Glad to see someone else join in the ongoing discussion.
QUOTE
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.
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.
No one claimed that there were no EM field vectors and no frequency.
What happens when exactly opposite vectors overlap (superpose)? There is a net
cancellation of localized displacement at the point of overlap. Nothing moves, and
no energy is transferred.
It is like putting your index fingertips together and pushing equally from both
sides, nothing is displaced. There is potential energy in the system, but no kinetic
energy is released, because nothing is moving relative to a fixed point in
time or space. It is a form of energy equilibrium.
The boson is a "description' of a form of energy with common topological
characteristics. They are the force carriers, have integer spin, and can occupy
the same quantum state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson
The frequency is merely the period of wave cycle timing. Frequency determines
the kinetic energy component of the wave per unit area.
Two oppositely phased waves that perfectly overlap, occupy the same space at the
same time and their kinetic energy components are "neutralized". There is no net
energy component, and no displacement takes place at the physical point of
instantaneous vector overlap, just like with your fingers.
The energy component is the momentum of the wave applied across a unit
cross-sectional area. Energy cannot be measured or sensed until it physically
displaces matter, so is it really a boson or is it wave energy enroute?
Perhaps the boson state is only manifest at the point of action when it
it is integrated with matter, which provides it's relative/characteristic state?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
No one claimed that there were no EM field vectors and no frequency.
What happens when exactly opposite vectors overlap (superpose)? There is a net
cancellation of localized displacement at the point of overlap. Nothing moves, and
no energy is transferred.
It is like putting your index fingertips together and pushing equally from both
sides, nothing is displaced. There is potential energy in the system, but no kinetic
energy is released, because nothing is moving relative to a fixed point in
time or space. It is a form of energy equilibrium.
The boson is a "description' of a form of energy with common topological
characteristics. They are the force carriers, have integer spin, and can occupy
the same quantum state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson
The frequency is merely the period of wave cycle timing. Frequency determines
the kinetic energy component of the wave per unit area.
Two oppositely phased waves that perfectly overlap, occupy the same space at the
same time and their kinetic energy components are "neutralized". There is no net
energy component, and no displacement takes place at the physical point of
instantaneous vector overlap, just like with your fingers.
The energy component is the momentum of the wave applied across a unit
cross-sectional area. Energy cannot be measured or sensed until it physically
displaces matter, so is it really a boson or is it wave energy enroute?
Perhaps the boson state is only manifest at the point of action when it
it is integrated with matter, which provides it's relative/characteristic state?
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.
What is the background for the interference images? Isn't that a viewing screen?
Agreed, we would see beams of constructively phased light projected onto the
matter of the vapor screen. I have stated this in earlier posts. Just like a projector
image. There will be "dead" projection zones (bands), where there is wave
phase equilibrium, and there will be bright bands where constructive interference
is mixing across the atoms of the vapor (matter).
Wave intensity does not manifest itself until it is physically mixed at the fixed
point of superposition.
Without matter to act as a reaction mixing zone, the photon waves would pass right
thru each other. Remember, unlimited bosons can occupy the same vacuum
space, however, once you have a point of physical mixing the boson's will sum
at that resonant location, if the wave frequencies can resonantly stimulate the
atomic dipole by displacing the electron from its ground state.
Comments? Discussion? Anyone? Bueller, Bueller? (Ferris Bueller's Day Off)
EDIT: Good Elf, sorry to hear that you haven't been well. I noticed you were not
posting much. Hope all is better now!
LL
Hi GE,
I'm not sure where this line of discussion is coming from, but I am speaking from
first hand experience in the semi industry where sintered graphite black
body "wafer susceptors" are radiantly heated to very high temperatures via high intensity halogen bulbs.
The bulbs radiate visible, IR, and UV frequencies that heat the graphite, which
absorbes the energy and generates very highly uniform, concentrated IR heat to
the silicon wafers for epitaxial deposition film growth. The technique has been
around for many, many years and is well known and characterized.
So, we are taking UV and a full spectrum of visible and IR light, and heating
a graphite mass (excellent black body characteristics) to 1200 degrees C, which
in turn radiates IR wavelengths to heat the silicon and react the silane and
dopant gases, to grow a perfectly oriented epitaxial silcon flat crystal on the
surface of silicon wafers.
With enough radiant intensity applied to the graphite (carbon) black body we can
get it to glow red hot, to yellow, to white, to blue-white hot, up to the point of
melting and eventual vaporization. The point being that, there are quantum
energy levels of absorption and emission for black bodies. They will respond to
energy by re-emitting the absorbed photons at a range of IR and visible
frequencies depending upon the energy level that they are excited to.
Have you ever seen an electrically energized carbon rod arc?
I agree that all atoms are quantum harmonic oscillators, but they will emit a
specific frequency spectral pattern. They will radiate energy according the energy
intensity level to which they are excited, as is demonstrated by the range of color
intensities observed when heated. They will continue to radiate heat, once the
external energy source is removed, until they dissipate all absorbed energy back
to the environment, and reach the background ambient temperature.
Would you care to respond or reword your "conjecture"?
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
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.
I'm not sure where this line of discussion is coming from, but I am speaking from
first hand experience in the semi industry where sintered graphite black
body "wafer susceptors" are radiantly heated to very high temperatures via high intensity halogen bulbs.
The bulbs radiate visible, IR, and UV frequencies that heat the graphite, which
absorbes the energy and generates very highly uniform, concentrated IR heat to
the silicon wafers for epitaxial deposition film growth. The technique has been
around for many, many years and is well known and characterized.
So, we are taking UV and a full spectrum of visible and IR light, and heating
a graphite mass (excellent black body characteristics) to 1200 degrees C, which
in turn radiates IR wavelengths to heat the silicon and react the silane and
dopant gases, to grow a perfectly oriented epitaxial silcon flat crystal on the
surface of silicon wafers.
With enough radiant intensity applied to the graphite (carbon) black body we can
get it to glow red hot, to yellow, to white, to blue-white hot, up to the point of
melting and eventual vaporization. The point being that, there are quantum
energy levels of absorption and emission for black bodies. They will respond to
energy by re-emitting the absorbed photons at a range of IR and visible
frequencies depending upon the energy level that they are excited to.
Have you ever seen an electrically energized carbon rod arc?
I agree that all atoms are quantum harmonic oscillators, but they will emit a
specific frequency spectral pattern. They will radiate energy according the energy
intensity level to which they are excited, as is demonstrated by the range of color
intensities observed when heated. They will continue to radiate heat, once the
external energy source is removed, until they dissipate all absorbed energy back
to the environment, and reach the background ambient temperature.
Would you care to respond or reword your "conjecture"?
Comments?
LL
Hi GE,
More comments about your very long, multitopical post.
Hmmm, can you explain perfect reflection at the quantum level? Does that occur
near the apex of the exited electron state, where the atomic dipole can no longer
absorb any more external energy without ionizing? If so, this seems to conflict
with models that suggest that reflection is an absorption and re-emission process
that "reflects" the stimulated photons, that couple to space in a general direction
away from the bulk mass.
There are no perfect absorbers, conservation of energy says that energy into
a system can only take the form of either kinetic or potential energy, something
physical must be displaced from the ground state. The ambient ground state, and
the field energy, must change to accomodate the applied energy.
Once the ground state is violated, the quantum system is out of equilibrium, and
will dissipate that energy in some form over some period of time.
Comments?
LL
More comments about your very long, multitopical post.
QUOTE
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
Hmmm, can you explain perfect reflection at the quantum level? Does that occur
near the apex of the exited electron state, where the atomic dipole can no longer
absorb any more external energy without ionizing? If so, this seems to conflict
with models that suggest that reflection is an absorption and re-emission process
that "reflects" the stimulated photons, that couple to space in a general direction
away from the bulk mass.
There are no perfect absorbers, conservation of energy says that energy into
a system can only take the form of either kinetic or potential energy, something
physical must be displaced from the ground state. The ambient ground state, and
the field energy, must change to accomodate the applied energy.
Once the ground state is violated, the quantum system is out of equilibrium, and
will dissipate that energy in some form over some period of time.
Comments?
LL
Hi Laserlight, Montec, Good Elf, Wulf et al,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Well, the math is nice, but it says nothing about the physics taking place that
gives rise to the mathematical description.
The value of the 'math' lies in the way it predicts the experimental result over a wide range. Getting the right answer is a fair indication that the assumptions we made are correct. Within the range where the error is negligible we can say (with reasonable safety) that all other effects are 'negligible'.
We could (of course) claim that the plasmons, polaritrons, Klingons and vitamin D deficiency are major effects which somehow cancel out so giving the illusion that the effect is a wave-type effect when in fact it is not. To make such a cancellation plausible we would need extra maths to show (not only) the relationship between (say) polaritrons and Klingons but also that they could cancel out over the range where their total effect is observed to be negligible.
If we (temporarily) assume that the result is not caused by a wave type effect we should be able to model it using (for example) mirrors and white and grey and black surfaces (or anything else you like). Having created our new model we would need to show that it has the same mathematical form as the wave assumption and that it could plausibly apply over a similar range as the wave-type maths - if the model doesn't give the right answer then we chuck out the model as 'useless' - we might even be able to do this after less than (say) 5,000 posts about it.
The NASA inspired version of the DSE involves cutting slits in the shiny side of a mirror. This clearly does involve reflection from the sides of the slit and the creation of a 'cavity' as a result of the shiny mirror and the partially reflecting face of the glass. We could say this is (by definition) the 'DSE' and we should then look at the consequences of these extra effects .. which are not negligible by Good Elf's account. My own preference would be to ignore the NASAcrap experiment and concentrate on the effects of the slit, space and whatever.
Best wishes - C2.
gives rise to the mathematical description.
The value of the 'math' lies in the way it predicts the experimental result over a wide range. Getting the right answer is a fair indication that the assumptions we made are correct. Within the range where the error is negligible we can say (with reasonable safety) that all other effects are 'negligible'.
We could (of course) claim that the plasmons, polaritrons, Klingons and vitamin D deficiency are major effects which somehow cancel out so giving the illusion that the effect is a wave-type effect when in fact it is not. To make such a cancellation plausible we would need extra maths to show (not only) the relationship between (say) polaritrons and Klingons but also that they could cancel out over the range where their total effect is observed to be negligible.
If we (temporarily) assume that the result is not caused by a wave type effect we should be able to model it using (for example) mirrors and white and grey and black surfaces (or anything else you like). Having created our new model we would need to show that it has the same mathematical form as the wave assumption and that it could plausibly apply over a similar range as the wave-type maths - if the model doesn't give the right answer then we chuck out the model as 'useless' - we might even be able to do this after less than (say) 5,000 posts about it.
The NASA inspired version of the DSE involves cutting slits in the shiny side of a mirror. This clearly does involve reflection from the sides of the slit and the creation of a 'cavity' as a result of the shiny mirror and the partially reflecting face of the glass. We could say this is (by definition) the 'DSE' and we should then look at the consequences of these extra effects .. which are not negligible by Good Elf's account. My own preference would be to ignore the NASA
Best wishes - C2.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jul 6 2007, 04:46 AM)
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
Elecrons in electron microscopes display wavelight behavior, destructive interference, constructive interference etc. The electrons are matter waves.
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
Elecrons in electron microscopes display wavelight behavior, destructive interference, constructive interference etc. The electrons are matter waves.
Hi Neil,
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)
Electrons in electron microscopes display wavelight behavior, destructive interference, constructive interference etc. The electrons are matter waves.
I would not argue with that definition but matter waves are shared by all kinds of fermions and collections of fermions and in some respects by bosons too which can include even numbers of fermions that are de-facto bosons like in a BEC. In fact it is actually a space filling property of matter waves that leads to spatial standing waves. If you think about it a fermion particle has "extent" as well as "frequency". The "extent" is a spatial frequency that defines a particle in some way as distinct from the "pure" wave.
Cheers
Cheers
Hi C2,
The beauty of mathematics is that you can manipulate it to represent equalities,
which is all well and good, because it allows for predictability of a model within
some solution set of possibilities.
However, it says nothing about the physics or the mechanisms involved that
caused the event.
I can render a proof that is absolutely correct, but really doesn't accurately
define a definite solution, but the math works.
x+1 = ∞
So, yeah the math works but it doesn't provide details as to WHY or HOW the
physics occurs.
We can see and predict the result of the DSE, but if you can't explain how or why it
works, then we haven't really learned anything tangible about nature.
You, obviously, are the type who is quite satisfied by just turning the key to the
auto and driving it without knowing what is "under the hood" and without a clue as
to how or why it works. Yeah, it meets your basic transportation needs, until
something simple fails and you are stranded 200km from home, because a fuse
blew.
Why bother studying physics and natural interactions, if all we need are
mathematical solutions that yield predictabilities, but no real knowledge?
What is first principle, the physics or the math?
You still haven't satisfactorily answered the question of why or how the slit
width controls the wave plane wave to spherical wave dispersion mechanism at the
physical level.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
The value of the 'math' lies in the way it predicts the experimental result over a wide range. Getting the right answer is a fair indication that the assumptions we made are correct. Within the range where the error is negligible we can say (with reasonable safety) that all other effects are 'negligible'.
The beauty of mathematics is that you can manipulate it to represent equalities,
which is all well and good, because it allows for predictability of a model within
some solution set of possibilities.
However, it says nothing about the physics or the mechanisms involved that
caused the event.
I can render a proof that is absolutely correct, but really doesn't accurately
define a definite solution, but the math works.
x+1 = ∞
So, yeah the math works but it doesn't provide details as to WHY or HOW the
physics occurs.
We can see and predict the result of the DSE, but if you can't explain how or why it
works, then we haven't really learned anything tangible about nature.
You, obviously, are the type who is quite satisfied by just turning the key to the
auto and driving it without knowing what is "under the hood" and without a clue as
to how or why it works. Yeah, it meets your basic transportation needs, until
something simple fails and you are stranded 200km from home, because a fuse
blew.
Why bother studying physics and natural interactions, if all we need are
mathematical solutions that yield predictabilities, but no real knowledge?
What is first principle, the physics or the math?
You still haven't satisfactorily answered the question of why or how the slit
width controls the wave plane wave to spherical wave dispersion mechanism at the
physical level.
Comments?
LL
HI GE,
Just some different perspective.
The terms "space filling property" and "extent" implies a volumetric response, or
spatial characteristic, which is quantifiable in 3 physical dimensions and time, as
energy density per unit volume.
"Spatial standing waves" implies a fixed, average, volumetric energy density that
represents an elevated value above the baseline energy background of spacetime.
If this premise is correct it infers a change of refractive index of the space
being energetically "filled". Also, if we note that all atomic matter displays inate
characteristics of spherical "geometry", or topology, then these "standing waves"
must uniformly radiate outward from a spherical from a focal point, as they
couple to space.
Taking this line of reasoning further, if radiating energy density follows the rules
of the ISL, then energy density that couples to proximity space, falls off inversely
with the square of the distance from the source.
So by deduction, the refractive index of space around an object that is resonantly
radiating energy, must also follow the rules of the ISL. As the energy density
of proximity space, around matter, decreases with increasing distance, the
refractive index of that space also decreases, which makes energy density and
refractive index directly proportional.
This implies that matter standing waves, are resonant radiating energy oscillations
that are being coupled to space, and that oscillate in phase with the atomic resonance.
It also suggests that the energy amplitude of these standing waves
dampens with increasing distance from the source.
In effect, we have a dampened spherical energy field coupling from a resonant
atomic source to surrounding space, which distorts the electrical and optical
characteristics of that space. If this is true for a single atom, consider the
consequences on spacetime, that would be developed by massive objects.
Just some musings...I could develop this line of reasoning much further.
LL
QUOTE
...matter waves.....In fact it is actually a space filling property of matter
waves that leads to spatial standing waves. If you think about it a fermion particle
has "extent" as well as "frequency". The "extent" is a spatial frequency that
defines a particle in some way as distinct from the "pure" wave.
waves that leads to spatial standing waves. If you think about it a fermion particle
has "extent" as well as "frequency". The "extent" is a spatial frequency that
defines a particle in some way as distinct from the "pure" wave.
Just some different perspective.
The terms "space filling property" and "extent" implies a volumetric response, or
spatial characteristic, which is quantifiable in 3 physical dimensions and time, as
energy density per unit volume.
"Spatial standing waves" implies a fixed, average, volumetric energy density that
represents an elevated value above the baseline energy background of spacetime.
If this premise is correct it infers a change of refractive index of the space
being energetically "filled". Also, if we note that all atomic matter displays inate
characteristics of spherical "geometry", or topology, then these "standing waves"
must uniformly radiate outward from a spherical from a focal point, as they
couple to space.
Taking this line of reasoning further, if radiating energy density follows the rules
of the ISL, then energy density that couples to proximity space, falls off inversely
with the square of the distance from the source.
So by deduction, the refractive index of space around an object that is resonantly
radiating energy, must also follow the rules of the ISL. As the energy density
of proximity space, around matter, decreases with increasing distance, the
refractive index of that space also decreases, which makes energy density and
refractive index directly proportional.
This implies that matter standing waves, are resonant radiating energy oscillations
that are being coupled to space, and that oscillate in phase with the atomic resonance.
It also suggests that the energy amplitude of these standing waves
dampens with increasing distance from the source.
In effect, we have a dampened spherical energy field coupling from a resonant
atomic source to surrounding space, which distorts the electrical and optical
characteristics of that space. If this is true for a single atom, consider the
consequences on spacetime, that would be developed by massive objects.
Just some musings...I could develop this line of reasoning much further.
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
We can see and predict the result of the DSE, but if you can't explain how or why it works, then we haven't really learned anything tangible about nature.
From the diagram here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ungeo.html#c1we see that there will be a minimum at any point where a wave from the 'top' of the slit is out of phase with a wave from the 'bottom' of the slit. This result tells us that there is some sort of wave expanding from the slit and it is made up of at least one cycle. The result for the DSE (very similar maths) tells us the 'wave' spreads from the slits and includes several (or more) cycles. The central maximum isn't a 'bell shape' (Gaussian) .. it is the superposition of sinusoidal waves expanding from the slits. I agree the maths doesn't tell us what these waves are made of or why they happen .. only that they exist and that would probably be the thing to concentrate on.
From the diagram here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ungeo.html#c1we see that there will be a minimum at any point where a wave from the 'top' of the slit is out of phase with a wave from the 'bottom' of the slit. This result tells us that there is some sort of wave expanding from the slit and it is made up of at least one cycle. The result for the DSE (very similar maths) tells us the 'wave' spreads from the slits and includes several (or more) cycles. The central maximum isn't a 'bell shape' (Gaussian) .. it is the superposition of sinusoidal waves expanding from the slits. I agree the maths doesn't tell us what these waves are made of or why they happen .. only that they exist and that would probably be the thing to concentrate on.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
You still haven't satisfactorily answered the question of why or how the slit width controls the wave plane wave to spherical wave dispersion mechanism at the physical level.
To avoid more 'math' it would probably be best to look at a ripple tank ( http://www.falstad.com/ripple/ )
There is another 2D wave thing here ( http://www.falstad.com/wave2d/ ) which gives the result that seems to be the problem .. a pattern for no obvious reason .. unless you've looked at the ripple tank and/or understood the significance of the maths and superposition. <- Edit .. the thing is showing the amplitude (or possibly intensity) of the wave instead of the wave itself.
And a 3D thing here ( http://www.falstad.com/wavebox/ ) which I don't think adds anything except cuteness/
Best wishes -C2.
To avoid more 'math' it would probably be best to look at a ripple tank ( http://www.falstad.com/ripple/ )
There is another 2D wave thing here ( http://www.falstad.com/wave2d/ ) which gives the result that seems to be the problem .. a pattern for no obvious reason .. unless you've looked at the ripple tank and/or understood the significance of the maths and superposition. <- Edit .. the thing is showing the amplitude (or possibly intensity) of the wave instead of the wave itself.
And a 3D thing here ( http://www.falstad.com/wavebox/ ) which I don't think adds anything except cuteness/
Best wishes -C2.
Hi C2,
Well, despite my best efforts to get you to commit to describing how and why
diffraction works at the physical level of the slits, which alters the wave dynamics,
you have chickened out and taken the safe approach by referencing applets.
You might want to think about this statement. The intensity of the central
maximum does follow a Gaussian distribution. It is the highest intensity point
for the DSE result. There is more wave energy concentrated in the central
band than at other band distributions. It represents a predictability of 98%+.
Actually, I am glad that you revisted these applets. Applet #3 was intriquing
when looking at dipole point sources that have a wide gap spacing between them.
When the gap is narrow, the dipole radiates opposite polarity wavefronts that
are hemispherical, but when the dipoles are widely spaced they generate
resonant interference patterns between them, and also along any point of wave
overlap, as the waves radiate outward from the sources. I am still thinking about
the implications of this observation.
I wonder where the math would be without the physics to drive it? Conversely,
I wonder where the physics would be without the math to equate it?
LL
Well, despite my best efforts to get you to commit to describing how and why
diffraction works at the physical level of the slits, which alters the wave dynamics,
you have chickened out and taken the safe approach by referencing applets.
QUOTE
The result for the DSE (very similar maths) tells us the 'wave' spreads from the slits and includes several (or more) cycles. The central maximum isn't a 'bell shape' (Gaussian) .. it is the superposition of sinusoidal waves expanding from the slits. I agree the maths doesn't tell us what these waves are made of or why they happen .. only that they exist and that would probably be the thing to concentrate on.
You might want to think about this statement. The intensity of the central
maximum does follow a Gaussian distribution. It is the highest intensity point
for the DSE result. There is more wave energy concentrated in the central
band than at other band distributions. It represents a predictability of 98%+.
Actually, I am glad that you revisted these applets. Applet #3 was intriquing
when looking at dipole point sources that have a wide gap spacing between them.
When the gap is narrow, the dipole radiates opposite polarity wavefronts that
are hemispherical, but when the dipoles are widely spaced they generate
resonant interference patterns between them, and also along any point of wave
overlap, as the waves radiate outward from the sources. I am still thinking about
the implications of this observation.
I wonder where the math would be without the physics to drive it? Conversely,
I wonder where the physics would be without the math to equate it?
LL
Hi Laserlight, Wulf, Why Not?, Montec, yquantum, Confused2, TRoc, janrinze, "THEY", Jal, Zephir, Neil Farbstein, , Mate et al,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Just some different perspective.
The terms "space filling property" and "extent" implies a volumetric response, or spatial characteristic, which is quantifiable in 3 physical dimensions and time, as energy density per unit volume.
"Spatial standing waves" implies a fixed, average, volumetric energy density that represents an elevated value above the baseline energy background of spacetime. If this premise is correct it infers a change of refractive index of the space being energetically "filled". Also, if we note that all atomic matter displays inate characteristics of spherical "geometry", or topology, then these "standing waves" must uniformly radiate outward from a spherical from a focal point, as they couple to space.
Taking this line of reasoning further, if radiating energy density follows the rules of the ISL, then energy density that couples to proximity space, falls off inversely with the square of the distance from the source.
So by deduction, the refractive index of space around an object that is resonantly radiating energy, must also follow the rules of the ISL. As the energy density of proximity space, around matter, decreases with increasing distance, the refractive index of that space also decreases, which makes energy density and refractive index directly proportional.
This implies that matter standing waves, are resonant radiating energy oscillations that are being coupled to space, and that oscillate in phase with the atomic resonance. It also suggests that the energy amplitude of these standing waves dampens with increasing distance from the source.
In effect, we have a dampened spherical energy field coupling from a resonant atomic source to surrounding space, which distorts the electrical and optical characteristics of that space. If this is true for a single atom, consider the consequences on spacetime, that would be developed by massive objects.
Just some musings...I could develop this line of reasoning much further.
The terms "space filling property" and "extent" implies a volumetric response, or spatial characteristic, which is quantifiable in 3 physical dimensions and time, as energy density per unit volume.
"Spatial standing waves" implies a fixed, average, volumetric energy density that represents an elevated value above the baseline energy background of spacetime. If this premise is correct it infers a change of refractive index of the space being energetically "filled". Also, if we note that all atomic matter displays inate characteristics of spherical "geometry", or topology, then these "standing waves" must uniformly radiate outward from a spherical from a focal point, as they couple to space.
Taking this line of reasoning further, if radiating energy density follows the rules of the ISL, then energy density that couples to proximity space, falls off inversely with the square of the distance from the source.
So by deduction, the refractive index of space around an object that is resonantly radiating energy, must also follow the rules of the ISL. As the energy density of proximity space, around matter, decreases with increasing distance, the refractive index of that space also decreases, which makes energy density and refractive index directly proportional.
This implies that matter standing waves, are resonant radiating energy oscillations that are being coupled to space, and that oscillate in phase with the atomic resonance. It also suggests that the energy amplitude of these standing waves dampens with increasing distance from the source.
In effect, we have a dampened spherical energy field coupling from a resonant atomic source to surrounding space, which distorts the electrical and optical characteristics of that space. If this is true for a single atom, consider the consequences on spacetime, that would be developed by massive objects.
Just some musings...I could develop this line of reasoning much further.
No... you have taken this the wrong way. True matter waves do not radiate away into space since they are spatial standing waves. Recall Feynman and Wheeler's Advanced and Retarded potentials approaching from different directions than ordinary space. Sources radiate electromagnetic waves only intermittently, most of their life they are non-emitters, and the material substance of the source must stay in place. In my interpretation of this process the matter itself .... the solid stuff... is the matter waves. Of course you must strip the "matter" of all those other properties we have come to recognize such as color, luster, charge, hardness, temperature etc which are features of Quantum Electrodynamics and what is left is something aside from those photonic interactions.... A presence and spatial distribution. I am not sure about "solidity" in an abstract sense since we attribute that to virtual photons when we try and crush something. Since matter waves are "like" electromagnetic waves and are closely aligned to electromagnetic waves I expect that there are some short range forces there that have been formerly "lumped in with other kinds of electromagnetism".
The other obvious reason why this wave does not "radiate away" is simple ... since the physical presence is due to this matter wave and is not simply something a particle "exudes" then if it radiated away the matter would "dissipate" with time. In fact the "matter" is in a "stationary state", a quantum state and it is indirectly linked with all other matter in the Universe holographically. In that sense the matter is not independent of other matter and we can prove this by trying to accelerate it, what we sense is a kind of Lenz's Law of back action due to the influence of the mass... which is something to do with the "matter waves". Interference effects due to its displacement from an inertial frame, this is "force" resulting in acceleration. A holographic expression of what is filling space and this influences everything along with the Quantum Electrodynamics. Together they make up a complete description of matter (as we see it) both as physical and chemical properties described by the way the matter interacts with light and as "extended objects" occupying space which define the cavity structures that describe the occupied empty space and also the way in which space is "linked" to other space... the connection itself. This is an old idea expressed by Ernst Mach as Mach's Principle...
Wikipedia: Mach's Principle
Still... a very useful concept... Matter Waves will be the means of linking.
There are some details I have left out but I am sure that they do not alter the overall picture. You need both to gain an idea of the total entity. We have relegated the matter wave properties to a topic that is not worth knowing and it is studied "indirectly" when it becomes of commercial significance such as Bragg's Law and other physical properties of space such as space quantization and the spin of an electron or any other fermion particle. Unfortunately we "identify" the particle with what is seen... a bit unfortunate really that is simply it's emission and absorption properties of photons actually..
To give you all a very enlightened and entertaining view of electron spin... which is the same as other kinds of 1/2 interger spin common amongst all fermions... please download and view this quicktime movie. You will find it very interesting and after you have all seen it I may mention a couple of things about this. I am a little disappointed in the way the trick is shown as a Filipino drinking trick with a glass of alcohol rather than the ancient version done by Temple Dancers with candles by the Hindu Sect in Bali known commonly as the Balinese Candle Dance.
Air on the Dirac Strings, 1993 Size of file is around 40 MB but well worth it.
Cheers
The other obvious reason why this wave does not "radiate away" is simple ... since the physical presence is due to this matter wave and is not simply something a particle "exudes" then if it radiated away the matter would "dissipate" with time. In fact the "matter" is in a "stationary state", a quantum state and it is indirectly linked with all other matter in the Universe holographically. In that sense the matter is not independent of other matter and we can prove this by trying to accelerate it, what we sense is a kind of Lenz's Law of back action due to the influence of the mass... which is something to do with the "matter waves". Interference effects due to its displacement from an inertial frame, this is "force" resulting in acceleration. A holographic expression of what is filling space and this influences everything along with the Quantum Electrodynamics. Together they make up a complete description of matter (as we see it) both as physical and chemical properties described by the way the matter interacts with light and as "extended objects" occupying space which define the cavity structures that describe the occupied empty space and also the way in which space is "linked" to other space... the connection itself. This is an old idea expressed by Ernst Mach as Mach's Principle...
Wikipedia: Mach's Principle
Still... a very useful concept... Matter Waves will be the means of linking.
There are some details I have left out but I am sure that they do not alter the overall picture. You need both to gain an idea of the total entity. We have relegated the matter wave properties to a topic that is not worth knowing and it is studied "indirectly" when it becomes of commercial significance such as Bragg's Law and other physical properties of space such as space quantization and the spin of an electron or any other fermion particle. Unfortunately we "identify" the particle with what is seen... a bit unfortunate really that is simply it's emission and absorption properties of photons actually..
To give you all a very enlightened and entertaining view of electron spin... which is the same as other kinds of 1/2 interger spin common amongst all fermions... please download and view this quicktime movie. You will find it very interesting and after you have all seen it I may mention a couple of things about this. I am a little disappointed in the way the trick is shown as a Filipino drinking trick with a glass of alcohol rather than the ancient version done by Temple Dancers with candles by the Hindu Sect in Bali known commonly as the Balinese Candle Dance.
Air on the Dirac Strings, 1993 Size of file is around 40 MB but well worth it.
Cheers
Hi LL,
QUOTE (LL+)
The intensity of the central maximum does follow a Gaussian distribution.
Did you see the news item about the Japanese omigoshitsa dog? Turns out they couldn't make them fast enough to keep up with demand so they started sending out lambs instead. The point here is that we need to know is whether or not this is relevent and if it is then to whom.
This is a Gaussian pattern I(theta) = I0 e ^(-(x-b)^2/2c^2)) [ see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_function .. it is a definition.]
And this is a diffraction pattern I(theta) = I0(sinc(pi a sin (theta)/lambda))^2 [ see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_function for derivation. ]
Superficially the only difference is that the one goes "wuff" and the other one goes "baaa" and if this doesn't matter to you then it certainly doesn't matter to me. However:- if you have recently purchased a dog I would advise you to ask a vet whether it will be needing the normal type of dog food or something a little bit different.
Best wishes - C2.
Did you see the news item about the Japanese omigoshitsa dog? Turns out they couldn't make them fast enough to keep up with demand so they started sending out lambs instead. The point here is that we need to know is whether or not this is relevent and if it is then to whom.
This is a Gaussian pattern I(theta) = I0 e ^(-(x-b)^2/2c^2)) [ see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_function .. it is a definition.]
And this is a diffraction pattern I(theta) = I0(sinc(pi a sin (theta)/lambda))^2 [ see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_function for derivation. ]
Superficially the only difference is that the one goes "wuff" and the other one goes "baaa" and if this doesn't matter to you then it certainly doesn't matter to me. However:- if you have recently purchased a dog I would advise you to ask a vet whether it will be needing the normal type of dog food or something a little bit different.
Best wishes - C2.
Good Elf, C2, Laserlight, Wulf, Why Not?, TRoc, janrinze, "THEY", Jal, Zephir, Neil Farbstein, , Mate et al
Hope this will give some better insight in what Good Elf is expressing.
http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm
Still working but then what is new for all of us.
ciao_
yquantum
Hope this will give some better insight in what Good Elf is expressing.
http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm
Still working but then what is new for all of us.
ciao_
yquantum
QUOTE (yquantum+Jul 7 2007, 01:36 PM)
Hope this will give some better insight in what Good Elf is expressing.
It's amazing, how the proclamative proponent of mainstream science and LHC experiments can link such naive crackpottery site..(Matter is purely made out of electrons)...
This link just demonstrates, Good Elf is babbling all the time, mixing his private ideas with the mainstream ones without any understanding of the subject.
It's amazing, how the proclamative proponent of mainstream science and LHC experiments can link such naive crackpottery site..(Matter is purely made out of electrons)...
This link just demonstrates, Good Elf is babbling all the time, mixing his private ideas with the mainstream ones without any understanding of the subject.
QUOTE (Confused2+Jul 7 2007, 01:25 PM)
LL http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?i...0&in_page_id=34
C2,
Baaaaaaa Humbug!
GE, I will respond later. Busy today.
LL
C2,
Baaaaaaa Humbug!
GE, I will respond later. Busy today.
LL
Hi yquantum, zephir, Wulf, Why Not?, Montec, Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, janrinze, "THEY", Jal, Neil Farbstein, , Mate et al,
Thanks for the support yquantum, I really need it. I fully realize that there are no illustrations out there which show the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. What is possible is to illustrate principles such as standing waves and interferences. I am certain that yquantum is only illustrating with some "stunning animated graphics" some important principles of matter waves. Good to see zephir is still watching very closely... Zephir jumps on weak points whenever he can find them even though it has nothing to do with any theories of mine or yquantum and he needs to reference some alternative pages which certainly may have weak theory behind them... I would never say matter was composed of electrons since there are many types of particle. What I would say is that all sub-atomic particles are entirely composed of elementary photons... bound by laws such as CPT-Lorentz Symmetry.
I am still certainly at a bit of a low point with my health and that may have some effects on what I am saying and I can assure you that when I make some statements they will certainly be controversial. They can't be all right in every detail. I am truly playing the odds but I am trying to see that they are still in my favor at all times. It is a challenging view of the way the Universe may be but as I see it the alternatives are far worse. People just do not realize how close science is from total lack of realism and someone needs to give an alternative to a Universe with "nothing" other than an observational Universe created by our measurements. In fact the quantum universe has no objective reality... I kid you not. If you had a choice to accept that there was an external reality we are all co-operatively utilizing or that nothing in our universe has any objective basis other than our hopes and wishes... quantum physics is just a hairs breath away from this "credo" simply because there are no sane alternatives being offered, at least none that fit the data.
To provide an alternative to Quantum Nihilism I have fitted the problem into another box... one which actually has dimensions and numbers on it, a wave theory. This is a kind of non-local realism that I think works. The alternative is that we are some kind of "G*ds" endowed with the power of creation and that somehow we even invented ourselves before the Big Bang was a gleam in the eye of any Crea*or. I am not so stupid to think we are anything of the sort, those running this world are not "G*ds" and they are far from anything I would "worship". I also believe in a reality that is "out there" independent of us and it is basically waves and not really "particles". The reason we find ourselves here in this Quantum Quandary is we are so transfixed by the bright light of the candle of our mind we are prepared to fly right into it and burn. We have done just about everything possible to ignore the true holographic nature of the Universe and in the face of experiment insist on independence of all component "particles".
I look at the alternatives to quantum theory and there are very few alternatives indeed. Mostly the protagonists want to hide the "fine detail" under the carpet beneath the Planck Length. I at least try and provide a theory that is testable and should be free of infinities and also be "human understandable". There will be caustics but these are finite and bounded. What I do know is that LQG and zephirs theory cannot be right since nothing they speak of is able to actually be found, though promises are always being made. Standard String Theory also is languishing and beached like a whale on the Shore of Scholarship while the LQG People feast on its carcass, draining and taking its ideas and "intellectual property" and now claiming it as their own. In some respects String Theory deserves it because it is the "parable of the talents" retold in modern terms where they have all gone off and used the money "sensibly" but without any thought that maybe they were not looking in the right directions for opportunities. So they may has well have buried the money they received since they were very careful to hide the "wealth" beneath a stone where nothing could reach it... The Planck Length. When one saw how good a game this was others followed very swiftly. Unfortunately the time is coming when all the monies will be withdrawn.
Thanks for the support yquantum, I really need it. I fully realize that there are no illustrations out there which show the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. What is possible is to illustrate principles such as standing waves and interferences. I am certain that yquantum is only illustrating with some "stunning animated graphics" some important principles of matter waves. Good to see zephir is still watching very closely... Zephir jumps on weak points whenever he can find them even though it has nothing to do with any theories of mine or yquantum and he needs to reference some alternative pages which certainly may have weak theory behind them... I would never say matter was composed of electrons since there are many types of particle. What I would say is that all sub-atomic particles are entirely composed of elementary photons... bound by laws such as CPT-Lorentz Symmetry.
I am still certainly at a bit of a low point with my health and that may have some effects on what I am saying and I can assure you that when I make some statements they will certainly be controversial. They can't be all right in every detail. I am truly playing the odds but I am trying to see that they are still in my favor at all times. It is a challenging view of the way the Universe may be but as I see it the alternatives are far worse. People just do not realize how close science is from total lack of realism and someone needs to give an alternative to a Universe with "nothing" other than an observational Universe created by our measurements. In fact the quantum universe has no objective reality... I kid you not. If you had a choice to accept that there was an external reality we are all co-operatively utilizing or that nothing in our universe has any objective basis other than our hopes and wishes... quantum physics is just a hairs breath away from this "credo" simply because there are no sane alternatives being offered, at least none that fit the data.
To provide an alternative to Quantum Nihilism I have fitted the problem into another box... one which actually has dimensions and numbers on it, a wave theory. This is a kind of non-local realism that I think works. The alternative is that we are some kind of "G*ds" endowed with the power of creation and that somehow we even invented ourselves before the Big Bang was a gleam in the eye of any Crea*or. I am not so stupid to think we are anything of the sort, those running this world are not "G*ds" and they are far from anything I would "worship". I also believe in a reality that is "out there" independent of us and it is basically waves and not really "particles". The reason we find ourselves here in this Quantum Quandary is we are so transfixed by the bright light of the candle of our mind we are prepared to fly right into it and burn. We have done just about everything possible to ignore the true holographic nature of the Universe and in the face of experiment insist on independence of all component "particles".
I look at the alternatives to quantum theory and there are very few alternatives indeed. Mostly the protagonists want to hide the "fine detail" under the carpet beneath the Planck Length. I at least try and provide a theory that is testable and should be free of infinities and also be "human understandable". There will be caustics but these are finite and bounded. What I do know is that LQG and zephirs theory cannot be right since nothing they speak of is able to actually be found, though promises are always being made. Standard String Theory also is languishing and beached like a whale on the Shore of Scholarship while the LQG People feast on its carcass, draining and taking its ideas and "intellectual property" and now claiming it as their own. In some respects String Theory deserves it because it is the "parable of the talents" retold in modern terms where they have all gone off and used the money "sensibly" but without any thought that maybe they were not looking in the right directions for opportunities. So they may has well have buried the money they received since they were very careful to hide the "wealth" beneath a stone where nothing could reach it... The Planck Length. When one saw how good a game this was others followed very swiftly. Unfortunately the time is coming when all the monies will be withdrawn.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
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?
