QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I'm having a hard time rationalizing a photon sequentially exploring all paths available to it in open space as this contradicts photon dispersion over
extreme distances and seems to violate the inverse square law.
extreme distances and seems to violate the inverse square law.
Here is the radiation pattern from a dipole antenna... the simplest possible radiator...
Lets be very clear ... photons do not "disperse" they never disperse or get old or age or lose any energy. They are emitted with all their energy and they are always absorbed with all their energy ... excepting for relativistic Doppler shifting which is just the base energy reference being shifted due to relative velocity. They simply "spread" not "disperse", this is a geometric thing to do with the space they are moving in and its relationship to our three dimensional space, and has nothing to do with the energy individual photons carry being changed in any way. With bosons since they all exist in the same quantum state they all have the same space to occupy. See one boson on a particular wavefront and you have seen them all. This wave pattern is what we associate with the unseen boson. If you interact through particle events with the emitted photons this is what you see, but do not think this is what is still happening to the undetected bosons... the ones that are still carrying the qubits... they travel in "quantum space".
Lets be very clear ... photons do not "disperse" they never disperse or get old or age or lose any energy. They are emitted with all their energy and they are always absorbed with all their energy ... excepting for relativistic Doppler shifting which is just the base energy reference being shifted due to relative velocity. They simply "spread" not "disperse", this is a geometric thing to do with the space they are moving in and its relationship to our three dimensional space, and has nothing to do with the energy individual photons carry being changed in any way. With bosons since they all exist in the same quantum state they all have the same space to occupy. See one boson on a particular wavefront and you have seen them all. This wave pattern is what we associate with the unseen boson. If you interact through particle events with the emitted photons this is what you see, but do not think this is what is still happening to the undetected bosons... the ones that are still carrying the qubits... they travel in "quantum space".
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
A potential problem with this theoretical approach is that if the photon were
communicating (traveling) thru another dimension phasing in and out, it would require 2 extra dimensions, 1 for the E field and 1 for the M field. Why does it only physically interact with matter in our 4-D universe where its effects can be measured as it destructively interacts with matter and imparts its EM field energy? Are you suggesting that matter is also phasing in and out of our space-time?
Photons do not "phase in and out"... They are totally undetected when they travel. You can interrupt their travel but there are rules to enable you to do this... resonance rules.
Travel in higher dimensions require a lot more than two dimensions... the count is six dimensions. Just because we represent EM waves on two dimensional paper as a "wiggly line" completely ignores that this "propagation" is three dimensional. The "wiggly line" (sine wave) is the toddlers stick figure to the Mona Lisa. Remember all this requires not only three dimensions but Complex space involving the square root of minus one to describe... Euler's Relationships... x,y,z and ix, iy, iz for electromagnetism. If you want to deal with more dimensions what about jx, jy, jz and kx, ky, kz. You need a minimum of 10 dimensions and 11 if you want to move between those dimensions.
http://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/imawww/vqm/page...es/202_19a.html
Cheers
communicating (traveling) thru another dimension phasing in and out, it would require 2 extra dimensions, 1 for the E field and 1 for the M field. Why does it only physically interact with matter in our 4-D universe where its effects can be measured as it destructively interacts with matter and imparts its EM field energy? Are you suggesting that matter is also phasing in and out of our space-time?
Photons do not "phase in and out"... They are totally undetected when they travel. You can interrupt their travel but there are rules to enable you to do this... resonance rules.
Travel in higher dimensions require a lot more than two dimensions... the count is six dimensions. Just because we represent EM waves on two dimensional paper as a "wiggly line" completely ignores that this "propagation" is three dimensional. The "wiggly line" (sine wave) is the toddlers stick figure to the Mona Lisa. Remember all this requires not only three dimensions but Complex space involving the square root of minus one to describe... Euler's Relationships... x,y,z and ix, iy, iz for electromagnetism. If you want to deal with more dimensions what about jx, jy, jz and kx, ky, kz. You need a minimum of 10 dimensions and 11 if you want to move between those dimensions.
http://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/imawww/vqm/page...es/202_19a.html
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Nov 12 2006, 11:30 AM)
...The "wiggly line" (sine wave) is the toddlers stick figure to the Mona Lisa....
The favorite blue animation of yours and surrounding BS have nothing to do with photon explanation. By AWT the photon is the result of interference of light wave with the fundamental density fluctuations of Aether (compare the Java applet for live demonstration of such effect)
The average wavelength of vacuum fluctuation corresponds the Planck length (approximately 10-35 m). The interference pattern frequency corresponds the wavelength ratio, for example at the case of light of wavelength 10-9 meters (soft X-ray radiation) the corresponding photon size will be 10-9 x 10-9 / 10-35 = 10-17 meters (slightly above atom nuclei diameter range 10-18 m). By clicking to the illustrations you'll see the images at original resolution.
The favorite blue animation of yours and surrounding BS have nothing to do with photon explanation. By AWT the photon is the result of interference of light wave with the fundamental density fluctuations of Aether (compare the Java applet for live demonstration of such effect)
The average wavelength of vacuum fluctuation corresponds the Planck length (approximately 10-35 m). The interference pattern frequency corresponds the wavelength ratio, for example at the case of light of wavelength 10-9 meters (soft X-ray radiation) the corresponding photon size will be 10-9 x 10-9 / 10-35 = 10-17 meters (slightly above atom nuclei diameter range 10-18 m). By clicking to the illustrations you'll see the images at original resolution.
All (especially yquantum):-
By "waves of nothing" I think yquantum might have been trying to suggest that we are not really looking at waves made out of the interaction between charge and and magnetism. He is too polite to suggest that EM analysis is simply 'wrong' so he merely advises us to look at the wavefunction-psi as a better analysis. The DSE is the point where ALL analysis can be seen to fall apart .. not just Maxwell's equations. Old tools are like old friends .. nobody wants to abandon them .. but perhaps if we try to hand wave ourselves gently into the concept and maths of wavefunction-psi then maybe it will be worth the effort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction
Personally I feel it is premature to talk about extra dimensions before we've all had a look at the quantum world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence
I suspect decoherence might be the part of the reason why we can extract different answers from the same thing .. we just increase the probability of our desired result to the exclusion of all other results .. and we get our desired result.. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment (DCQE) looks like the perfect test of this suggestion. I'm not sure you can detect the impossible .. but I'm pretty sure you can drag the highly unlikely into the spotlight. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser )
holograms ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holograms ) give a fair demonstration of 'something' .. if we shift our analysis and start looking at them as a deliberate manipulation of probability .. the highly improbable might start to look more probable.
Is probability anything or nothing? If we can manipulate it and it can manipulate us .. I suggest we should at least have a look at it. By looking at it, I fear we may lose our photon altogether.
Best wishes,
-C2.
By "waves of nothing" I think yquantum might have been trying to suggest that we are not really looking at waves made out of the interaction between charge and and magnetism. He is too polite to suggest that EM analysis is simply 'wrong' so he merely advises us to look at the wavefunction-psi as a better analysis. The DSE is the point where ALL analysis can be seen to fall apart .. not just Maxwell's equations. Old tools are like old friends .. nobody wants to abandon them .. but perhaps if we try to hand wave ourselves gently into the concept and maths of wavefunction-psi then maybe it will be worth the effort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction
Personally I feel it is premature to talk about extra dimensions before we've all had a look at the quantum world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence
I suspect decoherence might be the part of the reason why we can extract different answers from the same thing .. we just increase the probability of our desired result to the exclusion of all other results .. and we get our desired result.. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment (DCQE) looks like the perfect test of this suggestion. I'm not sure you can detect the impossible .. but I'm pretty sure you can drag the highly unlikely into the spotlight. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser )
holograms ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holograms ) give a fair demonstration of 'something' .. if we shift our analysis and start looking at them as a deliberate manipulation of probability .. the highly improbable might start to look more probable.
Is probability anything or nothing? If we can manipulate it and it can manipulate us .. I suggest we should at least have a look at it. By looking at it, I fear we may lose our photon altogether.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2,
If Yquantum does want to discuss this he has his own voice and I am sure he would use it. Yes, he is too polite at times and has his personal view of things but without probing questions you can get nowhere.
Probability is no substitute for Physics. I will not persist with any discussion if people do not want it... that is the simple fact. I still have not seen your instrument for measuring "probability" yet... whereas I can measure electric and magnetic fields. Individual photons can be measured, probability does not apply to individual photons. You have shown no single experiment that supports unequivocally a defining experiment that supports your proposition for no additional dimensions. Zephir is likewise unable to supply anything of any substance to the discussion other than bitterness and a number of animations.
If people do not understand what it is I am really saying, there is no point on my part to continue... I am getting tired anyway.
Cheers
If Yquantum does want to discuss this he has his own voice and I am sure he would use it. Yes, he is too polite at times and has his personal view of things but without probing questions you can get nowhere.
Probability is no substitute for Physics. I will not persist with any discussion if people do not want it... that is the simple fact. I still have not seen your instrument for measuring "probability" yet... whereas I can measure electric and magnetic fields. Individual photons can be measured, probability does not apply to individual photons. You have shown no single experiment that supports unequivocally a defining experiment that supports your proposition for no additional dimensions. Zephir is likewise unable to supply anything of any substance to the discussion other than bitterness and a number of animations.
If people do not understand what it is I am really saying, there is no point on my part to continue... I am getting tired anyway.
Cheers
I think it best to divide the thread
I've copied my last post to here:-
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=141756
Any and all most welcome to comment.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I've copied my last post to here:-
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=141756
Any and all most welcome to comment.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hey Everyone,
TRoc,
OK. I’m curious…. First, I should say that I use the word “particle” out of convention and convenience. This is probably a mistake because of the classical picture of “billiard balls” that often come to mind. Instead, maybe the word “quantum” should be used, where a quantum is an object with a set of irreducible properties that define the object. As GE has shown with reference to de Broglie, locality/non-locality is a function of momentum and interaction. As such, spatial and temporal extent need not necessarily be included in this set of properties. We then have the wave/quantum duality. That said, maybe I should ask if you accept a quantum just not in billiard ball fashion? Thanks!
C2,
OK. I’m curious…. First, I should say that I use the word “particle” out of convention and convenience. This is probably a mistake because of the classical picture of “billiard balls” that often come to mind. Instead, maybe the word “quantum” should be used, where a quantum is an object with a set of irreducible properties that define the object. As GE has shown with reference to de Broglie, locality/non-locality is a function of momentum and interaction. As such, spatial and temporal extent need not necessarily be included in this set of properties. We then have the wave/quantum duality. That said, maybe I should ask if you accept a quantum just not in billiard ball fashion? Thanks!
C2, Is probability anything or nothing?
TRoc,
QUOTE
It requires a "re-model" of the "B list", or particle interpretations, of the key QM founding experiments. [black-body, photoelectric]
OK. I’m curious…. First, I should say that I use the word “particle” out of convention and convenience. This is probably a mistake because of the classical picture of “billiard balls” that often come to mind. Instead, maybe the word “quantum” should be used, where a quantum is an object with a set of irreducible properties that define the object. As GE has shown with reference to de Broglie, locality/non-locality is a function of momentum and interaction. As such, spatial and temporal extent need not necessarily be included in this set of properties. We then have the wave/quantum duality. That said, maybe I should ask if you accept a quantum just not in billiard ball fashion? Thanks!
C2,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It requires a "re-model" of the "B list", or particle interpretations, of the key QM founding experiments. [black-body, photoelectric] |
OK. I’m curious…. First, I should say that I use the word “particle” out of convention and convenience. This is probably a mistake because of the classical picture of “billiard balls” that often come to mind. Instead, maybe the word “quantum” should be used, where a quantum is an object with a set of irreducible properties that define the object. As GE has shown with reference to de Broglie, locality/non-locality is a function of momentum and interaction. As such, spatial and temporal extent need not necessarily be included in this set of properties. We then have the wave/quantum duality. That said, maybe I should ask if you accept a quantum just not in billiard ball fashion? Thanks!
C2, Is probability anything or nothing?
That is the million dollar question. Does the photon really visit all paths? Does it somehow “know” the allowable paths and randomly pick one? Does the number of open slits in the DSE change the geometry of spacetime making only certain paths available? Is the wavefunction a physical reality or a mathematical tool used to accurately describe the interference fringes? If there were easy answers, there would not be so much debate and there would be an “accepted” interpretation. I am beginning to think that Occam’s razor is pointing towards Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem.
You are searching for "the holy grail".... DYNAMICS.
You are trying to interpret the results of the experiments without having sufficient information.
The observations can be cause by other mechanisms than the one presently being accepted/used (waves). (more than one cause)
Many are trying to look into those possible mechanisms.
You are trying to interpret the results of the experiments without having sufficient information.
The observations can be cause by other mechanisms than the one presently being accepted/used (waves). (more than one cause)
Many are trying to look into those possible mechanisms.
Guest, Why Not?, Good Elf, yquantum, Troc, Laserlight et al,
In the light of Guest's post .. this looks interesting
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9806/9806047.pdf
(Being but one of several papers listed here which I haven't had time to look at)
Best wishes,
C2.
In the light of Guest's post .. this looks interesting
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9806/9806047.pdf
(Being but one of several papers listed here which I haven't had time to look at)
Best wishes,
C2.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Nov 12 2006, 04:26 PM)
Zephir is likewise unable to supply anything of any substance to the discussion other than bitterness and a number of animations. If people do not understand what it is I am really saying, there is no point on my part to continue...
I respect, you're kind and patient personality. But unfortunately your way of thinking has a lotta entropy inside. You cannot explain the photon formation by the blue animation, albeit it has a nearly 600 kB in size. If nothing else, use the smaller version, like those one.
I don't care, if you're saying, I'm spreading just a animations and ill will. I have problem with the permanent absence in logic in you explanations. These blue waves aren't photons, so it has no sense to show it here. If you don't know, what the photon is, it has no sense to explain it here. Don't rely on the foreign understanding of your misunderstandings: it's just you, who is expected to understand the subject at first, if you're trying to explain it by other people.
No doubt, you're fell unhappy with this and I've no reason to demotivate the people like you in learning of physis and make them unhappy. Furthermore, it takes me the time, which I can spend a much more effectively.
So you're just paying for the absence of logic in your explanation. The understanding is not the piling of equations or animations, but the ability to answer the questions. You're not answering, what the photon is, you're just trying to found the meaning of life here. This is not enough.
I respect, you're kind and patient personality. But unfortunately your way of thinking has a lotta entropy inside. You cannot explain the photon formation by the blue animation, albeit it has a nearly 600 kB in size. If nothing else, use the smaller version, like those one.
I don't care, if you're saying, I'm spreading just a animations and ill will. I have problem with the permanent absence in logic in you explanations. These blue waves aren't photons, so it has no sense to show it here. If you don't know, what the photon is, it has no sense to explain it here. Don't rely on the foreign understanding of your misunderstandings: it's just you, who is expected to understand the subject at first, if you're trying to explain it by other people.
No doubt, you're fell unhappy with this and I've no reason to demotivate the people like you in learning of physis and make them unhappy. Furthermore, it takes me the time, which I can spend a much more effectively.
So you're just paying for the absence of logic in your explanation. The understanding is not the piling of equations or animations, but the ability to answer the questions. You're not answering, what the photon is, you're just trying to found the meaning of life here. This is not enough.
Good Elf, excellent movies on field/spin interactions. I'd like to see the wave
function movies in a 3 dimensional context.
LL
function movies in a 3 dimensional context.
LL
Zephir, good post. Aether theory seems to have much in common with
QED & QM but is interpreted differently as to what the root cause of the
interactions are. There seem to be a conflict of whether it is pure interdimensional
interaction or pure Aether interaction...perhaps the answer is a composite of the
two but the binding link has yet to be connected. Finding and explaining the
inherent similarities between theories seems like the correct path to take, rather than
fixing a mindset on only one. There needs to be harmony so that the right concepts
of each theory complements the right concepts of the others. A complete
puzzle is made up of composite parts that must fit together properly in order
to observe the final picture.
LL
QED & QM but is interpreted differently as to what the root cause of the
interactions are. There seem to be a conflict of whether it is pure interdimensional
interaction or pure Aether interaction...perhaps the answer is a composite of the
two but the binding link has yet to be connected. Finding and explaining the
inherent similarities between theories seems like the correct path to take, rather than
fixing a mindset on only one. There needs to be harmony so that the right concepts
of each theory complements the right concepts of the others. A complete
puzzle is made up of composite parts that must fit together properly in order
to observe the final picture.
LL
All,
With regards to "dynamics" here's my "Holy Grail" ..... just thought I'd keep spamming my sh!t
Wave propagation transits from high to low dimensionality (low to high density respectively) via a pivotal stage of highest condensation called a singularity & cycles upspace back to its beginning only to restart the process again ad infinitum unless further dimensional collapse occurs.
Before singularity creation, all waves form event horizons marking the magnetic/electric boundary responsible for the 180 degree out of phase temporal duality effect we know as the electric & magnetic field. The magnetic field of an electron represents all propagation exterior to the EH...The electric...is all propagation in respect to its interior; it is this interior propagation that produces the charge field and the consequent temporal reversal effect 'magnetic field' as expressed around the hyperspacial wave envelope. In this way the event horizon is somewhat analogous to a semi-transparent mirror. The EH's outer edge is magnetic maxima, " "...inner edge, electric minima, whilst the singularity represents electric maxima (point charge/mass) and co-existing event reversed magnetic minima.
With photons these forces are contained within lower dimensional restraints, unable to be expressed in our time-space. However, hypertoroidal wave propagation allows for this duality to manifest as force. All electrons/protons within our universe may have anti-particle counterparts, inhabiting other extra-continuum wavefronts in which they are either embedded /semi-embedded or both!
Wavefronts are what we term 'Branes', co-existing between the primary wave event / event reversal and subsequent collapse 'instant' (bit of a concept)
allowing for an apparent acausal, (timeless) ever changing environment to evolve, depending on your dimensional elevation.
If you've a low energy wave it might take a lot more condensing to arrive at the event horizon stage than say that of a high energy wave...might it not?
I've got a fair intestinal sensation that it's the degree of transit in dimensional condensation to event horizon formation that determines a photons frequency.
Furthermore, I 'see' photons as embedded lower dimensional daughter waves riding around their parental 4-D wave envelope (electron); this transdimensional propagative wave has a component which arcs out of our brane into hyperspace, it is this very wave aspect on which the photon resides. Please realize when the brane propagation of our universe passes through this 4th dimesional arc, it creates the 'illlusion' of light speed/distance etc, merely the affect of 'continuous re-entry'.
With regards to "dynamics" here's my "Holy Grail" ..... just thought I'd keep spamming my sh!t
Wave propagation transits from high to low dimensionality (low to high density respectively) via a pivotal stage of highest condensation called a singularity & cycles upspace back to its beginning only to restart the process again ad infinitum unless further dimensional collapse occurs.
Before singularity creation, all waves form event horizons marking the magnetic/electric boundary responsible for the 180 degree out of phase temporal duality effect we know as the electric & magnetic field. The magnetic field of an electron represents all propagation exterior to the EH...The electric...is all propagation in respect to its interior; it is this interior propagation that produces the charge field and the consequent temporal reversal effect 'magnetic field' as expressed around the hyperspacial wave envelope. In this way the event horizon is somewhat analogous to a semi-transparent mirror. The EH's outer edge is magnetic maxima, " "...inner edge, electric minima, whilst the singularity represents electric maxima (point charge/mass) and co-existing event reversed magnetic minima.
With photons these forces are contained within lower dimensional restraints, unable to be expressed in our time-space. However, hypertoroidal wave propagation allows for this duality to manifest as force. All electrons/protons within our universe may have anti-particle counterparts, inhabiting other extra-continuum wavefronts in which they are either embedded /semi-embedded or both!
Wavefronts are what we term 'Branes', co-existing between the primary wave event / event reversal and subsequent collapse 'instant' (bit of a concept)
allowing for an apparent acausal, (timeless) ever changing environment to evolve, depending on your dimensional elevation.
If you've a low energy wave it might take a lot more condensing to arrive at the event horizon stage than say that of a high energy wave...might it not?
I've got a fair intestinal sensation that it's the degree of transit in dimensional condensation to event horizon formation that determines a photons frequency.
Furthermore, I 'see' photons as embedded lower dimensional daughter waves riding around their parental 4-D wave envelope (electron); this transdimensional propagative wave has a component which arcs out of our brane into hyperspace, it is this very wave aspect on which the photon resides. Please realize when the brane propagation of our universe passes through this 4th dimesional arc, it creates the 'illlusion' of light speed/distance etc, merely the affect of 'continuous re-entry'.
C2,
IMO, probability doesn't create interference patterns, disruptions in energy
fields or patterns does. The hologram is demonstrating that the steady state energy level
of the matter of that makes up the holographic plate has been "altered" or
"phase shifted" by the cumulative interference interaction of photons that are out of phase (or in phase) as they interacted with the atomic structure of the
holographic plate. This is the best example of the phase shifting influence of
photons waves as they interact energetically with the EM fields of matter. Basically,
we have effected an energy exchange "time lock" as matter has changed "state"
due to an external wave energy EM field influence.
LL
QUOTE
Is probability anything or nothing? If we can manipulate it and it can manipulate us .. I suggest we should at least have a look at it. By looking at it, I fear we may lose our photon altogether.
IMO, probability doesn't create interference patterns, disruptions in energy
fields or patterns does. The hologram is demonstrating that the steady state energy level
of the matter of that makes up the holographic plate has been "altered" or
"phase shifted" by the cumulative interference interaction of photons that are out of phase (or in phase) as they interacted with the atomic structure of the
holographic plate. This is the best example of the phase shifting influence of
photons waves as they interact energetically with the EM fields of matter. Basically,
we have effected an energy exchange "time lock" as matter has changed "state"
due to an external wave energy EM field influence.
LL
Hi all,
Why Not?,
I'm not sure if I understand your question.
I do think that the quanta of energy is present in both matter and light. This means all of the standard model "particles", the elements, the entire EM spectrum (and beyond) have the same pattern.
You have at least seen the "matrix", although, I have made a last minute minor correction. I think you realize that I can express any of the "commonly" measured points from a simple polynomial. The reason I am trying to "make the case" here is, the same set of values that recursively produce our "constants", can be used to "gauge" resonance (IE derive the equations used to "measure" non-linear frequency mixing, and chords). That is, the solution for the "isolated" case, is the same, by scale, as is the solution for the "total" case. In the "total" case (the Universe), the resonances appear as the particles and elements; the Universe IS THE Cavity, and can be treated as the non-linear special case (in part due to the Hubble distance), as opposed to the current model: the general case for the linear medium. This should have the affect of changing the current view in Optics from "wave mixing" in an NLM is the special case, to it being the general case. Relatively speaking, the "interaction zone" (NLM) is a condition of the reference frame of the observer. Nanotechnology is at the "point" of the cone, and the Hubble distance is at the maximum.
ciao!
T.Roc
Why Not?,
I'm not sure if I understand your question.
QUOTE
OK. I’m curious…. First, I should say that I use the word “particle” out of convention and convenience. This is probably a mistake because of the classical picture of “billiard balls” that often come to mind. Instead, maybe the word “quantum” should be used, where a quantum is an object with a set of irreducible properties that define the object. As GE has shown with reference to de Broglie, locality/non-locality is a function of momentum and interaction. As such, spatial and temporal extent need not necessarily be included in this set of properties. We then have the wave/quantum duality. That said, maybe I should ask if you accept a quantum just not in billiard ball fashion? Thanks!
I do think that the quanta of energy is present in both matter and light. This means all of the standard model "particles", the elements, the entire EM spectrum (and beyond) have the same pattern.
You have at least seen the "matrix", although, I have made a last minute minor correction. I think you realize that I can express any of the "commonly" measured points from a simple polynomial. The reason I am trying to "make the case" here is, the same set of values that recursively produce our "constants", can be used to "gauge" resonance (IE derive the equations used to "measure" non-linear frequency mixing, and chords). That is, the solution for the "isolated" case, is the same, by scale, as is the solution for the "total" case. In the "total" case (the Universe), the resonances appear as the particles and elements; the Universe IS THE Cavity, and can be treated as the non-linear special case (in part due to the Hubble distance), as opposed to the current model: the general case for the linear medium. This should have the affect of changing the current view in Optics from "wave mixing" in an NLM is the special case, to it being the general case. Relatively speaking, the "interaction zone" (NLM) is a condition of the reference frame of the observer. Nanotechnology is at the "point" of the cone, and the Hubble distance is at the maximum.
ciao!
T.Roc
Good Elf and Zephir, it seems that you have an ideological and philosophical
personal conflict from past discussions. I have read some of both of your
theories and arguments and wish to compliment you both for the passion and
knowledge that you each exhibit in your posts. From my understanding of
your individual discussions Aether "foam" theory and interdimensional interactions
with our space-time continuum have quite a few similarites, but the interpretations
of available information are in dispute. You are both proponents of quantum wave energy
transport mechanisms and cite the same theories, mathematics, and references,
you just disagree as to the interpretation of the information.
Passion is one thing, stubbornness is another. Conflict solves nothing. Agree to disagree, but always
be willing to keep an open mind. One of you may hold the key for the other.
This is an opportunity to pool resources and find workable solutions.
LL
personal conflict from past discussions. I have read some of both of your
theories and arguments and wish to compliment you both for the passion and
knowledge that you each exhibit in your posts. From my understanding of
your individual discussions Aether "foam" theory and interdimensional interactions
with our space-time continuum have quite a few similarites, but the interpretations
of available information are in dispute. You are both proponents of quantum wave energy
transport mechanisms and cite the same theories, mathematics, and references,
you just disagree as to the interpretation of the information.
Passion is one thing, stubbornness is another. Conflict solves nothing. Agree to disagree, but always
be willing to keep an open mind. One of you may hold the key for the other.
This is an opportunity to pool resources and find workable solutions.
LL
GE,
I just wanted to point out the specific areas that I see as "parting points" of our views, which are remarkably similar.
I have no problem with the Wheeler/Feynman (W-F), and Bohm approaches; they both are great contributions to the "chain" of understanding.
From what you have said, I think that you are "taking up where they left off", and making some elven changes. (I have no problem with that either)
No disrespect to them intended, but to say it bluntly: those approaches did not solve the puzzle. You probably agree there.
But they have successes, and we must keep them in mind. Any proposed changes to current theory shouldn't contradict their findings.
My approach is compatible with both. With the Wolff extension of W-F, some of their problems were solved. The decoherence models' biggest problem is its' a "QM loop within a QM loop". You still need the parameters, and it does NOT include the dual to decoherence, Resonance. The two "opposing" forces must be considered at the same time. The Box and the Slit and equal players to the Wave and the Focus Point. And this is from first principle.
ciao!
T.Roc
I just wanted to point out the specific areas that I see as "parting points" of our views, which are remarkably similar.
I have no problem with the Wheeler/Feynman (W-F), and Bohm approaches; they both are great contributions to the "chain" of understanding.
From what you have said, I think that you are "taking up where they left off", and making some elven changes. (I have no problem with that either)
No disrespect to them intended, but to say it bluntly: those approaches did not solve the puzzle. You probably agree there.
But they have successes, and we must keep them in mind. Any proposed changes to current theory shouldn't contradict their findings.
My approach is compatible with both. With the Wolff extension of W-F, some of their problems were solved. The decoherence models' biggest problem is its' a "QM loop within a QM loop". You still need the parameters, and it does NOT include the dual to decoherence, Resonance. The two "opposing" forces must be considered at the same time. The Box and the Slit and equal players to the Wave and the Focus Point. And this is from first principle.
ciao!
T.Roc
Fivedonut,
I'm trying to comprehend this, but can't quite get my arms around some of
the ambiguity in your meanings. Maybe it is just me.
I was under the impression that an electron was a pure negatively (-) charged,
physical particle, that was interactively trapped between the balance of its
angular momentum, inherent spin, and the (+) charge of the proton it cohabitates with.
Isn't the mutual charge (- and +) between the electron and proton what sets up
the overall atomic magnetic fields (since a magnetic field needs + and -
polarities to establish a field line)? If this is so, then the 90 degree electric field
wave component is generated as the elecron (- charge) spins and oscillates in its orbital
around the (+) proton charge of the atom. The dynamic electrical and magnetic
field phasing interactions generate momentum of the low mass electron via the
right hand rule as it interacts with the self generating magnetic field lines.
(kind of like a motor at an atomic scale.) If you will....self generating perpetual motion
in a state of relative harmonic "balance".
The more electrons and protons there are, the more self generating EM field
interactions there are, and the more energetic the atom.
LL
QUOTE
The magnetic field of an electron represents all propagation exterior to the EH...The electric...is all propagation in respect to its interior; it is this interior propagation that produces the charge field and the consequent temporal reversal effect 'magnetic field' as expressed around the hyperspacial wave envelope. In this way the event horizon is somewhat analogous to a semi-transparent mirror. The EH's outer edge is magnetic maxima, " "...inner edge, electric minima, whilst the singularity represents electric maxima (point charge/mass) and co-existing event reversed magnetic minima.
I'm trying to comprehend this, but can't quite get my arms around some of
the ambiguity in your meanings. Maybe it is just me.
I was under the impression that an electron was a pure negatively (-) charged,
physical particle, that was interactively trapped between the balance of its
angular momentum, inherent spin, and the (+) charge of the proton it cohabitates with.
Isn't the mutual charge (- and +) between the electron and proton what sets up
the overall atomic magnetic fields (since a magnetic field needs + and -
polarities to establish a field line)? If this is so, then the 90 degree electric field
wave component is generated as the elecron (- charge) spins and oscillates in its orbital
around the (+) proton charge of the atom. The dynamic electrical and magnetic
field phasing interactions generate momentum of the low mass electron via the
right hand rule as it interacts with the self generating magnetic field lines.
(kind of like a motor at an atomic scale.) If you will....self generating perpetual motion
in a state of relative harmonic "balance".
The more electrons and protons there are, the more self generating EM field
interactions there are, and the more energetic the atom.
LL
Hi All,
I owe everybody an apology about my remark about Zephir. He is right about the size of the gif animation. I have a rule normally that as long as I can access an original image on the web I only use the original link because this is not my work. The original link is easy to trace from a quote so in that way it is not really "stealing" since it is site referenced. Quite often I acknowledge the original reference directly in my posts. It is important to do that.
Zephir has posted a smaller gif image and that is certainly one that zephir has resized from the original. In future I will use that image as zephir suggested since it is less a demand on those without broadband. I do not think what I am doing is "BS" as Zephir suggests. I try very hard to put my point across with as many actual scholarly references as possible. I am frustrated with Zephir's approach... The analogy with water waves and supercritical fluids and DNA Double helices completely frustrate real analysis of problems with the treatment of quantum electromagnetism. I have not seen any of the treatment required to flesh out Zephir's AWT proposal. Now Zephir does have a language problem, I would not like to communicate in another language about matters concerning these very subtle topics myself. Zephir is not subtle... that is one trait that he cannot be accused of. In the past we have not been able to reconcile our different ideas and we have both been delivering the same message about each others theories for nearly two and a half years now on this site. I still can't reconcile Zephirs philosophy with mine and he will make no concessions on my approach. About the only aspect we see somewhat eye to eye on is Special and General Relativity but I do not accept Loop Quantum Gravity... I support a form of String Theory, home grown in some ways to make it different from the particle versions you will see in most books.
I really can't see that a theory that holds the notion of four dimensional spacetime, with added "parametric" dimensions, gravity operating using only gravitons, embedded in a "fluidic Aether" is able to be reconciled with a Theory that has added dimensions that represent (... in my theory a reciprocal relationship) real extra spatial dimensions (... as all String Theories in a general sense do include), gravity being mainly a "pseudo-force" as maintained by Einstein and gravity hardly ever radiating gravitons except in the most cataclysmic of events all embedded in a vacuum without a medium for propagation other than the brane wall of the dimensional space. My theory because of additional dimensions lead to brane walls that separate dimensional spaces by way of the light cone. Put in short... Zephirs theory is a theory of scalar "water waves" spreading is a "massive environment"... the Aether. I respect Zephir and what he wants to do but our views appear irreconcilable.
This is Zephirs view of wave propagation. How is it possible to see far across the Universe with such chaotic wave motion preserving the intricate phase relationships of distances of many Billions of Light Years?
The alternative is a highly ordered process in the empty vacuum of space...
The only way this Bosonic wave can be disrupted is through a particle interaction taking out just some of the photons but leaving the remainder to carry on unseen in quantum space to whatever target as far as it is away without any degradation or losses. This is an experimental fact. This is what Zephir calls "BS".
It is very clear that very few ever look at my references which are quite up to date as a rule. I see Confused2 using an old reference to a basically unsupportable concept in the light of modern analysis.
What Information Theory Can Tell Us About Quantum Reality: C. Adami and N.J. Cerf
I owe everybody an apology about my remark about Zephir. He is right about the size of the gif animation. I have a rule normally that as long as I can access an original image on the web I only use the original link because this is not my work. The original link is easy to trace from a quote so in that way it is not really "stealing" since it is site referenced. Quite often I acknowledge the original reference directly in my posts. It is important to do that.
Zephir has posted a smaller gif image and that is certainly one that zephir has resized from the original. In future I will use that image as zephir suggested since it is less a demand on those without broadband. I do not think what I am doing is "BS" as Zephir suggests. I try very hard to put my point across with as many actual scholarly references as possible. I am frustrated with Zephir's approach... The analogy with water waves and supercritical fluids and DNA Double helices completely frustrate real analysis of problems with the treatment of quantum electromagnetism. I have not seen any of the treatment required to flesh out Zephir's AWT proposal. Now Zephir does have a language problem, I would not like to communicate in another language about matters concerning these very subtle topics myself. Zephir is not subtle... that is one trait that he cannot be accused of. In the past we have not been able to reconcile our different ideas and we have both been delivering the same message about each others theories for nearly two and a half years now on this site. I still can't reconcile Zephirs philosophy with mine and he will make no concessions on my approach. About the only aspect we see somewhat eye to eye on is Special and General Relativity but I do not accept Loop Quantum Gravity... I support a form of String Theory, home grown in some ways to make it different from the particle versions you will see in most books.
I really can't see that a theory that holds the notion of four dimensional spacetime, with added "parametric" dimensions, gravity operating using only gravitons, embedded in a "fluidic Aether" is able to be reconciled with a Theory that has added dimensions that represent (... in my theory a reciprocal relationship) real extra spatial dimensions (... as all String Theories in a general sense do include), gravity being mainly a "pseudo-force" as maintained by Einstein and gravity hardly ever radiating gravitons except in the most cataclysmic of events all embedded in a vacuum without a medium for propagation other than the brane wall of the dimensional space. My theory because of additional dimensions lead to brane walls that separate dimensional spaces by way of the light cone. Put in short... Zephirs theory is a theory of scalar "water waves" spreading is a "massive environment"... the Aether. I respect Zephir and what he wants to do but our views appear irreconcilable.
This is Zephirs view of wave propagation. How is it possible to see far across the Universe with such chaotic wave motion preserving the intricate phase relationships of distances of many Billions of Light Years?
The alternative is a highly ordered process in the empty vacuum of space...
The only way this Bosonic wave can be disrupted is through a particle interaction taking out just some of the photons but leaving the remainder to carry on unseen in quantum space to whatever target as far as it is away without any degradation or losses. This is an experimental fact. This is what Zephir calls "BS".
It is very clear that very few ever look at my references which are quite up to date as a rule. I see Confused2 using an old reference to a basically unsupportable concept in the light of modern analysis.
What Information Theory Can Tell Us About Quantum Reality: C. Adami and N.J. Cerf
QUOTE
5 Conclusions
To summarize, we assert that quantum reality is “real” in the sense that quantum mechanics completely and deterministically describes the evolution of a closed system (not just its wavefunction), and that the statistical character arises from the fact that an observer, because he is part of the closed system, is offered an incomplete view of the quantum system he attempts to measure. Consequently, the quantum universe is deterministic as Einstein’s physical reality demands, but must include the observer as one of its parts due to the inseparability of entangled quantum states. The recent information-theoretic analysis of quantum measurement [15,16] shows that such an observer indeed perceives the system he is measuring as probabilistic, and thus that Bohr’s complementarity principle emphasizing the importance of the system/observer relation therefore holds at the same time. If quantum reality is so elusive, how then can we learn about its nature? Fortunately, while negative entropy cannot be reflected in classical instruments directly, it is possible to infer it from combined measurements and comparison with classical bounds (a case in point are Bell inequalities [9], see also [25]). Thus, quantum reality does leave its traces in experiments, while the direct observation of superpositions is impossible.
