This is either going to get me out of trouble or dig an even deeper hole that nobody will be able to fathom... Sorry friends...
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
The soap bubble analogy (and it is an analogy... a "Membrane Theory" akin to M-Theory) can be extended a little to include a soap bubble ring (1/2 wavelength dipole "bubble" radiator) where when you blow into it many bubbles of the same size (depending on the size of the ring) are formed. Atoms and their cavities have only enough "suds" and "puff" to form one bubble of a particular size at a time in this analogy. One bubble in... One bubble out. Electromagnetic "bubble" machines can supply continuous "suds" to the hoop and blow continuously with a continuous impressed source of power making one bubble at a time of a particular size. "Bosons " like light photons can all exist in superimposed states at the same time unlike soap bubbles which are "fermions" and must observe "space quantization". If I blow too slowly the bubble remains attached to the hoop and if you stop blowing at the critical moment the bubble collapses back to the source and not escapes but returns the "suds" and the "puff".... This is an "inductive" soap bubble. There is a minimum "speed of blowing" that can effectively form intact radiated "bubbles" below a critical energy no radiated bubbles can form. After each "bubble" emission some suds are snapped back onto the hoop to form part of the next "radiated" bubble (near field suck back)... Get it? I hope this analogy is not too patronizing?
I note some frustration with these ideas and it is certainly not intended to be critical of anyone. I am glad that this idea is appealing to some but, as I have said... This is only an analogy. Please do not attempt extending an analogy into areas it was never intended to go... as I see happening here. I am arguing for electromagnetism and not for soap bubbles.
I will attempt to extend this idea further with some notes to be cautions of thinking about this not as soap bubbles but as electromagnetism. Where I can draw some analogy I will, but try not to think about "soap" but electromagnetism. There is some very considerable differences between a bowl of dilute detergent and spacetime and between a plastic bubble ring blower and an electromagnetic machine. It also seems that some have not seen this child's toy in action... that is also a problem. One thing that seems certain is that this "stuff" that is being moved does not go pop like a soap bubble. Inflating a true evanescent bubble of electromagnetic energy slowly is in no danger of going pop but there are limits when there are materials available to react in that space... You can get a flash over discharge for instance. The "event horizon" of a single expanding quantum event is a "little different" to a pretty spherical soap bubble floating over the dandelions in the light breeze. For one thing all phenomena on the surface of that "event horizon" remain "frozen" in time through Special Relativity.
In the absence of dissipative elements the inductive field can be inflated "apparently" forever as long as a source of "power" is applied. If the frequency is sufficiently low and does not reverse polarity (including DC or static fields) there is no limit to the amount of energy that could be stored in that volumetric space near the source... this is a "cavity" in a analogous way to a bubble expressing aspects of a cavity. These electromagnetic cavities are a far more abstract space.. a Hilbert Space.
Thinking only of the ideal situation... Cutting that "power source" off from an "attached" bubble only allows the energy to flow back from the external (1/2 wavelength) space into the source dissipating its "resources" in there if it can find an "element" to dissipate into. In the ideal case, and this includes isolated atoms, there is sometimes no available dissipative element in its immediate Universe as defined by the Lagrangian. I do not want to offend anyone here, and it is not meant to be a criticism, but as I have been saying that "our three dimensional universe (plus time)" is defined by processes that are by their very nature "conservative" and represents paths of least action within the confines of available dimensional space, that is within a hypersurface. All conventional energy processes will be confined to the "hypersurface" of our Universe", three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension at a time, by a restraining "pressure" caused by the light cone wall. There are more dimensions and in one respect we are "seeing" them. Pushing on this light cone wall only results in the appearance of electromagnetic forces. We interpret this as "virtual charge". This is the origin of photons as being the force carriers of our Universe. They can propagate or they can be trapped within space. In both cases they transfer force from place to place. In the case of "inductive" processes they can trap energy in the surrounding space and this energy can be returned to source. This is the origin of cavity resonance when the periods of "inflation" matches the period of "deflation" accompanied by a suitable complex temporal and spatial phase delay. In dipole radiation the left and right sides of this system (shown above - phase not indicated) cross feed on 1/2 a wavelength, shuffling the energy back and forth between the two primary "hemispheres". If this process matches the cavity space... something separate to the dipole radiation that is trapped regeneratively in that space... the energy will create a temporary soliton. Please note this picture does not include "spin"... it exists but for simplicity I have avoided mentioning it here but you know I have treated this topic previously.
There is no need to have a physical box (mirror) surrounding this event. You can and it works but physical boxes will have problems through dissipation processes. Dr. Taco Visser has shown this is the realm of "Singular Optics" and these regions are "holes" in the solution of the equations of electromagnetism, underspecified boundary conditions due to IMHO insufficient physical dimensions. Solutions in these regions lead to null boundary conditions. The interior of these regions can have multiple solutions which are periodic. The two dimensional spherical surface of these solitons are regions where you have the appearance of topological charge. The space surrounding these surfaces have "anomalous" refractive index (even in free space) leading to Instanton solutions I have remarked about before.
Back to the bubble analogy... blowing with sufficient continuous force on the soap ring will cause the spontaneous appearance of "many" sequential bubbles without "piercing" the original bubble surface on the ring. The successive bubbles simply nip off with a necking action reforming the original film on the ring. Please note that ideally this film does not break, it continually reforms by necking off the newly emitted bubble. Below a certain level of "force"... read impulse... all that the blowing does is inflate a single bubble which can grow. The correct "impulse" will cause the shedding of "quanta" of fixed size in the context of quantum theory. To perform this task you need a system that replicates the spatial geometry... an antenna for photons or a soap bubble ring for soap bubbles of an appropriate size. This constant of proportionality in electromagnetic theory is called Planck's Constant and its units are natively units of impulse. Unless you do something about this energy connected to the source it will not separate from that source. In the context of bubbles we "wave" the ring snapping off the bubble. In the atomic case we rely on the process of quantum emission providing the correct "impulse". For bubbles stopping the blowing action will allow the bubble to "deflate" back to the source. As I have said... atomic processes are quantized where photons are accepted as whole quanta or they are ignored. They are also emitted as whole quanta or they are retained. It is possible for some ofthe energy to be redirected inside the system into momentum exchanges and elastic recoil ... carrying away some of the energy of the original photon (but that is after the absorption process).
... Click to enlarge...
This image from MIT shows the action of the electric field lines about to "nip" off in the process of the spontaneous expansion that occurs at light speed. This will not happen if the forward velocity of the EM wave is too slow or even too fast. In effect the radial speed of the expansion of a bubble can cause a necking in the field lines forming complete conservative "bubble loops" as shown happening in this illustration above just before the right hand side continues on as an expanding EM pancake of co-moving photons and the left hand side inductively snaps back into the source carrying some of the original energy with it to add to the next expansion. Between the evanescent field and the far field the forward velocity rapidly progresses from infinity to the speed of light. These infinite velocities in the evanescent region are coming from "our uncanceled future". The spreading external waves in the Fresnel and then the Fraunhofer Region are the retarded waves coming from "our uncanceled past" according to Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. Externally this process of conservation resolves "event paradox".
All this together produce this...
Reduced image thanks to Zephir.
This discussion is heading toward trying to show that charges are entirely topological and are similar to this process shown here in my "mud map".
... Click to enlarge...
There is more than a passing resemblance to "Falaco Solitons"...
I have taken the liberty to show three dimensions as only two dimensions and I have simplified some aspects of this but you can see that charge is seen as a topological process on the two dimensional surface of a sphere. The embedding of the wave of the photon is very important as to the description of this as an electric or a magnetic effect... as shown it is "charge". The electron can them be considered as the higher dimensional equivalent of this topological process...
For more about the Hubius Helix and these ideas look again in these references..
"The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
... and...
"Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?":J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
These are lower dimensional equivalents of these structures which I think are found in "particles", in particular the electron.
Cheers
I will attempt to extend this idea further with some notes to be cautions of thinking about this not as soap bubbles but as electromagnetism. Where I can draw some analogy I will, but try not to think about "soap" but electromagnetism. There is some very considerable differences between a bowl of dilute detergent and spacetime and between a plastic bubble ring blower and an electromagnetic machine. It also seems that some have not seen this child's toy in action... that is also a problem. One thing that seems certain is that this "stuff" that is being moved does not go pop like a soap bubble. Inflating a true evanescent bubble of electromagnetic energy slowly is in no danger of going pop but there are limits when there are materials available to react in that space... You can get a flash over discharge for instance. The "event horizon" of a single expanding quantum event is a "little different" to a pretty spherical soap bubble floating over the dandelions in the light breeze. For one thing all phenomena on the surface of that "event horizon" remain "frozen" in time through Special Relativity.
In the absence of dissipative elements the inductive field can be inflated "apparently" forever as long as a source of "power" is applied. If the frequency is sufficiently low and does not reverse polarity (including DC or static fields) there is no limit to the amount of energy that could be stored in that volumetric space near the source... this is a "cavity" in a analogous way to a bubble expressing aspects of a cavity. These electromagnetic cavities are a far more abstract space.. a Hilbert Space.
Thinking only of the ideal situation... Cutting that "power source" off from an "attached" bubble only allows the energy to flow back from the external (1/2 wavelength) space into the source dissipating its "resources" in there if it can find an "element" to dissipate into. In the ideal case, and this includes isolated atoms, there is sometimes no available dissipative element in its immediate Universe as defined by the Lagrangian. I do not want to offend anyone here, and it is not meant to be a criticism, but as I have been saying that "our three dimensional universe (plus time)" is defined by processes that are by their very nature "conservative" and represents paths of least action within the confines of available dimensional space, that is within a hypersurface. All conventional energy processes will be confined to the "hypersurface" of our Universe", three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension at a time, by a restraining "pressure" caused by the light cone wall. There are more dimensions and in one respect we are "seeing" them. Pushing on this light cone wall only results in the appearance of electromagnetic forces. We interpret this as "virtual charge". This is the origin of photons as being the force carriers of our Universe. They can propagate or they can be trapped within space. In both cases they transfer force from place to place. In the case of "inductive" processes they can trap energy in the surrounding space and this energy can be returned to source. This is the origin of cavity resonance when the periods of "inflation" matches the period of "deflation" accompanied by a suitable complex temporal and spatial phase delay. In dipole radiation the left and right sides of this system (shown above - phase not indicated) cross feed on 1/2 a wavelength, shuffling the energy back and forth between the two primary "hemispheres". If this process matches the cavity space... something separate to the dipole radiation that is trapped regeneratively in that space... the energy will create a temporary soliton. Please note this picture does not include "spin"... it exists but for simplicity I have avoided mentioning it here but you know I have treated this topic previously.
There is no need to have a physical box (mirror) surrounding this event. You can and it works but physical boxes will have problems through dissipation processes. Dr. Taco Visser has shown this is the realm of "Singular Optics" and these regions are "holes" in the solution of the equations of electromagnetism, underspecified boundary conditions due to IMHO insufficient physical dimensions. Solutions in these regions lead to null boundary conditions. The interior of these regions can have multiple solutions which are periodic. The two dimensional spherical surface of these solitons are regions where you have the appearance of topological charge. The space surrounding these surfaces have "anomalous" refractive index (even in free space) leading to Instanton solutions I have remarked about before.
Back to the bubble analogy... blowing with sufficient continuous force on the soap ring will cause the spontaneous appearance of "many" sequential bubbles without "piercing" the original bubble surface on the ring. The successive bubbles simply nip off with a necking action reforming the original film on the ring. Please note that ideally this film does not break, it continually reforms by necking off the newly emitted bubble. Below a certain level of "force"... read impulse... all that the blowing does is inflate a single bubble which can grow. The correct "impulse" will cause the shedding of "quanta" of fixed size in the context of quantum theory. To perform this task you need a system that replicates the spatial geometry... an antenna for photons or a soap bubble ring for soap bubbles of an appropriate size. This constant of proportionality in electromagnetic theory is called Planck's Constant and its units are natively units of impulse. Unless you do something about this energy connected to the source it will not separate from that source. In the context of bubbles we "wave" the ring snapping off the bubble. In the atomic case we rely on the process of quantum emission providing the correct "impulse". For bubbles stopping the blowing action will allow the bubble to "deflate" back to the source. As I have said... atomic processes are quantized where photons are accepted as whole quanta or they are ignored. They are also emitted as whole quanta or they are retained. It is possible for some ofthe energy to be redirected inside the system into momentum exchanges and elastic recoil ... carrying away some of the energy of the original photon (but that is after the absorption process).
... Click to enlarge...
This image from MIT shows the action of the electric field lines about to "nip" off in the process of the spontaneous expansion that occurs at light speed. This will not happen if the forward velocity of the EM wave is too slow or even too fast. In effect the radial speed of the expansion of a bubble can cause a necking in the field lines forming complete conservative "bubble loops" as shown happening in this illustration above just before the right hand side continues on as an expanding EM pancake of co-moving photons and the left hand side inductively snaps back into the source carrying some of the original energy with it to add to the next expansion. Between the evanescent field and the far field the forward velocity rapidly progresses from infinity to the speed of light. These infinite velocities in the evanescent region are coming from "our uncanceled future". The spreading external waves in the Fresnel and then the Fraunhofer Region are the retarded waves coming from "our uncanceled past" according to Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. Externally this process of conservation resolves "event paradox".
All this together produce this...
Reduced image thanks to Zephir.
This discussion is heading toward trying to show that charges are entirely topological and are similar to this process shown here in my "mud map".
... Click to enlarge...
There is more than a passing resemblance to "Falaco Solitons"...
I have taken the liberty to show three dimensions as only two dimensions and I have simplified some aspects of this but you can see that charge is seen as a topological process on the two dimensional surface of a sphere. The embedding of the wave of the photon is very important as to the description of this as an electric or a magnetic effect... as shown it is "charge". The electron can them be considered as the higher dimensional equivalent of this topological process...
For more about the Hubius Helix and these ideas look again in these references..
"The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
... and...
"Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?":J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
These are lower dimensional equivalents of these structures which I think are found in "particles", in particular the electron.
Cheers
Hi janrinze, "THEY", Laserlight, Jal, Confused2, Zephir, yquantum, TRoc, Montec, Neil Farbstein, et al,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
We have a cavity (the ring). We have an EM field (the soap film). We have a fixed amount of energy which represents the photon (the wind force).
If the minimum amount of wind energy to blow a full bubble represents the energy of a single photon, then you can repeat blowing individual photons all day long at regular periodic intervals. So, in this minimalist case an enclosed bubble is a closed energy system of finite bounds with repeatable fixed stresses.
The bubbles will all be the same size because they have the same energy content. No problem, these are individual photons.
If the minimum amount of wind energy to blow a full bubble represents the energy of a single photon, then you can repeat blowing individual photons all day long at regular periodic intervals. So, in this minimalist case an enclosed bubble is a closed energy system of finite bounds with repeatable fixed stresses.
The bubbles will all be the same size because they have the same energy content. No problem, these are individual photons.
Your process will not detach the quanta spontaneously. Consider that to "nip" off a whole bubble of a fixed size "repeatedly" using a bubble machine you require more energy than the energy to simply inflate it to the correct size... Agreed? In point of fact an attached bubble the size of a "bubble quanta" does not spontaneously detach at all (at least not in zero gravity). The detaching process involves "packeting" the bubble in a complete shell. This involves the "packet" having a forward momentum. Photons have that momentum without the mass. This involves an impulse (as noted above... Impulse is change in momentum) and this contains only the higher frequency harmonics (upper side band). In Fourier terms... While it contains the fundamental frequency it contains an energy spectrum of harmonics in the extra frequency components to "complete" the quanta... This energy is contained in that last "snap" action when it detaches... the higher frequencies.
Wikipedia: Impulse
The units of Planck's Constant are natural Impulse Units of Joule seconds imparting the change in momentum (a boost). No boost... No separation of the "packet".
Wikipedia: Planck's Constant
The shape of individual photons due to spreading is the shape of the spreading sync pulse on the wavefront... a kind of convex pancake shape in the ideal case depending on the "modes" that it possesses. It cannot "spread" in the longitudinal direction (wavelength of photons are fixed) but it can obviously spread in the spatial directions orthogonal to the direction of propagation. Spreading photons all occupy the same space (property of coherent bosons) but they do not end up in the same destinations due to individual Berry Phase which can only be understood in hindsight since any attempt to determine it before the detection will "collapse the individual photon wavefront"
Wikipedia: Impulse
The units of Planck's Constant are natural Impulse Units of Joule seconds imparting the change in momentum (a boost). No boost... No separation of the "packet".
Wikipedia: Planck's Constant
The shape of individual photons due to spreading is the shape of the spreading sync pulse on the wavefront... a kind of convex pancake shape in the ideal case depending on the "modes" that it possesses. It cannot "spread" in the longitudinal direction (wavelength of photons are fixed) but it can obviously spread in the spatial directions orthogonal to the direction of propagation. Spreading photons all occupy the same space (property of coherent bosons) but they do not end up in the same destinations due to individual Berry Phase which can only be understood in hindsight since any attempt to determine it before the detection will "collapse the individual photon wavefront"
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
The total energy exists within the same time envelope but can it be divided?
If instead of a bubble we use a balloon, then the energy trapped in the balloon can
be tapped in more than one location or time to generate (release) other individual photons that can be separated from the original time event.
If instead of a bubble we use a balloon, then the energy trapped in the balloon can
be tapped in more than one location or time to generate (release) other individual photons that can be separated from the original time event.
Photons can be absorbed and divided but they lose the information from the source. They usually are no longer coherent. Otherwise they are indestructible. Photons exist entirely on the wall of the light cone. They cannot be changed and they resist by placing an impenetrable 'wall" of the speed of light between us and them. By the same means since time is "stopped" for them nothing can change while in that state. It is the quantum stationary state.
Cheers
Cheers
Hmmmm, we seem to be going in circles, always coming back to the same
point. We are trapped on a sphere while running inside a hamster wheel.
LL
point. We are trapped on a sphere while running inside a hamster wheel.
LL
Hi LaserLight,
QUOTE (LaserLight+)
Hmmmm, we seem to be going in circles, always coming back to the same point. We are trapped on a sphere while running inside a hamster wheel.
Photons are the special case of the only entity that travels at the speed of light. In my theory there really is nothing else to construct stuff out of and you must admit that it is very "hard" when you push against the light cone wall. The concept of a "particle" as a trapped photon limits the group velocity of the "particle" to less than the speed of light while internally the entire wave packet is composed of that same light photon propagating inside that "surface" still internally at the speed of light and spreading inside its own flatspace.
The other point is when I say "inside" or "outside" of a "particle" it is to be understood that this is only a surface that we are speaking of (hypersurface) and there really is "nothing" in that undefined space half way from diametrically opposite sides of the two dimensional surface of the spherical "particle", everything including the energy is "in" the flatspace of the apparently two dimensional surface. Inside the fermion particle the photon is propagating as a wave with its characteristic frequency in its domain and the external expression of this is the evanescent wavenumber propagating in its reciprocal space as an inductive field whose relative velocity radically alters this wavenumber as a pseudo-frequency according to the de Broglie Hypothesis.
... note the reciprocal relationship... velocity is inversely proportional to wavelength as it should be with reciprocal space...
Special Relativity has a low velocity expression as de Broglie's Hypothesis.. as V -> 0 , λ -> infinity. Also as V -> C, λ -> 0. Wrapping on C and 0 velocity as "dual". Also note the natural inclusion of the appearance of mass with curvature (de Broglie Equation above). No curvature ... no mass. It explains completely why photons "fall" just like any "material particles" in a "gravity field" even though they have no mass. The "gravity field" is curvature as is the "particle" is also curvature. Indeed acceleration is curvature making the equivalence principle apply to all "particles" and to all manifolds at all scales, a true gauge theory. Because it is "optics" it is also a Holographic Theory.
They are the two sides of a brane. in our three dimensional Universe light propagates on the surface of the brane and has a frequency and its expression is the electric and magnetic fields. As seen from a co-tangential space this "Universe" we are in will appear as a tiny sub-atomic particle and this photon of light now appears confined to compact dimensions and evanescent and its wave tunneling into our space as a wavenumber.
This is how you construct all the particles in our Universe...
[
From: P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
All that is wrong with this existing concept is it is "inside out".
Unlike other String Theories it does not require a Planck Length and there is nothing that is not able to be proven using current science since all of this Physics is not hidden way down at that unreachable level due to the reciprocal nature of these spaces. Big things are small and small things are large as seen from an external frame of reference. This accords with the AdS-CFT. The facts about this model are actually already known and experiments are supporting this idea all the time. Unfortunately due to current quantum theory it is like those blind men trying to work out what an elephant looks like by feeling the separate parts. In this scheme there "appears" to be nothing left out. Do you agree? It is "pure" optics with a twist, unified entirely using electromagnetic theory and wave - particle Fourier concepts.
What is it you disagree with? Point to the error. I know you do not like it but you have never said why. Please have a go and try to suggest any contrary physical evidence. All others welcome too.
Cheers
The other point is when I say "inside" or "outside" of a "particle" it is to be understood that this is only a surface that we are speaking of (hypersurface) and there really is "nothing" in that undefined space half way from diametrically opposite sides of the two dimensional surface of the spherical "particle", everything including the energy is "in" the flatspace of the apparently two dimensional surface. Inside the fermion particle the photon is propagating as a wave with its characteristic frequency in its domain and the external expression of this is the evanescent wavenumber propagating in its reciprocal space as an inductive field whose relative velocity radically alters this wavenumber as a pseudo-frequency according to the de Broglie Hypothesis.
... note the reciprocal relationship... velocity is inversely proportional to wavelength as it should be with reciprocal space...
Special Relativity has a low velocity expression as de Broglie's Hypothesis.. as V -> 0 , λ -> infinity. Also as V -> C, λ -> 0. Wrapping on C and 0 velocity as "dual". Also note the natural inclusion of the appearance of mass with curvature (de Broglie Equation above). No curvature ... no mass. It explains completely why photons "fall" just like any "material particles" in a "gravity field" even though they have no mass. The "gravity field" is curvature as is the "particle" is also curvature. Indeed acceleration is curvature making the equivalence principle apply to all "particles" and to all manifolds at all scales, a true gauge theory. Because it is "optics" it is also a Holographic Theory.
They are the two sides of a brane. in our three dimensional Universe light propagates on the surface of the brane and has a frequency and its expression is the electric and magnetic fields. As seen from a co-tangential space this "Universe" we are in will appear as a tiny sub-atomic particle and this photon of light now appears confined to compact dimensions and evanescent and its wave tunneling into our space as a wavenumber.
This is how you construct all the particles in our Universe...
[
From: P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
All that is wrong with this existing concept is it is "inside out".
Unlike other String Theories it does not require a Planck Length and there is nothing that is not able to be proven using current science since all of this Physics is not hidden way down at that unreachable level due to the reciprocal nature of these spaces. Big things are small and small things are large as seen from an external frame of reference. This accords with the AdS-CFT. The facts about this model are actually already known and experiments are supporting this idea all the time. Unfortunately due to current quantum theory it is like those blind men trying to work out what an elephant looks like by feeling the separate parts. In this scheme there "appears" to be nothing left out. Do you agree? It is "pure" optics with a twist, unified entirely using electromagnetic theory and wave - particle Fourier concepts.
What is it you disagree with? Point to the error. I know you do not like it but you have never said why. Please have a go and try to suggest any contrary physical evidence. All others welcome too.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
Could you just walk your idea through the DSE test.
1/ Preserving equality between the two slits
2/ Showing interference where several wavefronts.coincide.
The spatial Fourier transform requires a continuous excitation - I don't think you are proposing that.
If you have a spreading wave then could you clarify how it 'collects up' at a point. and removes all wave energy from the rest of the system/universe.
I'll give my run-through of a lightcone and the DSE - for convenience I'll use pinholes.
1/ The Whatever divides equally between the pinholes
2/ The Whatever expands at c from the pinholes and reaches the screen after c/D seconds - initially there are two points on the screen - would anyone like to take over from here?
If 'whatever' goes off somewhere else - can you (again) clarify why/how it knows how to come back with the right answers.
Best wishes -C2.
Could you just walk your idea through the DSE test.
1/ Preserving equality between the two slits
2/ Showing interference where several wavefronts.coincide.
The spatial Fourier transform requires a continuous excitation - I don't think you are proposing that.
If you have a spreading wave then could you clarify how it 'collects up' at a point. and removes all wave energy from the rest of the system/universe.
I'll give my run-through of a lightcone and the DSE - for convenience I'll use pinholes.
1/ The Whatever divides equally between the pinholes
2/ The Whatever expands at c from the pinholes and reaches the screen after c/D seconds - initially there are two points on the screen - would anyone like to take over from here?
If 'whatever' goes off somewhere else - can you (again) clarify why/how it knows how to come back with the right answers.
Best wishes -C2.
GE,
I will read it again. It is not intuitively apparent, IMHO.
Could you explain it to your grandmother, so that it made sense to her?
LL
I will read it again. It is not intuitively apparent, IMHO.
Could you explain it to your grandmother, so that it made sense to her?
LL
Hi all,
My 2-cents are this: A while back, GE was a little "offended" at referring to his ideas as "Elf Theory", and inferred that it wasn't ready for "theory" status. It is still far from ready, IMO. What GE has, from what I know, is a lot of experience, and intelligence. Anybody who "studies" QM is BOUND to run into conceptual problems, because the current interpretation (Copenhagen) is so poorly constructed. Gathering from the mountains of data that is available (instantly) to us, it is easy to piece together, part by part, specific places where QM fails.
Being "raised" on this Science does not help. Every independent thinker along the way was told, "shut up and calculate". Re-interpreting all of the key experiments that demonstrate fundamental phenomenon is no small matter.
At any rate, it is good to see so many "seeds" have germinated in the GE garden. I would only advise that for every new "plant" that you add, that you remove something from "the back row". This requires quite a bit of thinking, reasoning, and deductive logic, but it must be done. The "judges" don't give awards for "the most variety". They want to see a "theme"; this means Occam's razor should cut a single path of explanation through a set of cohesive parts.
To keep it simple, for starters I would say that you talk very frequently about "photon spreading", yet offer nothing to explain it specifically. You will also need an explanation for why it does not spread, in some cases. This should apply to both "single photons", and large packets, beams, etc.
You have gathered many insights along the way. Build around them, and be "bullish" about pulling weeds that have grown in your garden. They were not put there by you, but they need to go anyway.
regards,
T.Roc
My 2-cents are this: A while back, GE was a little "offended" at referring to his ideas as "Elf Theory", and inferred that it wasn't ready for "theory" status. It is still far from ready, IMO. What GE has, from what I know, is a lot of experience, and intelligence. Anybody who "studies" QM is BOUND to run into conceptual problems, because the current interpretation (Copenhagen) is so poorly constructed. Gathering from the mountains of data that is available (instantly) to us, it is easy to piece together, part by part, specific places where QM fails.
Being "raised" on this Science does not help. Every independent thinker along the way was told, "shut up and calculate". Re-interpreting all of the key experiments that demonstrate fundamental phenomenon is no small matter.
At any rate, it is good to see so many "seeds" have germinated in the GE garden. I would only advise that for every new "plant" that you add, that you remove something from "the back row". This requires quite a bit of thinking, reasoning, and deductive logic, but it must be done. The "judges" don't give awards for "the most variety". They want to see a "theme"; this means Occam's razor should cut a single path of explanation through a set of cohesive parts.
To keep it simple, for starters I would say that you talk very frequently about "photon spreading", yet offer nothing to explain it specifically. You will also need an explanation for why it does not spread, in some cases. This should apply to both "single photons", and large packets, beams, etc.
You have gathered many insights along the way. Build around them, and be "bullish" about pulling weeds that have grown in your garden. They were not put there by you, but they need to go anyway.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc the Gardener, GE, and ALL,
A critique:
We are "selling" ideas/concepts.
A theory should tell a "story" that anyone can understand. Using the syntax of
What, Why, Where, When, and How.
It is an argument that supports your position and is directed at a target audience to convince
them with a logical step by step storyline. I find it more convincing to lead the
audience where you want them to go, not confuse them with abstractions or
unfamiliar topics. If you lose your audience, you lose your argument....
The interactive inclusion of the audience keeps them interested and involved.
The idea is to convince the jury/audience that you have a solid airtight case,
ask is any trial lawyer.
Perhaps by building the argument a chapter at a time (bitesize chunks) and
having the audience "participate" in fine tuning or discussing major points, potential
flaws or inconsistencies can be "weeded" out.
Like any good mystery, the last chapter brings all the clues together in a
synopsys, and presents/offers the final solution.
We are after the truth, the more simply it is explained the easier it is to
agree or disagree, and you must be willing to directly answer questions
under cross examination, not change the subject in a different direction.
JMHO,
LL
A critique:
We are "selling" ideas/concepts.
A theory should tell a "story" that anyone can understand. Using the syntax of
What, Why, Where, When, and How.
It is an argument that supports your position and is directed at a target audience to convince
them with a logical step by step storyline. I find it more convincing to lead the
audience where you want them to go, not confuse them with abstractions or
unfamiliar topics. If you lose your audience, you lose your argument....
The interactive inclusion of the audience keeps them interested and involved.
The idea is to convince the jury/audience that you have a solid airtight case,
ask is any trial lawyer.
Perhaps by building the argument a chapter at a time (bitesize chunks) and
having the audience "participate" in fine tuning or discussing major points, potential
flaws or inconsistencies can be "weeded" out.
Like any good mystery, the last chapter brings all the clues together in a
synopsys, and presents/offers the final solution.
We are after the truth, the more simply it is explained the easier it is to
agree or disagree, and you must be willing to directly answer questions
under cross examination, not change the subject in a different direction.
JMHO,
LL
GE,
A response to your statement:
In the case of the bubble stress, surface tension, and forward velocity, come into
play to seal the bubble. You apparently didn't read the comment that applying
more air in the same amount of time increases the size of the bubble, but
we are using this instance as an analogy.
In the case of radiating EM waves, the sinewave phase change reversal within
the antenna acts as the "zipper" to seal the "EM bubble" before a new
impulse starts on the continuous AC wavetrain. IMO, the extended and projected EM
field cannot collapse as fast as the driving sinewave phase energy that is internal
to the antenna. Once the AC coupled field is radiated from the antenna it is "gone",
totally separated from the physical antenna structure, because the phase direction
and the field polarity changes with the driving AC signal within the antenna.
Oppositely, a DC field will collapse back onto the antenna if the driving current is
removed. A finite field will build and remain "static", as long as constant DC
current is traveling thru the wire/antenna. Once current flow is removed the field
will collapse back into the conductor and temporarily sustain the current flow
induced back into the "antenna"/wire. I understand that you know the mechanisms
at play....I just wanted to insure everyone was on the same "page".
Comments, discussion?
LL
A response to your statement:
QUOTE
QUOTE (Laserlight)
We have a cavity (the ring). We have an EM field (the soap film). We have a fixed amount of energy which represents the photon (the wind force).
If the minimum amount of wind energy to blow a full bubble represents the energy of a single photon, then you can repeat blowing individual photons all day long at regular periodic intervals. So, in this minimalist case an enclosed bubble is a closed energy system of finite bounds with repeatable fixed stresses.
The bubbles will all be the same size because they have the same energy content. No problem, these are individual photons.
--------
(Good Elf)
Your process will not detach the quanta spontaneously. Consider that to "nip" off a whole bubble of a fixed size "repeatedly" using a bubble machine you require more energy than the energy to simply inflate it to the correct size... Agreed? In point of fact an attached bubble the size of a "bubble quanta" does not spontaneously detach at all (at least not in zero gravity). The detaching process involves "packeting" the bubble in a complete shell. This involves the "packet" having a forward momentum. Photons have that momentum without the mass. This involves an impulse (as noted above... Impulse is change in momentum) and this contains only the higher frequency harmonics (upper side band). In Fourier terms... While it contains the fundamental frequency it contains an energy spectrum of harmonics in the extra frequency components to "complete" the quanta... This energy is contained in that last "snap" action when it detaches... the higher frequencies
We have a cavity (the ring). We have an EM field (the soap film). We have a fixed amount of energy which represents the photon (the wind force).
If the minimum amount of wind energy to blow a full bubble represents the energy of a single photon, then you can repeat blowing individual photons all day long at regular periodic intervals. So, in this minimalist case an enclosed bubble is a closed energy system of finite bounds with repeatable fixed stresses.
The bubbles will all be the same size because they have the same energy content. No problem, these are individual photons.
--------
(Good Elf)
Your process will not detach the quanta spontaneously. Consider that to "nip" off a whole bubble of a fixed size "repeatedly" using a bubble machine you require more energy than the energy to simply inflate it to the correct size... Agreed? In point of fact an attached bubble the size of a "bubble quanta" does not spontaneously detach at all (at least not in zero gravity). The detaching process involves "packeting" the bubble in a complete shell. This involves the "packet" having a forward momentum. Photons have that momentum without the mass. This involves an impulse (as noted above... Impulse is change in momentum) and this contains only the higher frequency harmonics (upper side band). In Fourier terms... While it contains the fundamental frequency it contains an energy spectrum of harmonics in the extra frequency components to "complete" the quanta... This energy is contained in that last "snap" action when it detaches... the higher frequencies
In the case of the bubble stress, surface tension, and forward velocity, come into
play to seal the bubble. You apparently didn't read the comment that applying
more air in the same amount of time increases the size of the bubble, but
we are using this instance as an analogy.
