I apologize for not being able to make my point clear. Maybe this will help… First, lets table the discussion of causality for the moment. There are valid negative energy solutions to Dirac’s equation. Negative energy solutions lead to negative mass, imaginary mass, or ordinary mass with reverse charge and spin moving backwards in time. These solutions are mathematical, which does not mean that particles with these values actually exist, just that they are not mathematically precluded by special relativity or quantum mechanics. Tachyons, for example, are not mathematically precluded by special relativity. Even though we have not verified their existence (and never may because they may not exist) we know some of the properties that tachyonic particles must have if they do exist. Having in a space-like world-line (i.e. traveling faster than c, moving in a reversed time direction) is one of them. Interestingly, “c” is a barrier in both directions. For tachyonic particles, it requires greater and greater energy to slow down and it is impossibly to slow down to c for the exact same reason it is impossible to accelerate matter to c on the other side of the line (+ on one side and – on the other). Anyway, there is nothing in the equations that preclude reversing the sign. In fact, CPT symmetry requires the change in all three.
But to try to get back on topic… Just for S’s and G’s, can we look at the relationship of the emitter to the absorber in the DSE? We agree that an electron emits energy that is absorbed by a different electron separated by some spacetime interval. At some instant in spacetime, the two electrons are causally connected. Agreed? If so, imagine taking a picture of this “instant” of connection. I believe that your picture will look like two points, connected by some form of wave. I further speculate that the wave will look like a standing wave (a resonance) between the two points. The easiest way to create said standing wave (across a spacetime interval) is to have one component traveling forward in time and one traveling backwards in time. We are not talking about causality yet, because in our picture, there is no way to determine the “direction” of the energy transfer. I think an investigation of causality is the next step but I am trying to establish a conceptual (mathematically consistent) picture of the “moment of transfer” (or collapse of the wave function) that we can agree upon first. So does this work for you (at least for now) or do you have a different picture in mind?
EDIT** P.s.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
"Time" as we know it, is a fixed reference caused by a change of energy state!
If this statement is true, it tells us nothing about the direction of the change in energy state. We can justifiably say that both positive energy and negative energy are being transferred. Emitting energy is no different than absorbing negative energy (and vice-versa); it just depends on your choice of perspective (choice of sign). While “time” may be caused by a change in energy, the direction of times arrow is an arbitrary choice (justifiably biased because of the dominance of matter and the 2ndLofT in the universe, but arbitrary nonetheless).
Hello Why Not,et al.
If I follow your hypothesis then would not both emitter and absorber be required to be in existence and be immobile for the duration of the energy exchange?
If I follow your hypothesis then would not both emitter and absorber be required to be in existence and be immobile for the duration of the energy exchange?
QUOTE (NEVERDRY+Jun 12 2007, 01:03 PM)
An answer without explanation is a sandwich with out bread...
check topic: Predicting the future.
NEVERDRY,
you asked the question but I was not sure is your question a philosophical one or one related to physics in the context of my post.
If the question was a philosophical one in the sense of the known question ..." If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody's around, does it make a sound?"... my answer on that known question is..... absolutely not. If there is noone there to hear the the sound of failing tree then there is no sound of failing tree.
The same with an interference pattern detected but not observed by someone. If there is noone to observe an interference pattern detected then there is no interference pattern .
Anton
check topic: Predicting the future.
NEVERDRY,
you asked the question but I was not sure is your question a philosophical one or one related to physics in the context of my post.
If the question was a philosophical one in the sense of the known question ..." If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody's around, does it make a sound?"... my answer on that known question is..... absolutely not. If there is noone there to hear the the sound of failing tree then there is no sound of failing tree.
The same with an interference pattern detected but not observed by someone. If there is noone to observe an interference pattern detected then there is no interference pattern .
Anton
Hey Montec,
To transfer energy from one thing to another requires that both things, and the energy, exist.
Care to define what you mean by immobile?
I believe that the energy transfer is instantaneous (as long as the spacetime interval between the emitter and the absorber is at least the energy's (photons) wavelength).
To transfer energy from one thing to another requires that both things, and the energy, exist.
Care to define what you mean by immobile?
I believe that the energy transfer is instantaneous (as long as the spacetime interval between the emitter and the absorber is at least the energy's (photons) wavelength).
QUOTE (Mate+Jun 12 2007, 07:07 PM)
If there is noone there to hear the the sound of failing tree then there is no sound of failing tree.
Hi Anton,
So do the trees exist if you do not observe them?
come to think of it..
I cannot 'observe' you, therefore you do not exist.
Jan Rinze.
Hi Anton,
So do the trees exist if you do not observe them?
come to think of it..
I cannot 'observe' you, therefore you do not exist.
Jan Rinze.
QUOTE (janrinze+Jun 12 2007, 07:34 PM)
Hi Anton,
So do the trees exist if you do not observe them?
come to think of it..
I cannot 'observe' you, therefore you do not exist.
Jan Rinze.
Jan,
correct. If you do not observe me I do not exist...for you.
If noone would observe me I would not exist for anyone ( except for myself ).
Here is my argumentation for the answer on the known question" If there is noone there to hear the the sound of failing tree then there is no sound of failing tree."
If a tree is failing the sound of a failing tree can exist only if there is someone to hear the sound of a failing tree. If there is noone to hear that sound then something perhaps exist, but that what possibly exist is not the sound of a failing tree. That what possibly exists is an "event" which we interpret as the sound of a failing tree.
When we see the Moon we do not really see the Moon but an image of the Moon which is an interpretation of the Moon by our consciousness/mind, based on "data" from our senses.
Everything we see/observe is "just"a reflection in our minds. If there is no mind in which the shining stars would reflect there is no shining stars to shine.
The sound of a failing tree is not that nor it is us, but something between.
If there is no us there is no "between".
Anton
So do the trees exist if you do not observe them?
come to think of it..
I cannot 'observe' you, therefore you do not exist.
Jan Rinze.
Jan,
correct. If you do not observe me I do not exist...for you.
If noone would observe me I would not exist for anyone ( except for myself ).
Here is my argumentation for the answer on the known question" If there is noone there to hear the the sound of failing tree then there is no sound of failing tree."
If a tree is failing the sound of a failing tree can exist only if there is someone to hear the sound of a failing tree. If there is noone to hear that sound then something perhaps exist, but that what possibly exist is not the sound of a failing tree. That what possibly exists is an "event" which we interpret as the sound of a failing tree.
When we see the Moon we do not really see the Moon but an image of the Moon which is an interpretation of the Moon by our consciousness/mind, based on "data" from our senses.
Everything we see/observe is "just"a reflection in our minds. If there is no mind in which the shining stars would reflect there is no shining stars to shine.
The sound of a failing tree is not that nor it is us, but something between.
If there is no us there is no "between".
Anton
Hello Why Not,et al.
What I mean by "immobile" is that, in respect to the mechanism responsible for the energy transfer, the relationship between absorber and emitter do not change for the duration of the energy transfer. If the energy transfer is instantaneous the "immobile" idea becomes mute.
What I mean by "immobile" is that, in respect to the mechanism responsible for the energy transfer, the relationship between absorber and emitter do not change for the duration of the energy transfer. If the energy transfer is instantaneous the "immobile" idea becomes mute.
Hi Why Not, Montec, and All,
Interesting theory. If I may offer an analogy.
If we have a bowl filled with water, it represents a filled positive energy state.
Another bowl that is empty, represents a negative energy state.
In this case, the relative "polarity" of the state of each of the bowls could be reversed
depending upon the "ground" reference that is selected to meet the filled or empty
condition, but obviously they represent different qualities, according to the quantity
of "relative energy" that they contain.
Now, we exchange energy by pouring water from the filled bowl into the empty
one. We cannot do the reverse and fill the full bowl from the empty one.
Energy only flows in one direction, which is to the path of least "resistance".
There is a forward transfer of energy in only one direction from the point of
high energy to the point of low energy, and as long as the two energy
sources (bowls) are physically isolated a total transfer of "energy" takes place.
As the formerly full bowl becomes empty its relative "charge" changes, as does
the bowl that is filling, so there is a net charge reversal between the energy
states of the two bowls. This is a causal relationship based on energy transfer
over a fixed time base. One bowl fills while the other empties fully and the
"charge" relationship that exists between them inverts.
Energy only flows in one direction, but "charge" association is relative to the
change of energy state that exists between the empty and full bowls. This happens
over a period of transition time and is not instantaneous. As one charges the
other discharges over time.
So, the concept of "charge" or polarity is a relative energy state as it relates
to a closed loop system of exact opposites or reciprocal states. It is the difference
between the "full" potential energy state and the empty energy state. The energy
transfer requires a net opposite change of state, for transfer to occur. This is a
simplified form of "entanglement" where the state of one must be the reciprocal of
the other. The two states are "linked" by their opposite qualities. If there are
no inverse/reciprocal states, then the closed system is in equilibrium and there
will be no net energy/charge transfer between them.
In the case of photons, the emitter can discharge fully and be completely
discharged, or even be out of existence, but the energy that it has been released
and is propagating along a timeline, is being "stored in the vacuum" as it seeks an
empty "ground" with an opposite charge level to fill. It will only fill a "bowl" that
has the exact inverse energy characteristics of the source "bowl".
Comments? Discussion?
LL
Interesting theory. If I may offer an analogy.
If we have a bowl filled with water, it represents a filled positive energy state.
Another bowl that is empty, represents a negative energy state.
In this case, the relative "polarity" of the state of each of the bowls could be reversed
depending upon the "ground" reference that is selected to meet the filled or empty
condition, but obviously they represent different qualities, according to the quantity
of "relative energy" that they contain.
Now, we exchange energy by pouring water from the filled bowl into the empty
one. We cannot do the reverse and fill the full bowl from the empty one.
Energy only flows in one direction, which is to the path of least "resistance".
There is a forward transfer of energy in only one direction from the point of
high energy to the point of low energy, and as long as the two energy
sources (bowls) are physically isolated a total transfer of "energy" takes place.
As the formerly full bowl becomes empty its relative "charge" changes, as does
the bowl that is filling, so there is a net charge reversal between the energy
states of the two bowls. This is a causal relationship based on energy transfer
over a fixed time base. One bowl fills while the other empties fully and the
"charge" relationship that exists between them inverts.
Energy only flows in one direction, but "charge" association is relative to the
change of energy state that exists between the empty and full bowls. This happens
over a period of transition time and is not instantaneous. As one charges the
other discharges over time.
So, the concept of "charge" or polarity is a relative energy state as it relates
to a closed loop system of exact opposites or reciprocal states. It is the difference
between the "full" potential energy state and the empty energy state. The energy
transfer requires a net opposite change of state, for transfer to occur. This is a
simplified form of "entanglement" where the state of one must be the reciprocal of
the other. The two states are "linked" by their opposite qualities. If there are
no inverse/reciprocal states, then the closed system is in equilibrium and there
will be no net energy/charge transfer between them.
In the case of photons, the emitter can discharge fully and be completely
discharged, or even be out of existence, but the energy that it has been released
and is propagating along a timeline, is being "stored in the vacuum" as it seeks an
empty "ground" with an opposite charge level to fill. It will only fill a "bowl" that
has the exact inverse energy characteristics of the source "bowl".
Comments? Discussion?
LL
Hey Montec,
"In respect to" (from the frame of reference of) "the mechanism responsible for the energy transfer" (electromagnetism), all events lie on the light cone, and so the proper time between two events is zero, and so the objects are "immobile" and tranfers occur "instantaneously", with respect to time.
"In respect to" (from the frame of reference of) "the mechanism responsible for the energy transfer" (electromagnetism), all events lie on the light cone, and so the proper time between two events is zero, and so the objects are "immobile" and tranfers occur "instantaneously", with respect to time.
Hi Montec, WN, Jan, and All,
Excellent! You have picked up on my prior post and pointed out that a standing
wave cannot exist between moving points, or points that have no temporal
relationship/existence between them. If points are moving in space they couldn't
form a standing wave between them. Similarly if one point did not yet exist,
or no longer exists, then they cannot be linked with a reverse wave.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
If I follow your hypothesis then would not both emitter and absorber be required to be in existence and be immobile for the duration of the energy exchange?
Excellent! You have picked up on my prior post and pointed out that a standing
wave cannot exist between moving points, or points that have no temporal
relationship/existence between them. If points are moving in space they couldn't
form a standing wave between them. Similarly if one point did not yet exist,
or no longer exists, then they cannot be linked with a reverse wave.
Comments?
LL
Hey Why Not, Montec, Jan, and All,
Isn't the light cone expanding geometrically with space? I interpret the light
cone to represent the "extended" time element...the progression of linear
time over physical distance.
Any two points on opposite sides of the light cone are separated by time and
distance. The apex of the light cone is considered to be the time of emission,
where time and distance are the same. Time prior to the apex (bottom cone)
are causal and timing events that come together to cause emission to occur,
which is the start time/point for the photon. Any two points located on one side
of the cone are connected by a curved "line" that represents time and distance,
so the interaction between any two separated points takes time.
It appears that time and position are relative to where the points are plotted
on the curved edge boundary of the cone.
Comments or other perpectives appreciated.
LL
QUOTE
In respect to" (from the frame of reference of) "the mechanism responsible for the energy transfer" (electromagnetism), all events lie on the light cone, and so the proper time between two events is zero, and so the objects are "immobile" and tranfers occur "instantaneously", with respect to time
.Isn't the light cone expanding geometrically with space? I interpret the light
cone to represent the "extended" time element...the progression of linear
time over physical distance.
Any two points on opposite sides of the light cone are separated by time and
distance. The apex of the light cone is considered to be the time of emission,
where time and distance are the same. Time prior to the apex (bottom cone)
are causal and timing events that come together to cause emission to occur,
which is the start time/point for the photon. Any two points located on one side
of the cone are connected by a curved "line" that represents time and distance,
so the interaction between any two separated points takes time.
It appears that time and position are relative to where the points are plotted
on the curved edge boundary of the cone.
Comments or other perpectives appreciated.
LL
Hey LL,
Excellent analogy. A couple of comments though...
1) Can we assume that the water charge is a quantum, so that a bowl is either full or empty and not some portion in between?
2) For the sake of argument, lets say bowl A has charge =1 and bowl B has charge =0. To change states we need to make bowl A = 0 and bowl B = 1. The easiest way to do so is to add one unit to bowl B while at the same time subtracting one unit from bowl A. There are two ways to change states from B = 0 to B = 1... B = 0+1 or B = 0 - negative 1. 1 = Energy, negative 1 = negative energy. The same, in reverse is true for A.
Excellent analogy. A couple of comments though...
1) Can we assume that the water charge is a quantum, so that a bowl is either full or empty and not some portion in between?
2) For the sake of argument, lets say bowl A has charge =1 and bowl B has charge =0. To change states we need to make bowl A = 0 and bowl B = 1. The easiest way to do so is to add one unit to bowl B while at the same time subtracting one unit from bowl A. There are two ways to change states from B = 0 to B = 1... B = 0+1 or B = 0 - negative 1. 1 = Energy, negative 1 = negative energy. The same, in reverse is true for A.
Hi Mate,
There is perception, and then there is reality.
What we perceive is not necessarily based on reality, but reality is based upon
what we perceive and can prove.
Perception is a sense and is not always true.... Reality is the truth and may
not always make sense.
LL
There is perception, and then there is reality.
What we perceive is not necessarily based on reality, but reality is based upon
what we perceive and can prove.
Perception is a sense and is not always true.... Reality is the truth and may
not always make sense.
LL
Hey Why Not,
How did I know that you would jump on this?
Ok, so the water in bowl A is frozen solid and we "transfer" it to bowl B.
This represents our quantum of energy.
At some point in time between the completion of the transfer, both bowls are empty
which means they both temporarily have the same charge that is separated
by some distance that represents the time element.
Bowl A gets filled immediately upon emptying by external energy being applied to it.
Bowl B is still empty, waiting to be filled. Relative to space (vacuum) which is
transporting a negative charge, bowl B has is carrying net positive charge while
awaiting a negative charge of the proper frequency (size) to fill it.
Energy is being transported over time and distance along only one worldline vector
direction which is represented as a "force".
Forces have directionality according to a net "point charge" relationship, but
charge is a relative energy "state" at a fixed point in time and space.
The point being that "charge" is relative, and can be a direct or an
inverse/reciprocal property to an energy state within a closed system.
Mathematically, you can manipulate the numbers, but as Jan has pointed out
the proof provided by the numbers can yield inconsistencies in the reality of
the argument.
Is it really "negative energy" or just a mathematical curiosity that is better
described as charge density inversion.
LL
QUOTE
1) Can we assume that the water charge is a quantum, so that a bowl is either full or empty and not some portion in between?
2) For the sake of argument, lets say bowl A has charge =1 and bowl B has charge =0. To change states we need to make bowl A = 0 and bowl B = 1. The easiest way to do so is to add one unit to bowl B while at the same time subtracting one unit from bowl A. There are two ways to change states from B = 0 to B = 1... B = 0+1 or B = 0 - negative 1. 1 = Energy, negative 1 = negative energy. The same, in reverse is true for A.
2) For the sake of argument, lets say bowl A has charge =1 and bowl B has charge =0. To change states we need to make bowl A = 0 and bowl B = 1. The easiest way to do so is to add one unit to bowl B while at the same time subtracting one unit from bowl A. There are two ways to change states from B = 0 to B = 1... B = 0+1 or B = 0 - negative 1. 1 = Energy, negative 1 = negative energy. The same, in reverse is true for A.
How did I know that you would jump on this?
Ok, so the water in bowl A is frozen solid and we "transfer" it to bowl B.
This represents our quantum of energy.
At some point in time between the completion of the transfer, both bowls are empty
which means they both temporarily have the same charge that is separated
by some distance that represents the time element.
Bowl A gets filled immediately upon emptying by external energy being applied to it.
Bowl B is still empty, waiting to be filled. Relative to space (vacuum) which is
transporting a negative charge, bowl B has is carrying net positive charge while
awaiting a negative charge of the proper frequency (size) to fill it.
Energy is being transported over time and distance along only one worldline vector
direction which is represented as a "force".
Forces have directionality according to a net "point charge" relationship, but
charge is a relative energy "state" at a fixed point in time and space.
The point being that "charge" is relative, and can be a direct or an
inverse/reciprocal property to an energy state within a closed system.
Mathematically, you can manipulate the numbers, but as Jan has pointed out
the proof provided by the numbers can yield inconsistencies in the reality of
the argument.
Is it really "negative energy" or just a mathematical curiosity that is better
described as charge density inversion.
LL
Hello Why Not, et al.
Correct me if I am wrong. The postulate is that any signal on the light cone occurs instantly between sender and receiver. Handshaking signal would occur instantly as far as the energy transfer sequence goes.
What then are the transfer rules? Are the rules based on one sender to one receiver. One sender to many receivers. Many senders to one receiver. Is first come first serve a rule. What are the signal collision rules if everything communicates at once. There are more rule questions but this is enough for now. These rules must apply to a universe full of senders and receivers.
If we apply this postulate to the DSE we must also add in a rule that say every photon knows the path of every other photon. Since when we block one slit the photons that go through the other slit know of this and change their direction in order to display a different pattern.
Correct me if I am wrong. The postulate is that any signal on the light cone occurs instantly between sender and receiver. Handshaking signal would occur instantly as far as the energy transfer sequence goes.
What then are the transfer rules? Are the rules based on one sender to one receiver. One sender to many receivers. Many senders to one receiver. Is first come first serve a rule. What are the signal collision rules if everything communicates at once. There are more rule questions but this is enough for now. These rules must apply to a universe full of senders and receivers.
If we apply this postulate to the DSE we must also add in a rule that say every photon knows the path of every other photon. Since when we block one slit the photons that go through the other slit know of this and change their direction in order to display a different pattern.
Hi Montec,
You ask some intriquing questions!
What if the "handshake" is merely the polarity relationship that exists between
sender and receiver. That is the only causality that should share an instanteous
inverse relationship.
There is no need for a direct physical handshake, it could be a "salute"....
ie, "I'm here and I acknowledge your existence/charge state, and I'm waiting
for you to arrive." There is nothing that says the relationship must be physically
connected.
I'm open for critique on this issue.
LL
You ask some intriquing questions!
QUOTE
The postulate is that any signal on the light cone occurs instantly between sender and receiver? The "handshake" signal would occur instantly as far as the energy transfer sequence goes.
What if the "handshake" is merely the polarity relationship that exists between
sender and receiver. That is the only causality that should share an instanteous
inverse relationship.
There is no need for a direct physical handshake, it could be a "salute"....
ie, "I'm here and I acknowledge your existence/charge state, and I'm waiting
for you to arrive." There is nothing that says the relationship must be physically
connected.
I'm open for critique on this issue.
LL
Most families in the UK have a story about an Uncle Henry who went to fetch the coal and was never seen again. There may be a similar story in Kansas which relates to a number of Uncle Henrys who turn up with no knowledge of how they got there. The total number of Uncle Henrys lost from the UK should match the total number arriving in Kansas even though we don't know which one is which or how they got there. If we know the path taken by a particular Uncle Henry then we should be able to match him up to his original family. Unfortunately, if we find some (or all) Uncle Henrys are arriving in Kansas by the same (or indistinguishable) path then we loose the ability to match them up. If we find out which path our Uncle Henry took ... after the event .. we can know (or think we know) .. that's our Uncle Henry. Or something like that.
Best wishes - C2.
Edit It might be sufficient for transaction purposes to know that Uncle Henry is alive and well and living in Kansas .. we may not actually need a letter from Uncle Henry to confirm this.
Best wishes - C2.
Edit It might be sufficient for transaction purposes to know that Uncle Henry is alive and well and living in Kansas .. we may not actually need a letter from Uncle Henry to confirm this.
Hi Montec,
QUOTE (Montec+)
Correct me if I am wrong. The postulate is that any signal on the light cone occurs instantly between sender and receiver. Handshaking signal would occur instantly as far as the energy transfer sequence goes.
Not exactly... the phase velocity can be infiinite perpendicular to the direction of propagation so my interpretation is this is entirely within the single wave packet of the individual photon (which occupies the entire wavefront), and cannot be used for communication between two points. It goes further than this with entangled photons, since we do not know the phase of a quantum before we "read it" we cannot know if the information it is currently carrying is different from what was there originally. So all we know is the reading of one of a pair of entangled photons "sets" the state of the second photon "instantly". You may think this is being "evasive" but it is a very subtle point. Communication is the exchange of signals and that cannot occur unless we can "force" the original state of one of the two entangled photons being transmitted which is presently not possible without collapsing the qubit. In the case of a single photon since this is not known to be entangled with any other photon there is nothing to "communicate" to within that packet. So all information is within the packet and its previous state cannot be predicted before it is read.
Another way (my way) to look at it is to say that there is no time for the photon to communicate to anything else about its state... literally no time at all since it is traveling at the speed of light therefore time is not passing in the Inertial frame on the edge of the light cone wall, so for a photon, while it is in that quantum state, it "experiences" no ageing, no passing moments and no "passage of information"... and it is "destroyed" in the same event that created it. so a photon is a very good way to define a single event... the expanding "event" on the lightcone wall can be no more than one single event for one single photon. I like that definition.
It (photon) experiences the most extreme case of time dilation and length contraction that anything can experience. Zero time and... as far as the photon is concerned ... zero "space" in the direction of propagation directly connecting the "source" to the "sink" in the same single phenomenon.... without any loss of data or energyu or anything at all... the perfect "impulse". To the external Universe... Us... time is passing. This is the 'paradox" that two differently moving objects experience a different passage of time and a different experience of space.
Cheers
Another way (my way) to look at it is to say that there is no time for the photon to communicate to anything else about its state... literally no time at all since it is traveling at the speed of light therefore time is not passing in the Inertial frame on the edge of the light cone wall, so for a photon, while it is in that quantum state, it "experiences" no ageing, no passing moments and no "passage of information"... and it is "destroyed" in the same event that created it. so a photon is a very good way to define a single event... the expanding "event" on the lightcone wall can be no more than one single event for one single photon. I like that definition.
It (photon) experiences the most extreme case of time dilation and length contraction that anything can experience. Zero time and... as far as the photon is concerned ... zero "space" in the direction of propagation directly connecting the "source" to the "sink" in the same single phenomenon.... without any loss of data or energyu or anything at all... the perfect "impulse". To the external Universe... Us... time is passing. This is the 'paradox" that two differently moving objects experience a different passage of time and a different experience of space.
Cheers
Hey LL and Montec,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Is it really "negative energy" or just a mathematical curiosity that is better described as charge inversion.
Are there such a things as -12 Volts, positrons, and Hawking Radiation? It depends on who you ask. But for the sake of this discussion, I think the two terms are synonymous.
Let me see if I understand... At T, A=1 and B=0. At T', A=0 and B=1. At any time T", where T<T"<T', A=0 and B=0 and either we have lost our energy, or the "1" is contained within the vacuum. We assume that it is not lost due to conservation of energy, so it must be contained in vacuum.
If it is contained in vacuum, what causes the "1" to seek out B? More importantly, what causes the A to give up the 1 in the first place? So lets change things up a bit and say that at T, A=1 (1 above it's ground state), B=-1 (1 below it's ground state), and V=0 (vacuum ground state). At any T" A=0, B=-1 and V=1. At T', A=0, B=0 and V=0 (equilibrium). Does A pass the 1 to V and then V pass the 1 to B or does A pass the 1 to V and B pass the -1 to V? I do not think there is a difference. Passing the 1 from A to V to B is consistent with linear time. Passing the 1 from A to V and the -1 from B to V is consistent with symmetrical time. There is no fundamental difference except with respect to how we view time. I am proposing that by viewing time symmetrically, we can find insight into the mechanics of the DSE that otherwise lead to paradox when viewing time linearly. IMHO, viewing time symmetrically also provides a much clearer picture of entropy. You need three things for entropy to work; something that has excess energy, something that has a shortage of energy and so mechanism to connect the two.
Montec,
Let me see if I understand... At T, A=1 and B=0. At T', A=0 and B=1. At any time T", where T<T"<T', A=0 and B=0 and either we have lost our energy, or the "1" is contained within the vacuum. We assume that it is not lost due to conservation of energy, so it must be contained in vacuum.
If it is contained in vacuum, what causes the "1" to seek out B? More importantly, what causes the A to give up the 1 in the first place? So lets change things up a bit and say that at T, A=1 (1 above it's ground state), B=-1 (1 below it's ground state), and V=0 (vacuum ground state). At any T" A=0, B=-1 and V=1. At T', A=0, B=0 and V=0 (equilibrium). Does A pass the 1 to V and then V pass the 1 to B or does A pass the 1 to V and B pass the -1 to V? I do not think there is a difference. Passing the 1 from A to V to B is consistent with linear time. Passing the 1 from A to V and the -1 from B to V is consistent with symmetrical time. There is no fundamental difference except with respect to how we view time. I am proposing that by viewing time symmetrically, we can find insight into the mechanics of the DSE that otherwise lead to paradox when viewing time linearly. IMHO, viewing time symmetrically also provides a much clearer picture of entropy. You need three things for entropy to work; something that has excess energy, something that has a shortage of energy and so mechanism to connect the two.
Montec,
QUOTE (Montec+)
Correct me if I am wrong. The postulate is that any signal on the light cone occurs instantly between sender and receiver. Handshaking signal would occur instantly as far as the energy transfer sequence goes.
Yes, from the frame of reference of the null geodesic, no from any other.
The “transfer” rules are described above. Many senders and many receivers on a first come first serve basis (which works nicely to explain the ISL). Since we are still talking about photons, which are bosons, and since bosons are subject to Bose Einstein Statistics, an infinite number of photons can occupy the same quantum state, therefore there are no collisions.
The “transfer” rules are described above. Many senders and many receivers on a first come first serve basis (which works nicely to explain the ISL). Since we are still talking about photons, which are bosons, and since bosons are subject to Bose Einstein Statistics, an infinite number of photons can occupy the same quantum state, therefore there are no collisions.
QUOTE (Montec+)
If we apply this postulate to the DSE we must also add in a rule that say every photon knows the path of every other photon. Since when we block one slit the photons that go through the other slit know of this and change their direction in order to display a different pattern.
I disagree. An individual photon will take the shortest possible path to an available absorber. With both slits open, there are two possible paths and the combination of these add to the hot spots and cancel to the cold ones. With one slit open the available paths to available absorbers changes. What is required is that an emitter locate an absorber via all possible paths to that absorber; once established, the transfer of energy occurs. TIQM describes this as an emitter sending out ½ amplitude retarded waves and an absorber sending out ½ amplitude advanced waves, when two meet up in phase (actually 180 degrees out of phase) they combine, which “collapses the wave” and completes the transfer of energy.
Hey Why Not, et al,
Voltages and charges are referenced between two points, one of which represents
a localized ground state. There can be several ground states, such as signal
ground, chassis ground, and earth ground.
So yes, you can have -12v which is a signal level that floats above chassis
ground because it is isolated from chassis or earth ground. "Floating" voltages
are relative to the ground configuration of the system in which they operate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(electricity)
I think in this case, we know that space has impedance, which implies that it
has a signal potential level above the "sink" of earth ground. So, propagating ac
signals, that have a DC voltage component, are floating at some value above earth
ground according to their frequency.
If we consider that the emitting atom and the receiving atom are like coil windings
of separate and isolated transformers that have different ground points, then the
ac EM fields that are coupling between them have a floating DC component that
represents the voltage delta that exists between the separate ground points.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
QUOTE (Laserlight)
Is it really "negative energy" or just a mathematical curiosity that is better described as charge inversion.
Why Not
Are there such a things as -12 Volts, positrons, and Hawking Radiation? It depends on who you ask. But for the sake of this discussion, I think the two terms are synonymous.
Let me see if I understand... At T, A=1 and B=0. At T', A=0 and B=1. At any time T", where T<T"<T', A=0 and B=0 and either we have lost our energy, or the "1" is contained within the vacuum. We assume that it is not lost due to conservation of energy, so it must be contained in vacuum.
Is it really "negative energy" or just a mathematical curiosity that is better described as charge inversion.
Why Not
Are there such a things as -12 Volts, positrons, and Hawking Radiation? It depends on who you ask. But for the sake of this discussion, I think the two terms are synonymous.
Let me see if I understand... At T, A=1 and B=0. At T', A=0 and B=1. At any time T", where T<T"<T', A=0 and B=0 and either we have lost our energy, or the "1" is contained within the vacuum. We assume that it is not lost due to conservation of energy, so it must be contained in vacuum.
Voltages and charges are referenced between two points, one of which represents
a localized ground state. There can be several ground states, such as signal
ground, chassis ground, and earth ground.
So yes, you can have -12v which is a signal level that floats above chassis
ground because it is isolated from chassis or earth ground. "Floating" voltages
are relative to the ground configuration of the system in which they operate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(electricity)
I think in this case, we know that space has impedance, which implies that it
has a signal potential level above the "sink" of earth ground. So, propagating ac
signals, that have a DC voltage component, are floating at some value above earth
ground according to their frequency.
If we consider that the emitting atom and the receiving atom are like coil windings
of separate and isolated transformers that have different ground points, then the
ac EM fields that are coupling between them have a floating DC component that
represents the voltage delta that exists between the separate ground points.
Comments?
LL
Hi Montec and Laserlight,
QUOTE
Hi Montec, ,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hi Montec, , Correct me if I am wrong. The postulate is that any signal on the light cone occurs instantly between sender and receiver. Handshaking signal would occur instantly as far as the energy transfer sequence goes. Not exactly... the phase velocity can be infinite perpendicular to the direction of propagation so my interpretation is this is entirely within the single wave packet of the individual photon (which occupies the entire wavefront), and cannot be used for communication between two points. It goes further than this with entangled photons, since we do not know the phase of a quantum before we "read it" we cannot know if the information it is currently carrying is different from what was there originally. So all we know is the reading of one of a pair of entangled photons "sets" the state of the second photon "instantly". You may think this is being "evasive" but it is a very subtle point. Communication is the exchange of signals and that cannot occur unless we can "force" the original state of one of the two entangled photons being transmitted which is presently not possible without collapsing the qubit. In the case of a single photon since this is not known to be entangled with any other photon there is nothing to "communicate" to within that packet. So all information is within the packet and its previous state cannot be predicted before it is read. Another way (my way) to look at it is to say that there is no time for the photon to communicate to anything else about its state... literally no time at all since it is traveling at the speed of light therefore time is not passing in the Inertial frame on the edge of the light cone wall, so for a photon, while it is in that quantum state, it "experiences" no ageing, no passing moments and no "passage of information"... and it is "destroyed" in the same event that created it. so a photon is a very good way to define a single event... the expanding "event" on the light cone wall can be no more than one single event for one single photon. I like that definition. It (photon) experiences the most extreme case of time dilation and length contraction that anything can experience. Zero time and... as far as the photon is concerned ... zero "space" in the direction of propagation directly connecting the "source" to the "sink" in the same single phenomenon.... without any loss of data or energy or anything at all... the perfect "impulse". To the external Universe... Us... time is passing. This is the 'paradox" that two differently moving objects experience a different passage of time and a different experience of space. Cheers |
I should have added... In actual fact there is a very small period of time experienced by the photon while is being absorbed and when it is being emitted... this causes an evanescent "particle phenomenon" limited to the range of the evanescent region only. Outside this region there is no particle phenomenon able to be experienced by the photons. It is even debatable that there is any exchange of anything through that channel at all. There is an effect on the information being transferred as discussed earlier. This "effect" is an obvious non-local "influence" where information is gathered from the "seeking all paths" mode in which the photon "explores" the space it is in, right up to the time the state of the photon "collapses". This information is in the form of intra-photon interferences and does not actually change the photon in any way energetically. Actually for entangled photons... and this is the interesting bit... this absorption is not the end of the story at all since the entangled twin can influence the outcome of the other twin even "after" it has been "destroyed" (See the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser). I think this is explainable only using Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory where the photon "event" is shared between two simultaneously created entangled photons which move apparently independently and seem to exist for different lifetimes according to their 'apparently" independent fates. Of course those two separate photons share the one event no matter how much time elapses during these recorded phenomenon. Even if the two photons appeared to have a huge difference between their respective absorption dates, "internally" in zero time the two photons must experience a single "conjoined" fate.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
think in this case, we know that space has impedance, which implies that it has a signal potential level above the "sink" of earth ground. So, propagating ac signals, that have a DC voltage component, are floating at some value above earth ground according to their frequency.
This is the case if you consider this Impulse as a sync pulse. The sync pulse has positive area under the curve so it contains "real" positive energy. Remember energy is a scalar so it is not possible to have negative energy (I am open to debate on this one). Since the brightness on a screen is a measure of energy and not individual photon phase then this is:
This should be compared directly with my previous sync image which is a little more realistic (2D)...
Combined on a wave (longitudinal view)... for one or a billion photons.
... Click to enlarge...
Due to "Relativistic" contraction the source and sink are effectively perfectly superimposed though phase rotated and the energy moves directly from source to sink without any intermediate states and this is within the evanescent zone of the emitting and receiving "particle". This means that there is no time for any travel whatsoever so the effective distance between source and sink is "zero" in the rest frame of photons. This is "perfect coupling" not possible with any real "transformer windings". This is the reason why there can be no loss of energy in photons and why they behave like very rugged "impenetrable packets" rather than some variable source of "power".
Willing to discuss these points if anyone believes they have an alternative point of view here.
Cheers
This should be compared directly with my previous sync image which is a little more realistic (2D)...
Combined on a wave (longitudinal view)... for one or a billion photons.
... Click to enlarge...
Due to "Relativistic" contraction the source and sink are effectively perfectly superimposed though phase rotated and the energy moves directly from source to sink without any intermediate states and this is within the evanescent zone of the emitting and receiving "particle". This means that there is no time for any travel whatsoever so the effective distance between source and sink is "zero" in the rest frame of photons. This is "perfect coupling" not possible with any real "transformer windings". This is the reason why there can be no loss of energy in photons and why they behave like very rugged "impenetrable packets" rather than some variable source of "power".
Willing to discuss these points if anyone believes they have an alternative point of view here.
Cheers
Hi GE and All,
Conceptually, this seems reasonable to consider, but is only relative from the
perspective of the photon, which is a boson state that does not experience the
passage of time.
However, from the perspective of the absorbing atom, it could undergo
innumerable state changes from other received and transmitted photon's that
are cycling the atomic energy state during the interim flight time of the boson
arriving from some distant source. The source atom also continues to emit and absorb
photons during the time of flight of the photon being "tracked".
So, the relative time reference between source and sink operate on a different
timeline than that of a photon that experiences no time passage during it's transit
between emission and absorption.
It would appear that time is an absolute frame of reference that is relative to
individual "structures" according to their change of energy state.
