QUOTE
Confused2 Posted on Yesterday at 10:09 PM
my favourite method does not use the assumption of constant velocity ..
my favourite method does not use the assumption of constant velocity ..
Yes, technically, you are correct. It's not in the "equation", but it is in the assumptions. If it is using "classic" wave equations, a constant velocity is used. If you are using the term "wavelength", it is meaningless without the relationship of "distance over time", or with the "rate of wavelengths over time".
I'm not implying that using a constant velocity is bad, in any way. It is our "steady" reference point.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Confused2 Posted on Yesterday at 10:09 PM my favourite method does not use the assumption of constant velocity .. |
Yes, technically, you are correct. It's not in the "equation", but it is in the assumptions. If it is using "classic" wave equations, a constant velocity is used. If you are using the term "wavelength", it is meaningless without the relationship of "distance over time", or with the "rate of wavelengths over time".
I'm not implying that using a constant velocity is bad, in any way. It is our "steady" reference point.
Laserlight Posted on Yesterday at 10:06 PM
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 constant (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.
Exactly.
QUOTE
Laserlight Posted on Yesterday at 11:07 PM
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.
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.
Not exactly, but not far off enough to generate a debate.
The last answer, if "of course-e, my horse-e".
In an example that I worked up, the frequency change went from 3.7474 e+14 to 3.74637 e+14 , not enough (not even close) to "see". Remember, no one is measuring "frequency or wavelength" at the source AND screen/detector, in any DSE.
If we do not allow for a frequency change, AND phase velocity variance, we CAN NOT have "simultaneously arriving photons" from quasi-monochromatic light, in the DSE (slit = new source, t = 0).
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
Hmmm, if there is a frequency change, it does not apply to all photon's hitting
the screen, and since you are proposing that they are a "fringe" part of the
fundamental bandwidth, at some different frequency/wavelength, then these
frequencies would not ncessarily be coherent with the fundamental frequency
and they should stack up on one side of the fundamental frequency,
according to their spectral characteristics. (like the spectrum colors from a prism
align in descending/ascending frequency order)
A phase change to components of the coherent waves, propagating at the
fundamental frequency, however, would maintain the same frequency, but
would superpose resulting in partial energy summation, which would yield a single
colored band with a fixed "width" pattern, which is what we observe in the DSE.
LL
QUOTE
In an example that I worked up, the frequency change went from 3.7474 e+14 to 3.74637 e+14 , not enough (not even close) to "see". Remember, no one is measuring "frequency or wavelength" at the source AND screen/detector, in any DSE.
If we do not allow for a frequency change, AND phase velocity variance, we CAN NOT have "simultaneously arriving photons" from quasi-monochromatic light, in the DSE (slit = new source, t = 0).
If we do not allow for a frequency change, AND phase velocity variance, we CAN NOT have "simultaneously arriving photons" from quasi-monochromatic light, in the DSE (slit = new source, t = 0).
Hmmm, if there is a frequency change, it does not apply to all photon's hitting
the screen, and since you are proposing that they are a "fringe" part of the
fundamental bandwidth, at some different frequency/wavelength, then these
frequencies would not ncessarily be coherent with the fundamental frequency
and they should stack up on one side of the fundamental frequency,
according to their spectral characteristics. (like the spectrum colors from a prism
align in descending/ascending frequency order)
A phase change to components of the coherent waves, propagating at the
fundamental frequency, however, would maintain the same frequency, but
would superpose resulting in partial energy summation, which would yield a single
colored band with a fixed "width" pattern, which is what we observe in the DSE.
LL
Hello Laserlight, et al.
If the energy contained in both the electric and magnetic fields for a time slice of the wave front is summed (square root of sum of squares) then I would think that the energy value would be constant and equal to E=hf.
At any point (time slice) in the wavefront you have two pieces of information for both the electrical and magnetic fields. You have the instantaneous field vector-amplitude and the field gradient. The field gradient shows both rate of change and direction for the field amplitude in the next time slice. The electric and magnetic field gradients will always have opposite field amplitude directions.
Interference occurs between two or more EM waves where the vector-amplitude values are summed at each point (time slice) along the entire local wave front. Interference occurs all the time between EM waves of all frequencies but these lines of interference are 1D in a 2D wavefront. The intersecting wavefronts (2D planes) only form 1D intersecting lines of interference. The 1D interference is not evident in the next cycle because the electric and magnetic fields are 2D structures where the next cycle is dependent on the entire local field structure. We begin to see interference along the entire 2D wavefront when the normals (Poynting vector) are aligned (0 or 180 deg.). The closer the normals are aligned the more interference we see. Of course the frequency must be the same for the interference to be more than just a beat frequency.
Comments and/or discussion welcome
If the energy contained in both the electric and magnetic fields for a time slice of the wave front is summed (square root of sum of squares) then I would think that the energy value would be constant and equal to E=hf.
At any point (time slice) in the wavefront you have two pieces of information for both the electrical and magnetic fields. You have the instantaneous field vector-amplitude and the field gradient. The field gradient shows both rate of change and direction for the field amplitude in the next time slice. The electric and magnetic field gradients will always have opposite field amplitude directions.
Interference occurs between two or more EM waves where the vector-amplitude values are summed at each point (time slice) along the entire local wave front. Interference occurs all the time between EM waves of all frequencies but these lines of interference are 1D in a 2D wavefront. The intersecting wavefronts (2D planes) only form 1D intersecting lines of interference. The 1D interference is not evident in the next cycle because the electric and magnetic fields are 2D structures where the next cycle is dependent on the entire local field structure. We begin to see interference along the entire 2D wavefront when the normals (Poynting vector) are aligned (0 or 180 deg.). The closer the normals are aligned the more interference we see. Of course the frequency must be the same for the interference to be more than just a beat frequency.
Comments and/or discussion welcome
Hi Montec,
How do you explain 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 th, notes? All types of waves can have
superpositions that generate "partial" notes. Photonic waves should
also generate such minor "notes" depending upon the phase relationship of the
waves at the point of summation.
Comments?
LL
How do you explain 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 th, notes? All types of waves can have
superpositions that generate "partial" notes. Photonic waves should
also generate such minor "notes" depending upon the phase relationship of the
waves at the point of summation.
Comments?
LL
Hi Montec,
????? Both fields (E and M) increase and decrease in amplitude simultaneously,
but have a 90 degree orthogonal relationship. If the E field increases the
B field also increases. The fields scale together.
What do you mean by "opposite field amplitude directions"?
LL
QUOTE
The electric and magnetic field gradients will always have opposite field amplitude directions.
????? Both fields (E and M) increase and decrease in amplitude simultaneously,
but have a 90 degree orthogonal relationship. If the E field increases the
B field also increases. The fields scale together.
What do you mean by "opposite field amplitude directions"?
LL
Hello Laserlight, et al.
Do you agree that a time varying electric field will generate a magnetic field? An electric field that goes from a max to a min would create a magnetic field as an effect. The slope of a line tangent to a sine wave describes the rate of change in amplitude for that sine wave. A max rate of change of an electric field should generate a maximum amplitude for the magnetic field. Where the slope of the tangent line is zero there is minimum change in the electric field and so the magnetic field should also be zero.
In a simple tank circuit composed of an inductor and a capacitor the energy is transfered from the capacitor to the inductor and back again. The energy in one increases as the other decreases. The energy never rises or falls in both at the same time.
An antenna will generate the strongest magnetic field when the current flow is the highest. When the current flow stops the magnetic field collapses and generates electric fields both in the antenna (back EMF) and in the surrounding space. An EM wave is born.
If both fields were in phase then how does the EM field move through space where there is no aether to propagate the waves? How does the permittivity and permeability of space work with the electrical and magnetic waves to govern the speed of light? What is the motive force/mechanics that will cause an EM wave to move if both electrical-magnetic waves are in phase? But most important of all is how can energy be transported through space if at some point there is no electric or magnetic field?
Do you agree that a time varying electric field will generate a magnetic field? An electric field that goes from a max to a min would create a magnetic field as an effect. The slope of a line tangent to a sine wave describes the rate of change in amplitude for that sine wave. A max rate of change of an electric field should generate a maximum amplitude for the magnetic field. Where the slope of the tangent line is zero there is minimum change in the electric field and so the magnetic field should also be zero.
In a simple tank circuit composed of an inductor and a capacitor the energy is transfered from the capacitor to the inductor and back again. The energy in one increases as the other decreases. The energy never rises or falls in both at the same time.
An antenna will generate the strongest magnetic field when the current flow is the highest. When the current flow stops the magnetic field collapses and generates electric fields both in the antenna (back EMF) and in the surrounding space. An EM wave is born.
If both fields were in phase then how does the EM field move through space where there is no aether to propagate the waves? How does the permittivity and permeability of space work with the electrical and magnetic waves to govern the speed of light? What is the motive force/mechanics that will cause an EM wave to move if both electrical-magnetic waves are in phase? But most important of all is how can energy be transported through space if at some point there is no electric or magnetic field?
Hi Montec,
I'm a bit rusty on my electrical theory, but an LC tank circuit is only resonant
when an external alternating or changing voltage/current is dynamically
stimulating the circuit. The LC components are 180 degrees out of phase and
their individual reactance characteristics establish a resonance frequency in
response to the change in voltage or current stimulating the circuit.
Are you suggesting that EM waves are an LC tank circuit variant? I am missing
the link between an LC tank circuit and a free propagating EM wave once the
antenna emission resonance has ended.
Some personal conceptualizations:
The EM wave continues to propagate by virtue of a self sustaining resonance
generated by the cycling of energy between the ZPE baseline DC level, and the
dielectric properties of space. This infers that space/vacuum has inherent
electrical and magnetic characteristics that we call the ZPE of vacuum.
The ZPE potential rides at fixed DC baseline level above "ground" level. So
basically, it has a stored DC energy component, with capacitive characteristics.
If the ZPE level is increased by an externally applied EM field, it
temporarily and dynamically "stores" the localized increase of energy. I visualize
this as a kind of spatial energy bubble, that varies with time and energy content....
(oh no, a thought just occured to me......FOAM!)
If this idea is correct, then the ZPE EM properties of vacuum have a reciprocal
response to changes that are induced into it. Since the EM energy in free
space cannot sink to the ground level, and cannot be destroyed, it continues to
resonantly cycle (like a tank circuit) in response to the oscillating EM fields, with
no losses. The EM bubble (corpuscle) moves from point to point following a
decreasing energy gradient curve, from a source point of high relative energy
density toward a lower energy density level. The energy gradient, over time
and distance, determines the curvature of space from a fixed reference source
point.
If the energy density (displacement) of space increases, the curvature of
space will change, and the trajectory of the corpuscle will follow the increasing
energy curvature, which are geodesics.
I'm a bit rusty on my electrical theory, but an LC tank circuit is only resonant
when an external alternating or changing voltage/current is dynamically
stimulating the circuit. The LC components are 180 degrees out of phase and
their individual reactance characteristics establish a resonance frequency in
response to the change in voltage or current stimulating the circuit.
Are you suggesting that EM waves are an LC tank circuit variant? I am missing
the link between an LC tank circuit and a free propagating EM wave once the
antenna emission resonance has ended.
Some personal conceptualizations:
The EM wave continues to propagate by virtue of a self sustaining resonance
generated by the cycling of energy between the ZPE baseline DC level, and the
dielectric properties of space. This infers that space/vacuum has inherent
electrical and magnetic characteristics that we call the ZPE of vacuum.
The ZPE potential rides at fixed DC baseline level above "ground" level. So
basically, it has a stored DC energy component, with capacitive characteristics.
If the ZPE level is increased by an externally applied EM field, it
temporarily and dynamically "stores" the localized increase of energy. I visualize
this as a kind of spatial energy bubble, that varies with time and energy content....
(oh no, a thought just occured to me......FOAM!)
If this idea is correct, then the ZPE EM properties of vacuum have a reciprocal
response to changes that are induced into it. Since the EM energy in free
space cannot sink to the ground level, and cannot be destroyed, it continues to
resonantly cycle (like a tank circuit) in response to the oscillating EM fields, with
no losses. The EM bubble (corpuscle) moves from point to point following a
decreasing energy gradient curve, from a source point of high relative energy
density toward a lower energy density level. The energy gradient, over time
and distance, determines the curvature of space from a fixed reference source
point.
If the energy density (displacement) of space increases, the curvature of
space will change, and the trajectory of the corpuscle will follow the increasing
energy curvature, which are geodesics.
If both fields were in phase then how does the EM field move through space where there is no aether to propagate the waves?
Everyone is afraid of the concept of physical aether, however, IMO we
could consider the ZPE energy background level as a non-physical "dimension"
of aether. What physical dimensions define energy fields? Energy is
dimensionless, but it provides force. Our legacy definition of what characteristics
comprise the Aether is wrong. Science looked for something physical, when it
is a form of EM energy, and is dimensionless, but it exists in time and has a
relative and dynamic density gradient per unit volume of space.
If you distort the steady state energy fabric of space (ZPE) with a localized
concentration of energy, it will respond by opposing the localized change of state.
EM waves are modulating the average DC component
IMO, since the E and M fields always maintain a 1:1 timing ratio, regardless of
the frequency or amplitude, the ZPE of vacuum/space will always respond to a
change of energy state at the same constant rate. If the ZPE is constant, then it
will also maintain a 1:1 ratio with the changing EM energy level. If the ratio
of change is constant, then the speed must always be constant.
If you distort the steady state energy fabric of space (ZPE) with a localized
concentration of energy, it will respond by opposing the localized change of state.
EM waves are modulating the average DC component
IMO, since the E and M fields always maintain a 1:1 timing ratio, regardless of
the frequency or amplitude, the ZPE of vacuum/space will always respond to a
change of energy state at the same constant rate. If the ZPE is constant, then it
will also maintain a 1:1 ratio with the changing EM energy level. If the ratio
of change is constant, then the speed must always be constant.
What is the motive force/mechanics that will cause an EM wave to move if both electrical-magnetic waves are in phase?
The E and M components of the wave energy are in phase, but they are 180
degrees out of phase with the ZPE reference level of vacuum/space. So, we
have EM force and ZPE counterforce that are kinetically interacting.
We are directionally transporting a force, from a source, as EM energy. The ZPE
of space (vacuum) is being resonantly displaced (warped) from a point of high
energy toward a point of low energy in a "straight" line. Actually, it is
a curved line because the inertial references of the source and the photon are both
moving laterally when referenced to a cartesian coordinate system that uses
a fixed point of origin, in 4D spacetime.
JMHO.
LL
QUOTE
In a simple tank circuit composed of an inductor and a capacitor the energy is transfered from the capacitor to the inductor and back again. The energy in one increases as the other decreases. The energy never rises or falls in both at the same time.
I'm a bit rusty on my electrical theory, but an LC tank circuit is only resonant
when an external alternating or changing voltage/current is dynamically
stimulating the circuit. The LC components are 180 degrees out of phase and
their individual reactance characteristics establish a resonance frequency in
response to the change in voltage or current stimulating the circuit.
Are you suggesting that EM waves are an LC tank circuit variant? I am missing
the link between an LC tank circuit and a free propagating EM wave once the
antenna emission resonance has ended.
Some personal conceptualizations:
The EM wave continues to propagate by virtue of a self sustaining resonance
generated by the cycling of energy between the ZPE baseline DC level, and the
dielectric properties of space. This infers that space/vacuum has inherent
electrical and magnetic characteristics that we call the ZPE of vacuum.
The ZPE potential rides at fixed DC baseline level above "ground" level. So
basically, it has a stored DC energy component, with capacitive characteristics.
If the ZPE level is increased by an externally applied EM field, it
temporarily and dynamically "stores" the localized increase of energy. I visualize
this as a kind of spatial energy bubble, that varies with time and energy content....
(oh no, a thought just occured to me......FOAM!)
If this idea is correct, then the ZPE EM properties of vacuum have a reciprocal
response to changes that are induced into it. Since the EM energy in free
space cannot sink to the ground level, and cannot be destroyed, it continues to
resonantly cycle (like a tank circuit) in response to the oscillating EM fields, with
no losses. The EM bubble (corpuscle) moves from point to point following a
decreasing energy gradient curve, from a source point of high relative energy
density toward a lower energy density level. The energy gradient, over time
and distance, determines the curvature of space from a fixed reference source
point.
If the energy density (displacement) of space increases, the curvature of
space will change, and the trajectory of the corpuscle will follow the increasing
energy curvature, which are geodesics.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In a simple tank circuit composed of an inductor and a capacitor the energy is transfered from the capacitor to the inductor and back again. The energy in one increases as the other decreases. The energy never rises or falls in both at the same time. |
I'm a bit rusty on my electrical theory, but an LC tank circuit is only resonant
when an external alternating or changing voltage/current is dynamically
stimulating the circuit. The LC components are 180 degrees out of phase and
their individual reactance characteristics establish a resonance frequency in
response to the change in voltage or current stimulating the circuit.
Are you suggesting that EM waves are an LC tank circuit variant? I am missing
the link between an LC tank circuit and a free propagating EM wave once the
antenna emission resonance has ended.
Some personal conceptualizations:
The EM wave continues to propagate by virtue of a self sustaining resonance
generated by the cycling of energy between the ZPE baseline DC level, and the
dielectric properties of space. This infers that space/vacuum has inherent
electrical and magnetic characteristics that we call the ZPE of vacuum.
The ZPE potential rides at fixed DC baseline level above "ground" level. So
basically, it has a stored DC energy component, with capacitive characteristics.
If the ZPE level is increased by an externally applied EM field, it
temporarily and dynamically "stores" the localized increase of energy. I visualize
this as a kind of spatial energy bubble, that varies with time and energy content....
(oh no, a thought just occured to me......FOAM!)
If this idea is correct, then the ZPE EM properties of vacuum have a reciprocal
response to changes that are induced into it. Since the EM energy in free
space cannot sink to the ground level, and cannot be destroyed, it continues to
resonantly cycle (like a tank circuit) in response to the oscillating EM fields, with
no losses. The EM bubble (corpuscle) moves from point to point following a
decreasing energy gradient curve, from a source point of high relative energy
density toward a lower energy density level. The energy gradient, over time
and distance, determines the curvature of space from a fixed reference source
point.
If the energy density (displacement) of space increases, the curvature of
space will change, and the trajectory of the corpuscle will follow the increasing
energy curvature, which are geodesics.
If both fields were in phase then how does the EM field move through space where there is no aether to propagate the waves?
Everyone is afraid of the concept of physical aether, however, IMO we
could consider the ZPE energy background level as a non-physical "dimension"
of aether. What physical dimensions define energy fields? Energy is
dimensionless, but it provides force. Our legacy definition of what characteristics
comprise the Aether is wrong. Science looked for something physical, when it
is a form of EM energy, and is dimensionless, but it exists in time and has a
relative and dynamic density gradient per unit volume of space.
QUOTE
How does the permittivity and permeability of space work with the electrical and magnetic waves to govern the speed of light?
If you distort the steady state energy fabric of space (ZPE) with a localized
concentration of energy, it will respond by opposing the localized change of state.
EM waves are modulating the average DC component
IMO, since the E and M fields always maintain a 1:1 timing ratio, regardless of
the frequency or amplitude, the ZPE of vacuum/space will always respond to a
change of energy state at the same constant rate. If the ZPE is constant, then it
will also maintain a 1:1 ratio with the changing EM energy level. If the ratio
of change is constant, then the speed must always be constant.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How does the permittivity and permeability of space work with the electrical and magnetic waves to govern the speed of light? |
If you distort the steady state energy fabric of space (ZPE) with a localized
concentration of energy, it will respond by opposing the localized change of state.
EM waves are modulating the average DC component
IMO, since the E and M fields always maintain a 1:1 timing ratio, regardless of
the frequency or amplitude, the ZPE of vacuum/space will always respond to a
change of energy state at the same constant rate. If the ZPE is constant, then it
will also maintain a 1:1 ratio with the changing EM energy level. If the ratio
of change is constant, then the speed must always be constant.
What is the motive force/mechanics that will cause an EM wave to move if both electrical-magnetic waves are in phase?
The E and M components of the wave energy are in phase, but they are 180
degrees out of phase with the ZPE reference level of vacuum/space. So, we
have EM force and ZPE counterforce that are kinetically interacting.
QUOTE
But most important of all is how can energy be transported through space if at some point there is no electric or magnetic field?
We are directionally transporting a force, from a source, as EM energy. The ZPE
of space (vacuum) is being resonantly displaced (warped) from a point of high
energy toward a point of low energy in a "straight" line. Actually, it is
a curved line because the inertial references of the source and the photon are both
moving laterally when referenced to a cartesian coordinate system that uses
a fixed point of origin, in 4D spacetime.
JMHO.
LL
Hi TRoc et al,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
I'm not implying that using a constant velocity is bad, in any way. It is our "steady" reference point.
There's a Huygens page here :- http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/scien...cs/diffrac.html which I don't think we've had before. The 'point' is that every point in space acts like a new source .. the slit doesn't add points .. it removes them .. hence the spreading which we call diffraction. Looking at the experimental results of diffraction and double slit interference we can see that there is constructive interference where all the waves from the slit(s) 'add' and destructive interference where they cancel out. By looking at the experimental results we can see exactly what phase changes there were in the slit .. and find there were none.. so we can exclude changes of velocity due to refractive index and immediately (within a year or two) see that the effect is not an 'edge' effect .. it is the slit itself .. the whole 'gap' that causes the observed result.. Huygens and Young were both correct in their explanation of the origin of diffraction and interference. I can't prove that the geometric construction is 'unique' to the extent that no other construction will produce the same result but I'd rate the probability of it being unique as pretty damned high. What seems to be happening is that people are not requiring their models to reproduce the experimental results hence they do not need to produce a viable construction method.
Experimentally the DSE shows more than one interference peak which shows that the wave we are looking at is made up of several (or more) cycles of the wavelength that I (we?) use in the construction (the only construction) that so far agrees with the experimental result.
We still see several peaks even when there is only one photon present. Looking at the results of the experiment here :- http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
we see that there are several interference peaks even when there is only one photon present at a time ..
Let us assume (like Good Elf) that a photon is an impulse .. a single peak. We can immediately see that a single peak divided between two paths will only coincide at the screen (in time and position) at one point .. hence (at best) only one peak. Clearly within this model there is a problem with the speed of light as a 'reference'.
The 'extra' interference peaks show that the photon (whatever it is) has travelled a longer path and a shorter path and arrived at the same point via a combination of the paths. If a photon is 'light' and it is travelling different distances in the same amount of time then clearly the speed of light is not a constant 'reference'.
Best wishes - C2.
There's a Huygens page here :- http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/scien...cs/diffrac.html which I don't think we've had before. The 'point' is that every point in space acts like a new source .. the slit doesn't add points .. it removes them .. hence the spreading which we call diffraction. Looking at the experimental results of diffraction and double slit interference we can see that there is constructive interference where all the waves from the slit(s) 'add' and destructive interference where they cancel out. By looking at the experimental results we can see exactly what phase changes there were in the slit .. and find there were none.. so we can exclude changes of velocity due to refractive index and immediately (within a year or two) see that the effect is not an 'edge' effect .. it is the slit itself .. the whole 'gap' that causes the observed result.. Huygens and Young were both correct in their explanation of the origin of diffraction and interference. I can't prove that the geometric construction is 'unique' to the extent that no other construction will produce the same result but I'd rate the probability of it being unique as pretty damned high. What seems to be happening is that people are not requiring their models to reproduce the experimental results hence they do not need to produce a viable construction method.
Experimentally the DSE shows more than one interference peak which shows that the wave we are looking at is made up of several (or more) cycles of the wavelength that I (we?) use in the construction (the only construction) that so far agrees with the experimental result.
We still see several peaks even when there is only one photon present. Looking at the results of the experiment here :- http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
we see that there are several interference peaks even when there is only one photon present at a time ..
Let us assume (like Good Elf) that a photon is an impulse .. a single peak. We can immediately see that a single peak divided between two paths will only coincide at the screen (in time and position) at one point .. hence (at best) only one peak. Clearly within this model there is a problem with the speed of light as a 'reference'.
The 'extra' interference peaks show that the photon (whatever it is) has travelled a longer path and a shorter path and arrived at the same point via a combination of the paths. If a photon is 'light' and it is travelling different distances in the same amount of time then clearly the speed of light is not a constant 'reference'.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi Confused2 et al,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
There's a Huygens page here :- http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/scien...cs/diffrac.html which I don't think we've had before. The 'point' is that every point in space acts like a new source .. the slit doesn't add points .. it removes them ..
The prime principle is the Law of Inverse Squares or of simple Spreading. No actual "points" are involved as the source or in the intervening empty space between the source and the sink, sources are definitely "extended objects". Empty space itself has no "action" on light spreading as stated by Confused2 (Read my lips... there is no Aether), it is a property of the space and it the way we are able to define distance and scale since all ISL behavior provide for our means of spatial distance construction, an example of this is Pythagoras' Theorem of Right Angled Triangles and the ratio of the surface area of a sphere to the radius.. Special Relativity is also simply an expression of this fundamental principle... spreading from a point source which is seen by all observers in all inertial frames of reference as always being on the surface of an idealized sphere into an "open flatspace". Everything you need to know about Special Relativity can be inferred from this one single experimentally verified fact.
The sources themselves are another thing altogether, they are a region in which radiative phenomena are restricted to a finite size but that size (unlike actual Huygens Construction) are not point sources. A single point source cannot behave as a source of light of any kind since a source needs to have extent for it to become a source of primary or secondary radiation. A point has no dimensions and sources most certainly must have finite dimensions for them to behave as sources. Close inspection of "primary or secondary sources" indicate evanescent behavior in the near field not shown by Huygens construction. Ignoring that phenomena ignores almost all the important factors that make propagating light "spread" through radiative processes. This is experimentally always been known.
The sources themselves are another thing altogether, they are a region in which radiative phenomena are restricted to a finite size but that size (unlike actual Huygens Construction) are not point sources. A single point source cannot behave as a source of light of any kind since a source needs to have extent for it to become a source of primary or secondary radiation. A point has no dimensions and sources most certainly must have finite dimensions for them to behave as sources. Close inspection of "primary or secondary sources" indicate evanescent behavior in the near field not shown by Huygens construction. Ignoring that phenomena ignores almost all the important factors that make propagating light "spread" through radiative processes. This is experimentally always been known.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Experimentally the DSE shows more than one interference peak which shows that the wave we are looking at is made up of several (or more) cycles of the wavelength that I (we?) use in the construction (the only construction) that so far agrees with the experimental result.
We still see several peaks even when there is only one photon present. Looking at the results of the experiment here :- http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
we see that there are several interference peaks even when there is only one photon present at a time ..
We still see several peaks even when there is only one photon present. Looking at the results of the experiment here :- http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
we see that there are several interference peaks even when there is only one photon present at a time ..
The peaks are not due to wavelength and these peaks and troughs are quite large , they can be millions of times larger than the wavelength of the light... They are related to wavenumbers and to "spatial dispersion" of the standing waves. Check out Fourier Theory and you will see these are the reciprocal of wavelength.
E =hf
... and "look" something like a one sided form of this...
... Click to enlarge..
These sources of single photons are a "one shot" release of a single quanta from "atomic sources" or even "sub-atomic sources". The individual photon then spreads "seeking all paths" or as part of a group of co-moving photons when it's release is "stimulated" as in the situation of a laser or alternatively when released in concert by an extended antenna source fed with a continuous source of energy as in the case of "coherent" radio wave photons on a single wavefront. A single photon will spread the same as many photons on the same wavefront or boson state individually differing only in Berry Phase, the single photon will be absorbed in this scheme as a single "flash" in a Zinc Sulfide screen or as a single "click" on an optical sensor of equivalent size, sensitive to that wavelength of light.
... Click to enlarge..
The left image is the "source" impulse (particle like) and the right image is its "packet" equivalent response as a sync function in the reciprocal domain. They are not the same and they cannot occur together. The "sink" where the photon is absorbed is similar but not the same as a reverse of the emission at source where it "resonates" with a receptive 'site". This is shown as a two dimensional function but actually it is a 3 or more dimensional function.
Here is what "constriction of an extended source" can produce...
... Click to enlarge..
Cylindrical transverse mode patterns TEM(pl)... Multimode propagation of light from a "source". Two of these "sources" coherently "mixing" will produce interference... or the DSE when one source in the far field is passed through a pair of slits.
There are "no divisions of peaks" as stated by Confused2 since this pattern is derived by spatial dispersion through its wavenumber in a reciprocal Fourier Dispersion one coherent photon at a time. The pattern on the screen is the result of single photon interference, not multi-photon interference. What is observed is the result of cumulative recording of each individual flash over a period of time.
There is no need for the speed of light to be varied in respect of propagation to generate this pattern. It is simple Fourier Theory (actually Spherical Harmonics) which is a Harmonic Relationship developed on the surface of a sphere... the spreading sphere of light from the source. These "interferences" are also used to generate the same functions for the primary atomic radiation patterns of atoms... take the development of this to three (or more) dimensions leading to the patterns for atomic orbitals which is simple spherical harmonics expanded using Bessel Functions. The first order solutions are one dimensional "harmonic wrapping" of a generalized wave on a circle ... Fourier Theory ... extending the idea to surfaces then to volumetric space leads to more "general theory" of spherical harmonics (and beyond)...
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/SphericalHarmonics/
Just choose the Web demonstration...
... Click to enlarge...
The pattern is the result (in the ideal situation) of spatial standing waves and not frequency standing waves (or progressing waves) as Confused2 is trying to insinuate. The different "apparent" photon paths through space to end up after seeking all available paths is a "misrepresentation" since it can be shown that the photons do not travel in rays but as waves otherwise the passing through of one slit or the other would not result in the individual (one by one) photon interference patterns observed.
Cheers
QUOTE
Let us assume (like Good Elf) that a photon is an impulse .. a single peak. We can immediately see that a single peak divided between two paths will only coincide at the screen (in time and position) at one point .. hence (at best) only one peak. Clearly within this model there is a problem with the speed of light as a 'reference'.
The 'extra' interference peaks show that the photon (whatever it is) has travelled a longer path and a shorter path and arrived at the same point via a combination of the paths. If a photon is 'light' and it is traveling different distances in the same amount of time then clearly the speed of light is not a constant 'reference'.
Best wishes - C2.
Deliberate misrepresentation and clearly mischievous in intent, I have absolutely never said anything of the sort. A photon is nothing like that at all, and I have never said that it was. The "source" generates photons from "impulses" but that is within the finite extended source. The "idealized" wave packet is similar to a sync function. The initial source "converts" the source impulse to a sync function through the restriction of the source to a finite emitter size such as a finite (but small) dipole radiator as in the case of elementary atomic sources. There are no such things as point sources. In that case the emission is "localized" within the space occupied by a "shell" where the electron transitions from an excited state to the unexcited state with the release of a single quanta as if from a "dipole source" by an "impulse". The impulse "begins" and "ends" this is the nature of the quanta released by atomic sources.... Single atoms are not connected to continuous sources of power and they can only accept and release energy as "impulses". These "impulses" have this relationship...The 'extra' interference peaks show that the photon (whatever it is) has travelled a longer path and a shorter path and arrived at the same point via a combination of the paths. If a photon is 'light' and it is traveling different distances in the same amount of time then clearly the speed of light is not a constant 'reference'.
Best wishes - C2.
E =hf
... and "look" something like a one sided form of this...
... Click to enlarge..
These sources of single photons are a "one shot" release of a single quanta from "atomic sources" or even "sub-atomic sources". The individual photon then spreads "seeking all paths" or as part of a group of co-moving photons when it's release is "stimulated" as in the situation of a laser or alternatively when released in concert by an extended antenna source fed with a continuous source of energy as in the case of "coherent" radio wave photons on a single wavefront. A single photon will spread the same as many photons on the same wavefront or boson state individually differing only in Berry Phase, the single photon will be absorbed in this scheme as a single "flash" in a Zinc Sulfide screen or as a single "click" on an optical sensor of equivalent size, sensitive to that wavelength of light.
... Click to enlarge..
The left image is the "source" impulse (particle like) and the right image is its "packet" equivalent response as a sync function in the reciprocal domain. They are not the same and they cannot occur together. The "sink" where the photon is absorbed is similar but not the same as a reverse of the emission at source where it "resonates" with a receptive 'site". This is shown as a two dimensional function but actually it is a 3 or more dimensional function.
Here is what "constriction of an extended source" can produce...
... Click to enlarge..
Cylindrical transverse mode patterns TEM(pl)... Multimode propagation of light from a "source". Two of these "sources" coherently "mixing" will produce interference... or the DSE when one source in the far field is passed through a pair of slits.
