I enjoyed much of your previous but LENGTHY post, but I want to again
disagree with the oversimplification of your argument in the most recent post.
Re:
QUOTE
The slits are simply secondary "pinhole" sources.
There is nothing simple about it, or the fine details of what makes the DSE
function in toto would not still be being investigated and analyzed.
Your simplification would be similar to calling the sun a simple light source.
We cannot ignore the fine details that are responsible for the entire result.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The slits are simply secondary "pinhole" sources. |
There is nothing simple about it, or the fine details of what makes the DSE
function in toto would not still be being investigated and analyzed.
Your simplification would be similar to calling the sun a simple light source.
We cannot ignore the fine details that are responsible for the entire result.
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.
How do you reconcile that if the slits are too wide apart that the DSE effect does
not occur? This seems to indicate that indeed a photon packet has a finite
"volume" or extent, where all the energy is contained within the package envelope.
So, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that a photon will seek the path
of least "resistance" within the constraints of its volume envelope. A notion that I proposed previously. This supports the idea of wavelength and amplitude, and
field resonance.
A single photon by itself will not generate a DSE pattern. There must be an
interaction with matter for this to occur....remember the interference bands
generated by the edges of a razorblade? No dual slits there.....yet the interference
pattern is obvious.
We cannot preferentially exclude anything that influences the results of the DSE.
It is a package deal! Everything must be included. It is the sum of the
"parts", there is no one thing that causes the DSE result.
IMO, it is this disregard for including all of the required elements that has kept
this mysterious phenomenon misunderstood for so long. It would be like
trying to make a firecracker without a fuse. It just won't work if the fuse is
not included in the overall design.
Comments,
LL
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE
There is nothing simple about it, or the fine details of what makes the DSE
function in toto would not still be being investigated and analyzed.
You do not need complex extended slits to understand the DSE Phenomenon. The interference is not due to matter it is due to interference in the space beyond the slit.function in toto would not still be being investigated and analyzed.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is nothing simple about it, or the fine details of what makes the DSE function in toto would not still be being investigated and analyzed. |
You do not need complex extended slits to understand the DSE Phenomenon. The interference is not due to matter it is due to interference in the space beyond the slit.
How do you reconcile that if the slits are too wide apart that the DSE effect does not occur? This seems to indicate that indeed a photon packet has a finite "volume" or extent, where all the energy is contained within the package envelope.
How do you reconcile that if the slits are too wide apart that the DSE effect does not occur? This seems to indicate that indeed a photon packet has a finite "volume" or extent, where all the energy is contained within the package envelope.
If you force the light from a laser through one slit or pinhole then you will not get interference... simple as that. What I am saying is each photon has "spread" as a single boson state to fill the entire active space of the DSE screen. The only difference between photons is the Berry Phase and nothing more. It is all a question of "illumination from a plane source of waves in the far field. A single photon can go through the left pinhole or it can go through the right pinhole and interference can only occur if each and every photon is identical. Each photon is only interfering with itself and no other photons (at least that is the effect). In the end one photon will strike only one point on the screen.
It will never strike in a null position if it still carries a qubit and it still carries holographic information about not only the "pinhole source" but even information about the primary source. Prove it by putting a thick emulsion fine grained photographic plate where the screen should be and the information will now be recorded as "depth" and with the appropriate optical system you can even see the original sources and even the instrument walls and every other part of the instrument. You cant see this it you do not capture "depth" information as you would with just a positional photocounter you lose those standing wave patterns. If you do it "right" you will diverge the laser light into a wide source of illumination and it will cover both slits. You have seen pictures of the spatial modes you can get and these are side lobes of radiation but you can apply a spatial filter and you can use a diverging lens and another diverging lens to provide a wide field of illumination. The slits or pinholes can be widely apart and you can still have interference provided you have correctly collimated laser light.
It will never strike in a null position if it still carries a qubit and it still carries holographic information about not only the "pinhole source" but even information about the primary source. Prove it by putting a thick emulsion fine grained photographic plate where the screen should be and the information will now be recorded as "depth" and with the appropriate optical system you can even see the original sources and even the instrument walls and every other part of the instrument. You cant see this it you do not capture "depth" information as you would with just a positional photocounter you lose those standing wave patterns. If you do it "right" you will diverge the laser light into a wide source of illumination and it will cover both slits. You have seen pictures of the spatial modes you can get and these are side lobes of radiation but you can apply a spatial filter and you can use a diverging lens and another diverging lens to provide a wide field of illumination. The slits or pinholes can be widely apart and you can still have interference provided you have correctly collimated laser light.
QUOTE
A single photon by itself will not generate a DSE pattern.
A single photon is part of a complete DSE pattern and there is no path of least action, all photons that are coherent in the one wavefront result in part of the total interference pattern. Take a million photons that impact on the screen and divide them randomly into groups of 1000 photons in which the position of each on a screen is recorded and they will form a DSE. The next point to stress is ifthese photons are used to expose a holographic plate in the fashion above you will see that a lot more information is actually "compressed" onto the "flat" photodetector due to the prejudice we have as humans and the way our eyes work. "Holographic eyes" would see all the information from "all paths" that the light ever touches. The way each photon exposes the plate is very selective and will pick and choose the "depth" in the emulsion to be an "anti-node" where the photo-sensitive silver halide crystals will absorb the photons from the laser. This is Einsteins Photoelectric Effect where the actual amplitude of the standing wave also has an effect in where the plate is exposed internally as fringes in a Hologram.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A single photon by itself will not generate a DSE pattern. |
A single photon is part of a complete DSE pattern and there is no path of least action, all photons that are coherent in the one wavefront result in part of the total interference pattern. Take a million photons that impact on the screen and divide them randomly into groups of 1000 photons in which the position of each on a screen is recorded and they will form a DSE. The next point to stress is ifthese photons are used to expose a holographic plate in the fashion above you will see that a lot more information is actually "compressed" onto the "flat" photodetector due to the prejudice we have as humans and the way our eyes work. "Holographic eyes" would see all the information from "all paths" that the light ever touches. The way each photon exposes the plate is very selective and will pick and choose the "depth" in the emulsion to be an "anti-node" where the photo-sensitive silver halide crystals will absorb the photons from the laser. This is Einsteins Photoelectric Effect where the actual amplitude of the standing wave also has an effect in where the plate is exposed internally as fringes in a Hologram.
Everything must be included. It is the sum of the "parts", there is no one thing that causes the DSE result.
Everything must be included. It is the sum of the "parts", there is no one thing that causes the DSE result.
It is clear in your case that you just do not get the simplicity and you look to the slit material margins for a solution when the solution is actually in the slit space itself. A slit is the sum of "many" smaller sources placed in that slit aperture. To simplify just look at two of these "pinhole" sources (primary or secondary) and they interfere with each other in space if they are actually correlated. This is shown in the image...
The card holding the pinholes or slits simply blank off the effect due to other sources. You could just as easily place two coherent sources in the position of the pinholes and they will interfere provided they are source correlated.
Cheers
The card holding the pinholes or slits simply blank off the effect due to other sources. You could just as easily place two coherent sources in the position of the pinholes and they will interfere provided they are source correlated.
Cheers
Off topic?
A car averages 30mpg. A man drives 300 miles. How much petrol will the car burn?
LL>What is the name of the driver?
C2>The driver isn't important to the result
LL>It would be if he didn't know how to drive a car.
C2>He is called Fred, he has a valid license and he has been driving for twenty years and he is not drunk.
LL>How do we know how much petrol the car uses?
C2>We're told it is an average of 30 mpg.
LL>What if he drives very slowly?
C2>It still averages 30mpg.
LL>What if he runs out of petrol?
C2>He checks he has enough petrol before he starts.
LL>What happens if the car breaks down?
C2>He tries again another day.
LL>What if there are roadworks and he has to take a diversion?
C2>The answer is 10 gallons.
LL>I don't agree .. you have oversimplified problem.
..moving on..
LL>I don't understand this sum over paths business.
C2>Have you watched the Feynman lectures ( http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 ) or read QED?
LL>No.
C2>That would explain why you don't understand the sum over paths business.
LL>If I don't know how to apply this 'sum over paths' business to a single edge then what result do I get?
C2>The result you get is that some of us find it very difficult to make any progress.
LL>What do I need to watch the Feynman Lectures?
C2>A computer with some sort of audio output, a bottle of whiskey and a bottle of peach brandy.
LL>Why do I need the bottle of whiskey?
C2>You don't .. I give you my address and you post it to me.
LL>What will the diffraction pattern be if I watch the lectures?
C2>Exactly the same as if you don't
LL>Will it tell me what the diffraction pattern will be if I use a piece of glass with a thin gold flash subsequently etched for 10 seconds in 1M aqua regia with a pulsed laser giving 4 femtosecond pulses with a peak power of 4,000 kilowatts?
C2>This is getting a bit like the car problem isn't it?
LL>No, I've had much longer to think about this one.
ALL>How about ten non-linear crystals, nine perfect prisms, eight dichroic filters, seven little lenses, six high power lasers, five photodiodes, four entangled photons, three types of spin, two tiny slits and an observer from Alpha Centurai?
C2>... would somebody be kind enough to call the nurse?
A car averages 30mpg. A man drives 300 miles. How much petrol will the car burn?
LL>What is the name of the driver?
C2>The driver isn't important to the result
LL>It would be if he didn't know how to drive a car.
C2>He is called Fred, he has a valid license and he has been driving for twenty years and he is not drunk.
LL>How do we know how much petrol the car uses?
C2>We're told it is an average of 30 mpg.
LL>What if he drives very slowly?
C2>It still averages 30mpg.
LL>What if he runs out of petrol?
C2>He checks he has enough petrol before he starts.
LL>What happens if the car breaks down?
C2>He tries again another day.
LL>What if there are roadworks and he has to take a diversion?
C2>The answer is 10 gallons.
