QUOTE (Montec+)
I personally cannot tell the difference between two photons of the same frequency and polarization so when I read "photon" I mentally translate it to "wave front" and go on reading.
In the Michelson [ .. Kennedy-Thorndike ..] interferometer the interference, with different length legs, requires a monochromatic light to produce fringes. The fringes are produced by different wave fronts. If the legs are the same length then any source will produce fringes because the same wave front is being used to produce the fringes.
If we guess the Kennedy-Thorndike legs are different by (say) 1 meter then this is about 2 million wavelengths (wavefronts(?)). Would you agree that a single photon must consist of more than 2 million wavefronts if a photon can only interfere with itself? Or something else?
Best wishes,
-C2.
In the Michelson [ .. Kennedy-Thorndike ..] interferometer the interference, with different length legs, requires a monochromatic light to produce fringes. The fringes are produced by different wave fronts. If the legs are the same length then any source will produce fringes because the same wave front is being used to produce the fringes.
If we guess the Kennedy-Thorndike legs are different by (say) 1 meter then this is about 2 million wavelengths (wavefronts(?)). Would you agree that a single photon must consist of more than 2 million wavefronts if a photon can only interfere with itself? Or something else?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi All,
I must have a little sleep but I will say this... people are still not accepting the concept that progressive waves cannot be used to form standing waves in "cavities". It is a "dogma" that has passed it's use by date. Progressive light waves cannot produce holograms for instance, this means that progressive water waves at the shore wet the entire coastline while standing waves of light touch some places on the boundaries but leave others untouched. What is seen are standing waves exposing the interior of the gelatinous emulsion differentially with depth, these are boundaries that define anti-nodes and nodes "hanging" in space. We have been over this time and time again. The cavity does not need to be closed, it is only necessary to completely define the nature of the boundaries to define these unseen structures. These effects are two fold. Sure ... progressive photons "illuminate" a "cavity" with luminiferous energy but the "cavity" (read "empty spaces"... that are really not empty) is a structure that is independent of those individual progressive photons and has already formed this standing wave structure in space that is being "illuminated". Anyway the progress of photons through space are not directly linked to the so called "collapse" of the wave function. Wave particle duality means that when it is a wave it is only a wave and when it is a particle it is only a particle. It is never both a wave and a particle at the exact same time. This is analogous to saying that you and your shadow are not the same thing. Not only that I think I am also suggesting that the particle is not the "real McCoy".
Just have a look back over what has already been written. There is sufficient there to clear this point up without me being redundant and boring everyone to tears.
Cheers
I must have a little sleep but I will say this... people are still not accepting the concept that progressive waves cannot be used to form standing waves in "cavities". It is a "dogma" that has passed it's use by date. Progressive light waves cannot produce holograms for instance, this means that progressive water waves at the shore wet the entire coastline while standing waves of light touch some places on the boundaries but leave others untouched. What is seen are standing waves exposing the interior of the gelatinous emulsion differentially with depth, these are boundaries that define anti-nodes and nodes "hanging" in space. We have been over this time and time again. The cavity does not need to be closed, it is only necessary to completely define the nature of the boundaries to define these unseen structures. These effects are two fold. Sure ... progressive photons "illuminate" a "cavity" with luminiferous energy but the "cavity" (read "empty spaces"... that are really not empty) is a structure that is independent of those individual progressive photons and has already formed this standing wave structure in space that is being "illuminated". Anyway the progress of photons through space are not directly linked to the so called "collapse" of the wave function. Wave particle duality means that when it is a wave it is only a wave and when it is a particle it is only a particle. It is never both a wave and a particle at the exact same time. This is analogous to saying that you and your shadow are not the same thing. Not only that I think I am also suggesting that the particle is not the "real McCoy".
Just have a look back over what has already been written. There is sufficient there to clear this point up without me being redundant and boring everyone to tears.
Cheers
Hello Confused2, et al.
I would say it is impossible to tell the difference between two or more photons (think "wave fronts") with the same frequency, phase, and polarization that come from the same direction. So, to me, they are identical and can interfere with each other.
The photon (think "wave front") cannot be made up of a large number of wavelengths. Each "wave front" is a photon. "Wave fronts" can be synchronized and summed (constructive interference) to get higher intensities ( this happens in lasers). In the photo-electric effect the intensity (number of wave fronts) has a direct relationship to the number of ejected electrons.
In the Kennedy-Thorndike interferometer experiment the interference fringes are the result of identical photons (think "wave front") interfering with each other.
To put it another way photons with the same energy, phase, polarization, and Poynting vector are identical and can interfere with each other and themselves.
I would say it is impossible to tell the difference between two or more photons (think "wave fronts") with the same frequency, phase, and polarization that come from the same direction. So, to me, they are identical and can interfere with each other.
The photon (think "wave front") cannot be made up of a large number of wavelengths. Each "wave front" is a photon. "Wave fronts" can be synchronized and summed (constructive interference) to get higher intensities ( this happens in lasers). In the photo-electric effect the intensity (number of wave fronts) has a direct relationship to the number of ejected electrons.
In the Kennedy-Thorndike interferometer experiment the interference fringes are the result of identical photons (think "wave front") interfering with each other.
To put it another way photons with the same energy, phase, polarization, and Poynting vector are identical and can interfere with each other and themselves.
Hi all,
A belated welcome to janrinze (JR), and others. Since the thread is back onto one of the most important topics, especially concerning the participants in this thread, I thought I'd "drop back in".
In case you didn't read this whole thread, JR, this has all been covered very well before. GE, LL, and C2 do not want to accept that all "photons" (including the "add on, virtual" kind) can interact / interfere. They have offered NO theories/papers/experiments to back this up, however. I was, and still am, just as perplexed at this stance as you, JR.
I have offered up MANY papers showing that this does happen, and is basic to the premise of superposition, and the EM wave, propagating by field interaction.
I have asked for WHAT physical part of the "photon" would NOT allow interaction, but no one here offered an answer.
I don't have time for a full response to one, let alone the many, errors that seem to be lingering. Here a just a few:
LL: You are still "banking" on the idea that a medium (matter) is doing the mixing, so that it is not technically the "photon" that is interacting. This is exactly why I have suggested just "erasing" the "photon" from the model. It is SO basic to the EM wave to have an exchange between 2 electrons, that it goes without saying. The point you are NOT getting, is that NEW "photons" are emitted, with the change in frequency being "passed on". Since these are NOT the same "photons", then the matter did NOT "mix" them; it "collapsed" them, and re-emitted. Once you rule out matter, you must conclude that the energy interacts with itself as well.
Also, the sound argument is wrong as well. Two different tones can clearly be discerned in the example you gave. The ear does not "mix" these tones, or ALL that we would ever hear is "noise"; this goes EXACTLY for the eyes as well. The example of seeing a star without interference. If the eyes did the mixing, we would just see some gray-scale world.
The "photons" from that star, 6000 LY away ARE NOT the same that you see. They have been interacting ALL the way, and re-emitted countless times. This is why I made the point that we do not have a vacuum in space. Look again at the number of particles per cm of space again, you will see that is is virtually impossible to not have crossed numerous electrons.
C2: The ONLY important path length that is critical, is the LAST path length. The last full cycle. That is where the difference is "measured".
GE: The nodes and anti-nodes are DEPENDANT on the vibration itself, AND the cavity. Wavelength and dimension. These nodes are not (can not) be there "all the time", as you say.
enough for now..
regards,
T.Roc
A belated welcome to janrinze (JR), and others. Since the thread is back onto one of the most important topics, especially concerning the participants in this thread, I thought I'd "drop back in".
In case you didn't read this whole thread, JR, this has all been covered very well before. GE, LL, and C2 do not want to accept that all "photons" (including the "add on, virtual" kind) can interact / interfere. They have offered NO theories/papers/experiments to back this up, however. I was, and still am, just as perplexed at this stance as you, JR.
I have offered up MANY papers showing that this does happen, and is basic to the premise of superposition, and the EM wave, propagating by field interaction.
I have asked for WHAT physical part of the "photon" would NOT allow interaction, but no one here offered an answer.
I don't have time for a full response to one, let alone the many, errors that seem to be lingering. Here a just a few:
LL: You are still "banking" on the idea that a medium (matter) is doing the mixing, so that it is not technically the "photon" that is interacting. This is exactly why I have suggested just "erasing" the "photon" from the model. It is SO basic to the EM wave to have an exchange between 2 electrons, that it goes without saying. The point you are NOT getting, is that NEW "photons" are emitted, with the change in frequency being "passed on". Since these are NOT the same "photons", then the matter did NOT "mix" them; it "collapsed" them, and re-emitted. Once you rule out matter, you must conclude that the energy interacts with itself as well.
Also, the sound argument is wrong as well. Two different tones can clearly be discerned in the example you gave. The ear does not "mix" these tones, or ALL that we would ever hear is "noise"; this goes EXACTLY for the eyes as well. The example of seeing a star without interference. If the eyes did the mixing, we would just see some gray-scale world.
The "photons" from that star, 6000 LY away ARE NOT the same that you see. They have been interacting ALL the way, and re-emitted countless times. This is why I made the point that we do not have a vacuum in space. Look again at the number of particles per cm of space again, you will see that is is virtually impossible to not have crossed numerous electrons.
C2: The ONLY important path length that is critical, is the LAST path length. The last full cycle. That is where the difference is "measured".
GE: The nodes and anti-nodes are DEPENDANT on the vibration itself, AND the cavity. Wavelength and dimension. These nodes are not (can not) be there "all the time", as you say.
enough for now..
regards,
T.Roc
Hello all
A thought just occurred to me. Each half cycle of an EM wave could be considered a wave front since the direction of the electric field is different. So a photon could be described as a "Cooper Pair" of "positive/negative wave fronts" traveling/expanding through space.
Food for thought.
A thought just occurred to me. Each half cycle of an EM wave could be considered a wave front since the direction of the electric field is different. So a photon could be described as a "Cooper Pair" of "positive/negative wave fronts" traveling/expanding through space.
Food for thought.
Hi Montec,
You are saying the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment simply wouldn't work with single photons? It would require many millions before an interference effect could be observed?
Same for the Teachspin experiment? There must be (at least) six photons simultaneously and coherently present to give the observed result?
Best wishes,
-C2.
You are saying the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment simply wouldn't work with single photons? It would require many millions before an interference effect could be observed?
Same for the Teachspin experiment? There must be (at least) six photons simultaneously and coherently present to give the observed result?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Good Elf,
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
]people are still not accepting the concept that progressive waves cannot be used to form standing waves in "cavities".
I guess that would refer to me. If we accept we can have (say) a million wavepeaks from one photon (and I do) then maths is the only way to make any predictions that we can test - it doesn't really make any difference how they get there.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I guess that would refer to me. If we accept we can have (say) a million wavepeaks from one photon (and I do) then maths is the only way to make any predictions that we can test - it doesn't really make any difference how they get there.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hello Confused2, et al.
Yes, I am saying that the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment will not work with single photons.
Each point on the plot in the Teachspin experiment measures an average intensity of the incident photons over some time frame. The detector is then moved to the next point to be measured. The entire plot does not happen instantly. Each point may receive the interference from multiple photons. The entire plot is the result of countless photons each of which has the same diffraction pattern. So, no the DSE does not require 6 photons. It only requires one, but measuring the DSE pattern requires many.
Yes, I am saying that the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment will not work with single photons.
Each point on the plot in the Teachspin experiment measures an average intensity of the incident photons over some time frame. The detector is then moved to the next point to be measured. The entire plot does not happen instantly. Each point may receive the interference from multiple photons. The entire plot is the result of countless photons each of which has the same diffraction pattern. So, no the DSE does not require 6 photons. It only requires one, but measuring the DSE pattern requires many.
Good Day all!
I have been doing like TRoc and just listening.
I want you to consider an additional fact.
The "cavity" and the "detector" are not the same after one photon (wave packet) has entered. It has changed. There is the addition of one photon and its telling the whole cavity that it is/was there.
Think .... of a way to test the fact that the detector is saying to the cavity that a photon came down that road (C2) and this motel room is occupied. There is still room at the motel but it would be easier to go down the road to the next motel to get the same plush accomodations.
Think of a way to change the detector so that it says to an arriving photon, "All the best rooms are occupied over here, but you can turn/change road and go over there".
jal
I have been doing like TRoc and just listening.
QUOTE
Good Elf
Sure ... progressive photons "illuminate" a "cavity" with luminiferous energy but the "cavity" (read "empty spaces"... that are really not empty) is a structure that is independent of those individual progressive photons and has already formed this standing wave structure in space that is being "illuminated
Sure ... progressive photons "illuminate" a "cavity" with luminiferous energy but the "cavity" (read "empty spaces"... that are really not empty) is a structure that is independent of those individual progressive photons and has already formed this standing wave structure in space that is being "illuminated
I want you to consider an additional fact.
The "cavity" and the "detector" are not the same after one photon (wave packet) has entered. It has changed. There is the addition of one photon and its telling the whole cavity that it is/was there.
Think .... of a way to test the fact that the detector is saying to the cavity that a photon came down that road (C2) and this motel room is occupied. There is still room at the motel but it would be easier to go down the road to the next motel to get the same plush accomodations.
Think of a way to change the detector so that it says to an arriving photon, "All the best rooms are occupied over here, but you can turn/change road and go over there".
jal
Hello TRoc,
I'm glad to see that you are still participating on this board. Welcome back.
Apparently you didn't receive my PM email since I got no response.
It appears that we are in direct conflict on these issues.
Would you say that the result of phase mixing is a linear or non-linear response?
What are the requirements to yield such a response.
Some more questions for you.
If photon waves that pass thru each other are interfering,
which means that the waveforms are being distorted at the point of interference,
are those newly distorted waves continuing to propagate and carry with them
the change of phase or energy level caused by the interference? Wouldn't this
change the quality/integrity of the original qubit information of the original photon?
Doesn't this violate the concept of relativity? Each photon is relative to itself in
space and time.
I have no problem with your comment on re-emission of a photon after interacting
with matter....IMO, reflection is considered re-emission.
Back to your comment about the "energy interacting with itself as well". Let's go
back to previous discussions about white light....can't white light be broken down
and isolated by discrete filters into its basic constituent frequencies? Are the
optical frequencies that are travelling together interfering with each other enroute
from their source? If so, wouldn't the specific qubit information carried by each
photon of a specific frequency be blended via interference with other photons and
be homogenized and therefore lost?
Would you say that the result of phase mixing is a linear or non-linear response?
What are the requirements to yield such a response.
Some more questions for you.
If photon waves that pass thru each other are interfering,
which means that the waveforms are being distorted at the point of interference,
are those newly distorted waves continuing to propagate and carry with them
the change of phase or energy level caused by the interference? Wouldn't this
change the quality/integrity of the original qubit information of the original photon?
Doesn't this violate the concept of relativity? Each photon is relative to itself in
space and time.
I have no problem with your comment on re-emission of a photon after interacting
with matter....IMO, reflection is considered re-emission.
Back to your comment about the "energy interacting with itself as well". Let's go
back to previous discussions about white light....can't white light be broken down
and isolated by discrete filters into its basic constituent frequencies? Are the
optical frequencies that are travelling together interfering with each other enroute
from their source? If so, wouldn't the specific qubit information carried by each
photon of a specific frequency be blended via interference with other photons and
be homogenized and therefore lost?
Also, the sound argument is wrong as well. Two different tones can clearly be discerned in the example you gave. The ear does not "mix" these tones, or ALL that we would ever hear is "noise"; this goes EXACTLY for the eyes as well. The example of seeing a star without interference. If the eyes did the mixing, we would just see some gray-scale world.
Wait a minute.... if you have a single membrane, and that membrane is being
simulaneously stimulated by 2 separate frequencies arriving together to form a
single output isn't that signal mixing? The result will be a composite of the
individual frequencies. Isn't that what chords and harmony is all about?
It is phase/frequency mixing at a common point and has a non-linear
response.
IMO, the final energy signature pattern and spatial perspective is the same
as the was originally emitted. There is no interference or absorption losses
observe in route or the qubit information carried by the photons would have been altered/distorted.
Do you recall seeing clouds in space, you cannot see optical frequency objects
behind them because of the density the optical frequencies are absorbed, but you
can see xray or infrared images thru them that don't interfere and are not
absorbed by the matter that makes up the mass of the clouds.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...lars.jpg/180px-
Comments, discussion, opposing opinions?
LL
I'm glad to see that you are still participating on this board. Welcome back.
Apparently you didn't receive my PM email since I got no response.
It appears that we are in direct conflict on these issues.
QUOTE
LL: You are still "banking" on the idea that a medium (matter) is doing the mixing, so that it is not technically the "photon" that is interacting. This is exactly why I have suggested just "erasing" the "photon" from the model. It is SO basic to the EM wave to have an exchange between 2 electrons, that it goes without saying. The point you are NOT getting, is that NEW "photons" are emitted, with the change in frequency being "passed on". Since these are NOT the same "photons", then the matter did NOT "mix" them; it "collapsed" them, and re-emitted. Once you rule out matter, you must conclude that the energy interacts with itself as well.
Would you say that the result of phase mixing is a linear or non-linear response?
What are the requirements to yield such a response.
Some more questions for you.
If photon waves that pass thru each other are interfering,
which means that the waveforms are being distorted at the point of interference,
are those newly distorted waves continuing to propagate and carry with them
the change of phase or energy level caused by the interference? Wouldn't this
change the quality/integrity of the original qubit information of the original photon?
Doesn't this violate the concept of relativity? Each photon is relative to itself in
space and time.
I have no problem with your comment on re-emission of a photon after interacting
with matter....IMO, reflection is considered re-emission.
Back to your comment about the "energy interacting with itself as well". Let's go
back to previous discussions about white light....can't white light be broken down
and isolated by discrete filters into its basic constituent frequencies? Are the
optical frequencies that are travelling together interfering with each other enroute
from their source? If so, wouldn't the specific qubit information carried by each
photon of a specific frequency be blended via interference with other photons and
be homogenized and therefore lost?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| LL: You are still "banking" on the idea that a medium (matter) is doing the mixing, so that it is not technically the "photon" that is interacting. This is exactly why I have suggested just "erasing" the "photon" from the model. It is SO basic to the EM wave to have an exchange between 2 electrons, that it goes without saying. The point you are NOT getting, is that NEW "photons" are emitted, with the change in frequency being "passed on". Since these are NOT the same "photons", then the matter did NOT "mix" them; it "collapsed" them, and re-emitted. Once you rule out matter, you must conclude that the energy interacts with itself as well. |
Would you say that the result of phase mixing is a linear or non-linear response?
What are the requirements to yield such a response.
Some more questions for you.
If photon waves that pass thru each other are interfering,
which means that the waveforms are being distorted at the point of interference,
are those newly distorted waves continuing to propagate and carry with them
the change of phase or energy level caused by the interference? Wouldn't this
change the quality/integrity of the original qubit information of the original photon?
Doesn't this violate the concept of relativity? Each photon is relative to itself in
space and time.
I have no problem with your comment on re-emission of a photon after interacting
with matter....IMO, reflection is considered re-emission.
Back to your comment about the "energy interacting with itself as well". Let's go
back to previous discussions about white light....can't white light be broken down
and isolated by discrete filters into its basic constituent frequencies? Are the
optical frequencies that are travelling together interfering with each other enroute
from their source? If so, wouldn't the specific qubit information carried by each
photon of a specific frequency be blended via interference with other photons and
be homogenized and therefore lost?
Also, the sound argument is wrong as well. Two different tones can clearly be discerned in the example you gave. The ear does not "mix" these tones, or ALL that we would ever hear is "noise"; this goes EXACTLY for the eyes as well. The example of seeing a star without interference. If the eyes did the mixing, we would just see some gray-scale world.
Wait a minute.... if you have a single membrane, and that membrane is being
simulaneously stimulated by 2 separate frequencies arriving together to form a
single output isn't that signal mixing? The result will be a composite of the
individual frequencies. Isn't that what chords and harmony is all about?
It is phase/frequency mixing at a common point and has a non-linear
response.
QUOTE
The "photons" from that star, 6000 LY away ARE NOT the same that you see. They have been interacting ALL the way, and re-emitted countless times. This is why I made the point that we do not have a vacuum in space. Look again at the number of particles per cm of space again, you will see that is is virtually impossible to not have crossed numerous electrons.
IMO, the final energy signature pattern and spatial perspective is the same
as the was originally emitted. There is no interference or absorption losses
observe in route or the qubit information carried by the photons would have been altered/distorted.
Do you recall seeing clouds in space, you cannot see optical frequency objects
behind them because of the density the optical frequencies are absorbed, but you
can see xray or infrared images thru them that don't interfere and are not
absorbed by the matter that makes up the mass of the clouds.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...lars.jpg/180px-
Comments, discussion, opposing opinions?
LL
Hi Jal,
Good to see you still here too!
Standing wave "locations" in a fixed cavity will be different for different frequencies.
There is a geometrical/proportional relationship that exists between the fixed
geometry of the cavity and the fixed frequency timing (wave geometry) of the wave energy that fills the cavity.
IMO, the cavity will resonate in response to the freqency(ies) of the wave
energy applied.
LL
Good to see you still here too!
Standing wave "locations" in a fixed cavity will be different for different frequencies.
There is a geometrical/proportional relationship that exists between the fixed
geometry of the cavity and the fixed frequency timing (wave geometry) of the wave energy that fills the cavity.
IMO, the cavity will resonate in response to the freqency(ies) of the wave
energy applied.
LL
Hi Laserlight!
This discussion has been going around the bush many times.... I don't want it to start another go-around.
I think that everyone has a good picture/idea of what is been seen.
The causes of those effects are in disput.
If you are not ready yet to look at other causes I'll stand back and listen some more.
I will put the cause of the effects to the spacetime structure and to a changing detection screen that can change and send out information for the next photon that might come.
If there is only one road (single slit) the photon will see the "signs" and act appropriately (C2 paths).
It there are two roads (slits) then the photon/(s) could claim that they didn't see the sign or that they followed the beaten path and end up in the same place. You call that treating it as a "particle".
The bottom line is that the detection screen and the "interior structure of the cavity" are affecting the path taken by the photon. (within reason).
The information causing the photon to act the way it does is in the cavity and in the receiver NOT in the photon.
jal
Ps. I assume that you have all been following my thread and the fact that there has been 5 experiments that indicates the structure of spacetime.
This discussion has been going around the bush many times.... I don't want it to start another go-around.
I think that everyone has a good picture/idea of what is been seen.
The causes of those effects are in disput.
If you are not ready yet to look at other causes I'll stand back and listen some more.
I will put the cause of the effects to the spacetime structure and to a changing detection screen that can change and send out information for the next photon that might come.
If there is only one road (single slit) the photon will see the "signs" and act appropriately (C2 paths).
It there are two roads (slits) then the photon/(s) could claim that they didn't see the sign or that they followed the beaten path and end up in the same place. You call that treating it as a "particle".
The bottom line is that the detection screen and the "interior structure of the cavity" are affecting the path taken by the photon. (within reason).
The information causing the photon to act the way it does is in the cavity and in the receiver NOT in the photon.
jal
Ps. I assume that you have all been following my thread and the fact that there has been 5 experiments that indicates the structure of spacetime.
Hello all
I came across this reference and it seems to echo some of the thoughts expressed by Good Elf. http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/reprint/80/5/2056.pdf
Basically it says that the only thing needed for the DSE pattern is for the photons to be coherent. Said photons do not need to see both slits, just one will do.
I wonder if a DSE pattern could be generated from two fiber optic cables of the same length that are feed by the same source.
I came across this reference and it seems to echo some of the thoughts expressed by Good Elf. http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/reprint/80/5/2056.pdf
Basically it says that the only thing needed for the DSE pattern is for the photons to be coherent. Said photons do not need to see both slits, just one will do.
I wonder if a DSE pattern could be generated from two fiber optic cables of the same length that are feed by the same source.
QUOTE (TRoc+May 10 2007, 08:57 AM)
Also, the sound argument is wrong as well. Two different tones can clearly be discerned in the example you gave. The ear does not "mix" these tones, or ALL that we would ever hear is "noise"; this goes EXACTLY for the eyes as well. The example of seeing a star without interference. If the eyes did the mixing, we would just see some gray-scale world.
Hi Troc, just trying to comprehend what you said in my uneducated sort of way...
If photons / wavefronts DO interfere, does that mean that the data from the original photon remains intact while the waves interfere with each other? I think I am getting closer to understanding what you are saying. I hope?
Hi Troc, just trying to comprehend what you said in my uneducated sort of way...
If photons / wavefronts DO interfere, does that mean that the data from the original photon remains intact while the waves interfere with each other? I think I am getting closer to understanding what you are saying. I hope?
Jal
You are making blanket statements without a convincing argument as to
how the mechanism works to substantiate your claim. Can you elaborate
with a description or conceptulization of the mechanism at work?
FWIW, I am more than willing to listen to arguments that can stand on their
own merits without conflicting with physical laws other similar phenomena.
A persuasive argument based on accuracy and established scientific truths
can defend itself on its own merits, if it is right. Basically, it either works
100% under all conditions, or it is incomplete or wrong.
It takes a long time to weigh and eliminate all the variables and potential conflicts
to find the truth. Sometimes you need to back track and re-explore previous
paths and use newly acquired information in order to find your way to the final
destination.
LL
You are making blanket statements without a convincing argument as to
how the mechanism works to substantiate your claim. Can you elaborate
with a description or conceptulization of the mechanism at work?
FWIW, I am more than willing to listen to arguments that can stand on their
own merits without conflicting with physical laws other similar phenomena.
A persuasive argument based on accuracy and established scientific truths
can defend itself on its own merits, if it is right. Basically, it either works
100% under all conditions, or it is incomplete or wrong.
It takes a long time to weigh and eliminate all the variables and potential conflicts
to find the truth. Sometimes you need to back track and re-explore previous
paths and use newly acquired information in order to find your way to the final
destination.
LL
LL,
I came across this reference and it seems to echo some of the thoughts expressed by Good Elf. http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/reprint/80/5/2056.pdf
Basically it says that the only thing needed for the DSE pattern is for the photons to be coherent. Said photons do not need to see both slits, just one will do.
Alternatively the DSE is telling us more about the way his laser works than his laser theory is telling us about the way the DSE works.
QUOTE (LL+)
A persuasive argument based on accuracy and established scientific truths can defend itself on its own merits, if it is right. Basically, it either works
100% under all conditions, or it is incomplete or wrong.
Does that mean you're going to tell me what to measure so we can work out the dimensions of the cavity you keep referring to?
Best wishes,
-C2.
100% under all conditions, or it is incomplete or wrong.
Does that mean you're going to tell me what to measure so we can work out the dimensions of the cavity you keep referring to?
Best wishes,
-C2.
LL
People have been going around the same bush and looking under the same street light for 80 years.
Don't let me stop you. Keep looking.
However, do not insinuate that there is no other place to look or that I'm the only one looking at a structure and the dynamics.
Look at all the papers that I have cited.
I'm not alone. The experimental evidence is already there. (5 confirmed sightings.)
jal
People have been going around the same bush and looking under the same street light for 80 years.
Don't let me stop you. Keep looking.
However, do not insinuate that there is no other place to look or that I'm the only one looking at a structure and the dynamics.
Look at all the papers that I have cited.
I'm not alone. The experimental evidence is already there. (5 confirmed sightings.)
jal
QUOTE (Montec+)
I came across this reference and it seems to echo some of the thoughts expressed by Good Elf. http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/reprint/80/5/2056.pdf
Basically it says that the only thing needed for the DSE pattern is for the photons to be coherent. Said photons do not need to see both slits, just one will do.
Alternatively the DSE is telling us more about the way his laser works than his laser theory is telling us about the way the DSE works.
QUOTE (Montec+)
I wonder if a DSE pattern could be generated from two fiber optic cables of the same length that are fed by the same source.
Since the DSE seems to work on the basis of the difference in path lengths and I suspect a fibre optic cable allows for a multitude of effective path lengths I expect the cable will muddy the issue too much for it to be seen to work. I will try it if I can find a bit of optical cable.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Best wishes,
-c2.
Since the DSE seems to work on the basis of the difference in path lengths and I suspect a fibre optic cable allows for a multitude of effective path lengths I expect the cable will muddy the issue too much for it to be seen to work. I will try it if I can find a bit of optical cable.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Best wishes,
-c2.
QUOTE (Confused2+May 10 2007, 08:16 PM)
LL,
QUOTE (LL+)
A persuasive argument based on accuracy and established scientific truths can defend itself on its own merits, if it is right. Basically, it either works
100% under all conditions, or it is incomplete or wrong.
Does that mean you're going to tell me what to measure so we can work out the dimensions of the cavity you keep referring to?
Best wishes,
-C2.
C2,
?????
We already have the dimensions of the cavity.... Aren't you using trigonometry
based on fixed linear measurements of the cavity length, the slit spacing, the
path length, the phase difference, and the wavelength?
The two flat wall planes and the geometry of the DSE comprise the resonant cavity.
An interferometer requires a fixed cavity to work.
Are you being cynical?
LL
100% under all conditions, or it is incomplete or wrong.
Does that mean you're going to tell me what to measure so we can work out the dimensions of the cavity you keep referring to?
Best wishes,
-C2.
C2,
?????
We already have the dimensions of the cavity.... Aren't you using trigonometry
based on fixed linear measurements of the cavity length, the slit spacing, the
path length, the phase difference, and the wavelength?
