I think the formula I suggested is good enough to help us establish the principle. Bear in mind that we do not seem to have agreement that an EM wave can even pass through a slit ..
'Diffraction' is the reason why the light doesn't just carry on in a straight line ( if we accept that it can actually pass through the slit in the first place).
Here is a nice applet
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/di...tion/index.html
No cavities and no resonances where none shown.
A reference to help us to calculate the intensity when the slit is less than a wavelength wide would be nice .. I'll keep looking, would you be kind enough to post or PM me if you find one?
-C2.
To me it looks like the 'Three experiments in one' just bung in a constant © and ignore the total intensity.
From..
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=139512
QUOTE (jtbell+)
When the wavelength equals the width of the slit, the first minimum occurs at 90 degrees, that is, the entire "field of view" in front of the slit is filled by the central peak of the diffraction pattern. When the wavelength is longer, the "sides" of the central peak get chopped off at the 90-degree point on both sides, but the intensity still has a maximum at the center and decreases as theta increases in either direction.
This looks 'true' to me .. as long as we keep our slit <= a wavelength then all minima in a DSE must come from interference. Absolute intensity as a function of input intensity and slit width remains to be found.
Troc, (anyone?)
The results of the formula here..
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
taken with the formula for diffraction here..
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/di...tion/index.html
have (for the last hundred years) given a satisfactory prediction of the results seen in the DSE. I draw attention to the fact that neither involve any assumptions about frequency except that it is the same as that of the source and that it is the same at all points throughout the DSE.
I invite you to present your prediction..
-C2.
The results of the formula here..
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
taken with the formula for diffraction here..
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/di...tion/index.html
have (for the last hundred years) given a satisfactory prediction of the results seen in the DSE. I draw attention to the fact that neither involve any assumptions about frequency except that it is the same as that of the source and that it is the same at all points throughout the DSE.
I invite you to present your prediction..
-C2.
Confused2, Good Elf, TRoc, and all,
C2- Isn't the single slit experiment that you refererenced verifing, that in fact,
light does generate interference patterns going thru a single slit when the
slit is smaller than the wavelenth of the incident light? In order for interference
to occur there has to be phasing interaction due to diffraction delays of the light
which is a harmonic phasing interaction. IMO if there were 2 properly spaced slits
with separate incident beams that the interference pattern generated would yield
results identical to the standard DSE as wave fronts
overlap, thereby harmonically creating constructive and destructive interference patterns.
Another issue that I have concern with is the wave interaction of the
incident light beam reflections from the opening of the smaller slit. That energy
is reflected back toward the light source and should create some interference
in the incident beam.
Read my first post on Nov 1.
Do you agree or disagree?
LL
C2- Isn't the single slit experiment that you refererenced verifing, that in fact,
light does generate interference patterns going thru a single slit when the
slit is smaller than the wavelenth of the incident light? In order for interference
to occur there has to be phasing interaction due to diffraction delays of the light
which is a harmonic phasing interaction. IMO if there were 2 properly spaced slits
with separate incident beams that the interference pattern generated would yield
results identical to the standard DSE as wave fronts
overlap, thereby harmonically creating constructive and destructive interference patterns.
Another issue that I have concern with is the wave interaction of the
incident light beam reflections from the opening of the smaller slit. That energy
is reflected back toward the light source and should create some interference
in the incident beam.
Read my first post on Nov 1.
Do you agree or disagree?
LL
Hi Laserlight,
I'm not trying to be evasive ..
This applet doesn't allow you to make the aperture smaller than the wavelength...
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/di...tion/index.html
For any width of slit I would agree that interference occurs (though not always total) .. to eliminate it completely we would have to make the slit infinitely narrow .. which is useless because it would give us an infinitely low intensity to work with.
In order for interference to occur there has to be phasing interaction due to diffraction delays of the light
which is a harmonic phasing interaction.
I'm with you up to the point of "harmonic phasing interaction" at which point I don't understand what you mean. Could you clarify that a bit please? So far I only see "fundamental phasing interaction" because we started off with one frequency and we have no non-linear elements.
The next bit looks like it might be beyond my imagined level of competence .. can we sort out the 'harmonic' bit and see what drops out?
--------------------------------------
Going back to your first post of Nov 1st .. (if you click on Posted: you can cut and paste the URL )
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=139249
The 'main problem' with what you suggest would seem to me to be that interference takes the same form even when there is only one photon present. I know of no difference between the result for a lot of photons regardless of whether they come individually or all at once.
The DSE has been performed so many times and so carefully and in so many ways that I don't think bounces and scatters are adequate to explain why the result is always in good agreement with the equations given previously.
Looking at http://www.optica.tn.tudelft.nl/education/photons.asp .. do we not both see well defined maxima and minima? Do you find fault with the experiment? I can find others if you wish.
-C2.
I'm not trying to be evasive ..
This applet doesn't allow you to make the aperture smaller than the wavelength...
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/di...tion/index.html
For any width of slit I would agree that interference occurs (though not always total) .. to eliminate it completely we would have to make the slit infinitely narrow .. which is useless because it would give us an infinitely low intensity to work with.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
In order for interference to occur there has to be phasing interaction due to diffraction delays of the light
which is a harmonic phasing interaction.
I'm with you up to the point of "harmonic phasing interaction" at which point I don't understand what you mean. Could you clarify that a bit please? So far I only see "fundamental phasing interaction" because we started off with one frequency and we have no non-linear elements.
The next bit looks like it might be beyond my imagined level of competence .. can we sort out the 'harmonic' bit and see what drops out?
--------------------------------------
Going back to your first post of Nov 1st .. (if you click on Posted: you can cut and paste the URL )
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=139249
The 'main problem' with what you suggest would seem to me to be that interference takes the same form even when there is only one photon present. I know of no difference between the result for a lot of photons regardless of whether they come individually or all at once.
The DSE has been performed so many times and so carefully and in so many ways that I don't think bounces and scatters are adequate to explain why the result is always in good agreement with the equations given previously.
Looking at http://www.optica.tn.tudelft.nl/education/photons.asp .. do we not both see well defined maxima and minima? Do you find fault with the experiment? I can find others if you wish.
-C2.
All, please feel free to contribute (on either side).
Hi Confused2, and Laserlight et al,
QUOTE (C2 Posted on Today at 9:41 PM+)
For any width of slit I would agree that interference occurs (though not always total) .. to eliminate it completely we would have to make the slit infinitely narrow .. which is useless because it would give us an infinitely low intensity to work with.
I think we are working at crossed purposes here, the reason that double slit diffraction works is simply because of single slit diffraction based on Euler's relationships in the complex plane... It is not because of the explanation you are giving. This is also why RF propagation and a host of resonant phenomena also work, one principle for all instead of a host of "dumbed down" formula, one for each circumstance. With all due respect your suggestion that near enough is good enough when we are speaking of real phenomena just does not wash. I am not talking about something beyond the realm of observation... in fact this was one of the first experiments I was actually able to see with my own eyes. This "principle" can be tested with a monochromatic light source and a small laser punched hole in a gold foil (a perfect "pinhole"). The example illustrated/cited was a little "skeptical" simply because human engineering has not reached this level of accuracy to be able to make grids this accurate over such large spatial areas yet (I really mean "large" spatial areas since the effect spreads throughout a pretty big visible distance). However to keep on track with the DSE it is much simpler to just use the first two terms in the equation shown and that is a two slit diffraction pattern... you supply the slit widths and inter-slit differences. This general "construction" works with any nominated spatial pattern over any surfaces since any "hole" or "slit" or complex combination can be constructed from a series of "pinholes" (that is something like how Feynman's construction works only it is using a quantum paradigm). Of course computers do these things in a "doddle". Therefore "approximate" distances between slits and slit widths large enough to be measured in a school lab give "pretty good results resulting in an intensity map across the plane. Your formula only supplies a "single line series" of zero width, where the center of the dark bands and the light bans occur, it is an ad-hoc "connect the dots" point of view. The error is that formula does not predict anything about the intensity at any peak or in between (or phase). This is not telling us much about the variation in radiation pattern, the actual numerical variation in "brightness" across the field of observation (eg. Dipole antenna, diffraction of light near an edge or in the more extreme case but not essentially different one of the radiation patterns produced in atomic orbital "cavities" etc.).
Spherical Harmonics of the Hydrogen Atom
This Java applet shows how the Bessel Functions "evolve" on the surface of a sphere through spherical harmonics and produce all the quantum numbers which are just the eigen states of "shells". You have the ability to do inner products or not and fiddle with all the possible combinations of quantum numbers. The classical result differs from the quantum approach not in value, but only in the nature of the quantization process (the fate of the "eye of the hurricane")... tiny single flashes of light (individual photons) and to their statistical positional evaluation (inner product population distribution over time). The real or complex numerical values of the gradation between the light and dark areas can be determined from this fuller optical approach exactly (equation given) and you really do not need to think about it any further... the diffuse light and dark regions and their exact intensity relationships spatially can only be explained by this "fuller construction" through squaring the projection of the phasor (inner product projection) on to the screen plane. This process can be extended to three (...or even more?) dimensions. Solve it once and then hand it over to a computer to do the slog work. Elves do not like calculations eh!
Cheers
Spherical Harmonics of the Hydrogen Atom
This Java applet shows how the Bessel Functions "evolve" on the surface of a sphere through spherical harmonics and produce all the quantum numbers which are just the eigen states of "shells". You have the ability to do inner products or not and fiddle with all the possible combinations of quantum numbers. The classical result differs from the quantum approach not in value, but only in the nature of the quantization process (the fate of the "eye of the hurricane")... tiny single flashes of light (individual photons) and to their statistical positional evaluation (inner product population distribution over time). The real or complex numerical values of the gradation between the light and dark areas can be determined from this fuller optical approach exactly (equation given) and you really do not need to think about it any further... the diffuse light and dark regions and their exact intensity relationships spatially can only be explained by this "fuller construction" through squaring the projection of the phasor (inner product projection) on to the screen plane. This process can be extended to three (...or even more?) dimensions. Solve it once and then hand it over to a computer to do the slog work. Elves do not like calculations eh!
Cheers
Hi everyone,
I think we are making progress. I will address C2’s question of “where do the other frequencies come from?”
GE has explained several times about the spread out nature of the wave packet. This is the fundamental nature of a waveform, and the fundamental nature of frequency is that it is the rate of cycles over time. If the waveform spreads out over time (change in distance), then it can only be represented by frequencies that encompass that time. But we don’t have to limit the explanation to “ideas”; we have an abundance of empirical data.
Planck derived “h” from using Boltzmann's’s statistical version of the second law, based on probabilities. He didn’t like that, but it worked. (Einstein didn’t like it either, but was able to explain the photoelectric effect with it.) These 2 theories are critical to QM, and they show the underlying mathematical procedure that is essential to making sense of the “large number” experiments. The one thing that is certain: these mathematical procedures are designed for MANY, MANY photons. We do not need statistical analysis to determine the interactions of VERY small numbers of things (1,2,3, etc), it is a mistake to do so.
We also do not need to measure complex sine waves, or angles, although they arrive at the same conclusion. I will vote for the easiest way every time.
I’ll start with the link that GE gave us.
Any part of the slit can be thought of as a secondary forward traveling spherical wavefront, the coherent superposition (with the original signal) of which produces the diffraction pattern.
Any part of the slit can be thought of as a secondary forward traveling spherical wavefront, the coherent superposition (with the original signal) of which produces the diffraction pattern.
“..the total amplitude of light diffracted in a given direction .. is defined at the Fraunhofer Plane (focal point of the lens), thus reapplying Huygen's principle this plane leads to some interesting new concepts. If one thinks of the Fraunhofer plane as we previously did the single slit, then it ALSO represents a source for secondary forward traveling wavelets. Each point on the diffraction pattern on the plane will cause these wavelets to superpose and recombine at some other point in the image plane of the lens. It can also be characterized by a Fourier integral and believe it or not it is the expression for the diffraction pattern at the Fraunhofer plane !!! Performing the Fourier transform of this should then give us a relationship describing the slit itself. In other words, at some point beyond the Fraunhofer plane we will see an image of the slit! “
You’ll note here that the creation of the wavelets (beat frequencies) and there subsequent summation, is CRITICAL to this explanation. You will also note that the Fourier transform can be used here, but the reason that I question its’ usefulness here is that it just “..gives us a relationship describing the slit itself.”
This process (as you noted) is critical to my theory as well. You just need to remove the Fraunhofer Plane (we don’t have a lens after the slit) and replace it with an “interaction zone”, where my beats can sum. This is a “quantum Hubble distance”: a limit, controlled by the constant speed of light, that regulates how many cycles can interact in a given time, or distance. Our signal, of course, is “just passing through”, and there is just enough time for a “handshake”, and the “new pilot” is hired.
I can not say that any better!
A little on filters:
As I have said, the laser output is not strictly monochromatic. This is addressed through filtering, however, a quick look at the output past the filter will tell you that it is still not monochromatic. Here is a chart from the output of a 543.5 nm filter. Semrock
543.5 nm
You’ll note that it looks pretty good this way, but the peak signal is not 100% of the transmission. Where is the rest of the energy? E=hf still works, but you have to calculate new frequencies, and sum them together for energy to be “conserved”. Here is a small portion of the list of frequencies that is “measurable” at the output of the filter: (only >1/1000 occurring frequencies, the actual list goes from 470.8 to 720nm in .2 increments, and shows >0 at every value!)
541.4 0.001098408
541.6 0.002422708
541.8 0.005807638
542 0.01537755
542.2 0.045588677
542.4 0.148528815
542.6 0.448993228
542.8 0.846683103
543 0.98614677
543.2 0.998722014
543.4 0.998125327
543.6 0.998233365
543.8 0.999009228
544 0.986664727
544.2 0.850802654
544.4 0.460517668
544.6 0.156462124
544.8 0.04900649
545 0.016801658
545.2 0.006439494
545.4 0.002724325
545.6 0.001252253
So, the reality is that there are already many frequencies present. The REAL question is what is happening to the energy? Certainly, a purely additive approach will not work.. the UV catastrophe would happen! Just the handful of frequencies that I listed would be many orders of energy than we know (measure) to be present. Last year, I showed you and GE my approach to the black-body spectrum. A linear “beat frequency cascade” that exactly matches A. the change in energy, graphed out in a curve that is not reproducible by “classical” means, and B. the discreet, incremental frequencies observed as the “body” changes colors, and even going further, to explain the “mysterious” absence of green in the spectrum of a heated BB. That, of course, is another post, but I want to make the point here that the discreet “sum and difference” method can be more simple than the “infinitely divisible” approach, and still be predictive. Here is a paper making a similar statement:
Quantumlike Diffusion over Discrete Sets
Also at that time, I told you both that I had a method, and equation for deriving the Triad/chord in music. This is no trivial matter. The step by step method gives an explanation not achievable by the complex statistical analysis. It predicts the results of the current rules for “four-wave mixing”. So, when I gave you the equations, those were “from the book”, not my version alone. I dug up the paper that I referenced (EM version of the mixing), and found the on-line link for you. This is THE BEST paper, or single source for FWM that I have found.
Four-Wave Mixing and its Applications
The only “stretch” that I ask (and it’s not much of one, IMO) is that you consider the input (laser) as “one” frequency, and the divided path of the 2 slits, as “two” frequencies. This is directly suggested in the beginning of this post, as well as inferred in the links I’ve provided.
Parametric Self-Oscillation via Resonantly Enhanced Multiwave Mixing
I can not say that any better!
A little on filters:
As I have said, the laser output is not strictly monochromatic. This is addressed through filtering, however, a quick look at the output past the filter will tell you that it is still not monochromatic. Here is a chart from the output of a 543.5 nm filter. Semrock
543.5 nm
You’ll note that it looks pretty good this way, but the peak signal is not 100% of the transmission. Where is the rest of the energy? E=hf still works, but you have to calculate new frequencies, and sum them together for energy to be “conserved”. Here is a small portion of the list of frequencies that is “measurable” at the output of the filter: (only >1/1000 occurring frequencies, the actual list goes from 470.8 to 720nm in .2 increments, and shows >0 at every value!)
541.4 0.001098408
541.6 0.002422708
541.8 0.005807638
542 0.01537755
542.2 0.045588677
542.4 0.148528815
542.6 0.448993228
542.8 0.846683103
543 0.98614677
543.2 0.998722014
543.4 0.998125327
543.6 0.998233365
543.8 0.999009228
544 0.986664727
544.2 0.850802654
544.4 0.460517668
544.6 0.156462124
544.8 0.04900649
545 0.016801658
545.2 0.006439494
545.4 0.002724325
545.6 0.001252253
So, the reality is that there are already many frequencies present. The REAL question is what is happening to the energy? Certainly, a purely additive approach will not work.. the UV catastrophe would happen! Just the handful of frequencies that I listed would be many orders of energy than we know (measure) to be present. Last year, I showed you and GE my approach to the black-body spectrum. A linear “beat frequency cascade” that exactly matches A. the change in energy, graphed out in a curve that is not reproducible by “classical” means, and B. the discreet, incremental frequencies observed as the “body” changes colors, and even going further, to explain the “mysterious” absence of green in the spectrum of a heated BB. That, of course, is another post, but I want to make the point here that the discreet “sum and difference” method can be more simple than the “infinitely divisible” approach, and still be predictive. Here is a paper making a similar statement:
Quantumlike Diffusion over Discrete Sets
Also at that time, I told you both that I had a method, and equation for deriving the Triad/chord in music. This is no trivial matter. The step by step method gives an explanation not achievable by the complex statistical analysis. It predicts the results of the current rules for “four-wave mixing”. So, when I gave you the equations, those were “from the book”, not my version alone. I dug up the paper that I referenced (EM version of the mixing), and found the on-line link for you. This is THE BEST paper, or single source for FWM that I have found.
Four-Wave Mixing and its Applications
The only “stretch” that I ask (and it’s not much of one, IMO) is that you consider the input (laser) as “one” frequency, and the divided path of the 2 slits, as “two” frequencies. This is directly suggested in the beginning of this post, as well as inferred in the links I’ve provided.
Parametric Self-Oscillation via Resonantly Enhanced Multiwave Mixing
“In the present Letter we demonstrate efficient parametric generation accompanying the spontaneous formation of the coherent superposition states. Specifically, the present work reports the observation of the spontaneous parametric self-oscillation in resonant Raman media. Such generation does not involve optical cavity and appears under remarkably simple circumstances, when two low-power counter-propagating fields interact with the medium. Oscillation manifests itself as Stokes and anti-Stokes components generated with a frequency shift corresponding to that of the Raman transition. As the oscillator goes over threshold, dramatic increase and narrowing of the beat note between the input field and generated components takes place.”
Nonlinear optics via double dark resonances
In case you missed them the first time around, I have offered links to suggest the existence of the “quasi-cavity”. Several of the papers say specifically, that “no cavity is needed”, when describing their particular interferometric experiment. I will add here that the Casimir effect works because of the “approximation” of a cavity by two parallel planes. Certainly, the slit “wall”, and the screen fit that approximation. (as does the “wall” of the enclosure behind the laser, and the slit wall)
Also, you might browse through some Wikipedia articles:
Optical parametric oscillator
In case you missed them the first time around, I have offered links to suggest the existence of the “quasi-cavity”. Several of the papers say specifically, that “no cavity is needed”, when describing their particular interferometric experiment. I will add here that the Casimir effect works because of the “approximation” of a cavity by two parallel planes. Certainly, the slit “wall”, and the screen fit that approximation. (as does the “wall” of the enclosure behind the laser, and the slit wall)
Also, you might browse through some Wikipedia articles:
Optical parametric oscillator
"It converts an input laser wave (called "pump") into two output waves of lower frequency (ωs,ωi) by means of nonlinear optical interaction. The sum of the output waves frequencies is equal to the input wave frequency: ωs + ωi = ωp. For historic reasons, the two output waves are called "signal" and "idler". A special case is the degenerate OPO, when the output frequency is one-half the pump frequency, ωs = ωi = ωp / 2."
Nonlinear optics
Harmonic mean
We must be careful when translating Pythagorean harmonic ratios into average rates and discreet quanta. Plancks constant makes all the "bits" the same size. My method preserves ratios through a scaled harmonic mean; which is fundamental in comparing things to the constant ratio of the speed of light. This is why h fails to communicate the harmonic nature of the scale of the Universe, also the home of the c ratio.
ciao!
T.Roc
I think we are making progress. I will address C2’s question of “where do the other frequencies come from?”
GE has explained several times about the spread out nature of the wave packet. This is the fundamental nature of a waveform, and the fundamental nature of frequency is that it is the rate of cycles over time. If the waveform spreads out over time (change in distance), then it can only be represented by frequencies that encompass that time. But we don’t have to limit the explanation to “ideas”; we have an abundance of empirical data.
Planck derived “h” from using Boltzmann's’s statistical version of the second law, based on probabilities. He didn’t like that, but it worked. (Einstein didn’t like it either, but was able to explain the photoelectric effect with it.) These 2 theories are critical to QM, and they show the underlying mathematical procedure that is essential to making sense of the “large number” experiments. The one thing that is certain: these mathematical procedures are designed for MANY, MANY photons. We do not need statistical analysis to determine the interactions of VERY small numbers of things (1,2,3, etc), it is a mistake to do so.
We also do not need to measure complex sine waves, or angles, although they arrive at the same conclusion. I will vote for the easiest way every time.
I’ll start with the link that GE gave us.
QUOTE
“..one must revert to Huygen's Principle of 1678 which describes how a point on a wavefront can be thought of as contributing to a secondary forward traveling spherical wavelet. In the case of the Single slit, any part of the slit can be thought of as such a point. The coherent superposition of these wavelets produced at the slit results in the diffraction pattern seen at the focal length of the lens (the Fraunhofer Plane). "
Any part of the slit can be thought of as a secondary forward traveling spherical wavefront, the coherent superposition (with the original signal) of which produces the diffraction pattern.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “..one must revert to Huygen's Principle of 1678 which describes how a point on a wavefront can be thought of as contributing to a secondary forward traveling spherical wavelet. In the case of the Single slit, any part of the slit can be thought of as such a point. The coherent superposition of these wavelets produced at the slit results in the diffraction pattern seen at the focal length of the lens (the Fraunhofer Plane). " |
Any part of the slit can be thought of as a secondary forward traveling spherical wavefront, the coherent superposition (with the original signal) of which produces the diffraction pattern.
“..the total amplitude of light diffracted in a given direction .. is defined at the Fraunhofer Plane (focal point of the lens), thus reapplying Huygen's principle this plane leads to some interesting new concepts. If one thinks of the Fraunhofer plane as we previously did the single slit, then it ALSO represents a source for secondary forward traveling wavelets. Each point on the diffraction pattern on the plane will cause these wavelets to superpose and recombine at some other point in the image plane of the lens. It can also be characterized by a Fourier integral and believe it or not it is the expression for the diffraction pattern at the Fraunhofer plane !!! Performing the Fourier transform of this should then give us a relationship describing the slit itself. In other words, at some point beyond the Fraunhofer plane we will see an image of the slit! “
You’ll note here that the creation of the wavelets (beat frequencies) and there subsequent summation, is CRITICAL to this explanation. You will also note that the Fourier transform can be used here, but the reason that I question its’ usefulness here is that it just “..gives us a relationship describing the slit itself.”
This process (as you noted) is critical to my theory as well. You just need to remove the Fraunhofer Plane (we don’t have a lens after the slit) and replace it with an “interaction zone”, where my beats can sum. This is a “quantum Hubble distance”: a limit, controlled by the constant speed of light, that regulates how many cycles can interact in a given time, or distance. Our signal, of course, is “just passing through”, and there is just enough time for a “handshake”, and the “new pilot” is hired.
QUOTE
“So, to solve this problem, we integrate over each slit individually and add them together which makes sense intuitively as well. “
I can not say that any better!
A little on filters:
As I have said, the laser output is not strictly monochromatic. This is addressed through filtering, however, a quick look at the output past the filter will tell you that it is still not monochromatic. Here is a chart from the output of a 543.5 nm filter. Semrock
543.5 nm
You’ll note that it looks pretty good this way, but the peak signal is not 100% of the transmission. Where is the rest of the energy? E=hf still works, but you have to calculate new frequencies, and sum them together for energy to be “conserved”. Here is a small portion of the list of frequencies that is “measurable” at the output of the filter: (only >1/1000 occurring frequencies, the actual list goes from 470.8 to 720nm in .2 increments, and shows >0 at every value!)
541.4 0.001098408
541.6 0.002422708
541.8 0.005807638
542 0.01537755
542.2 0.045588677
542.4 0.148528815
542.6 0.448993228
542.8 0.846683103
543 0.98614677
543.2 0.998722014
543.4 0.998125327
543.6 0.998233365
543.8 0.999009228
544 0.986664727
544.2 0.850802654
544.4 0.460517668
544.6 0.156462124
544.8 0.04900649
545 0.016801658
545.2 0.006439494
545.4 0.002724325
545.6 0.001252253
So, the reality is that there are already many frequencies present. The REAL question is what is happening to the energy? Certainly, a purely additive approach will not work.. the UV catastrophe would happen! Just the handful of frequencies that I listed would be many orders of energy than we know (measure) to be present. Last year, I showed you and GE my approach to the black-body spectrum. A linear “beat frequency cascade” that exactly matches A. the change in energy, graphed out in a curve that is not reproducible by “classical” means, and B. the discreet, incremental frequencies observed as the “body” changes colors, and even going further, to explain the “mysterious” absence of green in the spectrum of a heated BB. That, of course, is another post, but I want to make the point here that the discreet “sum and difference” method can be more simple than the “infinitely divisible” approach, and still be predictive. Here is a paper making a similar statement:
Quantumlike Diffusion over Discrete Sets
Also at that time, I told you both that I had a method, and equation for deriving the Triad/chord in music. This is no trivial matter. The step by step method gives an explanation not achievable by the complex statistical analysis. It predicts the results of the current rules for “four-wave mixing”. So, when I gave you the equations, those were “from the book”, not my version alone. I dug up the paper that I referenced (EM version of the mixing), and found the on-line link for you. This is THE BEST paper, or single source for FWM that I have found.
Four-Wave Mixing and its Applications
The only “stretch” that I ask (and it’s not much of one, IMO) is that you consider the input (laser) as “one” frequency, and the divided path of the 2 slits, as “two” frequencies. This is directly suggested in the beginning of this post, as well as inferred in the links I’ve provided.
Parametric Self-Oscillation via Resonantly Enhanced Multiwave Mixing
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “So, to solve this problem, we integrate over each slit individually and add them together which makes sense intuitively as well. “ |
I can not say that any better!
A little on filters:
As I have said, the laser output is not strictly monochromatic. This is addressed through filtering, however, a quick look at the output past the filter will tell you that it is still not monochromatic. Here is a chart from the output of a 543.5 nm filter. Semrock
543.5 nm
You’ll note that it looks pretty good this way, but the peak signal is not 100% of the transmission. Where is the rest of the energy? E=hf still works, but you have to calculate new frequencies, and sum them together for energy to be “conserved”. Here is a small portion of the list of frequencies that is “measurable” at the output of the filter: (only >1/1000 occurring frequencies, the actual list goes from 470.8 to 720nm in .2 increments, and shows >0 at every value!)
541.4 0.001098408
541.6 0.002422708
541.8 0.005807638
542 0.01537755
542.2 0.045588677
542.4 0.148528815
542.6 0.448993228
542.8 0.846683103
543 0.98614677
543.2 0.998722014
543.4 0.998125327
543.6 0.998233365
543.8 0.999009228
544 0.986664727
544.2 0.850802654
544.4 0.460517668
544.6 0.156462124
544.8 0.04900649
545 0.016801658
545.2 0.006439494
545.4 0.002724325
545.6 0.001252253
So, the reality is that there are already many frequencies present. The REAL question is what is happening to the energy? Certainly, a purely additive approach will not work.. the UV catastrophe would happen! Just the handful of frequencies that I listed would be many orders of energy than we know (measure) to be present. Last year, I showed you and GE my approach to the black-body spectrum. A linear “beat frequency cascade” that exactly matches A. the change in energy, graphed out in a curve that is not reproducible by “classical” means, and B. the discreet, incremental frequencies observed as the “body” changes colors, and even going further, to explain the “mysterious” absence of green in the spectrum of a heated BB. That, of course, is another post, but I want to make the point here that the discreet “sum and difference” method can be more simple than the “infinitely divisible” approach, and still be predictive. Here is a paper making a similar statement:
Quantumlike Diffusion over Discrete Sets
Also at that time, I told you both that I had a method, and equation for deriving the Triad/chord in music. This is no trivial matter. The step by step method gives an explanation not achievable by the complex statistical analysis. It predicts the results of the current rules for “four-wave mixing”. So, when I gave you the equations, those were “from the book”, not my version alone. I dug up the paper that I referenced (EM version of the mixing), and found the on-line link for you. This is THE BEST paper, or single source for FWM that I have found.
Four-Wave Mixing and its Applications
The only “stretch” that I ask (and it’s not much of one, IMO) is that you consider the input (laser) as “one” frequency, and the divided path of the 2 slits, as “two” frequencies. This is directly suggested in the beginning of this post, as well as inferred in the links I’ve provided.
Parametric Self-Oscillation via Resonantly Enhanced Multiwave Mixing
“In the present Letter we demonstrate efficient parametric generation accompanying the spontaneous formation of the coherent superposition states. Specifically, the present work reports the observation of the spontaneous parametric self-oscillation in resonant Raman media. Such generation does not involve optical cavity and appears under remarkably simple circumstances, when two low-power counter-propagating fields interact with the medium. Oscillation manifests itself as Stokes and anti-Stokes components generated with a frequency shift corresponding to that of the Raman transition. As the oscillator goes over threshold, dramatic increase and narrowing of the beat note between the input field and generated components takes place.”
Nonlinear optics via double dark resonances
QUOTE
“C. Sideband generation
The spectral distribution of the transmitted laser light was also studied. For this purpose the spectral analyzer
was switched to a narrow band regime (bandwidth 30kHz) and the central frequency of the bandwidth was scanned. The laser frequency during the spectrum analyzer scan was fixed. In this procedure several new optical components (sidebands) can be observed, which are separated by frequency intervals equal to harmonics of the applied magnetic field frequency.”
“The fundamental frequency here is the frequency of the beat-note of the drive- and probe- laser beams without the cell. The signal at the fundamental frequency is similar to the broadband detected signal in Fig. 8b, as could be expected. One can see the different behavior of the odd and even harmonics (sidebands).”
The spectral distribution of the transmitted laser light was also studied. For this purpose the spectral analyzer
was switched to a narrow band regime (bandwidth 30kHz) and the central frequency of the bandwidth was scanned. The laser frequency during the spectrum analyzer scan was fixed. In this procedure several new optical components (sidebands) can be observed, which are separated by frequency intervals equal to harmonics of the applied magnetic field frequency.”
“The fundamental frequency here is the frequency of the beat-note of the drive- and probe- laser beams without the cell. The signal at the fundamental frequency is similar to the broadband detected signal in Fig. 8b, as could be expected. One can see the different behavior of the odd and even harmonics (sidebands).”
In case you missed them the first time around, I have offered links to suggest the existence of the “quasi-cavity”. Several of the papers say specifically, that “no cavity is needed”, when describing their particular interferometric experiment. I will add here that the Casimir effect works because of the “approximation” of a cavity by two parallel planes. Certainly, the slit “wall”, and the screen fit that approximation. (as does the “wall” of the enclosure behind the laser, and the slit wall)
Also, you might browse through some Wikipedia articles:
Optical parametric oscillator
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “C. Sideband generation The spectral distribution of the transmitted laser light was also studied. For this purpose the spectral analyzer was switched to a narrow band regime (bandwidth 30kHz) and the central frequency of the bandwidth was scanned. The laser frequency during the spectrum analyzer scan was fixed. In this procedure several new optical components (sidebands) can be observed, which are separated by frequency intervals equal to harmonics of the applied magnetic field frequency.” “The fundamental frequency here is the frequency of the beat-note of the drive- and probe- laser beams without the cell. The signal at the fundamental frequency is similar to the broadband detected signal in Fig. 8b, as could be expected. One can see the different behavior of the odd and even harmonics (sidebands).” |
In case you missed them the first time around, I have offered links to suggest the existence of the “quasi-cavity”. Several of the papers say specifically, that “no cavity is needed”, when describing their particular interferometric experiment. I will add here that the Casimir effect works because of the “approximation” of a cavity by two parallel planes. Certainly, the slit “wall”, and the screen fit that approximation. (as does the “wall” of the enclosure behind the laser, and the slit wall)
Also, you might browse through some Wikipedia articles:
Optical parametric oscillator
"It converts an input laser wave (called "pump") into two output waves of lower frequency (ωs,ωi) by means of nonlinear optical interaction. The sum of the output waves frequencies is equal to the input wave frequency: ωs + ωi = ωp. For historic reasons, the two output waves are called "signal" and "idler". A special case is the degenerate OPO, when the output frequency is one-half the pump frequency, ωs = ωi = ωp / 2."
Nonlinear optics
Harmonic mean
QUOTE
"In mathematics, the harmonic mean is one of several methods of calculating an average. Typically, it is appropriate for situations when the average of rates is desired."
We must be careful when translating Pythagorean harmonic ratios into average rates and discreet quanta. Plancks constant makes all the "bits" the same size. My method preserves ratios through a scaled harmonic mean; which is fundamental in comparing things to the constant ratio of the speed of light. This is why h fails to communicate the harmonic nature of the scale of the Universe, also the home of the c ratio.
ciao!
T.Roc
Hi C2,
I definitely stated that wrong, it is the beamwidth that is wider than the slit.
My Bad....
I guess my point of contention, and the reasons for my consternation, is the way the interpretation of the results of the
DSE are explained without regard or consideration of the physical interactions
that occur when light interacts with matter. Both have EM "fields", and when EM
fields are sufficiently close or intermingle they cause mutual interactions between
the two distinct EM energy entities. The results being either reflection, refraction,
scattering, phase shifting, or absorption of the EM fields of the photons. Since the individual photons can travel down the center of the slit with minimal EM field
interaction, or can traverse in close proximity to either side of the slit where there
is high probability of refraction and phase delays between photons, there is
room for doubt or further understanding of the implied results
My second issue has to do with the backscattering of photons toward the
incident beam. That should also set up reflection standing waves, which could
cause a variable phase (destructive interference) phasing mismatch of the incident
beam before it even arrives at the slits. If this does in fact occur, what is the
consequence on the results of the experiment? Also, is there any cavity resonance
of the photons reflected back from the reflective plane of the slit housing within
the confines of the beam width? Does this generate secondary effects?
My thiird issue is the dual reflective plane surfaces of the mirrors that inherently
creates a phase and timing delay shift of photons due to refraction interaction thru
a media where some photons travel thru the glass at an offset angle from the inicident beam before finally reflecting toward the slits.
None of these issues seems to be considered in the conclusions reached by the
experiment. Maybe they don't need to be, but perhaps they do.
The equations back up the theories, and I cannot refute that, but are we really
understanding all of the factors that influence the end results, and are the
assumptions and all potential variables accurately articulated to insure complete
understanding of the phenomenon.
Sorry if I am beating a dead horse, but I have more questions than answers.
LL
QUOTE
This applet doesn't allow you to make the aperture smaller than the wavelength...
I definitely stated that wrong, it is the beamwidth that is wider than the slit.
My Bad....
I guess my point of contention, and the reasons for my consternation, is the way the interpretation of the results of the
DSE are explained without regard or consideration of the physical interactions
that occur when light interacts with matter. Both have EM "fields", and when EM
fields are sufficiently close or intermingle they cause mutual interactions between
the two distinct EM energy entities. The results being either reflection, refraction,
scattering, phase shifting, or absorption of the EM fields of the photons. Since the individual photons can travel down the center of the slit with minimal EM field
interaction, or can traverse in close proximity to either side of the slit where there
is high probability of refraction and phase delays between photons, there is
room for doubt or further understanding of the implied results
My second issue has to do with the backscattering of photons toward the
incident beam. That should also set up reflection standing waves, which could
cause a variable phase (destructive interference) phasing mismatch of the incident
beam before it even arrives at the slits. If this does in fact occur, what is the
consequence on the results of the experiment? Also, is there any cavity resonance
of the photons reflected back from the reflective plane of the slit housing within
the confines of the beam width? Does this generate secondary effects?
My thiird issue is the dual reflective plane surfaces of the mirrors that inherently
creates a phase and timing delay shift of photons due to refraction interaction thru
a media where some photons travel thru the glass at an offset angle from the inicident beam before finally reflecting toward the slits.
None of these issues seems to be considered in the conclusions reached by the
experiment. Maybe they don't need to be, but perhaps they do.
The equations back up the theories, and I cannot refute that, but are we really
understanding all of the factors that influence the end results, and are the
assumptions and all potential variables accurately articulated to insure complete
understanding of the phenomenon.
Sorry if I am beating a dead horse, but I have more questions than answers.
LL
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, and TRoc et al,
I really do not want to involve myself in any difficult discussions about what may be the most expedient method of processing a very simple problem. What I am saying is this method I am outlining is the full method of processing that will work anywhere. An implementation of this showing Feynman Calculations, disclosing documentation of the methods and the original reference back to Feynman's original book on the subject...
Good Elf on Feynman earlier in this thread
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. (Alix G. Mautner Memorial Lectures) Richard Phillips Feynman
Now Feynman's treatment is very good but I do not think this is in anyway "inferior" at the level of a calculation to this purely "Classical" view of the phenomenon. There is a section in Feynman's Lectures in Physics Vol 3 as well that covers this in greater details. What this treatment does not handle is a particle description of the phenomenon. Let me say that as long as the photon is in free flight, only the wave description could ever be applicable since it has calculable "solutions " throughout all space whereas the particle approach cannot solve for anything but uncollapsed states (now we have a "measurement problem" that is introduced through the very act of measurement. Of course once you collapse a superposition of states for the photon "particle" it is no longer treatable as a pure wave propagating from a source. Qubit all gone! The "beauty" of the wholly wave approach is you now can calculate values for the wave throughout the entire Universe except when it has been "collapsed. "That is still a pretty good solution!" as Feynman might have said in his heavy Bronx accent.
What it will not predict is the "eye of the Hurricane"... center of spin which we all identify as the heart of the photon. What it does say is that for large numbers of photons the "complex vector's inner product squared" is a measure of "brightness", this is clearly an electromagnetic energy density (it is often visible light... it is the RMS value of the instantaneous Electric and Magnetic fields). While the wave of a single photon lies on a "search all paths" ever expanding shell (with its internal clock stopped), this photon will collapse to a single flash of light at its "center" by the process of transverse wavefront "locality" which is an infinite speed (phase velocity along the wavefront). This you can equate with psi squared for an infinitesimal dv. To determine the probability if a nominated photon will be "found" within a certain finite volume of space just add up all these psi squared values for all the dv's in the finite volume of interest. This will give a probability (when normalized) from 0 to 1. That number tells you what is the chance that a flash will occur in that volume of space and not outside that region. Bingo ... quantum theory.
Cheers
I really do not want to involve myself in any difficult discussions about what may be the most expedient method of processing a very simple problem. What I am saying is this method I am outlining is the full method of processing that will work anywhere. An implementation of this showing Feynman Calculations, disclosing documentation of the methods and the original reference back to Feynman's original book on the subject...
Good Elf on Feynman earlier in this thread
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. (Alix G. Mautner Memorial Lectures) Richard Phillips Feynman
Now Feynman's treatment is very good but I do not think this is in anyway "inferior" at the level of a calculation to this purely "Classical" view of the phenomenon. There is a section in Feynman's Lectures in Physics Vol 3 as well that covers this in greater details. What this treatment does not handle is a particle description of the phenomenon. Let me say that as long as the photon is in free flight, only the wave description could ever be applicable since it has calculable "solutions " throughout all space whereas the particle approach cannot solve for anything but uncollapsed states (now we have a "measurement problem" that is introduced through the very act of measurement. Of course once you collapse a superposition of states for the photon "particle" it is no longer treatable as a pure wave propagating from a source. Qubit all gone! The "beauty" of the wholly wave approach is you now can calculate values for the wave throughout the entire Universe except when it has been "collapsed. "That is still a pretty good solution!" as Feynman might have said in his heavy Bronx accent.
What it will not predict is the "eye of the Hurricane"... center of spin which we all identify as the heart of the photon. What it does say is that for large numbers of photons the "complex vector's inner product squared" is a measure of "brightness", this is clearly an electromagnetic energy density (it is often visible light... it is the RMS value of the instantaneous Electric and Magnetic fields). While the wave of a single photon lies on a "search all paths" ever expanding shell (with its internal clock stopped), this photon will collapse to a single flash of light at its "center" by the process of transverse wavefront "locality" which is an infinite speed (phase velocity along the wavefront). This you can equate with psi squared for an infinitesimal dv. To determine the probability if a nominated photon will be "found" within a certain finite volume of space just add up all these psi squared values for all the dv's in the finite volume of interest. This will give a probability (when normalized) from 0 to 1. That number tells you what is the chance that a flash will occur in that volume of space and not outside that region. Bingo ... quantum theory.
Cheers
Good Elf, EXCELLENT! Now to expand upon your "eye of the hurricane" analogy a
bit further. Does a single drop of rain a hurricane make? Of course not,
but trillions of drops rotating along a wavefront and moving along a vector do.
I think we agree that indeed waves are easier to comprehend, predict, and measure
theoretically and mathematically because photons "en masse" are consistent and
predictable in how they interact as one "unit" and with matter in time and space.
After all, isn't a wave just a multitude of individual nearly synchronous energy packets
with infinitesimal angular displacements of location and phasing over a time
interval. In other words the composition of a wave is comprised of the interactve
angular phase timing delays of the discrete EM fields of individual photons over
a distance, along a time vector.
So a wave, as such, is dependent upon the phase timing interaction of discrete photons of which it is comprised.
Comments welcome by all.
LL
bit further. Does a single drop of rain a hurricane make? Of course not,
but trillions of drops rotating along a wavefront and moving along a vector do.
I think we agree that indeed waves are easier to comprehend, predict, and measure
theoretically and mathematically because photons "en masse" are consistent and
predictable in how they interact as one "unit" and with matter in time and space.
After all, isn't a wave just a multitude of individual nearly synchronous energy packets
with infinitesimal angular displacements of location and phasing over a time
interval. In other words the composition of a wave is comprised of the interactve
angular phase timing delays of the discrete EM fields of individual photons over
a distance, along a time vector.
So a wave, as such, is dependent upon the phase timing interaction of discrete photons of which it is comprised.
Comments welcome by all.
LL
Hi Laserlight, Confused2, TRoc et al,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Good Elf, EXCELLENT! Now to expand upon your "eye of the hurricane" analogy a bit further. Does a single drop of rain a hurricane make? Of course not, but trillions of drops rotating along a wavefront and moving along a vector do.
True for fermions but bosons are one state "loners". Some physical justification for the properties of bosons and fermions are needed. A bosonic wave can have a collective orbital angular momentum and this property is bestowed on individual photons by proxy because of the boson property, something fermions are not able to do. Therefore orbital angular momentum can be used to exert forces over distance such as quantum tweezer activity ("tractor beams"). They also possess simple integer spin that individual photons can have. Fermions can have half integer spin and if you "sum" two of these up together it make an integer spin "together" ... like Cooper Pairs in solids or like paired electrons in orbital shells ... now these "proxy bosons" occupy the one place in space through space quantization rules.
Each boson "drop of rain" is a separate "eye of its own little hurricane" but if they are all on the one wavefront they share that one common boson state (of course it appears to travel at the speed of light relative to us, they all have identical wave extents but the "eye" may move around a little, but remember its clock is stopped through relativity).
A heap of photon centers have no direct influence on each other (why... you need time to affect things in your midst and their clocks are all stopped, without any time passing there can be no mutual interactions such as electromagnetic attraction or repulsion so they can all occupy the one space freely... the bosons). Restating this the photons can all occupy the same volume of space or quantum state without actually electromagnetically noticing each other at all... so an individual photon can only interfere with itself but this is totally non-destructive almost by definition. Any "destructive interference" is an interaction and this causes the qubit of information to be changed, dropped, exchanged etc. Lets focus only on the remaining "coherent" photons which still travel in the quantum state.
So just what makes fermions different? Firstly they have half integer spin and connect to the background of our universe in such a way that they need to be rotated twice to bring them back into congruence with their original topology. This applies as much to a baseball as it does to a sub-atomic particle and you can demonstrate the effect with a ball, a box and a few strings (Dirac's Party Trick). Of course "the box" that matters in this case (the case of sub-atomic particles and in reality everything else too) is the D6 brane wall of our greater Universe which is "everywhere" in higher dimensions (the "strings" connecting stuff in the box to the Universe are the electromagnetic forces connecting via those "strings"... literally). The "Law" says if I take two particles with total spin 1/2 and bring them together so they entangle and their spins can add they can occupy the same space as one particle. We are able to create "liquids" of these particles and we call them Bose-Einstein Condensates. The next property that makes matter in our Universe "hard" to touch is the very strong electromagnetic forces we can feel when we try and violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Conventionally these involve "virtual photons".
