Problem with the two slit experiment

Good Elf

21st March 2007 - 05:57 AM

Hi Confused2,

That is a very attractive set of pictures. The differences are probably due to differences in the regularity of the pinhole. An irregular margin would lead to secondary interference patterns. Your "source" could be considered composed of a large number of elementary smaller pinholes arranged in an irregular fashion. The more of these the finer the secondary interference pattern. Note that the hole in the aluminum is most likely the most regular one leading to the fewer "fringes". The other issue is you should use a spatial filter to reduce a lot of the "noise". It would all depend on if you can make a "perfect" hole. Usually they are made by a laser "punching" a fine one. The other way to do this is to smoke a glass slide with a kerosene burner and use a razor blade to score a line in the soot.

Another way to do this may be to start with a black mask with a perfect circle in it (computer generated in an image program) and go to a photocopier and keep reducing it and reducing it until it is really really small. The images being copied to transparency film such as used for OHP's.

Here is what you should get C2 with near "ideal" pinholes... starting with one on the left and pinhole sizes reducing toward the top and separation between pinholes increasing to the right.

It is not hard to imagine that your first image is an irregular cluster of very fine interference patterns summing due to very small apertures made from primary pinholes of a similar size to the ones on the top left whereas the overall size of the hole is like the one on the bottom left.

Cheers

Guest_Empulse

21st March 2007 - 06:44 AM

Hi,

What about using an IR light source then using cameras to monitor the interior of the experiments interesting points/places...

TRoc

21st March 2007 - 08:25 AM

Hi all,

Finishing my response to LL's post to me, now back a few pages. (and to his subsequent follow-up)

LL-

QUOTE

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).

This is a little shaky. Each element (and isotope) has a specific mass, and a specific spectrum. This (the mass) can be given in frequency, but the spectrum is different. Each electron in the atom has a set of energy levels that can absorb/emit specific (resonant)"photons". These are the discreet frequencies that I am talking about (and are the basis for QM).

"#6" was the only thing left.

To restate this, I am basically asking if you have some Physical Law in mind, that says that these E~M waves can not "interfere" with each other. The reason that "seeing" the "white light" from the stars not being "distorted" is not good enough "evidence", is because A. "white light itself is an interaction, and B. practically ALL of the "photons" that we observe from stars have been absorbed & re-emitted countless times, before we "see" them. I have said before, that "constructive/destructive" interference is NOT enough to completely describe what is taking place between energy & matter.

Really though, I think its a mute point now.

We agree that there is no perfect vacuum.
We agree that a few gas molecules can act as absorbers/emitters.
We agree that matter is an integral part of the transaction.
We agree that the "absorption" takes place "outside" of the electron.

The fine point that we might still disagree on, is that, because I am saying that 2 electrons (in different atoms) are required for the "photon" to exist, then the interaction happens "in between" them. The energy (at these "visible" levels) never "penetrates" the electron. Superposition of energy waves takes place "outside" of the electron.

Not a very big difference, I think.

The other part, is the near field electric field (flux or density). To me, it doesn't matter whether this is the E field of the electron, or "photon": under the right, resonant conditions, there are interactions that can change frequencies.

C2,

Keep up the good work! Maybe you could start the first "bar-lab" combination. How did you get the photos onto the forum?

regards,

T.Roc

Confused2

21st March 2007 - 11:28 AM

Thanks for the comments about the pictures. GE .. yes, lots of sources, I agree. I'll try smoked glass shortly, if it worked for the 'old guys' it should work for me. LL.. the reason for removing the lens was to eliminate one more operation and error possibility.. as it is I don't think the CMOS sensors can lie. The problem might turn out to be too much resolution over too small an area (about 2.5mm) but at the moment it seems perfect for checking the quality of slits and pinholes. I could disable the agc but this would be an extra complication.
Best wishes,-C2

Laserlight

22nd March 2007 - 05:07 AM

Hi TRoc and All,

QUOTE

Agreed! You are correct, the spectral signature is a "set" of distinctive frequencies.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Agreed! You are correct, the spectral signature is a "set" of distinctive frequencies.

To restate this, I am basically asking if you have some Physical Law in mind, that says that these E~M waves can not "interfere" with each other. The reason that "seeing" the "white light" from the stars not being "distorted" is not good enough "evidence", is because A. "white light itself is an interaction, and B. practically ALL of the "photons" that we observe from stars have been absorbed & re-emitted countless times, before we "see" them. I have said before, that "constructive/destructive" interference is NOT enough to completely describe what is taking place between energy & matter.

I think we must consider that in order for signal mixing to take place there
must be some medium to act as a non-linear integration source for the arriving
frequencies. An unstimulated atom vibrates at its own elemental frequency which
can be considered a local oscillator. When an atom becomes excited its electrons
become displaced from their normal orbitals and oscillating frequencies , especially
in the outer orbital. This electron displacement is a non-linear response to the
amplitude and frequency applied to it which causes the atom to "ring".
I still contend that frequencies don't mix spontaneously without some non-linear
physical displacement that functions as a point of mixing.

When signals are mixed they always have a different composite output frequency
that varies according to the frequency and the intensity of the signals being
mixed. Once mixed, the composite output signal is time and phase "locked".

Heterodyne detection: From Wikipedia

QUOTE

Heterodyne detection is a method of detecting radiation by non-linear mixing with radiation of a reference frequency. It is commonly used in telecommunications and astronomy for detecting and analysing signals.

The radiation in question is most commonly either radio waves (see superheterodyne receiver) or light (see interferometry). The reference radiation is known as the local oscillator. The signal and the local oscillator are superimposed at a mixer. The mixer, which is commonly a (photo-)diode, has a non-linear response to the amplitude, that is, at least part of the output is proportional to the square of the input.

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

Heterodyning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodyne

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

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

Heterodyning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodyne

heterodyning is the generation of new frequencies by mixing two or more signals in a nonlinear device such as a vacuum tube, transistor, diode mixer, Josephson junction, or bolometer. The mixing of each two frequencies results in the creation of two new frequencies, one at the sum of the two frequencies mixed, and the other at their difference. A low frequency produced in this manner is sometimes referred to as a beat frequency.

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

QUOTE

The fine point that we might still disagree on, is that, because I am saying that 2 electrons (in different atoms) are required for the "photon" to exist, then the interaction happens "in between" them. The energy (at these "visible" levels) never "penetrates" the electron. Superposition of energy waves takes place "outside" of the electron.

Superposition takes place because of the non-linear displacement of the
detecting electron that is caused by the energy contained in the photon.
Energy, exists eternally...it just changes form depending upon the medium it is
interacting with. Once emitted, a photon exists infinitely until the energy it
contains causes a change of state in matter.

Good Elf

22nd March 2007 - 12:10 PM

Hi Laserlight,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)

Superposition takes place because of the non-linear displacement of the detecting electron that is caused by the energy contained in the photon.
Energy, exists eternally...it just changes form depending upon the medium it is
interacting with. Once emitted, a photon exists infinitely until the energy it
contains causes a change of state in matter.

Just a tetchy point and not a criticism (what Laserlight has said is basically OK but gets a little frayed around the edges where it is indistinct)... In Physics energy is capacity to do work, that is all it is, we must remember whatever we say we are not working in the "healing arts" or with "psychic powers". This is ultimately science and the definitions of energy and light are different in science and in the "mystical arts"... OK! Sometimes it is hard to differentiate. Energy is either potential or kinetic and is conserved but it is not quite the same as light or electromagnetism. EM is "something" and it may be "everything"... it is ultimately what makes up matter... while energy is used as a "noun" it is only a "verb"... a "doing word"... it is formless and not tangible... you cannot hold energy and only energy in a container. It is a kind of "attribute" stuff has. Light is tangible and carries not only form but information... perhaps all the information in the Universe and that means we tend to underestimate just how structured this "stuff" really is. You can put light in a "bottle" and hold it there, although we cannot do it easily it is capable of being "held". What I would like people to really understand is light is not actually energy... light simply carries energy and a whole lot more. Matter is simply "structured light"... The properties of matter are the properties of light and nothing more... other than some fancy geometry.
E = MC²
Light and electrons (and other particles) are really the same "stuff" and when they interact they combine in ways that obey certain laws. Einstein did not only say that E = MC², he already knew that Energy is relative and depends on a measurement between two states. Energy is subject to an arbitrary zero point (an integration constant) that is a real problem for some (...me...). Zero energy does not mean "nothing" because it is always a comparison between two states... that "measurement" may be "zero" but something still may exist there. I can imagine light with "zero energy" even though I may not be able to measure it.

Cheers

Laserlight

23rd March 2007 - 12:44 AM

Well worth a re-read and some board "analysis":

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/DivisiblePhoton-Final.pdf

by: Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri and Negussie Tirfessa

LL

Confused2

23rd March 2007 - 02:10 AM

QUOTE (Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri+)

Since laser pulses are manipulatable by various established techniques, one can conclude that the photons can have flexible temporal amplitude envelopes. Then we face the contradiction that a photon with a uniquely defined frequency at the moment of emission can have different temporal envelopes as it propagates through different optical systems that manipulates the pulse shapes. This would conflict with the time-frequency Fourier theorem that customarily dictates what the spectrum of a time-finite signal should be.

IMHO anyone looking at the results of the DSE must conclude that there is a real conflict with the time-frequency Fourier theorem and as a consequence of that conflict we have to choose between the time-frequency Fourier theorem and the results we see before us.

QUOTE (Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri+)

In contrast, the quantization of the EM field has actually suppressed the exploration of the real physical process taking place during the detection process of superposed light beams and gave birth to non-casual and non-local interpretation of superposition phenomenon.

I guess Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri only sees one peak in the actual DSE results and he can explain what he sees by...

QUOTE (Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri+)

We define photons as classical wave packets that evolve after atoms and molecules release their quantum of energy into the cosmic medium as a time finite pulse with a carrier frequency exactly equal to :..

My preference is to look at the results of the DSE experiment and discard 'we define photons..' as (potentially) an invalid defintion.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Confused2

23rd March 2007 - 11:30 AM

QUOTE (RC+)

Further, Panarella [5] has experimentally demonstrated that a minimum of four photon equivalent energy is required to detect discernable diffraction pattern at very low light levels. This clearly raises doubt regarding one-to-one correspondence for photoelectron emission. Comprehensive classical and quantum treatments of photo detection processes are given by Mandel and Wolf [6].

Clearly Panarella's results are of great significance when we look at the single photon DSE (eg http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml ). The source used in the Teachspin experiment is an incandescent bulb and I would expect it to produce an approximation to black body radiation. If an incandescent source is giving synchronised photons in groups of four or more then I suspect the black body approximation would not apply and therefore it seems unlikely that this is the cause of the effect noted by Panarella simply because it would have been noticed many years ago by other researchers.

The Teachspin experiment uses a 'conventional' detector, if this required four or more photons to fire then it seems unlikely that the inverse square law could possibly apply and it seems unlikely that this effect would not have been noticed by other researchers. Even in the Teachspin experiment we are looking at a range of intensities and the results are a good fit to 'geometry' so there must already be some doubt about the way Panarella's clumps of photons might organize themselves in such a way as to preserve this near-exact fit to a result based on a single photon and 'geometry'.

I am going to guess that Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri and Panarella are particularly interested in pulses. If a single photon is (inherently) not a 'pulse' then how many photons might we need before we get something that we can interpret as a 'pulse'? Might four be a sensible guess? To get a pulse to diffract you need four photons because that is the number of photons you need to make a 'pulse' (by your assumed definition of a 'pulse').

So how many photons do you need before you get something you might reasonably regard as a 'field' .. I'm going to guess the number is four (again). Once you have shifted your definitions to the point where the analysis of a field becomes appropriate then (of course) 'field analysis' will be appropriate.

As before, for an analysis of the DSE and the properties of a single photon I suggest that careful consideration of the results of the Teachspin DSE ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) will provide a better guide than the work of either Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri or Emilio Panarella.

Comments most welcome.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Confused2

23rd March 2007 - 12:50 PM

From
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/DivisiblePhoton-Final.pdf

QUOTE (Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri +)

At a location where the two equal amplitudes fields are undulating with opposite phases, the detector dipoles cannot execute opposing dipolar undulations at the same time. So they are not stimulated and hence they cannot absorb energy from superposed fields. EM field energy passes through them since they cannot redistribute their field energy by themselves [11].

From the results here ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) we see that the intensity increases in the bright regions and no photons are 'lost' or pass 'detector dipoles' in the way Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri suggests ( do we see this? Is it just me?). My own view is that if Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri looked at the results of an actual experiment (eg http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) then perhaps his comments might be of more value. There would seem to be a choice to be made between the extensive output of Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri and the results here
User posted image

.. IMHO both cannot be correct.
Best wishes,
-C2.

Good Elf

23rd March 2007 - 04:58 PM

QUOTE (Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri+)

Then we propose that atomic or molecular emissions emerge and propagate out as space and time finite classical wave packets. We also suggest experiments to validate that the amplitude of a photon wave packet can be split and combined by classical optical components using the specific example of an N-slit grating.

Yes... I agree with the classical wave packet concept but I do not agree with the non-experimentally noted absorption of photons "piecemeal". We know that a photon is made up of a base frequency and several "overtones" or "harmonics" that compose the "packet". These overtones cannot be split off unless there are non-linear effects such as photon "up-conversion"... combination of two photons of one wavelength into a single photon of half the wavelength using very special source synchronization and non-linear effects (noted previously in this thread). We understand there are special cases ... including absorption and reemission of a photon in which these phenomena can occur but these are very special non-linear effects and this does not occur in free space.

QUOTE (Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri+)

It is quite common to explain that no photons arrive at the location of dark fringes in a two beam interferometer (Mach-Zehnder, Michelson, Young’s double slit, etc.). The implication is that it does not matter whether the light beam contains one or multitude of indivisible photons, the outcome will always be the same. If photons are really indivisible packets of energy and “photon interferes only with itself”, then why do we need phase and frequency coherence properties between different parts of a light beam? Our viewpoint is that the belief in “single photon interference” is a highly flawed simply because light beams do not interfere with each other, whether they contain one photon or trillions of photons.

I do not think so, this interpretation is directly against the existing experiments where this is exactly what does happen... photons do not interfere with other photons but they can interfere with themselves. This is why the single photon interference and why the experiment is so compelling. You do not need other photons to see that the single photon exhibits all the phenomena that many photons exhibit as groups. One photon produces the interference pattern, it is it's nature and always has been. If this was as easy to be understood as Chandrasekhar stated Richard Feynman would have noticed that this was the solution... it is not the solution ... trust me. Yes wave interference is a non-local event... and yes it is a very unusual property of light... and yes this is the way the universe works.

What Chandrasekhar is saying is that photons must travel in groups in order that they can interfere with each other, so we redefine what is a photon to allow this effect. So we must redefine what a single photon is to get around this anomaly. What Chandrasekhar is not accepting in this paper is we can actually make single photon emitters and these behave as expected in these kind of interference experiments. His theory is "interesting" yet logically flawed when compared with the results of experiment. Chandrasekhar may not know of single photon emitters when his paper was written, and his paper is a speculation at the time it was written.

QUOTE (Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri+)

If light beams of different frequencies interacted on each other by themselves, the output signal would have become chaotic pulses. But we do record and measure the absence of any EM field energy at the dark fringes due to superposition of coherent beams on a detector array or a photographic plate. [..] At a location where the two equal amplitudes fields are undulating with opposite phases, the detector dipoles cannot execute opposing dipolar undulations at the same time. So they are not stimulated and hence they cannot absorb energy from superposed fields. EM field energy passes through them since they cannot redistribute their field energy by themselves.

Chandrasekhar is very troubled by the fact that light exhibits non-interference with itself yet the photons can pass through other photons... this is the boson property of light and you cannot understand light without bosons... light is bosons. So what he says is wrong... This supposes we can actually measure what is happening in free space with the photons interacting as particles. This is a Gedanken Experiment that leads to incorrect conclusions. Where the wave is not measured it is difficult to say anything other than there is a superposition of waves there. There are no photons in the dark interference zones... that is all it is... This does not mean that the "waves" are not superimposed there, but it does mean that a photon "particle" cannot be found there. If you search for particle properties there you will not find them. The former waves sums to "zero" and the photon is also "zero"... it is not there at all. In some respects this is a breaking of the Principle of Complementarity for sure but it is also an expression of the non-local nature of a photon.

Really the photon is nowhere other than when it is actually detected as a particle, this is the solution, do not think to treat light as if we were speaking of "play dough". This is not the same as saying that the photon is "far away" but it can be localized with a protective measurement... naturally this means that the photons is absolutely not in the dark zones and may be in a region "nearby". To me this means extra dimensions, the photons are not in the dark zones but the waves are in those dark zones and they cancel there. What cannot be detected does not exist as far as our detectors are concerned, that is the nature of a particle. This is the classic problem of attempting to determine wave and particle properties at the same time. It is not possible. This hearkens back to the experiment with those wires in the dark zones and measuring nothing and concluding that you have determined something. I may be spitting into the wind but I will stand firm on the logic and not wander into those places where you can have a bet each way without being challenged.

The experiment of Panarella is not confirmed and there are other ways to interpret this phenomena such as this reference...
THE SHADOW OF LIGHT: FURTHER EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCES: F. Cardone et al
This is very similar to my interpretation and published last year. I have only just found this reference but this is expected since I think it is correct. There will be many correct interpretations through the literature (I hope). This one plugs for the "hollow wave" concept of Einstein-De Broglie-Bohm in which the photons actually curve spacetime and are trapped by this spacetime curvature (this occurs since there are numerous examples of this). At the same time the wave like nature is like a shadow in our flat spacetime. This fits with the non-local nature of the photon wave.

A second paper based on experimental evidence supporting this proposition is also available.
THE SHADOW OF LIGHT: LORENTZ INVARIANCE AND COMPLEMENTARITY PRINCIPLE IN ANOMALOUS PHOTON BEHAVIOUR: F. Cardone, R. Mignani, W. Perconti, A. Petrucci, R. Scrimaglio
This also has some interesting statements regarding Afstar's Experiement. While suggesting that Afstar's Experiment is complementary it is not the same interpretation these authors give to this result.

QUOTE (F. Cardone et al in the above+)

Let us notice that recently Afshar carried out a double-slit experiment, that apparently proves a failure of the complementarity principle [10]. He essentially showed that the coherent superposition state, corresponding to the interference pattern, persists regardless of the fact that the which-way information (trajectory) is obtained in the same experimental apparatus. Moreover, he states that evidence for coherent wavelike behaviour is not a single-particle property, but an ensemble (multi-particle) property. Although the results of ref. [10] do agree with ours, in denying the validity of the wavecourpuscle complementarity, let us stress that Afshar’s experiment is in a sense dual (or complementary) to ours. In fact, in [10] a corpuscle behaviour (trajectory) was observed within a pure wave setting (double-slit interferometer); on the contrary, in our case a wave behaviour (interference) was observed within a pure corpuscular framework8.

We need to keep with what we really know. The photons and the waves do not occur together. They are not the same thing. Measure one the other one is not there. A photon is not the thing as the wave of the photon.. this is the result of decades of measurement and people know this is not going to fit in three dimensions but people will prefer to accept absurdity to retain the old inconsistent concept of photons bouncing around in waves like ping pong balls on the ocean... its just not on folks.

QUOTE (F. Cardone et al in the above+)

The wave associated to a quantum object is commonly regarded as a probability wave, according to what is usually referred to as the Copenhagen interpretation1, and hence it conveys no physical properties. This interpretation is thoroughly antithetic to that advocated by Einstein, De Broglie and Bohm, which regards the quantum wave as real, intimately bound to the quantum entity and moving along with it, but unable to carry energy and momentum (hollow or ghost wave). At present, the theoretical hypothesis of a real, hollow wave is necessary in order to correctly interpret some experiments, which evidence the wave-corpuscle duality (although they do not provide any direct evidence of hollow waves). Nevertheless, it is possible to attain indirect proof of hollow waves thanks to the influence they have on the behaviour and occurrences of events that overlap in space-time, like interference phenomena.

So I have swung from one edge of an envelope of believability to the other edge of the envelope of higher dimensions and for some even less believable. At least I am consistent in that respect.

All I say is these are not like Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri in being Gedanken Experiiments but the results of real Lab Bench Experiments. I realize that these experiments do not have very much in the way of maths to support them but they certainly do not need maths since this is a problem in understanding the physical results and not one that can be worked out with a pencil. I will admit that Afstar's Experiment is "for real" but does not imply what many would insist. Null measurements do not mean the measurement of a property.

I would suggest that I have taken a much broader view of this problem and it is a value choice between "realities" and the results of real experiments and the need to progress beyond Gedanken Experiment and our innate prejudices regarding phenomena. The authors of these papers are really no slouches and should be considered for what they are as experimental facts. What then needs to be decided is on balance what theory explains "all" this with a unified approach. We need to look to the experiments and their results ... the Universe is speaking and we are compelled to listen.

Cheers

Neil Farbstein

23rd March 2007 - 05:47 PM

QUOTE (Good Elf+Mar 23 2007, 04:58 PM)

Hi Confused2, Laserlight, yquantum, fivedoughnut, "THEY", Montec, TRoc, Aerohead, Neil Farbstein et al,

To take the point of view of Chandrasekhar is on the "edge of the envelope " of accepted theory. Especially since single photons being created and detected is not an issue here, there have been recent experimental advances with single photon sources (noted in this thread previously). Photons are able to group and this is been stated many times, but single photons are possible and the coherence does not actually need to have multiple photons. What Chandrasekhar suggests is that we redefine a photon as an ensemble of photons. I do not buy that concept. I also do not buy the idea that a "red" emitted photon can be absorbed at some different frequency depending on how much of the photon is absorbed?
Chandrasekhar is very troubled by the fact that light exhibits non-interference with itself yet the photons can pass through other photons... this is the boson property of light and you cannot understand light without bosons... light is bosons. So what he says is wrong... This supposes we can actually measure what is happening in free space with the photons interacting as particles. This is a Gedanken Experiment that leads to incorrect conclusions. Where the wave is not measured it is difficult to say anything other than there is a superposition of waves there. There are no photons in the dark interference zones... that is all it is... This does not mean that the "waves" are not superimposed there, but it does mean that a photon "particle" cannot be found there. If you search for particle properties there you will not find them. The former waves sums to "zero" and the photon is also "zero"... it is not there at all. In some respects this is a breaking of the Principle of Complementarity for sure but it is also an expression of the non-local nature of a photon.