We cannot assign a common time reference to disparate systems that exhibit
individual timelines, since time is relative to the rate of change within a closed
energy environment.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
Due to "Relativistic" contraction the source and sink are effectively perfectly superimposed though phase rotated and the energy moves directly from source to sink without any intermediate states and this is within the evanescent zone of the emitting and receiving "particle". This means that there is no time for any travel whatsoever so the effective distance between source and sink is "zero" in the rest frame of photons. This is "perfect coupling" not possible with any real "transformer windings". This is the reason why there can be no loss of energy in photons and why they behave like very rugged "impenetrable packets" rather than some variable source of "power".
Conceptually, this seems reasonable to consider, but is only relative from the
perspective of the photon, which is a boson state that does not experience the
passage of time.
However, from the perspective of the absorbing atom, it could undergo
innumerable state changes from other received and transmitted photon's that
are cycling the atomic energy state during the interim flight time of the boson
arriving from some distant source. The source atom also continues to emit and absorb
photons during the time of flight of the photon being "tracked".
So, the relative time reference between source and sink operate on a different
timeline than that of a photon that experiences no time passage during it's transit
between emission and absorption.
It would appear that time is an absolute frame of reference that is relative to
individual "structures" according to their change of energy state.
We cannot assign a common time reference to disparate systems that exhibit
individual timelines, since time is relative to the rate of change within a closed
energy environment.
Comments?
LL
Hi All,
Based on recent ideas, there is some question as to whether a transmitting
atom and a receiving atom need to have any "formal" association. Perhaps
it is just a matter of odds that are based on circumstance whether an emitted
photon gets absorbed at a specific location since there are other variables that
affect the transmission, wave interference, timing, local state, and absorption
process.
What I'm proposing, is that when a photon is emitted from a stimulated atom it
propagates in a specific direction carrying energy and information, and if it
happens to hit another atom that has the right conditions to receive it, absorption
takes place. It would be a "random" or predictable event based on circumstances
that coincide to transfer information.
If the path of travel has limited range or propagation angle, or is otherwise
controlled by a form of collimation, or other directionalized control (ie., DSE), then
there is a predictability that can be assigned that determines where photons that
are under these controlled and limiting constraints can be absorbed.
Whether or not a specific photon is absorbed will be determined by local conditions,
such as the current energetic state of the receiving atom, the phase relationship
of other simultaneous waves arriving and interfering in the same location at the
same time, and/or the energy/frequency of the photon to stimulate a receiving atom, etc.
All of these constraints are dependent upon the distance, local conditions, and time
interval between interrelated causal events that affect the overall process.
So, based upon this line of logic, there is a definite uncertainty, with an
air of predictability, that determines the overall outcome, which is based upon
circumstances and timing.
Comments?
LL
Based on recent ideas, there is some question as to whether a transmitting
atom and a receiving atom need to have any "formal" association. Perhaps
it is just a matter of odds that are based on circumstance whether an emitted
photon gets absorbed at a specific location since there are other variables that
affect the transmission, wave interference, timing, local state, and absorption
process.
What I'm proposing, is that when a photon is emitted from a stimulated atom it
propagates in a specific direction carrying energy and information, and if it
happens to hit another atom that has the right conditions to receive it, absorption
takes place. It would be a "random" or predictable event based on circumstances
that coincide to transfer information.
If the path of travel has limited range or propagation angle, or is otherwise
controlled by a form of collimation, or other directionalized control (ie., DSE), then
there is a predictability that can be assigned that determines where photons that
are under these controlled and limiting constraints can be absorbed.
Whether or not a specific photon is absorbed will be determined by local conditions,
such as the current energetic state of the receiving atom, the phase relationship
of other simultaneous waves arriving and interfering in the same location at the
same time, and/or the energy/frequency of the photon to stimulate a receiving atom, etc.
All of these constraints are dependent upon the distance, local conditions, and time
interval between interrelated causal events that affect the overall process.
So, based upon this line of logic, there is a definite uncertainty, with an
air of predictability, that determines the overall outcome, which is based upon
circumstances and timing.
Comments?
LL
Good Day Everyone!
Laserlight, your idea is within the posibilities and capable of being submitted to analysist.
Good Elf, I disagree on your interpretation of the photon. I keep my arguements in my thread summary for everyone to look at.
What is happening within the nucleons is within the "drip-line". Spacetime is also outside the "drip-line".
EMF, gravity and photons are not bound to the interior of the "drip-line".
We have a pretty good understanding of how EMF behave inside/outside the "drip-line" and in spacetime.
Gravity and photons are still an unknown.
This year there has been progress made in trying to understand spacetime and gravity which should lead to a better understanding of the photon.
jal
Laserlight, your idea is within the posibilities and capable of being submitted to analysist.
Good Elf, I disagree on your interpretation of the photon. I keep my arguements in my thread summary for everyone to look at.
What is happening within the nucleons is within the "drip-line". Spacetime is also outside the "drip-line".
EMF, gravity and photons are not bound to the interior of the "drip-line".
We have a pretty good understanding of how EMF behave inside/outside the "drip-line" and in spacetime.
Gravity and photons are still an unknown.
This year there has been progress made in trying to understand spacetime and gravity which should lead to a better understanding of the photon.
jal
Hi all,
The 2-way exchange is better "equipped" with a logical explanation than the "photon" as an independent entity model now in place. This eliminates the question as to how the emission vector is "chosen".
As a "handshake", and taking place at the node of the exchange, neither wave has to complete the fundamental mode of a full cycle (where the distance between them is 1 cycle). They can "probe" with instantaneous phase, and where they meet, form a "phase duality", or the normal oscillation.
Another question that is eliminated, is how this takes place in apparent violation of "cause and effect". With a "snapshot" explanation, we do not know what happened before or after the experiment/measurement. This is a linear perspective.
The "holistic", non-linear perspective, is asking the next question: where did the "exciting" energy come from, that "caused" our experiment? "Repeating" this question over and over, we finally realize that only a "statistical" approach will yield a usable answer. All the energy that we use for an experiment is "created" outside of the parameters of the experiment. We "borrow" this energy all the time, unaccounted for in our ideal equations.
Taken to the "infinite", or at least, to include everything as our "system", then we can use Resonance as the primary force. The 2 "isolated" parties in our experimental exchange, were ALREADY communicating forces with the "system", which includes themselves.
The "transaction" of energy, uses free space as the "banker". As energy is being drawn, or "gathered", its' inverse is displaced. All of the displacements, in a local area, are already developing "bias" before we "turn on" our experiment.
IN REAL LIFE, these distances are not ever very far.
Energy does not have to travel very far in the plasma medium of space, before it encounters an absorber. It is a chain of related events that brings you your "photon" from a "billion light years away". That's 6.216496409088e+14 particles per light year, that are in the path of our "photon". If it were not a whole-system, symbiotic, cooperative relationship, your "starlight" would never make it here at all (let alone "unaltered").
regards,
T.Roc
The 2-way exchange is better "equipped" with a logical explanation than the "photon" as an independent entity model now in place. This eliminates the question as to how the emission vector is "chosen".
As a "handshake", and taking place at the node of the exchange, neither wave has to complete the fundamental mode of a full cycle (where the distance between them is 1 cycle). They can "probe" with instantaneous phase, and where they meet, form a "phase duality", or the normal oscillation.
Another question that is eliminated, is how this takes place in apparent violation of "cause and effect". With a "snapshot" explanation, we do not know what happened before or after the experiment/measurement. This is a linear perspective.
The "holistic", non-linear perspective, is asking the next question: where did the "exciting" energy come from, that "caused" our experiment? "Repeating" this question over and over, we finally realize that only a "statistical" approach will yield a usable answer. All the energy that we use for an experiment is "created" outside of the parameters of the experiment. We "borrow" this energy all the time, unaccounted for in our ideal equations.
Taken to the "infinite", or at least, to include everything as our "system", then we can use Resonance as the primary force. The 2 "isolated" parties in our experimental exchange, were ALREADY communicating forces with the "system", which includes themselves.
The "transaction" of energy, uses free space as the "banker". As energy is being drawn, or "gathered", its' inverse is displaced. All of the displacements, in a local area, are already developing "bias" before we "turn on" our experiment.
IN REAL LIFE, these distances are not ever very far.
Energy does not have to travel very far in the plasma medium of space, before it encounters an absorber. It is a chain of related events that brings you your "photon" from a "billion light years away". That's 6.216496409088e+14 particles per light year, that are in the path of our "photon". If it were not a whole-system, symbiotic, cooperative relationship, your "starlight" would never make it here at all (let alone "unaltered").
regards,
T.Roc
Hey TRoc....
One of the caveates of my prior post is that the distance, time, and existing
local conditions are variables that determine the detection of a "specific" photon
at a fixed time and place.
Yes, I agree that it is a resonance phenomenon, but it appears to follow a "linear"
time progression when viewed from the perspective of the far field. That does not
exclude that a non-linear process occurs in the near field at the transmitting and
receiving end. My contention is that in the far field it is an event driven
causal process.
An example/analogy:
We have a distant antenna that is transmitting at a specific frequency. We have
a radio that is turned off, so no detection is being done within the resonant circuit
of the radio. That means that information/energy is arriving but it is not being
detected because the radio is not in a receiving mode. There is energy
striking the antenna of the radio, but it is not being detected. So, energy is being
emitted, but not being detected at that specific location where the radio is sitting.
Now, we turn on the radio, and via resonance the transmitted signal is detected.
However, we retune our radio by adjusting its resonance to another
simultaneously arriving freguency with a different energy signature and now
that signal is detected while the first frequency is rejected/not passed into the
tuned tank of the resonant circuit.
So, causality and local conditions affect whether or not a signal is detected.
From the perspective of the transmitted wave, no time has passed from the
point of emission until it is detected. The information that it is propagating
maintains its integrity and is not changed other than the coherent wave that
it is travelling on loses energy with increasing distance according to the ISL.
If we turn off the transmitter, say out at the orbit of Pluto, the transmitted signal is
still propagating independent of the transmitter, which is no longer resonantly
connected to space, however, the receiver here on earth will still receive the
energy that was transmitted but with a linear time delay if it is turned on and tuned
to the arriving signal.
We are talking about independently linking/coupling resonances to the
transporting "medium" of space. So, it seems that space is capable of maintaining
signal resonance along with information integrity that is independent of either the
transmitter or the receiver once energy is released in situ.
My argument is that we are dealing with independent resonant "entities" that
have a linear causal relationship in the far field. However, in the near field
it is possible for resonances to directly connect, but there is a phase shift and
a latency between emission and detection. There has to be a phase shift for
resonances to couple energy between them in the near field.
Edit added:
So, a photon, or transmitted energy, is independent of the either the source or
the receiver according to time and distance, once it is emitted. We could transmit
from a far away source, turn it off and the wave energy (photon) is still travelling
independently thru space.
We could then turn on a receiver at some point long after the initial transmission,
which couples us to space, and await the arrival of the expected information.
Even if the transmitter and receiver are off while the signal is propagating, it
will do so independent of either "unit", however, the receiver must be on and
resonantly coupled to space at the correct linear time interval in order to be
able to receive the transmitted signal.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
The 2-way exchange is better "equipped" with a logical explanation than the "photon" as an independent entity model now in place. This eliminates the question as to how the emission vector is "chosen".
As a "handshake", and taking place at the node of the exchange, neither wave has to complete the fundamental mode of a full cycle (where the distance between them is 1 cycle). They can "probe" with instantaneous phase, and where they meet, form a "phase duality", or the normal oscillation.
As a "handshake", and taking place at the node of the exchange, neither wave has to complete the fundamental mode of a full cycle (where the distance between them is 1 cycle). They can "probe" with instantaneous phase, and where they meet, form a "phase duality", or the normal oscillation.
One of the caveates of my prior post is that the distance, time, and existing
local conditions are variables that determine the detection of a "specific" photon
at a fixed time and place.
Yes, I agree that it is a resonance phenomenon, but it appears to follow a "linear"
time progression when viewed from the perspective of the far field. That does not
exclude that a non-linear process occurs in the near field at the transmitting and
receiving end. My contention is that in the far field it is an event driven
causal process.
An example/analogy:
We have a distant antenna that is transmitting at a specific frequency. We have
a radio that is turned off, so no detection is being done within the resonant circuit
of the radio. That means that information/energy is arriving but it is not being
detected because the radio is not in a receiving mode. There is energy
striking the antenna of the radio, but it is not being detected. So, energy is being
emitted, but not being detected at that specific location where the radio is sitting.
Now, we turn on the radio, and via resonance the transmitted signal is detected.
However, we retune our radio by adjusting its resonance to another
simultaneously arriving freguency with a different energy signature and now
that signal is detected while the first frequency is rejected/not passed into the
tuned tank of the resonant circuit.
So, causality and local conditions affect whether or not a signal is detected.
From the perspective of the transmitted wave, no time has passed from the
point of emission until it is detected. The information that it is propagating
maintains its integrity and is not changed other than the coherent wave that
it is travelling on loses energy with increasing distance according to the ISL.
If we turn off the transmitter, say out at the orbit of Pluto, the transmitted signal is
still propagating independent of the transmitter, which is no longer resonantly
connected to space, however, the receiver here on earth will still receive the
energy that was transmitted but with a linear time delay if it is turned on and tuned
to the arriving signal.
We are talking about independently linking/coupling resonances to the
transporting "medium" of space. So, it seems that space is capable of maintaining
signal resonance along with information integrity that is independent of either the
transmitter or the receiver once energy is released in situ.
My argument is that we are dealing with independent resonant "entities" that
have a linear causal relationship in the far field. However, in the near field
it is possible for resonances to directly connect, but there is a phase shift and
a latency between emission and detection. There has to be a phase shift for
resonances to couple energy between them in the near field.
Edit added:
So, a photon, or transmitted energy, is independent of the either the source or
the receiver according to time and distance, once it is emitted. We could transmit
from a far away source, turn it off and the wave energy (photon) is still travelling
independently thru space.
We could then turn on a receiver at some point long after the initial transmission,
which couples us to space, and await the arrival of the expected information.
Even if the transmitter and receiver are off while the signal is propagating, it
will do so independent of either "unit", however, the receiver must be on and
resonantly coupled to space at the correct linear time interval in order to be
able to receive the transmitted signal.
Comments?
LL
Hello Laserlight, Why Not, et al.
Laserlight
I agree that you can get a resonant condition in space-time if there are two or more types of energy involved (say electric and magnetic fields). Only one type of energy can not sustain any type of resonance unless said energy is contained within a reflective structure of the correct dimensions.
Why Not
If I understand what you are saying then the TIQM model implies a "gestalt" of possible path lengths and the shortest path(s) is(are) used to determine the path(s) used. However, in the two pinhole DSE the shortest path(s) from each of the pinholes to a flat surface is represented by a series of cones of increasing diameter at the flat surface. The increasing diameter represents increasing path length. The only place you will see interference is where the cones from separate pinholes overlap. I do not think that the "shortest path" can be used as the sole criteria to explain the interference pattern.
Laserlight
I agree that you can get a resonant condition in space-time if there are two or more types of energy involved (say electric and magnetic fields). Only one type of energy can not sustain any type of resonance unless said energy is contained within a reflective structure of the correct dimensions.
Why Not
If I understand what you are saying then the TIQM model implies a "gestalt" of possible path lengths and the shortest path(s) is(are) used to determine the path(s) used. However, in the two pinhole DSE the shortest path(s) from each of the pinholes to a flat surface is represented by a series of cones of increasing diameter at the flat surface. The increasing diameter represents increasing path length. The only place you will see interference is where the cones from separate pinholes overlap. I do not think that the "shortest path" can be used as the sole criteria to explain the interference pattern.
Hey Montec, LL, TRoc, GE, C2 and all...
Montec, you are absolutely correct, "shortest path" was sloppy language on my part. Maybe "path of least resistance" would have been better. It's kind of like buying tickets to a concert, along with 1/2 a million other people at the same time; when you select "best available" you get the best available seat at the INSTANT the transaction takes place. So if three people are vying for the same two front row seat, the third person to select "complete transaction" may end up with second row seats instead, or they may end up with nose bleeders.
LL,
Montec, you are absolutely correct, "shortest path" was sloppy language on my part. Maybe "path of least resistance" would have been better. It's kind of like buying tickets to a concert, along with 1/2 a million other people at the same time; when you select "best available" you get the best available seat at the INSTANT the transaction takes place. So if three people are vying for the same two front row seat, the third person to select "complete transaction" may end up with second row seats instead, or they may end up with nose bleeders.
LL,
QUOTE ( Laserlight+)
All of these constraints are dependent upon the distance, local conditions, and time interval between interrelated causal events that affect the overall process.
If you break it down to its simplest form, you have four variables: an emitter, an absorber, an energy, and a distance/duration of spacetime. (Please note that I did not say "time".) The first three are connected by the fourth. The "process" will look different, in relation to space and time, from the perspective of each of the first three. The emitter will "release" a specific amount of energy into space and "see" it travel to the absorber. The absorber will "LOOK BACK IN TIME" for a specific amount of energy to absorb and "see" the emitter releasing it (Remember, every time you see something, you are gazing into the past.) The energy just "instantaneously inverts" position.
Hi Montec,
We agree... but I am baffled as to the reason of your second statement. That
seems obvious. Are you implying that I made such a comment? If so, I was
in error, or what I said was misstated or misinterpreted.
LL
QUOTE
I agree that you can get a resonant condition in space-time if there are two or more types of energy involved (say electric and magnetic fields). Only one type of energy can not sustain any type of resonance unless said energy is contained within a reflective structure of the correct dimensions.
We agree... but I am baffled as to the reason of your second statement. That
seems obvious. Are you implying that I made such a comment? If so, I was
in error, or what I said was misstated or misinterpreted.
LL
Hi Why Not, Montec, and All,
We obviously have different perspectives on the process!
We are talking about the theory of "Relativity". Time is relative to the observer.
Photons have an inertial frame of reference that represent a start time, and a start
point, and they convey that information until detection.
The position information that is detected, which is being is conveyed by the
photon, is also relative to the observer since it occurs at a vector intersection in time and space.
The vector intersection is a superposition or
interference that occurs when two separate timelines/worldlines, each of which
has its own inertial relativity, interact with the other.
The photon which is carrying information from the past collides with the timeline
of the detector which is the present, the here and now for the
detector, and the photon releases that past information via absorption if the
conditions are right to do so. (it could reflect it, it could be transparent, etc.)
So from an inertial point of view, from the perspective of the detector, it is seeing
events that occurred in the past as occuring now. Two different vector timelines
are combining to create the present, that is looking back into the past.
The emitter in the far field releases energy in a general direction with no particular
destination information available, only a direction of flight that curves along
a geodesic as it traverses the vacuum of space.
At some point in the future, from the perspective of the origination of the photon
it may, or may not, be detected. Nothing says that the information
being carried by the photon must be detected, as would be the case where the
photon never interacts with matter and is never "decoded". That photon, and the
information that it is carrying will propagate forever.
That being the case, there is no reverse wave information and the photon
continues to travel into the future from the reference point, or timestamp, of
emission. Since the photon does not age, it will carry the information from the
past into the future, ad infinitum, long after the original atom has transmuted
into some other element or form of energy.
So again I say, that a photon represents a moment in time, and a point in space
that is only relative to the photon and other photons that have time and
positional relevance to it, until such time as it is detected.
When a photon is detected, it provides two points of time and location reference,
which are, the "fixed" point of detection, and a point of a prior event. That information provides
two points in space at a common point in time, that represents a straight line
(actually it is curved in spacetime). This "line" information provides the dimensions
of time and distance to the detector.
From our perspective, because we analyze it, the information also represents a
fixed amount of energy, frequency, color, position/location, distance, and time.
When combined with other similar events, a scene emerges that provides time
and distance relevance from the present all the way back to the early universe.
The future remains undetermined and unpredictable because we do not get
information from it until an event has already occurred.
Way off topic, but of general theoretical interest, IMO.
LL
QUOTE
The first three are connected by the fourth. The "process" will look different, in relation to space and time, from the perspective of each of the first three. The emitter will "release" a specific amount of energy into space and "see" it travel to the absorber. The absorber will "LOOK BACK IN TIME" for a specific amount of energy to absorb and "see" the emitter releasing it (Remember, every time you see something, you are gazing into the past.) The energy just "instantaneously inverts" position.
We obviously have different perspectives on the process!
We are talking about the theory of "Relativity". Time is relative to the observer.
Photons have an inertial frame of reference that represent a start time, and a start
point, and they convey that information until detection.
The position information that is detected, which is being is conveyed by the
photon, is also relative to the observer since it occurs at a vector intersection in time and space.
The vector intersection is a superposition or
interference that occurs when two separate timelines/worldlines, each of which
has its own inertial relativity, interact with the other.
The photon which is carrying information from the past collides with the timeline
of the detector which is the present, the here and now for the
detector, and the photon releases that past information via absorption if the
conditions are right to do so. (it could reflect it, it could be transparent, etc.)
So from an inertial point of view, from the perspective of the detector, it is seeing
events that occurred in the past as occuring now. Two different vector timelines
are combining to create the present, that is looking back into the past.
The emitter in the far field releases energy in a general direction with no particular
destination information available, only a direction of flight that curves along
a geodesic as it traverses the vacuum of space.
At some point in the future, from the perspective of the origination of the photon
it may, or may not, be detected. Nothing says that the information
being carried by the photon must be detected, as would be the case where the
photon never interacts with matter and is never "decoded". That photon, and the
information that it is carrying will propagate forever.
That being the case, there is no reverse wave information and the photon
continues to travel into the future from the reference point, or timestamp, of
emission. Since the photon does not age, it will carry the information from the
past into the future, ad infinitum, long after the original atom has transmuted
into some other element or form of energy.
So again I say, that a photon represents a moment in time, and a point in space
that is only relative to the photon and other photons that have time and
positional relevance to it, until such time as it is detected.
When a photon is detected, it provides two points of time and location reference,
which are, the "fixed" point of detection, and a point of a prior event. That information provides
two points in space at a common point in time, that represents a straight line
(actually it is curved in spacetime). This "line" information provides the dimensions
of time and distance to the detector.
From our perspective, because we analyze it, the information also represents a
fixed amount of energy, frequency, color, position/location, distance, and time.
When combined with other similar events, a scene emerges that provides time
and distance relevance from the present all the way back to the early universe.
The future remains undetermined and unpredictable because we do not get
information from it until an event has already occurred.
Way off topic, but of general theoretical interest, IMO.
LL
I've been toying with the idea that each photon might be leaving a trail that affects the trajectory of subsequent photons on their way to the target.
Consider a medium like the Dirac sea, a network of all possible positions that the photon can pass through as it travels toward the target. Now suppose that as it winds its way through these points it alters the likelihood that a subsequent photon will follow the same path. Something like a residual charge or a subtle change in the topology of the space it passed through. Now if this was the case a fractal tree pattern of paths taken will build up over time. This tree of trajectories would be split into two by the slits and result in the interference pattern we observe. (note: Observing the photons would most likely disrupt the pattern resulting in what we see as wave function collapse.)
The strange results of the DSE would be quite natural and intuitive if this was the case. Space having a memory of sorts would make concepts like wave-particle duality and superposition unnecessary.
Has anyone else considered this possibility? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.
Consider a medium like the Dirac sea, a network of all possible positions that the photon can pass through as it travels toward the target. Now suppose that as it winds its way through these points it alters the likelihood that a subsequent photon will follow the same path. Something like a residual charge or a subtle change in the topology of the space it passed through. Now if this was the case a fractal tree pattern of paths taken will build up over time. This tree of trajectories would be split into two by the slits and result in the interference pattern we observe. (note: Observing the photons would most likely disrupt the pattern resulting in what we see as wave function collapse.)
The strange results of the DSE would be quite natural and intuitive if this was the case. Space having a memory of sorts would make concepts like wave-particle duality and superposition unnecessary.
Has anyone else considered this possibility? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 13 2007, 03:34 PM)
We are talking about the theory of "Relativity". Time is relative to the observer.
Photons have an inertial frame of reference that represent a start time, and a start
point, and they convey that information until detection.
The problem is that we can only account for time in an external frame of reference.
Imagine for the sake of argument that I the mighty Galactus come across you in a spaceship and decide to conduct a little experiment.
Using my awsome cosmic powers I quickly accelerate your ship to near the speed of light and fling you towards a great wall with two slits in it.
Now relative to me, the time you experience is barely moving. Given that my time would be passing at some obscenely huge rate faster than your time, it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that my experiment takes place within a single instant of your time.
Now if I interact with you it would appear from my perspective that my decision to measure you actually had sice effects that occured in the past, but from your perspective the interaction and the side effect all occured within the same instant.
The effect is better thought of as time smearing rather than time travel.
Photons have an inertial frame of reference that represent a start time, and a start
point, and they convey that information until detection.
The problem is that we can only account for time in an external frame of reference.
Imagine for the sake of argument that I the mighty Galactus come across you in a spaceship and decide to conduct a little experiment.
Using my awsome cosmic powers I quickly accelerate your ship to near the speed of light and fling you towards a great wall with two slits in it.
Now relative to me, the time you experience is barely moving. Given that my time would be passing at some obscenely huge rate faster than your time, it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that my experiment takes place within a single instant of your time.
Now if I interact with you it would appear from my perspective that my decision to measure you actually had sice effects that occured in the past, but from your perspective the interaction and the side effect all occured within the same instant.
The effect is better thought of as time smearing rather than time travel.
Hello Wulf, Laserlight, Why Not, et al.
Wulf
Interesting idea. It would require an after image be left in space and/or time.
Laserlight
This is a hint on the possible interaction between the electric vector field of the EM wave and a harmonic structure. So no implication of any sort was intended.
Why Not
A "path of least resistance" may apply but then the geometry of the DSE would have to be known by said path. For example the center of the DSE pattern is centered between the slits and stays there no matter what the distance between the slit plate and the detector. The "path of least resistance" would have to know the distance between the slit plates and the detector. Also if you go beyond The DSE then the "path of least resistance" must know the slit widths, spacing, and number of slits to resolve the paths used by the photons. There is also the matter of photons through a single slit or by a knife edge and what determines the "path of least resistance" under these conditions. This leads us to a holographic universe where external dimensions form photon paths based on fermion locations in the 3D world. This also requires a form of communication between the photon and the external dimensions. It is possible that the magnetic field is such communication, I will have to think some more on this.
Wulf
Interesting idea. It would require an after image be left in space and/or time.
Laserlight
QUOTE
Only one type of energy can not sustain any type of resonance unless said energy is contained within a reflective structure of the correct dimensions.
This is a hint on the possible interaction between the electric vector field of the EM wave and a harmonic structure. So no implication of any sort was intended.
Why Not
A "path of least resistance" may apply but then the geometry of the DSE would have to be known by said path. For example the center of the DSE pattern is centered between the slits and stays there no matter what the distance between the slit plate and the detector. The "path of least resistance" would have to know the distance between the slit plates and the detector. Also if you go beyond The DSE then the "path of least resistance" must know the slit widths, spacing, and number of slits to resolve the paths used by the photons. There is also the matter of photons through a single slit or by a knife edge and what determines the "path of least resistance" under these conditions. This leads us to a holographic universe where external dimensions form photon paths based on fermion locations in the 3D world. This also requires a form of communication between the photon and the external dimensions. It is possible that the magnetic field is such communication, I will have to think some more on this.
QUOTE (Montec+Jun 13 2007, 11:12 PM)
Hello Wulf, Laserlight, Why Not, et al.
Wulf
Interesting idea. It would require an after image be left in space and/or time.
Laserlight
This is a hint on the possible interaction between the electric vector field of the EM wave and a harmonic structure. So no implication of any sort was intended.
Why Not
A "path of least resistance" may apply but then the geometry of the DSE would have to be known by said path. For example the center of the DSE pattern is centered between the slits and stays there no matter what the distance between the slit plate and the detector. The "path of least resistance" would have to know the distance between the slit plates and the detector. Also if you go beyond The DSE then the "path of least resistance" must know the slit widths, spacing, and number of slits to resolve the paths used by the photons. There is also the matter of photons through a single slit or by a knife edge and what determines the "path of least resistance" under these conditions. This leads us to a holographic universe where external dimensions form photon paths based on fermion locations in the 3D world. This also requires a form of communication between the photon and the external dimensions. It is possible that the magnetic field is such communication, I will have to think some more on this.
I dont follow you, that statement seems to be gibberish
Wulf
Interesting idea. It would require an after image be left in space and/or time.
Laserlight
This is a hint on the possible interaction between the electric vector field of the EM wave and a harmonic structure. So no implication of any sort was intended.
Why Not
A "path of least resistance" may apply but then the geometry of the DSE would have to be known by said path. For example the center of the DSE pattern is centered between the slits and stays there no matter what the distance between the slit plate and the detector. The "path of least resistance" would have to know the distance between the slit plates and the detector. Also if you go beyond The DSE then the "path of least resistance" must know the slit widths, spacing, and number of slits to resolve the paths used by the photons. There is also the matter of photons through a single slit or by a knife edge and what determines the "path of least resistance" under these conditions. This leads us to a holographic universe where external dimensions form photon paths based on fermion locations in the 3D world. This also requires a form of communication between the photon and the external dimensions. It is possible that the magnetic field is such communication, I will have to think some more on this.
I dont follow you, that statement seems to be gibberish
Hi Wulf,
I had proposed an idea similar to what you are proposing early in the life of the
DSE board. My concept was that the slit cavities were storing a charge with
each passing photon that interfered/influenced with the phase angle of subsequent
photons that passed thru...kind of like an electronic "counter" that increments
1 step at a time, until it comes full circle after a specific number of photon
passages, whereupon the charge/timing sequence starts over again.
This could theoretically explain the interference from a "particle like" perspective.
No one else commented about the idea, because that supports the concept of
a "wavicle"...a quantum "particle" that has finite sized wave characteristics.
Thanks for offering your thought...we might eventually come "full circle" on this
idea. (pun intended)
LL
I had proposed an idea similar to what you are proposing early in the life of the
DSE board. My concept was that the slit cavities were storing a charge with
each passing photon that interfered/influenced with the phase angle of subsequent
photons that passed thru...kind of like an electronic "counter" that increments
1 step at a time, until it comes full circle after a specific number of photon
passages, whereupon the charge/timing sequence starts over again.
This could theoretically explain the interference from a "particle like" perspective.
No one else commented about the idea, because that supports the concept of
a "wavicle"...a quantum "particle" that has finite sized wave characteristics.
Thanks for offering your thought...we might eventually come "full circle" on this
idea. (pun intended)
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 13 2007, 05:35 AM)
Hi GE and All,
Conceptually, this seems reasonable to consider, but is only relative from the
perspective of the photon, which is a boson state that does not experience the
passage of time.
However, from the perspective of the absorbing atom, it could undergo
innumerable state changes from other received and transmitted photon's that
are cycling the atomic energy state during the interim flight time of the boson
arriving from some distant source. The source atom also continues to emit and absorb
photons during the time of flight of the photon being "tracked".
So, the relative time reference between source and sink operate on a different
timeline than that of a photon that experiences no time passage during it's transit
between emission and absorption.
It would appear that time is an absolute frame of reference that is relative to
individual "structures" according to their change of energy state.
We cannot assign a common time reference to disparate systems that exhibit
individual timelines, since time is relative to the rate of change within a closed
energy environment.
Comments?
LL
Hi laserlight,
There are a lot of "i''s to dot and "t"'s to cross in this area. It has been awhile since I have mentioned supersymmetry and the fact that every boson is paired to a fermion. The crossing of a "reciprocal boundary" converts particle properties (fermions) to boson properties. In the case of photons space quantization is "violated" for bosons and not violated for fermions and these are the two "opposite sides of the same coin" for a particle. For instance the fermions are the sub-atomic particles (obeying space quantization) in the nucleus and their reciprocally associated bosons are the hybridized "orbitals" filling a similar locality bot violating space quantization. These are seen as "interferences" leading to those unseen cavities and they further hybridize with other atoms to result in Bragg's Law. This is where it is going.
The relationship connecting time on other sides of the speed of light on a light cone wall is always going to be a problem if you continue to look at this as a piecemeal problem. As I have said there is no direct connection otherwise the Lagrangian in three dimensions plus time would be violated. That barrier can only be penetrated by quantum tunneling via its evanescent field in reciprocal space.
The other atom or sink the photon arrives at is not "distant", it is atemporal in the frame of the "photon". This is because while the photon has no temporal extension in its own frame as a pure photon it does have a temporal extension when it is considered as a particle or fermion (this occurs on emission and absorption and in any associated "trapped" states including reciprocal particle states). The emission and absorption of photons of the source atom after the single photon process or event in progress is irrelevant since it cannot affect the earlier or later events because the photon is already in motion within a reciprocal space. The superposition of the two evanescent zones of source and sink due to Relativistic time and space contraction does not mean that this overlapping in reciprocal space is the same physical size and time as it is in our space, in fact it is quite the opposite. The wave state that takes time to progress through 'something" in our Universe takes sometimes a whole lot of time. This is because in our Universe the speed of light is the ultimate speed and subsequent photon events cannot affect previous photon events... being separated by the light cone wall.
The photon is almost indestructible between source and sinks and its one possible weakness is in encountering a matching sink along the way to another possible sink (maybe?... I doubt this possibility of changing causality... ). It is possible that some information may be passed between separately spawned photons due to tunneling as indicated by experiments (cited previously). The sync function has a presence not only transverse to the direction of propagation but also through time though this vector amplitude drops off quite suddenly in the temporal directions. This is those "infinite tails" leading and trailing the sync function... never really quite fading to absolute "zero" in a Wheeler Feynman sense until absorbed. In general there may be no follow up event on the atomic scale. Each photon has it's own destiny so in its frame of reference it is an instantaneous transfer from one "system" to the other "system". The target sink is known ahead of "our" time, thus the anomaly of the DCQERE. The arrow of time for an event will follow that course and not the external event in our Universe as waves only progressing in "our" time through extended space. In one sense the event it has "happened already" and it is receiving "waves from the future" to settle the end to end process as per Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory. The event proceeding in our space is a very parochial view of the phenomena to see the Universe as constructed solely around mankind's perspective. The whole point about Einstein's Special Relativity is to remove that singular perspective. The time in the external Universe (mostly our time) never happens to the photon, the progress of "time" in the reference frame of the photon follows any fermion properties it possesses when and where they occur. As Einstein often said that it was wrong to view increase in energy purely as an increase in relativistic mass... a fermion property in QED.
Cheers
Conceptually, this seems reasonable to consider, but is only relative from the
perspective of the photon, which is a boson state that does not experience the
passage of time.
However, from the perspective of the absorbing atom, it could undergo
innumerable state changes from other received and transmitted photon's that
are cycling the atomic energy state during the interim flight time of the boson
arriving from some distant source. The source atom also continues to emit and absorb
photons during the time of flight of the photon being "tracked".
So, the relative time reference between source and sink operate on a different
timeline than that of a photon that experiences no time passage during it's transit
between emission and absorption.
It would appear that time is an absolute frame of reference that is relative to
individual "structures" according to their change of energy state.
We cannot assign a common time reference to disparate systems that exhibit
individual timelines, since time is relative to the rate of change within a closed
energy environment.
Comments?
LL
Hi laserlight,
There are a lot of "i''s to dot and "t"'s to cross in this area. It has been awhile since I have mentioned supersymmetry and the fact that every boson is paired to a fermion. The crossing of a "reciprocal boundary" converts particle properties (fermions) to boson properties. In the case of photons space quantization is "violated" for bosons and not violated for fermions and these are the two "opposite sides of the same coin" for a particle. For instance the fermions are the sub-atomic particles (obeying space quantization) in the nucleus and their reciprocally associated bosons are the hybridized "orbitals" filling a similar locality bot violating space quantization. These are seen as "interferences" leading to those unseen cavities and they further hybridize with other atoms to result in Bragg's Law. This is where it is going.
The relationship connecting time on other sides of the speed of light on a light cone wall is always going to be a problem if you continue to look at this as a piecemeal problem. As I have said there is no direct connection otherwise the Lagrangian in three dimensions plus time would be violated. That barrier can only be penetrated by quantum tunneling via its evanescent field in reciprocal space.
The other atom or sink the photon arrives at is not "distant", it is atemporal in the frame of the "photon". This is because while the photon has no temporal extension in its own frame as a pure photon it does have a temporal extension when it is considered as a particle or fermion (this occurs on emission and absorption and in any associated "trapped" states including reciprocal particle states). The emission and absorption of photons of the source atom after the single photon process or event in progress is irrelevant since it cannot affect the earlier or later events because the photon is already in motion within a reciprocal space. The superposition of the two evanescent zones of source and sink due to Relativistic time and space contraction does not mean that this overlapping in reciprocal space is the same physical size and time as it is in our space, in fact it is quite the opposite. The wave state that takes time to progress through 'something" in our Universe takes sometimes a whole lot of time. This is because in our Universe the speed of light is the ultimate speed and subsequent photon events cannot affect previous photon events... being separated by the light cone wall.