The two flat wall planes and the geometry of the DSE comprise the resonant cavity.
An interferometer requires a fixed cavity to work.
Are you being cynical?
LL
Hi LL,
QUOTE (LL+)
The two flat wall planes and the geometry of the DSE comprise the resonant cavity. An interferometer requires a fixed cavity to work.
The flat plane walls are just drawings in books.
The CMOS sensor I use isn't flat. The bits of black card with holes punched in them certainly aren't flat. The last piccy I did showed two DSE patterns on top of each other - created by two different lasers - obviously not lined up at 90 degrees to the sensor because you can't do that with two things that are about an inch or so square. Path length difference yes, no flat plane walls, sorry.
Best wishes,
-C2.
The flat plane walls are just drawings in books.
The CMOS sensor I use isn't flat. The bits of black card with holes punched in them certainly aren't flat. The last piccy I did showed two DSE patterns on top of each other - created by two different lasers - obviously not lined up at 90 degrees to the sensor because you can't do that with two things that are about an inch or so square. Path length difference yes, no flat plane walls, sorry.
Best wishes,
-C2.
C2,
I give up.......
.
.
.
.
.
Almost!
Remember, we are dealing with spherical wavefronts between fixed physical
dimensions. Your experiment has built in asymmetry, but the spherical wave
fronts are "compensating" for the asymmetry. We are observing distortion
from your asymmetrical experimental set up...yes? no? Would we get
perfect results without distortions with a perfect cavity?
LL
I give up.......
.
.
.
.
.
Almost!
Remember, we are dealing with spherical wavefronts between fixed physical
dimensions. Your experiment has built in asymmetry, but the spherical wave
fronts are "compensating" for the asymmetry. We are observing distortion
from your asymmetrical experimental set up...yes? no? Would we get
perfect results without distortions with a perfect cavity?
LL
Hi Montec, Pink Elephant, Laserlight, Neil Farbstein, Confused2, yquantum, janrinze, Jal, TRoc, "THEY" et al,
So much is flooding in it is impossible to answer each and every point. The best I can do is to answer just the most prominent ones to me. I am sorry if I am going to miss anything here.
So much is flooding in it is impossible to answer each and every point. The best I can do is to answer just the most prominent ones to me. I am sorry if I am going to miss anything here.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Hi Montec,
QUOTE (Montec+)
I personally cannot tell the difference between two photons of the same frequency and polarization so when I read "photon" I mentally translate it to "wave front" and go on reading.
In the Michelson [ .. Kennedy-Thorndike ..] interferometer the interference, with different length legs, requires a monochromatic light to produce fringes. The fringes are produced by different wave fronts. If the legs are the same length then any source will produce fringes because the same wave front is being used to produce the fringes.
If we guess the Kennedy-Thorndike legs are different by (say) 1 meter then this is about 2 million wavelengths (wavefronts(?)). Would you agree that a single photon must consist of more than 2 million wavefronts if a photon can only interfere with itself? Or something else?
Best wishes,
-C2.
In the Michelson [ .. Kennedy-Thorndike ..] interferometer the interference, with different length legs, requires a monochromatic light to produce fringes. The fringes are produced by different wave fronts. If the legs are the same length then any source will produce fringes because the same wave front is being used to produce the fringes.
If we guess the Kennedy-Thorndike legs are different by (say) 1 meter then this is about 2 million wavelengths (wavefronts(?)). Would you agree that a single photon must consist of more than 2 million wavefronts if a photon can only interfere with itself? Or something else?
Best wishes,
-C2.
It makes no sense to have "interference" that actually is caused by waves propagating through a system and then "meeting up" at some point such that the interference occurs. The Kennedy-Thorndike variation on Michelson-Morley Interferometer would fail at low light intensities as already been stated endlessly. The fact it does not perform that way indicates that the Gedanken Mechanism used to rationalize this process is not the correct one. I am not one to simply say "arrest your mental process... "g*d" has spoken ... we are not to question 'His' wisdom". Now I know that Quantum Guru's want you to leave your brains on a shelf when you consider quantum processes. Take for instance this article that was passed around "a few months ago"...
The story appeared in several News Streams with varying degrees of apparent condescension. If you read this article you can quickly understand that this is a resonant phenomena and the photons do not need to access an entire cavity to pick up information in some of it's remote corners. The "cavity" can be very small, smaller than an atom, or as big as our Universe... it makes no difference. To make sense of it you need to "understand it" since it is "asking a question"... as all experiments do. In the same way "interferences" in a cavity does not mean that the photons need to actually travel to all the nooks and crannies in the Universe to pick up information about the distribution of everything. No... that is not what happens. What happens is the energy of the photons appears to propagate according to the Principle of Least Action and this is as if it moved directly from source to sink with no detours along the way. Read Feynman's Book... "QED" The Strange Theory of Light and Matter". This has been discussed on this thread before. What I would like you all note is the "attitude" of this original description as if there is deep wisdom beyond man's ability to grasp. Makes you want to go out and drown yourselves in a bottle of booze.
There are two points to make... the first is superposition of states are not interferences just like when you solve a problem in circuit theory you can also use superposition. Tesla used the principle and you can do nothing in electronics or wave optics or electromagnetic engineering without it. That goes double for "resonance" and the use of the square root of minus one. The idea behind superposition is that each superimposed element (once you have found the appropriate representation for it) has no effect on any other of the many superimposed elements. There can be infinities of these elements, actual numbers do not matter... the principle of superimposition implies that a single superimposed component does not influence any other component. Any "circuit" is simply the superposition of all the degenerate elements. The complex vectorial sum leads to wave equations. It is why Fourier Analysis works. The solution of those equations solve the problem with additional boundary conditions. They are like OHP slides... you can stack as many as you like ... they are separate and they each contain their own information. If you choose to read one slide at a time or several at once the information on each slide is independent of the other slides. The next point is the "interferences" occur within each and every photon, and not "between" photons. A boson state can contain an infinity of photons. The propagation of a single photon through the system results in one of the possible solutions to the system (eigenstate). The photons do not require information from any other photons to complete their tasks but it needs to know the shape of the cavity. In the case of Quantum Computing, the tasks is selecting one of the solutions that satisfy "boundary conditions" that allow us to choose one "answer"/"solution" from a possible near infinite set of alternatives. The quantum computing system is a resonant system, and we appear to have an analog computing device here that is providing "dials" that factor in "loads" and "delays" to select from the "outcomes". The solution is "there" at the speed of light... the time light takes to traverse the entire "circuit". The "cavity" already has the final solution, we simply provide the "power" to switch on the right lights. It does not need to "bounce around in there" Harvey Wallbanging all the Bar's in the city to come up with the best Cocktail Recipe.
Cheers
QUOTE
Quantum computer works best switched off
* 22 February 2006
* From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues
Even for the crazy world of quantum mechanics, this one is twisted. A quantum computer program has produced an answer without actually running.
The idea behind the feat, first proposed in 1998, is to put a quantum computer into a “superposition”, a state in which it is both running and not running. It is as if you asked Schrödinger's cat to hit "Run".
With the right set-up, the theory suggested, the computer would sometimes get an answer out of the computer even though the program did not run. And now researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have improved on the original design and built a non-running quantum computer that really works.
They send a photon into a system of mirrors and other optical devices, which included a set of components that run a simple database search by changing the properties of the photon.
The new design includes a quantum trick called the Zeno effect. Repeated measurements stop the photon from entering the actual program, but allow its quantum nature to flirt with the program's components - so it can become gradually altered even though it never actually passes through.
"It is very bizarre that you know your computer has not run but you also know what the answer is," says team member Onur Hosten.
This scheme could have an advantage over straightforward quantum computing. "A non-running computer produces fewer errors," says Hosten. That sentiment should have technophobes nodding enthusiastically.
Journal reference: Nature (vol 439, p 949)
From issue 2540 of New Scientist magazine, 22 February 2006, page 21
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam...itched-off.html
* 22 February 2006
* From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues
Even for the crazy world of quantum mechanics, this one is twisted. A quantum computer program has produced an answer without actually running.
The idea behind the feat, first proposed in 1998, is to put a quantum computer into a “superposition”, a state in which it is both running and not running. It is as if you asked Schrödinger's cat to hit "Run".
With the right set-up, the theory suggested, the computer would sometimes get an answer out of the computer even though the program did not run. And now researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have improved on the original design and built a non-running quantum computer that really works.
They send a photon into a system of mirrors and other optical devices, which included a set of components that run a simple database search by changing the properties of the photon.
The new design includes a quantum trick called the Zeno effect. Repeated measurements stop the photon from entering the actual program, but allow its quantum nature to flirt with the program's components - so it can become gradually altered even though it never actually passes through.
"It is very bizarre that you know your computer has not run but you also know what the answer is," says team member Onur Hosten.
This scheme could have an advantage over straightforward quantum computing. "A non-running computer produces fewer errors," says Hosten. That sentiment should have technophobes nodding enthusiastically.
Journal reference: Nature (vol 439, p 949)
From issue 2540 of New Scientist magazine, 22 February 2006, page 21
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam...itched-off.html
The story appeared in several News Streams with varying degrees of apparent condescension. If you read this article you can quickly understand that this is a resonant phenomena and the photons do not need to access an entire cavity to pick up information in some of it's remote corners. The "cavity" can be very small, smaller than an atom, or as big as our Universe... it makes no difference. To make sense of it you need to "understand it" since it is "asking a question"... as all experiments do. In the same way "interferences" in a cavity does not mean that the photons need to actually travel to all the nooks and crannies in the Universe to pick up information about the distribution of everything. No... that is not what happens. What happens is the energy of the photons appears to propagate according to the Principle of Least Action and this is as if it moved directly from source to sink with no detours along the way. Read Feynman's Book... "QED" The Strange Theory of Light and Matter". This has been discussed on this thread before. What I would like you all note is the "attitude" of this original description as if there is deep wisdom beyond man's ability to grasp. Makes you want to go out and drown yourselves in a bottle of booze.
There are two points to make... the first is superposition of states are not interferences just like when you solve a problem in circuit theory you can also use superposition. Tesla used the principle and you can do nothing in electronics or wave optics or electromagnetic engineering without it. That goes double for "resonance" and the use of the square root of minus one. The idea behind superposition is that each superimposed element (once you have found the appropriate representation for it) has no effect on any other of the many superimposed elements. There can be infinities of these elements, actual numbers do not matter... the principle of superimposition implies that a single superimposed component does not influence any other component. Any "circuit" is simply the superposition of all the degenerate elements. The complex vectorial sum leads to wave equations. It is why Fourier Analysis works. The solution of those equations solve the problem with additional boundary conditions. They are like OHP slides... you can stack as many as you like ... they are separate and they each contain their own information. If you choose to read one slide at a time or several at once the information on each slide is independent of the other slides. The next point is the "interferences" occur within each and every photon, and not "between" photons. A boson state can contain an infinity of photons. The propagation of a single photon through the system results in one of the possible solutions to the system (eigenstate). The photons do not require information from any other photons to complete their tasks but it needs to know the shape of the cavity. In the case of Quantum Computing, the tasks is selecting one of the solutions that satisfy "boundary conditions" that allow us to choose one "answer"/"solution" from a possible near infinite set of alternatives. The quantum computing system is a resonant system, and we appear to have an analog computing device here that is providing "dials" that factor in "loads" and "delays" to select from the "outcomes". The solution is "there" at the speed of light... the time light takes to traverse the entire "circuit". The "cavity" already has the final solution, we simply provide the "power" to switch on the right lights. It does not need to "bounce around in there" Harvey Wallbanging all the Bar's in the city to come up with the best Cocktail Recipe.
Cheers
Hello Confused2, et al.
I was just wondering if the output from two equal length fiber optic cables would act like the output from a double slit. Coherency should be maintained because fiber optics are used in fiber optic gyros which measure the phase relationship between counter propagating laser beams.
I also ran across some articles that use the fiber optic cables as probes to measure DSE patterns anywhere behind the slit plate. So there are other uses of the cables if the fiber optic Michelson interferometer experiment (FOMIE) doesn't work.
I was just wondering if the output from two equal length fiber optic cables would act like the output from a double slit. Coherency should be maintained because fiber optics are used in fiber optic gyros which measure the phase relationship between counter propagating laser beams.
I also ran across some articles that use the fiber optic cables as probes to measure DSE patterns anywhere behind the slit plate. So there are other uses of the cables if the fiber optic Michelson interferometer experiment (FOMIE) doesn't work.
Hi Good Elf et al,
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
The propagation of a single photon through the system results in one of the possible solutions to the system (eigenstate)
This is extremely promising, along the lines of A*B = C. We describe a photon, we describe the system and we check the result against the results we know from experiment.
I think most of us agree that this thing :- ( http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.html ) shows how to crunch the numbers. We can apply this number cruncher to diffraction, the DSE, the odd-legs Kennedy Thorndike experiment and holograms and get the right answers every time by using this number cruncher.
This is extremely promising, along the lines of A*B = C. We describe a photon, we describe the system and we check the result against the results we know from experiment.
I think most of us agree that this thing :- ( http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.html ) shows how to crunch the numbers. We can apply this number cruncher to diffraction, the DSE, the odd-legs Kennedy Thorndike experiment and holograms and get the right answers every time by using this number cruncher.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
It makes no sense to have "interference" that actually is caused by waves propagating through a system and then "meeting up" at some point such that the interference occurs. The Kennedy-Thorndike variation on Michelson-Morley Interferometer would fail at low light intensities as already been stated endlessly.
Seems to contradict the earlier .. "The propagation of a single photon through the system results in one of the possible solutions to the system (eigenstate)" .. maybe it's just the way I'm reading these things.
In fairness I could (easily) be accused of taking the number cruncher applet far too literally, however I would claim a method that predicts the right answers makes more sense than a method that either predicts the wrong answers or makes no predictions at all.
Good Elf, as I see it your explanation is that the number cruncher is set up in advance according to whether we're expecting it to provide a hologram, a DSE result or whatever. Somehow the photon kicks the number cruncher and out pops a result (an eigenstate of the system).
The difference between our PoV's would seem to be (my view) that an individual photon explores the entire system and produces a result and (your view) that an individual photon causes the entire system to respond with a result chosen to be valid for that individual photon. Is this a fair summary?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Seems to contradict the earlier .. "The propagation of a single photon through the system results in one of the possible solutions to the system (eigenstate)" .. maybe it's just the way I'm reading these things.
In fairness I could (easily) be accused of taking the number cruncher applet far too literally, however I would claim a method that predicts the right answers makes more sense than a method that either predicts the wrong answers or makes no predictions at all.
Good Elf, as I see it your explanation is that the number cruncher is set up in advance according to whether we're expecting it to provide a hologram, a DSE result or whatever. Somehow the photon kicks the number cruncher and out pops a result (an eigenstate of the system).
The difference between our PoV's would seem to be (my view) that an individual photon explores the entire system and produces a result and (your view) that an individual photon causes the entire system to respond with a result chosen to be valid for that individual photon. Is this a fair summary?
Best wishes,
-C2.
HI Good Elf et al,
It is clear that if we reduce the DSE to an operation like A*B=C then we lose all physical significance. We can, of course, ignore the physical significance of photons simply by claiming they don't exist.
A middle path would be to make a minimum number of assumptions (say QED) and very simple graphical methods to get what turns out to be the right answer. Having obtained a 'right answer' using simple drawings and assumptions it becomes difficult to see how another method can be equivalent (give the right answer) without using the same assumptions and the same drawings. Wouldn't resonance create a new property that has no place in 'the right answer'?
Is there any equivalent of resonance in the QED assumptions and drawings? We need to check that the sum of the probabilities doesn't exceed one .. this might be seen as a 'whole cavity' operation .. but does nature need to do that?
Feynman himself pointed out that methods can look entirely different but actually turn out to be different aspects of the same phenomenon. I can only say that, at the moment, I can't see how 'resonance' is going to produce the right answer unless you simply take a part of the graphical method and call it resonance - by definition.
Your thoughts and comments most welcome.
-C2.
It is clear that if we reduce the DSE to an operation like A*B=C then we lose all physical significance. We can, of course, ignore the physical significance of photons simply by claiming they don't exist.
A middle path would be to make a minimum number of assumptions (say QED) and very simple graphical methods to get what turns out to be the right answer. Having obtained a 'right answer' using simple drawings and assumptions it becomes difficult to see how another method can be equivalent (give the right answer) without using the same assumptions and the same drawings. Wouldn't resonance create a new property that has no place in 'the right answer'?
Is there any equivalent of resonance in the QED assumptions and drawings? We need to check that the sum of the probabilities doesn't exceed one .. this might be seen as a 'whole cavity' operation .. but does nature need to do that?
Feynman himself pointed out that methods can look entirely different but actually turn out to be different aspects of the same phenomenon. I can only say that, at the moment, I can't see how 'resonance' is going to produce the right answer unless you simply take a part of the graphical method and call it resonance - by definition.
Your thoughts and comments most welcome.
-C2.
Hi All,
I have been trying to make a point. Perhaps too brusquely. If so I apologize,
and would like to formalize some meanings for the sake of clarity. GE makes
the point of interpretation of definitions/semantics.
Fidelity-
Purity of signal. Transfer of perfect information without distortion.
The information transmitted is the perfectly received without change. (my definition)
2 accuracy of a description, translation, etc. or of the reproduction of sound, an image, etc. (Webster's)
--------
Interference - (my definition)
Loss of fidelity. Mixing/blending of signal information.
The original pure information transmitted is corrupted by same frequency
signals and cannot be separated or individually discriminated in its pure form.
Inability to separate or distinguish individual signal information.
(Webster's)
4 (Physics) the mutual action of two waves of the same frequency, as of sound, light, etc., in reinforcing or neutralizing each other according to their relative phases on meeting
5 (Radio, TV, etc. a) static, unwanted signals, etc., producing a distortion as of sounds or images and preventing good reception )b such distorted reception
-------
Superpose - (Webster's)
1 to lay or place on, over, or above something else
2 Geom. to make (one figure) coincide with another in all parts, by or as
if by placing one on top of the other
------
Distort(ion) -
change of signal shape, unclean waveform, loss of fidelity (my definition)
(Webster's)
1 to twist out of shape; change the usual or normal shape, form, or appearance of
3 to modify (a wave, sound, signal, etc.) so as to produce an unfaithful
reproduction
---------
So according to my interpretation, if the pure, original photon qubit information
that was transmitted is detected without distortion or modification of the
information and without a shape change of the waveform, then no interference has
taken place to corrupt or modify the perfect reproduction (fidelity) of that signal.
Now the question arises, can two discrete signals , from different sources and
with individual signal fidelity, combine or overlap their distinct qubit
information and individual wave shapes without them both being detected
at a common point of physical resonance or mixing?
My argument: Individually transmitted signals of the same frequency will retain
their distinct information and wave shape in free space unless the signals are
combined at a physical point of mixing or resonance at which point their
individuality is combined to form a composite blend of both signals. It is the point
of detection where the separate phase and signal amplitudes are physically
combined into a new "blended" signal that cannot be discriminated.
Resonance- (Webster's)
5 Elec. a condition arising in an electric circuit in which a) the current or voltage flow is at maximum amplitude, produced when the frequency of the electrical source is varied, or
the current or voltage is in phase respectively with the applied current or voltage, or c) the natural frequency of the circuit is the same as that of the incoming signal
Linear - (Webster's)
5 having an effect or giving a response directly proportional to stimulus, force, or input: used esp. of electronic devices
Does anyone have a different opinion, explanation, or definition?
LL
I have been trying to make a point. Perhaps too brusquely. If so I apologize,
and would like to formalize some meanings for the sake of clarity. GE makes
the point of interpretation of definitions/semantics.
Fidelity-
Purity of signal. Transfer of perfect information without distortion.
The information transmitted is the perfectly received without change. (my definition)
2 accuracy of a description, translation, etc. or of the reproduction of sound, an image, etc. (Webster's)
--------
Interference - (my definition)
Loss of fidelity. Mixing/blending of signal information.
The original pure information transmitted is corrupted by same frequency
signals and cannot be separated or individually discriminated in its pure form.
Inability to separate or distinguish individual signal information.
(Webster's)
4 (Physics) the mutual action of two waves of the same frequency, as of sound, light, etc., in reinforcing or neutralizing each other according to their relative phases on meeting
5 (Radio, TV, etc. a) static, unwanted signals, etc., producing a distortion as of sounds or images and preventing good reception )b such distorted reception
-------
Superpose - (Webster's)
1 to lay or place on, over, or above something else
2 Geom. to make (one figure) coincide with another in all parts, by or as
if by placing one on top of the other
------
Distort(ion) -
change of signal shape, unclean waveform, loss of fidelity (my definition)
(Webster's)
1 to twist out of shape; change the usual or normal shape, form, or appearance of
3 to modify (a wave, sound, signal, etc.) so as to produce an unfaithful
reproduction
---------
So according to my interpretation, if the pure, original photon qubit information
that was transmitted is detected without distortion or modification of the
information and without a shape change of the waveform, then no interference has
taken place to corrupt or modify the perfect reproduction (fidelity) of that signal.
Now the question arises, can two discrete signals , from different sources and
with individual signal fidelity, combine or overlap their distinct qubit
information and individual wave shapes without them both being detected
at a common point of physical resonance or mixing?
My argument: Individually transmitted signals of the same frequency will retain
their distinct information and wave shape in free space unless the signals are
combined at a physical point of mixing or resonance at which point their
individuality is combined to form a composite blend of both signals. It is the point
of detection where the separate phase and signal amplitudes are physically
combined into a new "blended" signal that cannot be discriminated.
Resonance- (Webster's)
5 Elec. a condition arising in an electric circuit in which a) the current or voltage flow is at maximum amplitude, produced when the frequency of the electrical source is varied, or
the current or voltage is in phase respectively with the applied current or voltage, or c) the natural frequency of the circuit is the same as that of the incoming signal Linear - (Webster's)
5 having an effect or giving a response directly proportional to stimulus, force, or input: used esp. of electronic devices
Does anyone have a different opinion, explanation, or definition?
LL
Hi Laserlight,
As I have indicated the interference is not a loss of information but it is an enfolding of information that might not be possible to un-enfold but may be possible to un-enfold if time could be run backwards. What the current view in Information Theory is that no information is ever lost even if it goes down a black hole. This means that when we read properties of a "particle" we are actually "missing the point". We are not just reading a single qubit, we are letting a great deal of data slip through our "quantum" fingers. Maybe this is unavoidable but if the Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory is correct even then the information has simply changed the way it has presented itself to us and is now available to some other greater system. What that system is I have not even begun to think seriously about.
You may recall how Orbital Angular Momentum, which has an infinite number of possible quantum states available to it, has been able to be read encoding several states. The concept is to trap the state through it's quantum interferences. The way to do this is to set up a series of resonant apertures that does not absorb the photon but "sorts" it according to its properties as a wave, processing it through an inverted tree structure where the single qubit extracted will be read from only one of the many possible outcomes. This one qubit then represents a unique selection from many possibilities. It seems possible that given enough quantum gates each one processing a bit of the data, it would be theoretically possible to confidently encode the entire bible on to a single photon and capture this information as a single click on a counter that depends only on a unique path that is the unique eigenstate that satisfies the quantum processor. Naturally without this "interpretation" the photon to most will remain a single bit of data.. once read the deeper significance being lost forever.
Cheers
QUOTE
Interference - (my definition)
Loss of fidelity. Mixing/blending of signal information.
The original pure information transmitted is corrupted by same frequency
signals and cannot be separated or individually discriminated in its pure form.
Inability to separate or distinguish individual signal information.
(Webster's)
4 (Physics) the mutual action of two waves of the same frequency, as of sound, light, etc., in reinforcing or neutralizing each other according to their relative phases on meeting
5 (Radio, TV, etc. a) static, unwanted signals, etc., producing a distortion as of sounds or images and preventing good reception )b such distorted reception
Umm... No criticism here but there is no way that this process is able to define something so philosophically alien to most of humankind. It is like trying to describe electromagnetic waves to a South American Indian in the forest. The first thing he will ask is can you eat it? Then what does it smell like? Eventually they would lose interest since it does not share properties that are of any interest to them. The idea of interference in this context is not conveyed by dictionary definitions. The way you try and understand this concept is to read extensively books on Quantum Theory. What is white noise to one person is the Mona Lisa being transmitted in binary to another. Beauty is not only in the eye of the beholder, it requires that we have a vast background of technical information in order that it becomes meaningful to us. If this sounds condescending it is not meant to be. In order that some sense can be inferred from these scribblings a sound byte that describes quantum physics will be insufficient to convey information. I could use the language of mathematics but that is even more alien than these utterances and the ambiguity is also far greater.Loss of fidelity. Mixing/blending of signal information.
The original pure information transmitted is corrupted by same frequency
signals and cannot be separated or individually discriminated in its pure form.
Inability to separate or distinguish individual signal information.
(Webster's)
4 (Physics) the mutual action of two waves of the same frequency, as of sound, light, etc., in reinforcing or neutralizing each other according to their relative phases on meeting
5 (Radio, TV, etc. a) static, unwanted signals, etc., producing a distortion as of sounds or images and preventing good reception )b such distorted reception
As I have indicated the interference is not a loss of information but it is an enfolding of information that might not be possible to un-enfold but may be possible to un-enfold if time could be run backwards. What the current view in Information Theory is that no information is ever lost even if it goes down a black hole. This means that when we read properties of a "particle" we are actually "missing the point". We are not just reading a single qubit, we are letting a great deal of data slip through our "quantum" fingers. Maybe this is unavoidable but if the Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory is correct even then the information has simply changed the way it has presented itself to us and is now available to some other greater system. What that system is I have not even begun to think seriously about.
You may recall how Orbital Angular Momentum, which has an infinite number of possible quantum states available to it, has been able to be read encoding several states. The concept is to trap the state through it's quantum interferences. The way to do this is to set up a series of resonant apertures that does not absorb the photon but "sorts" it according to its properties as a wave, processing it through an inverted tree structure where the single qubit extracted will be read from only one of the many possible outcomes. This one qubit then represents a unique selection from many possibilities. It seems possible that given enough quantum gates each one processing a bit of the data, it would be theoretically possible to confidently encode the entire bible on to a single photon and capture this information as a single click on a counter that depends only on a unique path that is the unique eigenstate that satisfies the quantum processor. Naturally without this "interpretation" the photon to most will remain a single bit of data.. once read the deeper significance being lost forever.
Cheers
Hi all,
This is still not a cohesive response, but rather, just what I can squeeze in - time wise.
I forgot this in my last post:
LL -
First, make sure that you are not summing energy. This does not happen, and is why Science had to abandon the "classic" approach. After the "birth" of QM, (20 yrs.?), someone else threw in the name "photon". Intensity is just the number of individual pulses/packets. This is a simple, and physical quantity that can be summed. The energy does not sum, because the "observers" (electrons) are quantized with discreet, stable tuning points - resonant "orbits".
The number of electrons is absolutely critical to understand here. One electron will NOT measure a superposition of multiple, degenerate "photons". It can only respond to one, the one that it is in tune with. If a second "photon" is also there, it will "slip by unnoticed"; while the electron is in an excited state, it can NOT respond to any other energy . This defines the difference between "spontaneous" and "stimulated" emissions (photons).
LL -
First, make sure that you are not summing energy. This does not happen, and is why Science had to abandon the "classic" approach. After the "birth" of QM, (20 yrs.?), someone else threw in the name "photon". Intensity is just the number of individual pulses/packets. This is a simple, and physical quantity that can be summed. The energy does not sum, because the "observers" (electrons) are quantized with discreet, stable tuning points - resonant "orbits".
The number of electrons is absolutely critical to understand here. One electron will NOT measure a superposition of multiple, degenerate "photons". It can only respond to one, the one that it is in tune with. If a second "photon" is also there, it will "slip by unnoticed"; while the electron is in an excited state, it can NOT respond to any other energy . This defines the difference between "spontaneous" and "stimulated" emissions (photons).
LL -
Do you expect to observe interference at the point of beam intersection if two
laser pointers are aimed so that their beams cross?
Yes.
However, only AT the point of crossing. Both lasers will resume there normal properties after leaving this "medium" of different density. Just like resuming normal velocity, after exiting a slower medium.
If you stick a "measurer" in there, you will detect a beat frequency. Of course, if you don't, you won't. This is not a statement about "what's happening when we are not looking". Beat frequencies (Bf) are not stable - they will disappear after leaving the interaction zone (overlap)
Keep in mind, there is symmetry in the interaction. Each beam will lose, and gain the same (in inverse order), so as to "exit" the zone with the same parameters. [ THEY, does that answer your question?]
This is the "no change" measurement that seems to create confusion. The benefit of using this method, is you keep a set of physical properties, and use it throughout all possible interaction outcomes.
Zero beat frequency is the "preferred state" of the Universe; the choice of least action. The absolute shortest distance between 2 points is absolute superposition. The Minimum Distance then, as jal has been so industrious as to gather an impressive body of data about, becomes critical in determining the minimum number of points needed to break down the increase in size, up to 2x (it is 12). This signifies the first harmonic, or double our starting value. The difference (Bf) between A and 2A is always A, eh? This is the CAUSE of SHG; and the source of confusion in when "summing" occurs. A + A always = 2A, eh?
