I was reading the interesting references that TRoc has placed in his last post. Before I go any further I hope TRoc can find something "free" about the concepts he had there because I was unable to get anything of direct relevance too. I am still interested but I have been frustrated by "the system". Anyone who can find a source of this or closely related topic out there please post.
On a happier note I saw that TRoc apologized for taking so long to post this time. I have to confess that the way I work is I try not to say things too often as I realize that when I do say things they are often "long winded" and if they are not hitting the mark (as sometimes they don't), this can lead to frustration with others so I hope you all forgive me if I am not "pushing out product".
Also while in the process of searching for information on TRoc's interesting points, I came across this Nobel Prize Document that I think now has a very very powerful message to send.
Quantum-mechanical theory of optical coherence: Roy J. Glauber
IMHO it confirmes (in the first half of this document) that in former times we did not have tools or instruments capable of discerning the order embedded in Quantum Physics. Today with the great efforts in instrumentation, we are approaching a threshold in technical understanding that will allow us to proceed beyond the limits previously set by stochastic processes used so often in Quantum Mechanics. Beneath that layer hidden by an explicit absence of information of exact phase of the individual photon processes science is slowly approaching a new threshold in understanding about Quantum Electrodynamics that has been hidden from direct observation. This has been considered so important that it was awarded part of the Nobel Prize in Physics for that year of 2005. I apologize to the other winners of this prize but I am attempting to concentrate on what I think is pertinent to this thread at this minute.
QUOTE (Advanced information on the Nobel Prize in Physics 2005 (Summary of Glauber's Contribution+)
Quantum-mechanical theory of optical coherence
General introduction
Light provides the most pertinent example of the dual nature of quantum objects; its oscillatory properties served to verify the electromagnetic theory of Maxwell, and its lumpiness, the photons, signalled the dawn of modern quantum theory.
The electromagnetic phenomena form an integral part of modern technology. They are at work in all electrical motors, and our communication devices utilize their oscillatory behaviour in essential ways. Our radio receivers and mobile phones are all based on the ability of the radiation to sustain well-defined frequency and phase properties.
On the other hand, each device detecting the radiation must be based on the absorption of radiation energy into the material medium. This energy is known to occur in packets, which are now called photons. Absorption of a photon will cause the creation of an excitation which may be amplified and detected. Since the work of Einstein in 1905, we know that the absorption of a quantum of radiation gives rise to one and only one photoemission electron from a solid (Nobel Prize, 1921). Thus the detector counts photoelectrons and not photons, and our information about the behaviour of photons is always indirect. In the process of observation, the photon must be absorbed, and thus it is no longer available afterwards.
The dualism between the two pictures may appear contradictory. They do, however, form the prime example of what is termed complementarity in quantum theory, namely the possibility to display either wave or particle properties; albeit they merge in mutually exclusive limits. From a fundamental point of view, we need to reconcile the two descriptions. We must know how the seemingly smooth oscillatory behaviour of the radiation can manifest itself through the lumpy quantum nature of the field. We thus need both a macroscopic theory to account for the phase properties and a microscopic theory to account for the interaction between the photons and the material absorbing them. The former is given by Maxwell’s theory and the latter by quantum electrodynamics.
This year´s Nobel Prize in Physics falls in the realm of these aspects of light: The first part goes to Roy J. Glauber, who showed how the quantum theory has to be formulated in order to describe the detection process. This also served to bring out the distinction between the behaviour of thermal light sources and presently common coherent sources such as lasers and quantum amplifiers. This theory uses the formalism of quantum electrodynamics to describe the absorption of a photon in a detector. By correlating several such detectors, one may obtain higher order correlations, which can display clearly the characteristic features of quantum radiation. [...] The two pictures appeared to be contradictory, which was clearly recognized by Einstein [4]: “These properties of the elementary processes required by equation (12) [in Ref. [4]] make it seem practically unavoidable that one must construct an essentially quantum theoretical theory of radiation. The weakness of the theory lies, on the one hand, in the fact that it does not bring any nearer the connection with the wave theory and, on the other hand, in the fact that it leaves moment and direction of the elementary process to “chance”; all the same, I have complete confidence in the reliability of the method used here.” [..] One problem was inherited from classical physics; the electromagnetic field dragged along with the charge of a moving electron turns out to give an infinite mass to the electron. This is just the first of a series of infinities affecting the straightforward application of quantum theory to fields. This problem was solved only after the Second World War by S. Tomonaga, J. Schwinger and R.P. Feynman (Nobel Prize, 1965). Their renormalization program has evolved successfully since, and it now forms the basis for all modern approaches to quantized fields.[..]
Quantum considerations enter optics
When the tools to handle quantum electrodynamics were known, they were applied mainly to high-energy processes. This derives partly from the rapid development of collision experiments and partly from the fact that the requirement of relativistic invariance played a central role in the creation of the theory. It was still naively assumed that the conflict between Maxwell’s and Planck’s treatments would be of no significance in optical observations. But this state of blissful indifference was not to last.
In 1954-56, R. Hanbury Brown and R.Q. Twiss investigated an interferometric method to determine the angular extension of distant stellar objects, and also made laboratory measurements [6]. They found that the intensity-intensity correlation between photocurrents recorded in two separated detectors displayed a bump when the difference in optical path lengths between the signals was zero. In fact, the correlation function <I(x)I(y)>, at x=y was found to take twice its value compared with that for widely separated arguments x and y. The authors took this to be a consequence of quantum theory: “The experiment shows beyond question that the photons in the two coherent beams of light are correlated, and that this correlation is preserved in the process of photoelectric emission.” The individual photon had entered the realm of observational optics.
In a paper from 1956, E.M. Purcell [7] indicates that the effect may have a classical interpretation, but he still assumes that it is basically a vindication of the quantumfeatures of light. These arguments constituted the starting point for an intense interest in the relation of quantum considerations to optical observations. This became manifestly obvious when the invention of the laser in 1960 promised the possibility to provide light sources widely different from the conventional thermal ones. Two points of view emerged: On the one hand, the quantum transition was known to proceed proportional to (n+1), where n is the photon number in the field. In the Hanbury Brown & Twiss phenomenon, the induced photons are few, and this was assumed to account for the factor of two; one photon may induce another one. In a laser, many photons contribute and one may predict a giant effect. On the other hand, there lingered an impression that quantum noise only supplied ripples on the field amplitudes of the classical fields. Thus random function theory would account for the observed effects.[..]
Quantum theory of optical interference experiments
Glauber’s 1963 contribution
In the 1963 publication, Glauber made the following points: Detection in photon correlation experiments must be based on a consistent application of quantum electrodynamics. Thus all multi-photon experiments must be based on the fact that, once a photon has been absorbed, the state of the field has been changed so that the next absorption event occurs against a different initial state than the previous one. In particular, a state with only n photons, can only have correlations up to n:th order. This implies the use of normally ordered expectation values for the optical detection processes. As the consecutive absorption processes are based on different states of the field, its state ought to be characterized by correlations to all possible orders, and the description in terms of classical noise is not sufficient. In particular, experiments like those by Hanbury Brown & Twiss are described by a consistent calculation of two-photon interference effects. effects. Their factor of two derives simply from the property of Gaussian fluctuations to give
<I(x)I(y)> ∞ <a+(y) a+(x)a(x)a(y)>= <a+(y) a(y)><a+(x)a(x)> + <a+(y) a(x)><a+(x)a(y)>,
which explains the factor of two when x=y.
In interference experiments, the phase of the light is important, and then the state is best represented in terms of coherent states, and defining a distribution function on these, Glauber introduced the concept of a quasidistribution into Quantum Optics. These are quantum descriptions of the state, which have straightforward relations to classical phase space distributions.[..]Glauber shows that the thermal light sources correspond to a Gaussian distribution, thus justifying, in this case, the use of fluctuation theory. theory. The case of an ideal laser source shows no correlations of the Hanbury Brown & Twiss type.[..] Glauber points out that the photon absorption statistics from a laser cannot be described by any simple stochastic behaviour, Gaussian or Poissonian, but require a detailed knowledge of the quantum state of the device. This observation formed the basis for much subsequent work on formulating a quantum theory of lasers, parametric amplifiers and photon correlation experiments.[..] The coherent states were known from harmonic oscillator physics, but Glauber introduced them as basic entities to describe optical fields. They are eminently suitable for this, because like classical signals they possess both amplitude and phase. However, being an exact quantum description, they may be applied down to the intensity level where the quantum granularity of light influences the observations.[..] At the same time, they provide a convenient tool to extract the classical limit so useful in the applications of optical signals to communication and high precision measurements. The classical description emerges, but the fundamental quantum fluctuations are still present, setting the ultimate limit to what accuracy is attainable in principle.[..] After the initial contributions, many authors applied Glauber’s results to the rapidly evolving experimental situation in optical physics, thus creating the field today called Quantum Optics”.
The present status of Quantum Optics
L. Mandel has used the theory to design many ingenious experiments illuminating the quantum nature of light signals [16]; his student H.J. Kimble has continued to push the field in new directions.
Technical developments in the field of Quantum Optics have made it necessary to consider the quantum character of the light signals: It has become possible to create squeezed states. These have quantum fluctuations anisotropic in the phase, and one of the quadratures is less uncertain than the coherent states. In principle, such states allow the minimization of the quantum noise effects on ultra high precision measurements.
One can also observe the effect opposite to that of Hanbury Brown & Twiss, namely antibunching. In this case, the photons occur less bunched than in the totally random fashion of a Poisson distribution. For photon statistics, this is a pure quantum phenomenon.
In the limit of low intensity, only a few photons are involved, and this can be applied in secure quantum communications, the topical field of quantum computing and the recording of ultra-weak signals in high-precision experiments. In all these situations, a good understanding of the basic theory is required, as quantum effects set the fundamental limit to what can be achieved; technical noise can be eliminated, quantum noise cannot.
Another field of applications of the quantum approach to optics is offered by the possibilities to test fundamental aspects of quantum theory. In spite of the success quantum theory enjoys in applications, the interpretation of the theory has not reached any consensus. Thus we still need to push the experiments further and further into the quantum regime in the hope of gaining new insights into the workings of the formalism. On the other hand, the coherent state representation offers a tool to carry the quantum theory over into the classical regime. Here the amplitude and phase of the field become well-determined variables, and they can be used for communication and ultra-high precision measurements. Choosing the parameters of the experiment propitiously, one may neglect the underlying quantum fluctuations and regard the signals as well-defined classical field amplitudes. (Good Elf's emphasis)
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics...05/phyadv05.pdf
So the way we are pursuing here is in the spirit of Glauber, a Nobel Prize Winner. So this is very good company to keep. Please note his concluding sentences (emphasized above, I am sure that he would have prepared this discussion initially). Having said this I hope that while this does not "vindicate" this approach it at least forms an "unknown path" that has been pointed to by one of the best. Like many of the issues that attract Nobel Prizes, the significance of this presentation can sometimes only be realized in retrospect. In my case this probably "glazed me over at the time" but I see more clearly now and from a better and more stable perspective. Good place to end this "short" comment. I have some more very soon...
Cheers
General introduction
Light provides the most pertinent example of the dual nature of quantum objects; its oscillatory properties served to verify the electromagnetic theory of Maxwell, and its lumpiness, the photons, signalled the dawn of modern quantum theory.
The electromagnetic phenomena form an integral part of modern technology. They are at work in all electrical motors, and our communication devices utilize their oscillatory behaviour in essential ways. Our radio receivers and mobile phones are all based on the ability of the radiation to sustain well-defined frequency and phase properties.
On the other hand, each device detecting the radiation must be based on the absorption of radiation energy into the material medium. This energy is known to occur in packets, which are now called photons. Absorption of a photon will cause the creation of an excitation which may be amplified and detected. Since the work of Einstein in 1905, we know that the absorption of a quantum of radiation gives rise to one and only one photoemission electron from a solid (Nobel Prize, 1921). Thus the detector counts photoelectrons and not photons, and our information about the behaviour of photons is always indirect. In the process of observation, the photon must be absorbed, and thus it is no longer available afterwards.
The dualism between the two pictures may appear contradictory. They do, however, form the prime example of what is termed complementarity in quantum theory, namely the possibility to display either wave or particle properties; albeit they merge in mutually exclusive limits. From a fundamental point of view, we need to reconcile the two descriptions. We must know how the seemingly smooth oscillatory behaviour of the radiation can manifest itself through the lumpy quantum nature of the field. We thus need both a macroscopic theory to account for the phase properties and a microscopic theory to account for the interaction between the photons and the material absorbing them. The former is given by Maxwell’s theory and the latter by quantum electrodynamics.
This year´s Nobel Prize in Physics falls in the realm of these aspects of light: The first part goes to Roy J. Glauber, who showed how the quantum theory has to be formulated in order to describe the detection process. This also served to bring out the distinction between the behaviour of thermal light sources and presently common coherent sources such as lasers and quantum amplifiers. This theory uses the formalism of quantum electrodynamics to describe the absorption of a photon in a detector. By correlating several such detectors, one may obtain higher order correlations, which can display clearly the characteristic features of quantum radiation. [...] The two pictures appeared to be contradictory, which was clearly recognized by Einstein [4]: “These properties of the elementary processes required by equation (12) [in Ref. [4]] make it seem practically unavoidable that one must construct an essentially quantum theoretical theory of radiation. The weakness of the theory lies, on the one hand, in the fact that it does not bring any nearer the connection with the wave theory and, on the other hand, in the fact that it leaves moment and direction of the elementary process to “chance”; all the same, I have complete confidence in the reliability of the method used here.” [..] One problem was inherited from classical physics; the electromagnetic field dragged along with the charge of a moving electron turns out to give an infinite mass to the electron. This is just the first of a series of infinities affecting the straightforward application of quantum theory to fields. This problem was solved only after the Second World War by S. Tomonaga, J. Schwinger and R.P. Feynman (Nobel Prize, 1965). Their renormalization program has evolved successfully since, and it now forms the basis for all modern approaches to quantized fields.[..]
Quantum considerations enter optics
When the tools to handle quantum electrodynamics were known, they were applied mainly to high-energy processes. This derives partly from the rapid development of collision experiments and partly from the fact that the requirement of relativistic invariance played a central role in the creation of the theory. It was still naively assumed that the conflict between Maxwell’s and Planck’s treatments would be of no significance in optical observations. But this state of blissful indifference was not to last.
In 1954-56, R. Hanbury Brown and R.Q. Twiss investigated an interferometric method to determine the angular extension of distant stellar objects, and also made laboratory measurements [6]. They found that the intensity-intensity correlation between photocurrents recorded in two separated detectors displayed a bump when the difference in optical path lengths between the signals was zero. In fact, the correlation function <I(x)I(y)>, at x=y was found to take twice its value compared with that for widely separated arguments x and y. The authors took this to be a consequence of quantum theory: “The experiment shows beyond question that the photons in the two coherent beams of light are correlated, and that this correlation is preserved in the process of photoelectric emission.” The individual photon had entered the realm of observational optics.
In a paper from 1956, E.M. Purcell [7] indicates that the effect may have a classical interpretation, but he still assumes that it is basically a vindication of the quantumfeatures of light. These arguments constituted the starting point for an intense interest in the relation of quantum considerations to optical observations. This became manifestly obvious when the invention of the laser in 1960 promised the possibility to provide light sources widely different from the conventional thermal ones. Two points of view emerged: On the one hand, the quantum transition was known to proceed proportional to (n+1), where n is the photon number in the field. In the Hanbury Brown & Twiss phenomenon, the induced photons are few, and this was assumed to account for the factor of two; one photon may induce another one. In a laser, many photons contribute and one may predict a giant effect. On the other hand, there lingered an impression that quantum noise only supplied ripples on the field amplitudes of the classical fields. Thus random function theory would account for the observed effects.[..]
Quantum theory of optical interference experiments
Glauber’s 1963 contribution
In the 1963 publication, Glauber made the following points: Detection in photon correlation experiments must be based on a consistent application of quantum electrodynamics. Thus all multi-photon experiments must be based on the fact that, once a photon has been absorbed, the state of the field has been changed so that the next absorption event occurs against a different initial state than the previous one. In particular, a state with only n photons, can only have correlations up to n:th order. This implies the use of normally ordered expectation values for the optical detection processes. As the consecutive absorption processes are based on different states of the field, its state ought to be characterized by correlations to all possible orders, and the description in terms of classical noise is not sufficient. In particular, experiments like those by Hanbury Brown & Twiss are described by a consistent calculation of two-photon interference effects. effects. Their factor of two derives simply from the property of Gaussian fluctuations to give
<I(x)I(y)> ∞ <a+(y) a+(x)a(x)a(y)>= <a+(y) a(y)><a+(x)a(x)> + <a+(y) a(x)><a+(x)a(y)>,
which explains the factor of two when x=y.
In interference experiments, the phase of the light is important, and then the state is best represented in terms of coherent states, and defining a distribution function on these, Glauber introduced the concept of a quasidistribution into Quantum Optics. These are quantum descriptions of the state, which have straightforward relations to classical phase space distributions.[..]Glauber shows that the thermal light sources correspond to a Gaussian distribution, thus justifying, in this case, the use of fluctuation theory. theory. The case of an ideal laser source shows no correlations of the Hanbury Brown & Twiss type.[..] Glauber points out that the photon absorption statistics from a laser cannot be described by any simple stochastic behaviour, Gaussian or Poissonian, but require a detailed knowledge of the quantum state of the device. This observation formed the basis for much subsequent work on formulating a quantum theory of lasers, parametric amplifiers and photon correlation experiments.[..] The coherent states were known from harmonic oscillator physics, but Glauber introduced them as basic entities to describe optical fields. They are eminently suitable for this, because like classical signals they possess both amplitude and phase. However, being an exact quantum description, they may be applied down to the intensity level where the quantum granularity of light influences the observations.[..] At the same time, they provide a convenient tool to extract the classical limit so useful in the applications of optical signals to communication and high precision measurements. The classical description emerges, but the fundamental quantum fluctuations are still present, setting the ultimate limit to what accuracy is attainable in principle.[..] After the initial contributions, many authors applied Glauber’s results to the rapidly evolving experimental situation in optical physics, thus creating the field today called Quantum Optics”.
The present status of Quantum Optics
L. Mandel has used the theory to design many ingenious experiments illuminating the quantum nature of light signals [16]; his student H.J. Kimble has continued to push the field in new directions.
Technical developments in the field of Quantum Optics have made it necessary to consider the quantum character of the light signals: It has become possible to create squeezed states. These have quantum fluctuations anisotropic in the phase, and one of the quadratures is less uncertain than the coherent states. In principle, such states allow the minimization of the quantum noise effects on ultra high precision measurements.
One can also observe the effect opposite to that of Hanbury Brown & Twiss, namely antibunching. In this case, the photons occur less bunched than in the totally random fashion of a Poisson distribution. For photon statistics, this is a pure quantum phenomenon.
In the limit of low intensity, only a few photons are involved, and this can be applied in secure quantum communications, the topical field of quantum computing and the recording of ultra-weak signals in high-precision experiments. In all these situations, a good understanding of the basic theory is required, as quantum effects set the fundamental limit to what can be achieved; technical noise can be eliminated, quantum noise cannot.
Another field of applications of the quantum approach to optics is offered by the possibilities to test fundamental aspects of quantum theory. In spite of the success quantum theory enjoys in applications, the interpretation of the theory has not reached any consensus. Thus we still need to push the experiments further and further into the quantum regime in the hope of gaining new insights into the workings of the formalism. On the other hand, the coherent state representation offers a tool to carry the quantum theory over into the classical regime. Here the amplitude and phase of the field become well-determined variables, and they can be used for communication and ultra-high precision measurements. Choosing the parameters of the experiment propitiously, one may neglect the underlying quantum fluctuations and regard the signals as well-defined classical field amplitudes. (Good Elf's emphasis)
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics...05/phyadv05.pdf
So the way we are pursuing here is in the spirit of Glauber, a Nobel Prize Winner. So this is very good company to keep. Please note his concluding sentences (emphasized above, I am sure that he would have prepared this discussion initially). Having said this I hope that while this does not "vindicate" this approach it at least forms an "unknown path" that has been pointed to by one of the best. Like many of the issues that attract Nobel Prizes, the significance of this presentation can sometimes only be realized in retrospect. In my case this probably "glazed me over at the time" but I see more clearly now and from a better and more stable perspective. Good place to end this "short" comment. I have some more very soon...
Cheers
Hi yquantum, Laserlight, Confused2, Montec, TRoc et al,
While I realize that "dielectrics" are one way of understanding electromagnetism, some of the proposals I am offering do not involve "that kind of dielectric". These are indeed ... mediums or even "Aethers" is you like ... material substances that can be polarized... like a chunk of glass. In a vacuum this "polarization" will not be possible since there is nothing to polarize there. We have determined that there is something that appears like polarization... topological charge and topological magnetic fields.
Just so you understand...
Regarding the Aharonov-Bohm Effect this is the "primary" source...
Wikipedia: Electromagnetic four-potential
Clearly in this compact form the electric field whenever it occurs, is a function of its charge divergence (charge sources) and rate of change of the "vector potential", while the magnetic field is proportional to the curl of the "vector potential". Unfortunately these vector potentials are not measurable with our instrumentation but have undeniable reality because they affect spaces beyond where they can conventionally influence. This smacks of the Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory. A "wave" may no longer persist in space or in time but might re-emerge given the "right conditions" whatever that may mean. To me this means "the sub-atomic "Hall of Mirrors" where phenomena can exist as an image which may provide the reality necessary for "re-emergence". This is pure optics and it is hard to prove other than in those experiments at NIST where we have atomic Kondo Phantoms. I think this is such an important phenomena it must certainly "appear" in the optics of Light Cone Walls and interior "reciprocal flatspaces". Here we are lacking experiment but there is no reason to think that these "matter waves" do not exist at even higher frequencies than what we may observe. Since everything is ultimately composed of quanta there are specific states where if information was lost at the high frequency end these states will spontaneously form through "resonance". Take for instance how particles are created from photons releasing matter and anti-matter. These "optics" produce unique events with entirely whole "new" quantum particles. Bits are not missing from their spectra. This is because while the photons that created the particles may not necessarily contain "frozen states" as OAM that "encode" for those created particles and anti-particles, they will initiate new states on creation which reflect properties held commonly by all other particles and anti-particles. So electrons and positrons look remarkably like other electrons and positrons, this is not a "coincidence" it is a resonance for the form due to Lorentz-CPT that all particles of this kind have. Do people understand what I am getting at here? It is like the way in which bubbles in a Coke bottle all look remarkably similar (except for size) even though each are formed in their own discrete events. Clearly quanta are far more alike than bubbles because of the physical laws that limit the size and quantity of discrete quanta in our Universe. I do not think this "artifact" comes from "below" but from our "immediate" environment including Fourier Decomposition of converging wavelets in volumetric space creating bright matter wave solitons. The quanta being a property of "confining space and the way these waves form stationary states there through "resonance"... 2πR = nλ in an "optical" reciprocal environment. The other "constraints" are those as noted due to Berry Phase and "rotation" on the light cone wall. Some features are shown in movies about special relativity linked below.
On another issue, regarding Electromagnetism... The assumption is when there are no sources of charge, and when there is no "propagating fields", then there are no electric fields unless there are produced by the changing vector potential. There is also the assumption when there is no curl in the vector potential then there is no magnetic field.
http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph...ok/node149.html
then
http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph...ok/node150.html
this leads to
= 
... the Lorentz Force.
There is obviously "something" wrong with this. There are "places" where there are no measurable charge sources of electric field and yet there are vector potentials. There are "topological charges" in some underspecified regions, not due to "actual physical charges". There can also be "topological magnetic sources" in places where there are no charge current loops such as near electrons or near some of these "optical vortices". Alternatively places where electric field lines can form closed loops without necessarily being caused by enclosing magnetic fiber bundles or free moving charges. There is a strong "non-locality" that is glossed over in the literature.
What has to be said is this is a deficiency in electromagnetic theory. These are regions of underspecified "fields" where null boundaries are encountered... I would say light cone walls. Expressed in other terms this is Special Relativity where we have "length contraction" .... I would say a rotation into an "orthogonal space", the projection into "normal space", a separate projected frame of reference, is interpreted as a "length contraction"... away from all three dimensions of our space. This is the Lorentz Factor.
Have a look at these two simple short Quicktime Movies. You must wait for this to download ... it is not streaming but it is well worth it.
Light Clock Video: Einsteins Universe
Distorted Buildings Video (relativistic rotation)
... please be patient since this will take a while to load.... not streamed... this will explain a lot to those who are unaware of the reality of these things and have accepted the incorrect version of this story. The amount of the rotation is arctan(V/C) and length contraction is the Lorentz Factor and it is equivalent of a projection as noted from the first video.
Imagine if you saw this bike rotate π/2 radians away from all observers this is not a "simple rotation". The projection would then be a line segment of zero length. This would only occur if the bike was made of "light" and it was traveling at the speed of light. Imagine a topology in which this occurs inside a "light cone ball" where this geometry "defines" the space in which it was moving. Seen from the outside the "system" would contract to a "point". Seen from the inside this appears like "everything" contracting to a bright blue shifted spot in the forward direction and red shifted almost infinitely in the aft direction. There are frames of reference in which stuff is just rotating as in the paper I have linked to previously. Now I realize these are not inertial frames of reference so you will need to modify the way things are measured using those equations I have previously linked. For light though this is potentially an inertial frame since the direction of propagation has been "Berry walked" into an orthogonal direction. Internally this is a direction in which light will travel "in a straight line". It is the straightest line in that geometry. Externally beyond the light cone wall, light from within is trapped and can never propagate into to that space... Yet it continues to travel in an unseen "circle" with a Berry Geometric Phase "Twist" as it propagates relative to our apparent inertial frame. The light itself inside that space propagates seeking all paths spanning a volumetric space along a geodesic. The actual inside volume of that space is "unknown" but will depend on some "unknown" specification... A quantum specification. This is a "particle field". Think of it as a short segment of an electromagnetic corkscrew where the "pitch" of the corkscrew is a measure of the wavenumber
a reciprocal wavelength.
...and the diameter of the screw is proportional to the outside diameter of 'a particle" while this "corkscrew" rotates around an axis with a temporal frequency (spins) of ω=2πf. For the screw to advance through a spatial π radians rotation within a torus created by this corkscrew. It is still an electromagnetic wave but confined to the interior of a light cone "bubble". What "tunnels" out of this structure is a reciprocal wave in the evanescent region... a de Broglie Matter Wave. I have discussed this mechanism before on this thread and elsewhere.
Comment welcome and encouraged.
Cheers
While I realize that "dielectrics" are one way of understanding electromagnetism, some of the proposals I am offering do not involve "that kind of dielectric". These are indeed ... mediums or even "Aethers" is you like ... material substances that can be polarized... like a chunk of glass. In a vacuum this "polarization" will not be possible since there is nothing to polarize there. We have determined that there is something that appears like polarization... topological charge and topological magnetic fields.
Just so you understand...
Regarding the Aharonov-Bohm Effect this is the "primary" source...
Wikipedia: Electromagnetic four-potential
Clearly in this compact form the electric field whenever it occurs, is a function of its charge divergence (charge sources) and rate of change of the "vector potential", while the magnetic field is proportional to the curl of the "vector potential". Unfortunately these vector potentials are not measurable with our instrumentation but have undeniable reality because they affect spaces beyond where they can conventionally influence. This smacks of the Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory. A "wave" may no longer persist in space or in time but might re-emerge given the "right conditions" whatever that may mean. To me this means "the sub-atomic "Hall of Mirrors" where phenomena can exist as an image which may provide the reality necessary for "re-emergence". This is pure optics and it is hard to prove other than in those experiments at NIST where we have atomic Kondo Phantoms. I think this is such an important phenomena it must certainly "appear" in the optics of Light Cone Walls and interior "reciprocal flatspaces". Here we are lacking experiment but there is no reason to think that these "matter waves" do not exist at even higher frequencies than what we may observe. Since everything is ultimately composed of quanta there are specific states where if information was lost at the high frequency end these states will spontaneously form through "resonance". Take for instance how particles are created from photons releasing matter and anti-matter. These "optics" produce unique events with entirely whole "new" quantum particles. Bits are not missing from their spectra. This is because while the photons that created the particles may not necessarily contain "frozen states" as OAM that "encode" for those created particles and anti-particles, they will initiate new states on creation which reflect properties held commonly by all other particles and anti-particles. So electrons and positrons look remarkably like other electrons and positrons, this is not a "coincidence" it is a resonance for the form due to Lorentz-CPT that all particles of this kind have. Do people understand what I am getting at here? It is like the way in which bubbles in a Coke bottle all look remarkably similar (except for size) even though each are formed in their own discrete events. Clearly quanta are far more alike than bubbles because of the physical laws that limit the size and quantity of discrete quanta in our Universe. I do not think this "artifact" comes from "below" but from our "immediate" environment including Fourier Decomposition of converging wavelets in volumetric space creating bright matter wave solitons. The quanta being a property of "confining space and the way these waves form stationary states there through "resonance"... 2πR = nλ in an "optical" reciprocal environment. The other "constraints" are those as noted due to Berry Phase and "rotation" on the light cone wall. Some features are shown in movies about special relativity linked below.
On another issue, regarding Electromagnetism... The assumption is when there are no sources of charge, and when there is no "propagating fields", then there are no electric fields unless there are produced by the changing vector potential. There is also the assumption when there is no curl in the vector potential then there is no magnetic field.
http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph...ok/node149.html
then
http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph...ok/node150.html
this leads to
= ... the Lorentz Force.
There is obviously "something" wrong with this. There are "places" where there are no measurable charge sources of electric field and yet there are vector potentials. There are "topological charges" in some underspecified regions, not due to "actual physical charges". There can also be "topological magnetic sources" in places where there are no charge current loops such as near electrons or near some of these "optical vortices". Alternatively places where electric field lines can form closed loops without necessarily being caused by enclosing magnetic fiber bundles or free moving charges. There is a strong "non-locality" that is glossed over in the literature.
What has to be said is this is a deficiency in electromagnetic theory. These are regions of underspecified "fields" where null boundaries are encountered... I would say light cone walls. Expressed in other terms this is Special Relativity where we have "length contraction" .... I would say a rotation into an "orthogonal space", the projection into "normal space", a separate projected frame of reference, is interpreted as a "length contraction"... away from all three dimensions of our space. This is the Lorentz Factor.
Have a look at these two simple short Quicktime Movies. You must wait for this to download ... it is not streaming but it is well worth it.
Light Clock Video: Einsteins Universe
Distorted Buildings Video (relativistic rotation)
... please be patient since this will take a while to load.... not streamed... this will explain a lot to those who are unaware of the reality of these things and have accepted the incorrect version of this story. The amount of the rotation is arctan(V/C) and length contraction is the Lorentz Factor and it is equivalent of a projection as noted from the first video.
Imagine if you saw this bike rotate π/2 radians away from all observers this is not a "simple rotation". The projection would then be a line segment of zero length. This would only occur if the bike was made of "light" and it was traveling at the speed of light. Imagine a topology in which this occurs inside a "light cone ball" where this geometry "defines" the space in which it was moving. Seen from the outside the "system" would contract to a "point". Seen from the inside this appears like "everything" contracting to a bright blue shifted spot in the forward direction and red shifted almost infinitely in the aft direction. There are frames of reference in which stuff is just rotating as in the paper I have linked to previously. Now I realize these are not inertial frames of reference so you will need to modify the way things are measured using those equations I have previously linked. For light though this is potentially an inertial frame since the direction of propagation has been "Berry walked" into an orthogonal direction. Internally this is a direction in which light will travel "in a straight line". It is the straightest line in that geometry. Externally beyond the light cone wall, light from within is trapped and can never propagate into to that space... Yet it continues to travel in an unseen "circle" with a Berry Geometric Phase "Twist" as it propagates relative to our apparent inertial frame. The light itself inside that space propagates seeking all paths spanning a volumetric space along a geodesic. The actual inside volume of that space is "unknown" but will depend on some "unknown" specification... A quantum specification. This is a "particle field". Think of it as a short segment of an electromagnetic corkscrew where the "pitch" of the corkscrew is a measure of the wavenumber
a reciprocal wavelength....and the diameter of the screw is proportional to the outside diameter of 'a particle" while this "corkscrew" rotates around an axis with a temporal frequency (spins) of ω=2πf. For the screw to advance through a spatial π radians rotation within a torus created by this corkscrew. It is still an electromagnetic wave but confined to the interior of a light cone "bubble". What "tunnels" out of this structure is a reciprocal wave in the evanescent region... a de Broglie Matter Wave. I have discussed this mechanism before on this thread and elsewhere.
Comment welcome and encouraged.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Mar 11 2007, 01:25 AM)
Hi yquantum, Laserlight, Confused2, Montec, TRoc et al,
I was reading the interesting references that TRoc has placed in his last post. Before I go any further I hope TRoc can find something "free" about the concepts he had there because I was unable to get anything of direct relevance too. I am still interested but I have been frustrated by "the system". Anyone who can find a source of this or closely related topic out there please post.
On a happier note I saw that TRoc apologized for taking so long to post this time. I have to confess that the way I work is I try not to say things too often as I realize that when I do say things they are often "long winded" and if they are not hitting the mark (as sometimes they don't), this can lead to frustration with others so I hope you all forgive me if I am not "pushing out product".
Also while in the process of searching for information on TRoc's interesting points, I came across this Nobel Prize Document that I think now has a very very powerful message to send.
Quantum-mechanical theory of optical coherence: Roy J. Glauber
IMHO it confirmes (in the first half of this document) that in former times we did not have tools or instruments capable of discerning the order embedded in Quantum Physics. Today with the great efforts in instrumentation, we are approaching a threshold in technical understanding that will allow us to proceed beyond the limits previously set by stochastic processes used so often in Quantum Mechanics. Beneath that layer hidden by an explicit absence of information of exact phase of the individual photon processes science is slowly approaching a new threshold in understanding about Quantum Electrodynamics that has been hidden from direct observation. This has been considered so important that it was awarded part of the Nobel Prize in Physics for that year of 2005. I apologize to the other winners of this prize but I am attempting to concentrate on what I think is pertinent to this thread at this minute.
So the way we are pursuing here is in the spirit of Glauber, a Nobel Prize Winner. So this is very good company to keep. Please note his concluding sentences (emphasized above, I am sure that he would have prepared this discussion initially). Having said this I hope that while this does not "vindicate" this approach it at least forms an "unknown path" that has been pointed to by one of the best. Like many of the issues that attract Nobel Prizes, the significance of this presentation can sometimes only be realized in retrospect. In my case this probably "glazed me over at the time" but I see more clearly now and from a better and more stable perspective. Good place to end this "short" comment. I have some more very soon...
Cheers
A professor I had in College won the Nobel Prize this year. Robert Trivers from UC Santa Cruz. I was in his animal behavior class. He won this years' Nobel Prize in biology.
I was reading the interesting references that TRoc has placed in his last post. Before I go any further I hope TRoc can find something "free" about the concepts he had there because I was unable to get anything of direct relevance too. I am still interested but I have been frustrated by "the system". Anyone who can find a source of this or closely related topic out there please post.
On a happier note I saw that TRoc apologized for taking so long to post this time. I have to confess that the way I work is I try not to say things too often as I realize that when I do say things they are often "long winded" and if they are not hitting the mark (as sometimes they don't), this can lead to frustration with others so I hope you all forgive me if I am not "pushing out product".
Also while in the process of searching for information on TRoc's interesting points, I came across this Nobel Prize Document that I think now has a very very powerful message to send.
Quantum-mechanical theory of optical coherence: Roy J. Glauber
IMHO it confirmes (in the first half of this document) that in former times we did not have tools or instruments capable of discerning the order embedded in Quantum Physics. Today with the great efforts in instrumentation, we are approaching a threshold in technical understanding that will allow us to proceed beyond the limits previously set by stochastic processes used so often in Quantum Mechanics. Beneath that layer hidden by an explicit absence of information of exact phase of the individual photon processes science is slowly approaching a new threshold in understanding about Quantum Electrodynamics that has been hidden from direct observation. This has been considered so important that it was awarded part of the Nobel Prize in Physics for that year of 2005. I apologize to the other winners of this prize but I am attempting to concentrate on what I think is pertinent to this thread at this minute.
So the way we are pursuing here is in the spirit of Glauber, a Nobel Prize Winner. So this is very good company to keep. Please note his concluding sentences (emphasized above, I am sure that he would have prepared this discussion initially). Having said this I hope that while this does not "vindicate" this approach it at least forms an "unknown path" that has been pointed to by one of the best. Like many of the issues that attract Nobel Prizes, the significance of this presentation can sometimes only be realized in retrospect. In my case this probably "glazed me over at the time" but I see more clearly now and from a better and more stable perspective. Good place to end this "short" comment. I have some more very soon...
Cheers
A professor I had in College won the Nobel Prize this year. Robert Trivers from UC Santa Cruz. I was in his animal behavior class. He won this years' Nobel Prize in biology.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Mar 11 2007, 01:59 AM)
Hi yquantum, Laserlight, Confused2, Montec, TRoc et al,
While I realize that "dielectrics" are one way of understanding electromagnetism, some of the proposals I am offering do not involve "that kind of dielectric". These are indeed ... mediums or even "Aethers" is you like ... material substances that can be polarized... like a chunk of glass. In a vacuum this "polarization" will not be possible since there is nothing to polarize there. We have determined that there is something that appears like polarization... topological charge and topological magnetic fields.
Just so you understand...
Regarding the Aharonov-Bohm Effect this is the "primary" source...
Wikipedia: Electromagnetic four-potential
Clearly in this compact form the electric field whenever it occurs, is a function of its charge divergence (charge sources) and rate of change of the "vector potential", while the magnetic field is proportional to the curl of the "vector potential". Unfortunately these vector potentials are not measurable with our instrumentation but have undeniable reality because they affect spaces beyond where they can conventionally influence. This smacks of the Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory. A "wave" may no longer persist in space or in time but might re-emerge given the "right conditions" whatever that may mean. To me this means "the sub-atomic "Hall of Mirrors" where phenomena can exist as an image which may provide the reality necessary for "re-emergence". This is pure optics and it is hard to prove other than in those experiments at NIST where we have atomic Kondo Phantoms. I think this is such an important phenomena it must certainly "appear" in the optics of Light Cone Walls and interior "reciprocal flatspaces". Here we are lacking experiment but there is no reason to think that these "matter waves" do not exist at even higher frequencies than what we may observe. Since everything is ultimately composed of quanta there are specific states where if information was lost at the high frequency end these states will spontaneously form through "resonance". Take for instance how particles are created from photons releasing matter and anti-matter. These "optics" produce unique events with entirely whole "new" quantum particles. Bits are not missing from their spectra. This is because while the photons that created the particles may not necessarily contain "frozen states" as OAM that "encode" for those created particles and anti-particles, they will initiate new states on creation which reflect properties held commonly by all other particles and anti-particles. So electrons and positrons look remarkably like other electrons and positrons, this is not a "coincidence" it is a resonance for the form due to Lorentz-CPT that all particles of this kind have. Do people understand what I am getting at here? It is like the way in which bubbles in a Coke bottle all look remarkably similar (except for size) even though each are formed in their own discrete events. Clearly quanta are far more alike than bubbles because of the physical laws that limit the size and quantity of discrete quanta in our Universe. I do not think this "artifact" comes from "below" but from our "immediate" environment including Fourier Decomposition of converging wavelets in volumetric space creating bright matter wave solitons. The quanta being a property of "confining space and the way these waves form stationary states there through "resonance"... 2πR = nλ in an "optical" reciprocal environment. The other "constraints" are those as noted due to Berry Phase and "rotation" on the light cone wall. Some features are shown in movies about special relativity linked below.
On another issue, regarding Electromagnetism... The assumption is when there are no sources of charge, and when there is no "propagating fields", then there are no electric fields unless there are produced by the changing vector potential. There is also the assumption when there is no curl in the vector potential then there is no magnetic field.
http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph...ok/node149.html
then
http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph...ok/node150.html
this leads to
=
... the Lorentz Force.
There is obviously "something" wrong with this. There are "places" where there are no measurable charge sources of electric field and yet there are vector potentials. There are "topological charges" in some underspecified regions, not due to "actual physical charges". There can also be "topological magnetic sources" in places where there are no charge current loops such as near electrons or near some of these "optical vortices". Alternatively places where electric field lines can form closed loops without necessarily being caused by enclosing magnetic fiber bundles or free moving charges. There is a strong "non-locality" that is glossed over in the literature.
What has to be said is this is a deficiency in electromagnetic theory. These are regions of underspecified "fields" where null boundaries are encountered... I would say light cone walls. Expressed in other terms this is Special Relativity where we have "length contraction" .... I would say a rotation into an "orthogonal space", the projection into "normal space", a separate projected frame of reference, is interpreted as a "length contraction"... away from all three dimensions of our space. This is the Lorentz Factor.
Have a look at these two simple short Quicktime Movies. You must wait for this to download ... it is not streaming but it is well worth it.
Light Clock Video: Einsteins Universe
Distorted Buildings Video (relativistic rotation)
... please be patient since this will take a while to load.... not streamed... this will explain a lot to those who are unaware of the reality of these things and have accepted the incorrect version of this story. The amount of the rotation is arctan(V/C) and length contraction is the Lorentz Factor and it is equivalent of a projection as noted from the first video.
Imagine if you saw this bike rotate π/2 radians away from all observers this is not a "simple rotation". The projection would then be a line segment of zero length. This would only occur if the bike was made of "light" and it was traveling at the speed of light. Imagine a topology in which this occurs inside a "light cone ball" where this geometry "defines" the space in which it was moving. Seen from the outside the "system" would contract to a "point". Seen from the inside this appears like "everything" contracting to a bright blue shifted spot in the forward direction and red shifted almost infinitely in the aft direction. There are frames of reference in which stuff is just rotating as in the paper I have linked to previously. Now I realize these are not inertial frames of reference so you will need to modify the way things are measured using those equations I have previously linked. For light though this is potentially an inertial frame since the direction of propagation has been "Berry walked" into an orthogonal direction. Internally this is a direction in which light will travel "in a straight line". It is the straightest line in that geometry. Externally beyond the light cone wall, light from within is trapped and can never propagate into to that space... Yet it continues to travel in an unseen "circle" with a Berry Geometric Phase "Twist" as it propagates relative to our apparent inertial frame. The light itself inside that space propagates seeking all paths spanning a volumetric space along a geodesic. The actual inside volume of that space is "unknown" but will depend on some "unknown" specification... A quantum specification. This is a "particle field". Think of it as a short segment of an electromagnetic corkscrew where the "pitch" of the corkscrew is a measure of the wavenumber
a reciprocal wavelength.
...and the diameter of the screw is proportional to the outside diameter of 'a particle" while this "corkscrew" rotates around an axis with a temporal frequency (spins) of ω=2πf. For the screw to advance through a spatial π radians rotation within a torus created by this corkscrew. It is still an electromagnetic wave but confined to the interior of a light cone "bubble". What "tunnels" out of this structure is a reciprocal wave in the evanescent region... a de Broglie Matter Wave. I have discussed this mechanism before on this thread and elsewhere.
Comment welcome and encouraged.
Cheers
Do you mean a torus that is defined by the radius of the corkscrewing "particle"
While I realize that "dielectrics" are one way of understanding electromagnetism, some of the proposals I am offering do not involve "that kind of dielectric". These are indeed ... mediums or even "Aethers" is you like ... material substances that can be polarized... like a chunk of glass. In a vacuum this "polarization" will not be possible since there is nothing to polarize there. We have determined that there is something that appears like polarization... topological charge and topological magnetic fields.
Just so you understand...
Regarding the Aharonov-Bohm Effect this is the "primary" source...
Wikipedia: Electromagnetic four-potential
Clearly in this compact form the electric field whenever it occurs, is a function of its charge divergence (charge sources) and rate of change of the "vector potential", while the magnetic field is proportional to the curl of the "vector potential". Unfortunately these vector potentials are not measurable with our instrumentation but have undeniable reality because they affect spaces beyond where they can conventionally influence. This smacks of the Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory. A "wave" may no longer persist in space or in time but might re-emerge given the "right conditions" whatever that may mean. To me this means "the sub-atomic "Hall of Mirrors" where phenomena can exist as an image which may provide the reality necessary for "re-emergence". This is pure optics and it is hard to prove other than in those experiments at NIST where we have atomic Kondo Phantoms. I think this is such an important phenomena it must certainly "appear" in the optics of Light Cone Walls and interior "reciprocal flatspaces". Here we are lacking experiment but there is no reason to think that these "matter waves" do not exist at even higher frequencies than what we may observe. Since everything is ultimately composed of quanta there are specific states where if information was lost at the high frequency end these states will spontaneously form through "resonance". Take for instance how particles are created from photons releasing matter and anti-matter. These "optics" produce unique events with entirely whole "new" quantum particles. Bits are not missing from their spectra. This is because while the photons that created the particles may not necessarily contain "frozen states" as OAM that "encode" for those created particles and anti-particles, they will initiate new states on creation which reflect properties held commonly by all other particles and anti-particles. So electrons and positrons look remarkably like other electrons and positrons, this is not a "coincidence" it is a resonance for the form due to Lorentz-CPT that all particles of this kind have. Do people understand what I am getting at here? It is like the way in which bubbles in a Coke bottle all look remarkably similar (except for size) even though each are formed in their own discrete events. Clearly quanta are far more alike than bubbles because of the physical laws that limit the size and quantity of discrete quanta in our Universe. I do not think this "artifact" comes from "below" but from our "immediate" environment including Fourier Decomposition of converging wavelets in volumetric space creating bright matter wave solitons. The quanta being a property of "confining space and the way these waves form stationary states there through "resonance"... 2πR = nλ in an "optical" reciprocal environment. The other "constraints" are those as noted due to Berry Phase and "rotation" on the light cone wall. Some features are shown in movies about special relativity linked below.
On another issue, regarding Electromagnetism... The assumption is when there are no sources of charge, and when there is no "propagating fields", then there are no electric fields unless there are produced by the changing vector potential. There is also the assumption when there is no curl in the vector potential then there is no magnetic field.
http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph...ok/node149.html
then
http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph...ok/node150.html
this leads to
= ... the Lorentz Force.
There is obviously "something" wrong with this. There are "places" where there are no measurable charge sources of electric field and yet there are vector potentials. There are "topological charges" in some underspecified regions, not due to "actual physical charges". There can also be "topological magnetic sources" in places where there are no charge current loops such as near electrons or near some of these "optical vortices". Alternatively places where electric field lines can form closed loops without necessarily being caused by enclosing magnetic fiber bundles or free moving charges. There is a strong "non-locality" that is glossed over in the literature.