Completely ignoring the measurement problem. I am not going to assert that Einstein was right in this area because this is just where Einstein was eventually proven wrong with Bell's Theorem. I believe in determinism but while the observer could be included in the measurements I am hotly opposed to the idea that the observer is "required" to be included in the measurement to any real extent unless you believe that an instrument is an observer. Since this publication many of the assertions have actually been shown to be experimentally wrong. We can observe to a lesser limit than that supposed by Heisenberg. Entanglement is not confined to particles but what is asserted in the most important statement made in this paper ...To summarize, we assert that quantum reality is “real” in the sense that quantum mechanics completely and deterministically describes the evolution of a closed system (not just its wavefunction), and that the statistical character arises from the fact that an observer, because he is part of the closed system, is offered an incomplete view of the quantum system he attempts to measure. Consequently, the quantum universe is deterministic as Einstein’s physical reality demands, but must include the observer as one of its parts due to the inseparability of entangled quantum states. The recent information-theoretic analysis of quantum measurement [15,16] shows that such an observer indeed perceives the system he is measuring as probabilistic, and thus that Bohr’s complementarity principle emphasizing the importance of the system/observer relation therefore holds at the same time. If quantum reality is so elusive, how then can we learn about its nature? Fortunately, while negative entropy cannot be reflected in classical instruments directly, it is possible to infer it from combined measurements and comparison with classical bounds (a case in point are Bell inequalities [9], see also [25]). Thus, quantum reality does leave its traces in experiments, while the direct observation of superpositions is impossible.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 5 Conclusions To summarize, we assert that quantum reality is “real” in the sense that quantum mechanics completely and deterministically describes the evolution of a closed system (not just its wavefunction), and that the statistical character arises from the fact that an observer, because he is part of the closed system, is offered an incomplete view of the quantum system he attempts to measure. Consequently, the quantum universe is deterministic as Einstein’s physical reality demands, but must include the observer as one of its parts due to the inseparability of entangled quantum states. The recent information-theoretic analysis of quantum measurement [15,16] shows that such an observer indeed perceives the system he is measuring as probabilistic, and thus that Bohr’s complementarity principle emphasizing the importance of the system/observer relation therefore holds at the same time. If quantum reality is so elusive, how then can we learn about its nature? Fortunately, while negative entropy cannot be reflected in classical instruments directly, it is possible to infer it from combined measurements and comparison with classical bounds (a case in point are Bell inequalities [9], see also [25]). Thus, quantum reality does leave its traces in experiments, while the direct observation of superpositions is impossible. |
Completely ignoring the measurement problem. I am not going to assert that Einstein was right in this area because this is just where Einstein was eventually proven wrong with Bell's Theorem. I believe in determinism but while the observer could be included in the measurements I am hotly opposed to the idea that the observer is "required" to be included in the measurement to any real extent unless you believe that an instrument is an observer. Since this publication many of the assertions have actually been shown to be experimentally wrong. We can observe to a lesser limit than that supposed by Heisenberg. Entanglement is not confined to particles but what is asserted in the most important statement made in this paper ...
Quantum information theory predicts that in EPR-type measurements, the measurement device cannot reflect the state of of the quantum system. In the language of Mermin [17], the correlations between the devices are real, i.e., possess physical reality, while the quantum system itself does not.
Quantum information theory predicts that in EPR-type measurements, the measurement device cannot reflect the state of of the quantum system. In the language of Mermin [17], the correlations between the devices are real, i.e., possess physical reality, while the quantum system itself does not.
It has been shown time and time again that quantum phenomena are not simply linked to quantum particles but can be associated with any system and this could even include two instruments. This is an experimental fact. Unless you can support theories that have been shown flawed according to experiment you must drop this one. Here is something else as well to show that the real problem is the Measurement Problem and correlation is actually instantaneous (even "retrospective") as shown by correlated protons in the DCQE Experiment. This is not a mystery since we are dealing with photons with their clocks stopped. If a theory disagrees with experiment then you must consider it pretty much "depreciated".
Now I would remind you all again of Canonical Typicality...
Researchers 'rewrite the book' in quantum statistical physics
There are many quite respectable papers written about this Mathematical Analysis... What it say basically is that unlike Quantum Mechanics predictions randomness does not apply only to large collections of particles, it applies to smaller collections of particles as well. This was as Schrodinger had started many decades ago and indicates that the distribution of particles in quantum processes "cluster" around means that mirror hypothetical clusters of randomly distributed "classical" distributions. This shows a mathematical flaw in the Copenhagen Interpretation and shows conclusively through rigorous mathematical analysis that theories with hidden variables like Bohmian Mechanics are supportable where as gross statistics will not show this behavior. Dumbed way down.... what it is saying in the case of the DSE the photons travel in "straight lines" obeying "dynamics" and are not entirely random as predicted by Quantum Theory. Quantum Theory suggests that individual photons cannot exist between source and destination and only exist where they turn up... When they do their arrival is purely statistical without this "clustering" of smaller numbers of photons. See... Schrodinger was right all along and people just were not listening.
Those that can get it should look here too...
and...
and...
In conclusion, the main message of our paper is that averages are not needed in order to justify the canonical state of a system in contact with the rest of the universe – almost any individual state of the universe is enough to lead to the canonical state. In effect, we propose to replace the Postulate of Equal a priori Probabilities by the Principle of Apparently Equal a priori Probabilities, which states that as far as the system is concerned every single state of the universe seems similar to the average.
We stress once more that we are concerned only with the distance between the state of the system and the canonical state, and not with the precise mathematical form of this canonical state. Indeed, it is an advantage 11 of our method that these two issues are completely separated. For example, our result is independent of the canonical state having Boltzmannian form, of degeneracies of energy levels, of interaction strength, or of energy (of system, environment or the universe) at all. In future work [17], we will go beyond the kinematic viewpoint presented here to address the dynamics of thermalisation. In particular, we will investigate under what conditions the state of the universe will evolve into (and spend almost all of its later time in) the large region of its Hilbert space in which its subsystems are thermalised.
This is the result of mathematically rigorous approach. Elves need not completely understand "everything" but the thrust is easy to see and has an easy interpretation. Waves rule OK!
I have many more papers (you can find them too, or I can give references to them) by other authors and this is up to date and up to the minute and in accord with what Schrodinger was saying all those many years ago. If a theory does not pass muster Mathematically then a better approach must be found... this is a better mathematical approach.
Cheers
Now I would remind you all again of Canonical Typicality...
Researchers 'rewrite the book' in quantum statistical physics
There are many quite respectable papers written about this Mathematical Analysis... What it say basically is that unlike Quantum Mechanics predictions randomness does not apply only to large collections of particles, it applies to smaller collections of particles as well. This was as Schrodinger had started many decades ago and indicates that the distribution of particles in quantum processes "cluster" around means that mirror hypothetical clusters of randomly distributed "classical" distributions. This shows a mathematical flaw in the Copenhagen Interpretation and shows conclusively through rigorous mathematical analysis that theories with hidden variables like Bohmian Mechanics are supportable where as gross statistics will not show this behavior. Dumbed way down.... what it is saying in the case of the DSE the photons travel in "straight lines" obeying "dynamics" and are not entirely random as predicted by Quantum Theory. Quantum Theory suggests that individual photons cannot exist between source and destination and only exist where they turn up... When they do their arrival is purely statistical without this "clustering" of smaller numbers of photons. See... Schrodinger was right all along and people just were not listening.
Those that can get it should look here too...
QUOTE
Title: Entanglement and the foundations of statistical mechanics
Abstract:
[This is joint work with S Popescu and T Short, quant-ph/0511225]
We consider an alternative approach to the foundations of statistical
mechanics, in which subjective randomness, ensemble-averaging or time-averaging
are not required. Instead, the universe (i.e. the system together with a sufficiently large environment) is in a quantum pure state subject to a global constraint, and thermalisation results from entanglement between system and environment. A "General Canonical Principle" is proved, which states that the system will be thermalised for almost all pure states of the universe. Rigorous quantitative bounds using Levy's Lemma are obtained.
In the talk I also want to cover some initial results on thermalisation in a dynamical model (work in progress with the above coauthors, Y Aharonov and N Linden).
Abstract:
[This is joint work with S Popescu and T Short, quant-ph/0511225]
We consider an alternative approach to the foundations of statistical
mechanics, in which subjective randomness, ensemble-averaging or time-averaging
are not required. Instead, the universe (i.e. the system together with a sufficiently large environment) is in a quantum pure state subject to a global constraint, and thermalisation results from entanglement between system and environment. A "General Canonical Principle" is proved, which states that the system will be thermalised for almost all pure states of the universe. Rigorous quantitative bounds using Levy's Lemma are obtained.
In the talk I also want to cover some initial results on thermalisation in a dynamical model (work in progress with the above coauthors, Y Aharonov and N Linden).
and...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Title: Entanglement and the foundations of statistical mechanics Abstract: [This is joint work with S Popescu and T Short, quant-ph/0511225] We consider an alternative approach to the foundations of statistical mechanics, in which subjective randomness, ensemble-averaging or time-averaging are not required. Instead, the universe (i.e. the system together with a sufficiently large environment) is in a quantum pure state subject to a global constraint, and thermalisation results from entanglement between system and environment. A "General Canonical Principle" is proved, which states that the system will be thermalised for almost all pure states of the universe. Rigorous quantitative bounds using Levy's Lemma are obtained. In the talk I also want to cover some initial results on thermalisation in a dynamical model (work in progress with the above coauthors, Y Aharonov and N Linden). |
and...
In conclusion, the main message of our paper is that averages are not needed in order to justify the canonical state of a system in contact with the rest of the universe – almost any individual state of the universe is enough to lead to the canonical state. In effect, we propose to replace the Postulate of Equal a priori Probabilities by the Principle of Apparently Equal a priori Probabilities, which states that as far as the system is concerned every single state of the universe seems similar to the average.
We stress once more that we are concerned only with the distance between the state of the system and the canonical state, and not with the precise mathematical form of this canonical state. Indeed, it is an advantage 11 of our method that these two issues are completely separated. For example, our result is independent of the canonical state having Boltzmannian form, of degeneracies of energy levels, of interaction strength, or of energy (of system, environment or the universe) at all. In future work [17], we will go beyond the kinematic viewpoint presented here to address the dynamics of thermalisation. In particular, we will investigate under what conditions the state of the universe will evolve into (and spend almost all of its later time in) the large region of its Hilbert space in which its subsystems are thermalised.
This is the result of mathematically rigorous approach. Elves need not completely understand "everything" but the thrust is easy to see and has an easy interpretation. Waves rule OK!
I have many more papers (you can find them too, or I can give references to them) by other authors and this is up to date and up to the minute and in accord with what Schrodinger was saying all those many years ago. If a theory does not pass muster Mathematically then a better approach must be found... this is a better mathematical approach.
Cheers
Good Elf,
I think we can all agree that your references admit to an ever evolving
mathematical and theoretical approach to understanding the base nature of
energy and how it relates to time and matter. They build upon prior theories
many of which did not have the convenience of modern computer technology,
and which were limited in scope and have "flaws" because new knowledge has
superceded the limited knowledge set that existed at the time of the original
theories.
It seems that each separate new theory is attempting to reconstruct or
improve the original puzzle piece by adding new information to it. In effect
we now have a more focused, enhanced view of the discrete puzzle pieces, as
improved theoretical and experimental methods modify the original outdated
theories.
I am wondering if some of the new theories are still trying to incorporate
some of the outdated assumptions of older theories and selectively disreguarding
those that don't fit the model. Theories, IMO, use selective information sets
and modify them to fit the "intent" of the new theory, perhaps too many
conflicting theories are confusing the issue.
I think we can all agree that your references admit to an ever evolving
mathematical and theoretical approach to understanding the base nature of
energy and how it relates to time and matter. They build upon prior theories
many of which did not have the convenience of modern computer technology,
and which were limited in scope and have "flaws" because new knowledge has
superceded the limited knowledge set that existed at the time of the original
theories.
It seems that each separate new theory is attempting to reconstruct or
improve the original puzzle piece by adding new information to it. In effect
we now have a more focused, enhanced view of the discrete puzzle pieces, as
improved theoretical and experimental methods modify the original outdated
theories.
I am wondering if some of the new theories are still trying to incorporate
some of the outdated assumptions of older theories and selectively disreguarding
those that don't fit the model. Theories, IMO, use selective information sets
and modify them to fit the "intent" of the new theory, perhaps too many
conflicting theories are confusing the issue.
All,
Laserlight has some good points, there certainly is a lot of "housecleaning" to do, IMO.
If we can uncover some serious flaw in a theory (no matter how "great"), we must re-examine the whole process in question, from the point PRIOR to the error.
So, I am going to return to my "question", and see if anyone agrees with the "error" that seems to be present.
We have the approach of looking at the ratios involved, which StevenA, and Laserlight (and myself) seem inclined. No other "answers", so that is all we can discuss.
It would seem to me that the "believing" practitioners of QM would have an expected response. So, maybe its' a good thing that no one here said it!
If we can't describe the Node, or "distance between crests / similar points" as a "wavelength" (I'm trying to remove the circular reasoning), then, from a QM point of view, the next best answer would be:
Some integer of Planck distance.
Now, if I'm wrong here, I hope that someone will demonstrate that.
I realise that h is meant for "photons", but we are examining the relationship between light and matter, and, we are using h in the equations used to "decipher" the DSE, and similar experiments.
If I'm right, then I will ask the next question:
Where is the integer organizational chart for the SM "particles", the Table of Elements, or ? ?
I am not finding ANY such thing existing in Physics.
From a purely mathematical point of view, this should be ACADEMIC, because we are talking about such a small distance. It would require accuracy to 15 to 34 digits; anything less than that would ALWAYS produce quasi-"integer" results.
Isn't this more of a statement about HUP in measuring, than about "energy coming in quanta? IE "just go a ways past where we can measure, and this approximation seems to work"?
comments?
T.Roc
Laserlight has some good points, there certainly is a lot of "housecleaning" to do, IMO.
If we can uncover some serious flaw in a theory (no matter how "great"), we must re-examine the whole process in question, from the point PRIOR to the error.
So, I am going to return to my "question", and see if anyone agrees with the "error" that seems to be present.
QUOTE
What is the distance between Nodes of a wave?
The term "wavelength" is not what I'm looking for, I am seeking a NUMBER.
The term "wavelength" is not what I'm looking for, I am seeking a NUMBER.
We have the approach of looking at the ratios involved, which StevenA, and Laserlight (and myself) seem inclined. No other "answers", so that is all we can discuss.
It would seem to me that the "believing" practitioners of QM would have an expected response. So, maybe its' a good thing that no one here said it!
If we can't describe the Node, or "distance between crests / similar points" as a "wavelength" (I'm trying to remove the circular reasoning), then, from a QM point of view, the next best answer would be:
Some integer of Planck distance.
Now, if I'm wrong here, I hope that someone will demonstrate that.
I realise that h is meant for "photons", but we are examining the relationship between light and matter, and, we are using h in the equations used to "decipher" the DSE, and similar experiments.
If I'm right, then I will ask the next question:
Where is the integer organizational chart for the SM "particles", the Table of Elements, or ? ?
I am not finding ANY such thing existing in Physics.
From a purely mathematical point of view, this should be ACADEMIC, because we are talking about such a small distance. It would require accuracy to 15 to 34 digits; anything less than that would ALWAYS produce quasi-"integer" results.
Isn't this more of a statement about HUP in measuring, than about "energy coming in quanta? IE "just go a ways past where we can measure, and this approximation seems to work"?
comments?
T.Roc
T.Roc,
First what is HUP? Please define.
I agree with your assessment that there needs to be some fixed,
absolute reference standard for particle and Quantum physics. The problem is that we still don't
have enough absolute verified information about such a complicated plethora
of inteactive subjects. We are seeking the "holy grail", but which road leads
directly to it? The answer is none of them. There are detours, dead ends,
multi-junctions and no direct straight line course to follow and we don't have
a map telling us where to go. We are like rats in a maze trying to predict our next move based on all of our prior moves. Another analogy is like trying to drive
forward to a destination while only looking in the rear view mirror.
It would
be so much easier if we only had a map written in our language, rather than
in Kliingon, but like all maps the experiences of everyone's individual journeys
are collected and documented and eventually a composit map emerges. We
might have a complete map of New York, but that doesn't help us if we are
trying to reach a location in China. All the individual maps and possible routes
need to be consolidated to make a continuous map that anyone can follow to
a given destination.
It is all about universal acceptable "standards". We can't have different map
makers using different symbols or language to make a universally acceptable
map, because to do so just confuses and complicates something that should
be basic and as simple as possible. We all recognize that a journey needs a
fixed starting point from which to begin our travels, or else the trip will require
much different routes to arrive at the same destination.
LL
QUOTE
Where is the integer organizational chart for the SM "particles", the Table of Elements, or ? ?
I am not finding ANY such thing existing in Physics.
From a purely mathematical point of view, this should be ACADEMIC, because we are talking about such a small distance. It would require accuracy to 15 to 34 digits; anything less than that would ALWAYS produce quasi-"integer" results.
Isn't this more of a statement about HUP in measuring, than about "energy coming in quanta? IE "just go a ways past where we can measure, and this approximation seems to work"?
I am not finding ANY such thing existing in Physics.
From a purely mathematical point of view, this should be ACADEMIC, because we are talking about such a small distance. It would require accuracy to 15 to 34 digits; anything less than that would ALWAYS produce quasi-"integer" results.
Isn't this more of a statement about HUP in measuring, than about "energy coming in quanta? IE "just go a ways past where we can measure, and this approximation seems to work"?
First what is HUP? Please define.
I agree with your assessment that there needs to be some fixed,
absolute reference standard for particle and Quantum physics. The problem is that we still don't
have enough absolute verified information about such a complicated plethora
of inteactive subjects. We are seeking the "holy grail", but which road leads
directly to it? The answer is none of them. There are detours, dead ends,
multi-junctions and no direct straight line course to follow and we don't have
a map telling us where to go. We are like rats in a maze trying to predict our next move based on all of our prior moves. Another analogy is like trying to drive
forward to a destination while only looking in the rear view mirror.
It would
be so much easier if we only had a map written in our language, rather than
in Kliingon, but like all maps the experiences of everyone's individual journeys
are collected and documented and eventually a composit map emerges. We
might have a complete map of New York, but that doesn't help us if we are
trying to reach a location in China. All the individual maps and possible routes
need to be consolidated to make a continuous map that anyone can follow to
a given destination.
It is all about universal acceptable "standards". We can't have different map
makers using different symbols or language to make a universally acceptable
map, because to do so just confuses and complicates something that should
be basic and as simple as possible. We all recognize that a journey needs a
fixed starting point from which to begin our travels, or else the trip will require
much different routes to arrive at the same destination.
LL
QUOTE (Good Elf+Nov 13 2006, 02:49 PM)
...How is it possible to see far across the Universe with such chaotic wave motion preserving the intricate phase relationships of distances of many Billions of Light Years?...
I know, why it is so. It's just because the wave in Aether foam is auto focusing itself. The foam is making more dense, whenever it mets with the energy, like the soap foam shaken in the vessel. By such way, each the wave travels with the density blob of vacuum, which is permanently focusing it into original shape. You can tell me instead, how the photon particle appears and why the particle character of light is the more pronounced, the higher is the frequency of the light?
It's evident, you have no idea, what the photon is and how it appears by passing the light through vacuum. How can you explain the laser light with your model, for example? How can you explain, just the X-rays are diffracted by atom nuclei? The corresponding wavelength of light is 10-10 meters.
I know, why it is so. It's just because the wave in Aether foam is auto focusing itself. The foam is making more dense, whenever it mets with the energy, like the soap foam shaken in the vessel. By such way, each the wave travels with the density blob of vacuum, which is permanently focusing it into original shape. You can tell me instead, how the photon particle appears and why the particle character of light is the more pronounced, the higher is the frequency of the light?
It's evident, you have no idea, what the photon is and how it appears by passing the light through vacuum. How can you explain the laser light with your model, for example? How can you explain, just the X-rays are diffracted by atom nuclei? The corresponding wavelength of light is 10-10 meters.
T.Roc,
If we really consider what a sin wave means, (or what information it encompasses)
can't it be defined as the entire set of possible solutions required to
achieve unity (1) over a constant universal time interval? It is basically, a
solution based upon verifiable empirical statistical results all falling within the
confines of a perfect bell curve and its mirror inverse bell curve over a
finite universal time constant. The only absolute is the zero point time
reference for each 1/2 of the curve, and the zero point is not really absolute since
it represents a "quantification" of infinity.
All solutions can be quantifiably defined as frequencies, numerical equations,
slopes, ratio's, etc., but they are all describing the same fundamental relationship
as it relates to time and unity.
My point is that there is no single answer or single solution to the exclusion of
all others. All answers are partially right, but not completely right.
LL
QUOTE
If we can't describe the Node, or "distance between crests / similar points" as a "wavelength" (I'm trying to remove the circular reasoning), then, from a QM point of view, the next best answer would be:
Some integer of Planck distance.
Some integer of Planck distance.
If we really consider what a sin wave means, (or what information it encompasses)
can't it be defined as the entire set of possible solutions required to
achieve unity (1) over a constant universal time interval? It is basically, a
solution based upon verifiable empirical statistical results all falling within the
confines of a perfect bell curve and its mirror inverse bell curve over a
finite universal time constant. The only absolute is the zero point time
reference for each 1/2 of the curve, and the zero point is not really absolute since
it represents a "quantification" of infinity.
All solutions can be quantifiably defined as frequencies, numerical equations,
slopes, ratio's, etc., but they are all describing the same fundamental relationship
as it relates to time and unity.
My point is that there is no single answer or single solution to the exclusion of
all others. All answers are partially right, but not completely right.
LL
Zephir,
If I understand you correctly, what you are talking about are interactive geometric
progressions (Aether foam = geometric progressions) whereby energy interacts
with space in a mathematically progressive manner. What you still have not
answered, to my satisfaction, is what is the fundamental nature or measurable
component of Aether? (you may have done this with some prior post that I
haven't read). Can you answer with a very clear, concise, abbreviated, direct,
simple terminology without jpeg or movie images? I am open to your
ideas, but I need them "spoon fed" to me to prevent choking on information
overload and ambiguity.
If I understand you correctly, what you are talking about are interactive geometric
progressions (Aether foam = geometric progressions) whereby energy interacts
with space in a mathematically progressive manner. What you still have not
answered, to my satisfaction, is what is the fundamental nature or measurable
component of Aether? (you may have done this with some prior post that I
haven't read). Can you answer with a very clear, concise, abbreviated, direct,
simple terminology without jpeg or movie images? I am open to your
ideas, but I need them "spoon fed" to me to prevent choking on information
overload and ambiguity.
It's evident, you have no idea, what the photon is and how it appears by passing the light through vacuum. How can you explain the laser light with your model, for example? How can you explain, just the X-rays are diffracted by atom nuclei? The corresponding wavelength of light is 10-10 meters.
Can you provide a simple definition of what a photon is and from what it is
created? I have read what Good Elf has posted, and his argument and
evidence makes sense, even if not completely. There are still ambiguities in his
descriptions and those of his references, but the model seems feasible and is
backed up by particle physics experiments from linear accelerator experiments.
Thanks,
LL
Good Elf, C2, TRoc, LL, Why Not?, "THEY",
I must choose my words wisely
from now on when I interject a statement.
1. First we have not advanced technologically to the point that to reach a level of understanding in dealing with the HUP/T as you well know.
2. Good Elf, I have much respect for and no one can rule out extra dimensions in fact we know that the electron lives in a least two realities.
Quantum Jump. And again this could be due to technological difficulties as well.
I will not use concepts that have not been mentioned on this subject, if I may use the onion as a crude analogy, there are many layers that must address before anyone can deal with the Planck scale of 6.626660755 x 10^34J.s.
ciao_
yquantum
QUOTE
I know, why it is so. It's just because the wave in Aether foam is auto focusing itself. The foam is making more dense, whenever it mets with the energy, like the soap foam shaken in the vessel. By such way, each the wave travels with the density blob of vacuum, which is permanently focusing it into original shape
If I understand you correctly, what you are talking about are interactive geometric
progressions (Aether foam = geometric progressions) whereby energy interacts
with space in a mathematically progressive manner. What you still have not
answered, to my satisfaction, is what is the fundamental nature or measurable
component of Aether? (you may have done this with some prior post that I
haven't read). Can you answer with a very clear, concise, abbreviated, direct,
simple terminology without jpeg or movie images? I am open to your
ideas, but I need them "spoon fed" to me to prevent choking on information
overload and ambiguity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I know, why it is so. It's just because the wave in Aether foam is auto focusing itself. The foam is making more dense, whenever it mets with the energy, like the soap foam shaken in the vessel. By such way, each the wave travels with the density blob of vacuum, which is permanently focusing it into original shape |
If I understand you correctly, what you are talking about are interactive geometric
progressions (Aether foam = geometric progressions) whereby energy interacts
with space in a mathematically progressive manner. What you still have not
answered, to my satisfaction, is what is the fundamental nature or measurable
component of Aether? (you may have done this with some prior post that I
haven't read). Can you answer with a very clear, concise, abbreviated, direct,
simple terminology without jpeg or movie images? I am open to your
ideas, but I need them "spoon fed" to me to prevent choking on information
overload and ambiguity.
It's evident, you have no idea, what the photon is and how it appears by passing the light through vacuum. How can you explain the laser light with your model, for example? How can you explain, just the X-rays are diffracted by atom nuclei? The corresponding wavelength of light is 10-10 meters.
Can you provide a simple definition of what a photon is and from what it is
created? I have read what Good Elf has posted, and his argument and
evidence makes sense, even if not completely. There are still ambiguities in his
descriptions and those of his references, but the model seems feasible and is
backed up by particle physics experiments from linear accelerator experiments.
Thanks,
LL
LL, , all ..
HUP = Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. In a nut shell, because of the fixed speed of light (fixed ratio of distance & time), if we need to "refine" our measurement by just 1/2n, it will cost us 2n in Energy.
Since we are accustomed to bouncing waves of ~ 10e-7 m , it gets progressively harder to "see" things. This is why we can not even really "see" the electron.
What I am trying to get to is this idea: the statistical method that Planck used to derive h is to reduce it by dividing the energy into a very large # of parts, making the pieces very small. It will, then, hold true for large numbers of events, but it is not telling us much else. I am proposing that the OTHER method that exists is BETTER. Quantization by equal RATIOS. It automatically "accounts for" the HUP, because each row up is double the last, and each row down is 1/2. This method also has the "strange" ability to measure 2 dimensions AT THE SAME TIME, and when you do so symmetrically, you always get the product c . This, also CAN NOT BE TRIVIAL.
Our "measurement problem" exists because we a measuring WRONG. Something that I always suspected, by logic.
Because you are "new" here, let me say 2 things:
1. I have no "real" understanding of Music (IE no formal ed., can't read music, etc.)
2. I am claiming to have "found" the holy grail that you speak of.
Perhaps, because I haven't "let the cat out of the bag" yet, GE and C2, even WN? have become frustrated with "talking" to me. That is understandable. I welcome doubt, criticism, etc., because I truly want to "know" (just like all of us).
There is a body of evidence, gathered by masters of wave mixing in non-linear mediums (NLM), that has been growing steadily for over 2500 years. These masters "communicate" there system through an abstract, symbolic, ad hoc methodology, that has expanded out into many branches of specialization. They use no "real" mathematical system, other than identifying a pattern of "octaves" where a particular frequency seems the "same" as its "double". The early practitioners used ratios exclusively, to determine "pleasing" waves. This idea of "what determines pleasing" has been looked at by "giants", like Euler, but to no convincing end. 2000 years later, a rather inventive tuning method was developed, in part, because of the growing number of "practitioners", and the complexity of their instruments. There was almost immediately a "blossoming" in the art, and it grew more then, than in all of the years before combined.
The "art" was quantized. Yes, there are still other methods, but NONE are easier to use, and understand. Their quanta was of a different symmetry: the sizes ARE NOT equal from step to step. This is due to the brilliance of the originators (Pythagoras): the ratio method can NOT be "improved" upon. The "equal-tempered" system honors, and maintains those FUNDAMENTAL ratios. This system of ratios is a SET between 1 and 2 . (because the "double" is the "same")
An interesting thing occurs when you mix 3 waves of the "proper" ratios: they become superimposed, and the "fundamental" frequency is reproduced.
A simple mathematical explanation for this triad of notes (chord) has NEVER been proven to exist. That was too much for me to pass on. How hard can it be?, I said. Well, it turns out, that it wasn't. The only reason that I can see that the "giants" who looked before, didn't have the accurate measurements, and calculators, to make it "easy". (the originators were an odd sort: they thought beans to be "sacred", and had an absolute "fear" of irrational numbers)
So, I came to the internet, sure that I could communicate this new method of determining resonance, and find some "gains" in Physics. No one can "see" this. It seems that the "musicians" are not inclined so much to math, and the mathematicians are not so much inclined towards music.
Finally, a break came: Optics. Here I found they had "discovered" something they call Four-Wave Mixing (FWM), where a 4th note (frequency) is produced by 3 other "mixed" notes, in an NLM. They also have something called SHG: Second Harmonic Generation, where the original note (the fundamental) is reproduced; exactly what a chord does.
To make a long story shorter, let me wrap up with this: the method for determine a chord is made SIMPLE because of the ratio between steps is always the same.
FWM was determined from DATA. It was not predicted. As is usual, this means that it is ad hoc : without reason, or explanation.
By extending the recursive method to determining a chord, I can PREDICT FWM, including in previously (by this method) unexamined experiments like DSE. I have also found that our particle "resonances" and our atomic "resonances" (among other things) FOLLOW THIS SAME SET OF RATIOS.
This is Kepler's harmonic work (Planet/Galaxy scale), through Mendeleev's chart, and down to the very smallest quanta.
The method allows for PREDICTION of interactions BELOW what we can observe, without perturbing the system.
I can not "make public" any charts, or lists right now. I can answer questions in the interest of "promoting" the idea.
T.Roc
HUP = Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. In a nut shell, because of the fixed speed of light (fixed ratio of distance & time), if we need to "refine" our measurement by just 1/2n, it will cost us 2n in Energy.
Since we are accustomed to bouncing waves of ~ 10e-7 m , it gets progressively harder to "see" things. This is why we can not even really "see" the electron.
What I am trying to get to is this idea: the statistical method that Planck used to derive h is to reduce it by dividing the energy into a very large # of parts, making the pieces very small. It will, then, hold true for large numbers of events, but it is not telling us much else. I am proposing that the OTHER method that exists is BETTER. Quantization by equal RATIOS. It automatically "accounts for" the HUP, because each row up is double the last, and each row down is 1/2. This method also has the "strange" ability to measure 2 dimensions AT THE SAME TIME, and when you do so symmetrically, you always get the product c . This, also CAN NOT BE TRIVIAL.
Our "measurement problem" exists because we a measuring WRONG. Something that I always suspected, by logic.
Because you are "new" here, let me say 2 things:
1. I have no "real" understanding of Music (IE no formal ed., can't read music, etc.)
2. I am claiming to have "found" the holy grail that you speak of.
Perhaps, because I haven't "let the cat out of the bag" yet, GE and C2, even WN? have become frustrated with "talking" to me. That is understandable. I welcome doubt, criticism, etc., because I truly want to "know" (just like all of us).
There is a body of evidence, gathered by masters of wave mixing in non-linear mediums (NLM), that has been growing steadily for over 2500 years. These masters "communicate" there system through an abstract, symbolic, ad hoc methodology, that has expanded out into many branches of specialization. They use no "real" mathematical system, other than identifying a pattern of "octaves" where a particular frequency seems the "same" as its "double". The early practitioners used ratios exclusively, to determine "pleasing" waves. This idea of "what determines pleasing" has been looked at by "giants", like Euler, but to no convincing end. 2000 years later, a rather inventive tuning method was developed, in part, because of the growing number of "practitioners", and the complexity of their instruments. There was almost immediately a "blossoming" in the art, and it grew more then, than in all of the years before combined.
The "art" was quantized. Yes, there are still other methods, but NONE are easier to use, and understand. Their quanta was of a different symmetry: the sizes ARE NOT equal from step to step. This is due to the brilliance of the originators (Pythagoras): the ratio method can NOT be "improved" upon. The "equal-tempered" system honors, and maintains those FUNDAMENTAL ratios. This system of ratios is a SET between 1 and 2 . (because the "double" is the "same")
An interesting thing occurs when you mix 3 waves of the "proper" ratios: they become superimposed, and the "fundamental" frequency is reproduced.
A simple mathematical explanation for this triad of notes (chord) has NEVER been proven to exist. That was too much for me to pass on. How hard can it be?, I said. Well, it turns out, that it wasn't. The only reason that I can see that the "giants" who looked before, didn't have the accurate measurements, and calculators, to make it "easy". (the originators were an odd sort: they thought beans to be "sacred", and had an absolute "fear" of irrational numbers)
So, I came to the internet, sure that I could communicate this new method of determining resonance, and find some "gains" in Physics. No one can "see" this. It seems that the "musicians" are not inclined so much to math, and the mathematicians are not so much inclined towards music.
Finally, a break came: Optics. Here I found they had "discovered" something they call Four-Wave Mixing (FWM), where a 4th note (frequency) is produced by 3 other "mixed" notes, in an NLM. They also have something called SHG: Second Harmonic Generation, where the original note (the fundamental) is reproduced; exactly what a chord does.
To make a long story shorter, let me wrap up with this: the method for determine a chord is made SIMPLE because of the ratio between steps is always the same.
FWM was determined from DATA. It was not predicted. As is usual, this means that it is ad hoc : without reason, or explanation.
By extending the recursive method to determining a chord, I can PREDICT FWM, including in previously (by this method) unexamined experiments like DSE. I have also found that our particle "resonances" and our atomic "resonances" (among other things) FOLLOW THIS SAME SET OF RATIOS.
This is Kepler's harmonic work (Planet/Galaxy scale), through Mendeleev's chart, and down to the very smallest quanta.
The method allows for PREDICTION of interactions BELOW what we can observe, without perturbing the system.
I can not "make public" any charts, or lists right now. I can answer questions in the interest of "promoting" the idea.
T.Roc
LL,
You asked
We can stop by (briefly) to the FORM of the photon: I think EVERYONE here agrees that the "photon" does not propagate in the form of a sine wave.
SO ANY ANALYSIS BASED ON THE SINE WAVE ALONE IS LIKELY FLAWED.
The saw, and square waves follow the same pattern. Compass and straightedge alone can not "square the circle". This is why I mentioned solutions involving Pi before. There is another way.
When you mention the "zero point", you bring up an interesting thing. My set does not include zero. Any value, can "move" (change in qty) to any other value, WITHOUT PASSING THROUGH THE SINGULARITY OF 1, OR THE "INFINITY" OF ZERO. It places the greatest "value" on 2 ; and 1 is derived by "cutting" 2 in half. This mathematical method REPLICATES NATURE, and therefore MEASURES nature better than anything to date. Zero Time is not included, and the big bang does not HAVE TO exist. This math is UNBOUNDED by any size scale, and predicts a "Hubble-like" limitation of what can be measured at the velocity of the wave, and the ratio to the waves' cycles (the Resonant Interaction Zone). No zero energy either, which means the ZPE, or MBR is measureable. Measuring the Doppler shift necessary to match the constant measured SOL, I derived the Fundamental, Universal value of this irreducable frequency. It is "hidden", and it is "variable". It is the ratio that is already in ALL of our measurements, and I have the evidence.
Time is "neatly" divided into 12 parts. (submit: the calender & the clock) From a RELATIVE scale, a point represented by a sphere can be surrounded by NO MORE than 12 like sized spheres (submit: sphere packing_GO JAL!). Given 3 waves, where they are NOT equal, ALL the possible mixes result in 12 dissonances, and 3 resonances (submit: derivation/proof of FWM equations). Finally, finding the 12th root of 2 (or 2^1/12) produces the "Mother" of all Harmonic Ratios. Now, that sounds cool, or hokey, depending on your taste, but it is, nevertheless, TRUE.
In the end, we have DRASTICALLY reduced the set, to a Scale that we can easily manage.
ciao!
T.Roc
PS. This recursive superposition explains how we can look across the room, through clear light, and see things in "color", WITHOUT being blinded by UV "sums". And GE's question as well.
You asked
QUOTE
"If we really consider what a sin wave means, (or what information it encompasses) can't it be defined as the entire set of possible solutions required to achieve unity (1) over a constant universal time interval?"
and
"The only absolute is the zero point time reference for each 1/2 of the curve, and the zero point is not really absolute since it represents a "quantification" of infinity."
and
"The only absolute is the zero point time reference for each 1/2 of the curve, and the zero point is not really absolute since it represents a "quantification" of infinity."
We can stop by (briefly) to the FORM of the photon: I think EVERYONE here agrees that the "photon" does not propagate in the form of a sine wave.
SO ANY ANALYSIS BASED ON THE SINE WAVE ALONE IS LIKELY FLAWED.
The saw, and square waves follow the same pattern. Compass and straightedge alone can not "square the circle". This is why I mentioned solutions involving Pi before. There is another way.
When you mention the "zero point", you bring up an interesting thing. My set does not include zero. Any value, can "move" (change in qty) to any other value, WITHOUT PASSING THROUGH THE SINGULARITY OF 1, OR THE "INFINITY" OF ZERO. It places the greatest "value" on 2 ; and 1 is derived by "cutting" 2 in half. This mathematical method REPLICATES NATURE, and therefore MEASURES nature better than anything to date. Zero Time is not included, and the big bang does not HAVE TO exist. This math is UNBOUNDED by any size scale, and predicts a "Hubble-like" limitation of what can be measured at the velocity of the wave, and the ratio to the waves' cycles (the Resonant Interaction Zone). No zero energy either, which means the ZPE, or MBR is measureable. Measuring the Doppler shift necessary to match the constant measured SOL, I derived the Fundamental, Universal value of this irreducable frequency. It is "hidden", and it is "variable". It is the ratio that is already in ALL of our measurements, and I have the evidence.
Time is "neatly" divided into 12 parts. (submit: the calender & the clock) From a RELATIVE scale, a point represented by a sphere can be surrounded by NO MORE than 12 like sized spheres (submit: sphere packing_GO JAL!). Given 3 waves, where they are NOT equal, ALL the possible mixes result in 12 dissonances, and 3 resonances (submit: derivation/proof of FWM equations). Finally, finding the 12th root of 2 (or 2^1/12) produces the "Mother" of all Harmonic Ratios. Now, that sounds cool, or hokey, depending on your taste, but it is, nevertheless, TRUE.
In the end, we have DRASTICALLY reduced the set, to a Scale that we can easily manage.
ciao!
T.Roc
PS. This recursive superposition explains how we can look across the room, through clear light, and see things in "color", WITHOUT being blinded by UV "sums". And GE's question as well.
Good Elf, C2, TRoc, LL, Why Not?, "THEY",I must choose my words wisely
from now on when I interject a statement.1. First we have not advanced technologically to the point that to reach a level of understanding in dealing with the HUP/T as you well know.
2. Good Elf, I have much respect for and no one can rule out extra dimensions in fact we know that the electron lives in a least two realities.
Quantum Jump. And again this could be due to technological difficulties as well.I will not use concepts that have not been mentioned on this subject, if I may use the onion as a crude analogy, there are many layers that must address before anyone can deal with the Planck scale of 6.626660755 x 10^34J.s.
ciao_
yquantum
yquantum,
Thanks for your input, its' always welcome.
