Hi all,
YQ-
QUOTE
How close do you believe you have reached a defining consensus dealing with DSE?
I think we are almost at a consensus on the definitions of the vocabulary that we will be using to describe the phenomenon.
C2 prefers that we stay with a "classical" explanation; as do I. It seems to me, that if we solve this classically, then the "photon" of QM is not used. Therefore, we can deem it "non-existent".
C2 also steadily reminds us, that the classical "path length" explanation works, so any new ideas not only must work, but should not be any more complex than path-length.
My input on that, is that since the path-length (p-l) method is "ad hoc", we could also improve our situation if we just have a model that explains
why p-l works. Since than model is in the "spacial" domain, and we know that waves exist in both time and space (inversely), there should be a "complementary" perspective to p-l. Just exploring this concept is worthwhile, IMO, because it gives us (turns over) the other side of the coin (duality).
Using the p-l method without understanding WHY, is like modeling a coin, and only writing about the "heads" side. Duality means ONE thing, with TWO distinct qualities, that do not happen at the same time, yet are directly connected. "Phase" is the perfect example of this, in regards to cycles.
IMO, "wave" and "particle" are not dualistic terms. The dualism stems from the fact that Resonance applies to both energy and mass, and the blurring of the term "momentum", as used for a wave with no mass. What you end up with, is the fact that in any
measurement of energy, since we use mass (which has real inertia), we have to use the other common factor, velocity. AE brought us this "package deal", seeing the opportunity in a finite (limit) velocity.
Since then, our understanding of " c " has grown. Now we talk about "information" having a limit, while acknowledging that we have wave modes capable of much greater than c . Even, as Wheeler-Feynman or Cramer have shown, a complementary "backward" wave (to the observer located near the source event), that starts at the "destination" at the same time. In many different experimental set-ups, "superluminal" speeds are being observed.
This is important, because my "frequency interaction" takes place along these "instantaneous" filaments. Equally important, is the way me measure the SOL. c is constant, wavelength is not. What do I mean by this? Well, as Montec has smartly pointed out, higher frequency waves reach a planar state faster than the long wavelengths. As is self-evident, the longer waves are existing in MORE space than short wavelengths, in the same time. We also know, and I think actually all agree, that the "collapse", or Resonance / absorption is INSTANTANEOUS. Re-emission is not, more on that later.
So, LONGER waves, when collapsed, lose "time" in the measurement. The LAST cycle, of any wave, instantaneously collapses the distance from its' LAST positive phase anti-node (crest). The wave-"front" will do the same as the wave-"back". In effect, this last distance is subtracted from the path-length. You can interpret this either as an increase in velocity, or as an increase in the size of the interaction zone of the 2 bodies, effectively reducing the distance from source to measurement.
This is hard to see for some, I'm sure. We still have constant "traveling" velocity BECAUSE of this symmetry. Now, we'll bring the emission back into this. The time that an electron spends in an excited state, before relaxing and creating a "new photon", is FINITE. The electron is very busy doing other things, like being in "orbit", and "spinning". Needless to say, when the emission process STARTS, and the +phase of the first cycle begins, and when the emission ENDS, with the -phase of the first cycle, the electron has moved around quite a bit (fortunately, in general curved form). This creates the multi-frequency, complex waveform, that yields a discreet quanta of energy, that I have been referring to. This is also the source of "uncertainty" in measurement. Without the "key" to Resonance, we can NOT measure something this fundamental, without changing the thing we are measuring. This will end when we learn to control (completely) the frequencies we are using, and put them into the right combinations, where we can "triangulate" position without changing it. The first stages of experiments of this nature ARE BEING DONE right now, and are confirming my theory.
So, these LONG waves take longer to form, spending MORE time in the evanescent zone, where they can build up the extra energy that gets "dispersed" into a much larger "sphere" than smaller waves. This is a constant, as LL had wondered. The difference is AT the collapse. The energy of the long wave takes more TIME to be fully measured, at a single location. So, over any interval of time, higher frequency bears MORE energy onto this single point than a longer wave.
Be careful of this distinction: Energy is measured by complete cycles, as Montec has reminded. These complete cycles are Hz; the same units that we state energy in -- over time. Velocity, while also being "over time", deals with spacial distance. At the moment of collapse, DISTANCE is lost, but not TIME. When a quanta of energy is ONE wavelength away, Resonance occurs, and the wave collapses. The rate of the last complete cycle (x h) gives us the energy, and this remains constant. The overall velocity remains constant, because the loss of measured distance from wave collapse perfectly offsets the extra time at emission, that a longer wave form takes to cycle.
What I just said is NOT common theory, it is my thinking. You are free to disagree. I will add that if you take a continuous Dirac frequency comb, and create a "quasi matrix", with frequency and wavelength being the "tensors", their diagonals will produce a constant velocity. If you plug my 2 constants into this "matrix", that constant velocity is 299,792,458 . Why Not is the only one here who has taken this seriously enough to READ what I've said, and created his own copy, which I openly posted over a year ago. He will attest to this (and has). You can not begin to understand this symmetry without it.
As GE mentioned a while back, the EM wave is anti-symmetrical. I will add to this, that this is from an EM "point of view". Most simply put, the values of permittivity and permissibility are orders of magnitude apart. Where I disagree with GE, is that I do not believe that EVERYTHING will come down to EM, for the same reasons I gave LL on dielectric. We have Alfven waves, sound waves, and magnetic waves to contend with, and we can not use standard EM tools for this. Resonance is the key, IMO. It is what will unify these different forms on energy. It does away with the foundations of QM: the need for "quanta" to explain energy "jumps". It completes the journey to explain "consonance" in Music, that has taken 2500 years. It also shows that the "rainbow" spectrum of visible light will appear as bands of light and dark, in any other octave than the visible band.
While that last sentence is hard to understand (by current common knowledge), you all have seen that my logical analysis of the lack of "magenta" in the linear visible spectrum was correct. Visser's reversal of phase singularity "vortex" to create an absence of green in the spectrum, to be replaced by magenta proves the non-linearity of this phenomenon.
C2 is wrong (along with whoever) in thinking that we live in a linear world. We do not. What we have done, is to break things down into bite-sized, linear chunks, in order to learn about Nature. Everything is connected. Period. It is time to "re-connect" the circle, so to speak, with all of these "straight lines".
"Photons" ARE hitting the detector continuously in the DSE, and at all points. It is only their distribution into a light and dark pattern that we are concerned with. Some have called this a "black light sandwhich", which I rather like. Kids like the term "light oreos" too. The thing is, you have to do some basic experimentation with a prism to understand the fundamental relationship that red & yellow have, and that cyan & violet have BEFORE you can understand the problem (with current theory) that the lack of magenta presents.
Green and magenta are phase dualities. They can NOT "mix", as they do NOT exist at the same time. The other 2 combinations mentioned above, have tertiary results from "mixing" (orange and blue, respectively).
In any other octave, the dualistic green / magenta "phase" relationship will be seen as light and dark bands. It does not matter what wavelength you use in the DSE, this "phase banding" is present.
Here's the deal: 1/4 wave relations can only "line up" (couple) with one phase singularity, and they can NEVER line up with BOTH. 1/2 wave relations will ALWAYS either BOTH line up, or neither.
TWO new sources (the slits) create a new "effective" wavelength, and they are axially separated by 1/2 of this effective wavelength (see biaxial anisotropy). + phase through one slit, - phase through the other. This is why, if you "peek" at 1 slit, you collapse the phase duality to the path of the other slit.
This is why the spacial symmetry of slit width, slit separation, distance to screen, and wavelength can ALL be changed, to produce slight variations in the constant, fringe pattern of light and dark bands. The main "theme" stays the same: 1/2 wave phase singularities create light and dark bands; ALL or NOTHING.
In a white light DSE, you can add a prism to the set up, and observe this "color" banding to be magenta and green. Without the prism, the normal black and white. With a quasi-monochromatic laser, you will just see the fundamental, and the off-phase 1/2 wave. In ALL cases of visible light, this means it is BELOW our threshold of seeing. If you use an electronic device to measure this, instead of the human eye, you must first "tune" the experiment to the frequency (and its' phase) that you want to "count". You will then lose this other information; it will not be measured at all. This is the binary working of phase duality.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How close do you believe you have reached a defining consensus dealing with DSE? |
I think we are almost at a consensus on the definitions of the vocabulary that we will be using to describe the phenomenon.
C2 prefers that we stay with a "classical" explanation; as do I. It seems to me, that if we solve this classically, then the "photon" of QM is not used. Therefore, we can deem it "non-existent".
C2 also steadily reminds us, that the classical "path length" explanation works, so any new ideas not only must work, but should not be any more complex than path-length.
My input on that, is that since the path-length (p-l) method is "ad hoc", we could also improve our situation if we just have a model that explains
why p-l works. Since than model is in the "spacial" domain, and we know that waves exist in both time and space (inversely), there should be a "complementary" perspective to p-l. Just exploring this concept is worthwhile, IMO, because it gives us (turns over) the other side of the coin (duality).
Using the p-l method without understanding WHY, is like modeling a coin, and only writing about the "heads" side. Duality means ONE thing, with TWO distinct qualities, that do not happen at the same time, yet are directly connected. "Phase" is the perfect example of this, in regards to cycles.
IMO, "wave" and "particle" are not dualistic terms. The dualism stems from the fact that Resonance applies to both energy and mass, and the blurring of the term "momentum", as used for a wave with no mass. What you end up with, is the fact that in any
measurement of energy, since we use mass (which has real inertia), we have to use the other common factor, velocity. AE brought us this "package deal", seeing the opportunity in a finite (limit) velocity.
Since then, our understanding of " c " has grown. Now we talk about "information" having a limit, while acknowledging that we have wave modes capable of much greater than c . Even, as Wheeler-Feynman or Cramer have shown, a complementary "backward" wave (to the observer located near the source event), that starts at the "destination" at the same time. In many different experimental set-ups, "superluminal" speeds are being observed.
This is important, because my "frequency interaction" takes place along these "instantaneous" filaments. Equally important, is the way me measure the SOL. c is constant, wavelength is not. What do I mean by this? Well, as Montec has smartly pointed out, higher frequency waves reach a planar state faster than the long wavelengths. As is self-evident, the longer waves are existing in MORE space than short wavelengths, in the same time. We also know, and I think actually all agree, that the "collapse", or Resonance / absorption is INSTANTANEOUS. Re-emission is not, more on that later.
So, LONGER waves, when collapsed, lose "time" in the measurement. The LAST cycle, of any wave, instantaneously collapses the distance from its' LAST positive phase anti-node (crest). The wave-"front" will do the same as the wave-"back". In effect, this last distance is subtracted from the path-length. You can interpret this either as an increase in velocity, or as an increase in the size of the interaction zone of the 2 bodies, effectively reducing the distance from source to measurement.
This is hard to see for some, I'm sure. We still have constant "traveling" velocity BECAUSE of this symmetry. Now, we'll bring the emission back into this. The time that an electron spends in an excited state, before relaxing and creating a "new photon", is FINITE. The electron is very busy doing other things, like being in "orbit", and "spinning". Needless to say, when the emission process STARTS, and the +phase of the first cycle begins, and when the emission ENDS, with the -phase of the first cycle, the electron has moved around quite a bit (fortunately, in general curved form). This creates the multi-frequency, complex waveform, that yields a discreet quanta of energy, that I have been referring to. This is also the source of "uncertainty" in measurement. Without the "key" to Resonance, we can NOT measure something this fundamental, without changing the thing we are measuring. This will end when we learn to control (completely) the frequencies we are using, and put them into the right combinations, where we can "triangulate" position without changing it. The first stages of experiments of this nature ARE BEING DONE right now, and are confirming my theory.
So, these LONG waves take longer to form, spending MORE time in the evanescent zone, where they can build up the extra energy that gets "dispersed" into a much larger "sphere" than smaller waves. This is a constant, as LL had wondered. The difference is AT the collapse. The energy of the long wave takes more TIME to be fully measured, at a single location. So, over any interval of time, higher frequency bears MORE energy onto this single point than a longer wave.
Be careful of this distinction: Energy is measured by complete cycles, as Montec has reminded. These complete cycles are Hz; the same units that we state energy in -- over time. Velocity, while also being "over time", deals with spacial distance. At the moment of collapse, DISTANCE is lost, but not TIME. When a quanta of energy is ONE wavelength away, Resonance occurs, and the wave collapses. The rate of the last complete cycle (x h) gives us the energy, and this remains constant. The overall velocity remains constant, because the loss of measured distance from wave collapse perfectly offsets the extra time at emission, that a longer wave form takes to cycle.
What I just said is NOT common theory, it is my thinking. You are free to disagree. I will add that if you take a continuous Dirac frequency comb, and create a "quasi matrix", with frequency and wavelength being the "tensors", their diagonals will produce a constant velocity. If you plug my 2 constants into this "matrix", that constant velocity is 299,792,458 . Why Not is the only one here who has taken this seriously enough to READ what I've said, and created his own copy, which I openly posted over a year ago. He will attest to this (and has). You can not begin to understand this symmetry without it.
As GE mentioned a while back, the EM wave is anti-symmetrical. I will add to this, that this is from an EM "point of view". Most simply put, the values of permittivity and permissibility are orders of magnitude apart. Where I disagree with GE, is that I do not believe that EVERYTHING will come down to EM, for the same reasons I gave LL on dielectric. We have Alfven waves, sound waves, and magnetic waves to contend with, and we can not use standard EM tools for this. Resonance is the key, IMO. It is what will unify these different forms on energy. It does away with the foundations of QM: the need for "quanta" to explain energy "jumps". It completes the journey to explain "consonance" in Music, that has taken 2500 years. It also shows that the "rainbow" spectrum of visible light will appear as bands of light and dark, in any other octave than the visible band.
While that last sentence is hard to understand (by current common knowledge), you all have seen that my logical analysis of the lack of "magenta" in the linear visible spectrum was correct. Visser's reversal of phase singularity "vortex" to create an absence of green in the spectrum, to be replaced by magenta proves the non-linearity of this phenomenon.
C2 is wrong (along with whoever) in thinking that we live in a linear world. We do not. What we have done, is to break things down into bite-sized, linear chunks, in order to learn about Nature. Everything is connected. Period. It is time to "re-connect" the circle, so to speak, with all of these "straight lines".
"Photons" ARE hitting the detector continuously in the DSE, and at all points. It is only their distribution into a light and dark pattern that we are concerned with. Some have called this a "black light sandwhich", which I rather like. Kids like the term "light oreos" too. The thing is, you have to do some basic experimentation with a prism to understand the fundamental relationship that red & yellow have, and that cyan & violet have BEFORE you can understand the problem (with current theory) that the lack of magenta presents.
