Hi C2,

No, I'm not concerned about the energy component of a photon, we know that
by E=hf.

A single photon of specific frequency must have a fixed limit to its "physical"
wave dimensions. I have a hard time conceptualizing that the H field goes
to infinity and back in a finite fixed time interval that is determined by a fixed
frequency/wavelength.

I'm talking about the individual photon's wave "package" dimensions, it must have
a fixed physical/dimensional size that it propagates within. My point
being that the E and H wave symmetry limits the maximum gap width,
the distance between the slits, or the wave function will collapse due to
signal disruption/blockage.

We should be able to determine the photons lateral H wave dimensions at a
certain frequency, by widening the slit spacing, effectively creating a blocking
filter, until there is no photon detected at the detection screen (PMT). This would
be the physical dimension where wave "symmetry" is interrupted in the H plane.
Any physical slit gap dimension less than this maximum will allow a photon to pass
thru regardless of the distance from the source, which would indicate that a photon
of a specific frequency has finite physical/range limits.
------

An argument, if we transmit a specific frequency microwave signal to a space
craft at the outer extremes of the solar system, its receiving antenna still resonates
at the frequency of the transmitted frequency/wavelength. Yes, the beamwidth
has spread/dispersed and the power/intensity level is low, but the individual
photon waves are still dimensionally "fixed" to a physical size in order for
resonance to occur in the antenna.

The frequency remains the same, and the transmitted signal will be detected and
resonate in the antenna as long as there are enough photons (power level) to be
detected above the noise threshold level. Doesn't this suggest that wavefront of
multiple photons will seek all paths, similar to a water wave, but an individual
photon is "quantum limited" to a fixed "physical" size. ("Physical" meaning
maximum dimensional limits)

Comments,
LL

HEEELLLLLLLP! C2! (or someone) they2 and I are trying to do a DSE onto paper and all we get is:
1- with slits, we see literally...... (ta da) TWO SLITS ON PAPER!
2- with pinholes, we see a quasar explosion (or something of the like - a large figure 8)

We see no typical DSE pattern. What are we doing wrong? Do I need more wine?

Our setup... I have two slits and two pinholes in aluminum foil, both somewhere between 1 to 2 mm apart, a low powered laser, and holding a piece of paper up to two inches from the laser (so we can see what the heck is happening). I have not bought the webcam yet. I have moved things around trying to change the distance, but there is no change in what we see.

ideas please??

Hi THEY,

Try moving your laser further away from the slits so that you have a planar
wave hitting the foil "wall". Also move your screen back from the slits at least
6-10 inches. Probably need to have the laser source about 18" - 30" away.
I think C2 provided an explanation of his DSE layout in an earlier post.

I hope this helps.

LL

Hi THEY,


You need smaller slits/holes, put closer together. You will have a hard time cutting small holes. Place something like wood behind the foil, and just use the corner of a razor blade.

Put the slits as close together as possible, this will still be very large, compared to wavelength.

You could try the "smoked glass" idea. Hold glass over a candle, high enough to accumulate soot. Cover evenly, then "scratch" 2 fine lines.


Of course, they do SELL the pre-made DS screen!


ciao,

T.Roc

First problem ..
**sigh** Let's look at the DSE equation .. this should tell us how far apart our fringes will be

Wavelength = [distance between peaks] * [slit separation] / [Distance to screen] see http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html for a simple derivation.
So..
[Distance between peaks] = [Wavelength] * [Distance to screen] / [Slit separation]
With slits 1mm apart, screen at say 10cm and assuming a wavelength of 650nm
Converting everything into meters
With slits 0.001m apart, screen at say 0.1 m and assuming a wavelength of 650E-9
[Distance between peaks] = 650E-9 * 0.1 / 0.001
= 65E-6
Which is 0.000065m or 0.065 mm
So.. without Supergirl eyes you're not going to be able to see your fringes.