So, classically, we want to just "add up" the frequencies, and get our answer. Unfortunately, the Universe did not use this system. QM does NOT get around this problem (ad hoc) by throwing in a new term ("photon") for ENERGY. This is what my work is about: the why. It does not change anything after that. Nothing is "disproved" or "violated". Light waves have special relativity: the DO have an absolute reference to themselves. It is the constant ratio of c .
This is a rule for ALL frequencies. Single, small groups, large groups. Note, chord, symphony. If an absolute relative perspective were not possible (tuning), music couldn't happen as we know it. Single "photon" (packet), has more than 1 frequency, and obviously the groups too. The E field waves are ALREADY interacting with the B field waves, in the limit of 2. We know quite well, that a change in one, generates the other (or changes the other). That is all we need for a "binary" code, to add Resonance as a full study, under the fluctuation theorem of Thermodynamics.
In a measurement (in the zone), the original signals AND the "interaction" signal are detected. This is why you can "filter out" your original signal, or why "white light" is so intense. With LARGE numbers of oscillators, we open a new possibility of the Bf being larger than the original. Bf's DO SUM. This is called "population inversion", in laser tech.
C2: the distance from the emitting electron (source), and the detector (wall) is the obvious, ultimate, and fundamental waveguide (cavity). In the DSE, of course, we can treat the slits as new sources. So, the slit-to-wall distance is a secondary cavity.
regards,
T.Roc
This is still not a cohesive response, but rather, just what I can squeeze in - time wise.
I forgot this in my last post:
LL -
QUOTE
(snips)
..the total energy/amplitude of the two individual wave frequencies is summed at the detector.
However, if you place a physical detector at the point of beam intersection the
phase relationship/distribution and double intensity of the waves will be observable
and measurable because the individual wave energies are being summed by the detector.
..the total energy/amplitude of the two individual wave frequencies is summed at the detector.
However, if you place a physical detector at the point of beam intersection the
phase relationship/distribution and double intensity of the waves will be observable
and measurable because the individual wave energies are being summed by the detector.
First, make sure that you are not summing energy. This does not happen, and is why Science had to abandon the "classic" approach. After the "birth" of QM, (20 yrs.?), someone else threw in the name "photon". Intensity is just the number of individual pulses/packets. This is a simple, and physical quantity that can be summed. The energy does not sum, because the "observers" (electrons) are quantized with discreet, stable tuning points - resonant "orbits".
The number of electrons is absolutely critical to understand here. One electron will NOT measure a superposition of multiple, degenerate "photons". It can only respond to one, the one that it is in tune with. If a second "photon" is also there, it will "slip by unnoticed"; while the electron is in an excited state, it can NOT respond to any other energy . This defines the difference between "spontaneous" and "stimulated" emissions (photons).
LL -
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (snips) ..the total energy/amplitude of the two individual wave frequencies is summed at the detector. However, if you place a physical detector at the point of beam intersection the phase relationship/distribution and double intensity of the waves will be observable and measurable because the individual wave energies are being summed by the detector. |
First, make sure that you are not summing energy. This does not happen, and is why Science had to abandon the "classic" approach. After the "birth" of QM, (20 yrs.?), someone else threw in the name "photon". Intensity is just the number of individual pulses/packets. This is a simple, and physical quantity that can be summed. The energy does not sum, because the "observers" (electrons) are quantized with discreet, stable tuning points - resonant "orbits".
The number of electrons is absolutely critical to understand here. One electron will NOT measure a superposition of multiple, degenerate "photons". It can only respond to one, the one that it is in tune with. If a second "photon" is also there, it will "slip by unnoticed"; while the electron is in an excited state, it can NOT respond to any other energy . This defines the difference between "spontaneous" and "stimulated" emissions (photons).
LL -
Do you expect to observe interference at the point of beam intersection if two
laser pointers are aimed so that their beams cross?
Yes.
However, only AT the point of crossing. Both lasers will resume there normal properties after leaving this "medium" of different density. Just like resuming normal velocity, after exiting a slower medium.
If you stick a "measurer" in there, you will detect a beat frequency. Of course, if you don't, you won't. This is not a statement about "what's happening when we are not looking". Beat frequencies (Bf) are not stable - they will disappear after leaving the interaction zone (overlap)
Keep in mind, there is symmetry in the interaction. Each beam will lose, and gain the same (in inverse order), so as to "exit" the zone with the same parameters. [ THEY, does that answer your question?]
This is the "no change" measurement that seems to create confusion. The benefit of using this method, is you keep a set of physical properties, and use it throughout all possible interaction outcomes.
Zero beat frequency is the "preferred state" of the Universe; the choice of least action. The absolute shortest distance between 2 points is absolute superposition. The Minimum Distance then, as jal has been so industrious as to gather an impressive body of data about, becomes critical in determining the minimum number of points needed to break down the increase in size, up to 2x (it is 12). This signifies the first harmonic, or double our starting value. The difference (Bf) between A and 2A is always A, eh? This is the CAUSE of SHG; and the source of confusion in when "summing" occurs. A + A always = 2A, eh?
So, classically, we want to just "add up" the frequencies, and get our answer. Unfortunately, the Universe did not use this system. QM does NOT get around this problem (ad hoc) by throwing in a new term ("photon") for ENERGY. This is what my work is about: the why. It does not change anything after that. Nothing is "disproved" or "violated". Light waves have special relativity: the DO have an absolute reference to themselves. It is the constant ratio of c .
This is a rule for ALL frequencies. Single, small groups, large groups. Note, chord, symphony. If an absolute relative perspective were not possible (tuning), music couldn't happen as we know it. Single "photon" (packet), has more than 1 frequency, and obviously the groups too. The E field waves are ALREADY interacting with the B field waves, in the limit of 2. We know quite well, that a change in one, generates the other (or changes the other). That is all we need for a "binary" code, to add Resonance as a full study, under the fluctuation theorem of Thermodynamics.
In a measurement (in the zone), the original signals AND the "interaction" signal are detected. This is why you can "filter out" your original signal, or why "white light" is so intense. With LARGE numbers of oscillators, we open a new possibility of the Bf being larger than the original. Bf's DO SUM. This is called "population inversion", in laser tech.
C2: the distance from the emitting electron (source), and the detector (wall) is the obvious, ultimate, and fundamental waveguide (cavity). In the DSE, of course, we can treat the slits as new sources. So, the slit-to-wall distance is a secondary cavity.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
The nature of waves is indeed pretty straigth forward and apparently we share the same views on interference.
Nice to have you on board!
Jan Rinze.
There is a flood control added to the formu so I wil add my next posts in this edit.
Hi LL,
Interference has already been well defined i.m.h.o. so trying to give your own definition is not really helping.
The DS experiment works fine with a single photon but that does not imply that it should fail with two photons or even that two photons cannot interfere at all..
Jan Rinze.
Hi C2,
Using a fiber-optical cable leaves you the choise between multimode and monomode optical fiber. In the multimode optical fiber the light will bounce inside the fiber. In monomode fiber the light will curve with the fiber.
You tried a DS experiment with 2 lasers. If these lasers do not have the exact same frequency then the simply cannot create a stable interference pattern. The result would be the 'beat' frequency of the two patterns superposed..
The beat frequency is the difference between the frequencies of laser 1 and 2. That frequency is likely to be very high! if the difference in wavelenght would be about 651nm -650nm = 1 nm then the resulting beat frequency would be about 7.1 10^11 Hz. Which would be very hard to measure. It would be percieved as non existant.
Nice that you have tried though!
a nice setup would be to have a huge coil of mono mode fiber to store a laser pulse and to let this laserpulse interfere with another pulse coming from that same laser.
a mirror switch could switch between fiber-loop and direct illumination of a single pinhole. The end of the fiber should be mounted next to the pinhole.
The switch frequency should match the lenght of the fiber so that the pulse will leave the fiber when the pinhole is being illuminated directly by the laser.
We should now see interference between two packets of light coming from 2 sources.
Jan Rinze.
The nature of waves is indeed pretty straigth forward and apparently we share the same views on interference.
Nice to have you on board!
Jan Rinze.
There is a flood control added to the formu so I wil add my next posts in this edit.
Hi LL,
Interference has already been well defined i.m.h.o. so trying to give your own definition is not really helping.
The DS experiment works fine with a single photon but that does not imply that it should fail with two photons or even that two photons cannot interfere at all..
Jan Rinze.
Hi C2,
Using a fiber-optical cable leaves you the choise between multimode and monomode optical fiber. In the multimode optical fiber the light will bounce inside the fiber. In monomode fiber the light will curve with the fiber.
You tried a DS experiment with 2 lasers. If these lasers do not have the exact same frequency then the simply cannot create a stable interference pattern. The result would be the 'beat' frequency of the two patterns superposed..
The beat frequency is the difference between the frequencies of laser 1 and 2. That frequency is likely to be very high! if the difference in wavelenght would be about 651nm -650nm = 1 nm then the resulting beat frequency would be about 7.1 10^11 Hz. Which would be very hard to measure. It would be percieved as non existant.
Nice that you have tried though!
a nice setup would be to have a huge coil of mono mode fiber to store a laser pulse and to let this laserpulse interfere with another pulse coming from that same laser.
a mirror switch could switch between fiber-loop and direct illumination of a single pinhole. The end of the fiber should be mounted next to the pinhole.
The switch frequency should match the lenght of the fiber so that the pulse will leave the fiber when the pinhole is being illuminated directly by the laser.
We should now see interference between two packets of light coming from 2 sources.
Jan Rinze.
Hi TRoc, Jan, GE, C2, and All,
First, make sure that you are not summing energy. This does not happen, and is why Science had to abandon the "classic" approach. After the "birth" of QM, (20 yrs.?), someone else threw in the name "photon". Intensity is just the number of individual pulses/packets. This is a simple, and physical quantity that can be summed. The energy does not sum, because the "observers" (electrons) are quantized with discreet, stable tuning points - resonant "orbits".
The number of electrons is absolutely critical to understand here. One electron will NOT measure a superposition of multiple, degenerate "photons". It can only respond to one, the one that it is in tune with. If a second "photon" is also there, it will "slip by unnoticed"; while the electron is in an excited state, it can NOT respond to any other energy . This defines the difference between "spontaneous" and "stimulated" emissions (photons).
Hmmmm, I am having some "philosophical" issues with this explanation. I
understand what you are implying but am finding it difficult to totally accept it
in toto.
Energy is the capacity to do work. It is the total "force" available at a fixed
point in time, and as a force it can be summed with other forces at fixed physical
points where a work function is being performed.
Maybe I am stretching this......but hear me out.
IMO, an electron can respond to the total energy of more than one photon
depending upon the phase relationship and total energy that is applied to the
responsive atom. An electron has two alternatives, it can be stimulated and
cycle between shell orbitals, in which case it retains its physical atomic identity
and emits the energy applied as photons, or it can be excited to a high enough
energy level of the proper frequency by the intensity/amplitude of the total applied force of multiple superposed photons and the electron can be stripped away from its host atom and the atom will form an ion and the electron becomes "mobile".
Depending upon the total energy applied the atom can go from a solid state, to
a liquid state, to a gaseous state, to a plasma state.
I do agree that under the ionic state that relative quantum energy "measurement" becomes impossible.
Please correct me if my science or logic is flawed.
LL
QUOTE
First, make sure that you are not summing energy. This does not happen, and is why Science had to abandon the "classic" approach. After the "birth" of QM, (20 yrs.?), someone else threw in the name "photon". Intensity is just the number of individual pulses/packets. This is a simple, and physical quantity that can be summed. The energy does not sum, because the "observers" (electrons) are quantized with discreet, stable tuning points - resonant "orbits".
The number of electrons is absolutely critical to understand here. One electron will NOT measure a superposition of multiple, degenerate "photons". It can only respond to one, the one that it is in tune with. If a second "photon" is also there, it will "slip by unnoticed"; while the electron is in an excited state, it can NOT respond to any other energy . This defines the difference between "spontaneous" and "stimulated" emissions (photons).
Hmmmm, I am having some "philosophical" issues with this explanation. I
understand what you are implying but am finding it difficult to totally accept it
in toto.
Energy is the capacity to do work. It is the total "force" available at a fixed
point in time, and as a force it can be summed with other forces at fixed physical
points where a work function is being performed.
Maybe I am stretching this......but hear me out.
IMO, an electron can respond to the total energy of more than one photon
depending upon the phase relationship and total energy that is applied to the
responsive atom. An electron has two alternatives, it can be stimulated and
cycle between shell orbitals, in which case it retains its physical atomic identity
and emits the energy applied as photons, or it can be excited to a high enough
energy level of the proper frequency by the intensity/amplitude of the total applied force of multiple superposed photons and the electron can be stripped away from its host atom and the atom will form an ion and the electron becomes "mobile".
Depending upon the total energy applied the atom can go from a solid state, to
a liquid state, to a gaseous state, to a plasma state.
I do agree that under the ionic state that relative quantum energy "measurement" becomes impossible.
Please correct me if my science or logic is flawed.
LL
I can't edit the previous post....and after re-reading it realize that I got ahead of
myself regarding the states that an ATOM can achieve. Of course a single
ATOM can only exist as unstimulated, stimulated, and ionized. I think this is
correct.
How embarrassing...I need to wash my foot.
LL
myself regarding the states that an ATOM can achieve. Of course a single
ATOM can only exist as unstimulated, stimulated, and ionized. I think this is
correct.
How embarrassing...I need to wash my foot.
LL
Hi Troc,Jan, Good Elf, LL, Montec et al,
History of the C2 optics lab , until recently equipped with one laser. A man turned up on my doorstep and asked me if I would like to buy some kitchen knives. Nervously I refused. Next offer:- knives + scissors (same price)- nope. Knives + scissors + wind-up torch (same price) - nope. Knives + scissors + wind-up torch + radio (same price) - nope. Knives + scissors + wind-up torch + radio + *LASER* (same price)- I couldn't resist it. I've got all this useless junk and you're telling me the laser is no use.
This is a (pride) salvage operation.
Let us imagine the frequency difference is 10^11 Hz. .. wavelength about 3mm .. I can find things that are 3mm away. If the two lasers interfere (different frequencies) then at the instant of destructive interference the photons either have to wait until times improve OR .. go somewhere else. If they go somewhere else I can find them,
Opinions please .. two lasers ( 10^11 Hz difference in frequency ) - at times of cancellation (if indeed they interfere ) - where do the photons go?
Best wishes,
-C2.
History of the C2 optics lab , until recently equipped with one laser. A man turned up on my doorstep and asked me if I would like to buy some kitchen knives. Nervously I refused. Next offer:- knives + scissors (same price)- nope. Knives + scissors + wind-up torch (same price) - nope. Knives + scissors + wind-up torch + radio (same price) - nope. Knives + scissors + wind-up torch + radio + *LASER* (same price)- I couldn't resist it. I've got all this useless junk and you're telling me the laser is no use.
This is a (pride) salvage operation.
Let us imagine the frequency difference is 10^11 Hz. .. wavelength about 3mm .. I can find things that are 3mm away. If the two lasers interfere (different frequencies) then at the instant of destructive interference the photons either have to wait until times improve OR .. go somewhere else. If they go somewhere else I can find them,
Opinions please .. two lasers ( 10^11 Hz difference in frequency ) - at times of cancellation (if indeed they interfere ) - where do the photons go?
Best wishes,
-C2.
C2-
LOL! You're funny.
Maybe you should have waited till he thru in a car.
LL
LOL! You're funny.
Maybe you should have waited till he thru in a car.
LL
Hi Jan,
My background is digital and analog electronics, radar transmission and
receiving systems, and semiconductor plasma processing/equipment so
interference has specific meanings for me. I think that it puts things into
perspective and insures that we are all reading from the same "page". Do you find
something wrong with my synopsis regarding the nature and cause of
interference?
My disagreement has to do with the spontaneous self interference of two
independent signals in free space. They retain their "individuality" until physically
mixed/summed at a point of detection.
I will now just become an observer.
LL
QUOTE
Interference has already been well defined i.m.h.o. so trying to give your own definition is not really helping.
The DS experiment works fine with a single photon but that does not imply that it should fail with two photons or even that two photons cannot interfere at all..
The DS experiment works fine with a single photon but that does not imply that it should fail with two photons or even that two photons cannot interfere at all..
My background is digital and analog electronics, radar transmission and
receiving systems, and semiconductor plasma processing/equipment so
interference has specific meanings for me. I think that it puts things into
perspective and insures that we are all reading from the same "page". Do you find
something wrong with my synopsis regarding the nature and cause of
interference?
My disagreement has to do with the spontaneous self interference of two
independent signals in free space. They retain their "individuality" until physically
mixed/summed at a point of detection.
I will now just become an observer.
LL
Hi Laserlight,
My intentions are not to put you on the background!
So please don't refrain from replying.
The thing with interference is that it actually is superposition and is just a term.
Interference can only be measured by means of detection. So if you would put a detector at the place where the waves cancel each other you won't find any waves. This is the same with radio signals. There is no reason to assume that this cancellation will only occur when the detector is present. The detector only shows that the cancellation is true. Maybe the idea you have if this would occur in space without detection then the waves would cease to exist beyond the point of cancellation but that is not true.
Just imagine a standing wave. If two waves of equal wavelength and intensity travel in opposing directions the result becomes a standing wave. at the knots there is no possibility of detecting either wave. if the setup is made in such a way that the waves constructively interfere at the point where wave one is generated, a wave of the size of wave two plus wave one can be seen on the other side of the wave-generator.
++++++++*+0+++0+++0+++0+*++++++++
* is source, + means detectable, 0 means knot and hence undetectable.
If the setup is chosen such that wave one and two destructively interfere at the point of the wavegenerator then beyond the point of the wavegenerator no wave will be detectable since they both cancel each other everywhere beyond that point:
0000000000*+++0+++0+++0+++*0000000000
This looks like both waves are reflected at the point of the others source.
and I wish I could do better ascii art ;-)
Maybe this is hard to comprehend but it is the very nature of waves.
In the latter result it becomes disputable if it is necessary to say that both waves still travel beyond the two sources since they will never be detectable in those area's.
I still feel that we are now deviating from the main theme. Since we both agree that in order to see the result we need to measure it (From the point of view of the measurement there is no difference between our views and any resulting interference pattern on either a hologram or a DS experiment would be consistent with both our views.) I suggest that the matter of interpretation on what interference means could be put aside.
Jan Rinze.
My intentions are not to put you on the background!
So please don't refrain from replying.
The thing with interference is that it actually is superposition and is just a term.
Interference can only be measured by means of detection. So if you would put a detector at the place where the waves cancel each other you won't find any waves. This is the same with radio signals. There is no reason to assume that this cancellation will only occur when the detector is present. The detector only shows that the cancellation is true. Maybe the idea you have if this would occur in space without detection then the waves would cease to exist beyond the point of cancellation but that is not true.
Just imagine a standing wave. If two waves of equal wavelength and intensity travel in opposing directions the result becomes a standing wave. at the knots there is no possibility of detecting either wave. if the setup is made in such a way that the waves constructively interfere at the point where wave one is generated, a wave of the size of wave two plus wave one can be seen on the other side of the wave-generator.
++++++++*+0+++0+++0+++0+*++++++++
* is source, + means detectable, 0 means knot and hence undetectable.
If the setup is chosen such that wave one and two destructively interfere at the point of the wavegenerator then beyond the point of the wavegenerator no wave will be detectable since they both cancel each other everywhere beyond that point:
0000000000*+++0+++0+++0+++*0000000000
This looks like both waves are reflected at the point of the others source.
and I wish I could do better ascii art ;-)
Maybe this is hard to comprehend but it is the very nature of waves.
In the latter result it becomes disputable if it is necessary to say that both waves still travel beyond the two sources since they will never be detectable in those area's.
I still feel that we are now deviating from the main theme. Since we both agree that in order to see the result we need to measure it (From the point of view of the measurement there is no difference between our views and any resulting interference pattern on either a hologram or a DS experiment would be consistent with both our views.) I suggest that the matter of interpretation on what interference means could be put aside.
Jan Rinze.
Jan,
Agreed! Let's move on.
Just a point of perspective:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=173743
LL
Agreed! Let's move on.
Just a point of perspective:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=173743
LL
Hi janrinze, Montec, Pink Elephant, Laserlight, Neil Farbstein, Confused2, yquantum, Jal, TRoc, "THEY" et al,
QUOTE (janrinze+)
If two waves of equal wavelength and intensity travel in opposing directions the result becomes a standing wave. at the knots there is no possibility of detecting either wave. if the setup is made in such a way that the waves constructively interfere at the point where wave one is generated, a wave of the size of wave two plus wave one can be seen on the other side of the wave-generator.
++++++++*+0+++0+++0+++0+*++++++++
* is source, + means detectable, 0 means knot and hence undetectable.
If the setup is chosen such that wave one and two destructively interfere at the point of the wavegenerator then beyond the point of the wavegenerator no wave will be detectable since they both cancel each other everywhere beyond that point:
0000000000*+++0+++0+++0+++*0000000000
This looks like both waves are reflected at the point of the others source.
and I wish I could do better ascii art ;-)
Maybe this is hard to comprehend but it is the very nature of waves.
In the latter result it becomes disputable if it is necessary to say that both waves still travel beyond the two sources since they will never be detectable in those area's.
++++++++*+0+++0+++0+++0+*++++++++
* is source, + means detectable, 0 means knot and hence undetectable.
If the setup is chosen such that wave one and two destructively interfere at the point of the wavegenerator then beyond the point of the wavegenerator no wave will be detectable since they both cancel each other everywhere beyond that point:
0000000000*+++0+++0+++0+++*0000000000
This looks like both waves are reflected at the point of the others source.
and I wish I could do better ascii art ;-)
Maybe this is hard to comprehend but it is the very nature of waves.
In the latter result it becomes disputable if it is necessary to say that both waves still travel beyond the two sources since they will never be detectable in those area's.
As you have stated correctly, we should be seeing something to the left and to the right of this one dimensional mode. What we are seeing is "almost" this...
0000000000*+++0+++0+++0+++*0000000000
This is a one dimensional cavity terminated by sources in this case they are apparently nodes. This could be part of some kind of bounding surface or they could be two points on a resonant "line" joining the original source to a sink or another source. The only difference between them is relative phase. Using this shorthand what I believe is happening is this...
0000000000+*+++0+++0+++0+++*+0000000000
Please note the extra padding plus signs around the sources. Notice that we have a near-field region in which the sources are non-zero. They are not true point sources there but distributed sources with some dimensions. The next point is to recognize is because we are "causal" creatures we are seeing only the retarded waves and none of the advanced waves. These are running backwards in time into the source as Feynman and Wheeler have suggested, canceling the amplitude that should be seen on the outside of this cavity (especially in the 'far-field").
The difference is the argument surrounding string theory. There are no such things as true point sources. These regions represents boundaries of compact physical dimensions.
Recalling Wheeler Feynman Theory and Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics...
The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: John G. Cramer
It is useful to consider the Philosophical Degrees of Interpretation regarding the idea of wavefunction collapse...
0000000000*+++0+++0+++0+++*0000000000
This is a one dimensional cavity terminated by sources in this case they are apparently nodes. This could be part of some kind of bounding surface or they could be two points on a resonant "line" joining the original source to a sink or another source. The only difference between them is relative phase. Using this shorthand what I believe is happening is this...
0000000000+*+++0+++0+++0+++*+0000000000
Please note the extra padding plus signs around the sources. Notice that we have a near-field region in which the sources are non-zero. They are not true point sources there but distributed sources with some dimensions. The next point is to recognize is because we are "causal" creatures we are seeing only the retarded waves and none of the advanced waves. These are running backwards in time into the source as Feynman and Wheeler have suggested, canceling the amplitude that should be seen on the outside of this cavity (especially in the 'far-field").
The difference is the argument surrounding string theory. There are no such things as true point sources. These regions represents boundaries of compact physical dimensions.
Recalling Wheeler Feynman Theory and Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics...
The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: John G. Cramer
It is useful to consider the Philosophical Degrees of Interpretation regarding the idea of wavefunction collapse...
QUOTE (A.3 "Collapse" Interpretations in Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics+)
This "consciousness" interpretation, while it is a reasonable working hypothesis for an observer who does not wish to find himself dissolved into the state vector of the system which he is measuring, does beg a number of question: Did the SV of the universe remain uncollapsed until the first consciousness evolved? Where is the borderline between consciousness and unconsciousness? Will "smart" measuring instruments eventually achieve the ability to collapse SV's, and how will one know when they do? And so on ...
Schrödinger (1935) suggested an alternative to the consciousness interpretation which he called the principle of state distinction, and which asserts: "states of a microscopic system which could be told apart by macroscopic observation are distinct from each other whether observed or not". In other words, the SV collapses as soon as some macroscopic record of the result of a measurement is made, whether a conscious observer looks a that record or not. Heisenberg (1960) and others have suggested a variant of this position which asserts that as soon as the quantum measurement passes from the domain of reversible processes into the domain of thermodynamic irreversibility the SV collapses.
The latter two "collapse triggers" are more appealing to most physicists than the former because they avoid giving some special significance to consciousness and because, as pointed out by Weisskopf (1959, 1980), they correspond more closely to the operating assumptions which practicing physicists use in thinking about how quantum measurements are done. However, these models also beg the question of borders: Where precisely is the border between macrophysics and microphysics and the border at which irreversibility begins? This point seems particularly troublesome when one realizes that present experimental techniques permit the result of a quantum measurement to be "recorded" in the spin orientation of a single electron in a Penning trap or in the trapping of a single magnetic flux quantum in a split superconducting ring.
http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/...TI_app.html#A.3
Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory see fig 1
Wikipedia: Transactional interpretation
So around an "extended" point source (...source or sink) we could "ideally" represent this "particle" as a three dimensional spatial "boxcar function" or in the reciprocal domain this function would be its transform in three dimensions, a three dimensional sync function ...
Cheers
... Click to enlarge...
The three dimensional equivalent to this one dimensional function portrayed here. The far field "canceled" by unseen advanced waves from our future. The only place these become evident is as we approach the evanescent field. Now we see the problem as a series of resonant cavities. Photon absorption now becomes a problem in analyzing the eigenstates of the system.
Cheers
Schrödinger (1935) suggested an alternative to the consciousness interpretation which he called the principle of state distinction, and which asserts: "states of a microscopic system which could be told apart by macroscopic observation are distinct from each other whether observed or not". In other words, the SV collapses as soon as some macroscopic record of the result of a measurement is made, whether a conscious observer looks a that record or not. Heisenberg (1960) and others have suggested a variant of this position which asserts that as soon as the quantum measurement passes from the domain of reversible processes into the domain of thermodynamic irreversibility the SV collapses.
The latter two "collapse triggers" are more appealing to most physicists than the former because they avoid giving some special significance to consciousness and because, as pointed out by Weisskopf (1959, 1980), they correspond more closely to the operating assumptions which practicing physicists use in thinking about how quantum measurements are done. However, these models also beg the question of borders: Where precisely is the border between macrophysics and microphysics and the border at which irreversibility begins? This point seems particularly troublesome when one realizes that present experimental techniques permit the result of a quantum measurement to be "recorded" in the spin orientation of a single electron in a Penning trap or in the trapping of a single magnetic flux quantum in a split superconducting ring.
http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/...TI_app.html#A.3
Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory see fig 1
Wikipedia: Transactional interpretation
So around an "extended" point source (...source or sink) we could "ideally" represent this "particle" as a three dimensional spatial "boxcar function" or in the reciprocal domain this function would be its transform in three dimensions, a three dimensional sync function ...
Cheers
... Click to enlarge...
The three dimensional equivalent to this one dimensional function portrayed here. The far field "canceled" by unseen advanced waves from our future. The only place these become evident is as we approach the evanescent field. Now we see the problem as a series of resonant cavities. Photon absorption now becomes a problem in analyzing the eigenstates of the system.
Cheers
Hi Jan and GE...
I couldn't resist.
shouldn't the ascii waveform look like this?:
0000000000+*+++0---0+++0---*-0000000000
I'm so anal.
LL
I couldn't resist.
shouldn't the ascii waveform look like this?:
0000000000+*+++0---0+++0---*-0000000000
I'm so anal.
LL
Hi Laserlight,
C2, Good Elf, janrinze, jal, et al,
To be candid I have not been able to read all the replies on this experiment DSE, but has anyone considered adding extra slits or maybe just one and calculate the effect?
I believe you could find information on most search engines that would be available to you. It has been done.
Just a thought?
Best to all on this adventure.
ciao_
yquantum
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I couldn't resist.
shouldn't the ascii waveform look like this?:
0000000000+*+++0---0+++0---*-0000000000
I'm so anal.
shouldn't the ascii waveform look like this?:
0000000000+*+++0---0+++0---*-0000000000
I'm so anal.
He he he!... I like that attention to detail. You are right but it really depends on which side of the double slits you are viewing it from. If you are considering viewing from the cavity containing the original laser source and the slits, I suppose the slits look like sinks so you swap the phase as you have shown. On the other hand if you ae inside the screen side of the DSE then these slits look like the sources so the plus sign would be appropriate... This is related to virtual and real sources.
An environmental note on the use of virtual photons. Back in the earlier centuries before the advent of electric light when most of the illumination was from a single candle in a room, cleaver people multiplied the effective brightness of that one candle by suitably positioning secondary mirrors behind and above it. In this way when you stood in the room you would see the candle mirrored in several virtual sources. Believe it or not this increased the effective brightness of the room by a similar factor. These other sources were just as effective as the original as long as you were able to see then from your position. Consider the fact that his "trick" has not increased the number of photons in the room at all but does certainly increase the illumination. This principle could be used with electric lighting today to reduce the amount of power being consumed in coal fired power stations much more effectively than even using fluorescent lighting and avoid the toxic environmental nature of the pollutant value of these expensive high-tech bulbs.
