings up why the bands. Is the amount of energy that can be contained in a EM field quantified?
Just an idea.
I have been thinking about why the width of the slit defines the amount of refraction/diffraction as a function of frequency. A EM wave has no size. just a frequency. The energy is contained it the fields which are at right angles to the direction of propagation. The fields are also symmetrical about this direction. My thinking is if you can change this symmetry then you can change the direction of propagation.
In a transparent material it is generally believed that light is slowed down. The frequency remains the same so the period between peaks (wavelength) gets shorter. However the energy contained in the light must stay the same. For sine waves if you reduce the period and want to keep the area under the wave (energy) the same you have to increase the amplitude. With a slit width close to the wavelength of the incident light you now have a condition in which the EM fields of the wave are no longer symmetrical. This unbalanced symmetry causes the direction of propagation to change.
Of course this brings up why the bands. Is the amount of energy that can be contained in a EM field quantified?
Just an idea.
Hi Neil,
Good find! Thanks for posting the link.
Regards,
LL
Good find! Thanks for posting the link.
Regards,
LL
Don’t like small dimensions then look at big dimensions.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getd...c-pub-12331.pdf
Volume independence in large Nc QCD-like gauge theories
------------
This paper might be more relevant for everyone else.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getd...c-pub-12319.pdf
Optical effects of the wake fields in the PEP-II SLAC B-factory
jal
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getd...c-pub-12331.pdf
Volume independence in large Nc QCD-like gauge theories
------------
This paper might be more relevant for everyone else.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getd...c-pub-12319.pdf
Optical effects of the wake fields in the PEP-II SLAC B-factory
jal
Hi all,
It looks like LL doesn't want to close the book quite yet.
I asked him point blank: "do you have more information" to add?
He offered no new information. Just the "mean free path" method.
I touched on the history of measuring gases, by velocity distribution. No comment from LL.
Now, this ??:
So, you changing the whole picture, after the conversation? No disrespect intended, but your "preference" isn't important here. What happened to "a heated filament in close proximity to a detection wire"? Now, this heated filament can measure weight?
With your new logic, we place a mole of gas on a "scale", then "vacuum" it, and VIOLA': anti-gravity! The gas loses weight!
I'm sorry, but I can not agree at all with your new idea. No mass is lost, no energy is lost.
If you're going to respond to my counterpoints, you need to address them all, not just "analogies" that you think you can twist around.
Spectroscopy measures a gas (in a vacuum container) by passing light through the excited gas, then through a prism. All resonant frequencies show up as bright line spectra. Absolutely the same pattern every time, absolutely unique pattern for every element. This transcends the phase of the matter; EVERY element, in EVERY state. Gas, solid, etc. REGARDLESS OF QUANTITY.
We can measure the mass, and/or energy this way. You will have to re-invent almost ALL of modern Physics if you wish to change this. Measuring mass with "a heated filament in close proximity to a detection wire" is NOT a good start!
So, you changing the whole picture, after the conversation? No disrespect intended, but your "preference" isn't important here. What happened to "a heated filament in close proximity to a detection wire"? Now, this heated filament can measure weight?
With your new logic, we place a mole of gas on a "scale", then "vacuum" it, and VIOLA': anti-gravity! The gas loses weight!
I'm sorry, but I can not agree at all with your new idea. No mass is lost, no energy is lost.
If you're going to respond to my counterpoints, you need to address them all, not just "analogies" that you think you can twist around.
Spectroscopy measures a gas (in a vacuum container) by passing light through the excited gas, then through a prism. All resonant frequencies show up as bright line spectra. Absolutely the same pattern every time, absolutely unique pattern for every element. This transcends the phase of the matter; EVERY element, in EVERY state. Gas, solid, etc. REGARDLESS OF QUANTITY.
We can measure the mass, and/or energy this way. You will have to re-invent almost ALL of modern Physics if you wish to change this. Measuring mass with "a heated filament in close proximity to a detection wire" is NOT a good start!
But no vacuum is perfect, not even in interstellar space, where there are a few hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter at 10 fPa (10−16 Torr).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum
I only need ONE of each molcule to do what I need, LL. Will that end this debate?
Montec,
I had covered this quite a while ago (60-70 pages back?). The self interference of the pulse demands the presence of more than 2 frequencies, and the energy distribution in that shape is not symmetrical. What you end up with is a varying index of refraction, and yet, a fairly even spread from the slits.