The photon is almost indestructible between source and sinks and its one possible weakness is in encountering a matching sink along the way to another possible sink (maybe?... I doubt this possibility of changing causality... ). It is possible that some information may be passed between separately spawned photons due to tunneling as indicated by experiments (cited previously). The sync function has a presence not only transverse to the direction of propagation but also through time though this vector amplitude drops off quite suddenly in the temporal directions. This is those "infinite tails" leading and trailing the sync function... never really quite fading to absolute "zero" in a Wheeler Feynman sense until absorbed. In general there may be no follow up event on the atomic scale. Each photon has it's own destiny so in its frame of reference it is an instantaneous transfer from one "system" to the other "system". The target sink is known ahead of "our" time, thus the anomaly of the DCQERE. The arrow of time for an event will follow that course and not the external event in our Universe as waves only progressing in "our" time through extended space. In one sense the event it has "happened already" and it is receiving "waves from the future" to settle the end to end process as per Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory. The event proceeding in our space is a very parochial view of the phenomena to see the Universe as constructed solely around mankind's perspective. The whole point about Einstein's Special Relativity is to remove that singular perspective. The time in the external Universe (mostly our time) never happens to the photon, the progress of "time" in the reference frame of the photon follows any fermion properties it possesses when and where they occur. As Einstein often said that it was wrong to view increase in energy purely as an increase in relativistic mass... a fermion property in QED.
Cheers
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 13 2007, 06:02 PM)
Hi Wulf,
I had proposed an idea similar to what you are proposing early in the life of the
DSE board. My concept was that the slit cavities were storing a charge with
each passing photon that interfered/influenced with the phase angle of subsequent
photons that passed thru...kind of like an electronic "counter" that increments
1 step at a time, until it comes full circle after a specific number of photon
passages, whereupon the charge/timing sequence starts over again.
This could theoretically explain the interference from a "particle like" perspective.
No one else commented about the idea, because that supports the concept of
a "wavicle"...a quantum "particle" that has finite sized wave characteristics.
Thanks for offering your thought...we might eventually come "full circle" on this
idea. (pun intended)
LL
Hmmm that is a nifty way to look at it.
I think a serious look at the nature of space and time at the quantum level is needed to make progress at this point. The current approach is a lot like trying to explore the deep sea by studying your boat.
I had proposed an idea similar to what you are proposing early in the life of the
DSE board. My concept was that the slit cavities were storing a charge with
each passing photon that interfered/influenced with the phase angle of subsequent
photons that passed thru...kind of like an electronic "counter" that increments
1 step at a time, until it comes full circle after a specific number of photon
passages, whereupon the charge/timing sequence starts over again.
This could theoretically explain the interference from a "particle like" perspective.
No one else commented about the idea, because that supports the concept of
a "wavicle"...a quantum "particle" that has finite sized wave characteristics.
Thanks for offering your thought...we might eventually come "full circle" on this
idea. (pun intended)
LL
Hmmm that is a nifty way to look at it.
I think a serious look at the nature of space and time at the quantum level is needed to make progress at this point. The current approach is a lot like trying to explore the deep sea by studying your boat.
GE,
I enjoyed your argument. You are talking of a kind of theoretical "folded space",
where time has no meaning/passage and there is no distance between events.
In such a theoretical environment events appear to be instantaneous, from the
relative frame of reference.
However, that seems inconsistent with "causality" because an event cannot
end before it begins. This may seem confusing, but hear me out. If
an event has no "time" then it cannot occur...it can never become an "event"
because it has no start and no end, which is a linear time function.
Another way of conceptualizing this is, if an event begins and ends at the same
time, those opposite characteristics cancel each other out and the result is
nothing happened.
We know that a photon is created as a causal event...if the causal event didn't
happen then we wouldn't emit a photon. So, there must be a reference time,
a start point along a timeline, and if there is time, there is "distance" because
it is an inertial quantity/quality associated with the event.
The spawning emission event didn't happen in some other timeless dimension, it
happened as a causal event in 4D spacetime due to energy changing "form".
So, it happened in our spacetime and is relative to it.
We can measure and quantify the time and energy characteristics of the photon
event in our 4D spacetime. So, if the quantum event is still linked to our
spacetime, and passes thru it, it is relative to our inertial perspective. Even though
we both agree that for a photon no time passes, that is purely a relative
perspective since it is a form of energy that does not change its energy level
even after it is absorbed.
Remember my comment about a change of energy state being the basis of
time? For the photon a change of energy state only occurs at the time of emission
and at detection. That is when time is "relative" to the photon, it is only relative
at those two event time points.
I would like to hear the comments/theories of others on this topic.
I'm enjoying this philosopical/theoretical argument. Perhaps we should
start another board on this topic, if anyone is interested. Or, we could
just continue to include this branch discussion here. Either way is fine by me.
Comments?
LL
I enjoyed your argument. You are talking of a kind of theoretical "folded space",
where time has no meaning/passage and there is no distance between events.
In such a theoretical environment events appear to be instantaneous, from the
relative frame of reference.
However, that seems inconsistent with "causality" because an event cannot
end before it begins. This may seem confusing, but hear me out. If
an event has no "time" then it cannot occur...it can never become an "event"
because it has no start and no end, which is a linear time function.
Another way of conceptualizing this is, if an event begins and ends at the same
time, those opposite characteristics cancel each other out and the result is
nothing happened.
We know that a photon is created as a causal event...if the causal event didn't
happen then we wouldn't emit a photon. So, there must be a reference time,
a start point along a timeline, and if there is time, there is "distance" because
it is an inertial quantity/quality associated with the event.
The spawning emission event didn't happen in some other timeless dimension, it
happened as a causal event in 4D spacetime due to energy changing "form".
So, it happened in our spacetime and is relative to it.
We can measure and quantify the time and energy characteristics of the photon
event in our 4D spacetime. So, if the quantum event is still linked to our
spacetime, and passes thru it, it is relative to our inertial perspective. Even though
we both agree that for a photon no time passes, that is purely a relative
perspective since it is a form of energy that does not change its energy level
even after it is absorbed.
Remember my comment about a change of energy state being the basis of
time? For the photon a change of energy state only occurs at the time of emission
and at detection. That is when time is "relative" to the photon, it is only relative
at those two event time points.
I would like to hear the comments/theories of others on this topic.
I'm enjoying this philosopical/theoretical argument. Perhaps we should
start another board on this topic, if anyone is interested. Or, we could
just continue to include this branch discussion here. Either way is fine by me.
Comments?
LL
Hello Neil Farbstein, et al.
If this
In any experiment using slits (the more the better) the output from the slits will form a pattern of light and dark areas. If you were to take an overhead picture of the slit output shining through a fog you would see rays of light emanating from the slits. The more slits, the finer and more intense the rays would appear. There would also be fewer of them.
I contend that these rays are the result of constructive interference from the EM radiation (in the form of planer waves) that passes through (cycles through actually) the slits. I have attempted to explain how this happens in earlier posts. No extra dimensions or hidden variables are needed.
In the TIQM model the photon paths are such that each molecule in the fog and at any instant of time has multiple paths through all the slits that converge on that molecule. And from that molecule there is a path to the camera. If the fog is thick enough then the photons are fully dispersed. An attempt was made by me on trying to understand the mechanism responsible for establishing the paths.
A holographic universe of multiple dimension cannot be seen or measured. It can only be inferred from basic measurements and correlated assumptions. My assumptions were that some sort of communication was needed between photons and matter to establish "paths of least resistance". Forward and backward in time communications will, I think, require extra dimensions since they lie outside the light cone wall established by the speed of light in our 3D+T universe.
If this
QUOTE
I dont follow you, that statement seems to be gibberish
is about my response to Why Not then let me try to translate the "gibberish".In any experiment using slits (the more the better) the output from the slits will form a pattern of light and dark areas. If you were to take an overhead picture of the slit output shining through a fog you would see rays of light emanating from the slits. The more slits, the finer and more intense the rays would appear. There would also be fewer of them.
I contend that these rays are the result of constructive interference from the EM radiation (in the form of planer waves) that passes through (cycles through actually) the slits. I have attempted to explain how this happens in earlier posts. No extra dimensions or hidden variables are needed.
In the TIQM model the photon paths are such that each molecule in the fog and at any instant of time has multiple paths through all the slits that converge on that molecule. And from that molecule there is a path to the camera. If the fog is thick enough then the photons are fully dispersed. An attempt was made by me on trying to understand the mechanism responsible for establishing the paths.
A holographic universe of multiple dimension cannot be seen or measured. It can only be inferred from basic measurements and correlated assumptions. My assumptions were that some sort of communication was needed between photons and matter to establish "paths of least resistance". Forward and backward in time communications will, I think, require extra dimensions since they lie outside the light cone wall established by the speed of light in our 3D+T universe.
Hey LL, GE, et al.
LL,
LL,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I would like to hear the comments/theories of others on this topic.
Not sure if I'm an "other" or not, but I have a question... What is the difference between
Not sure if I'm an "other" or not, but I have a question... What is the difference between
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
For the photon a change of state only occurs at the time of emission and at detection. That is when time is "relative" to the photon, it is only relative at those two event time points.
... and ...
QUOTE (GoodElf+)
It (photon) experiences the most extreme case of time dilation and length contraction that anything can experience. Zero time and... as far as the photon is concerned ... zero "space" in the direction of propagation directly connecting the "source" to the "sink" in the same single phenomenon.... without any loss of data or energy or anything at all... the perfect "impulse". To the external Universe... Us... time is passing. This is the 'paradox" that two differently moving objects experience a different passage of time and a different experience of space.
QUOTE (GoodElf a bit later+)
I should have added... In actual fact there is a very small period of time experienced by the photon while is being absorbed and when it is being emitted... this causes an evanescent "particle phenomenon" limited to the range of the evanescent region only.
I am not being sarcastic. I can see no "fundamental philosophical difference" and so what am I missing?
I am not being sarcastic. I can see no "fundamental philosophical difference" and so what am I missing?
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I'm enjoying this philosophical/theoretical argument. Perhaps we should start another board on this topic, if anyone is interested. Or, we could
just continue to include this branch discussion here. Either way is fine by me.
I vote for we continue. "Observing later" is in the topic of this thread after all...
just continue to include this branch discussion here. Either way is fine by me.
I vote for we continue. "Observing later" is in the topic of this thread after all...
Hey Montec,
QUOTE (Montec+)
Forward and backward in time communications will, I think, require extra dimensions since they lie outside the light cone wall established by the speed of light in our 3D+T universe.
The ability to move "forward and backward in time" does not require extra dimensions (at least mathematically). Also, the vast majority of the universe lies outside of your personal light cone.
The ability to move "forward and backward in time" does not require extra dimensions (at least mathematically). Also, the vast majority of the universe lies outside of your personal light cone.
Hey Why Not,
Good observation and question!
Our differences of approach has to do with subtleties of interpretation and
application of the theory. I have tremedous respect for GE's theoretical
explanation, but interpretation, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
At some point we must agree 100% or there will always be the specter of
doubt or uncertainty. I hope to eliminate all doubt by making clear, concise
statements that anyone can understand. I am open for critique or correction.
Since photons are transmitted and detected by atoms that take up physical
space and "exist" as entities in our 4D spacetime, and these atoms
are responsible for the transfer of energy that courses thru our spacetime, then I
see the need for photons to exist in our spacetime, since they are causally linked
to it. We cannot avoid that because the evidence for their existence is readily
observable.
Atoms are separated by other atoms and the space/distance between them.
This distance requires a linear time element or else the atoms would be
stacked on top of one another and exist at the same exact point in time
with no separation if they existed in non-dimensional "folded" space.
This dimensionless situation would effectively be a singularity universe, where all
energy is contained at a single point and no transfer of energy could take place
because there is point to point time, or distance reference.
I reject this idea for the reasons/logic provided in previous posts. We cannot
ignore reality, or change it to suit our fancy, or to fit a theory that is unprovable
in our spacetime. To do so keeps us from finding the truth.
The human mind can imagine alternate realities, that does not mean that they can
be realized. I am open to constructive critique.
Comments?
LL
Good observation and question!
Our differences of approach has to do with subtleties of interpretation and
application of the theory. I have tremedous respect for GE's theoretical
explanation, but interpretation, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
At some point we must agree 100% or there will always be the specter of
doubt or uncertainty. I hope to eliminate all doubt by making clear, concise
statements that anyone can understand. I am open for critique or correction.
Since photons are transmitted and detected by atoms that take up physical
space and "exist" as entities in our 4D spacetime, and these atoms
are responsible for the transfer of energy that courses thru our spacetime, then I
see the need for photons to exist in our spacetime, since they are causally linked
to it. We cannot avoid that because the evidence for their existence is readily
observable.
Atoms are separated by other atoms and the space/distance between them.
This distance requires a linear time element or else the atoms would be
stacked on top of one another and exist at the same exact point in time
with no separation if they existed in non-dimensional "folded" space.
This dimensionless situation would effectively be a singularity universe, where all
energy is contained at a single point and no transfer of energy could take place
because there is point to point time, or distance reference.
I reject this idea for the reasons/logic provided in previous posts. We cannot
ignore reality, or change it to suit our fancy, or to fit a theory that is unprovable
in our spacetime. To do so keeps us from finding the truth.
The human mind can imagine alternate realities, that does not mean that they can
be realized. I am open to constructive critique.
Comments?
LL
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I enjoyed your argument. You are talking of a kind of theoretical "folded space",
where time has no meaning/passage and there is no distance between events.
In such a theoretical environment events appear to be instantaneous, from the
relative frame of reference.
However, that seems inconsistent with "causality" because an event cannot
end before it begins. This may seem confusing, but hear me out. If
an event has no "time" then it cannot occur...it can never become an "event"
because it has no start and no end, which is a linear time function.
Another way of conceptualizing this is, if an event begins and ends at the same
time, those opposite characteristics cancel each other out and the result is
nothing happened.
where time has no meaning/passage and there is no distance between events.
In such a theoretical environment events appear to be instantaneous, from the
relative frame of reference.
However, that seems inconsistent with "causality" because an event cannot
end before it begins. This may seem confusing, but hear me out. If
an event has no "time" then it cannot occur...it can never become an "event"
because it has no start and no end, which is a linear time function.
Another way of conceptualizing this is, if an event begins and ends at the same
time, those opposite characteristics cancel each other out and the result is
nothing happened.
About 'something" beginning and ending in the same place and time it somehow 'cancels out"... particles do not just cancel out because it is "happening" in the one place and at the same time. The idea that something has no meaning ... this is also an incorrect assumption. Despite photons not experiencing time while in our space time it does not follow that the reciprocal state of the photon in the evanescent reciprocal space is not experiencing time relative to that region of space. A real example... A soliton is persistent even though the 'event" is happening in the one place this is because a soliton is at least a pseudo-particle. A photon always propagates at the speed of light and its nature is not that of a particle but it takes on particle attributes at or within the source and the sink and nowhere else. This is a symmetry... CPT-Lorentz Symmetry. The photon trapped within the evanescent region in a reciprocal space could be any particle at all provided it obeys the Laws of CPT-Lorentz Symmetry. We do not see an electron for instance changing into a photon and then changing back into an electron because that would violate CPT-Lorentz Symmetry. A photon absorbed into an atomic shell changes from from a propagating photon traveling at the speed of Light into a state where at the very least is simply propagating in a loop and in one example obeying 2ΠR = nλ where R is a Bohr radius for the particular shell and n is a principal quantum number... 1, 2, 3... etc. These "particle states" are not noticed by the particle.
I probably need to clarify... the emission and absorption "phenomena" are "particle" properties of light and "by definition" must take time for them to exchange energy since all particle processes require energy exchange in their operation as well as information exchange. I have previously stated that we can 'clone" wave properties as long as they remain "unobserved", in the same way information in computers can be duplicated "for free" while the energy of a particle process is not for free. This particle process is a small ΔE.Δt, the "Uncertainty" defining the photon's particle region (dimensions of Impulse). Recall the photon is the exchange force in our Universe and this is the way I propose it exchanges its "force" with other particles. Specifically the Δt is our apprehension of this phenomenon within our time and this occurs in the source and its complementary sink. Causality in the frequency domain is different to the causality in our time domain (the reciprocal of time and "periodic"). I draw your attention to the analogy of a Fourier Transform in the complex "frequency" plane and compare this with the original sources in the time and spatial domain. There is a one to one mapping but it is certainly a non-linear process.
An original spatial 2D image to be transformed into the frequency domain...
Complex real frequency plane of transformed image seen above.
While these are "equivalent" they will not be possible to conformally transform one into the other without the supplementary complex imaginary plane and the operation of the Inverse Fourier Transform. This is a non-linear yet 100% invertible process and so using linear algebra to map this process into our space will naturally fail. Causality in this transform plane is "difficult" to map (consider a "movie" made up of a sequence of still snaps like the one above) as well but that does not mean that it can't be done... the rules for that transformation are not linear algebra but Euler's Equation and the reciprocal properties of mapping to the harmonic surface of a sphere. This is no esoteric process since I can show you this in real time with this kind of device below where the image plane is composed of a high resolution transparency like a Flatpanel display as the Input Plane and is outputted on to a Screen (Transform Plane) in real time.
... Click to enlarge...
Only slightly more difficult than experiments to reproduce the DSE using a laser pointer. Of course the real experiment will involve more dimensions and this is the way I am proposing to introduce them... Well within existing theory. This ensures that the additional dimensions are "Holographic" in nature and are conforming to the wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory as "sources" and "sinks" for the Advanced potentials that would be needed to come from the future to set up those standing waves in our spatial Universe.
Cheers
I probably need to clarify... the emission and absorption "phenomena" are "particle" properties of light and "by definition" must take time for them to exchange energy since all particle processes require energy exchange in their operation as well as information exchange. I have previously stated that we can 'clone" wave properties as long as they remain "unobserved", in the same way information in computers can be duplicated "for free" while the energy of a particle process is not for free. This particle process is a small ΔE.Δt, the "Uncertainty" defining the photon's particle region (dimensions of Impulse). Recall the photon is the exchange force in our Universe and this is the way I propose it exchanges its "force" with other particles. Specifically the Δt is our apprehension of this phenomenon within our time and this occurs in the source and its complementary sink. Causality in the frequency domain is different to the causality in our time domain (the reciprocal of time and "periodic"). I draw your attention to the analogy of a Fourier Transform in the complex "frequency" plane and compare this with the original sources in the time and spatial domain. There is a one to one mapping but it is certainly a non-linear process.
An original spatial 2D image to be transformed into the frequency domain...
Complex real frequency plane of transformed image seen above.
While these are "equivalent" they will not be possible to conformally transform one into the other without the supplementary complex imaginary plane and the operation of the Inverse Fourier Transform. This is a non-linear yet 100% invertible process and so using linear algebra to map this process into our space will naturally fail. Causality in this transform plane is "difficult" to map (consider a "movie" made up of a sequence of still snaps like the one above) as well but that does not mean that it can't be done... the rules for that transformation are not linear algebra but Euler's Equation and the reciprocal properties of mapping to the harmonic surface of a sphere. This is no esoteric process since I can show you this in real time with this kind of device below where the image plane is composed of a high resolution transparency like a Flatpanel display as the Input Plane and is outputted on to a Screen (Transform Plane) in real time.
... Click to enlarge...
Only slightly more difficult than experiments to reproduce the DSE using a laser pointer. Of course the real experiment will involve more dimensions and this is the way I am proposing to introduce them... Well within existing theory. This ensures that the additional dimensions are "Holographic" in nature and are conforming to the wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory as "sources" and "sinks" for the Advanced potentials that would be needed to come from the future to set up those standing waves in our spatial Universe.
Cheers
Hey LL,
If "this dimensionless situation" is synonymous with "the universe from the prospective of a photon" then
If "this dimensionless situation" is synonymous with "the universe from the prospective of a photon" then
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
This dimensionless situation would effectively be a singularity universe, where all energy is contained at a single point and no transfer of energy could take place because there is point to point time, or distance reference.
is the best description of how the universe looks to a photon that I have heard.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I reject this idea for the reasons/logic provided in previous posts. We cannot ignore reality, or change it to suit our fancy, or to fit a theory that is unprovable in our spacetime. To do so keeps us from finding the truth.
Agreed, we cannot ignore reality. Do we agree that relativity pretty accurately explains a fair chunk of reality? If so, can you tell me what you think the universe would look like from a photons perspective? My answer is just how you stated above.
Hello all
There is some debate on what a photon is. E=hf only relates to the frequency of the EM wave and not to the intensities of the electric and magnetic field vectors.
Since Plank's constant h is energy multiplied by time then if there is no time then there is infinite energy. The "f" is just cycles per second. Or to put it another way, energy multiplied by time equals a constant. So small values of energy taken in a longer time frame is equal to the same constant as is larger values of energy taken in a shorter time frame. The energy multiplied by time must add up to the constant h. Now time is also a basis for harmonic structures. So harmonic structures put a lower limit on energy emission. This does not put an upper limit on energy absorption since the harmonic structure can be destroyed.
The photo-emission of electrons from materials is evidence of harmonic structures being destroyed.
This also points out a possible factor that smaller amounts of energy taken over a longer time frame will add up to a "photons" worth of energy. Of course harmonics must play a role to limit energy loss within the system and allow energy to accumulate. Time exposures of film and other devices come to mind.
Another way to increase energy is by addition of smaller amounts of energy of the same frequency, phase, and polarity. This can be accomplished by parabolic mirrors and/or a suitable arrangement of lenses. This allows a wave with a small amount of energy per unit volume to be increased to a level that can be detected by a harmonic structure. The amount of energy gathered in this way is only limited by the aperture of the gathering device.
What this all boils down to is that the energy emitted by a harmonic structure does not necessarily require that a receiving harmonic structure adsorb the exact same energy. IE The emitted photon does not have to be the same as the adsorbed photon. EM wave mechanics takes care of it all. This includes frequency,polarity, phase, and amplitude of both the magnetic and electric fields as well as the propagation speed of those fields. Also the magnetic and electric fields can have different propagation speeds.
Emitted energy (photons) from multiple harmonic structures can map to a single harmonic structure. Emitted energy (photon) from a single harmonic structure can map to multiple harmonic structures. The total EM wave energy received at a harmonic structure must meet the requirement imposed by Planks constant in that E * s = h. E = energy s = time h = Planks constant.
My own addition to the EM wave mechanics is that energy propagates through space in EM wave cycles. The electric and magnetic fields are stationary. The curvature of the EM wave depends on the shape of the previous EM wave. Curved EM waves reduce the energy density of the EM wave from cycle to cycle. Planar EM waves maintain the same energy density from cycle to cycle. This all relates to the shape of the EM wave when compared to its frequency. As a curved EM wavefront expands the relationship between curvature and frequency changes. This allows a spherical wave to became a planar wave for any frequency. It is just higher frequency EM waves reach this conversion sooner (more cycles per unit distance) than lower frequency waves and the fact that the closer you are to a curved surface the flatter it looks..
There is some debate on what a photon is. E=hf only relates to the frequency of the EM wave and not to the intensities of the electric and magnetic field vectors.
Since Plank's constant h is energy multiplied by time then if there is no time then there is infinite energy. The "f" is just cycles per second. Or to put it another way, energy multiplied by time equals a constant. So small values of energy taken in a longer time frame is equal to the same constant as is larger values of energy taken in a shorter time frame. The energy multiplied by time must add up to the constant h. Now time is also a basis for harmonic structures. So harmonic structures put a lower limit on energy emission. This does not put an upper limit on energy absorption since the harmonic structure can be destroyed.
The photo-emission of electrons from materials is evidence of harmonic structures being destroyed.
This also points out a possible factor that smaller amounts of energy taken over a longer time frame will add up to a "photons" worth of energy. Of course harmonics must play a role to limit energy loss within the system and allow energy to accumulate. Time exposures of film and other devices come to mind.
Another way to increase energy is by addition of smaller amounts of energy of the same frequency, phase, and polarity. This can be accomplished by parabolic mirrors and/or a suitable arrangement of lenses. This allows a wave with a small amount of energy per unit volume to be increased to a level that can be detected by a harmonic structure. The amount of energy gathered in this way is only limited by the aperture of the gathering device.
What this all boils down to is that the energy emitted by a harmonic structure does not necessarily require that a receiving harmonic structure adsorb the exact same energy. IE The emitted photon does not have to be the same as the adsorbed photon. EM wave mechanics takes care of it all. This includes frequency,polarity, phase, and amplitude of both the magnetic and electric fields as well as the propagation speed of those fields. Also the magnetic and electric fields can have different propagation speeds.
Emitted energy (photons) from multiple harmonic structures can map to a single harmonic structure. Emitted energy (photon) from a single harmonic structure can map to multiple harmonic structures. The total EM wave energy received at a harmonic structure must meet the requirement imposed by Planks constant in that E * s = h. E = energy s = time h = Planks constant.
My own addition to the EM wave mechanics is that energy propagates through space in EM wave cycles. The electric and magnetic fields are stationary. The curvature of the EM wave depends on the shape of the previous EM wave. Curved EM waves reduce the energy density of the EM wave from cycle to cycle. Planar EM waves maintain the same energy density from cycle to cycle. This all relates to the shape of the EM wave when compared to its frequency. As a curved EM wavefront expands the relationship between curvature and frequency changes. This allows a spherical wave to became a planar wave for any frequency. It is just higher frequency EM waves reach this conversion sooner (more cycles per unit distance) than lower frequency waves and the fact that the closer you are to a curved surface the flatter it looks..
Hey GE,
By converting that 2D picture into a 2D plane frequency domain map aren't we
losing the relative timing and phasing that makes up a frequency's wavelength?
Basically, we are arbitrarily eliminating the time and phase functions that
should be an integral part of the Fourier transform, so effectively the result
is 2D map of a 4D phenomenon with information missing. To recover that
picture pattern information, we would need to add back the timing and phase
information.
Isn't this example like baking a cake and leaving out the flour and eggs?
I fail to see the relevance. The frequency domain must include the dimension
of time and distance, or there is no frequency/wavelength. Frequency exists
in 4D spacetime, if you eliminate the time dimension there is no frequency.
Frequency is a function of time.
Yes, I understand that f = 1/t, and t =1/f, but you cannot exclude one or the
other or else there is no equality.
Comments?
LL
By converting that 2D picture into a 2D plane frequency domain map aren't we
losing the relative timing and phasing that makes up a frequency's wavelength?
Basically, we are arbitrarily eliminating the time and phase functions that
should be an integral part of the Fourier transform, so effectively the result
is 2D map of a 4D phenomenon with information missing. To recover that
picture pattern information, we would need to add back the timing and phase
information.
Isn't this example like baking a cake and leaving out the flour and eggs?
I fail to see the relevance. The frequency domain must include the dimension
of time and distance, or there is no frequency/wavelength. Frequency exists
in 4D spacetime, if you eliminate the time dimension there is no frequency.
Frequency is a function of time.
Yes, I understand that f = 1/t, and t =1/f, but you cannot exclude one or the
other or else there is no equality.
Comments?
LL
Hi Why Not,
That should have read there is NO point to point or distance reference.
My intention in making that statement was, if there is no time or distance
reference there can be no energy exchange because everything is at 'unity",
since there would be no difference in relative potential at a single point.
I reject this idea, it is non sequitur.
Potential suggests that there must be two isolated points that vary in the relative
charge between them. There must be a potential delta between points for charge
to "exist".
That should have read there is NO point to point or distance reference.
My intention in making that statement was, if there is no time or distance
reference there can be no energy exchange because everything is at 'unity",
since there would be no difference in relative potential at a single point.
I reject this idea, it is non sequitur.
Potential suggests that there must be two isolated points that vary in the relative
charge between them. There must be a potential delta between points for charge
to "exist".
is the best description of how the universe looks to a photon that I have heard.
There are innumerable ground wells that the photon could sink to in the universe.
You are speculating that it will only seek out one, its complement.....but there
are many, many complements. The only thing that divides them is time/distance.
LL
QUOTE
because there is point to point time, or distance reference.
That should have read there is NO point to point or distance reference.
My intention in making that statement was, if there is no time or distance
reference there can be no energy exchange because everything is at 'unity",
since there would be no difference in relative potential at a single point.
I reject this idea, it is non sequitur.
Potential suggests that there must be two isolated points that vary in the relative
charge between them. There must be a potential delta between points for charge
to "exist".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| because there is point to point time, or distance reference. |
That should have read there is NO point to point or distance reference.
My intention in making that statement was, if there is no time or distance
reference there can be no energy exchange because everything is at 'unity",
since there would be no difference in relative potential at a single point.
I reject this idea, it is non sequitur.
Potential suggests that there must be two isolated points that vary in the relative
charge between them. There must be a potential delta between points for charge
to "exist".
is the best description of how the universe looks to a photon that I have heard.
There are innumerable ground wells that the photon could sink to in the universe.
You are speculating that it will only seek out one, its complement.....but there
are many, many complements. The only thing that divides them is time/distance.
LL
Hey Montec,
That was a profound post and I AGREE! So I take it that you also see the need
for time to be an integral part of the energy transfer equation?
Now I understand what point you were trying to make previously about the
E an M fields being stationary....you meant from a time relative position not
from a time varying perspective. The photon waves, being coherent, will
always form their E and M fields in the same location in space, while they oscillate
thru the phase angle. This works!
The energy of the photon will determine the amplitude of the E and H fields
that propagate it. They will always be the same height, frequency, and time
duration.
Now I understand what point you were trying to make previously about the
E an M fields being stationary....you meant from a time relative position not
from a time varying perspective. The photon waves, being coherent, will
always form their E and M fields in the same location in space, while they oscillate
thru the phase angle. This works!
The energy of the photon will determine the amplitude of the E and H fields
that propagate it. They will always be the same height, frequency, and time
duration.
As a curved EM wavefront expands the relationship between curvature and frequency changes. This allows a spherical wave to became a planar wave for any frequency. It is just higher frequency EM waves reach this conversion sooner (more cycles per unit distance) than lower frequency waves and the fact that the closer you are to a curved surface the flatter it looks..
I am still mulling this over as it relates to the ISL.
LL
That was a profound post and I AGREE! So I take it that you also see the need
for time to be an integral part of the energy transfer equation?
QUOTE
My own addition to the EM wave mechanics is that energy propagates through space in EM wave cycles. The electric and magnetic fields are stationary. The curvature of the EM wave depends on the shape of the previous EM wave.
Now I understand what point you were trying to make previously about the
E an M fields being stationary....you meant from a time relative position not
from a time varying perspective. The photon waves, being coherent, will
always form their E and M fields in the same location in space, while they oscillate
thru the phase angle. This works!
The energy of the photon will determine the amplitude of the E and H fields
that propagate it. They will always be the same height, frequency, and time
duration.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My own addition to the EM wave mechanics is that energy propagates through space in EM wave cycles. The electric and magnetic fields are stationary. The curvature of the EM wave depends on the shape of the previous EM wave. |
Now I understand what point you were trying to make previously about the
E an M fields being stationary....you meant from a time relative position not
from a time varying perspective. The photon waves, being coherent, will
always form their E and M fields in the same location in space, while they oscillate
thru the phase angle. This works!
The energy of the photon will determine the amplitude of the E and H fields
that propagate it. They will always be the same height, frequency, and time
duration.
As a curved EM wavefront expands the relationship between curvature and frequency changes. This allows a spherical wave to became a planar wave for any frequency. It is just higher frequency EM waves reach this conversion sooner (more cycles per unit distance) than lower frequency waves and the fact that the closer you are to a curved surface the flatter it looks..
I am still mulling this over as it relates to the ISL.
LL
Hello Laselight, et al.
In regards to Plank's constant time must pass for energy to flow. There is an inverse relationship between time and energy centered around Plank's constant. Smaller time durations will require larger values of energy or higher photon energies.
Now what is Plank's constant telling us? I have no idea as of yet but that may change.
In regards to Plank's constant time must pass for energy to flow. There is an inverse relationship between time and energy centered around Plank's constant. Smaller time durations will require larger values of energy or higher photon energies.
Now what is Plank's constant telling us? I have no idea as of yet but that may change.
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Hey GE,
By converting that 2D picture into a 2D plane frequency domain map aren't we
losing the relative timing and phasing that makes up a frequency's wavelength?
Basically, we are arbitrarily eliminating the time and phase functions that
should be an integral part of the Fourier transform, so effectively the result
is 2D map of a 4D phenomenon with information missing. To recover that
picture pattern information, we would need to add back the timing and phase
information.
Isn't this example like baking a cake and leaving out the flour and eggs?
I fail to see the relevance. The frequency domain must include the dimension
of time and distance, or there is no frequency/wavelength. Frequency exists
in 4D spacetime, if you eliminate the time dimension there is no frequency.
Frequency is a function of time.
Yes, I understand that f = 1/t, and t =1/f, but you cannot exclude one or the
other or else there is no equality.
Comments?
LL
By converting that 2D picture into a 2D plane frequency domain map aren't we
losing the relative timing and phasing that makes up a frequency's wavelength?
Basically, we are arbitrarily eliminating the time and phase functions that
should be an integral part of the Fourier transform, so effectively the result
is 2D map of a 4D phenomenon with information missing. To recover that
picture pattern information, we would need to add back the timing and phase
information.
Isn't this example like baking a cake and leaving out the flour and eggs?
I fail to see the relevance. The frequency domain must include the dimension
of time and distance, or there is no frequency/wavelength. Frequency exists
in 4D spacetime, if you eliminate the time dimension there is no frequency.
Frequency is a function of time.
Yes, I understand that f = 1/t, and t =1/f, but you cannot exclude one or the
other or else there is no equality.
Comments?
LL
Sigh!... I have not said that I am eliminating time... I am trying to explain this process in physical terms... not in mathematical terms... I take your point but once again you are missing my analogies. In mathematical terms it is a lot easier to explain... take the Fourier transform in one dimension on a circle and extend this to a hypersphere which is tangential to our three dimensional flatspace plus time and just add those 9 or 10 extra dimensions. Job Finished, no explanation required.
What is two dimensional remains two dimensional. a back and white image of some Indian girl as a panchromatic shot does not translate to the real living girl as a series of particle events progressing in real time. The "real" transform I cannot easily demonstrate the way I have it there. Clearly a FFT of a movie film frame by frame is still only an FFT of a Movie film frame by frame. I would be only simulating time by doing consecutive frames and running them together as an animation. It is definitely possible to do this same trick using a flatpanel... etc. but that would have a frame rate as well. Optically a three dimensional continuous animation could be made by optically creating this setup with a live process not rendered digitally but as an optical projection on to focal plane similar to a Camera Obscura of the real world, only you will need to do this with matter waves not bandwidth limited optics. When I want to actually do the correct transform it will be 10 or 11 dimensional as a minimum. You have our flatspace which is 4D, then we have the transform hyperspherical space which is attached to the flatspace in an additional 6D plus the reciprocal of time which could be interpreted as 11 dimensional. This "gadget is a toy". We can build this in your garage and it will only partially work...
...Click to enlarge...
Inter-dimensional travel/transport into reciprocal space is not as easy as this "Toy" but the physics principle is the same. In principle Fourier Transforms can occur in any number of dimensions as well as time. FT's can be performed in any number of dimensions ... thousands if necessary. A real time dimension cannot be easily incorporated into this 'Toy" scheme... time is not a sequence of snapshots taken one after the other. This process would actually need to be done on each event in a real space. The events would need to be transformed using a sub-atomic cavity. Going from our spatial and temporal domain into the next reciprocal spatial and frequency domain requires a 10 dimensional transform. To get back will require another similar transform. Mathematically this is "easy to do"... as a practical "experiment" on a Time traveler this process might be a whole lot more difficult.
A practical demonstration of time travel through manipulation of the inter-dimensional phase while quantum tunneling might be some time off yet.
Anything may be possible since nature seems to allow almost anything to happen provided the right situation is set up. Clearly this time travel will not be happening every day. It does happen with individual atomic particles as described previously but certain symmetry rules are necessary to be be followed. If you believe in Feynman then you already believe in this since he has already snuck it under the fence waiting for our future science to figure out. never underestimate these guys for having figured it all out but probably for one reason or another have held back publicly putting it on show for fear of "spoiling" his unblemished public image. This is because in Feynman's Time and probably still today, it is not possible to prove beyond a shadow of doubt this is the unique solution. He and Wheeler collaborated on his Doctoral Thesis on Absorber Theory in 1941 and Feynman shared a Nobel Prize with others in 1965 for QED. Read the story here...
http://www.vectorsite.net/tpqm_13.html
It's a real good read and it is short ...
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics...an-lecture.html
This is longer story and it tells another tale which is also interesting...
Cheers
What is two dimensional remains two dimensional. a back and white image of some Indian girl as a panchromatic shot does not translate to the real living girl as a series of particle events progressing in real time. The "real" transform I cannot easily demonstrate the way I have it there. Clearly a FFT of a movie film frame by frame is still only an FFT of a Movie film frame by frame. I would be only simulating time by doing consecutive frames and running them together as an animation. It is definitely possible to do this same trick using a flatpanel... etc. but that would have a frame rate as well. Optically a three dimensional continuous animation could be made by optically creating this setup with a live process not rendered digitally but as an optical projection on to focal plane similar to a Camera Obscura of the real world, only you will need to do this with matter waves not bandwidth limited optics. When I want to actually do the correct transform it will be 10 or 11 dimensional as a minimum. You have our flatspace which is 4D, then we have the transform hyperspherical space which is attached to the flatspace in an additional 6D plus the reciprocal of time which could be interpreted as 11 dimensional. This "gadget is a toy". We can build this in your garage and it will only partially work...