There are "no divisions of peaks" as stated by Confused2 since this pattern is derived by spatial dispersion through its wavenumber in a reciprocal Fourier Dispersion one coherent photon at a time. The pattern on the screen is the result of single photon interference, not multi-photon interference. What is observed is the result of cumulative recording of each individual flash over a period of time.
There is no need for the speed of light to be varied in respect of propagation to generate this pattern. It is simple Fourier Theory (actually Spherical Harmonics) which is a Harmonic Relationship developed on the surface of a sphere... the spreading sphere of light from the source. These "interferences" are also used to generate the same functions for the primary atomic radiation patterns of atoms... take the development of this to three (or more) dimensions leading to the patterns for atomic orbitals which is simple spherical harmonics expanded using Bessel Functions. The first order solutions are one dimensional "harmonic wrapping" of a generalized wave on a circle ... Fourier Theory ... extending the idea to surfaces then to volumetric space leads to more "general theory" of spherical harmonics (and beyond)...
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/SphericalHarmonics/
Just choose the Web demonstration...
... Click to enlarge...
The pattern is the result (in the ideal situation) of spatial standing waves and not frequency standing waves (or progressing waves) as Confused2 is trying to insinuate. The different "apparent" photon paths through space to end up after seeking all available paths is a "misrepresentation" since it can be shown that the photons do not travel in rays but as waves otherwise the passing through of one slit or the other would not result in the individual (one by one) photon interference patterns observed.
Cheers
Hi GE,
What would you call the straight zero reference mean centerline of a wave, which
provides photon directionality? A laser beam travels in waves along a parallel series of
straight line paths that matches the cross-sectional area of the partially mirrored
end of the laser cavity from source to target. If these are not rays, what name
would you call them?
Remember, we can bisect a beam and change its linear directionality in multiple
directions.
LL
QUOTE
The different "apparent" photon paths through space to end up after seeking all available paths is a "misrepresentation" since it can be shown that the photons do not travel in rays but as waves otherwise the passing through of one slit or the other would not result in the individual (one by one) photon interference patterns observed.
What would you call the straight zero reference mean centerline of a wave, which
provides photon directionality? A laser beam travels in waves along a parallel series of
straight line paths that matches the cross-sectional area of the partially mirrored
end of the laser cavity from source to target. If these are not rays, what name
would you call them?
Remember, we can bisect a beam and change its linear directionality in multiple
directions.
LL
Hi Montec et al,
QUOTE (Montec +)
Do you agree that a time varying electric field will generate a magnetic field? An electric field that goes from a max to a min would create a magnetic field as an effect.[...] If both fields were in phase then how does the EM field move through space where there is no aether to propagate the waves? How does the permittivity and permeability of space work with the electrical and magnetic waves to govern the speed of light? What is the motive force/mechanics that will cause an EM wave to move if both electrical-magnetic waves are in phase? But most important of all is how can energy be transported through space if at some point there is no electric or magnetic field?
I certainly see what you are getting at but there is a difference between a "distributed source" and "CW wave propagation". The source is as you said... a resonance between the electric and magnetic fields. Each cyclic event shuffling the energy back and forth from the electric to the magnetic field and so on. This is a dynamic process inside the source acting against the backdrop of "time".
This occurs "inside the source in the inductive field". Once the wave passes beyond the short range of the evanescent source an inductive component of it "snaps" back into the source... you could consider this as the Advanced potential in some respects and this cancels some of the outgoing retarded potential which is progressing away in "loops" of the electric field which "nip off" from that resonant source and now have no further inputs of energy. These loops form continuous circuits "frozen into the space" this phenomenon is expanding into. These are "loops" that have nothing to dissipate their energy into (an electric field line could drive charges around a circuit but there are no charges "out there" in free space. They are also traveling at the speed of light so except for "spreading" which is simply due to the geometry of space, there is no progress in time at all. All "activity" has ceased internally and this pattern is progressing without change away from the source except for spatial spreading.
Here is an example of pure "rubbish" expounded by a NASA source showing how poorly understood it is...
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wemwaves.html
The wave seems to be "moving"....????
Here is what "really" happens from another source...
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~teb/java/ntnuj...ave/emWave.html
Just consider one direction in general. Notice that the "pattern" is retained static in time as it "moves" away from the source at the speed of light through simply spreading on the surface of a sphere. The plane waves shown here never occur they are always "spreading" from sources and that is how they "move". This "movement" is the Inverse square law and reflects the passage of energy from shell to shell as subtending the same solid angular "patch" on consecutive spherical shells forever. The energy is 'conserved" and this is simply says energy does not build up nor dissipate as light "expands" away from the source. The Lagrangian. Note this "function" cannot be extended right back to the center... since at the center there is no patch extent ... only a point and this "breaks" the ISL. The "patch" starts some short distance from the center of the expanding sphere (within a wavelength).
Observers seem to see this progress regarding continuous waves as the electric and magnetic field "rushing past like carriages on a high speed train, one after the other, representing an "undulation in time" yet from the point of view of the train itself the carriages are "stationary". The EM continuous wave is actually composed of fixed pattern as if made of a piece of sinusoidally bent wire moving past the observer as if it was being carried "on" the expanding surface of consecutive shells of an expanding sphere.
Consider how a gramophone plays music from a stationary pattern engraved in the surface of a disk. The disk through rotation moves the "pattern" past the needle which provides the "illusion" of movement (in this case sound). This is how a radio appears to provide 'movement" be it the audio of music or voice or as "life" in television waves... the pattern is sent into space on an expanding standing pattern on the expanding shell of light and is "picked up" by a transducer and converted to "motion" and to "life". From "Time" into "Space" and back into "Time" again... Impulses into a moving "frozen" spatial pattern back into impulses. A kind of "spatial recording".
So light does not need to do anything except be some kind of "stressor" on a surface of an expanding lightcone wall to "record" propagating wave patterns spatially.
Individual photons are single sinc function versions of this phenomenon... like the CW wave they also spread on the surface of a sphere.
Cheers
This occurs "inside the source in the inductive field". Once the wave passes beyond the short range of the evanescent source an inductive component of it "snaps" back into the source... you could consider this as the Advanced potential in some respects and this cancels some of the outgoing retarded potential which is progressing away in "loops" of the electric field which "nip off" from that resonant source and now have no further inputs of energy. These loops form continuous circuits "frozen into the space" this phenomenon is expanding into. These are "loops" that have nothing to dissipate their energy into (an electric field line could drive charges around a circuit but there are no charges "out there" in free space. They are also traveling at the speed of light so except for "spreading" which is simply due to the geometry of space, there is no progress in time at all. All "activity" has ceased internally and this pattern is progressing without change away from the source except for spatial spreading.
Here is an example of pure "rubbish" expounded by a NASA source showing how poorly understood it is...
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wemwaves.html
The wave seems to be "moving"....????
Here is what "really" happens from another source...
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~teb/java/ntnuj...ave/emWave.html
Just consider one direction in general. Notice that the "pattern" is retained static in time as it "moves" away from the source at the speed of light through simply spreading on the surface of a sphere. The plane waves shown here never occur they are always "spreading" from sources and that is how they "move". This "movement" is the Inverse square law and reflects the passage of energy from shell to shell as subtending the same solid angular "patch" on consecutive spherical shells forever. The energy is 'conserved" and this is simply says energy does not build up nor dissipate as light "expands" away from the source. The Lagrangian. Note this "function" cannot be extended right back to the center... since at the center there is no patch extent ... only a point and this "breaks" the ISL. The "patch" starts some short distance from the center of the expanding sphere (within a wavelength).
Observers seem to see this progress regarding continuous waves as the electric and magnetic field "rushing past like carriages on a high speed train, one after the other, representing an "undulation in time" yet from the point of view of the train itself the carriages are "stationary". The EM continuous wave is actually composed of fixed pattern as if made of a piece of sinusoidally bent wire moving past the observer as if it was being carried "on" the expanding surface of consecutive shells of an expanding sphere.
Consider how a gramophone plays music from a stationary pattern engraved in the surface of a disk. The disk through rotation moves the "pattern" past the needle which provides the "illusion" of movement (in this case sound). This is how a radio appears to provide 'movement" be it the audio of music or voice or as "life" in television waves... the pattern is sent into space on an expanding standing pattern on the expanding shell of light and is "picked up" by a transducer and converted to "motion" and to "life". From "Time" into "Space" and back into "Time" again... Impulses into a moving "frozen" spatial pattern back into impulses. A kind of "spatial recording".
So light does not need to do anything except be some kind of "stressor" on a surface of an expanding lightcone wall to "record" propagating wave patterns spatially.
Individual photons are single sinc function versions of this phenomenon... like the CW wave they also spread on the surface of a sphere.
Cheers
Hi Laserlight et al,
QUOTE (Laserlight +)
What would you call the straight zero reference mean centerline of a wave, which provides photon directionality? A laser beam travels in waves along a parallel series of straight line paths that matches the cross-sectional area of the partially mirrored end of the laser cavity from source to target. If these are not rays, what name would you call them?
Remember, we can bisect a beam and change its linear directionality in multiple
directions.
Remember, we can bisect a beam and change its linear directionality in multiple
directions.
The more you "squeeze the beam" the more you create side lobes in the "radiation pattern". The beam will always spread after passing through an aperture.
This is when you use light like a laser...
This is when you use "radio waves"...
Same sort of thing... different wavelengths only in the second case as seen from "above". Of course at those long wavelengths we can fabricate the photons to whatever size we want when it is above the really small scale.
Cheers
This is when you use light like a laser...
This is when you use "radio waves"...
Same sort of thing... different wavelengths only in the second case as seen from "above". Of course at those long wavelengths we can fabricate the photons to whatever size we want when it is above the really small scale.
Cheers
Hello Good Elf, Laserlight, et al.
When I try to understand the "synced EM wave model" , I run into a logic wall.
If the electric and magnetic field strengths expand and contract at right angles to the energy flow (Poynting vector) and the energy flow moves at the speed of light then how can the fields expand or contract at the speed of light at the same time. This would require the max speed to be c^2 and not c.
If the field strengths are constant then what causes said fields to move at right angles to the field strength vector. How can you maintain static fields in the first place. (I do not by the line that the photon experiences no time for if it experienced no time then it could not expand or be affected by any physical entity.)
Maxwell's equations do not have any variables that deal with fields that move at right angles to there strength vector. In fact they are Lorentz invariant if I remember correctly. The equations do state that a varying electric field will generate a varying magnetic field. I take the understanding that the "varying", in relation to EM fields, is of a decreasing nature (displacement current). And i quote from Displacement Current
So a decreasing electric field generates an increasing magnetic field (from displacement current) at a right angle to the displacement current. And from Faraday's law we know that a decreasing magnetic field will generate an increasing electric field. EM radiation is therefor the result of the back half of the electric and magnetic field wave shapes (sine wave) and the energy transfer between the electric and magnetic fields happens in the first half of the sine wave. (IMO)
When I try to understand the "synced EM wave model" , I run into a logic wall.
If the electric and magnetic field strengths expand and contract at right angles to the energy flow (Poynting vector) and the energy flow moves at the speed of light then how can the fields expand or contract at the speed of light at the same time. This would require the max speed to be c^2 and not c.
If the field strengths are constant then what causes said fields to move at right angles to the field strength vector. How can you maintain static fields in the first place. (I do not by the line that the photon experiences no time for if it experienced no time then it could not expand or be affected by any physical entity.)
Maxwell's equations do not have any variables that deal with fields that move at right angles to there strength vector. In fact they are Lorentz invariant if I remember correctly. The equations do state that a varying electric field will generate a varying magnetic field. I take the understanding that the "varying", in relation to EM fields, is of a decreasing nature (displacement current). And i quote from Displacement Current
QUOTE
As with conduction current, the displacement current density is the displacement current per unit area. Because of the time derivative, an increasing electric field makes displacement current in the direction of E, while a decreasing electric field makes displacement current in the direction opposite to E.
So a decreasing electric field generates an increasing magnetic field (from displacement current) at a right angle to the displacement current. And from Faraday's law we know that a decreasing magnetic field will generate an increasing electric field. EM radiation is therefor the result of the back half of the electric and magnetic field wave shapes (sine wave) and the energy transfer between the electric and magnetic fields happens in the first half of the sine wave. (IMO)
Hi Good Elf,
I'm not sure to what extent anything has become clear. Looking at the diagram here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...sinslit.html#c1 .. for a particular point on the screen .. rather than just using the 'rays' from the top and bottom what we really want to do is the vector sum 'rays' of wavelength (say) k across the whole slit. By coincidence (almost) the Fourier transform IS the sum of the sum of the rays of wavelength k across the slit .. we can either get a function (the simplest analysis gives a sync function from memory) or perform the integration numerically (which we have already done).
From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens-Fresnel_principle
You may not understand that you agree with me .. but actually you do. It is difficult for me to disagree with someone who agrees with me, thus far at least.
You may not understand that you agree with me .. but actually you do. It is difficult for me to disagree with someone who agrees with me, thus far at least.
The peaks are not due to wavelength and these peaks and troughs are quite large
The peaks and troughs are due to the way the 'rays' from various paths add in some places and cancel in others. A 'basic understanding' can be gained from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...sinslit.html#c1 .. obviously (?) summing ( integrating) ALL the 'rays' will give a more accurate result.. which is what the Fourier transform does.
Here :- http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html we say each slit is effectively a point source and take the analysis from there. We have already done a numerical transform taking into account the slit width as well as the slit separation .. we can do that again if you think it will help.
What would be really helpful would be to explain why the construction method works (Huygens,Fourier, DSE equation etc). 'Base Camp One' would be understanding what constructions can be successfully used to duplicate the experimental results.
Best wishes - C2.
I'm not sure to what extent anything has become clear. Looking at the diagram here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...sinslit.html#c1 .. for a particular point on the screen .. rather than just using the 'rays' from the top and bottom what we really want to do is the vector sum 'rays' of wavelength (say) k across the whole slit. By coincidence (almost) the Fourier transform IS the sum of the sum of the rays of wavelength k across the slit .. we can either get a function (the simplest analysis gives a sync function from memory) or perform the integration numerically (which we have already done).
From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens-Fresnel_principle
QUOTE
Huygens' principle when applied to an aperture simply says that the far-field diffraction pattern is the spatial Fourier transform of the aperture shape.
You may not understand that you agree with me .. but actually you do. It is difficult for me to disagree with someone who agrees with me, thus far at least.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Huygens' principle when applied to an aperture simply says that the far-field diffraction pattern is the spatial Fourier transform of the aperture shape. |
You may not understand that you agree with me .. but actually you do. It is difficult for me to disagree with someone who agrees with me, thus far at least.
The peaks are not due to wavelength and these peaks and troughs are quite large
The peaks and troughs are due to the way the 'rays' from various paths add in some places and cancel in others. A 'basic understanding' can be gained from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...sinslit.html#c1 .. obviously (?) summing ( integrating) ALL the 'rays' will give a more accurate result.. which is what the Fourier transform does.
Here :- http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html we say each slit is effectively a point source and take the analysis from there. We have already done a numerical transform taking into account the slit width as well as the slit separation .. we can do that again if you think it will help.
What would be really helpful would be to explain why the construction method works (Huygens,Fourier, DSE equation etc). 'Base Camp One' would be understanding what constructions can be successfully used to duplicate the experimental results.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi Montec,
I'm surprised you didn't question my prior post to your questions. Yes, it is
an unorthodox conceptualization, but I thought that you would ponder the
implications regarding the unlimited ZPE baseline energy level that is
contained in the vacuum of space.
We have time varying EM photon energy fields, that thru some unexplained,
or not well conceptualized, mechanism constantly oscillate via an energy
exchange process. How does that EM energy exchange process perpetually
reconstruct itself without induced losses while travelling thru the vacuum of
space?
Here is one for you.
Einstein's energy law is E = mc^2
Where is the physical mass equivalent for an EM wave that is conveying energy?
It is pure energy that moves at the speed of light, with no physical
mass, only a momentum mass equivalent.
Perhaps our baseline conceptual EM model is wrong or incomplete.
LL
I'm surprised you didn't question my prior post to your questions. Yes, it is
an unorthodox conceptualization, but I thought that you would ponder the
implications regarding the unlimited ZPE baseline energy level that is
contained in the vacuum of space.
We have time varying EM photon energy fields, that thru some unexplained,
or not well conceptualized, mechanism constantly oscillate via an energy
exchange process. How does that EM energy exchange process perpetually
reconstruct itself without induced losses while travelling thru the vacuum of
space?
Here is one for you.
Einstein's energy law is E = mc^2
Where is the physical mass equivalent for an EM wave that is conveying energy?
It is pure energy that moves at the speed of light, with no physical
mass, only a momentum mass equivalent.
Perhaps our baseline conceptual EM model is wrong or incomplete.
LL
Hi Montec,
We know the Poynting vector is ExH and points at right angles to both E and H .. ok?
Imagine travelling at the speed of light and sitting on an EM wave at a particular point of the waveform .. ExH doesn't change now? (In fact it will drop off as the inverse square law takes a hold on it but never mind that). We can make any waveform we feel like and we can sit on any bit of it we like .. under these circumstances does it seem that the bit of ExH we're sitting on is a consequence of what is in front of it (which could be any value) and what is behind it (which could also be any value)? Could we be left with the possibility that ExH is itself the thing that propagates?
Best wishes - C2.
We know the Poynting vector is ExH and points at right angles to both E and H .. ok?
Imagine travelling at the speed of light and sitting on an EM wave at a particular point of the waveform .. ExH doesn't change now? (In fact it will drop off as the inverse square law takes a hold on it but never mind that). We can make any waveform we feel like and we can sit on any bit of it we like .. under these circumstances does it seem that the bit of ExH we're sitting on is a consequence of what is in front of it (which could be any value) and what is behind it (which could also be any value)? Could we be left with the possibility that ExH is itself the thing that propagates?
Best wishes - C2.
Hi laserlight,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass
The m is often a 'trick' relativistic mass .. look for rest mass m0 .
also see E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m0 c^2)^2
Best wishes - C2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass
The m is often a 'trick' relativistic mass .. look for rest mass m0 .
also see E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m0 c^2)^2
Best wishes - C2
Hi All,
nice to see that the understanding of EM waves has been growing in this forum.
I was a bit surprised to see all the different opinions about how waves diverge after a slit and how the E and H fields behave in respect to each other.
If we would be more inclined to understand that E is proportional to dH/dt and H is proportional to dE/dt (where H is the magnetic field and E the electric field) we can easily understand that on the edge of the slit EM waves will expand laterally.
Since the speed of light is constant for a homogeneous medium we can easily conclude that the laterally expanding wave has to have a curved wavefront. The distance to the edge in respect to any point on the wave front needs to be equal (constant velocity).
The matter of the rest mass of a photon is probably settled by C2 last post I hope.
so that still leaves the question of the photon as a particle.
In many experiments it has been show that any wave (sound waves, water waves ...) can behave as a particle under certain circumstances. Does that mean that there are real particles or is it just an interpretation.. I would like to challenge the assumption that the photoelectric effect proofs the existence of photons.
If resonance is the key to photon interaction then it surely is related to the wavelength or frequency. So if a resonant circuit would be placed in a EM wave of the right frequency it would start absorbing energy. If by absorbing energy the resonant system would change after a fixed amount of energy absorbed, the resonance with the EM wave would stop. Reasons could be that either the circuit would be broken or it would 'bend' into a different resonant circuit of other frequency. This way the only suggestion of a least amount of energy would not be caused by the EM wave itself but by the limited capacity of the resonant circuit to dissipate/adsorb energy by an exact amount.
If this would be true then the effect of having a resonant system in a very low EM field would just imply that the amount of time needed for the resonant circuit to gather enough energy to change state would be very long.. The transition itself would only enforce the idea of a quantum passing at that exact moment.
Any thoughts on this?
Jan Rinze.
nice to see that the understanding of EM waves has been growing in this forum.
I was a bit surprised to see all the different opinions about how waves diverge after a slit and how the E and H fields behave in respect to each other.
If we would be more inclined to understand that E is proportional to dH/dt and H is proportional to dE/dt (where H is the magnetic field and E the electric field) we can easily understand that on the edge of the slit EM waves will expand laterally.
Since the speed of light is constant for a homogeneous medium we can easily conclude that the laterally expanding wave has to have a curved wavefront. The distance to the edge in respect to any point on the wave front needs to be equal (constant velocity).
The matter of the rest mass of a photon is probably settled by C2 last post I hope.
so that still leaves the question of the photon as a particle.
In many experiments it has been show that any wave (sound waves, water waves ...) can behave as a particle under certain circumstances. Does that mean that there are real particles or is it just an interpretation.. I would like to challenge the assumption that the photoelectric effect proofs the existence of photons.
If resonance is the key to photon interaction then it surely is related to the wavelength or frequency. So if a resonant circuit would be placed in a EM wave of the right frequency it would start absorbing energy. If by absorbing energy the resonant system would change after a fixed amount of energy absorbed, the resonance with the EM wave would stop. Reasons could be that either the circuit would be broken or it would 'bend' into a different resonant circuit of other frequency. This way the only suggestion of a least amount of energy would not be caused by the EM wave itself but by the limited capacity of the resonant circuit to dissipate/adsorb energy by an exact amount.
If this would be true then the effect of having a resonant system in a very low EM field would just imply that the amount of time needed for the resonant circuit to gather enough energy to change state would be very long.. The transition itself would only enforce the idea of a quantum passing at that exact moment.
Any thoughts on this?
Jan Rinze.
QUOTE (Confused2+Jul 17 2007, 08:19 PM)
Hi laserlight,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass
The m is often a 'trick' relativistic mass .. look for rest mass m0 .
also see E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m0 c^2)^2
Best wishes - C2
Hi C2,
Perhaps you missed the comment in bold.
From Wikipedia - Photon
In empty space, the photon moves at
(the speed of light) and its energy
and momentum 
are related by
, where 
is the magnitude of the momentum. For comparison, the corresponding equation for particles with a mass 
would be
, as shown in special relativity.
From Wikipedia - Photon
In empty space, the photon moves at (the speed of light) and its energy and momentum are related by , where is the magnitude of the momentum. For comparison, the corresponding equation for particles with a mass would be , as shown in special relativity.
In 1905, Einstein was the first to propose that energy quantization was a property of electromagnetic radiation itself.[4] Although he accepted the validity of Maxwell's theory, Einstein pointed out that many anomalous experiments could be explained if the energy of a Maxwellian light wave were localized into point-like quanta that move independently of one another, even if the wave itself is spread continuously over space.[4] In 1909[5] and 1916,[7] Einstein showed that, if Planck's law of black-body radiation is accepted, the energy quanta must also carry momentum p = h / λ, making them full-fledged particles.
LL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass
The m is often a 'trick' relativistic mass .. look for rest mass m0 .
also see E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m0 c^2)^2
Best wishes - C2
Hi C2,
Perhaps you missed the comment in bold.
QUOTE
It is pure energy that moves at the speed of light, with no physical
mass, only a momentum mass equivalent.
mass, only a momentum mass equivalent.
From Wikipedia - Photon
In empty space, the photon moves at
(the speed of light) and its energy and momentum are related by , where is the magnitude of the momentum. For comparison, the corresponding equation for particles with a mass would be , as shown in special relativity.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is pure energy that moves at the speed of light, with no physical mass, only a momentum mass equivalent. |
From Wikipedia - Photon
In empty space, the photon moves at
(the speed of light) and its energy and momentum are related by , where is the magnitude of the momentum. For comparison, the corresponding equation for particles with a mass would be , as shown in special relativity.In 1905, Einstein was the first to propose that energy quantization was a property of electromagnetic radiation itself.[4] Although he accepted the validity of Maxwell's theory, Einstein pointed out that many anomalous experiments could be explained if the energy of a Maxwellian light wave were localized into point-like quanta that move independently of one another, even if the wave itself is spread continuously over space.[4] In 1909[5] and 1916,[7] Einstein showed that, if Planck's law of black-body radiation is accepted, the energy quanta must also carry momentum p = h / λ, making them full-fledged particles.
QUOTE
Photons, like all quantum objects, exhibit both wave-like and particle-like properties. Their dual wave–particle nature can be difficult to visualize. The photon displays clearly wave-like phenomena such as diffraction and interference on the length scale of its wavelength. For example, a single photon passing through a double-slit experiment lands on the screen with a probability distribution given by its interference pattern determined by Maxwell's equations.[30] However, experiments confirm that the photon is not a short pulse of electromagnetic radiation; it does not spread out as it propagates, nor does it divide when it encounters a beam splitter. Rather, the photon seems like a point-like particle, since it is absorbed or emitted as a whole by arbitrarily small systems, systems much smaller than its wavelength, such as an atomic nucleus (≈10–15 m across) or even the point-like electron. Nevertheless, the photon is not a point-like particle whose trajectory is shaped probabilistically by the electromagnetic field, as conceived by Einstein and others; that hypothesis was also refuted by the photon-correlation experiments cited above.[29] According to our present understanding, the electromagnetic field itself is produced by photons, which in turn result from a local gauge symmetry and the laws of quantum field theory (see the Second quantization and Gauge boson sections below).
LL
Hi Jan, and welcome back.
JanRinze said:
A microwave oven is such an apparatus. EM energy fills a "tuned" reflective cavity
that resonates according to the RF energy applied. Water molecules are
very susceptable to the RF frequency in the cavity and resonate with the
applied frequency, creating heat (IR) as the byproduct. As long as there is
sufficient water content available to sink the incident RF energy, the water will
absorb the RF energy and convert it to IR energy. The system will operate
continuously as long as there is power applied and a suitable amount of water
that can handle the RF load applied. The resonance effect is sustainable
indefinitely, under the right conditions.
LL
JanRinze said:
QUOTE
So if a resonant circuit would be placed in a EM wave of the right frequency it would start absorbing energy. If by absorbing energy the resonant system would change after a fixed amount of energy absorbed, the resonance with the EM wave would stop. Reasons could be that either the circuit would be broken or it would 'bend' into a different resonant circuit of other frequency. This way the only suggestion of a least amount of energy would not be caused by the EM wave itself but by the limited capacity of the resonant circuit to dissipate/adsorb energy by an exact amount.
A microwave oven is such an apparatus. EM energy fills a "tuned" reflective cavity
that resonates according to the RF energy applied. Water molecules are
very susceptable to the RF frequency in the cavity and resonate with the
applied frequency, creating heat (IR) as the byproduct. As long as there is
sufficient water content available to sink the incident RF energy, the water will
absorb the RF energy and convert it to IR energy. The system will operate
continuously as long as there is power applied and a suitable amount of water
that can handle the RF load applied. The resonance effect is sustainable
indefinitely, under the right conditions.
LL
Hi Montec,
As with conduction current, the displacement current density is the displacement current per unit area. Because of the time derivative, an increasing electric field makes displacement current in the direction of E, while a decreasing electric field makes displacement current in the direction opposite to E.
So a decreasing electric field generates an increasing magnetic field (from displacement current) at a right angle to the displacement current. And from Faraday's law we know that a decreasing magnetic field will generate an increasing electric field. EM radiation is therefor the result of the back half of the electric and magnetic field wave shapes (sine wave) and the energy transfer between the electric and magnetic fields happens in the first half of the sine wave. (IMO)
If I remember correctly, a collapsing (decreasing) electric field generates an
electromotive force (EMF), a voltage component. A collapsing magnetic
field induces a current flow (displacement current).
From MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/vis...tm#_Toc27302324
Electromagnetic radiation explained:
http://hawkins.pair.com/eRadiation.html
LL
QUOTE
As with conduction current, the displacement current density is the displacement current per unit area. Because of the time derivative, an increasing electric field makes displacement current in the direction of E, while a decreasing electric field makes displacement current in the direction opposite to E.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As with conduction current, the displacement current density is the displacement current per unit area. Because of the time derivative, an increasing electric field makes displacement current in the direction of E, while a decreasing electric field makes displacement current in the direction opposite to E. |
So a decreasing electric field generates an increasing magnetic field (from displacement current) at a right angle to the displacement current. And from Faraday's law we know that a decreasing magnetic field will generate an increasing electric field. EM radiation is therefor the result of the back half of the electric and magnetic field wave shapes (sine wave) and the energy transfer between the electric and magnetic fields happens in the first half of the sine wave. (IMO)
If I remember correctly, a collapsing (decreasing) electric field generates an
electromotive force (EMF), a voltage component. A collapsing magnetic
field induces a current flow (displacement current).
From MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/vis...tm#_Toc27302324
Electromagnetic radiation explained:
http://hawkins.pair.com/eRadiation.html
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jul 18 2007, 12:39 AM)
Hi Jan, and welcome back.
JanRinze said:
A microwave oven is such an apparatus. EM energy fills a "tuned" reflective cavity
that resonates according to the RF energy applied. Water molecules are
very susceptable to the RF frequency in the cavity and resonate with the
applied frequency, creating heat (IR) as the byproduct. As long as there is
sufficient water content available to sink the incident RF energy, the water will
absorb the RF energy and convert it to IR energy. The system will operate
continuously as long as there is power applied and a suitable amount of water
that can handle the RF load applied. The resonance effect is sustainable
indefinitely, under the right conditions.
LL
My microwave oven shorts out when I put stuff like cermics that get hot in the oven or copper particles in tubes. Why does it stop working after the stuff inside gets hot?
JanRinze said:
A microwave oven is such an apparatus. EM energy fills a "tuned" reflective cavity
that resonates according to the RF energy applied. Water molecules are
very susceptable to the RF frequency in the cavity and resonate with the
applied frequency, creating heat (IR) as the byproduct. As long as there is
sufficient water content available to sink the incident RF energy, the water will
absorb the RF energy and convert it to IR energy. The system will operate
continuously as long as there is power applied and a suitable amount of water
that can handle the RF load applied. The resonance effect is sustainable
indefinitely, under the right conditions.
LL
My microwave oven shorts out when I put stuff like cermics that get hot in the oven or copper particles in tubes. Why does it stop working after the stuff inside gets hot?
Hi Neil,
Those materials are absorbing a certain amount of RF and heating but they don't
have sufficient absorption and dissipation characteristics. You are also generating
VSWR (voltage standing wave ratio) reflections back into the magnetron source,
because not all of the RF energy is being absorbed and released as heat.
The standing wave reflections are feeding back into the magnetron cavity, so
you apparently don't have a sufficient load with the proper impedance
matching characteristics. Ideally, the lower the VSWR is to zero, the better
the transmissiion efficiency, and the better the forward power transfer.
I suspect that the magnetron has a thermal protection relay to shut it down and
protect it if it reaches a certain setpoint temperature. IF you didn't put
any load into the microwave chamber, it would still overheat and shut down
for the same reason, but you would likely damage your unit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave_ratio
LL
QUOTE
My microwave oven shorts out when I put stuff like cermics that get hot in the oven or copper particles in tubes. Why does it stop working after the stuff inside gets hot?
Those materials are absorbing a certain amount of RF and heating but they don't
have sufficient absorption and dissipation characteristics. You are also generating
VSWR (voltage standing wave ratio) reflections back into the magnetron source,
because not all of the RF energy is being absorbed and released as heat.
The standing wave reflections are feeding back into the magnetron cavity, so
you apparently don't have a sufficient load with the proper impedance
matching characteristics. Ideally, the lower the VSWR is to zero, the better
the transmissiion efficiency, and the better the forward power transfer.
I suspect that the magnetron has a thermal protection relay to shut it down and
protect it if it reaches a certain setpoint temperature. IF you didn't put
any load into the microwave chamber, it would still overheat and shut down
for the same reason, but you would likely damage your unit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave_ratio
LL
Hi Montec, JanRinze,Laserlight et al,
LL .. excellent links .. thanks.
From http://hawkins.pair.com/eRadiation.html
LL .. excellent links .. thanks.
From http://hawkins.pair.com/eRadiation.html
QUOTE (Hawkins+)
The induction E and H fields close to the conductor are stored and, therefore, not radiated. They are separated by a 900 phase with each other. When the fields collapse, energy is returned to the system.
Montec (a bit back) identified the bit that is stored .. rather than the bit that is radiated.
Montec (a bit back) identified the bit that is stored .. rather than the bit that is radiated.
QUOTE (Hawkins+)
Radiated E and H field (shown left as radiated from a plane in space) are IN PHASE because they are delivering power to space. Energy is lost from the radiating system in this way and appears as a radiation resistance.
Electrical engineers spend a fair amount of time looking at pulses rather than sinewaves.. the point is ..