In the case of radiating EM waves, the sinewave phase change reversal within
the antenna acts as the "zipper" to seal the "EM bubble" before a new
impulse starts on the continuous AC wavetrain. IMO, the extended and projected EM
field cannot collapse as fast as the driving sinewave phase energy that is internal
to the antenna. Once the AC coupled field is radiated from the antenna it is "gone",
totally separated from the physical antenna structure, because the phase direction
and the field polarity changes with the driving AC signal within the antenna.
Oppositely, a DC field will collapse back onto the antenna if the driving current is
removed. A finite field will build and remain "static", as long as constant DC
current is traveling thru the wire/antenna. Once current flow is removed the field
will collapse back into the conductor and temporarily sustain the current flow
induced back into the "antenna"/wire. I understand that you know the mechanisms
at play....I just wanted to insure everyone was on the same "page".
Comments, discussion?
LL
Hi LaserLight and Confused2,
I will give your questions strong consideration. I can answer one query right off the cuff simply because it is the core argument...
Hi LaserLight,
I will give your questions strong consideration. I can answer one query right off the cuff simply because it is the core argument...
QUOTE (Confused2+)
The spatial Fourier transform requires a continuous excitation - I don't think you are proposing that.
Fourier Transforms must be "periodic" not continuously excited. This is simply a mapping in reciprocal space from time ... to frequency (reciprocal time) which is 'periodic" and 'harmonic". So the transform is per single photon and by induction for all photons or combinations of photons (continuous waves)... The spatial transforms you have been looking at are time independent and are single image "static" transforms such as in my illustration where you see "Input Plane"... the 35mm slide transparency...
...Click to enlarge...
... and not real world spatial and temporal transforms in higher dimensions. Fourier Technique can be extended arbitrarily to any number of dimensions to any surface (specifically the sphere in more dimensions) without any loss or approximation and therefore is the natural 'currency" of higher dimensional physics rather than tensor algebra which fails as soon as any finite deformation is applied. In comparison to "reality" this is a "Toy" illustrating principles only to gain understanding. Remember even our laws of kinematics are also "toys" and do not take into account every possible "generalization". Recall that our Universe include living processes are not to be compared with a 35mm slide transparency. Just think about this problem in more dimensions.
...Click to enlarge...
It is an essential component of the problem that the 'impulse" is a wavelet in the frequency domain. The wavelet and not the impulse can pass both slits. This is why it is essential to understand why the "packet" is not BOTH a wave and a particle at the same time. This is also why its interference phenomena which is related to resonance in cavities requires one and not more than one photon for the "effect" of the DSE, waves pass through both slits while particles cannot. This simple sync function in the Laplace Domain then becomes a superposition of a large number of harmonic upper band frequencies in the Fourier Domain (including a fundamental frequency) which sum to that sync function you see here (same function different representation). mathematically complex (in both ways) but computationally transparent.
Very quickly... LaserLight... the propagation velocity of waves in the longitudinal (propagation) direction equals the speed of light but the phase velocity perpendicular to the propagation direction is infinite. This is why a wavelet collapses instantly along the wavefront for individual photons being absorbed.
Must get back to work. I hope this helps.
Cheers
...Click to enlarge...
... and not real world spatial and temporal transforms in higher dimensions. Fourier Technique can be extended arbitrarily to any number of dimensions to any surface (specifically the sphere in more dimensions) without any loss or approximation and therefore is the natural 'currency" of higher dimensional physics rather than tensor algebra which fails as soon as any finite deformation is applied. In comparison to "reality" this is a "Toy" illustrating principles only to gain understanding. Remember even our laws of kinematics are also "toys" and do not take into account every possible "generalization". Recall that our Universe include living processes are not to be compared with a 35mm slide transparency. Just think about this problem in more dimensions.
...Click to enlarge...
It is an essential component of the problem that the 'impulse" is a wavelet in the frequency domain. The wavelet and not the impulse can pass both slits. This is why it is essential to understand why the "packet" is not BOTH a wave and a particle at the same time. This is also why its interference phenomena which is related to resonance in cavities requires one and not more than one photon for the "effect" of the DSE, waves pass through both slits while particles cannot. This simple sync function in the Laplace Domain then becomes a superposition of a large number of harmonic upper band frequencies in the Fourier Domain (including a fundamental frequency) which sum to that sync function you see here (same function different representation). mathematically complex (in both ways) but computationally transparent.
Very quickly... LaserLight... the propagation velocity of waves in the longitudinal (propagation) direction equals the speed of light but the phase velocity perpendicular to the propagation direction is infinite. This is why a wavelet collapses instantly along the wavefront for individual photons being absorbed.
Must get back to work. I hope this helps.
Cheers
Duplicate post!
Hello All,
I have been giving the recent ongoing radio signal transmission discussions some
further thought. I wanted to quantify the power/amplitude measurements.
Let me propose a scenario that seems plausible, but I am actively
soliciting your responses to help explain the phenomenon.
Back to the discussion between GE and myself regarding a radio wave being
broadcast from a fixed antenna height.
If a 1200 MHz AM antenna is transmitting a constant signal at say 50K watts, then
we expect that the radio signal amplitude that is measured 1 km from the antenna
will follow the inverse square law and we will measure an amplitude of roughly
.003978 w/m^2 wave amplitude at that point. The frequency will remain the
same, but the signal as measured by an O-scope will be decreased
in amplitude.
If we travel further away and measure that wave height 10 km away we expect
the amplitude of that wave frequency to be diminished by a factor of 100M times
roughly 3.978 x 10^-5 watts/m^2. If we then measure that radiating
frequency 100 km away we expect the measured wave's energy amplitude to be
1/10,000,000,000th that of the original power or roughly 3.9789 x 10^-7 w/m^2 .
The frequency stays the same but the power (intensity) of the wave energy per
square meter decreases according to the inverse square law as it applies to
the energy being distributed over the surface area of a sphere.
This raises a potential problem. According to the ISL the wave amplitude will
dampen over distance and eventually diminish to the point of no energy.
However, the energy of a single photon of a specific frequency can not be
divided below that minimum quantum value..... At what point does the ISL fail to
apply? Is it at the point where an individual photon of specific frequency is
isolated from other photon energies, where there is 1 photon's quantum
energy per square meter of surface area?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
Comments? Explanations?
LL
I have been giving the recent ongoing radio signal transmission discussions some
further thought. I wanted to quantify the power/amplitude measurements.
Let me propose a scenario that seems plausible, but I am actively
soliciting your responses to help explain the phenomenon.
Back to the discussion between GE and myself regarding a radio wave being
broadcast from a fixed antenna height.
If a 1200 MHz AM antenna is transmitting a constant signal at say 50K watts, then
we expect that the radio signal amplitude that is measured 1 km from the antenna
will follow the inverse square law and we will measure an amplitude of roughly
.003978 w/m^2 wave amplitude at that point. The frequency will remain the
same, but the signal as measured by an O-scope will be decreased
in amplitude.
If we travel further away and measure that wave height 10 km away we expect
the amplitude of that wave frequency to be diminished by a factor of 100M times
roughly 3.978 x 10^-5 watts/m^2. If we then measure that radiating
frequency 100 km away we expect the measured wave's energy amplitude to be
1/10,000,000,000th that of the original power or roughly 3.9789 x 10^-7 w/m^2 .
The frequency stays the same but the power (intensity) of the wave energy per
square meter decreases according to the inverse square law as it applies to
the energy being distributed over the surface area of a sphere.
This raises a potential problem. According to the ISL the wave amplitude will
dampen over distance and eventually diminish to the point of no energy.
However, the energy of a single photon of a specific frequency can not be
divided below that minimum quantum value..... At what point does the ISL fail to
apply? Is it at the point where an individual photon of specific frequency is
isolated from other photon energies, where there is 1 photon's quantum
energy per square meter of surface area?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
Comments? Explanations?
LL
Hi LaserLight,QUOTE (LaserLight+)
The frequency stays the same but the power (intensity) of the wave energy per square meter decreases according to the inverse square law as it applies to the energy being distributed over the surface area of a sphere.
This raises a potential problem. According to the ISL the wave amplitude will dampen over distance and eventually diminish to the point of no energy. However, the energy of a single photon of a specific frequency can not be divided below that minimum quantum value..... At what point does the ISL fail to apply? Is it at the point where an individual photon of specific frequency is isolated from other photon energies, where there is 1 photon's quantum energy per square meter of surface area?
Regardless of the distance from source being 2mm or 2 million light years.... the reception of individual photons is 100% or 0%, there is nothing in between... If you can detect one photon with a sensitive detector you can "count" photons up to any distance from the source since each photon carries identical energy at that one frequency. The important piece of information is not detection but discrimination... noise will be a problem when there is no selectivity.
It helps to be able to distinguish signal from noise for instance if you are detecting photons of 660 nm from Alpha Centauri you may choose to reduce the noise in the signal using directional and frequency selective properties of a receiver/antenna combination. In the case of these optical photons, an optical telescope should be used and an optical sensor should be placed behind a "pinhole mask" on the image plane that admits light from the target, behind which a diffraction grating is placed. The optical sensor should be placed in a slit directly behind the 660 nm line in the single stars emission spectrum. This way the reception of even a single 660 nm photon will be guaranteed to have a significant signal to noise ratio. This is limited only by the size of the Telescope. Recently it has become possible for several telescopes to be combined to provide better spatial resolutions effectively distributing the aperture over several mirrors.
In the case of microwave radio frequencies the usual fare is to use a large parabolic antenna and a frequency selective amplifier (MASER) tuned to the exact emission frequency of interest. The amplifier is usually kept at a low temperature to reduce instrument generated noise. You can even improve on this setup using long baseline interferometry, effectively increasing the signal to noise ratio appreciably through "beam steering", a kind of planet wide double slit experiment increasing the theoretical aperture to the size of the baseline. In all these situations amplifiers that detect one photon at a time are still available. The limitation is simply on how you choose to select the required signal from out of the noise of the Universe using that 'antenna" and its directional and frequency selective properties.
The use of synthetic aperture and active antenna's (phased arrays) are other technologies to provide rich signal sources. These can work down into the infra red band and possibly into the Terahertz region (T-Rays - between Microwaves and FIR) which is still under intense military development despite severe technical difficulties because of their statrtling physical abilities.
wikipedia: Phased array
Wikipedia: Terahertz radiation
Noise is simply unwanted signal. Even the use of entanglement is a way to remove noise from a signal that is entangled. So in a sense everything is a signal and the limits to this is not the "quantum" which "preserves" signals as qubits but being able to select the specific signal you want from the unwanted signal and to amplify it. Recently the microscopic domain has given way to another "basic" limitation... the systemic loss of evanescent information from sources... well this has been defeated by the use of negative refractive index materials. Information which quantum theory one said was "fundamentally lost" has suddenly been 'found" again... how marvellous... an opportunity to rewrite all the textbooks "anew".
Cheers
This raises a potential problem. According to the ISL the wave amplitude will dampen over distance and eventually diminish to the point of no energy. However, the energy of a single photon of a specific frequency can not be divided below that minimum quantum value..... At what point does the ISL fail to apply? Is it at the point where an individual photon of specific frequency is isolated from other photon energies, where there is 1 photon's quantum energy per square meter of surface area?
Regardless of the distance from source being 2mm or 2 million light years.... the reception of individual photons is 100% or 0%, there is nothing in between... If you can detect one photon with a sensitive detector you can "count" photons up to any distance from the source since each photon carries identical energy at that one frequency. The important piece of information is not detection but discrimination... noise will be a problem when there is no selectivity.
It helps to be able to distinguish signal from noise for instance if you are detecting photons of 660 nm from Alpha Centauri you may choose to reduce the noise in the signal using directional and frequency selective properties of a receiver/antenna combination. In the case of these optical photons, an optical telescope should be used and an optical sensor should be placed behind a "pinhole mask" on the image plane that admits light from the target, behind which a diffraction grating is placed. The optical sensor should be placed in a slit directly behind the 660 nm line in the single stars emission spectrum. This way the reception of even a single 660 nm photon will be guaranteed to have a significant signal to noise ratio. This is limited only by the size of the Telescope. Recently it has become possible for several telescopes to be combined to provide better spatial resolutions effectively distributing the aperture over several mirrors.
In the case of microwave radio frequencies the usual fare is to use a large parabolic antenna and a frequency selective amplifier (MASER) tuned to the exact emission frequency of interest. The amplifier is usually kept at a low temperature to reduce instrument generated noise. You can even improve on this setup using long baseline interferometry, effectively increasing the signal to noise ratio appreciably through "beam steering", a kind of planet wide double slit experiment increasing the theoretical aperture to the size of the baseline. In all these situations amplifiers that detect one photon at a time are still available. The limitation is simply on how you choose to select the required signal from out of the noise of the Universe using that 'antenna" and its directional and frequency selective properties.
The use of synthetic aperture and active antenna's (phased arrays) are other technologies to provide rich signal sources. These can work down into the infra red band and possibly into the Terahertz region (T-Rays - between Microwaves and FIR) which is still under intense military development despite severe technical difficulties because of their statrtling physical abilities.
wikipedia: Phased array
Wikipedia: Terahertz radiation
Noise is simply unwanted signal. Even the use of entanglement is a way to remove noise from a signal that is entangled. So in a sense everything is a signal and the limits to this is not the "quantum" which "preserves" signals as qubits but being able to select the specific signal you want from the unwanted signal and to amplify it. Recently the microscopic domain has given way to another "basic" limitation... the systemic loss of evanescent information from sources... well this has been defeated by the use of negative refractive index materials. Information which quantum theory one said was "fundamentally lost" has suddenly been 'found" again... how marvellous... an opportunity to rewrite all the textbooks "anew".
Cheers
Hi all,
LL -
I completely agree, and have commented several times on it. If we had a full time moderator, it would be very smooth, and productive. Since we are all "on our own", the direction, and "memory" or "backbone" of the conversation, as a topic, is washed out.
I completely agree, and have commented several times on it. If we had a full time moderator, it would be very smooth, and productive. Since we are all "on our own", the direction, and "memory" or "backbone" of the conversation, as a topic, is washed out.
According to the ISL the wave amplitude will dampen over distance and eventually diminish to the point of no energy. However, the energy of a single photon of a specific frequency can not be divided below that minimum quantum value..... At what point does the ISL fail to apply?
Excellent question, I have thrown that out there before. I believe there is a strong correlation with the Minimum Distance papers that jal has been linking to. There are other limitations as well, in a similar vein to the dimensional limits of Huygens' Principle.
The ISL only decreases by 1/4 per 2x distance when the wave is modeled in 3 dimensions. In 2 dimensions, it drops by 1/2 per 2x distance; and in 1 dimension (our plane wave), the amplitude remains constant. So, the question is, how do you want to model the EM wave, that is coherently "traveling" in a beam?
QM does not want to ask/answer the question of "what form" the theoretical "photon" might take. We can not "see" it in flight.
This ISL question ties in directly to the question to GE: what would make a "photon" spread, or not spread?
Also, be sure (everyone) to discriminate between "illuminance", "irradiance", "radiance", "radiant power" (flux), etc., etc. when trying to talk about "intensity", especially when used in wave terms, and a function of amplitude.
ciao,
T.Roc
LL -
QUOTE
We are after the truth, the more simply it is explained the easier it is to agree or disagree, and you must be willing to directly answer questions under cross examination, not change the subject in a different direction.
I completely agree, and have commented several times on it. If we had a full time moderator, it would be very smooth, and productive. Since we are all "on our own", the direction, and "memory" or "backbone" of the conversation, as a topic, is washed out.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We are after the truth, the more simply it is explained the easier it is to agree or disagree, and you must be willing to directly answer questions under cross examination, not change the subject in a different direction. |
I completely agree, and have commented several times on it. If we had a full time moderator, it would be very smooth, and productive. Since we are all "on our own", the direction, and "memory" or "backbone" of the conversation, as a topic, is washed out.
According to the ISL the wave amplitude will dampen over distance and eventually diminish to the point of no energy. However, the energy of a single photon of a specific frequency can not be divided below that minimum quantum value..... At what point does the ISL fail to apply?
Excellent question, I have thrown that out there before. I believe there is a strong correlation with the Minimum Distance papers that jal has been linking to. There are other limitations as well, in a similar vein to the dimensional limits of Huygens' Principle.
The ISL only decreases by 1/4 per 2x distance when the wave is modeled in 3 dimensions. In 2 dimensions, it drops by 1/2 per 2x distance; and in 1 dimension (our plane wave), the amplitude remains constant. So, the question is, how do you want to model the EM wave, that is coherently "traveling" in a beam?
QM does not want to ask/answer the question of "what form" the theoretical "photon" might take. We can not "see" it in flight.
This ISL question ties in directly to the question to GE: what would make a "photon" spread, or not spread?
Also, be sure (everyone) to discriminate between "illuminance", "irradiance", "radiance", "radiant power" (flux), etc., etc. when trying to talk about "intensity", especially when used in wave terms, and a function of amplitude.
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi All,
GE...good information.
TRoc...
I've given quite a lot of thought to the theory previously presented that
a photon spreads across the entire universe..... it is really tough to
rationalize that and the idea that when a photon collapses it does it
instantaneously in a precise localized position. I do understand the
argument that a photon has no relative time constraints to affect the
dimensions that it propagates within.
HOWEVER.... it seems much more plausible that a photon, which is propagating
at a specific fixed frequency, can only "exist" within the time synchronous EM
"boundaries" of its wavefunction. If conceptualized in that respect, of finite
limits or maximum wave "extremes", then the idea of instantaneous wave collapse
at a point of detection works from a theoretical perspective.
I am proposing that a photon has a finite, maximum, wave dimension
which does not vary, and matches the photon frequency that can be accurately
measured at any point in time.
Under this scenario, the limits of the oscillating waveform are determined by the field amplitudes and timing duration.
I know this goes against "theory", but it is a simple explanation and it works under
the conditions of the ISL where a single photon only presents a fixed packet
of qubit information about a specific discrete impulse event that occured at some
moment in time billions of light years prior to being detected. In the case of
a stream of coherent "cycling" photons (ray), the qubit information being
propagated will be sequentially detected as a continous photon "spot" of constant
intensity at the detector.
This conceptual description also supports my contention that when the photon's
EM fields collapse, they do so along the centerline zero axis of the EM waveform.
It just all fits without inexplicable complications or the need for "unique"
alternative solutions. It does bring into question what constitutes a "wave"
as it relates to a photon.
Under my scenario multiple photons can spread to make up an expanding wave
front, but a single photon has dimensional limits that cannot be exceeded.
Once the the photons that make up the wavefront separate, per the ISL, they lose
their mutual coherence/entanglement properties and they are no longer a part of
the expanding energy of the wave....it is gone....dissipated to its least common
value which is the minimal energy of individual photon quantum events/qubits.
Comments, discussion?
LL
GE...good information.
TRoc...
QUOTE
This ISL question ties in directly to the question to GE: what would make a "photon" spread, or not spread?
I've given quite a lot of thought to the theory previously presented that
a photon spreads across the entire universe..... it is really tough to
rationalize that and the idea that when a photon collapses it does it
instantaneously in a precise localized position. I do understand the
argument that a photon has no relative time constraints to affect the
dimensions that it propagates within.
HOWEVER.... it seems much more plausible that a photon, which is propagating
at a specific fixed frequency, can only "exist" within the time synchronous EM
"boundaries" of its wavefunction. If conceptualized in that respect, of finite
limits or maximum wave "extremes", then the idea of instantaneous wave collapse
at a point of detection works from a theoretical perspective.
I am proposing that a photon has a finite, maximum, wave dimension
which does not vary, and matches the photon frequency that can be accurately
measured at any point in time.
Under this scenario, the limits of the oscillating waveform are determined by the field amplitudes and timing duration.
I know this goes against "theory", but it is a simple explanation and it works under
the conditions of the ISL where a single photon only presents a fixed packet
of qubit information about a specific discrete impulse event that occured at some
moment in time billions of light years prior to being detected. In the case of
a stream of coherent "cycling" photons (ray), the qubit information being
propagated will be sequentially detected as a continous photon "spot" of constant
intensity at the detector.
This conceptual description also supports my contention that when the photon's
EM fields collapse, they do so along the centerline zero axis of the EM waveform.
It just all fits without inexplicable complications or the need for "unique"
alternative solutions. It does bring into question what constitutes a "wave"
as it relates to a photon.
Under my scenario multiple photons can spread to make up an expanding wave
front, but a single photon has dimensional limits that cannot be exceeded.
Once the the photons that make up the wavefront separate, per the ISL, they lose
their mutual coherence/entanglement properties and they are no longer a part of
the expanding energy of the wave....it is gone....dissipated to its least common
value which is the minimal energy of individual photon quantum events/qubits.
Comments, discussion?
LL
Hi Laserlight, Confused2, and TRoc,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I am proposing that a photon has a finite, maximum, wave dimension which does not vary, and matches the photon frequency that can be accurately measured at any point in time.
Under this scenario, the limits of the oscillating waveform are determined by the field amplitudes and timing duration
[...]
Under my scenario multiple photons can spread to make up an expanding wave
front, but a single photon has dimensional limits that cannot be exceeded.
Once the the photons that make up the wavefront separate, per the ISL, they lose
their mutual coherence/entanglement properties and they are no longer a part of
the expanding energy of the wave....it is gone....dissipated to its least common
value which is the minimal energy of individual photon quantum events/qubits.
Under this scenario, the limits of the oscillating waveform are determined by the field amplitudes and timing duration
[...]
Under my scenario multiple photons can spread to make up an expanding wave
front, but a single photon has dimensional limits that cannot be exceeded.
Once the the photons that make up the wavefront separate, per the ISL, they lose
their mutual coherence/entanglement properties and they are no longer a part of
the expanding energy of the wave....it is gone....dissipated to its least common
value which is the minimal energy of individual photon quantum events/qubits.
This flys in the face of what is actually seen. Photons that have traveled for upwards of 13 billion years still present a "pristine" picture in deep field telescope pictures by Hubble. They are not "tired" by their long journey nor are they changing wavelength due to that trip either. I am certain that the only correction applied would be the Hubble Red Shift due to proper motion. If the photons "go" and "dissipate" after some distance due to ISL then we should not be able to see these things... there are galaxies out there and they look just like they do around this neck of the woods, only these are 13 BLY away.
On the other point of limiting the spatial (transverse) size of photons to a wavelength this would mean that photons would indeed go only through one slit in the DSE and that would happen wave or not since the wavelength of light at 660 nm is much smaller than the distance between slits. If they go through only one slit then we know that it will not produce interference!! We know that interference can occur one photon at a time therefore the photon goes through both slits so that it can interfere. What about the property of bosons to group and not disperse? Wouldn't this mean that they are traveling as "fermions"?... What happened?
I prefer the experimental and common sense approach that tells me your notion is probably wrong. Can you think of any experimental support for your thesis.
Cheers
On the other point of limiting the spatial (transverse) size of photons to a wavelength this would mean that photons would indeed go only through one slit in the DSE and that would happen wave or not since the wavelength of light at 660 nm is much smaller than the distance between slits. If they go through only one slit then we know that it will not produce interference!! We know that interference can occur one photon at a time therefore the photon goes through both slits so that it can interfere. What about the property of bosons to group and not disperse? Wouldn't this mean that they are traveling as "fermions"?... What happened?
I prefer the experimental and common sense approach that tells me your notion is probably wrong. Can you think of any experimental support for your thesis.
Cheers
Hi GE,
I knew that you would jump on this, but that is ok...now for some discussion....
These deep field pictures are taken over many hours of exposure which provides
for resolution of the images...similar to the single photon DSE experiments where
"individual" photons eventually build up an interference pattern. So we are
effectively receiving the images 1 photon event at a time. I never said that
they were changing wavelength...I insist that they maintain their discrete quantum
wavelength.
This is an explanation for why we lose image resolution over distance and time,
it requires that many individual ray photons be collected to build up the image
so that we can observe details. Notice that the further away that the galaxies
are the less resolution/detail that can be discriminated. Individual stars appear
as single dots...at the far extreme of detection even galaxies appear as single
dots with no discernable resolution.
These deep field pictures are taken over many hours of exposure which provides
for resolution of the images...similar to the single photon DSE experiments where
"individual" photons eventually build up an interference pattern. So we are
effectively receiving the images 1 photon event at a time. I never said that
they were changing wavelength...I insist that they maintain their discrete quantum
wavelength.
This is an explanation for why we lose image resolution over distance and time,
it requires that many individual ray photons be collected to build up the image
so that we can observe details. Notice that the further away that the galaxies
are the less resolution/detail that can be discriminated. Individual stars appear
as single dots...at the far extreme of detection even galaxies appear as single
dots with no discernable resolution.
On the other point of limiting the spatial (transverse) size of photons to a wavelength this would mean that photons would indeed go only through one slit in the DSE and that would happen wave or not since the wavelength of light at 660 nm is much smaller than the distance between slits. If they go through only one slit then we know that it will not produce interference!! We know that interference can occur one photon at a time therefore the photon goes through both slits so that it can interfere. What about the property of bosons to group and not disperse? Wouldn't this mean that they are traveling as "fermions"?... What happened?
Do you recall my recent post about wave shape distortion caused by phase angle
interference between the field of the photon and the slits? If we have a wave
that interfere's with the slit tooth or slit cavity walls, there will be interference
as we discussed at length in back in January, I think one of Dr. Vissers papers
indicated as much. There also was the paper of atomic surface fields. I will
look them up tomorrow...it is late now. But as a counter argument, will an X-ray
photon that passes thru one slit of the DSE with the same dimensions
as your example, show interference? Haven't you ever wondered why, if the
slit tooth is too wide that the interference goes away? If the EM fields were filling
the space they should still interfere and present an interference pattern, but that
doesn't happen.
As for the boson's grouping... I brought up the issue in the recent ISL discussion
for a reason... The ISL is presenting problems with boson grouping over large
universal distances. IF we have an EM signal of some multiple photon amplitude
it seems apparent by the ISL and the deep space images, that something causes
the bosons to separate over distance...even a coherent laser beam will spread
over extreme distances..which means the bosons have separated and have lost
"cohesion" or entanglement. Eventually the beam will disperse and individual
photons will be discretely detected. They can be collected and refocused, as we
do with large telescopes, but essentially we are collecting individual photons and
"recombining" them spatially and temporally across a lensing medium designed
to 'reassemble" them to recreate the original pattern. This can't be done
with a flat, non-focusing medium, which is why our eyes have conical lenses
and rounded retina's. A flat piece of glass will not condense the individual
photons passing thru from an image far away into an image that has resolution
and "scale".
TRoc can explain about the beam cone dispersion that is an inherent characteristic
of laser beams, but for an example, a laser beam fired from earth will spread out
over a relatively wide area on the moon, relative to the beam width that departed
the coherent and confined beam of the laser source.
There are inconsistencies, IMO in certain elements of current theory. TRoc has
questioned some of them also.
Comments, discussion? Anyone is invited to participate.
LL
I knew that you would jump on this, but that is ok...now for some discussion....
QUOTE
This flys in the face ofwhat is seen. Photons that have traveled for upwards of 13 billion years still present a "pristine" picture in deep field telescope pictures by Hubble. If the photons "go" and "dissipate" after some distance due to ISL then we should not be able to see these things... there are galaxies out there and they look just like they do around this neck of the woods.
These deep field pictures are taken over many hours of exposure which provides
for resolution of the images...similar to the single photon DSE experiments where
"individual" photons eventually build up an interference pattern. So we are
effectively receiving the images 1 photon event at a time. I never said that
they were changing wavelength...I insist that they maintain their discrete quantum
wavelength.
This is an explanation for why we lose image resolution over distance and time,
it requires that many individual ray photons be collected to build up the image
so that we can observe details. Notice that the further away that the galaxies
are the less resolution/detail that can be discriminated. Individual stars appear
as single dots...at the far extreme of detection even galaxies appear as single
dots with no discernable resolution.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This flys in the face ofwhat is seen. Photons that have traveled for upwards of 13 billion years still present a "pristine" picture in deep field telescope pictures by Hubble. If the photons "go" and "dissipate" after some distance due to ISL then we should not be able to see these things... there are galaxies out there and they look just like they do around this neck of the woods. |
These deep field pictures are taken over many hours of exposure which provides
for resolution of the images...similar to the single photon DSE experiments where
"individual" photons eventually build up an interference pattern. So we are
effectively receiving the images 1 photon event at a time. I never said that
they were changing wavelength...I insist that they maintain their discrete quantum
wavelength.
This is an explanation for why we lose image resolution over distance and time,
it requires that many individual ray photons be collected to build up the image
so that we can observe details. Notice that the further away that the galaxies
are the less resolution/detail that can be discriminated. Individual stars appear
as single dots...at the far extreme of detection even galaxies appear as single
dots with no discernable resolution.
On the other point of limiting the spatial (transverse) size of photons to a wavelength this would mean that photons would indeed go only through one slit in the DSE and that would happen wave or not since the wavelength of light at 660 nm is much smaller than the distance between slits. If they go through only one slit then we know that it will not produce interference!! We know that interference can occur one photon at a time therefore the photon goes through both slits so that it can interfere. What about the property of bosons to group and not disperse? Wouldn't this mean that they are traveling as "fermions"?... What happened?
Do you recall my recent post about wave shape distortion caused by phase angle
interference between the field of the photon and the slits? If we have a wave
that interfere's with the slit tooth or slit cavity walls, there will be interference
as we discussed at length in back in January, I think one of Dr. Vissers papers
indicated as much. There also was the paper of atomic surface fields. I will
look them up tomorrow...it is late now. But as a counter argument, will an X-ray
photon that passes thru one slit of the DSE with the same dimensions
as your example, show interference? Haven't you ever wondered why, if the
slit tooth is too wide that the interference goes away? If the EM fields were filling
the space they should still interfere and present an interference pattern, but that
doesn't happen.
As for the boson's grouping... I brought up the issue in the recent ISL discussion
for a reason... The ISL is presenting problems with boson grouping over large
universal distances. IF we have an EM signal of some multiple photon amplitude
it seems apparent by the ISL and the deep space images, that something causes
the bosons to separate over distance...even a coherent laser beam will spread
over extreme distances..which means the bosons have separated and have lost
"cohesion" or entanglement. Eventually the beam will disperse and individual
photons will be discretely detected. They can be collected and refocused, as we
do with large telescopes, but essentially we are collecting individual photons and
"recombining" them spatially and temporally across a lensing medium designed
to 'reassemble" them to recreate the original pattern. This can't be done
with a flat, non-focusing medium, which is why our eyes have conical lenses
and rounded retina's. A flat piece of glass will not condense the individual
photons passing thru from an image far away into an image that has resolution
and "scale".
TRoc can explain about the beam cone dispersion that is an inherent characteristic
of laser beams, but for an example, a laser beam fired from earth will spread out
over a relatively wide area on the moon, relative to the beam width that departed
the coherent and confined beam of the laser source.
There are inconsistencies, IMO in certain elements of current theory. TRoc has
questioned some of them also.
Comments, discussion? Anyone is invited to participate.
LL
Hi All,
http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/content/view.page.asp?I=441
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo11/A...ments_LRRR.html
http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/content/view.page.asp?I=441
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo11/A...ments_LRRR.html
The beam in the cavity and the output beam of the laser, if they occur in free space rather than waveguides (as in an optical fiber laser), are often Gaussian beams. If the beam is not a pure Gaussian shape, the transverse modes of the beam can be described as a superposition of Hermite-Gaussian or Laguerre-Gaussian beams. The beam may be highly collimated, that is being parallel without diverging. However, a perfectly collimated beam cannot be created, due to diffraction. The beam remains collimated over a distance which varies with the square of the beam diameter, and eventually diverges at an angle which varies inversely with the beam diameter. Thus, a beam generated by a small laboratory laser such as a helium-neon laser spreads to about 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) diameter if shone from the Earth to the Moon. By comparison, the output of a typical semiconductor laser, due to its small diameter, diverges almost as soon as it leaves the aperture, at an angle of anything up to 50°. However, such a divergent beam can be transformed into a collimated beam by means of a lens. In contrast, the light from non-laser light sources cannot be collimated by optics as well or much
QUOTE
Lasers, which emit much more highly focused light beams than other light sources, attracted immediate interest. In one experiment performed in 1962, a laser beam 1 foot in diameter was aimed at the moon, 240,000 miles away, where it illuminated a surface area only two miles in diameter. A beam of ordinary light would spread so much in traveling the same distance that it would illuminate an area 25,000 miles in diameter.
http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/content/view.page.asp?I=441
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo11/A...ments_LRRR.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Lasers, which emit much more highly focused light beams than other light sources, attracted immediate interest. In one experiment performed in 1962, a laser beam 1 foot in diameter was aimed at the moon, 240,000 miles away, where it illuminated a surface area only two miles in diameter. A beam of ordinary light would spread so much in traveling the same distance that it would illuminate an area 25,000 miles in diameter. |
http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/content/view.page.asp?I=441
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo11/A...ments_LRRR.html
The beam in the cavity and the output beam of the laser, if they occur in free space rather than waveguides (as in an optical fiber laser), are often Gaussian beams. If the beam is not a pure Gaussian shape, the transverse modes of the beam can be described as a superposition of Hermite-Gaussian or Laguerre-Gaussian beams. The beam may be highly collimated, that is being parallel without diverging. However, a perfectly collimated beam cannot be created, due to diffraction. The beam remains collimated over a distance which varies with the square of the beam diameter, and eventually diverges at an angle which varies inversely with the beam diameter. Thus, a beam generated by a small laboratory laser such as a helium-neon laser spreads to about 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) diameter if shone from the Earth to the Moon. By comparison, the output of a typical semiconductor laser, due to its small diameter, diverges almost as soon as it leaves the aperture, at an angle of anything up to 50°. However, such a divergent beam can be transformed into a collimated beam by means of a lens. In contrast, the light from non-laser light sources cannot be collimated by optics as well or much
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser
We know that a wave can be contained and exist within a "closed" energy system
such as the wave that propagates along a rope, or within the confines of a wave
tank. Couldn't this characteristic "closed system" phenomenon also apply to
individual discrete photon's? IMO, this is supported by the ISL and the proven
concept of a discrete photon packet that retains exact qubit information transfer forever,
until such time as the energy and information that is being propagated by
the photon is detected.