Green and magenta are phase dualities. They can NOT "mix", as they do NOT exist at the same time. The other 2 combinations mentioned above, have tertiary results from "mixing" (orange and blue, respectively).
In any other octave, the dualistic green / magenta "phase" relationship will be seen as light and dark bands. It does not matter what wavelength you use in the DSE, this "phase banding" is present.
Here's the deal: 1/4 wave relations can only "line up" (couple) with one phase singularity, and they can NEVER line up with BOTH. 1/2 wave relations will ALWAYS either BOTH line up, or neither.
TWO new sources (the slits) create a new "effective" wavelength, and they are axially separated by 1/2 of this effective wavelength (see biaxial anisotropy). + phase through one slit, - phase through the other. This is why, if you "peek" at 1 slit, you collapse the phase duality to the path of the other slit.
This is why the spacial symmetry of slit width, slit separation, distance to screen, and wavelength can ALL be changed, to produce slight variations in the constant, fringe pattern of light and dark bands. The main "theme" stays the same: 1/2 wave phase singularities create light and dark bands; ALL or NOTHING.
In a white light DSE, you can add a prism to the set up, and observe this "color" banding to be magenta and green. Without the prism, the normal black and white. With a quasi-monochromatic laser, you will just see the fundamental, and the off-phase 1/2 wave. In ALL cases of visible light, this means it is BELOW our threshold of seeing. If you use an electronic device to measure this, instead of the human eye, you must first "tune" the experiment to the frequency (and its' phase) that you want to "count". You will then lose this other information; it will not be measured at all. This is the binary working of phase duality.
Bristol (U.K.) sky is photographed through a “black-light sandwich,” producing patterns of interference of polarized light.
From M. V. Berry, R. Bhandari and S. Klein, 1999, Black plastic sandwiches demonstrating biaxial anisotropy, European Journal of Physics 20:1–14.
I think that you will all find this short interview with Michael Berry instructive.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/...KD4Rs6N-y#32539QUOTE
M.B. The colors always appear in the same order, as a result of the interference of light with different wavelengths. In the slightly different situation of a crystal with optical activity (twisted internal structure), the center of the bull's-eye is not black, and its color gives information about the amount of twist.
BTW.. that is an ordinary picture of the Sun & trees, through a special filter on a camera. This shows that the same phase pattern is present in "white" light, as is a "single" frequency. This same instruction can be found in music, with the note and chord relationship.
This "ordering" of frequencies in waves is extremely important, especially when in a medium of changing index of refraction, which happens if we have a high ratio of energy over space. This happens for different reasons: an aperture in a barrier, a very short pulse, superposition, etc.
regards,
T.Roc
janrinze
9th June 2007 - 10:51 PM
QUOTE (TRoc+Jun 9 2007, 07:34 PM)
While that last sentence is hard to understand (by current common knowledge), you all have seen that my logical analysis of the lack of "magenta" in the linear visible spectrum was correct. Visser's reversal of phase singularity "vortex" to create an absence of green in the spectrum, to be replaced by magenta proves the non-linearity of this phenomenon.
Hi Troc,
I believe you have lost me just about here...
Do you realize that the color magenta is actually a composition of blue and red?
The eye can detect both colors at the same time and will mix them as magenta.
This is not physics, this is a mental interpretation of two colors..
Maybe this link can help you understand the problem of seeing magenta.
color visionI hope you understand that color is just an interpretation of the brain..
Jan Rinze.
edited a PS:
As a hint: green and magenta mix very nicely.. resulting in white..
Good Elf
10th June 2007 - 12:21 AM
Hi
TRoc,
Montec, janrinze, "THEY", Laserlight, Jal, Confused2, Zephir,
yquantum, Neil Farbstein, Why Not?, Mate et al,
QUOTE (yquantum+)
How close do you believe you have reached a defining consensus dealing with DSE?
Consensus is a very hard thing. It matters little if some things are proven or not. In the end the scientific method is not applied when it comes to convictions. I see TRoc holding to the notion that "green" and "magenta" somehow do not exist in the spectra. I am afraid I cannot see this. The lack of conventional description used by TRoc leaves me totally at a loss to understand just what is being proposed.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
While that last sentence is hard to understand (by current common knowledge), you all have seen that my logical analysis of the lack of "magenta" in the linear visible spectrum was correct. Visser's reversal of phase singularity "vortex" to create an absence of green in the spectrum, to be replaced by magenta proves the non-linearity of this phenomenon.
or this...
QUOTE (TRoc+)
"Photons" ARE hitting the detector continuously in the DSE, and at all points. It is only their distribution into a light and dark pattern that we are concerned with. Some have called this a "black light sandwhich", which I rather like. Kids like the term "light oreos" too. The thing is, you have to do some basic experimentation with a prism to understand the fundamental relationship that red & yellow have, and that cyan & violet have BEFORE you can understand the problem (with current theory) that the lack of magenta presents.
Green and magenta are phase dualities. They can NOT "mix", as they do NOT exist at the same time. The other 2 combinations mentioned above, have tertiary results from "mixing" (orange and blue, respectively). In any other octave, the dualistic green / magenta "phase" relationship will be seen as light and dark bands. It does not matter what wavelength you use in the DSE, this "phase banding" is present.
Here's the deal: 1/4 wave relations can only "line up" (couple) with one phase singularity, and they can NEVER line up with BOTH. 1/2 wave relations will ALWAYS either BOTH line up, or neither.
TWO new sources (the slits) create a new "effective" wavelength, and they are axially separated by 1/2 of this effective wavelength (see biaxial anisotropy). + phase through one slit, - phase through the other. This is why, if you "peek" at 1 slit, you collapse the phase duality to the path of the other slit.
I can't grasp what TRoc is saying. I have said this before and there is no simple scientific explanation for these notions. There are a lot of non-rigorous statements here. The musical analogy to chords and three color mixing concepts of human psychological color analysis are utilized to justify some theory of photon mixing that I still do not even begin to grasp. What I do know is that no justification or experimental support has been presented to my knowledge.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
My input on that, is that since the path-length (p-l) method is "ad hoc", we could also improve our situation if we just have a model that explains why p-l works. Since than model is in the "spacial" domain, and we know that waves exist in both time and space (inversely), there should be a "complementary" perspective to p-l. Just exploring this concept is worthwhile, IMO, because it gives us (turns over) the other side of the coin (duality).
I have explained why the path length method works and how it relates to resonance. You will find it here..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=222592People make no comment ... is this because they do not get it or they disagree with it and can't find any scientific argument against it? As I said the interference fringes in three dimensions are internal photon interferences. In the "ideal case" of small pinholes and thin barriers... The pattern on the screen is a "intensity" version of the sync function... it is unfamiliar because it is "squared".
I certainly agree that resonance is the key to many photon properties but the work of Taco Visser is unrelated to TRoc's color theory. If it is please give a reference please. The "Black Light Sandwich" of Berry is an equally strange concept to me, not the way that this interference effect is produced, but to the specific significance in this context. This is simple interference through the "sandwich" due to the increasing diagonal paths in the same way interference filters work. This is surely just a set of crossed polars and some "slow" material sandwiched between viewing divergent light from a polychromatic source. I am unsure of the significance that Berry sees in it either. This is not explained in the article to my satisfaction.
So I am at a loss to understand what is the problem now. I do not see too much consensual progress yet.
Cheers
Good Elf
10th June 2007 - 12:43 AM
Hi janrinze, (and TRoc),
I agree with that assessment of yours... I do not see the significance of psychological colors in this context. TRoc does have a theory that has completely escaped me over the course of this discussion and there is that theory of musical chords in there somewhere too.
Just do not get it.
PS: On another interesting note there is a Quantum Eraser Experiment in one of the latest issues of Scientific American (May 2007) you can do at home. Obviously it would be possible if the materials were available locally. The article starts on page 74. I guess this is a must for everyone to at least read and absorb if not do if they have the materials. There are clear illustrations showing how to set it up there and a very extensive discussion in laymans language. The main experiment is shown here...
http://www.sciam.com/slideshow.cfm?article...D2602A1&slide=1The article has a lot more details in it...
I think it is here...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...3669D92032DFF8CI would also remind people this is not the
"Delayed Choice" Quantum Eraser Experiment. That one is what this thread means by ...
"Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later"... The "Observing later" bit is referring to the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment.
Cheers
janrinze
10th June 2007 - 01:11 AM
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jun 10 2007, 12:43 AM)
PS: On another interesting note there is a Quantum Eraser Experiment in one of the latest issues of Scientific American (May 2007) you can do at home.
Hi GE,
I am a bit worried by this simplification.
Apparently SciAm never considered that horizontally polarized light does not interfere with vertically polarized light. The waves simply don't match...
Have they ever tried doing interference with two different light sources??
The reason we don't have seen interference with two separate sources of visible wavelengths is because we cannot control the wavelength well enough. In EM waves with radio frequencies it is much easier to achieve. The postulate is that those are photons too so can anyone elaborate on that?
Jan Rinze.
Laserlight
10th June 2007 - 01:33 AM
GE and Janrinze, TRoc, C2, and all.
If I understand TRoc's proposals they have to do with harmonic progressions,
which generate resonances between frequency orders. In that vein, they can
be associated with musical progressions of frequencies that are carried to a
higher order.
If progressions, superpositions, notes, and chords work with lower frequency
waves then they will also work at higher quantum frequencies. It is merely a
matter of notational scale at higher orders.
It is about consonance and dissonance of frequencies in the visual spectrum.
There are specific primary frequencies (RGB) that occur in the
atomic spectrum that overlap in the natural frequency order sequence
to make a composite "color" frequency, for example red and green mix to make
yellow as the composite because they are next to each other on the frequency
spectrum. Frequencies must mix in a natural "sequential" numerical order to
make the organized color spectrum of natural frequencies as we know it from
atomic emission spectral frequencies.
Blue is the highest frequency visible
primary color, followed by Green, followed
by Red. Since Red and Blue are divided by Green they do not overlap and
naturally mix/overlap in the spectral frequency progression, so magenta is
not a
progressively scaled frequency response.
We can mix red and blue to get magenta, but their separate frequencies must be
mixed out of sequential order for their frequencies to overlap and give the
magenta color response.
From Wikipedia:
QUOTE
Primary colors are not a fundamental property of light but rather a biological concept, based on the physiological response of the human eye to light. Fundamentally, light is a continuous spectrum of wavelengths, meaning that there are an infinite number of colors. However, the human eye normally contains only three types of color receptors called cones. These respond to specific wavelengths of light. Humans and other species with three such types of color receptors are known as trichromats. Although the peak responsivities of the cones do not occur at the frequencies corresponding to red, green, and blue, those three colors were probably chosen as primary because with them it is possible to almost independently stimulate the three types of color receptors, providing a wide gamut of experiences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_colorLL
Good Elf
10th June 2007 - 01:41 AM
Hi janrinze,
QUOTE (janrinze+)
The reason we don't have seen interference with two separate sources of visible wavelengths is because we cannot control the wavelength well enough. In EM waves with radio frequencies it is much easier to achieve. The postulate is that those are photons too so can anyone elaborate on that?
Probably a refresh of the browser is required with my last reply. This experiment is at least something. Speaking generally... You are correct in saying that two separate photon sources will not actually interfere... co-moving coherent photons can't interfere, they are all in the same quantum state. Photons cannot interact with each other materially. They can appear to "interfere" if the sources are strongly correlated and are traveling in separate spatial directions. Experiments have been done to lock the sources at the femtosecond level and they can "interfere" but this has no physical effect internally on any photon. The interference arises from separate spatial origins so there is effectively a two pinhole source there.
We must remember that photons actually are not interfering with each other we are only measuring intensity after the vector fields vectorially sum... if they happen to locally be collectively zero then the intensity will also be zero but this does not mean that elsewhere they may cross that region in which they are "interfering" or crossing paths and they will emerge intact without any loss or "destruction". This is therefore the result of superposition not interference. In true interference a single photon is interfering with its own wave packet... in the phenomenon you are suggesting separate "correlated" wave packets are crossing and we are making measurements based on intensity. In the absence of "measurement" in the crossing region, these crossing or temporarily co-moving photons can exchange "information" if highly correlated at source but they cannot change any other aspect of the photons. There is no such thing as two different photons actually destructively interfering.... The DSE shows us that interference is internal to single photons one at a time and not actually between photons. The photons can simply superimpose their fields and exist in the same space... They may collectively sum their electric fields to "zero" vectorially but that is a measurement based on an evaluation of "intensity". Internal to these packet waves each photon's integrity remains secure and inviolate. Of course any photons you "sample" are collapsed and in most circumstances there is no way back. Recent experiment show in some absorption events there is indeed a way back proving that the "collapse" is not necessarily "forever". Therefore the Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory (with the Cramer Twist).
Cheers
janrinze
10th June 2007 - 01:45 AM
Good Elf
10th June 2007 - 02:45 AM
Hi janrinze,
QUOTE
Interference fringes from stabilized diode lasers
Lorenzo Basano and Pasquale Ottonello
Dipartimento di Fisica, Universitŕ di Genova, Via Dodecaneso 33, 16146 Genova, Italy
(Received 7 May 1999; accepted 9 July 1999)
Interference fringes produced by a pair of intracavity stabilized diode laser beams, each impinging separately on one aperture of a double slit, are recorded on a linear charge-coupled device array. The peculiar result of the experiment is that the fringe system is found to persist for a time of the order of 1 ms and loses contrast for longer integration times. This implies that the individual linewidths of the two beams from the stabilized lasers are narrower than 1 kHz and that the average drift rates of the central peaks are far less than 0.1 MHz/s. The device was built within the advanced undergraduate electronics laboratory of the department of physics and represents a considerable improvement over previous demonstration apparatuses used to detect interference fringes from independent lasers. ©2000 American Association of Physics Teachers.
I can go one better with this and with a more secure result...
Experimental Synchronization of Independent Entangled Photon SourcesQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Interference fringes from stabilized diode lasers
Lorenzo Basano and Pasquale Ottonello
Dipartimento di Fisica, Universitŕ di Genova, Via Dodecaneso 33, 16146 Genova, Italy
(Received 7 May 1999; accepted 9 July 1999)
Interference fringes produced by a pair of intracavity stabilized diode laser beams, each impinging separately on one aperture of a double slit, are recorded on a linear charge-coupled device array. The peculiar result of the experiment is that the fringe system is found to persist for a time of the order of 1 ms and loses contrast for longer integration times. This implies that the individual linewidths of the two beams from the stabilized lasers are narrower than 1 kHz and that the average drift rates of the central peaks are far less than 0.1 MHz/s. The device was built within the advanced undergraduate electronics laboratory of the department of physics and represents a considerable improvement over previous demonstration apparatuses used to detect interference fringes from independent lasers. ©2000 American Association of Physics Teachers. |
I can go one better with this and with a more secure result...