If we look at a 'unit impulse' .. which has a value of y=infinity at (say) t=0 and zero elsewhere BUT an area under the curve which is defined to be 1 unit
If we integrate this from -inf to +inf we get a 'step' which is 0 for t<0 and 1 for t>=0. (Call this a unit step).
If we integrate the unit step we get a 'ramp' which rises linearly for t>=0.
Imagine we have a long resistor .. feed it with a voltage ramp (say increase the voltage by 100 Volt/second) Until our resistor overheats or flashes over we have a continuous dE/dt in phase with dB/dt ( or dH/dt if you prefer) .. this thing should (I think) radiate a pure ExH field .. no sinewaves .. nothing nasty.. just ExH. We could try to represent the applied ramp as an infinite series of sinewaves but this would be an act of vandalism and make a total mess of our ExH .. so let's not try it.
If I am correct then any two points in my unchanging ExH field will experience a voltage between them (if lined up correctly).
The above may (or may not) be true and/or conceptually helpful. If correct then once the EM is 'launched' it gets us away from trying to see how/why a changing E and H fields are interacting to make a wave .. I don't think they are.
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. the other alternative is that this ExH will refuse to co-operate and divide itself up into a sum of sinewaves .. a sort of low energy sychrotron radiation type spectrum. Any thoughts?
Electrical engineers spend a fair amount of time looking at pulses rather than sinewaves.. the point is ..
If we look at a 'unit impulse' .. which has a value of y=infinity at (say) t=0 and zero elsewhere BUT an area under the curve which is defined to be 1 unit
If we integrate this from -inf to +inf we get a 'step' which is 0 for t<0 and 1 for t>=0. (Call this a unit step).
If we integrate the unit step we get a 'ramp' which rises linearly for t>=0.
Imagine we have a long resistor .. feed it with a voltage ramp (say increase the voltage by 100 Volt/second) Until our resistor overheats or flashes over we have a continuous dE/dt in phase with dB/dt ( or dH/dt if you prefer) .. this thing should (I think) radiate a pure ExH field .. no sinewaves .. nothing nasty.. just ExH. We could try to represent the applied ramp as an infinite series of sinewaves but this would be an act of vandalism and make a total mess of our ExH .. so let's not try it.
If I am correct then any two points in my unchanging ExH field will experience a voltage between them (if lined up correctly).
The above may (or may not) be true and/or conceptually helpful. If correct then once the EM is 'launched' it gets us away from trying to see how/why a changing E and H fields are interacting to make a wave .. I don't think they are.
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. the other alternative is that this ExH will refuse to co-operate and divide itself up into a sum of sinewaves .. a sort of low energy sychrotron radiation type spectrum. Any thoughts?
Hello Laserlight, et al.
Here are some quotes from the second site (both sites are excellent BTW) Electromagnetic Radiation Explained
and
Here are some quotes from the second site (both sites are excellent BTW) Electromagnetic Radiation Explained
QUOTE
A changing magnetic field will produce
and electric field.
from equation #14and electric field.
and
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A changing magnetic field will produce and electric field. |
from equation #14
and A changing electric field will produce
a magnetic field.
and A changing electric field will produce
a magnetic field.
equation # 15
The only thing missing at this site is an explanation that relates the displacement currents (both rising and falling) to the magnetic field.
The only thing missing at this site is an explanation that relates the displacement currents (both rising and falling) to the magnetic field.
Hi C2,
Glad that you appreciated the links. It clears up some misinformation about
how EM fields are radiated to space.
If a resistor explodes, it produces a single massive energy impulse,
just like a flashbulb.
The photons are still in the wave state as they travel, and the energy of the
flash will follow the ISL. The observed flash will get dimmer with the
distance that the observer is from the source, until the spreading photon energy
is lost in the background "noise" and is below the detection threshold.
E x H is a fixed "symbiotic" relationship. One cannot exist without the other.
The individual fields are causally linked to radiating photonic energy, and are
properties of space. E and B Fields displace the space they occupy by changing its
steady state (ZPE) energy level.
The links still don't adequately explain how the EM fields self regenerate. IMO,
it is not only the properties of the fields that support the mechanism, but how
the fields interact with the properties of space. Keep in mind that vacuum
has dielectric properties between any two measured points.
LL
Glad that you appreciated the links. It clears up some misinformation about
how EM fields are radiated to space.
QUOTE
The above may (or may not) be true and/or conceptually helpful. If correct then once the EM is 'launched' it gets us away from trying to see how/why a changing E and H fields are interacting to make a wave .. I don't think they are.
If a resistor explodes, it produces a single massive energy impulse,
just like a flashbulb.
The photons are still in the wave state as they travel, and the energy of the
flash will follow the ISL. The observed flash will get dimmer with the
distance that the observer is from the source, until the spreading photon energy
is lost in the background "noise" and is below the detection threshold.
E x H is a fixed "symbiotic" relationship. One cannot exist without the other.
The individual fields are causally linked to radiating photonic energy, and are
properties of space. E and B Fields displace the space they occupy by changing its
steady state (ZPE) energy level.
The links still don't adequately explain how the EM fields self regenerate. IMO,
it is not only the properties of the fields that support the mechanism, but how
the fields interact with the properties of space. Keep in mind that vacuum
has dielectric properties between any two measured points.
LL
HI Montec,
I thought that was an understood property of E and H fields. The issue has to
do with fields changing changing amplitude. The complementary field is
generated when its Siamese twin is rising or falling. Stationary fields don't
generate their counterpart without field "motion" being involved.
Note that E and B fields propagating thru wires have a 90 degree phase shift,
but EM fields propagating thru space are in phase. That implies that space
must supply some phase shifting component that is not understood, which
could be the capacitive effect, which induces a 90 degree phase delay relative
to the primary pulse. (if I remember my electronics training correctly)
This might explain the energy exchange that generates field dynamics.
LL
I thought that was an understood property of E and H fields. The issue has to
do with fields changing changing amplitude. The complementary field is
generated when its Siamese twin is rising or falling. Stationary fields don't
generate their counterpart without field "motion" being involved.
Note that E and B fields propagating thru wires have a 90 degree phase shift,
but EM fields propagating thru space are in phase. That implies that space
must supply some phase shifting component that is not understood, which
could be the capacitive effect, which induces a 90 degree phase delay relative
to the primary pulse. (if I remember my electronics training correctly)
This might explain the energy exchange that generates field dynamics.
LL
Hi LL et al,
Applying a constant dV/dt to a resistor was supposed to be slightly more complex than watching an old fool blow up a resistor. Would it help if I tried to explain ramps etc in a little more detail?
Assuming ramps are ok ..maybe it would be better to apply a constant dV/dt until just before
the resistor blows up .. we then go down again at -dV/dt and repeat indefinitely. We ought to see a constant ExH except at the instant of the reversal. Interesting to note that E and H will be rotated through 180 degrees on the down slope.
Applying a constant dV/dt to a resistor was supposed to be slightly more complex than watching an old fool blow up a resistor. Would it help if I tried to explain ramps etc in a little more detail?
Assuming ramps are ok ..maybe it would be better to apply a constant dV/dt until just before
the resistor blows up .. we then go down again at -dV/dt and repeat indefinitely. We ought to see a constant ExH except at the instant of the reversal. Interesting to note that E and H will be rotated through 180 degrees on the down slope.QUOTE (LL+)
E x H is a fixed "symbiotic" relationship.
The point I was trying to make is that each doesn't make the other by changing (once the wave is launched).
The physical significance of E and H being (say) 90 degrees out of phase (with sinusoidal excitation) is that the Poynting vector rotates .. points out and then back .. most of the flow of energy is out and back .. the 'in phase' E and H is the bit that is radiated.
The point I was trying to make is that each doesn't make the other by changing (once the wave is launched).
The physical significance of E and H being (say) 90 degrees out of phase (with sinusoidal excitation) is that the Poynting vector rotates .. points out and then back .. most of the flow of energy is out and back .. the 'in phase' E and H is the bit that is radiated.
QUOTE (LL+)
Note that E and B fields propagating thru wires have a 90 degree phase shift
Probably best to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector#Derivation . Note the fixed relationship between E and H.
Best wishes - C2.
Probably best to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector#Derivation . Note the fixed relationship between E and H.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi Montec,
QUOTE (Montec+)
If the electric and magnetic field strengths expand and contract at right angles to the energy flow (Poynting vector) and the energy flow moves at the speed of light then how can the fields expand or contract at the speed of light at the same time. This would require the max speed to be c^2 and not c.
Light is a transverse wave and the electric and magnetic field vectors are usually perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The Poynting vector determines the direction of energy flow and actually has nothing in particular to say about the rate of change of the electric or magnetic fields. Energy is not a fluid... it is capacity for doing work. It also must be referenced to other systems base values since any calculation involving energy will be subject to an "arbitrary" constant of integration when evaluated relative to some baseline. There are only two kinds of energy... no others... Kinetic energy and potential energy... both of these are subject to baseline arbitrary constants (velocity and "potential"... both may have arbitary Zero points and will be influenced by a preference for a preferred frame of reference. We should be careful about any "preferred frames of reference" to not allow our anthropomorphic habits to think we are "privileged" in some way to live on the surface of a "stationary planet".
Quoting from your reference on displacement current....
Light is not "moving" through space it is simply expanding. That expansion cannot be internally detected by the photons because of the lack of "flow" of time. This uniform expansion occurs when viewed from all inertial frames of reference in relative motion compared to the an external source. What is hard to understand for most is this motion causes no change in the way that light is apparently expanding away from the source... it maintains the ISL perfectly. This is Special Relativity.
The energy a photon carries remains the same and the velocity of light remains the same regardless of the "expansion". Energy is being transported and that is what the Poynting's Vector is supposed to indicate. It is a very difficult to analyse quantity since there are so many exceptions to the logic of the Poynting Vector and it is not easy to apply the concept in the quantum sense either. A recent paper here linked below shows a few of the issues that may be able to dissuade anyone from trying to unravel a problem using the Poynting Vector alone since the PV is related to older theories of "point sources" and to bulk properties of waves in the far field when applied to EM Propagation. Poynting himself never intended the PV to apply to EM propagation and I would caution against its use since waves of EM propagating photons are not "moving" fields as such but are actually frozen fields and represent a kind of static flow of energy. Not only that movement is a relative phenomenon and relates to material particles and their spatial arrangement and this cannot be directly applied as an idea to waves of electromagnetic radiation especially in "free space". We have Special Relativity to "interpret" that phenomenon.
With Special Relativity this energy being transported is proportional to the relative velocity of the observer relative to the "source". Thus we can have a Doppler Shift in frequency of the light emitted and this "appears" to be a change in the energy of the Photon. Why does this apparent motion of the observer affect the "color" of the light?... The answer is it does not affect light it affect s our measurements of the light in a particular way by way of a separate inertial frame of reference. SR is to be interpreted as a way of comparing between "identical equivalent frames of reference". Special Relativity says if you want to measure "stuff" from a different frame of reference to that of a "moving" source you need to correct it using Special Relativity. In that way you will get exactly the same answers from all frames of reference. Special Relativity is not about measurements in the one inertial frame of reference it is about comparisons between different inertial frames of reference. SR also says that all Inertial Frames of Reference are equivalent. This would not be the case with the Pointing Vector since it has a preferred frame of reference ... the "stationary frame".
IMHO the Poynting Vector applies to sources and that is where it is relevant when there is a mutual dependence between the electric and magnetic fields.
Quoting from your reference on displacement current....
QUOTE
At about the time of the American Civil War, James Clerk Maxwell made an attempt to combine the best mathematics of his day with all of the experimental work on electricity and magnetism from the preceding hundred years. As he did so, he was mystified by Faraday's idea that the stored energy in a capacitor was stored in the electric field between the plates. [...] Taking this as a hint, Maxwell made the hypothesis that the vacuum was not really empty at all, but was instead filled with atoms of a very fine and insensible material which he called the ether. When electric energy was stored in space, Maxwell took this to mean that the atoms of the ether became stretched, just like the atoms in paper or oil.
Displacement Current
Displacement current was a nice idea correctly placed at the time of the American Civil War because thinking has moved on from that. There has been the Michelson-Morley Interferometer and it has been shown to indicate that the Aether does not exist. Einstein was right and Maxwell (and Poynting) was wrong (about that one point). There are no displacement currents in free space... it is a mental picture that is wrong. The Aether does not exist and has been proved not to exist.... Light does not need the Aether to propagate through space... Therefore there are no displacement currents.Displacement Current
Light is not "moving" through space it is simply expanding. That expansion cannot be internally detected by the photons because of the lack of "flow" of time. This uniform expansion occurs when viewed from all inertial frames of reference in relative motion compared to the an external source. What is hard to understand for most is this motion causes no change in the way that light is apparently expanding away from the source... it maintains the ISL perfectly. This is Special Relativity.
The energy a photon carries remains the same and the velocity of light remains the same regardless of the "expansion". Energy is being transported and that is what the Poynting's Vector is supposed to indicate. It is a very difficult to analyse quantity since there are so many exceptions to the logic of the Poynting Vector and it is not easy to apply the concept in the quantum sense either. A recent paper here linked below shows a few of the issues that may be able to dissuade anyone from trying to unravel a problem using the Poynting Vector alone since the PV is related to older theories of "point sources" and to bulk properties of waves in the far field when applied to EM Propagation. Poynting himself never intended the PV to apply to EM propagation and I would caution against its use since waves of EM propagating photons are not "moving" fields as such but are actually frozen fields and represent a kind of static flow of energy. Not only that movement is a relative phenomenon and relates to material particles and their spatial arrangement and this cannot be directly applied as an idea to waves of electromagnetic radiation especially in "free space". We have Special Relativity to "interpret" that phenomenon.
With Special Relativity this energy being transported is proportional to the relative velocity of the observer relative to the "source". Thus we can have a Doppler Shift in frequency of the light emitted and this "appears" to be a change in the energy of the Photon. Why does this apparent motion of the observer affect the "color" of the light?... The answer is it does not affect light it affect s our measurements of the light in a particular way by way of a separate inertial frame of reference. SR is to be interpreted as a way of comparing between "identical equivalent frames of reference". Special Relativity says if you want to measure "stuff" from a different frame of reference to that of a "moving" source you need to correct it using Special Relativity. In that way you will get exactly the same answers from all frames of reference. Special Relativity is not about measurements in the one inertial frame of reference it is about comparisons between different inertial frames of reference. SR also says that all Inertial Frames of Reference are equivalent. This would not be the case with the Pointing Vector since it has a preferred frame of reference ... the "stationary frame".
IMHO the Poynting Vector applies to sources and that is where it is relevant when there is a mutual dependence between the electric and magnetic fields.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| At about the time of the American Civil War, James Clerk Maxwell made an attempt to combine the best mathematics of his day with all of the experimental work on electricity and magnetism from the preceding hundred years. As he did so, he was mystified by Faraday's idea that the stored energy in a capacitor was stored in the electric field between the plates. [...] Taking this as a hint, Maxwell made the hypothesis that the vacuum was not really empty at all, but was instead filled with atoms of a very fine and insensible material which he called the ether. When electric energy was stored in space, Maxwell took this to mean that the atoms of the ether became stretched, just like the atoms in paper or oil. Displacement Current |
Displacement current was a nice idea correctly placed at the time of the American Civil War because thinking has moved on from that. There has been the Michelson-Morley Interferometer and it has been shown to indicate that the Aether does not exist. Einstein was right and Maxwell (and Poynting) was wrong (about that one point). There are no displacement currents in free space... it is a mental picture that is wrong. The Aether does not exist and has been proved not to exist.... Light does not need the Aether to propagate through space... Therefore there are no displacement currents.
Light is not "moving" through space it is simply expanding. That expansion cannot be internally detected by the photons because of the lack of "flow" of time. This uniform expansion occurs when viewed from all inertial frames of reference in relative motion compared to the an external source. What is hard to understand for most is this motion causes no change in the way that light is apparently expanding away from the source... it maintains the ISL perfectly. This is Special Relativity.
The energy a photon carries remains the same and the velocity of light remains the same regardless of the "expansion". Energy is being transported and that is what the Poynting's Vector is supposed to indicate. It is a very difficult to analyse quantity since there are so many exceptions to the logic of the Poynting Vector and it is not easy to apply the concept in the quantum sense either. A recent paper here linked below shows a few of the issues that may be able to dissuade anyone from trying to unravel a problem using the Poynting Vector alone since the PV is related to older theories of "point sources" and to bulk properties of waves in the far field when applied to EM Propagation. Poynting himself never intended the PV to apply to EM propagation and I would caution against its use since waves of EM propagating photons are not "moving" fields as such but are actually frozen fields and represent a kind of static flow of energy. Not only that movement is a relative phenomenon and relates to material particles and their spatial arrangement and this cannot be directly applied as an idea to waves of electromagnetic radiation especially in "free space". We have Special Relativity to "interpret" that phenomenon.
With Special Relativity this energy being transported is proportional to the relative velocity of the observer relative to the "source". Thus we can have a Doppler Shift in frequency of the light emitted and this "appears" to be a change in the energy of the Photon. Why does this apparent motion of the observer affect the "color" of the light?... The answer is it does not affect light it affect s our measurements of the light in a particular way by way of a separate inertial frame of reference. SR is to be interpreted as a way of comparing between "identical equivalent frames of reference". Special Relativity says if you want to measure "stuff" from a different frame of reference to that of a "moving" source you need to correct it using Special Relativity. In that way you will get exactly the same answers from all frames of reference. Special Relativity is not about measurements in the one inertial frame of reference it is about comparisons between different inertial frames of reference. SR also says that all Inertial Frames of Reference are equivalent. This would not be the case with the Pointing Vector since it has a preferred frame of reference ... the "stationary frame".
IMHO the Poynting Vector applies to sources and that is where it is relevant when there is a mutual dependence between the electric and magnetic fields.
If the field strengths are constant then what causes said fields to move at right angles to the field strength vector. How can you maintain static fields in the first place. (I do not by the line that the photon experiences no time for if it experienced no time then it could not expand or be affected by any physical entity.)
Light is not "moving" through space it is simply expanding. That expansion cannot be internally detected by the photons because of the lack of "flow" of time. This uniform expansion occurs when viewed from all inertial frames of reference in relative motion compared to the an external source. What is hard to understand for most is this motion causes no change in the way that light is apparently expanding away from the source... it maintains the ISL perfectly. This is Special Relativity.
The energy a photon carries remains the same and the velocity of light remains the same regardless of the "expansion". Energy is being transported and that is what the Poynting's Vector is supposed to indicate. It is a very difficult to analyse quantity since there are so many exceptions to the logic of the Poynting Vector and it is not easy to apply the concept in the quantum sense either. A recent paper here linked below shows a few of the issues that may be able to dissuade anyone from trying to unravel a problem using the Poynting Vector alone since the PV is related to older theories of "point sources" and to bulk properties of waves in the far field when applied to EM Propagation. Poynting himself never intended the PV to apply to EM propagation and I would caution against its use since waves of EM propagating photons are not "moving" fields as such but are actually frozen fields and represent a kind of static flow of energy. Not only that movement is a relative phenomenon and relates to material particles and their spatial arrangement and this cannot be directly applied as an idea to waves of electromagnetic radiation especially in "free space". We have Special Relativity to "interpret" that phenomenon.
With Special Relativity this energy being transported is proportional to the relative velocity of the observer relative to the "source". Thus we can have a Doppler Shift in frequency of the light emitted and this "appears" to be a change in the energy of the Photon. Why does this apparent motion of the observer affect the "color" of the light?... The answer is it does not affect light it affect s our measurements of the light in a particular way by way of a separate inertial frame of reference. SR is to be interpreted as a way of comparing between "identical equivalent frames of reference". Special Relativity says if you want to measure "stuff" from a different frame of reference to that of a "moving" source you need to correct it using Special Relativity. In that way you will get exactly the same answers from all frames of reference. Special Relativity is not about measurements in the one inertial frame of reference it is about comparisons between different inertial frames of reference. SR also says that all Inertial Frames of Reference are equivalent. This would not be the case with the Pointing Vector since it has a preferred frame of reference ... the "stationary frame".
IMHO the Poynting Vector applies to sources and that is where it is relevant when there is a mutual dependence between the electric and magnetic fields.
If the field strengths are constant then what causes said fields to move at right angles to the field strength vector. How can you maintain static fields in the first place. (I do not by the line that the photon experiences no time for if it experienced no time then it could not expand or be affected by any physical entity.)
Exactly... no time - no dynamics! In order to experience the "Poynting Vector" the sensor counting energy flow must become a disturbing "sink" for photons. Photons traveling in "empty space" are unobserved and must remain that way to carry their qubits. In other respects a calculation of the Poynting Vector is needed to balance the books and is of academic interest only in "free space".
This following paper will explain some of the pitfalls and indicate some of the aspects of the boson state (its non-local nature) and also show how the Poynting Vector cannot be universally relied on to provide the full picture. This paper is an easy read (in a way) that can be relied on to be properly peer reviewed.
How an antenna launches its input power into radiation: the pattern of the Poynting vector at and near an antenna: JD Jackson
This following paper will explain some of the pitfalls and indicate some of the aspects of the boson state (its non-local nature) and also show how the Poynting Vector cannot be universally relied on to provide the full picture. This paper is an easy read (in a way) that can be relied on to be properly peer reviewed.
How an antenna launches its input power into radiation: the pattern of the Poynting vector at and near an antenna: JD Jackson
QUOTE (Montec+)
So a decreasing electric field generates an increasing magnetic field (from displacement current) at a right angle to the displacement current. And from Faraday's law we know that a decreasing magnetic field will generate an increasing electric field. EM radiation is therefore the result of the back half of the electric and magnetic field wave shapes (sine wave) and the energy transfer between the electric and magnetic fields happens in the first half of the sine wave. (IMO)
Electromagnetism is not "summarized entirely" by "transformer action in inductively linked circuits", that is one realm of "action". This is choosing "restricted" conditions of slow varying fields in the "near field" inductive zone to be sure.
I see propagating electromagnetism slightly differently by saying that in free space there are no sources of electric or magnetic fields.... and ... That the rate of change of the magnetic field is proportional to the amount of "curl" in the electric field and the rate of change of the electric field is proportional to the rate of curl of the magnetic field. This "curl" is "spatial" as opposed to the simple inductive "temporal" transformer equations for flux linking... I think these two "domains" are quite different ideas. One is the dynamic source phenomenon of rate of change relative to time and this is linked to rate of change relative to spatial reciprocal dimension (not time).
This embodies the idea that the faster the rate of change of fields bends the linked field spatially more and more as the rate increases.... affecting the wavelength of the emission. It is Lorentz Invariant and this means that it spreads in this fashion as seen from every observer frame of reference. No matter where and how fast you move the wavefronts of light from a source always "appear" to be on the surfaces of spheres... these spheres "appear" to expand with perfect symmetry no matter what the relative velocity but the "frequency" will appear to be different as seen from those separate reference frames. I have used leading wording about seeing stuff... In actual fact we do not see remotely the waves in space coming from sources until we detect them with our detectors which are in the Lab frame of reference. When we do make measurements we are "instructed" by Einsteins Special Relativity to "correct" the dimensions of all measurements of space and time by certain factors or get it wrong. What I have always believed to be a "mistake"... Einstein also believed this to be a mistake as well.. is Relativity is not a magic converter it is a way to correct measurements so we measure "apples with apples".
One really big problem is thinking that relativistic mass is "real mass"... it is not. There are any number of simultaneous high speed frames of reference in the universe and each one "appears" to give a particle a different mass. The instruction from Special Relativity is to work out what the quantity you are observing is apply these corrections. Then you will know what it is you are actually dealing with.
We all know the mistake being made when we calculate the velocity of the Jet emanating fromM87. It is "apparently" traveling at six times the speed of light... this is not true... you need to apply Special Relativity to the problem and you will find it is traveling close to the speed of light and we are just seeing a temporally compressed version of it as our detectors "see" it. Like playing a gramophone record at 6 times its normal speed does not tell us the energy of the the original "recording"... you must correct to understand the true dynamics.
Cheers
I see propagating electromagnetism slightly differently by saying that in free space there are no sources of electric or magnetic fields.... and ... That the rate of change of the magnetic field is proportional to the amount of "curl" in the electric field and the rate of change of the electric field is proportional to the rate of curl of the magnetic field. This "curl" is "spatial" as opposed to the simple inductive "temporal" transformer equations for flux linking... I think these two "domains" are quite different ideas. One is the dynamic source phenomenon of rate of change relative to time and this is linked to rate of change relative to spatial reciprocal dimension (not time).
This embodies the idea that the faster the rate of change of fields bends the linked field spatially more and more as the rate increases.... affecting the wavelength of the emission. It is Lorentz Invariant and this means that it spreads in this fashion as seen from every observer frame of reference. No matter where and how fast you move the wavefronts of light from a source always "appear" to be on the surfaces of spheres... these spheres "appear" to expand with perfect symmetry no matter what the relative velocity but the "frequency" will appear to be different as seen from those separate reference frames. I have used leading wording about seeing stuff... In actual fact we do not see remotely the waves in space coming from sources until we detect them with our detectors which are in the Lab frame of reference. When we do make measurements we are "instructed" by Einsteins Special Relativity to "correct" the dimensions of all measurements of space and time by certain factors or get it wrong. What I have always believed to be a "mistake"... Einstein also believed this to be a mistake as well.. is Relativity is not a magic converter it is a way to correct measurements so we measure "apples with apples".
One really big problem is thinking that relativistic mass is "real mass"... it is not. There are any number of simultaneous high speed frames of reference in the universe and each one "appears" to give a particle a different mass. The instruction from Special Relativity is to work out what the quantity you are observing is apply these corrections. Then you will know what it is you are actually dealing with.
We all know the mistake being made when we calculate the velocity of the Jet emanating fromM87. It is "apparently" traveling at six times the speed of light... this is not true... you need to apply Special Relativity to the problem and you will find it is traveling close to the speed of light and we are just seeing a temporally compressed version of it as our detectors "see" it. Like playing a gramophone record at 6 times its normal speed does not tell us the energy of the the original "recording"... you must correct to understand the true dynamics.
Cheers
Hi Confused2 et al,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
QUOTE (Good Elf?+)
Huygens' principle when applied to an aperture simply says that the far-field diffraction pattern is the spatial Fourier transform of the aperture shape.
You may not understand that you agree with me .. but actually you do. It is difficult for me to disagree with someone who agrees with me, thus far at least.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
The peaks are not due to wavelength and these peaks and troughs are quite large
The peaks and troughs are due to the way the 'rays' from various paths add in some places and cancel in others. A 'basic understanding' can be gained from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...sinslit.html#c1 .. obviously (?) summing ( integrating) ALL the 'rays' will give a more accurate result.. which is what the Fourier transform does.
Here :- http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html we say each slit is effectively a point source and take the analysis from there. We have already done a numerical transform taking into account the slit width as well as the slit separation .. we can do that again if you think it will help.
What would be really helpful would be to explain why the construction method works (Huygens,Fourier, DSE equation etc). 'Base Camp One' would be understanding what constructions can be successfully used to duplicate the experimental results.
Here :- http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html we say each slit is effectively a point source and take the analysis from there. We have already done a numerical transform taking into account the slit width as well as the slit separation .. we can do that again if you think it will help.
What would be really helpful would be to explain why the construction method works (Huygens,Fourier, DSE equation etc). 'Base Camp One' would be understanding what constructions can be successfully used to duplicate the experimental results.
Hi Confused2, I am shocked!! We actually agreed on something... even more so.. you have accepted what I said as having some kind of relevance. 
In the case of the Hyperphysics link to a single pinhole diffraction pattern can also be compared with a lens with a focal length... this leads to this "device" that I have showed you many times in these threads...
... Click to enlarge...
Here we see a transparency composed of a finite number of extended simple sources placed in the "Input Plane"....
... Click to enlarge...
... Here is the same image that remains "unseen" as a three dimensional wave "suspended" in the space of the "Transform Plane".
... Click to enlarge...
There are actually two of these, one is a plane of "reals" and another existing in the very same space mapped in the plane of "complex numbers". The two compose that one picture of the attractive girl above. Do rays from the first picture pass through the second picture and then go on to the third "reconstructed picture" in the "Image Plane". The surprise is there is absolutely no linear relationship between all these things. The initial image is a spatial arrangement of sources of differing intensity, these sources are all correlated by virtue of being illuminated by a coherent laser (whose photons all are seeking all paths). In actual fact "real" three dimensional sources are also "Complex Plane entities" as well. The disarmingly "simple" lens converts this spatial arrangements of a very attractive girl into a complex plane frequency map where each spot no longer has any linear conformal relationship to the source image and its spatial arrangements but now each individual correlated source in the transform plane (pinprick of illumination) represents a single spatial frequency in the original image... not just one of them... all of them as a 4D complex number taken from these two planes separately. There are no rays at all in truth, it is a "fiction" of our optics and we have used "linear technique" to analyze these entities without understanding the true "other worldliness" of the unseen additional 4 dimensions that have only a holistic relationship to the original two dimensional image. We know that they are representations of a kind of "reciprocal space" co-existing unseen in our usually well understood space. There is absolutely no linear way to convert the first image into the second... Capisci? Optical Construction using "rays" is a fiction we have used to assist our understanding but it does not assist us with any deep insights.
The pair of secondary images are upper frequency limited by the "aperture" of the first focal plane lens with all the highest frequencies "truncated" by the diameter of the optical element. The zero frequency of the entire scene ... and there is a zero spatial frequency that resides in the very center... removal of that one single spot of coherent information is a disaster to the entire "reconstruction". Now with a Double Slit Experiment we have two such sources that are going to mutually interfere. The result is not a ray by ray phenomenon as suggested by simple single source illumination from the "Image Plane" but a spatial mixing of these spatial holograms. The real Universe encodes the information as "depth" information.
I have explained this elsewhere in this thread and recently on another thread this way...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=236675
then on to this post...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=236821
This post and the following couple of posts explain why our eyes are inadequate in recording the true nature of the absorption process of photons into sensors. The error regarding Quantum Mechanics is we have designed our sensors to mimic our eyes (the two dimensional retinas) and in actual fact our eyes cannot record the necessary information required to understand "higher dimensions". As long as we design sensors that "flatten" dimensional data from "space" the meaning of this transform will be lost. A Holographic thick emulsion plate records the depth information of our Universe in an imperfect but more complete way, this information is required if we are to ever understand higher dimensions. If you read these two posts I am certain you will not be disappointed. You will not see this anywhere else and it will explain "everything" and why we need to understand real additional dimensions and not just image parallax that many take as a representation of three dimensions. Photons know how to "modulate" the absorption process in certain emulsions to provide "depth". Presently we record only imperfectly the information that appears on the flat screen or CMOS sensor but a holographic plate placed anywhere can record that information and a whole lot more, the whole "Unseen Dark Universe"... You need to read the above couple of posts.... Sorry I do not want to repeat it verbatim.
You may then ask why?... but by then you may already know the answer.
Cheers
In the case of the Hyperphysics link to a single pinhole diffraction pattern can also be compared with a lens with a focal length... this leads to this "device" that I have showed you many times in these threads...... Click to enlarge...
Here we see a transparency composed of a finite number of extended simple sources placed in the "Input Plane"....
... Click to enlarge...
... Here is the same image that remains "unseen" as a three dimensional wave "suspended" in the space of the "Transform Plane".
... Click to enlarge...
There are actually two of these, one is a plane of "reals" and another existing in the very same space mapped in the plane of "complex numbers". The two compose that one picture of the attractive girl above. Do rays from the first picture pass through the second picture and then go on to the third "reconstructed picture" in the "Image Plane". The surprise is there is absolutely no linear relationship between all these things. The initial image is a spatial arrangement of sources of differing intensity, these sources are all correlated by virtue of being illuminated by a coherent laser (whose photons all are seeking all paths). In actual fact "real" three dimensional sources are also "Complex Plane entities" as well. The disarmingly "simple" lens converts this spatial arrangements of a very attractive girl into a complex plane frequency map where each spot no longer has any linear conformal relationship to the source image and its spatial arrangements but now each individual correlated source in the transform plane (pinprick of illumination) represents a single spatial frequency in the original image... not just one of them... all of them as a 4D complex number taken from these two planes separately. There are no rays at all in truth, it is a "fiction" of our optics and we have used "linear technique" to analyze these entities without understanding the true "other worldliness" of the unseen additional 4 dimensions that have only a holistic relationship to the original two dimensional image. We know that they are representations of a kind of "reciprocal space" co-existing unseen in our usually well understood space. There is absolutely no linear way to convert the first image into the second... Capisci? Optical Construction using "rays" is a fiction we have used to assist our understanding but it does not assist us with any deep insights.