What has to be said is this is a deficiency in electromagnetic theory. These are regions of underspecified "fields" where null boundaries are encountered... I would say light cone walls. Expressed in other terms this is Special Relativity where we have "length contraction" .... I would say a rotation into an "orthogonal space", the projection into "normal space", a separate projected frame of reference, is interpreted as a "length contraction"... away from all three dimensions of our space. This is the Lorentz Factor.
Have a look at these two simple short Quicktime Movies. You must wait for this to download ... it is not streaming but it is well worth it.
Light Clock Video: Einsteins Universe
Distorted Buildings Video (relativistic rotation)
... please be patient since this will take a while to load.... not streamed... this will explain a lot to those who are unaware of the reality of these things and have accepted the incorrect version of this story. The amount of the rotation is arctan(V/C) and length contraction is the Lorentz Factor and it is equivalent of a projection as noted from the first video.
Imagine if you saw this bike rotate π/2 radians away from all observers this is not a "simple rotation". The projection would then be a line segment of zero length. This would only occur if the bike was made of "light" and it was traveling at the speed of light. Imagine a topology in which this occurs inside a "light cone ball" where this geometry "defines" the space in which it was moving. Seen from the outside the "system" would contract to a "point". Seen from the inside this appears like "everything" contracting to a bright blue shifted spot in the forward direction and red shifted almost infinitely in the aft direction. There are frames of reference in which stuff is just rotating as in the paper I have linked to previously. Now I realize these are not inertial frames of reference so you will need to modify the way things are measured using those equations I have previously linked. For light though this is potentially an inertial frame since the direction of propagation has been "Berry walked" into an orthogonal direction. Internally this is a direction in which light will travel "in a straight line". It is the straightest line in that geometry. Externally beyond the light cone wall, light from within is trapped and can never propagate into to that space... Yet it continues to travel in an unseen "circle" with a Berry Geometric Phase "Twist" as it propagates relative to our apparent inertial frame. The light itself inside that space propagates seeking all paths spanning a volumetric space along a geodesic. The actual inside volume of that space is "unknown" but will depend on some "unknown" specification... A quantum specification. This is a "particle field". Think of it as a short segment of an electromagnetic corkscrew where the "pitch" of the corkscrew is a measure of the wavenumber
a reciprocal wavelength....and the diameter of the screw is proportional to the outside diameter of 'a particle" while this "corkscrew" rotates around an axis with a temporal frequency (spins) of ω=2πf. For the screw to advance through a spatial π radians rotation within a torus created by this corkscrew. It is still an electromagnetic wave but confined to the interior of a light cone "bubble". What "tunnels" out of this structure is a reciprocal wave in the evanescent region... a de Broglie Matter Wave. I have discussed this mechanism before on this thread and elsewhere.
Comment welcome and encouraged.
Cheers
Do you mean a torus that is defined by the radius of the corkscrewing "particle"
Hi GE and All,
Getting back to the A-B experiment and my belief that the superconducting solenoid
was changing the immediate space around it via a change in electrical potential
across the conductor, and the capacitance which couples to the space around the superconductor. I still think that this induces changes into the passing electron's
radiating EM fields.
Following is from Wikipedia re self capacitance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitance
Comments welcomed.
LL
Getting back to the A-B experiment and my belief that the superconducting solenoid
was changing the immediate space around it via a change in electrical potential
across the conductor, and the capacitance which couples to the space around the superconductor. I still think that this induces changes into the passing electron's
radiating EM fields.
Following is from Wikipedia re self capacitance.
QUOTE
Self-capacitance
In electrical circuits, the term capacitance is usually a shorthand for the mutual capacitance between two adjacent conductors, such as the two plates of a capacitor. There also exists a property called self-capacitance, which is the amount of electrical charge that must be added to an isolated conductor to raise its electrical potential by one volt. The reference point for this potential is a theoretical hollow conducting sphere, of infinite radius, centred on the conductor. Using this method, the self-capacitance of a conducting sphere of radius R is given by:
In electrical circuits, the term capacitance is usually a shorthand for the mutual capacitance between two adjacent conductors, such as the two plates of a capacitor. There also exists a property called self-capacitance, which is the amount of electrical charge that must be added to an isolated conductor to raise its electrical potential by one volt. The reference point for this potential is a theoretical hollow conducting sphere, of infinite radius, centred on the conductor. Using this method, the self-capacitance of a conducting sphere of radius R is given by:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitance
Comments welcomed.
LL
Hi Neil,
It is good to hear that you have been fortunate enough to rub shoulders with a Nobel Laureate. I can't claim that kind of an experience... I would like to, but that is the way it is. I would say that they are the ones who have done the hard yards and have come through. We "elves" are only an annoyance and I for one am only interested in finding out a little of the "whole story" before I depart for the Undying Lands of Valinor in Aman, the Blessed Realm by the Straight Road.. He he he ! I am afraid I can't wait like the rest of you for the next generation of "happy accidents" to reveal the truth. If ever "The Truth" was needed it is now.
I think it is out there but it is not going to come to us by "whistling".
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?:J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
This is not the only reference to this structure. Here is another reference to this structure.
The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
It is good to hear that you have been fortunate enough to rub shoulders with a Nobel Laureate. I can't claim that kind of an experience... I would like to, but that is the way it is. I would say that they are the ones who have done the hard yards and have come through. We "elves" are only an annoyance and I for one am only interested in finding out a little of the "whole story" before I depart for the Undying Lands of Valinor in Aman, the Blessed Realm by the Straight Road.. He he he ! I am afraid I can't wait like the rest of you for the next generation of "happy accidents" to reveal the truth. If ever "The Truth" was needed it is now.
I think it is out there but it is not going to come to us by "whistling".QUOTE
Do you mean a torus that is defined by the radius of the corkscrewing "particle"
Well sort of... I use this reference a lot...Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?:J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
This is not the only reference to this structure. Here is another reference to this structure.
The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you mean a torus that is defined by the radius of the corkscrewing "particle" |
Well sort of... I use this reference a lot...
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?:J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
This is not the only reference to this structure. Here is another reference to this structure.
The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
In his paper "The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
Department of Physics, Gothenburg University, SE-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden, and LightLab Sweden AB, Smedjegatan 6, SE-131 34 Nacka, Sweden
THE POSTULATE
The topological structure of the electron is a closed two-turn helix (a so-called Hubius Helix) that is generated by circulatory motion of a mass-less particle at the speed of light.
and be depicted graphically in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 Graphical representation of the Hubius Helix created from the parameterized
equations (1) using Matlab.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0512265 Comments: Accepted for publication in Physics Essays, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2004. www.physicsessays.com Subj-class: General Physics
I would also add these illustrations from Williamson and Van Der Mark's Paper...
This shows a strip model of the electron as a plane wave with a half twist along the direction of propagation. This half twist enable this expanding wavefront to be topologically wrapped such that the negative excursions of the wave are always on the outside if this relationship is obeyed while the positive excursions are on the "inside". This means that the electron appears as a negatively charged particle at all times even though it is composed of an oscillating wave which has no specific polarity. This is a topological charge. The "flow" inside this "Light cone Bubble" looks like this...
... click on all images to enlarge
You can see this Helix inside the center of this diagram. Now I realize that an electromagnetic wave is not just a two dimensional strip as you see in the strip model. You must be able to see the "big picture" of this wave propagating along the straightest line possible inside the bubble geometry and internally expanding on the surface of a sphere inscribed inside that geometry. The geometry is that of the torus but of course this is undergoing Relativistic Rotation on that surface from Berry Phase. This process actually creates extra spatial dimensions (according to my theory). It needs those extra dimensions in order that the particle remains inertial. To confine this to our limited three spatial and one temporal dimension creates a non-stationary situation. That would be similar to Milo Wolff's concept (that is a three dimensional view of this "particle"). The additional six dimensions allow for the additional planes in which this object can "spin" without loss of the inertial state.
This concept goes far in creating a basis for a particle menagerie made from photons with twists and boosts such as in this String Theory chart from Zweiback's Book A First Course in String Theory..
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
... click to enlarge... this is how a Universe might be created from photons alone. String Theory is built on a different topology and this can cause a little confusion but take my word that the differences at this level are minor.
So the photon is moving inside the dimensional space along a torus path with a half twist each time around the loop. As a photon it can do this at the speed of light and remain trapped. In Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscopy Theory this "electron" is executing a path like a corkscrew in phase that links to itself in that simple way of rotation. The internal photon would cause this corkscrew to rotate around the internal axis of the toroid (electron spin) and there would be another rotation that the corkscrew has around the center of the corkscrew. This would be Orbital Angular Momentum (OAM). As this "corkscrew" rotates along the direction of motion with a angular frequency of ω=2πf. Take a corkscrew and allow light to fall on it and to cast a shadow on a card you will have a sine wave like this...
... around the axis. The distance between successive crests or troughs is inversely proportional to the wavenumber and the corkscrew is joined back on itself after only pi radians forming a torus. The corkscrew is made to rotate with an angular frequency of ω=2πf as it moves in any direction. A projection of this form into the outer external space would show a concept of a "wave packet". A "large" wavenumber will have a short distance between crests and a low wavenumber will have a large distance between crests. Internally the electron is a photon propagating around its space with a 1/2 flip each time it does this trick. Other particles would be created with different "corkscrews" inside different spaces with a different twist ratio resulting in a number other than unity but result in 1/3 or 2/3 etc for different types of particles such as quarks. It is still electromagnetism but inside a different geometry with a different "wrapping" dimensionally. From this "wrapping" mass is emerging as an external parameter.
This is exactly the same "global phenomenon" that we are discovering with the geometry of our Universe and its enclosing dimensional walls as seen in WMAP.
It may be more complicated than what I have explained but there is a simple principle underneath this... a Holographic Universe. See this reference for some details...
A Cosmic Hall of Mirrors" PhysicsWeb September 2005
The main differences are that the real universe may contain a large number of hyper-torii connected like in an asteroids video game, the differences being the "twist" is a little different. You can see the WMAP data best fits a closed Universe (a anti-de Sitter space)
In this region (bottom), data from WMAP do not agree with theoretical predictions for an infinite Euclidean space (red curve), whereas predictions based on a Poincaré dodecahedral space (blue curve) do agree. This suggests that we live in a multiply connected spherical space.WMAP Datas plotted... So you can see the topology of our Universe may be different from the overall spherical geometry. There may be other complications such as Rindler Foliations but this just adds to the complex picture. I never said that I understand everything and I doubt that for the next million or two years we will be ever able to make a claim that we are even getting close. IMHO I think we are on the cusp of a new era in understanding and I just hope we all see some of it happen.
For some TEM background information I would look here.
TEM Theory without too much mathematics
This guy knows what he is talking about when referring to electrons, this is a complex wave. There you can read about a piece of this jigsaw and can build on it as needed. Even with this easy introduction it can be a little daunting for some because it is not what we have been taught in school or University, for many it is all new ideas. Here is where phase is absolutely critical and this is where the theory is most developed. There is one step further when you move from this fermion world of electrons into the world of photons where the twist is an inter 2π and we would then be dealing with the universe of bosons. In any case it is merely a choice of reference frame and internal one or an external one. Photons do not appear to exhibit this twist in our space but they will if you follow the wave far enough inside the "hyper-surface" of the Universe. We have "electromagnetism" which deals with this aspect poorly. On the scale of an atomic particle it is a far more serious effect occurring over distance scales so short we can hardly measure them and we end up with the de Broglie Matter Waves... this is the low velocity end of Special Relativity as I have been saying.
... and the de Broglie Frequency
Taken from...
Wikipedia: de Broglie hypothesis
Cheers
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?:J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
This is not the only reference to this structure. Here is another reference to this structure.
The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
In his paper "The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
Department of Physics, Gothenburg University, SE-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden, and LightLab Sweden AB, Smedjegatan 6, SE-131 34 Nacka, Sweden
THE POSTULATE
The topological structure of the electron is a closed two-turn helix (a so-called Hubius Helix) that is generated by circulatory motion of a mass-less particle at the speed of light.
and be depicted graphically in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 Graphical representation of the Hubius Helix created from the parameterized
equations (1) using Matlab.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0512265 Comments: Accepted for publication in Physics Essays, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2004. www.physicsessays.com Subj-class: General Physics
I would also add these illustrations from Williamson and Van Der Mark's Paper...
This shows a strip model of the electron as a plane wave with a half twist along the direction of propagation. This half twist enable this expanding wavefront to be topologically wrapped such that the negative excursions of the wave are always on the outside if this relationship is obeyed while the positive excursions are on the "inside". This means that the electron appears as a negatively charged particle at all times even though it is composed of an oscillating wave which has no specific polarity. This is a topological charge. The "flow" inside this "Light cone Bubble" looks like this...
... click on all images to enlarge
You can see this Helix inside the center of this diagram. Now I realize that an electromagnetic wave is not just a two dimensional strip as you see in the strip model. You must be able to see the "big picture" of this wave propagating along the straightest line possible inside the bubble geometry and internally expanding on the surface of a sphere inscribed inside that geometry. The geometry is that of the torus but of course this is undergoing Relativistic Rotation on that surface from Berry Phase. This process actually creates extra spatial dimensions (according to my theory). It needs those extra dimensions in order that the particle remains inertial. To confine this to our limited three spatial and one temporal dimension creates a non-stationary situation. That would be similar to Milo Wolff's concept (that is a three dimensional view of this "particle"). The additional six dimensions allow for the additional planes in which this object can "spin" without loss of the inertial state.
This concept goes far in creating a basis for a particle menagerie made from photons with twists and boosts such as in this String Theory chart from Zweiback's Book A First Course in String Theory..
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
... click to enlarge... this is how a Universe might be created from photons alone. String Theory is built on a different topology and this can cause a little confusion but take my word that the differences at this level are minor.
So the photon is moving inside the dimensional space along a torus path with a half twist each time around the loop. As a photon it can do this at the speed of light and remain trapped. In Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscopy Theory this "electron" is executing a path like a corkscrew in phase that links to itself in that simple way of rotation. The internal photon would cause this corkscrew to rotate around the internal axis of the toroid (electron spin) and there would be another rotation that the corkscrew has around the center of the corkscrew. This would be Orbital Angular Momentum (OAM). As this "corkscrew" rotates along the direction of motion with a angular frequency of ω=2πf. Take a corkscrew and allow light to fall on it and to cast a shadow on a card you will have a sine wave like this...
... around the axis. The distance between successive crests or troughs is inversely proportional to the wavenumber and the corkscrew is joined back on itself after only pi radians forming a torus. The corkscrew is made to rotate with an angular frequency of ω=2πf as it moves in any direction. A projection of this form into the outer external space would show a concept of a "wave packet". A "large" wavenumber will have a short distance between crests and a low wavenumber will have a large distance between crests. Internally the electron is a photon propagating around its space with a 1/2 flip each time it does this trick. Other particles would be created with different "corkscrews" inside different spaces with a different twist ratio resulting in a number other than unity but result in 1/3 or 2/3 etc for different types of particles such as quarks. It is still electromagnetism but inside a different geometry with a different "wrapping" dimensionally. From this "wrapping" mass is emerging as an external parameter.
This is exactly the same "global phenomenon" that we are discovering with the geometry of our Universe and its enclosing dimensional walls as seen in WMAP.
It may be more complicated than what I have explained but there is a simple principle underneath this... a Holographic Universe. See this reference for some details...
A Cosmic Hall of Mirrors" PhysicsWeb September 2005
The main differences are that the real universe may contain a large number of hyper-torii connected like in an asteroids video game, the differences being the "twist" is a little different. You can see the WMAP data best fits a closed Universe (a anti-de Sitter space)
QUOTE
In this region (bottom), data from WMAP do not agree with theoretical predictions for an infinite Euclidean space (red curve), whereas predictions based on a Poincaré dodecahedral space (blue curve) do agree. This suggests that we live in a multiply connected spherical space.
For some TEM background information I would look here.
TEM Theory without too much mathematics
This guy knows what he is talking about when referring to electrons, this is a complex wave. There you can read about a piece of this jigsaw and can build on it as needed. Even with this easy introduction it can be a little daunting for some because it is not what we have been taught in school or University, for many it is all new ideas. Here is where phase is absolutely critical and this is where the theory is most developed. There is one step further when you move from this fermion world of electrons into the world of photons where the twist is an inter 2π and we would then be dealing with the universe of bosons. In any case it is merely a choice of reference frame and internal one or an external one. Photons do not appear to exhibit this twist in our space but they will if you follow the wave far enough inside the "hyper-surface" of the Universe. We have "electromagnetism" which deals with this aspect poorly. On the scale of an atomic particle it is a far more serious effect occurring over distance scales so short we can hardly measure them and we end up with the de Broglie Matter Waves... this is the low velocity end of Special Relativity as I have been saying.
... and the de Broglie Frequency
Taken from...
Wikipedia: de Broglie hypothesis
Cheers
Just a quickie.. in one of the GE links ..an excellent picture of diffraction http://www.rodenburg.org/theory/y300.html .
Edit .. sorry, not so quickie.. from http://www.kw.igs.net/~jackord/df/d1.html
Fraunhofer Diffraction
A Fraunhofer diffraction pattern is produced when light passes through a small aperture and falls on a distant screen. The pattern is characterized by a bright central maximum much larger than the geometrical image of the aperture. The central maximum is not an image of the aperture. One can demonstrate Fraunhofer diffraction effects easily using a helium-neon laser in conjunction with a fine pinhole, a narrow slit (or pair of slits), a plastic grating, and a fine screen (of the type used to support specimens in an electron microscope).
One can explain the observed patterns using Huygens' Principle: each point on a wavefront may be regarded as a source of wavelets spreading out in all directions. Diffraction effects arise from the interference between wavelets originating from a wavefront that is restricted by an aperture or blocked by an obstruction. The numerical treatment proceeds durectly. At each point on the viewing screen, one sums the amplitudes of wavelets from an array of points distributed uniformly across the aperture. Phase differences between wavelets have the strongest influence on the the diffraction pattern, but amplitude differences have some effect (particularly for a straightedge). In order for Huygens' wavelets not to generate a reflected wave, the amplitude includes an obliquity factor (1+cos(q))/2, where q is the angle between the normal to the wavelet and the normal to the incident wave. The amplitude also includes a factor for decrease in intensity with distance (inverse square for spherical waves, inverse first power for cylindrical waves).
Edit .. sorry, not so quickie.. from http://www.kw.igs.net/~jackord/df/d1.html
Fraunhofer Diffraction
A Fraunhofer diffraction pattern is produced when light passes through a small aperture and falls on a distant screen. The pattern is characterized by a bright central maximum much larger than the geometrical image of the aperture. The central maximum is not an image of the aperture. One can demonstrate Fraunhofer diffraction effects easily using a helium-neon laser in conjunction with a fine pinhole, a narrow slit (or pair of slits), a plastic grating, and a fine screen (of the type used to support specimens in an electron microscope).
One can explain the observed patterns using Huygens' Principle: each point on a wavefront may be regarded as a source of wavelets spreading out in all directions. Diffraction effects arise from the interference between wavelets originating from a wavefront that is restricted by an aperture or blocked by an obstruction. The numerical treatment proceeds durectly. At each point on the viewing screen, one sums the amplitudes of wavelets from an array of points distributed uniformly across the aperture. Phase differences between wavelets have the strongest influence on the the diffraction pattern, but amplitude differences have some effect (particularly for a straightedge). In order for Huygens' wavelets not to generate a reflected wave, the amplitude includes an obliquity factor (1+cos(q))/2, where q is the angle between the normal to the wavelet and the normal to the incident wave. The amplitude also includes a factor for decrease in intensity with distance (inverse square for spherical waves, inverse first power for cylindrical waves).
Hi Confused2,
You should comment on your references C2, I am forced to guess.
You should comment on your references C2, I am forced to guess.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Just a quickie.. in one of the GE links ..an excellent picture of diffraction http://www.rodenburg.org/theory/y300.html .
It is a compelling idea but it is not entirely correct. Diffraction at a slit or aperture is not simple spreading like a water wave as shown. What can be seen there is a liquid spreading, not light which are made up of bosons. What could be inferred is that the slits material pays little influence on the effect. In a water wave you would note the velocity of a water wave depends on the direction of propagation to some degree while light does not have that property. John Rodenberg is a genius but you can dumb things down a little too much for comfort sometimes. His treatment is strictly for fermions like electrons (that can travel at any velocity) and is not paralleled strictly with photons. I only found this site a couple of days ago and it is full of interesting ideas. I highly recommend it. Some of these ideas are elsewhere and many of them have been creeping up on me for decades based on Fourier Theory that is pretty well understood. This is one of the best sites for some clear thinking. Unfortunately it is all about TEM and not Quantum Mechanics specifically.
The Fraunhofer Reference is a good one but it relies on 17th Century Physics and not necessarily on modern wavelet theory. IMHO what you need to concentrate on is the modern theory and remember the construction of wavelets is only that and it does not explain them. For instance that angular factor is useful but hard to show why it works for light. The other point is still the fact that the "ripples" with light are "non-progressive" and represent standing waves even when only one photon is being emitted. We should realize that the "image" we see on a screen from diffraction through a small pinhole is very much like what you already know about the pattern on the screen represent the original sources.
See Montec's discovery of CC Jones' site... http://www.union.edu/PUBLIC/PHYDEPT/jonesc...ific_photos.htm
Specifically... P 1-3. Pinhole camera pictures. From a very small (too small) pinhole (long exposure required, maybe six hours!), to optimal pinhole size, to a large (too large) pinhole.
Above is the "diffraction pattern" as seen by a large number of distributed non-coherent sources. Slits are not as pretty as pinholes and also not as instructive.
As above I use these images to direct people to CC Jones' site where he has many examples of wonderful technical images.
Cheers
The Fraunhofer Reference is a good one but it relies on 17th Century Physics and not necessarily on modern wavelet theory. IMHO what you need to concentrate on is the modern theory and remember the construction of wavelets is only that and it does not explain them. For instance that angular factor is useful but hard to show why it works for light. The other point is still the fact that the "ripples" with light are "non-progressive" and represent standing waves even when only one photon is being emitted. We should realize that the "image" we see on a screen from diffraction through a small pinhole is very much like what you already know about the pattern on the screen represent the original sources.
See Montec's discovery of CC Jones' site... http://www.union.edu/PUBLIC/PHYDEPT/jonesc...ific_photos.htm
Specifically... P 1-3. Pinhole camera pictures. From a very small (too small) pinhole (long exposure required, maybe six hours!), to optimal pinhole size, to a large (too large) pinhole.
Above is the "diffraction pattern" as seen by a large number of distributed non-coherent sources. Slits are not as pretty as pinholes and also not as instructive.
As above I use these images to direct people to CC Jones' site where he has many examples of wonderful technical images.
Cheers
GE,
Your response to Neil was one of your best posts. Kudos! I feel that we
finally "connected" on this post. You actually accurately described a mental
model that I had broached quite a while ago.
I prefer your "corkscrew" OAM description over my poorly phrased previous model
where I described a helical spiral macaroni model to describe the "volumetric"
attributes and phase relationships exhibited by a propagating waveform.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=Pos...t=6587&p=143838
If you consider the implications of this helical EM field model, it helps to account
for why 2 separate photons can never interfere in open space. Their rotational
OAM phases can virtually never synchronize as they "spiral", even though their
relative phase amplitudes may randomly align. The energy of two separate
photon wavelets can only intefere across a localized atomic structure when
electrons are displaced from their normal dipolar orbits by the combined energy
of the "received" wavelets.
Regards,
LL
Your response to Neil was one of your best posts. Kudos! I feel that we
finally "connected" on this post. You actually accurately described a mental
model that I had broached quite a while ago.
I prefer your "corkscrew" OAM description over my poorly phrased previous model
where I described a helical spiral macaroni model to describe the "volumetric"
attributes and phase relationships exhibited by a propagating waveform.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=Pos...t=6587&p=143838
If you consider the implications of this helical EM field model, it helps to account
for why 2 separate photons can never interfere in open space. Their rotational
OAM phases can virtually never synchronize as they "spiral", even though their
relative phase amplitudes may randomly align. The energy of two separate
photon wavelets can only intefere across a localized atomic structure when
electrons are displaced from their normal dipolar orbits by the combined energy
of the "received" wavelets.
Regards,
LL
Hi all,
A few more sources for GE, and anyone else interested.
Cambridge University Press has a pro bono look at their book "Optical Polarization of Molecules" http://assets.cambridge.org/97805216/73440...440_excerpt.pdf
Just a snack, but here is a "meal's worth":
Resonant nonlinear magneto-optical effects in atoms
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0203/0203077.pdf
For the really hungry, the "well stocked commercial kitchen":
ATOMIC AND NUCLEAR INTERFERENCE AND COHERENCE
PHENOMENA AND THEIR APPLICATIONS
A Dissertation by YELENA ANATOLYEVNA KUZNETSOVA
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
May 2005 Major Subject: Physics
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0203/0203077.pdf
For the really hungry, the "well stocked commercial kitchen":
ATOMIC AND NUCLEAR INTERFERENCE AND COHERENCE
PHENOMENA AND THEIR APPLICATIONS
A Dissertation by YELENA ANATOLYEVNA KUZNETSOVA
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
May 2005 Major Subject: Physics
In this work, interference and coherence phenomena, appearing in atomic and molecular ensembles interacting with coherent light sources, as electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT), coherent population trapping (CPT), and slow group velocity of light are investigated. The goal of the project is to make the steps towards various applications of these phenomena, first, by studying them in solid media (which are the most advantageous for applications), second, by suggesting some novel applications such as CPT-based plasma diagnostics, and realization of new types of solid-state lasers (based on suppression of excited-state absorption via EIT). The third goal of the project is extension of coherence and interference effects well-known in optics to the gamma-ray range of frequencies and, correspondingly, from atomic to nuclear transitions. A particular technique of chirped pulse compression applied to M¨ossbauer transitions is considered and the possibility of compression of M¨ossbauer radiation into ultrashort gamma-ray pulses is analyzed. The theoretical treatment of the interference and coherence effects is based on the semiclassical description of atom-light interaction, which is sufficient for correct analysis of the phenomena considered here. Coherent media are considered in two-, three-, and four-level approximations while their interaction with light is studied both analytically and numerically using the Maxwell-Bloch set of equations.
A few more sources for GE, and anyone else interested.
Cambridge University Press has a pro bono look at their book "Optical Polarization of Molecules" http://assets.cambridge.org/97805216/73440...440_excerpt.pdf
Just a snack, but here is a "meal's worth":
Resonant nonlinear magneto-optical effects in atoms
QUOTE
In this article, we review the history, current status, physical mechanisms, experimental methods, and applications of nonlinear magneto-optical effects in atomic vapors. We begin by describing the pioneering work of Macaluso and Corbino over a century ago on linear magneto-optical effects (in which the properties of the medium do not depend on the light power) in the vicinity of
atomic resonances, and contrast these effects with various nonlinear magneto-optical phenomena that have been studied both theoretically and experimentally since the late 1960s. In recent years, the field of nonlinear magneto-optics has experienced a revival of interest that has led to a number of developments, including the observation of ultra-narrow (1-Hz) magneto-optical resonances, applications in sensitive magnetometry, nonlinear magneto-optical tomography, and the possibility of a search for parity- and time-reversal-invariance violation in atoms.
atomic resonances, and contrast these effects with various nonlinear magneto-optical phenomena that have been studied both theoretically and experimentally since the late 1960s. In recent years, the field of nonlinear magneto-optics has experienced a revival of interest that has led to a number of developments, including the observation of ultra-narrow (1-Hz) magneto-optical resonances, applications in sensitive magnetometry, nonlinear magneto-optical tomography, and the possibility of a search for parity- and time-reversal-invariance violation in atoms.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0203/0203077.pdf
For the really hungry, the "well stocked commercial kitchen":
ATOMIC AND NUCLEAR INTERFERENCE AND COHERENCE
PHENOMENA AND THEIR APPLICATIONS
A Dissertation by YELENA ANATOLYEVNA KUZNETSOVA
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
May 2005 Major Subject: Physics
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In this article, we review the history, current status, physical mechanisms, experimental methods, and applications of nonlinear magneto-optical effects in atomic vapors. We begin by describing the pioneering work of Macaluso and Corbino over a century ago on linear magneto-optical effects (in which the properties of the medium do not depend on the light power) in the vicinity of atomic resonances, and contrast these effects with various nonlinear magneto-optical phenomena that have been studied both theoretically and experimentally since the late 1960s. In recent years, the field of nonlinear magneto-optics has experienced a revival of interest that has led to a number of developments, including the observation of ultra-narrow (1-Hz) magneto-optical resonances, applications in sensitive magnetometry, nonlinear magneto-optical tomography, and the possibility of a search for parity- and time-reversal-invariance violation in atoms. |
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0203/0203077.pdf
For the really hungry, the "well stocked commercial kitchen":
ATOMIC AND NUCLEAR INTERFERENCE AND COHERENCE
PHENOMENA AND THEIR APPLICATIONS
A Dissertation by YELENA ANATOLYEVNA KUZNETSOVA
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
May 2005 Major Subject: Physics
In this work, interference and coherence phenomena, appearing in atomic and molecular ensembles interacting with coherent light sources, as electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT), coherent population trapping (CPT), and slow group velocity of light are investigated. The goal of the project is to make the steps towards various applications of these phenomena, first, by studying them in solid media (which are the most advantageous for applications), second, by suggesting some novel applications such as CPT-based plasma diagnostics, and realization of new types of solid-state lasers (based on suppression of excited-state absorption via EIT). The third goal of the project is extension of coherence and interference effects well-known in optics to the gamma-ray range of frequencies and, correspondingly, from atomic to nuclear transitions. A particular technique of chirped pulse compression applied to M¨ossbauer transitions is considered and the possibility of compression of M¨ossbauer radiation into ultrashort gamma-ray pulses is analyzed. The theoretical treatment of the interference and coherence effects is based on the semiclassical description of atom-light interaction, which is sufficient for correct analysis of the phenomena considered here. Coherent media are considered in two-, three-, and four-level approximations while their interaction with light is studied both analytically and numerically using the Maxwell-Bloch set of equations.
.... you know about my suggestion of photons as wavicle 'riders' on an electrons transdimensional wavestate frontal boundary ..... well their helical propagation might exist only as an effect of the parental orbit 'viewed' as it transits through hyperspace? ... a prediction: photon emission of 'free' electrons will not show this rotation.
..... the doughnut has spoken
..... the doughnut has spoken
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
You should comment on your references
My point is that simple geometric constructions based on wave spreading would seem to give the right answers. I agree it is difficult to understand how a single boson can behave like an infinite series of waves in water but this doesn't mean we can simply discard an obvious experimental result on the grounds of not liking it.
If we looked carefully at Feynman's 'seeking all paths' method I think we'd see it is assumed that the 'wave' on a short path is still present and can interfere with a wave travelling (or reflected) from a much longer path.. both the DSE, Michelson-Morley and Kennedy-Thorndike interferometers would seem (to me) to be manifestations of this phenomenon.
I have previously mentioned the possibility of a photon being a 'lengthways' portion of an EM wave .. as such it would simulate (be) a continuous wave of a single frequency that propagates (exists) in Feynman's 'seeking all paths' mode until it is detected.
Please try to forget any preconceptions about wavelets.. the DSE and all the other interferometers (Michelson-Morley Kennedy-Thorndike, diffraction gratings etc) are frequency/wavelength selective .. as far as I know none are able to resolve anything other than a single frequency from monochromatic light.
What might be the difference be between 'our' photons (DSE,M-M, K-T) and photons deliberately generated as 'impulses'? Clearly the DSE, M-M and K-T are selecting 'same events' and dividing the path of that 'same event' hence this type of interferometry would (probably) work regardless of the nature of the source (dispute invited).
To produce a pulse (or impulse) we need a source with at least two states (eg on and off) and some way to switch between them .. this is a new and different game to that which we are (normally) looking at in the DSE (dispute invited).
Best wishes,
-C2.
My point is that simple geometric constructions based on wave spreading would seem to give the right answers. I agree it is difficult to understand how a single boson can behave like an infinite series of waves in water but this doesn't mean we can simply discard an obvious experimental result on the grounds of not liking it.
If we looked carefully at Feynman's 'seeking all paths' method I think we'd see it is assumed that the 'wave' on a short path is still present and can interfere with a wave travelling (or reflected) from a much longer path.. both the DSE, Michelson-Morley and Kennedy-Thorndike interferometers would seem (to me) to be manifestations of this phenomenon.
I have previously mentioned the possibility of a photon being a 'lengthways' portion of an EM wave .. as such it would simulate (be) a continuous wave of a single frequency that propagates (exists) in Feynman's 'seeking all paths' mode until it is detected.
Please try to forget any preconceptions about wavelets.. the DSE and all the other interferometers (Michelson-Morley Kennedy-Thorndike, diffraction gratings etc) are frequency/wavelength selective .. as far as I know none are able to resolve anything other than a single frequency from monochromatic light.
What might be the difference be between 'our' photons (DSE,M-M, K-T) and photons deliberately generated as 'impulses'? Clearly the DSE, M-M and K-T are selecting 'same events' and dividing the path of that 'same event' hence this type of interferometry would (probably) work regardless of the nature of the source (dispute invited).
To produce a pulse (or impulse) we need a source with at least two states (eg on and off) and some way to switch between them .. this is a new and different game to that which we are (normally) looking at in the DSE (dispute invited).
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Laserlight, Confused2, TRoc, fivedoughnut, yquantum, Neil Farbstein and several others out there I am quite sure,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
GE,
Your response to Neil was one of your best posts. Kudos! I feel that we
finally "connected" on this post. You actually accurately described a mental
model that I had broached quite a while ago.
Your response to Neil was one of your best posts. Kudos! I feel that we
finally "connected" on this post. You actually accurately described a mental
model that I had broached quite a while ago.
Great... I was hoping people would catch on. After saying that I wanted to be relevant this is a great help. The corkscrew analogy, though three dimensional is still lacking in its real Complex nature. The waves are "mapped" into an interior space as a "particle" and this is not the same as simply a screw being screwed into wood the rate of rotation of the screw ω=2πf is the angular frequency and the "pitch" of the screw is a measure of the wavenumber. Large wavenumbers for a very small "pitch". Though in this case it is moving around a center of a "Berry doughnut" which is externally a volumetric spherical space (a "particle shell"). The axial spatial twist of π/2 radians for once around the corkscrew is associated with π radians change in in the angular frequency.
The Hubius Helix goes around twice before it connects back onto itself for an electron. Therefore we have to go twice around the helix for a single wavenumber and at the same time a Bohr Phase of some 2Nπ, where N is the principal quantum number of some state which is integer, negative or zero (I have written n a N since pi is very simple in this font and hard to distinguish). I might be wrong here about the factor of 2 since in a "reciprocal space" this is a dual winding ratio of 1/2 or other 1/2 integer ratio such as plus or minus 1/2, 3/2, 5/2 etc. These solutions are still solutions of the Schrodinger Wave Equation and all exist at the same time through the principle of superposition. The interesting point is this Schrodinger Equation is a solution for electromagnetic waves and not just the "wavefunction". As you may suspect this reciprocal dual leads to swapping of space with reciprocal space and time with frequency (reciprocal time).
Taken from Shen's Paper...
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory: Jian Qi Shen
We have these equations....
is conventional Schrodinger's Equation and ...
is the standard electromagnetic equivalent. For this to be useful a modification needs to be made to Electromagnetic Theory and to Schrodinger's Equation to allow these stationary states, not allowed for to this point in time. Nobel prize going in the offering here.
I lack the dexterity to derive this relationship but I am sure that it exists. These are the equivalent to Singular Optics solutions mentioned by Dr Taco Visser for confined soliton states. They must involve Complex State relationships.
The Hubius Helix goes around twice before it connects back onto itself for an electron. Therefore we have to go twice around the helix for a single wavenumber and at the same time a Bohr Phase of some 2Nπ, where N is the principal quantum number of some state which is integer, negative or zero (I have written n a N since pi is very simple in this font and hard to distinguish). I might be wrong here about the factor of 2 since in a "reciprocal space" this is a dual winding ratio of 1/2 or other 1/2 integer ratio such as plus or minus 1/2, 3/2, 5/2 etc. These solutions are still solutions of the Schrodinger Wave Equation and all exist at the same time through the principle of superposition. The interesting point is this Schrodinger Equation is a solution for electromagnetic waves and not just the "wavefunction". As you may suspect this reciprocal dual leads to swapping of space with reciprocal space and time with frequency (reciprocal time).
Taken from Shen's Paper...
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory: Jian Qi Shen
We have these equations....
is conventional Schrodinger's Equation and ...
is the standard electromagnetic equivalent. For this to be useful a modification needs to be made to Electromagnetic Theory and to Schrodinger's Equation to allow these stationary states, not allowed for to this point in time. Nobel prize going in the offering here.
I lack the dexterity to derive this relationship but I am sure that it exists. These are the equivalent to Singular Optics solutions mentioned by Dr Taco Visser for confined soliton states. They must involve Complex State relationships.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
If you consider the implications of this helical EM field model, it helps to account
for why 2 separate photons can never interfere in open space. Their rotational
OAM phases can virtually never synchronize as they "spiral", even though their
relative phase amplitudes may randomly align. The energy of two separate
photon wavelets can only interfere across a localized atomic structure when
electrons are displaced from their normal dipolar orbits by the combined energy
of the "received" wavelets.
for why 2 separate photons can never interfere in open space. Their rotational
OAM phases can virtually never synchronize as they "spiral", even though their
relative phase amplitudes may randomly align. The energy of two separate
photon wavelets can only interfere across a localized atomic structure when
electrons are displaced from their normal dipolar orbits by the combined energy
of the "received" wavelets.
Well... sort of... remember we are speaking of three dimensional space filling waves that decrease with distance from the source. Atoms are a long way "up" the scale from individual sub-atomic particles or even electrons. But you are right about interference with other fermions. They are unable to approach for two good reasons... the one you mentioned and the fact there are light cone walls preventing ultimate merging with the wrong twist. Bosons with an even twist are different. I guess you have all seen this PhysOrg article?...
Fermions do not travel together, theory proved
We have known about the other fact for a long time... that bosons can all occupy the one state.
I need to break off just now and sleep... I will get back to TRoc and Confused2 at a later time. I have not forgotten...
Cheers
Fermions do not travel together, theory proved
We have known about the other fact for a long time... that bosons can all occupy the one state.
I need to break off just now and sleep... I will get back to TRoc and Confused2 at a later time. I have not forgotten...
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Mar 11 2007, 07:50 AM)
Hi Neil,
It is good to hear that you have been fortunate enough to rub shoulders with a Nobel Laureate. I can't claim that kind of an experience... I would like to, but that is the way it is. I would say that they are the ones who have done the hard yards and have come through. We "elves" are only an annoyance and I for one am only interested in finding out a little of the "whole story" before I depart for the Undying Lands of Valinor in Aman, the Blessed Realm by the Straight Road.. He he he ! I am afraid I can't wait like the rest of you for the next generation of "happy accidents" to reveal the truth. If ever "The Truth" was needed it is now. I think it is out there but it is not going to come to us by "whistling".Well sort of... I use this reference a lot...
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?:J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
This is not the only reference to this structure. Here is another reference to this structure.
The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
I would also add these illustrations from Williamson and Van Der Mark's Paper...
This shows a strip model of the electron as a plane wave with a half twist along the direction of propagation. This half twist enable this expanding wavefront to be topologically wrapped such that the negative excursions of the wave are always on the outside if this relationship is obeyed while the positive excursions are on the "inside". This means that the electron appears as a negatively charged particle at all times even though it is composed of an oscillating wave which has no specific polarity. This is a topological charge. The "flow" inside this "Light cone Bubble" looks like this...
... click on all images to enlarge
You can see this Helix inside the center of this diagram. Now I realize that an electromagnetic wave is not just a two dimensional strip as you see in the strip model. You must be able to see the "big picture" of this wave propagating along the straightest line possible inside the bubble geometry and internally expanding on the surface of a sphere inscribed inside that geometry. The geometry is that of the torus but of course this is undergoing Relativistic Rotation on that surface from Berry Phase. This process actually creates extra spatial dimensions (according to my theory). It needs those extra dimensions in order that the particle remains inertial. To confine this to our limited three spatial and one temporal dimension creates a non-stationary situation. That would be similar to Milo Wolff's concept (that is a three dimensional view of this "particle"). The additional six dimensions allow for the additional planes in which this object can "spin" without loss of the inertial state.
This concept goes far in creating a basis for a particle menagerie made from photons with twists and boosts such as in this String Theory chart from Zweiback's Book A First Course in String Theory..
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
... click to enlarge... this is how a Universe might be created from photons alone. String Theory is built on a different topology and this can cause a little confusion but take my word that the differences at this level are minor.
So the photon is moving inside the dimensional space along a torus path with a half twist each time around the loop. As a photon it can do this at the speed of light and remain trapped. In Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscopy Theory this "electron" is executing a path like a corkscrew in phase that links to itself in that simple way of rotation. The internal photon would cause this corkscrew to rotate around the internal axis of the toroid (electron spin) and there would be another rotation that the corkscrew has around the center of the corkscrew. This would be Orbital Angular Momentum (OAM). As this "corkscrew" rotates along the direction of motion with a angular frequency of ω=2πf. Take a corkscrew and allow light to fall on it and to cast a shadow on a card you will have a sine wave like this...
... around the axis. The distance between successive crests or troughs is inversely proportional to the wavenumber and the corkscrew is joined back on itself after only pi radians forming a torus. The corkscrew is made to rotate with an angular frequency of ω=2πf as it moves in any direction. A projection of this form into the outer external space would show a concept of a "wave packet". A "large" wavenumber will have a short distance between crests and a low wavenumber will have a large distance between crests. Internally the electron is a photon propagating around its space with a 1/2 flip each time it does this trick. Other particles would be created with different "corkscrews" inside different spaces with a different twist ratio resulting in a number other than unity but result in 1/3 or 2/3 etc for different types of particles such as quarks. It is still electromagnetism but inside a different geometry with a different "wrapping" dimensionally. From this "wrapping" mass is emerging as an external parameter.
This is exactly the same "global phenomenon" that we are discovering with the geometry of our Universe and its enclosing dimensional walls as seen in WMAP.
It may be more complicated than what I have explained but there is a simple principle underneath this... a Holographic Universe. See this reference for some details...
A Cosmic Hall of Mirrors" PhysicsWeb September 2005
The main differences are that the real universe may contain a large number of hyper-torii connected like in an asteroids video game, the differences being the "twist" is a little different. You can see the WMAP data best fits a closed Universe (a anti-de Sitter space) WMAP Datas plotted... So you can see the topology of our Universe may be different from the overall spherical geometry. There may be other complications such as Rindler Foliations but this just adds to the complex picture. I never said that I understand everything and I doubt that for the next million or two years we will be ever able to make a claim that we are even getting close. IMHO I think we are on the cusp of a new era in understanding and I just hope we all see some of it happen.
For some TEM background information I would look here.
TEM Theory without too much mathematics
This guy knows what he is talking about when referring to electrons, this is a complex wave. There you can read about a piece of this jigsaw and can build on it as needed. Even with this easy introduction it can be a little daunting for some because it is not what we have been taught in school or University, for many it is all new ideas. Here is where phase is absolutely critical and this is where the theory is most developed. There is one step further when you move from this fermion world of electrons into the world of photons where the twist is an inter 2π and we would then be dealing with the universe of bosons. In any case it is merely a choice of reference frame and internal one or an external one. Photons do not appear to exhibit this twist in our space but they will if you follow the wave far enough inside the "hyper-surface" of the Universe. We have "electromagnetism" which deals with this aspect poorly. On the scale of an atomic particle it is a far more serious effect occurring over distance scales so short we can hardly measure them and we end up with the de Broglie Matter Waves... this is the low velocity end of Special Relativity as I have been saying.
... and the de Broglie Frequency
Taken from...
Wikipedia: de Broglie hypothesis
Cheers
Where are you going? Is that a real place or a made upo place like shambala?
It is good to hear that you have been fortunate enough to rub shoulders with a Nobel Laureate. I can't claim that kind of an experience... I would like to, but that is the way it is. I would say that they are the ones who have done the hard yards and have come through. We "elves" are only an annoyance and I for one am only interested in finding out a little of the "whole story" before I depart for the Undying Lands of Valinor in Aman, the Blessed Realm by the Straight Road.. He he he ! I am afraid I can't wait like the rest of you for the next generation of "happy accidents" to reveal the truth. If ever "The Truth" was needed it is now.
I think it is out there but it is not going to come to us by "whistling".Well sort of... I use this reference a lot...Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?:J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
This is not the only reference to this structure. Here is another reference to this structure.
The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
I would also add these illustrations from Williamson and Van Der Mark's Paper...
This shows a strip model of the electron as a plane wave with a half twist along the direction of propagation. This half twist enable this expanding wavefront to be topologically wrapped such that the negative excursions of the wave are always on the outside if this relationship is obeyed while the positive excursions are on the "inside". This means that the electron appears as a negatively charged particle at all times even though it is composed of an oscillating wave which has no specific polarity. This is a topological charge. The "flow" inside this "Light cone Bubble" looks like this...
... click on all images to enlarge
You can see this Helix inside the center of this diagram. Now I realize that an electromagnetic wave is not just a two dimensional strip as you see in the strip model. You must be able to see the "big picture" of this wave propagating along the straightest line possible inside the bubble geometry and internally expanding on the surface of a sphere inscribed inside that geometry. The geometry is that of the torus but of course this is undergoing Relativistic Rotation on that surface from Berry Phase. This process actually creates extra spatial dimensions (according to my theory). It needs those extra dimensions in order that the particle remains inertial. To confine this to our limited three spatial and one temporal dimension creates a non-stationary situation. That would be similar to Milo Wolff's concept (that is a three dimensional view of this "particle"). The additional six dimensions allow for the additional planes in which this object can "spin" without loss of the inertial state.
This concept goes far in creating a basis for a particle menagerie made from photons with twists and boosts such as in this String Theory chart from Zweiback's Book A First Course in String Theory..
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
... click to enlarge... this is how a Universe might be created from photons alone. String Theory is built on a different topology and this can cause a little confusion but take my word that the differences at this level are minor.
So the photon is moving inside the dimensional space along a torus path with a half twist each time around the loop. As a photon it can do this at the speed of light and remain trapped. In Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscopy Theory this "electron" is executing a path like a corkscrew in phase that links to itself in that simple way of rotation. The internal photon would cause this corkscrew to rotate around the internal axis of the toroid (electron spin) and there would be another rotation that the corkscrew has around the center of the corkscrew. This would be Orbital Angular Momentum (OAM). As this "corkscrew" rotates along the direction of motion with a angular frequency of ω=2πf. Take a corkscrew and allow light to fall on it and to cast a shadow on a card you will have a sine wave like this...