I realize that you are very busy, and are limited to short posts.
That said, I'm not sure how to interpret this: "1. First we have not advanced technologically to the point that to reach a level of understanding in dealing with the HUP/T as you well know" , in the context of what I just said. ?
Let me ask of a "favor". Since you are in the position of knowing approximately "where" in the frequency spectrum, the "higgs" particle is expected to be found, might you post here the "band", or range of frequencies that you are looking? If you can give me a "its' between 1f and 2f" , I can further reduce this to 12 distinct frequencies, as a little "online", "out of the box" experiment?
regards,
T.Roc
Thanks for your input, its' always welcome.
I realize that you are very busy, and are limited to short posts.
That said, I'm not sure how to interpret this: "1. First we have not advanced technologically to the point that to reach a level of understanding in dealing with the HUP/T as you well know" , in the context of what I just said. ?
Let me ask of a "favor". Since you are in the position of knowing approximately "where" in the frequency spectrum, the "higgs" particle is expected to be found, might you post here the "band", or range of frequencies that you are looking? If you can give me a "its' between 1f and 2f" , I can further reduce this to 12 distinct frequencies, as a little "online", "out of the box" experiment?
regards,
T.Roc
Good Elf,
I think I see the inconsistency in both of your arguments. Your premise is
that event waves, propagating from a point source of origin, are only
time dependent over distance in their phase relationship to their point of origin.
Briefly, energy wavefronts are congruently harmonious in their timing and wave
relationship to each other throughout space, ad infinitum.
Conversely (or similarly) Zephir is taking your fixed time/phase dependant wave
relationship over a distance, but is including the extra disruptive proximity effects
of localized gravitational interference, as the waves propagate past various
quantities of mass in space. The gravitational influence of mass varies in strenth
through out the universe, across the flight path of the propagating energy wavefront.
This gravitational influence can cause a refractive slow down of part of wave that
is closest to the gravitational effects of matter, while the less influenced wave
front moves at a slightly different propagation velocity. This difference in
propagation velocities of the same wavefront changes their relative timing
relationship due to propagation delays caused by the influence of gravity.
So what we wind up with, over large universal distances, is time shifted
asynchronous concentricity of the of the wavefront.
I think the observed effects of gravitational lensing supports this argument, since
we can see both the unshifted wavefront, and the same gravitationally lensed,
focused, wavefront. They both represent the same energy wavefront, albeit
time shifted and concentrated thru the lensing action of gravitational influence.
So it seems that perhaps there is an effect on wavefronts due to gravitational
influences. We must consider these gravitational proximity influences as
disruptions in space time, therefore energy/waves must also obey the space
and time that they interact with, since they are artifacts of the presence of
matter.
Both,
Your thoughts/comments/clarifications? Anyone else is welcome to comment.
LL
QUOTE
This is Zephirs view of wave propagation. How is it possible to see far across the Universe with such chaotic wave motion preserving the intricate phase relationships of distances of many Billions of Light Years?
The alternative is a highly ordered process in the empty vacuum of space...
The alternative is a highly ordered process in the empty vacuum of space...
I think I see the inconsistency in both of your arguments. Your premise is
that event waves, propagating from a point source of origin, are only
time dependent over distance in their phase relationship to their point of origin.
Briefly, energy wavefronts are congruently harmonious in their timing and wave
relationship to each other throughout space, ad infinitum.
Conversely (or similarly) Zephir is taking your fixed time/phase dependant wave
relationship over a distance, but is including the extra disruptive proximity effects
of localized gravitational interference, as the waves propagate past various
quantities of mass in space. The gravitational influence of mass varies in strenth
through out the universe, across the flight path of the propagating energy wavefront.
This gravitational influence can cause a refractive slow down of part of wave that
is closest to the gravitational effects of matter, while the less influenced wave
front moves at a slightly different propagation velocity. This difference in
propagation velocities of the same wavefront changes their relative timing
relationship due to propagation delays caused by the influence of gravity.
So what we wind up with, over large universal distances, is time shifted
asynchronous concentricity of the of the wavefront.
I think the observed effects of gravitational lensing supports this argument, since
we can see both the unshifted wavefront, and the same gravitationally lensed,
focused, wavefront. They both represent the same energy wavefront, albeit
time shifted and concentrated thru the lensing action of gravitational influence.
So it seems that perhaps there is an effect on wavefronts due to gravitational
influences. We must consider these gravitational proximity influences as
disruptions in space time, therefore energy/waves must also obey the space
and time that they interact with, since they are artifacts of the presence of
matter.
Both,
Your thoughts/comments/clarifications? Anyone else is welcome to comment.
LL
T.Roc, EXCELLENT! Your explanation and argument make perfect sense in
a simple but direct way....THANK YOU! Now we are getting somewhere (maybe
it is just me...LOL!)
The speed of light is a relative association according to the medium it is
traveling in. Speed of light thru vacuum of free space is the maximum
speed and the maximum energy possible. The speed of light thru a refractive
medium slows down c (relative to vacuum) and loses energy according to
the amount of diffraction losses as it interacts with matter. Works for me!
The speed of light is a relative association according to the medium it is
traveling in. Speed of light thru vacuum of free space is the maximum
speed and the maximum energy possible. The speed of light thru a refractive
medium slows down c (relative to vacuum) and loses energy according to
the amount of diffraction losses as it interacts with matter. Works for me!
I am proposing that the OTHER method that exists is BETTER. Quantization by equal RATIOS. It automatically "accounts for" the HUP, because each row up is double the last, and each row down is 1/2. This method also has the "strange" ability to measure 2 dimensions AT THE SAME TIME, and when you do so symmetrically, you always get the product c . This, also CAN NOT BE TRIVIAL.
This makes perfect sense to me! Does/will science accept this method as the
defacto standard? If it does, it eliminates "uncertainty" of the results of the
data set and computations. Sounds like the ideal foundation model for quantifying energy using fixed standardized references as a starting point.
Anytime energy interacts with matter there will be measurement inconsistencies,
but NIST reference standards at least provide an "average" baseline as long
as the testing methods are identical in their prescribed set up conditions. The
problem is setting up the experimental conditions identically, this is impossible
day to day and location to location for a myriad of reasons....but you can be
within a +/- margin of predictable error from the reference standard.
Anytime energy interacts with matter there will be measurement inconsistencies,
but NIST reference standards at least provide an "average" baseline as long
as the testing methods are identical in their prescribed set up conditions. The
problem is setting up the experimental conditions identically, this is impossible
day to day and location to location for a myriad of reasons....but you can be
within a +/- margin of predictable error from the reference standard.
2. I am claiming to have "found" the holy grail that you speak of.
The holy grail is a moving target, like an electron... seems like the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle has some merit. Just when you think you can "lock in"
on your target it has already moved to a new temporal location.....ala pi,
but you can at least get into the vicinity of where it should be, or was! LOL!
This will work for one instrument but you must also consider that the equations must, by necessity, include 3/4 waves, 1/2 waves, 1/4 waves, 1/8 waves, ad
infinitum. Then we get to the chords, and after that there is the row, the
section, and eventually the whole orchestra. The sound is harmonious but
separating out a specific individual tone from a specific piece of music,
is impossible due to all the possible variables. I think you see my point. (But
what do I know, I couldn't carry a tune in a dumptruck!) I won't even get into
non-linearities. What you are proposing is a spiral geometric progression, I think. Ever hear of Fibonacci analysis?
I love your idea, it makes sense to standardize a fixed reference other than
a cartesian number system, but I'm not a mathmetician and higher math
does not equate...LOL!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral
LL
a simple but direct way....THANK YOU! Now we are getting somewhere (maybe
it is just me...LOL!)
QUOTE
HUP = Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. In a nut shell, because of the fixed speed of light (fixed ratio of distance & time), if we need to "refine" our measurement by just 1/2n, it will cost us 2n in Energy.
The speed of light is a relative association according to the medium it is
traveling in. Speed of light thru vacuum of free space is the maximum
speed and the maximum energy possible. The speed of light thru a refractive
medium slows down c (relative to vacuum) and loses energy according to
the amount of diffraction losses as it interacts with matter. Works for me!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| HUP = Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. In a nut shell, because of the fixed speed of light (fixed ratio of distance & time), if we need to "refine" our measurement by just 1/2n, it will cost us 2n in Energy. |
The speed of light is a relative association according to the medium it is
traveling in. Speed of light thru vacuum of free space is the maximum
speed and the maximum energy possible. The speed of light thru a refractive
medium slows down c (relative to vacuum) and loses energy according to
the amount of diffraction losses as it interacts with matter. Works for me!
I am proposing that the OTHER method that exists is BETTER. Quantization by equal RATIOS. It automatically "accounts for" the HUP, because each row up is double the last, and each row down is 1/2. This method also has the "strange" ability to measure 2 dimensions AT THE SAME TIME, and when you do so symmetrically, you always get the product c . This, also CAN NOT BE TRIVIAL.
This makes perfect sense to me! Does/will science accept this method as the
defacto standard? If it does, it eliminates "uncertainty" of the results of the
data set and computations. Sounds like the ideal foundation model for quantifying energy using fixed standardized references as a starting point.
QUOTE
Our "measurement problem" exists because we a measuring WRONG. Something that I always suspected, by logic.
Anytime energy interacts with matter there will be measurement inconsistencies,
but NIST reference standards at least provide an "average" baseline as long
as the testing methods are identical in their prescribed set up conditions. The
problem is setting up the experimental conditions identically, this is impossible
day to day and location to location for a myriad of reasons....but you can be
within a +/- margin of predictable error from the reference standard.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Our "measurement problem" exists because we a measuring WRONG. Something that I always suspected, by logic. |
Anytime energy interacts with matter there will be measurement inconsistencies,
but NIST reference standards at least provide an "average" baseline as long
as the testing methods are identical in their prescribed set up conditions. The
problem is setting up the experimental conditions identically, this is impossible
day to day and location to location for a myriad of reasons....but you can be
within a +/- margin of predictable error from the reference standard.
2. I am claiming to have "found" the holy grail that you speak of.
The holy grail is a moving target, like an electron... seems like the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle has some merit. Just when you think you can "lock in"
on your target it has already moved to a new temporal location.....ala pi,
but you can at least get into the vicinity of where it should be, or was! LOL!
This will work for one instrument but you must also consider that the equations must, by necessity, include 3/4 waves, 1/2 waves, 1/4 waves, 1/8 waves, ad
infinitum. Then we get to the chords, and after that there is the row, the
section, and eventually the whole orchestra. The sound is harmonious but
separating out a specific individual tone from a specific piece of music,
is impossible due to all the possible variables. I think you see my point. (But
what do I know, I couldn't carry a tune in a dumptruck!) I won't even get into
non-linearities. What you are proposing is a spiral geometric progression, I think. Ever hear of Fibonacci analysis?
I love your idea, it makes sense to standardize a fixed reference other than
a cartesian number system, but I'm not a mathmetician and higher math
does not equate...LOL!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral
LL
TRoc, LL, Good Elf, C2, et al,
Very good question and I want to give you information that will give an introduction in many fields that have been posted.
TRoc, we deal with GeV's/TeV's, but I hope this page will help everyone in dealing with the TSEx as well as other topics. I do not want to be accused of bringing my post to this very productive one. Too many times post become muddled and my desire is for everyone on this subject stick with the format if possible.
I have learned my lesson in that we all have our levels of exposure in physics which stills put us all on the same playing field in the fact we would like to improve the status quo of QM and its challenges. Here is a introduction that will give other sites in which to search. You can use your edit tool on your search engine, to find the Higgs and other topics of interest as you well know.
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cf...EB7809EC588F2D7
This covers many topics that just might help, I just do not want to sound esoteric!?
http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Content/C...Physics-en.html
TRoc, if this does not help I can give you all the information you need in GeV's/TeV's because of my line of work but I do understand you question so read this and then all can give there perspective. I do not want to disrupt any progress on this post.
caio_
yquatum
Very good question and I want to give you information that will give an introduction in many fields that have been posted.
TRoc, we deal with GeV's/TeV's, but I hope this page will help everyone in dealing with the TSEx as well as other topics. I do not want to be accused of bringing my post to this very productive one. Too many times post become muddled and my desire is for everyone on this subject stick with the format if possible.
I have learned my lesson in that we all have our levels of exposure in physics which stills put us all on the same playing field in the fact we would like to improve the status quo of QM and its challenges. Here is a introduction that will give other sites in which to search. You can use your edit tool on your search engine, to find the Higgs and other topics of interest as you well know.
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cf...EB7809EC588F2D7
This covers many topics that just might help, I just do not want to sound esoteric!?
http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Content/C...Physics-en.html
TRoc, if this does not help I can give you all the information you need in GeV's/TeV's because of my line of work but I do understand you question so read this and then all can give there perspective. I do not want to disrupt any progress on this post.
caio_
yquatum
T.Roc,
Your method/theory is fascinating, and I understand what you are proposing.
But isn't it just a matter of a "linear scaling" interval? After all isn't 2 just an
extension of 1 (doubling) on a cartesian corrdinate plane over time?
As to
excluding "zero", in nature, there is always a starting time point, where the
event wasn't occuring, then instantaneously it was occuring. There must be
a reference point or everything loses intrinsic value relative to everything else.
In your case 1 is your starting point which provides you infinite bounds within
the set of 2 integers. I do admit that "zero" complicates mathematics but it
also simplifies it by giving placeholder value to linear and exponential
numerical "scales". Basically, you have shifted the threshold reference point
to fit a different measurement scale.
LL
Your method/theory is fascinating, and I understand what you are proposing.
But isn't it just a matter of a "linear scaling" interval? After all isn't 2 just an
extension of 1 (doubling) on a cartesian corrdinate plane over time?
As to
excluding "zero", in nature, there is always a starting time point, where the
event wasn't occuring, then instantaneously it was occuring. There must be
a reference point or everything loses intrinsic value relative to everything else.
In your case 1 is your starting point which provides you infinite bounds within
the set of 2 integers. I do admit that "zero" complicates mathematics but it
also simplifies it by giving placeholder value to linear and exponential
numerical "scales". Basically, you have shifted the threshold reference point
to fit a different measurement scale.
LL
yquantum,
Thanks for the links. I just finished reading the first link re zero point energy
fields and was personally stunned by its implications. I had written a bit of
a rambling speculative thoughts on what I imagined dark energy might be some time ago, as an unregistered guest,
without any foreknowledge of the subject. Pure contrivance on my part. Many
of my thoughts, which I believed were original at the time, touched briefly on
quite a few of the main points of the zero point energy topic. My thoughts
were not as polished as the article and I was really soliciting feedback to generate
discussion, to no avail.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...30&#entry123805
I was stunned by one unique comment from the text in particular, which actually
made my hair stand up because of the implications that it represents.
The comment inferred that gravity was not only an artifact/component of
the proximity to mass but also a component of ENERGY.
The implications of this seem to correlate energy and gravity to the inverse square law
that perhaps they are 1 and the same or share some inverse
momentum components. In other words, gravity may be the backwash (or
reverse thrust) of
the radiation of energy fields, which sustains the action- reaction momentum relationship
in space.
If there is energy there is gravity. The closer you get to a large energy source
the larger the gravitional pull due to the increasing cross sectional radiated power
density and its antithesis reverse gravitational component. Conversely the further from the energy source
the less energy/gravity "radiated" as a unit of cross-sectional of area. I need to
give this more thought and tie some loose ends together to my satisfaction.
I also want to consider this in relation to the interpretations of the Casimir
effect.
In any case thanks again for the links!
LL
Thanks for the links. I just finished reading the first link re zero point energy
fields and was personally stunned by its implications. I had written a bit of
a rambling speculative thoughts on what I imagined dark energy might be some time ago, as an unregistered guest,
without any foreknowledge of the subject. Pure contrivance on my part. Many
of my thoughts, which I believed were original at the time, touched briefly on
quite a few of the main points of the zero point energy topic. My thoughts
were not as polished as the article and I was really soliciting feedback to generate
discussion, to no avail.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...30&#entry123805
I was stunned by one unique comment from the text in particular, which actually
made my hair stand up because of the implications that it represents.
The comment inferred that gravity was not only an artifact/component of
the proximity to mass but also a component of ENERGY.
The implications of this seem to correlate energy and gravity to the inverse square law
that perhaps they are 1 and the same or share some inverse
momentum components. In other words, gravity may be the backwash (or
reverse thrust) of
the radiation of energy fields, which sustains the action- reaction momentum relationship
in space.
If there is energy there is gravity. The closer you get to a large energy source
the larger the gravitional pull due to the increasing cross sectional radiated power
density and its antithesis reverse gravitational component. Conversely the further from the energy source
the less energy/gravity "radiated" as a unit of cross-sectional of area. I need to
give this more thought and tie some loose ends together to my satisfaction.
I also want to consider this in relation to the interpretations of the Casimir
effect.
In any case thanks again for the links!
LL
This is the only interesting thread on the forum.
Has this tread finished analyzing the experimental results?
Are you ready to do dynamics?
TRoc is the only one here trying a new math. approach.
I would give some data if I had any. The only thing that I can offer is my model to try your math approach.
TRoc is the only one here trying a new math. approach.
I would give some data if I had any. The only thing that I can offer is my model to try your math approach.
Yquantum
….we deal with GeV's/TeV's…..
Is there a way to do a conversions of units?
GE I disagree with your model. It cannot be done with math. ( If it could ...It would have been done.)
Do a quantization of the process and you will see.
In order to be able to understand how the universe is made you cannot use the escape clause that a wave exists and spreads spherically by ISL (Inverse Square Law) when it suites you for one calculation and then reverse/cancel the logic by saying that it doesn't ...that it's only a probability at all the other locations.
If your wave spreads spherically by ISL (Inverse Square Law) then there will be interactions with other waves.
There should be some observable effects. We have not seen them.
There would be a lot more than what is observed with ZPE or Casimir force.
You got to also, stay within the speed of light AT ALL TIME.
When you change the distance that can be covered in one unit of time you change the speed of light.
If you impose the speed of light for relativity then you must impose the speed of light at the quantum level ….. below the experimental levels.
The estimate is that there are 1 billion photons per cubic m.
Therefore...... there would be 1 billion accumulations/interactions of a % of every probability for I billion photons in that cubic meter. There should also be photons waves at every ISL at every point in that cubic meter. The numbers… when considering more than one photon will not add up to unity or to 50%.
(If you don’t believe me do a grid and do some mapping with some math. For …. say … 12 photons.)
Also, your holographic sphere, at the size of the universe, is equivalent to saying that the universe is inside a Black Hole. Again…. When you quantize your holographic surface you would get my well known 2D structure.
It does not advance the discussion if everyone want to keep “the same way of doing things”. We know how well that works. However, it does not explain how the universe is made. Get a model that can be subjected to math….. then you might get some progress.
If the readers don’t know where to start and want to help they can …..read my thread and the accumulated links.
To repeat ……
Has this tread finished analyzing the experimental results?
Are you ready to do dynamics?
Me?….. I’m waiting for the results from CERN.
jal
C2, T.Roc, Good Elf, et al,
I believe I understand now, thank you C2, taking the second statement first plasma is very chaotic at best due to the dynamics it possesses so I should not have put this on the table of your post.
In calculation there is a rule which we all wish did not come into play by having the technology to measure results, I do not expect to see this in my life time or maybe I should say better insight to work through the problem it presents. And that is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Theory which never give us a 100% definitive answer.
I hope I understood this time, we are all on this journey together, I hope Good Elf will be back because if we only know of 4% of the universe I would think all is up for discussion. EH!
Best to you all and I hope you can stay with the subject at hand dealing with the TSE and the nuances that perplex us all in the QM world. We have two post were we can explore the depths of physics at its best.
If I have caused a problem in anyway please excuse, and we can deal with each subject separately if you wish.
ciao_
yquantum
Has this tread finished analyzing the experimental results?
Are you ready to do dynamics?
QUOTE
GE
If a theory does not pass muster Mathematically then a better approach must be found... this is a better mathematical approach.
If a theory does not pass muster Mathematically then a better approach must be found... this is a better mathematical approach.
TRoc is the only one here trying a new math. approach.
I would give some data if I had any. The only thing that I can offer is my model to try your math approach.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| GE If a theory does not pass muster Mathematically then a better approach must be found... this is a better mathematical approach. |
TRoc is the only one here trying a new math. approach.
I would give some data if I had any. The only thing that I can offer is my model to try your math approach.
Yquantum
….we deal with GeV's/TeV's…..
Is there a way to do a conversions of units?
GE I disagree with your model. It cannot be done with math. ( If it could ...It would have been done.)
Do a quantization of the process and you will see.
In order to be able to understand how the universe is made you cannot use the escape clause that a wave exists and spreads spherically by ISL (Inverse Square Law) when it suites you for one calculation and then reverse/cancel the logic by saying that it doesn't ...that it's only a probability at all the other locations.
If your wave spreads spherically by ISL (Inverse Square Law) then there will be interactions with other waves.
There should be some observable effects. We have not seen them.
There would be a lot more than what is observed with ZPE or Casimir force.
You got to also, stay within the speed of light AT ALL TIME.
When you change the distance that can be covered in one unit of time you change the speed of light.
If you impose the speed of light for relativity then you must impose the speed of light at the quantum level ….. below the experimental levels.
The estimate is that there are 1 billion photons per cubic m.
Therefore...... there would be 1 billion accumulations/interactions of a % of every probability for I billion photons in that cubic meter. There should also be photons waves at every ISL at every point in that cubic meter. The numbers… when considering more than one photon will not add up to unity or to 50%.
(If you don’t believe me do a grid and do some mapping with some math. For …. say … 12 photons.)
Also, your holographic sphere, at the size of the universe, is equivalent to saying that the universe is inside a Black Hole. Again…. When you quantize your holographic surface you would get my well known 2D structure.
It does not advance the discussion if everyone want to keep “the same way of doing things”. We know how well that works. However, it does not explain how the universe is made. Get a model that can be subjected to math….. then you might get some progress.
If the readers don’t know where to start and want to help they can …..read my thread and the accumulated links.
To repeat ……
Has this tread finished analyzing the experimental results?
Are you ready to do dynamics?
Me?….. I’m waiting for the results from CERN.
jal
Guest,
We have a philosophical disagreement/impasse as to what the results are actually
indicating, which has brougt forth some interesting re-interpretations of
cause and effect for the DSE. Some contend that photons travel thru
both slits which causes interference fringes as they interact post slits, which
supports the wave nature of photons.
Others believe that each photon traverses only 1 slit "cavity" at a time and there
is an EM field interaction with the EM matter component of the slit, which
momentarily deforms the EM field of the photons and deflects/diffracts them due to
non-symmetry of the EM field interactions, deviating them from a straight line
path causing reflections off the walls of the secondary cavity and generating
standing wave interference reactions inside the confines of the cavity.
And there is the theory that the fundamental frequency component of the
incident EM waves is disrupted by the center post between the slits, and the
composit integral frequencies that comprise the fundamental frequency pass
thru each side of the center post and are dispersing and recombing past the
slits in the primary cavity by virtue of 2nd+ order wave harmonic standing
wave interactions.
These are my simplified interpretations of the discussions so far, but no absolute
consensus has been agreed to. The single photon "interference pattern
experiment is still on the table, IMO. The best discussions get away from
the DSE and into more theoretical/philosophical approaches to the base
nature of energy, photons, matter, EM fields and their interactive mechanisms.
There have been some truly innovative, creative and thoughtful discussions
and theories presented over the last month or so. Well worth reading, IMO.
Very stimulating and thought provoking.
Please feel free to join in!
LL
QUOTE
To repeat ……
Has this tread finished analyzing the experimental results?
Are you ready to do dynamics?
Has this tread finished analyzing the experimental results?
Are you ready to do dynamics?
We have a philosophical disagreement/impasse as to what the results are actually
indicating, which has brougt forth some interesting re-interpretations of
cause and effect for the DSE. Some contend that photons travel thru
both slits which causes interference fringes as they interact post slits, which
supports the wave nature of photons.
Others believe that each photon traverses only 1 slit "cavity" at a time and there
is an EM field interaction with the EM matter component of the slit, which
momentarily deforms the EM field of the photons and deflects/diffracts them due to
non-symmetry of the EM field interactions, deviating them from a straight line
path causing reflections off the walls of the secondary cavity and generating
standing wave interference reactions inside the confines of the cavity.
And there is the theory that the fundamental frequency component of the
incident EM waves is disrupted by the center post between the slits, and the
composit integral frequencies that comprise the fundamental frequency pass
thru each side of the center post and are dispersing and recombing past the
slits in the primary cavity by virtue of 2nd+ order wave harmonic standing
wave interactions.
These are my simplified interpretations of the discussions so far, but no absolute
consensus has been agreed to. The single photon "interference pattern
experiment is still on the table, IMO. The best discussions get away from
the DSE and into more theoretical/philosophical approaches to the base
nature of energy, photons, matter, EM fields and their interactive mechanisms.
There have been some truly innovative, creative and thoughtful discussions
and theories presented over the last month or so. Well worth reading, IMO.
Very stimulating and thought provoking.
Please feel free to join in!
LL
jal, C2, Laserlight, T. Roc, Good Elf, et al,
Laserlight, your welcome it always gives one the gratification needed I think to feel that your going in the right direction with your concepts dealing with ideas you might have. jal, you will find at the bottom of this review some information I think you will find of interest as well.
http://cerncourier.com/main/article/43/1/15
jal, this should help you dealing with some of the question that you have asked not only on you post but also with the question above. Hope all is well.
http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1002289
I would hope that you pursue this subject to the degree it will give everyone the insight to appreciate the difficulty of what many deal with each day. The source above will also give you the tools and references needed to further your goal.
Best
caio_
yquantum
dodge the typos and grammar if possible, much is going on right now....
Laserlight, your welcome it always gives one the gratification needed I think to feel that your going in the right direction with your concepts dealing with ideas you might have. jal, you will find at the bottom of this review some information I think you will find of interest as well.
http://cerncourier.com/main/article/43/1/15
jal, this should help you dealing with some of the question that you have asked not only on you post but also with the question above. Hope all is well.
http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1002289
I would hope that you pursue this subject to the degree it will give everyone the insight to appreciate the difficulty of what many deal with each day. The source above will also give you the tools and references needed to further your goal.
Best
caio_
yquantum
dodge the typos and grammar if possible, much is going on right now....
yquantum,
I have a slight conflict in amounts. It also looks like the value (expected) has changed.
Is the range in 7 to 14 TeV / or 1.69 to 3.38e27 Hz ?
Thanks,
T.Roc
I have a slight conflict in amounts. It also looks like the value (expected) has changed.
Is the range in 7 to 14 TeV / or 1.69 to 3.38e27 Hz ?
Thanks,
T.Roc
Troc (yquantum)
Originally pointed out by rpenner..
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html
-C2.
Originally pointed out by rpenner..
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html
-C2.
TRoc, C2, (thanks),
In fear of misunderstanding I will give a simple source, not to insult but a honest effort to answer you question correctly. If this is not what you seek it will give you the tools in which to recalibrate your last statement to check the results.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/9/7
http://magnets-industry-workshop.web.cern....s_Tommasini.pdf
http://council-strategygroup.web.cern.ch/c...gy_Brochure.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0609/0609285.pdf
Let me know and will do my best to help.
caio_
yquantum
In fear of misunderstanding I will give a simple source, not to insult but a honest effort to answer you question correctly. If this is not what you seek it will give you the tools in which to recalibrate your last statement to check the results.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/9/7
http://magnets-industry-workshop.web.cern....s_Tommasini.pdf
http://council-strategygroup.web.cern.ch/c...gy_Brochure.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0609/0609285.pdf
Let me know and will do my best to help.
caio_
yquantum
Hi TRoc, yquantum et al,
Some (I suspect TRoc) might claim that the experiment, the DSE, is inevitably carried out (effectively) as both part of and inside of a black body absorber of some degree of quality. Personally I don't think this has any bearing on the result .. the dominant feature of which is the path lengths and statistics. In fairness to TRoc one might suppose that if you claim to be able to calculate 'anything' you must ultimately show that you can calculate 'everything' if only to prove that your initial calculation was 'fit for the intended purpose'.
Possibly this has some bearing on the point made by yquantum about plasma .. an extreme version of the problem?
-C2.
Some (I suspect TRoc) might claim that the experiment, the DSE, is inevitably carried out (effectively) as both part of and inside of a black body absorber of some degree of quality. Personally I don't think this has any bearing on the result .. the dominant feature of which is the path lengths and statistics. In fairness to TRoc one might suppose that if you claim to be able to calculate 'anything' you must ultimately show that you can calculate 'everything' if only to prove that your initial calculation was 'fit for the intended purpose'.
Possibly this has some bearing on the point made by yquantum about plasma .. an extreme version of the problem?
-C2.
QUOTE
one might suppose that if you claim to be able to calculate 'anything' you must ultimately show that you can calculate 'everything' if only to prove that your initial calculation was 'fit for the intended purpose'.
Possibly this has some bearing on the point made by yquantum about plasma .. an extreme version of the problem?
Possibly this has some bearing on the point made by yquantum about plasma .. an extreme version of the problem?
C2, T.Roc, Good Elf, et al,
I believe I understand now, thank you C2, taking the second statement first plasma is very chaotic at best due to the dynamics it possesses so I should not have put this on the table of your post.
In calculation there is a rule which we all wish did not come into play by having the technology to measure results, I do not expect to see this in my life time or maybe I should say better insight to work through the problem it presents. And that is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Theory which never give us a 100% definitive answer.
I hope I understood this time, we are all on this journey together, I hope Good Elf will be back because if we only know of 4% of the universe I would think all is up for discussion. EH!
Best to you all and I hope you can stay with the subject at hand dealing with the TSE and the nuances that perplex us all in the QM world. We have two post were we can explore the depths of physics at its best.
If I have caused a problem in anyway please excuse, and we can deal with each subject separately if you wish.
ciao_
yquantum
I feel I have delayed long enough .. perhaps too long
TRoc has run amok in the optics lab..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=142493
All assistance would be most welcome.
-C2.
TRoc has run amok in the optics lab..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=142493
All assistance would be most welcome.
-C2.
C2, T.Roc, Yquantum, GE, and All,
This site should help. Check out the 2 slit and 1 slit experiment by
clicking on the appropriate titled ellipse. There are multiple
slit orientation experiments shown.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
This site should help. Check out the 2 slit and 1 slit experiment by
clicking on the appropriate titled ellipse. There are multiple
slit orientation experiments shown.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
LL, YQ, C2, et al ..
Yes, there is quite a bit of good stuff being put out at the Calphysics Institute. My model is in agreement with much of it (from what I've read).
One good one is the Spontaneous Parametric UP Conversion, a dual to the more common SPDC. This is the approach: resonance can manipulate quantities UP, DOWN, or NEUTRAL (same).
The other (really) good one is the inertia explanation.
I believe I have the sequence, the math, and the form necessary to "create" mass (and charge & magnetism) from LIGHT. You all know this can not be explained "quickly".
LL, you might find interest in the similar work of Milo Wolff. LINK
A good, recent paper on HUP in measurements:
MEASUREMENTS AND DECOHERENCE
A snip from that paper: (2005)
So, far, so good.. let's read the second sentance:
So, far, so good.. let's read the second sentance:
"The key development is the realisation that a realistic quantum system is
not isolated; it is immersed in in an environment with which it continuously interacts."
WHAT? I mean, I don't mean to sound condescending, or arrogant (Iknow that I probably still do
), but I can't believe I am reading about this "discovery" that has happened over the last 30 years!
Another place to find "resonance" with my theory is in "Constructal Theory".
My explanation to the DSE can be summed up with the inverse of his statement:
From: http://www.mems.duke.edu/faculty/bejan/const_theory.php
Since Constructal Theory generally applies to things with mass, my postulate is essentially the same statement, made for waves (light AND mass).
The generation of "flow" rests in the balancing (or distributing) of the geometric form, or non-linear resistances through the system that contains, and measures the flow. Flow is governed by the Principles of Resonance, as is the creation of geometric form.
An image from the link above:
Since Constructal Theory generally applies to things with mass, my postulate is essentially the same statement, made for waves (light AND mass).
The generation of "flow" rests in the balancing (or distributing) of the geometric form, or non-linear resistances through the system that contains, and measures the flow. Flow is governed by the Principles of Resonance, as is the creation of geometric form.
An image from the link above:
"The transition from one tree structure to one with more level of pairing, as the flow resistance (f) is minimized while N increases. Dendritic convection on a disc, W. Wechsatol, S. Lorente & A. Bejan, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 46 (2003) 4381-4891"
You can see the similarity in 12 part "pairings", to deriving the solution to a musical chord.
YQ, the 7 to 14 TeV range was from CERN, and newer than the info that I had, which gave 114 to 200 GeV.
ciao!
T.Roc
Yes, there is quite a bit of good stuff being put out at the Calphysics Institute. My model is in agreement with much of it (from what I've read).
One good one is the Spontaneous Parametric UP Conversion, a dual to the more common SPDC. This is the approach: resonance can manipulate quantities UP, DOWN, or NEUTRAL (same).
The other (really) good one is the inertia explanation.
I believe I have the sequence, the math, and the form necessary to "create" mass (and charge & magnetism) from LIGHT. You all know this can not be explained "quickly".
LL, you might find interest in the similar work of Milo Wolff. LINK
A good, recent paper on HUP in measurements:
MEASUREMENTS AND DECOHERENCE
A snip from that paper: (2005)
QUOTE
During the past three and a half decades, there have been some important developments relating to the foundations of quantum mechanics (QM)."
So, far, so good.. let's read the second sentance:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| During the past three and a half decades, there have been some important developments relating to the foundations of quantum mechanics (QM)." |
So, far, so good.. let's read the second sentance:
"The key development is the realisation that a realistic quantum system is
not isolated; it is immersed in in an environment with which it continuously interacts."
WHAT? I mean, I don't mean to sound condescending, or arrogant (Iknow that I probably still do
), but I can't believe I am reading about this "discovery" that has happened over the last 30 years! Another place to find "resonance" with my theory is in "Constructal Theory".
My explanation to the DSE can be summed up with the inverse of his statement:
From: http://www.mems.duke.edu/faculty/bejan/const_theory.php
QUOTE
" The origin of the generation of geometric form rests in the balancing (or distributing) of the various flow resistances through the system. "
Since Constructal Theory generally applies to things with mass, my postulate is essentially the same statement, made for waves (light AND mass).
The generation of "flow" rests in the balancing (or distributing) of the geometric form, or non-linear resistances through the system that contains, and measures the flow. Flow is governed by the Principles of Resonance, as is the creation of geometric form.
An image from the link above:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| " The origin of the generation of geometric form rests in the balancing (or distributing) of the various flow resistances through the system. " |
Since Constructal Theory generally applies to things with mass, my postulate is essentially the same statement, made for waves (light AND mass).
The generation of "flow" rests in the balancing (or distributing) of the geometric form, or non-linear resistances through the system that contains, and measures the flow. Flow is governed by the Principles of Resonance, as is the creation of geometric form.
An image from the link above:
"The transition from one tree structure to one with more level of pairing, as the flow resistance (f) is minimized while N increases. Dendritic convection on a disc, W. Wechsatol, S. Lorente & A. Bejan, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 46 (2003) 4381-4891"
You can see the similarity in 12 part "pairings", to deriving the solution to a musical chord.
YQ, the 7 to 14 TeV range was from CERN, and newer than the info that I had, which gave 114 to 200 GeV.
ciao!
T.Roc
Troc LL et al
I fear we have fallen into a swamp where .. well a swamp. NOTHING can be proven or demonstrated from falling into a swamp except things relevent to falling into swamps.
This (ONE slit.. no messing) .. fiddle about with
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Fraunhofer Single Slit
until you see this ..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...pho/sinslit.gif
Which is based on Huygens (1629-1695) and might help to bring us back into the 20th century.
(m is an integer, a is amplitude , lambda is the wavelength)
a Sin(Theta) = m Lambda .. a whole wavelength .. an equal amount of plusative and negative .. cancels out if (and only if) its the same frequncy.
No mucking about with Fourier .. he comes in AFTER we know what we're doing..
Any iota of the calculation that is not understood 100% .. POST .. OK? If you think I've got it wrong .. POST (might be deliberate!)
-C2.
I fear we have fallen into a swamp where .. well a swamp. NOTHING can be proven or demonstrated from falling into a swamp except things relevent to falling into swamps.
This (ONE slit.. no messing) .. fiddle about with
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Fraunhofer Single Slit
until you see this ..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...pho/sinslit.gif
Which is based on Huygens (1629-1695) and might help to bring us back into the 20th century.
(m is an integer, a is amplitude , lambda is the wavelength)
a Sin(Theta) = m Lambda .. a whole wavelength .. an equal amount of plusative and negative .. cancels out if (and only if) its the same frequncy.
No mucking about with Fourier .. he comes in AFTER we know what we're doing..
Any iota of the calculation that is not understood 100% .. POST .. OK? If you think I've got it wrong .. POST (might be deliberate!)
-C2.
TRoc, C2, Laserlight, et al,
I wondered and had to try and stay focus dealing with other issues. I really do understand your question now. [I think?]
This will give you the information you require, I have way to much going on but glad we clear this one up, we did right
http://committees2.web.cern.ch/Committees2...wgreport213.pdf
Just do a search on the pdf and put in 250 or Higgs, and you will find what you seek. Plus other information you might find of interest.
ciao_
yquantum
I wondered and had to try and stay focus dealing with other issues. I really do understand your question now. [I think?]
This will give you the information you require, I have way to much going on but glad we clear this one up, we did
right http://committees2.web.cern.ch/Committees2...wgreport213.pdf
Just do a search on the pdf and put in 250 or Higgs, and you will find what you seek. Plus other information you might find of interest.
ciao_
yquantum
C-2, Fraunhofer diffraction geometry....
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Look at the conceptual details for single slit link...
LL
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Look at the conceptual details for single slit link...
LL
LL
I'm looking ... ??
-C2
I'm looking ... ??
-C2
C2- more serial links...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../sinslitwid.gif
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...t/sinslitd.html
and multi-slit waveform comparisons....