The pair of secondary images are upper frequency limited by the "aperture" of the first focal plane lens with all the highest frequencies "truncated" by the diameter of the optical element. The zero frequency of the entire scene ... and there is a zero spatial frequency that resides in the very center... removal of that one single spot of coherent information is a disaster to the entire "reconstruction". Now with a Double Slit Experiment we have two such sources that are going to mutually interfere. The result is not a ray by ray phenomenon as suggested by simple single source illumination from the "Image Plane" but a spatial mixing of these spatial holograms. The real Universe encodes the information as "depth" information.
I have explained this elsewhere in this thread and recently on another thread this way...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=236675
then on to this post...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=236821
This post and the following couple of posts explain why our eyes are inadequate in recording the true nature of the absorption process of photons into sensors. The error regarding Quantum Mechanics is we have designed our sensors to mimic our eyes (the two dimensional retinas) and in actual fact our eyes cannot record the necessary information required to understand "higher dimensions". As long as we design sensors that "flatten" dimensional data from "space" the meaning of this transform will be lost. A Holographic thick emulsion plate records the depth information of our Universe in an imperfect but more complete way, this information is required if we are to ever understand higher dimensions. If you read these two posts I am certain you will not be disappointed. You will not see this anywhere else and it will explain "everything" and why we need to understand real additional dimensions and not just image parallax that many take as a representation of three dimensions. Photons know how to "modulate" the absorption process in certain emulsions to provide "depth". Presently we record only imperfectly the information that appears on the flat screen or CMOS sensor but a holographic plate placed anywhere can record that information and a whole lot more, the whole "Unseen Dark Universe"... You need to read the above couple of posts.... Sorry I do not want to repeat it verbatim.
You may then ask why?... but by then you may already know the answer.
Cheers
Hi All..
hmm... I guess LL missed my point...
Does your microwave oven argument prove or disprove the notion of photons??
In respect to the nature of the EM waves, they are very elegantly described by the Maxwell equations. Those equations will also show what happens after passing a slit...
Unfortunately the maxwell equations do not take photons as a base..
Jan Rinze.
hmm... I guess LL missed my point...
Does your microwave oven argument prove or disprove the notion of photons??
In respect to the nature of the EM waves, they are very elegantly described by the Maxwell equations. Those equations will also show what happens after passing a slit...
Unfortunately the maxwell equations do not take photons as a base..
Jan Rinze.
Good Elf,
a more simple explanation of the optical fourier transform can be found here:
intuitive optical fourier explanation
in short:
it is the result of interference.
Jan Rinze.
a more simple explanation of the optical fourier transform can be found here:
intuitive optical fourier explanation
in short:
it is the result of interference.
Jan Rinze.
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Jul 18 2007, 01:36 AM)
My microwave oven shorts out when I put stuff like cermics that get hot in the oven or copper particles in tubes. Why does it stop working after the stuff inside gets hot?
Hi Neil,
Did you now that microwave ovens are sometimes used for metal casting?
Jan Rinze.
P.S. your quote made it appear as if LL was quoting me on the microwave argument.
Hi Neil,
Did you now that microwave ovens are sometimes used for metal casting?
Jan Rinze.
P.S. your quote made it appear as if LL was quoting me on the microwave argument.
Hi Jan,
I read your original post again, apparently I misinterpreted your intent on the
first pass. I am still not clear on what you are stating.
A resonant system is dynamic, it is absorbing and emitting energy as the
incident wave cycle (at the correct frequency) oscillates. Absorption occurs on the
positive voltage "upstroke" excursion which drives an outer shell electron to the
next higher orbital, and the absorbed energy is released on the "downstroke".
This would be the scenario for an individual atom that is resonating at the
applied incident frequency, such as an atom of elemental gas.
A mass absorbs energy from the dipoles on the outside exposed surfaces that are
being resonantly vibrated by photons of the near visible spectrum. The energy
transfer is via a thermal conduction process from the outside in. It would be
like a skin effect, where EM induced currents travel along the surface.
The surface atoms provide a Faraday cage effect and shield inner atomic dipoles
by absorbing the applied "near visible" frequencies. But, secondarily generated
IR photons are transmitted to internal atoms via a thermal conductance
agitation/vibration process. The speed of the internal atomic vibrations will
determine the intensity and frequencies of the IR energy band emissions.
So, an atomic mass can absorb energy at one frequency while radiating energy
at other completely different frequencies. This is a form of energy conservation
and conversion, that works in both directions.
If we heat an elemental mass with intense IR energy intensity, the atoms will
radiate a range of IR frequencies, along with their elemental spectral frequencies.
Once the energy being applied to the system mass has exceeded the ability of the
mass to absorb all the incident energy, ionization takes place, and the atoms will
also emit their elemental spectral frequencies along with the IR band frequencies.
LL
QUOTE
If resonance is the key to photon interaction then it surely is related to the wavelength or frequency. So if a resonant circuit would be placed in a EM wave of the right frequency it would start absorbing energy. If by absorbing energy the resonant system would change after a fixed amount of energy absorbed, the resonance with the EM wave would stop. Reasons could be that either the circuit would be broken or it would 'bend' into a different resonant circuit of other frequency. This way the only suggestion of a least amount of energy would not be caused by the EM wave itself but by the limited capacity of the resonant circuit to dissipate/adsorb energy by an exact amount.
If this would be true then the effect of having a resonant system in a very low EM field would just imply that the amount of time needed for the resonant circuit to gather enough energy to change state would be very long.. The transition itself would only enforce the idea of a quantum passing at that exact moment.
If this would be true then the effect of having a resonant system in a very low EM field would just imply that the amount of time needed for the resonant circuit to gather enough energy to change state would be very long.. The transition itself would only enforce the idea of a quantum passing at that exact moment.
I read your original post again, apparently I misinterpreted your intent on the
first pass. I am still not clear on what you are stating.
A resonant system is dynamic, it is absorbing and emitting energy as the
incident wave cycle (at the correct frequency) oscillates. Absorption occurs on the
positive voltage "upstroke" excursion which drives an outer shell electron to the
next higher orbital, and the absorbed energy is released on the "downstroke".
This would be the scenario for an individual atom that is resonating at the
applied incident frequency, such as an atom of elemental gas.
A mass absorbs energy from the dipoles on the outside exposed surfaces that are
being resonantly vibrated by photons of the near visible spectrum. The energy
transfer is via a thermal conduction process from the outside in. It would be
like a skin effect, where EM induced currents travel along the surface.
The surface atoms provide a Faraday cage effect and shield inner atomic dipoles
by absorbing the applied "near visible" frequencies. But, secondarily generated
IR photons are transmitted to internal atoms via a thermal conductance
agitation/vibration process. The speed of the internal atomic vibrations will
determine the intensity and frequencies of the IR energy band emissions.
So, an atomic mass can absorb energy at one frequency while radiating energy
at other completely different frequencies. This is a form of energy conservation
and conversion, that works in both directions.
If we heat an elemental mass with intense IR energy intensity, the atoms will
radiate a range of IR frequencies, along with their elemental spectral frequencies.
Once the energy being applied to the system mass has exceeded the ability of the
mass to absorb all the incident energy, ionization takes place, and the atoms will
also emit their elemental spectral frequencies along with the IR band frequencies.
LL
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
So, an atomic mass can absorb energy at one frequency while radiating energy at other completely different frequencies. This is a form of energy conservation and conversion, that works in both directions.
Microwave cookers operate in the GHz region. Knowing that cosmic background radiation is also in the GHz region and corresponds to a temperature of around 2.7 degrees Kelvin we might wonder how we can cook a chicken in a microwave oven. I suggest that the answer is that that chicken is not in thermal equilibrium with the microwaves it is being zapped by. We could (of course) look upon a microwave cooker as a frequncy multiplier/up-convertor :- you feed in microwaves into the chicken and out comes infra-red. For some reason the phenomenon makes me feel a bit tired and slightly depressed.
Best wishes - C2.
Microwave cookers operate in the GHz region. Knowing that cosmic background radiation is also in the GHz region and corresponds to a temperature of around 2.7 degrees Kelvin we might wonder how we can cook a chicken in a microwave oven. I suggest that the answer is that that chicken is not in thermal equilibrium with the microwaves it is being zapped by. We could (of course) look upon a microwave cooker as a frequncy multiplier/up-convertor :- you feed in microwaves into the chicken and out comes infra-red. For some reason the phenomenon makes me feel a bit tired and slightly depressed.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi Janrinze,
QUOTE (Janrinze+)
Good Elf,
a more simple explanation of the optical fourier transform can be found here:
intuitive optical fourier explanation
in short:
it is the result of interference.
a more simple explanation of the optical fourier transform can be found here:
intuitive optical fourier explanation
in short:
it is the result of interference.
I am not trying to be critical here... The intuitive explanation is "mostly wrong"... In that reference referring to the Optical Fourier Transform, it is highly suggestive that optical rays are involved... Block any "one or several" of those rays you like and you will lose information from the entire extent of the image not just where the ray is supposed to go as "intuitively indicated" in the figures. You are not simply "culling a tiny point from the final image" but removing all spatial frequency information with a particular orientation, holistically from the entire image, the "ray" conveys spatial frequencies and does not construct the image as shown to college school kids since "way back when Noah wore short pants". Of course college kids do not work with advanced quantum theory either.
So the 'Intuitive" explanation is OK if you do not need to understand the underlying quantum reality. I suggest you need to have a fuller understanding of this process at a deeper level, only that insight will allow you to tell your students confidently an "intuitive" approach is best for what they need to do. The word interference has a variety of meanings... Recall we are dealing with "monochromatic" light and these frequencies have nothing to do with light frequencies at all but with spatial frequencies. If the big truth is "too hard" to understand then you will always walk in the shadow of that "dark spot" in your understanding... I can speak about these things as one who knows not to take things for granted no matter how easy the way they are presented. I have done it and I know how it crippled me when I took an "easy way" through the morass. In a "trice" you will be in more trouble than Buck Rogers and with less hand held artillery to get you out of it other than a pencil. This defense is OK if you are an Einstein but I could never solve anything by simply being told a way through everytime a problem was presented. That is the "shut up and calculate" view of Physics.
Quantum Interference is the whole story and anyone who says that it is only interference is dead right but it ls like saying the Universe is about "God" and that fully explains it... Who knows the mind of "God"? There are many experts on the "Mind of God" and wars are fought over it. I suspect this "simple" question on Quantum Interference is far more important to us as a species both now and in the longer term than any human speculations about the "Big G" when fairly evaluated by a more mature mankind further down the track.
Cheers
So the 'Intuitive" explanation is OK if you do not need to understand the underlying quantum reality. I suggest you need to have a fuller understanding of this process at a deeper level, only that insight will allow you to tell your students confidently an "intuitive" approach is best for what they need to do. The word interference has a variety of meanings... Recall we are dealing with "monochromatic" light and these frequencies have nothing to do with light frequencies at all but with spatial frequencies. If the big truth is "too hard" to understand then you will always walk in the shadow of that "dark spot" in your understanding... I can speak about these things as one who knows not to take things for granted no matter how easy the way they are presented. I have done it and I know how it crippled me when I took an "easy way" through the morass. In a "trice" you will be in more trouble than Buck Rogers and with less hand held artillery to get you out of it other than a pencil. This defense is OK if you are an Einstein but I could never solve anything by simply being told a way through everytime a problem was presented. That is the "shut up and calculate" view of Physics.
Quantum Interference is the whole story and anyone who says that it is only interference is dead right but it ls like saying the Universe is about "God" and that fully explains it... Who knows the mind of "God"? There are many experts on the "Mind of God" and wars are fought over it. I suspect this "simple" question on Quantum Interference is far more important to us as a species both now and in the longer term than any human speculations about the "Big G" when fairly evaluated by a more mature mankind further down the track.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jul 19 2007, 03:50 AM)
Hi Janrinze,
I am not trying to be critical here... The intuitive explanation is "mostly wrong"...
Hi GE,
have you verified mathematically if the transformation caused by interference is not a Fourier transform?
You might be caught by a nice surprise..
Masking parts of these 'beams' will indeed change the resulting image. That is because this is only a Fourier transform and not a hologram!!
The rest of your post baffles me.. Which part in optical Fourier is not covered with this 'simple' explanation (except from the mathematical underlying proof) ?
Jan Rinze.
B.T.W. the optical Fourier transform is indeed only in the spatial frequencies but that is a common feat that also applies to holograms..
I am not trying to be critical here... The intuitive explanation is "mostly wrong"...
Hi GE,
have you verified mathematically if the transformation caused by interference is not a Fourier transform?
You might be caught by a nice surprise..
Masking parts of these 'beams' will indeed change the resulting image. That is because this is only a Fourier transform and not a hologram!!
The rest of your post baffles me.. Which part in optical Fourier is not covered with this 'simple' explanation (except from the mathematical underlying proof) ?
Jan Rinze.
B.T.W. the optical Fourier transform is indeed only in the spatial frequencies but that is a common feat that also applies to holograms..
Hi Janrinze,
Of course information is actually stored in volumetric space not exactly in a plane and this device is a "toy". I explained this artifact in the cross reference to the other thread.
QUOTE
have you verified mathematically if the transformation caused by interference is not a Fourier transform?
You might be caught by a nice surprise..
I am not following you there... As far as I am aware it most certainly is a FT?? I would not dispute that, In fact I would insist that it is. Please "spell out what you mean" and define "nice". You might be caught by a nice surprise..
Of course information is actually stored in volumetric space not exactly in a plane and this device is a "toy". I explained this artifact in the cross reference to the other thread.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| have you verified mathematically if the transformation caused by interference is not a Fourier transform? You might be caught by a nice surprise.. |
I am not following you there... As far as I am aware it most certainly is a FT?? I would not dispute that, In fact I would insist that it is. Please "spell out what you mean" and define "nice". Of course information is actually stored in volumetric space not exactly in a plane and this device is a "toy". I explained this artifact in the cross reference to the other thread.That is because this is only a Fourier transform and not a hologram!!
Of course information is actually stored in volumetric space not exactly in a plane and this device is a "toy". I explained this artifact in the cross reference to the other thread.That is because this is only a Fourier transform and not a hologram!!The information in the "rays" in the transform plane is "holographic" since the Complex value of each point in that plane is derived from the whole image plane not simply a portion. This is different from a hologram. "Recording" that image would destroy that information in any real images. It is a rare Physicist who would try and disprove his own theory?
Cheers
QUOTE
B.T.W. the optical Fourier transform is indeed only in the spatial frequencies but that is a common feat that also applies to holograms..
I agree.Cheers
Hi JanRinze, Good Elf et al,
Since Good Elf has objected to Huygens 'spreading' it might be helpful to check whether this is actually the same thing (or not) as Feynman's 'sum over paths' .. I'm pretty sure it's the same thing by another name. Hopefuly we'd then get the FT via 'approved' methods.
Best wishes - C2.
Since Good Elf has objected to Huygens 'spreading' it might be helpful to check whether this is actually the same thing (or not) as Feynman's 'sum over paths' .. I'm pretty sure it's the same thing by another name. Hopefuly we'd then get the FT via 'approved' methods.
Best wishes - C2.
More ..
Interesting stuff here .. http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/7...thIntegrals.htm
and more ..
Best wishes - C2.
Interesting stuff here .. http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/7...thIntegrals.htm
QUOTE
Finally, increase the number of barriers to some large number N, and at the same time increase the number of slits to the point that there are no barriers left. We are left with a sum over all possible paths through space from A to B,
multiplying each path by the appropriate action phase factor.
multiplying each path by the appropriate action phase factor.
and more ..
Best wishes - C2.
...
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Interesting stuff here .. http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/7...thIntegrals.htm
I am having trouble with that site. There is something "noxious" about it. I am unable to download some images as well. Maybe it is "locked" to certain kinds of external access... I do not know. It required a reboot from me. I will agree that what I saw of it was very interesting.
QUOTE (From Confused2 - A defense of Huygens Secondary Sources+)
...Finally, increase the number of barriers to some large number N, and at the same time increase the number of slits to the point that there are no barriers left. We are left with a sum over all possible paths through space from A to B, multiplying each path by the appropriate action phase factor.
Good defense of Huygens Principle though regrettably flawed. 
Secondary Huygens sources is like the Double Slit Experiment (DSE) at each incrementally progressive point in space... it is "interference" not secondary sources. Put in another way ... wavefronts do not simply "sum" they must coherently interfere, all of them. Assume these are pinholes for clarity (slits are simply a close linear arrangement of pinhole sources)... This violates the DSE, and "forces" which way information since you have insisted on a fiber bundle approach and the interference pattern will be lost (not just a "mathematical fact" but an "experimental fact" and one of the most interesting parts of the DSE) by "forcing" the photons through specific fiber/ray paths. What we know is in the DSE the photons are passing "seeking all paths" simultaneously limited only by the geometry of the entire space, the transform occurring in that space is what we have called "interference". The "sum" of a lot of rays is the sum of a lot of Huygens secondary sources". Replace individual "rays" by optic fibers (blanking out the surrounds) and you will not see any interference fringes at the next level of secondary source, the spatial interference is absolutely critical. Replace all those interfering "rays of light" with the emission of one single photon at a time and now how do you construct secondary wavelets from "sources". The single photon cannot be everywhere at once to perform "wavelet construction" yet experiment shows the experiment of the DSE works one photon at a time. In the position of the Huygens secondary wavelet sources.... this is forcing "which way" information while simultaneously reducing the diameter of the fiber to zero. Are you in agreement?
Another way to put it (my preferred way because it is so "visual") is in spatial optical filtering terms in the Fourier Plane... as the secondary sources get smaller approaching a single point, the Transform truncates the high spatial frequency information. As individual "pinholes" shrink to diameter D-> 0 then the spatial frequencies -> zero spatial frequency. This is because of the finite size of the "lens" (the aperture... pinhole or otherwise) This is a limit problem and it will not go away by ignoring the limit that is required to solve this problem.
This is equivalent to placing ever smaller "spatial filters" on our individual pinhole.
... Click to enlarge...
The image shows a global scan line "artifact" being seamlessly removed from an image by clipping this spatial artifact from the spatial frequencies in the transform plane. This Huygens Construction is equivalent to imposing a mask placed in a similar place to the mask in this spatial filtering device (in the shape of an empty circle with a black frequency truncating surround) on each of the Huygens sources whose diameter is being reduced to D -> 0. Information (or qubits) cannot be transferred if the only spatial frequency being "passed" is zero frequency. Zero frequency means no qubits since information transfer and intact qubits is required for the final DSE.
Is everyone in agreement with this or would they like to discuss this further as to exactly why this is happening in a mathematical sense and in a practical sense?
Remember it is theories that work and prove themselves by experiment that are accepted by Physics. A "small" fact like "interference" between slits/pinholes dashes a lot of "common sense" in quantum physics. We absolutely know that this "Gedanken Experiment" by Huygens is wrong... but heroically so... without Huygens we would not be where we are today. We cannot stay with Huygens in that "detail". Like Newtons Laws we still use them to navigate the planets and beyond with our space probes... We use Newton's Laws because of their "utility" not because we know that it is a perfect theory. The answer is "good enough". Einstein's Theories are "better" but the extra information and complexity required for better solutions undoes the lack of precision of all the variables involved. In the end we use Newton not through "ignorance" but because we understand that we are gaining nothing in precision and increasing the complexity by many orders of magnitude. Newton still rules Space... and will continue to do so for as long as our probes travel at only a few tens of thousands of kilometers per hour. Huygens Analysis is similar and as I have said recently... "I suspect this "simple" question on Quantum Interference is far more important to us as a species both now and in the longer term than any human speculations about the "Big G" when fairly evaluated by a more mature mankind further down the track."
All "non-personal" critical input is welcome.
Cheers
Secondary Huygens sources is like the Double Slit Experiment (DSE) at each incrementally progressive point in space... it is "interference" not secondary sources. Put in another way ... wavefronts do not simply "sum" they must coherently interfere, all of them. Assume these are pinholes for clarity (slits are simply a close linear arrangement of pinhole sources)... This violates the DSE, and "forces" which way information since you have insisted on a fiber bundle approach and the interference pattern will be lost (not just a "mathematical fact" but an "experimental fact" and one of the most interesting parts of the DSE) by "forcing" the photons through specific fiber/ray paths. What we know is in the DSE the photons are passing "seeking all paths" simultaneously limited only by the geometry of the entire space, the transform occurring in that space is what we have called "interference". The "sum" of a lot of rays is the sum of a lot of Huygens secondary sources". Replace individual "rays" by optic fibers (blanking out the surrounds) and you will not see any interference fringes at the next level of secondary source, the spatial interference is absolutely critical. Replace all those interfering "rays of light" with the emission of one single photon at a time and now how do you construct secondary wavelets from "sources". The single photon cannot be everywhere at once to perform "wavelet construction" yet experiment shows the experiment of the DSE works one photon at a time. In the position of the Huygens secondary wavelet sources.... this is forcing "which way" information while simultaneously reducing the diameter of the fiber to zero. Are you in agreement? Another way to put it (my preferred way because it is so "visual") is in spatial optical filtering terms in the Fourier Plane... as the secondary sources get smaller approaching a single point, the Transform truncates the high spatial frequency information. As individual "pinholes" shrink to diameter D-> 0 then the spatial frequencies -> zero spatial frequency. This is because of the finite size of the "lens" (the aperture... pinhole or otherwise) This is a limit problem and it will not go away by ignoring the limit that is required to solve this problem.
This is equivalent to placing ever smaller "spatial filters" on our individual pinhole.
... Click to enlarge...
The image shows a global scan line "artifact" being seamlessly removed from an image by clipping this spatial artifact from the spatial frequencies in the transform plane. This Huygens Construction is equivalent to imposing a mask placed in a similar place to the mask in this spatial filtering device (in the shape of an empty circle with a black frequency truncating surround) on each of the Huygens sources whose diameter is being reduced to D -> 0. Information (or qubits) cannot be transferred if the only spatial frequency being "passed" is zero frequency. Zero frequency means no qubits since information transfer and intact qubits is required for the final DSE.
Is everyone in agreement with this or would they like to discuss this further as to exactly why this is happening in a mathematical sense and in a practical sense?
Remember it is theories that work and prove themselves by experiment that are accepted by Physics. A "small" fact like "interference" between slits/pinholes dashes a lot of "common sense" in quantum physics. We absolutely know that this "Gedanken Experiment" by Huygens is wrong... but heroically so... without Huygens we would not be where we are today. We cannot stay with Huygens in that "detail". Like Newtons Laws we still use them to navigate the planets and beyond with our space probes... We use Newton's Laws because of their "utility" not because we know that it is a perfect theory. The answer is "good enough". Einstein's Theories are "better" but the extra information and complexity required for better solutions undoes the lack of precision of all the variables involved. In the end we use Newton not through "ignorance" but because we understand that we are gaining nothing in precision and increasing the complexity by many orders of magnitude. Newton still rules Space... and will continue to do so for as long as our probes travel at only a few tens of thousands of kilometers per hour. Huygens Analysis is similar and as I have said recently... "I suspect this "simple" question on Quantum Interference is far more important to us as a species both now and in the longer term than any human speculations about the "Big G" when fairly evaluated by a more mature mankind further down the track."
All "non-personal" critical input is welcome.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jul 21 2007, 12:53 AM)
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Interesting stuff here .. http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/7...thIntegrals.htm
I am having trouble with that site. There is something "noxious" about it. I am unable to download some images as well. Maybe it is "locked" to certain kinds of external access... I do not know. It required a reboot from me. I will agree that what I saw of it was very interesting.
QUOTE (From Confused2 - A defense of Huygens Secondary Sources+)
...Finally, increase the number of barriers to some large number N, and at the same time increase the number of slits to the point that there are no barriers left. We are left with a sum over all possible paths through space from A to B, multiplying each path by the appropriate action phase factor.
Good defense of Huygens Principle though regrettably flawed. Secondary Huygens sources is like the Double Slit Experiment (DSE) at each incrementally progressive point in space... it is "interference" not secondary sources. Assume these are pinholes for clarity (slits are simply a close linear arrangement of pinhole sources)... This violates the DSE, and "forces" which way information since you have insisted on a fiber bundle approach and the interference pattern will be lost (not just a "mathematical fact" but an "experimental fact" and one of the most interesting parts of the DSE) by "forcing" the photons through specific fiber/ray paths. What we know is in the DSE the photons are passing "seeking all paths" simultaneously limited only by the geometry of the entire space, the transform occurring in that space is what we have called "interference". The "sum" of a lot of rays is the sum of a lot of Huygens secondary sources". Replace individual "rays" by optic fibers (blanking out the surrounds) and you will not see any interference fringes at the next level of secondary source, the spatial interference is absolutely critical. Replace all those interfering "rays of light" with the emission of one single photon at a time and now how do you construct secondary wavelets from "sources". The single photon cannot be everywhere at once to perform "wavelet construction" yet experiment shows the experiment of the DSE works one photon at a time. In the position of the Huygens secondary wavelet sources.... this is forcing "which way" information while simultaneously reducing the diameter of the fiber to zero. Are you in agreement?
Another way to put it (my preferred way because it is so "visual") is in spatial optical filtering terms in the Fourier Plane... as the secondary sources get smaller approaching a single point, the Transform truncates the high spatial frequency information. As individual "pinholes" shrink to diameter D-> 0 then the spatial frequencies -> zero spatial frequency. This is because of the finite size of the "lens" (the aperture... pinhole or otherwise) This is a limit problem and it will not go away by ignoring the limit that is required to solve this problem.
This is equivalent to placing ever smaller "spatial filters" on our individual pinhole.
... Click to enlarge...
The image shows a global scan line "artifact" being seamlessly removed from an image by clipping this spatial artifact from the spatial frequencies in the transform plane.
This is equivalent to imposing a mask placed in a similar place to the mask in this spatial filtering device (in the shape of an empty circle with a black frequency truncating surround) on each of the Huygens sources whose diameter is being reduced to D -> 0. Information (or qubits) cannot be transferred if the only spatial frequency being "passed" is zero frequency. Zero frequency means no qubits since information transfer and intact qubits is required for the final DSE.
Is everyone in agreement with this or would they like to discuss this further as to exactly why this is happening in a mathematical sense and in a practical sense?
Remember it is theories that work and prove themselves by experiment that are accepted by Physics. A "small" fact like "interference" between slits/pinholes dashes a lot of "common sense" in quantum physics. We absolutely know that this "Gedanken Experiment" by Huygens is wrong... but heroically so... without Huygens we would not be where we are today. We cannot stay with Huygens in that "detail". Like Newtons Laws we still use them to navigate the planets and beyond with our space probes... We use Newton's Laws because of their "utility" not because we know that it is a perfect theory. The answer is "good enough". Einstein's Theories are "better" but the extra information and complexity required for better solutions undoes the lack of precision of all the variables involved. In the end we use Newton not through "ignorance" but because we understand that we are gaining nothing in precision and increasing the complexity by many orders of magnitude. Newton still rules Space... and will continue to do so for as long as our probes travel at only a few tens of thousands of kilometers per hour. Huygens Analysis is similar and as I have said recently... "I suspect this "simple" question on Quantum Interference is far more important to us as a species both now and in the longer term than any human speculations about the "Big G" when fairly evaluated by a more mature mankind further down the track."
All "non-personal" critical input is welcome.
Cheers
I am a successful professional inventor who is also the President of a research and development company. I have invented several methods of multiplying the power of pulsed laser light using nanoparticle technology. I have made many scientific predictions in the past that have been proved accurate. Many concepts I wrote about in my patent notebooks ten to fifteen years ago and even longer ago were independently invented years later. Years ago I invented the idea of using trace amounts of oxygen to increase the reaction that lengthens carbon nanotubes made in CVD reactors. Last year my prediction was proved by a discovery in Hongji Dai's laboratory that was published in the major scientific journals.
My patent notebooks contain dozens of concepts that I invented first and that later were proved by other labs. As the chief scientist of Vulvox Nanobiotechnology Corporation I have seen some of my proprietary concepts in the biotechnology field verified by experiments I designed in the course of contract R&D.
As I explained before, I have invented a method of concentrating light and electromagnetic energy to ignite fusion fuel pellets. Nanoparticles and nanoclusters of atoms often have surprising properties that are unexpected and different from their bulk properties.
A simple example; Silicon is a metal that is not at the top of the list of the world's hardest materials. Who would have thought that if you made sufficiently small particles that their hardness would go up to third place, behind boron carbide and diamonds and way ahead of everything on the list of hard materials.
I am saying that I have taken the unusual properties of quantum dots and other nanoparticles and combined them into laser fuel pellets in such a way that the energy of the laser pulse is concentrated and lot more it goes toward igniting nuclear fusion reactions; fast ignition processes.
I am making claims based on applying discoveries published in Nature and Physical Review; and other journals.
This topic was started to solicit the opinions of professional physicists; laser physics experts, nuclear fusion experts, experts in ultrafast phenomena and nanoparticle technologists. My report is proprietary information. You have to sign a nondisclosure agreement before I let you read it. Please help me get my idea reviewed. Its possible you will get an opportunity to share the credit for popularizing a Nobel prize winning idea. Something that might furnish a source of energy that will not exacerbate the greenhouse effect and that will generate a lot less radioactive waste than fission reactors. Some laser fuel cycles fusing boron atoms wont yield radioactive particles at all. An idea with this much potential should definitely be reviewed by ranking experts in the fields I have mentioned.
Contact
Neil Farbstein
protn7@att.net
Secondary Huygens sources is like the Double Slit Experiment (DSE) at each incrementally progressive point in space... it is "interference" not secondary sources. Assume these are pinholes for clarity (slits are simply a close linear arrangement of pinhole sources)... This violates the DSE, and "forces" which way information since you have insisted on a fiber bundle approach and the interference pattern will be lost (not just a "mathematical fact" but an "experimental fact" and one of the most interesting parts of the DSE) by "forcing" the photons through specific fiber/ray paths. What we know is in the DSE the photons are passing "seeking all paths" simultaneously limited only by the geometry of the entire space, the transform occurring in that space is what we have called "interference". The "sum" of a lot of rays is the sum of a lot of Huygens secondary sources". Replace individual "rays" by optic fibers (blanking out the surrounds) and you will not see any interference fringes at the next level of secondary source, the spatial interference is absolutely critical. Replace all those interfering "rays of light" with the emission of one single photon at a time and now how do you construct secondary wavelets from "sources". The single photon cannot be everywhere at once to perform "wavelet construction" yet experiment shows the experiment of the DSE works one photon at a time. In the position of the Huygens secondary wavelet sources.... this is forcing "which way" information while simultaneously reducing the diameter of the fiber to zero. Are you in agreement? Another way to put it (my preferred way because it is so "visual") is in spatial optical filtering terms in the Fourier Plane... as the secondary sources get smaller approaching a single point, the Transform truncates the high spatial frequency information. As individual "pinholes" shrink to diameter D-> 0 then the spatial frequencies -> zero spatial frequency. This is because of the finite size of the "lens" (the aperture... pinhole or otherwise) This is a limit problem and it will not go away by ignoring the limit that is required to solve this problem.
This is equivalent to placing ever smaller "spatial filters" on our individual pinhole.
... Click to enlarge...
The image shows a global scan line "artifact" being seamlessly removed from an image by clipping this spatial artifact from the spatial frequencies in the transform plane.
This is equivalent to imposing a mask placed in a similar place to the mask in this spatial filtering device (in the shape of an empty circle with a black frequency truncating surround) on each of the Huygens sources whose diameter is being reduced to D -> 0. Information (or qubits) cannot be transferred if the only spatial frequency being "passed" is zero frequency. Zero frequency means no qubits since information transfer and intact qubits is required for the final DSE.
Is everyone in agreement with this or would they like to discuss this further as to exactly why this is happening in a mathematical sense and in a practical sense?
Remember it is theories that work and prove themselves by experiment that are accepted by Physics. A "small" fact like "interference" between slits/pinholes dashes a lot of "common sense" in quantum physics. We absolutely know that this "Gedanken Experiment" by Huygens is wrong... but heroically so... without Huygens we would not be where we are today. We cannot stay with Huygens in that "detail". Like Newtons Laws we still use them to navigate the planets and beyond with our space probes... We use Newton's Laws because of their "utility" not because we know that it is a perfect theory. The answer is "good enough". Einstein's Theories are "better" but the extra information and complexity required for better solutions undoes the lack of precision of all the variables involved. In the end we use Newton not through "ignorance" but because we understand that we are gaining nothing in precision and increasing the complexity by many orders of magnitude. Newton still rules Space... and will continue to do so for as long as our probes travel at only a few tens of thousands of kilometers per hour. Huygens Analysis is similar and as I have said recently... "I suspect this "simple" question on Quantum Interference is far more important to us as a species both now and in the longer term than any human speculations about the "Big G" when fairly evaluated by a more mature mankind further down the track."