LL>I don't agree .. you have oversimplified problem.
..moving on..
LL>I don't understand this sum over paths business.
C2>Have you watched the Feynman lectures ( http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 ) or read QED?
LL>No.
C2>That would explain why you don't understand the sum over paths business.
LL>If I don't know how to apply this 'sum over paths' business to a single edge then what result do I get?
C2>The result you get is that some of us find it very difficult to make any progress.
LL>What do I need to watch the Feynman Lectures?
C2>A computer with some sort of audio output, a bottle of whiskey and a bottle of peach brandy.
LL>Why do I need the bottle of whiskey?
C2>You don't .. I give you my address and you post it to me.
LL>What will the diffraction pattern be if I watch the lectures?
C2>Exactly the same as if you don't
LL>Will it tell me what the diffraction pattern will be if I use a piece of glass with a thin gold flash subsequently etched for 10 seconds in 1M aqua regia with a pulsed laser giving 4 femtosecond pulses with a peak power of 4,000 kilowatts?
C2>This is getting a bit like the car problem isn't it?
LL>No, I've had much longer to think about this one.
ALL>How about ten non-linear crystals, nine perfect prisms, eight dichroic filters, seven little lenses, six high power lasers, five photodiodes, four entangled photons, three types of spin, two tiny slits and an observer from Alpha Centurai?
C2>... would somebody be kind enough to call the nurse?
Hello GE,
Hold on there partner! The slit "space" is absolutely what I have been
arguing about all along. That space has values/characteristics that are directly
influenced by its proximity to the slit material, regardless of what it is.
You cannot deny that matter and its adjoining space are intrinsically coupled
together along an interstitial/interfacial boundary. It is that mode of coupling that
changes the nature of proximity space, which is the "medium" of the slit cavities.
YOU CANNOT SEPARATE THE TWO, since they both are mutually and
energetically coupled. They touch, and in doing so represent boundary regions
with different indices of refraction to EM waves.
I find it amazing that everyone seems to accept the wave nature of the electron,
and of the photon, and the fact that each affects the other in a symbiotic
manner when resonant conditions exist. On the one hand, you accept the individual
wave natures, but on the other hand, you completely disregard that same
wave phasing phenomenon and how it is responsible for changing the nature of the
space within the slit cavities.
This surface boundary region follows is a gradient energy density curve, which
is also observed in hydraulic and wind drag turbulence studies. IMO, light waves
are also prone to this "drag" phenomenon, which causes phase delays/distortions
in the EM waves. I have proposed a mechanism for this drag/phase delay
phenomenon in prior posts.
That change in spatial characteristics, within the slit cavities, is responsible for
changing something about how light/photon's passes thru it. The
characteristics of the spatial "medium" is changed according to proximity and how
EM waves are transferred thru it. The normal wave shape/morphology is changed
upon its passage thru the slit cavities. It is an energetic response to the conditions
that exist within the cavities of the slits.
Let's get back to the issue of single photons passing, one by one, thru the slits.
They don't all follow the same track and arrive at the same position on the screen.
If there were no slits, they could be directed to hit in the same general location,
as in a laser beam without generating an interference pattern. However, when
these individual photons (wavelets) are passed thru the energetic spatial cavities
of the slits, there is a timing response that generates a deviation in path length,
and the individual photons align on the screen according to their phase, or delay
time it took to negotiate thru the slit cavities. This pattern of hits is repetitive over
time.
Why am I the only one to see this? It is so bloody obvious!
I still want to see the single photon experiment on a PMT tube to be connected
to a computer to count the hits and identify where they land in sequential order.
I guarantee that the individual photons are following a "circular"/cyclic
hit pattern on the screen. They are not hitting randomly, and this can only be
attributable to their phase relationship, photon to photon, as they traverse the
slit cavities. There is an exact predicatable, and reproducible, pattern to where
they are hitting on the screen. It is not a random sequence of events.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
It is clear in your case that you just do not get the simplicity and you look to the slit material margins for a solution when the solution is actually in the slit space itself. A slit is the sum of "many" smaller sources placed in that slit aperture. To simplify just look at two of these "pinhole" sources (primary or secondary) and they interfere with each other in space if they are actually correlated.
Hold on there partner! The slit "space" is absolutely what I have been
arguing about all along. That space has values/characteristics that are directly
influenced by its proximity to the slit material, regardless of what it is.
You cannot deny that matter and its adjoining space are intrinsically coupled
together along an interstitial/interfacial boundary. It is that mode of coupling that
changes the nature of proximity space, which is the "medium" of the slit cavities.
YOU CANNOT SEPARATE THE TWO, since they both are mutually and
energetically coupled. They touch, and in doing so represent boundary regions
with different indices of refraction to EM waves.
I find it amazing that everyone seems to accept the wave nature of the electron,
and of the photon, and the fact that each affects the other in a symbiotic
manner when resonant conditions exist. On the one hand, you accept the individual
wave natures, but on the other hand, you completely disregard that same
wave phasing phenomenon and how it is responsible for changing the nature of the
space within the slit cavities.
This surface boundary region follows is a gradient energy density curve, which
is also observed in hydraulic and wind drag turbulence studies. IMO, light waves
are also prone to this "drag" phenomenon, which causes phase delays/distortions
in the EM waves. I have proposed a mechanism for this drag/phase delay
phenomenon in prior posts.
That change in spatial characteristics, within the slit cavities, is responsible for
changing something about how light/photon's passes thru it. The
characteristics of the spatial "medium" is changed according to proximity and how
EM waves are transferred thru it. The normal wave shape/morphology is changed
upon its passage thru the slit cavities. It is an energetic response to the conditions
that exist within the cavities of the slits.
Let's get back to the issue of single photons passing, one by one, thru the slits.
They don't all follow the same track and arrive at the same position on the screen.
If there were no slits, they could be directed to hit in the same general location,
as in a laser beam without generating an interference pattern. However, when
these individual photons (wavelets) are passed thru the energetic spatial cavities
of the slits, there is a timing response that generates a deviation in path length,
and the individual photons align on the screen according to their phase, or delay
time it took to negotiate thru the slit cavities. This pattern of hits is repetitive over
time.
Why am I the only one to see this? It is so bloody obvious!
I still want to see the single photon experiment on a PMT tube to be connected
to a computer to count the hits and identify where they land in sequential order.
I guarantee that the individual photons are following a "circular"/cyclic
hit pattern on the screen. They are not hitting randomly, and this can only be
attributable to their phase relationship, photon to photon, as they traverse the
slit cavities. There is an exact predicatable, and reproducible, pattern to where
they are hitting on the screen. It is not a random sequence of events.
Comments?
LL
Duplicate post...my keyboard "Enter" key stuck.
C2
LOL
(I presume that the characters are fictionals)
GOOD ELF
I don't disagree with everything that you explain.
Your approach
(I'm finding hundreds of papers with my approach)
Laserlight
My learning curve, with it's dead ends, is in my summary.
Some of those dead ends might get revived by some "math kids" if the results of CERN lead us somewhere else.
-------------
The math approach says that the quantum world must be weird. (points .... instantaneous actions .... less than zero ... etc.)
Experiments are going to determine if the math formulas will need to be changed and as a results we will get a better understanding (including DSE) and we might even be able to make new science fiction scenarios.
-------------
See my new post on UNCERTAINTY – SPIN - CONFINEMENT.
jal
LOL (I presume that the characters are fictionals)
GOOD ELF
I don't disagree with everything that you explain.
Your approach
QUOTE
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.
is probably being studied by the "math kids" and they would be publishing. Look for their papers.(I'm finding hundreds of papers with my approach)
Laserlight
My learning curve, with it's dead ends, is in my summary.
Some of those dead ends might get revived by some "math kids" if the results of CERN lead us somewhere else.
-------------
The math approach says that the quantum world must be weird. (points .... instantaneous actions .... less than zero ... etc.)
Experiments are going to determine if the math formulas will need to be changed and as a results we will get a better understanding (including DSE) and we might even be able to make new science fiction scenarios.
-------------
See my new post on UNCERTAINTY – SPIN - CONFINEMENT.
jal
Hi C2,
Cute....NOT!
You are correct, I have not yet watched the Feynman lectures. I will do so when
time allows. If I recall correctly, it requires a "REAL Media" player, which I
don't have installed on my computer (I can't stand their video player product since
it hijacks your preferred computer video options....Wankers!)
Call me a perfectionist. I have already admitted to be anally retentive, in my own
pathological/compulsive, determined, way.
Having carried out many thousands of plasma etch and CVD direct observational
and data aquistion experiments in my former career, I am a stickler for observing
fine details, and achieving absolute control over the intricacies and nuances of the
various factors that influence the desired control response I was seeking. I was
always successful in achieving my intended objective, beyond the
capabilities of my peers, because I took the time to fully understand and
rationalize what the results of the process controls, and limitations that the
equipment, were able to provide. FWIW, I did original custom design work that
achieved superlative results that was well characterized and perfectly reproducible.
I was on the bleeding leading edge of development, at that time,
and was highly successful because I used unorthodox and innovative
methodologies, based upon understanding what my observations were telling me,
to achieve the desired result. I was always being told it can't be done, and yet
was able to routinely achieve the "impossible" because I sought solutions where no
one else had dared, or could visualize the need, to tread.
As Neil Farbstein might say, I was a technology "geek"....LOL!
That is now "ancient" history, but in the case of the DSE if you are not willing
to contemplate all the factors that combine to produce the results, you will never
understand why you continue to go in circles. It is hard to make progress when
you have one shoe nailed to the floor, but refuse to look inside your shoe to
find out why it isn't moving.
LL
Cute....NOT!
You are correct, I have not yet watched the Feynman lectures. I will do so when
time allows. If I recall correctly, it requires a "REAL Media" player, which I
don't have installed on my computer (I can't stand their video player product since
it hijacks your preferred computer video options....Wankers!)
