Last comment for the night...
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
GE has stated that the speed of the E and O IR generated rays are travelling at different speeds thru the crystal and this is responsible for the diffraction angle offsets that are observed. I am not sure about this difference of speed claim, since the photons of interest are of the same frequency, but then again I am not familiar with how photon polarization affects transmission speed thru a crystal.
The photons are created inside the crystal and while inside the crystal they would have different wavelengths and frequencies in there (but the same momentum since the speed of light is different along different axes... BBO is a birefringent crystal). This seems to be necessary for entanglement...??
see... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index
When the two photons exit the crystal they will be the same wavelength (and thus frequency) if the angle of the crystal to the incident beam was just right.
Cheers
see... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index
When the two photons exit the crystal they will be the same wavelength (and thus frequency) if the angle of the crystal to the incident beam was just right.
Cheers
Hi all,
I'll try a quick response.
C2, I did not say that entanglement and interference are the same. I am pointing out the similarities, wherever possible though.
One question:
NOW, you are saying that the "laser" IS "high intensity", in itself? Before, you said that our DSE laser was not. Make a note here, that IF we use TOO high of an intensity laser, things beginning to "melt". First thing to go is the "cement" between the 2 right angled prisms; that is why they have ANOTHER version, without the cement, and with an air gap. So, NO, we are not needing "extra-high" intensity for entanglement; it just increases the percentage of pairs made.
I do think that it will be productive to discuss ALL of the similarities.
GE, I'm not sure what you are "figuring" here (" the entanglement occurs at an angle of 48.1 degrees to the optic axis "), but that seems to be part of our dispersion/refraction index/wavelength dependent phenomenon. What I mean there, is that the angle will change with frequency used, so I don't think you could consider that "fundamental".
If you look "closer" at the diagram, you will see that there is a "UV sky" filter, AT AN ANGLE to the beam axis, placed before the "changeable" IF. That way, our fundamental axis is unchanged, REQUIRED, IMO.
So, we have "normal incidence", no?
Snells law then, will NOT apply to our e ray.
Perhaps you are thinking only in terms of the "BBO crystal", and not the specific style of beam splitter that is being used in this experiment.
Here is the picture again:
click for larger image
This BS is perpendicular to the beam axis in this experiment. "Normal incidence onto the flat surface of the prism". We don't need to make any difficult cuts here, we only have to "adjust" the thickness of the cement used between the long faces of the prisms to "tune" for frequency.
Learning is "boring" to some folks; I hope we can maintain enough "excitement" to keep everybody happy, and involved.
Did I ever mention the DSE performed with the wrinkles on a bat's nose? It seems that they evolved to use this interference phenomenon, and are a bit "touchy" about "path length". If they calculate wrong, BAM!, a painful crash (and more wrinkles!, perhaps better aligned this time!).
regards,
T.Roc
I'll try a quick response.
C2, I did not say that entanglement and interference are the same. I am pointing out the similarities, wherever possible though.
One question:
NOW, you are saying that the "laser" IS "high intensity", in itself? Before, you said that our DSE laser was not. Make a note here, that IF we use TOO high of an intensity laser, things beginning to "melt". First thing to go is the "cement" between the 2 right angled prisms; that is why they have ANOTHER version, without the cement, and with an air gap. So, NO, we are not needing "extra-high" intensity for entanglement; it just increases the percentage of pairs made.
I do think that it will be productive to discuss ALL of the similarities.
GE, I'm not sure what you are "figuring" here (" the entanglement occurs at an angle of 48.1 degrees to the optic axis "), but that seems to be part of our dispersion/refraction index/wavelength dependent phenomenon. What I mean there, is that the angle will change with frequency used, so I don't think you could consider that "fundamental".
If you look "closer" at the diagram, you will see that there is a "UV sky" filter, AT AN ANGLE to the beam axis, placed before the "changeable" IF. That way, our fundamental axis is unchanged, REQUIRED, IMO.
So, we have "normal incidence", no?
Snells law then, will NOT apply to our e ray.
Perhaps you are thinking only in terms of the "BBO crystal", and not the specific style of beam splitter that is being used in this experiment.
Here is the picture again:
click for larger imageThis BS is perpendicular to the beam axis in this experiment. "Normal incidence onto the flat surface of the prism". We don't need to make any difficult cuts here, we only have to "adjust" the thickness of the cement used between the long faces of the prisms to "tune" for frequency.
Learning is "boring" to some folks; I hope we can maintain enough "excitement" to keep everybody happy, and involved.
Did I ever mention the DSE performed with the wrinkles on a bat's nose? It seems that they evolved to use this interference phenomenon, and are a bit "touchy" about "path length". If they calculate wrong, BAM!, a painful crash (and more wrinkles!, perhaps better aligned this time!).
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
If you look "closer" at the diagram, you will see that there is a "UV sky" filter, AT AN ANGLE to the beam axis, placed before the "changeable" IF. That way, our fundamental axis is unchanged, REQUIRED, IMO.
So, we have "normal incidence", no?
So, we have "normal incidence", no?
The commentary says that this is to deflect the 301.2 nm UV away from the straight through path to reduce fluorescence in the rest of the system which could fog the film... Critical angle and all that for the UV. The transmitted 702.2 nm red light is almost totally unaffected by this filter at that angle... total deviation will be zero.
Cheers
Cheers
Hello Confused2, Good Elf, Laserlight, et al.
I haven't found a paper that explicitly explains the frequency shift between the o and e photons resultant from the down conversion process in the BBO crystal, but I'm still looking.
My take on the geometry of the process is thus. If we let the "xy" plane of the coordinate system lie in the plane of your monitor then the "z" axis comes out of the monitor. The BBO crystal is cut so that an incident photon will produce the type-II down conversion. The optic axis of the crystal, with respect to the crystal surface, is preset.
The crystal's optic axis and incident photon's polarization lie in the "yz" plane. The crystal's surface lies in the "xy" plane. When the crystal is rotated about the "x" axis we get changes in the down converted photon paths but they still have the same energy/frequency. When the crystal is rotated about the "y" axis we get changes in the energy/frequency of the down converted photon. The path of the down converted o and e photons are also changed.
When the o and e cones overlap there is a possibility to get entangled photons at the cone intersections. I remember reading that this possibility was 1 out of 500, but I may be mistaken.
So in the DCDSE if you count entangled photons you can get an interference pattern but when all photons are counted the DSE pattern disappears.
I haven't found a paper that explicitly explains the frequency shift between the o and e photons resultant from the down conversion process in the BBO crystal, but I'm still looking.
My take on the geometry of the process is thus. If we let the "xy" plane of the coordinate system lie in the plane of your monitor then the "z" axis comes out of the monitor. The BBO crystal is cut so that an incident photon will produce the type-II down conversion. The optic axis of the crystal, with respect to the crystal surface, is preset.
The crystal's optic axis and incident photon's polarization lie in the "yz" plane. The crystal's surface lies in the "xy" plane. When the crystal is rotated about the "x" axis we get changes in the down converted photon paths but they still have the same energy/frequency. When the crystal is rotated about the "y" axis we get changes in the energy/frequency of the down converted photon. The path of the down converted o and e photons are also changed.
When the o and e cones overlap there is a possibility to get entangled photons at the cone intersections. I remember reading that this possibility was 1 out of 500, but I may be mistaken.
So in the DCDSE if you count entangled photons you can get an interference pattern but when all photons are counted the DSE pattern disappears.
Hi TRoc et al,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
NOW, you are saying that the "laser" IS "high intensity", in itself? Before, you said that our DSE laser was not.
If we (you?) had an explanation for the single photon DSE that required extra frequencies to be generated and we subsequently found that new frequencies can only be generated by high power lasers and non-linear crystals .. we'd be where we are now.
Hi Montec, Good Elf et al,
Try .. if we imagine two cones intersect at A and B .. A represents (say) a down and to the right in one cone and B represents the corresponding up and to the left in the other cone .. conserving momentum. So a photon at A is a momentum conservation solution for a photon at B and vice versa .. hence the photons at A are entangled with the photons at B (and vice versa). Only at A and B do we 'not know' the source (cone/polarisation) of the photon pair. ???
Best wishes - C2.
Call me mean if you like .. if I could get nice rings out of the BBO without using an interference filter .. I wouldn't need/use one.. maybe the other guys have their reasons.
If we (you?) had an explanation for the single photon DSE that required extra frequencies to be generated and we subsequently found that new frequencies can only be generated by high power lasers and non-linear crystals .. we'd be where we are now.
Hi Montec, Good Elf et al,
Try .. if we imagine two cones intersect at A and B .. A represents (say) a down and to the right in one cone and B represents the corresponding up and to the left in the other cone .. conserving momentum. So a photon at A is a momentum conservation solution for a photon at B and vice versa .. hence the photons at A are entangled with the photons at B (and vice versa). Only at A and B do we 'not know' the source (cone/polarisation) of the photon pair. ???
Best wishes - C2.
Call me mean if you like .. if I could get nice rings out of the BBO without using an interference filter .. I wouldn't need/use one.. maybe the other guys have their reasons.
laserlight in a sort of way Montec explained it after my comment.
This is probably a dumb question but here it goes.....if the two waves collide can it cause a sort of sonic boom causing kenetic energy to go back through the crystal lattice?
Hi All,
Printable sheet on BBO here...
http://www.redoptronics.com/printable/crys...bbo_crystal.htm
I found a crystal supplier (Red Optronics) and the general physical parameters of BBO crystals are here including the crystal system (triclinic) and the Refractive Index along each of the e and o rays at three different pump frequencies.
http://www.redoptronics.com/BBO-crystal.html
They are:
Refractive Indices
at 1.0642 mm ne = 1.5425, no = 1.6551
at 0.5321 mm ne = 1.5555, no = 1.6749
at 0.2660 mm ne = 1.6146, no = 1.7571
Here are the custom cuts you can have...
http://www.redoptronics.com/BBO-cut.html
I notice most of the cuts are Type I and only a couple of type II cuts.
Principles of Nonlinear Optical Crystals - Conversion Efficiency
http://www.redoptronics.com/nonlinear-crystal-principal.html
Most of the applications being quoted here are for frequency doubling of dye lasers.
Sellmeier Equations(l in mm)
no^2=2.7359+0.01878/(λ^2-0.01822)-0.01354λ^2
ne^2=2.3753+0.01224/(λ^2-0.01667)-0.01516λ^2
This is the variation of ne and no (RI) by wavelength.
I don't think the 351.1 nm --> 702.2 nm special crystal cut is particularly one of their best "movers". The use of the BBO seems to be in harmonic generation of higher frequency laser beams from lower frequency dye laser ones. If someone else would like to comment feel free...
Cheers
PS: meaning of some special terms...
Optical parametric amplifier (OPA) and optical parametric oscillators (OPO)
Other (alternate) Reference: http://www.newlightphotonics.com/bbo-properties.html#
Alpha BBO that is only birefringent and does not perform downconversion but otherwise has the same properties as beta BBO...
Picture:
Looks the same as the calcite picture... almost... axis arranged North south
http://www.newlightphotonics.com/alpha-BBO.html
Printable sheet on BBO here...
http://www.redoptronics.com/printable/crys...bbo_crystal.htm
I found a crystal supplier (Red Optronics) and the general physical parameters of BBO crystals are here including the crystal system (triclinic) and the Refractive Index along each of the e and o rays at three different pump frequencies.
http://www.redoptronics.com/BBO-crystal.html
They are:
Refractive Indices
at 1.0642 mm ne = 1.5425, no = 1.6551
at 0.5321 mm ne = 1.5555, no = 1.6749
at 0.2660 mm ne = 1.6146, no = 1.7571
Here are the custom cuts you can have...
http://www.redoptronics.com/BBO-cut.html
I notice most of the cuts are Type I and only a couple of type II cuts.
Principles of Nonlinear Optical Crystals - Conversion Efficiency
http://www.redoptronics.com/nonlinear-crystal-principal.html
Most of the applications being quoted here are for frequency doubling of dye lasers.
Sellmeier Equations(l in mm)
no^2=2.7359+0.01878/(λ^2-0.01822)-0.01354λ^2
ne^2=2.3753+0.01224/(λ^2-0.01667)-0.01516λ^2
This is the variation of ne and no (RI) by wavelength.
I don't think the 351.1 nm --> 702.2 nm special crystal cut is particularly one of their best "movers". The use of the BBO seems to be in harmonic generation of higher frequency laser beams from lower frequency dye laser ones. If someone else would like to comment feel free...
Cheers
PS: meaning of some special terms...
Optical parametric amplifier (OPA) and optical parametric oscillators (OPO)
Other (alternate) Reference: http://www.newlightphotonics.com/bbo-properties.html#
Alpha BBO that is only birefringent and does not perform downconversion but otherwise has the same properties as beta BBO...
Picture:
Looks the same as the calcite picture... almost... axis arranged North south
http://www.newlightphotonics.com/alpha-BBO.html
Hi oracle,
From http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Waves/Superposition
At the moment we happen to be looking at beta barium borate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_barium_borate ) which is non-linear when subjected to high intensity light - even so I don't think a 'shockwave' would form .. just some interaction of waveforms which might generate new sources.
Best wishes - C2.
From http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Waves/Superposition
QUOTE
It is found empirically that as long as the amplitudes of waves in most media are small, two waves in the same physical location don't interact with each other. Thus, for example, two waves moving in the opposite direction simply pass through each other without their shapes or amplitudes being changed. When superimposed, the total wave displacement is just the sum of the displacements of the individual waves. This is called the superposition principle. At sufficiently large amplitude the superposition principle often breaks down -- interacting waves may scatter off of each other, lose amplitude, or change their form.
At the moment we happen to be looking at beta barium borate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_barium_borate ) which is non-linear when subjected to high intensity light - even so I don't think a 'shockwave' would form .. just some interaction of waveforms which might generate new sources.
Best wishes - C2.
Hey everyone,
In studying up on SPDC, I ran across this article, The de Broglie Wavelength of a Packet of Light and thought I would share. The paper on the experiment is here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0109/0109005v3.pdf.
In studying up on SPDC, I ran across this article, The de Broglie Wavelength of a Packet of Light and thought I would share. The paper on the experiment is here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0109/0109005v3.pdf.
QUOTE ( The Article Linked Above+)
The researchers generated the twin photons by a process called "spontaneous parametric down-conversion," in which a crystal which has nonlinear optical properties can absorb a single photon and emit a pair of photons, each with half the energy of the original. They found that the key to their experiment lay in modification of the Argon laser beam they used to generate the photons. By placing a wire in front of the beam, they were able to change its intensity in directions perpendicular to the beam's direction, and by focusing this wire onto the double slit they were able to observe the interference pattern of the wave packet interfering with itself. They found the characteristic pattern with wavelength half that of each individual photon.
It looks to me like the entangled photons (bi-photon) retain the de Broglie wavelength of the original photon. Wavelength divided by the total number of entangled photons should have some implications to the various ideas and interpretations discussed. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into it... Comments welcome?
It looks to me like the entangled photons (bi-photon) retain the de Broglie wavelength of the original photon. Wavelength divided by the total number of entangled photons should have some implications to the various ideas and interpretations discussed. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into it... Comments welcome?
Hi Why Not?,
The researchers generated the twin photons by a process called "spontaneous parametric down-conversion," in which a crystal which has nonlinear optical properties can absorb a single photon and emit a pair of photons, each with half the energy of the original. They found that the key to their experiment lay in modification of the Argon laser beam they used to generate the photons. By placing a wire in front of the beam, they were able to change its intensity in directions perpendicular to the beam's direction, and by focusing this wire onto the double slit they were able to observe the interference pattern of the wave packet interfering with itself. They found the characteristic pattern with wavelength half that of each individual photon.
QUOTE (Why Not?+)
QUOTE (The Article Linked Above+)
The researchers generated the twin photons by a process called "spontaneous parametric down-conversion," in which a crystal which has nonlinear optical properties can absorb a single photon and emit a pair of photons, each with half the energy of the original. They found that the key to their experiment lay in modification of the Argon laser beam they used to generate the photons. By placing a wire in front of the beam, they were able to change its intensity in directions perpendicular to the beam's direction, and by focusing this wire onto the double slit they were able to observe the interference pattern of the wave packet interfering with itself. They found the characteristic pattern with wavelength half that of each individual photon.
It looks to me like the entangled photons (bi-photon) retain the de Broglie wavelength of the original photon. Wavelength divided by the total number of entangled photons should have some implications to the various ideas and interpretations discussed. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into it... Comments welcome?
Yes... that is correct, the photons are coherently linked to the "original source" despite the down conversion...
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
As an extra bit of information I hope will not confuse... these 702.2 nm photons are "coherent" with the original source 351.1 nm originating photons... but these are destroyed now... split into these longer wavelength photons.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=230535
This is a property of sources and it is even a property of down conversion. This has some deep philosophical implications if you think about it. Since the qubit is associated with the original source through correlation and it has now become two qubits which are entangled and in some way are still correlated to the original source.
Cheers
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=230535
This is a property of sources and it is even a property of down conversion. This has some deep philosophical implications if you think about it. Since the qubit is associated with the original source through correlation and it has now become two qubits which are entangled and in some way are still correlated to the original source.
Cheers
Hi all,
Thanks for the link, WN?. This paper is dated 2002, and in general, the data that is coming in over the last 7 years is accumulating quickly, and is set to "overthrow" some of our standard beliefs. This is the "revolution", or the "turning of the tide", that I have mentioned before. What we are starting to see, is the term "old QM" being used, signaling a standard "stop gap" procedure by the "old guard".
Bohr's insistence that we stay within the bounds of "what can be measured" is fine; it is the position of the "line" that divides what can, and can not be measured, that has changed. These new measurements have continually challenged the assumptions of QM. To the credit of all involved, QM has configured the complex answers that have got us this far.
Don't anyone take this the wrong way, but having a few people on the internet forum not being aware of the principles of my model is not much of a discouragement. There are more that say the do "get it", than don't. My theory already has confirmation, as I have said before. Many, many experiments have been gathered, confirming parts, and the whole. Are there conflicts with other interpretations? Absolutely. These do NOT reflect on my theory at all, but rather on the inherent flaws, ad hoc assumptions, and ideal equations being literally translated into Physical parameters of QM.
From the article "The de Broglie Wavelength of a Packet of Light":
The principle of treating the slits in the DSE as new sources puts this (entanglement) phenomenon on the same footing. One beam, split into Two, by different means, and getting similar results.
The principle of treating the slits in the DSE as new sources puts this (entanglement) phenomenon on the same footing. One beam, split into Two, by different means, and getting similar results.
By placing a wire in front of the beam, they were able to change its intensity in directions perpendicular to the beam's direction, and by focusing this wire onto the double slit they were able to observe the interference pattern of the wave packet interfering with itself.
Back to the "other" landmark interference experiment: diffraction around a wire (or a strand of hair, originally). The similarity here is, the the "tooth" (space between 2 slits) and the width of a wire: when they are on the "order" of 1 wavelength, diffraction occurs.
It seems to me, that the people who are not completely agreeing with me (yet) have to make a choice between definitions that are in conflict:
A. The concept of a "singular photon" (indivisible),
or
B. The concept that no interaction is possible between "different photons".
Perhaps even more importantly (non trivial), is this question: Does our "tooth" in the DSE split the "wave packet", or the "single photon"?
Again, historically, from Dirac, we get "the photon, therefore, only interferes with itself", which was meant to explain the discrepancy of the "new, single photon DSE" concept, where the "incrementally random" build up of a consistent pattern occurs.
The error in this "logic" is, that if we think that interference with "itself" is causal, then HOW do ALL of the photons (in the build up) "communicate", or otherwise interact, in order to pull off this "geometry" (the fringe pattern)?
[QM's answer is "probabilities" (of a new form). These "probabilities" interact wholesale: every path possible accumulates "probability". Wow! Do you mean, if I just keep throwing the dice, I will reduce my odds one by one, until I MUST win? We should put QM in charge of Las Vegas, and then we could all take a vacation!
From the paper referred to by the article above, "Measurement of the photonic de Broglie wavelength of biphotons generated by spontaneous parametric down-conversion" <link>
It seems to me, that the people who are not completely agreeing with me (yet) have to make a choice between definitions that are in conflict:
A. The concept of a "singular photon" (indivisible),
or
B. The concept that no interaction is possible between "different photons".
Perhaps even more importantly (non trivial), is this question: Does our "tooth" in the DSE split the "wave packet", or the "single photon"?
Again, historically, from Dirac, we get "the photon, therefore, only interferes with itself", which was meant to explain the discrepancy of the "new, single photon DSE" concept, where the "incrementally random" build up of a consistent pattern occurs.
The error in this "logic" is, that if we think that interference with "itself" is causal, then HOW do ALL of the photons (in the build up) "communicate", or otherwise interact, in order to pull off this "geometry" (the fringe pattern)?
[QM's answer is "probabilities" (of a new form). These "probabilities" interact wholesale: every path possible accumulates "probability". Wow! Do you mean, if I just keep throwing the dice, I will reduce my odds one by one, until I MUST win? We should put QM in charge of Las Vegas, and then we could all take a vacation!
From the paper referred to by the article above, "Measurement of the photonic de Broglie wavelength of biphotons generated by spontaneous parametric down-conversion" <link>
Following this concept, Fonseca et al. [7] used a kind of Young’s double slit interferometer to measure the photonic de Broglie wavelength of entangled photon pairs (“biphotons”) generated by parametric down-conversion. In the concept of photonic de Broglie wavelength, the interference and diffraction properties of multiphoton states are governed by their reduced wavelength.
For simplicity, we consider only degenerate single-frequency photons.
The single-frequency treatment is adequate for predicting most distinct properties of interference patterns for both one-photon and two-photon detection, although it will be necessary to consider multi-frequency treatment in order to discuss more detailed phenomena such as the coherence length of the interference.
(emphasis added)
Does everyone understand the relationship between "short coherence length" and "higher intensity" of a wave-packet?
Does everyone understand the relationship between "short coherence length" and "higher intensity" of a wave-packet?
With these results taken together, we can understand that the interferometric properties of the biphoton originate from its non-local quantum correlation in frequency between the constituent photons, but not from the spatial closeness of the two photons.
Geometry flows from Resonance. Geometry (and "spatial distance") are subject to relative perception of an observer; Resonance is scalar, and operates on a fixed, "dimensionless" scale.
ciao!
T.Roc
Thanks for the link, WN?. This paper is dated 2002, and in general, the data that is coming in over the last 7 years is accumulating quickly, and is set to "overthrow" some of our standard beliefs. This is the "revolution", or the "turning of the tide", that I have mentioned before. What we are starting to see, is the term "old QM" being used, signaling a standard "stop gap" procedure by the "old guard".
Bohr's insistence that we stay within the bounds of "what can be measured" is fine; it is the position of the "line" that divides what can, and can not be measured, that has changed. These new measurements have continually challenged the assumptions of QM. To the credit of all involved, QM has configured the complex answers that have got us this far.
Don't anyone take this the wrong way, but having a few people on the internet forum not being aware of the principles of my model is not much of a discouragement. There are more that say the do "get it", than don't. My theory already has confirmation, as I have said before. Many, many experiments have been gathered, confirming parts, and the whole. Are there conflicts with other interpretations? Absolutely. These do NOT reflect on my theory at all, but rather on the inherent flaws, ad hoc assumptions, and ideal equations being literally translated into Physical parameters of QM.
From the article "The de Broglie Wavelength of a Packet of Light":
QUOTE
A dramatic reduction of the wavelength would be possible if all of the photons, as a whole, were divided into two paths by a special beam splitter--a 1,000 photon wave packet of green light would have the de Broglie wavelength of an x-ray, for example.
The principle of treating the slits in the DSE as new sources puts this (entanglement) phenomenon on the same footing. One beam, split into Two, by different means, and getting similar results.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A dramatic reduction of the wavelength would be possible if all of the photons, as a whole, were divided into two paths by a special beam splitter--a 1,000 photon wave packet of green light would have the de Broglie wavelength of an x-ray, for example. |
The principle of treating the slits in the DSE as new sources puts this (entanglement) phenomenon on the same footing. One beam, split into Two, by different means, and getting similar results.
By placing a wire in front of the beam, they were able to change its intensity in directions perpendicular to the beam's direction, and by focusing this wire onto the double slit they were able to observe the interference pattern of the wave packet interfering with itself.
Back to the "other" landmark interference experiment: diffraction around a wire (or a strand of hair, originally). The similarity here is, the the "tooth" (space between 2 slits) and the width of a wire: when they are on the "order" of 1 wavelength, diffraction occurs.
QUOTE
"What's interesting in this experiment," said Pádua, "is that you can see the interference of the two photon packet as a whole with itself, and you can see the interference with each quanta of the two-photon packet with itself. And you can separate the two effects by manipulating the pump laser beam."
"This experiment hopefully will trigger the effort to observe larger wave packets." However, that requires a nonlinear beam splitter--one that splits photons not individually, but which splits the packet as a whole. "This is non trivial," said Yamamoto.
"This experiment hopefully will trigger the effort to observe larger wave packets." However, that requires a nonlinear beam splitter--one that splits photons not individually, but which splits the packet as a whole. "This is non trivial," said Yamamoto.
It seems to me, that the people who are not completely agreeing with me (yet) have to make a choice between definitions that are in conflict:
A. The concept of a "singular photon" (indivisible),
or
B. The concept that no interaction is possible between "different photons".
Perhaps even more importantly (non trivial), is this question: Does our "tooth" in the DSE split the "wave packet", or the "single photon"?
Again, historically, from Dirac, we get "the photon, therefore, only interferes with itself", which was meant to explain the discrepancy of the "new, single photon DSE" concept, where the "incrementally random" build up of a consistent pattern occurs.
The error in this "logic" is, that if we think that interference with "itself" is causal, then HOW do ALL of the photons (in the build up) "communicate", or otherwise interact, in order to pull off this "geometry" (the fringe pattern)?
[QM's answer is "probabilities" (of a new form). These "probabilities" interact wholesale: every path possible accumulates "probability". Wow! Do you mean, if I just keep throwing the dice, I will reduce my odds one by one, until I MUST win? We should put QM in charge of Las Vegas, and then we could all take a vacation!
From the paper referred to by the article above, "Measurement of the photonic de Broglie wavelength of biphotons generated by spontaneous parametric down-conversion" <link>
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "What's interesting in this experiment," said Pádua, "is that you can see the interference of the two photon packet as a whole with itself, and you can see the interference with each quanta of the two-photon packet with itself. And you can separate the two effects by manipulating the pump laser beam." "This experiment hopefully will trigger the effort to observe larger wave packets." However, that requires a nonlinear beam splitter--one that splits photons not individually, but which splits the packet as a whole. "This is non trivial," said Yamamoto. |
It seems to me, that the people who are not completely agreeing with me (yet) have to make a choice between definitions that are in conflict:
A. The concept of a "singular photon" (indivisible),
or
B. The concept that no interaction is possible between "different photons".
Perhaps even more importantly (non trivial), is this question: Does our "tooth" in the DSE split the "wave packet", or the "single photon"?
Again, historically, from Dirac, we get "the photon, therefore, only interferes with itself", which was meant to explain the discrepancy of the "new, single photon DSE" concept, where the "incrementally random" build up of a consistent pattern occurs.
The error in this "logic" is, that if we think that interference with "itself" is causal, then HOW do ALL of the photons (in the build up) "communicate", or otherwise interact, in order to pull off this "geometry" (the fringe pattern)?
[QM's answer is "probabilities" (of a new form). These "probabilities" interact wholesale: every path possible accumulates "probability". Wow! Do you mean, if I just keep throwing the dice, I will reduce my odds one by one, until I MUST win? We should put QM in charge of Las Vegas, and then we could all take a vacation!
From the paper referred to by the article above, "Measurement of the photonic de Broglie wavelength of biphotons generated by spontaneous parametric down-conversion" <link>
Following this concept, Fonseca et al. [7] used a kind of Young’s double slit interferometer to measure the photonic de Broglie wavelength of entangled photon pairs (“biphotons”) generated by parametric down-conversion. In the concept of photonic de Broglie wavelength, the interference and diffraction properties of multiphoton states are governed by their reduced wavelength.
QUOTE
We show that not only the “wavelength” but also the coherence length of the biphoton are different from those of a single photon. We also discuss the nature of biphoton interference, which is essentially governed by the quantum correlation between two constituent photons.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We show that not only the “wavelength” but also the coherence length of the biphoton are different from those of a single photon. We also discuss the nature of biphoton interference, which is essentially governed by the quantum correlation between two constituent photons. |
For simplicity, we consider only degenerate single-frequency photons.
The single-frequency treatment is adequate for predicting most distinct properties of interference patterns for both one-photon and two-photon detection, although it will be necessary to consider multi-frequency treatment in order to discuss more detailed phenomena such as the coherence length of the interference.
(emphasis added)
QUOTE
Although the interference oscillation in the one-photon counting rate disappears at L2∼400 μm, the interference of the two-photon counting rate remains until the path-length difference is much larger, indicating that biphotons have much longer coherence lengths than do single photons. Since the spontaneous parametric down-converted photons have considerably wide spectral widths, the coherence length of the one-photon counting rate is governed by the spectral bandwidth of the interference filters placed in front of the detectors (See Fig. 2). Thus, the coherence length of the one-photon counting rate becomes very short (2 c/ ∼ 70 μm).
Does everyone understand the relationship between "short coherence length" and "higher intensity" of a wave-packet?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Although the interference oscillation in the one-photon counting rate disappears at L2∼400 μm, the interference of the two-photon counting rate remains until the path-length difference is much larger, indicating that biphotons have much longer coherence lengths than do single photons. Since the spontaneous parametric down-converted photons have considerably wide spectral widths, the coherence length of the one-photon counting rate is governed by the spectral bandwidth of the interference filters placed in front of the detectors (See Fig. 2). Thus, the coherence length of the one-photon counting rate becomes very short (2 c/ ∼ 70 μm). |
Does everyone understand the relationship between "short coherence length" and "higher intensity" of a wave-packet?
With these results taken together, we can understand that the interferometric properties of the biphoton originate from its non-local quantum correlation in frequency between the constituent photons, but not from the spatial closeness of the two photons.
Geometry flows from Resonance. Geometry (and "spatial distance") are subject to relative perception of an observer; Resonance is scalar, and operates on a fixed, "dimensionless" scale.
ciao!
T.Roc
Hi TRoc and All,
"Interference with itself" isn't causal. Causal is when two different energy
entities interact in some fashion to change the characteristics of one or the
other, or both, in some way.
It is an action-reaction event result that occurs over a period of time. The
key here is the resultant REACTION, or INTERACTION, between separate energy
systems.
It seems likely that if you change the energy characteristics of one system, there
is also a corresponding change in the other system. If two systems combine
energies thru resonance, then both systems are affected via the conservation of
energy, since they both are equally a part of the interaction.
I have previously proposed that the local atomic timing or phasing is being
incrementally changed as each new photon resonantly interacts with the matter
that makes up the slits. If even one atom within an atomic matrix changes phase
or resonance by an energy induction process, then that localized phase "change" is
detected by all atoms in the matrix, via resonant "correspondence". If you change
the resonance phasing or timing of the matrix it will induce a slight phase shift in
tuning response...this is the essence of resonance. It is a frequency response, a
phase change at the atomic level.
The atoms in the matrix are all harmonically coupled together and there is a
latency, a time delay, as induced phase changes ripple thru the atomic structure
as the atoms realign to balance the energy and phase relationships within the
atomic matrix.
Think of it this way, waves are rippling thru the atomic matrix over some period
of time, and the lattice is responding to that dynamic change of energy according
to the frequency of the wave energy moving (coupling) thru the matrix.
When sound frequencies ripple thru the air, the air molecules vibrate in response
to the energy of the waves, there is resonance, a latency, between air molecules
as they move over time in response to the frequency applied. Similarly, in a
cavity, the atoms of the cavity walls respond to the frequency of EM wave energy
induced into their shells by the passing photons, and the atoms of the cavity
resonate. This change of phase in the atomic structure of the cavity is resonantly
coupled into subsequent arriving photons. The newly arriving photons couple to
this resonance and their internal phase timing is modified via "transformer"
impedance coupling.
"Interference with itself" isn't causal. Causal is when two different energy
entities interact in some fashion to change the characteristics of one or the
other, or both, in some way.
It is an action-reaction event result that occurs over a period of time. The
key here is the resultant REACTION, or INTERACTION, between separate energy
systems.
It seems likely that if you change the energy characteristics of one system, there
is also a corresponding change in the other system. If two systems combine
energies thru resonance, then both systems are affected via the conservation of
energy, since they both are equally a part of the interaction.
I have previously proposed that the local atomic timing or phasing is being
incrementally changed as each new photon resonantly interacts with the matter
that makes up the slits. If even one atom within an atomic matrix changes phase
or resonance by an energy induction process, then that localized phase "change" is
detected by all atoms in the matrix, via resonant "correspondence". If you change
the resonance phasing or timing of the matrix it will induce a slight phase shift in
tuning response...this is the essence of resonance. It is a frequency response, a
phase change at the atomic level.
The atoms in the matrix are all harmonically coupled together and there is a
latency, a time delay, as induced phase changes ripple thru the atomic structure
as the atoms realign to balance the energy and phase relationships within the
atomic matrix.
Think of it this way, waves are rippling thru the atomic matrix over some period
of time, and the lattice is responding to that dynamic change of energy according
to the frequency of the wave energy moving (coupling) thru the matrix.
When sound frequencies ripple thru the air, the air molecules vibrate in response
to the energy of the waves, there is resonance, a latency, between air molecules
as they move over time in response to the frequency applied. Similarly, in a
cavity, the atoms of the cavity walls respond to the frequency of EM wave energy
induced into their shells by the passing photons, and the atoms of the cavity
resonate. This change of phase in the atomic structure of the cavity is resonantly
coupled into subsequent arriving photons. The newly arriving photons couple to
this resonance and their internal phase timing is modified via "transformer"
impedance coupling.
Geometry flows from Resonance. Geometry (and "spatial distance") are subject to relative perception of an observer; Resonance is scalar, and operates on a fixed, "dimensionless" scale.
This is a profound statement. It would seem that geometry and resonance are
are mutually dependent phenomena. Hmmm, dimensionless "scale"....shouldn't
that be a time dependency?
LL
QUOTE
The error in this "logic" is, that if we think that interference with "itself" is causal, then HOW do ALL of the photons (in the build up) "communicate", or otherwise interact, in order to pull off this "geometry" (the fringe pattern)?
"Interference with itself" isn't causal. Causal is when two different energy
entities interact in some fashion to change the characteristics of one or the
other, or both, in some way.
It is an action-reaction event result that occurs over a period of time. The
key here is the resultant REACTION, or INTERACTION, between separate energy
systems.
It seems likely that if you change the energy characteristics of one system, there
is also a corresponding change in the other system. If two systems combine
energies thru resonance, then both systems are affected via the conservation of
energy, since they both are equally a part of the interaction.
I have previously proposed that the local atomic timing or phasing is being
incrementally changed as each new photon resonantly interacts with the matter
that makes up the slits. If even one atom within an atomic matrix changes phase
or resonance by an energy induction process, then that localized phase "change" is
detected by all atoms in the matrix, via resonant "correspondence". If you change
the resonance phasing or timing of the matrix it will induce a slight phase shift in
tuning response...this is the essence of resonance. It is a frequency response, a
phase change at the atomic level.