Really the photon is nowhere other than when it is actually detected as a particle, this is the solution, do not think to treat light as if we were speaking of "play dough". This is not the same as saying that the photon is "far away" but it can be localized with a protective measurement... naturally this means that the photons is absolutely not in the dark zones and may be in a region "nearby". To me this means extra dimensions, the photons are not in the dark zones but the waves are in those dark zones and they cancel there. What cannot be detected does not exist as far as our detectors are concerned, that is the nature of a particle. This is the classic problem of attempting to determine wave and particle properties at the same time. It is not possible. This hearkens back to the experiment with those wires in the dark zones and measuring nothing and concluding that you have determined something. I may be spitting into the wind but I will stand firm on the logic and not wander into those places where you can have a bet each way without being challenged.

The experiment of Panarella is not confirmed and there are other ways to interpret this phenomena such as this reference...
THE SHADOW OF LIGHT: FURTHER EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCES: F. Cardone et al
This is very similar to my interpretation and published last year. I have only just found this reference but this is expected since I think it is correct. There will be many correct interpretations through the literature (I hope). This one plugs for the "hollow wave" concept of Einstein-De Broglie-Bohm in which the photons actually curve spacetime and are trapped by this spacetime curvature (this occurs since there are numerous examples of this). At the same time the wave like nature is like a shadow in our flat spacetime. This fits with the non-local nature of the photon wave.

A second paper based on experimental evidence supporting this proposition is also available.
THE SHADOW OF LIGHT: LORENTZ INVARIANCE AND COMPLEMENTARITY PRINCIPLE IN ANOMALOUS PHOTON BEHAVIOUR: F. Cardone, R. Mignani, W. Perconti, A. Petrucci, R. Scrimaglio
This also has some interesting statements regarding Afstar's Experiement. While suggesting that Afstar's Experiment is complementary it is not the same interpretation these authors give to this result.
We need to keep with what we really know. The photons and the waves do not occur together. They are not the same thing. Measure one the other one is not there. A photon is not the thing as the wave of the photon.. this is the result of decades of measurement and people know this is not going to fit in three dimensions but people will prefer to accept absurdity to retain the old inconsistent concept of photons bouncing around in waves like ping pong balls on the ocean... its just not on folks.

QUOTE (F. Cardone et al in the above+)

So I have swung from one edge of an envelope of believability to the other edge of the envelope of higher dimensions and for some even less believable. At least I am consistent in that respect.

It is really on the edge of the envelope to maKE THOSE CLAIMS. tHERE IS NO FINGERPRINT TO FIT IT INTO THE KNOWN SCENTIFIC FRAMEWORK.

Confused2

23rd March 2007 - 11:07 PM

Hi Good Elf,

QUOTE (Good Elf+)

We know that a photon is made up of a base frequency and several "overtones" or "harmonics" that compose the "packet".

Please exclude me from 'We' .. for the following reason. WHEN I look closely at the results of the single photon DSE (eg http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) I see that the result is compatible with the vector sum of two sinewaves and not much else. IF you wish to show that the result is anything other than the vector sum of two sinewaves then I invite you to throw in a little bit of mathematics to support your claim. IMHO it is quite easy to make a sync pulse out of sinewaves and very difficult to make a sinewave out of sync pulses... please show me the way.

QUOTE (Good Elf+)

Yes wave interference is a non-local event... and yes it is a very unusual property of light... and yes this is the way the universe works.

Feynman's 'sum over paths' method has given us a way to analyse the non-locality of wave interference:- for some reason he and I and the results of the DSE all seem to be coming up with sinewaves and you are coming up with sync pulses.Please clarify your PoV.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Good Elf

23rd March 2007 - 11:55 PM

Hi Neil,

QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)

It is really on the edge of the envelope to maKE THOSE CLAIMS. tHERE IS NO FINGERPRINT TO FIT IT INTO THE KNOWN SCENTIFIC FRAMEWORK.

It may be. Until last night I did not know of these references... however they are "experimental" and that meas that it does not matter how far they are on the edge they must "fit" a complete picture. There are dozens of bit of information that do not fit the picture and many choose to simply hide from it. I have been repeating this same line on this forum right from the start and it is that space and dimension is "harmonic" and higher dimensions are "resonant" and not reachable by the convention method of simply walking into them. This "walk through" dimensional approach just does not fit and this is the approach of String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity which has purloined the concepts of String Theory. It is totally "non-physical".

Everything I am asserting is already part of a theory of optics and is an alternative to the theory of particles. There are other aspects of my approach and I always introduce these within a framework of the results of experiment. It is not my fault that science chooses to be illogical and to follow in the footsteps of earlier theory that is based on rather bland quantum mechanical assumptions that may work but result in a totally non-Physics explanation for the way things work and lead to a statistical approach to phenomena. The more you look at the evidence statistics is not a theory of physics it is a theory of classification based on possibilities. This is not an unusual aberration since many Scientists have the same suspicion that our Physics has missed a turn on the path to "Truth".

Resonant Cavities, Anti-de Sitter Space, Holography, a particle theory that has a lame ability to predict the next step. The inability of Science to incorporate Gravity into the Physics and then insisting that gravity must fit a quantum picture and not that the quantum picture should fit a semi-classical picture is the basis of the problem. Physics methodology is trying to guess the ultimate answer and then work back to predict the whole world. The answer to the whole world is to be found at our level of quantum phenomena and to obtain the answer at the "finer" levels of our universe we must first replace thee correct pieces into the Physics and begin to work back "down" all over again.

Quantum Postulates were placed there to cover the fact that there was no classical theory that explained the strange nature of the quantum. What has happened is while quantum theory has pursued its goals relentlessly it became deaf to the statements of the "biggies" in Physics of the middle of the last century. QM has had a great deal of success but it has never shown itself to be a consistent theory and as Richard Feynman has said...

QUOTE (Richard Feynman+)

"The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."
- Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate 1965

and Paul Dirac...

QUOTE (Paul Dirac+)

"[Renormalization is] just a stop-gap procedure. There must be some fundamental change in our ideas, probably a change just as fundamental as the passage from Bohr's orbit theory to quantum mechanics. When you get a number turning out to be infinite which ought to be finite, you should admit that there is something wrong with your equations, and not hope that you can get a good theory just by doctoring up that number."

- Paul Dirac, Nobel laureate 1933

These are not lone voices but they did have difficulties arguing against a theory that gave excellent mathematical results. But a "Ptolemaic Theory of Physics" based solely on behavior will provide no deep insights into the inner workings of space no matter how many "epicycles" you put into it and our theory of Quantum Physics is based on a number of pragmatic assumptions that are guarded as being "inviolate". As I have said though a behavioral model of the Universe is a bad model to use as a predictor. This is why Einstein's Theories of Special and General Relativity have not been possible to integrate into these "quantized" theories. It is no wonder since the experimental results of 100 years ago had not caught up with the theory. It is very clear to me and to much of experiment that an innate order exists at the basis of the Universe not pure chaos as indicated by Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory.

I know you probably do not have the time to read this thread from go to whoa and then go back over this approach that I have been pursuing since day one, but it has a very strong experimental support in Special Relativity and the geometry of space dictated by the Lorentz Transformation. This is the same symmetry working in the so called length contraction as is the low end of relativity ... velocity approaching zero is to de Broglie Matter Wave Theory. I could give you a historical run down on this but it is all here. Length Contraction is actually a spacetime rotation through an angle of arcsin (V/C) away from all other directions. That is pure optics in spacetime and has been there all along and is at the basis of Einstein's Insight into the Universe. It's durability is no accident. String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity are no longer following this "pure" lead. At anytime people could have objected to each and every experiment and the conclusions I have been drawing. I make no apologies for being a "very lonely elf" in the Physics sense. There is ample evidence to show that this approach (an approach through the optics of spacetime) is experimentally the correct one. This is only because Quantum Physics has left some "unfinished business" back there in the 1930's and 1940's. Physics cannot presently explain the facts that are being brought to this forum and while some take the approach to play the man and not the ball I am sure that everyone realizes the implications here.

QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)

THERE IS NO FINGERPRINT TO FIT IT INTO THE KNOWN SCIENTIFIC FRAMEWORK.

You are right by claiming that existing science has no place for a theory based on these experiments and on other experiments too numerous to mention here. That is not good science it is bad science. Experiment is the ultimate arbiter of relative "Truth". All the arguments made by Godel about there being no way to truth are fallacious since he was referring to "Ultimate Truth"... Science is a way to relative truth and it needs experiment to support its case. Science is a direction not a destination. All his life Godel had strong disagreements with his friend Einstein about this epistemological problem... In the end one went into obscurity in the close company of peers that no longer listened and the other went into a mental asylum. Godel Rules OK! It has led to Nihilism and our culture that is seeking nothing more than a quick fix and answers seem to elude them. Quantum Mechanics was a quick fix to shortcut the way to some destructive aspects of the atom, there was a war that needed to be won. There were and still are "voices" that disagree with this overall approach. The Universe is disobedient so the reaction of the "establishment" is to "punish it" by ostracism... he he he! Science will not be able to create a unified framework without integrating this geometry of higher dimensions into an earlier Physics.

There is apparently "no way back from here". You just got to "admire" a Scientific Establishment that creates its theory of Unification of Forces based on a Committee. I have never seen a Committee ever come up with the optimum answer just like I have never seen politicians, prelates and philosophers all agree. Real scientists evaluate the science based on the evidence and the evidence in the end is the experiments. They have ignored that evidence, sacrificed that "Truth" for a mutual congratulatory forum. We "elves" just sit and wait and tease humanity with its lack of a consistent approach.

Cheers

Good Elf

24th March 2007 - 02:21 AM

Hi Confused2,

QUOTE

IF you wish to show that the result is anything other than the vector sum of two sinewaves then I invite you to throw in a little bit of mathematics to support your claim. IMHO it is quite easy to make a sync pulse out of sinewaves and very difficult to make a sinewave out of sync pulses... please show me the way.

I am sorry that I can't keep trying to convince you of these things. I fully understand you cannot accept the experimental results and you will not be dissuaded from your simplistic approach to "waves". You can use mathematics to support theories, but no amount of maths can prove a theory... and you use experiment to show us what the Universe actually is telling us about itself... whatever your theory suggests must be in accord with the experiment otherwise it is "bunk". All the maths you need already exists in all those papers I have been quoting. Aside from you having an "epiphany on the way to Damascus", you will never change the way you want this World to be and you have never accepted a more complex and more general result as evidence of this more complex phenomenon you request from me here. So you may as well just tell us all you have become unable to shift your position no matter what evidence is presented. For that I am truly sorry. I do not need to convince everyone just most... I will admit I have a long way to go.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I am no "populist".

I will present just one small sop for you to investigate. Instead of a double slit experiment you do the same experiment with an "infinite slit" experiment ... an optical grating. Do this with a single frequency of light generated by a LASER and at high enough resolutions with the finest grating lines and the largest number of lines you will find sidebands there. These sidebands are the trace of those higher packet frequencies. It will not matter if you do the experiment one photon at a time of a continuous sinewave. The reason this analysis works both times is because the photons are discrete packets not continuous sine waves and any packet will contain those "harmonic overtones" as dictated by Fourier Theory. Let your two sine wave theory explain where these sidebands come from.
Resolvance of Grating
Diffraction Grating
I am finding it difficult to indicate exactly what I would like to show here because most references are not able to be downloaded so I will just refer to the phenomenon of the Mollow spectrum and the way in which one side band or one side of the resonances are suppressed on the emission of photons during transitions in atoms.The ladder of triplets in the resonance fluorescence spectrum of a two-level atom

M Krishna Kumari et al 1993 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 26 85-99 doi:10.1088/0953-4075/26/1/008

Abstract. The fluorescence spectra of a two level atom interacting with amplitude modulated intense fields are presented. The spectra are multipeaked and can be in general described as a superposition of triplets. The incoherent spectra for the fully amplitude modulated field and those under conditions of parametric resonance are predicted to have a width that depends on the modulation intensity. This feature is different from the known intensity-independent widths of the peaks in the Mollow spectrum. The transient spectra for an atom placed in the dressed state of a partially amplitude modulated field are found to show variation in the peak height. In some cases, one of the peaks of each triplet is suppressed while in another situation, all the peaks lying to one side of the spectral centre are absent.

Print publication: Issue 1 (14 January 1993)

I am sorry that this area is one in which little is able to be found on-line without a steep cost. However this is the way in which the photons exhibit this very fine structure in high finesse situation as I have already stated. This is something that is not exhibited with RF transmitters that have symmetric sideband behavior. This is a property of the cavity in atoms.

QUOTE

[b]Radiative Corrections to Multi–Level Mollow–Type Spectra[/u]
Ulrich D. Jentschura,† J¨org Evers,‡ and Christoph H. Keitel§
Max–Planck–Institut f¨ur Kernphysik, Saupfercheckweg 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany
This paper is concerned with two rather basic phenomena: the incoherent fluorescence spectrum of an atom driven by an intense laser field and the coupling of the atom to the (empty) modes of the radiation field. The sum of the many-photon processes gives rise to the inelastic part of the atomic fluorescence, which, for a two-level system, has a well-known characteristic three-peak structure known as the Mollow spectrum. From a theoretical point of view, the Mollow spectrum finds a natural interpretation in terms of transitions among laser-dressed states which are the energy eigenstates of a second-quantized two-level system strongly coupled to a driving laser field. As recently shown, the quasi-energies of the laser-dressed states receive radiative corrections which are nontrivially different from the results which one would expect from an investigation of the coupling of the bare states to the vacuum modes. In this article, we briefly review the basic elements required for the analysis of the dynamic radiative corrections, and we generalize the treatment of the radiative corrections to the incoherent part of the steady-state fluorescence to a three-level system consisting of 1S, 3P and 2S states.
Radiative Corrections to Multi–Level Mollow–Type Spectra: Ulrich D. Jentschura et al

I would direct you to the bit in the Conclusion where it says...

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I would direct you to the bit in the Conclusion where it says...
One of the ‘classic’ experimental setups in the field involves a maser tuned near resonance to a transition between two Rydberg states, which provides a strong driving field, as well as a microwave cavity whose eigenmode is also close to the resonance. There are three frequencies relevant to the problem: (i) the frequency of the driving field, (ii) the atomic resonance frequency (corresponding to the transition between Rydberg states), and (iii) the eigenmode of the cavity. It is well known that spontaneous emission can be enhanced if the cavity eigenmode frequency is equal to a Mollow sideband [46].

When inside a microwave cavity with a mode that matches the sideband "gap" difference to the primary "optical" excitation, the atomic "cavities" upper or lower sideband the emission is enhanced by suppressing the other lower sideband. Now in the "wild" sidebands from different excitation sources often excite the cavities in which they are found making the scattered radiation favor neither band, in the case where a photon is actually excited in a cavity with excitation frequencies that favor one side of the central band of frequencies, excitation is enhanced by suppression of the lower band. What it implies is nature and atomic cavities are slightly different to electromagnetic antenna which are usually emitting a central frequency and a host of symmetric sidebands. In nature, in the absence of secondary resonant absorbers, the atomic cavity "shell" tends to reabsorb the lower sideband on emission of the photon in cavities flooded with coherent laser energy pitched at a slightly higher energy (the sideband energy gap). The emission is enhanced if this emission is enhanced. Using the higher sideband the emission is enhanced. If you use only the lower sideband the emission is suppressed (I guess that is a little obvious). I could show you some of this behavior in atomic modeling of eigenstates we have referenced before as animations. You have your steady state oscillations (time dependent part of the Schrodinger Wave solutions) and then we have the transitions. Of course if you pass these waves through secondary resonant cavities or even slits where these resonances may parasitically restore the lower sidebands and even completely redistribute the energy of the photon as we have seen previously in "thick slits" and their effects on this thread.

This latter paper has more than enough maths for me and all I am doing here is seeing it as saying it accepts that this conclusion I have drawn is supported... in conjunction with the first paper's other similar findings. I realize this is not a paper(s) that "wraps it up" neatly ... you need to read between the lines. If someone can find a better paper on this topic please feel free to tender it here. There is probably one out there somewhere but make sure you provide a download link to a "free" copy.

PS: We should not be too surprised by these results since this is implicit in the Photoelectric Effect and its reverse and atomic fluorescences where electrons are not emitted until the energy of the excitation is equal to but not less than E = hf. And conversely where the transition of the electron to the lower state from the upper state will emit a photon with the lower sideband suppressed. Please note these are incoherent transitions and not transitions due to powerful harmonic excitation and population inversion.

Cheers

Good Elf

24th March 2007 - 05:28 AM

Hi Confused2, Laserlight, yquantum, fivedoughnut, "THEY", Montec, TRoc, Aerohead, Neil Farbstein et al,

QUOTE (Confused2+)

IMHO it is quite easy to make a sync pulse out of sinewaves and very difficult to make a sinewave out of sync pulses... please show me the way.

You make a sync pulse out of an impulse ... in the time domain it looks like this...

The "boxcar" function (Impulse) and its transform... the sync function.

In the case of a one dimensional representation I have given this compelling argument for a finite length sinusoid construction composed of single sync pulses of opposite phase being able to minimize their collective potential energy in wavelets like this (click to enlarge)...

What we know is photons can travel this way without compromising or actually disturbing their mutual integrity. When this "synthesized wave" interacts when a single photon is absorbed it is removed from this "pattern" as if it was there all along. The photon has mo ability to "mix" with other photons but it does have the ability to pass through and occupy the same space as other bosons (superimposing its wavelets). I would also call your attention to the fact that the sync pulse is not symmetric relative to the horizontal axis it carries an intrinsic asymmetry (an area under the curve).

I would also like to comment that Fourier Decomposition can be generalized to as many dimensions as you need and it is 100% reversible and "lossless" as a process, swapping between "time" and "frequency" (reciprocal time) and space and "reciprocal space". It can also be mapped to "periodic surfaces" and hypersurfaces such as the sphere as spherical harmonics and is the mathematical basis of quantum theory.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalHarmonic.html

Cheers

Confused2

24th March 2007 - 11:29 AM

Hi Good Elf et al,

If we look at one of my diffraction pictures from my (assume CCD) camera.

user posted image

Maybe we can restrict ourselves to two issues here
1/ What determines how many photons arrive at a particular cell during the integration period
2/ What it is that is being counted (integrated).
Clearly the amount of light that arrives in a particular cell during the integration period may be determined by one function and 'what arrives' may be another function entirely.
Concentrating on the 'how much arrives' .. the method that works appears to involve taking the de Broglie wavelength of the 'whatever' and summing this over all paths to get a magnitude and phase at the point of (possible) detection. For mathematical simplicity we can use e^(iwx) (<- edited) and the evidence we have looked at so far suggests (to me) that nature has also taken this (mathematically) simplest course. So far 'sum over paths' is the only method that has enabled us to predict anything and for that reason it gets my vote.

So what arrives? We have already used the de Broglie wavelength to work out where it arrives so there is no need to claim the de Broglie wavelength is what arrives. Unfortunately it seems the desire to keep things 'classical' leads to attempts to use the de Broglie wavelength to describe what arrives as well as where it arrives. Is this a mistake?

Comments invited.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Good Elf

24th March 2007 - 07:09 PM

Hi Confused2,

If we look at the "ideal" photon as being a sync function propagating in a vacuum, it's de Broglie wave is not exactly like other particles. Since the photon's influence travels at the speed of light the packet has the unusual property of spreading and being "frozen" in time at the same instant. A moving electron is quite different to this and does not travel at the speed of light. It's internal component of "light" does travel at the speed of light but confined within that "reciprocal envelope".

The sync function propagating in our flatspace, which is our abstraction for the photon, does not experience time. This means whatever the internal component sinusoidal Fourier functions exist within it are... they not able to exhibit any spatial changes as it propagates in time (other than spreading). You can consider this simple one dimensional "wave" as if it was a kind of rigid piece of bent wire, bent into the shape of the sync function. This "wire" extends in both directions, forward and back along that wire and the main peak of the pulse is the "epicenter" where the photons energy is presently located.

As to spreading, IMHO the bosons all travel at the speed of light and spread in a similar way so they occupy the same general space (seeking all paths). There are usually many co-moving photons and they may differ in the exact nature of the source so there may be some geometric (Berry) phase differences between them. The individual Berry Phases which we cannot know is what determines exactly where the flash eventually ends up but it is due to some physical properties of the system. You can determine this if you make a "small protective measurement" and you will be able to determine a locality smaller than "seeking all paths".

During propagation the wavelets will self organize along each wavefront minimizing the potential energy of the collective wave. We are speaking of the wave aspect of this phenomenon not the "particle" aspect of the phenomenon.

You might ask "where is the particle?" The answer is we do not know since we are only "seeing" the wave. Now I am speaking loosely about "seeing"... we actually "see" nothing. Any true observations results in observations of photon "particles" which have lost the Boson state and collapsed of the sync wave for that single photon.

Naturally the collapse of the individual sync wave for a single isolated photon collapses globally out of the "collective sine wave" of all co-moving photons which is "still composed" of all the rest of the "unobserved" photons. It is the collapse of the wave functions for individual photons that we "count". Obviously we "count" something related to that phenomenon. Your camera is not counting each photon since the sensor will swamp once it receives a certain flux of photons.

Does the sensor count "individual" photons? Well that depends a lot on the kind of sensor and its sensitivity and its slew rate. In reality you are not that interested in actually counting numerically how many photons otherwise you would store the numbers individually for each pixel element. In reality this sensor chip has a non-linear response to light. It also does not count "coincidences" nor does it count "reflections" at the detector sensors either. When a "coincidence" occurs the detector may or may not respond to it (each individual sensor element has a particular sensitive area). When a reflection occurs then it cannot respond to it. A "swamped" pixel element can't respond to additional photons and this "might" cause reflection since individual photon absorption is not compelled to occur.... There may also be other additional classes of event occurring that I have not considered as well. This is an instrumentation problem not a theoretical problem.