It just so happens this "property" also defines the wall of the light cone and the limits of (reciprocal) dimensional space as we know it. Another phenomenon to notice is the stopped clocks and lack of forces allow the interior "stringy" photons to behave just like the uncharged photons again. Photons have no rest mass. The exterior of the particles with the correct topological wrapping "create" the permanent charge on the exterior of the brane and the mass is also associated with the external "matter waves" leaking out of the inner anti-de Sitter space.
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
In this fashion all particles (as shown in this diagram) are composed of photons that have been boosted and spun on the D6 Brane wall to create all primary sub-atomic particles. You can create a complete Universe with this, even the empty space.
These effects Richard Feynman called "polarizations". Of course this is a "mystery" but it is also just the way things work and it is conforming to what the world should do with these physical properties.
Cheers
Each boson "drop of rain" is a separate "eye of its own little hurricane" but if they are all on the one wavefront they share that one common boson state (of course it appears to travel at the speed of light relative to us, they all have identical wave extents but the "eye" may move around a little, but remember its clock is stopped through relativity).
A heap of photon centers have no direct influence on each other (why... you need time to affect things in your midst and their clocks are all stopped, without any time passing there can be no mutual interactions such as electromagnetic attraction or repulsion so they can all occupy the one space freely... the bosons). Restating this the photons can all occupy the same volume of space or quantum state without actually electromagnetically noticing each other at all... so an individual photon can only interfere with itself but this is totally non-destructive almost by definition. Any "destructive interference" is an interaction and this causes the qubit of information to be changed, dropped, exchanged etc. Lets focus only on the remaining "coherent" photons which still travel in the quantum state.
So just what makes fermions different? Firstly they have half integer spin and connect to the background of our universe in such a way that they need to be rotated twice to bring them back into congruence with their original topology. This applies as much to a baseball as it does to a sub-atomic particle and you can demonstrate the effect with a ball, a box and a few strings (Dirac's Party Trick). Of course "the box" that matters in this case (the case of sub-atomic particles and in reality everything else too) is the D6 brane wall of our greater Universe which is "everywhere" in higher dimensions (the "strings" connecting stuff in the box to the Universe are the electromagnetic forces connecting via those "strings"... literally). The "Law" says if I take two particles with total spin 1/2 and bring them together so they entangle and their spins can add they can occupy the same space as one particle. We are able to create "liquids" of these particles and we call them Bose-Einstein Condensates. The next property that makes matter in our Universe "hard" to touch is the very strong electromagnetic forces we can feel when we try and violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Conventionally these involve "virtual photons".
QUOTE
Virtual photons
The electron and nucleon interact by the electromagnetic force, the carrier of this is the virtual photon as has different properties to ordinary photons. Take for example two electrons. These repel each other due to the electromagnetic force, we say that there is a mediator or exchange particle which is transferred between them, the photon. If one imagines two ice skaters facing each other and one throws a ball to the other person both skaters will move apart, just as two electrons would repel each other.
When delving inside the proton (or neutron) it is not the electron which actually 'probes' the nucleon but the photon. An electron gives some of its energy (and so loses some of its momentum) to the photon. The more momentum which is transferred to the photon, the more energy it has and so the shorter the wavelength of the photon. One can imagine that a longer wavelength photon will only 'see' the whole nucleon and so be elastically scattered, but for shorter wavelength photons it can 'see' the constituents of the nucleon, the quarks inside. This is why physicists want to build larger and larger accelerators, so that they can see more and more of the structure of particles.
Virtual Photons
The converse must also be true of "bosons" these photons trapped inside "D6 Branes" can merge with similar "particles" like electrons seem to be able to do. A Cooper Pair will have integer spin and now behaves "internally" like a true pair of photons confined to an interior "loop", where electrostatic repulsion is now "neutralized" due to the stopped clock effect of the circulating interior photons. If the centers should drift too far apart the boson state will fail. These are truly "stationary states" where energy is neither gained of lost to an external environment, they are "primary space-time mirrors", perfect in every way "frozen" to the brane walls. Everything else is a "lens" where the geometry of space is defined by the "refractive index of the spaces as seen by external observers". When you have no time passing there can be no forces between particles because F = Ma... Where acceleration is the second derivative wrt time of the mutual relative displacement... no time... no acceleration. . The shells and the nucleus can also "share" properties that allow boson fields to occur. Clocks are stopped all around in those stationary states. Repulsion between charged particles vanish.The electron and nucleon interact by the electromagnetic force, the carrier of this is the virtual photon as has different properties to ordinary photons. Take for example two electrons. These repel each other due to the electromagnetic force, we say that there is a mediator or exchange particle which is transferred between them, the photon. If one imagines two ice skaters facing each other and one throws a ball to the other person both skaters will move apart, just as two electrons would repel each other.
When delving inside the proton (or neutron) it is not the electron which actually 'probes' the nucleon but the photon. An electron gives some of its energy (and so loses some of its momentum) to the photon. The more momentum which is transferred to the photon, the more energy it has and so the shorter the wavelength of the photon. One can imagine that a longer wavelength photon will only 'see' the whole nucleon and so be elastically scattered, but for shorter wavelength photons it can 'see' the constituents of the nucleon, the quarks inside. This is why physicists want to build larger and larger accelerators, so that they can see more and more of the structure of particles.
Virtual Photons
It just so happens this "property" also defines the wall of the light cone and the limits of (reciprocal) dimensional space as we know it. Another phenomenon to notice is the stopped clocks and lack of forces allow the interior "stringy" photons to behave just like the uncharged photons again. Photons have no rest mass. The exterior of the particles with the correct topological wrapping "create" the permanent charge on the exterior of the brane and the mass is also associated with the external "matter waves" leaking out of the inner anti-de Sitter space.
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
In this fashion all particles (as shown in this diagram) are composed of photons that have been boosted and spun on the D6 Brane wall to create all primary sub-atomic particles. You can create a complete Universe with this, even the empty space.
These effects Richard Feynman called "polarizations". Of course this is a "mystery" but it is also just the way things work and it is conforming to what the world should do with these physical properties.
Cheers
Hi Laserlight, Troc, Good Elf et al,
Sorry about the delay .. ( I fell asleep at the keyboard. )
Sorry about the delay .. ( I fell asleep at the keyboard. )
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
That energy is reflected back toward the light source and should create some interference in the incident beam
.. and other points raised about the equipment..
The basic experiment consists of nothing more than a monochromatic light source, two slits, a screen and a pair of eyes. Extras may be added as required to make the result more easily visible whilst still being portable .. but they don't affect the principle and if you get the 'wrong' result then the problem lies with the reliability of the equipment rather than the reliability of the phenemenon itself.
Good Elf seems to accept QED (ie Feynman .. Quantum Electrodynamics ) up to a point but rejects the suggestion that QED is 'as it is' .. hence the GE 'hurricanes' which are pure Elf rather than QED. The essence of the DSE is that the geometry of both slits is both required and sufficient ** for accurate predictions to be made.
After all, isn't a wave just a multitude of individual nearly synchronous energy packets
with infinitesimal angular displacements of location and phasing over a time
interval. In other words the composition of a wave is comprised of the interactve
angular phase timing delays of the discrete EM fields of individual photons over
a distance, along a time vector.
With all due respect I think you may have to choose between the above and the experimental result from the DSE. Not only that but worse .. if the universe is defined by a fixed 'c' .. the speed of light .. then you will only see one maximum in the single photon DSE .. how many maxima do you see? If it were just a rogue result then we would all discard it .. but it isn't.
-C2.
** 'Sufficient' .. clearly poor shielding, unwanted reflections etc etc will have 'some' effect .. however .. IMHO .. the interference effect does not rely on the etceteras.
Interruption .. I'll post this before I lose it.
.. and other points raised about the equipment..
The basic experiment consists of nothing more than a monochromatic light source, two slits, a screen and a pair of eyes. Extras may be added as required to make the result more easily visible whilst still being portable .. but they don't affect the principle and if you get the 'wrong' result then the problem lies with the reliability of the equipment rather than the reliability of the phenemenon itself.
Good Elf seems to accept QED (ie Feynman .. Quantum Electrodynamics ) up to a point but rejects the suggestion that QED is 'as it is' .. hence the GE 'hurricanes' which are pure Elf rather than QED. The essence of the DSE is that the geometry of both slits is both required and sufficient ** for accurate predictions to be made.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
After all, isn't a wave just a multitude of individual nearly synchronous energy packets
with infinitesimal angular displacements of location and phasing over a time
interval. In other words the composition of a wave is comprised of the interactve
angular phase timing delays of the discrete EM fields of individual photons over
a distance, along a time vector.
With all due respect I think you may have to choose between the above and the experimental result from the DSE. Not only that but worse .. if the universe is defined by a fixed 'c' .. the speed of light .. then you will only see one maximum in the single photon DSE .. how many maxima do you see? If it were just a rogue result then we would all discard it .. but it isn't.
-C2.
** 'Sufficient' .. clearly poor shielding, unwanted reflections etc etc will have 'some' effect .. however .. IMHO .. the interference effect does not rely on the etceteras.
Interruption .. I'll post this before I lose it.
Troc,
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=140656
GE has explained several times about the spread out nature of the wave packet. This is the fundamental nature of a waveform, and the fundamental nature of frequency is that it is the rate of cycles over time. If the waveform spreads out over time (change in distance), then it can only be represented by frequencies that encompass that time. But we don’t have to limit the explanation to “ideas”; we have an abundance of empirical data.
GE has certainly given many accounts of an 'Elf packet'. Let us imagine we have a very badly setup DSE, loads of reflective surfaces, a complete mess.. the only thing we make sure 'works' is the ability to detect interference. We use a humungous laser .. we want to do this badly. Let's say a ray of light bounces off, out through the window which reflects some of the light back into the room and some bounces back off a car outside.. back through the window and the two beams meet and destructively interfere on the screen while we watch.
First bit of empirical data..
An Elf packet can do all of that too .. a single photon 'Elf packet' can destructively interfere with itself as a result of available paths. (GE .. just sum over paths.. ok?). What makes a hurricane undetectable? Ask an Elf..?
We do not need statistical analysis to determine the interactions of VERY small numbers of things (1,2,3, etc), it is a mistake to do so.
You will need to show how a predictable result can look random ..
No problem with Huygens .. excellent grasp of the most probable path.
I would draw attention to the way Huygens writes of a 'ray' of light ..
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14725/14725...25-h.htm#Page_4
(pg21)
And hence one sees the reason why light, at least if its rays are not reflected or broken, spreads only by straight lines, so that it illuminates no object except when the path from its source to that object is open along such lines.
Wavelets.. we read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelet .. looks OK.
Fraunhofer.. we read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffraction .. I admit I can't see the importance of spatial frequencies (yet).
Already it looks (to me) like you are trying to apply wavelet analysis to a 'ray' of light. I predict such analysis will fail unless carried out with extreme caution. The adoption of the Elf packet suggests extreme caution is not being applied.
Before continuing .. looking at the DSE with single photons .. how many maxima/minima do you predict and how many do you actually see?
-C2.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=140656
QUOTE (Troc+)
GE has explained several times about the spread out nature of the wave packet. This is the fundamental nature of a waveform, and the fundamental nature of frequency is that it is the rate of cycles over time. If the waveform spreads out over time (change in distance), then it can only be represented by frequencies that encompass that time. But we don’t have to limit the explanation to “ideas”; we have an abundance of empirical data.
GE has certainly given many accounts of an 'Elf packet'. Let us imagine we have a very badly setup DSE, loads of reflective surfaces, a complete mess.. the only thing we make sure 'works' is the ability to detect interference. We use a humungous laser .. we want to do this badly. Let's say a ray of light bounces off, out through the window which reflects some of the light back into the room and some bounces back off a car outside.. back through the window and the two beams meet and destructively interfere on the screen while we watch.
First bit of empirical data..
An Elf packet can do all of that too .. a single photon 'Elf packet' can destructively interfere with itself as a result of available paths. (GE .. just sum over paths.. ok?). What makes a hurricane undetectable? Ask an Elf..?
QUOTE (Troc+)
We do not need statistical analysis to determine the interactions of VERY small numbers of things (1,2,3, etc), it is a mistake to do so.
You will need to show how a predictable result can look random ..
No problem with Huygens .. excellent grasp of the most probable path.
I would draw attention to the way Huygens writes of a 'ray' of light ..
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14725/14725...25-h.htm#Page_4
(pg21)
QUOTE (Huygens+)
And hence one sees the reason why light, at least if its rays are not reflected or broken, spreads only by straight lines, so that it illuminates no object except when the path from its source to that object is open along such lines.
Wavelets.. we read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelet .. looks OK.
Fraunhofer.. we read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffraction .. I admit I can't see the importance of spatial frequencies (yet).
Already it looks (to me) like you are trying to apply wavelet analysis to a 'ray' of light. I predict such analysis will fail unless carried out with extreme caution. The adoption of the Elf packet suggests extreme caution is not being applied.
Before continuing .. looking at the DSE with single photons .. how many maxima/minima do you predict and how many do you actually see?
-C2.
Hi Confused2,
Firstly I do not think of light "reflecting" back and forth around the room and into the Universe. It is like a "painting" on canvas. I have been concentrating on the Feynman Quantum Electrodynamics too much ... while "true"... I have been at pains to try and indicate that Wheeler and Feynman and the Emitter-Absorber Theory is very important to understanding the "event". Remember the clock is stopped on this single photon. It paints the Universe it can reach from the perspective of the outer brane of the Universe. This is a snapshot that executes once almost instantaneously but takes almost "eternity" to complete. With a little luck our event starts and ends over a very short interval but there is an aspect of it which reaches back in time and also forward in time too.
Emitter Absorber Theory
2. Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory see link Fig.1.
The diagram shown here illustrates at best only one physical dimension but actually encompasses all three dimensions and all of time, just that we do not see it all. When the event is "painted" in time it is unique and unable to be dynamically changed. It has always "known" what the final state of this "picture" will be. Waves are dynamically "canceled" outside the area of interest but "actually" there is no such thing as true cancellation, there will be places and time where this wave will re-emerge as interference effects where the waves do not cancel exactly. This will result in forces as well as local phenomena unable to be predicted just using the close in data to the most "interesting" areas of interest.
Lets consider that all the sub-atomic particles in the Universe were little shiny reflective Christmas balls. They will all "image" the events that have occurred far away from the initial scene. Lets say a particle was created and then annihilated, this "event" will be mirrored in every little ball bearing in range and in a direct line of sight even possibly way out beyond the Milky Way and the light may take millions of years to reach there. Remember photons are not aging with time or decreasing in strength (clock is stopped... they cannot age) and waves can "replicate" anywhere "for free" as long as no particle interaction events occur there. Now zoom into that optical landscape "undisturbed"... lets look "inside" just one of these particles a billion light years away, a perfect replica of the original event will be played out within that micro-scape will now be played out as it was a billion years ago, courtesy of Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory. Where does all that information come from... the original event... since the qubit is still as crisp and as sharp as it was the instant the photon was "born".
Now I realize that the Universe is not filled with tiny little shiny reflective balls. What I think it is filled with is tiny little "reciprocal space" optical processors. These have the "astounding property" that makes all small features "processed" large and all big features small. This matter wave from the first event make its appearance within that realm as an "uncanceled event" composed of uncanceled retarded waves on the interior of the anti-de Sitter Space of that closed externally tiny Universe, distant in space and time from the original event.
Now consider a large number of similar such events occurring in different places and at different times. Viewed from within this de Sitter Universe, because each one is situated in a different position to all the other particles and events in the Universe, the delay time for each of these events playing out inside the Universe will all be different in the order and timing of the original event in the primary "event-scape". They must all still be causal and self consistent but lets say the order of their layering at any sub-Universe locality will differ depending upon their individual propagation delay due to the speed of light from the original event to the sub-Universe.... reordering the events slightly in time and also relative position.
As an example... This also alters events playing out even in a single room if we could see it happening. Positioned in the center of a room two events will "happen" at different times as witnessed by an observer there depending on the distance from each event to the observer. Even in the same room the sequence of events may be different depending on relative proximity of the event to another observer. As previously mentioned these events are "special snapshots" that never vary even though they take time to "paint", but the order of "snapshots" in a particular locality may indeed vary changing the local "History". These events may be accompanied by electromagnetic forces since they are signaling the arrival of photons so the physics at different localities, though causally consistent, will be very different. These separate Histories all being derived from events in the one Universe is the extrapolation of the Cramer Transactional Hypothesis (which is based on Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory). In the Anti-de Sitter Space no knowledge of the outer realm is known other than this telegraphed series of events playing out in the space. There is no way of knowing the order of events as they were in the outer Universe from which this Universe's events are "derivative"... we only know of the events themselves and possibly some vague "locality" linking them together. This is a Many Worlds Hypothesis.
Just a short comment about an "Elf Packet"... Orbital Angular momentum and angular spin momentum (about its own center) is always zero about some point and is a characteristic of the Berry Phase. Please distinguish this from p = h /λ (where p = linear momentum). This is a "still point" and will be "special" only if you need it to be. The flashes of light can be derived from an analysis of spatial and temporal energy density as noted before. Quantum Theory cannot tell us any more than what is already known of the whereabouts of one of these particular "nodes"... that is the statistics alone. What you can know from an analysis of the qubit of information transferred when an interaction occurs is only "source" information can be known (clock stopped when it was created), therefore no path information can be specifically known for the particular photon. Restating this we can know a lot of the source information from that photon and we know where its final destination was (in principle) but the path in between is not known by the particle. The next question is that path information is "unknowable" while the photon particle clock is stopped... so why there any interest in it? The flash of light cannot be predicted with any better accuracy with Quantum Mechanics either... it just does not explain it. Bohmian Mechanics can plot a path through some quantum realm using "Configuration Space" but it cannot specify any specific information in "Spacetime" where it was. Waves do help with this in the interpretation... we can know where all the waves need to be to construct the outcome can't we?
Cheers
Firstly I do not think of light "reflecting" back and forth around the room and into the Universe. It is like a "painting" on canvas. I have been concentrating on the Feynman Quantum Electrodynamics too much ... while "true"... I have been at pains to try and indicate that Wheeler and Feynman and the Emitter-Absorber Theory is very important to understanding the "event". Remember the clock is stopped on this single photon. It paints the Universe it can reach from the perspective of the outer brane of the Universe. This is a snapshot that executes once almost instantaneously but takes almost "eternity" to complete. With a little luck our event starts and ends over a very short interval but there is an aspect of it which reaches back in time and also forward in time too.
Emitter Absorber Theory
2. Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory see link Fig.1.
The diagram shown here illustrates at best only one physical dimension but actually encompasses all three dimensions and all of time, just that we do not see it all. When the event is "painted" in time it is unique and unable to be dynamically changed. It has always "known" what the final state of this "picture" will be. Waves are dynamically "canceled" outside the area of interest but "actually" there is no such thing as true cancellation, there will be places and time where this wave will re-emerge as interference effects where the waves do not cancel exactly. This will result in forces as well as local phenomena unable to be predicted just using the close in data to the most "interesting" areas of interest.
Lets consider that all the sub-atomic particles in the Universe were little shiny reflective Christmas balls. They will all "image" the events that have occurred far away from the initial scene. Lets say a particle was created and then annihilated, this "event" will be mirrored in every little ball bearing in range and in a direct line of sight even possibly way out beyond the Milky Way and the light may take millions of years to reach there. Remember photons are not aging with time or decreasing in strength (clock is stopped... they cannot age) and waves can "replicate" anywhere "for free" as long as no particle interaction events occur there. Now zoom into that optical landscape "undisturbed"... lets look "inside" just one of these particles a billion light years away, a perfect replica of the original event will be played out within that micro-scape will now be played out as it was a billion years ago, courtesy of Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory. Where does all that information come from... the original event... since the qubit is still as crisp and as sharp as it was the instant the photon was "born".
Now I realize that the Universe is not filled with tiny little shiny reflective balls. What I think it is filled with is tiny little "reciprocal space" optical processors. These have the "astounding property" that makes all small features "processed" large and all big features small. This matter wave from the first event make its appearance within that realm as an "uncanceled event" composed of uncanceled retarded waves on the interior of the anti-de Sitter Space of that closed externally tiny Universe, distant in space and time from the original event.
Now consider a large number of similar such events occurring in different places and at different times. Viewed from within this de Sitter Universe, because each one is situated in a different position to all the other particles and events in the Universe, the delay time for each of these events playing out inside the Universe will all be different in the order and timing of the original event in the primary "event-scape". They must all still be causal and self consistent but lets say the order of their layering at any sub-Universe locality will differ depending upon their individual propagation delay due to the speed of light from the original event to the sub-Universe.... reordering the events slightly in time and also relative position.
As an example... This also alters events playing out even in a single room if we could see it happening. Positioned in the center of a room two events will "happen" at different times as witnessed by an observer there depending on the distance from each event to the observer. Even in the same room the sequence of events may be different depending on relative proximity of the event to another observer. As previously mentioned these events are "special snapshots" that never vary even though they take time to "paint", but the order of "snapshots" in a particular locality may indeed vary changing the local "History". These events may be accompanied by electromagnetic forces since they are signaling the arrival of photons so the physics at different localities, though causally consistent, will be very different. These separate Histories all being derived from events in the one Universe is the extrapolation of the Cramer Transactional Hypothesis (which is based on Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory). In the Anti-de Sitter Space no knowledge of the outer realm is known other than this telegraphed series of events playing out in the space. There is no way of knowing the order of events as they were in the outer Universe from which this Universe's events are "derivative"... we only know of the events themselves and possibly some vague "locality" linking them together. This is a Many Worlds Hypothesis.
Just a short comment about an "Elf Packet"... Orbital Angular momentum and angular spin momentum (about its own center) is always zero about some point and is a characteristic of the Berry Phase. Please distinguish this from p = h /λ (where p = linear momentum). This is a "still point" and will be "special" only if you need it to be. The flashes of light can be derived from an analysis of spatial and temporal energy density as noted before. Quantum Theory cannot tell us any more than what is already known of the whereabouts of one of these particular "nodes"... that is the statistics alone. What you can know from an analysis of the qubit of information transferred when an interaction occurs is only "source" information can be known (clock stopped when it was created), therefore no path information can be specifically known for the particular photon. Restating this we can know a lot of the source information from that photon and we know where its final destination was (in principle) but the path in between is not known by the particle. The next question is that path information is "unknowable" while the photon particle clock is stopped... so why there any interest in it? The flash of light cannot be predicted with any better accuracy with Quantum Mechanics either... it just does not explain it. Bohmian Mechanics can plot a path through some quantum realm using "Configuration Space" but it cannot specify any specific information in "Spacetime" where it was. Waves do help with this in the interpretation... we can know where all the waves need to be to construct the outcome can't we?
Cheers
Hi All,
This is not a private discussion. If anyone wants to criticize (nicely) any proposition or statement here, please feel free to do so. Confused2 has also invited everyone to do so as well. The more searching the better and have an experiment or Gedanken experiment to propose or show how your points "play out" in the real world.
I would like to repeat the last couple of sentences of my last post to drive home the point about "reconstruction". Quantum Mechanics makes no specific predictions about the events happening in our Universe other than through a statistical process that cannot individually identify which of the specific events is happening. Events happen photon by photon and the information carried is common to all similar state bosons. The "event" is uniquely determined at the time of creation of the photon launching. Different wavelength photons carry different information and it is the sequence of these events at any place that determines a history as indicated by an observer. It only takes one photon to convey all final information of a state because waves "seek all paths" whereas the particle theory requires large numbers of photons to describe the intensity variations in a "landscape". The wave picture can determine from renormalization and using all information from a single photon, where all the photons in the one boson state end up "statistically". Where illumination levels are high (lots of similar bosons in the one state) you can waste quite a few photons and still have a quantum event proceeding "unseen". This is essentially similar information gleaned from particle processes, just that the phase information is sacrificed so you actually need to observe the events to see where all are finally heading. In the final analysis the wave interpretation contains more information about our Universe than the particle interpretation. Know one boson in a group of correlated bosons and you know them all.
This is not a private discussion. If anyone wants to criticize (nicely) any proposition or statement here, please feel free to do so. Confused2 has also invited everyone to do so as well. The more searching the better and have an experiment or Gedanken experiment to propose or show how your points "play out" in the real world.
I would like to repeat the last couple of sentences of my last post to drive home the point about "reconstruction". Quantum Mechanics makes no specific predictions about the events happening in our Universe other than through a statistical process that cannot individually identify which of the specific events is happening. Events happen photon by photon and the information carried is common to all similar state bosons. The "event" is uniquely determined at the time of creation of the photon launching. Different wavelength photons carry different information and it is the sequence of these events at any place that determines a history as indicated by an observer. It only takes one photon to convey all final information of a state because waves "seek all paths" whereas the particle theory requires large numbers of photons to describe the intensity variations in a "landscape". The wave picture can determine from renormalization and using all information from a single photon, where all the photons in the one boson state end up "statistically". Where illumination levels are high (lots of similar bosons in the one state) you can waste quite a few photons and still have a quantum event proceeding "unseen". This is essentially similar information gleaned from particle processes, just that the phase information is sacrificed so you actually need to observe the events to see where all are finally heading. In the final analysis the wave interpretation contains more information about our Universe than the particle interpretation. Know one boson in a group of correlated bosons and you know them all.
QUOTE (Good Elf quoting from the last post+)
Restating this we can know a lot of the source information from that photon and we know where its final destination was (in principle) but the path in between is not known by the particle. The next question is that path information is "unknowable" while the photon particle clock is stopped... so why there any interest in it? The flash of light cannot be predicted with any better accuracy with Quantum Mechanics either... it just does not explain it. Bohmian Mechanics can plot a path through some quantum realm using "Configuration Space" but it cannot specify any specific information in "Spacetime" where it was. Waves do help with this in the interpretation... we can know where all the waves need to be to construct the outcome can't we?
. Emphasis included. This construction would be done in a similar fashion to the Feynman process knowing as much of the event as is possible and collating the information afterward.
Cheers
Cheers
QUOTE (GoodElf+)
... In the final analysis the wave interpretation contains more information about our Universe than the particle interpretation. Know one boson in a group of correlated bosons and you know them all.
I must disagree with this.
The wavefunction is a compressed, but imprecise, representation of the information and most definitely cannot contain more information than the photons comprising it.
Information is discarded by using a wave representation in order to permit easier statistical analysis on larger scales, but information is still discarded and the wave representation provides less information than the individual photons did.
If you look at a tree, you can easily recognize the general characteristics of it, and even draw another similar tree as a symbolic representation of the original, that still includes the primary features of the original, but this approximation compresses out many details in the process.
Yes, the wavefunction represents knowledge that has been gained about the properties of photon in space, and if it ends up that no additional correlations are found to individual photons other than the wave function, then the wave function description would most likely be an optimal description of them but if it's believed that the wavefunction contains all the available information, then it's a self fulfilling prophecy that this will be true, whether or not it's truly a physical limit as it will be a mental one.
I must disagree with this.
The wavefunction is a compressed, but imprecise, representation of the information and most definitely cannot contain more information than the photons comprising it.
Information is discarded by using a wave representation in order to permit easier statistical analysis on larger scales, but information is still discarded and the wave representation provides less information than the individual photons did.
If you look at a tree, you can easily recognize the general characteristics of it, and even draw another similar tree as a symbolic representation of the original, that still includes the primary features of the original, but this approximation compresses out many details in the process.
Yes, the wavefunction represents knowledge that has been gained about the properties of photon in space, and if it ends up that no additional correlations are found to individual photons other than the wave function, then the wave function description would most likely be an optimal description of them but if it's believed that the wavefunction contains all the available information, then it's a self fulfilling prophecy that this will be true, whether or not it's truly a physical limit as it will be a mental one.
Here is an applet of great beauty (IMO) .. it took a while to find so I'll post it before I lose it again. The PC I'm (now) posting from won't display it so I can't say anything about. Maybe someone else would like to comment?
http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~yalabik/applets/collapse.html
-C2.
http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~yalabik/applets/collapse.html
-C2.
Hi Confused2, StevenA, Laserlight, yquantum, TRoc et al,
Here we go again C2, I wish I could "fix" your computer. It appears you are unable to see really nice things on your computer, yet you seem to know they are there! Your Java seems a problem for you.
Thanks for the very pretty Java Applet. What you see there is an electron which is a fermion not a boson, the particle's velocity is way way below the speed of light... must be for significant interference effects. Even so the slits are much smaller than those used for most photon experiments. If you halve the electrons velocity you will double its physical extent because of de Broglie's Hypothesis. Actually it will be a three dimensional effect so doubling the wavelength is like increasing the diameter of a sphere by a factor of 2 so the effective volume increases by approximately a factor of 8. It the electron was sitting quietly in the center of a very large box it would "fill that box" with its wave. The applet shows only a two dimensional picture of the electron, and also it has all those other additional limitations such as no phase information shown there too.
This gif animation which you should be able to see Confused2, illustrates this point (imprecisely). This electron is now limited to a single two dimensional "strip", but does show complex phase. This "box" is a "circular orbital shell" around an atom.
Pretty colors represent phase... 30 Kepler Periods of an electron in a "circular orbit".
You can well imagine if this "electron" was confined to "orbit" within its own space it would then be capable of "accepting" a further photon inside that space and thus "promote" that photon plus electron combination to the next "cavity" that will accept this "enlarged bloated electron". The electron-photon "combo" can only lose the additional photon since the bare energy of the electron is tied up in CPT processes and is engaged in interior bosonic activities at the speed of light running around in ever decreasing circles until it runs up its own fundamental orifice... he he he. Even though this electron may contain "at least two photons", its primary photon (... or is that two quarks?) plus an absorbed former "external" photon, it can only lose the external photon that is additional to the electron. Why is that? The "twist" in the electron's electromagnetic fields which is internal to the primary photon, causes it to circulate according to this scheme indicated in the paper by Williamson and Van der Mark...
Twisted Strip Model
The additional absorbed photon does not have this "twist" which almost always must be produced in electrons in electron-positron pairs on creation. I say "almost" since elves don't know "everything"! he he he! Both photons (bosons) cannot interact with each other inside that electron envelope (internal particle horizon - light cone wall) since they are "interior bosons". The additional photon can eventually "tunnel" out through "resonance". The "electron" probes the nucleus with its "virtual photon" as mentioned before and this depends an exchange of momentum over short periods of time as mentioned in a previous post regarding "virtual photons" (quote now duplicated below). This is internal orbital angular momentum which is a boson property and exerts strong electromagnetic forces which are the "virtual photon". Now which part of the electron is probing the nucleus and where is its virtual photon? What if they are one and the same? Momentum is shuttled back and forth between the two photons since the electric and magnetic fields "cross each other". What they both have is different topologies and one can escape and the other must always remain "keeping dimensional space open". Obviously a little arm waving here and I can't say that this detail can be proven since measurement would be very difficult if not impossible.
Getting back to the Java Applet, the electron's "bounce" at the front of the screen will actually occur since it's wave will "propagate" to all those places shown but an electron will end up in only one place (that click shown... sometimes behind and to the right of the slit on the screen and sometimes to the left of the slit. A single photon, on the other hand doesn't "bounce" as well, and will mostly be absorbed on the outer walls but does have a small chance of bouncing too (depends on just where that "eye of the Hurricane" hits... the wall or the space in the slits).. For electrons the finite extent of the electron is that of "the confined photon", it's wave appears to be confined in space to a smaller volume extent dependent on relative velocity to the observer frame (including the slit) but will appear almost equally extended in all directions. Careful examination of the animation shows a Gaussian function for the electron and not a matter wavelet (I mentioned this point before). A wave function must actually stay a wave function though and this applet only shows a Gaussian spread for the wave packet of the electron (indicating a kind of limited marble and not a wave). Its actual function would be a three dimensional analog of the pin hole diffraction pattern indicated in the reference above.
Even the square of the amplitude of that function should show the "packet" stretching far far away from the center of the particle... mostly unseen and at "low probability" (low complex energy density), but existing in all those distant places to some finite extent. The packet itself actually fills the space or the cavity it exists inside (eventually), this may also be the entire Universe for a "free electron", locality depending on the relative velocity. The infinite extent of this wave is truncated by Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber "window function". Unless this "window function" is "perfect" and contains an infinite number of frequencies (which would add photons to the electron packet) the electron will "leak" in the same way as Microwave Ovens leak radiation short distances from its cavity. This is the (electron) particle's evanescent field. This will not leak away or "escape" though unless the energy is taken from an absorbed photon as previously indicated ("twist" prevents the escape of the primary photon energy into our "flatspace"... energy leakage limited by a "range"... sometimes referred to as an "massive exchange force" different from the normal "massless exchange force" of our universe.. the "garden variety" photons). I would also add this "twist" has added more dimensions to the "flatter" flatspace spacetime photons and is what this is all about ... extra dimensions.
In the case of the DSE the photons are all bosons and have their clocks stopped and their photons do not have the "twist" shown above that electrons have. This "twist" is also responsible for the charge of the electron as well and in the nucleus and between particles is also related to the strong force through quantum chromodynamics since the evanescent field defines the range of this modified electromagnetic force as well within "confined boxes" in reciprocal spaces. This evanescent field is also a non linear function of the mass as well.
Must get some sleep... StevenA I will get back to your questions as well soon. Naturally an answer will hinge on what I have said above and your statement
In the case of the DSE the photons are all bosons and have their clocks stopped and their photons do not have the "twist" shown above that electrons have. This "twist" is also responsible for the charge of the electron as well and in the nucleus and between particles is also related to the strong force through quantum chromodynamics since the evanescent field defines the range of this modified electromagnetic force as well within "confined boxes" in reciprocal spaces. This evanescent field is also a non linear function of the mass as well.
Must get some sleep... StevenA I will get back to your questions as well soon. Naturally an answer will hinge on what I have said above and your statement
The wavefunction is a compressed, but imprecise, representation of the information and most definitely cannot contain more information than the photons comprising it.
Here we go again C2, I wish I could "fix" your computer. It appears you are unable to see really nice things on your computer, yet you seem to know they are there! Your Java seems a problem for you.
Thanks for the very pretty Java Applet. What you see there is an electron which is a fermion not a boson, the particle's velocity is way way below the speed of light... must be for significant interference effects. Even so the slits are much smaller than those used for most photon experiments. If you halve the electrons velocity you will double its physical extent because of de Broglie's Hypothesis. Actually it will be a three dimensional effect so doubling the wavelength is like increasing the diameter of a sphere by a factor of 2 so the effective volume increases by approximately a factor of 8. It the electron was sitting quietly in the center of a very large box it would "fill that box" with its wave. The applet shows only a two dimensional picture of the electron, and also it has all those other additional limitations such as no phase information shown there too.
This gif animation which you should be able to see Confused2, illustrates this point (imprecisely). This electron is now limited to a single two dimensional "strip", but does show complex phase. This "box" is a "circular orbital shell" around an atom.
Pretty colors represent phase... 30 Kepler Periods of an electron in a "circular orbit".
You can well imagine if this "electron" was confined to "orbit" within its own space it would then be capable of "accepting" a further photon inside that space and thus "promote" that photon plus electron combination to the next "cavity" that will accept this "enlarged bloated electron". The electron-photon "combo" can only lose the additional photon since the bare energy of the electron is tied up in CPT processes and is engaged in interior bosonic activities at the speed of light running around in ever decreasing circles until it runs up its own fundamental orifice... he he he. Even though this electron may contain "at least two photons", its primary photon (... or is that two quarks?) plus an absorbed former "external" photon, it can only lose the external photon that is additional to the electron. Why is that? The "twist" in the electron's electromagnetic fields which is internal to the primary photon, causes it to circulate according to this scheme indicated in the paper by Williamson and Van der Mark...
Twisted Strip Model
The additional absorbed photon does not have this "twist" which almost always must be produced in electrons in electron-positron pairs on creation. I say "almost" since elves don't know "everything"! he he he! Both photons (bosons) cannot interact with each other inside that electron envelope (internal particle horizon - light cone wall) since they are "interior bosons". The additional photon can eventually "tunnel" out through "resonance". The "electron" probes the nucleus with its "virtual photon" as mentioned before and this depends an exchange of momentum over short periods of time as mentioned in a previous post regarding "virtual photons" (quote now duplicated below). This is internal orbital angular momentum which is a boson property and exerts strong electromagnetic forces which are the "virtual photon". Now which part of the electron is probing the nucleus and where is its virtual photon? What if they are one and the same? Momentum is shuttled back and forth between the two photons since the electric and magnetic fields "cross each other". What they both have is different topologies and one can escape and the other must always remain "keeping dimensional space open". Obviously a little arm waving here and I can't say that this detail can be proven since measurement would be very difficult if not impossible.
Getting back to the Java Applet, the electron's "bounce" at the front of the screen will actually occur since it's wave will "propagate" to all those places shown but an electron will end up in only one place (that click shown... sometimes behind and to the right of the slit on the screen and sometimes to the left of the slit. A single photon, on the other hand doesn't "bounce" as well, and will mostly be absorbed on the outer walls but does have a small chance of bouncing too (depends on just where that "eye of the Hurricane" hits... the wall or the space in the slits).. For electrons the finite extent of the electron is that of "the confined photon", it's wave appears to be confined in space to a smaller volume extent dependent on relative velocity to the observer frame (including the slit) but will appear almost equally extended in all directions. Careful examination of the animation shows a Gaussian function for the electron and not a matter wavelet (I mentioned this point before). A wave function must actually stay a wave function though and this applet only shows a Gaussian spread for the wave packet of the electron (indicating a kind of limited marble and not a wave). Its actual function would be a three dimensional analog of the pin hole diffraction pattern indicated in the reference above.
Even the square of the amplitude of that function should show the "packet" stretching far far away from the center of the particle... mostly unseen and at "low probability" (low complex energy density), but existing in all those distant places to some finite extent. The packet itself actually fills the space or the cavity it exists inside (eventually), this may also be the entire Universe for a "free electron", locality depending on the relative velocity. The infinite extent of this wave is truncated by Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber "window function". Unless this "window function" is "perfect" and contains an infinite number of frequencies (which would add photons to the electron packet) the electron will "leak" in the same way as Microwave Ovens leak radiation short distances from its cavity. This is the (electron) particle's evanescent field. This will not leak away or "escape" though unless the energy is taken from an absorbed photon as previously indicated ("twist" prevents the escape of the primary photon energy into our "flatspace"... energy leakage limited by a "range"... sometimes referred to as an "massive exchange force" different from the normal "massless exchange force" of our universe.. the "garden variety" photons). I would also add this "twist" has added more dimensions to the "flatter" flatspace spacetime photons and is what this is all about ... extra dimensions.
QUOTE
Virtual photons
The electron and nucleon interact by the electromagnetic force, the carrier of this is the virtual photon as has different properties to ordinary photons. Take for example two electrons. These repel each other due to the electromagnetic force, we say that there is a mediator or exchange particle which is transferred between them, the photon. If one imagines two ice skaters facing each other and one throws a ball to the other person both skaters will move apart, just as two electrons would repel each other.
When delving inside the proton (or neutron) it is not the electron which actually 'probes' the nucleon but the photon. An electron gives some of its energy (and so loses some of its momentum) to the photon. The more momentum which is transferred to the photon, the more energy it has and so the shorter the wavelength of the photon. One can imagine that a longer wavelength photon will only 'see' the whole nucleon and so be elastically scattered, but for shorter wavelength photons it can 'see' the constituents of the nucleon, the quarks inside. This is why physicists want to build larger and larger accelerators, so that they can see more and more of the structure of particles.
Virtual Photons - University of Oxford
The electron and nucleon interact by the electromagnetic force, the carrier of this is the virtual photon as has different properties to ordinary photons. Take for example two electrons. These repel each other due to the electromagnetic force, we say that there is a mediator or exchange particle which is transferred between them, the photon. If one imagines two ice skaters facing each other and one throws a ball to the other person both skaters will move apart, just as two electrons would repel each other.
When delving inside the proton (or neutron) it is not the electron which actually 'probes' the nucleon but the photon. An electron gives some of its energy (and so loses some of its momentum) to the photon. The more momentum which is transferred to the photon, the more energy it has and so the shorter the wavelength of the photon. One can imagine that a longer wavelength photon will only 'see' the whole nucleon and so be elastically scattered, but for shorter wavelength photons it can 'see' the constituents of the nucleon, the quarks inside. This is why physicists want to build larger and larger accelerators, so that they can see more and more of the structure of particles.
Virtual Photons - University of Oxford
In the case of the DSE the photons are all bosons and have their clocks stopped and their photons do not have the "twist" shown above that electrons have. This "twist" is also responsible for the charge of the electron as well and in the nucleus and between particles is also related to the strong force through quantum chromodynamics since the evanescent field defines the range of this modified electromagnetic force as well within "confined boxes" in reciprocal spaces. This evanescent field is also a non linear function of the mass as well.
Must get some sleep... StevenA I will get back to your questions as well soon. Naturally an answer will hinge on what I have said above and your statement
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Virtual photons The electron and nucleon interact by the electromagnetic force, the carrier of this is the virtual photon as has different properties to ordinary photons. Take for example two electrons. These repel each other due to the electromagnetic force, we say that there is a mediator or exchange particle which is transferred between them, the photon. If one imagines two ice skaters facing each other and one throws a ball to the other person both skaters will move apart, just as two electrons would repel each other. When delving inside the proton (or neutron) it is not the electron which actually 'probes' the nucleon but the photon. An electron gives some of its energy (and so loses some of its momentum) to the photon. The more momentum which is transferred to the photon, the more energy it has and so the shorter the wavelength of the photon. One can imagine that a longer wavelength photon will only 'see' the whole nucleon and so be elastically scattered, but for shorter wavelength photons it can 'see' the constituents of the nucleon, the quarks inside. This is why physicists want to build larger and larger accelerators, so that they can see more and more of the structure of particles. Virtual Photons - University of Oxford |
In the case of the DSE the photons are all bosons and have their clocks stopped and their photons do not have the "twist" shown above that electrons have. This "twist" is also responsible for the charge of the electron as well and in the nucleus and between particles is also related to the strong force through quantum chromodynamics since the evanescent field defines the range of this modified electromagnetic force as well within "confined boxes" in reciprocal spaces. This evanescent field is also a non linear function of the mass as well.
Must get some sleep... StevenA I will get back to your questions as well soon. Naturally an answer will hinge on what I have said above and your statement
The wavefunction is a compressed, but imprecise, representation of the information and most definitely cannot contain more information than the photons comprising it.
I will be very "fiddley" about the definition of wavefunctions and their assumed extents. I will invoke Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory.
Cheers
Cheers
All,
I was going to (reluctantly) re-post links, restate my position, restate the inherent flaws in the "simple, historic (archaic) version of the DSE. I won't, though. C2, I am not "adopting" the elf-packet, I was trying to tell him that he and I were on the same page about that. This, AFAIK, is totally in agreement with theory AND empirical data.
This experiment was done long before lasers, folks. The effect of the multiple frequencies present (from a candle, light bulb, or laser) creates the interference (difference in values measured) the is "holographically" projected onto the screen, by the reconstruction of the geometric mean frequency, through the summation of the beat frequencies. The "image" is the slit-tooth relationship, repeated with lessening intensity from the center out.
It can't be stated more simply.
When the "tooth" is removed, by reducing to 1 slit, the multiple image disappears, because there is only 1 image to reproduce.
When you take out these "ranging", or upper harmonics, AFTER the slit, there is no time to "regroup" (sum): and you get NO multiple image (the harmonics).
If you SLOW down this process ("1 photon" at a time), the MULTIPLE image is reproduced SLOWLY. Now you can use your statistical approach, because there are MANY interactions taking place between the laser and the slit (the secondary cavity). Eventually, the beats will cross paths with other (harmonic) beats, and they will pass through the "arches" together, recreating the multiple image.
The end-pattern is governed by the integer splitting of the wave, it will be produced every time. The "randomness" is generated by the many OAM's created by the scattered/reflected parts bouncing around in the secondary chamber, and then squeezed through the slits, each slightly different angle exiting on a different (but NOT infinitely so) path to the screen. (see the Compton effect; the DSE is inverse of that process: differing angles (OAM) through a fixed aperature)
Has this experiment ever failed? Then how is it "probabilistic"? In one of the papers, they clearly agree: the experiment ITSELF is a contradiction to the reigning QM theory! Such accuracy would NOT BE POSSIBLE if there were any REAL randomness in the process.
The real irony here, C2, is that the link you just gave SHOWS THIS PROCESS VERY CLEARLY!