Laserlight wants to argue the point about "Black Bodies" being truly black and black body radiation being truly all frequency emitters... well there are good arguments against that and I do not care how many years he has spent in chip fabrication plants ... it is still an emitter of quantized radiation and there are no infinite numbers of radiators or absorbers there.. as many as there are they are still finite. You can't sweep the idea out of the way I still maintain every word I said about quanta in that previous post.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=234058
It is clear that perfect mirrors are everywhere although they are in the oddest places. C2 complained about those "blasted NASA crap experiments" showing how an etched mirror back worked better than some other methods enhancing the standing waves on the screen. This does have personal significance since it is one of the few experiments you can perform at home easily. What it shows is certainly standing waves but when when we do not have that mirror surface there must still be significant "perfect mirror sites" left in the apparently "non-reflecting" material of the instrument and even on the white card... contrary to "intuition". A much reduced number of "sites" but "sites" nevertheless. Just because it defies intuition about what mirrors look like does not mean they are not there. As stated... seeing a mirror means that it is not a perfect mirror since what you are seeing are reflected photons not "mirror". Enough for now...
Cheers
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?
Laserlight wants to argue the point about "Black Bodies" being truly black and black body radiation being truly all frequency emitters... well there are good arguments against that and I do not care how many years he has spent in chip fabrication plants ... it is still an emitter of quantized radiation and there are no infinite numbers of radiators or absorbers there.. as many as there are they are still finite. You can't sweep the idea out of the way I still maintain every word I said about quanta in that previous post.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=234058
It is clear that perfect mirrors are everywhere although they are in the oddest places. C2 complained about those "blasted NASA crap experiments" showing how an etched mirror back worked better than some other methods enhancing the standing waves on the screen. This does have personal significance since it is one of the few experiments you can perform at home easily. What it shows is certainly standing waves but when when we do not have that mirror surface there must still be significant "perfect mirror sites" left in the apparently "non-reflecting" material of the instrument and even on the white card... contrary to "intuition". A much reduced number of "sites" but "sites" nevertheless. Just because it defies intuition about what mirrors look like does not mean they are not there. As stated... seeing a mirror means that it is not a perfect mirror since what you are seeing are reflected photons not "mirror". Enough for now...
Cheers
Hi GE,
I just got in and it is very late, so I'll keep this brief.
Perhaps you are still sick, or misread what I so carefully explained about
sintered graphite susceptors and the IR SPECTRUM that they radiate.
If black doesn't absorb all colors, just what visible spectrum colors does black
radiate? If you shine white light on a black surface, which is close to all visible
bandwidths, they don't reflect any visible color/frequency from that black surface.
So if black doesn't reflect them, it must be absorbing them. There must be some
upper energy threshold, because visible red laser light most certainly will reflect
from a black body surface, as illustrated in the picture Montec posted a page
earlier.
We know that at high enough temps black bodies will glow red, and when
electrically stimulated inside an evacuated bulb will glow WHITE. (if I recall
correctly, I think Edison used a carbon filament in some early light bulb tests
that provided blue-white light)
Hmmm, just found out that Edison stole the patent for the light bulb....amazing
how the victors write/skew/warp history to set themselves on a pedestal.
I learned something new tonight!
http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/edison.asp
Even transparent materials will emit light if heated to high enough temperatures,
as is illustrated by molten glass/quartz.
Enough for now, must sleep.
LL
I just got in and it is very late, so I'll keep this brief.
QUOTE
Laserlight wants to argue the point about "Black Bodies" being truly black and black body radiation being truly all frequency emitters... well there are good arguments against that and I do not care how many years he has spent in chip fabrication plants ... it is still an emitter of quantized radiation and there are no infinite numbers of radiators or absorbers there.. as many as there are they are still finite. You can't sweep the idea out of the way I still maintain every word I said about quanta in that previous post.
Perhaps you are still sick, or misread what I so carefully explained about
sintered graphite susceptors and the IR SPECTRUM that they radiate.
If black doesn't absorb all colors, just what visible spectrum colors does black
radiate? If you shine white light on a black surface, which is close to all visible
bandwidths, they don't reflect any visible color/frequency from that black surface.
So if black doesn't reflect them, it must be absorbing them. There must be some
upper energy threshold, because visible red laser light most certainly will reflect
from a black body surface, as illustrated in the picture Montec posted a page
earlier.
We know that at high enough temps black bodies will glow red, and when
electrically stimulated inside an evacuated bulb will glow WHITE. (if I recall
correctly, I think Edison used a carbon filament in some early light bulb tests
that provided blue-white light)
Hmmm, just found out that Edison stole the patent for the light bulb....amazing
how the victors write/skew/warp history to set themselves on a pedestal.
I learned something new tonight!
http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/edison.asp
Even transparent materials will emit light if heated to high enough temperatures,
as is illustrated by molten glass/quartz.
Enough for now, must sleep.
LL
QUOTE (Confused2+Jul 1 2007, 04:08 PM)
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
.
For particle wave such as sea or water wave, can we express the energy of particle wave in term of hf? h=plank's constant, f=frequency of particle wave.
If it cannot, do you think that particle wave is similar to EM wave?
For particle wave, the superposition of particle wave causes the change of amplitude of particle wave. Do you think that EM wave undergoes the same process?
when we express the photon in term of hf, when we add two identical photons together as constructive superposition, the energy shall double, can we say that the amplitude increased? However, we still only have E=hf for the superposed photon, where the energy is single photon, not two photons. which one is correct? or you have different explanations?
If the superposition of EM wave is not by adding the amplitude, then, the only reason that I can think of is adding two photons together as particle-like. Then, in this case, how the EM wave undergoes constructive and destructive superposition and produces interference fringes?
In actual experiment, interference fringes do appear. Then, it should be another reason that causes the phenomenon. Does my description and interpretation make sense?
I have thought about this question for quite some time. the only reason I can think of is there shall be another phenomenon that causes it. That's why I put up my idea on a website for discussion. Although the current theory had been applied for many years, but I still have doubt on this matter, where sometime, it does not make sense.
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
.For particle wave such as sea or water wave, can we express the energy of particle wave in term of hf? h=plank's constant, f=frequency of particle wave.
If it cannot, do you think that particle wave is similar to EM wave?
For particle wave, the superposition of particle wave causes the change of amplitude of particle wave. Do you think that EM wave undergoes the same process?
when we express the photon in term of hf, when we add two identical photons together as constructive superposition, the energy shall double, can we say that the amplitude increased? However, we still only have E=hf for the superposed photon, where the energy is single photon, not two photons. which one is correct? or you have different explanations?
If the superposition of EM wave is not by adding the amplitude, then, the only reason that I can think of is adding two photons together as particle-like. Then, in this case, how the EM wave undergoes constructive and destructive superposition and produces interference fringes?
In actual experiment, interference fringes do appear. Then, it should be another reason that causes the phenomenon. Does my description and interpretation make sense?
I have thought about this question for quite some time. the only reason I can think of is there shall be another phenomenon that causes it. That's why I put up my idea on a website for discussion. Although the current theory had been applied for many years, but I still have doubt on this matter, where sometime, it does not make sense.
Hi Laserlight,
Once the wavelength reaches visible wavelengths and beyond, it becomes difficult to "craft" "perfect" absorbers. With perfect absorbers, these are "ideally" tuned to absorb frequencies but it is not possible to prevent them re-emitting unless there are some special conditions to prevent that. In this case they are carbon blocks. If you read my post the secondary emission of radiation is not an issue here it is the primary absorption that we are referring to. My issue is...
Once the wavelength reaches visible wavelengths and beyond, it becomes difficult to "craft" "perfect" absorbers. With perfect absorbers, these are "ideally" tuned to absorb frequencies but it is not possible to prevent them re-emitting unless there are some special conditions to prevent that. In this case they are carbon blocks. If you read my post the secondary emission of radiation is not an issue here it is the primary absorption that we are referring to. My issue is...
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
It is precisely because sub-atomic entities are not black body absorbers that we have quantum behavior.
As to what colors a block of carbon reflect is an irrelevant and "stupid" question since emission and absorption are two separate processes. If you mean what photons are reflected from a blackbody?... then maybe not many but this was not the point. The reason a true blackbody absorber is black is because it absorbs all frequencies and does not remit them (at least in this case ... in the visible spectrum).
Once the energy is absorbed the energy will re-emit at lower frequencies according to the Black Body envelope at that temperature... in this case I presume they are useful frequencies... the Infra-Red or heat range for soaking the silicon blocks. For a start you have implied that these blocks are "heated" using polychromatic light of all colors? Then you said they were heated using Halogen sources... this is a very small subset of wavelengths. As to what they may reflect you have actually implied that they reflect no light at all since they are black. Carbon blocks often contain pores that can trap light and I have no idea what the microstructure of the blocks are. Just because the halogen sources appear white to your eyes, I can assure you they are not truly white with all optical frequencies in the same vein that fluorescent lights appear white to our eyes but are actually green (especially when you take a picture without a correction filter).
Here is the crucial test... If you can see the surface of the "blackbody" when it is in sunlight then I can assure you this is not a blackbody. Even more so when you can see the surface when illuminated with a halogen lamp. A true blackbody will not allow you to see its surface at all since it would have to prevent you from that by allowing absolutely no light you are using to see it with (visible spectrum) back into your eye.. The eye does not "cast beams" like some scanner at what it wants to see... the object itself must reflect or emit visible light in your direction in order for you to see it. One really good "black object" is a fine black fluffy velvet. So these blocks are neither truly black nor is it truly a blackbody, I will admit it is perceptively very "black" but that is not the same thing as what we are discussing, that is a matter for human psychology. Raising the temperature will not change that characteristic, it will remain visible. It is more likely that these blocks do fall into a class of reasonably useful objects but is no "ideal" blackbody. Unless you can tell me you see absolutely no trace of a surface just "utter blackness" it is not a true black body and is reflecting some light.
Blackbody Radiation
More Blackbody Radiation
We see everything including your black body will probably fail the visibility test, even black holes.
Like I said... I still stand bye what I said.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=234058
I would also say that human perception is a series of shortcuts evolution has taken... nice... not perfect. I advise spectroscopic analysis in these cases.
Cheers
Once the energy is absorbed the energy will re-emit at lower frequencies according to the Black Body envelope at that temperature... in this case I presume they are useful frequencies... the Infra-Red or heat range for soaking the silicon blocks. For a start you have implied that these blocks are "heated" using polychromatic light of all colors? Then you said they were heated using Halogen sources... this is a very small subset of wavelengths. As to what they may reflect you have actually implied that they reflect no light at all since they are black. Carbon blocks often contain pores that can trap light and I have no idea what the microstructure of the blocks are. Just because the halogen sources appear white to your eyes, I can assure you they are not truly white with all optical frequencies in the same vein that fluorescent lights appear white to our eyes but are actually green (especially when you take a picture without a correction filter).
Here is the crucial test... If you can see the surface of the "blackbody" when it is in sunlight then I can assure you this is not a blackbody. Even more so when you can see the surface when illuminated with a halogen lamp. A true blackbody will not allow you to see its surface at all since it would have to prevent you from that by allowing absolutely no light you are using to see it with (visible spectrum) back into your eye.. The eye does not "cast beams" like some scanner at what it wants to see... the object itself must reflect or emit visible light in your direction in order for you to see it. One really good "black object" is a fine black fluffy velvet. So these blocks are neither truly black nor is it truly a blackbody, I will admit it is perceptively very "black" but that is not the same thing as what we are discussing, that is a matter for human psychology. Raising the temperature will not change that characteristic, it will remain visible. It is more likely that these blocks do fall into a class of reasonably useful objects but is no "ideal" blackbody. Unless you can tell me you see absolutely no trace of a surface just "utter blackness" it is not a true black body and is reflecting some light.
Blackbody Radiation
More Blackbody Radiation
We see everything including your black body will probably fail the visibility test, even black holes.
Like I said... I still stand bye what I said.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=234058
I would also say that human perception is a series of shortcuts evolution has taken... nice... not perfect. I advise spectroscopic analysis in these cases.
Cheers
Before Einstein developed the theory of photon, the explanations on diffraction, interference of waves are accepted and claimed to follow the pattern and principle of particle wave. However, after Einstein developed the quantized photon theory, I found that the conventional method of explanations are not longer applicable.
The Stern-Gerlach experiment showed that this world is a quantized world. The convetional description of EM wave is not quantized. At that mean time, many debates were carried between Einstein and Bohr regarding particles and waves. where bohr supported that particle are wave-like, and sometime duality properties which causes many confusions on the characteristic of particles. Sometime can be particle, sometime can be wave, sometime, don't know particle or wave such as the interference fringes of electrons.
Then, I tried to change my way of thinking and started to see things on a different angle. I tried to quantized everything into particle-like, I found that quantized world is more easy to understand and convincing. There is no duality characteristics or confusion on which character shall be. Why not you also try to change your view by seeing quantized things in this quantized world?
In stead of saying particle can act like wave, why not we say that wave (photon) is a particle. things have became simple and easy to understand.
The Stern-Gerlach experiment showed that this world is a quantized world. The convetional description of EM wave is not quantized. At that mean time, many debates were carried between Einstein and Bohr regarding particles and waves. where bohr supported that particle are wave-like, and sometime duality properties which causes many confusions on the characteristic of particles. Sometime can be particle, sometime can be wave, sometime, don't know particle or wave such as the interference fringes of electrons.
Then, I tried to change my way of thinking and started to see things on a different angle. I tried to quantized everything into particle-like, I found that quantized world is more easy to understand and convincing. There is no duality characteristics or confusion on which character shall be. Why not you also try to change your view by seeing quantized things in this quantized world?
In stead of saying particle can act like wave, why not we say that wave (photon) is a particle. things have became simple and easy to understand.
Another question on photon. How the photon lose its energy?
1) Is it everytime when photon lose energy, it must be totally lost by giving all the energy of 'hf' in one goal? Or
2) it able to lose little bit by little bit with the change or reduction of frequency?
If the above question can be solved, then, it is easier to understand how a black body works. My tentatively answer is (2).
The energy transfer between object and photon is through transition of electron from different energy level. For a black object, if the visible photon absorption is at one goal, from one level to another level, then, there is possibility that the 'same' photon (in term of energy level) will be emitted and give away visible light. But, black body does not work in this way, therefore, I suggest answer (2).
1) Is it everytime when photon lose energy, it must be totally lost by giving all the energy of 'hf' in one goal? Or
2) it able to lose little bit by little bit with the change or reduction of frequency?
If the above question can be solved, then, it is easier to understand how a black body works. My tentatively answer is (2).
The energy transfer between object and photon is through transition of electron from different energy level. For a black object, if the visible photon absorption is at one goal, from one level to another level, then, there is possibility that the 'same' photon (in term of energy level) will be emitted and give away visible light. But, black body does not work in this way, therefore, I suggest answer (2).
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jul 8 2007, 08:36 AM)
Hi Laserlight,
Once the energy is absorbed the energy will re-emit at lower frequencies according to the Black Body envelope at that temperature... in this case I presume they are useful frequencies... the Infra-Red or heat range for soaking the silicon blocks. For a start you have implied that these blocks are "heated" using polychromatic light of all colors? Then you said they were heated using Halogen sources... this is a very small subset of wavelengths. As to what they may reflect you have actually implied that they reflect no light at all since they are black. Carbon blocks often contain pores that can trap light and I have no idea what the microstructure of the blocks are. Just because the halogen sources appear white to your eyes, I can assure you they are not truly white with all optical frequencies in the same vein that fluorescent lights appear white to our eyes but are actually green (especially when you take a picture without a correction filter).
Here is the crucial test... If you can see the surface of the "blackbody" when it is in sunlight then I can assure you this is not a blackbody. Even more so when you can see the surface when illuminated with a halogen lamp. A true blackbody will not allow you to see its surface at all since it would have to prevent you from that by allowing absolutely no light you are using to see it with (visible spectrum) back into your eye.. The eye does not "cast beams" like some scanner at what it wants to see... the object itself must reflect or emit visible light in your direction in order for you to see it. One really good "black object" is a fine black fluffy velvet. So these blocks are neither truly black nor is it truly a blackbody, I will admit it is perceptively very "black" but that is not the same thing as what we are discussing, that is a matter for human psychology. Raising the temperature will not change that characteristic, it will remain visible. It is more likely that these blocks do fall into a class of reasonably useful objects but is no "ideal" blackbody. Unless you can tell me you see absolutely no trace of a surface just "utter blackness" it is not a true black body and is reflecting some light.
Blackbody Radiation
More Blackbody Radiation
We see everything including your black body will probably fail the visibility test, even black holes.
Agree that black body absorb energy at visible range and re-emit at lower frequency range.
But, you can see a black body because relatively the surrounding is is not black or dark. If you are enclosed in a black body, although outside of black body is bright, you still unable to see the light and remain dark inside. But if you wear a infra-red goggles, you will see the black body.
However, I have one question. How a black body becomes a black body? It must be related and based on the atomic structure. If you have a very thin sheet of carbon, and place between your eyes and the sun, are you still able to see sunlight?
If you can see, then, another conclusion we can make is black object must have certain sufficient amount of 'mass' to make itself black.
If you add another piece of carbon sheet, the light intensity reduces and keep on adding until you cannot see the light, then the whole stack of carbon sheets now become a black body. What actually make this happen? My tentatively answer is:
When the light enter to the first layer of carbon sheet, some of the light is absorbed and some of the light is diffracted. the same process goes on until all the light are absorbed. Therefore, we can conclude that before the light are totally absorbed by the black body, it travels inside the black body. Or in another word is light is trapped within the atomic structure of black body, until it loses all its visible energy. Does this make sense to you?
Once the energy is absorbed the energy will re-emit at lower frequencies according to the Black Body envelope at that temperature... in this case I presume they are useful frequencies... the Infra-Red or heat range for soaking the silicon blocks. For a start you have implied that these blocks are "heated" using polychromatic light of all colors? Then you said they were heated using Halogen sources... this is a very small subset of wavelengths. As to what they may reflect you have actually implied that they reflect no light at all since they are black. Carbon blocks often contain pores that can trap light and I have no idea what the microstructure of the blocks are. Just because the halogen sources appear white to your eyes, I can assure you they are not truly white with all optical frequencies in the same vein that fluorescent lights appear white to our eyes but are actually green (especially when you take a picture without a correction filter).
Here is the crucial test... If you can see the surface of the "blackbody" when it is in sunlight then I can assure you this is not a blackbody. Even more so when you can see the surface when illuminated with a halogen lamp. A true blackbody will not allow you to see its surface at all since it would have to prevent you from that by allowing absolutely no light you are using to see it with (visible spectrum) back into your eye.. The eye does not "cast beams" like some scanner at what it wants to see... the object itself must reflect or emit visible light in your direction in order for you to see it. One really good "black object" is a fine black fluffy velvet. So these blocks are neither truly black nor is it truly a blackbody, I will admit it is perceptively very "black" but that is not the same thing as what we are discussing, that is a matter for human psychology. Raising the temperature will not change that characteristic, it will remain visible. It is more likely that these blocks do fall into a class of reasonably useful objects but is no "ideal" blackbody. Unless you can tell me you see absolutely no trace of a surface just "utter blackness" it is not a true black body and is reflecting some light.
Blackbody Radiation
More Blackbody Radiation
We see everything including your black body will probably fail the visibility test, even black holes.
Agree that black body absorb energy at visible range and re-emit at lower frequency range.
But, you can see a black body because relatively the surrounding is is not black or dark. If you are enclosed in a black body, although outside of black body is bright, you still unable to see the light and remain dark inside. But if you wear a infra-red goggles, you will see the black body.
However, I have one question. How a black body becomes a black body? It must be related and based on the atomic structure. If you have a very thin sheet of carbon, and place between your eyes and the sun, are you still able to see sunlight?
If you can see, then, another conclusion we can make is black object must have certain sufficient amount of 'mass' to make itself black.
If you add another piece of carbon sheet, the light intensity reduces and keep on adding until you cannot see the light, then the whole stack of carbon sheets now become a black body. What actually make this happen? My tentatively answer is:
When the light enter to the first layer of carbon sheet, some of the light is absorbed and some of the light is diffracted. the same process goes on until all the light are absorbed. Therefore, we can conclude that before the light are totally absorbed by the black body, it travels inside the black body. Or in another word is light is trapped within the atomic structure of black body, until it loses all its visible energy. Does this make sense to you?
Hi kokhaw, Laserlight et al,
Sorry, there are some very fine points being discussed here and it is not immediately obvious that some ideas are very subtle indeed. With over 200 pages of discussion and growing it is very hard to get a handle on things. The banter between Laserlight and myself is of a friendly nature though we each hold different ideas. There is a process here regarding the basic nature of the quantum ... where it comes from and how it plays a role in sub-nuclear events within shells. With large scale quanta like those emitted "artificially" by radio stations, their size is such that they can be absorbed by almost anything in our environment because absorbers simply are sinks for the dipole radiation. These are mostly unseen but ubiquitous. When you reach the scale of atoms, around optical frequencies, the actual geometry of matter itself define the emitters and absorbers of radiation. These occur in such a way to limit what can be produced as optical frequencies and also restrict what may be absorbed. There are also "mirrors".
The process of absorption has to be described using a theory derived by Max Planck where at all scales there is no continuum of frequencies but instead there are a series of harmonic oscillators. This direction solved many problems in quantum physics and it still has use today. Einstein's contribution was the photoelectric effect. Both theories utilize the equation E = hf. The question is why the photons carrying E = hf energy do this. It is seen that the photon carries an impulse and an impulse function in the time domain is a sync function in the frequency domain. These are related through "harmonics on a sphere" and Fourier Theory. The emission of a photon is like a sudden blow with a hammer and the wave associated with it is "packetized" and finite and is expressed as a sync function. Not all photons are this simple but most naturally occurring optical photons are like this and the particle is like the impulse and the wave is like the sync function. They are really the same entity but they do not exist together because they are from different "domains".
This is very simplified but it expresses some of the points under discussion. The big point here is exactly what are blackbody absorbers and what photons are absorbed by them. While it quite easy to see a black object it is not truly black if you see its surface. I suppose the blackest object we can "see" is the night sky on a moonless night in a place where there are no visible stars, it has not "obvious" surface you can see. Also the argument about "mirrors" is unfamiliar to most since this has nothing to do with bedroom mirrors except in a very superficial way. An atom of a certain size will intercept a photon of a particular wavelength but its abilities to absorb it depends on an available empty energy level. If one exists then it is a perfect absorber at that frequency but until the photon is released, plus a latency period, it becomes a perfect mirror. Otherwise the atom has no available shells yet it is of a size that could "block" its passage, so it still will be a perfect mirror. So even the blackest object is sometimes a mirror while it is in that "holding a photon state"... or its latency. The "blackbody" is just a mental construct not a physical reality. Why perfect? ... Because the absorption of quanta is "all or nothing". This is counter intuitive to those not familiar to this line of argument so I will not belabor the point since you can do some reading about this topic if you wish.
Cheers
Sorry, there are some very fine points being discussed here and it is not immediately obvious that some ideas are very subtle indeed. With over 200 pages of discussion and growing it is very hard to get a handle on things. The banter between Laserlight and myself is of a friendly nature though we each hold different ideas. There is a process here regarding the basic nature of the quantum ... where it comes from and how it plays a role in sub-nuclear events within shells. With large scale quanta like those emitted "artificially" by radio stations, their size is such that they can be absorbed by almost anything in our environment because absorbers simply are sinks for the dipole radiation. These are mostly unseen but ubiquitous. When you reach the scale of atoms, around optical frequencies, the actual geometry of matter itself define the emitters and absorbers of radiation. These occur in such a way to limit what can be produced as optical frequencies and also restrict what may be absorbed. There are also "mirrors".
The process of absorption has to be described using a theory derived by Max Planck where at all scales there is no continuum of frequencies but instead there are a series of harmonic oscillators. This direction solved many problems in quantum physics and it still has use today. Einstein's contribution was the photoelectric effect. Both theories utilize the equation E = hf. The question is why the photons carrying E = hf energy do this. It is seen that the photon carries an impulse and an impulse function in the time domain is a sync function in the frequency domain. These are related through "harmonics on a sphere" and Fourier Theory. The emission of a photon is like a sudden blow with a hammer and the wave associated with it is "packetized" and finite and is expressed as a sync function. Not all photons are this simple but most naturally occurring optical photons are like this and the particle is like the impulse and the wave is like the sync function. They are really the same entity but they do not exist together because they are from different "domains".
This is very simplified but it expresses some of the points under discussion. The big point here is exactly what are blackbody absorbers and what photons are absorbed by them. While it quite easy to see a black object it is not truly black if you see its surface. I suppose the blackest object we can "see" is the night sky on a moonless night in a place where there are no visible stars, it has not "obvious" surface you can see. Also the argument about "mirrors" is unfamiliar to most since this has nothing to do with bedroom mirrors except in a very superficial way. An atom of a certain size will intercept a photon of a particular wavelength but its abilities to absorb it depends on an available empty energy level. If one exists then it is a perfect absorber at that frequency but until the photon is released, plus a latency period, it becomes a perfect mirror. Otherwise the atom has no available shells yet it is of a size that could "block" its passage, so it still will be a perfect mirror. So even the blackest object is sometimes a mirror while it is in that "holding a photon state"... or its latency. The "blackbody" is just a mental construct not a physical reality. Why perfect? ... Because the absorption of quanta is "all or nothing". This is counter intuitive to those not familiar to this line of argument so I will not belabor the point since you can do some reading about this topic if you wish.
Cheers
Hello Good Elf,et al.
In an enclosed room with no light it is dark. You understand that the lack of light is darkness. Therefore, anything that does not reflect or emit light is also dark.
If you view a black body object (with the light source behind you) against a black body background can you still see the object?
If you view the same black body object with a white background then the object can be seen. The mind sees a black object.
The mind can also be fooled if the object is the same color as the background.
Stars are also modeled as black body radiators which is why we give different sources of light a temperature value depending on the average/center frequency of the emitted light.
P.S. Hope you are feeling better.
In an enclosed room with no light it is dark. You understand that the lack of light is darkness. Therefore, anything that does not reflect or emit light is also dark.
If you view a black body object (with the light source behind you) against a black body background can you still see the object?
If you view the same black body object with a white background then the object can be seen. The mind sees a black object.
The mind can also be fooled if the object is the same color as the background.
Stars are also modeled as black body radiators which is why we give different sources of light a temperature value depending on the average/center frequency of the emitted light.
P.S. Hope you are feeling better.
Hi GE,
Again you have mischaracterized what I said and have twisted it. Perhaps it
is your interpretation of what I stated, but I was trying to be very clear.
I don't understand how you came to such a conclusion, because it in no way
reflects what I said, and I suggest you read my post again.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=234226
GE stated:
I did not state or intentionally infer that matter dissipates or radiates
away to nothing (but isn't that a theory of Hawking radiation and the eventual
energy dissipation of a black hole?). You are basing your argument on a
misinterpretation of what I actually stated, which was:
I did not state or intentionally infer that matter dissipates or radiates
away to nothing (but isn't that a theory of Hawking radiation and the eventual
energy dissipation of a black hole?). You are basing your argument on a
misinterpretation of what I actually stated, which was:
This implies that matter standing waves, are resonant radiating energy oscillations
that are being coupled to space, and that oscillate in phase with the atomic resonance.
It also suggests that the energy amplitude of these standing waves
dampens with increasing distance from the source.
In effect, we have a dampened spherical energy field coupling from a resonant
atomic source to surrounding space, which distorts the electrical and optical
characteristics of that space. If this is true for a single atom, consider the
consequences on spacetime, that would be developed by massive objects.
If you look at the graphics on the links that Zephir and Yquantum provided, you will
observe that the cross-sectional view of the waves indeed does show that the
intensity of the matter waves does dampen as a function of distance from the
the center of source.
http://www.glafreniere.com/images/electron.5_couleur.gif
Perhaps I could have been more clear with this statement:
What that statement was inferring, but was not directly stated, is that matter is
resonantly coupling to the ZPE of proximity space. This is a resonance
phenomenon, where two energy sources (the energy contained in matter, and the
ZPE of space) are regeneratively coupling at some fixed frequency that is
determined by the matter component. The ZPE of space vibrates in response
to matter. "Space" is disturbed by the matter vibrations, absorbs them and then
responds by "reflecting" that energy back to matter.
This is why a matter standing wave is formed. Space is resisting a change
(impedance) of energy state. It does this by a sympathetic resonant absorption
and reflection process. The EM wave energy component that is distorting space, is
being energetically reflected back to the source, so there is no net energy loss,
it stays contained in the interplay of the resonance system. The vibrational
EM wave energy is coupling in both directions. It is the perfect analogy of a
vibrating spring, where no energy is lost.
What that statement was inferring, but was not directly stated, is that matter is
resonantly coupling to the ZPE of proximity space. This is a resonance
phenomenon, where two energy sources (the energy contained in matter, and the
ZPE of space) are regeneratively coupling at some fixed frequency that is
determined by the matter component. The ZPE of space vibrates in response
to matter. "Space" is disturbed by the matter vibrations, absorbs them and then
responds by "reflecting" that energy back to matter.
This is why a matter standing wave is formed. Space is resisting a change
(impedance) of energy state. It does this by a sympathetic resonant absorption
and reflection process. The EM wave energy component that is distorting space, is
being energetically reflected back to the source, so there is no net energy loss,
it stays contained in the interplay of the resonance system. The vibrational
EM wave energy is coupling in both directions. It is the perfect analogy of a
vibrating spring, where no energy is lost.
"Spatial standing waves" implies a fixed, average, volumetric energy density that
represents an elevated value above the baseline energy background of spacetime.
If this premise is correct it infers a change of refractive index of the space
being energetically "filled". Also, if we note that all atomic matter displays inate
characteristics of spherical "geometry", or topology, then these "standing waves"
must uniformly radiate outward from a spherical from a focal point, as they
couple to space.
This may be the statement that caused the misinterpretation. I did not
elaborate on the process of ZPE space reflecting the wave energy back to the
source.
I think that we both agree, that standing waves can only occur when emitted
wave energy is reflected back to the source, with the wave energy
superposed in phase, and that this is a resonant timing process.
I am stating that resonance occurs even in the case of damped waves that
follow the ISL.
EM wave energy coupling works in both directions, by virtue of resonance.
It is an equalization process, and therefore no energy is lost in the transfer.
Comments? Discussion?
LL
Again you have mischaracterized what I said and have twisted it. Perhaps it
is your interpretation of what I stated, but I was trying to be very clear.
I don't understand how you came to such a conclusion, because it in no way
reflects what I said, and I suggest you read my post again.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=234226
GE stated:
QUOTE
No... you have taken this the wrong way. True matter waves do not radiate away into space since they are spatial standing waves. Recall Feynman and Wheeler's Advanced and Retarded potentials approaching from different directions than ordinary space. Sources radiate electromagnetic waves only intermittently, most of their life they are non-emitters, and the material substance of the source must stay in place. In my interpretation of this process the matter itself .... the solid stuff... is the matter waves. Of course you must strip the "matter" of all those other properties we have come to recognize such as color, luster, charge, hardness, temperature etc which are features of Quantum Electrodynamics and what is left is something aside from those photonic interactions.... A presence and spatial distribution. I am not sure about "solidity" in an abstract sense since we attribute that to virtual photons when we try and crush something. Since matter waves are "like" electromagnetic waves and are closely aligned to electromagnetic waves I expect that there are some short range forces there that have been formerly "lumped in with other kinds of electromagnetism".
The other obvious reason why this wave does not "radiate away" is simple ... since the physical presence is due to this matter wave and is not simply something a particle "exudes" then if it radiated away the matter would "dissipate" with time. In fact the "matter" is in a "stationary state",
The other obvious reason why this wave does not "radiate away" is simple ... since the physical presence is due to this matter wave and is not simply something a particle "exudes" then if it radiated away the matter would "dissipate" with time. In fact the "matter" is in a "stationary state",
I did not state or intentionally infer that matter dissipates or radiates
away to nothing (but isn't that a theory of Hawking radiation and the eventual
energy dissipation of a black hole?). You are basing your argument on a
misinterpretation of what I actually stated, which was:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No... you have taken this the wrong way. True matter waves do not radiate away into space since they are spatial standing waves. Recall Feynman and Wheeler's Advanced and Retarded potentials approaching from different directions than ordinary space. Sources radiate electromagnetic waves only intermittently, most of their life they are non-emitters, and the material substance of the source must stay in place. In my interpretation of this process the matter itself .... the solid stuff... is the matter waves. Of course you must strip the "matter" of all those other properties we have come to recognize such as color, luster, charge, hardness, temperature etc which are features of Quantum Electrodynamics and what is left is something aside from those photonic interactions.... A presence and spatial distribution. I am not sure about "solidity" in an abstract sense since we attribute that to virtual photons when we try and crush something. Since matter waves are "like" electromagnetic waves and are closely aligned to electromagnetic waves I expect that there are some short range forces there that have been formerly "lumped in with other kinds of electromagnetism". The other obvious reason why this wave does not "radiate away" is simple ... since the physical presence is due to this matter wave and is not simply something a particle "exudes" then if it radiated away the matter would "dissipate" with time. In fact the "matter" is in a "stationary state", |
I did not state or intentionally infer that matter dissipates or radiates
away to nothing (but isn't that a theory of Hawking radiation and the eventual
energy dissipation of a black hole?). You are basing your argument on a
misinterpretation of what I actually stated, which was:
This implies that matter standing waves, are resonant radiating energy oscillations
that are being coupled to space, and that oscillate in phase with the atomic resonance.
It also suggests that the energy amplitude of these standing waves
dampens with increasing distance from the source.
In effect, we have a dampened spherical energy field coupling from a resonant
atomic source to surrounding space, which distorts the electrical and optical
characteristics of that space. If this is true for a single atom, consider the
consequences on spacetime, that would be developed by massive objects.
If you look at the graphics on the links that Zephir and Yquantum provided, you will
observe that the cross-sectional view of the waves indeed does show that the
intensity of the matter waves does dampen as a function of distance from the
the center of source.
http://www.glafreniere.com/images/electron.5_couleur.gif
Perhaps I could have been more clear with this statement:
QUOTE
This implies that matter standing waves, are resonant radiating energy
oscillations that are being coupled to space, and that oscillate in phase with the atomic resonance.
oscillations that are being coupled to space, and that oscillate in phase with the atomic resonance.
What that statement was inferring, but was not directly stated, is that matter is
resonantly coupling to the ZPE of proximity space. This is a resonance
phenomenon, where two energy sources (the energy contained in matter, and the
ZPE of space) are regeneratively coupling at some fixed frequency that is
determined by the matter component. The ZPE of space vibrates in response
to matter. "Space" is disturbed by the matter vibrations, absorbs them and then
responds by "reflecting" that energy back to matter.
This is why a matter standing wave is formed. Space is resisting a change
(impedance) of energy state. It does this by a sympathetic resonant absorption
and reflection process. The EM wave energy component that is distorting space, is
being energetically reflected back to the source, so there is no net energy loss,
it stays contained in the interplay of the resonance system. The vibrational
EM wave energy is coupling in both directions. It is the perfect analogy of a
vibrating spring, where no energy is lost.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This implies that matter standing waves, are resonant radiating energy oscillations that are being coupled to space, and that oscillate in phase with the atomic resonance. |
What that statement was inferring, but was not directly stated, is that matter is
resonantly coupling to the ZPE of proximity space. This is a resonance
phenomenon, where two energy sources (the energy contained in matter, and the
ZPE of space) are regeneratively coupling at some fixed frequency that is
determined by the matter component. The ZPE of space vibrates in response
to matter. "Space" is disturbed by the matter vibrations, absorbs them and then
responds by "reflecting" that energy back to matter.
This is why a matter standing wave is formed. Space is resisting a change
(impedance) of energy state. It does this by a sympathetic resonant absorption
and reflection process. The EM wave energy component that is distorting space, is
being energetically reflected back to the source, so there is no net energy loss,
it stays contained in the interplay of the resonance system. The vibrational
EM wave energy is coupling in both directions. It is the perfect analogy of a
vibrating spring, where no energy is lost.
"Spatial standing waves" implies a fixed, average, volumetric energy density that
represents an elevated value above the baseline energy background of spacetime.
If this premise is correct it infers a change of refractive index of the space
being energetically "filled". Also, if we note that all atomic matter displays inate
characteristics of spherical "geometry", or topology, then these "standing waves"
must uniformly radiate outward from a spherical from a focal point, as they
couple to space.
This may be the statement that caused the misinterpretation. I did not
elaborate on the process of ZPE space reflecting the wave energy back to the
source.
I think that we both agree, that standing waves can only occur when emitted
wave energy is reflected back to the source, with the wave energy
superposed in phase, and that this is a resonant timing process.
I am stating that resonance occurs even in the case of damped waves that
follow the ISL.
EM wave energy coupling works in both directions, by virtue of resonance.
It is an equalization process, and therefore no energy is lost in the transfer.
Comments? Discussion?
LL
Hello kokhaw, et al.
The thin sheet of carbon will only absorb a finite amount of energy per unit time. This is because the excited state will take time to convert/emit the energy in another form/frequency. In the excited state the carbon is transparent to the incoming light. So you need enough layers/thickness to allow the first layer/surface to reset to a low energy state. The intensity of the incident light also plays a part in determining the number of layers/(thickness) of the carbon sheet.
I believe the passive dye-cell Q-switch used in lasers can be explained in this manner. The saturation of the dye is the key to understanding this phenomenon.
The thin sheet of carbon will only absorb a finite amount of energy per unit time. This is because the excited state will take time to convert/emit the energy in another form/frequency. In the excited state the carbon is transparent to the incoming light. So you need enough layers/thickness to allow the first layer/surface to reset to a low energy state. The intensity of the incident light also plays a part in determining the number of layers/(thickness) of the carbon sheet.
I believe the passive dye-cell Q-switch used in lasers can be explained in this manner. The saturation of the dye is the key to understanding this phenomenon.
Hello all
I still can't shake the idea that particles (fermions) are EM waves where the M wave travels in the time dimension and there is a delay in the coupling of the E and M wave that results in a harmonic condition between the 3D dimension and the T dimension. The magnetic fields would prevent particle on top of particle interaction unless the polarities of the magnetic fields where reversed. Matter waves are the result of the magnetic fields in the T dimension interacting.
I am still questing for knowledge though.
I still can't shake the idea that particles (fermions) are EM waves where the M wave travels in the time dimension and there is a delay in the coupling of the E and M wave that results in a harmonic condition between the 3D dimension and the T dimension. The magnetic fields would prevent particle on top of particle interaction unless the polarities of the magnetic fields where reversed. Matter waves are the result of the magnetic fields in the T dimension interacting.
I am still questing for knowledge though.
Hi kokhaw,
Probably best is to look at the Feynman lectures here:- http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 . I've only just acquired the technology so I've only seen the first and half the second (my network couldn't keep up .. I'll try again later). So far they seem pretty much the same as written out in the book 'QED' .. but for me they seem easier to follow (so far) in lecture form (also more fun). If it isn't in those lectures (or the book) then I don't know .. probably best to go directly to the source.
It might be worth starting a thread just for discussion of those lectures.
Best wishes - C2.
Probably best is to look at the Feynman lectures here:- http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 . I've only just acquired the technology so I've only seen the first and half the second (my network couldn't keep up .. I'll try again later). So far they seem pretty much the same as written out in the book 'QED' .. but for me they seem easier to follow (so far) in lecture form (also more fun). If it isn't in those lectures (or the book) then I don't know .. probably best to go directly to the source.
It might be worth starting a thread just for discussion of those lectures.