Cheers

Confused2

25th March 2007 - 08:01 AM

Hi Good Elf,

Thanks for your reply. My reasons for temporarily abandoning the DSE is that I can take requests if anyone would like me to try anything with my laser/camera (except making a decent pinhole or slit - I've tried and I'd rather leave that to Teachspin et al).

I'll have a go at the questions in my previous post..

From http://www.mikrotron.de/index.php?en_bv_ca...ogies_highspeed

QUOTE

Each pixel or cell of CCD (Charge Coupled Device) sensor supplies an electrical charge which is analog to the number of photons which hit the sensitive area during one shutter period. This charge has to be read from the sensor - pixel by pixel - by elaborate readout electronics. There it is converted to a voltage and finally digitized to become a series of bits representing the respective cell's grey value.

Although I am not displaying numbers I would say that the device I am using is still a photon counter. The voltage on the cell is a function of the number of photons hitting the cell during the integration period, the voltage is converted to a digital value and we are looking at that value converted into a grey(ish) scale of brightness.. effectively a map of photon counts. Hopefully we won't have to dive off into semiconductor physics to establish the point. I should admit that the camera is actually a CMOS array type device though IMHO the principle remains the same. The images are so similar to those obtained by everyone else using all sorts of different methods that I don't think there are any problems with the instrument that cannot be dealt with by the application of a little bit of common sense.

Anyway, the pattern is very stable .. the laser was sitting on my desk and the image (previous post) was taken with me holding the camera in one hand and clicking the mouse with the other.. this would seem to exclude standing waves.

1/What determines how many photons arrive at a particular cell during the integration period?
Ignoring effects that make (say) less than 5% contribution to the observed result .. I would suggest the number of photons emitted by the source, the wavelength of the photons and 'geometry' are pretty much all we need to look at. The Teachspin DSE has rather better slits than I can produce and it would seem that wavelength and geometry give a good fit to the observed result (to within better than 5%), hopefully this is the type of experimental evidence we can use to justify any conclusions we might reach.

2/ What is being counted?
Um... photons?
We're obviously looking at something rather more subtle than a shadow of a badly poked pinhole. The observed 'ripples' in the image are about 200,000 nm across and the wavelength of the light is 650nm . The camera is a colour camera .. except where the image has saturated to white I see no evidence of new colours (frequencies) in the parts of the images where saturation has not occurred ( see http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=190808 ) though this may be because I am somewhat colourblind.

Probably enough controversy for one post.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Good Elf

25th March 2007 - 03:32 PM

Hi Confused2,

QUOTE (Confused2+)

I see no evidence of new colours (frequencies) in the parts of the images where saturation has not occurred ( see http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=190808 ) though this may be because I am somewhat colourblind.

That is a highly specialized camera... a very high speed monochrome camera. Firstly when we refer to color, the CCD Device is not able to determine any color at all, all light is simple intensity to these sensors. Usually cheap cameras including most probably your camera (no offense intended) use a special filter that filter photons into three bands... a red, a green and a blue band. A third of the pixels are sensitive to the red because the special filter screens out the other 2/3 of the photons in other bands. There would be a peak sensitivity in the middle of the red band. The same rule applies to the other pixels regards green and blue. The final color picture is then interpolated from these three bands by using a weighted average for each pixel using its nearest pixel neighbors. So the CCD is not really able to discriminate color in those bands just a relative red, green or blueness which has a center frequency in those respective bands which "rolls off" when the photons tend to higher or lower frequencies. For instance even the best color cameras cannot portray certain colors we can easily discern with our eyes. The illusion of color is mostly filled in by our brain.

To do a reasonable job with this image you need a camera to have a sensor that uses an interference filter to discern individual colors. Ideally we need a camera that records each and every frequency in the entire optical spectrum. Obviously not an easy job and the amount of data would be formidable for even a single high resolution picture. A complete practical multispectral picture requires complex optical systems that split the image into a number of simultaneous narrow bands. The different bands are subject to correction and renormalization and then combination. You end up with a data file like a Landsat picture. Such "cameras" exist and they are very expensive. Landsat Cameras are one example of these systems, there are others which are even more interesting.

Even this system does not do a very good job of exactly noting each and every frequency... it is confined to specific bands once again but at least this is a more "pure" construction. To "see" the frequencies in a laser beam you need to be able to discriminate optical frequencies that differ from the central "peak" by only microwave frequency differences. These are quite different scales and you need to be able to split these optical lines using a highly sensitive grating system. So with a 660 nm red laser the discrimination required is not possible in most systems. This usually means the frequencies are jumbled at that level of discrimination. Most optical systems have inherent noise in them and this is also a very important factor. The higher the frequency the greater the noise... this is an instrumentation problem.

The DSE is nowhere able to discriminate even the most rudimentary frequencies but a grating which does a similar job as the DSE is better but is still wanting in the end. The grating shows a quite different picture to that of a double slit in that the original broad bands will be replaced by ever sharpening line spectra. In the case of a 660 nm Laser much of the spectra is "empty" and as the grating gets better and better the bright lines get increasingly brighter and the gaps get much darker. Of course that is only for an ideal Fraunhofer Spectrum. For an idea of the problem here we have the solar spectrum...

... Click to enlarge.
Even this discrimination would be totally inadequate to discriminate microwave frequency differences between adjacent optical lines. That does not mean they are not there, the central peaks are "broad"... well enough to "cover" and "swamp" the sidebands. What appears in this image to be bands of continuous spectra is an illusion... we know that the solar spectrum and all spectra are discrete lines and not even piecemeal continuous. You can "guess" just how long this spectrum would need to be to "discriminate" all the primary oscillators in the solar spectrum there are. What I would say is as you move toward this ideal spectra the "peaks" of all discriminated lines would increase by many magnitudes as the "gaps" became more and more obvious.

Cheers

jal

25th March 2007 - 06:14 PM

relevant info
http://www.physics.ubc.ca/~berciu/PHILIP/C...WI03/index.html
"Quantum Mechanics on the Large Scale"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=relat...FILES/baccia.ps
The Role of Decoherence in the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics

Confused2

25th March 2007 - 11:07 PM

Hi Good Elf et al,

I do agree my little camera can't analyse the frequencies you or I might be interested in - I'm not so sure about TRoc though.

Hopefully it will be OK with everyone if we move (slowly!) into the realms of 'predict and test' using the results we already have ..

A 'wavelength and geometry' analysis of the DSE starts here:-
http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses...res/node30.html

Points of particular interest to me are
1/ "Provided the distance between the slits and point P is less than the coherence length (see Eq. 2.78 ) of the source, interference effects are observed, because the path lengths of traversed by the waves from the two slits reaching point differ. "
Hands on experience with a laser shows that with a laser you get interference absolutely everywhere and with any other source it's rather difficult to find. Possibly my brown (beer bottle) filter is less than ideal for generating monochromatic light. I think it would be useful to look at the way Kennedy-Thorndike produced their (obviously) coherent light. Also I am still not clear what the full function of that first slit is.
2/ To get round the need to compare the path differences to a point on the screen and to give a result result solely in terms of angle theta they have used the approximation
r1-r2 ~= dsin (theta) ..
I would have preferred an analysis to an actual point on the screen but since this is all done for us I'm not going to complain too much .. as long as we see the 'trick'.

The 'starter' analysis leads logically to a full blown analysis (including slit width) here:- http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses...res/node32.html

Comments invited.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Confused2

26th March 2007 - 10:13 AM

A while back TRoc suggested that we could open up a slit (or two) in our 'screen' and make a either a diffraction pattern or a secondary DSE within a DSE. The hero of the foregoing analysis rather lost the possibility of analysing this situation by losing the real path length difference in his approximation r1-r2 ~= dsin (theta) .. bit of a nuisance that. My analysis here ( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=183204 ) stays with the path length difference right up to the screen (hence needs to know the distance to the screen). In fairness I haven't done a full integration over the width of the slits (just assumed point sources) despite this simplification IMHO retaining the path length to the bitter end gives a more 'physical' result. By retaining true path length (rather than angle) we can open up new slits in the screen and analyse a secondary DSE with no conceptual problems. I will attempt this analysis if challenged but there's not much point if (as I suspect) nobody will attempt to follow it.

I haven't forgotten extra dimensions etc. but I am starting to feel that we need to establish a degree of competence and confidence in the result we are seeking so we can more easily distinguish between reality and red herring.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Good Elf

26th March 2007 - 04:05 PM

Hi Confused2,

QUOTE (Confused2+)

I think it would be useful to look at the way Kennedy-Thorndike produced their (obviously) coherent light. Also I am still not clear what the full function of that first slit is.

We have been all through this before. Kennedy-Thorndike Interferometer, it is an Interferometer Experiment not a DSE. It gave a null result. Interference has nothing to do with path length as such otherwise this process would fail for single photons, anyway this experiment has to do with detecting aether. It is very clear from all the previous discussion photons self interfere not mutually interfere. You do not need lasers to do the DSE, any old monochromatic light will do as long as you allow far field conditions to apply it will become spontaneously partially coherent (some refer to it as "clumping"). I prefer to think of this as the principle of least action.
Bandwidth Limits
This is clearly an expression of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relationship. But like the lecturer himself says this is not "uncertainty" it is a classical effect of a quantum phenomenon.
Wikipedia: Quantum Tunneling
Wikipedia: WKB Equation

QUOTE (Confused2+)

To get round the need to compare the path differences to a point on the screen and to give a result result solely in terms of angle theta they have used the approximation
r1-r2 ~= dsin (theta) ..
I would have preferred an analysis to an actual point on the screen but since this is all done for us I'm not going to complain too much .. as long as we see the 'trick'.

What "trick"? I do not see your point there. It is a function you evaluate throughout all space but obviously is only applicable within certain limits. These limits are too restrictive to be fully meaningful if we want to go anywhere "interesting". I would hope that you could take this as given.

In other respects the maths you have dug up is quite adequate... very adequate. It is not a "starter" analysis, your path length concept it is not a way to an understanding of of the general phenomena, the optical theory needs to be accepted in whole. This page format is not capable enough to discuss the maths. The maths is in the pages you have tendered (it is a full course). I have grown very weary of this circular argument. No offense intended but we better drop this thread... It is going nowhere and nobody is following anyway. I can't share your enthusiasm. I am not a mathematician anyway (not that anyone need be with Physics... this is the standard treatment just taken a step further). The principles given are all that can be discussed.

QUOTE (Confused2+)

I haven't forgotten extra dimensions etc. but I am starting to feel that we need to establish a degree of competence and confidence in the result we are seeking so we can more easily distinguish between reality and red herring.

I do not have the time to analyze herrings of any color. There are other exciting developments and I work for a living so I need my time to keep up. While we have been talking on this thread there have been so many interesting things happening that herrings should be the last things on your mind.

We are like some myopic reader closely inspecting the alphabetical characters on the page for hidden patterns when the overall paper's informational content is missed entirely. For me the important point is extra dimensions.

Cheers

Neil Farbstein

27th March 2007 - 04:55 AM

QUOTE (Good Elf+Mar 26 2007, 04:05 PM)

Hi Confused2,

What "trick"? I do not see your point there. It is a function you evaluate throughout all space but obviously is only applicable within certain limits. These limits are too restrictive to be fully meaningful if we want to go anywhere "interesting". I would hope that you could take this as given.

In other respects the maths you have dug up is quite adequate... very adequate. It is not a "starter" analysis, your path length concept it is not a way to an understanding of of the general phenomena, the optical theory needs to be accepted in whole. This page format is not capable enough to discuss the maths. The maths is in the pages you have tendered (it is a full course). I have grown very weary of this circular argument. No offense intended but we better drop this thread... It is going nowhere and nobody is following anyway. I can't share your enthusiasm. I am not a mathematician anyway (not that anyone need be with Physics... this is the standard treatment just taken a step further). The principles given are all that can be discussed.

QUOTE (Confused2+)

Bohm has talked about folded and unfolded structures. if you view the genome as a folded structure that unfolds as it develops how many dimensions would you use to characterize it? there are 30,000 genes and probably 100,000 small RNAs that are important in human development. Incidentally I've been checking the genetic information content of some important genes I designed all day today.

Good Elf

27th March 2007 - 07:10 AM

Hi Neil, Confused2 et al,

QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)

Umm... those are "parametric dimensions" not spatial dimensions, sort of like the ones Zephir speaks of for his theory LQG. Bohmian Mechanics are provisionally only hidden variables so they may or may not be actual dimensional spaces, its a free choice in Mathematics. Physics though has to face a number of additional experimental facts that add more restraints on what these parameters might be. I think these are harmonically connected dimensional spaces occurring in triplets, nine spatial and one temporal making 10 "Einstein" dimensions in an extended spacetime only three of which we are ordinarily able to see and another reciprocally embedded six dimensional object that share these three dimensions with us (sub-atomic particles and their supersymmetric partners... their accompanying "harmonic shells"). It does not stop there though... there are more in a Holographic "Optical" Universe based on Anti-de Sitter spaces (AdS/CFT) of Juan Maldacena.
Wikipedia: AdS/CFT correspondence
These fit with Fourier Theory like a hand in a glove.

Space is a closed "box". This is like a bug on the inside of a balloon. We are like little bugs forced to wander on the inside in a "flatspace". It is unbounded finite. No way out through any translation or rotation. Our Universe is like that and I believe that particles are like that too. "As above so below". One extreme example is a wheel with spokes that is spun such that the rim which is contrived to be massless reaches the speed of light. length contraction occurs in the direction of the tangent while there is no contraction along the radii (spokes), standard Special Relativity. Combine this with Berry Phase the external circumference can shrink to nearly zero since this is the length in the direction of motion while the interior volume is dictated by a Lorentzian Geometry of Instantons. This problem has been analyzed previously on this thread. because of relativistic rotation through an angle arctan(V/C), no world line can leave the interior of this space and the space on the outside may or may not have positive definite volume. This boundary is a light cone wall, a "stationary state" in which information usually does not pass unless it is by a quantum process where it tunnels out through a resonance. Intrinsically linked with Singular Optics and the experimental work of Dr. Taco Visser. This is just like an electron where it has no measurable volume, other particles have different properties. Solitons also can be one end of a spectrum of phenomena which includes particle anti-particle creation and Lorentz Invariant CPT.

Cheers

Confused2

27th March 2007 - 01:23 PM

QUOTE (Good Elf+)

Interference has nothing to do with path length as such otherwise this process would fail for single photons.

IMHO this finally severs any tenuous link to experimental evidence.

-C2

Good Elf

27th March 2007 - 04:00 PM

Hi Confused2,

QUOTE

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Interference has nothing to do with path length as such otherwise this process would fail for single photons. IMHO this finally severs any tenuous link to experimental evidence.

I really do not understand why. If it was simple path length, a single photon could not engage in interference since as you have acknowledged yourself in the past, that the Hanbury-Brown Interferometer indicates clearly single photon interference would be impossible with vastly different length arms of the instrument. The paths lengths down the different arms can be made so different that the single photon has no hope of self interference it that was the reason for this phenomena. The timings are such that if this was a traveling disturbance that "mixed" with itself this can be arranged such that the photon "interference" which is undeniable, can't physically occur if the different paths down each tube can never cross in time on in space. Therefore it must be something else and it is related to a single photon since interference fringes can occur even with single photons building up the picture. This is just a certain stubbornness that we humans have to not accept what we usually cannot see. Yet this behavior of photons can be proven.

This quantum interference exists in the space of the instrument at all times waiting for the passage of the photon to play a role. To me the "interference" is simply the phenomenon of standing waves in a cavity, the cavity itself has created an unseen geometry of its own accord that exhibits a special geometry to every photon (through the superposition of states) and is not the photon itself that is the cause of interference as traveling photon waves. It is possible that the dual nature of matter itself is what does this (its supersymmetry mentioned previously which has a boson for every fermion and a fermion for every boson).

Take for instance a single proton particle that is composed of quarks (fermions). This is always surrounded by a hybridized series of bosonic resonant cavities and this structure can trap electrons and photons. This is atomic theory. Even if you strip away all electrons and photons this structure still exists "unseen". Even the proton (and other particles), when interacting with very energetic photons, can trap them in its "nucleus". In the case of single photon experiments the passing of the single photon through this "spatial structure" simply "illuminates it". The detection of the photons provides us with tangible mapping of the spaces. We have seen these structures in pictures I have supplied previously in cavities from excellent experimental work. These are space filling structures.

... click to enlarge...

It is "nothing" to go from that concept to see that any cavity of any size that is composed of "fermion assemblage" walls has associated bosonic cavities already in place as a "dual". There are a few rules of thumb that work quite well and the DSE simple formula is one of them. Usually we think of atomic cavities as the only kind but since electromagnetism comes in all wavelengths then this dual structure can fill any space resonantly.

Cheers

Confused2

27th March 2007 - 08:50 PM

Due to the total lack of demand .. the C2 optics lab is back.

Young's blobs

... click to enlarge...

Young's blobs - detail

... click to enlarge...

Looking at the detail picture- my explanation..
Let us guess that the big blob in the bottom right is (say) positive phase addition (plus 'burn'), this leaves the ring above it as negative phase addition. The finer lines are alternating positive and negative peaks. The positive peaks have added to the blob (positive) and subtracted from the ring, conversely the negative fine detail peaks have added to the ring and subtracted from the blob.

As far as I am aware - standing waves have magnitude but no phase - I invite a standing wave explanation.

The colours are the result of 'something else' which I will explain if given no alternative.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Neil Farbstein

27th March 2007 - 09:08 PM

QUOTE (Good Elf+Mar 27 2007, 07:10 AM)

Hi Neil, Confused2 et al,

QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)

How could the rim be massless? What do you obtain if real world conditions are used in your equations?

Good Elf

28th March 2007 - 01:51 AM

Hi Neil,

QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)

How could the rim be massless? What do you obtain if real world conditions are used in your equations?

Real world results have a limit to the conditions that would apply to light or to photons. This is the same real world conditions where light actually follow the same geodesic as a rock projected in spacetime... The only difference between a massless photon and a rock "falling" through spacetime is is the difference in velocity. As V(rock) -> C the geodesic of the rock and light "converge". This has been known since the time of Galileo when he reputedly dropped two differently sized cannonballs from a great height and noted they hit the ground at the same time proving the "physics" of Aristotle was wrong (that things fall at different rates proportional to their mass)... nobody ever bothered to check and see that all objects (in the absence of friction) fall at the same rate.

Much is made of "curved spacetime" but to notice any curvature there is an implicit assumption that "straight" actually means the line along which light travels. Being "immersed in curved spacetime will not allow you to "see" departure from "straightness" and so a curved trajectory implies that we are dealing with two different frames of reference. The frames may be in relative acceleration or they may not. This result is very important and shows the relationship between Special Relativity and even massless particles. Gravity is a pseudo-force since everything is affected in the same way so departure from 'straight' indicate "forces" to many, however this must be qualified by first comparing the two frames of references being discussed.

This principle also applies to photons and is proven by the deflection of light by gravitating bodies, one of Einsteins classic predictions. Space tells particles how to move and mass tells space how to curve. The subtlety is a "straight line " drawn in a curved manifold will possibly appear straight from another manifold in relative acceleration and naturally visa versa. The general principle of equivalence. It is a common misconception that most people believe in Aristotle and think that mass tells particles how to move. This is taught to us as children and is part of our schooling but is totally wrong. Much of this result indicates that a rock and a photon fall at exactly the same rate. So when I am speaking of a rotating frame of reference the massless part of it refers to the behavior of light in the geometry not of matter. Still it is just a limiting case. Now as to who sees acceleration and who does not see the acceleration is the next important result. Two observers may measure relative accelerations from different frames of reference of another particle in relative motion but it does not follow that we have a non-inertial situation. In the case of rotating frames of reference a great deal of care is required to correctly determine what is happening. So the "rim" of such a rotating system initially suggests that all co-moving photons are in a rest frame... I don't think so... This would be an incorrect conclusion.

In the case stated, analysis of this phenomenon indicate that Special Relativity is all that is necessary to analyze the problem provided this is correctly treated. So we are only left to determine what it is that makes light move along such geodesics since these do occur in nature, even in such simple optical systems. These lead to stationary states and photon trapping. Previously I have referred to papers that deal with this state. I do not have the reference here but I will find it later when I am able to search through my references.

Cheers

Good Elf

28th March 2007 - 03:40 PM

Hi Neil Farbstein,

This is the reference...

QUOTE

The Curvature of the Relativistic Rotating Disk
Brian Keating
Mentor: Dr. Teymour Darkhosh

1. Introduction
The case of a rigid disk rotating at relativistic speeds raises a number of interesting paradoxes and has long been plagued with misunderstandings. According to special relativity, measuring rods laid out along the rim of the disk will be Lorentz
contracted according to the usual formula, but those laid out along the radius will not, as these are perpendicular to the (instantaneous) direction of motion. Thus, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of the disk will no longer be pi. This paradox was first introduced in 1909 by Paul Ehrenfest, and is referred to as Ehrenfest’s paradox [1].
The Ehrenfest paradox was known to Einstein, and he actually used the case of a rotating disk in his seminal 1916 paper to introduce the necessity for non-Euclidian geometry in general relativity (GR) [2]. However, he never published a paper directly addressing the rotating disk. Other physicists, such as Strauss [3], argued that if the measuring rods were contracted, then so were the distances they were measuring, so the ratio C/D would still be pi.
[...]
From figure 4, it is immediately apparent that the end of a measuring tape laid out along the periphery of the disk will not meet up with its other end at the same point in time. The two ends will be separated by a timelike path whose length is given by equation (5.2). When ω = 0, the worldlines of the points on the edge of the disk are straight lines, and the locus of events simultaneous to the flash is a closed spacelike curve. But as soon as the disk is set into rotation the spacelike path changes its topology and becomes an open curve, so that the definition of simultaneity becomes a matter of convention; it depends on where one starts the integration carried out in section 5. Notice also that, combining figures 3 and 4, the angle that the light beams, Σ+ and Σ- make with the timelike γ ’s (in fig 3) is equal to the angle between the beams and the “circumference”(in fig 4); that is, the speed of light as measured in the tangential inertial frames is simply c.
While this is all rather clear in four dimensional space-time, it is less obvious what these results mean for an experimenter on the disk. Consider an experimenter equipped with an infinite number of small measuring rods and two identical synchronized clocks. As he transverses the disk at a non-relativistic rate (relative to the rim of the disk), he lays down the measuring rods and carries one clock with him. Upon reaching his starting destination, he will conclude that the length of the rods he has laid down is the length of the circumference, namely
user posted image

However, he will also note that his clock lags behind the stationary clock by an amount given by (5.2).