The bands, as you pointed out, are the next question. My logic says, the first step is to study SIMILAR phenomenon: things like Glories, Rainbows, Airy disks, Arago spots, bright line emission and dark line absorption spectra, and so forth. Water waves would NOT have been my first stop. (too many variables)
ciao,
T.Roc
It looks like LL doesn't want to close the book quite yet.
I asked him point blank: "do you have more information" to add?
He offered no new information. Just the "mean free path" method.
I touched on the history of measuring gases, by velocity distribution. No comment from LL.
Now, this ??:
QUOTE
I prefer to think of it as a weight scale balanced under the floor of the parking garage will tell you when there are no cars present
So, you changing the whole picture, after the conversation? No disrespect intended, but your "preference" isn't important here. What happened to "a heated filament in close proximity to a detection wire"? Now, this heated filament can measure weight?
With your new logic, we place a mole of gas on a "scale", then "vacuum" it, and VIOLA': anti-gravity! The gas loses weight!
I'm sorry, but I can not agree at all with your new idea. No mass is lost, no energy is lost.
If you're going to respond to my counterpoints, you need to address them all, not just "analogies" that you think you can twist around.
Spectroscopy measures a gas (in a vacuum container) by passing light through the excited gas, then through a prism. All resonant frequencies show up as bright line spectra. Absolutely the same pattern every time, absolutely unique pattern for every element. This transcends the phase of the matter; EVERY element, in EVERY state. Gas, solid, etc. REGARDLESS OF QUANTITY.
We can measure the mass, and/or energy this way. You will have to re-invent almost ALL of modern Physics if you wish to change this. Measuring mass with "a heated filament in close proximity to a detection wire" is NOT a good start!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I prefer to think of it as a weight scale balanced under the floor of the parking garage will tell you when there are no cars present |
So, you changing the whole picture, after the conversation? No disrespect intended, but your "preference" isn't important here. What happened to "a heated filament in close proximity to a detection wire"? Now, this heated filament can measure weight?
With your new logic, we place a mole of gas on a "scale", then "vacuum" it, and VIOLA': anti-gravity! The gas loses weight!
I'm sorry, but I can not agree at all with your new idea. No mass is lost, no energy is lost.
If you're going to respond to my counterpoints, you need to address them all, not just "analogies" that you think you can twist around.
Spectroscopy measures a gas (in a vacuum container) by passing light through the excited gas, then through a prism. All resonant frequencies show up as bright line spectra. Absolutely the same pattern every time, absolutely unique pattern for every element. This transcends the phase of the matter; EVERY element, in EVERY state. Gas, solid, etc. REGARDLESS OF QUANTITY.
We can measure the mass, and/or energy this way. You will have to re-invent almost ALL of modern Physics if you wish to change this. Measuring mass with "a heated filament in close proximity to a detection wire" is NOT a good start!
But no vacuum is perfect, not even in interstellar space, where there are a few hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter at 10 fPa (10−16 Torr).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum
I only need ONE of each molcule to do what I need, LL. Will that end this debate?
Montec,
QUOTE
My thinking is if you can change this symmetry then you can change the direction of propagation.
..
For sine waves if you reduce the period and want to keep the area under the wave (energy) the same you have to increase the amplitude. With a slit width close to the wavelength of the incident light you now have a condition in which the EM fields of the wave are no longer symmetrical. This unbalanced symmetry causes the direction of propagation to change.
..
For sine waves if you reduce the period and want to keep the area under the wave (energy) the same you have to increase the amplitude. With a slit width close to the wavelength of the incident light you now have a condition in which the EM fields of the wave are no longer symmetrical. This unbalanced symmetry causes the direction of propagation to change.
I had covered this quite a while ago (60-70 pages back?). The self interference of the pulse demands the presence of more than 2 frequencies, and the energy distribution in that shape is not symmetrical. What you end up with is a varying index of refraction, and yet, a fairly even spread from the slits.
The bands, as you pointed out, are the next question. My logic says, the first step is to study SIMILAR phenomenon: things like Glories, Rainbows, Airy disks, Arago spots, bright line emission and dark line absorption spectra, and so forth. Water waves would NOT have been my first stop.
(too many variables) ciao,
T.Roc
Montec,
Your conceptualization is very close to some posts that I made in Oct/Nov/Dec
timeframe last year about EM wave "distortions" induced by interacting with the
slit walls. Contrary to the thinking of some, surface plasmon polariton's seem
to be a real phenomenon that explain surface EM field coupling to photon EM fields,
resulting in signal harmonics, interference, scattering, etc., in the cavity and
surfaces of the slit walls.