Best wishes - C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Jul 8 2007, 07:55 PM)
Hi kokhaw,
Probably best is to look at the Feynman lectures here:- http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 . I've only just acquired the technology so I've only seen the first and half the second (my network couldn't keep up .. I'll try again later). So far they seem pretty much the same as written out in the book 'QED' .. but for me they seem easier to follow (so far) in lecture form (also more fun). If it isn't in those lectures (or the book) then I don't know .. probably best to go directly to the source.
It might be worth starting a thread just for discussion of those lectures.
Best wishes - C2.
The Truth is out there......Why did they wait so long?
Probably best is to look at the Feynman lectures here:- http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 . I've only just acquired the technology so I've only seen the first and half the second (my network couldn't keep up .. I'll try again later). So far they seem pretty much the same as written out in the book 'QED' .. but for me they seem easier to follow (so far) in lecture form (also more fun). If it isn't in those lectures (or the book) then I don't know .. probably best to go directly to the source.
It might be worth starting a thread just for discussion of those lectures.
Best wishes - C2.
The Truth is out there......Why did they wait so long?
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Jul 9 2007, 08:49 AM)
The Truth is out there
Pity you never use it.
Is this your first ever post on tis thread Terry?
Funny, you have claimed to have solved the Double Slit experiment.
You claim to be famous with the "Terry Giblin Double Slit Experiment".
Noone seems to have heard of you.
Why don't you share your knowledge here Terry?
Pity you never use it.
Is this your first ever post on tis thread Terry?
Funny, you have claimed to have solved the Double Slit experiment.
You claim to be famous with the "Terry Giblin Double Slit Experiment".
Noone seems to have heard of you.
Why don't you share your knowledge here Terry?
Hi all,
I see the "perception issue" has come back again. Continuing to use the "ideal" (for children) definitions of these topics, after you have been exposed to the more complex truth, is going to continue to cause problems, especially for the "newer" students. (we are all students)
Here is the VISIBLE spectrum. This is created by REAL transitions by electrons.
There is NO BLACK; there is NO WHITE. Those are "perceptions" that exist OUTSIDE of the spectrum that can be produced by atoms/electrons. Certain geometries of fermions can produce these perceptions. Bosons, to use standard model terminologies, are limited to the above spectrum.
There is NO BLACK-BODY; not in Science, not anywhere.
What is called a "black body", is actually just a Helmholtz resonator, or cavity. This is NO DIFFERENT than blowing across a jug or bottle, and getting a tone (frequency) that is dependent on the size of the jug. This is because of allowed whole wavelength modes available, and the interactions (interference) of said frequencies, which can be predicted by Resonance and/or a Planck curve.
I say "Planck curve", because this is the standard accepted "modern" explanation, and literally seeded the concept of "quantum mechanics". Unfortunately, this "theory" already existed in the fairly recent branch of Science known as "Music", which was "booted out" of the family before around 1600.
Music is the "older brother" of the family; the "prodigal Son", as it were. When Music and Math were young, Music used to change diapers, fill the bottle, etc. for Math. Later, Music showed Math the concepts of the "vibrating string", with its' oscillating differentials, and "sympathetic vibration" manifesting physical movement.
After Music grew up, and left the house, Math was left alone. Music had shown Math an abstract world that was accessible to the higher mind. Music had shown that there is more than just "physical counting" to life.
However, Music was not around when Math was older, and taking care of the newest child: Physics. The "inner secrets" were forgotten, and abstraction grew to replace logic.
As we all know, Music went out and got rich on its' own. It found its' quantization before 1700 (200+ yrs before Planck), and the rest is History. ( ok, it's QM )
Now, if Uncle Euler was still alive at that time, perhaps he would have seen the answer to this problem of "consonance", or why certain tones are "pleasing" together, while others are not. You can see CLEARLY, that this was a "perception" issue. HE saw it, but not until the end, and not with the advantage of a discrete and equal interval (nor with accurate frequency counts, and computers).
He tried to weed through (as did many others) this "perception" problem, and directly address the PHYSICS/MATH behind it, but to no avail. The best that was put forth was the term "minimally even", when describing the DIFFERENCE between COINCIDENTAL BLOWS. This was "proved" with a heavy dose of complex mathematics.
In modern terminology, coincidental blows = constructive interference of in phase waves. The difference between them is a Beat-frequency (Bf). One will quickly come to the understanding that "zero" is the limit for a Bf, and that this value is describing complete/full Resonance. The modern problem arises from the misconception of "destructive interference", which could just as easily be stated as "total absorption". There is nothing left of the original wave in these terms.
It seems that "zero" is the limit of these terms as well.
If you think that it would be very hard to come up with some logical mathematics that can accurately describe this "oscillation between zero and zero", you are absolutely correct. They have done quite a job though, you must admit! Unfortunately, in the end, they give us "probabilities" that can interact with each other and accumulate to produce the "maximally probable", which is not much better than "minimally even", in my book.
One will find that, "hidden" inside these concepts (maximally probable/minimally even) is the FACT that they are COMPARISONS to an established reference; the "fundamental axis" IS the shortest route/least effort, and the "fundamental note" IS the lowest energy/least effort that an "excited" (inject energy/frequency) system will "relax" back to.
TOTAL CONSERVATION REQUIRES TOTAL RE-CYCLING. In the end, the Laws of Thermodynamics REQUIRE a non-linear approach, in order to satisfy this principle. This is Harmony, and our search for it extends far past Quantum Mechanics, and into our Political/Economic/Social/Spiritual paradigms.
"Este la vida."
In order to better understand "black and white", you must learn MANY different concepts, and none of them are entirely simple, or "unified" as of yet. "Transparent" has an important role in all of this too.
Here are a few tidbits to ponder:
Black absorbs all VISIBLE light, showing its' connection to our PERCEPTION.
It is re-emitting at both higher and lower frequencies, however.
This can be DIRECTLY OBSERVED as "magenta" in the near field of refracted (by prism) light. This is interaction of UV and IR light, whose harmonics (due to partial absorption in the cornea/lens) excite our "min & max" rods, which then BEAT to produce a color that is not "in the spectrum".
An interesting thing about "perception": there MUST be "something" there to perceive. If there is no "matter", then there can not be any "light" perceived. We ARE NOT talking about "illusions" here, and the difference is not trivial.
If anyone is mentally on track with this, you should wonder why I describe "magenta" as a Beat, and not a Sum. Well, this is because it must be in the bandwidth of our perception, in order to be perceived. It can NOT be of a frequency that is higher than visible light; it MUST BE within it. If you understand the "octave", and how it applies to the visible band, you will see that this Beat would have the same frequency as "green", and indeed, our eyes have this EXACT patterned response with green and magenta.
Are there any more experiments that can confirm this? Absolutely; we have seen the paper talking about "phase vortex singularities", and how reversing them would appear to us as magenta, in an "inverse rainbow" with cyan and yellow at the extremes, and violet and red being superimposed. The "black light sand-which" experiment, as well as the the refracted image of the Falico Soliton on the surface of a pool confirm this principle too.
One that you can do "for free" (if you already have a green glass & lamp) is this: in a room with just one source of light, cast through a green "filter", observe the green light cast onto a white wall. Preferably, close enough to also be able to see normal "shadow", or near darkness around the green "cone" of light.
Now, place an opaque object (your finger will do) between the light and the wall, and you will see that this new "shadow", within the green cone, is magenta. This may require you to have a red reference handy (within sight), so that you can discern the subtle difference (in shadows) of these colors.
The Scientific answer to this requires bringing "polarization" into the discussion, and the REVERSAL of phase, both which happen upon "reflection" (which is better understood as absorption/re-emission).
You can see that the "color wheel", that has been used as a guide for color mixing for over 200 years, is still include in Physics Textbooks for a good reason: IT WORKS. There has been NO MATH to describe this phenomenon. According to current "trends", this should mean that it has no "proof".
You will recall that green and magenta hold an inverse relationship on these "wheel charts". You will recall that frequency alone, can not fully describe a wave, you must also have its' inverse, the wavelength, in mind. You will recall that the product of these 2 terms is a "constant" in the "ideal vacuum", and in the REAL world, the refraction index makes every (different) frequency travel at different velocities. However, green and magenta will travel at the same speed.
This is a huge clue to the non-linearity of curved space, and the "equilibrium" state that is reached to produce a constant velocity. Maxwell's equations also show that an EM wave INTERACTION with the "medium" (the impedance of space) will produce the same constant velocity. Now that we KNOW that the "medium" is NEVER empty, we can then understand that the "ideal" impedance never exists. (not even between bound electrons, or nucleus)
When we "align" our equipment just right, we get our "beam" going in a straight line between source and detector. This is our "fundamental axis", and is only valid for our "ideal frequency". You see, this PERCEPTION of constant velocity requires a straight path from point A to point B, and an adjustment for the RI (when using a quasi-monochromatic source). Any deviation from in the path INCREASES the pathlength, and DECREASES the velocity that would have been measured on the straight line. This pathlength increase, as C2 has been clinging to, can be an indicator of the concepts of "const. & destr. interference", and even, with enough "idealization", can predict the outcome of the DSE.
Tell me C2 (or anybody), with what calipers are we measuring the distance from slit to screen with, to the nanometer?
What physical phenomenon is EXACTLY responsible for the arbitrary division of the plane wave into EXACT angles that produce whole number of wavelength differences in the "new source (slit)" spherical wave front?
You see, the new, post-slit, expanding spherical wavefront will "explore all paths" in this cavity, at a constant (as measured from any equidistant detector) velocity, at ALL angles. There are NO GAPS in this model, to produce "voids" where no "photons" are incident. That is the whole point of describing this as an interaction, or interference of "photons", because there is light incident on the ENTIRE area, yet only distinct (fringe pattern) parts get absorbed/re-emitted totally unchanged.
We KNOW, from the accuracy of QM, that the transitions in states of bound electrons are EXACT. This is the "perfect mirror" that GE is talking about. What is absorbed is re-emitted, precisely. Yes, there are "above" energies that can be absorbed as heat, etc., but NEVER "below" the minimum (work function). We also KNOW that superposition (of incident "photons") can change the velocity of an ejected electron, but not its' frequency (kinetic, but not potential energy).
The bottom line: the electrons (detectors) can only duplicate the energy incident upon them, when it matches an available transition state.
The Copenhagen Interpretation says "that's all there is, folks; move along..". If it is not "measured", then it is NOT.
The Resonant Interpretation says "superposition can fool the measurer", and since we are not the direct measurer, in this case, we must "interpret the data" with logic, and assign simple, abstract values (math) to our logic. Not assign abstract logic, and complex math, to such a simple phenomenon as "resonance".
There are very few ways to "fool the measurer", mathematically, by superposition. Euler's' "coincident blows", and Pythagoras' "harmonic ratios" both give great insight, but have the same, tragic flaw: they did not have accurate measurements available to them, especially concerning velocity of waves. It was just assumed to be constant. Note the irony there, in regards to the same assumption made by Einstein, which led to great insights as well.
Assuming constant velocity arranges the frequencies in order, because of the time dependency of frequency and velocity. Indeed, an ordered bandwidth of energy will excite the specific transitions available, in "quantum clicks". So much for the need of the quantum field "photon".
HOWEVER, when you bring superposition into the picture, the ORDER can be changed, meaning the order that the "clicks" are made. The ground state electron is seeking the #1 transition energy, and rejecting all other energy.
The indistinguishability of superimposed "photons" means that special combinations of them can "fool" the electron's energy requirement. This fooling is in the equation E = hf , where any number of superimposed "photons" can produce the correct " f ". ALL OTHER combinations would be "ignored". producing the "dark state", or the concept of "black perception".
Black/darkness is energy "spreading" (anti-bunching) to the point of our inability to perceive. This is actually a very small amount, never more than /2 any visible frequency. The energy is "diffuse", and below our threshold. Black-noise.
White/brightness is energy concentrating (bunching), to the point of "saturation" of our sensitivity to color. This is actually a very small amount, never more than x2 any visible frequency. The energy is "diffuse", and above our threshold. White-noise.
You can see that both of these concepts are "equilibrium states", either above, or below our threshold of perception. When the equilibrium is IN the visible spectrum, we can have "transparency", or clear light, existing between us and our "colored" physical world.
The inverse quality of a wave measurement creates a "duality". The working model of the "color wheel" says that for fermions (subtractive; physical color), when white light is incident on a green body, this green "absorbs all colors except green" (which is the only re-emitted color). Forget about the concept of "black" when talking about "photons". The inverse of "absorbing all colors except green" is reflecting all colors except green, or absorbing all colors except magenta.
This last statement is a better description of what we terms as "black", because magenta can be seen in the near field (immediately after absorption/re-emission) of a "black" surface (isolated on a white background, and observed by refraction through a prism). It is in observing this "cross-over", from the Fresnel to the Fraunhofer zones, in real time, and fully reversible, that we can directly see where our "dualities" of white/black come from.
I know I've gone on too long, but just one more thing about linearity, duality.
If we take any wavelengthh of visible light (or any), for example 5.47e-7 , and multiply it by 2 (creating harmonics) just 70 times, we get
5.47e-7 x 2^70 = 6.45e+14
Translated by our current model, the 70th "upper" harmonic of "green" is "blue".
The slope of n x 2^70 is linear.
If this makes no sense, then good!, you've got your thinking cap on.
Fortunately, if we take the correct frequency of "green" and divide it by 2^70, we get
5.43e+14 / 2^70 (or x 2^-70) = 4.599e-7
so, the 70th "lower" harmonic of "green" is "blue" as well, giving us some symmetry to work with. Obviously, the opposite is true for blue, as for green. Not so obviously, so do all other frequencies have this "non-linear" relationship. If you "measure" this resonance linearly, you will not get "the big picture".
The "big picture" is that, by trusting our perception of "green" to be "constant", that is, our frequency and wavelength measurements, then only a non-linear symmetry will produce a constant velocity that we measure.
Every pair of "frequency and wavelength" measurement must be inverse, and have the product of c , a constant ratio. At the fundamental level, from first principle, the inverse relationship of ratios does not show its symmetry when measured by the "linear quanta" of our decimal system, AND the full range of inverse mathematics of [ + - ] and [ x / ].
"Standard" resonance of 1:2, 2:1 converges. Use EITHER inverse quantitative concept of "positive and negative" numbers, OR "multiply and divide", but not both.
1:3 = 1/3 = .333
3:1 = 3/1 = 3
3:5 = 3/5 = .6
5:3 = 5/3 = 1.66
etc.
You can not take these inverse ratios, and apply "several levels" of inverse methodology, and maintain the original symmetry. Why is this important? Because the constant values of "angles of reflection/diffraction/refraction", etc., dictate that our ratios are maintained throughout these phenomenon. (especially path length : wavelength)
While certainly (and obviously) of great value, calculus / zero / sq rt -1 , etc., creates more degrees of freedom, and complexity than actually exist at the fundamental level.
I would suggest replacing the "+ & - " phase space of the sine wave with the helical winding of a different continuous curve. (but this is just for "conceptual" value)
regards,
T.Roc
I see the "perception issue" has come back again. Continuing to use the "ideal" (for children) definitions of these topics, after you have been exposed to the more complex truth, is going to continue to cause problems, especially for the "newer" students. (we are all students)
Here is the VISIBLE spectrum. This is created by REAL transitions by electrons.
There is NO BLACK; there is NO WHITE. Those are "perceptions" that exist OUTSIDE of the spectrum that can be produced by atoms/electrons. Certain geometries of fermions can produce these perceptions. Bosons, to use standard model terminologies, are limited to the above spectrum.
There is NO BLACK-BODY; not in Science, not anywhere.
What is called a "black body", is actually just a Helmholtz resonator, or cavity. This is NO DIFFERENT than blowing across a jug or bottle, and getting a tone (frequency) that is dependent on the size of the jug. This is because of allowed whole wavelength modes available, and the interactions (interference) of said frequencies, which can be predicted by Resonance and/or a Planck curve.
I say "Planck curve", because this is the standard accepted "modern" explanation, and literally seeded the concept of "quantum mechanics". Unfortunately, this "theory" already existed in the fairly recent branch of Science known as "Music", which was "booted out" of the family before around 1600.
Music is the "older brother" of the family; the "prodigal Son", as it were. When Music and Math were young, Music used to change diapers, fill the bottle, etc. for Math. Later, Music showed Math the concepts of the "vibrating string", with its' oscillating differentials, and "sympathetic vibration" manifesting physical movement.
After Music grew up, and left the house, Math was left alone. Music had shown Math an abstract world that was accessible to the higher mind. Music had shown that there is more than just "physical counting" to life.
However, Music was not around when Math was older, and taking care of the newest child: Physics. The "inner secrets" were forgotten, and abstraction grew to replace logic.
As we all know, Music went out and got rich on its' own. It found its' quantization before 1700 (200+ yrs before Planck), and the rest is History. ( ok, it's QM )
Now, if Uncle Euler was still alive at that time, perhaps he would have seen the answer to this problem of "consonance", or why certain tones are "pleasing" together, while others are not. You can see CLEARLY, that this was a "perception" issue. HE saw it, but not until the end, and not with the advantage of a discrete and equal interval (nor with accurate frequency counts, and computers).
He tried to weed through (as did many others) this "perception" problem, and directly address the PHYSICS/MATH behind it, but to no avail. The best that was put forth was the term "minimally even", when describing the DIFFERENCE between COINCIDENTAL BLOWS. This was "proved" with a heavy dose of complex mathematics.
In modern terminology, coincidental blows = constructive interference of in phase waves. The difference between them is a Beat-frequency (Bf). One will quickly come to the understanding that "zero" is the limit for a Bf, and that this value is describing complete/full Resonance. The modern problem arises from the misconception of "destructive interference", which could just as easily be stated as "total absorption". There is nothing left of the original wave in these terms.
It seems that "zero" is the limit of these terms as well.
If you think that it would be very hard to come up with some logical mathematics that can accurately describe this "oscillation between zero and zero", you are absolutely correct. They have done quite a job though, you must admit! Unfortunately, in the end, they give us "probabilities" that can interact with each other and accumulate to produce the "maximally probable", which is not much better than "minimally even", in my book.
One will find that, "hidden" inside these concepts (maximally probable/minimally even) is the FACT that they are COMPARISONS to an established reference; the "fundamental axis" IS the shortest route/least effort, and the "fundamental note" IS the lowest energy/least effort that an "excited" (inject energy/frequency) system will "relax" back to.
TOTAL CONSERVATION REQUIRES TOTAL RE-CYCLING. In the end, the Laws of Thermodynamics REQUIRE a non-linear approach, in order to satisfy this principle. This is Harmony, and our search for it extends far past Quantum Mechanics, and into our Political/Economic/Social/Spiritual paradigms.
"Este la vida."
In order to better understand "black and white", you must learn MANY different concepts, and none of them are entirely simple, or "unified" as of yet. "Transparent" has an important role in all of this too.
Here are a few tidbits to ponder:
Black absorbs all VISIBLE light, showing its' connection to our PERCEPTION.
It is re-emitting at both higher and lower frequencies, however.
This can be DIRECTLY OBSERVED as "magenta" in the near field of refracted (by prism) light. This is interaction of UV and IR light, whose harmonics (due to partial absorption in the cornea/lens) excite our "min & max" rods, which then BEAT to produce a color that is not "in the spectrum".
An interesting thing about "perception": there MUST be "something" there to perceive. If there is no "matter", then there can not be any "light" perceived. We ARE NOT talking about "illusions" here, and the difference is not trivial.
If anyone is mentally on track with this, you should wonder why I describe "magenta" as a Beat, and not a Sum. Well, this is because it must be in the bandwidth of our perception, in order to be perceived. It can NOT be of a frequency that is higher than visible light; it MUST BE within it. If you understand the "octave", and how it applies to the visible band, you will see that this Beat would have the same frequency as "green", and indeed, our eyes have this EXACT patterned response with green and magenta.
Are there any more experiments that can confirm this? Absolutely; we have seen the paper talking about "phase vortex singularities", and how reversing them would appear to us as magenta, in an "inverse rainbow" with cyan and yellow at the extremes, and violet and red being superimposed. The "black light sand-which" experiment, as well as the the refracted image of the Falico Soliton on the surface of a pool confirm this principle too.
One that you can do "for free" (if you already have a green glass & lamp) is this: in a room with just one source of light, cast through a green "filter", observe the green light cast onto a white wall. Preferably, close enough to also be able to see normal "shadow", or near darkness around the green "cone" of light.
Now, place an opaque object (your finger will do) between the light and the wall, and you will see that this new "shadow", within the green cone, is magenta. This may require you to have a red reference handy (within sight), so that you can discern the subtle difference (in shadows) of these colors.
The Scientific answer to this requires bringing "polarization" into the discussion, and the REVERSAL of phase, both which happen upon "reflection" (which is better understood as absorption/re-emission).
You can see that the "color wheel", that has been used as a guide for color mixing for over 200 years, is still include in Physics Textbooks for a good reason: IT WORKS. There has been NO MATH to describe this phenomenon. According to current "trends", this should mean that it has no "proof".
You will recall that green and magenta hold an inverse relationship on these "wheel charts". You will recall that frequency alone, can not fully describe a wave, you must also have its' inverse, the wavelength, in mind. You will recall that the product of these 2 terms is a "constant" in the "ideal vacuum", and in the REAL world, the refraction index makes every (different) frequency travel at different velocities. However, green and magenta will travel at the same speed.
This is a huge clue to the non-linearity of curved space, and the "equilibrium" state that is reached to produce a constant velocity. Maxwell's equations also show that an EM wave INTERACTION with the "medium" (the impedance of space) will produce the same constant velocity. Now that we KNOW that the "medium" is NEVER empty, we can then understand that the "ideal" impedance never exists. (not even between bound electrons, or nucleus)
When we "align" our equipment just right, we get our "beam" going in a straight line between source and detector. This is our "fundamental axis", and is only valid for our "ideal frequency". You see, this PERCEPTION of constant velocity requires a straight path from point A to point B, and an adjustment for the RI (when using a quasi-monochromatic source). Any deviation from in the path INCREASES the pathlength, and DECREASES the velocity that would have been measured on the straight line. This pathlength increase, as C2 has been clinging to, can be an indicator of the concepts of "const. & destr. interference", and even, with enough "idealization", can predict the outcome of the DSE.
Tell me C2 (or anybody), with what calipers are we measuring the distance from slit to screen with, to the nanometer?
What physical phenomenon is EXACTLY responsible for the arbitrary division of the plane wave into EXACT angles that produce whole number of wavelength differences in the "new source (slit)" spherical wave front?
You see, the new, post-slit, expanding spherical wavefront will "explore all paths" in this cavity, at a constant (as measured from any equidistant detector) velocity, at ALL angles. There are NO GAPS in this model, to produce "voids" where no "photons" are incident. That is the whole point of describing this as an interaction, or interference of "photons", because there is light incident on the ENTIRE area, yet only distinct (fringe pattern) parts get absorbed/re-emitted totally unchanged.
We KNOW, from the accuracy of QM, that the transitions in states of bound electrons are EXACT. This is the "perfect mirror" that GE is talking about. What is absorbed is re-emitted, precisely. Yes, there are "above" energies that can be absorbed as heat, etc., but NEVER "below" the minimum (work function). We also KNOW that superposition (of incident "photons") can change the velocity of an ejected electron, but not its' frequency (kinetic, but not potential energy).
The bottom line: the electrons (detectors) can only duplicate the energy incident upon them, when it matches an available transition state.
The Copenhagen Interpretation says "that's all there is, folks; move along..". If it is not "measured", then it is NOT.
The Resonant Interpretation says "superposition can fool the measurer", and since we are not the direct measurer, in this case, we must "interpret the data" with logic, and assign simple, abstract values (math) to our logic. Not assign abstract logic, and complex math, to such a simple phenomenon as "resonance".
There are very few ways to "fool the measurer", mathematically, by superposition. Euler's' "coincident blows", and Pythagoras' "harmonic ratios" both give great insight, but have the same, tragic flaw: they did not have accurate measurements available to them, especially concerning velocity of waves. It was just assumed to be constant. Note the irony there, in regards to the same assumption made by Einstein, which led to great insights as well.
Assuming constant velocity arranges the frequencies in order, because of the time dependency of frequency and velocity. Indeed, an ordered bandwidth of energy will excite the specific transitions available, in "quantum clicks". So much for the need of the quantum field "photon".
HOWEVER, when you bring superposition into the picture, the ORDER can be changed, meaning the order that the "clicks" are made. The ground state electron is seeking the #1 transition energy, and rejecting all other energy.
The indistinguishability of superimposed "photons" means that special combinations of them can "fool" the electron's energy requirement. This fooling is in the equation E = hf , where any number of superimposed "photons" can produce the correct " f ". ALL OTHER combinations would be "ignored". producing the "dark state", or the concept of "black perception".
Black/darkness is energy "spreading" (anti-bunching) to the point of our inability to perceive. This is actually a very small amount, never more than /2 any visible frequency. The energy is "diffuse", and below our threshold. Black-noise.
White/brightness is energy concentrating (bunching), to the point of "saturation" of our sensitivity to color. This is actually a very small amount, never more than x2 any visible frequency. The energy is "diffuse", and above our threshold. White-noise.
You can see that both of these concepts are "equilibrium states", either above, or below our threshold of perception. When the equilibrium is IN the visible spectrum, we can have "transparency", or clear light, existing between us and our "colored" physical world.
The inverse quality of a wave measurement creates a "duality". The working model of the "color wheel" says that for fermions (subtractive; physical color), when white light is incident on a green body, this green "absorbs all colors except green" (which is the only re-emitted color). Forget about the concept of "black" when talking about "photons". The inverse of "absorbing all colors except green" is reflecting all colors except green, or absorbing all colors except magenta.
This last statement is a better description of what we terms as "black", because magenta can be seen in the near field (immediately after absorption/re-emission) of a "black" surface (isolated on a white background, and observed by refraction through a prism). It is in observing this "cross-over", from the Fresnel to the Fraunhofer zones, in real time, and fully reversible, that we can directly see where our "dualities" of white/black come from.
I know I've gone on too long, but just one more thing about linearity, duality.
If we take any wavelengthh of visible light (or any), for example 5.47e-7 , and multiply it by 2 (creating harmonics) just 70 times, we get
5.47e-7 x 2^70 = 6.45e+14
Translated by our current model, the 70th "upper" harmonic of "green" is "blue".
The slope of n x 2^70 is linear.
If this makes no sense, then good!, you've got your thinking cap on.
Fortunately, if we take the correct frequency of "green" and divide it by 2^70, we get
5.43e+14 / 2^70 (or x 2^-70) = 4.599e-7
so, the 70th "lower" harmonic of "green" is "blue" as well, giving us some symmetry to work with. Obviously, the opposite is true for blue, as for green. Not so obviously, so do all other frequencies have this "non-linear" relationship. If you "measure" this resonance linearly, you will not get "the big picture".
The "big picture" is that, by trusting our perception of "green" to be "constant", that is, our frequency and wavelength measurements, then only a non-linear symmetry will produce a constant velocity that we measure.
Every pair of "frequency and wavelength" measurement must be inverse, and have the product of c , a constant ratio. At the fundamental level, from first principle, the inverse relationship of ratios does not show its symmetry when measured by the "linear quanta" of our decimal system, AND the full range of inverse mathematics of [ + - ] and [ x / ].
"Standard" resonance of 1:2, 2:1 converges. Use EITHER inverse quantitative concept of "positive and negative" numbers, OR "multiply and divide", but not both.
1:3 = 1/3 = .333
3:1 = 3/1 = 3
3:5 = 3/5 = .6
5:3 = 5/3 = 1.66
etc.
You can not take these inverse ratios, and apply "several levels" of inverse methodology, and maintain the original symmetry. Why is this important? Because the constant values of "angles of reflection/diffraction/refraction", etc., dictate that our ratios are maintained throughout these phenomenon. (especially path length : wavelength)
While certainly (and obviously) of great value, calculus / zero / sq rt -1 , etc., creates more degrees of freedom, and complexity than actually exist at the fundamental level.
I would suggest replacing the "+ & - " phase space of the sine wave with the helical winding of a different continuous curve. (but this is just for "conceptual" value)
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
Are you proposing/suggesting that only the outermost orbital electrons emit
photonic frequencies in the visible range?
Depending upon the element, atoms have numerous inner and outer electrons,
where each energy level responds to a specific frequency, according to the energy
of the system, kind of like strings with different tensions on a guitar that oscillate
at a specific frequency when "plucked" (displaced).
We'll call these different energy level oscillations "notes" or "tones".
If an inner orbital electron is displaced into a higher orbital level than its normal
orbital energy level by a detected high energy frequency, won't this jump from a
lower to higher orbital diplacement also simultaneously displace a higher orbital
electron? Isn't this the basis of the elemental frequency (color) spectrum?
Each element has its own distinctive "chord" made up of specific
frequencies/notes.
So, an excited elemental atom doesn't necessarily just give off a single color, or
note, but a potentially a chord, or spectrum of colors, according to the
potential energy that is contained in the element. Some of the notes that make up
this chord are in the visible range, others may be above or below our perceptual acuity range.
Certain geometries of fermions can produce these perceptions. Bosons, to use standard model terminologies, are limited to the above spectrum.
Another comment....aren't all photons, regardless of frequency, considered bosons, which are force carriers?
Anyone, feel free to correct or further develop this idea.
LL
Are you proposing/suggesting that only the outermost orbital electrons emit
photonic frequencies in the visible range?
Depending upon the element, atoms have numerous inner and outer electrons,
where each energy level responds to a specific frequency, according to the energy
of the system, kind of like strings with different tensions on a guitar that oscillate
at a specific frequency when "plucked" (displaced).
We'll call these different energy level oscillations "notes" or "tones".
If an inner orbital electron is displaced into a higher orbital level than its normal
orbital energy level by a detected high energy frequency, won't this jump from a
lower to higher orbital diplacement also simultaneously displace a higher orbital
electron? Isn't this the basis of the elemental frequency (color) spectrum?
Each element has its own distinctive "chord" made up of specific
frequencies/notes.
So, an excited elemental atom doesn't necessarily just give off a single color, or
note, but a potentially a chord, or spectrum of colors, according to the
potential energy that is contained in the element. Some of the notes that make up
this chord are in the visible range, others may be above or below our perceptual acuity range.
QUOTE
Certain geometries of fermions can produce these perceptions. Bosons, to use standard model terminologies, are limited to the above spectrum.
Another comment....aren't all photons, regardless of frequency, considered bosons, which are force carriers?
Anyone, feel free to correct or further develop this idea.
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jul 8 2007, 07:56 PM)
Another comment....aren't all photons, regardless of frequency, considered bosons, which are force carriers?
I think it would be better to think a photon as the force being caried rather than the carrier of the force.
I think it would be better to think a photon as the force being caried rather than the carrier of the force.
Hi Kokhaw,
I proposed a surface resonance effect, where the EM energy of photons interact
with the surface fields of matter in prior posts. There was some "resistance" to
this concept by a few, most did not comment. Basically, the premise was that
EM fields of matter and boson's are interfering with each other, as they superpose
at fixed spatial points, which changes the resultant phase angle of the passing
photon, which causes them to disperse according to the geometric dimensions
of the matter and the wavelength of the photons. So in effect, we induce latency
delays in the photons that physically interact with the surface matter
waves/polaritons that encroach on the open proximity space where there is
no physical matter/matrix.
I proposed a surface resonance effect, where the EM energy of photons interact
with the surface fields of matter in prior posts. There was some "resistance" to
this concept by a few, most did not comment. Basically, the premise was that
EM fields of matter and boson's are interfering with each other, as they superpose
at fixed spatial points, which changes the resultant phase angle of the passing
photon, which causes them to disperse according to the geometric dimensions
of the matter and the wavelength of the photons. So in effect, we induce latency
delays in the photons that physically interact with the surface matter
waves/polaritons that encroach on the open proximity space where there is
no physical matter/matrix.
For particle wave such as sea or water wave, can we express the energy of particle wave in term of hf? h=plank's constant, f=frequency of particle wave.
If it cannot, do you think that particle wave is similar to EM wave?
I don't think we can use quantum formulas for large scale events, the numbers
would be astronomical.
Yes! EM waves and particle waves have the same atomic genesis. It is likely only
a matter of energy scale. Energy is energy, but to quantify it we use intensity/power as the "scale" for measuring energy amplitude.
Yes! EM waves and particle waves have the same atomic genesis. It is likely only
a matter of energy scale. Energy is energy, but to quantify it we use intensity/power as the "scale" for measuring energy amplitude.
when we express the photon in term of hf, when we add two identical photons together as constructive superposition, the energy shall double, can we say that the amplitude increased? However, we still only have E=hf for the superposed photon, where the energy is single photon, not two photons. which one is correct? or you have different explanations?
Intensity is amplitude of a signal, its height. Two superposed photons, in phase,
will double the intensity at a point of physical mixing, in the presence
of matter. This must occur as a displacement process. Boson's can occupy the
same space and time, but no interaction happens between them until something is
physically displaced. This is where matter comes into the picture, because
it gets physically displaced, allowing for detection of the energy and to provide
a reference for measurement. Energy is quantified by how much displacement it
induces into matter. Without matter to act as a genesis or a catalyst, energy has
no relative value that can be assigned to it.
Superposition is merely an overlapping of wave energy over time, at a fixed point
in space. Superposed wave energies cannot sum until there is a fixed baseline
reference threshold level that rises from some relative zero reference level. This
zero reference threshold level is provided by matter and is referenced from the
point where matter gets displaced from its relative ground state.
Superposition is merely an overlapping of wave energy over time, at a fixed point
in space. Superposed wave energies cannot sum until there is a fixed baseline
reference threshold level that rises from some relative zero reference level. This
zero reference threshold level is provided by matter and is referenced from the
point where matter gets displaced from its relative ground state.
I have thought about this question for quite some time. the only reason I can think of is there shall be another phenomenon that causes it. That's why I put up my idea on a website for discussion. Although the current theory had been applied for many years, but I still have doubt on this matter, where sometime, it does not make sense.
It makes sense, but all variables must be quantified and included into
the discussion. If we don't include everything necessary for the phenomenon to
occur, then we are stuck with mysteries. Energy and matter are one and the
same, that exist different "contexts" or frames of reference. We must use
the same baseline references to make everything relative.
An example: Trying to add two numbers together, from different base number
systems, will only yield a result when they are converted into a common base
numbering system. We use too many different reference systems to quantify
different phenomena...this is a legacy issue that adds complexity to mixing
different reference systems.
Comments? Discussion?
LL
QUOTE
Does anyone have thought of how the light undergoes diffraction?
I proposed a surface resonance effect, where the EM energy of photons interact
with the surface fields of matter in prior posts. There was some "resistance" to
this concept by a few, most did not comment. Basically, the premise was that
EM fields of matter and boson's are interfering with each other, as they superpose
at fixed spatial points, which changes the resultant phase angle of the passing
photon, which causes them to disperse according to the geometric dimensions
of the matter and the wavelength of the photons. So in effect, we induce latency
delays in the photons that physically interact with the surface matter
waves/polaritons that encroach on the open proximity space where there is
no physical matter/matrix.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Does anyone have thought of how the light undergoes diffraction? |
I proposed a surface resonance effect, where the EM energy of photons interact
with the surface fields of matter in prior posts. There was some "resistance" to
this concept by a few, most did not comment. Basically, the premise was that
EM fields of matter and boson's are interfering with each other, as they superpose
at fixed spatial points, which changes the resultant phase angle of the passing
photon, which causes them to disperse according to the geometric dimensions
of the matter and the wavelength of the photons. So in effect, we induce latency
delays in the photons that physically interact with the surface matter
waves/polaritons that encroach on the open proximity space where there is
no physical matter/matrix.
For particle wave such as sea or water wave, can we express the energy of particle wave in term of hf? h=plank's constant, f=frequency of particle wave.
If it cannot, do you think that particle wave is similar to EM wave?
I don't think we can use quantum formulas for large scale events, the numbers
would be astronomical.
QUOTE
For particle wave, the superposition of particle wave causes the change of amplitude of particle wave. Do you think that EM wave undergoes the same process?
Yes! EM waves and particle waves have the same atomic genesis. It is likely only
a matter of energy scale. Energy is energy, but to quantify it we use intensity/power as the "scale" for measuring energy amplitude.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For particle wave, the superposition of particle wave causes the change of amplitude of particle wave. Do you think that EM wave undergoes the same process? |
Yes! EM waves and particle waves have the same atomic genesis. It is likely only
a matter of energy scale. Energy is energy, but to quantify it we use intensity/power as the "scale" for measuring energy amplitude.
when we express the photon in term of hf, when we add two identical photons together as constructive superposition, the energy shall double, can we say that the amplitude increased? However, we still only have E=hf for the superposed photon, where the energy is single photon, not two photons. which one is correct? or you have different explanations?
Intensity is amplitude of a signal, its height. Two superposed photons, in phase,
will double the intensity at a point of physical mixing, in the presence
of matter. This must occur as a displacement process. Boson's can occupy the
same space and time, but no interaction happens between them until something is
physically displaced. This is where matter comes into the picture, because
it gets physically displaced, allowing for detection of the energy and to provide
a reference for measurement. Energy is quantified by how much displacement it
induces into matter. Without matter to act as a genesis or a catalyst, energy has
no relative value that can be assigned to it.
QUOTE
If the superposition of EM wave is not by adding the amplitude, then, the only reason that I can think of is adding two photons together as particle-like. Then, in this case, how the EM wave undergoes constructive and destructive superposition and produces interference fringes?
In actual experiment, interference fringes do appear. Then, it should be another reason that causes the phenomenon. Does my description and interpretation make sense?
In actual experiment, interference fringes do appear. Then, it should be another reason that causes the phenomenon. Does my description and interpretation make sense?
Superposition is merely an overlapping of wave energy over time, at a fixed point
in space. Superposed wave energies cannot sum until there is a fixed baseline
reference threshold level that rises from some relative zero reference level. This
zero reference threshold level is provided by matter and is referenced from the
point where matter gets displaced from its relative ground state.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If the superposition of EM wave is not by adding the amplitude, then, the only reason that I can think of is adding two photons together as particle-like. Then, in this case, how the EM wave undergoes constructive and destructive superposition and produces interference fringes? In actual experiment, interference fringes do appear. Then, it should be another reason that causes the phenomenon. Does my description and interpretation make sense? |
Superposition is merely an overlapping of wave energy over time, at a fixed point
in space. Superposed wave energies cannot sum until there is a fixed baseline
reference threshold level that rises from some relative zero reference level. This
zero reference threshold level is provided by matter and is referenced from the
point where matter gets displaced from its relative ground state.
I have thought about this question for quite some time. the only reason I can think of is there shall be another phenomenon that causes it. That's why I put up my idea on a website for discussion. Although the current theory had been applied for many years, but I still have doubt on this matter, where sometime, it does not make sense.
It makes sense, but all variables must be quantified and included into
the discussion. If we don't include everything necessary for the phenomenon to
occur, then we are stuck with mysteries. Energy and matter are one and the
same, that exist different "contexts" or frames of reference. We must use
the same baseline references to make everything relative.