... Click to enlarge...
We therefore see that the curvature obtained by the methods suggested in Moller are a result of artificially “forcing” the endpoints A and B in figure 4 together.
[...]
7. Conclusion
Like most relativistic paradoxes, the Ehrenfest paradox arises due to ambiguities in defining simultaneity. It is clear that most of the physicists who have previously considered the rotating disk implicitly assumed that the circumference of the disk is a well-defined geometric entity. However, by contemplating rather simple Minkowski diagrams, one comes to appreciate that a self-consistent, natural definition of simultaneity is not possible for a rapidly rotating frame. One can force an extended splitting of space-time, but the results will not necessarily coincide with any experimentally observable feature of the system (indeed, this is how the curvature calculated in section 4 appeared).
The best way to view the paradoxes of the rotating disk is as a variant on the twin paradox. It is in the changing from inertial frame to inertial frame that time is “lost.”
In the words of Rizzi and Tartaglia [5],
“…a rotating disk does not admit a well defined `proper frame’; rather, it should be regarded as a class of an infinite number of local proper frames, considered in different points at different times, and glued together according to some convention.”

http://www.smcm.edu/nsm/physics/SMP03S/KeatingB.doc.pdf

Please look at the figures as well, they are very helpful. It is easy to understand from this reference how the topology of space can change under rotation.

Cheers

Neil Farbstein

28th March 2007 - 04:16 PM

QUOTE (Good Elf+Mar 28 2007, 01:51 AM)

Hi Neil,

QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)

How could the rim be massless? What do you obtain if real world conditions are used in your equations?

its amazing how much physics you keep track of. What in a rest frame in your exapmle Elf?

Neil Farbstein

28th March 2007 - 04:18 PM

QUOTE (Good Elf+Mar 28 2007, 01:51 AM)

Hi Neil,

QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)

How could the rim be massless? What do you obtain if real world conditions are used in your equations?

its amazing how much physics you keep track of. What's in a rest frame in your example Elf?

Laserlight

28th March 2007 - 10:54 PM

Light Seems to Pass through Solid Metal

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/200703...fJT.NlG5GnMWM0F

LL

yquantum

29th March 2007 - 02:14 AM

Just wanted to greet everyone and hope all is well!

ciao_
yquantum

Confused2

29th March 2007 - 01:37 PM

I'm sorry if this post is a bit unpleasant .. I would like to make some progress on the DSE front.

QUOTE (Good Elf+)

This quantum interference exists in the space of the instrument at all times waiting for the passage of the photon to play a role. To me the "interference" is simply the phenomenon of standing waves in a cavity, the cavity itself has created an unseen geometry of its own accord that exhibits a special geometry to every photon (through the superposition of states) and is not the photon itself that is the cause of interference as traveling photon waves.

No comparison of this prediction with the experimental results so no progress.

From:- (warning - it's a huge file) http://web.archive.org/web/20050124042837/..._twiss_1957.pdf

QUOTE (HBT+)

From the point of view of the corpuscular picture the interpretation is much less starightforward but it is shown that the correlation is directly related to the to the so called bunching of photons which arises because light quanta are mutually indistinguishable and obey Bose-Einstein statistics.

From:- http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=192778

QUOTE (Good Elf+)

You do not need lasers to do the DSE, any old monochromatic light will do as long as you allow far field conditions to apply it will become spontaneously partially coherent (some refer to it as "clumping"). I prefer to think of this as the principle of least action.

Bose-Einstein statistics or the principle of least action? One alternative might lead in the direction of understanding the effects we are looking at .. the other probably won't. We can certainly look at both alternatives .. I would be tempted to give greater emphasis to the one that actually predicts experimental results - we have no better way to choose between 'possibly correct' and 'wrong'.

We can look at effect after effect and understand NONE of them .. or we could at least try to understand ONE (the DSE?).

-C2.

Good Elf

29th March 2007 - 02:07 PM

Hi yquantum,

QUOTE (yquantum+)

Just wanted to greet everyone and hope all is well!

The DSE is certainly a long distance event. It is a very controversial topic and it is hard to say more than what others have already said. What I can truthfully say is I feel a lot better to know there are some others out there still following along and taking an interest. Thanks for that... It is appreciated.... always.

It goes doubly for all those who are still with this since it is very hard to make progress in such an arcane area that many would think may not hold out any prospect for further understanding.

Cheers

Good Elf

29th March 2007 - 02:54 PM

Hi Laserlight, yquantum, Confused2, Neil Farbstein et al,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)

Light Seems to Pass through Solid Metal

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/200703...fJT.NlG5GnMWM0F

LL

I can see that you are thinking strongly about the influence of Plasmons again. What I would stress is what a Plasmon really is is the resonance of an "electron gas" in and around a metallic boundary. Even more so for surface Plasmons. "Plasmons have been considered as a means of transmitting information on computer chips, since plasmons can support much higher frequencies (into the 100 THz range, while conventional wires become very lossy in the tens of GHz). - Wikipedia: Plasmons" I think this phenomenon is very significant in the Terahertz Range. The eventual control of Terahertz radiation will be a considerable breakthrough when it finally "comes out of the closet". The phenomenon is one extreme of a continuum of resonant effects. The DSE must be considered in general terms as a spatial resonance since the more slits incorporated in an experiment the more like a diffraction grating it becomes. We are not normally aware of the resonances internal to this process because of the way it is always incorrectly being considered as the crossing of multiple traveling waves.

I am more impressed with the idea that we are dealing with the hybridization of overlapping boson states associated with protons which are the simplest kind of "atom" - hydrogen (which is the only one we can solve for exactly). Matter contains many "compounded atoms" and the nucleus of these "atoms" contain many protons which may be considered as "proto-hydrogen atoms". The protons are fermions and cannot exist in the same space together and the atomic shells of a proton atom are boson in nature and overlap in space as "cavities". Regular arrays of these fermions (walls and barriers) lead to mutual bosonic interference and to the standing waves inside cavities. I am not suggesting for a second that this is simple but I think it is the origin of quantum interferences and why matter behaves like ir does. Surface Plasmons are in there too as surface resonances which are stationary states which are quantum in nature. These can lead in some extreme cases to macro phenomena such as bright matter solitons, maybe even "ball lightning". They represent a continuum of emergent behavior right up to de Broglie waves and so on. Unfortunately I do get a "sore head" when I try to think about it.

Cheers

Rev Binary

29th March 2007 - 03:20 PM

QUOTE

I have a thought on the two slit experiment with an electron. What if I set up the two slit experiment so I indirectly measure whether an electron passes through one slit or the other slit, but rather than observing the measurement, I simply have the equipment record the result.

The result would be the same. The recording device would cause the wave function to collapse thus acting as the observer. Of course you looking at the recording would have no effect of the outcome of the dual slit exp.

: }>

Hey why no avatars? I post in many other forums even ones with this format, this is the only forum that I have joined that does not have avatars...what are we men or mice? (avatars or font). Are we only font to live our pathetic little new times roman or Arial , lives out as a sad anonymous virtual entity, not even to have the dignity of an avatar for comfort and dignity?

Sigh…

; [>

Laserlight

29th March 2007 - 03:42 PM

Rev Binary,

[font=Geneva]What Avatar's are you asking for?

LL

Confused2

29th March 2007 - 06:27 PM

Hi Rev Binary,

The story so far..

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

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

Looking at quantum decoherence we see a mention of "thermodynamically irreversible'' and by that I assume we mean some process whereby a result is plucked from the quantum Never-Never Land and (say) printed out on paper which we can subsequently tear up and use as nesting material.

Here ( http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm ) is an example of how far you can go (or perhaps just the tip of the iceberg of how far you can go) in Never-Never Land before you get 'commitment' about what is going to turn up on your nesting material.

A while back it seemed like it might be a good idea to try to find out how Thomas Young could have used the DSE to work out the wavelength of light .. most of us are still working on that.

Others of us (well possibly just me) are looking at the results of the DSE conducted with single photons ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml ) and the results here ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) in an attempt to pin down the properties of a 'photon'/wave function.

Any light would be most welcome.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Times New Roman - the font of all wisdom?

Rev Binary

29th March 2007 - 09:53 PM

Hi C2 and all ... The basics of QFT (quantum field theory) are not difficult to understand. However the interpetations are becoming more delineated, but I still suscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation which tells us that quantum mechanical events are real not mathematical expressions, that is when a quantum (relativistic) particle is in superposition it really is neither here nor there, and remains in super position until an observer collapses the wave function and causes it to be either or.

Anyway , I look forward to getting to know all of you.

: }>

Confused2

30th March 2007 - 02:35 PM

Hi Rev Binary,

QFT .. I'd very much like to go there

.

Probably best to start with the easy stuff..

... click to enlarge...

Taken from http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml .. single photon DSE.

We see a peak in the middle marked P0 .. there's a smaller hump on the left of it, maybe call him P1, and another on the left of that .. we can imagine them going up to Pn .. any suggestions as to how they get there?

Best wishes,
-C2.

Rev Binary

31st March 2007 - 01:18 AM

I am not sure what you are asking. A better question may be where is a particle when in super position? Do you think that is really neither or, or do you think that this superposition is only a mathematical entity?

: }>

Good Elf

31st March 2007 - 01:33 AM

Hi Laserlight, yquantum, Confused2, Neil Farbstein et al,

You realize how things develop when you are looking up "stuff" well these are some interesting facts regarding experimentally developing systems that involve "absorption". We take spreading packets with a divergent wavefront and then mix these "signals with the upper band of a microwave absorption spectra as I have only recently stated, and we get something like "Plasmons" that are non-divergent... So called Michelangelo Packets. What this implies is in moving from a flat spreading topology to a spatially confined topology this requires only the addition of sidebands to the packet to add those modes to the structure. This is the situation where a double slit which are two mall apertures, encounter a roughly parallel wavefront of spreading photons.

QUOTE

Observation of Nonspreading Wave Packets in an Imaginary Potential
R. St¨utzle,? M.C. G¨obel, Th. H¨orner, E. Kierig, I. Mourachko, and M.K. Oberthaler
Kirchhoff-Institut f¨ur Physik, Universit¨at Heidelberg,
Im Neuenheimer Feld 227, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany†
M.A. Efremov,1 M.V. Fedorov,1 V.P. Yakovlev,2 K.A.H. van Leeuwen,3 and W.P. Schleich4
1General Physics Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, 38 Vavilov Street, Moscow, 119991 Russia
2Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (State University), 31 Kashirskoe shosse, Moscow, 115409 Russia
3Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands and
4Abteilung f¨ur Quantenphysik, Universit¨at Ulm, D-89069 Ulm, Germany
(Dated: April 6, 2006)
We propose and experimentally demonstrate a method to prepare a nonspreading atomic wave packet. Our technique relies on a spatially modulated absorption constantly chiseling away from an initially broad de Broglie wave. The resulting contraction is balanced by dispersion due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This quantum evolution results in the formation of a nonspreading wave packet of Gaussian form with a spatially quadratic phase. Experimentally, we confirm these
predictions by observing the evolution of the momentum distribution. Moreover, by employing interferometric techniques, we measure the predicted quadratic phase across the wave packet. Nonspreading wave packets of this kind also exist in two space dimensions and we can control their amplitude and phase using optical elements.
arXiv:quant-ph/0412138 v3 19 Sep 2005
Link to paper

This is related back to simple optical processes showing the correlation to optics. Here we see a mode change from waves traveling in a flatspace to selftrapping of waves in space by adding an upper sideband to the waves to produce a "soliton". The Heisenberg Uncertainly Relationship is no longer the determining feature as resonance "purifies" the state. The phase of the system is tracked rather than the intensity to show that we are dealing with "Imaginary Potentials".

So there are two distinct situations, one where there is "simple" double slit diffraction where "absorption" into stationary states is not an issue and one where the "absorption" process takes a significant role leading to "stationary states"... quanta. In the former case we end up with this "ideal situation" where there are "no apparent plasmons"...
Optical Analog of Uncertainty Principle - Harvard

We see the redistribution of "linear" momentum resulting in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relationship. This is a very "classical" kind of result when interpreted in that way... Then we have non-linear momentum transfer resulting in "absorption" into the wave packets of additional modes.... this can result in considerable Orbital Angular Momentum and even to spatial "trapping" within what appears to be "particle walls".
KNOTTED OPTICAL VORTICES
Light Beams in High-Order Modes
These are accompanied by Instanton like actions...
Topological solitons in the Heisenberg ferromagnetic - the n field theory and Instantons
Instantons are involved with tunneling phenomena and I think this is where it all comes to a head. The "spaces" in which these phenomena occur are not "flat'. Have a look at the applet and consider this as a 2D analog of the 3D situation. Note the existence of topological charge. These spaces are involved in "rotations" in spacetime. This ties into the question that Neil Farbstein asked...
What's in a rest frame in your example Elf?
In the case of "optical vortices" it is difficult to say since the problem as stated is underspecified as is the optical vortex. Dr Taco Visser and his work shows that these regions of space cannot be inferred from a straight application of electromagnetic theory. The boundary conditions alone outside the region will not have solutions inside that boundary defined by Instantons. You can solve the EM equations if you specifically place sources within that region such as "topological charges" and some rotating charge sources. This is not the answer since these "fictions" do not provide a full description of those "internal regions"... There are really no "permanent" charges there. This is analogous to the situation in the paper by J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark,
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?

There are other "solutions" across these regions that absolutely require tunneling through these barriers resulting in faster than light propagation over short distances. These are "electromagnetic wormholes" or even "optical anti-matter" noted by Pendry connecting non-local points across space instantly. This work interfaces with experimental and theoretical some work by John Pendry, Robert W. Boyd, Dr. Taco Visser and others. I am not appealing to any unsubstantiated theory but I am drawing a few threads together here. This must also be combined with the knowledge that these optical vortices can occur in the vacuum and do not absolutely require material/matter with special optical properties.

Cheers

Confused2

31st March 2007 - 01:37 AM

Hi Rev Binary,

I maintain the original question was a (very) good one. It is not sufficient to superpose either wave or particle because in either case we should only see (perhaps) P0. P1 represents either the phi + 2 pi phase of a continuous wave superposing with the phi phase (how come we suddenly have a continuous wave?) or P1 represents a particle that has travelled one distance at 'c' and another (different) distance at 'c' by another path. We have a choice of spontaneous continuous waves and/or 'c' suddenly being 'all over the place'. We also have P2,P3..Pn to worry about.

For what it is worth.. IMHO the effect is absolutely real.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Good Elf

31st March 2007 - 04:31 AM

Hi Laserlight, yquantum, Confused2, Neil Farbstein et al,

Some demonstration that indicates how the Harmonic Oscellator with it's superposition of states results in stable packets... Fiddle with the "cavity" and see how this process works...
Glauber States: Coherent states of Quantum Harmonic Oscillator
These states exist and addition of extra bands to the wave state can influence the way in which the packets propagates or even spreads. Note also from the applet just how a single wave state (buttons at top) produces standing waves in any cavity... potential well.

Remember this previously...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...m_of_violin.png
Wikipedia: Musical Acoustics

For those with the correct background have a look at this recent test of "Quantum Gravity" and I will let you decide just where the quantum comes from... below the Planck Length or from above the Planck Length or even at the scale of common kitchen utensils.
Gravity passes a little test: Clive Speake, Nature Vol 446/1 March 2007.Pp 31-32
A discrepancy that would need an extension of the zero point energy requirements to over an extra 120 orders of magnitude beyond the Planck Scale to be of significance in quantum events. The Standard Model "crashes and burns" at trying and explain this "discrepancy". I believe that the assumptions at that level of the Universe are not tenable and are unjustified. We are looking for angels dancing on the head of a pin here. No amount of looking or postulation will find them. Quantum Theory is an extension of semi-Classical Theory of Resonance in a Spacetime Continuum.

Cheers

Confused2

1st April 2007 - 12:09 PM

Here we have a experimental results:-
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=193233

Black card with two holes of unequal sizes (say 0.1mm and 02mm) which are about 0.5 mm apart. 650nm laser .. camera area about 2.5mm^2 located about 100mm away from the slits.

Explanation of experimental results invited - surely a matter of some interest on this thread - instead we're off looking at gravity.

Please have a go at explaining 'on topic' experimental results.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Zephir

1st April 2007 - 01:02 PM

QUOTE (Confused2+Mar 27 2007, 11:50 PM)

As far as I am aware - standing waves have magnitude but no phase - I invite a standing wave explanation

Standing wave in foam are having the phase defined with respect of the center of mass/energy density. Did you forget my explanation of quantum entanglement?

Good Elf

1st April 2007 - 02:59 PM

Hi Confused2,

QUOTE (Confused2+)

As far as I am aware - standing waves have magnitude but no phase - I invite a standing wave explanation

Umm... Magnitude is "Intensity" which is the square of the "phase".... an "inner product" of the "electric and magnetic fields" for each individual photon... The illuminated "shadow on the wall". That is what you "see" in the screen as the sum of very many tiny flashes of light all adding up to that "intensity" on the screen. All you are seeing is the individual collapse of the wavefunction of each individual photon which is all around that wavefront seeking all paths... collapsing to the "eye" of the photon. This is the point where the field lines propagating as "loops" finally ground and dissipate their energy into the "sink". The photons move through the "space" of the cavity in which there are existing "standing waves" not of light but of geometry in which that radiation is propagating similar to that "structure" which surrounds atoms (eg: protons and their "hybridized shells"). These "standing waves" in cavities reflect the "space" not the light propagating through it. The light conforms to the geometry of the space.

Cheers

Confused2

1st April 2007 - 03:30 PM

QUOTE (Confused2+Mar 27 2007, 08:50 PM)

Hi Good Elf,

Yes, I get the shadow on the wall bit

... click to enlarge...

.. it was actually the lines running from top left to bottm right that I thought needed some sort of explanation.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Good Elf

1st April 2007 - 03:43 PM

Hi Confused2,

QUOTE (Confused2+)

Hi Good Elf,

Yes, I get the shadow on the wall bit

... click to enlarge...

.. it was actually the lines running from top left to bottom right that I thought needed some sort of explanation.

Best wishes,
-C2.

The two pinholes are running from bottom left to top right. That is just the double slit experiment only we are using pinholes. The DSE is just a section of a line joining the two pinholes then extended to a patch on the screen surface. IMHO fully explained as two displaced coherent sources.

The other "explanation" may be what you are seeking ... there are no shadows without light. A shadow contains the light as part of the description. Bit of a philosophical idea there, don't you think? No light without darkness.

Cheers

PS: I should add that this means that the darkness in the Universe is just as much a part of the solution as is the light. "Seek all paths" means "literally all paths". While a photon "particle" may not exist there does not mean that it plays no role in the solution. Remember "Protective Measurements". There are waves "everywhere" but a particle is not "everywhere"... even if we are just considering only one photon at a time.

Confused2

1st April 2007 - 04:42 PM

Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

QUOTE

The values of the wave function are probability amplitudes ; complex numbers whose square gives the probability distribution that the system will be in any of the possible states.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The values of the wave function are probability amplitudes ; complex numbers whose square gives the probability distribution that the system will be in any of the possible states.

For simple systems (eg the DSE) we can calculate what the wavefunction will be (on a good day). In the nature of the wavefunction being a probability distribution we can also test whether or not we've got it right by repeating the same measurement many times and seeing whether or not our prediction is correct.

As far as I understand the interpretations (not much .. I find results more interesting) ..
Bohm claims the wavefunction is already determined and the photon just 'finds it' whereas Feynman (especially) seems to claim the photon works it out for itself (any dispute being resolved by "shut up and calculate".

The two pinholes are running from bottom left to top right. That is just the double slit experiment only we are using pinholes. The DSE is just a section of a line joining the two pinholes then extended to a patch on the screen surface. IMHO fully explained as two displaced coherent sources.

Good! A possible step in the direction of being able to calculate something.Let us imagine both coherent sources fire a very short pulse.. would we get this result? (The both slits open result, of course)
User posted image

Best wishes,
-C2.

Laserlight

1st April 2007 - 04:57 PM

Hi GE, C2, Neil, TRoc, and All,

I've just been an observer for a while, same as TRoc.....but decided GE's
post required some feedback.

GE:

QUOTE

All you are seeing is the individual collapse of the wavefunction of each individual photon which is all around that wavefront seeking all paths... collapsing to the "eye" of the photon. This is the point where the field lines propagating as "loops" finally ground and dissipate their energy into the "sink".

With the comment the "eye of the photon" I'm assuming that you are in tacit
agreement with my idea that the wavefront collapses along the centerline of
propagation of the waveform.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

With the comment the "eye of the photon" I'm assuming that you are in tacit
agreement with my idea that the wavefront collapses along the centerline of
propagation of the waveform.

The photons move through the "space" of the cavity in which there are existing "standing waves" not of light but of geometry in which that radiation is propagating similar to that "structure" which surrounds atoms (eg: protons and their "hybridized shells"). These "standing waves" in cavities reflect the "space" not the light propagating through it. The light conforms to the geometry of the space.

Wait a minute....previously you stated that space has no physical form or
"substance". Standing waves require the presence of some kind of force or
fields, whether they are magnetic or electric in nature. If you are now stating
that standing waves (electric or magnetic) are energy "projections" into
geometric space and are proximal to matter then I agree with this premise.

Standing waves denote "fixed" forces that are established by fixed physical limits.
In other words standing waves have a fixed relationship to fixed (stationary)
geometric confinement, otherwise they wouldn't be stationary. If the geometry
is changing then the fields must change proportionally.