All "non-personal" critical input is welcome.
Cheers
I am a successful professional inventor who is also the President of a research and development company. I have invented several methods of multiplying the power of pulsed laser light using nanoparticle technology. I have made many scientific predictions in the past that have been proved accurate. Many concepts I wrote about in my patent notebooks ten to fifteen years ago and even longer ago were independently invented years later. Years ago I invented the idea of using trace amounts of oxygen to increase the reaction that lengthens carbon nanotubes made in CVD reactors. Last year my prediction was proved by a discovery in Hongji Dai's laboratory that was published in the major scientific journals.
My patent notebooks contain dozens of concepts that I invented first and that later were proved by other labs. As the chief scientist of Vulvox Nanobiotechnology Corporation I have seen some of my proprietary concepts in the biotechnology field verified by experiments I designed in the course of contract R&D.
As I explained before, I have invented a method of concentrating light and electromagnetic energy to ignite fusion fuel pellets. Nanoparticles and nanoclusters of atoms often have surprising properties that are unexpected and different from their bulk properties.
A simple example; Silicon is a metal that is not at the top of the list of the world's hardest materials. Who would have thought that if you made sufficiently small particles that their hardness would go up to third place, behind boron carbide and diamonds and way ahead of everything on the list of hard materials.
I am saying that I have taken the unusual properties of quantum dots and other nanoparticles and combined them into laser fuel pellets in such a way that the energy of the laser pulse is concentrated and lot more it goes toward igniting nuclear fusion reactions; fast ignition processes.
I am making claims based on applying discoveries published in Nature and Physical Review; and other journals.
This topic was started to solicit the opinions of professional physicists; laser physics experts, nuclear fusion experts, experts in ultrafast phenomena and nanoparticle technologists. My report is proprietary information. You have to sign a nondisclosure agreement before I let you read it. Please help me get my idea reviewed. Its possible you will get an opportunity to share the credit for popularizing a Nobel prize winning idea. Something that might furnish a source of energy that will not exacerbate the greenhouse effect and that will generate a lot less radioactive waste than fission reactors. Some laser fuel cycles fusing boron atoms wont yield radioactive particles at all. An idea with this much potential should definitely be reviewed by ranking experts in the fields I have mentioned.
Contact
Neil Farbstein
protn7@att.net
... post error
Hi Neil,
I am sure you are right Neil and I also see a lot of ideas that I have stated in the past become popularized in other areas, when you hand our ideas others will undoubtedly use them. And regardless of others sincerity they will probably never acknowledge a source from a Forum.
I am a very big supporter of Fusion Research (though only with my "heart" not my checkbook ... you understand
). I don't know how your claims can be advanced by our thread, I am unable to provide peer review of your ideas for publication. I hope you are right about your assessment there about sharing Nobel Prizes but I for one am in this for the pure knowledge of this process and if what I say helps then you are welcome to use it. If you would like to discuss some issues you are welcome to PM me and we can look into it. It would be nice if we were all able to see better outcomes and sooner for science in general through these and any other discussions.
IMHO I really believe these ideas can assist in truly understanding Quantum Processes and generally in the way the Universe actually works "under the carpet". This information is not "instead of Quantum Physics" as you probably already realize but can be used to extend existing quantum theory to the next level of "additional dimensions" where it can take on "new Physics" through a form of advanced quantum optics. I have already explained why I think this is a productive line of investigation and I hope it finally leads to what I want to see happen... I have been as opinionated as anyone who is a loner and at the same time a believer in any topic can be... not for reward... If I was after any award this is not the place to "publish" is it? One of my most sincere hopes is that Science will improve our world once we understand our rightful place in it. There is a possibility that in the hands of unenlightened man it could lead to a "Hell". I sincerely believe this will not happen and instead sublime truth can only be really understood by sublime minds.
Wesden who started this thread has not collaborated further but I owe him a debt of gratitude for starting the thread way way back... I have found this DSE Question a very productive area of investigation. I am very gratified with all those who have assisted, including yourself Neil, and would welcome personal contact with you and others at anytime. My "door" is alway open to you and others for a private PM chat.
Cheers
I am sure you are right Neil and I also see a lot of ideas that I have stated in the past become popularized in other areas, when you hand our ideas others will undoubtedly use them. And regardless of others sincerity they will probably never acknowledge a source from a Forum.
I am a very big supporter of Fusion Research (though only with my "heart" not my checkbook ... you understand
). I don't know how your claims can be advanced by our thread, I am unable to provide peer review of your ideas for publication. I hope you are right about your assessment there about sharing Nobel Prizes but I for one am in this for the pure knowledge of this process and if what I say helps then you are welcome to use it. If you would like to discuss some issues you are welcome to PM me and we can look into it. It would be nice if we were all able to see better outcomes and sooner for science in general through these and any other discussions.IMHO I really believe these ideas can assist in truly understanding Quantum Processes and generally in the way the Universe actually works "under the carpet". This information is not "instead of Quantum Physics" as you probably already realize but can be used to extend existing quantum theory to the next level of "additional dimensions" where it can take on "new Physics" through a form of advanced quantum optics. I have already explained why I think this is a productive line of investigation and I hope it finally leads to what I want to see happen... I have been as opinionated as anyone who is a loner and at the same time a believer in any topic can be... not for reward... If I was after any award this is not the place to "publish" is it?
One of my most sincere hopes is that Science will improve our world once we understand our rightful place in it. There is a possibility that in the hands of unenlightened man it could lead to a "Hell". I sincerely believe this will not happen and instead sublime truth can only be really understood by sublime minds.Wesden who started this thread has not collaborated further but I owe him a debt of gratitude for starting the thread way way back... I have found this DSE Question a very productive area of investigation. I am very gratified with all those who have assisted, including yourself Neil, and would welcome personal contact with you and others at anytime. My "door" is alway open to you and others for a private PM chat.
Cheers
Hi Neil,
When you are referring to the Boron Fusion Cycle, are you referring in some way to aspects of R. W. Bussard's Experimental Fusion Reactor, or your own Inertial Confinement variant of this system? Have you discussed your ideas with him? I have seen his video on Google? I was very impressed with that presentation. Anyone with that level of advanced fusion technique backed by the US Navy has a lot to contribute.
http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2584496&C=america
As I understand it you are more into Inertial Confinement but Bussard appears to be a very sincere individual and as long as he is alive is a very committed person. He also is suffering from a lack of backing by establishment. I am sure that he may have connections to the peer review network. I "smell" collaboration is possible.
Cheers
When you are referring to the Boron Fusion Cycle, are you referring in some way to aspects of R. W. Bussard's Experimental Fusion Reactor, or your own Inertial Confinement variant of this system? Have you discussed your ideas with him? I have seen his video on Google? I was very impressed with that presentation. Anyone with that level of advanced fusion technique backed by the US Navy has a lot to contribute.
http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2584496&C=america
As I understand it you are more into Inertial Confinement but Bussard appears to be a very sincere individual and as long as he is alive is a very committed person. He also is suffering from a lack of backing by establishment. I am sure that he may have connections to the peer review network. I "smell" collaboration is possible.
Cheers
Off topic....
I seem to remember that when the first nuclear reactor was constructed that
they could not initially establish a fission reaction, and were at an impasse
about why it wasn't working. The German's (Nazi's) were also attempting
to produce nuclear fission in a similar style reactor and were also unable to
establish the reaction. The German's, thankfully, finally gave up trying, thinking
that a fission reaction was technologically impossible in that era.
A prominent scientist (I don't recall his name) of the time, who was indirectly
consulting on the American reactor development project, reviewed the reactor
design information and made the comment that boron, that was being used as a
lining of the reaction chamber, was probably absorbing the neutrons and was
preventing a chain reaction from occuring. The boron containing shielding was
removed and a fission reaction was quickly achieved, which eventually led to the
development of the atomic bomb. The rest is history.
The point being, that a just a small bit of information, or idea, can provide a
relatively easy solution to a complex problem. Sometimes, people who are very
close to a problem cannot see the forest for the trees. Each tree has its own
characteristics and identity.
The devil is in the details. You just need to know where to look, and what to look
for.
LL
I seem to remember that when the first nuclear reactor was constructed that
they could not initially establish a fission reaction, and were at an impasse
about why it wasn't working. The German's (Nazi's) were also attempting
to produce nuclear fission in a similar style reactor and were also unable to
establish the reaction. The German's, thankfully, finally gave up trying, thinking
that a fission reaction was technologically impossible in that era.
A prominent scientist (I don't recall his name) of the time, who was indirectly
consulting on the American reactor development project, reviewed the reactor
design information and made the comment that boron, that was being used as a
lining of the reaction chamber, was probably absorbing the neutrons and was
preventing a chain reaction from occuring. The boron containing shielding was
removed and a fission reaction was quickly achieved, which eventually led to the
development of the atomic bomb. The rest is history.
The point being, that a just a small bit of information, or idea, can provide a
relatively easy solution to a complex problem. Sometimes, people who are very
close to a problem cannot see the forest for the trees. Each tree has its own
characteristics and identity.
The devil is in the details. You just need to know where to look, and what to look
for.
LL
Hi Laserlight,
More off topic...
More off topic...
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I seem to remember that when the first nuclear reactor was constructed that they could not initially establish a fission reaction, and were at an impasse about why it wasn't working. The German's (Nazi's) were also attempting to produce nuclear fission in a similar style reactor and were also unable to establish the reaction. The German's, thankfully, finally gave up trying, thinking that a fission reaction was technologically impossible in that era. [...] The devil is in the details. You just need to know where to look, and what to look for.
There is a moral dimension... Sometimes it is the motive behind why we look... If "greed is good" then perhaps the motive is badly placed. An evil person could never recognize good even if it stared them in the face, everything is tainted in their sight and they are blind to all that is good. It is just as well since if evil people saw the good and "repented" then evil would be seen to prosper.
An army of evil people must be led by the most evil person... An army of good people can only be led by the most morally upright person. The outcome of such a conflict is still uncertain but it is better to be on the side of good and fail than on the side of evil and prevail.
Cheers
An army of evil people must be led by the most evil person... An army of good people can only be led by the most morally upright person. The outcome of such a conflict is still uncertain but it is better to be on the side of good and fail than on the side of evil and prevail.
Cheers
Experiment, Experiment, Experiment, Calculation and Interpretation then Re-interpretation, Avoiding Metaphysics......
The Double Slit Experiment
Kind Regards
Terry Giblin
PS "Without any interference" Animal, mineral or vegetable will cause chaos to the out come of the original experiment, time is not an issue.
http://web.mac.com/terry_giblin/
THE HAL-9000 & 42
The Double Slit Experiment
Kind Regards
Terry Giblin
PS "Without any interference" Animal, mineral or vegetable will cause chaos to the out come of the original experiment, time is not an issue.
http://web.mac.com/terry_giblin/
THE HAL-9000 & 42
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jul 21 2007, 05:08 AM)
Off topic....
I seem to remember that when the first nuclear reactor was constructed that
they could not initially establish a fission reaction, and were at an impasse
about why it wasn't working. The German's (Nazi's) were also attempting
to produce nuclear fission in a similar style reactor and were also unable to
establish the reaction. The German's, thankfully, finally gave up trying, thinking
that a fission reaction was technologically impossible in that era.
A prominent scientist (I don't recall his name) of the time, who was indirectly
consulting on the American reactor development project, reviewed the reactor
design information and made the comment that boron, that was being used as a
lining of the reaction chamber, was probably absorbing the neutrons and was
preventing a chain reaction from occuring. The boron containing shielding was
removed and a fission reaction was quickly achieved, which eventually led to the
development of the atomic bomb. The rest is history.
The point being, that a just a small bit of information, or idea, can provide a
relatively easy solution to a complex problem. Sometimes, people who are very
close to a problem cannot see the forest for the trees. Each tree has its own
characteristics and identity.
The devil is in the details. You just need to know where to look, and what to look
for.
LL
I often see the forest for the tress and visa versa way before anyone else does.
I'm lucky I have that talent.
I seem to remember that when the first nuclear reactor was constructed that
they could not initially establish a fission reaction, and were at an impasse
about why it wasn't working. The German's (Nazi's) were also attempting
to produce nuclear fission in a similar style reactor and were also unable to
establish the reaction. The German's, thankfully, finally gave up trying, thinking
that a fission reaction was technologically impossible in that era.
A prominent scientist (I don't recall his name) of the time, who was indirectly
consulting on the American reactor development project, reviewed the reactor
design information and made the comment that boron, that was being used as a
lining of the reaction chamber, was probably absorbing the neutrons and was
preventing a chain reaction from occuring. The boron containing shielding was
removed and a fission reaction was quickly achieved, which eventually led to the
development of the atomic bomb. The rest is history.
The point being, that a just a small bit of information, or idea, can provide a
relatively easy solution to a complex problem. Sometimes, people who are very
close to a problem cannot see the forest for the trees. Each tree has its own
characteristics and identity.
The devil is in the details. You just need to know where to look, and what to look
for.
LL
I often see the forest for the tress and visa versa way before anyone else does.
I'm lucky I have that talent.
Hello Terry Giblin,
I went to your site link and looked over your mathematical expression of the
DSE. It explains nothing of consequence regarding how the interaction of
the geometry of lght, and of the slits, works at the quantum mechanical level
to generate the diffraction elements that produce the DSE pattern.
I was also questioning your diagram of what I presume to be a dipole with
Einstein's E=mc^2 energy equation underneath, of which the significance of the
association was at best "cryptic".
Would you care to elaborate on the mechanisms and explain your rationale?
We have been discussing numerous topics related to the DSE, light, time,
interference, and a host of other associated themes since this thread started,
and would appreciate your creative participation or explanations.
Regards,
LL
I went to your site link and looked over your mathematical expression of the
DSE. It explains nothing of consequence regarding how the interaction of
the geometry of lght, and of the slits, works at the quantum mechanical level
to generate the diffraction elements that produce the DSE pattern.
I was also questioning your diagram of what I presume to be a dipole with
Einstein's E=mc^2 energy equation underneath, of which the significance of the
association was at best "cryptic".
Would you care to elaborate on the mechanisms and explain your rationale?
We have been discussing numerous topics related to the DSE, light, time,
interference, and a host of other associated themes since this thread started,
and would appreciate your creative participation or explanations.
Regards,
LL
Hi LL, Good Elf, jal, C2, "THEY" & 2, et al,
I tried to explain the depth of the Einstein equation on another site, I hope this is very clear and you can see exactly what doors are open. E=mc^2 from my humble perspective is top of my list as the greatest theory as of today because of how much it encompasses in science.
I believe Laserlight you understand the full meaning of the equation of Einstein, kinematics is the study of motion without reference to mass or force, and it figures in a more elaborate form of Einstein's equation that—unlike plain old E = mc2, which concerns mass at rest—also takes into account mass in motion. (If you must know, it's E2 = m2c4 + p2c2, where p equals momentum.)
His bigger equation plays an enormous part in our understanding of how light works, and how energy and light can be transferred and transformed from one place to another, which is what this site is all about dealing with the experiment.
I do not want to intrude so I will stop here, hope the men & women will continue to stay true to the subject at hand. DSE.
ciao_
yquantum
I tried to explain the depth of the Einstein equation on another site, I hope this is very clear and you can see exactly what doors are open. E=mc^2 from my humble perspective is top of my list as the greatest theory as of today because of how much it encompasses in science.
I believe Laserlight you understand the full meaning of the equation of Einstein, kinematics is the study of motion without reference to mass or force, and it figures in a more elaborate form of Einstein's equation that—unlike plain old E = mc2, which concerns mass at rest—also takes into account mass in motion. (If you must know, it's E2 = m2c4 + p2c2, where p equals momentum.)
His bigger equation plays an enormous part in our understanding of how light works, and how energy and light can be transferred and transformed from one place to another, which is what this site is all about dealing with the experiment.
I do not want to intrude so I will stop here, hope the men & women will continue to stay true to the subject at hand. DSE.
ciao_
yquantum
Hi Yquantum,
I am not questioning Einstein's equation. I am asking Terry Giblin to not just
drop in and post an "obscure" reference link, without some sort of explanation.
Call it board courtesy. If you make a post, or take a position in a discussion
forum, then expect others to pose questions for you justify that position.
Just dropping in, leaving a link, and not following up with commentary is of no
real value to anyone. We welcome other perspectives that may provide clues
to the issues of the DSE. Discussion is encouraged.
There are too many that just post useless drivel on numerous forums, daily.
"Hit and run" posters are just distractions.
Regards,
LL
I am not questioning Einstein's equation. I am asking Terry Giblin to not just
drop in and post an "obscure" reference link, without some sort of explanation.
Call it board courtesy. If you make a post, or take a position in a discussion
forum, then expect others to pose questions for you justify that position.
Just dropping in, leaving a link, and not following up with commentary is of no
real value to anyone. We welcome other perspectives that may provide clues
to the issues of the DSE. Discussion is encouraged.
There are too many that just post useless drivel on numerous forums, daily.
"Hit and run" posters are just distractions.
Regards,
LL
Hi yquantum,LL, Good Elf
With regard to the DSE I find that it is as though Feyman and myself are sharing a brain (mine makes no contribution). I think this is IT .. the '42' .. we take all the paths* in free space between A and B, then take into account them what are are blocked and whatever is left is the answer.
Looking at yquantum's last post ..
In spacetime ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime ) we have s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - c^2t^2 or s^2 = r^2 - c^2t^2 . At 'c' s^2 = 0 so what determines the probability of coupling? Could it be (coincidentally?) the number (or density) of paths joining the two points in 3D ? Light from a galaxy which is (say) 10 billion light years away is simply handing over momentum across s = 0 with a probability worked out from Feynman type paths. There is no transanction to be completed (messily) because there are no incomplete transactions (except at t=0).
*Why why why de Broglie? (to the tune of ??? Delilah)
Comments (eg Rubbish!) welcome.
Best wishes -C2.
Edit .. in this scenario Maxwell's equations etc are just another way of working out the probability of coupling .. they have NO physical significance. (They're gonna hate me )
With regard to the DSE I find that it is as though Feyman and myself are sharing a brain (mine makes no contribution). I think this is IT .. the '42' .. we take all the paths* in free space between A and B, then take into account them what are are blocked and whatever is left is the answer.
Looking at yquantum's last post ..
In spacetime ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime ) we have s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - c^2t^2 or s^2 = r^2 - c^2t^2 . At 'c' s^2 = 0 so what determines the probability of coupling? Could it be (coincidentally?) the number (or density) of paths joining the two points in 3D ? Light from a galaxy which is (say) 10 billion light years away is simply handing over momentum across s = 0 with a probability worked out from Feynman type paths. There is no transanction to be completed (messily) because there are no incomplete transactions (except at t=0).
*Why why why de Broglie? (to the tune of ??? Delilah)
Comments (eg Rubbish!) welcome.
Best wishes -C2.
Edit .. in this scenario Maxwell's equations etc are just another way of working out the probability of coupling .. they have NO physical significance. (They're gonna hate me
)
QUOTE (Confused2+Jul 25 2007, 07:17 PM)
Hi yquantum,LL, Good Elf
With regard to the DSE I find that it is as though Feyman and myself are sharing a brain (mine makes no contribution). I think this is IT .. the '42' .. we take all the paths* in free space between A and B, then take into account them what are are blocked and whatever is left is the answer.
Looking at yquantum's last post ..
In spacetime ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime ) we have s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - c^2t^2 or s^2 = r^2 - c^2t^2 . At 'c' s^2 = 0 so what determines the probability of coupling? Could it be (coincidentally?) the number (or density) of paths joining the two points in 3D ? Light from a galaxy which is (say) 10 billion light years away is simply handing over momentum across s = 0 with a probability worked out from Feynman type paths. There is no transanction to be completed (messily) because there are no incomplete transactions (except at t=0).
*Why why why de Broglie? (to the tune of ??? Delilah)
Comments (eg Rubbish!) welcome.
Best wishes -C2.
Edit .. in this scenario Maxwell's equations etc are just another way of working out the probability of coupling .. they have NO physical significance. (They're gonna hate me )
Nonsense.
With regard to the DSE I find that it is as though Feyman and myself are sharing a brain (mine makes no contribution). I think this is IT .. the '42' .. we take all the paths* in free space between A and B, then take into account them what are are blocked and whatever is left is the answer.
Looking at yquantum's last post ..
In spacetime ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime ) we have s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - c^2t^2 or s^2 = r^2 - c^2t^2 . At 'c' s^2 = 0 so what determines the probability of coupling? Could it be (coincidentally?) the number (or density) of paths joining the two points in 3D ? Light from a galaxy which is (say) 10 billion light years away is simply handing over momentum across s = 0 with a probability worked out from Feynman type paths. There is no transanction to be completed (messily) because there are no incomplete transactions (except at t=0).
*Why why why de Broglie? (to the tune of ??? Delilah)
Comments (eg Rubbish!) welcome.
Best wishes -C2.
Edit .. in this scenario Maxwell's equations etc are just another way of working out the probability of coupling .. they have NO physical significance. (They're gonna hate me
) Nonsense.
My apologize for dropping in and leaving no excuse, guilty as charged.
C2,LL, Good Elf, et al,
Hope all is well with everyone?
C2, not to completely turn to gray matter mush, I side with you on what Feynman has stated about the experiment and if you have become entangle with his mind then that means that the -- Many Worlds Theroy just might be.
Until we improve our technology/intelligence -- I do not see a path clear in understanding this experiment from quantitative perspective .
We all know the text version and so no need to repeat.
But one can never leave out the experimenter, apparatus, reality just to throw in a monkey wrench --- it is all made up of electrons (e-) or is it - I think NOT.
cio_,
yquantum
C2,LL, Good Elf, et al,
Hope all is well with everyone?
C2, not to completely turn to gray matter mush, I side with you on what Feynman has stated about the experiment and if you have become entangle with his mind then that means that the -- Many Worlds Theroy just might be.
Until we improve our technology/intelligence -- I do not see a path clear in understanding this experiment from quantitative perspective .
We all know the text version and so no need to repeat.
But one can never leave out the experimenter, apparatus, reality just to throw in a monkey wrench --- it is all made up of electrons (e-) or is it - I think NOT.
cio_,
yquantum
We are like children learning about fire .. we're going to get burned many times.
QUOTE (NF+)
Nonsense
And sometimes we're just very very VERY clever children.
------------
IMO liking 'sum over paths' and disliking EM equations (or vice versa) is like arguing about which end to eat an egg from. Unless one can be shown to be better than the other then one might as well take both for the insights they give. There seems to be a general view that EM waves are 'real' whereas 'Sum over paths' isn't. If you reduce the intensity of an EM wave then are you doing anything other than reducing the probability of coupling? Because I'm only quoting Feynman from the book QED the 'sum over paths' I've used so far doesn't include spin/polarisation .. this may well affect the practice but I don't think it affects the principle .. it is already useful as it stands.
If you exclude direct coupling (as the result of a spacetime trick) then you have spacetime (not aether) full of 'waves' which apparently seek out a target and 'disappear' as though they had never been. If we are (now/later) to try to include delayed choice type experiments and/or the observer then 'waves in space' would seem to be the more flexible approach.
And sometimes we're just very very VERY clever children.
------------
IMO liking 'sum over paths' and disliking EM equations (or vice versa) is like arguing about which end to eat an egg from. Unless one can be shown to be better than the other then one might as well take both for the insights they give. There seems to be a general view that EM waves are 'real' whereas 'Sum over paths' isn't. If you reduce the intensity of an EM wave then are you doing anything other than reducing the probability of coupling? Because I'm only quoting Feynman from the book QED the 'sum over paths' I've used so far doesn't include spin/polarisation .. this may well affect the practice but I don't think it affects the principle .. it is already useful as it stands.
If you exclude direct coupling (as the result of a spacetime trick) then you have spacetime (not aether) full of 'waves' which apparently seek out a target and 'disappear' as though they had never been. If we are (now/later) to try to include delayed choice type experiments and/or the observer then 'waves in space' would seem to be the more flexible approach.
QUOTE (yquantum+)
!
As always.
Best wishes - C2.
As always.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi yquantum, Confused2, Laserlight, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, TRoc, Jal et al,
I have been having some problems thinking of what to say next. All that I can do here is to reference a couple of documents recently published in New Scientist. In particular this image of John A. Wheeler's version of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment in Jun 30th Issue of New Scientist. I realize that accessing the main article without a login is not possible but it is not very relevant to this topic so I think this actual image is still available. I would be interested to know if everyone is able to see this.
From "The flexi-laws of physics" 30 June 2007 New Scientist
... Wheeler's Original Delayed Choice Experiment (since proven to work).
Here is another description of this Gedanken Experiment from Wikipedia in the way JAW originally formulated it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's...oice_experiment
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm
So the image is an easy way to understand this concept....
The article itself is quite interesting and delves into literally choosing the Laws of the Universe that lead to "sentient beings" like us that retrospectively decide on the Laws of Physics in an extreme form of the "Goldilocks Factor" where everything in the Universe is "just right". Single photon at a time interference in the DCQE Experiment appears to be subject to "post selection"... Quite frankly I think we should have created a better Universe for ourselves if we had any choice in it.
Do others believe in "Goldilocks"??? If you do then you believe in constantly and retrospectively altering the passage of time in our past until it allows for us to exist.... Naturally this leads to The Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory as previously noted with the Cramer Quantum Transactional Interpretation. Our causal "perspective" makes us normally "blind" to our seamlessly altering our past, one quantum transaction at a time, to suit our needs but it would appear this is indeed the case. Those of you who think the DSE is just "interference" seem to me to be "whistling in the dark". Clearly much of what is happening will need to be reinterpreted if it is to be truly understood. I actually think we do have some options on how this can pan out.
For comparison this is the "final cut" of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment that actually proved Wheeler's "Conjecture"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
Cheers
I have been having some problems thinking of what to say next. All that I can do here is to reference a couple of documents recently published in New Scientist. In particular this image of John A. Wheeler's version of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment in Jun 30th Issue of New Scientist. I realize that accessing the main article without a login is not possible but it is not very relevant to this topic so I think this actual image is still available. I would be interested to know if everyone is able to see this.
From "The flexi-laws of physics" 30 June 2007 New Scientist
... Wheeler's Original Delayed Choice Experiment (since proven to work).
Here is another description of this Gedanken Experiment from Wikipedia in the way JAW originally formulated it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's...oice_experiment
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm
So the image is an easy way to understand this concept....
The article itself is quite interesting and delves into literally choosing the Laws of the Universe that lead to "sentient beings" like us that retrospectively decide on the Laws of Physics in an extreme form of the "Goldilocks Factor" where everything in the Universe is "just right". Single photon at a time interference in the DCQE Experiment appears to be subject to "post selection"... Quite frankly I think we should have created a better Universe for ourselves if we had any choice in it.
QUOTE
We can illustrate these abstract ideas from quantum physics with the help of a concrete demonstration suggested 25 years ago by Wheeler. His experiment is a variant of Thomas Young's famous 200-year-old double-slit experiment, designed to reveal the wave nature of light. A pinpoint source of light illuminates a screen punctured by a pair of parallel slits, projecting onto a second screen beyond. Light spreading out from each slit overlaps with that from the other. Where the light from both slits arrives at the image screen in phase, the waves reinforce to produce a bright band. Where they arrive out of phase, they interfere destructively, producing a dark band. The series of bright and dark bands are called interference fringes.
Mystery sets in when you turn the brightness right down. According to quantum theory, light may also be considered to consist of photons, which behave like a stream of particles. So what happens if you allow only one photon at a time to traverse the apparatus? Experiments show that although it takes a lot longer, an interference pattern does build up on the photographic screen, one photon at a time. Presumably each photon passes through only one slit, yet somehow it appears to "interfere with itself" and contribute to the pattern.
A wily experimenter might decide to place detectors at the slits to see which one each photon goes through. Nature, however, outmanoeuvres us. Whenever you determine the path of the photons, no interference pattern results. So you have a choice: look to see where the photon is heading and destroy its wavelike behaviour, or choose not to look, and allow the photon to manifest the wave aspect of its character. It essentially boils down to a choice of particle or wave. The photon can be both, but not at the same time. The experimenter gets to decide which.
So far so good. The novel twist that Wheeler added is that you can delay your decision to look at the wave or particle aspect until long after the light has passed through the slits. Using a pair of telescopes placed at the image screen, you can look back at the slits and infer which one any given photon emerged from. Do this and you destroy the interference pattern. In effect, the observation you make affects the nature of the past - specifically, whether the photon behaved as a wave or a particle. Physicists call this strange phenomenon "quantum post-selection".
There is a temptation to assume that the light "really was" either a wave or a particle in the past, but quantum physics denies this. It is simply not possible to ascribe a well-defined past to this system. Rather, your decision to make a particular observation - what Hawking meant by "the precise question asked" - determines the nature of the past. Crucially, however, the delayed-choice experiment cannot be used to change the past, or to send information back in time.
This aspect of quantum weirdness may appear startling, but it has been tested by experiments and found to be correct. In such experiments the quantum reach into the past is only a few nanoseconds, but in principle it could be extended to billions of years. And when it comes to quantum cosmology, it can penetrate right back to the big bang itself.
Mystery sets in when you turn the brightness right down. According to quantum theory, light may also be considered to consist of photons, which behave like a stream of particles. So what happens if you allow only one photon at a time to traverse the apparatus? Experiments show that although it takes a lot longer, an interference pattern does build up on the photographic screen, one photon at a time. Presumably each photon passes through only one slit, yet somehow it appears to "interfere with itself" and contribute to the pattern.
A wily experimenter might decide to place detectors at the slits to see which one each photon goes through. Nature, however, outmanoeuvres us. Whenever you determine the path of the photons, no interference pattern results. So you have a choice: look to see where the photon is heading and destroy its wavelike behaviour, or choose not to look, and allow the photon to manifest the wave aspect of its character. It essentially boils down to a choice of particle or wave. The photon can be both, but not at the same time. The experimenter gets to decide which.
So far so good. The novel twist that Wheeler added is that you can delay your decision to look at the wave or particle aspect until long after the light has passed through the slits. Using a pair of telescopes placed at the image screen, you can look back at the slits and infer which one any given photon emerged from. Do this and you destroy the interference pattern. In effect, the observation you make affects the nature of the past - specifically, whether the photon behaved as a wave or a particle. Physicists call this strange phenomenon "quantum post-selection".
There is a temptation to assume that the light "really was" either a wave or a particle in the past, but quantum physics denies this. It is simply not possible to ascribe a well-defined past to this system. Rather, your decision to make a particular observation - what Hawking meant by "the precise question asked" - determines the nature of the past. Crucially, however, the delayed-choice experiment cannot be used to change the past, or to send information back in time.
This aspect of quantum weirdness may appear startling, but it has been tested by experiments and found to be correct. In such experiments the quantum reach into the past is only a few nanoseconds, but in principle it could be extended to billions of years. And when it comes to quantum cosmology, it can penetrate right back to the big bang itself.
Do others believe in "Goldilocks"??? If you do then you believe in constantly and retrospectively altering the passage of time in our past until it allows for us to exist.... Naturally this leads to The Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory as previously noted with the Cramer Quantum Transactional Interpretation. Our causal "perspective" makes us normally "blind" to our seamlessly altering our past, one quantum transaction at a time, to suit our needs but it would appear this is indeed the case. Those of you who think the DSE is just "interference" seem to me to be "whistling in the dark". Clearly much of what is happening will need to be reinterpreted if it is to be truly understood. I actually think we do have some options on how this can pan out.
For comparison this is the "final cut" of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment that actually proved Wheeler's "Conjecture"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
Cheers
Good Elf, C2, "THEY" & 2, et al,
Good Elf, concerning the above it comes close to summing up the DSE --- old chap!
I personally believe after reading the post & I have not replied much due to work, when technology becomes available the underpinnings of this 200 year old test by Young will show definitively the e- lives in two or more realities.
Now I know that puts a spin (PUN) in that which is responsible for one's thoughts and feelings; the seat of the faculty of reason.
Hope the families are doing fine and HI "T"2 hope you had a great summer....
ciao_
yquantum
Good Elf, concerning the above it comes close to summing up the DSE --- old chap!
I personally believe after reading the post & I have not replied much due to work, when technology becomes available the underpinnings of this 200 year old test by Young will show definitively the e- lives in two or more realities.