Call me a perfectionist. I have already admitted to be anally retentive, in my own
pathological/compulsive, determined, way.
Having carried out many thousands of plasma etch and CVD direct observational
and data aquistion experiments in my former career, I am a stickler for observing
fine details, and achieving absolute control over the intricacies and nuances of the
various factors that influence the desired control response I was seeking. I was
always successful in achieving my intended objective, beyond the
capabilities of my peers, because I took the time to fully understand and
rationalize what the results of the process controls, and limitations that the
equipment, were able to provide. FWIW, I did original custom design work that
achieved superlative results that was well characterized and perfectly reproducible.
I was on the bleeding leading edge of development, at that time,
and was highly successful because I used unorthodox and innovative
methodologies, based upon understanding what my observations were telling me,
to achieve the desired result. I was always being told it can't be done, and yet
was able to routinely achieve the "impossible" because I sought solutions where no
one else had dared, or could visualize the need, to tread.
As Neil Farbstein might say, I was a technology "geek"....LOL!
That is now "ancient" history, but in the case of the DSE if you are not willing
to contemplate all the factors that combine to produce the results, you will never
understand why you continue to go in circles. It is hard to make progress when
you have one shoe nailed to the floor, but refuse to look inside your shoe to
find out why it isn't moving.
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
LL, Good Elf, NF, C2,"THEY", 2, jal, et al,
No, not really LL think of it this way maybe it will help, BTW NF not sure most laymen even care about such phenomena .
LL,
QUOTE
2 -- The electron changes energy shells by movement but the movement lags behind or precedes the absorption or emission events, respectively, of a photon.
quoted by Montec
First, for your consideration if you will in this context, quantum is referring to a very sudden, discrete change or leap. This is very much how electrons behave within an atom when they absorb or emit energy. Electrons cannot be halfway between two energy levels.
Then since we do not usually think of nature in a quantum sense, most people will benefit from some common, quantized examples -at least this is my hope- . One example is a staircase. When we ascend stairs, we can only be on a step-we cannot rest in between steps.
LL, you may argue that they can be "between" steps by having their feet on different steps, but still they are not truly between steps. Before introducing this early on in QM (1900's), we cannot explain this in the continuous classical world we live in for example it is only the model that works as of date.
I hope this establish a definition for what "being on a step" means. Once your see into the QM world & accept the model which is your choice, the arrangement of electrons within an atom can be accomplished by discrete quanta (now you know what Planck struggle with).
YET, the results that QM gives to date => is remarkable and very productive.
Hope this helps.
caio_
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
LL, Good Elf, NF, C2,"THEY", 2, jal, et al,
No, not really LL think of it this way maybe it will help, BTW NF not sure most laymen even care about such phenomena .
LL,
QUOTE
2 -- The electron changes energy shells by movement but the movement lags behind or precedes the absorption or emission events, respectively, of a photon.
quoted by Montec
First, for your consideration if you will in this context, quantum is referring to a very sudden, discrete change or leap. This is very much how electrons behave within an atom when they absorb or emit energy. Electrons cannot be halfway between two energy levels.
Then since we do not usually think of nature in a quantum sense, most people will benefit from some common, quantized examples -at least this is my hope- . One example is a staircase. When we ascend stairs, we can only be on a step-we cannot rest in between steps.
LL, you may argue that they can be "between" steps by having their feet on different steps, but still they are not truly between steps. Before introducing this early on in QM (1900's), we cannot explain this in the continuous classical world we live in for example it is only the model that works as of date.
I hope this establish a definition for what "being on a step" means. Once your see into the QM world & accept the model which is your choice, the arrangement of electrons within an atom can be accomplished by discrete quanta (now you know what Planck struggle with).
YET, the results that QM gives to date => is remarkable and very productive.
Hope this helps.
caio_
yquantum
Hi YQ,
Will you concede that in order to change between step levels that some finite
distance must be traversed. Consider them energy "plateau's". There is
a time and spatial "consequence" requirement for changing between these energy plateau's.
We simply have not quantified the delta/difference that accurately describes this
energy level transition. All that we see/measure is the plateau level because it
is a "fixed", discrete, value. In order for there to be a difference between
levels there must be some value delta, some gradient, that exists between these
level steps. If there is not a delta, then there can be no difference or summation
possible to quantify the energy level.
I do agree that we cannot "land" at some arbitrary energy point between steps,
because these are finite and "fixed" points, or operational levels (stop points) that
are determined by quantum physics.
I relate it to a "gate" in a semiconductor device, such as a transistor. There is
a gate threshold voltage that is the cutoff point for conduction across the gate.
Any voltage value applied to the gate that is below this cutoff threshold value
prevents electron migration across the gate's physical and electrical dimension.
If the threshold value is increased to the point that it allows for conduction to occur,
electrons will flow across the gate to the next higher potential step level. The
electrons do not only flow half way to the next level and stop, they must continue
fully to the next charge level. It is equivalent to a quantum leap between energy levels.
There is however a delta charge gradient that exists between possible levels.
Electrons cross this voltage/charge level gradient that exists between energy
plateau's over some time interval, it cannot be an instantaneous,
timeless, "crossing" event.
If you look at a chart plot, the transition is considered a leading or trailing edge
signal latency, which follows a time response, over distance/level, curve. To
change between states takes some integral of time.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
First, for your consideration if you will in this context, quantum is referring to a very sudden, discrete change or leap. This is very much how electrons behave within an atom when they absorb or emit energy. Electrons cannot be halfway between two energy levels.
Will you concede that in order to change between step levels that some finite
distance must be traversed. Consider them energy "plateau's". There is
a time and spatial "consequence" requirement for changing between these energy plateau's.
We simply have not quantified the delta/difference that accurately describes this
energy level transition. All that we see/measure is the plateau level because it
is a "fixed", discrete, value. In order for there to be a difference between
levels there must be some value delta, some gradient, that exists between these
level steps. If there is not a delta, then there can be no difference or summation
possible to quantify the energy level.
I do agree that we cannot "land" at some arbitrary energy point between steps,
because these are finite and "fixed" points, or operational levels (stop points) that
are determined by quantum physics.
I relate it to a "gate" in a semiconductor device, such as a transistor. There is
a gate threshold voltage that is the cutoff point for conduction across the gate.
Any voltage value applied to the gate that is below this cutoff threshold value
prevents electron migration across the gate's physical and electrical dimension.
If the threshold value is increased to the point that it allows for conduction to occur,
electrons will flow across the gate to the next higher potential step level. The
electrons do not only flow half way to the next level and stop, they must continue
fully to the next charge level. It is equivalent to a quantum leap between energy levels.
There is however a delta charge gradient that exists between possible levels.
Electrons cross this voltage/charge level gradient that exists between energy
plateau's over some time interval, it cannot be an instantaneous,
timeless, "crossing" event.
If you look at a chart plot, the transition is considered a leading or trailing edge
signal latency, which follows a time response, over distance/level, curve. To
change between states takes some integral of time.
Comments?
LL
Hi LL et al,
I'm being serious now. It is about whether the universe hums or hisses. In the mid-sixties I built an audio ampifier (it cost a fortune but it had to be done) .. when you turned the volume up it hissed. Shot noise ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise ) + thermal noise ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_noise ) .. either or both ways I grew up with some experience of hissing and spitting. I admit I (now) have great difficulty with concepts that suggest the universe hums (resonance etc) and you seem to have the same difficulty with the idea that the universe hisses and spits. I am not posting (especially) to make the point that steps and impulses are right or wrong .. just trying to make the point the hiss/hum thing is deeply ingrained in us and we may (either or both) have to overcome ideas/prejudices that run very deep within us.
Best wishes - C2.
I'm being serious now. It is about whether the universe hums or hisses. In the mid-sixties I built an audio ampifier (it cost a fortune but it had to be done) .. when you turned the volume up it hissed. Shot noise ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise ) + thermal noise ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_noise ) .. either or both ways I grew up with some experience of hissing and spitting. I admit I (now) have great difficulty with concepts that suggest the universe hums (resonance etc) and you seem to have the same difficulty with the idea that the universe hisses and spits. I am not posting (especially) to make the point that steps and impulses are right or wrong .. just trying to make the point the hiss/hum thing is deeply ingrained in us and we may (either or both) have to overcome ideas/prejudices that run very deep within us.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi C2,
Fair enough!
Where I come from, if something hisses, rattles, or spits, you are too close and
about to be bitten by something that is a nasty little beastie.
If something is "humming" it is generally the sound of precision timing and
elegant design.
Do you want a vehical that hisses and spits, or that hums? Hmmmmmmmmmm!
Signal "noise" is a cacophony of non-synchronous, random, spurious, energy
events all occuring simultaneously. Kind of like all of the instruments of an
orchestra, simultaneously playing random notes. There is no structure or
pleasing harmony. It is very unpleasant to hear. If, however, you provide
structure, balance, and timing, the result is aesthetically pleasing to the
senses.
The universe follows very uniform, natural, laws when broken down to their
constituent elemental/fundamental nature.
Nature is extremely elegant, and efficient, in how things are individually designed
at some operational level. However, if you take all possible inputs, and mix them
together without quality separation, you get signal "confusion"/noise. Basically,
uou wind up with chaos, because no natural, harmonious, discernable
"pattern" exists.
That is the one thing about nature....Everything, at its base level is elegantly
organized,efficient, and simple in design. It is the epitome of perfection, and it always
has a reciprocal counterpart that is equally, and oppositely, elegant.
It is merely a matter of perspective on how you analyze the information provided
and how you choose to utilize it. I prefer a universe that hums!
Regards,
LL
Fair enough!
Where I come from, if something hisses, rattles, or spits, you are too close and
about to be bitten by something that is a nasty little beastie.
If something is "humming" it is generally the sound of precision timing and
elegant design.