...Click to enlarge...
Inter-dimensional travel/transport into reciprocal space is not as easy as this "Toy" but the physics principle is the same. In principle Fourier Transforms can occur in any number of dimensions as well as time. FT's can be performed in any number of dimensions ... thousands if necessary. A real time dimension cannot be easily incorporated into this 'Toy" scheme... time is not a sequence of snapshots taken one after the other. This process would actually need to be done on each event in a real space. The events would need to be transformed using a sub-atomic cavity. Going from our spatial and temporal domain into the next reciprocal spatial and frequency domain requires a 10 dimensional transform. To get back will require another similar transform. Mathematically this is "easy to do"... as a practical "experiment" on a Time traveler this process might be a whole lot more difficult.
A practical demonstration of time travel through manipulation of the inter-dimensional phase while quantum tunneling might be some time off yet.Anything may be possible since nature seems to allow almost anything to happen provided the right situation is set up. Clearly this time travel will not be happening every day. It does happen with individual atomic particles as described previously but certain symmetry rules are necessary to be be followed. If you believe in Feynman then you already believe in this since he has already snuck it under the fence waiting for our future science to figure out. never underestimate these guys for having figured it all out but probably for one reason or another have held back publicly putting it on show for fear of "spoiling" his unblemished public image. This is because in Feynman's Time and probably still today, it is not possible to prove beyond a shadow of doubt this is the unique solution. He and Wheeler collaborated on his Doctoral Thesis on Absorber Theory in 1941 and Feynman shared a Nobel Prize with others in 1965 for QED. Read the story here...
http://www.vectorsite.net/tpqm_13.html
It's a real good read and it is short ...
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics...an-lecture.html
This is longer story and it tells another tale which is also interesting...
Cheers
Hi Montec,Laserlight et al,
The relationship between energy and frequency seems to be in question (again). If we use 'colour' as a representation of frequency .. does colour change with intensity? Do little telescopes and big telescopes see different colours? As far as I know the closest we get to a photon 'changing colour' is a Beta Barium Borate crystals when it produces two photons with energies which sum to the energy of the original photon - kinda of suggesting that the original photon was an 'entitity'. Do you have any examples of frequency changing with time or intensity?
Best wishes - C2.
The relationship between energy and frequency seems to be in question (again). If we use 'colour' as a representation of frequency .. does colour change with intensity? Do little telescopes and big telescopes see different colours? As far as I know the closest we get to a photon 'changing colour' is a Beta Barium Borate crystals when it produces two photons with energies which sum to the energy of the original photon - kinda of suggesting that the original photon was an 'entitity'. Do you have any examples of frequency changing with time or intensity?
Best wishes - C2.
Hi C2, et al,
No one ever stated that frequency changes with amplitude. Where did you get
that idea?
Color changes with the energy/frequency of a photon, not a coherent wavefront of
multiple photons of the same frequency. which has has the property of increased
intensity/amplitude at a fixed frequency.
One is the amplitude of a single photon, the other is the amplitude of a coherent
wavefront comprised of photons of the same frequency, but you already know
this....
LL
QUOTE
The relationship between energy and frequency seems to be in question (again). If we use 'colour' as a representation of frequency .. does colour change with intensity? Do little telescopes and big telescopes see different colours? As far as I know the closest we get to a photon 'changing colour' is a Beta Barium Borate crystals when it produces two photons with energies which sum to the energy of the original photon - kinda of suggesting that the original photon was an 'entitity'. Do you have any examples of frequency changing with time or intensity?
No one ever stated that frequency changes with amplitude. Where did you get
that idea?
Color changes with the energy/frequency of a photon, not a coherent wavefront of
multiple photons of the same frequency. which has has the property of increased
intensity/amplitude at a fixed frequency.
One is the amplitude of a single photon, the other is the amplitude of a coherent
wavefront comprised of photons of the same frequency, but you already know
this....
LL
Hi all,
Sucked in to the circular logic problem of an explanation with ad hoc parameters again!
C2, what was mentioned that questioned the "frequency-energy" relation? The color, as a monochromatic frequency, would change a sub-set of descriptive terms: the saturation level, or color intensity. The same "red", but either darker red, or lighter red. In our electron/atom world, the same energy (via frequency), but with a smaller "population" (count).
An interesting note to this:
Any color, will reach a "white-out" with high enough intensity, and a "black-out" with a low enough count. This white-black-ness is actually important in the historical DSE, before the days of lasers.
There are some differences in the "rules", as you change the ratio of energy density, and achieve a population inversion (as in lasing). The number of superpositions takes an exponential increase. This superposition allows our constant to stay the same, but changes the definition of "frequency": in this interaction zone, they can sum before multiplying by h. h is just a small enough number that works out an energy level that has been set as "fundamental".
This re-definition of_ f , in the equation E = n h f , replaces the "integer" requirement of "Planck units", and sets the "natural" state as 1 Hz. If we measure over constant time (which we DO), then this 1 Hz / 1 sec relationship is just the "number of cycles". This allows Energy to be the number of cycles per time, and a perfect phase-match-superposition-resonance will increase the number of cycles possible in a given area.
Any change in velocity of our EM wave will result in a change in the rate of cycles per time, compared to the same frequency moving through "constant space" of 299,792,458 meters in our measured unit of 1 sec.
In the real Universe, at least our "corner", space is not void of matter for EM absorption/re-emission. In fact, it can fluctuate quite a bit:
Far too many for us to take the "ideal" explanations seriously.
Sucked in to the circular logic problem of an explanation with ad hoc parameters again!
C2, what was mentioned that questioned the "frequency-energy" relation? The color, as a monochromatic frequency, would change a sub-set of descriptive terms: the saturation level, or color intensity. The same "red", but either darker red, or lighter red. In our electron/atom world, the same energy (via frequency), but with a smaller "population" (count).
An interesting note to this:
Any color, will reach a "white-out" with high enough intensity, and a "black-out" with a low enough count. This white-black-ness is actually important in the historical DSE, before the days of lasers.
There are some differences in the "rules", as you change the ratio of energy density, and achieve a population inversion (as in lasing). The number of superpositions takes an exponential increase. This superposition allows our constant to stay the same, but changes the definition of "frequency": in this interaction zone, they can sum before multiplying by h. h is just a small enough number that works out an energy level that has been set as "fundamental".
This re-definition of_ f , in the equation E = n h f , replaces the "integer" requirement of "Planck units", and sets the "natural" state as 1 Hz. If we measure over constant time (which we DO), then this 1 Hz / 1 sec relationship is just the "number of cycles". This allows Energy to be the number of cycles per time, and a perfect phase-match-superposition-resonance will increase the number of cycles possible in a given area.
Any change in velocity of our EM wave will result in a change in the rate of cycles per time, compared to the same frequency moving through "constant space" of 299,792,458 meters in our measured unit of 1 sec.
In the real Universe, at least our "corner", space is not void of matter for EM absorption/re-emission. In fact, it can fluctuate quite a bit:
QUOTE
The interstellar medium (or ISM) is usually extremely tenuous, with densities ranging from a few thousand to a few hundred million particles per cubic meter, and an average value in the Milky Way Galaxy of a million particles per cubic meter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_mediumFar too many for us to take the "ideal" explanations seriously.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The interstellar medium (or ISM) is usually extremely tenuous, with densities ranging from a few thousand to a few hundred million particles per cubic meter, and an average value in the Milky Way Galaxy of a million particles per cubic meter |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium
Far too many for us to take the "ideal" explanations seriously.
Plasmas are the most common phase of matter. Some estimates suggest that up to 99% of matter in the entire visible universe is plasma.[6] Since the space between the stars is filled with a plasma, albeit a very sparse one (see interstellar medium and intergalactic space), essentially the entire volume of the universe is plasma
Far too many for us to take the "ideal" explanations seriously.
Plasmas are the most common phase of matter. Some estimates suggest that up to 99% of matter in the entire visible universe is plasma.[6] Since the space between the stars is filled with a plasma, albeit a very sparse one (see interstellar medium and intergalactic space), essentially the entire volume of the universe is plasma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29
This is the "other medium" (compared to our atmosphere) that we like to equate with "a vacuum".
The constantly measured speed of light says MORE about the average density of matter in space than it does about "flying particle dualities". Our reality is that all these frequencies are traveling at different speeds, and measured as constant. This proves an interaction with the "background radiation"/ZPE is going on, in a symmetrical "dance". Any losses will have to be made up for ON THE WAY, with frequencies that were not in the original packet.
Also in our real world, "monochromatic" is like a "mass traveling at c": IT does NOT happen. It is the LIMIT that is never reached. All wave packets, or quanta of energy, have a variable frequency, given enough resolution (attosecond) to detect it.
C2-
All of them.
regards,
T.Roc
This is the "other medium" (compared to our atmosphere) that we like to equate with "a vacuum".
The constantly measured speed of light says MORE about the average density of matter in space than it does about "flying particle dualities". Our reality is that all these frequencies are traveling at different speeds, and measured as constant. This proves an interaction with the "background radiation"/ZPE is going on, in a symmetrical "dance". Any losses will have to be made up for ON THE WAY, with frequencies that were not in the original packet.
Also in our real world, "monochromatic" is like a "mass traveling at c": IT does NOT happen. It is the LIMIT that is never reached. All wave packets, or quanta of energy, have a variable frequency, given enough resolution (attosecond) to detect it.
C2-
QUOTE
Do you have any examples of frequency changing with time
All of them.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
Are you inferring that the Orbital Angular Momentum (OAM) of a photon is
changing over time and distance, and all that we are measuring is an average
rate of change and not an absolute rate of change?
I feel like you have given us most of the story, but have left off the ending.
I was also hoping that you would comment on the ongoing discussion about
time and energy transfer over distance.
LL
Are you inferring that the Orbital Angular Momentum (OAM) of a photon is
changing over time and distance, and all that we are measuring is an average
rate of change and not an absolute rate of change?
I feel like you have given us most of the story, but have left off the ending.
I was also hoping that you would comment on the ongoing discussion about
time and energy transfer over distance.
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 14 2007, 04:24 PM)
Hi TRoc,
Are you inferring that the Orbital Angular Momentum (OAM) of a photon is
changing over time and distance, and all that we are measuring is an average
rate of change and not an absolute rate of change?
I feel like you have given us most of the story, but have left off the ending.
I was also hoping that you would comment on the ongoing discussion about
time and energy transfer over distance.
LL
Femtosecond lasers and attosecond lasers are capable of varying the amplitude of a laser pulse squeezing it and enlarging it attosecond by attosecond; without the modulation a graph of the laser amplitude looks like the teeth on a comb. Squeezing down the amplitude then increasing it at say a giga-hertz rate, is commerically available. They are called "frequecy combs" By varying the amplitude of each attosecond pulse, the frequency is modulated very precisely.
Are you inferring that the Orbital Angular Momentum (OAM) of a photon is
changing over time and distance, and all that we are measuring is an average
rate of change and not an absolute rate of change?
I feel like you have given us most of the story, but have left off the ending.
I was also hoping that you would comment on the ongoing discussion about
time and energy transfer over distance.
LL
Femtosecond lasers and attosecond lasers are capable of varying the amplitude of a laser pulse squeezing it and enlarging it attosecond by attosecond; without the modulation a graph of the laser amplitude looks like the teeth on a comb. Squeezing down the amplitude then increasing it at say a giga-hertz rate, is commerically available. They are called "frequecy combs" By varying the amplitude of each attosecond pulse, the frequency is modulated very precisely.
Hey TRoc, LL, C2, Montec, GE, Neil, et al.
TRoc, it sounds like you are talking about self-phase modulation. To me, anytime the world "pulse" is used, it implies "a group of co-moving photons", not a single photon. So I did some digging, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-phase_modulation and Exact solution for quantum self-phase modulation(but you have to pay for the paper...
) and then I came across a fascinating paper, Intra-Pulse Quantum Spectral Structure of Ultrafast Optical Pulses in a Self-Defocusing Semiconductor Waveguide, for anyone interested. The problem is that they all talk about groups of photons...
Long and short, I finally came across this paper... Single-photon all-optical switching using waveguide-cavity quantum electrodynamics It's probably off-topic but too good not to share...
Comments?
TRoc, it sounds like you are talking about self-phase modulation. To me, anytime the world "pulse" is used, it implies "a group of co-moving photons", not a single photon. So I did some digging, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-phase_modulation and Exact solution for quantum self-phase modulation(but you have to pay for the paper...
) and then I came across a fascinating paper, Intra-Pulse Quantum Spectral Structure of Ultrafast Optical Pulses in a Self-Defocusing Semiconductor Waveguide, for anyone interested. The problem is that they all talk about groups of photons...Long and short, I finally came across this paper... Single-photon all-optical switching using waveguide-cavity quantum electrodynamics It's probably off-topic but too good not to share...
Comments?
Hi All,
Let us agree that there are two sorts of systems:- linear systems and non-linear systems. In general linear systems will have a limited zone of applicability - for example when we say the intensity of light from the sun falls off as the inverse square we automatically assume the observer isn't actually inside the sun. Now the DSE.
I would classify the DSE as a device for revealing the way light behaves when we deliberately introduce two paths between the source and destination. Clearly the DSE (as a 'device' or 'system') has a limited range of linearity where the result depends only on three quantities (distance between slits,distance to screen and wavelength). We can deliberately look outside the range of linearity of the DSE by (for example) making the slits very narrow. In practice only (bitter) experience will tell us which effects take us outside the linear region and whether or not they have any relevance to the behaviour of light with two paths between source and destination. Now examples of non-linear things.
Examples of things that produce non-linear effects include:- Beta barium borate crystals, lasers where the properties of the cavity are changed over a short period of time and very high power lasers under quite a lot of circumstances.
From experience we can guess quite a lot of things but in fairness the only real test is to actually look at experimental results.
We (TRoc?) might guess space is filled with materials which have the same (or similar) strange properties as Beta Barium Borate .. so do we see see such a signature in the spectrum of distant stars ?- personally I'd say we don't..
Oh God there's more.
We haven't really got to the bottom of whether or not the wave effect is actually the photon or whether the photon has properties independent of the 'wave' and the wave is just a consequence of where we expect to find the photon. It seems we may be able to increase the time resolution of our experimental analysis to the point (attoseconds) where the 'wave' (not surprisingly) becomes a meaningless concept. My guess is that we should then be able to see some of the internal workings of a photon. Unfortunately it is possible that the internal workings of a photon may not have any direct bearing on the way photons behave when offered two separate paths between two points. We may be able to look inside protons, electrons, neutrons and even viruses without discovering the origin of the 'wave' phenomenon that we observe when we look at the DSE.
Clearly Maxwell's Equations encapsulate many of the properties of a photon though not necessarily in an obvious way. Some discussion of this here :- http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s9-04/9-04.htm?lpos=fromtheweb
To reach a consensus about the workings of the DSE I suspect we may have to discard some things as nice and interesting but probably not relevant.
Best wishes - C2.
Let us agree that there are two sorts of systems:- linear systems and non-linear systems. In general linear systems will have a limited zone of applicability - for example when we say the intensity of light from the sun falls off as the inverse square we automatically assume the observer isn't actually inside the sun. Now the DSE.
I would classify the DSE as a device for revealing the way light behaves when we deliberately introduce two paths between the source and destination. Clearly the DSE (as a 'device' or 'system') has a limited range of linearity where the result depends only on three quantities (distance between slits,distance to screen and wavelength). We can deliberately look outside the range of linearity of the DSE by (for example) making the slits very narrow. In practice only (bitter) experience will tell us which effects take us outside the linear region and whether or not they have any relevance to the behaviour of light with two paths between source and destination. Now examples of non-linear things.
Examples of things that produce non-linear effects include:- Beta barium borate crystals, lasers where the properties of the cavity are changed over a short period of time and very high power lasers under quite a lot of circumstances.
From experience we can guess quite a lot of things but in fairness the only real test is to actually look at experimental results.
We (TRoc?) might guess space is filled with materials which have the same (or similar) strange properties as Beta Barium Borate .. so do we see see such a signature in the spectrum of distant stars ?- personally I'd say we don't..
Oh God there's more.
We haven't really got to the bottom of whether or not the wave effect is actually the photon or whether the photon has properties independent of the 'wave' and the wave is just a consequence of where we expect to find the photon. It seems we may be able to increase the time resolution of our experimental analysis to the point (attoseconds) where the 'wave' (not surprisingly) becomes a meaningless concept. My guess is that we should then be able to see some of the internal workings of a photon. Unfortunately it is possible that the internal workings of a photon may not have any direct bearing on the way photons behave when offered two separate paths between two points. We may be able to look inside protons, electrons, neutrons and even viruses without discovering the origin of the 'wave' phenomenon that we observe when we look at the DSE.
Clearly Maxwell's Equations encapsulate many of the properties of a photon though not necessarily in an obvious way. Some discussion of this here :- http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s9-04/9-04.htm?lpos=fromtheweb
To reach a consensus about the workings of the DSE I suspect we may have to discard some things as nice and interesting but probably not relevant.
Best wishes - C2.
Hello Confused2, et al.
Interesting article at the mathpages site.
I think we can all agree that the photon can represent the energy that is being transported through space while the EM wave is the transportation mechanism. The photon cannot go where there is no EM wave. There is no EM wave where you have destructive interference.
Interesting article at the mathpages site.
I think we can all agree that the photon can represent the energy that is being transported through space while the EM wave is the transportation mechanism. The photon cannot go where there is no EM wave. There is no EM wave where you have destructive interference.
Just a reminder .. buckyballs are also 'waves'
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/3/10/1...lpos=fromtheweb
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/3/10/1...lpos=fromtheweb
Hi Montec, C2, Neil, et al,
I like this simple explanation.
Could we also add:
A photon is the smallest energy measurement that will sustain a specific
frequency, and the energy that is a photon represents the smallest quantifiable
work function at that frequency.
--------
I'll toss this statement out for debate because I am not sure that it is accurate or
even correct, but I want a simpler of explanation of exactly what creates a wave:
Frequency is the spin/rotation of the energy of the photon that creates a single
wave. A wave generates E and M fields. Multiple, coherently spinning photons,
entangled together by the EM fields that they generate, add energy and amplitude
to the wave.
Comments? Alternative explanations?
LL
QUOTE
I think we can all agree that the photon can represent the energy that is being transported through space while the EM wave is the transportation mechanism. The photon cannot go where there is no EM wave. There is no EM wave where you have destructive interference.
I like this simple explanation.
Could we also add:
A photon is the smallest energy measurement that will sustain a specific
frequency, and the energy that is a photon represents the smallest quantifiable
work function at that frequency.
--------
I'll toss this statement out for debate because I am not sure that it is accurate or
even correct, but I want a simpler of explanation of exactly what creates a wave:
Frequency is the spin/rotation of the energy of the photon that creates a single
wave. A wave generates E and M fields. Multiple, coherently spinning photons,
entangled together by the EM fields that they generate, add energy and amplitude
to the wave.
Comments? Alternative explanations?
LL
Hi janrinze, "THEY", Laserlight, Jal, Confused2, Zephir, yquantum, TRoc, Montec, Neil Farbstein, Why Not?, Mate et al,
Interesting discussion on Polarization and Spin Confused2. I agree with that entirely... Maybe it is a little thin on what is the spin...
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s9-04/9-04.htm?lpos=fromtheweb
If you want an answer to just what a wave is some paradigms must be adopted to enable a common agreed phenomenon to be "negotiated". It is my contention that this has not been entirely decided on due to "preconceptions" of just what an electromagnetic wave really is. So forgive me when I use terms I actually disagree with when I describe this "event"... There really is no other way.
Continuous wave energy is not the most natural of phenomenon. The "primitive" from which all "continuous waves" are built is the individual sync function which is the response to the impulse. Spin is an important component of the wave and it distinguishes fermion particles from boson "waves". I specifically object to the way conventional science makes analogies with particle waves and then insists because electromagnetic waves do not behave in that way therefore subsequently refer to the "quantum effects" as "non-classical". Man does not "dial up a wish list for the way the world works" and then objects to it when it does not conform to his sense of "propriety". It is my contention that we must forget the waves at the seaside and deal with the phenomenon in its own right as a phenomenon that is not "observed" in the wave state and the effects of particle interaction of continuous waves with dipoles is a cumulative effect of individual packeted photons each traveling as a separate entity from source to sink.
Truncation of a continuous wave in the time domain automatically creates the packets complement of higher frequencies and this can be described in several ways... One way is the Fourier Decomposition and another way is the spatial functional variation of the basic packet spatially in time. Though individual photons are not simple variation in amplitude as they appear to be in a wave of a single frequency, individual photons are most certainly not simple variations in amplitude, they are "fuzzballs" of superimposed states at many frequencies. It just so happens that summation of these "fuzzballs" when allowed to coalese in time and spatially sum to that "smooth" undulation and only outside the summation range of the photons where the function "collapses" into a background signal (before the first CM oscillation occurred and after the last CW oscillation passed that we can appreciate the leading and trailing aspects of this "Continuous Wave".
This description can be simultaneously "captured" in the idea of superposition of wavelets at different frequencies. Some statement made on this thread recently seem to indicate that some people believe that different frequencies propagate at different velocities in free space due to interstellar medium of plasmas. This is despite the fact that the color of distant objects are not frequency spread in time as well as space. Unless we are speaking about the most extreme energies the interstellar medium is populated by the rare plasma particle whose dimensions are very very small compared with the volumetric space in which it is found. The other factor is most interstellar particles are in the "dark state". In the interstellar medium the excitation of these atoms over eons has led to the majority of these isolated atoms being in a state that is "blocked" to transitions from regular excitation sources. This can happen rarely and the state becomes metastable sometimes for very extended periods. This renders the atom "invisible" to the photons that would otherwise be absorbed by a "shell". The photon passes over these particles without any absorption process occurring, not even diffraction. Any "charged " species will obviously repel other similarly charged species so these ionized particles do not clump wherein transitions would be more likely. On the contrary they present virtually no cross section to the oncoming photons. So interstellar photons for the most part cannot "see" interstellar ionized atoms.
So the dominating effect is therefore the frequency independence of the internal superpositions of the components of the packet. Each frequency in the vacuum propagates at the one speed in the vacuum. This means that all internal superpositions of the photon state for all component frequencies are "stationary"... This can be expressed in terms of the Principle of Relativity as well as saying that the internal state of the photon is frozen in time as it "corkscrews" its way to the sink. This "corkscrew" is not "waving" at us but presenting us with an undulation as it passes in the same way a dromedary presents its humps to us as it walks bye. The humps are not moving, it is the dromedary that is moving and as it passes we see "frequency". This happens for all internal superimposed frequencies. There are no relative internal phase velocities for the internal frequencies. Until it is inside a diffractive medium the relative phases are maintained without any change other than "spreading" which is a function of the geometry of the universe. For light, once again it is only on boundaries of the change in refractive index that this influence of differential "phasing" of the packet occurs. This has implications for those regions in space where spatial vortices can form.
E = hf expresses the energy content of all photon wave packets regardless of base frequency. What it is stipulating is for a particular packet, the area under the curve can be related to some conjugate measurable.
As we all already know there is nothing unknown regards the nature of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and its direct relationship to the Fourier Transform..
1) Potential Energy
2) kinetic Energy
There are no other forms and each of these "do work". If it can't "do work" it is not energy. Each of these are expressed as differences... differences in height or position or state being proportional to energy and difference in velocity or angular velocity being proportional to energy. While these differences are vectors the actual energy itself is a simple scalar. This usually shows as an integration constant... this is often "forgotten" since this would be the "zero" of a system. A Zero Point Constant that may have no meaning except in energy exchanges between systems. I suggest that Einstein Theory of Special Relativity is at odds with a concept of a Zero Point Energy. If it was not so Relativity would fail owing to an asymmetry with velocity ... the faster things went the more "absolute energy" they would have and the more "massive" they would become. This was not an opinion Einstein held and it is an error held by many senior scientists today without the slightest shred of experimental evidence.
In a 1948 letter to Lincoln Barnett Einstein wrote...
Interesting discussion on Polarization and Spin Confused2. I agree with that entirely... Maybe it is a little thin on what is the spin...
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s9-04/9-04.htm?lpos=fromtheweb
If you want an answer to just what a wave is some paradigms must be adopted to enable a common agreed phenomenon to be "negotiated". It is my contention that this has not been entirely decided on due to "preconceptions" of just what an electromagnetic wave really is. So forgive me when I use terms I actually disagree with when I describe this "event"... There really is no other way.
Continuous wave energy is not the most natural of phenomenon. The "primitive" from which all "continuous waves" are built is the individual sync function which is the response to the impulse. Spin is an important component of the wave and it distinguishes fermion particles from boson "waves". I specifically object to the way conventional science makes analogies with particle waves and then insists because electromagnetic waves do not behave in that way therefore subsequently refer to the "quantum effects" as "non-classical". Man does not "dial up a wish list for the way the world works" and then objects to it when it does not conform to his sense of "propriety". It is my contention that we must forget the waves at the seaside and deal with the phenomenon in its own right as a phenomenon that is not "observed" in the wave state and the effects of particle interaction of continuous waves with dipoles is a cumulative effect of individual packeted photons each traveling as a separate entity from source to sink.
Truncation of a continuous wave in the time domain automatically creates the packets complement of higher frequencies and this can be described in several ways... One way is the Fourier Decomposition and another way is the spatial functional variation of the basic packet spatially in time. Though individual photons are not simple variation in amplitude as they appear to be in a wave of a single frequency, individual photons are most certainly not simple variations in amplitude, they are "fuzzballs" of superimposed states at many frequencies. It just so happens that summation of these "fuzzballs" when allowed to coalese in time and spatially sum to that "smooth" undulation and only outside the summation range of the photons where the function "collapses" into a background signal (before the first CM oscillation occurred and after the last CW oscillation passed that we can appreciate the leading and trailing aspects of this "Continuous Wave".
This description can be simultaneously "captured" in the idea of superposition of wavelets at different frequencies. Some statement made on this thread recently seem to indicate that some people believe that different frequencies propagate at different velocities in free space due to interstellar medium of plasmas. This is despite the fact that the color of distant objects are not frequency spread in time as well as space. Unless we are speaking about the most extreme energies the interstellar medium is populated by the rare plasma particle whose dimensions are very very small compared with the volumetric space in which it is found. The other factor is most interstellar particles are in the "dark state". In the interstellar medium the excitation of these atoms over eons has led to the majority of these isolated atoms being in a state that is "blocked" to transitions from regular excitation sources. This can happen rarely and the state becomes metastable sometimes for very extended periods. This renders the atom "invisible" to the photons that would otherwise be absorbed by a "shell". The photon passes over these particles without any absorption process occurring, not even diffraction. Any "charged " species will obviously repel other similarly charged species so these ionized particles do not clump wherein transitions would be more likely. On the contrary they present virtually no cross section to the oncoming photons. So interstellar photons for the most part cannot "see" interstellar ionized atoms.
So the dominating effect is therefore the frequency independence of the internal superpositions of the components of the packet. Each frequency in the vacuum propagates at the one speed in the vacuum. This means that all internal superpositions of the photon state for all component frequencies are "stationary"... This can be expressed in terms of the Principle of Relativity as well as saying that the internal state of the photon is frozen in time as it "corkscrews" its way to the sink. This "corkscrew" is not "waving" at us but presenting us with an undulation as it passes in the same way a dromedary presents its humps to us as it walks bye. The humps are not moving, it is the dromedary that is moving and as it passes we see "frequency". This happens for all internal superimposed frequencies. There are no relative internal phase velocities for the internal frequencies. Until it is inside a diffractive medium the relative phases are maintained without any change other than "spreading" which is a function of the geometry of the universe. For light, once again it is only on boundaries of the change in refractive index that this influence of differential "phasing" of the packet occurs. This has implications for those regions in space where spatial vortices can form.
E = hf expresses the energy content of all photon wave packets regardless of base frequency. What it is stipulating is for a particular packet, the area under the curve can be related to some conjugate measurable.
As we all already know there is nothing unknown regards the nature of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and its direct relationship to the Fourier Transform..
QUOTE
Conjugate variables
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Physics
A pair of variables mathematically defined in such a way that they become Fourier transform duals of one-another, or more generally are related through Pontryagin duality. The duality relations lead naturally to an uncertainty (Heisenberg uncertainty principle) relation between them. A more precise mathematical definition, in the context of Hamiltonian mechanics, is given in the article canonical coordinates. Examples of canonically conjugate variables include the following:
* Time and frequency: the longer a musical note is sustained, the more precisely we know its frequency (but it spans more time). Conversely, a very short musical note becomes just a click, and so one can't know its frequency very accurately.
* Time and energy - as energy and frequency in Quantum Mechanics are directly proportional to each other.
* Position and momentum: precise definition of position lead to ambiguity of momentum, and vice versa.
* Angle (angular position) and angular momentum;
* Doppler and range: the more we know about how far away a radar target is, the less we can know about the exact velocity of approach or retreat, and vice versa. In this case, the two dimensional function of doppler and range is known as a radar ambiguity function or radar ambiguity diagram.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_conjugate
This immediately shows us all that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relationship has nothing "intrinsically" to do with quantum physics but is a general principle related to the simple fact that any Fourier Transform Dual functions can be chosen to arrive at this same relationship. It is not a quantum postulate and quantum physics 'claiming' this Principle as 'one of its own' is "revisionist" to say the least. There is another important factor as well regards Energy... It has no true "zero point" since energy is simply expressed as a difference between levels. There are only two forms of energy...From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Physics
A pair of variables mathematically defined in such a way that they become Fourier transform duals of one-another, or more generally are related through Pontryagin duality. The duality relations lead naturally to an uncertainty (Heisenberg uncertainty principle) relation between them. A more precise mathematical definition, in the context of Hamiltonian mechanics, is given in the article canonical coordinates. Examples of canonically conjugate variables include the following:
* Time and frequency: the longer a musical note is sustained, the more precisely we know its frequency (but it spans more time). Conversely, a very short musical note becomes just a click, and so one can't know its frequency very accurately.
* Time and energy - as energy and frequency in Quantum Mechanics are directly proportional to each other.
* Position and momentum: precise definition of position lead to ambiguity of momentum, and vice versa.
* Angle (angular position) and angular momentum;
* Doppler and range: the more we know about how far away a radar target is, the less we can know about the exact velocity of approach or retreat, and vice versa. In this case, the two dimensional function of doppler and range is known as a radar ambiguity function or radar ambiguity diagram.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_conjugate
1) Potential Energy
2) kinetic Energy
There are no other forms and each of these "do work". If it can't "do work" it is not energy. Each of these are expressed as differences... differences in height or position or state being proportional to energy and difference in velocity or angular velocity being proportional to energy. While these differences are vectors the actual energy itself is a simple scalar. This usually shows as an integration constant... this is often "forgotten" since this would be the "zero" of a system. A Zero Point Constant that may have no meaning except in energy exchanges between systems. I suggest that Einstein Theory of Special Relativity is at odds with a concept of a Zero Point Energy. If it was not so Relativity would fail owing to an asymmetry with velocity ... the faster things went the more "absolute energy" they would have and the more "massive" they would become. This was not an opinion Einstein held and it is an error held by many senior scientists today without the slightest shred of experimental evidence.
In a 1948 letter to Lincoln Barnett Einstein wrote...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Conjugate variables From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Physics A pair of variables mathematically defined in such a way that they become Fourier transform duals of one-another, or more generally are related through Pontryagin duality. The duality relations lead naturally to an uncertainty (Heisenberg uncertainty principle) relation between them. A more precise mathematical definition, in the context of Hamiltonian mechanics, is given in the article canonical coordinates. Examples of canonically conjugate variables include the following: * Time and frequency: the longer a musical note is sustained, the more precisely we know its frequency (but it spans more time). Conversely, a very short musical note becomes just a click, and so one can't know its frequency very accurately. * Time and energy - as energy and frequency in Quantum Mechanics are directly proportional to each other. * Position and momentum: precise definition of position lead to ambiguity of momentum, and vice versa. * Angle (angular position) and angular momentum; * Doppler and range: the more we know about how far away a radar target is, the less we can know about the exact velocity of approach or retreat, and vice versa. In this case, the two dimensional function of doppler and range is known as a radar ambiguity function or radar ambiguity diagram. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_conjugate |
This immediately shows us all that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relationship has nothing "intrinsically" to do with quantum physics but is a general principle related to the simple fact that any Fourier Transform Dual functions can be chosen to arrive at this same relationship. It is not a quantum postulate and quantum physics 'claiming' this Principle as 'one of its own' is "revisionist" to say the least. There is another important factor as well regards Energy... It has no true "zero point" since energy is simply expressed as a difference between levels. There are only two forms of energy...
1) Potential Energy
2) kinetic Energy
There are no other forms and each of these "do work". If it can't "do work" it is not energy. Each of these are expressed as differences... differences in height or position or state being proportional to energy and difference in velocity or angular velocity being proportional to energy. While these differences are vectors the actual energy itself is a simple scalar. This usually shows as an integration constant... this is often "forgotten" since this would be the "zero" of a system. A Zero Point Constant that may have no meaning except in energy exchanges between systems. I suggest that Einstein Theory of Special Relativity is at odds with a concept of a Zero Point Energy. If it was not so Relativity would fail owing to an asymmetry with velocity ... the faster things went the more "absolute energy" they would have and the more "massive" they would become. This was not an opinion Einstein held and it is an error held by many senior scientists today without the slightest shred of experimental evidence.
In a 1948 letter to Lincoln Barnett Einstein wrote..."It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v2/c2)1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
1) Potential Energy
2) kinetic Energy
There are no other forms and each of these "do work". If it can't "do work" it is not energy. Each of these are expressed as differences... differences in height or position or state being proportional to energy and difference in velocity or angular velocity being proportional to energy. While these differences are vectors the actual energy itself is a simple scalar. This usually shows as an integration constant... this is often "forgotten" since this would be the "zero" of a system. A Zero Point Constant that may have no meaning except in energy exchanges between systems. I suggest that Einstein Theory of Special Relativity is at odds with a concept of a Zero Point Energy. If it was not so Relativity would fail owing to an asymmetry with velocity ... the faster things went the more "absolute energy" they would have and the more "massive" they would become. This was not an opinion Einstein held and it is an error held by many senior scientists today without the slightest shred of experimental evidence.
In a 1948 letter to Lincoln Barnett Einstein wrote..."It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v2/c2)1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
The viewpoint above, emphasizing the distinction between mass, momentum, and energy, is certainly the "modern" view. Fifty years later, can relativistic mass be laid to rest? So the idea of a direct relationship of mass to energy is "dumb" since all energy must be related to systems to to "isolated or absolute" energy. You must find another reason to "count mass".
So aside from any other factors other than Relativistic Doppler Shift due to relative motion the frequency of the photon should be a constant depending on the relationships between the Potential and Kinetic Energy of the two measuring systems. Photons "launched" from sources expand on the surface of a sphere centered on their original source position relative to all other observers in relative motion. That is all Relativity is other than the de Broglie relationship as stated previously, the low velocity consequence of Special Relativity.
Cheers
PS: Did everyone catch this article in PhysOrg about "tailoring" quanta to order"... There is a lot to be learned here regarding what quanta really are.
Scientists tailor light waves to desired frequencies
... Familiar story eh?
So aside from any other factors other than Relativistic Doppler Shift due to relative motion the frequency of the photon should be a constant depending on the relationships between the Potential and Kinetic Energy of the two measuring systems. Photons "launched" from sources expand on the surface of a sphere centered on their original source position relative to all other observers in relative motion. That is all Relativity is other than the de Broglie relationship as stated previously, the low velocity consequence of Special Relativity.
Cheers
PS: Did everyone catch this article in PhysOrg about "tailoring" quanta to order"... There is a lot to be learned here regarding what quanta really are.
Scientists tailor light waves to desired frequencies
... Familiar story eh?
Hi GE, Montec, C2, TRoc, JanRinze, Wulf, and All,
Again I find myself in some theoretical disagreement from a conceptual
perspective.
Perhaps it is only a matter of "observational perspective" and thought process.
It may be that there is no real difference except in the wording.
I have always found that simplicity trumps graniloquence, but then I am not
a scientist born of academia.
Continuous waves are the essence of energy. You can't get any more
natural than that. Without continuous wave energy there is no universe as it
is the fundamental process for all forms of energy and "existence".
All bosons exhibit 1/2 spin. The specific energy associated with each type
of boson, of specific frequency, has a different time function for the rotation/spin
according to the distance measured for it to cycle/rotate fully between two points.
This is measured as frequency which is a complete rotational cycle from a
reference "ground" point to a high energy point, and back to the "ground" point in
a fixed amount of time. This represents the time and distance it takes to transition
across a difference of potential between energy shells/levels.