... around the axis. The distance between successive crests or troughs is inversely proportional to the wavenumber and the corkscrew is joined back on itself after only pi radians forming a torus. The corkscrew is made to rotate with an angular frequency of ω=2πf as it moves in any direction. A projection of this form into the outer external space would show a concept of a "wave packet". A "large" wavenumber will have a short distance between crests and a low wavenumber will have a large distance between crests. Internally the electron is a photon propagating around its space with a 1/2 flip each time it does this trick. Other particles would be created with different "corkscrews" inside different spaces with a different twist ratio resulting in a number other than unity but result in 1/3 or 2/3 etc for different types of particles such as quarks. It is still electromagnetism but inside a different geometry with a different "wrapping" dimensionally. From this "wrapping" mass is emerging as an external parameter.
This is exactly the same "global phenomenon" that we are discovering with the geometry of our Universe and its enclosing dimensional walls as seen in WMAP.
It may be more complicated than what I have explained but there is a simple principle underneath this... a Holographic Universe. See this reference for some details...
A Cosmic Hall of Mirrors" PhysicsWeb September 2005
The main differences are that the real universe may contain a large number of hyper-torii connected like in an asteroids video game, the differences being the "twist" is a little different. You can see the WMAP data best fits a closed Universe (a anti-de Sitter space) WMAP Datas plotted... So you can see the topology of our Universe may be different from the overall spherical geometry. There may be other complications such as Rindler Foliations but this just adds to the complex picture. I never said that I understand everything and I doubt that for the next million or two years we will be ever able to make a claim that we are even getting close. IMHO I think we are on the cusp of a new era in understanding and I just hope we all see some of it happen.
For some TEM background information I would look here.
TEM Theory without too much mathematics
This guy knows what he is talking about when referring to electrons, this is a complex wave. There you can read about a piece of this jigsaw and can build on it as needed. Even with this easy introduction it can be a little daunting for some because it is not what we have been taught in school or University, for many it is all new ideas. Here is where phase is absolutely critical and this is where the theory is most developed. There is one step further when you move from this fermion world of electrons into the world of photons where the twist is an inter 2π and we would then be dealing with the universe of bosons. In any case it is merely a choice of reference frame and internal one or an external one. Photons do not appear to exhibit this twist in our space but they will if you follow the wave far enough inside the "hyper-surface" of the Universe. We have "electromagnetism" which deals with this aspect poorly. On the scale of an atomic particle it is a far more serious effect occurring over distance scales so short we can hardly measure them and we end up with the de Broglie Matter Waves... this is the low velocity end of Special Relativity as I have been saying.
... and the de Broglie Frequency
Taken from...
Wikipedia: de Broglie hypothesis
Cheers
Where are you going? Is that a real place or a made upo place like shambala?
QUOTE (Laserlight+Mar 11 2007, 05:08 PM)
GE,
Your response to Neil was one of your best posts. Kudos! I feel that we
finally "connected" on this post. You actually accurately described a mental
model that I had broached quite a while ago.
I prefer your "corkscrew" OAM description over my poorly phrased previous model
where I described a helical spiral macaroni model to describe the "volumetric"
attributes and phase relationships exhibited by a propagating waveform.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=Pos...t=6587&p=143838
If you consider the implications of this helical EM field model, it helps to account
for why 2 separate photons can never interfere in open space. Their rotational
OAM phases can virtually never synchronize as they "spiral", even though their
relative phase amplitudes may randomly align. The energy of two separate
photon wavelets can only intefere across a localized atomic structure when
electrons are displaced from their normal dipolar orbits by the combined energy
of the "received" wavelets.
Regards,
LL
When you get to the ultraintense laser light range, there do seem to be instances of photns interfering with each other? What do you think is happening in that instance.
Your response to Neil was one of your best posts. Kudos! I feel that we
finally "connected" on this post. You actually accurately described a mental
model that I had broached quite a while ago.
I prefer your "corkscrew" OAM description over my poorly phrased previous model
where I described a helical spiral macaroni model to describe the "volumetric"
attributes and phase relationships exhibited by a propagating waveform.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=Pos...t=6587&p=143838
If you consider the implications of this helical EM field model, it helps to account
for why 2 separate photons can never interfere in open space. Their rotational
OAM phases can virtually never synchronize as they "spiral", even though their
relative phase amplitudes may randomly align. The energy of two separate
photon wavelets can only intefere across a localized atomic structure when
electrons are displaced from their normal dipolar orbits by the combined energy
of the "received" wavelets.
Regards,
LL
When you get to the ultraintense laser light range, there do seem to be instances of photns interfering with each other? What do you think is happening in that instance.
What does GE stand for GE?
Hello Neil,
Can you cite a reference that explains the conditions that this has been observed, and how it was observed? I've never heard of this phenomenon being observed
or measured in open space.
In order for there to be interference, their must be a point of mixing...a physical
"catalyst" to superpose the energy and phase of the signals being mixed. The
point of measurement or detection would be considered the "point of mixing" since
it would require some physical interaction to perform the detection.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
When you get to the ultraintense laser light range, there do seem to be instances of photns interfering with each other? What do you think is happening in that instance.
Can you cite a reference that explains the conditions that this has been observed, and how it was observed? I've never heard of this phenomenon being observed
or measured in open space.
In order for there to be interference, their must be a point of mixing...a physical
"catalyst" to superpose the energy and phase of the signals being mixed. The
point of measurement or detection would be considered the "point of mixing" since
it would require some physical interaction to perform the detection.
Comments?
LL
Hi Neil,
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
We "elves" are only an annoyance and I for one am only interested in finding out a little of the "whole story" before I depart for the Undying Lands of Valinor in Aman, the Blessed Realm by the Straight Road..
[..]
[..]
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)
Where are you going? Is that a real place or a made up place like shambala?
Depends on how much a fan of Lord of the Rings you are... He he he! Valinor is a place beyond Middle Earth where all the elves went in Tolkein's Book. It was a separate realm dimensionally from ours and it is only accessible via the "Straight Road", a tangential connecting plane between the Universes, that may be sailed by elven ships that can move into that realm where time no longer matters. Since elves have no "afterlife" this is all they yearn for, no point hanging around in Middle earth waiting for some nasty humans to kill us eh? I don't expect to hang around on this Forum for the next thousand years waiting for a bus to hit me.... I "expect" to leave this world someday "soon" so I want to know a bit more before I leave about Physics before I go... it is a joke Neil. I am tired of waiting for the present generation of Physicists to "move on" and for new science to be given a chance.
[..]
[..]
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)
What does GE stand for GE?
Good Elf ("Good Health"... Good Elf was a commercial product... a tetra packed orange drink of the 1960's)... he he he! Long since "extinct".
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)
When you get to the ultraintense laser light range, there do seem to be instances of photons interfering with each other? What do you think is happening in that instance.
The higher the energy a photon has the shorter the wavelength so the chance that a high energy photon may encounter a particle around about the same size as a wavelength of the light that is capable of scattering it, increases with energy. "Empty space" even or the best vacuum contains many diffuse atomic particles which can be secondary sources in which a pair of matter anti-matter particles may be spontaneously created in its vicinity, very much like the way clockwise and anticlockwise eddies form around a pier when a wave strikes it... . I think that it is a good guess that until a particle acts to scatter a photonin a similar way that a slit scatters photons and simultaneously has enough energy to create both the matter and the anti-mater particle, then that reaction probably will not happen.
Cheers
Cheers
Hi LL,GE,TRoc,Montec, NF et al,
TEM theory without much mathematics ( http://www.rodenburg.org/theory/index.html ) doesn't seem to have been immediately rejected.
Section by section..
1. The electron as a wave
Establishes the wavefunction ψ (x,t) = e^i(kx-ωt)
Bearing in mind this analysis is purely one dimensional.
To try to see what the meaning of this might be..
It seems the ω is going to be 2 pi f where we get the 'f' from E=hf (de Broglie).
Let us give an electron two equally likely paths x_1 and x_2
1/ ψ_1 (x_1,t) = e^i(k x_1 - ωt)
2/ ψ_2 (x_2,t) = e^i(k x_2 - ωt)
Adding 1/ & 2/ we get (assuming this is a valid mode for addition)
ψ(t) = e^i(k x_1 - ωt) + e^i(k x_2 - ωt)
3/ = e^(-iωt) ( e^i (k x_1) +e^i (k_x2))
Where 3/ corresponds to a change of phase and amplitude but no change in frequency.
Clearly this corresponds to two paths with the same excitation ..TWO electrons.. unfortunately we need (would like) to consider the situation when we only have one electron.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Edit .. we also need to consider the situation where we are selecting two paths from a possible N paths where N is large ( ->infinity)
More edit.. from the quote above "This gives rise to static (time invariant) patterns of intensity" .. this is where the ripple tank comes in. The intensity is (by definition) the amplitude squared.
TEM theory without much mathematics ( http://www.rodenburg.org/theory/index.html ) doesn't seem to have been immediately rejected.
Section by section..
1. The electron as a wave
Establishes the wavefunction ψ (x,t) = e^i(kx-ωt)
Bearing in mind this analysis is purely one dimensional.
QUOTE
In practice, we can safely forget about time dependence of the wave function. What matters is phase changes between different components (or paths, or 'rays') that arise in the microscope. This gives rise to static (time invariant) patterns of intensity (images, diffraction patterns, etc). The path lengths taken by different beams (corkscrews) is simply a matter of geometry.
To try to see what the meaning of this might be..
It seems the ω is going to be 2 pi f where we get the 'f' from E=hf (de Broglie).
Let us give an electron two equally likely paths x_1 and x_2
1/ ψ_1 (x_1,t) = e^i(k x_1 - ωt)
2/ ψ_2 (x_2,t) = e^i(k x_2 - ωt)
Adding 1/ & 2/ we get (assuming this is a valid mode for addition)
ψ(t) = e^i(k x_1 - ωt) + e^i(k x_2 - ωt)
3/ = e^(-iωt) ( e^i (k x_1) +e^i (k_x2))
Where 3/ corresponds to a change of phase and amplitude but no change in frequency.
Clearly this corresponds to two paths with the same excitation ..TWO electrons.. unfortunately we need (would like) to consider the situation when we only have one electron.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Edit .. we also need to consider the situation where we are selecting two paths from a possible N paths where N is large ( ->infinity)
More edit.. from the quote above "This gives rise to static (time invariant) patterns of intensity" .. this is where the ripple tank comes in. The intensity is (by definition) the amplitude squared.
Hi yquantum, Laserlight, fivedoughnut, Neil Farbstein, Confused2, Montec, TRoc et al,
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+)
.... you know about my suggestion of photons as wavicle 'riders' on an electrons transdimensional wavestate frontal boundary ..... well their helical propagation might exist only as an effect of the parental orbit 'viewed' as it transits through hyperspace? ... a prediction: photon emission of 'free' electrons will not show this rotation.
What I was trying to say was the photon as "seen" from an external space is moving around the inner surface of a 2D sphere. The photon will undergo Berry Phase Rotation and this causes the twist. It may be very difficult to actually work out exactly what corrections are needed to Electromagnetism to satisfy the geometric relationships inside this space. Clearly the photon normally does not show any apparent twist when it propagates in perfectly flat space. What this is saying is once you curve space it no longer remains in a single "plane" in much the same way that a gyroscope precesses when taken around a complete circuit. The amount of precession will depend on the path.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
My point is that simple geometric constructions based on wave spreading would seem to give the right answers. I agree it is difficult to understand how a single boson can behave like an infinite series of waves in water but this doesn't mean we can simply discard an obvious experimental result on the grounds of not liking it.
The point is regardless of the fact that we have one single photon in a box or billions the Young's Double Slit Experiment can also be considered as a kind of optical resonator and therefore depends on the shape of the enclosure. At that level the interference fringes will depend on box geometry (the cavity behind the slits) as well as slit spacing and slit width as well as the depth of the holes/slots as well as possibly some effects due to the slit materials when the wavelength is short enough and the slits are made of metals. The simple Huygens's construction gives only the first approximations to what is really going on and we must be mindful about the complications. The other point is it does not depend if we have continuous wave excitation or individual photons every hour the end result is identical... there are standing waves. The most important factor I will keep for last and this is the fact that the pattern on the screen does not have anything directly to do with the slits... see argument below.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
If we looked carefully at Feynman's 'seeking all paths' method I think we'd see it is assumed that the 'wave' on a short path is still present and can interfere with a wave traveling (or reflected) from a much longer path.. both the DSE, Michelson-Morley and Kennedy-Thorndike interferometers would seem (to me) to be manifestations of this phenomenon.
What I am trying to say is the single photon, while it seeks all paths, the interference is not really due to the "waves" somehow actually interfering in any true physical sense it just "is" instantaneously. It is as though the photon is "illuminating" something already existing out there in the dark.
The concept of "construction" works partially for water waves but does not work really well for light. A single photon of a particular frequency "does something" to the space but aside from changing the shape of the cavity while the photon is in "flight", the event is fixed by the dimensions of everything in the Universe. Even this change of geometry must reflect a "pattern" that seems to be the instantaneous standing waves that would have occurred inside a cavity that represents a cavity that exists only while the photon is passing bye. If we consider the possibility that the photon passes the same physical "milestones" twice as it reflects off some surface with different results each time then this is like a "cavity" that has more than one physical shape instantaneously at different propagation times.
The length of the arms of an interferometer makes no difference to the fact that "quantum interference" still occurs. Interference was all based on the incorrect "ancient" belief that continuous waves of light interfere with themselves at any portion of the phase like waves at the beach, when they fill a cavity and bounce around inside of it. Individually the photons really are unaltered by anything that is happening in the cavity when the interference fringes are being produced. The photons do not need to actually "cross themselves" like some penitent Catholic at Mass... One photon or a million, as the photon "propagates" it is a one photon at a time event and the mechanism is not one of physical self-crossing to create that interference.
We have discussed this before and you seem to be unable to capture the idea of instantaneous standing waves in cavities. What I will say is when we have cavity resonance the energy distribution may be altered spatially. For instance with a photon or with an electron it is very possible that that one photon may have its energy redistributed in the temporal direction changing the envelope of that photon. This does not change the instant in which it was created but it does redistribute the energy in space quite dramatically. A finely tuned... high quality resonator (High Q) will be a breeding grounds for a very narrow band of photons while a low Q cavity will produce photons that have a wide spread of frequencies and will not be as coherent. a cavity can be fed with a source of energy and can produce either result.
I am interested in your comments and why you continue to push the idea that simple geometric construction is the whole truth. What experimental fact makes you cling to this concept when you should be thinking about other possibilities.
The concept of "construction" works partially for water waves but does not work really well for light. A single photon of a particular frequency "does something" to the space but aside from changing the shape of the cavity while the photon is in "flight", the event is fixed by the dimensions of everything in the Universe. Even this change of geometry must reflect a "pattern" that seems to be the instantaneous standing waves that would have occurred inside a cavity that represents a cavity that exists only while the photon is passing bye. If we consider the possibility that the photon passes the same physical "milestones" twice as it reflects off some surface with different results each time then this is like a "cavity" that has more than one physical shape instantaneously at different propagation times.
The length of the arms of an interferometer makes no difference to the fact that "quantum interference" still occurs. Interference was all based on the incorrect "ancient" belief that continuous waves of light interfere with themselves at any portion of the phase like waves at the beach, when they fill a cavity and bounce around inside of it. Individually the photons really are unaltered by anything that is happening in the cavity when the interference fringes are being produced. The photons do not need to actually "cross themselves" like some penitent Catholic at Mass... One photon or a million, as the photon "propagates" it is a one photon at a time event and the mechanism is not one of physical self-crossing to create that interference.
We have discussed this before and you seem to be unable to capture the idea of instantaneous standing waves in cavities. What I will say is when we have cavity resonance the energy distribution may be altered spatially. For instance with a photon or with an electron it is very possible that that one photon may have its energy redistributed in the temporal direction changing the envelope of that photon. This does not change the instant in which it was created but it does redistribute the energy in space quite dramatically. A finely tuned... high quality resonator (High Q) will be a breeding grounds for a very narrow band of photons while a low Q cavity will produce photons that have a wide spread of frequencies and will not be as coherent. a cavity can be fed with a source of energy and can produce either result.
I am interested in your comments and why you continue to push the idea that simple geometric construction is the whole truth. What experimental fact makes you cling to this concept when you should be thinking about other possibilities.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Please try to forget any preconceptions about wavelets.. the DSE and all the other interferometers (Michelson-Morley Kennedy-Thorndike, diffraction gratings etc) are frequency/wavelength selective .. as far as I know none are able to resolve anything other than a single frequency from monochromatic light.
None of these experiments are frequency selective... it is true they will produce different patterns with different types of photons. If you use several types of photons of different wavelength the results are simply due to the principle of superposition. What is happening is each and every photon has its own pattern.
If you consider the single pinhole camera and the way it produces images not of the pinhole but images on the screen of the original distant source at that one frequency, this is one very important point. A "two pinhole camera" with one distant source will produce a pinhole version of the DSE, the two nearly coincident coherent images diffract and produce fringes and not an images of the source. Regardless of the pattern on the screen, this "scrambled double image" is carrying information of the initial single distant source and that information is found somewhere in that pattern. The construction technique you are so fond of carries no information about that source. A simple experiment can show that what is appearing on the screen due to a single or a double pinhole does not come from the immediate vicinity of the slits (cover one pinhole at a time and see what is found... a pinhole camera image of the source not of the slit!). Your construction technique cannot tell us anything about the true sources beyond the slits.... Do you understand this argument and why it means that "construction" is not the answer... Capisce!
Hope this helps.
If you consider the single pinhole camera and the way it produces images not of the pinhole but images on the screen of the original distant source at that one frequency, this is one very important point. A "two pinhole camera" with one distant source will produce a pinhole version of the DSE, the two nearly coincident coherent images diffract and produce fringes and not an images of the source. Regardless of the pattern on the screen, this "scrambled double image" is carrying information of the initial single distant source and that information is found somewhere in that pattern. The construction technique you are so fond of carries no information about that source. A simple experiment can show that what is appearing on the screen due to a single or a double pinhole does not come from the immediate vicinity of the slits (cover one pinhole at a time and see what is found... a pinhole camera image of the source not of the slit!). Your construction technique cannot tell us anything about the true sources beyond the slits.... Do you understand this argument and why it means that "construction" is not the answer... Capisce!
Hope this helps.
Good Day!
Check out this discussion .... Two experiments on the Wave-Particle duality
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=156938
jal
Check out this discussion .... Two experiments on the Wave-Particle duality
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=156938
jal
QUOTE (Good Elf+Mar 13 2007, 05:40 AM)
Hi Neil,
Depends on how much a fan of Lord of the Rings you are... He he he! Valinor is a place beyond Middle Earth where all the elves went in Tolkein's Book. It was a separate realm dimensionally from ours and it is only accessible via the "Straight Road", a tangential connecting plane between the Universes, that may be sailed by elven ships that can move into that realm where time no longer matters. Since elves have no "afterlife" this is all they yearn for, no point hanging around in Middle earth waiting for some nasty humans to kill us eh? I don't expect to hang around on this Forum for the next thousand years waiting for a bus to hit me.... I "expect" to leave this world someday "soon" so I want to know a bit more before I leave about Physics before I go... it is a joke Neil. I am tired of waiting for the present generation of Physicists to "move on" and for new science to be given a chance.
[..]
Depends on how much a fan of Lord of the Rings you are... He he he! Valinor is a place beyond Middle Earth where all the elves went in Tolkein's Book. It was a separate realm dimensionally from ours and it is only accessible via the "Straight Road", a tangential connecting plane between the Universes, that may be sailed by elven ships that can move into that realm where time no longer matters. Since elves have no "afterlife" this is all they yearn for, no point hanging around in Middle earth waiting for some nasty humans to kill us eh? I don't expect to hang around on this Forum for the next thousand years waiting for a bus to hit me.... I "expect" to leave this world someday "soon" so I want to know a bit more before I leave about Physics before I go... it is a joke Neil. I am tired of waiting for the present generation of Physicists to "move on" and for new science to be given a chance.
[..]
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)
What does GE stand for GE?
Good Elf ("Good Health"... Good Elf was a commercial product... a tetra packed orange drink of the 1960's)... he he he! Long since "extinct".
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)
When you get to the ultraintense laser light range, there do seem to be instances of photons interfering with each other? What do you think is happening in that instance.
I suggest assignments to be posted by the end of Friday March 14th (GMT) .. any extensions required?
Best wishes,
-C2.
BUT!
(Can I copy my answers from someone?
)
The higher the energy a photon has the shorter the wavelength so the chance that a high energy photon may encounter a particle around about the same size as a wavelength of the light that is capable of scattering it, increases with energy. "Empty space" even or the best vacuum contains many diffuse atomic particles which can be secondary sources in which a pair of matter anti-matter particles may be spontaneously created in its vicinity, very much like the way clockwise and anticlockwise eddies form around a pier when a wave strikes it... . I think that it is a good guess that until a particle acts to scatter a photonin a similar way that a slit scatters photons and simultaneously has enough energy to create both the matter and the anti-mater particle, then that reaction probably will not happen.
Cheers
There are no particles involved other than the photons. The EM fields of each photn affect each other at very high pohton densities when lots of photons are close to each other.
Cheers
There are no particles involved other than the photons. The EM fields of each photn affect each other at very high pohton densities when lots of photons are close to each other.
Can't happen.
Hi Good Elf,
It certainly becomes clear why students are expected to carry out experiments with their own fair hands.
Under the circumstances I think the best way forward would be for any/all of us to adopt the Teachspin experiment ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml ) as though we had carried it out ourselves as part of a real physics course. We assume we have measured the published set of results for ourselves and we can compare these results with our predictions and draw attention to any sources of error we feel are important. Those of us who can't predict anything can sit at the back of the class until the rest of us publish our our results.
Does that make sense to you?
Best wishes,
-C2.
It certainly becomes clear why students are expected to carry out experiments with their own fair hands.
Under the circumstances I think the best way forward would be for any/all of us to adopt the Teachspin experiment ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml ) as though we had carried it out ourselves as part of a real physics course. We assume we have measured the published set of results for ourselves and we can compare these results with our predictions and draw attention to any sources of error we feel are important. Those of us who can't predict anything can sit at the back of the class until the rest of us publish our our results.
Does that make sense to you?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2,
So, do you have a model that explains the single photon results using your
difference in path length scenario?
Regards,
LL
So, do you have a model that explains the single photon results using your
difference in path length scenario?
Regards,
LL
Hi Laserlight,Good Elf, TRoc, Montec, NF (y?) et al,
I feel Good Elf was trying to make the point that you can't truly know anything until you know everything. I am trying to make the point that you can learn a lot from experimental evidence and it will (hopefully) help to put the 'unknowns' into context. For example - I think we can reasonably assume that Teachspin will have painted everything black so we can look at the Q of a black cavity and make an estimate of the effect this will have on the results.. and so on.
I suggest assignments to be posted by the end of Friday March 14th (GMT) .. any extensions required?
Best wishes,
-C2.
I feel Good Elf was trying to make the point that you can't truly know anything until you know everything. I am trying to make the point that you can learn a lot from experimental evidence and it will (hopefully) help to put the 'unknowns' into context. For example - I think we can reasonably assume that Teachspin will have painted everything black so we can look at the Q of a black cavity and make an estimate of the effect this will have on the results.. and so on.
I suggest assignments to be posted by the end of Friday March 14th (GMT) .. any extensions required?
Best wishes,
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Mar 13 2007, 01:29 PM)
I suggest assignments to be posted by the end of Friday March 14th (GMT) .. any extensions required?
Best wishes,
-C2.
BUT!
(Can I copy my answers from someone?
)
Hi Neil,
You will need to be a lot less vague here and to give a reference. I guess you are referring to Spontaneous baryogenesis and leptogenesis. As I understand it photons will not spontaneously interact unless there is some form of scattering. With matter anti-matter the creation event or breakdown of the vacuum must be accompanied by some lower symmetry event. This is because photons are bosons, bosons do not interact with "themselves". I realize there are a lot of Feynman Diagrams that show matter anti-matter creation events but I believe they involve an unseen "catalyst". I will now "cough up" some standard theory that really does not help with you specific question... I really do not fully understand your basic question and under what conditions it is to apply... apologies if this is not relevant.
You will need to be a lot less vague here and to give a reference. I guess you are referring to Spontaneous baryogenesis and leptogenesis. As I understand it photons will not spontaneously interact unless there is some form of scattering. With matter anti-matter the creation event or breakdown of the vacuum must be accompanied by some lower symmetry event. This is because photons are bosons, bosons do not interact with "themselves". I realize there are a lot of Feynman Diagrams that show matter anti-matter creation events but I believe they involve an unseen "catalyst". I will now "cough up" some standard theory that really does not help with you specific question... I really do not fully understand your basic question and under what conditions it is to apply... apologies if this is not relevant.
QUOTE (Wikipedia:Sphalerons and Spontaneous Leptogenesis and Baryogenesis+)
In the standard model, baryon number violating processes convert three baryons to three antileptons, and related processes. This violates conservation of baryon number and lepton number, but the difference B−L is conserved. A sphaleron is similar to the midpoint (τ = 0) of the instanton, so it is non-perturbative. This means that under normal conditions sphalerons are unobservably rare. However, they would have been more common at the higher temperatures of the early universe. In some theories of baryogenesis an imbalance of the number of leptons and antileptons is formed first by leptogenesis and sphaleron transitions then convert this to an imbalance in the numbers of baryons and antibaryons.[..] In the strict sense, leptogenesis is a process which creates leptons. Theories of leptogenesis try to explain how the Universe changed from a state with no leptons just after the Big Bang to a state containing many leptons (mostly electrons) today.
The equivalent problem for baryons is called baryogenesis. While there are no observational bounds on the relative number of leptons and anti-leptons, since leptons can be converted to neutrinos or anti-neutrinos and remain invisible, there is observed a significant imbalance in the number of baryons and anti-baryons.
It should be understood however that it is not possible to create only electrons (or only protons) without violating the conservation of the electric charge. In other words, the conservation of the electric charge requires an equal number of electrons and protons.
Baryogenesis and leptogenesis are also connected by a phenomenon that happens in the currently accepted model for the elementary interactions, the so-called standard model. Indeed, certain (non-perturbative) configurations of gauge fields that are called sphalerons can convert leptons into baryons and vice versa. This means that the standard model is in principle able to provide a mechanism to create baryons and leptons, realizing a speculative possibility suggested by A. Sakharov in the sixties. The simplest version of the standard model, however, is quantitatively unable to realize this possibility.
A simple modification of the standard model that is instead able to realize the program of Sakharov is the one suggested by Fukugita and Yanagida. The standard model augmented with adding right handed neutrinos permits to implement the see-saw mechanism and to provide neutrinos with mass. At the same time, the augmented model is able to spontaneously generate leptons from the decays of right handed neutrinos. Finally, the sphalerons are able to convert the spontaneously generated lepton asymmetry into the observed baryonic asymmetry. Often, by an extension terms, the physicists use the word leptogenesis to denote the mechanism here described.
The equivalent problem for baryons is called baryogenesis. While there are no observational bounds on the relative number of leptons and anti-leptons, since leptons can be converted to neutrinos or anti-neutrinos and remain invisible, there is observed a significant imbalance in the number of baryons and anti-baryons.
It should be understood however that it is not possible to create only electrons (or only protons) without violating the conservation of the electric charge. In other words, the conservation of the electric charge requires an equal number of electrons and protons.
Baryogenesis and leptogenesis are also connected by a phenomenon that happens in the currently accepted model for the elementary interactions, the so-called standard model. Indeed, certain (non-perturbative) configurations of gauge fields that are called sphalerons can convert leptons into baryons and vice versa. This means that the standard model is in principle able to provide a mechanism to create baryons and leptons, realizing a speculative possibility suggested by A. Sakharov in the sixties. The simplest version of the standard model, however, is quantitatively unable to realize this possibility.
A simple modification of the standard model that is instead able to realize the program of Sakharov is the one suggested by Fukugita and Yanagida. The standard model augmented with adding right handed neutrinos permits to implement the see-saw mechanism and to provide neutrinos with mass. At the same time, the augmented model is able to spontaneously generate leptons from the decays of right handed neutrinos. Finally, the sphalerons are able to convert the spontaneously generated lepton asymmetry into the observed baryonic asymmetry. Often, by an extension terms, the physicists use the word leptogenesis to denote the mechanism here described.
I understand that it is "possible" to run the annihilation reaction backwards where two photons create particle and anti-particle, but I do not think it happens without some "provocation" in the vicinity of where the photons intersect. The sphaleron is an interesting phenomenon that might explain the asymmetry of particles and anti-particles in the Universe but it is highly theoretical. I can't see how these things may be relevant to the discussion since they are so speculative.
Cheers
QUOTE
Title: SPONTANEOUS BREAKDOWN OF THE VACUUM BY INTENSE LASERS
Source: ELECTROMAGNETIC PROBES OF FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS
Copyright: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Author(s): ADRIAN C. MELISSINOS
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA
Abstract: We review the necessary conditions for the spontaneous production of e+e− pairs from the vacuum by a high intensity time dependent electric field. We then show how this was achieved by exploiting the highly relativistic motion of 50 GeV electrons from the SLAC accelerator.
Unfortunately these experiments are not down loadable for free and the abstract shows that electrons at high energy are required. Maybe that is what you mean??Source: ELECTROMAGNETIC PROBES OF FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS
Copyright: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Author(s): ADRIAN C. MELISSINOS
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA
Abstract: We review the necessary conditions for the spontaneous production of e+e− pairs from the vacuum by a high intensity time dependent electric field. We then show how this was achieved by exploiting the highly relativistic motion of 50 GeV electrons from the SLAC accelerator.
Cheers
Hi Confused2, yquantum, Laserlight, fivedoughnut, Neil Farbstein, "THEY", Montec, TRoc et al,
Ur... do you really think that we don't already know this simple lab experiment sufficiently to pass a first year grade?
Ur... do you really think that we don't already know this simple lab experiment sufficiently to pass a first year grade?
QUOTE (Confused2+)
I feel Good Elf was trying to make the point that you can't truly know anything until you know everything. I am trying to make the point that you can learn a lot from experimental evidence and it will (hopefully) help to put the 'unknowns' into context.
Everything... ??? Not even near to a quote! What I said was you can learn a lot from already well known experiments and I gave you a couple to explain. I am getting no indication that you are getting past the "Hi..." bit of my posts.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
For example - I think we can reasonably assume that Teachspin will have painted everything black so we can look at the Q of a black cavity and make an estimate of the effect this will have on the results.. and so on.
Duh... what we want is a theory that explains the general situation not a very over simplified situation which gives only ball park figures. What we really want is to understand it. You never even commented on the issues of the last post. I can't see any point with "dumbing down" to a child's view of this experiment. If you want that then "What the Bleep" is for you.... there is nothing more. All the "pundits" agree... If that is what you want?
"Nothing to see here .... move along".
Cheers
"Nothing to see here .... move along".
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Duh... what we want is a theory that explains the general situation not a very over simplified situation which gives only ball park figures. What we really want is to understand it.
I'm not sure how you expect anyone to work out what significance you (our anyone else) attach to any or all of the many effects that have been mentioned on this thread.
It is many years since I had to write up an experiment however from memory the most important part was the discussion of 'errors'. We may say that the width of the slit will be significant but without actually calculating the effect we can't say HOW important. We may say that the size and geometry of various 'cavities' is important but again without actually calculating the effect we can't say HOW important.
If you want something better than a ball-park figure then a 'write-up' would be a very good opportunity to show what you feel is the appropriate way to arrive at a 'real' figure - with the advantage that it can immediately be compared with experimental results.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I'm not sure how you expect anyone to work out what significance you (our anyone else) attach to any or all of the many effects that have been mentioned on this thread.
It is many years since I had to write up an experiment however from memory the most important part was the discussion of 'errors'. We may say that the width of the slit will be significant but without actually calculating the effect we can't say HOW important. We may say that the size and geometry of various 'cavities' is important but again without actually calculating the effect we can't say HOW important.
If you want something better than a ball-park figure then a 'write-up' would be a very good opportunity to show what you feel is the appropriate way to arrive at a 'real' figure - with the advantage that it can immediately be compared with experimental results.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi all,
C2, since we had THIS "sidebar" conversation, and your "closing statement" (regarding the DSE, and the link to http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml ) was:
WHY on Earth would I, or anyone else, want to waste time duplicating it?
This thread would have been OVER on the first page, if all that was necessary was to quote a valid, predictive model to explain the classical outcome. The only reason this thread has gone on so long, is the vast amounts of misunderstanding that the "assumptions, approximations, and idealistic models" have caused in the QM, laser based, "1-at-a-time" DSE.
It took me a huge amount of time to convince everyone here about the FALSENESS of the "monochromatic" ideal.
This same idealism is portrayed by the Fourier Transform: kernel functions extending from "infinity to infinity" can ONLY model a "monochromatic" wave, with the accuracy that is needed here. The stationary wave model will obviously mislead you to a stationary cavity mode idea. (GE)
Whether you want to try the "monochromatic" wave, or the "particle" approach, you will FAIL to understand the reality. They are both wrong.
LL, you keep asking for "proof" of something that can't exist. You want "matter (mass)" to be involved in the "mixing" process, treating the "photon" like a "particle". The reality is: electrons are interacting at a distance with other electrons, based on simple resonance. How can you require "proof" of interaction based on something we do not know the origination of ?? (namely mass itself).
You are never going to "measure" what you are seeking, because the "photon" is a myth. Nothing more than an ideal, abstract convenience. You will ALWAYS measure what I am saying: resonant interactions of different energy "bits", creating predictable changes in the "states" of electrons. By stating the reality of a "photon", you are ALREADY stating the IN BETWEEN interaction is valid. Don't feel bad, Bohr is inconsistent in the same way: requiring that we keep our Science within "what we can measure", and then supporting the "photon" concept, which never has been (& can not be) measured "in between" electrons.
This "packet" of energy is a set of frequencies varying over time, and moving from electron to electron. It doesn't matter in what, or where these electrons are; they will be everywhere that we manage to poke our "noses" into. This resonant interaction takes place at a constant ratio of cycles, in time and space, because that is the way that we measure it. Frequency, and its' inverse, can only be resonant with a very limited set of symmetrical values (tensors in the matrix), and stay with the constant "velocity" (cycles in time and space) that we measure.
I know that my approach is NOT what you are familiar with. I don't ask that you completely understand it (yet). This does NOT remove any of the falseness that I have pointed out in the current "theories".
HUP is a "measurement" problem. It is not seen by all in this way, but that's not too important here. What is important, is "arbitrary points" can NOT be drawn with PRECISION (as in C2's ideal, and Fourier) without sacrificing accuracy in the frequency domain. If you do not have accuracy in the frequency domain, you will never see the simple resonant implications.
If your "pet theory" requires these precise, arbitrary points, and/or if you wish to try to submit charts, diagrams, etc. that use this false ideal, then your theory is wrong. I don't care what your name was, or is. When I say "wrong", I mean in "the big picture"; anyone can come up with a plausible "explanation" for a limited phenomenon. If you can't take this explanation to the next phenomenon, then it doesn't belong in the Fundamental (sub-atomic) Physics.
regards,
T.Roc
C2, since we had THIS "sidebar" conversation, and your "closing statement" (regarding the DSE, and the link to http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml ) was:
QUOTE
I have never seen such a rubbish DSE result before in my life.
WHY on Earth would I, or anyone else, want to waste time duplicating it?
This thread would have been OVER on the first page, if all that was necessary was to quote a valid, predictive model to explain the classical outcome. The only reason this thread has gone on so long, is the vast amounts of misunderstanding that the "assumptions, approximations, and idealistic models" have caused in the QM, laser based, "1-at-a-time" DSE.
It took me a huge amount of time to convince everyone here about the FALSENESS of the "monochromatic" ideal.
This same idealism is portrayed by the Fourier Transform: kernel functions extending from "infinity to infinity" can ONLY model a "monochromatic" wave, with the accuracy that is needed here. The stationary wave model will obviously mislead you to a stationary cavity mode idea. (GE)
Whether you want to try the "monochromatic" wave, or the "particle" approach, you will FAIL to understand the reality. They are both wrong.
LL, you keep asking for "proof" of something that can't exist. You want "matter (mass)" to be involved in the "mixing" process, treating the "photon" like a "particle". The reality is: electrons are interacting at a distance with other electrons, based on simple resonance. How can you require "proof" of interaction based on something we do not know the origination of ?? (namely mass itself).
You are never going to "measure" what you are seeking, because the "photon" is a myth. Nothing more than an ideal, abstract convenience. You will ALWAYS measure what I am saying: resonant interactions of different energy "bits", creating predictable changes in the "states" of electrons. By stating the reality of a "photon", you are ALREADY stating the IN BETWEEN interaction is valid. Don't feel bad, Bohr is inconsistent in the same way: requiring that we keep our Science within "what we can measure", and then supporting the "photon" concept, which never has been (& can not be) measured "in between" electrons.
This "packet" of energy is a set of frequencies varying over time, and moving from electron to electron. It doesn't matter in what, or where these electrons are; they will be everywhere that we manage to poke our "noses" into.
This resonant interaction takes place at a constant ratio of cycles, in time and space, because that is the way that we measure it. Frequency, and its' inverse, can only be resonant with a very limited set of symmetrical values (tensors in the matrix), and stay with the constant "velocity" (cycles in time and space) that we measure.I know that my approach is NOT what you are familiar with. I don't ask that you completely understand it (yet). This does NOT remove any of the falseness that I have pointed out in the current "theories".
HUP is a "measurement" problem. It is not seen by all in this way, but that's not too important here. What is important, is "arbitrary points" can NOT be drawn with PRECISION (as in C2's ideal, and Fourier) without sacrificing accuracy in the frequency domain. If you do not have accuracy in the frequency domain, you will never see the simple resonant implications.
If your "pet theory" requires these precise, arbitrary points, and/or if you wish to try to submit charts, diagrams, etc. that use this false ideal, then your theory is wrong. I don't care what your name was, or is. When I say "wrong", I mean in "the big picture"; anyone can come up with a plausible "explanation" for a limited phenomenon. If you can't take this explanation to the next phenomenon, then it doesn't belong in the Fundamental (sub-atomic) Physics.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc and ALL,
Wait just a minute! You assume too much. You are "wrong" on a few
points and you are mischaracterizing my position on others. I thought that
I was keeping my position simple, brief, and clear enough for anyone to follow
along. I see nothing incorrect or inconsistent in my argument(s).
A photon is not a particle, a point that GE and I have already
argued over. It only appears as a particle upon causing a quantum displacement
in a receiving atomic dipole resonating at a complementary energy level. That
displacement results in an electron being ejected from its atomic orbital
across some voltage potential drop where current can flow. If an electron is not
ejected from its orbital by a photon, then the photon is either reflected
(re-emitted) or absorbed and converted to IR (heat) and the energy is
slowly emitted at a lower frequency. I disagree with Afshar's experimental
results that claim that a particle goes thru one aperture or the other if one is
blocked. It is still a wave action phenomenon, which is proven via the camera
obscura inverted image results captured on a sensitive photo emulsion. This is
a pure wave phenomenon. They only become "particles" when a change of
state occurs at the atomic level. It is EM energy converting matter to a "higher"
energy level, a transfer of energy from one point and effecting a change at
another point, at the atomic level.
I agree that matter is in a normal resonance state that depends upon the atomic
lattice structure. When external energy fields are applied to this natural atomic
ambient state of resonance the fundamental atomic frequency changes. This is a
measurable and proven natural phenomenon. What I have stated is that photons
cannot interact upon themselves, they can only interact with each other in the
presence of matter. This signal mixing and energy exchange that takes place
between the resonant fundamental EM frequency of the atomic matrix and the
energy contained in an impinging photon with the correct complementary
frequency, changes the resonant frequency of the receiving atomic dipoles.
You are correct, and I agree with you on this point, it is all about resonance. To be exact it is about a change of resonance taking place at the atomic level. There is no resonance between discrete
photons at the photonic level in a vacuum or transparent medium. If there were,
all EM signals would be cross coupled and indescriminate. We could never discern
specific frequencies from the chaotic noise that would result if EM fields interacted
in free space. However IMO, there is internal EM timing and phase resonance
within each wavelet pulse originating from each atomic dipole that is emitting
photons. The energized atoms are resonating between two energy orbitals.
They are ringing. The energy being released from that atomic cycling
(ringing) between energy levels takes the form of periodic propagating EM
waves....in this case the energy is called photon's since their frequencies
are of an electromagnetic nature. The entire electromagnetic "spectrum" is
photonic in nature, regardless of the frequency.
It is not a myth, it is pure energy in its natural form being released to space.
Photons are free kinetic EM energy fields propagating at different energy levels.
If EM fields can't freely propagate, because they are held captive by "equalizing"
opposing forces, then they are not considered photons. They are interactive EM
fields trapped in the "resonances" that comprise matter and are better described
as "forces". Under those kinetic resonant conditions they represent stored
potential energy forces that are in a state of relative "balance". The inherent
resonant "forces" available in matter can be displaced by external EM fields
(energy) acting upon them, but they are always attempting to reestablish
equilibrium back to the fundamental resonant state.
This is enough for now, I don't want this to seem esoteric.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
LL, you keep asking for "proof" of something that can't exist. You want "matter (mass)" to be involved in the "mixing" process, treating the "photon" like a "particle". The reality is: electrons are interacting at a distance with other electrons, based on simple resonance. How can you require "proof" of interaction based on something we do not know the origination of ?? (namely mass itself).
You are never going to "measure" what you are seeking, because the "photon" is a myth. Nothing more than an ideal, abstract convenience. You will ALWAYS measure what I am saying: resonant interactions of different energy "bits", creating predictable changes in the "states" of electrons. By stating the reality of a "photon", you are ALREADY stating the IN BETWEEN interaction is valid. Don't feel bad, Bohr is inconsistent in the same way: requiring that we keep our Science within "what we can measure", and then supporting the "photon" concept, which never has been (& can not be) measured "in between" electrons.
You are never going to "measure" what you are seeking, because the "photon" is a myth. Nothing more than an ideal, abstract convenience. You will ALWAYS measure what I am saying: resonant interactions of different energy "bits", creating predictable changes in the "states" of electrons. By stating the reality of a "photon", you are ALREADY stating the IN BETWEEN interaction is valid. Don't feel bad, Bohr is inconsistent in the same way: requiring that we keep our Science within "what we can measure", and then supporting the "photon" concept, which never has been (& can not be) measured "in between" electrons.
Wait just a minute! You assume too much. You are "wrong" on a few
points and you are mischaracterizing my position on others. I thought that
I was keeping my position simple, brief, and clear enough for anyone to follow
along. I see nothing incorrect or inconsistent in my argument(s).
A photon is not a particle, a point that GE and I have already
argued over. It only appears as a particle upon causing a quantum displacement
in a receiving atomic dipole resonating at a complementary energy level. That
displacement results in an electron being ejected from its atomic orbital
across some voltage potential drop where current can flow. If an electron is not
ejected from its orbital by a photon, then the photon is either reflected
(re-emitted) or absorbed and converted to IR (heat) and the energy is
slowly emitted at a lower frequency. I disagree with Afshar's experimental
results that claim that a particle goes thru one aperture or the other if one is
blocked. It is still a wave action phenomenon, which is proven via the camera
obscura inverted image results captured on a sensitive photo emulsion. This is
a pure wave phenomenon. They only become "particles" when a change of
state occurs at the atomic level. It is EM energy converting matter to a "higher"
energy level, a transfer of energy from one point and effecting a change at
another point, at the atomic level.
I agree that matter is in a normal resonance state that depends upon the atomic
lattice structure. When external energy fields are applied to this natural atomic
ambient state of resonance the fundamental atomic frequency changes. This is a
measurable and proven natural phenomenon. What I have stated is that photons
cannot interact upon themselves, they can only interact with each other in the
presence of matter. This signal mixing and energy exchange that takes place
between the resonant fundamental EM frequency of the atomic matrix and the
energy contained in an impinging photon with the correct complementary
frequency, changes the resonant frequency of the receiving atomic dipoles.
You are correct, and I agree with you on this point, it is all about resonance. To be exact it is about a change of resonance taking place at the atomic level. There is no resonance between discrete
photons at the photonic level in a vacuum or transparent medium. If there were,
all EM signals would be cross coupled and indescriminate. We could never discern
specific frequencies from the chaotic noise that would result if EM fields interacted
in free space. However IMO, there is internal EM timing and phase resonance
within each wavelet pulse originating from each atomic dipole that is emitting
photons. The energized atoms are resonating between two energy orbitals.
They are ringing. The energy being released from that atomic cycling
(ringing) between energy levels takes the form of periodic propagating EM
waves....in this case the energy is called photon's since their frequencies
are of an electromagnetic nature. The entire electromagnetic "spectrum" is
photonic in nature, regardless of the frequency.
It is not a myth, it is pure energy in its natural form being released to space.
Photons are free kinetic EM energy fields propagating at different energy levels.
If EM fields can't freely propagate, because they are held captive by "equalizing"
opposing forces, then they are not considered photons. They are interactive EM
fields trapped in the "resonances" that comprise matter and are better described
as "forces". Under those kinetic resonant conditions they represent stored
potential energy forces that are in a state of relative "balance". The inherent
resonant "forces" available in matter can be displaced by external EM fields
(energy) acting upon them, but they are always attempting to reestablish
equilibrium back to the fundamental resonant state.
This is enough for now, I don't want this to seem esoteric.
Comments?
LL
Hi TRoc, Laserlight, Good Elf et al,
Looking at http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml we see that the result is here http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif
Looking at http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml we see that the result is here http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif
QUOTE (TRoc+)
WHY on Earth would I, or anyone else, want to waste time duplicating it?
The results of the experiment are good
I would guess every physics graduate for the last 150 years (or more) has measured and plotted a similar set of curves.
HOW you explain the results is negotiable but the thing to be explained remains the same. The explanation (theory) needs to predict the results correctly after due allowance has been made for any errors that you feel should be taken into consideration.
For some time I have felt I was the only one actually looking at the results and I hoped that my suggestion of a 'write up' would focus everyone's mind on 'that which is to be explained'.
Best wishes,
-C2.
The results of the experiment are good
I would guess every physics graduate for the last 150 years (or more) has measured and plotted a similar set of curves.
HOW you explain the results is negotiable but the thing to be explained remains the same. The explanation (theory) needs to predict the results correctly after due allowance has been made for any errors that you feel should be taken into consideration.
For some time I have felt I was the only one actually looking at the results and I hoped that my suggestion of a 'write up' would focus everyone's mind on 'that which is to be explained'.
Best wishes,
-C2.