If this (wave) were a small hill on a map, wouldn't the number of elevations be solely determined by the number of times you divided the hill? Indeed so! From the "level ground" in front, to the level ground behind, measures the overall distance. If we divide this distance JUST ONCE, we now have THREE points: the center (peak), and the front and back values, that MUST BE greater than "level ground", and LESS than the "top of the hill". The frequencies (elevations) are exactly the same way: they are points created by measuring the rate of change in distance over time.
A hill, in terms of elevation, can be simply described by ONE value: its' height.
This will not help a climber decide what equipment to bring. How steep is this hill?
This ONE value is very adequate in explaining the relationship to all the other hills around.. IE the statistical nature of the hill.
I have climbed the mountain, C2. I am trying to tell you how to get up here. Do you really wish to do it hand over hand, up the"monochromatic" rope?
T.Roc
I was going to (reluctantly) re-post links, restate my position, restate the inherent flaws in the "simple, historic (archaic) version of the DSE. I won't, though. C2, I am not "adopting" the elf-packet, I was trying to tell him that he and I were on the same page about that. This, AFAIK, is totally in agreement with theory AND empirical data.
This experiment was done long before lasers, folks. The effect of the multiple frequencies present (from a candle, light bulb, or laser) creates the interference (difference in values measured) the is "holographically" projected onto the screen, by the reconstruction of the geometric mean frequency, through the summation of the beat frequencies. The "image" is the slit-tooth relationship, repeated with lessening intensity from the center out.
It can't be stated more simply.
When the "tooth" is removed, by reducing to 1 slit, the multiple image disappears, because there is only 1 image to reproduce.
When you take out these "ranging", or upper harmonics, AFTER the slit, there is no time to "regroup" (sum): and you get NO multiple image (the harmonics).
If you SLOW down this process ("1 photon" at a time), the MULTIPLE image is reproduced SLOWLY. Now you can use your statistical approach, because there are MANY interactions taking place between the laser and the slit (the secondary cavity). Eventually, the beats will cross paths with other (harmonic) beats, and they will pass through the "arches" together, recreating the multiple image.
The end-pattern is governed by the integer splitting of the wave, it will be produced every time. The "randomness" is generated by the many OAM's created by the scattered/reflected parts bouncing around in the secondary chamber, and then squeezed through the slits, each slightly different angle exiting on a different (but NOT infinitely so) path to the screen. (see the Compton effect; the DSE is inverse of that process: differing angles (OAM) through a fixed aperature)
Has this experiment ever failed? Then how is it "probabilistic"? In one of the papers, they clearly agree: the experiment ITSELF is a contradiction to the reigning QM theory! Such accuracy would NOT BE POSSIBLE if there were any REAL randomness in the process.
The real irony here, C2, is that the link you just gave SHOWS THIS PROCESS VERY CLEARLY!
If this (wave) were a small hill on a map, wouldn't the number of elevations be solely determined by the number of times you divided the hill? Indeed so! From the "level ground" in front, to the level ground behind, measures the overall distance. If we divide this distance JUST ONCE, we now have THREE points: the center (peak), and the front and back values, that MUST BE greater than "level ground", and LESS than the "top of the hill". The frequencies (elevations) are exactly the same way: they are points created by measuring the rate of change in distance over time.
A hill, in terms of elevation, can be simply described by ONE value: its' height.
This will not help a climber decide what equipment to bring. How steep is this hill?
This ONE value is very adequate in explaining the relationship to all the other hills around.. IE the statistical nature of the hill.
I have climbed the mountain, C2. I am trying to tell you how to get up here. Do you really wish to do it hand over hand, up the"monochromatic" rope?
T.Roc
Hi Troc, StevenA, Good Elf et al,
I'm a bit miffed that you see irony in the way the applet I posted showed what you wished to show.. even I try to post with some integrity. If I remember rightly I was one of the people (a year ago?) that suggested you needed some numbers and some maths .. am I not now doing my best to follow the maths?
Of the applet itself -- I admit that I wasn't happy with the applet from the start .. my claim that I couldn't see it was true but I also wanted a second opinion. Good Elf kindly pointed out that the applet describes an electron not a photon as I had supposed, maybe I should have tried to read the writing inbstead of just looking at the pretty picture.
On the 'integrity' front it might be helpful if I point out that I view frequency as no more than uncertainty in time and I view wavelength as no more than uncertainty in position (this isn't a 'theory' I just do it because it seems to work).. so you can see in advance what I'm looking at..
In my quick scan of Hugens he used waves to construct his rays but made no statement about wavefronts (that I noticed) .. a 'ray' is perfectly compatible with the C2 PoV... a wavefront is (I suspect) where it all goes horribly wrong for everybody.
In the case of a single photon DSE .. you give some justification for 'spreading' .. this is not the same as diffraction and I see no explanation of interference.
-C2.
I'm a bit miffed that you see irony in the way the applet I posted showed what you wished to show.. even I try to post with some integrity. If I remember rightly I was one of the people (a year ago?) that suggested you needed some numbers and some maths .. am I not now doing my best to follow the maths?
Of the applet itself -- I admit that I wasn't happy with the applet from the start .. my claim that I couldn't see it was true but I also wanted a second opinion. Good Elf kindly pointed out that the applet describes an electron not a photon as I had supposed, maybe I should have tried to read the writing inbstead of just looking at the pretty picture.
On the 'integrity' front it might be helpful if I point out that I view frequency as no more than uncertainty in time and I view wavelength as no more than uncertainty in position (this isn't a 'theory' I just do it because it seems to work).. so you can see in advance what I'm looking at..
In my quick scan of Hugens he used waves to construct his rays but made no statement about wavefronts (that I noticed) .. a 'ray' is perfectly compatible with the C2 PoV... a wavefront is (I suspect) where it all goes horribly wrong for everybody.
In the case of a single photon DSE .. you give some justification for 'spreading' .. this is not the same as diffraction and I see no explanation of interference.
-C2.
TRoc, I'm with you, it seems so self evident that the "standard" interpretion of the
results is incorrect. This could be illustrated if instead of slits there were 2 posts
spaced the same as the slits with the rest of the area open and a scanned
laserbeam light source were projected across width of the cavity area with the
posts in the center. I am fairly confident that very similar interference results would be observed but a lot more washed out....
I find it conradictary that on the one hand, it has been stated, that light cannot
interact thru the interaction of EM fields (waves), but on the other hand passing
it thru 2 slits the EM fields (waves) do interact. I am perplexed at the inconsistency....what am I missing? Now, I know from first hand experience that
cavity reflections do set up standing waves at harmonic frequency intervals
depending upon the wavelength of the energy source and the dimensions of the
cavity. Just try dropping a stone
nto a rectangular tub of water and watch the wave reflections coming off the sidewalls and the standing wave pattern that is developed due to time lag effect of
non-symmetric wave interaction. As an exampe, have you ever seen the standing
waves generated in a rectangular ultrasonic tank?
I am not claiming that light doesn't travel as a form of wave, I agree that it
does. I just have a fundamental problem with the interpretation of the DSE
results as described.
If the DSE experiment was done with sound, water, or any wave transport mechanism I would expect harmonically generated interference patterns to
emerge.
Can anyone here prove that the initial wavelenth of the impinging light upon the
slits is the same wavelength separation measured in the interference banding in
the secondary cavity?
I think many of you will find these links worthwhile...
http://www.martindalecenter.com/Calculator...tml#OPT-SCIENCE
http://www.martindalecenter.com/Calculators4.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...con.html#quacon
I'm seeking knowledge (I am very appreciative for the knowledge and
information shared by many on this board). Convince me and remove all doubt.
LL
results is incorrect. This could be illustrated if instead of slits there were 2 posts
spaced the same as the slits with the rest of the area open and a scanned
laserbeam light source were projected across width of the cavity area with the
posts in the center. I am fairly confident that very similar interference results would be observed but a lot more washed out....
I find it conradictary that on the one hand, it has been stated, that light cannot
interact thru the interaction of EM fields (waves), but on the other hand passing
it thru 2 slits the EM fields (waves) do interact. I am perplexed at the inconsistency....what am I missing? Now, I know from first hand experience that
cavity reflections do set up standing waves at harmonic frequency intervals
depending upon the wavelength of the energy source and the dimensions of the
cavity. Just try dropping a stone
nto a rectangular tub of water and watch the wave reflections coming off the sidewalls and the standing wave pattern that is developed due to time lag effect of
non-symmetric wave interaction. As an exampe, have you ever seen the standing
waves generated in a rectangular ultrasonic tank?
I am not claiming that light doesn't travel as a form of wave, I agree that it
does. I just have a fundamental problem with the interpretation of the DSE
results as described.
If the DSE experiment was done with sound, water, or any wave transport mechanism I would expect harmonically generated interference patterns to
emerge.
Can anyone here prove that the initial wavelenth of the impinging light upon the
slits is the same wavelength separation measured in the interference banding in
the secondary cavity?
I think many of you will find these links worthwhile...
http://www.martindalecenter.com/Calculator...tml#OPT-SCIENCE
http://www.martindalecenter.com/Calculators4.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...con.html#quacon
I'm seeking knowledge (I am very appreciative for the knowledge and
information shared by many on this board). Convince me and remove all doubt.
LL
Hi Laserlight,
Can anyone here prove that the initial wavelenth of the impinging light upon the
slits is the same wavelength separation measured in the interference banding in
the secondary cavity?
The separation of the interference banding is not expected to be the same as the wavelength of the light .. it is related to the wavelength and path difference .. can you clarify what you mean by 'cavity'?
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/twoslitsa.html
If you don't like my links .. try it at home!
http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/youngdoubleslit.html
Links to.. (the equation YE )
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys...ght/u12l3d.html
Note that the formula YE gives the wavelength calculated from the geometry of the experiment.. algebra allows us to manipulate the formula so we can predict the separation of the banding using the wavelength and the separation of the slits. I can help if this is a problem.
Best wishes,
-C2.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Can anyone here prove that the initial wavelenth of the impinging light upon the
slits is the same wavelength separation measured in the interference banding in
the secondary cavity?
The separation of the interference banding is not expected to be the same as the wavelength of the light .. it is related to the wavelength and path difference .. can you clarify what you mean by 'cavity'?
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/twoslitsa.html
If you don't like my links .. try it at home!
http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/youngdoubleslit.html
Links to.. (the equation YE )
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys...ght/u12l3d.html
Note that the formula YE gives the wavelength calculated from the geometry of the experiment.. algebra allows us to manipulate the formula so we can predict the separation of the banding using the wavelength and the separation of the slits. I can help if this is a problem.
Best wishes,
-C2.
TRoc, is this reprentative to your harmonic reflection assertion?
http://www.kw.igs.net/~jackord/bp/n4.html
http://www.kw.igs.net/~jackord/bp/n1.html#p1
http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/mcinty...ng/grating.html
http://www.kw.igs.net/~jackord/bp/n4.html
http://www.kw.igs.net/~jackord/bp/n1.html#p1
http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/mcinty...ng/grating.html
Hey Confused 2, Good Elf, TRoc and Laserlight,
I realize that this thread is trying to stay on optics (bosons) but I think C2's link and Applet are extremely informative. The Applet illustrates the WAVEFUNCTION of an electron developing in time as it passes through the two slits. It does not show an electron smashing into the wall with some portion transiting the slits, being diffracted and recombining in an interference pattern (along with some being reflected back). It shows the WAVEFUNCTION of the electron, not the electron. For example, there is absolutely no way that the electron's charge is split up, reflected, diffracted, and/or recombined.
As stated in C2's link...
Complementarity... if you accept the experimental evidence that single particles exists (be they photons, electrons, nucleons, etc.) and you except the experimental evidence that these same particles have wave like properties, then you must also accept the principle of complementarity.
To Good Elf (and everyone else), Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory seems to work well for zero mass bosons (and possible very light weight neutrinos as well) but not so well for slow moving massive particles. But slow moving massive particles also exhibit wavefunction self interference. Thoughts?
I realize that this thread is trying to stay on optics (bosons) but I think C2's link and Applet are extremely informative. The Applet illustrates the WAVEFUNCTION of an electron developing in time as it passes through the two slits. It does not show an electron smashing into the wall with some portion transiting the slits, being diffracted and recombining in an interference pattern (along with some being reflected back). It shows the WAVEFUNCTION of the electron, not the electron. For example, there is absolutely no way that the electron's charge is split up, reflected, diffracted, and/or recombined.
As stated in C2's link...
QUOTE
Remember that the electron itself is a very small particle, less in size than the size of a point (a pixel) in the figure. However, the "wavefunction" associated with the particle typically may extend over a scale of tens of nanometers. At any time, the square magnitude of the wavefunction plotted in the figure would be proportional to the probability of detecting the particle at that point, if the whole plane was covered with electron detectors which would be activated at that instant in time. Only one of those detectors would then "click", with the corresponding probability. The wavefunction will then instantly lose its meaning and is said to "collapse".
Complementarity... if you accept the experimental evidence that single particles exists (be they photons, electrons, nucleons, etc.) and you except the experimental evidence that these same particles have wave like properties, then you must also accept the principle of complementarity.
To Good Elf (and everyone else), Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory seems to work well for zero mass bosons (and possible very light weight neutrinos as well) but not so well for slow moving massive particles. But slow moving massive particles also exhibit wavefunction self interference. Thoughts?
Why Not? et al,
I'd be very pleased to go 'Feynman-Wheeler' (I've never understood it) but Troc and I have been discussing 'stuff' on and off for nearly a year and it looks like the DSE is getting us close to 'something' (also Laserlight) .. New thread? .. or pick any I've started that looks remotely suitable. Good Elf's 'Electricity - is it bubbles?' is a safe place if he's happy with the idea.
(!Y glad you're back)
-C2.
I'd be very pleased to go 'Feynman-Wheeler' (I've never understood it) but Troc and I have been discussing 'stuff' on and off for nearly a year and it looks like the DSE is getting us close to 'something' (also Laserlight) .. New thread? .. or pick any I've started that looks remotely suitable. Good Elf's 'Electricity - is it bubbles?' is a safe place if he's happy with the idea.
(!Y glad you're back)
-C2.
Confused 2, Good Elf, TRoc and Laserlight, Why Not?, and many I have missed,
I never liked a new kid on the block [yquantum] to just show up like a bad act of decoherence. {PUN}
The only way I can analyze this TSE is from a QM perspective because of my background so hear me out on this. BTW, it has been a long day/night and my gray matter is mush so consider the state I am in.
From my "Frame of Reference" after all that has been said and I do hope I did not miss to many post is each photon, electron, atom or any other microscopic particle it does not matter, must be in a superposition of two states.
It is that undeniable from the test I have witness, and I cannot tell you why but it just does.
I am no R.Feynman but what he said is true. It is for lack of words to describe the weirdness of QM, it is orchestrated by their wavelike alter ego.
I will stay as long as I can keep awake to drive home.
ciao_
yquantum
I never liked a new kid on the block [yquantum] to just show up like a bad act of decoherence. {PUN}
The only way I can analyze this TSE is from a QM perspective because of my background so hear me out on this. BTW, it has been a long day/night and my gray matter is mush so consider the state I am in.
From my "Frame of Reference" after all that has been said and I do hope I did not miss to many post is each photon, electron, atom or any other microscopic particle it does not matter, must be in a superposition of two states.
It is that undeniable from the test I have witness, and I cannot tell you why but it just does.
I am no R.Feynman but what he said is true. It is for lack of words to describe the weirdness of QM, it is orchestrated by their wavelike alter ego.
I will stay as long as I can keep awake to drive home.
ciao_
yquantum
C-2, I just did the experiment that you referenced using a laser pointer, thru a
pinhole in a piece of thin blackened notecard board. I shined the small pinhole
laser beam across the cross-section edge of a small piece of card....
(the fact that I've had several shots of peach brandy may compromise my results)
From the initial tiny laser spot, I was able to get what looked like a smeared
horizontally oriented beam presentation, but I could not discern any interference
patterns.
I then decided to punch 2 tiny pinholes into the bit of card covering the laser
aperture leaving just the tinyest bit of filament between the holes. I then shined
the laser at the wall from 2" to 2 feet away....I only observed 2 laser spots
on the wall. Being the creative fellow that I am, (humor intended)...., I then
went into the darkened bathroom and shined the dual hole beam into the
bathroom mirror at various angles so that the reflection shone on a nearby wall.
At that point I did observe several maxima and minima of the reflected beam,
regardless of the angle of incidence of the twin beams to the mirror. I also
observed that regardless of the orientation of the two holes, whether horizontal
or vertical ( or any angle in between) the angle of the diffacted beam that
was projected onto the wall was in the horizontal plane. The angle of the
incident beam did seem to change the overall width of the reflection observed
on the wall, which should be explainable by the anglular diffraction thru the
glass and the two mirror refractive interfaces.
My analysis of this experiment is.......don't drink when you are trying to perform
an experiment!... It is fun, but the results cannot be verified....
LL
pinhole in a piece of thin blackened notecard board. I shined the small pinhole
laser beam across the cross-section edge of a small piece of card....
(the fact that I've had several shots of peach brandy may compromise my results)
From the initial tiny laser spot, I was able to get what looked like a smeared
horizontally oriented beam presentation, but I could not discern any interference
patterns.
I then decided to punch 2 tiny pinholes into the bit of card covering the laser
aperture leaving just the tinyest bit of filament between the holes. I then shined
the laser at the wall from 2" to 2 feet away....I only observed 2 laser spots
on the wall. Being the creative fellow that I am, (humor intended)...., I then
went into the darkened bathroom and shined the dual hole beam into the
bathroom mirror at various angles so that the reflection shone on a nearby wall.
At that point I did observe several maxima and minima of the reflected beam,
regardless of the angle of incidence of the twin beams to the mirror. I also
observed that regardless of the orientation of the two holes, whether horizontal
or vertical ( or any angle in between) the angle of the diffacted beam that
was projected onto the wall was in the horizontal plane. The angle of the
incident beam did seem to change the overall width of the reflection observed
on the wall, which should be explainable by the anglular diffraction thru the
glass and the two mirror refractive interfaces.
My analysis of this experiment is.......don't drink when you are trying to perform
an experiment!... It is fun, but the results cannot be verified....
LL
yquantum,
"The superposition of two states"
Now it is my turn to ask for clarification.
My analysis of this experiment is.......don't drink when you are trying to perform
an experiment!...
LOL
-C2.
QUOTE (y+)
"The superposition of two states"
Now it is my turn to ask for clarification.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
My analysis of this experiment is.......don't drink when you are trying to perform
an experiment!...
LOL
-C2.
Post script...I decided to see what happens when the 2 pin hole laser pointer
experiment is projected at a wall and also at the mirror from a further distance than 2 feet, so I shined...(shone)...the beam from up to 6 feet away. The results for both attempts, resulted in a single diffused (smeared) single laser spot on the
target walls. But then again...it could just be the brandy....LOL@
LL
experiment is projected at a wall and also at the mirror from a further distance than 2 feet, so I shined...(shone)...the beam from up to 6 feet away. The results for both attempts, resulted in a single diffused (smeared) single laser spot on the
target walls. But then again...it could just be the brandy....LOL@
LL
C2,
This is a reasonable question which has no easy answer if any, it is just the nature of the quantum world weirdness.
Interference it all comes down to this, C2 in our reality which would collapse the wave that is in a superposition state mentioned above is just the way it is. I like what Laserlight said.
It you want more weirdness of the experiment look into Everett's world, poor guy could not get on the elevator without someone asking him what WORLD he was in today. POINT: we could be talking about many different universes that seems to bridge this experiment together.
To top it off many physicist to name one and he is well read his site and you will understand, David Deutsch is one that is taking this seriously and he is working in the University of Oxford. C2, this experiment is just counterintuitive reality plain and complex.
Now, I think I need a drink.
Going to get my mind into bed will pick this up in a few hours, I hope.
ciao_
yquantum
Please take care and do not let them call the insane asylum people on me, Eh!
This is a reasonable question which has no easy answer if any, it is just the nature of the quantum world weirdness.
Interference it all comes down to this, C2 in our reality which would collapse the wave that is in a superposition state mentioned above is just the way it is. I like what Laserlight said.
QUOTE
My analysis of this experiment is.......don't drink when you are trying to perform
an experiment!...
an experiment!...
It you want more weirdness of the experiment look into Everett's world, poor guy could not get on the elevator without someone asking him what WORLD he was in today. POINT: we could be talking about many different universes that seems to bridge this experiment together.
To top it off many physicist to name one and he is well read his site and you will understand, David Deutsch is one that is taking this seriously and he is working in the University of Oxford. C2, this experiment is just counterintuitive reality plain and complex.
Now, I think I need a drink.
Going to get my mind into bed will pick this up in a few hours, I hope.
ciao_
yquantum
Please take care and do not let them call the insane asylum people on me, Eh!
C-2,
It is the area beyond the slits... it is rectangular, so any wave/particle
reflections off of the 4 sides (and top and bottom) of the enclosed "cavity"
will mix and form reflective harmonic beat signal wavefronts that will interact in 3
dimensions (x,y, and z)with the incoming "deformed" signal information that clears the openings of the 2 slits.
The sidewall reflections of the enclosed cavity will constructively and destructively interact (mix) with the
stronger incoming primary frequency signal information arriving via the slits and
generate harmonic standing waves in a pattern determined by the timing delays of
signals reflected off of the sidewalls....
An interesting idea....what if the "mixing" cavity were round.....the interference pattern should change, or if the cavity LxW dimensions were changed...
I would expect the standing wavefronts to change the maxima and minima of the
observed resultant composite hamonic "beat" signals. This would prove the
harmonic interaction of reflected waves with the original "tone" frequency signal.
Conversely, if there is no "cavity" (no sidewalls) then harmonics are not
a primary factor and the concept of wave interaction is conclusively proved,
unless.....there are harmonic interactions betweent the 2 signals due to
timing interactions as they mix when crossing/combining, past the cavities of
the 2 slits. If this is the result then the waveform will be dramatically different
than that presented in the DSE, which will prove harmonic interaction of the
mixing signals.
LL
QUOTE
can you clarify what you mean by 'cavity'?
It is the area beyond the slits... it is rectangular, so any wave/particle
reflections off of the 4 sides (and top and bottom) of the enclosed "cavity"
will mix and form reflective harmonic beat signal wavefronts that will interact in 3
dimensions (x,y, and z)with the incoming "deformed" signal information that clears the openings of the 2 slits.
The sidewall reflections of the enclosed cavity will constructively and destructively interact (mix) with the
stronger incoming primary frequency signal information arriving via the slits and
generate harmonic standing waves in a pattern determined by the timing delays of
signals reflected off of the sidewalls....
An interesting idea....what if the "mixing" cavity were round.....the interference pattern should change, or if the cavity LxW dimensions were changed...
I would expect the standing wavefronts to change the maxima and minima of the
observed resultant composite hamonic "beat" signals. This would prove the
harmonic interaction of reflected waves with the original "tone" frequency signal.
Conversely, if there is no "cavity" (no sidewalls) then harmonics are not
a primary factor and the concept of wave interaction is conclusively proved,
unless.....there are harmonic interactions betweent the 2 signals due to
timing interactions as they mix when crossing/combining, past the cavities of
the 2 slits. If this is the result then the waveform will be dramatically different
than that presented in the DSE, which will prove harmonic interaction of the
mixing signals.
LL
Hi Confused2, Yquantum, StevenA, Laserlight, Why Not?, TRoc et al,
The integrity of everybody on this site is of a very high standard and this is not an issue. Even Zephir is very earnest in what he believes. What it means is we are all trying our best to describe what it is that can give us the best insight into the nature of the basic reality we exist in. The fact that C2 has posted so frankly is not supposed to show any weakness... That would be a very immature view of what we are as individuals who are seeking what is true. I will not "compete" against others, there are far more adequate exponents of this science than myself. What I am trying to show as a bona fide "elf" there is a holistic view of a unified field theory based on pure geometric concepts similar to the way Einstein tried unsuccessfully to produce up to his death about 50 years ago. It is a coincidence that one of his protege's, David Bohm, tried to draw all the threads together years ago with his "hidden variable" theory. Clearly he was up against years of nay-saying particle theorists and like Einstein was "howled down" by those who were unable to support the view he and Einstein were expressing but in different ways. There have been others such as Alain Aspect who have disagreed with the standard concept and we have previously shown how he was particularly "upset" by current Quantum Theory. A totally particle orientated view of the "flat" universe is "possible". I will not argue with that. What the world is missing is a physically and experimentally consistent view of our world based on ALL the available evidence. I fully realize that once things get heavy it is very easy to grasp for a "dumbed down" result that works and we can ignore those finer points that lead to "anomaly". What I want to clearly demonstrate is you need the "detail" to get to the "devil" in the matter.
A totally wave orientated picture leads to photons propagating in higher dimensions. I fully realize that you do not "need" higher dimensions to explain the existing data but it is getting very hard to hide the fact that not admitting the dimensions is causing cracks in the philosophical framework. I am not the only one who says this. String theory is really not about "strings" it is about higher dimensional objects that "look like strings" when viewed from afar. String theory removes the infinities of current theories in a consistent way. What string theory does not do (and there are many theories) is dovetail this complexity with the way our world operates. Most of the proponents of string theory want to work up from the "bottom". That is from a hypothetical Planck Length at energies beyond the level of mans ability to wield over the next Billion Years. Mostly they are "empire building" with mathematical "edifices" that are beyond experimental approach. What I am saying is there is no experimental justification for this approach other than a pure mental exercise in mathematics (and get paid for it at the same time). I will state this again there is no justification for the Planck Length nor is there any justification for "quantum noise" at the highest energies in the universe leading to a "quantum foam". On the contrary it is reasonable to say that the higher the energy of a process the shorter the interval of time required for that process to become unstable and "disintegrate" into a shower of much lower potential energy states. That means that any small disturbances of the manifold at ever shortening distance scales the quicker this "noise" will dissipate in purely dissipative phenomena... a shower of real particles. The Universe has long since passed through any phase in which the raw manifold was "chaotic" and is now the calmest and most featureless "plane" at those energies that we could possibly imagine. This does not mean that quanta may be moving through this "perfect serenity" all the time... just the background is "dead calm" now. It is very possible that this manifold is disturbed but the scale of the disturbance most likely to be affected will now not be on one that Cern will be testing but one that radio masts are disturbing.... the low energy end of spacetime. This is because spacetime at larger scales can be deformed with lower energy. Since E = hf this shows the scale of disturbances favors low frequencies and large wavelengths.
This all comes about through "reciprocal space and reciprocal time (frequency)" phenomena. High energies mean small particles and low energies mean big particles. This is the truth about all true particles everywhere. There are no large sized particles with high energies... Kapeesh? If you do not believe me show me one? What you find is the heavier the particle the smaller it physically is. Reciprocal space makes it so. We are composed of a lot of physically small particles separated by large volumetric spaces... like atoms are like a tiny bowl of cherries in the middle of a stadium with the electrons "whizzing" way up in the stands. The "empty spaces are bosons and they are low in energy but "big" but they define the size of space. We are obsessed with the notion that "big and heavy" things contain more energy. Wrong...
a particle's volume is inversely related to its mass and to energy content.
The next point is from Laserlight...
The integrity of everybody on this site is of a very high standard and this is not an issue. Even Zephir is very earnest in what he believes. What it means is we are all trying our best to describe what it is that can give us the best insight into the nature of the basic reality we exist in. The fact that C2 has posted so frankly is not supposed to show any weakness... That would be a very immature view of what we are as individuals who are seeking what is true. I will not "compete" against others, there are far more adequate exponents of this science than myself. What I am trying to show as a bona fide "elf" there is a holistic view of a unified field theory based on pure geometric concepts similar to the way Einstein tried unsuccessfully to produce up to his death about 50 years ago. It is a coincidence that one of his protege's, David Bohm, tried to draw all the threads together years ago with his "hidden variable" theory. Clearly he was up against years of nay-saying particle theorists and like Einstein was "howled down" by those who were unable to support the view he and Einstein were expressing but in different ways. There have been others such as Alain Aspect who have disagreed with the standard concept and we have previously shown how he was particularly "upset" by current Quantum Theory. A totally particle orientated view of the "flat" universe is "possible". I will not argue with that. What the world is missing is a physically and experimentally consistent view of our world based on ALL the available evidence. I fully realize that once things get heavy it is very easy to grasp for a "dumbed down" result that works and we can ignore those finer points that lead to "anomaly". What I want to clearly demonstrate is you need the "detail" to get to the "devil" in the matter.
A totally wave orientated picture leads to photons propagating in higher dimensions. I fully realize that you do not "need" higher dimensions to explain the existing data but it is getting very hard to hide the fact that not admitting the dimensions is causing cracks in the philosophical framework. I am not the only one who says this. String theory is really not about "strings" it is about higher dimensional objects that "look like strings" when viewed from afar. String theory removes the infinities of current theories in a consistent way. What string theory does not do (and there are many theories) is dovetail this complexity with the way our world operates. Most of the proponents of string theory want to work up from the "bottom". That is from a hypothetical Planck Length at energies beyond the level of mans ability to wield over the next Billion Years. Mostly they are "empire building" with mathematical "edifices" that are beyond experimental approach. What I am saying is there is no experimental justification for this approach other than a pure mental exercise in mathematics (and get paid for it at the same time). I will state this again there is no justification for the Planck Length nor is there any justification for "quantum noise" at the highest energies in the universe leading to a "quantum foam". On the contrary it is reasonable to say that the higher the energy of a process the shorter the interval of time required for that process to become unstable and "disintegrate" into a shower of much lower potential energy states. That means that any small disturbances of the manifold at ever shortening distance scales the quicker this "noise" will dissipate in purely dissipative phenomena... a shower of real particles. The Universe has long since passed through any phase in which the raw manifold was "chaotic" and is now the calmest and most featureless "plane" at those energies that we could possibly imagine. This does not mean that quanta may be moving through this "perfect serenity" all the time... just the background is "dead calm" now. It is very possible that this manifold is disturbed but the scale of the disturbance most likely to be affected will now not be on one that Cern will be testing but one that radio masts are disturbing.... the low energy end of spacetime. This is because spacetime at larger scales can be deformed with lower energy. Since E = hf this shows the scale of disturbances favors low frequencies and large wavelengths.
This all comes about through "reciprocal space and reciprocal time (frequency)" phenomena. High energies mean small particles and low energies mean big particles. This is the truth about all true particles everywhere. There are no large sized particles with high energies... Kapeesh? If you do not believe me show me one? What you find is the heavier the particle the smaller it physically is. Reciprocal space makes it so. We are composed of a lot of physically small particles separated by large volumetric spaces... like atoms are like a tiny bowl of cherries in the middle of a stadium with the electrons "whizzing" way up in the stands. The "empty spaces are bosons and they are low in energy but "big" but they define the size of space. We are obsessed with the notion that "big and heavy" things contain more energy. Wrong...
a particle's volume is inversely related to its mass and to energy content.
The next point is from Laserlight...
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I find it contradictory that on the one hand, it has been stated, that light cannot interact through the interaction of EM fields (waves), but on the other hand passing it thru 2 slits the EM fields (waves) do interact. I am perplexed at the inconsistency....what am I missing? Now, I know from first hand experience that cavity reflections do set up standing waves at harmonic frequency intervals depending upon the wavelength of the energy source and the dimensions of the cavity. Just try dropping a stone nto a rectangular tub of water and watch the wave reflections coming off the sidewalls and the standing wave pattern that is developed due to time lag effect of non-symmetric wave interaction. As an exampe, have you ever seen the standing waves generated in a rectangular ultrasonic tank? [...] If the DSE experiment was done with sound, water, or any wave transport mechanism I would expect harmonically generated interference patterns to emerge.
Can anyone here prove that the initial wavelenth of the impinging light upon the slits is the same wavelength separation measured in the interference banding in the secondary cavity?
Can anyone here prove that the initial wavelenth of the impinging light upon the slits is the same wavelength separation measured in the interference banding in the secondary cavity?
As shown in the diffraction grating simulation the spatial distance between peaks is highly adjustable for any wavelength if you change the spacing of the slits.
http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/mcinty...ng/grating.html
You showed that here.
The next point I would like to say is these patterns on screens are usually built up over long exposures. In the case that you saw with the single electron striking the screen and "bouncing", that was only one particle so all the interference was being performed by the one electron. You do not need multiple electrons to produce these patterns. In the same fashion the interference pattern for bosons is similar in that it is not separate bosons interfering with each other to make that pattern it is one boson at a time that "interferes" with itself to produce the pattern... the same pattern for every "coherent" boson (photon). Same one click per photon but the wave is the "seek all paths" state of one single spreading photon. A dozen photons on the one wavefront does not change the pattern or the way it diffracts, it only affects the total energy of the "wave". Remember that diffraction or interference does not change the frequency of the waves (the actual "color" of the laser light) it only affects where dark and light areas appear (intensity) on the screen through reinforcement and cancellation. You have seen in that simulation by C2 of an electron there is no solid object there in the sense of a "hard" particle, it is all waves. It becomes spread to fill cavities or concentrated to a "hard little point" through accelerations. At low velocity the electron is everywhere in a cavity especially as the v -> 0 . So the behavior is any low velocity low mass particle becomes delocalized as v -> 0. Where does Quantum Mechanics say this? It is also the actual way in which things behave and to some it is counter intuitive but it is the nature of our world and it can be shown through experiment. In summary bosons which always travel at the speed of light continually spread into all available space and fermions, as v -> 0, spread in time to occupy all space. Also Fermions need to be in relative motion to remain localized and bosons will only localize when they are involved in an "interaction". Show me where quantum theory says this, yet this is the nature of everything in our Universe. Delocalization is the natural state any particle when viewed in its own frame of reference and this is an extension to Special Relativity I have often spoken about.
This is because Special Relativity has two ends... the speed of light and every rest frame (Inertial frame of reference).
Would anyone like to make comments about this at all?
Cheers
http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/mcinty...ng/grating.html
You showed that here.
The next point I would like to say is these patterns on screens are usually built up over long exposures. In the case that you saw with the single electron striking the screen and "bouncing", that was only one particle so all the interference was being performed by the one electron. You do not need multiple electrons to produce these patterns. In the same fashion the interference pattern for bosons is similar in that it is not separate bosons interfering with each other to make that pattern it is one boson at a time that "interferes" with itself to produce the pattern... the same pattern for every "coherent" boson (photon). Same one click per photon but the wave is the "seek all paths" state of one single spreading photon. A dozen photons on the one wavefront does not change the pattern or the way it diffracts, it only affects the total energy of the "wave". Remember that diffraction or interference does not change the frequency of the waves (the actual "color" of the laser light) it only affects where dark and light areas appear (intensity) on the screen through reinforcement and cancellation. You have seen in that simulation by C2 of an electron there is no solid object there in the sense of a "hard" particle, it is all waves. It becomes spread to fill cavities or concentrated to a "hard little point" through accelerations. At low velocity the electron is everywhere in a cavity especially as the v -> 0 . So the behavior is any low velocity low mass particle becomes delocalized as v -> 0. Where does Quantum Mechanics say this? It is also the actual way in which things behave and to some it is counter intuitive but it is the nature of our world and it can be shown through experiment. In summary bosons which always travel at the speed of light continually spread into all available space and fermions, as v -> 0, spread in time to occupy all space. Also Fermions need to be in relative motion to remain localized and bosons will only localize when they are involved in an "interaction". Show me where quantum theory says this, yet this is the nature of everything in our Universe. Delocalization is the natural state any particle when viewed in its own frame of reference and this is an extension to Special Relativity I have often spoken about.
This is because Special Relativity has two ends... the speed of light and every rest frame (Inertial frame of reference).
Would anyone like to make comments about this at all?
Cheers
Hi all,
C2, my statement about the irony was that you POSTED the link, but were not able to view it; I wanted to show you what you showed me! (and couldn't. I take it, you can view it on your computer now?)
I'm unclear on this:
Could you restate for me?
You asked "You will need to show how a predictable result can look random .. "
1. Did you understand/accept my statement on the Orbital Angular Momentum.
2. Do you agree that this "pattern" is not truly "random"? (just the order they seem to appear in)
And, you said "Already it looks (to me) like you are trying to apply wavelet analysis to a 'ray' of light. I predict such analysis will fail unless carried out with extreme caution."
Can you explain why?
If you " view frequency as no more than uncertainty in time and I view wavelength as no more than uncertainty in position ", then can you see that the quanta of Energy, represented in the related equations as a frequency, will have a varying frequency in any instant of time (a snapshot). If you try to measure the frequency for just a little time, it would vary over a distance. This is HUP.
Do you, or not, agree that there is more than 1 frequency in the quanta of energy?
(this is the reason for my questioning of how a "single photon" is identified)
I'm not sure what you mean here, either: "In the case of a single photon DSE .. you give some justification for 'spreading' .. this is not the same as diffraction and I see no explanation of interference. " ?
You said "If I remember rightly I was one of the people (a year ago?) that suggested you needed some numbers and some maths .. am I not now doing my best to follow the maths?" That's right, it was you. But you have forgotten that I had nothing but numbers, and some math. I had to spend time asking the right questions to see the full meaning. I gave an equation in this thread to no response; what am I supposed to do with that? The model to which the math goes with IS JUST AS IMPORTANT, especially when there are FLAWS in the model you are comparing to. Not the math, mind you, its' been tailored to work, but the story that is suppose to JUSTIFY the math DOESN'T! It's illogical nonsense. It's Official Hand Waving.
Why Not?,
Just for the record, I do not buy the particle explanation. For me, a true "particle" will be in the neighborhood of molecule size; at least di-atomic or more.
Laserlight,
Thanks for the links, they are good ones. Yes, there are similarities. I will say here that the 3 valid interpretations the are used in QM were prove equivalent by Dirac. I agree with equivalent, however, I must logically conclude (as have many others), that NONE of them are FUNDAMENTAL.
From the first link:
Could you restate for me?
You asked "You will need to show how a predictable result can look random .. "
1. Did you understand/accept my statement on the Orbital Angular Momentum.
2. Do you agree that this "pattern" is not truly "random"? (just the order they seem to appear in)
And, you said "Already it looks (to me) like you are trying to apply wavelet analysis to a 'ray' of light. I predict such analysis will fail unless carried out with extreme caution."
Can you explain why?
If you " view frequency as no more than uncertainty in time and I view wavelength as no more than uncertainty in position ", then can you see that the quanta of Energy, represented in the related equations as a frequency, will have a varying frequency in any instant of time (a snapshot). If you try to measure the frequency for just a little time, it would vary over a distance. This is HUP.
Do you, or not, agree that there is more than 1 frequency in the quanta of energy?
(this is the reason for my questioning of how a "single photon" is identified)
I'm not sure what you mean here, either: "In the case of a single photon DSE .. you give some justification for 'spreading' .. this is not the same as diffraction and I see no explanation of interference. " ?
You said "If I remember rightly I was one of the people (a year ago?) that suggested you needed some numbers and some maths .. am I not now doing my best to follow the maths?" That's right, it was you. But you have forgotten that I had nothing but numbers, and some math. I had to spend time asking the right questions to see the full meaning. I gave an equation in this thread to no response; what am I supposed to do with that? The model to which the math goes with IS JUST AS IMPORTANT, especially when there are FLAWS in the model you are comparing to. Not the math, mind you, its' been tailored to work, but the story that is suppose to JUSTIFY the math DOESN'T! It's illogical nonsense. It's Official Hand Waving.
Why Not?,
Just for the record, I do not buy the particle explanation. For me, a true "particle" will be in the neighborhood of molecule size; at least di-atomic or more.
Laserlight,
Thanks for the links, they are good ones. Yes, there are similarities. I will say here that the 3 valid interpretations the are used in QM were prove equivalent by Dirac. I agree with equivalent, however, I must logically conclude (as have many others), that NONE of them are FUNDAMENTAL.
From the first link:
"For the classical string, a set of mass points on a weightless string is a physical model with its own dispersion relation. The quantum string has no corresponding physical model."
and
I don't know how they can say that in the same paper. THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING PHYSICAL MODEL. Never have I seen ANYTHING in Science to indicate that a "virtual string" could be strung between 2 "imaginary" points in space, with tension.
I've said before, and I'll say again: Science had there ears CLOSED when they were studying the vibrating string. What kind of "study" was that?
I should point out that MOST of the "famous" Scientists DID try to study things like "resonance", and the pattern of the "octave", etc. They did not find it though. This did stop Science from "borrowing" when it could. It can be strongly argued that Music, as a whole, has done more to influence and direct modern Physics to where it is now, than any other thing. (even after the musicians were kicked out of the "Science Club")
Resonance "unpredictable"?? Not hardly! This is the most accurate, confirmed experiment in History. Science just needed to close their EYES, and listen to 3 vibrating strings, and study that. We wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Superposition? Resonance? Second Harmonic Generation? Frequency Shift? Beat Frequency? Octave? Fundamental Note (frequency)? Its' all been right there, the whole time.
Of course, if the musicians had studied their math, we wouldn't be having this conversation either!
T.Roc
C2, my statement about the irony was that you POSTED the link, but were not able to view it; I wanted to show you what you showed me! (and couldn't. I take it, you can view it on your computer now?)
I'm unclear on this:
QUOTE
"Let us imagine we have a very badly setup DSE, loads of reflective surfaces, a complete mess.. the only thing we make sure 'works' is the ability to detect interference. We use a humungous laser .. we want to do this badly. Let's say a ray of light bounces off, out through the window which reflects some of the light back into the room and some bounces back off a car outside.. back through the window and the two beams meet and destructively interfere on the screen while we watch. "
Could you restate for me?
You asked "You will need to show how a predictable result can look random .. "
1. Did you understand/accept my statement on the Orbital Angular Momentum.
2. Do you agree that this "pattern" is not truly "random"? (just the order they seem to appear in)
And, you said "Already it looks (to me) like you are trying to apply wavelet analysis to a 'ray' of light. I predict such analysis will fail unless carried out with extreme caution."
Can you explain why?
If you " view frequency as no more than uncertainty in time and I view wavelength as no more than uncertainty in position ", then can you see that the quanta of Energy, represented in the related equations as a frequency, will have a varying frequency in any instant of time (a snapshot). If you try to measure the frequency for just a little time, it would vary over a distance. This is HUP.
Do you, or not, agree that there is more than 1 frequency in the quanta of energy?
(this is the reason for my questioning of how a "single photon" is identified)
I'm not sure what you mean here, either: "In the case of a single photon DSE .. you give some justification for 'spreading' .. this is not the same as diffraction and I see no explanation of interference. " ?
You said "If I remember rightly I was one of the people (a year ago?) that suggested you needed some numbers and some maths .. am I not now doing my best to follow the maths?" That's right, it was you. But you have forgotten that I had nothing but numbers, and some math. I had to spend time asking the right questions to see the full meaning. I gave an equation in this thread to no response; what am I supposed to do with that? The model to which the math goes with IS JUST AS IMPORTANT, especially when there are FLAWS in the model you are comparing to. Not the math, mind you, its' been tailored to work, but the story that is suppose to JUSTIFY the math DOESN'T! It's illogical nonsense. It's Official Hand Waving.
Why Not?,
Just for the record, I do not buy the particle explanation. For me, a true "particle" will be in the neighborhood of molecule size; at least di-atomic or more.
Laserlight,
Thanks for the links, they are good ones. Yes, there are similarities. I will say here that the 3 valid interpretations the are used in QM were prove equivalent by Dirac. I agree with equivalent, however, I must logically conclude (as have many others), that NONE of them are FUNDAMENTAL.
From the first link:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Let us imagine we have a very badly setup DSE, loads of reflective surfaces, a complete mess.. the only thing we make sure 'works' is the ability to detect interference. We use a humungous laser .. we want to do this badly. Let's say a ray of light bounces off, out through the window which reflects some of the light back into the room and some bounces back off a car outside.. back through the window and the two beams meet and destructively interfere on the screen while we watch. " |
Could you restate for me?
You asked "You will need to show how a predictable result can look random .. "
1. Did you understand/accept my statement on the Orbital Angular Momentum.
2. Do you agree that this "pattern" is not truly "random"? (just the order they seem to appear in)
And, you said "Already it looks (to me) like you are trying to apply wavelet analysis to a 'ray' of light. I predict such analysis will fail unless carried out with extreme caution."
Can you explain why?
If you " view frequency as no more than uncertainty in time and I view wavelength as no more than uncertainty in position ", then can you see that the quanta of Energy, represented in the related equations as a frequency, will have a varying frequency in any instant of time (a snapshot). If you try to measure the frequency for just a little time, it would vary over a distance. This is HUP.
Do you, or not, agree that there is more than 1 frequency in the quanta of energy?
(this is the reason for my questioning of how a "single photon" is identified)
I'm not sure what you mean here, either: "In the case of a single photon DSE .. you give some justification for 'spreading' .. this is not the same as diffraction and I see no explanation of interference. " ?