Cheers
Cheers
An environmental note on the use of virtual photons. Back in the earlier centuries before the advent of electric light when most of the illumination was from a single candle in a room, cleaver people multiplied the effective brightness of that one candle by suitably positioning secondary mirrors behind and above it. In this way when you stood in the room you would see the candle mirrored in several virtual sources. Believe it or not this increased the effective brightness of the room by a similar factor. These other sources were just as effective as the original as long as you were able to see then from your position. Consider the fact that his "trick" has not increased the number of photons in the room at all but does certainly increase the illumination. This principle could be used with electric lighting today to reduce the amount of power being consumed in coal fired power stations much more effectively than even using fluorescent lighting and avoid the toxic environmental nature of the pollutant value of these expensive high-tech bulbs.
Cheers
Cheers
Hi All..
I have noticed that even just explaining waves is hard to do.
From a practical point of view there is absolutely nothing wrong to say that the waves are also measurable for a short part to the left and right of my proposed simple one dimensional setup.
The mathematical superposition is still exactly what i described.
as to the ASCII art, I tried to use a legend to show the meaning of the characters used..
since standing waves move 'up' and 'down' and thus can be either above or below the center line i decided to use a + sign. it extends both upwards and downwards of the center line. to illustrate this I should be using:
--------*+++-+++-+++*---------
which means:
- is flat, no measurable waves
* is a source
+ standing wave detectable.
This is by no means a cavity!
that would be something like:
|+++-+++-+*+-+++|
the walls | are at the point where the knots of the standing waves are.
In this case this can seen be like Good Elf states that there are 'virtual' waves still on the other sides of the walls.
Jan Rinze.
P.S. in QM wave do travel through 'walls' if the energy permits it creating an even more complex result..
I have noticed that even just explaining waves is hard to do.
From a practical point of view there is absolutely nothing wrong to say that the waves are also measurable for a short part to the left and right of my proposed simple one dimensional setup.
The mathematical superposition is still exactly what i described.
as to the ASCII art, I tried to use a legend to show the meaning of the characters used..
since standing waves move 'up' and 'down' and thus can be either above or below the center line i decided to use a + sign. it extends both upwards and downwards of the center line. to illustrate this I should be using:
--------*+++-+++-+++*---------
which means:
- is flat, no measurable waves
* is a source
+ standing wave detectable.
This is by no means a cavity!
that would be something like:
|+++-+++-+*+-+++|
the walls | are at the point where the knots of the standing waves are.
In this case this can seen be like Good Elf states that there are 'virtual' waves still on the other sides of the walls.
Jan Rinze.
P.S. in QM wave do travel through 'walls' if the energy permits it creating an even more complex result..
Laserlight et al,
Let's imagine we have 6 sodium atoms suspended at equal distances in 3D space. We put one in the middle of that clump so we have a total of seven. Let's say the atom in the middle emits a photon corresponding to the first ionisation level of a sodium atom .. that is to say it was ionized before it lost the photon and it is no longer ionised.
Let's consider this as a dipole radiating a field. We know only one (or none) of the surrounding atoms can be excited by the photon so OBVIOUSLY the field can't be spreading in all directions. (Yes/No/Something else) . If the field spread all over the place then bits of field (energy) would still be expanding away from the centre regardless of whether or not the photon is detected. So conservation of energy says fields (and EM) are doomed. (Yes/No/Something else). Or not. Imagine when a photon is emitted we get a poof noise (what?) and when it is absorbed we get a foop. The emitter goes poof and the absorber goes foop. There's more - the absorber behaves as though it is emitting a photon backwards in time .. so it goes poof too .. and when this backwards photon gets to the original source it goes foop. At both ends the poof and foop fields cancel out in both magnitude and direction so the photon CAN move from A to B with no EM field left over to escape. ( http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/dtime/node2.html ) .
Laserlight (especially) - What do you make of it so far?
Others - is this what you are drawing ?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Let's imagine we have 6 sodium atoms suspended at equal distances in 3D space. We put one in the middle of that clump so we have a total of seven. Let's say the atom in the middle emits a photon corresponding to the first ionisation level of a sodium atom .. that is to say it was ionized before it lost the photon and it is no longer ionised.
Let's consider this as a dipole radiating a field. We know only one (or none) of the surrounding atoms can be excited by the photon so OBVIOUSLY the field can't be spreading in all directions. (Yes/No/Something else) . If the field spread all over the place then bits of field (energy) would still be expanding away from the centre regardless of whether or not the photon is detected. So conservation of energy says fields (and EM) are doomed. (Yes/No/Something else). Or not. Imagine when a photon is emitted we get a poof noise (what?) and when it is absorbed we get a foop. The emitter goes poof and the absorber goes foop. There's more - the absorber behaves as though it is emitting a photon backwards in time .. so it goes poof too .. and when this backwards photon gets to the original source it goes foop. At both ends the poof and foop fields cancel out in both magnitude and direction so the photon CAN move from A to B with no EM field left over to escape. ( http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/dtime/node2.html ) .
Laserlight (especially) - What do you make of it so far?
Others - is this what you are drawing ?
Best wishes,
-C2.
There is a ripple tank here:- http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm
-C2.
-C2.
C2, Good Elf, janrinze, jal, et al,To be candid I have not been able to read all the replies on this experiment DSE, but has anyone considered adding extra slits or maybe just one and calculate the effect?
I believe you could find information on most search engines that would be available to you. It has been done.
Just a thought?
Best to all on this adventure.
ciao_
yquantum
Hi C2,
Beats the foop out of me! I really don't know how to adequately answer your
question but I think I have proposed "in depth" theoretical mechanisms previously.
I will provide a much condensed version.
I guess I'm not just going to be just an observer after all.
Your sodium scenario probably can't work as you describe it, since what you are
describing is a spontaneous radiation decay event from the radioactive elements.
IMO, photons radiate from and are absorbed by the edge boundaries of a surface
where atomic dipoles acts as transmission or receiving source antennas, which
can resonantly couple EM energy to or from "space".
Energy will always couple to the path of least resistance. In this case space is the
path of least resistance or lowest impedance for EM energy transmission.
IMO, a photon could be considered a quantum "shock wave", an impulse, which is
displacing energy from an electron point source that is much smaller than the
overall size of the atom producing it, so it is likely that released EM wave energy is
reflected away from the mass of the atomic nucleus which may account for the
overall waveform dynamics and "shape". It's likely that some of the photon
shock wave energy that is being released is stimulating the electrons in nearby
atoms, creating a cascading/rolling wave effect and generating other wavelets
that are nearly in phase alignment, but just slightly delayed from the leading edge
pulse that will contribute to the overall total wavefront energy, which is another
theoretical mechanism also discussed previously.
-----
In the case of absorption:
Photons that are coupled into the atomic mass are absorbed by surface atoms
which raises the energy level of the absorbing atoms to a point
above their normal ground level. Depending upon the total energy available
and the total charge distribution, this adds to electron mobility and current
flow (IR/heat) in the material according to the polarity and energy level of the
atoms being stimulated.
--------
In the case of ionized gases, heat (or excess externally applied energy) is a
precursor to photon emission. With enough heat or excess energy applied the
atoms ionize and electrons are ejected from the atoms. There is a mechanism of
ionization and recombination and current flows thru the bulk of the ionized gas
from source to "ground" according to the delta of voltage/charge distribution
across the conductive path.
These are very short and imprecise explanations condensed from previously
submitted posts.
Other thoughts? Comments?
Beats the foop out of me! I really don't know how to adequately answer your
question but I think I have proposed "in depth" theoretical mechanisms previously.
I will provide a much condensed version.
I guess I'm not just going to be just an observer after all.
Your sodium scenario probably can't work as you describe it, since what you are
describing is a spontaneous radiation decay event from the radioactive elements.
IMO, photons radiate from and are absorbed by the edge boundaries of a surface
where atomic dipoles acts as transmission or receiving source antennas, which
can resonantly couple EM energy to or from "space".
Energy will always couple to the path of least resistance. In this case space is the
path of least resistance or lowest impedance for EM energy transmission.
IMO, a photon could be considered a quantum "shock wave", an impulse, which is
displacing energy from an electron point source that is much smaller than the
overall size of the atom producing it, so it is likely that released EM wave energy is
reflected away from the mass of the atomic nucleus which may account for the
overall waveform dynamics and "shape". It's likely that some of the photon
shock wave energy that is being released is stimulating the electrons in nearby
atoms, creating a cascading/rolling wave effect and generating other wavelets
that are nearly in phase alignment, but just slightly delayed from the leading edge
pulse that will contribute to the overall total wavefront energy, which is another
theoretical mechanism also discussed previously.
-----
In the case of absorption:
Photons that are coupled into the atomic mass are absorbed by surface atoms
which raises the energy level of the absorbing atoms to a point
above their normal ground level. Depending upon the total energy available
and the total charge distribution, this adds to electron mobility and current
flow (IR/heat) in the material according to the polarity and energy level of the
atoms being stimulated.
--------
In the case of ionized gases, heat (or excess externally applied energy) is a
precursor to photon emission. With enough heat or excess energy applied the
atoms ionize and electrons are ejected from the atoms. There is a mechanism of
ionization and recombination and current flows thru the bulk of the ionized gas
from source to "ground" according to the delta of voltage/charge distribution
across the conductive path.
These are very short and imprecise explanations condensed from previously
submitted posts.
Other thoughts? Comments?
Hi Laserlight,
Edit:That post was really because everyone seems to be going for waves at the moment.
We know that the absorption and emission spectra are the same (eg http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/li...absorption.html )
The amount of energy given out when an electron drops down an energy level is precisely the same as the amount of energy required to put it back up to that level. If one sodium atom emits a photon at say 581nm and another one absorbs it at 581 then all the energy emitted by the one atom has ended up in the other. It is a 100% efficient transfer. Whatever field was created at the source must have been entirely absorbed at the destination - nothing added, nothing lost, nothing left over.
You agree?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Edit .. if a mechanism for photon/emission is not potentially lossless then I suggest it might be useful to look at it carefully.
Edit:That post was really because everyone seems to be going for waves at the moment.
We know that the absorption and emission spectra are the same (eg http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/li...absorption.html )
The amount of energy given out when an electron drops down an energy level is precisely the same as the amount of energy required to put it back up to that level. If one sodium atom emits a photon at say 581nm and another one absorbs it at 581 then all the energy emitted by the one atom has ended up in the other. It is a 100% efficient transfer. Whatever field was created at the source must have been entirely absorbed at the destination - nothing added, nothing lost, nothing left over.
You agree?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Edit .. if a mechanism for photon/emission is not potentially lossless then I suggest it might be useful to look at it carefully.
C2,
Not sure that I totally agree with your assertion.
Conservation of energy follows the laws of thermodynamics. Efficiency is relative
to the circumstances of the ambient environment. The energy transfer can be
distributed in different forms to accomodate 100% energy transfer efficiency.
My point being, that for energy transfer to happen it must move from a higher
energy level to all available lower level(s) in distributed fashion.
The lowest point of energy level in the mass will absorb the most energy until there
is relative energy equilibrium in the mass. There must be a delta relationship
between energy points for energy transfer to occur. When energy equilibrium
between masses is achieved, energy transfer stops.
It's a Yin-Yang relative/opposites relationship. Higher energy content will flow to
points of lowest energy. Once you achieve energy equilibrium the energy
difference relationship ends and everything is in relative balance between masses.
If the ability of a mass to absorb and distribute the total energy being applied to it
is exceeded by the amount of energy being applied, then it must release the
excess absorbed energy to the ambient environment in some other form to
accomodate the physics of that environment.
-------
What was your question?
Regards,
LL
Not sure that I totally agree with your assertion.
Conservation of energy follows the laws of thermodynamics. Efficiency is relative
to the circumstances of the ambient environment. The energy transfer can be
distributed in different forms to accomodate 100% energy transfer efficiency.
My point being, that for energy transfer to happen it must move from a higher
energy level to all available lower level(s) in distributed fashion.
The lowest point of energy level in the mass will absorb the most energy until there
is relative energy equilibrium in the mass. There must be a delta relationship
between energy points for energy transfer to occur. When energy equilibrium
between masses is achieved, energy transfer stops.
It's a Yin-Yang relative/opposites relationship. Higher energy content will flow to
points of lowest energy. Once you achieve energy equilibrium the energy
difference relationship ends and everything is in relative balance between masses.
If the ability of a mass to absorb and distribute the total energy being applied to it
is exceeded by the amount of energy being applied, then it must release the
excess absorbed energy to the ambient environment in some other form to
accomodate the physics of that environment.
-------
What was your question?
Regards,
LL
Hi LL,
Is that your way of belittling and dismissing the info that I have gathered as irrelevant and unsubstantiated?
You must be opposed to the minimum scale concept because It says that there was/is no big bang, no zero, no singularity.
Let's all wait for proof from CERN.
jal
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
The energy transfer can be distributed in different forms to accomodate 100% energy transfer efficiency.
I know it will lead to more trouble but .. the photoelectric effect is the best I can come up with at the moment. http://www.ifae.es/xec/phot2.html
Best wishes,
-C2.
******************************************
That's it for a bit .. unless I can't resist interfering.
******************************************
I know it will lead to more trouble but .. the photoelectric effect is the best I can come up with at the moment. http://www.ifae.es/xec/phot2.html
Best wishes,
-C2.
******************************************
That's it for a bit .. unless I can't resist interfering.
******************************************
C2,
The photoelectric effect is a perfect example illustrating the last paragraph
of my previous post.
We are putting excess energy into a "closed" system and it is absorbing the
photons, to which it is frequency sensitive. It is trying to sink that energy to
achieve balance/unity with in the system.
What do you think happens to the energy of the lower frequency photon's
that the closed system cannot absorb? They are released back into the ambient
surrounding environment as reflected energy and/or thermal energy.
LL
The photoelectric effect is a perfect example illustrating the last paragraph
of my previous post.
We are putting excess energy into a "closed" system and it is absorbing the
photons, to which it is frequency sensitive. It is trying to sink that energy to
achieve balance/unity with in the system.
What do you think happens to the energy of the lower frequency photon's
that the closed system cannot absorb? They are released back into the ambient
surrounding environment as reflected energy and/or thermal energy.
LL
Hi Laserlight,
It has been pointed out to me that by posting so often I am narrowing the opportunity for other people to contribute. Much as I would love to get stuck into the details of photons and "energy expanding on a wavefront" .. hopefully someone more knowledgeable than I am will give us some answers. If not .. I'll be back!
Best wishes,
-C2.
It has been pointed out to me that by posting so often I am narrowing the opportunity for other people to contribute. Much as I would love to get stuck into the details of photons and "energy expanding on a wavefront" .. hopefully someone more knowledgeable than I am will give us some answers. If not .. I'll be back!
Best wishes,
-C2.
Geese,
If we all go on a hiatus and become observers this thread will rapidly fade
away and a viable solution to the DSE will never be found. Maybe that is
why there has not been a comprehensive solution for 200 years, everyone
just ran out of ideas, got bored, or waited for someone else/new to propose an
answer. Same with QM and the universal constant.
There has to be an answer to the deeper mysteries of science, but has been
pointed out by Jal...we need to quit looking under the same rocks. When
conventional science can't explain the unexplainable it is time to invent
new science. Where are the new Maxwell's, Newton's, Einstein's......Have they all
become just observers, proponents of the status quo, or science fiction mongers?
LL
If we all go on a hiatus and become observers this thread will rapidly fade
away and a viable solution to the DSE will never be found. Maybe that is
why there has not been a comprehensive solution for 200 years, everyone
just ran out of ideas, got bored, or waited for someone else/new to propose an
answer. Same with QM and the universal constant.
There has to be an answer to the deeper mysteries of science, but has been
pointed out by Jal...we need to quit looking under the same rocks. When
conventional science can't explain the unexplainable it is time to invent
new science. Where are the new Maxwell's, Newton's, Einstein's......Have they all
become just observers, proponents of the status quo, or science fiction mongers?
LL
Hi LL,
new science is not debating personal opinions i.m.h.o.
Jan Rinze.
new science is not debating personal opinions i.m.h.o.
Jan Rinze.
QUOTE
new science is not debating personal opinions i.m.h.o.
Jan Rinze.
Jan Rinze.
Is that your way of belittling and dismissing the info that I have gathered as irrelevant and unsubstantiated?
You must be opposed to the minimum scale concept because It says that there was/is no big bang, no zero, no singularity.
Let's all wait for proof from CERN.
jal
QUOTE (Confused2+Sep 14 2006, 03:41 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
A remarkable result follows from a variation of the double-slit experiment in which detectors is placed in each of the two slits, in an attempt to determine which slit the photon passes through on its way to the screen. Placing a detector even in just one of the slits will result in the disappearance of the interference pattern. The detection of a photon involves a physical interaction between the photon and the detector of the sort that physically changes the detector.
-C2.
Huh?
physically changes the detector?
whatchoo talking about......
so the interference is there still? but the detector becomes "blind" to it?
what is the detector detecting? a photon?
what if there are no photons? arent photons particles?
i thought light was a wave? this is upsetting.....i thought you science people already proved that light was a wave?
right?
detector? what is it detecting? imaginary photons? or waves?
is the light passing through the detector? like a wave passing through a channel?
it comes out a smooth current because of the interference from the channel?
right?
A remarkable result follows from a variation of the double-slit experiment in which detectors is placed in each of the two slits, in an attempt to determine which slit the photon passes through on its way to the screen. Placing a detector even in just one of the slits will result in the disappearance of the interference pattern. The detection of a photon involves a physical interaction between the photon and the detector of the sort that physically changes the detector.
-C2.
Huh?
physically changes the detector?whatchoo talking about......
so the interference is there still? but the detector becomes "blind" to it?
what is the detector detecting? a photon?
what if there are no photons? arent photons particles?
i thought light was a wave? this is upsetting.....i thought you science people already proved that light was a wave?
right?detector? what is it detecting? imaginary photons? or waves?
is the light passing through the detector? like a wave passing through a channel?
it comes out a smooth current because of the interference from the channel?
right?
QUOTE (janrinze+May 13 2007, 12:51 AM)
Hi LL,
new science is not debating personal opinions i.m.h.o.
Jan Rinze.
Hi Jan,
This is a discussion board for exploring alternative possibilities and sharing
experiences.
From a previous post:
"Sharing of ideas and exploriing of different perspectives, makes
us think out of the "box" of conventional "wisdom" that many are trapped in.
Someone may say something scientifically wrong but with the right
conceptualization, or may provide a tidbit of information that sparks a totally
new and innovative answer to a problem."
I will not belabor the point.
Regards,
LL
new science is not debating personal opinions i.m.h.o.
Jan Rinze.
Hi Jan,
This is a discussion board for exploring alternative possibilities and sharing
experiences.
From a previous post:
"Sharing of ideas and exploriing of different perspectives, makes
us think out of the "box" of conventional "wisdom" that many are trapped in.
Someone may say something scientifically wrong but with the right
conceptualization, or may provide a tidbit of information that sparks a totally
new and innovative answer to a problem."
I will not belabor the point.
Regards,
LL
OldWoman1904!
Your questions are still our questions.
Shine a bit of light. Light up what you see.
Do you see another street light?
jal
Your questions are still our questions.
Shine a bit of light. Light up what you see.
Do you see another street light?
jal
Hi Jal,
I don't understand why you believe that my message was at all adressed at you.
my idea about science in general is that opinions are things personal to people and don't need proof nor experimental verification. Theories, hypotheses and gedanken experiments are different in that respect. We can debate them and (try to) verify them with mathematics and experiments.
Just my thoughts..
Jan Rinze.
P.S. ideas are not 'opinions' i.m.h.o. but precursors for new theory or hypotheses. This is in full agreement with LL's latest post.
I don't understand why you believe that my message was at all adressed at you.
my idea about science in general is that opinions are things personal to people and don't need proof nor experimental verification. Theories, hypotheses and gedanken experiments are different in that respect. We can debate them and (try to) verify them with mathematics and experiments.
Just my thoughts..
Jan Rinze.
P.S. ideas are not 'opinions' i.m.h.o. but precursors for new theory or hypotheses. This is in full agreement with LL's latest post.
Hi All,
I have re-read the lasts posts and found that my remarks are a bit harsh towards the people on this forum.
apparently I have misread the post of Laserlight and I wish to apologise.
The statement I made is true under all circumstances but it implies in this context that I was under the impression that LL preferred sentiment over facts, which is obviously a wrong assumption on my part.
sorry.
Jan Rinze.
P.S. Jal has made indeed a lot clear about the DS experiment. The question remains if Godel has a new area of proof within QM where the incompleteness of mathematics results in unsolvable situations like the particle-wave duality.
I have re-read the lasts posts and found that my remarks are a bit harsh towards the people on this forum.
apparently I have misread the post of Laserlight and I wish to apologise.
The statement I made is true under all circumstances but it implies in this context that I was under the impression that LL preferred sentiment over facts, which is obviously a wrong assumption on my part.
sorry.
Jan Rinze.
P.S. Jal has made indeed a lot clear about the DS experiment. The question remains if Godel has a new area of proof within QM where the incompleteness of mathematics results in unsolvable situations like the particle-wave duality.
In all oif our talk about the double slit experiments we have compeletely forgotten the effects of gravitiational lensing. Gravity is affecting the passage of photons through the slits. The slits have weight and attraction towards the photons.
And the mass energy of the photons must provide some attractive force that will act like gravitiational lensing. Every photon has gravitation that affects every other photon. That might have been important after the big bang when huge amounts of radiation were crammed into a small space.
And the mass energy of the photons must provide some attractive force that will act like gravitiational lensing. Every photon has gravitation that affects every other photon. That might have been important after the big bang when huge amounts of radiation were crammed into a small space.
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+May 13 2007, 01:01 PM)
In all oif our talk about the double slit experiments we have completely forgotten the effects of gravitational lensing. Gravity is affecting the passage of photons through the slits. The slits have weight and attraction towards the photons.
And the mass energy of the photons must provide some attractive force that will act like gravitational lensing. Every photon has gravitation that affects every other photon. That might have been important after the big bang when huge amounts of radiation were crammed into a small space.
Hi Neil,
in all you are right. There is however a small problem in that the gravitational fields of the masses involved in the DS experiment are extremely small compared to all other fields like EM. So what measurable influence should the gravitational field of the setup have in accordance to the DS experiment?
The photons do not posses a 'weight' like in a rest-mass. The gravitational lensing is due to the curvature of space induced by all mass present. Light just follows this curvature.
Jan Rinze.
And the mass energy of the photons must provide some attractive force that will act like gravitational lensing. Every photon has gravitation that affects every other photon. That might have been important after the big bang when huge amounts of radiation were crammed into a small space.
Hi Neil,
in all you are right. There is however a small problem in that the gravitational fields of the masses involved in the DS experiment are extremely small compared to all other fields like EM. So what measurable influence should the gravitational field of the setup have in accordance to the DS experiment?
The photons do not posses a 'weight' like in a rest-mass. The gravitational lensing is due to the curvature of space induced by all mass present. Light just follows this curvature.
Jan Rinze.
QUOTE (janrinze+May 13 2007, 01:22 PM)
Hi Neil,
in all you are right. There is however a small problem in that the gravitational fields of the masses involved in the DS experiment are extremely small compared to all other fields like EM. So what measurable influence should the gravitational field of the setup have in accordance to the DS experiment?
The photons do not posses a 'weight' like in a rest-mass. The gravitational lensing is due to the curvature of space induced by all mass present. Light just follows this curvature.
Jan Rinze.
during the radiation era there was no matter but the universe was affected by the gravitiational attraction of all of those photons.
in all you are right. There is however a small problem in that the gravitational fields of the masses involved in the DS experiment are extremely small compared to all other fields like EM. So what measurable influence should the gravitational field of the setup have in accordance to the DS experiment?
The photons do not posses a 'weight' like in a rest-mass. The gravitational lensing is due to the curvature of space induced by all mass present. Light just follows this curvature.
Jan Rinze.
during the radiation era there was no matter but the universe was affected by the gravitiational attraction of all of those photons.
Hi Neil,
If photons can generate gravity and the universe is full of them it might just be the 'dark matter' substitue..
The reasoning behind the 'big bang' is somewhat discutable so I find it hard to use conclusions based on such assumptions. The 'big bang' is what I call extreme extrapolation which must be used with sufficient caution. The reasoning forwards from the big bang is even more prone to error.
If the big bang can be prove conclusively then still lots of phenomena are not explained yet or made universally. So I cannot see your point here unless this is some hypothesis raised to stirr some thoughts.
So what is the point here? could you elaborate on it?
Jan Rinze.
If photons can generate gravity and the universe is full of them it might just be the 'dark matter' substitue..
The reasoning behind the 'big bang' is somewhat discutable so I find it hard to use conclusions based on such assumptions. The 'big bang' is what I call extreme extrapolation which must be used with sufficient caution. The reasoning forwards from the big bang is even more prone to error.
If the big bang can be prove conclusively then still lots of phenomena are not explained yet or made universally. So I cannot see your point here unless this is some hypothesis raised to stirr some thoughts.
So what is the point here? could you elaborate on it?
Jan Rinze.
Hello all
Confused2 has brought up a conundrum that lies at the very heart of the particle/wave theory of light..
One atom surrounded by other atoms of the same type at some distance. The central atom emits a photon. This emission is thought (modeled on) to be of a dipole nature which means the EM radiation travels out along the dipole's normal.
This EM radiation intensity decreases at the inverse square law. How far apart can the atoms be before the EM radiation can no longer influence the distant atoms? Does the absorption of the EM radiation by one atom prevent the other atoms from even seeing the EM wave? If so, how?
Now if the emission model is not a dipole then the emitted photon randomly picks a direction along the normal. Statistically speaking a random direction would appear over time to be dipole emission pattern along the normal. But there is still a problem of intensity decay if the photon travels as a EM wave. If the photon is not an EM wave then how does it travel? Does it take coupled photons to provide motion and not decay in intensity? How does one photon split into two or more photons?
I would wish for more answers and not more questions.
Confused2 has brought up a conundrum that lies at the very heart of the particle/wave theory of light..
One atom surrounded by other atoms of the same type at some distance. The central atom emits a photon. This emission is thought (modeled on) to be of a dipole nature which means the EM radiation travels out along the dipole's normal.
This EM radiation intensity decreases at the inverse square law. How far apart can the atoms be before the EM radiation can no longer influence the distant atoms? Does the absorption of the EM radiation by one atom prevent the other atoms from even seeing the EM wave? If so, how?
Now if the emission model is not a dipole then the emitted photon randomly picks a direction along the normal. Statistically speaking a random direction would appear over time to be dipole emission pattern along the normal. But there is still a problem of intensity decay if the photon travels as a EM wave. If the photon is not an EM wave then how does it travel? Does it take coupled photons to provide motion and not decay in intensity? How does one photon split into two or more photons?
I would wish for more answers and not more questions.
Ok Montec,
How about this:
a wave front can laterally extend infinitely but can only collapse at one place.
The probability is not spread-out evenly but has a peak in the direction the photon is travelling.
Whenever a photon is detected the entire wave ceases to exist since it is one and the same photon.
The law of conservation of momentum tells us that the direction of the photon is in the opposite direction of the 'recoil' at the source when a photon is emitted.
This solves the ISL problem for a photon.
If many photons travel from one point the waves can overlap and form one wavefront (coalese).
Jan Rinze.
How about this:
a wave front can laterally extend infinitely but can only collapse at one place.
The probability is not spread-out evenly but has a peak in the direction the photon is travelling.
Whenever a photon is detected the entire wave ceases to exist since it is one and the same photon.
The law of conservation of momentum tells us that the direction of the photon is in the opposite direction of the 'recoil' at the source when a photon is emitted.
This solves the ISL problem for a photon.
If many photons travel from one point the waves can overlap and form one wavefront (coalese).
Jan Rinze.
Hi Montec,
Those are great questions!!!
Let's discuss the possibilities. If a dipole arrangement does exist between the
nucleus and the stimulated electron, any energy released will be shielded on
one end by the nucleus and on the other by the electron. The cavity volume
and length between the electron and nucleus would then be the "compression
zone" from which the EM energy is released and it should radiate perpendicularly
from the dipole centerline outward, in a torroidal (donut) shape. If other atoms
are in close proximity to the one that is emitting the impulse, it seems likely that
they will be influenced/stimulated by the energy release and absorb or reflect a
portion of the total EM energy impuse that was released. This is a kind of
local proximity "cascade" effect which might boost the energy level of affected
atoms and influence their electric fields and dipole alignments, setting them up
to prepare for their photon event.
An analogy would be like timed explosive charges fired off of a primer cord, with
slight time delays between explosions. The individual coupled explosion events set
off a high intensity shock wave comprised of smaller waves (wavelets) that
are incorporated into the main wave.
Any energy that is not coupled to nearby atoms radiates away from the
dipole and is coupled into space and is the leading edge sub-harmonic of the
building wave event.
JMHO....
some prior posts:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=153827
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=179391
Comments? Discussion?
LL
Those are great questions!!!
QUOTE
Does it take coupled photons to provide motion and not decay in intensity? How does one photon split into two or more photons?