So this analysis/argument seems to confirm that the least significant bit of a
coherent propagating wavefront, of some relative combined power, is comprised
of individual and discrete energy quantums that are interlocked in phase and time.
These individual quantum packets maintain their coherent relationship relative to
each other since they have the same relative timing, but as they spread over
distance from the source, the total energy that they are mututally
transporting/propagating in the form of a wavefront, distributes/dissipates that
closed wave energy to the medium.
An analogy that might conceptually support this idea is like a bound bundle of
sticks. Together, they represent a closed energy system of some relative
value of tensile strength, but if you divide the bundle in half the strength of the
remaining bundle is proportionally diminshed. With each division of the remaining
bundle the tensile strength decreases according to the number of sticks still
remaining to reinforce the energy state within the bundle. Eventually, the bundle
is reduced to a single stick, it has all of the original singular properties of the
bundle except that it contains a fixed amount of individual tensile strength, and
is the weakest possible amount that can be divided.
This analogy can also be extended to a single fiber of cotton. By itself it has
a fixed amount of strength, but if combined and entertwined with other single
fibers can create a rope of tremendous combined strength.
This is a naturally occuring phenomenon where there is an absolute
minimum "closed system" energy level, and I see no reason that
it can't be applied to photons and waves of EM energy. It is a natural
geometric and mathematical principle of "bunching" and energy system distribution
over volume/area. It is a regression to the single basic quantity, below which there
is no whole part. It is the regression to unity/one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_%28physics%29
Comments? Discussion? Opinions?
LL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser
We know that a wave can be contained and exist within a "closed" energy system
such as the wave that propagates along a rope, or within the confines of a wave
tank. Couldn't this characteristic "closed system" phenomenon also apply to
individual discrete photon's? IMO, this is supported by the ISL and the proven
concept of a discrete photon packet that retains exact qubit information transfer forever,
until such time as the energy and information that is being propagated by
the photon is detected.
So this analysis/argument seems to confirm that the least significant bit of a
coherent propagating wavefront, of some relative combined power, is comprised
of individual and discrete energy quantums that are interlocked in phase and time.
These individual quantum packets maintain their coherent relationship relative to
each other since they have the same relative timing, but as they spread over
distance from the source, the total energy that they are mututally
transporting/propagating in the form of a wavefront, distributes/dissipates that
closed wave energy to the medium.
An analogy that might conceptually support this idea is like a bound bundle of
sticks. Together, they represent a closed energy system of some relative
value of tensile strength, but if you divide the bundle in half the strength of the
remaining bundle is proportionally diminshed. With each division of the remaining
bundle the tensile strength decreases according to the number of sticks still
remaining to reinforce the energy state within the bundle. Eventually, the bundle
is reduced to a single stick, it has all of the original singular properties of the
bundle except that it contains a fixed amount of individual tensile strength, and
is the weakest possible amount that can be divided.
This analogy can also be extended to a single fiber of cotton. By itself it has
a fixed amount of strength, but if combined and entertwined with other single
fibers can create a rope of tremendous combined strength.
This is a naturally occuring phenomenon where there is an absolute
minimum "closed system" energy level, and I see no reason that
it can't be applied to photons and waves of EM energy. It is a natural
geometric and mathematical principle of "bunching" and energy system distribution
over volume/area. It is a regression to the single basic quantity, below which there
is no whole part. It is the regression to unity/one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_%28physics%29
Comments? Discussion? Opinions?
LL
Hello all
The inverse square law (ISL) holds true for point sources. For an infinitely long cylinder the fall off is 1/r. For an infinite plane there is no fall off. Since EM radiation is independent of the source then the future wave is dependent on the current wave characteristics. Now keeping in mind the characteristics of static fields and the shape of the structure they are tied to, how would you look at the electric field of an EM wave. As the EM wave propagates from its emission point the wave front changes from a spherical wave (point source) to a planer wave (infinite plane). So the farther you get away from the emission point the less the EM wave will loose in intensity. Of course this idea requires that the orientation of the electric field does not affect its rate of fall off. This means that the farther away the light source is, the less you can uses just intensity to determine its distance.
So the question arises at what point can we no longer tell the difference between a spherical wave and a planer wave. The answer is dependent on the aperture of the detecting device. For a parallax measurement this is the diameter of Earth's orbit around the Sun.
The inverse square law (ISL) holds true for point sources. For an infinitely long cylinder the fall off is 1/r. For an infinite plane there is no fall off. Since EM radiation is independent of the source then the future wave is dependent on the current wave characteristics. Now keeping in mind the characteristics of static fields and the shape of the structure they are tied to, how would you look at the electric field of an EM wave. As the EM wave propagates from its emission point the wave front changes from a spherical wave (point source) to a planer wave (infinite plane). So the farther you get away from the emission point the less the EM wave will loose in intensity. Of course this idea requires that the orientation of the electric field does not affect its rate of fall off. This means that the farther away the light source is, the less you can uses just intensity to determine its distance.
So the question arises at what point can we no longer tell the difference between a spherical wave and a planer wave. The answer is dependent on the aperture of the detecting device. For a parallax measurement this is the diameter of Earth's orbit around the Sun.
Montec,
Excellent points! Can you develop the idea further?
Does a planar EM wave really ever lose its spherical component? A lens
with spherical curvature can reconstitute the natural curvature and relative timing
of a "planar" wavefront to represent the scale of the original radiated energy
images? The scale and energy of the image is, however, reduced from the
original. At some point/distance, there is insufficient information being collected
and concentrated by the lens, even from a planar wave, so the image has
lost its "structure" and only singular photon's will be detected.
I have watched some astronomy programs that show close ups of distant deep
field galaxies being resolved thru a telescope.....one photon blip at a time on a
CCD photo multiplier image detector.
Please continue!
LL
Excellent points! Can you develop the idea further?
Does a planar EM wave really ever lose its spherical component? A lens
with spherical curvature can reconstitute the natural curvature and relative timing
of a "planar" wavefront to represent the scale of the original radiated energy
images? The scale and energy of the image is, however, reduced from the
original. At some point/distance, there is insufficient information being collected
and concentrated by the lens, even from a planar wave, so the image has
lost its "structure" and only singular photon's will be detected.
I have watched some astronomy programs that show close ups of distant deep
field galaxies being resolved thru a telescope.....one photon blip at a time on a
CCD photo multiplier image detector.
Please continue!
LL
Hello Laserlight, et al.
When you use a camera to focus on an object up close the objects in the far field are out of focus. The reverse is also true. However if you use a pin-hole camera then both near and far objects are in focus. What is the difference? The answer involves spherical and planer EM waves. The lenses of cameras work with spherical and nearly planer light waves, but not at the same time. The focusing mechanism compensates for the curve of the incident wavefront. In the pin-hole camera you are only allowing a small part of the incoming wavefronts to be used. If you only look at a small portion of a wave front the result will appear to be a planer wave. Planer waves imply point sources. So a pin-hole camera only looks at the point sources of light. The recorded image is thus made up of just light from the point sources. However by just using a small portion of the incoming spherical light waves the intensity is reduced and a longer exposure time is needed.
All EM waves are spherical to start out with. Whether or not it remains spherical at a detector is dependent on how large a section of the wave you are looking at as a function of its frequency.
When you use a camera to focus on an object up close the objects in the far field are out of focus. The reverse is also true. However if you use a pin-hole camera then both near and far objects are in focus. What is the difference? The answer involves spherical and planer EM waves. The lenses of cameras work with spherical and nearly planer light waves, but not at the same time. The focusing mechanism compensates for the curve of the incident wavefront. In the pin-hole camera you are only allowing a small part of the incoming wavefronts to be used. If you only look at a small portion of a wave front the result will appear to be a planer wave. Planer waves imply point sources. So a pin-hole camera only looks at the point sources of light. The recorded image is thus made up of just light from the point sources. However by just using a small portion of the incoming spherical light waves the intensity is reduced and a longer exposure time is needed.
All EM waves are spherical to start out with. Whether or not it remains spherical at a detector is dependent on how large a section of the wave you are looking at as a function of its frequency.
Montec,
Good answer! From this we can infer that a longer exposure time is required so
that more photons can be collected over a longer time base to resolve the details
of the image. The pinhole aperture acts as a focal point and changes the
local index of refraction, it also inverts the image so the collected image is
presented upside down.
Any idea what the minimum aperture size can be to still maintain image
resolution? I would suppose that there is a minimum realistic size, below which
other/secondary aperture effects interfere with resolution. I recall some
conversations about surface polariton's etc.
Shouldn't there still be a focal distance maximum "limit" or
object size limit to insure resolution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton
LL
Good answer! From this we can infer that a longer exposure time is required so
that more photons can be collected over a longer time base to resolve the details
of the image. The pinhole aperture acts as a focal point and changes the
local index of refraction, it also inverts the image so the collected image is
presented upside down.
Any idea what the minimum aperture size can be to still maintain image
resolution? I would suppose that there is a minimum realistic size, below which
other/secondary aperture effects interfere with resolution. I recall some
conversations about surface polariton's etc.
Shouldn't there still be a focal distance maximum "limit" or
object size limit to insure resolution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton
LL
Montec just shook my electron! Which made a light go off in my head. 
I have a funny feeling this is what JAL keeps hinting at.......
QUOTE
Any idea what the minimum aperture size can be to still maintain image
resolution? I would suppose that there is a minimum realistic size, below which
other/secondary aperture effects interfere with resolution.
resolution? I would suppose that there is a minimum realistic size, below which
other/secondary aperture effects interfere with resolution.
I have a funny feeling this is what JAL keeps hinting at.......
Hey everyone!
They, I am still catching up from being out for a while, but I wanted to say kudos to you and They2! (and C2, of course). When all else fails, experiment!
A pinhole camera works under the same principle as a Camera Obscura. I think it is Al-Hazen (?) who typically credited for working out the geometry. Anyway, I guess my points are… You can’t get a “picture” from a single photon; classical wave mechanics does a fine job of explaining the relationship between wavelength, aperture size, and focal length. That said, “A single atom in free space as a quantum aperture” may serve as a further point of discussion… You can read the paper here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9908/9908082v1.pdf
From the link..
They, I am still catching up from being out for a while, but I wanted to say kudos to you and They2! (and C2, of course). When all else fails, experiment!
A pinhole camera works under the same principle as a Camera Obscura. I think it is Al-Hazen (?) who typically credited for working out the geometry. Anyway, I guess my points are… You can’t get a “picture” from a single photon; classical wave mechanics does a fine job of explaining the relationship between wavelength, aperture size, and focal length. That said, “A single atom in free space as a quantum aperture” may serve as a further point of discussion… You can read the paper here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9908/9908082v1.pdf
From the link..
QUOTE
We find an intriguing interplay between the angular properties of the scattered light and its quantum statistical character (e.g., photon bunching and antibunching versus scattering angle), leading to the concept of a uantum aperture.
Hi Why Not,
Why Not said:
I agree, a single photon will not provide the spatial and temporal coherence and
other information necessary for "mapping" the details of an image.
That is why it is a requirement that full "coherent" wavefronts of phase and time
related photons must carry all of the radiated qubits of information emanating/reflected from an image source.
It is similar to a form of analog video scan "rastering" used on CRT TV screens, where
a "video train" of discrete bits of information are carried within the video signal
that carry info like timing, location, amplitude, phasing, color, etc, on the
raster scan. In reality, instead of just arriving as a sequential video train, it is a
parallel "frame" of timed and synchronous bits of image information that is arriving
from a 4D reference perspectivel
The details of the image scene are made up of the individual "bits" (photon qubits) that
are carrying the necessary information in all of the arriving wavefronts. The
wavefronts are a continuous parallel video "pulse train" of 3D and time
synchronous waves that arrive like the frames of a movie, only continuously.
Each "entangled" photon that makes up that arriving video "frame" information is
carrying unique qubit information from its source atom that determines its location,
timing, and characteristics. That information is "mapped" onto the imaging device.
The further from the "scene" , that the image is viewed the wider the
the wavefronts have dispersed, because they follow the ISL, and fine details are
lost due to a decrease in signal strength amplitude.
Some info on imaging:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution
analog composite video:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_video
LL
Why Not said:
QUOTE
You can’t get a “picture” from a single photon; classical wave mechanics does a fine job of explaining the relationship between wavelength, aperture size, and focal length.
I agree, a single photon will not provide the spatial and temporal coherence and
other information necessary for "mapping" the details of an image.
That is why it is a requirement that full "coherent" wavefronts of phase and time
related photons must carry all of the radiated qubits of information emanating/reflected from an image source.
It is similar to a form of analog video scan "rastering" used on CRT TV screens, where
a "video train" of discrete bits of information are carried within the video signal
that carry info like timing, location, amplitude, phasing, color, etc, on the
raster scan. In reality, instead of just arriving as a sequential video train, it is a
parallel "frame" of timed and synchronous bits of image information that is arriving
from a 4D reference perspectivel
The details of the image scene are made up of the individual "bits" (photon qubits) that
are carrying the necessary information in all of the arriving wavefronts. The
wavefronts are a continuous parallel video "pulse train" of 3D and time
synchronous waves that arrive like the frames of a movie, only continuously.
Each "entangled" photon that makes up that arriving video "frame" information is
carrying unique qubit information from its source atom that determines its location,
timing, and characteristics. That information is "mapped" onto the imaging device.
The further from the "scene" , that the image is viewed the wider the
the wavefronts have dispersed, because they follow the ISL, and fine details are
lost due to a decrease in signal strength amplitude.
Some info on imaging:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution
analog composite video:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_video
LL
Hi janrinze, "THEY", Laserlight, Jal, Confused2, Zephir, yquantum, TRoc, Montec, Neil Farbstein, et al,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
To keep it simple, for starters I would say that you talk very frequently about "photon spreading", yet offer nothing to explain it specifically. You will also need an explanation for why it does not spread, in some cases. This should apply to both "single photons", and large packets, beams, etc.
I have spoken in this thread about this previously but it is unfortunate that I cannot always have the same impact or relevance at all times. Firstly as with all of science I cannot explain "why" things are the way they are but I can explain "how" the way things are the way they are, and that is absolutely all science can do. The first question is "theological" in nature. Dipole radiation in its primary oscillation mode produces an azimuthal toroidally shaped radiation pattern with two lobes as seen in cross-section.
Higher modes do exist in that one transmitter as superpositions at harmonically spatially related frequencies. The strongest radiation pattern is in a direction perpendicular to the two elements. Clearly in a direction "along" these elements the field will fall to zero at all times and continuing around this circle is opposite in phase in the other direction. The intensity pattern is as shown (the square of the vector field strength). The radiation will spread in all cases in the radial direction (azimuth held constant) as an ISL, in some cases the spreading is less obvious and less desirable. All radiation will spread according to the ISL but clearly some directions are usually made stronger than others especially when the space 'forces" resonances. I have spoken of what is happening previously. In optical terms it is the transverse mode of propagation...
... Click to enlarge...
Cylindrical transverse mode patterns TEM(pl)
These "modes" can spoil an interference pattern so in the optical case of LASERS what is usually most important is the primary mode (TEM00) as this is what usually carries the most energy and represents the interesting part of the pattern. In this situation a spatial filter is usually used to cut off the higher frequencies in the beam. This consists of a plate with a hole in it in front of the LASER, this cleans up the signal. The hole allows the primary mode through and the secondary modes are suppressed by being simply blocked.
Wikipedia: Transverse mode
In terms of radio frequency terms it is called beam directivity.
Understanding and Using Antenna Radiation Patterns
What you see in this second image is a primary "beam" with a number of suppressed modes. These are created using 'mirrors" strategically placed to reduce the energy in the sidelobes. Usually the antenna is designed to be highly directional and this involves 'parasitic" elements which act as the "mirrors" and as "directors". Please note this is a logarithmic plot so values near the origin of this chart are exceedingly small. These mirrors and directors force the energy in the lobes to be redirected in the forward direction at the expense of the size of those sidelobes. This is a design criterion and optimization is on the basis of what the beam is used for .... Directionality... Which provides strong signal over a long range with little or no coverage to the left or to the right of the beam or Coverage... When you only want to reach receivers locally, within a very short range and the absolute range is not that important. Within the parameters of these two extreme requirements the signal will spread and it falls off as the ISL with increasing distance.
here is what wikipedia says about this...
Higher modes do exist in that one transmitter as superpositions at harmonically spatially related frequencies. The strongest radiation pattern is in a direction perpendicular to the two elements. Clearly in a direction "along" these elements the field will fall to zero at all times and continuing around this circle is opposite in phase in the other direction. The intensity pattern is as shown (the square of the vector field strength). The radiation will spread in all cases in the radial direction (azimuth held constant) as an ISL, in some cases the spreading is less obvious and less desirable. All radiation will spread according to the ISL but clearly some directions are usually made stronger than others especially when the space 'forces" resonances. I have spoken of what is happening previously. In optical terms it is the transverse mode of propagation...
... Click to enlarge...
Cylindrical transverse mode patterns TEM(pl)
These "modes" can spoil an interference pattern so in the optical case of LASERS what is usually most important is the primary mode (TEM00) as this is what usually carries the most energy and represents the interesting part of the pattern. In this situation a spatial filter is usually used to cut off the higher frequencies in the beam. This consists of a plate with a hole in it in front of the LASER, this cleans up the signal. The hole allows the primary mode through and the secondary modes are suppressed by being simply blocked.
Wikipedia: Transverse mode
In terms of radio frequency terms it is called beam directivity.
Understanding and Using Antenna Radiation Patterns
What you see in this second image is a primary "beam" with a number of suppressed modes. These are created using 'mirrors" strategically placed to reduce the energy in the sidelobes. Usually the antenna is designed to be highly directional and this involves 'parasitic" elements which act as the "mirrors" and as "directors". Please note this is a logarithmic plot so values near the origin of this chart are exceedingly small. These mirrors and directors force the energy in the lobes to be redirected in the forward direction at the expense of the size of those sidelobes. This is a design criterion and optimization is on the basis of what the beam is used for .... Directionality... Which provides strong signal over a long range with little or no coverage to the left or to the right of the beam or Coverage... When you only want to reach receivers locally, within a very short range and the absolute range is not that important. Within the parameters of these two extreme requirements the signal will spread and it falls off as the ISL with increasing distance.
here is what wikipedia says about this...
QUOTE (Transverse Modes+)
A transverse mode of a beam of electromagnetic radiation is a particular intensity pattern of radiation measured in a plane perpendicular (i.e. transverse) to the propagation direction of the beam. Transverse modes occur in radio waves and microwaves confined to a waveguide, and also in light waves in an optical fibre and in a laser's optical resonator.
Transverse modes occur because of boundary conditions imposed on the wave by the waveguide. For example, a radio wave in a hollow metal waveguide must have zero electric field amplitude parallel to the walls of the waveguide, and so the transverse pattern of the electric field of waves is restricted to those which fit between the walls. For this reason, the modes supported by a waveguide are quantized. The allowed modes can be found by solving Maxwell's equations for the boundary conditions of a given waveguide.
Transverse modes occur because of boundary conditions imposed on the wave by the waveguide. For example, a radio wave in a hollow metal waveguide must have zero electric field amplitude parallel to the walls of the waveguide, and so the transverse pattern of the electric field of waves is restricted to those which fit between the walls. For this reason, the modes supported by a waveguide are quantized. The allowed modes can be found by solving Maxwell's equations for the boundary conditions of a given waveguide.
Note that this phenomenon involves a resonance and the antenna is a resonator. This couples to the external environment and sets up standing waves along the primary beam path as noted above. This also causes standing waves in any coupled "cavities". This is where the DSE comes from. In the "distant" field it is important that the modes are not strongly apparent at the slits otherwise you will have multiple resonances with the one set of slits. "Far Field" or Fraunhofer radiation these patterns are not supposed to be evident because the wavefronts should be parallel to the slit boundary and there will not be any of these standing patterns evident. If the slits are too close to the source this will produce additional effects and this will cause a distortion to the pattern. Many who are using laser pointers are experiencing some of these distortions. Remember any spatial curvature will result in modes. There is always spatial curvature.
The main factor which distinguishes the radio frequency antenna and optical cavity excitation is dipole radiation from an antenna is of a wavelength (size) comparable to the size of the antenna elements... While optical cavity excitation, the cavity is much larger than the wavelength of the exciting radiation. This does not excuse us from not understanding this is still a optical resonance but its not as clearly defined due to finite dimensions for apertures and source sizes larger than a wavelength.
So now we see spreading in both cases but on different scales. One caveat is I am not discussing Orbital Angular Momentum quantum numbers here and that is another story. Clearly "lenses" can enhance the effect by trying to collimate the beam further such that LASER light can be made very parallel with lenses. So can radio waves but in that case the wavelength could be impractically too large to make it into a almost perfectly parallel beam.
The next point I would like to make is the relation to the oscillation modes of atomic cavities and to the nature of the shells in atoms. These are cavities as well and the lobes and standing waves are there for the same reason they are in all other cavities.
Have a look at Wolfram Research demonstration (do not download... it is big) of this...
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/SphericalHarmonics/
This is the time independent part of the solutions of the Atomic Model showing the angular part ofthe solution. These are equivalent to the radiation pattern for atoms. naturally this demo simply cycles through the options available as 'steady state solutions".
Here is another way to show them (from the same source)...
... Surprise surprise these represent cavity resonances of spherical Harmonics. These cavities are not as cleaver as our sophisticated directional antenna cavities but you will see the effect I am sure. Quantum numbers I have shown previously as these resonances on a sphere.... This is what the quantum is but actually we really need to see these as animations including the time dependent part of the equation as standing waves.
Quantum theory expresses the whole theory as simply the as the time independent part of these solutions (eigenstates).... These are expressed as probability distributions and this would be the same with ordinary dipole antenna. you can walk around a dipole antenna and measure stuff, you can't easily do the same with a single atom.. The time dependent part of the theory has formerly been considered as irrelevant. My suggestion is the simplification was a result of the lack of ability to compute the real values which are complex. Here we see using quicktime (which must be installed) the Superposition states of the Hydrogen atom... The ability to compute 'stuff" is far greater than what it was when quantum theory was being developed and getting the overall shape of say the S1 orbital or the d5 orbital was a mathematical "tour de force". Today it just a short click away on your browsers.
Superposition state of the hydrogen : Quicktime required
Part of Caption: Two eigenstates of the hydrogen atom (quantum mechanical Coulomb problem) in a time-dependent superposition. States of the hydrogen are characterized by certain quantum numbers. Here the superposition contains states with different radial quantum numbers, hence the radial oscillation.
Obviously this could be extended with more and more information. It is important to know that there is sufficient information to 'Google" anything you need out there. I am attempting to convince you all that we are dealing with oscillating fields and aside from the higher frequency and the smaller scale there is not a whole lot of difference between atomic orbitals and 'shells" and radiation patterns from antenna other than antenna are purpose built to be efficient radiators.
Does this answer the question TRoc?
Cheers
The main factor which distinguishes the radio frequency antenna and optical cavity excitation is dipole radiation from an antenna is of a wavelength (size) comparable to the size of the antenna elements... While optical cavity excitation, the cavity is much larger than the wavelength of the exciting radiation. This does not excuse us from not understanding this is still a optical resonance but its not as clearly defined due to finite dimensions for apertures and source sizes larger than a wavelength.
So now we see spreading in both cases but on different scales. One caveat is I am not discussing Orbital Angular Momentum quantum numbers here and that is another story. Clearly "lenses" can enhance the effect by trying to collimate the beam further such that LASER light can be made very parallel with lenses. So can radio waves but in that case the wavelength could be impractically too large to make it into a almost perfectly parallel beam.
The next point I would like to make is the relation to the oscillation modes of atomic cavities and to the nature of the shells in atoms. These are cavities as well and the lobes and standing waves are there for the same reason they are in all other cavities.
Have a look at Wolfram Research demonstration (do not download... it is big) of this...
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/SphericalHarmonics/
This is the time independent part of the solutions of the Atomic Model showing the angular part ofthe solution. These are equivalent to the radiation pattern for atoms. naturally this demo simply cycles through the options available as 'steady state solutions".
Here is another way to show them (from the same source)...
... Surprise surprise these represent cavity resonances of spherical Harmonics. These cavities are not as cleaver as our sophisticated directional antenna cavities but you will see the effect I am sure. Quantum numbers I have shown previously as these resonances on a sphere.... This is what the quantum is but actually we really need to see these as animations including the time dependent part of the equation as standing waves.
Quantum theory expresses the whole theory as simply the as the time independent part of these solutions (eigenstates).... These are expressed as probability distributions and this would be the same with ordinary dipole antenna. you can walk around a dipole antenna and measure stuff, you can't easily do the same with a single atom.. The time dependent part of the theory has formerly been considered as irrelevant. My suggestion is the simplification was a result of the lack of ability to compute the real values which are complex. Here we see using quicktime (which must be installed) the Superposition states of the Hydrogen atom... The ability to compute 'stuff" is far greater than what it was when quantum theory was being developed and getting the overall shape of say the S1 orbital or the d5 orbital was a mathematical "tour de force". Today it just a short click away on your browsers.
Superposition state of the hydrogen : Quicktime required
Part of Caption: Two eigenstates of the hydrogen atom (quantum mechanical Coulomb problem) in a time-dependent superposition. States of the hydrogen are characterized by certain quantum numbers. Here the superposition contains states with different radial quantum numbers, hence the radial oscillation.
Obviously this could be extended with more and more information. It is important to know that there is sufficient information to 'Google" anything you need out there. I am attempting to convince you all that we are dealing with oscillating fields and aside from the higher frequency and the smaller scale there is not a whole lot of difference between atomic orbitals and 'shells" and radiation patterns from antenna other than antenna are purpose built to be efficient radiators.
Does this answer the question TRoc?
Cheers
Hi!
Just an interesting side line.
I already gave
http://www.quantum-physics.polytechnique.fr/#spin
and by going to tab 5.1 you can make your own spherical harmonic.
Another way is to enter "spherical harmonic" into google and click on "search images".
Have fun
jal
Just an interesting side line.
I already gave
http://www.quantum-physics.polytechnique.fr/#spin
and by going to tab 5.1 you can make your own spherical harmonic.
Another way is to enter "spherical harmonic" into google and click on "search images".
Have fun
jal
A while back I proposed going slowly through a 'lightcone' analysis of a pulse' of light. If the light passes through two pinholes then it will initialliy arrive at arrive at the screen at two points .. these will expand and overlap in time.
Do we observe that the design of the universe does not seem to allow detection to take place (at least) until after the light from the two slits has overlapped?
Can this be anything other than than a design feature? What else do we see?
Monochromatic light has seems to come in multiples of 'E' where E = hf. If we can only detect the light energy as either E or nothing at all then clearly the inverse square law NEVER applies. We have to replace Watts/m^2 with photons/m^2. Maybe then look for more design features which might not have been included in our schoolbooks.
Do we observe that the design of the universe does not seem to allow detection to take place (at least) until after the light from the two slits has overlapped?
Can this be anything other than than a design feature? What else do we see?
Monochromatic light has seems to come in multiples of 'E' where E = hf. If we can only detect the light energy as either E or nothing at all then clearly the inverse square law NEVER applies. We have to replace Watts/m^2 with photons/m^2. Maybe then look for more design features which might not have been included in our schoolbooks.
QUOTE (LL+)
According to the ISL the wave amplitude will dampen over distance and eventually diminish to the point of no energy. However, the energy of a single photon of a specific frequency can not be divided below that minimum quantum value.
The ISL might be giving garbage out because of the garbage that went in (or didn't go in, depending on whether or not you accept there is a consistent design feature at work here).
Best wishes -C2.
The ISL might be giving garbage out because of the garbage that went in (or didn't go in, depending on whether or not you accept there is a consistent design feature at work here).
Best wishes -C2.
Hi to all,
I was absent from this forum and this particular topic for a while. In the act of mercy toward myself I avoided to read everything since I have been here for the last time.
Previously I suggested the set up for the DSE experiment for electrons with which, I hope, we could reveal the paths of particular electrons passing slit or slits, while not , hopefully, disturbing an interference pattern of hits on the recording screen.
The set up in brief:
"We have run the DS for electrons, one by one releasing regime, and it is recorded where are the fringes with hits on the detection screen made by electrons, one by one, hitting the detection screen in the interference pattern.
Now we made the hole ( conditionally speaking ) on the detection screen somewhere inside some of the fringes with hits of the interference pattern. The hole is wider, bigger than collapsed electron, so when some collapsed electron would be eventually passing through the hole there is no diffraction. The detection plate is as thinner as possible. Closely behind that detection plate is another classic, full detection plate.
Just in front ( as closer as it is possible ) of the hole is the only laser beam pointed vertically. The purpose of that laser beam is to collapse an electron before that electron would eventually pass through the hole to hit the classic full detection screen which is behind. Frequency and intensity of that laser beam is chosen by criterion that photon from than beam would be able to collapse an electron, but at the same time that possible disturbance of that electron momentum by the effect of scattering would be as smaller as possible.
If this would work than we would have recorded two "points" of the momentum of that particular electron which passed ( collapsed ) through the hole. One "point" of that electron's momentum is the hole itself ( or more precisely just in front of the hole where the laser beam collapsed that electron, imprecise for the wavelength of the chosen laser beam) , and another point of that electron's momentum is where exactly that electron hit the full detection screen behind the hole, to be absorbed.
If we have recorded that electron passing through "point" one, and being absorbed at point two , would it be possible from that information to calculate the momentum with which that electron approached the first point, "the hole", even after we included into the calculation eventual effect of scattering or some other possible disturbance on the approaching momentum of that electron?
If this on the other hand would not work, that is, an electron would un-interfere so to speak, then that would be the same/similar result as The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser . But that possible outcome of this proposal would be, seems to me, even more intriguing result then the result of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser because in this case there is no entanglement but just one electron "predicting" the future, predicting " the hole", the laser beam and the full detection screen behind the first detection screen."
So far noone I have asked for an opinion did not say would this particular set up work as I predicted or not.
So I ask once again for an opinion. Would this work as I predicted?
Additionally. Is here anyone who is willing to try this set up ( or modified version) ?
Thanks.
Anton
I was absent from this forum and this particular topic for a while. In the act of mercy toward myself I avoided to read everything since I have been here for the last time.
Previously I suggested the set up for the DSE experiment for electrons with which, I hope, we could reveal the paths of particular electrons passing slit or slits, while not , hopefully, disturbing an interference pattern of hits on the recording screen.
The set up in brief:
"We have run the DS for electrons, one by one releasing regime, and it is recorded where are the fringes with hits on the detection screen made by electrons, one by one, hitting the detection screen in the interference pattern.
Now we made the hole ( conditionally speaking ) on the detection screen somewhere inside some of the fringes with hits of the interference pattern. The hole is wider, bigger than collapsed electron, so when some collapsed electron would be eventually passing through the hole there is no diffraction. The detection plate is as thinner as possible. Closely behind that detection plate is another classic, full detection plate.
Just in front ( as closer as it is possible ) of the hole is the only laser beam pointed vertically. The purpose of that laser beam is to collapse an electron before that electron would eventually pass through the hole to hit the classic full detection screen which is behind. Frequency and intensity of that laser beam is chosen by criterion that photon from than beam would be able to collapse an electron, but at the same time that possible disturbance of that electron momentum by the effect of scattering would be as smaller as possible.