Second problem
Aluminium foil is shiny .. (bad thing with a laser around). When you poke your holes you make zillions of shiny little bits which act as new sources and generally mess the thing up (quasar explosion) . You need card (preferably black) for this job.

Third problem
If you increase the distance between your slits and your screen (probably best to start thinking in terms of a wall some distance away) .. for simplicity let's suggest 5meters instead of 10cm so your fringes will be 50 times further apart .. (now 3mm apart ). You turn the light off and start looking for your fringes. Never found 'em. I suspect one of the problems is that the laser isn't really very well collimated/coherent .. OK for short distances but falls apart over longer distances. I have tried shining the laser through a pinhole .. and then the double slits/pinholes .. but never got everything lined up well enough to get a result.

Unless you've got better technique than I have (vodka might just give the required edge) I think you will need to mess about with the laser camera to get anywhere.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Edit ..
My pinholes are directly over the exit hole of the laser (I use bluetack (blue sticky stuff) to hold the card in place and allow for a bit of lining up. )

Thanks for the replies! I will fine tune what we are doing. But we were finally somewhat successful last night, but it was about 10 pm so I didn't get back online. I thought the slits needed to be close to the detector (paper) but I finally got a bit of a pattern holding the paper a foot (appx 30 cm) away from the foil. I can't remember where I read to use aluminum foil, but I will try the smoked glass or something else next time. I did notice the reflection it caused...... And we do need to create something to hold everything. We were holding it by hand! I flashed myself in the eye numerous times with the laser reflection... so I like C2's idea of tacking the slits to the laser. Probably the safest way to be used in they2's classroom. We tried taking a picture to post to see if it was correct (with a camera, not a "detector") but the pattern didn't show up well enough. Besides, macrophotography isn't they2's specialty, but MOMs. I had her take the picture so she didn't flash herself in the eyes with the laser like I was doing.

SO! We will lengthen it, make a box or something for a holder, and buy the webcam detector. Hopefully I won't have to bug you guys again!

Thanks again

Hi, "THEY"

Let's try to get the parameters set so that you get the brightest and easiest to see fringes.

First, the ratio (fringe spacing)/(screen distance) = (light wavelength)/(slit separation), so it is easy to calculate the fringe spacing based on knowing the other quantities. You'll need the fringes to be at least about a 1mm apart to see them easily. Let's abbreviate this as
f = D·lambda/s > 1mm. --- (1)

Second, you'll be getting diffraction from each slit as well as interference between the slits. The diffraction pattern will control the overall brightness available at each point on the screen, and within that envelope, the interference will create fringes. Therefore, the fringes will have different brightnesses depending on how they sit within the diffraction pattern.

In order to see fringes, you will need at least 4 or 5 fringes to fit within the central bright area of the diffraction pattern. Let's say you want about 10 fringes to show up brightly, so that it is absolutely clear that you are seeing interference, and not just a couple of spots. In that case, you need the separation between the slits to be about 5 times the width of each slit, based on the relation that (fringe spacing)/(diffraction spot width) = (slit width)/(slit spacing). Let's abbreviate this as
f/d = w/s < 1/5. --- (2)

You would like to get the brightest fringes possible, but they should of course be large enough to see and photograph. Let's say you need the fringes to be 1mm or so apart. How bright can you get them to be, and what arrangement will produce that brightness? Well, brightness is controlled by two things, the quantity of light getting through the slits and the distance to the screen. Brightness decreases with the screen distance (NOT the square of the distance, because the laser light will only spread out perpendicular to the slits0, and increases linearly with slit width and with laser intensity. Let's abbreviate this as
B = wI/D = maximum. --- (3)

Therefore, you have the following constraints to satisfy: f > 1mm, w/s < 1/5, B = maximum, lambda = 650nm. You have the following parameters to adjust: w, s, D, I. Now obviously I should be as large as possible, so if your laser beam has much spread, you should bring it up close to the slits. You don't have to worry about the coherence of the beam; even cheap laser pointers are quite coherent, because you can't effectively produce laser light without its being coherent, so that's a given.