QUOTE (Laserlight+Mar 15 2007, 12:05 AM)
Hi TRoc and ALL,
Wait just a minute! You assume too much. You are "wrong" on a few
points and you are mischaracterizing my position on others. I thought that
I was keeping my position simple, brief, and clear enough for anyone to follow
along. I see nothing incorrect or inconsistent in my argument(s).
A photon is not a particle, a point that GE and I have already
argued over. It only appears as a particle upon causing a quantum displacement
in a receiving atomic dipole resonating at a complementary energy level. That
displacement results in an electron being ejected from its atomic orbital
across some voltage potential drop where current can flow. If an electron is not
ejected from its orbital by a photon, then the photon is either reflected
(re-emitted) or absorbed and converted to IR (heat) and the energy is
slowly emitted at a lower frequency. I disagree with Afshar's experimental
results that claim that a particle goes thru one aperture or the other if one is
blocked. It is still a wave action phenomenon, which is proven via the camera
obscura inverted image results captured on a sensitive photo emulsion. This is
a pure wave phenomenon. They only become "particles" when a change of
state occurs at the atomic level. It is EM energy converting matter to a "higher"
energy level, a transfer of energy from one point and effecting a change at
another point, at the atomic level.
I agree that matter is in a normal resonance state that depends upon the atomic
lattice structure. When external energy fields are applied to this natural atomic
ambient state of resonance the fundamental atomic frequency changes. This is a
measurable and proven natural phenomenon. What I have stated is that photons
cannot interact upon themselves, they can only interact with each other in the
presence of matter. This signal mixing and energy exchange that takes place
between the resonant fundamental EM frequency of the atomic matrix and the
energy contained in an impinging photon with the correct complementary
frequency, changes the resonant frequency of the receiving atomic dipoles.
You are correct, and I agree with you on this point, it is all about resonance. To be exact it is about a change of resonance taking place at the atomic level. There is no resonance between discrete
photons at the photonic level in a vacuum or transparent medium. If there were,
all EM signals would be cross coupled and indescriminate. We could never discern
specific frequencies from the chaotic noise that would result if EM fields interacted
in free space. However IMO, there is internal EM timing and phase resonance
within each wavelet pulse originating from each atomic dipole that is emitting
photons. The energized atoms are resonating between two energy orbitals.
They are ringing. The energy being released from that atomic cycling
(ringing) between energy levels takes the form of periodic propagating EM
waves....in this case the energy is called photon's since their frequencies
are of an electromagnetic nature. The entire electromagnetic "spectrum" is
photonic in nature, regardless of the frequency.
It is not a myth, it is pure energy in its natural form being released to space.
Photons are free kinetic EM energy fields propagating at different energy levels.
If EM fields can't freely propagate, because they are held captive by "equalizing"
opposing forces, then they are not considered photons. They are interactive EM
fields trapped in the "resonances" that comprise matter and are better described
as "forces". Under those kinetic resonant conditions they represent stored
potential energy forces that are in a state of relative "balance". The inherent
resonant "forces" available in matter can be displaced by external EM fields
(energy) acting upon them, but they are always attempting to reestablish
equilibrium back to the fundamental resonant state.
This is enough for now, I don't want this to seem esoteric.
Comments?
LL
I mdisagree when the air is "thick" with photons at pettawatt levels of power the photons start interacting with each other in ways other than diffraction patterns.
Wait just a minute! You assume too much. You are "wrong" on a few
points and you are mischaracterizing my position on others. I thought that
I was keeping my position simple, brief, and clear enough for anyone to follow
along. I see nothing incorrect or inconsistent in my argument(s).
A photon is not a particle, a point that GE and I have already
argued over. It only appears as a particle upon causing a quantum displacement
in a receiving atomic dipole resonating at a complementary energy level. That
displacement results in an electron being ejected from its atomic orbital
across some voltage potential drop where current can flow. If an electron is not
ejected from its orbital by a photon, then the photon is either reflected
(re-emitted) or absorbed and converted to IR (heat) and the energy is
slowly emitted at a lower frequency. I disagree with Afshar's experimental
results that claim that a particle goes thru one aperture or the other if one is
blocked. It is still a wave action phenomenon, which is proven via the camera
obscura inverted image results captured on a sensitive photo emulsion. This is
a pure wave phenomenon. They only become "particles" when a change of
state occurs at the atomic level. It is EM energy converting matter to a "higher"
energy level, a transfer of energy from one point and effecting a change at
another point, at the atomic level.
I agree that matter is in a normal resonance state that depends upon the atomic
lattice structure. When external energy fields are applied to this natural atomic
ambient state of resonance the fundamental atomic frequency changes. This is a
measurable and proven natural phenomenon. What I have stated is that photons
cannot interact upon themselves, they can only interact with each other in the
presence of matter. This signal mixing and energy exchange that takes place
between the resonant fundamental EM frequency of the atomic matrix and the
energy contained in an impinging photon with the correct complementary
frequency, changes the resonant frequency of the receiving atomic dipoles.
You are correct, and I agree with you on this point, it is all about resonance. To be exact it is about a change of resonance taking place at the atomic level. There is no resonance between discrete
photons at the photonic level in a vacuum or transparent medium. If there were,
all EM signals would be cross coupled and indescriminate. We could never discern
specific frequencies from the chaotic noise that would result if EM fields interacted
in free space. However IMO, there is internal EM timing and phase resonance
within each wavelet pulse originating from each atomic dipole that is emitting
photons. The energized atoms are resonating between two energy orbitals.
They are ringing. The energy being released from that atomic cycling
(ringing) between energy levels takes the form of periodic propagating EM
waves....in this case the energy is called photon's since their frequencies
are of an electromagnetic nature. The entire electromagnetic "spectrum" is
photonic in nature, regardless of the frequency.
It is not a myth, it is pure energy in its natural form being released to space.
Photons are free kinetic EM energy fields propagating at different energy levels.
If EM fields can't freely propagate, because they are held captive by "equalizing"
opposing forces, then they are not considered photons. They are interactive EM
fields trapped in the "resonances" that comprise matter and are better described
as "forces". Under those kinetic resonant conditions they represent stored
potential energy forces that are in a state of relative "balance". The inherent
resonant "forces" available in matter can be displaced by external EM fields
(energy) acting upon them, but they are always attempting to reestablish
equilibrium back to the fundamental resonant state.
This is enough for now, I don't want this to seem esoteric.
Comments?
LL
I mdisagree when the air is "thick" with photons at pettawatt levels of power the photons start interacting with each other in ways other than diffraction patterns.
Neil,
Why would that be different than high density photons leaving an equal
cross-sectional area of the sun (or another star)? I realize that laser beams
are coherent, but compare the intensity of the radiation emitted from the sun
where there is no observable cross interference in the individual radiation bands of
the total emission spectrum?
I'm skeptical that high intensity photon fields are interacting without some sort of
matter "catalyst" causing the signal mixing. I'm in agreement with GE about this.
LL
QUOTE
I mdisagree when the air is "thick" with photons at pettawatt levels of power the photons start interacting with each other in ways other than diffraction patterns.
Why would that be different than high density photons leaving an equal
cross-sectional area of the sun (or another star)? I realize that laser beams
are coherent, but compare the intensity of the radiation emitted from the sun
where there is no observable cross interference in the individual radiation bands of
the total emission spectrum?
I'm skeptical that high intensity photon fields are interacting without some sort of
matter "catalyst" causing the signal mixing. I'm in agreement with GE about this.
LL
Hi Neil Farbstein, Confused2, yquantum, Laserlight, fivedoughnut, "THEY", Montec, TRoc, Aerohead et al,
Here is a simple question... it requires a simple yes or no answer. Of course you can say more but can we at least determine one important point at a time. Please consider what I am saying and think about each example I am showing here. They are all important. Remember with the DSE we are dealing with "a very large cavity" in which we have a source and it connects to a secondary cavity with pinholes or with slits... keep this in mind.
If "everyone" agrees that "resonance" is the basic underlying cause of the Young's Double Slit Interference Experiment, then the discussion about path length as in that image that Confused2 is continually bringing up is an over simplification.
If we really are speaking about resonance (lets agree on that at least) then depending on the properties of the "cavity" we will have a series of standing waves and this is what we see on the screen.
RESONANCE, STANDING WAVES, AND MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
If we look at the example (fig 2.2) that all of us have seen before of "resonating" a flat geometrical "Chladni" Plate with fine sand on it using a violin's bow that causes the plate's two dimensional "cavity" to resonate and form standing waves. Clearly this is sound waves and the nodes are where sand lies undisturbed and the antinodes are where the sand vibrates away from because those areas are so "energetic" and involved in material "oscillation". Can we see spatial volumes with boundaries at their margins? They are not actually related directly to a wavelength at all but they are related to the modes of vibration of the cavity and they have different dimensions in different directions. Just go with this please... you will get a lot of insight if you think about it in a more complex way. I would also note the shape of these "resonant" sub-cavities depends on the surrounding boundary conditions and they reflect the source and the shape of the cavity and then on "paths".
The pattern depends not only on the shape of the plates (in this case square) but on the parasitic frequency of resonance produced by the bow. This frequency depends where on the plate (read resonant cavity) the bow is drawn (this is the "source"). The standing wave pattern are a function of that "source" position as much as it is a function of the shape of the "cavity". The one plate can vibrate "spatially" with many spatial frequencies. This is despite the speed of sound being fixed and finite and that the phases will add and subtract around the space depending on all "reflections" summing complex "phasewise" and not "intensitywise". In Young's experiment we suppress all secondary reflections and we are only looking at one frequency.
Have a look at this spectrograph of a violin's sound and note the relationship of a "source"... there are superimposed frequencies that are all related to each other by integer multiples.
Musical acoustics - Harmonics, partials, and overtones
... go to page above for full size image...
The photon is not the same but sound shows this phenomenon as well of having non-infinite numbers of discrete oscillators. A third the way down the reference in Wikipedia's "Musical Acoustics" (I beg you ... have a look) shows us "mostly" the frequency relationships and the brightness shows the individual oscillator amplitudes and bandwidth of each frequency. This is the acoustic equivalent of "spectra". This is the very nature of a source... the frequencies are not continuous they are discrete and are interrelated "almost" in a Fourier series. This is what Planck found and it is why there is no "Ultraviolet Divergence"... There are a large number of inter-related primary oscillators. We understand why this occurs for sound so this must have something to do with light as well. I am "tippy-toeing" around this because of the graphic nature may mislead everyone. Light is not sound... just believe me... but in this one characteristic it is very similar (it is an "acoustic quantum" effect if you will). Are we agreed? "Music" calls these "overtones"... we call them harmonics. There is always a base frequency and this is what Planck refers to in his Black Body Radiation Theory and it is what Einstein suggests in this equation E = hf which uses this "constant". While there is a "base frequency" it will have "overtones" depending on the source.
Wikipedia: Cymatics
Cymatics is the study of wave phenomena. It is typically associated with the physical patterns produced through the interaction of sound waves in a medium. Naturally I maintain light is not sound and there is no "medium" with light only space, dimensions, energy and time mixed with 'information".
With the use of "imagination" you can extend this simple model of Chladni Plates to interconnected cavities. This "single source" can be used to feed other cavities through "point contact" .... interconnection of cavities. If we had a square plate at which two in-phase parts of the same original source excitation made contact, it would produce standing waves just like Young's Double Slit Experiment. It would also reflect the "pattern" of the original source since the original source is now "feeding" this new cavity. If it was just down to path length the original source has no influence. I could go back and show/retell how an image through a pinhole produces an image, not of the pinhole itself, but of the original source(s). You have all viewed Sunspots and Eclipses of the Sun using this very technique using a single pinhole and a couple of simple cards.
Notice this is not a property of traveling waves but a property of nodes and anti-nodes in a cavity. I fully realize it takes time for those nodes and antinodes to form but this is not light but sound and we are not looking at EM Radiation patterns but at sand grains as "detectors" of influence.
How many of you agree with the premiss that the DSE is a resonant phenomena and not one of simple path but one in which we must "seek all paths"? So are we in agreement? resonances not path lengths... ???
The next step is to realize... deeply... that with light, one photon at a time will do this too.
Cheers
Here is a simple question... it requires a simple yes or no answer. Of course you can say more but can we at least determine one important point at a time. Please consider what I am saying and think about each example I am showing here. They are all important. Remember with the DSE we are dealing with "a very large cavity" in which we have a source and it connects to a secondary cavity with pinholes or with slits... keep this in mind.
If "everyone" agrees that "resonance" is the basic underlying cause of the Young's Double Slit Interference Experiment, then the discussion about path length as in that image that Confused2 is continually bringing up is an over simplification.
If we really are speaking about resonance (lets agree on that at least) then depending on the properties of the "cavity" we will have a series of standing waves and this is what we see on the screen.
RESONANCE, STANDING WAVES, AND MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
If we look at the example (fig 2.2) that all of us have seen before of "resonating" a flat geometrical "Chladni" Plate with fine sand on it using a violin's bow that causes the plate's two dimensional "cavity" to resonate and form standing waves. Clearly this is sound waves and the nodes are where sand lies undisturbed and the antinodes are where the sand vibrates away from because those areas are so "energetic" and involved in material "oscillation". Can we see spatial volumes with boundaries at their margins? They are not actually related directly to a wavelength at all but they are related to the modes of vibration of the cavity and they have different dimensions in different directions. Just go with this please... you will get a lot of insight if you think about it in a more complex way. I would also note the shape of these "resonant" sub-cavities depends on the surrounding boundary conditions and they reflect the source and the shape of the cavity and then on "paths".
The pattern depends not only on the shape of the plates (in this case square) but on the parasitic frequency of resonance produced by the bow. This frequency depends where on the plate (read resonant cavity) the bow is drawn (this is the "source"). The standing wave pattern are a function of that "source" position as much as it is a function of the shape of the "cavity". The one plate can vibrate "spatially" with many spatial frequencies. This is despite the speed of sound being fixed and finite and that the phases will add and subtract around the space depending on all "reflections" summing complex "phasewise" and not "intensitywise". In Young's experiment we suppress all secondary reflections and we are only looking at one frequency.
Have a look at this spectrograph of a violin's sound and note the relationship of a "source"... there are superimposed frequencies that are all related to each other by integer multiples.
Musical acoustics - Harmonics, partials, and overtones
... go to page above for full size image...
The photon is not the same but sound shows this phenomenon as well of having non-infinite numbers of discrete oscillators. A third the way down the reference in Wikipedia's "Musical Acoustics" (I beg you ... have a look) shows us "mostly" the frequency relationships and the brightness shows the individual oscillator amplitudes and bandwidth of each frequency. This is the acoustic equivalent of "spectra". This is the very nature of a source... the frequencies are not continuous they are discrete and are interrelated "almost" in a Fourier series. This is what Planck found and it is why there is no "Ultraviolet Divergence"... There are a large number of inter-related primary oscillators. We understand why this occurs for sound so this must have something to do with light as well. I am "tippy-toeing" around this because of the graphic nature may mislead everyone. Light is not sound... just believe me... but in this one characteristic it is very similar (it is an "acoustic quantum" effect if you will). Are we agreed? "Music" calls these "overtones"... we call them harmonics. There is always a base frequency and this is what Planck refers to in his Black Body Radiation Theory and it is what Einstein suggests in this equation E = hf which uses this "constant". While there is a "base frequency" it will have "overtones" depending on the source.
Wikipedia: Cymatics
Cymatics is the study of wave phenomena. It is typically associated with the physical patterns produced through the interaction of sound waves in a medium. Naturally I maintain light is not sound and there is no "medium" with light only space, dimensions, energy and time mixed with 'information".
With the use of "imagination" you can extend this simple model of Chladni Plates to interconnected cavities. This "single source" can be used to feed other cavities through "point contact" .... interconnection of cavities. If we had a square plate at which two in-phase parts of the same original source excitation made contact, it would produce standing waves just like Young's Double Slit Experiment. It would also reflect the "pattern" of the original source since the original source is now "feeding" this new cavity. If it was just down to path length the original source has no influence. I could go back and show/retell how an image through a pinhole produces an image, not of the pinhole itself, but of the original source(s). You have all viewed Sunspots and Eclipses of the Sun using this very technique using a single pinhole and a couple of simple cards.
Notice this is not a property of traveling waves but a property of nodes and anti-nodes in a cavity. I fully realize it takes time for those nodes and antinodes to form but this is not light but sound and we are not looking at EM Radiation patterns but at sand grains as "detectors" of influence.
How many of you agree with the premiss that the DSE is a resonant phenomena and not one of simple path but one in which we must "seek all paths"? So are we in agreement? resonances not path lengths... ???
The next step is to realize... deeply... that with light, one photon at a time will do this too.
Cheers
Hi Neil Farbstein, Confused2, yquantum, Laserlight, fivedoughnut, "THEY", Montec, TRoc, Aerohead et al,
Of course now that you see what the speed of sound, a handful of sand, a violin bow and a metal plate can do we also have the similar kind of thing for electromagnetism in three dimensional space.
A similar technique has been used to image atoms and their shells. There are discrepancies from standard theory and it is controversial but on balance it is a valid technique.
Cheers
Of course now that you see what the speed of sound, a handful of sand, a violin bow and a metal plate can do we also have the similar kind of thing for electromagnetism in three dimensional space.
QUOTE
Original Jal link in Physorg
A Scanned Perturbation Technique For Imaging Electromagnetic Standing Wave Patterns of Microwave Cavities
Ali Gokirmak, Dong-Ho Wu, J. S. A. Bridgewater, and Steven M. Anlage
Center for Superconductivity Research, Department of Physics, University of
Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-4111
Abstract
We have developed a method to measure the electric field standing wave distributions in a microwave resonator using a scanned perturbation technique. Fast and reliable solutions to the Helmholtz equation (and to the Schrodinger equation for two dimensional systems) with arbitrarily-shaped boundaries are obtained. We use a pin perturbation to image primarily the microwave electric field amplitude, and we demonstrate the ability to image broken time-reversal symmetry standing wave patterns produced with a magnetized ferrite in the cavity. The whole cavity, including areas very close to the walls, can be imaged using this technique with high spatial resolution over a broad range of frequencies.
41.20.-q, 03.65.Ge, 84.40.Zc, 73.23.-b, 74.40.+k
PostScript for chao-dyn/9806023
The following files are available for chao-dyn/9806023,
* paper (48.8 kB)
* 9806023.figure1.gif (7.1 kB)
* 9806023.figure2.gif (4847 bytes)
* 9806023.figure3.gif (8.7 kB)
* 9806023.figure4.gif (10.5 kB)
* 9806023.figure5.gif (55.5 kB)
* 9806023.figure6.gif (54.8 kB)
* 9806023.figure7.gif (21.2 kB)
* 9806023.figure8.gif (23.6 kB)
* 9806023.figure9.gif (24.4 kB)
and this higher frequency variant...
... click to enlarge...
I am sure you can see the similarity. To get these images you need to break the time symmetry of Schrodinger's Wave Equation and "bingo"... "Bob's your Uncle..." He he he!A Scanned Perturbation Technique For Imaging Electromagnetic Standing Wave Patterns of Microwave Cavities
Ali Gokirmak, Dong-Ho Wu, J. S. A. Bridgewater, and Steven M. Anlage
Center for Superconductivity Research, Department of Physics, University of
Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-4111
Abstract
We have developed a method to measure the electric field standing wave distributions in a microwave resonator using a scanned perturbation technique. Fast and reliable solutions to the Helmholtz equation (and to the Schrodinger equation for two dimensional systems) with arbitrarily-shaped boundaries are obtained. We use a pin perturbation to image primarily the microwave electric field amplitude, and we demonstrate the ability to image broken time-reversal symmetry standing wave patterns produced with a magnetized ferrite in the cavity. The whole cavity, including areas very close to the walls, can be imaged using this technique with high spatial resolution over a broad range of frequencies.
41.20.-q, 03.65.Ge, 84.40.Zc, 73.23.-b, 74.40.+k
PostScript for chao-dyn/9806023
The following files are available for chao-dyn/9806023,
* paper (48.8 kB)
* 9806023.figure1.gif (7.1 kB)
* 9806023.figure2.gif (4847 bytes)
* 9806023.figure3.gif (8.7 kB)
* 9806023.figure4.gif (10.5 kB)
* 9806023.figure5.gif (55.5 kB)
* 9806023.figure6.gif (54.8 kB)
* 9806023.figure7.gif (21.2 kB)
* 9806023.figure8.gif (23.6 kB)
* 9806023.figure9.gif (24.4 kB)
and this higher frequency variant...
... click to enlarge...
A similar technique has been used to image atoms and their shells. There are discrepancies from standard theory and it is controversial but on balance it is a valid technique.
Cheers
Hi all,
Thanks for the responses.
I could summarize our dilemma (in jest) as such: If we transmit a single, perfect, localized, monochromatic sine-wave, in the perfect spherical cavity, in an absolute vacuum, and receive it with a localized single Hydrogen atom, held in a strong magnetic field to 1 degree of freedom, so that the path length was integer multiples of the wavelength, this would be a piece of cake!!
LL,
I realize that you think that the "photon" is not a particle. I do, however, feel that your "model" gives the "photon" enough independence, in terms of the EM field, that it becomes too "particle-like".
I totally agree that we need "matter" (I'll just say "atom") in order to have the so-called "photons" do their "mixing". In fact, I feel SO strongly about the NECESSITY of have the atoms present in not only their "mixing" (whatever that really is) AND (more importantly, perhaps even the "same" as mixing?) in the CREATION of a "photon".
What I am trying to get you to think about here is it is a GIVEN that we must have TWO atoms, in order to have an exchange of energy (the "photon"). Each time a bit of energy raises the state of an electron, the same amount is re-emitted. This is the basic stuff. If you MUST believe in a "photon", if just for convenience of conversation, than at least realize that each time this excitation happens, we get a NEW "photon". There is "nothing" (as in mass) really moving between the 2 electrons, just energy. The EM fields of the 2 resonant electrons are connected by "entanglement". There is NOT 3 fields here, nor even 2. It is all one "thing".
It may sound harmless enough, to say that we need mass to do the "mixing" of the "photons". I realize that you are citing current theory here. What I am saying is that we have too many false assumptions for this idea to work. When I say "photons" I am ALREADY implying (by default) that there are TWO electrons involved there. What I am saying is, is that THERE ARE OTHER ELECTRONS besides the "ideal" electrons present in our contrived "detectors". These are the "hidden variables" that have been around for quite some time.
Nothing that we can make, can exist without electrons. Again, this is just very basic stuff. Mirrors (glass and metal) are NO exception. There is NO SUCH thing as: a perfect reflector, a perfect absorber, a perfect "vacuum", etc.
The E and B fields are COUPLED orthogonally. They can exist UNCOUPLED as well. We have "undetectable" (or just now starting to become so) magnetic spin waves. We have fractional charge. We have plasma states. We have filamentation, and white-light supercontinuums. Things are NOT the same here, and MOST importantly, not ideal, and/or "linear".
Tell me what you think that an electron does physically, when it "absorbs" a "photon"? Does this occur "inside" the radius of the electron, or outside (the field)? How about emission? If you say "on the outside" (which is what I think), then what we have is the ENTIRE process of energy exchange happening "in the field" that exists BETWEEN the 2 electrons.
This exchange does NOT take up a symmetrical form, like a monochromatic sine wave. We have the "self interaction" going on, and a frequency that changes with time. This is totally self contained, and DOES arrive with the same energy level (frequency) as it was emitted at. Only if we treat time as "infinite" do we get the "single frequency" hump of the Fourier method. We MUST, however, allow for the FINITE time, in constant ratio of cycles & distance, so that our "wave" is relative, so to speak.
What GE has just posted is very close. I think that you are "over the hump" now Good Elf; this "musical analogy" wasn't so bad after all? YES, this is about resonance. There are a few "minor" problems with the current (lack of) theory in this regard.
The Cymatic, and Chaldni plate videos that I posted earlier show exactly what I am saying here. The "standing wave" patterns (nodes/anti-nodes) CHANGE with frequency, and we DO NOT have a steady, or monochromatic tone. Every time the frequency changes a "step" (an interval), we get a different pattern. This is critical to what I am saying, as relating to the DSE.
Standing waves are when the medium moves in synchrony; the constructive vibrations add at the anti-nodes, and the destructive add at the nodes. Then, the waves (in the medium) appear to be non-moving, in time and space. The energy DOES move through this time and space, with the "phase singularity" (nodes) being UNMEASURABLE by our standard, resonant (anti-node) electrons, which are CHOSEN to be resonant with our "peak" energy.
This peak is NOT the "center frequency" of an ideal sine wave. The "average" energy is the HARMONIC MEAN. Cycles over time AND distance over time are BOTH rates. Again, Pythagoras showed the way for this, over 2200 years ago. It is the difference between "simple" and "compound" interest, at a bank.
Because of the INVERSE relationship between frequency and wavelength, and the FACT that the energy is not "centered" in a moving, self propelled packet of energy, we get the REAL reason for HUP. In the physical system of mathematics that measures the "binary", dualistic, vibration, you can't start out with one, and end up with an integer at the other. LL and I had an "indirect" talk about that. Planck's constant "h", and Einstein's constant "c" just won't "jive" in that way. Remember, we need nhf : so, since we have our "quantized angular momentum" electrons, we are starting with an integer of h. We will then have a "bit" left over, so to speak, in the h/2pi neighborhood. This may be so "unusual" of a way to put it, that it may sound crazy. But it works.
The other way to say it, is that in an ideal sine wave (monochromatic), and integer multiples of h, we SHOULD be able to use a Power series to represent the harmonics, and have a "symmetrical" answer, but we can't. There is a "twist" in there, and we end up with pairs of different energy levels. In order to "balance the books", we move diagonally, a symmetrical distance from the center (node), and find that this "tension", in a "Resonance Matrix", allows an exact symmetrical measurement of the frequency and wavelength (simultaneous), and sacrifices the "precise", integer value of c . Note that this does not change the constant ratio (velocity) of c , it just extends it to the irrational family.
The last 2 paragraphs are probably "off-topic" a bit, but related in the end.
I would like to point out a couple of things from GE's link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_acoustics
"the highs and lows in the air pressure reinforce each other to produce a different sound wave" That is quite clear. Of course, EM waves are a bit different, but this is the same concept, just use a different "pressure". The result is quite clear: A new, different sound wave is created, based on the interaction of the "highs and lows". To the "medium", it makes no difference.
Then, they go on to say
"the highs and lows in the air pressure reinforce each other to produce a different sound wave" That is quite clear. Of course, EM waves are a bit different, but this is the same concept, just use a different "pressure". The result is quite clear: A new, different sound wave is created, based on the interaction of the "highs and lows". To the "medium", it makes no difference.
Then, they go on to say
When the original sound sources are perfectly periodic, the note consists of several related sine waves (which mathematically add to each other) called the fundamental and the harmonics, partials, or overtones.[citation needed]
Well, they're not going to find a "citation", because there is NONE. There has not been a mathematical model to produce this; I hope, as you all know by now, to get my answer to this published.
Here is the SAME problem that I just spoke of. The "integer multiples" will not come out symmetric. These frequencies are interacting with each other, and creating a changing "packet" shape.
Here is the SAME problem that I just spoke of. The "integer multiples" will not come out symmetric. These frequencies are interacting with each other, and creating a changing "packet" shape.
Overtones which are perfect integer multiples of the fundamental are called harmonics. When an overtone is near to being harmonic, but not exact, it is sometimes called a harmonic partial, although they are often referred to simply as harmonics. Sometimes overtones are created that are not anywhere near a harmonic, and are just called partials or inharmonic overtones.
Here at least, we see the reality being exposed. The "ideal" solutions do NOT account for these "non-integer" values.
This is quite a large error, due to the "ideal" expectations. This system says NOTHING of "sub-harmonics", that we all know exist in the Nyquist limit. Ending a "Scientific" statement with "and probably also..", is not too reassuring!
This is quite a large error, due to the "ideal" expectations. This system says NOTHING of "sub-harmonics", that we all know exist in the Nyquist limit. Ending a "Scientific" statement with "and probably also..", is not too reassuring!
If two notes are simultaneously played, with frequency ratios that are simple fractions (e.g. 2/1, 3/2 or 5/4), then the composite wave will still be periodic with a short period, and the combination will sound consonant.[citation needed] For instance, a note vibrating at 200 Hz and a note vibrating at 300 Hz (a perfect fifth, or 3/2 ratio, above 200 Hz) will add together to make a wave that repeats at 100 Hz: every 1/100 of a second, the 300 Hz wave will repeat thrice and the 200 Hz wave will repeat twice. Note that the total wave repeats at 100 Hz, but there is not actually a 100 Hz sinusoidal component present.
They're looking for a citation again, and won't find a good one. Euler did many years of work on that, and came up with nothing "satisfactory". But there is our damn "sinusoidal component" problem again. Clearly, in the first quote, they say that we have a "different sound wave", arising from the two wave superposition. Yet, this "doesn't show up" because of the method of measuring, over "fixed" time. Only the "evolving" time method will catch the resonant interaction.
In closing, trying to define "pleasing or unpleasing" does NOT belong in this study. That is like trying to mathematically prove whether chocolate is better than vanilla. This has "snagged" the best of them, as is seen by the silly (yet probably out of context) reference by Helmholtz. What we have, in our "electron based" senses, is a built in resonance detector. This value (resonant/dissonant) is frequency dependent, just like our index of refraction, and "transparent" molecules. It MUST be "compared" to another frequency, in order to have Relative "harmony".
Regards,
T.Roc
PS. LL, in the linear "photonic" EM spectrum that you referred to (from textbooks), what are the limits? You said something to the affect of "it's not a "photon" if it's not moving", so what do you call the (low) frequencies that fall below "normal" propagation rules? Or, the energies that are near "merger" of the forces (~10^40 Hz)? Do you think that this "linear" version is adequate?
Thanks for the responses.
I could summarize our dilemma (in jest) as such: If we transmit a single, perfect, localized, monochromatic sine-wave, in the perfect spherical cavity, in an absolute vacuum, and receive it with a localized single Hydrogen atom, held in a strong magnetic field to 1 degree of freedom, so that the path length was integer multiples of the wavelength, this would be a piece of cake!!
LL,
I realize that you think that the "photon" is not a particle. I do, however, feel that your "model" gives the "photon" enough independence, in terms of the EM field, that it becomes too "particle-like".
I totally agree that we need "matter" (I'll just say "atom") in order to have the so-called "photons" do their "mixing". In fact, I feel SO strongly about the NECESSITY of have the atoms present in not only their "mixing" (whatever that really is) AND (more importantly, perhaps even the "same" as mixing?) in the CREATION of a "photon".
What I am trying to get you to think about here is it is a GIVEN that we must have TWO atoms, in order to have an exchange of energy (the "photon"). Each time a bit of energy raises the state of an electron, the same amount is re-emitted. This is the basic stuff. If you MUST believe in a "photon", if just for convenience of conversation, than at least realize that each time this excitation happens, we get a NEW "photon". There is "nothing" (as in mass) really moving between the 2 electrons, just energy. The EM fields of the 2 resonant electrons are connected by "entanglement". There is NOT 3 fields here, nor even 2. It is all one "thing".
It may sound harmless enough, to say that we need mass to do the "mixing" of the "photons". I realize that you are citing current theory here. What I am saying is that we have too many false assumptions for this idea to work. When I say "photons" I am ALREADY implying (by default) that there are TWO electrons involved there. What I am saying is, is that THERE ARE OTHER ELECTRONS besides the "ideal" electrons present in our contrived "detectors". These are the "hidden variables" that have been around for quite some time.
Nothing that we can make, can exist without electrons. Again, this is just very basic stuff. Mirrors (glass and metal) are NO exception. There is NO SUCH thing as: a perfect reflector, a perfect absorber, a perfect "vacuum", etc.
The E and B fields are COUPLED orthogonally. They can exist UNCOUPLED as well. We have "undetectable" (or just now starting to become so) magnetic spin waves. We have fractional charge. We have plasma states. We have filamentation, and white-light supercontinuums. Things are NOT the same here, and MOST importantly, not ideal, and/or "linear".
Tell me what you think that an electron does physically, when it "absorbs" a "photon"? Does this occur "inside" the radius of the electron, or outside (the field)? How about emission? If you say "on the outside" (which is what I think), then what we have is the ENTIRE process of energy exchange happening "in the field" that exists BETWEEN the 2 electrons.
This exchange does NOT take up a symmetrical form, like a monochromatic sine wave. We have the "self interaction" going on, and a frequency that changes with time. This is totally self contained, and DOES arrive with the same energy level (frequency) as it was emitted at. Only if we treat time as "infinite" do we get the "single frequency" hump of the Fourier method. We MUST, however, allow for the FINITE time, in constant ratio of cycles & distance, so that our "wave" is relative, so to speak.
What GE has just posted is very close. I think that you are "over the hump" now Good Elf; this "musical analogy" wasn't so bad after all? YES, this is about resonance. There are a few "minor" problems with the current (lack of) theory in this regard.
The Cymatic, and Chaldni plate videos that I posted earlier show exactly what I am saying here. The "standing wave" patterns (nodes/anti-nodes) CHANGE with frequency, and we DO NOT have a steady, or monochromatic tone. Every time the frequency changes a "step" (an interval), we get a different pattern. This is critical to what I am saying, as relating to the DSE.
Standing waves are when the medium moves in synchrony; the constructive vibrations add at the anti-nodes, and the destructive add at the nodes. Then, the waves (in the medium) appear to be non-moving, in time and space. The energy DOES move through this time and space, with the "phase singularity" (nodes) being UNMEASURABLE by our standard, resonant (anti-node) electrons, which are CHOSEN to be resonant with our "peak" energy.
This peak is NOT the "center frequency" of an ideal sine wave. The "average" energy is the HARMONIC MEAN. Cycles over time AND distance over time are BOTH rates. Again, Pythagoras showed the way for this, over 2200 years ago. It is the difference between "simple" and "compound" interest, at a bank.
Because of the INVERSE relationship between frequency and wavelength, and the FACT that the energy is not "centered" in a moving, self propelled packet of energy, we get the REAL reason for HUP. In the physical system of mathematics that measures the "binary", dualistic, vibration, you can't start out with one, and end up with an integer at the other. LL and I had an "indirect" talk about that. Planck's constant "h", and Einstein's constant "c" just won't "jive" in that way. Remember, we need nhf : so, since we have our "quantized angular momentum" electrons, we are starting with an integer of h. We will then have a "bit" left over, so to speak, in the h/2pi neighborhood. This may be so "unusual" of a way to put it, that it may sound crazy. But it works.
The other way to say it, is that in an ideal sine wave (monochromatic), and integer multiples of h, we SHOULD be able to use a Power series to represent the harmonics, and have a "symmetrical" answer, but we can't. There is a "twist" in there, and we end up with pairs of different energy levels. In order to "balance the books", we move diagonally, a symmetrical distance from the center (node), and find that this "tension", in a "Resonance Matrix", allows an exact symmetrical measurement of the frequency and wavelength (simultaneous), and sacrifices the "precise", integer value of c . Note that this does not change the constant ratio (velocity) of c , it just extends it to the irrational family.
The last 2 paragraphs are probably "off-topic" a bit, but related in the end.
I would like to point out a couple of things from GE's link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_acoustics
QUOTE
Whenever two different pitches are played at the same time, their sound waves interact with each other — the highs and lows in the air pressure reinforce each other to produce a different sound wave. As a result, any given sound wave which is more complicated than a sine wave can be modeled by many different sine waves of the appropriate frequencies and amplitudes (a frequency spectrum).
"the highs and lows in the air pressure reinforce each other to produce a different sound wave" That is quite clear. Of course, EM waves are a bit different, but this is the same concept, just use a different "pressure". The result is quite clear: A new, different sound wave is created, based on the interaction of the "highs and lows". To the "medium", it makes no difference.
Then, they go on to say
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Whenever two different pitches are played at the same time, their sound waves interact with each other — the highs and lows in the air pressure reinforce each other to produce a different sound wave. As a result, any given sound wave which is more complicated than a sine wave can be modeled by many different sine waves of the appropriate frequencies and amplitudes (a frequency spectrum). |
"the highs and lows in the air pressure reinforce each other to produce a different sound wave" That is quite clear. Of course, EM waves are a bit different, but this is the same concept, just use a different "pressure". The result is quite clear: A new, different sound wave is created, based on the interaction of the "highs and lows". To the "medium", it makes no difference.
Then, they go on to say
When the original sound sources are perfectly periodic, the note consists of several related sine waves (which mathematically add to each other) called the fundamental and the harmonics, partials, or overtones.[citation needed]
Well, they're not going to find a "citation", because there is NONE. There has not been a mathematical model to produce this; I hope, as you all know by now, to get my answer to this published.
QUOTE
The overtones vibrate faster than the fundamental, but must vibrate at integer multiples of the fundamental frequency in order for the total wave to be exactly the same each cycle. Real instruments are close to periodic, but the frequencies of the overtones are slightly imperfect, so the shape of the wave changes slightly over time.
Here is the SAME problem that I just spoke of. The "integer multiples" will not come out symmetric. These frequencies are interacting with each other, and creating a changing "packet" shape.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The overtones vibrate faster than the fundamental, but must vibrate at integer multiples of the fundamental frequency in order for the total wave to be exactly the same each cycle. Real instruments are close to periodic, but the frequencies of the overtones are slightly imperfect, so the shape of the wave changes slightly over time. |
Here is the SAME problem that I just spoke of. The "integer multiples" will not come out symmetric. These frequencies are interacting with each other, and creating a changing "packet" shape.
Overtones which are perfect integer multiples of the fundamental are called harmonics. When an overtone is near to being harmonic, but not exact, it is sometimes called a harmonic partial, although they are often referred to simply as harmonics. Sometimes overtones are created that are not anywhere near a harmonic, and are just called partials or inharmonic overtones.
Here at least, we see the reality being exposed. The "ideal" solutions do NOT account for these "non-integer" values.
QUOTE
When a periodic wave is composed of a fundamental and only odd harmonics (f, 3f, 5f, 7f, ...), the summed wave is half-wave symmetric; it can be inverted and phase shifted and be exactly the same. If the wave has any even harmonics (0f, 2f, 4f, 6f, ...), it will be asymmetrical; the top half will not be a mirror image of the bottom.
The opposite is also true. A system which changes the shape of the wave (beyond simple scaling or shifting) creates additional harmonics (harmonic distortion). This is called a non-linear system. If it affects the wave symmetrically, the harmonics produced will only be odd, if asymmetrically, at least one even harmonic will be produced (and probably also odd).
The opposite is also true. A system which changes the shape of the wave (beyond simple scaling or shifting) creates additional harmonics (harmonic distortion). This is called a non-linear system. If it affects the wave symmetrically, the harmonics produced will only be odd, if asymmetrically, at least one even harmonic will be produced (and probably also odd).
This is quite a large error, due to the "ideal" expectations. This system says NOTHING of "sub-harmonics", that we all know exist in the Nyquist limit. Ending a "Scientific" statement with "and probably also..", is not too reassuring!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When a periodic wave is composed of a fundamental and only odd harmonics (f, 3f, 5f, 7f, ...), the summed wave is half-wave symmetric; it can be inverted and phase shifted and be exactly the same. If the wave has any even harmonics (0f, 2f, 4f, 6f, ...), it will be asymmetrical; the top half will not be a mirror image of the bottom. The opposite is also true. A system which changes the shape of the wave (beyond simple scaling or shifting) creates additional harmonics (harmonic distortion). This is called a non-linear system. If it affects the wave symmetrically, the harmonics produced will only be odd, if asymmetrically, at least one even harmonic will be produced (and probably also odd). |
This is quite a large error, due to the "ideal" expectations. This system says NOTHING of "sub-harmonics", that we all know exist in the Nyquist limit. Ending a "Scientific" statement with "and probably also..", is not too reassuring!
If two notes are simultaneously played, with frequency ratios that are simple fractions (e.g. 2/1, 3/2 or 5/4), then the composite wave will still be periodic with a short period, and the combination will sound consonant.[citation needed] For instance, a note vibrating at 200 Hz and a note vibrating at 300 Hz (a perfect fifth, or 3/2 ratio, above 200 Hz) will add together to make a wave that repeats at 100 Hz: every 1/100 of a second, the 300 Hz wave will repeat thrice and the 200 Hz wave will repeat twice. Note that the total wave repeats at 100 Hz, but there is not actually a 100 Hz sinusoidal component present.
They're looking for a citation again, and won't find a good one. Euler did many years of work on that, and came up with nothing "satisfactory". But there is our damn "sinusoidal component" problem again. Clearly, in the first quote, they say that we have a "different sound wave", arising from the two wave superposition. Yet, this "doesn't show up" because of the method of measuring, over "fixed" time. Only the "evolving" time method will catch the resonant interaction.
QUOTE
When two frequencies are near to a simple fraction, but not exact, the composite wave cycles slowly enough to hear the cancellation of the waves as a steady pulsing instead of a tone. This is called beating, and is considered to be unpleasant, or dissonant.
The frequency of beating is calculated as the difference between the frequencies of the two notes. For the example above, |200 Hz - 300 Hz| = 100 Hz. As another example, a combination of 3425 Hz and 3426 Hz would beat once per second (|3425 Hz - 3426 Hz| = 1 Hz). This follows from modulation theory.
The difference between consonance and dissonance is not clearly defined, but the higher the beat frequency, the more likely the interval to be dissonant. Helmholtz proposed that maximum dissonance would arise between two pure tones when the beat rate is roughly 35 Hz. [1]
The frequency of beating is calculated as the difference between the frequencies of the two notes. For the example above, |200 Hz - 300 Hz| = 100 Hz. As another example, a combination of 3425 Hz and 3426 Hz would beat once per second (|3425 Hz - 3426 Hz| = 1 Hz). This follows from modulation theory.
The difference between consonance and dissonance is not clearly defined, but the higher the beat frequency, the more likely the interval to be dissonant. Helmholtz proposed that maximum dissonance would arise between two pure tones when the beat rate is roughly 35 Hz. [1]
In closing, trying to define "pleasing or unpleasing" does NOT belong in this study. That is like trying to mathematically prove whether chocolate is better than vanilla. This has "snagged" the best of them, as is seen by the silly (yet probably out of context) reference by Helmholtz. What we have, in our "electron based" senses, is a built in resonance detector. This value (resonant/dissonant) is frequency dependent, just like our index of refraction, and "transparent" molecules. It MUST be "compared" to another frequency, in order to have Relative "harmony".
Regards,
T.Roc
PS. LL, in the linear "photonic" EM spectrum that you referred to (from textbooks), what are the limits? You said something to the affect of "it's not a "photon" if it's not moving", so what do you call the (low) frequencies that fall below "normal" propagation rules? Or, the energies that are near "merger" of the forces (~10^40 Hz)? Do you think that this "linear" version is adequate?
Hi TRoc, Neil Farbstein, Confused2, yquantum, Laserlight, fivedoughnut, "THEY", Montec, Aerohead et al,
There are big differences between "sound waves" and "light waves". Sound waves are compression waves in a medium (such as air).... light waves are not. When a "heap of moving molecules" moving in one direction meet a heap of moving molecules moving in another direction they can interfere... even "destructively", totally canceling through dissipation of their kinetic and potential energy. Light does not "destructively" interfere in that way, the individual photons move independently and even though they "rub shoulders" with other photons they do not "merge".
A "sine wave" is only a reality when it extends from plus infinity to minus infinity. A sine wave is a mathematical abstraction... they don't really exist. What really exists are light waves which is the way in which large collective assemblies of photons organize themselves through various "organizing processes" such as radio transmitters with their antennas or LASER Tubes to synchronize their collective propagation. The individual photons, regardless of how they mix or interfere with other photons retain their individual frequency and also the character of the individual sources from where they originate. This is why a telescope works. This is not true of waves at the beach... this is because waves at the beach carry nothing from their sources, they are "just waves".
Light waves actually retain information about their sources, in that respect they define how the sources interact with the rest of our Universe. Light's photons are the force carriers of our Universe, the exchange force that actually make things happen. In one way "everything" is composed of electromagnetic phenomena. I believe all the forces of nature ... even Gravity (which is a pseudo-force) can be explained by the activities of photons. Particles and sub-atomic Particles are made with photons since a particle and their anti-particles "cancel" ... not to nothing... but to "photons". The sub-atomic forces are composed of them (the electro-weak and the "electro-strong" forces... the first is proven and the second is strongly suspected) and even gravity is related to them since photons move along a geodesic (experimental fact), even though they have no mass. We see spacetime curvature has nothing "ultimately to do with mass" but everything to do with light. Gravity propagates at the speed of light... why? Is this a coincidence? No.. No... No... If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it is therefore in all probability a duck.
Now Young's Double Slit Experiment is an experiment with resonators. We pick a special set of boundary conditions where the source is small and a great distance from the slits. The influence of the confining "walls" of this cavity are "minimized" but it is still a cavity. By the time the energy of the waves reach the slits/pinholes they are almost plane waves. The slits/pinholes form apertures in the primary chamber and also apertures in the secondary smaller chamber which has a rear screen which is able to block "light". The walls to the other sides of the chamber can be "large apertures" or small apertures that are close bye or very distant but are such that reflections are minimized. Even reflections from the interior of the front of the "chamber" with the slits/pinholes... these are all "special conditions" in the various cavities but they are still cavities and the effect is still stationary waves.
What you can be assured of is this... even if the source was trillions of kilometers or billions of light years away, the individual photons are identical to those you are receiving from an electric light bulb in your room... not the slightest bit attenuated or "weakened" from their travel over these vast distances (due to relativity). The sole difference is there are fewer of them than originally released but many of them are still out there somewhere. They still contain the same information of the actual sources they have been derived from as if you were standing next to them at the time the photon was released. Think about that...
The DSE is a specially conditioned resonance experiment.... and it can be thought of as that. You may not be able to measure the amplitude of the standing waves but as a telescope can quickly show, a single distantly traveled photon can be brought back from what is effectively zero amplitude to 100% and its information can theoretically be "read". Distance has absolutely nothing to do with this process... That photon can partake in the DSE just as surely as a photon coming from your light bulb in your room. So what it is like is like a "shadow on the wall"... very similar to the shadow you cast into the darkling gloom of the distance from a single point source street lamp at your back. The further you peer into the distance the less distinct that shadow becomes and if it travels far enough you can no longer see the effect but you know it is still out there ready to be "resurrected" by the right kind of detector. Stand on a high hill top with a 10 watt street light to your back and gaze out over a city 20 miles away. You know your shadow is cast over that city but you can't see it. You will even cast your shadow by the same sure means on a planet circling a distant star... (or photons from your flashlight). Those individual photons will have exactly the same chance of being received as any other other photon in the universe, and with the right "trajectory" it appears just as bright to them as it does to you on the top of that hill. The size of the Universe has no effect on this process it only "spreads them out", and it still has the same "standing wave pattern". Capice?