IMO, the "answer" is sublte and complex but originates at the slits. The
recent individual experimental evidence is very compelling and when summed
together paints a fairly clear picture.
http://www.opticsexpress.org/DirectPDFAcce...FTOKEN=69800211
Neil, thanks again for that find. Great information in that paper!!!
Regards,
LL
Your conceptualization is very close to some posts that I made in Oct/Nov/Dec
timeframe last year about EM wave "distortions" induced by interacting with the
slit walls. Contrary to the thinking of some, surface plasmon polariton's seem
to be a real phenomenon that explain surface EM field coupling to photon EM fields,
resulting in signal harmonics, interference, scattering, etc., in the cavity and
surfaces of the slit walls.
IMO, the "answer" is sublte and complex but originates at the slits. The
recent individual experimental evidence is very compelling and when summed
together paints a fairly clear picture.
QUOTE
4. Conclusion
We have investigated the interference of the surface plasmon polariton (SPP) with an incident
beam on a metallic nanoslit using the FDTD. The incident SPP on the film top surface is
coupled into the slit by inducing oscillating electric charges at the slit edges which can
emulate an oblique dipole that reradiates bulk waves inside and out of the slit, and excites new
SPPs on the slit walls. The scattered bulk waves leaked into the slit form Fabry-Perot (F-P)
resonator modes between the two slit walls. The excited new SPPs on the slit walls create the
F-P resonator modes along the slit axis. The values of the slit width and thickness for the two
types of cavity resonances are shifted from that of the standard F-P resonance conditions
because of the asymmetric nature of the field distributions in the slit. We have demonstrated
the interference between the impinging SPP and the normally incident beam by addition of
their respectively induced modes in the slit through SPP/bulk-wave conversion. The slit
transmission is enhanced or suppressed by the interference, depending on the relative phase
between the incident SPP and the incident beam.
We have investigated the interference of the surface plasmon polariton (SPP) with an incident
beam on a metallic nanoslit using the FDTD. The incident SPP on the film top surface is
coupled into the slit by inducing oscillating electric charges at the slit edges which can
emulate an oblique dipole that reradiates bulk waves inside and out of the slit, and excites new
SPPs on the slit walls. The scattered bulk waves leaked into the slit form Fabry-Perot (F-P)
resonator modes between the two slit walls. The excited new SPPs on the slit walls create the
F-P resonator modes along the slit axis. The values of the slit width and thickness for the two
types of cavity resonances are shifted from that of the standard F-P resonance conditions
because of the asymmetric nature of the field distributions in the slit. We have demonstrated
the interference between the impinging SPP and the normally incident beam by addition of
their respectively induced modes in the slit through SPP/bulk-wave conversion. The slit
transmission is enhanced or suppressed by the interference, depending on the relative phase
between the incident SPP and the incident beam.
http://www.opticsexpress.org/DirectPDFAcce...FTOKEN=69800211
Neil, thanks again for that find. Great information in that paper!!!
Regards,
LL
Hi All,
Good Lord, this is becoming absurd......
TRoc, you are grasping at NOTHING and trying to make a point
with it. It is illogical.
Apparently my attempt using a satirical analogy went over your head, so I will
simplify the explanation further for your benefit. An ion tube measures
any gas molecules present in near vacuum by heating and ionizing them with a
filament cathode that is ejecting electrons, which provides thermal and charge
energy/momentum. Any gas molecules that are ionized are accelerated toward a
charged detection plate (+ wire) and any molecular gaseous ions are detected by
a change in baseline current level at the plate. The amount of plate current is
scaled to some vacuum level pressure standard. So in effect we are measuring
the amount of gaseous molecular collisions across some known surface area
and measuring the current flow to determine vacuum "level".
The example that I used, where a cryogenic helium pump was used as a vacuum
cold head to freeze gas molecules to it, creates a vacuum by virtue of molecular
displacement. Since gas molecules are very mobile, and constantly try to fill the
volume in which they are contained, the gas molecules that strike the surface of
the cryo array are frozen to the cold head and they "generate" a vacuum delta
displacement that other gas molecules attempt to fill as they move toward it.
So we have a "point" of lowest vacuum at the cold head that gas molecules are constantly moving toward...the point of lowest entropy. The He cryo pump has
activated charcoal adsorbers and various levels of cold arrays for different
types of gases. It does not achieve "absolute" vacuum where no gas
molecules are present but pretty close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryopump
You have not convinced me that air is a major contributor to the interference
effects exhibited by the DSE.