Let's discuss the possibilities. If a dipole arrangement does exist between the
nucleus and the stimulated electron, any energy released will be shielded on
one end by the nucleus and on the other by the electron. The cavity volume
and length between the electron and nucleus would then be the "compression
zone" from which the EM energy is released and it should radiate perpendicularly
from the dipole centerline outward, in a torroidal (donut) shape. If other atoms
are in close proximity to the one that is emitting the impulse, it seems likely that
they will be influenced/stimulated by the energy release and absorb or reflect a
portion of the total EM energy impuse that was released. This is a kind of
local proximity "cascade" effect which might boost the energy level of affected
atoms and influence their electric fields and dipole alignments, setting them up
to prepare for their photon event.
An analogy would be like timed explosive charges fired off of a primer cord, with
slight time delays between explosions. The individual coupled explosion events set
off a high intensity shock wave comprised of smaller waves (wavelets) that
are incorporated into the main wave.
Any energy that is not coupled to nearby atoms radiates away from the
dipole and is coupled into space and is the leading edge sub-harmonic of the
building wave event.
JMHO....
some prior posts:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=153827
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=179391
Comments? Discussion?
LL
Hello janrinze, et al.
In the DSE the slit plate is painted black. Does the photon not collapse on this surface in the single photon version of the DSE?
In the DSE the slit plate is painted black. Does the photon not collapse on this surface in the single photon version of the DSE?
The law of conservation of momentum tells us that the direction of the photon is in the opposite direction of the 'recoil' at the source when a photon is emitted.
This solves the ISL problem for a photon.
Would not this imply that the dipole model of photon emission is not complete or simply wrong?
Just some more questions? (sigh)
QUOTE
a wave front can laterally extend infinitely but can only collapse at one place.
In the DSE the slit plate is painted black. Does the photon not collapse on this surface in the single photon version of the DSE?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| a wave front can laterally extend infinitely but can only collapse at one place. |
In the DSE the slit plate is painted black. Does the photon not collapse on this surface in the single photon version of the DSE?
The law of conservation of momentum tells us that the direction of the photon is in the opposite direction of the 'recoil' at the source when a photon is emitted.
This solves the ISL problem for a photon.
Would not this imply that the dipole model of photon emission is not complete or simply wrong?
Just some more questions? (sigh)
Hi Montec,
a single photon experiment will not yield a detection every time.
the single photon can end up on the black paint and will not be detected.
I would like to see if the following result is true with the DS experiment:
N photons emitted initially
M photons detected
N > N* (area slits) / ( area of divergent beam) > M
regarding the dipole argument, only if 2 photons are emitted simultaneously and in opposite directions the total momentum can remain 0.
This way there is no way of telling which way the photons went and probability will be equal everywhere on the wavefront..
Jan Rinze.
a single photon experiment will not yield a detection every time.
the single photon can end up on the black paint and will not be detected.
I would like to see if the following result is true with the DS experiment:
N photons emitted initially
M photons detected
N > N* (area slits) / ( area of divergent beam) > M
regarding the dipole argument, only if 2 photons are emitted simultaneously and in opposite directions the total momentum can remain 0.
This way there is no way of telling which way the photons went and probability will be equal everywhere on the wavefront..
Jan Rinze.
Hello Laserlight, et al.
I too believe that the emitted wave front can be directional similar to the steering reflectors located at half wave distances in radio broadcasting. However, this does not explain the directionality of synchrotron radiation which is a function of relative (absolute?)velocity. Is there a common cause?
I too believe that the emitted wave front can be directional similar to the steering reflectors located at half wave distances in radio broadcasting. However, this does not explain the directionality of synchrotron radiation which is a function of relative (absolute?)velocity. Is there a common cause?
Hello janrinze, et al.
Isn't it a requirement for the photon (wave front) to pass through both slits at the same time? Would not the plate section between the slits collapse the wave function? Or is there no such thing as a single photon DSE?
Isn't it a requirement for the photon (wave front) to pass through both slits at the same time? Would not the plate section between the slits collapse the wave function? Or is there no such thing as a single photon DSE?
QUOTE (Montec+May 13 2007, 07:37 PM)
Hello janrinze, et al.
Isn't it a requirement for the photon (wave front) to pass through both slits at the same time? Would not the plate section between the slits collapse the wave function? Or is there no such thing as a single photon DSE?
Hi Montec,
apparently this does not ring a bell:
N photons emitted initially
M photons detected
N > N* (area slits) / ( area of divergent beam) > M
it is a matter of chance if a photon will be 'absorbed' somewhere.
Jan Rinze.
Isn't it a requirement for the photon (wave front) to pass through both slits at the same time? Would not the plate section between the slits collapse the wave function? Or is there no such thing as a single photon DSE?
Hi Montec,
apparently this does not ring a bell:
N photons emitted initially
M photons detected
N > N* (area slits) / ( area of divergent beam) > M
it is a matter of chance if a photon will be 'absorbed' somewhere.
Jan Rinze.
Good Day!
Happy Mothers day to the the mothers.
I'm busy searching a different path.
I'll leave you an idea (or two) to search.
The double slit is a macro experiment set up. If you keep the same proportions but reduce the scale to the atomic level then the rules/explanations should still apply to a certain scale. Even when the detector is also the emitter nothing should change.
edit:( a crystal would still be considered a macro system in relation to the photon)
Also, the electron that has just detected a photon from the double slit has now become an emitter. Ask yourself... what rules are being followed that prevents running the clock backward? All of those photons should be going back through the slits by the same path that they arrived.
Why are the emitter and the detector only link for a one way trip?
What's good for the goose has got to be good for the gander.
jal
Happy Mothers day to the the mothers.
I'm busy searching a different path.
I'll leave you an idea (or two) to search.
The double slit is a macro experiment set up. If you keep the same proportions but reduce the scale to the atomic level then the rules/explanations should still apply to a certain scale. Even when the detector is also the emitter nothing should change.
edit:( a crystal would still be considered a macro system in relation to the photon)
Also, the electron that has just detected a photon from the double slit has now become an emitter. Ask yourself... what rules are being followed that prevents running the clock backward? All of those photons should be going back through the slits by the same path that they arrived.
Why are the emitter and the detector only link for a one way trip?
What's good for the goose has got to be good for the gander.
jal
Hi all,
LL -
LL -
QUOTE
Hi TRoc, Jan, GE, C2, and All,
TRoc
Good, I have issues with this (the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM) explanation too. This is what we are working against: the illogic in the "photon" being an independent field from the sending electron field, and the receiving electron field. This is the standard reduction in complexity, in order to solve a problem. We did not (historically) have the mathematical computing power to do simultaneous, high parameter, complex equations. So, just do them one at a time, so to speak. This is the type of thing that you see me "railing against" all the time: the "ideal case" being the basis for the equation, while our understanding of the phenomenon at hand has grown to show that, some of these assumptions are absolutely false. Monochromatic light, zero particles (zero energy) in a "vacuum", etc.
When I said the energy doesn't sum, I am speaking straight "out of the book" QM. This IS the "quantum jump", when an electron is "excited". You are right for always insisting that we have matter there, to do the measuring. The electron, being quantized, creates quanta of energy. Unfortunately, the "photon" already (historically) had a life of its' own in QM, so they quantized it as well. The process (mathematical) of doing this multiplied the degrees of freedom, as well, creating a situation in which the physical observations of experiment did not "physically" match the math. Our space does not have, or need these parameters to exist. The scalar, "dimensionless" model can cover 1 thru 3 dimensions. The vectorial approach, and the "all paths" results are very hard to reconcile, indeed.
At any rate, by using/adopting the "photon" model, you end up with the physical interpretation of:
Sending Electron >> Photon >> Receiving Electron
when the "photon" hits the R.electron it "collapses". After some brief, finite time, a new "photon" is emitted (with NEW frequency, if altered). So, by logic, our "photons", that might be superposed onto an electron, DIE when they hit the electron (field). Any changes (mixing, interference, interacting, etc.) MUST occur BEFORE that time, and they "die" together, with the overall change IN PLACE. Then, this energy is translated into excited state(s) for the electron, and a new "photon", with the total energy (summed) is emitted.
Saying "states" with "(s)", meaning that IF the incident superposed "photons" are resonant (=) with more than one orbital state, then more than 1 "photon" will be absorbed. LAPE (laser assisted photo-electric effect) demonstrates this experimentally.
I made an ambiguous statement before, "One electron will NOT measure a superposition of multiple, degenerate "photons". It can only respond to one, the one that it is in tune with. " By "in tune with" I mean all possible modes, and they could be degenerate, with the right resonant combination. The point was, that if 2 identical "photons" hit the electron at the same time, one will "pass through", unmeasured (by that electron). This signal is then later measured at 2f (SHG) by another electron/detector.
Certainly, we all should agree that defining exactly WHERE the interaction takes place is "sticky". The WHEN, if you are to grant "life" to the "photon" (real physical interpretation), MUST be during this "life" (the period between emission and absorption). That means the "photons" interacted/interfered with each other. This is why I question giving real significance to mathematical works of Planck and Einstein, as did the authors themselves. Because of the simple E=nhf, and f=c/w equations, the "f" is implied to be single. The measured frequency is the same as the sent one, so nothing could have happened on the way, right? Not so, says all the experiments. Even single "photons" are packets of interacting frequencies.
Make no mistake, I am NOT saying that "photons" interfere/interact with each other, because I prefer to maintain "energy" as the physical thing being measured, and follow the mass-energy relation of E=Mc^2. Mass and energy do NOT need separate identities, when describing their field interaction. The "photon" is just a quantity of energy, and we already have that covered in the system, by frequency. I AM saying that "frequencies" interact quantitatively (by simple sum and difference math). I am saying that we should use the laws of Thermodynamics, and expand the fluctuation theorem to include the concept of Resonance.
I don't expect everyone to immediately jump on this anti-
photon band-wagon, and will just continue to put "photon" in quotes.
The method I am saying might lead you to think that I am "ignoring" the matter that is "in between" the source and detector, but I am not. I am just simply stating that the frequency that is detected at the detector is the same as left the matter "in between", and different from the source. This is the same description of the DSE. The current theory disregards the slits, and focuses on the screen, because that is where we SEE the results.
However, a simple statement will sum it up: if we change the size/location of the slits, the results change, therefore they are causal. If we change the distance from slits to wall, the results change, therefore that is causal too. Finally, if we change the frequency/wavelength, the results change, therefore it is causal. So, in the "system", we have 3 potential causations, and they are ALL before the detector. Therefore, the interactions that cause changes happen before the detector, and the "collapse" into an electron.
The only problems with the DSE are in the QM interpretation of a "single photon" as a particle, creating the false idea of wave-particle duality. Regardless of theory, I hope I have convinced everyone here that there there can never be a single frequency wave, what we are measuring is the net change in frequency, which is null, and a single number.
The medium (virtual cavity) that is after the slit is different from the one before the slit. It does not matter "by how much", it is a change in medium, and that has specific consequences for the wave. The slit itself, is another virtual cavity, having a third set of properties as a medium.
Regardless of composition, the material used for the slits has a "cut out", which exposes an atomic line of positive and negative charges (& dipoles) which sets up periodic poling, and quasi-phase matching. This changes the wavelengths involved (and angles), as they arrive in the slit. This is equivalent to a change in RI; C2 has perhaps forgot that we need to multiply the path length by the RI. Having a changing RI means that we will have to adjust the path lengths; this alleviates the velocity interpretation problems.
Whether we use "white light" from the sun, or a laser, as long as we pre-stage with slit "filters", we are shaping the wave to have more energy in a smaller area. With these higher peaks, we enter into the non-linear realm. Atoms along the path, which were not resonant (were not absorbing "photons") can now be "induced to be transparent", which means we increase superpositions, making even higher peaks. This is beam narrowing (a change in frequency). Finally, after ionization, we have the RI / pathlength relation reverse, increasing diffraction, and the beam spreads. This is the process of a "beam" of light, responsible for a finite beam length dropping off by ISL. Intensity is the # of "photons"; the ISL has nothing to do with energy.
All light emissions are pulse-like: they have a start, a peak, and a stop, all at different times. Because of this, the wavelength is changing slightly as it propagates. The interconnected relation of velocity changes in a medium, and wavelength response make this a non-linear problem. Also, remember that we have "spontaneous" and "stimulated" emissions, the former being "random" direction, and the latter following the incident vector. These are both controlled by Resonance, and determine scattering vs diffraction models.
enough for now..
ciao,
T.Roc
TRoc
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hi TRoc, Jan, GE, C2, and All, TRoc First, make sure that you are not summing energy. This does not happen, and is why Science had to abandon the "classic" approach. After the "birth" of QM, (20 yrs.?), someone else threw in the name "photon". Intensity is just the number of individual pulses/packets. This is a simple, and physical quantity that can be summed. The energy does not sum, because the "observers" (electrons) are quantized with discreet, stable tuning points - resonant "orbits". The number of electrons is absolutely critical to understand here. One electron will NOT measure a superposition of multiple, degenerate "photons". It can only respond to one, the one that it is in tune with. If a second "photon" is also there, it will "slip by unnoticed"; while the electron is in an excited state, it can NOT respond to any other energy . This defines the difference between "spontaneous" and "stimulated" emissions (photons). Hmmmm, I am having some "philosophical" issues with this explanation. I understand what you are implying but am finding it difficult to totally accept it in toto. |
Good, I have issues with this (the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM) explanation too. This is what we are working against: the illogic in the "photon" being an independent field from the sending electron field, and the receiving electron field. This is the standard reduction in complexity, in order to solve a problem. We did not (historically) have the mathematical computing power to do simultaneous, high parameter, complex equations. So, just do them one at a time, so to speak. This is the type of thing that you see me "railing against" all the time: the "ideal case" being the basis for the equation, while our understanding of the phenomenon at hand has grown to show that, some of these assumptions are absolutely false. Monochromatic light, zero particles (zero energy) in a "vacuum", etc.
When I said the energy doesn't sum, I am speaking straight "out of the book" QM. This IS the "quantum jump", when an electron is "excited". You are right for always insisting that we have matter there, to do the measuring. The electron, being quantized, creates quanta of energy. Unfortunately, the "photon" already (historically) had a life of its' own in QM, so they quantized it as well. The process (mathematical) of doing this multiplied the degrees of freedom, as well, creating a situation in which the physical observations of experiment did not "physically" match the math. Our space does not have, or need these parameters to exist. The scalar, "dimensionless" model can cover 1 thru 3 dimensions. The vectorial approach, and the "all paths" results are very hard to reconcile, indeed.
At any rate, by using/adopting the "photon" model, you end up with the physical interpretation of:
Sending Electron >> Photon >> Receiving Electron
when the "photon" hits the R.electron it "collapses". After some brief, finite time, a new "photon" is emitted (with NEW frequency, if altered). So, by logic, our "photons", that might be superposed onto an electron, DIE when they hit the electron (field). Any changes (mixing, interference, interacting, etc.) MUST occur BEFORE that time, and they "die" together, with the overall change IN PLACE. Then, this energy is translated into excited state(s) for the electron, and a new "photon", with the total energy (summed) is emitted.
Saying "states" with "(s)", meaning that IF the incident superposed "photons" are resonant (=) with more than one orbital state, then more than 1 "photon" will be absorbed. LAPE (laser assisted photo-electric effect) demonstrates this experimentally.
I made an ambiguous statement before, "One electron will NOT measure a superposition of multiple, degenerate "photons". It can only respond to one, the one that it is in tune with. " By "in tune with" I mean all possible modes, and they could be degenerate, with the right resonant combination. The point was, that if 2 identical "photons" hit the electron at the same time, one will "pass through", unmeasured (by that electron). This signal is then later measured at 2f (SHG) by another electron/detector.
Certainly, we all should agree that defining exactly WHERE the interaction takes place is "sticky". The WHEN, if you are to grant "life" to the "photon" (real physical interpretation), MUST be during this "life" (the period between emission and absorption). That means the "photons" interacted/interfered with each other. This is why I question giving real significance to mathematical works of Planck and Einstein, as did the authors themselves. Because of the simple E=nhf, and f=c/w equations, the "f" is implied to be single. The measured frequency is the same as the sent one, so nothing could have happened on the way, right? Not so, says all the experiments. Even single "photons" are packets of interacting frequencies.
Make no mistake, I am NOT saying that "photons" interfere/interact with each other, because I prefer to maintain "energy" as the physical thing being measured, and follow the mass-energy relation of E=Mc^2. Mass and energy do NOT need separate identities, when describing their field interaction. The "photon" is just a quantity of energy, and we already have that covered in the system, by frequency. I AM saying that "frequencies" interact quantitatively (by simple sum and difference math). I am saying that we should use the laws of Thermodynamics, and expand the fluctuation theorem to include the concept of Resonance.
I don't expect everyone to immediately jump on this anti-
photon band-wagon, and will just continue to put "photon" in quotes.
The method I am saying might lead you to think that I am "ignoring" the matter that is "in between" the source and detector, but I am not. I am just simply stating that the frequency that is detected at the detector is the same as left the matter "in between", and different from the source. This is the same description of the DSE. The current theory disregards the slits, and focuses on the screen, because that is where we SEE the results.
However, a simple statement will sum it up: if we change the size/location of the slits, the results change, therefore they are causal. If we change the distance from slits to wall, the results change, therefore that is causal too. Finally, if we change the frequency/wavelength, the results change, therefore it is causal. So, in the "system", we have 3 potential causations, and they are ALL before the detector. Therefore, the interactions that cause changes happen before the detector, and the "collapse" into an electron.
The only problems with the DSE are in the QM interpretation of a "single photon" as a particle, creating the false idea of wave-particle duality. Regardless of theory, I hope I have convinced everyone here that there there can never be a single frequency wave, what we are measuring is the net change in frequency, which is null, and a single number.
The medium (virtual cavity) that is after the slit is different from the one before the slit. It does not matter "by how much", it is a change in medium, and that has specific consequences for the wave. The slit itself, is another virtual cavity, having a third set of properties as a medium.
Regardless of composition, the material used for the slits has a "cut out", which exposes an atomic line of positive and negative charges (& dipoles) which sets up periodic poling, and quasi-phase matching. This changes the wavelengths involved (and angles), as they arrive in the slit. This is equivalent to a change in RI; C2 has perhaps forgot that we need to multiply the path length by the RI. Having a changing RI means that we will have to adjust the path lengths; this alleviates the velocity interpretation problems.
Whether we use "white light" from the sun, or a laser, as long as we pre-stage with slit "filters", we are shaping the wave to have more energy in a smaller area. With these higher peaks, we enter into the non-linear realm. Atoms along the path, which were not resonant (were not absorbing "photons") can now be "induced to be transparent", which means we increase superpositions, making even higher peaks. This is beam narrowing (a change in frequency). Finally, after ionization, we have the RI / pathlength relation reverse, increasing diffraction, and the beam spreads. This is the process of a "beam" of light, responsible for a finite beam length dropping off by ISL. Intensity is the # of "photons"; the ISL has nothing to do with energy.
All light emissions are pulse-like: they have a start, a peak, and a stop, all at different times. Because of this, the wavelength is changing slightly as it propagates. The interconnected relation of velocity changes in a medium, and wavelength response make this a non-linear problem. Also, remember that we have "spontaneous" and "stimulated" emissions, the former being "random" direction, and the latter following the incident vector. These are both controlled by Resonance, and determine scattering vs diffraction models.
enough for now..
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi Montec,
If I might interject.... the wavefront will seek the path of least energy
resistance/impedance to its forward progress. In this case, the openings of the
slits represent the path(s) of least resistance and wave energy will
flow/propagate thru them as long as the wave geometry can be sustained.
LL
If I might interject.... the wavefront will seek the path of least energy
resistance/impedance to its forward progress. In this case, the openings of the
slits represent the path(s) of least resistance and wave energy will
flow/propagate thru them as long as the wave geometry can be sustained.
LL
Hi TRoc,
Where do I begin?
That is quite a varied selection of issues and concepts that you have penned, but I
think some of them require discussion, clarification, or a different perspective.
For the sake of brevity and topic focus, I will respond in multiple posts to a few
issues/concepts of the many that you have proposed.
If you want to further discuss the issues/proposals let's keep them in bite sized
chunks.
I think this should be phrased it differently for the sake of clarity and with a
different theoretical "perspective".
When the energy of a specific frequency is absorbed by a receiving atomic dipole
that is resonant to the applied frequency, the energy being absorbed raises the
available energy state of the atom. The stimulated dipole resonates with the
frequency applied to it and the affected electron tracks the amplitude of the energy
of the waveform being absorbed. The energy being absorbed by the atom must
be released as the atom tries to re-acquire its ground state of energy balance.
The excess energy that is released is directly proportional to the total energy
absorbed by the atom but will always represent a specific set of exact spectral
frequencies of different wavelengths that correspond to the inherent energy levels
of the atomic element being stimulated. Some of the frequencies fall into the
optical range and some are above or below it. In any case, all of the energy
absorbed by the stimulated atom will be re-emitted as new photons at a set
range of wavelengths/frequencies. This is the conservation of energy at the
atomic level.
I think this should be phrased it differently for the sake of clarity and with a
different theoretical "perspective".
When the energy of a specific frequency is absorbed by a receiving atomic dipole
that is resonant to the applied frequency, the energy being absorbed raises the
available energy state of the atom. The stimulated dipole resonates with the
frequency applied to it and the affected electron tracks the amplitude of the energy
of the waveform being absorbed. The energy being absorbed by the atom must
be released as the atom tries to re-acquire its ground state of energy balance.
The excess energy that is released is directly proportional to the total energy
absorbed by the atom but will always represent a specific set of exact spectral
frequencies of different wavelengths that correspond to the inherent energy levels
of the atomic element being stimulated. Some of the frequencies fall into the
optical range and some are above or below it. In any case, all of the energy
absorbed by the stimulated atom will be re-emitted as new photons at a set
range of wavelengths/frequencies. This is the conservation of energy at the
atomic level.
I made an ambiguous statement before, "One electron will NOT measure a superposition of multiple, degenerate "photons". It can only respond to one, the one that it is in tune with. " By "in tune with" I mean all possible modes, and they could be degenerate, with the right resonant combination. The point was, that if 2 identical "photons" hit the electron at the same time, one will "pass through", unmeasured (by that electron). This signal is then later measured at 2f (SHG) by another electron/detector.
Two identical photons infers that they are perfectly in phase, so that means they
are superposed and constructively and resonantly interfering across the dipole.
Their total wave energy is combined/summed across the dipole and the electron
responds to the polarity of the wave. The dipole should resonate at the
applied frequency, and the absorbing electron should ride the energy of the
wave and track the superposed total wave amplitude and re-emit the absorbed
energy pulse as a new photon as it drops to ground level. But there is a problem
with this scenario, because at the peak of the 2x waveform the electron would
depart energy level of the outermost shell and the host atom would effectively
become an ion which would then scavenge a nearby free electron to drop into
the ground state.
There is a potential solution to this theoretical scenario. I am proposing that there
are 2 electrons that have been "captured" by, and are riding, the oscillating electrical
field of the applied wave. They are riding the cycles of the applied wave at a
relationship that keeps them 180 degrees out of phase with each other as the
wave oscillates.
Under this scenario the atom is oscillating between the ionic state and the shell
filled ground state. With the electrons 180 degrees out of phase, each electron will
generate a photon on each 1/2 wave cycle, so the frequency of the newly
generated photon will be 2x the original applied frequency.
When one electron is at the bottom of the wave it will be at the ground energy
level of the atom and will emit a photon, while its complementary "partner" electron
will be at the positive peak of the same wave. So at any time, one electron is
rising on each positive voltage wave excursion while the other electron is falling
back to the ground level while riding the negative wave voltage excursion.
Please feel free to argue against this theoretical scenario.
I understand this as it follows wave theory, but is there really a range of
separate internal wave frequencies, or is the phenomenon really an internal phase
angle change of the fundamental frequency that produce harmonics of the
fundamental?
Comments, discussion, opinions. If possible defend your "argument" with some
examples.
LL
Where do I begin?
That is quite a varied selection of issues and concepts that you have penned, but I
think some of them require discussion, clarification, or a different perspective.
For the sake of brevity and topic focus, I will respond in multiple posts to a few
issues/concepts of the many that you have proposed.
If you want to further discuss the issues/proposals let's keep them in bite sized
chunks.
QUOTE
Sending Electron >> Photon >> Receiving Electron
when the "photon" hits the R.electron it "collapses". After some brief, finite time, a new "photon" is emitted (with NEW frequency, if altered). So, by logic, our "photons", that might be superposed onto an electron, DIE when they hit the electron (field). Any changes (mixing, interference, interacting, etc.) MUST occur BEFORE that time, and they "die" together, with the overall change IN PLACE. Then, this energy is translated into excited state(s) for the electron, and a new "photon", with the total energy (summed) is emitted
when the "photon" hits the R.electron it "collapses". After some brief, finite time, a new "photon" is emitted (with NEW frequency, if altered). So, by logic, our "photons", that might be superposed onto an electron, DIE when they hit the electron (field). Any changes (mixing, interference, interacting, etc.) MUST occur BEFORE that time, and they "die" together, with the overall change IN PLACE. Then, this energy is translated into excited state(s) for the electron, and a new "photon", with the total energy (summed) is emitted
I think this should be phrased it differently for the sake of clarity and with a
different theoretical "perspective".
When the energy of a specific frequency is absorbed by a receiving atomic dipole
that is resonant to the applied frequency, the energy being absorbed raises the
available energy state of the atom. The stimulated dipole resonates with the
frequency applied to it and the affected electron tracks the amplitude of the energy
of the waveform being absorbed. The energy being absorbed by the atom must
be released as the atom tries to re-acquire its ground state of energy balance.
The excess energy that is released is directly proportional to the total energy
absorbed by the atom but will always represent a specific set of exact spectral
frequencies of different wavelengths that correspond to the inherent energy levels
of the atomic element being stimulated. Some of the frequencies fall into the
optical range and some are above or below it. In any case, all of the energy
absorbed by the stimulated atom will be re-emitted as new photons at a set
range of wavelengths/frequencies. This is the conservation of energy at the
atomic level.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Sending Electron >> Photon >> Receiving Electron when the "photon" hits the R.electron it "collapses". After some brief, finite time, a new "photon" is emitted (with NEW frequency, if altered). So, by logic, our "photons", that might be superposed onto an electron, DIE when they hit the electron (field). Any changes (mixing, interference, interacting, etc.) MUST occur BEFORE that time, and they "die" together, with the overall change IN PLACE. Then, this energy is translated into excited state(s) for the electron, and a new "photon", with the total energy (summed) is emitted |
I think this should be phrased it differently for the sake of clarity and with a
different theoretical "perspective".
When the energy of a specific frequency is absorbed by a receiving atomic dipole
that is resonant to the applied frequency, the energy being absorbed raises the
available energy state of the atom. The stimulated dipole resonates with the
frequency applied to it and the affected electron tracks the amplitude of the energy
of the waveform being absorbed. The energy being absorbed by the atom must
be released as the atom tries to re-acquire its ground state of energy balance.
The excess energy that is released is directly proportional to the total energy
absorbed by the atom but will always represent a specific set of exact spectral
frequencies of different wavelengths that correspond to the inherent energy levels
of the atomic element being stimulated. Some of the frequencies fall into the
optical range and some are above or below it. In any case, all of the energy
absorbed by the stimulated atom will be re-emitted as new photons at a set
range of wavelengths/frequencies. This is the conservation of energy at the
atomic level.
I made an ambiguous statement before, "One electron will NOT measure a superposition of multiple, degenerate "photons". It can only respond to one, the one that it is in tune with. " By "in tune with" I mean all possible modes, and they could be degenerate, with the right resonant combination. The point was, that if 2 identical "photons" hit the electron at the same time, one will "pass through", unmeasured (by that electron). This signal is then later measured at 2f (SHG) by another electron/detector.
Two identical photons infers that they are perfectly in phase, so that means they
are superposed and constructively and resonantly interfering across the dipole.
Their total wave energy is combined/summed across the dipole and the electron
responds to the polarity of the wave. The dipole should resonate at the
applied frequency, and the absorbing electron should ride the energy of the
wave and track the superposed total wave amplitude and re-emit the absorbed
energy pulse as a new photon as it drops to ground level. But there is a problem
with this scenario, because at the peak of the 2x waveform the electron would
depart energy level of the outermost shell and the host atom would effectively
become an ion which would then scavenge a nearby free electron to drop into
the ground state.
There is a potential solution to this theoretical scenario. I am proposing that there
are 2 electrons that have been "captured" by, and are riding, the oscillating electrical
field of the applied wave. They are riding the cycles of the applied wave at a
relationship that keeps them 180 degrees out of phase with each other as the
wave oscillates.
Under this scenario the atom is oscillating between the ionic state and the shell
filled ground state. With the electrons 180 degrees out of phase, each electron will
generate a photon on each 1/2 wave cycle, so the frequency of the newly
generated photon will be 2x the original applied frequency.
When one electron is at the bottom of the wave it will be at the ground energy
level of the atom and will emit a photon, while its complementary "partner" electron
will be at the positive peak of the same wave. So at any time, one electron is
rising on each positive voltage wave excursion while the other electron is falling
back to the ground level while riding the negative wave voltage excursion.
Please feel free to argue against this theoretical scenario.
QUOTE
This is why I question giving real significance to mathematical works of Planck and Einstein, as did the authors themselves. Because of the simple E=nhf, and f=c/w equations, the "f" is implied to be single. The measured frequency is the same as the sent one, so nothing could have happened on the way, right? Not so, says all the experiments. Even single "photons" are packets of interacting frequencies.