These facts distinguish "water waves" from light waves... light waves are "forever" and they are not easily "destroyed"... maybe in one way they cannot be destroyed. The Universe everywhere knows each and every one of them since they have each searched all paths... Just do not be "fooled" by the "amplitude" of a wave... I am sure Feynman knew that and that is why he and Wheeler devised their Absorber Theory. It also recounts the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment and the way it "plays with the very essence of time"... nothing dies...
Cheers
There are big differences between "sound waves" and "light waves". Sound waves are compression waves in a medium (such as air).... light waves are not. When a "heap of moving molecules" moving in one direction meet a heap of moving molecules moving in another direction they can interfere... even "destructively", totally canceling through dissipation of their kinetic and potential energy. Light does not "destructively" interfere in that way, the individual photons move independently and even though they "rub shoulders" with other photons they do not "merge".
A "sine wave" is only a reality when it extends from plus infinity to minus infinity. A sine wave is a mathematical abstraction... they don't really exist. What really exists are light waves which is the way in which large collective assemblies of photons organize themselves through various "organizing processes" such as radio transmitters with their antennas or LASER Tubes to synchronize their collective propagation. The individual photons, regardless of how they mix or interfere with other photons retain their individual frequency and also the character of the individual sources from where they originate. This is why a telescope works. This is not true of waves at the beach... this is because waves at the beach carry nothing from their sources, they are "just waves".
Light waves actually retain information about their sources, in that respect they define how the sources interact with the rest of our Universe. Light's photons are the force carriers of our Universe, the exchange force that actually make things happen. In one way "everything" is composed of electromagnetic phenomena. I believe all the forces of nature ... even Gravity (which is a pseudo-force) can be explained by the activities of photons. Particles and sub-atomic Particles are made with photons since a particle and their anti-particles "cancel" ... not to nothing... but to "photons". The sub-atomic forces are composed of them (the electro-weak and the "electro-strong" forces... the first is proven and the second is strongly suspected) and even gravity is related to them since photons move along a geodesic (experimental fact), even though they have no mass. We see spacetime curvature has nothing "ultimately to do with mass" but everything to do with light. Gravity propagates at the speed of light... why? Is this a coincidence? No.. No... No... If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it is therefore in all probability a duck.
Now Young's Double Slit Experiment is an experiment with resonators. We pick a special set of boundary conditions where the source is small and a great distance from the slits. The influence of the confining "walls" of this cavity are "minimized" but it is still a cavity. By the time the energy of the waves reach the slits/pinholes they are almost plane waves. The slits/pinholes form apertures in the primary chamber and also apertures in the secondary smaller chamber which has a rear screen which is able to block "light". The walls to the other sides of the chamber can be "large apertures" or small apertures that are close bye or very distant but are such that reflections are minimized. Even reflections from the interior of the front of the "chamber" with the slits/pinholes... these are all "special conditions" in the various cavities but they are still cavities and the effect is still stationary waves.
What you can be assured of is this... even if the source was trillions of kilometers or billions of light years away, the individual photons are identical to those you are receiving from an electric light bulb in your room... not the slightest bit attenuated or "weakened" from their travel over these vast distances (due to relativity). The sole difference is there are fewer of them than originally released but many of them are still out there somewhere. They still contain the same information of the actual sources they have been derived from as if you were standing next to them at the time the photon was released. Think about that...
The DSE is a specially conditioned resonance experiment.... and it can be thought of as that. You may not be able to measure the amplitude of the standing waves but as a telescope can quickly show, a single distantly traveled photon can be brought back from what is effectively zero amplitude to 100% and its information can theoretically be "read". Distance has absolutely nothing to do with this process... That photon can partake in the DSE just as surely as a photon coming from your light bulb in your room. So what it is like is like a "shadow on the wall"... very similar to the shadow you cast into the darkling gloom of the distance from a single point source street lamp at your back. The further you peer into the distance the less distinct that shadow becomes and if it travels far enough you can no longer see the effect but you know it is still out there ready to be "resurrected" by the right kind of detector. Stand on a high hill top with a 10 watt street light to your back and gaze out over a city 20 miles away. You know your shadow is cast over that city but you can't see it. You will even cast your shadow by the same sure means on a planet circling a distant star... (or photons from your flashlight). Those individual photons will have exactly the same chance of being received as any other other photon in the universe, and with the right "trajectory" it appears just as bright to them as it does to you on the top of that hill. The size of the Universe has no effect on this process it only "spreads them out", and it still has the same "standing wave pattern". Capice?
These facts distinguish "water waves" from light waves... light waves are "forever" and they are not easily "destroyed"... maybe in one way they cannot be destroyed. The Universe everywhere knows each and every one of them since they have each searched all paths... Just do not be "fooled" by the "amplitude" of a wave... I am sure Feynman knew that and that is why he and Wheeler devised their Absorber Theory. It also recounts the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment and the way it "plays with the very essence of time"... nothing dies...
Cheers
For the last two hundred years almost everybody has been able to measure the wavelength of light using "Young's slits" made with varying degrees of sophistication. We can even measure the de Broglie wavelength of a single photon using "Young's slits". It is simply too late to claim that "Young's slits" don't work.
[quote=TRoc]I could summarize our dilemma (in jest) as such: If we transmit a single, perfect, localized, monochromatic sine-wave, in the perfect spherical cavity, in an absolute vacuum, and receive it with a localized single Hydrogen atom, held in a strong magnetic field to 1 degree of freedom, so that the path length was integer multiples of the wavelength, this would be a piece of cake!! [/TRoc]
I'm not quite sure who this was intended for but certainly there is a general problem distinguishing between
1/ A path that is probable
2/ The difference in length between two probable paths.
3/ A path .. any path
4/ Paths that cancel out because they are equivalent
5/ Paths that are very unlikely
6/ The path difference between two or more unlikly paths.
7/ Paths and waves we invent because we don't understand what is going on
I'd guess most of us are familiar with the way that light generally seems to travel in straight lines. When you look out of a window you see what is outside. Good Elf appears to be claiming that you can't see out of a window because the light will set up standing waves within the room which will defeat your attempts to see what is outside .. a claim best judged on its merits. The point here is to establish the nature of a 'probable path' .. when looking out of the window it is a straight line. There are improbable paths but mostly we can safely ignore them because they make such a small contribution to the amount of light our eyes (detectors) receive.
The essence of the DSE is that we deliberately set up two paths to our screen (or detector). As with looking out of the window .. we can safely concentrate on the most probable paths because they are so much more likely than any other path. In fact the DSE paths aren't quite 'straight' because we have to rely on diffraction to create two paths which are divided and then brought back together. The interference effect we observe is the result of superimposing the light from one path on top of the light from the other path and we find the OBSERVED result is that the intensity is a function of the difference between path A and path B where both paths are 'the most probable paths'.
Unless you live in Laserlight's house it is generally found that diffraction is a very predictable and convenient way to create two paths that lead to the same point. As far as I know the OBSERVED result of the DSE is ALWAYS consistent with this rather simple overview and hopefully it helps to explain why, for the last 200 years, (most) people have been able to use this result and a little simple geometry to measure the wavelength of light with varying degrees of accuracy.
TRoc might well be right about a 'photon' being a sort of entanglement between electrons. If we had a basic understanding of the way the DSE works it might be able to tell us a lot about the way that entanglement works simply by LOOKING AT THE RESULTS..
-C2.
[quote=TRoc]I could summarize our dilemma (in jest) as such: If we transmit a single, perfect, localized, monochromatic sine-wave, in the perfect spherical cavity, in an absolute vacuum, and receive it with a localized single Hydrogen atom, held in a strong magnetic field to 1 degree of freedom, so that the path length was integer multiples of the wavelength, this would be a piece of cake!! [/TRoc]
I'm not quite sure who this was intended for but certainly there is a general problem distinguishing between
1/ A path that is probable
2/ The difference in length between two probable paths.
3/ A path .. any path
4/ Paths that cancel out because they are equivalent
5/ Paths that are very unlikely
6/ The path difference between two or more unlikly paths.
7/ Paths and waves we invent because we don't understand what is going on
I'd guess most of us are familiar with the way that light generally seems to travel in straight lines. When you look out of a window you see what is outside. Good Elf appears to be claiming that you can't see out of a window because the light will set up standing waves within the room which will defeat your attempts to see what is outside .. a claim best judged on its merits. The point here is to establish the nature of a 'probable path' .. when looking out of the window it is a straight line. There are improbable paths but mostly we can safely ignore them because they make such a small contribution to the amount of light our eyes (detectors) receive.
The essence of the DSE is that we deliberately set up two paths to our screen (or detector). As with looking out of the window .. we can safely concentrate on the most probable paths because they are so much more likely than any other path. In fact the DSE paths aren't quite 'straight' because we have to rely on diffraction to create two paths which are divided and then brought back together. The interference effect we observe is the result of superimposing the light from one path on top of the light from the other path and we find the OBSERVED result is that the intensity is a function of the difference between path A and path B where both paths are 'the most probable paths'.
Unless you live in Laserlight's house it is generally found that diffraction is a very predictable and convenient way to create two paths that lead to the same point. As far as I know the OBSERVED result of the DSE is ALWAYS consistent with this rather simple overview and hopefully it helps to explain why, for the last 200 years, (most) people have been able to use this result and a little simple geometry to measure the wavelength of light with varying degrees of accuracy.
TRoc might well be right about a 'photon' being a sort of entanglement between electrons. If we had a basic understanding of the way the DSE works it might be able to tell us a lot about the way that entanglement works simply by LOOKING AT THE RESULTS..
-C2.
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Good Elf appears to be claiming that you can't see out of a window because the light will set up standing waves within the room which will defeat your attempts to see what is outside .. a claim best judged on its merits.
I am sure you know only too well that is a very dumb interpretation of what I said... he he he! Believe me when you look out of a window you can see a lot further than the window sill.
Yes it is a claim best judged on its true merits... It is experiment that tells us what is and is not... not our prejudices. You just need to look to them and not to "elves" for your answers... the experiments that is...
Cheers
I am sure you know only too well that is a very dumb interpretation of what I said... he he he! Believe me when you look out of a window you can see a lot further than the window sill.
Yes it is a claim best judged on its true merits... It is experiment that tells us what is and is not... not our prejudices. You just need to look to them and not to "elves" for your answers... the experiments that is...
Cheers
Hi all,
Well, I'll have to "throw off the gloves" for a minute, and probably be a little "offensive". GE, in what appears to be in response to my last post, has posted one of the worst posts that I've seen from him. In the context of what I said in that last post, his comments are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. He chose to ignore any points that I may have made to him, and just to "ramble on" about other things. In doing so, he has just ADDED to the list of his misunderstandings.
I don't need "to think about" anything regarding the differences between a sound wave and a light wave.
GE, you are wrong about your idea of sound wave destructive interference. This is the same as for light. The energy is conserved, and the "wave form" contains that energy. You seem to forget the velocity distribution of the medium (gas) that the sound wave is traveling in. The wave is net changes to the MUCH higher velocity ALREADY taking place. There is no destruction of these gas molecules, and no destruction of the sound (info). Anything that you might reference to regarding that, is ILLUSION OF PERCEPTION, just like the dark bands in the DSE.
Now, you are saying "A sine wave is a mathematical abstraction... they don't really exist.", so how does that effect your "attitude" about the Fourier method?? Since you stated that "everything is a Fourier transform", then nothing can be more than abstract? You make no sense there.
You also state "the individual photons move independently and even though they "rub shoulders" with other photons they do not "merge". " yet, when in the near field of a resonant bound electron, they DO merge. There should be no need to repeat the examples again (SPDC, SPUC, SHG, etc). The rules for Four-wave mixing are clear, and as I have stated, can be shown to be equivalent for the resonance rules for sound AND light waves. You seem to not want to acknowledge that, so: "whatever" . You're entitled to do what you like; just don't tread on me.
C2, what I said was for "all of us", and OPENLY in "jest". I won't bother responding to your "serious" response to that. I've already said everything I can say about "path length", and the basic, adequate within limited context, models that you want to "stay with". You are also entitled to "do what you like".
Lastly, a response to GE's last post.
There are clear similarities to the Cymatic geometries, and the picture from jal's link. Quote "We have developed a method to measure the electric field standing wave distributions.." There is the "meat": developed a method means that the "old method" wouldn't work. Quote "Fast and reliable solutions to the Helmholtz equation (and to the Schrodinger equation for two dimensional systems).." No Fourier Tranforms there, just the "roots" derived from music. Quote "..image primarily the microwave electric field amplitude, and we demonstrate the ability to image broken time-reversal symmetry standing wave patterns produced with a magnetized ferrite in the cavity" The need to account for "all times", and the broken symmetry is stated clearly there. The 2 pictures that you posted clearly show the CHANGE in the pattern, based on changing the frequency.
What everyone should think about, is that ALL of our bound electrons, the ELEMENTS, have these SAME, frequency dependent, unique orbital geometries. When we cast light through a SLIT, and then "measure" the reaction of that light with an "excited" sample, and then cast it onto a 2 dimensional screen, we get our unique, LINEAR spectrum, within the 2f limit of visible light. If you think that this "pattern" ONLY exists within "our" band of visible light, you are wrong. This pattern is MATHEMATICAL, and is intimately TIED to the MODEL that we use to measure with: frequency and wavelength. It applies to ALL frequencies. The textbook "standard", linear EM spectrum, has NO ability to demonstrate this relationship. Being able to "measure" light with sound waves incident on a lattice, and being able to create light from collapsing sound waves should be enough clues to get you started. Harmonics do not care about the "form" of vibration; resonance creates geometry, and geometry can create resonance.
I think that everyone should think twice about "throwing out" my theory regarding the DSE, which is light passed through a slit, and "cold gas" (absorbtion spectra, rather than emission spectra), and producing a consistent, unique, frequency depedent pattern, on the screen. Everything that is "good" about our current Physics/Chemistry RELIES on this phenomenon. The correct question, which LL has asked, is "what happens at the slit", to create this effect? If you bear with me, you'll all get the answer, and you'll be able to say "I saw it here first". It is not based on the material of the slit, however.
regards,
T.Roc
Well, I'll have to "throw off the gloves" for a minute, and probably be a little "offensive". GE, in what appears to be in response to my last post, has posted one of the worst posts that I've seen from him. In the context of what I said in that last post, his comments are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. He chose to ignore any points that I may have made to him, and just to "ramble on" about other things. In doing so, he has just ADDED to the list of his misunderstandings.
I don't need "to think about" anything regarding the differences between a sound wave and a light wave.
GE, you are wrong about your idea of sound wave destructive interference. This is the same as for light. The energy is conserved, and the "wave form" contains that energy. You seem to forget the velocity distribution of the medium (gas) that the sound wave is traveling in. The wave is net changes to the MUCH higher velocity ALREADY taking place. There is no destruction of these gas molecules, and no destruction of the sound (info). Anything that you might reference to regarding that, is ILLUSION OF PERCEPTION, just like the dark bands in the DSE.
Now, you are saying "A sine wave is a mathematical abstraction... they don't really exist.", so how does that effect your "attitude" about the Fourier method?? Since you stated that "everything is a Fourier transform", then nothing can be more than abstract? You make no sense there.
You also state "the individual photons move independently and even though they "rub shoulders" with other photons they do not "merge". " yet, when in the near field of a resonant bound electron, they DO merge. There should be no need to repeat the examples again (SPDC, SPUC, SHG, etc). The rules for Four-wave mixing are clear, and as I have stated, can be shown to be equivalent for the resonance rules for sound AND light waves. You seem to not want to acknowledge that, so: "whatever" . You're entitled to do what you like; just don't tread on me.
C2, what I said was for "all of us", and OPENLY in "jest". I won't bother responding to your "serious" response to that. I've already said everything I can say about "path length", and the basic, adequate within limited context, models that you want to "stay with". You are also entitled to "do what you like".
Lastly, a response to GE's last post.
There are clear similarities to the Cymatic geometries, and the picture from jal's link. Quote "We have developed a method to measure the electric field standing wave distributions.." There is the "meat": developed a method means that the "old method" wouldn't work. Quote "Fast and reliable solutions to the Helmholtz equation (and to the Schrodinger equation for two dimensional systems).." No Fourier Tranforms there, just the "roots" derived from music. Quote "..image primarily the microwave electric field amplitude, and we demonstrate the ability to image broken time-reversal symmetry standing wave patterns produced with a magnetized ferrite in the cavity" The need to account for "all times", and the broken symmetry is stated clearly there. The 2 pictures that you posted clearly show the CHANGE in the pattern, based on changing the frequency.
What everyone should think about, is that ALL of our bound electrons, the ELEMENTS, have these SAME, frequency dependent, unique orbital geometries. When we cast light through a SLIT, and then "measure" the reaction of that light with an "excited" sample, and then cast it onto a 2 dimensional screen, we get our unique, LINEAR spectrum, within the 2f limit of visible light. If you think that this "pattern" ONLY exists within "our" band of visible light, you are wrong. This pattern is MATHEMATICAL, and is intimately TIED to the MODEL that we use to measure with: frequency and wavelength. It applies to ALL frequencies. The textbook "standard", linear EM spectrum, has NO ability to demonstrate this relationship. Being able to "measure" light with sound waves incident on a lattice, and being able to create light from collapsing sound waves should be enough clues to get you started. Harmonics do not care about the "form" of vibration; resonance creates geometry, and geometry can create resonance.
I think that everyone should think twice about "throwing out" my theory regarding the DSE, which is light passed through a slit, and "cold gas" (absorbtion spectra, rather than emission spectra), and producing a consistent, unique, frequency depedent pattern, on the screen. Everything that is "good" about our current Physics/Chemistry RELIES on this phenomenon. The correct question, which LL has asked, is "what happens at the slit", to create this effect? If you bear with me, you'll all get the answer, and you'll be able to say "I saw it here first". It is not based on the material of the slit, however.
regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE (TRoc+Mar 16 2007, 09:35 PM)
In the context of what I said in that last post, his comments are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT
This is nothing unusual. Good Elf is just babbling about Fourier analysis here without any relevant feedback and connection to the topic.
This is nothing unusual. Good Elf is just babbling about Fourier analysis here without any relevant feedback and connection to the topic.
Hello All,
Well, I must say...this has been interesting. I sense a LOT OF FRUSTRATION from everyone.
Each of you has fallen back into your own belief system....your own security
blanket. This is not a condemnation...just an observation. The DSE has been
around for what... nearly 200 years? Now you know why so many great minds
could never arrive at a mutual consensus of what the real nature of light is
and why it behaves the way it does due to two small apertures. We've only
been at it 6 months and have dredged up every conceivable associated physics
experiment and paper(s) performed over 200 years and we are still no further
along. The irony of this is too hysterical for words. We are using the same
arguments that our esteemed predecessors did....same arguments, different
century...ROTFLMAO!
If it was easy, the correct answer would have already been found!
So throw away your "old" arguments because they don't seem to work.
Time to pursue some modern arguments and either pooh-pooh them or
embrace them. The definition of insantity is to keep doing the same thing
over and over again and expecting a different result. It is time to
incorporate some "new" ideas or we will get nowhere.
I think everyone is overlooking a fundamental reality. Yes, there are standing
waves and resonance, but that is all occurring in the area between the slits!
It is the Cladni plate being excited at the atomic scale. The excitations are
being sourced from 2 separated slits. It is the point of mixing where standing
waves and resonance is taking place as the EM waveforms mix across
the EM fields of matter that make up the slit wall. That is why it doesn't matter
what the slit wall material is made of. It is merely an issue of efficiency, as to
how well the mixing takes place. All constructive and destructive interference
is happening there and radiating from that mixing "area" onto a projection screen.
That is why the geometrical calculations that C2 is so fond of work. The pattern
is established at the wall but measured at the screen. Of course it will have the
same overall geometrical relationship as it expands from that area, it is following the rules of the Inverse Square Law.....Think about it!
Visser's paper(s) regarding
surface dipole charges and "signal mixing" , are the correct long term answer.
The deflection of the resonant mixed signals (refraction) from that mixing area
between the slits is the point of signal mixing/standing wave "superposition" which
acts as lens projector (source). That is why there can be such wide gaps between
the bands observed on the projection screen...because the resonant standing
waves between the slits have constructively and destructively interfered in that
small geometrical area where the wave energy has mixed at the wavelength scale
(frequency) of the light waves. If you do nothing more than move the screen
closer to the slits the number of interference bands increases and gets denser.
No magic...just understandable physics.
Of course I won't get the nobel prize for this, but someone with the right
academic credentials and funding eventually will, using this conceptual model and the mathematical proofs.
Comments?
LL
Well, I must say...this has been interesting. I sense a LOT OF FRUSTRATION from everyone.
Each of you has fallen back into your own belief system....your own security
blanket. This is not a condemnation...just an observation. The DSE has been
around for what... nearly 200 years? Now you know why so many great minds
could never arrive at a mutual consensus of what the real nature of light is
and why it behaves the way it does due to two small apertures. We've only
been at it 6 months and have dredged up every conceivable associated physics
experiment and paper(s) performed over 200 years and we are still no further
along. The irony of this is too hysterical for words. We are using the same
arguments that our esteemed predecessors did....same arguments, different
century...ROTFLMAO!
If it was easy, the correct answer would have already been found!
So throw away your "old" arguments because they don't seem to work.
Time to pursue some modern arguments and either pooh-pooh them or
embrace them. The definition of insantity is to keep doing the same thing
over and over again and expecting a different result. It is time to
incorporate some "new" ideas or we will get nowhere.
I think everyone is overlooking a fundamental reality. Yes, there are standing
waves and resonance, but that is all occurring in the area between the slits!
It is the Cladni plate being excited at the atomic scale. The excitations are
being sourced from 2 separated slits. It is the point of mixing where standing
waves and resonance is taking place as the EM waveforms mix across
the EM fields of matter that make up the slit wall. That is why it doesn't matter
what the slit wall material is made of. It is merely an issue of efficiency, as to
how well the mixing takes place. All constructive and destructive interference
is happening there and radiating from that mixing "area" onto a projection screen.
That is why the geometrical calculations that C2 is so fond of work. The pattern
is established at the wall but measured at the screen. Of course it will have the
same overall geometrical relationship as it expands from that area, it is following the rules of the Inverse Square Law.....Think about it!
Visser's paper(s) regarding
surface dipole charges and "signal mixing" , are the correct long term answer.
The deflection of the resonant mixed signals (refraction) from that mixing area
between the slits is the point of signal mixing/standing wave "superposition" which
acts as lens projector (source). That is why there can be such wide gaps between
the bands observed on the projection screen...because the resonant standing
waves between the slits have constructively and destructively interfered in that
small geometrical area where the wave energy has mixed at the wavelength scale
(frequency) of the light waves. If you do nothing more than move the screen
closer to the slits the number of interference bands increases and gets denser.
No magic...just understandable physics.
Of course I won't get the nobel prize for this, but someone with the right
academic credentials and funding eventually will, using this conceptual model and the mathematical proofs.
Comments?
LL
Hi Laserlight,
To clarify the nature of your suggestion.. (for a start)
1/ The nature of wave interference is well understood and can be predicted with great precisision whenever waves from more than one path meet.
2/ The LL explanation of the DSE effect replaces the known interference effect resulting from two paths to the detector by an effect occurring at the slits themselves.
3/ The LL effect at the slits is independant of the material the slits are constructed from, surface defects and the width of the slits. We are aware that a sober man (from memory) can duplicate the effect with a sigle sheet of card and a shaft of sunlight.
4/ Regardless of the size/construction /material of the slits the LL effect duplicates the DSE equation which takes into accout only the wavelength of the light, the distance between the slits and the distance between the slits and the screen/detector.
5/ The slits produce an output that directed with such precision that 'classical' interference no longer occurs.
6/ You are aware that the interference bands get closer together as the distance between the slits increases .. you feel you can explain this?
Best wishes,
-C2.
To clarify the nature of your suggestion.. (for a start)
1/ The nature of wave interference is well understood and can be predicted with great precisision whenever waves from more than one path meet.
2/ The LL explanation of the DSE effect replaces the known interference effect resulting from two paths to the detector by an effect occurring at the slits themselves.
3/ The LL effect at the slits is independant of the material the slits are constructed from, surface defects and the width of the slits. We are aware that a sober man (from memory) can duplicate the effect with a sigle sheet of card and a shaft of sunlight.
4/ Regardless of the size/construction /material of the slits the LL effect duplicates the DSE equation which takes into accout only the wavelength of the light, the distance between the slits and the distance between the slits and the screen/detector.
5/ The slits produce an output that directed with such precision that 'classical' interference no longer occurs.
6/ You are aware that the interference bands get closer together as the distance between the slits increases .. you feel you can explain this?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2,
inferring that there is perfect cancellation or constructive interference over a very
large band area relative to the hundreds or thousands of wavelengths of light
that are crossing those banded areas in expanding arc wavefronts. I find it hard to
believe that spherical wavefronts can perfectly phase align over such a 2D
distance.
QUOTE
1/ The nature of wave interference is well understood and can be predicted with great precisision whenever waves from more than one path meet.
You are overlooking the size of the area gaps between bands and areinferring that there is perfect cancellation or constructive interference over a very
large band area relative to the hundreds or thousands of wavelengths of light
that are crossing those banded areas in expanding arc wavefronts. I find it hard to
believe that spherical wavefronts can perfectly phase align over such a 2D
distance.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1/ The nature of wave interference is well understood and can be predicted with great precisision whenever waves from more than one path meet. |
You are overlooking the size of the area gaps between bands and are
inferring that there is perfect cancellation or constructive interference over a very
large band area relative to the hundreds or thousands of wavelengths of light
that are crossing those banded areas in expanding arc wavefronts. I find it hard to
believe that spherical wavefronts can perfectly phase align over such a 2D
distance.
2/ The LL explanation of the DSE effect replaces the known interference effect resulting from two paths to the detector by an effect occurring at the slits themselves.
inferring that there is perfect cancellation or constructive interference over a very
large band area relative to the hundreds or thousands of wavelengths of light
that are crossing those banded areas in expanding arc wavefronts. I find it hard to
believe that spherical wavefronts can perfectly phase align over such a 2D
distance.
2/ The LL explanation of the DSE effect replaces the known interference effect resulting from two paths to the detector by an effect occurring at the slits themselves.
Between the slits....along the length of the wall area.
We are talking resonances and standing waves in this area. It is a 3D phenomenon
taking place along an "extended" 2D plane medium. (an energetic vibrating Cladni
plate, where surface dipoles/plasmons act as resonant superposition mixing points)
We are talking resonances and standing waves in this area. It is a 3D phenomenon
taking place along an "extended" 2D plane medium. (an energetic vibrating Cladni
plate, where surface dipoles/plasmons act as resonant superposition mixing points)
QUOTE
3/ The LL effect at the slits is independant of the material the slits are constructed from, surface defects and the width of the slits. We are aware that a sober man (from memory) can duplicate the effect with a sigle sheet of card and a shaft of sunlight.
Yep! What happens if you put some obstructions between the slits? The signal mixing should change the pattern observed at the screen.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3/ The LL effect at the slits is independant of the material the slits are constructed from, surface defects and the width of the slits. We are aware that a sober man (from memory) can duplicate the effect with a sigle sheet of card and a shaft of sunlight. |
Yep! What happens if you put some obstructions between the slits? The signal mixing should change the pattern observed at the screen.
4/ Regardless of the size/construction /material of the slits the LL effect duplicates the DSE equation which takes into accout only the wavelength of the light, the distance between the slits and the distance between the slits and the screen/detector.
4/ Regardless of the size/construction /material of the slits the LL effect duplicates the DSE equation which takes into accout only the wavelength of the light, the distance between the slits and the distance between the slits and the screen/detector.
Wait a minute, geometry is everything.
Remember the different patterns with crossed slits, 3 offset slits and triangular
shaped slits? Those pattern results should cause you to ask why and how the
perfect cancellation of your model can yield those results, since the symmetrical
relationship has changed and the phase angle (superposition) relationship has also
changed.
My model would explain why Afshar's wires placed within the projected
interference "shadows"coming from the slit wall has no effect on the image
displayed on the screen. The classical interference is happening in the area
between the geometry of the slits but is projected onto and viewed at the screen
My model would explain why Afshar's wires placed within the projected
interference "shadows"coming from the slit wall has no effect on the image
displayed on the screen. The classical interference is happening in the area
between the geometry of the slits but is projected onto and viewed at the screen
6/ You are aware that the interference bands get closer together as the distance between the slits increases .. you feel you can explain this?
Sure, the wider gap between the slits means there are more wavelengths of
light performing cancellations and and constructive interferences over a longer
dipole/plasmon resonance "area" between the slits. More area, more mixing
interactions.
Use this applet to widen the slit gap and to drag the slit wall back and forth.
Study the effects of varying either or both variables, and provide feedback
of your observations.
http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/ccss/ed...bin/projApp.htm
LL
Remember the different patterns with crossed slits, 3 offset slits and triangular
shaped slits? Those pattern results should cause you to ask why and how the
perfect cancellation of your model can yield those results, since the symmetrical
relationship has changed and the phase angle (superposition) relationship has also
changed.
QUOTE
5/ The slits produce an output that directed with such precision that 'classical' interference no longer occurs.
My model would explain why Afshar's wires placed within the projected
interference "shadows"coming from the slit wall has no effect on the image
displayed on the screen. The classical interference is happening in the area
between the geometry of the slits but is projected onto and viewed at the screen
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 5/ The slits produce an output that directed with such precision that 'classical' interference no longer occurs. |
My model would explain why Afshar's wires placed within the projected
interference "shadows"coming from the slit wall has no effect on the image
displayed on the screen. The classical interference is happening in the area
between the geometry of the slits but is projected onto and viewed at the screen
6/ You are aware that the interference bands get closer together as the distance between the slits increases .. you feel you can explain this?
Sure, the wider gap between the slits means there are more wavelengths of
light performing cancellations and and constructive interferences over a longer
dipole/plasmon resonance "area" between the slits. More area, more mixing
interactions.
Use this applet to widen the slit gap and to drag the slit wall back and forth.
Study the effects of varying either or both variables, and provide feedback
of your observations.
http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/ccss/ed...bin/projApp.htm
LL
Hi Laserlight, Confused2 et al,
I apologize that my last post LL, it was not as relevant to your specific points as they may have been, but I was also addressing Confused2's points. I think the points raised are important though. Mind you what I have made is four posts which address different issues. I take it the concept of standing waves in the "box"/cavity does not impress anyone in particular. The real problem with this "optical box" is the slits/pinholes are too wide/big compared with the wavelength of light to see fine details of the standing waves. These details are swamped by the special construction of the box to suppress reflections. Without strong resonant reflections many features of the cavity will go unnoticed. They are there but at a very low level of perception since the experiment only measures intensity not phases.
Therefore the reflections of the waves from the "boxes" margins/walls are orders of magnitude lower in amplitude compared with the direct wave. If it were possible to "excite" the various "cavities" with a single frequency of continuous wave radio frequency radiation coming from a single point dipole source, then it would be possible to see that the cavity would show nodes and antinodes all over the place. This would clearly happen with electron diffraction inside a cavity that reflects its waves in an efficient way. The fact that photons excite the cavity with a relatively broad "monochromatic" coherent LASER light, this fine standing wave structure does not show up well since the photons can enter these cavities over a wide and broad "aperture" compared with the actual wavelength of light. Only the "grossest" standing waves are able to be discerned. This is the DSE pattern... the bright areas on the screen are anti-nodes and the dark areas are nodes. It is just that the "cavity" is detuned to the extreme. "Tuning up" that cavity would lead to strong patterns this would then convince anyone that we are dealing with resonance.
LL... That is a brilliant Java Simulation you have found there. The only problem is it does not show actual relative intensity. This factor varies like this...
Hyperphysics: Single Slit Diffraction for Different Slit Widths
The narrower/smaller the single slit/pinhole the broader the diffraction pattern, this ultimately encompasses the entire "cavity" in the optical limit. An "infinitely small" pinhole source would produce an infinitely broad dispersion of the monochrome light as its sync function. If the box was made of reflecting material it would probably be more obvious. Think of a DSE experiment in which you could "dial up" the amount all the walls reflect the light from that near zero on some walls to 100% reflectivity at that wavelength.
If the "box" was made of reflective surfaces and a single source was exciting it from a "point" that is small compared with the wavelength of light, you would see strong Chladni Plate Effects throughout the box/cavity. What I maintain is this is only a "refinement" of the "optical" cavity. The DSE is a similar effect where inside that pattern of the square of the sync function... the Intensity... (seen in the Hyperphysics reference above), the grating effect is enhanced, dispersing the various frequencies into "bands"... these peaks are actually "narrow frequency bands" with their own internal "side lobe frequencies" that are unable to be discerned at the resolution of the experiment. What appears is a simple "hump" around those several maxima. a "million slit" grating interference pattern would start to show side lobes around the primary lines.
Hyperphysics: Diffraction Grating
Hyperphysics: Many slit diffraction patterns... scroll down
As I was saying in that last "irrelevant" post, the amplitude of the intensity vector is no judge to whether the photon will come back from effectively zero "intensity" to a complete total photon... it is not suppressed by distance or by time and it loses nothing in energy or qubit information. All that ultimately matters is if the photon is there. Individual photons are not "attenuated" by any process short of total absorption.. and even then I am still "unconvinced" and still have doubts. This is "vindicated" by the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment where a total absorption does not determine "gone for good" since an "event" later in our time can influence this older event. While this is "obvious" with entangled photon pairs, I "strongly suspect" it happens "unobserved" with any photons that we are not tracking individually in a coherent LASER beam.
Does this explanation explain any more than before?
Cheers
I apologize that my last post LL, it was not as relevant to your specific points as they may have been, but I was also addressing Confused2's points. I think the points raised are important though. Mind you what I have made is four posts which address different issues. I take it the concept of standing waves in the "box"/cavity does not impress anyone in particular. The real problem with this "optical box" is the slits/pinholes are too wide/big compared with the wavelength of light to see fine details of the standing waves. These details are swamped by the special construction of the box to suppress reflections. Without strong resonant reflections many features of the cavity will go unnoticed. They are there but at a very low level of perception since the experiment only measures intensity not phases.
Therefore the reflections of the waves from the "boxes" margins/walls are orders of magnitude lower in amplitude compared with the direct wave. If it were possible to "excite" the various "cavities" with a single frequency of continuous wave radio frequency radiation coming from a single point dipole source, then it would be possible to see that the cavity would show nodes and antinodes all over the place. This would clearly happen with electron diffraction inside a cavity that reflects its waves in an efficient way. The fact that photons excite the cavity with a relatively broad "monochromatic" coherent LASER light, this fine standing wave structure does not show up well since the photons can enter these cavities over a wide and broad "aperture" compared with the actual wavelength of light. Only the "grossest" standing waves are able to be discerned. This is the DSE pattern... the bright areas on the screen are anti-nodes and the dark areas are nodes. It is just that the "cavity" is detuned to the extreme. "Tuning up" that cavity would lead to strong patterns this would then convince anyone that we are dealing with resonance.
LL... That is a brilliant Java Simulation you have found there. The only problem is it does not show actual relative intensity. This factor varies like this...
Hyperphysics: Single Slit Diffraction for Different Slit Widths
The narrower/smaller the single slit/pinhole the broader the diffraction pattern, this ultimately encompasses the entire "cavity" in the optical limit. An "infinitely small" pinhole source would produce an infinitely broad dispersion of the monochrome light as its sync function. If the box was made of reflecting material it would probably be more obvious. Think of a DSE experiment in which you could "dial up" the amount all the walls reflect the light from that near zero on some walls to 100% reflectivity at that wavelength.
If the "box" was made of reflective surfaces and a single source was exciting it from a "point" that is small compared with the wavelength of light, you would see strong Chladni Plate Effects throughout the box/cavity. What I maintain is this is only a "refinement" of the "optical" cavity. The DSE is a similar effect where inside that pattern of the square of the sync function... the Intensity... (seen in the Hyperphysics reference above), the grating effect is enhanced, dispersing the various frequencies into "bands"... these peaks are actually "narrow frequency bands" with their own internal "side lobe frequencies" that are unable to be discerned at the resolution of the experiment. What appears is a simple "hump" around those several maxima. a "million slit" grating interference pattern would start to show side lobes around the primary lines.
Hyperphysics: Diffraction Grating
Hyperphysics: Many slit diffraction patterns... scroll down
As I was saying in that last "irrelevant" post, the amplitude of the intensity vector is no judge to whether the photon will come back from effectively zero "intensity" to a complete total photon... it is not suppressed by distance or by time and it loses nothing in energy or qubit information. All that ultimately matters is if the photon is there. Individual photons are not "attenuated" by any process short of total absorption.. and even then I am still "unconvinced" and still have doubts. This is "vindicated" by the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment where a total absorption does not determine "gone for good" since an "event" later in our time can influence this older event. While this is "obvious" with entangled photon pairs, I "strongly suspect" it happens "unobserved" with any photons that we are not tracking individually in a coherent LASER beam.
Does this explanation explain any more than before?
Cheers
Hi LL,
1/
1/
QUOTE (LL+)
I find it hard to believe that spherical wavefronts can perfectly phase align over such a 2D
distance.
I'm not entirely happy with 'wavefronts' but I've compromised before so I suppose I have to do so again .. but under protest. The phase of the 'wavefront' arriving at the two slits is automatically of a fixed phase relationship because there is only one source 'event' (one of the few things we agree on). Fixed phase in to the slits gives a fixed phase relationship coming out. The subsequent phase difference arises because of the difference in path length from each of the slits to the point where the phases are compared in the detector. If the path length difference is a 0 or a whole number of wavelengths there will be constructive interference and if the path length difference is a half a wavelength there will be destructive interference. The amplitude of the 'wave' is given by (Ae^(i x_1) + Be^(i x_2))e^(iwt) so it looks like there will only be total cancellation if A=B .. in other words the slits would have to pass the same amount of 'wave' for perfect cancellation .. this does not affect the location of the peaks and troughs though. As a minor point, hopefully we can see that the phase relationship at the slits doesn't really matter .. it would just shift the peaks and troughs to left or right. If nothing moves then there is no difficulty with the phase alignment .. it kinda does it itself.. we can use geometry.
2/
distance.
I'm not entirely happy with 'wavefronts' but I've compromised before so I suppose I have to do so again .. but under protest. The phase of the 'wavefront' arriving at the two slits is automatically of a fixed phase relationship because there is only one source 'event' (one of the few things we agree on). Fixed phase in to the slits gives a fixed phase relationship coming out. The subsequent phase difference arises because of the difference in path length from each of the slits to the point where the phases are compared in the detector. If the path length difference is a 0 or a whole number of wavelengths there will be constructive interference and if the path length difference is a half a wavelength there will be destructive interference. The amplitude of the 'wave' is given by (Ae^(i x_1) + Be^(i x_2))e^(iwt) so it looks like there will only be total cancellation if A=B .. in other words the slits would have to pass the same amount of 'wave' for perfect cancellation .. this does not affect the location of the peaks and troughs though. As a minor point, hopefully we can see that the phase relationship at the slits doesn't really matter .. it would just shift the peaks and troughs to left or right. If nothing moves then there is no difficulty with the phase alignment .. it kinda does it itself.. we can use geometry.
2/
QUOTE (LL+)
an energetic vibrating Cladni plate
Can it predict the observed effects? We shall see.
3/ The LL effect at the slits is independent of the material the slits are constructed etc..
Can it predict the observed effects? We shall see.
3/ The LL effect at the slits is independent of the material the slits are constructed etc..
QUOTE (LL+)
Yep! What happens if you put some obstructions between the slits? The signal mixing should change the pattern observed at the screen.
Clarify please. I recently posted something about probable paths etc. that might be relevant.
4/ Regardless of the size/construction /material of the slits the LL effect
Clarify please. I recently posted something about probable paths etc. that might be relevant.
4/ Regardless of the size/construction /material of the slits the LL effect
QUOTE (LL+)
Wait a minute, geometry is everything. Remember the different patterns with crossed slits, 3 offset slits and triangular shaped slits? Those pattern results should cause you to ask why and how the perfect cancellation of your model can yield those results, since the symmetrical relationship has changed and the phase angle (superposition) relationship has also changed.
With some effort I can handle ( Ae^(ix) + B e^(iy) + C e^(iz) ) and get the right answer .. I am not asking why it gives the right answer because I already know.
5/ The slits produce an output that directed with such precision that 'classical' interference no longer occurs.
With some effort I can handle ( Ae^(ix) + B e^(iy) + C e^(iz) ) and get the right answer .. I am not asking why it gives the right answer because I already know.
5/ The slits produce an output that directed with such precision that 'classical' interference no longer occurs.
QUOTE (LL+)
My model would explain why Adnar's wires placed
Ashfar, one of our friends in science, bless. Please refer back to my post about probable paths etc. . You have not addressed the point.
6/
Ashfar, one of our friends in science, bless. Please refer back to my post about probable paths etc. . You have not addressed the point.
6/
QUOTE (LL+)
Sure, the wider gap between the slits means there are more wavelengths of light performing cancellations and and constructive interferences over a longer dipole/plasmon resonance "area" between the slits. More area, more mixing interactions.
The number of dipole/plasmon interferences in any material just happens to be inversely proportional to the distance between the slits? Some clarification of this mechanism would be most welcome.
Excellent applet.
Best wishes,
-C2.
The number of dipole/plasmon interferences in any material just happens to be inversely proportional to the distance between the slits? Some clarification of this mechanism would be most welcome.
Excellent applet.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Ashfar, one of our friends in science, bless.
http://www.physorg.com/news92937814.html
Physicists Modify Double-Slit Experiment to Confirm Einstein"s Belief: Good Elf
I do not believe Shahriar S. Afshar argument. Because you can't measure something does not prove anything except that the result was a null. I would extend the argument to the blank areas in the overall pattern in three dimensional space as well. Have a look and see if you agree with me or with Afshar.
Cheers
http://www.physorg.com/news92937814.html
Physicists Modify Double-Slit Experiment to Confirm Einstein"s Belief: Good Elf
I do not believe Shahriar S. Afshar argument. Because you can't measure something does not prove anything except that the result was a null. I would extend the argument to the blank areas in the overall pattern in three dimensional space as well. Have a look and see if you agree with me or with Afshar.
Cheers
These links might help to get some inspirations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY6z2hLgYuY...related&search=
resonance
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...deoID=929540893
Cymatics
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2795869048702157810
Cymatics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY6z2hLgYuY...related&search=
resonance
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...deoID=929540893
Cymatics
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2795869048702157810
Cymatics
Hi Jal,
That was interesting.
Cheers
That was interesting.
Cheers
Hi C2,
If my model is correct, I would expect that if the surface area between the slits
had an array of sharp points or some other textured features that the resultant
screen pattern would be affected. Perhaps even a perpendicular post or posts
attached between the slits would confirm or refute the viability of my model.
If my model is correct, I would expect that if the surface area between the slits
had an array of sharp points or some other textured features that the resultant
screen pattern would be affected. Perhaps even a perpendicular post or posts
attached between the slits would confirm or refute the viability of my model.
The subsequent phase difference arises because of the difference in path length from each of the slits to the point where the phases are compared in the detector. If the path length difference is a 0 or a whole number of wavelengths there will be constructive interference and if the path length difference is a half a wavelength there will be destructive interference.
So your model cares nothing for standing waves, resonance, or signal mixing.
IMO, it is flawed because as TRoc so rightly pointed out many pages ago, you
cannot use arbitrary source points to do the math when there are so many
expanding photons emanating from numerous points across the width of the slit
openings. There should be superposition overlap of other photons that are out
of phase timing at various locations along the wave fronts that create
random "noise" excitations where the phases don't perfectly align. If the coherent
phase timing of the waves are not stationary (standing waves), but are moving
then there should be a random spread of detected photons instead of uniformly
spaced bands.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
QUOTE (LL)
Yep! What happens if you put some obstructions between the slits? The signal mixing should change the pattern observed at the screen.
Clarify please. I recently posted something about probable paths etc. that might be relevant.
4/ Regardless of the size/construction /material of the slits the LL effect
Yep! What happens if you put some obstructions between the slits? The signal mixing should change the pattern observed at the screen.
Clarify please. I recently posted something about probable paths etc. that might be relevant.
4/ Regardless of the size/construction /material of the slits the LL effect
If my model is correct, I would expect that if the surface area between the slits
had an array of sharp points or some other textured features that the resultant
screen pattern would be affected. Perhaps even a perpendicular post or posts
attached between the slits would confirm or refute the viability of my model.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (LL) Yep! What happens if you put some obstructions between the slits? The signal mixing should change the pattern observed at the screen. Clarify please. I recently posted something about probable paths etc. that might be relevant. 4/ Regardless of the size/construction /material of the slits the LL effect |
If my model is correct, I would expect that if the surface area between the slits
had an array of sharp points or some other textured features that the resultant
screen pattern would be affected. Perhaps even a perpendicular post or posts
attached between the slits would confirm or refute the viability of my model.
The subsequent phase difference arises because of the difference in path length from each of the slits to the point where the phases are compared in the detector. If the path length difference is a 0 or a whole number of wavelengths there will be constructive interference and if the path length difference is a half a wavelength there will be destructive interference.
So your model cares nothing for standing waves, resonance, or signal mixing.
IMO, it is flawed because as TRoc so rightly pointed out many pages ago, you
cannot use arbitrary source points to do the math when there are so many
expanding photons emanating from numerous points across the width of the slit
openings. There should be superposition overlap of other photons that are out
of phase timing at various locations along the wave fronts that create
random "noise" excitations where the phases don't perfectly align. If the coherent
phase timing of the waves are not stationary (standing waves), but are moving
then there should be a random spread of detected photons instead of uniformly
spaced bands.
Comments?
LL
C2,
The number of plasmons/dipoles probably isn't a first order issue, potential dipoles
exist in all atoms that make up the wall. It is more likely that the symmetry that
exists between the arriving photon phase angles and the way they superpose and
align timing wise relative to the oscillating dipoles, is the primary signal
mixing "method". So, the varying phase angle EM field amplitudes of the arriving
photons are stimulating specific dipole areas in a phase specific and alternating
standing wave pattern (resonance) along the wall. It could almost be considered
a type of super-hetrodyne signal mixing effect.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
QUOTE (LL)
Sure, the wider gap between the slits means there are more wavelengths of light performing cancellations and and constructive interferences over a longer dipole/plasmon resonance "area" between the slits. More area, more mixing interactions....
C2 asked:
The number of dipole/plasmon interferences in any material just happens to be inversely proportional to the distance between the slits? Some clarification of this mechanism would be most welcome.
Sure, the wider gap between the slits means there are more wavelengths of light performing cancellations and and constructive interferences over a longer dipole/plasmon resonance "area" between the slits. More area, more mixing interactions....