Can we agree to disagree on this subject?
Apparently my attempt using a satirical analogy went over your head, so I will
simplify the explanation further for your benefit. An ion tube measures
any gas molecules present in near vacuum by heating and ionizing them with a
filament cathode that is ejecting electrons, which provides thermal and charge
energy/momentum. Any gas molecules that are ionized are accelerated toward a
charged detection plate (+ wire) and any molecular gaseous ions are detected by
a change in baseline current level at the plate. The amount of plate current is
scaled to some vacuum level pressure standard. So in effect we are measuring
the amount of gaseous molecular collisions across some known surface area
and measuring the current flow to determine vacuum "level".
The example that I used, where a cryogenic helium pump was used as a vacuum
cold head to freeze gas molecules to it, creates a vacuum by virtue of molecular
displacement. Since gas molecules are very mobile, and constantly try to fill the
volume in which they are contained, the gas molecules that strike the surface of
the cryo array are frozen to the cold head and they "generate" a vacuum delta
displacement that other gas molecules attempt to fill as they move toward it.
So we have a "point" of lowest vacuum at the cold head that gas molecules are constantly moving toward...the point of lowest entropy. The He cryo pump has
activated charcoal adsorbers and various levels of cold arrays for different
types of gases. It does not achieve "absolute" vacuum where no gas
molecules are present but pretty close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryopump
You have not convinced me that air is a major contributor to the interference
effects exhibited by the DSE.
Can we agree to disagree on this subject?
With your new logic, we place a mole of gas on a "scale", then "vacuum" it, and VIOLA': anti-gravity! The gas loses weight!
I'm sorry, but I can not agree at all with your new idea. No mass is lost, no energy is lost.
If you're going to respond to my counterpoints, you need to address them all, not just "analogies" that you think you can twist around.
ROTHFLMAO! Where did that line of logic come from?
A mole of gas has weight, volume, pressure/density, depending upon the volume
that it is contained in. So, for semantic purposes, if you reduce the number of
molecules in a confined area the weight/pressure/density/and volume decreases.
Ever pick up a full 2000 psi pressure tank and weigh it against a similar empty
tank? There is ABSOLUTELY A DIFFERENCE in weight! In the semiconductor
industry they use pressure gauges on gas regulators and scales to measure gas
pressure and tank weight.
I would prefer that you ask direct questions not wrapped in ambiguity, otherwise
I will not understand what you are asking or assume that you are not seriously
posing a question that demands an answer. I am not clairvoyant!
Sorry, no offense intended, but you are really grasping here as it applies to the
DSE working in a vacuum or at atmosphere, IMO. As far as I'm concerned
there is no debate since we are apparently at an impasse.
Regards,
LL
Good Lord, this is becoming absurd......
TRoc, you are grasping at NOTHING and trying to make a point
with it. It is illogical.
QUOTE
I asked him point blank: "do you have more information" to add?
He offered no new information. Just the "mean free path" method.
I touched on the history of measuring gases, by velocity distribution. No comment from LL...
Now, this ??:
QUOTE
I prefer to think of it as a weight scale balanced under the floor of the parking garage will tell you when there are no cars present ...
So, you changing the whole picture, after the conversation? No disrespect intended, but your "preference" isn't important here. What happened to "a heated filament in close proximity to a detection wire"? Now, this heated filament can measure weight?
With your new logic, we place a mole of gas on a "scale", then "vacuum" it, and VIOLA': anti-gravity! The gas loses weight!
He offered no new information. Just the "mean free path" method.
I touched on the history of measuring gases, by velocity distribution. No comment from LL...
Now, this ??:
QUOTE
I prefer to think of it as a weight scale balanced under the floor of the parking garage will tell you when there are no cars present ...
So, you changing the whole picture, after the conversation? No disrespect intended, but your "preference" isn't important here. What happened to "a heated filament in close proximity to a detection wire"? Now, this heated filament can measure weight?
With your new logic, we place a mole of gas on a "scale", then "vacuum" it, and VIOLA': anti-gravity! The gas loses weight!
Apparently my attempt using a satirical analogy went over your head, so I will
simplify the explanation further for your benefit.