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...mulslid.html#c2
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...t/dslit.html#c1
Comments?
LL
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../sinslitwid.gif
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...t/sinslitd.html
and multi-slit waveform comparisons....
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...mulslid.html#c2
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...t/dslit.html#c1
Comments?
LL
Hi LL
I'm with you .. didn't get much from
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...c/slitcomps.jpg
yes?
-C2
I'm with you .. didn't get much from
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...c/slitcomps.jpg
yes?
-C2
Hi LL
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...mgpho/muls2.gif
Still with you after the edit .. yes?
-C2 (there's always a "best wishes" ..but I leave it off to save space)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...mgpho/muls2.gif
Still with you after the edit .. yes?
-C2 (there's always a "best wishes" ..but I leave it off to save space)
C2 - I'm here...I edited and changed the link...did it work?
LL
LL
Hi LL,
Yes it worked ... and...... ?
bw C2
Yes it worked ... and...... ?
bw C2
C2- ok... after reading all of the experiments several realities became apparent.
(it is nice to get a full information set with comparisons and graphic explanations)
1. YES, there is wave interference.
2. Interaction with the slit cavity edges causes diffraction wave phase shifts
that constructively and destructively interfere as wave signals overlap.
3. The width of the slits and their separation distance affect the dispersion of the
incident wave front.
4. Narrow slits cause more dispersion/diffusion of the wavefront due to more
refractive interference with the slit cavity.
5. multiple slits develop harmonic frequency integrals of the fundamental signal compared to a single slit (the integrals all fit within the bandpass of a single slit)
6. In this case there are no cavity reflections forming the waveform of the
original white light DSE (showing interference patterns on the floor of the cavity.
7. No evidence that a solitary photon traverses both slits simultaneously.
8. No evidence that a photon wavefront travels all paths....
We still need the explanation for the single photon DSE results.
All, Feel free to add your own comments, observations, critique, etc.
LL
(it is nice to get a full information set with comparisons and graphic explanations)
1. YES, there is wave interference.
2. Interaction with the slit cavity edges causes diffraction wave phase shifts
that constructively and destructively interfere as wave signals overlap.
3. The width of the slits and their separation distance affect the dispersion of the
incident wave front.
4. Narrow slits cause more dispersion/diffusion of the wavefront due to more
refractive interference with the slit cavity.
5. multiple slits develop harmonic frequency integrals of the fundamental signal compared to a single slit (the integrals all fit within the bandpass of a single slit)
6. In this case there are no cavity reflections forming the waveform of the
original white light DSE (showing interference patterns on the floor of the cavity.
7. No evidence that a solitary photon traverses both slits simultaneously.
8. No evidence that a photon wavefront travels all paths....
We still need the explanation for the single photon DSE results.
All, Feel free to add your own comments, observations, critique, etc.
LL
Hi LL, TRoc, yquantum,GE et al,
As Good Elf said, way back before the KT boundary,
The DSE is two diffraction patterns sitting on top of each other.
Step 1. Map the intensity of the diffraction pattern of one slit using using any of the equations here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction .
Throughout, points will be deducted for the the use of any of the following words (others may be added to the list without notice)
[ dispersion, diffusion, harmonic, frequency, integrals, bandpass, cavity, reflections, temperature,foam,Aether,beat ]
Step 2. Look at this result
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
(taken from here http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml )
Observe the diffraction pattern with one slit open, then the other slit. And finally BOTH slits. Wow!
The result is predicted here:
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html ..
Note that the word 'frequency' does not appear in any analysis.. only wavelength.
Hopefully we now have an agreed result and agreed mathematics.
Note that the diagram shows counts rather than intensity because this experiment is carried out using single photons. Photon count and light intensity are the same thing.
Hopefully we are now in a position to determine whether all the stuff we've been going through has any relevence whatsoever to the result. Anything that does not predict the results we already have and the equations that describe them .. is in trouble. We have to modify theory to suit the DSE .. not vice versa.
-C2.
As Good Elf said, way back before the KT boundary,
The DSE is two diffraction patterns sitting on top of each other.
Step 1. Map the intensity of the diffraction pattern of one slit using using any of the equations here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction .
Throughout, points will be deducted for the the use of any of the following words (others may be added to the list without notice)
[ dispersion, diffusion, harmonic, frequency, integrals, bandpass, cavity, reflections, temperature,foam,Aether,beat ]
Step 2. Look at this result
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
(taken from here http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml )
Observe the diffraction pattern with one slit open, then the other slit. And finally BOTH slits. Wow!
The result is predicted here:
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html ..
Note that the word 'frequency' does not appear in any analysis.. only wavelength.
Hopefully we now have an agreed result and agreed mathematics.
Note that the diagram shows counts rather than intensity because this experiment is carried out using single photons. Photon count and light intensity are the same thing.
Hopefully we are now in a position to determine whether all the stuff we've been going through has any relevence whatsoever to the result. Anything that does not predict the results we already have and the equations that describe them .. is in trouble. We have to modify theory to suit the DSE .. not vice versa.
-C2.
TRoc,
Since the analysis 'works' with a fixed wavelength then anyone wishing to explain the observed result using changes of frequency will need to explain how the frequency changes with no effect on wavelength.
-C2
Since the analysis 'works' with a fixed wavelength then anyone wishing to explain the observed result using changes of frequency will need to explain how the frequency changes with no effect on wavelength.
-C2
LL
"harmonic frequency integrals of the fundamental signal"
Usually Fourier Transforms are used to show the frequency components of some function of time ie f(t) . We notice that the width of the slit is constant .. ie NOT a function of time. We notice that the wavelength is also NOT a function of time. When we apply a Fourier Transform to something that is not a function of time the transform cannot produce a "frequency" as a result. We need to keep a clear head so we don't confuse "spatial frequency" with "temporal frequency".
-C2.
"harmonic frequency integrals of the fundamental signal"
Usually Fourier Transforms are used to show the frequency components of some function of time ie f(t) . We notice that the width of the slit is constant .. ie NOT a function of time. We notice that the wavelength is also NOT a function of time. When we apply a Fourier Transform to something that is not a function of time the transform cannot produce a "frequency" as a result. We need to keep a clear head so we don't confuse "spatial frequency" with "temporal frequency".
-C2.
Hi C2 and Laserlight, Yquantum and others,
I have become quite confused by all the "non-linear" thinking around here and I would like to see some kind of advance based on application of Scientific Principles. No advance can occur while we are so diametrically opposed to each others points of view. I have decided to expose you all to another pont of view to see by way of comparison what is good and what is bad in the work we have done so far...
Once again the idea that some cannot believe that interference is due not to interaction "between" photons and only interactions "within" a single photon are at the heart of the quantum phenomena. Interference has nothing to do with mutual interactions. It must be conceded that the phenomenon must be due to an influence that "connects" both slits in a single cavity. You can test this by covering a slit and you then get single slit diffraction. The differential length of arms of "interferometers" has no influence on the interference effect as shown in this paper which demonstrates for an earlier Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. This experiment shows definitively that the coincidence of photons through a grating or partial mirror or other optical device does not have any bearing on the result even in the case of Parametrically Down converted matched photons. All I ask is for people to have a reasonable sense of analysis as other professional experimentalists have shown and to allow them the dignity of their profession to conclusively arrive at a conclusion. This experiment shows that arrival of photons together at any stage of the DCQE Experiment does not change the outcome of the experiment and interference is related to a per photon event... even with entangled photons...
I have become quite confused by all the "non-linear" thinking around here and I would like to see some kind of advance based on application of Scientific Principles. No advance can occur while we are so diametrically opposed to each others points of view. I have decided to expose you all to another pont of view to see by way of comparison what is good and what is bad in the work we have done so far...
Once again the idea that some cannot believe that interference is due not to interaction "between" photons and only interactions "within" a single photon are at the heart of the quantum phenomena. Interference has nothing to do with mutual interactions. It must be conceded that the phenomenon must be due to an influence that "connects" both slits in a single cavity. You can test this by covering a slit and you then get single slit diffraction. The differential length of arms of "interferometers" has no influence on the interference effect as shown in this paper which demonstrates for an earlier Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. This experiment shows definitively that the coincidence of photons through a grating or partial mirror or other optical device does not have any bearing on the result even in the case of Parametrically Down converted matched photons. All I ask is for people to have a reasonable sense of analysis as other professional experimentalists have shown and to allow them the dignity of their profession to conclusively arrive at a conclusion. This experiment shows that arrival of photons together at any stage of the DCQE Experiment does not change the outcome of the experiment and interference is related to a per photon event... even with entangled photons...QUOTE
Can Two-Photon Interference be Considered the Interference of Two Photons?
T. B. Pittman,1 D. V. Strekalov,1 A. Migdall,2 M. H. Rubin,1 A. V. Sergienko,1 and Y. H. Shih1
1Department of Physics, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland 21228
2Radiometric Physics Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899
(Received 6 February 1996)
We report on a “postponed compensation” experiment in which the observed two-photon entangled state interference cannot be pictured in terms of the overlap of the two individual photon wave packets of a parametric down-conversion pair on a beam splitter. In the sense of a quantum eraser, the distinguishability of the different two-photon Feynman amplitudes leading to a coincidence detection is removed by delaying the compensation until after the output of an unbalanced two-photon
interferometer. [S0031-9007(96)01106-4]
VOLUME 77, NUMBER 10 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 2 SEPTEMBER 1996
Can Two-Photon Interference be Considered the Interference of Two Photons? T. B. Pittman, D. V. Strekalov et al
In this experimental paper and not a "theory" it was shown...T. B. Pittman,1 D. V. Strekalov,1 A. Migdall,2 M. H. Rubin,1 A. V. Sergienko,1 and Y. H. Shih1
1Department of Physics, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland 21228
2Radiometric Physics Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899
(Received 6 February 1996)
We report on a “postponed compensation” experiment in which the observed two-photon entangled state interference cannot be pictured in terms of the overlap of the two individual photon wave packets of a parametric down-conversion pair on a beam splitter. In the sense of a quantum eraser, the distinguishability of the different two-photon Feynman amplitudes leading to a coincidence detection is removed by delaying the compensation until after the output of an unbalanced two-photon
interferometer. [S0031-9007(96)01106-4]
VOLUME 77, NUMBER 10 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 2 SEPTEMBER 1996
Can Two-Photon Interference be Considered the Interference of Two Photons? T. B. Pittman, D. V. Strekalov et al
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Can Two-Photon Interference be Considered the Interference of Two Photons? T. B. Pittman,1 D. V. Strekalov,1 A. Migdall,2 M. H. Rubin,1 A. V. Sergienko,1 and Y. H. Shih1 1Department of Physics, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland 21228 2Radiometric Physics Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899 (Received 6 February 1996) We report on a “postponed compensation” experiment in which the observed two-photon entangled state interference cannot be pictured in terms of the overlap of the two individual photon wave packets of a parametric down-conversion pair on a beam splitter. In the sense of a quantum eraser, the distinguishability of the different two-photon Feynman amplitudes leading to a coincidence detection is removed by delaying the compensation until after the output of an unbalanced two-photon interferometer. [S0031-9007(96)01106-4] VOLUME 77, NUMBER 10 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 2 SEPTEMBER 1996 Can Two-Photon Interference be Considered the Interference of Two Photons? T. B. Pittman, D. V. Strekalov et al |
In this experimental paper and not a "theory" it was shown...
In his famous introduction [1] to the single particle superposition principle, Feynman stated that, “. . . it has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In fact, it contains the only mystery.” Within the context of Young’s classic two-slit experiment [2], the role of the observer and the indistinguishability of the “alternative amplitudes” leading to the “final event” have helped exemplify the complementarity inherent in the foundations of quantum mechanics. Yet unlike single particle experiments, the “final events” in two-photon experiments are coincidence measurements, and the notion of these “alternatives” has to be treated with even greater care. For this reason it is important to explicitly demonstrate that two-photon interference cannot simply be pictured as the interference between two single photons. [...] In conclusion, the results of this experiment clearly demonstrate that two-photon interference effects can be observed even when the optical paths in the interferometer have very different lengths, and the photons do not arrive at the beam splitter at the same time. In several earlier polarization experiments [6] the intuitively comforting notion of the photons overlapping at the beam splitter is not at the heart of the interference, but a mere artifact of the particular geometry of the setups. What is important is the indistinguishability of the two-photon amplitudes, which may be maintained or destroyed after the output of the interferometer. This type of postponed compensation highlights the nonclassical nature of the two-photon state produced in SPDC, which cannot simply be thought of as two single photons.
In his famous introduction [1] to the single particle superposition principle, Feynman stated that, “. . . it has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In fact, it contains the only mystery.” Within the context of Young’s classic two-slit experiment [2], the role of the observer and the indistinguishability of the “alternative amplitudes” leading to the “final event” have helped exemplify the complementarity inherent in the foundations of quantum mechanics. Yet unlike single particle experiments, the “final events” in two-photon experiments are coincidence measurements, and the notion of these “alternatives” has to be treated with even greater care. For this reason it is important to explicitly demonstrate that two-photon interference cannot simply be pictured as the interference between two single photons. [...] In conclusion, the results of this experiment clearly demonstrate that two-photon interference effects can be observed even when the optical paths in the interferometer have very different lengths, and the photons do not arrive at the beam splitter at the same time. In several earlier polarization experiments [6] the intuitively comforting notion of the photons overlapping at the beam splitter is not at the heart of the interference, but a mere artifact of the particular geometry of the setups. What is important is the indistinguishability of the two-photon amplitudes, which may be maintained or destroyed after the output of the interferometer. This type of postponed compensation highlights the nonclassical nature of the two-photon state produced in SPDC, which cannot simply be thought of as two single photons.
The next point I would like to say is that interference between photons would lead to photons exchanging energy which would ultimately change their frequency and this is unacceptable since the frequency of a photon does not alter except in relativistic Doppler processes. One way to deal with this issue is one I had not considered but is "possible" but in my opinion "unlikely"...
Here is a link to a forum (not the most erudite but I would say not a slouch in terms of analyzing the situation...) where the Professor does have points but comes to different conclusions to myself. Still his approach will give people on this Forum Insight into the minds of some others and to modes of thinking that are still logical and arrive at solutions to the problem that we may disagree with...
UConn Physics Colloquium: If EM fields do not operate on each other, can a single photon interfere with itself? Professor Chandra Roychoudhuri
Here is a summary of the findings of the Conference...
Do we count indivisible photons or discrete quantum events experienced by detectors? Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri
I hope you will all read the full paper but to entice you to read some of this I will "cherry pick" some "sound-bytes" for those with attention deficits.. like some elves we know...
I will put just a couple of points and conclusions of that Conference here and you will find a lot more interesting statements made by others consolidated in this Summary. His view seems to indicate a less rigid but semi-classical outcome to photon analysis but I believe there are a couple of "gotchas" in it. However it is healthy to see how others approach the same problem and come to different solutions.
Here is a link to a forum (not the most erudite but I would say not a slouch in terms of analyzing the situation...) where the Professor does have points but comes to different conclusions to myself. Still his approach will give people on this Forum Insight into the minds of some others and to modes of thinking that are still logical and arrive at solutions to the problem that we may disagree with...
UConn Physics Colloquium: If EM fields do not operate on each other, can a single photon interfere with itself? Professor Chandra Roychoudhuri
Here is a summary of the findings of the Conference...
Do we count indivisible photons or discrete quantum events experienced by detectors? Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri
I hope you will all read the full paper but to entice you to read some of this I will "cherry pick" some "sound-bytes" for those with attention deficits.. like some elves we know...
I will put just a couple of points and conclusions of that Conference here and you will find a lot more interesting statements made by others consolidated in this Summary. His view seems to indicate a less rigid but semi-classical outcome to photon analysis but I believe there are a couple of "gotchas" in it. However it is healthy to see how others approach the same problem and come to different solutions.
QUOTE (Do we count indivisible photons or discrete quantum events experienced by detectors?+)
As low light detection technologies are advancing, novel experiments like single molecule spectroscopy, quantum computation, quantum encryption are proliferating. Quantum mechanical detectors can produce only discrete “clicks” at different rates based on the propagating field energy through them, irrespective of whether the photons are divisible or indivisible packets of energy. This is because electrons are quantized elementary particles and they are always bound in quantized energy levels in different quantum systems. Highly successful quantum formalism is not capable of providing the microscopic picture of the processes undergoing during QM interactions; that is left to human imaginations allowing for sustained controversies and mis-interpretations. This paper underscores the paradoxes that arise with the assumption that photons are indivisible elementary particles based on the obvious but generally ignored fact that EM fields do not operate on (interfere with) each other. Then we propose that atomic or molecular emissions emerge and propagate out as space and time finite classical wave packets. We also suggest experiments to validate that the amplitude of a photon wave packet can be split and combined by classical optical components using the specific example of an N-slit grating. [...] This paper underscores the reasons for holding healthy doubts against the concept of photon as an indivisible elementary particle. We propose that photons are space and time finite classical wave packets that propagate out from light emitting atoms and molecules following Huygens-Fresnel principle. Our key logical platform derives form the commonsense fact, neglected in the books and literature that electromagnetic fields do not interfere with or operate on each other. [...] It is quite common to explain that no photons arrive at the location of dark fringes in a two beam interferometer (Mach-Zehnder, Michelson, Young’s double slit, etc.). The implication is that it does not matter whether the light beam contains one or multitude of indivisible photons, the outcome will always be the same. If photons are really indivisible packets of energy and “photon interferes only with itself”, then why do we need phase and frequency coherence properties between different parts of a light beam? Our viewpoint is that the belief in “single photon interference” is a highly flawed simply because light beams do not interfere with each other, whether they contain one photon or trillions of photons. Both classical and QM mathematical formulations tacitly assume that EM fields do not interact with (operate on) each other. Then how can crossing light beams redistribute the field energy by themselves? Our model of expanding universe is based upon the measurement of Doppler frequency shifts of light from distant stars. Light from specific stars and galaxies from many light years distance away are always crossed by trillions of the light beam from other stars. Yet the Doppler shift remains unchanged characteristic signature of each individual star. In our daily life, we have no problem recognizing a face from a distance even though the image carrying beam had to cross multitudes of other the light beams going in different directions. Well formed light beams do not interfere with each other. They pass through each other unperturbed in the absence of interacting molecules (detectors). Light does not interfere with light. This is why the WDM communication system works. We combine a large number of communication channels by wavelength domain multiplexing (WDM) using light beam with a distinct set of frequencies and send them through a common path of hair-thin fiber of tens of kilometer and we separate each channel by demultiplexing without loosing any data. If light beams of different frequencies interacted on each other by themselves, the output signal would have become chaotic pulses. [...]
5. PANARELLA’S LOW LIGHT LEVEL EXPERIMENT
In view of the persisting claims of “single photon interference” for almost a century, we want to draw attention of the readers to a publication by Panarella [5]. He carried out the measurements of the diffraction patterns due to a pin hole illuminated by a CW He-Ne laser beam whose intensity was systematically reduced by carefully calibrated steps. He found out that when the beam power drops below four-photon equivalent energy, the side lobes of diffraction rings cannot be recorded even with prolonged integration time. This result conforms to our semiclassical view. The detectors first stimulated as dipoles by the superposed fields can undergo QM transition provided there was enough field energy with in their vicinity to absorb hν amount of energy. However, Panarella’s experiment brings up another important question. Why does his experiment require the simultaneous presence of more than 4-photons to register a “click”? We believe that it is because photons, after being emitted by atoms and molecules, propagate as expanding (diffractive) wave packets with reduced energy densities. [...]
7. FINITE TIME AND ENERGY FOR A SINGLE PHOTO INDUCED TRANSITION
Both the proponents and opponents of photons (spontaneous emission from individual atoms or molecules) as indivisible packets of energy concur with the experimental observations that the transition time required for a photo induced transition is extremely short. For visible range (ν ~ 10^15 Hz) it is in the domain of 10^-15 seconds or around one femto second. They also concur that even at very low intensity, if there is any photo induced transition, it always happens within the fs time constant; only the rates of clicks are very low. In this context we find the observation of Panarella [5] very interesting. At extremely low intensity he was unable to detect the secondary diffraction rings even after very long time integration when the low count rate for the central disc was still measurable. While Panarella has proposed a “photon clump” theory to explain his observation, we are proposing that it is due to photons being divisible, diffractively spreading classical wave packets, they present much weaker field energy densities at larger diffraction angles. [...]
8. WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE IMPACTS IF PHOTONS ARE DIVISIBLE WAVE PACKETS?
First, the unnecessary claims that interference phenomenon is non-local can be replaced by a casual and local model without compromising any prediction of quantum mechanics [7]. Of course, we will have to give up the interpretation that each photoelectron implies the registration of a specific indivisible photon. We will have to give up the notion that no photons arrive at the location of the dark interference fringes. We also have to give up Dirac’s statement, “Each photon then interferes only with itself. Interference between two different photons never occurs” [21]. And, of course, those conceived experiments that literally require the production, propagation, manipulation and detection of the same original indivisible photon, will have to be re-designed. EM field wave packets changes constantly through incessant diffractive propagation. Also as a photon propagates through a material medium, it interacts with the dipoles of the medium and emerges as a different photon undergoing various changes in amplitude, phase, polarization and frequencies, depending upon the incident beam intensity and the polarizability nχ of the medium. One should recognize that if photons were really indivisible and independent packets of energy and they can use their non-local properties to determine which place in an interferometer to appear or disappear from, then we should not have required any phase coherence property for superposition measurements (interferometry). The phase coherence is required by the detecting dipoles when they try to sum the induced dipole undulation amplitudes due to all the superposed fields at the same time. This is why the superposition effects necessarily have to be local (volume of the participating detecting molecules).
UConn Physics Colloquium: If EM fields do not operate on each other, can a single photon interfere with itself? Professor Chandra Roychoudhuri
Reprints from the Conference
This discussion does show how easy it is to fall short because of the Complex nature of Electromagnetic Radiation. So ingrained it is that EM Waves are wholly real that we forget that composition of reality requires a complex Fourier plane not a real Fourier plane. In the dark bands of DSE the photon has complex values in which the fields actually are not "Real and definite" and this leads to them having an "invisible" presence. It is far easier to regard this the way Dirac had envisioned it in the reference above. What Feynman had said in the first reference above indicates the subtlety of these points. The "answer" must answer all questions not just some of them. The pivotal statement is "One should recognize that if photons were really indivisible and independent packets of energy and they can use their non-local properties to determine which place in an interferometer to appear or disappear from, then we should not have required any phase coherence property for superposition measurements (interferometry). The phase coherence is required by the detecting dipoles when they try to sum the induced dipole undulation amplitudes due to all the superposed fields at the same time. This is why the superposition effects necessarily have to be local (volume of the participating detecting molecules)."
In the end only one theory will explain all experimental evidence. I am "sympathetic" with the concept thatthe photon is NOT some "indivisible" particle. I fully support that EM packets are "snippits" of waves and thus they are quantized. This process of quantization, like other quantum properties , is nothing really special but a semi-classical phenomena but EM waves is the real problem being a Complex entity not a real one as indicated in many simple treatments. Only that treatment can resolve the dual nature of electromagnetism. I can't say this is all easy but it does have a "light at the end of teh tunnel". This light is not just another train coming the other way!
Cheers
5. PANARELLA’S LOW LIGHT LEVEL EXPERIMENT
In view of the persisting claims of “single photon interference” for almost a century, we want to draw attention of the readers to a publication by Panarella [5]. He carried out the measurements of the diffraction patterns due to a pin hole illuminated by a CW He-Ne laser beam whose intensity was systematically reduced by carefully calibrated steps. He found out that when the beam power drops below four-photon equivalent energy, the side lobes of diffraction rings cannot be recorded even with prolonged integration time. This result conforms to our semiclassical view. The detectors first stimulated as dipoles by the superposed fields can undergo QM transition provided there was enough field energy with in their vicinity to absorb hν amount of energy. However, Panarella’s experiment brings up another important question. Why does his experiment require the simultaneous presence of more than 4-photons to register a “click”? We believe that it is because photons, after being emitted by atoms and molecules, propagate as expanding (diffractive) wave packets with reduced energy densities. [...]
7. FINITE TIME AND ENERGY FOR A SINGLE PHOTO INDUCED TRANSITION
Both the proponents and opponents of photons (spontaneous emission from individual atoms or molecules) as indivisible packets of energy concur with the experimental observations that the transition time required for a photo induced transition is extremely short. For visible range (ν ~ 10^15 Hz) it is in the domain of 10^-15 seconds or around one femto second. They also concur that even at very low intensity, if there is any photo induced transition, it always happens within the fs time constant; only the rates of clicks are very low. In this context we find the observation of Panarella [5] very interesting. At extremely low intensity he was unable to detect the secondary diffraction rings even after very long time integration when the low count rate for the central disc was still measurable. While Panarella has proposed a “photon clump” theory to explain his observation, we are proposing that it is due to photons being divisible, diffractively spreading classical wave packets, they present much weaker field energy densities at larger diffraction angles. [...]
8. WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE IMPACTS IF PHOTONS ARE DIVISIBLE WAVE PACKETS?
First, the unnecessary claims that interference phenomenon is non-local can be replaced by a casual and local model without compromising any prediction of quantum mechanics [7]. Of course, we will have to give up the interpretation that each photoelectron implies the registration of a specific indivisible photon. We will have to give up the notion that no photons arrive at the location of the dark interference fringes. We also have to give up Dirac’s statement, “Each photon then interferes only with itself. Interference between two different photons never occurs” [21]. And, of course, those conceived experiments that literally require the production, propagation, manipulation and detection of the same original indivisible photon, will have to be re-designed. EM field wave packets changes constantly through incessant diffractive propagation. Also as a photon propagates through a material medium, it interacts with the dipoles of the medium and emerges as a different photon undergoing various changes in amplitude, phase, polarization and frequencies, depending upon the incident beam intensity and the polarizability nχ of the medium. One should recognize that if photons were really indivisible and independent packets of energy and they can use their non-local properties to determine which place in an interferometer to appear or disappear from, then we should not have required any phase coherence property for superposition measurements (interferometry). The phase coherence is required by the detecting dipoles when they try to sum the induced dipole undulation amplitudes due to all the superposed fields at the same time. This is why the superposition effects necessarily have to be local (volume of the participating detecting molecules).
UConn Physics Colloquium: If EM fields do not operate on each other, can a single photon interfere with itself? Professor Chandra Roychoudhuri
Reprints from the Conference
This discussion does show how easy it is to fall short because of the Complex nature of Electromagnetic Radiation. So ingrained it is that EM Waves are wholly real that we forget that composition of reality requires a complex Fourier plane not a real Fourier plane. In the dark bands of DSE the photon has complex values in which the fields actually are not "Real and definite" and this leads to them having an "invisible" presence. It is far easier to regard this the way Dirac had envisioned it in the reference above. What Feynman had said in the first reference above indicates the subtlety of these points. The "answer" must answer all questions not just some of them. The pivotal statement is "One should recognize that if photons were really indivisible and independent packets of energy and they can use their non-local properties to determine which place in an interferometer to appear or disappear from, then we should not have required any phase coherence property for superposition measurements (interferometry). The phase coherence is required by the detecting dipoles when they try to sum the induced dipole undulation amplitudes due to all the superposed fields at the same time. This is why the superposition effects necessarily have to be local (volume of the participating detecting molecules)."
In the end only one theory will explain all experimental evidence. I am "sympathetic" with the concept thatthe photon is NOT some "indivisible" particle. I fully support that EM packets are "snippits" of waves and thus they are quantized. This process of quantization, like other quantum properties , is nothing really special but a semi-classical phenomena but EM waves is the real problem being a Complex entity not a real one as indicated in many simple treatments. Only that treatment can resolve the dual nature of electromagnetism. I can't say this is all easy but it does have a "light at the end of teh tunnel". This light is not just another train coming the other way!
Cheers
Hi Confused2, Laserlight and Yquantum et al,
QUOTE (Confused2 Posted on Today at 11:56 AM+)
As Good Elf said, way back before the KT boundary,
The DSE is two diffraction patterns sitting on top of each other.
Step 1. Map the intensity of the diffraction pattern of one slit using using any of the equations here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction . [...] Observe the diffraction pattern with one slit open, then the other slit. And finally BOTH slits. Wow!
The result is predicted here:
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html ..
Note that the word 'frequency' does not appear in any analysis.. only wavelength.
Hopefully we now have an agreed result and agreed mathematics.
Frequency is always in the equations since C = fλ. In a vacuum this is always the case and it must never be forgotten. Those equations above as I had said do not take into account the slit widths and a myriad of real world issues. As I had said the waves from any number of slits is a summation but not a simple summation but a complex space summation from contributions from several "slits". In our case we only have two slits but the principle is singular. Your "agreed mathematics" will not produce the shape of the envelope nor the variation in brightness across the field of view. The only way to really do this is to do it properly and trust computers to work it all out for us. The real problem is not in heavy Complex Plane Maths but in the conceptualization of the process that is happening here. The maths is trivial with the application of good accurate programs and dual core high speed processors available today. Stop playing "Dodge Ball" and realize you do not really need to do heavy calculations anymore and for the first time you do not have to "shut up and calculate"... this is the 21st Century and Computers and capable programs are a given. The guy that works stuff out with a pencil on the back of a cigarette pack died of lung cancer years ago. What is not a given is a thinking process that goes beyond worrying about adding all those complex terms up all over the place. Accuracy is more important and a general process that works everywhere in all cases is the most important advance.
I rate calculation ability = 0%
Logic and completeness = 100%
Cheers
The DSE is two diffraction patterns sitting on top of each other.
Step 1. Map the intensity of the diffraction pattern of one slit using using any of the equations here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction . [...] Observe the diffraction pattern with one slit open, then the other slit. And finally BOTH slits. Wow!
The result is predicted here:
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html ..
Note that the word 'frequency' does not appear in any analysis.. only wavelength.
Hopefully we now have an agreed result and agreed mathematics.
Frequency is always in the equations since C = fλ. In a vacuum this is always the case and it must never be forgotten. Those equations above as I had said do not take into account the slit widths and a myriad of real world issues. As I had said the waves from any number of slits is a summation but not a simple summation but a complex space summation from contributions from several "slits". In our case we only have two slits but the principle is singular. Your "agreed mathematics" will not produce the shape of the envelope nor the variation in brightness across the field of view. The only way to really do this is to do it properly and trust computers to work it all out for us. The real problem is not in heavy Complex Plane Maths but in the conceptualization of the process that is happening here. The maths is trivial with the application of good accurate programs and dual core high speed processors available today. Stop playing "Dodge Ball" and realize you do not really need to do heavy calculations anymore and for the first time you do not have to "shut up and calculate"... this is the 21st Century and Computers and capable programs are a given. The guy that works stuff out with a pencil on the back of a cigarette pack died of lung cancer years ago. What is not a given is a thinking process that goes beyond worrying about adding all those complex terms up all over the place. Accuracy is more important and a general process that works everywhere in all cases is the most important advance.
I rate calculation ability = 0%
Logic and completeness = 100%
Cheers
Hi TRoc,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
GE,
I just wanted to point out the specific areas that I see as "parting points" of our views, which are remarkably similar. I have no problem with the Wheeler/Feynman (W-F), and Bohm approaches; they both are great contributions to the "chain" of understanding. From what you have said, I think that you are "taking up where they left off", and making some elven changes. (I have no problem with that either)
No disrespect to them intended, but to say it bluntly: those approaches did not solve the puzzle. You probably agree there. But they have successes, and we must keep them in mind. Any proposed changes to current theory shouldn't contradict their findings. My approach is compatible with both. With the Wolff extension of W-F, some of their problems were solved. The decoherence models' biggest problem is its' a "QM loop within a QM loop". You still need the parameters, and it does NOT include the dual to decoherence, Resonance. The two "opposing" forces must be considered at the same time. The Box and the Slit and equal players to the Wave and the Focus Point. And this is from first principle.
I just wanted to point out the specific areas that I see as "parting points" of our views, which are remarkably similar. I have no problem with the Wheeler/Feynman (W-F), and Bohm approaches; they both are great contributions to the "chain" of understanding. From what you have said, I think that you are "taking up where they left off", and making some elven changes. (I have no problem with that either)
No disrespect to them intended, but to say it bluntly: those approaches did not solve the puzzle. You probably agree there. But they have successes, and we must keep them in mind. Any proposed changes to current theory shouldn't contradict their findings. My approach is compatible with both. With the Wolff extension of W-F, some of their problems were solved. The decoherence models' biggest problem is its' a "QM loop within a QM loop". You still need the parameters, and it does NOT include the dual to decoherence, Resonance. The two "opposing" forces must be considered at the same time. The Box and the Slit and equal players to the Wave and the Focus Point. And this is from first principle.
I am sorry TRoc I have not responded to everyone as I formerly was able to do but work demands have increased and this has reduced my output on the Forum. That does not mean I have forgotten any of you. I am just a bit slower to respond. I have been following (in part) your theories about parametric mixing but I still do not get what it actually is you are specifically saying in teerms of the Physics. Natural phenomena do not play western music. Chords around the world differ quite dramatically from culture to culture and the way instruments are "tuned" are also different from culture to culture. I am unable to see why that specific scheme is "universal" and results in the "Music of the Spheres". Still I do not know everything and that is for sure.
While many seek to find some relationship to the Planck Length I am totally "unconvinced". Planck Length is not essentially related to Planck Constant other than PC is one of the terms in it. You said "decoherence, Resonance" The two "opposing" forces must be considered at the same time. My view is that resonance in the field of quanta is "conserved" as long as decoherence never happens to a particular photon. So it enters into endless interactions ... only they are all wave interactions and not particle interactions which are "destructive'... well as a first approximation. Of course in the DCQE Experiment this decoherence is the "end of the line" but not regarding the property of relative time.
Laserlight said this...
While many seek to find some relationship to the Planck Length I am totally "unconvinced". Planck Length is not essentially related to Planck Constant other than PC is one of the terms in it. You said "decoherence, Resonance" The two "opposing" forces must be considered at the same time. My view is that resonance in the field of quanta is "conserved" as long as decoherence never happens to a particular photon. So it enters into endless interactions ... only they are all wave interactions and not particle interactions which are "destructive'... well as a first approximation. Of course in the DCQE Experiment this decoherence is the "end of the line" but not regarding the property of relative time.
Laserlight said this...
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I am wondering if some of the new theories are still trying to incorporate some of the outdated assumptions of older theories and selectively disreguarding those that don't fit the model. Theories, IMO, use selective information sets and modify them to fit the "intent" of the new theory, perhaps too many conflicting theories are confusing the issue.
There is great truth in this. I suppose that I am not trying to create a "model" like the Standard Model but I am trying to illustrate underlying principles that underpins the Physics. This is "dirty talk" to those individuals who helped erect this huge edifice to HEP. I am sorry about that.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
If we can't describe the Node, or "distance between crests / similar points" as a "wavelength" (I'm trying to remove the circular reasoning), then, from a QM point of view, the next best answer would be:
Some integer of Planck distance.
Now, if I'm wrong here, I hope that someone will demonstrate that.
I realise that h is meant for "photons", but we are examining the relationship between light and matter, and, we are using h in the equations used to "decipher" the DSE, and similar experiments.
If I'm right, then I will ask the next question:
Where is the integer organizational chart for the SM "particles", the Table of Elements, or ? ?
I am not finding ANY such thing existing in Physics.
From a purely mathematical point of view, this should be ACADEMIC, because we are talking about such a small distance. It would require accuracy to 15 to 34 digits; anything less than that would ALWAYS produce quasi-"integer" results.
Isn't this more of a statement about HUP in measuring, than about "energy coming in quanta? IE "just go a ways past where we can measure, and this approximation seems to work"?
Some integer of Planck distance.
Now, if I'm wrong here, I hope that someone will demonstrate that.
I realise that h is meant for "photons", but we are examining the relationship between light and matter, and, we are using h in the equations used to "decipher" the DSE, and similar experiments.
If I'm right, then I will ask the next question:
Where is the integer organizational chart for the SM "particles", the Table of Elements, or ? ?
I am not finding ANY such thing existing in Physics.
From a purely mathematical point of view, this should be ACADEMIC, because we are talking about such a small distance. It would require accuracy to 15 to 34 digits; anything less than that would ALWAYS produce quasi-"integer" results.
Isn't this more of a statement about HUP in measuring, than about "energy coming in quanta? IE "just go a ways past where we can measure, and this approximation seems to work"?
Regarding HEP and the value of Planck's Constant, there is a very straightforward geometric relationship ... it is not mystical and it is not hard to understand.
QUOTE ( Optical Analog of Uncertainty Principle+)
For a laser beam, the transverse momentum is pretty well known (i.e. it's zero) but you have no localization of its spatial x coordinate. You can localize it spatially, by passing the beam through a slit, but by doing this you become uncertain about your x momentum. The more you localize spatially by closing down the slit, the more uncertain becomes the momentum. This manifests itself in a broadening of the diffraction pattern in the x direction which means that you've given the photons some momentum ?px that wasn't there before (see figure 1).
Optical Analog of Uncertainty Principle: Harvard
Optical Analog of Uncertainty Principle: Harvard
The value of h is a measure of the uncertainty in the energy of the photon divided by the frequency. Dividing by frequency is the same as multiplying by time so we have..
∆E ∆t ≥ h/4π
Please note this is a single slit diffraction pattern.
∆E ∆t ≥ h/4π
Please note this is a single slit diffraction pattern.
QUOTE ( Heisenberg uncertainty principle - measurement limits - reciprocity relations+)
A pulse-modulated electromagnetic signal is simultaneously displayed in the time domain (on an oscilloscope) and in the frequency domain (on a spectrum analyzer). Using ∆n for the frequency spread (uncertainty in frequency) and ∆t for the duration of the pulse (uncertainty in the time domain), the frequency-time uncertainty relation is given by 1
∆n ∆t ≥ 1/4π
By progressively shortening the length of time that the carrier signal is on, the inverse relation between pulse length and spectral-energy density is made evident, i.e.