The atoms in the matrix are all harmonically coupled together and there is a
latency, a time delay, as induced phase changes ripple thru the atomic structure
as the atoms realign to balance the energy and phase relationships within the
atomic matrix.
Think of it this way, waves are rippling thru the atomic matrix over some period
of time, and the lattice is responding to that dynamic change of energy according
to the frequency of the wave energy moving (coupling) thru the matrix.
When sound frequencies ripple thru the air, the air molecules vibrate in response
to the energy of the waves, there is resonance, a latency, between air molecules
as they move over time in response to the frequency applied. Similarly, in a
cavity, the atoms of the cavity walls respond to the frequency of EM wave energy
induced into their shells by the passing photons, and the atoms of the cavity
resonate. This change of phase in the atomic structure of the cavity is resonantly
coupled into subsequent arriving photons. The newly arriving photons couple to
this resonance and their internal phase timing is modified via "transformer"
impedance coupling.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The error in this "logic" is, that if we think that interference with "itself" is causal, then HOW do ALL of the photons (in the build up) "communicate", or otherwise interact, in order to pull off this "geometry" (the fringe pattern)? |
"Interference with itself" isn't causal. Causal is when two different energy
entities interact in some fashion to change the characteristics of one or the
other, or both, in some way.
It is an action-reaction event result that occurs over a period of time. The
key here is the resultant REACTION, or INTERACTION, between separate energy
systems.
It seems likely that if you change the energy characteristics of one system, there
is also a corresponding change in the other system. If two systems combine
energies thru resonance, then both systems are affected via the conservation of
energy, since they both are equally a part of the interaction.
I have previously proposed that the local atomic timing or phasing is being
incrementally changed as each new photon resonantly interacts with the matter
that makes up the slits. If even one atom within an atomic matrix changes phase
or resonance by an energy induction process, then that localized phase "change" is
detected by all atoms in the matrix, via resonant "correspondence". If you change
the resonance phasing or timing of the matrix it will induce a slight phase shift in
tuning response...this is the essence of resonance. It is a frequency response, a
phase change at the atomic level.
The atoms in the matrix are all harmonically coupled together and there is a
latency, a time delay, as induced phase changes ripple thru the atomic structure
as the atoms realign to balance the energy and phase relationships within the
atomic matrix.
Think of it this way, waves are rippling thru the atomic matrix over some period
of time, and the lattice is responding to that dynamic change of energy according
to the frequency of the wave energy moving (coupling) thru the matrix.
When sound frequencies ripple thru the air, the air molecules vibrate in response
to the energy of the waves, there is resonance, a latency, between air molecules
as they move over time in response to the frequency applied. Similarly, in a
cavity, the atoms of the cavity walls respond to the frequency of EM wave energy
induced into their shells by the passing photons, and the atoms of the cavity
resonate. This change of phase in the atomic structure of the cavity is resonantly
coupled into subsequent arriving photons. The newly arriving photons couple to
this resonance and their internal phase timing is modified via "transformer"
impedance coupling.
Geometry flows from Resonance. Geometry (and "spatial distance") are subject to relative perception of an observer; Resonance is scalar, and operates on a fixed, "dimensionless" scale.
This is a profound statement. It would seem that geometry and resonance are
are mutually dependent phenomena. Hmmm, dimensionless "scale"....shouldn't
that be a time dependency?
LL
Hi All,
A followup to my prior post.
I would be willing to bet, that if a camera was linked to a computer that could
seqentially count and mark the location of the hits of individual arriving photons
that were hitting a PMT detector, that the photon arrivals at discrete locations
would follow a fixed, and recycling, arrival pattern that transcribes the periodic
phase angle rotation of a circle.
This experiment would indicate that indeed there is a predictable phase timing
interval that is responsible for where the individual photon waves are
constructively interacting to form the single photon DSE pattern.
The other consequences of such an experiment would be that it would upset
the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), because the sequence of the
photon hits would become predictable for a fixed geometrical relationship
and coherent light.
If this experiment were to work as I suggest, it would show that photons that
arrive at 180 degree timing offsets relative to their coordinate positions on a circle,
would form the central peak of the DSE. These photons would represent
constructive phases that align along the zero "y" vertical axis of a circle. The
subsequent photons would align left and right of the centerline incrementally along
the x axis, according to the distance gap between the slit wall and the detector
wall, where their constructive phase components superpose.
This would be the angular "displacement" as seen on the screen plane, according
to their relative angular positions on the circle, referenced to the circular
rotation. This idea follows phase angle theory as a sinewave signal rotates thru a
circle, and is a scanning technique used in precision scanning radar systems used
at military airports. (this could be a "dated" technique)
This model should work, from a conceptual perspective.
Comments?
LL
A followup to my prior post.
I would be willing to bet, that if a camera was linked to a computer that could
seqentially count and mark the location of the hits of individual arriving photons
that were hitting a PMT detector, that the photon arrivals at discrete locations
would follow a fixed, and recycling, arrival pattern that transcribes the periodic
phase angle rotation of a circle.
This experiment would indicate that indeed there is a predictable phase timing
interval that is responsible for where the individual photon waves are
constructively interacting to form the single photon DSE pattern.
The other consequences of such an experiment would be that it would upset
the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), because the sequence of the
photon hits would become predictable for a fixed geometrical relationship
and coherent light.
If this experiment were to work as I suggest, it would show that photons that
arrive at 180 degree timing offsets relative to their coordinate positions on a circle,
would form the central peak of the DSE. These photons would represent
constructive phases that align along the zero "y" vertical axis of a circle. The
subsequent photons would align left and right of the centerline incrementally along
the x axis, according to the distance gap between the slit wall and the detector
wall, where their constructive phase components superpose.
This would be the angular "displacement" as seen on the screen plane, according
to their relative angular positions on the circle, referenced to the circular
rotation. This idea follows phase angle theory as a sinewave signal rotates thru a
circle, and is a scanning technique used in precision scanning radar systems used
at military airports. (this could be a "dated" technique)
This model should work, from a conceptual perspective.
Comments?
LL
Hey LL, TRoc, Good Elf, C2, and all,
The two things that struck me as most intriguing about the experiment are: 1) λ = λ(i)/N where N is the total number of entangled photons and 2) That the coherent length of the entangled photons is considerable greater than that of the individual photons.
Since coherent time is proportional to coherent length and since the photonic de Broglie wavelength is inversely proportional to the total number of entangled photons, then a large number of entangled photons (each with relatively small momentum) can be arranged to arrive at the screen across a large delta T. This should in turn increase the optical resolution well beyond the range of what the source photon is capable of. In essence, by exaggerating the uncertainty in time, we can use a short wavelength pulse, distributed across many entangled photons, to “slowly heat” the object we are trying to examine instead of knocking it to kingdom come all in one shot. I do not believe that we can subvert the HUP. Rather, we can manipulate the amount of uncertainty contained in each of the conjugate variables to achieve a better result.
The two things that struck me as most intriguing about the experiment are: 1) λ = λ(i)/N where N is the total number of entangled photons and 2) That the coherent length of the entangled photons is considerable greater than that of the individual photons.
Since coherent time is proportional to coherent length and since the photonic de Broglie wavelength is inversely proportional to the total number of entangled photons, then a large number of entangled photons (each with relatively small momentum) can be arranged to arrive at the screen across a large delta T. This should in turn increase the optical resolution well beyond the range of what the source photon is capable of. In essence, by exaggerating the uncertainty in time, we can use a short wavelength pulse, distributed across many entangled photons, to “slowly heat” the object we are trying to examine instead of knocking it to kingdom come all in one shot. I do not believe that we can subvert the HUP. Rather, we can manipulate the amount of uncertainty contained in each of the conjugate variables to achieve a better result.
Hi All,
http://www.geocities.com/jpecic/DSE.html?1183062305890
FYI, just an interpretation of the DSE bar pattern that illustrates phase angles spaced
at 22.5 degree increments along the circumference of a circle. As the distance
between the slit wall and the detection screen gets wider in each image, the red
bar spacing representing the phase angles also widens according to the increasing
wall spacing. This should represent the linear "scan width" of a bell curve along
the 2D wall plane, according to the "gap" distance between the walls.
As we have discussed previously, the amplitude of the interference "bars"
is a function of the intensity...the number of photons that are in phase at each
location. The highest intensity is always centered on the centerline axis of the
circle/sphere that is located midway between the slits.
This does not account for the gap spacing between the slits which establishes the
relative timing and phase relationship of the wave superpositions. That
phase relationship establishes the bright and dark superposition points that make
up the interference pattern.
LL
http://www.geocities.com/jpecic/DSE.html?1183062305890
FYI, just an interpretation of the DSE bar pattern that illustrates phase angles spaced
at 22.5 degree increments along the circumference of a circle. As the distance
between the slit wall and the detection screen gets wider in each image, the red
bar spacing representing the phase angles also widens according to the increasing
wall spacing. This should represent the linear "scan width" of a bell curve along
the 2D wall plane, according to the "gap" distance between the walls.
As we have discussed previously, the amplitude of the interference "bars"
is a function of the intensity...the number of photons that are in phase at each
location. The highest intensity is always centered on the centerline axis of the
circle/sphere that is located midway between the slits.
This does not account for the gap spacing between the slits which establishes the
relative timing and phase relationship of the wave superpositions. That
phase relationship establishes the bright and dark superposition points that make
up the interference pattern.
LL
Off topic but of interest:
Stan Ovshinsky is the Edison of our time, has hundreds of patents.
http://www.ovonic.com/
LL
Stan Ovshinsky is the Edison of our time, has hundreds of patents.
http://www.ovonic.com/
LL
Hi Laserlight,
... Click to enlarge...
FYI, just an interpretation of the DSE bar pattern that illustrates phase angles spaced at 22.5 degree increments along the circumference of a circle. As the distance between the slit wall and the detection screen gets wider in each image, the red bar spacing representing the phase angles also widens according to the increasing wall spacing. This should represent the linear "scan width" of a bell curve along the 2D wall plane, according to the "gap" distance between the walls.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
... Click to enlarge...
FYI, just an interpretation of the DSE bar pattern that illustrates phase angles spaced at 22.5 degree increments along the circumference of a circle. As the distance between the slit wall and the detection screen gets wider in each image, the red bar spacing representing the phase angles also widens according to the increasing wall spacing. This should represent the linear "scan width" of a bell curve along the 2D wall plane, according to the "gap" distance between the walls.
Assuming I am looking at this correctly that should be 1/2 circle there. The point of divergence (center of the circle) should be the "bar" between the two slits.... Right??
Maybe I have misunderstood what is shown there? I have assumed "wall spacing" is slit to screen distance?
Cheers
Maybe I have misunderstood what is shown there? I have assumed "wall spacing" is slit to screen distance?
Cheers
Hi GE,
I knew you would ask that question!
If, as I suggest, the EM signal passing thru the slits "scans" back and forth
across the 2D detection screen in a repeatable pattern, it must transcribe a circular
angular rotation that moves it from one side of the screen to the other. The
scan will follow the angular rotation around the circumference of the circle.
Start at 0 degrees (12:00 position) and pick a direction of rotation while marking
where the phase angle will intersect on the detection screen. The scan will
start at the centerpoint between the slits and will move to one extreme edge on
the screen which is represented by either 90 or 270 degrees on the circle,
depending upon the direction chosen. The 90 and 270 degree intersection points on
the screen would be the minima intersection points of the bell curve on a crossing
x axis.
As the phase angle rotation continues past 90 degrees, the scan reverses direction
and moves back toward the center. At the 180 degree phase angle of the circle,
the scan will be realigned with the 0 reference centerline which represents the
peak of the bell curve. As the rotation proceeds, the scan on the 2D screen will
eventually rotate to the 270 degree phase angle, which is the extreme limit in the
other direction, at which point the scan reverses again back toward the
centerline as the phase angle exceeds 270 degrees.
The red lines in the diagram contact the phase angle on the circumference of the
circle and project that phase angle onto the 2D detection screen. So effectively
we are taking a circular rotation and projecting a linear scan representation of the
rotation on a 2D plane.
The size of the circles illustrate the effects of the Inverse Square Law (ISL) on
the spacing between the slit wall and the detection screen. They also illustrate
the phase angle timing increase with an increase in distance between the walls,
according to the circumference of a circle.
Now use your imagination and replace the circles in the diagrams with spheres.
This provides the scan results in 3 dimensions (x, y, z), and also the time that
it takes to make a full circular rotation (scan) back and forth on the screen.
Comments? Discussion?
LL
QUOTE
Assuming I am looking at this correctly that should be 1/2 circle there. The point of divergence (center of the circle) should be the "bar" between the two slits.... Right??
Maybe I have misunderstood what is shown there? I have assumed "wall spacing" is slit to screen distance?
Yes!Maybe I have misunderstood what is shown there? I have assumed "wall spacing" is slit to screen distance?
I knew you would ask that question!
If, as I suggest, the EM signal passing thru the slits "scans" back and forth
across the 2D detection screen in a repeatable pattern, it must transcribe a circular
angular rotation that moves it from one side of the screen to the other. The
scan will follow the angular rotation around the circumference of the circle.
Start at 0 degrees (12:00 position) and pick a direction of rotation while marking
where the phase angle will intersect on the detection screen. The scan will
start at the centerpoint between the slits and will move to one extreme edge on
the screen which is represented by either 90 or 270 degrees on the circle,
depending upon the direction chosen. The 90 and 270 degree intersection points on
the screen would be the minima intersection points of the bell curve on a crossing
x axis.
As the phase angle rotation continues past 90 degrees, the scan reverses direction
and moves back toward the center. At the 180 degree phase angle of the circle,
the scan will be realigned with the 0 reference centerline which represents the
peak of the bell curve. As the rotation proceeds, the scan on the 2D screen will
eventually rotate to the 270 degree phase angle, which is the extreme limit in the
other direction, at which point the scan reverses again back toward the
centerline as the phase angle exceeds 270 degrees.
The red lines in the diagram contact the phase angle on the circumference of the
circle and project that phase angle onto the 2D detection screen. So effectively
we are taking a circular rotation and projecting a linear scan representation of the
rotation on a 2D plane.
The size of the circles illustrate the effects of the Inverse Square Law (ISL) on
the spacing between the slit wall and the detection screen. They also illustrate
the phase angle timing increase with an increase in distance between the walls,
according to the circumference of a circle.
Now use your imagination and replace the circles in the diagrams with spheres.
This provides the scan results in 3 dimensions (x, y, z), and also the time that
it takes to make a full circular rotation (scan) back and forth on the screen.
Comments? Discussion?
LL
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Now use your imagination and replace the circles in the diagrams with spheres. This provides the scan results in 3 dimensions (x, y, z), and also the time that it takes to make a full circular rotation (scan) back and forth on the screen.
Comments? Discussion?
Comments? Discussion?
Clearly it will result in Spherical Harmonics and these are standing waves... It depends on which modes you are looking at and how this figure is "projected". We know mathematically this is a Fourier transform of the source in the ideal case. One could imagine excitations that provide a hemisphere filling pattern.... from more point source holes that are correlated.
Spherical Harmonics Demonstration A Java Applet.
This is the principle using optical systems...
...Click to enlarge...
Of course your example is actually the double slit and the sources interfere coherently with each other. Any number of sources interfere. If we replace the input plane of this "device" with a mask allowing a number of point sources illuminated from the one coherent planar collimated source we end up with mutually interfering point sources. We know the answer for two interfering sources... the double slit... we know the answer for a periodic series of point sources all in a straight line at equal spaces... a diffraction grating and we know if the input plane is "our Universe" made up of an infinite number of coherent sources which are mutually interfering matter waves we get....?
Cheers
Cheers
Spherical Harmonics Demonstration A Java Applet.
This is the principle using optical systems...
...Click to enlarge...
Of course your example is actually the double slit and the sources interfere coherently with each other. Any number of sources interfere. If we replace the input plane of this "device" with a mask allowing a number of point sources illuminated from the one coherent planar collimated source we end up with mutually interfering point sources. We know the answer for two interfering sources... the double slit... we know the answer for a periodic series of point sources all in a straight line at equal spaces... a diffraction grating and we know if the input plane is "our Universe" made up of an infinite number of coherent sources which are mutually interfering matter waves we get....?
Cheers
Cheers
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 28 2007, 12:36 PM)
Hi All,
A followup to my prior post.
I would be willing to bet, that if a camera was linked to a computer that could
seqentially count and mark the location of the hits of individual arriving photons
that were hitting a PMT detector, that the photon arrivals at discrete locations
would follow a fixed, and recycling, arrival pattern that transcribes the periodic
phase angle rotation of a circle.
This experiment would indicate that indeed there is a predictable phase timing
interval that is responsible for where the individual photon waves are
constructively interacting to form the single photon DSE pattern.
The other consequences of such an experiment would be that it would upset
the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), because the sequence of the
photon hits would become predictable for a fixed geometrical relationship
and coherent light.
If this experiment were to work as I suggest, it would show that photons that
arrive at 180 degree timing offsets relative to their coordinate positions on a circle,
would form the central peak of the DSE. These photons would represent
constructive phases that align along the zero "y" vertical axis of a circle. The
subsequent photons would align left and right of the centerline incrementally along
the x axis, according to the distance gap between the slit wall and the detector
wall, where their constructive phase components superpose.
This would be the angular "displacement" as seen on the screen plane, according
to their relative angular positions on the circle, referenced to the circular
rotation. This idea follows phase angle theory as a sinewave signal rotates thru a
circle, and is a scanning technique used in precision scanning radar systems used
at military airports. (this could be a "dated" technique)
This model should work, from a conceptual perspective.
Comments?
LL
This thread continues to blow my mind.
Laserlight, I was just about to ask if something similar to the hit tracking you are describing had been done. I suspect that a winding patern would emerge if as the hit events took place. A set of time lapse videos or simulations would be nice, if anyone knows of any.
Regarding the parametric down conversion, someone brought this up on a different thread: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=15682
Now this seemed so idiotically simple that it could not possibly have been missed for so long. However, Mate's interpretation seems perfectly valid to me (mind you I'm not an expert).
So a photon undergoes a parametric down conversion for use in a delayed choise DSE. Now consider the possibility that it's quantum state is generated at the time of creation rather than detection. The entangled photons would essentially be mirror images of each other, and due to relativistic effects their properties would be unchanging while in transit.
Now here is where it gets interesting, if the above is true the apparent causality violations observed in the Delayed Choise DSE might simply be due to simply misinterpreting the nature of entanglement.
In this case entangled particles are essentially mirror images of each other, so once you observe one you have information on both of them. It's akin to flipping a coin and getting heads, then having your mind blown because it's tails on the other side.
Thus if you detect the left photon to be spin up, then the right photon must be spin down. Now if you go into this experiment assuming that the act of observing the photon rather than the act of splitting it is responsible for the 'wave function collapse', you would naturally interperet this as spooky action at a distance.
A followup to my prior post.
I would be willing to bet, that if a camera was linked to a computer that could
seqentially count and mark the location of the hits of individual arriving photons
that were hitting a PMT detector, that the photon arrivals at discrete locations
would follow a fixed, and recycling, arrival pattern that transcribes the periodic
phase angle rotation of a circle.
This experiment would indicate that indeed there is a predictable phase timing
interval that is responsible for where the individual photon waves are
constructively interacting to form the single photon DSE pattern.
The other consequences of such an experiment would be that it would upset
the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), because the sequence of the
photon hits would become predictable for a fixed geometrical relationship
and coherent light.
If this experiment were to work as I suggest, it would show that photons that
arrive at 180 degree timing offsets relative to their coordinate positions on a circle,
would form the central peak of the DSE. These photons would represent
constructive phases that align along the zero "y" vertical axis of a circle. The
subsequent photons would align left and right of the centerline incrementally along
the x axis, according to the distance gap between the slit wall and the detector
wall, where their constructive phase components superpose.
This would be the angular "displacement" as seen on the screen plane, according
to their relative angular positions on the circle, referenced to the circular
rotation. This idea follows phase angle theory as a sinewave signal rotates thru a
circle, and is a scanning technique used in precision scanning radar systems used
at military airports. (this could be a "dated" technique)
This model should work, from a conceptual perspective.
Comments?
LL
This thread continues to blow my mind.
Laserlight, I was just about to ask if something similar to the hit tracking you are describing had been done. I suspect that a winding patern would emerge if as the hit events took place. A set of time lapse videos or simulations would be nice, if anyone knows of any.
Regarding the parametric down conversion, someone brought this up on a different thread: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=15682
Now this seemed so idiotically simple that it could not possibly have been missed for so long. However, Mate's interpretation seems perfectly valid to me (mind you I'm not an expert).
So a photon undergoes a parametric down conversion for use in a delayed choise DSE. Now consider the possibility that it's quantum state is generated at the time of creation rather than detection. The entangled photons would essentially be mirror images of each other, and due to relativistic effects their properties would be unchanging while in transit.
Now here is where it gets interesting, if the above is true the apparent causality violations observed in the Delayed Choise DSE might simply be due to simply misinterpreting the nature of entanglement.
In this case entangled particles are essentially mirror images of each other, so once you observe one you have information on both of them. It's akin to flipping a coin and getting heads, then having your mind blown because it's tails on the other side.
Thus if you detect the left photon to be spin up, then the right photon must be spin down. Now if you go into this experiment assuming that the act of observing the photon rather than the act of splitting it is responsible for the 'wave function collapse', you would naturally interperet this as spooky action at a distance.
Hey Wulf (and Mate),
You are talking about "Hidden Variables" and you are in good company. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, all thought similarly about QM and chose to assume that hidden variables, instead on non local interaction, were at play. John Bell found a way to test QM for hidden variables and Alain Aspect conducted the test. The result... hidden variables are not the answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
There is no arrival pattern outside of the interference distribution and many experiments have shown that it is impossible to determine where specifically within the interference pattern an individual photon will land.
You are talking about "Hidden Variables" and you are in good company. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, all thought similarly about QM and chose to assume that hidden variables, instead on non local interaction, were at play. John Bell found a way to test QM for hidden variables and Alain Aspect conducted the test. The result... hidden variables are not the answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
There is no arrival pattern outside of the interference distribution and many experiments have shown that it is impossible to determine where specifically within the interference pattern an individual photon will land.
QUOTE (Why Not?+Jun 29 2007, 07:30 AM)
Hey Wulf (and Mate),
You are talking about "Hidden Variables" and you are in good company. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, all thought similarly about QM and chose to assume that hidden variables, instead on non local interaction, were at play. John Bell found a way to test QM for hidden variables and Alain Aspect conducted the test. The result... hidden variables are not the answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
There is no arrival pattern outside of the interference distribution and many experiments have shown that it is impossible to determine where specifically within the interference pattern an individual photon will land.
I've recently read some some interesting papers on SED related to gravity arising from the vacuum fluctuations interacting with matter. In this context Zero Point Energy fluctuations would be the 'hidden variable', wich is more random than hidden.
Do you happen to have any links to those experiments you mentioned? The pattern I am looking for is a kind of random walk pattern between subsequent detection events.
You are talking about "Hidden Variables" and you are in good company. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, all thought similarly about QM and chose to assume that hidden variables, instead on non local interaction, were at play. John Bell found a way to test QM for hidden variables and Alain Aspect conducted the test. The result... hidden variables are not the answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
There is no arrival pattern outside of the interference distribution and many experiments have shown that it is impossible to determine where specifically within the interference pattern an individual photon will land.
I've recently read some some interesting papers on SED related to gravity arising from the vacuum fluctuations interacting with matter. In this context Zero Point Energy fluctuations would be the 'hidden variable', wich is more random than hidden.
Do you happen to have any links to those experiments you mentioned? The pattern I am looking for is a kind of random walk pattern between subsequent detection events.
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 29 2007, 05:33 AM)
Hi GE,
Yes!
I knew you would ask that question!
If, as I suggest, the EM signal passing thru the slits "scans" back and forth
across the 2D detection screen in a repeatable pattern, it must transcribe a circular
angular rotation that moves it from one side of the screen to the other. The
scan will follow the angular rotation around the circumference of the circle.
Start at 0 degrees (12:00 position) and pick a direction of rotation while marking
where the phase angle will intersect on the detection screen. The scan will
start at the centerpoint between the slits and will move to one extreme edge on
the screen which is represented by either 90 or 270 degrees on the circle,
depending upon the direction chosen. The 90 and 270 degree intersection points on
the screen would be the minima intersection points of the bell curve on a crossing
x axis.
As the phase angle rotation continues past 90 degrees, the scan reverses direction
and moves back toward the center. At the 180 degree phase angle of the circle,
the scan will be realigned with the 0 reference centerline which represents the
peak of the bell curve. As the rotation proceeds, the scan on the 2D screen will
eventually rotate to the 270 degree phase angle, which is the extreme limit in the
other direction, at which point the scan reverses again back toward the
centerline as the phase angle exceeds 270 degrees.
The red lines in the diagram contact the phase angle on the circumference of the
circle and project that phase angle onto the 2D detection screen. So effectively
we are taking a circular rotation and projecting a linear scan representation of the
rotation on a 2D plane.
The size of the circles illustrate the effects of the Inverse Square Law (ISL) on
the spacing between the slit wall and the detection screen. They also illustrate
the phase angle timing increase with an increase in distance between the walls,
according to the circumference of a circle.
Now use your imagination and replace the circles in the diagrams with spheres.
This provides the scan results in 3 dimensions (x, y, z), and also the time that
it takes to make a full circular rotation (scan) back and forth on the screen.
Comments? Discussion?
LL
interesting
Yes!
I knew you would ask that question!
If, as I suggest, the EM signal passing thru the slits "scans" back and forth
across the 2D detection screen in a repeatable pattern, it must transcribe a circular
angular rotation that moves it from one side of the screen to the other. The
scan will follow the angular rotation around the circumference of the circle.
Start at 0 degrees (12:00 position) and pick a direction of rotation while marking
where the phase angle will intersect on the detection screen. The scan will
start at the centerpoint between the slits and will move to one extreme edge on
the screen which is represented by either 90 or 270 degrees on the circle,
depending upon the direction chosen. The 90 and 270 degree intersection points on
the screen would be the minima intersection points of the bell curve on a crossing
x axis.
As the phase angle rotation continues past 90 degrees, the scan reverses direction
and moves back toward the center. At the 180 degree phase angle of the circle,
the scan will be realigned with the 0 reference centerline which represents the
peak of the bell curve. As the rotation proceeds, the scan on the 2D screen will
eventually rotate to the 270 degree phase angle, which is the extreme limit in the
other direction, at which point the scan reverses again back toward the
centerline as the phase angle exceeds 270 degrees.
The red lines in the diagram contact the phase angle on the circumference of the
circle and project that phase angle onto the 2D detection screen. So effectively
we are taking a circular rotation and projecting a linear scan representation of the
rotation on a 2D plane.
The size of the circles illustrate the effects of the Inverse Square Law (ISL) on
the spacing between the slit wall and the detection screen. They also illustrate
the phase angle timing increase with an increase in distance between the walls,
according to the circumference of a circle.
Now use your imagination and replace the circles in the diagrams with spheres.
This provides the scan results in 3 dimensions (x, y, z), and also the time that
it takes to make a full circular rotation (scan) back and forth on the screen.
Comments? Discussion?
LL
interesting
Hey Wulf,
If you look through this thread, there are a number of links to single photon and single electron experiments that show random distribution over time. An interesting one (that I do not believe has been previously linked) is here: http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/em/doubleslit.cfm. (The links on the right hand side of the Hitachi page are very informative and may be of interest as well.)
In regards to parametric conversion with a "ZPE" twist, Marshall wrote this paper in '98: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9803/9803054v1.pdf in which he states:
And then this paper from 2003 discusses an experimental test of Marshall's hypothesis: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0307/0307094v1.pdf in which they conclude:
And then this paper from 2003 discusses an experimental test of Marshall's hypothesis: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0307/0307094v1.pdf in which they conclude: Finally, also repeating the experiments with normal incidence of the laser no SPUC has been observed (with the same limits as before). Altogether these experimental limits give a severe constraint on the model of Ref. [2, 3] and substantially excludes the very existence of Spontaneous Parametric Up Conversion.
In conclusion we have performed a first experimental test of existence of Spontaneous Parametric Up Conversion predicted in the model of Ref. [2, 3]. The test was performed comparing the emission observed by a ccd camera when SPDC is present and when SPUC is expected. No SPUC was observed up to a ratio of 160 times (with the 789 nm laser) respect to the intensity of SPDC produced at the same laser power.
If you look through this thread, there are a number of links to single photon and single electron experiments that show random distribution over time. An interesting one (that I do not believe has been previously linked) is here: http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/em/doubleslit.cfm. (The links on the right hand side of the Hitachi page are very informative and may be of interest as well.)
In regards to parametric conversion with a "ZPE" twist, Marshall wrote this paper in '98: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9803/9803054v1.pdf in which he states:
QUOTE
We have shown, in the previous two sections, that PUCV, according to the theory of a real zeropoint field, must occur, and that it should not be too difficult to detect. Of course, observation of this phenomenon will be strong evidence in favour of a real ZPF.
We showed, in our earlier series of articles[4, 5, 6, 7], that the extremely problematic and nonlocal concept of photon entanglement between a coupled pair of PDCV signals receives a local and fully causal explanation in terms of a real ZPF. In the ZPF description, entangled photons are waves whose amplitudes are correlated below as well as above the level at which all detector thresholds are set. Now we find that, in PUCV, there is still a pair of entangled signals, but that one of them, that with its frequency above the pump frequency, is entirely below threshold, and therefore cannot be detected. Once PUCV has been experimentally demonstrated it will be a task for nonlinear opticians to devise ways and means of demonstrating this subzeropoint entanglement. One possible way to reveal the ghostly high-frequency partner would be to look for its mirror image emerging from the crystal in the backward direction. According to the analysis of the previous section this mode has an intensity above threshold, but the counting rate is reduced by a factor of r2 relative to its forward low- frequency partner.
We showed, in our earlier series of articles[4, 5, 6, 7], that the extremely problematic and nonlocal concept of photon entanglement between a coupled pair of PDCV signals receives a local and fully causal explanation in terms of a real ZPF. In the ZPF description, entangled photons are waves whose amplitudes are correlated below as well as above the level at which all detector thresholds are set. Now we find that, in PUCV, there is still a pair of entangled signals, but that one of them, that with its frequency above the pump frequency, is entirely below threshold, and therefore cannot be detected. Once PUCV has been experimentally demonstrated it will be a task for nonlinear opticians to devise ways and means of demonstrating this subzeropoint entanglement. One possible way to reveal the ghostly high-frequency partner would be to look for its mirror image emerging from the crystal in the backward direction. According to the analysis of the previous section this mode has an intensity above threshold, but the counting rate is reduced by a factor of r2 relative to its forward low- frequency partner.
And then this paper from 2003 discusses an experimental test of Marshall's hypothesis: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0307/0307094v1.pdf in which they conclude:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We have shown, in the previous two sections, that PUCV, according to the theory of a real zeropoint field, must occur, and that it should not be too difficult to detect. Of course, observation of this phenomenon will be strong evidence in favour of a real ZPF. We showed, in our earlier series of articles[4, 5, 6, 7], that the extremely problematic and nonlocal concept of photon entanglement between a coupled pair of PDCV signals receives a local and fully causal explanation in terms of a real ZPF. In the ZPF description, entangled photons are waves whose amplitudes are correlated below as well as above the level at which all detector thresholds are set. Now we find that, in PUCV, there is still a pair of entangled signals, but that one of them, that with its frequency above the pump frequency, is entirely below threshold, and therefore cannot be detected. Once PUCV has been experimentally demonstrated it will be a task for nonlinear opticians to devise ways and means of demonstrating this subzeropoint entanglement. One possible way to reveal the ghostly high-frequency partner would be to look for its mirror image emerging from the crystal in the backward direction. According to the analysis of the previous section this mode has an intensity above threshold, but the counting rate is reduced by a factor of r2 relative to its forward low- frequency partner. |
And then this paper from 2003 discusses an experimental test of Marshall's hypothesis: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0307/0307094v1.pdf in which they conclude: Finally, also repeating the experiments with normal incidence of the laser no SPUC has been observed (with the same limits as before). Altogether these experimental limits give a severe constraint on the model of Ref. [2, 3] and substantially excludes the very existence of Spontaneous Parametric Up Conversion.
In conclusion we have performed a first experimental test of existence of Spontaneous Parametric Up Conversion predicted in the model of Ref. [2, 3]. The test was performed comparing the emission observed by a ccd camera when SPDC is present and when SPUC is expected. No SPUC was observed up to a ratio of 160 times (with the 789 nm laser) respect to the intensity of SPDC produced at the same laser power.
Thanks for the links, I'll take a look.
Hello all
The output of the BBO crystal is in the near infrared spectrum and is therefore from vibration modes between the atoms in the crystal. See infrared spectroscopy. The frequency output is also tied to the Morse potential.
The output also appears to be of a simulated nature ,because of directionality, rather than a spontaneous emission (dipole output). If it is a dipole emission with active and passive elements then there should be side lobes in the emission pattern.
If the polarization of the emitted IR energy is at 45 deg. with respect to the BBO's optic axis then the two polarized photons, o and e occur.
The 45 deg. does not include any diffraction calculations of the incident or resultant photons.
Just some thoughts.
The output of the BBO crystal is in the near infrared spectrum and is therefore from vibration modes between the atoms in the crystal. See infrared spectroscopy. The frequency output is also tied to the Morse potential.
The output also appears to be of a simulated nature ,because of directionality, rather than a spontaneous emission (dipole output). If it is a dipole emission with active and passive elements then there should be side lobes in the emission pattern.
If the polarization of the emitted IR energy is at 45 deg. with respect to the BBO's optic axis then the two polarized photons, o and e occur.
The 45 deg. does not include any diffraction calculations of the incident or resultant photons.
Just some thoughts.
Hi Montec and All,
Does this mean that you are in agreement with my argument in these posts?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=230404
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=230542
LL
QUOTE
The output of the BBO crystal is in the near infrared spectrum and is therefore from vibration modes between the atoms in the crystal. See infrared spectroscopy. The frequency output is also tied to the Morse potential.
Does this mean that you are in agreement with my argument in these posts?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=230404
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=230542
LL
Hi Wulf, Why Not?, Montec, yquantum, Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, janrinze, "THEY", Jal, Zephir, Neil Farbstein, , Mate et al,
QUOTE (Why Not?+)
Hey Wulf (and Mate),
You are talking about "Hidden Variables" and you are in good company. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, all thought similarly about QM and chose to assume that hidden variables, instead on non local interaction, were at play. John Bell found a way to test QM for hidden variables and Alain Aspect conducted the test. The result... hidden variables are not the answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
There is no arrival pattern outside of the interference distribution and many experiments have shown that it is impossible to determine where specifically within the interference pattern an individual photon will land.
You are talking about "Hidden Variables" and you are in good company. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, all thought similarly about QM and chose to assume that hidden variables, instead on non local interaction, were at play. John Bell found a way to test QM for hidden variables and Alain Aspect conducted the test. The result... hidden variables are not the answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
There is no arrival pattern outside of the interference distribution and many experiments have shown that it is impossible to determine where specifically within the interference pattern an individual photon will land.