An ion tube measuresany gas molecules present in near vacuum by heating and ionizing them with a
filament cathode that is ejecting electrons, which provides thermal and charge
energy/momentum. Any gas molecules that are ionized are accelerated toward a
charged detection plate (+ wire) and any molecular gaseous ions are detected by
a change in baseline current level at the plate. The amount of plate current is
scaled to some vacuum level pressure standard. So in effect we are measuring
the amount of gaseous molecular collisions across some known surface area
and measuring the current flow to determine vacuum "level".
The example that I used, where a cryogenic helium pump was used as a vacuum
cold head to freeze gas molecules to it, creates a vacuum by virtue of molecular
displacement. Since gas molecules are very mobile, and constantly try to fill the
volume in which they are contained, the gas molecules that strike the surface of
the cryo array are frozen to the cold head and they "generate" a vacuum delta
displacement that other gas molecules attempt to fill as they move toward it.
So we have a "point" of lowest vacuum at the cold head that gas molecules are constantly moving toward...the point of lowest entropy. The He cryo pump has
activated charcoal adsorbers and various levels of cold arrays for different
types of gases. It does not achieve "absolute" vacuum where no gas
molecules are present but pretty close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryopump
You have not convinced me that air is a major contributor to the interference
effects exhibited by the DSE.
Can we agree to disagree on this subject?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I asked him point blank: "do you have more information" to add? He offered no new information. Just the "mean free path" method. I touched on the history of measuring gases, by velocity distribution. No comment from LL... Now, this ??: QUOTE I prefer to think of it as a weight scale balanced under the floor of the parking garage will tell you when there are no cars present ... So, you changing the whole picture, after the conversation? No disrespect intended, but your "preference" isn't important here. What happened to "a heated filament in close proximity to a detection wire"? Now, this heated filament can measure weight? With your new logic, we place a mole of gas on a "scale", then "vacuum" it, and VIOLA': anti-gravity! The gas loses weight! |
Apparently my attempt using a satirical analogy went over your head, so I will
simplify the explanation further for your benefit.
An ion tube measuresany gas molecules present in near vacuum by heating and ionizing them with a
filament cathode that is ejecting electrons, which provides thermal and charge
energy/momentum. Any gas molecules that are ionized are accelerated toward a
charged detection plate (+ wire) and any molecular gaseous ions are detected by
a change in baseline current level at the plate. The amount of plate current is
scaled to some vacuum level pressure standard. So in effect we are measuring
the amount of gaseous molecular collisions across some known surface area
and measuring the current flow to determine vacuum "level".
The example that I used, where a cryogenic helium pump was used as a vacuum
cold head to freeze gas molecules to it, creates a vacuum by virtue of molecular
displacement. Since gas molecules are very mobile, and constantly try to fill the
volume in which they are contained, the gas molecules that strike the surface of
the cryo array are frozen to the cold head and they "generate" a vacuum delta
displacement that other gas molecules attempt to fill as they move toward it.
So we have a "point" of lowest vacuum at the cold head that gas molecules are constantly moving toward...the point of lowest entropy. The He cryo pump has
activated charcoal adsorbers and various levels of cold arrays for different
types of gases. It does not achieve "absolute" vacuum where no gas
molecules are present but pretty close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryopump
You have not convinced me that air is a major contributor to the interference
effects exhibited by the DSE.
Can we agree to disagree on this subject?
With your new logic, we place a mole of gas on a "scale", then "vacuum" it, and VIOLA': anti-gravity! The gas loses weight!
I'm sorry, but I can not agree at all with your new idea. No mass is lost, no energy is lost.
If you're going to respond to my counterpoints, you need to address them all, not just "analogies" that you think you can twist around.
ROTHFLMAO!
Where did that line of logic come from? A mole of gas has weight, volume, pressure/density, depending upon the volume
that it is contained in. So, for semantic purposes, if you reduce the number of
molecules in a confined area the weight/pressure/density/and volume decreases.
Ever pick up a full 2000 psi pressure tank and weigh it against a similar empty
tank? There is ABSOLUTELY A DIFFERENCE in weight! In the semiconductor
industry they use pressure gauges on gas regulators and scales to measure gas
pressure and tank weight.
I would prefer that you ask direct questions not wrapped in ambiguity, otherwise
I will not understand what you are asking or assume that you are not seriously
posing a question that demands an answer. I am not clairvoyant!
QUOTE
I only need ONE of each molcule to do what I need, LL. Will that end this debate?
Sorry, no offense intended, but you are really grasping here as it applies to the
DSE working in a vacuum or at atmosphere, IMO. As far as I'm concerned
there is no debate since we are apparently at an impasse.
Regards,
LL
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.