Now if you choose a value for D, (1) forces s = D·lambda/f, so (2) shows that w < D·lambda/5f, and then (3) shows that B < D·lambda·I/(5fD) = lambda·I/(5f). This means that D doesn't matter to the brightness. But you should use the smallest D that you can because D could need to be quite large if you don't plan ahead. Now (1) shows that to use a smaller D you need a smaller s, and then (2) shows that you need a smaller w also.

Therefore, the question becomes, just how fine a scratch can you make in your foil, or on your smoked glass? And how close together can you reliably make two parallel scratches? That depends on your tools, of course, but with smoked glass you can lay a ruler across it (put the ruler up on some supports so that it just barely doesn't touch the glass, of course) and then drag a needle across the glass while holding the ruler firmly in place.

You'll also need to move the ruler a very short distance before making a second scratch. One way to do this is to release the ruler carefully and then lay your thumbnail alongside the ruler and rock your thumb toward the ruler very slightly until you can just barely see or feel the ruler move, and then repeat on the other end.

(By the way, the ideal thing to use as a scriber would be an old phonograph needle if you have one that you don't use any more. A regular sewing needle will do, but a pin is too blunt. Don't use much pressure, in any case.)

Now let's look at what you might expect to achieve. I think you might be able to get scratches about 0.5mm = s apart, and thin enough to see several fringes, say about 0.1mm = w wide. In that case, you'll want to make D = f·s/lambda = 1mm·0.5mm/650nm = 77cm, or roughly 30 inches. How bright will this make the fringes? Most laser pointers are about 5mw and have beam diameters of about 0.3cm, which give intensities of 70mW/cm^2 = 700W/m^2. The diffraction pattern on the screen will have a spot width of d = 10f = 10mm, while the slit width is 0.1mm, so the intensity will be reduced by a factor of 100 because the light covers 100 times the area of the slit.

Actually, there are two slits, and the constructive interference will quadruple the intensity, so you can expect a fringe brightness of about 4·700/100 = 28W/m^2. This is pretty good, since 700W/m^2 is roughly the same brightness as sunlight, so the fringe brightness will be about 4% the brightness of direct sun. For comparison, at a distance of 1m froma 100W incandenscent bulb (which only puts out about 3W of actual visible light -- incandescent bulbs are really very inefficient), you get an intensity of 3/(4pi)W/m^2 = 0.24W/m^2. So these fringes ought to be about 100 times the brightness of a well lit room.

(Digression: Artificial lighting is quite dim compared to sunlight, because our eyes are amazingly adaptable. You can (just barely) read by the full moon, and full moonlight is about 1/200,000th the brightness of sunlight. A normally lit room is only about 1/1000th as bright as direct sunlight, but that's plenty for most purposes.)

That means that you could probably increase D quite a bit and get a nice large fringe spacing, and the fringes will still be bright enough to be visible in a normally lit room. Try D of 7m or so, by placing the screen clear across the room from the slits. That should give nice broad fringes, and with the room lights out they should be quite visible.

Hope this helps!

(and say Hi to "they2" for me)

--Stuart Anderson

Hi THEY,THEY2, Mr Homm et al,

Mr Homm's approach is (of course) excellent. If something doesn't work as predicted then very often this is more interesting and useful than the predicted result. Please report what does and doesn't work.

Possibly interesting/useful ..
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0508/0508210.pdf

Best wishes,
-C2.

Hi All especially "THEY", "THEY 2" and Mr_Homm,

Excellent idea. Nothing like a practical approach. It will be interesting to get some large scale results. The problem will be making accurate slits as stated. "Thank you for smoking"

Cheers

PS: Be very careful with your eyes. Most laser pointers are around 1mw and that should be enough. 5mw is a little bit too strong especially if you are not sporting "shades". Do not be attracted to stare into the beam "little moths", it is not a healthy thing to do. You will not realize just how much damage you are doing and because eyes are insensitive around 660nm it might seem that you are not doing anything important at all. Just be aware that these lasers are exceedingly bright sources and very concentrated. You would not stare at the sun so do not stare into lasers either. The direct beam is the most dangerous so you can always avoid that.

http://www.laserinstitute.org/publications.../laser_pointer/

[removed]

Could you have a look at my post`s `Force fields' and give an Quantum learned perspective opinion to my postulations? Pls.