It might be more accurate to suggest that the light conforms to the stationary
forces "propagated" by physical geometries.

Comments?
LL

Laserlight

1st April 2007 - 05:07 PM

C2, and All,

QUOTE

it was actually the lines running from top left to bottm right that I thought needed some sort of explanation.

Have you rotated your laser source by 45 and 90 degrees to see the effect? The
relative fixed spatial "phase" relationship that exists between the holes is
constant, but the phase of the incident light should shift the pattern, IMO.

Edit added: Are you projecting the image thru a "projection screen" and looking at
the backside?

LL

Confused2

1st April 2007 - 06:03 PM

Setup is
Laser

Black card with pinholes in stuck (bluetack) to front of laser
Result fired at the sensitive part of a (Cmos I think) webcam (lens removed) which is 4" from the pinholes.

As requested..

0 degrees

... click to enlarge...

45 degrees(ish)

... click to enlarge...

90 degrees(ish)

... click to enlarge...

Best wishes,
-C2.

Laserlight

1st April 2007 - 06:08 PM

Hi C2,

???? Did you say that the card is attached to the output of the laser? IF there
is no separation between the black card and the laser then you are also
rotating the holes when you rotate the laser? Is this correct? If so then
whether the laser is vertically or horizontally polarized can not be observed
from a relative reference point and nothing has changed.

Regards,
LL

Confused2

1st April 2007 - 06:20 PM

Hi LL,

Sequence was .. piccy 1.
Remove card from laser (drop card) .. replace card at 45 degrees to original position (possibly swapped sides too) .. rotate laser so pic is horizontal again .. take piccy 2 and repeat for piccy 3 but without dropping the card.

Best wishes,

C2.

(Just how stupid does he think I am?)

Laserlight

1st April 2007 - 06:28 PM

Hi C2,

You are funny! There appears to be an obvious change in the angle of the
wave shapes according to the orientation of the laser beam "polarity".

What is your assessment?

Also, each wave is pointed at the ends and there is some offset
interference "overlap" on at least 1 interference pattern.

Have we proven anything via the C2 experiment?

LL

Confused2

1st April 2007 - 06:51 PM

Reducing the magnification by a factor of 2 (ie the laser is in the bog-roll about 2" away from the camera) and increasing the gain shows how there are all sorts of interference effects going on besides the DSE effect.

... click to enlarge...

Confused2

1st April 2007 - 07:05 PM

Hi LL,

QUOTE (LL+)

There appears to be an obvious change in the angle of the
wave shapes according to the orientation of the laser beam "polarity".

That's just me not lining the thing up properly. If you wish I could try sticking the pinhole card to the end of the light exclusion tube and rotating the laser .. but I don't think there's anything to see.

On the interference front .. every zone of one polarity should have something of a null between it and a zone of the opposite polarity .. the effect is to make the ends 'pointy'.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Confused2

1st April 2007 - 07:44 PM

rpenner's post here gives a broad hint as to the meaning of 'polarity' (I probably should have used positive and negative 'phase') in wavefunction terms..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=171217

Laserlight

1st April 2007 - 08:38 PM

C2,

QUOTE

1. What is a "bog" roll? Is that like a bagel?

2. I think the multiple interference patterns observed are due to "warping"
causing distortions from the non-flat surface on your black card. If this idea is correct then
it reinforces the idea of surface "plasmon" or other dipole radiation type events on
the surface of the card causing "secondary" harmonically generated fields
propagating toward the detector from the interfering dipoles. Other possibilities
could have to do with standing wave "side lobe" patterns being detected by the
sensor, or secondary internally generated "reflections" from the detector.

3. I wonder what a slit interference pattern looks like? Circular apertures
introduce a "non-linear" interference pattern.

LL

Confused2

1st April 2007 - 11:59 PM

Hi LL,

What colour is the black card in your country?

Here is the result of cutting a slit in black card (with a new knife blade)

... click to enlarge...

Away from the centre .. gain increased

... click to enlarge...

Best wishes,
-C2.

Laserlight

2nd April 2007 - 12:36 AM

C2,

QUOTE

What colour is the black card in your country?

What are you talking about? This statement makes no sense.

You cut a slit, or 2 slits?

Well at least the interference results are linear...not sure that any conclusions can
be made from the picture except that we are not seeing the randomized distortions
exhibited by your pinhole pics.

Regards,
LL

Confused2

2nd April 2007 - 12:44 AM

Hi LL,

Just trying to make the point that black card is noted for its blackness rather than dipolacious plasmalogical behaviour.

Last pic was one slit in black card. Despite my faith in its blackness I'm wondering if it might not be so close to the laser diode that there might be some feedback. I'll have another go tomorrow.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Good Elf

2nd April 2007 - 05:11 AM

Hi Confused2, laserlight, yquantum et al,

I hope you are using a spatial filter and/or you have diverged the beam sufficiently so that it properly illuminates both "slits" or "pinholes" in the "far-field". Then I would expect that the first picture represents a rotation of roughly 45 degrees from the horizontal of two closely spaced pinholes.

Urr... not mad keen on your slits there.

As for "plasmons"... I would not expect any surface plasmons if you use a "card" that is not made of conductive metal.

The next point is the argument about "probability" does not apply to a single photon in coherent beams. You only apply statistics tio statistical properties. The DSE is non-statistical. There is no "probability' at all about them, they are "coherent". The only probability that could apply is when a photon is emitted from an atomic source at random and this is a LASER which is stimulated emission... A totally non-random process where the emitted photons phase is locked.

QUOTE (Confused2+)

Let us imagine both coherent sources fire a very short pulse.. would we get this result? (The both slits open result, of course)

let this be one single photon if you like. And a diverged beam that covers both slits equally... then the single photon's wave will pass through both slits at the same time.

QUOTE (Laserlight+)

I'm assuming that you are in tacit agreement with my idea that the wavefront collapses along the centerline of propagation of the waveform.

You better define a centerline since I do not know of any markings on this in any drawings. The collapse of the wavefunction is "global" and there is a "peak" defined as a "blip" around the maximum energy density of the propagating photon wave. At a single instant in time this is like a wavefront at the beach but unlike a wavefront at the beach the leading and trailing edges of the propagating wavepacket (which is a wave) extends to + and - infinity in time. If we are talking about a sync pulse then I show them truncated so I can draw them in fact they are not truncated and extend ahead and behind that peak in energy.

QUOTE (Laserlight+)

Well you tell me what exists around an atom (a single proton freely falling in space) that can trap a photon or an electron as if there were a cavity there? The electron or photon is not usually trapped in a nucleus and if it is to be trapped inside a shell it would need to be something more than just the static charges attracting or in the case of a photon the cavity being simply resonant. These are something like your plasmons in a way, special volumes in space, different from other empty volumes, with the ability to trap 'stuff".

My position is these cavities are a hybridized boson function (superposition of co-existing states) of the nearby arrangements of fermions (the nucleus). In the case of "cavities", the arrangements of the walls of a "box" are a repeating fermion structure that form barriers. These regular barriers set up 'something' that is not matter in the open space of the cavity through a spacial resonance. This structure would still exist even if there was no light or photons to "illuminate"/"excite" the 'cavity". A photon with the right trajectory and energy will utilize this influence and "fill it". The particular individual photons traversing this cavity will respond to this 'phenomenon" in its own characteristic way. Some photons will resonate in this cavity and others will not, but it does this because it senses the cavity where it currently is traversing. An aspect of this 'travel" is that it "knows" what the shape of the cavity is because of this spatial structure. Space is empty but around mass there is something in the space that occupies the vacuum linked with the matter. Call it the influence of supersymmetric particles associated with the protons... "Squarks" which are bosons not fermions but are spatial duals to the sub-atomic particles that make up the proton, the quarks. I choose to identify this as a structure that is responsible for "standing waves". This is not just the waves at a particular frequency but at all frequencies.

Cheers

Confused2

2nd April 2007 - 09:33 AM

Looking at wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation

QUOTE (wiki+)

Bohm and de Broglie posited that in the world of quantum phenomena, every kind of particle is accompanied by a wave which guides the motion of the particle, hence the term pilot wave. Mathematically, the pilot wave is described by the wavefunction of conventional quantum mechanics, but with an added piloting influence on the motion of the particles.

My summary, as I understand this Bohm interpretation.. electrons (and photons) are particles guided by a wave which is mathematically identical to the wavefunction which is defined here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction

QUOTE

the values of the wave function are probability amplitudes.

So it seems to me (could well be wrong) that Copenhagen, Feynman and Bohm share the same 'wavefunction' but use it differently.
If we stay with Bohm for a moment .. it seems the DSE photons are pointlike particles which are detected at points which reveal the 'hidden variable' of the Bohmian interpretation. We have (as yet) no way to determine the value of the hidden variable in advance and we are left looking at a result which depends on the statistical value of the hidden variable and those statistics are identical to those given by the wavefunction of 'probability' based interpretations. GE, are we 'as one mind' on this? The average school leaver will have enough knowledge to draw the curve here:-
Insert DSE result
long in advance of the event.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

the values of the wave function are probability amplitudes.

If this were a Bohm interpretation then wouldn't this be a particle influenced by the wavefunction which is a sort of wave?
As we go on the wave (photon?) becomes a wavepacket extending to + and - infinity in time which seems a mix borrowed from Feynman-Wheeler and (possibly) early models of a photon.

QUOTE (Good Elf+)

In the case of "cavities", the arrangements of the walls of a "box" are a repeating fermion structure that form barriers.

I'm sorry but I still have no idea what this 'box' is all about .. let alone cavities .. if you could just relate it to some REAL geometry it might make some sense.
Must go.
Best wishes,
-C2.

Good Elf

2nd April 2007 - 11:06 AM

Hi Confused2, laserlight, yquantum et al,

I really do not want to go down the Bohm Path just now. Bohmian Mechanics is only a theory that is bridging a gap between Quantum Mechanics and "Hidden Variable" Theories. I am talking extra dimensions not hidden variable theories. The guided particle theory was an idea in the early 1950's ... it is not an appropriate solution today. Bohmian Mechanics today speak of "configuration space" as the intermediate between Quantum Hilbert Space and Einstein Spacetime. I do not intend to quantize spacetime to get a theory that does not exist. I can see no real value in speaking about light "particles" or other particles being "guided" by waves. This would imply that particles and waves occur together. There is absolutely no evidence of this other than the so called experiment by Shahriar S. Afshar which I hotly dispute as "proof" of anything of the sort.

Speaking about "wavefunctions", this is a very interesting point. It was never intended to represent actual measurables of a system. By measurables what I mean are things like voltage, phase, vectors etc. "Wavefunctions" are supposed to not deal with measurables. You cannot measure a wavefunction, a wavefunction is a function which is the final outcome of a statistical process. So if I ask the question "what is the wavefunction of a photon" there is no possible answer to that since it is indeterminate as a "measurable" being the outcome of all possible alternatives. Let us establish once and for all that the probability density of a function cannot be established for a single state because it was never designed to do that... This is something that cannot be measured since it would require an infinite amount of time to determine.

I have never seen a "probability meter" ... a device that determines the probability density function.

We are just talking "gibberish".

There is "no such thing" as the wavefunction of a photon or the wavefunction of a particle since it is not a single measurement. One thing or one measurement does not have a "probability", a measurable "is". Considering that once you make any measurement of a quantum system you can make no more, the question regarding statistics is then ruled out of order for a single entity, you can only determine group properties of many of these entities. What I am speaking about is the collapse of the state of a single photon and what we can measure of that. There are measurables and these are as good as they get. But as to "mappings of probability density" and to "individual flashes of light"... the former is a statistical map and the latter is an actual measurement of position and momentum and or energy. There really is no comparison.

The next point is the actual space of Einstein's Spacetime and the Hilbert Space of Quantum Mechanics are not related in any simple way since they relate to a world of measurables and to statistics respectively. All of this I have spoken of before. 50% of the Worlds Population are male and 50% of the World Population are female, that makes you, Confused2, a cross dressing transsexual from Transylvania, and this is the Rocky Horror Show. Not true... Bohm knew this and the truth is individual photons and individual particles have individual destinies... we just can't predict an outcome as of yet... that is fine and nothing to be ashamed of... we cannot know everything and quite frankly I really do not want to. After an event we can make a pretty good "stab" at the event and understand that it was one that was subject to the normal laws of dynamics ... not subject individually to statistics... since statistics is not a "force".

QUOTE (Confused2+)

I'm sorry but I still have no idea what this 'box' is all about .. let alone cavities .. if you could just relate it to some REAL geometry it might make some sense.

The "box" is a cavity or potential well... that is where Schrodinger's Wave Equation is applicable. This is it's equation as a probability function...

... click to enlarge...
and this is the "measurable" analog as described in Shen's Paper and alluded to in all of Photonics...

... click to enlarge...
You can "compare" psi with the Electric Field vector but they are not the same, they apply to different "spaces"... the spaces of Hilbert and the spaces of Einstein. They are both "wave functions" and they have analogous solutions in each domain.
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory: Jian Qi Shen

This image "measures" not Psi... but Electric field density...

It is a "snapshot" of something measured that Quantum Mechanics cannot produce... a physical picture. Yet this is the solution to Schrodinger's Equation in a cavity... or a "slice" through a cavity... a kind of thin section. Though it purports to be Psi, it most certainly is not... these are plots of measurables in a cavity ... the electric intensity. This is done with an Atomic Force Electron Microscope and a very sensitive "null balancing probe".

Cheers

Confused2

3rd April 2007 - 01:37 PM

Hi Good Elf et al,

Back to basics.. (again?)

Let us imagine a loaded dice .. that is to say a dice with extra weight added to one face so that instead of the probability of each number being 'thrown' is no longer 1/6 . We can either work out the probability of each number appearing by knowing all the properties of the dice and some rather heavy duty maths/physics or we can throw the dice a few thousand times and see which numbers are favoured. Let's say we find the odds (by either method) of each number are p1,p2,p3,p4,p5,p6. Do we agree these odds are a property of the dice even when it isn't being thrown? If a photon is emitted within a sphere then the chances of it being detected somewhere on that sphere are pretty much 1. The DSE is modifying the chances of detection in a way that ought to be telling us a vast amounts about space and photons and instead most of us seem to be seeing something completely different. I don't understand the apparent total lack of understanding of something that seems 'obvious' to me .. can anyone explain their side of the 'problem'?

You may wish to disagree but..

Just as stuff is made out of 'atoms' it seems EM waves are made out of photons. Someone wiser than I pointed out that Maxwell's equations are the result as h->0 .. in other words (as h->0) any 'ray' of light of any intensity would consist of a (near) infinite number of photons. In reality it seems h isn't zero and we have photons which we can detect individually. Maxwell's equations don't predict photons but photon equations should predict Maxwell's equations (for a large number of photons) otherwise something has gone wrong with our maths. (I discard the possibility that there is anything wrong with our photons). Just because we can get the right answer using different sets of equations doesn't necessarily mean 'h' has become zero or can always be treated as though it has become zero. Jian Qi Shen seems to able to keep you (Good Elf) happy just by calling his counts a 'field' .. could it be that simple?

My impression is that the spintronics guys and gals have decided that Maxwell's equations work very nicely for them because they normally use a lot of of photons, occasionally they seem to be rediscovering quantum mechanics in their own special way which is very good too.

To me the results of the single photon DSE suggest that the 'join' between single photon 'counts' and many photon 'fields' isn't going to be (mathematically) very easy or obvious. If one dice gives you six possibilities it doesn't necessarily follow that two dice will give you twelve possibilities. The DSE (so far) is showing the (the apparently not always) unmistakeable signature of a sinewave. We could discard this sinewave 'clue' or we could note that you can easily make anything you like with a sinewave but it's very difficult to make a sinewave out of anything else .. maybe nature took the simple route.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Good Elf

3rd April 2007 - 02:39 PM

Hi Confused2,

QUOTE

Let us imagine a loaded dice .. that is to say a dice with extra weight added to one face so that instead of the probability of each number being 'thrown' is no longer 1/6 . We can either work out the probability of each number appearing by knowing all the properties of the dice and some rather heavy duty maths/physics or we can throw the dice a few thousand times and see which numbers are favoured.

For a single event you only get one throw of the dice (die). We do not have "statistics" since for statistics you need a statistical sample. You will get a single result. This involves measuables. This may include the path of the dice as it bounces around the table (position, velocity, mass etc). This path may not necessarily be predictable before you throw the dice but after the event it can be shown that each and every bounce of the dice is in accord with well known laws of dynamics and not laws of statistics. Your result tells us the chance of which face may come up but can say nothing about which face actually does come up. Additionally it has no information about the process of how that face came up nor, does it predict the path of the dice on the way to its ultimate fate.

Lets say for instance that we had a device (a little Maxwell's Daemon) that "touched" the dice each time it bounced on the table with a very tiny force... I could "force" that dice to be non-statistical. The odds you have quoted are solid and "fixed" but never the less I will win at this game almost all the time. This is a "butterfly effect" and even though the die has fixed probabilities of landing with a particular side up, intervention changes the odds in a way that quantum physics cannot predict but dynamics can predict. That is what a LASER does to the emission of photons... they can be made "coherent".

Cheers

Confused2

4th April 2007 - 09:43 PM

The photon is the die

the demon is this:-
User posted image

and the result is this:-

User posted image

Unless you're going back to Bohm it looks like it doesn't matter which way up the die is is held at the start ..

Best wishes,
-C2.

jal

4th April 2007 - 10:00 PM

The applet below displays a small spin network
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/S.../Spin/Spin.html

Notice that you get different numbers on the tetra and as a result different amplitudes. Play with it. Have fun.
He has all kinds of things in his pages that make waves.
jal

Good Elf

8th April 2007 - 01:35 AM

Hi Confused2, laserlight, yquantum, Jal et al,

In reality what our discussions reduce to is an understanding of the "reduction or the wavepacket". Regarding photons and their detection, when we detect the photon we are making a choice in measurement. A measurement implicitly has "choice", where and the way we arrange the polarizers, the sensitivity and quality of elements etc which determine what final measurement we ultimately make. The measurement itself has a "quantum back action", this has been noted experimentally.
Quantum back-action has a cooling effect
Another kind of Maxwell's Daemon of a sorts...
This specific "hardware" forces a parameter into the measurement which is determining "uniquely" the way in which the phenomenon as a whole and the individual measurement is going to be interpreted. This choice acts directly on the "interferences" that constitute the propagating wave phenomena which are a reflection of the Holographic nature of our Universe and the superposition of all the states that may or may not be there.

For instance if I set up a photometer that detects a certain wavelength of light (and almost no other) then the phenomena measured by that device cannot reflect an underlying but unseen aspect that may be beyond the measuring ability of that specific device but would have a different outcome if we were provided with a different sensing device that was observing the same phenomena with a different set of physical characteristics. The specific out of range photon may not be able to be absorbed by the "hardware". However when this device makes that measurement it is a selection among all the possible quantum "interferences" that has occurred, and these will have local and global influences that affect the measurements of other aspects of the Universe "interactively". All the events in the Universe are interconnected and it is wrong to assume they are not. The connection may be subtle but in any given situation there are ways in which "influence" can stretch across space to affect distant places ... take "entanglement" for instance.

The first point is a specific sensor may require a certain band of harmonics for the sensor to operate effectively so that two slightly different photons, one with this band and one without this band of harmonics, will cause the the former "event" to undergo a "reduction of the wavepacket" and the other to be completely missed as an event and thus no collapse of the wave packet would ensure. In that situation the event remains an "interference" and still an undetected "quantum process".

It is not at all beyond the pale to suggest that the individual measurement not only affects the outcome of that individual measurement but also the causes behind the original event in the first place through the process of quantum "interferences".

This would be an "interference" that is holographic in nature that links all related events into a whole connecting the past with the future and so on. It would be an "interference" effect that would have no net energy outcome so it would act as a selection even among all the possible causes. In experimental physics to this point in time these issues are ignored because they are not "measurables". This is a sort of free choice that would be between different alternative possibilities of a system that are of equivalent nett energy so represent no change in dynamics but will provide different "scenarios" in our Universe that are purely "informational" in their content. Those who count only energy cannot see the point of this discussions but those who understand about "outcomes" will know that this is the "true meaning" of our Universe. Does Schrodinger's Cat live or die? The Universe provides no way to choose which of these outcomes occur since they normally involve "equal probabilities" but I am sure that Schrodinger would be concerned if his cat lived or died.

In the classic Schrodinger's Cat Experiment the breaking of the cyanide vessel is triggered by the random disintegration of atoms. However the exact nature of the detector for this process, to be a success, is not strictly stated. On opening the box our cat may still be alive simply because the random detection did not occur and this was influenced by a random factor which altered the detector for the period of the experiment, not as random as it might be under other circumstances. A tiny influence that is not able to be noticed by our instruments (see my previous post). I can say that this experiment makes sense if I said that the detector was broken... What I am saying is it is not broken but the outcome is the same as if it was.

If you understand this argument then please say you understand, if you do not understand I may have lost all of you. A quantum "interference" is a very strong thing and I believe that even though it carries no energy it does impart "meaning" to events. The interferences created by certain states in a source predispose the outcomes but these connect to the sinks of the measured phenomena. Nothing is gained or lost from a system when we 'collapse" the wavepacket and this is a free choice on the manner we do this. We can predispose outcomes between a series of equally probable events using a particular methodology. You may call it an "observer" but the word "observer" is "loaded" with purpose.

The next idea is that source is connected to subsequent events. For instance in the DSE the two slits could be simulated by having two correlated sources "directly feeding" the slits or pinholes. Alternatively we could observe that behind a single pinhole we obtain a "camera obscura" picture of the external universe past that source which is a simple aperture in a wall to a more distant source of coherent radiation leading to an image containing information about the arrangement of all particles in the space beyond the pinhole. Assume this external universe was "dark" with no illumination other than that one source of coherent radiation producing feint global "illumination". This is not unlike a dark room with a single diverged coherent source of light. What happens is there is a holographic construction of the entire room as the result. A photographic plate would record this if placed correctly and exposed. Yet in the DSE resulting from this source and two pinholes in a card at some distance this information is not "evident" but most certainly is present as "interferences".