∆E ∆t ≥ h/4π
if one identifies the electromagnetic frequency, n, with photon energy, E, via the Planck-Einstein relation E=hν, where h is Planck's constant.
Heisenberg uncertainty principle - measurement limits - reciprocity relations
∆n ∆t ≥ 1/4π
By progressively shortening the length of time that the carrier signal is on, the inverse relation between pulse length and spectral-energy density is made evident, i.e.
∆E ∆t ≥ h/4π
if one identifies the electromagnetic frequency, n, with photon energy, E, via the Planck-Einstein relation E=hν, where h is Planck's constant.
Heisenberg uncertainty principle - measurement limits - reciprocity relations
Planck's Constant (not Planck's Length) is therefore a measure of "imprecision" between the theoretical symultaneous frequency domain measurements and the time domain measurements. This is fundamental. These are the separate descriptions of the photon as a wave and as a particle. If you shorten the pulse width of the pulse train the energy is increased. Similarly if you lengthen the pulse train the energy is diminished. This imprecision means that the location of an individual photon is less precise for "bigger sized" photons which are less energetic. Clearly if you take the equation of E/f = h/4π and divide both sides by r^2 we have (∆E ∆t)/r^2 ≥ h/4πr^2
Note that 4πr^2 is the surface area of a sphere radius r and the L.H.S. indicates "spreading" as an inverse square law of energy. So h is defined by... Wikipedia: Planck's law of black body radiation
And ∆E ∆t defines a small "Box" in which the "imprecision" is confined.
Cheers
Note that 4πr^2 is the surface area of a sphere radius r and the L.H.S. indicates "spreading" as an inverse square law of energy. So h is defined by... Wikipedia: Planck's law of black body radiation
And ∆E ∆t defines a small "Box" in which the "imprecision" is confined.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
I agree about the non-linear thinking. After umpteen posts we're back to where we started.
All IMHO
We have not yet had an interpretation free description of the DSE .. instead we have "My interpretation is better than yours" .. interpretation of WHAT?
The equations are as much a part of the DSE as the result itself. How else can you distinguish between 'cavity resonances' and other effects? The maths is simple enough that I would be surprised if most people could not immediately see how the peaks and dips arise by inspection.
'Wavelength' has the advantage that it fits in well with both the EM concept of 'intensity' and the QM concept of 'probability of detection'. Wavelength is also something we can actually measure as the experiment is in progress. I do not see how you can claim to measure frequency in the DSE and I do not know what meaning you attach to the 'frequency' of an event that only occurs once (eg the detection of a photon). I suggest that my preference for 'wavelength' remains 'justified'.
If we assume a single photon can be responsible for the observed effect we notice that the path lengths ** required to explain the peaks observed will often differ by more than one wavelength. Under the circumstances I am even less sure of the meaning you attach to frequency .. defined as f = λ/C .. how many λ's do you choose? Do you have a new 'c' , new f or what? Again I suggest that my use of wavelength remains helpful and does not prevent the introduction of unmeasurable f's in your (or any other) analysis.
Since we are all by inclination 'handwavers' .. I don't think a handwaving competition will get any of us any further forward.
If anyone else feels my 'basics' approach is unhelpful or needs to be modified .. please say so.
-C2.
** I have assumed acceptance of path length as being the determining factor in the generation of constructive/destructive interference .. please post (GE, anyone) if you are not happy with this.
I agree about the non-linear thinking. After umpteen posts we're back to where we started.
All IMHO
We have not yet had an interpretation free description of the DSE .. instead we have "My interpretation is better than yours" .. interpretation of WHAT?
The equations are as much a part of the DSE as the result itself. How else can you distinguish between 'cavity resonances' and other effects? The maths is simple enough that I would be surprised if most people could not immediately see how the peaks and dips arise by inspection.
'Wavelength' has the advantage that it fits in well with both the EM concept of 'intensity' and the QM concept of 'probability of detection'. Wavelength is also something we can actually measure as the experiment is in progress. I do not see how you can claim to measure frequency in the DSE and I do not know what meaning you attach to the 'frequency' of an event that only occurs once (eg the detection of a photon). I suggest that my preference for 'wavelength' remains 'justified'.
If we assume a single photon can be responsible for the observed effect we notice that the path lengths ** required to explain the peaks observed will often differ by more than one wavelength. Under the circumstances I am even less sure of the meaning you attach to frequency .. defined as f = λ/C .. how many λ's do you choose? Do you have a new 'c' , new f or what? Again I suggest that my use of wavelength remains helpful and does not prevent the introduction of unmeasurable f's in your (or any other) analysis.
Since we are all by inclination 'handwavers' .. I don't think a handwaving competition will get any of us any further forward.
If anyone else feels my 'basics' approach is unhelpful or needs to be modified .. please say so.
-C2.
** I have assumed acceptance of path length as being the determining factor in the generation of constructive/destructive interference .. please post (GE, anyone) if you are not happy with this.
QUOTE (Confused2+Nov 15 2006, 12:29 PM)
LL
"harmonic frequency integrals of the fundamental signal"
Usually Fourier Transforms are used to show the frequency components of some function of time ie f(t) . We notice that the width of the slit is constant .. ie NOT a function of time. We notice that the wavelength is also NOT a function of time. When we apply a Fourier Transform to something that is not a function of time the transform cannot produce a "frequency" as a result. We need to keep a clear head so we don't confuse "spatial frequency" with "temporal frequency".
-C2.
C-2,
[/QUOTE]We notice that the wavelength is also NOT a function of time. When we apply a Fourier Transform to something that is not a function of time the transform cannot produce a "frequency" as a result. We need to keep a clear head so we don't confuse "spatial frequency" with "temporal frequency".[QUOTE]
Shouldn't these be interchangeable values? Wavelength a component of
Frequency (One is in nm and the other is Hz), but you can derive one from
knowing the other. One is the linear component, the other is the time
component they have an inverse relationship.
f = 1/t
t = 1/f
f = c/λ
λ = vw/f
LL
"harmonic frequency integrals of the fundamental signal"
Usually Fourier Transforms are used to show the frequency components of some function of time ie f(t) . We notice that the width of the slit is constant .. ie NOT a function of time. We notice that the wavelength is also NOT a function of time. When we apply a Fourier Transform to something that is not a function of time the transform cannot produce a "frequency" as a result. We need to keep a clear head so we don't confuse "spatial frequency" with "temporal frequency".
-C2.
C-2,
[/QUOTE]We notice that the wavelength is also NOT a function of time. When we apply a Fourier Transform to something that is not a function of time the transform cannot produce a "frequency" as a result. We need to keep a clear head so we don't confuse "spatial frequency" with "temporal frequency".[QUOTE]
Shouldn't these be interchangeable values? Wavelength a component of
Frequency (One is in nm and the other is Hz), but you can derive one from
knowing the other. One is the linear component, the other is the time
component they have an inverse relationship.
f = 1/t
t = 1/f
f = c/λ
λ = vw/f
LL
Hi Good Elf! and all...
You have done a lot of work for this thread.... thanks.
It's the only interesting thread on this forum.
I do read the links .... here is what I get from your latest links.
I believe that it will address some of the problems raised by C2 ... TRoc ... etc
Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri is proposing two experiments to determine if there must be ”a sea of EM field energy” for the photon to interact with in order for us to get the experimental observations.
I am awaiting the results of this experiment.
It will lead to a better understanding of what is causing the dynamics.
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/DivisiblePhoton-Final.pdf
Do we count indivisible photons or discrete quantum events experienced by detectors?
Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri
University of Connecticut, Department of Physics,
SPIE Photonics East,1-3 October 2006 Advanced Photon Counting Techniques (SPIE Vol. 6372, paper no. 29)
I am awaiting the results of this experiment.
It will lead to a better understanding of what is causing the dynamics.
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/DivisiblePhoton-Final.pdf
Do we count indivisible photons or discrete quantum events experienced by detectors?
Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri
University of Connecticut, Department of Physics,
SPIE Photonics East,1-3 October 2006 Advanced Photon Counting Techniques (SPIE Vol. 6372, paper no. 29)
A wave is a collective phenomenon that will always have a finite space and time extension.
Thus, the field pattern or amplitudes distribution of a wave front is constantly evolving, which is equivalent to an evolution of available energy re-distribution of the field. Describing a light beam as consisting of multitudes indivisible photons and make them conform to these changing angular redistribution from near field into far field, are beyond casual description. Accordingly, we are forced to impose non-casual, non-local behavior on the indivisible photons.
We define photons as classical wave packets that evolve after atoms and molecules release their quantum of energy into the cosmic medium as a time finite pulse with a carrier frequency exactly equal to :
We believe that nothing in the universe can happen instantaneously or continue over an infinite duration. So it is physically impossible to start the rise of a pulse envelope at the peak exponential value instantaneously. It must start from zero value and very rapidly rise to the required exponential peak value and die down exponentially. We are also assuming that this rise time to exponential peak value is extremely short so that the Fourier transform of this semi-exponential envelope is still a small deviation from the true Lorentzian, the shape of the natural linewidth that a traditional spectrometer measures. Our final assumption in constructing this semi-exponential pulse is that the electromagnetic energy carried under this envelope is exactly.
While Panarella has proposed a “photon clump” theory to explain his observation, we are proposing that it is due to photons being divisible, diffractively spreading classical wave packets, they present much weaker field energy densities at larger diffraction angles.
(note: of available energy re-distribution of the field)
For photo induced transition to take place, the quantum device must be bathed in sea of EM field energy with amount of energy within its immediate vicinity whose E-vector undulation frequency ν matches with that for the quantum transition. This will allow the field to induce dipole undulation on the detecting device and trigger the required amount of energy absorption provided it is available in its immediate vicinity. It will take the EM filed at least one cycle, if not more, of time to find its compatibility with the QM required dipole frequency to trigger the quantum transition and energy absorption. While this time is finite, it is very short, a few fs, in the domain of visible light. So, Panarella’s experiment implies that when the field energy density (due to diffraction or wave front spreading) falls below some density, the detecting dipoles fails to absorb any energy. So one of the conclusions is that dipoles cannot keep on integrating energy from the flowing weak field over a very long period to accumulate amount of energy. This is in congruence with the photo detecting community. Since we can never produce any abruptly rising sharp pulse, we may be ignoring the possibility that low energy tails of weak pulses prepare the detectors to undergo rapid transition when sufficient amount energy become available around its vicinity.
To test this possibility, …..(see paper for description)We believe it might reveal whether photoelectrons require quantity of field energy within its immediate vicinity for instantaneous (“wave function collapse”) transition or it can accumulate energy from the traveling EM field over a finite period including the influence, if any, of the weak tails of pulses.
Let us now propose another experiment using the same N-slit grating to establish our proposition.
…..(see paper for description)
The above two proposed experiments will establish that photons are classical wave packets that can both be split by optical components and recombined by detectors with proper experimental set up.
First, the unnecessary claims that interference phenomenon is non-local can be replaced by a casual and local model without compromising any prediction of quantum mechanics [7]. Of course, we will have to give up the interpretation that each photoelectron implies the registration of a specific indivisible photon. We will have to give up the notion that no photons arrive at the location of the dark interference fringes. We also have to give up Dirac’s statement, “Each photon then interferes only with itself. Interference between two different photons never occurs” [21]. And, of course, those conceived experiments that literally require the production, propagation, manipulation and detection of the same original indivisible photon, will have to be re-designed. EM field wave packets changes constantly through incessant diffractive propagation. Also as a photon propagates through a material medium, it interacts with the dipoles of the medium and emerges as a different photon undergoing various changes in amplitude, phase, polarization and frequencies, depending upon the incident beam intensity and the polarizabilityof the medium. One should recognize that if photons were really indivisible and independent packets of energy and they can use their non-local properties to determine which place in an interferometer to appear or disappear from, then we should not have required any phase coherence property for superposition measurements (interferometry). The phase coherence is required by the detecting dipoles when they try to sum the induced dipole undulation amplitudes due to all the superposed fields at the same time. This is why the superposition effects necessarily have to be local (volume of the participating detecting molecules).
I am awaiting the results of this experiment.
It will lead to a better understanding of what is causing the dynamics.
Jal
ps....TRoc....have you checked your PM? does it work ?
You have done a lot of work for this thread.... thanks.
It's the only interesting thread on this forum.
I do read the links .... here is what I get from your latest links.
I believe that it will address some of the problems raised by C2 ... TRoc ... etc
Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri is proposing two experiments to determine if there must be ”a sea of EM field energy” for the photon to interact with in order for us to get the experimental observations.
QUOTE
Attempts to visualizing the processes in the micro world behind the cosmic and biospheric evolution, will help us appreciate the staggering successes of QM while appreciating its limitations.
Questioning the validity of the non-causal (i) single photon interference and
(ii) Heisenberg's indeterminacy relation while enforcing Reality Ontology on all the symbols of the wave equation and the superposition relation, will pave the way to the needs of discovering the newer and higher level of mathematical tools to excavate the next higher level of reality of nature.
Questioning the validity of the non-causal (i) single photon interference and
(ii) Heisenberg's indeterminacy relation while enforcing Reality Ontology on all the symbols of the wave equation and the superposition relation, will pave the way to the needs of discovering the newer and higher level of mathematical tools to excavate the next higher level of reality of nature.
I am awaiting the results of this experiment.
It will lead to a better understanding of what is causing the dynamics.
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/DivisiblePhoton-Final.pdf
Do we count indivisible photons or discrete quantum events experienced by detectors?
Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri
University of Connecticut, Department of Physics,
SPIE Photonics East,1-3 October 2006 Advanced Photon Counting Techniques (SPIE Vol. 6372, paper no. 29)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Attempts to visualizing the processes in the micro world behind the cosmic and biospheric evolution, will help us appreciate the staggering successes of QM while appreciating its limitations. Questioning the validity of the non-causal (i) single photon interference and (ii) Heisenberg's indeterminacy relation while enforcing Reality Ontology on all the symbols of the wave equation and the superposition relation, will pave the way to the needs of discovering the newer and higher level of mathematical tools to excavate the next higher level of reality of nature. |
I am awaiting the results of this experiment.
It will lead to a better understanding of what is causing the dynamics.
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/DivisiblePhoton-Final.pdf
Do we count indivisible photons or discrete quantum events experienced by detectors?
Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri
University of Connecticut, Department of Physics,
SPIE Photonics East,1-3 October 2006 Advanced Photon Counting Techniques (SPIE Vol. 6372, paper no. 29)
A wave is a collective phenomenon that will always have a finite space and time extension.
Thus, the field pattern or amplitudes distribution of a wave front is constantly evolving, which is equivalent to an evolution of available energy re-distribution of the field. Describing a light beam as consisting of multitudes indivisible photons and make them conform to these changing angular redistribution from near field into far field, are beyond casual description. Accordingly, we are forced to impose non-casual, non-local behavior on the indivisible photons.
We define photons as classical wave packets that evolve after atoms and molecules release their quantum of energy into the cosmic medium as a time finite pulse with a carrier frequency exactly equal to :
We believe that nothing in the universe can happen instantaneously or continue over an infinite duration. So it is physically impossible to start the rise of a pulse envelope at the peak exponential value instantaneously. It must start from zero value and very rapidly rise to the required exponential peak value and die down exponentially. We are also assuming that this rise time to exponential peak value is extremely short so that the Fourier transform of this semi-exponential envelope is still a small deviation from the true Lorentzian, the shape of the natural linewidth that a traditional spectrometer measures. Our final assumption in constructing this semi-exponential pulse is that the electromagnetic energy carried under this envelope is exactly.
While Panarella has proposed a “photon clump” theory to explain his observation, we are proposing that it is due to photons being divisible, diffractively spreading classical wave packets, they present much weaker field energy densities at larger diffraction angles.
(note: of available energy re-distribution of the field)
For photo induced transition to take place, the quantum device must be bathed in sea of EM field energy with amount of energy within its immediate vicinity whose E-vector undulation frequency ν matches with that for the quantum transition. This will allow the field to induce dipole undulation on the detecting device and trigger the required amount of energy absorption provided it is available in its immediate vicinity. It will take the EM filed at least one cycle, if not more, of time to find its compatibility with the QM required dipole frequency to trigger the quantum transition and energy absorption. While this time is finite, it is very short, a few fs, in the domain of visible light. So, Panarella’s experiment implies that when the field energy density (due to diffraction or wave front spreading) falls below some density, the detecting dipoles fails to absorb any energy. So one of the conclusions is that dipoles cannot keep on integrating energy from the flowing weak field over a very long period to accumulate amount of energy. This is in congruence with the photo detecting community. Since we can never produce any abruptly rising sharp pulse, we may be ignoring the possibility that low energy tails of weak pulses prepare the detectors to undergo rapid transition when sufficient amount energy become available around its vicinity.
To test this possibility, …..(see paper for description)We believe it might reveal whether photoelectrons require quantity of field energy within its immediate vicinity for instantaneous (“wave function collapse”) transition or it can accumulate energy from the traveling EM field over a finite period including the influence, if any, of the weak tails of pulses.
Let us now propose another experiment using the same N-slit grating to establish our proposition.
…..(see paper for description)
The above two proposed experiments will establish that photons are classical wave packets that can both be split by optical components and recombined by detectors with proper experimental set up.
First, the unnecessary claims that interference phenomenon is non-local can be replaced by a casual and local model without compromising any prediction of quantum mechanics [7]. Of course, we will have to give up the interpretation that each photoelectron implies the registration of a specific indivisible photon. We will have to give up the notion that no photons arrive at the location of the dark interference fringes. We also have to give up Dirac’s statement, “Each photon then interferes only with itself. Interference between two different photons never occurs” [21]. And, of course, those conceived experiments that literally require the production, propagation, manipulation and detection of the same original indivisible photon, will have to be re-designed. EM field wave packets changes constantly through incessant diffractive propagation. Also as a photon propagates through a material medium, it interacts with the dipoles of the medium and emerges as a different photon undergoing various changes in amplitude, phase, polarization and frequencies, depending upon the incident beam intensity and the polarizabilityof the medium. One should recognize that if photons were really indivisible and independent packets of energy and they can use their non-local properties to determine which place in an interferometer to appear or disappear from, then we should not have required any phase coherence property for superposition measurements (interferometry). The phase coherence is required by the detecting dipoles when they try to sum the induced dipole undulation amplitudes due to all the superposed fields at the same time. This is why the superposition effects necessarily have to be local (volume of the participating detecting molecules).
I am awaiting the results of this experiment.
It will lead to a better understanding of what is causing the dynamics.
Jal
ps....TRoc....have you checked your PM? does it work ?
Hi jal,
I am not suggesting all may be 'wrong' .. just that caution may be appropriate.
Chasing up Emilio Panarella.. (cited by Roychoudhuri )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_Essays
As a result, many of the theories published in Physics Essays are fringe science, rarely published in other scientific journals, and are often considered pseudoscience. Most publications in Physics Essays are rarely cited by other authors in other scientific journals.
-C2.
I am not suggesting all may be 'wrong' .. just that caution may be appropriate.
Chasing up Emilio Panarella.. (cited by Roychoudhuri )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_Essays
QUOTE (wiki+)
As a result, many of the theories published in Physics Essays are fringe science, rarely published in other scientific journals, and are often considered pseudoscience. Most publications in Physics Essays are rarely cited by other authors in other scientific journals.
-C2.
LL,
The lamposts on my street are fifty yards apart (a distance in metres) .. so there is a bright patch every fifty yards (spatial frequency = 1 bright bit per fifty yards) .. does this influence the frequency (cycles per second) of the light from the bulbs in the lamposts?
-C2.
The lamposts on my street are fifty yards apart (a distance in metres) .. so there is a bright patch every fifty yards (spatial frequency = 1 bright bit per fifty yards) .. does this influence the frequency (cycles per second) of the light from the bulbs in the lamposts?
-C2.
Confused2!
Can the journal be more fringe than us
It's obvious to me that any proposal outside of the main frame has got to be fringe.
Therefore, I do not feel so lonely.
Isn't Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri trying to get an experiment that would help to address some of the questions that have been raised here?
jal
Can the journal be more fringe than us
It's obvious to me that any proposal outside of the main frame has got to be fringe.
Therefore, I do not feel so lonely.
Isn't Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri trying to get an experiment that would help to address some of the questions that have been raised here?
jal
C2,
HUH?
The issue is a wave amplitude/field intensity phenomenon. Is that your point?
If so, I agree.
Frequency just determines the spacing relationship of the amplitude
peaks and nulls over a fixed distance as they relate to time. One cannot
exist without the other.
I think we are trying to equate a 2 dimensional measurement and mathematical
interpretation to a 4 dimensional interactive phenomenon. Perhaps this is
the essence of why conflicts arise in the various interpretations of the results.
Applying 2 dimensional thinking to a 4 dimensional issue is problematic, IMO.
LL
QUOTE
The lamposts on my street are fifty yards apart (a distance in metres) .. so there is a bright patch every fifty yards (spatial frequency = 1 bright bit per fifty yards) .. does this influence the frequency (cycles per second) of the light from the bulbs in the lamposts?
HUH?
The issue is a wave amplitude/field intensity phenomenon. Is that your point?
If so, I agree.
Frequency just determines the spacing relationship of the amplitude
peaks and nulls over a fixed distance as they relate to time. One cannot
exist without the other.
I think we are trying to equate a 2 dimensional measurement and mathematical
interpretation to a 4 dimensional interactive phenomenon. Perhaps this is
the essence of why conflicts arise in the various interpretations of the results.
Applying 2 dimensional thinking to a 4 dimensional issue is problematic, IMO.
LL
jal,
I think your assessment is pretty accurate. I contend that all great
original thinking and innovation comes from those who do not follow
the mainstream, but are bold enough to venture in their own direction.
They deviate from the conventional philosophy and modify it to meet
their needs. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Is that a
derivation of the Uncertainty principle?
LL
QUOTE
Can the journal be more fringe than us
It's obvious to me that any proposal outside of the main frame has got to be fringe.
Therefore, I do not feel so lonely.
It's obvious to me that any proposal outside of the main frame has got to be fringe.
Therefore, I do not feel so lonely.
I think your assessment is pretty accurate. I contend that all great
original thinking and innovation comes from those who do not follow
the mainstream, but are bold enough to venture in their own direction.
They deviate from the conventional philosophy and modify it to meet
their needs. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Is that a
derivation of the Uncertainty principle?
LL
Hi LL,
I think we are trying to equate a 2 dimensional measurement and mathematical
interpretation to a 4 dimensional interactive phenomenon. Perhaps this is
the essence of why conflicts arise in the various interpretations of the results.
We have light of F Hz.
We map our predicted intensity using the wavelength and geometry of the slits. Are you suggesting that the geometry changes the frequency (F) of the light as it arrives?
-C2.
QUOTE (LL+)
I think we are trying to equate a 2 dimensional measurement and mathematical
interpretation to a 4 dimensional interactive phenomenon. Perhaps this is
the essence of why conflicts arise in the various interpretations of the results.
We have light of F Hz.
We map our predicted intensity using the wavelength and geometry of the slits. Are you suggesting that the geometry changes the frequency (F) of the light as it arrives?
-C2.
C-2, no that is not what I am suggesting at all. But what happens if you interfere
with the amplitudes of the EM components of a wave, by changing their normal energy
distribution relationship over some interval of time due to their interaction with
matter (which changes their phase timing relationship) and then recombine them
with all of the corresponding timing mismatches?
You get a distorted wavefront. What is distortion? An unfaithful reproducion of the original wave caused by the mismatch of the phase
and timing of components of the EM fields of the original wave.
Comments?
LL
with the amplitudes of the EM components of a wave, by changing their normal energy
distribution relationship over some interval of time due to their interaction with
matter (which changes their phase timing relationship) and then recombine them
with all of the corresponding timing mismatches?
You get a distorted wavefront. What is distortion? An unfaithful reproducion of the original wave caused by the mismatch of the phase
and timing of components of the EM fields of the original wave.
Comments?
LL
LL, Ge,jal, yquantum (hope this is ok) , Why Not? et al,
LL .. the shape of your field
Hm.. yes I see what you mean. My analysis is very much simpler .. you have a photon of energy Ep .. the probability of detection is given by the geometry so you just fire away and count them. My 'probability of detection' is going to mirror the way your fields change .. since both is pretty much the same thing. I think the diffraction and slit equations are already telling us how the E and H will behave .. that's why we did them. I must admit I wouldn't care to say what happens when you start messing about with polarisation .. but overall I think it works well and is accurate enough to give a good 'fit' whichever way you look at it.
One of the 'trick' things that really needs to be proved is (we're pretty sure) that photons only interfere with themselves so the interference will not be dependent on the intensity of the source (almost proof in itself). I think you can see that IF its true .. it will be very difficult to prove.
An actual QM explanation here:-
http://ej.iop.org/links/r1abYbZiN/yJkKtOJ0.../ejp4_5_l04.pdf
in treating the complex electric field E analogously to the quantum wave function ψ for a single photon, Duarte, like others, is carried away by the deceptive analogy between E*E and ψ*ψ.’
My own handwaving " field = ψ*ψ " effort is pathetic .. but hopefully in the right zone, at least.
-C2.
I should make clear .. I just read the words in extracts like that. Maybe one day..
LL .. the shape of your field
Hm.. yes I see what you mean. My analysis is very much simpler .. you have a photon of energy Ep .. the probability of detection is given by the geometry so you just fire away and count them. My 'probability of detection' is going to mirror the way your fields change .. since both is pretty much the same thing. I think the diffraction and slit equations are already telling us how the E and H will behave .. that's why we did them. I must admit I wouldn't care to say what happens when you start messing about with polarisation .. but overall I think it works well and is accurate enough to give a good 'fit' whichever way you look at it.
One of the 'trick' things that really needs to be proved is (we're pretty sure) that photons only interfere with themselves so the interference will not be dependent on the intensity of the source (almost proof in itself). I think you can see that IF its true .. it will be very difficult to prove.
An actual QM explanation here:-
http://ej.iop.org/links/r1abYbZiN/yJkKtOJ0.../ejp4_5_l04.pdf
QUOTE
in treating the complex electric field E analogously to the quantum wave function ψ for a single photon, Duarte, like others, is carried away by the deceptive analogy between E*E and ψ*ψ.’
My own handwaving " field = ψ*ψ " effort is pathetic .. but hopefully in the right zone, at least.
-C2.
I should make clear .. I just read the words in extracts like that. Maybe one day..
C2, LL, Good Elf ,jal, Why Not? et al,
I do not think there is an intuitive answer to this question, but I think everyone does have a point to be made. If this question keeps the momentum I believe all will have a much better understanding. The paper below will give you some food for thought and a different spin [pun] on how this test can be made. This is not the answer to the QM enigma dealing the twin slit experiment.
My view on this experiment is so multi-layer, wavefunction, entanglement, decoherence, superposition, etc. I will post when it is applicable and does not interfere with other comments. I am just one of many on this forum.
I felt like I should not have mentioned plasma, but I want it to be put into context and this is somewhat a simple, yet could have some difficulties but just try and find the premise of the experiments and I hope all will be fine after reading the paper. They use an array but mention Young TSE , I hope many will find a pearl in the paradox that will be of use.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0512/0512107.pdf
This will give you the meaning of Plasmon so that you can read with a little more clarity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmon
Best to all,
yquantum
I do not think there is an intuitive answer to this question, but I think everyone does have a point to be made. If this question keeps the momentum I believe all will have a much better understanding. The paper below will give you some food for thought and a different spin [pun] on how this test can be made. This is not the answer to the QM enigma dealing the twin slit experiment.
My view on this experiment is so multi-layer, wavefunction, entanglement, decoherence, superposition, etc. I will post when it is applicable and does not interfere with other comments. I am just one of many on this forum.
I felt like I should not have mentioned plasma, but I want it to be put into context and this is somewhat a simple, yet could have some difficulties but just try and find the premise of the experiments and I hope all will be fine after reading the paper. They use an array but mention Young TSE , I hope many will find a pearl in the paradox that will be of use.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0512/0512107.pdf
This will give you the meaning of Plasmon so that you can read with a little more clarity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmon
Best to all,
yquantum
Hi all,
WOW, this is terrible! I don't have the kind of time to address everything that has come up.
First, let me say this. I think that C2 was coming from the entire DSE as a whole, and trying to interpret things. I was NEVER attempting this. I only responded because of THE PROBLEM with the DSE QM interpretation. I ASSUMED that the "basics" were accepted. I am NOT trying to REPLACE the KIND of information made available by Fraunhof or Fresnel. If you want a SPECIFIC value for intensity, and the "size of the pattern", you would still be better off with those methods.
Again, I'm presenting a different view, so you DON"T HAVE TO accept multiple paths, multiple orders of SPEEDING past c, and some kind of strange "particle duality".
Those methods use the SPACE parameter of DISTANCE. LL & GE are right in telling C2 that we can (must be able to!) to use the TIME analysis as well. The 1 meter distance between the slit(s) and the screen can be replaced with 1/c time, or 3.3356e-9 sec, and a "measurement" of what happens to the frequency in that amount of time.
C2,s comment was informative:
You will also notice that this description of the S/DSE does NOT include the constant speed of light c , or the Planck value h . These things were NOT discovered yet. Does that make them wrong? Of course not.
C2 also said
You will also notice that this description of the S/DSE does NOT include the constant speed of light c , or the Planck value h . These things were NOT discovered yet. Does that make them wrong? Of course not.
C2 also said "Since the analysis 'works' with a fixed wavelength then anyone wishing to explain the observed result using changes of frequency will need to explain how the frequency changes with no effect on wavelength."
No problem, because IT IS SCALED down. The EXACT wavelength of the incoming wave IS NOT duplicated at the screen -- it is scaled down.
This exact same feature keeps the street lamp (from your analogy) from INCINERATING you! Do you really think that the EXACT same, very small, highly energetic wavelength, that is creating temperatures around 4000(?), is being EXACTLY replicated on YOUR FACE? Talk about UV overexposure!
From GE's link
This only holds true for LINEAR attempts at mixing. Frequencies (visible light range) are being made to "interfere" with each other in experiments FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, at least. You can not deny reality. THE LASER EXISTS BECAUSE OF RESONANCE, INDUCED BY INTERFERENCE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FWM
This only holds true for LINEAR attempts at mixing. Frequencies (visible light range) are being made to "interfere" with each other in experiments FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, at least. You can not deny reality. THE LASER EXISTS BECAUSE OF RESONANCE, INDUCED BY INTERFERENCE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FWM
Four-wave mixing can be compared to the intermodulation distortion in standard electrical systems. When three wavelengths (λ1, λ2, and λ3) interact in a nonlinear medium, they give rise to a fourth wavelength (λ4) which is formed by the scattering of the incident photons, producing the fourth photon.
and, JUST SO GE and C2 will STOP couching this is terms of "western music"..
This MATHEMATICAL FACT, which I am making a "historical adjustment" to, BECAUSE it is ALREADY FUNDAMENTAL to a previously existing method, CAN NOT BE LIMITED IN SCOPE to the "end uses" of said math. The inverse is JUST AS TRUE: Feynman IS NOT responsible for all the deaths caused by the atomic bomb, because he (helped) develop the math that "made it possible".
The 12th root of 2, developed to help instrument makers, can not be limited to "western music". In fact, because we have this "body of evidence" that WORKS because of resonant superpositioning of waves in an NLM, WE WOULD BE STUPID TO IGNORE IT.
Science HAS BEEN stupid, or at least ignorant. This is not surprising, noting the amount of EGO present in the "craft" that Science has become.
There are also GEOMETRICAL considerations for the EVEN distribution of 12 parts. I have already covered this. (so has JAL)
Again, from GE's linked paper:
This MATHEMATICAL FACT, which I am making a "historical adjustment" to, BECAUSE it is ALREADY FUNDAMENTAL to a previously existing method, CAN NOT BE LIMITED IN SCOPE to the "end uses" of said math. The inverse is JUST AS TRUE: Feynman IS NOT responsible for all the deaths caused by the atomic bomb, because he (helped) develop the math that "made it possible".
The 12th root of 2, developed to help instrument makers, can not be limited to "western music". In fact, because we have this "body of evidence" that WORKS because of resonant superpositioning of waves in an NLM, WE WOULD BE STUPID TO IGNORE IT.
Science HAS BEEN stupid, or at least ignorant. This is not surprising, noting the amount of EGO present in the "craft" that Science has become.
There are also GEOMETRICAL considerations for the EVEN distribution of 12 parts. I have already covered this. (so has JAL)
Again, from GE's linked paper: "Panarella’s experiment brings up another important question. Why does his experiment require the simultaneous presence of more than 4-photons to register a “click” "
Why is this requirement duplicated in EYES, BRAIN waves, and SOUND? ( I have reduced their analogy here, to reflect the FACT that given 3 waves in an NLM, they WILL produce a fourth)
(same paper)
"WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE IMPACTS IF PHOTONS ARE DIVISIBLE WAVE PACKETS?
First, the unnecessary claims that interference phenomenon is non-local can be replaced by a casual and local model without compromising any prediction of quantum mechanics [7]. Of course, we will have to give up the interpretation that each photoelectron implies the registration of a specific indivisible photon. We will have to give up the notion that no photons arrive at the location of the dark interference fringes. We also have to give up Dirac’s statement, “Each photon then interferes only with itself. Interference between two different photons never occurs” [21]. And, of course, those conceived experiments that literally require the production, propagation, manipulation and detection of the same original indivisible photon, will have to be re-designed."
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I"M SAYING. I have a hard time seeing why this is being "resisted" by you 2.
What I said/asked about the Planck "length" still stands: where is the "nicely divided, organized system" that this "fact", if true, would require?
Planck's ad hoc postulate works under statistical analysis, but fails at the "one by one" level. The micro reactions within micro scales.
The reason for "quanta" is Resonance.
MY QUANTA WORKS FOR MASS AND ENERGY, not just "the photon", or reaction between masses.
This DSE "reinterpretation" that I have tried to explain is a SIDE SHOW. If the very same method I'm trying to "overlay" onto the DSE, HAD NOT already been used to calculate resonant Nodes, like the elementary "particles", and the periodic table of elements, as well as mathematically uniting such disparate subjects as consciousness, sound, light, and mass, THEN I WOULD NOT BE WASTING YOUR TIME.
I realize that not a week goes by here without someone "showing up", and claiming "Eureka!" I know what I am up against. Please just respect my intelligence, and try to listen with ears NOT FILTERED by the above fact. I know it's hard to "trust".
Now, C2 is RIGHT about this: If I want you to except my basic, fundamental approach, to explaining the DSE "anomalies", then I must also explain the "basic" phenomenon as well.
The only way that I can see as valuable for comparison, would be for one of you to describe an agreed upon event (laser frequency, slit separation, distance to screen, etc.) and then I will present the "simple" approach. If they "match", then my point will be made.
regards,
T.Roc
WOW, this is terrible! I don't have the kind of time to address everything that has come up.
First, let me say this. I think that C2 was coming from the entire DSE as a whole, and trying to interpret things. I was NEVER attempting this. I only responded because of THE PROBLEM with the DSE QM interpretation. I ASSUMED that the "basics" were accepted. I am NOT trying to REPLACE the KIND of information made available by Fraunhof or Fresnel. If you want a SPECIFIC value for intensity, and the "size of the pattern", you would still be better off with those methods.
Again, I'm presenting a different view, so you DON"T HAVE TO accept multiple paths, multiple orders of SPEEDING past c, and some kind of strange "particle duality".
Those methods use the SPACE parameter of DISTANCE. LL & GE are right in telling C2 that we can (must be able to!) to use the TIME analysis as well. The 1 meter distance between the slit(s) and the screen can be replaced with 1/c time, or 3.3356e-9 sec, and a "measurement" of what happens to the frequency in that amount of time.
C2,s comment was informative:
QUOTE
"Note that the word 'frequency' does not appear in any analysis.. only wavelength."
You will also notice that this description of the S/DSE does NOT include the constant speed of light c , or the Planck value h . These things were NOT discovered yet. Does that make them wrong? Of course not.
C2 also said
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Note that the word 'frequency' does not appear in any analysis.. only wavelength." |
You will also notice that this description of the S/DSE does NOT include the constant speed of light c , or the Planck value h . These things were NOT discovered yet. Does that make them wrong? Of course not.
C2 also said "Since the analysis 'works' with a fixed wavelength then anyone wishing to explain the observed result using changes of frequency will need to explain how the frequency changes with no effect on wavelength."
No problem, because IT IS SCALED down. The EXACT wavelength of the incoming wave IS NOT duplicated at the screen -- it is scaled down.
This exact same feature keeps the street lamp (from your analogy) from INCINERATING you! Do you really think that the EXACT same, very small, highly energetic wavelength, that is creating temperatures around 4000(?), is being EXACTLY replicated on YOUR FACE? Talk about UV overexposure!
From GE's link
QUOTE
"It is quite common to explain that no photons arrive at the location of dark fringes in a two beam interferometer (Mach-Zehnder, Michelson, Young’s double slit, etc.). The implication is that it does not matter whether the light beam contains one or multitude of indivisible photons, the outcome will always be the same. If photons are really indivisible packets of energy and “photon interferes only with itself”, then why do we need phase and frequency coherence properties between different parts of a light beam?"
This only holds true for LINEAR attempts at mixing. Frequencies (visible light range) are being made to "interfere" with each other in experiments FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, at least. You can not deny reality. THE LASER EXISTS BECAUSE OF RESONANCE, INDUCED BY INTERFERENCE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FWM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "It is quite common to explain that no photons arrive at the location of dark fringes in a two beam interferometer (Mach-Zehnder, Michelson, Young’s double slit, etc.). The implication is that it does not matter whether the light beam contains one or multitude of indivisible photons, the outcome will always be the same. If photons are really indivisible packets of energy and “photon interferes only with itself”, then why do we need phase and frequency coherence properties between different parts of a light beam?" |
This only holds true for LINEAR attempts at mixing. Frequencies (visible light range) are being made to "interfere" with each other in experiments FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, at least. You can not deny reality. THE LASER EXISTS BECAUSE OF RESONANCE, INDUCED BY INTERFERENCE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FWM
Four-wave mixing can be compared to the intermodulation distortion in standard electrical systems. When three wavelengths (λ1, λ2, and λ3) interact in a nonlinear medium, they give rise to a fourth wavelength (λ4) which is formed by the scattering of the incident photons, producing the fourth photon.
and, JUST SO GE and C2 will STOP couching this is terms of "western music"..