An example: Trying to add two numbers together, from different base number
systems, will only yield a result when they are converted into a common base
numbering system. We use too many different reference systems to quantify
different phenomena...this is a legacy issue that adds complexity to mixing
different reference systems.
Comments? Discussion?
LL
Kokhaw,
You are talking about the idea of the corpuscular photon. Which keeps the
idea of the physical nature and energetic nature consistent. It is the blending
of the wave action, or energy transport mechanism, and the action of
displacement that occurs when incident energy displaces matter when the two
physically interact.
Energy is the wave impulse state, displacement is the physical particle state.
Displacement, from the relative ground level of an atomic orbital, is the basis for
quantization. The measurement of energy, in Joules, that is required to move an
electron between adjacent energy levels is the quantum. So, we relate quantum
energy level to a reference using a physical displacement. The photon is the
EM energy byproduct component of that physical displacement.
You know this already, I'm just restating to maintain simplicity.
LL
QUOTE
Before Einstein developed the theory of photon, the explanations on diffraction, interference of waves are accepted and claimed to follow the pattern and principle of particle wave. However, after Einstein developed the quantized photon theory, I found that the conventional method of explanations are not longer applicable.
The Stern-Gerlach experiment showed that this world is a quantized world. The convetional description of EM wave is not quantized. At that mean time, many debates were carried between Einstein and Bohr regarding particles and waves. where bohr supported that particle are wave-like, and sometime duality properties which causes many confusions on the characteristic of particles. Sometime can be particle, sometime can be wave, sometime, don't know particle or wave such as the interference fringes of electrons.
Then, I tried to change my way of thinking and started to see things on a different angle. I tried to quantized everything into particle-like, I found that quantized world is more easy to understand and convincing. There is no duality characteristics or confusion on which character shall be. Why not you also try to change your view by seeing quantized things in this quantized world?
In stead of saying particle can act like wave, why not we say that wave (photon) is a particle. things have became simple and easy to understand.
The Stern-Gerlach experiment showed that this world is a quantized world. The convetional description of EM wave is not quantized. At that mean time, many debates were carried between Einstein and Bohr regarding particles and waves. where bohr supported that particle are wave-like, and sometime duality properties which causes many confusions on the characteristic of particles. Sometime can be particle, sometime can be wave, sometime, don't know particle or wave such as the interference fringes of electrons.
Then, I tried to change my way of thinking and started to see things on a different angle. I tried to quantized everything into particle-like, I found that quantized world is more easy to understand and convincing. There is no duality characteristics or confusion on which character shall be. Why not you also try to change your view by seeing quantized things in this quantized world?
In stead of saying particle can act like wave, why not we say that wave (photon) is a particle. things have became simple and easy to understand.
You are talking about the idea of the corpuscular photon. Which keeps the
idea of the physical nature and energetic nature consistent. It is the blending
of the wave action, or energy transport mechanism, and the action of
displacement that occurs when incident energy displaces matter when the two
physically interact.
Energy is the wave impulse state, displacement is the physical particle state.
Displacement, from the relative ground level of an atomic orbital, is the basis for
quantization. The measurement of energy, in Joules, that is required to move an
electron between adjacent energy levels is the quantum. So, we relate quantum
energy level to a reference using a physical displacement. The photon is the
EM energy byproduct component of that physical displacement.
You know this already, I'm just restating to maintain simplicity.
LL
Hi again Kokhaw,
Energy transfer is an resonance based conversion process that uses signal mixing
to generate secondary/ordered harmonic frequencies. TRoc is the leading
proponent of this phenomenon, and I agree in principle with this approach.
However, I have taken the position that individual frequencies can only mix (sum)
across a physical catalyst at that establishes a fixed point and time in space.
Without a physical point of mixing, no energy transfer or signal mixing takes place.
Energy transfer is an resonance based conversion process that uses signal mixing
to generate secondary/ordered harmonic frequencies. TRoc is the leading
proponent of this phenomenon, and I agree in principle with this approach.
However, I have taken the position that individual frequencies can only mix (sum)
across a physical catalyst at that establishes a fixed point and time in space.
Without a physical point of mixing, no energy transfer or signal mixing takes place.
The energy transfer between object and photon is through transition of electron from different energy level. For a black object, if the visible photon absorption is at one goal, from one level to another level, then, there is possibility that the 'same' photon (in term of energy level) will be emitted and give away visible light. But, black body does not work in this way, therefore, I suggest answer (2).
Hmmm, just a thought....Suppose the detecting atomic dipole doesn't fully displace
an electron from its shell level? The atom would absorb the photon, which would
change the potential energy level of the atom, via a thermal atomic expansion
process. All electron energy shells would proportionally expand outward from the
nucleus, enlarging the physical dimensions of the atom.
We know that a mass can absorb excess energy when heated by an external
energy source, and typically the volume of the mass expands as it absorbs the
excess energy. The more external energy that a mass absorbs into its atomic
structure the more energetic the mass becomes, and the more radiant it becomes
as it matches its ambient environment, relative to its normal steady state
ground level at some fixed reference temperature. If the ambient
environment decreases in energy level and stops adding energy to the mass, the
mass will lose/couple/radiate the stored excess energy back into the background
environment in a range of IR frequencies, over a declining intensity curve, until
it reaches the steady state of the ambient background radiation level.
We use our sensory frame of reference as the basis of quantifying energy, but it
seems likely that atomic structures can have a range of operation, that is relative
to the ambient environment that the atom resides in. If this is so, then a
quantum of energy can range within the energy contained in the atomic
structure, as it relates to the energy content of the background ambient
conditions. What is interesting is that the energy ratio, that exists between energy
levels within the atom, remains the same, as is evidenced by the elemental
spectral frequency/color bands.
Comments, discussion?
LL
QUOTE
Another question on photon. How the photon lose its energy?
1) Is it everytime when photon lose energy, it must be totally lost by giving all the energy of 'hf' in one goal? Or
2) it able to lose little bit by little bit with the change or reduction of frequency?
If the above question can be solved, then, it is easier to understand how a black body works. My tentatively answer is (2).
1) Is it everytime when photon lose energy, it must be totally lost by giving all the energy of 'hf' in one goal? Or
2) it able to lose little bit by little bit with the change or reduction of frequency?
If the above question can be solved, then, it is easier to understand how a black body works. My tentatively answer is (2).
Energy transfer is an resonance based conversion process that uses signal mixing
to generate secondary/ordered harmonic frequencies. TRoc is the leading
proponent of this phenomenon, and I agree in principle with this approach.
However, I have taken the position that individual frequencies can only mix (sum)
across a physical catalyst at that establishes a fixed point and time in space.
Without a physical point of mixing, no energy transfer or signal mixing takes place.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Another question on photon. How the photon lose its energy? 1) Is it everytime when photon lose energy, it must be totally lost by giving all the energy of 'hf' in one goal? Or 2) it able to lose little bit by little bit with the change or reduction of frequency? If the above question can be solved, then, it is easier to understand how a black body works. My tentatively answer is (2). |
Energy transfer is an resonance based conversion process that uses signal mixing
to generate secondary/ordered harmonic frequencies. TRoc is the leading
proponent of this phenomenon, and I agree in principle with this approach.
However, I have taken the position that individual frequencies can only mix (sum)
across a physical catalyst at that establishes a fixed point and time in space.
Without a physical point of mixing, no energy transfer or signal mixing takes place.
The energy transfer between object and photon is through transition of electron from different energy level. For a black object, if the visible photon absorption is at one goal, from one level to another level, then, there is possibility that the 'same' photon (in term of energy level) will be emitted and give away visible light. But, black body does not work in this way, therefore, I suggest answer (2).
Hmmm, just a thought....Suppose the detecting atomic dipole doesn't fully displace
an electron from its shell level? The atom would absorb the photon, which would
change the potential energy level of the atom, via a thermal atomic expansion
process. All electron energy shells would proportionally expand outward from the
nucleus, enlarging the physical dimensions of the atom.
We know that a mass can absorb excess energy when heated by an external
energy source, and typically the volume of the mass expands as it absorbs the
excess energy. The more external energy that a mass absorbs into its atomic
structure the more energetic the mass becomes, and the more radiant it becomes
as it matches its ambient environment, relative to its normal steady state
ground level at some fixed reference temperature. If the ambient
environment decreases in energy level and stops adding energy to the mass, the
mass will lose/couple/radiate the stored excess energy back into the background
environment in a range of IR frequencies, over a declining intensity curve, until
it reaches the steady state of the ambient background radiation level.
We use our sensory frame of reference as the basis of quantifying energy, but it
seems likely that atomic structures can have a range of operation, that is relative
to the ambient environment that the atom resides in. If this is so, then a
quantum of energy can range within the energy contained in the atomic
structure, as it relates to the energy content of the background ambient
conditions. What is interesting is that the energy ratio, that exists between energy
levels within the atom, remains the same, as is evidenced by the elemental
spectral frequency/color bands.
Comments, discussion?
LL
Hi Kokhaw et al,
So we've got the Feynman lectures. I guess most of us will have watched them or read 'QED' so why aren't we spending more time discussing QED? (You ask .. at least I assume you do, it's rhetorical but needs an answer) . The reason (I think) is that Feynman was asked why his formulae work and his answer is reputed to have been "Shut up and calculate". Since we are not his students and we don't have to pass an exam we can spend as much time as we like (it seems to be a lot) delving into the "Why".
Best wishes - C2.
Incidentally there is interference at the start of the second lecture - a chap comes along and changes the microphone after a while .. not before I've spent a fair amount of time looking for the cause at my end. Some sort of delayed (28 years) interference effect.
So we've got the Feynman lectures. I guess most of us will have watched them or read 'QED' so why aren't we spending more time discussing QED? (You ask .. at least I assume you do, it's rhetorical but needs an answer) . The reason (I think) is that Feynman was asked why his formulae work and his answer is reputed to have been "Shut up and calculate". Since we are not his students and we don't have to pass an exam we can spend as much time as we like (it seems to be a lot) delving into the "Why".
Best wishes - C2.
Incidentally there is interference at the start of the second lecture - a chap comes along and changes the microphone after a while .. not before I've spent a fair amount of time looking for the cause at my end. Some sort of delayed (28 years) interference effect.
Hi yquantum, zephir, Wulf, Why Not?, Montec, Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, janrinze, "THEY", Jal, Neil Farbstein, , Mate et al,
It is clear that not all agree with a principle of the quantum. Matter Waves like any system will minimize themselves along principles of least action. Spatial frequencies of the matter waves do not dissipate as been stated so often... Just like photons when they propagate through vast distances of space... They do not dissipate... same principle, same physics different waves. The re-emergence of the photon many light years from source without the loss of any energy is "proof" that distance dissipates nothing regarding these wave effects. The reason we can see the stars without distortion or frequency shifts (aside from Relativistic Doppler) is that the photons do not dissipate, they simply spread. They can be absorbed or reflected or transmitted depending on the physical size of the intervening dispersive media. This spreading is dependent on an acceptor site for the photon... in this case in your eye... A suitable site.
In the case of matter waves they are a bit different to the propagation of light because they are from another "domain" but they reflect the spatial aspects of the material substances and their location. A collection of ordered atoms hybridize their matter waves to form "substance" with spatial extension. We already know and understand some simple aspects of these effects such as Bragg's Law and we understand this is the shape of influence of "something" arranged along crystal boundaries at X-Ray Frequencies. Naturally this influence does not stop there it extends to UV, Visible Microwave and Radio Frequency and all other bands utilized or not. For instance it has been difficult using our technology to devise T-Wave emitters and detectors. It is precisely because it is hard to produce these emitters technologically that make them so valuable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_radiation
They are able to peer through everything without damaging ionizing radiation revealing what is covered and what is inside of us "biologically speaking".
This is not the subject of this discussion... the subject is what are the quanta and what do quanta mean? It is not just the emission of photons and their absorption it is how they interact with something that is formed and spatially arranging space itself into "cavities'. What I am saying is the matter waves of all things cancel almost everywhere except near sources and along connections between source systems. Mach's Principle is expressed in Relativity by being "invisible" when objects are all in the one inertial frame of reference while when you accelerate a single component the Machian equivalent of Lenz's Law comes in as back action by an emergence of obvious "interferences" due to acceleration as shown in those illustration by yquantum kindly showed us. The left hand particle was at rest and the right hand particle was moving at 1/2 C.
http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm
You will note the waves are due to the frame of the observer and it is not the frame of the particle which is what is seen on the left. Clearly the actual speed is "nothing" it is relative motion that is the reason for Special Relativity showing from those waves acceleration results in "forces" but what is shown is velocity and the perception of moment of a matter wave of a particle. Other aspects of that site may be wrong, I can't help that. Please note that (sin (x))/x is the sync function again. At all other times this influence is relatively "invisible". Obviously acceleration is still there as matter exhibits mass and mass is a source of acceleration as on the surface of the Earth. Einstein expressed this as Spacetime Curvature but it could be interpreted as a wave phenomenon as well. I like the latter interpretation because it is very difficult (near impossible) to solve non-symmetric manifolds in motions due to multiple sources but it is soluble using electromagnetism and field equations and a big computer.
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory by Jian Qi Shen
If people are not prepared to accept these things I am prepared to let this matter go since I an unable to explain further, simple quantum processes I thought was a given but obviously people are not prepared to put aside some tested theories for a heap of fiction or they are not prepared for the rigor ahead. You can push a mule and you can pull a mule but a mule is a mule and that is it. There is no truth other than what you can discover for yourselves, I am certainly not about to babble on to myself in a corner of this forum somewhere. I have said enough.
Cheers
It is clear that not all agree with a principle of the quantum. Matter Waves like any system will minimize themselves along principles of least action. Spatial frequencies of the matter waves do not dissipate as been stated so often... Just like photons when they propagate through vast distances of space... They do not dissipate... same principle, same physics different waves. The re-emergence of the photon many light years from source without the loss of any energy is "proof" that distance dissipates nothing regarding these wave effects. The reason we can see the stars without distortion or frequency shifts (aside from Relativistic Doppler) is that the photons do not dissipate, they simply spread. They can be absorbed or reflected or transmitted depending on the physical size of the intervening dispersive media. This spreading is dependent on an acceptor site for the photon... in this case in your eye... A suitable site.
In the case of matter waves they are a bit different to the propagation of light because they are from another "domain" but they reflect the spatial aspects of the material substances and their location. A collection of ordered atoms hybridize their matter waves to form "substance" with spatial extension. We already know and understand some simple aspects of these effects such as Bragg's Law and we understand this is the shape of influence of "something" arranged along crystal boundaries at X-Ray Frequencies. Naturally this influence does not stop there it extends to UV, Visible Microwave and Radio Frequency and all other bands utilized or not. For instance it has been difficult using our technology to devise T-Wave emitters and detectors. It is precisely because it is hard to produce these emitters technologically that make them so valuable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_radiation
They are able to peer through everything without damaging ionizing radiation revealing what is covered and what is inside of us "biologically speaking".
This is not the subject of this discussion... the subject is what are the quanta and what do quanta mean? It is not just the emission of photons and their absorption it is how they interact with something that is formed and spatially arranging space itself into "cavities'. What I am saying is the matter waves of all things cancel almost everywhere except near sources and along connections between source systems. Mach's Principle is expressed in Relativity by being "invisible" when objects are all in the one inertial frame of reference while when you accelerate a single component the Machian equivalent of Lenz's Law comes in as back action by an emergence of obvious "interferences" due to acceleration as shown in those illustration by yquantum kindly showed us. The left hand particle was at rest and the right hand particle was moving at 1/2 C.
http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm
You will note the waves are due to the frame of the observer and it is not the frame of the particle which is what is seen on the left. Clearly the actual speed is "nothing" it is relative motion that is the reason for Special Relativity showing from those waves acceleration results in "forces" but what is shown is velocity and the perception of moment of a matter wave of a particle. Other aspects of that site may be wrong, I can't help that. Please note that (sin (x))/x is the sync function again. At all other times this influence is relatively "invisible". Obviously acceleration is still there as matter exhibits mass and mass is a source of acceleration as on the surface of the Earth. Einstein expressed this as Spacetime Curvature but it could be interpreted as a wave phenomenon as well. I like the latter interpretation because it is very difficult (near impossible) to solve non-symmetric manifolds in motions due to multiple sources but it is soluble using electromagnetism and field equations and a big computer.
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory by Jian Qi Shen
If people are not prepared to accept these things I am prepared to let this matter go since I an unable to explain further, simple quantum processes I thought was a given but obviously people are not prepared to put aside some tested theories for a heap of fiction or they are not prepared for the rigor ahead. You can push a mule and you can pull a mule but a mule is a mule and that is it. There is no truth other than what you can discover for yourselves, I am certainly not about to babble on to myself in a corner of this forum somewhere.
I have said enough.Cheers
Thanks for the links GE.
I'm ready to accept a purely wave based model. The problem is that most are a little off. One problem is that a lot of good ideas are proclaimed fact (every third word in the first link) before they are sufficiently developed. Another is the focus on rejecting existing models rather than looking at the equivalences. Finally some early assumptions tend to add unnecessary details that, if incorrect, taint the model.
Definitely some good ideas in there regardless.
I'm ready to accept a purely wave based model. The problem is that most are a little off. One problem is that a lot of good ideas are proclaimed fact (every third word in the first link) before they are sufficiently developed. Another is the focus on rejecting existing models rather than looking at the equivalences. Finally some early assumptions tend to add unnecessary details that, if incorrect, taint the model.
Definitely some good ideas in there regardless.
Hi Good Elf, Laserlight et al,
If we can't get real black then we can model our best black as black + a bit of white = grey.
If we imagine a DSE made entirely out of black stuff (or as near as we can get) .. would it still work? We would need a black detector which would emit electrons when struck by a photon - that's black enough for me. No possibility of resonance in the EM spectrum of interest. Still works yes/no?
Best wishes - C2.
GE .. I hope the 'elf problem is sorted out soon.
If we can't get real black then we can model our best black as black + a bit of white = grey.
If we imagine a DSE made entirely out of black stuff (or as near as we can get) .. would it still work? We would need a black detector which would emit electrons when struck by a photon - that's black enough for me. No possibility of resonance in the EM spectrum of interest. Still works yes/no?
Best wishes - C2.
GE .. I hope the 'elf problem is sorted out soon.
Hi All,
Let's not forget, this is a discussion board and all posted topics, theories, or
opinions are up for critical review and opposing viewpoints. That doesn't mean
that everything posted should be considered "gospel". We must be true to
ourselves and reality.
Not everything that is posted will be accepted by all, nor should it be if it doesn't
pass the common sense or scientific proof tests.
There is a reason that scientific "convention" has had successes, but is still plagued
with limitations and conflicts in certain aspects of accepted theory.
Something fundamental in the QM-QED-QCD model is not quite "right", either in
our interpretation, or in our application of reality of the principles. In that regard,
why should we continue trying to force the issue, by beating our heads against a
theoretical wall by following "conventional" modes of thinking, when
other "ignored" paths are obviously required to move the science along.
Even the great scientific pioneering minds couldn't agree on the correct path to
take, and disagreed on many fundamental topics. We are not, and should not
be, limited to using creative approaches to the theoretical problems that we
inherited, as long as we use common sense and observable reality as our
guideposts. We should not, however, resort to "flights of fantasy" that don't pass
the observational and common sense criteria, but we must question the status quo
that seems to have one shoe nailed to the floor and continues to go in circles.
JMHO.
LL
Let's not forget, this is a discussion board and all posted topics, theories, or
opinions are up for critical review and opposing viewpoints. That doesn't mean
that everything posted should be considered "gospel". We must be true to
ourselves and reality.
Not everything that is posted will be accepted by all, nor should it be if it doesn't
pass the common sense or scientific proof tests.
There is a reason that scientific "convention" has had successes, but is still plagued
with limitations and conflicts in certain aspects of accepted theory.
Something fundamental in the QM-QED-QCD model is not quite "right", either in
our interpretation, or in our application of reality of the principles. In that regard,
why should we continue trying to force the issue, by beating our heads against a
theoretical wall by following "conventional" modes of thinking, when
other "ignored" paths are obviously required to move the science along.
Even the great scientific pioneering minds couldn't agree on the correct path to
take, and disagreed on many fundamental topics. We are not, and should not
be, limited to using creative approaches to the theoretical problems that we
inherited, as long as we use common sense and observable reality as our
guideposts. We should not, however, resort to "flights of fantasy" that don't pass
the observational and common sense criteria, but we must question the status quo
that seems to have one shoe nailed to the floor and continues to go in circles.
JMHO.
LL
GE,
I understand your reluctance to accept "unique" or "out of the box" concepts, but
even a wrong approach can provide useful information, or que a more complete
alternative solution, or deeper understanding of accepted theories.
I have quoted this line before, because it seems apropos.
"There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than can be dreamt of in your
philosophy." ~ Hamlet - Act 1, Scene V,- Shakespeare
It seems that you found my discussion about mass changing relative volume
according to its background temperature, via the addition of energy to the
closed system, disturbing. Apparently, if we believe our observations, a massive
system can absorb a finite amount of energy, up to some transition energy state
level according to the ambient background environment, and its ability to maintain
an "organized" atomic matrix.
Is this what disturbed you about my questioning the accepted nature of the
characteristics of the quantum? I was questioning whether a quantum is
"consistent" under all measured energy conditions/states that a system can attain.
I'm assuming that it is so, which I pointed out by referencing that the ratio's
of the colors and bands of the spectrum are maintained. The frequencies of the
photon colors, also does not shift, but the total energy level contained within the
system does shift, as absorbed energy in the form of IR frequencies is released if
the ambient temperature enviroment decreases.
The following is a very simplified conceptualization, but I use it to emphasize a
point.
Matter can function like a dry sponge that is exposed to water. In its dry
ambient condition, a sponge has certain fixed physical characteristics, but upon
being immersed in a different ambient environment (water), the pores of the
sponge absorb the water and the cellular form of the sponge expands, to some
maximum level. It is still a sponge, but it now has different physical
characteristics than it had when dry. It maintains its general shape and maintains
a fixed geometric ratio, but it is now larger in its maximum expanded energy
state. If the sponge is removed from the ambient water environment, and left
alone, it will lose the absorbed water content as the sponge releases it back to the
drier ambient atmospheric environment.
So, the form and energy content of the sponge changed, according to the
ambient environment(s) that it operates in. This is the point that I am trying
to make. Can matter absorb and store energy, indefinitely? I say YES, with the
caveate that there are upper and lower maximums/minimums, according to the
atomic structure and the ambient environment in which the system is operating.
Once the ambient environment changes, energy level changes to match the
environment, within fixed limits.
Comments?
LL
I understand your reluctance to accept "unique" or "out of the box" concepts, but
even a wrong approach can provide useful information, or que a more complete
alternative solution, or deeper understanding of accepted theories.
I have quoted this line before, because it seems apropos.
"There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than can be dreamt of in your
philosophy." ~ Hamlet - Act 1, Scene V,- Shakespeare
It seems that you found my discussion about mass changing relative volume
according to its background temperature, via the addition of energy to the
closed system, disturbing. Apparently, if we believe our observations, a massive
system can absorb a finite amount of energy, up to some transition energy state
level according to the ambient background environment, and its ability to maintain
an "organized" atomic matrix.
Is this what disturbed you about my questioning the accepted nature of the
characteristics of the quantum? I was questioning whether a quantum is
"consistent" under all measured energy conditions/states that a system can attain.
I'm assuming that it is so, which I pointed out by referencing that the ratio's
of the colors and bands of the spectrum are maintained. The frequencies of the
photon colors, also does not shift, but the total energy level contained within the
system does shift, as absorbed energy in the form of IR frequencies is released if
the ambient temperature enviroment decreases.
The following is a very simplified conceptualization, but I use it to emphasize a
point.
Matter can function like a dry sponge that is exposed to water. In its dry
ambient condition, a sponge has certain fixed physical characteristics, but upon
being immersed in a different ambient environment (water), the pores of the
sponge absorb the water and the cellular form of the sponge expands, to some
maximum level. It is still a sponge, but it now has different physical
characteristics than it had when dry. It maintains its general shape and maintains
a fixed geometric ratio, but it is now larger in its maximum expanded energy
state. If the sponge is removed from the ambient water environment, and left
alone, it will lose the absorbed water content as the sponge releases it back to the
drier ambient atmospheric environment.
So, the form and energy content of the sponge changed, according to the
ambient environment(s) that it operates in. This is the point that I am trying
to make. Can matter absorb and store energy, indefinitely? I say YES, with the
caveate that there are upper and lower maximums/minimums, according to the
atomic structure and the ambient environment in which the system is operating.
Once the ambient environment changes, energy level changes to match the
environment, within fixed limits.
Comments?
LL
Hi LL,
Ummm .. this wouldn't have anything to do with melting and boiling points would it?
Best wishes -C2
Ummm .. this wouldn't have anything to do with melting and boiling points would it?
Best wishes -C2
Hi C2,
I said up to the limit of transition "state" changes (read between the lines of "fixed
limits").
LL
I said up to the limit of transition "state" changes (read between the lines of "fixed
limits").
LL
Now I'm reading between the lines I can see exactly what you mean. 
QUOTE (TRoc+Jul 8 2007, 11:01 PM)
Here is the VISIBLE spectrum. This is created by REAL transitions by electrons.
TRoc,
you cannot seriously mean that all blackbody-radiation is caused by electron-transitions??
There are many other ways to generate radiation and acceleration/deceleration of electrons is one of them...
Jan Rinze.
TRoc,
you cannot seriously mean that all blackbody-radiation is caused by electron-transitions??
There are many other ways to generate radiation and acceleration/deceleration of electrons is one of them...
Jan Rinze.
Hey everyone,
We seem to be getting off topic. I believe that the math (and reality) does not care if you have a perfect blackbody or a perfect mirror (or any kind of "gray" in between) as the medium into which the double slits are cut. Interference occurs regardless and it can effectively calculated without mention of the medium. Is anyone aware of a different interference result that is crucially dependant on the medium's material or thickness? If so, please post a link. If not, then I am not sure how all this debate applies to the DCQE and so it's time to move on... JMHO
We seem to be getting off topic. I believe that the math (and reality) does not care if you have a perfect blackbody or a perfect mirror (or any kind of "gray" in between) as the medium into which the double slits are cut. Interference occurs regardless and it can effectively calculated without mention of the medium. Is anyone aware of a different interference result that is crucially dependant on the medium's material or thickness? If so, please post a link. If not, then I am not sure how all this debate applies to the DCQE and so it's time to move on... JMHO
QUOTE (Why Not?+Jul 9 2007, 07:05 PM)
Hey everyone,
We seem to be getting off topic. I believe that the math (and reality) does not care if you have a perfect blackbody or a perfect mirror (or any kind of "gray" in between) as the medium into which the double slits are cut. Interference occurs regardless and it can effectively calculated without mention of the medium. Is anyone aware of a different interference result that is crucially dependant on the medium's material or thickness? If so, please post a link. If not, then I am not sure how all this debate applies to the DCQE and so it's time to move on... JMHO
Agreed, it was great throwing out possibilities, but things have devolved into arguments over ideology.
We seem to be getting off topic. I believe that the math (and reality) does not care if you have a perfect blackbody or a perfect mirror (or any kind of "gray" in between) as the medium into which the double slits are cut. Interference occurs regardless and it can effectively calculated without mention of the medium. Is anyone aware of a different interference result that is crucially dependant on the medium's material or thickness? If so, please post a link. If not, then I am not sure how all this debate applies to the DCQE and so it's time to move on... JMHO
Agreed, it was great throwing out possibilities, but things have devolved into arguments over ideology.
Agreed, Let's move on. Thanks guys!
LL
LL
Hello all
How about discussing spherical wave interference with a planer wave as seen here.
or here
The spherical wave is generated at the interface between the planer wave and the edge of the opaque barrier.
Discussion welcome.
How about discussing spherical wave interference with a planer wave as seen here.
or here
The spherical wave is generated at the interface between the planer wave and the edge of the opaque barrier.
Discussion welcome.
Hi all,
Answers to questions:
Although the emission lines are caused by a transition between quantized energy states and may at first look very sharp, they do have a finite width, i.e. they are composed of more than one wavelength of light. This spectral line broadening has many different causes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectroscopy
< No. >
Other comments: Vibrational spectroscopy - absorption of infrared radiation, see infrared spectroscopy; often used as an analytical tool
Raman spectroscopy - A molecule can absorb a part of the energy of a photon, which results in a change in frequency (or wavelength) of the photon. The amount of absorbed energy corresponds to an infrared transition in the molecule, even though the photon might have a visible-light wavelength.
Circular dichroism spectroscopy - measures effects of a sample on the polarization of light.
Stark spectroscopy - measures effects of electrical fields on the spectra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectroscopy
< No. >
Other comments: Vibrational spectroscopy - absorption of infrared radiation, see infrared spectroscopy; often used as an analytical tool
Raman spectroscopy - A molecule can absorb a part of the energy of a photon, which results in a change in frequency (or wavelength) of the photon. The amount of absorbed energy corresponds to an infrared transition in the molecule, even though the photon might have a visible-light wavelength.
Circular dichroism spectroscopy - measures effects of a sample on the polarization of light.
Stark spectroscopy - measures effects of electrical fields on the spectra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectroscopy
janrinze Posted on Today at 12:13 AM
TRoc,
you cannot seriously mean that all blackbody-radiation is caused by electron-transitions??
No. I meant what I said :"Here is the VISIBLE spectrum. This is created by REAL transitions by electrons." In the context of the question of "what is black", what I was trying to say, by underscoring that there is NO black emission, is that it is just a perception. When I say "there is NO black-body", I mean that this is an ideal. In the "lab", a cavity is used to "emulate" the ideal. The color "black" has nothing to do with it.
While the relative intensity of the absorption lines do not vary with concentration, at any given wavelength the measured absorbance ( − log(I / I0)) has been shown to be proportional to the molar concentration of the absorbing species and the thickness of the sample the light passes through. This is known as the Beer-Lambert law. The plot of amount of radiation absorbed versus wavelength for a particular compound is referred to as the absorption spectrum.
At wavelengths corresponding to the resonant energy levels of the sample, some of the incident photons are absorbed, resulting in a drop in the measured transmission intensity and a corresponding dip in the spectrum.
The relation between the visible color and the absorbance color is complicated; a sample that appears red does not absorb in the red, but absorbs at OTHER wavelengths (colors) so that the light which passes through the sample is enriched in red. **
The word "color" is placed in quotes to indicate that absorbance spectroscopy deals not only with light in the visible range - photons with a wavelength of roughly 400 to 700 nanometers, but also with wavelengths that lie outside of the range of human vision (IR, UV, X-rays). However, the principles are quite similar for both visible and nonvisible light.
More technically [1] [2], absorption spectroscopy is based on the absorption of photons by one or more substances present in a sample, which can be a solid, liquid, or gas, and subsequent promotion of electron(s) from one energy level to another in that substance. Note that the sample can be a pure, homogeneous substance or a complex mixture. The wavelength at which the incident photon is absorbed is determined by the difference in the available energy levels of the different substances present in the sample; it is the selectivity of absorbance spectroscopy - the ability to generate photon (light) sources that are absorbed by only some of the components in a sample - that gives absorbance spectroscopy much of its utility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy
** they are talking about "transparent color", like that of a filter, or gas in a vial. This is precisely why I have been saying that the filters that have been used while the theory was still "young" were falsely assumed to produce monochromatic light. This bad assumption can only verify the "ideal", which is overly simplistic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectrum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectrum
When a photon has exactly the right energy to allow a change in the energy state of the system (in the case of an atom this is usually an electron changing orbitals), the photon is absorbed. Then it will be spontaneously re-emitted, either in the same frequency as the original or in a cascade, where the sum of the energies of the photons emitted will be the same as the energy of the one absorbed. The direction of the new photons will not be related to the direction of travel of the original photon.
Depending on the geometry of the gas, the photon source and the observer, either an emission line or an absorption line will be produced. If the gas is between the photon source and the observer, a decrease in the intensity of light in the frequency of the incident photon will be seen, as the re-emitted photons will mostly be in directions different from the original one. This will be an absorption line. If the observer sees the gas, but not the original photon source, then the observer will see only the photons re-emitted in a narrow frequency range. This will be an emission line.
Spectral line broadening and shift
A line extends over a range of frequencies, not a single frequency. In addition its center may be shifted from its nominal central wavelength. There are several reasons for this broadening and shift. These reasons may be divided into two broad categories - broadening due to local conditions and broadening due to extended conditions. Broadening due to local conditions is due to effects which hold in a small region around the emitting element, usually small enough to assure local thermodynamic equilibrium. Broadening due to extended conditions may result from changes to the spectral distribution of the radiation as it traverses its path to the observer. It also may result from the combining of radiation from a number of regions which are far from each other.
Quasi-static pressure broadening: The presence of other particles shifts the energy levels in the emitting particle, thereby altering the frequency of the emitted radiation. The duration of the influence is much longer than the lifetime of the emission process. This effect depends on the density of the gas, but is rather insensitive to temperature. The form of the line profile is determined by the functional form of the perturbing force with respect to distance from the perturbing particle. There may also be a shift in the line center.
Resonance broadening occurs when the perturbing particle is of the same type as the emitting particle, which introduces the possibility of an energy exchange process.
Opacity broadening: Electromagnetic radiation emitted at a particular point in space can be absorbed as it travels through space. This absorption depends on wavelength. The line is broadened because photons at the line wings have a smaller re-absorption probability than photons at the line center. Indeed, the absorption near line center may be so great as to cause a self reversal in which the intensity at the center of the line is less than in the wings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_line
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom
So, the genius that mathematically showed how Heisenberg's Matrix and Schroedinger's Wave equation were equivalent, then went on to invent the technique that would lead to such higher precisions. I do not know if Dirac ever extended his exponential frequency comb to "harmonics"; I doubt it. By the time of his work, the concept of "resonance" had been completely buried in mathematical abstraction.
I'm all for "getting back to the topic", if we can just get everyone to agree on what the topic should be at this point.
Regards,
T.Roc
Answers to questions:
QUOTE
Laserlight Posted: Jul 5 2007, 06:28 PM
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?
<You just mentioned part of it - that intensity has a direct relationship with the RI. The other part is the standard premise of 4WM - that 3 waves (of specific ratios) mixed together produce a 4th. There is "one more" intensity count. >
At the atomic dipole and photon frequency levels, isn't there just 2 wave
(frequency) mixing taking place?
<Yes, and no. In the "normal" sense, we can have superposition of more than one "photon" to void that assumption. In the "special" sense, there is nothing in 4WM that assumes monochromatic light. The envelope that is emitted over a finite period, has a bandwidth of frequencies. So, I would say "no" to a 2 frequency interaction; it is just an "ideal". >
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?
<You just mentioned part of it - that intensity has a direct relationship with the RI. The other part is the standard premise of 4WM - that 3 waves (of specific ratios) mixed together produce a 4th. There is "one more" intensity count. >
At the atomic dipole and photon frequency levels, isn't there just 2 wave
(frequency) mixing taking place?
<Yes, and no. In the "normal" sense, we can have superposition of more than one "photon" to void that assumption. In the "special" sense, there is nothing in 4WM that assumes monochromatic light. The envelope that is emitted over a finite period, has a bandwidth of frequencies. So, I would say "no" to a 2 frequency interaction; it is just an "ideal". >
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Laserlight Posted: Jul 5 2007, 06:28 PM 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? <You just mentioned part of it - that intensity has a direct relationship with the RI. The other part is the standard premise of 4WM - that 3 waves (of specific ratios) mixed together produce a 4th. There is "one more" intensity count. > At the atomic dipole and photon frequency levels, isn't there just 2 wave (frequency) mixing taking place? <Yes, and no. In the "normal" sense, we can have superposition of more than one "photon" to void that assumption. In the "special" sense, there is nothing in 4WM that assumes monochromatic light. The envelope that is emitted over a finite period, has a bandwidth of frequencies. So, I would say "no" to a 2 frequency interaction; it is just an "ideal". > |
Although the emission lines are caused by a transition between quantized energy states and may at first look very sharp, they do have a finite width, i.e. they are composed of more than one wavelength of light. This spectral line broadening has many different causes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectroscopy
QUOTE
Laserlight Posted: Yesterday at 1:56 AM
Hi TRoc,
Are you proposing/suggesting that only the outermost orbital electrons emit
photonic frequencies in the visible range?
Hi TRoc,
Are you proposing/suggesting that only the outermost orbital electrons emit
photonic frequencies in the visible range?
< No. >
Other comments: Vibrational spectroscopy - absorption of infrared radiation, see infrared spectroscopy; often used as an analytical tool
Raman spectroscopy - A molecule can absorb a part of the energy of a photon, which results in a change in frequency (or wavelength) of the photon. The amount of absorbed energy corresponds to an infrared transition in the molecule, even though the photon might have a visible-light wavelength.
Circular dichroism spectroscopy - measures effects of a sample on the polarization of light.
Stark spectroscopy - measures effects of electrical fields on the spectra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectroscopy
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Laserlight Posted: Yesterday at 1:56 AM Hi TRoc, Are you proposing/suggesting that only the outermost orbital electrons emit photonic frequencies in the visible range? |
< No. >
Other comments: Vibrational spectroscopy - absorption of infrared radiation, see infrared spectroscopy; often used as an analytical tool
Raman spectroscopy - A molecule can absorb a part of the energy of a photon, which results in a change in frequency (or wavelength) of the photon. The amount of absorbed energy corresponds to an infrared transition in the molecule, even though the photon might have a visible-light wavelength.
Circular dichroism spectroscopy - measures effects of a sample on the polarization of light.
Stark spectroscopy - measures effects of electrical fields on the spectra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectroscopy
janrinze Posted on Today at 12:13 AM
TRoc,
you cannot seriously mean that all blackbody-radiation is caused by electron-transitions??
No. I meant what I said :"Here is the VISIBLE spectrum. This is created by REAL transitions by electrons." In the context of the question of "what is black", what I was trying to say, by underscoring that there is NO black emission, is that it is just a perception. When I say "there is NO black-body", I mean that this is an ideal. In the "lab", a cavity is used to "emulate" the ideal. The color "black" has nothing to do with it.
QUOTE
Why Not? Posted on Today at 1:05 AM
Interference occurs regardless and it can effectively calculated without mention of the medium. Is anyone aware of a different interference result that is crucially dependent on the medium's material or thickness? If so, please post a link. If not, then I am not sure how all this debate applies to the DCQE ..
Interference occurs regardless and it can effectively calculated without mention of the medium. Is anyone aware of a different interference result that is crucially dependent on the medium's material or thickness? If so, please post a link. If not, then I am not sure how all this debate applies to the DCQE ..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why Not? Posted on Today at 1:05 AM Interference occurs regardless and it can effectively calculated without mention of the medium. Is anyone aware of a different interference result that is crucially dependent on the medium's material or thickness? If so, please post a link. If not, then I am not sure how all this debate applies to the DCQE .. |
While the relative intensity of the absorption lines do not vary with concentration, at any given wavelength the measured absorbance ( − log(I / I0)) has been shown to be proportional to the molar concentration of the absorbing species and the thickness of the sample the light passes through. This is known as the Beer-Lambert law. The plot of amount of radiation absorbed versus wavelength for a particular compound is referred to as the absorption spectrum.