The sync function has a start time and an end time. It is a "gate", a time interval
in which a rotation or voltage transition between energy shells has been fully
completed. The start and stop time of the energy impulse. It is a digital time
representation of an analog event, and thus has "tails".
Continuous waves are the essence of energy. You can't get any more
natural than that. Without continuous wave energy there is no universe as it
is the fundamental process for all forms of energy and "existence".
All bosons exhibit 1/2 spin. The specific energy associated with each type
of boson, of specific frequency, has a different time function for the rotation/spin
according to the distance measured for it to cycle/rotate fully between two points.
This is measured as frequency which is a complete rotational cycle from a
reference "ground" point to a high energy point, and back to the "ground" point in
a fixed amount of time. This represents the time and distance it takes to transition
across a difference of potential between energy shells/levels.
The sync function has a start time and an end time. It is a "gate", a time interval
in which a rotation or voltage transition between energy shells has been fully
completed. The start and stop time of the energy impulse. It is a digital time
representation of an analog event, and thus has "tails".
they are "fuzzballs" of superimposed states at many frequencies. It just so happens that summation of these "fuzzballs" when allowed to coalese in time and spatially sum to that "smooth" undulation and only outside the summation range of the photons where the function "collapses" into a background signal
Perhaps it is better to think of these "fuzzballs" as the sum of all possible analog voltage gradient levels
that exist above the reference ground level shell, all the way to the peak voltage
of the next higher energy "plateau" and back to the ground reference level.
In other words, it is all possible voltage levels that can occur in a full 360 dgree
cycle.
Each of these analog gradient voltage levels represent a fractional time
dispacement that directly corresponds to the angular rotational displacement of
the electron as it simultaneously moves laterally and vertically, in a changing
angular direction relative to the perpendicular y axis, horizontal x axis, and
lateral z axis.
If the interstellar gases are mostly single atomic or diatomic hydrogen and
helium, do they have electron dipoles that will resonate with photons that are
propagating with an energy level that has a lower frequency than would be
necessary to stimulate the atomic dipoles, which are in close energy shells to the
nucleus? If not, there will be no resonance and no energy exchange.
If the interstellar gases are mostly single atomic or diatomic hydrogen and
helium, do they have electron dipoles that will resonate with photons that are
propagating with an energy level that has a lower frequency than would be
necessary to stimulate the atomic dipoles, which are in close energy shells to the
nucleus? If not, there will be no resonance and no energy exchange.
There are no relative internal phase velocities for the internal frequencies.
Hmmm, there must be a relative internal change of potential over time to provide a
relative point of reference. However, internal time is relative to the energy
package only.
Zero point energy is unity, ONE, at a fixed location, at a fixed point in time.
It is a "ground" level, relative only to itself. It cannot be measured because
measurement requires a comparison between two locations that exhibit a
difference between them.
Potential energy is an energy state that exists when there is a difference of
energy level, between two relative points, that constantly maintain a fixed distance
and constant time relationship between them.
Kinetic energy is an energy state where the relative distance and time are changing
between two different energy points, which provides the concepts of momentum
and acceleration.
Momentum and acceleration can be defined as the change of distance and
time between points at different energy levels, one of which is a rate of change
that occurs at a constant rate, and the other which is changing at an exponential
rate. (basic stuff simplified)
When the two energy points are superposed they have zero point energy, because
there is no relative difference between them. They exist at the same "ground"
level.
Zero point energy is unity, ONE, at a fixed location, at a fixed point in time.
It is a "ground" level, relative only to itself. It cannot be measured because
measurement requires a comparison between two locations that exhibit a
difference between them.
Potential energy is an energy state that exists when there is a difference of
energy level, between two relative points, that constantly maintain a fixed distance
and constant time relationship between them.
Kinetic energy is an energy state where the relative distance and time are changing
between two different energy points, which provides the concepts of momentum
and acceleration.
Momentum and acceleration can be defined as the change of distance and
time between points at different energy levels, one of which is a rate of change
that occurs at a constant rate, and the other which is changing at an exponential
rate. (basic stuff simplified)
When the two energy points are superposed they have zero point energy, because
there is no relative difference between them. They exist at the same "ground"
level.
The viewpoint above, emphasizing the distinction between mass, momentum, and energy, is certainly the "modern" view. Fifty years later, can relativistic mass be laid to rest? So the idea of a direct relationship of mass to energy is "dumb" since all energy must be related to systems to to "isolated or absolute" energy. You must find another reason to "count mass".
Relativistic mass represents the kinetic energy component that is released when
two intrinsic masses, that each possess some maximum level of potential energy,
are forcibly combined to try to share the same point and time in space by collision.
The energy released will be a mechanical work function and electromagnetic in
nature.
I will leave this definition open for discussion purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass
Comments? Disagreements? Other interpretations?
Again I find myself in some theoretical disagreement from a conceptual
perspective.
Perhaps it is only a matter of "observational perspective" and thought process.
It may be that there is no real difference except in the wording.
I have always found that simplicity trumps graniloquence, but then I am not
a scientist born of academia.
QUOTE
Continuous wave energy is not the most natural of phenomenon. The "primitive" from which all "continuous waves" are built is the individual sync function which is the response to the impulse. Spin is an important component of the wave and it distinguishes fermion particles from boson "waves".
Continuous waves are the essence of energy. You can't get any more
natural than that. Without continuous wave energy there is no universe as it
is the fundamental process for all forms of energy and "existence".
All bosons exhibit 1/2 spin. The specific energy associated with each type
of boson, of specific frequency, has a different time function for the rotation/spin
according to the distance measured for it to cycle/rotate fully between two points.
This is measured as frequency which is a complete rotational cycle from a
reference "ground" point to a high energy point, and back to the "ground" point in
a fixed amount of time. This represents the time and distance it takes to transition
across a difference of potential between energy shells/levels.
The sync function has a start time and an end time. It is a "gate", a time interval
in which a rotation or voltage transition between energy shells has been fully
completed. The start and stop time of the energy impulse. It is a digital time
representation of an analog event, and thus has "tails".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Continuous wave energy is not the most natural of phenomenon. The "primitive" from which all "continuous waves" are built is the individual sync function which is the response to the impulse. Spin is an important component of the wave and it distinguishes fermion particles from boson "waves". |
Continuous waves are the essence of energy. You can't get any more
natural than that. Without continuous wave energy there is no universe as it
is the fundamental process for all forms of energy and "existence".
All bosons exhibit 1/2 spin. The specific energy associated with each type
of boson, of specific frequency, has a different time function for the rotation/spin
according to the distance measured for it to cycle/rotate fully between two points.
This is measured as frequency which is a complete rotational cycle from a
reference "ground" point to a high energy point, and back to the "ground" point in
a fixed amount of time. This represents the time and distance it takes to transition
across a difference of potential between energy shells/levels.
The sync function has a start time and an end time. It is a "gate", a time interval
in which a rotation or voltage transition between energy shells has been fully
completed. The start and stop time of the energy impulse. It is a digital time
representation of an analog event, and thus has "tails".
they are "fuzzballs" of superimposed states at many frequencies. It just so happens that summation of these "fuzzballs" when allowed to coalese in time and spatially sum to that "smooth" undulation and only outside the summation range of the photons where the function "collapses" into a background signal
Perhaps it is better to think of these "fuzzballs" as the sum of all possible analog voltage gradient levels
that exist above the reference ground level shell, all the way to the peak voltage
of the next higher energy "plateau" and back to the ground reference level.
In other words, it is all possible voltage levels that can occur in a full 360 dgree
cycle.
Each of these analog gradient voltage levels represent a fractional time
dispacement that directly corresponds to the angular rotational displacement of
the electron as it simultaneously moves laterally and vertically, in a changing
angular direction relative to the perpendicular y axis, horizontal x axis, and
lateral z axis.
QUOTE
The other factor is most interstellar particles are in the "dark state". In the interstellar medium the excitation of these atoms over eons has led to the majority of these isolated atoms being in a state that is "blocked" to transitions from regular excitation sources. This can happen rarely and the state becomes metastable sometimes for very extended periods. This renders the atom "invisible" to the photons that would otherwise be absorbed by a "shell". The photon passes over these particles without any absorption process occurring, not even diffraction.
If the interstellar gases are mostly single atomic or diatomic hydrogen and
helium, do they have electron dipoles that will resonate with photons that are
propagating with an energy level that has a lower frequency than would be
necessary to stimulate the atomic dipoles, which are in close energy shells to the
nucleus? If not, there will be no resonance and no energy exchange.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The other factor is most interstellar particles are in the "dark state". In the interstellar medium the excitation of these atoms over eons has led to the majority of these isolated atoms being in a state that is "blocked" to transitions from regular excitation sources. This can happen rarely and the state becomes metastable sometimes for very extended periods. This renders the atom "invisible" to the photons that would otherwise be absorbed by a "shell". The photon passes over these particles without any absorption process occurring, not even diffraction. |
If the interstellar gases are mostly single atomic or diatomic hydrogen and
helium, do they have electron dipoles that will resonate with photons that are
propagating with an energy level that has a lower frequency than would be
necessary to stimulate the atomic dipoles, which are in close energy shells to the
nucleus? If not, there will be no resonance and no energy exchange.
There are no relative internal phase velocities for the internal frequencies.
Hmmm, there must be a relative internal change of potential over time to provide a
relative point of reference. However, internal time is relative to the energy
package only.
QUOTE
There is another important factor as well regards Energy... It has no true "zero point" since energy is simply expressed as a difference between levels. There are only two forms of energy...
1) Potential Energy
2) kinetic Energy
There are no other forms and each of these "do work". If it can't "do work" it is not energy. Each of these are expressed as differences...
1) Potential Energy
2) kinetic Energy
There are no other forms and each of these "do work". If it can't "do work" it is not energy. Each of these are expressed as differences...
Zero point energy is unity, ONE, at a fixed location, at a fixed point in time.
It is a "ground" level, relative only to itself. It cannot be measured because
measurement requires a comparison between two locations that exhibit a
difference between them.
Potential energy is an energy state that exists when there is a difference of
energy level, between two relative points, that constantly maintain a fixed distance
and constant time relationship between them.
Kinetic energy is an energy state where the relative distance and time are changing
between two different energy points, which provides the concepts of momentum
and acceleration.
Momentum and acceleration can be defined as the change of distance and
time between points at different energy levels, one of which is a rate of change
that occurs at a constant rate, and the other which is changing at an exponential
rate. (basic stuff simplified)
When the two energy points are superposed they have zero point energy, because
there is no relative difference between them. They exist at the same "ground"
level.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is another important factor as well regards Energy... It has no true "zero point" since energy is simply expressed as a difference between levels. There are only two forms of energy... 1) Potential Energy 2) kinetic Energy There are no other forms and each of these "do work". If it can't "do work" it is not energy. Each of these are expressed as differences... |
Zero point energy is unity, ONE, at a fixed location, at a fixed point in time.
It is a "ground" level, relative only to itself. It cannot be measured because
measurement requires a comparison between two locations that exhibit a
difference between them.
Potential energy is an energy state that exists when there is a difference of
energy level, between two relative points, that constantly maintain a fixed distance
and constant time relationship between them.
Kinetic energy is an energy state where the relative distance and time are changing
between two different energy points, which provides the concepts of momentum
and acceleration.
Momentum and acceleration can be defined as the change of distance and
time between points at different energy levels, one of which is a rate of change
that occurs at a constant rate, and the other which is changing at an exponential
rate. (basic stuff simplified)
When the two energy points are superposed they have zero point energy, because
there is no relative difference between them. They exist at the same "ground"
level.
The viewpoint above, emphasizing the distinction between mass, momentum, and energy, is certainly the "modern" view. Fifty years later, can relativistic mass be laid to rest? So the idea of a direct relationship of mass to energy is "dumb" since all energy must be related to systems to to "isolated or absolute" energy. You must find another reason to "count mass".
Relativistic mass represents the kinetic energy component that is released when
two intrinsic masses, that each possess some maximum level of potential energy,
are forcibly combined to try to share the same point and time in space by collision.
The energy released will be a mechanical work function and electromagnetic in
nature.
I will leave this definition open for discussion purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass
Comments? Disagreements? Other interpretations?
Hi all,
OK, this is as good of a place to start as any. The word "pulse" may imply different thing (especially in different branches of Physics), but let me clearly state what I think to be the "fundamental" case: ALL EMISSIONS HAPPEN OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. During this period, the OSCILLATOR is NOT still, it is moving through space, roughly limited to a Pi based perimeter.
The frequency of the emission will be modulated by this period. We will NOT get a monochromatic, pure sine wave. We will get a complex waveform, that has an "envelope", with an instantaneous frequency. It is this "group" of waves that QM uses to attempt to construct logic in their explanation.
Literally, they are telling us, "just IGNORE the wavelets inside the envelope, and our theory works: the packet is a SINGLE "photon"". To that, I say "NO, I will not ignore ANYTHING when searching for a complete explanation for fundamental phenomenon. We CAN"T do that.
My theory says that "self phase modulation", and "cross phase-modulation" are both special cases of "phase modulation", which is the general rule. Every wave is made up of phase pairs that constitute a cycle. Superposition can bring about new "pairing" of these dualities, brought on by the geometry of the phases. When "unraveled", these geometrically forced phase pairs will separate into their original set. This is why in the "interaction zone", we can get interference that creates a new "signal" (frequency) that only exist in this zone. After exiting this zone, all original parameters (except the Berry phase) go back to "normal". By carefully examining these "phase accumulations", we can see what happened to our energy "on the way" to collapse. Again, this is strong evidence for "on the way interactions" being responsible for changes measure AT the detector/collapse, and also for the reason why it is easy to think that there is "no interaction" taking place, since we get our original "unchanged" frequency at the detector. The Berry phase proves that this is "illusion/perception". Arriving the same means arriving the same , it does NOT mean (absolutely) that NOTHING happened on the way. It just means that everything is balanced, and symmetrical; just what conservation of energy would have us expect.
OK, this is as good of a place to start as any. The word "pulse" may imply different thing (especially in different branches of Physics), but let me clearly state what I think to be the "fundamental" case: ALL EMISSIONS HAPPEN OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. During this period, the OSCILLATOR is NOT still, it is moving through space, roughly limited to a Pi based perimeter.
The frequency of the emission will be modulated by this period. We will NOT get a monochromatic, pure sine wave. We will get a complex waveform, that has an "envelope", with an instantaneous frequency. It is this "group" of waves that QM uses to attempt to construct logic in their explanation.
Literally, they are telling us, "just IGNORE the wavelets inside the envelope, and our theory works: the packet is a SINGLE "photon"". To that, I say "NO, I will not ignore ANYTHING when searching for a complete explanation for fundamental phenomenon. We CAN"T do that.
My theory says that "self phase modulation", and "cross phase-modulation" are both special cases of "phase modulation", which is the general rule. Every wave is made up of phase pairs that constitute a cycle. Superposition can bring about new "pairing" of these dualities, brought on by the geometry of the phases. When "unraveled", these geometrically forced phase pairs will separate into their original set. This is why in the "interaction zone", we can get interference that creates a new "signal" (frequency) that only exist in this zone. After exiting this zone, all original parameters (except the Berry phase) go back to "normal". By carefully examining these "phase accumulations", we can see what happened to our energy "on the way" to collapse. Again, this is strong evidence for "on the way interactions" being responsible for changes measure AT the detector/collapse, and also for the reason why it is easy to think that there is "no interaction" taking place, since we get our original "unchanged" frequency at the detector. The Berry phase proves that this is "illusion/perception". Arriving the same means arriving the same , it does NOT mean (absolutely) that NOTHING happened on the way. It just means that everything is balanced, and symmetrical; just what conservation of energy would have us expect.
Laserlight Posted on Yesterday at 4:24 PM
Hi TRoc,
Are you inferring that the Orbital Angular Momentum (OAM) of a photon is
changing over time and distance, and all that we are measuring is an average
rate of change and not an absolute rate of change?
Of the envelope.. no. Of each cycle.. yes.
Some links on OAM related papers:
Fourier relationship between angular position and optical orbital angular momentum
Quantized Rotation of Atoms From Photons with Orbital Angular Momentum
Quantized Rotation of Atoms From Photons with Orbital Angular Momentum
The first generation of a vortex in a BEC used a ”phase engineering” scheme involving a rapidly rotating G laser beam coupling the external motion to internal state Rabi oscillations [17, 18].3.
..
Using a 2-photon stimulated Raman process, similar to Bragg diffraction [21], but with a LG beam carrying OAM of ~ per photon, we generate an atomic vortex state in a BEC.
..
Furthermore, we demonstrate that the process is coherent by creating superpositions of different vortex states where the relative phase between the states is determined by the relative phases of the optical fields.
Optical parametric oscillation under injection of orbital angular momentum
Geometric Phase in Optics and Angular Momentum of Light
Geometric Phase in Optics and Angular Momentum of Light
Abstract
Physical mechanism for the geometric phase in terms of angular momentum exchange is elucidated. It is argued that geometric phase arising out of the cyclic changes in the transverse mode space of Gaussian light beams is a manifestation of the cycles in the momentum space of the light. Apparent non-conservation of orbital angular momentum in the spontaneous parametric down conversion for the classical light beams is proposed to be related with the geometric phase.
..van Enk proposed that geometric phase arising out of the cycles in the mode space of Gaussian light beams was a new phase.
..the beam acquires net shift in its OAM though the OAM per photon is restored to its initial value.
Then, finally, this all ties into C2's statement about our linear Physics.
Two other situations that call for the non-linear approach: the very short pulse that is caused by trying to create closer to monochromatic light, and dividing the wave into 2 equal parts (whether from a beta barium borate crystal, a DSE, or any "beam splitter").
The very short pulse concentrates the same energy into a much smaller time span. This density increase can "simulate" a higher energy interaction. We have talked about the optical Kerr effect many times on this thread.
This phenomenon is RESPONSIBLE for the laser beam having a finite length, and "spot" already. Forget about the different kinds of lasers; in general this is HOW they all operate.
COHERENT light DOES NOT SPREAD.
This is where the question (mainly directed to GE) about WHY does light spread comes in. He gave several ways in which this is measured (how), but not WHY.
Follow the Logic:
Free space is NOT a vacuum.
The Refractive Index of free space is IDEALIZED as ONE, but in reality, it only approaches 1.
This means, as RI is wavelength dependent, EVERY different frequency in a wave-packet is "traveling" at a different velocity, and SPREADING at different angles.
When you take a handful of different frequencies (including negative, "counter propagating") through this process, you get our expanding sphere. Velocity based dispersion is the answer.
When you take a handful of coherent frequencies, you can form a non-spreading packet. With quasi-monochromatic light, the beats between the "average" frequencies are ALWAYS LESS than the constituent oscillators. This has a "loss" effect, where these beats are absorbed by the background field. In the laser, this is called SELF-FOCUSING.
Self-focusing increases the energy density, until finally, SOMETHING gives. What is it? Matter. We have to change resonant levels, from "transparent" visible light to higher energy absorption, and then finally, to ionization, where we begin to deal with the plasma state. This is the "switch" that turns off the self-focusing of a semi-coherent beam.
Then the process changes to diffraction, and the beam can spread back towards its' original state. It gets a little more complex than I am describing, but the principle is there. Again, during diffraction, the higher frequencies are spread the furthest; this then causes the process to repeat again. Ionization starts at these "hot spots", and then the plasma, etc.
The real beauty in this symmetrical "dance" is that the filaments, which is now generally what the "energy quanta" are being called between these different states, conserve the "fundamental axis" that I've mentioned in the DSE. Because the filaments are "white light supercontiuum", they can take on a full octave (& 1/2 ?) bandwidth. Since it takes "more energy" to continue "off axis" spread than to maintain the straight path, the outermost filaments "give up". (there is also less impedance in the axis, due to the ionization path, and tunneling)
The effect is, that if something "blocks" a filament (pilot wave like), it will abandon that path in preference to the "clear path". This has obvious ramifications in the DSE. It is the filaments that create the paths through the slits; it is the filaments that take on frequencies that are not part of the original wave-packet, so that they may return to the fundamental path/axis.
Ultimately, the beam LENGTH is determined by this process. Filaments require having MORE energy being continually replenished by the beam. This means, in the end, the last diffraction cycle is what is absorbed/measured.
In any of the "which slit" postulates, it is the attempt at measuring a filament (that is symmetrically "off-phase" from the other filament path) that throws off the QM explanation. There is no need to answer invalid questions.
White-light filaments induced by diffraction effects
enough for now..
Regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE
Why Not? Posted on Yesterday at 10:51 PM
TRoc, it sounds like you are talking about self-phase modulation. To me, anytime the world "pulse" is used, it implies "a group of co-moving photons", not a single photon.
TRoc, it sounds like you are talking about self-phase modulation. To me, anytime the world "pulse" is used, it implies "a group of co-moving photons", not a single photon.
OK, this is as good of a place to start as any. The word "pulse" may imply different thing (especially in different branches of Physics), but let me clearly state what I think to be the "fundamental" case: ALL EMISSIONS HAPPEN OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. During this period, the OSCILLATOR is NOT still, it is moving through space, roughly limited to a Pi based perimeter.
The frequency of the emission will be modulated by this period. We will NOT get a monochromatic, pure sine wave. We will get a complex waveform, that has an "envelope", with an instantaneous frequency. It is this "group" of waves that QM uses to attempt to construct logic in their explanation.
Literally, they are telling us, "just IGNORE the wavelets inside the envelope, and our theory works: the packet is a SINGLE "photon"". To that, I say "NO, I will not ignore ANYTHING when searching for a complete explanation for fundamental phenomenon. We CAN"T do that.
My theory says that "self phase modulation", and "cross phase-modulation" are both special cases of "phase modulation", which is the general rule. Every wave is made up of phase pairs that constitute a cycle. Superposition can bring about new "pairing" of these dualities, brought on by the geometry of the phases. When "unraveled", these geometrically forced phase pairs will separate into their original set. This is why in the "interaction zone", we can get interference that creates a new "signal" (frequency) that only exist in this zone. After exiting this zone, all original parameters (except the Berry phase) go back to "normal". By carefully examining these "phase accumulations", we can see what happened to our energy "on the way" to collapse. Again, this is strong evidence for "on the way interactions" being responsible for changes measure AT the detector/collapse, and also for the reason why it is easy to think that there is "no interaction" taking place, since we get our original "unchanged" frequency at the detector. The Berry phase proves that this is "illusion/perception". Arriving the same means arriving the same , it does NOT mean (absolutely) that NOTHING happened on the way. It just means that everything is balanced, and symmetrical; just what conservation of energy would have us expect.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why Not? Posted on Yesterday at 10:51 PM TRoc, it sounds like you are talking about self-phase modulation. To me, anytime the world "pulse" is used, it implies "a group of co-moving photons", not a single photon. |
OK, this is as good of a place to start as any. The word "pulse" may imply different thing (especially in different branches of Physics), but let me clearly state what I think to be the "fundamental" case: ALL EMISSIONS HAPPEN OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. During this period, the OSCILLATOR is NOT still, it is moving through space, roughly limited to a Pi based perimeter.
The frequency of the emission will be modulated by this period. We will NOT get a monochromatic, pure sine wave. We will get a complex waveform, that has an "envelope", with an instantaneous frequency. It is this "group" of waves that QM uses to attempt to construct logic in their explanation.
Literally, they are telling us, "just IGNORE the wavelets inside the envelope, and our theory works: the packet is a SINGLE "photon"". To that, I say "NO, I will not ignore ANYTHING when searching for a complete explanation for fundamental phenomenon. We CAN"T do that.
My theory says that "self phase modulation", and "cross phase-modulation" are both special cases of "phase modulation", which is the general rule. Every wave is made up of phase pairs that constitute a cycle. Superposition can bring about new "pairing" of these dualities, brought on by the geometry of the phases. When "unraveled", these geometrically forced phase pairs will separate into their original set. This is why in the "interaction zone", we can get interference that creates a new "signal" (frequency) that only exist in this zone. After exiting this zone, all original parameters (except the Berry phase) go back to "normal". By carefully examining these "phase accumulations", we can see what happened to our energy "on the way" to collapse. Again, this is strong evidence for "on the way interactions" being responsible for changes measure AT the detector/collapse, and also for the reason why it is easy to think that there is "no interaction" taking place, since we get our original "unchanged" frequency at the detector. The Berry phase proves that this is "illusion/perception". Arriving the same means arriving the same , it does NOT mean (absolutely) that NOTHING happened on the way. It just means that everything is balanced, and symmetrical; just what conservation of energy would have us expect.
Laserlight Posted on Yesterday at 4:24 PM
Hi TRoc,
Are you inferring that the Orbital Angular Momentum (OAM) of a photon is
changing over time and distance, and all that we are measuring is an average
rate of change and not an absolute rate of change?
Of the envelope.. no. Of each cycle.. yes.
Some links on OAM related papers:
Fourier relationship between angular position and optical orbital angular momentum
QUOTE
More generally, any azimuthal intensity distribution with m−fold symmetry only has angular harmonics at multiples of m.
..
It is instructive to consider the m−fold symmetric composite
mask as a superposition of m single-segment apertures, each giving rise to its own set of OAM sidebands which may constructively or destructive interfere.
..
It is instructive to consider the m−fold symmetric composite
mask as a superposition of m single-segment apertures, each giving rise to its own set of OAM sidebands which may constructively or destructive interfere.
Quantized Rotation of Atoms From Photons with Orbital Angular Momentum
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| More generally, any azimuthal intensity distribution with m−fold symmetry only has angular harmonics at multiples of m. .. It is instructive to consider the m−fold symmetric composite mask as a superposition of m single-segment apertures, each giving rise to its own set of OAM sidebands which may constructively or destructive interfere. |
Quantized Rotation of Atoms From Photons with Orbital Angular Momentum
The first generation of a vortex in a BEC used a ”phase engineering” scheme involving a rapidly rotating G laser beam coupling the external motion to internal state Rabi oscillations [17, 18].3.
..
Using a 2-photon stimulated Raman process, similar to Bragg diffraction [21], but with a LG beam carrying OAM of ~ per photon, we generate an atomic vortex state in a BEC.
..
Furthermore, we demonstrate that the process is coherent by creating superpositions of different vortex states where the relative phase between the states is determined by the relative phases of the optical fields.
Optical parametric oscillation under injection of orbital angular momentum
QUOTE
The first attempt to observe the transfer of orbital angular momentum (OAM) from the pump beam to the down converted beams was made by Arlt et al. in the spontaneous process, where the far field did not show the typical profile of an optical vortex.1 Later, this problem was elucidated by Mair et al who investigated the same process in the photocount regime.2 They were able to demonstrate that the coincidence counts between twin photons generated by spontaneous parametric down conversion was subjected to OAM conservation. A further insight is given in ref. 3, where it was shown that parametric amplification in the stimulated process is also subjected to OAM conservation. There, an interpretation in terms of transverse phase conjugation was provided.4 In ref. 5, the macroscopic transfer of OAM from the pump beam to one of the down converted beams was demonstrated in the operation of an optical parametric
oscillator (OPO) above threshold. In that case, cavity mode selection was shown to play a crucial role in the OAM exchange.
An important feature of optical beams bearing OAM is the geometric phase, or
Berry’s phase,6 associated with cyclic transformations..
oscillator (OPO) above threshold. In that case, cavity mode selection was shown to play a crucial role in the OAM exchange.
An important feature of optical beams bearing OAM is the geometric phase, or
Berry’s phase,6 associated with cyclic transformations..
Geometric Phase in Optics and Angular Momentum of Light
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The first attempt to observe the transfer of orbital angular momentum (OAM) from the pump beam to the down converted beams was made by Arlt et al. in the spontaneous process, where the far field did not show the typical profile of an optical vortex.1 Later, this problem was elucidated by Mair et al who investigated the same process in the photocount regime.2 They were able to demonstrate that the coincidence counts between twin photons generated by spontaneous parametric down conversion was subjected to OAM conservation. A further insight is given in ref. 3, where it was shown that parametric amplification in the stimulated process is also subjected to OAM conservation. There, an interpretation in terms of transverse phase conjugation was provided.4 In ref. 5, the macroscopic transfer of OAM from the pump beam to one of the down converted beams was demonstrated in the operation of an optical parametric oscillator (OPO) above threshold. In that case, cavity mode selection was shown to play a crucial role in the OAM exchange. An important feature of optical beams bearing OAM is the geometric phase, or Berry’s phase,6 associated with cyclic transformations.. |
Geometric Phase in Optics and Angular Momentum of Light
Abstract
Physical mechanism for the geometric phase in terms of angular momentum exchange is elucidated. It is argued that geometric phase arising out of the cyclic changes in the transverse mode space of Gaussian light beams is a manifestation of the cycles in the momentum space of the light. Apparent non-conservation of orbital angular momentum in the spontaneous parametric down conversion for the classical light beams is proposed to be related with the geometric phase.
QUOTE
There exists a considerable debate on the question whether GP in optics is a classical or a quantum phenomenon, see [5] and also the review [6], however the issue of the physical origin of GP was addressed in [5]. It was suggested that spin and orbital parts of the angular momentum were responsible for the Pancharatnam and Rytov-Vladimirskii-Chiao-Wu (RVCW) phases respectively. [Note that Chiao and Wu proposed the spin redirection phase [7] similar to the earlier work of Rytov-Vladimirskii, hence the name RVCW phase].
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There exists a considerable debate on the question whether GP in optics is a classical or a quantum phenomenon, see [5] and also the review [6], however the issue of the physical origin of GP was addressed in [5]. It was suggested that spin and orbital parts of the angular momentum were responsible for the Pancharatnam and Rytov-Vladimirskii-Chiao-Wu (RVCW) phases respectively. [Note that Chiao and Wu proposed the spin redirection phase [7] similar to the earlier work of Rytov-Vladimirskii, hence the name RVCW phase]. |
..van Enk proposed that geometric phase arising out of the cycles in the mode space of Gaussian light beams was a new phase.
QUOTE
..though torque may vanish, the constant level of angular momentum may change after the completion of a cycle on the Poincare sphere (or wave vector, k-space) and manifest as a geometrical effect.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ..though torque may vanish, the constant level of angular momentum may change after the completion of a cycle on the Poincare sphere (or wave vector, k-space) and manifest as a geometrical effect. |
..the beam acquires net shift in its OAM though the OAM per photon is restored to its initial value.
Then, finally, this all ties into C2's statement about our linear Physics.
Two other situations that call for the non-linear approach: the very short pulse that is caused by trying to create closer to monochromatic light, and dividing the wave into 2 equal parts (whether from a beta barium borate crystal, a DSE, or any "beam splitter").
The very short pulse concentrates the same energy into a much smaller time span. This density increase can "simulate" a higher energy interaction. We have talked about the optical Kerr effect many times on this thread.
This phenomenon is RESPONSIBLE for the laser beam having a finite length, and "spot" already. Forget about the different kinds of lasers; in general this is HOW they all operate.
COHERENT light DOES NOT SPREAD.
This is where the question (mainly directed to GE) about WHY does light spread comes in. He gave several ways in which this is measured (how), but not WHY.
Follow the Logic:
Free space is NOT a vacuum.
The Refractive Index of free space is IDEALIZED as ONE, but in reality, it only approaches 1.
This means, as RI is wavelength dependent, EVERY different frequency in a wave-packet is "traveling" at a different velocity, and SPREADING at different angles.
When you take a handful of different frequencies (including negative, "counter propagating") through this process, you get our expanding sphere. Velocity based dispersion is the answer.
When you take a handful of coherent frequencies, you can form a non-spreading packet. With quasi-monochromatic light, the beats between the "average" frequencies are ALWAYS LESS than the constituent oscillators. This has a "loss" effect, where these beats are absorbed by the background field. In the laser, this is called SELF-FOCUSING.
Self-focusing increases the energy density, until finally, SOMETHING gives. What is it? Matter. We have to change resonant levels, from "transparent" visible light to higher energy absorption, and then finally, to ionization, where we begin to deal with the plasma state. This is the "switch" that turns off the self-focusing of a semi-coherent beam.
Then the process changes to diffraction, and the beam can spread back towards its' original state. It gets a little more complex than I am describing, but the principle is there. Again, during diffraction, the higher frequencies are spread the furthest; this then causes the process to repeat again. Ionization starts at these "hot spots", and then the plasma, etc.
The real beauty in this symmetrical "dance" is that the filaments, which is now generally what the "energy quanta" are being called between these different states, conserve the "fundamental axis" that I've mentioned in the DSE. Because the filaments are "white light supercontiuum", they can take on a full octave (& 1/2 ?) bandwidth. Since it takes "more energy" to continue "off axis" spread than to maintain the straight path, the outermost filaments "give up". (there is also less impedance in the axis, due to the ionization path, and tunneling)
The effect is, that if something "blocks" a filament (pilot wave like), it will abandon that path in preference to the "clear path". This has obvious ramifications in the DSE. It is the filaments that create the paths through the slits; it is the filaments that take on frequencies that are not part of the original wave-packet, so that they may return to the fundamental path/axis.
Ultimately, the beam LENGTH is determined by this process. Filaments require having MORE energy being continually replenished by the beam. This means, in the end, the last diffraction cycle is what is absorbed/measured.
In any of the "which slit" postulates, it is the attempt at measuring a filament (that is symmetrically "off-phase" from the other filament path) that throws off the QM explanation. There is no need to answer invalid questions.
White-light filaments induced by diffraction effects
enough for now..
Regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE (TRoc+Jun 15 2007, 07:24 PM)
Hi all,
OK, this is as good of a place to start as any. The word "pulse" may imply different thing (especially in different branches of Physics), but let me clearly state what I think to be the "fundamental" case: ALL EMISSIONS HAPPEN OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. During this period, the OSCILLATOR is NOT still, it is moving through space, roughly limited to a Pi based perimeter.
The frequency of the emission will be modulated by this period. We will NOT get a monochromatic, pure sine wave. We will get a complex waveform, that has an "envelope", with an instantaneous frequency. It is this "group" of waves that QM uses to attempt to construct logic in their explanation.
Literally, they are telling us, "just IGNORE the wavelets inside the envelope, and our theory works: the packet is a SINGLE "photon"". To that, I say "NO, I will not ignore ANYTHING when searching for a complete explanation for fundamental phenomenon. We CAN"T do that.
My theory says that "self phase modulation", and "cross phase-modulation" are both special cases of "phase modulation", which is the general rule. Every wave is made up of phase pairs that constitute a cycle. Superposition can bring about new "pairing" of these dualities, brought on by the geometry of the phases. When "unraveled", these geometrically forced phase pairs will separate into their original set. This is why in the "interaction zone", we can get interference that creates a new "signal" (frequency) that only exist in this zone. After exiting this zone, all original parameters (except the Berry phase) go back to "normal". By carefully examining these "phase accumulations", we can see what happened to our energy "on the way" to collapse. Again, this is strong evidence for "on the way interactions" being responsible for changes measure AT the detector/collapse, and also for the reason why it is easy to think that there is "no interaction" taking place, since we get our original "unchanged" frequency at the detector. The Berry phase proves that this is "illusion/perception". Arriving the same means arriving the same , it does NOT mean (absolutely) that NOTHING happened on the way. It just means that everything is balanced, and symmetrical; just what conservation of energy would have us expect.
Of the envelope.. no. Of each cycle.. yes.
Some links on OAM related papers:
Fourier relationship between angular position and optical orbital angular momentum
Quantized Rotation of Atoms From Photons with Orbital Angular Momentum
Optical parametric oscillation under injection of orbital angular momentum
Geometric Phase in Optics and Angular Momentum of Light
Then, finally, this all ties into C2's statement about our linear Physics.
Two other situations that call for the non-linear approach: the very short pulse that is caused by trying to create closer to monochromatic light, and dividing the wave into 2 equal parts (whether from a beta barium borate crystal, a DSE, or any "beam splitter").
The very short pulse concentrates the same energy into a much smaller time span. This density increase can "simulate" a higher energy interaction. We have talked about the optical Kerr effect many times on this thread.
This phenomenon is RESPONSIBLE for the laser beam having a finite length, and "spot" already. Forget about the different kinds of lasers; in general this is HOW they all operate.
COHERENT light DOES NOT SPREAD.
This is where the question (mainly directed to GE) about WHY does light spread comes in. He gave several ways in which this is measured (how), but not WHY.
Follow the Logic:
Free space is NOT a vacuum.
The Refractive Index of free space is IDEALIZED as ONE, but in reality, it only approaches 1.
This means, as RI is wavelength dependent, EVERY different frequency in a wave-packet is "traveling" at a different velocity, and SPREADING at different angles.
When you take a handful of different frequencies (including negative, "counter propagating") through this process, you get our expanding sphere. Velocity based dispersion is the answer.
When you take a handful of coherent frequencies, you can form a non-spreading packet. With quasi-monochromatic light, the beats between the "average" frequencies are ALWAYS LESS than the constituent oscillators. This has a "loss" effect, where these beats are absorbed by the background field. In the laser, this is called SELF-FOCUSING.