Do you want a vehical that hisses and spits, or that hums? Hmmmmmmmmmm!
Signal "noise" is a cacophony of non-synchronous, random, spurious, energy
events all occuring simultaneously. Kind of like all of the instruments of an
orchestra, simultaneously playing random notes. There is no structure or
pleasing harmony. It is very unpleasant to hear. If, however, you provide
structure, balance, and timing, the result is aesthetically pleasing to the
senses.
The universe follows very uniform, natural, laws when broken down to their
constituent elemental/fundamental nature.
Nature is extremely elegant, and efficient, in how things are individually designed
at some operational level. However, if you take all possible inputs, and mix them
together without quality separation, you get signal "confusion"/noise. Basically,
uou wind up with chaos, because no natural, harmonious, discernable
"pattern" exists.
That is the one thing about nature....Everything, at its base level is elegantly
organized,efficient, and simple in design. It is the epitome of perfection, and it always
has a reciprocal counterpart that is equally, and oppositely, elegant.
It is merely a matter of perspective on how you analyze the information provided
and how you choose to utilize it. I prefer a universe that hums!
Regards,
LL
Where is TRoc? He seems to be MIA.
LL
LL
Hi Laserlight, yquantum, Confused2, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, TRoc, Jal et al,
Thanks Jal for the kudos. I appreciate that. You may also find something here as well.
I found this on another thread - sounds good to me.
Here's the answer!!!! But don't let that get in your way!
Ah there it is! Got a PM that someone was posting my stuff on your thread.
He's right the problem has been solved - sorry guys. Some guy in Israel - I'm surprised the word hasn'gt gotten around.
Cheers
Thanks Jal for the kudos. I appreciate that. You may also find something here as well.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Hold on there partner! The slit "space" is absolutely what I have been arguing about all along. That space has values/characteristics that are directly influenced by its proximity to the slit material, regardless of what it is.
I do not disagree that slits have influences such as surface plasmons in certain materials etc. What I am trying to say is surface plasmons are not essential to describe the "most basic" double slit experiment. Interference occurs in volumetric space between coherent sources and slits or pinholes as apertures are simply cavity boundary conditions that lead to sources. The pinhole "source" has a null focal length so the Fourier Transform Plane is everywhere behind the pinhole. The DSE can be done with lenses as well as slits and this is an optical improvement. We saw that technique in the DCQE Experiment...
Taken from Ross Rhodes' exposition of the DQSE...
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm
Here is an easy description of the source interference phenomenon that would "warm the cockles of Confused2's heart".
THE INTERFERENCE OF TWO COHERENT WAVE SOURCES by William C. Lane
This uses two sound sources but it could equally apply to two synchronized microwave sources as well. The principle was used in the "Battle of the Beams" in World War II. What is shown there is "Intensity" derivations and not phase derivations. In terms of phase you can understand that at points between the sources and the screen (in the open space), where the differences in paths between r1 and r2 differ by "exactly" 1/2 a progressive "temporal" wavelength of the radiation between them we have a very small spatial cavity where the phase and amplitude of the dynamic "propagating" wave are always exactly out of phase with each other and always of equal but opposing amplitude. These will sum in that small space dynamically. The interesting thing is a large detector of size equal to a wavelength of this propagating wavelength will effectively change the dynamic of the space. A "large" detector will no longer result in phase cancellation ... paradoxically it will lead to Intensity summation through phasor variation across the sensor. You have introduced a "sink" into the free space of the pattern, this alters the overall pattern in free space. This is the same critical factor we have with EM waves propagating in free space, any sensor that actually measures this radiation at a "distributed point" absorbs the quanta there and acts as a sink. If you introduce only a test sensor that is very small relative to the progressive wavelength of the radiation, because of the mismatch, the sensor will not be able to measure the true value of the signal. With sound waves it is just possible that you can measure this small energy because it is not an EM wave but produced by the movement of material atoms... The movement of a single gaseous atom could be used to monitor the sound pressure waves. The atoms being far smaller than the wavelength of sound... we are not sampling "sound" but observing the effects of the material used as a "medium". In the EM case there is no "medium" so you are simply force to absorb a whole photon or completely miss that photon due to the sensor "mismatch". Remember we can only absorb a whole photon at a time and not part of a photon because that is the way the resonant systems 'work".
If we do not introduce that large sensor into that space the "waves" naturally sum to produce a null there... This produces a stationary spatial null at that point which is very much smaller in physical size than the other spatial variations as seen on a distant screen orthogonal to the two sources (the variations that are usually seen as the primary double slit result). Both of these variations in "Intensity" are spatial as a result of strict phasor addition. This phenomenon is only seen with "correlated" sources whose source phase are matched and we have proven that it occurs one photon at a time.
Exactly between these successive perpetual minima are perpetual maxima which are always varying between plus twice the amplitude and minus twice the amplitude. These are nodes and antinodes in free space. What is usually expressed is the "Intensity" which is always the square of the individual sources at that point and this would show "progressive" scalar waves when the two are summed. This is an analog of how Quantum Theory is working and this is just one of the reasons why it is not "conceptually" right. The answers are accurate but they are like the movements of the planets known to the ancients... the course can be very accurately known without an understanding of Newtons Laws. It is an accident of history that the Intensity of the wave is always represented as a progressive wave when the wave is stationary as a series of interference fringes at a much reduced scale. We have already seen that in the case of photons the interference is all or nothing and this "spans" the space of the coherent patterns. "Suck" just one photon out of this "empty" space between source and screen and the entire pattern of interference for that one single photon is globally removed from all free and "interfering" space simultaneously. This phenomenon does not happen for acoustic sound waves. This is because all coherent photons "spread" in a single "degenerate boson state" as I have indicated.
This is no mystery and we can easily understand Quantum Phenomena being one extremum of this phenomenon where we do not have a "finer medium" as a carrier for light (Aether) nor do we have the capacity of partial absorption of a photon (unable to take a small "sample"). In the case of sound we can sample the movement of single atoms which are much smaller than the wavelength of the sound. Not possible to do this for light. So quantum physics is now "easy" to understand and very much misunderstood as "miracle" and "magic" with all the desperate quantum postulates required to make this "Orrery" of modern science "work".
A beautiful "model" but a model none the less... No matter how good and "pretty" a model is it cannot be the basis of a true "predictive" Physics.
Cheers
Taken from Ross Rhodes' exposition of the DQSE...
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm
Here is an easy description of the source interference phenomenon that would "warm the cockles of Confused2's heart".
THE INTERFERENCE OF TWO COHERENT WAVE SOURCES by William C. Lane
This uses two sound sources but it could equally apply to two synchronized microwave sources as well. The principle was used in the "Battle of the Beams" in World War II. What is shown there is "Intensity" derivations and not phase derivations. In terms of phase you can understand that at points between the sources and the screen (in the open space), where the differences in paths between r1 and r2 differ by "exactly" 1/2 a progressive "temporal" wavelength of the radiation between them we have a very small spatial cavity where the phase and amplitude of the dynamic "propagating" wave are always exactly out of phase with each other and always of equal but opposing amplitude. These will sum in that small space dynamically. The interesting thing is a large detector of size equal to a wavelength of this propagating wavelength will effectively change the dynamic of the space. A "large" detector will no longer result in phase cancellation ... paradoxically it will lead to Intensity summation through phasor variation across the sensor. You have introduced a "sink" into the free space of the pattern, this alters the overall pattern in free space. This is the same critical factor we have with EM waves propagating in free space, any sensor that actually measures this radiation at a "distributed point" absorbs the quanta there and acts as a sink. If you introduce only a test sensor that is very small relative to the progressive wavelength of the radiation, because of the mismatch, the sensor will not be able to measure the true value of the signal. With sound waves it is just possible that you can measure this small energy because it is not an EM wave but produced by the movement of material atoms... The movement of a single gaseous atom could be used to monitor the sound pressure waves. The atoms being far smaller than the wavelength of sound... we are not sampling "sound" but observing the effects of the material used as a "medium". In the EM case there is no "medium" so you are simply force to absorb a whole photon or completely miss that photon due to the sensor "mismatch". Remember we can only absorb a whole photon at a time and not part of a photon because that is the way the resonant systems 'work".
If we do not introduce that large sensor into that space the "waves" naturally sum to produce a null there... This produces a stationary spatial null at that point which is very much smaller in physical size than the other spatial variations as seen on a distant screen orthogonal to the two sources (the variations that are usually seen as the primary double slit result). Both of these variations in "Intensity" are spatial as a result of strict phasor addition. This phenomenon is only seen with "correlated" sources whose source phase are matched and we have proven that it occurs one photon at a time.
Exactly between these successive perpetual minima are perpetual maxima which are always varying between plus twice the amplitude and minus twice the amplitude. These are nodes and antinodes in free space. What is usually expressed is the "Intensity" which is always the square of the individual sources at that point and this would show "progressive" scalar waves when the two are summed. This is an analog of how Quantum Theory is working and this is just one of the reasons why it is not "conceptually" right. The answers are accurate but they are like the movements of the planets known to the ancients... the course can be very accurately known without an understanding of Newtons Laws. It is an accident of history that the Intensity of the wave is always represented as a progressive wave when the wave is stationary as a series of interference fringes at a much reduced scale. We have already seen that in the case of photons the interference is all or nothing and this "spans" the space of the coherent patterns. "Suck" just one photon out of this "empty" space between source and screen and the entire pattern of interference for that one single photon is globally removed from all free and "interfering" space simultaneously. This phenomenon does not happen for acoustic sound waves. This is because all coherent photons "spread" in a single "degenerate boson state" as I have indicated.
This is no mystery and we can easily understand Quantum Phenomena being one extremum of this phenomenon where we do not have a "finer medium" as a carrier for light (Aether) nor do we have the capacity of partial absorption of a photon (unable to take a small "sample"). In the case of sound we can sample the movement of single atoms which are much smaller than the wavelength of the sound. Not possible to do this for light. So quantum physics is now "easy" to understand and very much misunderstood as "miracle" and "magic" with all the desperate quantum postulates required to make this "Orrery" of modern science "work".