At wavelengths corresponding to the resonant energy levels of the sample, some of the incident photons are absorbed, resulting in a drop in the measured transmission intensity and a corresponding dip in the spectrum.
The relation between the visible color and the absorbance color is complicated; a sample that appears red does not absorb in the red, but absorbs at OTHER wavelengths (colors) so that the light which passes through the sample is enriched in red. **
The word "color" is placed in quotes to indicate that absorbance spectroscopy deals not only with light in the visible range - photons with a wavelength of roughly 400 to 700 nanometers, but also with wavelengths that lie outside of the range of human vision (IR, UV, X-rays). However, the principles are quite similar for both visible and nonvisible light.
More technically [1] [2], absorption spectroscopy is based on the absorption of photons by one or more substances present in a sample, which can be a solid, liquid, or gas, and subsequent promotion of electron(s) from one energy level to another in that substance. Note that the sample can be a pure, homogeneous substance or a complex mixture. The wavelength at which the incident photon is absorbed is determined by the difference in the available energy levels of the different substances present in the sample; it is the selectivity of absorbance spectroscopy - the ability to generate photon (light) sources that are absorbed by only some of the components in a sample - that gives absorbance spectroscopy much of its utility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy
** they are talking about "transparent color", like that of a filter, or gas in a vial. This is precisely why I have been saying that the filters that have been used while the theory was still "young" were falsely assumed to produce monochromatic light. This bad assumption can only verify the "ideal", which is overly simplistic.
QUOTE
Every chemical element has absorption lines at several particular wavelengths corresponding to the differences between the energy levels of its atomic orbitals. For example, an object that absorbs blue, green and yellow light will appear red when viewed under white light.
.. the photon produced is not necessarily emitted in the same direction as the original photon. The most common angle of this has been shown to be about 45 degrees of the original photon[citation needed]. This applies to any situation where gases lie between a light source and an observer: the observer will see gaps in the spectrum of the light corresponding to the wavelengths of the photons which were absorbed. These gaps occur despite the re-emission of photons because the re-emitted photons are equally likely to travel in all directions, and it is statistically unlikely to travel along the original path to the observer. These gaps appear as black lines in an image of the spectrum.
.. the photon produced is not necessarily emitted in the same direction as the original photon. The most common angle of this has been shown to be about 45 degrees of the original photon[citation needed]. This applies to any situation where gases lie between a light source and an observer: the observer will see gaps in the spectrum of the light corresponding to the wavelengths of the photons which were absorbed. These gaps occur despite the re-emission of photons because the re-emitted photons are equally likely to travel in all directions, and it is statistically unlikely to travel along the original path to the observer. These gaps appear as black lines in an image of the spectrum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectrum
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Every chemical element has absorption lines at several particular wavelengths corresponding to the differences between the energy levels of its atomic orbitals. For example, an object that absorbs blue, green and yellow light will appear red when viewed under white light. .. the photon produced is not necessarily emitted in the same direction as the original photon. The most common angle of this has been shown to be about 45 degrees of the original photon[citation needed]. This applies to any situation where gases lie between a light source and an observer: the observer will see gaps in the spectrum of the light corresponding to the wavelengths of the photons which were absorbed. These gaps occur despite the re-emission of photons because the re-emitted photons are equally likely to travel in all directions, and it is statistically unlikely to travel along the original path to the observer. These gaps appear as black lines in an image of the spectrum. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectrum
When a photon has exactly the right energy to allow a change in the energy state of the system (in the case of an atom this is usually an electron changing orbitals), the photon is absorbed. Then it will be spontaneously re-emitted, either in the same frequency as the original or in a cascade, where the sum of the energies of the photons emitted will be the same as the energy of the one absorbed. The direction of the new photons will not be related to the direction of travel of the original photon.
Depending on the geometry of the gas, the photon source and the observer, either an emission line or an absorption line will be produced. If the gas is between the photon source and the observer, a decrease in the intensity of light in the frequency of the incident photon will be seen, as the re-emitted photons will mostly be in directions different from the original one. This will be an absorption line. If the observer sees the gas, but not the original photon source, then the observer will see only the photons re-emitted in a narrow frequency range. This will be an emission line.
Spectral line broadening and shift
A line extends over a range of frequencies, not a single frequency. In addition its center may be shifted from its nominal central wavelength. There are several reasons for this broadening and shift. These reasons may be divided into two broad categories - broadening due to local conditions and broadening due to extended conditions. Broadening due to local conditions is due to effects which hold in a small region around the emitting element, usually small enough to assure local thermodynamic equilibrium. Broadening due to extended conditions may result from changes to the spectral distribution of the radiation as it traverses its path to the observer. It also may result from the combining of radiation from a number of regions which are far from each other.
Quasi-static pressure broadening: The presence of other particles shifts the energy levels in the emitting particle, thereby altering the frequency of the emitted radiation. The duration of the influence is much longer than the lifetime of the emission process. This effect depends on the density of the gas, but is rather insensitive to temperature. The form of the line profile is determined by the functional form of the perturbing force with respect to distance from the perturbing particle. There may also be a shift in the line center.
Resonance broadening occurs when the perturbing particle is of the same type as the emitting particle, which introduces the possibility of an energy exchange process.
Opacity broadening: Electromagnetic radiation emitted at a particular point in space can be absorbed as it travels through space. This absorption depends on wavelength. The line is broadened because photons at the line wings have a smaller re-absorption probability than photons at the line center. Indeed, the absorption near line center may be so great as to cause a self reversal in which the intensity at the center of the line is less than in the wings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_line
QUOTE
In 1913, Niels Bohr obtained the spectral frequencies of the hydrogen atom after making a number of simplifying assumptions. These assumptions were not fully correct, but did yield the correct energy answers ..
The solution of the Schrodinger equation goes much further than the Bohr model however, because it also yields the shape of the electron's wave function ("orbital") for the various possible quantum-mechanical states-- thus explaining the anisotropic character of atomic bonds.
The solution of the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom uses the fact that the Coulomb potential produced by the nucleus is isotropic (it is radially symmetric in space and only depends on the distance to the nucleus). Although the resulting energy eigenfunctions (the "orbitals") are not necessarily isotropic themselves, their dependence on the angular coordinates follows completely generally from this isotropy of the underlying potential: The eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (= energy eigenstates) can be chosen as simultaneous eigenstates of the angular momentum operator. This corresponds to the fact that angular momentum is conserved in the orbital motion of the electron around the nucleus.
There are several important effects that are neglected by the Schrödinger equation and which are responsible for certain small but measurable deviations of the real spectral lines from the predicted ones:
Although the mean speed of the electron in hydrogen is only 1/137th of the speed of light there is an increase in the electron's momentum which is not quite linear with velocity, as predicted by special relativity. The relativistic mass of the electron may be said to increase. Since the electron's wavelength is determined by its momentum, orbitals containing electrons reaching higher speeds show differential contraction due to smaller wavelengths.
Even when there is no external magnetic field, in the inertial frame of the moving electron, the electromagnetic field of the nucleus has a magnetic component. The spin of the electron has an associated magnetic moment which interacts with this magnetic field. This effect is also explained by special relativity, and it leads to the so-called spin-orbit coupling, i.e., an interaction between the electron's orbital motion around the nucleus, and its spin.
Both of these features (and more) are incorporated in the relativistic Dirac equation, with predictions that come still closer to experiment.
For these developments, it was essential that the solution of the Dirac equation for the hydrogen atom could be worked out exactly, such that any experimentally observed deviation had to be taken seriously as a signal of failure of the theory.
Due to the high precision of the theory also very high precision for the experiments is needed, which utilize a frequency comb.
The solution of the Schrodinger equation goes much further than the Bohr model however, because it also yields the shape of the electron's wave function ("orbital") for the various possible quantum-mechanical states-- thus explaining the anisotropic character of atomic bonds.
The solution of the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom uses the fact that the Coulomb potential produced by the nucleus is isotropic (it is radially symmetric in space and only depends on the distance to the nucleus). Although the resulting energy eigenfunctions (the "orbitals") are not necessarily isotropic themselves, their dependence on the angular coordinates follows completely generally from this isotropy of the underlying potential: The eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (= energy eigenstates) can be chosen as simultaneous eigenstates of the angular momentum operator. This corresponds to the fact that angular momentum is conserved in the orbital motion of the electron around the nucleus.
There are several important effects that are neglected by the Schrödinger equation and which are responsible for certain small but measurable deviations of the real spectral lines from the predicted ones:
Although the mean speed of the electron in hydrogen is only 1/137th of the speed of light there is an increase in the electron's momentum which is not quite linear with velocity, as predicted by special relativity. The relativistic mass of the electron may be said to increase. Since the electron's wavelength is determined by its momentum, orbitals containing electrons reaching higher speeds show differential contraction due to smaller wavelengths.
Even when there is no external magnetic field, in the inertial frame of the moving electron, the electromagnetic field of the nucleus has a magnetic component. The spin of the electron has an associated magnetic moment which interacts with this magnetic field. This effect is also explained by special relativity, and it leads to the so-called spin-orbit coupling, i.e., an interaction between the electron's orbital motion around the nucleus, and its spin.
Both of these features (and more) are incorporated in the relativistic Dirac equation, with predictions that come still closer to experiment.
For these developments, it was essential that the solution of the Dirac equation for the hydrogen atom could be worked out exactly, such that any experimentally observed deviation had to be taken seriously as a signal of failure of the theory.
Due to the high precision of the theory also very high precision for the experiments is needed, which utilize a frequency comb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom
So, the genius that mathematically showed how Heisenberg's Matrix and Schroedinger's Wave equation were equivalent, then went on to invent the technique that would lead to such higher precisions. I do not know if Dirac ever extended his exponential frequency comb to "harmonics"; I doubt it. By the time of his work, the concept of "resonance" had been completely buried in mathematical abstraction.
I'm all for "getting back to the topic", if we can just get everyone to agree on what the topic should be at this point.
Regards,
T.Roc
My only interest in the relationship between resonant cavities (cavities?) and the DSE result is/was to establish that there is no relationship. Regrettably Good Elf seems to be unwell .. hopefully he'll get back to this if he wants to.
QUOTE (TRoc+Jul 10 2007, 02:08 AM)
Hi all,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectrum
** they are talking about "transparent color", like that of a filter, or gas in a vial. This is precisely why I have been saying that the filters that have been used while the theory was still "young" were falsely assumed to produce monochromatic light. This bad assumption can only verify the "ideal", which is overly simplistic.
QUOTE
Every chemical element has absorption lines at several particular wavelengths corresponding to the differences between the energy levels of its atomic orbitals. For example, an object that absorbs blue, green and yellow light will appear red when viewed under white light.
.. the photon produced is not necessarily emitted in the same direction as the original photon. The most common angle of this has been shown to be about 45 degrees of the original photon[citation needed]. This applies to any situation where gases lie between a light source and an observer: the observer will see gaps in the spectrum of the light corresponding to the wavelengths of the photons which were absorbed. These gaps occur despite the re-emission of photons because the re-emitted photons are equally likely to travel in all directions, and it is statistically unlikely to travel along the original path to the observer. These gaps appear as black lines in an image of the spectrum.
So, the genius that mathematically showed how Heisenberg's Matrix and Schroedinger's Wave equation were equivalent, then went on to invent the technique that would lead to such higher precisions. I do not know if Dirac ever extended his exponential frequency comb to "harmonics"; I doubt it. By the time of his work, the concept of "resonance" had been completely buried in mathematical abstraction.
I'm all for "getting back to the topic", if we can just get everyone to agree on what the topic should be at this point.
Regards,
T.Roc
There is a lot of work going on in "solid state" which will probably reveal new information about these "little deviations".
The involvement of the quark sea, and QCD is still an unknown.
jal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectrum
** they are talking about "transparent color", like that of a filter, or gas in a vial. This is precisely why I have been saying that the filters that have been used while the theory was still "young" were falsely assumed to produce monochromatic light. This bad assumption can only verify the "ideal", which is overly simplistic.
QUOTE
Every chemical element has absorption lines at several particular wavelengths corresponding to the differences between the energy levels of its atomic orbitals. For example, an object that absorbs blue, green and yellow light will appear red when viewed under white light.
.. the photon produced is not necessarily emitted in the same direction as the original photon. The most common angle of this has been shown to be about 45 degrees of the original photon[citation needed]. This applies to any situation where gases lie between a light source and an observer: the observer will see gaps in the spectrum of the light corresponding to the wavelengths of the photons which were absorbed. These gaps occur despite the re-emission of photons because the re-emitted photons are equally likely to travel in all directions, and it is statistically unlikely to travel along the original path to the observer. These gaps appear as black lines in an image of the spectrum.
So, the genius that mathematically showed how Heisenberg's Matrix and Schroedinger's Wave equation were equivalent, then went on to invent the technique that would lead to such higher precisions. I do not know if Dirac ever extended his exponential frequency comb to "harmonics"; I doubt it. By the time of his work, the concept of "resonance" had been completely buried in mathematical abstraction.
I'm all for "getting back to the topic", if we can just get everyone to agree on what the topic should be at this point.
Regards,
T.Roc
There is a lot of work going on in "solid state" which will probably reveal new information about these "little deviations".
The involvement of the quark sea, and QCD is still an unknown.
jal
Hi Montec,
Cheers
QUOTE
Hello all
How about discussing spherical wave interference with a planer wave as seen here.
or here
The spherical wave is generated at the interface between the planer wave and the edge of the opaque barrier.
Discussion welcome.
OK.... You have my attention. Could you provide a reference and context for your data?How about discussing spherical wave interference with a planer wave as seen here.
or here
The spherical wave is generated at the interface between the planer wave and the edge of the opaque barrier.
Discussion welcome.
Cheers
Hi Confused2,
Yep! ... I am still "under the weather".
Yep! ... I am still "under the weather".
QUOTE (Confused2+)
My only interest in the relationship between resonant cavities (cavities?) and the DSE result is/was to establish that there is no relationship. Regrettably Good Elf seems to be unwell .. hopefully he'll get back to this if he wants to.
I will not contest the point anymore. Science is not a "debate"... Well at least not to me it isn't. The principles behind abstract testing of ideas against theory are to be accepted as a whole or it simply becomes a "political or religious battle". If there is "no relationship between resonant cavities and the DSE" as you have stated then I am willing to accept your assessment since I will not be able to change any locked in opinions.
Hi Montec,
Isn't this red laser light interacting with different geometries of a razor blade that
you posted before?
Just some personal observations. I'm open to other opinions.
The waves seem to be following the ISL. The interference band "widths"
(light and dark) decrease in dimensional width, and "intensity", as the distance
from the surface shape increases.
The waves are standing waves, because they are easily imaged. The waves
appear stationary in space and time. Their location and timing is referenced
to the edges of the physical blade surfaces.
The waves appear to have harmonic order, which accounts for their width and
relative intensity changes with distance (according to the ISL).
The waves interfere geometrically with the blade edges, perhaps caused by the
light interacting with surface charge polaritons, or they could be caused by simple
surface scattering according to the phase relationships of the coherent waves.
The images are perhaps an indication of the refractive properties that are modified
by the laser energy which is changing the n of the proximity space that surrounds
the blade.
Ohter ideas or observations?
LL
Isn't this red laser light interacting with different geometries of a razor blade that
you posted before?
Just some personal observations. I'm open to other opinions.
The waves seem to be following the ISL. The interference band "widths"
(light and dark) decrease in dimensional width, and "intensity", as the distance
from the surface shape increases.
The waves are standing waves, because they are easily imaged. The waves
appear stationary in space and time. Their location and timing is referenced
to the edges of the physical blade surfaces.
The waves appear to have harmonic order, which accounts for their width and
relative intensity changes with distance (according to the ISL).
The waves interfere geometrically with the blade edges, perhaps caused by the
light interacting with surface charge polaritons, or they could be caused by simple
surface scattering according to the phase relationships of the coherent waves.
The images are perhaps an indication of the refractive properties that are modified
by the laser energy which is changing the n of the proximity space that surrounds
the blade.
Ohter ideas or observations?
LL
Hello Good Elf, Laserlight, et al.
The above images are from Hyperphysics
My idea is partially substantiated (spherical and planer wave interference), after a little searching on the web, Fresnel Diffraction
And I quote
Huygens sources are spherical waves.
The above images are from Hyperphysics
My idea is partially substantiated (spherical and planer wave interference), after a little searching on the web, Fresnel Diffraction
And I quote
QUOTE
All these simplifications are based on the assumption that the most important contribution to the intensity in P is caused by the Huygens sources lying near to the upper edge of the object
Huygens sources are spherical waves.
Hi Montec,
There is a theoretical "problem" regarding "plane waves" and reality says they cannot carry energy without curvature. The "plane wave" is an "abstract concept" since it cannot spread and is already of infinite extent. The idea that you may have two different waves with different amounts of curvature suggest two different sources. It is possible that they may be "correlated" but it would be pretty unlikely.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...opic/razcut.jpg is on this page...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...pt/bardif3.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...opic/bardif.jpg is on this page...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...opt/bardif.html
These are "generalizations" of point sources and are "equivalent" to "distributed" smaller circular sources in a desired pattern and summed as "correlated" individual sources.
There is a theoretical "problem" regarding "plane waves" and reality says they cannot carry energy without curvature. The "plane wave" is an "abstract concept" since it cannot spread and is already of infinite extent. The idea that you may have two different waves with different amounts of curvature suggest two different sources. It is possible that they may be "correlated" but it would be pretty unlikely.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...opic/razcut.jpg is on this page...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...pt/bardif3.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...opic/bardif.jpg is on this page...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...opt/bardif.html
These are "generalizations" of point sources and are "equivalent" to "distributed" smaller circular sources in a desired pattern and summed as "correlated" individual sources.
QUOTE (Montec+)
How about discussing spherical wave interference with a planer wave as seen here.
.....
or here
......
The spherical wave is generated at the interface between the planer wave and the edge of the opaque barrier.
Discussion welcome.
.....
or here
......
The spherical wave is generated at the interface between the planer wave and the edge of the opaque barrier.
Discussion welcome.
Rather than Fraunhofer Diffraction these would need to be dealt with using Fresnel Diffraction of more than one source with different distances. In other respects you build sources the same way as before it is a more complex function but computers handle mathematical complexity "in a doddle". The difference is with the more exact solution there is no "zeros" at the minima between maxima.
It is clear that these standing waves exist on the outside or the inside of "structures" such as sharp straight edges (A "slit" is two sharp "opposing" edges close together).
Concentrate on the phase version of this image (this is an intensity image of a razor edge)...
These pictures are "monochromatic" and such structures exist for all matter boundaries in space as spatially stationary phenomenon but are not related to optical "waves" progressing through space but spatial standing waves "frozen" in place based on Cornu Spiral constructive and destructive summing interference (the word "destructive" is not really appropriate is it?).
It must be related to what happens at "two edges" in the DSE where we have two pairs of "two edges". The interference dies away parallel with distance "across" the silt but is scaled as we move perpendicular from the interfaces in all directions. Obviously three dimensional and perfectly "stationary". One photon at a time these structures would still exist and would still build up these images and even construct holograms at each and every frequency. They exist because of the matter wave structures that underpin the form you are seeing here.
Recall photographic plates like these do not record phase but only intensity as a rule so this image squares all this phase information and produces this "exposure". In reality to combine several of these "slits" "mentally, we must work with complex phase (which is not recorded in images) and not intensity and so sum phases before converting to intensity. The conversion to intensity is a squaring operation ... reducing the vectors to scalars. Obviously real standing waves are the oscillating vectors and not "photogenic" scalar image of intensity.
Have a look at this Java Applet...
http://dev.physicslab.org/asp/applets/inte...nce/default.asp
Clearly the only problem with this applet is this applet is not showing standing waves so you just got to ask the question!! In other ways it is excellent showing both amplitude (phase) and intensity and adjustable wavelength as well as sources etc..
The result is perfectly standard (I assume), what is the point you wish to make?
Cheers
It is clear that these standing waves exist on the outside or the inside of "structures" such as sharp straight edges (A "slit" is two sharp "opposing" edges close together).
Concentrate on the phase version of this image (this is an intensity image of a razor edge)...
These pictures are "monochromatic" and such structures exist for all matter boundaries in space as spatially stationary phenomenon but are not related to optical "waves" progressing through space but spatial standing waves "frozen" in place based on Cornu Spiral constructive and destructive summing interference (the word "destructive" is not really appropriate is it?).
It must be related to what happens at "two edges" in the DSE where we have two pairs of "two edges". The interference dies away parallel with distance "across" the silt but is scaled as we move perpendicular from the interfaces in all directions. Obviously three dimensional and perfectly "stationary". One photon at a time these structures would still exist and would still build up these images and even construct holograms at each and every frequency. They exist because of the matter wave structures that underpin the form you are seeing here.
Recall photographic plates like these do not record phase but only intensity as a rule so this image squares all this phase information and produces this "exposure". In reality to combine several of these "slits" "mentally, we must work with complex phase (which is not recorded in images) and not intensity and so sum phases before converting to intensity. The conversion to intensity is a squaring operation ... reducing the vectors to scalars. Obviously real standing waves are the oscillating vectors and not "photogenic" scalar image of intensity.
Have a look at this Java Applet...
http://dev.physicslab.org/asp/applets/inte...nce/default.asp
Clearly the only problem with this applet is this applet is not showing standing waves so you just got to ask the question!! In other ways it is excellent showing both amplitude (phase) and intensity and adjustable wavelength as well as sources etc..
The result is perfectly standard (I assume), what is the point you wish to make?
Cheers
Hello Good Elf, et al.
In my idea/model for light there are a couple of assumptions.
#1 We have three waves A, B, And C with the same amplitude and Poynting vector.. Waves A and B have the same phase while wave C has a 180 deg. phase shift from A and B. When we add A and B we have constructive interference. When we add wave C with either A or B we have destructive interference. When we add all three waves we have a wave with the same amplitude/intensity as wave A or B. (We don't know which wave/photon was destructed by the way). This is just vector addition of the field intensities. The point being when you add or subtract a wave with less intensity to a wave with a greater intensity you will only get a changing intensity in the resultant wave. This does not exclude the idea of discrete steps or minimum levels for the intensities of a wave interference. When you have the same intensity, say from a single photon and a DSE layout, where you get both constructive and destructive interference in the output pattern then the destructive interference is complete and the vector sum of the field intensities is zero.
#2 The electric and magnetic fields do not travel through space along the Poynting vector of the EM wave. The energy (photon) is moved through space along the Poynting vector by the generation of new fields at a distance of 1/4 wavelength in front of the old field. (This is very similar to the Huygens wavelet model.) The photon is the energy tied up in both the magnetic and electric fields. The cycle is electric to magnetic and back to electric and so on. The curvature of the fields (spherical or planer) determines the next field's curvature in the cycle. Convex and concave curvatures will modify the field intensities from cycle to cycle. Planer waves will have the same field intensities from cycle to cycle.
Destructive interference reduces the intensities of the magnetic and electric fields. Constructive interference increases the intensities of the magnetic and electric fields. When the intensity is zero (complete destructive interference) then there can be no transfer of energy and hence no photon of light.
There can also be interference when the Poynting vectors for individual waves are not parallel but the waves must have the same frequency and polarization for this to be observed. This is why I say that the interference seen from an opaque edge is the result of the interference between waves of different curvature (Poynting vectors).
Comments and/or discussion welcome.
In my idea/model for light there are a couple of assumptions.
#1 We have three waves A, B, And C with the same amplitude and Poynting vector.. Waves A and B have the same phase while wave C has a 180 deg. phase shift from A and B. When we add A and B we have constructive interference. When we add wave C with either A or B we have destructive interference. When we add all three waves we have a wave with the same amplitude/intensity as wave A or B. (We don't know which wave/photon was destructed by the way). This is just vector addition of the field intensities. The point being when you add or subtract a wave with less intensity to a wave with a greater intensity you will only get a changing intensity in the resultant wave. This does not exclude the idea of discrete steps or minimum levels for the intensities of a wave interference. When you have the same intensity, say from a single photon and a DSE layout, where you get both constructive and destructive interference in the output pattern then the destructive interference is complete and the vector sum of the field intensities is zero.
#2 The electric and magnetic fields do not travel through space along the Poynting vector of the EM wave. The energy (photon) is moved through space along the Poynting vector by the generation of new fields at a distance of 1/4 wavelength in front of the old field. (This is very similar to the Huygens wavelet model.) The photon is the energy tied up in both the magnetic and electric fields. The cycle is electric to magnetic and back to electric and so on. The curvature of the fields (spherical or planer) determines the next field's curvature in the cycle. Convex and concave curvatures will modify the field intensities from cycle to cycle. Planer waves will have the same field intensities from cycle to cycle.
Destructive interference reduces the intensities of the magnetic and electric fields. Constructive interference increases the intensities of the magnetic and electric fields. When the intensity is zero (complete destructive interference) then there can be no transfer of energy and hence no photon of light.
There can also be interference when the Poynting vectors for individual waves are not parallel but the waves must have the same frequency and polarization for this to be observed. This is why I say that the interference seen from an opaque edge is the result of the interference between waves of different curvature (Poynting vectors).
Comments and/or discussion welcome.
Hi Montec,
QUOTE (Montec+)
#1 We have three waves A, B, And C with the same amplitude and Poynting vector.. Waves A and B have the same phase while wave C has a 180 deg. phase shift from A and B. When we add A and B we have constructive interference. When we add wave C with either A or B we have destructive interference. When we add all three waves we have a wave with the same amplitude/intensity as wave A or B. (We don't know which wave/photon was destructed by the way). This is just vector addition of the field intensities. The point being when you add or subtract a wave with less intensity to a wave with a greater intensity you will only get a changing intensity in the resultant wave. This does not exclude the idea of discrete steps or minimum levels for the intensities of a wave interference. When you have the same intensity, say from a single photon and a DSE layout, where you get both constructive and destructive interference in the output pattern then the destructive interference is complete and the vector sum of the field intensities is zero.
The essence of "waves" is not in their "bulk" properties but in their "discrete" properties. It is an accident of history that we discovered "waves" as bulk phenomenon instead of "wavelets" which pack a quantum of energy. Measurements of "bulk"properties tell us nothing of the discrete properties and is a kind of "false security". As I said in my last post.... the wording "constructive and destructive" are misleading... what we should say is "sum or subtract... vectorwise". This means that a "zero" is only a local zero and as long as it is "not sampled" to see just what it is, it really has any value you want it to be like Schrodinger's Cat. The next point is since waves are "apparently" made up of large numbers of co-moving photons (I am assuming coherent light here), there is absolutely no information regarding "existence or non-existence" unless you make measurements. Once you make the measurement that particular group of photons you "sampled" are no longer "coherent" and will not partake in an orderly interference pattern. This is a real "spoiler" with regards to "logic" since what we want to say is "what happens next".
Answer what is the "discrete" property of photons in waves, that is fundamental, then explain the bulk property of photons in terms of thosediscrete properties. This is what I try and do.
Answer what is the "discrete" property of photons in waves, that is fundamental, then explain the bulk property of photons in terms of thosediscrete properties. This is what I try and do.
QUOTE (Montec+)
#2 The electric and magnetic fields do not travel through space along the Poynting vector of the EM wave. The energy (photon) is moved through space along the Poynting vector by the generation of new fields at a distance of 1/4 wavelength in front of the old field. (This is very similar to the Huygens wavelet model.) The photon is the energy tied up in both the magnetic and electric fields. The cycle is electric to magnetic and back to electric and so on. The curvature of the fields (spherical or planer) determines the next field's curvature in the cycle. Convex and concave curvatures will modify the field intensities from cycle to cycle. Planer waves will have the same field intensities from cycle to cycle.
Destructive interference reduces the intensities of the magnetic and electric fields. Constructive interference increases the intensities of the magnetic and electric fields. When the intensity is zero (complete destructive interference) then there can be no transfer of energy and hence no photon of light.
Destructive interference reduces the intensities of the magnetic and electric fields. Constructive interference increases the intensities of the magnetic and electric fields. When the intensity is zero (complete destructive interference) then there can be no transfer of energy and hence no photon of light.
Intensity is just a measurement made with a particular kind of sensor.... in some respects similar to our eyes. People say seeing is believing... not for me. In "our world" if you have a enclosed room and you place an observer at the door to count who goes into the room, the number of individuals who enter the room is the number of people in the room. Light is not like that. If the vectors of the electric and magnetic field at the door sum to zero our doorkeeper counts a big zero entering the room. Yet this could be simply a billion photon fields vectorially summing instantaneously to zero then sneaking past the doorkeeper. Alternatively the doorkeeper counts 10 of them and does not see the other 999,990 that snuck through at the same time.
The continuous wave is not what is the important issue here, the radiant traveling energy is composed of many individual "synchronous" photons which act independently (absorbed or reflected etc.).... They are just all traveling on the same "bus" (single boson quantum state obeying Bose-Einstein Statistics). The nature of the quantum is such that we are not allowed to "peek" and then be allowed to think this is all there is to "Life, the Universe and Everything". For instance with EIT (Electromagnetically Induced Transparency) a stimulating EM beam "keeps the door open" through certain normally opaque matter, allowing as many co-moving photons to penetrate, without any opposition, a thick block of "solid" light blocking material almost as far as they want. Seeing is not believing. Another example regarding superposition is that a plane polarized beam of coherent light can still pass through a left or right circular polarizer losing only 1/2 the intensity. Common sense suggests that plane polarization should stop any circular polarizations... not so. These "effects" are all phenomenon associated with the Boson state which is not the same as fermion states (such as those that involve electrons).
I sense you had another point to make but did not ask? Am I right?
Cheers
The continuous wave is not what is the important issue here, the radiant traveling energy is composed of many individual "synchronous" photons which act independently (absorbed or reflected etc.).... They are just all traveling on the same "bus" (single boson quantum state obeying Bose-Einstein Statistics). The nature of the quantum is such that we are not allowed to "peek" and then be allowed to think this is all there is to "Life, the Universe and Everything". For instance with EIT (Electromagnetically Induced Transparency) a stimulating EM beam "keeps the door open" through certain normally opaque matter, allowing as many co-moving photons to penetrate, without any opposition, a thick block of "solid" light blocking material almost as far as they want. Seeing is not believing. Another example regarding superposition is that a plane polarized beam of coherent light can still pass through a left or right circular polarizer losing only 1/2 the intensity. Common sense suggests that plane polarization should stop any circular polarizations... not so. These "effects" are all phenomenon associated with the Boson state which is not the same as fermion states (such as those that involve electrons).
I sense you had another point to make but did not ask? Am I right?
Cheers
Hello!
This is what is being done to try to understand "waves".
There might be some information in this paper that might help with what you are doing.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs...-pub-12632.html
SLAC-PUB-12632
Novel QCD Phenomena
Stanley J. Brodsky∗†
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94309
june 2007
---------
jal
This is what is being done to try to understand "waves".
There might be some information in this paper that might help with what you are doing.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs...-pub-12632.html
SLAC-PUB-12632
Novel QCD Phenomena
Stanley J. Brodsky∗†
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94309
june 2007
---------
jal
Awesome, awesome, awesome link jal! Thanks. Inside out is outside in! GE is gonna love this... though think there are not enough D.
GE is gonna love this... though think there are not enough D.
Hi Jal, Why Not? and all,
QUOTE (Why Not?+)
Awesome, awesome, awesome link jal! Thanks. Inside out is outside in! GE is gonna love this... though think there are not enough D.
That was a very interesting paper Jal, Why Not? is right to suggest that it is interesting with "AdS-CFT Theory etc in it. Unfortunately it is QCD and is currently beyond my ability to fully comprehend. This is the realm of the Super Colliders and I am prepared to wait and see what comes from that investigation. Many concepts are very deep and beyond proof for me at this stage... Not that I disagree... I would have to say that like QED the predictions are probably "spot on" within the paradigm. For me the high energy particle paradigm is asking the "wrong questions" but they are valid questions that someone will ask someday.
QCD is another level which is full of quantum rules that are comparatively "meaningless" and the double cover using the particle paradigm is "a world of it's own". I maintain that QCD is a "similar theory" to QED but embedded totally within our existing QED framework... a double cover and a particle theory to boot. I stop at QED where I am barely able to get some handle on the issue. Spacetime is not "simply connected" and it is far from Abelian so it is certainly "way out there" and it is a job for the most powerful computers not "elves".
IMHO the connection according to my theory is "holographic".... this has no place in this doubly covered particle theory as it presently stands... and while it should be a doddle for some bright person it certainly is not for me. I will try to stick to optical bench tops and little mirrors and crystals and experimental results where "I think" I understand what is happening.
It is best for me to keep a handle on experiment and not to stretch some imaginary link beyond the level where it presently can be understood.
Our QCD is the QED of the sub-atomic realm. Our QED is the QCD of a "Super-Universe" where everything we are and have known is a single quanta floating in a near endless sea of similar quanta.
That was a very interesting paper Jal, Why Not? is right to suggest that it is interesting with "AdS-CFT Theory etc in it. Unfortunately it is QCD and is currently beyond my ability to fully comprehend. This is the realm of the Super Colliders and I am prepared to wait and see what comes from that investigation. Many concepts are very deep and beyond proof for me at this stage... Not that I disagree... I would have to say that like QED the predictions are probably "spot on" within the paradigm. For me the high energy particle paradigm is asking the "wrong questions" but they are valid questions that someone will ask someday. QCD is another level which is full of quantum rules that are comparatively "meaningless" and the double cover using the particle paradigm is "a world of it's own". I maintain that QCD is a "similar theory" to QED but embedded totally within our existing QED framework... a double cover and a particle theory to boot. I stop at QED where I am barely able to get some handle on the issue. Spacetime is not "simply connected" and it is far from Abelian so it is certainly "way out there" and it is a job for the most powerful computers not "elves".
IMHO the connection according to my theory is "holographic".... this has no place in this doubly covered particle theory as it presently stands... and while it should be a doddle for some bright person it certainly is not for me. I will try to stick to optical bench tops and little mirrors and crystals and experimental results where "I think" I understand what is happening.
It is best for me to keep a handle on experiment and not to stretch some imaginary link beyond the level where it presently can be understood.Our QCD is the QED of the sub-atomic realm. Our QED is the QCD of a "Super-Universe" where everything we are and have known is a single quanta floating in a near endless sea of similar quanta.
QUOTE (Augustus De Morgan+)
Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.
or as Wizards and Alchemists once said...
"As above ... So below".
Cheers
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.
or as Wizards and Alchemists once said...
"As above ... So below".
Cheers
Good Day All!
Wanting to understand "waves" is still a priority.
The experiments have moved down to the level of QCD.
With the level of education of the participants of this thread, the learning curve will be easier than for most people.
Get out of the "time warp". The new experiments can be understood by those who learn the language being used in the new experiments.
Just remember that everything that we can detect is within the "drip line".
We have no way of verifying what is happening between the emmitted and the absorber because when we insert a probe inbetween it then becomes an absorber.
This applies to macro and micro distances.
QCD uses a "bag model" however, we do not know What is in the "bag". Is it the whole nucleon ..... a proton .... a neutron .... quarks .... gluons ....????
Do they affect each other like many bags in proximity? How do they interact?
Are waves real?
This is the frontier of science. This is the frontier of our knowledge.
jal
insert: info on "drip line"
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/nucl-th/pdf/0312/0312003v3.pdf
Standard Model Masses and Models of Nuclei
Alejandro Rivero
10 May 2004
Wanting to understand "waves" is still a priority.
The experiments have moved down to the level of QCD.
With the level of education of the participants of this thread, the learning curve will be easier than for most people.
QUOTE
I will try to stick to optical bench tops and little mirrors and crystals and experimental results where "I think" I understand what is happening. It is best for me to keep a handle on experiment and not to stretch some imaginary link beyond the level where it presently can be understood.
Get out of the "time warp". The new experiments can be understood by those who learn the language being used in the new experiments.
Just remember that everything that we can detect is within the "drip line".
We have no way of verifying what is happening between the emmitted and the absorber because when we insert a probe inbetween it then becomes an absorber.
This applies to macro and micro distances.
QCD uses a "bag model" however, we do not know What is in the "bag". Is it the whole nucleon ..... a proton .... a neutron .... quarks .... gluons ....????
Do they affect each other like many bags in proximity? How do they interact?
Are waves real?
This is the frontier of science. This is the frontier of our knowledge.
jal
insert: info on "drip line"
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/nucl-th/pdf/0312/0312003v3.pdf
Standard Model Masses and Models of Nuclei
Alejandro Rivero
10 May 2004
Interesting article on Plasmon's
"On a wire or in a fiber, a wave is a wave"
http://www.physorg.com/news103548765.html
"On a wire or in a fiber, a wave is a wave"
http://www.physorg.com/news103548765.html
Hi Jal,
QUOTE (Jal+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
I will try to stick to optical bench tops and little mirrors and crystals and experimental results where "I think" I understand what is happening. It is best for me to keep a handle on experiment and not to stretch some imaginary link beyond the level where it presently can be understood.
Get out of the "time warp". The new experiments can be understood by those who learn the language being used in the new experiments. Just remember that everything that we can detect is within the "drip line". Wanting to understand "waves" is still a priority. The experiments have moved down to the level of QCD. With the level of education of the participants of this thread, the learning curve will be easier than for most people.
The Forum is wisely divided into topics and then into threads. While I understand there is a continuation down to QCD from QED, I am not prepared to use the current QED Paradigm to explore an "embedding" of the that defunct QED Paradigm to "explore" QCD, a topic I cannot currently express in terms of "an advanced optics". There is an explanation but I leave it for you to discuss at this stage. I am not saying some things will not be learned... some things will be learned but it is more important how this information is incorporated into the base knowledge than the knowledge itself. It is like the story of Pandora... We have the ability to open the box but just because we can does not mean we should without taking some precautions since it is more difficult to unscramble scrambled eggs than to hatch an egg that has not been scrambled. This thread is about the Double Slit Experiment not QCD. I am sure you will find a thread that relates to QCD. What relates to the DSE is QED... Quantum Electrodynamics not QCD... Quantum Chromodynamics does not apply in this "realm".
QUOTE (Jal+)
QCD uses a "bag model" however, we do not know What is in the "bag". Is it the whole nucleon ..... a proton .... a neutron .... quarks .... gluons ....????
Do they affect each other like many bags in proximity? How do they interact?
Are waves real?
This is the frontier of science. This is the frontier of our knowledge.
Do they affect each other like many bags in proximity? How do they interact?
Are waves real?
This is the frontier of science. This is the frontier of our knowledge.
As you have stated you may not know "what is in the bag" with QCD... take my word for it that I am prepared to leave in the bag what may be found there for the time being and work on examining the "bag" itself which is QED. It is precisely for that reason I am working with this level of the theory that I believe is deeply flawed. Without the correct tool you will obtain little mastery over the next level of the Universe. The only mastery we seem to be getting is that of a child with a big hammer. My methodology is trying to work more like a "craftsperson" and build a "pocketwatch" with tools we can actually access on a benchtop. I have said this before... all the applications will be at the level of the QED not at the level of QCD. There are not going to be hand held QCD Higg's Generators capable of punching holes in our continuum for a very long time. Access to advanced technology for the sustained future will be at the QED level and this will provide you with all your "wildest dreams" and much more right now. I do not mean more "IPods". What I mean is Theories of Everything starts and stops with QED being incorporated into a higher dimensional holographic optical theory... that is what I am doing (nobody else is currently doing exactly what I do).... With "that theory" everything becomes "Electromagnetics".... This includes Gravity as a pseudo-force and also the problems and advantges of "higher dimensions" which I maintain are nothing to do with Planck Length Scale. These are accessible from the benchtop not high energy atom smashers. Mankind is currently running blind "down a long staircase into the unlit basement of our Universe" and many of the steps are still missing. I am trying, against all odds, to put those steps in place before mankind stumbles or is lost in that darkness.