You said "If I remember rightly I was one of the people (a year ago?) that suggested you needed some numbers and some maths .. am I not now doing my best to follow the maths?" That's right, it was you. But you have forgotten that I had nothing but numbers, and some math. I had to spend time asking the right questions to see the full meaning. I gave an equation in this thread to no response; what am I supposed to do with that? The model to which the math goes with IS JUST AS IMPORTANT, especially when there are FLAWS in the model you are comparing to. Not the math, mind you, its' been tailored to work, but the story that is suppose to JUSTIFY the math DOESN'T! It's illogical nonsense. It's Official Hand Waving.
Why Not?,
Just for the record, I do not buy the particle explanation. For me, a true "particle" will be in the neighborhood of molecule size; at least di-atomic or more.
Laserlight,
Thanks for the links, they are good ones. Yes, there are similarities. I will say here that the 3 valid interpretations the are used in QM were prove equivalent by Dirac. I agree with equivalent, however, I must logically conclude (as have many others), that NONE of them are FUNDAMENTAL.
From the first link:
"For the classical string, a set of mass points on a weightless string is a physical model with its own dispersion relation. The quantum string has no corresponding physical model."
and
QUOTE
"The first two choices are the rectilinear Pluck and Pulse displacements used on the classical string. The initial wavefunction is real in both cases: this is the quantum analog of a string released from rest. The third choice is the rounded pulse, Pulse A, multiplied by a complex exponential that introduces a phase change of 2p across its width. The complex exponential is the quantum analog of initial transverse velocity for the classical string."
I don't know how they can say that in the same paper. THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING PHYSICAL MODEL. Never have I seen ANYTHING in Science to indicate that a "virtual string" could be strung between 2 "imaginary" points in space, with tension.
I've said before, and I'll say again: Science had there ears CLOSED when they were studying the vibrating string. What kind of "study" was that?
I should point out that MOST of the "famous" Scientists DID try to study things like "resonance", and the pattern of the "octave", etc. They did not find it though. This did stop Science from "borrowing" when it could. It can be strongly argued that Music, as a whole, has done more to influence and direct modern Physics to where it is now, than any other thing. (even after the musicians were kicked out of the "Science Club")
Resonance "unpredictable"?? Not hardly! This is the most accurate, confirmed experiment in History. Science just needed to close their EYES, and listen to 3 vibrating strings, and study that. We wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Superposition? Resonance? Second Harmonic Generation? Frequency Shift? Beat Frequency? Octave? Fundamental Note (frequency)? Its' all been right there, the whole time.
Of course, if the musicians had studied their math, we wouldn't be having this conversation either!
T.Roc
Hi Yquantum, Confused2, StevenA, Laserlight, Why Not?, TRoc et al,
I am not calling for a little van to come around and fit me with a new coat with oversized sleeves ... yet! All I ask of those reading this thread to show where experiment disagrees with these assertions. When we measure things it seems we do not really take those measurements seriously. We like particles but particles are an abstraction that is costly when we deal with the science. To accept that it should be science and experiment that should be driving our investigations rather than "intuition" is the leap of faith that has a safety net. If "intuition" alone is driving science we can surely fail. I always try and support claims with experiment except where the statement is in agreement with accepted science.
To have theories based on our hopes and dreams without the backing experiments is "a bridge too far". Much of string theory is not based on experiment yet strings are everywhere as Leonard Susskind once said "If anything is a string, then everything are strings". New ideas always start sounding strange at first but it is through conditioning that we find the new idea so alien. You can't tell me that Quantum Theory would not have been totally alien to scientists of 1900 yet they took the leap of faith. I am saying it is time to look at the experimental results and take the next big step. We have the square peg of quantum theory and we have the round hole of gravity, instead of trying to fit the round peg of gravity into the square hole of quantum theory by quantizing the manifold at the Planck Length we should be taking the square peg of quantum theory and "knocking those square corners off" and fit into a round hole of a continuous wave theory.
Take for instance Alain Aspects view... presented at a conference in commemoration of John Bell.
BELL’S THEOREM : THE NAIVE VIEW OF AN EXPERIMENTALIST.: Alain Aspect
I am not calling for a little van to come around and fit me with a new coat with oversized sleeves ... yet! All I ask of those reading this thread to show where experiment disagrees with these assertions. When we measure things it seems we do not really take those measurements seriously. We like particles but particles are an abstraction that is costly when we deal with the science. To accept that it should be science and experiment that should be driving our investigations rather than "intuition" is the leap of faith that has a safety net. If "intuition" alone is driving science we can surely fail. I always try and support claims with experiment except where the statement is in agreement with accepted science.To have theories based on our hopes and dreams without the backing experiments is "a bridge too far". Much of string theory is not based on experiment yet strings are everywhere as Leonard Susskind once said "If anything is a string, then everything are strings". New ideas always start sounding strange at first but it is through conditioning that we find the new idea so alien. You can't tell me that Quantum Theory would not have been totally alien to scientists of 1900 yet they took the leap of faith. I am saying it is time to look at the experimental results and take the next big step. We have the square peg of quantum theory and we have the round hole of gravity, instead of trying to fit the round peg of gravity into the square hole of quantum theory by quantizing the manifold at the Planck Length we should be taking the square peg of quantum theory and "knocking those square corners off" and fit into a round hole of a continuous wave theory.
Take for instance Alain Aspects view... presented at a conference in commemoration of John Bell.
BELL’S THEOREM : THE NAIVE VIEW OF AN EXPERIMENTALIST.: Alain Aspect
QUOTE (Part of the conclusion from the address given by Aspect above+)
It may be concluded that quantum mechanics has some non-locality in it, and that this non-local character is vindicated by experiments45. It is very important however to note that such a non-locality has a very subtle nature, and in particular that it cannot be used for faster than light telegraphy. It is indeed simple to show46 that in a scheme where one tries to use EPR correlations to send a message, it is necessary to send a complementary information (about the orientation of a polarizer) via a normal channel, which of course does not violate causality. This is similar to the teleportation schemes47 where a quantum state can be teleported via a non-local process, provided that one also transmits classical information via a classical channel. In fact, there is certainly a lot to understand about the exact nature of non-locality, by a careful analysis of such schemes48.
When realizing that this quantum non locality does not allow one to send any useful information, one might be tempted to conclude that in fact there is no real problem, and that all these discussions and experimental efforts are pointless. Before rushing to this conclusion, I would suggest to consider an ideal experiment done with the scheme of figure 17. On each side of the experiment of Fig. 1, done with variable analysers, there is a monitoring system, that registers the detection events in channels + or – with their exact dates. We also suppose that the orientation of each polarizer is changed at random times, also monitored by the system of the corresponding side. It is only when the experiment is completed that the two sets of data, separately collected on each side, are brought together, in order to extract the correlations. Then, looking into the data that were collected previously, and that correspond to paired events that were space like separated when they happened, one can see that indeed the correlation did change at the very moment when the relative orientation of the polarizers changed.
So when one takes the point of view of a delocalized observer, which is certainly not inconsistent when looking into the past, it must be acknowledged that there is a non local behaviour, in the EPR correlations. Entanglement is definitely a feature going beyond any spacetime description à la Einstein: a pair of entangled photons must be considered a single global object, that we cannot consider as made of individual objects separated in spacetime with well defined properties. For many years, I have been quoting the scheme of Figure 17 as a Gedanken Experiment useful for the sake of the discussion. Nowadays, we are lucky that this experiment has been done in the real world: the experiment of Zeilinger and Weihs42, sketched on Figure 18, exactly follows43 the scheme of Figure 17. Once again, the EPR problem has switched from fundamental discussions bearing on Gedanken Experiment, to real experiments. We must be grateful to John Bell for having shown us that philosophical questions about the nature of reality could be translated into a problem for physicists, where naive experimentalists can contribute.
When realizing that this quantum non locality does not allow one to send any useful information, one might be tempted to conclude that in fact there is no real problem, and that all these discussions and experimental efforts are pointless. Before rushing to this conclusion, I would suggest to consider an ideal experiment done with the scheme of figure 17. On each side of the experiment of Fig. 1, done with variable analysers, there is a monitoring system, that registers the detection events in channels + or – with their exact dates. We also suppose that the orientation of each polarizer is changed at random times, also monitored by the system of the corresponding side. It is only when the experiment is completed that the two sets of data, separately collected on each side, are brought together, in order to extract the correlations. Then, looking into the data that were collected previously, and that correspond to paired events that were space like separated when they happened, one can see that indeed the correlation did change at the very moment when the relative orientation of the polarizers changed.
So when one takes the point of view of a delocalized observer, which is certainly not inconsistent when looking into the past, it must be acknowledged that there is a non local behaviour, in the EPR correlations. Entanglement is definitely a feature going beyond any spacetime description à la Einstein: a pair of entangled photons must be considered a single global object, that we cannot consider as made of individual objects separated in spacetime with well defined properties. For many years, I have been quoting the scheme of Figure 17 as a Gedanken Experiment useful for the sake of the discussion. Nowadays, we are lucky that this experiment has been done in the real world: the experiment of Zeilinger and Weihs42, sketched on Figure 18, exactly follows43 the scheme of Figure 17. Once again, the EPR problem has switched from fundamental discussions bearing on Gedanken Experiment, to real experiments. We must be grateful to John Bell for having shown us that philosophical questions about the nature of reality could be translated into a problem for physicists, where naive experimentalists can contribute.
This man is far far from being naive... I know that Yquantum has read this information and it is not news to him. Read the entire document it is worth a good read. I hope all those reading this understand just who Alain Aspect really is?
Wikipedia: Alain Aspect
For those who are not familiar with Scientific Doublespeak we have Aspect saying that experiment supports the view that there are more than 4 dimensions. So have another read about going around the "twist" in my previous post...
The post referred to...
What I am presenting is in accord with this view and in accord with the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser and a view of time that might be applied "globally".
Cheers
Wikipedia: Alain Aspect
For those who are not familiar with Scientific Doublespeak we have Aspect saying that experiment supports the view that there are more than 4 dimensions. So have another read about going around the "twist" in my previous post...
The post referred to...
What I am presenting is in accord with this view and in accord with the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser and a view of time that might be applied "globally".
Cheers
I haven't been following everything on this thread but I had an idea for an interesting experiment related to this topic:
If you had a beam of light passing through a polarizer and then reflected off a distant mirror and then it returned through the same polarization filter, if you rapidly spun the polarizer and had a large enough delay to the light, if the polarization property of light travelled at light speed, along with the photon, the intensity of the returning beam should decrease as the speed of the rotation of the polarization filter increased, as you'd have effectively two polarization events at different angles occur as the same photon passed through it twice.
If the intensity did decrease, then at least the polarization would appear to travel at light speed, though if it didn't, that could imply that the emitter, filter or observer or some combination of properties shared between them, determined the polarity of the detected light ahead of time (or alternately at the moment it was detected, as the "observer" would appear the most obvious commonality shared by all these experiments).
I don't know if such an experiment has already been performed and I hope such an idea wasn't already brought up on this thread but I wanted to toss it out while the idea was fresh.
If you had a beam of light passing through a polarizer and then reflected off a distant mirror and then it returned through the same polarization filter, if you rapidly spun the polarizer and had a large enough delay to the light, if the polarization property of light travelled at light speed, along with the photon, the intensity of the returning beam should decrease as the speed of the rotation of the polarization filter increased, as you'd have effectively two polarization events at different angles occur as the same photon passed through it twice.
If the intensity did decrease, then at least the polarization would appear to travel at light speed, though if it didn't, that could imply that the emitter, filter or observer or some combination of properties shared between them, determined the polarity of the detected light ahead of time (or alternately at the moment it was detected, as the "observer" would appear the most obvious commonality shared by all these experiments).
I don't know if such an experiment has already been performed and I hope such an idea wasn't already brought up on this thread but I wanted to toss it out while the idea was fresh.
Hi StevenA,
An interesting experiment but events occur or they do not occur. A change in brightness only signals absorption of some photons by the polarizer. A forced change in polarization angle might also occur due to the non-linear nature of the material. Since some of the photons that passed will need to have the appropriate angle after the event. I have seen reports of plane of the polarization of light being rotated by virtue of the interstellar medium and the magnetic fields or alternatively the effects of Kerr Cells for instance. Individual photons can have that happen without loss of a qubit. We already know this can occur. I may be missing your point. What conclusion could you draw from that experiment?
Though an event "paints" at the speed of light it will follow causality no matter what path it travels in space as it "searches all paths" and I can't see any new feature indicated by this phenomenon. There is no current way to determine just what all those paths are "experimentally", what we can show is the data for any experiment will be "consistent" with traveling and filling the space and self interfering by recording the results and exactly noting the positions of everything in near space. It would be a "decent" calculation I suspect but not impossible. To make it easier I would use microwaves to reduce the criticality of all the measurements. As far as I can tell this stuff is still in the Gedanken Experiment stage... he he he!
More practical experiments as proposed by Aspect suggest that the results are already known (by the Universe) anyway and it shows that the result cannot be "altered" after the photon is "underway"... it's fate is already "known"... it just does not know it yet and still needs to play out (... stopped clocks and all that). Theoretically this is true of any photon but to actually prove this point you will need entangled pairs that share the same origins. In that case they are of conjugate polarizations so you can't do much without destroying at least one of the photons even on the first pass.
Cheers
An interesting experiment but events occur or they do not occur. A change in brightness only signals absorption of some photons by the polarizer. A forced change in polarization angle might also occur due to the non-linear nature of the material. Since some of the photons that passed will need to have the appropriate angle after the event. I have seen reports of plane of the polarization of light being rotated by virtue of the interstellar medium and the magnetic fields or alternatively the effects of Kerr Cells for instance. Individual photons can have that happen without loss of a qubit. We already know this can occur. I may be missing your point. What conclusion could you draw from that experiment?
Though an event "paints" at the speed of light it will follow causality no matter what path it travels in space as it "searches all paths" and I can't see any new feature indicated by this phenomenon. There is no current way to determine just what all those paths are "experimentally", what we can show is the data for any experiment will be "consistent" with traveling and filling the space and self interfering by recording the results and exactly noting the positions of everything in near space. It would be a "decent" calculation I suspect but not impossible. To make it easier I would use microwaves to reduce the criticality of all the measurements. As far as I can tell this stuff is still in the Gedanken Experiment stage... he he he!
More practical experiments as proposed by Aspect suggest that the results are already known (by the Universe) anyway and it shows that the result cannot be "altered" after the photon is "underway"... it's fate is already "known"... it just does not know it yet and still needs to play out (... stopped clocks and all that). Theoretically this is true of any photon but to actually prove this point you will need entangled pairs that share the same origins. In that case they are of conjugate polarizations so you can't do much without destroying at least one of the photons even on the first pass.
Cheers
Hi All,
Laserlight seems to have discovered the observer dependent aspect of the DSE
.
I suspect there might be some plot problems because photons are 'bits of EM'
AND particles 
in the standard model.
StevenA, I love the experiment. Can we get the same information another way? We know EM is photons.. and there are transmitters all over the place that use it to send signals. If we had a half way decent Electronic Engineer in the house we might be able to use the maths of modulation to the probe the photons that make up the EM.
From http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=140701
Laserlight seems to have discovered the observer dependent aspect of the DSE
.I suspect there might be some plot problems because photons are 'bits of EM'
AND particles in the standard model. StevenA, I love the experiment. Can we get the same information another way? We know EM is photons.. and there are transmitters all over the place that use it to send signals. If we had a half way decent Electronic Engineer in the house we might be able to use the maths of modulation to the probe the photons that make up the EM.
From http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=140701
QUOTE (Mr Homm+)
You have to derive QED by applying quantum field theory to the photon (as it has been defined) and then show that classical EM follows as the limit of QED when Planck's constant approaches zero. This is (as they say in mathematics) "highly nontrivial."
Since we do not require 'proof' we might be able to throw some fairly trivial maths (or hands) at it .. perhaps if we make Planck's constant very big.. ? The right maths for this might also be good for Troc.. I'll do my best and report unless someone else can see a flaw or a result.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Since we do not require 'proof' we might be able to throw some fairly trivial maths (or hands) at it .. perhaps if we make Planck's constant very big.. ? The right maths for this might also be good for Troc.. I'll do my best and report unless someone else can see a flaw or a result.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Well I was thinking that if you use two polarizing filters at different angle, you can block all phases of photons from passing through it.
In order to see whether or not the polarization property truly travels out to a mirror and back and passes through a polarization filter twice at different times, if you had it rotating 90 degs in the time it takes the photon to travel to the mirror and back you should be able to stop all photons on either the forward or reverse trips (though you don't need to actually get up to a 90 deg rotation, but can simply verify a cosine falloff appears to exist at slower rotations).
So for example, if you bounced a tight laser through a mirror a couple miles away, while quickly rotating a polarization filter in from of the beam, near the laser source, you'd have a total of 4 miles delay for the beam.
This would equate to 4/186,000 seconds delay or approximately 22 microseconds worth of delay. For a small filter rotating at 50,000 rpm, that would be a phase difference of 50000/60*22uS = .018 * 2pi ~= 6.6 degs.
If the amplitude dropped by the cosine of this, that would be ~99.3%, so a 0.7% loss in optical intensity should be experienced and increase approximately proportional to the square of the angular velocity (so doubling the rotation speed, or doubling the distance, would bring this up to ~2.8% drop in intensity)
But this all assumes the polarization of a photon is actually a property that, as generally imaged, propogates with the photon itself at light speed. If instead the polarization is not inherent in the photon but a property existing outside of it, or alternately if the photon didn't travel linearly over time through this space, then no decrease in intensity should occur as the photon wouldn't have passed through the filter at delayed time and be filtered twice, with different polarization angles.
In order to see whether or not the polarization property truly travels out to a mirror and back and passes through a polarization filter twice at different times, if you had it rotating 90 degs in the time it takes the photon to travel to the mirror and back you should be able to stop all photons on either the forward or reverse trips (though you don't need to actually get up to a 90 deg rotation, but can simply verify a cosine falloff appears to exist at slower rotations).
So for example, if you bounced a tight laser through a mirror a couple miles away, while quickly rotating a polarization filter in from of the beam, near the laser source, you'd have a total of 4 miles delay for the beam.
This would equate to 4/186,000 seconds delay or approximately 22 microseconds worth of delay. For a small filter rotating at 50,000 rpm, that would be a phase difference of 50000/60*22uS = .018 * 2pi ~= 6.6 degs.
If the amplitude dropped by the cosine of this, that would be ~99.3%, so a 0.7% loss in optical intensity should be experienced and increase approximately proportional to the square of the angular velocity (so doubling the rotation speed, or doubling the distance, would bring this up to ~2.8% drop in intensity)
But this all assumes the polarization of a photon is actually a property that, as generally imaged, propogates with the photon itself at light speed. If instead the polarization is not inherent in the photon but a property existing outside of it, or alternately if the photon didn't travel linearly over time through this space, then no decrease in intensity should occur as the photon wouldn't have passed through the filter at delayed time and be filtered twice, with different polarization angles.
QUOTE (GoodElf+)
More practical experiments as proposed by Aspect suggest that the results are already known (by the Universe) anyway and it shows that the result cannot be "altered" after the photon is "underway"... it's fate is already "known"... it just does not know it yet and still needs to play out (... stopped clocks and all that).
I suspect "fate" doesn't play a role except as individually determined by each observer, with reality being divergent between them (... and possibly merging for others?)
I suspect "fate" doesn't play a role except as individually determined by each observer, with reality being divergent between them (... and possibly merging for others?)
Hi all,
I forgot to say, in my last post:
Laserlight:
I'm not sure, because of the NON necessity of the cavity being circular. Two parallel planes, triangles, cylinders, etc all work well. I'm not saying that there would be NO change, just not enough to really affect the outcome of the DSE. It could effect the ONE AT A TIME version, but everything would have to be perfectly aligned. It might make PREDICTING the apparent randomness of the individual screen hits easier.
and
I'm not sure, because of the NON necessity of the cavity being circular. Two parallel planes, triangles, cylinders, etc all work well. I'm not saying that there would be NO change, just not enough to really affect the outcome of the DSE. It could effect the ONE AT A TIME version, but everything would have to be perfectly aligned. It might make PREDICTING the apparent randomness of the individual screen hits easier.
and
"Conversely, if there is no "cavity" (no sidewalls) then harmonics are not
a primary factor and the concept of wave interaction is conclusively proved,
unless..."
I think that the bigger the cavity, the longer that the pattern would take to form on the screen. Essentially, the cavity would have to be bigger than 1/2 c x c dimensions, for the one-at-a-time DSE. If NO beats could be formed, for the entire duration of the "photon's" travel from laser to screen, then I'm ready to place my bet.
This is akin to a thermodynamical approach. I am waiting for the vacuum conditions to be re-established; for the residual "heat" to dissipate. There is a "zero-point" energy level prior to the experiment starting, that we need to RETURN to its' equilibrium. I'm calling it "heat" because it has been stripped of its original resonant form, or information from the source, of a given energy.
Energy is neither created, nor destroyed. It is conserved.
That means (this means you too, QM) that the "wave function collapse", where the information is conveyed, is NOT the end of the story for the Energy.
The DSE is one of QM's pride and joy. Yet, when the experiment is described, it is being described by classical means. The WHOLE QM story is that the walls are ALL ATOMS. The relationship between light and matter has been well studied, and published. I am not introducing a new concept here, I'm just replacing "hand waving" with LOGIC. You can clearly see, whether a photon or electron, that the single WAVE gets broken down into many smaller WAVES. Only a very small portion goes through the slits. The wavelets, or beat frequencies, LOSE energy every time they ABSORBED & RE-EMITTED (not classical reflection).
So, I'm wondering if we (Science) have allowed for the "dissipation" (through phonon, soliton, "heat", etc.) to be completed BEFORE the next "single photon" comes through. (I think that technically, they start a full power, and then "tune down" to "single photon" pulse) At any rate, there are certainly a lot of "signals" bouncing around, that ARE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR in the DSE. These signals are a form of same-event ENTANGLEMENT; the signal WANTS to re-assemble, even if it has to tunnel through the walls of atoms constituting the device.
It is naive, and counter to accepted methods, to disregard this part of the wave. It is also naive, and counter to accepted methods, to assume that the area on one side of a membrane (semi-elastic plane) is going to be INDEPENDENT of the area on the other side of the wall. Would anyone here imagine replacing the laser with a speaker playing monochromatic sound, and the screen with a sensitive microphone (tuned only to pick up the sent signal), and expect a "null effect" from the "chamber" before the slit?
I think we need to have some "observers", tuned at above and below the signal (>1/2 , <2), INSIDE the first chamber, to test this.
ciao!
T.Roc
I forgot to say, in my last post:
Laserlight:
QUOTE
"An interesting idea....what if the "mixing" cavity were round.....the interference pattern should change, or if the cavity LxW dimensions were changed... "
I'm not sure, because of the NON necessity of the cavity being circular. Two parallel planes, triangles, cylinders, etc all work well. I'm not saying that there would be NO change, just not enough to really affect the outcome of the DSE. It could effect the ONE AT A TIME version, but everything would have to be perfectly aligned. It might make PREDICTING the apparent randomness of the individual screen hits easier.
and
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "An interesting idea....what if the "mixing" cavity were round.....the interference pattern should change, or if the cavity LxW dimensions were changed... " |
I'm not sure, because of the NON necessity of the cavity being circular. Two parallel planes, triangles, cylinders, etc all work well. I'm not saying that there would be NO change, just not enough to really affect the outcome of the DSE. It could effect the ONE AT A TIME version, but everything would have to be perfectly aligned. It might make PREDICTING the apparent randomness of the individual screen hits easier.
and
"Conversely, if there is no "cavity" (no sidewalls) then harmonics are not
a primary factor and the concept of wave interaction is conclusively proved,
unless..."
I think that the bigger the cavity, the longer that the pattern would take to form on the screen. Essentially, the cavity would have to be bigger than 1/2 c x c dimensions, for the one-at-a-time DSE. If NO beats could be formed, for the entire duration of the "photon's" travel from laser to screen, then I'm ready to place my bet.
This is akin to a thermodynamical approach. I am waiting for the vacuum conditions to be re-established; for the residual "heat" to dissipate. There is a "zero-point" energy level prior to the experiment starting, that we need to RETURN to its' equilibrium. I'm calling it "heat" because it has been stripped of its original resonant form, or information from the source, of a given energy.
Energy is neither created, nor destroyed. It is conserved.
That means (this means you too, QM) that the "wave function collapse", where the information is conveyed, is NOT the end of the story for the Energy.
The DSE is one of QM's pride and joy. Yet, when the experiment is described, it is being described by classical means. The WHOLE QM story is that the walls are ALL ATOMS. The relationship between light and matter has been well studied, and published. I am not introducing a new concept here, I'm just replacing "hand waving" with LOGIC. You can clearly see, whether a photon or electron, that the single WAVE gets broken down into many smaller WAVES. Only a very small portion goes through the slits. The wavelets, or beat frequencies, LOSE energy every time they ABSORBED & RE-EMITTED (not classical reflection).
So, I'm wondering if we (Science) have allowed for the "dissipation" (through phonon, soliton, "heat", etc.) to be completed BEFORE the next "single photon" comes through. (I think that technically, they start a full power, and then "tune down" to "single photon" pulse) At any rate, there are certainly a lot of "signals" bouncing around, that ARE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR in the DSE. These signals are a form of same-event ENTANGLEMENT; the signal WANTS to re-assemble, even if it has to tunnel through the walls of atoms constituting the device.
It is naive, and counter to accepted methods, to disregard this part of the wave. It is also naive, and counter to accepted methods, to assume that the area on one side of a membrane (semi-elastic plane) is going to be INDEPENDENT of the area on the other side of the wall. Would anyone here imagine replacing the laser with a speaker playing monochromatic sound, and the screen with a sensitive microphone (tuned only to pick up the sent signal), and expect a "null effect" from the "chamber" before the slit?
I think we need to have some "observers", tuned at above and below the signal (>1/2 , <2), INSIDE the first chamber, to test this.
ciao!
T.Roc
Hi All,
This is philosophical in nature, but perhaps it has some relevance to the approach that
we are all taking here. I just wanted to put things into perspective.
In order for science (which is the understanding, defining, predictability, and proof of physical
causality interactions) to improve and progress, we must always question, challenge, investigate,
and propose alternative solutions. to the information set of what we think are fixed absolutes.
To arrive at the correct simple solution, all incorrect variable interpretations must be excluded
from the absolute solution set, or else we generate random, inconsistent, unsolvable, complex
partial answers. It is the unknown quantities that generate uncertainties and prevent fixed, absolute solutions.
It is only by systematically eliminating potential variables or unknowns that allows us to
set rigid fixed foundations that so we can build strong flawless stacked scientific, knowledge
based structures. We cannot take anything for granted or overlook potential inconsistencies.
If there are cracks (unknown structural defects) in the foundations of knowledge, then they must
be filled to insure the structural integrity of the entire interactive structure is reinforced and
solid.
In order to eliminate the unknown variables that generate inconsistencies in a solution set, we
must explore creative alternative potential solutions to see if they fit into the final absolute
solution set that becomes our final answer. If they don’t they can be rejected as a potential
solution. The final answer is always the one with all of the absolute terms that can be
mathematically simplified no more, and where all variables have a fixed solution
This is philosophical in nature, but perhaps it has some relevance to the approach that
we are all taking here. I just wanted to put things into perspective.
In order for science (which is the understanding, defining, predictability, and proof of physical
causality interactions) to improve and progress, we must always question, challenge, investigate,
and propose alternative solutions. to the information set of what we think are fixed absolutes.
To arrive at the correct simple solution, all incorrect variable interpretations must be excluded
from the absolute solution set, or else we generate random, inconsistent, unsolvable, complex
partial answers. It is the unknown quantities that generate uncertainties and prevent fixed, absolute solutions.
It is only by systematically eliminating potential variables or unknowns that allows us to
set rigid fixed foundations that so we can build strong flawless stacked scientific, knowledge
based structures. We cannot take anything for granted or overlook potential inconsistencies.
If there are cracks (unknown structural defects) in the foundations of knowledge, then they must
be filled to insure the structural integrity of the entire interactive structure is reinforced and
solid.
In order to eliminate the unknown variables that generate inconsistencies in a solution set, we
must explore creative alternative potential solutions to see if they fit into the final absolute
solution set that becomes our final answer. If they don’t they can be rejected as a potential
solution. The final answer is always the one with all of the absolute terms that can be
mathematically simplified no more, and where all variables have a fixed solution
TRoc, I think we are in agreement. You bring some excellent examples to the
argument, but I am puzzled by this....please clarify?
Let us assume that there are 2 rectangular key holes fairly close together
thru a soundproof door, leading into a soundproof room.
If a specific tone is broadcast toward the door, we will still hear a small
component of that tone coming individually thru each keyhole if we are close
to one or the other of them. The keyhole tones will have some distortions from
the pure incident tone due to reflection interaction with the physical properties
of the keyholes. These distortions will become components of the overall wave
energy propagating thru the keyholes.
If we stand back some distance from the keyholes we should detect the
mixed combined/reassembled harmonic beat frequency as the two
discrete "in phase" tones recombine as they spread out and overlap. There will
also likely be distortions from the pure frequency due to interference harmonics
generated by the timing difference caused by the separation of the keyholes.
The composite frequency will contain harmonic noise but the combined keyhole
tones should reproduce a reasonable facsimile of the original tone at some
focal point distance from the keyholes, until such time as the tones
reflect off of the room (cavity)walls and mix with the tones emanating from the slits.
At specific points there will be constructive and destructive tone phase interactions
as the incident and reflected cavity tones interact. Their interaction
should be completely dependent upon the dimensions and geometry of the walls
of the room. If we could observe the tone wave interactions we would see
numerous geometric patterns of harmonic interference.
Does this make sense?
LL
argument, but I am puzzled by this....please clarify?
QUOTE
Would anyone here imagine replacing the laser with a speaker playing monochromatic sound, and the screen with a sensitive microphone (tuned only to pick up the sent signal), and expect a "null effect" from the "chamber" before the slit?
Let us assume that there are 2 rectangular key holes fairly close together
thru a soundproof door, leading into a soundproof room.
If a specific tone is broadcast toward the door, we will still hear a small
component of that tone coming individually thru each keyhole if we are close
to one or the other of them. The keyhole tones will have some distortions from
the pure incident tone due to reflection interaction with the physical properties
of the keyholes. These distortions will become components of the overall wave
energy propagating thru the keyholes.
If we stand back some distance from the keyholes we should detect the
mixed combined/reassembled harmonic beat frequency as the two
discrete "in phase" tones recombine as they spread out and overlap. There will
also likely be distortions from the pure frequency due to interference harmonics
generated by the timing difference caused by the separation of the keyholes.
The composite frequency will contain harmonic noise but the combined keyhole
tones should reproduce a reasonable facsimile of the original tone at some
focal point distance from the keyholes, until such time as the tones
reflect off of the room (cavity)walls and mix with the tones emanating from the slits.
At specific points there will be constructive and destructive tone phase interactions
as the incident and reflected cavity tones interact. Their interaction
should be completely dependent upon the dimensions and geometry of the walls
of the room. If we could observe the tone wave interactions we would see
numerous geometric patterns of harmonic interference.
Does this make sense?
LL
Hi Troc,
One of the 'problems' I notice is the way you assume reflections will introduce new frequencies .. there will be phase changes .. but that is not the same as a change of frequency. Can you give any example of measured frequency change from reflections and or absorption? One obvious exception is where sufficient energy is absorbed by something to make it hot .. obviously the walls then radiate (say) infrared at a thermal frequency distribution which is totally unrelated to the excitation frequency. There are crystals that can be 'pumped' to produce new frequencies from old .. but the DSE is just going to be made of ordinary 'stuff' .. card .. maybe a bit of metal.
Although interference will occur in pulsed systems .. in general a single excitation frequency is used and the result fits well with the simple path length analysis I gave earlier. I think both you and GE feel the randomness seen in the single photon detections are the result of something added to the photon rather than something photons do naturally. As you proceed with your analysis it appears you are expecting an error that will not be random .. do we need single photons to find non-random errors? Wouldn't there be unexpected variation in the intensity of the pattern even whan a bright source is used?
LL
The composite frequency will contain harmonic noise but the combined keyhole
tones should reproduce a reasonable facsimile of the original tone at some
focal point distance from the keyholes, until such time as the tones
As above, if you are expecting new frequencies can you suggest the sort of thing that might produce them? Eg a cracked violin will produce harmonics of the fundamental but do you not think such problems could be reduced to a very low level in a experimental setup?
-C2.
One of the 'problems' I notice is the way you assume reflections will introduce new frequencies .. there will be phase changes .. but that is not the same as a change of frequency. Can you give any example of measured frequency change from reflections and or absorption? One obvious exception is where sufficient energy is absorbed by something to make it hot .. obviously the walls then radiate (say) infrared at a thermal frequency distribution which is totally unrelated to the excitation frequency. There are crystals that can be 'pumped' to produce new frequencies from old .. but the DSE is just going to be made of ordinary 'stuff' .. card .. maybe a bit of metal.
Although interference will occur in pulsed systems .. in general a single excitation frequency is used and the result fits well with the simple path length analysis I gave earlier. I think both you and GE feel the randomness seen in the single photon detections are the result of something added to the photon rather than something photons do naturally. As you proceed with your analysis it appears you are expecting an error that will not be random .. do we need single photons to find non-random errors? Wouldn't there be unexpected variation in the intensity of the pattern even whan a bright source is used?
LL
QUOTE (Laselight+)
The composite frequency will contain harmonic noise but the combined keyhole
tones should reproduce a reasonable facsimile of the original tone at some
focal point distance from the keyholes, until such time as the tones
As above, if you are expecting new frequencies can you suggest the sort of thing that might produce them? Eg a cracked violin will produce harmonics of the fundamental but do you not think such problems could be reduced to a very low level in a experimental setup?
-C2.
Distortions can cause harmonics. High amplitude sounds distort the uniformity of the air they travel through and can create harmonics (you can actually use this effect to create lower frequencies as well and get sound to appear out of "thin air" by using strong ultrasonics focused to a point ... you don't hear the the ultrasonic frequencies but you can hear them being modulated at lower frequencies).
For light, there are crystals that can double or triple light frequencies. Many powerful optical lasers are created by taking a strong infrared beam (easier to create) and then running it through a frequency multiplying crystal.
If you can create a non-linearity, you can have harmonics. I'd assume the "brassiness" of a trumpet is due to non-linear vibrations creating strong harmonics.
For light, there are crystals that can double or triple light frequencies. Many powerful optical lasers are created by taking a strong infrared beam (easier to create) and then running it through a frequency multiplying crystal.
If you can create a non-linearity, you can have harmonics. I'd assume the "brassiness" of a trumpet is due to non-linear vibrations creating strong harmonics.
Hi Confused2, Yquantum, StevenA, Laserlight, Why Not?, TRoc et al,
I am not really trying to be evasive here and in the best spirit of the exploration of knowledge.. but just what is the point of StevenA's experiment? What will it show that is relevant to photons? Non-locality is a very established principle and it will need to be addressed... sometime.
I am not really trying to be evasive here and in the best spirit of the exploration of knowledge.. but just what is the point of StevenA's experiment? What will it show that is relevant to photons? Non-locality is a very established principle and it will need to be addressed... sometime.
QUOTE (StevenA+)
But this all assumes the polarization of a photon is actually a property that, as generally imaged, propagates with the photon itself at light speed. If instead the polarization is not inherent in the photon but a property existing outside of it, or alternately if the photon didn't travel linearly over time through this space, then no decrease in intensity should occur as the photon wouldn't have passed through the filter at delayed time and be filtered twice, with different polarization angles.
Does anyone suggest that you do not need polarization information to connect photon qubits or that the information with entangled pairs travels at any speed other than Light or travels some other way other than with the system being measured. We are speaking of properties here and actual properties can be measured, and that is what we do. What is noted is that Quantum Mechanics, a local theory, will not explain this non-local nature of Photons because it would need to travel faster than light to do so. It is not just Bell's Inequality but a number of other non-local phenomena that disagree with Quantum Mechanics such as Aharonov-Bohm Effect, Aharonov-Anandan Effect and the Aharonov-Casher Effect. These show global spacetime dislocations that connect phase and spin of particles through "infinite" barriers at any range. These "forces" extend beyond all locality theories of Electromagnetism. I refer the the experimental works of Tonomura and others...
Verification of the Aharonov-Bohm Effect: Akira Tonomura
Wikipedia: Nonlocality
Wolfram Research: Aharonov-Bohm Effect
Direct observation of the Aharonov-Casher phase: M. Koenig, A. Tschetschetkin, E.M. Hankiewicz, Jairo Sinova, V. Hock, V. Daumer, M. Schaefer, C.R. Becker, H. Buhmann, L.W. Molenkamp
The Aharonov-Casher and Aharonov-Anandan Effect: Kendal Clark
A careful read of these results (and others) show there is indeed a question to be addressed as soon as some Theoretical Physicists get down from unapproachable "Ivory Towers" and deal with existing testable and tangible problems in their theories, bringing them into line with real experiments.
This is an area that has been probed quite deeply and any experiment you propose must also explain all the accumulated information already at hand about entanglement, phase and spin. It is very clear that entanglement in general correlates quantum properties and affects qubit information independent of time and even through barriers that should be opaque to any effects such as these. You can't just "trick it up". The property itself is not important, it is the correlation that is superluminal. Recent experiments indicate you do not have to be an atomic particle to be entangled and the speed of that entanglement is "instantaneous". , you can entangle several properties This phenomenon occurs across many different disciplines such as Condensed Matter, Relativity, Optics, Photonics, Quantum Computing etc.
Photons are particularly well researched and I assume you understand the results of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment and have you really got any results anywhere that shows any separate or anomalous possibility. This topic is called... "Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later", so the question is of particular relevance to this particular experiment and to this thread and requires an answer. Experiments like these can be done by anyone (not elves of course) but not everyone can design them, that is the beauty of DCQE Experiment... It shows events are correlated even into the past. There is nothing "apparently" wrong with this unless you have a problem with experimental procedure. The design of these experiments is an art that people like Alain Aspect and Anton Zellinger are very adept at performing and the design is supposed to remove any other possible explanations for the results. Remember John Archibald Wheeler (... Of Wheeler and Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory Nobel Prize Fame) himself originally proposed this experiment, but it took quite a while to think up a way to actually test this problem with unambiguous results. Quite a satisfactory result too if I am not mistaken. I am sure that JA Wheeler would still agree.
Wikipedia: John Archibald Wheeler
Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment
Please clearly state why this new gedanken experiment rules out the DCQE Experiment or changes any results or conclusions related to Bell's Inequality anywhere and how your design has accounted for some "flaw" in the original experiments. All the Philosophy of Physics falls flat on its face right here and rides on each and every test in the real world. No Mathematical Physics Theory has ever stood the test "against the Universe" and come up with a different result and survived, that is the way this "game" works. I do not care if it is written in your Holy Texts as an additional Commandment, every theory must pass all tests despite all human "opinion".
With all respect... Is it that some people have a problem with the Universe and are petitioning to have some Laws Repealed?
Wikipedia: Quantum entanglement
Wikipedia: Delayed choice quantum eraser
"A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser" by Yoon-Ho Kim [1], R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih, and Marlon O. Scully
Cheers
Verification of the Aharonov-Bohm Effect: Akira Tonomura
Wikipedia: Nonlocality
Wolfram Research: Aharonov-Bohm Effect
Direct observation of the Aharonov-Casher phase: M. Koenig, A. Tschetschetkin, E.M. Hankiewicz, Jairo Sinova, V. Hock, V. Daumer, M. Schaefer, C.R. Becker, H. Buhmann, L.W. Molenkamp
The Aharonov-Casher and Aharonov-Anandan Effect: Kendal Clark
A careful read of these results (and others) show there is indeed a question to be addressed as soon as some Theoretical Physicists get down from unapproachable "Ivory Towers" and deal with existing testable and tangible problems in their theories, bringing them into line with real experiments.
This is an area that has been probed quite deeply and any experiment you propose must also explain all the accumulated information already at hand about entanglement, phase and spin. It is very clear that entanglement in general correlates quantum properties and affects qubit information independent of time and even through barriers that should be opaque to any effects such as these. You can't just "trick it up". The property itself is not important, it is the correlation that is superluminal. Recent experiments indicate you do not have to be an atomic particle to be entangled and the speed of that entanglement is "instantaneous". , you can entangle several properties This phenomenon occurs across many different disciplines such as Condensed Matter, Relativity, Optics, Photonics, Quantum Computing etc.
Photons are particularly well researched and I assume you understand the results of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment and have you really got any results anywhere that shows any separate or anomalous possibility. This topic is called... "Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later", so the question is of particular relevance to this particular experiment and to this thread and requires an answer. Experiments like these can be done by anyone (not elves of course) but not everyone can design them, that is the beauty of DCQE Experiment... It shows events are correlated even into the past. There is nothing "apparently" wrong with this unless you have a problem with experimental procedure. The design of these experiments is an art that people like Alain Aspect and Anton Zellinger are very adept at performing and the design is supposed to remove any other possible explanations for the results. Remember John Archibald Wheeler (... Of Wheeler and Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory Nobel Prize Fame) himself originally proposed this experiment, but it took quite a while to think up a way to actually test this problem with unambiguous results. Quite a satisfactory result too if I am not mistaken. I am sure that JA Wheeler would still agree.
Wikipedia: John Archibald Wheeler
Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment
Please clearly state why this new gedanken experiment rules out the DCQE Experiment or changes any results or conclusions related to Bell's Inequality anywhere and how your design has accounted for some "flaw" in the original experiments. All the Philosophy of Physics falls flat on its face right here and rides on each and every test in the real world. No Mathematical Physics Theory has ever stood the test "against the Universe" and come up with a different result and survived, that is the way this "game" works. I do not care if it is written in your Holy Texts as an additional Commandment, every theory must pass all tests despite all human "opinion".
With all respect... Is it that some people have a problem with the Universe and are petitioning to have some Laws Repealed?
Wikipedia: Quantum entanglement
Wikipedia: Delayed choice quantum eraser
"A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser" by Yoon-Ho Kim [1], R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih, and Marlon O. Scully
Cheers
I don't see how this experiment would not be specifically relevant to the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, other than possibly providing redundant results, but it's not really redundant if people are simply using prior untested assumptions about the behavior of photons travelling through space. In the particular experiment I suggest, it's very directly related to specific polarizations over time and space.
Again, as I asked before, if someone has information regarding a similar experiment, I'd be interested in hearing it.
This is a dynamic system, similar to the delayed choice experiment, except that it wouldn't include an acceleration, except as a constant angular acceleration (unless you could vary the speed of the rotation of the filter, but that would be difficult).
You wouldn't need to estimate delays through the system as the beam returns back to the source and passes through a single filter twice and if a constant angular acceleration isn't the same as the less predictable alteration of a shutter, the possibility for such a prediction would be noticed differently between these two experiments.
Maybe this would just be another experiment showing identical results ... maybe not. It's a very simple system that doesn't provide a lot of divergent pathways or much additional hardware to complicate things - it's just a single filter, mirror and laser (though truly it doesn't even need to be a coherent light source but that it makes it easier to get a large delay and high intensity), nor does it require creating, maintaining or otherwise utilizing entangle pairs of photons.
There's a lot of wiggle room in the DCQE:
Compare that to:
laser/detector <-----> rotating filter <------(large delay or distance)------> mirror
Feel free to guess what happens but unless you have knowledge of a similar experiment, it's just a guess (and what you might consider to be similar experiment, may not be).
P.S.: The reason I'd recommend a single filter, instead of rotating two separately spaced filters is due to coupling issues between them. Using a single rotated filter creates a dynamic system as the properties through it depend upon time (again, assuming a constant angular acceleration classifies as a dynamic change ... that seems questionable as the filter itself doesn't experience an acceleration, except in relationship to the space around it).
In the delayed choice experiment, there's a question of whether or not the observer selected the result after the fact. In that case, all possible outcomes occured and the faster than light, or non-causal observations weren't due to anything in the experiment, which remained constant throughout the entire time the photon(s) moved at light speed, but instead that an alteration to the detector/observer occured after the fact and selected one of the results.
In the rotating polarization filter, if all possible photons are emitted at light speed, none of them would be able to avoid being filtered twice and thus the intensity of the returning beam would be lowered, but if the detected polarization was a predetermined correlation at faster than light speed then the filter would appear stationary during this period and the intensity would not drop with rotation, and if the wavefunction is determined at a specific moment, the moment this occured could be determined by measuring what phase the detected photons had.
Here's a comment regarding one of the links you provided:
In the twin slit experiment there's a question of how the surrounding slit and shutters can affect the phase of photons, using a single rotating filter removes the variance between these states (though I'd have to say a constant angular acceleration may not be the same as a dynamically accelerated shutter, spacial distances are in terms of path delays between information, though intuitive senses of spacial distance wouldn't seem likely to include variable path delays depending upon a shutter, yet might compensate for constant angular momentum) as the only significant factor is the angle of an identical filter.