Experimental Synchronization of Independent Entangled Photon SourcesExperimental Synchronization of Independent Entangled Photon SourcesTao Yang,1, ∗ Qiang Zhang,1 Teng-Yun Chen,1 Shan Lu,1 Juan Yin,1
Jian-Wei Pan,1, † Zhi-Yi Wei,2, ∗ Jing-Rong Tian,2 and Jie Zhang2
1Department of Modern Physics and Hefei National Laboratory for Physical Sciences at Microscale,
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China
2Laboratory of Optical Physics, Institute of Physics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100080, China
(Dated: June 25, 2006)
Realistic linear quantum information processing necessitates the ability to synchronously generate entangled photon pairs either at the same or at distant locations. Here, we report the experimental realization of synchronized generation of independent entangled photon pairs. The quality of synchronization is confirmed by observing a violation of Bell’s inequality with 3.2 standard deviations in an entanglement swapping experiment. The techniques developed in our experiment will be of great importance for future linear optical realization of quantum repeaters and quantum computation.
[...]
The quality of synchronization is confirmed by observing a violation of Bell’s inequality with 3.2 standard deviations in an entanglement swapping experiment. Entanglement swapping, i.e. teleportation of entanglement [3, 14], is a way to project the state of two particles onto an entangled state while no direct interaction be tween the two particles is required. During entanglement swapping, if each of the two particles is originally entangled with one other partner particle, a Bell-state measurement of the partner particles would thus collapse the state of the two particles into an entangled state, even though they are far apart.
[..]
FIG. 1: Experimental setup of synchronized femtosecond pulse lasers. F1 and F2 are lens to focus the pumping 532nm laser from two Verdi laser systems; Ti1 and Ti2 are Ti:sapphire crystals; M1 -M10 are high reflection mirrors; P1- P4 are prisms; T1 and T2 are output couplers with transmissivities of 20%; On the top of the figure, Ti1, M1-M5, P1, P2 and T1 constitute the first mode-lock femtosecond laser cavity. An analogous mode-lock femtosecond laser cavity shown at the bottom of the drawing is constituted of Ti2, M6-M10, P3, P4 and T2. The two laser pulses are synchronized by coupling both lasers in the Ti: Sapphire crystal Kerr medium (KM). In order to induce stronger cross-phase modulation effect for synchronization, we focus the beams in the Kerr medium and make the two beams cross in the Kerr medium with a narrow angle. Considering the crucial condition of syn chronizing lasers, One end mirror M5 is driven by a transla tion stage to match the two laser cavity lengths. Both 788nm
Infrared laser pulses are detected by fast photodiodes (PD1 and PD2) behind beam samplers (BS1 and BS2). Hence we can monitor the synchronization between two laser pulses on an oscilloscope.
Here we see information transfer among co-moving entangled photons retaining the information to their respective destinations without particle interaction. The interaction occurs entirely in the wave state.
If "destructive" interference occurred the entanglement would have been lost the photons interact and transfer the information without loss of qubits. This is a proof that independent photons do not actually interact when they mutually interfere although information exchange can still occur between different sourced photons. Phase cancellations does not mean that the measured entity is no longer present, even if "fully" canceled over some region of space, that particular "empty" space is not necessarily empty. Sensors measure intensity only, and cannot discriminate for individual photons present since they exist in the one boson state. Many photons could exist in a particular space but nothing be detected there if phases cancel. The absence of detection does not indicate evidence of absence in this case. Actual measurement will collapse the state so this is also not a way to prove that you have actually absorbed all photons in that space. Due to superposition a polarizing filter may separate co-moving photons in that space if you chose to do that. Until you actually detect photons you have no way of knowing how many are in that space and then it depends on detecting/counting all of them.
Cheers
Laserlight
10th June 2007 - 03:01 AM
TRoc,
QUOTE
Here's the deal: 1/4 wave relations can only "line up" (couple) with one phase singularity, and they can NEVER line up with BOTH. 1/2 wave relations will ALWAYS either BOTH line up, or neither.
TWO new sources (the slits) create a new "effective" wavelength, and they are axially separated by 1/2 of this effective wavelength (see biaxial anisotropy). + phase through one slit, - phase through the other. This is why, if you "peek" at 1 slit, you collapse the phase duality to the path of the other slit.
If I understand this rather "cryptic" description, are you saying that 1/4 waves
will always be adjacent to the phase "node" in either a + or - 90 degree
phase angle relationship, and 1/2 waves will either be constructively or
destructively aligned according to their 180 degree phase angle relationship?
You seem to be associating/comparing phase relationships as to how they
must align according to their complementary phase angle. You are exactly
restating what I proposed regarding how the incident phase angles must
align as they enter the slits, in order to maintain wave symmetry and integrity.
Waves can only enter and exit the slits in 180 degree phase increments that
can constructively or destructively add according to their relative phase
angle. It is a form of complementary phase angle "matching"... We don't get
partial out of phase wavefronts exiting the slits. They are "whole order", integer
function, full waves, whose phase angles must be constructively or destructively
"additive", because they are coherent and synchronously matched. You couldn't
have 1/4 wave propagating thru one slit, and a 3/4 wave portion propagating
thru the other slit, because the exiting partial waves would not yield symmetrical
interference patterns on the screen.
The wave energy must divide equally between the slits, according to the phase
angle, in order to maintain geometrical wave symmetry.
Comments? Discussion? Disagreements?
LL
janrinze
10th June 2007 - 05:10 AM
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jun 10 2007, 02:45 AM)
Hi janrinze,
I can go one better with this and with a more secure result...
Experimental Synchronization of Independent Entangled Photon SourcesHere we see information transfer among co-moving entangled photons retaining the information to their respective destinations without particle interaction. The interaction occurs entirely in the wave state.
If "destructive" interference occurred the entanglement would have been lost the photons interact and transfer the information without loss of qubits. This is a proof that independent photons do not actually interact when they mutually interfere although information exchange can still occur between different sourced photons. Phase cancellations does not mean that the measured entity is no longer present, even if "fully" canceled over some region of space, that particular "empty" space is not necessarily empty. Sensors measure
intensity only, and cannot discriminate for individual photons present since they exist in the one boson state. Many photons could exist in a particular space but nothing be detected there if phases cancel. The absence of detection does not indicate evidence of absence in this case. Actual measurement will collapse the state so this is also not a way to prove that you have actually absorbed all photons in that space. Due to superposition a polarizing filter may separate co-moving photons in that space if you chose to do that. Until you actually detect photons you have no way of knowing how many are in that space and then it depends on detecting/counting all of them.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
I don't recall to have said that the photons will be 'lost'. Interference is the point where two waves cross each other and their phase difference yields either constructive or destructive interference. This is an inherent property of waves.
At a point of destructive interference there are no means of collapsing either wave. Since at such a point they cannot interact.
Looking from a 'simple' EM-wave point of view there is nothing wrong with interference and I believe we can only assume that the photon itself is a manifestation of EM energy at a certain point. Since at the destructive interference points there is no EM energy we can conclude there are no photons there either. This could be summed up as a photon being merely a 'projection' of an apparent particle due to the EM energy present at any point in space.
The hard part must be to explain the wave collapse into a 'single' point. The very nature of EM or electric and magnetic fields is being revealed through such an event.
We must assume that the absorption of one quantum of energy from the EM wave is a universal single event which occurs instantaneously over the entire wavefront. This needs a better conceptual explanation which I still don't have.
If anyone can better this I hope to hear about that.
Jan Rinze.
P.S. this is the point where I keep running in circles..
Laserlight
10th June 2007 - 06:13 AM
Hi Jan and All,
QUOTE
The hard part must be to explain the wave collapse into a 'single' point. The very nature of EM or electric and magnetic fields is being revealed through such an event.
We must assume that the absorption of one quantum of energy from the EM wave is a universal single event which occurs instantaneously over the entire wavefront. This needs a better conceptual explanation which I still don't have.
This collapse to a point is a mathematical interpretation based on the concept of
zero point energy....there can not be "zero" energy for a propagating wave.
The zero average of the waveform is an energy level that exists
abovesome baseline energy reference level. It is commonly called a threshold voltage level,
which is a type of "floating" ground. There is a DC voltage level difference
between signal ground and earth ground.
If you are familiar with electronic circuits, sometimes a circuit
operates at a voltage level that is referenced above the absolute zero voltage
DC ground level. AC sinewave energy can ride above this baseline ground level
along an average DC threshold voltage level that operates above the true "zero volt" ground level.
In the case of a photon, it operates above the "zero volts" DC ground level, since
it is energy that is propagating thru space. This represents the zero point energy
ground level. So a photon's "mean voltage" is operating above eaarth ground level
at some signal ground level DC component value. The DC voltage component
collapses to absolute zero volts when the signal falls back/ is abosorbed into the
earth "ground" level of a detecting/absorbing atom. In other words, the photon
drops to the appropriate ground level in the energy shell of the atom that
represents the "earth ground" reference.
I had written a detaild description of this electronics concept in this prior post:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=174609Comments? Discussion?
LL
Montec
10th June 2007 - 06:40 AM
Hello janrinze, Good Elf, et al.
I too have problems understanding how or even why the absorption of a photon should collapse the entire wave front structure. If it does happen then it must involve other dimensions where the entire wave front is present.
I must reiterate that future wave fronts depend on present wave fronts. These wave fronts are both electric and magnetic in nature. When destructive interference happens then there is no present wave front to generate a future wave front.
Destructive interference destroys the wave front. Electric and magnetic fields present in EM radiation do not move in 3D space. They do not move through each other. They can only change in intensity. What is moving is the energy transfered by the time varying electric and magnetic fields. If the fields do not vary (as in destructive interference) then there is no energy transport. No energy means no photons.
This effect cancels the energy in a section of the wave front. Is this not the same as a wave front collapse?
Laserlight
10th June 2007 - 06:50 AM
Hi Montec,
QUOTE
I too have problems understanding how or even why the absorption of a photon should collapse the entire wave front structure. If it does happen then it must involve other dimensions where the entire wave front is present.
What happens when a signal goes to earth ground?
The original signal "collapses". Collapse is a misnomer.
Energy is either absorbed and creates a displacement in matter, and/or changes
from potential energy to kinetic energy, or is re-radiated. It is the principle
of the conservation of energy.
Energy never "ends" it just changes to another form of energy, it is converted into
a work function.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I too have problems understanding how or even why the absorption of a photon should collapse the entire wave front structure. If it does happen then it must involve other dimensions where the entire wave front is present. |
What happens when a signal goes to earth ground?
The original signal "collapses". Collapse is a misnomer.
Energy is either absorbed and creates a displacement in matter, and/or changes
from potential energy to kinetic energy, or is re-radiated. It is the principle
of the conservation of energy.
Energy never "ends" it just changes to another form of energy, it is converted into
a work function.
I must reiterate that future wave fronts depend on present wave fronts. These wave fronts are both electric and magnetic in nature. When destructive interference happens then there is no present wave front to generate a future wave front. Destructive interference destroys the wave front. Electric and magnetic fields present in EM radiation do not move in 3D space.
According to this "definition" newly arriving waves never happen if the wavefront
has collapsed. I totally disagree with this concept. You are associating a point in
time with future events that have not yet occurred. Basically, you are saying
that relative time "now" affects the future. If this were true we could control the
future because we know the present. You are discounting variability and
uncertainty with this thought process.
LL
Nick
10th June 2007 - 07:16 AM
COLLAPSE AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
Montec
10th June 2007 - 07:54 AM
Hello Laserlight, et al.
My point is that the wavefront collapses only in the area of destructive interference. The rest of the wavefront is not affected. The lack of a time varying electric and magnetic field at any point in space means that there is no EM radiation present at that location. Destructive interference means there is no time varying electric or magnetic field present at the point of interference. No fields means no light and no Poynting vector.
Let me repeat, the present wavefront shape is based on past wavefront shapes and future wavefront shapes are based on present wavefront shapes. Do you agree or disagree?
Confused2
10th June 2007 - 08:28 AM
Hi Montec et al,
QUOTE (Montec+)
My point is that the wavefront collapses only in the area of destructive interference. The rest of the wavefront is not affected. The lack of a time varying electric and magnetic field at any point in space means that there is no EM radiation present at that location. Destructive interference means there is no time varying electric or magnetic field present at the point of interference. No fields means no light and no Poynting vector.
If we simplify a little and call each slit a source .. then there will be two Poynting vectors which 'add' like any other vector. At points of destructive interference we have /P1 + /P2 = /0 which is not the same as /P1=/0 and /P2= /0 (where / indicates 'vector'(
QUOTE (Montec+)
Let me repeat, the present wavefront shape is based on past wavefront shapes and future wavefront shapes are based on present wavefront shapes. Do you agree or disagree?
The DSE and Kennedy-Thorndike interferometers show that a photon is not localised on a single 'wavefront' - to what extend this fits in with 'past' and 'future' I'm not sure. It looks to me as though any continuous* solution to the EM wave equation encapsulates this property in that there must always be a waveshape before and after any other waveshape.
Best wishes - C2.
*by continuous I mean 'without sudden jumps' like steps or impulses.
Confused2
10th June 2007 - 08:54 AM
Hi All,
If you introduce an energetic wave (or waves) of finite (or possibly infinite) size into the universe and then detect that energy at a point there is obviously a houskeeping problem (to get rid of the rest of the wave(s) from all space). Wheeler-Feynman suggests a solution to the housekeeping problem that does not involve extra dimensions. I've tried (and failed) to introduce F-W .. I suggest it would be worthwhile for someone else to have another go. If nothing else F-W clarifies the problem to which extra dimensions might or might not be a solution.
Best wishes - C2.
Montec
10th June 2007 - 09:21 AM
Hello Confused2, et al.
I guess it all boils down on how you view the process of energy propagation through space.
If you believe the the electric and magnetic fields move through space as the process then as the fields move through each other you will have points of constructive and destructive interference. However one must then ask what causes or facilitates the movement of the fields.
I think the moving field idea went away with the aether idea but maybe it is making a comeback.
For myself, I believe that the electric and magnetic fields associated with EM radiation are stationary in 3D space but vary in time. The energy associated with the frequency is transfered from cycle to cycle by the coupling of time varying magnetic and electric fields as is postulated by Maxwell's equations. The direction of energy flow is given by the Poynting vector of the wavefront. If the coupling of the electric or magnetic fields is interfered with then the energy flow along that Poynting vector is disrupted.
Good Elf
10th June 2007 - 10:06 AM
Hi janrinze, "THEY", Laserlight, Jal, Confused2, Zephir, yquantum, TRoc,
Montec, Neil Farbstein, Why Not?, Mate et al,
QUOTE (Montec+)
Hello janrinze, Good Elf, et al.