QUOTE
Doing the math with the three input signals, you will find that 12 interfering frequencies are produced, 3 of which lie on one of original incoming frequencies.
This MATHEMATICAL FACT, which I am making a "historical adjustment" to, BECAUSE it is ALREADY FUNDAMENTAL to a previously existing method, CAN NOT BE LIMITED IN SCOPE to the "end uses" of said math. The inverse is JUST AS TRUE: Feynman IS NOT responsible for all the deaths caused by the atomic bomb, because he (helped) develop the math that "made it possible".
The 12th root of 2, developed to help instrument makers, can not be limited to "western music". In fact, because we have this "body of evidence" that WORKS because of resonant superpositioning of waves in an NLM, WE WOULD BE STUPID TO IGNORE IT.
Science HAS BEEN stupid, or at least ignorant. This is not surprising, noting the amount of EGO present in the "craft" that Science has become.
There are also GEOMETRICAL considerations for the EVEN distribution of 12 parts. I have already covered this. (so has JAL)
Again, from GE's linked paper:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Doing the math with the three input signals, you will find that 12 interfering frequencies are produced, 3 of which lie on one of original incoming frequencies. |
This MATHEMATICAL FACT, which I am making a "historical adjustment" to, BECAUSE it is ALREADY FUNDAMENTAL to a previously existing method, CAN NOT BE LIMITED IN SCOPE to the "end uses" of said math. The inverse is JUST AS TRUE: Feynman IS NOT responsible for all the deaths caused by the atomic bomb, because he (helped) develop the math that "made it possible".
The 12th root of 2, developed to help instrument makers, can not be limited to "western music". In fact, because we have this "body of evidence" that WORKS because of resonant superpositioning of waves in an NLM, WE WOULD BE STUPID TO IGNORE IT.
Science HAS BEEN stupid, or at least ignorant. This is not surprising, noting the amount of EGO present in the "craft" that Science has become.
There are also GEOMETRICAL considerations for the EVEN distribution of 12 parts. I have already covered this. (so has JAL)
Again, from GE's linked paper: "Panarella’s experiment brings up another important question. Why does his experiment require the simultaneous presence of more than 4-photons to register a “click” "
Why is this requirement duplicated in EYES, BRAIN waves, and SOUND? ( I have reduced their analogy here, to reflect the FACT that given 3 waves in an NLM, they WILL produce a fourth)
(same paper)
QUOTE
"While Panarella has proposed a “photon clump” theory to explain his observation, we are proposing that it is due to photons being divisible, diffractively spreading classical wave packets, they present much weaker field energy densities at larger diffraction angles."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "While Panarella has proposed a “photon clump” theory to explain his observation, we are proposing that it is due to photons being divisible, diffractively spreading classical wave packets, they present much weaker field energy densities at larger diffraction angles." |
"WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE IMPACTS IF PHOTONS ARE DIVISIBLE WAVE PACKETS?
First, the unnecessary claims that interference phenomenon is non-local can be replaced by a casual and local model without compromising any prediction of quantum mechanics [7]. Of course, we will have to give up the interpretation that each photoelectron implies the registration of a specific indivisible photon. We will have to give up the notion that no photons arrive at the location of the dark interference fringes. We also have to give up Dirac’s statement, “Each photon then interferes only with itself. Interference between two different photons never occurs” [21]. And, of course, those conceived experiments that literally require the production, propagation, manipulation and detection of the same original indivisible photon, will have to be re-designed."
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I"M SAYING. I have a hard time seeing why this is being "resisted" by you 2.
What I said/asked about the Planck "length" still stands: where is the "nicely divided, organized system" that this "fact", if true, would require?
Planck's ad hoc postulate works under statistical analysis, but fails at the "one by one" level. The micro reactions within micro scales.
The reason for "quanta" is Resonance.
MY QUANTA WORKS FOR MASS AND ENERGY, not just "the photon", or reaction between masses.
This DSE "reinterpretation" that I have tried to explain is a SIDE SHOW. If the very same method I'm trying to "overlay" onto the DSE, HAD NOT already been used to calculate resonant Nodes, like the elementary "particles", and the periodic table of elements, as well as mathematically uniting such disparate subjects as consciousness, sound, light, and mass, THEN I WOULD NOT BE WASTING YOUR TIME.
I realize that not a week goes by here without someone "showing up", and claiming "Eureka!" I know what I am up against. Please just respect my intelligence, and try to listen with ears NOT FILTERED by the above fact. I know it's hard to "trust".
Now, C2 is RIGHT about this: If I want you to except my basic, fundamental approach, to explaining the DSE "anomalies", then I must also explain the "basic" phenomenon as well.
The only way that I can see as valuable for comparison, would be for one of you to describe an agreed upon event (laser frequency, slit separation, distance to screen, etc.) and then I will present the "simple" approach. If they "match", then my point will be made.
regards,
T.Roc
C2,
I think you and I are like 2 of the blind men trying to describe different parts
of the elephant. You're describing the trunk, and I'm describing a leg. Because
we (blindly) look at things from 2 different vantage points (perspectives) we
describe the same beastie differently. I think the issue is not ours alone.
I think we are talking about the energy level (power) of each photon, and how
that energy interacts with matter. Different energy levels react with
matter in different ways, thus we have absorption, reflection, refraction, etc.
Intensity is determined by more than 1 photon. Intensity is an additive
quantity.
IMO, in order to understand what the definition of "quantum" is we must
consider it as the discrete energy level of each photon or particle of matter,
and we must understand it and describe it according to the interactions and relationships of the fields and properties that are the primary
constituents of its base physical nature. The mathematics and probability follows
the actual underlying physical process and gives it "value" and predictability.
Comments welcome by all!
LL
I think you and I are like 2 of the blind men trying to describe different parts
of the elephant. You're describing the trunk, and I'm describing a leg. Because
we (blindly) look at things from 2 different vantage points (perspectives) we
describe the same beastie differently. I think the issue is not ours alone.
QUOTE
One of the 'trick' things that really needs to be proved is (we're pretty sure) that photons only interfere with themselves so the interference will not be dependent on the intensity of the source (almost proof in itself). I think you can see that IF its true .. it will be very difficult to prove.
I think we are talking about the energy level (power) of each photon, and how
that energy interacts with matter. Different energy levels react with
matter in different ways, thus we have absorption, reflection, refraction, etc.
Intensity is determined by more than 1 photon. Intensity is an additive
quantity.
IMO, in order to understand what the definition of "quantum" is we must
consider it as the discrete energy level of each photon or particle of matter,
and we must understand it and describe it according to the interactions and relationships of the fields and properties that are the primary
constituents of its base physical nature. The mathematics and probability follows
the actual underlying physical process and gives it "value" and predictability.
Comments welcome by all!
LL
T.Roc,
Excellent and interesting argument!
At the photon quantum level, the harmonic resonance is due to the exact
periodic timing fluctuation of the EM field propagations. Each different frequency
photon represents a different energy level (a different quantum level) and
exhibits a different harmonic timing interaction between its propagating EM fields.
This phenomenon is an artifact of the "harmonic" quantum energy level of the
electron from which it came...Its color (harmonic oscillating frequency) determines
(or represents) its enery level and identifies exactly the atom and the energy
shell electron orbital from which it propagated, which are well characterized and predictable.
IMO, harmony is a fundamental relationship of the natural order of the universe.
Chaos, is merely distortion due to multiple harmonic nodes interacting in a
variable timing manner and generating random results.
Maybe detouring off topic but germane, IMO. Comments?
LL
Excellent and interesting argument!
QUOTE
The reason for "quanta" is Resonance.
MY QUANTA WORKS FOR MASS AND ENERGY, not just "the photon", or reaction between masses.
MY QUANTA WORKS FOR MASS AND ENERGY, not just "the photon", or reaction between masses.
At the photon quantum level, the harmonic resonance is due to the exact
periodic timing fluctuation of the EM field propagations. Each different frequency
photon represents a different energy level (a different quantum level) and
exhibits a different harmonic timing interaction between its propagating EM fields.
This phenomenon is an artifact of the "harmonic" quantum energy level of the
electron from which it came...Its color (harmonic oscillating frequency) determines
(or represents) its enery level and identifies exactly the atom and the energy
shell electron orbital from which it propagated, which are well characterized and predictable.
IMO, harmony is a fundamental relationship of the natural order of the universe.
Chaos, is merely distortion due to multiple harmonic nodes interacting in a
variable timing manner and generating random results.
Maybe detouring off topic but germane, IMO. Comments?
LL
T.Roc,
Alright, we have a high energy threshold state, photonically excitable medium
and end mirrors in a laser configuration. Is it fair to assume that the interference
is created/caused by the time and phasing delays and the regenerative "pumping"
of the laser cavity. My point being that it is the interaction of photons with
matter that establishes the lasing action. The mirrors are just a
reflective/refractive cavity that stimulate secondary photons and cause
a resonant timing relationship due to the cavity effects.
It isn't pure photonic interference, it is photon+matter interactions that causes
the interference. Interference can only occur in the presence of matter, or
intense gravity fields.
Am I wrong? Comments?
LL
QUOTE
Frequencies (visible light range) are being made to "interfere" with each other in experiments FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, at least. You can not deny reality. THE LASER EXISTS BECAUSE OF RESONANCE, INDUCED BY INTERFERENCE.
Alright, we have a high energy threshold state, photonically excitable medium
and end mirrors in a laser configuration. Is it fair to assume that the interference
is created/caused by the time and phasing delays and the regenerative "pumping"
of the laser cavity. My point being that it is the interaction of photons with
matter that establishes the lasing action. The mirrors are just a
reflective/refractive cavity that stimulate secondary photons and cause
a resonant timing relationship due to the cavity effects.
It isn't pure photonic interference, it is photon+matter interactions that causes
the interference. Interference can only occur in the presence of matter, or
intense gravity fields.
Am I wrong? Comments?
LL
All,
LL, yes, you are right, matter MUST be included in the BIG picture. I reference "photons" as an interaction between 2 electrons, so that my Theory is self-consistent. Ultimately, the LASER works because of the ability for photons to be superimposed onto each other, even though you must have electrons involved in "coaxing" them to do it.
I forgot to answer your question a while back:
Not, quite. Remember, that I am using irrational expansions. After a few "cycles" (doubling), an irregularity occurs: the approximation of integers is "lost". For the "exact" answer, you have to extend the decimal out more places.
This is EXACTLY the same as these 2 approaches:
[the "Fibonacci" series]
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21...
VS.
[the "phibonacci" series]
.61803.. , 1.2360.. , 1.8541.. , 2.4721.. , 3.0901.. , 3.7082.. , 4.3262.. , 4.9442.. , 5.5623..
So, at first, there is "pretty good" approximation pattern, but goes "off track" quite soon.
However, is we assign the role of "command" to the Fibonacci #'s , and the role of "position" to "phibonacci", we find predictive power.
Value #1 + #1 = #2, 1 + 2 = #3, 2 + 3 = #5, 3 + 5 = #8, etc.
Which one is "better"? Well, I hope that I have demonstrated, that only when you have BOTH in front of you, does this become apparent. I "discovered" this quite a few years ago, only to discover that someone else did too! (oh well) I have no way of knowing who was first, but it does not matter.
Planck's attempt (integer) makes a good APPROXIMATION for energy quanta, when you are looking at a statistical number (large) of events. If you COMBINE (I sometimes refer to as "grating") the 2 "philosophical quantization" methods, you get VERY ACCURATE results.
Why is this important? Because ALL of our measurements, here I mean our constants, particles, and elements that ARE NOT defined by US (IE. the meter, the second, etc) ARE IRRATIONAL NUMBERS. How can we expect to EXACTLY measure them with INTEGERS? You can't.., UNLESS.. you use the method I used above. You take INTEGER # of STEPS between an IRRATIONAL constant. This becomes logarithmic, and creates an EXPANDING scale.
What do you think happens when you use AN INTEGER QUANTA of +1 (this is OUR # system folks) to measure "fixed values" that are really part of an expanding logarithm? hehehe. The "illusion" of "expanding" values. Does this mean things are not expanding? No, it means there is a LIMIT to the rate; the rate is steady of course, it is just the distance per time that is increasing. Each octave is bigger than the last. I would SUGGEST that the "missing energy" of the Universe is mainly to be found at THE HORIZON / boundary.
So, yes, there is a place for Einsteins' Cosmological constant. However, if you determine the answer from one of these fixed values (ad hoc constants, the 21 inputs from QM) you will be FRUSTRATED with "inconsistencies".
If you assume that this Constant is really a ratio, and that it is BEST described (but not ONLY) as A CHANGE IN DISTANCE, OVER TIME, then FREQUENCY becomes the way of choice. You could also pretend to "contract" time or distance, but these are INPUTS, so you are SAYING NOTHING about reality. The WHOLE reality CAN BE described by the relativistic Doppler expansion along this rotating, logarithmic scale, and doing so establishes "rest points", or Nodes. It is along these Nodes that (we) find the values, in Hz, of ALL the "Particles", and all the King's men, no wait, I mean Elements. (just checking for attention)
The OLD method of the 8 part OCTAVE (doubling pattern) followed this internal Fibonacci code. (the octave also gives us a "handle", like zero & 10)
3,5,8 were the key players. 8, of course is the octave (#8 = #1, on the next level up), and was most easily produced by adding the 3rd & 5th steps. The problem is, that you are making 7 pieces, with NO symmetry. TRY to describe the visible spectrum, from known & established parameters, with 7 pieces. You either "leave a color out", or you make the pieces UNEQUAL. Not very "quantum" like? HERE, I PART WITH NEWTONS' CLAIM. "white light consists of 7 primaries". This was "worked around" for centuries, until the technical ability of the instruments DEMANDED a more accurate approach.
Historically, this has been EVERYONE'S Achilles tendon.
What about "the next code up"?
5, 8, 13 ! Bingo.. here we end up with 12 parts (#13 = #1, on the next level up). #5, and #8 are the key players. Now we can have symmetry between parts. THIS is NOT "additive" symmetry; if we are talking about DISTANCE, then AVERAGING WILL NOT WORK. There are fundamental differences between numeric mean, geometric mean, and harmonic mean.
Since we have established a constant RATE, then harmonic mean MUST be used. THIS DENIES THE ACCURACY OF STATISTICAL AVERAGES that Science is using to establish QM. This conflicts with our GOAL of a more accurate Science.
It is time for us to "get in tune" with the Universe. Our INSTINCT did not fail us; LOGIC can RULE Science again. What we found to be "pleasing" to our ears, turns out to be the RULE: what's good for the absorbers is good for the signal. Nothing can be "measured" in ISOLATION. Not even us, with our co-EVOLVED abilities!
If you think I am making a big detour here, you are not listening to & thinking about what I am saying. I AM TELLING YOU WHAT THE PROBLEM WITH MEASUREMENT HAS BEEN. I can only say this with certainty, because I can produce the "List" of "Answers" that consist of our MOST IMPORTANT and FUNDAMENTAL empirical data, FROM Z , my Universal Constant, and INTEGER iterations of a 12 part, logarithmic scale.
If you take this process:
The Fraunhofer Single Slit from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html ,
which is the DISTANCE method, where an arbitrary division in the slit width (treating points across the opening as independent sources), you realize that they quantized the slit width (distance). Also, remember that the slit width needs to approximate the wavelength. The method is to divide this distance in 1/2, and figure the "diffraction" from these arbitrary, imagined points.
So, the INVERSE must be able to be done, right?
If we take HUP seriously, we KNOW that a 1/2 wavelength change will dictate a DOUBLING in frequency.
So, we divide the distance between the DOUBLING of frequency (the octave), by an arbitrary number, that IS KNOWN. From the known, we can extrapolate the UNKNOWN.
The "unknown" here is: what's inside the "envelope", or packet? It is NOT a single vibration, yet we have NO WAY to open the envelope without "absorbing" the vibration. This small number of oscillations that the packet MUST have if it is MOVING, is enough to induce a Resonant interaction, IF SEPARATED into its' component parts, and "brought back together again". This interaction, IF KNOWN, would (IMO) EXPLAIN the DSE results COMPLETELY, not just the "basic" version, but the "quantum weirdness".
The change in f = c / 2L (L = RIZ length, resonant interaction zone)
Time = 2L / c
This "frequency doubling" approach is called a "frequency comb". It WON the Nobel Prize in 2005. They do NOT yet realize, however, that 12 scaled divisions will eliminate the need for <femtosecond resolution. The dissonances BETWEEN the resonances, ELIMINATES possibilities; once you have removed the IMPOSSIBLE, whatever is left is a tightly packed (superimposed), mode locked group of 3+ frequencies... known as a chord. A special note here: all types of music use this rule because it is a RESULT of the instrument, not the method of playing. Can you present me with a stringed instrument that defies the middle node = an octave of the fundamental? NO, it is based on string length, mass per unit length, and tension, NO MATTER WHERE YOU'RE FROM.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics...s/2005/info.pdf
Now, are we ready to analyze the DSE with a fresh start, and a new method, or not?
regards,
T.Roc
LL, yes, you are right, matter MUST be included in the BIG picture. I reference "photons" as an interaction between 2 electrons, so that my Theory is self-consistent. Ultimately, the LASER works because of the ability for photons to be superimposed onto each other, even though you must have electrons involved in "coaxing" them to do it.
I forgot to answer your question a while back:
QUOTE
"But isn't it just a matter of a "linear scaling" interval? After all isn't 2 just an extension of 1 (doubling) on a cartesian coordinate plane over time?"
Not, quite. Remember, that I am using irrational expansions. After a few "cycles" (doubling), an irregularity occurs: the approximation of integers is "lost". For the "exact" answer, you have to extend the decimal out more places.
This is EXACTLY the same as these 2 approaches:
[the "Fibonacci" series]
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21...
VS.
[the "phibonacci" series]
.61803.. , 1.2360.. , 1.8541.. , 2.4721.. , 3.0901.. , 3.7082.. , 4.3262.. , 4.9442.. , 5.5623..
So, at first, there is "pretty good" approximation pattern, but goes "off track" quite soon.
However, is we assign the role of "command" to the Fibonacci #'s , and the role of "position" to "phibonacci", we find predictive power.
Value #1 + #1 = #2, 1 + 2 = #3, 2 + 3 = #5, 3 + 5 = #8, etc.
Which one is "better"? Well, I hope that I have demonstrated, that only when you have BOTH in front of you, does this become apparent. I "discovered" this quite a few years ago, only to discover that someone else did too! (oh well) I have no way of knowing who was first, but it does not matter.
Planck's attempt (integer) makes a good APPROXIMATION for energy quanta, when you are looking at a statistical number (large) of events. If you COMBINE (I sometimes refer to as "grating") the 2 "philosophical quantization" methods, you get VERY ACCURATE results.
Why is this important? Because ALL of our measurements, here I mean our constants, particles, and elements that ARE NOT defined by US (IE. the meter, the second, etc) ARE IRRATIONAL NUMBERS. How can we expect to EXACTLY measure them with INTEGERS? You can't.., UNLESS.. you use the method I used above. You take INTEGER # of STEPS between an IRRATIONAL constant. This becomes logarithmic, and creates an EXPANDING scale.
What do you think happens when you use AN INTEGER QUANTA of +1 (this is OUR # system folks) to measure "fixed values" that are really part of an expanding logarithm? hehehe. The "illusion" of "expanding" values. Does this mean things are not expanding? No, it means there is a LIMIT to the rate; the rate is steady of course, it is just the distance per time that is increasing. Each octave is bigger than the last. I would SUGGEST that the "missing energy" of the Universe is mainly to be found at THE HORIZON / boundary.
So, yes, there is a place for Einsteins' Cosmological constant. However, if you determine the answer from one of these fixed values (ad hoc constants, the 21 inputs from QM) you will be FRUSTRATED with "inconsistencies".
If you assume that this Constant is really a ratio, and that it is BEST described (but not ONLY) as A CHANGE IN DISTANCE, OVER TIME, then FREQUENCY becomes the way of choice. You could also pretend to "contract" time or distance, but these are INPUTS, so you are SAYING NOTHING about reality. The WHOLE reality CAN BE described by the relativistic Doppler expansion along this rotating, logarithmic scale, and doing so establishes "rest points", or Nodes. It is along these Nodes that (we) find the values, in Hz, of ALL the "Particles", and all the King's men, no wait, I mean Elements. (just checking for attention)
The OLD method of the 8 part OCTAVE (doubling pattern) followed this internal Fibonacci code. (the octave also gives us a "handle", like zero & 10)
3,5,8 were the key players. 8, of course is the octave (#8 = #1, on the next level up), and was most easily produced by adding the 3rd & 5th steps. The problem is, that you are making 7 pieces, with NO symmetry. TRY to describe the visible spectrum, from known & established parameters, with 7 pieces. You either "leave a color out", or you make the pieces UNEQUAL. Not very "quantum" like? HERE, I PART WITH NEWTONS' CLAIM. "white light consists of 7 primaries". This was "worked around" for centuries, until the technical ability of the instruments DEMANDED a more accurate approach.
Historically, this has been EVERYONE'S Achilles tendon.
What about "the next code up"?
5, 8, 13 ! Bingo.. here we end up with 12 parts (#13 = #1, on the next level up). #5, and #8 are the key players. Now we can have symmetry between parts. THIS is NOT "additive" symmetry; if we are talking about DISTANCE, then AVERAGING WILL NOT WORK. There are fundamental differences between numeric mean, geometric mean, and harmonic mean.
Since we have established a constant RATE, then harmonic mean MUST be used. THIS DENIES THE ACCURACY OF STATISTICAL AVERAGES that Science is using to establish QM. This conflicts with our GOAL of a more accurate Science.
It is time for us to "get in tune" with the Universe. Our INSTINCT did not fail us; LOGIC can RULE Science again. What we found to be "pleasing" to our ears, turns out to be the RULE: what's good for the absorbers is good for the signal. Nothing can be "measured" in ISOLATION. Not even us, with our co-EVOLVED abilities!
If you think I am making a big detour here, you are not listening to & thinking about what I am saying. I AM TELLING YOU WHAT THE PROBLEM WITH MEASUREMENT HAS BEEN. I can only say this with certainty, because I can produce the "List" of "Answers" that consist of our MOST IMPORTANT and FUNDAMENTAL empirical data, FROM Z , my Universal Constant, and INTEGER iterations of a 12 part, logarithmic scale.
If you take this process:
The Fraunhofer Single Slit from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html ,
which is the DISTANCE method, where an arbitrary division in the slit width (treating points across the opening as independent sources), you realize that they quantized the slit width (distance). Also, remember that the slit width needs to approximate the wavelength. The method is to divide this distance in 1/2, and figure the "diffraction" from these arbitrary, imagined points.
So, the INVERSE must be able to be done, right?
If we take HUP seriously, we KNOW that a 1/2 wavelength change will dictate a DOUBLING in frequency.
So, we divide the distance between the DOUBLING of frequency (the octave), by an arbitrary number, that IS KNOWN. From the known, we can extrapolate the UNKNOWN.
The "unknown" here is: what's inside the "envelope", or packet? It is NOT a single vibration, yet we have NO WAY to open the envelope without "absorbing" the vibration. This small number of oscillations that the packet MUST have if it is MOVING, is enough to induce a Resonant interaction, IF SEPARATED into its' component parts, and "brought back together again". This interaction, IF KNOWN, would (IMO) EXPLAIN the DSE results COMPLETELY, not just the "basic" version, but the "quantum weirdness".
The change in f = c / 2L (L = RIZ length, resonant interaction zone)
Time = 2L / c
This "frequency doubling" approach is called a "frequency comb". It WON the Nobel Prize in 2005. They do NOT yet realize, however, that 12 scaled divisions will eliminate the need for <femtosecond resolution. The dissonances BETWEEN the resonances, ELIMINATES possibilities; once you have removed the IMPOSSIBLE, whatever is left is a tightly packed (superimposed), mode locked group of 3+ frequencies... known as a chord. A special note here: all types of music use this rule because it is a RESULT of the instrument, not the method of playing. Can you present me with a stringed instrument that defies the middle node = an octave of the fundamental? NO, it is based on string length, mass per unit length, and tension, NO MATTER WHERE YOU'RE FROM.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics...s/2005/info.pdf
Now, are we ready to analyze the DSE with a fresh start, and a new method, or not?
regards,
T.Roc
T.Roc, (All)
Wow, quite an impassioned response. I understood parts of your description,
but will read it again to try to put it all into harmony(pun). Intuitively, it
makes sense because I cannot think of anything in nature that doesn't
represent some harmonic interaction when taken to its fundamental nature.
Sound waves, water waves, light (energy) waves, are all analog
in nature, and initially symmetrically propagated from their point source of
origin. The difficulty arises when asymmetry, interference, or non-linearities
are introduced into the fundamental frequency and become a set of infinite
dynamic variables.
You are using a log12 based exponential scale, based on the
primary node relationship of the radius a fundamental unity circle. I'll go
back and re-read that again also....it is not clear in my mind.
Here is an overview of quantum harmonic oscillators? Does it track your
approach, or is there an accuracy discrepancy due to the base 12 relationship and irrational numbers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
LL
Wow, quite an impassioned response. I understood parts of your description,
but will read it again to try to put it all into harmony(pun). Intuitively, it
makes sense because I cannot think of anything in nature that doesn't
represent some harmonic interaction when taken to its fundamental nature.
Sound waves, water waves, light (energy) waves, are all analog
in nature, and initially symmetrically propagated from their point source of
origin. The difficulty arises when asymmetry, interference, or non-linearities
are introduced into the fundamental frequency and become a set of infinite
dynamic variables.
You are using a log12 based exponential scale, based on the
primary node relationship of the radius a fundamental unity circle. I'll go
back and re-read that again also....it is not clear in my mind.
Here is an overview of quantum harmonic oscillators? Does it track your
approach, or is there an accuracy discrepancy due to the base 12 relationship and irrational numbers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
LL
TRoc,
I'm ready!
LL,
bee, AlphaNumeric, Laidback, C2, jal, Good Elf, "THEY", THEY"2, Why Not?, T.Roc, 5D, Kaeroll, Ron, Darren, Zephir, Sylwester Kornowski, et al,
I might not agree with some on your proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn by you. But you show all that you have a desire to bring improvement but please do not ignore the fundamental concepts that have given tremendous results in our technology and data that has supported the results that cannot be overlooked due to advances made because of the tools used.
But you have shown a desire for better insight, so with good conscience I cannot leave anyone out, I am just a person with training and many, many hours in the field that has seen so much accomplished.
I have been reading when time allows, FYI, I love physics in all fields; it fascinates me. I can research and study different approaches for hours. I love to keep it by me, inside my mind working & try to keep part of me in fundamentals that has given so much, and the other part looking for improvement's for a better understand; the idea of getting rid what has been tested and has given great advances in our technology, approach and understanding, it nearly causes me to become discourage of what the future might hold for new physicist. But reading when time allows and my mind has reached fatigue, the comments just on this one site with so many other sites on the www on different levels, gives me hope personally, and I feel that there is a future because of the brilliant minds up and coming, I thank you and hope others will do the same to express there gratitude to you.
We need improvement in experiment's, better understanding of the concepts, and new tools that will take us to new levels in our comprehension of OUR WORLD & UNIVERSE THAT WE LIVE IN. We do have our limitations this we all know.
On both post I see progress by your contribution, this is the only way to have personal understanding in order to make a difference in the world we live.
I want to say personally, thank you and my wish is that we will not be esoteric, but will make these concepts understandable as best as we can and reach the level that even a child will be able to at least see the direction and fundamental concepts,[/B] in which it is built on.
Thank you to all for your efforts, many read this and other post which will bring better insight. Please never give in or surrender to meritocracy but aim for the knowledge given you to help others.
ciao_
yquantum
I will post this on the other post because of my appreciation for everyone, well most I must be honest and candid.
I'm ready!
LL,
QUOTE (LL+)
Intensity is determined by more than 1 photon. Intensity is an additive quantity.
The diffraction equation (for example) is predicting the relative probability of detection at a particular point regardless of intensity.. If you started off with a billion photons you might get a prediction that (say) a thousand will land in a particular region (this is your 'intensity'). If you start with one photon then the prediction becomes that the PROBABILITY of the photon being detected in the same region is one in a million. Does that make sense?
If photons interfered with other photons then it is likely that the observed effect would depend on the total number of photons present ('photon density') and it doesn't seem to, we don't need to know the intensity of the light to use the diffraction equation - a handwaving proof that photons do not (normally) interfere with other photons.
Maybe Huygens et al were all making predictions about quantum mechanics hundreds of years before formal 'quantum mechanics' was invented.. there are no contradictions .. everything works just the same because they got it right the first time round. BUT there seems to be a major problem with the word 'probability' (can it be avoided?) when things have always seemed so nice and predictable.
-C2.
The diffraction equation (for example) is predicting the relative probability of detection at a particular point regardless of intensity.. If you started off with a billion photons you might get a prediction that (say) a thousand will land in a particular region (this is your 'intensity'). If you start with one photon then the prediction becomes that the PROBABILITY of the photon being detected in the same region is one in a million. Does that make sense?
If photons interfered with other photons then it is likely that the observed effect would depend on the total number of photons present ('photon density') and it doesn't seem to, we don't need to know the intensity of the light to use the diffraction equation - a handwaving proof that photons do not (normally) interfere with other photons.
Maybe Huygens et al were all making predictions about quantum mechanics hundreds of years before formal 'quantum mechanics' was invented.. there are no contradictions .. everything works just the same because they got it right the first time round. BUT there seems to be a major problem with the word 'probability' (can it be avoided?) when things have always seemed so nice and predictable.
-C2.
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Yquantum, TRoc, Jal et al,
I was reading what Jal wrote, thanks Jal, and I was reading what Confused2 wrote. I am I am having trouble communicating what I mean without illustrations so I will include a new illustration here to assist me and anyone out there with the concept I am trying to put across. Professor Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri has some very good ideas and I think he and I have similar concepts but the differences must be explained. It would seem to me that the good professor believes that it requires at least 4 photons to stimulate a collapse of the state of "detector" molecule. It would seem to me that he is saying that light spreads in a similar fashion via Huygens waves as shown in this shrunken animation supplied by Zephir
but interacts as separate individual photons with "detector" atoms. That these photons can be "split up" and so forth. I do not think this is easy and I do not think this is plausible since partial photons are never found "in the wild". It is easy to see that this may seem to be what is happening if you insist that photons behavior is entirely local how else can it be that the "seek all paths" paradigm would lead to interference as seen in the electron case only more so with the wildly spreading waves in light?
There two well known aspects of the DSE the professor disagrees with that is Dirac’s statement, “Each photon then interferes only with itself. Interference between two different photons never occurs” and "We will have to give up the notion that no photons arrive at the location of the dark interference fringes." If seems clear to me that he is preferring to deal with light as a purely simple vector field. I agree that as a first approximation this may seem to be the case and Feynman does deal with light in this way as a wave function. This cannot be the entire truth since Electromagnetism involves both electric and magnetic waves "co-propagating" as "duals". A single equation cannot describe both of these phenomena simultaneously.
My view is that just because you can't see the photons illumination in the dark positions this is only because the vectors do not project onto the surface with a positive definite value. These are nodes in a sea of anti-nodes. What C2 might be confusing with wavelength are nodes and anti-nodes. These "entities" are eigenstates of the system at resonance. It is my conviction that these cancellations are part of the way in which the Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber fields "mix" to globally cancel outside the spatial and temporal zones of particles and standing waves. I would like you to look at this "inadequate" transform pair...
Single Slit Diffraction pair
Inadequate since it only shows on two dimensional paper a single pair of "curves"... one is an "aperture" or "slit" and the other is its transform into the frequency domain as "waves". Well the transform plane is not simply two dimensional but a complex function that will have real and imaginary parts and the inverse of this will similarly have a lot more than can be described in these simple "sketches". In reality this "aperture" has a length, a width, a thickness and the radiation impinging on it will be as uniformly single frequency as is possible... A continuous wave monochromatic laser. The way the transverse momentum is imparted to the packet by this slit we end with an intensity variation on the screen which is a projection onto the screen which is a two dimensional surface of the function which is three dimensional in space (ignoring time). If I was sending a single photon through this aperture one at a time , the phase of the system would not necessarily be "coherent" with the next photon that will pass the slit some time in the future. The photons in a laser are there because of "stimulated emission". This is slightly different but of significance when you compare it with a single lone atom emitting its single photon. The boson wave is a "harmonic excitation" of the cavity and all photons on the one wavefront are combining their individual "packets" together to create a single "continuous wave". I would like to show you how this crude process actually happens graphically.
The sync function sin(x)/x could represent a single photon packet (idealized slit or particle). Now since photons do not have antiparticles (they can only truly interfere with themselves), they have photons that are π out of phase.... phase inverted as shown but either "advanced" or "retarded" on successive wavefronts "linked" by a least action principle that minimizes the "connection energy" but at the same time maximizing the central peaks through summation (peak to peak).
Click on image to enlarge (please excuse this ... I am not too good at this construction or the graphics). Notice how the smaller wavelets have been "absorbed" into the central maxima and emphasizes the "crest height". What is seen are four erect phase waves and three inverted phase waves "summed" spatially to produce 7/2 wavelengths of a particular wavelength of light. This happens for all coherent light at every wavelength but each frequency acts independently of each other. You will need to take it as a given that this is what is going to happen for photon packets on successive wavefronts separated by 1/2 a wavelength. The "peak" will sum to be slightly greater than when the photons are passing as "singles" and all the little wavelets which extend to infinity in both space (... and even in time) are dynamically canceled out outside the zone of interest. The wave function then rapidly "attenuates" at large spatial distances and large times from the origin of the individual packets. What is also seen is the waves have summed in the region of interest to a sine wave over a restricted temporal and spatial domain. What you may see from this is the enhanced amplitude increases the impulse that the passing Boson wave is imparting to any prospective photons waiting for "promotion" while retaining the same amount of overall energy in the event (which is entirely conservative). It is simply "redistributing it. It is also a point to realize that other quantum properties are also affected by similar processes of collective energy redistribution... eg intrinsic spin and OAM.
I would also emphasize that doubling the peak to peak amplitude of the individual photon (see above) would quadruple the impulse of the wave (square of the amplitude).... thus the Boson wave has X4 times the impulsive effect (plus a bit) than just a single photon at a time. This ties into the idea as stated by Professor Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri, the definition of the requirement for stimulated emission is now coincident with experiment.
A little imagination is required to understand that this is not a straight simple vector sum (as shown here... due to the inadequate nature of graphic representation) but a dual complex plane Fourier treatment. The essential is the "Boson wave" actually has enhanced effects (higher crests) when passing through a field of susceptible ground state atoms stimulating them to synchronize their escape all at once. Like Cooper Pairs the crests enhance the collective properties of the quanta. When absorbed though in single fashion more energy than normal (coherent photons) is required to extract the photon from the wave. As the sync function is drawn out of this "smoothed jumble" of photons through a particle interaction the field is still seamless because photons travel on this wave as if singly on the one crest. Billions of photons all travel together in the one quantum state. What is not normally understood is the photons ability to reach forward in time to the end of the Universe and also backward in time to the Big Bang through emitter-absorber theory.
What we are viewing is a short segment in space and in time in which the wave function has a "visible expression". Outside this range in time the wave function is dynamically canceled in time and in some space almost everywhere except in some special quantum places where this wave form is once again revealed by the special circumstances of the waves. For instance reflections and cavities will resurrect these events even on the other side of the Galaxy millions of years later as real or virtual images or as internal sub-atomic "holograms". These are replays in sub-Universes ""out of sight and out of range" of our sensors.
Each photon is always traveling at the speed of light through the Universe so it is always existing on the light cone. It cannot actually travel faster than that speed or indeed slower but phase events may indicate this may be what is occurring all the time. The apparently trivial "tail" beyond the single central "cyclonic center" is extending either in space or in time all the way to infinity in both those kinds of dimensions. The geometry of our flat-space is where this is most easily seen as Quantum Electrodynamics with Feynman's Rules being extended by Feynman and Wheeler to include the advanced and retarded waves uncanceled in regions of space. So what is a "node" but a region in time or space where the amplitude has no positive projection into our space and an anti-node is the exact opposite where the laser casts the brightest amount of light be it one photon or one million photons.
So these factors influence the way we need to look at the nature of our Universe as emergent and non-emergent phenomena in space and time on the lightcone surface of our Universe. This wave phenomena cannot be "vibration of any elastic material" filling space as such such as aether but is actually the "walls" of the local Universe which are in higher dimensions as "membranes" resonating in the "cavity". The fact that it is not the volume of our space that is vibrating but the walls of the Universe that are vibrating to confine the particle. In the blue animation we are seeing a vertical section down through the electric dipole ... one of the generators of Continuous Wave radiation such as in a laser or in a radio antenna. The important point to note is EM radiation is transverse to the direction of "spreading". Do large oscillations in the electromagnetic field "bend space-time" in the order of kilometers in the case of certain long wavelength transmitters. No ... electromagnetic waves are dual in higher dimensions... it is like pouring water from one glass to another repeatedly... this is the electric and magnetic fields. Virtual Charges arise on the brane when you "flex" that unseen light-cone wall. The launching of the EM wave into "quantum space" could have transverse motions of the order of a couple of kilometers easily such as in the Omega Submarine Radio Communications System. This large amplitude of kilometers is not reflected in the real world by massive kilometer sized "ripples" at a few tens of kilohertz. This EM radiation is 10^38 stronger than Gravity and so Gravity is not the direct result of this phenomena. It does not have the correct symmetry for "gravity". For more information on this you need to look at some of my other threads where extra topology is required to provide the mass.