If this would work than we would have recorded two "points" of the momentum of that particular electron which passed ( collapsed ) through the hole. One "point" of that electron's momentum is the hole itself ( or more precisely just in front of the hole where the laser beam collapsed that electron, imprecise for the wavelength of the chosen laser beam) , and another point of that electron's momentum is where exactly that electron hit the full detection screen behind the hole, to be absorbed.
If we have recorded that electron passing through "point" one, and being absorbed at point two , would it be possible from that information to calculate the momentum with which that electron approached the first point, "the hole", even after we included into the calculation eventual effect of scattering or some other possible disturbance on the approaching momentum of that electron?
If this on the other hand would not work, that is, an electron would un-interfere so to speak, then that would be the same/similar result as The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser . But that possible outcome of this proposal would be, seems to me, even more intriguing result then the result of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser because in this case there is no entanglement but just one electron "predicting" the future, predicting " the hole", the laser beam and the full detection screen behind the first detection screen."
So far noone I have asked for an opinion did not say would this particular set up work as I predicted or not.
So I ask once again for an opinion. Would this work as I predicted?
Additionally. Is here anyone who is willing to try this set up ( or modified version) ?
Thanks.
Anton
Hello Laserlight, et al.
I agree that straight line geometry from a point source through the pin-hole to a recording medium will invert (both vertically and horizontally) the image at the medium.
The minimum size of the pin-hole to use and sill get a sharp image is dependent on many factors. Diffraction and all its causes and effects play a major role in determining hole size as well as distance to, granularity of, and type of the recording medium. Basically higher EM wave frequencies will produce sharper images under optimal conditions.
A factor to remember is that a pin-hole will add curvature to an EM wave. In fact anything that causes a change in the propagation speed of an EM wave (or any wave for that matter) will cause a change in the curvature of the wave.
I suppose one could say that a photon is a planer wave (or planer waves) with respect to its frequency but I don't know if that would clarify the situation. One could also say that the absorption of a photon happens with planer EM waves. Which would lead us to a conclusion that there is a minimum distance between emitter and absorber where no transfer of energy can take place since the absorber cannot see a planer EM wave.
As for the DSE the slits add curvature to the EM wave front and as the wavefronts overlap constructive and destructive interference produce the observed results.
We must all remember that any phased array antenna is nothing more than an active multi-slit device where a delay and/or phase is added to the driving signal for each element in order to produce constructive and destructive interference in the output signal. By varying the delay and/or phase to each element you are actually changing the slit width and spacing in a virtual multi-slit device.
I agree that straight line geometry from a point source through the pin-hole to a recording medium will invert (both vertically and horizontally) the image at the medium.
The minimum size of the pin-hole to use and sill get a sharp image is dependent on many factors. Diffraction and all its causes and effects play a major role in determining hole size as well as distance to, granularity of, and type of the recording medium. Basically higher EM wave frequencies will produce sharper images under optimal conditions.
A factor to remember is that a pin-hole will add curvature to an EM wave. In fact anything that causes a change in the propagation speed of an EM wave (or any wave for that matter) will cause a change in the curvature of the wave.
I suppose one could say that a photon is a planer wave (or planer waves) with respect to its frequency but I don't know if that would clarify the situation. One could also say that the absorption of a photon happens with planer EM waves. Which would lead us to a conclusion that there is a minimum distance between emitter and absorber where no transfer of energy can take place since the absorber cannot see a planer EM wave.
As for the DSE the slits add curvature to the EM wave front and as the wavefronts overlap constructive and destructive interference produce the observed results.
We must all remember that any phased array antenna is nothing more than an active multi-slit device where a delay and/or phase is added to the driving signal for each element in order to produce constructive and destructive interference in the output signal. By varying the delay and/or phase to each element you are actually changing the slit width and spacing in a virtual multi-slit device.
Hi Anton,
QUOTE (Anton+)
In the act of mercy toward myself I avoided to read everything since I have been here for the last time.
Very wise
.
The rule seems to be - "If you can tell which slit it went through then you'll always find it went through one or the other".
Imagine a 'normal' (electron) DSE with slits (or holes) A and B . Poke a smallish hole © through the screen and put another screen behind it. If your new hole and screen can resolve the slits in any way then I would expect two bright bits - the diffraction pattern due to A and B (individually) being seen through hole C. If your hole and screen can't resolve the slits individually then you just slot in with the existing DSE pattern.I don't see any way for your laser to change this
.
Best wishes - C2.
Very wise
.The rule seems to be - "If you can tell which slit it went through then you'll always find it went through one or the other".
Imagine a 'normal' (electron) DSE with slits (or holes) A and B . Poke a smallish hole © through the screen and put another screen behind it. If your new hole and screen can resolve the slits in any way then I would expect two bright bits - the diffraction pattern due to A and B (individually) being seen through hole C. If your hole and screen can't resolve the slits individually then you just slot in with the existing DSE pattern.I don't see any way for your laser to change this
.Best wishes - C2.
Hello Mate, et al
I'm not sure that a laser beam can "collapse" an electron, if that is what you mean.
If my understanding is correct, when you shine a light on one of the double slits where the electrons are moving through then the observed diffraction pattern disappears. The electrons still hit the detector but there is no pattern. So the light interferes with what ever mechanism is responsible for the pattern in the first place.
I'm not sure that a laser beam can "collapse" an electron, if that is what you mean.
If my understanding is correct, when you shine a light on one of the double slits where the electrons are moving through then the observed diffraction pattern disappears. The electrons still hit the detector but there is no pattern. So the light interferes with what ever mechanism is responsible for the pattern in the first place.
Hi LL et al,
The rule seems to be - "If you can tell which slit it went through then you'll always find it went through one or the other".
C2,
Why? If QM Copenhagen version is really a valid one ( notions of collapsed-uncollapsed particle , wave-particle duality, etc), and if this proposal would work, that is, it would be possible to calculate the momentum with which particular electron approached the hole, then we could have a number of different calculated momentums, each of them apparently "coming" from somewhere between the slits. And not necessarily exactly from between the slits, but possibly a bit to the left or right, depending how much of some particular electron passed through one or other slit ( under an assumption that electrons in DSE are really passing through the both slits).
If on the other hand it would be possible to calculate the momentum with which particular electron approached the hole, and if each of result would be a momentum from one or another slit, then that result, seems to me, would question very foundation of QM Copenhagen version because even we know from which slit particular electron came the electron nevertheless hit the hole which is placed on the screen where electrons are hitting the screen in an interference pattern.
C2,
Why? If QM Copenhagen version is really a valid one ( notions of collapsed-uncollapsed particle , wave-particle duality, etc), and if this proposal would work, that is, it would be possible to calculate the momentum with which particular electron approached the hole, then we could have a number of different calculated momentums, each of them apparently "coming" from somewhere between the slits. And not necessarily exactly from between the slits, but possibly a bit to the left or right, depending how much of some particular electron passed through one or other slit ( under an assumption that electrons in DSE are really passing through the both slits).
If on the other hand it would be possible to calculate the momentum with which particular electron approached the hole, and if each of result would be a momentum from one or another slit, then that result, seems to me, would question very foundation of QM Copenhagen version because even we know from which slit particular electron came the electron nevertheless hit the hole which is placed on the screen where electrons are hitting the screen in an interference pattern.
Imagine a 'normal' (electron) DSE with slits (or holes) A and B . Poke a smallish hole © through the screen and put another screen behind it. If your new hole and screen can resolve the slits in any way then I would expect two bright bits - the diffraction pattern due to A and B (individually) being seen through hole C. If your hole and screen can't resolve the slits individually then you just slot in with the existing DSE pattern.I don't see any way for your laser to change this sad.gif .
A laser localizes particular electron so it passes though the hole without diffraction. That is the key "trick".
Anton
QUOTE (LL+)
The further from the "scene" , that the image is viewed the wider the
the wavefronts have dispersed, because they follow the ISL, and fine details are
lost due to a decrease in signal strength amplitude.
If you imagine making a hologram - if there were any photons (or whatever) that were not taking into account the whole scene then the interference pattern would simply be nonsense. This may be another effect at another time - or maybe not.
Best wishes-C2.
the wavefronts have dispersed, because they follow the ISL, and fine details are
lost due to a decrease in signal strength amplitude.
If you imagine making a hologram - if there were any photons (or whatever) that were not taking into account the whole scene then the interference pattern would simply be nonsense. This may be another effect at another time - or maybe not.
Best wishes-C2.
Hey C2,
An example:
From 5 feet away, look at some books on a shelf. You will see all the fine details
of the books such as the texture of the cover and the fine print in the book title.
Now move back to 25 feet away and look at the same scene. The books have
gotten smaller with distance, and the fine details cannot be easily observed or
have "disappeared" into the noise of the arriving signal. This is an effect of the
ISL. The signal intensity of the individual components of the scene have
decreased in amplitude, however, there is more "panorama", more total
information of other items that can be observed in the frame of the scene.
Now we will do the reverse process for the sake of illustration. From 5 feet away
we will move closer to the books. The fine details continue to improve the closer
that we get to them because the amplitude of the arriving wavefront signal patterns
are increasing as distance decreases. If we could zoom in by effectively moving
to within a few microns of the material of the book covers we could actually
observe the bumpy outline of the atomic lattice that makes up the
structure of the book cover, as is observed by a scanning electron microscope.
We could do this because the signal amplitude that is being radiated by the
individual atoms is being detected by our sensors. It is all a matter of geometric
scale. Radiated energy also conforms to the geometric properties of scale per the ISL.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
If you imagine making a hologram - if there were any photons (or whatever) that were not taking into account the whole scene then the interference pattern would simply be nonsense. This may be another effect at another time - or maybe not.
An example:
From 5 feet away, look at some books on a shelf. You will see all the fine details
of the books such as the texture of the cover and the fine print in the book title.
Now move back to 25 feet away and look at the same scene. The books have
gotten smaller with distance, and the fine details cannot be easily observed or
have "disappeared" into the noise of the arriving signal. This is an effect of the
ISL. The signal intensity of the individual components of the scene have
decreased in amplitude, however, there is more "panorama", more total
information of other items that can be observed in the frame of the scene.
Now we will do the reverse process for the sake of illustration. From 5 feet away
we will move closer to the books. The fine details continue to improve the closer
that we get to them because the amplitude of the arriving wavefront signal patterns
are increasing as distance decreases. If we could zoom in by effectively moving
to within a few microns of the material of the book covers we could actually
observe the bumpy outline of the atomic lattice that makes up the
structure of the book cover, as is observed by a scanning electron microscope.
We could do this because the signal amplitude that is being radiated by the
individual atoms is being detected by our sensors. It is all a matter of geometric
scale. Radiated energy also conforms to the geometric properties of scale per the ISL.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
The rule seems to be - "If you can tell which slit it went through then you'll always find it went through one or the other".
C2,
Why? If QM Copenhagen version is really a valid one ( notions of collapsed-uncollapsed particle , wave-particle duality, etc), and if this proposal would work, that is, it would be possible to calculate the momentum with which particular electron approached the hole, then we could have a number of different calculated momentums, each of them apparently "coming" from somewhere between the slits. And not necessarily exactly from between the slits, but possibly a bit to the left or right, depending how much of some particular electron passed through one or other slit ( under an assumption that electrons in DSE are really passing through the both slits).
If on the other hand it would be possible to calculate the momentum with which particular electron approached the hole, and if each of result would be a momentum from one or another slit, then that result, seems to me, would question very foundation of QM Copenhagen version because even we know from which slit particular electron came the electron nevertheless hit the hole which is placed on the screen where electrons are hitting the screen in an interference pattern.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The rule seems to be - "If you can tell which slit it went through then you'll always find it went through one or the other". |
C2,
Why? If QM Copenhagen version is really a valid one ( notions of collapsed-uncollapsed particle , wave-particle duality, etc), and if this proposal would work, that is, it would be possible to calculate the momentum with which particular electron approached the hole, then we could have a number of different calculated momentums, each of them apparently "coming" from somewhere between the slits. And not necessarily exactly from between the slits, but possibly a bit to the left or right, depending how much of some particular electron passed through one or other slit ( under an assumption that electrons in DSE are really passing through the both slits).
If on the other hand it would be possible to calculate the momentum with which particular electron approached the hole, and if each of result would be a momentum from one or another slit, then that result, seems to me, would question very foundation of QM Copenhagen version because even we know from which slit particular electron came the electron nevertheless hit the hole which is placed on the screen where electrons are hitting the screen in an interference pattern.
Imagine a 'normal' (electron) DSE with slits (or holes) A and B . Poke a smallish hole © through the screen and put another screen behind it. If your new hole and screen can resolve the slits in any way then I would expect two bright bits - the diffraction pattern due to A and B (individually) being seen through hole C. If your hole and screen can't resolve the slits individually then you just slot in with the existing DSE pattern.I don't see any way for your laser to change this sad.gif .
A laser localizes particular electron so it passes though the hole without diffraction. That is the key "trick".
Anton
QUOTE (Montec+Jun 5 2007, 01:10 PM)
Hello Mate, et al
I'm not sure that a laser beam can "collapse" an electron, if that is what you mean.
If my understanding is correct, when you shine a light on one of the double slits where the electrons are moving through then the observed diffraction pattern disappears. The electrons still hit the detector but there is no pattern. So the light interferes with what ever mechanism is responsible for the pattern in the first place.
Montec,
if particular photon has enough energy it can collapse an electron. A high frequency laser beam has such an electrons which can do that.
As far as you remark about shining light through the slits. That is exactly what I am trying to use to detect momentum before an electron is being localized.
This is the question in the essence.
If some electron in it's momentum is localized on the points ( or "points" ) A and B, while points are close to each other, is it possible to calculate the momentum with which that electron approached the point A.
If yes then this proposal is a promising one.
Anton
I'm not sure that a laser beam can "collapse" an electron, if that is what you mean.
If my understanding is correct, when you shine a light on one of the double slits where the electrons are moving through then the observed diffraction pattern disappears. The electrons still hit the detector but there is no pattern. So the light interferes with what ever mechanism is responsible for the pattern in the first place.
Montec,
if particular photon has enough energy it can collapse an electron. A high frequency laser beam has such an electrons which can do that.
As far as you remark about shining light through the slits. That is exactly what I am trying to use to detect momentum before an electron is being localized.
This is the question in the essence.
If some electron in it's momentum is localized on the points ( or "points" ) A and B, while points are close to each other, is it possible to calculate the momentum with which that electron approached the point A.
If yes then this proposal is a promising one.
Anton
Hi all,
C2 -
Again, be careful with these definitions. The important part is, that ISL applies ONLY to the "intensity" of a wave, or the number of quanta. The energy remains constant, with the rate of cycles. (f)
For anyone, an open challenge: find ANY frequency, that has a REAL existence (not an arbitrary #), that is equally divisible by 6.6260755e-34 . You should realize right away, that either Plancks' hypothesis is STRICTLY a statistical phenomenon. The law of large numbers places the product of "nhf " into a "wash-out"; the theory really has no specific, physical meaning. The "answer" is buried in the end of the "decimal chain", where we can NOT even "measure" it. So, the basis for Quantum Mechanics, the "quanta" ("photon"), which is supposed to be the MOST accurate theory "ever", can only give me an APPROXIMATION? It promises "integers"(n), yet delivers (most likely) irrational numbers, or at least putting it beyond the computing ability of a 35 digit calculator.
Points for getting the right answer: yes
Thrown out for "cheating" : yes
ciao,
T.Roc
C2 -
QUOTE
Monochromatic light has seems to come in multiples of 'E' where E = hf. If we can only detect the light energy as either E or nothing at all then clearly the inverse square law NEVER applies. We have to replace Watts/m^2 with photons/m^2. Maybe then look for more design features which might not have been included in our schoolbooks.
QUOTE (LL)
According to the ISL the wave amplitude will dampen over distance and eventually diminish to the point of no energy. However, the energy of a single photon of a specific frequency can not be divided below that minimum quantum value.
QUOTE (LL)
According to the ISL the wave amplitude will dampen over distance and eventually diminish to the point of no energy. However, the energy of a single photon of a specific frequency can not be divided below that minimum quantum value.
Again, be careful with these definitions. The important part is, that ISL applies ONLY to the "intensity" of a wave, or the number of quanta. The energy remains constant, with the rate of cycles. (f)
For anyone, an open challenge: find ANY frequency, that has a REAL existence (not an arbitrary #), that is equally divisible by 6.6260755e-34 . You should realize right away, that either Plancks' hypothesis is STRICTLY a statistical phenomenon. The law of large numbers places the product of "nhf " into a "wash-out"; the theory really has no specific, physical meaning. The "answer" is buried in the end of the "decimal chain", where we can NOT even "measure" it. So, the basis for Quantum Mechanics, the "quanta" ("photon"), which is supposed to be the MOST accurate theory "ever", can only give me an APPROXIMATION? It promises "integers"(n), yet delivers (most likely) irrational numbers, or at least putting it beyond the computing ability of a 35 digit calculator.
Points for getting the right answer: yes
Thrown out for "cheating" : yes
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi Mate,
An electron can only be absorbed into an atom, so it won't collapse. Under the
influence of applied E or M fields it's path will be deflected according to the
strength and polarity of the applied field. So the best that you could hope for
would be that you might change the path of the electron's flight.
If the electron wave does travel thru both slits, you would affect the phasing
relationship between the divided waveform and still just cause a deviation of flight
path, IMO.
LL
QUOTE
if particular photon has enough energy it can collapse an electron. A high frequency laser beam has such an electrons which can do that.
An electron can only be absorbed into an atom, so it won't collapse. Under the
influence of applied E or M fields it's path will be deflected according to the
strength and polarity of the applied field. So the best that you could hope for
would be that you might change the path of the electron's flight.
If the electron wave does travel thru both slits, you would affect the phasing
relationship between the divided waveform and still just cause a deviation of flight
path, IMO.
LL
Hi TRoc,
How do you quantify minimum energy or force on a decimal scale? It comes back
to your prior posts about one being the reference start point of quantification, not
zero. You can't have a fractional portion of a series based on the energy unit
referenced as the "quantum". On that "quantum scale" ONE is the lowest
possible value.
According to the song, "ONE is the loneliest number".
What we can't measure are possible frequencies at the sub quantum scale,
like from the possible frequency generated by quarks, because they would
be so small that they would pass right thru matter and would not be large enough
to influence electron orbitals.
LL
QUOTE
For anyone, an open challenge: find ANY frequency, that has a REAL existence (not an arbitrary #), that is equally divisible by 6.6260755e-34 . You should realize right away, that either Plancks' hypothesis is STRICTLY a statistical phenomenon. The law of large numbers places the product of "nhf " into a "wash-out"; the theory really has no specific, physical meaning. The "answer" is buried in the end of the "decimal chain", where we can NOT even "measure" it. So, the basis for Quantum Mechanics, the "quanta" ("photon"), which is supposed to be the MOST accurate theory "ever", can only give me an APPROXIMATION? It promises "integers"(n), yet delivers (most likely) irrational numbers, or at least putting it beyond the computing ability of a 35 digit calculator.
How do you quantify minimum energy or force on a decimal scale? It comes back
to your prior posts about one being the reference start point of quantification, not
zero. You can't have a fractional portion of a series based on the energy unit
referenced as the "quantum". On that "quantum scale" ONE is the lowest
possible value.
According to the song, "ONE is the loneliest number".
What we can't measure are possible frequencies at the sub quantum scale,
like from the possible frequency generated by quarks, because they would
be so small that they would pass right thru matter and would not be large enough
to influence electron orbitals.
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 5 2007, 04:25 PM)
Hi Mate,
An electron can only be absorbed into an atom, so it won't collapse. Under the
influence of applied E or M fields it's path will be deflected according to the
strength and polarity of the applied field. So the best that you could hope for
would be that you might change the path of the electron's flight.
If the electron wave does travel thru both slits, you would affect the phasing
relationship between the divided waveform and still just cause a deviation of flight
path, IMO.
LL
LL,
if an electron cannot be localized/collapsed in it's momentum on two (or more) "points" of it's momentum by a photon of a high energy from the high frequency laser beam, then this proposal cannot work. At least not in this version.
But the problem is that I am receiving different answerers from different physicists on this particular issue.
You say no, some say yes.
See my problem?
Anton
An electron can only be absorbed into an atom, so it won't collapse. Under the
influence of applied E or M fields it's path will be deflected according to the
strength and polarity of the applied field. So the best that you could hope for
would be that you might change the path of the electron's flight.
If the electron wave does travel thru both slits, you would affect the phasing
relationship between the divided waveform and still just cause a deviation of flight
path, IMO.
LL
LL,
if an electron cannot be localized/collapsed in it's momentum on two (or more) "points" of it's momentum by a photon of a high energy from the high frequency laser beam, then this proposal cannot work. At least not in this version.
But the problem is that I am receiving different answerers from different physicists on this particular issue.
You say no, some say yes.
See my problem?
Anton
Mate,
This is a gedanken experiment. To physically set it up and measure/observe it
would be very difficult, IMO.
What we do know is how an electron responds when influenced by E or M fields,
since it is an electric "monopole" with a net negative charge. It will either move
towards a positive charge or be repelled from a negative charge. It can also
be made to follow a spiral trajectory. You cannot "divide" the quantum energy
that "is" an electron, but you can change its direction and relative momentum,
but those changes will happen mutually. If you change one it changes the other.
LL
This is a gedanken experiment. To physically set it up and measure/observe it
would be very difficult, IMO.
What we do know is how an electron responds when influenced by E or M fields,
since it is an electric "monopole" with a net negative charge. It will either move
towards a positive charge or be repelled from a negative charge. It can also
be made to follow a spiral trajectory. You cannot "divide" the quantum energy
that "is" an electron, but you can change its direction and relative momentum,
but those changes will happen mutually. If you change one it changes the other.
LL
Anton,
Some older CRT tubes had alignment masks to steer and "focus" the trajectories
of electrons toward specific phosphor dots on the CRT screen. The electrons were
emitted from a heated filament cathode and accelerated by charged/biased grids
and the aquadag voltage applied to the TV tube. It was a method of steering
control.
My point being that electron trajectories can be directionally controlled by altering
the wave "phasing" EM cycle relationship with externally applied charges/fields.
Basically IMO, you distort the negative field stressors that surround the electron
centerpoint and the electron moves in the direction of least total field/charge stress.
JMHO,
LL
Some older CRT tubes had alignment masks to steer and "focus" the trajectories
of electrons toward specific phosphor dots on the CRT screen. The electrons were
emitted from a heated filament cathode and accelerated by charged/biased grids
and the aquadag voltage applied to the TV tube. It was a method of steering
control.
My point being that electron trajectories can be directionally controlled by altering
the wave "phasing" EM cycle relationship with externally applied charges/fields.
Basically IMO, you distort the negative field stressors that surround the electron
centerpoint and the electron moves in the direction of least total field/charge stress.
JMHO,
LL
Are electrons molten particles?
Hi LL,Montec et al,
LL.. I agree things kinda get titchier in an ISL sort of way .. the thing is the info isn't lost .. you can get it back if you have a big enough lens - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution
Montec .. if we set a row of aerials along the edge of a field (the grassy type of field) and fed them all in phase then we'd have something close to a plane wave. If we switched off some of the outer ones off I think we'd we'd have the sort of wave normally associated with a slit. I've never seen an analysis of a slit based on a change of velocity - such a change would naturally change the phase/location of any observed interference pattern. There might be a conspiracy of silence or it might just be that the effect is too small to be measured in the presence of the 'traditional' explanation of diffraction. Your guess?
My webcam has a resolution of 640x480 pixels and the active area is about 2mm across - so each 'pixel' must be less than 4um across. Since I can get a reasonable standard of focus it would seem a photon must be smaller than 4um otherwise they'd keep popping up in the cells next door - and they don't.
If we look at a big astronomical (reflector) telescope we can see that they are quite big .. at least 15 feet across (I think) .. if a photon can be collected up by a thing that is 15 feet across then it suggests a photon is (more than) 15 feet across. Also less than 4um across. The reflector is (I guess) 2 or three feet deep (they work on angle not path length) so the longest path taken by the photon must be substantially longer than the shortest path .. I'd guess feet (millions of wavelengths). Not only feet but nanoseconds. If the 'photon wave' is an impulse or single wavefront then clearly it won't all be arriving at the same time - quite interesting to consider what it actually looks like (analytically). Care to go there?
Anton:- if your complexifier can be made to work it falls right into the territory of the delayed choice beast. If you can give a neat explanation of how/why the DCQE works then you'll be a few steps further on the way to understanding what your complexifier will (or won't) do.
Best wishes,
-C2.
LL.. I agree things kinda get titchier in an ISL sort of way .. the thing is the info isn't lost .. you can get it back if you have a big enough lens - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution
Montec .. if we set a row of aerials along the edge of a field (the grassy type of field) and fed them all in phase then we'd have something close to a plane wave. If we switched off some of the outer ones off I think we'd we'd have the sort of wave normally associated with a slit. I've never seen an analysis of a slit based on a change of velocity - such a change would naturally change the phase/location of any observed interference pattern. There might be a conspiracy of silence or it might just be that the effect is too small to be measured in the presence of the 'traditional' explanation of diffraction. Your guess?
My webcam has a resolution of 640x480 pixels and the active area is about 2mm across - so each 'pixel' must be less than 4um across. Since I can get a reasonable standard of focus it would seem a photon must be smaller than 4um otherwise they'd keep popping up in the cells next door - and they don't.
If we look at a big astronomical (reflector) telescope we can see that they are quite big .. at least 15 feet across (I think) .. if a photon can be collected up by a thing that is 15 feet across then it suggests a photon is (more than) 15 feet across. Also less than 4um across. The reflector is (I guess) 2 or three feet deep (they work on angle not path length) so the longest path taken by the photon must be substantially longer than the shortest path .. I'd guess feet (millions of wavelengths). Not only feet but nanoseconds. If the 'photon wave' is an impulse or single wavefront then clearly it won't all be arriving at the same time - quite interesting to consider what it actually looks like (analytically). Care to go there?
Anton:- if your complexifier can be made to work it falls right into the territory of the delayed choice beast. If you can give a neat explanation of how/why the DCQE works then you'll be a few steps further on the way to understanding what your complexifier will (or won't) do.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hello Confused2, et al.
The array of antennas along the edge of a field is a good analogy to a plane wave if all the antenna are energized by a non-delayed signal. Switching off the outside antennas would just reduce the size/area of the plane wave. But what would the shape of the wave be if you added a timing delay to the antennas on each edge. The resultant wavefront would be convex. If the central antennas are driven by a time delayed signal then a concave shaped wavefront can be produced.
A curved reflector changes the shape of the incident wave front upon reflection. Fun house mirrors are a good example.
The size of a parabolic reflector determines the area of the incident wave that will be reflected and hence the ability to detect weak signals at the focal point. The timing delay for each point of reflection along the inside surface is what determines the resultant wavefront shape. The timing delay is the result of the finite speed of light and the extra distance the planar wave must travel when comparing the edges to the center of the parabolic reflector.
Each cell of your webcam's CCD stores charges generated by incident EM wave fronts. The charges are then summed and the value of that sum is sent to some electronic circuitry. The cell is then discharged and made ready for the next cycle. Remember the charges are generated by all the incident EM waves and there related interference present in EM waves at any surface. The lens over the CCD will focus planar EM waves to single point on the CCD. The webcams field and depth of view defines the orientation (with respect to the lens axis) of the planar waves that are focused to different cells on the CCD by the lens. In effect the point sources in the webcam's field of view generate spherical EM waves that are seen as nearly planer waves by the lens due to the lenses small size and distances from the point sources.
The array of antennas along the edge of a field is a good analogy to a plane wave if all the antenna are energized by a non-delayed signal. Switching off the outside antennas would just reduce the size/area of the plane wave. But what would the shape of the wave be if you added a timing delay to the antennas on each edge. The resultant wavefront would be convex. If the central antennas are driven by a time delayed signal then a concave shaped wavefront can be produced.
A curved reflector changes the shape of the incident wave front upon reflection. Fun house mirrors are a good example.
The size of a parabolic reflector determines the area of the incident wave that will be reflected and hence the ability to detect weak signals at the focal point. The timing delay for each point of reflection along the inside surface is what determines the resultant wavefront shape. The timing delay is the result of the finite speed of light and the extra distance the planar wave must travel when comparing the edges to the center of the parabolic reflector.
Each cell of your webcam's CCD stores charges generated by incident EM wave fronts. The charges are then summed and the value of that sum is sent to some electronic circuitry. The cell is then discharged and made ready for the next cycle. Remember the charges are generated by all the incident EM waves and there related interference present in EM waves at any surface. The lens over the CCD will focus planar EM waves to single point on the CCD. The webcams field and depth of view defines the orientation (with respect to the lens axis) of the planar waves that are focused to different cells on the CCD by the lens. In effect the point sources in the webcam's field of view generate spherical EM waves that are seen as nearly planer waves by the lens due to the lenses small size and distances from the point sources.
Hi EMPulse,
This article from Wikipedia provides details about electrons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
LL
QUOTE
Are electrons molten particles?
This article from Wikipedia provides details about electrons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
LL
Hi Montec,
I don't disagree with your analysis of phased arrays - my point is that the the generally accepted analysis is that 'non-visible' sources (say anything obscured by (say) a slit) are simply 'non-visible' and play no part. The generally accepted answer has the advantage of giving something very close to the experimental result. I am happy to attempt the maths of a velocity changing slit but I will need further information from you - details.
I don't disagree with your analysis of phased arrays - my point is that the the generally accepted analysis is that 'non-visible' sources (say anything obscured by (say) a slit) are simply 'non-visible' and play no part. The generally accepted answer has the advantage of giving something very close to the experimental result. I am happy to attempt the maths of a velocity changing slit but I will need further information from you - details.
QUOTE (Montec+)
The size of a parabolic reflector determines the area of the incident wave that will be reflected and hence the ability to detect weak signals at the focal point. The timing delay for each point of reflection along the inside surface is what determines the resultant wavefront shape. The timing delay is the result of the finite speed of light and the extra distance the planar wave must travel when comparing the edges to the center of the parabolic reflector.
My first inspection suggests the wave should (almost) cancel at the focal point. This is clearly wrong .. hopefully Janrinze (at least) will help.
My first inspection suggests the wave should (almost) cancel at the focal point. This is clearly wrong .. hopefully Janrinze (at least) will help.
QUOTE (Montec+)
Each cell of your webcam's CCD stores charges generated by incident EM wave fronts.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodiode
The "photon creates electron-hole pair" has been pretty consistent over the last 30 years.
The energy of a 'light' photon (about 2eV) [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt ]
Compare with the bandgap for silicon (about 1.12eV)
http://ece-www.colorado.edu/~bart/book/boo...2/pdf/ex2_2.pdf
It makes sense (at least to me) .. admittedly this was (mildly) my field at one time and I may well be overly conservative.
Well established physics covers ".. charges generated by the incident EM wave fronts " and it is all worked out in individual photons .. not fields.
Analysis of the focal point of a large parabolic reflector anyone? Can't be THAT difficult.
Best wishes - C2.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodiode
QUOTE
A photodiode is a p-n junction or p-i-n structure. When a photon of sufficient energy strikes the diode, it excites an electron thereby creating a mobile electron and a positively charged electron hole. If the absorption occurs in the junction's depletion region, or one diffusion length away from it, these carriers are swept from the junction by the built-in field of the depletion region, producing a photocurrent.
The "photon creates electron-hole pair" has been pretty consistent over the last 30 years.
The energy of a 'light' photon (about 2eV) [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt ]
Compare with the bandgap for silicon (about 1.12eV)
http://ece-www.colorado.edu/~bart/book/boo...2/pdf/ex2_2.pdf
It makes sense (at least to me) .. admittedly this was (mildly) my field at one time and I may well be overly conservative.
Well established physics covers ".. charges generated by the incident EM wave fronts " and it is all worked out in individual photons .. not fields.
Analysis of the focal point of a large parabolic reflector anyone? Can't be THAT difficult.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi janrinze, "THEY", Laserlight, Jal, Confused2, Zephir, yquantum, TRoc, Montec, Neil Farbstein, Mate et al,
The ISL applies to single "ray "emanation" from a source. Different rays from a single source at different azimuthal solid angles will initially have different "power" levels. This is due to the reasons above (resonances on a sphere from the source). The ISL applies for small solid angles in the far field at different distances for the same ray. The question remaining is....
1) Is the drop off in power due to interception of fewer constant sized spherical photon particles per unit area?
or....
2) Is the drop off in power due to spreading of the same number of photon particles occupying the same solid angle in the same space.
Both models can give an Inverse Square Law.... Right?
What we know is the same amount of "radiant energy" will pass through the same solid angle at any distance in the far field. In other word a signal concentrator (lets say a parabolic lens) that focuses the energy to a point would need to adjust its aperture such that it subtends the exact same solid angle at the same azimuth to receive the same number of photons from that one source. Each photon delivers the same energy at the same frequency. How can we choose from 1 or 2? We know that for a given wavelength we can put holes in the parabolic reflector up to "nearly" half a wavelength size of the incident photons before we start to miss any of them. This is like saying with photons a parabolic lens/mirror is like a fishing net with a certain gauge size that allows photons above a certain size to be "caught" and smaller than a certain size to escape. Oh... so that clinches it then... photons are all the same size of around 1/2 a wavelength in all directions and behave like particles... therefore it must be 1 above.