A beautiful "model" but a model none the less... No matter how good and "pretty" a model is it cannot be the basis of a true "predictive" Physics.
Cheers
Somebody has to see?
What nonsense.
What nonsense.
Nick,
Your post is of no value. You are a chronic hit and run poster on all boards and
don't really contribute to the ongoing conversations.
4420 useless posts.
Get a life.
LL
Your post is of no value. You are a chronic hit and run poster on all boards and
don't really contribute to the ongoing conversations.
4420 useless posts.
Get a life.
LL
Hi all,
(LL)
I see that the thread has picked up again; I am following along when I can. I just don't have enough time to be of value right now. Life is "sputtering and hissing" a bit right now, keeping me very busy.
FWIW, I can see that some changes of opinion have been made, which is good. There are a few more "inconsistencies" with the ideas that need to be ironed out though, IMO. These have all been discussed thoroughly before, so, I'm not sure at what point to stop beating the dead horse?
ciao!
T.Roc
(LL)
I see that the thread has picked up again; I am following along when I can. I just don't have enough time to be of value right now. Life is "sputtering and hissing" a bit right now, keeping me very busy.
FWIW, I can see that some changes of opinion have been made, which is good. There are a few more "inconsistencies" with the ideas that need to be ironed out though, IMO. These have all been discussed thoroughly before, so, I'm not sure at what point to stop beating the dead horse?
ciao!
T.Roc
Good Elf, Laserlight, "THEY" & 2, C2, jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, Janrinze, Montec, TRoc, et al,
Please understand many will not notice it but it might just kick start (I agree with TRoc to some extent) a point that you in my humble opinion have overlooked, think out of the box -- yet keep one foot in on the laws we know of as of today!
http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phy...ures/Lect05.ppt.
BTW, please make sure you put it on a slide presentation.
I just hope you find the mathematics with experiment a means of dealing/thinking on a certain point that I hope you observe. If you do notice a subtlety then it still will be of interest and a great review -- I HOPE-- .
ciao_
yquantum
Please understand many will not notice it but it might just kick start (I agree with TRoc to some extent) a point that you in my humble opinion have overlooked, think out of the box -- yet keep one foot in on the laws we know of as of today!
http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phy...ures/Lect05.ppt.
BTW, please make sure you put it on a slide presentation.
I just hope you find the mathematics with experiment a means of dealing/thinking on a certain point that I hope you observe. If you do notice a subtlety then it still will be of interest and a great review -- I HOPE-- .
ciao_
yquantum
"THEY' this is for 2, I almost forgot please forgive me 2. 
http://www.whatthebleep.com/trailer/DSDUQT.mov
I was thinking I gave this site to her but just in case (it does not deal with math like the above www), if you allow her to read some post on this very relaxed site, then if she has not -- she can keep up with the rest & it will be fun which it always should -- this would be my desire in any subject.
Best & ciao_
yquantum
http://www.whatthebleep.com/trailer/DSDUQT.mov
I was thinking I gave this site to her but just in case (it does not deal with math like the above www), if you allow her to read some post on this very relaxed site, then if she has not -- she can keep up with the rest & it will be fun which it always should -- this would be my desire in any subject.
Best & ciao_
yquantum
Hi GE,
Ok, let's tackle this subject of single photons again.
Can you explain how individual (lone) photons are interfering in the volumetric
space between the slits and the screen, when there is nothing in that space
with which to interfere? A photon has duality, depending upon when, and how, it is
observed to interact with its environment, a topic I will discuss a bit later.
If a single photon has a specific energy of E = hf, and cannot be decomposed
to any lower energy value, then I propose that it cannot spread beyond the
bounds of it's package waveform "envelope", because to do so would violate
the quantum energy equation. There can be no partial energy component, since
the quantum energy must sustain the idea of minimal "confinement" within the
envelope of the waveform. A discrete photon's waveform is the minimal energy state
according to E=hf.
For interference to occur, there must be at least 2 waves that superpose
to combine signals. An individual photon cannot have 2 waves and still maintain
the photon minimal energy requirement. So, there seems to be some inconsistency
regarding the Fourier transform in open space scenario, as it regards to
a single photon. I have no problem with it for a coherent wave of multiple photons,
where multiple waves are travelling together. If an individual waveform cannot be
decomposed into smaller energy package components it cannot interfere with itself
alone, there must be at least 2 waves!
So, if an individual photon is not interfering with itself, it must be interfering
with something else that has very similar or nearly identical wave properties, prior
to entering the "empty" volumetric space between the slit wall and the screen.
Here is where my conceptualization that an individual photon is interfering with the
wave/fields (polaritons/phonons) generated by the electron's that are components
of the matter that makes up the slit walls. According to wave superposition
theory, the phases do not need to be perfectly aligned, in order to superpose.
A partial phase alignment, will suffice to cause superposition/mixing of EM waves
and will cause interference between the 2 waves.
Following this line of logic, the minimum two wave mixing requirement
(superposing), within the slit cavities, could be the cause of the single photon
interference with the polaritons of the slit cavity walls.
If the photon's wave shape, and phase angle alignment, are temporarily deformed
during the interference process this could affect the trajectory path of the single
photon as it departs the slit cavities. Upon leaving the interference "reaction zone",
the deformed, and vectorily redirected photon waveform, which still maintains
its E=hf quantum requirement, resumes its normal symmetrical envelope wave
shape, and it follows its new trajectory path to the screen. This is the discrete
particle aspect of the photon.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
What I am trying to say is surface plasmons are not essential to describe the "most basic" double slit experiment. Interference occurs in volumetric space between coherent sources and slits or pinholes as apertures are simply cavity boundary conditions that lead to sources. The pinhole "source" has a null focal length so the Fourier Transform Plane is everywhere behind the pinhole.
Ok, let's tackle this subject of single photons again.
Can you explain how individual (lone) photons are interfering in the volumetric
space between the slits and the screen, when there is nothing in that space
with which to interfere? A photon has duality, depending upon when, and how, it is
observed to interact with its environment, a topic I will discuss a bit later.
If a single photon has a specific energy of E = hf, and cannot be decomposed
to any lower energy value, then I propose that it cannot spread beyond the
bounds of it's package waveform "envelope", because to do so would violate
the quantum energy equation. There can be no partial energy component, since
the quantum energy must sustain the idea of minimal "confinement" within the
envelope of the waveform. A discrete photon's waveform is the minimal energy state
according to E=hf.
For interference to occur, there must be at least 2 waves that superpose
to combine signals. An individual photon cannot have 2 waves and still maintain
the photon minimal energy requirement. So, there seems to be some inconsistency
regarding the Fourier transform in open space scenario, as it regards to
a single photon. I have no problem with it for a coherent wave of multiple photons,
where multiple waves are travelling together. If an individual waveform cannot be
decomposed into smaller energy package components it cannot interfere with itself
alone, there must be at least 2 waves!
So, if an individual photon is not interfering with itself, it must be interfering
with something else that has very similar or nearly identical wave properties, prior
to entering the "empty" volumetric space between the slit wall and the screen.
Here is where my conceptualization that an individual photon is interfering with the
wave/fields (polaritons/phonons) generated by the electron's that are components
of the matter that makes up the slit walls. According to wave superposition
theory, the phases do not need to be perfectly aligned, in order to superpose.
A partial phase alignment, will suffice to cause superposition/mixing of EM waves
and will cause interference between the 2 waves.
Following this line of logic, the minimum two wave mixing requirement
(superposing), within the slit cavities, could be the cause of the single photon
interference with the polaritons of the slit cavity walls.
If the photon's wave shape, and phase angle alignment, are temporarily deformed
during the interference process this could affect the trajectory path of the single
photon as it departs the slit cavities. Upon leaving the interference "reaction zone",
the deformed, and vectorily redirected photon waveform, which still maintains
its E=hf quantum requirement, resumes its normal symmetrical envelope wave
shape, and it follows its new trajectory path to the screen. This is the discrete
particle aspect of the photon.
Comments?
LL
Ll, Good Elf,
Do not want to interfere [PUN] or intrude, but Laserlight there is no such place as empty space. but I believe you already know this it just caught my eye.
With much respect,
ciao_
yquantum
QUOTE
when there is nothing in that space
with which to interfere?
by Laselightwith which to interfere?
Do not want to interfere [PUN] or intrude, but Laserlight there is no such place as empty space. but I believe you already know this it just caught my eye.
With much respect,
ciao_
yquantum
Hi Yquantum,
Yes, I realize this. TRoc has stressed this point on multiple occasions. Keep in
mind that the same gaseous atmosphere exists before the slit wall, and within
the slit cavities, but we do not observe a wave interference pattern for photons
directed at a wall, without the benefit of having at least 2 slits to create the
interference scenario.
Even a single slit (of proper size range) changes the dynamics of how light
diffracts depending upon the geometrical relationship that exists between the
wavelength of the photon and the dimensions of the slit. There is no diffraction
without matter acting as a catalyst to change the normal propagating
characteristics of the photon(s).
Even under ultra high vacuum conditions there will still be some gaseous atoms
milling about, but the effective mean free path between them will be on the order
of many miles apart, and identical diffraction, or interference, will still take place
unimpeded under such sparse atmospheric conditions. So, IMO, we can exclude
ambient atmosphere in the general context of the DSE.
I think TRoc will remember this discussion.
Any way we look at the DSE experiment, the slit geometries/dimensions is the
deciding factor in exactly how the interference pattern manifests itself, for a
fixed frequency of light. The results of the Fourier transform is a response to this
change in dynamics. If we change the slit spacing, slit width, or angle of the
slits, the pattern changes. The Fourier transform just takes the arriving input and
integrates it into a solution set.