Thank you all again for the info, esp. Mr Homm! Nice to "see" you again!

One update, after messing with smoked glass, I have decided to stick with the aluminum foil. But after I make the cuts, I smoke the foil so I no longer am frying my eyesight. Foil makes very nice slits. It is so easy to cut it perfectly. Trying to scratch slits on the glass was rather.... difficult........ I wasn't able to get anything from the slits! Far too fat and squigly.

I will keep you guys posted. Thanks again!

Hi all,

I just had a thought about the duality problem.

what if a particle is riding on a wave.

The wave would follow the rules of the DS experiment and the particle would sit comfortably in the 'trench' of a wavefront. Once the wave interferes the particle is bound to be repelled from certain places and will be found in conjunction to the interference pattern.

The thing to consider here is that a particle sitting 'comfortable' means that it will be in 'phase' with the wave. disturbing the particle will disturb its position in respect to the wave and result in an incoherent state thus unable to reveal the interference pattern.

The wave would have originated simultaneously with the particle and is 'coupled' to it somehow. It could simply be a wave coherent to the particle but within the zero point fluctuation field.

The particle would be allowed to pass through either slit without the necessity to pass through both!

Jan Rinze.
P.S. this is a very crude 'gedanken experiment' but it sounds pretty valid for now..
P.P.S. if the wave would be similar to waves generated by ships, this could be a simple replacement for the explanation of inertia.
P.P.P.S I know this won't hold up scientifically but it is just a direction of thoughts.

Hi Jan,

Interesting thought.

How would you explain phasing and polarization with your model?

Your concept is aligning somewhat with Zephir's concept of a ship with
a wave "wake" that radiates outward from a displacement caused by
energy moving thru and displacing the "medium" in which it is traveling.

Your "model" would fit for an electron. A spinning, monopole particle could
generate such fields like a dynamo or generator effect especially in the presence
of an opposite charge, where the developed "fields" would be mutually
regenerative and "captive". How such a monopole would react in free space
is the question. It would imply that space has some net charge associated with
it that supports and sustains the development of crossing fields....

Comments?
LL

Hi LL,

There is a certain problem with the model.

The wave propagates with one constant velocity which is contradictory to the variable possible speeds the electron could have.

In the example of the 'boat' the wake and the bow-wave are generated by a physical displacement of water.. waves on water have a velocity related to the depth of the water.

Here the velocity of the wave needs to match the velocity of the particle which I have not yet accounted for. If the wave would travel at light-speed (EM or other) then it would not be a viable solution for the 'wave-riding' effect.

The wave cannot be attributed to EM type waves since the DS experiment works equally well for non-charged particles or even non-dipole particles.
In all the wave must be more generically related to mass and be therefore either gravity related or some other unknown origin.

If mass generates gravity we might be able to say that there is a gravity wave on which the particle is riding. It might even be its own wave..

The second possibility is that there is a fundamental principle revealed by EM which shows that for every field there should be a antagonist. Like magnetism is induced by electrical fields (Maxwell) we could define an induction field generated by moving mass. There is a proposal somewhere to call this a gravitomagnetic field. If such a field exists it might very well be the base for the wave on which the particles are 'riding' and causing the results in the DS experiment.

So now we need some math to show that we can create such a wave which travels a t the same speed as the particle. The wave will interfere and influence the behavior of the particle so it will look as if the particle was behaving like a wave.

Still a very rough draft of ideas, no real model here.

Comparing to the idea's of Zephir, his models are more or less based on a direct comparison of waves on water. Waves on water behave profoundly different from EM or other similar waves since their speed is very slow compared to the speed of boats on the water..