Wrong... what about interference?... photons are waves that can pass through several of those holes at once! For instance 660 nm radiation equals 0.000660 millimeters. We know that a single photon must be able to pass through holes 1 mm apart (many of you have performed this experiment) This is at least 1,000 times larger than a wavelength. Depending on how the beam is diverged or spread you can even increase this spacing considerably and still obtain interference effects. As waves these photons should all be getting through these holes. The wavelike photons should be like "water" and we are trying to scoop it up with a "net". The mistake being made here is that the "net" does not detect the photons, its purpose is supposed to perfectly reflect the photons as waves to that focal point where they are actually detected. The one point where all photons are "counted" or "detected". This is a small device that does the counting whose size is usually larger than the beam spot. What is the difference between the "net" which gathers the photons and the detector ... a small sensor... that actually counts the photons? The sensor actually absorbs the photons (collapses the wavefunction) and the net does not. So the net with all its holes is still a perfect net provided the holes are small compared with the wavelength of light. This is because the open spaces in the "net" are actually filled with something that can block the radiation at that frequency as a wave. Invisible barriers in space caused by the structure of the "net" and its placement in space.
This is experimentally proven... therefore the photons are obviously spreading like waves not propagating like ping pong balls. Therefore the answer is 2.
Cheers
The ISL applies to single "ray "emanation" from a source. Different rays from a single source at different azimuthal solid angles will initially have different "power" levels. This is due to the reasons above (resonances on a sphere from the source). The ISL applies for small solid angles in the far field at different distances for the same ray. The question remaining is....
1) Is the drop off in power due to interception of fewer constant sized spherical photon particles per unit area?
or....
2) Is the drop off in power due to spreading of the same number of photon particles occupying the same solid angle in the same space.
Both models can give an Inverse Square Law.... Right?
What we know is the same amount of "radiant energy" will pass through the same solid angle at any distance in the far field. In other word a signal concentrator (lets say a parabolic lens) that focuses the energy to a point would need to adjust its aperture such that it subtends the exact same solid angle at the same azimuth to receive the same number of photons from that one source. Each photon delivers the same energy at the same frequency. How can we choose from 1 or 2? We know that for a given wavelength we can put holes in the parabolic reflector up to "nearly" half a wavelength size of the incident photons before we start to miss any of them. This is like saying with photons a parabolic lens/mirror is like a fishing net with a certain gauge size that allows photons above a certain size to be "caught" and smaller than a certain size to escape. Oh... so that clinches it then... photons are all the same size of around 1/2 a wavelength in all directions and behave like particles... therefore it must be 1 above.
Wrong... what about interference?... photons are waves that can pass through several of those holes at once! For instance 660 nm radiation equals 0.000660 millimeters. We know that a single photon must be able to pass through holes 1 mm apart (many of you have performed this experiment) This is at least 1,000 times larger than a wavelength. Depending on how the beam is diverged or spread you can even increase this spacing considerably and still obtain interference effects. As waves these photons should all be getting through these holes. The wavelike photons should be like "water" and we are trying to scoop it up with a "net". The mistake being made here is that the "net" does not detect the photons, its purpose is supposed to perfectly reflect the photons as waves to that focal point where they are actually detected. The one point where all photons are "counted" or "detected". This is a small device that does the counting whose size is usually larger than the beam spot. What is the difference between the "net" which gathers the photons and the detector ... a small sensor... that actually counts the photons? The sensor actually absorbs the photons (collapses the wavefunction) and the net does not. So the net with all its holes is still a perfect net provided the holes are small compared with the wavelength of light. This is because the open spaces in the "net" are actually filled with something that can block the radiation at that frequency as a wave. Invisible barriers in space caused by the structure of the "net" and its placement in space.
This is experimentally proven... therefore the photons are obviously spreading like waves not propagating like ping pong balls. Therefore the answer is 2.
Cheers
Hi C2 and the rest,
the focal point of the parabolic mirror is indeed equal length path for plane incident waves.
I'll try to put a demo up with the Plane Graphic Calculator.
Jan Rinze.
the focal point of the parabolic mirror is indeed equal length path for plane incident waves.
I'll try to put a demo up with the Plane Graphic Calculator.
Jan Rinze.
Hi C2, and the rest..
Here a small exercise in using the plane graphic calculator for the calculation of path length with a parabolic mirror.
first we define the mirror:
f= t,t^2
then we define the distance g(t) from any point (denoted by 't') on the mirror to the focal point 'a'
g= a-f
we also have an incident wave so we have to calculate the distance from one (arbitrary) plane to the point where it touches the mirror. We define a point h(t) in the plane of the wave (at arbitrary distance)
h = t,20
we can now conclude that the light would travel from point h(t) to f(t) and arriving at point a. (assuming no divergence at f(t)) The path length would thus be the distance between h(t) and f(t) plus the distance between f(t) and 'a'.
k= t,|h-f|+|g|-20
Since I used 20 as an arbitrary distance to start (see h(t)) I decided to subtract 20 to keep things visible in the applet.
If we now move point 'a' to the focal point of the parabolic mirror we can see that k(t) becomes a constant. Thus the path length of all photons is the same in the focal point and we get constructive interference at the focal point.
For a simple applet that explains the focal point of a parabolic mirror:
Parabolic mirror
Hope this helps.
Jan Rinze.
P.S. as a hint, the focal point of a 'standard' parabolic mirror is at ( 0 , 0.25 ) ..
Here a small exercise in using the plane graphic calculator for the calculation of path length with a parabolic mirror.
first we define the mirror:
f= t,t^2
then we define the distance g(t) from any point (denoted by 't') on the mirror to the focal point 'a'
g= a-f
we also have an incident wave so we have to calculate the distance from one (arbitrary) plane to the point where it touches the mirror. We define a point h(t) in the plane of the wave (at arbitrary distance)
h = t,20
we can now conclude that the light would travel from point h(t) to f(t) and arriving at point a. (assuming no divergence at f(t)) The path length would thus be the distance between h(t) and f(t) plus the distance between f(t) and 'a'.
k= t,|h-f|+|g|-20
Since I used 20 as an arbitrary distance to start (see h(t)) I decided to subtract 20 to keep things visible in the applet.
If we now move point 'a' to the focal point of the parabolic mirror we can see that k(t) becomes a constant. Thus the path length of all photons is the same in the focal point and we get constructive interference at the focal point.
For a simple applet that explains the focal point of a parabolic mirror:
Parabolic mirror
Hope this helps.
Jan Rinze.
P.S. as a hint, the focal point of a 'standard' parabolic mirror is at ( 0 , 0.25 ) ..
Nice one Jan (and the PGC) .. equal path lengths ARE presereved.
Unfortunately this neither proves nor disproves my suspicion that a photon is an e^iwx 'zap' ..
Best wishes - C2.
Unfortunately this neither proves nor disproves my suspicion that a photon is an e^iwx 'zap' ..
Best wishes - C2.
Hi Good Elf,
therefore the photons are obviously spreading like waves not propagating like ping pong balls
With the DS experiment in conjunction with electrons the detection of electrons at either slit will make them act like the ping pong balls. Without detection they will act like waves. Currently there are no methods know to detect a photon without absorbing the photon. Any method capable of detecting a photon without 'destroying' it would i.m.h.o. yield the same 'ping pong ball' behavior. We just need a way to detect the passage of a photon at either slit.
Do you agree on this?
Jan Rinze.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jun 5 2007, 10:38 PM)
therefore the photons are obviously spreading like waves not propagating like ping pong balls
With the DS experiment in conjunction with electrons the detection of electrons at either slit will make them act like the ping pong balls. Without detection they will act like waves. Currently there are no methods know to detect a photon without absorbing the photon. Any method capable of detecting a photon without 'destroying' it would i.m.h.o. yield the same 'ping pong ball' behavior. We just need a way to detect the passage of a photon at either slit.
Do you agree on this?
Jan Rinze.
Hi Janrinze,
Thank you for the question...
Thank you for the question...
QUOTE (Janrinze+)
With the DS experiment in conjunction with electrons the detection of electrons at either slit will make them act like the ping pong balls. Without detection they will act like waves. Currently there are no methods know to detect a photon without absorbing the photon. Any method capable of detecting a photon without 'destroying' it would i.m.h.o. yield the same 'ping pong ball' behavior. We just need a way to detect the passage of a photon at either slit.
Do you agree on this?
Do you agree on this?
Yes I do agree with most of that. There are two ideas in your question above. The double slit experiment is usually impractical using electrons but can be done. Electron double slit diffraction requires mighty small double slits because of the shortness of the wavelength of electron's de Broglie wave. Electron diffraction for the DSE is usually inferred from Bragg Electron Diffraction from crystal planes but I am in no doubt that the DSE could be directly performed using real "atomic sized slits" and velocity selected "correlated" electrons from a single source.
Now to the other notion in your question... Photons with their large amounts of energy can scatter low velocity electrons and obviously they can even 'eject electrons' from conduction bands (the photoelectric effect). So light can interfere with electrons on their way to the double slit destroying the pattern. Also they can even cause electron phenomena on the slits due to these Plasmon effects, all by themselves. This effect of scattering cannot happen to photons (though Plasmons can still happen). Suitable slit design and light wavelengths used should be considered. The difference being that the electrons are fermions and photons are bosons. Photons do not scatter other photons while bosons and other fermions can scatter fermions due to space quantization of fermions.
While actual "passive detection" of photons remains a kind of quantum contradiction and a virtual "semantic trap" since detection and being passive are not simultaneously possible, it is possible for information to be imprinted between synchronized photon sources, even entanglement between synchronized sources of photons, provided they are allowed to 'mix" on their way to detection. The photons must be "externally correlated" through beam locking at the sources. What happens is the information "carried" by the photons in both propagating beams from the two technically correlated sources are "shared" so that each crossing beam contains some information from both sources when each set of photons are finally detected. This is through the superposition of the wave quantum states in co-moving photons. This must happen while the photons are in the wave state and not a particle state and this is not a "particle" phenomenon.
It can be seen that this can include some entangled properties to be passed and even 'duplicated". I have read about these experiments and have commented on them on this thread previously... I might be able to find this reference again if you like. The point is the wave state is "real" and things happen there while they are waves and not detected as particles.
For instance the wave state transfers information from a dark room about the arrangement of everything in that room... And the interference patterns carry this information into the emulsion as crystal darkening in depth in the photographic emulsion (hologram). This is despite the fact that the photons from the single primary source travel directly to the emulsion along the path of least action, while other photons are absorbed in various other directions in the room. The significance of this is while the image on the plate contains this information about the arrangement of all objects in the room regardless of the fact that they are absorbers or reflectors only the coherent photons that travel directly to the plate will be mainly affecting the exposure of the Hologram. What this means (and the subtlety of this concept) is the Feynman adage is working... photons "seeking all paths" is providing phase information for photons that go directly from source to photographic plate, or for that matter interacting in a "double slit experiment" arranged in the room somewhere else. If you think about it deeply this is a very "profound" thing. Consider one step further... this holographic plate can be exposed one photon at a time...
Another idea is expressed here...
NIST atom interferometry displays new quantum tricks
Here is "atomic interferometry" on a different scale again. It is a novel idea and requires some more contemplation. If you would like to comment or anyone else likes to comment I would be interested in any ideas.
Cheers
PS: Any experiment that detects the passing of an electron or a photon through one slit by its very nature has 'forced" the result (made it go through one slit) and that particular electron or photon will not partake in the double slit interference pattern and it will contribute to a Gaussian distribution of "ping pong" balls or at best an Airy pattern if we totally not interfere with the individual photon or electron yet still "force" it through one hole (cover one hole).
Now to the other notion in your question... Photons with their large amounts of energy can scatter low velocity electrons and obviously they can even 'eject electrons' from conduction bands (the photoelectric effect). So light can interfere with electrons on their way to the double slit destroying the pattern. Also they can even cause electron phenomena on the slits due to these Plasmon effects, all by themselves. This effect of scattering cannot happen to photons (though Plasmons can still happen). Suitable slit design and light wavelengths used should be considered. The difference being that the electrons are fermions and photons are bosons. Photons do not scatter other photons while bosons and other fermions can scatter fermions due to space quantization of fermions.
While actual "passive detection" of photons remains a kind of quantum contradiction and a virtual "semantic trap" since detection and being passive are not simultaneously possible, it is possible for information to be imprinted between synchronized photon sources, even entanglement between synchronized sources of photons, provided they are allowed to 'mix" on their way to detection. The photons must be "externally correlated" through beam locking at the sources. What happens is the information "carried" by the photons in both propagating beams from the two technically correlated sources are "shared" so that each crossing beam contains some information from both sources when each set of photons are finally detected. This is through the superposition of the wave quantum states in co-moving photons. This must happen while the photons are in the wave state and not a particle state and this is not a "particle" phenomenon.
It can be seen that this can include some entangled properties to be passed and even 'duplicated". I have read about these experiments and have commented on them on this thread previously... I might be able to find this reference again if you like. The point is the wave state is "real" and things happen there while they are waves and not detected as particles.
For instance the wave state transfers information from a dark room about the arrangement of everything in that room... And the interference patterns carry this information into the emulsion as crystal darkening in depth in the photographic emulsion (hologram). This is despite the fact that the photons from the single primary source travel directly to the emulsion along the path of least action, while other photons are absorbed in various other directions in the room. The significance of this is while the image on the plate contains this information about the arrangement of all objects in the room regardless of the fact that they are absorbers or reflectors only the coherent photons that travel directly to the plate will be mainly affecting the exposure of the Hologram. What this means (and the subtlety of this concept) is the Feynman adage is working... photons "seeking all paths" is providing phase information for photons that go directly from source to photographic plate, or for that matter interacting in a "double slit experiment" arranged in the room somewhere else. If you think about it deeply this is a very "profound" thing. Consider one step further... this holographic plate can be exposed one photon at a time...
Another idea is expressed here...
NIST atom interferometry displays new quantum tricks
Here is "atomic interferometry" on a different scale again. It is a novel idea and requires some more contemplation. If you would like to comment or anyone else likes to comment I would be interested in any ideas.
Cheers
PS: Any experiment that detects the passing of an electron or a photon through one slit by its very nature has 'forced" the result (made it go through one slit) and that particular electron or photon will not partake in the double slit interference pattern and it will contribute to a Gaussian distribution of "ping pong" balls or at best an Airy pattern if we totally not interfere with the individual photon or electron yet still "force" it through one hole (cover one hole).
Hi All,
Some quantifiables about a 660nm photon:
The time interval of each wave is: t = 2.015 x 10 –15 seconds per wavelength
It's frequency is roughly 454.231 terahz.
The amplitude (height) of the electric field of the photon is 660nm.
A photon of quantum energy propgating at a specific frequency does not change
over any distance in a "perfect" vacuum.
We know its "size" as a single impulse event, and its individual characteristics.
This gets back to identifying a single quantum photon as a "corpuscle".
Photon energy density:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...um/phodens.html
The distribution of energy:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../disene.html#c1
Comments? Discussion?
LL
Some quantifiables about a 660nm photon:
The time interval of each wave is: t = 2.015 x 10 –15 seconds per wavelength
It's frequency is roughly 454.231 terahz.
The amplitude (height) of the electric field of the photon is 660nm.
A photon of quantum energy propgating at a specific frequency does not change
over any distance in a "perfect" vacuum.
We know its "size" as a single impulse event, and its individual characteristics.
This gets back to identifying a single quantum photon as a "corpuscle".
Photon energy density:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...um/phodens.html
The distribution of energy:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../disene.html#c1
Comments? Discussion?
LL
Hi GE and All,
I will approach one issue at a time.
Somehow I missed the meaning of this statement. Not all of the photon's
are getting thru the slits at 1mm spacing. Some of the photon's
propagating in the wavefront are getting thru the slits due to wave dispersion,
some are reflected back toward the source. Since the wave is coherent,
any photons that are in that wave front can interfere with any other photon.
The slits are acting as new sources for the energy of the wave (photons)
that is passing thru, and the new time coherent wavefronts (photons) are
spreading into the cavity and interfering.
The photons travelling in the dispersed wavefront are all coherent and time
synchronous to each other and the timing of the wave.
So I am not getting your point. Please explain.
LL
I will approach one issue at a time.
QUOTE
Wrong... what about interference?... photons are waves that can pass through several of those holes at once! For instance 660 nm radiation equals 0.000660 millimeters. We know that a single photon must be able to pass through holes 1 mm apart (many of you have performed this experiment) This is at least 1,000 times larger than a wavelength. Depending on how the beam is diverged or spread you can even increase this spacing considerably and still obtain interference effects. As waves these photons should all be getting through these holes. The wavelike photons should be like "water" and we are trying to scoop it up with a "net". The mistake being made here is that the "net" does not detect the photons, its purpose is supposed to perfectly reflect the photons as waves to that focal point where they are actually detected.
Somehow I missed the meaning of this statement. Not all of the photon's
are getting thru the slits at 1mm spacing. Some of the photon's
propagating in the wavefront are getting thru the slits due to wave dispersion,
some are reflected back toward the source. Since the wave is coherent,
any photons that are in that wave front can interfere with any other photon.
The slits are acting as new sources for the energy of the wave (photons)
that is passing thru, and the new time coherent wavefronts (photons) are
spreading into the cavity and interfering.
The photons travelling in the dispersed wavefront are all coherent and time
synchronous to each other and the timing of the wave.
So I am not getting your point. Please explain.
LL
Hello Laserlight, et al.
How does one calculate the electric field hight of a dipole generated photon or EM wave? The energy is emitted as a solid angle with an intensity that varies with respect to the dipole orientation. I think the closest thing that could relate to hight of the photon EM wave would be a tension induced in the dialectic of space-time. There is no comparison between surface waves in a medium and EM waves in space.
How does one calculate the electric field hight of a dipole generated photon or EM wave? The energy is emitted as a solid angle with an intensity that varies with respect to the dipole orientation. I think the closest thing that could relate to hight of the photon EM wave would be a tension induced in the dialectic of space-time. There is no comparison between surface waves in a medium and EM waves in space.
Hi laserlight,
QUOTE (laserlight+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Wrong... what about interference?... photons are waves that can pass through several of those holes at once! For instance 660 nm radiation equals 0.000660 millimeters. We know that a single photon must be able to pass through holes 1 mm apart (many of you have performed this experiment) This is at least 1,000 times larger than a wavelength. Depending on how the beam is diverged or spread you can even increase this spacing considerably and still obtain interference effects. As waves these photons should all be getting through these holes. The wavelike photons should be like "water" and we are trying to scoop it up with a "net". The mistake being made here is that the "net" does not detect the photons, its purpose is supposed to perfectly reflect the photons as waves to that focal point where they are actually detected.
Somehow I missed the meaning of this statement.
This is a Gedanken experiment but I would think it will work because of the results of known experiments in low illumination levels... Take the general problem of one photon at a time interference... Drill two test holes in the parabolic reflector 1mm apart. Allow one photon to pass through the holes at a time (use a Fourier Transform Plane Linear Detector sensor to test this behind the reflector). This one photon at a time will go through the two large pinholes spaced 1 mm apart. What happens on the source side of the pinholes is irrelevant, it is only what happens on the far side of the pinholes that matter. We make the hole big enough to let the photon through (1/2 a wavelength or 1 wavelength it does not matter... just let it pass through the pinholes). I know this photon passes through both pinholes because when this happened these photons build up an interference pattern on the sensor for a double pinhole over time. all those photons are still coherent until they hit the screen when they are detected otherwise they will not produce the interference. This means that these individual photons one at a time have gone through both pinholes at the same time so individually they are "at least" 1 mm across in the transverse direction. Now put two other holes 1 mm apart anywhere on the parabolic reflector you like and repeat the experiment one photon at a time and we will note that we have double slit interference there too. The photon retains the same wavelength in the direction of propagation. All these photons appear to be at least 1mm across to pass through both pinholes anywhere on the surface. Therefore individual photons have all the attributes of a "pancake" not a ping pong ball... At least 1000 times the diameter compared with the "length" (1/2 wavelength). Now if the outside of the mirror has the same type and character of photons then by induction they are spreading and covering the reflector rather than separating into little balls.
Cheers
Cheers
GE and All,
This is for the sake of discussion. I want to make sure that we are totally
right in our evaluation of the photon and its characteristics. We are after the
truth and I want to make sure that we all agree.
2nd issue:
A reflector mirror, as in a telescope, has dielectric qualities, I'm not sure if it
also has conductive qualities due to its "silvering". In any case it is a light
energy collector and a light amplifier, with lens magnification qualities.
This means it condenses energy at a localized "point".
It collects photons across a fixed reflecting surface area that represents a
cross-section of a spherical arc equal to the surface area of the spherical
"section" that follow the energy distribution laws of the ISL. It then reflects these
individual photons to a focal point of detection where all of the time "dispersion" is
condensed. Basically, it condenses the distance and boson energy states between
the collected photons, and therefore reestablishes the relative timing between the
dispersed wave and its constituent photons. This also condenses the total energy
of the wave that was distributed across the detected area of the ISL "sphere".
-------
Let's change from a fishing net analogy of a parabolic antenna to a spaghetti
collander with holes in it since it has a similar shape to a parabolic reflector.
A passive parabolic antenna is conductive and reflective. Holes that are smaller
by less than 1/2 the width of an EM wave will develop near fields, but the majority
of the energy of the wave will not pass thru because it is being blocked by the
currents being induced into the surface of the conductive reflector. The wave
will reflect away from the antenna and the holes. This depends upon the wavelenth
and the size of the holes relative to the wavelength.
Long ago I had mentioned about the open grating of a faraday cabinet that
enclosed an operating clystron tube. The open holes of the grating panel were
there to allow cooling airflow to blow past the tube. The holes were sized to
block the 9.08Ghz RF waves that were being generated in the tube. We
demonstrated the minimal RF leakage by inserting a nixie tube (small neon filled
bulb) into the grating and it would light up as soon as it was inserted into
the gap of the grate spaces, but not on the non-RF side, where the near fields
were of minimal strength.
Comments? Discussion welcomed?
LL
This is for the sake of discussion. I want to make sure that we are totally
right in our evaluation of the photon and its characteristics. We are after the
truth and I want to make sure that we all agree.
2nd issue:
QUOTE
We know that for a given wavelength we can put holes in the parabolic reflector up to "nearly" half a wavelength size of the incident photons before we start to miss any of them. This is like saying with photons a parabolic lens/mirror is like a fishing net with a certain gauge size that allows photons above a certain size to be "caught" and smaller than a certain size to escape. Oh... so that clinches it then... photons are all the same size of around 1/2 a wavelength in all directions and behave like particles... therefore it must be 1 above.
A reflector mirror, as in a telescope, has dielectric qualities, I'm not sure if it
also has conductive qualities due to its "silvering". In any case it is a light
energy collector and a light amplifier, with lens magnification qualities.
This means it condenses energy at a localized "point".
It collects photons across a fixed reflecting surface area that represents a
cross-section of a spherical arc equal to the surface area of the spherical
"section" that follow the energy distribution laws of the ISL. It then reflects these
individual photons to a focal point of detection where all of the time "dispersion" is
condensed. Basically, it condenses the distance and boson energy states between
the collected photons, and therefore reestablishes the relative timing between the
dispersed wave and its constituent photons. This also condenses the total energy
of the wave that was distributed across the detected area of the ISL "sphere".
-------
Let's change from a fishing net analogy of a parabolic antenna to a spaghetti
collander with holes in it since it has a similar shape to a parabolic reflector.
A passive parabolic antenna is conductive and reflective. Holes that are smaller
by less than 1/2 the width of an EM wave will develop near fields, but the majority
of the energy of the wave will not pass thru because it is being blocked by the
currents being induced into the surface of the conductive reflector. The wave
will reflect away from the antenna and the holes. This depends upon the wavelenth
and the size of the holes relative to the wavelength.
Long ago I had mentioned about the open grating of a faraday cabinet that
enclosed an operating clystron tube. The open holes of the grating panel were
there to allow cooling airflow to blow past the tube. The holes were sized to
block the 9.08Ghz RF waves that were being generated in the tube. We
demonstrated the minimal RF leakage by inserting a nixie tube (small neon filled
bulb) into the grating and it would light up as soon as it was inserted into
the gap of the grate spaces, but not on the non-RF side, where the near fields
were of minimal strength.
Comments? Discussion welcomed?
LL
Montec,
These are good points! I will argue it from the idea of what we think we know
about the nature of a specific frequency photon. If we know the frequency,
and we also know the speed of light, we therefore know the amplitude of the
wave height, since EM fields move at the speed of light. (I'm disagreeing with
the concept of superluminal speeds for EM fields).
We measure this wave height for a photon of specific frequency by how it
displaces an electron and generates current of some scaled amplitude within
electonic circuitry. So we also know the inherent energy of the photon because of
the energy required to eject an electron. We know E = hf.
We also know the time it takes for an electric or magnetic field to build to a peak
or collapse around an inductor as current flows thru it which are also associated
with current flow thru the conductor.
I totally agree with your contention about the field stressor and how it impacts
the dielectric properties of space-time. This must represent some geometric
and energy qualities to the fabric of space-time. (You already know my contention
that these energy fields induce stressors that displace the normal qualities
of "space" and change its relative energy volume/content.)
These are good points! I will argue it from the idea of what we think we know
about the nature of a specific frequency photon. If we know the frequency,
and we also know the speed of light, we therefore know the amplitude of the
wave height, since EM fields move at the speed of light. (I'm disagreeing with
the concept of superluminal speeds for EM fields).
We measure this wave height for a photon of specific frequency by how it
displaces an electron and generates current of some scaled amplitude within
electonic circuitry. So we also know the inherent energy of the photon because of
the energy required to eject an electron. We know E = hf.
We also know the time it takes for an electric or magnetic field to build to a peak
or collapse around an inductor as current flows thru it which are also associated
with current flow thru the conductor.
I totally agree with your contention about the field stressor and how it impacts
the dielectric properties of space-time. This must represent some geometric
and energy qualities to the fabric of space-time. (You already know my contention
that these energy fields induce stressors that displace the normal qualities
of "space" and change its relative energy volume/content.)
There is no comparison between surface waves in a medium and EM waves in space
How can you be sure of this? The index of refraction and its impact on the
speed of light in a vacuum vs other media should disprove your contention.
The density of a transmissive medium changes the speed of light, and the
reference is a comparison to vacuum. If we know the frequency, wavelength,
energy level, and the relative speed of light then doesn't this provide proof that
contradicts your statement?
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
How does one calculate the electric field hight of a dipole generated photon or EM wave? The energy is emitted as a solid angle with an intensity that varies with respect to the dipole orientation. I think the closest thing that could relate to hight of the photon EM wave would be a tension induced in the dialectic of space-time. There is no comparison between surface waves in a medium and EM waves in space.
These are good points! I will argue it from the idea of what we think we know
about the nature of a specific frequency photon. If we know the frequency,
and we also know the speed of light, we therefore know the amplitude of the
wave height, since EM fields move at the speed of light. (I'm disagreeing with
the concept of superluminal speeds for EM fields).
We measure this wave height for a photon of specific frequency by how it
displaces an electron and generates current of some scaled amplitude within
electonic circuitry. So we also know the inherent energy of the photon because of
the energy required to eject an electron. We know E = hf.
We also know the time it takes for an electric or magnetic field to build to a peak
or collapse around an inductor as current flows thru it which are also associated
with current flow thru the conductor.
I totally agree with your contention about the field stressor and how it impacts
the dielectric properties of space-time. This must represent some geometric
and energy qualities to the fabric of space-time. (You already know my contention
that these energy fields induce stressors that displace the normal qualities
of "space" and change its relative energy volume/content.)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How does one calculate the electric field hight of a dipole generated photon or EM wave? The energy is emitted as a solid angle with an intensity that varies with respect to the dipole orientation. I think the closest thing that could relate to hight of the photon EM wave would be a tension induced in the dialectic of space-time. There is no comparison between surface waves in a medium and EM waves in space. |
These are good points! I will argue it from the idea of what we think we know
about the nature of a specific frequency photon. If we know the frequency,
and we also know the speed of light, we therefore know the amplitude of the
wave height, since EM fields move at the speed of light. (I'm disagreeing with
the concept of superluminal speeds for EM fields).
We measure this wave height for a photon of specific frequency by how it
displaces an electron and generates current of some scaled amplitude within
electonic circuitry. So we also know the inherent energy of the photon because of
the energy required to eject an electron. We know E = hf.
We also know the time it takes for an electric or magnetic field to build to a peak
or collapse around an inductor as current flows thru it which are also associated
with current flow thru the conductor.
I totally agree with your contention about the field stressor and how it impacts
the dielectric properties of space-time. This must represent some geometric
and energy qualities to the fabric of space-time. (You already know my contention
that these energy fields induce stressors that displace the normal qualities
of "space" and change its relative energy volume/content.)
There is no comparison between surface waves in a medium and EM waves in space
How can you be sure of this? The index of refraction and its impact on the
speed of light in a vacuum vs other media should disprove your contention.
The density of a transmissive medium changes the speed of light, and the
reference is a comparison to vacuum. If we know the frequency, wavelength,
energy level, and the relative speed of light then doesn't this provide proof that
contradicts your statement?
Comments?
LL
GE,
Re the NIST experiment:
Isn't this confirming that Bose-Einstein condensates have their EM fields temporaly
aligned? It seems the laser induces interference by making the atoms in the
condensates harmonically "ring" at some beat frequency. It seems that, perhaps,
they oscillate (ring) in-phase then go out of phase, periodically.
It seems that the fields phase in and out of superpositions according to the
addition of light which causes the individual atoms to ring. Perhaps the atoms
are temporarily storing energy in their orbital electrons as heat expansion, that
gets released when the laser is turned off and the atom cools down again.
The atoms go from a minimum energy, non-energized, frozen state to an energized
"expanded" state, and once the external energy source is removed they release
the stored energy as they cool back to the non-energized, minimum energy state.
Just some thoughts.
LL
Re the NIST experiment:
Isn't this confirming that Bose-Einstein condensates have their EM fields temporaly
aligned? It seems the laser induces interference by making the atoms in the
condensates harmonically "ring" at some beat frequency. It seems that, perhaps,
they oscillate (ring) in-phase then go out of phase, periodically.
QUOTE
Everything changes when two atoms are placed in each site of the wider lattice, and those sites are split in two. The original atom pair is now in a superposition of three possible arrangements: both atoms on one site, both on the other, and one on each. In the two cases when both atoms are on a single site, they interact with each other, altering the interference pattern—an effect that does not occur with light. The imbalance among the three arrangements creates a strobe-like effect. Depending on how long the atoms are held in the lattice before being released to interfere, the interference pattern flickers on (with stripes) and off (no stripes).
It seems that the fields phase in and out of superpositions according to the
addition of light which causes the individual atoms to ring. Perhaps the atoms
are temporarily storing energy in their orbital electrons as heat expansion, that
gets released when the laser is turned off and the atom cools down again.
The atoms go from a minimum energy, non-energized, frozen state to an energized
"expanded" state, and once the external energy source is removed they release
the stored energy as they cool back to the non-energized, minimum energy state.
Just some thoughts.
LL
Hello Laserlight, et al.
Here is what bothers me about relating the energy of the photon with the amplitude of the electric field. Low frequency photons will have larger electric fields than high frequency photons. However, high frequency photons have more energy than low frequency photons.
Therefore it is not the amplitude of the electric and magnetic fields that determine the energy of the photon but the rate of change of those fields which determine the energy of the photon. The amplitude does not factor into the energy equation for a photon, only the rate of change of the electric and magnetic field determine the energy.
The permittivity and permeability of space affect all frequencies of photons the same (according to current theory) so the strength of the electric field in the photons as a function of amplitude size is linear. You can't have a stronger electric field in a shorter amplitude. Or to put it another way the strength of the electric field per unit length remains the same no matter what the frequency is. Now if there is an experiment that proves that small amplitude electric fields have more energy than large amplitude electric fields then I will have to do some serious rethinking.
In regards to the index of refraction change. The frequency of light never changes when moving from one medium to another. What does change is the wavelength and hence the speed of propagation. If you allow a change in the rate of change energy equation then wavelengths will change.
Here is what bothers me about relating the energy of the photon with the amplitude of the electric field. Low frequency photons will have larger electric fields than high frequency photons. However, high frequency photons have more energy than low frequency photons.
Therefore it is not the amplitude of the electric and magnetic fields that determine the energy of the photon but the rate of change of those fields which determine the energy of the photon. The amplitude does not factor into the energy equation for a photon, only the rate of change of the electric and magnetic field determine the energy.
The permittivity and permeability of space affect all frequencies of photons the same (according to current theory) so the strength of the electric field in the photons as a function of amplitude size is linear. You can't have a stronger electric field in a shorter amplitude. Or to put it another way the strength of the electric field per unit length remains the same no matter what the frequency is. Now if there is an experiment that proves that small amplitude electric fields have more energy than large amplitude electric fields then I will have to do some serious rethinking.