Forget "what some people say"... Alain Aspect is "for" a hidden variable theory as I have posted on this thread previously... the difference is he is not "for" a local hidden variable theory... When you force everything into a box with locality as Quantum Mechanics has done you cannot sustain a "hidden variable theory". There is a non-locality about our universe that is not accounted for with particle theory... a particle has "locality" and obviously cannot pass through two slits at the same time. A wave does not have locality and it can pass through two slits at the same time. At a very basic level this is why particle theories cannot describe reality. You can resolve this "paradox" by making the leap to higher dimensions where space is non-local.
Of course a full reading of this thread would help but it is very long and memory fades...
All String theories are "non-local" theories requiring extra dimensions and the "toy" theory of David Bohm uses additional parametric theories which cannot be seen in simple 4D spacetime (in this case it is not a derogatory term). It can't work as it is stated but David Bohm knew that when he proposed it, the theory was proposed in the "vacuum" of ideas of the 1950's and was meant only as a an indicator of the shibboleths at the time and how they had entrenched ideas in a paradigm that was "too tired" to relearn where we are supposed to be going. Ignoring the fact that Bhomian Mechanics is a "hidden variable theory" it models the phenomenon very well when you look at its modern equivalents and not the old concepts that were its origins.
Hidden variable theory
It is so controversial by those that know this may upset the apple cart, that the idea is fought at every opportunity. In summing up this extract indicates what true Quantum Mechanists believe about the "old theory of Quantum Mechanics".
Of course a full reading of this thread would help but it is very long and memory fades...
All String theories are "non-local" theories requiring extra dimensions and the "toy" theory of David Bohm uses additional parametric theories which cannot be seen in simple 4D spacetime (in this case it is not a derogatory term). It can't work as it is stated but David Bohm knew that when he proposed it, the theory was proposed in the "vacuum" of ideas of the 1950's and was meant only as a an indicator of the shibboleths at the time and how they had entrenched ideas in a paradigm that was "too tired" to relearn where we are supposed to be going. Ignoring the fact that Bhomian Mechanics is a "hidden variable theory" it models the phenomenon very well when you look at its modern equivalents and not the old concepts that were its origins.
Hidden variable theory
It is so controversial by those that know this may upset the apple cart, that the idea is fought at every opportunity. In summing up this extract indicates what true Quantum Mechanists believe about the "old theory of Quantum Mechanics".
QUOTE (Wikipedia+)
Most physicists however are of the position that the true theory of the universe is not a hidden variable theory and that particles do not have any extra information which is not present in their quantum mechanics description. These interpretations of quantum mechanics have their own philosophical issues. A very small number of physicists believe that local realism is correct and that quantum mechanics is ultimately incorrect.
Hidden variable theory
I can only reiterate that particle theories of Quantum Mechanics cannot explain what is seen and the theory is "incomplete" at the very least... this is despite the success and accuracy of Quantum Mechanics. As I have often said that QM can be compared with the Ptolemaic view of the solar system... a Geocentric view of our Universe and a vault of the heavens... a crystal sphere which contained the stars. You might chuckle but this concept had some very good backing... by authority and the Catholic Church and by the simple fact it gave excellent results to the limits of the science of calculation and measurement in those times... I would say this is very like our current theory of Quantum Mechanics and Gravity and Particle Theory... all very interesting and separate concepts but all are "designed" from the ground up to support a human-centric view of our Universe... One with "G*d" in his place and our position very near on his right hand side. It too has excellent agreement with the figures but the theory itself has sacrificed "order" for "chaos" to achieve it's goals.
There are many "cracks" in the wall of the old theory and we are seeing more dimensions but you can explain the way things are if you begin to become very arcane and no longer provide the simple answers but it will not matter if you can convince "everyone" to shut up and calculate. It is my view that it is too late to take the Medieval View of the Universe, the Schrodinger Cat is already out of the bag and it is not dead.
Particle theories cannot answer all the questions, in science technical details travel quite fast but everything is made to fit the old paradigms and to question them requires a "death wish" for your career if it is Physics since funding is everything.
In the context of "Alain Aspect" please look at this paper and see if what I say in not true...
Hidden variable theory
I can only reiterate that particle theories of Quantum Mechanics cannot explain what is seen and the theory is "incomplete" at the very least... this is despite the success and accuracy of Quantum Mechanics. As I have often said that QM can be compared with the Ptolemaic view of the solar system... a Geocentric view of our Universe and a vault of the heavens... a crystal sphere which contained the stars. You might chuckle but this concept had some very good backing... by authority and the Catholic Church and by the simple fact it gave excellent results to the limits of the science of calculation and measurement in those times... I would say this is very like our current theory of Quantum Mechanics and Gravity and Particle Theory... all very interesting and separate concepts but all are "designed" from the ground up to support a human-centric view of our Universe... One with "G*d" in his place and our position very near on his right hand side. It too has excellent agreement with the figures but the theory itself has sacrificed "order" for "chaos" to achieve it's goals.
There are many "cracks" in the wall of the old theory and we are seeing more dimensions but you can explain the way things are if you begin to become very arcane and no longer provide the simple answers but it will not matter if you can convince "everyone" to shut up and calculate. It is my view that it is too late to take the Medieval View of the Universe, the Schrodinger Cat is already out of the bag and it is not dead.
Particle theories cannot answer all the questions, in science technical details travel quite fast but everything is made to fit the old paradigms and to question them requires a "death wish" for your career if it is Physics since funding is everything.In the context of "Alain Aspect" please look at this paper and see if what I say in not true...
QUOTE (BELL’S THEOREM : THE NAIVE VIEW OF AN EXPERIMENTALIST by Alain Aspect - Conclusion+)
It may be concluded that quantum mechanics has some non-locality in it, and that this non-local character is vindicated by experiments45. It is very important however to note that such a non-locality has a very subtle nature, and in particular that it cannot be used for faster than light telegraphy. It is indeed simple to show46 that in a scheme where one tries to use EPR correlations to send a message, it is necessary to send a complementary information (about the orientation of a polarizer) via a normal channel, which of course does not violate causality. This is similar to the teleportation schemes47 where a quantum state can be teleported via a non-local process, provided that one also transmits classical information via a classical channel. In fact, there is certainly a lot to understand about the exact nature of non-locality, by a careful analysis of such schemes48.
When realizing that this quantum non locality does not allow one to send any useful information, one might be tempted to conclude that in fact there is no real problem, and that all these discussions and experimental efforts are pointless. Before rushing to this conclusion, I would suggest to consider an ideal experiment done with the scheme of figure 17. On each side of the experiment of Fig. 1, done with variable analysers, there is a monitoring system, that registers the detection events in channels + or – with their exact dates. We also suppose that the orientation of each polarizer is changed at random times, also monitored by the system of the corresponding side. It is only when the experiment is completed that the two sets of data, separately collected on each side, are brought together, in order to extract the correlations. Then, looking into the data that were collected previously, and that correspond to paired events that were space like separated when they happened, one can see that indeed the correlation did change at the very moment when the relative orientation of the polarizers changed.
So when one takes the point of view of a delocalized observer, which is certainly not inconsistent when looking into the past, it must be acknowledged that there is a non local behaviour, in the EPR correlations. Entanglement is definitely a feature going beyond any spacetime description à la Einstein: a pair of entangled photons must be considered a single global object, that we cannot consider as made of individual objects separated in spacetime with well defined properties.
For many years, I have been quoting the scheme of Figure 17 as a Gedanken Experiment useful for the sake of the discussion. Nowadays, we are lucky that this experiment has been done in the real world: the experiment of Zeilinger and Weihs42, sketched on Figure 18, exactly follows43 the scheme of Figure 17. Once again, the EPR problem has switched from fundamental discussions bearing on Gedanken Experiment, to real experiments. We must be grateful to John Bell for having shown us that philosophical questions about the nature of reality could be translated into a problem for physicists, where naive experimentalists can contribute.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0402/0402001.pdf
Compare the Wikipedia and Hidden Variable Theories quotation above with this comment by Alain Aspect and think about it. I would point to Canonical Typicality and to Bohmian Mechanics and to significant other experimental evidence such as Dr. Taco Visser and "Singular Optics". People just can't ignore the the weight of theoretical and experimental scholarship forever, there is so much more to know.
IMHO it would be best to abandon a local particle theory and look carefully at a non-local wave theory in the spirit of what I have been pursuing for some time. This is a very big "leap of faith" but it will result in a greater understanding of our Universe. For instance it explains why quantum theory is only "statistical" and why wave theories are exact expressions of our reality. In the context of these recent discussions it means photons will be linked to each other "exactly" in a very deterministic way and they do contain hidden information about aspects of the remote parts of our Universe that we are unable to currently extract using Quantum Theory. Time to "fess up". Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle becomes a simple integrated part of the system of conjugate measurables and not elevated to "uncertainty" but to "connection" in the way a Fourier Transform is linked to the Original Image (reciprocal space... not a linear extension of our normal space into higher compact dimensions)... certainly a non-linear global connection. This is not a basic problem it is a technical problem... We are not fully addressing the underlying technical issues of the measurables of systems. There is a tendency to deal with things as "little bits" of the whole picture, isolated particles, when in fact the Universe is Holographic and that means non-local and little bits are no longer independent parts of the system. We must let go of a notion we are the center of all things and realize life on this planet is on the periphery of a much wider and more interesting Universe...
Cheers
When realizing that this quantum non locality does not allow one to send any useful information, one might be tempted to conclude that in fact there is no real problem, and that all these discussions and experimental efforts are pointless. Before rushing to this conclusion, I would suggest to consider an ideal experiment done with the scheme of figure 17. On each side of the experiment of Fig. 1, done with variable analysers, there is a monitoring system, that registers the detection events in channels + or – with their exact dates. We also suppose that the orientation of each polarizer is changed at random times, also monitored by the system of the corresponding side. It is only when the experiment is completed that the two sets of data, separately collected on each side, are brought together, in order to extract the correlations. Then, looking into the data that were collected previously, and that correspond to paired events that were space like separated when they happened, one can see that indeed the correlation did change at the very moment when the relative orientation of the polarizers changed.
So when one takes the point of view of a delocalized observer, which is certainly not inconsistent when looking into the past, it must be acknowledged that there is a non local behaviour, in the EPR correlations. Entanglement is definitely a feature going beyond any spacetime description à la Einstein: a pair of entangled photons must be considered a single global object, that we cannot consider as made of individual objects separated in spacetime with well defined properties.
For many years, I have been quoting the scheme of Figure 17 as a Gedanken Experiment useful for the sake of the discussion. Nowadays, we are lucky that this experiment has been done in the real world: the experiment of Zeilinger and Weihs42, sketched on Figure 18, exactly follows43 the scheme of Figure 17. Once again, the EPR problem has switched from fundamental discussions bearing on Gedanken Experiment, to real experiments. We must be grateful to John Bell for having shown us that philosophical questions about the nature of reality could be translated into a problem for physicists, where naive experimentalists can contribute.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0402/0402001.pdf
Compare the Wikipedia and Hidden Variable Theories quotation above with this comment by Alain Aspect and think about it. I would point to Canonical Typicality and to Bohmian Mechanics and to significant other experimental evidence such as Dr. Taco Visser and "Singular Optics". People just can't ignore the the weight of theoretical and experimental scholarship forever, there is so much more to know.
IMHO it would be best to abandon a local particle theory and look carefully at a non-local wave theory in the spirit of what I have been pursuing for some time. This is a very big "leap of faith" but it will result in a greater understanding of our Universe. For instance it explains why quantum theory is only "statistical" and why wave theories are exact expressions of our reality. In the context of these recent discussions it means photons will be linked to each other "exactly" in a very deterministic way and they do contain hidden information about aspects of the remote parts of our Universe that we are unable to currently extract using Quantum Theory. Time to "fess up". Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle becomes a simple integrated part of the system of conjugate measurables and not elevated to "uncertainty" but to "connection" in the way a Fourier Transform is linked to the Original Image (reciprocal space... not a linear extension of our normal space into higher compact dimensions)... certainly a non-linear global connection. This is not a basic problem it is a technical problem... We are not fully addressing the underlying technical issues of the measurables of systems. There is a tendency to deal with things as "little bits" of the whole picture, isolated particles, when in fact the Universe is Holographic and that means non-local and little bits are no longer independent parts of the system. We must let go of a notion we are the center of all things and realize life on this planet is on the periphery of a much wider and more interesting Universe...
Cheers
Wonderful post Mr Elf ..... you have such a powerful way with words.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jun 30 2007, 12:35 AM)
Hi Wulf, Why Not?, Montec, yquantum, Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, janrinze, "THEY", Jal, Zephir, Neil Farbstein, , Mate et al,
Forget "what some people say"... Alain Aspect is "for" a hidden variable theory as I have posted on this thread previously... the difference is he is not "for" a local hidden variable theory... When you force everything into a box with locality as Quantum Mechanics has done you cannot sustain a "hidden variable theory". There is a non-locality about our universe that is not accounted for with particle theory... a particle has "locality" and obviously cannot pass through two slits at the same time. A wave does not have locality and it can pass through two slits at the same time. At a very basic level this is why particle theories cannot describe reality. You can resolve this "paradox" by making the leap to higher dimensions where space is non-local.
Of course a full reading of this thread would help but it is very long and memory fades...
All String theories are "non-local" theories requiring extra dimensions and the "toy" theory of David Bohm uses additional parametric theories which cannot be seen in simple 4D spacetime (in this case it is not a derogatory term). It can't work as it is stated but David Bohm knew that when he proposed it, the theory was proposed in the "vacuum" of ideas of the 1950's and was meant only as a an indicator of the shibboleths at the time and how they had entrenched ideas in a paradigm that was "too tired" to relearn where we are supposed to be going. Ignoring the fact that Bhomian Mechanics is a "hidden variable theory" it models the phenomenon very well when you look at its modern equivalents and not the old concepts that were its origins.
Hidden variable theory
It is so controversial by those that know this may upset the apple cart, that the idea is fought at every opportunity. In summing up this extract indicates what true Quantum Mechanists believe about the "old theory of Quantum Mechanics".
Compare the Wikipedia and Hidden Variable Theories quotation above with this comment by Alain Aspect and think about it. I would point to Canonical Typicality and to Bohmian Mechanics and to significant other experimental evidence such as Dr. Taco Visser and "Singular Optics". People just can't ignore the the weight of theoretical and experimental scholarship forever, there is so much more to know.
IMHO it would be best to abandon a local particle theory and look carefully at a non-local wave theory in the spirit of what I have been pursuing for some time. This is a very big "leap of faith" but it will result in a greater understanding of our Universe. For instance it explains why quantum theory is only "statistical" and why wave theories are exact expressions of our reality. In the context of these recent discussions it means photons will be linked to each other "exactly" in a very deterministic way and they do contain hidden information about aspects of the remote parts of our Universe that we are unable to currently extract using Quantum Theory. Time to "fess up". Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle becomes a simple integrated part of the system of conjugate measurables and not elevated to "uncertainty" but to "connection" in the way a Fourier Transform is linked to the Original Image (reciprocal space... not a linear extension of our normal space into higher compact dimensions)... certainly a non-linear global connection. This is not a basic problem it is a technical problem... We are not fully addressing the underlying technical issues of the measurables of systems. There is a tendency to deal with things as "little bits" of the whole picture, isolated particles, when in fact the Universe is Holographic and that means non-local and little bits are no longer independent parts of the system. We must let go of a notion we are the center of all things and realize life on this planet is on the periphery of a much wider and more interesting Universe...
Cheers
Interesting, interesting. There's whole universe waiting out side for all of us.
Exciting too.
Forget "what some people say"... Alain Aspect is "for" a hidden variable theory as I have posted on this thread previously... the difference is he is not "for" a local hidden variable theory... When you force everything into a box with locality as Quantum Mechanics has done you cannot sustain a "hidden variable theory". There is a non-locality about our universe that is not accounted for with particle theory... a particle has "locality" and obviously cannot pass through two slits at the same time. A wave does not have locality and it can pass through two slits at the same time. At a very basic level this is why particle theories cannot describe reality. You can resolve this "paradox" by making the leap to higher dimensions where space is non-local.
Of course a full reading of this thread would help but it is very long and memory fades...
All String theories are "non-local" theories requiring extra dimensions and the "toy" theory of David Bohm uses additional parametric theories which cannot be seen in simple 4D spacetime (in this case it is not a derogatory term). It can't work as it is stated but David Bohm knew that when he proposed it, the theory was proposed in the "vacuum" of ideas of the 1950's and was meant only as a an indicator of the shibboleths at the time and how they had entrenched ideas in a paradigm that was "too tired" to relearn where we are supposed to be going. Ignoring the fact that Bhomian Mechanics is a "hidden variable theory" it models the phenomenon very well when you look at its modern equivalents and not the old concepts that were its origins.
Hidden variable theory
It is so controversial by those that know this may upset the apple cart, that the idea is fought at every opportunity. In summing up this extract indicates what true Quantum Mechanists believe about the "old theory of Quantum Mechanics".
Compare the Wikipedia and Hidden Variable Theories quotation above with this comment by Alain Aspect and think about it. I would point to Canonical Typicality and to Bohmian Mechanics and to significant other experimental evidence such as Dr. Taco Visser and "Singular Optics". People just can't ignore the the weight of theoretical and experimental scholarship forever, there is so much more to know.
IMHO it would be best to abandon a local particle theory and look carefully at a non-local wave theory in the spirit of what I have been pursuing for some time. This is a very big "leap of faith" but it will result in a greater understanding of our Universe. For instance it explains why quantum theory is only "statistical" and why wave theories are exact expressions of our reality. In the context of these recent discussions it means photons will be linked to each other "exactly" in a very deterministic way and they do contain hidden information about aspects of the remote parts of our Universe that we are unable to currently extract using Quantum Theory. Time to "fess up". Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle becomes a simple integrated part of the system of conjugate measurables and not elevated to "uncertainty" but to "connection" in the way a Fourier Transform is linked to the Original Image (reciprocal space... not a linear extension of our normal space into higher compact dimensions)... certainly a non-linear global connection. This is not a basic problem it is a technical problem... We are not fully addressing the underlying technical issues of the measurables of systems. There is a tendency to deal with things as "little bits" of the whole picture, isolated particles, when in fact the Universe is Holographic and that means non-local and little bits are no longer independent parts of the system. We must let go of a notion we are the center of all things and realize life on this planet is on the periphery of a much wider and more interesting Universe...
Cheers
Interesting, interesting. There's whole universe waiting out side for all of us.
Exciting too.
Hi Neil Farbstein, Fivedoughnut, Wulf, Why Not?, Montec, yquantum, Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, janrinze, "THEY", Jal, Zephir, Mate et al,
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)
Interesting, interesting. There's whole universe waiting out side for all of us.
Exciting too.
and...
Exciting too.
and...
QUOTE (Fivedoughnut+)
Wonderful post Mr Elf ..... you have such a powerful way with words.
I do not want to hide the fact that I am only reacting to the existing data and not to simply following established and accepted lines of inquiry. The very last thing I would want to do is to "spin a yarn" that makes you all feel good about my perspective.
Look at only the data and look only at the results of experiment and you should be able to see that we are dealing with a theory of optics that may need to be "brushed off" and given a "new coat of paint". All these different theories of particles and of Gravity and Quantum Mechanics can be unified using higher dimensions and using a Holographic Principle that others like David Bohm have commented on but so far have not been able to convince others it actually exists.
Naturally I always have the occasional typo's and miss out very important crucial facts. One very important principle is the way in which Einstein's Special Relativity is the "high velocity end" of an interesting "wrapping" where it can become the "low velocity end" and de Broglie Wavelength of matter waves. That is as V -> C we get Special Relativity and as V -> 0 we have de Broglie's Matter Waves.
... Click to enlarge...
These link to "stationary states" of the quanta and these define boundaries to our Universe where we see "mirrors" and edges of not only compact dimensional spaces but also the edge and boundary of our own Universe which is equally as close as the "tip of our nose", if not closer.
It is naturally a reciprocal relationship.
Look at only the data and look only at the results of experiment and you should be able to see that we are dealing with a theory of optics that may need to be "brushed off" and given a "new coat of paint". All these different theories of particles and of Gravity and Quantum Mechanics can be unified using higher dimensions and using a Holographic Principle that others like David Bohm have commented on but so far have not been able to convince others it actually exists.
Naturally I always have the occasional typo's and miss out very important crucial facts. One very important principle is the way in which Einstein's Special Relativity is the "high velocity end" of an interesting "wrapping" where it can become the "low velocity end" and de Broglie Wavelength of matter waves. That is as V -> C we get Special Relativity and as V -> 0 we have de Broglie's Matter Waves.
... Click to enlarge...
These link to "stationary states" of the quanta and these define boundaries to our Universe where we see "mirrors" and edges of not only compact dimensional spaces but also the edge and boundary of our own Universe which is equally as close as the "tip of our nose", if not closer.
It is naturally a reciprocal relationship.
QUOTE (Wikipedia Length Contraction+)
L0 is the proper length (the length of the object in its rest frame),
L1 is the length observed by an observer,
is the Lorentz factor, (always greater than 1) u is the relative velocity between the observer and the object, and c is the speed of light. Notice the reciprocal nature of the wavelength and of distance or length. It is no accident.
L1 is the length observed by an observer,
is the Lorentz factor, (always greater than 1) u is the relative velocity between the observer and the object, and c is the speed of light. Notice the reciprocal nature of the wavelength and of distance or length. It is no accident.
I have already mentioned the dual here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=228395
Cheers
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=228395
QUOTE
Fourier_Transforms_and_Uncertainty.
In other words, the probability amplitude distributions of two conjugate variables are simply the (suitably scaled) Fourier transforms of each other. We saw previously that the dispersions (variances) of two density distributions that comprise a Fourier transform pair satisfy the inequality (2), so the variances of the probability amplitude distributions of conjugate observables in quantum mechanics satisfy such an inequality. Thus Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for conjugate pairs of observables follows directly from the fact that those observables are essentially the Fourier transforms of each other.
Of course, this attribute of Fourier transform pairs is purely mathematical, and has no a priori applicability to pairs of observables such as position and momentum, or time and energy. The physical content of quantum mechanics is based on the two relations
E =h-bar * w p = h-bar K
where E is energy, p is momentum (in one dimension), h-bar is Planck's (reduced) constant, w is the frequency with units second^-1, and k is the wave number with units meter^-1. These relations were introduced in the early 1900's by Planck, Einstein, and deBroglie to account for non-classical phenomena such as cavity radiation and the photo-electric effect, both of which depend on the particle-like behavior of entities that had previously been modeled as waves, as well as phenomena involving wave-like behavior of material particles. These are the relations that associate the familiar observables of energy, momentum, space, and time, with the frequency domain. Indeed in terms of the characteristic time t = 1/w and distance D = 1/k the above relations can be written as
tE = Dp = h-bar
which already clearly reveals the conjugacy of time and energy, and of distance and momentum. In view of this, it isn't surprising to find that the product of the dispersions of two conjugate observables (such as position and momentum) cannot be less than one quanta of action, represented by h-bar .
In a sense, there is also a conjugacy between space and time - two observable that had been regarded as disjoint and independent prior to the early 1900s. In special relativity the inertial space and time intervals dx and dt between two events are components of a single invariant spacetime interval ds between those events. These intervals are related according to the Minkowski metric, which can be written in the form
{dx/dt + ds/dt}{dx/dt -ds/dt} = 1/c^2
This can be regarded as an "uncertainty relation" for space and time. In general, physics was based, prior to 1900, on the premise that h-bar and 1/c^2 were both zero. With the advent of quantum mechanics and special relativity, it was realized that they both have non-zero values, although they are extremely small in terms of ordinary units.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath488/kmath488.htm
In other words, the probability amplitude distributions of two conjugate variables are simply the (suitably scaled) Fourier transforms of each other. We saw previously that the dispersions (variances) of two density distributions that comprise a Fourier transform pair satisfy the inequality (2), so the variances of the probability amplitude distributions of conjugate observables in quantum mechanics satisfy such an inequality. Thus Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for conjugate pairs of observables follows directly from the fact that those observables are essentially the Fourier transforms of each other.
Of course, this attribute of Fourier transform pairs is purely mathematical, and has no a priori applicability to pairs of observables such as position and momentum, or time and energy. The physical content of quantum mechanics is based on the two relations
E =h-bar * w p = h-bar K
where E is energy, p is momentum (in one dimension), h-bar is Planck's (reduced) constant, w is the frequency with units second^-1, and k is the wave number with units meter^-1. These relations were introduced in the early 1900's by Planck, Einstein, and deBroglie to account for non-classical phenomena such as cavity radiation and the photo-electric effect, both of which depend on the particle-like behavior of entities that had previously been modeled as waves, as well as phenomena involving wave-like behavior of material particles. These are the relations that associate the familiar observables of energy, momentum, space, and time, with the frequency domain. Indeed in terms of the characteristic time t = 1/w and distance D = 1/k the above relations can be written as
tE = Dp = h-bar
which already clearly reveals the conjugacy of time and energy, and of distance and momentum. In view of this, it isn't surprising to find that the product of the dispersions of two conjugate observables (such as position and momentum) cannot be less than one quanta of action, represented by h-bar .
In a sense, there is also a conjugacy between space and time - two observable that had been regarded as disjoint and independent prior to the early 1900s. In special relativity the inertial space and time intervals dx and dt between two events are components of a single invariant spacetime interval ds between those events. These intervals are related according to the Minkowski metric, which can be written in the form
{dx/dt + ds/dt}{dx/dt -ds/dt} = 1/c^2
This can be regarded as an "uncertainty relation" for space and time. In general, physics was based, prior to 1900, on the premise that h-bar and 1/c^2 were both zero. With the advent of quantum mechanics and special relativity, it was realized that they both have non-zero values, although they are extremely small in terms of ordinary units.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath488/kmath488.htm
Cheers
Hey Good Elf,
Excellent. Now prove it. I say that with all sincerity. We already know that your theory needs to correctly address all of the experiments performed to date, so lets assume that is a given. Can you predict something new, some consequence of reciprocal holographic wave theory that no one has looked for before? How can we tweak the DSE to “see” a prediction made by your theory manifest? Or is your "theory" an interpretation to satisfy a philosophical desire? Not that that would be a bad thing, I am just trying to figure out if you are pitching a theory or an intrepretation.
Excellent. Now prove it. I say that with all sincerity. We already know that your theory needs to correctly address all of the experiments performed to date, so lets assume that is a given. Can you predict something new, some consequence of reciprocal holographic wave theory that no one has looked for before? How can we tweak the DSE to “see” a prediction made by your theory manifest? Or is your "theory" an interpretation to satisfy a philosophical desire? Not that that would be a bad thing, I am just trying to figure out if you are pitching a theory or an intrepretation.
Hi WhyNot, GE, and All,
We are all seeking a "deeper truth" to the mysteries of the universe to satisfy the
question....WHY?
Some seek it in God, some seek it in mathematics, some seek it in science, etc,.
The point being, that we are using "observables" and trying to quantify them based
on contrived manmade "standards" or references. Things that we cannot
observe, or measure, we approach from a purely philosophical perspective, which
we call theory.
Using theory, we project and associate what we know, to that which cannot be
known. Herein lies the problem. Theories can be subjective, or objective.
It is sometimes hard to distinguish between the two. It is imperative that we
retain a purely objective point of view, and not allow our beliefs or desires
to guide our logical thought processes. We must use logic, because logic is an
absolute function wherein a term is either true or false, but we must ask quesitons
that fit that requirement. The wrong question cannot yield the right answer, from
a logical perspective. Pure logic is the essence of simplicity.
Observation has told us that everything in the universe is proportional, that it has "scale".
Using our current "standards", everything is quanitifiable...until it isn't.
It is when we cannot quantify a process, or a variable, that we apply
some obscure qualifier that fits our sense of "propriety" or equivalence.
This sort of approach can open a Pandora's box of problems, because once the
box is opened, the problems multiply, and we get caught in a closed loop trying
to provide solutions to fictional problems that don't really exist. As one problem
is fixed, several more problems are generated, which also need to be fixed, so
you wind up with a theory that is covered in bandaids, that eventually dies a death
of a thousand cuts, and a lot of wasted time and energy.
The prerequisite is existence! If you can't measure it, see it, observe its effects
on other processes, or otherwise "absolutely" quantify it,
IT DOESN'T EXIST. It must meet the requirements of logic.
Not everything is absolute in our current scheme of approach, which is why we
have a difficult time in finding answers. There is a reason that pi has an
infinite/indefinite solution. It is because it is based upon our ancient number
system, which though it has infinite extremes, it also has limitations, because of its
structure. Perhaps this is the real reason the answers are so hard to find.
JMHO,
LL
We are all seeking a "deeper truth" to the mysteries of the universe to satisfy the
question....WHY?
Some seek it in God, some seek it in mathematics, some seek it in science, etc,.
The point being, that we are using "observables" and trying to quantify them based
on contrived manmade "standards" or references. Things that we cannot
observe, or measure, we approach from a purely philosophical perspective, which
we call theory.
Using theory, we project and associate what we know, to that which cannot be
known. Herein lies the problem. Theories can be subjective, or objective.
It is sometimes hard to distinguish between the two. It is imperative that we
retain a purely objective point of view, and not allow our beliefs or desires
to guide our logical thought processes. We must use logic, because logic is an
absolute function wherein a term is either true or false, but we must ask quesitons
that fit that requirement. The wrong question cannot yield the right answer, from
a logical perspective. Pure logic is the essence of simplicity.
Observation has told us that everything in the universe is proportional, that it has "scale".
Using our current "standards", everything is quanitifiable...until it isn't.
It is when we cannot quantify a process, or a variable, that we apply
some obscure qualifier that fits our sense of "propriety" or equivalence.
This sort of approach can open a Pandora's box of problems, because once the
box is opened, the problems multiply, and we get caught in a closed loop trying
to provide solutions to fictional problems that don't really exist. As one problem
is fixed, several more problems are generated, which also need to be fixed, so
you wind up with a theory that is covered in bandaids, that eventually dies a death
of a thousand cuts, and a lot of wasted time and energy.
The prerequisite is existence! If you can't measure it, see it, observe its effects
on other processes, or otherwise "absolutely" quantify it,
IT DOESN'T EXIST. It must meet the requirements of logic.
Not everything is absolute in our current scheme of approach, which is why we
have a difficult time in finding answers. There is a reason that pi has an
infinite/indefinite solution. It is because it is based upon our ancient number
system, which though it has infinite extremes, it also has limitations, because of its
structure. Perhaps this is the real reason the answers are so hard to find.
JMHO,
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 30 2007, 08:27 AM)
Hi WhyNot, GE, and All,
We are all seeking a "deeper truth" to the mysteries of the universe to satisfy the
question....WHY?
Some seek it in God, some seek it in mathematics, some seek it in science, etc,.
The point being, that we are using "observables" and trying to quantify them based
on contrived manmade "standards" or references. Things that we cannot
observe, or measure, we approach from a purely philosophical perspective, which
we call theory.
Using theory, we project and associate what we know, to that which cannot be
known. Herein lies the problem. Theories can be subjective, or objective.
It is sometimes hard to distinguish between the two. It is imperative that we
retain a purely objective point of view, and not allow our beliefs or desires
to guide our logical thought processes. We must use logic, because logic is an
absolute function wherein a term is either true or false, but we must ask quesitons
that fit that requirement. The wrong question cannot yield the right answer, from
a logical perspective. Pure logic is the essence of simplicity.
Observation has told us that everything in the universe is proportional, that it has "scale".
Using our current "standards", everything is quanitifiable...until it isn't.
It is when we cannot quantify a process, or a variable, that we apply
some obscure qualifier that fits our sense of "propriety" or equivalence.
This sort of approach can open a Pandora's box of problems, because once the
box is opened, the problems multiply, and we get caught in a closed loop trying
to provide solutions to fictional problems that don't really exist. As one problem
is fixed, several more problems are generated, which also need to be fixed, so
you wind up with a theory that is covered in bandaids, that eventually dies a death
of a thousand cuts, and a lot of wasted time and energy.
The prerequisite is existence! If you can't measure it, see it, observe its effects
on other processes, or otherwise "absolutely" quantify it,
IT DOESN'T EXIST. It must meet the requirements of logic.
Not everything is absolute in our current scheme of approach, which is why we
have a difficult time in finding answers. There is a reason that pi has an
infinite/indefinite solution. It is because it is based upon our ancient number
system, which though it has infinite extremes, it also has limitations, because of its
structure. Perhaps this is the real reason the answers are so hard to find.
JMHO,
LL
I think it is because we catch glimpses of something that cannot be directly observed, subtle hints that there is a deeper truth just over the horizon. Sometimes all we are left with is trial and error.
http://gesalerico.ft.uam.es/strings07/040_...41_speakers.htm
Ed Witten is one of the speakers from the above links, and it really struck me why people are begining to object so strongly string theory. Most of the values he uses in the model he describes are nothing more than educated guesses. But if those guesses lead to a consistent and usefull tools who cares wether they where based on observation or not.
We are all seeking a "deeper truth" to the mysteries of the universe to satisfy the
question....WHY?
Some seek it in God, some seek it in mathematics, some seek it in science, etc,.
The point being, that we are using "observables" and trying to quantify them based
on contrived manmade "standards" or references. Things that we cannot
observe, or measure, we approach from a purely philosophical perspective, which
we call theory.
Using theory, we project and associate what we know, to that which cannot be
known. Herein lies the problem. Theories can be subjective, or objective.
It is sometimes hard to distinguish between the two. It is imperative that we
retain a purely objective point of view, and not allow our beliefs or desires
to guide our logical thought processes. We must use logic, because logic is an
absolute function wherein a term is either true or false, but we must ask quesitons
that fit that requirement. The wrong question cannot yield the right answer, from
a logical perspective. Pure logic is the essence of simplicity.
Observation has told us that everything in the universe is proportional, that it has "scale".
Using our current "standards", everything is quanitifiable...until it isn't.
It is when we cannot quantify a process, or a variable, that we apply
some obscure qualifier that fits our sense of "propriety" or equivalence.
This sort of approach can open a Pandora's box of problems, because once the
box is opened, the problems multiply, and we get caught in a closed loop trying
to provide solutions to fictional problems that don't really exist. As one problem
is fixed, several more problems are generated, which also need to be fixed, so
you wind up with a theory that is covered in bandaids, that eventually dies a death
of a thousand cuts, and a lot of wasted time and energy.
The prerequisite is existence! If you can't measure it, see it, observe its effects
on other processes, or otherwise "absolutely" quantify it,
IT DOESN'T EXIST. It must meet the requirements of logic.
Not everything is absolute in our current scheme of approach, which is why we
have a difficult time in finding answers. There is a reason that pi has an
infinite/indefinite solution. It is because it is based upon our ancient number
system, which though it has infinite extremes, it also has limitations, because of its
structure. Perhaps this is the real reason the answers are so hard to find.