Getting back on-track Professor Chandra Roychoudhuri differs in several fine detail points from my theory. Photons are unable to be broken up since it is the light cone wall and causality that keeps the individual photons in-place, locked in time. In most low number photon experiments single photon events are retaining "coherency". This energy is a summation of a number of local photon "tails" from various periods in our future and from our past that are overlapping with the photons from our present... This supplies a heightened energy influence due to wave summation. The diagram I have shown does not indicate fully the higher dimensional nature of this "influence".
These are the very points in which the professor deviates. I would maintain low numbers of photons retain their coherence over space . If not, the energy required to dislodge a photon must be ideally greater than the straight value of "stimulation" and will be far more successfully in this mechanism... (bosonic wave see above).
Professor Chandra Roychoudhuri seems to indicate that we need at least 4 photons to emit a single photon. I suspect that single photon stimulation is not the same as coherent stimulation. Coherent low level emission retain "coherence" over many "periods" in time but I think the boson wave effect would diminish if photons were separated by too many periods in time. Professor Chandra Roychoudhuri suggests if photons arrived strictly one at a time then even for a single photon of an appropriate wavelength you may need as many as 4 to produce "spontaneous" emission. This is the difference between coherent light and monochromatic light which can be somewhat less coherent. These differences distinguish the different approaches. Otherwise they are similar.
To provide the wavepackets required for this discussion you should use that web page described earlier...
Three Experiments in One
This contains the correct sync function to sum over any geometric problem adequately.
It can also be characterized by a Fourier integral and believe it or not it is the expression for the diffraction pattern at the Fraunhofer plane
... explained in the "Three Experiments in one" link above...
Cheers
I was reading what Jal wrote, thanks Jal, and I was reading what Confused2 wrote. I am I am having trouble communicating what I mean without illustrations so I will include a new illustration here to assist me and anyone out there with the concept I am trying to put across. Professor Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri has some very good ideas and I think he and I have similar concepts but the differences must be explained. It would seem to me that the good professor believes that it requires at least 4 photons to stimulate a collapse of the state of "detector" molecule. It would seem to me that he is saying that light spreads in a similar fashion via Huygens waves as shown in this shrunken animation supplied by Zephir
but interacts as separate individual photons with "detector" atoms. That these photons can be "split up" and so forth. I do not think this is easy and I do not think this is plausible since partial photons are never found "in the wild". It is easy to see that this may seem to be what is happening if you insist that photons behavior is entirely local how else can it be that the "seek all paths" paradigm would lead to interference as seen in the electron case only more so with the wildly spreading waves in light?
There two well known aspects of the DSE the professor disagrees with that is Dirac’s statement, “Each photon then interferes only with itself. Interference between two different photons never occurs” and "We will have to give up the notion that no photons arrive at the location of the dark interference fringes." If seems clear to me that he is preferring to deal with light as a purely simple vector field. I agree that as a first approximation this may seem to be the case and Feynman does deal with light in this way as a wave function. This cannot be the entire truth since Electromagnetism involves both electric and magnetic waves "co-propagating" as "duals". A single equation cannot describe both of these phenomena simultaneously.
My view is that just because you can't see the photons illumination in the dark positions this is only because the vectors do not project onto the surface with a positive definite value. These are nodes in a sea of anti-nodes. What C2 might be confusing with wavelength are nodes and anti-nodes. These "entities" are eigenstates of the system at resonance. It is my conviction that these cancellations are part of the way in which the Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber fields "mix" to globally cancel outside the spatial and temporal zones of particles and standing waves. I would like you to look at this "inadequate" transform pair...
Single Slit Diffraction pair
Inadequate since it only shows on two dimensional paper a single pair of "curves"... one is an "aperture" or "slit" and the other is its transform into the frequency domain as "waves". Well the transform plane is not simply two dimensional but a complex function that will have real and imaginary parts and the inverse of this will similarly have a lot more than can be described in these simple "sketches". In reality this "aperture" has a length, a width, a thickness and the radiation impinging on it will be as uniformly single frequency as is possible... A continuous wave monochromatic laser. The way the transverse momentum is imparted to the packet by this slit we end with an intensity variation on the screen which is a projection onto the screen which is a two dimensional surface of the function which is three dimensional in space (ignoring time). If I was sending a single photon through this aperture one at a time , the phase of the system would not necessarily be "coherent" with the next photon that will pass the slit some time in the future. The photons in a laser are there because of "stimulated emission". This is slightly different but of significance when you compare it with a single lone atom emitting its single photon. The boson wave is a "harmonic excitation" of the cavity and all photons on the one wavefront are combining their individual "packets" together to create a single "continuous wave". I would like to show you how this crude process actually happens graphically.
The sync function sin(x)/x could represent a single photon packet (idealized slit or particle). Now since photons do not have antiparticles (they can only truly interfere with themselves), they have photons that are π out of phase.... phase inverted as shown but either "advanced" or "retarded" on successive wavefronts "linked" by a least action principle that minimizes the "connection energy" but at the same time maximizing the central peaks through summation (peak to peak).
Click on image to enlarge (please excuse this ... I am not too good at this construction or the graphics). Notice how the smaller wavelets have been "absorbed" into the central maxima and emphasizes the "crest height". What is seen are four erect phase waves and three inverted phase waves "summed" spatially to produce 7/2 wavelengths of a particular wavelength of light. This happens for all coherent light at every wavelength but each frequency acts independently of each other. You will need to take it as a given that this is what is going to happen for photon packets on successive wavefronts separated by 1/2 a wavelength. The "peak" will sum to be slightly greater than when the photons are passing as "singles" and all the little wavelets which extend to infinity in both space (... and even in time) are dynamically canceled out outside the zone of interest. The wave function then rapidly "attenuates" at large spatial distances and large times from the origin of the individual packets. What is also seen is the waves have summed in the region of interest to a sine wave over a restricted temporal and spatial domain. What you may see from this is the enhanced amplitude increases the impulse that the passing Boson wave is imparting to any prospective photons waiting for "promotion" while retaining the same amount of overall energy in the event (which is entirely conservative). It is simply "redistributing it. It is also a point to realize that other quantum properties are also affected by similar processes of collective energy redistribution... eg intrinsic spin and OAM.
I would also emphasize that doubling the peak to peak amplitude of the individual photon (see above) would quadruple the impulse of the wave (square of the amplitude).... thus the Boson wave has X4 times the impulsive effect (plus a bit) than just a single photon at a time. This ties into the idea as stated by Professor Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri, the definition of the requirement for stimulated emission is now coincident with experiment.
A little imagination is required to understand that this is not a straight simple vector sum (as shown here... due to the inadequate nature of graphic representation) but a dual complex plane Fourier treatment. The essential is the "Boson wave" actually has enhanced effects (higher crests) when passing through a field of susceptible ground state atoms stimulating them to synchronize their escape all at once. Like Cooper Pairs the crests enhance the collective properties of the quanta. When absorbed though in single fashion more energy than normal (coherent photons) is required to extract the photon from the wave. As the sync function is drawn out of this "smoothed jumble" of photons through a particle interaction the field is still seamless because photons travel on this wave as if singly on the one crest. Billions of photons all travel together in the one quantum state. What is not normally understood is the photons ability to reach forward in time to the end of the Universe and also backward in time to the Big Bang through emitter-absorber theory.
What we are viewing is a short segment in space and in time in which the wave function has a "visible expression". Outside this range in time the wave function is dynamically canceled in time and in some space almost everywhere except in some special quantum places where this wave form is once again revealed by the special circumstances of the waves. For instance reflections and cavities will resurrect these events even on the other side of the Galaxy millions of years later as real or virtual images or as internal sub-atomic "holograms". These are replays in sub-Universes ""out of sight and out of range" of our sensors.
Each photon is always traveling at the speed of light through the Universe so it is always existing on the light cone. It cannot actually travel faster than that speed or indeed slower but phase events may indicate this may be what is occurring all the time. The apparently trivial "tail" beyond the single central "cyclonic center" is extending either in space or in time all the way to infinity in both those kinds of dimensions. The geometry of our flat-space is where this is most easily seen as Quantum Electrodynamics with Feynman's Rules being extended by Feynman and Wheeler to include the advanced and retarded waves uncanceled in regions of space. So what is a "node" but a region in time or space where the amplitude has no positive projection into our space and an anti-node is the exact opposite where the laser casts the brightest amount of light be it one photon or one million photons.
So these factors influence the way we need to look at the nature of our Universe as emergent and non-emergent phenomena in space and time on the lightcone surface of our Universe. This wave phenomena cannot be "vibration of any elastic material" filling space as such such as aether but is actually the "walls" of the local Universe which are in higher dimensions as "membranes" resonating in the "cavity". The fact that it is not the volume of our space that is vibrating but the walls of the Universe that are vibrating to confine the particle. In the blue animation we are seeing a vertical section down through the electric dipole ... one of the generators of Continuous Wave radiation such as in a laser or in a radio antenna. The important point to note is EM radiation is transverse to the direction of "spreading". Do large oscillations in the electromagnetic field "bend space-time" in the order of kilometers in the case of certain long wavelength transmitters. No ... electromagnetic waves are dual in higher dimensions... it is like pouring water from one glass to another repeatedly... this is the electric and magnetic fields. Virtual Charges arise on the brane when you "flex" that unseen light-cone wall. The launching of the EM wave into "quantum space" could have transverse motions of the order of a couple of kilometers easily such as in the Omega Submarine Radio Communications System. This large amplitude of kilometers is not reflected in the real world by massive kilometer sized "ripples" at a few tens of kilohertz. This EM radiation is 10^38 stronger than Gravity and so Gravity is not the direct result of this phenomena. It does not have the correct symmetry for "gravity". For more information on this you need to look at some of my other threads where extra topology is required to provide the mass.
Getting back on-track Professor Chandra Roychoudhuri differs in several fine detail points from my theory. Photons are unable to be broken up since it is the light cone wall and causality that keeps the individual photons in-place, locked in time. In most low number photon experiments single photon events are retaining "coherency". This energy is a summation of a number of local photon "tails" from various periods in our future and from our past that are overlapping with the photons from our present... This supplies a heightened energy influence due to wave summation. The diagram I have shown does not indicate fully the higher dimensional nature of this "influence".
These are the very points in which the professor deviates. I would maintain low numbers of photons retain their coherence over space . If not, the energy required to dislodge a photon must be ideally greater than the straight value of "stimulation" and will be far more successfully in this mechanism... (bosonic wave see above).
Professor Chandra Roychoudhuri seems to indicate that we need at least 4 photons to emit a single photon. I suspect that single photon stimulation is not the same as coherent stimulation. Coherent low level emission retain "coherence" over many "periods" in time but I think the boson wave effect would diminish if photons were separated by too many periods in time. Professor Chandra Roychoudhuri suggests if photons arrived strictly one at a time then even for a single photon of an appropriate wavelength you may need as many as 4 to produce "spontaneous" emission. This is the difference between coherent light and monochromatic light which can be somewhat less coherent. These differences distinguish the different approaches. Otherwise they are similar.
QUOTE
In his famous introduction [1] to the single particle superposition principle, Feynman stated that, “. . . it has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In fact, it contains the only mystery.” Within the context of Young’s classic two-slit experiment [2], the role of the observer and the indistinguishability of the “alternative amplitudes” leading to the “final event” have helped exemplify the complementarity inherent in the foundations of quantum mechanics. Yet unlike single particle experiments, the “final events” in two-photon experiments are coincidence measurements, and the notion of these “alternatives” has to be treated with even greater care. For this reason it is important to explicitly demonstrate that two-photon interference cannot simply be pictured as the interference between two single photons.
VOLUME 77, NUMBER 10 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 2 SEPTEMBER 1996
Can Two-Photon Interference be Considered the Interference of Two Photons? T. B. Pittman, D. V. Strekalov et al
VOLUME 77, NUMBER 10 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 2 SEPTEMBER 1996
Can Two-Photon Interference be Considered the Interference of Two Photons? T. B. Pittman, D. V. Strekalov et al
To provide the wavepackets required for this discussion you should use that web page described earlier...
Three Experiments in One
This contains the correct sync function to sum over any geometric problem adequately.
It can also be characterized by a Fourier integral and believe it or not it is the expression for the diffraction pattern at the Fraunhofer plane
... explained in the "Three Experiments in one" link above...
Cheers
bee, AlphaNumeric, Laidback, C2, jal, Good Elf, "THEY", THEY"2, Why Not?, T.Roc, 5D, Kaeroll, Ron, Darren, Zephir, Sylwester Kornowski, et al,I might not agree with some on your proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn by you. But you show all that you have a desire to bring improvement but please do not ignore the fundamental concepts that have given tremendous results in our technology and data that has supported the results that cannot be overlooked due to advances made because of the tools used.
But you have shown a desire for better insight, so with good conscience I cannot leave anyone out, I am just a person with training and many, many hours in the field that has seen so much accomplished.
I have been reading when time allows, FYI, I love physics in all fields; it fascinates me. I can research and study different approaches for hours. I love to keep it by me, inside my mind working & try to keep part of me in fundamentals that has given so much, and the other part looking for improvement's for a better understand; the idea of getting rid what has been tested and has given great advances in our technology, approach and understanding, it nearly causes me to become discourage of what the future might hold for new physicist. But reading when time allows and my mind has reached fatigue, the comments just on this one site with so many other sites on the www on different levels, gives me hope personally, and I feel that there is a future because of the brilliant minds up and coming, I thank you and hope others will do the same to express there gratitude to you.
We need improvement in experiment's, better understanding of the concepts, and new tools that will take us to new levels in our comprehension of OUR WORLD & UNIVERSE THAT WE LIVE IN. We do have our limitations this we all know.
On both post I see progress by your contribution, this is the only way to have personal understanding in order to make a difference in the world we live.
I want to say personally, thank you and my wish is that we will not be esoteric, but will make these concepts understandable as best as we can and reach the level that even a child will be able to at least see the direction and fundamental concepts,[/B] in which it is built on.
Thank you to all for your efforts, many read this and other post which will bring better insight. Please never give in or surrender to meritocracy but aim for the knowledge given you to help others.
ciao_
yquantum
I will post this on the other post because of my appreciation for everyone, well most I must be honest and candid.
Good Day everyone!
I must comment on my lazyness .... It is quite an effort to address everyone by their name when saying "Good day". I plead guilty.... Thanks yquantum!
I want to get back to Professor Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ....
He proposed an experiment to see if he could elliminate the possibility that there might be a contribution from "parts" of other photons in the two slit experiment.
His theory/contention is that it requires a minimum of 4 photons to get the intereference in the double slit.
The experiment would not be able to address his theory. It would only address the contribution of the estimated 1 billion photons per cubic m.
At the other end of the scale...yquantum gave us a link on an experiment using plasma.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0512/0512107.pdf
Observation of the Preservation of the Two-Photon Coherence in Plasmon-assisted
Transmission.
This is a medium that is "super rich" in photons.
What happened? ...... something EXTRA ....UNEXPLAINABLE ... (SEE LAST PAGE)
I'm thinking that those two experimenters should have a "chat".
Comments needed
TRoc do you regularly check your PM? If you want to persue your approach in light of dynamics .... I'm willing to have it in my discussion thread.
jal
I must comment on my lazyness .... It is quite an effort to address everyone by their name when saying "Good day". I plead guilty....
Thanks yquantum!I want to get back to Professor Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ....
He proposed an experiment to see if he could elliminate the possibility that there might be a contribution from "parts" of other photons in the two slit experiment.
His theory/contention is that it requires a minimum of 4 photons to get the intereference in the double slit.
The experiment would not be able to address his theory. It would only address the contribution of the estimated 1 billion photons per cubic m.
At the other end of the scale...yquantum gave us a link on an experiment using plasma.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0512/0512107.pdf
Observation of the Preservation of the Two-Photon Coherence in Plasmon-assisted
Transmission.
This is a medium that is "super rich" in photons.
What happened? ...... something EXTRA ....UNEXPLAINABLE ... (SEE LAST PAGE)
QUOTE
We note that there is a -phase (1.10 and 1.06 for
HV coincidence and HH coincidence respectively) be-
tween the case when the two photons is first transformed
into the state (|HHi − |V V i)/√2 by the first HWP be-
fore incident on the metal plate, and the case when the
two photons in the state |HV i first excite the hole ar-
ray before travelling to the first HWP. Although the de-
tailed mechanism for it is not definitely identified, we
speculate that it is not the decoherence of hole array,
.......
. This global phase has no effect
to the de Broglie wavelength measurement.
.....
Actually, we
have checked this conjecture by the single photon polar-
ization state tomography measurement, which shows the
|Hi + |V i (or |Hi − |V i ) mode photon excited plasmon
will re-eradiate photon in |Hi − i |V i (or |Hi + i |V i )
mode. Surprisingly, such birefringent effect of hole array
is not mentioned in the previous experiments. In an-
other metal plate with hole array fabricated in the same
FIB procedure, phase birefringent effect of about is
observed. Much more work is still needed to fully un-
derstand the birefringent effect of the metal plate with
medley hole array[18].
HV coincidence and HH coincidence respectively) be-
tween the case when the two photons is first transformed
into the state (|HHi − |V V i)/√2 by the first HWP be-
fore incident on the metal plate, and the case when the
two photons in the state |HV i first excite the hole ar-
ray before travelling to the first HWP. Although the de-
tailed mechanism for it is not definitely identified, we
speculate that it is not the decoherence of hole array,
.......
. This global phase has no effect
to the de Broglie wavelength measurement.
.....
Actually, we
have checked this conjecture by the single photon polar-
ization state tomography measurement, which shows the
|Hi + |V i (or |Hi − |V i ) mode photon excited plasmon
will re-eradiate photon in |Hi − i |V i (or |Hi + i |V i )
mode. Surprisingly, such birefringent effect of hole array
is not mentioned in the previous experiments. In an-
other metal plate with hole array fabricated in the same
FIB procedure, phase birefringent effect of about is
observed. Much more work is still needed to fully un-
derstand the birefringent effect of the metal plate with
medley hole array[18].
I'm thinking that those two experimenters should have a "chat".
Comments needed
TRoc do you regularly check your PM? If you want to persue your approach in light of dynamics .... I'm willing to have it in my discussion thread.
jal
Hi jal, yquantum, Good Elf, T.Roc, LL, why not? et al,
I think what is going on is that Good Elf and Professor Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri et al are trying to model a 'free' photon as some sort of a trapped photon.
Simultaneously yquntum is introducing trapped photons (plasmons) which bear some similarity to GE's trapped free photons (or vice versa) but actually ARE trapped.
If we look carefully we might be able to tell whether GE et al are falling into the trapped photon trap because trapped photons are making the untrapped photons appear like trapped photons or whether the untrapped photons really do behave like trapped photons even though they are untrapped. My understanding of the DSE suggests the first alternative is more probable but we are all trapped in the same trap regardless of whether or not an untrapped photon is really trapped or can/should be treated as trapped because we don't have the maths to get the poor photon out of the trap even if we wanted to .
I hope that clarifies my PoV.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I think what is going on is that Good Elf and Professor Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri et al are trying to model a 'free' photon as some sort of a trapped photon.
Simultaneously yquntum is introducing trapped photons (plasmons) which bear some similarity to GE's trapped free photons (or vice versa) but actually ARE trapped.
If we look carefully we might be able to tell whether GE et al are falling into the trapped photon trap because trapped photons are making the untrapped photons appear like trapped photons or whether the untrapped photons really do behave like trapped photons even though they are untrapped. My understanding of the DSE suggests the first alternative is more probable but we are all trapped in the same trap regardless of whether or not an untrapped photon is really trapped or can/should be treated as trapped because we don't have the maths to get the poor photon out of the trap even if we wanted to
.I hope that clarifies my PoV.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Good Elf (and ALL),
That was an outstanding discussion! Logical, clearly worded, and it tied different
elements together nicely in harmonious fashion. I know it was a lot of work and
took considerable time to "pen". Nice Job! Thank you!
Maybe a bit off topic but we keep treading along this path…..
This is my interpretation of the photon-electron detection mechanism.
It seems self evident that in order for a discrete photon to be "detected" by an atom, that
the x (Magnetic) and y (Electric) phase plane relationships, between the arriving photon
composite wave energy packet and the electrical and physical phasing relationship of the
detecting atom, must be aligned congruently. Proper phase relationship is necessary to
transfer / mingle energy fields in an additive manner. If this wasn't the case
then we would see every photon in our field of view, but we only see photons
that are oriented to the EM planes of the rods and cones in our eyes.
Basically, the electron energy gap between the proton and the electron acts like a dipole
receiving antenna that is sensitive to the specific EM phase relationship of the
EM fields of the energy packet of the arriving photon. The incoming EM waveform amplitude
and frequency components becomes additive to the “potential” EM amplitude and frequency
components of the receiving electron-proton dipole arrangement. This additional E and M
energy wave function causes the dipole gap to harmonically oscillate as it tracks the constructive
and destructive incoming EM wave components. This harmonic EM interaction causes a
displacement of the electron from its normal ground state orbital position. Basically, the
electron is electrically displaced by the addition of the alternating photon wave component
energy into a higher energy gap level during the constructive component of the EM field
interaction. This peaking of the electron at its orbital apogee creates an even higher potential
energy level in the excited atom. Conversely, after the electron peaks at its orbital apogee, the
accelerating decreasing component of the EM wave function causes the electron to accelerate
toward its orbital perigee as the reversing voltage and magnetic moment of the wave and
electron-proton EM fields interact. As the electron drops back into its ground state it
converts energy from a highly energized potential state to an energetic kinetic state which
releases the excess accumulated energy as either another photon or as an electron depending
upon the configuration of the atom’s physical structure.
Thus detection and energy conversion/conservation is accomplished. Multiply this effect by
millions/trillions of EM interactions in a physical atomic “matrix” and high density photon emission
or electron current flow is the result.
Maybe simplified but seems feasible, IMO.
Comments, criticism, discussion, or alternate theories welcome.
LL
That was an outstanding discussion! Logical, clearly worded, and it tied different
elements together nicely in harmonious fashion. I know it was a lot of work and
took considerable time to "pen". Nice Job! Thank you!
Maybe a bit off topic but we keep treading along this path…..
This is my interpretation of the photon-electron detection mechanism.
It seems self evident that in order for a discrete photon to be "detected" by an atom, that
the x (Magnetic) and y (Electric) phase plane relationships, between the arriving photon
composite wave energy packet and the electrical and physical phasing relationship of the
detecting atom, must be aligned congruently. Proper phase relationship is necessary to
transfer / mingle energy fields in an additive manner. If this wasn't the case
then we would see every photon in our field of view, but we only see photons
that are oriented to the EM planes of the rods and cones in our eyes.
Basically, the electron energy gap between the proton and the electron acts like a dipole
receiving antenna that is sensitive to the specific EM phase relationship of the
EM fields of the energy packet of the arriving photon. The incoming EM waveform amplitude
and frequency components becomes additive to the “potential” EM amplitude and frequency
components of the receiving electron-proton dipole arrangement. This additional E and M
energy wave function causes the dipole gap to harmonically oscillate as it tracks the constructive
and destructive incoming EM wave components. This harmonic EM interaction causes a
displacement of the electron from its normal ground state orbital position. Basically, the
electron is electrically displaced by the addition of the alternating photon wave component
energy into a higher energy gap level during the constructive component of the EM field
interaction. This peaking of the electron at its orbital apogee creates an even higher potential
energy level in the excited atom. Conversely, after the electron peaks at its orbital apogee, the
accelerating decreasing component of the EM wave function causes the electron to accelerate
toward its orbital perigee as the reversing voltage and magnetic moment of the wave and
electron-proton EM fields interact. As the electron drops back into its ground state it
converts energy from a highly energized potential state to an energetic kinetic state which
releases the excess accumulated energy as either another photon or as an electron depending
upon the configuration of the atom’s physical structure.
Thus detection and energy conversion/conservation is accomplished. Multiply this effect by
millions/trillions of EM interactions in a physical atomic “matrix” and high density photon emission
or electron current flow is the result.
Maybe simplified but seems feasible, IMO.
Comments, criticism, discussion, or alternate theories welcome.
LL
Question?
Laserlight, C2 (not sure you want to bring in plasma, it was just to clear up some information I should not have mentioned. MY BAD), Good Elf, et al,
I have tried to read your post and understand the crux of your statement, how do you explain with the theory you have the QM/e- jump & photon?
Best,
yquantum
Laserlight, C2 (not sure you want to bring in plasma, it was just to clear up some information I should not have mentioned.
MY BAD), Good Elf, et al,I have tried to read your post and understand the crux of your statement, how do you explain with the theory you have the QM/e- jump & photon?
Best,
yquantum
Yquantum,
I have tried to read your post and understand the crux of your statement, how do you explain with the theory you have the QM/e- jump & photon?
Can you explain your question in more detail. I'm not sure what you are
asking. Are you asking how a photon is emitted during the energy conversion
process? Wouldn't that be the holy grail?
TIA,
LL
QUOTE
I have tried to read your post and understand the crux of your statement, how do you explain with the theory you have the QM/e- jump & photon?
Can you explain your question in more detail. I'm not sure what you are
asking. Are you asking how a photon is emitted during the energy conversion
process? Wouldn't that be the holy grail?
TIA,
LL
JAL, Good Elf, Yquantum, C2, Troc, and All,
I might have a simplified explanation/proposal of the amplification effect exhibited by the
holes in the metal plate. I can somewhat relate it to a designed geometric
phenomenon that is used in the generation of concentrated plasma to enhance
film deposition rates in the semiconductor industry.
Let me explain how the perforated showerhead plate is used in the semi industry.
From that we might be able to deduce the mechanism of the perforated plate.
Gas distribution showerheads have geometrically spaced holes to distribute gas evenly over a
wafer during processing. RF energy (13.56Mhz) is applied to the showerhead, basically electrons
are coupled between the showerhead and a ground plane in a low vacuum process chamber.
The reactive gas in the chamber is ionized and components are dissociated due to the electric
field interactions of the applied RF. This results in a tuned controlled deposition film rate on the
wafer.
Ok, that is the bare basics. Basically we have a radiating plate that has a fixed surface
area that electrons (RF) can radiate from.
If the style of showerhead holes are changed whereby instead of simple holes there
are concave 3 dimensional holes on the showerhead (leaving all other variables
the same) a dramatic increase in film deposition occurs due to more
electrons being exposed and radiated per surface area. This is due to the physical increase
of cross sectional surface area of the 3D plate relative to the 2D plate.
More surface area, more point sources to radiate from yielding more current flow coupling to the
ground plate thru the gas species.
I propose that a similar effect is occurring in the perforated metal plate surface.
The EM fields of the photons have more exposed electron (plasmon) surfaces, due to the
hole perforations with which to interact.
This is just an idea. Comments welcome.
LL
I might have a simplified explanation/proposal of the amplification effect exhibited by the
holes in the metal plate. I can somewhat relate it to a designed geometric
phenomenon that is used in the generation of concentrated plasma to enhance
film deposition rates in the semiconductor industry.
Let me explain how the perforated showerhead plate is used in the semi industry.
From that we might be able to deduce the mechanism of the perforated plate.
Gas distribution showerheads have geometrically spaced holes to distribute gas evenly over a
wafer during processing. RF energy (13.56Mhz) is applied to the showerhead, basically electrons
are coupled between the showerhead and a ground plane in a low vacuum process chamber.
The reactive gas in the chamber is ionized and components are dissociated due to the electric
field interactions of the applied RF. This results in a tuned controlled deposition film rate on the
wafer.
Ok, that is the bare basics. Basically we have a radiating plate that has a fixed surface
area that electrons (RF) can radiate from.
If the style of showerhead holes are changed whereby instead of simple holes there
are concave 3 dimensional holes on the showerhead (leaving all other variables
the same) a dramatic increase in film deposition occurs due to more
electrons being exposed and radiated per surface area. This is due to the physical increase
of cross sectional surface area of the 3D plate relative to the 2D plate.
More surface area, more point sources to radiate from yielding more current flow coupling to the
ground plate thru the gas species.
I propose that a similar effect is occurring in the perforated metal plate surface.
The EM fields of the photons have more exposed electron (plasmon) surfaces, due to the
hole perforations with which to interact.
This is just an idea. Comments welcome.
LL
Hi, Laserlight, et al,
That is correct, I know I am responsible for missing your point which is due to lack of understanding on my part.
We know that Robert Millikan wanted to prove Einstein incorrect dealing with the photon and ended up proving him correct, dealing with the photoelectric effect - 1905 Then you know the history of the data and test which included Gilbert Lewis.
Then you get into the modern term, boson with zero mass and spin 1 which we know to be correct due to the experiment dealing with Bose-Einstein statistics.
You have to also consider Pauli exclusion principle, Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac, and many others dealing with the behavior and characteristic of the e- and how it relates to the photon/©.
I just wanted to better understand not to cause confusion, LL?
I just read what you posted dealing with the plasma/plasmon which is very up to speed and in the loop with recent study, glad you want to pursue it. But would it be wise to better understand as best as one can the dynamics of the ©?
I am sure all will follow your lead on this,Laserlight.
C2, you must be heading in the right direction and now I do not feel bad for bringing it up. Now it is up to you gentlemen and ladies.
Best,
ciao_
yquantum
That is correct, I know I am responsible for missing your point which is due to lack of understanding on my part.
We know that Robert Millikan wanted to prove Einstein incorrect dealing with the photon and ended up proving him correct, dealing with the photoelectric effect - 1905 Then you know the history of the data and test which included Gilbert Lewis.
Then you get into the modern term, boson with zero mass and spin 1 which we know to be correct due to the experiment dealing with Bose-Einstein statistics.
You have to also consider Pauli exclusion principle, Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac, and many others dealing with the behavior and characteristic of the e- and how it relates to the photon/©.
I just wanted to better understand not to cause confusion, LL?
I just read what you posted dealing with the plasma/plasmon which is very up to speed and in the loop with recent study, glad you want to pursue it. But would it be wise to better understand as best as one can the dynamics of the ©?
I am sure all will follow your lead on this,Laserlight.
C2, you must be heading in the right direction and now I do not feel bad for bringing it up. Now it is up to you gentlemen and ladies.
Best,
ciao_
yquantum
QUOTE (Laserlight+Nov 16 2006, 06:53 PM)
Good Elf (and ALL),
That was an outstanding discussion! Logical, clearly worded, and it tied different
elements together nicely in harmonious fashion. I know it was a lot of work and
took considerable time to "pen". Nice Job! Thank you!
Maybe a bit off topic but we keep treading along this path…..
This is my interpretation of the photon-electron detection mechanism.
It seems self evident that in order for a discrete photon to be "detected" by an atom, that
the x (Magnetic) and y (Electric) phase plane relationships, between the arriving photon
composite wave energy packet and the electrical and physical phasing relationship of the
detecting atom, must be aligned congruently. Proper phase relationship is necessary to
transfer / mingle energy fields in an additive manner. If this wasn't the case
then we would see every photon in our field of view, but we only see photons
that are oriented to the EM planes of the rods and cones in our eyes.
Basically, the electron energy gap between the proton and the electron acts like a dipole
receiving antenna that is sensitive to the specific EM phase relationship of the
EM fields of the energy packet of the arriving photon. The incoming EM waveform amplitude
and frequency components becomes additive to the “potential” EM amplitude and frequency
components of the receiving electron-proton dipole arrangement. This additional E and M
energy wave function causes the dipole gap to harmonically oscillate as it tracks the constructive
and destructive incoming EM wave components. This harmonic EM interaction causes a
displacement of the electron from its normal ground state orbital position. Basically, the
electron is electrically displaced by the addition of the alternating photon wave component
energy into a higher energy gap level during the constructive component of the EM field
interaction. This peaking of the electron at its orbital apogee creates an even higher potential
energy level in the excited atom. Conversely, after the electron peaks at its orbital apogee, the
accelerating decreasing component of the EM wave function causes the electron to accelerate
toward its orbital perigee as the reversing voltage and magnetic moment of the wave and
electron-proton EM fields interact. As the electron drops back into its ground state it
converts energy from a highly energized potential state to an energetic kinetic state which
releases the excess accumulated energy as either another photon or as an electron depending
upon the configuration of the atom’s physical structure.
Thus detection and energy conversion/conservation is accomplished. Multiply this effect by
millions/trillions of EM interactions in a physical atomic “matrix” and high density photon emission
or electron current flow is the result.
Maybe simplified but seems feasible, IMO.
Comments, criticism, discussion, or alternate theories welcome.
LL
I enjoyed reading this. I'm certain others have said similar things but for some reason the way you said it "resonates" (yes, pun intended) with the terms and internal models I use. It's a model that's very mechanical and physical and something you can "get your fingers no" (mentally at least) on and try to analyze how it works and what special properties might be found.
An analogy would be having two physically distant orbital systems slowly transferring inertia between them via. synchronous reinforcement through gravity. For example, if you had two pairs of orbitting bodies, that in turn orbitted around each other, you'd have a few frequencies at which they could interact, (1) the period of pair 1, (2) the period of pair 2 as well as the period of the orbit between the two pairs, which depending upon orientation, could end up acting as a phase shift between the relationships of the original two orbits to make their relative frequencies appear shifted (if they were all orbiting within the same plane, the shift would be maximized).
I remember seeing what looked very much like an absorption spectrum, but it was a plot of the ability of various components in the solar system to absorb or eject bodies. There are specific speeds and frequencies that are more or less likely to be "compatible" with orbital states in our solar system because they're able to synchronize with existing planetary bodies and remain stable. Photons might operate by similar principles.
That was an outstanding discussion! Logical, clearly worded, and it tied different
elements together nicely in harmonious fashion. I know it was a lot of work and
took considerable time to "pen". Nice Job! Thank you!
Maybe a bit off topic but we keep treading along this path…..
This is my interpretation of the photon-electron detection mechanism.
It seems self evident that in order for a discrete photon to be "detected" by an atom, that
the x (Magnetic) and y (Electric) phase plane relationships, between the arriving photon
composite wave energy packet and the electrical and physical phasing relationship of the
detecting atom, must be aligned congruently. Proper phase relationship is necessary to
transfer / mingle energy fields in an additive manner. If this wasn't the case
then we would see every photon in our field of view, but we only see photons
that are oriented to the EM planes of the rods and cones in our eyes.
Basically, the electron energy gap between the proton and the electron acts like a dipole
receiving antenna that is sensitive to the specific EM phase relationship of the
EM fields of the energy packet of the arriving photon. The incoming EM waveform amplitude
and frequency components becomes additive to the “potential” EM amplitude and frequency
components of the receiving electron-proton dipole arrangement. This additional E and M
energy wave function causes the dipole gap to harmonically oscillate as it tracks the constructive
and destructive incoming EM wave components. This harmonic EM interaction causes a
displacement of the electron from its normal ground state orbital position. Basically, the
electron is electrically displaced by the addition of the alternating photon wave component
energy into a higher energy gap level during the constructive component of the EM field
interaction. This peaking of the electron at its orbital apogee creates an even higher potential
energy level in the excited atom. Conversely, after the electron peaks at its orbital apogee, the
accelerating decreasing component of the EM wave function causes the electron to accelerate
toward its orbital perigee as the reversing voltage and magnetic moment of the wave and
electron-proton EM fields interact. As the electron drops back into its ground state it
converts energy from a highly energized potential state to an energetic kinetic state which
releases the excess accumulated energy as either another photon or as an electron depending
upon the configuration of the atom’s physical structure.
Thus detection and energy conversion/conservation is accomplished. Multiply this effect by
millions/trillions of EM interactions in a physical atomic “matrix” and high density photon emission
or electron current flow is the result.
Maybe simplified but seems feasible, IMO.
Comments, criticism, discussion, or alternate theories welcome.
LL
I enjoyed reading this. I'm certain others have said similar things but for some reason the way you said it "resonates" (yes, pun intended
) with the terms and internal models I use. It's a model that's very mechanical and physical and something you can "get your fingers no" (mentally at least) on and try to analyze how it works and what special properties might be found.An analogy would be having two physically distant orbital systems slowly transferring inertia between them via. synchronous reinforcement through gravity. For example, if you had two pairs of orbitting bodies, that in turn orbitted around each other, you'd have a few frequencies at which they could interact, (1) the period of pair 1, (2) the period of pair 2 as well as the period of the orbit between the two pairs, which depending upon orientation, could end up acting as a phase shift between the relationships of the original two orbits to make their relative frequencies appear shifted (if they were all orbiting within the same plane, the shift would be maximized).
I remember seeing what looked very much like an absorption spectrum, but it was a plot of the ability of various components in the solar system to absorb or eject bodies. There are specific speeds and frequencies that are more or less likely to be "compatible" with orbital states in our solar system because they're able to synchronize with existing planetary bodies and remain stable. Photons might operate by similar principles.
Bits and bobs,
yquantum .. I think I see (?) .. plasma should be rich in photon-electron interaction but I haven't found it in any reference in a way that I can makes sense of. I'd like to catch a nice 137 and bring it home to cook .. not so easy to catch though.
-----------------------------
GE .. light dawns perhaps..
From a thread here
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.ph...752#post1093752
Ah, now I understand what you're trying to do.
Note that the de Broglie "wave" was never used to derive the wavefunction of a free particle. That was the issue that I brought up earlier. However, when you try to relate the physical quantities of what you obtained out of the Schrodinger equation, only then do you make ad hoc use of the de Broglie relations.
So the wavefunction that you solve out of the Schrodinger Eq. isn't really the deBroglie "wave", even for a particle. We however make use of it to relate wave-particle quantites.
I don't 'do' wave-particle duality and you 'do' .. this looks set to run and run .. I hope that's OK.
------------------------------
LL
Another forum has attempted the electron-photon interaction question .. I think the answers are somewhat unhelpful and sometimes contradictory but maybe they help to show some of the issues involved.
(same link as to GE)
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.ph...752#post1093752
------------------------
TRoc.. time passes. If you'd like starter numbers .. slit width = 500nm, slit spacing = 5,000nm, slit to screen = 50,000nm (or any other numbers you like better)
-------------------
Best wishes,
-C2.
yquantum .. I think I see (?) .. plasma should be rich in photon-electron interaction but I haven't found it in any reference in a way that I can makes sense of. I'd like to catch a nice 137 and bring it home to cook .. not so easy to catch though.
-----------------------------
GE .. light dawns perhaps..