Cheers

Confused2

8th April 2007 - 12:57 PM

Hi Good Elf,

As usual, some very interesting ideas.

QUOTE (Good Elf+)

the DSE the two slits could be simulated by having two correlated sources "directly feeding" the slits or pinholes.

We know the result:-
User posted image

What would we need to feed to each slot (and when would we need to feed it) to get the observed result?

Best wishes,
-C2.

Good Elf

8th April 2007 - 02:54 PM

Hi Confused2,

Yes you do know the result. You need two synchronized coherent sources. The experiment has been done and it works using two separate lasing cavities that are synchronized in their excitation.. Naturally the synchronization must be pretty exact. Or are you asking about slot sources again? A slot is just an organized series of point sources. The way you would produce this is a line or merged series of lines of point sources. It is all explained in "QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Feynman.

I am currently re-reading this book. It is well worth the time to refresh the ideas. It is very clear that the problems start as soon as we begin to think in terms of particle reflection and the problem as to why a photon passes a semi-reflective barrier or does not pass. In Feynman's mind this is the heart of the problem... Just why a single photon passes the barrier and another identical photon does not. To me this is why I couch my answer in the terms that I do to justify why one kind of interference differs from another. It is crucial that they are able to be distinguished. Feynman emphasizes the absolute spatial phase between source and destination, though only the relative phase is of "apparent" importance. Though phases and amplitudes are additive they are squared to get the amplitudes. The squaring process results in a scalar. This is where there is some confusion since this is a process that has no way back.

I will have something to say after I finish this book again.

Cheers

Confused2

8th April 2007 - 04:38 PM

QUOTE (Good Elf+)

You need two synchronized coherent sources.

The result I copied was for a single photon DSE. My question related to simulation of the DSE using two sources:- what are the two sources firing (and when do they fire it) to get the observed result?

QUOTE (Good Elf+)

Naturally the synchronization must be pretty exact.

Are you suggesting the two sources need to fire a continuous sinewave to generate the result we see for a single photon? Or something else? Surely the result takes precedence over theory.
Best wishes,
-C2.

jal

8th April 2007 - 07:48 PM

What are the experiments that are being done related to understanding the quantum world? One of those paper might shed some light.
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/coldatoms07/
KITP Program: Strongly Correlated Phases in Condensed Matter and Degenerate Atomic Systems (January 29 - June 15, 2007)
Cheers
jal

Good Elf

9th April 2007 - 01:36 AM

Hi Confused2,Jal, Laserlight and Yquantum et al,

Firstly I would like to thank Jal for the reference. The difficult point is having to listen to Sankar das Sama's whole lecture to get the information. I am trying to concentrate on the vacuum state but I realize that the condensed matter state is bearing a strong influence on what we see there. I confess that I have no expertise in that area but see that it is a very difficult region of investigation and is a labyrinth in which I may become lost very quickly. Still, I am looking and will report anything I find there if it is of vital interest. This will go to the nub of what I am saying about the "structure" found in dark voids surrounded by condensed matter and solutions of Schrodinger's Wave Equation found there.

As to Confused2's questions...

QUOTE (Confused2+)

They are LASER sources and naturally they fire "coherent" radiation. To correlate two separate sources you would need a connection between the two optical cavities either electromagnetic or "virtual" by which the otherwise separate phases can be mutually locked. Individual photons from separate sources cannot be "locked" at this point in time (to my best knowledge) and all cavity locking is performed on Continuous Wave LASERS at present (although single photon sources are available ... just the locking has not been achieved as of yet).

QUOTE (Confused2+)

Are you suggesting the two sources need to fire a continuous sinewave to generate the result we see for a single photon? Or something else? Surely the result takes precedence over theory.

Results always take precedence over theory but in some cases we might have to settle for theory where there are no experimental results. You see the theoretical "possibility" above of correlating single photons. While you can use continuous radiation which form into "waves" to produce the diffraction pattern you show above it is assumed that the results for single pairs of correlated photons from "obviously" separate sources will be (at least theoretically) essentially the same as has been already determined from a conventional DSE where the same photon is used at both slits/pinholes when spread to form two effective sources ... at the two pinholes in the far field. Since the the two photons are 100% correlated this means they should behave as a superposition and form the same interference pattern as if they were produced singly from a source and "diverged" to interact at the two slits in the far field.

In the "dark universe" scenario our "enclosed room universe" is illuminated by either one or two sources of correlated radiation. Lets only consider pinhole sources, which is an elementary source like a single laser. As far as the DSE is concerned the interference pattern is indistinguishable from one way or the other of production. What we "know" is these diverged sources reflect off the rest of our "dark universe" and if only one source was present would potentially create a hologram if used to expose a thick emulsion film plate. Once you introduce a second source (and of course even more sources) this "pristine" wavelets in space "model" that could be used to reconstruct the entire Universe at that single wavelength is apparently scrambled by "evaluating" the intensity density function (brightness) as an inner product, thus losing the the phase information.

Keeping in mind the last post I made where I discussed this artifact being introduced of measuring not the phase and complex amplitude but simply recording the scalar value by choice of sensor (in some cases our eyes, in others a photosensor) and not the scene as recorded as a series of wavelets with phase and amplitude in a complex space, as being recorded by the photographic plate, where only one source is involved. Consider the possibility of recording the two spatial source information images separately on separate photographic plates, by either "switching one source off" or putting a card in front of the "spatial filter" of one of the two "pinholes", then swapping over and exposing another holographic plate. We then record this as two separate correlated images displaced by the source separation. These two separate plates could be used to reconstruct the scene. Because of their correlation we can superimpose these two images to reconstruct the DSE from two primitive reconstructions of the room which differ only by being a very small distance apart. Unfortunately there is no simple way to "send" photons from one of the sources to one of the plates and then send photons from the other source to the other plate... what will occur is photons from either source will illuminate both of the plates simultaneously... both at the same time causing "interferences". This is not going to reconstruct the room. The images will "foul each other" in this primitive arrangement.

If we could arrange the respective photons to go to both plates in turn, then you could reconstruct the room. This could be done in principle using a high density scanned image of the two plates and then to simply allow a computer to unscramble the mess by doing calculations on each plane and to construct the image in phase and complex amplitude which then should look very much like a normal room. The two correlated sources will be almost the same as if the room was illuminated by a single source, the separation (would or should) have no effect being correlated and would be similar to placing a mirror inside the the scene (as Holographers will want to do to improve a single exposure's "depth") at an appropriate point... this can be used with effect when using only one emulsion but is catastrophic when used for two separate exposures. This is something our natural eyes cannot "appreciate" since they measures only intensity... a "defect" in our evolution. What we would see (with our eyes) is a total mess where we have two holograms superimposed being illuminated by two sources displaced by a significant spatial wavenumber. Since each plate image now interferes with the other image because of the two ways in which photons may travel to the two sets of fringes and by the unavoidable displacement inherent in having two emulsions. The computer can unravel this for us if needed (in a Gedanken Experiment). Do you see the point here..??

On a completely different course ... Alternatively you may have three exposures at a red, green and a blue frequency of three separate emulsions exposed by three separate coherent LASER sources, the slight displacements being "nearly" irrelevant, and then to allow this to be excited by three lasers to be viewed using an appropriate filter system. Bingo ... a primitive form of color vision. The "interferences" are now "helpful" and not disruptive. See "evolution" has some use after all.

Cheers

yquantum

13th April 2007 - 07:33 PM

Good Elf, C2, jal, LL, et al,

Just wanted to say I am so glad there is one post that has a desire to better understands the weirdness of the micro world.

Hang in there your comments are thought provoking.

ciao_
yquantum

btw, hope everyone is doing well and please enjoy the winter or summer according to your location.
Best Regards

Guest_Neil farbstein

13th April 2007 - 09:44 PM

QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Sep 24 2006, 04:29 PM)

Thanks for that Cobber

You're right though.....whatta bunch of silly animals we are...perhaps this could somehow be genetically engineered out?..... a little frightening in concept as we'd dehumanize ourselves.

'scuse me now, I've a full length mirror to worship...Gaffaw, etc

user posted image

my mirror looks different.

Good Elf

14th April 2007 - 01:48 AM

Hi Yquantum, Confused2, Laserlight, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,

I have been "digging" around in the "vault" and I have come across a recent paper that encapsulates many aspects of the properties of photon packets we have been playing with here. This paper has the advantage that it has the maths behind it to provide some "flesh" to these ideas that I have been "toying" with. As part of an even wider theory (and I assure you this is only part of the problem... this is a pretty big problem) it is a sizable piece in a Jigsaw that has been missing some reasonable theory for a very long time. The theory is 100% compatible with Einsteins Special Relativity Theory and extends Feynman and Wheeler's Emitter Absorber Theory of 1945. It promises to "solve" many of the issues regarding the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment and connect with Dr. Taco Visser's Singular Optics and the emergence of Instanton's and Topological Charge as mentioned previously in this thread. The way it works is it is a wave packet theory that incorporate the known aspects of wave packets such as the superimposition of states and the Harmonic Oscillator to internal chiral propagating retarded and advanced waves as described by Feynman and Wheeler. This is not a totally new concept and I have shown these illustrations before...

QUOTE (Good Elf+)

What we see is the third image with "advanced and retarded waves" producing standing waves and not the first or second image here...
user posted image

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.
Good Elf previously on this thread

... Here is an illustration showing two orthogonal plane polarized waves resulting in circularly polarized light...

QUOTE (Good Elf+)

... Click to enlarge...

QUOTE (Optical Activity and Light Polarization+)

Interestingly, a monochromatic linearly polarized light beam can be considered as a superposition of two circularly polarized electromagnetic waves that are propagating in the same direction with the same frequency but the opposite sense of rotation. Consider the animation on the left above. If we superimpose this wave with a circularly polarized wave of the opposite "handedness" where the blue component is 1/4 wavelength behind (instead of ahead), the two blue components will completely cancel because they are 180 degrees (half a wavelength) out of phase. Thus, we would be left with just a linearly polarized wave.

The plane of polarization of the resulting linearly polarized wave thus prepared can be changed (rotated) by applying a phase shift between its two circularly polarized components. With the help of this concept we can explain the phenomenon of optical rotation:
Optical Activity and Light Polarization

Experimentally this is indeed what does happen ... this is incomprehensible to many but it is a purely "classical" electromagnetic effect due to the Principle of Superposition. In other doctrines of Physics this is the measurement problem ... here this is polarized light... take your position but explain ALL the effects with your chosen discipline. The only one that works for me is pure Optics and not Quantum Mechanics. These are simultaneous multiple states of the one wave and it is the measurement that settles what is actually the "interpretation". The "interpretation" will be as a spin or as a polarization and it will depend entirely which frame of reference it is viewed from as to the nature of this phenomenon. This is "exactly" what Feynman meant when he referred to these "polarization" questions when he was deriving Quantum Electrodynamics and his Many-path Interpretation. This "frame" determines if the "spin" quanta is an integer (boson) or a half integer (fermion)... Leading to the concept of either "soft wave" phenomena or "hard particle" phenomena respectively. In both cases we start with the same basic stuff and end with "virtual solitons" within the space. One leads to inertial phenomena of Special Relativity and the other leads to non-inertial phenomena and to "optical forces" of "spun light" etc. Where there are rotations of this nature we have already discussed that these frames are "apparently" non-inertial (accelerated) to some observers and we measure relativistic effects of Lorentz Rotations and also Time Dilations. This is crucial to understanding just what forces really are. So called photons are the "exchange forces" of our Universe and they occur when light transitions from the wave to a particle interaction. This means it travels in a straight line as light in "free space" and when it transitions to a different environment in "optically curved space" it is apparently non-inertial interacting as deeply penetrating "virtual photons". Yet these are stationary states. If we "see" integer spin (or no spin) we interpret the superposition of states. When suddenly we see it "pass" into 1/2 integer spin we note "forces" from our frame of observation. I have discussed all the maths and references to this earlier regarding rotating frames of reference.
Good Elf previously on this thread

Of course the concept of resonance is paramount in all of these processes. It is not "trivial" and it will take some convincing that this is the way to proceed. Now please look carefully at this paper. It says it all and brings it together into a "simple" though technically complex concept.
A photon-like wavepacket with quantised properties based on classical Maxwell's equations: John E. Carroll (Submitted on 20 Sep 2006)

QUOTE (Abstract+)

A photon-like wavepacket based on novel solutions of Maxwell's equations is proposed. It is believed to be the first 'classical' model that contains so many of the accepted quantum features. In this new work, novel solutions to Maxwell's classical equations in dispersive guides are considered where local helical twists with an arbitrary angular frequency W modulate a classical mode (angular frequency w, group velocity vg). The modal field patterns are unchanged, apart from the twist, provided that the helical velocity vh equals vg. Pairs of resonating retarded and advanced waves with modal and helical frequencies (w,W) and (w,-W) respectively, trap one temporal period of the underlying classical mode forming a photon-like packet provided W = (M+1/2)w: 'Schrodinger' frequencies. This theory supports experimental evidence that the photon velocity does not change with M in dispersive systems. Promotion and demotion increase or decrease the helical frequencies in units of w. An energy of interaction between retarded and advanced waves in the wave-packet is also proportional to these helical frequencies W = (M+1/2)w similar to Planck's law. Group velocity and polarisation are unaffected by the value of M. Advanced waves enable phase and polarisation to be predicted along all future paths and may help to explain the outcomes of experiments on delayed-choice interference and entanglement, without causality being violated.

It is educational to see how this problem is tackled and mapped out by the author (some emphasis added by me)...

QUOTE (John. E. Carroll on Packet of Retarded and Advanced Helically Modulated mode (PRAHM)+)

The theory starts by using the standard technique of splitting Maxwell’s classical equations into TE and TM modes (section 2). A relativistic format is also used in order to demonstrate a new interpretation of the solutions.

In section 3 one selects an arbitrary modal solution with a frequency ω then modulates this mode with an arbitrary local helical rotation of frequency Ω, initially unrelated to ω. It is found that, provided that the helical velocity vh is equal to the modal group velocity vg, the mode with its frequency ω and modal propagation constant k can be retained though all the field patterns are now modulated by the helical rotation at angular frequency Ω about the fibre’s axis. This type of local helical twist should not be confused with the orbital helical rotation of the single frequency Laguerre Gaussian modes [Allen et al 1992, Berry 2004, Leach et al 2004 ]. This section 3 also shows that, in spite of the local helical modulation, the classically calculated energy of the mode does not change.

Section 4 then shows how to create a new type of wave-packet that traps one whole temporal period of an underlying mode at frequency ω by having a pair of intra-rotating helical waves with eigen helical frequencies Ω = (M+½) ω ; M is integer. In this case the polarisation states remain essentially unaltered. The resulting wave-packet travels at the modal group velocity vg that is independent of M .

Section 5 uses the relativistic format of section 2 to explain how two distinct interpretations of Maxwell’s equations affect this wave-packet. This discussion revisits advanced and retarded waves, related to seminal discussions by Wheeler and Feynman (1945) and related to left-handed waves discussed by Vesalago (1968). One of the helically modulated waves is associated with a standard retarded wave but the counter rotating helical modulation is postulated to be an advanced wave that by definition in this work carries power from the future towards the past. These two waves overlap in space-time and create a resonant wave-packet where the advanced waves provides the feedback required for a resonance. Advanced waves, as used here, never carry energy by themselves and never violate causality. These new wave-packets are called PRAHM modes (Packets of Retarded and Advanced Helically Modulated modes ). They have eigen frequencies (M+½)ω and trap one whole period of the underlying classical mode.

Section 6 shows that, over the region where the advanced and retarded waves overlap, there is an energy that can be associated with the counter rotating helical modulation. Using Maxwell’s classical equations this energy is proportional to (M+½)ω creating a form of a classical Planck’s law. A heuristic estimate can be made of Planck’s constant within the right order of magnitude.

Section 7 demonstrates some parallels between this classical Maxwellian theory and standard quantum theory. It is shown for example that promotion, demotion and annihilation all follow as for standard quantum theory but with classical descriptions attached to these processes.

The final section, section 8, of the paper rounds up the work with brief discussions on probability, uncertainty, non-local effects and conclusions.

Please note that this is not OEM though the author recognizes there is a strong correlation here, it is a structure that relates to the internal intrinsic spin of the photon packet, the basic photon spin quanta. This connects with Wheeler and Feynman's Theory of Retarded and Advanced Emitter and Absorber Theory making some sense of it all and creating a "realistic" theory based on semi-classical wave packet theory.
Retarded and Advanced Potential
Generalized absorber theory and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox: John G. Cramer

... Click to enlarge ...
Wheeler Feynman Theory: Figures and Captions
2. Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory : See Fig 1
You can now see how this all hangs together, at least this section of it. There is a bigger picture but this explains a lot about the Double Slit Experiment that has not been understood previously and helps resolve a lot of the questions raised here recently. We now have a rudimentary framework for a semi-classical Quantum Theory that will enable us to incorporate Special Relativity and the other forces of physics into an expanded theory of Electromagnetism and Optics. It has a clear answer to why photon interference is "one photon at a time" and how this must incorporate with current theory answering many questions. "The PRAHM mode (Packet of Retarded and Advanced Helically Modulated mode) is seen here as a quasi-classical model for a photon that has an energy of formation that is proportional to its helical modulation frequency of (M+½)ω consistent with Planck’s law and causality. A heuristic model gives Planck’s constant with the right order of magnitude. The wave-packet explains the localised properties of the photon while the advanced waves explain the non-local properties."

Look Ma ... no hands!

Cheers

Montec

14th April 2007 - 10:14 PM

Hello all

There are two types of energy that relate to EM waves. There is the energy (E1) associated with electric and magnetic fields as they propagate through space and can be described via the Poynting vector. The other energy (E2) is related to the frequency of the EM wave (E = hf). This is where we get waves (E1) and photons (E2).

E1 gives us intensity and magnitude. The energy to do work. You can have a single wave of high intensity or a constructive interference of many low intensity waves. At a single point of measurement you can not tell the difference between the two.

E2 is energy that relates the EM wave to its environment. It takes more energy to reverse the electric/magnetic waves per unit distance/time for high frequencies than it does for low frequencies. Space (this includes the space within atoms) imposes a rate of change (inertial) work function on EM waves. The "mechanics" of this work function need to be understood. I know of no other type of energy that is tied to frequency in this manner.

E1 gets weaker the farther you get from the source. This falloff rate is a function of geometry. E2 does not fall off or change unless you change the per unit distance/time baseline from the baseline at emission.

Just some thoughts open for discussion.

Good Elf

15th April 2007 - 02:17 AM

Hi Montec, Yquantum, Confused2, Laserlight, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,

QUOTE (Montec+)

There are two types of energy that relate to EM waves. There is the energy (E1) associated with electric and magnetic fields as they propagate through space and can be described via the Poynting vector. The other energy (E2) is related to the frequency of the EM wave (E = hf). This is where we get waves (E1) and photons (E2).[...] E1 gives us intensity and magnitude.[...] E2 is energy that relates the EM wave to its environment.[...] I know of no other type of energy that is tied to frequency in this manner. [...] E1 gets weaker the farther you get from the source. This falloff rate is a function of geometry. E2 does not fall off or change unless you change the per unit distance/time baseline from the baseline at emission.

These are the same energy only E1 is dealing with "populations" and E2 is dealing with "individuals".

I still maintain that aside from what is being said in the paper above photons simply spread as their wave expands into space. Until the collapse of the individual photon's packet happens in one sense the photon as a particle is not here at all and only the wave aspect is spreading like a shadow cast by a lone streetlight or the streetlight itself, the intensity falls off but the photons are still there ... 100% of them and when they interact they deliver 100% of the original energy since these "packets" have not been subjected to time as we understand it. These photons can cross the vast distances of interstellar space unaltered and identical to the photon that came from those dim sources of light in the night sky sometimes billions of years ago. Given the opportunity they will arrange themselves into waves like this...

... Click to enlarge...
Each sync pulse arranges themselves in a wave as shown. My picture only shows the retarded waveform as this is what we can directly measure. The paper would suggest that instead of this plane sync function it is extended into a third dimension as a spiral. Therefore we have two sync spirals that rotate in the opposite sense to each other .... the advanced wave traveling backwards and the retarded wave traveling forward within the resonant packet wherever it is (they are "non-local")... Of course we cannot see this process because causality prevents us seeing the advanced wave. The paper indicates that the this consists of all the frequencies of the Quantum Harmonic Oscillator. This is true but in the sync function we have this as the simplest of packets and they are already there because the sync function is the time domain transform of the simple impulse. This is decomposable into a series of harmonics using Fourier theory.

... Click to enlarge...
This could be expressed as the Harmonic Series (as previously discussed) Ω = (M+1/2)ω : ‘Schrödinger’ frequencies in the frequency domain (where M is an integer , an alternative representation to the sync function) and with the fundamental frequency of the packet. Recall the discussion recently...
Good Elf - this thread earlier
Here we see why only the upper sideband is emitted and the lower side band is reabsorbed as in that "sucking back" on the inductive field of the wave. It is only in the source we can notice this inward going wave which is traveling in this region faster than the speed of light. The "process" of photon absorption and emission has only "recently" been timed at the attosecond level (10^-18 s) and ionization experiments of the way in which photons are absorbed and electrons are ionized through tunneling has been observed. A "photon process" can now be timed and caused within a few hundred attoseconds. This is not a "random event" anymore. It has been said if one attosecond was equal to one second than one whole second would last 30 Billion Years... longer than the age of the universe. Such measurements in time show us incredible "non-quantum" control over emission or absorption phenomena using a simple electric field.
Glauber States: Coherent states of Quantum Harmonic Oscillator in atoms
Recent advance in Metrology...
Electrons caught in the act of tunnelling PhysOrg
Watching Electrons Tunnel
Attosecond real-time observation of electron tunneling in atoms:F. Krausz, M. Uiberacker et al
We see that the laser action actually causes the photons to be emitted on the crest of the "wave", which was postulated and with a timing that is in the attosecond range... there is apparently no "latency" period at all.