Self-focusing increases the energy density, until finally, SOMETHING gives. What is it? Matter. We have to change resonant levels, from "transparent" visible light to higher energy absorption, and then finally, to ionization, where we begin to deal with the plasma state. This is the "switch" that turns off the self-focusing of a semi-coherent beam.
Then the process changes to diffraction, and the beam can spread back towards its' original state. It gets a little more complex than I am describing, but the principle is there. Again, during diffraction, the higher frequencies are spread the furthest; this then causes the process to repeat again. Ionization starts at these "hot spots", and then the plasma, etc.
The real beauty in this symmetrical "dance" is that the filaments, which is now generally what the "energy quanta" are being called between these different states, conserve the "fundamental axis" that I've mentioned in the DSE. Because the filaments are "white light supercontiuum", they can take on a full octave (& 1/2 ?) bandwidth. Since it takes "more energy" to continue "off axis" spread than to maintain the straight path, the outermost filaments "give up". (there is also less impedance in the axis, due to the ionization path, and tunneling)
The effect is, that if something "blocks" a filament (pilot wave like), it will abandon that path in preference to the "clear path". This has obvious ramifications in the DSE. It is the filaments that create the paths through the slits; it is the filaments that take on frequencies that are not part of the original wave-packet, so that they may return to the fundamental path/axis.
Ultimately, the beam LENGTH is determined by this process. Filaments require having MORE energy being continually replenished by the beam. This means, in the end, the last diffraction cycle is what is absorbed/measured.
In any of the "which slit" postulates, it is the attempt at measuring a filament (that is symmetrically "off-phase" from the other filament path) that throws off the QM explanation. There is no need to answer invalid questions.
White-light filaments induced by diffraction effects
enough for now..
Regards,
T.Roc
Very interesting. I havent had much time to participate in the group discussions but I've been watching them.
OK, this is as good of a place to start as any. The word "pulse" may imply different thing (especially in different branches of Physics), but let me clearly state what I think to be the "fundamental" case: ALL EMISSIONS HAPPEN OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. During this period, the OSCILLATOR is NOT still, it is moving through space, roughly limited to a Pi based perimeter.
The frequency of the emission will be modulated by this period. We will NOT get a monochromatic, pure sine wave. We will get a complex waveform, that has an "envelope", with an instantaneous frequency. It is this "group" of waves that QM uses to attempt to construct logic in their explanation.
Literally, they are telling us, "just IGNORE the wavelets inside the envelope, and our theory works: the packet is a SINGLE "photon"". To that, I say "NO, I will not ignore ANYTHING when searching for a complete explanation for fundamental phenomenon. We CAN"T do that.
My theory says that "self phase modulation", and "cross phase-modulation" are both special cases of "phase modulation", which is the general rule. Every wave is made up of phase pairs that constitute a cycle. Superposition can bring about new "pairing" of these dualities, brought on by the geometry of the phases. When "unraveled", these geometrically forced phase pairs will separate into their original set. This is why in the "interaction zone", we can get interference that creates a new "signal" (frequency) that only exist in this zone. After exiting this zone, all original parameters (except the Berry phase) go back to "normal". By carefully examining these "phase accumulations", we can see what happened to our energy "on the way" to collapse. Again, this is strong evidence for "on the way interactions" being responsible for changes measure AT the detector/collapse, and also for the reason why it is easy to think that there is "no interaction" taking place, since we get our original "unchanged" frequency at the detector. The Berry phase proves that this is "illusion/perception". Arriving the same means arriving the same , it does NOT mean (absolutely) that NOTHING happened on the way. It just means that everything is balanced, and symmetrical; just what conservation of energy would have us expect.
Of the envelope.. no. Of each cycle.. yes.
Some links on OAM related papers:
Fourier relationship between angular position and optical orbital angular momentum
Quantized Rotation of Atoms From Photons with Orbital Angular Momentum
Optical parametric oscillation under injection of orbital angular momentum
Geometric Phase in Optics and Angular Momentum of Light
Then, finally, this all ties into C2's statement about our linear Physics.
Two other situations that call for the non-linear approach: the very short pulse that is caused by trying to create closer to monochromatic light, and dividing the wave into 2 equal parts (whether from a beta barium borate crystal, a DSE, or any "beam splitter").
The very short pulse concentrates the same energy into a much smaller time span. This density increase can "simulate" a higher energy interaction. We have talked about the optical Kerr effect many times on this thread.
This phenomenon is RESPONSIBLE for the laser beam having a finite length, and "spot" already. Forget about the different kinds of lasers; in general this is HOW they all operate.
COHERENT light DOES NOT SPREAD.
This is where the question (mainly directed to GE) about WHY does light spread comes in. He gave several ways in which this is measured (how), but not WHY.
Follow the Logic:
Free space is NOT a vacuum.
The Refractive Index of free space is IDEALIZED as ONE, but in reality, it only approaches 1.
This means, as RI is wavelength dependent, EVERY different frequency in a wave-packet is "traveling" at a different velocity, and SPREADING at different angles.
When you take a handful of different frequencies (including negative, "counter propagating") through this process, you get our expanding sphere. Velocity based dispersion is the answer.
When you take a handful of coherent frequencies, you can form a non-spreading packet. With quasi-monochromatic light, the beats between the "average" frequencies are ALWAYS LESS than the constituent oscillators. This has a "loss" effect, where these beats are absorbed by the background field. In the laser, this is called SELF-FOCUSING.
Self-focusing increases the energy density, until finally, SOMETHING gives. What is it? Matter. We have to change resonant levels, from "transparent" visible light to higher energy absorption, and then finally, to ionization, where we begin to deal with the plasma state. This is the "switch" that turns off the self-focusing of a semi-coherent beam.
Then the process changes to diffraction, and the beam can spread back towards its' original state. It gets a little more complex than I am describing, but the principle is there. Again, during diffraction, the higher frequencies are spread the furthest; this then causes the process to repeat again. Ionization starts at these "hot spots", and then the plasma, etc.
The real beauty in this symmetrical "dance" is that the filaments, which is now generally what the "energy quanta" are being called between these different states, conserve the "fundamental axis" that I've mentioned in the DSE. Because the filaments are "white light supercontiuum", they can take on a full octave (& 1/2 ?) bandwidth. Since it takes "more energy" to continue "off axis" spread than to maintain the straight path, the outermost filaments "give up". (there is also less impedance in the axis, due to the ionization path, and tunneling)
The effect is, that if something "blocks" a filament (pilot wave like), it will abandon that path in preference to the "clear path". This has obvious ramifications in the DSE. It is the filaments that create the paths through the slits; it is the filaments that take on frequencies that are not part of the original wave-packet, so that they may return to the fundamental path/axis.
Ultimately, the beam LENGTH is determined by this process. Filaments require having MORE energy being continually replenished by the beam. This means, in the end, the last diffraction cycle is what is absorbed/measured.
In any of the "which slit" postulates, it is the attempt at measuring a filament (that is symmetrically "off-phase" from the other filament path) that throws off the QM explanation. There is no need to answer invalid questions.
White-light filaments induced by diffraction effects
enough for now..
Regards,
T.Roc
Very interesting. I havent had much time to participate in the group discussions but I've been watching them.
I must say, this is without a dim shade of a doubt the finest most stimulating thread our forum has in my short time here spawned ..... ... keep up the momentum!
... keep up the momentum!
Hi TRoc,
Hmmmm, I'm having a problem with some of your proposals/theories. I think
that we need to discuss the potential problems after looking at the issues from
a different perspective. It could be that what you meant didn't translate into
how you said it, or how it was understood.
Are you talking about collimated laser light or multiple coherent photons travelling
as a wavefront?
Coherent light spreads, but since the photons in the wave are extremely coherent
and very densely packed, the energy maintains close rotational/spin symmetry
over a longer distance, but eventually it will spread and lose energy down to
individual separated photons that still maintain their relative phasing coherence.
The beam shape will take on a very elongated cone shape over extreme distance.
It is the nature of wave energy to spread as it tries to fill the environment
in which it propagates by equally distributing its energy enroute. As space
"expands" over time and distance, energy expands with it.
As an example, the Voyager spacecraft had transmitters that developed
x watts of power output with a very strong signal, but the farther that they
travel from earth the weaker the signal gets with distance. The signal is very
coherent and directionalized, but there is a signal energy loss over distance.
We were not receiving the full output power that was being transmitted as
they left the solar system. It required very large antenna's to gather in
and focus the signal.
Radar waves are also extremely coherent, but they spread in lobes and there
is an energy drop off over distance. Even laser beams spread over distance,
and you can't get much more coherent than that. Look at the spot size on the
moon from a concentrated laser source, it spreads over a wide distance according
to distance.
The energy of single photons won't spread because they are self contained quanta
that maintain their own internal symmetry and wave dynamics.
Are you talking about collimated laser light or multiple coherent photons travelling
as a wavefront?
Coherent light spreads, but since the photons in the wave are extremely coherent
and very densely packed, the energy maintains close rotational/spin symmetry
over a longer distance, but eventually it will spread and lose energy down to
individual separated photons that still maintain their relative phasing coherence.
The beam shape will take on a very elongated cone shape over extreme distance.
It is the nature of wave energy to spread as it tries to fill the environment
in which it propagates by equally distributing its energy enroute. As space
"expands" over time and distance, energy expands with it.
As an example, the Voyager spacecraft had transmitters that developed
x watts of power output with a very strong signal, but the farther that they
travel from earth the weaker the signal gets with distance. The signal is very
coherent and directionalized, but there is a signal energy loss over distance.
We were not receiving the full output power that was being transmitted as
they left the solar system. It required very large antenna's to gather in
and focus the signal.
Radar waves are also extremely coherent, but they spread in lobes and there
is an energy drop off over distance. Even laser beams spread over distance,
and you can't get much more coherent than that. Look at the spot size on the
moon from a concentrated laser source, it spreads over a wide distance according
to distance.
The energy of single photons won't spread because they are self contained quanta
that maintain their own internal symmetry and wave dynamics.
When you take a handful of coherent frequencies, you can form a non-spreading packet. With quasi-monochromatic light, the beats between the "average" frequencies are ALWAYS LESS than the constituent oscillators. This has a "loss" effect, where these beats are absorbed by the background field. In the laser, this is called SELF-FOCUSING.
Self-focusing increases the energy density, until finally, SOMETHING gives. What is it? Matter. We have to change resonant levels, from "transparent" visible light to higher energy absorption, and then finally, to ionization, where we begin to deal with the plasma state. This is the "switch" that turns off the self-focusing of a semi-coherent beam.
Then the process changes to diffraction, and the beam can spread back towards its' original state. It gets a little more complex than I am describing, but the principle is there. Again, during diffraction, the higher frequencies are spread the furthest; this then causes the process to repeat again. Ionization starts at these "hot spots", and then the plasma, etc.
The plasma state of matter is the quasi-ionic state where there is excess energy
within an energy "system", and the energy symmetry of the atomic structure
changes according to electron dissociation and recombination between atoms
in close proximity. Basically, it is an electron "charge" transfer mechanism
where there are ions and neutral species in the low density energtic "cloud".
It takes very high and continuous levels of resonant energy transfer, to initiate
and sustain a plasma where electrons are being stripped and hopping from atom
to ion. The ambient energy density and gas density conditions must be just right
to enable and maintain the process.
There is an energy gradient that generates plasma conditions around a star
(powered by the solar wind and the star's electric field) that fades to the "ground"
level of space (zero point energy) at some extreme distance from the star,
depending upon its energy output.
I asked a rhetorical question in an earlier post about the gases that make up
the interstellar "vacuum" which are mainly H, H2, and He but which are widely
distributed. They will only respond to frequencies that match the resonance
of their specific dipole "moment". Those atoms will be tranparent to most visible
photon frequencies that have a lower frequency than the atomic dipoles.
Yes, I realize that there are other elemental gases in the vacuum that may
have some interaction, but as has been pointed out previously, there is no obvious
distortion or secondary photon emission detected enroute, except around nebulas
or galaxies with high gas concentrations and high ambient energy to cause
"localized" ionization to occur.
Comments? Different perspectives?
LL
Hmmmm, I'm having a problem with some of your proposals/theories. I think
that we need to discuss the potential problems after looking at the issues from
a different perspective. It could be that what you meant didn't translate into
how you said it, or how it was understood.
QUOTE
COHERENT light DOES NOT SPREAD.
Are you talking about collimated laser light or multiple coherent photons travelling
as a wavefront?
Coherent light spreads, but since the photons in the wave are extremely coherent
and very densely packed, the energy maintains close rotational/spin symmetry
over a longer distance, but eventually it will spread and lose energy down to
individual separated photons that still maintain their relative phasing coherence.
The beam shape will take on a very elongated cone shape over extreme distance.
It is the nature of wave energy to spread as it tries to fill the environment
in which it propagates by equally distributing its energy enroute. As space
"expands" over time and distance, energy expands with it.
As an example, the Voyager spacecraft had transmitters that developed
x watts of power output with a very strong signal, but the farther that they
travel from earth the weaker the signal gets with distance. The signal is very
coherent and directionalized, but there is a signal energy loss over distance.
We were not receiving the full output power that was being transmitted as
they left the solar system. It required very large antenna's to gather in
and focus the signal.
Radar waves are also extremely coherent, but they spread in lobes and there
is an energy drop off over distance. Even laser beams spread over distance,
and you can't get much more coherent than that. Look at the spot size on the
moon from a concentrated laser source, it spreads over a wide distance according
to distance.
The energy of single photons won't spread because they are self contained quanta
that maintain their own internal symmetry and wave dynamics.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| COHERENT light DOES NOT SPREAD. |
Are you talking about collimated laser light or multiple coherent photons travelling
as a wavefront?
Coherent light spreads, but since the photons in the wave are extremely coherent
and very densely packed, the energy maintains close rotational/spin symmetry
over a longer distance, but eventually it will spread and lose energy down to
individual separated photons that still maintain their relative phasing coherence.
The beam shape will take on a very elongated cone shape over extreme distance.
It is the nature of wave energy to spread as it tries to fill the environment
in which it propagates by equally distributing its energy enroute. As space
"expands" over time and distance, energy expands with it.
As an example, the Voyager spacecraft had transmitters that developed
x watts of power output with a very strong signal, but the farther that they
travel from earth the weaker the signal gets with distance. The signal is very
coherent and directionalized, but there is a signal energy loss over distance.
We were not receiving the full output power that was being transmitted as
they left the solar system. It required very large antenna's to gather in
and focus the signal.
Radar waves are also extremely coherent, but they spread in lobes and there
is an energy drop off over distance. Even laser beams spread over distance,
and you can't get much more coherent than that. Look at the spot size on the
moon from a concentrated laser source, it spreads over a wide distance according
to distance.
The energy of single photons won't spread because they are self contained quanta
that maintain their own internal symmetry and wave dynamics.
When you take a handful of coherent frequencies, you can form a non-spreading packet. With quasi-monochromatic light, the beats between the "average" frequencies are ALWAYS LESS than the constituent oscillators. This has a "loss" effect, where these beats are absorbed by the background field. In the laser, this is called SELF-FOCUSING.
Self-focusing increases the energy density, until finally, SOMETHING gives. What is it? Matter. We have to change resonant levels, from "transparent" visible light to higher energy absorption, and then finally, to ionization, where we begin to deal with the plasma state. This is the "switch" that turns off the self-focusing of a semi-coherent beam.
Then the process changes to diffraction, and the beam can spread back towards its' original state. It gets a little more complex than I am describing, but the principle is there. Again, during diffraction, the higher frequencies are spread the furthest; this then causes the process to repeat again. Ionization starts at these "hot spots", and then the plasma, etc.
The plasma state of matter is the quasi-ionic state where there is excess energy
within an energy "system", and the energy symmetry of the atomic structure
changes according to electron dissociation and recombination between atoms
in close proximity. Basically, it is an electron "charge" transfer mechanism
where there are ions and neutral species in the low density energtic "cloud".
It takes very high and continuous levels of resonant energy transfer, to initiate
and sustain a plasma where electrons are being stripped and hopping from atom
to ion. The ambient energy density and gas density conditions must be just right
to enable and maintain the process.
There is an energy gradient that generates plasma conditions around a star
(powered by the solar wind and the star's electric field) that fades to the "ground"
level of space (zero point energy) at some extreme distance from the star,
depending upon its energy output.
I asked a rhetorical question in an earlier post about the gases that make up
the interstellar "vacuum" which are mainly H, H2, and He but which are widely
distributed. They will only respond to frequencies that match the resonance
of their specific dipole "moment". Those atoms will be tranparent to most visible
photon frequencies that have a lower frequency than the atomic dipoles.
Yes, I realize that there are other elemental gases in the vacuum that may
have some interaction, but as has been pointed out previously, there is no obvious
distortion or secondary photon emission detected enroute, except around nebulas
or galaxies with high gas concentrations and high ambient energy to cause
"localized" ionization to occur.
Comments? Different perspectives?
LL
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, fivedoughnut and anyone else who wants to put 5 cents worth in here,
I see where fivedoughnut is having a wonderful time here... Good to hear.
I see where fivedoughnut is having a wonderful time here... Good to hear.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
All bosons exhibit 1/2 spin. The specific energy associated with each type of boson, of specific frequency, has a different time function for the rotation/spin according to the distance measured for it to cycle/rotate fully between two points. This is measured as frequency which is a complete rotational cycle from a
reference "ground" point to a high energy point, and back to the "ground" point in
a fixed amount of time. This represents the time and distance it takes to transition
across a difference of potential between energy shells/levels.
reference "ground" point to a high energy point, and back to the "ground" point in
a fixed amount of time. This represents the time and distance it takes to transition
across a difference of potential between energy shells/levels.
Firstly... a purely technical point... Bosons have integer spin not half integer spin. Fermions have 1/2 integer spin. While spin of atomic particles has many attributes of the spin of a child's top it most certainly is not the spin of a child's top. This spin is of a kind that exhibits a left hand and a right hand polarized wave simultaneously. This can be shown very easily with a circular polarizer and a plane polarizer. A plane polarizer will halve the intensity of a beam of monochromatic light and if you follow it with a left or a right circular polarizer this operation will only halve the intensity again. The implication is that plane polarized waves of light contain both left handed circularly polarized waves and right handed circularly polarized waves together, these two superimposed create a plane polarized beam of light. Since the polarizer acts on single photons one at a time each photon have both these directions of spin simultaneously when it is plane polarized.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...50&#entry173065
Consider the spin circularly polarized light (left or right hand polarized it does not matter each photon carrying an integer of spin) approaching a isospin fermion particle from any direction... The integer spin photon will polarize the half integer isospin particle into the opposite direction converting a spin 1/2 particle to a spin -1/2 particle. In the case of "free electrons" with arbitrary isospin confined to a layer all having arbitrary linear velocities and no nett current, this operation will force the electrons (because they are charged) into a polarized electric current. The electric current is now moving in all the same direction because the movement of the electron is linked to isospin as we have previously discussed. . What we now have is the thermal electric current moving in one direction rather than in every direction simply by shining a circularly polarized light on it. The photons have not changed the energy of the system at all by being absorbed (in this case) but the organizing influence of spin has directed the electrons into synchronized motion related to the thermal energy of the original electrons but now all working together... A kind of Maxwell's Daemon.
A New Source of Spin Control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isospin
The next issue to discuss is the facts concerning Virtual Particles... In the literature you will find as many people saying that virtual particles are a "fiction" created by perturbative analysis and others will say the particles are as real as you and me... I have spoken at length about these entities recently and you already are aware of my belief that they are as ral as any particle can be but there is a dependency on the originating particles for their existence. If you can contrive to arrange things correctly you can "pull" a real particle from the Dirac Sea that was formerly a virtual particle. In physics it is possible to have a reflection in a mirror of a "real butterfly" and you can "pull" this copy into our Universe as another "real butterfly" as long as you never allow the originating butterfly to "touch". You can "keep" the second live butterfly if you exchange an equivalent amount of matter to exactly balance the books regarding the total matter in the system. Iron atom for iron atom, hydrogen atom for hydrogen atom etc... I do not expect you to believe this but I think you can see what I mean here.
Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical book keeping device for quantum mechanics?
I have already discussed Kondo Phantoms and I am sure you can read up on Faddeev-Popov ghosts which can break all the rules regarding CPT-Lorentz Symmetry.
Spin-statistics theorem
.. This is most interesting ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
Cheers
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...50&#entry173065
Consider the spin circularly polarized light (left or right hand polarized it does not matter each photon carrying an integer of spin) approaching a isospin fermion particle from any direction... The integer spin photon will polarize the half integer isospin particle into the opposite direction converting a spin 1/2 particle to a spin -1/2 particle. In the case of "free electrons" with arbitrary isospin confined to a layer all having arbitrary linear velocities and no nett current, this operation will force the electrons (because they are charged) into a polarized electric current. The electric current is now moving in all the same direction because the movement of the electron is linked to isospin as we have previously discussed. . What we now have is the thermal electric current moving in one direction rather than in every direction simply by shining a circularly polarized light on it. The photons have not changed the energy of the system at all by being absorbed (in this case) but the organizing influence of spin has directed the electrons into synchronized motion related to the thermal energy of the original electrons but now all working together... A kind of Maxwell's Daemon.
A New Source of Spin Control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isospin
The next issue to discuss is the facts concerning Virtual Particles... In the literature you will find as many people saying that virtual particles are a "fiction" created by perturbative analysis and others will say the particles are as real as you and me... I have spoken at length about these entities recently and you already are aware of my belief that they are as ral as any particle can be but there is a dependency on the originating particles for their existence. If you can contrive to arrange things correctly you can "pull" a real particle from the Dirac Sea that was formerly a virtual particle. In physics it is possible to have a reflection in a mirror of a "real butterfly" and you can "pull" this copy into our Universe as another "real butterfly" as long as you never allow the originating butterfly to "touch". You can "keep" the second live butterfly if you exchange an equivalent amount of matter to exactly balance the books regarding the total matter in the system. Iron atom for iron atom, hydrogen atom for hydrogen atom etc... I do not expect you to believe this but I think you can see what I mean here.
Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical book keeping device for quantum mechanics?
I have already discussed Kondo Phantoms and I am sure you can read up on Faddeev-Popov ghosts which can break all the rules regarding CPT-Lorentz Symmetry.
Spin-statistics theorem
.. This is most interesting ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
Cheers
Hi All,
I screwed up in my prior post...ELECTRON's are spin 1/2, boson's are spin 1....
I was describing the motion of an electron transitioning between shells...and had
boson's on my mind. Sorry for the confusion.
Edit: GE, I just read your post after I submitted this one....thanks for
explaining the details regarding spin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)
LL
I screwed up in my prior post...ELECTRON's are spin 1/2, boson's are spin 1....
I was describing the motion of an electron transitioning between shells...and had
boson's on my mind. Sorry for the confusion.
Edit: GE, I just read your post after I submitted this one....thanks for
explaining the details regarding spin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)
LL
..... Lamb shift / Spin ..... Imagine electron 'orbiting' proton @ near relativistic velocity, half the time it's moving away .... ditto towards a photon detector. Might this explain the spectral difference? .... only a thought.
Hi TRoc (et al)
Looking your 'White lights' link ( http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?...FTOKEN=82019546 ) it seems the effect requires a minimum peak power of about 1GigaWatt
delivered into a beam about 1mm across. Because non-linear effects can be shown to occur above a certain (huge) intensity we 
are invited to agree that the same effect can be caused by light intensities which are lower by (say) 20 orders of magnitude. Have I understood correctly?
Best wishes - C2.
Looking your 'White lights' link ( http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?...FTOKEN=82019546 ) it seems the effect requires a minimum peak power of about 1GigaWatt
delivered into a beam about 1mm across. Because non-linear effects can be shown to occur above a certain (huge) intensity we are invited to agree that the same effect can be caused by light intensities which are lower by (say) 20 orders of magnitude. Have I understood correctly?Best wishes - C2.
Hi TRoc, GE, C2, JanRinze, Wulf, Montec, et al,
This is a very interesting read on Zero Point Energy and General Relativity.
It gives some credibility to TRoc's contention of a refractive index change
in the vacuum of space according to its energy density/content. It also leans
toward my proposal for the mechanism that causes gravity.
GENERAL RELATIVITY AND THE ZERO POINT ENERGY
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/BS-GR.pdf
Thanks to Wulf! I pulled this from one of your previous posts on another board.
LL
This is a very interesting read on Zero Point Energy and General Relativity.
It gives some credibility to TRoc's contention of a refractive index change
in the vacuum of space according to its energy density/content. It also leans
toward my proposal for the mechanism that causes gravity.
GENERAL RELATIVITY AND THE ZERO POINT ENERGY
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/BS-GR.pdf
Thanks to Wulf! I pulled this from one of your previous posts on another board.
LL
Hi fivedoughnut, Laserlight, TRoc,
A few quick points before I head off to bed...
A few quick points before I head off to bed...
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+)
..... Lamb shift / Spin ..... Imagine electron 'orbiting' proton @ near relativistic velocity, half the time it's moving away .... ditto towards a photon detector. Might this explain the spectral difference? .... only a thought.
The actual "speed" of an electron around a nucleus is only about 2/100C. This means that while there are some relativistic effects it is not "pushing up against the wall". This does not mean that the relativistic effects on an electron are insignificant since there are those "de Broglie Waves" at low velocity. Here is the electron "wave" around a nucleus at approximately the Bohr Radius... Color represents phase...
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
This is a very interesting read on Zero Point Energy and General Relativity. It gives some credibility to TRoc's contention of a refractive index change
in the vacuum of space according to its energy density/content. It also leans toward my proposal for the mechanism that causes gravity.
in the vacuum of space according to its energy density/content. It also leans toward my proposal for the mechanism that causes gravity.
I think that it is possible that we have already seen a step toward understanding "gravity" with control of mass in solitons...
Dispersion Management for Matter Waves
If you control mass you have control of "gravity". "Gravity" is a pseudo-force. The wave packet spreading is the key to mass.
Dispersion Management for Matter Waves
If you control mass you have control of "gravity". "Gravity" is a pseudo-force. The wave packet spreading is the key to mass.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
COHERENT light DOES NOT SPREAD.
Coherent light will spread, I have seen it on my desk.Coherence has little to do with spreading it is to do with source phase synchronization. The spreading is a function of the transverse propagation modes and the final aperture of the source.
Wikipedia: Transverse mode of a beam of electromagnetic radiation
As I have said ... you are effectively looking into a single photon's internal interference pattern with these figures. One photon does this... all will do this... It can be improved using an appropriate spatial filter in many "poor" cases.
The other factor is the optics involved in converging or diverging the light is also very important...
... Click to enlarge... Hope this helps.
Cheers
Wikipedia: Transverse mode of a beam of electromagnetic radiation
As I have said ... you are effectively looking into a single photon's internal interference pattern with these figures. One photon does this... all will do this... It can be improved using an appropriate spatial filter in many "poor" cases.
The other factor is the optics involved in converging or diverging the light is also very important...
... Click to enlarge... Hope this helps.
Cheers
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 16 2007, 08:02 AM)
Hi TRoc, GE, C2, JanRinze, Wulf, Montec, et al,
This is a very interesting read on Zero Point Energy and General Relativity.
It gives some credibility to TRoc's contention of a refractive index change
in the vacuum of space according to its energy density/content. It also leans
toward my proposal for the mechanism that causes gravity.
GENERAL RELATIVITY AND THE ZERO POINT ENERGY
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/BS-GR.pdf
Thanks to Wulf! I pulled this from one of your previous posts on another board.
LL
I'm really glad you dug that up. I stumbled across that after a long night of researching and ended up falling asleep and forgetting about it before I read much more than the abstract.
It's mind blowing how well that paper describes a lot of my current ideas.
I've been thinking recently about the relation between time and gravity, and it occured to me that we might be looking for the wrong thing. If we switch perspectives and start thinking of time dilation as the cause of gravity rather than the effect we end up with a possible way to bridge the gap from General Relativity to Quantum Mechanics.
The interpretation of time that I am currently toying with is that it represents a rate of flow. Consider the Zero Point Energy field as a kind of quantum pump that acts as a fundamental driving force. Now having more matter in one place would require more of our quantum fuel. This resource starvation would lead to the passage of time slowing relative to less cluttered space. This time dilation would result in a gravitational effect in spacetime.
What I really like about this is that it simplifies thinking about concepts like strings, where thinking in terms of flow is intuitive.
*Note: This is a recent idea and I'm still working out the kinks. The above example was intended to describe the concept. The paper Laserlight linked is a very good read, and very close to this line of thinking.
This is a very interesting read on Zero Point Energy and General Relativity.
It gives some credibility to TRoc's contention of a refractive index change
in the vacuum of space according to its energy density/content. It also leans
toward my proposal for the mechanism that causes gravity.
GENERAL RELATIVITY AND THE ZERO POINT ENERGY
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/BS-GR.pdf
Thanks to Wulf! I pulled this from one of your previous posts on another board.
LL
I'm really glad you dug that up. I stumbled across that after a long night of researching and ended up falling asleep and forgetting about it before I read much more than the abstract.
It's mind blowing how well that paper describes a lot of my current ideas.
I've been thinking recently about the relation between time and gravity, and it occured to me that we might be looking for the wrong thing. If we switch perspectives and start thinking of time dilation as the cause of gravity rather than the effect we end up with a possible way to bridge the gap from General Relativity to Quantum Mechanics.
The interpretation of time that I am currently toying with is that it represents a rate of flow. Consider the Zero Point Energy field as a kind of quantum pump that acts as a fundamental driving force. Now having more matter in one place would require more of our quantum fuel. This resource starvation would lead to the passage of time slowing relative to less cluttered space. This time dilation would result in a gravitational effect in spacetime.
What I really like about this is that it simplifies thinking about concepts like strings, where thinking in terms of flow is intuitive.
*Note: This is a recent idea and I'm still working out the kinks. The above example was intended to describe the concept. The paper Laserlight linked is a very good read, and very close to this line of thinking.
Hi Wulf and All,
We have similar conceptualizations on this. IF time is due to a change of energy
state, or changing energy density in a closed system, then the displacement of
energy, or energy density thru space/vacuum, certainty fit this description.
The action-reaction paradigm should hold for energy coursing thru and
displacing space as it propagates.
There is always turbulence/drag caused when matter is displaced and it seems
conceivable that energy propagating thru spacetime should have a similar
effect, since EM energy (photons) is changing the local energy density, which
changes its refractive index and displaces relative spacetime as it propagates thru
it.
Light is propagating thru vacuum and changing its relative energy density, and
refractive index, along an energy "gradient" that radiates outward from a source
following the ISL.
Theoretically, it should exhibit a type of "quantum backwash" or "quantum drag"
from the displacement of spacetime as it passes. IMO, this "quantum backwash"
corresponds to a kind of inverse energy reaction, which could account for
gravity.
Another post on the topic.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=211928
LL
QUOTE
The interpretation of time that I am currently toying with is that it represents a rate of flow. Consider the Zero Point Energy field as a kind of quantum pump that acts as a fundamental driving force. Now having more matter in one place would require more of our quantum fuel. This resource starvation would lead to the passage of time slowing relative to less cluttered space. This time dilation would result in a gravitational effect in spacetime.
We have similar conceptualizations on this. IF time is due to a change of energy
state, or changing energy density in a closed system, then the displacement of
energy, or energy density thru space/vacuum, certainty fit this description.
The action-reaction paradigm should hold for energy coursing thru and
displacing space as it propagates.
There is always turbulence/drag caused when matter is displaced and it seems
conceivable that energy propagating thru spacetime should have a similar
effect, since EM energy (photons) is changing the local energy density, which
changes its refractive index and displaces relative spacetime as it propagates thru
it.
Light is propagating thru vacuum and changing its relative energy density, and
refractive index, along an energy "gradient" that radiates outward from a source
following the ISL.
Theoretically, it should exhibit a type of "quantum backwash" or "quantum drag"
from the displacement of spacetime as it passes. IMO, this "quantum backwash"
corresponds to a kind of inverse energy reaction, which could account for
gravity.
Another post on the topic.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=211928
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 16 2007, 12:12 PM)
Hi Wulf and All,
We have similar conceptualizations on this. IF time is due to a change of energy
state, or changing energy density in a closed system, then the displacement of
energy or energy density thru space/vacuum certainty fit this description.
The action-reaction paradigm should hold for energy coursing thru and
displacing space as it propagates.
There is always turbulence/drag caused when matter is displaced and it seems
conceivable that energy propagating thru spacetime should have a similar
effect, since EM energy (photons) is changing the local energy density, which
changes its refractive index and displaces relative spacetime as it propagates thru
it.
Light is propagating thru vacuum and changing its relative density and refractive
index along an energy "gradient" that radiates outward from a source.
Theoretically, it should exhibit a type of "quantum backwash" or "quantum drag"
from the displacement of spacetime as it passes. IMO, this "quantum backwash"
corresponds to a kind of inverse energy of spacetime, which could account for
gravity.
Another post on the topic.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=211928
LL
I've also been thinking that matter might simply be structured vacuum, a knot or looping structure in the fabric of space. In this case the relativisitc slowing of time could be understood as this flow having to travel a winding path instead of a straight one.
So far I've been trying to keep my ideas grounded in existing theories. It is starting to look like a lot can be learned from simply looking at the physics from different angles. (Of course this is probably a lot easier to do in GR than QM).
We have similar conceptualizations on this. IF time is due to a change of energy
state, or changing energy density in a closed system, then the displacement of
energy or energy density thru space/vacuum certainty fit this description.
The action-reaction paradigm should hold for energy coursing thru and
displacing space as it propagates.
There is always turbulence/drag caused when matter is displaced and it seems
conceivable that energy propagating thru spacetime should have a similar
effect, since EM energy (photons) is changing the local energy density, which
changes its refractive index and displaces relative spacetime as it propagates thru
it.
Light is propagating thru vacuum and changing its relative density and refractive
index along an energy "gradient" that radiates outward from a source.
Theoretically, it should exhibit a type of "quantum backwash" or "quantum drag"
from the displacement of spacetime as it passes. IMO, this "quantum backwash"
corresponds to a kind of inverse energy of spacetime, which could account for
gravity.
Another post on the topic.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=211928
LL
I've also been thinking that matter might simply be structured vacuum, a knot or looping structure in the fabric of space. In this case the relativisitc slowing of time could be understood as this flow having to travel a winding path instead of a straight one.
So far I've been trying to keep my ideas grounded in existing theories. It is starting to look like a lot can be learned from simply looking at the physics from different angles. (Of course this is probably a lot easier to do in GR than QM).
Hi all,
EXCELLENT!! I appreciate the GREAT questions, and the effort put in to reading some of the links I posted.
I can see that I was a little too vague in a few areas. Too simple is not good.
Good Elf Posted on Today at 3:57 PM
Coherent light will spread, I have seen it on my desk.Coherence has little to do with spreading it is to do with source phase synchronization.
I try to be consistent in an overall basis, without taking the time (every time) to repeat some of the "basics" that I've already said. Not everyone remembers everything, and we also have newer people that haven't read my "history".
So, what I am saying "overall" here, is that TRUE monochromatic light packets will be perfectly in phase, with NO beats present. This is why I took so much time, early on in this thread, to make the point CLEAR, that we do NOT have this absolute quality in our lasers; it is a mathematical IDEAL. If we had absolute monochromatic lasers, they would not spread.
You have all heard my stance on "mixing" frequencies in harmonic ratios, starting with a fundamental number of 3+ oscillators. This produces "geometric stability" that varies from an isosceles triangle, to a right angled one, as well a "phase stability", as the sum of the beats serves to resonate with one of the oscillators.
In Physics: the soliton, and in Music: the (major) chord.
These are our examples of coherent vibrations NOT spreading. Both also have examples of packets that DO spread, as well.
Then, we get to the next "level" of coherence, where we have MANY oscillators, all within a small range of frequencies. From the "instantaneous", or envelope frequency, the variation in f will be on the order of <10%. If we are dealing with 7.72 nm IR light, then this amounts to a variation in f of about 3.83e+13 Hz.
In any medium with >1 RI, these different wavelengths will travel at different speeds. The thing to remember here, is that the beats are only real while the contributors are in a common interaction zone. This means that the "velocities" are not "real" outside of this area either. We still are following the group velocity = constant model, by allowing inverse symmetry to compensate for these dispersion relations of individual phase velocities.
Now, I'm going to try to tie this in with C2's question about intensity.
The first thing to remember, is that a change intensity will produce a change in the RI. You can see then, that this is a very dynamical process. The intensity of a semi-coherent "beam" (whether from a laser, or a slit/notch filter) CHANGES from the axis outwards, in 3D. This "shapes" the pulse, and BREAKS the symmetry of Boltzmans' equipartition of energy in Thermodynamics (critical to Planck's hypothesis), and puts it into the realm of his "fluctuation theory".
It is not a nicely balanced sine wave, ala Fourier. The center of the packet (geometrically) is NOT the center of the energy (based on f ), yet it is the most intense.