I understand this as it follows wave theory, but is there really a range of
separate internal wave frequencies, or is the phenomenon really an internal phase
angle change of the fundamental frequency that produce harmonics of the
fundamental?
Comments, discussion, opinions. If possible defend your "argument" with some
examples.
LL
TRoc,
Part II
Hmmm, mass changes physical state or characteristics according to the
energy that is contained in it or applied to it. The net atomic charge relationship
changes according to its energy level. They are energy in different forms, one is
a potential energy "well" that contains energy, the other is kinetic energy, a force.
They can exchange energy and change the form of energy.... I agree, mass can
be converted to energy, and vice versa.
Hmmm, mass changes physical state or characteristics according to the
energy that is contained in it or applied to it. The net atomic charge relationship
changes according to its energy level. They are energy in different forms, one is
a potential energy "well" that contains energy, the other is kinetic energy, a force.
They can exchange energy and change the form of energy.... I agree, mass can
be converted to energy, and vice versa.
The method I am saying might lead you to think that I am "ignoring" the matter that is "in between" the source and detector, but I am not. I am just simply stating that the frequency that is detected at the detector is the same as left the matter "in between", and different from the source.
The "matter" (gases) in between the source and the detector just affect the
speed of the wave since they have a fixed index of refraction relative to vacuum.
Does the frequency of a laser beam change when going thru a piece of glass and
being measured on the other side? All that should change is the speed of the
light thru the glass.
I understand what you are saying, the causal factors effect the end result and I
agree.
In your scenario, the physical relationship of the overall geometry is changing.
That changes the cavity and wave dynamics of how, when, and where the waves
will interact at the final point(s) of mixing.
Comments?
LL
Part II
QUOTE
Make no mistake, I am NOT saying that "photons" interfere/interact with each other, because I prefer to maintain "energy" as the physical thing being measured, and follow the mass-energy relation of E=Mc^2. Mass and energy do NOT need separate identities, when describing their field interaction. The "photon" is just a quantity of energy, and we already have that covered in the system, by frequency. I AM saying that "frequencies" interact quantitatively (by simple sum and difference math).
Hmmm, mass changes physical state or characteristics according to the
energy that is contained in it or applied to it. The net atomic charge relationship
changes according to its energy level. They are energy in different forms, one is
a potential energy "well" that contains energy, the other is kinetic energy, a force.
They can exchange energy and change the form of energy.... I agree, mass can
be converted to energy, and vice versa.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Make no mistake, I am NOT saying that "photons" interfere/interact with each other, because I prefer to maintain "energy" as the physical thing being measured, and follow the mass-energy relation of E=Mc^2. Mass and energy do NOT need separate identities, when describing their field interaction. The "photon" is just a quantity of energy, and we already have that covered in the system, by frequency. I AM saying that "frequencies" interact quantitatively (by simple sum and difference math). |
Hmmm, mass changes physical state or characteristics according to the
energy that is contained in it or applied to it. The net atomic charge relationship
changes according to its energy level. They are energy in different forms, one is
a potential energy "well" that contains energy, the other is kinetic energy, a force.
They can exchange energy and change the form of energy.... I agree, mass can
be converted to energy, and vice versa.
The method I am saying might lead you to think that I am "ignoring" the matter that is "in between" the source and detector, but I am not. I am just simply stating that the frequency that is detected at the detector is the same as left the matter "in between", and different from the source.
The "matter" (gases) in between the source and the detector just affect the
speed of the wave since they have a fixed index of refraction relative to vacuum.
Does the frequency of a laser beam change when going thru a piece of glass and
being measured on the other side? All that should change is the speed of the
light thru the glass.
QUOTE
However, a simple statement will sum it up: if we change the size/location of the slits, the results change, therefore they are causal. If we change the distance from slits to wall, the results change, therefore that is causal too. Finally, if we change the frequency/wavelength, the results change, therefore it is causal. So, in the "system", we have 3 potential causations, and they are ALL before the detector. Therefore, the interactions that cause changes happen before the detector, and the "collapse" into an electron
.I understand what you are saying, the causal factors effect the end result and I
agree.
In your scenario, the physical relationship of the overall geometry is changing.
That changes the cavity and wave dynamics of how, when, and where the waves
will interact at the final point(s) of mixing.
Comments?
LL
Hi Montec et al,
It's all very tricky
.
Concepts are an excellent start but ultimately the books have to be balanced.
Hopefully we are all familiar with peas .. I will be using two sorts of pea analogy. Dried peas (which are like bullets) and mushy peas which are (for present analysis) infinitely divisible.
Experiment suggests we only ever detect (effectively) whole peas.
Let's say our dipole at A emits an expanding a mushy pea field containing a total of 10 peas.
At point B we detect a pea - a whole pea. From the point of view of geometry and time we (hopefully) can see that from B there is nothing we can do to the field from A that will neatly remove 1 pea from the original mushy pea field. The only way* to neatly remove 1 pea from the original mushy field is to say it's a 9 pea mushy field and start again. My 'foop' field acts at the mushy pea source and is a pea canceling field - thereby turning the 10 pea field into a 9 pea field. We now have a 9 pea field (or possibly a 10 pea + 1 foop) expanding from A until there is another detection .. and so on until the mushy pea field is reduced to zero.
*This is the way I interpret the Feynman-Wheeler hypothesis for which they got a Nobel prize - I could (easily) be failing to understand it.
The theory does come at an absolutely dreadful price - does 'backwards in time' (and the foop) have any meaning?
I suspect every quantized field (one that is not infinitely divisible) will lead to crazy consequences.
Best wishes,
-C2.
The 10 pea field was for clarity - in reality I doubt if a mushy 10 pea field can exist except as the superposition of 10 individual pea fields.
As a point of interest - Good Elf regularly includes Feynman-Wheeler in his posts but doesn't seem to have made much of it so far.
It's all very tricky
.Concepts are an excellent start but ultimately the books have to be balanced.
Hopefully we are all familiar with peas .. I will be using two sorts of pea analogy. Dried peas (which are like bullets) and mushy peas which are (for present analysis) infinitely divisible.
Experiment suggests we only ever detect (effectively) whole peas.
Let's say our dipole at A emits an expanding a mushy pea field containing a total of 10 peas.
At point B we detect a pea - a whole pea. From the point of view of geometry and time we (hopefully) can see that from B there is nothing we can do to the field from A that will neatly remove 1 pea from the original mushy pea field. The only way* to neatly remove 1 pea from the original mushy field is to say it's a 9 pea mushy field and start again. My 'foop' field acts at the mushy pea source and is a pea canceling field - thereby turning the 10 pea field into a 9 pea field. We now have a 9 pea field (or possibly a 10 pea + 1 foop) expanding from A until there is another detection .. and so on until the mushy pea field is reduced to zero.
*This is the way I interpret the Feynman-Wheeler hypothesis for which they got a Nobel prize - I could (easily) be failing to understand it.
The theory does come at an absolutely dreadful price - does 'backwards in time' (and the foop) have any meaning?
I suspect every quantized field (one that is not infinitely divisible) will lead to crazy consequences.
Best wishes,
-C2.
The 10 pea field was for clarity - in reality I doubt if a mushy 10 pea field can exist except as the superposition of 10 individual pea fields.
As a point of interest - Good Elf regularly includes Feynman-Wheeler in his posts but doesn't seem to have made much of it so far.
Goog day!
I know that we can MATHEMATICALLY add and decompose a wave.
Can nature do it? An other experimental example, please. (a pea soup. )
jal
I know that we can MATHEMATICALLY add and decompose a wave.
Can nature do it? An other experimental example, please. (a pea soup.
)jal
Hi janrinze, Montec, Pink Elephant, Laserlight, Neil Farbstein, Confused2, yquantum, Jal, TRoc, "THEY" et al,
Firstly I would like to welcome yquantum back. I only wish that he had more to say but I realize he is very pressed for time.
Continuimg on with the discussion and stressing a few additional points... There is only a weak distinction between matter and light and there is a strong relationship between light that is "going nowhere going in 'circles'" and matter. I will refresh these theoretical points for all to indicate the aspects we know and aspects we do not know...
What we probably know....
Physicists Unite Light And Matter (Update)
We have discussed Lene Hau on this thread previously. In this way light is "stopped" and then travels at a very low velocity in light and carries all the information that the light originally possessed to a new location (the speed of a bicycle) without any loss.
This is connected with the process of Electromagnetically Induced Transparency where we have the induced behavior of Polaritons...
Firstly I would like to welcome yquantum back. I only wish that he had more to say but I realize he is very pressed for time.
Continuimg on with the discussion and stressing a few additional points... There is only a weak distinction between matter and light and there is a strong relationship between light that is "going nowhere going in 'circles'" and matter. I will refresh these theoretical points for all to indicate the aspects we know and aspects we do not know...
What we probably know....
Physicists Unite Light And Matter (Update)
We have discussed Lene Hau on this thread previously. In this way light is "stopped" and then travels at a very low velocity in light and carries all the information that the light originally possessed to a new location (the speed of a bicycle) without any loss.
This is connected with the process of Electromagnetically Induced Transparency where we have the induced behavior of Polaritons...
QUOTE (The EIT Group at St. Andrews+)
Electromagnetically Induced Transparency (E.I.T.) is a quantum interference effect which acts to reduce the usual absorption of light experienced when its frequency is tuned to the resonance frequency of the sample through which the light is propagating. The transparency is created by a second light (Electromagnetic) source tuned to another resonance of the sample. There are three ways in which these two light sources can be tuned to the resonances of a simple atomic system - in a cascade (or ladder), a vee or a lambda configuration. These are illustrated at the top of the page and are described in more detail under Research in Progress. Suppressing absorption through E.I.T. leads to several other effects, included the focusing of one laser beam by another (E.I.F.) and the production of inversionless laser sources.
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~eit/index.html
Wikipedia: Electromagnetically induced transparency
Wikipedia: Polariton
These are resonant situations involving photons with nett spin in quasiparticles... This leads to the technology of Spintronics...
Wikipedia: Spintronics
All this is experimental science and not theoretical. They are already building such systems in matter.
That much we already know... We do not need to debate these issues just go and read about the results of the experiments and the resulting technologies that are issuing from them.
What theory predicts...
When individual photons are trapped in resonant chambers their behavior changes from uncharged particles to that of repulsive charged entities having properties of electrons and even charge and charge repulsion.
Engaging photons in light conversation
Thus they adopt fermion properties when trapped in resonant states. It seems reasonable that this "condition" as we have discussed for electrons arises naturally from non-charges of the propagating wave through a "topological charge".
Quantum phase transitions of light.
It is clear that the absorption of photons into resonant structures forces them to exhibit a mutual repulsion of the next photons at the same site. I have no doubt that if it were possible to check (and one day someone will...) we will find that these confined photons will exhibit mass as well as charge... maybe we should call it "topological mass" to align with topological charge. These are properties that align with all particles as well. Neil Farbstein has suggested that "gravity" might be what hold this package together ... I don't think so for the reasons supplied by Jan Rinze (gravity as a force is far too feeble). What I will say is electromagnetism is what is holding these particles together with a force that is 10^41 times as great. It is getting very clear that these are the same forces that stabilize not only bright matter solitons "excited" from pure laser energy through mutual interference in grids, and also the same forces that can create quasi-stable ball lightning as demonstrated by that team in Brazil recently. Behind all this is CPT and that particle conservation law. I have also discussed this on this thread previously. The natural tendency to spread is reversed and resisted and the "light" is forced to be contained in a space as the progressive speed of the light is converted into spin energy with it's de Broglie wave and resonant cavity. This has turned space and time inside out. If light is in a "stationary state" in a volumetric space there are forces we think of as the properties of solids. This light is now propagating on the inside of a new space. These "particles" cannot be destroyed because the forces that stabilize this configuration is the light cone wall itself in which nothing can pass since it would need to exceed the speed of light to traverse it. We would not know of it other than these states when not properly stable can degenerate through a process of quantum transition via resonance. Light never ages and never grows old suffering the most extreme case of "Clock Paradox"... actually traveling at the speed of light ... as we would if we could do the same. It is just that light can do this trick "chasing it's own tail in a circle or in actual fact a Hubius Helix".
These stationary states do not mean that light has changed its velocity but is confined inside a resonant "internal" cavity that is still entirely insular and repulsive of all other like photons ... a property that propagating and spreading photons do not possess. This is the difference between integer spin photons which are bosons and half-integer spin fermions... which are "Mott Insulators" and from our perspective the progress of time has been arrested and the light traveling at the speed of light in a tiny loop has through the process of the transform converted the wave into a particle that seems to be the situation when photons are trapped in atoms and in specially constructed cavities and even spatial vortices and this leads to additional properties such as mass and topological charge which is just the wrapping of the wave such that the oscillations of the EM field is wholly on the outside for one of the possible configurations as stated in this paper I have quoted many times...
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?:J.G. Williamson( and M.B. van der Mark
and also in the paper...
"The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
All of these "conditions" indicate the collapse of the photon state from the spreading photon to that of the condensed and spun state mentioned above. It has even been suggested that "the photon" carries its own electrons along with it. This is not the case since the energy of photons is far too low to "hide" electrons and to capture this behavior. What is surely happening is the photons are primary stuff of matter and the geometry defines how it behaves. The solidness is just this repulsive state of light where it exhibits mass and charge through the topology. The topology of "cavities". That electrons are simply a state of light that does not unravel at this point in time due to the stability of the CPT-Lorentz Symmetry.
What I ask is that you all relinquish your ideas of "matter" and realize that this collapse we have been so mystified about is simply the change in topology that results in particles as one extremeum and bright matter solitons in the middle and resonance in cavities leading to Mott Insulating States in which these solitary photons resist interaction with other similarly afflicted photons.
Folks ... we do not need to reinvent the wheel and the answer to unification is staring us in the face... It is electromagnetism as it always must have been since all the other forces in nature are of an electromagnetic character. It was natural that gravity was also electromagnetic in origin and related to the property of mass. The reason it has evaded the radar screens is simply because of a dogged belief in quantization which is not true in these circumstances. What we are seeing is continuum physics of Conformal Field Theory and the different ways in which electromagnetism acts as the force carrier as propagating photons and as evanescent region quasi-particles absorbed in resonant states. Quantum Theory of particles could never have anticipated these events and this can only be accounted for using a continuous theory. The ground work has all been done and it remains only to "dot the I's and cross the T's". That is the secret of the photon and it is the reason we have "matter"... in the end we are simply light and defined by the dimensional "box" in which it is able to freely propagate. This maths is the maths of eigen states. There is no wave particle "duality"... it cannot be the wave and the particle at the one time because these are separate behaviors as seen from the inside and the outside of cavities. On the inside of any "perfect cavity" light always spreads. Seen from the outside of a cavity light is not spreading it is "circulating" in reciprocal space and reciprocal time (frequency).
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~eit/index.html
Wikipedia: Electromagnetically induced transparency
Wikipedia: Polariton
These are resonant situations involving photons with nett spin in quasiparticles... This leads to the technology of Spintronics...
Wikipedia: Spintronics
All this is experimental science and not theoretical. They are already building such systems in matter.
That much we already know... We do not need to debate these issues just go and read about the results of the experiments and the resulting technologies that are issuing from them.
What theory predicts...
When individual photons are trapped in resonant chambers their behavior changes from uncharged particles to that of repulsive charged entities having properties of electrons and even charge and charge repulsion.
Engaging photons in light conversation
Thus they adopt fermion properties when trapped in resonant states. It seems reasonable that this "condition" as we have discussed for electrons arises naturally from non-charges of the propagating wave through a "topological charge".
Quantum phase transitions of light.
It is clear that the absorption of photons into resonant structures forces them to exhibit a mutual repulsion of the next photons at the same site. I have no doubt that if it were possible to check (and one day someone will...) we will find that these confined photons will exhibit mass as well as charge... maybe we should call it "topological mass" to align with topological charge. These are properties that align with all particles as well. Neil Farbstein has suggested that "gravity" might be what hold this package together ... I don't think so for the reasons supplied by Jan Rinze (gravity as a force is far too feeble). What I will say is electromagnetism is what is holding these particles together with a force that is 10^41 times as great. It is getting very clear that these are the same forces that stabilize not only bright matter solitons "excited" from pure laser energy through mutual interference in grids, and also the same forces that can create quasi-stable ball lightning as demonstrated by that team in Brazil recently. Behind all this is CPT and that particle conservation law. I have also discussed this on this thread previously. The natural tendency to spread is reversed and resisted and the "light" is forced to be contained in a space as the progressive speed of the light is converted into spin energy with it's de Broglie wave and resonant cavity. This has turned space and time inside out. If light is in a "stationary state" in a volumetric space there are forces we think of as the properties of solids. This light is now propagating on the inside of a new space. These "particles" cannot be destroyed because the forces that stabilize this configuration is the light cone wall itself in which nothing can pass since it would need to exceed the speed of light to traverse it. We would not know of it other than these states when not properly stable can degenerate through a process of quantum transition via resonance. Light never ages and never grows old suffering the most extreme case of "Clock Paradox"... actually traveling at the speed of light ... as we would if we could do the same. It is just that light can do this trick "chasing it's own tail in a circle or in actual fact a Hubius Helix".
These stationary states do not mean that light has changed its velocity but is confined inside a resonant "internal" cavity that is still entirely insular and repulsive of all other like photons ... a property that propagating and spreading photons do not possess. This is the difference between integer spin photons which are bosons and half-integer spin fermions... which are "Mott Insulators" and from our perspective the progress of time has been arrested and the light traveling at the speed of light in a tiny loop has through the process of the transform converted the wave into a particle that seems to be the situation when photons are trapped in atoms and in specially constructed cavities and even spatial vortices and this leads to additional properties such as mass and topological charge which is just the wrapping of the wave such that the oscillations of the EM field is wholly on the outside for one of the possible configurations as stated in this paper I have quoted many times...
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?:J.G. Williamson( and M.B. van der Mark
and also in the paper...
"The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
All of these "conditions" indicate the collapse of the photon state from the spreading photon to that of the condensed and spun state mentioned above. It has even been suggested that "the photon" carries its own electrons along with it. This is not the case since the energy of photons is far too low to "hide" electrons and to capture this behavior. What is surely happening is the photons are primary stuff of matter and the geometry defines how it behaves. The solidness is just this repulsive state of light where it exhibits mass and charge through the topology. The topology of "cavities". That electrons are simply a state of light that does not unravel at this point in time due to the stability of the CPT-Lorentz Symmetry.
What I ask is that you all relinquish your ideas of "matter" and realize that this collapse we have been so mystified about is simply the change in topology that results in particles as one extremeum and bright matter solitons in the middle and resonance in cavities leading to Mott Insulating States in which these solitary photons resist interaction with other similarly afflicted photons.
Folks ... we do not need to reinvent the wheel and the answer to unification is staring us in the face... It is electromagnetism as it always must have been since all the other forces in nature are of an electromagnetic character. It was natural that gravity was also electromagnetic in origin and related to the property of mass. The reason it has evaded the radar screens is simply because of a dogged belief in quantization which is not true in these circumstances. What we are seeing is continuum physics of Conformal Field Theory and the different ways in which electromagnetism acts as the force carrier as propagating photons and as evanescent region quasi-particles absorbed in resonant states. Quantum Theory of particles could never have anticipated these events and this can only be accounted for using a continuous theory. The ground work has all been done and it remains only to "dot the I's and cross the T's". That is the secret of the photon and it is the reason we have "matter"... in the end we are simply light and defined by the dimensional "box" in which it is able to freely propagate. This maths is the maths of eigen states. There is no wave particle "duality"... it cannot be the wave and the particle at the one time because these are separate behaviors as seen from the inside and the outside of cavities. On the inside of any "perfect cavity" light always spreads. Seen from the outside of a cavity light is not spreading it is "circulating" in reciprocal space and reciprocal time (frequency).
QUOTE (Confused2+)
As a point of interest - Good Elf regularly includes Feynman-Wheeler in his posts but doesn't seem to have made much of it so far.
Well what do I need to do when there is so much actual experiment that goes on to prove it. This stuff above is no "fairy tale" but part of "history". I can't force people to interpret this for themselves. Maybe the "old ways" have to "die out" before the new ideas are seen clearly for what they are. We also note that in such trapped photonic states the information cannot leak out for the reason above ... Why does it not leak out?... you cannot force light to travel faster than light except when it "quantum leaps" and "tunnels out" of the "bunny hole". The reason is Special Relativity and a hiatus in time and spatial instanton connections to the surface of these vortices. This is why a photon retains it's integrity on the surface of the virtual particle. These are experimentally verified phenomena not "guesses" by a member of this Forum. SR is a rotation of arctan (V/C) in dimensional space, it is very clear from the geometry of this Lorentz Symmetry. The faster you travel forward the more you end up in a rotational co-tangential space and on the inside of an optical singularity. We are unable to trace these photons down those "bunny holes" and this leads to us "giving up". I think that the Wheeler Feynman Theory still exists down those "bunny holes" in reciprocally large spaces ... 1/0 => infinity... the waves are still traveling into the next "infinite" cavity that we are unable to see and we call this a collapse of the wave state... No way Jose! This is just the beginning of a brand new adventure for the "absorbed" photon. Believe Wheeler and Feynman... that theory is a continuum theory not a quantum theory. Truth is we have the answer strewn all over the light benches of the Labs in the World.
Cheers
Cheers
Hi all,
LL -
Again, I am just stating "textbook theory". Being phrased differently is certainly more than possible... you can not summarize QM into 3 sentences!
New perspectives are certainly in order. This is where we are in agreement.
Again, I am just stating "textbook theory". Being phrased differently is certainly more than possible... you can not summarize QM into 3 sentences!
New perspectives are certainly in order. This is where we are in agreement.
The stimulated dipole resonates with the frequency applied to it and the affected electron tracks the amplitude of the energy of the waveform being absorbed.
Applying energy to the electron is just like to a string: it does not matter the energy applied.. the tuning is inherent. String tension, and the strong force determine these resonant points.
No, as I stated above, the excess energy will not be used to create "free space" quanta of energy ("photons"), they will go into "other particles" that will stay in the lattice. The energy released is EXACTLY what is absorbed. Again, this is the standard foundation for QM. You are right about the energy being conserved in the total exchange. As in ThermoDyn., the energy will appear "somewhere else" in the system (the mass, atomic lattice).
No, as I stated above, the excess energy will not be used to create "free space" quanta of energy ("photons"), they will go into "other particles" that will stay in the lattice. The energy released is EXACTLY what is absorbed. Again, this is the standard foundation for QM. You are right about the energy being conserved in the total exchange. As in ThermoDyn., the energy will appear "somewhere else" in the system (the mass, atomic lattice).
Two identical photons infers that they are perfectly in phase, so that means they are superposed and constructively and resonantly interfering across the dipole. Their total wave energy is combined/summed across the dipole and the electron responds to the polarity of the wave. The dipole should resonate at the applied frequency, and the absorbing electron should ride the energy of the wave and track the superposed total wave amplitude and re-emit the absorbed energy pulse as a new photon as it drops to ground level. But there is a problem with this scenario, because at the peak of the 2x waveform the electron would depart energy level of the outermost shell and the host atom would effectively become an ion which would then scavenge a nearby free electron to drop into the ground state.
No, the electron will not respond to both energy levels, if ONE of the "photons" is a resonant level. While it is "elevated" in its' orbital, the second identical "photon" just "sneaks through". Again, this is according to current theory. This is why I can not accept the "photon" counts, from a coherent source (and generally superimposed).. there is always a "2-for-1" sale going on.
The "2x waveform" that you're saying in incorrect. 2x the ground state will not be even close enough to strip an electron (ionize). You are probably recalling the "workfunction" in PEE (photo-electric effect), which is near double (1/2 wave harmonic) the ground state, and half of the ionization level.
Well, we have the same problem that we are always talking about. If we measure PAST or after the glass, NO CHANGE in frequency. If we devise some way to check IN the glass, we will get our interaction, and find a change (temporary) in f . Circular argument (QM) f x w = c CONSTANT!! They like to state that frequency does not change, but you can see the flaw here, there are just TWO parameters for our concept of "speed or velocity". If you change ONE, you MUST change the other, or invoke some more "magical mystery" theory.
I'll also repeat: the RI (refractive index) is NOT 1 in our DSE. This means it MUST be accounted for in path length calculations. Our coherent beam will cause CHANGES to the RI as well. Check out the optical Kerr effect again.
regards,
T.Roc
LL -
QUOTE
I think this should be phrased it differently for the sake of clarity and with a different theoretical "perspective".
Again, I am just stating "textbook theory". Being phrased differently is certainly more than possible... you can not summarize QM into 3 sentences!
New perspectives are certainly in order. This is where we are in agreement.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think this should be phrased it differently for the sake of clarity and with a different theoretical "perspective". |
Again, I am just stating "textbook theory". Being phrased differently is certainly more than possible... you can not summarize QM into 3 sentences!
New perspectives are certainly in order. This is where we are in agreement.
The stimulated dipole resonates with the frequency applied to it and the affected electron tracks the amplitude of the energy of the waveform being absorbed.
Applying energy to the electron is just like to a string: it does not matter the energy applied.. the tuning is inherent. String tension, and the strong force determine these resonant points.
QUOTE
The excess energy that is released is directly proportional to the total energy absorbed by the atom but will always represent a specific set of exact spectral frequencies of different wavelengths that correspond to the inherent energy levels of the atomic element being stimulated.
No, as I stated above, the excess energy will not be used to create "free space" quanta of energy ("photons"), they will go into "other particles" that will stay in the lattice. The energy released is EXACTLY what is absorbed. Again, this is the standard foundation for QM. You are right about the energy being conserved in the total exchange. As in ThermoDyn., the energy will appear "somewhere else" in the system (the mass, atomic lattice).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The excess energy that is released is directly proportional to the total energy absorbed by the atom but will always represent a specific set of exact spectral frequencies of different wavelengths that correspond to the inherent energy levels of the atomic element being stimulated. |
No, as I stated above, the excess energy will not be used to create "free space" quanta of energy ("photons"), they will go into "other particles" that will stay in the lattice. The energy released is EXACTLY what is absorbed. Again, this is the standard foundation for QM. You are right about the energy being conserved in the total exchange. As in ThermoDyn., the energy will appear "somewhere else" in the system (the mass, atomic lattice).
Two identical photons infers that they are perfectly in phase, so that means they are superposed and constructively and resonantly interfering across the dipole. Their total wave energy is combined/summed across the dipole and the electron responds to the polarity of the wave. The dipole should resonate at the applied frequency, and the absorbing electron should ride the energy of the wave and track the superposed total wave amplitude and re-emit the absorbed energy pulse as a new photon as it drops to ground level. But there is a problem with this scenario, because at the peak of the 2x waveform the electron would depart energy level of the outermost shell and the host atom would effectively become an ion which would then scavenge a nearby free electron to drop into the ground state.
No, the electron will not respond to both energy levels, if ONE of the "photons" is a resonant level. While it is "elevated" in its' orbital, the second identical "photon" just "sneaks through". Again, this is according to current theory. This is why I can not accept the "photon" counts, from a coherent source (and generally superimposed).. there is always a "2-for-1" sale going on.
The "2x waveform" that you're saying in incorrect. 2x the ground state will not be even close enough to strip an electron (ionize). You are probably recalling the "workfunction" in PEE (photo-electric effect), which is near double (1/2 wave harmonic) the ground state, and half of the ionization level.
QUOTE
Does the frequency of a laser beam change when going thru a piece of glass and being measured on the other side? All that should change is the speed of the light thru the glass.
Well, we have the same problem that we are always talking about. If we measure PAST or after the glass, NO CHANGE in frequency. If we devise some way to check IN the glass, we will get our interaction, and find a change (temporary) in f . Circular argument (QM) f x w = c CONSTANT!! They like to state that frequency does not change, but you can see the flaw here, there are just TWO parameters for our concept of "speed or velocity". If you change ONE, you MUST change the other, or invoke some more "magical mystery" theory.
I'll also repeat: the RI (refractive index) is NOT 1 in our DSE. This means it MUST be accounted for in path length calculations. Our coherent beam will cause CHANGES to the RI as well. Check out the optical Kerr effect again.
regards,
T.Roc
Good Day!
They are doing experiments inside of crystals but it's not refered to as Double slit. but rather by different approaches , (as pointed out by Good Elf - Electromagnetically Induced Transparency (E.I.T.)).
Digging deeper into http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~eit/index.html
I came to this info.
http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/fortson/intro.html
Experiments to study the symmetry properties of physical systems can set limits on the degree to which the discrete symmetries such as P, CP, and CPT are conserved. These limits constitute direct information about the basic character of the fundamental interactions. In particular, experiments in atomic physics can be exquisitely sensitive to tiny departures from symmetry, and can contribute important information about the fundamental forces in the low-energy limit.
There is more information there than what I can assimilate.
These experiments are related to DS.
jal
They are doing experiments inside of crystals but it's not refered to as Double slit. but rather by different approaches , (as pointed out by Good Elf - Electromagnetically Induced Transparency (E.I.T.)).
Digging deeper into http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~eit/index.html
I came to this info.
http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/fortson/intro.html
Experiments to study the symmetry properties of physical systems can set limits on the degree to which the discrete symmetries such as P, CP, and CPT are conserved. These limits constitute direct information about the basic character of the fundamental interactions. In particular, experiments in atomic physics can be exquisitely sensitive to tiny departures from symmetry, and can contribute important information about the fundamental forces in the low-energy limit.