In the twin slit experiment there's a question of how the surrounding slit and shutters can affect the phase of photons, using a single rotating filter removes the variance between these states (though I'd have to say a constant angular acceleration may not be the same as a dynamically accelerated shutter, spacial distances are in terms of path delays between information, though intuitive senses of spacial distance wouldn't seem likely to include variable path delays depending upon a shutter, yet might compensate for constant angular momentum) as the only significant factor is the angle of an identical filter.
This is an area that has been probed quite deeply and any experiment you propose must also explain all the accumulated information already at hand about entanglement, phase and spin.
Not really. I can propose things that could appear as entirely random experiments as well. It's up to others to decide whether or not they provide any useful information. If you want to see it as providing yet another point in what you see as an already oversampled database, that's fine, but unless you feel the result could be very confidently predicted (which your question about how it's related to the DCQE brings into question), then I'd recommend looking before leaping to assumptions.
If you believe it's simply redundant, show me an experiment that you believe already addresses this and I'll check it out.
Again, as I asked before, if someone has information regarding a similar experiment, I'd be interested in hearing it.
This is a dynamic system, similar to the delayed choice experiment, except that it wouldn't include an acceleration, except as a constant angular acceleration (unless you could vary the speed of the rotation of the filter, but that would be difficult).
You wouldn't need to estimate delays through the system as the beam returns back to the source and passes through a single filter twice and if a constant angular acceleration isn't the same as the less predictable alteration of a shutter, the possibility for such a prediction would be noticed differently between these two experiments.
Maybe this would just be another experiment showing identical results ... maybe not. It's a very simple system that doesn't provide a lot of divergent pathways or much additional hardware to complicate things - it's just a single filter, mirror and laser (though truly it doesn't even need to be a coherent light source but that it makes it easier to get a large delay and high intensity), nor does it require creating, maintaining or otherwise utilizing entangle pairs of photons.
There's a lot of wiggle room in the DCQE:
Compare that to:
laser/detector <-----> rotating filter <------(large delay or distance)------> mirror
Feel free to guess what happens but unless you have knowledge of a similar experiment, it's just a guess (and what you might consider to be similar experiment, may not be).
P.S.: The reason I'd recommend a single filter, instead of rotating two separately spaced filters is due to coupling issues between them. Using a single rotated filter creates a dynamic system as the properties through it depend upon time (again, assuming a constant angular acceleration classifies as a dynamic change ... that seems questionable as the filter itself doesn't experience an acceleration, except in relationship to the space around it).
In the delayed choice experiment, there's a question of whether or not the observer selected the result after the fact. In that case, all possible outcomes occured and the faster than light, or non-causal observations weren't due to anything in the experiment, which remained constant throughout the entire time the photon(s) moved at light speed, but instead that an alteration to the detector/observer occured after the fact and selected one of the results.
In the rotating polarization filter, if all possible photons are emitted at light speed, none of them would be able to avoid being filtered twice and thus the intensity of the returning beam would be lowered, but if the detected polarization was a predetermined correlation at faster than light speed then the filter would appear stationary during this period and the intensity would not drop with rotation, and if the wavefunction is determined at a specific moment, the moment this occured could be determined by measuring what phase the detected photons had.
Here's a comment regarding one of the links you provided:
QUOTE
In 1982, using a holography electron microscope Tonomura and his colleagues measured the phase difference in the form of interference fringes produced by two beams of electrons, one passing through the inside and the other passing through the outside of a doughnut-shaped ferromagnet. They clearly showed that there exists a phase difference between the two electrons beams passing through a space where there is no magnetic field, and that the extent of the phase difference precisely matches the predicted value. For this work, Tonomura received the Nishina Memorial Prize in 1982.
In the twin slit experiment there's a question of how the surrounding slit and shutters can affect the phase of photons, using a single rotating filter removes the variance between these states (though I'd have to say a constant angular acceleration may not be the same as a dynamically accelerated shutter, spacial distances are in terms of path delays between information, though intuitive senses of spacial distance wouldn't seem likely to include variable path delays depending upon a shutter, yet might compensate for constant angular momentum) as the only significant factor is the angle of an identical filter.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In 1982, using a holography electron microscope Tonomura and his colleagues measured the phase difference in the form of interference fringes produced by two beams of electrons, one passing through the inside and the other passing through the outside of a doughnut-shaped ferromagnet. They clearly showed that there exists a phase difference between the two electrons beams passing through a space where there is no magnetic field, and that the extent of the phase difference precisely matches the predicted value. For this work, Tonomura received the Nishina Memorial Prize in 1982. |
In the twin slit experiment there's a question of how the surrounding slit and shutters can affect the phase of photons, using a single rotating filter removes the variance between these states (though I'd have to say a constant angular acceleration may not be the same as a dynamically accelerated shutter, spacial distances are in terms of path delays between information, though intuitive senses of spacial distance wouldn't seem likely to include variable path delays depending upon a shutter, yet might compensate for constant angular momentum) as the only significant factor is the angle of an identical filter.
This is an area that has been probed quite deeply and any experiment you propose must also explain all the accumulated information already at hand about entanglement, phase and spin.
Not really. I can propose things that could appear as entirely random experiments as well. It's up to others to decide whether or not they provide any useful information. If you want to see it as providing yet another point in what you see as an already oversampled database, that's fine, but unless you feel the result could be very confidently predicted (which your question about how it's related to the DCQE brings into question), then I'd recommend looking before leaping to assumptions.
If you believe it's simply redundant, show me an experiment that you believe already addresses this and I'll check it out.
QUOTE (GoodElf+)
A careful read of these results (and others) show there is indeed a question to be addressed as soon as some Theoretical Physicists get down from unapproachable "Ivory Towers" and deal with existing testable and tangible problems in their theories, bringing them into line with real experiments.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Hi Good Elf,
In my mind a large number of massively improbable phenomena cannot easily be assembled together to produce anything resembling a reasonable probability.
Unfortunately we don't even agree that wavelength and frequency have no meaning for a single event. In the basic DSE with one photon there is only one thing we might regard as a wavefront and yet we see interference on the same wavefronts as if we had a continuous coherent source of light. The different pathlengths suggest that 'c' doesn't apply in the DSE .. so how far can we stretch this little problem with 'c' ? .. I detect no enthusiasm for predicting the outcome of the MM with arms of 1m and 1000m even though Feynman was pretty definite about the result. Do we have a problem with 'sum over paths' or don't we? I predict Feynman was right .. this leaves me wondering how radios work using a system that apparently relies on delivering a photon of the right energy at the right time. While the Good Elf non-predictive strategy allows you to say "of course the receiver picks up the signal" .. my rather more pedestrian approach leaves me somewhat lost.
So I haven't really even got as far as the slits .. let alone through them, and I don't seem to be the only one.
Decoherence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence ) .. the best approach to this seems to be to find out what happens and then pretend you expected it. Wiki implies decoherence only works forwards (I assume forwards in time). Why not? gave a link to a paper which strongly suggested that a delay after the measurement could effectively shift the time of the measurement. What do you think?
It seems Aharanov and Bohm predicted their effect years before it was actually measured. You seem sure it proves something relevent to the DCQE.. but I'm not sure what.
There is an excess of improbable things going on here already.. adding more and more of them doesn't help.
StevenA's proposed experiment is interesting .. I have an idea about the way radios work that this would be a fair test of. I suspect the result will depend on whether or not QM thinks a polarising filter is a receiver or not .. and you?
-C2.
In my mind a large number of massively improbable phenomena cannot easily be assembled together to produce anything resembling a reasonable probability.
Unfortunately we don't even agree that wavelength and frequency have no meaning for a single event. In the basic DSE with one photon there is only one thing we might regard as a wavefront and yet we see interference on the same wavefronts as if we had a continuous coherent source of light. The different pathlengths suggest that 'c' doesn't apply in the DSE .. so how far can we stretch this little problem with 'c' ? .. I detect no enthusiasm for predicting the outcome of the MM with arms of 1m and 1000m even though Feynman was pretty definite about the result. Do we have a problem with 'sum over paths' or don't we? I predict Feynman was right .. this leaves me wondering how radios work using a system that apparently relies on delivering a photon of the right energy at the right time. While the Good Elf non-predictive strategy allows you to say "of course the receiver picks up the signal" .. my rather more pedestrian approach leaves me somewhat lost.
So I haven't really even got as far as the slits .. let alone through them, and I don't seem to be the only one.
Decoherence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence ) .. the best approach to this seems to be to find out what happens and then pretend you expected it. Wiki implies decoherence only works forwards (I assume forwards in time). Why not? gave a link to a paper which strongly suggested that a delay after the measurement could effectively shift the time of the measurement. What do you think?
It seems Aharanov and Bohm predicted their effect years before it was actually measured. You seem sure it proves something relevent to the DCQE.. but I'm not sure what.
There is an excess of improbable things going on here already.. adding more and more of them doesn't help.
StevenA's proposed experiment is interesting .. I have an idea about the way radios work that this would be a fair test of. I suspect the result will depend on whether or not QM thinks a polarising filter is a receiver or not .. and you?
-C2.
All,
I want to quantify what I think I understand about energy. Some of this may be incorrect
in theory. so please feel free to modify or correct it accordingly. Some of this is speculative or
theoretical from a personal perspective.. (if Elves can do it so can I !…LOL!)
My reasoning is that by discussing and thinking about some fundamental
foundation blocks regarding energy that we will be all be on the same
thought wavelength, and it may stimulate some spontaneous insight that is
new.
Free energy rules/Characteristics ?
1. Energy is a physical manifestation that cannot be destroyed, but it can change states when it
interacts with matter. Radiated free energy has no mass but it does have an EM field charge
component.
2. Energy is a spontaneous photonic radiated wave emission propagated by the displacement of
matter over a time interval..(a photon is the lowest constituent component of free energy)
3. The amount of radiated photon kinetic energy emission, propagated from matter, is
exponentially proportional to the amount of the displaced potential energy stored in matter.
4. Energy has 2 primary states, potential and kinetic.
5. Energy is emitted as a photon and propagates in the form of a wave, consisting of self
contained, phase angle related, inductively coupled electric and magnetic fields along a
directional vector.
6. While propagating, photonic wave energy has a net neutral charge until it interacts
incrementally in a phase angular relationship with the potential field charges stored in matter.
7. The interaction of the self propagating alternating EM fields of photonic energy interact with
the EM potential charges stored in matter in an additive manner. An increasing charge
interaction occurs over the angular rotational time of the spin of the photon which is
represented as a phase related alternating EM waveform over time.
It can be considered an antenna voltage amplification effect at atomic levels.
The cumulative charge interaction causes a localized
increasing EM field that displaces the interacting charged matter from its normal steady
state “ground” level. The increased stored charge in the matter must return to its ground
state in order to maintain atomic stability, as it drops back to its ground state it releases
the accumulated energy as another photon with an energy level proportional to its
displacement. If the matter being acted upon by energy is in a physical atomic matrix with
available free roaming electrons, the additional energy added can store potential energy and
excite electron mobility within the matrix which spontaneously releases lower level energy
waves over time.
8. The wavelength and amplitude of an energy waves EM fields quantify the power level of the
photonic energy wave being propagated.
9. Energy has 2-EM rotationally oriented phase angle dimensional components and a vector
momentum component that interact with matter in 3 displacement dimensions.
(y plane, rotation and spin) and net charge over a frequency time interval.
10. Energy has a net self charge determined by the phase angular relationship of its EM fields
due to the angular momentum of its spin. This can be defined as a frequency vs time
dependency along with a charge component that is translated into a physical displacement
component when it interacts with matter.
11. Radiated energy power levels halve over the square of the distance from the source.
12. Energy and matter are synergistically interchangeable and mutually interactive. Matter can
be converted to energy and energy can be converted to matter. There is a synergistic
catalytic conversion process requiring simultaneous multiple complementary interactions
between matter and energy
13. Matter spontaneously generates low levels of infra-red energy by virtue of the dynamic
movement of sub-atomic particles and their inherent spins and charge levels during the
kinetic interaction of its atomic structure.
14. Lower forms of kinetic energy and stored potential energy in matter, are responsible for
stimulating higher forms of energy as matter energetically interacts with matter.
All higher forms of kinetic energy have their basis in the interaction of the potential and
kinetic energy stored in matter.
LL
I want to quantify what I think I understand about energy. Some of this may be incorrect
in theory. so please feel free to modify or correct it accordingly. Some of this is speculative or
theoretical from a personal perspective.. (if Elves can do it so can I !…LOL!)
My reasoning is that by discussing and thinking about some fundamental
foundation blocks regarding energy that we will be all be on the same
thought wavelength, and it may stimulate some spontaneous insight that is
new.
Free energy rules/Characteristics ?
1. Energy is a physical manifestation that cannot be destroyed, but it can change states when it
interacts with matter. Radiated free energy has no mass but it does have an EM field charge
component.
2. Energy is a spontaneous photonic radiated wave emission propagated by the displacement of
matter over a time interval..(a photon is the lowest constituent component of free energy)
3. The amount of radiated photon kinetic energy emission, propagated from matter, is
exponentially proportional to the amount of the displaced potential energy stored in matter.
4. Energy has 2 primary states, potential and kinetic.
5. Energy is emitted as a photon and propagates in the form of a wave, consisting of self
contained, phase angle related, inductively coupled electric and magnetic fields along a
directional vector.
6. While propagating, photonic wave energy has a net neutral charge until it interacts
incrementally in a phase angular relationship with the potential field charges stored in matter.
7. The interaction of the self propagating alternating EM fields of photonic energy interact with
the EM potential charges stored in matter in an additive manner. An increasing charge
interaction occurs over the angular rotational time of the spin of the photon which is
represented as a phase related alternating EM waveform over time.
It can be considered an antenna voltage amplification effect at atomic levels.
The cumulative charge interaction causes a localized
increasing EM field that displaces the interacting charged matter from its normal steady
state “ground” level. The increased stored charge in the matter must return to its ground
state in order to maintain atomic stability, as it drops back to its ground state it releases
the accumulated energy as another photon with an energy level proportional to its
displacement. If the matter being acted upon by energy is in a physical atomic matrix with
available free roaming electrons, the additional energy added can store potential energy and
excite electron mobility within the matrix which spontaneously releases lower level energy
waves over time.
8. The wavelength and amplitude of an energy waves EM fields quantify the power level of the
photonic energy wave being propagated.
9. Energy has 2-EM rotationally oriented phase angle dimensional components and a vector
momentum component that interact with matter in 3 displacement dimensions.
(y plane, rotation and spin) and net charge over a frequency time interval.
10. Energy has a net self charge determined by the phase angular relationship of its EM fields
due to the angular momentum of its spin. This can be defined as a frequency vs time
dependency along with a charge component that is translated into a physical displacement
component when it interacts with matter.
11. Radiated energy power levels halve over the square of the distance from the source.
12. Energy and matter are synergistically interchangeable and mutually interactive. Matter can
be converted to energy and energy can be converted to matter. There is a synergistic
catalytic conversion process requiring simultaneous multiple complementary interactions
between matter and energy
13. Matter spontaneously generates low levels of infra-red energy by virtue of the dynamic
movement of sub-atomic particles and their inherent spins and charge levels during the
kinetic interaction of its atomic structure.
14. Lower forms of kinetic energy and stored potential energy in matter, are responsible for
stimulating higher forms of energy as matter energetically interacts with matter.
All higher forms of kinetic energy have their basis in the interaction of the potential and
kinetic energy stored in matter.
LL
C2-
Exactly! We are talking about the harmonics of the fundamental frequency as
defined in the dictionary:
Exactly! We are talking about the harmonics of the fundamental frequency as
defined in the dictionary:
n.
1 an alternating-current voltage or current or a component of such voltage or current, whose frequency is some integral multiple of a fundamental frequency
2 any of the pure tones making up a composite tone, including the fundamental and its upper partials or overtones; partial tone
LL
QUOTE
As above, if you are expecting new frequencies can you suggest the sort of thing that might produce them? Eg a cracked violin will produce harmonics of the fundamental but do you not think such problems could be reduced to a very low level in a experimental setup?
Exactly! We are talking about the harmonics of the fundamental frequency as
defined in the dictionary:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As above, if you are expecting new frequencies can you suggest the sort of thing that might produce them? Eg a cracked violin will produce harmonics of the fundamental but do you not think such problems could be reduced to a very low level in a experimental setup? |
Exactly! We are talking about the harmonics of the fundamental frequency as
defined in the dictionary:
n.
1 an alternating-current voltage or current or a component of such voltage or current, whose frequency is some integral multiple of a fundamental frequency
2 any of the pure tones making up a composite tone, including the fundamental and its upper partials or overtones; partial tone
LL
StevenA,
Very good. I think this correlates fairly well with TRoc's statement about
deformed photonic waves (deformed by interacting with matter while passing thru
the slit cavities and with the slit tooth) and the beat timing delay differences that
generate secondary frequencies of the fundamental waves as they recombine in
the wave cavity beyond the slits.
LL
QUOTE
If you can create a non-linearity, you can have harmonics.
Very good. I think this correlates fairly well with TRoc's statement about
deformed photonic waves (deformed by interacting with matter while passing thru
the slit cavities and with the slit tooth) and the beat timing delay differences that
generate secondary frequencies of the fundamental waves as they recombine in
the wave cavity beyond the slits.
LL
QUOTE (Confused2+Nov 11 2006, 03:16 AM)
StevenA's proposed experiment is interesting .. I have an idea about the way radios work that this would be a fair test of. I suspect the result will depend on whether or not QM thinks a polarising filter is a receiver or not .. and you?
-C2.
Did you post this idea on this thread already? (I scanned back a few pages and couldn't find it)
I'd be curious as to the idea (I work with electronics though don't currently have much access to decent equipment ... but that could change
).
-C2.
Did you post this idea on this thread already? (I scanned back a few pages and couldn't find it)
I'd be curious as to the idea (I work with electronics though don't currently have much access to decent equipment ... but that could change
).
GE-
LOL! You have been so very patient and have put a tremendous amount of
effort into promoting well documented experiments and explaining theory
to us. I just want you to know that it is DEFINITELY APPRECIATED... I don't
want you to feel maligned or frustrated. It is obvious that you have the
most comprehensive knowledge accumulation about theoretical quantum physics
among other topics. I am learning a lot about a topic that fascinates me, but at
the same time bewilders me because of the complexity of the subject and my
lack of training on the subject.
One of the great things about this board is that it challenges everyone to
think at a higher level. You and others are contributing and I believe that
we all are the better for it. Sometimes new spontaneous thoughts or ideas
are generated by subtle innuendo or alternative perspectives presented by
others. Who knows, maybe we will collectively come up with a
Unified Field Theory that changes contemporary thinking or easily explains
the origins of the universe.
Challenge your peers to exceed beyond that which they would normally achieve
on their own.
LL
QUOTE
With all respect... Is it that some people have a problem with the Universe and are petitioning to have some Laws Repealed?
LOL! You have been so very patient and have put a tremendous amount of
effort into promoting well documented experiments and explaining theory
to us. I just want you to know that it is DEFINITELY APPRECIATED... I don't
want you to feel maligned or frustrated. It is obvious that you have the
most comprehensive knowledge accumulation about theoretical quantum physics
among other topics. I am learning a lot about a topic that fascinates me, but at
the same time bewilders me because of the complexity of the subject and my
lack of training on the subject.
One of the great things about this board is that it challenges everyone to
think at a higher level. You and others are contributing and I believe that
we all are the better for it. Sometimes new spontaneous thoughts or ideas
are generated by subtle innuendo or alternative perspectives presented by
others. Who knows, maybe we will collectively come up with a
Unified Field Theory that changes contemporary thinking or easily explains
the origins of the universe.
Challenge your peers to exceed beyond that which they would normally achieve
on their own.
LL
StevenA,
You might find something here.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../interfcon.html
Let me ask you, if you have two separated rotating polarizing filters won't you
just get pulses of phased light as the polarization planes line up periodically?
Maybe I need to read your proposed experimental design and explanation again.
I must have missed something. IMO, radiating polarized light will maintain its polarization state unless it interacts with matter, at which point it will diffract,
change direction, slow down, or even change phase. I will read your experimental purpose/nmethod again.
Wouldn't it just be easier to rotate the laser source so that there is no
externally generated phasing interference other than the rotating phasing
by the laser itself? Or perhaps use a rotating beam splitter...
LL
QUOTE
Again, as I asked before, if someone has information regarding a similar experiment, I'd be interested in hearing it.
You might find something here.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../interfcon.html
Let me ask you, if you have two separated rotating polarizing filters won't you
just get pulses of phased light as the polarization planes line up periodically?
Maybe I need to read your proposed experimental design and explanation again.
I must have missed something. IMO, radiating polarized light will maintain its polarization state unless it interacts with matter, at which point it will diffract,
change direction, slow down, or even change phase. I will read your experimental purpose/nmethod again.
Wouldn't it just be easier to rotate the laser source so that there is no
externally generated phasing interference other than the rotating phasing
by the laser itself? Or perhaps use a rotating beam splitter...
LL
Hi StevenA, Laserlight and Confused2,
You are all taking a keen interest and I would not want to dampen that down but you might need to think through some of these ideas a little more so we can get to the "real" questions quicker.. I know you are all patient and you are asking a lot of questions but that is fine as long as we all have an open mind.
I can't know what is in StevenA's mind here. I have already asked a couple of times and I still have no answer... what is the experiment supposed to show? If StevenA explains what the experiment is supposed to show (unequivocally) I will attempt to show an existing experiment that does likewise but properly designed, recorded with the conclusion. In that way we can "actualize" your Gedanken Experiment and provide the answer as JA Wheeler did for the DCQE Experiment. I cannot comment on the fact it may be a redundant experiment until you make a definitive statement as to what it is supposed to show. No criticism intended.
You are all taking a keen interest and I would not want to dampen that down but you might need to think through some of these ideas a little more so we can get to the "real" questions quicker.. I know you are all patient and you are asking a lot of questions but that is fine as long as we all have an open mind.
I can't know what is in StevenA's mind here. I have already asked a couple of times and I still have no answer... what is the experiment supposed to show? If StevenA explains what the experiment is supposed to show (unequivocally) I will attempt to show an existing experiment that does likewise but properly designed, recorded with the conclusion. In that way we can "actualize" your Gedanken Experiment and provide the answer as JA Wheeler did for the DCQE Experiment. I cannot comment on the fact it may be a redundant experiment until you make a definitive statement as to what it is supposed to show. No criticism intended.
QUOTE (StevenA+)
Maybe this would just be another experiment showing identical results ... maybe not. It's a very simple system that doesn't provide a lot of divergent pathways or much additional hardware to complicate things - it's just a single filter, mirror and laser (though truly it doesn't even need to be a coherent light source but that it makes it easier to get a large delay and high intensity), nor does it require creating, maintaining or otherwise utilizing entangle pairs of photons.
My question is identical results to which experiment? Is the purpose of the experiment to find identical results or to find non-identical results. For instance how is it experimentally different to passing the light through two successive polarizers? Your thoughts please and to show what result...
Confused2, your statement...
Confused2, your statement...
QUOTE (C2+)
Unfortunately we don't even agree that wavelength and frequency have no meaning for a single event. In the basic DSE with one photon there is only one thing we might regard as a wavefront and yet we see interference on the same wavefronts as if we had a continuous coherent source of light. The different path lengths suggest that 'c' doesn't apply in the DSE .. so how far can we stretch this little problem with 'c' ? .. I detect no enthusiasm for predicting the outcome of the MM with arms of 1m and 1000m even though Feynman was pretty definite about the result.
Wavelength and frequency can be shown for a single photon by simply placing a triangular prism in front of the collimated beam. The angle the light comes from the prism is characteristic of the wavelength. If this chooses the entry point for double slits then it would be very frequency dependent.
You don't need to do this but if it helps then do it and see... Single photons at a time not withstanding. Interference effects do not change the speed of propagation of the light source. It does change the "density" of the function in space. The lines on the screen are not primarily related to the wavelength of light they are derivative depending on construction and destruction (conservatively of course) of mutual path differences "summed" as complex phases in space. Do people have an idea of how short the wavelength of light really is... quite short. You can't see that short. Te light and dark bands are "gross" effects of interference.
We "know" this is the sort of thing happening throughout the intervening space but it is a complex phenomenon. See all those wavelets in the gap behind the slits.
Laserlight...
You don't need to do this but if it helps then do it and see... Single photons at a time not withstanding. Interference effects do not change the speed of propagation of the light source. It does change the "density" of the function in space. The lines on the screen are not primarily related to the wavelength of light they are derivative depending on construction and destruction (conservatively of course) of mutual path differences "summed" as complex phases in space. Do people have an idea of how short the wavelength of light really is... quite short. You can't see that short. Te light and dark bands are "gross" effects of interference.
We "know" this is the sort of thing happening throughout the intervening space but it is a complex phenomenon. See all those wavelets in the gap behind the slits.
Laserlight...
QUOTE
1. Energy is a physical manifestation that cannot be destroyed, but it can change states when it interacts with matter. Radiated free energy has no mass but it does have an EM field charge component.
Energy is simply the capacity to do work. A photon may carry energy but is not actually the energy itself. There are two forms of energy potential and kinetic. The electric charge has nothing specifically to do with energy as such and is part of other theories.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. Energy is a physical manifestation that cannot be destroyed, but it can change states when it interacts with matter. Radiated free energy has no mass but it does have an EM field charge component. |
Energy is simply the capacity to do work. A photon may carry energy but is not actually the energy itself. There are two forms of energy potential and kinetic. The electric charge has nothing specifically to do with energy as such and is part of other theories.
5. Energy is emitted as a photon and propagates in the form of a wave, consisting of self contained, phase angle related, inductively coupled electric and magnetic fields along a directional vector.
5. Energy is emitted as a photon and propagates in the form of a wave, consisting of self contained, phase angle related, inductively coupled electric and magnetic fields along a directional vector.
Light is a form in which energy is transported it is not the primary nature of energy. If I have a rock on top of a hill it has potential energy because it could supply work by rolling down the hill. Emery is not absolute and depends on "systems" to determine the value of energy involved. One particle may have two different potential energies depending on which reference you are measuring it by.
QUOTE
11. Radiated energy power levels halve over the square of the distance from the source.
Are you referring to photons or are you referring to waves or are you referring to something else. We all know that photons retain the energy they initially start with but the surface over which the light spreads determines over a period of time the rate of deposition of the energy in accord with an inverse square law. This is obviously subject to the geometry of the radiation since mirrors and lenses can concentrate it and surfaces can transmit it depending on the particular frequency. Need to be a tad more specific.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 11. Radiated energy power levels halve over the square of the distance from the source. |
Are you referring to photons or are you referring to waves or are you referring to something else. We all know that photons retain the energy they initially start with but the surface over which the light spreads determines over a period of time the rate of deposition of the energy in accord with an inverse square law. This is obviously subject to the geometry of the radiation since mirrors and lenses can concentrate it and surfaces can transmit it depending on the particular frequency. Need to be a tad more specific.
14. Lower forms of kinetic energy and stored potential energy in matter, are responsible for stimulating higher forms of energy as matter energetically interacts with matter. All higher forms of kinetic energy have their basis in the interaction of the potential and kinetic energy stored in matter.
14. Lower forms of kinetic energy and stored potential energy in matter, are responsible for stimulating higher forms of energy as matter energetically interacts with matter. All higher forms of kinetic energy have their basis in the interaction of the potential and kinetic energy stored in matter.
Energy is capacity to do work. There are no "higher or lower forms of energy" unless you are actually referring to photons or particles carrying kinetic or potential energy.
The passage of electromagnetic waves through space does not signal the passage of any charges through the space . The electric and magnetic fields are the results of "stressors" in the the resonant space and charge is a phenomenon that arises like that described in Williamson and Van der Mark's mechanism through "topology" in higher dimensions through that "twist" in the three dimensionally flatspace of the wave into higher dimensions.
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?
Cheers
The passage of electromagnetic waves through space does not signal the passage of any charges through the space . The electric and magnetic fields are the results of "stressors" in the the resonant space and charge is a phenomenon that arises like that described in Williamson and Van der Mark's mechanism through "topology" in higher dimensions through that "twist" in the three dimensionally flatspace of the wave into higher dimensions.
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?
Cheers
Good Elf,
Thanks for the reply...
1. Energy is a physical manifestation that cannot be destroyed, but it can change states when it interacts with matter. Radiated free energy has no mass but it does have an EM field charge component.
Energy is simply the capacity to do work. A photon may carry energy but is not actually the energy itself. There are two forms of energy potential and kinetic. The electric charge has nothing specifically to do with energy as such and is part of other theories.
This seems contradictory. Consider a receiving antenna, where the photonic
EM field wave energy is stimulating an alternating voltage. magnetic field, and
current in the antenna via the
electric and magnetic field components generated by the photon. In order
to generate a voltage change there must be a balanced distributed charge component
to the photon. Which is part of the argument of the DSE results as waves interact
with matter going thru the cavities of the slits. Waveguide theory seems to
validate this effect.
This seems contradictory. Consider a receiving antenna, where the photonic
EM field wave energy is stimulating an alternating voltage. magnetic field, and
current in the antenna via the
electric and magnetic field components generated by the photon. In order
to generate a voltage change there must be a balanced distributed charge component
to the photon. Which is part of the argument of the DSE results as waves interact
with matter going thru the cavities of the slits. Waveguide theory seems to
validate this effect.
QUOTE
5. Energy is emitted as a photon and propagates in the form of a wave, consisting of self contained, phase angle related, inductively coupled electric and magnetic fields along a directional vector.
Light is a form in which energy is transported it is not the primary nature of energy. If I have a rock on top of a hill it has potential energy because it could supply work by rolling down the hill. Emery is not absolute and depends on "systems" to determine the value of energy involved. One particle may have two different potential energies depending on which reference you are measuring it by
No disagreement with your comment...I should have specified kinetic free energy
in the vacuum of space.
Water wave energy certainly isn't light...but it is an interaction with mass, and
energy transport across a potential energy medium as it relates to gravity, and
cohesive molecular attraction of water molecules.
I should have been more specific in detailing what I was inferring, i.e.... All, more
energetic forms of kinetic energy have their primordial origins from the
interactions lower energy level interactions of matter. Energy does not
spontaneously appear, it is the result of matter interacting. The least energetic
kinetic energy level takes place at the atomic level, and when compounded by the
sheer quantity of large massive atomic interactions it becomes more energetic and
concentrated...more mass = more kinetic and potential energy. So it is a self perpetuating
phenomenon of the natural order of the universe. The higher the concentration
of energy over time, the bigger the effect it has on the stored potential energy of smaller
masses.
I should have been more specific in detailing what I was inferring, i.e.... All, more
energetic forms of kinetic energy have their primordial origins from the
interactions lower energy level interactions of matter. Energy does not
spontaneously appear, it is the result of matter interacting. The least energetic
kinetic energy level takes place at the atomic level, and when compounded by the
sheer quantity of large massive atomic interactions it becomes more energetic and
concentrated...more mass = more kinetic and potential energy. So it is a self perpetuating
phenomenon of the natural order of the universe. The higher the concentration
of energy over time, the bigger the effect it has on the stored potential energy of smaller
masses.
The electric and magnetic fields are the results of "stressors" in the the resonant space and charge is a phenomenon that arises like that described in Williamson and Van der Mark's mechanism through "topology" in higher dimensions through that "twist" in the three dimensionally flatspace of the wave into higher dimensions.
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology
Are you supporting the Aether (ether) theory as a wave transport mechanism?
How do you get resonance without an interactive medium that has some
phyical component? Interdimensionality has not been proved, it is a theory.
Are you proposing that the E and M components of a photonic wave are
ineractively phasing in and out of our dimensional space/time continuum?
As for the electron, that would make sense...either torroidal or helical topology.
I think I hurt my brain......
LL
Thanks for the reply...
QUOTE
1. Energy is a physical manifestation that cannot be destroyed, but it can change states when it interacts with matter. Radiated free energy has no mass but it does have an EM field charge component.
Energy is simply the capacity to do work. A photon may carry energy but is not actually the energy itself. There are two forms of energy potential and kinetic. The electric charge has nothing specifically to do with energy as such and is part of other theories.
This seems contradictory. Consider a receiving antenna, where the photonic
EM field wave energy is stimulating an alternating voltage. magnetic field, and
current in the antenna via the
electric and magnetic field components generated by the photon. In order
to generate a voltage change there must be a balanced distributed charge component
to the photon. Which is part of the argument of the DSE results as waves interact
with matter going thru the cavities of the slits. Waveguide theory seems to
validate this effect.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
1. Energy is a physical manifestation that cannot be destroyed, but it can change states when it interacts with matter. Radiated free energy has no mass but it does have an EM field charge component. Energy is simply the capacity to do work. A photon may carry energy but is not actually the energy itself. There are two forms of energy potential and kinetic. The electric charge has nothing specifically to do with energy as such and is part of other theories. |
This seems contradictory. Consider a receiving antenna, where the photonic
EM field wave energy is stimulating an alternating voltage. magnetic field, and
current in the antenna via the
electric and magnetic field components generated by the photon. In order
to generate a voltage change there must be a balanced distributed charge component
to the photon. Which is part of the argument of the DSE results as waves interact
with matter going thru the cavities of the slits. Waveguide theory seems to
validate this effect.
QUOTE
5. Energy is emitted as a photon and propagates in the form of a wave, consisting of self contained, phase angle related, inductively coupled electric and magnetic fields along a directional vector.
Light is a form in which energy is transported it is not the primary nature of energy. If I have a rock on top of a hill it has potential energy because it could supply work by rolling down the hill. Emery is not absolute and depends on "systems" to determine the value of energy involved. One particle may have two different potential energies depending on which reference you are measuring it by
No disagreement with your comment...I should have specified kinetic free energy
in the vacuum of space.
Water wave energy certainly isn't light...but it is an interaction with mass, and
energy transport across a potential energy medium as it relates to gravity, and
cohesive molecular attraction of water molecules.
QUOTE
QUOTE
14. Lower forms of kinetic energy and stored potential energy in matter, are responsible for stimulating higher forms of energy as matter energetically interacts with matter. All higher forms of kinetic energy have their basis in the interaction of the potential and kinetic energy stored in matter.
Energy is capacity to do work. There are no "higher or lower forms of energy" unless you are actually referring to photons or particles carrying kinetic or potential energy.
The passage of electromagnetic waves through space does not signal the passage of any charges through the space . The electric and magnetic fields are the results of "stressors" in the the resonant space and charge is a phenomenon that arises like that described in Williamson and Van der Mark's mechanism through "topology" in higher dimensions through that "twist" in the three dimensionally flatspace of the wave into higher dimensions.
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?
14. Lower forms of kinetic energy and stored potential energy in matter, are responsible for stimulating higher forms of energy as matter energetically interacts with matter. All higher forms of kinetic energy have their basis in the interaction of the potential and kinetic energy stored in matter.
Energy is capacity to do work. There are no "higher or lower forms of energy" unless you are actually referring to photons or particles carrying kinetic or potential energy.
The passage of electromagnetic waves through space does not signal the passage of any charges through the space . The electric and magnetic fields are the results of "stressors" in the the resonant space and charge is a phenomenon that arises like that described in Williamson and Van der Mark's mechanism through "topology" in higher dimensions through that "twist" in the three dimensionally flatspace of the wave into higher dimensions.
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?
I should have been more specific in detailing what I was inferring, i.e.... All, more
energetic forms of kinetic energy have their primordial origins from the
interactions lower energy level interactions of matter. Energy does not
spontaneously appear, it is the result of matter interacting. The least energetic
kinetic energy level takes place at the atomic level, and when compounded by the
sheer quantity of large massive atomic interactions it becomes more energetic and
concentrated...more mass = more kinetic and potential energy. So it is a self perpetuating
phenomenon of the natural order of the universe. The higher the concentration
of energy over time, the bigger the effect it has on the stored potential energy of smaller
masses.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE 14. Lower forms of kinetic energy and stored potential energy in matter, are responsible for stimulating higher forms of energy as matter energetically interacts with matter. All higher forms of kinetic energy have their basis in the interaction of the potential and kinetic energy stored in matter. Energy is capacity to do work. There are no "higher or lower forms of energy" unless you are actually referring to photons or particles carrying kinetic or potential energy. The passage of electromagnetic waves through space does not signal the passage of any charges through the space . The electric and magnetic fields are the results of "stressors" in the the resonant space and charge is a phenomenon that arises like that described in Williamson and Van der Mark's mechanism through "topology" in higher dimensions through that "twist" in the three dimensionally flatspace of the wave into higher dimensions. Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? |
I should have been more specific in detailing what I was inferring, i.e.... All, more
energetic forms of kinetic energy have their primordial origins from the
interactions lower energy level interactions of matter. Energy does not
spontaneously appear, it is the result of matter interacting. The least energetic
kinetic energy level takes place at the atomic level, and when compounded by the
sheer quantity of large massive atomic interactions it becomes more energetic and
concentrated...more mass = more kinetic and potential energy. So it is a self perpetuating
phenomenon of the natural order of the universe. The higher the concentration
of energy over time, the bigger the effect it has on the stored potential energy of smaller
masses.
The electric and magnetic fields are the results of "stressors" in the the resonant space and charge is a phenomenon that arises like that described in Williamson and Van der Mark's mechanism through "topology" in higher dimensions through that "twist" in the three dimensionally flatspace of the wave into higher dimensions.
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology
Are you supporting the Aether (ether) theory as a wave transport mechanism?
How do you get resonance without an interactive medium that has some
phyical component? Interdimensionality has not been proved, it is a theory.
Are you proposing that the E and M components of a photonic wave are
ineractively phasing in and out of our dimensional space/time continuum?
As for the electron, that would make sense...either torroidal or helical topology.
I think I hurt my brain......
LL
Hey TRoc, Good Elf, C2, LL, StevenA, and yq,
I concur wholeheartedly with LL's assessment...
Good Elf, your statements…
Good Elf, your statements… Delocalization is the natural state any particle when viewed in its own frame of reference and this is an extension to Special Relativity I have often spoken about.
This is because Special Relativity has two ends... the speed of light and every rest frame (Inertial frame of reference).
I concur wholeheartedly with LL's assessment...
QUOTE
One of the great things about this board is that it challenges everyone to think at a higher level.
Good Elf, your statements…
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| One of the great things about this board is that it challenges everyone to think at a higher level. |
Good Elf, your statements… Delocalization is the natural state any particle when viewed in its own frame of reference and this is an extension to Special Relativity I have often spoken about.
This is because Special Relativity has two ends... the speed of light and every rest frame (Inertial frame of reference).
I think we will need to come back to this. But at the moment, all I can see is that the equation only works when 0<v<infinity. Within these bounds, I think QM does a fine job correlating to your suppositions.
TRoc, I understand that you do not “buy the particle explanation”. But I do not understand how your model can deal with the experimental "evidence" of particles.
C2, I found this link...http://cem01.ucsd.edu/~vitaliy/courses/ece...Coherence04.pdf I have either a much better understanding, or a much worse one! It seems to me that both TRoc interpretation as well as the ‘Elf packet” can fit within coherent length, time, area, and/or volume. Also, it might provide some insight into the oddball MMX.
LL, I don’t understand the exponential part…
LL, I don’t understand the exponential part…
3. The amount of radiated photon kinetic energy emission, propagated from matter, is exponentially proportional to the amount of the displaced potential energy stored in matter.
The electric and magnetic fields "reside" in higher dimensions not on the surface of our 4 dimensional Universe and everything about the quantum is "hidden" in a greater dimensional realm which we are unable to directly appreciate. The electric and magnetic fields are really a reflection of a single entity... the brane wall of our Universe and the way in which energy is able to "shuffle" between the electric and magnetic duals through that "resonance" on this brane wall... via the non-local limits of our Universe. The "projection" of this entity into our "Spacetime" world gives us the particle interactions. That is actually what I am on about and have been for quite a long time on this forum. It is all one way to describe "everything".
Looks like you are in for one hell of a migraine... You will thank me later!
Cheers
"Single entity" or as I say "Duality"; good luck cobber, hope the world will one day thank us.
TRoc, I understand that you do not “buy the particle explanation”. But I do not understand how your model can deal with the experimental "evidence" of particles.
C2, I found this link...http://cem01.ucsd.edu/~vitaliy/courses/ece...Coherence04.pdf I have either a much better understanding, or a much worse one! It seems to me that both TRoc interpretation as well as the ‘Elf packet” can fit within coherent length, time, area, and/or volume. Also, it might provide some insight into the oddball MMX.
QUOTE
Temporal coherence arises from the finite spectral width of the source of radiation. Strictly monochromatic radiation is, of course, always coherent. In practice, no source of light is ever strictly monochromatic. Even in the best, so called monochromatic source, there is always some mean frequency.
Temporal coherence is a measure of a correlation of a wave at one time with a wave at a later time. Separation in time can be achieved by splitting a wave into two parts, delaying one wave by forcing it to propagate a longer distance, and then recombining these two waves by interfering them. This may also be referred to as longitudinal coherence as opposed to transverse or spatial coherence. Two useful quantities that are related to temporal coherence are the coherence time and coherence length. The coherence time is related to the spectral bandwidth of
the light source as: τc ~1/Δn (11) The coherence length can be determined by multiplying the propagation velocity and the time during which the wave is coherent: lc = cτc. Spatial coherence is measured in two dimensions, yielding the coherence area of the wave, while the third dimension is characterized by the coherence length; thus the product of the three can be considered the coherence volume.
The most common technique used to measure temporal coherence is the Michelson interferometer (see Fig.4). The mirrors of the interferometer are slightly mis aligned so that the two interfering wavefronts will not be parallel to generate a finite number of fringes. The path difference Δl between these wavefronts provides the time delay necessary for correlation. Increasing Δl by moving one of the mirrors the fringe visibility will vary as a function of time t = Δl/c and coherence time can be found.
Temporal coherence is a measure of a correlation of a wave at one time with a wave at a later time. Separation in time can be achieved by splitting a wave into two parts, delaying one wave by forcing it to propagate a longer distance, and then recombining these two waves by interfering them. This may also be referred to as longitudinal coherence as opposed to transverse or spatial coherence. Two useful quantities that are related to temporal coherence are the coherence time and coherence length. The coherence time is related to the spectral bandwidth of
the light source as: τc ~1/Δn (11) The coherence length can be determined by multiplying the propagation velocity and the time during which the wave is coherent: lc = cτc. Spatial coherence is measured in two dimensions, yielding the coherence area of the wave, while the third dimension is characterized by the coherence length; thus the product of the three can be considered the coherence volume.
The most common technique used to measure temporal coherence is the Michelson interferometer (see Fig.4). The mirrors of the interferometer are slightly mis aligned so that the two interfering wavefronts will not be parallel to generate a finite number of fringes. The path difference Δl between these wavefronts provides the time delay necessary for correlation. Increasing Δl by moving one of the mirrors the fringe visibility will vary as a function of time t = Δl/c and coherence time can be found.
LL, I don’t understand the exponential part…
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Temporal coherence arises from the finite spectral width of the source of radiation. Strictly monochromatic radiation is, of course, always coherent. In practice, no source of light is ever strictly monochromatic. Even in the best, so called monochromatic source, there is always some mean frequency. Temporal coherence is a measure of a correlation of a wave at one time with a wave at a later time. Separation in time can be achieved by splitting a wave into two parts, delaying one wave by forcing it to propagate a longer distance, and then recombining these two waves by interfering them. This may also be referred to as longitudinal coherence as opposed to transverse or spatial coherence. Two useful quantities that are related to temporal coherence are the coherence time and coherence length. The coherence time is related to the spectral bandwidth of the light source as: τc ~1/Δn (11) The coherence length can be determined by multiplying the propagation velocity and the time during which the wave is coherent: lc = cτc. Spatial coherence is measured in two dimensions, yielding the coherence area of the wave, while the third dimension is characterized by the coherence length; thus the product of the three can be considered the coherence volume. The most common technique used to measure temporal coherence is the Michelson interferometer (see Fig.4). The mirrors of the interferometer are slightly mis aligned so that the two interfering wavefronts will not be parallel to generate a finite number of fringes. The path difference Δl between these wavefronts provides the time delay necessary for correlation. Increasing Δl by moving one of the mirrors the fringe visibility will vary as a function of time t = Δl/c and coherence time can be found. |
LL, I don’t understand the exponential part…
3. The amount of radiated photon kinetic energy emission, propagated from matter, is exponentially proportional to the amount of the displaced potential energy stored in matter.
... wouldn't it just be proportional?
StevenA, I am with GE. I would like to know what you predict your experiment will reveal and why. I have my own ideas, but want to hear yours first.
yquantum, Thanks for the lead on David Deutsch. It From Qubit I am not sold. But it is a good read.
StevenA, I am with GE. I would like to know what you predict your experiment will reveal and why. I have my own ideas, but want to hear yours first.
yquantum, Thanks for the lead on David Deutsch. It From Qubit I am not sold. But it is a good read.