As I have said, defining "intensity" will be critical here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity
In physics, intensity is a measure of the time-averaged energy flux. To find the intensity, take the energy density (that is, the energy per unit volume) and multiply it by the velocity at which the energy is moving. The resulting vector has the units of power divided by area (i.e. watt/m²). It is possible to define the intensity of the water coming from a garden sprinkler, but intensity is used most frequently with waves (i.e. sound or light).
In physics, the word "intensity" is not synonymous with "strength", "amplitude", or "level", as it sometimes is in colloquial speech. For example, "the intensity of pressure" is meaningless, since the parameters of those variables do not match.
If a point source is radiating energy in three dimensions and there is no energy lost to the medium, then the intensity decreases in proportion to distance from the object squared. This is due to physics and geometry. Physically, conservation of energy applies. The consequence of this is that the net power coming from the source must be constant..
[parameters of those variables do not match = invalid question]
[also note that human perception is woven into this model already]
Hopefully, you can see how the amount of time that we are looking at has a direct effect on our "intensity" value, as well as differences in velocity, and wavelength. The sharper the peak of the "curve" (y axis > 0), the higher the intensity. Taking a very small amount of time, and putting "all" of the frequency in that interval creates extremely high intensity, even from a laser without high power. As the time interval approaches zero, the intensity approaches infinite.
When our beam of light hits the wall between the slits, it must traverse the distance to the slit, presumably, in one cycle, if indeed this is a cyclical process. This "traversing" is on the y axis, and does not eat up much "time" here. The rise in the peak, from its normal value, to the extra distance that the slit wall imposes (our slit separation parameter) cause an exponential rise in "intensity".
The paper I linked was based on the role that diffraction plays in this process. Because our different wavelengths are "separated" in space (angles), and time (velocity), we can end up with high frequency "spurs". The geometry that our varying RI takes (within a wave packet) is that of a lens. This focuses ANY beam. Focusing increases intensity, which increases our odds for superposition. Then we can get into multi-photon ionization, and "tunneling". This is what can create our "micro" plasma state in the absorber. With these extra free electrons, we get a lowered RI, and the shape of our pulse changes from lens to diverging lens, and our beam defocuses.
I'll remind everyone, that ALL of our Elements have absorption lines in the visible spectrum, as well as IR, and UV. Getting an resonant interaction with visible light is fairly automatic. Even "dust" (I forgot what element that is) has this property:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium
Our ground state resonances ALL (except sometimes alluminum) are 1/2 of the level at which electrons are "set free", and that level is 1/2 of the ionization level. We do NOT have to have a very large change in frequency to completely change the interaction of light and matter.
click for larger image
That's all I have time for now.
regards,
T.Roc
EXCELLENT!! I appreciate the GREAT questions, and the effort put in to reading some of the links I posted.
I can see that I was a little too vague in a few areas. Too simple is not good.
QUOTE
Laserlight Posted on Today at 1:27 AM
Are you talking about collimated laser light or multiple coherent photons traveling
as a wavefront?
Are you talking about collimated laser light or multiple coherent photons traveling
as a wavefront?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Laserlight Posted on Today at 1:27 AM Are you talking about collimated laser light or multiple coherent photons traveling as a wavefront? |
Good Elf Posted on Today at 3:57 PM
Coherent light will spread, I have seen it on my desk.Coherence has little to do with spreading it is to do with source phase synchronization.
I try to be consistent in an overall basis, without taking the time (every time) to repeat some of the "basics" that I've already said. Not everyone remembers everything, and we also have newer people that haven't read my "history".
So, what I am saying "overall" here, is that TRUE monochromatic light packets will be perfectly in phase, with NO beats present. This is why I took so much time, early on in this thread, to make the point CLEAR, that we do NOT have this absolute quality in our lasers; it is a mathematical IDEAL. If we had absolute monochromatic lasers, they would not spread.
You have all heard my stance on "mixing" frequencies in harmonic ratios, starting with a fundamental number of 3+ oscillators. This produces "geometric stability" that varies from an isosceles triangle, to a right angled one, as well a "phase stability", as the sum of the beats serves to resonate with one of the oscillators.
In Physics: the soliton, and in Music: the (major) chord.
These are our examples of coherent vibrations NOT spreading. Both also have examples of packets that DO spread, as well.
Then, we get to the next "level" of coherence, where we have MANY oscillators, all within a small range of frequencies. From the "instantaneous", or envelope frequency, the variation in f will be on the order of <10%. If we are dealing with 7.72 nm IR light, then this amounts to a variation in f of about 3.83e+13 Hz.
In any medium with >1 RI, these different wavelengths will travel at different speeds. The thing to remember here, is that the beats are only real while the contributors are in a common interaction zone. This means that the "velocities" are not "real" outside of this area either. We still are following the group velocity = constant model, by allowing inverse symmetry to compensate for these dispersion relations of individual phase velocities.
Now, I'm going to try to tie this in with C2's question about intensity.
The first thing to remember, is that a change intensity will produce a change in the RI. You can see then, that this is a very dynamical process. The intensity of a semi-coherent "beam" (whether from a laser, or a slit/notch filter) CHANGES from the axis outwards, in 3D. This "shapes" the pulse, and BREAKS the symmetry of Boltzmans' equipartition of energy in Thermodynamics (critical to Planck's hypothesis), and puts it into the realm of his "fluctuation theory".
It is not a nicely balanced sine wave, ala Fourier. The center of the packet (geometrically) is NOT the center of the energy (based on f ), yet it is the most intense.
As I have said, defining "intensity" will be critical here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometry
QUOTE
In optics, radiometry is the field that studies the measurement of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light. Note that light is also measured using the techniques of photometry, which deal with brightness as perceived by the human eye, rather than absolute power.
Radiometry is important in astronomy, especially radio astronomy, and is important for Earth remote sensing. The measurement techniques categorized as radiometry in optics are called photometry in some astronomical applications, contrary to the optics usage of the term.
Radiometry is important in astronomy, especially radio astronomy, and is important for Earth remote sensing. The measurement techniques categorized as radiometry in optics are called photometry in some astronomical applications, contrary to the optics usage of the term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In optics, radiometry is the field that studies the measurement of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light. Note that light is also measured using the techniques of photometry, which deal with brightness as perceived by the human eye, rather than absolute power. Radiometry is important in astronomy, especially radio astronomy, and is important for Earth remote sensing. The measurement techniques categorized as radiometry in optics are called photometry in some astronomical applications, contrary to the optics usage of the term. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity
In physics, intensity is a measure of the time-averaged energy flux. To find the intensity, take the energy density (that is, the energy per unit volume) and multiply it by the velocity at which the energy is moving. The resulting vector has the units of power divided by area (i.e. watt/m²). It is possible to define the intensity of the water coming from a garden sprinkler, but intensity is used most frequently with waves (i.e. sound or light).
In physics, the word "intensity" is not synonymous with "strength", "amplitude", or "level", as it sometimes is in colloquial speech. For example, "the intensity of pressure" is meaningless, since the parameters of those variables do not match.
If a point source is radiating energy in three dimensions and there is no energy lost to the medium, then the intensity decreases in proportion to distance from the object squared. This is due to physics and geometry. Physically, conservation of energy applies. The consequence of this is that the net power coming from the source must be constant..
[parameters of those variables do not match = invalid question]
[also note that human perception is woven into this model already]
Hopefully, you can see how the amount of time that we are looking at has a direct effect on our "intensity" value, as well as differences in velocity, and wavelength. The sharper the peak of the "curve" (y axis > 0), the higher the intensity. Taking a very small amount of time, and putting "all" of the frequency in that interval creates extremely high intensity, even from a laser without high power. As the time interval approaches zero, the intensity approaches infinite.
When our beam of light hits the wall between the slits, it must traverse the distance to the slit, presumably, in one cycle, if indeed this is a cyclical process. This "traversing" is on the y axis, and does not eat up much "time" here. The rise in the peak, from its normal value, to the extra distance that the slit wall imposes (our slit separation parameter) cause an exponential rise in "intensity".
The paper I linked was based on the role that diffraction plays in this process. Because our different wavelengths are "separated" in space (angles), and time (velocity), we can end up with high frequency "spurs". The geometry that our varying RI takes (within a wave packet) is that of a lens. This focuses ANY beam. Focusing increases intensity, which increases our odds for superposition. Then we can get into multi-photon ionization, and "tunneling". This is what can create our "micro" plasma state in the absorber. With these extra free electrons, we get a lowered RI, and the shape of our pulse changes from lens to diverging lens, and our beam defocuses.
I'll remind everyone, that ALL of our Elements have absorption lines in the visible spectrum, as well as IR, and UV. Getting an resonant interaction with visible light is fairly automatic. Even "dust" (I forgot what element that is) has this property:
QUOTE
The ultraviolet radiation emitted by hot stars can remove electrons from dust grains. The photon hits the dust grain and some of its energy is used in overcoming the potential energy barrier (due to the possible positive charge of the grain) to remove the electron from the grain. The remainder of the photon's energy heats the grain and gives the ejected electron kinetic energy.
Photoionization
When an electron is freed from an atom (typically from absorption of a UV photon) it carries kinetic energy away of the order: E_photon − E_ionization.
Photoionization
When an electron is freed from an atom (typically from absorption of a UV photon) it carries kinetic energy away of the order: E_photon − E_ionization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium
Our ground state resonances ALL (except sometimes alluminum) are 1/2 of the level at which electrons are "set free", and that level is 1/2 of the ionization level. We do NOT have to have a very large change in frequency to completely change the interaction of light and matter.
click for larger imageThat's all I have time for now.
regards,
T.Roc
Another paper describing the same concept.
http://www.calphysics.org/articles/gravity_arxiv.pdf
What's interesting here is that a photon would be traveling at the same rate that the wave is propagating. The photon will ride along with the field rather than pass through it, and thus become effectively timeless by avoiding the mechanism described above.
http://www.calphysics.org/articles/gravity_arxiv.pdf
QUOTE
If one assumes, as in SED, that the zero-point radiation field carries energy and momentum in the usual
way, and if that radiation interacts with the particles comprising matter in the usual way, it can be shown
that a law of inertia can be derived for matter comprised of electromagnetically interacting particles that
are a priori devoid of any property of mass. In other words, the f = ma law of mechanics – as well as
its relativistic counterpart – can be traced back not to the existence in matter of mass (either innate or due
to a Higgs mechanism), but to a purely electromagnetic effect (and possibly analogous contributions from
other vacuum fields). It can be shown that the mass-like properties of matter reflect the energy-momentum
inherent in the quantum vacuum radiation field.We call this the quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis.
There are additional consequences that make this approach of assuming real interactions between the
electromagnetic quantum vacuum and matter appear promising. It can be shown that the weak principle of
equivalence – the equality of inertial and gravitational mass1 – naturally follows. In the quantum vacuum
inertia hypothesis, inertial and gravitational mass are not merely equal, they prove to be the identical thing.
Inertial mass arises upon acceleration through the electromagnetic quantum vacuum, whereas gravitational
mass – as manifest in weight – results from what may in a limited sense be viewed as acceleration of
the electromagnetic quantum vacuum past a fixed object. The latter case occurs when an object is held
fixed in a gravitational field and the quantum vacuum radiation associated with the freely-falling frame
instantaneously comoving with the object follows curved geodesics as prescribed by general relativity.
way, and if that radiation interacts with the particles comprising matter in the usual way, it can be shown
that a law of inertia can be derived for matter comprised of electromagnetically interacting particles that
are a priori devoid of any property of mass. In other words, the f = ma law of mechanics – as well as
its relativistic counterpart – can be traced back not to the existence in matter of mass (either innate or due
to a Higgs mechanism), but to a purely electromagnetic effect (and possibly analogous contributions from
other vacuum fields). It can be shown that the mass-like properties of matter reflect the energy-momentum
inherent in the quantum vacuum radiation field.We call this the quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis.
There are additional consequences that make this approach of assuming real interactions between the
electromagnetic quantum vacuum and matter appear promising. It can be shown that the weak principle of
equivalence – the equality of inertial and gravitational mass1 – naturally follows. In the quantum vacuum
inertia hypothesis, inertial and gravitational mass are not merely equal, they prove to be the identical thing.
Inertial mass arises upon acceleration through the electromagnetic quantum vacuum, whereas gravitational
mass – as manifest in weight – results from what may in a limited sense be viewed as acceleration of
the electromagnetic quantum vacuum past a fixed object. The latter case occurs when an object is held
fixed in a gravitational field and the quantum vacuum radiation associated with the freely-falling frame
instantaneously comoving with the object follows curved geodesics as prescribed by general relativity.
What's interesting here is that a photon would be traveling at the same rate that the wave is propagating. The photon will ride along with the field rather than pass through it, and thus become effectively timeless by avoiding the mechanism described above.
Hi TRoc, Laserlight, janrinze, "THEY", Jal, Confused2, Zephir, yquantum, Montec, Neil Farbstein, Why Not?, Mate et al,
Please do not construe this as personal criticism. Your theory of mixing meeds substantiation through experiment.
Please do not construe this as personal criticism. Your theory of mixing meeds substantiation through experiment.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
You have all heard my stance on "mixing" frequencies in harmonic ratios, starting with a fundamental number of 3+ oscillators. This produces "geometric stability" that varies from an isosceles triangle, to a right angled one, as well a "phase stability", as the sum of the beats serves to resonate with one of the oscillators.
Yes... but no experimental proof that this psychological interpretation of frequency has a basis in experiment. Human eyes have three receptors that broadly accept three broad ranges of color but this is just a quirk of our optical system and it is not related to quantum physics and the nature of photons frequency. Human color perception has "almost" nothing intrinsically to do with exact frequency. It is just like color photography (matched to human perception of color) where we have three dye filters which "code" bands of similar color to a single dye in the final image. It "looks good" but it is not even a completely faithful reproduction of what is seen by our eyes. We have spectrographic sensors that can discriminate between similar optical frequencies that "all look the same to our eyes". It is important that color mixing is not considered as the basic optical process in nature but is a psychological process taking place in the eye and brain.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
It is not a nicely balanced sine wave, ala Fourier. The center of the packet (geometrically) is NOT the center of the energy (based on f ), yet it is the most intense.
As I have said, defining "intensity" will be critical here.
As I have said, defining "intensity" will be critical here.
Nicely "balanced sine waves" or not, once again relying on your "aesthetic senses" rather than trying to view this event the way the Universe will see it, the sync pulse is not to be analyzed in this simplistic piecemeal way. The wave packet does indeed have a fundamental frequency which defines the packet size and "color", and the additional frequencies truncates the packet. The lower sideband of frequencies in atomic quanta are re-adsorbed such that only the higher frequencies are propagated as the upper sideband. The cardinal rule is "The Photon packet is to be absorbed as a whole and not bits and pieces at a time." No theory here... this is an experimental fact. You cannot "choose" to just absorb the high frequency Fourier components in a quantum packet and ignore the fundamental frequency. Intensity is NOT related to the separate internal packet frequency components but on whole of packet energy considerations. This is a theme being championed all the way through this thread, the concept that photons are not "solid" objects. This "Solid" means in the sense that somehow photons can change with the passage of time or during the propagation phase. They are indeed "solid" in the sense that they must be absorbed whole. It is not a good thing to prefer to rely on "intuition" to evaluate this property. I have already discussed why these packets are so rugged and why it is important not to "observe them in transit". Look to the science and not to the "religion" in this matter, ample experiments exist that show (for the majority of all photon interactions) they are absorbed whole. If any packets are not absorbed whole then there are special conditions and are the exception and not the rule.
Packet "dimensions" define the way packets are absorbed in resonant systems... additional non-geometry altering Quanta such as Spin and Orbital Angular Momentum do not depend on absorber geometry to be carried into their target sinks and they induce effects only after absorption. I refer to that early spintronic article I referred to here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=226276
A new source of spin control.
This obsession with a "wishy washy" photon whose center is a "low intensity" with no structure is like looking at Hurricane Katrina as the quiet spot in it's center saying that it holds little or no energy while "absorbing" the impact of that "long wavelength distributed packet" is devastating in its influence. The packet does have a "still spot in its center" and it is influenced/susceptible by/to the geometry of space through Berry Phase (and Cartan Transport in curved space) and there are factors as I have indicated previously that result in forces which are due to rotation on the light cone wall...
This is the function that indicates the length of the circumference of a rotating disk and the way in which the outer surface of the packet contracts relative to the radius modifying the Anti-de Sitter Space. As V -> C The external R -> 0. I have discussed this previously. This is due to time dilation and the way to analyze curved frames of reference in special relativity. Here is "elapsed time" due to the Sagnac Effect on the "rim" of rotational frames of reference...
All this I have discussed previously. Since we are discussing light here we can choose the extremum of these results to derive all the effects you wish. But these effects are packeted and held in stasis on the edge of the light cone.
The Curvature of the Relativistic Rotating Disk: Brian Keating
This is the most illuminating paper (Keating) and the most credible since it is simple to understand. It clears up the Eherenfest Paradox without any artificiality.
"Space geometry of rotating platforms: an operational approach:" Guido Rizzi and Matteo Luca Ruggiero*
I repeat the very simple statement that single packets of light cannot be divided up into its frequency components... They may be optically dispersed but that is a different matter. Optically dispersed packets can cover vast regions of space (one way to look at it) ... This does not mean, as some have suggested, that the energy of the packet is also dispersed since the photon is absorbed as a whole ... complete in all details right down to the last frequency which defined its shape through Fourier spatial and temporal limiting of the packet. If it were not so we could never see the stars especially those that are 13 Billion Light Years away from us. After that it is up to the system to deal with it as it chooses through energy transfers to the system as either momentum, kinetic or potential energy resulting in possible work and a re-emission of a new quanta.
Packet "dimensions" define the way packets are absorbed in resonant systems... additional non-geometry altering Quanta such as Spin and Orbital Angular Momentum do not depend on absorber geometry to be carried into their target sinks and they induce effects only after absorption. I refer to that early spintronic article I referred to here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=226276
A new source of spin control.
This obsession with a "wishy washy" photon whose center is a "low intensity" with no structure is like looking at Hurricane Katrina as the quiet spot in it's center saying that it holds little or no energy while "absorbing" the impact of that "long wavelength distributed packet" is devastating in its influence. The packet does have a "still spot in its center" and it is influenced/susceptible by/to the geometry of space through Berry Phase (and Cartan Transport in curved space) and there are factors as I have indicated previously that result in forces which are due to rotation on the light cone wall...
This is the function that indicates the length of the circumference of a rotating disk and the way in which the outer surface of the packet contracts relative to the radius modifying the Anti-de Sitter Space. As V -> C The external R -> 0. I have discussed this previously. This is due to time dilation and the way to analyze curved frames of reference in special relativity. Here is "elapsed time" due to the Sagnac Effect on the "rim" of rotational frames of reference...
All this I have discussed previously. Since we are discussing light here we can choose the extremum of these results to derive all the effects you wish. But these effects are packeted and held in stasis on the edge of the light cone.
The Curvature of the Relativistic Rotating Disk: Brian Keating
This is the most illuminating paper (Keating) and the most credible since it is simple to understand. It clears up the Eherenfest Paradox without any artificiality.
"Space geometry of rotating platforms: an operational approach:" Guido Rizzi and Matteo Luca Ruggiero*
I repeat the very simple statement that single packets of light cannot be divided up into its frequency components... They may be optically dispersed but that is a different matter. Optically dispersed packets can cover vast regions of space (one way to look at it) ... This does not mean, as some have suggested, that the energy of the packet is also dispersed since the photon is absorbed as a whole ... complete in all details right down to the last frequency which defined its shape through Fourier spatial and temporal limiting of the packet. If it were not so we could never see the stars especially those that are 13 Billion Light Years away from us. After that it is up to the system to deal with it as it chooses through energy transfers to the system as either momentum, kinetic or potential energy resulting in possible work and a re-emission of a new quanta.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
[also note that human perception is woven into this model already]
Hopefully, you can see how the amount of time that we are looking at has a direct effect on our "intensity" value, as well as differences in velocity, and wavelength. The sharper the peak of the "curve" (y axis > 0), the higher the intensity. Taking a very small amount of time, and putting "all" of the frequency in that interval creates extremely high intensity, even from a laser without high power. As the time interval approaches zero, the intensity approaches infinite.
Hopefully, you can see how the amount of time that we are looking at has a direct effect on our "intensity" value, as well as differences in velocity, and wavelength. The sharper the peak of the "curve" (y axis > 0), the higher the intensity. Taking a very small amount of time, and putting "all" of the frequency in that interval creates extremely high intensity, even from a laser without high power. As the time interval approaches zero, the intensity approaches infinite.
Intensity to human vision and psychology depends on how our optical sensors react to the various frequencies ... for instance most frequencies have "no intensity" simply because our sensor system does not react to their "color". Our optical sensors (eyes) react mostly to the green end of the spectrum so this looks "most intense" to us. This does not relate only to power but to spectral sensitivity.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
I'll remind everyone, that ALL of our Elements have absorption lines in the visible spectrum, as well as IR, and UV. Getting an resonant interaction with visible light is fairly automatic. Even "dust" (I forgot what element that is) has this property:
"Dust" are very small rocks... these absorb photons in the visible band of light. These photons never reach earth... except as IR secondary radiation. The rest of the interstellar medium is composed of "gas"... mostly hydrogen and helium. Most of which over the course of long periods of time in space and "isolation" end up in the "dark state"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_state
In respect to Laserlight's query regarding Gravity... this ties to curvature quite neatly in experiments...
This is a very interesting read on Zero Point Energy and General Relativity. It gives some credibility to TRoc's contention of a refractive index change
in the vacuum of space according to its energy density/content. It also leans toward my proposal for the mechanism that causes gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_state
In respect to Laserlight's query regarding Gravity... this ties to curvature quite neatly in experiments...
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
This is a very interesting read on Zero Point Energy and General Relativity. It gives some credibility to TRoc's contention of a refractive index change
in the vacuum of space according to its energy density/content. It also leans toward my proposal for the mechanism that causes gravity.
I think that it is possible that we have already seen a step toward understanding "gravity" with control of mass in solitons...
Dispersion Management for Matter Waves
If you control mass you have control of "gravity". "Gravity" is a pseudo-force. The wave packet spreading is the key to mass.
Dispersion Management for Matter Waves
If you control mass you have control of "gravity". "Gravity" is a pseudo-force. The wave packet spreading is the key to mass.
This web page and the associated "experimental" paper indicates the way in which this topic will develop in the long term future. A soliton field may be used to encapsulate positively curved "matter" with a negative effective mass. The two would "vectorially" cancel leading to inertialess Cartan Transport along a spacetime geodesic of least action. As we already know "mass" is frequency independent and is "otherwise a scalar".
Once again I hope this helps and it is not taken as criticism but as helpful advice.
Cheers
Once again I hope this helps and it is not taken as criticism but as helpful advice.
Cheers
Hi All,
This is good discussion! We are analyzing proposals, integrating new
information and incorporating different perspectives, which benefits us all.
Hopefully, it will help in our ongoing analysis of the DSE.
If we make theoretical proposals then we must be willing to accept the
hard questions, opposing viewpoints, and constructive criticisms of our peers.
It's not politics, it's not an agenda, it is a search for the truth.
LL
This is good discussion! We are analyzing proposals, integrating new
information and incorporating different perspectives, which benefits us all.
Hopefully, it will help in our ongoing analysis of the DSE.
If we make theoretical proposals then we must be willing to accept the
hard questions, opposing viewpoints, and constructive criticisms of our peers.
It's not politics, it's not an agenda, it is a search for the truth.
LL
Hi Laserlight, TRoc, fivedoughnut, janrinze, "THEY", Jal, Confused2, Zephir, yquantum, Montec, Neil Farbstein, Why Not?, Mate et al,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Hi All,
This is good discussion! We are analyzing proposals, integrating new
information and incorporating different perspectives, which benefits us all.
Hopefully, it will help in our ongoing analysis of the DSE.
If we make theoretical proposals then we must be willing to accept the
hard questions, opposing viewpoints, and constructive criticisms of our peers.
It's not politics, it's not an agenda, it is a search for the truth.
LL
This is good discussion! We are analyzing proposals, integrating new
information and incorporating different perspectives, which benefits us all.
Hopefully, it will help in our ongoing analysis of the DSE.
If we make theoretical proposals then we must be willing to accept the
hard questions, opposing viewpoints, and constructive criticisms of our peers.
It's not politics, it's not an agenda, it is a search for the truth.
LL
Exactly right!
The only question remaining is are we really solving the original problem?
The only question remaining is are we really solving the original problem?
This is a very good discussion. In fact, I have the similar thought too. To my understanding, photon is something like packet of light. I have put some of my ideas in the following link. This is the same as the previous link I introduced, updated to solve the viewing errors.
www.greatians.com/physics/wave/photon.htm
This website discusses about light packet and particle-like photon. The particle-like characteristic of photon is shown in photoelectric effect. I had also put up some explanations on the particle-like photon in the following link.
www.greatians.com/physics/mass/perturbation.htm#MG.2.0
Besides, I have little different way of looking at light characteristic in performing interference, diffraction and etc. The meaning of interference to me is something like two type of wave at different frequency will interfere with each other and created noise. My thinking on spreading of light is due to the interference of light packet between each other, where they are out of phase and not harmonic or not coherent. In another words of particle-like, light packet (photon) 'colliding' each other and find 'empty' space to spread over. For 100% monochromatic light, all light packet are traveling at the same frequency, they do not interfere with each other, and hence, monochromatic light can be highly focused.
Back to the origin of this question, regarding the two slit experiment. Before this, I would like to throw a question here.
"If a monochromatic light is shot perpendicular on a mirror, will the reflected light interfere or superimpose with the incoming light? It is possible to achieve fully destructive superposition? which means cannot see the light at all."
For the case of diffraction through slit, I have some deeper thoughts on this phenomenon. However, I still yet to put my ideas in writing. But I had done out something on diffraction of particles, which has similarity with particle-like photon. Photon has magnetic and electric (M&E) components which can react with external M&E field too. I had put up some thoughts in the following link about the diffraction of particles.
www.greatians.com/physics/mass/particles%20wave.htm#MK.3.0
Regarding diffraction of light through medium due to slower velocity of light, I am trying to postulate the reasons for the change of speed of light. my postulation is related to the M&E components of light. I will share it once I had completed my write up.
Please feel free to drop your comments. Thank you.
www.greatians.com/physics/wave/photon.htm
This website discusses about light packet and particle-like photon. The particle-like characteristic of photon is shown in photoelectric effect. I had also put up some explanations on the particle-like photon in the following link.
www.greatians.com/physics/mass/perturbation.htm#MG.2.0
Besides, I have little different way of looking at light characteristic in performing interference, diffraction and etc. The meaning of interference to me is something like two type of wave at different frequency will interfere with each other and created noise. My thinking on spreading of light is due to the interference of light packet between each other, where they are out of phase and not harmonic or not coherent. In another words of particle-like, light packet (photon) 'colliding' each other and find 'empty' space to spread over. For 100% monochromatic light, all light packet are traveling at the same frequency, they do not interfere with each other, and hence, monochromatic light can be highly focused.
Back to the origin of this question, regarding the two slit experiment. Before this, I would like to throw a question here.
"If a monochromatic light is shot perpendicular on a mirror, will the reflected light interfere or superimpose with the incoming light? It is possible to achieve fully destructive superposition? which means cannot see the light at all."
For the case of diffraction through slit, I have some deeper thoughts on this phenomenon. However, I still yet to put my ideas in writing. But I had done out something on diffraction of particles, which has similarity with particle-like photon. Photon has magnetic and electric (M&E) components which can react with external M&E field too. I had put up some thoughts in the following link about the diffraction of particles.
www.greatians.com/physics/mass/particles%20wave.htm#MK.3.0
Regarding diffraction of light through medium due to slower velocity of light, I am trying to postulate the reasons for the change of speed of light. my postulation is related to the M&E components of light. I will share it once I had completed my write up.
Please feel free to drop your comments. Thank you.
Kokhaw,
Glad to see you joining in with the fun.
........ are you sure about your member name though?
(5-D the ever-so-naughty minded).
Glad to see you joining in with the fun.
........ are you sure about your member name though?
(5-D the ever-so-naughty minded).
p.s Are comments the only things you want us to drop?
Hi k.
For interference and mirrors .. this might be useful
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabry-Perot?lpos=fromtheweb
Best wishes - C2.
For interference and mirrors .. this might be useful
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabry-Perot?lpos=fromtheweb
Best wishes - C2.
Hi all!
"single packets of light cannot be divided up into its frequency components..." even though you can do it mathematically mother nature cannot do it?
You can add frequency components mathematically...but can mother nature do it?
The words "single packets" implies a location in time and a location in space.
If you want the single packets to occupy the whole universe you will need to change your words to avoid confusion.
"right down to the last frequency" You can look over my approach and you will see that experiments have only been able to probe down to 1.0 fm (size of nucleon). Everything else is speculation.
CERN Will be able to probe deeper and will falsify or substantiate some speculations.
If you want to know how the universe is made you got to read the experiments that are being done. (see my thread)
jal
QUOTE
Good Elf
I repeat the very simple statement that single packets of light cannot be divided up into its frequency components... They may be optically dispersed but that is a different matter. Optically dispersed packets can cover vast regions of space (one way to look at it) ... This does not mean, as some have suggested, that the energy of the packet is also dispersed since the photon is absorbed as a whole ... complete in all details right down to the last frequency which defined its shape through Fourier spatial and temporal limiting of the packet. If it were not so we could never see the stars especially those that are 13 Billion Light Years away from us. After that it is up to the system to deal with it as it chooses through energy transfers to the system as either momentum, kinetic or potential energy resulting in possible work and a re-emission of a new quanta.
I repeat the very simple statement that single packets of light cannot be divided up into its frequency components... They may be optically dispersed but that is a different matter. Optically dispersed packets can cover vast regions of space (one way to look at it) ... This does not mean, as some have suggested, that the energy of the packet is also dispersed since the photon is absorbed as a whole ... complete in all details right down to the last frequency which defined its shape through Fourier spatial and temporal limiting of the packet. If it were not so we could never see the stars especially those that are 13 Billion Light Years away from us. After that it is up to the system to deal with it as it chooses through energy transfers to the system as either momentum, kinetic or potential energy resulting in possible work and a re-emission of a new quanta.
"single packets of light cannot be divided up into its frequency components..." even though you can do it mathematically mother nature cannot do it?
You can add frequency components mathematically...but can mother nature do it?
The words "single packets" implies a location in time and a location in space.
If you want the single packets to occupy the whole universe you will need to change your words to avoid confusion.
"right down to the last frequency" You can look over my approach and you will see that experiments have only been able to probe down to 1.0 fm (size of nucleon). Everything else is speculation.
CERN Will be able to probe deeper and will falsify or substantiate some speculations.
If you want to know how the universe is made you got to read the experiments that are being done. (see my thread)
jal
Hi Kong,
I have been looking over the links that you provided.
There is still a problem with the illustrations on the photon page. I can't view them.
So there is still some work needed there.
I am in the process of reading the information and like the way you are
condensing the subjects into simplified bite sized chunks.
I do have an initial question about:
If each half of a gamma ray wavelength represents a postitron and an electron
according to charge, why doesn't the opposite EM charge relationship of each
entity cancel each other out?
You have suggested that there is a difference of topography between the two
"particles", one being a torroid and the other a point charge, but this is not
explained. I like the concept, but am having difficulty understanding/conceptualizing
how the symmetry of different particle "shapes" would function. I could understand
it if the two particles were helically revolving around each other and generating
forward momentum. A helix represents spin, rotation, wave cycling, and would
explain why and how momentum occurs. Also, a helix revolving around a nucleus
would account for a torroidal symmetry and would generate an alternating EM sine
wavefunction to explain field polarizations.
If I might suggest....start your own discussion board on Physorg, since you have
a wide range of topics on atomic theory that need analysis and feedback. I will
participate if you decide to do so. There are so many different subjects, that I
think many will take an interest.
Regards,
LL
I have been looking over the links that you provided.
There is still a problem with the illustrations on the photon page. I can't view them.
So there is still some work needed there.
I am in the process of reading the information and like the way you are
condensing the subjects into simplified bite sized chunks.
I do have an initial question about:
If each half of a gamma ray wavelength represents a postitron and an electron
according to charge, why doesn't the opposite EM charge relationship of each
entity cancel each other out?
You have suggested that there is a difference of topography between the two
"particles", one being a torroid and the other a point charge, but this is not
explained. I like the concept, but am having difficulty understanding/conceptualizing
how the symmetry of different particle "shapes" would function. I could understand
it if the two particles were helically revolving around each other and generating
forward momentum. A helix represents spin, rotation, wave cycling, and would
explain why and how momentum occurs. Also, a helix revolving around a nucleus
would account for a torroidal symmetry and would generate an alternating EM sine
wavefunction to explain field polarizations.
If I might suggest....start your own discussion board on Physorg, since you have
a wide range of topics on atomic theory that need analysis and feedback. I will
participate if you decide to do so. There are so many different subjects, that I
think many will take an interest.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE (TRoc+Jun 16 2007, 01:16 PM)
Even "dust" (I forgot what element that is) has this property:
Dustbunnyunium
Sorry, couldn't resist that one.
Dustbunnyunium
Sorry, couldn't resist that one.
Hi again Kong,
After giving some thought to your proposal of electron-positron pair generation
from a gamma photon, I think I see where you are coming from.
An entangled "particle" pair is being generated to create a photon EM wave with a
specific phase rotation frequency.
If I follow you correctly, this entangled particle pair is comprised of an electron
with spin 1/2 and a charge of -1, that is entangled with a positron having spin 1/2
and charge +1 which are complementary and combine to yield a composite paired
boson (photon) with spin 1 and no net charge.
I very much like the concept but must give it more thought so that I can "visualize"
the possibilities that this presents. I need to be able to conceptualize how
this generates different frequencies according to atomic energy/shell level.
Perhaps you explain some details of this idea further in your presentation, which
I have yet to read.
LL
After giving some thought to your proposal of electron-positron pair generation
from a gamma photon, I think I see where you are coming from.
An entangled "particle" pair is being generated to create a photon EM wave with a
specific phase rotation frequency.
If I follow you correctly, this entangled particle pair is comprised of an electron
with spin 1/2 and a charge of -1, that is entangled with a positron having spin 1/2
and charge +1 which are complementary and combine to yield a composite paired
boson (photon) with spin 1 and no net charge.
I very much like the concept but must give it more thought so that I can "visualize"
the possibilities that this presents. I need to be able to conceptualize how
this generates different frequencies according to atomic energy/shell level.
Perhaps you explain some details of this idea further in your presentation, which
I have yet to read.
LL
Hi LL,K et al,
I think you'd better read this http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf - Good Elf has been pushing it for the last year or more.
Best wishes -C2
(dysposium, hooverium + floorides )
I think you'd better read this http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf - Good Elf has been pushing it for the last year or more.
Best wishes -C2
(dysposium, hooverium + floorides )
Hi all,
Well, it seems we have some "momentum" going, and yet ..
I think that jal has the right perspective:
I think that jal has the right perspective:
If you want the single packets to occupy the whole universe you will need to change your words to avoid confusion.
We are not going to get to the solution (as a group) if we continue to take the GE approach: If it's not something that you're already familiar with, you should DE-RAIL anybody who goes off that path.
Perhaps that is NOT what is going on, but I see no reason for the long post by GE, stating what had just been talked about by other people on this thread. It seem a reasonable thought to assume that people who are posting something on a thread have read what has already been said. Certainly, at least the last few pages.
I am not talking about eye-to-brain translations, cone sensitivities, or anything biological.
We have agreed to NOT talk about this, unless it is mandatory.
THE ONLY PLACE IT IS MANDATORY IS "WHITE LIGHT" SOURCE DSE. The "bright bands" and the "dark bands" are terms of perception.
We could say these bands are "off-phase" 180 deg.
We could say that we have opposite vectors. Dark bands going away from us, light bands towards. (2-way exchange)
We could say that destructive interference creates an off-phase resonance, and constructive interference creates an on-phase resonance.
We could say, within the limited definition of the manually set detector, that "no photons" are arriving in the dark bands, and those that are "lost" are "borrowed" by the areas of bright bands.
Whatever "description" or interpretation you prefer, we still need REASONS: HOW AND WHY does this happen? Is it a fundamental process? This is the big picture, that I feel we need to see.
GE agrees with me, that Resonance is probably the single most important phenomenon, yet wants to bicker about perception? Some people have no clue about "how we got here", by borrowing "pieces" from the Principle of Resonance, discovered EXCLUSIVELY by human perception, and not realizing that the PIECES need to be in a complete SET. This complete set has NOT been assembled by anyone yet.
QM has been trying to hammer out a tune, with their "DO" scale. DO..DO..DO...
Just "ad an h " in there, and the "Homer-esque" Doh!.. Doh!.. Doh!... can be heard.
A "paint by the numbers" requires someone else to draw in the LINES. A "resonance theory" by the numbers requires someone else to compose the "tune".