There is more information there than what I can assimilate.
These experiments are related to DS.
jal
TRoc,
You are correct I said "directly proportional" and should have said "equal" instead.
You are correct I said "directly proportional" and should have said "equal" instead.
Circular argument (QM) f x w = c CONSTANT!! They like to state that frequency does not change, but you can see the flaw here, there are just TWO parameters for our concept of "speed or velocity". If you change ONE, you MUST change the other, or invoke some more "magical mystery" theory.
I think you should consider frequency as the "time" element of the equation. f=1/t
Since time is a linear function and frequency and wavelength are functions of time
and fixed linear distance then the speed of light must be a function of time and therefore
it is constant. If any value changes, the rest must also change to achieve equality.
If both sides of the equation are equal there is unity, thus the constant. 1=1
If the energy of 2 waves is summed at a point of mixing, it changes (could be an
increase or no change depending on the EM wave phase relationship) the
workfunction and displacement of an electron by adding energy to the system at
the point of summing.
Consider what happens when you continue to increase the energy applied to
an absorbing black body. It absorbes the energy being applied but the spectrum
being re-emitted increases frequency from far infrared, to red, to yellow, to white
according to the energy states of the cavity modes of the material absorbing the
radiation.
You are probably correct on the atomic ionization potential requirement,
but will you grant that as an electron moves further away from the host atom
that atom attains a higher net positive charge potential that will, or could, attract
a nearby free roaming electron to drop into the ground state to release a
pnoton? This is just a conceptual idea of a possible workable model. If it is
not viable then I will drop it.
------
edit added:
[edit] In non-vacuum media
When light waves (and other electromagnetic waves) enter a medium, their wavelength is reduced by a factor equal to the refractive index n of the medium but the frequency of the wave is unchanged. The wavelength of the wave in the medium, λ' is given by:
where λ0 is the vacuum wavelength of the wave.
Wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, no matter what medium they are traveling through, are usually quoted in terms of the vacuum wavelength, although this is not always explicitly stated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength
LL
QUOTE
No, as I stated above, the excess energy will not be used to create "free space" quanta of energy ("photons"), they will go into "other particles" that will stay in the lattice. The energy released is EXACTLY what is absorbed. Again, this is the standard foundation for QM. You are right about the energy being conserved in the total exchange. As in ThermoDyn., the energy will appear "somewhere else" in the system (the mass, atomic lattice).
You are correct I said "directly proportional" and should have said "equal" instead.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, as I stated above, the excess energy will not be used to create "free space" quanta of energy ("photons"), they will go into "other particles" that will stay in the lattice. The energy released is EXACTLY what is absorbed. Again, this is the standard foundation for QM. You are right about the energy being conserved in the total exchange. As in ThermoDyn., the energy will appear "somewhere else" in the system (the mass, atomic lattice). |
You are correct I said "directly proportional" and should have said "equal" instead.
Circular argument (QM) f x w = c CONSTANT!! They like to state that frequency does not change, but you can see the flaw here, there are just TWO parameters for our concept of "speed or velocity". If you change ONE, you MUST change the other, or invoke some more "magical mystery" theory.
I think you should consider frequency as the "time" element of the equation. f=1/t
Since time is a linear function and frequency and wavelength are functions of time
and fixed linear distance then the speed of light must be a function of time and therefore
it is constant. If any value changes, the rest must also change to achieve equality.
If both sides of the equation are equal there is unity, thus the constant. 1=1
QUOTE
The "2x waveform" that you're saying in incorrect. 2x the ground state will not be even close enough to strip an electron (ionize). You are probably recalling the "workfunction" in PEE (photo-electric effect), which is near double (1/2 wave harmonic) the ground state, and half of the ionization level.
If the energy of 2 waves is summed at a point of mixing, it changes (could be an
increase or no change depending on the EM wave phase relationship) the
workfunction and displacement of an electron by adding energy to the system at
the point of summing.
Consider what happens when you continue to increase the energy applied to
an absorbing black body. It absorbes the energy being applied but the spectrum
being re-emitted increases frequency from far infrared, to red, to yellow, to white
according to the energy states of the cavity modes of the material absorbing the
radiation.
You are probably correct on the atomic ionization potential requirement,
but will you grant that as an electron moves further away from the host atom
that atom attains a higher net positive charge potential that will, or could, attract
a nearby free roaming electron to drop into the ground state to release a
pnoton? This is just a conceptual idea of a possible workable model. If it is
not viable then I will drop it.
------
edit added:
[edit] In non-vacuum media
When light waves (and other electromagnetic waves) enter a medium, their wavelength is reduced by a factor equal to the refractive index n of the medium but the frequency of the wave is unchanged. The wavelength of the wave in the medium, λ' is given by:
where λ0 is the vacuum wavelength of the wave.Wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, no matter what medium they are traveling through, are usually quoted in terms of the vacuum wavelength, although this is not always explicitly stated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength
LL
Hi janrinze,Montec et al,
I think jan has made a very profound point .. perhaps put another way ..
If the number of photons detected by a totally black surface is (say) N/m^2 and we make two pinholes (or slits) with a total area A .. do we expect A*N photons to go through the slits? - I can't see how this could not be true. IMHO (experimentally) all of these A*N photons appear to have gone through both slits. If correct this suggests that the assumed dipole must be firing a mushy pea field and not a succession of dried peas.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I think jan has made a very profound point .. perhaps put another way ..
If the number of photons detected by a totally black surface is (say) N/m^2 and we make two pinholes (or slits) with a total area A .. do we expect A*N photons to go through the slits? - I can't see how this could not be true. IMHO (experimentally) all of these A*N photons appear to have gone through both slits. If correct this suggests that the assumed dipole must be firing a mushy pea field and not a succession of dried peas.
Best wishes,
-C2.
C2,
Mushy peas?
Think of it this way, if incoming waves are crashing into a seawall, and there
are holes in the seawall, how much of the total energy content of each wave is
passing thru the holes vs how much energy is not passing thru the holes.
Thanks to Zephir.
LL
Mushy peas?
Think of it this way, if incoming waves are crashing into a seawall, and there
are holes in the seawall, how much of the total energy content of each wave is
passing thru the holes vs how much energy is not passing thru the holes.
Thanks to Zephir.
LL
Hi LL et al,
IMHO the problem is that no part of the field is independent of any other part. Until (or unless) you understand the problem you stand little (or no) chance of seeing the solution.
Best wishes,
-C2.
If the total energy in the field increases and decreases in multiples of hf .. it would be much easier if it were a dried pea field. For 'dried pea' read 'wavepacket'?
IMHO the problem is that no part of the field is independent of any other part. Until (or unless) you understand the problem you stand little (or no) chance of seeing the solution.
Best wishes,
-C2.
If the total energy in the field increases and decreases in multiples of hf .. it would be much easier if it were a dried pea field. For 'dried pea' read 'wavepacket'?
C2,
What did peas ever do to you?
I think maybe you are missing the finer points. As long as the EM fields have
sufficient field strength/energy to sustain propagation, they will do so. I agree
that the minimum energy required to sustain the field must be hf. The EM fields
are co-dependent and mutually regenerative.
At the point that the EM fields cannot be self sustaining, or if they lose their mutual
90 degree orthagonal phase relationship that is required to maintain the
energy necessary for propagation, the wavefunction collapses. The collapse will
occur at at the atomic level at a dipole "sink" point that is resonant with the
frequency of the wave, and the energy contained in the wave is converted to
kinetic energy by displacement at the atomic scale which stimulates a new
emission event to occur.
Comments? Other?
LL
What did peas ever do to you?
QUOTE
IMHO the problem is that no part of the field is independent of any other part. Until (or unless) you understand the problem you stand little (or no) chance of seeing the solution.
I think maybe you are missing the finer points. As long as the EM fields have
sufficient field strength/energy to sustain propagation, they will do so. I agree
that the minimum energy required to sustain the field must be hf. The EM fields
are co-dependent and mutually regenerative.
At the point that the EM fields cannot be self sustaining, or if they lose their mutual
90 degree orthagonal phase relationship that is required to maintain the
energy necessary for propagation, the wavefunction collapses. The collapse will
occur at at the atomic level at a dipole "sink" point that is resonant with the
frequency of the wave, and the energy contained in the wave is converted to
kinetic energy by displacement at the atomic scale which stimulates a new
emission event to occur.
Comments? Other?
LL
Hi LL,
Many thanks for your comments. To give others a chance I won't respond for 24 hours .
Best wishes,-C2.
Many thanks for your comments. To give others a chance I won't respond for 24 hours
.Best wishes,-C2.
Hi janrinze, Montec, Pink Elephant, Laserlight, Neil Farbstein, Confused2, yquantum, Jal, TRoc, "THEY" et al,
Like to comment on the standing waves you can see in this 'almost right" animation (in this case an electron).
... Thanks to zephir...
What is seen are standing waves into which a fuzzy packet is propagating (this is an electron packet). The energy "moves" relative to the background but not the standing wave structure. The packet is fuzzy because it is essentially a sync pulse which contains a very large number of harmonics which can sum to the fuzzy packet ... base frequency is related to the equation E = hf plus the additional harmonics to truncate the packet. As stated previously this actual experiment cannot be presently done using real electrons owing to the extreme shortness of this wavelength compared with the building blocks of matter which are a limiting feature of any system. A somewhat equivalent experiment can be performed with photons.
When the electron "hits" the front wall you "see" the emergence of the standing waves (apparently cause and effect).. the cause preceding the effect. This also happens when the packet "hits" the rear wall (once again cause preceding effect). The energy of the packet "captures" the energy flow in those standing waves while the "wave" passes on. There are two parts to this stationary underlying "structure" which is linked to the walls of the system of confinement and separately to the moving energy of the wave. Clearly the wave "activates" only the structure that exists as ones that conforms to the superpositions of the cavity geometry. There is a subtlety that is not being shown that is the structure is always there and does not need to "ring" off the walls to activate it. This s an experimental fact that this ringing is not an essential part of the wave. If this was an essential part of th wave the single particle, electron or photon, should have a different response to the system than the response of the continuous wave. The cavity standing wave response would build up over a number of individual excitations. This is not experimentally the case since the cavity will have the same response to one photon or one electron as to any number of photons or electrons. If we think about what this means it suggests strongly that there really is a structure in space, all the time, related to the symmetry of the cavity.
IMHO this is what is the real physical nature of matter is, it is spatially extended, it is just that it is very subtle. At each and every frequency there is a "phantom" in "enclosed" regions and near to the margins of 'external" regions. This is due to hybridization of some shell-like spatial feature of atoms and of course assemblies of atoms such as planar structures such as "crystal" boundaries. These "crystal" boundaries extend from the apparent physical surfaces into regions that contain no particles. This may be the signature of a supersymmetry behind the symmetry of the seemingly solid particles.
All alternative suggestions are invited but please illustrate with the results of experiments where it is possible so we all appreciate the point.
Cheers
PS: Check out this recent report in PhysOrg News...
Mysteries and Surprises in Quantum Physics
This is relevant and it is a topic that we have discussed on this thread before... notice to see advances in this technology. We have discussed this before as Cavity QED. Seems the life of a single photon can be extended to "seconds" and a number of protective measurements made.
Like to comment on the standing waves you can see in this 'almost right" animation (in this case an electron).
... Thanks to zephir...
What is seen are standing waves into which a fuzzy packet is propagating (this is an electron packet). The energy "moves" relative to the background but not the standing wave structure. The packet is fuzzy because it is essentially a sync pulse which contains a very large number of harmonics which can sum to the fuzzy packet ... base frequency is related to the equation E = hf plus the additional harmonics to truncate the packet. As stated previously this actual experiment cannot be presently done using real electrons owing to the extreme shortness of this wavelength compared with the building blocks of matter which are a limiting feature of any system. A somewhat equivalent experiment can be performed with photons.
When the electron "hits" the front wall you "see" the emergence of the standing waves (apparently cause and effect).. the cause preceding the effect. This also happens when the packet "hits" the rear wall (once again cause preceding effect). The energy of the packet "captures" the energy flow in those standing waves while the "wave" passes on. There are two parts to this stationary underlying "structure" which is linked to the walls of the system of confinement and separately to the moving energy of the wave. Clearly the wave "activates" only the structure that exists as ones that conforms to the superpositions of the cavity geometry. There is a subtlety that is not being shown that is the structure is always there and does not need to "ring" off the walls to activate it. This s an experimental fact that this ringing is not an essential part of the wave. If this was an essential part of th wave the single particle, electron or photon, should have a different response to the system than the response of the continuous wave. The cavity standing wave response would build up over a number of individual excitations. This is not experimentally the case since the cavity will have the same response to one photon or one electron as to any number of photons or electrons. If we think about what this means it suggests strongly that there really is a structure in space, all the time, related to the symmetry of the cavity.
IMHO this is what is the real physical nature of matter is, it is spatially extended, it is just that it is very subtle. At each and every frequency there is a "phantom" in "enclosed" regions and near to the margins of 'external" regions. This is due to hybridization of some shell-like spatial feature of atoms and of course assemblies of atoms such as planar structures such as "crystal" boundaries. These "crystal" boundaries extend from the apparent physical surfaces into regions that contain no particles. This may be the signature of a supersymmetry behind the symmetry of the seemingly solid particles.
All alternative suggestions are invited but please illustrate with the results of experiments where it is possible so we all appreciate the point.
Cheers
PS: Check out this recent report in PhysOrg News...
Mysteries and Surprises in Quantum Physics
This is relevant and it is a topic that we have discussed on this thread before... notice to see advances in this technology. We have discussed this before as Cavity QED. Seems the life of a single photon can be extended to "seconds" and a number of protective measurements made.
QUOTE
Prof. Haroche and his team have recently succeeded in trapping a single photon in a box on the time scale of seconds and have detected this photon many times without destroying it. The researchers have achieved this by sending atoms across the box and measuring the imprint left on the atoms by the photon. This is a new kind of light detection called ‘quantum non-demolition’,” explained Prof. Haroche. “Until now, single photons were always destroyed upon detection.”
Hi GE and All,
Just a preliminary comment, some of us are not formal "researchers" or scientists
with ties to acedemia. I understand that your comment for experimental evidence
was directed at me...this is not a "formal" scientific forum. Enough said on that
topic.
Are you suggesting that the near structure of space surrounding solid matter is
has energetic qualities due to the presence and geometry of matter?
If so, do you suspect that this is caused by matter that is coupling energy to space
that acts as a kind of a energy coupling interface buffer for arriving energy?
LL
Just a preliminary comment, some of us are not formal "researchers" or scientists
with ties to acedemia. I understand that your comment for experimental evidence
was directed at me...this is not a "formal" scientific forum. Enough said on that
topic.
QUOTE
IMHO this is what is the real physical nature of matter is, it is spatially extended, it is just that it is very subtle. At each and every frequency there is a "phantom" in "enclosed" regions and near to the margins of 'external" regions. This is due to hybridization of some shell-like spatial feature of atoms and of course assemblies of atoms such as planar structures such as "crystal" boundaries. These "crystal" boundaries extend from the apparent physical surfaces into regions that contain no particles. This may be the signature of a supersymmetry behind the symmetry of the seemingly solid particles.
Are you suggesting that the near structure of space surrounding solid matter is
has energetic qualities due to the presence and geometry of matter?
If so, do you suspect that this is caused by matter that is coupling energy to space
that acts as a kind of a energy coupling interface buffer for arriving energy?
LL
Trying to understand the double slit experiment has never stopped. It is now at a smaller scale.
It is well beyond my abilities.
They are looking.... trying to understand the mechanism down to the level of quarks.
We are not really think outside the "box".
TRoc and my approach, I believe/hope, are complementary.
Yes, Good Elf, I think that it would be good to explore these avenues.
We are not really think outside the "box".
TRoc and my approach, I believe/hope, are complementary.
Yes, Good Elf, I think that it would be good to explore these avenues.
... If we think about what this means it suggests strongly that there really is a structure in space, all the time, related to the symmetry of the cavity...
.... This may be the signature of a supersymmetry behind the symmetry of the seemingly solid particles...
I do not use the language of "guage, particle, waves" (P, CP, and CPT) to express the same phenomena and you do not either.
I realize that it takes years of specialized training/learning to do this kind of detail study.
The slits and the detector screen are really really really very small and they hide the secrets of the mechanisms.
Maybe one of them will step in and help.
It's late for me .... good night!
jal
It is well beyond my abilities.
They are looking.... trying to understand the mechanism down to the level of quarks.
QUOTE
Experiments to study the symmetry properties of physical systems can set limits on the degree to which the discrete symmetries such as P, CP, and CPT are conserved. These limits constitute direct information about the basic character of the fundamental interactions. In particular, experiments in atomic physics can be exquisitely sensitive to tiny departures from symmetry, and can contribute important information about the fundamental forces in the low-energy limit.
There is more information there than what I can assimilate.
These experiments are related to DS.
There is more information there than what I can assimilate.
These experiments are related to DS.
We are not really think outside the "box".
TRoc and my approach, I believe/hope, are complementary.
Yes, Good Elf, I think that it would be good to explore these avenues.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Experiments to study the symmetry properties of physical systems can set limits on the degree to which the discrete symmetries such as P, CP, and CPT are conserved. These limits constitute direct information about the basic character of the fundamental interactions. In particular, experiments in atomic physics can be exquisitely sensitive to tiny departures from symmetry, and can contribute important information about the fundamental forces in the low-energy limit. There is more information there than what I can assimilate. These experiments are related to DS. |
We are not really think outside the "box".
TRoc and my approach, I believe/hope, are complementary.
Yes, Good Elf, I think that it would be good to explore these avenues.
... If we think about what this means it suggests strongly that there really is a structure in space, all the time, related to the symmetry of the cavity...
.... This may be the signature of a supersymmetry behind the symmetry of the seemingly solid particles...
I do not use the language of "guage, particle, waves" (P, CP, and CPT) to express the same phenomena and you do not either.
I realize that it takes years of specialized training/learning to do this kind of detail study.
The slits and the detector screen are really really really very small and they hide the secrets of the mechanisms.
QUOTE
Just a preliminary comment, some of us are not formal "researchers" or scientists with ties to acedemia
.Maybe one of them will step in and help.
It's late for me .... good night!
jal
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Just a preliminary comment, some of us are not formal "researchers" or scientists with ties to acedemia. I understand that your comment for experimental evidence was directed at me...this is not a "formal" scientific forum. Enough said on that topic.
No... that was not directed at you in particular. I have always had as a strong theme that my "speculations" should be rooted in experimental science. I don't expect anyone to believe anything I say without some experimental known basis. The scientific process has a theoretical side and an experimental side. I lean heavily on experiment. There is a strong thread through much of current Physics that mathematics "proves" science. It most certainly does not. With all the physical experimental results current science seems incapable of making the next step.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Are you suggesting that the near structure of space surrounding solid matter is has energetic qualities due to the presence and geometry of matter?
If so, do you suspect that this is caused by matter that is coupling energy to space
that acts as a kind of a energy coupling interface buffer for arriving energy?
If so, do you suspect that this is caused by matter that is coupling energy to space
that acts as a kind of a energy coupling interface buffer for arriving energy?
There is no solid matter. That is the point. Where "solid" matter starts and something else begins depends on what you may consider solid. What is really "solid" is the geometry of space deformed by light cone walls. Nothing is more solid than "pushing" against the speed of light.
JA Wheeler and Geometrodynamics
While I do not completely accept an older idea without modification, it seems that the emergence of charge is a function of wrapping the electromagnetic wave dimensionally as noted in the Williamson and Van der Mark's paper ...
Here is a "mud map" indicating in a simplified way what this may mean with regard to electrons being "solitons" of light.
Clearly the curvature of spacetime defines the volumetric space and also the extent of a boundary in that space. The fact that I speak mainly of reciprocal spaces and reciprocal time leads to internal distances mapped conformally into vast distances inside these geometric objects. Wheeler was very strongly influenced by gravity I am very influenced by the much stronger force of electromagnetism and to symmetrizing geometries in electromagnetism that have as a consequence "gravity" which is to me a pseudo-force. In the "mud map" you see "dancing EM waves" (standing waves) which define a two dimensional surface at the mouth of an electromagnetic wormhole. Identify the standing waves defining the boundaries of cavities we are discussing in more general terms. The near side may be considered as an electron with all the -ve excursions of the em field on the outside. The electric field lines diverge to span the external space and also span the internal space in the "near field". On the other side of this object the em wave has +ve excursions of the field. These would be positrons. They are very topologically similar to Falaco Solitons you can see on the surface of a swimming pool.
or here...
... Click all images to enlarge...
These pictures are wrong because they do not map a reciprocal space. But in other ways the ideas are right. If what I am saying is correct the tiny string that couple the two objects together is nearly an infinite expanse in reciprocal space.... An anti-de Sitter space. This is a different way to represent the AdS-CFT Theory.
Wikipedia: AdS/CFT correspondence
Cheers
JA Wheeler and Geometrodynamics
While I do not completely accept an older idea without modification, it seems that the emergence of charge is a function of wrapping the electromagnetic wave dimensionally as noted in the Williamson and Van der Mark's paper ...
Here is a "mud map" indicating in a simplified way what this may mean with regard to electrons being "solitons" of light.
Clearly the curvature of spacetime defines the volumetric space and also the extent of a boundary in that space. The fact that I speak mainly of reciprocal spaces and reciprocal time leads to internal distances mapped conformally into vast distances inside these geometric objects. Wheeler was very strongly influenced by gravity I am very influenced by the much stronger force of electromagnetism and to symmetrizing geometries in electromagnetism that have as a consequence "gravity" which is to me a pseudo-force. In the "mud map" you see "dancing EM waves" (standing waves) which define a two dimensional surface at the mouth of an electromagnetic wormhole. Identify the standing waves defining the boundaries of cavities we are discussing in more general terms. The near side may be considered as an electron with all the -ve excursions of the em field on the outside. The electric field lines diverge to span the external space and also span the internal space in the "near field". On the other side of this object the em wave has +ve excursions of the field. These would be positrons. They are very topologically similar to Falaco Solitons you can see on the surface of a swimming pool.
or here...
... Click all images to enlarge...
These pictures are wrong because they do not map a reciprocal space. But in other ways the ideas are right. If what I am saying is correct the tiny string that couple the two objects together is nearly an infinite expanse in reciprocal space.... An anti-de Sitter space. This is a different way to represent the AdS-CFT Theory.
Wikipedia: AdS/CFT correspondence
Cheers
Hi GE,
You didn't really answer my questions about the EM fields generated by matter
that permeate the immediate surrounding space. It appears that these generated
fields extend outward in all directions from what we call "physical" matter and
have geometric qualities that "shadow" the physical solid shape that create them.
It also appears that the overall projected and coupled field strength, and the
"shape" of the fields is a function of the total mass and geometry that created
the fields.
By convention, these projected energy fields should follow the ISL according
to distance from the source. These pervasive fields also appear to affect the way
light follows the "projected" geometric field EM "qualities" and forms standing
waves in response to the geometric volume and shape of the space in which they
propagate. This would lead one to believe that if the fields do follow the ISL,
that the density of space varies with energy content in that volume of space
and that the EM fields/energy of light waves responds by "phasing" with the energy
density of the "projected" fields.
We could conceivably say that energy displaces and changes the space that
it "occupies", and by doing so changes the density characteristics of that space.
The implications of this would be that the permittivity, permeability, and the
index of refraction of space would be affected according to the proximity of
space to matter. The repercussions of this concept would have definite influence
on now light waves would respond to "distortions" of space and time in relative
proximity to matter.
This idea comes back to an inference that Neil Farbstein introduced regarding
the potential effects of gravity on causing standing waves. I agree with this
general idea, which follows the thought logic that I proposed above.
The search for a proof to the cause and theoretical "form" of gravity has eluded
science since the time of Newton. Perhaps the answer has been staring us in
the face all along and it was so simple that we couldn't believe that it could
be that easy, or we simply overlooked the obvious. I have proposed before that
gravity is merely the "displacement" of space by the energy content that "fills"
the volume of that space. In other words, the energy density in any volume of
space changes the density of the space that it occupies. This follows the ISL
perfectly and also accounts for how light bends with energy density (gravity) in
space, since the refractive index of space is influenced by gravity.
Localized effects such as the influence of narrow slits on single photons can
be observed and measured, and can be attributed to a change of refractive index
of the near space in the vicinity of the slits. This RI influence on light is a
signature of a change of local energy density. It confirms that energy
density in that localized volume of "space" (slit cavity) is stronger than the
volume of space surrounding it which does not have the same energy density.
In a confined cavity volume, the energy density within that confined volume
(space) will vary according to the geometric shape and the distributed mass of the
matter, as well as the local proximity to the matter that "encloses" that cavity
volume.
The implications of this concept/theory could tie a lot of loose ends together.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=211928
Comments? Discussion?
LL
You didn't really answer my questions about the EM fields generated by matter
that permeate the immediate surrounding space. It appears that these generated
fields extend outward in all directions from what we call "physical" matter and
have geometric qualities that "shadow" the physical solid shape that create them.
It also appears that the overall projected and coupled field strength, and the
"shape" of the fields is a function of the total mass and geometry that created
the fields.
By convention, these projected energy fields should follow the ISL according
to distance from the source. These pervasive fields also appear to affect the way
light follows the "projected" geometric field EM "qualities" and forms standing
waves in response to the geometric volume and shape of the space in which they
propagate. This would lead one to believe that if the fields do follow the ISL,
that the density of space varies with energy content in that volume of space
and that the EM fields/energy of light waves responds by "phasing" with the energy
density of the "projected" fields.
We could conceivably say that energy displaces and changes the space that
it "occupies", and by doing so changes the density characteristics of that space.
The implications of this would be that the permittivity, permeability, and the
index of refraction of space would be affected according to the proximity of
space to matter. The repercussions of this concept would have definite influence
on now light waves would respond to "distortions" of space and time in relative
proximity to matter.
This idea comes back to an inference that Neil Farbstein introduced regarding
the potential effects of gravity on causing standing waves. I agree with this
general idea, which follows the thought logic that I proposed above.
The search for a proof to the cause and theoretical "form" of gravity has eluded
science since the time of Newton. Perhaps the answer has been staring us in
the face all along and it was so simple that we couldn't believe that it could
be that easy, or we simply overlooked the obvious. I have proposed before that
gravity is merely the "displacement" of space by the energy content that "fills"
the volume of that space. In other words, the energy density in any volume of
space changes the density of the space that it occupies. This follows the ISL
perfectly and also accounts for how light bends with energy density (gravity) in
space, since the refractive index of space is influenced by gravity.
Localized effects such as the influence of narrow slits on single photons can
be observed and measured, and can be attributed to a change of refractive index
of the near space in the vicinity of the slits. This RI influence on light is a
signature of a change of local energy density. It confirms that energy
density in that localized volume of "space" (slit cavity) is stronger than the
volume of space surrounding it which does not have the same energy density.
In a confined cavity volume, the energy density within that confined volume
(space) will vary according to the geometric shape and the distributed mass of the
matter, as well as the local proximity to the matter that "encloses" that cavity
volume.
The implications of this concept/theory could tie a lot of loose ends together.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=211928
Comments? Discussion?
LL
Hi Good Elf,
We know from the Teachspin experiment that the slits can be 0.45mm apart and still work. My own setup works with slits that are 2mm apart (I couldn't be bothered to try any greater separation). Taking the least value and the representation given by Zephir - this makes a photon wavepacket considerably greater than 0.45mm in diameter. We have the observed result that the wavepacket never goes through one slit and not the other - doesn't this experimental result puzzle you? Aren't you left wondering how we can see things as fine as a human hair? Isn't a human hair is at least an order of magnitude finer than the diameter of your wavepacket? The effect is still there with a piece of glass place in front of one or both slits either before or after the slits .. how does a wavepacket hang together under those circumstances?
Hi Laserlight,
We know from the Teachspin experiment that the slits can be 0.45mm apart and still work. My own setup works with slits that are 2mm apart (I couldn't be bothered to try any greater separation). Taking the least value and the representation given by Zephir - this makes a photon wavepacket considerably greater than 0.45mm in diameter. We have the observed result that the wavepacket never goes through one slit and not the other - doesn't this experimental result puzzle you? Aren't you left wondering how we can see things as fine as a human hair? Isn't a human hair is at least an order of magnitude finer than the diameter of your wavepacket? The effect is still there with a piece of glass place in front of one or both slits either before or after the slits .. how does a wavepacket hang together under those circumstances?
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (LL+)
Think of it this way, if incoming waves are crashing into a seawall, and there are holes in the seawall, how much of the total energy content of each wave is passing thru the holes vs how much energy is not passing thru the holes.
Let's guess 50-50 ..
If the photon is detected after the slits then it went through both slits and nothing was reflected - and if the photon is detected in the reflected wave then nothing went through either slit -is that the point you're making?
Best wishes,
-C2.
* I have made a few points (there are more) that seem to be invisible to everyone except me - am I alone ?
Let's guess 50-50 ..
If the photon is detected after the slits then it went through both slits and nothing was reflected - and if the photon is detected in the reflected wave then nothing went through either slit -is that the point you're making?
Best wishes,
-C2.
* I have made a few points (there are more) that seem to be invisible to everyone except me - am I alone
?
Hi C2, GE, Jan, TRoc, and ALL,
Sort of.