Regards, (and please feel free to add to, or correct talking points in the discussion)
LL
QUOTE
Do not want to interfere [PUN] or intrude, but Laserlight there is no such place as empty space. but I believe you already know this it just caught my eye.
Yes, I realize this.
TRoc has stressed this point on multiple occasions. Keep in mind that the same gaseous atmosphere exists before the slit wall, and within
the slit cavities, but we do not observe a wave interference pattern for photons
directed at a wall, without the benefit of having at least 2 slits to create the
interference scenario.
Even a single slit (of proper size range) changes the dynamics of how light
diffracts depending upon the geometrical relationship that exists between the
wavelength of the photon and the dimensions of the slit. There is no diffraction
without matter acting as a catalyst to change the normal propagating
characteristics of the photon(s).
Even under ultra high vacuum conditions there will still be some gaseous atoms
milling about, but the effective mean free path between them will be on the order
of many miles apart, and identical diffraction, or interference, will still take place
unimpeded under such sparse atmospheric conditions. So, IMO, we can exclude
ambient atmosphere in the general context of the DSE.
I think TRoc will remember this discussion.
Any way we look at the DSE experiment, the slit geometries/dimensions is the
deciding factor in exactly how the interference pattern manifests itself, for a
fixed frequency of light. The results of the Fourier transform is a response to this
change in dynamics. If we change the slit spacing, slit width, or angle of the
slits, the pattern changes. The Fourier transform just takes the arriving input and
integrates it into a solution set.
Regards, (and please feel free to add to, or correct talking points in the discussion)
LL
QUOTE
The particle/ wave duality of light is another feature of Relativity. Whether light is observed to be a particle or a wave depends on the position of the observer. When the observer’s perspective is the same as the photon then the photon appears as a particle. However when the observer’s perspective is independent of the photon then the photon is observed as a wave. This is easily demonstrated by the two slit experiment.
When one slit open the photon is observed at the moment that it impacts and the perspective of the observer and the photon the same. When a second slit is opened then photon is first observed passing though the two slits, however the photon does not react until it hits the target. This puts the observer and the photon is separate reference points.
In the first case where the observer and photon share the same perspective the photon has no time to change into a wave form. Because the photon does not experience time, it is in effect everywhere in the universe until it is observed.
In the second case the observer and the photon have different perspectives the photon is observed passing through the two slits before hitting the target. In this situation the photon is observed in real time from an outside perspective and because the photon does not have mass it is always observed as a wave form
This paradox again requires a higher more encompassing dimension
When one slit open the photon is observed at the moment that it impacts and the perspective of the observer and the photon the same. When a second slit is opened then photon is first observed passing though the two slits, however the photon does not react until it hits the target. This puts the observer and the photon is separate reference points.
In the first case where the observer and photon share the same perspective the photon has no time to change into a wave form. Because the photon does not experience time, it is in effect everywhere in the universe until it is observed.
In the second case the observer and the photon have different perspectives the photon is observed passing through the two slits before hitting the target. In this situation the photon is observed in real time from an outside perspective and because the photon does not have mass it is always observed as a wave form
This paradox again requires a higher more encompassing dimension
I found this on another thread - sounds good to me.
Hi ALL!
You will need to keep these numbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_mag...de_%28length%29
Orders of magnitude (length)
while reading yquantum’s reference.
http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phy...ures/Lect05.ppt.
It will also answer LL’s question of what could be in the empty space. There is a lot of room for a whole lot of things to affect the DSE.
Remember that we have only measured to the size of a proton (10^-15) and that the wiki authors claim that upper limit for the size of quarks and electrons is 10 ^-18. That is speculation. I am expecting CERN to demonstrate that 10^-18 is the MINIMUM SIZE FOR EVERYTHING.
You will need to keep these numbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_mag...de_%28length%29
Orders of magnitude (length)
while reading yquantum’s reference.
http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phy...ures/Lect05.ppt.
It will also answer LL’s question of what could be in the empty space. There is a lot of room for a whole lot of things to affect the DSE.
Remember that we have only measured to the size of a proton (10^-15) and that the wiki authors claim that upper limit for the size of quarks and electrons is 10 ^-18. That is speculation. I am expecting CERN to demonstrate that 10^-18 is the MINIMUM SIZE FOR EVERYTHING.
Hi Jal,
WHat is the minimum size for charge or flux?
LL
WHat is the minimum size for charge or flux?
LL
Ll, et al,
I am a little confused on this, when ever you run the DSE, then you will have the same results, if it were 1nm or 0.50m -- but if your running the DSE experiment that is what you will see as it has be discussed on this post.
What makes this and I am not sure you looked at the PowerPoint presentation on the DSE? But you will see that the obvious fact is when you want to find particles you find particles, but when you test for waves you get waves.
That is what makes this entire QM world cause me
so many sleepless nights.
ciao_
yquantum
Hey, jal I did not know you posted already so I will just see what happens next.
QUOTE
Yes, I realize this. TRoc has stressed this point on multiple occasions. Keep in
mind that the same gaseous atmosphere exists before the slit wall, and within
the slit cavities, but we do not observe a wave interference pattern for photons
directed at a wall, without the benefit of having at least 2 slits to create the
interference scenario.
Even a single slit (of proper size range) changes the dynamics of how light
diffracts depending upon the geometrical relationship that exists between the
wavelength of the photon and the dimensions of the slit. There is no diffraction
without matter acting as a catalyst to change the normal propagating
characteristics of the photon(s).
Even under ultra high vacuum conditions there will still be some gaseous atoms
milling about, but the effective mean free path between them will be on the order
of many miles apart, and identical diffraction, or interference, will still take place
unimpeded under such sparse atmospheric conditions. So, IMO, we can exclude
ambient atmosphere in the general context of the DSE.
by Laserlight TRoc has stressed this point on multiple occasions. Keep inmind that the same gaseous atmosphere exists before the slit wall, and within
the slit cavities, but we do not observe a wave interference pattern for photons
directed at a wall, without the benefit of having at least 2 slits to create the
interference scenario.
Even a single slit (of proper size range) changes the dynamics of how light
diffracts depending upon the geometrical relationship that exists between the
wavelength of the photon and the dimensions of the slit. There is no diffraction
without matter acting as a catalyst to change the normal propagating
characteristics of the photon(s).
Even under ultra high vacuum conditions there will still be some gaseous atoms
milling about, but the effective mean free path between them will be on the order
of many miles apart, and identical diffraction, or interference, will still take place
unimpeded under such sparse atmospheric conditions. So, IMO, we can exclude
ambient atmosphere in the general context of the DSE.
I am a little confused on this, when ever you run the DSE, then you will have the same results, if it were 1nm or 0.50m -- but if your running the DSE experiment that is what you will see as it has be discussed on this post.
What makes this and I am not sure you looked at the PowerPoint presentation on the DSE? But you will see that the obvious fact is when you want to find particles you find particles, but when you test for waves you get waves.
That is what makes this entire QM world cause me
so many sleepless nights. ciao_
yquantum
Hey, jal I did not know you posted already so I will just see what happens next.
Hi YQ,
I'm not sure what exactly confused you with my statements. Yes, the DSE
results will yield an interference pattern, regardless of dimensions, if set
up correctly.
What I am stating is that the pattern results vary if a change is made
to the geometrical relationship if the slits, even if the wavelength remains the same.
In other words, if we reduce the width of the slits, the DSE pattern changes,
or if we widen the gap between the slits, or vary the parallelism between the slits.
So, even if the wavelength remains the same, changing the geometrical ratios by
varying the slit geometry causes changes in the results. Conversely, if you
leave the slit geometries alone, but change the wavelength, the DSE pattern will
change because the wavelength/slit geometry ratio changes.
So, the physical aspects of the geometric ratio's is the critical factor in creating the
DSE pattern. The interaction of visible frequency EM energy, with the physicality
of the slits, changes how the EM energy responds and departs the slit cavities.
The cavities cause coherent waves to spread, but an individual photon cannot
spread, according to E=hf, and cannot distribute its energy beyond its package
envelope, yet its flight path is diverted from the normal by interacting with the
slits.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
I am a little confused on this, when ever you run the DSE, then you will have the same results, if it were 1nm or 0.50m -- but if your running the DSE experiment that is what you will see as it has be discussed on this post.
I'm not sure what exactly confused you with my statements. Yes, the DSE
results will yield an interference pattern, regardless of dimensions, if set
up correctly.
What I am stating is that the pattern results vary if a change is made
to the geometrical relationship if the slits, even if the wavelength remains the same.
In other words, if we reduce the width of the slits, the DSE pattern changes,
or if we widen the gap between the slits, or vary the parallelism between the slits.
So, even if the wavelength remains the same, changing the geometrical ratios by
varying the slit geometry causes changes in the results. Conversely, if you
leave the slit geometries alone, but change the wavelength, the DSE pattern will
change because the wavelength/slit geometry ratio changes.
So, the physical aspects of the geometric ratio's is the critical factor in creating the
DSE pattern. The interaction of visible frequency EM energy, with the physicality
of the slits, changes how the EM energy responds and departs the slit cavities.
The cavities cause coherent waves to spread, but an individual photon cannot
spread, according to E=hf, and cannot distribute its energy beyond its package
envelope, yet its flight path is diverted from the normal by interacting with the
slits.
Comments?
LL
Hi Laserlight,
I think you have rather summed up the problem yourself .. you have to find 'something else' because you can see that EM leads to a logical contradiction. Either all the known EM effects are the result of classical(ish) effects which have remained unnoticed but which coincidentally give the same results as classical EM OR EM analysis is 'true' and there is something hidden in that 'truth' that you would rather not know about.