JMHO,
LL
I think it is because we catch glimpses of something that cannot be directly observed, subtle hints that there is a deeper truth just over the horizon. Sometimes all we are left with is trial and error.
http://gesalerico.ft.uam.es/strings07/040_...41_speakers.htm
Ed Witten is one of the speakers from the above links, and it really struck me why people are begining to object so strongly string theory. Most of the values he uses in the model he describes are nothing more than educated guesses. But if those guesses lead to a consistent and usefull tools who cares wether they where based on observation or not.
Hi Wulf,
Personally, I disdain "preachers" who want others to believe their theories
based on "faith" alone.
Faith is wishful thinking, the definition of which is:
Personally, I disdain "preachers" who want others to believe their theories
based on "faith" alone.
Faith is wishful thinking, the definition of which is: unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence
Looking at the Teachspin single photon DSE ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_slit/index.shtml )
We have a filament bulb at about 300 degrees C . The filament behaves pretty much like a black body. Within the bandpass of the filter ...(after the filter.. before the first slit ) we find (say) 100,000 photons/second.
Take it from there..
Best wishes - C2.
QUOTE
Ed Witten is one of the speakers from the above links, and it really struck me why people are begining to object so strongly string theory. Most of the values he uses in the model he describes are nothing more than educated guesses. But if those guesses lead to a consistent and usefull tools who cares wether they where based on observation or not.
Personally, I disdain "preachers" who want others to believe their theories
based on "faith" alone.
Faith is wishful thinking, the definition of which is:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Ed Witten is one of the speakers from the above links, and it really struck me why people are begining to object so strongly string theory. Most of the values he uses in the model he describes are nothing more than educated guesses. But if those guesses lead to a consistent and usefull tools who cares wether they where based on observation or not. |
Personally, I disdain "preachers" who want others to believe their theories
based on "faith" alone.
Faith is wishful thinking, the definition of which is: unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence
, according to Webster's.
This is not science, and it cannot be proved either thru observation or emperical
data. It is another form of "religion", where those with "unique" ideas attempt to
convert others to their way of thinking, while wearing the robes of some
"enlightened" holy order. It is a "cult" like group of believers, based on self and
peer "delusion", IMO.
I have asked before, "How do you prove, or disprove, the unprovable?".
Pardon my skepticism, but you can blame it on my agnostic desire to be a realist.
One must know when to separate fact from fiction. Show me facts and I'll convert,
feed me BS and I'll seek the truth elsewhere.
It amazes me that perfectly rational, sane, highly educated individuals will set
aside logical, objective thought processes, and blindly accept social or professional
"indoctrination". It seems like that is the height of hypocrisy.
JMHO,
LL
This is not science, and it cannot be proved either thru observation or emperical
data. It is another form of "religion", where those with "unique" ideas attempt to
convert others to their way of thinking, while wearing the robes of some
"enlightened" holy order. It is a "cult" like group of believers, based on self and
peer "delusion", IMO.
I have asked before, "How do you prove, or disprove, the unprovable?".
Pardon my skepticism, but you can blame it on my agnostic desire to be a realist.
One must know when to separate fact from fiction. Show me facts and I'll convert,
feed me BS and I'll seek the truth elsewhere.
It amazes me that perfectly rational, sane, highly educated individuals will set
aside logical, objective thought processes, and blindly accept social or professional
"indoctrination". It seems like that is the height of hypocrisy.
JMHO,
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 30 2007, 12:40 PM)
Hi Wulf,
Personally, I disdain "preachers" who want others to believe their theories
based on "faith" alone.
Faith is wishful thinking, the definition of which is:, according to Webster's.
This is not science, and it cannot be proved either thru observation or emperical
data. It is another form of "religion", where those with "unique" ideas attempt to
convert others to their way of thinking, while wearing the robes of some
"enlightened" holy order.
I have asked before, "How do you prove, or disprove, the unprovable?".
Pardon my skepticism, but you can blame it on my agnostic desire to be a realist.
One must know when to separate fact from fiction. Show me facts and I'll convert,
feed me BS and I'll seek the truth elsewhere.
JMHO,
LL
Let me clarify where I'm coming from here.
Now suppose I have a model that has been based on observation up untill this point. There appears to be somethign missing from the model, but direct observation is impossible.
Now the observations we have made up to this point can provide us with information that leads to boundary conditions. These boundary conditions drastically reduce the number of possible solutions, so I can effectively use brute force to find a likely solution.
Now assume the solution I found was able to complete my theory. This compllete theory could then allows us to finally achieve Unification.
Now should we simply reject this theory because it was not based on direct observation? A guess is not science after all. Should we wallow in ignorance over a matter of principle?
Oh and there is nothing wrong with having a little faith, sometimes you need to trust your gut and take a leap. It is blind faith that is dangerous.
Personally, I disdain "preachers" who want others to believe their theories
based on "faith" alone.
Faith is wishful thinking, the definition of which is:, according to Webster's.
This is not science, and it cannot be proved either thru observation or emperical
data. It is another form of "religion", where those with "unique" ideas attempt to
convert others to their way of thinking, while wearing the robes of some
"enlightened" holy order.
I have asked before, "How do you prove, or disprove, the unprovable?".
Pardon my skepticism, but you can blame it on my agnostic desire to be a realist.
One must know when to separate fact from fiction. Show me facts and I'll convert,
feed me BS and I'll seek the truth elsewhere.
JMHO,
LL
Let me clarify where I'm coming from here.
Now suppose I have a model that has been based on observation up untill this point. There appears to be somethign missing from the model, but direct observation is impossible.
Now the observations we have made up to this point can provide us with information that leads to boundary conditions. These boundary conditions drastically reduce the number of possible solutions, so I can effectively use brute force to find a likely solution.
Now assume the solution I found was able to complete my theory. This compllete theory could then allows us to finally achieve Unification.
Now should we simply reject this theory because it was not based on direct observation? A guess is not science after all. Should we wallow in ignorance over a matter of principle?
Oh and there is nothing wrong with having a little faith, sometimes you need to trust your gut and take a leap. It is blind faith that is dangerous.
Hi all,
Indeed, some very good posts by Good Elf & Laserlight. These are the type that keep us all going.
Conveniently, for me, I'll take the "easy" way to add to our conversation: I'll quote from someone else!
I could not have said this better, and have been trying to say as much throughout this (and other) threads.
From E. T. Jaynes, in a paper entitled "A BACKWARD LOOK TO THE FUTURE"
<Link to Paper>
I fully believe that a complete understanding of the phenomenon of "Resonance", that my Theory makes available, is the "great unifying principle not yet seen (but which will be perfectly obvious to all as soon as it is seen)".
If you are not willing to ask WHY something works, you will never fully understand HOW it works.
If you have been "less than convinced" of the veracity of my Theory, it is because I can not "answer" a question that is formulated in QM terms. I can, however, answer WHY the ad hoc assumptions work at all. I said right from the beginning, that I can not "explain" the DSE any better than has been done by Young/Huygens/Fresnel/Fraunhoffer. (which are better than QM model, IMO) There is an underlying, Fundamental principle behind it all, that has yet to be fully explained.
regards,
T.Roc
Indeed, some very good posts by Good Elf & Laserlight. These are the type that keep us all going.
Conveniently, for me, I'll take the "easy" way to add to our conversation: I'll quote from someone else!
I could not have said this better, and have been trying to say as much throughout this (and other) threads.
From E. T. Jaynes, in a paper entitled "A BACKWARD LOOK TO THE FUTURE"
<Link to Paper>
QUOTE
Nevertheless, we do have a little more than faith and hope to sustain us. I am convinced, as were Einstein and Schrodinger, that the major obstacle that has prevented any real progress in our understanding of Nature since 1927, is the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory. This theory is now 65 years old, it has long since ceased to be productive, and it is time for its retirement (along with mine).
Just for that reason, this is where the great opportunities for the next generation lie. Let us examine the logical impasse now facing us, and see why I think the aforementioned Bayesian principles may be the key to resolving it, just as they did in cases just cited. But here the situation is far more complex and subtle, so unlike the above relatively trivial examples, it will require much more deep thinking to see exactly how to carry this out.
The more its defenders insist that all is well and there are no contradictions in present quantum theory, the more blatantly those contradictions stare us in the face and tie our hands, making it impossible to proceed. We are familiar with a proposition of elementary logic: that from a false proposition all propositions, true and false, may be deduced. There is a corollary, noted by Kallen (1972): from an inconsistent theory any result may be derived. Indeed, we know that to get correct predictions out of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) required a great deal of art and tact, found only after twenty years of efforts (1927-1946); for the right experimental numbers to emerge one must do the calculation (i.e., subtract of the infinities) in one particular way and not in some other way that appears in principle equally valid.
In space-time, the Feynman propagators have violent singularities on the light-cone, far worse than the delta functions that arise in the Green's functions in other parts of mathematical physics. They guarantee that any integral of the form R SF (x �� y) f(y) d4y which might be thought of as a first-order perturbation, diverges if in the integration the separation (x �� y) crosses the light-cone. Surely, in a properly formulated theory, there would be no infinities to subtract; yet another 45 years of efforts have not found that formulation - except perhaps in Schwinger's source theory, which seems to be ignored by workers in the field.? Then in what sense can one claim that QED is a great success?
But this is not limited to field theory. As we have noted in some detail elsewhere (Jaynes, 1991), throughout the history of quantum theory, whenever we advanced to a new application it was necessary to repeat this trial-and-error experimentation to find out which method of calculation gives the right answers. Then, of course, our textbooks present only the successful procedure as if it followed from general principles; and do not mention the actual process by which it was found. In relativity theory one deduces the computational algorithm from the general principles. In quantum theory, the logic is just the opposite; one chooses the principle to fit the empirically successful algorithm.
But after all, how can one build rationally from a theory whose basic principles are in this condition: Present quantum theory uses relativistic wave equations, but tries to solve them with propagators that - quite aside from the divergences - violate relativity by failing to vanish outside the light-cone, and run backward in time! What can this possibly mean?
On a more elementary level, present quantum theory claims on the one hand that local microevents have no physical causes, only probability laws; but at the same time admits (from the EPR paradox) instantaneous action at a distance! Today we have in full flower the blatant, spooky contradictions that Einstein foresaw and warned us about 60 years ago, and there is no way to reason logically from them. This mysticism must be replaced by a physical interpretation that restores the possibility of thinking rationally about the world.
We see the effects of this in the fact that today, a large portion of research in theoretical physics has been reduced to wheel-spinning; random fiddling with the mathematics of the old theory, without giving a thought to its physical foundations. One would think that the folly of this might have been learned from the example of Einstein; yet his repeated warnings go unheeded even as his worst fears are realized before our eyes.
I believe the answer to this must be that our present formalism contains two different things. It represents in part properties of the real world, in part our information about the world; but all scrambled up so that we do not see how to disentangle them. But at least we can see that the spooky things will cease to be spooky as soon as we think of the formalism in terms of inference from incomplete information. Then what is traveling faster than light, and backwards in time, is not a physical influence; but only a logical inference. David Hestenes thinks that his reformulation of the Dirac equation accomplishes this separation into the subjective and objective features of the theory; in our view this is an attractive possibility, but not yet a demonstrated fact. Before we could judge this, one
needs to work out the full, explicit solutions to the standard QED problems (Spontaneous Emission, Lamb Shift, Vacuum Polarization, Anomalous Moment, Bethe-Heitler formula, Mott scattering, etc.) in the Hestenes formalism and see what this interpretation is saying at every step of the derivations.
What has held up progress in this field for so long? Always our students are indoctrinated about the great pragmatic success of the quantum formalism - with the conclusion that the Copenhagen interpretation of that formalism must be correct. This is the logic of the Quantum Syllogism:
The present mathematical formalism can be made to reproduce many experimental facts very accurately.
Therefore
The physical interpretation which Niels Bohr tried to associate with it must be true; and it is naive to try to circumvent it.
Compare this with the Pre-Copernican Syllogism:
The mathematical system of epicycles can be made to reproduce the motions of the planets very accurately.
Therefore
The theological arguments for the necessity of epicycles as the only perfect motions must be true, and it is heresy to try to circumvent them.
In what way are they different? The difference is only that today everybody knows what is wrong with the Pre-Copernican syllogism; but (from the frequency with which it is still repeated) only a relatively few have yet perceived the error in the Quantum Syllogism. In quantum theory, we are still using pre-scientific standards of logic in a dozen different places, as noted in more detail elsewhere (Jaynes, 1989, 1990).
Both Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and my "neoclassical" theory (Jaynes, 1973) contain some elements of truth, but also some elements of intolerable nonsense, and thus far nobody - least of all, me - has seen how to unscramble them. But there is great new hope in the fact that their elements of truth and nonsense are so different, and in the spectacular recent advances in experimental technique reported at this meeting by Herbert Walther and Pierre Meystre, which are now making direct contact with these issues.
From a physical rather than formal standpoint, the worst elements of nonsense in QED concern the infinite zero-point energy and vacuum fluctuations. We have given physical arguments (Jaynes, 1990) which seem conclusive to me, showing that (a) these fluctuations are not real and are not necessary to account for the experimental facts; and ( b ) their removal from QED would also remove at least some of the infinities that have plagued the theory from the start, and a great deal of surplus formalism not actually used.
The underlying idea of neoclassical theory (NCT) is that photons are not real physical objects existing in the electromagnetic field; all the field phenomena of propagation, diffraction, and interference are accounted for correctly by the classical EM theory of Maxwell, Poynting, Lorentz, Larmor, and Poincare. The alleged particle-like properties of radiation are consequences only of the laws of interaction with matter, and appear only in the reaction of matter to the fields. Those who do not believe this continue to be astonished at the fact that, whenever a new interference effect is observed, it is always puzzling and mysterious
from the standpoint of quantum theory; but it is just what classical EM theory would have predicted. Another example of this was presented at this meeting by Leonard Mandel, in which the QED uncertainty is just that due to the unknown phase of the classical idler oscillations.
The worst elements of nonsense in NCT concern the apparently different physical status of longitudinal and transverse fields, although they are partly interconverted by a Lorentz transformation.* In addition it faces unsolved computational problems in dealing with free particles [which we view as stable wave packets, held together by the self-interaction forces of the Dirac equation as discussed in Jaynes (1991), that are ignored in the "spreading wave packet" solutions of elementary quantum theory], and really works nicely only for bound states of atoms, where we know the wave functions quite accurately from previous
solutions of the Schrodinger or Dirac equation (because then the Coulomb forces are large compared to the self-interaction forces). Some critics have claimed that NCT gives some field correlation effects wrong; I think they have misapplied it and suggest that, as noted in Jaynes (1973), it is QED that gives some field correlation effects wrong (For that work, the mandatory twenty year incubation period is nearly over; we expect that in 1993 somebody will start to take note of what is in it).
But NCT also contains one bit of fundamental truth that is not in QED. This is the simple explanation of the basic reason for the relation E = hf, which is in present quantum theory only an empirical relation for which - astonishingly - nobody seems ever to have sought any theoretical explanation.* We found part of the answer in that this relation follows from an action conservation law of the Hamiltonian; and that, viewed in this way, it need not be a universally valid principle, so there is a possibility of an experimental test.
Presumably, that elusive "future correct theory" of electrodynamics, toward which we have been groping for a Century, will be some kind of mixture of these theories and others, but with some great unifying principle not yet seen (but which will be perfectly obvious to all as soon as it is seen). Surely, it will have to recognize this element of truth, and find some way of incorporating it into quantum theory, while discarding the elements of nonsense of both theories.
In the meantime, those who apply the naive ideas of present quantum theory confidently to astrophysical problems - conditions extrapolated dozens of orders of magnitude beyond anything that we know to be true - are in my view engaging in speculation that is not necessarily wrong in aim, but is just a Century premature. Attempts at unified force theories also seem premature for the same reason; until we get elementary quantum theory into some kind of rational order, unrestrained speculation from it is highly unlikely to lead to the truth.
One of the principles of scientific inference - which has always been well understood by the greatest scientists - is that it is idle to raise questions prematurely, when they cannot be answered with the resources available. For Isaac Newton it would have been foolish to raise questions that were not foolish for Erwin Schrodinger 250 years later; for Gregor Mendel it would have been foolish to raise questions that were not foolish for Francis Crick 100 years later. By "foolish" we mean "without hope of success". Of course, we all enjoy indulging in a little free speculation about the future of science; but for scientists to expend their serious professional time and effort on idle speculation can only delay any real progress.
Just for that reason, this is where the great opportunities for the next generation lie. Let us examine the logical impasse now facing us, and see why I think the aforementioned Bayesian principles may be the key to resolving it, just as they did in cases just cited. But here the situation is far more complex and subtle, so unlike the above relatively trivial examples, it will require much more deep thinking to see exactly how to carry this out.
The more its defenders insist that all is well and there are no contradictions in present quantum theory, the more blatantly those contradictions stare us in the face and tie our hands, making it impossible to proceed. We are familiar with a proposition of elementary logic: that from a false proposition all propositions, true and false, may be deduced. There is a corollary, noted by Kallen (1972): from an inconsistent theory any result may be derived. Indeed, we know that to get correct predictions out of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) required a great deal of art and tact, found only after twenty years of efforts (1927-1946); for the right experimental numbers to emerge one must do the calculation (i.e., subtract of the infinities) in one particular way and not in some other way that appears in principle equally valid.
In space-time, the Feynman propagators have violent singularities on the light-cone, far worse than the delta functions that arise in the Green's functions in other parts of mathematical physics. They guarantee that any integral of the form R SF (x �� y) f(y) d4y which might be thought of as a first-order perturbation, diverges if in the integration the separation (x �� y) crosses the light-cone. Surely, in a properly formulated theory, there would be no infinities to subtract; yet another 45 years of efforts have not found that formulation - except perhaps in Schwinger's source theory, which seems to be ignored by workers in the field.? Then in what sense can one claim that QED is a great success?
But this is not limited to field theory. As we have noted in some detail elsewhere (Jaynes, 1991), throughout the history of quantum theory, whenever we advanced to a new application it was necessary to repeat this trial-and-error experimentation to find out which method of calculation gives the right answers. Then, of course, our textbooks present only the successful procedure as if it followed from general principles; and do not mention the actual process by which it was found. In relativity theory one deduces the computational algorithm from the general principles. In quantum theory, the logic is just the opposite; one chooses the principle to fit the empirically successful algorithm.
But after all, how can one build rationally from a theory whose basic principles are in this condition: Present quantum theory uses relativistic wave equations, but tries to solve them with propagators that - quite aside from the divergences - violate relativity by failing to vanish outside the light-cone, and run backward in time! What can this possibly mean?
On a more elementary level, present quantum theory claims on the one hand that local microevents have no physical causes, only probability laws; but at the same time admits (from the EPR paradox) instantaneous action at a distance! Today we have in full flower the blatant, spooky contradictions that Einstein foresaw and warned us about 60 years ago, and there is no way to reason logically from them. This mysticism must be replaced by a physical interpretation that restores the possibility of thinking rationally about the world.
We see the effects of this in the fact that today, a large portion of research in theoretical physics has been reduced to wheel-spinning; random fiddling with the mathematics of the old theory, without giving a thought to its physical foundations. One would think that the folly of this might have been learned from the example of Einstein; yet his repeated warnings go unheeded even as his worst fears are realized before our eyes.
I believe the answer to this must be that our present formalism contains two different things. It represents in part properties of the real world, in part our information about the world; but all scrambled up so that we do not see how to disentangle them. But at least we can see that the spooky things will cease to be spooky as soon as we think of the formalism in terms of inference from incomplete information. Then what is traveling faster than light, and backwards in time, is not a physical influence; but only a logical inference. David Hestenes thinks that his reformulation of the Dirac equation accomplishes this separation into the subjective and objective features of the theory; in our view this is an attractive possibility, but not yet a demonstrated fact. Before we could judge this, one
needs to work out the full, explicit solutions to the standard QED problems (Spontaneous Emission, Lamb Shift, Vacuum Polarization, Anomalous Moment, Bethe-Heitler formula, Mott scattering, etc.) in the Hestenes formalism and see what this interpretation is saying at every step of the derivations.
What has held up progress in this field for so long? Always our students are indoctrinated about the great pragmatic success of the quantum formalism - with the conclusion that the Copenhagen interpretation of that formalism must be correct. This is the logic of the Quantum Syllogism:
The present mathematical formalism can be made to reproduce many experimental facts very accurately.
Therefore
The physical interpretation which Niels Bohr tried to associate with it must be true; and it is naive to try to circumvent it.
Compare this with the Pre-Copernican Syllogism:
The mathematical system of epicycles can be made to reproduce the motions of the planets very accurately.
Therefore
The theological arguments for the necessity of epicycles as the only perfect motions must be true, and it is heresy to try to circumvent them.
In what way are they different? The difference is only that today everybody knows what is wrong with the Pre-Copernican syllogism; but (from the frequency with which it is still repeated) only a relatively few have yet perceived the error in the Quantum Syllogism. In quantum theory, we are still using pre-scientific standards of logic in a dozen different places, as noted in more detail elsewhere (Jaynes, 1989, 1990).
Both Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and my "neoclassical" theory (Jaynes, 1973) contain some elements of truth, but also some elements of intolerable nonsense, and thus far nobody - least of all, me - has seen how to unscramble them. But there is great new hope in the fact that their elements of truth and nonsense are so different, and in the spectacular recent advances in experimental technique reported at this meeting by Herbert Walther and Pierre Meystre, which are now making direct contact with these issues.
From a physical rather than formal standpoint, the worst elements of nonsense in QED concern the infinite zero-point energy and vacuum fluctuations. We have given physical arguments (Jaynes, 1990) which seem conclusive to me, showing that (a) these fluctuations are not real and are not necessary to account for the experimental facts; and ( b ) their removal from QED would also remove at least some of the infinities that have plagued the theory from the start, and a great deal of surplus formalism not actually used.
The underlying idea of neoclassical theory (NCT) is that photons are not real physical objects existing in the electromagnetic field; all the field phenomena of propagation, diffraction, and interference are accounted for correctly by the classical EM theory of Maxwell, Poynting, Lorentz, Larmor, and Poincare. The alleged particle-like properties of radiation are consequences only of the laws of interaction with matter, and appear only in the reaction of matter to the fields. Those who do not believe this continue to be astonished at the fact that, whenever a new interference effect is observed, it is always puzzling and mysterious
from the standpoint of quantum theory; but it is just what classical EM theory would have predicted. Another example of this was presented at this meeting by Leonard Mandel, in which the QED uncertainty is just that due to the unknown phase of the classical idler oscillations.
The worst elements of nonsense in NCT concern the apparently different physical status of longitudinal and transverse fields, although they are partly interconverted by a Lorentz transformation.* In addition it faces unsolved computational problems in dealing with free particles [which we view as stable wave packets, held together by the self-interaction forces of the Dirac equation as discussed in Jaynes (1991), that are ignored in the "spreading wave packet" solutions of elementary quantum theory], and really works nicely only for bound states of atoms, where we know the wave functions quite accurately from previous
solutions of the Schrodinger or Dirac equation (because then the Coulomb forces are large compared to the self-interaction forces). Some critics have claimed that NCT gives some field correlation effects wrong; I think they have misapplied it and suggest that, as noted in Jaynes (1973), it is QED that gives some field correlation effects wrong (For that work, the mandatory twenty year incubation period is nearly over; we expect that in 1993 somebody will start to take note of what is in it).
But NCT also contains one bit of fundamental truth that is not in QED. This is the simple explanation of the basic reason for the relation E = hf, which is in present quantum theory only an empirical relation for which - astonishingly - nobody seems ever to have sought any theoretical explanation.* We found part of the answer in that this relation follows from an action conservation law of the Hamiltonian; and that, viewed in this way, it need not be a universally valid principle, so there is a possibility of an experimental test.
Presumably, that elusive "future correct theory" of electrodynamics, toward which we have been groping for a Century, will be some kind of mixture of these theories and others, but with some great unifying principle not yet seen (but which will be perfectly obvious to all as soon as it is seen). Surely, it will have to recognize this element of truth, and find some way of incorporating it into quantum theory, while discarding the elements of nonsense of both theories.
In the meantime, those who apply the naive ideas of present quantum theory confidently to astrophysical problems - conditions extrapolated dozens of orders of magnitude beyond anything that we know to be true - are in my view engaging in speculation that is not necessarily wrong in aim, but is just a Century premature. Attempts at unified force theories also seem premature for the same reason; until we get elementary quantum theory into some kind of rational order, unrestrained speculation from it is highly unlikely to lead to the truth.
One of the principles of scientific inference - which has always been well understood by the greatest scientists - is that it is idle to raise questions prematurely, when they cannot be answered with the resources available. For Isaac Newton it would have been foolish to raise questions that were not foolish for Erwin Schrodinger 250 years later; for Gregor Mendel it would have been foolish to raise questions that were not foolish for Francis Crick 100 years later. By "foolish" we mean "without hope of success". Of course, we all enjoy indulging in a little free speculation about the future of science; but for scientists to expend their serious professional time and effort on idle speculation can only delay any real progress.
I fully believe that a complete understanding of the phenomenon of "Resonance", that my Theory makes available, is the "great unifying principle not yet seen (but which will be perfectly obvious to all as soon as it is seen)".
If you are not willing to ask WHY something works, you will never fully understand HOW it works.
If you have been "less than convinced" of the veracity of my Theory, it is because I can not "answer" a question that is formulated in QM terms. I can, however, answer WHY the ad hoc assumptions work at all. I said right from the beginning, that I can not "explain" the DSE any better than has been done by Young/Huygens/Fresnel/Fraunhoffer. (which are better than QM model, IMO) There is an underlying, Fundamental principle behind it all, that has yet to be fully explained.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
Actually, I think your approach is most likely the correct one. There is emperical
evidence, there is observation, there is precedence, and there is "scale". What
is "missing" is the unifiying principle, a law, of how it all links together. We need to
link energy, space, time, and matter via resonance using mathematical principles
with a predictability factor, and everything will "fall" into place. ( this is a
pun re: gravity)
Harmonic motion and resonance are linked to space, time, energy, and matter.
There is a Nobel prize for whomever establishes a common link that unifies
them all. Perhaps the method is to convert E=mc^2 into terms of resonance?
Keep challenging us with practical models that support your arguments. This
approach entices me much more than string theories, but perhaps string theories
are merely a resonant approach that is missing some key fundamental
practical relationships that have been overlooked, ignored, or not incorporated
into the theoretical models.
I was hoping that you would comment on my circular/spherical interpretation
of the DSE.
LL
QUOTE
If you have been "less than convinced" of the veracity of my Theory, it is because I can not "answer" a question that is formulated in QM terms. I can, however, answer WHY the ad hoc assumptions work at all. I said right from the beginning, that I can not "explain" the DSE any better than has been done by Young/Huygens/Fresnel/Fraunhoffer. (which are better than QM model, IMO) There is an underlying, Fundamental principle behind it all, that has yet to be fully explained.
Actually, I think your approach is most likely the correct one. There is emperical
evidence, there is observation, there is precedence, and there is "scale". What
is "missing" is the unifiying principle, a law, of how it all links together. We need to
link energy, space, time, and matter via resonance using mathematical principles
with a predictability factor, and everything will "fall" into place. ( this is a
pun re: gravity)
Harmonic motion and resonance are linked to space, time, energy, and matter.
There is a Nobel prize for whomever establishes a common link that unifies
them all. Perhaps the method is to convert E=mc^2 into terms of resonance?
Keep challenging us with practical models that support your arguments. This
approach entices me much more than string theories, but perhaps string theories
are merely a resonant approach that is missing some key fundamental
practical relationships that have been overlooked, ignored, or not incorporated
into the theoretical models.
I was hoping that you would comment on my circular/spherical interpretation
of the DSE.
LL
Looking at the Teachspin single photon DSE ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_slit/index.shtml )
We have a filament bulb at about 300 degrees C . The filament behaves pretty much like a black body. Within the bandpass of the filter ...(after the filter.. before the first slit ) we find (say) 100,000 photons/second.
Take it from there..
Best wishes - C2.
Hi Wulf,
Ignorance can be "cured", as long as the training is based on facts and a truthful
interpretation of reality. Unfortunately, ignorance and passion can be reinforced by
indoctrination into a corrupted system. I cite the Nazi's, the Communists, and
other such formalized organizations based on the principles of "superiority"
of their "system" espoused by the "heirarchy" of the organization. I'll leave
politics and religion out of this, but they all have doctrines and principles that guide
their direction and how their supporters are required to think. One thing that they
all have in common, is that they do not tollerate or condone dissent or
individualistic thinking that deviates from the doctrine, no matter how correct or
factual it is. I cite the persecution of Gallileo, and others who dared publish their
observations and findings that conflicted with "doctrine".
Faith should be moderated with common sense, logical thought, and accurate
information.
Like you said "blind faith is dangerous", but then, so is anarchy. Any structured
environment or organization must be built on solid, truthful foundations. If it isn't
it will eventually need to be torn down and rebuilt, or it will collapse because its
foundation isn't strong enough to support the structure built upon it.
Theories must be iron clad to be considered viable. They must not be "open ended",
or have inconsistencies that require constant revision to address conflicts.
They are either true and can be proved under all circumstances, or else they are
speculation, or based on faith. Above all they must be elegantly simple, easily
explained, predictable, measurable or quantifiable, and always true under all
conditions. No exceptions!
JMHO,
LL
QUOTE
Let me clarify where I'm coming from here.
Now suppose I have a model that has been based on observation up untill this point. There appears to be somethign missing from the model, but direct observation is impossible.
Now the observations we have made up to this point can provide us with information that leads to boundary conditions. These boundary conditions drastically reduce the number of possible solutions, so I can effectively use brute force to find a likely solution.
Now assume the solution I found was able to complete my theory. This compllete theory could then allows us to finally achieve Unification.
Now should we simply reject this theory because it was not based on direct observation? A guess is not science after all. Should we wallow in ignorance over a matter of principle?
Oh and there is nothing wrong with having a little faith, sometimes you need to trust your gut and take a leap. It is blind faith that is dangerous.
Now suppose I have a model that has been based on observation up untill this point. There appears to be somethign missing from the model, but direct observation is impossible.
Now the observations we have made up to this point can provide us with information that leads to boundary conditions. These boundary conditions drastically reduce the number of possible solutions, so I can effectively use brute force to find a likely solution.
Now assume the solution I found was able to complete my theory. This compllete theory could then allows us to finally achieve Unification.
Now should we simply reject this theory because it was not based on direct observation? A guess is not science after all. Should we wallow in ignorance over a matter of principle?
Oh and there is nothing wrong with having a little faith, sometimes you need to trust your gut and take a leap. It is blind faith that is dangerous.
Ignorance can be "cured", as long as the training is based on facts and a truthful
interpretation of reality. Unfortunately, ignorance and passion can be reinforced by
indoctrination into a corrupted system. I cite the Nazi's, the Communists, and
other such formalized organizations based on the principles of "superiority"
of their "system" espoused by the "heirarchy" of the organization. I'll leave
politics and religion out of this, but they all have doctrines and principles that guide
their direction and how their supporters are required to think. One thing that they
all have in common, is that they do not tollerate or condone dissent or
individualistic thinking that deviates from the doctrine, no matter how correct or
factual it is. I cite the persecution of Gallileo, and others who dared publish their
observations and findings that conflicted with "doctrine".
Faith should be moderated with common sense, logical thought, and accurate
information.
Like you said "blind faith is dangerous", but then, so is anarchy. Any structured
environment or organization must be built on solid, truthful foundations. If it isn't
it will eventually need to be torn down and rebuilt, or it will collapse because its
foundation isn't strong enough to support the structure built upon it.
Theories must be iron clad to be considered viable. They must not be "open ended",
or have inconsistencies that require constant revision to address conflicts.
They are either true and can be proved under all circumstances, or else they are
speculation, or based on faith. Above all they must be elegantly simple, easily
explained, predictable, measurable or quantifiable, and always true under all
conditions. No exceptions!
JMHO,
LL
Hi C2,
I'm missing your point. The filament is a radiator, the preslit cavity is an
energy "sink", the slits are optical impedances that become new radiation
waveguide "sources" into the post slit cavity.
I suggest that you establish a point. Ambiguity is not a defensible position.
LL
QUOTE
Looking at the Teachspin single photon DSE ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_slit/index.shtml )
We have a filament bulb at about 300 degrees C . The filament behaves pretty much like a black body. Within the bandpass of the filter ...(after the filter.. before the first slit ) we find (say) 100,000 photons/second.
Take it from there..
We have a filament bulb at about 300 degrees C . The filament behaves pretty much like a black body. Within the bandpass of the filter ...(after the filter.. before the first slit ) we find (say) 100,000 photons/second.
Take it from there..
I'm missing your point. The filament is a radiator, the preslit cavity is an
energy "sink", the slits are optical impedances that become new radiation
waveguide "sources" into the post slit cavity.
I suggest that you establish a point. Ambiguity is not a defensible position.
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 30 2007, 02:10 PM)
Theories must be iron clad to be considered viable. They must not be "open ended",
or have inconsistencies that require constant revision to address conflicts.
They are either true and can be proved under all circumstances, or else they are
speculation, or based on faith. Above all they must be elegantly simple, easily
explained, predictable, measurable or quantifiable, and always true under all
conditions. No exceptions!
JMHO,
LL
The irony is that your blind faith in this methodology will bring everything to a halt once you reach the limits of what you can measure. No exceptions after all.
or have inconsistencies that require constant revision to address conflicts.
They are either true and can be proved under all circumstances, or else they are
speculation, or based on faith. Above all they must be elegantly simple, easily
explained, predictable, measurable or quantifiable, and always true under all
conditions. No exceptions!
JMHO,
LL
The irony is that your blind faith in this methodology will bring everything to a halt once you reach the limits of what you can measure. No exceptions after all.
Hi Wulf,
It is the basis of scientific method. There is theory, and then there is reality.
One is a thought process, the other is practical application.
LL
QUOTE
The irony is that your blind faith in this methodology will bring everything to a halt once you reach the limits of what you can measure. No exceptions after all.
It is the basis of scientific method. There is theory, and then there is reality.
One is a thought process, the other is practical application.
LL
Hi all,
LL -
Then we agree that the QM explanation of a "photon interfering with itself" as the Fundamental reason for "interference" is problematic, at best. This line of logic implies that, at the Planck limit, the "indivisible photon" would NOT produce the fringe pattern results of "interference".
LL-
Then we agree that the QM explanation of a "photon interfering with itself" as the Fundamental reason for "interference" is problematic, at best. This line of logic implies that, at the Planck limit, the "indivisible photon" would NOT produce the fringe pattern results of "interference".
LL-This is a profound statement. It would seem that geometry and resonance are are mutually dependent phenomena. Hmmm, dimensionless "scale"....shouldn't that be a time dependency?
No, just on "units of time". Having the "time/space" equivalence principles that Einstein laid out, and working with the adopted constants of the "meter" and the "second", we can leave time "out". All one needs to do, is to ALWAYS work with a >1 Refractive Index.
Wulf -
Let us first have a firm agreement on what it is "to measure" something. Information that we "perceive" from our metric? What can we compare "one" with, if nothing else exists, except "one" itself? Are we going to end up at an "integer" when we have "pared down" to the fundamental bone? That is our current "mathnocentric" view, comparable to our ancestors who believed that the Earth was at the center of the Universe.
ciao,
T.Roc
LL -
QUOTE
"Interference with itself" isn't causal. Causal is when two different energy entities interact in some fashion to change the characteristics of one or the
other, or both, in some way.
other, or both, in some way.