Jan Rinze.

Hi Jan,

Thanks for the reply.

Your model would imply that the size of the particle aspect of a photon would be
proportional to the EM wave energy on which it propagates. Since we have yet to
measure a physical particle size that can be associated with any size photon, that
suggests that a photon possesses a trans-dimensional characteristic that GE is
so fond of.

Some things to consider for comparative purposes....

For an electron:

A negatively charged electron will always move towards a postive charge and
away from a negative charge. An electron has intrinsic mass.

A free electron in space is influenced by an electric field or a magnetic field.
This infers that either the net negative charge of the electron is purely sensitive to
field polarity, or its normally symmetric EM wave is "warped"/distorted as it
interacts with an externally applied field which causes a vector change in flight
direction. The amount of deflection from a straight line of flight is determined by
the density/flux and polarity of the applied field strength and the velocity of the
electron. The higher the E or H field "density"/polarity the more deflection that is
applied to the electron.

A free electron will impart energy and charge upon contact with matter.

For a photon:

A photon is massless (non-measurable).

A photon has no net charge and is not affected by discrete E or H fields in free
space, but is affected by gravity, which is the warpage of space that is
induced by the proximity to, and density of, matter.

A photon of specific frequency can be absorbed, reflected, or pass thru the
different energy states of matter, depending upon the density and atomic
structural alignment of the matter it is interacting with and the energy that the
photon contains.

If a photon is absorbed it imparts all of its energy content to matter which displaces
an electron that can either flow as current, or it will re-emit another photon. If the
photon is reflected, the energy in equals the energy out, there is no net loss of
energy of the photon. If the matter is transparent to the frequency of the photon
it will pass thru, energy intact.

Atomic matter is frequency responsive/sensitive to specific photonic frequencies.
------

These characteristics infer how waves are influenced by different, externally
applied forces.

Comments?
LL

Jan/ LL etc,

You seem to be on my 'wavelength' @ the mo' with current musings: photon as embedded wavicle riding on their parental (electron) wave-state front.


Wavicle stuff.

Can you use an array of solar panels or similar devices for detectors, measuring sectional detection points on the back board?

If you consider the 360 angular degrees of a wave, 360 wave packets that have the same energy from source to destination per angular degree or “packet”. The energy wave only dilutes in ISL space occupation further from the source, each circumference degree of the angular arch width radius increases over ISL further from the source. Does a wave contain the same energy per volume/area degree, no matter what distance form the source?

Hi LL,

I am obviously not explicit enough.
My proposal does NOT imply that matter rides on EM waves. It does not travel at light speed so it has to be some other wave.

On the topic of waves:
any wave would do actually, as long as the speed of the wave would be matching the speed of the particle.

For all other influences the 'normal' Maxwell equations still apply on top of the measure interference due to this unknown wave when we are looking at electrons.
So EM has influence on the electron next to this newly proposed wave.
This is necessary since neutrons will exhibit the same wave/particle duality and will not be influenced by EM fields!

So if you want to understand the DS experiment please refrain from using EM as the base for the interference. In QM the term probability distribution applies to the interference pattern and has absolutely nothing to do with EM!

EM just happens to show wave characteristics but if we would go that route we cannot explain any of the non-charged and non-dipole particles in respect to the DS experiment.

In regard to your 'deflection' of electrons I really prefer Maxwell which makes it perfectly calculable and is still regarded as the base for charge/magnetic interaction.

Jan Rinze.

P.S. the gravito magnetism follows the same rules as the Maxwell equations. just try and replace charge with mass and magnetism with the gravito-magnetism. Mu and epsilon need to be replaced by the gravitational constant and some other 'new' constant..

WOW: Electrons Surfing C Waves. Are there Larger Particles/objects that could surf like that? I'm thinking in terms of:
`Propulsion Systems'/
`Particle Teleportation Systems'
`Electronics Systems'
`Weapons Systems/ Particle beams'

Hi Soultechs,



I have no idea what C waves are..