The answer to "Life the Universe and Everything" is not always "Get a bigger hammer and hit a lot harder"... For me the answer is "Get the right screwdriver and you can disassemble 'natures pocketwatch'". I am not "obsessed" with force and power or in building Cathedrals of Technology, I am interested in understanding "questions". I am not involved with some kind of Technological Arms Race to find the next most powerful "Weapon of Mass Destruction"... I am into something quite apart from that.
The absolutely most important observation we can make is not what is the highest speed you can push a particle... It is de Broglie's question as to what is the slowest velocity a particle can go and why (...the folding on V = 0 or V= C duality). The relationship between Einsteins Special Relativity and de Broglie's Matter Wave Relationships... the "low velocity end of the Universe". This demonstrates that the harder we push the less we really know about a most important point about our Universe and why it is here.
Horses for courses Jal... But first shoe your horse.
Cheers
The answer to "Life the Universe and Everything" is not always "Get a bigger hammer and hit a lot harder"... For me the answer is "Get the right screwdriver and you can disassemble 'natures pocketwatch'". I am not "obsessed" with force and power or in building Cathedrals of Technology, I am interested in understanding "questions". I am not involved with some kind of Technological Arms Race to find the next most powerful "Weapon of Mass Destruction"... I am into something quite apart from that.
The absolutely most important observation we can make is not what is the highest speed you can push a particle... It is de Broglie's question as to what is the slowest velocity a particle can go and why (...the folding on V = 0 or V= C duality). The relationship between Einsteins Special Relativity and de Broglie's Matter Wave Relationships... the "low velocity end of the Universe". This demonstrates that the harder we push the less we really know about a most important point about our Universe and why it is here.
Horses for courses Jal... But first shoe your horse.
Cheers
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE
Interesting article on Plasmon's
"On a wire or in a fiber, a wave is a wave"
http://www.physorg.com/news103548765.html
Yes that is a very interseting article on Plasmons... Notice the comment at the end.."On a wire or in a fiber, a wave is a wave"
http://www.physorg.com/news103548765.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Interesting article on Plasmon's "On a wire or in a fiber, a wave is a wave" http://www.physorg.com/news103548765.html |
Yes that is a very interseting article on Plasmons... Notice the comment at the end..
“You can couple stripes, you can make slits, you can make all sorts of other geometries that might work,” said Zia. “But to see that potential through, you have to have a clear analytical theory and a way to test it.”
“You can couple stripes, you can make slits, you can make all sorts of other geometries that might work,” said Zia. “But to see that potential through, you have to have a clear analytical theory and a way to test it.”
This is "advanced optics" but we need to see that surface plasmons (or SPP - surface plasmon polaritons) affect slits but when you do not have metal slits there will not be any surface plasmons. The DSE will still occur without Plasmons but Plasmons have an influence on the DSE for sure, the range and influence is still a big question.
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_B...-08/07-005.html
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.1439v1.pdf
This last reference immediately above is very well illustrated and explains what these things look like and what their scale is as well. Well worth discussions.
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_B...-08/07-005.html
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.1439v1.pdf
This last reference immediately above is very well illustrated and explains what these things look like and what their scale is as well. Well worth discussions.
QUOTE (Wikipedia: Surface Plasmons+)
In order to excite surface plasmons in a resonant manner, one can use an electron or light beam (visible and infrared are typical). The incoming beam has to match with its impulse to that of the plasmon. In the case of p-polarized light, this is possible by passing the light through a block of glass to increase the wavenumber (and the impulse), and achieve the resonance at a given wavelength and angle. S-polarized light can not excite electronic surface plasmons.
Electronic and magnetic surface plasmons obey the following dispersion relation:
... see Wikipedia reference...
Typical metals that support surface plasmons are silver and gold, but metals such as copper, titanium, or chromium can also support surface plasmon generation.
Using light to excite SP waves, there are two constructions which are well known. In the Otto setup, the light is shone on the wall of a glass block, typically a prism, and totally reflected. A thin metal (for example gold) film is positioned close enough, that the evanescent waves can interact with the plasma waves on the surface and excite the plasmons.
In the Kretschmann configuration, the metal film is evaporated onto the glass block. The light is again illuminating from the glass, and an evanescent wave penetrates through the metal film. The plasmons are excited at the outer side of the film. This configuration is used in most practical applications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_plasmon_resonance
Electronic and magnetic surface plasmons obey the following dispersion relation:
... see Wikipedia reference...
Typical metals that support surface plasmons are silver and gold, but metals such as copper, titanium, or chromium can also support surface plasmon generation.
Using light to excite SP waves, there are two constructions which are well known. In the Otto setup, the light is shone on the wall of a glass block, typically a prism, and totally reflected. A thin metal (for example gold) film is positioned close enough, that the evanescent waves can interact with the plasma waves on the surface and excite the plasmons.
In the Kretschmann configuration, the metal film is evaporated onto the glass block. The light is again illuminating from the glass, and an evanescent wave penetrates through the metal film. The plasmons are excited at the outer side of the film. This configuration is used in most practical applications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_plasmon_resonance
I would state right here that SPP only occurs near the surface of metal films with perforations that are immersed in a "medium" like air or water... they do not occur in a vacuum as I understand it.
Here is the experiment...
http://origin.www.nature.com/nnano/journal...007.185_F1.html
Cheers
Here is the experiment...
http://origin.www.nature.com/nnano/journal...007.185_F1.html
Cheers
Hi GE,
I am giving credibiltiy to the concept that nearly all materials form oxides on their
surfaces, which are dipolar materials. Some exotic noble materials may not
oxidize, but most elements do form an oxide coating that enhances polariton
development. The key, is a resonance response of surface dipoles to an
externally applied EM field. Keep in mind, that even a single slit has the effect
of taking a planar EM wavefront, and diffracting it, turning it into a spherical
wavefront. It is likely that there is an induced resonance response between the
surface EM fields of the cavity area of the slit, and the EM fields of the arriving
coherent photons. IMO, these surface polariton fields produce an optical field
effect that changes the local refractive index, which causes phase changes in
the photons in closest proximity to the surfaces. This creates a focal point
effect for that slit, where everything beyond the focal point starts spreading
in spherical wavefronts. The DSE is the common wave superposition/wave
summation phenomenon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton
http://www.physorg.com/news103469279.html
LL
I am giving credibiltiy to the concept that nearly all materials form oxides on their
surfaces, which are dipolar materials. Some exotic noble materials may not
oxidize, but most elements do form an oxide coating that enhances polariton
development. The key, is a resonance response of surface dipoles to an
externally applied EM field. Keep in mind, that even a single slit has the effect
of taking a planar EM wavefront, and diffracting it, turning it into a spherical
wavefront. It is likely that there is an induced resonance response between the
surface EM fields of the cavity area of the slit, and the EM fields of the arriving
coherent photons. IMO, these surface polariton fields produce an optical field
effect that changes the local refractive index, which causes phase changes in
the photons in closest proximity to the surfaces. This creates a focal point
effect for that slit, where everything beyond the focal point starts spreading
in spherical wavefronts. The DSE is the common wave superposition/wave
summation phenomenon.
QUOTE
In physics, polaritons are quasiparticles resulting from strong coupling of electromagnetic waves with an electric or magnetic dipole-carrying excitation. They are an expression of the common quantum phenomenon known as level repulsion, also known as the anti-crossing principle. Polaritons describe the crossing of the dispersion of light with any interacting resonance.
Thus, a polariton is the result of the mixing of a photon with an excitation of a material. The most discussed types of polaritons are phonon-polaritons, resulting from coupling of an infrared photon with an optic phonon; exciton-polaritons, resulting from coupling of visible light with an exciton; and surface plasmon-polaritons, resulting from coupling of surface plasmons with light (the wavelength depends on the substance).
Thus, a polariton is the result of the mixing of a photon with an excitation of a material. The most discussed types of polaritons are phonon-polaritons, resulting from coupling of an infrared photon with an optic phonon; exciton-polaritons, resulting from coupling of visible light with an exciton; and surface plasmon-polaritons, resulting from coupling of surface plasmons with light (the wavelength depends on the substance).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton
http://www.physorg.com/news103469279.html
LL
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
It is likely that there is an induced resonance response between the surface EM fields of the cavity area of the slit, and the EM fields of the arriving coherent photons. IMO, these surface polariton fields produce an optical field effect that changes the local refractive index, which causes phase changes in the photons in closest proximity to the surfaces. This creates a focal point effect for that slit, where everything beyond the focal point starts spreading in spherical wavefronts. The DSE is the common wave superposition/wave summation phenomenon.
This is in general true... SPP can increase the transmission of photons through DSE slits like an optical waveguide. This of course is an effect that is limited to the surface of the metal. It does not extend into free space too far ... only around a short wavelength of light which can be much smaller than the gap in the slits in the DSE. As to the modifying of the RI, this does happen through very normal means since there is a gas there and its properties depend the near field on the metal surface. As I have been saying the more interesting phenomenon (for me) is distant phenomena away from the slits where the RI is changed in free space due to EM defects as stated by Taco Visser. These RI changes occur in free space in a vacuum. This is a far more useful property. I am not trying to understate SPP but I am pointing to the other far more interesting phenomena. As to SPP being the cause of DSE... I would not accept that since it occurs in non-metallic slits and also in a vacuum.
Cheers
Cheers
Hi all,
Is there more? Why would spherical and plane wave interference be different than spherical/spherical or plane/plane interference? They both are described by a constant difference. Or, are you talking about the "change" from spherical to planer, & vice versa?
Is there more? Why would spherical and plane wave interference be different than spherical/spherical or plane/plane interference? They both are described by a constant difference. Or, are you talking about the "change" from spherical to planer, & vice versa?
Good Elf Posted: Jul 12 2007, 08:16 AM
Hi Montec,
There is a theoretical "problem" regarding "plane waves" and reality says they cannot carry energy without curvature. The "plane wave" is an "abstract concept" since it cannot spread and is already of infinite extent. The idea that you may have two different waves with different amounts of curvature suggest two different sources.
If the plane wave is an abstract concept (not that it is not, it is just that SO is everything else, so why would this stand out?), then what is Science describing when it uses this definition in theory AND experiments?
You're suggesting that Huygens principle is invalid, from my understanding of your statement.
Are you also suggesting that we can NOT have a "complex" wave envelope, with more than one frequency, and more than one curvature?
regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE
Montec Posted: Jul 11 2007, 05:48 AM
My idea is partially substantiated (spherical and planer wave interference), after a little searching on the web, Fresnel Diffraction
And I quote
QUOTE
All these simplifications are based on the assumption that the most important contribution to the intensity in P is caused by the Huygens sources lying near to the upper edge of the object
My idea is partially substantiated (spherical and planer wave interference), after a little searching on the web, Fresnel Diffraction
And I quote
QUOTE
All these simplifications are based on the assumption that the most important contribution to the intensity in P is caused by the Huygens sources lying near to the upper edge of the object
Is there more? Why would spherical and plane wave interference be different than spherical/spherical or plane/plane interference? They both are described by a constant difference. Or, are you talking about the "change" from spherical to planer, & vice versa?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Montec Posted: Jul 11 2007, 05:48 AM My idea is partially substantiated (spherical and planer wave interference), after a little searching on the web, Fresnel Diffraction And I quote QUOTE All these simplifications are based on the assumption that the most important contribution to the intensity in P is caused by the Huygens sources lying near to the upper edge of the object |
Is there more? Why would spherical and plane wave interference be different than spherical/spherical or plane/plane interference? They both are described by a constant difference. Or, are you talking about the "change" from spherical to planer, & vice versa?
Good Elf Posted: Jul 12 2007, 08:16 AM
Hi Montec,
There is a theoretical "problem" regarding "plane waves" and reality says they cannot carry energy without curvature. The "plane wave" is an "abstract concept" since it cannot spread and is already of infinite extent. The idea that you may have two different waves with different amounts of curvature suggest two different sources.
If the plane wave is an abstract concept (not that it is not, it is just that SO is everything else, so why would this stand out?), then what is Science describing when it uses this definition in theory AND experiments?
You're suggesting that Huygens principle is invalid, from my understanding of your statement.
Are you also suggesting that we can NOT have a "complex" wave envelope, with more than one frequency, and more than one curvature?
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
Are you also suggesting that we can NOT have a "complex" wave envelope, with more than one frequency, and more than one curvature?
Every wave is actually curved. You can have a mathematical simplification by ignoring curvature and this gives mathematically more simple answers. This was real good when you worked on paper with a slide rule that had only four significant figures. It made sense that all the mechanical operations were reduced. Today we have computers that accept very complex programs that work to 30 significant figures if required. All this without having to do any calculations in practice.
Summary... even if light comes from Alpha Centauri it still has wavefront curvature. The further the source is away the more like a planar solution it becomes. The principle of superposition says that you simply superimpose the wavefronts from all the sources to obtain the solution. There are no sources of plane waves... only sources which originate from dipole emitters (maybe 1/2 wave emitters etc... but no actual plane wave emitters.
"What science is describing" is the older way in which things were done where accuracy was at the 1% level was considered as being very good. Nothing like actually reading up on these topics to be able to understand what is described. People are making statements and saying things without a single reference so what am I to do. You know the adage .... Garbage in... Garbage out.
Summary... even if light comes from Alpha Centauri it still has wavefront curvature. The further the source is away the more like a planar solution it becomes. The principle of superposition says that you simply superimpose the wavefronts from all the sources to obtain the solution. There are no sources of plane waves... only sources which originate from dipole emitters (maybe 1/2 wave emitters etc... but no actual plane wave emitters.
"What science is describing" is the older way in which things were done where accuracy was at the 1% level was considered as being very good. Nothing like actually reading up on these topics to be able to understand what is described. People are making statements and saying things without a single reference so what am I to do. You know the adage .... Garbage in... Garbage out.
QUOTE (TRoc gobbledeegook...+)
...not that it is not, it is just that SO is everything else, so why would this stand out?
If you really think there is something in these statements then give me a substantial reference... there have been none so far. I have no idea what you are on about ... please construct a sentence that means something to more people.
Cheers
Cheers
Hi Good Elf, TRoc, Laserlight, Montec, Jal et al,
IMHO
To explain the DSE result all one needs to do is explain what happens when you have two paths to the same point. Diffraction and the slits in general are merely incidental to creating those two paths. Creating two paths using mirrors * produces the same result as the DSE so explaining one will explain the other. An explanation for one but not the other is an indication that the real problem has not been addressed.
Best wishes - C2.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
Edit .. the same 'problem' exists for all EM interactions .. using monochromatic/coherent light simply makes the effect easier to observe.
IMHO
To explain the DSE result all one needs to do is explain what happens when you have two paths to the same point. Diffraction and the slits in general are merely incidental to creating those two paths. Creating two paths using mirrors * produces the same result as the DSE so explaining one will explain the other. An explanation for one but not the other is an indication that the real problem has not been addressed.
Best wishes - C2.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
Edit .. the same 'problem' exists for all EM interactions .. using monochromatic/coherent light simply makes the effect easier to observe.
Good Day!
It seems to me that this is a premature conclusion.
It seems to me that this is a premature conclusion.
Horses for courses Jal... But first shoe your horse.
I've shown you the water ..... have a drink whenever you are ready.
jal
QUOTE
This thread is about the Double Slit Experiment not QCD. I am sure you will find a thread that relates to QCD. What relates to the DSE is QED... Quantum Electrodynamics not QCD... Quantum Chromodynamics does not apply in this "realm".
It seems to me that this is a premature conclusion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This thread is about the Double Slit Experiment not QCD. I am sure you will find a thread that relates to QCD. What relates to the DSE is QED... Quantum Electrodynamics not QCD... Quantum Chromodynamics does not apply in this "realm". |
It seems to me that this is a premature conclusion.
Horses for courses Jal... But first shoe your horse.
I've shown you the water ..... have a drink whenever you are ready.
jal
Hi GE,
IMO, you are disregarding the natural native oxide build up on the exposed
surfaces of nearly all materials that increases the active number of dielectric
dipoles available to generate surface fields. The more dipoles available, per
unit area, the higher the refractive index. The higher the refractive index, the
more influence and the wider the diffraction/spreading of the wavefront, as can
be observed in the case of narrower slits.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Same wave source, the only obvious variable is the slit width. This change
of geometric ratio, between the light waves and the slits, also changes the
refractive index within the slit cavity. Why?
Obviously, the refractive index of the slit cavity is affected by its width and it's
associated surface electrical fields, which have a stronger influence on passing
photons when the fields are concentrated. The surface E fields have been
concentrated by being brought into close proximity, which exerts a stronger
influence on passing photon wave fields and phase angles.
We also know that sharp edges concentrate surface fields along the edge
boundaries, and generate a higher field strength along the edge, because there is
more exposed angular surface area in that locality, than a flat surface possesses.
We know and use this phenomenon as a point source "radiator" that provides
focal control, as in the emitter of a scanning electron microscope, or any high
resolution imaging source where point sources are used to improve/focus
image resolution.
Polarization of dielectric.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
TD Visser paper-
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/jump.pdf
LL
QUOTE
As to SPP being the cause of DSE... I would not accept that since it occurs in non-metallic slits and also in a vacuum.
IMO, you are disregarding the natural native oxide build up on the exposed
surfaces of nearly all materials that increases the active number of dielectric
dipoles available to generate surface fields. The more dipoles available, per
unit area, the higher the refractive index. The higher the refractive index, the
more influence and the wider the diffraction/spreading of the wavefront, as can
be observed in the case of narrower slits.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Same wave source, the only obvious variable is the slit width. This change
of geometric ratio, between the light waves and the slits, also changes the
refractive index within the slit cavity. Why?
Obviously, the refractive index of the slit cavity is affected by its width and it's
associated surface electrical fields, which have a stronger influence on passing
photons when the fields are concentrated. The surface E fields have been
concentrated by being brought into close proximity, which exerts a stronger
influence on passing photon wave fields and phase angles.
We also know that sharp edges concentrate surface fields along the edge
boundaries, and generate a higher field strength along the edge, because there is
more exposed angular surface area in that locality, than a flat surface possesses.
We know and use this phenomenon as a point source "radiator" that provides
focal control, as in the emitter of a scanning electron microscope, or any high
resolution imaging source where point sources are used to improve/focus
image resolution.
Polarization of dielectric.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
TD Visser paper-
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/jump.pdf
LL
Hello Laserlight, TRoc, Good Elf, et al.
Laserlight
The edges of the slit cavity "kink" (generate a more spherical wave) from the planer waves incident onto the slit. For a given frequency these "kinks" will occupy a fixed distance/area between the slits edges. The ratio of "kink" to planer wave is reduced as the slit width is reduced. The resultant wave out of the slit is a far field blending of the "kinks" and planer wave. Up close to the slit you will see both "kinks" and planer wave effects (IMO).
TRoc
The mixing of two waves with curved wave fronts of different curvatures will result in an interference pattern where the distance between the maximums or minimums will change as a function of the angle between the Poynting vectors of the waves at the point of interference.
Good Elf
Good optics and/or parabolic mirrors can generate planer waves that cannot be differentiated from an "idealized" planer wave in the laboratory. Lasers can also be designed with positive-to-negative mirrors and a lens to get a planer wave out put.
Laserlight
The edges of the slit cavity "kink" (generate a more spherical wave) from the planer waves incident onto the slit. For a given frequency these "kinks" will occupy a fixed distance/area between the slits edges. The ratio of "kink" to planer wave is reduced as the slit width is reduced. The resultant wave out of the slit is a far field blending of the "kinks" and planer wave. Up close to the slit you will see both "kinks" and planer wave effects (IMO).
TRoc
The mixing of two waves with curved wave fronts of different curvatures will result in an interference pattern where the distance between the maximums or minimums will change as a function of the angle between the Poynting vectors of the waves at the point of interference.
Good Elf
Good optics and/or parabolic mirrors can generate planer waves that cannot be differentiated from an "idealized" planer wave in the laboratory. Lasers can also be designed with positive-to-negative mirrors and a lens to get a planer wave out put.
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
IMO, you are disregarding the natural native oxide build up on the exposed surfaces of nearly all materials that increases the active number of dielectric
dipoles available to generate surface fields.
dipoles available to generate surface fields.
SPP is not enhanced by oxide layers it is enhanced by only shiny metal layers (within 2um of the surface only). Slit gaps in DSE can be 1 or 2 mm a thousand times larger than this effect and SPP cannot work in that gap. The paper referred to in the article does not refer to any effects in "gaps"... it refers to effects on the immediate surface of the gold film deposited on the substrate showing an analogous effect for plasmon diffraction in thin layers on the surface of metal. It is clear that the plasmon effects is over the metal only... there is a very tiny influence above the metal surface and around edges that involve photon "clumping" and channeling leading to hyper-brightening. The plasmon interference is wholly on/over the surface of an "excited" metal strip. See the illustration in my post.
http://www.physics.montana.edu/demonstrati...adniplates.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymatics
These patterns are "attached" intimately to the surfaces and do not persist beyond the margins.
Cheers
QUOTE
We also know that sharp edges concentrate surface fields along the edge boundaries, and generate a higher field strength along the edge, because there is more exposed angular surface area in that locality, than a flat surface possesses. We know and use this phenomenon as a point source "radiator" that provides focal control, as in the emitter of a scanning electron microscope, or any high resolution imaging source where point sources are used to improve/focus image resolution. Polarization of dielectric.
Different effect unrelated to SPP. SPP is a phenomenon not unlike or analogous to Chladni's figures or Cymatics with sound...http://www.physics.montana.edu/demonstrati...adniplates.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymatics
These patterns are "attached" intimately to the surfaces and do not persist beyond the margins.
Cheers
Hi all,
Montec Posted on Today at 3:46 PM
The mixing of two waves with curved wave fronts of different curvatures will result in an interference pattern where the distance between the maximums or minimums will change as a function of the angle between the Poynting vectors of the waves at the point of interference.
I agree with you. I see from your statement to LL, that you are talking about the area of the change from one perspective, to the other. I was trying to say that the difference between 2 different curves can be measured the same way as the difference between 1 curve, and a "straight" line.
Because of our constant (pi) ratio relationship, the difference between 2 circles can be stated in terms of their individual radius. The "straight line" is already inside our concept of "circle", as it is required to "make" a circle. Not in the outer edge, but in the symmetrical division of the form, and rotation about the center axis.
more in my next post ..
ciao!
T.Roc
QUOTE
TRoc Posted on Today at 7:09 AM
.. Why would spherical and plane wave interference be different than spherical/spherical or plane/plane interference? ..
.. Or, are you talking about the "change" from spherical to planer, & vice versa? ..
.. Why would spherical and plane wave interference be different than spherical/spherical or plane/plane interference? ..
.. Or, are you talking about the "change" from spherical to planer, & vice versa? ..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| TRoc Posted on Today at 7:09 AM .. Why would spherical and plane wave interference be different than spherical/spherical or plane/plane interference? .. .. Or, are you talking about the "change" from spherical to planer, & vice versa? .. |
Montec Posted on Today at 3:46 PM
The mixing of two waves with curved wave fronts of different curvatures will result in an interference pattern where the distance between the maximums or minimums will change as a function of the angle between the Poynting vectors of the waves at the point of interference.
I agree with you. I see from your statement to LL, that you are talking about the area of the change from one perspective, to the other. I was trying to say that the difference between 2 different curves can be measured the same way as the difference between 1 curve, and a "straight" line.
Because of our constant (pi) ratio relationship, the difference between 2 circles can be stated in terms of their individual radius. The "straight line" is already inside our concept of "circle", as it is required to "make" a circle. Not in the outer edge, but in the symmetrical division of the form, and rotation about the center axis.
more in my next post ..
ciao!
T.Roc
Hello all
Here is another link that reinforces my idea that "kinks" or spherical waves are generated at the edges of opaque materials. Too bad the full article is a pay per view. Knife-edge diffraction pattern as an interference phenomenon: An experimental reality
I also ran across the Miyamoto-Wolf theory and this pdf
Here is another link that reinforces my idea that "kinks" or spherical waves are generated at the edges of opaque materials. Too bad the full article is a pay per view. Knife-edge diffraction pattern as an interference phenomenon: An experimental reality
I also ran across the Miyamoto-Wolf theory and this pdf
Hi Montec,
And just what is responsible for causing the "kink" to occur as a function of the
slit width? Surely, you are not suggesting the wave just deforms itself, or its
internal phasing/timing without some sort of phase delay interaction.
LL
QUOTE
The edges of the slit cavity "kink" (generate a more spherical wave) from the planer waves incident onto the slit. For a given frequency these "kinks" will occupy a fixed distance/area between the slits edges. The ratio of "kink" to planer wave is reduced as the slit width is reduced. The resultant wave out of the slit is a far field blending of the "kinks" and planer wave. Up close to the slit you will see both "kinks" and planer wave effects (IMO).
And just what is responsible for causing the "kink" to occur as a function of the
slit width? Surely, you are not suggesting the wave just deforms itself, or its
internal phasing/timing without some sort of phase delay interaction.
LL
Montec,
IMO this is similar to what I am proposing as a surface mechanism.
GE,
In order for there to be a change of refractive index, there must be a change in
the density characteristics within the wave transporting medium.
Since there is no "physicality" or solid transport medium inside the cavity of the
slits, and we know that a small aperture or slit performs the function of a lens and
reverses/inverts the phase and changes the dynamics of the wave energy "image"
that projects beyond the lensing affects of the aperture, would you agree that
there must be some EM field interaction that takes place within the confines of the cavity?
The fixed geometry of the slits changes the proximity of the space adjacent to it,
this is the resonant coupling of mass to space.
If the slit geometry acts as a pseudo lens, what is the physical mechanism
that affects the incident wave energy which creates this effect?
Can you explain how and why the aperture acts just like the dielectric effect
that occurs in a physical lens phenomenon?
There must be causality for this phenomenon to occur, because there is a
before and after consequence of the lensing action.
Permittivity - Wikipedia - this is good material and everyone should read it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity
GE,
In order for there to be a change of refractive index, there must be a change in
the density characteristics within the wave transporting medium.
Since there is no "physicality" or solid transport medium inside the cavity of the
slits, and we know that a small aperture or slit performs the function of a lens and
reverses/inverts the phase and changes the dynamics of the wave energy "image"
that projects beyond the lensing affects of the aperture, would you agree that
there must be some EM field interaction that takes place within the confines of the cavity?
The fixed geometry of the slits changes the proximity of the space adjacent to it,
this is the resonant coupling of mass to space.
If the slit geometry acts as a pseudo lens, what is the physical mechanism
that affects the incident wave energy which creates this effect?
Can you explain how and why the aperture acts just like the dielectric effect
that occurs in a physical lens phenomenon?
There must be causality for this phenomenon to occur, because there is a
before and after consequence of the lensing action.
Permittivity - Wikipedia - this is good material and everyone should read it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity
[edit] Explanation
In electromagnetism, the electric displacement field D represents how an electric field E influences the organization of electrical charges in a given medium, including charge migration and electric dipole reorientation. Its relation to permittivity is
where the permittivity ε is a scalar if the medium is isotropic or a second rank tensor for an anisotropic linear medium.
In general, permittivity is not a constant, as it can vary with the position in the medium, the frequency of the field applied, humidity, temperature, and other parameters. In a nonlinear medium, the permittivity can depend on the strength of the electric field. Permittivity as a function of frequency can take on real or complex values.
In SI units, permittivity is measured in farads per metre (F/m). The displacement field D is measured in units of coulombs per square metre (C/m2), while the electric field E is measured in volts per metre (V/m). D and E represent the same phenomenon, namely, the interaction between charged objects. D is related to the charge densities associated with this interaction, while E is related to the forces and potential differences.
Frauhofer diffraction doesn't address the physical cause for the wave change as
it passes thru the slit cavity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffraction
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/t...mage.PNG/300px-
LL
IMO this is similar to what I am proposing as a surface mechanism.
QUOTE
Knife-edge diffraction pattern as an interference phenomenon: An experimental reality
Abstract
This paper demonstrates that a knife-edge diffraction pattern is, indeed, due to the interference of two superimposing waves: the geometrical wave and the boundary diffraction wave. Within the framework of boundary diffraction wave theory it is shown that this diffraction pattern can easily be broadened in such a manner that a single fringe covers the whole field of view. At this point the system converges to a schlieren diffraction interferometer and could be used for the study of phase objects using diffraction-limited optics.
Abstract
This paper demonstrates that a knife-edge diffraction pattern is, indeed, due to the interference of two superimposing waves: the geometrical wave and the boundary diffraction wave. Within the framework of boundary diffraction wave theory it is shown that this diffraction pattern can easily be broadened in such a manner that a single fringe covers the whole field of view. At this point the system converges to a schlieren diffraction interferometer and could be used for the study of phase objects using diffraction-limited optics.
GE,
In order for there to be a change of refractive index, there must be a change in
the density characteristics within the wave transporting medium.
Since there is no "physicality" or solid transport medium inside the cavity of the
slits, and we know that a small aperture or slit performs the function of a lens and
reverses/inverts the phase and changes the dynamics of the wave energy "image"
that projects beyond the lensing affects of the aperture, would you agree that
there must be some EM field interaction that takes place within the confines of the cavity?
The fixed geometry of the slits changes the proximity of the space adjacent to it,
this is the resonant coupling of mass to space.
If the slit geometry acts as a pseudo lens, what is the physical mechanism
that affects the incident wave energy which creates this effect?
Can you explain how and why the aperture acts just like the dielectric effect
that occurs in a physical lens phenomenon?
There must be causality for this phenomenon to occur, because there is a
before and after consequence of the lensing action.
Permittivity - Wikipedia - this is good material and everyone should read it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Knife-edge diffraction pattern as an interference phenomenon: An experimental reality Abstract This paper demonstrates that a knife-edge diffraction pattern is, indeed, due to the interference of two superimposing waves: the geometrical wave and the boundary diffraction wave. Within the framework of boundary diffraction wave theory it is shown that this diffraction pattern can easily be broadened in such a manner that a single fringe covers the whole field of view. At this point the system converges to a schlieren diffraction interferometer and could be used for the study of phase objects using diffraction-limited optics. |
GE,
In order for there to be a change of refractive index, there must be a change in
the density characteristics within the wave transporting medium.
Since there is no "physicality" or solid transport medium inside the cavity of the
slits, and we know that a small aperture or slit performs the function of a lens and
reverses/inverts the phase and changes the dynamics of the wave energy "image"
that projects beyond the lensing affects of the aperture, would you agree that
there must be some EM field interaction that takes place within the confines of the cavity?
The fixed geometry of the slits changes the proximity of the space adjacent to it,
this is the resonant coupling of mass to space.
If the slit geometry acts as a pseudo lens, what is the physical mechanism
that affects the incident wave energy which creates this effect?
Can you explain how and why the aperture acts just like the dielectric effect
that occurs in a physical lens phenomenon?
There must be causality for this phenomenon to occur, because there is a
before and after consequence of the lensing action.
Permittivity - Wikipedia - this is good material and everyone should read it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity
[edit] Explanation
In electromagnetism, the electric displacement field D represents how an electric field E influences the organization of electrical charges in a given medium, including charge migration and electric dipole reorientation. Its relation to permittivity is
where the permittivity ε is a scalar if the medium is isotropic or a second rank tensor for an anisotropic linear medium.
In general, permittivity is not a constant, as it can vary with the position in the medium, the frequency of the field applied, humidity, temperature, and other parameters. In a nonlinear medium, the permittivity can depend on the strength of the electric field. Permittivity as a function of frequency can take on real or complex values.
In SI units, permittivity is measured in farads per metre (F/m). The displacement field D is measured in units of coulombs per square metre (C/m2), while the electric field E is measured in volts per metre (V/m). D and E represent the same phenomenon, namely, the interaction between charged objects. D is related to the charge densities associated with this interaction, while E is related to the forces and potential differences.
Frauhofer diffraction doesn't address the physical cause for the wave change as
it passes thru the slit cavity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffraction
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/t...mage.PNG/300px-
LL
Hello Laserlight, et al.
It should also be noted that as the permittivity increases the speed of the propagation wave decreases.
Also Fresnel diffraction does not try to explain the physical interaction responsible for the generation of "boundary waves" since Fresnel diffraction is modeled on Huygens wavelets.
It should also be noted that as the permittivity increases the speed of the propagation wave decreases.
Also Fresnel diffraction does not try to explain the physical interaction responsible for the generation of "boundary waves" since Fresnel diffraction is modeled on Huygens wavelets.
Hi all,
GE, let me restate my apparently vague question, based on your above statement.
Please explain how a "plane wave" is abstract,
while
the concept of a "spherical wave" is not.
If you agree with me, that these are both equally "abstract terms", then we only need to concentrate on "how" they are different.
First, very importantly, I need to acknowledge this statement:
GE, let me restate my apparently vague question, based on your above statement.
Please explain how a "plane wave" is abstract,
while
the concept of a "spherical wave" is not.
If you agree with me, that these are both equally "abstract terms", then we only need to concentrate on "how" they are different.
First, very importantly, I need to acknowledge this statement:
GE:
There are no sources of plane waves...
I agree with that.
However, we can "create them", and indeed, we have, and these planer waves have become an important part of both theory, and experiment.
You have not offered nearly enough evidence for us to abandon Huygens's principle.
I hope that you can continue exploring that idea, it seems to help from time to time.
I hope that you can continue exploring that idea, it seems to help from time to time.
GE:
People are making statements and saying things without a single reference so what am I to do. You know the adage .... Garbage in... Garbage out.
Right; vague statements like this are garbage. You need to be very specific about WHO it is you are addressing [you are not on TV]. Then, after making it clear WHO you are talking to, you should try to make a specific "complaint", or disagreement on a specific point. That way, your posts will have some value.
More "bad" stuff from the "good" elf. To whom should I reference for the absolute philosophical definition of "abstract"?
C2, et al ..
If we ASSUME constant velocity for all frequencies, then from any point, we get ONLY spherical waves.
HOWEVER, this assumption is false.
It REQUIRES an absolutely monochromatic wave. Otherwise, the Refractive Index of space (or whatever medium you wish to employ), would CHANGE the velocity, and disperse the wave-packet.
Since we do not have any monochromatic waves, then we must explain how wave interactions can account for the variations in "persistency" of a resonance.
With a spherical wave, an infinite amount of lines drawn from the center out, in constant radius, would be required to form a "sphere". Even then, this "scale" would be short-lived. At a certain distance out, our "line widths" become visible, and we lose the perception of a constant area like the "near-field". The "intensity" drops in this process.
So, the "spherical wave" concept would require an ever growing number of wavelets to symmetrically form an expanding sphere.
It seems that this statement:
More "bad" stuff from the "good" elf. To whom should I reference for the absolute philosophical definition of "abstract"?
C2, et al ..
If we ASSUME constant velocity for all frequencies, then from any point, we get ONLY spherical waves.
HOWEVER, this assumption is false.
It REQUIRES an absolutely monochromatic wave. Otherwise, the Refractive Index of space (or whatever medium you wish to employ), would CHANGE the velocity, and disperse the wave-packet.
Since we do not have any monochromatic waves, then we must explain how wave interactions can account for the variations in "persistency" of a resonance.
With a spherical wave, an infinite amount of lines drawn from the center out, in constant radius, would be required to form a "sphere". Even then, this "scale" would be short-lived. At a certain distance out, our "line widths" become visible, and we lose the perception of a constant area like the "near-field". The "intensity" drops in this process.
So, the "spherical wave" concept would require an ever growing number of wavelets to symmetrically form an expanding sphere.
It seems that this statement:
GE:
The "plane wave" is an "abstract concept" since it cannot spread and is already of infinite extent.
must also apply in the "other direction".
The steady rate of increasing circumference required by a spherical wave says that it is NOT "spreading" from the "center's point of view". This requires either an infinite amount of time or energy, depending on the parameters under observation.
This comes back to the difference between "group velocity", and "phase velocity" again.
Phase velocity allows BOTH concepts of plane wave, and spherical wave to work, within the framework of a constant group velocity.
In order for phase velocity to assume the symmetry of a spherical wave, a local modification to the RI is needed. This is non-linear, and has the effect of a "white light supercontinuum" (WLSC), which is just a full octave spread of available frequencies. This phenomenon will (IMO) be found to be true for all "octaves", or energy levels; of course, it will only be visible in the visible range. This means that we will have to look for confirmation of this, indirectly.
For a plane wave, the "wings" will have higher frequency, based on the RI. This form also has a balance - the difference in velocity required for this geometry just so happens to create a shift in frequency that is equal to one wavelength.
That is, the extra time that the integer multiple wavelength takes to get to the screen, parallel to the axis/perpendicular to the screen, is exactly the RI for the fundamental frequency, times its' single cycle time.
This is the point that I have made from the beginning of this thread: there is automatically an inverse method available to describe the DSE, compared to the well known "wavelength to pathlength ratio". It is just "frequency to time-of-flight" method, with the RI of the medium being causal for the "spreading" of the wave. You have to "weed out" the idealistic assumptions, of course.
The phenomenon that we are describing (DSE) is "in a medium" that has an RI of >1 . The RI is wavelength dependent; each frequency has it's own phase velocity. The light coming through the slit is not monochromatic. That is all that is needed to explain the dispersion - 180 deg from the slit - into a "spherical wave".
regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE
Good Elf Posted: Jul 12 2007, 08:16 AM
Hi Montec,
There is a theoretical "problem" regarding "plane waves" and reality says they cannot carry energy without curvature. The "plane wave" is an "abstract concept" since it cannot spread and is already of infinite extent. The idea that you may have two different waves with different amounts of curvature suggest two different sources.
Hi Montec,
There is a theoretical "problem" regarding "plane waves" and reality says they cannot carry energy without curvature. The "plane wave" is an "abstract concept" since it cannot spread and is already of infinite extent. The idea that you may have two different waves with different amounts of curvature suggest two different sources.
GE, let me restate my apparently vague question, based on your above statement.
Please explain how a "plane wave" is abstract,
while
the concept of a "spherical wave" is not.
If you agree with me, that these are both equally "abstract terms", then we only need to concentrate on "how" they are different.
First, very importantly, I need to acknowledge this statement:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Good Elf Posted: Jul 12 2007, 08:16 AM Hi Montec, There is a theoretical "problem" regarding "plane waves" and reality says they cannot carry energy without curvature. The "plane wave" is an "abstract concept" since it cannot spread and is already of infinite extent. The idea that you may have two different waves with different amounts of curvature suggest two different sources. |
GE, let me restate my apparently vague question, based on your above statement.
Please explain how a "plane wave" is abstract,
while
the concept of a "spherical wave" is not.
If you agree with me, that these are both equally "abstract terms", then we only need to concentrate on "how" they are different.