C2 asked:
The number of dipole/plasmon interferences in any material just happens to be inversely proportional to the distance between the slits? Some clarification of this mechanism would be most welcome.
The number of plasmons/dipoles probably isn't a first order issue, potential dipoles
exist in all atoms that make up the wall. It is more likely that the symmetry that
exists between the arriving photon phase angles and the way they superpose and
align timing wise relative to the oscillating dipoles, is the primary signal
mixing "method". So, the varying phase angle EM field amplitudes of the arriving
photons are stimulating specific dipole areas in a phase specific and alternating
standing wave pattern (resonance) along the wall. It could almost be considered
a type of super-hetrodyne signal mixing effect.
Comments?
LL
Hi GE,
Shouldn't standing waves of a specific frequency always generate the same size
standing wave pattern regardless of the cavity size and shape beyond some
nominal geometric value? Since the screen pattern changes linearly when the slit
wall is moved relative to the screen doesn't this argue against your standing wave
theory in the central "cavity"? Or does the changing cavity resonance change the
standing wave pattern? If so, the resonance effect shouldn't show a linear
response at the screen, IMO.
Comments?
LL
Shouldn't standing waves of a specific frequency always generate the same size
standing wave pattern regardless of the cavity size and shape beyond some
nominal geometric value? Since the screen pattern changes linearly when the slit
wall is moved relative to the screen doesn't this argue against your standing wave
theory in the central "cavity"? Or does the changing cavity resonance change the
standing wave pattern? If so, the resonance effect shouldn't show a linear
response at the screen, IMO.
Comments?
LL
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
If my model is correct, I would expect that if the surface area between the slits had an array of sharp points or some other textured features that the resultant screen pattern would be affected. Perhaps even a perpendicular post or posts attached between the slits would confirm or refute the viability of my model.
When we were much younger we looked at one of Young's original methods .. I think it was just a sheet of card held edge on .. I also remember some problem with peach brandy. I can see I'm going to have to invest in my own laser and bottle of peach brandy to get this thing sorted out.
There is obviously a problem with intensity .. it matches that of the two slits individually. I suspect you will simply claim "That is what happens because that is what is observed" so not much point in looking into it.
When we were much younger we looked at one of Young's original methods .. I think it was just a sheet of card held edge on .. I also remember some problem with peach brandy. I can see I'm going to have to invest in my own laser and bottle of peach brandy to get this thing sorted out.
There is obviously a problem with intensity .. it matches that of the two slits individually. I suspect you will simply claim "That is what happens because that is what is observed" so not much point in looking into it.
QUOTE (LL+)
So your model cares nothing for standing waves, resonance, or signal mixing. IMO, it is flawed because as TRoc so rightly pointed out many pages ago, you cannot use arbitrary source points to do the math when there are so many expanding photons emanating from numerous points across the width of the slit openings.
Diffraction is an interference effect, looking at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...pt/mulslid.html we see the amplitude falls to zero and then rises again. The 'zero' is where the sum of ALL the paths taken across the whole slit are adding up to zero, the sources are not 'arbitrary' .. they are the same every time. maybe I wasn't clear enough in my post about 'probable paths'.
With two slits we take the sum of the paths to our point across the whole of one slit and add in the sum of the paths to the same point taken across the whole of the other slit .. it's the same explanation twice. Since we cunningly arrange for both slits to have the same source there is no 'random' or 'arbitrary' involved. One source and (effectively) one path where the path is the vector sum of all the possible paths.
Same explanation for diffraction, DSE, Airy rings, Newton's rings, Michelson-Morley, Kennedy-Thorndike and probably all sorts of other interferometers that I don't know about.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Diffraction is an interference effect, looking at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...pt/mulslid.html we see the amplitude falls to zero and then rises again. The 'zero' is where the sum of ALL the paths taken across the whole slit are adding up to zero, the sources are not 'arbitrary' .. they are the same every time. maybe I wasn't clear enough in my post about 'probable paths'.
With two slits we take the sum of the paths to our point across the whole of one slit and add in the sum of the paths to the same point taken across the whole of the other slit .. it's the same explanation twice. Since we cunningly arrange for both slits to have the same source there is no 'random' or 'arbitrary' involved. One source and (effectively) one path where the path is the vector sum of all the possible paths.
Same explanation for diffraction, DSE, Airy rings, Newton's rings, Michelson-Morley, Kennedy-Thorndike and probably all sorts of other interferometers that I don't know about.
Best wishes,
-C2.
No wonder, the mainstream science ignores the AWT interpretation, if the laymans here ignoring it too. Everybody's apparently hoping, he will propose it's own ingenious explanation...
By such way, such selfish stance works like the engine of motivation by the same way, like the brake of the evolution, while slowing the general acceptation at the same time. If we imagine the huge community of similarly motivated people, we can understand the strong conservatism and ignorance of mainstream science.
Of course, we shouldn't forget, the discussion forum serves as a social club for many lonely and frustrated people here. For such people the discussion is the way of self-realization, not the topic.
By such way, such selfish stance works like the engine of motivation by the same way, like the brake of the evolution, while slowing the general acceptation at the same time. If we imagine the huge community of similarly motivated people, we can understand the strong conservatism and ignorance of mainstream science.
Of course, we shouldn't forget, the discussion forum serves as a social club for many lonely and frustrated people here. For such people the discussion is the way of self-realization, not the topic.
C2,
Just try to not cut off your finger! I understand blood affects the results. LOL!
Hey, if you get results post some pics. There is no arguing with the evidence,
just with the way the experiment is done......
LL
QUOTE
When we were much younger we looked at one of Young's original methods .. I think it was just a sheet of card held edge on .. I also remember some problem with peach brandy. I can see I'm going to have to invest in my own laser and bottle of peach brandy to get this thing sorted out.
There is obviously a problem with intensity .. it matches that of the two slits individually. I suspect you will simply claim "That is what happens because that is what is observed" so not much point in looking into it.
There is obviously a problem with intensity .. it matches that of the two slits individually. I suspect you will simply claim "That is what happens because that is what is observed" so not much point in looking into it.
Just try to not cut off your finger! I understand blood affects the results. LOL!
Hey, if you get results post some pics. There is no arguing with the evidence,
just with the way the experiment is done......
LL
Hi Zephir,
Hmmmm, you've submitted 6348 posts....are you lonely, frustrated and seeking
self realization? LOL!
This is a discussion board and we are remaining on topic. If no one posts then
the discussion and the board ends.
LL
QUOTE
Of course, we shouldn't forget, the discussion forum serves as a social club for many lonely and frustrated people here. For such people the discussion is the way of self-realization, not the topic.
Hmmmm, you've submitted 6348 posts....are you lonely, frustrated and seeking
self realization? LOL!
This is a discussion board and we are remaining on topic. If no one posts then
the discussion and the board ends.
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Mar 16 2007, 10:29 PM)
Hi C2,
[/color] You are overlooking the size of the area gaps between bands and are
inferring that there is perfect cancellation or constructive interference over a very
large band area relative to the hundreds or thousands of wavelengths of light
that are crossing those banded areas in expanding arc wavefronts. I find it hard to
believe that spherical wavefronts can perfectly phase align over such a 2D
distance.
Between the slits....along the length of the wall area.
We are talking resonances and standing waves in this area. It is a 3D phenomenon
taking place along an "extended" 2D plane medium. (an energetic vibrating Cladni
plate, where surface dipoles/plasmons act as resonant superposition mixing points)
Yep! What happens if you put some obstructions between the slits? The signal mixing should change the pattern observed at the screen.
Wait a minute, geometry is everything.
Remember the different patterns with crossed slits, 3 offset slits and triangular
shaped slits? Those pattern results should cause you to ask why and how the
perfect cancellation of your model can yield those results, since the symmetrical
relationship has changed and the phase angle (superposition) relationship has also
changed.
My model would explain why Afshar's wires placed within the projected
interference "shadows"coming from the slit wall has no effect on the image
displayed on the screen. The classical interference is happening in the area
between the geometry of the slits but is projected onto and viewed at the screen
[color=blue]
Sure, the wider gap between the slits means there are more wavelengths of
light performing cancellations and and constructive interferences over a longer
dipole/plasmon resonance "area" between the slits. More area, more mixing
interactions.
Use this applet to widen the slit gap and to drag the slit wall back and forth.
Study the effects of varying either or both variables, and provide feedback
of your observations.
http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/ccss/ed...bin/projApp.htm
LL
Do you guys have a link to an illustration of Afsahrs experiments? I'm telling you I saw his results in Discover Magazine and it did not show what he claimed- the interference pattern he obtained with the wires was different that the unblocked pattern !
[/color] You are overlooking the size of the area gaps between bands and are
inferring that there is perfect cancellation or constructive interference over a very
large band area relative to the hundreds or thousands of wavelengths of light
that are crossing those banded areas in expanding arc wavefronts. I find it hard to
believe that spherical wavefronts can perfectly phase align over such a 2D
distance.
Between the slits....along the length of the wall area.
We are talking resonances and standing waves in this area. It is a 3D phenomenon
taking place along an "extended" 2D plane medium. (an energetic vibrating Cladni
plate, where surface dipoles/plasmons act as resonant superposition mixing points)
Yep! What happens if you put some obstructions between the slits? The signal mixing should change the pattern observed at the screen.
Wait a minute, geometry is everything.
Remember the different patterns with crossed slits, 3 offset slits and triangular
shaped slits? Those pattern results should cause you to ask why and how the
perfect cancellation of your model can yield those results, since the symmetrical
relationship has changed and the phase angle (superposition) relationship has also
changed.
My model would explain why Afshar's wires placed within the projected
interference "shadows"coming from the slit wall has no effect on the image
displayed on the screen. The classical interference is happening in the area
between the geometry of the slits but is projected onto and viewed at the screen
[color=blue]
Sure, the wider gap between the slits means there are more wavelengths of
light performing cancellations and and constructive interferences over a longer
dipole/plasmon resonance "area" between the slits. More area, more mixing
interactions.
Use this applet to widen the slit gap and to drag the slit wall back and forth.
Study the effects of varying either or both variables, and provide feedback
of your observations.
http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/ccss/ed...bin/projApp.htm
LL
Do you guys have a link to an illustration of Afsahrs experiments? I'm telling you I saw his results in Discover Magazine and it did not show what he claimed- the interference pattern he obtained with the wires was different that the unblocked pattern !
Afshar's experiment link:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/images/shows/...rimentSmall.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment
LL
http://www.sciencefriday.com/images/shows/...rimentSmall.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Mar 17 2007, 04:02 PM)
Afshar's experiment link:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/images/shows/...rimentSmall.jpg
LL
The images in the top and bottom illustrations are slightly different. There seems to be a square (dark red) shaped object in the center of the top picture that is not visible in the bottom picture. The fringes in the top picture are sharper and there are less colors in the bottom picture. ie. either the colors present in the top picture are smeared together in the bottom picture or there is less variety in the spectrum shown at the bottom. Also, there is a slight but visible "raster" pattern of horizontal lines in the bottom picture.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/images/shows/...rimentSmall.jpg
LL
The images in the top and bottom illustrations are slightly different. There seems to be a square (dark red) shaped object in the center of the top picture that is not visible in the bottom picture. The fringes in the top picture are sharper and there are less colors in the bottom picture. ie. either the colors present in the top picture are smeared together in the bottom picture or there is less variety in the spectrum shown at the bottom. Also, there is a slight but visible "raster" pattern of horizontal lines in the bottom picture.
Hi Neil,
I added the Wikipedia link to my prior post.
Yeah, I noticed that too. I zoomed in on the article and images to compare them,
IMO, there is a difference between images, as you pointed out. There is still
observable interference in the bottom image. I am having a hard time
understanding how Afshar reached his conclusion, and will read the wiki
explanation again. Something just seems counterintuitive about his
claim.
LL
I added the Wikipedia link to my prior post.
Yeah, I noticed that too. I zoomed in on the article and images to compare them,
IMO, there is a difference between images, as you pointed out. There is still
observable interference in the bottom image. I am having a hard time
understanding how Afshar reached his conclusion, and will read the wiki
explanation again. Something just seems counterintuitive about his
claim.
LL
Hi All,
Hmmm, I see Afshar's claims differently. The lens becomes a new source
for the focused photons. It has redirected the wave energy toward the
desired sensing detector. There is still some loss and interference observed
between the images which says that light is still being partially blocked
by the wires from one direction. Where do particles come into this?
What am I missing?
LL
QUOTE
Afshar's conclusion is that the light exhibits a wave-like behavior when going through the wires, since the light goes through the spaces between the wires when both slits were open, but also exhibits a particle-like behavior after going through the lens, with photons going to a given photo-detector. Afshar argues that this behavior contradicts the principle of complementarity since it shows both complementary wave and particle characteristics in the same experiment for the same photons
Hmmm, I see Afshar's claims differently. The lens becomes a new source
for the focused photons. It has redirected the wave energy toward the
desired sensing detector. There is still some loss and interference observed
between the images which says that light is still being partially blocked
by the wires from one direction. Where do particles come into this?
What am I missing?
LL
Hi all,
At least this is entertaining for the "silent" viewers. The patterns can not be denied: the record clearly shows when someone is more interested in appearing "the most intelligent", than solving the problem, or, heaven forbid at such a "ripe" age, even learning something new. This is a "reality show" for all the viewers who do not involve themselves. The characters who rely on beguilement are transparent on this stage.
I enjoy "solving problems", and learning. It has been my experience, that when I find an error in my approach, I am getting closer to the truth. I welcome any data that will show an error in my approach. Do not expect a "one liner", without logical validity, or experimental backup, to work though. This is not about "being right", it is about "right and wrong". "Indeterminacy" is dying; its' time has passed. This is a time for "answers", and the revealing of "falseness". This is not "my time", or "my truth"; the days of the individual are behind us as well. My intention is participating here (in general) is for the "real time" unfolding of discovery, in a vulnerable public forum. I make mistakes often, I say things I wish I hadn't, etc., but most often, I am forced to "grow".
anyway...
C2,
Saying "..the sources are not 'arbitrary' .. they are the same every time.", means that they are "consistently arbitrary", or "evenly arbitrary", but it does not remove the "arbitrary" nature of the method. It is drawing "points and lines" ON the diagram of the experiment, and using them to explain the results. If you could find a physical REASON, based on the form, or properties of a "photon", then you could JUSTIFY adding these arbitrary points and lines.
The ironic thing is, is that there IS a way out of the "arbitrary" nature of the method, and I have stated where to begin. I don't mind restating it. That is, AFTER you admit that the method is arbitrary. Otherwise, the growth will not come from within.
LL,
If my memory is good, you have 3 questions from me, that have "piled up" over my last several posts. Is there a reason that you are not answering?
jal,
I'm glad to see that you liked the cymatics videos! This is one reason why I couldn't make a good connection between resonance, and your "packing". The changing nature of the geometry, based on frequency. I think there could be a valid frequency, based on a natural minimum geometry, though. I guess we will see!
ciao,
T.Roc
At least this is entertaining for the "silent" viewers. The patterns can not be denied: the record clearly shows when someone is more interested in appearing "the most intelligent", than solving the problem, or, heaven forbid at such a "ripe" age, even learning something new. This is a "reality show" for all the viewers who do not involve themselves. The characters who rely on beguilement are transparent on this stage.
I enjoy "solving problems", and learning. It has been my experience, that when I find an error in my approach, I am getting closer to the truth. I welcome any data that will show an error in my approach. Do not expect a "one liner", without logical validity, or experimental backup, to work though. This is not about "being right", it is about "right and wrong". "Indeterminacy" is dying; its' time has passed. This is a time for "answers", and the revealing of "falseness". This is not "my time", or "my truth"; the days of the individual are behind us as well. My intention is participating here (in general) is for the "real time" unfolding of discovery, in a vulnerable public forum. I make mistakes often, I say things I wish I hadn't, etc., but most often, I am forced to "grow".
anyway...
C2,
Saying "..the sources are not 'arbitrary' .. they are the same every time.", means that they are "consistently arbitrary", or "evenly arbitrary", but it does not remove the "arbitrary" nature of the method. It is drawing "points and lines" ON the diagram of the experiment, and using them to explain the results. If you could find a physical REASON, based on the form, or properties of a "photon", then you could JUSTIFY adding these arbitrary points and lines.
The ironic thing is, is that there IS a way out of the "arbitrary" nature of the method, and I have stated where to begin. I don't mind restating it. That is, AFTER you admit that the method is arbitrary. Otherwise, the growth will not come from within.
LL,
If my memory is good, you have 3 questions from me, that have "piled up" over my last several posts. Is there a reason that you are not answering?
jal,
I'm glad to see that you liked the cymatics videos! This is one reason why I couldn't make a good connection between resonance, and your "packing". The changing nature of the geometry, based on frequency. I think there could be a valid frequency, based on a natural minimum geometry, though. I guess we will see!
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
Yes, I was avoiding you! I do owe you a response and will do so later
today. Your questions sometimes are a "chore" requiring unnecessary work
to formulate an answer, and sometimes I see them as diversionary or off topic,
but I will be a sport and respond.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
LL,
If my memory is good, you have 3 questions from me, that have "piled up" over my last several posts. Is there a reason that you are not answering?
If my memory is good, you have 3 questions from me, that have "piled up" over my last several posts. Is there a reason that you are not answering?
Yes, I was avoiding you!
I do owe you a response and will do so latertoday. Your questions sometimes are a "chore" requiring unnecessary work
to formulate an answer, and sometimes I see them as diversionary or off topic,
but I will be a sport and respond.
Regards,
LL
Hello all
I view the DSE as a geometric/frequency phenomenon.
If you vary the incident plane wave's angle of incidence the diffraction pattern changes.
If you vary the slit width or the slit spacing the diffraction pattern will change.
If you vary the frequency of the incident light the diffraction pattern changes.
If you change the distance between the slits and the screen the diffraction pattern changes.
If you move the screen far enough back then the diffraction pattern will disappear because the two spherical waves from the slits are now planer.
If you look at this closely
the beam center for each of the slits are offset from the centerline of the experiment but the combined beam centerline is not. This implies that the center section between the two slits does not exist and as you increase the distance between the slits and the screen the two slits become an approximate point source.
I will even say that if you can "stamp" time information on white light that goes though a double slit then the "stamp" will spatially separate as a function of frequency. Higher frequencies will be less affected than lower frequencies (down to the slit width cut off). Wider separation of the slits will also increase the separation effect. Higher frequencies will be more effected if the slits are replaced by wires (negative DSE).
The diffraction pattern of the DSE is just the result of interference of two non planer waves.
Now on how a planer wave is converted to non planer waves at the slits needs to be understood. As I see it an underlying mechanism is responsible for all effects we see that involve EM waves and matter. Understanding the mechanism of the DSE will help in finding the "underlying" mechanism.
I view the DSE as a geometric/frequency phenomenon.
If you vary the incident plane wave's angle of incidence the diffraction pattern changes.
If you vary the slit width or the slit spacing the diffraction pattern will change.
If you vary the frequency of the incident light the diffraction pattern changes.
If you change the distance between the slits and the screen the diffraction pattern changes.
If you move the screen far enough back then the diffraction pattern will disappear because the two spherical waves from the slits are now planer.
If you look at this closely
the beam center for each of the slits are offset from the centerline of the experiment but the combined beam centerline is not. This implies that the center section between the two slits does not exist and as you increase the distance between the slits and the screen the two slits become an approximate point source.
I will even say that if you can "stamp" time information on white light that goes though a double slit then the "stamp" will spatially separate as a function of frequency. Higher frequencies will be less affected than lower frequencies (down to the slit width cut off). Wider separation of the slits will also increase the separation effect. Higher frequencies will be more effected if the slits are replaced by wires (negative DSE).
The diffraction pattern of the DSE is just the result of interference of two non planer waves.
Now on how a planer wave is converted to non planer waves at the slits needs to be understood. As I see it an underlying mechanism is responsible for all effects we see that involve EM waves and matter. Understanding the mechanism of the DSE will help in finding the "underlying" mechanism.
Hi Montec,
A subtle inference is made that a sliding gap is moved across the face of the
detector lens of the teachspin single photon experiment while the data is being
collected. So we are seeing the intensity varying as a consequence of the
movement of the gap across the detector. So our resultant waveform pattern is
caused by a change of the sliding adjustment. I have read this experiment
numerous times and can not reach a conclusion of exactly what the data is
showing. Is it an intensity/amplitude pattern caused by single photon interference
or is it merely an intensity distribution graph that results from moving a slider
across the visual field? The graph shows the data from each slit superimposed
over the data collected from both slits. Is it just an intensity comparison graph,
or an interference graph?
Comments?
LL
A subtle inference is made that a sliding gap is moved across the face of the
detector lens of the teachspin single photon experiment while the data is being
collected. So we are seeing the intensity varying as a consequence of the
movement of the gap across the detector. So our resultant waveform pattern is
caused by a change of the sliding adjustment. I have read this experiment
numerous times and can not reach a conclusion of exactly what the data is
showing. Is it an intensity/amplitude pattern caused by single photon interference
or is it merely an intensity distribution graph that results from moving a slider
across the visual field? The graph shows the data from each slit superimposed
over the data collected from both slits. Is it just an intensity comparison graph,
or an interference graph?
Comments?
LL
Hi LL,
It is certainly within reason for you to ask me to "clarify" or restate a question, if you do not see how it connects to something. I can assure you, I would not waste my time, or yours, with "unnecessary" questions.
It will not result in "a "chore" requiring unnecessary work" if a problem hindering further understanding is removed, correct? That is the point, after all.
You have not been able to explain how you can use the SAME phenomenon to argue AGAINST interference happening in one area, and then use it to SUPPORT your interference, in the "general area" of the slit. That is why I am trying to determine what you are thinking about electrons, and their fields. I want to see just WHERE in "space" this field becomes a "real" "photon" to you, and where it still counts as an electron. This is because, apparently, you refuse to believe that there is no such thing as "space without matter". This is paramount, because you are saying that there MUST be "matter" present, for energy to interact/interfere. That's fine actually, but you must then realize, that matter is everywhere there is space, because space is what exists between matter; otherwise, we have no definition. This leaves your "counter-argument" empty, from my perspective.
You never did answer the very important question of WHAT is it about SELF-INTERFERENCE of energy, that you allow for, that would preclude the "separate" interference of "different" energies? Do you accept that I have established that self-interference happens between DIFFERENT frequencies, in the same wave packet?
We will make better and faster progress if you answer the questions directly, rather than trying to just "re-explain" what you've already said. I understand what you have already said, and I find problems with it. You should address those specific issues.
The typical response of "these "photons" are traveling across space without any visible interference" DOES NOT cut it. It can not rule out, by logic, the possibility. You need to address WHY it can NOT; not by showing an example of WHERE it does not. There is a huge difference. If you don't see me eat food in the morning, you can NOT reasonably conclude, that I DO NOT eat. It is that simple of an analogy. You need to state the REASON.
regards,
T.Roc
It is certainly within reason for you to ask me to "clarify" or restate a question, if you do not see how it connects to something. I can assure you, I would not waste my time, or yours, with "unnecessary" questions.
It will not result in "a "chore" requiring unnecessary work" if a problem hindering further understanding is removed, correct? That is the point, after all.
You have not been able to explain how you can use the SAME phenomenon to argue AGAINST interference happening in one area, and then use it to SUPPORT your interference, in the "general area" of the slit. That is why I am trying to determine what you are thinking about electrons, and their fields. I want to see just WHERE in "space" this field becomes a "real" "photon" to you, and where it still counts as an electron. This is because, apparently, you refuse to believe that there is no such thing as "space without matter". This is paramount, because you are saying that there MUST be "matter" present, for energy to interact/interfere. That's fine actually, but you must then realize, that matter is everywhere there is space, because space is what exists between matter; otherwise, we have no definition. This leaves your "counter-argument" empty, from my perspective.
You never did answer the very important question of WHAT is it about SELF-INTERFERENCE of energy, that you allow for, that would preclude the "separate" interference of "different" energies? Do you accept that I have established that self-interference happens between DIFFERENT frequencies, in the same wave packet?
We will make better and faster progress if you answer the questions directly, rather than trying to just "re-explain" what you've already said. I understand what you have already said, and I find problems with it. You should address those specific issues.
The typical response of "these "photons" are traveling across space without any visible interference" DOES NOT cut it. It can not rule out, by logic, the possibility. You need to address WHY it can NOT; not by showing an example of WHERE it does not. There is a huge difference. If you don't see me eat food in the morning, you can NOT reasonably conclude, that I DO NOT eat. It is that simple of an analogy. You need to state the REASON.
regards,
T.Roc
Hello LL, et al.
The sliding aperture is measuring the intensity (constructive interference) of the light across the interference pattern that could be measured at the aperture. The interference of the aperture should not change the total energy allowed through. Something like an interference pattern of an interference pattern. If the aperture is wide enough and the detector close enough then the aperture will have little effect in the experiment.
The graph is a measure of the intensity seen by the detector as a function of the sliding aperture. All that changes is the area or available power between one and two slits. This accounts for the magnitude of the intensity between the double slit intensity and the single slit intensities. Double area quadruples intensity.
The horizontal measurements of intensity are the same for all three intensity lines.
Single photon (planer wave) hits double slit and forms two non planer waves that have DSE interference because of the slit spacing. How much the planer wave is distorted (to a non planer wave) is dependent on the slit widths.
The emitted photon (EM wave) intensity does not necessarily correspond to the detected photon (EM wave) intensity. The detector has a bias applied to the system.
The sliding aperture is measuring the intensity (constructive interference) of the light across the interference pattern that could be measured at the aperture. The interference of the aperture should not change the total energy allowed through. Something like an interference pattern of an interference pattern. If the aperture is wide enough and the detector close enough then the aperture will have little effect in the experiment.
The graph is a measure of the intensity seen by the detector as a function of the sliding aperture. All that changes is the area or available power between one and two slits. This accounts for the magnitude of the intensity between the double slit intensity and the single slit intensities. Double area quadruples intensity.
The horizontal measurements of intensity are the same for all three intensity lines.
Single photon (planer wave) hits double slit and forms two non planer waves that have DSE interference because of the slit spacing. How much the planer wave is distorted (to a non planer wave) is dependent on the slit widths.
The emitted photon (EM wave) intensity does not necessarily correspond to the detected photon (EM wave) intensity. The detector has a bias applied to the system.
Hi TRoc,
Ok, I owe you answers to questions that you have posed. I really thought that much of my prior discussion had already provided most of the information that you
seek, but I will elaborate for the sake of clearing up any misconceptions or
misunderstandings in my thought processes. This will be a long post I apologize to
all, but there is some good thought process involved.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=167741
The electron doesn’t absorb the photon, the atom absorbs the energy contained in
the photon, and it attempts to come back to some equilibrium value and release
the absorbed energy via radiation. There are a slew of variables like the
frequency of the photon, how much and how long the total energy is applied,
the coupling efficiency of the atom to its environment/surroundings, ambient
conditions, etc., etc. There is no simple answer without understanding the
conditions and variables involved.
Ok, I owe you answers to questions that you have posed. I really thought that much of my prior discussion had already provided most of the information that you
seek, but I will elaborate for the sake of clearing up any misconceptions or
misunderstandings in my thought processes. This will be a long post I apologize to
all, but there is some good thought process involved.
QUOTE
1. Tell me what you think that an electron does physically, when it "absorbs" a "photon"? Does this occur "inside" the radius of the electron, or outside (the field)? How about emission? If you say "on the outside" (which is what I think), then what we have is the ENTIRE process of energy exchange happening "in the field" that exists BETWEEN the 2 electrons.
I had answered this quite a while ago, here is the post. It was complete enough at the time considering the necessity for brevity.http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=167741
The electron doesn’t absorb the photon, the atom absorbs the energy contained in
the photon, and it attempts to come back to some equilibrium value and release
the absorbed energy via radiation. There are a slew of variables like the
frequency of the photon, how much and how long the total energy is applied,
the coupling efficiency of the atom to its environment/surroundings, ambient
conditions, etc., etc. There is no simple answer without understanding the
conditions and variables involved.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. Tell me what you think that an electron does physically, when it "absorbs" a "photon"? Does this occur "inside" the radius of the electron, or outside (the field)? How about emission? If you say "on the outside" (which is what I think), then what we have is the ENTIRE process of energy exchange happening "in the field" that exists BETWEEN the 2 electrons. |
I had answered this quite a while ago, here is the post. It was complete enough at the time considering the necessity for brevity.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=167741
The electron doesn’t absorb the photon, the atom absorbs the energy contained in
the photon, and it attempts to come back to some equilibrium value and release
the absorbed energy via radiation. There are a slew of variables like the
frequency of the photon, how much and how long the total energy is applied,
the coupling efficiency of the atom to its environment/surroundings, ambient
conditions, etc., etc. There is no simple answer without understanding the
conditions and variables involved.
2. Standing waves are when the medium moves in
synchrony; the constructive vibrations add at the anti-nodes, and the destructive add at the nodes. Then, the waves (in the medium) appear to be non-moving, in time and space. The energy DOES move through this time and space, with the "phase singularity" (nodes) being UNMEASURABLE by our standard, resonant (anti-node) electrons, which are CHOSEN to be resonant with our "peak" energy.
I sort of agree with this. Standing waves are a synchronous timing phenomenon.
Think about a strobe light synchronized with the timing of the blades of a rotating
fan. The fan is rotating but it appears to be stopped due to an externally
generated harmonic phasing point of observation. It is the same with waves... they
aren’t actually standing still they are moving but they are synchronously time and
phase “coherent” at various points in their observed cycle. The energy being
transported is the medium, the wave is just a graphic representation of the
mathematical solution of the energy “cycle”.
I’m not exactly sure that I can answer this correctly. Normally, I would say the
upper limit has to do with the minimum Plank length distance between a nucleus
and an electron where frequency oscillations can take place, but then again we
must consider that there is likely some frequency oscillation between quarks and
other sub atomic particles that we can’t measure because of physical
measurement equipment limitations that could raise the upper level. This almost
approaches some string theory of vibrations/oscillations.
The lower limit is the point where EM fields are not present as first order direct
contributors to energy propagation as in sound and water waves caused by
physical transfer energy mechanisms.
I said its not a photon if it isn’t propagating in free space and becomes “trapped” in
a balanced offsetting energy exchange as a constituent part of the fields of
matter. A photon is a self regenerative propagating form of energy transport.
I’m not exactly sure that I can answer this correctly. Normally, I would say the
upper limit has to do with the minimum Plank length distance between a nucleus
and an electron where frequency oscillations can take place, but then again we
must consider that there is likely some frequency oscillation between quarks and
other sub atomic particles that we can’t measure because of physical
measurement equipment limitations that could raise the upper level. This almost
approaches some string theory of vibrations/oscillations.
The lower limit is the point where EM fields are not present as first order direct
contributors to energy propagation as in sound and water waves caused by
physical transfer energy mechanisms.
I said its not a photon if it isn’t propagating in free space and becomes “trapped” in
a balanced offsetting energy exchange as a constituent part of the fields of
matter. A photon is a self regenerative propagating form of energy transport.
4. You have not been able to explain how you can use the SAME phenomenon to argue AGAINST interference happening in one area, and then use it to SUPPORT your interference, in the "general area" of the slit. That is why I am trying to determine what you are thinking about electrons, and their fields. I want to see just WHERE in "space" this field becomes a "real" "photon" to you, and where it still counts as an electron. This is because, apparently, you refuse to believe that there is no such thing as "space without matter". This is paramount, because you are saying that there MUST be "matter" present, for energy to interact/interfere. That's fine actually, but you must then realize, that matter is everywhere there is space, because space is what exists between matter; otherwise, we have no definition. This leaves your "counter-argument" empty, from my perspective.
This is a “string along” ambiguous type of question and unclear to me exactly what
you are asking.
Fields can exist in empty space, electric fields, magnetic fields, gravity fields,
radiation fields, etc., they do not require the presence of matter for them to
"occupy" empty space. However, if there does happen to be matter that is being
influenced by these fields, the EM fields of the matter can interact with
these “dimensionless” and uncoupled fields. Matter “couples” fields together.
(That’ll open a can of worms) Fields by themselves will not interact or combine
unless there is a displacement of mass that occurs when the fields of matter
interact with the uncoupled fields occupying proximity “space”.
No matter to act as a work function “catalyst” = no interaction/interference
between uncoupled fields.
Fields are forces, they only interact when accelerating matter. F=ma Take away
mass and the equation just doesn’t work (pun intended). Forces/fields are a form
of potential energy in open space/vacuum.
In order for there to be kinetic energy transfer there must be some displacement of invariant or relativistic mass. Remember E=mc2 ?
You are following “textbook” wave definitions here...are we really sure that we are
observing different internal frequencies in a wave packet, or are we really
observing different phase angle relationships that are caused by interactive nearly
synchronous coupling of individual wavelets all propagating together but
just slightly out of phase, but that support a regenerative wave and OAM. I had
proposed this mechanism in a prior post also.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=173102
You are following “textbook” wave definitions here...are we really sure that we are
observing different internal frequencies in a wave packet, or are we really
observing different phase angle relationships that are caused by interactive nearly
synchronous coupling of individual wavelets all propagating together but
just slightly out of phase, but that support a regenerative wave and OAM. I had
proposed this mechanism in a prior post also.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=173102
6. The typical response of "these "photons" are traveling across space without any visible interference" DOES NOT cut it. It can not rule out, by logic, the possibility. You need to address WHY it can NOT; not by showing an example of WHERE it does not....You need to state the REASON.
You are asking for abstract proofs that cannot be measured insitu. I have
presented you this argument several times previously but you seem unwilling to
capitulate to the reality of direct observation.
You must concede that an unlimited number of individual frequencies are crossing
thru each other from all directions in the open vacuum of space. Yet, all photons
that we can directly observe can be individually discriminated by wavelength,
frequency, color, direction, and qubit information even after billions of light
years of travel and countless wave crossings with other extraneous photon
frequencies over that duration. We are seeing the exact same photonic
information, without distortion, from the far reaches of the observable
universe. We can filter out unwanted signals and decode the information in the
exact same format that existed when it was “spawned”. There is no evidence of
interference that affects the information being transported. I think that is sufficient
proof.
I think another recent post where I responded to GE about OAM of a propagating
wave is the likely reason why individual waves cannot spontaneously mix in
the vacuum of space. The EM fields of discrete photons can not perfectly align
and they each have a precise "relative" time and information stamp that indicates
their point of origin. It is the same reason why if you stamp a one way bus ticket
from Sidney to Canberra you can't use it to fly to England.
Tit for tat....Can you show me evidence/proof to the contrary?
Some more LL “theory” FYI.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=174546
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=173743
LL
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=167741
The electron doesn’t absorb the photon, the atom absorbs the energy contained in
the photon, and it attempts to come back to some equilibrium value and release
the absorbed energy via radiation. There are a slew of variables like the
frequency of the photon, how much and how long the total energy is applied,
the coupling efficiency of the atom to its environment/surroundings, ambient
conditions, etc., etc. There is no simple answer without understanding the
conditions and variables involved.
2. Standing waves are when the medium moves in
synchrony; the constructive vibrations add at the anti-nodes, and the destructive add at the nodes. Then, the waves (in the medium) appear to be non-moving, in time and space. The energy DOES move through this time and space, with the "phase singularity" (nodes) being UNMEASURABLE by our standard, resonant (anti-node) electrons, which are CHOSEN to be resonant with our "peak" energy.
I sort of agree with this. Standing waves are a synchronous timing phenomenon.
Think about a strobe light synchronized with the timing of the blades of a rotating
fan. The fan is rotating but it appears to be stopped due to an externally
generated harmonic phasing point of observation. It is the same with waves... they
aren’t actually standing still they are moving but they are synchronously time and
phase “coherent” at various points in their observed cycle. The energy being
transported is the medium, the wave is just a graphic representation of the
mathematical solution of the energy “cycle”.
QUOTE
3. PS. LL, in the linear "photonic" EM spectrum that you referred to (from textbooks), what are the limits? You said something to the affect of "it's not a "photon" if it's not moving", so what do you call the (low) frequencies that fall below "normal" propagation rules? Or, the energies that are near "merger" of the forces (~10^40 Hz)? Do you think that this "linear" version is adequate?
I’m not exactly sure that I can answer this correctly. Normally, I would say the
upper limit has to do with the minimum Plank length distance between a nucleus
and an electron where frequency oscillations can take place, but then again we
must consider that there is likely some frequency oscillation between quarks and
other sub atomic particles that we can’t measure because of physical
measurement equipment limitations that could raise the upper level. This almost
approaches some string theory of vibrations/oscillations.
The lower limit is the point where EM fields are not present as first order direct
contributors to energy propagation as in sound and water waves caused by
physical transfer energy mechanisms.
I said its not a photon if it isn’t propagating in free space and becomes “trapped” in
a balanced offsetting energy exchange as a constituent part of the fields of
matter. A photon is a self regenerative propagating form of energy transport.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3. PS. LL, in the linear "photonic" EM spectrum that you referred to (from textbooks), what are the limits? You said something to the affect of "it's not a "photon" if it's not moving", so what do you call the (low) frequencies that fall below "normal" propagation rules? Or, the energies that are near "merger" of the forces (~10^40 Hz)? Do you think that this "linear" version is adequate? |
I’m not exactly sure that I can answer this correctly. Normally, I would say the
upper limit has to do with the minimum Plank length distance between a nucleus
and an electron where frequency oscillations can take place, but then again we
must consider that there is likely some frequency oscillation between quarks and
other sub atomic particles that we can’t measure because of physical
measurement equipment limitations that could raise the upper level. This almost
approaches some string theory of vibrations/oscillations.
The lower limit is the point where EM fields are not present as first order direct
contributors to energy propagation as in sound and water waves caused by
physical transfer energy mechanisms.
I said its not a photon if it isn’t propagating in free space and becomes “trapped” in
a balanced offsetting energy exchange as a constituent part of the fields of
matter. A photon is a self regenerative propagating form of energy transport.
4. You have not been able to explain how you can use the SAME phenomenon to argue AGAINST interference happening in one area, and then use it to SUPPORT your interference, in the "general area" of the slit. That is why I am trying to determine what you are thinking about electrons, and their fields. I want to see just WHERE in "space" this field becomes a "real" "photon" to you, and where it still counts as an electron. This is because, apparently, you refuse to believe that there is no such thing as "space without matter". This is paramount, because you are saying that there MUST be "matter" present, for energy to interact/interfere. That's fine actually, but you must then realize, that matter is everywhere there is space, because space is what exists between matter; otherwise, we have no definition. This leaves your "counter-argument" empty, from my perspective.
This is a “string along” ambiguous type of question and unclear to me exactly what
you are asking.
Fields can exist in empty space, electric fields, magnetic fields, gravity fields,
radiation fields, etc., they do not require the presence of matter for them to
"occupy" empty space. However, if there does happen to be matter that is being
influenced by these fields, the EM fields of the matter can interact with
these “dimensionless” and uncoupled fields. Matter “couples” fields together.
(That’ll open a can of worms) Fields by themselves will not interact or combine
unless there is a displacement of mass that occurs when the fields of matter
interact with the uncoupled fields occupying proximity “space”.
No matter to act as a work function “catalyst” = no interaction/interference
between uncoupled fields.
Fields are forces, they only interact when accelerating matter. F=ma Take away
mass and the equation just doesn’t work (pun intended). Forces/fields are a form
of potential energy in open space/vacuum.
In order for there to be kinetic energy transfer there must be some displacement of invariant or relativistic mass. Remember E=mc2 ?
QUOTE
5. You never did answer the very important question of WHAT is it about SELF-INTERFERENCE of energy, that you allow for, that would preclude the "separate" interference of "different" energies? Do you accept that I have established that self-interference happens between DIFFERENT frequencies, in the same wave packet?
You are following “textbook” wave definitions here...are we really sure that we are
observing different internal frequencies in a wave packet, or are we really
observing different phase angle relationships that are caused by interactive nearly
synchronous coupling of individual wavelets all propagating together but
just slightly out of phase, but that support a regenerative wave and OAM. I had
proposed this mechanism in a prior post also.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=173102
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 5. You never did answer the very important question of WHAT is it about SELF-INTERFERENCE of energy, that you allow for, that would preclude the "separate" interference of "different" energies? Do you accept that I have established that self-interference happens between DIFFERENT frequencies, in the same wave packet? |
You are following “textbook” wave definitions here...are we really sure that we are
observing different internal frequencies in a wave packet, or are we really
observing different phase angle relationships that are caused by interactive nearly
synchronous coupling of individual wavelets all propagating together but
just slightly out of phase, but that support a regenerative wave and OAM. I had
proposed this mechanism in a prior post also.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=173102
6. The typical response of "these "photons" are traveling across space without any visible interference" DOES NOT cut it. It can not rule out, by logic, the possibility. You need to address WHY it can NOT; not by showing an example of WHERE it does not....You need to state the REASON.
You are asking for abstract proofs that cannot be measured insitu. I have
presented you this argument several times previously but you seem unwilling to
capitulate to the reality of direct observation.
You must concede that an unlimited number of individual frequencies are crossing
thru each other from all directions in the open vacuum of space. Yet, all photons
that we can directly observe can be individually discriminated by wavelength,
frequency, color, direction, and qubit information even after billions of light
years of travel and countless wave crossings with other extraneous photon
frequencies over that duration. We are seeing the exact same photonic
information, without distortion, from the far reaches of the observable
universe. We can filter out unwanted signals and decode the information in the
exact same format that existed when it was “spawned”. There is no evidence of
interference that affects the information being transported. I think that is sufficient
proof.
I think another recent post where I responded to GE about OAM of a propagating
wave is the likely reason why individual waves cannot spontaneously mix in
the vacuum of space. The EM fields of discrete photons can not perfectly align
and they each have a precise "relative" time and information stamp that indicates
their point of origin. It is the same reason why if you stamp a one way bus ticket
from Sidney to Canberra you can't use it to fly to England.
Tit for tat....Can you show me evidence/proof to the contrary?
Some more LL “theory” FYI.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=174546
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=173743
LL
Hi Troc,Montec, Laserlight,Good Elf, jal et al,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
The ironic thing is, is that there IS a way out of the "arbitrary" nature of the method, and I have stated where to begin. I don't mind restating it. That is, AFTER you admit that the method is arbitrary. Otherwise, the growth will not come from within.
Some of the analysis can be found here:-
Electromagnetic
Waves and Antennas
( http://www.ece.rutgers.edu/~orfanidi/ewa/ )
Chapter 16 ( http://www.ece.rutgers.edu/~orfanidi/ewa/ch16.pdf )
Some of the analysis can be found here:-
Electromagnetic
Waves and Antennas
( http://www.ece.rutgers.edu/~orfanidi/ewa/ )
Chapter 16 ( http://www.ece.rutgers.edu/~orfanidi/ewa/ch16.pdf )
QUOTE (16.13+)
We discuss the classical problem of diffraction of a spherical wave by a rectangular aperture, a slit, and a straight-edge using the Kirchhoff integral formula. The case of a plane wave incident on a conducting edge is discussed in Problem 16.11 using the fieldequivalence principle and Kottler’s formula and more accurately, in Sec. 16.15, using Sommerfeld’s exact solution of the geometrical theory of diffraction. These examples are meant to be an introduction to the vast subject of diffraction.
As always there is no 'complete' analysis, for example (to please Laserlight) the book mentions neither surface states that might be induced in conductors nor the field strength that might induce them.
Despite the difficulty of a full analysis of any particular slit we can 'probe' the properties of a slit by measuring the output as a function of angle. Looking carefully at the results of one DSE ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) we see the number of photons counted per second as a detector is scanned across each of the slits individually. While this only tells us the gain (loss) of the slit we can be sure there are no abrupt phase changes (resonances) because these would cause the gain to change rapidly as a function of angle. Once we know we have a 'normal' slits we can safely predict the result for the combination of both slits.
Comments welcome.
-------------
Montec .. the words I have been waiting to hear .. "If you look carefully at the result of an experiment.. "
As always there is no 'complete' analysis, for example (to please Laserlight) the book mentions neither surface states that might be induced in conductors nor the field strength that might induce them.
Despite the difficulty of a full analysis of any particular slit we can 'probe' the properties of a slit by measuring the output as a function of angle. Looking carefully at the results of one DSE ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) we see the number of photons counted per second as a detector is scanned across each of the slits individually. While this only tells us the gain (loss) of the slit we can be sure there are no abrupt phase changes (resonances) because these would cause the gain to change rapidly as a function of angle. Once we know we have a 'normal' slits we can safely predict the result for the combination of both slits.
Comments welcome.
-------------
Montec .. the words I have been waiting to hear .. "If you look carefully at the result of an experiment.. "
QUOTE (Montec+)
The emitted photon (EM wave) intensity does not necessarily correspond to the detected photon (EM wave) intensity. The detector has a bias applied to the system.
The Teachspin results are 'photon counts per second' .. the relationship between this number and 'intensity' might (one day) tell us a lot about the nature of EM waves/photons. Please clarify what you mean by 'bias'.
Best wishes,
-C2.
The Teachspin results are 'photon counts per second' .. the relationship between this number and 'intensity' might (one day) tell us a lot about the nature of EM waves/photons. Please clarify what you mean by 'bias'.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Neil Farbstein, Confused2, yquantum, Laserlight, fivedoughnut, "THEY", Montec, TRoc, Aerohead et al,
I am not sure what it is that I have said but nobody ever responds to any of my statements. Oh well.... I will respond to Neil about the Afshar Experiment.
In the illustration the first image is a two slit interference pattern (classic). The second image Afshar "discovers" the single slit interference pattern by blocking one slit and then puts wires in the optical path which can "detect" a photon... . which naturally partially disturbs the pristine single slit pattern. To get this "image" you need a "strong source" of photons and the pattern is made up of many millions of photon events (tiny single flashes of light dotted all over the screen to build up the image). Some of these photons are actually scattered by the wires and this makes tiny flashes in places that are not part of the coherent pattern thus producing the second "slightly" distorted image. In the third image the second slit is opened again, this time with wires in the "dead zones" where little of no photons are sound. This is back to the two slit experiment. This still disturbs the final image "a bit" .... some tiny flashes are falling off target such that the image is only "very slightly distorted".
Here is what is being determined and the two screen images are equivalent to this...
Double Slit Diffraction... one slit two slit side by side
Wires are place along the paths to the screen where there are dark zones in the RHS image.