In regards to the index of refraction change. The frequency of light never changes when moving from one medium to another. What does change is the wavelength and hence the speed of propagation. If you allow a change in the rate of change energy equation then wavelengths will change.
GE,
I know we do a lot of gedanken "experiments" based on what we think we
know or what we have been taught....Unfortunately, I think we have been
indoctrinated into the "shut up and calculate" philosophy of academia. Somehow
perhaps we are not getting the full story, because simply...no one knows the
answers!
We know that a photon traveling thru a single slit induces a diffraction
"interference" pattern that is caused by the photon interacting with the "geometry"
and the change of the localized index of refraction created by the characteristics
of the slit. The size/geometry of the slit, relative to the size of the photon changes
this induced interference distribution pattern.
Even though I contend that a photon is of a specific relative size according to its
frequency in vacuum, I am still open to the idea that there could be interactive
near-field evanescent components that distort those EM field characteristics
and possibly the size of those fields by virtue of the localized change of the index
of refraction, which comes into play in the presence of matter or geometry.
The photon's EM fields could be being distorted or longitudinally extended by some
form of field "compression", but I am shooting from the hip on this one.
If I recall correctly, some of Dr. Visser's papers seemed to provide clues to this
effect, especially the one concerning surface plasmon fields. I know it was
performed on a gold plated dielectric film, but the results were intriguing all the
same when the localized field intensities were illustrated.
Regards,
LL
I know we do a lot of gedanken "experiments" based on what we think we
know or what we have been taught....Unfortunately, I think we have been
indoctrinated into the "shut up and calculate" philosophy of academia. Somehow
perhaps we are not getting the full story, because simply...no one knows the
answers!
QUOTE
This means that these individual photons one at a time have gone through both pinholes at the same time so individually they are "at least" 1 mm across in the transverse direction. Now put two other holes 1 mm apart anywhere on the parabolic reflector you like and repeat the experiment one photon at a time and we will note that we have double slit interference there too. The photon retains the same wavelength in the direction of propagation. All these photons appear to be at least 1mm across to pass through both pinholes anywhere on the surface. Therefore individual photons have all the attributes of a "pancake" not a ping pong ball... At least 1000 times the diameter compared with the "length" (1/2 wavelength). Now if the outside of the mirror has the same type and character of photons then by induction they are spreading and covering the reflector rather than separating into little balls.
We know that a photon traveling thru a single slit induces a diffraction
"interference" pattern that is caused by the photon interacting with the "geometry"
and the change of the localized index of refraction created by the characteristics
of the slit. The size/geometry of the slit, relative to the size of the photon changes
this induced interference distribution pattern.
Even though I contend that a photon is of a specific relative size according to its
frequency in vacuum, I am still open to the idea that there could be interactive
near-field evanescent components that distort those EM field characteristics
and possibly the size of those fields by virtue of the localized change of the index
of refraction, which comes into play in the presence of matter or geometry.
The photon's EM fields could be being distorted or longitudinally extended by some
form of field "compression", but I am shooting from the hip on this one.
If I recall correctly, some of Dr. Visser's papers seemed to provide clues to this
effect, especially the one concerning surface plasmon fields. I know it was
performed on a gold plated dielectric film, but the results were intriguing all the
same when the localized field intensities were illustrated.
Regards,
LL
Montec,
You are really making me work!
1st issue:
If you compress the volumetrically "distributed" energy from a large volume into a
small volume, the energy density increases. It is the same energy applied to
a smaller area. If you push your flat hand against a wall at x kg of force
where the applied energy (force) is distributed over a large surface area and then
you push with that same amount of force just using your finger, you concentrate
that force at the point of your fingertip and distribute it over a smaller area.
Same relative force, much different localized energy density distribution.
Now apply that same x kg force to a needle point.
If you compress the volumetrically "distributed" energy from a large volume into a
small volume, the energy density increases. It is the same energy applied to
a smaller area. If you push your flat hand against a wall at x kg of force
where the applied energy (force) is distributed over a large surface area and then
you push with that same amount of force just using your finger, you concentrate
that force at the point of your fingertip and distribute it over a smaller area.
Same relative force, much different localized energy density distribution.
Now apply that same x kg force to a needle point.
Therefore it is not the amplitude of the electric and magnetic fields that determine the energy of the photon but the rate of change of those fields which determine the energy of the photon. The amplitude does not factor into the energy equation for a photon, only the rate of change of the electric and magnetic field determine the energy.
I agree with this statement. Isn't that rate of change geometrically scaled over
area and time? Let's apply that to an EM wave of the same frequency. The total energy of a wave of fixed frequency is directly proportional to its amplitude.
I agree with this!
I agree with this!
In regards to the index of refraction change. The frequency of light never changes when moving from one medium to another. What does change is the wavelength and hence the speed of propagation. If you allow a change in the rate of change energy equation then wavelengths will change.
I never said the frequency changed, I said the speed of light changes in different media depending upon the "n" of the medium. We are in agreement with your statement.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/refr.html
It's after 2 AM...must get some sleep.
Anton:- if your complexifier can be made to work it falls right into the territory of the delayed choice beast. If you can give a neat explanation of how/why the DCQE works then you'll be a few steps further on the way to understanding what your complexifier will (or won't) do.
C2,
perhaps would work alike the DCQE but perhaps would not. Can you predict with certainty that it would work as the DQCE?
Now, a neat explanation ( avoiding the question what is "neat" ) of DCQE would require some speculations for which would be difficult, if not impossible to design some experiment which would test their validity. But I can try.
Here is a one ( from the few)....
Actually a quantum information travels faster than light and there is no so called entanglement but what "appears" to us as an entanglement is the consequence of an information traveling faster then light.
Neat?
Anton
You are really making me work!
1st issue:
QUOTE
Here is what bothers me about relating the energy of the photon with the amplitude of the electric field. Low frequency photons will have larger electric fields than high frequency photons. However, high frequency photons have more energy than low frequency photons.
If you compress the volumetrically "distributed" energy from a large volume into a
small volume, the energy density increases. It is the same energy applied to
a smaller area. If you push your flat hand against a wall at x kg of force
where the applied energy (force) is distributed over a large surface area and then
you push with that same amount of force just using your finger, you concentrate
that force at the point of your fingertip and distribute it over a smaller area.
Same relative force, much different localized energy density distribution.
Now apply that same x kg force to a needle point.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Here is what bothers me about relating the energy of the photon with the amplitude of the electric field. Low frequency photons will have larger electric fields than high frequency photons. However, high frequency photons have more energy than low frequency photons. |
If you compress the volumetrically "distributed" energy from a large volume into a
small volume, the energy density increases. It is the same energy applied to
a smaller area. If you push your flat hand against a wall at x kg of force
where the applied energy (force) is distributed over a large surface area and then
you push with that same amount of force just using your finger, you concentrate
that force at the point of your fingertip and distribute it over a smaller area.
Same relative force, much different localized energy density distribution.
Now apply that same x kg force to a needle point.
Therefore it is not the amplitude of the electric and magnetic fields that determine the energy of the photon but the rate of change of those fields which determine the energy of the photon. The amplitude does not factor into the energy equation for a photon, only the rate of change of the electric and magnetic field determine the energy.
I agree with this statement. Isn't that rate of change geometrically scaled over
area and time? Let's apply that to an EM wave of the same frequency. The total energy of a wave of fixed frequency is directly proportional to its amplitude.
QUOTE
The permittivity and permeability of space affect all frequencies of photons the same (according to current theory) so the strength of the electric field in the photons as a function of amplitude size is linear. You can't have a stronger electric field in a shorter amplitude. Or to put it another way the strength of the electric field per unit length remains the same no matter what the frequency is. Now if there is an experiment that proves that small amplitude electric fields have more energy than large amplitude electric fields then I will have to do some serious rethinking.
I agree with this!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The permittivity and permeability of space affect all frequencies of photons the same (according to current theory) so the strength of the electric field in the photons as a function of amplitude size is linear. You can't have a stronger electric field in a shorter amplitude. Or to put it another way the strength of the electric field per unit length remains the same no matter what the frequency is. Now if there is an experiment that proves that small amplitude electric fields have more energy than large amplitude electric fields then I will have to do some serious rethinking. |
I agree with this!
In regards to the index of refraction change. The frequency of light never changes when moving from one medium to another. What does change is the wavelength and hence the speed of propagation. If you allow a change in the rate of change energy equation then wavelengths will change.
I never said the frequency changed, I said the speed of light changes in different media depending upon the "n" of the medium. We are in agreement with your statement.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/refr.html
It's after 2 AM...must get some sleep.
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 5 2007, 04:57 PM)
Mate,
This is a gedanken experiment. To physically set it up and measure/observe it
would be very difficult, IMO.
What we do know is how an electron responds when influenced by E or M fields,
since it is an electric "monopole" with a net negative charge. It will either move
towards a positive charge or be repelled from a negative charge. It can also
be made to follow a spiral trajectory. You cannot "divide" the quantum energy
that "is" an electron, but you can change its direction and relative momentum,
but those changes will happen mutually. If you change one it changes the other.
LL
LL,
it is a gedanken experiment in this phase. I understand that this would be very difficult to actually try, but if it is not an impossibility in principle perhaps it will be possible to conduct it. At least some more simpler version of it.
The question is, regarding what you said about an electron under influence of electromagnetic field, is a change of an electron's momentum regular ( to the degree) or is it chaotic, that is, would an electron change it's momentum differently even if the conditions of it's interaction with a photon are perfectly the same.
If a "behavior" is not predictable to the degree which would give us an information enough reliable with which would be possible to discern did an electron came from one of the slits or from somewhere between, then this proposal cannot work.
I as a layman can only ask these questions.
Anton
This is a gedanken experiment. To physically set it up and measure/observe it
would be very difficult, IMO.
What we do know is how an electron responds when influenced by E or M fields,
since it is an electric "monopole" with a net negative charge. It will either move
towards a positive charge or be repelled from a negative charge. It can also
be made to follow a spiral trajectory. You cannot "divide" the quantum energy
that "is" an electron, but you can change its direction and relative momentum,
but those changes will happen mutually. If you change one it changes the other.
LL
LL,
it is a gedanken experiment in this phase. I understand that this would be very difficult to actually try, but if it is not an impossibility in principle perhaps it will be possible to conduct it. At least some more simpler version of it.
The question is, regarding what you said about an electron under influence of electromagnetic field, is a change of an electron's momentum regular ( to the degree) or is it chaotic, that is, would an electron change it's momentum differently even if the conditions of it's interaction with a photon are perfectly the same.
If a "behavior" is not predictable to the degree which would give us an information enough reliable with which would be possible to discern did an electron came from one of the slits or from somewhere between, then this proposal cannot work.
I as a layman can only ask these questions.
Anton
QUOTE (Confused2+Jun 5 2007, 07:30 PM)
Anton:- if your complexifier can be made to work it falls right into the territory of the delayed choice beast. If you can give a neat explanation of how/why the DCQE works then you'll be a few steps further on the way to understanding what your complexifier will (or won't) do.
C2,
perhaps would work alike the DCQE but perhaps would not. Can you predict with certainty that it would work as the DQCE?
Now, a neat explanation ( avoiding the question what is "neat" ) of DCQE would require some speculations for which would be difficult, if not impossible to design some experiment which would test their validity. But I can try.
Here is a one ( from the few)....
Actually a quantum information travels faster than light and there is no so called entanglement but what "appears" to us as an entanglement is the consequence of an information traveling faster then light.
Neat?
Anton
Hi LL et al,
The point of the 15 foot reflector is not just that it collects more photons - also their source can be determined with greater precision. If a 15 foot mirror gives you twice the precision of a 7 foot mirror then I think it is reasonable to conclude that a photon must be at least 15 feet across and possibly much more. (possibly 10^6 light years .. or more)
Best wishes - C2.
I'm not sure .. there might be an element of trying to work out how long a pound-per-square-inch is.
The point of the 15 foot reflector is not just that it collects more photons - also their source can be determined with greater precision. If a 15 foot mirror gives you twice the precision of a 7 foot mirror then I think it is reasonable to conclude that a photon must be at least 15 feet across and possibly much more. (possibly 10^6 light years .. or more)
Best wishes - C2.
I'm not sure .. there might be an element of trying to work out how long a pound-per-square-inch is.
Hi Anton,
According to information I have looked at an electron can form an interference
pattern similar to the results of the DSE for photon's, where it will form
bar interference patterns. So, even though it can statistically arrive in one of
several likely areas, I'm not sure that we can exactly determine which area of
concentration it will be absorbed.
Perhaps, someone else would like to comment?
LL
QUOTE
The question is, regarding what you said about an electron under influence of electromagnetic field, is a change of an electron's momentum regular ( to the degree) or is it chaotic, that is, would an electron change it's momentum differently even if the conditions of it's interaction with a photon are perfectly the same.
If a "behavior" is not predictable to the degree which would give us an information enough reliable with which would be possible to discern did an electron came from one of the slits or from somewhere between, then this proposal cannot work.
If a "behavior" is not predictable to the degree which would give us an information enough reliable with which would be possible to discern did an electron came from one of the slits or from somewhere between, then this proposal cannot work.
According to information I have looked at an electron can form an interference
pattern similar to the results of the DSE for photon's, where it will form
bar interference patterns. So, even though it can statistically arrive in one of
several likely areas, I'm not sure that we can exactly determine which area of
concentration it will be absorbed.
Perhaps, someone else would like to comment?
LL
Hi all,
I too, do not have time to respond to every question at this point, with so many posters, and the pages flying by.
GE -
Well, that's a good answer, but not the one I was looking for. I am looking for WHY; if you think that this can NOT be answered, then I can assume that YOU do not have an answer to this. That was the thrust of the question: YOUR explanation of spreading, as it "fits" into your forming theory.
Anybody else?
more later..
ciao,
T.Roc
I too, do not have time to respond to every question at this point, with so many posters, and the pages flying by.
GE -
QUOTE
Firstly as with all of science I cannot explain "why" things are the way they are but I can explain "how" the way things are the way they are, and that is absolutely all science can do.
Well, that's a good answer, but not the one I was looking for. I am looking for WHY; if you think that this can NOT be answered, then I can assume that YOU do not have an answer to this. That was the thrust of the question: YOUR explanation of spreading, as it "fits" into your forming theory.
Anybody else?
more later..
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi C2 and All,
If a bigger mirror collects and concentrates more dispersed photons, which
represent a larger cross-section of an arc of the ISL, you are magnifying
a larger spherical surface area. Effectively you are collecting more dispersed
quantums of energy and focusing them. Doing this removes an element of the
lateral time displacement caused by dispersion, between individual photons.
Remember, photon's still have emission "time relevance" and positional relevance
between them because they are each expanding on their own individual
ISL "sphere". They have relative spatial and temporal correlation in space,
regardless of their points of origin.
In effect, the parabolic reflector is concentrating the lateral dispersions of distance
and time displacement of every individual photon and wavefront that is collected.
When the photons strike the magnifying reflector mirror, they effectively are all
starting from a new "emission" spherical surface that gives them time and position
"start point" relevance from that mirror surface. The mirror effectively becomes
the photon "emitter".
WHy do you think that a galaxy containing billions of stars that is at the edge of the
observable universe only provides a single image dot when imaged thru the Hubble
telescope? It has lost its resolution because of dispersion caused by the ISL.
If we were to build a huge enough telescope we would collect enough dispersed
photons to provide at least a semblance of an image of the shape of the galaxy.
An example: The more individual pixel dots that you concentrate per square inch,
the higher the resolution of the image produced. The distance between relative
spacing of the pixels provides contrast and clarity to the image when viewed from
an optimal angle and distance. The further that you get from the image, the
fainter the details of the image become until you can not discern individual
details.
Comments, arguments, discussion?
LL
QUOTE
The point of the 15 foot reflector is not just that it collects more photons - also their source can be determined with greater precision. If a 15 foot mirror gives you twice the precision of a 7 foot mirror then I think it is reasonable to conclude that a photon must be at least 15 feet across and possibly much more. (possibly 10^6 light years .. or more)
If a bigger mirror collects and concentrates more dispersed photons, which
represent a larger cross-section of an arc of the ISL, you are magnifying
a larger spherical surface area. Effectively you are collecting more dispersed
quantums of energy and focusing them. Doing this removes an element of the
lateral time displacement caused by dispersion, between individual photons.
Remember, photon's still have emission "time relevance" and positional relevance
between them because they are each expanding on their own individual
ISL "sphere". They have relative spatial and temporal correlation in space,
regardless of their points of origin.
In effect, the parabolic reflector is concentrating the lateral dispersions of distance
and time displacement of every individual photon and wavefront that is collected.
When the photons strike the magnifying reflector mirror, they effectively are all
starting from a new "emission" spherical surface that gives them time and position
"start point" relevance from that mirror surface. The mirror effectively becomes
the photon "emitter".
WHy do you think that a galaxy containing billions of stars that is at the edge of the
observable universe only provides a single image dot when imaged thru the Hubble
telescope? It has lost its resolution because of dispersion caused by the ISL.
If we were to build a huge enough telescope we would collect enough dispersed
photons to provide at least a semblance of an image of the shape of the galaxy.
An example: The more individual pixel dots that you concentrate per square inch,
the higher the resolution of the image produced. The distance between relative
spacing of the pixels provides contrast and clarity to the image when viewed from
an optimal angle and distance. The further that you get from the image, the
fainter the details of the image become until you can not discern individual
details.
Comments, arguments, discussion?
LL
Hi TRoc,
Goes back quite a few posts. I'm not sure if I understood your Planck frequency idea.
My own 'view' of possible EM/photon frequencies is that it will be limited by boredom at the lower end and the tendency to produce electron/positron pairs (possibly other stuff too) at the upper end. Between we can have any frequency we care to select. We could do a frequency sweep by putting a sig gen on a rocket and pointing the beam back at Earth .. as the rocket accelerates away the frequency will gradually drop in a continuous fashion.
Best wishes -C2.
Goes back quite a few posts. I'm not sure if I understood your Planck frequency idea.
My own 'view' of possible EM/photon frequencies is that it will be limited by boredom at the lower end and the tendency to produce electron/positron pairs (possibly other stuff too) at the upper end. Between we can have any frequency we care to select. We could do a frequency sweep by putting a sig gen on a rocket and pointing the beam back at Earth .. as the rocket accelerates away the frequency will gradually drop in a continuous fashion.
Best wishes -C2.
Hi Laserlight,
The advantage of science is that I have always found you can rely on the results of experiments to provide answers. What I mean by rely is when you switch on an instrument with lethal currents and power you better know it is "just right" before you throw the switch. Now... not all experiments have been done so there are some questions that remain unanswered. Unless we can couch the question in the form of an experiment that has already been done or design a new experiment that we are prepared to actually do, we cannot have answers to some specific questions. I have never found a single wrong answer to a question posed by an experiment... But often the question posed wasn't worth the paper it was written on, many times the "question" on reflection was meaningless. What I have found is that not all questions have sensible answers and even if we pose some questions we must know what the answer must be before we ask it in order to be able to know when the answer is truly correct. If we do not know beforehand what the answer is going to be then we are truly confused. That is a danger signal to go back and re-examine those old texts and see where we have slipped up in our thinking.
Everything else is pure human speculation. When we step aboard a Jet Plane and take off into the air we better have some confidence in the science behind all that otherwise we would be needlessly be risking our lives. Alternatively are we always content with answers others have found and never content with our own abilities? We do not need a leap of faith, just the confidence that we actually understand some processes so we can "make the call".
I think a lot of accepted science is "bunk" that is why I am writing on this thread. Some science is a smokescreen for clear thinking and it is driven by "authority figures" rather than the basic science itself. If you are one of those who think "shut up and calculate" is fine... Your job is on the line since human calculators are obsolete... Computers can do it far better than you or I can. You won't find much calculation in what I write since calculation can be used as a smokescreen for clear thinking. There are a lot of Web Pages devoted to calculations if you want them... You nominate the topic and there is a calculator out there somewhere that can do it. Otherwise if I need to I can knock up a program pretty quickly to do these calculations without my actually having to bang my head on a wall and wear out the surface on a white board with continually rubbing out. I am pretty careful with words and ideas. It is very necessary to be careful. Unless the question is "just right" the answer will not be "just right". The "devil" is in the detail.
The "Secret" is to know the answers the Universe will be throwing up when you ask the questions. Others have asked the same questions so the answers are already out there. This is not Scully and Mulder caught in the intrigue of the CIA and Politicians hiding the answers from us... the "Truth" is really out there and it is never wrong or inconsistent, nor does it give incorrect answers nor can it lie or cheat. If you wanted to we could build anything our imagination could conceive and we would know it would work before we made it because almost everything needed to be known is already out there. That is the whole secret.
Einstein made a great discovery when he proposed the Special Theory of Relativity. He did not need a laboratory to discover it as he would say all he needed was a pencil. The maths was actually "trivial", it was the understanding that was the revolutionary bit. Anyone could have done it but they did not... It was Einstein. Once the understanding was there Einstein did not need to do the experiment, he knew he was right... at least as right as the original question that was posed needed to be right. All questions from then to now have not been able to fault this logic and this is despite all the nonsense written in all these forums and all the naysayers and wannabes... that question will always have the same answer. The same with Tesla, he was also one of those people who understood some important principles. This is not one of those "Think and grow Rich" Book Ideas but the "real deal", it is a Pearl of even greater Price... Sell all your other "Pearls" and get that one "Pearl of Great Price" you can have that confidence in to be centered in to the exclusion of all other false ideas and human based aspirations. Let go of the rest and you will not be disappointed. To really know the "Principle" is to understand the "Mind of God". This is no "Sunday going to meeting" feel good type of "g*d"... this is the "real deal".
I will try and answer some of your questions later but I can't answer "all" of your questions. The most important questions must really be answered by you first.
Cheers
The advantage of science is that I have always found you can rely on the results of experiments to provide answers. What I mean by rely is when you switch on an instrument with lethal currents and power you better know it is "just right" before you throw the switch. Now... not all experiments have been done so there are some questions that remain unanswered. Unless we can couch the question in the form of an experiment that has already been done or design a new experiment that we are prepared to actually do, we cannot have answers to some specific questions. I have never found a single wrong answer to a question posed by an experiment... But often the question posed wasn't worth the paper it was written on, many times the "question" on reflection was meaningless. What I have found is that not all questions have sensible answers and even if we pose some questions we must know what the answer must be before we ask it in order to be able to know when the answer is truly correct. If we do not know beforehand what the answer is going to be then we are truly confused. That is a danger signal to go back and re-examine those old texts and see where we have slipped up in our thinking.
Everything else is pure human speculation. When we step aboard a Jet Plane and take off into the air we better have some confidence in the science behind all that otherwise we would be needlessly be risking our lives. Alternatively are we always content with answers others have found and never content with our own abilities? We do not need a leap of faith, just the confidence that we actually understand some processes so we can "make the call".
I think a lot of accepted science is "bunk" that is why I am writing on this thread. Some science is a smokescreen for clear thinking and it is driven by "authority figures" rather than the basic science itself. If you are one of those who think "shut up and calculate" is fine... Your job is on the line since human calculators are obsolete... Computers can do it far better than you or I can. You won't find much calculation in what I write since calculation can be used as a smokescreen for clear thinking. There are a lot of Web Pages devoted to calculations if you want them... You nominate the topic and there is a calculator out there somewhere that can do it. Otherwise if I need to I can knock up a program pretty quickly to do these calculations without my actually having to bang my head on a wall and wear out the surface on a white board with continually rubbing out. I am pretty careful with words and ideas. It is very necessary to be careful. Unless the question is "just right" the answer will not be "just right". The "devil" is in the detail.
The "Secret" is to know the answers the Universe will be throwing up when you ask the questions. Others have asked the same questions so the answers are already out there. This is not Scully and Mulder caught in the intrigue of the CIA and Politicians hiding the answers from us... the "Truth" is really out there and it is never wrong or inconsistent, nor does it give incorrect answers nor can it lie or cheat. If you wanted to we could build anything our imagination could conceive and we would know it would work before we made it because almost everything needed to be known is already out there. That is the whole secret.
Einstein made a great discovery when he proposed the Special Theory of Relativity. He did not need a laboratory to discover it as he would say all he needed was a pencil. The maths was actually "trivial", it was the understanding that was the revolutionary bit. Anyone could have done it but they did not... It was Einstein. Once the understanding was there Einstein did not need to do the experiment, he knew he was right... at least as right as the original question that was posed needed to be right. All questions from then to now have not been able to fault this logic and this is despite all the nonsense written in all these forums and all the naysayers and wannabes... that question will always have the same answer. The same with Tesla, he was also one of those people who understood some important principles. This is not one of those "Think and grow Rich" Book Ideas but the "real deal", it is a Pearl of even greater Price... Sell all your other "Pearls" and get that one "Pearl of Great Price" you can have that confidence in to be centered in to the exclusion of all other false ideas and human based aspirations. Let go of the rest and you will not be disappointed. To really know the "Principle" is to understand the "Mind of God". This is no "Sunday going to meeting" feel good type of "g*d"... this is the "real deal".
I will try and answer some of your questions later but I can't answer "all" of your questions. The most important questions must really be answered by you first.
Cheers
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 6 2007, 03:22 PM)
Hi Anton,
According to information I have looked at an electron can form an interference
pattern similar to the results of the DSE for photon's, where it will form
bar interference patterns. So, even though it can statistically arrive in one of
several likely areas, I'm not sure that we can exactly determine which area of
concentration it will be absorbed.
Perhaps, someone else would like to comment?
LL
LL,
I am not quite sure what you are saying. If we would have run DSE for electrons with today's technology it is possible to record where an electrons hit the screen in the interference pattern, right? Can you please clarify what you are saying?
By the way. If the quantum informations would really travel faster than light would that hypothetical situation made QM more intuitive?
Anton
According to information I have looked at an electron can form an interference
pattern similar to the results of the DSE for photon's, where it will form
bar interference patterns. So, even though it can statistically arrive in one of
several likely areas, I'm not sure that we can exactly determine which area of
concentration it will be absorbed.
Perhaps, someone else would like to comment?
LL
LL,
I am not quite sure what you are saying. If we would have run DSE for electrons with today's technology it is possible to record where an electrons hit the screen in the interference pattern, right? Can you please clarify what you are saying?
By the way. If the quantum informations would really travel faster than light would that hypothetical situation made QM more intuitive?
Anton
GE,
I agree 100% with all that you said! No argument..."The Truth is Out There!"
The idea is to simplify the truth so that no one can misinterpret or twist what
it is telling us to suit a conceptual theory. That is why I insist on breaking the
concepts to their most basic, simple parts and analyzing them in their
simplicity. If you remove the ambiguity, you remove confusion and misinterpretation.
A pure thought is a thing of beauty, because everyone can relate to it at the same
level and there is no confusion about what it is describing.
We have had this same philosophical discussion long ago, and we agreed then too.
IMO, the interpretation of true absolute facts can be explained or described
incorrectly which does a disservice to science and especially students.
Sometimes, it is necessary to re-evaluate what we think we know and modify
that position when new evidence or irrefutable arguments change the dynamics
of the reality of the situation.
Who am I to argue with Nobel laureates and Ph d's, but then again perhaps there
is a way to simplify, clarify, and improve their learned discoveries and writings so
that everyone can intimately understand the concepts involved.
The truth knows no masters and is not for the privileged/gifted few. He who can
explain the truth in the simplest and most elegant fashion will light up the world.
Best Regards,
LL
I agree 100% with all that you said! No argument..."The Truth is Out There!"
The idea is to simplify the truth so that no one can misinterpret or twist what
it is telling us to suit a conceptual theory. That is why I insist on breaking the
concepts to their most basic, simple parts and analyzing them in their
simplicity. If you remove the ambiguity, you remove confusion and misinterpretation.
A pure thought is a thing of beauty, because everyone can relate to it at the same
level and there is no confusion about what it is describing.
We have had this same philosophical discussion long ago, and we agreed then too.
IMO, the interpretation of true absolute facts can be explained or described
incorrectly which does a disservice to science and especially students.
Sometimes, it is necessary to re-evaluate what we think we know and modify
that position when new evidence or irrefutable arguments change the dynamics
of the reality of the situation.
Who am I to argue with Nobel laureates and Ph d's, but then again perhaps there
is a way to simplify, clarify, and improve their learned discoveries and writings so
that everyone can intimately understand the concepts involved.
The truth knows no masters and is not for the privileged/gifted few. He who can
explain the truth in the simplest and most elegant fashion will light up the world.
Best Regards,
LL
Greetings to everyone, Hope all is well!
I have been reading this post with much interest, for this THANK YOU.
Just a comment, after all that has been surmised on your replies, what prediction could be made using the models that have been given that would show some better understanding of the DSE.
A theory is only good as it results -- could this be accomplished?
ciao_
y
LL, Good Elf, C2, "THEY" & 2, jal, please take care...
I have been reading this post with much interest, for this THANK YOU.
Just a comment, after all that has been surmised on your replies, what prediction could be made using the models that have been given that would show some better understanding of the DSE.
A theory is only good as it results -- could this be accomplished?
ciao_
y
LL, Good Elf, C2, "THEY" & 2, jal, please take care...
Hi Anton,
A DSE interference pattern is made up of individual discrete events that occur
in specific areas. To my knowledge, we don't know which of the possible
areas that a single, discrete event may occur.
C2, is fond of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP). Basically, we know that
an event will occur, we just can't predict exactly where it will occur, event to event.
That is the uncertainty, it is a changing dynamic of variables that we don't
really understand or have enough information to make perfectly accurate
absolute predictions. It is the statistical variability of an event happening.
It is like rolling dice, there are 36 possible solutions, but there is a statistical
probability of any single solution occuring on any one roll. Over a long enough
time interval the results will be evenly distributed, so we cannot predict exactly
what a specific roll will yield.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/math/dice.html
If a series of electrons hit exactly the same spot every time, then we could
control the results and make accurate predictions of the outcome.
When there is an interference pattern with some randomness we can not
make absolute predictions about a single event.
I hope this helps,
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
I am not quite sure what you are saying. If we would have run DSE for electrons with today's technology it is possible to record where an electrons hit the screen in the interference pattern, right? Can you please clarify what you are saying?
A DSE interference pattern is made up of individual discrete events that occur
in specific areas. To my knowledge, we don't know which of the possible
areas that a single, discrete event may occur.
C2, is fond of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP). Basically, we know that
an event will occur, we just can't predict exactly where it will occur, event to event.
That is the uncertainty, it is a changing dynamic of variables that we don't
really understand or have enough information to make perfectly accurate
absolute predictions. It is the statistical variability of an event happening.
It is like rolling dice, there are 36 possible solutions, but there is a statistical
probability of any single solution occuring on any one roll. Over a long enough
time interval the results will be evenly distributed, so we cannot predict exactly
what a specific roll will yield.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/math/dice.html
If a series of electrons hit exactly the same spot every time, then we could
control the results and make accurate predictions of the outcome.
When there is an interference pattern with some randomness we can not
make absolute predictions about a single event.
I hope this helps,
Regards,
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 6 2007, 05:30 PM)
Hi Anton,
A DSE interference pattern is made up of individual discrete events that occur
in specific areas. To my knowledge, we don't know which of the possible
areas that a single, discrete event may occur.
LL,
I see, I was not sure what you are pointing out.
We do not have to know where exactly particular electron hits inside fringes with hits of an interference pattern. We could, for example, place one laser beam in the middle of every fringe with hits of an interference pattern. With a "hole" ( or more than one vertically ) behind every laser beam.
And then we just wait for one electron which would register on the detection screen which is behind the hole ( or one of the holes ).
Soon or later some electron would pass. And we actually need only one to pass through for the experiment to succeed.
Anton
A DSE interference pattern is made up of individual discrete events that occur
in specific areas. To my knowledge, we don't know which of the possible
areas that a single, discrete event may occur.
LL,
I see, I was not sure what you are pointing out.
We do not have to know where exactly particular electron hits inside fringes with hits of an interference pattern. We could, for example, place one laser beam in the middle of every fringe with hits of an interference pattern. With a "hole" ( or more than one vertically ) behind every laser beam.
And then we just wait for one electron which would register on the detection screen which is behind the hole ( or one of the holes ).
Soon or later some electron would pass. And we actually need only one to pass through for the experiment to succeed.
Anton
Hello yquantum, et al.
I will take a shot at a complete explanation for the DSE but first I must clarify how EM waves (or photons) move through space-time as I see it..
EM waves cycle through space. The next wave geometry is based on the present wave geometry. The electric and magnetic field are stationary because they are independent of the source. The speed of light is a measure of how fast the cycle of EM wave generation happens in a flat space-time vacuum. I repeat, the electric and magnetic fields do not move through space as they are independent of the source. What moves is the energy that is transfered from cycle to cycle through the coupling of magnetic and electric fields.
Comments or discussion welcome.
I will take a shot at a complete explanation for the DSE but first I must clarify how EM waves (or photons) move through space-time as I see it..