We have to remember that a wave is internally coherent and is conformal to its environment and will
change shape or dimensions to fit the geometry in its path as long as it has
sufficient sustaining energy to continue to propagate. That conformal
property allows it to divide or "bend" around obstructions that are physically smaller
than the wavefront, or to compress and go thru openings or cavities as long as it
maintains enough forward momentum, or sustaining energy, to continue to propagate beyond the opening.
If the wave can't propagate beyond the opening the wavefunction loses coherence
and collapses.
What relevant points did we miss that required a response?
LL
QUOTE
Let's guess 50-50 ..
If the photon is detected after the slits then it went through both slits and nothing was reflected - and if the photon is detected in the reflected wave then nothing went through either slit -is that the point you're making?
Best wishes,
-C2.
* I have made a few points (there are more) that seem to be invisible to everyone except me - am I alone ?
If the photon is detected after the slits then it went through both slits and nothing was reflected - and if the photon is detected in the reflected wave then nothing went through either slit -is that the point you're making?
Best wishes,
-C2.
* I have made a few points (there are more) that seem to be invisible to everyone except me - am I alone ?
Sort of.
We have to remember that a wave is internally coherent and is conformal to its environment and will
change shape or dimensions to fit the geometry in its path as long as it has
sufficient sustaining energy to continue to propagate. That conformal
property allows it to divide or "bend" around obstructions that are physically smaller
than the wavefront, or to compress and go thru openings or cavities as long as it
maintains enough forward momentum, or sustaining energy, to continue to propagate beyond the opening.
If the wave can't propagate beyond the opening the wavefunction loses coherence
and collapses.
What relevant points did we miss that required a response?
LL
Hi LL,
If the original photon energy is E and half E is reflected and you detect a photon with energy E then you have a total energy of 1.5 E .. not a problem?
Best wishes,
C2.
(My last post for 24 hrs)
If the original photon energy is E and half E is reflected and you detect a photon with energy E then you have a total energy of 1.5 E .. not a problem?
Best wishes,
C2.
(My last post for 24 hrs)
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
You didn't really answer my questions about the EM fields generated by matter that permeate the immediate surrounding space. It appears that these generated fields extend outward in all directions from what we call "physical" matter and have geometric qualities that "shadow" the physical solid shape that create them.
It also appears that the overall projected and coupled field strength, and the "shape" of the fields is a function of the total mass and geometry that created the fields.
It also appears that the overall projected and coupled field strength, and the "shape" of the fields is a function of the total mass and geometry that created the fields.
I do not like the "distinction" between "solid matter" and any other kinds of non-propagating phenomena. All particles be they bosons or fermions are composed of photons executing "rotation" on the spot. These are 'stationary states" and are non propagating by definition. Non-propagating fields cannot radiate propagating energy. Why?... Since these are 'quantized" they cannot lose any energy at all except through tunneling and this will only happen if it does not violate CPT Symmetry and does not violate Lorentz Invariance (Special Relativity Symmetry). So they do not conform with ISL... in other words the "fields" are "inductive" and not "radiative".
The only real distinction between them in my mind is the distinction between bosons and fermions. Bosons have integer spins (or multiples) and fermions have half integer spins (or odd multiples). Bosons can occupy conventional space "multiple times" as superpositions whereas fermions cannot. The different systems arise from hybridization of their respective shells and they create the complementary system. An example of this is a bare proton which consists of three quarks which are fermions. These do not occupy the one space but their "boson shadow partners" can hybridize and multiply occupy the same space. This is the simplest "atom" with its "shells"... a single proton without its electron.
The only real distinction between them in my mind is the distinction between bosons and fermions. Bosons have integer spins (or multiples) and fermions have half integer spins (or odd multiples). Bosons can occupy conventional space "multiple times" as superpositions whereas fermions cannot. The different systems arise from hybridization of their respective shells and they create the complementary system. An example of this is a bare proton which consists of three quarks which are fermions. These do not occupy the one space but their "boson shadow partners" can hybridize and multiply occupy the same space. This is the simplest "atom" with its "shells"... a single proton without its electron.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
We could conceivably say that energy displaces and changes the space that it "occupies", and by doing so changes the density characteristics of that space. The implications of this would be that the permittivity, permeability, and the
index of refraction of space would be affected according to the proximity of space to matter. The repercussions of this concept would have definite influence on now light waves would respond to "distortions" of space and time in relative proximity to matter.
This idea comes back to an inference that Neil Farbstein introduced regarding the potential effects of gravity on causing standing waves. I agree with this general idea, which follows the thought logic that I proposed above.
index of refraction of space would be affected according to the proximity of space to matter. The repercussions of this concept would have definite influence on now light waves would respond to "distortions" of space and time in relative proximity to matter.
This idea comes back to an inference that Neil Farbstein introduced regarding the potential effects of gravity on causing standing waves. I agree with this general idea, which follows the thought logic that I proposed above.
Once again I iterate that gravity is not a force... it is a "pseudo-force"... the only real force is electromagnetism as it is with all other three forces.... Electromagnetism, electro-weak force and the electro-strong force. The latter two are directly related to electromagnetism the electroweak force has been proven to be related and the electro strong force is "conjectured" to be similar owing to the very strong 'association" with QED. The curvature is not due to gravity but due to electromagnetism which is anti-symmetric influence engaging in symmetric behavior due to that spin coupling through the property of mass.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
The search for a proof to the cause and theoretical "form" of gravity has eluded science since the time of Newton.
yes... simply because of the insistence of a futile attempt to unify on the basis of manifold quantization which is proven "impossible". I ask you... what are the other possibilities? You either quantize the manifold or you do not. This latter notion insists that the manifold is "continuous". If we have learned anything is the manifold is a continuum and quantum phenomenon are a "feature" of the discrete nature of the fundamental building blocks in nature through the law stated above of CPT-Lorentz Invariance. The emission and absorption of photons is the result of processes being finite and have a beginning and an end leading to "packets" and the notion of quantization. A kind of "physical law of stable bubbles". They all happen to be the same size so they emit and absorb quanta with a limited number of possibilities... large as that number is, it is not infinite. Take a handful of these fundamental particles and assemble atoms and the hybridized shells lead to quanta. Nature has 'dished up" particles in a simple set of possibilities and everything is constructed from this basic set of "blocks". As a result nature also restricts the emission and absorption of those indestructible energy packets in discrete sizes related to this simple fact of scale and the events having a beginning and an end. This truncated "packet" is the event.
All this leads to a very simple picture of everything (all fundamental particles, all atoms, and the shape and configuration of the Universe) as photons that have undergone "spins" and "boosts". Here it is from Zweibach...
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
This is everything in your universe .... all sub-atomic particles as shown, all atomic particles (composed of "collections" of these sub-atomic particles) and all "solid matter" (collections of particles) .... everything as "simple" photons. This picture does not actually need "gravity" explicitly. It arises from the "mass" and some evanescent phenomena related to curvature of the manifold due to the "mass". The force of gravity does not act through distance, it has the unique property of only curving the manifold where the mass actually is, thus this mass tells space how to curve and thus this local curvature tells the mass how to move through the slope of steepest descent .However it does not act at a distance any more than a skate board arena acts as a force on skateboards ... no... the boards simply follow the curvature immediately under the boards and is totally indifferent to curvature or any property of the arena at a distance. Therefore no gravity "forces".
Three fundamental forces that reduce to only one fundamental force... electromagnetism... acting in a continuum.
Cheers
All this leads to a very simple picture of everything (all fundamental particles, all atoms, and the shape and configuration of the Universe) as photons that have undergone "spins" and "boosts". Here it is from Zweibach...
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
This is everything in your universe .... all sub-atomic particles as shown, all atomic particles (composed of "collections" of these sub-atomic particles) and all "solid matter" (collections of particles) .... everything as "simple" photons. This picture does not actually need "gravity" explicitly. It arises from the "mass" and some evanescent phenomena related to curvature of the manifold due to the "mass". The force of gravity does not act through distance, it has the unique property of only curving the manifold where the mass actually is, thus this mass tells space how to curve and thus this local curvature tells the mass how to move through the slope of steepest descent .However it does not act at a distance any more than a skate board arena acts as a force on skateboards ... no... the boards simply follow the curvature immediately under the boards and is totally indifferent to curvature or any property of the arena at a distance. Therefore no gravity "forces".
Three fundamental forces that reduce to only one fundamental force... electromagnetism... acting in a continuum.
Cheers
Hey C2,
E=hf can only work in whole fundamental units when considering the single photon
level...it is either forward propagating as a wave, is reflected, or it is absorbed and
re-emitted as a fixed quanta of energy. The energy of a single photon cannot
be divided and still maintain a propagating waveform.
If you think of a wavefront with numerous synchronous photons that are propagating together as a wave at some high amplitude, the photons have a phase
and timing relationship that is internal to the wave and they are all interacting
(entangled) to sustain the energy of the wave. Upon meeting an obstruction like a
corner of a right angle wall, some of the photons in the wave will be shorn from
the wave and either reflect or scatter in different directions, but the rest of the
wave will continue with diminished total energy.
In the case of individual photons, there is no 1/2 quanta of energy. It is either a
photon of specific frequency or it isn't.
An electron can only emit and receive a fixed quanta of energy on each oscillation, the photon.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
If the original photon energy is E and half E is reflected and you detect a photon with energy E then you have a total energy of 1.5 E .. not a problem?
E=hf can only work in whole fundamental units when considering the single photon
level...it is either forward propagating as a wave, is reflected, or it is absorbed and
re-emitted as a fixed quanta of energy. The energy of a single photon cannot
be divided and still maintain a propagating waveform.
If you think of a wavefront with numerous synchronous photons that are propagating together as a wave at some high amplitude, the photons have a phase
and timing relationship that is internal to the wave and they are all interacting
(entangled) to sustain the energy of the wave. Upon meeting an obstruction like a
corner of a right angle wall, some of the photons in the wave will be shorn from
the wave and either reflect or scatter in different directions, but the rest of the
wave will continue with diminished total energy.
In the case of individual photons, there is no 1/2 quanta of energy. It is either a
photon of specific frequency or it isn't.
An electron can only emit and receive a fixed quanta of energy on each oscillation, the photon.
Regards,
LL
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
We know from the Teachspin experiment that the slits can be 0.45mm apart and still work. My own setup works with slits that are 2mm apart (I couldn't be bothered to try any greater separation). Taking the least value and the representation given by Zephir - this makes a photon wavepacket considerably greater than 0.45mm in diameter. We have the observed result that the wavepacket never goes through one slit and not the other - doesn't this experimental result puzzle you? Aren't you left wondering how we can see things as fine as a human hair? Isn't a human hair is at least an order of magnitude finer than the diameter of your wavepacket? The effect is still there with a piece of glass place in front of one or both slits either before or after the slits .. how does a wavepacket hang together under those circumstances?
What "representation given by Zephir"? Do you mean the animation above? it does not worry me in the least. You know very well that we have radio masts that are tens of meters in size ... the reason for that is that this is the structure required to trap single photons. A single photon the size of a city block does not worry me since they really exist. Omega ELF Transmitters are a couple of kilometers high, the photons are required to be that big to penetrate to skin depth in the salty ocean to signal to Nuclear Submarines when to launch their missiles. These are the size of photons when they are not behaving as particles, when still as unobserved waves. What I know is that when this photon is being absorbed it goes "down a bunny hole" and only if you are lucky you may see a tiny flash if you place a fluorescent screen there. This is what 'collapse" means. The biggest photons in the world will eventually end up in an evanescent region of a dipole absorber's near-field.
Have you ever been able to get the DSE to work as a Double Slit with only the LASER light going through one slit? While a photon spreads like butter on bread as it propagates (given the chance) its "thickness" remains constant at 1/2 a wavelength. This means the energy stored in the loops of electromagnetic field is being individually spread out, when they find a suitable 'sink" they snap open and ground on the 'sink" then shrink into that "anti-source". Of course on the other side of this "anti-source"... such as on the far side of a pair of slits you will see this as a "source" as it expands into "your" cavity. Where is the problem you find with this? I can't see it. I expect these things as a matter of course since I do not identify the waves with the particle. They cannot exist at the same time.
As to seeing human hairs. This is fine. I see human hairs as a superposition of waves at millions of frequencies which are often a lot shorter than 660 nm. And I can't stress that fact that the propagating size of a photon has nothing to do with wavelength. What is important is what object can absorb a photon. This is entirely wavelength dependent and has nothing to do with the extent of a photon spatially. You continue to repeat this problem and you know these things already so what is your problem here? The wavelength of 660 nm (10^-9 meter) is very small... 660 thousand millionths of a meter.. If you can see that you are going well. For your information this is a lot smaller than a human hair's diameter so a human hair will absorb red LASER light... OK? The photon could be spread over a lateral space to Alpha Centauri. The actual energy, as you already know, will seek all paths so you can do the calculations using the tools supplied on the teaching site but in the end the photons energy travels via the minimum trajectory to it's destination. This propagation time could be a lot shorter than the time required for it to spread to Alpha Centauri but it already knows about Where Alpha Centauri is by interferences. It knows this information because this is 'in the cavity" already and the photon "knows" all about the geometry of the "Universe".
This is a non-local phenomenon unlike that in the answer I gave to Laserlight above where gravity is not a force electromagnetism is indeed a force and has a component which is truly action at a distance instantaneously at infinite speed. This is how entanglement seems to know all about the 'cavity" and the additional information about photons a particular photon is entangled with. Action at a distance is an infinite velocity phenomenon and is not limited by the speed of light. The energy of the propagated event must travel at the speed of light but the information is not limited b that speed. Entanglement is also the same informational process and is also true "non-local" action at a distance.
Have you ever been able to get the DSE to work as a Double Slit with only the LASER light going through one slit? While a photon spreads like butter on bread as it propagates (given the chance) its "thickness" remains constant at 1/2 a wavelength. This means the energy stored in the loops of electromagnetic field is being individually spread out, when they find a suitable 'sink" they snap open and ground on the 'sink" then shrink into that "anti-source". Of course on the other side of this "anti-source"... such as on the far side of a pair of slits you will see this as a "source" as it expands into "your" cavity. Where is the problem you find with this? I can't see it. I expect these things as a matter of course since I do not identify the waves with the particle. They cannot exist at the same time.
As to seeing human hairs. This is fine. I see human hairs as a superposition of waves at millions of frequencies which are often a lot shorter than 660 nm. And I can't stress that fact that the propagating size of a photon has nothing to do with wavelength. What is important is what object can absorb a photon. This is entirely wavelength dependent and has nothing to do with the extent of a photon spatially. You continue to repeat this problem and you know these things already so what is your problem here? The wavelength of 660 nm (10^-9 meter) is very small... 660 thousand millionths of a meter.. If you can see that you are going well. For your information this is a lot smaller than a human hair's diameter so a human hair will absorb red LASER light... OK? The photon could be spread over a lateral space to Alpha Centauri. The actual energy, as you already know, will seek all paths so you can do the calculations using the tools supplied on the teaching site but in the end the photons energy travels via the minimum trajectory to it's destination. This propagation time could be a lot shorter than the time required for it to spread to Alpha Centauri but it already knows about Where Alpha Centauri is by interferences. It knows this information because this is 'in the cavity" already and the photon "knows" all about the geometry of the "Universe".
This is a non-local phenomenon unlike that in the answer I gave to Laserlight above where gravity is not a force electromagnetism is indeed a force and has a component which is truly action at a distance instantaneously at infinite speed. This is how entanglement seems to know all about the 'cavity" and the additional information about photons a particular photon is entangled with. Action at a distance is an infinite velocity phenomenon and is not limited by the speed of light. The energy of the propagated event must travel at the speed of light but the information is not limited b that speed. Entanglement is also the same informational process and is also true "non-local" action at a distance.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Think of it this way, if incoming waves are crashing into a seawall, and there are holes in the seawall, how much of the total energy content of each wave is passing thru the holes vs how much energy is not passing thru the holes. Let's guess 50-50 .. If the photon is detected after the slits then it went through both slits and nothing was reflected - and if the photon is detected in the reflected wave then nothing went through either slit -is that the point you're making? |
Lets not guess. Some photons are absorbed by the slits and elsewhere around the outer part of the inner cavity, some may be reflected and some are not. The first two we usually cannot count or know anything about since they never reach the screen. A single photon can only be absorbed at a single site. Two photons cannot be absorbed at the same site at or near the same time due to "photon latency". There are lots of photons. The absorbed photons do not take part in the interference pattern only those photons that actually pass through the slits can take part. They absolutely must be waves when this happen because they must pass "both" slits. They are not particles, they must be waves. I do not need to prove this anymore do I. If you make the photon pass through one slit then it is going to be a "particle" and not undergo double slit diffraction. If you "see" a particular photon ... it can't take part.... no ifs buts or maybes... I guarantee that this is the case.
The "wave" unambiguously can strike the walls of the barrier (just like the seaside) and some of the wave will pass through the barrier. This "some" part of the wave is composed of entire packets of energy... read "whole photons" since the energy of photons cannot be divided, they are effectively indestructible up to and maybe even after they are absorbed, it depends on when you consider that your observations are no longer worth continuing. The ones that do not pass this slit boundary, zero energy gets through. It is that simple.
From a Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory point of view the photons have "precursors' and "persistent phenomena" before and after the emission absorption of the event respectively. These "influences" may not be able to be recorded. These "influences" may converge on the sources and the sinks. We are not "observant" enough to say where things are coming from and where they are going .... yet. A good theory should leave the "front door open" for possible new technology that may one day track these phenomena further. One of the problems with present quantum theory is that it did not leave these doors a little ajar, and this is why QT does not answer some of these questions. It does not matter how you cut it QT does not answer some questions and it gets involved in asserting "prior authority" which does not assist in solving these problems.
This Wheeler Feynman Theory may sound very complicated and mathematically intense... I do not think any more than some of the CGI effects based on individual ray-tracing of entire battle scenes from Lord of the Rings. Of course instead of tracing rays we should be tracing waves. There is then the winge that you can't plot "waves"... oh yes you can if you plot them in the complementary domain as 'particles". The transform is then the wave. This "flip side" of reality may be the way to proceed computationally and may relate to reality from a more consistent description or the frequency domain rather than the conventional time domain picture. I also predict that some "renormalization" will make more sense when viewed as a complementary reciprocal domain.
As to 'resolving" near field phenomena... recent advances in meta-materials constructed from spatially doped synthetic Alexandrite that emulate negative refractive index materials at optical frequencies indicate that even when you consider a single frequency of radiation in the near field, there is no theoretical upper limit to resolution any more when you are able to capture the formerly lost evanescent components using these new class of materials. So in the close region near a source it has a theoretical infinite resolution even when considered at a single wavelength. The literature has pictures taken in this region using negative refractive index "lenses". These theoretical limits have been recently proved to be quite accessible, limited only by the imperfections in the meta-material construction. Interestingly this "flaw" also is no impediment since this imperfection can also be processed out and perfect reconstruction can be has for the price of a discrete signal processing chip. The "impulse response" of the "black box near perfect lens" to stimulation can be used in "perfect" wavelet reconstruction. Applications are soon to follow... mark my words.
Cheers
The "wave" unambiguously can strike the walls of the barrier (just like the seaside) and some of the wave will pass through the barrier. This "some" part of the wave is composed of entire packets of energy... read "whole photons" since the energy of photons cannot be divided, they are effectively indestructible up to and maybe even after they are absorbed, it depends on when you consider that your observations are no longer worth continuing. The ones that do not pass this slit boundary, zero energy gets through. It is that simple.
From a Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory point of view the photons have "precursors' and "persistent phenomena" before and after the emission absorption of the event respectively. These "influences" may not be able to be recorded. These "influences" may converge on the sources and the sinks. We are not "observant" enough to say where things are coming from and where they are going .... yet. A good theory should leave the "front door open" for possible new technology that may one day track these phenomena further. One of the problems with present quantum theory is that it did not leave these doors a little ajar, and this is why QT does not answer some of these questions. It does not matter how you cut it QT does not answer some questions and it gets involved in asserting "prior authority" which does not assist in solving these problems.
This Wheeler Feynman Theory may sound very complicated and mathematically intense... I do not think any more than some of the CGI effects based on individual ray-tracing of entire battle scenes from Lord of the Rings. Of course instead of tracing rays we should be tracing waves. There is then the winge that you can't plot "waves"... oh yes you can if you plot them in the complementary domain as 'particles". The transform is then the wave. This "flip side" of reality may be the way to proceed computationally and may relate to reality from a more consistent description or the frequency domain rather than the conventional time domain picture. I also predict that some "renormalization" will make more sense when viewed as a complementary reciprocal domain.
As to 'resolving" near field phenomena... recent advances in meta-materials constructed from spatially doped synthetic Alexandrite that emulate negative refractive index materials at optical frequencies indicate that even when you consider a single frequency of radiation in the near field, there is no theoretical upper limit to resolution any more when you are able to capture the formerly lost evanescent components using these new class of materials. So in the close region near a source it has a theoretical infinite resolution even when considered at a single wavelength. The literature has pictures taken in this region using negative refractive index "lenses". These theoretical limits have been recently proved to be quite accessible, limited only by the imperfections in the meta-material construction. Interestingly this "flaw" also is no impediment since this imperfection can also be processed out and perfect reconstruction can be has for the price of a discrete signal processing chip. The "impulse response" of the "black box near perfect lens" to stimulation can be used in "perfect" wavelet reconstruction. Applications are soon to follow... mark my words.
Cheers
A mathematical diversion
Let's take the standard school analysis of the DSE .. it is as simple as (vector) addition.
1 + 1 = 2
Let's add a variable (x) to this equation
1 + 1 + x = 2
We can see that x = 0
Now two variables
1+1 + x + y = 2
Now we see x + y = 0
If x is pancakeification and y is depancakeification then as long as
pancakeification + depancakeification = 0 we get the right result.
We can add more variables .. eg cavitification and slitification to get (for example)
cavitification + slitification + pancakeification + depancakeification
and more in any combination
cavitification + decavitification + slitification + deslitification + pancakeification + depancakeification
In the general case if...
operation1 + operation2 ... + operationN + K = 0
then the calculated result will agree with the experimental result.
Unfortunately this conclusion doesn't prove the validity of an operation (or any combination of same) even if K can be show to exist (or even be zero). If the net effect of the operation(s) cannot be shown to be zero (<edit> or negligible) then the operation(s) are almost certainly invalid.
-C2.
Let's take the standard school analysis of the DSE .. it is as simple as (vector) addition.
1 + 1 = 2
Let's add a variable (x) to this equation
1 + 1 + x = 2
We can see that x = 0
Now two variables
1+1 + x + y = 2
Now we see x + y = 0
If x is pancakeification and y is depancakeification then as long as
pancakeification + depancakeification = 0 we get the right result.
We can add more variables .. eg cavitification and slitification to get (for example)
cavitification + slitification + pancakeification + depancakeification
and more in any combination
cavitification + decavitification + slitification + deslitification + pancakeification + depancakeification
In the general case if...
operation1 + operation2 ... + operationN + K = 0
then the calculated result will agree with the experimental result.
Unfortunately this conclusion doesn't prove the validity of an operation (or any combination of same) even if K can be show to exist (or even be zero). If the net effect of the operation(s) cannot be shown to be zero (<edit> or negligible) then the operation(s) are almost certainly invalid.
-C2.
Test 1
If we fire single photons into the DSE and integrate .. do we get the same result as our schoolbook electromagnetic wave analysis?
I think we do.
Conclusion
As far as the DSE is concerned the electromagnetic wave in our schoolbook analysis is indistinguishable from the superposition of many individual photons.
Alternatives?
Best wishes,
-C2.
If we fire single photons into the DSE and integrate .. do we get the same result as our schoolbook electromagnetic wave analysis?
I think we do.
Conclusion
As far as the DSE is concerned the electromagnetic wave in our schoolbook analysis is indistinguishable from the superposition of many individual photons.
Alternatives?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2,
He he he! An "analysis" such as the one you have there is not convincing for anything at all. X and Y are apparently "not" operators as you have shown them. They are simply algebraic variables... It was you that was claiming only a couple of days ago that we should be "proving" certain results using mathematics. I see from this you appear not to trust mere "manipulation" either. And so you should...
Consistency and conclusions must depend on the results of experiments to have physical significance. Everything to do with "mathematics" is a pure mental exercise, and while it is very laudable for the sole purpose of calculation, cannot be used as the justification for Physics. Indeed mathematics for me must justify its purpose with practical demonstrations of predictions of concrete functions. I am often reminded of the wonderful work of Einstein and his use of simple maths to achieve his results. All he did would have been pointless without his great insight into the laws of nature that he so concisely summed up with his equations. It is no accident his work was simple and Einstein was not a great mathematician ... he was a Physicist. Nature does not "do" maths, what nature does is a process that is entirely without any form of calculation and is emergent behavior of our natural systems. In that respect where we seem to find numbers nature finds principles.
Test 1
If we fire single photons into the DSE and integrate .. do we get the same result as our schoolbook electromagnetic wave analysis?
I think we do.
Conclusion
As far as the DSE is concerned the electromagnetic wave in our schoolbook analysis is indistinguishable from the superposition of many individual photons.
Alternatives?
He he he! An "analysis" such as the one you have there is not convincing for anything at all. X and Y are apparently "not" operators as you have shown them. They are simply algebraic variables... It was you that was claiming only a couple of days ago that we should be "proving" certain results using mathematics. I see from this you appear not to trust mere "manipulation" either. And so you should...
Consistency and conclusions must depend on the results of experiments to have physical significance. Everything to do with "mathematics" is a pure mental exercise, and while it is very laudable for the sole purpose of calculation, cannot be used as the justification for Physics. Indeed mathematics for me must justify its purpose with practical demonstrations of predictions of concrete functions. I am often reminded of the wonderful work of Einstein and his use of simple maths to achieve his results. All he did would have been pointless without his great insight into the laws of nature that he so concisely summed up with his equations. It is no accident his work was simple and Einstein was not a great mathematician ... he was a Physicist. Nature does not "do" maths, what nature does is a process that is entirely without any form of calculation and is emergent behavior of our natural systems. In that respect where we seem to find numbers nature finds principles.
QUOTE
"Taking Three as the subject to reason about --
A convenient number to state --
We add Seven, and Ten, and then multiply out
By One Thousand diminished by Eight.
"The result we proceed to divide, as you see,
By Nine Hundred and Ninety Two:
Then subtract Seventeen, and the answer must be
Exactly and perfectly true.
"The method employed I would gladly explain,
While I have it so clear in my head,
If I had but the time and you had but the brain --
But much yet remains to be said.
"In one moment I've seen what has hitherto been
Enveloped in absolute mystery,
And without extra charge I will give you at large
A Lesson in Natural History."
[...]
[...]
The Butcher would gladly have talked till next day,
But he felt that the lesson must end,
And he wept with delight in attempting to say
He considered the Beaver his friend.
While the Beaver confessed, with affectionate looks
More eloquent even than tears,
It had learned in ten minutes far more than all books
Would have taught it in seventy years.
Hunting of the Snark: Lewis Carroll
A convenient number to state --
We add Seven, and Ten, and then multiply out
By One Thousand diminished by Eight.
"The result we proceed to divide, as you see,
By Nine Hundred and Ninety Two:
Then subtract Seventeen, and the answer must be
Exactly and perfectly true.
"The method employed I would gladly explain,
While I have it so clear in my head,
If I had but the time and you had but the brain --
But much yet remains to be said.
"In one moment I've seen what has hitherto been
Enveloped in absolute mystery,
And without extra charge I will give you at large
A Lesson in Natural History."
[...]
[...]
The Butcher would gladly have talked till next day,
But he felt that the lesson must end,
And he wept with delight in attempting to say
He considered the Beaver his friend.
While the Beaver confessed, with affectionate looks
More eloquent even than tears,
It had learned in ten minutes far more than all books
Would have taught it in seventy years.
Hunting of the Snark: Lewis Carroll
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Taking Three as the subject to reason about -- A convenient number to state -- We add Seven, and Ten, and then multiply out By One Thousand diminished by Eight. "The result we proceed to divide, as you see, By Nine Hundred and Ninety Two: Then subtract Seventeen, and the answer must be Exactly and perfectly true. "The method employed I would gladly explain, While I have it so clear in my head, If I had but the time and you had but the brain -- But much yet remains to be said. "In one moment I've seen what has hitherto been Enveloped in absolute mystery, And without extra charge I will give you at large A Lesson in Natural History." [...] [...] The Butcher would gladly have talked till next day, But he felt that the lesson must end, And he wept with delight in attempting to say He considered the Beaver his friend. While the Beaver confessed, with affectionate looks More eloquent even than tears, It had learned in ten minutes far more than all books Would have taught it in seventy years. Hunting of the Snark: Lewis Carroll |
Test 1
If we fire single photons into the DSE and integrate .. do we get the same result as our schoolbook electromagnetic wave analysis?
I think we do.
Conclusion
As far as the DSE is concerned the electromagnetic wave in our schoolbook analysis is indistinguishable from the superposition of many individual photons.
Alternatives?
If you have a solution and it satisfies all the physical facts why seek "alternatives". I think that statement is right too...
Cheers
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
Nicely taken - thank you. The simplicity hides the poisoned chalice.
QFT (drink me .. drink me)
Best wishes,
-C2.
Nicely taken - thank you. The simplicity hides the poisoned chalice.
QFT (drink me .. drink me)
Best wishes,
-C2.
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.