Now I know that puts a spin (PUN) in that which is responsible for one's thoughts and feelings; the seat of the faculty of reason.
Hope the families are doing fine and HI "T"2 hope you had a great summer....
ciao_
yquantum
Hey everyone,
Maybe jumping on where the Confused2, Good Elf and yquantum are leading (or maybe not) I would like to introduce this paper… (Good Elf, if you have not yet read this paper, please have a look. I think it serves as yet another example of what you have been trying to convince us all of – though I am still not yet sold on reciprocally connected extra dimensions…)
A biphotons double slit experiment
Maybe jumping on where the Confused2, Good Elf and yquantum are leading (or maybe not) I would like to introduce this paper… (Good Elf, if you have not yet read this paper, please have a look. I think it serves as yet another example of what you have been trying to convince us all of – though I am still not yet sold on reciprocally connected extra dimensions…)
A biphotons double slit experiment
QUOTE (Abstract+)
In this paper we present a double slit experiment where two undistinguishable photons produced by type I PDC are sent each to a well defined slit. Data about the diffraction and interference patterns for coincidences are presented and discussed. An analysis of these data allows a first test of standard quantum mechanics against de Broglie-Bohm theory.
My reason for posting the link is not to dowse the flames of de Broglie-Bohm theory (which I think the experiment does regardless) but rather because the experiment deals with many of the different factors of the double slit experiments that we have discussed on this thread.
My reason for posting the link is not to dowse the flames of de Broglie-Bohm theory (which I think the experiment does regardless) but rather because the experiment deals with many of the different factors of the double slit experiments that we have discussed on this thread.
QUOTE (From the paper+)
In our experiment we have realised a rather different configuration, where two degenerate identical photons produced in PDC reach a well defined slit of a double slit at the same time. As idler and signal photons have no precise phase relation [4] and each photon crosses a well defined slit, no interference appears at single photon detection level. When the coincidence pattern is considered, path undistinguishability is established since the photodectector 1 (2) can be reached either by the photon which crossed slit A or by the one that went through slit B and vice versa. Thus, even if no second order interference is expected, a fourth order interference modulates the observed diffraction coincidence pattern.
(Emphasis added)
The part that I find curious is that the second order interference (being a result of wave coherence) and the forth order interference (being a result of entanglement of the PDC biphoton) seem to indicate a deeper level of complementarity. A single photon is converted into a biphoton through PDC and the particle aspect of either “half” can be examined while still retaining the wave aspect of the “whole”. Thoughts and comments are most welcome.
Mahalo
The part that I find curious is that the second order interference (being a result of wave coherence) and the forth order interference (being a result of entanglement of the PDC biphoton) seem to indicate a deeper level of complementarity. A single photon is converted into a biphoton through PDC and the particle aspect of either “half” can be examined while still retaining the wave aspect of the “whole”. Thoughts and comments are most welcome.
Mahalo
Hi GE, Yquantum, C2, and All,
Once the genie is out of the bottle, you cannot stuff it back in.
Once the genie is out of the bottle, you cannot stuff it back in.
Do others believe in "Goldilocks"??? If you do then you believe in constantly and retrospectively altering the passage of time in our past until it allows for us to exist.... Naturally this leads to The Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory as previously noted with the Cramer Quantum Transactional Interpretation. Our causal "perspective" makes us normally "blind" to our seamlessly altering our past, one quantum transaction at a time, to suit our needs but it would appear this is indeed the case. Those of you who think the DSE is just "interference" seem to me to be "whistling in the dark".
Time always progresses into the future. It is a change in the energy state of local
space. It does not and cannot go "backwards", but it can, and does, influence the
relative energy state of the space being affected, since it is relative to the
local present time of the observer.
Time is relative.
An observer cannot peer into the future, which has not yet occurred, but he can
observe all ongoing dynamic changes in energy patterns relative to his current
time and spatial reference, which is the present.
The DSE effect is the resultant pattern that is caused by the interference of
a coherent energy source(s) at a point in time, at a location in geometric space.
LL
Greetings,
I took a walk just to really give this some thought, I must admit I came in the way I left, like a fellow physicist who lost his legs in a terrible accident & was late for the meeting -- told his fellow researchers -- "that the electricity went out and he put his legs on backwards so every time he walked out the door HE found himself walking back in."
He had a great sense of humor, but that is another story for another day.
Laserlight,
I agree with you on your statement dealing with our "FRAME OF REFERENCE" but the though came to me that if you use a photon, then if we agree with SR -->I do, then the © is timeless.
So my question -- who is in control? The observation of ©. Now give this some thought - that is how weird I think QM is dealing with reality....
I know this is way out on the mainline fence but that has never stopped me before.
ciao_
yquantum
QUOTE
There is a temptation to assume that the light "really was" either a wave or a particle in the past, but quantum physics denies this. It is simply not possible to ascribe a well-defined past to this system. Rather, your decision to make a particular observation - what Hawking meant by "the precise question asked" - determines the nature of the past. Crucially, however, the delayed-choice experiment cannot be used to change the past, or to send information back in time.
Once the genie is out of the bottle, you cannot stuff it back in.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is a temptation to assume that the light "really was" either a wave or a particle in the past, but quantum physics denies this. It is simply not possible to ascribe a well-defined past to this system. Rather, your decision to make a particular observation - what Hawking meant by "the precise question asked" - determines the nature of the past. Crucially, however, the delayed-choice experiment cannot be used to change the past, or to send information back in time. |
Once the genie is out of the bottle, you cannot stuff it back in.
Do others believe in "Goldilocks"??? If you do then you believe in constantly and retrospectively altering the passage of time in our past until it allows for us to exist.... Naturally this leads to The Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory as previously noted with the Cramer Quantum Transactional Interpretation. Our causal "perspective" makes us normally "blind" to our seamlessly altering our past, one quantum transaction at a time, to suit our needs but it would appear this is indeed the case. Those of you who think the DSE is just "interference" seem to me to be "whistling in the dark".
Time always progresses into the future. It is a change in the energy state of local
space. It does not and cannot go "backwards", but it can, and does, influence the
relative energy state of the space being affected, since it is relative to the
local present time of the observer.
Time is relative.
An observer cannot peer into the future, which has not yet occurred, but he can
observe all ongoing dynamic changes in energy patterns relative to his current
time and spatial reference, which is the present.
The DSE effect is the resultant pattern that is caused by the interference of
a coherent energy source(s) at a point in time, at a location in geometric space.
LL
QUOTE
An observer cannot peer into the future, which has not yet occurred, but he can
observe all ongoing dynamic changes in energy patterns relative to his current
time and spatial reference, which is the present.
quoted by Laserlight observe all ongoing dynamic changes in energy patterns relative to his current
time and spatial reference, which is the present.
Greetings,
I took a walk just to really give this some thought, I must admit I came in the way I left, like a fellow physicist who lost his legs in a terrible accident & was late for the meeting -- told his fellow researchers -- "that the electricity went out and he put his legs on backwards so every time he walked out the door HE found himself walking back in."
He had a great sense of humor, but that is another story for another day.
Laserlight,
I agree with you on your statement dealing with our "FRAME OF REFERENCE" but the though came to me that if you use a photon, then if we agree with SR -->I do, then the © is timeless.
So my question -- who is in control? The observation of ©. Now give this some thought - that is how weird I think QM is dealing with reality....
I know this is way out on the mainline fence but that has never stopped me before.
ciao_
yquantum
QUOTE (yquantum+Jul 26 2007, 12:06 PM)
if you use a photon, then if we agree with SR -->I do, then the © is timeless.
So my question -- who is in control? The observation of ©.
Trying to wrap my p brane around this phrase....
Are you saying the speed of light is relevant to our brains? Or our tiny corner of the universe? Or that light experiences no time in its own frame of reference?
ps, they2 is having a great summer. I am jealous of where she is today
but I will continue to plod along working.....
So my question -- who is in control? The observation of ©.
Trying to wrap my p brane around this phrase....
Are you saying the speed of light is relevant to our brains? Or our tiny corner of the universe? Or that light experiences no time in its own frame of reference?
ps, they2 is having a great summer. I am jealous of where she is today
but I will continue to plod along working.....
QUOTE ("THEY"+Jul 26 2007, 07:36 PM)
Trying to wrap my p brane around this phrase....
Are you saying the speed of light is relevant to our brains? Or our tiny corner of the universe? Or that light experiences no time in its own frame of reference?
ps, they2 is having a great summer. I am jealous of where she is today but I will continue to plod along working.....
Glad to hear she is having a great time and I truly can relate with some of my family, my best wishes to you & "THEY2".
BTW, your not the only one and please recall this is out on the fringes. As you know we are all made up of matter => quantum particles => waves.
That is the mind twister, we know we all like to live in our reality and I must add - my family when we are all together the common statement is, back to reality like in ours --> DAD/honey.
Truth is that I have enough problem living in just the 3D but we do see the physics of ©.
"THEY", I am just riding the Einstein photon and trying to see what it might be from its - "FRAME OF REFERENCE".
Did not mean to toss out some nonsense but it was just a brain fog moment. Maybe
ciao_
yquantum
Are you saying the speed of light is relevant to our brains? Or our tiny corner of the universe? Or that light experiences no time in its own frame of reference?
ps, they2 is having a great summer. I am jealous of where she is today
but I will continue to plod along working.....Glad to hear she is having a great time and I truly can relate with some of my family, my best wishes to you & "THEY2".
BTW, your not the only one and please recall this is out on the fringes. As you know we are all made up of matter => quantum particles => waves.
That is the mind twister, we know we all like to live in our reality and I must add - my family when we are all together the common statement is, back to reality like in ours --> DAD/honey.
Truth is that I have enough problem living in just the 3D but we do see the physics of ©.
"THEY", I am just riding the Einstein photon and trying to see what it might be from its - "FRAME OF REFERENCE".
Did not mean to toss out some nonsense but it was just a brain fog moment. Maybe
ciao_
yquantum
Hi yquantum and all!
I'm looking forward to you spending some time helping out.
As far as I can figure out, everyone assumes that an emitter of a photon cannot emit a photon bigger than what it is. Also, an absorber of a photon has got to be bigger than the photon.
Until we get experimental confirmation to the contrary this can be assumed to be a FIRST PRINCIPLE.
Show me contradictory experimental evidence.
See my last post in my thread.
If you want me to consider other dimensions then show me some experimental evidence. NOT .... CONCLUSIONS! (speculation)
jal
I'm looking forward to you spending some time helping out.
As far as I can figure out, everyone assumes that an emitter of a photon cannot emit a photon bigger than what it is. Also, an absorber of a photon has got to be bigger than the photon.
Until we get experimental confirmation to the contrary this can be assumed to be a FIRST PRINCIPLE.
Show me contradictory experimental evidence.
See my last post in my thread.
If you want me to consider other dimensions then show me some experimental evidence. NOT .... CONCLUSIONS! (speculation)
jal
jal, et al,
Fair question and before we start with the FIRST PRINCIPLE let me give you some data that you can look up and find very easily.
Quantum Jump between shells/valence --> it means a quantum leap is a jump from one shell (2) to a lower shell (1), without passing through any of the points between 2 and 1.
Question: What is happening? This also has to do with © information EM.
I have noticed in the past post you use this site for information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_leap
ciao_
yquantum
Fair question and before we start with the FIRST PRINCIPLE let me give you some data that you can look up and find very easily.
Quantum Jump between shells/valence --> it means a quantum leap is a jump from one shell (2) to a lower shell (1), without passing through any of the points between 2 and 1.
Question: What is happening? This also has to do with © information EM.
I have noticed in the past post you use this site for information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_leap
ciao_
yquantum
Hi yquantum!
Nice to see your participation.
I disagree ... we must establish the first principle first.
an emitter of a photon cannot emit a photon bigger than what it is. Also, an absorber of a photon has got to be bigger than the photon.
This leads to confusion since this is a DYNAMIC PROBLEM and we do not have the refined equipment to "see". Therefore, your statement is a presumption.
What does CERN have as experimental evidence?
jal
Nice to see your participation.
I disagree ... we must establish the first principle first.
an emitter of a photon cannot emit a photon bigger than what it is. Also, an absorber of a photon has got to be bigger than the photon.
QUOTE
Quantum Jump between shells/valence --> it means a quantum leap is a jump from one shell (2) to a lower shell (1), without passing through any of the points between 2 and 1.
This leads to confusion since this is a DYNAMIC PROBLEM and we do not have the refined equipment to "see". Therefore, your statement is a presumption.
What does CERN have as experimental evidence?
jal
Greetings everyone,
jal, I confess I have never seen a photon [in the technical term] but producing one is not a problem check into Why Not? post.
So if the emitter is not the problem & the absorber is just registering the packet or quanta ©=>energy like on a screen of detectors or ping for a geiger counter.
http://www.vectorsite.net/tpqm_02_01.png
Back to the dimensions, were do you think the e- goes it still has the same mass when it jumps.
It just leaps with no information between check into it my friend it is well tested.
quantum leap or jump this has been around sense E. Schrodinger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_a...dinger_equation
1. The orbiting electrons existed in circular orbits that had discrete quantized energies. That is, not every orbit is possible but only certain specific ones.
2. The laws of classical mechanics do not apply when electrons make the jump from one allowed orbit to another.
3. When an electron makes a jump from one orbit to another the energy difference is carried off (or supplied) by a single quantum of light (called a photon) which has an energy equal to the energy difference between the two orbitals.
4. The allowed orbits depend on quantized (discrete) values of orbital angular momentum, L according to the equation. You do not see the e- leap.
It is not a dynamical problem, jal.
ciao_
yquantum
jal, I confess I have never seen a photon [in the technical term] but producing one is not a problem check into Why Not? post.
So if the emitter is not the problem & the absorber is just registering the packet or quanta ©=>energy like on a screen of detectors or ping for a geiger counter.
http://www.vectorsite.net/tpqm_02_01.png
QUOTE
an emitter of a photon cannot emit a photon bigger than what it is. Also, an absorber of a photon has got to be bigger than the photon.
I do understand what you seem to be saying on this, I THINK.Back to the dimensions, were do you think the e- goes it still has the same mass when it jumps.
It just leaps with no information between check into it my friend it is well tested.
quantum leap or jump this has been around sense E. Schrodinger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_a...dinger_equation
1. The orbiting electrons existed in circular orbits that had discrete quantized energies. That is, not every orbit is possible but only certain specific ones.
2. The laws of classical mechanics do not apply when electrons make the jump from one allowed orbit to another.
3. When an electron makes a jump from one orbit to another the energy difference is carried off (or supplied) by a single quantum of light (called a photon) which has an energy equal to the energy difference between the two orbitals.
4. The allowed orbits depend on quantized (discrete) values of orbital angular momentum, L according to the equation. You do not see the e- leap.
It is not a dynamical problem, jal.
ciao_
yquantum
Before I forget and I must get back to work, I did say in a earlier post that when our technology/creatively/intelligence improves then maybe we will better understand the DSE.
On that point I see your point but not sure that will be in my lifetime.
Not sure how I let it happen again taking us off the subject of TIME & the DSE. It was just one of my off the wall comments, now I see I should have not said anything.
ciao_
yquantum
On that point I see your point but not sure that will be in my lifetime.
Not sure how I let it happen again taking us off the subject of TIME & the DSE. It was just one of my off the wall comments, now I see I should have not said anything.
ciao_
yquantum
QUOTE (yquantum+Jul 26 2007, 05:16 PM)
now I see I should have not said anything.
ciao_
yquantum
Oh Puleeze!
I didn't have time to read this thread for a week, and I visit today to find I didn't miss much at all. Your posts just may get this thread going again!
ciao_
yquantum
Oh Puleeze!
I didn't have time to read this thread for a week, and I visit today to find I didn't miss much at all. Your posts just may get this thread going again!
Hi!
I support "THEY".
Yquantum, you instilled in me, a need to back up my statements WITH SOME VALID REFERENCES.
So.... I ask the same
FIRST PRINCIPLE IS EVERYTHING.
From another discussion, ( I don't want to paraphrase)
"Well, if we all would look at how a photon is defined in QM, we we would find out that a photon is defined as a piece of energy. QFT teaches us how photons arise if we quantise the EM field. In other words, if we adopt the QM definition of a photon, we are basically talking about a discrete amount of energy. That is all ! I don't understand where the "position" comes in. If we adopt the QFT photon definition, we know that a photon arises as a vibration of the EM field to which we can attribute particle like concepts like momentum. NOWHERE in QFT is there every anything mentioned on the spatial location of that EM-field vibration. Again i ask, why bringing in the notion of photon position ?
The closest thing you will get for a connection between photon and position will be this : the spatial coordinates in the EM waves equation. So, using the wavelike concepts of QM, one can indeed use cogerence length etc etc and connect it to spatial coordinates through its equation. But, once you start talking about photons, you are no longer in the wavelike world !"
POSITION???? ELECTRON ORBIT????
You do not see other dimensions. That is speculation.
You do see conservation of energy.
So you got to apply the rule
You do not see other dimensions. That is speculation.
You do see conservation of energy.
So you got to apply the rule
an emitter of a photon cannot emit a photon bigger than what it is. Also, an absorber of a photon has got to be bigger than the photon.
JAL
I support "THEY".
Yquantum, you instilled in me, a need to back up my statements WITH SOME VALID REFERENCES.
So.... I ask the same
FIRST PRINCIPLE IS EVERYTHING.
From another discussion, ( I don't want to paraphrase)
"Well, if we all would look at how a photon is defined in QM, we we would find out that a photon is defined as a piece of energy. QFT teaches us how photons arise if we quantise the EM field. In other words, if we adopt the QM definition of a photon, we are basically talking about a discrete amount of energy. That is all ! I don't understand where the "position" comes in. If we adopt the QFT photon definition, we know that a photon arises as a vibration of the EM field to which we can attribute particle like concepts like momentum. NOWHERE in QFT is there every anything mentioned on the spatial location of that EM-field vibration. Again i ask, why bringing in the notion of photon position ?
The closest thing you will get for a connection between photon and position will be this : the spatial coordinates in the EM waves equation. So, using the wavelike concepts of QM, one can indeed use cogerence length etc etc and connect it to spatial coordinates through its equation. But, once you start talking about photons, you are no longer in the wavelike world !"
POSITION???? ELECTRON ORBIT????
QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_a...dinger_equation
1. The orbiting electrons existed in circular orbits that had discrete quantized energies. That is, not every orbit is possible but only certain specific ones.
2. The laws of classical mechanics do not apply when electrons make the jump from one allowed orbit to another.
3. When an electron makes a jump from one orbit to another the energy difference is carried off (or supplied) by a single quantum of light (called a photon) which has an energy equal to the energy difference between the two orbitals.
4. The allowed orbits depend on quantized (discrete) values of orbital angular momentum, L according to the equation. You do not see the e- leap.
1. The orbiting electrons existed in circular orbits that had discrete quantized energies. That is, not every orbit is possible but only certain specific ones.
2. The laws of classical mechanics do not apply when electrons make the jump from one allowed orbit to another.
3. When an electron makes a jump from one orbit to another the energy difference is carried off (or supplied) by a single quantum of light (called a photon) which has an energy equal to the energy difference between the two orbitals.
4. The allowed orbits depend on quantized (discrete) values of orbital angular momentum, L according to the equation. You do not see the e- leap.
You do not see other dimensions. That is speculation.
You do see conservation of energy.
So you got to apply the rule
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_a...dinger_equation 1. The orbiting electrons existed in circular orbits that had discrete quantized energies. That is, not every orbit is possible but only certain specific ones. 2. The laws of classical mechanics do not apply when electrons make the jump from one allowed orbit to another. 3. When an electron makes a jump from one orbit to another the energy difference is carried off (or supplied) by a single quantum of light (called a photon) which has an energy equal to the energy difference between the two orbitals. 4. The allowed orbits depend on quantized (discrete) values of orbital angular momentum, L according to the equation. You do not see the e- leap. |
You do not see other dimensions. That is speculation.
You do see conservation of energy.
So you got to apply the rule
an emitter of a photon cannot emit a photon bigger than what it is. Also, an absorber of a photon has got to be bigger than the photon.
JAL
Hi Yquantum, They, Why Not, Jal, and All,
It is good to see some active participation from everyone! If it was easy, we
wouldn't still be discussing so many associated topics. Kudo's to you all.
Yquantum said:
A photon only has two frames of reference, an initiating starting time/position,
and an ending detection time/position. It is plausible that if a photon is never
detected, that it propagates forever. I agree with your statement that c is timeless,
from the perspective of the information that a photon is transporting.
If we consider that an individual wavelet (photon) has a fixed impulse duration
and represents a fixed quantity of energy, then we can imply that a photon
changes the relative time of the space thru which it travels.
From an observers immediate frame of temporal reference, energy events that
occured in the past have intersected with the present. The temporal intersection
of differential time bases at a fixed point in space provides relativity.
Time is relative to an observer, because it is an advancing reference "point" along
a moving timeline that is referenced to a fixed position in space.
All prior energy events that have occurred in 3 dimensional space are being
detected and summed at one fixed location, which provides the relative
perspective. Once detected and summed, those instantaneous timelines cease to
exist, because they become the present, from the perspective of the observer.
So, from the point of view of the observer, he is always looking into the past.
Effectively, we are advancing while looking in a rear view mirror that can
extend all the way back to the "beginning" of time.
LL
It is good to see some active participation from everyone! If it was easy, we
wouldn't still be discussing so many associated topics. Kudo's to you all.
Yquantum said:
QUOTE
I agree with you on your statement dealing with our "FRAME OF REFERENCE" but the though came to me that if you use a photon, then if we agree with SR -->I do, then the © is timeless.
So my question -- who is in control? The observation of ©. Now give this some thought - that is how weird I think QM is dealing with reality....
So my question -- who is in control? The observation of ©. Now give this some thought - that is how weird I think QM is dealing with reality....
A photon only has two frames of reference, an initiating starting time/position,
and an ending detection time/position. It is plausible that if a photon is never
detected, that it propagates forever. I agree with your statement that c is timeless,
from the perspective of the information that a photon is transporting.
If we consider that an individual wavelet (photon) has a fixed impulse duration
and represents a fixed quantity of energy, then we can imply that a photon
changes the relative time of the space thru which it travels.
From an observers immediate frame of temporal reference, energy events that
occured in the past have intersected with the present. The temporal intersection
of differential time bases at a fixed point in space provides relativity.
Time is relative to an observer, because it is an advancing reference "point" along
a moving timeline that is referenced to a fixed position in space.
All prior energy events that have occurred in 3 dimensional space are being
detected and summed at one fixed location, which provides the relative
perspective. Once detected and summed, those instantaneous timelines cease to
exist, because they become the present, from the perspective of the observer.
So, from the point of view of the observer, he is always looking into the past.
Effectively, we are advancing while looking in a rear view mirror that can
extend all the way back to the "beginning" of time.
LL
Hi Yquantum, Jal, They, WN, et all,
I am pleased that Yquantum and others are actively participating. I think that
most of us frequent posters have been banging our collective heads together and
all we have achieved is a massive headache!
Yquantum said:
This "quantum leap" process is just a displacement of "mass" that is converted
to an energy equivalent. It is the quantum displacement of mass to energy across
a fixed geometric space, over a fixed period of time. It is potential energy
evolving into kinetic energy, being coupled to space, which is at a lower energy
threshold.
A photon impulse has time duration. This means that it took some interval of
time to change its reference position between shell levels. This is not an
instantaneous event, there is time required for the event to occur, which infers
that there is a change of position in space. So, a specific change of position and
time, that simultaneously occur in "space", requires a fixed quantum of displacement energy.
This "quantum leap" process is just a displacement of "mass" that is converted
to an energy equivalent. It is the quantum displacement of mass to energy across
a fixed geometric space, over a fixed period of time. It is potential energy
evolving into kinetic energy, being coupled to space, which is at a lower energy
threshold.
A photon impulse has time duration. This means that it took some interval of
time to change its reference position between shell levels. This is not an
instantaneous event, there is time required for the event to occur, which infers
that there is a change of position in space. So, a specific change of position and
time, that simultaneously occur in "space", requires a fixed quantum of displacement energy.
Back to the dimensions, were do you think the e- goes it still has the same mass when it jumps.
It just leaps with no information between check into it my friend it is well tested.
quantum leap or jump this has been around sense E. Schrodinger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_a...dinger_equation
1. The orbiting electrons existed in circular orbits that had discrete quantized energies. That is, not every orbit is possible but only certain specific ones.
2. The laws of classical mechanics do not apply when electrons make the jump from one allowed orbit to another.
3. When an electron makes a jump from one orbit to another the energy difference is carried off (or supplied) by a single quantum of light (called a photon) which has an energy equal to the energy difference between the two orbitals.
4. The allowed orbits depend on quantized (discrete) values of orbital angular momentum, L according to the equation. You do not see the e- leap.
It is not a dynamical problem, jal.
Same mass, different energy equivalent according to its position and momentum.
I disagree with the comment about not being a dynamical problem. Cause and
effect require a dynamical response, a change of energy state or level. Without
change there is no absolute point of reference, and no energy component, from a
relative perspective.
Energy only occurs when there is a change of state in space. Time only occurs
when there is a change of state in the baseline ambient energy level of space.
You cannot have time without energy, and conversely, you cannot have
energy without time. They are just quantified differently, with different
measurables. One is a purely linear function, and the other can be linear, nonlinear, or exponential.
Time and energy are inextricably linked. They are entangled constituent
properties that change the local properties of the space thru which they propagate.
Comments welcomed.
LL
I am pleased that Yquantum and others are actively participating. I think that
most of us frequent posters have been banging our collective heads together and
all we have achieved is a massive headache!
Yquantum said:
QUOTE
Fair question and before we start with the FIRST PRINCIPLE let me give you some data that you can look up and find very easily.
Quantum Jump between shells/valence --> it means a quantum leap is a jump from one shell (2) to a lower shell (1), without passing through any of the points between 2 and 1.
Question: What is happening? This also has to do with © information EM.
Quantum Jump between shells/valence --> it means a quantum leap is a jump from one shell (2) to a lower shell (1), without passing through any of the points between 2 and 1.
Question: What is happening? This also has to do with © information EM.
This "quantum leap" process is just a displacement of "mass" that is converted
to an energy equivalent. It is the quantum displacement of mass to energy across
a fixed geometric space, over a fixed period of time. It is potential energy
evolving into kinetic energy, being coupled to space, which is at a lower energy
threshold.
A photon impulse has time duration. This means that it took some interval of
time to change its reference position between shell levels. This is not an
instantaneous event, there is time required for the event to occur, which infers
that there is a change of position in space. So, a specific change of position and
time, that simultaneously occur in "space", requires a fixed quantum of displacement energy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Fair question and before we start with the FIRST PRINCIPLE let me give you some data that you can look up and find very easily. Quantum Jump between shells/valence --> it means a quantum leap is a jump from one shell (2) to a lower shell (1), without passing through any of the points between 2 and 1. Question: What is happening? This also has to do with © information EM. |
This "quantum leap" process is just a displacement of "mass" that is converted
to an energy equivalent. It is the quantum displacement of mass to energy across
a fixed geometric space, over a fixed period of time. It is potential energy
evolving into kinetic energy, being coupled to space, which is at a lower energy
threshold.
A photon impulse has time duration. This means that it took some interval of
time to change its reference position between shell levels. This is not an
instantaneous event, there is time required for the event to occur, which infers
that there is a change of position in space. So, a specific change of position and
time, that simultaneously occur in "space", requires a fixed quantum of displacement energy.
Back to the dimensions, were do you think the e- goes it still has the same mass when it jumps.
It just leaps with no information between check into it my friend it is well tested.
quantum leap or jump this has been around sense E. Schrodinger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_a...dinger_equation
1. The orbiting electrons existed in circular orbits that had discrete quantized energies. That is, not every orbit is possible but only certain specific ones.
2. The laws of classical mechanics do not apply when electrons make the jump from one allowed orbit to another.
3. When an electron makes a jump from one orbit to another the energy difference is carried off (or supplied) by a single quantum of light (called a photon) which has an energy equal to the energy difference between the two orbitals.
4. The allowed orbits depend on quantized (discrete) values of orbital angular momentum, L according to the equation. You do not see the e- leap.
It is not a dynamical problem, jal.
Same mass, different energy equivalent according to its position and momentum.
I disagree with the comment about not being a dynamical problem. Cause and
effect require a dynamical response, a change of energy state or level. Without
change there is no absolute point of reference, and no energy component, from a
relative perspective.
Energy only occurs when there is a change of state in space. Time only occurs
when there is a change of state in the baseline ambient energy level of space.
You cannot have time without energy, and conversely, you cannot have
energy without time. They are just quantified differently, with different
measurables. One is a purely linear function, and the other can be linear, nonlinear, or exponential.
Time and energy are inextricably linked. They are entangled constituent
properties that change the local properties of the space thru which they propagate.
Comments welcomed.
LL
Hi Jal, YQ, WN, and All,
A vibration is a change of energy level in local space. This is an energetic
displacement of space.
A photon is just a noun, a description that "simplifies" all the properties that
comprise the notion of a minimum quantum of propagating energy. It is
like the noun "automobile", it doesn't describe all of the physical
characteristics of a four wheeled vehical or the dynamics that make it function.
It is a generalization of a concept.
Photon position relates to a fixed point of energy change, at a fixed point in time,
at a fixed point in "coordinate" space. It is an observational perspective.
Comments welcomed.
LL
QUOTE
"Well, if we all would look at how a photon is defined in QM, we we would find out that a photon is defined as a piece of energy. QFT teaches us how photons arise if we quantise the EM field. In other words, if we adopt the QM definition of a photon, we are basically talking about a discrete amount of energy. That is all ! I don't understand where the "position" comes in. If we adopt the QFT photon definition, we know that a photon arises as a vibration of the EM field to which we can attribute particle like concepts like momentum. NOWHERE in QFT is there every anything mentioned on the spatial location of that EM-field vibration. Again i ask, why bringing in the notion of photon position ?
The closest thing you will get for a connection between photon and position will be this : the spatial coordinates in the EM waves equation. So, using the wavelike concepts of QM, one can indeed use coherence length etc etc and connect it to spatial coordinates through its equation. But, once you start talking about photons, you are no longer in the wavelike world !"
The closest thing you will get for a connection between photon and position will be this : the spatial coordinates in the EM waves equation. So, using the wavelike concepts of QM, one can indeed use coherence length etc etc and connect it to spatial coordinates through its equation. But, once you start talking about photons, you are no longer in the wavelike world !"
A vibration is a change of energy level in local space. This is an energetic
displacement of space.
A photon is just a noun, a description that "simplifies" all the properties that
comprise the notion of a minimum quantum of propagating energy. It is
like the noun "automobile", it doesn't describe all of the physical
characteristics of a four wheeled vehical or the dynamics that make it function.
It is a generalization of a concept.
Photon position relates to a fixed point of energy change, at a fixed point in time,
at a fixed point in "coordinate" space. It is an observational perspective.
Comments welcomed.
LL
Good morning/evening to all,
Laselight I respect your opinion and that will be fine for this thread.
I cannot reply like I would like but will soon. The important issue is that you have completely missed my point and you have taken the wrong turn in the consideration I was offering.
I will not rush next time and this misunderstanding is all my doing. Besides what I offered would be unintuitive at best but this is the weirdness of QM.
Now back to work and I did not want to cause this tread to go off on a different path, I am glad the people who have replied have tried to stay the course.
caio_
yquantum
Laselight I respect your opinion and that will be fine for this thread.
I cannot reply like I would like but will soon. The important issue is that you have completely missed my point and you have taken the wrong turn in the consideration I was offering.
I will not rush next time and this misunderstanding is all my doing. Besides what I offered would be unintuitive at best but this is the weirdness of QM.
Now back to work and I did not want to cause this tread to go off on a different path, I am glad the people who have replied have tried to stay the course.
caio_
yquantum
Some of us would very much like to follow where yquantum is going .. in fairness we have to let everyone play catch up .
Jal,
Jal,
QUOTE (jal+)
an emitter of a photon cannot emit a photon bigger than what it is. Also, an absorber of a photon has got to be bigger than the photon.
I don't understand where this idea is coming from. The wavelength of light is about 600nm and the diameter of an atom is about 0.6nm or less (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius) .. so 'light' has a wavelength about a thousand times greater than the size of the thing that generates it. If we looked at the hydrogen line .. it has a wavelength of about 21cm .. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line ) and is generated by an atom of hydrogen.