Then we agree that the QM explanation of a "photon interfering with itself" as the Fundamental reason for "interference" is problematic, at best. This line of logic implies that, at the Planck limit, the "indivisible photon" would NOT produce the fringe pattern results of "interference".
LL-
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Interference with itself" isn't causal. Causal is when two different energy entities interact in some fashion to change the characteristics of one or the other, or both, in some way. |
Then we agree that the QM explanation of a "photon interfering with itself" as the Fundamental reason for "interference" is problematic, at best. This line of logic implies that, at the Planck limit, the "indivisible photon" would NOT produce the fringe pattern results of "interference".
LL-This is a profound statement. It would seem that geometry and resonance are are mutually dependent phenomena. Hmmm, dimensionless "scale"....shouldn't that be a time dependency?
No, just on "units of time". Having the "time/space" equivalence principles that Einstein laid out, and working with the adopted constants of the "meter" and the "second", we can leave time "out". All one needs to do, is to ALWAYS work with a >1 Refractive Index.
Wulf -
QUOTE
..this methodology will bring everything to a halt once you reach the limits of what you can measure..
Let us first have a firm agreement on what it is "to measure" something. Information that we "perceive" from our metric? What can we compare "one" with, if nothing else exists, except "one" itself? Are we going to end up at an "integer" when we have "pared down" to the fundamental bone? That is our current "mathnocentric" view, comparable to our ancestors who believed that the Earth was at the center of the Universe.
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi Laserlight,
Lets assume the number of photons emitted at the frequency of interest is N.
Also that we always use the same photon counter to count our photons. And that the width of the aperture of the photon counter is the same as the slit width (s) .. the height of the aperture being h .. this gives us an active area (of the counter) of A ( = sh )
With N photons from a point source we can use the inverse quare law to find the number at a particular distance.
We should take into account the filter efficiency .. let's call that k_f. If we replace the first slit by our photon counter then we should count something like N * k_f *(active_area_of_counter)/ (area of sphere at that radius). If the distance from source to slit is (say) X the the expected count at the position of the slit would be
(Eq C1) N k_f A/(4 pi X^2) .. yes?
And if the frequency of the light is f then the energy would be
(Eq C2) N k_f A h f /(4 pi X^2) Watts/m^2 yes?
If you want to carry out the calculation using cavities etc .. please show how it should be done. Any value you wish to assume .. give it a letter and we'll plug in the numbers at the end to see what values we get .. OK?
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. since this may take some time I've numbered my equations prefixed by 'C'.
Lets assume the number of photons emitted at the frequency of interest is N.
Also that we always use the same photon counter to count our photons. And that the width of the aperture of the photon counter is the same as the slit width (s) .. the height of the aperture being h .. this gives us an active area (of the counter) of A ( = sh )
With N photons from a point source we can use the inverse quare law to find the number at a particular distance.
We should take into account the filter efficiency .. let's call that k_f. If we replace the first slit by our photon counter then we should count something like N * k_f *(active_area_of_counter)/ (area of sphere at that radius). If the distance from source to slit is (say) X the the expected count at the position of the slit would be
(Eq C1) N k_f A/(4 pi X^2) .. yes?
And if the frequency of the light is f then the energy would be
(Eq C2) N k_f A h f /(4 pi X^2) Watts/m^2 yes?
If you want to carry out the calculation using cavities etc .. please show how it should be done. Any value you wish to assume .. give it a letter and we'll plug in the numbers at the end to see what values we get .. OK?
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. since this may take some time I've numbered my equations prefixed by 'C'.
C2,
You lost me.... What is your point? You apparently have something in mind
but your approach does not make it clear what you are trying to say or prove.
The ISL affects energy density inversely with the square of the distance in the
forward cavity. We agree on that point.
The centerpoint "node" of the ISL is centered at the output of the slits for the DSE
in the second cavity, and radiates toward the screen. I think we agree on that
point also.
The ISL has nothing to do with the phase relationship (as far as I know)
of the photons superposing at the screen, since that is a frequency dependent
parameter, and also requires a linear geometric distance.
Your intentions would be clearer if you state exactly what you mean instead of
trying to use a mathematical gedanken analogy.
LL
You lost me.... What is your point? You apparently have something in mind
but your approach does not make it clear what you are trying to say or prove.
The ISL affects energy density inversely with the square of the distance in the
forward cavity. We agree on that point.
The centerpoint "node" of the ISL is centered at the output of the slits for the DSE
in the second cavity, and radiates toward the screen. I think we agree on that
point also.
The ISL has nothing to do with the phase relationship (as far as I know)
of the photons superposing at the screen, since that is a frequency dependent
parameter, and also requires a linear geometric distance.
Your intentions would be clearer if you state exactly what you mean instead of
trying to use a mathematical gedanken analogy.
LL
Hello Laserlight, et al.
Yes I agree with the basic proposition the BBO output is from vibrations in the crystal lattice. However I submit that only those vibrations under the influence of the incident beam are used. The output beams are stimulated from the crystal vibration in the incident beam's profile. This implies that the more vibration modes present in the crystal lattice then fewer entangled photons will be emitted for a given incident beam intensity. Short pulses will work better than a continuous beam. I would also predict that super cooled lattices will produce more entangled photons that lattices at room temperature. (I haven't found any experiment yet that super cools the BBO crystal but I am still looking.)
How the incident beam generates crystal lattice vibration is still a question I am looking at but I would think it depends on the crystal lattice structure and how it reacts to cyclic EM fields.
Yes I agree with the basic proposition the BBO output is from vibrations in the crystal lattice. However I submit that only those vibrations under the influence of the incident beam are used. The output beams are stimulated from the crystal vibration in the incident beam's profile. This implies that the more vibration modes present in the crystal lattice then fewer entangled photons will be emitted for a given incident beam intensity. Short pulses will work better than a continuous beam. I would also predict that super cooled lattices will produce more entangled photons that lattices at room temperature. (I haven't found any experiment yet that super cools the BBO crystal but I am still looking.)
How the incident beam generates crystal lattice vibration is still a question I am looking at but I would think it depends on the crystal lattice structure and how it reacts to cyclic EM fields.
Hi all,
C2 -
First off, since Science has NO TRUE DEFINITION of a "photon" (or the electron), we can not all refer to one place, and be sure that we mean the same thing. This thread is a testament to that.
But, of course, we must do the best that we can.
My next question, then, is "How do you know how many "photons" we started with?"
You would then (presumably) define that by a RATE of energy. Unless you have a new method, your answer will be in the form of "units per second", with NO ABSOLUTE WAY, other than averaging over THAT unit of time. It is perfectly acceptable, and logical, to ask "how many photons in a SMALLER unit of time?"
However, to also interpret this mathematical operation of averaging, as "physical behavior of individual things", is clearly wrong.
You see, with averaging, as we all know, it is THE NUMBER OF DIVISORS that limits the "size" of the answer. This is an average quantity, and NOT a "physical count"; just like you can NOT have 2.6 kids, even though the statistics say that we DO have 2.6 kids.
Statistics do NOT lie; however, they also can NOT be deemed a true quantity, when counting individual things. QM's little "photon" is no different.
To balance the "measurement", you have to divide the number of "photons" by the same number that you divided the time by, to get the average of photons in the SPACE of the experiment. This, IMO, is the source of the "indivisible photon" idea: since space and time are "linked", if you divide one, you must also divide the other. Essentially, this "cancels", and you have "measured" nothing of value.
Trying to "divide" the concept of time, WITHOUT also dividing the space that the time existed in, when dealing with a CONSTANT RATE of "distance over time" (velocity), is absolutely "illogical", IMO.
The idea of a "single photon" is ideal, at best.
The quanta is in the Resonant Orbitals of the electron, NOT in the property of the hypothesized particle named "photon".
I would go a different route, C2. In the most simple terms, the center frequency of the source gets diffracted symmetrically by an aperture, and this SPREAD of frequency (~ an octave, or 2x, /2 ) reassembles itself at resonant points IN PHASE (bright bands), and 180 out of phase in the dark bands. This phase is relative to the ABSORBERS; they can NOT respond to BOTH phases.
regards,
T.Roc
C2 -
QUOTE
We have a filament bulb at about 300 degrees C . The filament behaves pretty much like a black body. Within the bandpass of the filter ...(after the filter.. before the first slit ) we find (say) 100,000 photons/second.
First off, since Science has NO TRUE DEFINITION of a "photon" (or the electron), we can not all refer to one place, and be sure that we mean the same thing. This thread is a testament to that.
But, of course, we must do the best that we can.
My next question, then, is "How do you know how many "photons" we started with?"
You would then (presumably) define that by a RATE of energy. Unless you have a new method, your answer will be in the form of "units per second", with NO ABSOLUTE WAY, other than averaging over THAT unit of time. It is perfectly acceptable, and logical, to ask "how many photons in a SMALLER unit of time?"
However, to also interpret this mathematical operation of averaging, as "physical behavior of individual things", is clearly wrong.
You see, with averaging, as we all know, it is THE NUMBER OF DIVISORS that limits the "size" of the answer. This is an average quantity, and NOT a "physical count"; just like you can NOT have 2.6 kids, even though the statistics say that we DO have 2.6 kids.
Statistics do NOT lie; however, they also can NOT be deemed a true quantity, when counting individual things. QM's little "photon" is no different.
To balance the "measurement", you have to divide the number of "photons" by the same number that you divided the time by, to get the average of photons in the SPACE of the experiment. This, IMO, is the source of the "indivisible photon" idea: since space and time are "linked", if you divide one, you must also divide the other. Essentially, this "cancels", and you have "measured" nothing of value.
Trying to "divide" the concept of time, WITHOUT also dividing the space that the time existed in, when dealing with a CONSTANT RATE of "distance over time" (velocity), is absolutely "illogical", IMO.
The idea of a "single photon" is ideal, at best.
The quanta is in the Resonant Orbitals of the electron, NOT in the property of the hypothesized particle named "photon".
I would go a different route, C2. In the most simple terms, the center frequency of the source gets diffracted symmetrically by an aperture, and this SPREAD of frequency (~ an octave, or 2x, /2 ) reassembles itself at resonant points IN PHASE (bright bands), and 180 out of phase in the dark bands. This phase is relative to the ABSORBERS; they can NOT respond to BOTH phases.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi Montec,
From http://www.photox.co.uk/knbo3.htm it looks like KN can be made to be resonant at a useful laser frequency ( 860 nm) .. to take advantage of this feature they suggest keeping the temperature within 0.1 degrees C of the nominal value (it seems this also applies to downconversion). My impression is that BBO is not tuned. This highlights the point that a mechanism that does not require tuning may be enhanced by tuning whereas a method may equally be treated as a tuned method that works inefficiently without tuning. Should we conclude that 'tuning' is/is not the important point? I suspect it makes no difference.
Best wishes -C2.
From http://www.photox.co.uk/knbo3.htm it looks like KN can be made to be resonant at a useful laser frequency ( 860 nm) .. to take advantage of this feature they suggest keeping the temperature within 0.1 degrees C of the nominal value (it seems this also applies to downconversion). My impression is that BBO is not tuned. This highlights the point that a mechanism that does not require tuning may be enhanced by tuning whereas a method may equally be treated as a tuned method that works inefficiently without tuning. Should we conclude that 'tuning' is/is not the important point? I suspect it makes no difference.
Best wishes -C2.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
I would go a different route, C2. In the most simple terms, the center frequency of the source gets diffracted symmetrically by an aperture, and this SPREAD of frequency (~ an octave, or 2x, /2 ) reassembles itself at resonant points IN PHASE (bright bands), and 180 out of phase in the dark bands. This phase is relative to the ABSORBERS; they can NOT respond to BOTH phases.
"reassembles itself etc." - this is a 'claim' .. claims are best tested by experiemnt. At some point you (and GE and LL) should proceed with your calculations and show that they give the same results as mine or show that mine disagree with the experimental result and yours do not (or something else). I will have to make a 'claim' to complete the calculation .. I don't suggest it is physically justifiable - only that it works. If you can get the right answer AND have a physically physically justifiable cause - you get the silver star - but at some stage you have to do it. Until you (LL/GE) show you can calculate 'something' all this resonance stuff is just one unfounded claim after another.
Best wishes - C2.
"reassembles itself etc." - this is a 'claim' .. claims are best tested by experiemnt. At some point you (and GE and LL) should proceed with your calculations and show that they give the same results as mine or show that mine disagree with the experimental result and yours do not (or something else). I will have to make a 'claim' to complete the calculation .. I don't suggest it is physically justifiable - only that it works. If you can get the right answer AND have a physically physically justifiable cause - you get the silver star - but at some stage you have to do it. Until you (LL/GE) show you can calculate 'something' all this resonance stuff is just one unfounded claim after another.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi Confused2,Laserlight, TRoc et al,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
QUOTE (TRoc+)
I would go a different route, C2. In the most simple terms, the center frequency of the source gets diffracted symmetrically by an aperture, and this SPREAD of frequency (~ an octave, or 2x, /2 ) reassembles itself at resonant points IN PHASE (bright bands), and 180 out of phase in the dark bands. This phase is relative to the ABSORBERS; they can NOT respond to BOTH phases.
"reassembles itself etc." - this is a 'claim' .. claims are best tested by experiment. At some point you (and GE and LL) should proceed with your calculations and show that they give the same results as mine or show that mine disagree with the experimental result and yours do not (or something else). I will have to make a 'claim' to complete the calculation .. I don't suggest it is physically justifiable - only that it works. If you can get the right answer AND have a physically physically justifiable cause - you get the silver star - but at some stage you have to do it. Until you (LL/GE) show you can calculate 'something' all this resonance stuff is just one unfounded claim after another.
Best wishes - C2.
Best wishes - C2.
Confused2... With all due respect, it is not incumbent on others to show that their calculations agree with yours of not. "Resonance in cavities" does not obey the direct inverse square law especially when there are those that do not accept that we are dealing with cavities and standing waves. Your simplistic calculations captures nothing of the resonance phenomena, why should any of us prove something very stupid from our point of view... you are doing calculations for calculation sake and not for the sake of science. What is even worse you proffer no experimental evidence to prove where resonance leads to distributions any different from the ISL. This formula you have presented is without any supporting dialog or results and do not relate to known accepted experiment let alone resonance experiments. I have no idea what is you point there... and I will not subject myself to "entrapment" with legalistic "courtroom logic".. "Are you still beating your wife?... Just answer yes or no." I am all too aware how flawed "common wisdom" can be and you must justify and show with supporting evidence that your process is valid and is incompatible with resonance. I am only interested in what experimental evidence you can show to support your ideas as I have already done with mine.
As to the Fourier nature of the DSE, this is well documented in the literature. We are aware of the Fourier nature of certain optical systems that resemble the DSE, what is it you do not trust about this? You would have a very hard time trying to show that it was wrong. Since Fourier Theory is one in which standing periodic waves on the surface of spheres are a well known and mathematically reproducible phenomenon what is your objection to them? Any "full" theory MUST explain why the Universe has preferred this means of translation through slits and the simplistic scheme you have proposed is more correct and is required so that we must dispose of this Fourier Methodology. It is clear and demonstrable that if you replace the input plane in this "Optical Machine" shown below with a mask that has two point sources illuminated by parallel coherent light (effectively a "black and white" image with two pinhole point sources) the diffraction pattern is the DSE ... usually we let this fall on a screen to produce the Double Slit interference pattern. If this does not happen and we once again focus this double slit image using a lens for the second time we end up with the original source image... two point sources. This is a Fourier transform and a reverse fourier transform... nothing lost nothing gained... image restoration (and if you wish "enhancement" using masks to remove spatial frequency artifacts).
... Click to enlarge...
The artifacts are not temporal frequency artifacts but spatial frequency artifacts... information in the image plane that will be removed which is encoded as spatial frequencies in the entire image.
This source gives a very intuitive understanding of the process... knowing that two point sources give the double slit diffraction this image with more than one source (3 in this case) gives the Double Slit interference effect with a greater degree of pronouncement. Since these processes are entirely space and time symmetric light can enter from either end of this system to produce the Fourier outputs...
Nobody here is able to think "out of the box"... spatial frequencies determine what we look like "spatially" and is a clear "periodic" function and have no direct bearing on the photons frequencies "directly"... the mapping is very complex . It is far better you consider that spatial frequencies determine the character of the surrounding "dark universe", this is the information that exists in the surrounding space... I have also seen statements which seem to indicate a misunderstanding about the "frequency" of the light being dispersed into different wavelengths by the DSE.... Is this what you mean? If you choose a single source of monochromatic light there is absolutely no evidence, experimental or theoretical, that suggest that it is changed in any way or frequency split/multiplied by the DSE. You can easily prove this by simply looking at the results and the illumination of the screen is "still monochromatic"... there is no color banding there. "Red" lasers do not suddenly "split" into a plethora of colors simply by going through a slit unless the frequencies were there to start with. Polychromatic light certainly will produce a splitting, the more linear "sources" the more like a diffraction grating it will be acting like because each frequency of light has a different "scale" of interference pattern and the "total pattern" is a superposition of all individual coherent photon frequencies. We also know from basic theory and experiment there are only a finite number of frequencies there, this is because there are a finite number of harmonic oscillators. In this respect I advise the "KISS" adage very strongly... Learn what one frequency does and then you can infer what other frequencies do by superposition. However monochromatic light cannot be split unless it is not monochromatic in the first place. I think people have not appreciated the difference between spatial and temporal frequencies.... Or between spatial and temporal transforms and their "periodicity". In reciprocal space distances transform to spatial frequencies and time to temporal frequency... a frequency that is periodic in time.
Aside from what I have said here our Universe is also part of a "hologram" that includes time and frequency so the progress of time is also part of the higher dimensional transform which alters frequency and time in an appropriate way relative to each other quite apart from just the spatial transform mentioned above. Time is not just "slices" of things where a human made watch orchestrates the "ticks" to some 19th Century Watchmakers time. I have mentioned how I consider time made of events and time relates to these events and to transforms that connects events in "time" as a "sequence". However this perspective is not the same as time orchestrated by a watch. It is locality dependent and relates to the Special Theory of Relativity. So all I want to say about this temporal lineage of time at this stage is that it links only with events and these events overlap other events as expanding "shells" of the events which travel at the speed of light. There is no temporal progress within a single event which is defined by the photon that the source event is part of and that the sink event is part of... One single event and no time or space separating them. Yet this may "seem" like a million years to us in our relativistic frame of reference. Lose that local and parochial view and think of the bigger picture. No Lagrangian to split them apart.... Beyond time but still in existence.
Do I need to explain anymore at this point... I want everyone following who can and I want everyone understanding that the Fourier Transform is the basic reason for the DSE and the spatial distances are transformed to spatial frequencies and in the DSE we are holding time constant ... as we inevitably try to do when we are making Holograms of scenes where we are capturing those standing waves in space as fringes inside the emulsion.
I hope this helps...
Cheers
As to the Fourier nature of the DSE, this is well documented in the literature. We are aware of the Fourier nature of certain optical systems that resemble the DSE, what is it you do not trust about this? You would have a very hard time trying to show that it was wrong. Since Fourier Theory is one in which standing periodic waves on the surface of spheres are a well known and mathematically reproducible phenomenon what is your objection to them? Any "full" theory MUST explain why the Universe has preferred this means of translation through slits and the simplistic scheme you have proposed is more correct and is required so that we must dispose of this Fourier Methodology. It is clear and demonstrable that if you replace the input plane in this "Optical Machine" shown below with a mask that has two point sources illuminated by parallel coherent light (effectively a "black and white" image with two pinhole point sources) the diffraction pattern is the DSE ... usually we let this fall on a screen to produce the Double Slit interference pattern. If this does not happen and we once again focus this double slit image using a lens for the second time we end up with the original source image... two point sources. This is a Fourier transform and a reverse fourier transform... nothing lost nothing gained... image restoration (and if you wish "enhancement" using masks to remove spatial frequency artifacts).
... Click to enlarge...
The artifacts are not temporal frequency artifacts but spatial frequency artifacts... information in the image plane that will be removed which is encoded as spatial frequencies in the entire image.
This source gives a very intuitive understanding of the process... knowing that two point sources give the double slit diffraction this image with more than one source (3 in this case) gives the Double Slit interference effect with a greater degree of pronouncement. Since these processes are entirely space and time symmetric light can enter from either end of this system to produce the Fourier outputs...
QUOTE
The Optical Fourier Transform
A great intuitive advance can be made in understanding the principles of the Fourier transform once you learn that a simple lens can perform a Fourier transform in real-time as follows. Place an image, for example a slide transparency, at the focal length of the lens, and illuminate that slide with coherent light, like a colimated laser beam. At the other focus of the lens place a frosted glass screen. Thats it! The lens will automatically perform a Fourier transform on the input image, and project it onto the frosted glass screen. For example if the input image is a sinusoidal grating, as shown below, the resultant Fourier image will have a bright spot at the center, the DC term, with two flanking peaks on either side, whose distance from the center will vary with the spatial frequency of the sinusoid.
... Click to enlarge...
[GE Comment: Does anyone doubt that time reversing of source interchange in this figure will change nothing??]
We can now see the holistic principle behind the Fourier transform. Every point on the input image radiates an expanding cone of rays towards the lens, but since the image is at the focus of the lens, those rays will be refracted into a parallel beam that illuminates the entire image at the ground-glass screen. In other words, every point of the input image is spread uniformly over the Fourier image, where constructive and destructive interference will automatically produce the proper Fourier representation.
Conversely, parallel rays from the entire input image are focused onto the single central point of the Fourier image, where it defines the central DC term by the average brightness of the input image.
... Click to enlarge...
Note that the optical Fourier transformer automatically operates in the reverse direction also, where it performs an inverse Fourier transform, converting the Fourier representation back into a spatial brightness image. Mathematically the forward and inverse transforms are identical except for a minus sign that reverses the direction of the computation.
An Intuitive Explanation of Fourier Theory: Steven Lehar
Nothing could be simpler than an optical lens or even a "simple" pinhole in a card???... Not!!!! This is the basic "machine" in our Universe and the heart of all processes. If this be true then the function of lenses are spatial resonance in the Fourier Domain reducing the spatial information to a frequency presentation . If it is not true then you will be going against thousands of accepted sources of information. Also the double slit (or the two pinhole) interference pattern is simply an input plane of two small circular sources with coherent parallel light incident on both pinholes, separated by a small distance (... the slit separation). This explains "everything" about the DSE and not small little incidental bits of data that have no "holistic" connection to the complete picture.A great intuitive advance can be made in understanding the principles of the Fourier transform once you learn that a simple lens can perform a Fourier transform in real-time as follows. Place an image, for example a slide transparency, at the focal length of the lens, and illuminate that slide with coherent light, like a colimated laser beam. At the other focus of the lens place a frosted glass screen. Thats it! The lens will automatically perform a Fourier transform on the input image, and project it onto the frosted glass screen. For example if the input image is a sinusoidal grating, as shown below, the resultant Fourier image will have a bright spot at the center, the DC term, with two flanking peaks on either side, whose distance from the center will vary with the spatial frequency of the sinusoid.
... Click to enlarge...
[GE Comment: Does anyone doubt that time reversing of source interchange in this figure will change nothing??]
We can now see the holistic principle behind the Fourier transform. Every point on the input image radiates an expanding cone of rays towards the lens, but since the image is at the focus of the lens, those rays will be refracted into a parallel beam that illuminates the entire image at the ground-glass screen. In other words, every point of the input image is spread uniformly over the Fourier image, where constructive and destructive interference will automatically produce the proper Fourier representation.
Conversely, parallel rays from the entire input image are focused onto the single central point of the Fourier image, where it defines the central DC term by the average brightness of the input image.
... Click to enlarge...
Note that the optical Fourier transformer automatically operates in the reverse direction also, where it performs an inverse Fourier transform, converting the Fourier representation back into a spatial brightness image. Mathematically the forward and inverse transforms are identical except for a minus sign that reverses the direction of the computation.
An Intuitive Explanation of Fourier Theory: Steven Lehar
Nobody here is able to think "out of the box"... spatial frequencies determine what we look like "spatially" and is a clear "periodic" function and have no direct bearing on the photons frequencies "directly"... the mapping is very complex . It is far better you consider that spatial frequencies determine the character of the surrounding "dark universe", this is the information that exists in the surrounding space... I have also seen statements which seem to indicate a misunderstanding about the "frequency" of the light being dispersed into different wavelengths by the DSE.... Is this what you mean? If you choose a single source of monochromatic light there is absolutely no evidence, experimental or theoretical, that suggest that it is changed in any way or frequency split/multiplied by the DSE. You can easily prove this by simply looking at the results and the illumination of the screen is "still monochromatic"... there is no color banding there. "Red" lasers do not suddenly "split" into a plethora of colors simply by going through a slit unless the frequencies were there to start with. Polychromatic light certainly will produce a splitting, the more linear "sources" the more like a diffraction grating it will be acting like because each frequency of light has a different "scale" of interference pattern and the "total pattern" is a superposition of all individual coherent photon frequencies. We also know from basic theory and experiment there are only a finite number of frequencies there, this is because there are a finite number of harmonic oscillators. In this respect I advise the "KISS" adage very strongly... Learn what one frequency does and then you can infer what other frequencies do by superposition. However monochromatic light cannot be split unless it is not monochromatic in the first place. I think people have not appreciated the difference between spatial and temporal frequencies.... Or between spatial and temporal transforms and their "periodicity". In reciprocal space distances transform to spatial frequencies and time to temporal frequency... a frequency that is periodic in time.
Aside from what I have said here our Universe is also part of a "hologram" that includes time and frequency so the progress of time is also part of the higher dimensional transform which alters frequency and time in an appropriate way relative to each other quite apart from just the spatial transform mentioned above. Time is not just "slices" of things where a human made watch orchestrates the "ticks" to some 19th Century Watchmakers time. I have mentioned how I consider time made of events and time relates to these events and to transforms that connects events in "time" as a "sequence". However this perspective is not the same as time orchestrated by a watch. It is locality dependent and relates to the Special Theory of Relativity. So all I want to say about this temporal lineage of time at this stage is that it links only with events and these events overlap other events as expanding "shells" of the events which travel at the speed of light. There is no temporal progress within a single event which is defined by the photon that the source event is part of and that the sink event is part of... One single event and no time or space separating them. Yet this may "seem" like a million years to us in our relativistic frame of reference. Lose that local and parochial view and think of the bigger picture. No Lagrangian to split them apart.... Beyond time but still in existence.
Do I need to explain anymore at this point... I want everyone following who can and I want everyone understanding that the Fourier Transform is the basic reason for the DSE and the spatial distances are transformed to spatial frequencies and in the DSE we are holding time constant ... as we inevitably try to do when we are making Holograms of scenes where we are capturing those standing waves in space as fringes inside the emulsion.
I hope this helps...
Cheers
Hi C2,
It is all about how the results of interactions between separate energy systems
merge or combine during an energy transfer.
Resonance is a vibrational energy matching/coupling phenomenon that occurs
between separate energy "states". In the case of atoms and photons it is a form of
frequency modulation (superposition) that changes the fundamental frequency
response of the detecting atom from that of its immediate neighbors.
Coupling is the result of resonance, and occurs due to the absorption of energy
between fundamental frequencies, where different frequencies superpose at a
fixed location. The superposed frequencies combine their individual energy
components into a composite waveform which creates a harmonic frequency that
is an integral multiple of the two fundamentals.
We know that each wavelength of EM energy vibrates at a fixed frequency, and
we know that it is detected at the atomic level by a dipole which is evidenced by
the results of the photoelectric and other frequency sensitive photo effects that
generate electric currents.
We also know that we can stimulate high energy atoms to emit photons when
bombarded with stimulating photons.
So the proofs exist and don't need to be computed again.
My contention is, that in the single photon experiment, the photons follow a
circular rotational phase angle that disperses them sequentially across a horizontal
time base according to their frequency as they depart the slits.
If you consider that waves travel in 3 spatial dimensions along a spherical
expanding wavefront, according to the ISL, you get a vertical and horizontal
"impact" pattern where they contact the 2D screen plane. So, you get a horizontal
timing interval scan, and a vertical displacement scan, according the interference
created by resonantly interacting with the slits, which also follows the changing
phase angle rotation.
The results of the single photon experiment seem to demonstrate this proposed
dispersion effect quite nicely.
This concept does not conflict with "your" favorite equations that explain the
phase superposition interference pattern, it offers an explanation of the
physical mechanism that causes the effect.
I'm still grappling with how wavefronts with hundreds of coherent photons passing
in parallel thru the slits would follow this sequential "scanning" model, but it may
just be an issue of the frequency/timing between sequentially arriving waves.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
"reassembles itself etc." - this is a 'claim' .. claims are best tested by experiemnt. At some point you (and GE and LL) should proceed with your calculations and show that they give the same results as mine or show that mine disagree with the experimental result and yours do not (or something else). I will have to make a 'claim' to complete the calculation .. I don't suggest it is physically justifiable - only that it works. If you can get the right answer AND have a physically physically justifiable cause - you get the silver star - but at some stage you have to do it. Until you (LL/GE) show you can calculate 'something' all this resonance stuff is just one unfounded claim after another.
It is all about how the results of interactions between separate energy systems
merge or combine during an energy transfer.
Resonance is a vibrational energy matching/coupling phenomenon that occurs
between separate energy "states". In the case of atoms and photons it is a form of
frequency modulation (superposition) that changes the fundamental frequency
response of the detecting atom from that of its immediate neighbors.
Coupling is the result of resonance, and occurs due to the absorption of energy
between fundamental frequencies, where different frequencies superpose at a
fixed location. The superposed frequencies combine their individual energy
components into a composite waveform which creates a harmonic frequency that
is an integral multiple of the two fundamentals.
We know that each wavelength of EM energy vibrates at a fixed frequency, and
we know that it is detected at the atomic level by a dipole which is evidenced by
the results of the photoelectric and other frequency sensitive photo effects that
generate electric currents.
We also know that we can stimulate high energy atoms to emit photons when
bombarded with stimulating photons.
So the proofs exist and don't need to be computed again.
My contention is, that in the single photon experiment, the photons follow a
circular rotational phase angle that disperses them sequentially across a horizontal
time base according to their frequency as they depart the slits.
If you consider that waves travel in 3 spatial dimensions along a spherical
expanding wavefront, according to the ISL, you get a vertical and horizontal
"impact" pattern where they contact the 2D screen plane. So, you get a horizontal
timing interval scan, and a vertical displacement scan, according the interference
created by resonantly interacting with the slits, which also follows the changing
phase angle rotation.
The results of the single photon experiment seem to demonstrate this proposed
dispersion effect quite nicely.
This concept does not conflict with "your" favorite equations that explain the
phase superposition interference pattern, it offers an explanation of the
physical mechanism that causes the effect.
I'm still grappling with how wavefronts with hundreds of coherent photons passing
in parallel thru the slits would follow this sequential "scanning" model, but it may
just be an issue of the frequency/timing between sequentially arriving waves.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jun 30 2007, 08:10 PM)
Hi Wulf,
Ignorance can be "cured", as long as the training is based on facts and a truthful
interpretation of reality. Unfortunately, ignorance and passion can be reinforced by
indoctrination into a corrupted system. I cite the Nazi's, the Communists, and
other such formalized organizations based on the principles of "superiority"
of their "system" espoused by the "hierarchy" of the organization. I'll leave
politics and religion out of this, but they all have doctrines and principles that guide
their direction and how their supporters are required to think. One thing that they
all have in common, is that they do not tolerate or condone dissent or
individualistic thinking that deviates from the doctrine, no matter how correct or
factual it is. I cite the persecution of Galileo, and others who dared publish their
observations and findings that conflicted with "doctrine".
Faith should be moderated with common sense, logical thought, and accurate
information.
Like you said "blind faith is dangerous", but then, so is anarchy. Any structured
environment or organization must be built on solid, truthful foundations. If it isn't
it will eventually need to be torn down and rebuilt, or it will collapse because its
foundation isn't strong enough to support the structure built upon it.
Theories must be iron clad to be considered viable. They must not be "open ended",
or have inconsistencies that require constant revision to address conflicts.
They are either true and can be proved under all circumstances, or else they are
speculation, or based on faith. Above all they must be elegantly simple, easily
explained, predictable, measurable or quantifiable, and always true under all
conditions. No exceptions!
JMHO,
LL
I don't know why they must be elegantly simple like a unified field theory. Biology is extremely complex and has few unifying rules like quantum theory or X ray spectra
Ignorance can be "cured", as long as the training is based on facts and a truthful
interpretation of reality. Unfortunately, ignorance and passion can be reinforced by
indoctrination into a corrupted system. I cite the Nazi's, the Communists, and
other such formalized organizations based on the principles of "superiority"
of their "system" espoused by the "hierarchy" of the organization. I'll leave
politics and religion out of this, but they all have doctrines and principles that guide
their direction and how their supporters are required to think. One thing that they
all have in common, is that they do not tolerate or condone dissent or
individualistic thinking that deviates from the doctrine, no matter how correct or
factual it is. I cite the persecution of Galileo, and others who dared publish their
observations and findings that conflicted with "doctrine".
Faith should be moderated with common sense, logical thought, and accurate
information.
Like you said "blind faith is dangerous", but then, so is anarchy. Any structured
environment or organization must be built on solid, truthful foundations. If it isn't
it will eventually need to be torn down and rebuilt, or it will collapse because its
foundation isn't strong enough to support the structure built upon it.
Theories must be iron clad to be considered viable. They must not be "open ended",
or have inconsistencies that require constant revision to address conflicts.
They are either true and can be proved under all circumstances, or else they are
speculation, or based on faith. Above all they must be elegantly simple, easily
explained, predictable, measurable or quantifiable, and always true under all
conditions. No exceptions!
JMHO,
LL
I don't know why they must be elegantly simple like a unified field theory. Biology is extremely complex and has few unifying rules like quantum theory or X ray spectra
Hi Laserlight,
Correct me if I am wrong, you are still insisting that this "resonance through slits or pinholes" is a temporal frequency resonance or standing wave at the slits or pinholes and not a spatial frequency resonance at the diffraction plane? You are likening the action of slits to a tank circuit... is that so? This is hearkening back to the idea that we are dealing with polaritons, either a surface-plasmon polariton or an exciton-polariton.... Is this the case?
Does this mean you think that the Fourier Transform does not explain the periodicity on the circle in the main diffraction pattern? I will concede that there are plasmons and they are real phenomena. The other real effect is imparting of Orbital Angular Momentum to the photons using a "hologram". Surely the main effect is due to Fourier Transforms which are one dimensional equivalents of periodic resonances on a sphere.
Please discuss a little more.
Cheers
Correct me if I am wrong, you are still insisting that this "resonance through slits or pinholes" is a temporal frequency resonance or standing wave at the slits or pinholes and not a spatial frequency resonance at the diffraction plane? You are likening the action of slits to a tank circuit... is that so? This is hearkening back to the idea that we are dealing with polaritons, either a surface-plasmon polariton or an exciton-polariton.... Is this the case?