EM waves cycle through space. The next wave geometry is based on the present wave geometry. The electric and magnetic field are stationary because they are independent of the source. The speed of light is a measure of how fast the cycle of EM wave generation happens in a flat space-time vacuum. I repeat, the electric and magnetic fields do not move through space as they are independent of the source. What moves is the energy that is transfered from cycle to cycle through the coupling of magnetic and electric fields.
Comments or discussion welcome.
Hi yquantum, Good Elf, Laserlight, THEY(2) et al,
QUOTE (yquantum+)
A theory is only good as its results
At some stage a theory has to be tested. In fairness it is perhaps unreasonable to expect much in the way of maths - that isn't really the point anyway. However! One thing that would seem reasonable is that theories are checked against known results and one of the simplest results must surely be the DSE equation ( http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html ) If your prediction of bright and dark regions isn't in good agreement with this equation then your theory falls at the first hurdle.
Best wishes -C2.
At some stage a theory has to be tested. In fairness it is perhaps unreasonable to expect much in the way of maths - that isn't really the point anyway. However! One thing that would seem reasonable is that theories are checked against known results and one of the simplest results must surely be the DSE equation ( http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html ) If your prediction of bright and dark regions isn't in good agreement with this equation then your theory falls at the first hurdle.
Best wishes -C2.
Has anyone ever considered DSE backward, so to speak?
Is it beyond the realm of possibility that electron in the DSE is actually really passing through one of the slits. While passing through the slit it's shape is modified by the width of the particular slit. And then after that electron passed through that slit that electron is in the process of assuming it's usual shape.
What if an electron in the process of assuming it's usual shape splits up it's "end" extending it for that brief moment backward through those two slits?
Which then induces an interference from the "end" to the front of an electron?
So an electron is really interfering with itself but not because it was split up passing through both slits, but because it partially split up it's end while assuming it's usual shape in the very moment when it passed through one of the slits?
Perhaps if the barrier in DSE would have a two slits. Both slits open. But but one slit closed looking from electron gun.
Then if an electron would pass through the open slit ( the only one open looking from the electronic gun ) , and then hit the screen in the interference pattern , that would make this late night give me a break hypothesis a valid one?
Anton
PS. If I can say something in my defense it is late here.
Is it beyond the realm of possibility that electron in the DSE is actually really passing through one of the slits. While passing through the slit it's shape is modified by the width of the particular slit. And then after that electron passed through that slit that electron is in the process of assuming it's usual shape.
What if an electron in the process of assuming it's usual shape splits up it's "end" extending it for that brief moment backward through those two slits?
Which then induces an interference from the "end" to the front of an electron?
So an electron is really interfering with itself but not because it was split up passing through both slits, but because it partially split up it's end while assuming it's usual shape in the very moment when it passed through one of the slits?
Perhaps if the barrier in DSE would have a two slits. Both slits open. But but one slit closed looking from electron gun.
Then if an electron would pass through the open slit ( the only one open looking from the electronic gun ) , and then hit the screen in the interference pattern , that would make this late night give me a break hypothesis a valid one?
Anton
PS. If I can say something in my defense it is late here.
Hi Anton,
So far we only have good results for a single photon DSE. IMHO it looks like little more than geometric optics - I suspect the electron version will too. Could be wrong (of course). I'll try to post up some stuff later.
Best wishes-C2.
So far we only have good results for a single photon DSE. IMHO it looks like little more than geometric optics - I suspect the electron version will too. Could be wrong (of course). I'll try to post up some stuff later.
Best wishes-C2.
Hey Everyone,
It seems to me that in all of the experiments, whenever we determine the path information, the interference pattern is destroyed. However, in all of these experiments, the path information is determined for individual events (quanta) or groups of events (quanta over time). A slit is either open or closed or a detector at a slit either records or does not record. What seems to matter is whether or not individual quanta are measured/detected going through a particular slit. So what would happen if we could determine that a percentage of quanta went through a particular slit (statistically, it should be 50/50 – right?) without measuring the individual events that made up the distribution?
I think we may be able to determine such a percentage by altering an electron gun DSE like so: Install a device at the exit side of each slit that generates a magnetic field. Provide power to each generator through a randomly selected switch that will choose either A on – B off, B on – A off, or A and B off. Over a sufficient time period, the magnetic field generator at A will be on 1/3 of the time, at B will be on 1/3 of the time, and both will be off 1/3 of the time. We are not in any way recording when either generator is on or off. When a generator is on, the field is configured such that an electron, after passing through the slit, will be diverted away from the detection screen.
Assuming we can determine the total number of electrons being fired, we can get a pretty good idea, on average, of how many of those make it through the slits and onto the screen in any given run (without the generators). We can use this number as a benchmark. When we then run the experiment with the generators and random selector switch functioning, and compare the results to our benchmark run, we should fewer numbers reaching the screen (presumably only 2/3 – right?).
So my question is, will the interference pattern be “crisp” (all 2/3 contributing to the pattern) or will it be washed out (1/3 interference and 1/3 random distribution)? If I understand the DCQE results, then I think we should get a crisp pattern, which would mean that an individual electron does not need to pass through both slits to contribute the interference pattern…
It seems to me that in all of the experiments, whenever we determine the path information, the interference pattern is destroyed. However, in all of these experiments, the path information is determined for individual events (quanta) or groups of events (quanta over time). A slit is either open or closed or a detector at a slit either records or does not record. What seems to matter is whether or not individual quanta are measured/detected going through a particular slit. So what would happen if we could determine that a percentage of quanta went through a particular slit (statistically, it should be 50/50 – right?) without measuring the individual events that made up the distribution?
I think we may be able to determine such a percentage by altering an electron gun DSE like so: Install a device at the exit side of each slit that generates a magnetic field. Provide power to each generator through a randomly selected switch that will choose either A on – B off, B on – A off, or A and B off. Over a sufficient time period, the magnetic field generator at A will be on 1/3 of the time, at B will be on 1/3 of the time, and both will be off 1/3 of the time. We are not in any way recording when either generator is on or off. When a generator is on, the field is configured such that an electron, after passing through the slit, will be diverted away from the detection screen.
Assuming we can determine the total number of electrons being fired, we can get a pretty good idea, on average, of how many of those make it through the slits and onto the screen in any given run (without the generators). We can use this number as a benchmark. When we then run the experiment with the generators and random selector switch functioning, and compare the results to our benchmark run, we should fewer numbers reaching the screen (presumably only 2/3 – right?).
So my question is, will the interference pattern be “crisp” (all 2/3 contributing to the pattern) or will it be washed out (1/3 interference and 1/3 random distribution)? If I understand the DCQE results, then I think we should get a crisp pattern, which would mean that an individual electron does not need to pass through both slits to contribute the interference pattern…
Hey Montec and Anton,
QUOTE (Montec+)
The next wave geometry is based on the present wave geometry.
How would your idea work in explaining the results of the DCQE where the "present" wave effects the "past" waves?
How would your idea work in explaining the results of the DCQE where the "present" wave effects the "past" waves?
QUOTE (Mate+)
Has anyone ever considered DSE backward, so to speak?
Anton, are you familiar with Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory?
Anton, are you familiar with Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory?
Hi Yquantum and All,
This is really a tough question. We have collectively done tremendous analysis
of theoretical and experimental work done by many scientists and experimenters,
which I think has tied many loose ends together....at least in my mind.
However, there are still some "secrets" eluding us because they are not
readily apparent. There have been conceptual proposals made by several on
this board, but it has been difficult to arrive at a concensus agreement on
numerous issues because we are all looking at the problems from different
conceptual perspectives. It is hard to convince someone who has a deep
conviction about their beliefs, especially without hard proof.
Proof of concept cannot happen without verifiable experiments that have a
predictable outcome, so we rely on the available documented experiments
and papers on the subject. Unfortunately, those experiments are not
set up to the requirements necessary to defend our conceptual ideas.
Effectively, we are at an impasse, but new information on various topics
concerning the essence of matter, energy, and light is broadening our
discussions and collective understanding, which we hope to be able to
help us further develop the topic of the DSE.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
Just a comment, after all that has been surmised on your replies, what prediction could be made using the models that have been given that would show some better understanding of the DSE.
This is really a tough question. We have collectively done tremendous analysis
of theoretical and experimental work done by many scientists and experimenters,
which I think has tied many loose ends together....at least in my mind.
However, there are still some "secrets" eluding us because they are not
readily apparent. There have been conceptual proposals made by several on
this board, but it has been difficult to arrive at a concensus agreement on
numerous issues because we are all looking at the problems from different
conceptual perspectives. It is hard to convince someone who has a deep
conviction about their beliefs, especially without hard proof.
Proof of concept cannot happen without verifiable experiments that have a
predictable outcome, so we rely on the available documented experiments
and papers on the subject. Unfortunately, those experiments are not
set up to the requirements necessary to defend our conceptual ideas.
Effectively, we are at an impasse, but new information on various topics
concerning the essence of matter, energy, and light is broadening our
discussions and collective understanding, which we hope to be able to
help us further develop the topic of the DSE.
Regards,
LL
Hi Laserlight, ( yquantum et al, )
Time out. ?
IMHO the DSE 'question' can be summed up as:-
"Why does geometric optics work? .. particularly when only single photons are used"
We have two classic experiments .. the DSE itself and the delayed choice quantum eraser .. what extra information do you feel you need?
Best wishes -C2.
Time out. ?
IMHO the DSE 'question' can be summed up as:-
"Why does geometric optics work? .. particularly when only single photons are used"
We have two classic experiments .. the DSE itself and the delayed choice quantum eraser .. what extra information do you feel you need?
Best wishes -C2.
Hi all,
Impasse??
NEVER!!
Recap: Everybody was happy with the DSE, and the explanation, 100 yrs ago. When the idea that light was a "particle" was resurrected, with the blossoming of QM ( Planck's E = n h f , and AE's Photo-electric Effect), people started wondering which slit these INDEPENDENT, single "photons" were going through (and how they went through each slit "equally", and interfered).
You see, when you ask the WRONG question, you will probably NOT get the right answer. "Which slit" is a PARTICLE question. and the EM wave is NOT a particle. After convincing themselves that their source was producing "single photons" (based on simplistic math), they thought for sure they had the little guy cornered. Not so, the pattern disappeared.
At this point, more answers were needed. Huygens' principle still held: each source can be treated as "new". Very unfriendly to the particle interpretation, because this is a "flow" dynamic, where all the "components" behave locally in groups. The "new" sources (slits) were emitting coherent light. Again, VERY unfriendly to the particle interpretation: breaking a particle into 2 pieces CAN NOT produce particles that are the SAME SIZE as the original; only smaller ones. The path length method, which works so well, assumes that the SAME wavelength exists at the source, and at both slits.
With the ever more complex QM postulates, came the "probability wave" of the "particle photon". Never mind that that is illogical. Now they were able to explain how the "single photon" had the wave properties of interference, and went through both slits at the same time. Then Dirac's famous quote, "the "photon" then, can only interfere with itself". This is ONLY because in this erroneous model, the "new source coherence" was explained as the SAME "photon", divided into 2 parts. (even though this is a wave property)
In this way, they avoided explaining the pre-slit dynamics (which they had NO way of measuring back then) which "re-formed" with perfect symmetry at the slits. They avoided the post-slit dynamics, where the waves clearly interact to produce the fringe pattern (and don't with just one slit). Particles don't do that either.
If you thought that a single "photon", described by a single frequency, would actually have only 1 cycle, with 1 phase (ea), and 1 phase singularity (node), then I hope that I have changed your minds on this. The stated frequency is an "average", or center frequency. This gives us a MINIMUM of 3 wavelets to work with: the mean, and the extremes. Now we have 3 frequencies, 3 phase singularities, 3 +E fields, 3 -E fields, 3 + B fields, 3 - B fields (amplitudes). This sets the stage for phase geometry (Pancharatnam/Berry). The degrees of freedom of this geometry, clashing with the slit wall, create entangled parts that attempt to reform after the slits. The fundamental axis is also maintained: this is where the intensity maximum is, at the center. This is the reason that "geometric optics work". This is the reason that the "single photon" concept is invalid, even though mathematically, we can correctly calculate the E from h f .
regards,
T.Roc
Impasse??
NEVER!!
Recap: Everybody was happy with the DSE, and the explanation, 100 yrs ago. When the idea that light was a "particle" was resurrected, with the blossoming of QM ( Planck's E = n h f , and AE's Photo-electric Effect), people started wondering which slit these INDEPENDENT, single "photons" were going through (and how they went through each slit "equally", and interfered).
You see, when you ask the WRONG question, you will probably NOT get the right answer. "Which slit" is a PARTICLE question. and the EM wave is NOT a particle. After convincing themselves that their source was producing "single photons" (based on simplistic math), they thought for sure they had the little guy cornered. Not so, the pattern disappeared.
At this point, more answers were needed. Huygens' principle still held: each source can be treated as "new". Very unfriendly to the particle interpretation, because this is a "flow" dynamic, where all the "components" behave locally in groups. The "new" sources (slits) were emitting coherent light. Again, VERY unfriendly to the particle interpretation: breaking a particle into 2 pieces CAN NOT produce particles that are the SAME SIZE as the original; only smaller ones. The path length method, which works so well, assumes that the SAME wavelength exists at the source, and at both slits.
With the ever more complex QM postulates, came the "probability wave" of the "particle photon". Never mind that that is illogical. Now they were able to explain how the "single photon" had the wave properties of interference, and went through both slits at the same time. Then Dirac's famous quote, "the "photon" then, can only interfere with itself". This is ONLY because in this erroneous model, the "new source coherence" was explained as the SAME "photon", divided into 2 parts. (even though this is a wave property)
In this way, they avoided explaining the pre-slit dynamics (which they had NO way of measuring back then) which "re-formed" with perfect symmetry at the slits. They avoided the post-slit dynamics, where the waves clearly interact to produce the fringe pattern (and don't with just one slit). Particles don't do that either.
If you thought that a single "photon", described by a single frequency, would actually have only 1 cycle, with 1 phase (ea), and 1 phase singularity (node), then I hope that I have changed your minds on this. The stated frequency is an "average", or center frequency. This gives us a MINIMUM of 3 wavelets to work with: the mean, and the extremes. Now we have 3 frequencies, 3 phase singularities, 3 +E fields, 3 -E fields, 3 + B fields, 3 - B fields (amplitudes). This sets the stage for phase geometry (Pancharatnam/Berry). The degrees of freedom of this geometry, clashing with the slit wall, create entangled parts that attempt to reform after the slits. The fundamental axis is also maintained: this is where the intensity maximum is, at the center. This is the reason that "geometric optics work". This is the reason that the "single photon" concept is invalid, even though mathematically, we can correctly calculate the E from h f .
regards,
T.Roc
Hello Why Not?, et al.
Here is an actual photograph of the EM radiation pattern produce by the down conversion in a BBO crystal. BBO photo
Notice at the intersection of the cones, which are brighter, you will have both electric field polarities. So if these two beams are used, polarity of the beams becomes a mitigating factor. Another thing to note is that the propagation speed for each polarity through the crystal is different. You may be in fact getting circular polarized light out of the BBO crystal. None of the experiments I have looked at make any mention of this possibility. So the use of polarizers in the DSE quantum eraser may not be fully understood.
Here is an actual photograph of the EM radiation pattern produce by the down conversion in a BBO crystal. BBO photo
Notice at the intersection of the cones, which are brighter, you will have both electric field polarities. So if these two beams are used, polarity of the beams becomes a mitigating factor. Another thing to note is that the propagation speed for each polarity through the crystal is different. You may be in fact getting circular polarized light out of the BBO crystal. None of the experiments I have looked at make any mention of this possibility. So the use of polarizers in the DSE quantum eraser may not be fully understood.
Hi TRoc, C2, and All,
Ding! Ding! Round 12.
Here we go again!
I was in total theoretical agreement with you right up to the last sentence, and
in fact may even partially agree with that statement. You are correct that
the concept of a single photon which is a single impulse of light probably
does not exist as a discrete entity. In fact it is a chain of impulses that exist
and travel sequentially and last for some period of duration. This should be
what we consider a single photon, IMO.
We must consider that a photon emitting atom does not merely make a single
electron level transition when energy is applied, but a sequence of them that
are energetically and temporally chained together. I will present an argument
that should explain the concept.
If resonance is a requirement for energy transmission and absorption, and I think
that we all agree on this concept, then the act of resonance infers that an atomic
dipole must "ring" in order to resonate. Resonance is a vibration not a
single event. I have spoken of this concept previously.
In every physical example that I can think of, the act of resonance is a sequential
vibrational effect that dampens over time with energy loss, as in a tuned bell.
Resonance implies a tuned frequency response to an external event. This
should be a linear response along a "mean" frequency... a tone. Tones of the
same frequency can superpose their energy to increase or cancel the amplitude of
the resulting merged waveform, depending upon their relative phase timing. This
describes a wave with the characteristic of amplitude that varies with the total
energy of the superposed and phased energies comprised of individual "tones".
Resonance will only be sustained as long as the stimulating energy signal is
constantly applied in a periodic sequential "mode". This is necessary to
regenerate and prolong the resonance effect. This is an AC signal signature that
allows periodic and varying field geometries to cycle, or resonate over time.
AC fields are harmonious "structures" in spacetime, they vary the energy density
in a unit volume of space by changing the dielectric qualities of the space they
occupy. When you change the dielectric qualities of local space, you change the
index of refraction and impedance of that space. Basically, you distort it or warp
it.
The inherent characteristics of "space" (vacuum) responds to the addition of
energy by resisting a change of energy state. This is the impedance of space. So
argumentatively, impedance and the index of refraction share the same qualities.
They change/warp the nature of space according to its energy content per unit
volume, which corresponds to the type energy field that occupies that volume of
space.
Conversely, constant DC electric fields are not resonant, but they do change the
energy characteristics of the space/vacuum that they occupy. The impedance of
space is "resisting" and containing this constant "DC" field presence, which can
have the attributes of electric potential or magnetic field characteristics,
but they cannot not both exist in the same physical volume of space simultaneously
because they are reciprocal qualities.
Now, back to the original argument about the existance of a "single" photon....as a
single quantum impulse event. I agree, in theory, that this does not happen as
it violates the concept of resonance (ringing). There is no single quantum event.
This does not exclude however that there isn't a single "photon" that is best
represented as an oscillating "chain" of quantum ringing energy events that propagate from an
atom for a minimum amount of time or FREQUENCY.
So, a photon is a chain of resonant events that exist for a period of
time, the shortest time period of which is a photon of specific quantum energy.
An extended "photon" exists for a long period of time as it propagates from a
continuously ringing atom that we call a ray or beam.
See, this all does tie together!
Some prior posts:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=144411
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=168253
Comments, discussion, counter arguments welcomed!
LL
Ding! Ding! Round 12.
Here we go again!
QUOTE
If you thought that a single "photon", described by a single frequency, would actually have only 1 cycle, with 1 phase (ea), and 1 phase singularity (node), then I hope that I have changed your minds on this. The stated frequency is an "average", or center frequency. This gives us a MINIMUM of 3 wavelets to work with: the mean, and the extremes. Now we have 3 frequencies, 3 phase singularities, 3 +E fields, 3 -E fields, 3 + B fields, 3 - B fields (amplitudes). This sets the stage for phase geometry (Pancharatnam/Berry). The degrees of freedom of this geometry, clashing with the slit wall, create entangled parts that attempt to reform after the slits. The fundamental axis is also maintained: this is where the intensity maximum is, at the center. This is the reason that "geometric optics work". This is the reason that the "single photon" concept is invalid, even though mathematically, we can correctly calculate the E from h f .
I was in total theoretical agreement with you right up to the last sentence, and
in fact may even partially agree with that statement. You are correct that
the concept of a single photon which is a single impulse of light probably
does not exist as a discrete entity. In fact it is a chain of impulses that exist
and travel sequentially and last for some period of duration. This should be
what we consider a single photon, IMO.
We must consider that a photon emitting atom does not merely make a single
electron level transition when energy is applied, but a sequence of them that
are energetically and temporally chained together. I will present an argument
that should explain the concept.
If resonance is a requirement for energy transmission and absorption, and I think
that we all agree on this concept, then the act of resonance infers that an atomic
dipole must "ring" in order to resonate. Resonance is a vibration not a
single event. I have spoken of this concept previously.
In every physical example that I can think of, the act of resonance is a sequential
vibrational effect that dampens over time with energy loss, as in a tuned bell.
Resonance implies a tuned frequency response to an external event. This
should be a linear response along a "mean" frequency... a tone. Tones of the
same frequency can superpose their energy to increase or cancel the amplitude of
the resulting merged waveform, depending upon their relative phase timing. This
describes a wave with the characteristic of amplitude that varies with the total
energy of the superposed and phased energies comprised of individual "tones".
Resonance will only be sustained as long as the stimulating energy signal is
constantly applied in a periodic sequential "mode". This is necessary to
regenerate and prolong the resonance effect. This is an AC signal signature that
allows periodic and varying field geometries to cycle, or resonate over time.
AC fields are harmonious "structures" in spacetime, they vary the energy density
in a unit volume of space by changing the dielectric qualities of the space they
occupy. When you change the dielectric qualities of local space, you change the
index of refraction and impedance of that space. Basically, you distort it or warp
it.
The inherent characteristics of "space" (vacuum) responds to the addition of
energy by resisting a change of energy state. This is the impedance of space. So
argumentatively, impedance and the index of refraction share the same qualities.
They change/warp the nature of space according to its energy content per unit
volume, which corresponds to the type energy field that occupies that volume of
space.
Conversely, constant DC electric fields are not resonant, but they do change the
energy characteristics of the space/vacuum that they occupy. The impedance of
space is "resisting" and containing this constant "DC" field presence, which can
have the attributes of electric potential or magnetic field characteristics,
but they cannot not both exist in the same physical volume of space simultaneously
because they are reciprocal qualities.
Now, back to the original argument about the existance of a "single" photon....as a
single quantum impulse event. I agree, in theory, that this does not happen as
it violates the concept of resonance (ringing). There is no single quantum event.
This does not exclude however that there isn't a single "photon" that is best
represented as an oscillating "chain" of quantum ringing energy events that propagate from an
atom for a minimum amount of time or FREQUENCY.
So, a photon is a chain of resonant events that exist for a period of
time, the shortest time period of which is a photon of specific quantum energy.
An extended "photon" exists for a long period of time as it propagates from a
continuously ringing atom that we call a ray or beam.
See, this all does tie together!
Some prior posts:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=144411
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=168253
Comments, discussion, counter arguments welcomed!
LL
Hi C2,
I have proposed a mechanism that would explain why the "single photon" would
work to form a pattern in the DSE. That had to do with the phase angle of the
photon as it enters the optical cavity of the slits, where the localized index of
refraction in the immediate area of the slits has been changed by the polariton
fields that couple from the matter that make up the slits. IMO, the normal
symmetrical EM field shape of the "photon" becomes distorted, as it does
whenever the index of refraction changes in a medium.
The EM energy of the arriving "photon" wavefront couples that energy component, by
virtue of resonant induction, to the change of refractive index represented
by the geometric "virtual lens" action (qualities) of the local medium that is
presented by the slit geometries. The photon distributes that coupled energy
component across the "virtual lens" that represents a spatial change in the refractive
index of the participating slits. It is similar to how an oscillating EM field couples
energy to the individual windings of a transformer by distributing part of the energy
into each participating winding. Of course, the field maintains the relative phasing
relationship in each winding, but there is an overall phase delay or a group
delay during the coupling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_delay
So in effect, we are not just coupling energy to just one slit, but to the localized
spatial lens geometry of all slits that participate in the localized change of
refraction. Effectively, the energy is inductively "phase coupled" and distributed
across all slits.
In this case, the individual slit cavities act as a type of waveguide transmission
"medium" that conducts the separated fields according to the common relative
phase angle of the passing EM components of the wave. As the induced wave
energy passes beyond the refractive affects of the slit cavities the opposite effect
occurs. The wave energy is refocused/recombined and is resonantly coupled out
of the geometric refractive "lens" to continue its propagation. However, its exiting
vector direction will be determined by the initial phase angle of the photon at the
phase angle that it entered the change of refractive index caused by the virtual
lens created by the slit geometries.
Comments? Discussion? Alternative perspectives?
LL
QUOTE
IMHO the DSE 'question' can be summed up as:-
"Why does geometric optics work? .. particularly when only single photons are used"
We have two classic experiments .. the DSE itself and the delayed choice quantum eraser .. what extra information do you feel you need?
"Why does geometric optics work? .. particularly when only single photons are used"
We have two classic experiments .. the DSE itself and the delayed choice quantum eraser .. what extra information do you feel you need?
I have proposed a mechanism that would explain why the "single photon" would
work to form a pattern in the DSE. That had to do with the phase angle of the
photon as it enters the optical cavity of the slits, where the localized index of
refraction in the immediate area of the slits has been changed by the polariton
fields that couple from the matter that make up the slits. IMO, the normal
symmetrical EM field shape of the "photon" becomes distorted, as it does
whenever the index of refraction changes in a medium.
The EM energy of the arriving "photon" wavefront couples that energy component, by
virtue of resonant induction, to the change of refractive index represented
by the geometric "virtual lens" action (qualities) of the local medium that is
presented by the slit geometries. The photon distributes that coupled energy
component across the "virtual lens" that represents a spatial change in the refractive
index of the participating slits. It is similar to how an oscillating EM field couples
energy to the individual windings of a transformer by distributing part of the energy
into each participating winding. Of course, the field maintains the relative phasing
relationship in each winding, but there is an overall phase delay or a group
delay during the coupling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_delay
So in effect, we are not just coupling energy to just one slit, but to the localized
spatial lens geometry of all slits that participate in the localized change of
refraction. Effectively, the energy is inductively "phase coupled" and distributed
across all slits.
In this case, the individual slit cavities act as a type of waveguide transmission
"medium" that conducts the separated fields according to the common relative
phase angle of the passing EM components of the wave. As the induced wave
energy passes beyond the refractive affects of the slit cavities the opposite effect
occurs. The wave energy is refocused/recombined and is resonantly coupled out
of the geometric refractive "lens" to continue its propagation. However, its exiting
vector direction will be determined by the initial phase angle of the photon at the
phase angle that it entered the change of refractive index caused by the virtual
lens created by the slit geometries.
Comments? Discussion? Alternative perspectives?
LL
Hi LL,
Take a party type ballon and stuff a small magnet up the airhole. Blow the ballon up and wipe it on a nylon shirt and you have magnetism and electrostatic charge present - each ignoring the other.
Here is something about matching
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_matching#Terminology
Here is something about resonance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RLC_circuit#Configurations
My PC seems very sick - I'll post ore if I canb-/n/b-nb n-/b-n
Best wishes - C2
Take a party type ballon and stuff a small magnet up the airhole. Blow the ballon up and wipe it on a nylon shirt and you have magnetism and electrostatic charge present - each ignoring the other.
Here is something about matching
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_matching#Terminology
Here is something about resonance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RLC_circuit#Configurations
My PC seems very sick
- I'll post ore if I canb-/n/b-nb n-/b-nBest wishes - C2
Hi C2,
I'm willing to bet that if you move a magnet across the static electric field
that the baloon will move either toward or away from the magnet according
to the polarity of the magnet in relation to the electrical field.
It would be a form of motor action.
Have you ever moved a magnet close to the screen of a CRT and watched the
distortions as the electric field on the screen was distorted/degaussed?
Edit:
What was your point for the links. Are you inferring that vacuum/space
doesn't possess capacitance or impedance?
It would seem that space should possess infinite capacitance and a fixed
impedance, but I could be wrong on this.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
Take a party type ballon and stuff a small magnet up the airhole. Blow the ballon up and wipe it on a nylon shirt and you have magnetism and electrostatic charge present - each ignoring the other.
I'm willing to bet that if you move a magnet across the static electric field
that the baloon will move either toward or away from the magnet according
to the polarity of the magnet in relation to the electrical field.
It would be a form of motor action.
Have you ever moved a magnet close to the screen of a CRT and watched the
distortions as the electric field on the screen was distorted/degaussed?
Edit:
What was your point for the links. Are you inferring that vacuum/space
doesn't possess capacitance or impedance?
It would seem that space should possess infinite capacitance and a fixed
impedance, but I could be wrong on this.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE (LL+)
I have proposed a mechanism that would explain why the "single photon" would
work to form a pattern in the DSE. That had to do with the phase angle of the
photon as it enters the optical cavity of the slits, where the localized index of
refraction in the immediate area of the slits has been changed by the polariton
fields that couple from the matter that make up the slits. IMO, the normal
symmetrical EM field shape of the "photon" becomes distorted, as it does
whenever the index of refraction changes in a medium.
I've been trying to make the point that there is something rather special about the particular DSE equation I've posted so many times :- it gives the right answer.
work to form a pattern in the DSE. That had to do with the phase angle of the
photon as it enters the optical cavity of the slits, where the localized index of
refraction in the immediate area of the slits has been changed by the polariton
fields that couple from the matter that make up the slits. IMO, the normal
symmetrical EM field shape of the "photon" becomes distorted, as it does
whenever the index of refraction changes in a medium.
I've been trying to make the point that there is something rather special about the particular DSE equation I've posted so many times :- it gives the right answer.
QUOTE (LL+)
In this case, the individual slit cavities act as a type of waveguide transmission
"medium" that conducts the separated fields according to the common relative
phase angle of the passing EM components of the wave. As the induced wave
energy passes beyond the refractive affects of the slit cavities the opposite effect
occurs. The wave energy is refocused/recombined and is resonantly coupled out
of the geometric refractive "lens" to continue its propagation.
Do you think this can give the same result as the DSE equation? (In your wildest dreams?) If it does not then it is simply 'wrong'. Sorry.
Best wishes - C2.
The distance between the peaks is given by .. the DSE equation.
"medium" that conducts the separated fields according to the common relative
phase angle of the passing EM components of the wave. As the induced wave
energy passes beyond the refractive affects of the slit cavities the opposite effect
occurs. The wave energy is refocused/recombined and is resonantly coupled out
of the geometric refractive "lens" to continue its propagation.
Do you think this can give the same result as the DSE equation? (In your wildest dreams?) If it does not then it is simply 'wrong'. Sorry.
Best wishes - C2.
The distance between the peaks is given by .. the DSE equation.
Hi C2,
As we have all stated, we have no problem with the equations. We know that they
work from a mathematical perspective, but they do not explain the physics of the
slits and how it relates to the wave energy.
How does the equation explain the interference results of a single photon as it
relates to more than one slit?
As we have all stated, we have no problem with the equations. We know that they
work from a mathematical perspective, but they do not explain the physics of the
slits and how it relates to the wave energy.
How does the equation explain the interference results of a single photon as it
relates to more than one slit?
Do you think this can give the same result as the DSE equation? (In your wildest dreams?) If it does not then it is simply 'wrong'. Sorry.
I think it compliments the physics of waves and optics to the mathematical
equations perfectly. It provides an explanation and a physical mechanism for the
effect. It might not be totally perfected, but the principles presented could
theoretically work by combining the known characteristics of waves and optics
and comparing them to electrical (EM) theory.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
I've been trying to make the point that there is something rather special about the particular DSE equation I've posted so many times :- it gives the right answer.
As we have all stated, we have no problem with the equations. We know that they
work from a mathematical perspective, but they do not explain the physics of the
slits and how it relates to the wave energy.
How does the equation explain the interference results of a single photon as it
relates to more than one slit?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've been trying to make the point that there is something rather special about the particular DSE equation I've posted so many times :- it gives the right answer. |
As we have all stated, we have no problem with the equations. We know that they
work from a mathematical perspective, but they do not explain the physics of the
slits and how it relates to the wave energy.
How does the equation explain the interference results of a single photon as it
relates to more than one slit?
Do you think this can give the same result as the DSE equation? (In your wildest dreams?) If it does not then it is simply 'wrong'. Sorry.
I think it compliments the physics of waves and optics to the mathematical
equations perfectly. It provides an explanation and a physical mechanism for the
effect. It might not be totally perfected, but the principles presented could
theoretically work by combining the known characteristics of waves and optics
and comparing them to electrical (EM) theory.
Comments?
LL
Hi All,
Just an addendum to my post regarding phase delay:
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_delay
LL
Just an addendum to my post regarding phase delay:
From Wikipedia:
QUOTE
In physics, and in particular in optics, the study of waves, the term group delay has the following meanings:
1. The rate of change of the total phase shift with respect to angular frequency,
through a device or transmission medium, where is the total phase shift in radians, and is the angular frequency in radians per unit time, equal to , where is the frequency (hertz if group delay is measured in seconds).
1. The rate of change of the total phase shift with respect to angular frequency,
through a device or transmission medium, where is the total phase shift in radians, and is the angular frequency in radians per unit time, equal to , where is the frequency (hertz if group delay is measured in seconds).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_delay
LL
Hey Montec, TRoc, LL and all....
Montec, I am not convinced that the use of polarizer in the DCQE experiments are not fully understood simply because they do not mention the possibility of producing circular polarized light out of the BBO crystal. That "none of the experiments mention this possibility" seems to indicate (at least to me) that it's not a possibility worth mentioning. Do you have any evidence otherwise?