First, very importantly, I need to acknowledge this statement:
GE:
There are no sources of plane waves...
I agree with that.
However, we can "create them", and indeed, we have, and these planer waves have become an important part of both theory, and experiment.
You have not offered nearly enough evidence for us to abandon Huygens's principle.
QUOTE
GE:
Nothing like actually reading up on these topics to be able to understand what is described.
Nothing like actually reading up on these topics to be able to understand what is described.
I hope that you can continue exploring that idea, it seems to help from time to time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| GE: Nothing like actually reading up on these topics to be able to understand what is described. |
I hope that you can continue exploring that idea, it seems to help from time to time.
GE:
People are making statements and saying things without a single reference so what am I to do. You know the adage .... Garbage in... Garbage out.
Right; vague statements like this are garbage. You need to be very specific about WHO it is you are addressing [you are not on TV]. Then, after making it clear WHO you are talking to, you should try to make a specific "complaint", or disagreement on a specific point. That way, your posts will have some value.
QUOTE
GE:
If you really think there is something in these statements then give me a substantial reference... there have been none so far. I have no idea what you are on about ... please construct a sentence that means something to more people.
If you really think there is something in these statements then give me a substantial reference... there have been none so far. I have no idea what you are on about ... please construct a sentence that means something to more people.
More "bad" stuff from the "good" elf. To whom should I reference for the absolute philosophical definition of "abstract"?
C2, et al ..
If we ASSUME constant velocity for all frequencies, then from any point, we get ONLY spherical waves.
HOWEVER, this assumption is false.
It REQUIRES an absolutely monochromatic wave. Otherwise, the Refractive Index of space (or whatever medium you wish to employ), would CHANGE the velocity, and disperse the wave-packet.
Since we do not have any monochromatic waves, then we must explain how wave interactions can account for the variations in "persistency" of a resonance.
With a spherical wave, an infinite amount of lines drawn from the center out, in constant radius, would be required to form a "sphere". Even then, this "scale" would be short-lived. At a certain distance out, our "line widths" become visible, and we lose the perception of a constant area like the "near-field". The "intensity" drops in this process.
So, the "spherical wave" concept would require an ever growing number of wavelets to symmetrically form an expanding sphere.
It seems that this statement:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| GE: If you really think there is something in these statements then give me a substantial reference... there have been none so far. I have no idea what you are on about ... please construct a sentence that means something to more people. |
More "bad" stuff from the "good" elf. To whom should I reference for the absolute philosophical definition of "abstract"?
C2, et al ..
If we ASSUME constant velocity for all frequencies, then from any point, we get ONLY spherical waves.
HOWEVER, this assumption is false.
It REQUIRES an absolutely monochromatic wave. Otherwise, the Refractive Index of space (or whatever medium you wish to employ), would CHANGE the velocity, and disperse the wave-packet.
Since we do not have any monochromatic waves, then we must explain how wave interactions can account for the variations in "persistency" of a resonance.
With a spherical wave, an infinite amount of lines drawn from the center out, in constant radius, would be required to form a "sphere". Even then, this "scale" would be short-lived. At a certain distance out, our "line widths" become visible, and we lose the perception of a constant area like the "near-field". The "intensity" drops in this process.
So, the "spherical wave" concept would require an ever growing number of wavelets to symmetrically form an expanding sphere.
It seems that this statement:
GE:
The "plane wave" is an "abstract concept" since it cannot spread and is already of infinite extent.
must also apply in the "other direction".
The steady rate of increasing circumference required by a spherical wave says that it is NOT "spreading" from the "center's point of view". This requires either an infinite amount of time or energy, depending on the parameters under observation.
This comes back to the difference between "group velocity", and "phase velocity" again.
Phase velocity allows BOTH concepts of plane wave, and spherical wave to work, within the framework of a constant group velocity.
In order for phase velocity to assume the symmetry of a spherical wave, a local modification to the RI is needed. This is non-linear, and has the effect of a "white light supercontinuum" (WLSC), which is just a full octave spread of available frequencies. This phenomenon will (IMO) be found to be true for all "octaves", or energy levels; of course, it will only be visible in the visible range. This means that we will have to look for confirmation of this, indirectly.
For a plane wave, the "wings" will have higher frequency, based on the RI. This form also has a balance - the difference in velocity required for this geometry just so happens to create a shift in frequency that is equal to one wavelength.
That is, the extra time that the integer multiple wavelength takes to get to the screen, parallel to the axis/perpendicular to the screen, is exactly the RI for the fundamental frequency, times its' single cycle time.
This is the point that I have made from the beginning of this thread: there is automatically an inverse method available to describe the DSE, compared to the well known "wavelength to pathlength ratio". It is just "frequency to time-of-flight" method, with the RI of the medium being causal for the "spreading" of the wave. You have to "weed out" the idealistic assumptions, of course.
The phenomenon that we are describing (DSE) is "in a medium" that has an RI of >1 . The RI is wavelength dependent; each frequency has it's own phase velocity. The light coming through the slit is not monochromatic. That is all that is needed to explain the dispersion - 180 deg from the slit - into a "spherical wave".
regards,
T.Roc
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
GE,
In order for there to be a change of refractive index, there must be a change in the density characteristics within the wave transporting medium.
In order for there to be a change of refractive index, there must be a change in the density characteristics within the wave transporting medium.
This is a statement. It is a wrong statement but what am I to say? I do not accept Aether Theories and "density" changes do not occur in a vacuum.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Since there is no "physicality" or solid transport medium inside the cavity of the slits, and we know that a small aperture or slit performs the function of a lens and reverses/inverts the phase and changes the dynamics of the wave energy "image" that projects beyond the lensing affects of the aperture, would you agree that there must be some EM field interaction that takes place within the confines of the cavity?
I must remind you that "slits"... I prefer pinholes since these are "rudimentary sources"... are not "lenses" when you refer to a vacuum. I do not accept your "definition" of a "lens" in those restricted terms. A slit is a pair of edges and a pinhole is a small aperture. These are both "secondary sources" echoing the original source and transporting the information found in the primary source.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
The fixed geometry of the slits changes the proximity of the space adjacent to it, this is the resonant coupling of mass to space.
You are telling the story... why and some references please? What is this line of discussion about? Are we still discussing Fraunhofer Diffraction vs Fresnel Diffraction? Slits are neither. Slits and pinholes are secondary sources.
I am chasing your tail here... tell me where you are going please. We have already discussed these points elsewhere what do you find "missing". I do not like repeating myself. "If" we are discussing the DSE... and I have no idea about this... you have struck out at a tangent, then in the case of the DSE the mechanism is optical spatial resonance. This leads to the Fourier Transform and to the standing waves... etc. The Standing Waves come from other theories and proofs we have discussed at length such as the Wheeler-Feynman Theory with special application to sources and the DCQE Experiment.
I am chasing your tail here... tell me where you are going please. We have already discussed these points elsewhere what do you find "missing". I do not like repeating myself. "If" we are discussing the DSE... and I have no idea about this... you have struck out at a tangent, then in the case of the DSE the mechanism is optical spatial resonance. This leads to the Fourier Transform and to the standing waves... etc. The Standing Waves come from other theories and proofs we have discussed at length such as the Wheeler-Feynman Theory with special application to sources and the DCQE Experiment.
Can you explain how and why the aperture acts just like the dielectric effect that occurs in a physical lens phenomenon?
QUOTE
If the slit geometry acts as a pseudo lens, what is the physical mechanism that affects the incident wave energy which creates this effect?
I am chasing your tail here... tell me where you are going please. We have already discussed these points elsewhere what do you find "missing". I do not like repeating myself. "If" we are discussing the DSE... and I have no idea about this... you have struck out at a tangent, then in the case of the DSE the mechanism is optical spatial resonance. This leads to the Fourier Transform and to the standing waves... etc. The Standing Waves come from other theories and proofs we have discussed at length such as the Wheeler-Feynman Theory with special application to sources and the DCQE Experiment.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If the slit geometry acts as a pseudo lens, what is the physical mechanism that affects the incident wave energy which creates this effect? |
I am chasing your tail here... tell me where you are going please. We have already discussed these points elsewhere what do you find "missing". I do not like repeating myself. "If" we are discussing the DSE... and I have no idea about this... you have struck out at a tangent, then in the case of the DSE the mechanism is optical spatial resonance. This leads to the Fourier Transform and to the standing waves... etc. The Standing Waves come from other theories and proofs we have discussed at length such as the Wheeler-Feynman Theory with special application to sources and the DCQE Experiment.
Can you explain how and why the aperture acts just like the dielectric effect that occurs in a physical lens phenomenon?
"Am I still beating my wife?... Just answer Yes or No". You explain to me why an "edge" in a vacuum behaves like half a slit resulting in diffraction first before you start to introduce matter into the system as the fictitious bulk dielectric displacement currents. That theory disappeared 100 years ago and it is not true, it has some practical application but I insist that we stay with a vacuum where there are no gases. My answer is it does not "cause" anything it is a 19th century version of electromagnetic phenomena based on "displacement currents". Your leading question suggests that permittivity "causes" phenomena. I suggest that there is no such link. Permittivity is a measured property but it not a cause. The other problem is we are not discussing "bulk properties" of matter, we are discussing quantum phenomena that is not dealt with this way. Individual quanta have no descriptions based on this early CW theory. I can't explain how you should think but I can refuse to answer questions that do not relate to the problem as I am seeing it. It is up to you to show how this relates to quantum theory.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
There must be causality for this phenomenon to occur, because there is a before and after consequence of the lensing action.
Wrong... it is time symmetric... So is Quantum Mechanics. If you want to shoot from the hip I expect you to justify your statements... I know I have in the past but it seems to no avail.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Frauhofer diffraction doesn't address the physical cause for the wave change as it passes thru the slit cavity.
I know that... and I have told you that. What is your point? Fraunhofer Diffraction is a far field effect and this is a source effect. It would seem this is going nowhere and you have changed topics too far for me to follow. Like Confused2 you seem to have "hit the wall". I know that I am reaching the point that I can make no further progress here. If you do not understand this problem by now then you probably never will so I am unable to continue. I am sure you understand, if I did these things to you you would be outraged.
There is really only one theory. The theory of distributed sources and the concept of spreading quanta. If you want to use only "part" of solutions and then insist that we also provide answers to a wider problem using far field approximations then I am just not going to try. We have been through all this... Everything can be considered as sources and places where there are no sources. They are linked "holographically".
In Quantum Mechanics, not 19th Century optics, the theory is time symmetric. Not my idea... this is standard theory. You explain why it is not time symmetric. Next point Quantum Mechanics is a local theory. This means things are particulate and disconnected. Not my idea it is built into the theory. The next point is "events" are anonymous. This means there is absolutely no connection between the emission of a single photon and its reception at some other point. This is why a statistical theory works, you cannot connect a photon with a source it is a purely statistical event that is unable to be predicted. If there was any ability to predict a single event QM would be incapable of explaining the DSE. Once again not my theory, this is part of Quantum Mechanics. The next point is events such as the emission of a photon have no history. This follows from the other Quantum Postulates that if events are individually anonymous then they have no past or future. The next point is They are defined by the laws of chance. That is it. Now I actually believe all this because I am told that this is what all this means from books and the experiments support this methodology. You may argue with Quantum Mechanics but you cannot argue with the results of experiment. QM is a VERY accurate theory as far as it goes, but you must understand where it goes and then finally STOPS. This means what I have added to the theory is "supplementary" not "instead of". The "big picture" consequences of this mean "extra dimensions". All that inference was meant to show there is MORE. There is more since experiments did not end in the 1930's. The most telling experiments are relatively "recent". You can try and explain these experiments using the particle paradigm... there is a cost though and it is "Quantum Weirdness". More and more "Quantum Weirdness" is the standard explanation for this phenomenon. My attitude is it is a load of bunk. The non-local nature of QM is a wave property that has been removed from the particle theory. The rest is holography and the connectedness of "events"... not the disconnectedness of events. What is lost is the ability to predict but in the quantum world we never had that ability anyway we only understood "statistics" of large numbers of events.
What I have indicated and have shown directly by reference to experiments already on the table is that Quantum Mechanics fails in many ways to satisfy the above criteria. Firstly quantum phenomena are not local... the DSE proves that by looking at one photon at a time. We have been over this many times. Secondly Quantum Mechanics cannot provide path information so you need a theory that allows us to map individual events that can be shown to have paths. This is "easy" when you have single photon emitters when you also apply the Lagrangian to the detection of a photon at the destination you can "easily" compute the path in a parametric space that will not (I guarantee) coincide with normal space. An example of this would be a single photon emitter could be a quantum dot and the single photon absorber could be a single pixel element of a photo array. With low light emission levels I can absolutely positively guarantee that we are observing one photon event. We know where it starts to a reasonable degree of accuracy (the source) and the sensor element can be very small where it is finally detected. Thus using dynamics and back calculation I can predict a path through a double slit instrument. This will not be the path of a particle (I can absolutely positively guarantee that). This is a hidden variable theory. There are theories that have hidden variables... one is Bohmian Mechanics and another theory are varieties of string theory (including my own). The next point is the lack of locality this theory has since it is dependent on a wave interpretation since only a wave can pass through two slits at once and only a wave can express that "fuzzyness" implicit in the inexactness of this path which does not conform to local spacetime theories. What my theory agrees with in Quantum Mechanics is the time symmetry since this is implicit in the transformation from the time to the frequency domain and time symmetry is redefined as time "harmonic". In that respect it does not differ from Quantum Mechanics. Of course this transformation from time to frequency must also be accompanied by dimensions to reciprocal dimensions. This is implicit in the Fourier Transform used. You can't use Fourier Theory without that "reciprocal space and reciprocal time "relationship. It is just a mathematical process that you "put up with" if you want the benefit of working in these domains. This establishes a "history" for particles but also distinguishably of events. This is counter to quantum theory. I have discussed the relationship between the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment with all these features in mind and have come up with the idea that the event is "atemporal" occupying no time and space in its own frame of reference. This has consequences as we have discussed at length.
All this comes down to a quantum theory of "distributed sources" (not point sources) that is an extended optical theory and it involves Advanced and Retarded waves inside extended sources. To get correct results you are required to provide the "full" source descriptions. Only in the Fresnel Zone or in the Fraunhofer Zone can you make those "dumbed down" approximations that use only the retarded waves. Yet it is useful in understanding. Clearly this involves an extended version of Feynman's Sum Over Paths Procedure only converted from a particle theory to a wave theory similar to his original Wheeler Feynman Emitter Absorber Theory which is extremely close to that paradigm. IMHO I think of this as Feynman's "Lost" Theory simply because this would be the Theory Feynman would have written if he knew today what experiment is producing in the Lab. It would be a wave theory of the Sum over paths methods... only the full "path" becomes the Boson State which is the spreading state... read my lips... always a spreading state... Translation: NO PLANE WAVES... If I could I would include it in braille for those who can't see. Capisci? This allows for such "magic" using advanced materials such as negative refractive index materials to run time backwards and reconstruct the evanescent waves from the source. This would not be possible if at least one aspect of Quantum Mechanics was untrue... Time Symmetry. This is just the start of the chase... a lot of phenomena are now possible that were not possible 10 years ago. This is because people have actually looked for them instead of "shot from the hip" and declared them "impossible". What this means is any theory put up here must account for the "new physics". No accounting for "new physics"... I will not be listening. No discussion of quanta... I will not be listening. Introduction of "red herrings" that are "off topic"... I will not be listening. I have a life you know and I need to move on or move out.
Cheers
There is really only one theory. The theory of distributed sources and the concept of spreading quanta. If you want to use only "part" of solutions and then insist that we also provide answers to a wider problem using far field approximations then I am just not going to try. We have been through all this... Everything can be considered as sources and places where there are no sources. They are linked "holographically".
In Quantum Mechanics, not 19th Century optics, the theory is time symmetric. Not my idea... this is standard theory. You explain why it is not time symmetric. Next point Quantum Mechanics is a local theory. This means things are particulate and disconnected. Not my idea it is built into the theory. The next point is "events" are anonymous. This means there is absolutely no connection between the emission of a single photon and its reception at some other point. This is why a statistical theory works, you cannot connect a photon with a source it is a purely statistical event that is unable to be predicted. If there was any ability to predict a single event QM would be incapable of explaining the DSE. Once again not my theory, this is part of Quantum Mechanics. The next point is events such as the emission of a photon have no history. This follows from the other Quantum Postulates that if events are individually anonymous then they have no past or future. The next point is They are defined by the laws of chance. That is it. Now I actually believe all this because I am told that this is what all this means from books and the experiments support this methodology. You may argue with Quantum Mechanics but you cannot argue with the results of experiment. QM is a VERY accurate theory as far as it goes, but you must understand where it goes and then finally STOPS. This means what I have added to the theory is "supplementary" not "instead of". The "big picture" consequences of this mean "extra dimensions". All that inference was meant to show there is MORE. There is more since experiments did not end in the 1930's. The most telling experiments are relatively "recent". You can try and explain these experiments using the particle paradigm... there is a cost though and it is "Quantum Weirdness". More and more "Quantum Weirdness" is the standard explanation for this phenomenon. My attitude is it is a load of bunk. The non-local nature of QM is a wave property that has been removed from the particle theory. The rest is holography and the connectedness of "events"... not the disconnectedness of events. What is lost is the ability to predict but in the quantum world we never had that ability anyway we only understood "statistics" of large numbers of events.
What I have indicated and have shown directly by reference to experiments already on the table is that Quantum Mechanics fails in many ways to satisfy the above criteria. Firstly quantum phenomena are not local... the DSE proves that by looking at one photon at a time. We have been over this many times. Secondly Quantum Mechanics cannot provide path information so you need a theory that allows us to map individual events that can be shown to have paths. This is "easy" when you have single photon emitters when you also apply the Lagrangian to the detection of a photon at the destination you can "easily" compute the path in a parametric space that will not (I guarantee) coincide with normal space. An example of this would be a single photon emitter could be a quantum dot and the single photon absorber could be a single pixel element of a photo array. With low light emission levels I can absolutely positively guarantee that we are observing one photon event. We know where it starts to a reasonable degree of accuracy (the source) and the sensor element can be very small where it is finally detected. Thus using dynamics and back calculation I can predict a path through a double slit instrument. This will not be the path of a particle (I can absolutely positively guarantee that). This is a hidden variable theory. There are theories that have hidden variables... one is Bohmian Mechanics and another theory are varieties of string theory (including my own). The next point is the lack of locality this theory has since it is dependent on a wave interpretation since only a wave can pass through two slits at once and only a wave can express that "fuzzyness" implicit in the inexactness of this path which does not conform to local spacetime theories. What my theory agrees with in Quantum Mechanics is the time symmetry since this is implicit in the transformation from the time to the frequency domain and time symmetry is redefined as time "harmonic". In that respect it does not differ from Quantum Mechanics. Of course this transformation from time to frequency must also be accompanied by dimensions to reciprocal dimensions. This is implicit in the Fourier Transform used. You can't use Fourier Theory without that "reciprocal space and reciprocal time "relationship. It is just a mathematical process that you "put up with" if you want the benefit of working in these domains. This establishes a "history" for particles but also distinguishably of events. This is counter to quantum theory. I have discussed the relationship between the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment with all these features in mind and have come up with the idea that the event is "atemporal" occupying no time and space in its own frame of reference. This has consequences as we have discussed at length.
All this comes down to a quantum theory of "distributed sources" (not point sources) that is an extended optical theory and it involves Advanced and Retarded waves inside extended sources. To get correct results you are required to provide the "full" source descriptions. Only in the Fresnel Zone or in the Fraunhofer Zone can you make those "dumbed down" approximations that use only the retarded waves. Yet it is useful in understanding. Clearly this involves an extended version of Feynman's Sum Over Paths Procedure only converted from a particle theory to a wave theory similar to his original Wheeler Feynman Emitter Absorber Theory which is extremely close to that paradigm. IMHO I think of this as Feynman's "Lost" Theory simply because this would be the Theory Feynman would have written if he knew today what experiment is producing in the Lab. It would be a wave theory of the Sum over paths methods... only the full "path" becomes the Boson State which is the spreading state... read my lips... always a spreading state... Translation: NO PLANE WAVES... If I could I would include it in braille for those who can't see.
Capisci? This allows for such "magic" using advanced materials such as negative refractive index materials to run time backwards and reconstruct the evanescent waves from the source. This would not be possible if at least one aspect of Quantum Mechanics was untrue... Time Symmetry. This is just the start of the chase... a lot of phenomena are now possible that were not possible 10 years ago. This is because people have actually looked for them instead of "shot from the hip" and declared them "impossible". What this means is any theory put up here must account for the "new physics". No accounting for "new physics"... I will not be listening. No discussion of quanta... I will not be listening. Introduction of "red herrings" that are "off topic"... I will not be listening. I have a life you know and I need to move on or move out. Cheers
Hi TRoc,
I question your statement. Perhaps I am missing something that you are
trying to imply.
The RI on each side of the slit cavity wall is the same, so there is no phase shift,
phase velocity change, or non-linear effect that can be attributed to these open
"spaces". The only place where the RI changes, and the waves are
being modified, is within the slit cavities. The group velocity of the arriving
coherent planar wavefronts are being shorn (sheared) apart at the slit cavity to
wall interfaces. This causes distortions and delays to the normal phase
velocity relationship of wavefront. Part of the wavefront is being reflected off the
flat wall surfaces, while parts of the waves continue thru the slit cavities.
We know that there are surface interface turbulences caused by frictional drag in
water and air "streams" along boundary layers that are in contact with surfaces
that they flow along. The drag coefficient caused by this surface contact slows the
velocity of the stream and generates turbulence along the contact the surface,
while the majority of the flow has unimpeded laminar flow characteristics and
continues without a change in velocity.
There is much similarity in the turbulence/delay process in the cavities of the
DSE as is exhibited by boundary layer flow dynamics. IMO, the explanation that I
have proposed regarding surface field interactions is conceptually correct, it is
just a matter of scaling.
"Drag" is a consequence of molecular attraction which is basically an EM field
interaction effect. This can be demonstrated by the resulting electrical fields that
are generated when there is "flow" past a solid surface.
LL
QUOTE
This is the point that I have made from the beginning of this thread: there is automatically an inverse method available to describe the DSE, compared to the well known "wavelength to pathlength ratio". It is just "frequency to time-of-flight" method, with the RI of the medium being causal for the "spreading" of the wave. You have to "weed out" the idealistic assumptions, of course.
The phenomenon that we are describing (DSE) is "in a medium" that has an RI of >1 . The RI is wavelength dependent; each frequency has it's own phase velocity. The light coming through the slit is not monochromatic. That is all that is needed to explain the dispersion - 180 deg from the slit - into a "spherical wave".
The phenomenon that we are describing (DSE) is "in a medium" that has an RI of >1 . The RI is wavelength dependent; each frequency has it's own phase velocity. The light coming through the slit is not monochromatic. That is all that is needed to explain the dispersion - 180 deg from the slit - into a "spherical wave".
I question your statement. Perhaps I am missing something that you are
trying to imply.
The RI on each side of the slit cavity wall is the same, so there is no phase shift,
phase velocity change, or non-linear effect that can be attributed to these open
"spaces". The only place where the RI changes, and the waves are
being modified, is within the slit cavities. The group velocity of the arriving
coherent planar wavefronts are being shorn (sheared) apart at the slit cavity to
wall interfaces. This causes distortions and delays to the normal phase
velocity relationship of wavefront. Part of the wavefront is being reflected off the
flat wall surfaces, while parts of the waves continue thru the slit cavities.
We know that there are surface interface turbulences caused by frictional drag in
water and air "streams" along boundary layers that are in contact with surfaces
that they flow along. The drag coefficient caused by this surface contact slows the
velocity of the stream and generates turbulence along the contact the surface,
while the majority of the flow has unimpeded laminar flow characteristics and
continues without a change in velocity.
There is much similarity in the turbulence/delay process in the cavities of the
DSE as is exhibited by boundary layer flow dynamics. IMO, the explanation that I
have proposed regarding surface field interactions is conceptually correct, it is
just a matter of scaling.
"Drag" is a consequence of molecular attraction which is basically an EM field
interaction effect. This can be demonstrated by the resulting electrical fields that
are generated when there is "flow" past a solid surface.
LL
Hi TRoc,
QUOTE
Hi all,
I am sorry about getting a bit frustrated lately, I can see from the tone of your post it is not going to get any better. I have been ill and I am only getting over it. A lot of your question is answered by the answer I gave to Laserlight's questions just above... Specifically the last 5 paragraphs. It is not possible to describe quantum events within sources using continuum physics designed for the far field. The equations work as far as they go but quanta such as photons spread. This is the most important aspect of the photon. It is a boson and it occupies a "single" state and it occupies it multiply. Putting this as simple as possible they are the opposite of fermions and "space quantization". What this means they all travel in a single state and occupy the one space... no exceptions when speaking of coherent correlated sources. A hundred photons traveling on a wavefront coherently all occupy the one space... a distributed space... a spreading space. Another photon that is coherent with those 100 photons cannot be "going somewhere else"... it MUST be traveling with the other 100. Now individual photons are packets... they are not actually waves they are wavelets... short segments of waves if you like.. a sort of "snippit". They resemble a "sync function". There is a leading and a trailing edge that is related to the Wheeler Feynman Advance and Retarded potentials. This goes on in an attenuated state in both spatial directions absolutely forever in some limited sense. However the main action is at that central maxima. Those "frills" on the limits can be used to recover the past as a chunk of Negative Refractive Index Metamaterial instantly demonstrates. How long is dependent on the system you are wishing to recover the information from, some are better than others. I have a "model" that shows the arrangement of photons on a wave. Where one photon exists so can trillions also exist.
... Click to enlarge...
With this information and with the information in Laserlight's post you should be able to pick it up.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hi all, Hi Montec, There is a theoretical "problem" regarding "plane waves" and reality says they cannot carry energy without curvature. The "plane wave" is an "abstract concept" since it cannot spread and is already of infinite extent. The idea that you may have two different waves with different amounts of curvature suggest two different sources. GE, let me restate my apparently vague question, based on your above statement. Please explain how a "plane wave" is abstract, while the concept of a "spherical wave" is not. If you agree with me, that these are both equally "abstract terms", then we only need to concentrate on "how" they are different. |
I am sorry about getting a bit frustrated lately, I can see from the tone of your post it is not going to get any better. I have been ill and I am only getting over it. A lot of your question is answered by the answer I gave to Laserlight's questions just above... Specifically the last 5 paragraphs. It is not possible to describe quantum events within sources using continuum physics designed for the far field. The equations work as far as they go but quanta such as photons spread. This is the most important aspect of the photon. It is a boson and it occupies a "single" state and it occupies it multiply. Putting this as simple as possible they are the opposite of fermions and "space quantization". What this means they all travel in a single state and occupy the one space... no exceptions when speaking of coherent correlated sources. A hundred photons traveling on a wavefront coherently all occupy the one space... a distributed space... a spreading space. Another photon that is coherent with those 100 photons cannot be "going somewhere else"... it MUST be traveling with the other 100. Now individual photons are packets... they are not actually waves they are wavelets... short segments of waves if you like.. a sort of "snippit". They resemble a "sync function". There is a leading and a trailing edge that is related to the Wheeler Feynman Advance and Retarded potentials. This goes on in an attenuated state in both spatial directions absolutely forever in some limited sense. However the main action is at that central maxima. Those "frills" on the limits can be used to recover the past as a chunk of Negative Refractive Index Metamaterial instantly demonstrates. How long is dependent on the system you are wishing to recover the information from, some are better than others. I have a "model" that shows the arrangement of photons on a wave. Where one photon exists so can trillions also exist.
... Click to enlarge...
With this information and with the information in Laserlight's post you should be able to pick it up.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
There are no sources of plane waves...
I agree with that.
However, we can "create them", and indeed, we have, and these planer waves have become an important part of both theory, and experiment.
You have not offered nearly enough evidence for us to abandon Huygens's principle.
However, we can "create them", and indeed, we have, and these planer waves have become an important part of both theory, and experiment.
You have not offered nearly enough evidence for us to abandon Huygens's principle.
I am not abandoning Huygens Principles ... stop putting words in my mouth ... we are all adults here and I dislike it from any members who think they can read my mind. Huygens use set squares and protractors... The Universe is lacking a single scale independent straight edge anywhere. You cannot create any plane waves since all lenses have finite apertures and that is the end of the story. A lens the size of planet earth might "look" like it has created plane waves but how are you going to create the DSE with two of them 1 mm apart? Every atomic source of photons comes from a dipole emitter, not from a "straight emitter source", they do not exist at the level of the quantum. OK there are sort of exceptions such as Cerenkov Radiation emitted from high energy accelerators .... I can think of a lot of things lets stay on track and keep these points relevant. I am the one who has maintained that the quanta is an artifact of the process of emission and absorption of energy from a "source". There are no straight edges there. That is the thesis I am defending so I will stick to it. If you have a different thesis then it is up to you to put a watertight case with supporting experiment and references and show that it relates to real quantum processes. I have tried to do this for you but I get problems when I am forced to repeat myself endlessly.
I would like to think that the following editing by yourself is a mistake but I doubt it. I think I did make a specific complaint and I placed it right in that post to you that you are referring to above ... This is the unedited "question" I made to you personally which as far as I can see you have not answered..
I would like to think that the following editing by yourself is a mistake but I doubt it. I think I did make a specific complaint and I placed it right in that post to you that you are referring to above ... This is the unedited "question" I made to you personally which as far as I can see you have not answered..
QUOTE (Good Elf specifically to TRoc Posted: Yesterday at 7:37 AM+)
"What science is describing" is the older way in which things were done where accuracy was at the 1% level was considered as being very good. Nothing like actually reading up on these topics to be able to understand what is described. People are making statements and saying things without a single reference so what am I to do. You know the adage .... Garbage in... Garbage out.
QUOTE (TRoc gobbledeegook...+)
...not that it is not, it is just that SO is everything else, so why would this stand out?
If you really think there is something in these statements then give me a substantial reference... there have been none so far. I have no idea what you are on about ... please construct a sentence that means something to more people.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=237136
... You said today...
If you really think there is something in these statements then give me a substantial reference... there have been none so far. I have no idea what you are on about ... please construct a sentence that means something to more people.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=237136
... You said today...
QUOTE (TRoc Posted on Today at 1:34 AM+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
People are making statements and saying things without a single reference so what am I to do. You know the adage .... Garbage in... Garbage out.
This is very simplified but it expresses some of the points under discussion. The big point here is exactly what are blackbody absorbers and what photons are absorbed by them. While it quite easy to see a black object it is not truly black if you see its surface. I suppose the blackest object we can "see" is the night sky on a moonless night in a place where there are no visible stars, it has not "obvious" surface you can see. Also the argument about "mirrors" is unfamiliar to most since this has nothing to do with bedroom mirrors except in a very superficial way. An atom of a certain size will intercept a photon of a particular wavelength but its abilities to absorb it depends on an available empty energy level. If one exists then it is a perfect absorber at that frequency but until the photon is released, plus a latency period, it becomes a perfect mirror. Otherwise the atom has no available shells yet it is of a size that could "block" its passage, so it still will be a perfect mirror. So even the blackest object is sometimes a mirror while it is in that "holding a photon state"... or its latency. The "blackbody" is just a mental construct not a physical reality. Why perfect? ... Because the absorption of quanta is "all or nothing". This is counter intuitive to those not familiar to this line of argument so I will not belabor the point since you can do some reading about this topic if you wish.
Cheers
A compton effect shows partial release of photon energy. In certain cases, under non-resonance condition, energy are partially transfered from photons to electrons. The frequency of photon reduces according to energy loss.
del.E = h*del.f , photon energy reduces to E'=hf'
What I suggest in the black body is, the same phenomenon happen to black body. The photon may not lose its energy at one time, but it is trapped inside black body and slowly lost its energy. The frequency then reduces from visible range to IR range. The IR may release from black body. Therefore, black body looked dark.
While under resonance circumstances, the energy transfer is happened at one goal such as laser generation.
regards,
Right; vague statements like this are garbage. You need to be very specific about WHO it is you are addressing [you are not on TV]. Then, after making it clear WHO you are talking to, you should try to make a specific "complaint", or disagreement on a specific point. That way, your posts will have some value. [...] More "bad" stuff from the "good" elf. To whom should I reference for the absolute philosophical definition of "abstract"?
I think I asked the question first and it was for you and you alone and I think I have a point (regarding the blue bit above)... You were supposed to read it as a single concept as originally presented, not three separate sentences where you selectively leave out the important but inconvenient bits. From the "editing" you placed in your post of my question I think I do not have your respect. If you do not want to answer or explain it... that is still fine. I have enjoyed your company in the past. Before we resort to abuse, I suggest we decide to go our separate ways. I am only here for the science, not for the flaming.
Cheers
Cheers
Hi GE,
Well, at least you have finally addressed SPECIFIC issues and topics, point for
point. In that regard, kudo's.
That does not mean that I am necessarily "swallowing" what you are trying to sell.
You have made up your mind that you are right and there is no other possible
theoretical explanation that might upset your apple cart.
It seems, that if the topic of discussion doesn't include your version of numerous
theoretical unprovable dimensions, that seeking a solution by tying "real world"
known physical phenomena together, to paint a picture that fits our reality, is
a waste of time. It is really unfortunate that you are taking that position.
You are correct, we have collectively reached a conceptual "impasse". I am
approaching the topic by trying to associate many different sciences with similar
effects, that have not yet necessarily been linked and blessed by the PHd "gods".
To me, phemomenal effects are merely a matter of "scale" and causality, and it
is just a matter of linking the obvious "similarities" to find realistic, provable
solutions. I am not one to seek "solutions" in the realm of "spiritualism".
You seem to modify what has been clearly "stated" into "elf" interpretations.
Something is obviously lost in translation.
An example:
No one said anything about Aether theories...and energy density
CAN and DOES change the characteristics of the space that it occupies, even
in vacuum. The energy density contained in a laser beam is much greater than the
space surrounding it. The energy density in an RF waveguide is much
greater than the energy density of open space. Any time there is a concentration
of energy, the energy density in that space is increased, that is the de facto
definition of intensity...energy per unit volume/area relative to some baseline
energy reference.
I would address/argue the other issues that you disagree with, but we obviously
see things from diametrically opposed viewpoints, and are not likely to change
our positions. So, I won't tie up the board in circular arguments, that lead no
where. Let's just agree to disagree. Eventually, the truth will reveal itself...
hopefully in our lifetimes. One of us will be "gloating", the other will sheepishly
admit the flaw in their thinking. It is a "defect" in basic human nature.
Who knows, maybe we are both wrong!
In any case, I hope that you are recouperating and feeling better, and no hard
feelings regarding our different approaches to seeking solutions.
Regards,
LL
Well, at least you have finally addressed SPECIFIC issues and topics, point for
point. In that regard, kudo's.
That does not mean that I am necessarily "swallowing" what you are trying to sell.
You have made up your mind that you are right and there is no other possible
theoretical explanation that might upset your apple cart.
It seems, that if the topic of discussion doesn't include your version of numerous
theoretical unprovable dimensions, that seeking a solution by tying "real world"
known physical phenomena together, to paint a picture that fits our reality, is
a waste of time. It is really unfortunate that you are taking that position.
You are correct, we have collectively reached a conceptual "impasse". I am
approaching the topic by trying to associate many different sciences with similar
effects, that have not yet necessarily been linked and blessed by the PHd "gods".
To me, phemomenal effects are merely a matter of "scale" and causality, and it
is just a matter of linking the obvious "similarities" to find realistic, provable
solutions. I am not one to seek "solutions" in the realm of "spiritualism".
You seem to modify what has been clearly "stated" into "elf" interpretations.
Something is obviously lost in translation.
An example:
QUOTE
This is a statement. It is a wrong statement but what am I to say? I do not accept Aether Theories and "density" changes do not occur in a vacuum.
No one said anything about Aether theories...and energy density
CAN and DOES change the characteristics of the space that it occupies, even
in vacuum. The energy density contained in a laser beam is much greater than the
space surrounding it. The energy density in an RF waveguide is much
greater than the energy density of open space. Any time there is a concentration
of energy, the energy density in that space is increased, that is the de facto
definition of intensity...energy per unit volume/area relative to some baseline
energy reference.
I would address/argue the other issues that you disagree with, but we obviously
see things from diametrically opposed viewpoints, and are not likely to change
our positions. So, I won't tie up the board in circular arguments, that lead no
where. Let's just agree to disagree. Eventually, the truth will reveal itself...
hopefully in our lifetimes. One of us will be "gloating", the other will sheepishly
admit the flaw in their thinking. It is a "defect" in basic human nature.
Who knows, maybe we are both wrong!
In any case, I hope that you are recouperating and feeling better, and no hard
feelings regarding our different approaches to seeking solutions.
Regards,
LL
A circular lens can also defract the light waves due to the incident wave traveling through more glass at the center of the lens than at the edges.
I agree that light passing through an the slit then onto a screen is defracted because of the sharp edges. This results in differnt path lenths from the obstacle to the screen.
I agree that light passing through an the slit then onto a screen is defracted because of the sharp edges. This results in differnt path lenths from the obstacle to the screen.
Useful information...
Van der Waals and London forces:
http://www.chemistry.mcmaster.ca/faculty/b.../aim/aim_3.html
Quantum Harmonic Oscillator:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
Zero Point Energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
Intermolecular forces:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_force
Casimir effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
Now, do we want to debate whether there are extended "fields" or forces that
surround all matter, and that are influenced by externally applied EM fields?
IMO, we cannot simply ignore these measurable phenomena, and how
different types of force carriers energetically interact according to the influences
each imparts on the other. Forces provide dynamic "characteristics" and change
the fabric of, and are responsible for, quantifying the concepts of matter, space,
and time.
JMHO.
LL
Van der Waals and London forces:
http://www.chemistry.mcmaster.ca/faculty/b.../aim/aim_3.html
Quantum Harmonic Oscillator:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
Zero Point Energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
Intermolecular forces:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_force
Casimir effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
QUOTE
In physics, the Casimir effect or Casimir-Polder force is a physical force exerted between separate objects, which is due to neither charge, gravity, nor the exchange of particles, but instead is due to resonance of all-pervasive energy fields in the intervening space between the objects. This is sometimes described in terms of virtual particles interacting with the objects, due to the mathematical form of one possible way of calculating the strength of the effect. Since the strength of the force falls off rapidly with distance it is only measurable when the distance between the objects is extremely small. On a submicron scale, this force becomes so strong that it becomes the dominant force between uncharged conductors. Indeed at separations of 10 nm - about a hundred times the typical size of an atom - the Casimir effect produces the equivalent of 1 atmosphere of pressure (101.3 kPa).
Now, do we want to debate whether there are extended "fields" or forces that
surround all matter, and that are influenced by externally applied EM fields?
IMO, we cannot simply ignore these measurable phenomena, and how
different types of force carriers energetically interact according to the influences
each imparts on the other. Forces provide dynamic "characteristics" and change
the fabric of, and are responsible for, quantifying the concepts of matter, space,
and time.
JMHO.