Does this mean you think that the Fourier Transform does not explain the periodicity on the circle in the main diffraction pattern? I will concede that there are plasmons and they are real phenomena. The other real effect is imparting of Orbital Angular Momentum to the photons using a "hologram". Surely the main effect is due to Fourier Transforms which are one dimensional equivalents of periodic resonances on a sphere.
Please discuss a little more.
Cheers
QUOTE (Why Not?+Jun 29 2007, 03:07 PM)
Hey Wulf,
If you look through this thread, there are a number of links to single photon and single electron experiments that show random distribution over time. An interesting one (that I do not believe has been previously linked) is here: http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/em/doubleslit.cfm. (The links on the right hand side of the Hitachi page are very informative and may be of interest as well.)
Hey, Why Not?
You have throw some light to my thought. The interference fringe produced by electron is not caused by superposition of electrons that undergoes constructive and destructive interfernce. But another phenomenon that cause the interference fringes.
I had posted the reasons for this on the following website:-
www.greatians.com/physics/mass/particles%20wave.htm#MK.4.0
I would like to share an alternative idea. Thank you.
If you look through this thread, there are a number of links to single photon and single electron experiments that show random distribution over time. An interesting one (that I do not believe has been previously linked) is here: http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/em/doubleslit.cfm. (The links on the right hand side of the Hitachi page are very informative and may be of interest as well.)
Hey, Why Not?
You have throw some light to my thought. The interference fringe produced by electron is not caused by superposition of electrons that undergoes constructive and destructive interfernce. But another phenomenon that cause the interference fringes.
I had posted the reasons for this on the following website:-
www.greatians.com/physics/mass/particles%20wave.htm#MK.4.0
I would like to share an alternative idea. Thank you.
Hi, all,
I have a question here. It might look stupid to you, but at this moment, I didn't find out any answer yet. Does anyone have thought of how the light undergoes diffraction? When light passes through a slit or a pin-hole, what mechanism that causes the diffraction of light?
Can I say that doublt-slit experiment is the resultant of two single slit diffraction effect?
I have a question here. It might look stupid to you, but at this moment, I didn't find out any answer yet. Does anyone have thought of how the light undergoes diffraction? When light passes through a slit or a pin-hole, what mechanism that causes the diffraction of light?
Can I say that doublt-slit experiment is the resultant of two single slit diffraction effect?
Hi Good Elf, (et al)
I'm sorry you have difficulty with my analysis. On reading through it there is a glaring error .. my N should be the number of photons produced per second (oops).
If we look at our filament bulb in more detail .. let us consider the glass surface to be the boundary between what is inside the bulb (the bulb 'system') and what is outside the bulb ..
From conservation of energy..
We know that the total amount of energy entering the bulb will be equal to the amount of energy leaving the bulb + the energy stored in the bulb (the bulb stores energy as heat )
(Eq C3) E_in = E_Out + E_Stored (yes?)
At equilibrium. ( can we assume this?)
(C4) E_in = E_out
If we assume that a certain amount of E_in is converted into photons of frequency 'f' at the rate of (say) N per second. We know (?) the energy of the individual photons is given by E= h f (where h is planck's constant) so we can say that the loss from the bulb ('system') due to these photons will be Nhf (Watts) .. this will of course be balanced by energy (electricity) entering the bulb along the wires.
The only way for light to leave the bulb is through the glass envelope .. for simplicity we can approximate this as a sphere of radius 'r' .. and consequently a surface area of of 4 pi r^2 . (OK so far?). As a reasonable approximation we assume that the photons don't choose any particular direction so the number of photons a counter of area A (Edit ..placed at the surface of the glass) would detect would be the N x (area of our detector )/(area of sphere) .. this is otherwise known as the inverse square law (or ISL). We should probably introduce detector efficiency .. but since this is (hopefully) constant this won't affect our understanding of the inverse square law.
I'm sorry you have difficulty with my analysis. On reading through it there is a glaring error .. my N should be the number of photons produced per second (oops).
If we look at our filament bulb in more detail .. let us consider the glass surface to be the boundary between what is inside the bulb (the bulb 'system') and what is outside the bulb ..
From conservation of energy..
We know that the total amount of energy entering the bulb will be equal to the amount of energy leaving the bulb + the energy stored in the bulb (the bulb stores energy as heat )
(Eq C3) E_in = E_Out + E_Stored (yes?)
At equilibrium. ( can we assume this?)
(C4) E_in = E_out
If we assume that a certain amount of E_in is converted into photons of frequency 'f' at the rate of (say) N per second. We know (?) the energy of the individual photons is given by E= h f (where h is planck's constant) so we can say that the loss from the bulb ('system') due to these photons will be Nhf (Watts) .. this will of course be balanced by energy (electricity) entering the bulb along the wires.
The only way for light to leave the bulb is through the glass envelope .. for simplicity we can approximate this as a sphere of radius 'r' .. and consequently a surface area of of 4 pi r^2 . (OK so far?). As a reasonable approximation we assume that the photons don't choose any particular direction so the number of photons a counter of area A (Edit ..placed at the surface of the glass) would detect would be the N x (area of our detector )/(area of sphere) .. this is otherwise known as the inverse square law (or ISL). We should probably introduce detector efficiency .. but since this is (hopefully) constant this won't affect our understanding of the inverse square law.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Your simplistic calculations captures nothing of the resonance phenomena, why should any of us prove something very stupid from our point of view...
If we wish to model resonant coupling between the bulb and something outside the bulb we can do this very simply by saying there is extra energy passing between the bulb 'system' and the outside world. Staying with energy conservation .. (ignoring storage) this gives us
(C5) E_in + E_resonance = E_out + E_resonance <- I think we can see that the resonant energy cancels out so (C4) remains 'true' but perhaps (stupidly) conceals more than it reveals.
IMHO Eq C5 captures the phenomenon of resonance .. the floor is now open to anyone wishing to explain the nature of E_resonance. Incidentally 'information is also 'E' .. there is no need to attempt to oversimplify .. I (simply) invite clarification of what various parties believe passes between the 'bulb system' and the outside world.
Best wishes - C2.
If we wish to model resonant coupling between the bulb and something outside the bulb we can do this very simply by saying there is extra energy passing between the bulb 'system' and the outside world. Staying with energy conservation .. (ignoring storage) this gives us
(C5) E_in + E_resonance = E_out + E_resonance <- I think we can see that the resonant energy cancels out so (C4) remains 'true' but perhaps (stupidly) conceals more than it reveals.
IMHO Eq C5 captures the phenomenon of resonance .. the floor is now open to anyone wishing to explain the nature of E_resonance. Incidentally 'information is also 'E' .. there is no need to attempt to oversimplify .. I (simply) invite clarification of what various parties believe passes between the 'bulb system' and the outside world.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi GE, Neil, C2, TRoc, and All,
Correct me if I am wrong, you are still insisting that this "resonance through slits or pinholes" is a temporal frequency resonance or standing wave at the slits or pinholes and not a spatial frequency resonance at the diffraction plane? You are likening the action of slits to a tank circuit... is that so? This is hearkening back to the idea that we are dealing with polaritons, either a surface-plasmon polariton or an exciton-polariton.... Is this the case?
YES!!!! Exactly! In order for there to be resonance there must be an exchange
of energy between separate energy systems one of which must be a physical
form of matter. I think we all agree on that, but which may require more
discussion to clarify.
We know that physical matter is energetically coupled to the adjoining "space" that
surrounds it.
This is obvious, because we observe objects by virtue of their visible image when
energy reflects from, or is re-emitted from them. The image is a uniform radiation
pattern that perfectly and constantly reproduces the surface re-emitting it. We
can only observe this image when it is being, or has been, irradiated by an external
radiation light source, which changes its surface resonance characteristics that
stimulates a response in the surface atoms. I think we agree on this. Yes?
This energy exchange typically happens at the surface level of matter, because
of radiation that is striking it in the form of light/photons. This interaction between
light and the sub-atomic dipoles is a resonant harmonic effect, which is coupling
energy in both directions according to the mixing/superposing of frequencies.
Some impinging frequencies are absorbed, usually in the IR range, while
others are reflected and re-emitted after having resonantly coupled to the
surface atoms. If this were not so, we would not see objects in the visible radiation
spectrum. Agreed?
So, YES, there is a surface resonance action that takes place at all optical frequencies.
You cannot deny this, since we observe shapes, colors,
textures, position, etc., because of resonances between physical objects and
the energy of the visible spectrum of light. This is undeniable, logical, and is
proved by the fact that we can observe objects that resonate at optical
frequencies. Agreed?
So, I think with this argument, my point about surface resonance interactions has
been made, but I am willing to discuss the issue in more depth/detail if necessary.
YES!!!! Exactly! In order for there to be resonance there must be an exchange
of energy between separate energy systems one of which must be a physical
form of matter. I think we all agree on that, but which may require more
discussion to clarify.
We know that physical matter is energetically coupled to the adjoining "space" that
surrounds it.
This is obvious, because we observe objects by virtue of their visible image when
energy reflects from, or is re-emitted from them. The image is a uniform radiation
pattern that perfectly and constantly reproduces the surface re-emitting it. We
can only observe this image when it is being, or has been, irradiated by an external
radiation light source, which changes its surface resonance characteristics that
stimulates a response in the surface atoms. I think we agree on this. Yes?
This energy exchange typically happens at the surface level of matter, because
of radiation that is striking it in the form of light/photons. This interaction between
light and the sub-atomic dipoles is a resonant harmonic effect, which is coupling
energy in both directions according to the mixing/superposing of frequencies.
Some impinging frequencies are absorbed, usually in the IR range, while
others are reflected and re-emitted after having resonantly coupled to the
surface atoms. If this were not so, we would not see objects in the visible radiation
spectrum. Agreed?
So, YES, there is a surface resonance action that takes place at all optical frequencies.
You cannot deny this, since we observe shapes, colors,
textures, position, etc., because of resonances between physical objects and
the energy of the visible spectrum of light. This is undeniable, logical, and is
proved by the fact that we can observe objects that resonate at optical
frequencies. Agreed?
So, I think with this argument, my point about surface resonance interactions has
been made, but I am willing to discuss the issue in more depth/detail if necessary.
Does this mean you think that the Fourier Transform does not explain the periodicity on the circle in the main diffraction pattern? I will concede that there are plasmons and they are real phenomena. The other real effect is imparting of Orbital Angular Momentum to the photons using a "hologram". Surely the main effect is due to Fourier Transforms which are one dimensional equivalents of periodic resonances on a sphere.
Please discuss a little more.
On the contrary, I am in total agreement with you on the Fourier
Transform and the circle/spherical periodicity.
It is my contention that this Fourier Transform optical effect is caused by surface
resonances in the virtual optical "tank circuit", which is an optical effect caused by
the harmonics created during the energy exchange process.
The geometry of the slit cavities establishes a resonance pattern that is re-emitted
from the atomic dipoles that have been stimulated, which are called surface
polaritons.
These surface polaritions are all being stimulated to be resonantly "phased" by the
EM fields being coupled/induced into the atoms that make up the cavity surfaces.
The stimulated surface atoms (polaritions) of the cavities become synchronized
and vibrate at a common frequency, according to the polarity and phase angle of
the coherent frequency being applied. This causes each cavity surface to resonate
at the same frequency, but with a separated timing integral according to the gap
spacing and phase angle of the stimulating radiation EM field.
So, basically, we have an optical radiation effect which is due to EM field energy,
that is harmonically cross coupling between resonant energy systems. So the
Fourier Transform effect is a byproduct of signal mixing across an active, resonant,
optical medium.
Comments? Discussion?
LL
QUOTE
Correct me if I am wrong, you are still insisting that this "resonance through slits or pinholes" is a temporal frequency resonance or standing wave at the slits or pinholes and not a spatial frequency resonance at the diffraction plane? You are likening the action of slits to a tank circuit... is that so? This is hearkening back to the idea that we are dealing with polaritons, either a surface-plasmon polariton or an exciton-polariton.... Is this the case?
YES!!!! Exactly! In order for there to be resonance there must be an exchange
of energy between separate energy systems one of which must be a physical
form of matter. I think we all agree on that, but which may require more
discussion to clarify.
We know that physical matter is energetically coupled to the adjoining "space" that
surrounds it.
This is obvious, because we observe objects by virtue of their visible image when
energy reflects from, or is re-emitted from them. The image is a uniform radiation
pattern that perfectly and constantly reproduces the surface re-emitting it. We
can only observe this image when it is being, or has been, irradiated by an external
radiation light source, which changes its surface resonance characteristics that
stimulates a response in the surface atoms. I think we agree on this. Yes?
This energy exchange typically happens at the surface level of matter, because
of radiation that is striking it in the form of light/photons. This interaction between
light and the sub-atomic dipoles is a resonant harmonic effect, which is coupling
energy in both directions according to the mixing/superposing of frequencies.
Some impinging frequencies are absorbed, usually in the IR range, while
others are reflected and re-emitted after having resonantly coupled to the
surface atoms. If this were not so, we would not see objects in the visible radiation
spectrum. Agreed?
So, YES, there is a surface resonance action that takes place at all optical frequencies.
You cannot deny this, since we observe shapes, colors,
textures, position, etc., because of resonances between physical objects and
the energy of the visible spectrum of light. This is undeniable, logical, and is
proved by the fact that we can observe objects that resonate at optical
frequencies. Agreed?
So, I think with this argument, my point about surface resonance interactions has
been made, but I am willing to discuss the issue in more depth/detail if necessary.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Correct me if I am wrong, you are still insisting that this "resonance through slits or pinholes" is a temporal frequency resonance or standing wave at the slits or pinholes and not a spatial frequency resonance at the diffraction plane? You are likening the action of slits to a tank circuit... is that so? This is hearkening back to the idea that we are dealing with polaritons, either a surface-plasmon polariton or an exciton-polariton.... Is this the case? |
YES!!!! Exactly! In order for there to be resonance there must be an exchange
of energy between separate energy systems one of which must be a physical
form of matter. I think we all agree on that, but which may require more
discussion to clarify.
We know that physical matter is energetically coupled to the adjoining "space" that
surrounds it.
This is obvious, because we observe objects by virtue of their visible image when
energy reflects from, or is re-emitted from them. The image is a uniform radiation
pattern that perfectly and constantly reproduces the surface re-emitting it. We
can only observe this image when it is being, or has been, irradiated by an external
radiation light source, which changes its surface resonance characteristics that
stimulates a response in the surface atoms. I think we agree on this. Yes?
This energy exchange typically happens at the surface level of matter, because
of radiation that is striking it in the form of light/photons. This interaction between
light and the sub-atomic dipoles is a resonant harmonic effect, which is coupling
energy in both directions according to the mixing/superposing of frequencies.
Some impinging frequencies are absorbed, usually in the IR range, while
others are reflected and re-emitted after having resonantly coupled to the
surface atoms. If this were not so, we would not see objects in the visible radiation
spectrum. Agreed?
So, YES, there is a surface resonance action that takes place at all optical frequencies.
You cannot deny this, since we observe shapes, colors,
textures, position, etc., because of resonances between physical objects and
the energy of the visible spectrum of light. This is undeniable, logical, and is
proved by the fact that we can observe objects that resonate at optical
frequencies. Agreed?
So, I think with this argument, my point about surface resonance interactions has
been made, but I am willing to discuss the issue in more depth/detail if necessary.
Does this mean you think that the Fourier Transform does not explain the periodicity on the circle in the main diffraction pattern? I will concede that there are plasmons and they are real phenomena. The other real effect is imparting of Orbital Angular Momentum to the photons using a "hologram". Surely the main effect is due to Fourier Transforms which are one dimensional equivalents of periodic resonances on a sphere.
Please discuss a little more.
On the contrary, I am in total agreement with you on the Fourier
Transform and the circle/spherical periodicity.
It is my contention that this Fourier Transform optical effect is caused by surface
resonances in the virtual optical "tank circuit", which is an optical effect caused by
the harmonics created during the energy exchange process.
The geometry of the slit cavities establishes a resonance pattern that is re-emitted
from the atomic dipoles that have been stimulated, which are called surface
polaritons.
These surface polaritions are all being stimulated to be resonantly "phased" by the
EM fields being coupled/induced into the atoms that make up the cavity surfaces.
The stimulated surface atoms (polaritions) of the cavities become synchronized
and vibrate at a common frequency, according to the polarity and phase angle of
the coherent frequency being applied. This causes each cavity surface to resonate
at the same frequency, but with a separated timing integral according to the gap
spacing and phase angle of the stimulating radiation EM field.
So, basically, we have an optical radiation effect which is due to EM field energy,
that is harmonically cross coupling between resonant energy systems. So the
Fourier Transform effect is a byproduct of signal mixing across an active, resonant,
optical medium.
Comments? Discussion?
LL
Hi Kokhaw,
You might find this site of value regarding diffraction, etc. Just click on the
topic bubbles.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ffracon.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ligcon.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Regards,
LL
You might find this site of value regarding diffraction, etc. Just click on the
topic bubbles.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ffracon.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ligcon.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Regards,
LL
Hi kokhaw,
QUOTE (kokhaw+)
Does anyone have thought of how the light undergoes diffraction?
My feeling is that the essence of amplitude (square root of intensity) is e^(-ikr)/r .. this reference is 'almost' there ..
http://cnyack.homestead.com/files/afourtr/ftdiffraction.htm
If my maths was up to it I'd like to try replacing their k= (2 pi sin (thete) ) / lambda with a small angle approximation .. I think that could be rather elegant
Best wishes -C2.
Edit .. They (not me) suggest there may be a surprising result (compacted dimension?
) if you replace R with 1/R .. I admit I can't see it myself .. any ideas?
R e^(ik/R) .. ????? makes no sense to me
.
My feeling is that the essence of amplitude (square root of intensity) is e^(-ikr)/r .. this reference is 'almost' there ..
http://cnyack.homestead.com/files/afourtr/ftdiffraction.htm
If my maths was up to it I'd like to try replacing their k= (2 pi sin (thete) ) / lambda with a small angle approximation .. I think that could be rather elegant
Best wishes -C2.
Edit .. They (not me) suggest there may be a surprising result (compacted dimension?
) if you replace R with 1/R .. I admit I can't see it myself .. any ideas? R e^(ik/R) .. ????? makes no sense to me
.
Hi C2,
Are we in agreement that the action of resonance takes place across a physical
medium?
It is a cyclical vibration that causes a periodic position displacement in matter. This
is a physical effect that can be detected and measured, and it only occurs when
matter vibrates, or "rings", as a consequence of a form of periodic energy transfer.
Unstimulated single atoms vibrate at a fixed frequency, according to the
subatomic motions of the element that they represent. In a physical matter
matrix, they resonate in harmony, which is a response to all of the combined
atomic molecular background movement, and energy, that is "stored" in the closed
atomic system.
You know this already, I just wanted to provide context.
So, we have a closed energetic system that is resonating at a specific composite
frequency due to atomic motion. If we upset or stimulate this closed system with
excess energy, the system attempts to absorb this energy, which causes the
atomic lattice to rearrange the physical alignment of its structure.
This added energy throws the resonant system out of steady state "balance" and
the frequency of the matrix must change because the physical dimensions of the
atoms that make up the matrix have changed positions.
How the atomic matrix responds to the external energy depends on the frequency
of the external energy that was applied. The physical matrix will radiate
energy ranging from the IR spectrum as heat, all the way up thru the radiation
spectrum according to the energy frequency that was applied. The frequencies
that can be generated by the atoms that make up the matrix are limited by the
number of energy shells of the elemental atoms that make up the matrix.
There is a discrete range of subharmonic spectral frequencies that can be
generated by each specific element, up to the ionization level where electrons
are radiated away and replaced, which is the maximum visible spectral
frequency that the atoms can attain.
You already know this too. More context
Your bulb will generate a specific range of spectral frequencies, at specific
energy levels, depending upon the amount of energy applied to the tungsten
filament. There will definitely be a full bandwidth of IR frequencies due to the
heat generated by molecular movement, as electrons vibrate in their orbitals.
As the power level is increased to the point of ionization, we move into the visible
frequency spectrum which is the optimal visible wavelength that tungsten atoms
can emit when stimulated. This is a dull red glow, at the lowest detectable visible
level, which will intensify (more photons) up to bright white hot, as more energy
is applied. Same visible wavelength of photons, just lots more of them.
In the TeachSpin single photon experiment, they use a green glass "filter" to block the IR
frequency components, but which allows the higher frequency visible wavelength
of interest, to pass. They have minimized the power to the bulb to limit the
number of visible photons emitted to some barely detectable level. These photons
are being emitted in all directions from the tungsten filament, but only those that
are aligned with the plane/axis of the slits will pass thru and interact with those
resonant, optical cavities.
At this point those arriving photons will stimulate the resonance characteristics of
the atoms of the cavities, creating polaritons, that respond as I have proposed
earlier.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
(C5) E_in + E_resonance = E_out + E_resonance <- I think we can see that the resonant energy cancels out so (C4) remains 'true' but perhaps (stupidly) conceals more than it reveals.
IMHO Eq C5 captures the phenomenon of resonance .. the floor is now open to anyone wishing to explain the nature of E_resonance. Incidentally 'information is also 'E' .. there is no need to attempt to oversimplify .. I (simply) invite clarification of what various parties believe passes between the 'bulb system' and the outside world.
IMHO Eq C5 captures the phenomenon of resonance .. the floor is now open to anyone wishing to explain the nature of E_resonance. Incidentally 'information is also 'E' .. there is no need to attempt to oversimplify .. I (simply) invite clarification of what various parties believe passes between the 'bulb system' and the outside world.
Are we in agreement that the action of resonance takes place across a physical
medium?
It is a cyclical vibration that causes a periodic position displacement in matter. This
is a physical effect that can be detected and measured, and it only occurs when
matter vibrates, or "rings", as a consequence of a form of periodic energy transfer.
Unstimulated single atoms vibrate at a fixed frequency, according to the
subatomic motions of the element that they represent. In a physical matter
matrix, they resonate in harmony, which is a response to all of the combined
atomic molecular background movement, and energy, that is "stored" in the closed
atomic system.
You know this already, I just wanted to provide context.
So, we have a closed energetic system that is resonating at a specific composite
frequency due to atomic motion. If we upset or stimulate this closed system with
excess energy, the system attempts to absorb this energy, which causes the
atomic lattice to rearrange the physical alignment of its structure.
This added energy throws the resonant system out of steady state "balance" and
the frequency of the matrix must change because the physical dimensions of the
atoms that make up the matrix have changed positions.
How the atomic matrix responds to the external energy depends on the frequency
of the external energy that was applied. The physical matrix will radiate
energy ranging from the IR spectrum as heat, all the way up thru the radiation
spectrum according to the energy frequency that was applied. The frequencies
that can be generated by the atoms that make up the matrix are limited by the
number of energy shells of the elemental atoms that make up the matrix.
There is a discrete range of subharmonic spectral frequencies that can be
generated by each specific element, up to the ionization level where electrons
are radiated away and replaced, which is the maximum visible spectral
frequency that the atoms can attain.
You already know this too. More context
Your bulb will generate a specific range of spectral frequencies, at specific
energy levels, depending upon the amount of energy applied to the tungsten
filament. There will definitely be a full bandwidth of IR frequencies due to the
heat generated by molecular movement, as electrons vibrate in their orbitals.
As the power level is increased to the point of ionization, we move into the visible
frequency spectrum which is the optimal visible wavelength that tungsten atoms
can emit when stimulated. This is a dull red glow, at the lowest detectable visible
level, which will intensify (more photons) up to bright white hot, as more energy
is applied. Same visible wavelength of photons, just lots more of them.
In the TeachSpin single photon experiment, they use a green glass "filter" to block the IR
frequency components, but which allows the higher frequency visible wavelength
of interest, to pass. They have minimized the power to the bulb to limit the
number of visible photons emitted to some barely detectable level. These photons
are being emitted in all directions from the tungsten filament, but only those that
are aligned with the plane/axis of the slits will pass thru and interact with those
resonant, optical cavities.
At this point those arriving photons will stimulate the resonance characteristics of
the atoms of the cavities, creating polaritons, that respond as I have proposed
earlier.
Comments?
LL
C2,
That was a great site link on Fourier Transform and Diffraction!
Thanks for posting it.
LL
That was a great site link on Fourier Transform and Diffraction!
Thanks for posting it.
LL
Hello kokhaw, et al.
My own take on this is that an incident planer wave is converted into two (double slit) spherical waves. Planer waves by definition move in only one direction. Spherical waves move in an expanding arc away from a source. Spherical waves that cross and are entangled in phase (temporal) and polarization will exhibit interference phenomena. The amount and type of interference (constructive or destructive) is based on the vector sum of the polarizations.
We must always remember that the EM wave is energy being transfered/moved through space by electric and magnetic fields. (My take on this is that electric and magnetic fields are stationary and that the energy cycles back and forth between the two fields) The only electric or magnetic fields that move though space are those tied to fermions and they are for the most point static in intensity relative to said fermion.
The slowing of the energy transportation (speed of light in space) at the slit walls will turn a planer wave into a spherical wave. How this happens is probably a combination of factors but has a direct correlation with the index of refraction for matter.
QUOTE
Does anyone have thought of how the light undergoes diffraction?
My own take on this is that an incident planer wave is converted into two (double slit) spherical waves. Planer waves by definition move in only one direction. Spherical waves move in an expanding arc away from a source. Spherical waves that cross and are entangled in phase (temporal) and polarization will exhibit interference phenomena. The amount and type of interference (constructive or destructive) is based on the vector sum of the polarizations.
We must always remember that the EM wave is energy being transfered/moved through space by electric and magnetic fields. (My take on this is that electric and magnetic fields are stationary and that the energy cycles back and forth between the two fields) The only electric or magnetic fields that move though space are those tied to fermions and they are for the most point static in intensity relative to said fermion.
The slowing of the energy transportation (speed of light in space) at the slit walls will turn a planer wave into a spherical wave. How this happens is probably a combination of factors but has a direct correlation with the index of refraction for matter.
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jul 1 2007, 05:00 PM)
C2,
That was a great site link on Fourier Transform and Diffraction!
Thanks for posting it.
LL
There is a neural network type device called an optical correlator. If you have two pictures it can correlate the degree of similarity between the two pictures based on Fourier transforms. Its achieves almost the same result as electronic neural networkss that are also called Boltzmann machines. If you have a rectangular array of neurodes (artificial nerve cells) and you input various values of a pattern, a typical pattern might be a 2 dimensional photograph, the array of neurodes and the electrical "values" they have in response to the pattern can be portrayed as a "landscape" where the answer to a problem falls out of the Boltzmann distribution of the "landscape." ie, a ball placed on a peak in the distribution will roll down to the lowest point of the landscape analogous to balls on a golf course.
What interests me is that there is probably some correspondence between the Boltzmann distribution way of looking at a picture and the Fourier transform method of analyzing visual data.
That was a great site link on Fourier Transform and Diffraction!
Thanks for posting it.
LL
There is a neural network type device called an optical correlator. If you have two pictures it can correlate the degree of similarity between the two pictures based on Fourier transforms. Its achieves almost the same result as electronic neural networkss that are also called Boltzmann machines. If you have a rectangular array of neurodes (artificial nerve cells) and you input various values of a pattern, a typical pattern might be a 2 dimensional photograph, the array of neurodes and the electrical "values" they have in response to the pattern can be portrayed as a "landscape" where the answer to a problem falls out of the Boltzmann distribution of the "landscape." ie, a ball placed on a peak in the distribution will roll down to the lowest point of the landscape analogous to balls on a golf course.
What interests me is that there is probably some correspondence between the Boltzmann distribution way of looking at a picture and the Fourier transform method of analyzing visual data.
Hi Neil,
Good stuff!
Are these techniques reciprocals of one another? It seems like they would
have a complementary relationship? One takes information and yields a
mathematical solution based upon a signal integration response of the input data,
and the other yields a distributed statistical solution display of that same information.
Basically, you are converting information via a type of mathematical
"video compression" technique, one occurs enroute from the source and the other
is performed at the detector.
I'm not a mathematician, but your suggestion seems to indicate that the
results would yield a topological map display of "video" information using different
techniques.
LL
Good stuff!
QUOTE
What interests me is that there is probably some correspondence between the Boltzmann distribution way of looking at a picture and the Fourier transform method of analyzing visual data.
Are these techniques reciprocals of one another? It seems like they would
have a complementary relationship? One takes information and yields a
mathematical solution based upon a signal integration response of the input data,
and the other yields a distributed statistical solution display of that same information.
Basically, you are converting information via a type of mathematical
"video compression" technique, one occurs enroute from the source and the other
is performed at the detector.
I'm not a mathematician, but your suggestion seems to indicate that the
results would yield a topological map display of "video" information using different
techniques.
LL
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
QUOTE (kokhaw)+)
Does anyone have thought of how the light undergoes diffraction?
My feeling is that the essence of amplitude (square root of intensity) is e^(-ikr)/r .. this reference is 'almost' there ..
http://cnyack.homestead.com/files/afourtr/ftdiffraction.htm
If my maths was up to it I'd like to try replacing their k= (2 pi sin (thete) ) / lambda with a small angle approximation .. I think that could be rather elegant
Best wishes -C2.
Edit .. They (not me) suggest there may be a surprising result (compacted dimension? ph34r.gif ) if you replace R with 1/R .. I admit I can't see it myself .. any ideas?
R e^(ik/R) .. ????? makes no sense to me
http://cnyack.homestead.com/files/afourtr/ftdiffraction.htm
If my maths was up to it I'd like to try replacing their k= (2 pi sin (thete) ) / lambda with a small angle approximation .. I think that could be rather elegant
Best wishes -C2.
Edit .. They (not me) suggest there may be a surprising result (compacted dimension? ph34r.gif ) if you replace R with 1/R .. I admit I can't see it myself .. any ideas?
R e^(ik/R) .. ????? makes no sense to me
I can give you all my "tilt" on things and you can "run it up the pole and see who salutes it"... he he he... Not many I bet. I was hoping you would remember T-Duality, one of the few things that have proved correct about Standard String Theory.
Good Elf Previously on this thread
It is also at the basis of the AdS-CFT conjecture. Anti-de Sitter Space is a reciprocal space based on the "inside " of a sphere rather than the outside of a sphere. The AdS-CFT is the "hottest" think and the most quoted section of advanced theories at present and is very active usually in dealing with "Black Holes". It says that for spaces based on "distance" there may be complementary spaces that are compact dimensionally based on "1/distance". These are the same descriptions of the one thing simultaneously... they are dual... space and reciprocal space. The pundits that are pushing this idea have not thought through all the various points and this is where I think I have a little "look ahead" on these points when dealing with extra dimensions as reciprocal space and as an extension of Fourier Theory. As an "elf" I find it my duty to champion this odd cause only because it is probably right...
I was hoping you would remember T-Duality, one of the few things that have proved correct about Standard String Theory.Good Elf Previously on this thread
It is also at the basis of the AdS-CFT conjecture. Anti-de Sitter Space is a reciprocal space based on the "inside " of a sphere rather than the outside of a sphere. The AdS-CFT is the "hottest" think and the most quoted section of advanced theories at present and is very active usually in dealing with "Black Holes". It says that for spaces based on "distance" there may be complementary spaces that are compact dimensionally based on "1/distance". These are the same descriptions of the one thing simultaneously... they are dual... space and reciprocal space. The pundits that are pushing this idea have not thought through all the various points and this is where I think I have a little "look ahead" on these points when dealing with extra dimensions as reciprocal space and as an extension of Fourier Theory. As an "elf" I find it my duty to champion this odd cause only because it is probably right...
QUOTE (Confused2+)
A humdinger of a post ( from yquantum ) here. If I hadn't already tweaked yquantum's feedback I would have done so now (wow!).
Good Elf seems to be leaving us little choice but to look at this R <-> 1/R thing so I'll give it a go ..
My first shot at this .. please say what you think is wrong.. could be everything..
There are six 'distance' dimensions (3 compacted) and the three we normally see.
Let's try flipping them ...
As we go 'in' we see all the compacted sheep and chickens flying out past us as they 'decompact'. Possibly the ingoing and outcoming meet at a surface .. a two dimensional surface? Regardless .. we end up wandering about on the surface of 'something'.... a sphere or a hypersphere perhaps?
My guess is that the distance between any two points on the surface of a hypershere will have a certain periodicity .. could this be the de Broglie thing?
Therapy/comments (eg. 'drop the hypersphere') would be most welcome.
Best wishes -C2.
Confused2 in the following post to the thread
Good Elf seems to be leaving us little choice but to look at this R <-> 1/R thing so I'll give it a go ..
My first shot at this .. please say what you think is wrong.. could be everything..
There are six 'distance' dimensions (3 compacted) and the three we normally see.
Let's try flipping them ...
As we go 'in' we see all the compacted sheep and chickens flying out past us as they 'decompact'. Possibly the ingoing and outcoming meet at a surface .. a two dimensional surface? Regardless .. we end up wandering about on the surface of 'something'.... a sphere or a hypersphere perhaps?
My guess is that the distance between any two points on the surface of a hypershere will have a certain periodicity .. could this be the de Broglie thing?
Therapy/comments (eg. 'drop the hypersphere') would be most welcome.
Best wishes -C2.
Confused2 in the following post to the thread
I have stated this point previously on this thread and many others and is part of the bigger higher dimensional picture. Most of what we are dealing with on our scale of the Universe is related to our 4 dimensional spacetime, but there are exceptions when we encounter "large photons" such as those produced by radio transmitters. These show us a linking with structures of the same kind as those found in atoms and the atomic shells. My idea, and it is not everyones idea, is the Universe is composed of at least 10 dimensions. The four we mostly see plus 6 additional "embedded" compact dimensional spaces 'attached' to every compact dimensional source. Every fermion is a compact dimensional source. Fermions can even bring more of these sources into existence through particle creation ... etc. I have discussed particle creation before. These additional dimensions which are terminated by the light cone walls are reciprocally related to our three dimensional spaces so they do not connect "linearly" but through a higher dimensional surface or hypersurface that we see as only two dimensional ... like a mirror or lens surface depending on incident quanta. As I have said Special Relativity is the geometry of these mirrors at high velocity and de Broglie waves are the geometry of these structures at low velocity (actually they are either end of a R <--> 1/R relationship ... a T-Dual of our space with a reciprocal space). This is a dimensional boundary and occurs at the dimensional boundaries of all particles and even at the 'edge" of our Universe. These form sets of orthogonal spaces sharing dimensions with our spacetime and they share dimensions with other spacetimes and so on... a Hall of Dimensional Mirrors. Ten dimensions is only the starting point there are other compact dimensional spaces alongside any nominated sub-atomic particle brane and they are as numerous as there are particles and sub-atomic particles in the Universe. An example of the multiple spatial cavities in spacetime are a simple proton (without the electron) is a Hydrogen atom. The most common atom in the Universe, also the only stuff produced by the Big Bang, the heavier atoms have been formed via stellar processes since then. Our entire Universe is just one of the compact four dimensional cavities... one of an almost infinite series of "Multiverses"... each one potentially as viable and as interesting as our own universe because they "internally mirror" through their matter waves an external Universe.... As long as any external universe exists all mirror copies will also exist as Kondo Phantoms.