I too have problems understanding how or even why the absorption of a photon should collapse the entire wave front structure. If it does happen then it must involve other dimensions where the entire wave front is present.
I must reiterate that future wave fronts depend on present wave fronts. These wave fronts are both electric and magnetic in nature. When destructive interference happens then there is no present wave front to generate a future wave front. Destructive interference destroys the wave front. Electric and magnetic fields present in EM radiation do not move in 3D space. They do not move through each other. They can only change in intensity. What is moving is the energy transfered by the time varying electric and magnetic fields. If the fields do not vary (as in destructive interference) then there is no energy transport. No energy means no photons.
This effect cancels the energy in a section of the wave front. Is this not the same as a wave front collapse?
I have thought about it and if our Universe is happily perched in a closed 3D plus time space then that space may easily be embedded in further spaces. Wheeler Feynman does explain 3D space plus time pretty well so this is apparently the basis of any further dimensional spaces. These too are closed and reciprocally wrapped. The outside of our Universe must be encompassed by a very small space in which the wave is able to spread from internally. This is why the wavefront can collapse instantly since it has only a small distance to collapse around... An instanton.
Each three dimensions must be closed along with the appropriate time.On the outside this is a "harmonic" frequency and a reciprocal manifold. It is an experimental fact that a wavefront collapses at an infinite speed. This is similar to the speed that light appears to travel along the wavefront. A laser pointer can flash from one side of the moon to the other without a restriction in velocity because it is perpendicular to the direction of propagation. No laws broken. The rest of this story we have been over many times about the relationship between de Broglie waves and the Special Theory of Relativity and how light propagates around corners rather than the invisible length contraction. Light, after all defines the geometry of space and where light cannot go, neither can we. It is a closed shop.
Also destructive interference is one photon at a time not necessarily an entire wavefront. Photons "collapse" one at a time on absorption and it is that one photon that collapses along the wavefront not the whole wave. Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory is an event driven causality so individual events can indeed run in reverse. OK so radioactivity can't run in reverse to our knowledge but everything else can, one particle event at a time. If one particle runs backward in time then it carries everything inside the particle with it. In a reciprocal space that could be an entire Universe.
Cheers
Confused2
10th June 2007 - 10:22 AM
Hi Montec,
The fields and waves of EM theory exist in the analysis. A clue about the physical significance (or lack thereof) can be gained from the way the equations are independent of motion through space. Compared to (say) the Copenhagen Interpretation it is the "Don't even think about it" interpretation. If you try to pick away at any particular bit of it my guess is that the you will have to unravel he whole lot to make any sense of it. Looking at electron-photon-electron interaction is precisely the game of picking EM to pieces .. if we can get it right then the EM equation should appear naturally.
Best wishes -C2.
Edit .. I'm not suggesting EM theory doesn't give a lot of useful clues .. but I think it needs to be approached with extreme caution.
Confused2
10th June 2007 - 10:46 AM
Hi Good Elf et al,
Let us imagine we place an ordinary bicycle lamp on our desk. We measure everything carefully and work out the relative intensity at various points. Instead of a continuously varying 'intensity' we find that 'intensity' manifests itself as the number of photons per second that we count at each of the points. The counts may show that the universe is made up of reciprocal manifolds but for me this is a rather large step to take all in one go. Smaller steps please. Much smaller steps.
Best wishes -C2.
Laserlight
10th June 2007 - 12:42 PM
Montec,
QUOTE
Let me repeat, the present wavefront shape is based on past wavefront shapes and future wavefront shapes are based on present wavefront shapes. Do you agree or disagree?
I don't know if I agree or disagree, because I don't understand how you derive
your argument. I just don't get it. You have made a blanket statement without
presenting a cohesive argument that explains what you mean.
Since we agree that the energy of a photon is quantized, according to the
energy delta between adjacent atomic energy shells, which represents a
fixed value/amount of energy, then under those conditions, that quantum of
energy will always generate the same relative sized waveform.
The timing of the wave has to do with "ringing" at the atomic level. That ringing
energy is coupling to space as a frequency, a specific vibrational "tone" that is
conducted by and thru the energetic vacuum of space without incurring any "loss"
until it is detected/converted.
Please present an argument that explains your blanket statement. Then I will
make a determination to agree or disagree.
Regards,
LL
kokhaw
10th June 2007 - 03:18 PM
Hi all, I'm new here. This topic is interesting.
I have a doubt here. I had read an article saying that wave has angular momentum. In interference, if the wave is rotating, how sure that the constructive and destructive superposition could happen?
In between, I have developed something about photon which may be useful and interesting to be discussed here. I have fully dissected photon into quantized property. Where photon becomes particle-like property. I have posted my work in the following website.
www.greatians.com/physics/wave/photon.htm
Please comment and advice. It might useful to explain the experiment results. Thank you.
Regards,
Kong
Laserlight
10th June 2007 - 04:23 PM
Hello and Welcome Kong,
I went to the website that you had posted but could only read general text.
None of your graphic formulas or illustrations could be viewed using WindowsXP.
I would like to read your analysis. Please advise, or change the style of graphics
on your site.
You might find it useful to read some earlier posts from a week or so ago.
If you connsider a traveling wavefront made up of individual coherent and
entangled photons and the Inverse Square Law, at some point the wavefront
no longer adheres to the ISL due to dispersion. This does not apparently
apply to a discrete photon.
Regards,
LL
jal
10th June 2007 - 04:26 PM
LL
QUOTE
This collapse to a point is a mathematical interpretation based on the concept of
zero point energy....there can not be "zero" energy for a propagating wave.
The zero average of the waveform is an energy level that exists above
some baseline energy reference level. It is commonly called a threshold voltage level,
which is a type of "floating" ground. There is a DC voltage level difference
between signal ground and earth ground.
Everyone better get the latest info in order to be able to move forward.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0406/0406024v1.pdf REVIEW ARTICLE
The Casimir effect: Recent controversies and
progress
Kimball A. Milton
02 june 2004
-------------
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3793v1 Precision measurement of the Casimir-Lifshitz force in a fluid
Authors: Jeremy N. Munday, Federico Capasso
(Submitted on 25 May 2007)
-----------
The implications of the work by Jeremy N. Munday, Federico Capasso is that there is no zero point energy....there can not be "zero" energy for a propagating wave.End of quantum foam/quark sea outside the drip line.
jal
Laserlight
10th June 2007 - 05:58 PM
Hi Jal,
You referenced some very technical papers.
QUOTE
The implications of the work by Jeremy N. Munday, Federico Capasso is that there is no zero point energy....there can not be "zero" energy for a propagating wave.
Zero point energy is an operating reference point that applies to a closed energy
system.
I think what is missed, is that closed systems don't function totally independently.
There is an energy interaction between closed systems, where each closed system
contributes to the existence of the other. It appears that they should follow the
laws of thermodynamics as it applies to energy sharing between separate,
but "linked", systems.
Mathematically, it would be like closed "sets" that represent some function that are
operating within higher order closed "sets" to share or exchange some energy
component.
I visualize it as "spheres" of operation that operate within larger "spheres"
....to my distain this is leading to higher and lower order dimensions.
However, this might lend support your packing sphere energy density
scenario.
Regards,
LL
TRoc
10th June 2007 - 07:35 PM
Hi all,
C2-
QUOTE
then hopefully we'll be reassured that where the waves 'add' the power density will be four times that of either wave individually.
Any disagreement with this result?
No.
What I posted about counts was based on your statement:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
then hopefully we'll be reassured that where the waves 'add' the power density will be four times that of either wave individually.
Any disagreement with this result? |
No.
What I posted about counts was based on your statement: C2-
QUOTE
which leaves us with no choice but to predict that at the bright bits we will count twice as many photons as the total from the slits counted individually. And we get the result we expect.
So, maybe that was a typo, saying "twice as many"? I'm sure that you can understand my questioning that, as you have said this 6 or more time in this thread. I am wondering if you have got it now.
Then, GE added to my response to C2, " Is there some problem here?"
No, you need not have bothered with that post.
GE-
QUOTE
The suggestion by TRoc is that a quantum is easily divisible. This is not so and to utilize that energy the photon must be absorbed entirely. There are no partial absorptions, it is all or none. Scattering is also an absorption plus an emission via an inelastic process. Once an absorption has occurred an emission could occur and this could be at a lower (or even a higher) frequency..
OK, it seems that "theory mixing" is creating confusion. The QM "photon" is an indivisible quanta of energy. I disagree with this. What happens to our quanta of energy, after it is emitted, and starts to "spread", and fill the area of a sphere at the speed of light?
Well, if you stick with QM, you can't fill this space with "photons", because you have imposed too many rules on this purely imagined entity. The fact is, the ENERGY exists everywhere within that expanding sphere, and collapse form any point in the sphere (at faster than c) to any other point, "instantaneously".
So, if you start with a new model from scratch, you can build up a logical model, that matches observations. The simple result is, that the energy is absolutely transmutable into any form of matter, or any other form of energy. Conservation demands this.
If we are going to stick with our standard measurements of frequency and wavelength, then what energy is in the sphere will not stay at the original wavelength. It can not "stretch", because that implies a loss of energy (longer wave). What needs to happen, in order to maintain a constant ratio of energy/space, is wavelets need to form between wavelets... etc. The Russian doll analogy. These are harmonics, and they mathematically form an "infinite stack" in superposition.
These wavelets are experimentally known as filaments, and also as white light supercontinum. That just means that these filaments, even though formed from a specific wavelength, can take on any wavelength in the visible spectrum, or within an octave. (limit of 2f) They do everything my theory proposes.
From the "black light sandwhich" article, M. Berry:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The suggestion by TRoc is that a quantum is easily divisible. This is not so and to utilize that energy the photon must be absorbed entirely. There are no partial absorptions, it is all or none. Scattering is also an absorption plus an emission via an inelastic process. Once an absorption has occurred an emission could occur and this could be at a lower (or even a higher) frequency.. |
OK, it seems that "theory mixing" is creating confusion. The QM "photon" is an indivisible quanta of energy. I disagree with this. What happens to our quanta of energy, after it is emitted, and starts to "spread", and fill the area of a sphere at the speed of light?
Well, if you stick with QM, you can't fill this space with "photons", because you have imposed too many rules on this purely imagined entity. The fact is, the ENERGY exists everywhere within that expanding sphere, and collapse form any point in the sphere (at faster than c) to any other point, "instantaneously".
So, if you start with a new model from scratch, you can build up a logical model, that matches observations. The simple result is, that the energy is absolutely transmutable into any form of matter, or any other form of energy. Conservation demands this.
If we are going to stick with our standard measurements of frequency and wavelength, then what energy is in the sphere will not stay at the original wavelength. It can not "stretch", because that implies a loss of energy (longer wave). What needs to happen, in order to maintain a constant ratio of energy/space, is wavelets need to form between wavelets... etc. The Russian doll analogy. These are harmonics, and they mathematically form an "infinite stack" in superposition.
These wavelets are experimentally known as filaments, and also as white light supercontinum. That just means that these filaments, even though formed from a specific wavelength, can take on any wavelength in the visible spectrum, or within an octave. (limit of 2f) They do everything my theory proposes.
From the "black light sandwhich" article, M. Berry: I like to discover "the arcane in the mundane," and this is one of the best examples I know.
So, yes GE, this is "mundane", but there is something to learn there, and I suggest that you are capable of doing so, but are choosing not to.
JR-
QUOTE
This is not physics, this is a mental interpretation of two colors..
No, this is Physics, my friend. YOU may be talking about the physiological aspects of color, but I am not. Science has not had the wisdom to "tune" their system, and is missing out on key fundamental phenomenon because of it. If I were in a room of "professional" musicians, and I said " give me a middle c", everyone would know exactly what FREQUENCY I was talking about. In Science, if I say "red", the "knee jerk" automatic response is "you are talking about a perception". Let me be EXACT, and give you what amounts to a fundamental measurement of "red" light.
RED: f = 4.0869778648286625090822149668159e+14 [Z*R^582]
RED: w = 7.3353090760005623830198870230001e-7 [Z/R^245]
Incidentally, you can see that Z/R^245 = Z*R^-245. Because of the symmetry in these fundamental values, negative numbers (and all the " i " , "zero" complexity of calculus & the sine wave) can be REPLACED with division of the same constants.
JR-
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is not physics, this is a mental interpretation of two colors.. |
No, this is Physics, my friend. YOU may be talking about the physiological aspects of color, but I am not. Science has not had the wisdom to "tune" their system, and is missing out on key fundamental phenomenon because of it. If I were in a room of "professional" musicians, and I said " give me a middle c", everyone would know exactly what FREQUENCY I was talking about. In Science, if I say "red", the "knee jerk" automatic response is "you are talking about a perception". Let me be EXACT, and give you what amounts to a fundamental measurement of "red" light.
RED: f = 4.0869778648286625090822149668159e+14 [Z*R^582]
RED: w = 7.3353090760005623830198870230001e-7 [Z/R^245]
Incidentally, you can see that Z/R^245 = Z*R^-245. Because of the symmetry in these fundamental values, negative numbers (and all the " i " , "zero" complexity of calculus & the sine wave) can be REPLACED with division of the same constants.
JR-Do you realize that the color magenta is actually a composition of blue and red?
I don't want to get into semantics here, but "magenta" as I state it, is violet and red combo. What you are referring to is more "purple".
Perhaps, if you can provide us with the frequency of magenta, we could talk more "Scientifically" about its' perception.
BTW, the link that GE asked about is here:
"Detecting the colours of darkness"You need to read more about phase singularities (applies to Montec's question about "zero" point in the field = "no photon"; this is not correct, IMO)
"‘Hidden’ singularities in partially coherent wavefields ""Phase singularities and coherence vortices in linear optical systems"For GE, JR, and LL's questions. LL has it close, but not quite. I am saying that an entire bandwidth of energy is coming through the slits. Only specific combinations will put 2 +phases incident onto the screen, which is part of the requirement for a "click" to register. The different wavelengths each are spread based on RI, and come out ORDERED. Again, that part is critical to understand.
Unfortunately, there are so many "open questions" on this right now, and there is so much input from everyone that needs feedback, that there just is not enough time (for me) to "explain fully". Most of this I've already said more than once anyway. I will try again, when thing slow down a bit, and there is less going on in this thread.
regards,
T.Roc
janrinze
10th June 2007 - 08:00 PM
Hi TRoc,
There is no frequency for magenta!
The eye will detect blue simultaneously with red.
I am sorry to hear that you appear to lose me on this one.
As for being scientific, just try to look into the spectral sensitivity of the human retina.
What the brain is receiving from the retina are distinct values from nerves that react on light. Apparently there are 4 different kinds of receptors. Within the center of our vision mainly 3 are present. To the periphery of our vision the fourth is predominantly present.