... Click to enlarge...
As to the sync pulse "dislodging" the individual photons the experiment has shown this to be the case... the ions are emitted on absorption of individual 1/2 wavelength "packets".

... Click to enlarge...
I would say it is becoming a very well known phenomena with unheard of precision. It is showing that measurables such as the electric field can be used to time individual quantum events to unprecedented resolutions in time. Questions welcome, much of this is a matter for experiment and "interpretation". You must begin to ask yourself if we can "order up" quantum events to occur with the precision and direction with attoseconds reproducibility, then in what way is this function "random". IMHO we are seeing a way in which to gain control over the quanta and to express it as deterministic phenomena... semi-classical phenomena. Back to you Montec (and others)

Cheers

Laserlight

15th April 2007 - 06:54 AM

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

I was waiting for someone to comment on the recent physics articles posted in the
news area of PhysOrg.

I have a concept that might help explain the atto-second transition timing. Any
comments or further development would be appreciated.

What is the possibility, that instead of an electron transitioning orbital levels
to generate a photon as proposed by the Bohr atomic model, that what actually
might be happening is that the "stimulated" electron is changing its spin direction
due to the electrical field applied to it? Basically, I'm asking is it possible that the
affected electron is merely "flipping" it's relative "pole" polarity while remaining its
normal orbit due to the applied fields. This would be like a "switch" that flips
due to the phase polarity and resonant amplitude of the applied electromagnetic
fields being induced upon the atomic dipole that exists between the proton and
the electron. In this case the resulting emitted photon would be the energy
release that occurs during the electron's angular momentum directional change.

Electron spin wasn't discovered until 1925 much after the original Bohr atomic
model was proposed.
http://www.electronspin.org/

Please provide feedback about the feasibility of this idea?

LL

Confused2

15th April 2007 - 03:54 PM

Hi Good Elf,

Looking at your post here:- http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=199381 .

In partular the bit about

"A photon-like wavepacket with quantised properties based on classical Maxwell etc." ( http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0609156 )
If we imagine giving his model a choice of two paths one of which is (say) several wavelengths longer than the other .. do you think it gives the DSE (interference) result when the paths are combined or something else?
Best wishes,
-C2.

Good Elf

17th April 2007 - 12:29 PM

Hi Confused2, Yquantum, Laserlight, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,

QUOTE (Confused2+)

"A photon-like wavepacket with quantized properties based on classical Maxwell etc." ( http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0609156 ) If we imagine giving his model a choice of two paths one of which is (say) several wavelengths longer than the other .. do you think it gives the DSE (interference) result when the paths are combined or something else?

C2... Once again we are discussing "interference" outside the context of the DSE. You are referring to the Michelson-Morley Interferometer with uneven arms. Regardless... since this is still interference you cannot choose which path an individual photon takes. To do that, as we have discussed many times before, is to "force" a particle interaction. Then you do not have interference at all. It really does not matter what shape the interference experiment takes (in this case uneven length arms) you must choose to tell me if you want to observe the interference or not. On the basis of "your choice" I can tell you the result.

If you choose only to observe photon particles traveling up and down the interferometer tubes there are no fringes and no interference so that is case one with interaction and a collapse of the wavefunction, there are two possible ways in which the photon can travel, a long path and a shorter path... No fringes... Just time the photons through each way. This is a "do nothing exciting" experiment.

If you do not have an interaction and choose not to "force" a choice for the photon, then you can have interference and this can produce the fringes. In this case you are not permitted to neither stipulate (nor discover) which path the individual photon travels. Timing alone would be able to tell which path, so timing cannot be used to determine which way the photons travel either. There will be one set of fringes as always and we must rely on the long established fact that this experiment can also be done one photon at a time if required. My view about this is the photon will on balance take a longer time on average to travel through the instrument than the shortest path and a shorter time than the time to travel the longest path. Measuring this time would "crack" the experiment as always. The "instrument" is a resonant chamber. This is in keeping with the concept that the cavity is a particle in a "box" and even if it has some apertures it is 'defined" by its Cauchy and Neumann boundary conditions. Don't ask me to solve it but It will have a solution and anyway it could be found by direct measurement as indicated by those pictures I have often used.

My suggestion is we keep to the single simple experiment that tests most successfully what it is we are supposed to be testing for. Explain that and we explain everything, even your interferometer experiments that are not constructed to determine an answer for your "ill conditioned" questions... they are too hard for me and I am sure they are too hard for any one else who has to explain this point... he he he! The reason we use different laboratory equipment to test different parts of theories is because this is why they are designed specifically to answer specific questions. A microscope is not used to study the stars ... we have a telescope to do that... Why you may ask?... The answer is the telescope is a better instrument for that purpose. This does not stop you using a microscope to study the stars but you will not discover as much. when you want to ask the wrong question about a piece of equipment that is not designed to answer the problem posed, do not be disappointed when you do not get the answer you would like. It really is a kind of Philosophical Conundrum.

Now as to the interpretation of some of this mathematics I think we need to look at the the "retarded solutions" proposed by "TEM Theory without too much mathematics" by John Rodenberg. I am going to speak in broad terms allowing you all to fill in details where you need to. Certainly the references given will allow you all to dig up the necessary detail. This is truly a great resource to get the feel for spiral fields (in this case of electrons but are analogous to photons as a limiting case). Naturally any retarded solution will be missing the advanced component of the wave but understanding this limitation, much of what is being said there on his site applies... the only difference is the amount of "twist". You can't specifically show this without the advanced waves but his retarded wave spirals appear as being conveniently placed to act as a solution as well even though it is referring to electron diffraction and not photon diffraction.

Referring to the section on :
The scattering vector and plane waves in 3D
When working in k-space (reciprocal space) the form of the wave is ...

This is what he calls his "corkscrew function".

Where we have incident waves with wavenumber ki and scattered wave ks with this relationship...

The relationship between ki and ks is :

Where "K" the difference between the vectors ki and ks is related to the Fourier Transform of the "diffraction grating"...
user posted image

The value of K relates to the value of the particular Fourier Component. This in turn relates to Bragg's Law as shown in the next "lesson"...
Bragg's Law
user posted image

Now we are able to see (if we can read the tutorial) that we are able to describe simple "cavities" which would be defined by all the blue boundaries in the k-space for all possible directions of diffraction (we know they form spherical wavenumber spaces surrounding tiny circular apertures or pinholes. These boundaries are not defined by atoms actually occupying the space but the coincidence of atoms "anywhere along the blue boundaries" in the space... Including distant "walls" and slits etc. (Not my interpretation but his, I have just extended the definition a tad). Notice the need to define both a source and a detector position.

Under certain circumstances these blue lines (Bragg Planes) and green lines (nodes and antinodes) define "voids" in which critical diffraction may occur if the refractive index in free space were being altered (as we already know it is in certain cases). The blue lines (passing through the slits), for all possible orientations of the diffracted ray, are regions where radiation of the appropriate wavenumber is trapped by the blue plane. In the DSE we have only two slits but we can see that all this will do is reduce the gross dispersion and increase the size of the voids. The major effect is as shown ... due to the slits but other secondary effects are also due to points in the "box" where these blue boundaries meet with the walls of the systems such as on the screen and any other places in the void where there is a coincidence of "target" geometry. As indicated, the Fourier Transform is the general form of this solution in two dimensions regardless if the radiation is Fraunhofer or Fresnel Zone Radiation. There is a much more general solution to the cavity and this will be Schrodinger's Wave Equation and its solutions in the space for all possible excitations.

The main difference between fermions (electrons) and bosons (photons) is only the amount of spin that is carried. There will be a direct (almost exact) relationship between the discussion on these matters of TEM and the behavior of photons.

Cheers

Good Elf

17th April 2007 - 03:28 PM

Hi Laserlight, Confused2, Yquantum, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)

What is the possibility, that instead of an electron transitioning orbital levels to generate a photon as proposed by the Bohr atomic model, that what actually might be happening is that the "stimulated" electron is changing its spin direction due to the electrical field applied to it? Basically, I'm asking is it possible that the affected electron is merely "flipping" it's relative "pole" polarity while remaining its normal orbit due to the applied fields. This would be like a "switch" that flips due to the phase polarity and resonant amplitude of the applied electromagnetic fields being induced upon the atomic dipole that exists between the proton and the electron. In this case the resulting emitted photon would be the energy release that occurs during the electron's angular momentum directional change.

The actual experiment is probably the reverse... ionization of an electron from an atom by absorption of a photon. I "think" I see your point. You are implying that the energy transition may be due to Orbital Angular Momentum due to the "system" of nucleus and electron undergoing a spin transition. I guess it is not impossible, we would need to know a lot about the experiment to tell. Still it is a "semi-classical" event being produced by the electric field... Is this what you mean? When it comes to the finer points I am certainly no expert on this process. I usually allow the experimenters to tell the story unless I have some prejudices of my own, I suppose there could be different interpretations depending on how we understand the phenomena.

I might say that I really am surprised just how much this general phenomena is nailed down and I am still amazed that they have been able to do all these things. If the Universe has an underlying "reality" that is a continuum rather than a discrete reality, then quantum noise itself may be simply the result of us not being able to know all the things that actually influence phenomena at that level of the Universe rather than some inherently unknowable phenomena. You better explain just what it is you mean.

That reference on spin is very extensive but I am unsure that this is the best way to deal with electrons. I will need to think about it a bit. For instance The electric charge distribution inside of the electron does seem to be difficult to explain using a common charge distribution. High Energy Physics Experiments seem to indicate that electrons practically have no discernible sized "core"... this is odd for something that has a magnetic dipole moment.
http://www.electronspin.org/2.htm
I am probably missing something here and you better tell me what it is...

Cheers

Laserlight

18th April 2007 - 06:39 AM

QUOTE (Good Elf+Apr 17 2007, 03:28 PM)

Hi GE and All,

QUOTE

The actual experiment is probably the reverse... ionization of an electron from an atom by absorption of a photon. I "think" I see your point. You are implying that the energy transition may be due to Orbital Angular Momentum due to the "system" of nucleus and electron undergoing a spin transition. I guess it is not impossible, we would need to know a lot about the experiment to tell. Still it is a "semi-classical" event being produced by the electric field... Is this what you mean? When it comes to the finer points I am certainly no expert on this process. I usually allow the experimenters to tell the story unless I have some prejudices of my own, I suppose there could be different interpretations depending on how we understand the phenomena....

You better explain just what it is you mean.

That reference on spin is very extensive but I am unsure that this is the best way to deal with electrons. I will need to think about it a bit. For instance The electric charge distribution inside of the electron does seem to be difficult to explain using a common charge distribution. High Energy Physics Experiments seem to indicate that electrons practically have no discernible sized "core"... this is odd for something that has a magnetic dipole moment.
http://www.electronspin.org/2.htm
I am probably missing something here and you better tell me what it is

Ok, try to visualize a single atom being stimulated by an arriving "photon"
wavefront. The EM field(s) of the photon are arriving in the form of electric
and magnetic energy that have the characteristic sine wave amplitude oscillation
distribution over time.

The energy of the arriving sine wave is absorbed by the atomic dipole(s)
which are naturally formed between the atom's positively charged nucleus and its
negatively charged electrons (we must assume that there are multiple field dipoles
per atom). These individual dipole arrangements have a natural resonance
that will be influenced by the application of any external EM fields, and are
sensitive to the frequency of the sine wave energy being applied. As we
know, the higher the frequency the higher the energy associated with it. Each
individual dipole gap (nucleus to electron distance) is most sensitive to the
photon frequency that corresponds to a specific dipole gap distance.

What I am proposing, is that the electron that is most stimulated by the
specific arriving frequency is riding on the oscillations of the electric component of
the wave. Now consider an unexcited spinning electron that is always rotating
(spinning) in a constant OAM direction relative to the nucleus. If this spinning
electron now starts "riding" on the arriving photon's varying electric field, its
OAM should invert at each 90 degree peak of phase change as it follows the
cycle of the sine wave. In other words, it flips its relative spin direction by 180
degrees as it tracks the incident sine wave's field polarity changes.

Now consider what happens when different frequency photons are applied to
established dipoles and what the effect would be on the electron spin.

Comments?
LL

jal

18th April 2007 - 02:16 PM

Hi!
See if there is anything in these papers that would help.
http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~gonzalo/3bgraphs.html
AN EXTENSION OF SCATTERING THEORY
Gonzalo E. Ordonez
My supervisor T. Petrosky, together with T. Miyasaka and I have worked on a system of three quantum-mechanical particles, interacting through a short-range potential. For simplicity we have considered particles in a one-dimensional space. The particles are represented by large wavepackets in space representation.

http://www.mbi-berlin.de/de/research/proje...scopy/index.htm
2-02 IONIZATION DYNAMICS IN INTENSE LASER FIELDS
Project coordinator(s): W. Becker, U. Eichmann, H. Rottke
Subproject
"Correlated electron - ion momentum spectroscopy - probing the double ionization mechanism"

Z. Ansari, M. Böttcher, H. Rottke

jal

Confused2

18th April 2007 - 05:09 PM

Hi Good Elf,

From http://www.rodenburg.org/theory/Braggslaw19.html

QUOTE

The green angle is called the ‘Bragg angle’ ..
..at what scattering angle will atoms positioned in either plane also scatter with identical phase into the Fraunhofer plane?
To work out the answer, we now draw two phase threads, one scattered by the top blue plane, the other scattered by the next blue plane down. For these threads to end up in phase , the extra path length experienced by the lower thread (the red line in the diagram above) must be an integral number of wavelengths long: that is, nλ, where n is integer.

That last bit (in bold) is how all the other equations I've been posting have been produced. DSE, MMX, K-T, Bragg angle - if you can understand the reason for just one equation then the reason for the rest will (hopefully) become much clearer.
Best wishes,
-C2.

Edit
The sin(theta) (or whatever) in these explanations (Bragg/DSE) is telling us what the path difference (in the far field) will be. In trigometry 'sin' is the ratio of the length of the opposite side of a triangle to it's hypoteneuse. In this case (almost without exception) the hypoteneuse is the distance between the two slits/atoms and the 'opposite' is the extra length a 'ray' from the second slit has to travel compared to the path from the first slit/atom. By such means (theta = arcsin(N* wavelength/(slit separation)) can we predict the angle where the path length difference at any point (in the far field) will be an integral number of wavelengths and we can (succesfully) predict a maximum at that point.

Confused2

18th April 2007 - 07:33 PM

Hi Good Elf,

If we look at a real DSE experiment (eg http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml ) we see the results here:-

Looking at the dotted 'interference model' line we see how close it is to the actual results.

We don't know how complete their analysis is but its likely to be just like one of these:-
(simple) http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses...res/node30.html
(better) http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses...res/node32.html

An attempt to explain the deviation from the predicted value is just a 'write up' exercise once you've grasped what the above equations are telling you. If the equation works at the maxima and it works (pretty well) at the minima and it works in-between then what's left to explain?

We could try analysis in the k domain - if the analysis doesn't produce the same answer as above then we've done it wrong - the analyses are precisely equivalent - there is nothing new to be found .

If the plot is any clearer we might start to notice something very strange - all the above analyses (including k domain) require the assumption of a continuous sinewave (or e^(iwt) ).

Enough unpopularity for one day.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Good Elf

19th April 2007 - 03:42 PM

Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Yquantum, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,

QUOTE (Confused2+)

We could try analysis in the k domain - if the analysis doesn't produce the same answer as above then we've done it wrong - the analyses are precisely equivalent - there is nothing new to be found .

It produces the correct answers but it will produce them at any distance from the source. A close examination of the data you supply are not exact they are only within a couple of percent (look for yourself). Considering how accurate Quantum Theory is it is no wonder why this data is at variance with this result when you may want an accuracy of better than one part in 10^18 to agree with the data we want to check with. It is a more complicated solution but it is one that will work for all cases and is not independent of cavity shape .... Admittedly it is more complicated but you appear to be interested in only ball park figures. That is fine for College Students but it is inadequate if you want to find the "kinks" in our theory. There really are not 2 or three solutions depending on Fraunhofer or Fresnel Conditions or even Near Field (which is the third option not mentioned here)...

QUOTE (Confused2+)

(simple) http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses...es/node30.htmll
(better) http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses...res/node32.html

This solution just takes care of finite slit width, you need solutions for the Fraunhofer, Fresnel and Evanescent zones. There really is only one general case that is the interference of light in cavities and the solutions have a more general style...

and the solution to this wave equation for the specific geometry is isomorphic to this...

The Schrodinger Wave Equation... Do you get it or not? You can't get there from your theory as you currently present it. If you solve for the whole cavity you solve for the simple pattern you are seeking as well.

Cheers

yquantum

20th April 2007 - 01:17 AM

Like always time is short,

Just something that you might find interesting?

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/2

QUOTE

"We present a numerical simulation of the double slit interference experiment realized by F. Shimizu, K. Shimizu and H. Takuma with ultracold atoms. We show how the Feynman path integral method enables the calculation of the time-dependent wave function. Because the evolution of the probability density of the wave packet just after it exits the slits raises the issue of interpreting the wave/particle dualism, we also simulate trajectories in the de Broglie–Bohm interpretation."

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Confused2

20th April 2007 - 09:16 AM

Hi yquantum,Good Elf,

yquantum - many thanks for your post.

To move the discussion forward I've been trying to do a simplified (my version) Feynman path integral AND a simplified EM wave solution to show the similarities/differences .. hopefully they should both give the same same answer. Unfortunately my PC has crashed and lost the post just as it was nearly ready - maybe it will come out better second time round...

Best wishes,
-C2.

Confused2

20th April 2007 - 01:23 PM

Hi Good Elf, (+ yquantum et al)

GE- I think you have it the wrong way round - students are interested in giving the best possible analysis because otherwise they get no marks.. 'ballpark' is for amateurs.

Ideally we ought to be able to work out the temperature of the bulb filament (in the Teachspin DSE) from the results they have been kind enough to publish.

If we are to pretend to be 'not amateurs' (from memory) we need to do things like
* Calculate a theoretical result
* Compare the calculated result with the experimental result.
* Assess errors
* Give a conclusion

Does that seem reasonable?

As students we didn't need to choose between other people's equations - we're expected to make up our own.

If we look to Frauenhofer and Fresnel for inspiration .. we see they're not using the inverse square law and Good Elf wants us to. It might be interesting to consider why they're not bothering with the inverse square law .. if we look at the diffraction pattern in the Teachspin DSE we see that we are looking at path length differences of a wavelength of light from a point that is about a metre from the slit... the difference is less than 1 part in a million.

I'll confess from the start that what I'm up to is a (simplified) 'sum over paths' calculation. I started the calculation process here ( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=183204 ) with a resounding lack of response .. the only way to make progress would seem to be to continue the process.

QUOTE (me+)

What follows is just the derivation of the DSE equation using Pythagoras instead of angles

Perhaps I should continue this calculation but would anyone even read it? By keeping the path lengths as actual lengths right up to the bitter end we can eliminate the inverse square law as a source of errors . In fairness the difference between paths from either slit may be many wavelengths so we ought to do the job properly - we could then plug the same equation into the MMX or K-T without embarrassment.

Cavities.. oh dear. Feynman says we have to take into account any path that doesn't cancel out. We need to look at reflections from the sides of any 'cavity' and add these in. My own 'view' is that we can reduce this effect to any desired level by designing out these reflections (lots of black paint) and making the 'cavity' as big as we like so the inverse square law takes care of anything that is left over. Regardless of my views we ought to do a calculation for a sample cavity to get an idea of how big the effect is going to be. Maybe later.

So far I've only talked about 'sum over paths' - is this equivalent to solving the EM equation? Perhaps the question should be - in what way is it NOT equivalent to solving the EM equation?

Looking at the GE enthusiasm for modeling photons using combinations of classical waves .. as soon as we put these (infinitely divisible) combinations through two slits we end up with two of them arriving at various points at different times (unless you want to modify 'c' to suit). My interpretation of what Feynman is saying is that whatever photons you fire at the DSE you will get the same interference effect (I'm not sure how this merges into quantum field theory but I guess it must). My objection to classical models of photons and the DSE is that (as I see it obviously) there is no 'physics' way to get the beast back into the sort of pattern that was the sole reason for claiming it was a good idea in the first place. Of course, if it makes no difference what shape your pulse is then you could claim it must have got itself back together.

Invoking Twissers and Vissers doesn't change the fact that for the last two hundred years everybody else has been able to use the DSE to measure wavelength and they probably will be able to do the same in two hundred years time.

Must do some work

.Comments welcome.
Best wishes,
-C2.

Good Elf

21st April 2007 - 04:22 AM

Hi yquantum, Confused2, Laserlight, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,

First I would like to thank yquantum for his reference.

QUOTE

Numerical simulation of the double slit interference with ultracold atoms
Michel Gondran
EDF, Research and Development, 1 av. du General de Gaulle, 92140 Clamart, France
Alexandre Gondran
Paris VI University, 60 av. Jean Jaures, 92190 Meudon, France
(Received 10 October 2003; accepted 17 December 2004)

We present a numerical simulation of the double slit interference experiment realized by F. Shimizu, K. Shimizu and H. Takuma with ultracold atoms. We show how the Feynman path integral method enables the calculation of the time-dependent wave function. Because the evolution of the probability density of the wave packet just after it exits the slits raises the issue of interpreting the wave/particle dualism, we also simulate trajectories in the de Broglie–Bohm interpretation. ©2005 American Association of Physics Teachers.