Almost everything to do with the DSE is related only to the first 4 dimensions. The additional dimensions only appear in this scheme when we consider quantum jumps into higher nested dimensions. These occur in the hybridized branes of atoms such as the Hydrogen atom and in the hybridized branes of other sub-atomic particles. These hybridized branes are the "bosonic shadows" of additional dimensions attached to the fermions. naturally I am only mentioning the first level of this endless series of "perfect matter wave reflections". Photons have limitations regarding their ability to pass dimensional boundaries but matter waves seem to be virtually scale independent. Photons define events (Chemistry and Physics and forces) while matter waves define spatial relationships to objects (what the 'stuff is" and where it is found in our Universe).
The idea of "multiverses' is not new the main new thing is the way they attach to our Universe and a place for everything in the Universe that we know through a modified version of the AdS-CFT reciprocal relationship. I have found it impossible for people to retain a glimpse of the more complete picture I am drawing here so I restrict it to only four dimensions plus quantum events which should be seen as "higher dimensional".
Cheers
Almost everything to do with the DSE is related only to the first 4 dimensions. The additional dimensions only appear in this scheme when we consider quantum jumps into higher nested dimensions. These occur in the hybridized branes of atoms such as the Hydrogen atom and in the hybridized branes of other sub-atomic particles. These hybridized branes are the "bosonic shadows" of additional dimensions attached to the fermions. naturally I am only mentioning the first level of this endless series of "perfect matter wave reflections". Photons have limitations regarding their ability to pass dimensional boundaries but matter waves seem to be virtually scale independent. Photons define events (Chemistry and Physics and forces) while matter waves define spatial relationships to objects (what the 'stuff is" and where it is found in our Universe).
The idea of "multiverses' is not new the main new thing is the way they attach to our Universe and a place for everything in the Universe that we know through a modified version of the AdS-CFT reciprocal relationship. I have found it impossible for people to retain a glimpse of the more complete picture I am drawing here so I restrict it to only four dimensions plus quantum events which should be seen as "higher dimensional".
Cheers
What happened to JanRinze? He seems to have lost interest. I always looked
forward to his perspective.
forward to his perspective.
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jul 1 2007, 09:41 PM)
Hi Neil,
Good stuff!
Are these techniques reciprocals of one another? It seems like they would
have a complementary relationship? One takes information and yields a
mathematical solution based upon a signal integration response of the input data,
and the other yields a distributed statistical solution display of that same information.
Basically, you are converting information via a type of mathematical
"video compression" technique, one occurs enroute from the source and the other
is performed at the detector.
I'm not a mathematician, but your suggestion seems to indicate that the
results would yield a topological map display of "video" information using different
techniques.
LL
I'll give you some links to show you what I'm talking about.
Good stuff!
Are these techniques reciprocals of one another? It seems like they would
have a complementary relationship? One takes information and yields a
mathematical solution based upon a signal integration response of the input data,
and the other yields a distributed statistical solution display of that same information.
Basically, you are converting information via a type of mathematical
"video compression" technique, one occurs enroute from the source and the other
is performed at the detector.
I'm not a mathematician, but your suggestion seems to indicate that the
results would yield a topological map display of "video" information using different
techniques.
LL
I'll give you some links to show you what I'm talking about.
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Jul 2 2007, 01:05 AM)
I'll give you some links to show you what I'm talking about.
Hi Laserlight et al,
The reason I am trying to suggest drawing bubbles (any closed surface) round things is to help to analyse the flow of energy. If 'the same energy' leaves the bubble and comes back again then I'd call that 'resonance' . My definition of 'resonance' being that the energy flow across the boundary is greater than the average loss (or gain) of energy. Is that at all clear?
A DSE example ..
Draw a bubble round the screen 'zone'.. if nothing leaves that bubble then we can be fairly sure that resonance does not play a part in the way the interference pattern builds up. If there are random reflections then we might have to consider whether these are important or irrelevant.
Good Elf.. I think I might have lost the ability to learn anything new sometime back in the 1970's - I am doing my best!
Best wishes -C2.
The reason I am trying to suggest drawing bubbles (any closed surface) round things is to help to analyse the flow of energy. If 'the same energy' leaves the bubble and comes back again then I'd call that 'resonance' . My definition of 'resonance' being that the energy flow across the boundary is greater than the average loss (or gain) of energy. Is that at all clear?
A DSE example ..
Draw a bubble round the screen 'zone'.. if nothing leaves that bubble then we can be fairly sure that resonance does not play a part in the way the interference pattern builds up. If there are random reflections then we might have to consider whether these are important or irrelevant.
Good Elf.. I think I might have lost the ability to learn anything new sometime back in the 1970's - I am doing my best!
Best wishes -C2.
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jul 2 2007, 01:02 AM)
What happened to JanRinze? He seems to have lost interest. I always looked
forward to his perspective.
Hi LL,
I am still here..
Just too busy to interact with the forum for now..
Jan Rinze.
P.S. thanks for this remark
forward to his perspective.
Hi LL,
I am still here..
Just too busy to interact with the forum for now..
Jan Rinze.
P.S. thanks for this remark
Hey C2 and all,
A quick comment on your bubble and equations...
A quick comment on your bubble and equations...
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Draw a bubble round the screen 'zone'.. if nothing leaves that bubble then we can be fairly sure that resonance does not play a part in the way the interference pattern builds up.
and
and
QUOTE (Confused2+)
(C5) E_in + E_resonance = E_out + E_resonance
E_resonance can be any arbitrary value. Since it factors out of the equation, I see no way of measuring (quantifying) what value it has (if any). Also, information has to leave the bubble in the form of "knowledge" in the perception of an interference pattern. If this is the case, then E_in + E_resonance = E_out + E_information. If E_in = E_out, then E_resonance = E_information. In light of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, E_resonance = E_information is not symmetric with in time. Just a thought...
E_resonance can be any arbitrary value. Since it factors out of the equation, I see no way of measuring (quantifying) what value it has (if any). Also, information has to leave the bubble in the form of "knowledge" in the perception of an interference pattern. If this is the case, then E_in + E_resonance = E_out + E_information. If E_in = E_out, then E_resonance = E_information. In light of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, E_resonance = E_information is not symmetric with in time. Just a thought...
Hi Why Not?
Them what claim there's resonance will have to show how the books balance - that is the point of the exercise.
Best wishes - C2.
Them what claim there's resonance will have to show how the books balance - that is the point of the exercise.
Best wishes - C2.
Sorry if my last few posts where less than coherent. Lask of sleep did a number on my communication skills. I started thinking of approaching the physics as an optimisation problem.
Hi C2,
Now I understand what you are trying to prove. You should have made a similar
statement earlier so we had a clue what you were attempting to refute.
Think about what you are presuming...which is, that the energy of resonance is
totally absorbed. IT's NOT totally absorbed. It is absorbed and then
re-emitted.
We can verify this because we observe the photon's that are being reflected
to form the bright bands of the DSE. So the incident energy is transfered to the surface
dipoles at points of constructive superposition, via resonance (EM energy transfer),
but it is re-emitted/reflected from the absorbing atoms at those constructive
band locations. It is radiating back toward the observer/source, but is being
dispersed/scattered via the ISL. We know this because we can observe the
reaction from any angle when viewing the detection screen.
SO:
E_In = E_Out + any IR absorption/emission losses, that radiate from the atoms
that were agitated (heated) during the energy exchange.
In order for the energy to have been totally "absorbed", there would have had
to have been electron current flow in the atomic matrix to "ground". All energy
is re-emitted, there is no current flow to ground from the screen atoms. The
"unabsorbed" photon's are recoupled back to space to continue their journey.
We detect some of those re-emitted photons by absorption in the receiving cones
and rods of our eyes, that do generate a chemical reaction and current flow.
Those absorbed photons in our eyes are not re-emitted, they are converted
to electrical currents and sink "ground" within our electro-chemical physiology.
Comments? Different Opinions?
LL
QUOTE
Them what claim there's resonance will have to show how the books balance - that is the point of the exercise.
Best wishes - C2.
Best wishes - C2.
Now I understand what you are trying to prove. You should have made a similar
statement earlier so we had a clue what you were attempting to refute.
Think about what you are presuming...which is, that the energy of resonance is
totally absorbed. IT's NOT totally absorbed. It is absorbed and then
re-emitted.
We can verify this because we observe the photon's that are being reflected
to form the bright bands of the DSE. So the incident energy is transfered to the surface
dipoles at points of constructive superposition, via resonance (EM energy transfer),
but it is re-emitted/reflected from the absorbing atoms at those constructive
band locations. It is radiating back toward the observer/source, but is being
dispersed/scattered via the ISL. We know this because we can observe the
reaction from any angle when viewing the detection screen.
SO:
E_In = E_Out + any IR absorption/emission losses, that radiate from the atoms
that were agitated (heated) during the energy exchange.
In order for the energy to have been totally "absorbed", there would have had
to have been electron current flow in the atomic matrix to "ground". All energy
is re-emitted, there is no current flow to ground from the screen atoms. The
"unabsorbed" photon's are recoupled back to space to continue their journey.
We detect some of those re-emitted photons by absorption in the receiving cones
and rods of our eyes, that do generate a chemical reaction and current flow.
Those absorbed photons in our eyes are not re-emitted, they are converted
to electrical currents and sink "ground" within our electro-chemical physiology.
Comments? Different Opinions?
LL
Hi Laserlight et al,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
...the incident energy is transfered to the surface dipoles at points of constructive superposition, via resonance (EM energy transfer), ...
You've lost me there. I have a book called "Fields and Waves in Communications Electronics" .. 750 pages of small print which fail to explain the mechanism you sum up as "by resonance".
In an attempt to clarify "by resonance" ..
[] is thing we might like to draw a bubble round.
Mirror:- E_out = E_in .
Black screen:- Eout = 0 <- we may consider the energy as stored in the form of heat .. obviously it will 'leak' unless perfectly insulated .. but is this of interest to us?
My definition again (please clarify yours):- If energy passing between source and destination crosses the bubble surface more than once we potentially have resonance. Reflection is different from resonance because the incoming source and destination are (usually) different. If we accidentally have reflection back to the source then this might be classified as 'accidental' resonance. I suspect your EM coupling by resonance involves more than accidental resonance.
What follows are just suggestions with a view to clarifying what you mean by resonance. It isn't a trick .. please change anything you like to increase clarity.
Illustrative Experiment 1
Man with [gun] fires a bullet at a [wall] .. it bounces (elastically) off the [wall] and is absorbed by the [target]
Any resonances so far?
Illustrative Experiment 2
A photon leaves a [light-bulb] , bounces off a [mirror] and is absorbed by a [black screen]
Any resonances in this experiment?
Illustrative Experiment 3
We use the mirror of Expt 2 to make a "white screen" which reflects light in random directions.
A photon leaves a [light-bulb] , bounces off a [white screen] and is absorbed by a [black screen]
Any resonances in this experiment?
Illustrative Experiment 4
We use the white screen of Expt 3 and the black screen of Exp 2 to make a grey screen .. this absorbs some light and reflects the remainder in a random direction.
A photon leaves a [light-bulb] , some light is absorbed by a [grey screen] and the remainder bounces off and is absorbed by a [black screen].
Any resonances in this experiment?
Illustrative Experiment 5
We set up a source and two grey screens. We deliberately arrange for the light to bounce between two grey screens .. to duplicate the effect in another piece of apparatus we would have to copy the dimensions and properties of all the elements of the original setup to within a gnats cock or better. Agree?
Illustrative Experiment 6 The DSE
We chuck the bits together and measure the wavelength of light by taking 3 measurements. Agree?
Am I missing something?
Best wishes - C2.
You've lost me there. I have a book called "Fields and Waves in Communications Electronics" .. 750 pages of small print which fail to explain the mechanism you sum up as "by resonance".
In an attempt to clarify "by resonance" ..
[] is thing we might like to draw a bubble round.
Mirror:- E_out = E_in .
Black screen:- Eout = 0 <- we may consider the energy as stored in the form of heat .. obviously it will 'leak' unless perfectly insulated .. but is this of interest to us?
My definition again (please clarify yours):- If energy passing between source and destination crosses the bubble surface more than once we potentially have resonance. Reflection is different from resonance because the incoming source and destination are (usually) different. If we accidentally have reflection back to the source then this might be classified as 'accidental' resonance. I suspect your EM coupling by resonance involves more than accidental resonance.
What follows are just suggestions with a view to clarifying what you mean by resonance. It isn't a trick .. please change anything you like to increase clarity.
Illustrative Experiment 1
Man with [gun] fires a bullet at a [wall] .. it bounces (elastically) off the [wall] and is absorbed by the [target]
Any resonances so far?
Illustrative Experiment 2
A photon leaves a [light-bulb] , bounces off a [mirror] and is absorbed by a [black screen]
Any resonances in this experiment?
Illustrative Experiment 3
We use the mirror of Expt 2 to make a "white screen" which reflects light in random directions.
A photon leaves a [light-bulb] , bounces off a [white screen] and is absorbed by a [black screen]
Any resonances in this experiment?
Illustrative Experiment 4
We use the white screen of Expt 3 and the black screen of Exp 2 to make a grey screen .. this absorbs some light and reflects the remainder in a random direction.
A photon leaves a [light-bulb] , some light is absorbed by a [grey screen] and the remainder bounces off and is absorbed by a [black screen].
Any resonances in this experiment?
Illustrative Experiment 5
We set up a source and two grey screens. We deliberately arrange for the light to bounce between two grey screens .. to duplicate the effect in another piece of apparatus we would have to copy the dimensions and properties of all the elements of the original setup to within a gnats cock or better. Agree?
Illustrative Experiment 6 The DSE
We chuck the bits together and measure the wavelength of light by taking 3 measurements. Agree?
Am I missing something?
Best wishes - C2.
C2,
1st issue: We are dealing with EM radiation and how it manifests itself and
transfers its energy content at the quantum mechanical level. If EM energy is
coupled into, or out of, a system, it does so by a resonant process. This is a
vibratory process caused by the movement of electrons at the atomic level, that
operate via the rules of QM. Photons are EM energy that also vibrate/oscillate
between extremes. These two energy states are complementary, dynamic,
vibratory processes that have a common atomic genesis. Because of this, they
influence and respond to each other at the quantum level. They are different
energetic forms from the same atomic source.
2nd issue: Resonance is a method of coupling EM energy between energy
systems. If the resonances (vibrations) between energy systems are
complementary, then absorption will occur and that absorbed energy that is
arriving, and which contains a directional momentum component, is required to find
the lowest energy sink point, according to the laws of thermodynamics.
3rd issue: Energy into a system equals the energy out of a system. Conservation
of energy rule applies. Energy out does not have to be in the same form as
energy in. Energy can be converted to other "forms" depending upon the
type of "coupling" interface that connects separate systems.
Don't confuse a temporary momentum absorption/re-emission effect with total
energy absorption. An atomic "matrix" will absorb as much energy as it can displace,
up to its ionization point. If the threshold of ionization is not exceeded,
the atoms of the matrix will always seek to return to their ground state by
radiating the absorbed energy back to the environment(s) it is coupled to.
If the atomic ionization point is exceeded, then there will be several different
spontaneous emission processes that occur, in the form of visible photon radiation,
IR radiation, and electric currents sinking to a lower ground state in an electrical
circuit, as electrons are displaced and replaced in the atomic shells. This could
continue up to the point of vaporization, and the plasma state.
EM energy coupling is a resonant "conversion" process, in both directions, up and
down.
You can prove this by heating a piece of metal, where IR photons are absorbed
into the bulk of the metal. When the heat source (EM energy) is removed,
the metal will radiate all of the energy that it has absorbed by coupling it back to
space. Eventually the metal will return to its energy ground state, and its normal
ambient temperature, which is matches the background environment.
Are you disputing that EM energy transfer, between coupled systems, is a resonant
process?
LL
1st issue: We are dealing with EM radiation and how it manifests itself and
transfers its energy content at the quantum mechanical level. If EM energy is
coupled into, or out of, a system, it does so by a resonant process. This is a
vibratory process caused by the movement of electrons at the atomic level, that
operate via the rules of QM. Photons are EM energy that also vibrate/oscillate
between extremes. These two energy states are complementary, dynamic,
vibratory processes that have a common atomic genesis. Because of this, they
influence and respond to each other at the quantum level. They are different
energetic forms from the same atomic source.
2nd issue: Resonance is a method of coupling EM energy between energy
systems. If the resonances (vibrations) between energy systems are
complementary, then absorption will occur and that absorbed energy that is
arriving, and which contains a directional momentum component, is required to find
the lowest energy sink point, according to the laws of thermodynamics.
3rd issue: Energy into a system equals the energy out of a system. Conservation
of energy rule applies. Energy out does not have to be in the same form as
energy in. Energy can be converted to other "forms" depending upon the
type of "coupling" interface that connects separate systems.
Don't confuse a temporary momentum absorption/re-emission effect with total
energy absorption. An atomic "matrix" will absorb as much energy as it can displace,
up to its ionization point. If the threshold of ionization is not exceeded,
the atoms of the matrix will always seek to return to their ground state by
radiating the absorbed energy back to the environment(s) it is coupled to.
If the atomic ionization point is exceeded, then there will be several different
spontaneous emission processes that occur, in the form of visible photon radiation,
IR radiation, and electric currents sinking to a lower ground state in an electrical
circuit, as electrons are displaced and replaced in the atomic shells. This could
continue up to the point of vaporization, and the plasma state.
EM energy coupling is a resonant "conversion" process, in both directions, up and
down.
You can prove this by heating a piece of metal, where IR photons are absorbed
into the bulk of the metal. When the heat source (EM energy) is removed,
the metal will radiate all of the energy that it has absorbed by coupling it back to
space. Eventually the metal will return to its energy ground state, and its normal
ambient temperature, which is matches the background environment.
Are you disputing that EM energy transfer, between coupled systems, is a resonant
process?
LL
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (LL+)
Are you disputing that EM energy transfer, between coupled systems, is a resonant process?
Any small particle (eg a neutron) also manifests itself as something that might be interpreted as a wave with a period which is dependant on the inertial frame which you look at it from - I have no idea why. The generality of de Broglie leads me to suspect 'EM' is a manifestation of something we have not yet uncovered.
I think the lack of understanding may be in the way each of us is defining resonance. My resonance detector bubbles don't seem to have detected your type of resonance. I don't feel we're making any progress with bubbles so perhaps best to abandon the line of enquiry.
Best wishes - C2.
Any small particle (eg a neutron) also manifests itself as something that might be interpreted as a wave with a period which is dependant on the inertial frame which you look at it from - I have no idea why. The generality of de Broglie leads me to suspect 'EM' is a manifestation of something we have not yet uncovered.
I think the lack of understanding may be in the way each of us is defining resonance. My resonance detector bubbles don't seem to have detected your type of resonance. I don't feel we're making any progress with bubbles so perhaps best to abandon the line of enquiry.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi C2,
Just think of resonance as a form of "sympathetic" vibration at the atomic
quantum level.
Energy in the form of vibrations, with momentum, is applied and the detecting atom
responds by moving in concert with the vibrations. The vibrating atomic system
resonates, in tone, with the externally applied vibrations.
We can see and measure this effect on an oscilloscope or frequency counter in the
form of voltage and current changes, in photo sensitive materials, as the
converted electrical energy component is detected across the amplified circuitry of
the scope or frequency counter.
The alternating, changing, signal intensity is measured as referenced to electrical
ground.
Don't forget the spin component of subatomic particles...
de Broglie just equated momentum with wavelength and frequency. Basically,
the amount of energy contained in a quantum wave is dependent upon the cycle
time, and size, of the wave per unit volume or area. Momentum has an
inverse relationship to wavelength, while frequency has a direct relationship to
the kinetic energy of the wave.
Comments?
LL
Just think of resonance as a form of "sympathetic" vibration at the atomic
quantum level.
Energy in the form of vibrations, with momentum, is applied and the detecting atom
responds by moving in concert with the vibrations. The vibrating atomic system
resonates, in tone, with the externally applied vibrations.
We can see and measure this effect on an oscilloscope or frequency counter in the
form of voltage and current changes, in photo sensitive materials, as the
converted electrical energy component is detected across the amplified circuitry of
the scope or frequency counter.
The alternating, changing, signal intensity is measured as referenced to electrical
ground.
QUOTE
The generality of de Broglie leads me to suspect 'EM' is a manifestation of something we have not yet uncovered.
Don't forget the spin component of subatomic particles...
de Broglie just equated momentum with wavelength and frequency. Basically,
the amount of energy contained in a quantum wave is dependent upon the cycle
time, and size, of the wave per unit volume or area. Momentum has an
inverse relationship to wavelength, while frequency has a direct relationship to
the kinetic energy of the wave.
Comments?
LL
Laserlight!
Keep going.
jal
Keep going.
jal
Laser and TRoc, you might find this of interest:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0501/0501011v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0501/0501011v2.pdf
Hi Wulf,
I read the paper that you referenced. What is your analysis of the LSED theory?
LL
I read the paper that you referenced. What is your analysis of the LSED theory?
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jul 4 2007, 09:38 PM)
Hi Wulf,
I read the paper that you referenced. What is your analysis of the LSED theory?
LL
I think it has a lot of potential, although a lot of work needs to be done. I like that it can not only model gravity, but also explain the process that gives rise to it. It also explains the jittery nature of the world on the quantum scale. It may allow a smoother transition from matter to energy, much harder to do with point particles. Another advantage is that nothing new is being introduced, it is more of a shift in perspective than anything. Things are still random, but at least there is a reasoning behind it. Why? is an important question to me.
This is also appealing because it formally describes concepts that I've been toying with.
I started looking for a way to bridge GR and the quantum world and started thinking of ways that the Vacuum fluctuations could be used as a driving force for particle motion. The concept was based on gravity being a side effect of resource starvation, basically the more matter in one place the slower time ran due to limited resources, gravity as a psudo force as in GR. Anyhow hunting for papers that supported my reasoning let me to the matterial on SED that I've been posting. A lot of the ideas that I thought where far fetched where touched uppon in a few of the papers.
So at this point I'm starting to strongly lean towards a SED model based on the ZPE. It is the only thing I've found that fits so nicely with our existing theories, as well as explain why things behave as they do.
What are your thoughts?
I read the paper that you referenced. What is your analysis of the LSED theory?
LL
I think it has a lot of potential, although a lot of work needs to be done. I like that it can not only model gravity, but also explain the process that gives rise to it. It also explains the jittery nature of the world on the quantum scale. It may allow a smoother transition from matter to energy, much harder to do with point particles. Another advantage is that nothing new is being introduced, it is more of a shift in perspective than anything. Things are still random, but at least there is a reasoning behind it. Why? is an important question to me.
This is also appealing because it formally describes concepts that I've been toying with.
I started looking for a way to bridge GR and the quantum world and started thinking of ways that the Vacuum fluctuations could be used as a driving force for particle motion. The concept was based on gravity being a side effect of resource starvation, basically the more matter in one place the slower time ran due to limited resources, gravity as a psudo force as in GR. Anyhow hunting for papers that supported my reasoning let me to the matterial on SED that I've been posting. A lot of the ideas that I thought where far fetched where touched uppon in a few of the papers.
So at this point I'm starting to strongly lean towards a SED model based on the ZPE. It is the only thing I've found that fits so nicely with our existing theories, as well as explain why things behave as they do.
What are your thoughts?
Hi Wulf,
I agree with much of what you said. This is my first exposure to SED and it
seemed to reinforce many of my conceptualizations of quantum processes in
a more formalized manner.
I have a general disagreement about the ZPE being the cause of atomic motion,
and see it from the perspective of the atom. The movement and fields generated
by the atomic vibrations causes localized proximity space, with which it is in
physical contact, to energetically resonate. This is a frequency response and is
the coupling mechanism of matter to the ZPE of "space". It could be compared to
a localized optical change in the index of refraction of the space surrounding each
atom. This would help explain how photons couple to the atomic dipoles, via
a localized optical index of refraction change, that is caused by the resonance
effect created by the vibrations.
As for gravity, I'll stick to my hypothesis on that subject. It is elegantly simple
and conceptually feasible.
LL
I agree with much of what you said. This is my first exposure to SED and it
seemed to reinforce many of my conceptualizations of quantum processes in
a more formalized manner.
I have a general disagreement about the ZPE being the cause of atomic motion,
and see it from the perspective of the atom. The movement and fields generated
by the atomic vibrations causes localized proximity space, with which it is in
physical contact, to energetically resonate. This is a frequency response and is
the coupling mechanism of matter to the ZPE of "space". It could be compared to
a localized optical change in the index of refraction of the space surrounding each
atom. This would help explain how photons couple to the atomic dipoles, via
a localized optical index of refraction change, that is caused by the resonance
effect created by the vibrations.
As for gravity, I'll stick to my hypothesis on that subject. It is elegantly simple
and conceptually feasible.
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jul 4 2007, 11:05 PM)
Hi Wulf,
I agree with much of what you said. This is my first exposure to SED and it
seemed to reinforce many of my conceptualizations of quantum processes in
a more formalized manner.
I have a general disagreement about the ZPE being the cause of atomic motion,
and see it from the perspective of the atom. The movement and fields generated
by the atomic vibrations causes localized proximity space, with which it is in
physical contact, to energetically resonate. This is a frequency response and is
the coupling mechanism of matter to the ZPE of "space". It could be compared to
a localized optical change in the index of refraction of the space surrounding each
atom. This would help explain how photons couple to the atomic dipoles, via
a localized optical index of refraction change, that is caused by the resonance
effect created by the vibrations.
As for gravity, I'll stick to my hypothesis on that subject. It is elegantly simple
and conceptually feasible.
LL
I'm not set in any particular interpretation of how it relates to particle motion, being a coupled system makes cause and effect hard to determine. I do believe that it is a factor though, it can possibly provide a mechanism for the resonance you describe, after all.
I'll have to take another look at your interpretation of gravity.
I took a look and our interpretations of gravity are very close. I found most of my material on SED looking for a way to describe it. The SED Gravity described in most of the papers is described in terms that are opposite to what I initially had in mind, but the end result was identical so it's all good as far as I'm concerned.
BTW, thanks for taking interest. It's nice to get the perspective of people who have a bit of a background in physics. I've been approaching the problem as an analyst, looking for structure and equivalences in the existing theoretical framework. I lack the background necessary for a deeper analysis, so feedback from someone in the know is appreciated.
I agree with much of what you said. This is my first exposure to SED and it
seemed to reinforce many of my conceptualizations of quantum processes in
a more formalized manner.
I have a general disagreement about the ZPE being the cause of atomic motion,
and see it from the perspective of the atom. The movement and fields generated
by the atomic vibrations causes localized proximity space, with which it is in
physical contact, to energetically resonate. This is a frequency response and is
the coupling mechanism of matter to the ZPE of "space". It could be compared to
a localized optical change in the index of refraction of the space surrounding each
atom. This would help explain how photons couple to the atomic dipoles, via
a localized optical index of refraction change, that is caused by the resonance
effect created by the vibrations.
As for gravity, I'll stick to my hypothesis on that subject. It is elegantly simple
and conceptually feasible.
LL
I'm not set in any particular interpretation of how it relates to particle motion, being a coupled system makes cause and effect hard to determine. I do believe that it is a factor though, it can possibly provide a mechanism for the resonance you describe, after all.
I'll have to take another look at your interpretation of gravity.
I took a look and our interpretations of gravity are very close. I found most of my material on SED looking for a way to describe it. The SED Gravity described in most of the papers is described in terms that are opposite to what I initially had in mind, but the end result was identical so it's all good as far as I'm concerned.
BTW, thanks for taking interest. It's nice to get the perspective of people who have a bit of a background in physics. I've been approaching the problem as an analyst, looking for structure and equivalences in the existing theoretical framework. I lack the background necessary for a deeper analysis, so feedback from someone in the know is appreciated.
Hi Wulf,
It was kind of you to say that, but I defer to others with more formal, high level,
physics training.
LL
It was kind of you to say that, but I defer to others with more formal, high level,
physics training.
LL
Hi all,
Wulf, that was a very good paper; thanks for the link!
I am familiar with SED (we have discussed it a bit a couple of times on this thread, I think), and have followed it for a couple of years. This is the first time I've heard of the "LSED" version. It sounds like they have corrected a few problems that it had before.
This LSED is the closest thing that I've seen to my approach, and supports the ideas I've been talking about. As they state, answering the problem entirely within the framework of QM is basically impossible: too many inputs (circular reasoning), and too many inconsistencies in logic. However, the math here, combined with the full approach of 4WM can wade through this, I believe.
I recommend reading this to everyone.
regards,
T.Roc
Wulf, that was a very good paper; thanks for the link!
I am familiar with SED (we have discussed it a bit a couple of times on this thread, I think), and have followed it for a couple of years. This is the first time I've heard of the "LSED" version. It sounds like they have corrected a few problems that it had before.
This LSED is the closest thing that I've seen to my approach, and supports the ideas I've been talking about. As they state, answering the problem entirely within the framework of QM is basically impossible: too many inputs (circular reasoning), and too many inconsistencies in logic. However, the math here, combined with the full approach of 4WM can wade through this, I believe.
I recommend reading this to everyone.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
4 wave mixing, or 3 wave mixing at the confluence of the slits? How does
this induce refractive index changes, or a medium change in that locality?
At the atomic dipole and photon frequency levels, isn't there just 2 wave
(frequency) mixing taking place?
Please explain/develop your conceptual idea(s) further, with a verbal model.
Thanks,
LL
4 wave mixing, or 3 wave mixing at the confluence of the slits? How does
this induce refractive index changes, or a medium change in that locality?
At the atomic dipole and photon frequency levels, isn't there just 2 wave
(frequency) mixing taking place?
Please explain/develop your conceptual idea(s) further, with a verbal model.
Thanks,
LL
Good article:
http://www.physorg.com/news102850833.html
What isn't shown, but is implied in the illustrations, is the semi-parabola that is
generated as a consequence of acceleration.
If you recall my illustration of circular angular rotation as it relates to a 2D plane,
this is the result of that when the inertial frame of reference, showing that an
increase in distance and/or acceleration, varies as a consequence of time.
We get a "warped" space as a consequence of acceleration, and a change in
phase angle as a result of a linear change in position along a fixed reference axis.
This is stretching time....time dilation from an inertial reference point.
They are reciprocal variables. This is good stuff!!
Comments?
LL
http://www.physorg.com/news102850833.html
What isn't shown, but is implied in the illustrations, is the semi-parabola that is
generated as a consequence of acceleration.
If you recall my illustration of circular angular rotation as it relates to a 2D plane,
this is the result of that when the inertial frame of reference, showing that an
increase in distance and/or acceleration, varies as a consequence of time.
We get a "warped" space as a consequence of acceleration, and a change in
phase angle as a result of a linear change in position along a fixed reference axis.
This is stretching time....time dilation from an inertial reference point.
They are reciprocal variables. This is good stuff!!
Comments?
LL
Hi Laserlight et al,
Just to finish off bubbles..
Hopefully we agree we can divide things up into source, grey and black. At the atomic scale we can't really make a mirror .. but let's assume we can.
Can you reproduce the DSE pattern even at one frequency using source, grey and black (and a mirror if you insist)?
Even if you could do it then it would only work at one frequency.
Conclusion (inevitable?) - its all done by the holes/slits and the distances between them. I suggest that creating two paths to the same point is all that really matters.
Minor point of interest..
Wavelength of light = 600nm
Diameter of atom 0.1 to 0.5 nm ( http://hypertextbook.com/facts/MichaelPhillip.shtml )
Dipole?
Best wishes - C2.
I appreciate (LL) you aren't happy with my concept of a 'black' surface .. could you accept that for the purposes of the DSE you can have a region that doesn't radiate at the frequency of interest and therefore does not contribute to the DSE pattern?
Just to finish off bubbles..
Hopefully we agree we can divide things up into source, grey and black. At the atomic scale we can't really make a mirror .. but let's assume we can.
Can you reproduce the DSE pattern even at one frequency using source, grey and black (and a mirror if you insist)?
Even if you could do it then it would only work at one frequency.
Conclusion (inevitable?) - its all done by the holes/slits and the distances between them. I suggest that creating two paths to the same point is all that really matters.
Minor point of interest..
Wavelength of light = 600nm
Diameter of atom 0.1 to 0.5 nm ( http://hypertextbook.com/facts/MichaelPhillip.shtml )
Dipole?
Best wishes - C2.
I appreciate (LL) you aren't happy with my concept of a 'black' surface .. could you accept that for the purposes of the DSE you can have a region that doesn't radiate at the frequency of interest and therefore does not contribute to the DSE pattern?
Hi C2,
Wait just a minute.....We have already agreed that pathlength and the formula's
work. No argument from anyone on that issue. Path length is part of the
formula, phase angle at the point of mixing is another part. Geometry is
the mathematical aspect that determines the intersection of plane vectors, where
the phases meet across 3 coordinate planes (dimensions) at fixed points in time.
Do you not see that the atom's of the screen are necessary to detect and re-emit
the individual photons that are arriving en masse, and in phase, over a relatively
wide band area? If there were no screen to detect and re-emit the photons, you
would never see any signal mixing and no DSE result. The light waves would
merely pass thru each other with no net affect.
It is only when the waves are mixed in the presence of matter that the results of
that superposition are observed and can be measured. The waves from the two
slit sources are passing thru each other many times enroute to the screen, with no
resultant interference measurables prior to contacting the screen.
This is why you see no interference, or signal loss (in vacuum) when two light
beams pass thru each other. There is nothing physically there to mix the waves,
which are merely energy. There is no physical displacement, which is a result of
mixing, that only occurs in the presence of matter. I have argued this previously.
----
What has grey and black got to do with anything? I am really missing your
intentions on pursuing this line of logic? Grey or black have little to no bearing
on the results of the DSE, other than contrast/intensity of the reflected signal. If
you have a white screen it will provide better contrast than a black screen would,
depending upon the color/frequency being viewed.
-----
Regarding using a single frequency of light and a mirror to make an interference
pattern. Yes, we can demonstrate an interference pattern by shining a laser at
the mirror at an angle. Take your laser pointer into a darkened bathroom and
shine it at the mirror, at some angle other than 90 degrees, and look at the pattern
that reflects onto the wall. Hold the laser pointer 2 feet from the mirror. You will
see a "pattern" due to the separate interfaces of the mirror. Now put something
black as the screen material. You still see the pattern, only it has reduced
intensity/contrast.
------
Wait just a minute.....We have already agreed that pathlength and the formula's
work. No argument from anyone on that issue. Path length is part of the
formula, phase angle at the point of mixing is another part. Geometry is
the mathematical aspect that determines the intersection of plane vectors, where
the phases meet across 3 coordinate planes (dimensions) at fixed points in time.
Do you not see that the atom's of the screen are necessary to detect and re-emit
the individual photons that are arriving en masse, and in phase, over a relatively
wide band area? If there were no screen to detect and re-emit the photons, you
would never see any signal mixing and no DSE result. The light waves would
merely pass thru each other with no net affect.
It is only when the waves are mixed in the presence of matter that the results of
that superposition are observed and can be measured. The waves from the two
slit sources are passing thru each other many times enroute to the screen, with no
resultant interference measurables prior to contacting the screen.
This is why you see no interference, or signal loss (in vacuum) when two light
beams pass thru each other. There is nothing physically there to mix the waves,
which are merely energy. There is no physical displacement, which is a result of
mixing, that only occurs in the presence of matter. I have argued this previously.