Laserlight,
We have discussed may times "How many peaks do you see?" in the DSE. For most (some? any?) of us the extra peaks are evidence of the non-localisation of a single photon .. it can't be a single 'wavelet' AND give the interference peaks we see. In the Kennedy Thorndike experiment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80...dike_experiment ) the paths are made VERY different and interference still occurs (unfortunately the original paper is still pay to display). I appreciate you believe the extra peaks in the DSE can be explained by some variation on the theme of an edge effect .. this could be wrong (is that possible?) and would certainly not explain either the interference seen in the MM experiment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%...rley_experiment ) or the Kennedy-Thorndike.
Good Elf posted this on another thread ( http://home.hockaday.org/HockadayNet/acade...inelineVid.html ) .. I had time to make a cup of tea before it started .. does this fit in with your idea of 'waves in space'?
Best wishes - C2.
I don't understand where this idea is coming from. The wavelength of light is about 600nm and the diameter of an atom is about 0.6nm or less (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius) .. so 'light' has a wavelength about a thousand times greater than the size of the thing that generates it. If we looked at the hydrogen line .. it has a wavelength of about 21cm .. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line ) and is generated by an atom of hydrogen.
Laserlight,
We have discussed may times "How many peaks do you see?" in the DSE. For most (some? any?) of us the extra peaks are evidence of the non-localisation of a single photon .. it can't be a single 'wavelet' AND give the interference peaks we see. In the Kennedy Thorndike experiment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80...dike_experiment ) the paths are made VERY different and interference still occurs (unfortunately the original paper is still pay to display). I appreciate you believe the extra peaks in the DSE can be explained by some variation on the theme of an edge effect .. this could be wrong (is that possible?) and would certainly not explain either the interference seen in the MM experiment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%...rley_experiment ) or the Kennedy-Thorndike.
Good Elf posted this on another thread ( http://home.hockaday.org/HockadayNet/acade...inelineVid.html ) .. I had time to make a cup of tea before it started .. does this fit in with your idea of 'waves in space'?
Best wishes - C2.
Hi jal,
Belatedly I think I see your point. My point (now) would be that probability of interacting (coupling?) doesn't have a 'size' .. I'd appreciate an update from yquantum on that.
Best wishes - C2.
Belatedly I think I see your point. My point (now) would be that probability of interacting (coupling?) doesn't have a 'size' .. I'd appreciate an update from yquantum on that.
Best wishes - C2.
Not only delayed choice but also advanced choice...
The amount of light reflected from the surface of a sheet of class varies from about 6% to 12% depending on the thickness of the glass .. a photon 'ought not' to be able to see the other face .. but clearly it can.
( See Feynman Lecture 1? http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 or QED )
Best wishes - C2.
The amount of light reflected from the surface of a sheet of class varies from about 6% to 12% depending on the thickness of the glass .. a photon 'ought not' to be able to see the other face .. but clearly it can.
( See Feynman Lecture 1? http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 or QED )
Best wishes - C2.
Good Day All!
yquantum I'm disappointed
I will not rush next time and this misunderstanding is all my doing. Besides what I offered would be unintuitive at best but this is the weirdness of QM.
---------
Come on .... let's deal with the science first..... I have given my citations .... you do the same .....
Even the janitor at CERN should be able to access the information to falsify
an emitter of a photon cannot emit a photon bigger than what it is. Also, an absorber of a photon has got to be bigger than the photon.
Confused2
Belatedly I think I see your point. My point (now) would be that probability of interacting (coupling?) doesn't have a 'size'
------------
Good!!!
Your point is right .... probability is scale independent.
Laserlight
Photon position relates to a fixed point of energy change, at a fixed point in time,
at a fixed point in "coordinate" space. It is an observational perspective.
------------
I don't think you went off track.
It can be falsified. (This means experiments can be made to prove it right)
When we can get experiments that can falsify extra dimensions I'll listen.
I have seen magic tricks that make things appear and disappear.... that is not a proof of extra dimensions.
jal
yquantum I'm disappointed
I will not rush next time and this misunderstanding is all my doing. Besides what I offered would be unintuitive at best but this is the weirdness of QM.
---------
Come on .... let's deal with the science first..... I have given my citations .... you do the same .....
Even the janitor at CERN should be able to access the information to falsify
an emitter of a photon cannot emit a photon bigger than what it is. Also, an absorber of a photon has got to be bigger than the photon.
Confused2
Belatedly I think I see your point. My point (now) would be that probability of interacting (coupling?) doesn't have a 'size'
------------
Good!!!
Your point is right .... probability is scale independent.
Laserlight
Photon position relates to a fixed point of energy change, at a fixed point in time,
at a fixed point in "coordinate" space. It is an observational perspective.
------------
I don't think you went off track.
It can be falsified. (This means experiments can be made to prove it right)
When we can get experiments that can falsify extra dimensions I'll listen.
I have seen magic tricks that make things appear and disappear.... that is not a proof of extra dimensions.
jal
Greetings,
I did not see the question as relevant & honestly I did not understand why you asked, jal & yes a janitor could do the math (well most, not all are like the character in "Good Will Hunting". But no hard feelings on my side of the pond, I can overlook what seems important to you and for that I apologize.
You are just dealing with lambda or frequency of the wave so why the question, even if you deal with (L or distance --- the lambda/(f) will still be the same and the only difference you will ascertain on the detector is the inverse square law on the plane of (x).) What is your point.
Laserlight, We do not need to go on a tangent because this post is about DSE. Yet I must say from experience in work I do not agree but still respect your opinion on quantum leap.
Balmer's hydrogen spectrum was missing important information because the E given out by the jumping electron was so formally laid down or imposed/positive laws of QM.
Since there were only certain orbits for the electron there had to be only certain frequencies for the ©/light. The (f) of the © depended on the difference in energies of the electron involved in the quantum leap from one orbit to another.
Then Balmer's atomic light was explained. The best I can describe what is goning on is that the quantum leap is a leap from one place to another without passing in between. I know it sounds unreasonable it just cannot be described in a classical mechanical picture.
I do not have the time to get sites always and this is typed in a hurry, but just read papers or google if you like on the Balmer's atomic light and its explanation.
It is just the nature of the beast of QM.
C2, almost forgot thanks for your support,
Lasersight, I think you see the crux of why I mentioned TIME so now the thread can go as it has with only a few bumps which I have caused.
If I make another comment I will behave and deal with only the DSE, but a warning R.Feynman said it best and I will not elaborate on something that baffles understanding and cannot be explained yet.
ciao_
yquantum
QUOTE
Good Day All!
yquantum I'm disappointed
I will not rush next time and this misunderstanding is all my doing. Besides what I offered would be unintuitive at best but this is the weirdness of QM.
---------
by jalyquantum I'm disappointed
I will not rush next time and this misunderstanding is all my doing. Besides what I offered would be unintuitive at best but this is the weirdness of QM.
---------
I did not see the question as relevant & honestly I did not understand why you asked, jal & yes a janitor could do the math (well most, not all are like the character in "Good Will Hunting".
But no hard feelings on my side of the pond, I can overlook what seems important to you and for that I apologize. You are just dealing with lambda or frequency of the wave so why the question, even if you deal with (L or distance --- the lambda/(f) will still be the same and the only difference you will ascertain on the detector is the inverse square law on the plane of (x).) What is your point.
Laserlight, We do not need to go on a tangent because this post is about DSE. Yet I must say from experience in work I do not agree but still respect your opinion on quantum leap.
Balmer's hydrogen spectrum was missing important information because the E given out by the jumping electron was so formally laid down or imposed/positive laws of QM.
Since there were only certain orbits for the electron there had to be only certain frequencies for the ©/light. The (f) of the © depended on the difference in energies of the electron involved in the quantum leap from one orbit to another.
Then Balmer's atomic light was explained. The best I can describe what is goning on is that the quantum leap is a leap from one place to another without passing in between. I know it sounds unreasonable it just cannot be described in a classical mechanical picture.
I do not have the time to get sites always and this is typed in a hurry, but just read papers or google if you like on the Balmer's atomic light and its explanation.
It is just the nature of the beast of QM.
C2, almost forgot thanks for your support,
Lasersight, I think you see the crux of why I mentioned TIME so now the thread can go as it has with only a few bumps which I have caused.
If I make another comment I will behave and deal with only the DSE, but a warning R.Feynman said it best and I will not elaborate on something that baffles understanding and cannot be explained yet.
ciao_
yquantum
Hey everyone,
"Tiiiiiiimmmeee is on my side, yes it is..." (hummed to the Stones). Because Maxwell requires that we ignore the advanced solutions should be a clue... I don't want to belabor the point of my last post, but I think it is important with respect to both the DSE and to time.
For the record, Laserlight, while I have come to respect you opinion, I disagree with your assessment of time. The "one-way" direction of time that you argue is anthropomorphic. In the micro scale, absorption and emission obey conservation laws. As such, the only way to reduce energy of a system would be to expand the amount of space within which the system "resides". The arrow of time, therefore, equates to expansion of space and nothing more. As a result, if space contracts, time reverses... The event horizon of a BH becomes the time (and I can argue space as well) reciprocal of what we “see” as the observable universe. But I agree that we perpetually peer into the past. Within a limit, of course, but beyond that limit, the tables are turned.
Mahalo
"Tiiiiiiimmmeee is on my side, yes it is..." (hummed to the Stones). Because Maxwell requires that we ignore the advanced solutions should be a clue... I don't want to belabor the point of my last post, but I think it is important with respect to both the DSE and to time.
For the record, Laserlight, while I have come to respect you opinion, I disagree with your assessment of time. The "one-way" direction of time that you argue is anthropomorphic. In the micro scale, absorption and emission obey conservation laws. As such, the only way to reduce energy of a system would be to expand the amount of space within which the system "resides". The arrow of time, therefore, equates to expansion of space and nothing more. As a result, if space contracts, time reverses... The event horizon of a BH becomes the time (and I can argue space as well) reciprocal of what we “see” as the observable universe. But I agree that we perpetually peer into the past. Within a limit, of course, but beyond that limit, the tables are turned.
Mahalo
Why Not?, et al,
I did not want this to get off the DSE, but I agree with your statement - the model I presented is an oversimplified representation of reality. Such a model, as you have stated implies a completely time-reversible process, which does not go along with this thread and reality.
Generally, many possible final states will be consistent with the conditions of the model dilemma.
Why Not?, this permits us to escape the time-reversal symmetry. But if we do, all of the conceptual difficulties found in the discussion of the model are still present in the refined model.
Now, I will not cause anymore problems I hope, but I must say that I do believe down deep that TIME is a player in DSE.
caio_
yquantum
I did not want this to get off the DSE, but I agree with your statement - the model I presented is an oversimplified representation of reality. Such a model, as you have stated implies a completely time-reversible process, which does not go along with this thread and reality.
Generally, many possible final states will be consistent with the conditions of the model dilemma.
Why Not?, this permits us to escape the time-reversal symmetry. But if we do, all of the conceptual difficulties found in the discussion of the model are still present in the refined model.
Now, I will not cause anymore problems I hope, but I must say that I do believe down deep that TIME is a player in DSE.
caio_
yquantum
Hey yq, et al.
I do not think you have strayed from the DSE. Rather, you are suggesting we look at the time dimension as well. So do you think we should go here? Retarded Interaction of Radiation Field and Symmetry Violation of Time Reversal in Light’s Stimulated Radiation and Absorption Processes
Or will you do the honor of defining "TIME" for us all?
Mahalo.
I do not think you have strayed from the DSE. Rather, you are suggesting we look at the time dimension as well. So do you think we should go here? Retarded Interaction of Radiation Field and Symmetry Violation of Time Reversal in Light’s Stimulated Radiation and Absorption Processes
Or will you do the honor of defining "TIME" for us all?
Mahalo.
Why Not?, et al,
Your going to get me into 140% H20 with that question & I know I must have hit a nerve when I mentioned the possibilities with DSE.
Please remember I deal with theoretical physics dealing with well you know, and I will need to read up on the data mentioned that is recent.
Most of my close friends outside the field of physics think that one in the field has most the answers like what stock to invest in, government's, etc.. WE DO NOT!
Most physicist are very specialize in order to be productive --- but I will when time allows try and catch up with the latest but NO PROMISES, DEAL?
Best & ciao_
yquantum
My typos should have expressed the above already. EH!
Your going to get me into 140% H20 with that question & I know I must have hit a nerve when I mentioned the possibilities with DSE.
Please remember I deal with theoretical physics dealing with well you know, and I will need to read up on the data mentioned that is recent.
Most of my close friends outside the field of physics think that one in the field has most the answers like what stock to invest in, government's, etc..
WE DO NOT!Most physicist are very specialize in order to be productive --- but I will when time allows try and catch up with the latest but NO PROMISES, DEAL?
Best & ciao_
yquantum
My typos should have expressed the above already. EH!
Hi Why Not? et al,
It seems the classic textbooks of optics make no reference to quantum mechanics. The consequence of the origin of 'optics' is that many papers are (still) produced which use E/H fields and inherently deal with 'non-quantum' effects. I am not sure how productive it is to try to use EM theory to analyse an effect that does not (apparently) exist within EM theory.
I feel we should boldly go beyond EM but keep it as a reference .. QM must predict EM .. but not vice versa.
Best wishes C2.
It seems the classic textbooks of optics make no reference to quantum mechanics. The consequence of the origin of 'optics' is that many papers are (still) produced which use E/H fields and inherently deal with 'non-quantum' effects. I am not sure how productive it is to try to use EM theory to analyse an effect that does not (apparently) exist within EM theory.
I feel we should boldly go beyond EM but keep it as a reference .. QM must predict EM .. but not vice versa.
Best wishes C2.
C2, Montec, et al,
I do not want cause chaos on this thread, it was doing well by keeping within the parameters within the topic until my arrival for this I am truly sorry.
I agree with C2 we should moved to the next level of development that QM has lead us to.
I hope there will be better models in the near future that will bring us the incredible results as QM but we will have a better insight to the workings of the universe.
Now what was the question dealing with DSE?
ciao_
yquantum
I do not want cause chaos on this thread, it was doing well by keeping within the parameters within the topic until my arrival for this I am truly sorry.
I agree with C2 we should moved to the next level of development that QM has lead us to.
I hope there will be better models in the near future that will bring us the incredible results as QM but we will have a better insight to the workings of the universe.
Now what was the question dealing with DSE?
ciao_
yquantum
Hey yq, C2, et al.
NO PROMISES, DEAL?
Deal. But that does not dismiss the expectation!
C2, agreed wholeheartedly! Did you see this? A biphotons double slit experiment?
QUOTE (yquantum+)
NO PROMISES, DEAL?
Deal. But that does not dismiss the expectation!
C2, agreed wholeheartedly! Did you see this? A biphotons double slit experiment?
yquantum ..
Why Not? et al,
I looked at the biphoton DSE* ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0310/0310020v1.pdf ) and I'm unsure as to the significance you attach to it. I may well not have understood dBB correctly but to me it seems 'mostly harmless' and I would be prepared to live with it unless it can be shown to be a nuisance. Can you clarify the significance please?
Best wishes - C2.
* I was thinking of PMing you about it.
Why Not? et al,
I looked at the biphoton DSE* ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0310/0310020v1.pdf ) and I'm unsure as to the significance you attach to it. I may well not have understood dBB correctly but to me it seems 'mostly harmless' and I would be prepared to live with it unless it can be shown to be a nuisance. Can you clarify the significance please?
Best wishes - C2.
* I was thinking of PMing you about it.
Hey C2,
QUOTE (Why Not? earlier+)
The part that I find curious is that the second order interference (being a result of wave coherence) and the forth order interference (being a result of entanglement of the PDC biphoton) seem to indicate a deeper level of complementarity. A single photon is converted into a biphoton through PDC and the particle aspect of either “half” can be examined while still retaining the wave aspect of the “whole”.
Does that clear things up?
Does that clear things up?
Hey C2 and all,
Let me let the cat out of the bag... http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/Nonlocal_2007.pdf Will it work? My guess is no and my further guess is summed up in this clause for the link...
Let me let the cat out of the bag... http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/Nonlocal_2007.pdf Will it work? My guess is no and my further guess is summed up in this clause for the link...
QUOTE (from the link+)
We note that such nonlocal communication will perhaps be prevented by the complementary relation that exists between wave coherence at the slits and momentum entanglement of the downconverted photons7.
Mahalo
Mahalo
Hi All!
It's always a pleasure to involve yquantum in a discussion.
yquantum ... you are missing an opportunity of getting thousands of the brittest minds working for you. They are using first principle.
An emitter of a photon cannot emit a photon bigger than what it is. Also, an absorber of a photon has got to be bigger than the photon.
Check out work on black holes, spin network and LQG.
All you got to do is show experimental evidence that it's not true.
I made it easy, check out my summary thread.
jal
It's always a pleasure to involve yquantum in a discussion.
yquantum ... you are missing an opportunity of getting thousands of the brittest minds working for you. They are using first principle.
An emitter of a photon cannot emit a photon bigger than what it is. Also, an absorber of a photon has got to be bigger than the photon.
Check out work on black holes, spin network and LQG.
All you got to do is show experimental evidence that it's not true.
I made it easy, check out my summary thread.
jal
Hi yquantum, et al,
Once again I am going to be fried for the length of this post. I can't help that since this is a "huge" topic. All I can offer in defense is to say everyone has been here before and quietly stepped aside from it. This is no excuse for distraction... If you want omelettes you must break some eggs. If you want a sound byte then here it is... "There is no such thing as charge, all charge is a topological artifact of the propagation of light in a closed spatial geometry".
Once again I am going to be fried for the length of this post. I can't help that since this is a "huge" topic. All I can offer in defense is to say everyone has been here before and quietly stepped aside from it. This is no excuse for distraction... If you want omelettes you must break some eggs. If you want a sound byte then here it is... "There is no such thing as charge, all charge is a topological artifact of the propagation of light in a closed spatial geometry".
QUOTE (yquantum +)
Fair question and before we start with the FIRST PRINCIPLE let me give you some data that you can look up and find very easily.
Quantum Jump between shells/valence --> it means a quantum leap is a jump from one shell (2) to a lower shell (1), without passing through any of the points between 2 and 1.
Question: What is happening? This also has to do with © information EM.
Quantum Jump between shells/valence --> it means a quantum leap is a jump from one shell (2) to a lower shell (1), without passing through any of the points between 2 and 1.
Question: What is happening? This also has to do with © information EM.
This question is very important and trust yquantum to put his finger on a critical gap in understanding. Let me try and place some known data "on the table". Lets not be picky about the quantum and why things about it are "unknowable" as "axioms". Lets deal with quanta as knowable entities which can in principle be measured. Sure you can start this discussion from the opposite point of view but I can guarantee this will not provide anyone with answers since the only information quantum theory can provide is statistical information from an analysis of large numbers. Nothing wrong with statistics and the theory as far as it goes but it is unsatisfactory to discuss Physics solely in terms of its statistical properties since we want path information and we want history of single quantum events. Quantum Theory for all of it's apparent success cannot provide this. Especially since we are actually wanting to understand the "history" of single photons. There is nothing wrong that I can see with a classical analysis of this dynamic other than attempts to do this in the past have been plagued with prejudice about what is and what is not a "classical" treatment.
A classical treatment of EM Radiation is not a particle treatment. Particle treatments make assumptions that are operationally applied ad hoc and are never explained such as the "stationary states" in atoms. Let's "dispose" of one long standing prejudice... charge. Let's replace this "ancient" concept with something far more universal... de Broglie Wavelength. The reason I think this is going to work is we have amassed the data already and I need only mention the phenomenon and I can point to it's experimental verification. "Charge" cannot be independently verified since as it is already understood the motion or acceleration of "charge" will lead to radiation or inductive forces and any measurement of it will require an acceleration in the "system". There is no way to measure "charge" without this "quantum" process of probing the object to be measured with another charge to see how the probed object "moves" or "accelerates" in response. Tied into this concept inextricably is the universal notion of "mass", all "charged particles" by definition must carry mass because this is the factor that tells us how much the charge is going to accelerate.
The theory of "charges" is "self reflexive" and cannot be used to explain "charges" themselves. This theory of charges breaks with the quantum principle of "stationary states" since if charges exist then the "charged" electron particles motion will cause them to accelerate and radiate energy and therefore spiral into the nucleus. We have known this but we persist with charge and we begin to introduce "fictions" to explain away the true behavior of these particles. We know the true behavior but we resist any attempt to rationalize this process we have found with our experiments. Lets simply "forget" charge and concentrate on Einsteins Theory of Relativity and of de Broglie's Wavelength as being responsible for all phenomena in the Universe of Electrodynamics.
The de Broglie wavelength is due to relative motion of some inner process in "particles". We know that not only "particles" exhibit de Broglie Wavelength so do photons. Identical photons can interfere with each other providing there is at least one physical difference between them. If there is no physical difference between them all photons are not only "indistinguishable" but exist in the one single state... the Boson State. If two photons differ in one property that is sufficient to result in interference between the de Broglie wavelengths.
The de Broglie Wavelength is the reciprocal process of electromagnetic wavelength. A photon propagating in free space has only one "fundamental" wavelength E = hf which is actually a "packet" of internal frequencies denoting the upper sideband of a harmonic oscillator.
These can be generated in at least three ways... The first is the one we use in LASERS called spontaneous emission where they are the result of "synchronized" population inversions in collections of stationary states in excited atoms triggered by "passing" photons of the same frequency, causing a "chain reaction" through the collection producing a continuous wave of co-moving short optical wave photon radiation.
The next method is also continuous wave excitation where large numbers of photons are generated in distributed antenna elements being driven by a continuous harmonic source of RF energy (harmonically accelerated charges) supplied by a tuned tank circuit feeding the resonant antenna structure. While a single photon emission is possible (such as in quantum dots) in general the mode of attachment to the "unnatural" source of continuous energy results in discrete photons once again "swarming" to produce continuous wave radiation. Despite the method of generation the co-moving photons individually still have an energy of E = hf.
The third method of production of photons is in single atomic shell processes of apparently excited electrons transitioning to a lower levels of excitation, the excess energy being shed in a single pulse of RF energy... the photon... E = hf. The reason the energy of this process "ends" is the source of this energy ceases when it the photon is emitted. Individual atoms do not have continuous sources of internal energy and must absorb all their energy from an external source or emit it as a single burst from an internal source. These energies is strictly related by the same formula E = hf and while the absorbed photon does not need to have the same energy as the emitted photon the "packet" in transit is "indestructible" and "eternal" while in free space. This energy never leaks away and through Special Relativity never experiences time or extension in space from an internal perspective. The "truncation" of this process in time results in the "packet". It is the same kind of packet that LASERS and their atomic sources produce but differ from photons from RF Transmitters, the origin being "antennas" which have supplies of relatively unlimited energy and whose frequency can be crafted to have any frequency humans want them to have because we physically build the antennas to resonate when supplied with energy like an optical "pitchfork". The source of energy we "feed" the antenna is from a "tank circuit"... a resonator. Another source of electromagnetic radiation is Cerenkov Radiation and there are probably other forms of electromagnetic radiation as well, limited only by our imagination. For the purpose of this discussion we will look at the reasons why fixed quanta are absorbed (sinked) and emitted (sourced) from sub-atomic sources in atoms (shells).
The physics of our Universe at our scale is dominated by light at the optical and near optical frequencies. Clearly the sources of this radiation "define" the chemical properties of all the elements and all the processes of "obvious" energy interchange we see as well as the underlying reason for "Life the Universe and Everything". Read Feynman's book on QED to see this statement is basically true. There is very little in our Universe that we need to explain beyond light. There are certainly "other forces" and lets choose to temporarily "forget these" for this discussion.
What we are asking is information about a single photon and QFT will not provide specific details about that single entity and its individual behavior. Lets say the "confined" photon wave is a "particle" with a very small external radius and the spreading "photon" wave (spreading away from a source at the speed of light) is also a "particle" on the surface of a curved universe of almost infinite radius as viewed from the inside (our point of view). The main essential difference being that the smaller "particle" is being viewed from it's outside and the larger "particle" (the Universe) is viewed from the inside. This is not equivalent representations of a similar entity, these are reciprocal representations. There is also a scale factor that relates reciprocal entities.
The Universe appears to be unbounded so light spreads as if on the surface of a billiard table. Photons carry all the forces at our level of the Universe. The carrier has no rest mass. The photons are not bound and have "infinite" range. With "particles" which seem to be photons confined to "circulate" within a small radius, these internal trapped photons from our point of view reside in a Hilbert Space. They penetrate our Universe and exhibit a reciprocal property of de Broglie wavelength. Internally they apparently "propagate" in a highly curved space relative to our viewpoint.... this is a fiction because such entities are actually in a standing wave pattern when confined to a small space. Also their optical EM wavelength is reciprocally related to their de Broglie wavelength. If the "particle" was "at rest" relative to our frame of motion it's frequency should be zero and it's wavelength be infinite. This is actually what we see with static charges on the surface of a sphere of a van de Graff Generator for example. With electrons in any form of "motion" around an atom they exhibit a stationary standing wave pattern relative to any "particle" with which they have no energy exchange. The nucleus and one of the electrons must exhibit "relative motion " and thus exhibit a de Broglie wavelength such that the standing wave of the electron matches some integer number of waves of the standing wave of the nucleus. Since the nucleus is a constant in this analysis it is the electron that forms this relationship by taking up a semi-stationary wave around the nucleus in which the electron has several antinodes and an equal number of nodes. It is not "motion", this is the result of the quasi-stationary state, it is the photon within the electron expressing itself as a de Broglie standing wave. Seen from "external frames of reference" such as a laboratory, this arrangement could appear as movement but for the determination of actual radiation from "charges" the acceleration must be in relation to the nucleus and in this configuration there is no relative movement. In this way each photon "trapped" within an "electron cover" is "stationary" relative to the nucleus simply by being distributed as a standing wave. If an electron changes "shells" a different de Broglie wave will form in which a different number of nodes and antinodes will form between the nucleus and the shell's "electron". Once again it is a stationary state because it is a stationary wave as seen by the nucleus. External observers once again see the electron "moving" in orbit as if by a progressing wave. It is a standing wave not a progressing wave.
We usually express this as the nucleus and the electron are "charged" and "attract" each other and the electron by decree occupy an orbit that is an integer number of wavelengths about the nucleus. This is supposed to be a "stationary state" and while in that state does not radiate. This is not explained by quantum theory and so has left out the full explanation as to why these states exist. Actually Quantum Theory being a statistical theory cannot explain a "history" for a single photon nor infer "path". The above alternative explanation is a basis for a physical explanation for this statistical behavior.
These quantum states must be circumscribed by "zones" which prevent energy exchanges. This is derived from the simple fact that a quantum is a "stationary state", it neither gains nor loses energy. We know that no normal system of energy insulation is "perfect" but the experimentally proven behavior of quanta is that absolutely positively no energy enters or escapes from these regions of quantum energy "isolation".
The only way this could possibly occur is if there is no possible way in or out of this quantum "bubble" for energy or for anything. To me there is only one way this could possibly happen is if the space in which this process is confined has impenetrable "walls" which cannot pass any energy process whatsoever, a kind of null energy line of demarcation. The only physically known "wall" that satisfies this criteria accurately is a light cone wall in which the speed of light defines that boundary and nothing in our Universe can pass through it. To do so would exceed the speed of light and that is not permitted. any energy on one side of the wall could never get to the other side of the wall except for a process of quantum tunneling faster than light. We will ignore this process for now. It is axiomatic that light cone walls can't be seen since light cannot touch this "surface". It also must be the basic reason why electrons are trapped photons. The only reason why a photon would not escape from "within" an electron is simply because there is simply no escape at all... the electron internal spatial geometry depends on its internal space being closed to the trapped photon.
Energy is capacity to do work and light photons are the classic object that can do work. They can be used to eject electrons from metals if absorbed. They carry energy away from sources equal to E = hf. They deposit energy to sinks E = hf with no loss and no attenuation between.
This provides for two scenarios... one is where the photon is incapable of passing through a "wall" when it is penned up and confined and one in which the photon is spreading through space from source to sink. The first instance the photon resembles a de Broglie particle... even the de Broglie wave is functionally indistinguishable from an electromagnetic wave confined to "circulate" about or within a particle boundary as a standing wave where in a "gross way" the photon's energy 'circulates" around the inside the pseudo-particle linking with itself after an integer number of 2pi radians "steps". If we consider this single "shell" as a two dimensional "surface" upon which this wave progresses, the "solutions" of this surface are those of standing waves or surface harmonics. In one dimension these would be Fourier Solutions periodic on a circle and in higher dimensions these become Spherical Harmonics, periodic on the surface of spheres and hyperspheres. The "shells" may have some kind of thickness but in the case of atoms 'orbitals" are simply density variations (stresses) in the dynamic standing waves and does not describe any physical motion of the photon or of an electron. The time independent solutions involve transitions between various eigenstates such as those between one shell and another. The most critical transition is the "leap" from a "source shell" down to a lower energy "sink shell" for the electron. This is accompanied by the release of a single photon from the photon "source" out into free space to a receptive "sink".
The two quasi-stable stationary states are incapable of absorption or release of energy unless there is a change in the de Broglie wave from the initial de Broglie wave to the final de Broglie wave of the associated electron. The de Broglie wave reflects the energy of the electron plus a quanta of "light" that has been previously absorbed. The sudden change in de Broglie wavelength of the electron is an "impulse" by which the electron (or trapped photon) can shed additional energy (absorbed photon) by moving from one set of standing waves to another set of standing waves. The period of the transition is matched to the reciprocally related frequency of the emitted radiation... E = hf. The entire excess energy is emitted as a single photon packet that has characteristics of a sync function. This being the result of the time domain change between the two shell's stationary states. The behavior is equivalent to a dipole radiator (response of nucleus plus electron) emitting a single one sided photon "burst".... limited strictly by the energy between the two quantum levels. I have had several illustrations of this process. The emission of quanta is simply the truncation of this energy in time from fixed and rigidly composed basic identical radiators .... the atoms. Each atom "defined" by the basic "quanta" from which they are formed... other photons that are trapped as "particles".
I would also like to say that for "obvious" reasons the internal trapped photons of particles such as electrons are reciprocally related to the external dimensions of the particle.... This is for the reasons I have explained earlier above and shows why moving particles are "smaller" than their constituent photons and the de Broglie wavelength is reciprocally related to internal frequency and has as a limit at zero velocity and an infinite wavelength. This is because the reciprocal de Broglie wavelength is tunneling out from inside the "particle" and not "seen" from the perspective of inside the "particle".
The other "obvious" feature is the stationary state for propagating photons matches functionally the stationary state of a standing wave of a particle. The "propagating" photons are seen from "inside" a large flatspace and the stationary waves in atoms and in "certain experiments" are seen from a reciprocally related space of space and time... frequency... as seen from "outside" the "particle" space. The former are called bosons and the latter are fermions.
I have dispensed with the concept of charge in this discussion which was the initial intent. Without charge we deal with only the constituent photons which are stressors of "something" that can be "knotted" into place using the laws of CPT-Lorentz Symmetry. This knotting curves spacetime into optically closed cavities in which the knotted energy cannot pass due to the limiting effects of the velocity of light. In these "cavities" light has been confined optically by directing the internal optical geodesic into a closed path from which trapped light or photons can never escape. Charge does not hold the electrons in "orbit" around the nucleus... It is the stationary state of the electron "standing wave" in relation to the nucleus. Energy exchanges can only occur when the "electron" changes de Broglie wave states (when it transitions from one standing wave pattern - stationary state to another)... only in that "gap of time" can the "excess" photon energy be "released" through impulsive dipole radiation from within the combined electron-nucleus frame of reference to become a free "packet" carrying E = hf energy. All "movement" inferred by external observers (electron "motion" around the nucleus) is a "fiction" because of "Special Relativity" corrections not being followed through and correct accounting performed as seen from our non-inertial laboratory frame.
Now we can drop quantum postulates and replace them with a realistic theory that provides a history and a path to our individual electron and photon particles.
A classical treatment of EM Radiation is not a particle treatment. Particle treatments make assumptions that are operationally applied ad hoc and are never explained such as the "stationary states" in atoms. Let's "dispose" of one long standing prejudice... charge. Let's replace this "ancient" concept with something far more universal... de Broglie Wavelength. The reason I think this is going to work is we have amassed the data already and I need only mention the phenomenon and I can point to it's experimental verification. "Charge" cannot be independently verified since as it is already understood the motion or acceleration of "charge" will lead to radiation or inductive forces and any measurement of it will require an acceleration in the "system". There is no way to measure "charge" without this "quantum" process of probing the object to be measured with another charge to see how the probed object "moves" or "accelerates" in response. Tied into this concept inextricably is the universal notion of "mass", all "charged particles" by definition must carry mass because this is the factor that tells us how much the charge is going to accelerate.