LL
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jul 7 2007, 02:50 PM)
I am still certainly at a bit of a low point with my health and that may have some effects on what I am saying and I can assure you that when I make some statements they will certainly be controversial. They can't be all right in every detail. I am truly playing the odds but I am trying to see that they are still in my favor at all times. It is a challenging view of the way the Universe may be but as I see it the alternatives are far worse. People just do not realize how close science is from total lack of realism and someone needs to give an alternative to a Universe with "nothing" other than an observational Universe created by our measurements. In fact the quantum universe has no objective reality... I kid you not. If you had a choice to accept that there was an external reality we are all co-operatively utilizing or that nothing in our universe has any objective basis other than our hopes and wishes... quantum physics is just a hairs breath away from this "credo" simply because there are no sane alternatives being offered, at least none that fit the data.
To provide an alternative to Quantum Nihilism I have fitted the problem into another box... one which actually has dimensions and numbers on it, a wave theory. This is a kind of non-local realism that I think works. The alternative is that we are some kind of "G*ds" endowed with the power of creation and that somehow we even invented ourselves before the Big Bang was a gleam in the eye of any Crea*or. I am not so stupid to think we are anything of the sort, those running this world are not "G*ds" and they are far from anything I would "worship". I also believe in a reality that is "out there" independent of us and it is basically waves and not really "particles". The reason we find ourselves here in this Quantum Quandary is we are so transfixed by the bright light of the candle of our mind we are prepared to fly right into it and burn. We have done just about everything possible to ignore the true holographic nature of the Universe and in the face of experiment insist on independence of all component "particles".
Hi, Good Elf. do you mean particles are not stuffed? If this is what you mean, I would say you still have one supporter here. Mass are made of particles, particles are made of waves. Waves are not stuffed. Therefore, mass are not stuffed. Actually, I have another more complete explanation. It is too lengthy to put it here.
cheers.
To provide an alternative to Quantum Nihilism I have fitted the problem into another box... one which actually has dimensions and numbers on it, a wave theory. This is a kind of non-local realism that I think works. The alternative is that we are some kind of "G*ds" endowed with the power of creation and that somehow we even invented ourselves before the Big Bang was a gleam in the eye of any Crea*or. I am not so stupid to think we are anything of the sort, those running this world are not "G*ds" and they are far from anything I would "worship". I also believe in a reality that is "out there" independent of us and it is basically waves and not really "particles". The reason we find ourselves here in this Quantum Quandary is we are so transfixed by the bright light of the candle of our mind we are prepared to fly right into it and burn. We have done just about everything possible to ignore the true holographic nature of the Universe and in the face of experiment insist on independence of all component "particles".
Hi, Good Elf. do you mean particles are not stuffed? If this is what you mean, I would say you still have one supporter here. Mass are made of particles, particles are made of waves. Waves are not stuffed. Therefore, mass are not stuffed. Actually, I have another more complete explanation. It is too lengthy to put it here.
cheers.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jul 8 2007, 02:40 PM)
This is very simplified but it expresses some of the points under discussion. The big point here is exactly what are blackbody absorbers and what photons are absorbed by them. While it quite easy to see a black object it is not truly black if you see its surface. I suppose the blackest object we can "see" is the night sky on a moonless night in a place where there are no visible stars, it has not "obvious" surface you can see. Also the argument about "mirrors" is unfamiliar to most since this has nothing to do with bedroom mirrors except in a very superficial way. An atom of a certain size will intercept a photon of a particular wavelength but its abilities to absorb it depends on an available empty energy level. If one exists then it is a perfect absorber at that frequency but until the photon is released, plus a latency period, it becomes a perfect mirror. Otherwise the atom has no available shells yet it is of a size that could "block" its passage, so it still will be a perfect mirror. So even the blackest object is sometimes a mirror while it is in that "holding a photon state"... or its latency. The "blackbody" is just a mental construct not a physical reality. Why perfect? ... Because the absorption of quanta is "all or nothing". This is counter intuitive to those not familiar to this line of argument so I will not belabor the point since you can do some reading about this topic if you wish.
Cheers
A compton effect shows partial release of photon energy. In certain cases, under non-resonance condition, energy are partially transfered from photons to electrons. The frequency of photon reduces according to energy loss.
del.E = h*del.f , photon energy reduces to E'=hf'
What I suggest in the black body is, the same phenomenon happen to black body. The photon may not lose its energy at one time, but it is trapped inside black body and slowly lost its energy. The frequency then reduces from visible range to IR range. The IR may release from black body. Therefore, black body looked dark.
While under resonance circumstances, the energy transfer is happened at one goal such as laser generation.
regards,
QUOTE (Confused2+Jul 8 2007, 07:55 PM)
Hi kokhaw,
Probably best is to look at the Feynman lectures here:- http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 . I've only just acquired the technology so I've only seen the first and half the second (my network couldn't keep up .. I'll try again later). So far they seem pretty much the same as written out in the book 'QED' .. but for me they seem easier to follow (so far) in lecture form (also more fun). If it isn't in those lectures (or the book) then I don't know .. probably best to go directly to the source.
It might be worth starting a thread just for discussion of those lectures.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi, C2. I would be very happy and glad if you could share with me. Thank you very much.
Keep me inform on your new threads. I can be reached at kongkokhaw@gmail.com
Probably best is to look at the Feynman lectures here:- http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 . I've only just acquired the technology so I've only seen the first and half the second (my network couldn't keep up .. I'll try again later). So far they seem pretty much the same as written out in the book 'QED' .. but for me they seem easier to follow (so far) in lecture form (also more fun). If it isn't in those lectures (or the book) then I don't know .. probably best to go directly to the source.
It might be worth starting a thread just for discussion of those lectures.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi, C2. I would be very happy and glad if you could share with me. Thank you very much.
Keep me inform on your new threads. I can be reached at kongkokhaw@gmail.com
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 9 2007, 02:18 AM)
I think it would be better to think a photon as the force being caried rather than the carrier of the force.
Well, to me, photon is an energy carrier. I named photon as kinetic-time-energy. Where it is a kinetic energy traveling at time zero frame, therefore, it travels at the speed of light. It carries nothing but energy. and the energy is 'stored' by the magnetic and electric (M&E) field. Or, the energy is represented by M&E field. These M&E fields determine the frequency and wavelength of photon. All these are just the terms used to describe the photon. The M&E fields of photon cause the M&E dipole or the polarization of photon.
Well, to me, photon is an energy carrier. I named photon as kinetic-time-energy. Where it is a kinetic energy traveling at time zero frame, therefore, it travels at the speed of light. It carries nothing but energy. and the energy is 'stored' by the magnetic and electric (M&E) field. Or, the energy is represented by M&E field. These M&E fields determine the frequency and wavelength of photon. All these are just the terms used to describe the photon. The M&E fields of photon cause the M&E dipole or the polarization of photon.
Hi all,
LL-
Yes, I think that you have missed a little detail in the workings of the "refractive index". When they say that the RI is "wavelength dependent", they mean that the RI is different for each frequency in the medium.
So, for example, our DSE with an 800nm source has an RI of 1.0002760.
If we replace the 800nm laser with a 400nm (1 octave) laser, the RI would be 1.0002826 . (just for comparison)
It is incorrect to say "where" the RI is (ie. side of slit); it is the energy (frequency) present in a particular location that determines the RI there.
Now bring back all that we have covered in this thread, concerning "self phase modulation", "self interference", "quasi-monochromatic", "finite time of emission", "bandwidth", "center frequency", "chords", "solitons", "wave-packets", "geometric phase", "filamentation", "phase singularities" (nodes), etc., etc.
These are all closely related. They may/may not ALL be present in the DSE, but I have brought them up to clearly demonstrate a few key principles:
1. All emissions, as measured at a single "point" in space, OR a single "point" in time, will have a "spread" in frequency.
2. The length of emission constitutes the "envelope", or "carrier frequency", which has a constant, "group" velocity.
3. Within this wave envelope, we have "wavelets", which have a phase velocity that is not constant (or limited to c ). [ It is just as valid to say that wavelets form envelopes, when of the right proportions/ratios) ]
4. The current paradigm is based on assumptions that have been discovered to be false. The idealism, has mathematically hampered progress in understanding. The definitions used to describe Fundamental processes MUST be rigorous.
5. One of the key culprits is the term "monochromatic" light, which does not , and indeed, CAN NOT exist.
So, clearly, we have a spread, however small you may imagine, of frequency incident on to the slits. This first stage is spread more longitudinally (with axis), than perpendicular to the axis. The wave front approaches "plane".
After the slits, the phases have "reconnected": we can treat the slit as a new source. The wave front approaches "spherical". The spread is more perpendicular to the axis.
In order for a frequency to arrive "one path length" longer (hypotenuse), it will have to take more time, at a slower speed, OR, take a longer (but straight) path at the constant speed. Both are valid models.
The favorite of C2, the "path length" method, uses the constant velocity assumption, and the experimental results, to calculate the wavelength, which it falsely assumes to be monochromatic. Because they are also naively assuming "vacuum" conditions (which do not exist, at all), then the "well measured" (relative to observer) constant velocity FORCES the ad hoc/arbitrary "division" of the wave at the slit, with lines drawn from the screen/result, to different points across the width of the slit. That is the method.
My method uses only experimental data, with none of the above mentioned false assumptions. The pathlengths that create our "interference" are created naturally from the application of each frequency present, and it's unique RI/speed. The ONLY way for BOTH concepts of "phase and group velocity" to work, is through the RI. The phase "angle" that is needed for a "slower" measurement, is academic. It flows from the group velocity/fundamental axis/constant speed as a reference (adjacent leg), and the "1 wavelength longer" path (hypotenuse leg). These, as we know from Pythagoras, will have a constant relationship with the "opposite leg", our fringe width.
regards,
T.Roc
LL-
QUOTE
I question your statement. Perhaps I am missing something that you are trying to imply.
The RI on each side of the slit cavity wall is the same, so there is no phase shift,
phase velocity change, or non-linear effect that can be attributed to these open
"spaces". The only place where the RI changes, and the waves are
being modified, is within the slit cavities.
The RI on each side of the slit cavity wall is the same, so there is no phase shift,
phase velocity change, or non-linear effect that can be attributed to these open
"spaces". The only place where the RI changes, and the waves are
being modified, is within the slit cavities.
Yes, I think that you have missed a little detail in the workings of the "refractive index". When they say that the RI is "wavelength dependent", they mean that the RI is different for each frequency in the medium.
So, for example, our DSE with an 800nm source has an RI of 1.0002760.
If we replace the 800nm laser with a 400nm (1 octave) laser, the RI would be 1.0002826 . (just for comparison)
It is incorrect to say "where" the RI is (ie. side of slit); it is the energy (frequency) present in a particular location that determines the RI there.
Now bring back all that we have covered in this thread, concerning "self phase modulation", "self interference", "quasi-monochromatic", "finite time of emission", "bandwidth", "center frequency", "chords", "solitons", "wave-packets", "geometric phase", "filamentation", "phase singularities" (nodes), etc., etc.
These are all closely related. They may/may not ALL be present in the DSE, but I have brought them up to clearly demonstrate a few key principles:
1. All emissions, as measured at a single "point" in space, OR a single "point" in time, will have a "spread" in frequency.
2. The length of emission constitutes the "envelope", or "carrier frequency", which has a constant, "group" velocity.
3. Within this wave envelope, we have "wavelets", which have a phase velocity that is not constant (or limited to c ). [ It is just as valid to say that wavelets form envelopes, when of the right proportions/ratios) ]
4. The current paradigm is based on assumptions that have been discovered to be false. The idealism, has mathematically hampered progress in understanding. The definitions used to describe Fundamental processes MUST be rigorous.
5. One of the key culprits is the term "monochromatic" light, which does not , and indeed, CAN NOT exist.
So, clearly, we have a spread, however small you may imagine, of frequency incident on to the slits. This first stage is spread more longitudinally (with axis), than perpendicular to the axis. The wave front approaches "plane".
After the slits, the phases have "reconnected": we can treat the slit as a new source. The wave front approaches "spherical". The spread is more perpendicular to the axis.
In order for a frequency to arrive "one path length" longer (hypotenuse), it will have to take more time, at a slower speed, OR, take a longer (but straight) path at the constant speed. Both are valid models.
The favorite of C2, the "path length" method, uses the constant velocity assumption, and the experimental results, to calculate the wavelength, which it falsely assumes to be monochromatic. Because they are also naively assuming "vacuum" conditions (which do not exist, at all), then the "well measured" (relative to observer) constant velocity FORCES the ad hoc/arbitrary "division" of the wave at the slit, with lines drawn from the screen/result, to different points across the width of the slit. That is the method.
My method uses only experimental data, with none of the above mentioned false assumptions. The pathlengths that create our "interference" are created naturally from the application of each frequency present, and it's unique RI/speed. The ONLY way for BOTH concepts of "phase and group velocity" to work, is through the RI. The phase "angle" that is needed for a "slower" measurement, is academic. It flows from the group velocity/fundamental axis/constant speed as a reference (adjacent leg), and the "1 wavelength longer" path (hypotenuse leg). These, as we know from Pythagoras, will have a constant relationship with the "opposite leg", our fringe width.
regards,
T.Roc
Hey TRoc,
Can you explain to me how a single photon impulse, that is emitted from an
atomic dipole, and that is spinning around its centerpoint at a constant phase
angular rotational velocity , has multiple frequency components within its
single frequency operational time domain?
If all of the energy of a single photon impulse is considered to be an energy
packet of finite extent, according to E = hf, how do you derive multiple harmonic
frequency components out of "f" ? In other words, if the E is fixed, and the "h" is
constant, how can "f" vary with time and still maintain mathematical symmetry.
If f varies then E must change in order to maintain a constant h = E/f.
Remember, the phase angle rotation is transcribing a circle over a fixed interval
of time, so please re-explain your model.
Houston, we have a problem!
LL
QUOTE
The favorite of C2, the "path length" method, uses the constant velocity assumption, and the experimental results, to calculate the wavelength, which it falsely assumes to be monochromatic. Because they are also naively assuming "vacuum" conditions (which do not exist, at all), then the "well measured" (relative to observer) constant velocity FORCES the ad hoc/arbitrary "division" of the wave at the slit, with lines drawn from the screen/result, to different points across the width of the slit. That is the method.
My method uses only experimental data, with none of the above mentioned false assumptions. The pathlengths that create our "interference" are created naturally from the application of each frequency present, and it's unique RI/speed. The ONLY way for BOTH concepts of "phase and group velocity" to work, is through the RI. The phase "angle" that is needed for a "slower" measurement, is academic. It flows from the group velocity/fundamental axis/constant speed as a reference (adjacent leg), and the "1 wavelength longer" path (hypotenuse leg). These, as we know from Pythagoras, will have a constant relationship with the "opposite leg", our fringe width.
My method uses only experimental data, with none of the above mentioned false assumptions. The pathlengths that create our "interference" are created naturally from the application of each frequency present, and it's unique RI/speed. The ONLY way for BOTH concepts of "phase and group velocity" to work, is through the RI. The phase "angle" that is needed for a "slower" measurement, is academic. It flows from the group velocity/fundamental axis/constant speed as a reference (adjacent leg), and the "1 wavelength longer" path (hypotenuse leg). These, as we know from Pythagoras, will have a constant relationship with the "opposite leg", our fringe width.
Can you explain to me how a single photon impulse, that is emitted from an
atomic dipole, and that is spinning around its centerpoint at a constant phase
angular rotational velocity , has multiple frequency components within its
single frequency operational time domain?
If all of the energy of a single photon impulse is considered to be an energy
packet of finite extent, according to E = hf, how do you derive multiple harmonic
frequency components out of "f" ? In other words, if the E is fixed, and the "h" is
constant, how can "f" vary with time and still maintain mathematical symmetry.
If f varies then E must change in order to maintain a constant h = E/f.
Remember, the phase angle rotation is transcribing a circle over a fixed interval
of time, so please re-explain your model.
Houston, we have a problem!
LL
TRoc,
More.
A coherent wave, propagating as a spherical wavefront of entangled
photons, does exhibit some inherent timing delays between wavelets that comprise
the wavefront, and also varies in energy output/intensity throughout the wave
cycle.
The latency between the phase angles of the wavelets that comprise the travelling
wavefront are due to voltage and current delays that are resonantly developed
across the physical medium that generates the wave. The change in energy states
(vibrations) across the source medium, take time to propagate/couple along the
extended resonant surface, but they do so at nearly the speed of light. Energy
movement is not an instantaneous state transition across the emitting source. As
you know, energy takes time to move between points on a transmission line, since
it starts from a "feed" point and moves toward the ground plane by using electron
flow dynamics, as in a wire or within a laser cavity.
This lateral phase "latency" delay, or phase angle offset, that exists between
entangled photons on the wavefront, would have a relative timing delay that is
near c. The phase angles of each wavelet are almost synchronous, but not quite,
because of the propagation response delay time as EM energy moves thru the
emitting source atomic matrix.
An example:
A radio antenna produces a wave amplitude that propagates over a time
base/frequency. The energy of the wave, rises from a reference ground level
to a peak amplitude over a fixed time base. The energy in the wave then
decreases from the peak level, back to the reference ground level, so we have
one wave cycle. The the wave energy cycle repeats creating a string of energy
oscillations that vary over a fixed sinewave time interval.
The instantaneous energy at any point in the coherent wavecycle will have a
different energy component associated with the constantly incrementing phase
angle rotation. There is a constantly varying energy gradient associated with
the wave phase angle.
We measure the RMS average value, not the instantaneous value according to
the corresponding phase angle. In this case, E = hf varies with time and the
instantaneous phase angle of the wave.
Is this the mechanism that you are proposing for a discrete photon impulse,
since it also follows a rising and falling energy cycle? Again we measure the
quantum energy displacement as a total value, which does raise questions about
Plank's consant (h). It is only a constant as it pertains to the entire time duration
of the photon impulse. It does not account for internal incremental changes in
energy level that occur within the photon (wavelet) package envelope.
Comments? Discussion? Other analysis?
LL
More.
A coherent wave, propagating as a spherical wavefront of entangled
photons, does exhibit some inherent timing delays between wavelets that comprise
the wavefront, and also varies in energy output/intensity throughout the wave
cycle.
The latency between the phase angles of the wavelets that comprise the travelling
wavefront are due to voltage and current delays that are resonantly developed
across the physical medium that generates the wave. The change in energy states
(vibrations) across the source medium, take time to propagate/couple along the
extended resonant surface, but they do so at nearly the speed of light. Energy
movement is not an instantaneous state transition across the emitting source. As
you know, energy takes time to move between points on a transmission line, since
it starts from a "feed" point and moves toward the ground plane by using electron
flow dynamics, as in a wire or within a laser cavity.
This lateral phase "latency" delay, or phase angle offset, that exists between
entangled photons on the wavefront, would have a relative timing delay that is
near c. The phase angles of each wavelet are almost synchronous, but not quite,
because of the propagation response delay time as EM energy moves thru the
emitting source atomic matrix.
An example:
A radio antenna produces a wave amplitude that propagates over a time
base/frequency. The energy of the wave, rises from a reference ground level
to a peak amplitude over a fixed time base. The energy in the wave then
decreases from the peak level, back to the reference ground level, so we have
one wave cycle. The the wave energy cycle repeats creating a string of energy
oscillations that vary over a fixed sinewave time interval.
The instantaneous energy at any point in the coherent wavecycle will have a
different energy component associated with the constantly incrementing phase
angle rotation. There is a constantly varying energy gradient associated with
the wave phase angle.
We measure the RMS average value, not the instantaneous value according to
the corresponding phase angle. In this case, E = hf varies with time and the
instantaneous phase angle of the wave.
Is this the mechanism that you are proposing for a discrete photon impulse,
since it also follows a rising and falling energy cycle? Again we measure the
quantum energy displacement as a total value, which does raise questions about
Plank's consant (h). It is only a constant as it pertains to the entire time duration
of the photon impulse. It does not account for internal incremental changes in
energy level that occur within the photon (wavelet) package envelope.
Comments? Discussion? Other analysis?
LL
Hi TRoc et al,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
The favorite of C2, the "path length" method, uses the constant velocity assumption, and the experimental results, to calculate the wavelength...
Strangely my favourite method does not use the assumption of constant velocity .. though it does use the path length and the experimental results to determine a wavelength or predict the result if the wavelength is known by other means.
Best wishes - C2.
Strangely my favourite method does not use the assumption of constant velocity .. though it does use the path length and the experimental results to determine a wavelength or predict the result if the wavelength is known by other means.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi all,
LL-
Sure.
We can touch on a past conversation of ours, about the "mean free path" relationship to the average number of oscillators in a given area (aka the "vacuum"/medium). We agreed that, under our best lab conditions, what is happening is that the collisions between the oscillators are being greatly reduced.
In your question, the simple example that you gave, "spinning around its centerpoint at a constant phase angular rotational velocity" will not be enough to fully explain this, but we'll start there.
Example: a collision (or more) occurs during our finite length excited state / "emission process", and either "cuts off" the emission, or creates a "dip" in the normal frequency.
We have a direct relationship between the number of collisions among the oscillators that constitute a medium, and the refractive index. Higher numbers of collisions LIMIT the coherent transmission (of the fundamental frequency) because they EAT energy. This "eating" is loud: it creates "noise" that increases the density of vibration in an area (yes, that's energy). Signal to Noise ratio drops, etc.
In my model, it is because of this "drawing off" of energy (by collisions) that removes the "front" lobes with lower energy (due to self- phase modulation) first. These lower frequencies have a lower RI, and therefore, higher velocities (another reason why they dominate the wave-front). With these higher velocity components absorbed into the medium (with loss), our "average", or group velocity drops. This is the reason for the RI in the first place, IMO.
At any rate, that is the "simple" model. We also have the quantum numbers that explain the next few levels of interaction. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_level and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_configuration .
The ratio of the different movements of the bound electron in "orbit" to the intrinsic "spin" is constant. The coupling (interactions) between these different movements follows the standard pattern: they can "add or detract" to the phase, and that means the "differences" that are generated, are modulated onto any emission during that "moment" of coupling. Beat frequencies DO show up in "standard" (multi level) emissions.
We also have the self phase modulation, that I mentioned, and that we covered (IMO) pretty extensively. This is part of the "propagation" itself. We state an "average" or "center" frequency, which requires a "group" of (slightly) different frequencies.
These "extra" frequencies (side lobes) are present in all waves.
Hopefully, this also describes "how can "f" vary with time and still maintain mathematical symmetry". But if not, I'll go further into detail.
regards,
T.Roc
LL-
QUOTE
..explain to me how a single photon impulse, that is emitted from an
atomic dipole, and that is spinning around its centerpoint at a constant phase
angular rotational velocity , has multiple frequency components within its
single frequency operational time domain?
atomic dipole, and that is spinning around its centerpoint at a constant phase
angular rotational velocity , has multiple frequency components within its
single frequency operational time domain?
Sure.
We can touch on a past conversation of ours, about the "mean free path" relationship to the average number of oscillators in a given area (aka the "vacuum"/medium). We agreed that, under our best lab conditions, what is happening is that the collisions between the oscillators are being greatly reduced.
In your question, the simple example that you gave, "spinning around its centerpoint at a constant phase angular rotational velocity" will not be enough to fully explain this, but we'll start there.
Example: a collision (or more) occurs during our finite length excited state / "emission process", and either "cuts off" the emission, or creates a "dip" in the normal frequency.
We have a direct relationship between the number of collisions among the oscillators that constitute a medium, and the refractive index. Higher numbers of collisions LIMIT the coherent transmission (of the fundamental frequency) because they EAT energy. This "eating" is loud: it creates "noise" that increases the density of vibration in an area (yes, that's energy). Signal to Noise ratio drops, etc.
In my model, it is because of this "drawing off" of energy (by collisions) that removes the "front" lobes with lower energy (due to self- phase modulation) first. These lower frequencies have a lower RI, and therefore, higher velocities (another reason why they dominate the wave-front). With these higher velocity components absorbed into the medium (with loss), our "average", or group velocity drops. This is the reason for the RI in the first place, IMO.
At any rate, that is the "simple" model. We also have the quantum numbers that explain the next few levels of interaction. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_level and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_configuration .
The ratio of the different movements of the bound electron in "orbit" to the intrinsic "spin" is constant. The coupling (interactions) between these different movements follows the standard pattern: they can "add or detract" to the phase, and that means the "differences" that are generated, are modulated onto any emission during that "moment" of coupling. Beat frequencies DO show up in "standard" (multi level) emissions.
We also have the self phase modulation, that I mentioned, and that we covered (IMO) pretty extensively. This is part of the "propagation" itself. We state an "average" or "center" frequency, which requires a "group" of (slightly) different frequencies.
These "extra" frequencies (side lobes) are present in all waves.
Hopefully, this also describes "how can "f" vary with time and still maintain mathematical symmetry". But if not, I'll go further into detail.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
Hmmmm, signal to noise ratio is an energy level quantifier registered in db with a
factor of 10x per decibel level. So, yes, a wave travelling thru a medium does
have signal level losses due to material dispersion.
Are you implying that the radiative byproducts of such collisions/interactions
become part of the original coherent wave's frequency spectrum, and show
the summing/difference effects of wave superposition in the bands on the
detection screen?
I remind you we are only observing one spectral color in the DSE bands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_%28optics%29
Another consequence of dispersion manifests itself as a temporal effect. The formula above, v = c / n calculates the phase velocity of a wave; this is the velocity at which the phase of any one frequency component of the wave will propagate. This is not the same as the group velocity of the wave, which is the rate that changes in amplitude (known as the envelope of the wave) will propagate. The group velocity vg is related to the phase velocity by, for a homogeneous medium (here λ is the wavelength in vacuum, not in the medium):
LL
Hmmmm, signal to noise ratio is an energy level quantifier registered in db with a
factor of 10x per decibel level. So, yes, a wave travelling thru a medium does
have signal level losses due to material dispersion.
Are you implying that the radiative byproducts of such collisions/interactions
become part of the original coherent wave's frequency spectrum, and show
the summing/difference effects of wave superposition in the bands on the
detection screen?
I remind you we are only observing one spectral color in the DSE bands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_%28optics%29
QUOTE
The most commonly seen consequence of dispersion in optics is the separation of white light into a color spectrum by a prism. From Snell's law it can be seen that the angle of refraction of light in a prism depends on the refractive index of the prism material. Since that refractive index varies with wavelength, it follows that the angle that the light is refracted will also vary with wavelength, causing an angular separation of the colors known as angular dispersion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The most commonly seen consequence of dispersion in optics is the separation of white light into a color spectrum by a prism. From Snell's law it can be seen that the angle of refraction of light in a prism depends on the refractive index of the prism material. Since that refractive index varies with wavelength, it follows that the angle that the light is refracted will also vary with wavelength, causing an angular separation of the colors known as angular dispersion. |
Another consequence of dispersion manifests itself as a temporal effect. The formula above, v = c / n calculates the phase velocity of a wave; this is the velocity at which the phase of any one frequency component of the wave will propagate. This is not the same as the group velocity of the wave, which is the rate that changes in amplitude (known as the envelope of the wave) will propagate. The group velocity vg is related to the phase velocity by, for a homogeneous medium (here λ is the wavelength in vacuum, not in the medium):
LL
Hi kokhaw, Laserlight et al,
QUOTE (kokhaw+)
Hi, Good Elf. do you mean particles are not stuffed? If this is what you mean, I would say you still have one supporter here. Mass are made of particles, particles are made of waves. Waves are not stuffed. Therefore, mass are not stuffed. Actually, I have another more complete explanation. It is too lengthy to put it here.
I am unsure about that 'technical term"... stuffed. What I mean is the symmetry of particles as summarized by SU2 and the deeper SU3 symmetry and "separately" by the Laws of CPT-Lorentz Symmetry are expressions of the internal "proto-photon" that is the ultimate constituent of matter. Looking at the matter - antimatter reactions that eliminate two enantiomorphic particles through a process that appears to be a "knot and counter knot" simultaneously applied to some kind of higher dimensional manifold that is internal to the two particles.
This has no place in quantum theory which is only a 4 dimensional theory which treats particles as having no history or path so knots of any kind cannot exist. But it seems to be a prime argument for hidden parameter theories that involve non-local connections to our own spacetime. What this is trying to say is particles spontaneously create their own manifold curvature from "degenerate spacetime", not through gravity, as some theories suggested, but through electromagnetism. Electromagnetism is an anti-symmetric function like a knot in a string, there are two ways they can be applied... clockwise knots and anti-clockwise knots. With ordinary string a counter knot will not unravel an existing knot, but if these two deformations occupy overlapping dimensional states in the one physical space then potentially a "higher dimensional being" could undo an initial knot by simply applying a counter knot in higher dimensions. This is a known axiom of higher dimensional topology and knot theory and provides for a higher dimensional particle to unravel a similar anti-particle if they both "share" higher dimensions. That is of course provided we are not limited to quantum Mechanics (because of the reasons given above). In fact the very existence of these properties 'suggest strongly" higher dimensions for those who want to see them.
Now this is a way to provide for all kinds of known elementary particles...
taken from P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
This is a String Theory that shows (in standard String Theory parlance) how to form all the particles in our Universe from a few basic photons and providing some 'boosts" and some "spins" trapped by dimensional "mirrors". A variant of this string theory is what I am proposing.... in an Anti-de-Sitter Space a reciprocal space of waves trapped on the inside surface of a particle sphere dimensionaly bounded by the light cone. The symmetry is identical to this proposal seen in the illustration it is just a reciprocally connected domains is where I differ. In this way these electromagnetic 'twists" result in "fermion particles" and topological charge due to stationary states in the wrapping of the dynamic reciprocally progressing EM photon wave. The result is CPT-Lorentz Symmetry which will be stationary states with fractional charges for sub-atomic particles and also can result in electrons with integer charge. The difference being the amount of "twist" knotted into the manifold and the amount of resultant charge as a result. So we have a photon caught in a "stationary state" propagating as if in an unbounded space but finite. This results in a 'frequency" for the particle... a reciprocal wavelength. The de Broglie Relationship (I have discussed this many times on this thread before).
There is more than a passing resemblance to "Falaco Solitons" that appear on the surface of swimming pools... Vortices are 'embedded" in a higher dimensional surface... the bulk volume of the pool but observers see only the surface "distortions"... underneath a "string" connects the two vortices (vortex and anti-vortex) through a higher dimensional realm than the surface of the pool...
http://www22.pair.com/csdc/car/carfre10.htm
This is a 'toy" model of solitons internally connected by "water instantons". I have taken the liberty of displaying this electron positron pair to show three dimensions as only two dimensions (like it has been done for the Falaco Solitons) and I have simplified some aspects of this (a lot!), but you can see that charge is seen as a topological process of standing waves on the two dimensional surface of a hypersphere. There are no elementary charges at all in this view of "matter" and only fields, spin, waves and photons exist with a non-local connection between soliton spaces. The embedding of the wave of the photon is very important as to the description of this as an electric or a magnetic effect... as shown it is "charge". The electron can them be considered as the higher dimensional equivalent of this topological process...
For more about the Hubius Helix and these ideas look again in these references..
"The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
... and...
"Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?":J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
These are lower dimensional equivalents of these structures which I think are found in "particles", in particular the electron. you see that you can model the internal structure of the electron with "an electromagnetic vortex" and these vortices can result in a nett topological charge when you consider a simple photon whose state is neither positive or negative in charge but an oscillatory waveform. These vortices in their 'incomplete" form are described in literature under the subject of twisted light and some of the works of Dr. Taco Visser of Rochester U. These are constructed using 'Instantons" which can potentially stabilize these structures against collapse. I have discussed these before.
This structure can be twisted into a Hubius helix in a similar way that a "Balloon Clown" at a children's party can make simple balloons into toys of various shapes by bending and twisting or knotting. In the following diagram the ability to reattach the balloon to its own tail after bending into the Helix structure by way of a 180 twist...
Illustration taken from "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?":J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark referenced above.
As you can see this is not a unique solution that I have found but has been found many times in the past and is repeated elsewhere in the literature by other workers who publish in peer reviewed journals. Naturally these structures are unjustified under Quantum Mechanics and this is why they are not as popular as they might otherwise have been (... because of well known limitations to QM documented recently). The EM internal wave of the single trapped photon (or perhaps doubly trapped photon for the electron) the negative excursions of the packet are "mapped" to the inner wall of the particle and the positive excursions are mapped into the inner central space of the particle in higher dimensions ... hidden from external observation (directly). so within the spherical shape of a particle are these SU2 structures that model existing particle fields utilizing CPT-Lorentz Symmetry. The amount of spin this structure which is wrapped in 6 dimensions exactly matches, according to other workers calculations, the 1/2 integer spin of the electron (see references above). This low energy particle (electron) seems to be the lowest energy entity of its kind and is a 1/2 integer spin.
It would seem to me that 1/3 charged entities with 1/2 integer spin would simply be the result of "more twist" with the "expense" of the photon being "boosted" more with that extra twist. So this is a "Balloon Clown" version of reality.... a series of stationary states that have 1/2 integer spin and multiples of 1/3 charge through twist. Antiparticles are simply the the same particles "built inside out", the mirror image. If you read the references above you will see where all this is coming from and why the models do not presently work in three dimensional space or 4D spacetime. Of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating. This methodology actually "works" and it is unexplained once again by anything but a "hidden variable" theory.
Overall we have the particle version of Schrodinger's/Dirac's Wave equation replaced by the equivalent electromagnetic wave equation...
by...
... Click to enlarge any of the above images...
These relationships have been extracted from Shen's Paper...
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory by Jian Qi Shen These practical equations have been verified in experiments involving Circuit QED and are currently producing some advances in technologies for Photonics and EIT and the design of practical components for Quantum Computers.
Cheers
This has no place in quantum theory which is only a 4 dimensional theory which treats particles as having no history or path so knots of any kind cannot exist. But it seems to be a prime argument for hidden parameter theories that involve non-local connections to our own spacetime. What this is trying to say is particles spontaneously create their own manifold curvature from "degenerate spacetime", not through gravity, as some theories suggested, but through electromagnetism. Electromagnetism is an anti-symmetric function like a knot in a string, there are two ways they can be applied... clockwise knots and anti-clockwise knots. With ordinary string a counter knot will not unravel an existing knot, but if these two deformations occupy overlapping dimensional states in the one physical space then potentially a "higher dimensional being" could undo an initial knot by simply applying a counter knot in higher dimensions. This is a known axiom of higher dimensional topology and knot theory and provides for a higher dimensional particle to unravel a similar anti-particle if they both "share" higher dimensions. That is of course provided we are not limited to quantum Mechanics (because of the reasons given above). In fact the very existence of these properties 'suggest strongly" higher dimensions for those who want to see them.
Now this is a way to provide for all kinds of known elementary particles...
taken from P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
This is a String Theory that shows (in standard String Theory parlance) how to form all the particles in our Universe from a few basic photons and providing some 'boosts" and some "spins" trapped by dimensional "mirrors". A variant of this string theory is what I am proposing.... in an Anti-de-Sitter Space a reciprocal space of waves trapped on the inside surface of a particle sphere dimensionaly bounded by the light cone. The symmetry is identical to this proposal seen in the illustration it is just a reciprocally connected domains is where I differ. In this way these electromagnetic 'twists" result in "fermion particles" and topological charge due to stationary states in the wrapping of the dynamic reciprocally progressing EM photon wave. The result is CPT-Lorentz Symmetry which will be stationary states with fractional charges for sub-atomic particles and also can result in electrons with integer charge. The difference being the amount of "twist" knotted into the manifold and the amount of resultant charge as a result. So we have a photon caught in a "stationary state" propagating as if in an unbounded space but finite. This results in a 'frequency" for the particle... a reciprocal wavelength. The de Broglie Relationship (I have discussed this many times on this thread before).
There is more than a passing resemblance to "Falaco Solitons" that appear on the surface of swimming pools... Vortices are 'embedded" in a higher dimensional surface... the bulk volume of the pool but observers see only the surface "distortions"... underneath a "string" connects the two vortices (vortex and anti-vortex) through a higher dimensional realm than the surface of the pool...
http://www22.pair.com/csdc/car/carfre10.htm
This is a 'toy" model of solitons internally connected by "water instantons". I have taken the liberty of displaying this electron positron pair to show three dimensions as only two dimensions (like it has been done for the Falaco Solitons) and I have simplified some aspects of this (a lot!), but you can see that charge is seen as a topological process of standing waves on the two dimensional surface of a hypersphere. There are no elementary charges at all in this view of "matter" and only fields, spin, waves and photons exist with a non-local connection between soliton spaces. The embedding of the wave of the photon is very important as to the description of this as an electric or a magnetic effect... as shown it is "charge". The electron can them be considered as the higher dimensional equivalent of this topological process...
For more about the Hubius Helix and these ideas look again in these references..
"The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
... and...
"Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?":J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
These are lower dimensional equivalents of these structures which I think are found in "particles", in particular the electron. you see that you can model the internal structure of the electron with "an electromagnetic vortex" and these vortices can result in a nett topological charge when you consider a simple photon whose state is neither positive or negative in charge but an oscillatory waveform. These vortices in their 'incomplete" form are described in literature under the subject of twisted light and some of the works of Dr. Taco Visser of Rochester U. These are constructed using 'Instantons" which can potentially stabilize these structures against collapse. I have discussed these before.
This structure can be twisted into a Hubius helix in a similar way that a "Balloon Clown" at a children's party can make simple balloons into toys of various shapes by bending and twisting or knotting. In the following diagram the ability to reattach the balloon to its own tail after bending into the Helix structure by way of a 180 twist...
Illustration taken from "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?":J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark referenced above.
As you can see this is not a unique solution that I have found but has been found many times in the past and is repeated elsewhere in the literature by other workers who publish in peer reviewed journals. Naturally these structures are unjustified under Quantum Mechanics and this is why they are not as popular as they might otherwise have been (... because of well known limitations to QM documented recently). The EM internal wave of the single trapped photon (or perhaps doubly trapped photon for the electron) the negative excursions of the packet are "mapped" to the inner wall of the particle and the positive excursions are mapped into the inner central space of the particle in higher dimensions ... hidden from external observation (directly). so within the spherical shape of a particle are these SU2 structures that model existing particle fields utilizing CPT-Lorentz Symmetry. The amount of spin this structure which is wrapped in 6 dimensions exactly matches, according to other workers calculations, the 1/2 integer spin of the electron (see references above). This low energy particle (electron) seems to be the lowest energy entity of its kind and is a 1/2 integer spin.
It would seem to me that 1/3 charged entities with 1/2 integer spin would simply be the result of "more twist" with the "expense" of the photon being "boosted" more with that extra twist. So this is a "Balloon Clown" version of reality.... a series of stationary states that have 1/2 integer spin and multiples of 1/3 charge through twist. Antiparticles are simply the the same particles "built inside out", the mirror image. If you read the references above you will see where all this is coming from and why the models do not presently work in three dimensional space or 4D spacetime. Of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating. This methodology actually "works" and it is unexplained once again by anything but a "hidden variable" theory.
Overall we have the particle version of Schrodinger's/Dirac's Wave equation replaced by the equivalent electromagnetic wave equation...
by...
... Click to enlarge any of the above images...
These relationships have been extracted from Shen's Paper...
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory by Jian Qi Shen These practical equations have been verified in experiments involving Circuit QED and are currently producing some advances in technologies for Photonics and EIT and the design of practical components for Quantum Computers.
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.