The response curve of each type of optical nerve cell is well know.
I leave it to you to it to read and try to understand how it works..
Second to that you might try and figure-out how the ear works as well..
There will be a lot of surprises coming your way. Since our senses are easily fooled and 'generate' information to fill gaps a lot of things we believe we can 'see' or 'hear' are not really there at all...
I'll leave it to this.
Jan Rinze.
P.S. color is not a scientific measurement. wavelengths are.. As for sound, there is a mathematical formula that shows all frequencies related to the 'notes'. Feel free to look them up..
Laserlight
10th June 2007 - 08:24 PM
Previously posted:
It's a Musical Universehttp://www.svpvril.com/musicuni.html
Why Not?
10th June 2007 - 08:34 PM
Hey everyone,
IMHO, the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (TIQM) provides an explanation that is consistent with each of the various arguments that have been presented.
Cramer TIQM is a good refresher for anyone interested.
GE, C2, JR, yq, LL, et al., I do not believe you will be able to appreciate (or even really understand) where TRoc's coming from until to take an objective look at his matrix. I do not agree with some of TRoc's interpretations, primarily because the matrix ONLY produces frequency quanta - but that's besides the point.
TRoc, can "Z/R^245 = Z*R^-245" be viewed as time dependant (as in direction of the arrow), either in the relation of Z to R or in the + or - of the step? 1/2 advanced and 1/2 retarded? Just a thought...
P.s. Magenta = ˝ Red + ˝ blue, at least as far as additive color mixing in color theory.
Confused2
10th June 2007 - 09:55 PM
Hi TRoc,
QUOTE (me+)
which leaves us with no choice but to predict that at the bright bits we will count twice as many photons as the total from the slits counted individually. And we get the result we expect.
If 600 for each slit then the total from each slit counted individually would be 1200 so we predict twice this at constructive interference ( = 2400 ). I think I have been consistent about this. As it seems this was unclear I can't tell whether you are disagreeing with 2400 as the prediction or pointing out that you thought I was disagreeing with myself (not unlikely - but I don't think so on this occasion ). Are you happy with the experimentally measured 2400 or not?
From memory your Z is the diameter of the universe - yes?
It may or not be relevent to point out that the meter is based on the length of a napoleonic soldiers stride (at least I think so). If Napoleon had lead an army of pygmies then the meter would probably have been much shorter. Time is also a fairly arbitrary division of a year -- would this affect your ratios?
Best wishes -C2.
janrinze
10th June 2007 - 10:05 PM
Hi Why Not,
The Dirac notation is an inner product to find the solutions for a QM state.
It is a bit strange to call a conjugate (for mathematical reasons we need a conjugate..) a time-reversed signal.
It is NOT time reversed:
z= x + iy
z* = x - iy
This is not time reversal.
The fact that e^(ix) = cos(x) + i sin(x) will show that it's conjugate is cos(x)-isin(x). which equals cos(-x)+isin(-x). this is not time-reversal though.
With this notation people may become tempted to say that -sin(x) = sin(-x).
This is just an equivalence within mathematics. This does not imply that every wave is a time reversal thing!
TIQM is even more silly than a method where Einstein proposes that a wave collapses instantaneously everywhere.
The reason is simple:
From the power-point itself it cannot be proven. Neither does it explain how the effect should work. It even does not explain how the wave should be seen in terms of 3d..
Apparently these waves have even stranger properties where they can 'choose' their return path and be able to converge back to the point of origin (by magic?)
Nope not really. As a matter of fact were are looking at an inner-product. we want to do a mathematical method for solving a state... we do this by integrating:
integrate( Psi* . S . Psi )
where we can see that Psi*.Psi is the inner product!
In the Dirac notation it becomes much more clear. <Psi | S Psi>
We have an operation working on Psi and S.Psi.
So clearly this is not time reversal but a way to measure the length of a vector:
| x+iy | = sqrt( (x-iy) . (x+iy) ) = sqrt( x^2 + xiy -xiy - i^2.y^2) = sqrt(x^2 + y^2)
in short:
|z| = sqrt( z* . z )
So where is this time reversal now??
This is equally silly as saying that any negative sine wave is to be seen as a time reversed wave. (If we would reverse polarity on a sine wave-generator)
We should be very careful when we want to interpret mathematics back to the physical world. Remember that the average throw of a dice is 3.5 now try to get that result in one throw..
Occam's razor and Popper can both be used to dismiss this interpretation.
The induced complexity and the unfalsifiable of TI of QM makes it a mere thought experiment with some nice reading value i.m.h.o.
If energy would travel forward in time and negative energy would travel backwards in time WHY would they decide to travel on the same path??
It would be even more logical to assume that the photon is some sort of wormhole connecting two separate events/places in space-time by exchanging energy..
Come to think of it, not a bad idea. If we would 'see' space-time in a 5 dimensional world and would fold it in such a way that it touches at certain places. we could denote that as being the photon. We could even explain why mass would change the apparent 'route' of the photon of since it bends space time as well..
And it would even allow a 'double' fold where it accounts for entanglement..
Enough food for thought i guess..
Jan Rinze.
Confused2
10th June 2007 - 10:15 PM
Hi Kong,
Welcome to the forum. I've looked at your site .. it looks interesting. We seem to have several discussions going on already on this thread - can you be patient? Post again if you feel ignored - it isn't deliberate I assure you. I'm an engineer not a physicist so my opinions may not be worth much but I'll happily look through it and comment in a few days. A quick inspection shows you use quantised power - I haven't had time to follow through the implications of this but be ready to explain!
Why Not?
I never got round to saying it was nice to see you posting again - so it is now said. I like the Transactional Interpretation on the grounds that at least it does the book-keeping in an obvious way. Book-keeping is sadly lacking with so much hand-waving going on. Naturally this is a prelude to me doing some hand-waving. If you have something that might be regarded as an oscillator .. clearly it is either oscillating or it is not oscillating .. maybe instead of trying to take 'an oscillation' out of the oscillator we should take 'the oscillator' and treat it as an entity (photon). Thoughts anyone?
Sorry I've 'overposted' again.
Best wishes to all - C2.
Edit .. I can't open the ppt presentation so my comments are based on the Wiki page on transactional analysis and a bit of Wheeler-Feynman. Could Cramer be starting with a toy cancellation model with a view to something a bit more physical later?
Laserlight
11th June 2007 - 12:18 AM
Hi Jan,
Bravo! Excellent! I have a real hard time accepting theories of time reversal and
wave energy being spread everywhere in the universe and collapsing
instantaneously.
IMO, wave collapse means the angular rotation and momentum of the
wave "ends". The wave is absorbed. The energy being propagated by the
wave "sinks" from some DC "operational" level component back to the atomic
ground state. This is a work function that changes potential energy to kinetic
energy causing electrons to change orbitals.
I think that we all agree that energy conversion, which includes emission and
absorption, requires coupling between separate energy systems by utilizing
vibrational resonance.
Ideally, resonance implies a harmonic exchange of energy via a tuned "cavity"
that can couple to and from its adjacent environment. So, in this respect
the geometrical "apparent" volume of a cavity must match the geometrical volume
that is "displaced" by the AC components of the wave.
If we consider that photons are "force carriers", which is another way of stating
that they transport energy from one location to another, then we must assume
that photons exhibit self resonance via their inherent oscillating electric and
magnetic AC fields.
Yes, the AC components that provide the propulsive EM fields for a photon collapse
instantaneously, but they have finite boundary operating regimes/extremes that
are determined by the frequency and wavelength of the photon. Since these AC
fields are oscillating and resonant, then they will readily couple to atomic dipoles
that resonate at the same frequency, since those dipoles appear as resonant
cavities that function as local oscillators.
Perhaps too much at one time...
Comments? Discussion? Disagreements?
LL
Darren
11th June 2007 - 12:32 AM
QUOTE (Confused2+Jun 10 2007, 10:15 PM)
If you have something that might be regarded as an oscillator .. clearly it is either oscillating or it is not oscillating .. maybe instead of trying to take 'an oscillation' out of the oscillator we should take 'the oscillator' and treat it as an entity (photon). Thoughts anyone?
Hi C2 and others,
Whats wrong with making the assumption that the electron is an entity which is electrically unstable but physically stable, this is to say, the electron bursts into a standing wave and then settles down to particle status in a random fashion. this behavior continues for evermore and therefore, we cannot determine when the electron is going to be a standing wave or particle. The bursts of oscillation would have be standing waves specifically so that electron does not radiate away as E-M radiation.However, if it's travelling towards the DS, then these standing waves will travel with the electron which will give it traveling wave proporties.
The above picture would explain the double slit experiment.(I think?)
Cheers for now
Darren
P.S. I think I need to switch threads?
Laserlight
11th June 2007 - 12:57 AM
Hi Darren and Welcome,
Are you referring to the electron DS experiment or the photon DS experiment?
We know that EM waves occur cyclically, this is not a random event. I guess I am
not exactly understanding what you are proposing.
LL
Darren
11th June 2007 - 01:36 AM
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 11 2007, 12:57 AM)
Hi Darren and Welcome,
Hi laserlight,
Well, thanks for that.It makes such a refreshing change from the other thread.
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 11 2007, 12:57 AM)
Are you referring to the electron DS experiment or the photon DS experiment?
The electron ds experiment, I believe it behaves as wave when it shouldn't?
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 11 2007, 12:57 AM)
We know that EM waves occur cyclically, this is not a random event.
Thats certainly true, but I am proposing the electron bursts into a standing wave, every now and then randomly because it is electrically unstable(I think?), this being the case then, it's behavior will be part particle/wave characteristic, particularly as the electron moves through space. Note specifically, its wave characteristic is a standing wave localised around the electron such that it's wave energy does not radiate away as would be the case for an E-M wave.
Whilst it passes the ds, it could be in a state of wave oscillation(not always, but the ds experiment is used as an integrator whose results build up over time), so it can pass through both slits simultaneously during random oscillation bursts.
Keep well
Darren
Nick
11th June 2007 - 01:43 AM
SHINE LIGHT ON AN ELECTRON AND IT NO LONGER BEHAVES AS A WAVE. WHAT COULD BE HAPPENING?
AS IF I DON'T ALREADY KNOW.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
"THEY"
11th June 2007 - 04:23 AM
hi, quick apology to C2, I just found a post to me back on page 180.... ok I am quite behind....
but trying to catch up.
You asked if I could post pictures of both aluminum foil and black card to see the difference. I will still try to do that, but it is very hard to photograph the black card pattern because it is so dim. We used the aluminum foil in the pictures posted and in the classroom because it is so bright it is very easy to see and photograph. I have been taking it slower now that the homework is done, but if it is still wanted, I will see what I can do. Do you want me to post more pictures with black card this time
Good Elf - how are things going with your laser experiment
Hope you are going to post some pictures. Hope I didn't MISS you posting pictures...... Do I have to go back to review
My question mark key won't work......
If there is no request for more pictures, I won't do it due to time, but if wanted I will do my best.
Good Elf
11th June 2007 - 05:36 AM
Hi "THEY", also other interested people...
QUOTE ("THEY"+)
Good Elf - how are things going with your laser experiment
Hope you are going to post some pictures. Hope I didn't MISS you posting pictures...... Do I have to go back to review
Here are some standard shots using my simple camera. They could be better, they certainly look better live but they are good enough and look similar to the pictures that the NASA site had. The second shot I used a diverging lens to increase the overall size but the low intensity of the lower amplitude components of the function are lost in the background. I have no way to change the speed of my camera shots.
and this is the diverged image..
I am sure this could be improved on significantly but I think I would need a better camera... One with a couple of adjustments. I am quite sure that scoring a mirror back with a sharp blade using a steel rule is the way to go. Thanks for reminding me
Cheers
PS: Setup as per this site (additional diverging lens added in second shot)...
http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/SIM/experiment_1.cfm
Why Not?
11th June 2007 - 06:28 AM
Hey JR, LL, C2 Daren and All,
JR, I’m not sure where to begin and not at the same time get too far off topic… TIQM is an “interpretation”. It is meant to provide an understanding of the complexities of QM. Since I thought we were discussing various “interpretations” of the DSE, some of which were based on QM and others on various pet theories. Regardless, they are all interpretations and quite frankly, the Transactional one (and Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory applied to QM) hold up a hell of a lot better to Occam’s razor than many of the others out there. After all, you don’t need extra dimensions, an infinite number of universes, hidden variables, etc etc etc. Don’t we already “interpret” an anti-particle as a particle moving in the reverse time direction? T-symmetry and all? Anyway, for a more "in depth" analysis, hoe about this?
Generalized absorber theory and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradoxQUOTE (janrinze+)
If energy would travel forward in time and negative energy would travel backwards in time WHY would they decide to travel on the same path??
Because the transaction (wave collapse) links the two through the transfer of energy.
Finally,
QUOTE (janrinze+)
We should be very careful when we want to interpret mathematics back to the physical world.
I think you should have posted this statement in all caps bold! We have all forgotten this at one time or another on this thread. And so I ask you, how “careful” is your interpretation when you remove your bias against time reversal?
C2, Thanks! Glad to be back. The power point is a user friendly version of all of the other WFAT links you have seen posted, so I do not think you missed much in the way of fundamentals. But you may get something from the presentation if you can find another way to view the content. Also, I think TRoc and LL are been trying to look at the “oscillator”. I have been wondering how a fermion emits (or absorbs) a boson and how the boson retains the oscillation of the ferimon at emission (absorption)? But maybe you are thinking something else entirely?
LL,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Since these AC fields are oscillating and resonant, then they will readily couple to atomic dipoles that resonate at the same frequency, since those dipoles appear as resonant cavities that function as local oscillators.
If you plot the AC field oscillations (position -vs- time) and then flip the time axis, doesn’t the plot look the same? I really don't understand the reluctance to “time reversal” especially in a thread about the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser! It has been experimentally verified that you can change the outcome after the event, how better to do so than by going the opposite direction in time?
Laserlight
11th June 2007 - 07:12 AM
Hi Why Not and All,
QUOTE
If you plot the AC field oscillations (position -vs- time) and then flip the time axis, doesn’t the plot look the same? I really don't understand the reluctance to “time reversal” especially in a thread about the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser! It has been experimentally verified that you can change the outcome after the event, how better to do so than by going the opposite direction in time?
Time is relative between two fixed points in space, and is dependent upon the
relative point of observation. From the point of transmission, time is a series of progressive
events that have already occurred. From the other point of absolute reference,
time is a series of progressions that have yet to happen, or be observed.
That is why we can observe cosmic events that occurred billions of light years
ago. From the initial frame of reference the event is long over, but from our
distant relative perspective we are just observing the transfer of
information/energy that is ancient.