TRoc and LL,
Montec, I am not convinced that the use of polarizer in the DCQE experiments are not fully understood simply because they do not mention the possibility of producing circular polarized light out of the BBO crystal. That "none of the experiments mention this possibility" seems to indicate (at least to me) that it's not a possibility worth mentioning. Do you have any evidence otherwise?
TRoc and LL,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
You are correct that the concept of a single photon which is a single impulse of light probably does not exist as a discrete entity.
What? I Googled "Single Photon Detection" and received about “1,200,000” hits, the first few describing experiments and apparatus for the detection of a single photon. The best, IMHO, from Baez, Can a Human See a Single Photon?
There is ample experimental evidence that single photons (as individual discrete impulses of light) exist. So are you both ignoring the obvious or is it just sloppy language? That “it doesn’t make sense” is not a valid reason to deny said existence. I am not trying to be a d**kh**d, it just that the conclusions drawn do not match the evidence available.
What? I Googled "Single Photon Detection" and received about “1,200,000” hits, the first few describing experiments and apparatus for the detection of a single photon. The best, IMHO, from Baez, Can a Human See a Single Photon?
There is ample experimental evidence that single photons (as individual discrete impulses of light) exist. So are you both ignoring the obvious or is it just sloppy language? That “it doesn’t make sense” is not a valid reason to deny said existence. I am not trying to be a d**kh**d, it just that the conclusions drawn do not match the evidence available.
Hi Why Not and All,
You are right to ask this question!
Here is the definition of resonance from the Websters New World Dictionary:
You are right to ask this question!
Here is the definition of resonance from the Websters New World Dictionary:
Physics a) the effect produced when the amplitude of oscillation of a body is greatly increased by a periodic force at the same or nearly the same frequency b ) a vibration caused by this phenomenon
We have questioned the validity of the concept of a single solitary impulse as
a photon for a long time, and we understand that it is derived via the
results of the photoelectric effect and can be observed on a photo-multiplier
tube as a single flash of light.
That logically gets us to ask several questions regarding "what is a photon, really?"
1. "How do you get an electron to only change energy levels one time in its orbital
and still meet the requirements of a dipole that works on the principle of
resonance (ringing), if resonance implies multiple oscillations? Yes, each full
electron transition between energy levels represents a quantum of energy,
a single cycle, but can it be emitted and propagate as a solitary unit?
How do you derive the concept of "frequency" or wavelength from a single
solitary displacement impulse? That is like what would you call a single wave
emanating from a ringing bell or a musical string? There would be no
resonance about it. It would represent the minimum amount of energy as musical
note, but what fractional part of the note? A full note? A half note? A quarter note?
An eighth note? A 16th note.....etc.
Yes, it is a single energy cycle, but can it resonantly transmit energy to its
surrounding environment?
I'm open to other opinions.
Comments? Arguments? discussion?
LL
QUOTE
There is ample experimental evidence that single photons (as individual discrete impulses of light) exist. So are you both ignoring the obvious or is it just sloppy language? That “it doesn’t make sense” is not a valid reason to deny said existence.
You are right to ask this question!
Here is the definition of resonance from the Websters New World Dictionary:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is ample experimental evidence that single photons (as individual discrete impulses of light) exist. So are you both ignoring the obvious or is it just sloppy language? That “it doesn’t make sense” is not a valid reason to deny said existence. |
You are right to ask this question!
Here is the definition of resonance from the Websters New World Dictionary:
Physics a) the effect produced when the amplitude of oscillation of a body is greatly increased by a periodic force at the same or nearly the same frequency b ) a vibration caused by this phenomenon
We have questioned the validity of the concept of a single solitary impulse as
a photon for a long time, and we understand that it is derived via the
results of the photoelectric effect and can be observed on a photo-multiplier
tube as a single flash of light.
That logically gets us to ask several questions regarding "what is a photon, really?"
1. "How do you get an electron to only change energy levels one time in its orbital
and still meet the requirements of a dipole that works on the principle of
resonance (ringing), if resonance implies multiple oscillations? Yes, each full
electron transition between energy levels represents a quantum of energy,
a single cycle, but can it be emitted and propagate as a solitary unit?
How do you derive the concept of "frequency" or wavelength from a single
solitary displacement impulse? That is like what would you call a single wave
emanating from a ringing bell or a musical string? There would be no
resonance about it. It would represent the minimum amount of energy as musical
note, but what fractional part of the note? A full note? A half note? A quarter note?
An eighth note? A 16th note.....etc.
Yes, it is a single energy cycle, but can it resonantly transmit energy to its
surrounding environment?
I'm open to other opinions.
Comments? Arguments? discussion?
LL
Hi all,
LL, I think we are closer still to being on the same page. You will get "right answers" up to a limit, with the dielectric process as causal. I do not think that this is the best way to go, however. I look at the geometry (phase) as causal, with charge a result. The only difference would appear outside of EM waves, and there are plenty of other situations that can be described by the dynamics of Resonance. The geometrical approach allows for curved space, and relativistic interaction; both important to the "big picture" (unification).
Why Not -
Correct, and I agree. I do not think that single "photons" (quanta of energy) do not exist. I understand that we have single state transitions in electron orbitals, and that specific frequencies are absorbed discreetly.
What I DO think, is that Science (particularly at the time period that the theories were put forth) has NOT been PRODUCING single "photons", nor working with single atoms, in which to absorb single "photons" with. LASER beams of trillions of "photons" being measured by a cascade of electrons; and very carefully prepared to "click" at the expected rate of the resonant pulses -- disregarding the lower energy "photons" that CONNECT each pulse. I have given links to experiments boosting the photoelctric effect with IR waves superimposed onto a resonant (w/ work function) beam. Take a look at C2's now infamous chart.. there is NO PLACE measured that has LESS than 100 "photons" per second. So, if we take that to be correct, then we have a finite period of time between "photons" (supposedly assuring us that only 1 is in the chamber at a "time"). What should be said here, is that we have 100 RESONANT "photons" (set to expectation) per second arriving, and an UN-COUNTED amount of non-resonant, low energy "photons" CONTINUOUSLY filling the space between "clicks". Some specific interval of time separates the counts, and is filled by lower energy, longer waves. The INPUT energy of the laser does NOT change, and the LASER is never turned off. The emission rate MUST have a minimum to satisfy the population inversion; the emission rate is not changed. The ENERGY is CONTINUOUS from the LASER to the screen. By the "photon" hypothesis, this is one "photon" as well; 1 quanta of energy.
By definition, if we have an average, we have MORE THAN ONE thing. In my theory, the CYCLE is the important feature, and a wave packet (photon) will have more than 1 cycle, and at more than 1 frequency.
What I am saying is, that the word SINGLE can not be attached to a "quantity" of energy, that is made up of many of each of the components that make up an EM wave.
I also have a big problem with getting out of this "photon" definition by calling the same phenomenon (movement or transfer of energy) by a NEW name, every time an exception is discovered. ALL of these energies are conserved, and have a frequency. (solitons, phonons, excitons, etc.) By giving each new result a new name, the similarity is lost in definitions.
These components of a wave have a symbiotic, and an inverse-symmetrical relationship. If they are "broken up", either by the space between 2 slits, or through a beam splitter, etc. then the now separate components are "entangled". They will attempt to re-form, and this takes place superluminally. If one of the dualistic components is measured (collapsed) before the re-grouping can take place, then an opposite effect will be measured in the "other path" components. In the DSE, the separated components re-combine to form the fringe pattern (4 to 1 @ center, original axis).
regards,
T.Roc
LL, I think we are closer still to being on the same page. You will get "right answers" up to a limit, with the dielectric process as causal. I do not think that this is the best way to go, however. I look at the geometry (phase) as causal, with charge a result. The only difference would appear outside of EM waves, and there are plenty of other situations that can be described by the dynamics of Resonance. The geometrical approach allows for curved space, and relativistic interaction; both important to the "big picture" (unification).
Why Not -
QUOTE
There is ample experimental evidence that single photons (as individual discrete impulses of light) exist.
Correct, and I agree. I do not think that single "photons" (quanta of energy) do not exist. I understand that we have single state transitions in electron orbitals, and that specific frequencies are absorbed discreetly.
What I DO think, is that Science (particularly at the time period that the theories were put forth) has NOT been PRODUCING single "photons", nor working with single atoms, in which to absorb single "photons" with. LASER beams of trillions of "photons" being measured by a cascade of electrons; and very carefully prepared to "click" at the expected rate of the resonant pulses -- disregarding the lower energy "photons" that CONNECT each pulse. I have given links to experiments boosting the photoelctric effect with IR waves superimposed onto a resonant (w/ work function) beam. Take a look at C2's now infamous chart.. there is NO PLACE measured that has LESS than 100 "photons" per second. So, if we take that to be correct, then we have a finite period of time between "photons" (supposedly assuring us that only 1 is in the chamber at a "time"). What should be said here, is that we have 100 RESONANT "photons" (set to expectation) per second arriving, and an UN-COUNTED amount of non-resonant, low energy "photons" CONTINUOUSLY filling the space between "clicks". Some specific interval of time separates the counts, and is filled by lower energy, longer waves. The INPUT energy of the laser does NOT change, and the LASER is never turned off. The emission rate MUST have a minimum to satisfy the population inversion; the emission rate is not changed. The ENERGY is CONTINUOUS from the LASER to the screen. By the "photon" hypothesis, this is one "photon" as well; 1 quanta of energy.
By definition, if we have an average, we have MORE THAN ONE thing. In my theory, the CYCLE is the important feature, and a wave packet (photon) will have more than 1 cycle, and at more than 1 frequency.
What I am saying is, that the word SINGLE can not be attached to a "quantity" of energy, that is made up of many of each of the components that make up an EM wave.
I also have a big problem with getting out of this "photon" definition by calling the same phenomenon (movement or transfer of energy) by a NEW name, every time an exception is discovered. ALL of these energies are conserved, and have a frequency. (solitons, phonons, excitons, etc.) By giving each new result a new name, the similarity is lost in definitions.
These components of a wave have a symbiotic, and an inverse-symmetrical relationship. If they are "broken up", either by the space between 2 slits, or through a beam splitter, etc. then the now separate components are "entangled". They will attempt to re-form, and this takes place superluminally. If one of the dualistic components is measured (collapsed) before the re-grouping can take place, then an opposite effect will be measured in the "other path" components. In the DSE, the separated components re-combine to form the fringe pattern (4 to 1 @ center, original axis).
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
Can you elaborate when you get the time. I am not sure exactly what you are
saying or why you think this dielectric effect will yield limited results.
My proposed scenario might not be 100% conceptually accurate but you may have
insight that will provide a key to unlock other clues or answers.
I think most of us are starting to agree that the DSE is a phenomenon with a
basis in optics, resonance, geometry, and how they combine to influence EM fields.
TIA,
LL
QUOTE
LL, I think we are closer still to being on the same page. You will get "right answers" up to a limit, with the dielectric process as causal. I do not think that this is the best way to go, however. I look at the geometry (phase) as causal, with charge a result. The only difference would appear outside of EM waves, and there are plenty of other situations that can be described by the dynamics of Resonance. The geometrical approach allows for curved space, and relativistic interaction; both important to the "big picture" (unification).
Can you elaborate when you get the time. I am not sure exactly what you are
saying or why you think this dielectric effect will yield limited results.
My proposed scenario might not be 100% conceptually accurate but you may have
insight that will provide a key to unlock other clues or answers.
I think most of us are starting to agree that the DSE is a phenomenon with a
basis in optics, resonance, geometry, and how they combine to influence EM fields.
TIA,
LL
Hi janrinze, "THEY", Laserlight, Jal, Confused2, Zephir, yquantum, TRoc, Montec, Neil Farbstein, Why Not?, Mate et al,
QUOTE (Yquantum+)
I have been reading this post with much interest, for this THANK YOU.
Just a comment, after all that has been surmised on your replies, what prediction could be made using the models that have been given that would show some better understanding of the DSE.
A theory is only good as it results -- could this be accomplished?
Just a comment, after all that has been surmised on your replies, what prediction could be made using the models that have been given that would show some better understanding of the DSE.
A theory is only good as it results -- could this be accomplished?
Welcome back yquantum. Good question. As has been stated, there is not universal agreement regarding facts and interpretation of phenomena. "Committees" are often a difficult "beast" to get any agreement on issues. Even more importantly (and this cannot be "under stressed") committees do not decide the Laws of Nature by a show of hands as they may do with the Laws of Man. None of us here (I think?) are here to arrive at "political decisions", we are here for the science. It has been my focus that when in any doubt there are usually some experiments that support the points being put up for consideration. If there is no justification other than some "opinion" then I simply dismiss that point unless I see that the "opinion" does indeed have experimental support. I think we all take that point of view. If there is any dissent on this point I would like to hear it.
I have some very controversial notions about this basic science. If I did not have them then my contribution would have not been of any worth and led to a conversation with a group of "co-conspirators" all nodding their heads whenever any comment was made since standard interpretations of theory has led to no new insights here. Anyone with any creativity at all would have left.
I am a little "put off" by claims that go against existing understanding without some justification. This next comment is not meant to offend and it generally applies equally to me as it does to others... A number of claims that individual photons "probably" do not exist based on nothing other than the requirement that the assertion be believed, when as "Why Not?" can instantly debunk this claim by simply "Googling" recent experiments where devices are available that are sources of actual single photons... and single photons can indeed be detected (quite easily). "Why Not? is entitled to be upset because what is purporting to be a rational debate has become a matter of unsubstantiated "opinion". Even children in schools do single photon experiments as has been stated many times in this thread. I am sure this is frustrating to many to be told that single photons do not exist. It shows that there is still a mental block against this discussion remaining consistent and for all of us to support any wild claims being made with some kind scientific argument. I am sure this is not deliberate misdirection but it means the claimant is selling all those in the discussion short and not recognizing that other minds are at least able to correctly asses these claims instantly. If we individually make a dumb statement it reflects on us individually and on our credibility. Now we can all make dumb statements and it is important to point them out but once should be enough. Is it any wonder that so many Forums result in "flaming bonfires of the Vanities and Hubris".
We could all improve the quality of the experience here if we all agreed that we not make totally unsupported statements unless we make a pretty good argument in support of our pet theories or that what we say is pretty prosaic and very well known already. I do not mean unscientific arguments by "playing the man not the ball". We are all going to make claims (as I have) for some extraordinary phenomena and I am sure that none of you should or would accept that claim based on the say so of an "elf". The progress any of these technical discussions will depend on the "slowest" member. The "goal" of this thread is barely starting to form and the real consequences are still far down the road. The length of the road has not changed but many of us are going in circles and having too many "pit stops" with our thinking.
I have some very controversial notions about this basic science. If I did not have them then my contribution would have not been of any worth and led to a conversation with a group of "co-conspirators" all nodding their heads whenever any comment was made since standard interpretations of theory has led to no new insights here. Anyone with any creativity at all would have left.
I am a little "put off" by claims that go against existing understanding without some justification. This next comment is not meant to offend and it generally applies equally to me as it does to others... A number of claims that individual photons "probably" do not exist based on nothing other than the requirement that the assertion be believed, when as "Why Not?" can instantly debunk this claim by simply "Googling" recent experiments where devices are available that are sources of actual single photons... and single photons can indeed be detected (quite easily). "Why Not? is entitled to be upset because what is purporting to be a rational debate has become a matter of unsubstantiated "opinion". Even children in schools do single photon experiments as has been stated many times in this thread. I am sure this is frustrating to many to be told that single photons do not exist. It shows that there is still a mental block against this discussion remaining consistent and for all of us to support any wild claims being made with some kind scientific argument. I am sure this is not deliberate misdirection but it means the claimant is selling all those in the discussion short and not recognizing that other minds are at least able to correctly asses these claims instantly. If we individually make a dumb statement it reflects on us individually and on our credibility. Now we can all make dumb statements and it is important to point them out but once should be enough. Is it any wonder that so many Forums result in "flaming bonfires of the Vanities and Hubris".
We could all improve the quality of the experience here if we all agreed that we not make totally unsupported statements unless we make a pretty good argument in support of our pet theories or that what we say is pretty prosaic and very well known already. I do not mean unscientific arguments by "playing the man not the ball". We are all going to make claims (as I have) for some extraordinary phenomena and I am sure that none of you should or would accept that claim based on the say so of an "elf". The progress any of these technical discussions will depend on the "slowest" member. The "goal" of this thread is barely starting to form and the real consequences are still far down the road. The length of the road has not changed but many of us are going in circles and having too many "pit stops" with our thinking.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
QUOTE (LL+)
In this case, the individual slit cavities act as a type of waveguide transmission "medium" that conducts the separated fields according to the common relative phase angle of the passing EM components of the wave. As the induced wave energy passes beyond the refractive affects of the slit cavities the opposite effect occurs. The wave energy is refocused/recombined and is resonantly coupled out of the geometric refractive "lens" to continue its propagation.
Do you think this can give the same result as the DSE equation? (In your wildest dreams?) If it does not then it is simply 'wrong'. Sorry.
Do you think this can give the same result as the DSE equation? (In your wildest dreams?) If it does not then it is simply 'wrong'. Sorry.
I though this was obvious... C2.. The distance from source (pinholes) to screen where the photons are absorbed is not always an integer length of the wavelength of light. What I will say is that each pinhole diameter is hundreds of times or more the size of a wavelength of light. This means that considerable path difference will occur from one side of the pinhole to the other (from the center)... hundreds of wavelength differences. The question is why does a slit or a pinhole produce a bright central spot on the screen at all?
The answer is the screen shows "intensity" and not phase... intensity is the square of the total vector phase amplitude. If a wave "combines" with positive phases then the summation is positive and at twice the amplitude and their square is also positive. If a wave "combines" on the screen with negative phase then their sum is also negative and twice the amplitude and the square is still positive... therefore regardless of the fact that the wave is in positive or negative phase the "brightness" is always registered as positive. In between these points of brightening on the screen where the brightness is positive, if the distance between equally phased waves is a half integer wavelength of the light then there will be absolute total cancellation. This is because for every instant in time the phases cancel... any positive phase is identically matched with an equal negative phase, one ray at a time, starting from the two centers and working out to all symmetric points up to but not on the periphery. So the phases subtract and the result is a zero... it does not matter it this is a "positive zero" or a "negative zero" its square is still a total of a "big zero".
Now on either side (same side) of the central point of the absolute exact center of the two pinholes that I have evaluated the intensity at the screen for, we have for every other point in those two tiny disks, equivalent matching "rays" where the path to an equidistant part of the screen is displaced a small distance (equal to this displacement) from the original equidistant central point of the screen. These add or cancel in pairs depending on the distance to the screen. When they add there is a brightness and when they cancel there is nothing. The primary reason why these add or cancel is we are dealing with coherent light and waves whose individual photons are reaching the screen in the far field as plane waves are all phase matched along the secondary source and whose size is larger in the transverse direction than the distance between the pinholes. The exact value of the phase is irrelevant since only squares of the path differences are important so the arbitrary phase due to the distance to the primary source are not part of this calculation.
As I have already shown that the photons have spread as "pancakes" and they overlap but absorb according to Geometric Phase.... a single flash much smaller than that pancake. This smears the brightening on the screen to the eye... but we know this is actually made up of individual flashes.
We have established that the phases cancel or add depending on path length and that if the "gross" path difference is 1/2 a wavelength it cancels for all symmetrically matching rays from both secondary pinhole sources (in pairs) and they add when the path lengths are integer values to the screen of a path length. Do you agree? They will all add somewhere symmetrically and directly in front of the pair of pinholes, symmetrically between the pinholes and at certain angles where the path length differs from the exact centers of the pinholes by a whole number of a wavelength and totally cancel half way between where there are a half integer number of wavelength between paths. This is very symmetric within and around these idealized circular holes. So you may ask why doesn't the waves sometimes result in nodes along the way to the screen and only be maxima in between? A reasonable question. This would mean that as you moved the screen back 1/2 a wavelength further from the pinholes, we should be seeing dark not light along that central maximum. Sounds reasonable doesn't it? This is quite right except there is a misinterpretation here... the arbitrary path length does count in that region of the pinhole in more than 1/2 a wavelength deep... it is hundreds of wavelengths "deep"as it is "wide". This is the virtual source size. It is quite big relative to the wavelength. The next point is the screen is not flat and it is partially absorbing. To be able to see light and dark patches this screen would need to be be at least partially absorbing and partially reflecting (not totally absorbing or reflecting) and it would need to be flatter than 1/2 a wavelength for combination. Clearly this screen is not very flat compared with a wavelength of light and it absorbs most of those photons not perfectly reflect them. Therefore whenever there is a positive or negative antinode there it will be bright and anywhere or anytime there is a total node there it will not have any influence on the brightness since intensity does not vectorially add but only scalar add, very important point to understand. As I have already demonstrated the photons are very widely spread so this results in constant illumination on the screen in "zones" rather than discrete lines.
Why doesn't this happen to the in between positions as well leading to nodes and antinodes?... Just think about it... the rays are 100% canceled two by two along those rays. There is no brightness antinodes along those directions at all so no intensity for any distance from sources. This is why the minima are always totally black and are much more limited in width than the brighter regions which are broad and diffuse right up to that nodal zone where it is totally black. When you consider that these nodes are the same for one or many photons this light and dark patching on the screen is due entirely to a single photons internal diffraction due to internal phases it encounters on the way to the screen position. At this stage in the DS Diffraction pattern we now realize the individual photons which before the slit "might" be as small as only a few hundred wavelengths across (the size of the two pinholes) behind the slit the photons are now optically diverged to span the entire optical space of the diffraction pattern and individually could absorb anywhere in that "region" except at the designated nodes. We now recall that all co-moving photons travel as a single boson state no matter how many are on the wavefront... one or a million but they do not all share the same Berry phase in the cavity.
The next question is are we looking at standing waves or traveling waves? To get nodes and antinodes you must have standing waves so the square of the amplitude is always positive. If you had a mirror there you would certainly have a node on the surface where the direction of the wave would be perfectly reflected changing the phase by 180 degrees. As it is with an absorbing surface of a matched load, the waves will terminate the line with a permanent antinode.
So rather than just a geometric idea of distances we end up in spatial resonant "lines" or "zones" in certain spatial directions with a source at one end (pair of pinholes) and a sink at the other (screen)... perfectly matched to the load if "black absorbing" and less perfectly if "white partially reflecting or scattering". Since a perfect black body will neither reflect nor scatter any light we do not use black for the screen. If you put a mirror there instead of the absorber screen, you will never be able to know what happened to the photons since no photons would be absorbed and that results in a perfectly resonant line in that direction. They would then be "unobserved photons". Can you now see this is a cavity or at least an optical resonant line through space terminating in a load (much the same thing)?
Cheers
PS Clarification: I would like to add that to "see" photons on that screen we need to see a source of photons on that screen... this is usually scattering of the light there (absorption then emission events)... the source appears at the screen surface. Itf the screen is perfectly black you will see no secondary sources there at all. If you put a mirror on the screen surface you do not see any photons from sources on the screen, you see sources coming from the original sources and still coherently linked with them.
The answer is the screen shows "intensity" and not phase... intensity is the square of the total vector phase amplitude. If a wave "combines" with positive phases then the summation is positive and at twice the amplitude and their square is also positive. If a wave "combines" on the screen with negative phase then their sum is also negative and twice the amplitude and the square is still positive... therefore regardless of the fact that the wave is in positive or negative phase the "brightness" is always registered as positive. In between these points of brightening on the screen where the brightness is positive, if the distance between equally phased waves is a half integer wavelength of the light then there will be absolute total cancellation. This is because for every instant in time the phases cancel... any positive phase is identically matched with an equal negative phase, one ray at a time, starting from the two centers and working out to all symmetric points up to but not on the periphery. So the phases subtract and the result is a zero... it does not matter it this is a "positive zero" or a "negative zero" its square is still a total of a "big zero".
Now on either side (same side) of the central point of the absolute exact center of the two pinholes that I have evaluated the intensity at the screen for, we have for every other point in those two tiny disks, equivalent matching "rays" where the path to an equidistant part of the screen is displaced a small distance (equal to this displacement) from the original equidistant central point of the screen. These add or cancel in pairs depending on the distance to the screen. When they add there is a brightness and when they cancel there is nothing. The primary reason why these add or cancel is we are dealing with coherent light and waves whose individual photons are reaching the screen in the far field as plane waves are all phase matched along the secondary source and whose size is larger in the transverse direction than the distance between the pinholes. The exact value of the phase is irrelevant since only squares of the path differences are important so the arbitrary phase due to the distance to the primary source are not part of this calculation.
As I have already shown that the photons have spread as "pancakes" and they overlap but absorb according to Geometric Phase.... a single flash much smaller than that pancake. This smears the brightening on the screen to the eye... but we know this is actually made up of individual flashes.
We have established that the phases cancel or add depending on path length and that if the "gross" path difference is 1/2 a wavelength it cancels for all symmetrically matching rays from both secondary pinhole sources (in pairs) and they add when the path lengths are integer values to the screen of a path length. Do you agree? They will all add somewhere symmetrically and directly in front of the pair of pinholes, symmetrically between the pinholes and at certain angles where the path length differs from the exact centers of the pinholes by a whole number of a wavelength and totally cancel half way between where there are a half integer number of wavelength between paths. This is very symmetric within and around these idealized circular holes. So you may ask why doesn't the waves sometimes result in nodes along the way to the screen and only be maxima in between? A reasonable question. This would mean that as you moved the screen back 1/2 a wavelength further from the pinholes, we should be seeing dark not light along that central maximum. Sounds reasonable doesn't it? This is quite right except there is a misinterpretation here... the arbitrary path length does count in that region of the pinhole in more than 1/2 a wavelength deep... it is hundreds of wavelengths "deep"as it is "wide". This is the virtual source size. It is quite big relative to the wavelength. The next point is the screen is not flat and it is partially absorbing. To be able to see light and dark patches this screen would need to be be at least partially absorbing and partially reflecting (not totally absorbing or reflecting) and it would need to be flatter than 1/2 a wavelength for combination. Clearly this screen is not very flat compared with a wavelength of light and it absorbs most of those photons not perfectly reflect them. Therefore whenever there is a positive or negative antinode there it will be bright and anywhere or anytime there is a total node there it will not have any influence on the brightness since intensity does not vectorially add but only scalar add, very important point to understand. As I have already demonstrated the photons are very widely spread so this results in constant illumination on the screen in "zones" rather than discrete lines.
Why doesn't this happen to the in between positions as well leading to nodes and antinodes?... Just think about it... the rays are 100% canceled two by two along those rays. There is no brightness antinodes along those directions at all so no intensity for any distance from sources. This is why the minima are always totally black and are much more limited in width than the brighter regions which are broad and diffuse right up to that nodal zone where it is totally black. When you consider that these nodes are the same for one or many photons this light and dark patching on the screen is due entirely to a single photons internal diffraction due to internal phases it encounters on the way to the screen position. At this stage in the DS Diffraction pattern we now realize the individual photons which before the slit "might" be as small as only a few hundred wavelengths across (the size of the two pinholes) behind the slit the photons are now optically diverged to span the entire optical space of the diffraction pattern and individually could absorb anywhere in that "region" except at the designated nodes. We now recall that all co-moving photons travel as a single boson state no matter how many are on the wavefront... one or a million but they do not all share the same Berry phase in the cavity.
The next question is are we looking at standing waves or traveling waves? To get nodes and antinodes you must have standing waves so the square of the amplitude is always positive. If you had a mirror there you would certainly have a node on the surface where the direction of the wave would be perfectly reflected changing the phase by 180 degrees. As it is with an absorbing surface of a matched load, the waves will terminate the line with a permanent antinode.
So rather than just a geometric idea of distances we end up in spatial resonant "lines" or "zones" in certain spatial directions with a source at one end (pair of pinholes) and a sink at the other (screen)... perfectly matched to the load if "black absorbing" and less perfectly if "white partially reflecting or scattering". Since a perfect black body will neither reflect nor scatter any light we do not use black for the screen. If you put a mirror there instead of the absorber screen, you will never be able to know what happened to the photons since no photons would be absorbed and that results in a perfectly resonant line in that direction. They would then be "unobserved photons". Can you now see this is a cavity or at least an optical resonant line through space terminating in a load (much the same thing)?
Cheers
PS Clarification: I would like to add that to "see" photons on that screen we need to see a source of photons on that screen... this is usually scattering of the light there (absorption then emission events)... the source appears at the screen surface. Itf the screen is perfectly black you will see no secondary sources there at all. If you put a mirror on the screen surface you do not see any photons from sources on the screen, you see sources coming from the original sources and still coherently linked with them.
Hi janrinze, "THEY", Laserlight, Jal, Confused2, Zephir, yquantum, TRoc, Montec, Neil Farbstein, Why Not?, Mate et al,
Just to clench this deal in the previous post look at this article and convince yourself that this is what is the universal mechanism for photons too... resonance... and some kind of "cavity"...
Goodbye wires... MIT experimentally demonstrates wireless power transfer
This not a surprise is it?
Just to clench this deal in the previous post look at this article and convince yourself that this is what is the universal mechanism for photons too... resonance... and some kind of "cavity"...
Goodbye wires... MIT experimentally demonstrates wireless power transfer
This not a surprise is it?
QUOTE (PhysOrg+)
The investigated design consists of two copper coils, each a self-resonant system. One of the coils, attached to the power source, is the sending unit. Instead of irradiating the environment with electromagnetic waves, it fills the space around it with a non-radiative magnetic field oscillating at MHz frequencies. The non-radiative field mediates the power exchange with the other coil (the receiving unit), which is specially designed to resonate with the field. The resonant nature of the process ensures the strong interaction between the sending unit and the receiving unit, while the interaction with the rest of the environment is weak. Moffatt, an MIT undergraduate in physics, explains: “The crucial advantage of using the non-radiative field lies in the fact that most of the power not picked up by the receiving coil remains bound to the vicinity of the sending unit, instead of being radiated into the environment and lost.” With such a design, power transfer has a limited range, and the range would be shorter for smaller-size receivers. Still, for laptop-sized coils, power levels more than sufficient to run a laptop can be transferred over room-sized distances nearly omni-directionally and efficiently, irrespective of the geometry of the surrounding space, even when environmental objects completely obstruct the line-of-sight between the two coils. Fisher points out: “As long as the laptop is in a room equipped with a source of such wireless power, it would charge automatically, without having to be plugged in. In fact, it would not even need a battery to operate inside of such a room.” In the long run, this could reduce our society’s dependence on batteries, which are currently heavy and expensive.
At first glance, such a power transfer is reminiscent of relatively commonplace magnetic induction, such as is used in power transformers, which contain coils that transmit power to each other over very short distances. An electric current running in a sending coil induces another current in a receiving coil. The two coils are very close, but they do not touch. However, this behavior changes dramatically when the distance between the coils is increased. As Karalis, a graduate student in electrical engineering and computer science, points out, “Here is where the magic of the resonant coupling comes about. The usual non-resonant magnetic induction would be almost 1 million times less efficient in this particular system.”
http://www.physorg.com/news100445957.html
At first glance, such a power transfer is reminiscent of relatively commonplace magnetic induction, such as is used in power transformers, which contain coils that transmit power to each other over very short distances. An electric current running in a sending coil induces another current in a receiving coil. The two coils are very close, but they do not touch. However, this behavior changes dramatically when the distance between the coils is increased. As Karalis, a graduate student in electrical engineering and computer science, points out, “Here is where the magic of the resonant coupling comes about. The usual non-resonant magnetic induction would be almost 1 million times less efficient in this particular system.”
http://www.physorg.com/news100445957.html
LL,
I am not commenting on your proposal here, just on the phenomenon of charge based on a specific geometric phase pattern, like the "electron as a toroidal photon" model.
What I am saying, is that the geometry of the wave is more fundamental; it creates the conditions for the dipole. This is similar to molecular structure, and the degrees of freedom. If the "center mass" and the charge are separate, you get the dipole moment.
regards,
T.Roc
* the paper that GE just linked is a good example of "outside of the coupled EM wave" realm. The standing magnetic wave would present a problem to the explanation of a dielectric based interaction, yet, we could get interference in a DSE with these wavelengths too.
QUOTE
I am not sure exactly what you are saying or why you think this dielectric effect will yield limited results. My proposed scenario might not be 100% conceptually accurate but you may have insight that will provide a key to unlock other clues or answers.
I am not commenting on your proposal here, just on the phenomenon of charge based on a specific geometric phase pattern, like the "electron as a toroidal photon" model.
What I am saying, is that the geometry of the wave is more fundamental; it creates the conditions for the dipole. This is similar to molecular structure, and the degrees of freedom. If the "center mass" and the charge are separate, you get the dipole moment.
regards,
T.Roc
* the paper that GE just linked is a good example of "outside of the coupled EM wave" realm. The standing magnetic wave would present a problem to the explanation of a dielectric based interaction, yet, we could get interference in a DSE with these wavelengths too.
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.