Lets accept this as showing that the final result is "pristine" (I realize it is not but it is crucial to Afshar's argument that the wires do not affect the result). What Afshar is saying is by seeing this strong interference pattern (the pattern on the right) not disturbed by the wires and by seeing the screen pattern of tiny flashes, he has proven that he has "measured" two separate properties of each and every photon... a Particle and a Wave property. The particle property is the tiny flash on the screen due to each photon and the overall wave property is the NULL result due to the wires detecting "nothing". This experiment could be refined to a single photon at a time (I think this is the additional "evidence" being recently reported... in that respect it is important to do... one photon, one flash at a time, null "result" for the wires all the time). This is hailed as a wonderful "breakfthough"... wave particle duality "measured" at the same time..... Wow!
What is not said is a NULL measurement cannot be used to prove existence. It can only be used to prove non-existence. For instance the Michelson-Morley Experiment was looking for the existence of an Aether by trying to measure a property of the Aether. It got a null result. That shows only it could not measure a property that does not exist. A non existent Aether has non-existent properties, hence a NULL result. This was taken as proof that the Aether did not exist... not evidence of existence.
Here in Afshar's Experiment we have a search for a property of a photon in a place other than where it is finally indisputably detected. I can propose any number of non-existent things which have non-existent properties "almost anywhere" that have "null" results. I can point to any number of places in the Universe where I can measure a null result at the same time the the flash occurs on the screen. This experiment does not attempt to prove we are measuring the same entity (the single photon) at the same time. What is happening here is an argument is proposed based on assumptions about a wave that are not in any quantum theory.
The wave phase of the single photon is not being measured. In fact it has to be assumed that since these points the wire are placed are always in shadow when you run the two slit experiment, you would normally conclude that photons are not found there. In particular... the particular photon that causes a flash in the screen at some point other than those dark nodes cannot be linked to the fact that the node is dark... it is "dark" for all "coherent" photons. What Afshar is supposed to show is if you measure the one thing "twice" you must prove beyond doubt that the null measurement in some other point in space is intrinsically linked with that tiny flash on the screen somewhere else in space. It is equivalent to placing the wires on the screen in the "dead zones" and measuring flashes "elsewhere" on the same screen... the events are not connected. A very "unremarkable" experiment". You must be able to prove that the particular photon being measured has specific properties that can be measures in a "dead zone", We know that the photons do not have a physical presence in the "dead zones" (that is why they are "dead"), at least as far as our instruments are concerned.
It is called "cause and effect"... you must establish it if you want to make a "famous claim".
Cheers
I am not sure what it is that I have said but nobody ever responds to any of my statements. Oh well.... I will respond to Neil about the Afshar Experiment.
In the illustration the first image is a two slit interference pattern (classic). The second image Afshar "discovers" the single slit interference pattern by blocking one slit and then puts wires in the optical path which can "detect" a photon... . which naturally partially disturbs the pristine single slit pattern. To get this "image" you need a "strong source" of photons and the pattern is made up of many millions of photon events (tiny single flashes of light dotted all over the screen to build up the image). Some of these photons are actually scattered by the wires and this makes tiny flashes in places that are not part of the coherent pattern thus producing the second "slightly" distorted image. In the third image the second slit is opened again, this time with wires in the "dead zones" where little of no photons are sound. This is back to the two slit experiment. This still disturbs the final image "a bit" .... some tiny flashes are falling off target such that the image is only "very slightly distorted".
Here is what is being determined and the two screen images are equivalent to this...
Double Slit Diffraction... one slit two slit side by side
Wires are place along the paths to the screen where there are dark zones in the RHS image.
Lets accept this as showing that the final result is "pristine" (I realize it is not but it is crucial to Afshar's argument that the wires do not affect the result). What Afshar is saying is by seeing this strong interference pattern (the pattern on the right) not disturbed by the wires and by seeing the screen pattern of tiny flashes, he has proven that he has "measured" two separate properties of each and every photon... a Particle and a Wave property. The particle property is the tiny flash on the screen due to each photon and the overall wave property is the NULL result due to the wires detecting "nothing". This experiment could be refined to a single photon at a time (I think this is the additional "evidence" being recently reported... in that respect it is important to do... one photon, one flash at a time, null "result" for the wires all the time). This is hailed as a wonderful "breakfthough"... wave particle duality "measured" at the same time..... Wow!
What is not said is a NULL measurement cannot be used to prove existence. It can only be used to prove non-existence. For instance the Michelson-Morley Experiment was looking for the existence of an Aether by trying to measure a property of the Aether. It got a null result. That shows only it could not measure a property that does not exist. A non existent Aether has non-existent properties, hence a NULL result. This was taken as proof that the Aether did not exist... not evidence of existence.
Here in Afshar's Experiment we have a search for a property of a photon in a place other than where it is finally indisputably detected. I can propose any number of non-existent things which have non-existent properties "almost anywhere" that have "null" results. I can point to any number of places in the Universe where I can measure a null result at the same time the the flash occurs on the screen. This experiment does not attempt to prove we are measuring the same entity (the single photon) at the same time. What is happening here is an argument is proposed based on assumptions about a wave that are not in any quantum theory.
The wave phase of the single photon is not being measured. In fact it has to be assumed that since these points the wire are placed are always in shadow when you run the two slit experiment, you would normally conclude that photons are not found there. In particular... the particular photon that causes a flash in the screen at some point other than those dark nodes cannot be linked to the fact that the node is dark... it is "dark" for all "coherent" photons. What Afshar is supposed to show is if you measure the one thing "twice" you must prove beyond doubt that the null measurement in some other point in space is intrinsically linked with that tiny flash on the screen somewhere else in space. It is equivalent to placing the wires on the screen in the "dead zones" and measuring flashes "elsewhere" on the same screen... the events are not connected. A very "unremarkable" experiment". You must be able to prove that the particular photon being measured has specific properties that can be measures in a "dead zone", We know that the photons do not have a physical presence in the "dead zones" (that is why they are "dead"), at least as far as our instruments are concerned.
It is called "cause and effect"... you must establish it if you want to make a "famous claim".
Cheers
Hi GE,
I think that we are in agreement about Afshar's experiment. However, we
are still deadlocked re: what an Aether is or isn't.
If you design an experiment to measure a specific value or quantity but your
equipment is unable to resolve or detect some other type of unknown "quantity",
then all you have succeeded in doing is proving that either your experimental
design criteria/assumptions are wrong, or that your equipment is incapable of
measuring some unknown value. Just because you failed to measure something
doesn't mean that there isn't something else present.
An example: Afshar's wires didn't detect visible photons in the null areas, but
that was all he was looking for. I'm fairly certain that there were other photon
frequencies there that were just not observed and probably not important
for his purposes. If I go fishing with worms in fresh water, what is the likelihood
that I'll hook a great white shark?
I think that we are in agreement about Afshar's experiment. However, we
are still deadlocked re: what an Aether is or isn't.
QUOTE
What is not said is a NULL measurement cannot be used to prove existence. It can only be used to prove non-existence. For instance the Michelson-Morley Experiment was looking for the existence of an Aether by trying to measure a property of the Aether. It got a null result. That shows only it could not measure a property that does not exist. A non existent Aether has non-existent properties, hence a NULL result. This was taken as proof that the Aether did not exist... not evidence of existence
If you design an experiment to measure a specific value or quantity but your
equipment is unable to resolve or detect some other type of unknown "quantity",
then all you have succeeded in doing is proving that either your experimental
design criteria/assumptions are wrong, or that your equipment is incapable of
measuring some unknown value. Just because you failed to measure something
doesn't mean that there isn't something else present.
An example: Afshar's wires didn't detect visible photons in the null areas, but
that was all he was looking for. I'm fairly certain that there were other photon
frequencies there that were just not observed and probably not important
for his purposes. If I go fishing with worms in fresh water, what is the likelihood
that I'll hook a great white shark?
QUOTE (GoodElf+Mar 18 2007, 04:13 AM)
A non existent Aether has non-existent properties, hence a NULL result.
The AWT considers, the Aether, which can transfer the light of the high energy density would have the high energy density, too. Such material will be formed by heavily compressed density fluctuations in the form of foam. Such fluctuations are transferring just the transversal waves, therefore the absolute reference frame cannot be observed here.
From this insight the negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment follows. In fact, each the inertial material can exhibit both the transversal, both the longitudinal waves at the same time - it's just the matter of its internal structure, which form of energy spreading will become prevailing. Please consider, the Maxwell's aether theory of light was based on the tranversal wave spreading too, therefore the result of M-M could be expected even before one hundred years without problem. If you're expecting wrong result, it's logical, you'll make a wrong conclusion from it.
The AWT considers, the Aether, which can transfer the light of the high energy density would have the high energy density, too. Such material will be formed by heavily compressed density fluctuations in the form of foam. Such fluctuations are transferring just the transversal waves, therefore the absolute reference frame cannot be observed here.
From this insight the negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment follows. In fact, each the inertial material can exhibit both the transversal, both the longitudinal waves at the same time - it's just the matter of its internal structure, which form of energy spreading will become prevailing. Please consider, the Maxwell's aether theory of light was based on the tranversal wave spreading too, therefore the result of M-M could be expected even before one hundred years without problem. If you're expecting wrong result, it's logical, you'll make a wrong conclusion from it.
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Just because you failed to measure something doesn't mean that there isn't something else present.
OK... there are pixies on Jupiter ... they are invisible pixies and any measurement you make will be null. That proves I am right! I also have a sure fire way to stop you from being trampled by wild Elephants... wear a paper hat while standing at at the South Pole.... See... paper hats work. Do this experiment 100 times with different conditions and different assumptions and you keep getting null readings. What do you conclude? In Einstein's case the entire world understood that not finding something means that it is not there... end of story. Until you PROVE something is there you have no case for anything. Null experiments "prove" non-existence in Science because you can assert anything in any discipline you like ... politics, religion, history, mathematics, philosophy... Science differs from all of them since it must be shown by an experiment that it is indeed true before it is accepted. It is called the Scientific Method and it is "infallible" in determining "relative truth". In mathematics for instance you can make any postulate you like and derive theorems and corollaries and all manner of interesting results. The relevance to Physics has to be proven before it becomes acceptable... not all Mathematics is Physics but all Physics is Mathematics. This is what is currently wrong with much of String Theory and with Loop Quantum Gravity... they assert things that have not yet been proven. It is good to look for these things but if you do not find them you just got to stop saying that it is true. A single experiment looking for one non-existing thing could engage the entire establishment and all its resources for the rest of human history based on the fact that to this point in time there are only null results. Putting it crudely "Put up or shut up". By this method we have advanced beyond how many angels can dance on the head of a pin since the existence of angels is still in dispute. Now this is despite the fact a lot of people believe in them. I don't... only we elves "really" exist.
Getting back to the "null" result. Until Afshar "puts up" he is making a claim based on no evidence and claiming it is a "breakthrough". This is not Science it is bluffing at poker. In Science we call the bluff and he must show his hand with all the winning cards otherwise he loses.
sorry!
"Size" should mean "distance" (radius) of the "fields", or something to that effect.
I am saying that that size should include BOTH electrons, that are involved in the "photon" transaction. NOT, both "photons" involved in a transition in eigenstates of ONE electron. That is the "change" I wish to make to current theory. That makes it a non-linear problem, in many ways. It is subtle, but far reaching.
You are saying that the EM fields of the electrons (outer) in the atoms of the slit-wall are "big enough" to do the "mixing".
I am saying that ALL electron "fields" are big enough, in that sense. The ISL will never go to zero, right? The ISL only takes the "intensity" of ONE body into the "effect" side of the equation, right? (even though the distance parameter is obviously from both parties) It is talking about the drop-off from ONE way, and disregarding the other party. The "2-way" (Cramer/Wheeler-Feynman) approach would have to treat these "distances" separately, that is, not as a single value "squared", but as the "center" of 2 values.
This "symmetry" between 2 interacting (resonant/entangled) electrons then gets to become something else as well: our familiar "node". With this symmetrical approach, the standard terms of frequency and wavelength "fit" naturally between these 2 energy-exchanging particles. Of course, our "receiving" electron is sending out "negative" frequencies, but this is allowed/accommodated for in EM theory.
The ONLY "good" reason that this is NOT the "most accepted" theory, is that it is an affront to our "causal" (linear) mindset. This model means that the "receiver" would "know" at the non-local distance (same time) as the "sender" initiates the "signal". This only "hurts" if you let it. Ego-centric, Earth-centric, Energy-centric limited views.
Everything is connected. ISL, among many other good reasons, says this is so.
The "communication" started EONS ago, not when we decide to "begin" an experiment (measurement). Evenly curved space must form circles.
T.Roc
Getting back to the "null" result. Until Afshar "puts up" he is making a claim based on no evidence and claiming it is a "breakthrough". This is not Science it is bluffing at poker. In Science we call the bluff and he must show his hand with all the winning cards otherwise he loses.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
An example: Afshar's wires didn't detect visible photons in the null areas, but that was all he was looking for. I'm fairly certain that there were other photon frequencies there that were just not observed and probably not important
for his purposes.
for his purposes.
You do not get kudos for stuffing up experiments. You get kudos for making a successful experiment. It is all in the design. Does Afshar "need" to have those added frequencies there? Have a look at his paper...
Sharp complementary wave and particle behaviours in the same welcher weg experiment: Shahriar S. Afshar
You are probably right about those interferences but a good experiment is supposed to remove all the "controversial" aspects. As far as it goes it is "OK" but it proves nothing about what he is supposed to be showing. That is a causal relationship between the little flash of light on a screen and a NULL reading somewhere else (the particle and wave aspects at the same time). I would also say that it is very important that the measurements are actually made at exactly the same time and the causal relationship is established. In actual fact he will be disturbing the result slightly and he has not accounted for that. I stress this "wave" reading is actually "always null", a problem for measuring anything.
The "superposition of states" stated in his conclusion cannot be used as an excuse when dealing with photons of a particular wavelength. A single photon only contains the base frequency and the higher harmonics which are not "resolved" in the dark regions (see my post from yesterday). An ensemble of photons contains no lower frequencies than the fundamental so the actual signal does not theoretically "leak" into the "dead zones", the higher frequencies in the wave packet are found inside the envelope of the "bumps" all "mixed together" as I have already said in that previous post . You can prove what I say is true by increasing the number of "slits" and reducing their width until it becomes a optical grating and then you will see that these "bumps" are actually detuned individual oscillators that can only be resolves by making the grating lines very very thin (slit widths) and increasing their number to as high as possible. Wave diffraction of coherent light is not a quantum statistical function ... only the pattern is "statistical" and the way in which it builds up.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...grating.html#c2
Now to discuss the "small" influence of the wires... this is the result of imperfect cavity action as I have already described. When you square the amplitude of the phase sync function and since the all waves are not actually parallel when they strike the double slits... theory suggests this intensity function is not absolutely zero in those gaps being always in a Fresnel zone and never quite reaching a Fraunhofer condition. This means there is "overlap" and only "near" cancellation due to the slits being of finite width. This will mean some passing photons are minimally influenced by the wires. It is like rolling a ball along the ground on a flat basketball court where a small weed has grown up between the cracks. It does not stop the ball but it has a small influence on its trajectory as it strikes it. This results in a "protective measurement", a weak adiabatic "measurement", already known in wave theory where the trajectory of the photons are slightly modified (I have spoken of this briefly before)... this is equivalent to making one or several very "light touches" to the system causing bunching of the photons (or other particles). Quantum systems can remain in an uncollapsed quantum state if you do not "precipitously" collapse the wavefunction. A tiny "measurement" (read influence") can perturb the system without collapse just like the mutual influence of propagating photons organize the mutual interactions of the other photons in a similar state on a wavefront. This is well known in the literature. What happens is this influences the "final" pattern slightly causing the photons to favor one outcome over some others.
What this means is as long as the measurement is small it does not collapse the wavefunction. However even small measurements cause the trajectory of the photon to be modified toward an outcome (sometimes bunching the quanta) that might be different from an outcome if the measurement simply collapsed the wavefunction completely.
Afshar has not obviously heard of "protective measurement" and has not discussed this aspect in his paper or tried to remove it from the equation... so this wave influence goes uncommented. In the literature "protective measurement" and their influence is one of the strongest arguments for Bohmian Mechanics and the so called "guided pilot wave" Theory. It has experimental validity and I for one hold very strongly to experimental results. Bohmian Mechanics is a hidden variable theory that assumes "extra parameters"... some may say extra dimensions.
Protective Measurements in Quantum Mechanics
This does not help Afshar's hypothesis... believe me. You can even see it slightly in that 3rd image. I have been meaning to return to this topic but people seem to be unable to proceed to any further with new ideas. There is no point in talking to a brick wall is there? It is far too advanced a topic to introduce to this forum and its consequences are far too controversial.
Protective Measurements are also important in Cavity measurements "as well". In cavities you can make many protective measurements further "refining" a quantum state and narrowing a "line". For instance devices for reading data from OAM encoded photons involve many "sorting" stages in which as much information is extracted from the photon as is possible by use of an inverted "interference" tree in which the wave is sorted depending on its OAM into one of many channels whose ultimate purpose is to have a single detection which then confirms the correct encoding of the OAM on the single photon by virtue of the exact tree resonance. Prototype devices exist already for some years which work to extract complex data from single propagating photons. Theoretically it would be possible to encode the Bible on to a single photon using OAM and then at the receiver end the "message" could be "decoded" by these phase resonant cavities sorting the photon until the message represents a unique path where a single flash is the final outcome. Irrelevant information ... right... he he he!
Cheers
Sharp complementary wave and particle behaviours in the same welcher weg experiment: Shahriar S. Afshar
You are probably right about those interferences but a good experiment is supposed to remove all the "controversial" aspects. As far as it goes it is "OK" but it proves nothing about what he is supposed to be showing. That is a causal relationship between the little flash of light on a screen and a NULL reading somewhere else (the particle and wave aspects at the same time). I would also say that it is very important that the measurements are actually made at exactly the same time and the causal relationship is established. In actual fact he will be disturbing the result slightly and he has not accounted for that. I stress this "wave" reading is actually "always null", a problem for measuring anything.
The "superposition of states" stated in his conclusion cannot be used as an excuse when dealing with photons of a particular wavelength. A single photon only contains the base frequency and the higher harmonics which are not "resolved" in the dark regions (see my post from yesterday). An ensemble of photons contains no lower frequencies than the fundamental so the actual signal does not theoretically "leak" into the "dead zones", the higher frequencies in the wave packet are found inside the envelope of the "bumps" all "mixed together" as I have already said in that previous post . You can prove what I say is true by increasing the number of "slits" and reducing their width until it becomes a optical grating and then you will see that these "bumps" are actually detuned individual oscillators that can only be resolves by making the grating lines very very thin (slit widths) and increasing their number to as high as possible. Wave diffraction of coherent light is not a quantum statistical function ... only the pattern is "statistical" and the way in which it builds up.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...grating.html#c2
Now to discuss the "small" influence of the wires... this is the result of imperfect cavity action as I have already described. When you square the amplitude of the phase sync function and since the all waves are not actually parallel when they strike the double slits... theory suggests this intensity function is not absolutely zero in those gaps being always in a Fresnel zone and never quite reaching a Fraunhofer condition. This means there is "overlap" and only "near" cancellation due to the slits being of finite width. This will mean some passing photons are minimally influenced by the wires. It is like rolling a ball along the ground on a flat basketball court where a small weed has grown up between the cracks. It does not stop the ball but it has a small influence on its trajectory as it strikes it. This results in a "protective measurement", a weak adiabatic "measurement", already known in wave theory where the trajectory of the photons are slightly modified (I have spoken of this briefly before)... this is equivalent to making one or several very "light touches" to the system causing bunching of the photons (or other particles). Quantum systems can remain in an uncollapsed quantum state if you do not "precipitously" collapse the wavefunction. A tiny "measurement" (read influence") can perturb the system without collapse just like the mutual influence of propagating photons organize the mutual interactions of the other photons in a similar state on a wavefront. This is well known in the literature. What happens is this influences the "final" pattern slightly causing the photons to favor one outcome over some others.
What this means is as long as the measurement is small it does not collapse the wavefunction. However even small measurements cause the trajectory of the photon to be modified toward an outcome (sometimes bunching the quanta) that might be different from an outcome if the measurement simply collapsed the wavefunction completely.
Afshar has not obviously heard of "protective measurement" and has not discussed this aspect in his paper or tried to remove it from the equation... so this wave influence goes uncommented. In the literature "protective measurement" and their influence is one of the strongest arguments for Bohmian Mechanics and the so called "guided pilot wave" Theory. It has experimental validity and I for one hold very strongly to experimental results. Bohmian Mechanics is a hidden variable theory that assumes "extra parameters"... some may say extra dimensions.
Protective Measurements in Quantum Mechanics
This does not help Afshar's hypothesis... believe me. You can even see it slightly in that 3rd image. I have been meaning to return to this topic but people seem to be unable to proceed to any further with new ideas. There is no point in talking to a brick wall is there? It is far too advanced a topic to introduce to this forum and its consequences are far too controversial.
Protective Measurements are also important in Cavity measurements "as well". In cavities you can make many protective measurements further "refining" a quantum state and narrowing a "line". For instance devices for reading data from OAM encoded photons involve many "sorting" stages in which as much information is extracted from the photon as is possible by use of an inverted "interference" tree in which the wave is sorted depending on its OAM into one of many channels whose ultimate purpose is to have a single detection which then confirms the correct encoding of the OAM on the single photon by virtue of the exact tree resonance. Prototype devices exist already for some years which work to extract complex data from single propagating photons. Theoretically it would be possible to encode the Bible on to a single photon using OAM and then at the receiver end the "message" could be "decoded" by these phase resonant cavities sorting the photon until the message represents a unique path where a single flash is the final outcome. Irrelevant information ... right... he he he!
Cheers
Hello Confused2, et al.
A bias is typically applied to an electronic device in order to make it more sensitive. This is the "dark current" that exits when some types of photo detectors are used. If you have to "tune" a piece of equipment to just detect a signal then you are biasing said equipment to detect a particular signal.
P.S. Ill be gone for a couple of weeks so I will have to catch you all later.
A bias is typically applied to an electronic device in order to make it more sensitive. This is the "dark current" that exits when some types of photo detectors are used. If you have to "tune" a piece of equipment to just detect a signal then you are biasing said equipment to detect a particular signal.
P.S. Ill be gone for a couple of weeks so I will have to catch you all later.
Hi Montec,
Have a nice break... catch you then.
At a particular frequency Huygens Construction shows a large number of these tiny wavelength effects.
Interference of two circular waves, snapshots of absolute value of (real,scalar) wave field for different wave lengths and distances of point sources (Wikipedia). Wavelength decreasing from bottom to top. As time progresses, the wave fronts would move outwards from the two centers, but the dark regions (destructive interference) stay fixed. With light the fringes are almost unable to be resolved at optical frequencies, especially with "thick" slits. Naturally I dispute this effect when considering "cavities" and light. The entire pattern is quasi-stationary being a solution of Shrodinger's Wave Equation and oscillating between nodes and antinodes.
Here is a construction after Huygen's by Thomas Young.
... Click to enlarge...
What is seen of this intricate pattern is only the "dead zones" the rest is lost due to the much higher resolution required to resolve standing wave boundaries. The influence of "overtones" (harmonics) also can't be ignored. The way to gain a greater understanding is to narrow the slits and to include reflecting walls. Increasing the number of slits also helps in understanding too.
Thomas Young's sketch of two-slit diffraction of light. Narrow slits at A and B act as sources, and waves interfering in various phases are shown at C, D, E, and F. Young presented the results of this experiment to the Royal Society in 1803.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
What we see is the third image with "advanced and retarded waves" producing standing waves and not the first or second image here...
+ 
= 
Unfortunately you need to break the time symmetry of the Schrodinger Solution to see these waves in this form but I have demonstrated that such techniques do exist.
Cheers
Have a nice break... catch you then.
QUOTE
A bias is typically applied to an electronic device in order to make it more sensitive. This is the "dark current" that exits when some types of photo detectors are used. If you have to "tune" a piece of equipment to just detect a signal then you are biasing said equipment to detect a particular signal.
This is an instrumentalist view of the process. "Dark Current" is a small current that tends to polarize a device and it is related to detector phenomena that usually increase with the age of the device. Tiny fluctuations in this "noise" must be biased out in order to measure signal from a device exhibiting this effect. It is possible that some of the effect due to noise is due to so called random quantum processes at that level of the device. Other means would be needed to measure this apparently Gaussian Noise. Some of it will be due to unresolved standing waves of low intensity. These waves would fluctuate in a random fashion producing signal at random times simply by chance. Now what I would say is though you can analyze this noise using statistics it is impossible to resolve using this instrument, the nature of this noise and it's underlying causes. These "causes" have an origin in Physics, it is not possible to resolve it though.At a particular frequency Huygens Construction shows a large number of these tiny wavelength effects.
Interference of two circular waves, snapshots of absolute value of (real,scalar) wave field for different wave lengths and distances of point sources (Wikipedia). Wavelength decreasing from bottom to top. As time progresses, the wave fronts would move outwards from the two centers, but the dark regions (destructive interference) stay fixed. With light the fringes are almost unable to be resolved at optical frequencies, especially with "thick" slits. Naturally I dispute this effect when considering "cavities" and light. The entire pattern is quasi-stationary being a solution of Shrodinger's Wave Equation and oscillating between nodes and antinodes.
Here is a construction after Huygen's by Thomas Young.
... Click to enlarge...
What is seen of this intricate pattern is only the "dead zones" the rest is lost due to the much higher resolution required to resolve standing wave boundaries. The influence of "overtones" (harmonics) also can't be ignored. The way to gain a greater understanding is to narrow the slits and to include reflecting walls. Increasing the number of slits also helps in understanding too.
Thomas Young's sketch of two-slit diffraction of light. Narrow slits at A and B act as sources, and waves interfering in various phases are shown at C, D, E, and F. Young presented the results of this experiment to the Royal Society in 1803.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
What we see is the third image with "advanced and retarded waves" producing standing waves and not the first or second image here...
+ = Unfortunately you need to break the time symmetry of the Schrodinger Solution to see these waves in this form but I have demonstrated that such techniques do exist.
Cheers
Hi all,
Thanks LL, for your thorough response. I’ll try to respond in kind, and perhaps we can “move forward” with our ideas.
OK, so my interpretation of your answer to my question (“#1”) is, we agree with the basic premise of “photon” absorbtion/emission from bound electron “orbitals”. These are distances from the nucleus, and there are other factors that can influence the process.
“Textbook theory” is generally “one body” descriptions, and “ideal” equations. The atomic premise is no exception. The “assumption” is that you have an “incoming photon” to do the initial work, yet, the initial electron that has sent this “photon” is not included. This is what I’m trying to get to, with the questions.
So, YES, the distance from electron to nucleus, its’ ground state, is critical for determining the frequency that can be absorbed and re-emitted. The problem with this current theory is the “timing” (as in “historical”, not phase) of the event. This transaction that is being described, even by their own admission, is the “end” of 1 “photon” (“A”), and the beginning of another (“B”). The story, as far as I’m concerned, should start with the BEGINNING of “photon” A (not at the end). Doing this includes the distance between electrons that DEFINE the “life of photon A”, and their “holistic” field, that can be described by the ISL.
That is the question of “size” that I am asking. Do you “acknowledge” what I mean? I am making a “small” change to the current definition, and parameters. If you don’t understand this, or agree with it, then most of what I say will not matter to you. I do not agree with the linear approach, and the results and interpretations of it.
I'll address your other points next.
ciao,
T.Roc
Thanks LL, for your thorough response. I’ll try to respond in kind, and perhaps we can “move forward” with our ideas.
OK, so my interpretation of your answer to my question (“#1”) is, we agree with the basic premise of “photon” absorbtion/emission from bound electron “orbitals”. These are distances from the nucleus, and there are other factors that can influence the process.
“Textbook theory” is generally “one body” descriptions, and “ideal” equations. The atomic premise is no exception. The “assumption” is that you have an “incoming photon” to do the initial work, yet, the initial electron that has sent this “photon” is not included. This is what I’m trying to get to, with the questions.
So, YES, the distance from electron to nucleus, its’ ground state, is critical for determining the frequency that can be absorbed and re-emitted. The problem with this current theory is the “timing” (as in “historical”, not phase) of the event. This transaction that is being described, even by their own admission, is the “end” of 1 “photon” (“A”), and the beginning of another (“B”). The story, as far as I’m concerned, should start with the BEGINNING of “photon” A (not at the end). Doing this includes the distance between electrons that DEFINE the “life of photon A”, and their “holistic” field, that can be described by the ISL.
That is the question of “size” that I am asking. Do you “acknowledge” what I mean? I am making a “small” change to the current definition, and parameters. If you don’t understand this, or agree with it, then most of what I say will not matter to you. I do not agree with the linear approach, and the results and interpretations of it.
I'll address your other points next.
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
I am not sure what you mean by size? Size of what, as it relates to what?
This is ambiguous! A bit of a critique...you are assuming that I/we are
thinking along with you. Please detail your thoughts so that the ambiguity
doesn't leave us scratching our heads saying "what the hell is he talking
about?" We discuss so many varied topics and subjects that we need to
insure that the reader is following the trail of bread crumbs that we are
leading him or her with.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
That is the question of “size” that I am asking. Do you “acknowledge” what I mean? I am making a “small” change to the current definition, and parameters. If you don’t understand this, or agree with it, then most of what I say will not matter to you. I do not agree with the linear approach, and the results and interpretations of it.
I am not sure what you mean by size? Size of what, as it relates to what?
This is ambiguous! A bit of a critique...you are assuming that I/we are
thinking along with you. Please detail your thoughts so that the ambiguity
doesn't leave us scratching our heads saying "what the hell is he talking
about?"
We discuss so many varied topics and subjects that we need toinsure that the reader is following the trail of bread crumbs that we are
leading him or her with.
Regards,
LL
sorry!
"Size" should mean "distance" (radius) of the "fields", or something to that effect.
I am saying that that size should include BOTH electrons, that are involved in the "photon" transaction. NOT, both "photons" involved in a transition in eigenstates of ONE electron. That is the "change" I wish to make to current theory. That makes it a non-linear problem, in many ways. It is subtle, but far reaching.
You are saying that the EM fields of the electrons (outer) in the atoms of the slit-wall are "big enough" to do the "mixing".
I am saying that ALL electron "fields" are big enough, in that sense. The ISL will never go to zero, right? The ISL only takes the "intensity" of ONE body into the "effect" side of the equation, right? (even though the distance parameter is obviously from both parties) It is talking about the drop-off from ONE way, and disregarding the other party. The "2-way" (Cramer/Wheeler-Feynman) approach would have to treat these "distances" separately, that is, not as a single value "squared", but as the "center" of 2 values.
This "symmetry" between 2 interacting (resonant/entangled) electrons then gets to become something else as well: our familiar "node". With this symmetrical approach, the standard terms of frequency and wavelength "fit" naturally between these 2 energy-exchanging particles. Of course, our "receiving" electron is sending out "negative" frequencies, but this is allowed/accommodated for in EM theory.
The ONLY "good" reason that this is NOT the "most accepted" theory, is that it is an affront to our "causal" (linear) mindset. This model means that the "receiver" would "know" at the non-local distance (same time) as the "sender" initiates the "signal". This only "hurts" if you let it. Ego-centric, Earth-centric, Energy-centric limited views.
Everything is connected. ISL, among many other good reasons, says this is so.
The "communication" started EONS ago, not when we decide to "begin" an experiment (measurement). Evenly curved space must form circles.
T.Roc
Hi all,
Response to LL’s post to me, continued. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=189497
“#2” wasn’t a question, so I’ll skip it.
“#3”: This was a “PS”, and not completely necessary for this specific topic. All I was trying to point out, is that the “textbook” EM spectrum is linear. If we map this out, we get a continuous line. If “photons” can NEVER interact (change frequency), and electrons ONLY emit specific, discreet frequencies, then we can NOT have a “continuous spectrum. If frequency doubling, SHG, and integer harmonics are “peaks” in the measuring system, then we need a “loop”. It is that simple; only a non-linear EM spectrum will work. Current theory does not have this, “VRT” does.
“#4”: I’m not too sure why you thought this was “a “string along” ambiguous type of question”, but maybe my response to #1 helps? The point is, that you have said that the interference happens in the area of the slit, and prior to the slit wall. In the “near field” of the closest electrons. This is from the source, to the slit wall (group “A”), then mixing at the slit wall area electrons’ fields, then moving directly to the pattern of the screen. This is your idea, correct? This brings about another question, we can call “4a”:
“4a”: What about at the screen wall? Don’t these electrons want to do the same thing as the other electrons? Doesn’t that mean we need to consider the “mixing”/interference as happening with ALL of the electrons present?
The rest of “4” is regarding your view on the “vacuum”. It is not surprising that you “missed” that. You seem very unwilling to admit, because you worked in this area, that there is NO perfect vacuum. There is no “considerable” area that is free of the fixed resonance of a “particle”. This is empirical fact (“you seem unwilling to
capitulate to the reality of direct observation. ”).
With that in mind, then you see that the “mechanisms” that you are stating are NO different than what I am saying. That is why I said “how you can use the SAME phenomenon to argue AGAINST interference happening in one area, and then use it to SUPPORT your interference, in the "general area" of the slit.” We are both saying that this goes from electron to electron, with changes being made at each step. You, like current theory, are ONLY looking at the “obvious”, or “ideal” electrons, while I am willing to acknowledge all of them.
So, another chance:
“4b”: Is there a “perfect vacuum”?
“5”: You did not answer the question. Here it is again: “WHAT is it about SELF-INTERFERENCE of energy, that you allow for, that would preclude the "separate" interference of "different" energies?
Apparently, you do NOT accept “that self-interference happens between DIFFERENT frequencies, in the same wave packet”. This is not “textbook definition”, this is data from experiments. You then go into “phase angle relationships”, and OAM, that’s fine, we can call the energy between electrons “cheese” if necessary. Then we can talk about the interactions of “cheese”. I’ve already made the links to spin angular momentum, OAM, polarization, and wavelets. If you are saying that THESE things can interact, then so be it. That is why “photons” will remain in quotes for me.
Again, some links for reference:
Counterpropagating mutually incoherent vortex-induced rotating structures in optical photonic lattices
http://www.opticsexpress.org/DirectPDFAcce...FTOKEN=82019546
Counterpropagating self-trapped beams in optical photonic lattices
http://www.opticsexpress.org/DirectPDFAcce...FTOKEN=82019546
How a Dove prism transforms the orbital angular momentum of a light beam
http://www.icfo.es/images/publications/J06-056.pdf
Quantized Rotation of Atoms From Photons with Orbital Angular Momentum
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0607/0607171.pdf
Digital spiral imaging
http://www.opticsexpress.org/DirectPDFAcce...FTOKEN=82019546
Experimental interference of independent photons
http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=ap...nt-ph%2F0603048
Remember, we agree that the “photon” is a self-regenerating “wave”, that has slightly out of phase components. Let’s not get caught up in semantics.
“#6”: You still did not state a reason. I don’t get it; I’m looking for some Physics on that from you. This “observation” quote from you (I have
presented you this argument several times previously but you seem unwilling to
capitulate to the reality of direct observation. ) is junk. The “direct observation” that you speak of is a PERCEPTION phenomenon. The “white light” of the stars does not come from a “white” transition level. These “photons” MOST DEFINITELY have encountered MASS on there incredibly long journey. They are “not the same” as the “photons” that were emitted from the stars. Yes, the info is conveyed. Yes, we see them “unaltered”. No, this is not “proof” that there has not been interference on the way. On the contrary, it tells us something about the “equilibrium state” of the background radiation, and the interaction of a “beam” of light with it, and all of the electrons that are encountered on the way. We have already talked about the “soliton”, the best example of this relationship. What is happening is EIT, electromagnetically induced transparency, where “photons” are re-emitted UNALTERED via resonance, and a SHG like phenomenon.
Regards,
T.Roc
Response to LL’s post to me, continued. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=189497
“#2” wasn’t a question, so I’ll skip it.
“#3”: This was a “PS”, and not completely necessary for this specific topic. All I was trying to point out, is that the “textbook” EM spectrum is linear. If we map this out, we get a continuous line. If “photons” can NEVER interact (change frequency), and electrons ONLY emit specific, discreet frequencies, then we can NOT have a “continuous spectrum. If frequency doubling, SHG, and integer harmonics are “peaks” in the measuring system, then we need a “loop”. It is that simple; only a non-linear EM spectrum will work. Current theory does not have this, “VRT” does.
“#4”: I’m not too sure why you thought this was “a “string along” ambiguous type of question”, but maybe my response to #1 helps? The point is, that you have said that the interference happens in the area of the slit, and prior to the slit wall. In the “near field” of the closest electrons. This is from the source, to the slit wall (group “A”), then mixing at the slit wall area electrons’ fields, then moving directly to the pattern of the screen. This is your idea, correct? This brings about another question, we can call “4a”:
“4a”: What about at the screen wall? Don’t these electrons want to do the same thing as the other electrons? Doesn’t that mean we need to consider the “mixing”/interference as happening with ALL of the electrons present?
The rest of “4” is regarding your view on the “vacuum”. It is not surprising that you “missed” that. You seem very unwilling to admit, because you worked in this area, that there is NO perfect vacuum. There is no “considerable” area that is free of the fixed resonance of a “particle”. This is empirical fact (“you seem unwilling to
capitulate to the reality of direct observation. ”).
With that in mind, then you see that the “mechanisms” that you are stating are NO different than what I am saying. That is why I said “how you can use the SAME phenomenon to argue AGAINST interference happening in one area, and then use it to SUPPORT your interference, in the "general area" of the slit.” We are both saying that this goes from electron to electron, with changes being made at each step. You, like current theory, are ONLY looking at the “obvious”, or “ideal” electrons, while I am willing to acknowledge all of them.
So, another chance:
“4b”: Is there a “perfect vacuum”?
“5”: You did not answer the question. Here it is again: “WHAT is it about SELF-INTERFERENCE of energy, that you allow for, that would preclude the "separate" interference of "different" energies?
Apparently, you do NOT accept “that self-interference happens between DIFFERENT frequencies, in the same wave packet”. This is not “textbook definition”, this is data from experiments. You then go into “phase angle relationships”, and OAM, that’s fine, we can call the energy between electrons “cheese” if necessary. Then we can talk about the interactions of “cheese”. I’ve already made the links to spin angular momentum, OAM, polarization, and wavelets. If you are saying that THESE things can interact, then so be it. That is why “photons” will remain in quotes for me.
Again, some links for reference:
Counterpropagating mutually incoherent vortex-induced rotating structures in optical photonic lattices
http://www.opticsexpress.org/DirectPDFAcce...FTOKEN=82019546
Counterpropagating self-trapped beams in optical photonic lattices
http://www.opticsexpress.org/DirectPDFAcce...FTOKEN=82019546
How a Dove prism transforms the orbital angular momentum of a light beam
http://www.icfo.es/images/publications/J06-056.pdf
Quantized Rotation of Atoms From Photons with Orbital Angular Momentum
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0607/0607171.pdf
Digital spiral imaging
http://www.opticsexpress.org/DirectPDFAcce...FTOKEN=82019546
Experimental interference of independent photons
http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=ap...nt-ph%2F0603048
Remember, we agree that the “photon” is a self-regenerating “wave”, that has slightly out of phase components. Let’s not get caught up in semantics.
“#6”: You still did not state a reason. I don’t get it; I’m looking for some Physics on that from you. This “observation” quote from you (I have
presented you this argument several times previously but you seem unwilling to
capitulate to the reality of direct observation. ) is junk. The “direct observation” that you speak of is a PERCEPTION phenomenon. The “white light” of the stars does not come from a “white” transition level. These “photons” MOST DEFINITELY have encountered MASS on there incredibly long journey. They are “not the same” as the “photons” that were emitted from the stars. Yes, the info is conveyed. Yes, we see them “unaltered”. No, this is not “proof” that there has not been interference on the way. On the contrary, it tells us something about the “equilibrium state” of the background radiation, and the interaction of a “beam” of light with it, and all of the electrons that are encountered on the way. We have already talked about the “soliton”, the best example of this relationship. What is happening is EIT, electromagnetically induced transparency, where “photons” are re-emitted UNALTERED via resonance, and a SHG like phenomenon.
Regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc, C2, GE, and ALL,
Have you considered the dipole "charge" relationship that exists between the
nucleus and its outer "mobile" electron? I am having trouble interpreting
what you are trying to propose by the statement "both electrons". If you are
stating that it is necessary for at least 2 complementary atoms to interact via their
electron shell level differences in order for a photon to be absorbed, then I am in
tentative agreement as that idea follows the concept that I had proposed in
the post I referenced to GE, regarding current flow dynamics at the atomic
matrix level.
Have you considered the dipole "charge" relationship that exists between the
nucleus and its outer "mobile" electron? I am having trouble interpreting
what you are trying to propose by the statement "both electrons". If you are
stating that it is necessary for at least 2 complementary atoms to interact via their
electron shell level differences in order for a photon to be absorbed, then I am in
tentative agreement as that idea follows the concept that I had proposed in
the post I referenced to GE, regarding current flow dynamics at the atomic
matrix level.
You are saying that the EM fields of the electrons (outer) in the atoms of the slit-wall are "big enough" to do the "mixing".
I am saying that ALL electron "fields" are big enough, in that sense. The ISL will never go to zero, right? The ISL only takes the "intensity" of ONE body into the "effect" side of the equation, right? (even though the distance parameter is obviously from both parties) It is talking about the drop-off from ONE way, and disregarding the other party. The "2-way" (Cramer/Wheeler-Feynman) approach would have to treat these "distances" separately, that is, not as a single value "squared", but as the "center" of 2 values.
Are talking about the root mean squared (RMS) "average" value? Yes or No?
As it regards to "power" loss, the ISL is a pure distance squaring phenomenon from
some source point. I do agree that all atoms that can align their dipoles in series
can resonate like a tuned antenna, at some integral number of wavelengths.
The key is the wavelength and the number of aligned resonant dipoles over some
distance or area. I'm just not sure how the dipoles need to be aligned and coupled
to the EM wave topology . Do they align to the nodes or the antinodes of the
EM wave, or does the expanding photon EM field sequentially address each
neighboring atom in series, which stimulates each atom to be a "quasi-dipole" until
some integral multiple of the wavelength(s) reaches the "end" of the linear atomic
"antenna" array? This effect of course, would be similar at the atoms at the
detector site. They would align their electrons (dipoles) to the arriving energy
and arrange themselves to be integral multiples of the arriving wavelengths.
Your thoughts would be appreciated. Anyone else is invited to
comment also.
Transmission is the starting point, detection is the end point for that specific event.
A circle has an infinite solution....Pi. I think you mean evenly curved space forms
"spheres". As Jal and yourself have pointed out, a sphere represents the optimal
and minimal energy condition/state.
Comments? Anyone is welcome to participate.
LL
the
QUOTE
I am saying that that size should include BOTH electrons, that are involved in the "photon" transaction. NOT, both "photons" involved in a transition in eigenstates of ONE electron. That is the "change" I wish to make to current theory. That makes it a non-linear problem, in many ways.
Have you considered the dipole "charge" relationship that exists between the
nucleus and its outer "mobile" electron? I am having trouble interpreting
what you are trying to propose by the statement "both electrons". If you are
stating that it is necessary for at least 2 complementary atoms to interact via their
electron shell level differences in order for a photon to be absorbed, then I am in
tentative agreement as that idea follows the concept that I had proposed in
the post I referenced to GE, regarding current flow dynamics at the atomic
matrix level.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am saying that that size should include BOTH electrons, that are involved in the "photon" transaction. NOT, both "photons" involved in a transition in eigenstates of ONE electron. That is the "change" I wish to make to current theory. That makes it a non-linear problem, in many ways. |
Have you considered the dipole "charge" relationship that exists between the
nucleus and its outer "mobile" electron? I am having trouble interpreting
what you are trying to propose by the statement "both electrons". If you are
stating that it is necessary for at least 2 complementary atoms to interact via their
electron shell level differences in order for a photon to be absorbed, then I am in
tentative agreement as that idea follows the concept that I had proposed in
the post I referenced to GE, regarding current flow dynamics at the atomic
matrix level.
You are saying that the EM fields of the electrons (outer) in the atoms of the slit-wall are "big enough" to do the "mixing".
I am saying that ALL electron "fields" are big enough, in that sense. The ISL will never go to zero, right? The ISL only takes the "intensity" of ONE body into the "effect" side of the equation, right? (even though the distance parameter is obviously from both parties) It is talking about the drop-off from ONE way, and disregarding the other party. The "2-way" (Cramer/Wheeler-Feynman) approach would have to treat these "distances" separately, that is, not as a single value "squared", but as the "center" of 2 values.
Are talking about the root mean squared (RMS) "average" value? Yes or No?
As it regards to "power" loss, the ISL is a pure distance squaring phenomenon from
some source point. I do agree that all atoms that can align their dipoles in series
can resonate like a tuned antenna, at some integral number of wavelengths.
The key is the wavelength and the number of aligned resonant dipoles over some
distance or area. I'm just not sure how the dipoles need to be aligned and coupled
to the EM wave topology . Do they align to the nodes or the antinodes of the
EM wave, or does the expanding photon EM field sequentially address each
neighboring atom in series, which stimulates each atom to be a "quasi-dipole" until
some integral multiple of the wavelength(s) reaches the "end" of the linear atomic
"antenna" array? This effect of course, would be similar at the atoms at the
detector site. They would align their electrons (dipoles) to the arriving energy
and arrange themselves to be integral multiples of the arriving wavelengths.
Your thoughts would be appreciated. Anyone else is invited to
comment also.
QUOTE
The "communication" started EONS ago, not when we decide to "begin" an experiment (measurement). Evenly curved space must form circles.
Transmission is the starting point, detection is the end point for that specific event.
A circle has an infinite solution....Pi. I think you mean evenly curved space forms
"spheres". As Jal and yourself have pointed out, a sphere represents the optimal
and minimal energy condition/state.
Comments? Anyone is welcome to participate.
LL
the
Hi Good Elf,
Sorry I haven't responded on the Ashfar front. For some reason I find it difficult to get 'into' it and for that reason (if no other) I have no constructive thoughts.
If we look at the results of the Teachspin DSE ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) we see they have drawn in a dotted line based on the prediction of the interference model. The match isn't exact and if we were writing this up we'd have to account for those mismatches. My own view is that the observed errors arise from failing to measure the distance between the slits correctly and (possibly) some dark current at the points of (near) total cancellation. When you speak of 'cavities' I have no idea whether you are suggesting they are responsible for all of the effect, some of the effect or perhaps you are drawing attention to an effect that might give rise to an error which the Teachspin equipment would be able to resolve. Please clarify.
Hi TRoc,
Sorry I haven't responded on the Ashfar front. For some reason I find it difficult to get 'into' it and for that reason (if no other) I have no constructive thoughts.