BS! What do you think about the relationship between n and 2n, as it applies to Resonance, and how it was first HEARD in the octave? This relationship of ratios was the FIRST abstract development of mathematics. There are stacks of proofs in the works of Euclid, Euler, etc. Math is the proof; Life is the experiment.
BS! What do you think about the relationship between n and 2n, as it applies to Resonance, and how it was first HEARD in the octave? This relationship of ratios was the FIRST abstract development of mathematics. There are stacks of proofs in the works of Euclid, Euler, etc. Math is the proof; Life is the experiment.
Good Elf Posted on Today at 2:53 AM
Nicely "balanced sine waves" or not, once again relying on your "aesthetic senses" rather than trying to view this event the way the Universe will see it..
Sorry GE, you are wrong again. I'm not even sure HOW you could imagine that I was basing the "intensity" of a light wave at the center being higher of a "pulse" on some "perception" of mine. How could I see or hear such a thing?
These are experimental facts.
Figure 5. Terawatt lasers used to induce nonlinear optical effects pack their energy into vanishingly short pulses—ones that last for only a few hundred femtoseconds (10–15 second). During any one pulse, the electric and magnetic fields first grow to some peak intensity and then diminish (top left). Were it sent through empty space, a pulse of infrared light would have a symmetric envelope (heavy line) containing electromagnetic waves of variable amplitude but with a uniform infrared wavelength, meaning that this light would remain invisible to the eye (bottom left). But in the atmosphere, the Kerr effect causes the highest amplitude waves within the pulse to slow relative to the smaller amplitude ones that come before and after (top right). The resulting distortion creates a range of wavelengths (that is, colors) not present originally (bottom right). The combination of many colors is then perceived as white light.
Tom Dunne and David Schneider
Taken from http://www.americanscientist.org/template/...id/49644/page/1, which is a very good article on this subject.
The balanced sine wave can not account for self-phase modulation. Believers in Dirac, when he said "..therefore, the photon only interferes with itself", are going to have a hard time explaining this SPM, which MUST create internal "anti-symmetry" to function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-phase_modulation
Everyone was FINE talking about SPM. Now, some questions as to the role of intensity in this?? I think a "review" is in order:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-phase_modulation
Everyone was FINE talking about SPM. Now, some questions as to the role of intensity in this?? I think a "review" is in order:
Self-phase modulation (SPM) is a nonlinear optical effect of light-matter interaction. An ultrashort pulse of light, when traveling in a medium, will induce a varying refractive index of the medium due to the optical Kerr effect. This variation in refractive index will produce a phase shift in the pulse, leading to a change of the pulse's frequency spectrum.
If the pulse is of sufficient intensity, the spectral broadening process of SPM can balance with the temporal compression due to anomalous dispersion and reach an equilibrium state. The resulting pulse is called an optical soliton.
Again, you've got this backwards.
Again, you've got this backwards.
Good Elf Posted on Today at 2:53 AM
The cardinal rule is "The Photon packet is to be absorbed as a whole and not bits and pieces at a time."
vs.
So, it is safe to say that "photons" are absorbed whole, yet we must also account for them NOT being re-emitted that way. The "leftovers" might create a little internal heat, or be emitted as IR light.
In a photoelectron emission, the "leftover" energy just increases the velocity of the electron.
As I have shown by experimental proof with LAPE (laser assisted photo-electric effect), and with multi photon absorption, more than one "whole" bit can be taken in (when superimposed) to create a SINGLE result.
It is the INDISTINGUISHABLY of superimposed quanta that makes your "cardinal rule", not so cardinal. It is much better understood as MINIMUM levels being met, and having a fixed set of reactions. "Leftovers" are part of the deal. These bits, when in the same time and place (superposition), can SUM to meet the minimum requirements.
Therefore, we have NO WAY of knowing HOW MANY "photons" were there when an observed transition takes place. In the laboratory, of course, we have some control over the incident frequency, but we get our "predicted" outcome ONLY after some "adjustments". Either by "tuning out" the background radiation/dark energy, or by mathematically "normalizing" the results.
THESE are the real basis for my theory: Math and Geometry that create "jumps in quanta" that can be predicted by a new and complete theory of Resonance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_seri...8mathematics%29
C2,
That was a timely link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabry-Perot?lpos=fromtheweb.
I would ask everybody again: Does a "perfect" mirror absorb and re-emit a NEW "photon", or just "reflect" the old one?
If you haven't bought the idea that a mirror is still within the realm of atoms & electrons, then you are saying it is the "same photon", which then interferes with the other "reflected photon" in an interferometer.
Regards,
T.Roc
PS. I'm glad you caught the joke, THEY.
Well, it seems we have some "momentum" going, and yet ..
QUOTE
Good Elf Posted on Today at 7:50 AM
The only question remaining is are we really solving the original problem?
The only question remaining is are we really solving the original problem?
I think that jal has the right perspective:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Good Elf Posted on Today at 7:50 AM The only question remaining is are we really solving the original problem? |
I think that jal has the right perspective:
If you want the single packets to occupy the whole universe you will need to change your words to avoid confusion.
We are not going to get to the solution (as a group) if we continue to take the GE approach: If it's not something that you're already familiar with, you should DE-RAIL anybody who goes off that path.
Perhaps that is NOT what is going on, but I see no reason for the long post by GE, stating what had just been talked about by other people on this thread. It seem a reasonable thought to assume that people who are posting something on a thread have read what has already been said. Certainly, at least the last few pages.
I am not talking about eye-to-brain translations, cone sensitivities, or anything biological.
We have agreed to NOT talk about this, unless it is mandatory.
THE ONLY PLACE IT IS MANDATORY IS "WHITE LIGHT" SOURCE DSE. The "bright bands" and the "dark bands" are terms of perception.
We could say these bands are "off-phase" 180 deg.
We could say that we have opposite vectors. Dark bands going away from us, light bands towards. (2-way exchange)
We could say that destructive interference creates an off-phase resonance, and constructive interference creates an on-phase resonance.
We could say, within the limited definition of the manually set detector, that "no photons" are arriving in the dark bands, and those that are "lost" are "borrowed" by the areas of bright bands.
Whatever "description" or interpretation you prefer, we still need REASONS: HOW AND WHY does this happen? Is it a fundamental process? This is the big picture, that I feel we need to see.
GE agrees with me, that Resonance is probably the single most important phenomenon, yet wants to bicker about perception? Some people have no clue about "how we got here", by borrowing "pieces" from the Principle of Resonance, discovered EXCLUSIVELY by human perception, and not realizing that the PIECES need to be in a complete SET. This complete set has NOT been assembled by anyone yet.
QM has been trying to hammer out a tune, with their "DO" scale. DO..DO..DO...
Just "ad an h " in there, and the "Homer-esque" Doh!.. Doh!.. Doh!... can be heard.
A "paint by the numbers" requires someone else to draw in the LINES. A "resonance theory" by the numbers requires someone else to compose the "tune".
QUOTE
Good Elf Posted on Today at 2:53 AM
..but no experimental proof that this psychological interpretation of frequency has a basis in experiment.
..but no experimental proof that this psychological interpretation of frequency has a basis in experiment.
BS! What do you think about the relationship between n and 2n, as it applies to Resonance, and how it was first HEARD in the octave? This relationship of ratios was the FIRST abstract development of mathematics. There are stacks of proofs in the works of Euclid, Euler, etc. Math is the proof; Life is the experiment.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Good Elf Posted on Today at 2:53 AM ..but no experimental proof that this psychological interpretation of frequency has a basis in experiment. |
BS! What do you think about the relationship between n and 2n, as it applies to Resonance, and how it was first HEARD in the octave? This relationship of ratios was the FIRST abstract development of mathematics. There are stacks of proofs in the works of Euclid, Euler, etc. Math is the proof; Life is the experiment.
Good Elf Posted on Today at 2:53 AM
Nicely "balanced sine waves" or not, once again relying on your "aesthetic senses" rather than trying to view this event the way the Universe will see it..
Sorry GE, you are wrong again. I'm not even sure HOW you could imagine that I was basing the "intensity" of a light wave at the center being higher of a "pulse" on some "perception" of mine. How could I see or hear such a thing?
These are experimental facts.
QUOTE
Figure 2. Light in a laser beam is of highest intensity at the center and decreases with radial distance away from the axis of propagation (left). Because the refractive index of air increases with the intensity of light passing through it (the optical Kerr effect), a high-intensity laser beam shone through the atmosphere encounters the functional equivalent of a convex lens, causing the beam to converge (center). The intensity eventually becomes sufficient to ionize the air (speckled pattern). The electrons released in this process decrease the refractive index of the air, mimicking a concave lens and causing the beam to diverge (right).
Tom Dunne
Tom Dunne
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Figure 2. Light in a laser beam is of highest intensity at the center and decreases with radial distance away from the axis of propagation (left). Because the refractive index of air increases with the intensity of light passing through it (the optical Kerr effect), a high-intensity laser beam shone through the atmosphere encounters the functional equivalent of a convex lens, causing the beam to converge (center). The intensity eventually becomes sufficient to ionize the air (speckled pattern). The electrons released in this process decrease the refractive index of the air, mimicking a concave lens and causing the beam to diverge (right). Tom Dunne |
Figure 5. Terawatt lasers used to induce nonlinear optical effects pack their energy into vanishingly short pulses—ones that last for only a few hundred femtoseconds (10–15 second). During any one pulse, the electric and magnetic fields first grow to some peak intensity and then diminish (top left). Were it sent through empty space, a pulse of infrared light would have a symmetric envelope (heavy line) containing electromagnetic waves of variable amplitude but with a uniform infrared wavelength, meaning that this light would remain invisible to the eye (bottom left). But in the atmosphere, the Kerr effect causes the highest amplitude waves within the pulse to slow relative to the smaller amplitude ones that come before and after (top right). The resulting distortion creates a range of wavelengths (that is, colors) not present originally (bottom right). The combination of many colors is then perceived as white light. Tom Dunne and David Schneider
Taken from http://www.americanscientist.org/template/...id/49644/page/1, which is a very good article on this subject.
The balanced sine wave can not account for self-phase modulation. Believers in Dirac, when he said "..therefore, the photon only interferes with itself", are going to have a hard time explaining this SPM, which MUST create internal "anti-symmetry" to function.
QUOTE
A pulse (top curve) propagating through a nonlinear medium undergoes a self-frequency shift (bottom curve) due to self-phase modulation. The front of the pulse is shifted to lower frequencies, the back to higher frequencies. In the centre of the pulse the frequency shift is approximately linear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-phase_modulation
Everyone was FINE talking about SPM. Now, some questions as to the role of intensity in this?? I think a "review" is in order:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A pulse (top curve) propagating through a nonlinear medium undergoes a self-frequency shift (bottom curve) due to self-phase modulation. The front of the pulse is shifted to lower frequencies, the back to higher frequencies. In the centre of the pulse the frequency shift is approximately linear. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-phase_modulation
Everyone was FINE talking about SPM. Now, some questions as to the role of intensity in this?? I think a "review" is in order:
Self-phase modulation (SPM) is a nonlinear optical effect of light-matter interaction. An ultrashort pulse of light, when traveling in a medium, will induce a varying refractive index of the medium due to the optical Kerr effect. This variation in refractive index will produce a phase shift in the pulse, leading to a change of the pulse's frequency spectrum.
QUOTE
It is clear that the extra frequencies generated through SPM broaden the frequency spectrum of the pulse symmetrically. In the time domain, the pulse is not changed, however in any real medium the effects of dispersion will simultaneously act on the pulse. In regions of normal dispersion, the "redder" portions of the pulse have a higher velocity than the "blue" portions, and thus the front of the pulse moves faster than the back, broadening the pulse in time. In regions of anomalous dispersion, the opposite is true, and the pulse is compressed temporally and becomes shorter. This effect can be exploited to produce ultrashort pulse compression.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is clear that the extra frequencies generated through SPM broaden the frequency spectrum of the pulse symmetrically. In the time domain, the pulse is not changed, however in any real medium the effects of dispersion will simultaneously act on the pulse. In regions of normal dispersion, the "redder" portions of the pulse have a higher velocity than the "blue" portions, and thus the front of the pulse moves faster than the back, broadening the pulse in time. In regions of anomalous dispersion, the opposite is true, and the pulse is compressed temporally and becomes shorter. This effect can be exploited to produce ultrashort pulse compression. |
If the pulse is of sufficient intensity, the spectral broadening process of SPM can balance with the temporal compression due to anomalous dispersion and reach an equilibrium state. The resulting pulse is called an optical soliton.
QUOTE
Good Elf Posted on Today at 2:53 AM
This obsession with a "wishy washy" photon whose center is a "low intensity" with no structure is like looking at Hurricane Katrina as the quiet spot in it's center..
This obsession with a "wishy washy" photon whose center is a "low intensity" with no structure is like looking at Hurricane Katrina as the quiet spot in it's center..
Again, you've got this backwards.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Good Elf Posted on Today at 2:53 AM This obsession with a "wishy washy" photon whose center is a "low intensity" with no structure is like looking at Hurricane Katrina as the quiet spot in it's center.. |
Again, you've got this backwards.
Good Elf Posted on Today at 2:53 AM
The cardinal rule is "The Photon packet is to be absorbed as a whole and not bits and pieces at a time."
vs.
QUOTE
..small rocks... these absorb photons in the visible band of light. These photons never reach earth... except as IR secondary radiation
So, it is safe to say that "photons" are absorbed whole, yet we must also account for them NOT being re-emitted that way. The "leftovers" might create a little internal heat, or be emitted as IR light.
In a photoelectron emission, the "leftover" energy just increases the velocity of the electron.
As I have shown by experimental proof with LAPE (laser assisted photo-electric effect), and with multi photon absorption, more than one "whole" bit can be taken in (when superimposed) to create a SINGLE result.
It is the INDISTINGUISHABLY of superimposed quanta that makes your "cardinal rule", not so cardinal. It is much better understood as MINIMUM levels being met, and having a fixed set of reactions. "Leftovers" are part of the deal. These bits, when in the same time and place (superposition), can SUM to meet the minimum requirements.
Therefore, we have NO WAY of knowing HOW MANY "photons" were there when an observed transition takes place. In the laboratory, of course, we have some control over the incident frequency, but we get our "predicted" outcome ONLY after some "adjustments". Either by "tuning out" the background radiation/dark energy, or by mathematically "normalizing" the results.
THESE are the real basis for my theory: Math and Geometry that create "jumps in quanta" that can be predicted by a new and complete theory of Resonance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_seri...8mathematics%29
C2,
That was a timely link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabry-Perot?lpos=fromtheweb.
I would ask everybody again: Does a "perfect" mirror absorb and re-emit a NEW "photon", or just "reflect" the old one?
If you haven't bought the idea that a mirror is still within the realm of atoms & electrons, then you are saying it is the "same photon", which then interferes with the other "reflected photon" in an interferometer.
Regards,
T.Roc
PS. I'm glad you caught the joke, THEY.
QUOTE (Confused2+Jun 17 2007, 06:48 PM)
I think you'd better read this http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf - Good Elf has been pushing it for the last year or more.
C2 or GE,
Most of the subject matter on the link in pdf format didn't appear. Is there
another link that can be referenced?
Thanks,
LL
C2 or GE,
Most of the subject matter on the link in pdf format didn't appear. Is there
another link that can be referenced?
Thanks,
LL
Hi LL,
It all works for me. I've got windows 98 with IE 6.0.2800.1106 and it works with K's pages. Also Adobe reader 6.0 which works with the Elf pdf. If you're a version behind then PM me or GE (better) and we'll try to get you a bit more up to date.
Best wishes -C2.
Edit.. A good strong padlock should fix TRoc. End of problem. No theory required.
It all works for me. I've got windows 98 with IE 6.0.2800.1106 and it works with K's pages. Also Adobe reader 6.0 which works with the Elf pdf. If you're a version behind then PM me or GE (better) and we'll try to get you a bit more up to date.
Best wishes -C2.
Edit.. A good strong padlock should fix TRoc. End of problem. No theory required.
Good Day!
If you all think that the particle or a wave is understood and that photons can be understood then see if you can understand this paper.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.3542v2.pdf
Is quantum field theory a genuine quantum theory?
Foundational insights on particles and strings
Hrvoje Nikoli´c
(Dated: June 5, 2007)
To conclude, our results suggest that quantum field theory is neither a quantum theory in the orthodox sense, nor a field theory in a naive sense. It is not an orthodox quantum theory because practically measurable quantities resulting from QFT are particle positions, which are not described by hermitian operators. It is not a field theory in a naive sense because the fundamental measurable quantities at low energies are particles rather than fields. The fact that a relativistic position operator does not exist lead us to argue that the usual quantum probabilities are emergent, while the fundamental dynamics is deterministic. This suggests a relativistic Bohmian-like formulation of quantum theory, which, in the relativistic regime, leads to testable predictions. To make the existence of Bohmian particle trajectories consistent with particle creation and destruction without leading to singular points at which trajectories begin or end, it is natural to generalize pointlike particles to extended objects. This leads to a new derivation of string theory based on the assumption of Bohmian mechanics, which allows testable low-energy predictions of string theory as well.
jal
If you all think that the particle or a wave is understood and that photons can be understood then see if you can understand this paper.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.3542v2.pdf
Is quantum field theory a genuine quantum theory?
Foundational insights on particles and strings
Hrvoje Nikoli´c
(Dated: June 5, 2007)
To conclude, our results suggest that quantum field theory is neither a quantum theory in the orthodox sense, nor a field theory in a naive sense. It is not an orthodox quantum theory because practically measurable quantities resulting from QFT are particle positions, which are not described by hermitian operators. It is not a field theory in a naive sense because the fundamental measurable quantities at low energies are particles rather than fields. The fact that a relativistic position operator does not exist lead us to argue that the usual quantum probabilities are emergent, while the fundamental dynamics is deterministic. This suggests a relativistic Bohmian-like formulation of quantum theory, which, in the relativistic regime, leads to testable predictions. To make the existence of Bohmian particle trajectories consistent with particle creation and destruction without leading to singular points at which trajectories begin or end, it is natural to generalize pointlike particles to extended objects. This leads to a new derivation of string theory based on the assumption of Bohmian mechanics, which allows testable low-energy predictions of string theory as well.
jal
Hi C2,
I'm running Windows XP with all current updates and Adobe Reader 8.1, but
still getting an error message about "Unable to Extract Imbedded Font F0, some
text may not be visible". I've never heard of font FO.
I'm running Windows XP with all current updates and Adobe Reader 8.1, but
still getting an error message about "Unable to Extract Imbedded Font F0, some
text may not be visible". I've never heard of font FO.
Edit.. A good strong padlock should fix TRoc. End of problem. No theory required.
Tit for Tat. If one is giving, then one should expect to receive in like kind.
I've got no problem with someone standing up for themselves against the
opinions of others if they feel that they are right, it keeps things interesting!
As long as it doesn't get personal and out of control.
QUOTE
It all works for me. I've got windows 98 with IE 6.0.2800.1106 and it works with K's pages. Also Adobe reader 6.0 which works with the Elf pdf. If you're a version behind then PM me or GE (better) and we'll try to get you a bit more up to date.....
I'm running Windows XP with all current updates and Adobe Reader 8.1, but
still getting an error message about "Unable to Extract Imbedded Font F0, some
text may not be visible". I've never heard of font FO.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It all works for me. I've got windows 98 with IE 6.0.2800.1106 and it works with K's pages. Also Adobe reader 6.0 which works with the Elf pdf. If you're a version behind then PM me or GE (better) and we'll try to get you a bit more up to date..... |
I'm running Windows XP with all current updates and Adobe Reader 8.1, but
still getting an error message about "Unable to Extract Imbedded Font F0, some
text may not be visible". I've never heard of font FO.
Edit.. A good strong padlock should fix TRoc. End of problem. No theory required.
Tit for Tat. If one is giving, then one should expect to receive in like kind.
I've got no problem with someone standing up for themselves against the
opinions of others if they feel that they are right, it keeps things interesting!
As long as it doesn't get personal and out of control.
Hi Troc and Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
C2 or GE,
Most of the subject matter on the link in pdf format didn't appear. Is there another link that can be referenced?
Most of the subject matter on the link in pdf format didn't appear. Is there another link that can be referenced?
Umm... what do you mean here? Is there some problem getting to links?
Back to TRoc...
Back to TRoc...
QUOTE (TRoc+)
We are not going to get to the solution (as a group) if we continue to take the GE approach: If it's not something that you're already familiar with, you should DE-RAIL anybody who goes off that path.
I am not trying to convince anyone with a silly argument based on idle guesses about reality, I am trying to provide substantiated experiments alongside these claims. If I do not provide any substantiation you have a perfect right to leap on it and "expose" Elven Science as total bunk.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
...THE ONLY PLACE IT IS MANDATORY IS "WHITE LIGHT" SOURCE DSE. The "bright bands" and the "dark bands" are terms of perception.
We could say these bands are "off-phase" 180 deg.
We could say that we have opposite vectors. Dark bands going away from us, light bands towards. (2-way exchange)
We could say that destructive interference creates an off-phase resonance, and constructive interference creates an on-phase resonance.
We could say, within the limited definition of the manually set detector, that "no photons" are arriving in the dark bands, and those that are "lost" are "borrowed" by the areas of bright bands.
We could say these bands are "off-phase" 180 deg.
We could say that we have opposite vectors. Dark bands going away from us, light bands towards. (2-way exchange)
We could say that destructive interference creates an off-phase resonance, and constructive interference creates an on-phase resonance.
We could say, within the limited definition of the manually set detector, that "no photons" are arriving in the dark bands, and those that are "lost" are "borrowed" by the areas of bright bands.
The light and dark bands of those effects have no requirement for white light... the effects occur with monochromatic photons too. The eye does not discriminate phase but only responds to intensity. "destructive interference" is poorly named but indicates nodes and "resonances" are anti-nodes in standing waves.
QUOTE (Troc+)
BS! What do you think about the relationship between n and 2n, as it applies to Resonance, and how it was first HEARD in the octave? This relationship of ratios was the FIRST abstract development of mathematics. There are stacks of proofs in the works of Euclid, Euler, etc. Math is the proof; Life is the experiment.
I am familiar with constructive and destructive waves (nodes and anti-nodes in standing waves) and I am familiar with Fourier Theory... why the historical reference to the ancients? I think the issue is frequency mixing?
QUOTE (Troc+)
Sorry GE, you are wrong again. I'm not even sure HOW you could imagine that I was basing the "intensity" of a light wave at the center being higher of a "pulse" on some "perception" of mine. How could I see or hear such a thing?
I dunno... You are telling the story perhaps you could indicate what the point was to referring to the geometric center of the pulse not carrying the energy?
QUOTE (TRoc+)
Figure 2. Light in a laser beam is of highest intensity at the center and decreases with radial distance away from the axis of propagation (left). Because the refractive index of air increases with the intensity of light passing through it ... {and other references to dispersion in power LASER beams}
I did not know we had diverted into using "death rays" in the atmosphere and the problems that optical dispersion causes to them. Non-linear atmospheric effects of light when you beam extremely dense energy beams through the atmosphere will cause local heating within the beam and dispersion and this changes the local atmospheric density and thus the refractive index. This effect will behave in the same way as a "complex time dependent irregular lens" as it ionizes some particles and gas molecules along the way to the "target". In a vacuum this will not happen.
You had a section that alluded to figure 2 (above) and figure 5 related to Terawatt and Petawatt lasers and they way they "refract" in an atmospheric medium...
Refractive index in the vacuum may be modified according to Taco Visser's Papers. This effect is best seen with OAM "twisted light". This is not a medium dependent effect. This is the most interesting aspect of this theory of Singular Optics other than the Topological Charge. Everything I have been referring to is in the vacuum so far. Adding gases does complicate things a lot especially if you use metallic surfaces and ultra-violet light you can get surface plasmons at metallic double slits. Most dispersive effects only occur at the interfaces between different refractive media. This is like the wheels of a car at speed veering off into the rough on the side of a bitumen road... this tends to deflect the vehicle at the interface but once off the "interface" dispersion no longer continues though different frequencies may already be dispersed (eg. rainbow spectra). Within the media the speed of light (which is altered from that in the vacuum) is a constant influence and as far as the experiment is concerned has no influence on the experiment for low energy density levels. Seen from another refractive realm it may result in a "relative" difference in depth and velocity perception depending on RI at the appropriate frequency. This is a "fishbowl effect" making the bowl appear smaller as seen from the outside than it actually is on the inside. At a specific frequency of photon flux this is a one off effect at the interface. naturally if you are using "white light" the different frequencies will be subject to different dispersions related to the RI of the different frequencies of the different wavelengths in the medium. I stress this is not a problem in the ideal vacuum and space itself approximates to the ideal vacuum.
Small particles of dust are "targets" for light at visible wavelengths. You can see dust particles with a moderate amount of magnification signifying that they absorb light at visible wavelengths. You can't see interstellar hydrogen or helium... most of it... most is in the dark state and even if it was not in the dark state these atoms and molecules absorb only a select number of frequencies. For instance there is a "quiet" part of the interstellar spectrum at the frequency of the main hydrogen absorption line. This window could be used for communication as SETI seems to think may work with other civilizations. Other frequencies not indigenous to the atomic species are not absorbed.
We are only interested in the basic truth about these issues and it is not meant as direct criticism.
Cheers
You had a section that alluded to figure 2 (above) and figure 5 related to Terawatt and Petawatt lasers and they way they "refract" in an atmospheric medium...
Refractive index in the vacuum may be modified according to Taco Visser's Papers. This effect is best seen with OAM "twisted light". This is not a medium dependent effect. This is the most interesting aspect of this theory of Singular Optics other than the Topological Charge. Everything I have been referring to is in the vacuum so far. Adding gases does complicate things a lot especially if you use metallic surfaces and ultra-violet light you can get surface plasmons at metallic double slits. Most dispersive effects only occur at the interfaces between different refractive media. This is like the wheels of a car at speed veering off into the rough on the side of a bitumen road... this tends to deflect the vehicle at the interface but once off the "interface" dispersion no longer continues though different frequencies may already be dispersed (eg. rainbow spectra). Within the media the speed of light (which is altered from that in the vacuum) is a constant influence and as far as the experiment is concerned has no influence on the experiment for low energy density levels. Seen from another refractive realm it may result in a "relative" difference in depth and velocity perception depending on RI at the appropriate frequency. This is a "fishbowl effect" making the bowl appear smaller as seen from the outside than it actually is on the inside. At a specific frequency of photon flux this is a one off effect at the interface. naturally if you are using "white light" the different frequencies will be subject to different dispersions related to the RI of the different frequencies of the different wavelengths in the medium. I stress this is not a problem in the ideal vacuum and space itself approximates to the ideal vacuum.
Small particles of dust are "targets" for light at visible wavelengths. You can see dust particles with a moderate amount of magnification signifying that they absorb light at visible wavelengths. You can't see interstellar hydrogen or helium... most of it... most is in the dark state and even if it was not in the dark state these atoms and molecules absorb only a select number of frequencies. For instance there is a "quiet" part of the interstellar spectrum at the frequency of the main hydrogen absorption line. This window could be used for communication as SETI seems to think may work with other civilizations. Other frequencies not indigenous to the atomic species are not absorbed.
We are only interested in the basic truth about these issues and it is not meant as direct criticism.
Cheers
Hi Jal,
Researchers 'rewrite the book' in quantum statistical physics
This is not unexpected since even Feynman said the theory has not been shown to be mathematically "complete" and so in his opinion if it was not shown to be complete by then it was probably 'incomplete" and mathematically unsound. He always thought renormalization was a mathematically goofy idea at best.... even though he had thought it up.
The solution that the people who had thought up Canonical Typicality in papers by Sheldon Goldstein had indicated the solution lies in a Bohmian Approach to the problem. I do not know how many times I have attempted to show that particle theories of Quantum Mechanics are not complete and that only a wave approach is valid. The particle approach for individual particles is in error since it can only provide group properties for all particles according to all possible outcomes. The answer lies in distributed sources and a more straightforward approach to "particles" having actual position not probability that is not provided by QED. Each particle has a "dynamic", the only problem is we are only aware of the properties of all similarly treated particles ... this approach lacks locality. Naturally it is not possible to "predict" a particles course in advance as if you were a Gunnery Officer firing shells at the Enemy, but what QED does not provide is "locality" for particles Bohmian Mechanics has been shown to be internally consistent... but the weight of history is a mighty load to shift.
The next point is Bohmian Mechanics does not distinguish "parametric theories" from "multidimensional theories" where these dimensions are actual dimensions of space and time, so this is another cul de sac if we are not careful. I have already weeded out the most likely candidate for "String Theories" and there will be low energy tests for it. But not the String Theories developed so far based on the Planck Length but on particle resonance and photon quantization.
Cheers
QUOTE
If you all think that the particle or a wave is understood and that photons can be understood then see if you can understand this paper.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.3542v2.pdf
Is quantum field theory a genuine quantum theory?
Foundational insights on particles and strings
Hrvoje Nikoli´c
(Dated: June 5, 2007)
To conclude, our results suggest that quantum field theory is neither a quantum theory in the orthodox sense, nor a field theory in a naive sense. It is not an orthodox quantum theory because practically measurable quantities resulting from QFT are particle positions, which are not described by hermitian operators. It is not a field theory in a naive sense because the fundamental measurable quantities at low energies are particles rather than fields. The fact that a relativistic position operator does not exist lead us to argue that the usual quantum probabilities are emergent, while the fundamental dynamics is deterministic. This suggests a relativistic Bohmian-like formulation of quantum theory, which, in the relativistic regime, leads to testable predictions. To make the existence of Bohmian particle trajectories consistent with particle creation and destruction without leading to singular points at which trajectories begin or end, it is natural to generalize pointlike particles to extended objects. This leads to a new derivation of string theory based on the assumption of Bohmian mechanics, which allows testable low-energy predictions of string theory as well.
jal
I have commented on this anomaly previously and this is covered by the violation of Canonical Typicality... http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.3542v2.pdf
Is quantum field theory a genuine quantum theory?
Foundational insights on particles and strings
Hrvoje Nikoli´c
(Dated: June 5, 2007)
To conclude, our results suggest that quantum field theory is neither a quantum theory in the orthodox sense, nor a field theory in a naive sense. It is not an orthodox quantum theory because practically measurable quantities resulting from QFT are particle positions, which are not described by hermitian operators. It is not a field theory in a naive sense because the fundamental measurable quantities at low energies are particles rather than fields. The fact that a relativistic position operator does not exist lead us to argue that the usual quantum probabilities are emergent, while the fundamental dynamics is deterministic. This suggests a relativistic Bohmian-like formulation of quantum theory, which, in the relativistic regime, leads to testable predictions. To make the existence of Bohmian particle trajectories consistent with particle creation and destruction without leading to singular points at which trajectories begin or end, it is natural to generalize pointlike particles to extended objects. This leads to a new derivation of string theory based on the assumption of Bohmian mechanics, which allows testable low-energy predictions of string theory as well.
jal
Researchers 'rewrite the book' in quantum statistical physics
This is not unexpected since even Feynman said the theory has not been shown to be mathematically "complete" and so in his opinion if it was not shown to be complete by then it was probably 'incomplete" and mathematically unsound. He always thought renormalization was a mathematically goofy idea at best.... even though he had thought it up.
The solution that the people who had thought up Canonical Typicality in papers by Sheldon Goldstein had indicated the solution lies in a Bohmian Approach to the problem. I do not know how many times I have attempted to show that particle theories of Quantum Mechanics are not complete and that only a wave approach is valid. The particle approach for individual particles is in error since it can only provide group properties for all particles according to all possible outcomes. The answer lies in distributed sources and a more straightforward approach to "particles" having actual position not probability that is not provided by QED. Each particle has a "dynamic", the only problem is we are only aware of the properties of all similarly treated particles ... this approach lacks locality. Naturally it is not possible to "predict" a particles course in advance as if you were a Gunnery Officer firing shells at the Enemy, but what QED does not provide is "locality" for particles Bohmian Mechanics has been shown to be internally consistent... but the weight of history is a mighty load to shift.
The next point is Bohmian Mechanics does not distinguish "parametric theories" from "multidimensional theories" where these dimensions are actual dimensions of space and time, so this is another cul de sac if we are not careful. I have already weeded out the most likely candidate for "String Theories" and there will be low energy tests for it. But not the String Theories developed so far based on the Planck Length but on particle resonance and photon quantization.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf !
Now! Now! Don't be so sure. You are rejecting because you want and need more dimensions.
You also need Zero point energy, vaccum energy, Casimir force, quark sea, dirac sea, and a lot of other unexplained things.
Your explanation does not work without ....
-------------
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3793v1
Precision measurement of the Casimir-Lifshitz force in a fluid
Authors: Jeremy N. Munday, Federico Capasso
(Submitted on 25 May 2007)
"For this situation, the measured force is attractive and is approximately 80% smaller than the force predicted by Casimir for ideal metals in vacuum."
---------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0406/0406024v1.pdf
REVIEW ARTICLE
The Casimir effect: Recent controversies and Progress
Kimball A. Milton
02 june 2004
---------------
p. 61 This promises to add another bit of understanding to our knowledge of Casimir forces, knowledge that seems to grow only incrementally based on specific calculations, since a general understanding is still not at hand.
p. 62
6. Dynamical Casimir Effects
Dynamically,
photons indeed should be produced by QED by a rapidly oscillating bubble, but to produce the requisite number (106 per flash) necessitated, if not superluminal velocities at least macroscopic collapse time scales of order 10−15 s, rather than the observed 10−11 s scale [80].
-----------
The casmir effect has been observed down to 10nm. The similarity with the "quark sea" at 0.1 fm is only that... a similarity. The two are different.
-------------
jal
QUOTE
The next point is Bohmian Mechanics does not distinguish "parametric theories" from "multidimensional theories" where these dimensions are actual dimensions of space and time, so this is another cul de sac if we are not careful.
Now! Now! Don't be so sure. You are rejecting because you want and need more dimensions.
You also need Zero point energy, vaccum energy, Casimir force, quark sea, dirac sea, and a lot of other unexplained things.
Your explanation does not work without ....
-------------
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3793v1
Precision measurement of the Casimir-Lifshitz force in a fluid
Authors: Jeremy N. Munday, Federico Capasso
(Submitted on 25 May 2007)
"For this situation, the measured force is attractive and is approximately 80% smaller than the force predicted by Casimir for ideal metals in vacuum."
---------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0406/0406024v1.pdf
REVIEW ARTICLE
The Casimir effect: Recent controversies and Progress
Kimball A. Milton
02 june 2004
---------------
p. 61 This promises to add another bit of understanding to our knowledge of Casimir forces, knowledge that seems to grow only incrementally based on specific calculations, since a general understanding is still not at hand.
p. 62
6. Dynamical Casimir Effects
Dynamically,
photons indeed should be produced by QED by a rapidly oscillating bubble, but to produce the requisite number (106 per flash) necessitated, if not superluminal velocities at least macroscopic collapse time scales of order 10−15 s, rather than the observed 10−11 s scale [80].
-----------
The casmir effect has been observed down to 10nm. The similarity with the "quark sea" at 0.1 fm is only that... a similarity. The two are different.
-------------
jal
Hello all
If my idea on how EM waves transport photons of energy through space is a valid model then can said idea be used to model the DSE involving particles made up of fermions. Since the fermion particles would be equivalent to the photon then the EM wave should be equivalent to some other type of wave.
This "matter wave" (M-wave) would travel at the same speed as the particle and form a system of planer/spherical waves directing where said particle should move. The M-wave is slowed down by interacting with other M-waves from other particles. The DSE for fermions would show both constructive and destructive interference of the M-wave associated with each moving fermion. Said interference directs the path of the fermion particle.
Can this hypothetical M-wave be measured in stationary particles? Can there be interference between stationary particles?
Can we see any real world forces that fit the characteristics of this hypothetical M-wave?
Just some thoughts on the matter at hand.
If my idea on how EM waves transport photons of energy through space is a valid model then can said idea be used to model the DSE involving particles made up of fermions. Since the fermion particles would be equivalent to the photon then the EM wave should be equivalent to some other type of wave.
This "matter wave" (M-wave) would travel at the same speed as the particle and form a system of planer/spherical waves directing where said particle should move. The M-wave is slowed down by interacting with other M-waves from other particles. The DSE for fermions would show both constructive and destructive interference of the M-wave associated with each moving fermion. Said interference directs the path of the fermion particle.
Can this hypothetical M-wave be measured in stationary particles? Can there be interference between stationary particles?
Can we see any real world forces that fit the characteristics of this hypothetical M-wave?
Just some thoughts on the matter at hand.
Hi Montec,
If we use electrons in the DSE .. as long as they are fairly slow it is easy to imagine another frame where the slits would be moving and the electrons would be stationary. Any thoughts?
Best wishes -C2.
If we use electrons in the DSE .. as long as they are fairly slow it is easy to imagine another frame where the slits would be moving and the electrons would be stationary. Any thoughts?
Best wishes -C2.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.