To get two photons travelling through the slits (in the experiment we have been looking at) .. we have to assume the filament of a bulb acts like a laser .. photons (waves) will be in phase and arrive in pairs. If we had three slits (it will work just as well) then the bulb would be firing three photons (waves) every time .. with N slits it would (of course) be N photons in phase. In fairness the photons need not be in phase but they must be present at the same time to allow the experiment to choose between classical and Laserlight behaviour (we agree that classical behaviour is not possible with a single photon) . As the number of photons is increased the difficulty (plausibility) of directing them to the right point to simulate the classical wave analysis is increased. New effects will be required for lenses and half silvered mirrors .. all these effects will revert to exactly the standard analysis as the level of light is increased. Maxwell's equations for bright lights and Laserlight's equations (the same) for dim lights. The resonics, spintronics and ginandtonics all combine .. I can't go on .. I've lost the thread of my argument .. feel free to pick it up yourself ..
Zero point energy from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
Baez's comments http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html
The following I'm only posting these because I don't want to lose them .. I'm too tired to try to sort out 'anything' from them
On the subject of "Is QM non-local"
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9805/9805047v1.pdf
From W Unruh (s/he of the Unruh effect?)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9710/9710032v2.pdf
I think you have rather summed up the problem yourself .. you have to find 'something else' because you can see that EM leads to a logical contradiction. Either all the known EM effects are the result of classical(ish) effects which have remained unnoticed but which coincidentally give the same results as classical EM OR EM analysis is 'true' and there is something hidden in that 'truth' that you would rather not know about.
To get two photons travelling through the slits (in the experiment we have been looking at) .. we have to assume the filament of a bulb acts like a laser .. photons (waves) will be in phase and arrive in pairs. If we had three slits (it will work just as well) then the bulb would be firing three photons (waves) every time .. with N slits it would (of course) be N photons in phase. In fairness the photons need not be in phase but they must be present at the same time to allow the experiment to choose between classical and Laserlight behaviour (we agree that classical behaviour is not possible with a single photon) . As the number of photons is increased the difficulty (plausibility) of directing them to the right point to simulate the classical wave analysis is increased. New effects will be required for lenses and half silvered mirrors .. all these effects will revert to exactly the standard analysis as the level of light is increased. Maxwell's equations for bright lights and Laserlight's equations (the same) for dim lights. The resonics, spintronics and ginandtonics all combine .. I can't go on .. I've lost the thread of my argument .. feel free to pick it up yourself ..
Zero point energy from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
Baez's comments http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html
The following I'm only posting these because I don't want to lose them .. I'm too tired to try to sort out 'anything' from them
On the subject of "Is QM non-local"
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9805/9805047v1.pdf
From W Unruh (s/he of the Unruh effect?)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9710/9710032v2.pdf
If there was a true minimum size, wouldn't the measurement of this minimum be different dependent on the strenght of the gravity in the region it was measured?
If the measurement is always the same that would indicate that there is only a relative minimum, if it varies that would imply and absolute minimum. Any thoughts?
If the measurement is always the same that would indicate that there is only a relative minimum, if it varies that would imply and absolute minimum. Any thoughts?
Hi Wulf,
It is an interesting question. I had proposed something similar long ago about
possible effects re minimum length compression within a black hole and a
neutron star, where the density of the material is due to massive compression
and a teaspoon of material weighs many thousands of tons.
I had also proposed that because the electrons were so densely packed around
the nucleus that no photons could be generated because there was no room to
change energy shells due to compaction.
The effect of gravity should be relative to both what is being measured and
the tool measuring it, wouldn't you think?
LL
QUOTE
If there was a true minimum size, wouldn't the measurement of this minimum be different dependent on the strenght of the gravity in the region it was measured?
If the measurement is always the same that would indicate that there is only a relative minimum, if it varies that would imply and absolute minimum. Any thoughts?
If the measurement is always the same that would indicate that there is only a relative minimum, if it varies that would imply and absolute minimum. Any thoughts?
It is an interesting question. I had proposed something similar long ago about
possible effects re minimum length compression within a black hole and a
neutron star, where the density of the material is due to massive compression
and a teaspoon of material weighs many thousands of tons.
I had also proposed that because the electrons were so densely packed around
the nucleus that no photons could be generated because there was no room to
change energy shells due to compaction.
The effect of gravity should be relative to both what is being measured and
the tool measuring it, wouldn't you think?
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jul 29 2007, 08:15 PM)
Hi Wulf,
It is an interesting question. I had proposed something similar long ago about
possible effects re minimum length compression within a black hole and a
neutron star, where the density of the material is due to massive compression
and a teaspoon of material weighs many thousands of tons.
I had also proposed that because the electrons were so densely packed around
the nucleus that no photons could be generated because there was no room to
change energy shells due to compaction.
The effect of gravity should be relative to both what is being measured and
the tool measuring it, wouldn't you think?
LL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Yeah, the problem as I see it is that the metric we use to measure length is defined in terms of the speed of light. So if there is a smallest unit, the measurement of this minimum should vary from one frame of reference to another due to the variation in the speed of light in each frame.
It is an interesting question. I had proposed something similar long ago about
possible effects re minimum length compression within a black hole and a
neutron star, where the density of the material is due to massive compression
and a teaspoon of material weighs many thousands of tons.
I had also proposed that because the electrons were so densely packed around
the nucleus that no photons could be generated because there was no room to
change energy shells due to compaction.
The effect of gravity should be relative to both what is being measured and
the tool measuring it, wouldn't you think?
LL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Yeah, the problem as I see it is that the metric we use to measure length is defined in terms of the speed of light. So if there is a smallest unit, the measurement of this minimum should vary from one frame of reference to another due to the variation in the speed of light in each frame.
Wulf,
You are talking about the speed of c as a function of a change in the index of
refraction n as compared to vacuum. You are coming full circle back to the
discussion of how gravity affects the energy density of local space.
LL
You are talking about the speed of c as a function of a change in the index of
refraction n as compared to vacuum. You are coming full circle back to the
discussion of how gravity affects the energy density of local space.
LL
QUOTE
QUOTE
The particle/ wave duality of light is another feature of Relativity. Whether light is observed to be a particle or a wave depends on the position of the observer. When the observer’s perspective is the same as the photon then the photon appears as a particle. However when the observer’s perspective is independent of the photon then the photon is observed as a wave. This is easily demonstrated by the two slit experiment.
When one slit open the photon is observed at the moment that it impacts and the perspective of the observer and the photon the same. When a second slit is opened then photon is first observed passing though the two slits, however the photon does not react until it hits the target. This puts the observer and the photon is separate reference points.
In the first case where the observer and photon share the same perspective the photon has no time to change into a wave form. Because the photon does not experience time, it is in effect everywhere in the universe until it is observed.
In the second case the observer and the photon have different perspectives the photon is observed passing through the two slits before hitting the target. In this situation the photon is observed in real time from an outside perspective and because the photon does not have mass it is always observed as a wave form
This paradox again requires a higher more encompassing dimension
I found this on another thread - sounds good to me.
The particle/ wave duality of light is another feature of Relativity. Whether light is observed to be a particle or a wave depends on the position of the observer. When the observer’s perspective is the same as the photon then the photon appears as a particle. However when the observer’s perspective is independent of the photon then the photon is observed as a wave. This is easily demonstrated by the two slit experiment.
When one slit open the photon is observed at the moment that it impacts and the perspective of the observer and the photon the same. When a second slit is opened then photon is first observed passing though the two slits, however the photon does not react until it hits the target. This puts the observer and the photon is separate reference points.
In the first case where the observer and photon share the same perspective the photon has no time to change into a wave form. Because the photon does not experience time, it is in effect everywhere in the universe until it is observed.
In the second case the observer and the photon have different perspectives the photon is observed passing through the two slits before hitting the target. In this situation the photon is observed in real time from an outside perspective and because the photon does not have mass it is always observed as a wave form
This paradox again requires a higher more encompassing dimension
I found this on another thread - sounds good to me.
Here's the answer!!!! But don't let that get in your way!
QUOTE (Laserlight+Jul 29 2007, 08:53 PM)
Wulf,
You are talking about the speed of c as a function of a change in the index of
refraction n as compared to vacuum. You are coming full circle back to the
discussion of how gravity affects the energy density of local space.
LL
Yeah I realise that. It is interesting how often it happens.
I'm wondering if this can be useful in providing us with some insights on the nature of space.
You are talking about the speed of c as a function of a change in the index of
refraction n as compared to vacuum. You are coming full circle back to the
discussion of how gravity affects the energy density of local space.
LL
Yeah I realise that. It is interesting how often it happens.
I'm wondering if this can be useful in providing us with some insights on the nature of space.
Hi Rick, and Puzzled,
First....Welcome, hope that you decide to actively, and constructively, participate.
The quoted post doesn't really provide specific details, only generalizations of
concepts discussed long ago on this board. All observations and measurements
are relative to the observer and the event being observed/measured in
both the timeframe, and the inertial frame of reference.
Please feel free to further develop/explain your comments.
LL
First....Welcome, hope that you decide to actively, and constructively, participate.
The quoted post doesn't really provide specific details, only generalizations of
concepts discussed long ago on this board. All observations and measurements
are relative to the observer and the event being observed/measured in
both the timeframe, and the inertial frame of reference.
Please feel free to further develop/explain your comments.
LL
Hi Wulf,
Think of the complementary nature that exists between the gradient
of energy density that radiates from a gravitational source, and it's antithesis which
is space, where energy density dissipates along a gradient curve over increasing
distance from a gravitational well. In other words, mass is a source of gravity,
while space is a sink for gravity, that follows a decreasing curve, according to
increasing distance from the mass.
This is why I have associated energy density of space with gravity, they follow
the same geodesics.
LL
QUOTE
Yeah I realise that. It is interesting how often it happens.
I'm wondering if this can be useful in providing us with some insights on the nature of space.
I'm wondering if this can be useful in providing us with some insights on the nature of space.