In one case time has gone by, in the other, it has yet to happen due to the latency
of energy/information transfer which is limited by the speed of light.
According to Einstein, in order to go backwards or reverse time it is necessary
to exceed the speed of light. Since that is a physical impossibility due to the
concept of relativity, it is fairly easy to reject time travel or time reversal.
Time is a progression, a change of relative energy state and distance over a
relative time base.
Comments? Discussion? Anyone?
LL
Confused2
11th June 2007 - 10:20 AM
Hi JR,GE,Why Not?,LL et al,
If we imagine Good Elf's bubble blowing dipole at x0 .. if a photon is detected at (say) x20 then the entire 'bubble' is absorbed at x20 .. if the bubble represents anything physical then energy conservation suggests nothing can have been emitted in the -x (or any other) direction .. do we conclude that the bubble interpretation is wrong?
Best wishes - C2.
Mate
11th June 2007 - 12:26 PM
...
Good Elf
11th June 2007 - 02:15 PM
Hi TRoc,
I think I see where you are coming from now...
QUOTE (TRoc+)
GE-
QUOTE
The suggestion by TRoc is that a quantum is easily divisible. This is not so and to utilize that energy the photon must be absorbed entirely. There are no partial absorptions, it is all or none. Scattering is also an absorption plus an emission via an inelastic process. Once an absorption has occurred an emission could occur and this could be at a lower (or even a higher) frequency..
OK, it seems that "theory mixing" is creating confusion. The QM "photon" is an indivisible quanta of energy. I disagree with this. What happens to our quanta of energy, after it is emitted, and starts to "spread", and fill the area of a sphere at the speed of light?
I would not say "indivisible" since a BBO crystal can split a photon in 1/2 into two equal "coherent" photons. There are exceptions to any rule that is a non-linear effect.
I also am no believer in energy spreading in three dimensions. As I have said before this wave phenomena cannot be actually witnessed "in vivo". The only way you "see" this influence is by absorbing photons whole. This obviously changes things somewhat. Absorb enough of these photons spatially you build the picture. There is no direct evidence to suggest that the energy of a single photon is actually spreading only that "waves" are spreading. I think there is a good argument to say that the actual energy of the photon is not traveling at all it is an effect that is being caused by "reciprocal space". In reciprocal space this is not spreading and getting bigger and bigger but it is shrinking and getting smaller and smaller... effectively 'fading away". The reciprocal effect in Fourier Space is "expansion". Have a look at this reference to understand how a Fourier Reciprocal Space reacts to an impulse. Also look at this...
Continuous Space Fourier Transform (CSFT): CA BoumanIn particular check out the three dimensional sync function described in "natural" Bessel Functions (one dimension is a parameter)...
... Click to enlarge...
Circular impulse in 2D to Fourier Transformed Bessel Function for two dimensions. Image taken from Continuous Space Fourier Transform (CSFT): CA Bouman. This is still too few dimensions to be a real function but it indicates the way this is progressing... your transform is the "Mexican Hat" function in a two dimensional plane. An additional dimension you would have a spherical impulse function then the sync function leads to harmonics on a sphere in three dimensions (slices of this function in any plane will be the "Mexican Hat" function as shown). This function "wraps" on the sphere or in this case shown as circle after one period. Higher order Bessel Functions provide the dumbell and other "orbital" harmonic functions I have spoken about in higher dimensions which are related to the various quantum numbers. Time evolution of any of these functions will have the "amplitude of this Impulse dispersing spatially. The transform f this will be the spreading sync pulse you refer to as energy spreading. As I see it this is not a "spreading" but a dispersion on the surface of a sphere. The sphere for three dimensional "flatspace" photons is the hypersphere of our Universe (our "piecemeal flat" Relativistic Spacetime).
Please look at the way in which
size translates in reciprocal space for instance longer spatial wavelengths translate to very much closer "points" in the Fourier Transformed Plane (the analog is the wavenumber and its function in Optics). You can see examples of these entities toward the end of this document above.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The suggestion by TRoc is that a quantum is easily divisible. This is not so and to utilize that energy the photon must be absorbed entirely. There are no partial absorptions, it is all or none. Scattering is also an absorption plus an emission via an inelastic process. Once an absorption has occurred an emission could occur and this could be at a lower (or even a higher) frequency.. |
OK, it seems that "theory mixing" is creating confusion. The QM "photon" is an indivisible quanta of energy. I disagree with this. What happens to our quanta of energy, after it is emitted, and starts to "spread", and fill the area of a sphere at the speed of light?
I would not say "indivisible" since a BBO crystal can split a photon in 1/2 into two equal "coherent" photons. There are exceptions to any rule that is a non-linear effect.
I also am no believer in energy spreading in three dimensions. As I have said before this wave phenomena cannot be actually witnessed "in vivo". The only way you "see" this influence is by absorbing photons whole. This obviously changes things somewhat. Absorb enough of these photons spatially you build the picture. There is no direct evidence to suggest that the energy of a single photon is actually spreading only that "waves" are spreading. I think there is a good argument to say that the actual energy of the photon is not traveling at all it is an effect that is being caused by "reciprocal space". In reciprocal space this is not spreading and getting bigger and bigger but it is shrinking and getting smaller and smaller... effectively 'fading away". The reciprocal effect in Fourier Space is "expansion". Have a look at this reference to understand how a Fourier Reciprocal Space reacts to an impulse. Also look at this...
Continuous Space Fourier Transform (CSFT): CA BoumanIn particular check out the three dimensional sync function described in "natural" Bessel Functions (one dimension is a parameter)...
... Click to enlarge...
Circular impulse in 2D to Fourier Transformed Bessel Function for two dimensions. Image taken from Continuous Space Fourier Transform (CSFT): CA Bouman. This is still too few dimensions to be a real function but it indicates the way this is progressing... your transform is the "Mexican Hat" function in a two dimensional plane. An additional dimension you would have a spherical impulse function then the sync function leads to harmonics on a sphere in three dimensions (slices of this function in any plane will be the "Mexican Hat" function as shown). This function "wraps" on the sphere or in this case shown as circle after one period. Higher order Bessel Functions provide the dumbell and other "orbital" harmonic functions I have spoken about in higher dimensions which are related to the various quantum numbers. Time evolution of any of these functions will have the "amplitude of this Impulse dispersing spatially. The transform f this will be the spreading sync pulse you refer to as energy spreading. As I see it this is not a "spreading" but a dispersion on the surface of a sphere. The sphere for three dimensional "flatspace" photons is the hypersphere of our Universe (our "piecemeal flat" Relativistic Spacetime).
Please look at the way in which
size translates in reciprocal space for instance longer spatial wavelengths translate to very much closer "points" in the Fourier Transformed Plane (the analog is the wavenumber and its function in Optics). You can see examples of these entities toward the end of this document above.
From the "black light sandwich" article, M. Berry:
QUOTE
I like to discover "the arcane in the mundane," and this is one of the best examples I know.
So, yes GE, this is "mundane", but there is something to learn there, and I suggest that you are capable of doing so, but are choosing not to.
I read the article that you indicated.
"Detecting the colours of darkness"This is dealing with optical phenomena and human psychological color perception. It is an interesting effect but it is to be expected from an analysis of the vortices. The green frequency is suppressed due to a vortex action in the Airy Disks or due to "defects created" by OAM. I agree the vorticies are an interesting phenomenon and it is important to understand this as a modification of the spatial refractive index.
Light Beams in High-Order ModesThese are zones of actual spatial forces and I have discussed these at length previously on this thread (I think) otherwise it was on an allied thread. The technology has been used as "optical tweezers" and forces at a distance. I see nothing about color mixing here and there is nothing mystical when we move from monochromatic sources of light to polychromatic sources which is what that topics about... Naturally polychromatic sources will have different standing wave patterns for each different frequency of the light simultaneously and these are a superposition state. This is a long way from the straightforward DSE. I was hoping not to stray too far away from the single frequency experiment. It is not telling us anything about your mixing theory or am I missing something?
Cheers
Good Elf
11th June 2007 - 02:31 PM
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Hi JR,GE,Why Not?,LL et al,
If we imagine Good Elf's bubble blowing dipole at x0 .. if a photon is detected at (say) x20 then the entire 'bubble' is absorbed at x20 .. if the bubble represents anything physical then energy conservation suggests nothing can have been emitted in the -x (or any other) direction .. do we conclude that the bubble interpretation is wrong?
Best wishes - C2.
Works fine for bubbles.. Bubble blowing is not Electromagnetism and you need to upgrade your thinking about "bubbles" to "waves". I have made some statements, in my previous post to TRoc about the way the impulse in more than one dimension may be interpreted (see illustration). The other possible Spherical Harmonics can be seen on Wolfram Research's Site (I have shown them here in full already). I think it would be better for you to direct your efforts toward a sophisticated way to deal with "sources" rather than to stretch the bubble analogy beyond it's elastic limit. I told everyone not to push the point too far at the time. The "source" in the analogy is not blowing single bubbles, it is a bubble blowing "machine", and if you do not have any experience of it you need to experience it first hand to understand the concept. The gentle act of blowing spawns dozens of similar sized bubbles, one after the other, and I am not referring to it in "single bubble mode". "Single bubble mode" is not the analogy I wish to pursue at this time. The dynamic is incorrect. The next point is the shape of bubbles is spherical not pancake shaped. One reason it does not immediately resemble the dipole is it is not a dipole... it is a monopole blowing single bubbles on one side of the hoop. One other good reason for this is the soap bubble is not traveling at the speed of light and forced on to the surface of the expanding light cone. One more good reason it is not the same as a photon is photons are "bosons" and bubbles are "fermions", bubbles as fermions do not "spread"... "here endeth the analogy".
QUOTE (Confused2+)
The counts may show that the universe is made up of reciprocal manifolds but for me this is a rather large step to take all in one go. Smaller steps please. Much smaller steps.
More Dimensions.... To be or not to be. If there are to be more dimensions there are limited options. Where are quanta when we can't see them? Billions of photons can exist in space right in front of our nose but they are "invisible". They can all occupy the same space at the same time. In that respect the photon is multiply simultaneously occupying space this implies possible extra dimensions in a specifically limited way... for Bosons (not fermions). Until they are absorbed the energy of those photons also does not exist, unless there is a particle interaction they are unable to be observed or even measured... Not in our Universe anyway... because the energy can only be absorbed as a whole or not at all.. Quanta are on the other side of a quantum "wall" while they are "not here". This boson state is reciprocal to a particle state so it is possible to think of a photon as a reciprocal particle as well as a photon boson. We can "reach" these particles (as reciprocal waves) because they can penetrate our space according to de Broglies Hypothesis... that wave is its undoing. The boson photon's wavelength is also it's de Broglie wavelength, the only one we know of that is an electromagnetic wave and a de Broglie wave at the same time. The fermion particle's wavelength is the reciprocal wavelength (wavenumber) of an equivalent "trapped" photon. The wavelength of a quantum depends inversely on the particle's mass and velocity. For a given velocity the mass affects this particles influence in our Universe... Do you agree?
Cheers
Confused2
11th June 2007 - 03:12 PM
Hi Good Elf,
I'm keen to have a bubble day because I think it illuminates the problem rather well - in a way that my willful lack of clarity did not. The bubble as waves (or whatever) looks to me like a reasonable way of describing the probability of a photon interaction/transaction occurring.
We have the options
The bubble is a physical wave that is scooped up by the destination .. clearly the destination is not at the centre of the bubble so it would be hard for it to scoop it up with any precision.. time and geometry are against this option
The bubble is a physical wave that is cancelled by the source when a transaction is made .. the source is well placed to cancel the bubble but needs some dubious fiddling with time for this to work.
Other options
There is no bubble.
Best wishes - C2. (sorry about the short reply - must work now)
Good Elf
11th June 2007 - 03:28 PM
Hi Confused2,
The "bubble" is not an analogy for the quantum wave. It is clearly a particle. It really does not have wave properties other than it represents some kind of "stationary state". I will certainly agree that there is no "bubble"...
Cheers
Laserlight
11th June 2007 - 03:29 PM
Hi GE and All,
QUOTE
Until they are absorbed the energy of those photons also does not exist, unless there is a particle interaction they are unable to be observed or even measured...
They exist, they are just not "time relevant" until detected (absorbed).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Until they are absorbed the energy of those photons also does not exist, unless there is a particle interaction they are unable to be observed or even measured... |
They exist, they are just not "time relevant" until detected (absorbed).
The boson photon's wavelength is also it's de Broglie wavelength, the only one we know of that is an electromagnetic wave and a de Broglie wave at the same time. The fermion particle's wavelength is the reciprocal wavelength (wavenumber) of an equivalent "trapped" photon. The wavelength of a quantum depends inversely on the particle's mass and velocity. For a given velocity the mass affects this particles influence in our Universe...
Isn't this inferring that the EM field package "size" of a discrete photon
corresponds to the de Broglie wavelength? Does't the insist on boundary conditions
for the EM fields?
A quick question. When an electron with a fixed velocity in vacuum strikes a
phosphorous atom (or molecule), how many photon's are emitted as the electron
is absorbed?
LL
Good Elf
11th June 2007 - 04:05 PM
Hi Laserlight et al,
QUOTE (Laserlight +)
They exist, they are just not "time relevant" until detected (absorbed).
They certainly exist "somewhere" but if they are currently making on contribution to our Universe then they are invisible. They could be coming from the past or the future but we know nothing of their origin. I think that our preferred position of seeing events with the arrow of time pointing positive leads to events such as the existence of positrons being interpreted as a separate particle to electrons rather than the positron being an electron traveling back in time. In the same way we probably see photons in the same context as traveling from the past to the future even though we do not see them "traveling". Just making a point about the lack of locality for individual photons and their position until detected.
Think about it... Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory has an inbuilt answer for antimatter doesn't it? Antimatter is just matter traveling back in time and the asymmetry in time is very small and almost everything seems to be heading into the future but interpreted as an asymmetry in space it seems there should be 50/50 matter and antimatter. If Wheeler Feynman is right then the answer is antimatter is just mirror matter traveling back in time. The state of this asymmetry is only temporary, isn't it, taken one transaction at a time?
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
A quick question. When an electron with a fixed velocity in vacuum strikes a phosphorous atom (or molecule), how many photon's are emitted as the electron is absorbed?
Hmm... A zinc sulphide molecule with a Copper activator is what is usually on a conventional Phosphor Screen. The electron is not absorbed (at least not permanently), it is just scattered by the material. The electrons go on to complete the current loop. Depends on the energy of the electron and how inelastic the process is. More energy... more photons of a fixed wavelength. That is a pretty chaotic process. I suspect it has been analyzed to some extent but I m not sure who...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhosphorThis has nothing much to do with the DSE (I hope)?