The DS experiment has been proven for bucky-balls so I guess it is a yes to larger particles/objects being able to surf waves in my proposed gedanken experiment.

Jan Rinze.
P.S. the spellingchecker does not know the word 'proven' so I guess it should have been something else.

I have just remembered something from someone's post a year ago. Bucky-Ball as you mention are some sot of an 60 carbon atom molecule. Yes meaning something like that. Perhaps I misunderstood what was being discussed but. One of the lines gave me the implied impression that paticles ride in the troughs and crests of ligh/electromagnetic wave. When I mentioned C waves i meant electromagnetic wave at the speeD of C(light). Thus crafting my grammar along the analogy of surfing sea waves> Yes, could larger particles like bucky-balls, molecules ride on electromagetic wave propagations

Hi Jan,



We definitely see things from different perspectives and is a basis for discussion.
I am open to critique of my commentary.

Probablility distribution just means the likelihood of an event occurring over some
finite time base when using a closed set of possible solutions. Basically, it is the
predictability of the odds of an event occurring given a closed set of variables,
under a fixed set of conditions.

The reason that I believe that it is necessary to use EM for determining an
interference pattern for the DSE, is that the phase angle rotation of each E and H
field represents the closed set of possible variables over a fixed time base of one
full rotation. This provides closed loop symmetry for the set of possible
solutions. There will always be a fixed circular relationship to the wave
mechanics. A wave is merely the "linear" energy distribution of a circular function
over a fixed time base as the circle periodically rotates. That is how a sine wave
represents a circle over a time base.

A wave can also be considered a circular energy displacement phenomenon and
the phase relationship that exists between different waves of the same frequency
represents a solution at a fixed point in time at a fixed point in space. I see no
way to separate EM phase angle characteristics from interference in the DSE.

Perhaps I missed your point.

I purposefully erased comments on neutral particles that I had written in my prior
post, since I am unsure of the inherent wave properties of a particle with balanced
net "internal" charges, since externally applied EM fields obviously have no effect
on them.

One characteristic that I think can be assigned to neutral particles is that they
have "volume" and mass and displace space. If they have mass and displace
space then they must have a gravitational "field" component that can be
assigned to them.

Comments? Discussion?
LL

Hi Guest,

I think I understand what you are trying to do/imply.

The velocity of all photons is always the same... the speed of light "c" but the
energy of each discrete photon is determined by its frequency/wavelength of
propagation which is an energy distribution over area vs time characteristic.

I've also asked the question of what the energy that a quantum photon of specific frequency
is really telling us. Do all photons really contain the same amount/quantum of energy that
is just distributed over different physical surface areas, according to their
specific frequency? We are looking at force per unit area. P = F/A

An example: if we have 5 pounds of total force applied from some
source but vary the contact surface area over which that force is applied, then the
pressure applied at the distributed point of contact will be vary inversely according
the area over which the force is applied.

The smaller the total area that a fixed amount of force is applied to, the higher the
pressure that is applied to that area.

If the energy quantum of all photon's is the relatively the same, then the area
over which that quantum of energy is applied is determined by the frequency at
which that photon is propagating.

High frequencies represent a small overall surface area where a fixed amount of
energy is concentrated, so the total force applied across a surface area is inversely
proportional to the frequency of the photon.

Does this make sense? I am open for correction on this idea.
LL

Hi LL,

If EM is the base for the DS experiment you might try to create an interference pattern based on radio transmitters and see if electrons will behave accordingly to that pattern...

The reason that the DS experiment works is because of a wave characteristic of the particle itself. This is an inherent property and works for all particles.

So no, the EM explanation will definitely not do for the DS experiment.

In reverse: any wave that propagates through a DS setup (provided the wavelength is smaller than the slits) will create an interference pattern. The problem lies with the particles here.

If you could envision a wave made up of 'likelihood' so that the interference pattern implies probability for a particle to be detected you might be closest to the QM interpretation i.m.h.o.