QUOTE (Laserlight+Nov 11 2006, 04:16 AM)
StevenA,
You might find something here.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../interfcon.html
Let me ask you, if you have two separated rotating polarizing filters won't you
just get pulses of phased light as the polarization planes line up periodically?
Maybe I need to read your proposed experimental design and explanation again.
I must have missed something. IMO, radiating polarized light will maintain its polarization state unless it interacts with matter, at which point it will diffract,
change direction, slow down, or even change phase. I will read your experimental purpose/nmethod again.
Wouldn't it just be easier to rotate the laser source so that there is no
externally generated phasing interference other than the rotating phasing
by the laser itself? Or perhaps use a rotating beam splitter...
LL
Well actually I recommended using a single rotating polarization filter to remove the possibility that delays over space could affect the result.
I'll try to explain the idea a bit more clearly:
Let's say we have a round trip delay of 1 second from the laser to the mirror and back. If we place the filter in front of the laser and rotate it, then it will be sweeping through various polarization angles over time.
If the rate of rotation is such that it sweeps 90 degs during the delay between the filter and the mirror and back, then if polarization is a local property of the photon that's communicated at light speed, all photons should be blocked either on the forward pass or the reverse pass because at the two times a photon would cross by the filter, it would be at 90 deg angles.
There are some issues that could add problems in explaining the result, though knowing the result would help delve into these.
Now if the beam intensity drops as the filter is rotated faster, then polarization could still be local but the delayed choice experiment could be the result of a selection made in some manner by an observer. In this case, the beam intensity could still drop and the observer would simply have no physically possible "choices" that allowed the polarization information to be communcated at light speed. I assume this would be the case and admit such a result wouldn't necessarily deny a more classical explaination though it would help clarify what "window of opportunity" exists in such a selection.
On the other hand, if the path and wave characteristics of a photon are determined ahead of time, by possible information tied to spacial locations, or some instantaneous state of the environment (which can include prior entangled information as this information is static, whether or not it's envisioned to be physically moving) then the polarization information doesn't need to physically travel through space nor be subject to being filtered twice by the filter and likely would only be filtered at some instant in time and frozen in that state.
Basically, if the polarization property is local to the photon and communicated at light speed, then you should be able to dim the beam by rotating the filter during the delay time of the trip, whereas if the polarization is a non-locally determined property then the polarization information would not need to pass through the filter twice at two seperate times and be blocked. In the case of not being blocked, the question becomes one of determining when the polarization occured and if it occured relative to either the emitter or detector time frames, then this should be determinable by looking at which phase of polarization was selected.
There's still a question here, for me, regarding acceleration also. If there's an "event" that requires a polarization to be selected, what comprises that "event"? It would appear to be an "external" alteration in the state of the system, but if we had such an experiment set up in space and isolated from everything else (as much as possible), where would this input come from?
Acceleration can alter event horizons, which can be viewed in terms of information limits. An acceleration could be seen as an alteration to a steady state condition, or a new input of energy/information, that distorts the prior contents of it. A spinning polarization filter isn't necessarily the same, in terms of where information is flowing or what information is already entangled in a system, as having a more remote and isolated input modulating the polarization - like a shutter. In the case of an external input, it may be physically impossible to have any knowledge of what the input will be ahead of time (lots of assumptions made here).
For example, from relativity, we'd expect to see space appear distorted travelling at high speeds, yet the Earth could easily already be travelling at high speeds and not notice the distortion because it's a pervasive effect that alters all your surroundings on a similar scale - just as it's assumed travelling inside a closed spaceship at high velocities would internally not appear distorted, but relative to external information not already "entangled" or subjected to the same acceleration, the distortion would become more apparent.
Whether or not accelerating the rotation of the filter would affect anything would be harder to test without a larger delay, but it would seem the results should be similar to the experiment using delayed quantum observations as it wouldn't be much different than selecting a shutter "in mid flight" for the photon, but those are just extended considerations for the experiment.
You might find something here.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../interfcon.html
Let me ask you, if you have two separated rotating polarizing filters won't you
just get pulses of phased light as the polarization planes line up periodically?
Maybe I need to read your proposed experimental design and explanation again.
I must have missed something. IMO, radiating polarized light will maintain its polarization state unless it interacts with matter, at which point it will diffract,
change direction, slow down, or even change phase. I will read your experimental purpose/nmethod again.
Wouldn't it just be easier to rotate the laser source so that there is no
externally generated phasing interference other than the rotating phasing
by the laser itself? Or perhaps use a rotating beam splitter...
LL
Well actually I recommended using a single rotating polarization filter to remove the possibility that delays over space could affect the result.
I'll try to explain the idea a bit more clearly:
Let's say we have a round trip delay of 1 second from the laser to the mirror and back. If we place the filter in front of the laser and rotate it, then it will be sweeping through various polarization angles over time.
If the rate of rotation is such that it sweeps 90 degs during the delay between the filter and the mirror and back, then if polarization is a local property of the photon that's communicated at light speed, all photons should be blocked either on the forward pass or the reverse pass because at the two times a photon would cross by the filter, it would be at 90 deg angles.
There are some issues that could add problems in explaining the result, though knowing the result would help delve into these.
Now if the beam intensity drops as the filter is rotated faster, then polarization could still be local but the delayed choice experiment could be the result of a selection made in some manner by an observer. In this case, the beam intensity could still drop and the observer would simply have no physically possible "choices" that allowed the polarization information to be communcated at light speed. I assume this would be the case and admit such a result wouldn't necessarily deny a more classical explaination though it would help clarify what "window of opportunity" exists in such a selection.
On the other hand, if the path and wave characteristics of a photon are determined ahead of time, by possible information tied to spacial locations, or some instantaneous state of the environment (which can include prior entangled information as this information is static, whether or not it's envisioned to be physically moving) then the polarization information doesn't need to physically travel through space nor be subject to being filtered twice by the filter and likely would only be filtered at some instant in time and frozen in that state.
Basically, if the polarization property is local to the photon and communicated at light speed, then you should be able to dim the beam by rotating the filter during the delay time of the trip, whereas if the polarization is a non-locally determined property then the polarization information would not need to pass through the filter twice at two seperate times and be blocked. In the case of not being blocked, the question becomes one of determining when the polarization occured and if it occured relative to either the emitter or detector time frames, then this should be determinable by looking at which phase of polarization was selected.
There's still a question here, for me, regarding acceleration also. If there's an "event" that requires a polarization to be selected, what comprises that "event"? It would appear to be an "external" alteration in the state of the system, but if we had such an experiment set up in space and isolated from everything else (as much as possible), where would this input come from?
Acceleration can alter event horizons, which can be viewed in terms of information limits. An acceleration could be seen as an alteration to a steady state condition, or a new input of energy/information, that distorts the prior contents of it. A spinning polarization filter isn't necessarily the same, in terms of where information is flowing or what information is already entangled in a system, as having a more remote and isolated input modulating the polarization - like a shutter. In the case of an external input, it may be physically impossible to have any knowledge of what the input will be ahead of time (lots of assumptions made here).
For example, from relativity, we'd expect to see space appear distorted travelling at high speeds, yet the Earth could easily already be travelling at high speeds and not notice the distortion because it's a pervasive effect that alters all your surroundings on a similar scale - just as it's assumed travelling inside a closed spaceship at high velocities would internally not appear distorted, but relative to external information not already "entangled" or subjected to the same acceleration, the distortion would become more apparent.
Whether or not accelerating the rotation of the filter would affect anything would be harder to test without a larger delay, but it would seem the results should be similar to the experiment using delayed quantum observations as it wouldn't be much different than selecting a shutter "in mid flight" for the photon, but those are just extended considerations for the experiment.
WhyNot,
You are correct, good catch....gotta preserve the conservation of energy.
LL
QUOTE
I don’t understand the exponential part…
... wouldn't it just be proportional?
... wouldn't it just be proportional?
You are correct, good catch....gotta preserve the conservation of energy.
LL
QUOTE (Why Not?+)
StevenA, I am with GE. I would like to know what you predict your experiment will reveal and why. I have my own ideas, but want to hear yours first.
My best guess would be that rotating the filter blocks the photons and that what's being observed in the delayed choice experiment is analogous to changing the color of light you see by quickly switching what sunglasses you're wearing. You can change the "color" of the entire universe instantly, though the light may be coming from light years away.
Of course the funky part is that this wouldn't seem just limited to altering the wavefunctions of light and it leaves some interesting considerations over divergences between observers that don't see the same thing.
My best guess would be that rotating the filter blocks the photons and that what's being observed in the delayed choice experiment is analogous to changing the color of light you see by quickly switching what sunglasses you're wearing.
You can change the "color" of the entire universe instantly, though the light may be coming from light years away.Of course the funky part is that this wouldn't seem just limited to altering the wavefunctions of light and it leaves some interesting considerations over divergences between observers that don't see the same thing.
In case it's not clear what effect the rotating filter would have, here's a simple example using bars to represent the filter and spinning sticks to represent polarized light:
Imagine throwing some spinning sticks through vertical bars - the only sticks that would pass through would be those with vertical rotations and sticks with horizontal rotations would be blocked by the bars. Now if you placed a rubber sheet behind the bars (a mirror), the vertically spinning sticks would bounce off this and, assuming the direction of spin didn't alter, they'd all come back through the bars.
But if you rotated the bars so that in the time it took for the sticks to bounce back, it had rotated into a horizontal alignment, then all sticks would be blocked either on the forward pass, when bars block horizonally spinning sticks or the "reflected" return pass, when the bars are horizontal and block the returning vertically spinning sticks. It doesn't matter what initial angle the bars are at as long as they rotate 90 degs in the time it takes the sticks to bounce back.
But in the delayed choice experiment the interference function can be modulated after a photon would be assumed to have passed through the slits. The question is when the result was determined.
If the results of the delayed choice experiment can be altered immediately before an observation, then you have a couple explainations (though I assume more are possible) either 1) the input selecting the observation method created an instantaneous, faster than light, alteration to the entire system or 2) both (all possible) results were already being propogated through the system at light speed and a selection of which result to observe was made at the end.
In case (1) a faster than light, or non-local determination of the wave function is necessary and in (2) the observation is altered instead and this can occur without any faster than light communication, though it requires parallel processes to exist.
So in the case of the rotating polarization filter, if faster than light or non-local (to the photon) determination of the polarization occurs, then the polarization need not be filtered twice at two separate times and only one instantaneous determination of the polarization need be made, which could allow the photons to be detected on the return path, whereas with the second case, the polarization information can still reside locally with a photon and travel at light speed without any concerns with relativity but in this case, they act normally and are blocked by the rotating filter as all photon paths would have to pass through the filter twice at right angles and thus be blocked by one of these.
If you just had two separate filters rigidly fixed at 90 degs to each other, then there's no time component involved and all photons are blocked because at no point in time would a path through them be possible, whereas for a single rotating filter you have a filter that's time variable and places tight restrictions on the path and timing of the polarization information.
Compared with the results of the delayed choice experiment - if the wave function of a photon can appear to be altered at any point in time then it doesn't need to be anything specific during the transit, or even a property physically attached to it during transit, in which it wouldn't need to be filtered twice in time but could be determined at some instant in time in which the filter would appear frozen in one position and correlate wave information both ways through it. In that case you could determine when the polarization selection occured by looking at what the polarization angle was.
Imagine throwing some spinning sticks through vertical bars - the only sticks that would pass through would be those with vertical rotations and sticks with horizontal rotations would be blocked by the bars. Now if you placed a rubber sheet behind the bars (a mirror), the vertically spinning sticks would bounce off this and, assuming the direction of spin didn't alter, they'd all come back through the bars.
But if you rotated the bars so that in the time it took for the sticks to bounce back, it had rotated into a horizontal alignment, then all sticks would be blocked either on the forward pass, when bars block horizonally spinning sticks or the "reflected" return pass, when the bars are horizontal and block the returning vertically spinning sticks. It doesn't matter what initial angle the bars are at as long as they rotate 90 degs in the time it takes the sticks to bounce back.
But in the delayed choice experiment the interference function can be modulated after a photon would be assumed to have passed through the slits. The question is when the result was determined.
If the results of the delayed choice experiment can be altered immediately before an observation, then you have a couple explainations (though I assume more are possible) either 1) the input selecting the observation method created an instantaneous, faster than light, alteration to the entire system or 2) both (all possible) results were already being propogated through the system at light speed and a selection of which result to observe was made at the end.
In case (1) a faster than light, or non-local determination of the wave function is necessary and in (2) the observation is altered instead and this can occur without any faster than light communication, though it requires parallel processes to exist.
So in the case of the rotating polarization filter, if faster than light or non-local (to the photon) determination of the polarization occurs, then the polarization need not be filtered twice at two separate times and only one instantaneous determination of the polarization need be made, which could allow the photons to be detected on the return path, whereas with the second case, the polarization information can still reside locally with a photon and travel at light speed without any concerns with relativity but in this case, they act normally and are blocked by the rotating filter as all photon paths would have to pass through the filter twice at right angles and thus be blocked by one of these.
If you just had two separate filters rigidly fixed at 90 degs to each other, then there's no time component involved and all photons are blocked because at no point in time would a path through them be possible, whereas for a single rotating filter you have a filter that's time variable and places tight restrictions on the path and timing of the polarization information.
Compared with the results of the delayed choice experiment - if the wave function of a photon can appear to be altered at any point in time then it doesn't need to be anything specific during the transit, or even a property physically attached to it during transit, in which it wouldn't need to be filtered twice in time but could be determined at some instant in time in which the filter would appear frozen in one position and correlate wave information both ways through it. In that case you could determine when the polarization selection occured by looking at what the polarization angle was.
StevenA and All,
Just a thought exercise in SR, (it's late and my brain is mush, so this may be
irrelevant)
If you have a dual opposing output pulse laser (light exiting from both ends of the
laser in opposite directions) and the wave pulses are coherent and in phase.
What is their relationship as they move at light speed in opposite directions?
Both pulses are moving at light speed relative to each other, there is no
doubling of the distance covered even though they are moving in opposite
directions. For all intents and purposes, for each pulse time has stopped relative
to the physical universe.
They are phased the same but their phasing is inconsequential to their relationship
since from a relative perspective time has stopped for each pulse.
According to SR they have no relationship. They couldn't see each other
because from a time relative perspective they are moving at the same speed
away from each other and relative time for each opposite pulse has stopped.
There would be no observable red shift because they are traveling at light speed.
so no red phase shift could be detected.
Conversely, if they were moving toward each other there would be no blue
phase shift detected because they are traveling at light speed relative to each
other, and internally to each light pulse, time has stopped relative to everything
physical outside of each pulse.
Now let's say space warps back on itself and the two opposing coherently phased
pulses inevitably approach each other from opposite diirections, what happens
when they are perfectly time coincident and and the phases overlap again?
Anyone got an answer?
LL
Just a thought exercise in SR, (it's late and my brain is mush, so this may be
irrelevant)
If you have a dual opposing output pulse laser (light exiting from both ends of the
laser in opposite directions) and the wave pulses are coherent and in phase.
What is their relationship as they move at light speed in opposite directions?
Both pulses are moving at light speed relative to each other, there is no
doubling of the distance covered even though they are moving in opposite
directions. For all intents and purposes, for each pulse time has stopped relative
to the physical universe.
They are phased the same but their phasing is inconsequential to their relationship
since from a relative perspective time has stopped for each pulse.
According to SR they have no relationship. They couldn't see each other
because from a time relative perspective they are moving at the same speed
away from each other and relative time for each opposite pulse has stopped.
There would be no observable red shift because they are traveling at light speed.
so no red phase shift could be detected.
Conversely, if they were moving toward each other there would be no blue
phase shift detected because they are traveling at light speed relative to each
other, and internally to each light pulse, time has stopped relative to everything
physical outside of each pulse.
Now let's say space warps back on itself and the two opposing coherently phased
pulses inevitably approach each other from opposite diirections, what happens
when they are perfectly time coincident and and the phases overlap again?
Anyone got an answer?
LL
I suspect Why Not? and StevenA (and yq?) are the ones on roughly the same path as me..
Classically, a radio..
We start with information ( Music)
We have a transmitter that launches this signal into space,
It travels through space
Our receiver picks it up and turns the signal back into information (the music)
[Input]->[F1 (the transmitter circuit) ]->[F2 ('space') ]->[F3 (the receiver circuit) ]->[Output]
Suggestion .. F3 (the receiver) is profoundly influencing the perceived properties of F2 (space) by virtue of its 'most probable detection' properties. If we look at photons and space in another way (eg the DSE ) then without the filter of a radio receiver we see a somewhat different picture. If we look at a hologram we see a third apparently 'new' version of space and photons.
Radio .. time selective .. looks (loosely) like it receives 'wavefronts'
DSE .. allows many wavefronts to be seen.. not time selective
Hologram .. shows the path of a single photon is the result of the entire image (could be 12 inches by 12 inches or more) .. not space selective.
A prism .. selectively removes all paths except the 'refracted' one.
StevanA's experiment ... woooo .. if I had to predict .. I'd guess polarisation propagates pretty damn fast.
Can anything other than 'probability' explain how the same sweet seems to have so many different flavours?
-C2.
Comments from other most welcome (of course)
Classically, a radio..
We start with information ( Music)
We have a transmitter that launches this signal into space,
It travels through space
Our receiver picks it up and turns the signal back into information (the music)
[Input]->[F1 (the transmitter circuit) ]->[F2 ('space') ]->[F3 (the receiver circuit) ]->[Output]
Suggestion .. F3 (the receiver) is profoundly influencing the perceived properties of F2 (space) by virtue of its 'most probable detection' properties. If we look at photons and space in another way (eg the DSE ) then without the filter of a radio receiver we see a somewhat different picture. If we look at a hologram we see a third apparently 'new' version of space and photons.
Radio .. time selective .. looks (loosely) like it receives 'wavefronts'
DSE .. allows many wavefronts to be seen.. not time selective
Hologram .. shows the path of a single photon is the result of the entire image (could be 12 inches by 12 inches or more) .. not space selective.
A prism .. selectively removes all paths except the 'refracted' one.
StevanA's experiment ... woooo .. if I had to predict .. I'd guess polarisation propagates pretty damn fast.
Can anything other than 'probability' explain how the same sweet seems to have so many different flavours?
-C2.
Comments from other most welcome (of course)
Hi Laserlight,
Wikipedia: The AdS/CFT correspondence
Here is a recent article about this concept.
The Illusion of Gravity: Juan Maldacena, Scientific American
I have copied the text of another article from New Scientist here...
The elephant and the event horizon @ 26 October 2006 NS
The Holographic Concept is not confined to just "two dimensional" surfaces but higher dimensional surfaces as well. In the same "general" way in which photographic Holograms "map" flat spaces from two dimensional surfaces into higher dimensional fully developed spaces, the nature of volumetric space is "transcendental". The Hologram is the way in which our Universe is expressed and our physics is based on "optics" of higher dimensions.
Now I do not believe in "Aether" (some universal substance to carry electromagnetic waves) but I do believe in higher dimensions so that we all reside on a hypersurface of our Universe and its outer "layer" is on the light cone. We are the little bugs "crawling" around inside an optical hall of mirrors created by matter waves.
A cosmic hall of mirrors: PhysicsWeb Sept 2005
The electric and magnetic fields "reside" in higher dimensions not on the surface of our 4 dimensional Universe and everything about the quantum is "hidden" in a greater dimensional realm which we are unable to directly appreciate. The electric and magnetic fields are really a reflection of a single entity... the brane wall of our Universe and the way in which energy is able to "shuffle" between the electric and magnetic duals through that "resonance" on this brane wall... via the non-local limits of our Universe. The "projection" of this entity into our "Spacetime" world gives us the particle interactions. That is actually what I am on about and have been for quite a long time on this forum. It is all one way to describe "everything".
Looks like you are in for one hell of a migraine... You will thank me later!
Cheers
QUOTE
Are you supporting the Aether (ether) theory as a wave transport mechanism?
How do you get resonance without an interactive medium that has some
physical component? Interdimensionality has not been proved, it is a theory.
Are you proposing that the E and M components of a photonic wave are
ineractively phasing in and out of our dimensional space/time continuum?
As for the electron, that would make sense...either torroidal or helical topology.
I think I hurt my brain......
He he he... yep... you would be right about nter-dimensionality. That is what Alain Aspect was intimating in that earlier post. Now I do not believe in Aether. This was disproved by the Michelson-Morley Experiment. What I have been saying is we live in unbounded finite space. This means like a bug inside a toy balloon it can wander around the inner surface of that "globe" forever , never finding any boundary to its travels. Our Universe is such a topology. Where I differ from standard philosophy is instead of being on the "outside" of such a pherically curved space (a de Sitter Space) wearer on the inside of a dimensional bubble (an anti-de Sitter space). This ties into Juan Maldacena's Theory which is a very important breakthrough in conceptual physics.How do you get resonance without an interactive medium that has some
physical component? Interdimensionality has not been proved, it is a theory.
Are you proposing that the E and M components of a photonic wave are
ineractively phasing in and out of our dimensional space/time continuum?
As for the electron, that would make sense...either torroidal or helical topology.
I think I hurt my brain......
Wikipedia: The AdS/CFT correspondence
Here is a recent article about this concept.
The Illusion of Gravity: Juan Maldacena, Scientific American
I have copied the text of another article from New Scientist here...
The elephant and the event horizon @ 26 October 2006 NS
The Holographic Concept is not confined to just "two dimensional" surfaces but higher dimensional surfaces as well. In the same "general" way in which photographic Holograms "map" flat spaces from two dimensional surfaces into higher dimensional fully developed spaces, the nature of volumetric space is "transcendental". The Hologram is the way in which our Universe is expressed and our physics is based on "optics" of higher dimensions.
Now I do not believe in "Aether" (some universal substance to carry electromagnetic waves) but I do believe in higher dimensions so that we all reside on a hypersurface of our Universe and its outer "layer" is on the light cone. We are the little bugs "crawling" around inside an optical hall of mirrors created by matter waves.
A cosmic hall of mirrors: PhysicsWeb Sept 2005
The electric and magnetic fields "reside" in higher dimensions not on the surface of our 4 dimensional Universe and everything about the quantum is "hidden" in a greater dimensional realm which we are unable to directly appreciate. The electric and magnetic fields are really a reflection of a single entity... the brane wall of our Universe and the way in which energy is able to "shuffle" between the electric and magnetic duals through that "resonance" on this brane wall... via the non-local limits of our Universe. The "projection" of this entity into our "Spacetime" world gives us the particle interactions. That is actually what I am on about and have been for quite a long time on this forum. It is all one way to describe "everything".
Looks like you are in for one hell of a migraine... You will thank me later!
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Nov 11 2006, 01:10 PM)
The electric and magnetic fields "reside" in higher dimensions not on the surface of our 4 dimensional Universe and everything about the quantum is "hidden" in a greater dimensional realm which we are unable to directly appreciate. The electric and magnetic fields are really a reflection of a single entity... the brane wall of our Universe and the way in which energy is able to "shuffle" between the electric and magnetic duals through that "resonance" on this brane wall... via the non-local limits of our Universe. The "projection" of this entity into our "Spacetime" world gives us the particle interactions. That is actually what I am on about and have been for quite a long time on this forum. It is all one way to describe "everything".
Looks like you are in for one hell of a migraine... You will thank me later!
Cheers
"Single entity" or as I say "Duality"; good luck cobber, hope the world will one day thank us.
Hey StevenA, LL, C2, TRoc, GE, 5D, and yq,
StevenA, Thanks for the further detail. Once you run the beam through the polarizer, you will be filtering out all but one polarization, yes? If you determine the polarization angle at the first pass, you will know what it will be on the second pass and can confirm the results by detecting whether or not any light makes it through the second pass. It should be either yes or no, not some value in between. I can't see how the experiment would determine the "speed" of polarization.
LL,
C2, I think I finally found a someone that has actually run your Michelson Interferometer Experiment… http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0012/0012028.pdf
StevenA, Thanks for the further detail. Once you run the beam through the polarizer, you will be filtering out all but one polarization, yes? If you determine the polarization angle at the first pass, you will know what it will be on the second pass and can confirm the results by detecting whether or not any light makes it through the second pass. It should be either yes or no, not some value in between. I can't see how the experiment would determine the "speed" of polarization.
LL,
QUOTE
Now let's say space warps back on itself and the two opposing coherently phased pulses inevitably approach each other from opposite directions, what happens when they are perfectly time coincident and the phases overlap again?
I think (in essence) you are describing a Michelson Interferometer where the path lengths differences are 1/2 of the wavelength used. In this case, the light will destructively interfere and head back to the emitter. With regard to your specific question... Intuitively, I think the photons will pass through each other, switch spins, and then make another transit around. However, I do not think there is any way to ever measure such an effect.C2, I think I finally found a someone that has actually run your Michelson Interferometer Experiment… http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0012/0012028.pdf
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now let's say space warps back on itself and the two opposing coherently phased pulses inevitably approach each other from opposite directions, what happens when they are perfectly time coincident and the phases overlap again? |
I think (in essence) you are describing a Michelson Interferometer where the path lengths differences are 1/2 of the wavelength used. In this case, the light will destructively interfere and head back to the emitter. With regard to your specific question... Intuitively, I think the photons will pass through each other, switch spins, and then make another transit around. However, I do not think there is any way to ever measure such an effect.
C2, I think I finally found a someone that has actually run your Michelson Interferometer Experiment… http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0012/0012028.pdf
We have constructed an efficient source of photon pairs using a waveguide-type nonlinear device and performed a two-photon interference experiment with an unbalanced Michelson interferometer. Parametric down-converted photons from the nonlinear device are detected by two detectors located at the output ports of the interferometer. Because the interferometer is constructed with two optical paths of different length, photons from the shorter path arrive at the detector earlier than those from the longer path. We find that the difference of arrival time and the time window of the coincidence counter are important parameters which determine the boundary between the classical and quantum regime. When the time window of the coincidence counter is smaller than the arrival time difference, fringes of high visibility (80± 10%) were observed. This result is only explained by quantum theory and is clear evidence for quantum entanglement of the interferometer’s optical paths.
C2, I think I finally found a someone that has actually run your Michelson Interferometer Experiment… http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0012/0012028.pdf
We have constructed an efficient source of photon pairs using a waveguide-type nonlinear device and performed a two-photon interference experiment with an unbalanced Michelson interferometer. Parametric down-converted photons from the nonlinear device are detected by two detectors located at the output ports of the interferometer. Because the interferometer is constructed with two optical paths of different length, photons from the shorter path arrive at the detector earlier than those from the longer path. We find that the difference of arrival time and the time window of the coincidence counter are important parameters which determine the boundary between the classical and quantum regime. When the time window of the coincidence counter is smaller than the arrival time difference, fringes of high visibility (80± 10%) were observed. This result is only explained by quantum theory and is clear evidence for quantum entanglement of the interferometer’s optical paths.
(emphasis added)
Comments not just welcome, but expected!
Comments not just welcome, but expected!
GE,
One good migrane, deserves another....tit for tat....
Ok, I will delve more into the links that you have posted. However there are
serious inconsistencies in this theory as they relate to physical phenomena
that don't exist in the metaphysical interdimensioal realm. Ocean waves,
sound waves, waves on a string, are physical manifestations, with physical
effects that aren't interdimensional and interact with the 4 dimensional
space/time continuum that we inhabit. I also find some difficulty as to how
an interdimensional manifestation can cause physical changes and dislocations
in a 4 dimensional physical universe.
There are lots of competing theories, all vying to explain a complicated and
baffling topic. The problem is...how do you prove extra/inter dimensionality
when you are constrained to a 4 dimensional physical continuum?
LL
One good migrane, deserves another....tit for tat....
QUOTE
The electric and magnetic fields "reside" in higher dimensions not on the surface of our 4 dimensional Universe and everything about the quantum is "hidden" in a greater dimensional realm which we are unable to directly appreciate. The electric and magnetic fields are really a reflection of a single entity... the brane wall of our Universe and the way in which energy is able to "shuffle" between the electric and magnetic duals through that "resonance" on this brane wall... via the non-local limits of our Universe. The "projection" of this entity into our "Spacetime" world gives us the particle interactions. That is actually what I am on about and have been for quite a long time on this forum. It is all one way to describe "everything".
Looks like you are in for one hell of a migraine... You will thank me later!
Looks like you are in for one hell of a migraine... You will thank me later!
Ok, I will delve more into the links that you have posted. However there are
serious inconsistencies in this theory as they relate to physical phenomena
that don't exist in the metaphysical interdimensioal realm. Ocean waves,
sound waves, waves on a string, are physical manifestations, with physical
effects that aren't interdimensional and interact with the 4 dimensional
space/time continuum that we inhabit. I also find some difficulty as to how
an interdimensional manifestation can cause physical changes and dislocations
in a 4 dimensional physical universe.
There are lots of competing theories, all vying to explain a complicated and
baffling topic. The problem is...how do you prove extra/inter dimensionality
when you are constrained to a 4 dimensional physical continuum?
LL
"The photon goes through all possible entrances". Sure it does. This is a carefully set up experiment. chhange it a little and it does not work. as Nick said, it is a phenomenon. a trick which if you get everything right, you get a strange effect. Unfortunately with science nowadays, it is not; look for Occam's razor, but for the most craziest idea anyone can think up.
Laserlight. Actually 3 dimensions. Time is merely a convenience created by Man to allow us to cope with the world around us. Animals manage very well without the concept of time.
To prove other dimensions exist you would have to find something that cannot be explained by the normal 3 dimensions. Like superstrings, which we have now given up on as a dead end.
To prove other dimensions exist you would have to find something that cannot be explained by the normal 3 dimensions. Like superstrings, which we have now given up on as a dead end.
WhyNot,
You are correct, it is a Michelson interferometer type experiment....and as
the wavelenths merge with 180 degree polarity inversion there should be destructive interference of the wave
energy pattern. The opposing wave energies should destructively cancel....when they
do infra-red heat should be the byproduct of the destruction process. In
radar and RF waveguides there is a "dummy load" configuration which is basically a waveguide
shunt that sets up reflective 180 degree out of phase standing waves in a frequency tuned internal cavity.
The waveform reflected from the end of the cavity destructively interferes with
the incident waveform and the byproduct is heat, which is radiated away across
cooling fins external to the cavity. Energy is transformed from
microwave to infra-red and energy is conserved.
QUOTE
I think (in essence) you are describing a Michelson Interferometer where the path lengths differences are 1/2 of the wavelength used. In this case, the light will destructively interfere and head back to the emitter. With regard to your specific question... Intuitively, I think the photons will pass through each other, switch spins, and then make another transit around. However, I do not think there is any way to ever measure such an effect.
You are correct, it is a Michelson interferometer type experiment....and as
the wavelenths merge with 180 degree polarity inversion there should be destructive interference of the wave
energy pattern. The opposing wave energies should destructively cancel....when they
do infra-red heat should be the byproduct of the destruction process. In
radar and RF waveguides there is a "dummy load" configuration which is basically a waveguide
shunt that sets up reflective 180 degree out of phase standing waves in a frequency tuned internal cavity.
The waveform reflected from the end of the cavity destructively interferes with
the incident waveform and the byproduct is heat, which is radiated away across
cooling fins external to the cavity. Energy is transformed from
microwave to infra-red and energy is conserved.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 11 2006, 06:31 PM)
Laserlight. Actually 3 dimensions. Time is merely a convenience created by Man to allow us to cope with the world around us. Animals manage very well without the concept of time.
To prove other dimensions exist you would have to find something that cannot be explained by the normal 3 dimensions. Like superstrings, which we have now given up on as a dead end.
Kaneda,
I agree to some extent, but time is a linear manifestation of physical reality.
Actions, Reactions, and interactions all need a point of referece....time.
Humans have just quantified it based on periodic physical
observations/interactions. All matter has a basis in tme so it must be given
some relevance as a metric of the interactions of the 3 physical dimensions
since they are all interdependent and time is the dimension which binds them
and gives them consistent and measurable "standards" or operational constraints.
You can't measure or quantify "THOUGHT" either, but it occurs. It isn't measurable
or quantifiable but it is a manifestation of an advanced lifeform. It isn't real or
tangible but it occurs as a pattern recognition that is purposefully modified
and interpreted in 4 dimensions.
An enigma, wrapped in a conundrum, tied by a paradox.
LL
To prove other dimensions exist you would have to find something that cannot be explained by the normal 3 dimensions. Like superstrings, which we have now given up on as a dead end.
Kaneda,
QUOTE
Laserlight. Actually 3 dimensions. Time is merely a convenience created by Man to allow us to cope with the world around us. Animals manage very well without the concept of time.
I agree to some extent, but time is a linear manifestation of physical reality.
Actions, Reactions, and interactions all need a point of referece....time.
Humans have just quantified it based on periodic physical
observations/interactions. All matter has a basis in tme so it must be given
some relevance as a metric of the interactions of the 3 physical dimensions
since they are all interdependent and time is the dimension which binds them
and gives them consistent and measurable "standards" or operational constraints.
You can't measure or quantify "THOUGHT" either, but it occurs. It isn't measurable
or quantifiable but it is a manifestation of an advanced lifeform. It isn't real or
tangible but it occurs as a pattern recognition that is purposefully modified
and interpreted in 4 dimensions.
An enigma, wrapped in a conundrum, tied by a paradox.
LL
Hi everybody,
This thread has resembled a conversation a couple of times here and there, but the rest of the time?
WhyNot?,
It requires a "re-model" of the "B list", or particle interpretations, of the key QM founding experiments. [black-body, photoelectric]
A little "netiquette" is in order. Everyone can have their say, we can have multiple conversations going on too, but at the MINIMUM:
If you ask a question of someone, you should read the answer. You should then acknowledge by responding in some way (yea, nay, abstain, alter).
If someone asks a question of you, you should respond as above.
It is more important, with many people involved, to specifically name the person to which you are asking the question, or making the comment to. This sounds basic, but it is not being done.
There are seemingly some questions being directed at me, but I'm not sure. I am saying that I have a better answer, and I fully realize what this requires. GE?
C2, lets play Q&A tennis with just one ball, ok?
An answer to your last question to me: ("..you assume reflections will introduce new frequencies .. there will be phase changes .. but that is not the same as a change of frequency")
No, I'm not the one assuming these things, Science is.
Let's put all the theories that start with "Assume: a. A perfect reflector, or b. a perfect absorber (blackbody) into a "pile".
When someone (you included) can show to the world (and me) a perfect reflector, or blackbody, then we can talk about the theories that ASSUME them.
Until then, I'll postulate a theory that doesn't require them.
Can you explain the "phase" of a "single photon" (1-at-a-time photon)? They will be the same. So, it is the same, in the case of the "smallest moment", fundamental, causal analogy.
Consciousness, and the experiments that it develops, disregards the majority of signals that are always present. Focus narrows, and seeks resonance with a very specific quanta of energy. The process of focusing can be seen as the simultaneous logical reduction of all of the impossibles. In Science, this results in the ability for others to reproduce an experiment, and find resonant (same) results. If a theory has NOT reduced all possibilities, it is not finished; the door is open for a better theory. The best theory will have eliminated ALL the impossibles, and derived the fundamental truth: arriving at a single conclusion, unmarred by doubt. The ultimate simplicity will be self-evident, and not allow for differing results, or require anything more than a simple explanation.
Simple IN , Simple OUT ; Complex IN , Complex OUT , Garbage IN , Garbage OUT. What do we want, and need?
No amount of "dimensions" suffer from the inability to be described fully by 3, and derived from 1 rotating, oscillating point.
If ONE thing is NOT a String, then NOTHING is a String.
It is not the strings per se, that we need to be focusing on. It is the interactions thereof, that we seek. We must not only explain the resonance, that takes place in a "fixed" measurement, we must also explain (account for) the things that didn't happen (according to our fixed measurement). One way to do this is to change the measurement process. A varying measurement may be the solution.
Let me ask everyone here a question. Please include the "heavy-weight" validating link if possible.
What is the distance between Nodes of a wave?
The term "wavelength" is not what I'm looking for, I am seeking a NUMBER.
ciao!
T.Roc
This thread has resembled a conversation a couple of times here and there, but the rest of the time?
WhyNot?,
QUOTE
"TRoc, I understand that you do not “buy the particle explanation”. But I do not understand how your model can deal with the experimental "evidence" of particles. "
It requires a "re-model" of the "B list", or particle interpretations, of the key QM founding experiments. [black-body, photoelectric]
A little "netiquette" is in order. Everyone can have their say, we can have multiple conversations going on too, but at the MINIMUM:
If you ask a question of someone, you should read the answer. You should then acknowledge by responding in some way (yea, nay, abstain, alter).
If someone asks a question of you, you should respond as above.
It is more important, with many people involved, to specifically name the person to which you are asking the question, or making the comment to. This sounds basic, but it is not being done.
There are seemingly some questions being directed at me, but I'm not sure. I am saying that I have a better answer, and I fully realize what this requires. GE?
C2, lets play Q&A tennis with just one ball, ok?
An answer to your last question to me: ("..you assume reflections will introduce new frequencies .. there will be phase changes .. but that is not the same as a change of frequency")
No, I'm not the one assuming these things, Science is.
Let's put all the theories that start with "Assume: a. A perfect reflector, or b. a perfect absorber (blackbody) into a "pile".
When someone (you included) can show to the world (and me) a perfect reflector, or blackbody, then we can talk about the theories that ASSUME them.
Until then, I'll postulate a theory that doesn't require them.
Can you explain the "phase" of a "single photon" (1-at-a-time photon)? They will be the same. So, it is the same, in the case of the "smallest moment", fundamental, causal analogy.
Consciousness, and the experiments that it develops, disregards the majority of signals that are always present. Focus narrows, and seeks resonance with a very specific quanta of energy. The process of focusing can be seen as the simultaneous logical reduction of all of the impossibles. In Science, this results in the ability for others to reproduce an experiment, and find resonant (same) results. If a theory has NOT reduced all possibilities, it is not finished; the door is open for a better theory. The best theory will have eliminated ALL the impossibles, and derived the fundamental truth: arriving at a single conclusion, unmarred by doubt. The ultimate simplicity will be self-evident, and not allow for differing results, or require anything more than a simple explanation.
Simple IN , Simple OUT ; Complex IN , Complex OUT , Garbage IN , Garbage OUT. What do we want, and need?
No amount of "dimensions" suffer from the inability to be described fully by 3, and derived from 1 rotating, oscillating point.
If ONE thing is NOT a String, then NOTHING is a String.
It is not the strings per se, that we need to be focusing on. It is the interactions thereof, that we seek. We must not only explain the resonance, that takes place in a "fixed" measurement, we must also explain (account for) the things that didn't happen (according to our fixed measurement). One way to do this is to change the measurement process. A varying measurement may be the solution.
Let me ask everyone here a question. Please include the "heavy-weight" validating link if possible.
What is the distance between Nodes of a wave?
The term "wavelength" is not what I'm looking for, I am seeking a NUMBER.
ciao!
T.Roc
Hi Why Not? et al,
Many thanks for the link
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0012/0012028.pdf
Quantum strange or what?
When the time window of the coincidence counter is larger than the arrival time difference, in other words when one can not distinguish the optical paths, the wave function that causes the coincidence is the superposition of all possible state. We define the states to be; ψ(S, S), ψ(L,L), ψ(S,L), and ψ(L, S), where ψ(S, S) (ψ(L,L)) corresponds to the photons both passing along the longer (shorter) path and ψ(S,L) and ψ(L, S) corresponds to one photon passing along the longer path and another passing along the shorter path of the interferometer. On the other hand, when the time window of coincidence counter is smaller than the arrival time difference, the wave function is the superposition of ψ(S, S) and ψ(L,L), i.e. the entanglement of optical paths. Quantum theory predicts that the state of entangled optical paths should have high visibility two-photon interference fringes with contrasts over 50%. We have observed a maximum visibility of 80 ± 10% in the experiment, a clear evidence for entanglement.
It seems there is intereference in spite of it .. because of it, as well as it ... whichever way round I think there is interference .. I need to read it another few times though.
Thanks again,
C2.
Many thanks for the link
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0012/0012028.pdf
Quantum strange or what?
QUOTE
When the time window of the coincidence counter is larger than the arrival time difference, in other words when one can not distinguish the optical paths, the wave function that causes the coincidence is the superposition of all possible state. We define the states to be; ψ(S, S), ψ(L,L), ψ(S,L), and ψ(L, S), where ψ(S, S) (ψ(L,L)) corresponds to the photons both passing along the longer (shorter) path and ψ(S,L) and ψ(L, S) corresponds to one photon passing along the longer path and another passing along the shorter path of the interferometer. On the other hand, when the time window of coincidence counter is smaller than the arrival time difference, the wave function is the superposition of ψ(S, S) and ψ(L,L), i.e. the entanglement of optical paths. Quantum theory predicts that the state of entangled optical paths should have high visibility two-photon interference fringes with contrasts over 50%. We have observed a maximum visibility of 80 ± 10% in the experiment, a clear evidence for entanglement.
It seems there is intereference in spite of it .. because of it, as well as it ... whichever way round I think there is interference .. I need to read it another few times though.
Thanks again,
C2.
I realize this post is off-topic but wanted to respond to Zephir ... we could take this discussion elsewhere.
So the bug walks around the inside or outside surface of the sphere.
It does it forever (time), but it eventually passes over every location, because a sphere doesn't have an infinite radius or surface area. It is finite. The space is not infinite, so it can't be said to be unbounded.
Now, if the bug "de Sittered still" at the center of a dimensionless point, without assuming finite in any regard, then something can be done about understanding infinity; and finite mass, space, time; as well as gravity.
In essence, the problem with every major theory I've seen so far, is that it always assumes one or more aspects as finite and another as infinite, and never arrives anywhere, because all needed to be considered equally.
The BB is a good example. "But what happened before?" Well, what about the space? What space did it happen in, if space is an aspect of it? And what about the mass? Why assume mass, when mass is a result of the BB?
All the BB represents is the juncture between infinite potential and finite manifestation. The same holds true for "where does the matter go?" It doesn't go to nothing, it goes to infinite potential and remanifests.
When someone (you included) can show to the world (and me) a perfect reflector, or blackbody, then we can talk about the theories that ASSUME them.
Imperfect reflectors and imperfect absorbers do not introduce new frequencies (with exceptions eg. non-linear crystals and probably several musical instruments). The assumption of perfect reflectors and absobers can simplify analysis .. but this has nothing to do with new frequencies.
-C2.
QUOTE (Zephir+)
How do you get resonance without an interactive medium that has some physical component?
I think people make too many assumptions that repetitive wavelengths and resonance require things to fundamentally be built from such components. A very similar issue exists for mass and inertia.
If you apply the concept of evolution to a random but closed network, you'll find periodic structures arise naturally without needing to be specifically designed into it.
As an analogy, imagine running electricity through an isolated network of superconducting wires. You'll find the currents create fields that sustain current loops, though fields that oppose each other will cause the current to be deflected into new pathways and so you can have a combination of cyclic/periodic currents as well as chaotic interactions between them.
Now let's go further ... do we need a "law to conserve energy in this? Not really. You can inject random currents and find that some states remain more stable and appear to be "conserved" in resonant pathways, whereas other pathways can have multiple delays and cause phase cancellation and be "weeded out" in an evolutionary perspective.
Ok, let's go even further do we really need superconducting wires and magnetic fields? If we look at a quantum perspective we see discrete units of information. If we replace the superconducting wires with most any random network and random computational elements, we can find functions and pathways that allow for information to pass through it and be retained and other pathways and sets of data that are destroyed (evolution in action).
If you injected such a random network with random information and watched it "cool", you'd slowly see the information become less chaotic and begin to acquire repetitive characteristics that could be associated with wavelengths or distances, the delay for a signal between points in this network could be considered the light speed delay for it and so an equivalent light speed space could be constructed for it, complete with Pauli's Exclusionary Principle (you can't have two streams of data passing through the same processing node at the same time), and the rough appearance of conservation of energy (pathways that allowed for information to be destroyed would become less used over time, at least in any manner that allowed such a destructive event to occur, because data can only be erased once, whereas you can pass it through a point and observe it potentially an infinite number of times).
The large variety of virtual particles could be seen under this as interpreting the same data stream or a block of information in different ways. If demarkations between information representing one "particle" versus another become blurred then a probabilistic interpretation of various segments of this data could appear as various combinations of smaller units of information (I'd assume a single binary digit is the finest unit you can break things into, though in order to perceive things in a more coherent manner on larger scales you can't work with such fine units).
And you already understand how our ~3 1/2 dimensional view of things can naturally arise from a non-dimensional or infinite dimensional space.