If we look at the results of the Teachspin DSE ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) we see they have drawn in a dotted line based on the prediction of the interference model. The match isn't exact and if we were writing this up we'd have to account for those mismatches. My own view is that the observed errors arise from failing to measure the distance between the slits correctly and (possibly) some dark current at the points of (near) total cancellation. When you speak of 'cavities' I have no idea whether you are suggesting they are responsible for all of the effect, some of the effect or perhaps you are drawing attention to an effect that might give rise to an error which the Teachspin equipment would be able to resolve. Please clarify.
Hi TRoc,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
“#3”: This was a “PS”, and not completely necessary for this specific topic. All I was trying to point out, is that the “textbook” EM spectrum is linear. If we map this out, we get a continuous line. If “photons” can NEVER interact (change frequency), and electrons ONLY emit specific, discreet frequencies, then we can NOT have a “continuous spectrum. If frequency doubling, SHG, and integer harmonics are “peaks” in the measuring system, then we need a “loop”. It is that simple; only a non-linear EM spectrum will work. Current theory does not have this, “VRT” does.
The “textbook” EM spectrum is linear because most processes in nature are linear. The ability to produce solitons by 'unnatural' means does not 'naturally' lead to the conclusion that all processes are non-linear. Photons are emitted with a continuous range of frequencies in (for example) thermal and sychrotron radiation. By unnatural processes (eg tuned cavities) we can generate any frequency we like. I don't understand what you mean by a 'loop'.
Hi Laserlight,
By your model it should be possible to mask off one slit on the side away from the source and half the 'interference' pattern would remain .. am I correct?
Best wishes,
-C2.
The “textbook” EM spectrum is linear because most processes in nature are linear. The ability to produce solitons by 'unnatural' means does not 'naturally' lead to the conclusion that all processes are non-linear. Photons are emitted with a continuous range of frequencies in (for example) thermal and sychrotron radiation. By unnatural processes (eg tuned cavities) we can generate any frequency we like. I don't understand what you mean by a 'loop'.
Hi Laserlight,
By your model it should be possible to mask off one slit on the side away from the source and half the 'interference' pattern would remain .. am I correct?
Best wishes,
-C2.
TRoc,
I think you meant that atomic elements emit a specific frequency...this is a
function of the total energy level of the specific element, which is
all of the combined energies contained within that element. Don't forget that
each element also has numerous isotopes that yield their own spectral
signature (frequency).
I think you meant that atomic elements emit a specific frequency...this is a
function of the total energy level of the specific element, which is
all of the combined energies contained within that element. Don't forget that
each element also has numerous isotopes that yield their own spectral
signature (frequency).
4a”: What about at the screen wall? Don’t these electrons want to do the same thing as the other electrons? Doesn’t that mean we need to consider the “mixing”/interference as happening with ALL of the electrons present?
If we consider that the dipole detectors are being stimulated by the energy that
they are receiving, which are causing them to resonate like a receiving antenna
at some wavelength integer multiple, then any additional unmixed energy should also mix at the detector screen. Think of it like a dark movie theater with
a movie playing on the screen. Where has the signal mixing to form a picture
taken place, at the camera in the film, or at the screen? Now shine a flashlight at
the screen, it will wash out where the flashlight beam saturates the image when
it is received. It loses coherency where the additional energy mixes at the screen,
and we observe signal saturation in that location. I'm not sure that this last bit
helps.....just an gedanken "observation".
On the contrary, I agree that there is no such thing as an absolute vacuum.
However, this is what led us to the issue of mean free path. So if you have
a few extremely random gas molecules moving around they can become
absorbers of light and re-emit it again but again my argument trumps....it is
matter!....Any EM interference that occurs happens within the influence
of the catalytic effect of the gas molecule.....Do you agree, or are we gonna have
to get dueling pistols to settle this?
On the contrary, I agree that there is no such thing as an absolute vacuum.
However, this is what led us to the issue of mean free path. So if you have
a few extremely random gas molecules moving around they can become
absorbers of light and re-emit it again but again my argument trumps....it is
matter!....Any EM interference that occurs happens within the influence
of the catalytic effect of the gas molecule.....Do you agree, or are we gonna have
to get dueling pistols to settle this?
5”: You did not answer the question. Here it is again: “WHAT is it about SELF-INTERFERENCE of energy, that you allow for, that would preclude the "separate" interference of "different" energies?
I did answer the question. It is all about time and phase synchronicity of the wavelets of a wavefront. I previously proposed that "self interference" within a
wave pulse, is a matter of nearly synchronous timing and phasing between
wavelets within the same pulse that regeneratively reinforce each other. I also
referenced the post to GE about the 3D "corkscrew" OAM (orbital angular
momentum) that is not accurately graphically depicted in a propagating
"sinewave". Different energies have different sources, different timestamps,
and different "relativity". In order for these differences to mix or interfere, they
must do so in the presence of something physical that gets "displaced" by their
separate but simultaneously arriving energies. This physical displacement
gives both arriving frequencies the same timestamp relevance again as their
energies combine at that physical atomic location, and their combined energies are
superposed/mixed which generates an composite interference signal due to the
combined effects of the individual "displacements".
Consider white light....there are numerous spectral frequencies all propagating
together. These spectral frequencies still maintain their discrete characteristics,
do not "interfere" or lose their individuality, and can be separated by their
individual frequency. Now consider what happens when white light stimulates
matter. Specific colors are re-emitted if the receiving dipoles in matter are tuned
to a specific wavelength and the other spectral colors are absorbed.
#6....I just read this after writing my answers above. "Junk"....LOL! How do
you provide physics for something you can't directly measure or observe?
If you can't prove it directly or indirectly by association, it is theory, not physics.
I asked you show me proof or a mechanism of "spontaneous EM interference" between different frequency levels that does not involve the catalytic effect
of matter. I have cited other examples to support my argument illustrating that
different frequencies can be isolated from the "cacophony" by various styles of
filters designed to isolate or pass a specific frequency from spurious sources and
they still maintain their individual frequency characteristics with no apparent
interference observed. The only way that frequencies can mix or
blend "spontaneously" in open space is if they are they are the same
frequency and perfectly coherent. In this case they superpose their energy and cannot be separated or isolated by filters because they saturate the detector
with their combined energy.
LL
QUOTE
“#3”: This was a “PS”, and not completely necessary for this specific topic. All I was trying to point out, is that the “textbook” EM spectrum is linear. If we map this out, we get a continuous line. If “photons” can NEVER interact (change frequency), and electrons ONLY emit specific, discreet frequencies, then we can NOT have a “continuous spectrum. If frequency doubling, SHG, and integer harmonics are “peaks” in the measuring system, then we need a “loop”. It is that simple; only a non-linear EM spectrum will work. Current theory does not have this, “VRT” does.
I think you meant that atomic elements emit a specific frequency...this is a
function of the total energy level of the specific element, which is
all of the combined energies contained within that element. Don't forget that
each element also has numerous isotopes that yield their own spectral
signature (frequency).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “#3”: This was a “PS”, and not completely necessary for this specific topic. All I was trying to point out, is that the “textbook” EM spectrum is linear. If we map this out, we get a continuous line. If “photons” can NEVER interact (change frequency), and electrons ONLY emit specific, discreet frequencies, then we can NOT have a “continuous spectrum. If frequency doubling, SHG, and integer harmonics are “peaks” in the measuring system, then we need a “loop”. It is that simple; only a non-linear EM spectrum will work. Current theory does not have this, “VRT” does. |
I think you meant that atomic elements emit a specific frequency...this is a
function of the total energy level of the specific element, which is
all of the combined energies contained within that element. Don't forget that
each element also has numerous isotopes that yield their own spectral
signature (frequency).
4a”: What about at the screen wall? Don’t these electrons want to do the same thing as the other electrons? Doesn’t that mean we need to consider the “mixing”/interference as happening with ALL of the electrons present?
If we consider that the dipole detectors are being stimulated by the energy that
they are receiving, which are causing them to resonate like a receiving antenna
at some wavelength integer multiple, then any additional unmixed energy should also mix at the detector screen. Think of it like a dark movie theater with
a movie playing on the screen. Where has the signal mixing to form a picture
taken place, at the camera in the film, or at the screen? Now shine a flashlight at
the screen, it will wash out where the flashlight beam saturates the image when
it is received. It loses coherency where the additional energy mixes at the screen,
and we observe signal saturation in that location. I'm not sure that this last bit
helps.....just an gedanken "observation".
QUOTE
You seem very unwilling to admit, because you worked in this area, that there is NO perfect vacuum. There is no “considerable” area that is free of the fixed resonance of a “particle”. This is empirical fact (“you seem unwilling to
capitulate to the reality of direct observation. ”).
capitulate to the reality of direct observation. ”).
On the contrary, I agree that there is no such thing as an absolute vacuum.
However, this is what led us to the issue of mean free path. So if you have
a few extremely random gas molecules moving around they can become
absorbers of light and re-emit it again but again my argument trumps....it is
matter!....Any EM interference that occurs happens within the influence
of the catalytic effect of the gas molecule.....Do you agree, or are we gonna have
to get dueling pistols to settle this?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You seem very unwilling to admit, because you worked in this area, that there is NO perfect vacuum. There is no “considerable” area that is free of the fixed resonance of a “particle”. This is empirical fact (“you seem unwilling to capitulate to the reality of direct observation. ”). |
On the contrary, I agree that there is no such thing as an absolute vacuum.
However, this is what led us to the issue of mean free path. So if you have
a few extremely random gas molecules moving around they can become
absorbers of light and re-emit it again but again my argument trumps....it is
matter!....Any EM interference that occurs happens within the influence
of the catalytic effect of the gas molecule.....Do you agree, or are we gonna have
to get dueling pistols to settle this?
5”: You did not answer the question. Here it is again: “WHAT is it about SELF-INTERFERENCE of energy, that you allow for, that would preclude the "separate" interference of "different" energies?
I did answer the question. It is all about time and phase synchronicity of the wavelets of a wavefront. I previously proposed that "self interference" within a
wave pulse, is a matter of nearly synchronous timing and phasing between
wavelets within the same pulse that regeneratively reinforce each other. I also
referenced the post to GE about the 3D "corkscrew" OAM (orbital angular
momentum) that is not accurately graphically depicted in a propagating
"sinewave". Different energies have different sources, different timestamps,
and different "relativity". In order for these differences to mix or interfere, they
must do so in the presence of something physical that gets "displaced" by their
separate but simultaneously arriving energies. This physical displacement
gives both arriving frequencies the same timestamp relevance again as their
energies combine at that physical atomic location, and their combined energies are
superposed/mixed which generates an composite interference signal due to the
combined effects of the individual "displacements".
Consider white light....there are numerous spectral frequencies all propagating
together. These spectral frequencies still maintain their discrete characteristics,
do not "interfere" or lose their individuality, and can be separated by their
individual frequency. Now consider what happens when white light stimulates
matter. Specific colors are re-emitted if the receiving dipoles in matter are tuned
to a specific wavelength and the other spectral colors are absorbed.
#6....I just read this after writing my answers above. "Junk"....LOL! How do
you provide physics for something you can't directly measure or observe?
If you can't prove it directly or indirectly by association, it is theory, not physics.
I asked you show me proof or a mechanism of "spontaneous EM interference" between different frequency levels that does not involve the catalytic effect
of matter. I have cited other examples to support my argument illustrating that
different frequencies can be isolated from the "cacophony" by various styles of
filters designed to isolate or pass a specific frequency from spurious sources and
they still maintain their individual frequency characteristics with no apparent
interference observed. The only way that frequencies can mix or
blend "spontaneously" in open space is if they are they are the same
frequency and perfectly coherent. In this case they superpose their energy and cannot be separated or isolated by filters because they saturate the detector
with their combined energy.
LL
Hi C2,
How did you arrive at that conclusion? We know that we will observe diffraction
from a single slit, and yes there is interference observed at the detection
screen in the form of Airy rings or "side lobes".... but it is a different
and singular interference pattern.
Please explain how you derived your incorrect statement?
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
Hi Laserlight,
By your model it should be possible to mask off one slit on the side away from the source and half the 'interference' pattern would remain .. am I correct?
By your model it should be possible to mask off one slit on the side away from the source and half the 'interference' pattern would remain .. am I correct?
How did you arrive at that conclusion? We know that we will observe diffraction
from a single slit, and yes there is interference observed at the detection
screen in the form of Airy rings or "side lobes".... but it is a different
and singular interference pattern.
Please explain how you derived your incorrect statement?
Regards,
LL
Hi all,
I feel like I see light at the end of the tunnel.
After reading LL's posts, I think it may just boil down to exactly what an "interaction", or interference is. What it does, what it means, etc.
Let me first respond to the questions, etc.
When I said this "I am saying that that size should include BOTH electrons, that are involved in the "photon" transaction. NOT, both "photons" involved in a transition in eigenstates of ONE electron. That is the "change" I wish to make to current theory. " I am talking about WHERE the "photon" came from in the first place, and then "traveled" to the receiving electron, raising its' state, and a NEW "photon" being re-emitted. BOTH electrons means in 2 separate atoms.
The definition as it stands now, is ALL from a single atoms' point if view. A "photon" (from unspecified source) is absorbed by a specific electron orbital, and then a NEW "photon" is re-emitted. The "story" is about TWO "photons", and ONE electron in an atom. The "story" I want to tell would be about the ONE "photon", between TWO atom bound electrons.
Again, this is subtle, and may not sound like a big deal. But I think it can change some perceptions, and the "cause and effect" circle. This could be the "chicken or the egg" type of question; but I think it is a MORE accurate description of what is taking place.
LL asked "Are talking about the root mean squared (RMS) "average" value? Yes or No?" Yes.
"As it regards to "power" loss, the ISL is a pure distance squaring phenomenon from some source point." Agreed.
Now, add in the change in perspective from above. We have "molecule A" and "molecule B", and a "photon" exchanged between them. From "A", ISL works as is standard. From "B's" perspective, however, the ISL is "inverted"; this "negative energy" GROWS as it moves towards "A". Of course, the way OUR equations, models, and time-frame of reference all work, this would be happening in "reverse" time, but, again, this is due to attempting to look at something from just one "preferred" frame. Looking at the "big picture", this exchange happens at the same time, and it is the "definition" of energy that changes. The "probabilities" are trading places: the potential energy of B starts at "zero", and grows until it reaches A, at its' maximum. The kinetic energy of A starts out at "zero", and grows to its' maximum, when it (the "photon") reaches B.
The importance here, is that we can establish a "maximum" wavelength (standing) between these two molecules. This is our "quasi-cavity", that will have a node at the center. It's all "harmonics" from there, to absorption.
LL asked " I'm just not sure how the dipoles need to be aligned and coupled
to the EM wave topology .
Let's come back to that. I'm going to "sign off" for now, and first answer your second post. (and yes, I did mean "sphere" for our 3D model).
C2 asked "The “textbook” EM spectrum is linear because most processes in nature are linear. The ability to produce solitons by 'unnatural' means does not 'naturally' lead to the conclusion that all processes are non-linear. Photons are emitted with a continuous range of frequencies in (for example) thermal and sychrotron radiation. By unnatural processes (eg tuned cavities) we can generate any frequency we like. I don't understand what you mean by a 'loop'.
What I'm saying is this: the Laws of Thermodynamics state that energy is conserved in an isolated system. This is idealistic, to me. Without the possibility of a "perfect vacuum", and in a "curved space", we have NO isolated systems. This does NOT mean that we can not run models, and experiments, with that idea in place, and get good Scientific results. History shows that we have. Now, all those "good ideas" have run dry, and we need something new, and fresh. The changes to looking at a "photon" transaction, that I just mentioned above is an example. What constitutes a "system" is the only thing that is easily changed. In our DSE, I have shown many (maybe all now?) of the "hidden variables" that are in the "isolated system" of the experiment.
I disagree that we can naturally create "photons" of any continuous frequency. The electron orbitals from all of the elements (and isotopes) create a set of discrete frequencies, when excited. (standard QM data) That is what we are talking about, not "shaking" the antenna for produce EM radiation of low frequencies.
I'm not really sure what you mean by solitons created "unnaturally". They were discovered in a canal/river of water. The Falaco solitons form is bodies of water. Rogue wave form out the open oceans. These are all within the "probabilities" that QM would predict (in fact they occur MORE often than theory allows). I am saying that there is a "quasi-soliton" property as well, that is formed from partially coherent light. (the geometry of a chord)
When I said "loop", I mean the "octave", frequency doubling, SHG, coherence, etc. This is STANDARD for frequencies of all types. The ENERGY is linear, meaning (within the visible light band) that "violet" has more energy than "red". What the standard EM spectrum chart can not show, in its' linear form, is the 1st harmonic of "red" is one equidistant step from violet. I have said before, that resonance is the most important phenomenon of Science. The system/model that we use to "measure" for this SHOULD be "tailored" for the job. Something like this:
http://www.pdn.cam.ac.uk/groups/cnbh/teach...pitch_helix.htm
ciao,
T.Roc
I feel like I see light at the end of the tunnel.
After reading LL's posts, I think it may just boil down to exactly what an "interaction", or interference is. What it does, what it means, etc.
Let me first respond to the questions, etc.
When I said this "I am saying that that size should include BOTH electrons, that are involved in the "photon" transaction. NOT, both "photons" involved in a transition in eigenstates of ONE electron. That is the "change" I wish to make to current theory. " I am talking about WHERE the "photon" came from in the first place, and then "traveled" to the receiving electron, raising its' state, and a NEW "photon" being re-emitted. BOTH electrons means in 2 separate atoms.
The definition as it stands now, is ALL from a single atoms' point if view. A "photon" (from unspecified source) is absorbed by a specific electron orbital, and then a NEW "photon" is re-emitted. The "story" is about TWO "photons", and ONE electron in an atom. The "story" I want to tell would be about the ONE "photon", between TWO atom bound electrons.
Again, this is subtle, and may not sound like a big deal. But I think it can change some perceptions, and the "cause and effect" circle. This could be the "chicken or the egg" type of question; but I think it is a MORE accurate description of what is taking place.
LL asked "Are talking about the root mean squared (RMS) "average" value? Yes or No?" Yes.
"As it regards to "power" loss, the ISL is a pure distance squaring phenomenon from some source point." Agreed.
Now, add in the change in perspective from above. We have "molecule A" and "molecule B", and a "photon" exchanged between them. From "A", ISL works as is standard. From "B's" perspective, however, the ISL is "inverted"; this "negative energy" GROWS as it moves towards "A". Of course, the way OUR equations, models, and time-frame of reference all work, this would be happening in "reverse" time, but, again, this is due to attempting to look at something from just one "preferred" frame. Looking at the "big picture", this exchange happens at the same time, and it is the "definition" of energy that changes. The "probabilities" are trading places: the potential energy of B starts at "zero", and grows until it reaches A, at its' maximum. The kinetic energy of A starts out at "zero", and grows to its' maximum, when it (the "photon") reaches B.
The importance here, is that we can establish a "maximum" wavelength (standing) between these two molecules. This is our "quasi-cavity", that will have a node at the center. It's all "harmonics" from there, to absorption.
LL asked " I'm just not sure how the dipoles need to be aligned and coupled
to the EM wave topology .
Let's come back to that. I'm going to "sign off" for now, and first answer your second post. (and yes, I did mean "sphere" for our 3D model).
C2 asked "The “textbook” EM spectrum is linear because most processes in nature are linear. The ability to produce solitons by 'unnatural' means does not 'naturally' lead to the conclusion that all processes are non-linear. Photons are emitted with a continuous range of frequencies in (for example) thermal and sychrotron radiation. By unnatural processes (eg tuned cavities) we can generate any frequency we like. I don't understand what you mean by a 'loop'.
What I'm saying is this: the Laws of Thermodynamics state that energy is conserved in an isolated system. This is idealistic, to me. Without the possibility of a "perfect vacuum", and in a "curved space", we have NO isolated systems. This does NOT mean that we can not run models, and experiments, with that idea in place, and get good Scientific results. History shows that we have. Now, all those "good ideas" have run dry, and we need something new, and fresh. The changes to looking at a "photon" transaction, that I just mentioned above is an example. What constitutes a "system" is the only thing that is easily changed. In our DSE, I have shown many (maybe all now?) of the "hidden variables" that are in the "isolated system" of the experiment.
I disagree that we can naturally create "photons" of any continuous frequency. The electron orbitals from all of the elements (and isotopes) create a set of discrete frequencies, when excited. (standard QM data) That is what we are talking about, not "shaking" the antenna for produce EM radiation of low frequencies.
I'm not really sure what you mean by solitons created "unnaturally". They were discovered in a canal/river of water. The Falaco solitons form is bodies of water. Rogue wave form out the open oceans. These are all within the "probabilities" that QM would predict (in fact they occur MORE often than theory allows). I am saying that there is a "quasi-soliton" property as well, that is formed from partially coherent light. (the geometry of a chord)
When I said "loop", I mean the "octave", frequency doubling, SHG, coherence, etc. This is STANDARD for frequencies of all types. The ENERGY is linear, meaning (within the visible light band) that "violet" has more energy than "red". What the standard EM spectrum chart can not show, in its' linear form, is the 1st harmonic of "red" is one equidistant step from violet. I have said before, that resonance is the most important phenomenon of Science. The system/model that we use to "measure" for this SHOULD be "tailored" for the job. Something like this:
http://www.pdn.cam.ac.uk/groups/cnbh/teach...pitch_helix.htm
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
I disagree that we can naturally create "photons" of any continuous frequency.
The Teachspin DSE ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml ) uses an incandescent bulb as a source. An arbitrary frequency is selected from the available 'black body' spectrum by a dichroic filter. The dichroic filter is produced (probably) by vapour deposition onto a piece of glass and can be made to select any desired frequency. We may agree that the ability to select a particular frequency is 'unnatural' but surely Black body radiation is 'natural'?
The Teachspin DSE ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml ) uses an incandescent bulb as a source. An arbitrary frequency is selected from the available 'black body' spectrum by a dichroic filter. The dichroic filter is produced (probably) by vapour deposition onto a piece of glass and can be made to select any desired frequency. We may agree that the ability to select a particular frequency is 'unnatural' but surely Black body radiation is 'natural'?
QUOTE (TRoc+)
I'm not really sure what you mean by solitons created "unnaturally".
Solitons can only form and propagate where there is the 'right' amount of non-linearity. The right amount of non-linearity clearly exists in canals, may exist in certain regions of the ocean and can be introduced into optical fibres.. these are all rather special circumstances.
Solitons can only form and propagate where there is the 'right' amount of non-linearity. The right amount of non-linearity clearly exists in canals, may exist in certain regions of the ocean and can be introduced into optical fibres.. these are all rather special circumstances.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
I am saying that there is a "quasi-soliton" property as well, that is formed from partially coherent light. (the geometry of a chord)
I am saying you need to support that claim by showing the existence of the right conditions for soliton formation/propagation. If the speed of light in free space is independent of frequency then (personally) I would take that as 'proof' that the right conditions for soliton formation do not exist in free space.
Hi Laserlight,
Re:- masking off one slit on the detector side.
As we know .. the classical explanation of interference is that it is an effect due to the summation of all sources. The Laserlight and Good Elf explanations involve the claim that the interference is generated at the slits .. if this is correct then we should be able to mask off one slit and still observe the effect from the unmasked slit .. have I missed the point of your claim that interference is generated at the slits?
Best wishes,
-C2.
I am saying you need to support that claim by showing the existence of the right conditions for soliton formation/propagation. If the speed of light in free space is independent of frequency then (personally) I would take that as 'proof' that the right conditions for soliton formation do not exist in free space.
Hi Laserlight,
Re:- masking off one slit on the detector side.
As we know .. the classical explanation of interference is that it is an effect due to the summation of all sources. The Laserlight and Good Elf explanations involve the claim that the interference is generated at the slits .. if this is correct then we should be able to mask off one slit and still observe the effect from the unmasked slit .. have I missed the point of your claim that interference is generated at the slits?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Hi Laserlight,
Re:- masking off one slit on the detector side.
As we know .. the classical explanation of interference is that it is an effect due to the summation of all sources. The Laserlight and Good Elf explanations involve the claim that the interference is generated at the slits .. if this is correct then we should be able to mask off one slit and still observe the effect from the unmasked slit .. have I missed the point of your claim that interference is generated at the slits?
Re:- masking off one slit on the detector side.
As we know .. the classical explanation of interference is that it is an effect due to the summation of all sources. The Laserlight and Good Elf explanations involve the claim that the interference is generated at the slits .. if this is correct then we should be able to mask off one slit and still observe the effect from the unmasked slit .. have I missed the point of your claim that interference is generated at the slits?
There is a "non-sequitur" there in a possible misunderstanding of the nature of interference. You cannot observe double slit interference patterns when you only have one slit diffraction pattern. The interference pattern/diffraction pattern is existing in space and is a transform from ordinary space to reciprocal space and from temporal domain to the frequency domain generated by secondary sources of the same wavefront interfering spatially. Each slit/pinhole source is half of the entire interference pattern (true)... but interference patterns are not scalar entities but complex plane entities.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Hi Good Elf,
Sorry I haven't responded on the Ashfar front. For some reason I find it difficult to get 'into' it and for that reason (if no other) I have no constructive thoughts.
If we look at the results of the Teachspin DSE ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) we see they have drawn in a dotted line based on the prediction of the interference model. The match isn't exact and if we were writing this up we'd have to account for those mismatches. My own view is that the observed errors arise from failing to measure the distance between the slits correctly and (possibly) some dark current at the points of (near) total cancellation. When you speak of 'cavities' I have no idea whether you are suggesting they are responsible for all of the effect, some of the effect or perhaps you are drawing attention to an effect that might give rise to an error which the Teachspin equipment would be able to resolve. Please clarify.
Sorry I haven't responded on the Ashfar front. For some reason I find it difficult to get 'into' it and for that reason (if no other) I have no constructive thoughts.
If we look at the results of the Teachspin DSE ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) we see they have drawn in a dotted line based on the prediction of the interference model. The match isn't exact and if we were writing this up we'd have to account for those mismatches. My own view is that the observed errors arise from failing to measure the distance between the slits correctly and (possibly) some dark current at the points of (near) total cancellation. When you speak of 'cavities' I have no idea whether you are suggesting they are responsible for all of the effect, some of the effect or perhaps you are drawing attention to an effect that might give rise to an error which the Teachspin equipment would be able to resolve. Please clarify.
There will be some residual "excitation" in the dark bands between peaks. If you were to narrow the peaks as I indicated in my previous post and to increase their number you would find that in among that "noise" as you increased the slits to a very large number will be some exceedingly bright peaks ... much brighter by about a magnitude as we begin to resolve the finer cavities and its modes. As you can see there is actually no randomness there but enfolded order. It is not discerned with the double slit but is "hidden" within that pattern when we "sort the frequencies" with a grating.
Multiple Slit Diffraction... scroll down
... as we increase the number of slits the increased resolution of the lines lead to these states becoming finely peaked as the "tuning" increases...
Grating Intensity Comparison
Imagine the effect when you hit a million slits...
Here we see the the effect as spectra...
Diffraction Grating
This should break the original almost monochromatic LASER Light into its component frequencies (provided the slits are fine enough).
This is a spectra of sound where we have a fundamental frequency and a number of "overtones". The same sort of phenomenon will happen with lasers. The photons created in the emission process have upper (e + hf') and lower (e - hf') sidebands but only the upper sidebands are emitted with the photons and the lower frequency sidebands are re-absorbed at source as part of the inductive field. This means photons are a bit different to standard transmitters having that "work function". So the transmitted photons carry away the energy e = hf and the lower frequencies return to source inductively as you see in this animation (with a little imagination)...
.... Um... see it "sucking in there" after transmitting a photon (a little arm and hand waving there). This source information is evanescent and is lost from the transmitted photons... or is it? he he he!
The cavity is still the bit that you may choose to not accept but it is a resonance.
The boundaries of these finer structures shown in Young's Illustration are still there but their intensity is attenuated just like the peaks but would be resolved if the slits were more numerous and finer. These define the cavities in atomic orbitals as well and appear in the solutions to Schrodinger's Equation. Remember a cavity can have a boundary that is continuous or broken... It can have Neumann, Dirichlet or Mixed conditions or even Cauchy or Periodic Boundary Conditions. Personally I have no real idea how to exactly solve this problem since I have never seen a Light cone Wall. Clearly an atom is a cavity yet the cavity is normally "unseen". Take the way that the inner shells "shield" the outer shells from the effects of the electrostatic field of the nucleus.
I hope that helps.
Cheers
Multiple Slit Diffraction... scroll down
... as we increase the number of slits the increased resolution of the lines lead to these states becoming finely peaked as the "tuning" increases...
Grating Intensity Comparison
Imagine the effect when you hit a million slits...
Here we see the the effect as spectra...
Diffraction Grating
This should break the original almost monochromatic LASER Light into its component frequencies (provided the slits are fine enough).
This is a spectra of sound where we have a fundamental frequency and a number of "overtones". The same sort of phenomenon will happen with lasers. The photons created in the emission process have upper (e + hf') and lower (e - hf') sidebands but only the upper sidebands are emitted with the photons and the lower frequency sidebands are re-absorbed at source as part of the inductive field. This means photons are a bit different to standard transmitters having that "work function". So the transmitted photons carry away the energy e = hf and the lower frequencies return to source inductively as you see in this animation (with a little imagination)...
.... Um... see it "sucking in there" after transmitting a photon (a little arm and hand waving there). This source information is evanescent and is lost from the transmitted photons... or is it? he he he!
The cavity is still the bit that you may choose to not accept but it is a resonance.
The boundaries of these finer structures shown in Young's Illustration are still there but their intensity is attenuated just like the peaks but would be resolved if the slits were more numerous and finer. These define the cavities in atomic orbitals as well and appear in the solutions to Schrodinger's Equation. Remember a cavity can have a boundary that is continuous or broken... It can have Neumann, Dirichlet or Mixed conditions or even Cauchy or Periodic Boundary Conditions. Personally I have no real idea how to exactly solve this problem since I have never seen a Light cone Wall. Clearly an atom is a cavity yet the cavity is normally "unseen". Take the way that the inner shells "shield" the outer shells from the effects of the electrostatic field of the nucleus.
I hope that helps.
Cheers
Off topic but of interest for "Aussies".
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070319/sc_nm/...KOxRn9MqizMWM0F
LL
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070319/sc_nm/...KOxRn9MqizMWM0F
LL
Hi laserlight,
Thanks for that... I sure hope it is right. It's a fight between the "good" effects of the Sun Solar Cycle and the "bad" swamping effects of Terrestrial Global Warming. Which influence is going to win? If the drought keeps up we will all be drinking mud in Brisbane with level 5 water restrictions. as long as we get rain this time we will have water recycling and desalination in full swing "next time".
Cheers
Thanks for that... I sure hope it is right. It's a fight between the "good" effects of the Sun Solar Cycle and the "bad" swamping effects of Terrestrial Global Warming. Which influence is going to win? If the drought keeps up we will all be drinking mud in Brisbane with level 5 water restrictions. as long as we get rain this time we will have water recycling and desalination in full swing "next time".
Cheers
Just a preliminary report from the C2 optics research lab. I now have a laser. I decided peach brandy was a bad idea and invested in a box of red wine (about the same price) instead. My new laser (actually a laser levelling thing) has a fairly large spot size so by the time it's gone through a slit I can hardly see anything and I suspect I shall be able to see nothing at all if/when I get the second pair of slits organised. So far the only result has been a lot of stumbling about in complete darkness except for a red spot which seems to cause a certain amount of disorientation eg Where has the light switch gone? Also I seem to have become the newest (and probably oldest) member of a forum called HamsterHideout though this might have had more to do with the wine than the laser. This morning I have a headache - is this a common side effect of exposure to collimated light? More results (if any) to follow.
-C2.
-C2.
C2- I should have told you, the DSE doesn't work unless you are drinking at
least 60 proof spirits. After a few glasses and your eyes have crossed, you see all
kinds of patterns. Just don't stare into the end of the laser!
LL
least 60 proof spirits. After a few glasses and your eyes have crossed, you see all
kinds of patterns. Just don't stare into the end of the laser!
LL
Hi Confused2, yquantum, Laserlight, fivedoughnut, "THEY", Montec, TRoc, Neil Farbstein, Aerohead et al,
QUOTE (Some superfluous elven wisdom... +)
"And as for our future, one will hardly find us again on the paths of those Egyptian youths who endanger temples by night, embrace statues, and want by all means to unveil, uncover, and put into a bright light whatever is kept concealed for good reasons. No, this bad taste, this will to truth, to truth at any price, this youthful madness in the love of truth, have lost their charm for us: for that we are too experienced, too serious, too gay, too burned, too deep. We no longer believe that truth remains truth when the veils are withdrawn; we have lived enough not to believe this. Today we consider it a matter of decency not to wish to see everything naked, or to be present at everything, or to understand and know everything. Tout comprendre—est tout mépriser. [To understand all is to despise all.] [..] If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. [..] Man does not gaze into the eye of G*d and live"
Friedrich Nietzsche. Don't do anything unpleasant to your eyes. Making slits or decent pinholes is an "art". The other important factor is to have a good spatial filter to remove some of the source noise.
If we really want to know what may be happening in a slit or pinhole... they are secondary sources. I would be inclined to ask the question what happens inside the source and doing a really good job in this area requires some costly bits and pieces.
Here is a paper that I may have referenced before that does throw some light on the theoretical and the practical points that may be responsible for the divergence of sources. I think we can learn a bit about sources if we read about it rather than trying to duplicate it without a few bucks in our back pockets or the resources of a real Laboratory... no offense here but some of these optical results are a little "fiddlely" to set up. It is not worth half blinding yourself to simply duplicate what others with a zillion dollars and all the right equipment have already done...
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf
This is a recent reputable source of information and it may be "easier on the eyes" than the optical level.
Cheers
Friedrich Nietzsche.
Don't do anything unpleasant to your eyes. Making slits or decent pinholes is an "art". The other important factor is to have a good spatial filter to remove some of the source noise.If we really want to know what may be happening in a slit or pinhole... they are secondary sources. I would be inclined to ask the question what happens inside the source and doing a really good job in this area requires some costly bits and pieces.
Here is a paper that I may have referenced before that does throw some light on the theoretical and the practical points that may be responsible for the divergence of sources. I think we can learn a bit about sources if we read about it rather than trying to duplicate it without a few bucks in our back pockets or the resources of a real Laboratory... no offense here but some of these optical results are a little "fiddlely" to set up. It is not worth half blinding yourself to simply duplicate what others with a zillion dollars and all the right equipment have already done...
QUOTE
Evidence of Near-field Superluminally Propagating Electromagnetic Fields : William D. Walker
1 Introduction
A simple experiment is presented which indicates that electromagnetic fields propagate superluminally in the near-field next to an oscillating electric dipole source. A high frequency 437MHz, 2 watt sinusoidal electrical signal is transmitted from a dipole antenna to a parallel near-field dipole detecting antenna. The phase difference between the two antenna signals is monitored with an oscilloscope as the distance between the antennas is increased. Analysis of the phase vs distance curve indicates that superluminal transverse electric field waves (phase and group) are generated approximately one-quarter wavelength outside the source and propagate toward and away from the source. Upon creation, the transverse waves travel with infinite speed. The outgoing transverse waves reduce to the speed of light after they propagate about one wavelength away from the source. The inward propagating transverse fields rapidly reduce to the speed of light and then rapidly increase to infinite speed as they travel into the source. The results are shown to be consistent with standard electrodynamic theory.
Theoretical analysis of an oscillating electric dipole reveals that the longitudinal component of the electric field and the transverse magnetic field are generated at the source and propagate away from the source. Upon creation, the waves travel with infinite speed and then rapidly reduce to the speed of light after they propagate about one wavelength away from the source. It is noted that the special theory of relativity predicts that from a moving reference frame superluminal signals can propagate backward in time. Arguments against the superluminal wave interpretation presented in this paper are reviewed and shown to be invalid. Because of the similarity of the governing partial differential equations, two other physical systems (magnetic dipole and a gravitationally radiating oscillating mass) are noted to have similar superluminal near-field theoretical results.
Experimental Evidence of Near-field Superluminally Propagating Electromagnetic Fields : William D. Walker
The comments being made are quite interesting and the nature of that space near the source (and you would need to be able to connect the dots about a primary source and a secondary source) and come up with a theory in which this space around that 1/4 wavelength has on propagation. Distances can do strange things when light travels at infinite velocity. This all gets back to those discussions about Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory. A consideration of effective refractive index is also relevant.1 Introduction
A simple experiment is presented which indicates that electromagnetic fields propagate superluminally in the near-field next to an oscillating electric dipole source. A high frequency 437MHz, 2 watt sinusoidal electrical signal is transmitted from a dipole antenna to a parallel near-field dipole detecting antenna. The phase difference between the two antenna signals is monitored with an oscilloscope as the distance between the antennas is increased. Analysis of the phase vs distance curve indicates that superluminal transverse electric field waves (phase and group) are generated approximately one-quarter wavelength outside the source and propagate toward and away from the source. Upon creation, the transverse waves travel with infinite speed. The outgoing transverse waves reduce to the speed of light after they propagate about one wavelength away from the source. The inward propagating transverse fields rapidly reduce to the speed of light and then rapidly increase to infinite speed as they travel into the source. The results are shown to be consistent with standard electrodynamic theory.
Theoretical analysis of an oscillating electric dipole reveals that the longitudinal component of the electric field and the transverse magnetic field are generated at the source and propagate away from the source. Upon creation, the waves travel with infinite speed and then rapidly reduce to the speed of light after they propagate about one wavelength away from the source. It is noted that the special theory of relativity predicts that from a moving reference frame superluminal signals can propagate backward in time. Arguments against the superluminal wave interpretation presented in this paper are reviewed and shown to be invalid. Because of the similarity of the governing partial differential equations, two other physical systems (magnetic dipole and a gravitationally radiating oscillating mass) are noted to have similar superluminal near-field theoretical results.
Experimental Evidence of Near-field Superluminally Propagating Electromagnetic Fields : William D. Walker
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf
This is a recent reputable source of information and it may be "easier on the eyes" than the optical level.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Mar 20 2007, 04:41 PM)
Hi Confused2, yquantum, Laserlight, fivedoughnut, "THEY", Montec, TRoc, Neil Farbstein, Aerohead et al,
Don't do anything unpleasant to your eyes. Making slits or decent pinholes is an "art". The other important factor is to have a good spatial filter to remove some of the source noise.
If we really want to know what may be happening in a slit or pinhole... they are secondary sources. I would be inclined to ask the question what happens inside the source and doing a really good job in this area requires some costly bits and pieces.
Here is a paper that I may have referenced before that does throw some light on the theoretical and the practical points that may be responsible for the divergence of sources. I think we can learn a bit about sources if we read about it rather than trying to duplicate it without a few bucks in our back pockets or the resources of a real Laboratory... no offense here but some of these optical results are a little "fiddlely" to set up. It is not worth half blinding yourself to simply duplicate what others with a zillion dollars and all the right equipment have already done...
The comments being made are quite interesting and the nature of that space near the source (and you would need to be able to connect the dots about a primary source and a secondary source) and come up with a theory in which this space around that 1/4 wavelength has on propagation. Distances can do strange things when light travels at infinite velocity. This all gets back to those discussions about Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory. A consideration of effective refractive index is also relevant.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf
This is a recent reputable source of information and it may be "easier on the eyes" than the optical level.
Cheers
I really enjoyed your slit comment! Very funny!
Don't do anything unpleasant to your eyes. Making slits or decent pinholes is an "art". The other important factor is to have a good spatial filter to remove some of the source noise.If we really want to know what may be happening in a slit or pinhole... they are secondary sources. I would be inclined to ask the question what happens inside the source and doing a really good job in this area requires some costly bits and pieces.
Here is a paper that I may have referenced before that does throw some light on the theoretical and the practical points that may be responsible for the divergence of sources. I think we can learn a bit about sources if we read about it rather than trying to duplicate it without a few bucks in our back pockets or the resources of a real Laboratory... no offense here but some of these optical results are a little "fiddlely" to set up. It is not worth half blinding yourself to simply duplicate what others with a zillion dollars and all the right equipment have already done...
The comments being made are quite interesting and the nature of that space near the source (and you would need to be able to connect the dots about a primary source and a secondary source) and come up with a theory in which this space around that 1/4 wavelength has on propagation. Distances can do strange things when light travels at infinite velocity. This all gets back to those discussions about Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory. A consideration of effective refractive index is also relevant.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf
This is a recent reputable source of information and it may be "easier on the eyes" than the optical level.
Cheers
I really enjoyed your slit comment! Very funny!
C2, I too have tried to reproduce the DSE with a laser (thought it would be a good science project for they2) and didn't succeed. Didn't know alcohol needed to be used! That may have been my problem also... Wine is too low of a proof....... And I don't think "they"2's teacher would approve of vodka in the school for a science experiment...... 
If you succeed pm me so I can try to reproduce it for the kiddo. Her project deadline is rapidly coming.....
If you succeed pm me so I can try to reproduce it for the kiddo. Her project deadline is rapidly coming.....
This is for TRoc and those who understand “music language”.
http://www.physicsjazz.info/applets/HarmonicSum.html
Physics and Music: Harmonic Sum Applet
---------------
http://www.mta.ca/faculty/arts-letters/mus...e09/page09.html
This is the summary to Pitch-Class Set Analysis. Don’t forget to look at the Table of pc set classes.
--------------------
"THEY"
Look at my summary. I'll post something that you might like for "THEY2".
jal
edit:
http://www.musicoftheprimes.com/index.htm
Music of the Primes
http://www.physicsjazz.info/applets/HarmonicSum.html
Physics and Music: Harmonic Sum Applet
---------------
http://www.mta.ca/faculty/arts-letters/mus...e09/page09.html
This is the summary to Pitch-Class Set Analysis. Don’t forget to look at the Table of pc set classes.
--------------------
"THEY"
Look at my summary. I'll post something that you might like for "THEY2".
jal
edit:
http://www.musicoftheprimes.com/index.htm
Music of the Primes
The C2 research laboratory has acquired new equipment in the form of cheap web cam with its lens removed.
The active area of the CMOS cell zone looks to be about 2.5mm x 2.5mm.
The laboratory laser is an 'under 1mW' 650nm device.
The researcher is currently fueled by a relatively low octane South African red rated at 14.5% alcohol (known locally under the name 'Quadriplegia').
The following images were originally 640x480 pixels and have been reduced by a factor of 4.
The web cam is about 4 inches away from the pinhole .. not uncoincidentally the width of UK standard bog-roll.
The camera software includes automatic gain control.
Hole poked in black card
Black card away from the 'hole'
Hole poked in aluminium foil at centre
aluminium foil away from the centre
So how come the wavelength with the aluminium foil 'hole' looks to be about four times greater than with the black card hole?
I'm happy to go back and do it again but it would be nice if we had some 'reproducibility' here.
Comments welcome.
Best wishes,
-C2.
The active area of the CMOS cell zone looks to be about 2.5mm x 2.5mm.
The laboratory laser is an 'under 1mW' 650nm device.
The researcher is currently fueled by a relatively low octane South African red rated at 14.5% alcohol (known locally under the name 'Quadriplegia').
The following images were originally 640x480 pixels and have been reduced by a factor of 4.
The web cam is about 4 inches away from the pinhole .. not uncoincidentally the width of UK standard bog-roll.
The camera software includes automatic gain control.
Hole poked in black card
Black card away from the 'hole'
Hole poked in aluminium foil at centre
aluminium foil away from the centre
So how come the wavelength with the aluminium foil 'hole' looks to be about four times greater than with the black card hole?
I'm happy to go back and do it again but it would be nice if we had some 'reproducibility' here.
Comments welcome.
Best wishes,
-C2.
C2-
That's a pretty brilliant idea using a CMOS camera.
I have an idea. Insert a thin partially opaque screen, such as thin parchment
paper that is used for cooking, in front of the camera aperture. You will be
looking at the interference pattern with the camera from the backside of the
screen.
Other thin screen material ideas:
- 1 sheet separated from white 2 ply toilet paper.
- a piece cut from a white PVC plastic grocery shopping bag.
Try your dual slit experiment using such a thin material white screen. All you
should see is the interference pattern sans saturation of the CMOS sensor.
You will probably need to put the lens back onto the camera.
Oh yeah, at least 2 more glasses of wine.
LL
That's a pretty brilliant idea using a CMOS camera.
I have an idea. Insert a thin partially opaque screen, such as thin parchment
paper that is used for cooking, in front of the camera aperture. You will be
looking at the interference pattern with the camera from the backside of the
screen.
Other thin screen material ideas:
- 1 sheet separated from white 2 ply toilet paper.
- a piece cut from a white PVC plastic grocery shopping bag.
Try your dual slit experiment using such a thin material white screen. All you
should see is the interference pattern sans saturation of the CMOS sensor.
You will probably need to put the lens back onto the camera.
Oh yeah, at least 2 more glasses of wine.
LL
QUOTE (Confused2+Mar 20 2007, 11:36 PM)
The C2 research laboratory has acquired new equipment in the form of cheap web cam with its lens removed.
The active area of the CMOS cell zone looks to be about 2.5mm x 2.5mm.
The laboratory laser is an 'under 1mW' 650nm device.
The researcher is currently fueled by a relatively low octane South African red rated at 14.5% alcohol (known locally under the name 'Quadriplegia').
The following images were originally 640x480 pixels and have been reduced by a factor of 4.
The web cam is about 4 inches away from the pinhole .. not uncoincidentally the width of UK standard bog-roll.
The camera software includes automatic gain control.
Hole poked in black card
Black card away from the 'hole'
Hole poked in aluminium foil at centre
aluminium foil away from the centre
So how come the wavelength with the aluminium foil 'hole' looks to be about four times greater than with the black card hole?
I'm happy to go back and do it again but it would be nice if we had some 'reproducibility' here.
Comments welcome.
Best wishes,
-C2.
The hole poked in that aluminum is the same as a black card hole. Not bigger.
The active area of the CMOS cell zone looks to be about 2.5mm x 2.5mm.
The laboratory laser is an 'under 1mW' 650nm device.
The researcher is currently fueled by a relatively low octane South African red rated at 14.5% alcohol (known locally under the name 'Quadriplegia').
The following images were originally 640x480 pixels and have been reduced by a factor of 4.
The web cam is about 4 inches away from the pinhole .. not uncoincidentally the width of UK standard bog-roll.
The camera software includes automatic gain control.
Hole poked in black card
Black card away from the 'hole'
Hole poked in aluminium foil at centre
aluminium foil away from the centre
So how come the wavelength with the aluminium foil 'hole' looks to be about four times greater than with the black card hole?
I'm happy to go back and do it again but it would be nice if we had some 'reproducibility' here.
Comments welcome.
Best wishes,
-C2.
The hole poked in that aluminum is the same as a black card hole. Not bigger.
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.