For plain EM waves of course the DS experiment will remain just a EM interference pattern.

Then again we might just be barking up the same tree..

Jan Rinze.

Hi Jan,

Arf, Arf! In some respects you are correct regarding "barking up the same tree".

It has never been proven that a photon is a particle, though it is widely accepted
from a theoretical perspective. What we do know is that a photon has definite
wave characteristics while propagating, which is the basis of all scientific
development for photonic freqency analytical equipment and transmission/reciever
electronics. If you think about it, the particle aspect of a photon is never detected
until the wavefunction collapses when it is absorbed by matter. (a point of
contention from a previous argument)

Once the energy of a wave displaces a receiving electron, there is a conversion
where the potential energy inherent in an atom is changed to the kinetic energy of
motion for the electron. This happens because of the energy contained in the
wave. So we go from a pure wave momentum energy transfer to a physical
particle displacement transfer. To me, that is the particle aspect of the wave that
only occurs at that point of electron dislocation caused by resonance.




Regarding your radio transmitters and interference. Elecron "response" has to do
with how the wave energy at a specific frequency displaces the electrons in a
resonantly tuned antenna dipole, or a "series" of resonantly tuned dipoles.

Radiating EM energy fields induce voltages and currents into the dipole that is
some even increment of the wave size. The electrons in the dipole oscillate in
harmony (resonate) with the electrical component of the EM energy applied. If the
antenna is receiving two competing or out of phase signals there is interference or
cancellation that is the summation of the two signals. Have you ever heard two
AM radio stations overlapping at the same frequency? This is definitely
interference occuring between two separate EM signals that have been
combined into one composite output signal which cannot be
discriminated/separated. All of the electrons in the resonant antenna circuit are
"in phase" with the sum of the composite applied signal(s).

If you apply the above scenario to photonic EM waves that are overlapping at a
fixed atomic dipole location, you will get the same result. Interference is caused
by signal mixing/summing of energy at a fixed resonant location. So, EM phasing
at a point of atomic signal mixing determines the vector sum (displacement) of the
electron.

When you think about it, the physical geometry of the DSE is fixed, and the timing
of each individual coherent wavefront is "fixed" but spatially separated, which
introduces a timing offset to the phases between the separated wavefronts. Those
waves will always interfere at the same general fixed location according to the
summation of their phases at that fixed location. The only thing that produces
a probability "variable" to the final solution is the phase relationship of each
wave which is determined by the distance that they are travelling to a fixed
point(s) of overlap.

Basically, you have a fixed set of probablilities for each wavefunction that
represent the phase and timing that determines when and where the two waves
can interfere within a fixed resonant geometry. That is how the probablility
function develops a distributed pattern over some timebase.

FWIW, I am enjoying this theoretical discussion of different viewpoints.

I welcome opposing viewpoints.
LL

Hi all,


First, before I forget again: LL, I have not received any PM's from you. Maybe you should try again?


I have some questions and comments from recent posts. It is nice to see more new posters, too. I hope the THEYlab is running fine.

Montec has a very agreeable short draft with this post:



I would add that current theory does not have a way to address this “harmonic” interaction, and my model of Resonance shows promise here.

I don’t follow this, however, Montec:

QUOTE

“1. Harmonic coupling is the most efficient way to transfer energy from one system to another. 2. The photonic effect (for lack a a better word) is a purely local effect that transfers energy from one system (EM waves) to another (matter) or the reverse. The amount of energy transfered is directly linked to the system harmonics. 3. If there are no harmonic conditions for a given frequency of the EM radiation that encounters some substance then there is no transfer of energy and that substance is transparent for that given EM radiation frequency. 4. Refraction of a wave is the result of a relative slowing between different sections of the wave front. The amount of refraction is wavelength dependent. Interference within the refraction is caused by changing harmonic conditions at the wave/matter boundary. A sharp edge works better than a rounded edge.”