So out of all this, you only have ~2-3 non-random components - a source of information/chaos (just looking around seems to prove this part exists - it might be that assuming 'nothing' ever existed is a mistake and that there's always been 'everything' instead), a memory (this can be seen as space, inertia, mass) and an observer sandwiched between them to observe the relative changes between them (like the line separating the Ying from the Yang) - the "thin", holographic dimension is time because it's a relative measurement - you can't move in an absolute sense through that dimension (imagine the wind blowing past you - those changes you detect are time, but you can't determine if you're moving forward through the wind or if you're standing still and the wind is blowing past you and so it's a relative measurement that removes your ability to determine an absolute position in time and you see things like relativity where rates of time and distances in the direction of travel depend upon the subjective interpretation of velocity through this dimension). In holographics terms, time is the surface of the multidimensional sphere and in Aether, it's the boundaries of a warped plane following a path of uniform density (and I believe the "thickness" of this is related to the spectrum of blackbody radiation as thermal radiation isn't emitted as a broadband spectrum but has a narrow peak that implies, but appears confined to motion within a smaller space).
On the other hand, there isn't necessarily a single specific model that's "right" and denies all other models to exist as you can transform between them, assuming compatible operations exist in both, and that's much easier to do than most people would expect as long as adequate resources are available in each.
Universal Computation
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/banks/ba...tary_01.htm#1.6
Emergent/Evolutionary Computation
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%...dom&btnG=Search
I think people make too many assumptions that repetitive wavelengths and resonance require things to fundamentally be built from such components. A very similar issue exists for mass and inertia.
If you apply the concept of evolution to a random but closed network, you'll find periodic structures arise naturally without needing to be specifically designed into it.
As an analogy, imagine running electricity through an isolated network of superconducting wires. You'll find the currents create fields that sustain current loops, though fields that oppose each other will cause the current to be deflected into new pathways and so you can have a combination of cyclic/periodic currents as well as chaotic interactions between them.
Now let's go further ... do we need a "law to conserve energy in this? Not really. You can inject random currents and find that some states remain more stable and appear to be "conserved" in resonant pathways, whereas other pathways can have multiple delays and cause phase cancellation and be "weeded out" in an evolutionary perspective.
Ok, let's go even further do we really need superconducting wires and magnetic fields? If we look at a quantum perspective we see discrete units of information. If we replace the superconducting wires with most any random network and random computational elements, we can find functions and pathways that allow for information to pass through it and be retained and other pathways and sets of data that are destroyed (evolution in action).
If you injected such a random network with random information and watched it "cool", you'd slowly see the information become less chaotic and begin to acquire repetitive characteristics that could be associated with wavelengths or distances, the delay for a signal between points in this network could be considered the light speed delay for it and so an equivalent light speed space could be constructed for it, complete with Pauli's Exclusionary Principle (you can't have two streams of data passing through the same processing node at the same time), and the rough appearance of conservation of energy (pathways that allowed for information to be destroyed would become less used over time, at least in any manner that allowed such a destructive event to occur, because data can only be erased once, whereas you can pass it through a point and observe it potentially an infinite number of times).
The large variety of virtual particles could be seen under this as interpreting the same data stream or a block of information in different ways. If demarkations between information representing one "particle" versus another become blurred then a probabilistic interpretation of various segments of this data could appear as various combinations of smaller units of information (I'd assume a single binary digit is the finest unit you can break things into, though in order to perceive things in a more coherent manner on larger scales you can't work with such fine units).
And you already understand how our ~3 1/2 dimensional view of things can naturally arise from a non-dimensional or infinite dimensional space.
So out of all this, you only have ~2-3 non-random components - a source of information/chaos (just looking around seems to prove this part exists - it might be that assuming 'nothing' ever existed is a mistake and that there's always been 'everything' instead), a memory (this can be seen as space, inertia, mass) and an observer sandwiched between them to observe the relative changes between them (like the line separating the Ying from the Yang) - the "thin", holographic dimension is time because it's a relative measurement - you can't move in an absolute sense through that dimension (imagine the wind blowing past you - those changes you detect are time, but you can't determine if you're moving forward through the wind or if you're standing still and the wind is blowing past you and so it's a relative measurement that removes your ability to determine an absolute position in time and you see things like relativity where rates of time and distances in the direction of travel depend upon the subjective interpretation of velocity through this dimension). In holographics terms, time is the surface of the multidimensional sphere and in Aether, it's the boundaries of a warped plane following a path of uniform density (and I believe the "thickness" of this is related to the spectrum of blackbody radiation as thermal radiation isn't emitted as a broadband spectrum but has a narrow peak that implies, but appears confined to motion within a smaller space).
On the other hand, there isn't necessarily a single specific model that's "right" and denies all other models to exist as you can transform between them, assuming compatible operations exist in both, and that's much easier to do than most people would expect as long as adequate resources are available in each.
Universal Computation
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/banks/ba...tary_01.htm#1.6
Emergent/Evolutionary Computation
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%...dom&btnG=Search
TRoc,
You are correct about Netiquette, and I am probably as guilty as anyone
by veering off topic. I have a bit of a self interest in doing so, which is
to set some "foundation" building concepts to establish a common starting
point, and to learn from others.
To misquote Chief Dan George in the movie Legend of Jose Wales....
" I will endeavor to persevere!"
If I understand what you are asking correctly, you are looking for the phase
angle relationship as it relates to the circumference of a circle as determined by π . C = 2πr = πd.
It is trigonometric, a sine wave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine
=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
You are correct about Netiquette, and I am probably as guilty as anyone
by veering off topic. I have a bit of a self interest in doing so, which is
to set some "foundation" building concepts to establish a common starting
point, and to learn from others.
To misquote Chief Dan George in the movie Legend of Jose Wales....
" I will endeavor to persevere!"
QUOTE
Let me ask everyone here a question. Please include the "heavy-weight" validating link if possible.
What is the distance between Nodes of a wave?
The term "wavelength" is not what I'm looking for, I am seeking a NUMBER.
What is the distance between Nodes of a wave?
The term "wavelength" is not what I'm looking for, I am seeking a NUMBER.
If I understand what you are asking correctly, you are looking for the phase
angle relationship as it relates to the circumference of a circle as determined by π . C = 2πr = πd.
It is trigonometric, a sine wave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine
=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
Laserlight, Kaneda, et al ..
Kaneda, welcome! I like your "cut to the chase", take no prisoners approach.
A little response to LL's question about counter-propagating waves, and the exchange between you 2.
The reason why the SOL is measured constant, is that vibrational movement (energy) is quantized in the RATIO of 1/c for distance, and c/1 for time. These 2 forms of measurement both have 299,792,458 lines per unit. There is no time, or distance between them. This is the "tempo" of the Universe. Everything that happens is itself, a RATIO to this tempo.
You can not "fold", reflect, or otherwise arrange these lines and NOT HAVE it occur "on a line". The result is, the measurement (difference between 2 values) is FIXED in terms of the RATIO we call "velocity". Velocity is not a single term, though we give it a single symbol. Recall the importance of calculating LIKE TERMS: keep your units in order! The "spin off" is we further break this RATIO down to another FIXED (inverse) of frequency & wavelength, whose RATIO's always convert to c. Time can "wait", so to speak, to be brought back in, when needed, to "make sense" of the measurement in every day terms.
What this means, is that the "anti-symmetric" lines that wavelength represent, are compared to the "symmetric", maximal lines of c . It is the beat frequency between these 2 that determines everything. How do I dare call wavelength anti-symmetric? The answer to my question will take us there.
This could be the greatest "overlooked" principle in Science today.
Regards,
T.Roc
Kaneda, welcome! I like your "cut to the chase", take no prisoners approach.
A little response to LL's question about counter-propagating waves, and the exchange between you 2.
The reason why the SOL is measured constant, is that vibrational movement (energy) is quantized in the RATIO of 1/c for distance, and c/1 for time. These 2 forms of measurement both have 299,792,458 lines per unit. There is no time, or distance between them. This is the "tempo" of the Universe. Everything that happens is itself, a RATIO to this tempo.
You can not "fold", reflect, or otherwise arrange these lines and NOT HAVE it occur "on a line". The result is, the measurement (difference between 2 values) is FIXED in terms of the RATIO we call "velocity". Velocity is not a single term, though we give it a single symbol. Recall the importance of calculating LIKE TERMS: keep your units in order! The "spin off" is we further break this RATIO down to another FIXED (inverse) of frequency & wavelength, whose RATIO's always convert to c. Time can "wait", so to speak, to be brought back in, when needed, to "make sense" of the measurement in every day terms.
What this means, is that the "anti-symmetric" lines that wavelength represent, are compared to the "symmetric", maximal lines of c . It is the beat frequency between these 2 that determines everything. How do I dare call wavelength anti-symmetric? The answer to my question will take us there.
QUOTE
What is the distance between Nodes of a wave?
The term "wavelength" is not what I'm looking for, I am seeking a NUMBER.
The term "wavelength" is not what I'm looking for, I am seeking a NUMBER.
This could be the greatest "overlooked" principle in Science today.
Regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE
This means like a bug inside a toy balloon it can wander around the inner surface of that "globe" forever , never finding any boundary to its travels. Our Universe is such a topology. Where I differ from standard philosophy is instead of being on the "outside" of such a pherically curved space (a de Sitter Space) we're on the inside of a dimensional bubble (an anti-de Sitter space). This ties into Juan Maldacena's Theory which is a very important breakthrough in conceptual physics.
So the bug walks around the inside or outside surface of the sphere.
It does it forever (time), but it eventually passes over every location, because a sphere doesn't have an infinite radius or surface area. It is finite. The space is not infinite, so it can't be said to be unbounded.
Now, if the bug "de Sittered still" at the center of a dimensionless point, without assuming finite in any regard, then something can be done about understanding infinity; and finite mass, space, time; as well as gravity.
In essence, the problem with every major theory I've seen so far, is that it always assumes one or more aspects as finite and another as infinite, and never arrives anywhere, because all needed to be considered equally.
The BB is a good example. "But what happened before?" Well, what about the space? What space did it happen in, if space is an aspect of it? And what about the mass? Why assume mass, when mass is a result of the BB?
All the BB represents is the juncture between infinite potential and finite manifestation. The same holds true for "where does the matter go?" It doesn't go to nothing, it goes to infinite potential and remanifests.
QUOTE (Troc+)
When someone (you included) can show to the world (and me) a perfect reflector, or blackbody, then we can talk about the theories that ASSUME them.
Imperfect reflectors and imperfect absorbers do not introduce new frequencies (with exceptions eg. non-linear crystals and probably several musical instruments). The assumption of perfect reflectors and absobers can simplify analysis .. but this has nothing to do with new frequencies.
-C2.
I can see this thread is drifting off ... I'll go with the flow.
Resonance serves to amplify a frequency, but I don't believe the universe is a perfectly resonant or closed system - there's an input, observed as characteristics similar to the big bang where completely novel information enters. This wouldn't be "entangled" with any else initially but as it became entangled, it would become observable.
If yuo look at the ballon example, imagine instead a bottle where air is blowing across the top. This creates at the neck a rather "noisy"/chaotic/white/broad spectrum of sound - that's the pure uncorrelated, untangled information entering it.
But within the bottle, the rigid/inertial/massive components serve to provide a framework that filters/amplifies/resonates over larger distances/times/spaces/wavelengths. Harmonics can exist as well, but it's not entirely lossless and some energy/information escapes from this system over time. The rate at which this drops depends upon the 'Q' or quality of the resonance or filter, just as an observer is most likely to notice something their attention is attuned to.
Q-Factor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-factor
This applies to radio reception and determines how broad of a spectrum a tuned received detects, but you can use this same concept in a more abstract setting of consciousness, attention and memory as well.
Of course if you randomly grab some physical property and characterize it, you're most likely to select one of those properties that's amplified by such a resonance, but that a predominance of some properties doesn't mean other properties are non-existant, but that they are simply less abundant and more rare, and more difficult to characterize due to the scarcity of them being observed and repeated.
So what determines the shape of this "filter"? It's not a perfect sphere, IMO, nor would a perfect sphere likely have any specific traits other that a focal point and wavelength and you'd be left wondering how non-spherical components arose within it. The trick is to realize that all possible manifolds to the universe could exist, and be created virtually instantaneously forever, but that some are simply more likely to have enduring characteristics compared to others. (What string theory might be missing is that the universe isn't a single manifold but all possible ones operating in parallel) Because we make observations from within it, we're limited
I've given this example before, but if you went around and asked people how many siblings they had and calculated the average response, you'd find the number a bit higher than what people would assume the average family size would be. That's because larger families have a greater representation in the samples. The Earth wasn't delicated balanced to support human life, it's just that we can't be on one of the dead ones wishing we'd been luckier.
So the bug walks around the inside or outside surface of the sphere.
It does it forever (time), but it eventually passes over every location, because a sphere doesn't have an infinite radius or surface area. It is finite. The space is not infinite, so it can't be said to be unbounded.
Now, if the bug "de Sittered still" at the center of a dimensionless point, without assuming finite in any regard, then something can be done about understanding infinity; and finite mass, space, time; as well as gravity.
In essence, the problem with every major theory I've seen so far, is that it always assumes one or more aspects as finite and another as infinite, and never arrives anywhere, because all needed to be considered equally.
The BB is a good example. "But what happened before?" Well, what about the space? What space did it happen in, if space is an aspect of it? And what about the mass? Why assume mass, when mass is a result of the BB?
All the BB represents is the juncture between infinite potential and finite manifestation. The same holds true for "where does the matter go?" It doesn't go to nothing, it goes to infinite potential and remanifests.
Hi Eric England,
Just thought you and others here might be interested in a post I made some time ago to a topic thread called "Infinity: a symbol or reality" (by sOcratus), in which I stressed the actual state of affairs when it came to that glib term "unbounded" in relation to spherical analogies for our 'universe'.
Resonance serves to amplify a frequency, but I don't believe the universe is a perfectly resonant or closed system - there's an input, observed as characteristics similar to the big bang where completely novel information enters. This wouldn't be "entangled" with any else initially but as it became entangled, it would become observable.
If yuo look at the ballon example, imagine instead a bottle where air is blowing across the top. This creates at the neck a rather "noisy"/chaotic/white/broad spectrum of sound - that's the pure uncorrelated, untangled information entering it.
But within the bottle, the rigid/inertial/massive components serve to provide a framework that filters/amplifies/resonates over larger distances/times/spaces/wavelengths. Harmonics can exist as well, but it's not entirely lossless and some energy/information escapes from this system over time. The rate at which this drops depends upon the 'Q' or quality of the resonance or filter, just as an observer is most likely to notice something their attention is attuned to.
Q-Factor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-factor
This applies to radio reception and determines how broad of a spectrum a tuned received detects, but you can use this same concept in a more abstract setting of consciousness, attention and memory as well.
Of course if you randomly grab some physical property and characterize it, you're most likely to select one of those properties that's amplified by such a resonance, but that a predominance of some properties doesn't mean other properties are non-existant, but that they are simply less abundant and more rare, and more difficult to characterize due to the scarcity of them being observed and repeated.
So what determines the shape of this "filter"? It's not a perfect sphere, IMO, nor would a perfect sphere likely have any specific traits other that a focal point and wavelength and you'd be left wondering how non-spherical components arose within it. The trick is to realize that all possible manifolds to the universe could exist, and be created virtually instantaneously forever, but that some are simply more likely to have enduring characteristics compared to others. (What string theory might be missing is that the universe isn't a single manifold but all possible ones operating in parallel) Because we make observations from within it, we're limited
I've given this example before, but if you went around and asked people how many siblings they had and calculated the average response, you'd find the number a bit higher than what people would assume the average family size would be. That's because larger families have a greater representation in the samples. The Earth wasn't delicated balanced to support human life, it's just that we can't be on one of the dead ones wishing we'd been luckier.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
What is the distance between Nodes of a wave?
The term "wavelength" is not what I'm looking for, I am seeking a NUMBER.
As you likely know, you're looking for a ratio. Distances are relative.
So just like time:
Relative distance (a physically perceivable distance) = dist1/dist2
Relative time (a physically perceivable time) = # of A events per # of non-A events.
The wavelength of something would be related to the number of other things experienced between crests of that wave. If these are discrete quantities then distances are discrete and quantized.
It's an interesting thought to see a ratio be converted to a harmonic and then have a harmonic structure used to define distances in space ... yes, that's funky ... cool but funky.
I guess a "sawtooth" waveform would sweep out a linear, cylindrical space as it would sweep linearly through a dimension and then "fold" or snap back to the original location. It would have a directionality, like a rotating cylinder or circle ... (hmmm ... angular momentum?) The harmonic spectrum of a sawtooth contains a distribution of harmonics that falls off in amplitude as 1/frequency and could be seen as white noise filtered by a single pole low pass filter.
A triangle wave would sweep uniformly back and forth in a dimension and remove the directionality of a sawtooth, but have edges with a reflective quality (a non-direction space with reflective edges). That contains odd harmonics that fall off as 1/frequency^2. The can be created by white noise being filtered sequencially through 2 low pass filters. (One filter is space and the other an observer?)
White noise would be a discontinuous space and be folded into a single chaotic point (Big Bang?), and a square wave would exist as only two discrete locations in space (quantum properties?).
Wierd ... yes, cool, but wierd.
(This is all vintage 70s synthesizer stuff ... so does the universe play the keyboard or is music in the ear of the beholder? I think the music depends on what station you're tuned into and the quality depends on what you've grown accustomed to 'listening' to and what receiver you're using)
The term "wavelength" is not what I'm looking for, I am seeking a NUMBER.
As you likely know, you're looking for a ratio. Distances are relative.
So just like time:
Relative distance (a physically perceivable distance) = dist1/dist2
Relative time (a physically perceivable time) = # of A events per # of non-A events.
The wavelength of something would be related to the number of other things experienced between crests of that wave. If these are discrete quantities then distances are discrete and quantized.
It's an interesting thought to see a ratio be converted to a harmonic and then have a harmonic structure used to define distances in space ... yes, that's funky ... cool but funky.
I guess a "sawtooth" waveform would sweep out a linear, cylindrical space as it would sweep linearly through a dimension and then "fold" or snap back to the original location. It would have a directionality, like a rotating cylinder or circle ... (hmmm ... angular momentum?) The harmonic spectrum of a sawtooth contains a distribution of harmonics that falls off in amplitude as 1/frequency and could be seen as white noise filtered by a single pole low pass filter.
A triangle wave would sweep uniformly back and forth in a dimension and remove the directionality of a sawtooth, but have edges with a reflective quality (a non-direction space with reflective edges). That contains odd harmonics that fall off as 1/frequency^2. The can be created by white noise being filtered sequencially through 2 low pass filters. (One filter is space and the other an observer?)
White noise would be a discontinuous space and be folded into a single chaotic point (Big Bang?), and a square wave would exist as only two discrete locations in space (quantum properties?).
Wierd ... yes, cool, but wierd.
(This is all vintage 70s synthesizer stuff ... so does the universe play the keyboard or is music in the ear of the beholder? I think the music depends on what station you're tuned into and the quality depends on what you've grown accustomed to 'listening' to and what receiver you're using)
LL,
That is a textbook response, logically deductive, and seeking the missing information.
If we take away the information of f and c , we would only have a ratio approach left. The ratio of the radius to the circumference of a circle is a good start, as is the ratio of lengths.
From your links:
This series is easy to understand, but is impractical in use as it converges to π very slowly. It requires more than 600 terms just to narrow its value to 3.14 (two places), and billions of terms to achieve accuracy to ten places.[QUOTE]
There are the "interactions" of the ratios, with 600 terms resulting in just 2 digits of "accuracy". Accuracy to ten places? hmf!
Does this sound familiar?
As the radius decreases, "accuracy" (the ability to predict) drops off exponentially.
at r=10, pi = 3.05
at r=4 , pi = 2.8125
at r=2 , pi = "approximately" 2.25
AT R=1, we "lose signal", our approximation of Pi is at a standstill.
How about r^2 ? Surely the concept of force can exist. Nope.
At r=1, we "lose signal", our approximation for "force" is at a standstill.
Back to the question. Is there an answer? There is an answer, it has been "accepted", because it seems to "conserve" the ratio of light. However, it is rather "unintuitive", and wouldn't be logically assumed.
Eric pointed out the philosophical issue. At the junction (ratio) of the "infinite", or the Universe, and the "finite", the speed of light, we must look for the answer. The comparison, is simplest ratio terms, should provide integer steps between Nodes.
ciao!
T.Roc
That is a textbook response, logically deductive, and seeking the missing information.
If we take away the information of f and c , we would only have a ratio approach left. The ratio of the radius to the circumference of a circle is a good start, as is the ratio of lengths.
From your links:
QUOTE
"..trigonometric functions .. are commonly defined as ratios of two sides of a right triangle containing the angle, and can equivalently be defined as the lengths of various line segments from a unit circle. "
Well, pi was found to be irrational, and that is a good thing, because practically everything on our list of empirical evidence is an irrational number.
The bad news is that irrationals can not be expressed as a ratio of 2 integers.
Pi is also transcendental, and "there is no polynomial with rational coefficients of which Pi is a root".
In everyday terms, this means: IF WE USE PI, WE CAN NOT GET A SIMPLE ANSWER.
We WANT a simple answer, that can be stated as a polynomial.
Look at the results of calculating Pi via algebra & geometry:
Pi = 4 – 4⁄3 + 4⁄5 – 4⁄7 + 4⁄9 – 4⁄11 ... Well, pi was found to be irrational, and that is a good thing, because practically everything on our list of empirical evidence is an irrational number.
The bad news is that irrationals can not be expressed as a ratio of 2 integers.
Pi is also transcendental, and "there is no polynomial with rational coefficients of which Pi is a root".
In everyday terms, this means: IF WE USE PI, WE CAN NOT GET A SIMPLE ANSWER.
We WANT a simple answer, that can be stated as a polynomial.
Look at the results of calculating Pi via algebra & geometry:
This series is easy to understand, but is impractical in use as it converges to π very slowly. It requires more than 600 terms just to narrow its value to 3.14 (two places), and billions of terms to achieve accuracy to ten places.[QUOTE]
There are the "interactions" of the ratios, with 600 terms resulting in just 2 digits of "accuracy". Accuracy to ten places? hmf!
Does this sound familiar?
As the radius decreases, "accuracy" (the ability to predict) drops off exponentially.
at r=10, pi = 3.05
at r=4 , pi = 2.8125
at r=2 , pi = "approximately" 2.25
AT R=1, we "lose signal", our approximation of Pi is at a standstill.
How about r^2 ? Surely the concept of force can exist. Nope.
At r=1, we "lose signal", our approximation for "force" is at a standstill.
Back to the question. Is there an answer? There is an answer, it has been "accepted", because it seems to "conserve" the ratio of light. However, it is rather "unintuitive", and wouldn't be logically assumed.
Eric pointed out the philosophical issue. At the junction (ratio) of the "infinite", or the Universe, and the "finite", the speed of light, we must look for the answer. The comparison, is simplest ratio terms, should provide integer steps between Nodes.
ciao!
T.Roc
QUOTE (Eric England+Nov 11 2006, 09:20 PM)
So the bug walks around the inside or outside surface of the sphere.
It does it forever (time), but it eventually passes over every location, because a sphere doesn't have an infinite radius or surface area. It is finite. The space is not infinite, so it can't be said to be unbounded.
Now, if the bug "de Sittered still" at the center of a dimensionless point, without assuming finite in any regard, then something can be done about understanding infinity; and finite mass, space, time; as well as gravity.
In essence, the problem with every major theory I've seen so far, is that it always assumes one or more aspects as finite and another as infinite, and never arrives anywhere, because all needed to be considered equally.
The BB is a good example. "But what happened before?" Well, what about the space? What space did it happen in, if space is an aspect of it? And what about the mass? Why assume mass, when mass is a result of the BB?
All the BB represents is the juncture between infinite potential and finite manifestation. The same holds true for "where does the matter go?" It doesn't go to nothing, it goes to infinite potential and remanifests.
Hi Eric England,
Just thought you and others here might be interested in a post I made some time ago to a topic thread called "Infinity: a symbol or reality" (by sOcratus), in which I stressed the actual state of affairs when it came to that glib term "unbounded" in relation to spherical analogies for our 'universe'.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Aug 28 2005, 11:52 PM)
Hello again 'Guest'.
Further to the phrase "...FINITE YET UNBOUNDED...", as it relates to the 'traveling around the sphere' scenario you alluded to. This phrase can 'mislead' the observer into INCORRECTLY thinking of the TWO VERY DIFFERENT ASPECTS involved in the 'traveling-around-the-sphere' scenario AS IF THEY WERE ONE AND THE SAME!
The two separate aspects here are:-
1) SURFACE AREA of the sphere; and
2) NUMBER OF POSSIBLE 'TRAVERSES' OF THAT sphere's SURFACE by anyone willing to walk round and round on that sphere 'forever'.
You will then note that, OBJECTIVELY, from the external absolute frame of reference view:
- the FIRST aspect [sphere surface] IS FINITE because it is BOUNDED by its 'topography' into a CLOSED LOOP. That is, it is NOT IN ITSELF intrinsically UNBOUNDED, no matter how big a sphere it is. And that's ALL one can say about this aspect; while
- the SECOND aspect [number of possible traverses of that finite surface] IS POTENTIALLY INFINITE if one wished to travel forever around the sphere.
So...when someone says that a sphere's surface is 'finite yet unbounded', that someone is applying a MIXED QUALIFIER which is INVALID here because the phrase
inadvertently treats 'simultaneously' TWO very different properties/quantities in the 'traveling around the sphere' scenario, where: IN ACTUALITY THERE IS NOTHING 'INFINITE' ABOUT THE SPHERE, as there is nothing 'UNBOUNDED' about the spherical topography ITSELF---it is ONLY THE POSSIBLE NUMBER OF TRAVERSES OF IT'S SURFACE THAT CAN BE SAID TO BE 'UNBOUNDED'.
Hence the only 'subjective infinity' here would be the traverser's view of his possibilities for going around forever; whereas his view of the 'surface area' quantity can be constrained to a 'finite' number (all he has to do is mark his beginning point with an 'X' and, when eventually ---sooner or later!--- he encounters that 'X' mark again, he will 'know' that the surface he is traversing is NOT INTRINSICALLY (objectively) unbounded or infinite...it is really only METAPHORICALLY (subjectively) so.
I hope I've answered your question as fully and comprehensibly as you would have wished!
Smiling regards from: RealityCheck.
And I liked how you put that bit about "where does the matter go?"!
Hehehe...I just 'got' your pun with:
"....if the bug "de Sittered still" at the centre..."! Hehehe, good one.
Cheers...and I'm better now; so I'll see you, TRoc et al very soon in the TOE threads!
RC.
Further to the phrase "...FINITE YET UNBOUNDED...", as it relates to the 'traveling around the sphere' scenario you alluded to. This phrase can 'mislead' the observer into INCORRECTLY thinking of the TWO VERY DIFFERENT ASPECTS involved in the 'traveling-around-the-sphere' scenario AS IF THEY WERE ONE AND THE SAME!
The two separate aspects here are:-
1) SURFACE AREA of the sphere; and
2) NUMBER OF POSSIBLE 'TRAVERSES' OF THAT sphere's SURFACE by anyone willing to walk round and round on that sphere 'forever'.
You will then note that, OBJECTIVELY, from the external absolute frame of reference view:
- the FIRST aspect [sphere surface] IS FINITE because it is BOUNDED by its 'topography' into a CLOSED LOOP. That is, it is NOT IN ITSELF intrinsically UNBOUNDED, no matter how big a sphere it is. And that's ALL one can say about this aspect; while
- the SECOND aspect [number of possible traverses of that finite surface] IS POTENTIALLY INFINITE if one wished to travel forever around the sphere.
So...when someone says that a sphere's surface is 'finite yet unbounded', that someone is applying a MIXED QUALIFIER which is INVALID here because the phrase
inadvertently treats 'simultaneously' TWO very different properties/quantities in the 'traveling around the sphere' scenario, where: IN ACTUALITY THERE IS NOTHING 'INFINITE' ABOUT THE SPHERE, as there is nothing 'UNBOUNDED' about the spherical topography ITSELF---it is ONLY THE POSSIBLE NUMBER OF TRAVERSES OF IT'S SURFACE THAT CAN BE SAID TO BE 'UNBOUNDED'.
Hence the only 'subjective infinity' here would be the traverser's view of his possibilities for going around forever; whereas his view of the 'surface area' quantity can be constrained to a 'finite' number (all he has to do is mark his beginning point with an 'X' and, when eventually ---sooner or later!--- he encounters that 'X' mark again, he will 'know' that the surface he is traversing is NOT INTRINSICALLY (objectively) unbounded or infinite...it is really only METAPHORICALLY (subjectively) so.
I hope I've answered your question as fully and comprehensibly as you would have wished!
Smiling regards from: RealityCheck.
And I liked how you put that bit about "where does the matter go?"!
Hehehe...I just 'got' your pun with:
"....if the bug "de Sittered still" at the centre..."! Hehehe, good one.
Cheers...and I'm better now; so I'll see you, TRoc et al very soon in the TOE threads!
RC.
StevenA,
Very good!
Luckily, part of this was done around 300 yrs ago. The rest was done this past year; all capitalizing on the work initiated 2500 yrs ago!
Luckily, part of this was done around 300 yrs ago. The rest was done this past year; all capitalizing on the work initiated 2500 yrs ago!
"I think the music depends on what station you're tuned into and the quality depends on what you've grown accustomed to 'listening' to and what receiver you're using) "
Absolutely! From a fundamental beginning, where the signal created all of the receivers, the receivers will all be on Nodes (nodes & anti-nodes) of the fundamental beginning. This is a "cosmological constant", a "hidden variable", and the Planck Frequency adjusted for the "zero-point" energy level; even "white noise" has a place.
ciao!
T.Roc
Very good!
QUOTE
"It's an interesting thought to see a ratio be converted to a harmonic and then have a harmonic structure used to define distances in space ... "
Luckily, part of this was done around 300 yrs ago. The rest was done this past year; all capitalizing on the work initiated 2500 yrs ago!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "It's an interesting thought to see a ratio be converted to a harmonic and then have a harmonic structure used to define distances in space ... " |
Luckily, part of this was done around 300 yrs ago. The rest was done this past year; all capitalizing on the work initiated 2500 yrs ago!
"I think the music depends on what station you're tuned into and the quality depends on what you've grown accustomed to 'listening' to and what receiver you're using) "
Absolutely! From a fundamental beginning, where the signal created all of the receivers, the receivers will all be on Nodes (nodes & anti-nodes) of the fundamental beginning. This is a "cosmological constant", a "hidden variable", and the Planck Frequency adjusted for the "zero-point" energy level; even "white noise" has a place.
ciao!
T.Roc
TRoc, I think the biggest hurdle is that there is no absolute definition for what
makes up the composition of a photon. We have the idea/theory of Boson's
with an integer spin of 1, but it has no "physical" attributes that describe it
fully. It has quasi-defined characteristics, such as massless, chargeless,
particle/wave relationship, and it has velocity and momentum and transports
information, but it has no relative time relationship to the universe, until it
interacts with matter.....it also self generates, or is generated by, mutually
interactive EM energy field
components. We also know that it originates from the displacement of matter
and represents different energy levels, and that its speed is constant in vacuum
regardless of the wavelenth or frequency.
We (and science) are overlooking something fundamental....1 key element that
ties it all together, and that has been eluding science for a couple of hundred
years. We think we have categorized all the observable and
experimentally distinct characteristics, but we are like the blind men trying to
describe an elephant by what their limited sensory information tells them as
they touch only specific parts of the entire beast.
We must go back to matter as our starting point since energy (and photons)
are created by and react to the physical interaction of various forms of matter.
We also need a better definition of energy, rather than the ability to do work,
that is too archaic and is not sufficiently descriptive of its other properties.
LL
makes up the composition of a photon. We have the idea/theory of Boson's
with an integer spin of 1, but it has no "physical" attributes that describe it
fully. It has quasi-defined characteristics, such as massless, chargeless,
particle/wave relationship, and it has velocity and momentum and transports
information, but it has no relative time relationship to the universe, until it
interacts with matter.....it also self generates, or is generated by, mutually
interactive EM energy field
components. We also know that it originates from the displacement of matter
and represents different energy levels, and that its speed is constant in vacuum
regardless of the wavelenth or frequency.
We (and science) are overlooking something fundamental....1 key element that
ties it all together, and that has been eluding science for a couple of hundred
years. We think we have categorized all the observable and
experimentally distinct characteristics, but we are like the blind men trying to
describe an elephant by what their limited sensory information tells them as
they touch only specific parts of the entire beast.
We must go back to matter as our starting point since energy (and photons)
are created by and react to the physical interaction of various forms of matter.
We also need a better definition of energy, rather than the ability to do work,
that is too archaic and is not sufficiently descriptive of its other properties.
LL
TRoc,
Pardon my skepticism, but we have a "what came first, the chicken or the egg?"
problem here. In order for there to be energy there must first be matter.
I have a real philosophical issue with the assumption that energy spontaneously
sprang onto the scene and the universe was formed from nothing. There has to
be cause and effect. Energy just doesn't spontaneously self generate without
some influencing causal factor. There are no other examples of this in nature
so there is no emprirical evidence to support the spontaneous emission BB
theory. Yes there is the cosmic background radiation, but that might be
interpreted incorrectly even though it suggests that it fits with the BB theory.
We must keep an open mind and consider that CBR might have a different
source or method of origin.
Consider this "what is the antithesis of energy?" The answer is "No energy".
No energy infers a temperature of absolute zero where there is no
physical interaction, no energy transport mechanism, complete stillness, no
radiation, nada. Perhaps instead of a Big Bang we had a BIG THAW that was
the catalyst for the condensation of some form of primordial matter, which upon
condensing initiated the release of potential energy into kinetic energy (ala,
the BB)
But what do I know? I'm still trying to solve the riddle of "What came first,
The chicken or the egg".
LL
QUOTE
Absolutely! From a fundamental beginning, where the signal created all of the receivers, the receivers will all be on Nodes (nodes & anti-nodes) of the fundamental beginning. This is a "cosmological constant", a "hidden variable", and the Planck Frequency adjusted for the "zero-point" energy level; even "white noise" has a place.
Pardon my skepticism, but we have a "what came first, the chicken or the egg?"
problem here. In order for there to be energy there must first be matter.
I have a real philosophical issue with the assumption that energy spontaneously
sprang onto the scene and the universe was formed from nothing. There has to
be cause and effect. Energy just doesn't spontaneously self generate without
some influencing causal factor. There are no other examples of this in nature
so there is no emprirical evidence to support the spontaneous emission BB
theory. Yes there is the cosmic background radiation, but that might be
interpreted incorrectly even though it suggests that it fits with the BB theory.
We must keep an open mind and consider that CBR might have a different
source or method of origin.
Consider this "what is the antithesis of energy?" The answer is "No energy".
No energy infers a temperature of absolute zero where there is no
physical interaction, no energy transport mechanism, complete stillness, no
radiation, nada. Perhaps instead of a Big Bang we had a BIG THAW that was
the catalyst for the condensation of some form of primordial matter, which upon
condensing initiated the release of potential energy into kinetic energy (ala,
the BB)
But what do I know? I'm still trying to solve the riddle of "What came first,
The chicken or the egg".
LL
LL et al,
Earlier on I was trying to show the plausibilty of QM .. I think I've failed so I'll go with the flow.
I'd suggest trying to encapsulate the main properties of a photon and ignore the Standard Model until you've got something that hangs together. Mr Homm kindly gave a clue .. EM is the limit as Planck's constant tends to zero (for a photon that fits this model).
[of a photon] ..and that its speed is constant in vacuum regardless of the wavelenth or frequency.
So you only see one interference band?
-C2.
LL, TRoc, C2, Good Elf, et al,
Laserlight in the physics community this is becoming the flavor of the month which I do not feel will disappear. We have realize for a long time there is a deeper meaning to the QM world as you have stated.
I will post this on three post in order to make sure that this forum knows of what you speak. Quantum matter truly consist of just waves of nothing, does this sound familiar?
I believe from my Frame of Reference and data provided in experiment's that before we answer the bigger question we must start off with this premise in order to build a better model in many fields, and that is what is on the frontier of QM research for many years. Many seem to overlook this very fundamental concept except some on this post.
You should also already know that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is formidable in its concept, but makes it possible to understand the phenomenon dealing with the quantum's point of view.
I know for most beginning students we tell you that there is a wave/particle duality but this is just classical thinking which does not describe the QM world that truly is unintuitive, we can no longer ignore this in order to appreciate it's complexity. When you reach the level in which you have mentioned above, you must learn to deal with the wave function-psi in our calculation/mathematics.
You can search any source you choose and you will find this to be true. I hope Good Elf will give the information he has research in order to support this.
caio_
yquantum
C2, your doing fine just go with the wave function.
Good Elf, C2, et al,
I must get some sleep, I hope you keep this stimulating post going for many months to come. Truly, BEST to you gentlemen/ladies.
ciao_
yquantum
Hope to check back and see how far you have taken this subject, great reading.
Earlier on I was trying to show the plausibilty of QM .. I think I've failed so I'll go with the flow.
I'd suggest trying to encapsulate the main properties of a photon and ignore the Standard Model until you've got something that hangs together. Mr Homm kindly gave a clue .. EM is the limit as Planck's constant tends to zero (for a photon that fits this model).
QUOTE (LL+)
[of a photon] ..and that its speed is constant in vacuum regardless of the wavelenth or frequency.
So you only see one interference band?
-C2.
QUOTE
We must go back to matter as our starting point since energy (and photons)
are created by and react to the physical interaction of various forms of matter.
We also need a better definition of energy, rather than the ability to do work,
that is too archaic and is not sufficiently descriptive of its other properties.
are created by and react to the physical interaction of various forms of matter.
We also need a better definition of energy, rather than the ability to do work,
that is too archaic and is not sufficiently descriptive of its other properties.
LL, TRoc, C2, Good Elf, et al,
Laserlight in the physics community this is becoming the flavor of the month which I do not feel will disappear. We have realize for a long time there is a deeper meaning to the QM world as you have stated.
I will post this on three post in order to make sure that this forum knows of what you speak. Quantum matter truly consist of just waves of nothing, does this sound familiar?
I believe from my Frame of Reference and data provided in experiment's that before we answer the bigger question we must start off with this premise in order to build a better model in many fields, and that is what is on the frontier of QM research for many years. Many seem to overlook this very fundamental concept except some on this post.
You should also already know that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is formidable in its concept, but makes it possible to understand the phenomenon dealing with the quantum's point of view.
I know for most beginning students we tell you that there is a wave/particle duality but this is just classical thinking which does not describe the QM world that truly is unintuitive, we can no longer ignore this in order to appreciate it's complexity. When you reach the level in which you have mentioned above, you must learn to deal with the wave function-psi in our calculation/mathematics.
You can search any source you choose and you will find this to be true. I hope Good Elf will give the information he has research in order to support this.
caio_
yquantum
C2, your doing fine just go with the wave function.
Hi Eric England, Laserlight et al,
Firstly I am not going to debate the nature of dimensional space since I use known terms.
Wikipedia: Shape of the Universe
Wikipedia: Anti de Sitter space
Wikipedia: Erlangen program
Wikipedia: Physical cosmology
When I say finite unbounded I mean with a "true" dimensional space such as the one we live in which is also "finite unbounded" that means you can find no walls because the very nature of the space is curved such that you cannot reach any outer walls. The "analogy" of a bug on the inside of a balloon is only an analogy since a balloon is simply a rubber membrane inflated with air. The two dimensional inner wall is "unbounded" in the sense that the bug can't find the wall with a door to escape from his "cell". Everything is "floor" to him. In "real" dimensional unbounded space the walls of our four dimensional Universe can only be truly appreciated from the outside where we see our balloon universe embedded in a higher dimensional space as an apparent 4D "bubble". Realize that there is no interior of the balloon either, only the 4D "hypersurface". The exterior and the interior surface are "dual". The interior surface in a "real" bubble Universe is an anti-de Sitter "flatspace".... of arbitrary many dimensions. Other bubble will be "embedded" in this surface and still form spaces that are quite large relative to the initial "external size of the bubble". There is a "flow of information" through these systems.
Have you ever seen a glass hologram of a room? This is a glass plate you can hang on a wall. The surface of that plate is finite two dimensional "truncated" flat plane and a close examination will show it is covered in "information"... tiny interference lines... the equivalent of strings if you will. Now look into the hologram. You see a room of large extent and probably equal to the size of the room you are presently standing in stretching before you. How does this small glass plate contain an effective description of an entire three dimensional room? In principle .... there could be an open window in this room and the stars could be seen through it. This is a hologram and those stars are as far away as real stars in our space. Think about it. This is a glass plate and it is a simple "snapshot" of a room in only one frequency but could represent a Universe... every bit as big as our own.
Now I maintain that the Universe we live in is an anti-de Sitter Universe. This is a reciprocal space compared with some "original" source Universe "on the outside" but is Holographic on the outside like our glass plate and "we" are on the "conceptual inside" in a reciprocal domain like the inside of that balloon where distances have become reciprocal distances and time has become reciprocal time relative to the outside (and visa versa). This is where the analogy of the flat glass hologram on the wall differs strongly from a true higher dimensional dual "pebble" object embedded in 4D spacetime and the internal unseen reciprocal phenomena (holographic reconstruction) inside these tiny "bubble universe" represent "reality" for its denizens... such as us.
Now comparing the "glass hologram" with a pebble universe bounded by the unseen light cone "wall"... Both the glass plate and the pebble Universe have a finite unbounded outer and conceptual inner surface, but differ only in the number of dimensions (including time). Of course a hologram is a single frequency construction but a real world has "many" frequencies, a construction for every frequency that can possibly exist. The "machine" that creates all this is a "Lens" ... a general term that describes pieces of glass, a pinhole in a card or a higher dimentional roughly spherical complex Calabi-Yau "Fuzzball" Space. So the apparently "large features" in "this" Universe on the external side of a glass holographic plate are limited by the resolution of the holographic interference pattern on the unseen outside of the "virtual" Universe and these represent the smallest scale of what can be seen on the inside of our "virtual" Universe (the "internal" holographic reconstructed image). The quanta and the information that is represented by the external pattern... the hologram and the very coarse "external" detail represent "quanta", and the smallest features in this external holographic landscape represent the largest things in this Universe ... stars and galaxies and us etc... that is the way the Complex Fourier plane encodes the details about three dimensional space on the "hypersurface".
Naturally this is more dimensions that just two... and it includes time (reciprocal distances and reciprocal time as frequency). From it you can easily derive Schrodinger's Equation and Gravity is a geometric phenomena as noted in Juan Maldacena's Theories.
See these references here...
Good Elf's links earlier
I disagree in some details with his concepts (especially how these worlds connect) but these popular expositions of the concept (ADS/CFT) are very good primers.
Cheers
Firstly I am not going to debate the nature of dimensional space since I use known terms.
Wikipedia: Shape of the Universe
Wikipedia: Anti de Sitter space
Wikipedia: Erlangen program
Wikipedia: Physical cosmology
When I say finite unbounded I mean with a "true" dimensional space such as the one we live in which is also "finite unbounded" that means you can find no walls because the very nature of the space is curved such that you cannot reach any outer walls. The "analogy" of a bug on the inside of a balloon is only an analogy since a balloon is simply a rubber membrane inflated with air. The two dimensional inner wall is "unbounded" in the sense that the bug can't find the wall with a door to escape from his "cell". Everything is "floor" to him. In "real" dimensional unbounded space the walls of our four dimensional Universe can only be truly appreciated from the outside where we see our balloon universe embedded in a higher dimensional space as an apparent 4D "bubble". Realize that there is no interior of the balloon either, only the 4D "hypersurface". The exterior and the interior surface are "dual". The interior surface in a "real" bubble Universe is an anti-de Sitter "flatspace".... of arbitrary many dimensions. Other bubble will be "embedded" in this surface and still form spaces that are quite large relative to the initial "external size of the bubble". There is a "flow of information" through these systems.
Have you ever seen a glass hologram of a room? This is a glass plate you can hang on a wall. The surface of that plate is finite two dimensional "truncated" flat plane and a close examination will show it is covered in "information"... tiny interference lines... the equivalent of strings if you will. Now look into the hologram. You see a room of large extent and probably equal to the size of the room you are presently standing in stretching before you. How does this small glass plate contain an effective description of an entire three dimensional room? In principle .... there could be an open window in this room and the stars could be seen through it. This is a hologram and those stars are as far away as real stars in our space. Think about it. This is a glass plate and it is a simple "snapshot" of a room in only one frequency but could represent a Universe... every bit as big as our own.
Now I maintain that the Universe we live in is an anti-de Sitter Universe. This is a reciprocal space compared with some "original" source Universe "on the outside" but is Holographic on the outside like our glass plate and "we" are on the "conceptual inside" in a reciprocal domain like the inside of that balloon where distances have become reciprocal distances and time has become reciprocal time relative to the outside (and visa versa). This is where the analogy of the flat glass hologram on the wall differs strongly from a true higher dimensional dual "pebble" object embedded in 4D spacetime and the internal unseen reciprocal phenomena (holographic reconstruction) inside these tiny "bubble universe" represent "reality" for its denizens... such as us.