Cheers
TRoc
11th June 2007 - 04:19 PM
Hi all,
I glad to see everybody posting "good stuff". Also, before I forget again, (C2 reminded me) "Welcome back WN?" I was literally just thinking of you (if you were still around) the day before you posted.
I don't have time to contribute much; I want to address a couple of question/statements, and link a few more references.
JR-
QUOTE
There is no frequency for magenta!
You are the first to acknowledge this right off, and I can see that you have a similar "varied" background as myself. Because of this format, I guess that you'll just have to trust me, when I say "I already have" read and studied all about Sound and Light, in regards to human perception.
Again, this is NOT what I am talking about (or wish to on this thread).
Sub-Atomic Physics. Possibly without QM.
So, I think that we will agree that there is NO transition that corresponds to "magenta". It very likely is only something that we can observe. If you say that it happens in the eye, that is one thing. IF this "mixing" is happening at the surface of an object, then we may have something else.
I will not "disallow" an observation, simply because it came through a human eye. What would be left of Science if we did that? How far would we be without all of the individual theories, that we now use daily (and take for granted), if everyone who studied the "rainbow" (Franhoffer) spectrum immediately stopped because it was just "human perception"? The answer is shocking: we would have NOTHING that we have today. The same thing can be said of the study of music: we would NOT be where we are today without it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is no frequency for magenta! |
You are the first to acknowledge this right off, and I can see that you have a similar "varied" background as myself. Because of this format, I guess that you'll just have to trust me, when I say "I already have" read and studied all about Sound and Light, in regards to human perception.
Again, this is NOT what I am talking about (or wish to on this thread).
Sub-Atomic Physics. Possibly without QM.
So, I think that we will agree that there is NO transition that corresponds to "magenta". It very likely is only something that we can observe. If you say that it happens in the eye, that is one thing. IF this "mixing" is happening at the surface of an object, then we may have something else.
I will not "disallow" an observation, simply because it came through a human eye. What would be left of Science if we did that? How far would we be without all of the individual theories, that we now use daily (and take for granted), if everyone who studied the "rainbow" (Franhoffer) spectrum immediately stopped because it was just "human perception"? The answer is shocking: we would have NOTHING that we have today. The same thing can be said of the study of music: we would NOT be where we are today without it.
Since our senses are easily fooled and 'generate' information to fill gaps a lot of things we believe we can 'see' or 'hear' are not really there at all...
No disagreement there. In fact. I'll remind everyone again, that BLACK and WHITE FRINGES are NOT there! There are no black or white atomic transitions either! The fringe pattern IS HUMAN PERCEPTION. So, if you disallow that, we have NO DSE.
More reading on "black light sandwhich":
"Black polarization sandwiches are square roots of zero"Black, White, and Color and the relations with phase singularity/optical vortex/intensity zeros/
"Exploring the colours of dark light""Coloured phase singularities""Much ado about nothing: optical dislocation lines (phase singularities. zeros, vortices...) ""Black-and-white fringes and the colors of caustics "WN?-
QUOTE
TRoc, can "Z/R^245 = Z*R^-245" be viewed as time dependant (as in direction of the arrow), either in the relation of Z to R or in the + or - of the step? 1/2 advanced and 1/2 retarded? Just a thought...
I'm not sure if I totally understand your question. Interpreting the "Resonance matrix" is ongoing; I tend to look at it in a more "dimensionless" way (scalar). It is not ONLY frequency (as you stated, but I though you knew?), it is wavelength too. That is where the symmetry comes from, with the constant product of all "pairs" being c . C2 also asked about "units of time". It wouldn't matter what unit you plug in, because it is a scaling factor.
As far as an expanding sphere, if you start from the center of the matrix (not the numerical beginning), you have to move EQUALLY to get your value pairs (f & w ), so THAT can be an analogy of orthogonal radius expansion, so that, while the energy increases with frequency, so does the "distance" between f and w. This can mean that the expanding sphere is "borrowing" (or storing) energy, and then transferring it to the resonant point of collapse. Since very high energies would then infer very large radius, then the interaction zone between sender and receiver is also quite large, meaning that any "transaction wave" (reverse) from the receiver, does NOT have to go far, and has this large "potential field" as a "waveguide" of sorts, telling it "where to go" by following this potential field path that leads back to the sender.
Just think of "energy density" behaving like "mass density": the black hole already exists, and has a fixed event horizon. Our atom also has a fixed energy level, BEFORE it is put into an excited state. This energy MUST come from outside (the zero point energy of free space) the atom; and this is what I mean by "borrowing" energy from "space". The sphere that it borrows from will encompass the receiver; the "energetic event horizon". As the energy "collapses" from space to sender, it creates a filament waveguide (pilot wave) between resonant points.
regards,
T.Roc
Laserlight
11th June 2007 - 04:49 PM
Hi GE,
QUOTE
Antimatter is just matter traveling back in time and the asymmetry in time is very small and almost everything seems to be heading into the future but interpreted as an asymmetry in space it seems there should be 50/50 matter and antimatter. If Wheeler Feynman is right then the answer is antimatter is just mirror matter traveling back in time. The state of this asymmetry is only temporary, isn't it, taken one transaction at a time?
How do you arrive at this conclusion. That would infer that antimatter travels
faster than the speed of light, which would mean that antimatter has the qualities of relativistic mass but is not a physical form of invariant mass. By inference
that says that antimatter is pure energy moving faster than the speed of light...
mc^2.
From our frame of reference, energy travels at the speed of light, so there
is some inconsistency in the logic.
----
Regarding the dynamics of an electron yielding a photon(s) when colliding with
a phosphor... In order for a photon to be emitted the electron must be disturbing
the steady state of the atom, by either ejecting another electron from its orbit
and taking its place and falling into the orbital of the atom which emits a single
photon, or it is disturbing multiple atoms and transferring its energy component
to several atoms yielding multiple photons.
I am trying to associate the energy in an electron to the energy in a photon,
and I realize that momentum plays a part in the reaction.
We don't need to pursue this...
LL
Laserlight
11th June 2007 - 05:52 PM
Hi TRoc, et al,
QUOTE
As far as an expanding sphere, if you start from the center of the matrix (not the numerical beginning), you have to move EQUALLY to get your value pairs (f & w ), so THAT can be an analogy of orthogonal radius expansion, so that, while the energy increases with frequency, so does the "distance" between f and w. This can mean that the expanding sphere is "borrowing" (or storing) energy, and then transferring it to the resonant point of collapse. Since very high energies would then infer very large radius, then the interaction zone between sender and receiver is also quite large, meaning that any "transaction wave" (reverse) from the receiver, does NOT have to go far, and has this large "potential field" as a "waveguide" of sorts, telling it "where to go" by following this potential field path that leads back to the sender.
If the energy is distributed over an increasing surface area of a sphere, the energy
density should be decreasing at any measured area. Is it storing energy, or
distributing energy over a larger area? The net energy would be the same, as in
a capacitor. A fixed amount of energy is the same whether it is stored on 1 cm
or 1 meter of surface area...it is merely an energy density issue according to
area or volume.
How do you explain a reverse transaction wave in the case of energy that was
emitted from a source billions of light years ago, before we (the receiver/detector)
were even in existence? No reverse transaction took place back to the source
because we didn't exist in space or time at that relative time of emission.
However, if we consider the localized proximity field effects of a local oscillating
dipole, that is oscillating at some minimum "ground" energy level, and which is
responsive to higher energy induced fields of the proper frequency that has
an elevated DC voltage component, then we can rationalize two merging energy
fields that come into AC phase alignment and couple the higher energy DC
operating level to the lower energy "ground" level.
I think we must consider the DC operating level component that exists between
the two separate energy systems of the wave and the oscillator.
AC signals operate at some average DC component value above ground, and
conceptually a diplole could act as kind of rectifier to decompose the AC
component back to its DC value to provide the work function.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As far as an expanding sphere, if you start from the center of the matrix (not the numerical beginning), you have to move EQUALLY to get your value pairs (f & w ), so THAT can be an analogy of orthogonal radius expansion, so that, while the energy increases with frequency, so does the "distance" between f and w. This can mean that the expanding sphere is "borrowing" (or storing) energy, and then transferring it to the resonant point of collapse. Since very high energies would then infer very large radius, then the interaction zone between sender and receiver is also quite large, meaning that any "transaction wave" (reverse) from the receiver, does NOT have to go far, and has this large "potential field" as a "waveguide" of sorts, telling it "where to go" by following this potential field path that leads back to the sender. |
If the energy is distributed over an increasing surface area of a sphere, the energy
density should be decreasing at any measured area. Is it storing energy, or
distributing energy over a larger area? The net energy would be the same, as in
a capacitor. A fixed amount of energy is the same whether it is stored on 1 cm
or 1 meter of surface area...it is merely an energy density issue according to
area or volume.
How do you explain a reverse transaction wave in the case of energy that was
emitted from a source billions of light years ago, before we (the receiver/detector)
were even in existence? No reverse transaction took place back to the source
because we didn't exist in space or time at that relative time of emission.
However, if we consider the localized proximity field effects of a local oscillating
dipole, that is oscillating at some minimum "ground" energy level, and which is
responsive to higher energy induced fields of the proper frequency that has
an elevated DC voltage component, then we can rationalize two merging energy
fields that come into AC phase alignment and couple the higher energy DC
operating level to the lower energy "ground" level.
I think we must consider the DC operating level component that exists between
the two separate energy systems of the wave and the oscillator.
AC signals operate at some average DC component value above ground, and
conceptually a diplole could act as kind of rectifier to decompose the AC
component back to its DC value to provide the work function.
Just think of "energy density" behaving like "mass density": the black hole already exists, and has a fixed event horizon. Our atom also has a fixed energy level, BEFORE it is put into an excited state. This energy MUST come from outside (the zero point energy of free space) the atom; and this is what I mean by "borrowing" energy from "space".
The sphere that it borrows from will encompass the receiver; the "energetic event horizon". As the energy "collapses" from space to sender, it creates a filament waveguide (pilot wave) between resonant points.
This infers that the energy of the "sphere" (waveform) must have finite size
according to wavelength and frequency. The energy that is contained within a
fixed geometric "volume" of the sphere provides the context of "fixed" energy
density in time and space.
The outer "envelope" of the sphere would represent the phase angle interface
that is presented to "space", while the centerline direction of propagation of
the "sphere" would represent the DC component of the waveform.
Just some conceptual thoughts to provide theoretical perspective...
Comments?
LL
janrinze
11th June 2007 - 08:37 PM
Hi TRoc,
This is going to be a large post, I hope you don't mind.
QUOTE (TRoc+Jun 11 2007, 04:19 PM)
JR-
You are the first to acknowledge this right off, and I can see that you have a similar "varied" background as myself.
I am the first? That is interesting..
About varied background, I guess that is true. it ranges from electronics, mathematics information technology,biology, philosophy up to physics. I am still studying..
Guess there is still a lot to be learned :-)
QUOTE (TRoc+Jun 11 2007, 04:19 PM)
Sub-Atomic Physics. Possibly without QM.
Not sure what you mean by this but if it can help-out with the DS experiment that is mighty welcome.
QUOTE (TRoc+Jun 11 2007, 04:19 PM)
So, I think that we will agree that there is NO transition that corresponds to "magenta". It very likely is only something that we can observe.
It is something we can measure with optical frequency analyzers..
This is the way color is usually measured. The 'pantone' and other standards are nice examples. In the paint industry this is one of the basic sciences.. Micro particles or even nano particles can be used to generate all sorts if 'special' colors.
QUOTE (TRoc+Jun 11 2007, 04:19 PM)
If you say that it happens in the eye, that is one thing. IF this "mixing" is happening at the surface of an object, then we may have something else.
Not really. Any magenta colored surface is based on reflection of red and blue and absorption of green.. If our eye would have more different light sensitive nerves (like
shrimp) we could be able to see the difference in UV at the sky, see polarization and even distinguish between two different types of 'green' vegetation..
QUOTE (TRoc+Jun 11 2007, 04:19 PM)
I will not "disallow" an observation, simply because it came through a human eye. What would be left of Science if we did that? How far would we be without all of the individual theories, that we now use daily (and take for granted), if everyone who studied the "rainbow" (Franhoffer) spectrum immediately stopped because it was just "human perception"? The answer is shocking: we would have NOTHING that we have today. The same thing can be said of the study of music: we would NOT be where we are today without it.
This is a tricky one.. Our senses have very peculiar behavior. First they easily saturate (which will end up in lack of perception) and secondly they do not 'measure' anything linear or well defined. There are many optical illusions available that can show all the tricks that our brain seems to be doing with what we perceive.
Audio illusions and optical illusions are abundance within visual/audio arts.
So should we doubt our senses? we just need a 'second opinion' and we can do that by using tools for measurement. So in order to prove something we use not our senses but we use cleverly designed apparatus to do the measurement for us in an objective way. The use of our senses has always been a step towards understanding our world. There is no denying that..
QUOTE (TRoc+Jun 11 2007, 04:19 PM)
No disagreement there. In fact. I'll remind everyone again, that BLACK and WHITE FRINGES are NOT there! There are no black or white atomic transitions either! The fringe pattern IS HUMAN PERCEPTION. So, if you disallow that, we have NO DSE.
I am not sure what you mean by black and white fringes.. most DS experiments are done with monochromatic coherent light (like laser light). Any experiment done with 'white' light needs to be calibrated for the whole spectrum and if any 'coherent' white light could exist this must be attributed to each part of its composing wavelengths.
What we perceive as white might easily be composed of only 3 wavelengths!
So doing the DS experiment with a red,green and blue laser simultaneously would yield very colorful results to the human eye. If each part would be measured by a spectroscope the three separate wavelengths would still show..
QUOTE (TRoc+Jun 11 2007, 04:19 PM)
More reading on "black light sandwhich":
"Black polarization sandwiches are square roots of zero"Black, White, and Color and the relations with phase singularity/optical vortex/intensity zeros/
"Exploring the colours of dark light""Coloured phase singularities""Much ado about nothing: optical dislocation lines (phase singularities. zeros, vortices...) ""Black-and-white fringes and the colors of caustics "I have scanned through some of these articles and I cannot really 'see' your point..
If we get back on topic it would be nice to notice that your opinion of energy at the 'black' portions of the interference pattern differs much from mine.
If we could simplify the problem when looking at standing waves, would you suggest that at the 'knots' there is energy in the standing wave? If so have you tried to calculated how much? as a hint, also try to integrate over one full wave and see if this does not exceed the initial energy of the two separate waves.
If we want to get deeper into the enigma of the DS experiment we should concentrated on the electron version. Apparently our understanding of 'light' is still insufficient to understand how it works. If we can understand it for electrons (or other particles) we might extend this towards photons or EM waves.
I hope I have been clear in my arguments, we might even start a new topic regarding your color related topics.