Please note M Gondran is no "slouch", I would say he is an exceptional individual:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Please note M Gondran is no "slouch", I would say he is an exceptional individual: The Michel Monpetit Prize of the Academy of Science
1998 Prizewinner - Michel GONDRAN
Scientific advisor at the Research and Development Department of Electricité de France in Clamart, for his fundamental work in numerous fields of computer science and applied mathematics, especially nonlinear analysis.
http://www.inria.fr/recherche/nouvelles/pr...onpetit.en.html
Members of the MAXPLUS team
Michel Gondran -- Email michel.gondran@chello.fr

The bad news is I was not able to actually find a downloadable copy of this paper on-line but the good news is this was an almost endless jumping off point for other papers and their interconnectedness to deBroglie-Bohm trajectory predictions and to the way these relate to the DSE and to other theories such as The Dirac Equation which is a Relativistic Extension to the less accurate Schrodinger Equation. The upshot of all this is a bit of an adventure that involves the two Gondran Researchers (brothers or father and son or other relation I do not immediately know), who have cooperatively produced a convincing array of theoretical works which immensely clarifies the hidden classical behavior of particles acted on by electric fields due to slits or magnetic influences of the Stern-Gerlach experiment using Pauli spinors. What appears to be the case is as suspected they have determined that the individual trajectories of quantum particles follow exactly a post-hoc deterministic path according to the deBroglie-Bohm Theory and it is purely classical in nature. The reason for previously mistaking this otherwise chaotic process for non-classical behavior is made clear and stems from the Heisenberg Uncertainty relationship and the mostly ignoring of the influence of spin on quantum system as a fundamental property. In one of their papers it is shown that:

QUOTE

Realistic Picture of 2D Harmonic Oscillator Coherent States
Michel Gondran*
EDF, Research and Development, 1 av. du G´en´eral de Gaulle, 92140 Clamart, France.
(Dated: May 24, 2006)
We show that a 2D harmonic oscillator coherent state is a soliton which has the same evolution as a spinning top: the center of mass follows a classical trajectory and the particle rotates around its center of mass in the same direction as its spin with the harmonic oscillator frequency.
arXiv:quant-ph/0511275 v1 30 Nov 2005
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0511/0511275v1.pdf

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

This identifies the 2D harmonic oscillator coherent state with a soliton with common resonant properties. There are other works "Proposed experiment with Rydberg atoms to test the wave function interpretation Authors: M.Gondran, M. Bozic, D. Arsenovic, A. Gondran (Submitted on 15 Jan 2007)" that use the Feynman Path Integral Method mentioned in the primary paper quoted by yquantum (unfortunately not sourced here) to show this is simply a semi-classical phenomenon in the space in front and behind the slits showing that there are two possible ways to interpret these experiments, one of which has been taken for granted and the other possibility (involving deBroglie-Bohm Trajectories) showing the non-disappearance of the "wavefunction" in regions where there are no particles. This leads rapidly to a violation of the Born Interpretation. It is acknowledged that while a priori prediction of a deBroglie-Bohm Trajectory is not possible, it has been shown that a post-hoc evaluation shows far more information about the trajectory than is possible using a pure Quantum Electrodynamic or other approach that use only statistical information. What is shown is the trajectories of individual particles may be analyzed using these methods. No other methods so far can produce this extra information. Specific tests of this theory is indicated. While the theory seems to be directed to "hard particles" there are some interesting conclusions that can be drawn from the experiments for photons and why they spread and the meaning of this as a phenomenon.

Without analysis I would like to present this bulk of information, mostly from the Preprint Archive, to support this line of discussion...
Proposed experiment with Rydberg atoms to test the wave function interpretation
Authors: M.Gondran, M. Bozic, D. Arsenovic, A. Gondran
(Submitted on 15 Jan 2007)
Abstract: Experiment{Fabre_1983} shows that Rydberg atoms do not pass through 1 micron meter width slits if their principal quantum number is rather large(n > 60). Thus, the particle density measured after the slits is null while the wave function calculated after the slits is not. This experiment is in contradiction with the Born interpretation (the square of the wave function is proportional to the probability density for the particle to be found at each point in space). The classical interpretation of this experiment, which removes the contradiction, is to suppose that if the particles do not pass, the wave function does not pass either (classical assumption).
An alternative interpretation of this experiment is to suppose that the wave function passes through the slits, but that the Born interpretation is not valid any more in this case (alternative assumption).
The aim of this paper is to present an experiment testing this alternative assumption compared to the classical assumption.

Comments:
10 pages, 5 figures, submited to "Foundations of Physics"
Subjects:
Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Cite as:
arXiv:quant-ph/0701100v1
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701100v1

A Crucial Experiment To Test The Broglie-Bohm Trajectories For Indistinguishable Particles
Authors: Michel Gondran, Alexandre Gondran
(Submitted on 22 Mar 2006 (v1), last revised 30 Mar 2006 (this version, v2))

Abstract: The standard quantum theory has not taken into account the size of quantum particles, the latter being implicitly treated as material points. The recent interference experiments of Zeilinger [3] with large molecules like fullerenes and the thought experiments of Bozic et al [7] with asymmetrical Young slits make it possible today to take into account the particle size.
We present here a complete study of this phenomenon where our simulations show differences between the particles density after the slits and the modulus square of the wave function. Then we propose a crucial experiment that allows us to reconsider the wave-particle duality and to test the existence of the Broglie-Bohm trajectories for indistinguishable particles.

Comments:
5 pages, 5 figures, submitted to Physical Review A
Subjects:
Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Cite as:
arXiv:quant-ph/0603200v2

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0603200

Schrodinger Proof in Minplus Complex Analysis
File Format: Adobe PostScript - View as Text
MICHEL GONDRAN. Abstract. We are presenting an internal trajectory model for a quantum. particle in the Schrodingernon-relativistic approximation. ...
ftp://ftp.esi.ac.at/pub/Preprints/esi1307.ps - Similar pages

The Michel Monpetit Prize of the Academy of Science
(Archives Prizewinners - 1978 - 2004)
1998 Prizewinner - Michel GONDRAN
Scientific advisor at the Research and Development Department of Electricité de France in Clamart, for his fundamental work in numerous fields of computer science and applied mathematics, especially nonlinear analysis.
http://www.inria.fr/recherche/nouvelles/pr...onpetit.en.html
Members of the MAXPLUS team
Michel Gondran -- Email michel.gondran@chello.fr

Rydberg Atoms and the Quantum Defect

A Rydberg atom is an atom with a single valence electron in a state with a very large principal quantum number n. The many core electrons in a Rydberg atom effectively shield these valence electrons from the electric field of the nucleus. The outer electron generally "sees" a nucleus with only one proton and will behave much like the electron of a Hydrogen atom. High energy levels in the Hydrogen atom can be modeled by the Rydberg equation:

[...]

Rydberg atoms will closely fit this equation, but they will deviate from the relation because they do not have circular orbits. Orbits of electrons in a high n-state will pass through the core of shielding electrons, so the electron will occasionally “see” the whole nucleus. To adjust the relation for this penetration of the inner core electrons, we introduce a correction term called the "quantum defect." The Rydberg relation is modified to include the quantum defect(s) of the element being studied;
http://www.phy.davidson.edu/StuHome/joeste...nal/rydberg.htm

A complete analysis of the Stern-Gerlach experiment using Pauli spinors
Authors: Michel Gondran, Alexandre Gondran
(Submitted on 30 Nov 2005)

Abstract: The Stern-Gerlach experiment is the fundamental experiment in order to exhibit the quantization of spin and understand the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. However, although the Stern-Gerlach experiment plays an essential role in the teaching of quantum mechanics, no complete analysis of this experiment using Pauli spinors is presented in the pedagogical literature. This paper presents such an analysis and develops implications for the theory of quantum measurement.
We first propose an analytic expression of both the wave function and the probability density in the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Our explicit solution is obtained via a complete integration of the Pauli equation over time and space. The probability density evolution describes a slipping of the wave packet into two separate packets due to the measurement device, but it cannot account for impacts.
We therefore calculate the de Broglie-Bohm trajectories, which not only explain impacts naturally, but also accounts for the spin quantization following the magnetic field gradient. It is then possible to propose a clear explanation of measurement effects in the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

Comments:
13 pages, 4 figures
Subjects:
Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Cite as:
arXiv:quant-ph/0511276v1
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0511276
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0511/0511276v1.pdf

Revisiting the Schrodinger probability current
Authors: Michel Gondran, Alexandre Gondran
(Submitted on 8 Apr 2003)

Abstract: We revisit the definition of the probability current for the Schrodinger equation. First, we prove that the Dirac probability currents of stationary wave functions of the hydrogen atom and of the isotrop harmonic oscillator are not nil and correspond to a circular rotation of the probability. Then, we recall how it is necessary to add to classical Pauli and Schrodinger currents, an additional spin-dependant current, the Gordan current. Consequently, we get a circular probability current in the Schrodinger approximation for the hydrogen atom and the isotrop harmonic oscillator.

Comments:
5 pages
Subjects:
Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Cite as:
arXiv:quant-ph/0304055v1
Submission history
From: Michel Gondran [view email]
[v1] Tue, 8 Apr 2003 08:39:49 GMT (6kb)
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0304055
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0304/0304055v1.pdf

Numerical simulation of the double slit interference with ultracold atoms

Michel Gondran
EDF, Research and Development, 1 av. du General de Gaulle, 92140 Clamart, France

Alexandre Gondran
Paris VI University, 60 av. Jean Jaures, 92190 Meudon, France

(Received 10 October 2003; accepted 17 December 2004)

We present a numerical simulation of the double slit interference experiment realized by F. Shimizu, K. Shimizu and H. Takuma with ultracold atoms. We show how the Feynman path integral method enables the calculation of the time-dependent wave function. Because the evolution of the probability density of the wave packet just after it exits the slits raises the issue of interpreting the wave/particle dualism, we also simulate trajectories in the de Broglie–Bohm interpretation. ©2005 American Association of Physics Teachers.

doi:10.1119/1.1858484
PACS: 01.50.-i, 02.60.Cb, 03.75.Be, 03.65.Db

Realistic Picture of 2D Harmonic Oscillator Coherent States
Michel Gondran*
EDF, Research and Development, 1 av. du G´en´eral de Gaulle, 92140 Clamart, France.
(Dated: May 24, 2006)
We show that a 2D harmonic oscillator coherent state is a soliton which has the same evolution
as a spinning top: the center of mass follows a classical trajectory and the particle rotates around
its center of mass in the same direction as its spin with the harmonic oscillator frequency.
arXiv:quant-ph/0511275 v1 30 Nov 2005
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0511/0511275v1.pdf

Spin-dependent Bohm trajectories for Pauli and Dirac eigenstates of hydrogen
Authors: C. Colijn, E. R. Vrscay
(Submitted on 29 Apr 2003)

Abstract: The de Broglie-Bohm causal theory of quantum mechanics is applied to the hydrogen atom in the fully spin-dependent and relativistic framework of the Dirac equation, and in the nonrelativistic but spin-dependent framework of the Pauli equation. Eigenstates are chosen which are simultaneous eigenstates of the energy H, total angular momentum M, and z component of the total angular momentum M_z. We find the trajectories of the electron, and show that in these eigenstates, motion is circular about the z-axis, with constant angular velocity. We compute the rates of revolution for the ground (n=1) state and the n=2 states, and show that there is agreement in the relevant cases between the Dirac and Pauli results, and with earlier results on the Schrodinger equation.

Comments:
15 pages
Subjects:
Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference:
Found. Phys. Lett. Vol. 16, No. 4 pp. 303-323 (2003)
Cite as:
arXiv:quant-ph/0304198v1
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0304198

I only wish that I was able to lay my hands on the paper that yquantum originally was alluding to...
"Numerical simulation of the double slit interference with ultracold atoms, Michel Gondran and Alexandre Gondran"

Also I completely reject the inference that I am "pushing" the inverse sdquare law in any shape of form, what I am pushing is a resonant cavity model of space leading to cavities that can explain the Double Slit Experiment, Observing later. The latter part of this question I believe is linked with the concept of reciprocal space and reciprocal time (as frequency) connecting our local spaces with other resonant spaces non-locally. I realize that Confused2 is trying to convert what I am saying into a "sound byte" but I reject any simplification just to make it more understandable. What it then becomes is an easily attackable "theory" dumbed down to some banal outcomes that cannot be of any great use. I do not say that I c an provide all the answers to this problem , all I can show is that Confused2's simplistic model (no matter how it is dressed up) based on path lengths is incompatible with a modern understanding of the principles behind this simplification.

With all respect I acknowledge that while the simplification that Confused2 keeps reiterating is "fine" as far as it goes... It is not a way toward any general understanding of the deeper optical principles behind this phenomena. Indeed it is linked closely to some of the most complicated experimental results of our time that goes way beyond a two dimensional view of the Double Slit Experiment. If there is anything actually wrong with what I have presented then I am sure that Confused2 would have immediately jumped on it from the start. What Confused2 is continuing to state is there is nothing more than the simple high school experiment as shown by that single photon at a time electronic experiment. It is elegant and it is "complete" but only for the experiment as stated. It is no longer at the cutting edge of the current development as indicated in these papers and the many others I have presented over the months.

What all these papers are showing is that we are dealing with resonant electromagnetic cavities within and without these defined spatial volumes and these cavities result in the formation of structure in that space not commonly acknowledged in most treatments of this subject. It is very clear that a lot more information can be derived with the knowledge of the placement of the active sources and the sinks and the geometry of all space reachable by these waves. The particle aspect of the systems should be de-emphasized and until a collapse of the state is necessary the system has underdefined dynamical properties that can be determined with great accuracy after the event. These resonant cavities ... including even the possibility of our "Soliton Universe" represent boundaries to the Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory at it's light cone. The analysis as presented is clearly a retarded field solution. If this was extended to include solitons resonant in time as indicated by the paper I presented here recently, I am sure this would be highly productive.
Good Elf here recently - A photon-like wavepacket with quantised properties based on classical Maxwell's equations: John E. Carroll (Submitted on 20 Sep 2006)

What is also emerging is the "size" of a particle defines the additional properties such as mass, dipole moment, charge and other "emergent" issues you will find as you pick through this accessible grouping of Papers by these authors. Most of the most puzzling aspects of physics are treated with outcomes that suggest a common resolution to the phenomena sometime very soon.

Once again I would like to thank yquantum for this very productive lead at this time.

Cheers

PS:

QUOTE (Confused2+)

Looking at the GE enthusiasm for modeling photons using combinations of classical waves .. as soon as we put these (infinitely divisible) combinations through two slits we end up with two of them arriving at various points at different times (unless you want to modify 'c' to suit).

Photons never divide up... cannot divide up... spatial separation does not change any transit times or delays. You cannot know how to divide up a wave... it is "forbidden" and would "force" a "which way" interpretation. There cannot be "particle interpretation" only a "wave interpretation" before the collapse of the state. All you are able to do is restrict the infinite number of paths to less than every possible path. Even a "protective measurement" cannot be used to localize the "particle" without collapsing the wave state. Wrong interpretation and I fear there is a missing chunk in your understanding of what I am trying to say, I may need to try harder to help you with this idea. You cannot have a single photon "particle" travel two paths it is a quantum.. divisibility is forbidden by Dirac along conservation of energy grounds. Photons are emitted as a single quantum of energy and are received as a single quantum of energy. Photons are literally defined by the spreading light cone walls so where else is it able to go?? For a particular photon and for a particular physical space and its geometry, show me where the light cone walls are for the photon wave and I will show you where the photon is... at least it's only presence we can possibly know without collapsing the wavefunction. user posted image

Neil Farbstein

21st April 2007 - 05:00 AM

QUOTE (Good Elf+Apr 21 2007, 04:22 AM)

Hi yquantum, Confused2, Laserlight, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,

First I would like to thank yquantum for his reference. Please note M Gondran is no "slouch", I would say he is an exceptional individual:
The bad news is I was not able to actually find a downloadable copy of this paper on-line but the good news is this was an almost endless jumping off point for other papers and their interconnectedness to deBroglie-Bohm trajectory predictions and to the way these relate to the DSE and to other theories such as Equation. The upshot of all this is a bit of an adventure that involves the two Gondran Researchers (brothers or father and son or other relation I do not immediately know), who have cooperatively produced a convincing array of theoretical works which immensely clarifies the hidden classical behavior of particles acted on by electric fields due to slits or magnetic influences of the Stern-Gerlach experiment using Pauli spinors. What appears to be the case is as suspected they have determined that the individual trajectories of quantum particles follow exactly a post-hoc deterministic path according to the deBroglie-Bohm Theory and it is purely classical in nature. The reason for previously mistaking this otherwise chaotic process for non-classical behavior is made clear and stems from the Heisenberg Uncertainty relationship and the mostly ignoring of the influence of spin on quantum system as a fundamental property. In one of their papers it is shown that:
This identifies the 2D harmonic oscillator coherent state with a soliton with common resonant properties. There are other works "Proposed experiment with Rydberg atoms to test the wave function interpretation Authors: M.Gondran, M. Bozic, D. Arsenovic, A. Gondran (Submitted on 15 Jan 2007)" that use the Feynman Path Integral Method mentioned in the primary paper quoted by yquantum (unfortunately not sourced here) to show this is simply a semi-classical phenomenon in the space in front and behind the slits showing that there are two possible ways to interpret these experiments, one of which has been taken for granted and the other possibility (involving deBroglie-Bohm Trajectories) showing the non-disappearance of the "wavefunction" in regions where there are no particles. This leads rapidly to a violation of the Born Interpretation. It is acknowledged that while a priori prediction of a deBroglie-Bohm Trajectory is not possible, it has been shown that a post-hoc evaluation shows far more information about the trajectory than is possible using a pure Quantum Electrodynamic or other approach that use only statistical information. What is shown is the trajectories of individual particles may be analyzed using these methods. No other methods so far can produce this extra information. Specific tests of this theory is indicated. While the theory seems to be directed to "hard particles" there are some interesting conclusions that can be drawn from the experiments for photons and why they spread and the meaning of this as a phenomenon.

Without analysis I would like to present this bulk of information, mostly from the Preprint Archive, to support this line of discussion...

I only wish that I was able to lay my hands on the paper that yquantum originally was alluding to...
"Numerical simulation of the double slit interference with ultracold atoms, Michel Gondran and Alexandre Gondran"

Also I completely reject the inference that I am "pushing" the inverse sdquare law in any shape of form, what I am pushing is a resonant cavity model of space leading to cavities that can explain the Double Slit Experiment, Observing later. The latter part of this question I believe is linked with the concept of reciprocal space and reciprocal time (as frequency) connecting our local spaces with other resonant spaces non-locally. I realize that Confused2 is trying to convert what I am saying into a "sound byte" but I reject any simplification just to make it more understandable. What it then becomes is an easily attackable "theory" dumbed down to some banal outcomes that cannot be of any great use. I do not say that I c an provide all the answers to this problem , all I can show is that Confused2's simplistic model (no matter how it is dressed up) based on path lengths is incompatible with a modern understanding of the principles behind this simplification.

With all respect I acknowledge that while the simplification that Confused2 keeps reiterating is "fine" as far as it goes... It is not a way toward any general understanding of the deeper optical principles behind this phenomena. Indeed it is linked closely to some of the most complicated experimental results of our time that goes way beyond a two dimensional view of the Double Slit Experiment. If there is anything actually wrong with what I have presented then I am sure that Confused2 would have immediately jumped on it from the start. What Confused2 is continuing to state is there is nothing more than the simple high school experiment as shown by that single photon at a time electronic experiment. It is elegant and it is "complete" but only for the experiment as stated. It is no longer at the cutting edge of the current development as indicated in these papers and the many others I have presented over the months.

What all these papers are showing is that we are dealing with resonant electromagnetic cavities within and without these defined spatial volumes and these cavities result in the formation of structure in that space not commonly acknowledged in most treatments of this subject. It is very clear that a lot more information can be derived with the knowledge of the placement of the active sources and the sinks and the geometry of all space reachable by these waves. The particle aspect of the systems should be de-emphasized and until a collapse of the state is necessary the system has underdefined dynamical properties that can be determined with great accuracy after the event. These resonant cavities ... including even the possibility of our "Soliton Universe" represent boundaries to the Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory at it's light cone. The analysis as presented is clearly a retarded field solution. If this was extended to include solitons resonant in time as indicated by the paper I presented here recently, I am sure this would be highly productive.
Good Elf here recently - A photon-like wavepacket with quantised properties based on classical Maxwell's equations: John E. Carroll (Submitted on 20 Sep 2006)

What is also emerging is the "size" of a particle defines the additional properties such as mass, dipole moment, charge and other "emergent" issues you will find as you pick through this accessible grouping of Papers by these authors. Most of the most puzzling aspects of physics are treated with outcomes that suggest a common resolution to the phenomena sometime very soon.

Once again I would like to thank yquantum for this very productive lead at this time.

Cheers

PS:

QUOTE (Confused2+)

That reference on spin is very extensive but I am unsure that this is the best way to deal with electrons. I will need to think about it a bit. For instance The electric charge distribution inside of the electron does seem to be difficult to explain using a common charge distribution. High Energy Physics Experiments seem to indicate that electrons practically have no discernible sized "core"... this is odd for something that has a magnetic dipole moment.
http://www.electronspin.org/2.htm
I am probably missing something here and you better tell me what it is...

so the elecrton looks like a fuzzy ball of increasing density, or foamy ball with increaing density or what?

Good Elf

21st April 2007 - 07:41 AM

Hi Neil,

QUOTE

I am probably missing something here and you better tell me what it is...

so the electron looks like a fuzzy ball of increasing density, or foamy ball with increasing density or what?

This is one of the most important points. The electric field just keeps increasing the further you get towards the core. There is no actual "charge substance" there. It is totally electrically structureless. If this was some kind of "charge" then as you moved a test charge toward the center of the electrically charged ball at the center of this field should then fall off to zero as r -> 0 then q -> 0. No such luck... the field just keeps climbing all the way up the scale to the highest energy regimes. This should be an analogy with gravity and the Earth and tunneling into the core (provided the center was not molten). If you made an evacuated hole down there you would be "freely falling" in zero gee at the Earths core. What is seen in the electrons case is no "core" of "charged matter" and no drop off in "gravity" as you move towards the center. You also see no current loops to be sources the origin for those magnetic dipoles either, but there is spin. Of course that mass is still a good question. To me the answer is this place at r -> 0 in space where the electric field is apparently radiating from and where the magnetic dipole moment is coming from is simply a single point on our hyperplane above which the real object is residing beyond the bounds of our space as defined by the local light cone.

If you look at the equations that define the quantum numbers l, m, n is simply the harmonics on a sphere... what sphere?... is the interesting question.
Wolfram Research: Spherical Harmonics... see images below

So all this structure that obviously must be somewhere... is hidden "dimensionally". It's nature is that of a resonant soliton.

Cheers

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.