From a thread here
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.ph...752#post1093752
QUOTE (ZapperZ+)
Ah, now I understand what you're trying to do.
Note that the de Broglie "wave" was never used to derive the wavefunction of a free particle. That was the issue that I brought up earlier. However, when you try to relate the physical quantities of what you obtained out of the Schrodinger equation, only then do you make ad hoc use of the de Broglie relations.
So the wavefunction that you solve out of the Schrodinger Eq. isn't really the deBroglie "wave", even for a particle. We however make use of it to relate wave-particle quantites.
I don't 'do' wave-particle duality and you 'do' .. this looks set to run and run
.. I hope that's OK.------------------------------
LL
Another forum has attempted the electron-photon interaction question .. I think the answers are somewhat unhelpful and sometimes contradictory but maybe they help to show some of the issues involved.
(same link as to GE)
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.ph...752#post1093752
------------------------
TRoc.. time passes. If you'd like starter numbers .. slit width = 500nm, slit spacing = 5,000nm, slit to screen = 50,000nm (or any other numbers you like better)
-------------------
Best wishes,
-C2.
Yquantum.... what is the birefringent effect anomaly in the plasma?
Why should it be ignored?
Jal
Why should it be ignored?
Jal
Hi jal,
http://epsppd.epfl.ch/Praha/WEB/98ICPP_W/A076PR.PDF
.. you actually want a reason to ignore it?
-C2.
http://epsppd.epfl.ch/Praha/WEB/98ICPP_W/A076PR.PDF
.. you actually want a reason to ignore it?
-C2.
jal, C2, LL, Good Elf, (enjoyed the read), TRoc, et al, ----list is getting to long will go to Hi everyone soon.
First, jal, had to find a paper you did not have to pay for, hope this will give you the insight you need, let me know.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0607/0607294.pdf
C2, I must confess when you choose a direction, you jump all the way in. CONGRATULATION'S. I have had to take some down time in order to recoup and here I am, go figure?
Could you be just a little more precise in your question, I am walking a tight rope here because I do not want to cause confusion. I want this subject to soar as far as our intellect will take us in the realm of reality.
ciao_
yquantum
First, jal, had to find a paper you did not have to pay for, hope this will give you the insight you need, let me know.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0607/0607294.pdf
C2, I must confess when you choose a direction, you jump all the way in. CONGRATULATION'S. I have had to take some down time in order to recoup and here I am, go figure?
Could you be just a little more precise in your question, I am walking a tight rope here because I do not want to cause confusion. I want this subject to soar as far as our intellect will take us in the realm of reality.
ciao_
yquantum
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Yquantum, TRoc, Jal, bee, StevenA, AlphaNumeric, Laidback, zephir et al,
I am trying to not place much emphasis on this contribution but this only draws together without any substantial changes in existing Physics a "conformal field theory" that connects everything into an electrodynamic view of waves and particles.
I would like to try and point out just how inadequate the drawings I am making in a plane are not conveying the full principle. Here is the basic transform pair of any particle, slit, aperture with finite barrier height, width, thickness being the source passive or active, excitation etc. No spin, no charge, no mass etc.. the most featureless of objects.
This is clearly not a full description of a "photon". What this abstraction is supposed to show is what a "photon" is supposed to look like in its own frame of reference, this is truly in the sense that Einstein would have tried to visualize... by running along with a beam of light and as time slows down and "relatively" stops in the external frame of reference we see the "photon" frozen in time at the speed of light physically "on the wall" of the light cone. This is not possible for any material observer. What we can "observe" is another case of phenomena is an electron internally composed of a "photon" confined to the "external light cone wall" of the particle and confined to execute endless loops inside the light cone wall. A certain "effect" can be observed penetrating the light cone wall in the evanescent field of the internally "twisted" photon loop as seen from outside. This is "tunneling" from twisted space into our flatspace. This twist is the sign of additional dimensions in the same way this "strip" of EM field can no longer be laid on the surface of a table since this twist removes this possibility forever. Please do not forget that this "strip" of EM field represents only one of the electric or magnetic fields in an EM wave so we are always working with higher dimensions ... like it or not.
This "extra twist" means the electron is now more than the normal apparent three dimensions in the same way this "strip" of paper in the above illustration is now a three dimensional object that was once formerly only a simple two dimensional object. Like I said this is where my interpretation of the phenomenon diverges from the already "brilliant one" given in Williamson and Van Der Marks paper...
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?: J.G. Williamson(a) and M.B. van der Mark( b )
My contribution to this idea is only that an elf could/would do... Since in real space there are three distinct orthogonal directions to take a three dimensional object and give it that "twist" you add potentially 6 extra dimensions ... therefore this object you see here is an "unseen six extra dimensions" ... the only dimensions we can actually see in are our "flatspace" of only the other three dimensions.
This make a famous number of 10 dimensions ... locally when you consider time. In most theoretical discussions of string theory this is where it stops and to conceal these "obvious" dimensions from us the consensus is these six dimensions which were originally equivalent to the other three dimensions "deflated" and "curled up" into a sub-Planck Length package that all our technology are unable to reach. The way this "should work" is the simple hyper-torus is warped in three orthogonal directions to make a SU(2) symmetry loop in those 10 dimensions in which the first level of Quantum Particle Physics is described. Three of the dimensions are inflated to be our Universe through a process of quantum demolition from the other 6 dimensions.
I would add something to this picture and say since this six dimensional object represents three sets of three dimensional spaces in succession... The first space is the one we live in ... our three dimensional Universe we think is a total flatspace but is "attached" to two other nested three dimensional spaces which form a "ring".
Starting from our three space plus time (one 1/2 twist) next brane outer surface a quantum holographic de Sitter space containing the strings that are the informational surface of the 6D brane. (One full twist = 1 twist) a three dimensional space like ours the anti-de Sitter Universe on the inner light cone wall (one more 1/2 twist = 3/2 twist) the next brane wall as seen from the anti de Sitter Universe.. another holographic de Sitter space (two full twists = 2 twists) the third three dimensional nested anti-de Sitter space (one more 1/2 twist brane next outer surface a quantum holographic de Sitter space (one last 1/2 twist = twist 3) back to our flatspace inside our own anti-de Sitter space.
The expression of this "particle object" in our Universe is the Calabi-Yau Space...
... only this space is "inside out" in comparison to conventional dimensional connections. Each "full twist" leads to the next equivalent level of dimensional space relative to our space. Three twists brings it back into our space leave in the perspective of our three dimensional space and the "unseen" six dimensional object with it twisted spaces (reciprocal space and twisted time ... reciprocal time = frequency)
Each half twist leads to boson - fermion particle duals. This is Dirac's Party trick done in higher dimensional space, these "strings" connect our "box" to the informational surfaces of the universe both in an "up" sense and a "down" sense macrocosm / microcosm Holographic Universe. Some strings will need to "move" betwen ten dimensional objects so it will be at least 11 plus dimensions.
To traverse these "spaces" dimensionally must be done via the quantum principle through a resonance where the photon enters the "harmonically matched space". This is an "interaction" between particle to particle or boson to particle. The difference is the 1/2 twist leads to a de Broglie particle and fermion ... a very "hard" particle wall... the light cone. Notice three orders of particles one for each of the three dimensional spaces. Our physics and any other physics works in these shells just like it does in our "flatspace"... though separated from the other three dimensional spaces co-habiting the same space but in higher dimensions. As I have previously commented on, the shadow of these spaces are the empty electronic shells of single particles. A single proton has a shadow partner with multiple co-habiting spaces in higher dimensions ready to accept electrons, the simplest "ionized" Hydrogen atom. This is a "simple slit" or well in the above scheme... the most elementary representation of of a particle as a simple two dimensional barrier of finite height...
In reality we have two different topologies, one that propagates at the speed of light and the other that apparently runs around in circles chasing its own tail... a fermion. A I have also indicated this represents the two ends of Special Relativity... light traveling at © and a particle at or near rest a fermion "leaking" the interior boson through its light cone walls from the reciprocal space. The separate topologies will not allow energy to leak away in dribs and drabs... it is all or nothing is a particle - anti-particle annihilation event. Otherwise this twisted spacetime "knot" cannot unravel because it is protected from that by the speed of light barrier and "causality"... expressed as a CPT violation. Still as long as no energy "exchanges" occur a particle can exhibit wave like properties from that higher dimensional space by tunneling out in the evanescent region... These are de Broglie waves when you have a sufficiently low velocity compared with the speed of light. I have discussed why there is an inverse relationship between velocity and wavelength.
This is because Special Relativity has two ends... the speed of light and every rest frame (Inertial frame of reference).
In the one flatspace of our Universe Feynman Rules operate inside our flatspace as Quantum Electrodynamics... This has been discussed at length and the significance of Wheeler-Feynman Theory providing emergent behavior in the "search every path" space of the photons "confined" to spread in the "apparent flatspace" of our Universe by dimensional (light cone) walls "everywhere". When a particle (fermion or boson) passes through the barrier that separated the stacked harmonic spaces of the atomic electron shells the electron or photon vanish from our Universe other than for the conservation of energy or mass rules. Without changing the energy of any photon the Boson wave as noted in my previous post confines photons by stitching them together into a seamless "sheet" of coherent Continuous Waves if permitted by the source, lets say a laser.
Clearly you can also "stitch together" two fermions into a wave as well but the single state will only "admit" just two electrons, each with opposite phases. This is a "Cooper Pair". It will still benefit from the combined effective "impulse" being not just doubled but quadrupled. Alas a third electron will not be admitted since the additional particle must have either a pi or -pi alignment and so would be repelled by the "electric" brane stresses which would be phase additive rather than phase opposed by one or other of the co-resident "electrons". Charges being the result of stressors on the Brane wall of the light cone and wrapped in a similar fashion according to the folded strip as shown in Williamson and Van der Mark's Paper.
This has an alternative explanation in which these "higher dimensions" can be mapped to a lower dimensional hyper-surface of the exterior of a D6 brane such as for a "Black Hole" (or "Black Hole" like objects)... The AdS/CFT Hypothesis and the Holographic Universe.
Wikipedia: AdS/CFT correspondence
Cheers
I am trying to not place much emphasis on this contribution but this only draws together without any substantial changes in existing Physics a "conformal field theory" that connects everything into an electrodynamic view of waves and particles.
I would like to try and point out just how inadequate the drawings I am making in a plane are not conveying the full principle. Here is the basic transform pair of any particle, slit, aperture with finite barrier height, width, thickness being the source passive or active, excitation etc. No spin, no charge, no mass etc.. the most featureless of objects.
This is clearly not a full description of a "photon". What this abstraction is supposed to show is what a "photon" is supposed to look like in its own frame of reference, this is truly in the sense that Einstein would have tried to visualize... by running along with a beam of light and as time slows down and "relatively" stops in the external frame of reference we see the "photon" frozen in time at the speed of light physically "on the wall" of the light cone. This is not possible for any material observer. What we can "observe" is another case of phenomena is an electron internally composed of a "photon" confined to the "external light cone wall" of the particle and confined to execute endless loops inside the light cone wall. A certain "effect" can be observed penetrating the light cone wall in the evanescent field of the internally "twisted" photon loop as seen from outside. This is "tunneling" from twisted space into our flatspace. This twist is the sign of additional dimensions in the same way this "strip" of EM field can no longer be laid on the surface of a table since this twist removes this possibility forever. Please do not forget that this "strip" of EM field represents only one of the electric or magnetic fields in an EM wave so we are always working with higher dimensions ... like it or not.
This "extra twist" means the electron is now more than the normal apparent three dimensions in the same way this "strip" of paper in the above illustration is now a three dimensional object that was once formerly only a simple two dimensional object. Like I said this is where my interpretation of the phenomenon diverges from the already "brilliant one" given in Williamson and Van Der Marks paper...
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?: J.G. Williamson(a) and M.B. van der Mark( b )
My contribution to this idea is only that an elf could/would do... Since in real space there are three distinct orthogonal directions to take a three dimensional object and give it that "twist" you add potentially 6 extra dimensions ... therefore this object you see here is an "unseen six extra dimensions" ... the only dimensions we can actually see in are our "flatspace" of only the other three dimensions.
This make a famous number of 10 dimensions ... locally when you consider time. In most theoretical discussions of string theory this is where it stops and to conceal these "obvious" dimensions from us the consensus is these six dimensions which were originally equivalent to the other three dimensions "deflated" and "curled up" into a sub-Planck Length package that all our technology are unable to reach. The way this "should work" is the simple hyper-torus is warped in three orthogonal directions to make a SU(2) symmetry loop in those 10 dimensions in which the first level of Quantum Particle Physics is described. Three of the dimensions are inflated to be our Universe through a process of quantum demolition from the other 6 dimensions.
I would add something to this picture and say since this six dimensional object represents three sets of three dimensional spaces in succession... The first space is the one we live in ... our three dimensional Universe we think is a total flatspace but is "attached" to two other nested three dimensional spaces which form a "ring".
Starting from our three space plus time (one 1/2 twist) next brane outer surface a quantum holographic de Sitter space containing the strings that are the informational surface of the 6D brane. (One full twist = 1 twist) a three dimensional space like ours the anti-de Sitter Universe on the inner light cone wall (one more 1/2 twist = 3/2 twist) the next brane wall as seen from the anti de Sitter Universe.. another holographic de Sitter space (two full twists = 2 twists) the third three dimensional nested anti-de Sitter space (one more 1/2 twist brane next outer surface a quantum holographic de Sitter space (one last 1/2 twist = twist 3) back to our flatspace inside our own anti-de Sitter space.
The expression of this "particle object" in our Universe is the Calabi-Yau Space...
... only this space is "inside out" in comparison to conventional dimensional connections. Each "full twist" leads to the next equivalent level of dimensional space relative to our space. Three twists brings it back into our space leave in the perspective of our three dimensional space and the "unseen" six dimensional object with it twisted spaces (reciprocal space and twisted time ... reciprocal time = frequency)
Each half twist leads to boson - fermion particle duals. This is Dirac's Party trick done in higher dimensional space, these "strings" connect our "box" to the informational surfaces of the universe both in an "up" sense and a "down" sense macrocosm / microcosm Holographic Universe. Some strings will need to "move" betwen ten dimensional objects so it will be at least 11 plus dimensions.
To traverse these "spaces" dimensionally must be done via the quantum principle through a resonance where the photon enters the "harmonically matched space". This is an "interaction" between particle to particle or boson to particle. The difference is the 1/2 twist leads to a de Broglie particle and fermion ... a very "hard" particle wall... the light cone. Notice three orders of particles one for each of the three dimensional spaces. Our physics and any other physics works in these shells just like it does in our "flatspace"... though separated from the other three dimensional spaces co-habiting the same space but in higher dimensions. As I have previously commented on, the shadow of these spaces are the empty electronic shells of single particles. A single proton has a shadow partner with multiple co-habiting spaces in higher dimensions ready to accept electrons, the simplest "ionized" Hydrogen atom. This is a "simple slit" or well in the above scheme... the most elementary representation of of a particle as a simple two dimensional barrier of finite height...
In reality we have two different topologies, one that propagates at the speed of light and the other that apparently runs around in circles chasing its own tail... a fermion. A I have also indicated this represents the two ends of Special Relativity... light traveling at © and a particle at or near rest a fermion "leaking" the interior boson through its light cone walls from the reciprocal space. The separate topologies will not allow energy to leak away in dribs and drabs... it is all or nothing is a particle - anti-particle annihilation event. Otherwise this twisted spacetime "knot" cannot unravel because it is protected from that by the speed of light barrier and "causality"... expressed as a CPT violation. Still as long as no energy "exchanges" occur a particle can exhibit wave like properties from that higher dimensional space by tunneling out in the evanescent region... These are de Broglie waves when you have a sufficiently low velocity compared with the speed of light. I have discussed why there is an inverse relationship between velocity and wavelength.
This is because Special Relativity has two ends... the speed of light and every rest frame (Inertial frame of reference).
In the one flatspace of our Universe Feynman Rules operate inside our flatspace as Quantum Electrodynamics... This has been discussed at length and the significance of Wheeler-Feynman Theory providing emergent behavior in the "search every path" space of the photons "confined" to spread in the "apparent flatspace" of our Universe by dimensional (light cone) walls "everywhere". When a particle (fermion or boson) passes through the barrier that separated the stacked harmonic spaces of the atomic electron shells the electron or photon vanish from our Universe other than for the conservation of energy or mass rules. Without changing the energy of any photon the Boson wave as noted in my previous post confines photons by stitching them together into a seamless "sheet" of coherent Continuous Waves if permitted by the source, lets say a laser.
Clearly you can also "stitch together" two fermions into a wave as well but the single state will only "admit" just two electrons, each with opposite phases. This is a "Cooper Pair". It will still benefit from the combined effective "impulse" being not just doubled but quadrupled. Alas a third electron will not be admitted since the additional particle must have either a pi or -pi alignment and so would be repelled by the "electric" brane stresses which would be phase additive rather than phase opposed by one or other of the co-resident "electrons". Charges being the result of stressors on the Brane wall of the light cone and wrapped in a similar fashion according to the folded strip as shown in Williamson and Van der Mark's Paper.
This has an alternative explanation in which these "higher dimensions" can be mapped to a lower dimensional hyper-surface of the exterior of a D6 brane such as for a "Black Hole" (or "Black Hole" like objects)... The AdS/CFT Hypothesis and the Holographic Universe.
Wikipedia: AdS/CFT correspondence
Cheers
StevenA,
Thanks!
There is pleasure and order in understanding the simplicity of complex things.
All complex machines are merely a collection of simple machines that follow
simple basic prinicples. I think this relationship holds true for everything,
regardless of the complexity. It is only complex because we have not
broken it down to its simplest form.
My assertions may not be totally correct. I'm sure there is room for
improvement and better interpretation.
LL
QUOTE
I enjoyed reading this. I'm certain others have said similar things but for some reason the way you said it "resonates" (yes, pun intended ) with the terms and internal models I use. It's a model that's very mechanical and physical and something you can "get your fingers no" (mentally at least) on and try to analyze how it works and what special properties might be found.
Thanks!
There is pleasure and order in understanding the simplicity of complex things.
All complex machines are merely a collection of simple machines that follow
simple basic prinicples. I think this relationship holds true for everything,
regardless of the complexity. It is only complex because we have not
broken it down to its simplest form.
My assertions may not be totally correct. I'm sure there is room for
improvement and better interpretation.
LL
Hi EVERYONE (this means you!)
Sorry, I don't mean to not fully respond to everything specifically aimed at me. If I missed something, give me a "nudge".
JAL, No, my PM feature does NOT seem to work too well. If you sent 2 PM's, then I did not get them both. I got the latter, referring to phi.
As I stated in the opening line, I just don't have enough time. I really should not be spending as much time as I do already (here), but I do enjoy it. I must limit myself in the # of threads. Anytime you have a specific question however, I will answer, preferably "online", because your questions are probably similar to someone else's. Hopefully, save a little time there.
YQ, sorry, I should have realized that that kind of information, could be construed as "proprietary", and not worth you risk. I recall the debacle from last year.
I should say here, that I do NOT think anything leading to a description of "where mass comes from" will be found at the "higgs" levels. I must ask, WHY did everyone decide to look there, rather than the "easy" side of the "flip".. namely the neutrino? This is the "trick" particle, that has the morphing ability. This is at the CORRECT symmetries of energy and mass, to MOST easily "observe" the process of energy-to-mass. I think that the "vanishing" time scale that you will be forced to deal with, is going to limit what we can "see". I know that much can be extrapolated though.
LL, No, this would not PROPERLY be termed log12, IMO. I'm sure this will take the combined talents of people MUCH more completely versed in mathematics than myself, to decide whether this is something "new", or just different. I believe, strictly speaking, that all log 's have 1 as the starting point, resulting from "zero" iterations, so to speak. I use NO zero in this system. The quantity of ONE becomes just as paradoxical as zero, or infinity, in a completely interconnected Universe. Where do "I" end, and "You" begin, in a Quantum perspective (that include the jillions of "photons" we are continually exchanging)?
I have tried VERY HARD to keep the approach AS SIMPLE as possible (but not simpler! ), including the "type" of math used. VRT can be performed on a $20 calculator; it can (and will) be taught at the ELEMENTARY level, because it IS elementary. The subject of Science will be able to be taught holistically at a very young age.
Because of this, I have probably broken a few "rules" (meaning customs, not laws) of the traditional approach. It is just simply:
Z x R^n
Z and R are constant, irrational numbers. n is an integer.
At the "element" energy level, a new requirement creeps into the pattern. 1/2 steps start to be required, and steadily increase, until ONLY 1/2 steps describe the pattern.
Of course, we know that atoms begin to be "unstable" at a certain point, because of "full orbitals". In my approach, of course, this is about the "beats". Again, c is the MAX # of beats to measure against. There is an "overlap" at this energy level, where ultimately, all the "people in the room", are "clapping together, in unison". This means, from waves alone, we can not DISCERN a difference in location of the individual "clappers". (sound waves in my analogy, EM waves in the real case)
This is why I have my doubts about "higgs energy levels", because they are found at the "second inversion", whereas the neutrino is found near the first inversion. (technically termed Cavitation, in VRT)
As to the similarity to the quantum harmonic oscillator(QHO), sure its there. On the most basic, and obvious level, look at the importance of 1/2 and 2 to the governing equations. It has been pointed out to me that R can be easily defined as a power series, 2^(1/12) . Again, my point is "teach-ability": we can wait for students to reach "advanced" levels of math, and then begin to tell them "how things work" (Physics), or we could start concurrently with the multiplication tables, "finger painting" (color mixing), and music. I say, we start as early as possible, so we can COUNTER the "de-evolution" of man. We are obviously in a time, where it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to learn "everything" that all of the specialization has created. It's time to have a massive "generalization" of what we have learned so far. The redundancies inherent to the "educational system" (the attempt to communicate what we know) are outrageous. How can we afford to waste any time, when the rate of expansion is exponential?
Our kids KNOW that the "indeterminacy" is WRONG. They know we are "full of it", their hypocrisy meters are driven by INSTINCT. Look at the World.. just, look.. at.. the.. World.
Sorry about the side track!
The QHO, has its' "shortcuts": Dirac's ladder operators. There is some similarity there, to a slightly more "complex" version of my simple one. You can "collapse" a quantity (a measurement) by n number of harmonics, and then determine the remaining energy by the remaining angular momentum. That is determined by the quantization of AM; a 12 part, 13 click spin-or. This is probably not understandable without the simple version "under your belt".
The HUGE difference is ZERO (again). Eigenstates are derived in ISOLATION. This idea of "null oscillations" is (sorry) a joke. It makes the "math" work (if you can still call it that at this point), but does not advance our cause.
Any ground state energy level is an inverse-shadow*. It exists at an equilibrium of EVERYTHING else in its' interaction zone. If the vibration does not have a limit, it extends how far?? These waves, described by the ISL, are reduced to be sure, BUT NEVER ZERO. Conservation DEMANDS it. It must always "show up" somewhere else. [* inverse shadow = the shadow created by light received at all points on a spherical body. It can only go... inside the sphere. If you "inject light" into an inverse shadow, the shadow gets bigger, the inverse of a normal shadow.]
A quote from wikipedia, on the QHO:
Imagine Einstein space-time as our lattice, and ALL vibrations treated as indepenent (just like the distance method of DSE) sources. The properties of the vibrations can only figured from something "Universal". c is the most Universal thing that I can imagine, regardless of size (scale). When you have the correct starting point, ALL of the answers are derived. We will never be able to "reverse engineer" this starting point, because of the inherent circular reasoning in the current expalnations.
If we would stop identifying everything as SEPARATE, like all the names for vibration, then we would NOT have to keep INJECTING "ones" into the system. What do I mean here? It is IMPOSSIBLE not to establish the quantity of ONE when you "invent" a new term, or symbol. How many "ONES" can the correct explanation of EVERYTHING have? JUST ONE. (consistent, eh?) What happens when you try to "naturalize" a system, arbitrarily make some measured quantity ONE (like Planck did inadvertently). Sooner or later, something else, formerly described as ONE, is going to have a problem. Do you realize that there are 1.5092..e+33 "pieces" of the Planck in ONE Hz?
He stated that energy comes in "bits" that equal (n)hf . So, sure, if we using very high frequencies, we can bring the quantity into "manageable" realm.
BUT, what does it say about a SINGLE oscillation? It sounds to me like I can divide ONE vibration (per sec) 1.5092..e+33 times. And we are debating about what is inside the envelope?? ITS FULL OF CONFETTI!!
Whew!
C2, we need a frequency of the laser. You are going to have to do 1/2 the work here. You can copy an example from one of those calculators in the links we have looked at, and I'll do the "hard" part. But I need the total output of the "distance method", so we can compare results.
ciao!
T.Roc
Sorry, I don't mean to not fully respond to everything specifically aimed at me. If I missed something, give me a "nudge".
JAL, No, my PM feature does NOT seem to work too well. If you sent 2 PM's, then I did not get them both. I got the latter, referring to phi.
As I stated in the opening line, I just don't have enough time. I really should not be spending as much time as I do already (here), but I do enjoy it. I must limit myself in the # of threads. Anytime you have a specific question however, I will answer, preferably "online", because your questions are probably similar to someone else's. Hopefully, save a little time there.
YQ, sorry, I should have realized that that kind of information, could be construed as "proprietary", and not worth you risk. I recall the debacle from last year.
I should say here, that I do NOT think anything leading to a description of "where mass comes from" will be found at the "higgs" levels. I must ask, WHY did everyone decide to look there, rather than the "easy" side of the "flip".. namely the neutrino? This is the "trick" particle, that has the morphing ability. This is at the CORRECT symmetries of energy and mass, to MOST easily "observe" the process of energy-to-mass. I think that the "vanishing" time scale that you will be forced to deal with, is going to limit what we can "see". I know that much can be extrapolated though.
LL, No, this would not PROPERLY be termed log12, IMO. I'm sure this will take the combined talents of people MUCH more completely versed in mathematics than myself, to decide whether this is something "new", or just different. I believe, strictly speaking, that all log 's have 1 as the starting point, resulting from "zero" iterations, so to speak. I use NO zero in this system. The quantity of ONE becomes just as paradoxical as zero, or infinity, in a completely interconnected Universe. Where do "I" end, and "You" begin, in a Quantum perspective (that include the jillions of "photons" we are continually exchanging)?
I have tried VERY HARD to keep the approach AS SIMPLE as possible (but not simpler!
), including the "type" of math used. VRT can be performed on a $20 calculator; it can (and will) be taught at the ELEMENTARY level, because it IS elementary. The subject of Science will be able to be taught holistically at a very young age.Because of this, I have probably broken a few "rules" (meaning customs, not laws) of the traditional approach. It is just simply:
Z x R^n
Z and R are constant, irrational numbers. n is an integer.
At the "element" energy level, a new requirement creeps into the pattern. 1/2 steps start to be required, and steadily increase, until ONLY 1/2 steps describe the pattern.
Of course, we know that atoms begin to be "unstable" at a certain point, because of "full orbitals". In my approach, of course, this is about the "beats". Again, c is the MAX # of beats to measure against. There is an "overlap" at this energy level, where ultimately, all the "people in the room", are "clapping together, in unison". This means, from waves alone, we can not DISCERN a difference in location of the individual "clappers". (sound waves in my analogy, EM waves in the real case)
This is why I have my doubts about "higgs energy levels", because they are found at the "second inversion", whereas the neutrino is found near the first inversion. (technically termed Cavitation, in VRT)
As to the similarity to the quantum harmonic oscillator(QHO), sure its there. On the most basic, and obvious level, look at the importance of 1/2 and 2 to the governing equations. It has been pointed out to me that R can be easily defined as a power series, 2^(1/12) . Again, my point is "teach-ability": we can wait for students to reach "advanced" levels of math, and then begin to tell them "how things work" (Physics), or we could start concurrently with the multiplication tables, "finger painting" (color mixing), and music. I say, we start as early as possible, so we can COUNTER the "de-evolution" of man. We are obviously in a time, where it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to learn "everything" that all of the specialization has created. It's time to have a massive "generalization" of what we have learned so far. The redundancies inherent to the "educational system" (the attempt to communicate what we know) are outrageous. How can we afford to waste any time, when the rate of expansion is exponential?
Our kids KNOW that the "indeterminacy" is WRONG. They know we are "full of it", their hypocrisy meters are driven by INSTINCT. Look at the World.. just, look.. at.. the.. World.
Sorry about the side track!
The QHO, has its' "shortcuts": Dirac's ladder operators. There is some similarity there, to a slightly more "complex" version of my simple one. You can "collapse" a quantity (a measurement) by n number of harmonics, and then determine the remaining energy by the remaining angular momentum. That is determined by the quantization of AM; a 12 part, 13 click spin-or. This is probably not understandable without the simple version "under your belt".
The HUGE difference is ZERO (again). Eigenstates are derived in ISOLATION. This idea of "null oscillations" is (sorry) a joke. It makes the "math" work (if you can still call it that at this point), but does not advance our cause.
Any ground state energy level is an inverse-shadow*. It exists at an equilibrium of EVERYTHING else in its' interaction zone. If the vibration does not have a limit, it extends how far?? These waves, described by the ISL, are reduced to be sure, BUT NEVER ZERO. Conservation DEMANDS it. It must always "show up" somewhere else. [* inverse shadow = the shadow created by light received at all points on a spherical body. It can only go... inside the sphere. If you "inject light" into an inverse shadow, the shadow gets bigger, the inverse of a normal shadow.]
A quote from wikipedia, on the QHO:
QUOTE
Remarkably, there exists a coordinate transformation to turn this problem into a set of independent harmonic oscillators, each of which corresponds to a particular collective distortion of the lattice. These distortions display some particle-like properties, and are called phonons. "
Imagine Einstein space-time as our lattice, and ALL vibrations treated as indepenent (just like the distance method of DSE) sources. The properties of the vibrations can only figured from something "Universal". c is the most Universal thing that I can imagine, regardless of size (scale). When you have the correct starting point, ALL of the answers are derived. We will never be able to "reverse engineer" this starting point, because of the inherent circular reasoning in the current expalnations.
If we would stop identifying everything as SEPARATE, like all the names for vibration, then we would NOT have to keep INJECTING "ones" into the system. What do I mean here? It is IMPOSSIBLE not to establish the quantity of ONE when you "invent" a new term, or symbol. How many "ONES" can the correct explanation of EVERYTHING have? JUST ONE. (consistent, eh?) What happens when you try to "naturalize" a system, arbitrarily make some measured quantity ONE (like Planck did inadvertently). Sooner or later, something else, formerly described as ONE, is going to have a problem. Do you realize that there are 1.5092..e+33 "pieces" of the Planck in ONE Hz?
He stated that energy comes in "bits" that equal (n)hf . So, sure, if we using very high frequencies, we can bring the quantity into "manageable" realm.
BUT, what does it say about a SINGLE oscillation? It sounds to me like I can divide ONE vibration (per sec) 1.5092..e+33 times. And we are debating about what is inside the envelope?? ITS FULL OF CONFETTI!!
Whew!
C2, we need a frequency of the laser. You are going to have to do 1/2 the work here. You can copy an example from one of those calculators in the links we have looked at, and I'll do the "hard" part. But I need the total output of the "distance method", so we can compare results.
ciao!
T.Roc
GE .. I'm thinking what to write next..
TRoc.. in my mind was a wavelength of 500nm though I forgot to say. If we're going 'all the way' on this I suggest we have a laser of (say) 10mW .. beam diameter is circular and of width 1mm. I suggest linear polarisation with the E field in the plane of the slits (this is going to be really difficult for me too!) unless you'd like it the other way round. To simplify analysis .. we want a 2D result .. how's about we assume the entire power of the beam is projected onto our 2D 'slice' .. handwaving 'power' being accepted unless it turns out to be contraversial. Anything else? .. make assumptions and feed them back to me is fine .. we're both on the same side. I have limited time too (I spend far too much of it here already!) .. ok?
Best wishes,
-C2.
TRoc.. in my mind was a wavelength of 500nm though I forgot to say. If we're going 'all the way' on this I suggest we have a laser of (say) 10mW .. beam diameter is circular and of width 1mm. I suggest linear polarisation with the E field in the plane of the slits (this is going to be really difficult for me too!) unless you'd like it the other way round. To simplify analysis .. we want a 2D result .. how's about we assume the entire power of the beam is projected onto our 2D 'slice' .. handwaving 'power' being accepted unless it turns out to be contraversial. Anything else? .. make assumptions and feed them back to me is fine .. we're both on the same side. I have limited time too (I spend far too much of it here already!) .. ok?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Whew!
what is the birefringent effect anomaly in the plasma?
The search led me to finding out that they "invented" a new particle to give an explanation ....axion....made from photons
I'm not impressed since it is worst than trying to figure out neutrinos.
( I'll bet on the Majorana Neutrinos for CERN to discover)
TRoc
I found this which you might find interesting .... What is going on with mass etc at CERN
http://vietnam.in2p3.fr/2006/transparents/monday/ellis.ppt#1
I got it from the Hanoi Conference 2006 http://vietnam.in2p3.fr/2006/schedule2.html
Could you clarify? Is this where you start or end? Your start is not Planck scale?
Could you clarify? Is this where you start or end? Your start is not Planck scale?
Do you realize that there are 1.5092..e+33 "pieces" of the Planck in ONE Hz?
BUT, what does it say about a SINGLE oscillation? It sounds to me like I can divide ONE vibration (per sec) 1.5092..e+33 times. And we are debating about what is inside the envelope?? ITS FULL OF CONFETTI!!
I would rather that it was not so full and manageable.
jal
QUOTE
.. you actually want a reason to ignore it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| .. you actually want a reason to ignore it? |
what is the birefringent effect anomaly in the plasma?
The search led me to finding out that they "invented" a new particle to give an explanation ....axion....made from photons
I'm not impressed since it is worst than trying to figure out neutrinos.
( I'll bet on the Majorana Neutrinos for CERN to discover)
TRoc
I found this which you might find interesting .... What is going on with mass etc at CERN
http://vietnam.in2p3.fr/2006/transparents/monday/ellis.ppt#1
I got it from the Hanoi Conference 2006 http://vietnam.in2p3.fr/2006/schedule2.html
QUOTE
Again, c is the MAX # of beats to measure against.
Could you clarify? Is this where you start or end? Your start is not Planck scale?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again, c is the MAX # of beats to measure against. |
Could you clarify? Is this where you start or end? Your start is not Planck scale?
Do you realize that there are 1.5092..e+33 "pieces" of the Planck in ONE Hz?
BUT, what does it say about a SINGLE oscillation? It sounds to me like I can divide ONE vibration (per sec) 1.5092..e+33 times. And we are debating about what is inside the envelope?? ITS FULL OF CONFETTI!!
I would rather that it was not so full and manageable.
jal
T.Roc and All,
Thanks for the clarification. Still a mystery in some respects but I understand
your motivation and long term "agenda".
Agreed, c is an absolute value (if in vacuum and not influenced by gravity).
It is the fundamental absolute. Everything else is influenced by outside
variables.
Along that line, your method is recursive from a maximum,the absolute value of c.
I'm assuming that you have programmed a computer algorithm so that you
can merely plug in the variables that you wish to decompose to their constituent
1/12 part harmonic frequency and the factors of which they are comprised?
Tell me you aren't doing this on a $20 calculator! That just seems too........
neanderthal. LOL!
LL
Thanks for the clarification. Still a mystery in some respects but I understand
your motivation and long term "agenda".
QUOTE
The properties of the vibrations can only figured from something "Universal". c is the most Universal thing that I can imagine, regardless of size (scale). When you have the correct starting point, ALL of the answers are derived. We will never be able to "reverse engineer" this starting point, because of the inherent circular reasoning in the current expalnations.
Agreed, c is an absolute value (if in vacuum and not influenced by gravity).
It is the fundamental absolute. Everything else is influenced by outside
variables.
Along that line, your method is recursive from a maximum,the absolute value of c.
I'm assuming that you have programmed a computer algorithm so that you
can merely plug in the variables that you wish to decompose to their constituent
1/12 part harmonic frequency and the factors of which they are comprised?
Tell me you aren't doing this on a $20 calculator! That just seems too........
neanderthal. LOL!
LL
All,
C2, "all the way" might be too much. I am thinking along the lines of you demonstrating the "pattern", or RATIO of the LASER wavelength, the (single) SLIT width, and the distance between crests on the screen. (all in nm)
Then I come in, with the RATIO of the LASER frequency, to the slit width, and the crests on the screen.
We both, then, are using the same machine & set up, and producing the agreed upon results, from 2 different methods.
Does that sound good?
JAL and LL,
Are you asking for "how does it come together, Philosophically, mathematically, etc", or literally, how did I do it?
No to the computer programed algorithm. This could easily be done. I can't wait to see Wolfram's rendition! (he predicted it could be done)
One thing I should point out, that might help. This is like the early Mendeleev chart. There are "gaps" in some areas. I can not spit out (unbroken), one by one, every energy that we have measured. They can all be produced from Z & R. Also, I have 3 different methods of "moving" around the matrix, to arrive at a Node. I usually refer to the most simple one.
ciao!
T.Roc
C2, "all the way" might be too much. I am thinking along the lines of you demonstrating the "pattern", or RATIO of the LASER wavelength, the (single) SLIT width, and the distance between crests on the screen. (all in nm)
Then I come in, with the RATIO of the LASER frequency, to the slit width, and the crests on the screen.
We both, then, are using the same machine & set up, and producing the agreed upon results, from 2 different methods.
Does that sound good?
JAL and LL,
Are you asking for "how does it come together, Philosophically, mathematically, etc", or literally, how did I do it?
No to the computer programed algorithm. This could easily be done. I can't wait to see Wolfram's rendition! (he predicted it could be done)
One thing I should point out, that might help. This is like the early Mendeleev chart. There are "gaps" in some areas. I can not spit out (unbroken), one by one, every energy that we have measured. They can all be produced from Z & R. Also, I have 3 different methods of "moving" around the matrix, to arrive at a Node. I usually refer to the most simple one.
ciao!
T.Roc
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.