Jan Rinze.
P.S. the spelling-checker replaces all 'colour' with 'color'
janrinze
11th June 2007 - 08:45 PM
Hi LL,
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 11 2007, 05:52 PM)
AC signals operate at some average DC component value above ground, and
conceptually a diplole could act as kind of rectifier to decompose the AC
component back to its DC value to provide the work function.
I like this idea.. This is somewhat like a signal with a 'key' and 'payload'
If the key fits the payload can be delivered.
It almost fits my suggestion of particles riding a wave.. It is a lot more subtle..
Actually if the wave would be consisting of energy really 'waving' between negative and positive the wave itself would have no total energy but the local payload would..
Hmm.. got to think about this..
Are there others who can 'follow' what this is about?
Jan Rinze.
Good Elf
11th June 2007 - 11:08 PM
Hi laserlight,
QUOTE (laserlight+)
How do you arrive at this conclusion. That would infer that antimatter travels faster than the speed of light, which would mean that antimatter has the qualities of relativistic mass but is not a physical form of invariant mass. By inference that says that antimatter is pure energy moving faster than the speed of light...
mc^2.
From our frame of reference, energy travels at the speed of light, so there is some inconsistency in the logic.
If there is some "inconsistency" then I am in good company... with Richard Feynman for instance.
QUOTE (Wikipedia: Antiparticle+)
The Feynman-Stueckelberg interpretationBy considering the propagation of the negative energy modes of the electron field backward in time, Richard Feynman reached a pictorial understanding of the fact that the particle and antiparticle have equal mass m and spin J but opposite charges q. This allowed him to rewrite perturbation theory precisely in the form of diagrams, called Feynman diagrams, of particles propagating back and forth in time. This technique now is the most widespread method of computing amplitudes in quantum field theory.
This picture was independently developed by Ernst Stueckelberg, and has been called the Feynman-Stueckelberg interpretation of antiparticles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AntiparticleAs you can gather Feynman has always had a soft spot for this concept but probably was not able to prove it conclusively, I think Wheeler still has a zest for it too. Then again IMHO Feynman would have more to say today with the hindsight of modern experimental physics. I am not making a comment about Perturbation Field Theory, it is 'fine" as far as it goes, but I am commenting on time symmetry "in a mirror particle"... Matter and antimatter are created by a time symmetric mirror operation. This means that you have a choice to make about the nature of time and particles created in this process. It is a "historical" choice that time always progresses into the future and that the observation of time running in reverse is to be "abhorred". The fact is that the Cramer Transactional Interpretation allows for this anomaly and views individual particles traveling back in time as being their mirror particle reverse in all aspects of the CPT-Lorentz Symmetry including time. The single act of reversing time preserves the other aspects of the symmetry, our time traveling particle can meet itself in the past and potentially annihilate. There is no way to tell the difference between these mirror reflected reactions and time reversal. The only argument that has been placed regards the concept is a class of radioactive disintegrations which are not "exactly" time symmetric... The weak force.
You could consider our Universe without the weak force and all the biological processes will still work and physics of Quantum Electrodynamics will not fall apart, especially if you consider the Universe and time made up of individual "transactions" instead of some inherent "global" process. .It remains to be seen to resolve the enigma about the weak force... I have my ideas but they are not for this discussion. As to the relevance in this discussion on the DSE is in the interpretation of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser and the way I have chosen "time" to enter into this phenomenon of the DSE. The ability to reverse (apparently) events that had occurred in out past is an interesting phenomenon which must find a place in Physics as more than just another quantum "postulate" based enigma. As you know I do not accept that we must "shut up and calculate". As with all the other postulates and enigmas that the particle paradigm introduces this is part of a single solution without those postulates that have traditionally evaded Occam's Razor.
Clearly "charge" is topological in this interpretation and not simply a particle phenomenon but related to some stressor in the continuum of the light cone wall. it is a continuum since it has been found impossible to quantize the manifold (Quantum Gravity), it has "inbuilt" paradox. The continued attempt to continue to do so is also a "historical" anomaly regarding a desire to see everything as particles and it has resulted in a lack of "unification". I have proposed the simple alternative... the manifold is not quantized but a continuum... The rest of my proposals flow from this concept directly and they do not involve "quantum postulates".
Cheers
Why Not?
11th June 2007 - 11:21 PM
Hey LL, JR, TRoc and all,
LL,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
According to Einstein, in order to go backwards or reverse time it is necessary to exceed the speed of light. Since that is a physical impossibility due to the concept of relativity, it is fairly easy to reject time travel or time reversal.
Your statements are not correct. Not being able to accelerate an object past the speed of light does not preclude an object from traveling faster than the speed of light as long as it stays on the space-like side of the light-like world line. . But Instead of writing out a long reply, I humbly ask that you look at the "World lines in special relativity" subsection of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line. And then look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation and then finally, look at the link I posted for JR yesterday...
Generalized absorber theory and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. All of them explain the point I am trying to make far better than I can.
JR,
QUOTE (janrinze+)
Actually if the wave would be consisting of energy really 'waving' between negative and positive the wave itself would have no total energy but the local payload would..
If you keep in mind that negative energy implies time reversal (advanced wave), then your statement sounds similar to,
QUOTE (Generalized absorber theory and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox+)
...a time-symmetric boundary condition which asserts that a proper electromagnetic wave is composed of a half-amplitude retarded wave and a half-amplitude advanced wave, and that such waves are characteristic of both emission and absorption processes… The energy loss during emission and gain during absorption occur because the un-canceled full-amplitude wave carries energy from the emitter to the absorber. From one point of view, the emission-absorption process can be thought of as a standing wave in space-time, with the boundaries of the wave being the "terminating" emitter and absorber which bounce the wave back (as advanced radiation) and forward (as retarded radiation) between them.
Just a thought...
TRoc, Thanks! I understand that my question did not make much sense. I "know" what I am trying to ask you but cannot seem to find the right words to convey the question. I’m sure it will come to me in time.
"THEY"
12th June 2007 - 03:52 AM
I will never say something does not exist because I can't see it, nor will I say something DOES exist because I can see it...
So with that said, if I remember right, photosynthesis occurs only in green and magenta wavelengths. It could be violet, but I seem to remember it was magenta. We know earth currently uses the green photosynthesis method, but it is debated whether in the past photosynthesis was green or purple.... It may be between frequency spectrums, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, does it? It just isn't a primary frequency.... Maybe photosynthesis prefers the inbetween...
'nuf said.
Laserlight
12th June 2007 - 04:11 AM
Hi
Why Not,
GE, and All,
QUOTE
Your statements are not correct. Not being able to accelerate an object past the speed of light does not preclude an object from traveling faster than the speed of light as long as it stays on the space-like side of the light-like world line.
I reviewed the links you posted....I still don't see anything that presumes that
particles or energy can travel faster than the speed of light. Are you ignoring the
"Grandfather Paradox"? In that scenario, if you could travel back in time and
inadvertantly kill your grandfather you would never be born so that "timeline"
would never occur because you would never exist to carry out the deed. You
cannot influence the past once it has occurred, you can only observe it.
"Time" as we know it, is a fixed reference caused by a change of energy state!
According to the concept of World Lines, looking at the Time vs. distance (x)
chart, the fastest velocity that could be attained would be a line overlaying the x
axis. If the
time vector overlays the
x axis, then time, being
relative , stops at the instant of emission from the point of view of the photon.
I conceptualize this as being the speed of light/information tranfer in a vacuum.
Photons have a time relevance only to the instant of emission and they
do not age or lose intrinsic energy as they propagate. Photons represent an event
that occurred in the past, at a fixed point in space and time, which is only 2
dimensions. (To have 4 dimensions it is necessary to have 2 other "fixed" spatial
reference points).
GE....I will review the DCQE again and comment later after I've had time to contemplate
what it is saying.
LL
Laserlight
12th June 2007 - 05:08 AM
Mate
12th June 2007 - 12:16 PM
I read somewhere that in the DSE for electrons when the certain distance between a slits is exceeded that experiment does not yield usual results, that is, there is no interference on a recording screen.
Could that be changed if a barrier is moved further away from the electronic gun ? If not, does that mean that electron has the finite maximum volume no matter how long is propagating uncollapsed-undetected-unwhatever?
Further more, the hypothesis is that an electron is passing through a both slits to interfere with itself, and to hit a screen in an interference pattern. If an electron in DSE is really split up while passing through both slits then we could, I assume, do this:
We put another "barrier" which would be perpendicular to the classic one, and which is placed from just between the slits toward the electronic gun. The distance between slits themselves is inside the maximum distance between slits allowed for the DSE to work , and consequently the width of the new barrier is also smaller than that mentioned maximum distance between the slits.
The new barrier is that wide/thin , but it is , for example , 5 cm long.
If an electron is really splitting while passing the both slits in the classic DSE for electrons then, I assume, the length of the new barrier ought to not prevent an electron to split at the new thin barrier, then propagate split up for 5 cm, then pass the both slits " as usual", and then interfere with itself to produce an interference pattern of hits on the recoding screen.
Yes?
Anton
Edit...is propagating "uncollapsed" instead "collapsed".
NEVERDRY
12th June 2007 - 12:30 PM
what would happen, then? If we were to set up the detector but provide our selves with NO means of observing the data, would the interference pattern remain???
Mate
12th June 2007 - 12:45 PM
QUOTE (NEVERDRY+Jun 12 2007, 12:30 PM)
If we were to set up the detector but provide our selves with NO means of observing the data, would the interference pattern remain???
No, of course.
Anton
NEVERDRY
12th June 2007 - 01:03 PM
An answer without explanation is a sandwich with out bread...
check topic: Predicting the future.
Mate
12th June 2007 - 01:17 PM
QUOTE (NEVERDRY+Jun 12 2007, 01:03 PM)
An answer without explanation is a sandwich with out bread...
check topic: Predicting the future.
Well, a sandwich without a bread is a steak.
If that is a future I am all for it.
Anton
TRoc
12th June 2007 - 03:35 PM
Hi all,
WN?- I forgot to say, along with the "scalar" interpretation, there is NOTHING that would disagree with the "reverse time", or "negative frequency", or "reciprocal space" interpretations.
GE and LL, we might be closing in on some agreement. "Reciprocal" space could have a "DC" type of energy. It would not be the "same" as the energy that we associate with the final absorption.
Because of duality, I don't look at this space as a real sphere, but of the 2 halves of this virtual sphere, separated like yin/yang, with the Parker wave arms (1 ea. side) rotating to give us our expanding wave-front.
So, the extra "wavelets that "form" to fill this space are not "full phases". They have no real energy, but can interact via frequency harmonics, enabling them all to collapse at any point.
Geometric phase
remembers what phase interactions happen along the way to collapse. The phase singularities "assemble" to form unique relations between the participating phases. There is a bridge between "resonance" due to cycle rates, and resonance due to geometry: it is the "beats" of the wave-packet, having limited orthogonal possible "line ups" that will excite the absorber.
I would say that the "real energy" remains constant, but the "potential energy" grows with the sphere.
JR-
QUOTE
.. there is no frequency for magenta ..
then you said:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| .. there is no frequency for magenta .. |
then you said:
It is something we can measure with optical frequency analyzers..
This is the way color is usually measured
It seems that you changed your position on this. Can you provide a frequency for this violet (7.25e14 Hz) + red (4.09e14 Hz) combination, or not? Any way, from any source.
QUOTE
I am not sure what you mean by black and white fringes
Of course, but the PHENOMENON started with B & W, and MUST include an explanation for that. If you read a little more in those M. Berry papers that I linked, you will see that the B & W is actually colors, but at levels we can't perceive. That is the main reason why I don't buy your argument for tossing this out due to "perception". You will have to toss out the whole package, if you do that.
The DSE includes human perception as part of the study.
regards,
T.Roc
Laserlight
12th June 2007 - 05:15 PM
Hi
TRoc, JanRinze, GE, C2, Montec, WN, and All,
QUOTE
Because of duality, I don't look at this space as a real sphere, but of the 2 halves of this virtual sphere, separated like yin/yang, with the Parker wave arms (1 ea. side) rotating to give us our expanding wave-front.
So, the extra "wavelets that "form" to fill this space are not "full phases". They have no real energy, but can interact via frequency harmonics, enabling them all to collapse at any point.
I would agree that the sphere is expanding/evolving "temporally", but disagree
with the idea that it is increasing in geometric volume. We should remember that a
sine wave is a "time displacement" of a fixed size circle as it rotates along
a linear path. The circumference and volume of the circle doesn't change. All that
changes is it's time displacement as it rotates and is stretched and is "unfolded"
and refolded, according to its phase angle along a linear timeline.
If this idea is correct, and I believe it is, then a sphere with a fixed volume
that represents energy density is also evolving along a linear path, the average
of which is some constant DC component that is "floating" above "earth" ground.
In this context, photons travelling in the vacuum of space do so at some DC
threshold potential "floating ground" level according to the AC oscillations of the
wave. In other words, the centerpoint of the circle/sphere transcribes a straight
line as the wave propagates which represents the DC voltage level "world line".
That DC threshold voltage is the power component of the propagating wave, and
its amplitude above earth ground is determined by the extremes of the
alternating E and H fields of the fixed size cycling wave over a time base.
I have been perplexed by why everyone overlooks the magnetic component of the
wave and only pays attention to the electric field. I am starting to understand that
the magnetic field is probably the component that is responsible for performing
the coupling function of the wave energy to the dipole of the atom.
If we consider how a transformer works, where it is the magnetic field flux that
couples energy from one set of windings to another separate set of windings by
the process of induction, then if we scale this concept to the quantum level it
seems that a similar process may also function in this manner. So the magnetic
field does the energy coupling via a type of "transformer" action.
If this idea is correct, it simplifies the energy transfer/coupling process between the
EM fields of the photon and the oscillating EM fields of the atom that are
operating at "ground" potential relative to the floating DC component of the wave.
Conceptually, the dipole acts as a diode "filter" that rectifies the incoming induced
AC voltage component, and because it has both inductive and capacitive elements it acts
like a DC filter network. The rectified signal is the DC energy component of the
wave that is stored in the inherent capacitance of the atom by enlarging the energy
charge "gap" between an electron and the proton. As the atom absorbes the
increasing DC field "charge" the electron moves away and is displaced from the
proton and the work function occurs. The dipole "diode" cycles between the
floating DC level of the wave and "earth" ground that is the steady state "ground"
level of the atom. This results in rising and falling "pulses" as the cycling AC fields
are rectified between a fixed DC voltage level and steady state ground.
Conceptually, this theory works! IMHO.
Comments? Discussion? Contrary opinions?
LL
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.
). This is what "common sense" would lead to, and it is wrong. This is why the "quantum" world began.