Now comparing the "glass hologram" with a pebble universe bounded by the unseen light cone "wall"... Both the glass plate and the pebble Universe have a finite unbounded outer and conceptual inner surface, but differ only in the number of dimensions (including time). Of course a hologram is a single frequency construction but a real world has "many" frequencies, a construction for every frequency that can possibly exist. The "machine" that creates all this is a "Lens" ... a general term that describes pieces of glass, a pinhole in a card or a higher dimentional roughly spherical complex Calabi-Yau "Fuzzball" Space. So the apparently "large features" in "this" Universe on the external side of a glass holographic plate are limited by the resolution of the holographic interference pattern on the unseen outside of the "virtual" Universe and these represent the smallest scale of what can be seen on the inside of our "virtual" Universe (the "internal" holographic reconstructed image). The quanta and the information that is represented by the external pattern... the hologram and the very coarse "external" detail represent "quanta", and the smallest features in this external holographic landscape represent the largest things in this Universe ... stars and galaxies and us etc... that is the way the Complex Fourier plane encodes the details about three dimensional space on the "hypersurface".
Naturally this is more dimensions that just two... and it includes time (reciprocal distances and reciprocal time as frequency). From it you can easily derive Schrodinger's Equation and Gravity is a geometric phenomena as noted in Juan Maldacena's Theories.
See these references here...
Good Elf's links earlier
I disagree in some details with his concepts (especially how these worlds connect) but these popular expositions of the concept (ADS/CFT) are very good primers.
Cheers
C2,
I think it is imperative to consider all possibilities that have accumulated
bits of experimental evidence which provide a better understanding of the
nature of matter and energy and the way that they interact. This is a
very complicated puzzle to assemble, and science is thoughtfully exploring
all the different angles of the pieces to try to get them to fit together and
provide us with the complete picture. The real difficulty is that this isn't
just a flat 2 dimensional puzzle, it is at least a 3 dimensional puzzle complicated
by the fact that we can only see the colored sides of the pieces for which
we have experimental evidence. The other pieces are blank and we are
still trying to determine the outlines of the shapes. If man is ever clever
enough to define the Unified Field Theory, then we will have the key piece
to solve the puzzle.
Please do keep posting your information and ideas, that is what communication
is all about, and I am learning from you all.
Sometimes I'm a little "slooooowwww" in trying to understand exactly what
others are trying to infer or communicate because they are ambiguous or
unclear in how they present their thoughts.
Please explain your question, so I can better understand what you are asking.
LL
I think it is imperative to consider all possibilities that have accumulated
bits of experimental evidence which provide a better understanding of the
nature of matter and energy and the way that they interact. This is a
very complicated puzzle to assemble, and science is thoughtfully exploring
all the different angles of the pieces to try to get them to fit together and
provide us with the complete picture. The real difficulty is that this isn't
just a flat 2 dimensional puzzle, it is at least a 3 dimensional puzzle complicated
by the fact that we can only see the colored sides of the pieces for which
we have experimental evidence. The other pieces are blank and we are
still trying to determine the outlines of the shapes. If man is ever clever
enough to define the Unified Field Theory, then we will have the key piece
to solve the puzzle.
Please do keep posting your information and ideas, that is what communication
is all about, and I am learning from you all.
QUOTE
So you only see one interference band?
Sometimes I'm a little "slooooowwww" in trying to understand exactly what
others are trying to infer or communicate because they are ambiguous or
unclear in how they present their thoughts.
Please explain your question, so I can better understand what you are asking.
LL
Good Elf, LL, TRoc, C2, "THEY", et al,
Good Elf, I think you have exposed the strangeness of the world we live in. If we were to build, beginning with the premise stated above that you already know about.
How can I tell if this computer in front of me is really real.
I know, DECOHERENCE that is the mechanism that destroys the weird quantum nature.. By this we have what we see as reality on the classical side?
Good Elf, hope all is well.
C2, check your sources on decoherence and it will explain the wave and the dynamics involved with QM, MM, and twin split experiment. Do as LL has said, it is just now becoming enjoyable and the ride is awesome.
ciao_
yquantum
Good Elf, I think you have exposed the strangeness of the world we live in. If we were to build, beginning with the premise stated above that you already know about.
How can I tell if this computer in front of me is really real.
I know, DECOHERENCE that is the mechanism that destroys the weird quantum nature..
By this we have what we see as reality on the classical side?Good Elf, hope all is well.
C2, check your sources on decoherence and it will explain the wave and the dynamics involved with QM, MM, and twin split experiment. Do as LL has said, it is just now becoming enjoyable and the ride is awesome.
ciao_
yquantum
Good Elf, C2, et al,I must get some sleep, I hope you keep this stimulating post going for many months to come. Truly, BEST to you gentlemen/ladies.
ciao_
yquantum
Hope to check back and see how far you have taken this subject, great reading.
yquantum, All,
Just FYI, I am not a student, not a physicist, nor a mathmatician, most of you
on this thread are way above my limited experience on this subject, but I'm
not totally ignorant either. What I do have is a very logical, curious, and intuitive
nature and a fair amount of real life experience and training in several high technology
fields that utilized many of the phenomena that we are all attempting to
fully comprehend. I'm a firm proponent of the KISS approach to describing
and explaining complicated subjects, because that usually removes any
ambiguity or misunderstanding for all.
Cheers,
LL
QUOTE
I know for most beginning students we tell you that there is a wave/particle duality but this is just classical thinking which does not describe the QM world that truly is unintuitive, we can no longer ignore this in order to appreciate it's complexity. When you reach the level in which you have mentioned above, you must learn to deal with the wave function-psi in our calculation/mathematics
Just FYI, I am not a student, not a physicist, nor a mathmatician, most of you
on this thread are way above my limited experience on this subject, but I'm
not totally ignorant either. What I do have is a very logical, curious, and intuitive
nature and a fair amount of real life experience and training in several high technology
fields that utilized many of the phenomena that we are all attempting to
fully comprehend. I'm a firm proponent of the KISS approach to describing
and explaining complicated subjects, because that usually removes any
ambiguity or misunderstanding for all.
Cheers,
LL
LL,
The DSE is a showstopper. Feynman said something along the lines of " anyone who thinks they can explain it hasn't really understood it ".
http://www.optica.tn.tudelft.nl/education/photons.asp
The first few shots are from a DSE .. a low intensity source .. absolutely no tricks required .. it's bad enough anyway.
The interference peaks can be calculated from the difference in path length, trust me (or prove me wrong). How many peaks do you see? If each dot came from a single photon and the speed of light was 'c' then the path lengths would all be the same and the dots would all be in one place. What you see is the classical picture of EM building up dot by dot. A showstopper?
-C2.
My background is in electronics .. I 'peaked' over thirty years ago. Like you, perhaps, I need to know more.
My enthusasm for the (oddball) MM interferometer is that it embodies the same principles as the DSE but it is virtually one dimensional .. there is a purity in this that the DSE doesn't quite encapsulate.
The DSE is a showstopper. Feynman said something along the lines of " anyone who thinks they can explain it hasn't really understood it ".
http://www.optica.tn.tudelft.nl/education/photons.asp
The first few shots are from a DSE .. a low intensity source .. absolutely no tricks required .. it's bad enough anyway.
The interference peaks can be calculated from the difference in path length, trust me (or prove me wrong). How many peaks do you see? If each dot came from a single photon and the speed of light was 'c' then the path lengths would all be the same and the dots would all be in one place. What you see is the classical picture of EM building up dot by dot. A showstopper?
-C2.
My background is in electronics .. I 'peaked' over thirty years ago. Like you, perhaps, I need to know more.
My enthusasm for the (oddball) MM interferometer is that it embodies the same principles as the DSE but it is virtually one dimensional .. there is a purity in this that the DSE doesn't quite encapsulate.
QUOTE (LaserLight+)
TRoc,
Pardon my skepticism, but we have a "what came first, the chicken or the egg?"
problem here. In order for there to be energy there must first be matter.
There's just information. It can be interpreted in many ways including energy or matter. Information had to come first before any of the rest could be detected.
Pardon my skepticism, but we have a "what came first, the chicken or the egg?"
problem here. In order for there to be energy there must first be matter.
There's just information. It can be interpreted in many ways including energy or matter. Information had to come first before any of the rest could be detected.
QUOTE (LaserLight+)
I have a real philosophical issue with the assumption that energy spontaneously sprang onto the scene and the universe was formed from nothing. There has to be cause and effect.
It seems to create even more of a problem making the assumption that at some point there was ever 'nothing'. It seems more likely that everything has always and always will continue to exist.
If you want a more elegant way of looking at this, consider a perfectly symettrical multiverse where everything has a perfect compliment. If you zoom out and attempted to view the entirety of this infinity it would be like summing up all the values from -infinite to +infinity, but +1 + -1 = 0 and +2 + -2 = 0 and +3 + -3 = 0 etc. and 0+0+0+0 ... = 0.
Of course what makes this not 'nothing', is that you aren't seeing all of it at once but instead have a 'trajectory' through this potentially infinite dimensional space and so from a local perspective all the components aren't emphasized equally and disparities result.
It seems to create even more of a problem making the assumption that at some point there was ever 'nothing'. It seems more likely that everything has always and always will continue to exist.
If you want a more elegant way of looking at this, consider a perfectly symettrical multiverse where everything has a perfect compliment. If you zoom out and attempted to view the entirety of this infinity it would be like summing up all the values from -infinite to +infinity, but +1 + -1 = 0 and +2 + -2 = 0 and +3 + -3 = 0 etc. and 0+0+0+0 ... = 0.
Of course what makes this not 'nothing', is that you aren't seeing all of it at once but instead have a 'trajectory' through this potentially infinite dimensional space and so from a local perspective all the components aren't emphasized equally and disparities result.
QUOTE (LaserLight+)
Energy just doesn't spontaneously self generate without
some influencing causal factor.
Exactly, though that's more or less by definition and not necessarily always true, but I'd agree that if conservation of energy exists then the universe must have always been a perpetual motion machine as there's not an easy way to imagine how it could have been 'jump started' from nothing, without something else in the picture and then the question of where did the something else come from can be asked etc. etc. etc. It's easier to say the assumptions that 'in the beginning there was nothing' are wrong and that it just looks like nothing if you have a perfectly uniform 'God's eye' of everything at once, but as soon as you try to zoom in any detail of the nothing, things emerge out of this void.
Actually I don't believe that's entirely true. Vacuum energies and virtual particles appear to be able to be spontaneously created from 'nothing'. The issue is that they generally recombine and disappear rapidly but under some extreme circumstances (like a strong gravitational field) they don't recombine as easily.
Actually I don't believe that's entirely true. Vacuum energies and virtual particles appear to be able to be spontaneously created from 'nothing'. The issue is that they generally recombine and disappear rapidly but under some extreme circumstances (like a strong gravitational field) they don't recombine as easily.
Yes there is the cosmic background radiation, but that might be
interpreted incorrectly even though it suggests that it fits with the BB theory.
We must keep an open mind and consider that CBR might have a different
source or method of origin.
Agreed.
C2, LL, et al,
First of all, if I came across CONDESCENDING, please accept my apology, that was never my intent in fact the very opposite because of the strangeness of QM.
C2, said it correctly,
Once again I offer my apology and please understand it matters [PUN] not how long we have been in the field of research, the more we see, read, and discuss QM the less we know.
Best, ciao_
yquantum
Now before I insult anyone else I will gracefully go home and get some sleep.
some influencing causal factor.
Exactly, though that's more or less by definition and not necessarily always true, but I'd agree that if conservation of energy exists then the universe must have always been a perpetual motion machine as there's not an easy way to imagine how it could have been 'jump started' from nothing, without something else in the picture and then the question of where did the something else come from can be asked etc. etc. etc. It's easier to say the assumptions that 'in the beginning there was nothing' are wrong and that it just looks like nothing if you have a perfectly uniform 'God's eye' of everything at once, but as soon as you try to zoom in any detail of the nothing, things emerge out of this void.
QUOTE
There are no other examples of this in nature so there is no emprirical evidence to support the spontaneous emission BB theory.
Actually I don't believe that's entirely true. Vacuum energies and virtual particles appear to be able to be spontaneously created from 'nothing'. The issue is that they generally recombine and disappear rapidly but under some extreme circumstances (like a strong gravitational field) they don't recombine as easily.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There are no other examples of this in nature so there is no emprirical evidence to support the spontaneous emission BB theory. |
Actually I don't believe that's entirely true. Vacuum energies and virtual particles appear to be able to be spontaneously created from 'nothing'. The issue is that they generally recombine and disappear rapidly but under some extreme circumstances (like a strong gravitational field) they don't recombine as easily.
Yes there is the cosmic background radiation, but that might be
interpreted incorrectly even though it suggests that it fits with the BB theory.
We must keep an open mind and consider that CBR might have a different
source or method of origin.
Agreed.
QUOTE (LaserLight+)
Consider this "what is the antithesis of energy?" The answer is "No energy".
No energy infers a temperature of absolute zero where there is no
physical interaction, no energy transport mechanism, complete stillness, no
radiation, nada. Perhaps instead of a Big Bang we had a BIG THAW that was
the catalyst for the condensation of some form of primordial matter, which upon
condensing initiated the release of potential energy into kinetic energy (ala,
the BB)
Let's add relativity (in a more general sense) to this equation.
If we took two people in separate cars and had this represent two particles with thermal motion, and they collided and emitted a piece of 'shrapnel' at a high velocity, then we might have considered their prior motion to be at a normal 'temperature' relative to each other, but after the collision, they're 'frozen' and stationary at absolute zero.
But the new particle that was ejected would have it's 'temperatured' measured in terms relative to the local temperatures of whatever is observing it. If the two, now frozen observers in the car attempted to compare the kinetic energy of the ejected shrapnel with their own kinetic energy the ratio would be infinitely more energy contained in the particle. So did they create energy for free or do relative measurements automatically create a conservation?
Information
I don't think it's stopped either. Radiation envisioned as having travelled through space since the Big Bang didn't necessarily have to travel through space all that distance. We measure a photon at some point and then point out in space and assume it was the result of something that happened X billion years ago in a straight line out into space, but those are just mental assumptions that don't necessarily have to pan out in reality.
Imagine instead that an underlying chaotic foam of information alters the universe slowly over time and that instead the reason why looking far out into space appears to be looking at characteristics associated with a small, hot, dense ball of chaos is because everything exposed to space is slowly altered over time and that physical relationships between objects separated by large amounts of time degrade and become incoherent the less "entangled" they are in terms of physical properties.
You could also look at this from the perspective of the Big Bang and ask, "if the Big Bang even determined things like fundamental physical properties, then why would distant objects, that were isolated in there ability to communicate with other areas of space evolve the same physical properties?"
The rapid inflationary period could represent not a point at which space rapidly exploded in the initial instant, but backwards as a threshold where correlations between physical relationships we understand locally and the properties of distant spaces rapidly decay into chaotic noise ... and you can't extract large scale spacial features from noise so you could see the Big Bang as immense with unrelated features due to large spacial separations or alternately as without any size and a hot chaotic, creative point source.
BTW, I admit I don't have any ideas where all the specific details of the universe came from. There are lots of requirements that need to be met simply to allow for human life to exist, but then again you can easily ask "why human?" ... again there might be some biases that make seeing things from a human perspective more likely than something else, but I recognize it's very likely there will forever be a 'veil' or event horizon you can't see past, but maybe that's good as it means you can't see the future either and you've still got a chance to write a good story instead of passively reading pages written by others.
No energy infers a temperature of absolute zero where there is no
physical interaction, no energy transport mechanism, complete stillness, no
radiation, nada. Perhaps instead of a Big Bang we had a BIG THAW that was
the catalyst for the condensation of some form of primordial matter, which upon
condensing initiated the release of potential energy into kinetic energy (ala,
the BB)
Let's add relativity (in a more general sense) to this equation.
If we took two people in separate cars and had this represent two particles with thermal motion, and they collided and emitted a piece of 'shrapnel' at a high velocity, then we might have considered their prior motion to be at a normal 'temperature' relative to each other, but after the collision, they're 'frozen' and stationary at absolute zero.
But the new particle that was ejected would have it's 'temperatured' measured in terms relative to the local temperatures of whatever is observing it. If the two, now frozen observers in the car attempted to compare the kinetic energy of the ejected shrapnel with their own kinetic energy the ratio would be infinitely more energy contained in the particle. So did they create energy for free or do relative measurements automatically create a conservation?
QUOTE
But what do I know? I'm still trying to solve the riddle of "What came first,
The chicken or the egg".
The chicken or the egg".
Information
I don't think it's stopped either. Radiation envisioned as having travelled through space since the Big Bang didn't necessarily have to travel through space all that distance. We measure a photon at some point and then point out in space and assume it was the result of something that happened X billion years ago in a straight line out into space, but those are just mental assumptions that don't necessarily have to pan out in reality.
Imagine instead that an underlying chaotic foam of information alters the universe slowly over time and that instead the reason why looking far out into space appears to be looking at characteristics associated with a small, hot, dense ball of chaos is because everything exposed to space is slowly altered over time and that physical relationships between objects separated by large amounts of time degrade and become incoherent the less "entangled" they are in terms of physical properties.
You could also look at this from the perspective of the Big Bang and ask, "if the Big Bang even determined things like fundamental physical properties, then why would distant objects, that were isolated in there ability to communicate with other areas of space evolve the same physical properties?"
The rapid inflationary period could represent not a point at which space rapidly exploded in the initial instant, but backwards as a threshold where correlations between physical relationships we understand locally and the properties of distant spaces rapidly decay into chaotic noise ... and you can't extract large scale spacial features from noise so you could see the Big Bang as immense with unrelated features due to large spacial separations or alternately as without any size and a hot chaotic, creative point source.
BTW, I admit I don't have any ideas where all the specific details of the universe came from. There are lots of requirements that need to be met simply to allow for human life to exist, but then again you can easily ask "why human?" ... again there might be some biases that make seeing things from a human perspective more likely than something else, but I recognize it's very likely there will forever be a 'veil' or event horizon you can't see past, but maybe that's good as it means you can't see the future either and you've still got a chance to write a good story instead of passively reading pages written by others.
C2, LL, et al,First of all, if I came across CONDESCENDING, please accept my apology, that was never my intent in fact the very opposite because of the strangeness of QM.
C2, said it correctly,
QUOTE
I think it is safe to say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics. (Richard Feynman)
One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much. (Richard Feynman, Quantum Mechanics)
The more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So theoretical physics has given up on that. (Richard Feynman, Quantum Mechanics)
.One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much. (Richard Feynman, Quantum Mechanics)
The more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So theoretical physics has given up on that. (Richard Feynman, Quantum Mechanics)
Once again I offer my apology and please understand it matters [PUN]
not how long we have been in the field of research, the more we see, read, and discuss QM the less we know.Best, ciao_
yquantum
Now before I insult anyone else I will gracefully go home and get some sleep.
C2-
Sounds like we are two peas in a pod. My background is aviation jet mechanics,
radar/RF/electronics, and semiconductor RF plasma related processing and
high tech semiconductor equipment,
with a similar "relative" timeline. This is a fascinating, mentally stimulating,
and challenging subject. Sometimes I feel like I'm in "over my head" but I'm
treading water as fast as I can trying to keep up. LOL! I still have lots to learn, and the knowledge of people here is excellent!
Sounds like we are two peas in a pod. My background is aviation jet mechanics,
radar/RF/electronics, and semiconductor RF plasma related processing and
high tech semiconductor equipment,
with a similar "relative" timeline. This is a fascinating, mentally stimulating,
and challenging subject. Sometimes I feel like I'm in "over my head" but I'm
treading water as fast as I can trying to keep up. LOL! I still have lots to learn, and the knowledge of people here is excellent!
The interference peaks can be calculated from the difference in path length, trust me (or prove me wrong). How many peaks do you see? If each dot came from a single photon and the speed of light was 'c' then the path lengths would all be the same and the dots would all be in one place. What you see is the classical picture of EM building up dot by dot. A showstopper?
I agree with your path difference assessment. IMO, the path length of the
individual photons was changed by the EM field interactions (delays)
with the sidewall EM fields of the material of the slit cavities and tooth which modified their flight trajectory left or right (and up and down*)
The eliptical shape of the dark bands appears to be caused by how close
the photons were to the sides of the slits. I would expect that the closer
the photon passes by either sidewall cavity of the slit that it would be
deflected left or right according to which wall it passed which is why the
center of the bands is darkest. There was very little flight deviation
thru the center area of the slit cavity.
*The vertical separation of the bands is
problematic, and might be a consequence of the discrete photon EM field
amplitude changes caused by the temporary asymmetrical distortion of the
inductive Electric and Magnetic field interactions. In other words, if the magnetic field was
distorted by momentary proximity effects, caused by the cavity, it would briefly also
distort the interactive electrical fields, and vice versa, which could result
in a deviation or change in spin momentum resulting in a deflection in the vertical
plane as the fields snapped back once they cleared the sidewalls. Also the
design of the laser output filter/polarizer is unknown and is potential variable.
Then again, it might be exactly what concensus seems to favor, and just be wave
interference caused by the dual slit.
Best Regards,
LL
QUOTE
My background is in electronics .. I 'peaked' over thirty years ago. Like you, perhaps, I need to know more.
Sounds like we are two peas in a pod. My background is aviation jet mechanics,
radar/RF/electronics, and semiconductor RF plasma related processing and
high tech semiconductor equipment,
with a similar "relative" timeline. This is a fascinating, mentally stimulating,
and challenging subject. Sometimes I feel like I'm in "over my head" but I'm
treading water as fast as I can trying to keep up. LOL! I still have lots to learn, and the knowledge of people here is excellent!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My background is in electronics .. I 'peaked' over thirty years ago. Like you, perhaps, I need to know more. |
Sounds like we are two peas in a pod. My background is aviation jet mechanics,
radar/RF/electronics, and semiconductor RF plasma related processing and
high tech semiconductor equipment,
with a similar "relative" timeline. This is a fascinating, mentally stimulating,
and challenging subject. Sometimes I feel like I'm in "over my head" but I'm
treading water as fast as I can trying to keep up. LOL! I still have lots to learn, and the knowledge of people here is excellent!
The interference peaks can be calculated from the difference in path length, trust me (or prove me wrong). How many peaks do you see? If each dot came from a single photon and the speed of light was 'c' then the path lengths would all be the same and the dots would all be in one place. What you see is the classical picture of EM building up dot by dot. A showstopper?
I agree with your path difference assessment. IMO, the path length of the
individual photons was changed by the EM field interactions (delays)
with the sidewall EM fields of the material of the slit cavities and tooth which modified their flight trajectory left or right (and up and down*)
The eliptical shape of the dark bands appears to be caused by how close
the photons were to the sides of the slits. I would expect that the closer
the photon passes by either sidewall cavity of the slit that it would be
deflected left or right according to which wall it passed which is why the
center of the bands is darkest. There was very little flight deviation
thru the center area of the slit cavity.
*The vertical separation of the bands is
problematic, and might be a consequence of the discrete photon EM field
amplitude changes caused by the temporary asymmetrical distortion of the
inductive Electric and Magnetic field interactions. In other words, if the magnetic field was
distorted by momentary proximity effects, caused by the cavity, it would briefly also
distort the interactive electrical fields, and vice versa, which could result
in a deviation or change in spin momentum resulting in a deflection in the vertical
plane as the fields snapped back once they cleared the sidewalls. Also the
design of the laser output filter/polarizer is unknown and is potential variable.
Then again, it might be exactly what concensus seems to favor, and just be wave
interference caused by the dual slit.
Best Regards,
LL
Hi Yquantum, Confused2, StevenA, Laserlight, Solidspin, Why Not?, TRoc et al,
QUOTE (Yquantum+)
I will post this on three post in order to make sure that this forum knows of what you speak. Quantum matter truly consist of just waves of nothing, does this sound familiar?
I believe from my Frame of Reference and data provided in experiment's that before we answer the bigger question we must start off with this premise in order to build a better model in many fields, and that is what is on the frontier of QM research for many years. Many seem to overlook this very fundamental concept except some on this post.
You should also already know that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is formidable in its concept, but makes it possible to understand the phenomenon dealing with the quantum's point of view.
I know for most beginning students we tell you that there is a wave/particle duality but this is just classical thinking which does not describe the QM world that truly is unintuitive, we can no longer ignore this in order to appreciate it's complexity. When you reach the level in which you have mentioned above, you must learn to deal with the wave function-psi in our calculation/mathematics.
You can search any source you choose and you will find this to be true. I hope Good Elf will give the information he has research in order to support this.
I believe from my Frame of Reference and data provided in experiment's that before we answer the bigger question we must start off with this premise in order to build a better model in many fields, and that is what is on the frontier of QM research for many years. Many seem to overlook this very fundamental concept except some on this post.
You should also already know that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is formidable in its concept, but makes it possible to understand the phenomenon dealing with the quantum's point of view.
I know for most beginning students we tell you that there is a wave/particle duality but this is just classical thinking which does not describe the QM world that truly is unintuitive, we can no longer ignore this in order to appreciate it's complexity. When you reach the level in which you have mentioned above, you must learn to deal with the wave function-psi in our calculation/mathematics.
You can search any source you choose and you will find this to be true. I hope Good Elf will give the information he has research in order to support this.
The idea that we can have "waves of nothing" is too esoteric for me. It is something because it is all the reality we have. What I would prefer to say is quantum mechanics describe particles and is not a fully geometric theory as I see it. Because our Universe seems so much like particles most people concern themselves with this comfortable paradigm. What I think is the underlying "truth" is "everything" is pure geometry and this geometry has two possible complementary descriptions. These are waves and packets (frequency and Impulses/particles). Quanta are simply truncated continuum waves... Waves that start and then stop because everything in our universe does this. There are no quanta that could not be explained by this simple "truncation" phenomena. Waves can be truncated in space and in time. Some "waves" have geometry that spread in space away from the source over time at the speed of light ... the photons... bosons... the force carriers in our Universe and others do not appear to spread... the fermions. But the closer we approach the rest frame of the fermion the more spread our it becomes and for an observer in the rest frame of a fermion, that fermion will spread to fill the space relative to that observer (even including the observer). This is de Broglie's Hypothesis... it is quite experimentally proven but understandably bringing particles to rest in an inertial frame of reference is quite difficult... he he he! At the other end of this phenomena we have Special Relativity as the relative velocity approaches that of light. This is not the behavior of a simple billiard ball in a box, and probability does not adequately address the Complex nature of the phenomenon... especially the non-locality. So both the photon and the fermions all experience non-locality to a greater or lesser extent. Quantum theory does not address this point except to provide a "local" but inadequate explanation. The numbers the theory generate are fine but fail to describe the full range of experiments. This thread has discussed a number of these points and it shows how some such as Richard Feynman addressed this point providing a very good description but in his own words Quantum Electrodynamics is a "dumb" theory, not that he meant it was wrong... it provides the most accurate "numbers" available to science. What he meant was it was probably conceptually wrong (... even though he was speaking about his own theory). Each path is assigned a complex-valued probability amplitude, and the actual amplitude we observe is the sum of all amplitudes over all possible paths.
It is something because it is all the reality we have. What I would prefer to say is quantum mechanics describe particles and is not a fully geometric theory as I see it. Because our Universe seems so much like particles most people concern themselves with this comfortable paradigm. What I think is the underlying "truth" is "everything" is pure geometry and this geometry has two possible complementary descriptions. These are waves and packets (frequency and Impulses/particles). Quanta are simply truncated continuum waves... Waves that start and then stop because everything in our universe does this. There are no quanta that could not be explained by this simple "truncation" phenomena. Waves can be truncated in space and in time. Some "waves" have geometry that spread in space away from the source over time at the speed of light ... the photons... bosons... the force carriers in our Universe and others do not appear to spread... the fermions. But the closer we approach the rest frame of the fermion the more spread our it becomes and for an observer in the rest frame of a fermion, that fermion will spread to fill the space relative to that observer (even including the observer). This is de Broglie's Hypothesis... it is quite experimentally proven but understandably bringing particles to rest in an inertial frame of reference is quite difficult... he he he! At the other end of this phenomena we have Special Relativity as the relative velocity approaches that of light. This is not the behavior of a simple billiard ball in a box, and probability does not adequately address the Complex nature of the phenomenon... especially the non-locality. So both the photon and the fermions all experience non-locality to a greater or lesser extent. Quantum theory does not address this point except to provide a "local" but inadequate explanation. The numbers the theory generate are fine but fail to describe the full range of experiments. This thread has discussed a number of these points and it shows how some such as Richard Feynman addressed this point providing a very good description but in his own words Quantum Electrodynamics is a "dumb" theory, not that he meant it was wrong... it provides the most accurate "numbers" available to science. What he meant was it was probably conceptually wrong (... even though he was speaking about his own theory). Each path is assigned a complex-valued probability amplitude, and the actual amplitude we observe is the sum of all amplitudes over all possible paths.QUOTE (Quantum Electrodynamics+)
Physical interpretation of QED
In classical physics, due to interference, light is observed to take the stationary path between two points; but how does light know where it's going? That is, if the start and end points are known, the path that will take the shortest time can be calculated. However, when light is first emitted, the end point is not known, so how is it that light always takes the quickest path? In some interpretations, it is suggested that according to QED light does not have to — it simply goes over every possible path, and the observer (at a particular location) simply detects the mathematical result of all wave functions added up (as a sum of all line integrals). For other interpretations, paths are viewed as non physical, mathematical constructs that are equivalent to other, possibly infinite, sets of mathematical expansions. According to QED, light can go slower or faster than the speed of light to get there[1].
Wikipedia: Quantum electrodynamics
In classical physics, due to interference, light is observed to take the stationary path between two points; but how does light know where it's going? That is, if the start and end points are known, the path that will take the shortest time can be calculated. However, when light is first emitted, the end point is not known, so how is it that light always takes the quickest path? In some interpretations, it is suggested that according to QED light does not have to — it simply goes over every possible path, and the observer (at a particular location) simply detects the mathematical result of all wave functions added up (as a sum of all line integrals). For other interpretations, paths are viewed as non physical, mathematical constructs that are equivalent to other, possibly infinite, sets of mathematical expansions. According to QED, light can go slower or faster than the speed of light to get there[1].
Wikipedia: Quantum electrodynamics
If each photon has traveled over all possible paths I believe this is equivalent to saying the photon is visiting all possible paths "in sequence" when you sum all the intermediate terms up in a certain way. This is the same as the spreading wavefront and could be equated with it if we chose to. In this way a single photon results in the one picture of the "boson" in the same state as all other co-moving photons (bosons). The only difference between them is an "unknowable" path for the "still" point of each individual photon. Quantum Mechanics cannot provide this and no other theory can predict this either. What I am saying is the photon is not traveling in our three dimensional space (plus time) since it cannot be referenced to that space (this is not in dispute). David Bohm would say it is traveling in a configuration space which always remains out of the plane of Einsteins Spacetime... IMHO this is what Alain Aspect was alluding to. This is because a point source of photons can be known and the final destination of the photons can be "counted" individually. Therefore the path through "configuration space" can be plotted after the final data has all been gathered. You can "project" this space and the path into our Spacetime and you end up with a "geodesic" that ignores the intervening slits and obstructions. From our point of view the photon is passing "over" these obstructions in higher dimensional "configuration space". This configuration space overcomes the problems of locality that Quantum Mechanics has no answer for. Mathematically this approach leads to avoidance of the measurement problem and to String Theories which potentially "solve" some questions posed today that remain unanswered. Experiment does support this phenomenon. I have mentioned some of these issues in previous posts.
QUOTE (Yquantum+)
Good Elf, I think you have exposed the strangeness of the world we live in. If we were to build, beginning with the premise stated above that you already know about.
How can I tell if this computer in front of me is really real.
I know, DECOHERENCE that is the mechanism that destroys the weird quantum nature.. By this we have what we see as reality on the classical side?
How can I tell if this computer in front of me is really real.
I know, DECOHERENCE that is the mechanism that destroys the weird quantum nature.. By this we have what we see as reality on the classical side?
I can tell if the computer in front of you is real by the fact that you can observe it and use it and so forth. When you press a key it will input a character. The "reality" we know is purely "sensory" so if we receive sensory information then this information is the reality. In the same way that you can produce a Kondo Phantom... the Kondo Phantom is as real as any object that can be known (if done correctly... he he he!). What is the reality of our Universe is the information content. If we dumped our entire Universe into a "Black Hole" the information remains on the surface of that "Black Hole". The information in our Universe are "events" and the order of those events determine History... history may be jumbled but the information (events) remain... forever. We are thinking beings and we can measure stuff and so on. We do not have access to ultimate information only a relative source of information. This is saying to us not to think we are the ultimate judges of information content but we can get a good description of information content by way of experiments. These differing descriptions of the Universe are converging on a global description of our Universe... we will never get there but as we sort information derived from those experiments the inconsistencies can be removed and what remains must be the truth... or a better approximation to it. The Scientific Method... Theory -> Experiment -> more Theory -> more Experiments and so on. All the while we are benefiting from this enhanced knowledge through "applications" such as longer lives and "new tools" and an understanding of our basic question of why we are here. That is all a sentient being should do other than have a benevolence and generosity towards others who are also similarly looking for answers. I need not emphasize that this process is devastating to those who choose ignorance and is a kind of "Natural Selection".
Cheers
QUOTE
Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional character Sherlock Holmes once remarked to Watson... "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
Cheers
QUOTE (yquantum+Nov 12 2006, 02:05 AM)
yquantum,
First of all, if I came across CONDESCENDING, please accept my apology, that was never my intent in fact the very opposite because of the strangeness of QM.
LOL! I was not the least bit offended by your comments. I realize that there
are lots of different educational levels that frequent this website which was
why I was drawn to it and am fascinated by it. I just didn't want anyone
to misconstrue or think that I was an expert on the topic, I most definitely
am not. We are all seeking the truth. Unfortunately, we tend to spend much
of our time stumbling around in the darkness trying to find the light switch!
First of all, if I came across CONDESCENDING, please accept my apology, that was never my intent in fact the very opposite because of the strangeness of QM.
LOL! I was not the least bit offended by your comments. I realize that there
are lots of different educational levels that frequent this website which was
why I was drawn to it and am fascinated by it. I just didn't want anyone
to misconstrue or think that I was an expert on the topic, I most definitely
am not. We are all seeking the truth. Unfortunately, we tend to spend much
of our time stumbling around in the darkness trying to find the light switch!
StevenA,
I've heard of such sponaneous "virtual particles" which, if they are a reality, might
be evidence of another dimensional plane, or could they just be high energy particles
or spontaneous particle decay (from our dimensional plane) that just happened
to wander thru during the course of the experiment. My inclination tells me that if they are from another dimension
that we should be able to conjure them at will by prolonging or reproducing the
experiment where they showed up.
LL
QUOTE
Actually I don't believe that's entirely true. Vacuum energies and virtual particles appear to be able to be spontaneously created from 'nothing'. The issue is that they generally recombine and disappear rapidly but under some extreme circumstances (like a strong gravitational field) they don't recombine as easily.
I've heard of such sponaneous "virtual particles" which, if they are a reality, might
be evidence of another dimensional plane, or could they just be high energy particles
or spontaneous particle decay (from our dimensional plane) that just happened
to wander thru during the course of the experiment. My inclination tells me that if they are from another dimension
that we should be able to conjure them at will by prolonging or reproducing the
experiment where they showed up.
LL
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Firstly I am not going to debate the nature of dimensional space since I use known terms.
"Can we visualize a 3D universe which is finite yet unbounded?" (Albert Einstein, 1954)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're really saying is you're following the crowd.
I'm following the "the dream".
It's apples and oranges – no need to debate.
"Can we visualize a 3D universe which is finite yet unbounded?" (Albert Einstein, 1954)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're really saying is you're following the crowd.
I'm following the "the dream".
It's apples and oranges – no need to debate.
Good Elf,
I'm having a hard time rationalizing a photon sequentially exploring all paths
available to it in open space as this contradicts photon dispersion over
extreme distances and seems to violate the inverse square law.
I'm having a hard time rationalizing a photon sequentially exploring all paths
available to it in open space as this contradicts photon dispersion over
extreme distances and seems to violate the inverse square law.
What I am saying is the photon is not traveling in our three dimensional space (plus time) since it cannot be referenced to that space (this is not in dispute). David Bohm would say it is traveling in a configuration space which always remains out of the plane of Einsteins Spacetime... IMHO this is what Alain Aspect was alluding to. This is because a point source of photons can be known and the final destination of the photons can be "counted" individually. Therefore the path through "configuration space" can be plotted after the final data has all been gathered. You can "project" this space and the path into our Spacetime and you end up with a "geodesic" that ignores the intervening slits and obstructions. From our point of view the photon is passing "over" these obstructions in higher dimensional "configuration space". This configuration space overcomes the problems of locality that Quantum Mechanics has no answer for. Mathematically this approach leads to avoidance of the measurement problem and to String Theories which potentially "solve" some questions posed today that remain unanswered. Experiment does support this phenomenon.
A potential problem with this theoretical approach is that if the photon were
communicating (traveling) thru another dimension phasing in and out, it would
require 2 extra dimensions, 1 for the E field and 1 for the M field. Why does it
only physically interact with matter in our 4-D universe where its effects can be
measured as it destructively interacts with matter and imparts its EM field
energy? Are you suggesting that matter is also phasing in and out of our
space-time?
Hmmm, a variation on Occams razor?
LL
QUOTE
If each photon has traveled over all possible paths I believe this is equivalent to saying the photon is visiting all possible paths "in sequence" when you sum all the intermediate terms up in a certain way.
I'm having a hard time rationalizing a photon sequentially exploring all paths
available to it in open space as this contradicts photon dispersion over
extreme distances and seems to violate the inverse square law.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If each photon has traveled over all possible paths I believe this is equivalent to saying the photon is visiting all possible paths "in sequence" when you sum all the intermediate terms up in a certain way. |
I'm having a hard time rationalizing a photon sequentially exploring all paths
available to it in open space as this contradicts photon dispersion over
extreme distances and seems to violate the inverse square law.
What I am saying is the photon is not traveling in our three dimensional space (plus time) since it cannot be referenced to that space (this is not in dispute). David Bohm would say it is traveling in a configuration space which always remains out of the plane of Einsteins Spacetime... IMHO this is what Alain Aspect was alluding to. This is because a point source of photons can be known and the final destination of the photons can be "counted" individually. Therefore the path through "configuration space" can be plotted after the final data has all been gathered. You can "project" this space and the path into our Spacetime and you end up with a "geodesic" that ignores the intervening slits and obstructions. From our point of view the photon is passing "over" these obstructions in higher dimensional "configuration space". This configuration space overcomes the problems of locality that Quantum Mechanics has no answer for. Mathematically this approach leads to avoidance of the measurement problem and to String Theories which potentially "solve" some questions posed today that remain unanswered. Experiment does support this phenomenon.
A potential problem with this theoretical approach is that if the photon were
communicating (traveling) thru another dimension phasing in and out, it would
require 2 extra dimensions, 1 for the E field and 1 for the M field. Why does it
only physically interact with matter in our 4-D universe where its effects can be
measured as it destructively interacts with matter and imparts its EM field
energy? Are you suggesting that matter is also phasing in and out of our
space-time?
QUOTE
Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional character Sherlock Holmes once remarked to Watson... "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
Hmmm, a variation on Occams razor?
LL
Hi Eric England,
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Firstly I am not going to debate the nature of dimensional space since I use known terms. "Can we visualize a 3D universe which is finite yet unbounded?" (Albert Einstein, 1954) Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're really saying is you're following the crowd. I'm following the "the dream". It's apples and oranges – no need to debate. |
Apologies all around. Debate is fine... it was not meant to be dismissive, it was a link to how to find out what this means. I would never leave anyone hanging for want of knowing a point or two. What is meant by finite yet unbounded does not stop you dreaming (... though I am no psychic and I can only guess what you mean by that). What I mean is if you walk the walk you must talk the talk (... old saying but backwards). Finite but unbounded means this is the geometry of a space that we exist inside, we already have some data on this. There is WMAP (one of the references) and other data now and we can see that the data does indicate a complex interconnected space as shown by those links... Finite but unbounded. This means the geometry is such that if you went as far as you could in one direction in space you will inevitably loop back onto your original position. Any direction you choose will lead to the same result. This scale is very large but still finite (the numbers boggle the mind). There are also places in the Universe that are probably moving away from us through "Hubble spreading" faster that the raw velocity of light leading to Rindler Foliations... The link for that is there too. To go anywhere "different" at all you would need to travel "inter-dimensionally".
Now there is the real dream...
Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later: Good Elf and some links
and...
Good Elf on A cosmic hall of mirrors: PhysicsWeb Sept 2005
Cheers
PS: I have looked under the table and I do not see any "crowd" and I think I am the only one out here saying these things ...
Now there is the real dream...
Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later: Good Elf and some links
and...
Good Elf on A cosmic hall of mirrors: PhysicsWeb Sept 2005
Cheers
PS: I have looked under the table and I do not see any "crowd" and I think I am the only one out here saying these things ...
All,
First, to C2, who questions a change in frequency, upon reflection or absorption.
Perfect mirror
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A perfect mirror is a theoretical mirror that reflects light (and electromagnetic radiation in general) perfectly, and doesn't transmit it.
Domestic mirrors are not perfect mirrors as they absorb a significant portion of the light which falls on them.
Hopefully, that will suffice.
Laserlight,
I agree that "that there is no absolute definition for what makes up the composition of a photon." For now, I am concentrating on the mathematical foundation; hopefully that would lead to some insight as to the form the "photon" wave takes while traveling at the very fast "c".
Hopefully, that will suffice.
Laserlight,
I agree that "that there is no absolute definition for what makes up the composition of a photon." For now, I am concentrating on the mathematical foundation; hopefully that would lead to some insight as to the form the "photon" wave takes while traveling at the very fast "c".
We (and science) are overlooking something fundamental....1 key element that ties it all together, and that has been eluding science for a couple of hundred years.
We must go back to matter as our starting point since energy (and photons)
are created by and react to the physical interaction of various forms of matter.
Both well said.
I would add that we do NOT have to have a Big Bang for this to work. It more or less leaves that question open. The Philosophical underpinnings to NOT starting from NOTHING are very important.
By just the minor change in Philosophy, we can go from starting from ZERO (nothing) and then to ONE (something), to starting from ONE (something), and using the distance to TWO (the fundamental resonance) as an approximation to ONE.
Mathematically, of course, its' the same. I have made the case for NOT using an integer to represent the "fundamental quantity", or beginning. So, specifically >1.
Now, some should see the connection to Planck here. The constant "h" is represented in frequency as 1.00000093 Hz (that may not be exact), but it certainly fits the bill of >1 .
That is also a clue to my question.
more later..
T.Roc
First, to C2, who questions a change in frequency, upon reflection or absorption.
QUOTE
Perfect mirror
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A perfect mirror is a theoretical mirror that reflects light (and electromagnetic radiation in general) perfectly, and doesn't transmit it.
Domestic mirrors are not perfect mirrors as they absorb a significant portion of the light which falls on them.
Hopefully, that will suffice.
Laserlight,
I agree that "that there is no absolute definition for what makes up the composition of a photon." For now, I am concentrating on the mathematical foundation; hopefully that would lead to some insight as to the form the "photon" wave takes while traveling at the very fast "c".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Perfect mirror From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A perfect mirror is a theoretical mirror that reflects light (and electromagnetic radiation in general) perfectly, and doesn't transmit it. Domestic mirrors are not perfect mirrors as they absorb a significant portion of the light which falls on them. |
Hopefully, that will suffice.
Laserlight,
I agree that "that there is no absolute definition for what makes up the composition of a photon." For now, I am concentrating on the mathematical foundation; hopefully that would lead to some insight as to the form the "photon" wave takes while traveling at the very fast "c".
We (and science) are overlooking something fundamental....1 key element that ties it all together, and that has been eluding science for a couple of hundred years.
We must go back to matter as our starting point since energy (and photons)
are created by and react to the physical interaction of various forms of matter.
Both well said.
I would add that we do NOT have to have a Big Bang for this to work. It more or less leaves that question open. The Philosophical underpinnings to NOT starting from NOTHING are very important.
By just the minor change in Philosophy, we can go from starting from ZERO (nothing) and then to ONE (something), to starting from ONE (something), and using the distance to TWO (the fundamental resonance) as an approximation to ONE.
Mathematically, of course, its' the same. I have made the case for NOT using an integer to represent the "fundamental quantity", or beginning. So, specifically >1.
Now, some should see the connection to Planck here. The constant "h" is represented in frequency as 1.00000093 Hz (that may not be exact), but it certainly fits the bill of >1 .
That is also a clue to my question.
more later..
T.Roc
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.