The theory of "charges" is "self reflexive" and cannot be used to explain "charges" themselves. This theory of charges breaks with the quantum principle of "stationary states" since if charges exist then the "charged" electron particles motion will cause them to accelerate and radiate energy and therefore spiral into the nucleus. We have known this but we persist with charge and we begin to introduce "fictions" to explain away the true behavior of these particles. We know the true behavior but we resist any attempt to rationalize this process we have found with our experiments. Lets simply "forget" charge and concentrate on Einsteins Theory of Relativity and of de Broglie's Wavelength as being responsible for all phenomena in the Universe of Electrodynamics.
The de Broglie wavelength is due to relative motion of some inner process in "particles". We know that not only "particles" exhibit de Broglie Wavelength so do photons. Identical photons can interfere with each other providing there is at least one physical difference between them. If there is no physical difference between them all photons are not only "indistinguishable" but exist in the one single state... the Boson State. If two photons differ in one property that is sufficient to result in interference between the de Broglie wavelengths.
The de Broglie Wavelength is the reciprocal process of electromagnetic wavelength. A photon propagating in free space has only one "fundamental" wavelength E = hf which is actually a "packet" of internal frequencies denoting the upper sideband of a harmonic oscillator.
These can be generated in at least three ways... The first is the one we use in LASERS called spontaneous emission where they are the result of "synchronized" population inversions in collections of stationary states in excited atoms triggered by "passing" photons of the same frequency, causing a "chain reaction" through the collection producing a continuous wave of co-moving short optical wave photon radiation.
The next method is also continuous wave excitation where large numbers of photons are generated in distributed antenna elements being driven by a continuous harmonic source of RF energy (harmonically accelerated charges) supplied by a tuned tank circuit feeding the resonant antenna structure. While a single photon emission is possible (such as in quantum dots) in general the mode of attachment to the "unnatural" source of continuous energy results in discrete photons once again "swarming" to produce continuous wave radiation. Despite the method of generation the co-moving photons individually still have an energy of E = hf.
The third method of production of photons is in single atomic shell processes of apparently excited electrons transitioning to a lower levels of excitation, the excess energy being shed in a single pulse of RF energy... the photon... E = hf. The reason the energy of this process "ends" is the source of this energy ceases when it the photon is emitted. Individual atoms do not have continuous sources of internal energy and must absorb all their energy from an external source or emit it as a single burst from an internal source. These energies is strictly related by the same formula E = hf and while the absorbed photon does not need to have the same energy as the emitted photon the "packet" in transit is "indestructible" and "eternal" while in free space. This energy never leaks away and through Special Relativity never experiences time or extension in space from an internal perspective. The "truncation" of this process in time results in the "packet". It is the same kind of packet that LASERS and their atomic sources produce but differ from photons from RF Transmitters, the origin being "antennas" which have supplies of relatively unlimited energy and whose frequency can be crafted to have any frequency humans want them to have because we physically build the antennas to resonate when supplied with energy like an optical "pitchfork". The source of energy we "feed" the antenna is from a "tank circuit"... a resonator. Another source of electromagnetic radiation is Cerenkov Radiation and there are probably other forms of electromagnetic radiation as well, limited only by our imagination. For the purpose of this discussion we will look at the reasons why fixed quanta are absorbed (sinked) and emitted (sourced) from sub-atomic sources in atoms (shells).
The physics of our Universe at our scale is dominated by light at the optical and near optical frequencies. Clearly the sources of this radiation "define" the chemical properties of all the elements and all the processes of "obvious" energy interchange we see as well as the underlying reason for "Life the Universe and Everything". Read Feynman's book on QED to see this statement is basically true. There is very little in our Universe that we need to explain beyond light. There are certainly "other forces" and lets choose to temporarily "forget these" for this discussion.
What we are asking is information about a single photon and QFT will not provide specific details about that single entity and its individual behavior. Lets say the "confined" photon wave is a "particle" with a very small external radius and the spreading "photon" wave (spreading away from a source at the speed of light) is also a "particle" on the surface of a curved universe of almost infinite radius as viewed from the inside (our point of view). The main essential difference being that the smaller "particle" is being viewed from it's outside and the larger "particle" (the Universe) is viewed from the inside. This is not equivalent representations of a similar entity, these are reciprocal representations. There is also a scale factor that relates reciprocal entities.
The Universe appears to be unbounded so light spreads as if on the surface of a billiard table. Photons carry all the forces at our level of the Universe. The carrier has no rest mass. The photons are not bound and have "infinite" range. With "particles" which seem to be photons confined to "circulate" within a small radius, these internal trapped photons from our point of view reside in a Hilbert Space. They penetrate our Universe and exhibit a reciprocal property of de Broglie wavelength. Internally they apparently "propagate" in a highly curved space relative to our viewpoint.... this is a fiction because such entities are actually in a standing wave pattern when confined to a small space. Also their optical EM wavelength is reciprocally related to their de Broglie wavelength. If the "particle" was "at rest" relative to our frame of motion it's frequency should be zero and it's wavelength be infinite. This is actually what we see with static charges on the surface of a sphere of a van de Graff Generator for example. With electrons in any form of "motion" around an atom they exhibit a stationary standing wave pattern relative to any "particle" with which they have no energy exchange. The nucleus and one of the electrons must exhibit "relative motion " and thus exhibit a de Broglie wavelength such that the standing wave of the electron matches some integer number of waves of the standing wave of the nucleus. Since the nucleus is a constant in this analysis it is the electron that forms this relationship by taking up a semi-stationary wave around the nucleus in which the electron has several antinodes and an equal number of nodes. It is not "motion", this is the result of the quasi-stationary state, it is the photon within the electron expressing itself as a de Broglie standing wave. Seen from "external frames of reference" such as a laboratory, this arrangement could appear as movement but for the determination of actual radiation from "charges" the acceleration must be in relation to the nucleus and in this configuration there is no relative movement. In this way each photon "trapped" within an "electron cover" is "stationary" relative to the nucleus simply by being distributed as a standing wave. If an electron changes "shells" a different de Broglie wave will form in which a different number of nodes and antinodes will form between the nucleus and the shell's "electron". Once again it is a stationary state because it is a stationary wave as seen by the nucleus. External observers once again see the electron "moving" in orbit as if by a progressing wave. It is a standing wave not a progressing wave.
We usually express this as the nucleus and the electron are "charged" and "attract" each other and the electron by decree occupy an orbit that is an integer number of wavelengths about the nucleus. This is supposed to be a "stationary state" and while in that state does not radiate. This is not explained by quantum theory and so has left out the full explanation as to why these states exist. Actually Quantum Theory being a statistical theory cannot explain a "history" for a single photon nor infer "path". The above alternative explanation is a basis for a physical explanation for this statistical behavior.
These quantum states must be circumscribed by "zones" which prevent energy exchanges. This is derived from the simple fact that a quantum is a "stationary state", it neither gains nor loses energy. We know that no normal system of energy insulation is "perfect" but the experimentally proven behavior of quanta is that absolutely positively no energy enters or escapes from these regions of quantum energy "isolation".
The only way this could possibly occur is if there is no possible way in or out of this quantum "bubble" for energy or for anything. To me there is only one way this could possibly happen is if the space in which this process is confined has impenetrable "walls" which cannot pass any energy process whatsoever, a kind of null energy line of demarcation. The only physically known "wall" that satisfies this criteria accurately is a light cone wall in which the speed of light defines that boundary and nothing in our Universe can pass through it. To do so would exceed the speed of light and that is not permitted. any energy on one side of the wall could never get to the other side of the wall except for a process of quantum tunneling faster than light. We will ignore this process for now. It is axiomatic that light cone walls can't be seen since light cannot touch this "surface". It also must be the basic reason why electrons are trapped photons. The only reason why a photon would not escape from "within" an electron is simply because there is simply no escape at all... the electron internal spatial geometry depends on its internal space being closed to the trapped photon.
Energy is capacity to do work and light photons are the classic object that can do work. They can be used to eject electrons from metals if absorbed. They carry energy away from sources equal to E = hf. They deposit energy to sinks E = hf with no loss and no attenuation between.
This provides for two scenarios... one is where the photon is incapable of passing through a "wall" when it is penned up and confined and one in which the photon is spreading through space from source to sink. The first instance the photon resembles a de Broglie particle... even the de Broglie wave is functionally indistinguishable from an electromagnetic wave confined to "circulate" about or within a particle boundary as a standing wave where in a "gross way" the photon's energy 'circulates" around the inside the pseudo-particle linking with itself after an integer number of 2pi radians "steps". If we consider this single "shell" as a two dimensional "surface" upon which this wave progresses, the "solutions" of this surface are those of standing waves or surface harmonics. In one dimension these would be Fourier Solutions periodic on a circle and in higher dimensions these become Spherical Harmonics, periodic on the surface of spheres and hyperspheres. The "shells" may have some kind of thickness but in the case of atoms 'orbitals" are simply density variations (stresses) in the dynamic standing waves and does not describe any physical motion of the photon or of an electron. The time independent solutions involve transitions between various eigenstates such as those between one shell and another. The most critical transition is the "leap" from a "source shell" down to a lower energy "sink shell" for the electron. This is accompanied by the release of a single photon from the photon "source" out into free space to a receptive "sink".
The two quasi-stable stationary states are incapable of absorption or release of energy unless there is a change in the de Broglie wave from the initial de Broglie wave to the final de Broglie wave of the associated electron. The de Broglie wave reflects the energy of the electron plus a quanta of "light" that has been previously absorbed. The sudden change in de Broglie wavelength of the electron is an "impulse" by which the electron (or trapped photon) can shed additional energy (absorbed photon) by moving from one set of standing waves to another set of standing waves. The period of the transition is matched to the reciprocally related frequency of the emitted radiation... E = hf. The entire excess energy is emitted as a single photon packet that has characteristics of a sync function. This being the result of the time domain change between the two shell's stationary states. The behavior is equivalent to a dipole radiator (response of nucleus plus electron) emitting a single one sided photon "burst".... limited strictly by the energy between the two quantum levels. I have had several illustrations of this process. The emission of quanta is simply the truncation of this energy in time from fixed and rigidly composed basic identical radiators .... the atoms. Each atom "defined" by the basic "quanta" from which they are formed... other photons that are trapped as "particles".
I would also like to say that for "obvious" reasons the internal trapped photons of particles such as electrons are reciprocally related to the external dimensions of the particle.... This is for the reasons I have explained earlier above and shows why moving particles are "smaller" than their constituent photons and the de Broglie wavelength is reciprocally related to internal frequency and has as a limit at zero velocity and an infinite wavelength. This is because the reciprocal de Broglie wavelength is tunneling out from inside the "particle" and not "seen" from the perspective of inside the "particle".
The other "obvious" feature is the stationary state for propagating photons matches functionally the stationary state of a standing wave of a particle. The "propagating" photons are seen from "inside" a large flatspace and the stationary waves in atoms and in "certain experiments" are seen from a reciprocally related space of space and time... frequency... as seen from "outside" the "particle" space. The former are called bosons and the latter are fermions.
I have dispensed with the concept of charge in this discussion which was the initial intent. Without charge we deal with only the constituent photons which are stressors of "something" that can be "knotted" into place using the laws of CPT-Lorentz Symmetry. This knotting curves spacetime into optically closed cavities in which the knotted energy cannot pass due to the limiting effects of the velocity of light. In these "cavities" light has been confined optically by directing the internal optical geodesic into a closed path from which trapped light or photons can never escape. Charge does not hold the electrons in "orbit" around the nucleus... It is the stationary state of the electron "standing wave" in relation to the nucleus. Energy exchanges can only occur when the "electron" changes de Broglie wave states (when it transitions from one standing wave pattern - stationary state to another)... only in that "gap of time" can the "excess" photon energy be "released" through impulsive dipole radiation from within the combined electron-nucleus frame of reference to become a free "packet" carrying E = hf energy. All "movement" inferred by external observers (electron "motion" around the nucleus) is a "fiction" because of "Special Relativity" corrections not being followed through and correct accounting performed as seen from our non-inertial laboratory frame.
Now we can drop quantum postulates and replace them with a realistic theory that provides a history and a path to our individual electron and photon particles.
QUOTE (yquantum+)
I do not want cause chaos on this thread, it was doing well by keeping within the parameters within the topic until my arrival for this I am truly sorry.
Not at all.... somebody must ask these questions.... without these kind of questions what is all the speculation about and what will it actually mean. Quantum Theory has no mechanism for this process and the theory constructed a very good model without one. In the end this has shown to be only a statistical model and is internally inconsistent with the kinds of questions humans want to ask. A basis must exist for the questions to be addressed, without that basis you really can't ask any more questions. Present quantum theory can't ask the really important questions by "decree" since no theory of quantum phenomena actually exists and it is an operation theory based only on behavior. It cannot even show that it is internally consistent and it can be demonstrated that it is incomplete. All that can be said of it is that it works and is very accurate in what it does as a statistical analysis of certain problems. The assumptions limit the measurement of processes to duals as previously noted on this thread... these duals lead to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
Cheers
Cheers
Hi C2 and All,
Let's not confuse the pattern that a coherent "wavefront" makes, as compared
to the DSE pattern that is generated when single photons interfere.
Individual propagating photon wavelet packages are"isolated", and are not
coherent with other photons that came before, or after, because they are
dissociated in time and space. There is no EM field linking, or time correspondence,
between dislocated photons, and yet individual photons still manage to
generate a repeatable "impact" pattern on a PMT. It is obvious that the photons
are not solely creating the interference pattern by themselves, they are being
influenced by the physical matter and geometry of the slits.
I have expressed my contention that there is a mutual interference phenomenon
at work between the photons and the slits. The energetic EM fields that are
the photons are influencing the natural resonance characteristics of the slits. This
changing "resonance" could be described as similar to the feedback observed
when a microphone is placed in front of an amplified speaker, and follows a
repeating cyclic pattern. I have argued how this effect works at the
atomic/quantum level, in previous posts.
If you recall the "teachspin" single photon experiment, the individual photons
self interfere to generate a distributed faux Gaussian wave pattern over a
distributed time base. Early in the life of the board you even posted the single
photon bar pattern that was generated by single photons that build up a bar interference pattern over time.
These are individual photons from a common source but with very different
timestamps, and yet they follow a repeating cyclic pattern. The only thing that
they have in common, aside from their frequency, is that they are diffracted as
they pass thru the slits. SO, by deduction, the slits are root the cause of the
interference.
IMO, these experiments very much prove that an individual photon
wavelet impacts the detection screen in a very localized area. We have been
arguing for many months on how, and why, an individual photon is influenced
by the slits.
I have made the case that the EM fields of the photons are actually being
influenced/distorted by their interaction with the slit cavity surfaces, where slit
geometry and field resonance plays an integral role in the interference mechanism.
Let the arguments begin.
LL
QUOTE
Laserlight,
We have discussed may times "How many peaks do you see?" in the DSE. For most (some? any?) of us the extra peaks are evidence of the non-localisation of a single photon .. it can't be a single 'wavelet' AND give the interference peaks we see. In the Kennedy Thorndike experiment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80...dike_experiment ) the paths are made VERY different and interference still occurs (unfortunately the original paper is still pay to display). I appreciate you believe the extra peaks in the DSE can be explained by some variation on the theme of an edge effect .. this could be wrong (is that possible?) and would certainly not explain either the interference seen in the MM experiment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%...rley_experiment ) or the Kennedy-Thorndike.Good Elf posted this on another thread ( http://home.hockaday.org/HockadayNet/acade...inelineVid.html ) .. I had time to make a cup of tea before it started .. does this fit in with your idea of 'waves in space'?
We have discussed may times "How many peaks do you see?" in the DSE. For most (some? any?) of us the extra peaks are evidence of the non-localisation of a single photon .. it can't be a single 'wavelet' AND give the interference peaks we see. In the Kennedy Thorndike experiment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80...dike_experiment ) the paths are made VERY different and interference still occurs (unfortunately the original paper is still pay to display). I appreciate you believe the extra peaks in the DSE can be explained by some variation on the theme of an edge effect .. this could be wrong (is that possible?) and would certainly not explain either the interference seen in the MM experiment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%...rley_experiment ) or the Kennedy-Thorndike.Good Elf posted this on another thread ( http://home.hockaday.org/HockadayNet/acade...inelineVid.html ) .. I had time to make a cup of tea before it started .. does this fit in with your idea of 'waves in space'?
Let's not confuse the pattern that a coherent "wavefront" makes, as compared
to the DSE pattern that is generated when single photons interfere.
Individual propagating photon wavelet packages are"isolated", and are not
coherent with other photons that came before, or after, because they are
dissociated in time and space. There is no EM field linking, or time correspondence,
between dislocated photons, and yet individual photons still manage to
generate a repeatable "impact" pattern on a PMT. It is obvious that the photons
are not solely creating the interference pattern by themselves, they are being
influenced by the physical matter and geometry of the slits.
I have expressed my contention that there is a mutual interference phenomenon
at work between the photons and the slits. The energetic EM fields that are
the photons are influencing the natural resonance characteristics of the slits. This
changing "resonance" could be described as similar to the feedback observed
when a microphone is placed in front of an amplified speaker, and follows a
repeating cyclic pattern. I have argued how this effect works at the
atomic/quantum level, in previous posts.
If you recall the "teachspin" single photon experiment, the individual photons
self interfere to generate a distributed faux Gaussian wave pattern over a
distributed time base. Early in the life of the board you even posted the single
photon bar pattern that was generated by single photons that build up a bar interference pattern over time.
These are individual photons from a common source but with very different
timestamps, and yet they follow a repeating cyclic pattern. The only thing that
they have in common, aside from their frequency, is that they are diffracted as
they pass thru the slits. SO, by deduction, the slits are root the cause of the
interference.
IMO, these experiments very much prove that an individual photon
wavelet impacts the detection screen in a very localized area. We have been
arguing for many months on how, and why, an individual photon is influenced
by the slits.
I have made the case that the EM fields of the photons are actually being
influenced/distorted by their interaction with the slit cavity surfaces, where slit
geometry and field resonance plays an integral role in the interference mechanism.
Let the arguments begin.
LL
Hi C2,
I am still playing catchup...
Hmmmm, I fail to see the relevance in this line of logic. You are talking about
optical properties of matter and their influence on light. I see no conflicts here.
Light (photons) will respond at any changing boundary interface that exists
between different media. Air to glass is one boundary interface. Glass to air is
the second boundary interface. The amount of delay, or partial reflection,
represents a loss of energy to the advancing wavefront, and the intensity of the
energy that is being transferred forward is diminshed. This loss of intensity
is measured in db, and occurs when light travels thru all non-amplifying media.
This has nothing to do with advanced or delayed choice, it is a physical
characteristic of energy transport efficiency.
Comments,
LL
I am still playing catchup...
QUOTE
Not only delayed choice but also advanced choice...
The amount of light reflected from the surface of a sheet of class varies from about 6% to 12% depending on the thickness of the glass .. a photon 'ought not' to be able to see the other face .. but clearly it can.
The amount of light reflected from the surface of a sheet of class varies from about 6% to 12% depending on the thickness of the glass .. a photon 'ought not' to be able to see the other face .. but clearly it can.
Hmmmm, I fail to see the relevance in this line of logic. You are talking about
optical properties of matter and their influence on light. I see no conflicts here.
Light (photons) will respond at any changing boundary interface that exists
between different media. Air to glass is one boundary interface. Glass to air is
the second boundary interface. The amount of delay, or partial reflection,
represents a loss of energy to the advancing wavefront, and the intensity of the
energy that is being transferred forward is diminshed. This loss of intensity
is measured in db, and occurs when light travels thru all non-amplifying media.
This has nothing to do with advanced or delayed choice, it is a physical
characteristic of energy transport efficiency.
Comments,
LL
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I have made the case that the EM fields of the photons are actually being influenced/distorted by their interaction with the slit cavity surfaces, where slit
geometry and field resonance plays an integral role in the interference mechanism.
geometry and field resonance plays an integral role in the interference mechanism.
The slits are simply secondary "pinhole" sources. Reduce the problem to two "isolated" pinhole sources that are source correlated. This means that they are linked in phase. The slits, as you have put it, simply facilitate the almost plane waves which are from one correlated source to now behave as two separate correlated sources. That is the entire function of a simple double slit experiment. It is easier to do this with slits or pinholes than it is to create through technical means two absolutely "linked" or "correlated" sources at those points in space. The slit material has an effect, I do not deny that fact, but it is not pivotal in the interference phenomenon. This correlated source interference does not need slits or pinholes ... just two correlated sources which may just as well be two synchronized "distant" quantum dots.
Photon spreading (seeking all paths) allows this phenomenon to use just one source and not two. A single photon can now be shown to interfere with itself.... one photon at a time. Remember the interference is occurring in the space behind the slits not actually at the slits. In the case of two separate sources it is interfering in the total space surrounding the sources not just at the sources.
Image shows increasing size of source (top to bottom) and increasing separation (left to right) of source in two dimensions. Naturally for small "distributed" yet "correlated" sources this is a three dimensional function occupying all space. The DSE (a pinhole version) is a "special case" where there is only a single plane presented to the pinholes which are apertures into the next "space" of parent source(s).
Cheers
Photon spreading (seeking all paths) allows this phenomenon to use just one source and not two. A single photon can now be shown to interfere with itself.... one photon at a time. Remember the interference is occurring in the space behind the slits not actually at the slits. In the case of two separate sources it is interfering in the total space surrounding the sources not just at the sources.
Image shows increasing size of source (top to bottom) and increasing separation (left to right) of source in two dimensions. Naturally for small "distributed" yet "correlated" sources this is a three dimensional function occupying all space. The DSE (a pinhole version) is a "special case" where there is only a single plane presented to the pinholes which are apertures into the next "space" of parent source(s).
Cheers
Hi Jal,
I'm a bit confused by your post.
I am skeptical about extra dimensions, but then how do you reconcile static
or dynamic electric and magnetic fields in open space where there is no physical
medium or matter present?
The energy content of the space affected by the fields can be "measured", when it
influences matter, and yet nothing of "substance" exists in that space.
Energy has "etherial" qualities because it can exist where there is nothing to
support its manifestation.
Does this qualify as extra dimensional qualities? We can't see it, feel it, or
observe it until it affects something physical.
This energetcially affected space has been "warped" from its normal baseline
energetic state by the increased energy content that is "displacing" that space.
So, the characteristics of space changes when its ambient energy level is
increased or decreased. This ties in with other previous discussions regarding
theoretical concepts of the index of refraction and gravity.
I am still not convinced of various string theory "explanations" of extradimensions.
Comments?
LL
I'm a bit confused by your post.
QUOTE
Laserlight
Photon position relates to a fixed point of energy change, at a fixed point in time,
at a fixed point in "coordinate" space. It is an observational perspective.
------------
I don't think you went off track.
It can be falsified. (This means experiments can be made to prove it right)
When we can get experiments that can falsify extra dimensions I'll listen.
I have seen magic tricks that make things appear and disappear.... that is not a proof of extra dimensions.
jal
Photon position relates to a fixed point of energy change, at a fixed point in time,
at a fixed point in "coordinate" space. It is an observational perspective.
------------
I don't think you went off track.
It can be falsified. (This means experiments can be made to prove it right)
When we can get experiments that can falsify extra dimensions I'll listen.
I have seen magic tricks that make things appear and disappear.... that is not a proof of extra dimensions.
jal
I am skeptical about extra dimensions, but then how do you reconcile static
or dynamic electric and magnetic fields in open space where there is no physical
medium or matter present?
The energy content of the space affected by the fields can be "measured", when it
influences matter, and yet nothing of "substance" exists in that space.
Energy has "etherial" qualities because it can exist where there is nothing to
support its manifestation.
Does this qualify as extra dimensional qualities? We can't see it, feel it, or
observe it until it affects something physical.
This energetcially affected space has been "warped" from its normal baseline
energetic state by the increased energy content that is "displacing" that space.
So, the characteristics of space changes when its ambient energy level is
increased or decreased. This ties in with other previous discussions regarding
theoretical concepts of the index of refraction and gravity.
I am still not convinced of various string theory "explanations" of extradimensions.
Comments?
LL
Hi Yquantum,
Re: quantum leap
This idea goes against every observed natural phenomenon in the universe.
In effect, this is explained as a pure "gate" step function between levels without
any passage of time or position. On principle, I just cannot accept that
explanation, and will present an argument agains it.
I realize that quantum phenomena are not well understood, but since everything
is scaled from up from the quantum level to universal size, and the natural order
seems to follow natural laws, I see no reason to disregard them in this case. It is
just a matter of scale, and we are limited in our measurement capabilities at these
quantum levels.
Would you agree that frequency (waveform) is a function of time? (f = 1/t)
A frequency has exact time duration which can be observed on an oscilloscope
as a rising and falling sinewave voltage oscillation. It is never instantaneous,
if the sync reference time of the scope has the extended resolution necessary to
properly integrate the time vs voltage change function.
Early in the thread, I posed a gedanken conceptualization of how an electron
moves obliquely in a lateral crossection of its orbital "plane" as it vibrates between
energy levels. It takes time for a jump between levels to occur, this infers that
there is a distance and energy scaling element involved in the transition between
levels.
Remember, we are talking about changing voltage levels here....a gradient of
voltage change , that is why we can see a sinewave function on all frequencies,
there is a dynamic, oscillating voltage change between levels. It is never
instantaneous. This is necessary to provide resonance at the source and at the
detecting atom. It is the essence of energy coupling.
Energy never instantaneously "slams" at full force, even in a partical collider. The
collision event is very fast, but the encircling extended wave EM fields of physical
matter lead and buffer the actual collision event. The affected fields probably
don't phase properly to create a coupling resonance, but there must be a collision
of fields/waves prior to the collision of physical matter. There is still a time factor
involved for such collisions to occur, albeit very tiny.
Comments?
LL
Re: quantum leap
QUOTE
Then Balmer's atomic light was explained. The best I can describe what is goning on is that the quantum leap is a leap from one place to another without passing in between. I know it sounds unreasonable it just cannot be described in a classical mechanical picture.
This idea goes against every observed natural phenomenon in the universe.
In effect, this is explained as a pure "gate" step function between levels without
any passage of time or position. On principle, I just cannot accept that
explanation, and will present an argument agains it.
I realize that quantum phenomena are not well understood, but since everything
is scaled from up from the quantum level to universal size, and the natural order
seems to follow natural laws, I see no reason to disregard them in this case. It is
just a matter of scale, and we are limited in our measurement capabilities at these
quantum levels.
Would you agree that frequency (waveform) is a function of time? (f = 1/t)
A frequency has exact time duration which can be observed on an oscilloscope
as a rising and falling sinewave voltage oscillation. It is never instantaneous,
if the sync reference time of the scope has the extended resolution necessary to
properly integrate the time vs voltage change function.
Early in the thread, I posed a gedanken conceptualization of how an electron
moves obliquely in a lateral crossection of its orbital "plane" as it vibrates between
energy levels. It takes time for a jump between levels to occur, this infers that
there is a distance and energy scaling element involved in the transition between
levels.
Remember, we are talking about changing voltage levels here....a gradient of
voltage change , that is why we can see a sinewave function on all frequencies,
there is a dynamic, oscillating voltage change between levels. It is never
instantaneous. This is necessary to provide resonance at the source and at the
detecting atom. It is the essence of energy coupling.
Energy never instantaneously "slams" at full force, even in a partical collider. The
collision event is very fast, but the encircling extended wave EM fields of physical
matter lead and buffer the actual collision event. The affected fields probably
don't phase properly to create a coupling resonance, but there must be a collision
of fields/waves prior to the collision of physical matter. There is still a time factor
involved for such collisions to occur, albeit very tiny.
Comments?
LL
Yquantum,
You are not causing chaos...we have discussed most of these topics already in
the life of this thread, because they are relative (pun intented) to the
topic. We cannot simply ignore or exclude some of the more subtle influences that
are responsible for causing the DSE.
To understand the mechanism requires that we include all possible
factors that influence the effect. It is a package deal, and nothing is sacred,
and no stone shall escape unturned!
LL
QUOTE
I do not want cause chaos on this thread, it was doing well by keeping within the parameters within the topic until my arrival for this I am truly sorry.
You are not causing chaos...we have discussed most of these topics already in
the life of this thread, because they are relative (pun intented) to the
topic. We cannot simply ignore or exclude some of the more subtle influences that
are responsible for causing the DSE.
To understand the mechanism requires that we include all possible
factors that influence the effect. It is a package deal, and nothing is sacred,
and no stone shall escape unturned!
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jul 28 2007, 04:49 AM)
Hi Yquantum,
Re: quantum leap
This idea goes against every observed natural phenomenon in the universe.
In effect, this is explained as a pure "gate" step function between levels without
any passage of time or position. On principle, I just cannot accept that
explanation, and will present an argument agains it.
I realize that quantum phenomena are not well understood, but since everything
is scaled from up from the quantum level to universal size, and the natural order
seems to follow natural laws, I see no reason to disregard them in this case. It is
just a matter of scale, and we are limited in our measurement capabilities at these
quantum levels.
Would you agree that frequency (waveform) is a function of time? (f = 1/t)
A frequency has exact time duration which can be observed on an oscilloscope
as a rising and falling sinewave voltage oscillation. It is never instantaneous,
if the sync reference time of the scope has the extended resolution necessary to
properly integrate the time vs voltage change function.
Early in the thread, I posed a gedanken conceptualization of how an electron
moves obliquely in a lateral crossection of its orbital "plane" as it vibrates between
energy levels. It takes time for a jump between levels to occur, this infers that
there is a distance and energy scaling element involved in the transition between
levels.
Remember, we are talking about changing voltage levels here....a gradient of
voltage change , that is why we can see a sinewave function on all frequencies,
there is a dynamic, oscillating voltage change between levels. It is never
instantaneous. This is necessary to provide resonance at the source and at the
detecting atom. It is the essence of energy coupling.
Energy never instantaneously "slams" at full force, even in a partical collider. The
collision event is very fast, but the encircling extended wave EM fields of physical
matter lead and buffer the actual collision event. The affected fields probably
don't phase properly to create a coupling resonance, but there must be a collision
of fields/waves prior to the collision of physical matter. There is still a time factor
involved for such collisions to occur, albeit very tiny.
Comments?
LL
I agree. Somewhere in the past i read something saying that electron orbital changes were instantaneous. A book written for laypeople. It's unbelieveable
Re: quantum leap
This idea goes against every observed natural phenomenon in the universe.
In effect, this is explained as a pure "gate" step function between levels without
any passage of time or position. On principle, I just cannot accept that
explanation, and will present an argument agains it.
I realize that quantum phenomena are not well understood, but since everything
is scaled from up from the quantum level to universal size, and the natural order
seems to follow natural laws, I see no reason to disregard them in this case. It is
just a matter of scale, and we are limited in our measurement capabilities at these
quantum levels.
Would you agree that frequency (waveform) is a function of time? (f = 1/t)
A frequency has exact time duration which can be observed on an oscilloscope
as a rising and falling sinewave voltage oscillation. It is never instantaneous,
if the sync reference time of the scope has the extended resolution necessary to
properly integrate the time vs voltage change function.
Early in the thread, I posed a gedanken conceptualization of how an electron
moves obliquely in a lateral crossection of its orbital "plane" as it vibrates between
energy levels. It takes time for a jump between levels to occur, this infers that
there is a distance and energy scaling element involved in the transition between
levels.
Remember, we are talking about changing voltage levels here....a gradient of
voltage change , that is why we can see a sinewave function on all frequencies,
there is a dynamic, oscillating voltage change between levels. It is never
instantaneous. This is necessary to provide resonance at the source and at the
detecting atom. It is the essence of energy coupling.
Energy never instantaneously "slams" at full force, even in a partical collider. The
collision event is very fast, but the encircling extended wave EM fields of physical
matter lead and buffer the actual collision event. The affected fields probably
don't phase properly to create a coupling resonance, but there must be a collision
of fields/waves prior to the collision of physical matter. There is still a time factor
involved for such collisions to occur, albeit very tiny.
Comments?
LL
I agree. Somewhere in the past i read something saying that electron orbital changes were instantaneous. A book written for laypeople. It's unbelieveable
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Jul 28 2007, 05:33 AM)
I agree. Somewhere in the past i Erda something saying that electron orbital changes were instantaneous. A book written for laypeople.
It's amazing how close they are getting to visualizing electron motion around nuclei in attosecond laser experiments.
It's amazing how close they are getting to visualizing electron motion around nuclei in attosecond laser experiments.
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.