----
What has grey and black got to do with anything? I am really missing your
intentions on pursuing this line of logic? Grey or black have little to no bearing
on the results of the DSE, other than contrast/intensity of the reflected signal. If
you have a white screen it will provide better contrast than a black screen would,
depending upon the color/frequency being viewed.
-----
Regarding using a single frequency of light and a mirror to make an interference
pattern. Yes, we can demonstrate an interference pattern by shining a laser at
the mirror at an angle. Take your laser pointer into a darkened bathroom and
shine it at the mirror, at some angle other than 90 degrees, and look at the pattern
that reflects onto the wall. Hold the laser pointer 2 feet from the mirror. You will
see a "pattern" due to the separate interfaces of the mirror. Now put something
black as the screen material. You still see the pattern, only it has reduced
intensity/contrast.
------
I appreciate (LL) you aren't happy with my concept of a 'black' surface .. could you accept that for the purposes of the DSE you can have a region that doesn't radiate at the frequency of interest and therefore does not contribute to the DSE pattern?
At points of destructive superposition interference (dark bands) there is no net
energy being added to the atoms of the screen, due to wave signal "cancellation".
There is no additive energy/frequency component being absorbed and re-emitted
by the atoms of the screen at those destructive interference bands.
What is your point?
LL
QUOTE
Hopefully we agree we can divide things up into source, grey and black. At the atomic scale we can't really make a mirror .. but let's assume we can.
Can you reproduce the DSE pattern even at one frequency using source, grey and black (and a mirror if you insist)?
Even if you could do it then it would only work at one frequency.
Conclusion (inevitable?) - its all done by the holes/slits and the distances between them. I suggest that creating two paths to the same point is all that really matters.
Can you reproduce the DSE pattern even at one frequency using source, grey and black (and a mirror if you insist)?
Even if you could do it then it would only work at one frequency.
Conclusion (inevitable?) - its all done by the holes/slits and the distances between them. I suggest that creating two paths to the same point is all that really matters.
Wait just a minute.....We have already agreed that pathlength and the formula's
work. No argument from anyone on that issue. Path length is part of the
formula, phase angle at the point of mixing is another part. Geometry is
the mathematical aspect that determines the intersection of plane vectors, where
the phases meet across 3 coordinate planes (dimensions) at fixed points in time.
Do you not see that the atom's of the screen are necessary to detect and re-emit
the individual photons that are arriving en masse, and in phase, over a relatively
wide band area? If there were no screen to detect and re-emit the photons, you
would never see any signal mixing and no DSE result. The light waves would
merely pass thru each other with no net affect.
It is only when the waves are mixed in the presence of matter that the results of
that superposition are observed and can be measured. The waves from the two
slit sources are passing thru each other many times enroute to the screen, with no
resultant interference measurables prior to contacting the screen.
This is why you see no interference, or signal loss (in vacuum) when two light
beams pass thru each other. There is nothing physically there to mix the waves,
which are merely energy. There is no physical displacement, which is a result of
mixing, that only occurs in the presence of matter. I have argued this previously.
----
What has grey and black got to do with anything? I am really missing your
intentions on pursuing this line of logic? Grey or black have little to no bearing
on the results of the DSE, other than contrast/intensity of the reflected signal. If
you have a white screen it will provide better contrast than a black screen would,
depending upon the color/frequency being viewed.
-----
Regarding using a single frequency of light and a mirror to make an interference
pattern. Yes, we can demonstrate an interference pattern by shining a laser at
the mirror at an angle. Take your laser pointer into a darkened bathroom and
shine it at the mirror, at some angle other than 90 degrees, and look at the pattern
that reflects onto the wall. Hold the laser pointer 2 feet from the mirror. You will
see a "pattern" due to the separate interfaces of the mirror. Now put something
black as the screen material. You still see the pattern, only it has reduced
intensity/contrast.
------
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hopefully we agree we can divide things up into source, grey and black. At the atomic scale we can't really make a mirror .. but let's assume we can. Can you reproduce the DSE pattern even at one frequency using source, grey and black (and a mirror if you insist)? Even if you could do it then it would only work at one frequency. Conclusion (inevitable?) - its all done by the holes/slits and the distances between them. I suggest that creating two paths to the same point is all that really matters. |
Wait just a minute.....We have already agreed that pathlength and the formula's
work. No argument from anyone on that issue. Path length is part of the
formula, phase angle at the point of mixing is another part. Geometry is
the mathematical aspect that determines the intersection of plane vectors, where
the phases meet across 3 coordinate planes (dimensions) at fixed points in time.
Do you not see that the atom's of the screen are necessary to detect and re-emit
the individual photons that are arriving en masse, and in phase, over a relatively
wide band area? If there were no screen to detect and re-emit the photons, you
would never see any signal mixing and no DSE result. The light waves would
merely pass thru each other with no net affect.
It is only when the waves are mixed in the presence of matter that the results of
that superposition are observed and can be measured. The waves from the two
slit sources are passing thru each other many times enroute to the screen, with no
resultant interference measurables prior to contacting the screen.
This is why you see no interference, or signal loss (in vacuum) when two light
beams pass thru each other. There is nothing physically there to mix the waves,
which are merely energy. There is no physical displacement, which is a result of
mixing, that only occurs in the presence of matter. I have argued this previously.
----
What has grey and black got to do with anything? I am really missing your
intentions on pursuing this line of logic? Grey or black have little to no bearing
on the results of the DSE, other than contrast/intensity of the reflected signal. If
you have a white screen it will provide better contrast than a black screen would,
depending upon the color/frequency being viewed.
-----
Regarding using a single frequency of light and a mirror to make an interference
pattern. Yes, we can demonstrate an interference pattern by shining a laser at
the mirror at an angle. Take your laser pointer into a darkened bathroom and
shine it at the mirror, at some angle other than 90 degrees, and look at the pattern
that reflects onto the wall. Hold the laser pointer 2 feet from the mirror. You will
see a "pattern" due to the separate interfaces of the mirror. Now put something
black as the screen material. You still see the pattern, only it has reduced
intensity/contrast.
------
I appreciate (LL) you aren't happy with my concept of a 'black' surface .. could you accept that for the purposes of the DSE you can have a region that doesn't radiate at the frequency of interest and therefore does not contribute to the DSE pattern?
At points of destructive superposition interference (dark bands) there is no net
energy being added to the atoms of the screen, due to wave signal "cancellation".
There is no additive energy/frequency component being absorbed and re-emitted
by the atoms of the screen at those destructive interference bands.
What is your point?
LL
Hey C2,
Let me ask you a couple of questions that are relevant to the ongoing argument.
If the incident wavefront into the slits is a planar wave, why does it turn into a
spherical wave after the slits?
Why does the width of the interference pattern vary inversely with the slit width?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...raungeo.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...mulslid.html#c2
Comments?
LL
Let me ask you a couple of questions that are relevant to the ongoing argument.
If the incident wavefront into the slits is a planar wave, why does it turn into a
spherical wave after the slits?
Why does the width of the interference pattern vary inversely with the slit width?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...raungeo.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...mulslid.html#c2
QUOTE
Under the Fraunhofer conditions, the light curve of a multiple slit arrangement will be the interference pattern multiplied by the single slit diffraction envelope. This assumes that all the slits are identical.
Comments?
LL
Hi LL,
QUOTE (LL+)
What is your point?
Originally it was to attempt to expose 'resonance' theories to some sort of analysis. Later to attempt to concentrate (some) minds on the holes rather than the plasmons which come round again every few months.
Originally it was to attempt to expose 'resonance' theories to some sort of analysis. Later to attempt to concentrate (some) minds on the holes rather than the plasmons which come round again every few months.
QUOTE (LL+)
Do you not see that the atom's of the screen are necessary to detect and re-emit the individual photons that are arriving en masse, and in phase, over a relatively wide band area? If there were no screen to detect and re-emit the photons, you would never see any signal mixing and no DSE result. The light waves would merely pass thru each other with no net affect.
I agree there is a serious problem with my analysis. A white screen 'reveals' the interference effect whereas a mirror does not.
I'll restate the model
Black absorbs everything and radiates nothing (nothing to do with whether or not there is a signal there) a theoretical 'black body' surface .
Mirror reflects all incident radiation with angle of reflection = angle of incidence.
White reflects everything but at a random angle.
Grey is a combination of black and white.
Do we agree that a mirror does not reveal the interference whereas a white screen does? - and the difference is?
Best wishes - C2.
I agree there is a serious problem with my analysis. A white screen 'reveals' the interference effect whereas a mirror does not.
I'll restate the model
Black absorbs everything and radiates nothing (nothing to do with whether or not there is a signal there) a theoretical 'black body' surface .
Mirror reflects all incident radiation with angle of reflection = angle of incidence.
White reflects everything but at a random angle.
Grey is a combination of black and white.
Do we agree that a mirror does not reveal the interference whereas a white screen does? - and the difference is?
Best wishes - C2.
Hi LL,
Easiest first..
Why does the width of the interference pattern vary inversely with the slit width?
From the diagram at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...raungeo.html#c1
Bearing in mind that sin(theta) = opposite / hypoteneuse
delta = the difference in path length between the top of the slit and the bottom of the slit
(1) delta = a sin (theta)
At the screen the angle to a point (y) on the screen is given by D sin(theta)
(2) y = D sin(theta)
From (1)
sin(theta) = delta/a
From (2)
sin(theta) = y/D
Equating (1) and (2)
(3) y/D = delta/a
MBS by D
(4) y = D delta / a
the first minimum occurs where delta = lambda/2 (where lambda is the wavelength)
hence
y = D lambda /(2a)
In words ..
the width of the diffraction pattern is proportional to the wavelength
the width of the diffraction pattern is proportional to the distance to the screen
the width of the diffraction pattern is inversely proportional to the slit width.
In reality we should have integrated over the width of the slit in a smooth manner .. but the result will be the same as the above simple analysis.
The rest of the answers are a consequence of the same type of simple (1.0) geometry (with a few approximations) and will follow as I get round to them.
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. there may or may not be deliberate mistakes.
Easiest first..
Why does the width of the interference pattern vary inversely with the slit width?
From the diagram at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...raungeo.html#c1
Bearing in mind that sin(theta) = opposite / hypoteneuse
delta = the difference in path length between the top of the slit and the bottom of the slit
(1) delta = a sin (theta)
At the screen the angle to a point (y) on the screen is given by D sin(theta)
(2) y = D sin(theta)
From (1)
sin(theta) = delta/a
From (2)
sin(theta) = y/D
Equating (1) and (2)
(3) y/D = delta/a
MBS by D
(4) y = D delta / a
the first minimum occurs where delta = lambda/2 (where lambda is the wavelength)
hence
y = D lambda /(2a)
In words ..
the width of the diffraction pattern is proportional to the wavelength
the width of the diffraction pattern is proportional to the distance to the screen
the width of the diffraction pattern is inversely proportional to the slit width.
In reality we should have integrated over the width of the slit in a smooth manner .. but the result will be the same as the above simple analysis.
The rest of the answers are a consequence of the same type of simple (1.0) geometry (with a few approximations) and will follow as I get round to them.
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. there may or may not be deliberate mistakes.
C2,
This is a good argument! At least it has a point that we are discussing.
I guess the question that you are asking is, "are the atoms of the mirror being
stimulated by the radiation that is impinging upon them, and is there absorption
and re-emission taking place in the form of the mixed DSE pattern?"
Are you assuming that the EM waves just bounce off the surface with no physical
interaction?
For a glass mirror, we know that ultrapure glass is transparent to the visible
spectrum of EM wave energy, so it is unlikely that mixing takes place in that
medium since it doesn't have absorbant properties. We do know that photon
waves change speed and slow down while in the glass medium, due to the
difference of refractive index between glass and "space".
The question is do the waves interfere at the physical surface interface between
the glass and the silver backing. We are not seeing the interference result at the
mirror, but it IS there, because it is a physical point of mixing for superposed
waves across a photo reactive medium.
The resultant interference image that is produced is being reflected at some
complementary angle to the angle of incidence, and would be visible, but
expanded in size, and the image would be reversed along the plane of view, if the
reflection is projected onto a screen. Consider what would happen if you were
to project a movie onto a mirror, the image would reverse and expand
according to the ISL, when viewed at a distant screen at the complementary angle.
If you project an image onto a mirror, the mirror acts like a new source
and inverts the incident phase angle by 180 degrees from the normal.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/refln/U13L1d.html
Comments? Discussion? Other perspectives?
LL
This is a good argument! At least it has a point that we are discussing.
QUOTE
Do we agree that a mirror does not reveal the interference whereas a white screen does? - and the difference is?
I guess the question that you are asking is, "are the atoms of the mirror being
stimulated by the radiation that is impinging upon them, and is there absorption
and re-emission taking place in the form of the mixed DSE pattern?"
Are you assuming that the EM waves just bounce off the surface with no physical
interaction?
For a glass mirror, we know that ultrapure glass is transparent to the visible
spectrum of EM wave energy, so it is unlikely that mixing takes place in that
medium since it doesn't have absorbant properties. We do know that photon
waves change speed and slow down while in the glass medium, due to the
difference of refractive index between glass and "space".
The question is do the waves interfere at the physical surface interface between
the glass and the silver backing. We are not seeing the interference result at the
mirror, but it IS there, because it is a physical point of mixing for superposed
waves across a photo reactive medium.
The resultant interference image that is produced is being reflected at some
complementary angle to the angle of incidence, and would be visible, but
expanded in size, and the image would be reversed along the plane of view, if the
reflection is projected onto a screen. Consider what would happen if you were
to project a movie onto a mirror, the image would reverse and expand
according to the ISL, when viewed at a distant screen at the complementary angle.
If you project an image onto a mirror, the mirror acts like a new source
and inverts the incident phase angle by 180 degrees from the normal.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/refln/U13L1d.html
Comments? Discussion? Other perspectives?
LL
Hi LL,
I'm not sure we are of one mind in the matter of interference. Looking at smartassanswers ( http://ask.metafilter.com/16550/Why-does-laser-light ) we see
I'm not sure we are of one mind in the matter of interference. Looking at smartassanswers ( http://ask.metafilter.com/16550/Why-does-laser-light ) we see
QUOTE (Mr Smartass+)
[.. of speckle .. ] The interference patterns form on your retina no matter how your eye is focused for distance. On the other hand, the wall or background from which the light is reflected will be in focus only for only one distance. Depending on whether you are far or near sighted, the image of the background will be focused slightly in front or behind the retina, respectively, while the speckles will appear focused precisely on the retina.
If you move your head from side to side, the speckles will appear to move opposite the apparent motion of the wall if your are near sighted and in the same direction as the apparent motion of the wall if you are far sighted. The worse your vision, the faster the apparent motion. If your vision is perfect, the speckles will not appear to move. This is a parallax effect caused by the background being focused in front of or behind the speckle image.
Ideally I would set up my DSE thing and see what it looks like through a mirror. My bet is that you'd get a back of the eyeball effect which is quite different to the 'looking at the pretty pattern' effect .. not least because one goes one way all the time and the other goes one way when you move your head and you are short sighted and the other if you are the other. Enough of this madness for tonight. Must sleep.
Best wishes - C2.
If you move your head from side to side, the speckles will appear to move opposite the apparent motion of the wall if your are near sighted and in the same direction as the apparent motion of the wall if you are far sighted. The worse your vision, the faster the apparent motion. If your vision is perfect, the speckles will not appear to move. This is a parallax effect caused by the background being focused in front of or behind the speckle image.
Ideally I would set up my DSE thing and see what it looks like through a mirror. My bet is that you'd get a back of the eyeball effect which is quite different to the 'looking at the pretty pattern' effect .. not least because one goes one way all the time and the other goes one way when you move your head and you are short sighted and the other if you are the other. Enough of this madness for tonight. Must sleep.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi C2 and All,
Well, the math is nice, but it says nothing about the physics taking place that
gives rise to the mathematical description.
Do you agree that the waves are interacting with the physical nature of the slit(s)?
Yes, there is a geometrical relationship at work, but what is the PHYSICAL cause
that makes it all happen? It isn't a spontaneous event. There is cause and effect
that needs to be explained. That is the physics, not the math.
As has been pointed out, plasmons are indigenous to metals, however, surface
polaritons are indigenous to all physical materials that have atomic structure.
In other words, matter will respond to EM fields that impinge upon it, but there will
be different results according to the energy levels and frequencies involved in
the reaction.
As a point of interest, white surfaces are reflecting all visible frequencies. Black
surfaces absorb all visible frequencies, up to the ability of the atoms to convert
and radiate (re-emit) those visible frequencies at a higher IR wavelength.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
In words ..
the width of the diffraction pattern is proportional to the wavelength
the width of the diffraction pattern is proportional to the distance to the screen
the width of the diffraction pattern is inversely proportional to the slit width.
the width of the diffraction pattern is proportional to the wavelength
the width of the diffraction pattern is proportional to the distance to the screen
the width of the diffraction pattern is inversely proportional to the slit width.
Well, the math is nice, but it says nothing about the physics taking place that
gives rise to the mathematical description.
Do you agree that the waves are interacting with the physical nature of the slit(s)?
Yes, there is a geometrical relationship at work, but what is the PHYSICAL cause
that makes it all happen? It isn't a spontaneous event. There is cause and effect
that needs to be explained. That is the physics, not the math.
As has been pointed out, plasmons are indigenous to metals, however, surface
polaritons are indigenous to all physical materials that have atomic structure.
In other words, matter will respond to EM fields that impinge upon it, but there will
be different results according to the energy levels and frequencies involved in
the reaction.
As a point of interest, white surfaces are reflecting all visible frequencies. Black
surfaces absorb all visible frequencies, up to the ability of the atoms to convert
and radiate (re-emit) those visible frequencies at a higher IR wavelength.
Comments?
LL
Hello Laserlight, Confused2, et al.
Look at this image.
The top is from a double slit. The bottom is from five slits.
Notice there is no light (photon energy) between the bright spots where we have destructive interference. Can you explain how the energy (photon) is moved through space where there are no EM field vectors? EM field vectors are needed to move energy through space. If there is no frequency how can you expect to have energy transport. The energy (photon) is the boson not the EM wave. The EM wave is the transport mechanism.
So you do not need a viewing plate to see interference from a double slit. A 3D vapor area would show a radial (from above) view of light beams emanating from the double or multiple slits. More slits will narrow the beam widths as shown in the above image.
Discussion is welcome
Look at this image.
The top is from a double slit. The bottom is from five slits.
Notice there is no light (photon energy) between the bright spots where we have destructive interference. Can you explain how the energy (photon) is moved through space where there are no EM field vectors? EM field vectors are needed to move energy through space. If there is no frequency how can you expect to have energy transport. The energy (photon) is the boson not the EM wave. The EM wave is the transport mechanism.
So you do not need a viewing plate to see interference from a double slit. A 3D vapor area would show a radial (from above) view of light beams emanating from the double or multiple slits. More slits will narrow the beam widths as shown in the above image.
Discussion is welcome
Hi Wulf, Why Not?, Montec, yquantum, Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, janrinze, "THEY", Jal, Zephir, Neil Farbstein, , Mate et al,
I have been quite ill for around a week and I am starting to revive now. Please do not expect too much at first.... I am still catching up.
Lets straighten out some ideas completely and lets hope we do not forget them in five minutes... Firstly I see a lot of "speculative" Physics as if "anything goes". Any idea seems acceptable to some on the basis that it feels good. Statements about "mirrors" and "black objects" and "grey" objects are "meaningless" unless you and those you are communicating these ideas with understand in what context there is a meaning. In fact what I can assure you is what is being said is not physics at all. The Universe is a quantum Universe and black body radiation at all frequencies is just not on. In the same way for the same reasons there is no reverse situation where there are black body absorbers. When these "models" are invoked it is an indication of totally ignoring quantum behavior and any statements about quantum behavior in these terms is pure "bunk". Everything "individually" is a "quantum harmonic oscillator". If you want to speak authoritatively about the quantum you can't use classic black body emitters and absorbers. It is precisely because sub-atomic entities are not black body absorbers that we have quantum behavior.
On the other hand there are perfect mirrors. Perfect quantum mirrors exist at individual frequencies, these occur when the photon is perfectly reflected. Only a "perfect reflection" is a mirror event... everything else is not a mirror event, quantum events cannot be half and half, they are perfect mirror events perfect transmission events or perfect absorber events... aside from EM soliton events which "slows the photon down and then re-emits it intact with its qubit... there are no other possible quantum events I know of. If the atom or sub-atomic state cannot absorb at that one frequency it will have a choice of reflecting or transmitting the photon... all of it or none of it. Aside from having an available and appropriate quantum state, the ability to reflect or transmit depends only on physical size... From these factors ... the resonant states of the system tells us if it is possible to absorb a particular photon.... the current occupancy or latency of the state tells us if it is currently blocking incoming photons of the same frequency... and from the physical size of the absorbing system you can determine if an incident photon is absorbed or reflected or transmitted through. What you cannot determine is if and when an incident photon will occur. In quantum mechanics this is forbidden knowledge yet almost always in the real world we want to know about specific events so quantum mechanics is way way over its head and incapable of any predictions except in generalities because quantum mechanics contains ABSOLUTELY NO PATH INFORMATION WHATSOEVER, in theories like Bohmian Mechanics this path information can be estimated but not necessarily known because this information refers to an interpretational space where the path may be satisfied by several classical trajectories to solve the dynamic equations. You will have even more problems if these states spawn further quantum states such as bright matter solitons or those null singular optical regions interconnected with instantons where there is topological charge and underspecified boundary conditions.
In all other respects it is very classical. We know a source's general locality such as a single quantum dot (we can cause this dot to emit singularly a single photon... one at a time within a certain period)... we know potentially where the photon is absorbed using a number of sensors, especially if they form a 2D array like that video camera interface... so using dynamics we can infer a path of least action after the event. You can try and force all this into 3D space but it will fail, especially when you consider the double slit experiment. This process does not fail if you consider this "space" as not being part of "our" three dimensional space. This is the stepping off point for higher dimensional theories. These quantum mechanics can argue all they like but they are unable to derive a single path using their theory and they need to "steal" from continuum theory to get realistic answers.
You might like to deal with this statistically but if this is a one off event QM is all at sea and incapable of any resolution and can say nothing about it. Other theories can provide answers after the fact. You need to look to these theories to gain any "real" answers.
You cannot view a quantum between the emission and the collapsed state. The whole point is if you "observe" the state it is no longer a quantum. In the "wave" state some "observations" can be used to limit some of the complementary variables or measurables of the systems. This should be thought of as narrowing the state but not defining it. Because if you define it as in the case of the DSE you force the photon through one slit or the other and then this has collapsed the state and is no longer a quantum state. My take on this is you have forced it to travel in our three dimensional space .... reduced dimensions.... This does not "harm" the photon ... it still has the energy of the original photon but it is no longer "coherent" with the source. This photon may still be of some use to you but it cannot be used for the original use ... such as the DSE. Does everyone "get" this?
I hope this helps put everyone back into a logical thinking mode and not a "free thinking" irrational mode. We cannot proceed with a lack of rationalism, we need to be entirely rational about this. Notice that I am dealing with the dual nature of the wave and the particle at the same time but I can only do this if they exist in separate dual spaces... the photon "particle" does not exist in the same place as the photon "wave"... they are separate spaces and are incompatible because they are conjugate...
... Click to enlarge...
Here we have a circularly symmetric Impulse function and the two dimensional circularly symmetric wave function associated with it (wave-particle duality). This is a two dimensional analog but "real" particles/impulses will have more dimensions, these dimensions are spatial as well as temporal. The two different representations cannot co-exist in the one 3D space but in different 3D spaces and these are as different as chalk and cheese... I can "almost" point to where these spaces are but I cannot show you what is "inside" them without collapsing them from higher quantum dimensions into our space through a process of "quantum demolition".
... Click to enlarge...
Where they "are" located relative to our space is "near" the "input plane" for the source, "near" the "transform plane" for the Fourier "input plane" dual, and "near" the "image plane" is an exact duplicate optically of the "input plane" rotated in space. Each of these "places" carry information from the previous source. These three planes refer to higher dimensional objects and if you "interfere" with them it collapses the states. To provide any results at all in the "real world" we need some output "image" where we collapse the arriving photons and destroy all qubits in that image (screen).
In general it can be considered that the impulse and the wave descriptions are similar and they are when you think of them this way as the optical "sources" and "sinks" being described in reciprocal domains. The domains are "equivalent" but certainly not the same. It is very difficult to measure them and their meaning must be an abstract one to be compared with the screen images that may be found there... In the case of the original source "we" usually choose a "picture" of something we know to transform. There is absolutely no physical reason, only a utilitarian reason to choose this we may choose the higher dimension complex spatial transform instead which looks more like this...
This is not the Fourier transform since a second image is required always and the two together form the Fourier Transform. This contains essential phase information that is not lost by this process and it is easily restored. In actual fact the source image we usually choose (a 2D picture) also has a complex "development" but through a mathematical "device" we can choose to use only the "phase free" image to create transforms. We have no current way to capture the full information about a real source without resorting to true holograms. This is an area of experimental research that I notice is not well developed... complex spatial descriptions of or normal universe are "ignored" to make things simple but without complex information source reconstruction is impossible. This is a philosophical as well as a practical area in which someone will get a Nobel Prize one day since this is aligned closely to complex wave functions.
This is the story regarding "photons" and their interactions ... this covers most of the physical Universe and most of its properties. It does not contain information about why everything is where it is, that is particle theory, and it does not speak about "radioactive processes" which has a time asymmetry that cannot be explained by QM. The particle concept can be handled by an extension of Quantum Electrodynamics to the realm of Quantum Chromodynamics... In my interpretation these are extensions of the same holographic theory to further embedded dimensions. Of course this is then at the level of matter waves which are far shorter than photon waves but similar in kind. Matter waves can go places photons cannot go.
The other aspect is "gravity" which is a pseudo-force. It is simply a symmetrized version of the electromagnetic wave function. The "forces" are those transferred by electromagnetism and its force carriers the photons not separate gravitons... In all their possible "wrappings" as particles. Until they "find" gravitons and even magnetic monopoles I will not believe in them. The "gravitons" I can quite confidently say can never be individually detected and proven to be separate from "photons". I predict that a pseudo-force will be possible that will have all the aspects of gravity and it will not be that far different from "twisted light", that we already fully understand, and can be used to "project" force" which is all that is necessary to satisfy the equivalence principle... That gravitational and inertial forces are equivalent.
A large scale matter wave imaging system (if it could be built) would "non-optically" duplicate the "matter source" in all it's extended properties such as has been performed with Kondo Phantoms at an atomic scale. As long as the source exists so does the image and whatever happens to the "image" can be as real an event as a meeting with your "matter wave" exact twin. "If you cut him does he not bleed?" Temporary particle(s) creation without actual energy input as long as the source remains. Because the "matter wave twin" is not necessarily connected with the photonic processes of the "original" and the two may have totally independent existences "as in the NIST experiments". Possibly a true "doppleganger". Now this may not be extended too far beyond several atoms but there is no reason to assume this has "natural limits".
Have a look at this as well as also very interesting...
Teleportation method proposed by Australian scientists
Cheers
I have been quite ill for around a week and I am starting to revive now. Please do not expect too much at first.... I am still catching up.
Lets straighten out some ideas completely and lets hope we do not forget them in five minutes... Firstly I see a lot of "speculative" Physics as if "anything goes". Any idea seems acceptable to some on the basis that it feels good. Statements about "mirrors" and "black objects" and "grey" objects are "meaningless" unless you and those you are communicating these ideas with understand in what context there is a meaning. In fact what I can assure you is what is being said is not physics at all. The Universe is a quantum Universe and black body radiation at all frequencies is just not on. In the same way for the same reasons there is no reverse situation where there are black body absorbers. When these "models" are invoked it is an indication of totally ignoring quantum behavior and any statements about quantum behavior in these terms is pure "bunk". Everything "individually" is a "quantum harmonic oscillator". If you want to speak authoritatively about the quantum you can't use classic black body emitters and absorbers. It is precisely because sub-atomic entities are not black body absorbers that we have quantum behavior.
On the other hand there are perfect mirrors. Perfect quantum mirrors exist at individual frequencies, these occur when the photon is perfectly reflected. Only a "perfect reflection" is a mirror event... everything else is not a mirror event, quantum events cannot be half and half, they are perfect mirror events perfect transmission events or perfect absorber events... aside from EM soliton events which "slows the photon down and then re-emits it intact with its qubit... there are no other possible quantum events I know of. If the atom or sub-atomic state cannot absorb at that one frequency it will have a choice of reflecting or transmitting the photon... all of it or none of it. Aside from having an available and appropriate quantum state, the ability to reflect or transmit depends only on physical size... From these factors ... the resonant states of the system tells us if it is possible to absorb a particular photon.... the current occupancy or latency of the state tells us if it is currently blocking incoming photons of the same frequency... and from the physical size of the absorbing system you can determine if an incident photon is absorbed or reflected or transmitted through. What you cannot determine is if and when an incident photon will occur. In quantum mechanics this is forbidden knowledge yet almost always in the real world we want to know about specific events so quantum mechanics is way way over its head and incapable of any predictions except in generalities because quantum mechanics contains ABSOLUTELY NO PATH INFORMATION WHATSOEVER, in theories like Bohmian Mechanics this path information can be estimated but not necessarily known because this information refers to an interpretational space where the path may be satisfied by several classical trajectories to solve the dynamic equations. You will have even more problems if these states spawn further quantum states such as bright matter solitons or those null singular optical regions interconnected with instantons where there is topological charge and underspecified boundary conditions.
In all other respects it is very classical. We know a source's general locality such as a single quantum dot (we can cause this dot to emit singularly a single photon... one at a time within a certain period)... we know potentially where the photon is absorbed using a number of sensors, especially if they form a 2D array like that video camera interface... so using dynamics we can infer a path of least action after the event. You can try and force all this into 3D space but it will fail, especially when you consider the double slit experiment. This process does not fail if you consider this "space" as not being part of "our" three dimensional space. This is the stepping off point for higher dimensional theories. These quantum mechanics can argue all they like but they are unable to derive a single path using their theory and they need to "steal" from continuum theory to get realistic answers.
You might like to deal with this statistically but if this is a one off event QM is all at sea and incapable of any resolution and can say nothing about it. Other theories can provide answers after the fact. You need to look to these theories to gain any "real" answers.
You cannot view a quantum between the emission and the collapsed state. The whole point is if you "observe" the state it is no longer a quantum. In the "wave" state some "observations" can be used to limit some of the complementary variables or measurables of the systems. This should be thought of as narrowing the state but not defining it. Because if you define it as in the case of the DSE you force the photon through one slit or the other and then this has collapsed the state and is no longer a quantum state. My take on this is you have forced it to travel in our three dimensional space .... reduced dimensions.... This does not "harm" the photon ... it still has the energy of the original photon but it is no longer "coherent" with the source. This photon may still be of some use to you but it cannot be used for the original use ... such as the DSE. Does everyone "get" this?
I hope this helps put everyone back into a logical thinking mode and not a "free thinking" irrational mode. We cannot proceed with a lack of rationalism, we need to be entirely rational about this. Notice that I am dealing with the dual nature of the wave and the particle at the same time but I can only do this if they exist in separate dual spaces... the photon "particle" does not exist in the same place as the photon "wave"... they are separate spaces and are incompatible because they are conjugate...
... Click to enlarge...
Here we have a circularly symmetric Impulse function and the two dimensional circularly symmetric wave function associated with it (wave-particle duality). This is a two dimensional analog but "real" particles/impulses will have more dimensions, these dimensions are spatial as well as temporal. The two different representations cannot co-exist in the one 3D space but in different 3D spaces and these are as different as chalk and cheese... I can "almost" point to where these spaces are but I cannot show you what is "inside" them without collapsing them from higher quantum dimensions into our space through a process of "quantum demolition".
... Click to enlarge...
Where they "are" located relative to our space is "near" the "input plane" for the source, "near" the "transform plane" for the Fourier "input plane" dual, and "near" the "image plane" is an exact duplicate optically of the "input plane" rotated in space. Each of these "places" carry information from the previous source. These three planes refer to higher dimensional objects and if you "interfere" with them it collapses the states. To provide any results at all in the "real world" we need some output "image" where we collapse the arriving photons and destroy all qubits in that image (screen).
In general it can be considered that the impulse and the wave descriptions are similar and they are when you think of them this way as the optical "sources" and "sinks" being described in reciprocal domains. The domains are "equivalent" but certainly not the same. It is very difficult to measure them and their meaning must be an abstract one to be compared with the screen images that may be found there... In the case of the original source "we" usually choose a "picture" of something we know to transform. There is absolutely no physical reason, only a utilitarian reason to choose this we may choose the higher dimension complex spatial transform instead which looks more like this...
This is not the Fourier transform since a second image is required always and the two together form the Fourier Transform. This contains essential phase information that is not lost by this process and it is easily restored. In actual fact the source image we usually choose (a 2D picture) also has a complex "development" but through a mathematical "device" we can choose to use only the "phase free" image to create transforms. We have no current way to capture the full information about a real source without resorting to true holograms. This is an area of experimental research that I notice is not well developed... complex spatial descriptions of or normal universe are "ignored" to make things simple but without complex information source reconstruction is impossible. This is a philosophical as well as a practical area in which someone will get a Nobel Prize one day since this is aligned closely to complex wave functions.
This is the story regarding "photons" and their interactions ... this covers most of the physical Universe and most of its properties. It does not contain information about why everything is where it is, that is particle theory, and it does not speak about "radioactive processes" which has a time asymmetry that cannot be explained by QM. The particle concept can be handled by an extension of Quantum Electrodynamics to the realm of Quantum Chromodynamics... In my interpretation these are extensions of the same holographic theory to further embedded dimensions. Of course this is then at the level of matter waves which are far shorter than photon waves but similar in kind. Matter waves can go places photons cannot go.
The other aspect is "gravity" which is a pseudo-force. It is simply a symmetrized version of the electromagnetic wave function. The "forces" are those transferred by electromagnetism and its force carriers the photons not separate gravitons... In all their possible "wrappings" as particles. Until they "find" gravitons and even magnetic monopoles I will not believe in them. The "gravitons" I can quite confidently say can never be individually detected and proven to be separate from "photons". I predict that a pseudo-force will be possible that will have all the aspects of gravity and it will not be that far different from "twisted light", that we already fully understand, and can be used to "project" force" which is all that is necessary to satisfy the equivalence principle... That gravitational and inertial forces are equivalent.
A large scale matter wave imaging system (if it could be built) would "non-optically" duplicate the "matter source" in all it's extended properties such as has been performed with Kondo Phantoms at an atomic scale. As long as the source exists so does the image and whatever happens to the "image" can be as real an event as a meeting with your "matter wave" exact twin. "If you cut him does he not bleed?" Temporary particle(s) creation without actual energy input as long as the source remains. Because the "matter wave twin" is not necessarily connected with the photonic processes of the "original" and the two may have totally independent existences "as in the NIST experiments". Possibly a true "doppleganger". Now this may not be extended too far beyond several atoms but there is no reason to assume this has "natural limits".
Have a look at this as well as also very interesting...
Teleportation method proposed by Australian scientists
Cheers
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.