Think of the complementary nature that exists between the gradient
of energy density that radiates from a gravitational source, and it's antithesis which
is space, where energy density dissipates along a gradient curve over increasing
distance from a gravitational well. In other words, mass is a source of gravity,
while space is a sink for gravity, that follows a decreasing curve, according to
increasing distance from the mass.
This is why I have associated energy density of space with gravity, they follow
the same geodesics.
LL
Guest_Rick
That's great! Could you supply the formula that has been worked out by the experts that work with extra dimensions? (There must be thousands of them)
They must have published their work. It's sooooo obvious.
jal
QUOTE
Here's the answer!!!! But don't let that get in your way!
That's great! Could you supply the formula that has been worked out by the experts that work with extra dimensions? (There must be thousands of them)
They must have published their work. It's sooooo obvious.
jal
QUOTE
QUOTE
QUOTE
The particle/ wave duality of light is another feature of Relativity. Whether light is observed to be a particle or a wave depends on the position of the observer. When the observer’s perspective is the same as the photon then the photon appears as a particle. However when the observer’s perspective is independent of the photon then the photon is observed as a wave. This is easily demonstrated by the two slit experiment.
When one slit open the photon is observed at the moment that it impacts and the perspective of the observer and the photon the same. When a second slit is opened then photon is first observed passing though the two slits, however the photon does not react until it hits the target. This puts the observer and the photon is separate reference points.
In the first case where the observer and photon share the same perspective the photon has no time to change into a wave form. Because the photon does not experience time, it is in effect everywhere in the universe until it is observed.
In the second case the observer and the photon have different perspectives the photon is observed passing through the two slits before hitting the target. In this situation the photon is observed in real time from an outside perspective and because the photon does not have mass it is always observed as a wave form
This paradox again requires a higher more encompassing dimension
I found this on another thread - sounds good to me.
QUOTE
The particle/ wave duality of light is another feature of Relativity. Whether light is observed to be a particle or a wave depends on the position of the observer. When the observer’s perspective is the same as the photon then the photon appears as a particle. However when the observer’s perspective is independent of the photon then the photon is observed as a wave. This is easily demonstrated by the two slit experiment.
When one slit open the photon is observed at the moment that it impacts and the perspective of the observer and the photon the same. When a second slit is opened then photon is first observed passing though the two slits, however the photon does not react until it hits the target. This puts the observer and the photon is separate reference points.
In the first case where the observer and photon share the same perspective the photon has no time to change into a wave form. Because the photon does not experience time, it is in effect everywhere in the universe until it is observed.
In the second case the observer and the photon have different perspectives the photon is observed passing through the two slits before hitting the target. In this situation the photon is observed in real time from an outside perspective and because the photon does not have mass it is always observed as a wave form
This paradox again requires a higher more encompassing dimension
I found this on another thread - sounds good to me.
Ah there it is! Got a PM that someone was posting my stuff on your thread.
He's right the problem has been solved - sorry guys. Some guy in Israel - I'm surprised the word hasn'gt gotten around.
Cheers
Could you cite the paper please.
Hi laserlight, yquantum, Confused2, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, TRoc, Jal et al,
I must say that I cannot respond to all the points that are flooding into this thread. Please accept that time restrictions and the fact that I must think about my answers before I respond are important features here... I am sorry if I am not answering each and every point.
I must say that I cannot respond to all the points that are flooding into this thread. Please accept that time restrictions and the fact that I must think about my answers before I respond are important features here... I am sorry if I am not answering each and every point.
QUOTE (yquantum+)
Do not want to interfere [PUN] or intrude, but Laserlight there is no such place as empty space. but I believe you already know this it just caught my eye.
That was my mistake, Laserlight was simply using my "sloppy" descriptions. What I meant was "the vacuum". Vacuums and near vacuums do not appear to disperse light significantly since the atoms as sites for absorption are "inactive" (dark states? or reflecting states?) or the wavelength is too long to be scattered by the target's size. Perhaps in severe cases the wavelength of the photon is too short to significantly prevent tunneling of "Gamma Rays". My argument for this is seeing how light can propagate for 13 billion years through "empty space" and still arrive on Earth, or more pertinently at the Hubble Telescope, "coherent" and pristine. If light is absorbed for some reason and inelastically scattered it will lose its qubit of information (or acquire an unknown qubit that is not coherent with the original source) and will not be useful in the DSE. It is very important to consider the DSE in a vacuum since this is where we can speak of the phenomenon without distractions such as surface plasmons for instance. We should not try and complicate the problem by looking to all manner of distractions from gaseous and solid state effects at this stage. These issues can be very complex and I hope to "KISS".
QUOTE (laserlight+)
Can you explain how individual (lone) photons are interfering in the volumetric space between the slits and the screen, when there is nothing in that space with which to interfere? A photon has duality, depending upon when, and how, it is observed to interact with its environment, a topic I will discuss a bit later.
I have previously discussed and quoted references to experiments that show where information can be transferred between propagating source coherent but independent wave states that "spatially mix" at some point between source and sinks (there is considerable repetition in this thread). This suggests very strongly even when or where there are no particles... information content is present and it can imprint other spatially coherent but separate sources. These experiments require LASERS that are synchronized by a common timebase but the lasing chambers are not allowed to communicate. The "waves" are allowed to cross and the information "mixes" through "superposition of the states". In such circumstances the propagating waves from both interfering sources carry information from the other source to their respective separate destinations..
Clearly another case is when we discuss Holograms that are exposed in place of the screen or even Holograms that can be used to "examine" the area of the screen in conjunction with the rest of the optical space being observed. This is the situation where all photons are moving on paths of least action directly from the single diverged active source to through the "experiment" and yet information of the surrounding "dark universe" imprints on the waves of photons that move directly from source to photographic plate and form a hologram that describes the whole of that space.
Information can be imprinted between coherent photons from different sources without the action of any particle interactions. We have two different descriptions of quanta... the wave and the particle. The proposal is in the case of photons spreading from sources they do so according to laws that define the spreading of light on the wavefront of an expanding sphere. The interference in free space is obviously a wave phenomena. What I can positively guarantee is there is no particle there. This behavior of waves is the result of the topology of the wave on the inner "surface" of our Universe.
In the "classic" case of the double slit experiment We have one lone highly spread photon that simultaneously "emerge" from two separated secondary sources (pinholes) which could be separated by a distance but they might be isolated sources in free space. The important aspect of this spreading is the way it cannot be extrapolated back to an origin. Examine this illustration in Wikipedia for the ISL...
Clearly another case is when we discuss Holograms that are exposed in place of the screen or even Holograms that can be used to "examine" the area of the screen in conjunction with the rest of the optical space being observed. This is the situation where all photons are moving on paths of least action directly from the single diverged active source to through the "experiment" and yet information of the surrounding "dark universe" imprints on the waves of photons that move directly from source to photographic plate and form a hologram that describes the whole of that space.
Information can be imprinted between coherent photons from different sources without the action of any particle interactions. We have two different descriptions of quanta... the wave and the particle. The proposal is in the case of photons spreading from sources they do so according to laws that define the spreading of light on the wavefront of an expanding sphere. The interference in free space is obviously a wave phenomena. What I can positively guarantee is there is no particle there. This behavior of waves is the result of the topology of the wave on the inner "surface" of our Universe.
In the "classic" case of the double slit experiment We have one lone highly spread photon that simultaneously "emerge" from two separated secondary sources (pinholes) which could be separated by a distance but they might be isolated sources in free space. The important aspect of this spreading is the way it cannot be extrapolated back to an origin. Examine this illustration in Wikipedia for the ISL...
QUOTE (Wikipedia on the Inverse Square Law+)
This diagram shows how the law works. The lines represent the flux emanating from the source. The total number of flux lines depends on the strength of the source and is constant with increasing distance. A greater density of flux lines (lines per unit area) means a stronger field. The density of flux lines is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source because the surface area of a sphere increases with the square of the radius. Thus the strength of the field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source.
This looks "good" until you realize that at r = 0 the area of a patch in zero and the ISL collapses. This is the flaw. Of course we have theory that can handle this for optics and electromagnetism and this is the evanescent field and there must be divergence from the behavior at long range. The important factor is the finite size of sources... They can absolutely never be a point source. This means that in moving from the far field to the near field the geometry of the simple spherical expansion of light fails. This means that for light in that region near the origin the circumference of a circle is not 2πr and the surface area of a sphere is not 4πr². This is what we define as a source. All our calculations for "point particles" and "point interactions" must fail to describe this phenomenon near that limit. Consider all our physics of interactions and these all have an implicit assumption that particles interact as if they were nearly exact point sources. Only a theory that describes the geometry in this region can possibly correct the Standard Model.
On the other side of this problem is the intersection of two waves intersecting in three dimensional space with a difference in path length of 1/2 a temporal wavelength between them will mean nothing unless the source has extent and thus phase differences from either side of the small but extended source. In the case of the DSE I have demonstrated that if we have two pinholes separated by a small separation, this path difference is "globally significant" creating phase summations throughout that "vacuum" between secondary source and the screen. Any single source, as we have discussed, may be decomposed into smaller coherent sources separated by even smaller distances and even for a single photon propagating through even one small pinhole is really a special case of multiple slits/pinholes. This process of decomposition can be continued "downwards" until the size of the component sources reduce the transmission of the light to only an evanescent phenomenon which has no far field components. In this situation we see that any far field effect must be due solely to "another factor"... That is a near field acting in the far field.
This may seem a bit like "science fiction" but Allan Greenleaf working with ideas by John Pendry is presently assisting the development of optical wormholes in space... a further development of optical cloaking devices built inside out. These are source arising in the "far field" which have not direct optical connection with the near field other than a higher dimensional electromagnetic "wormhole". No vast energies needed but they will form "spontaneously" creating a spatial "voxel" points in our space from which coherent light can emerge as secondary sources originating from a primary source somewhere else in space connected by an optical wormhole.
Envision This: Mathematicians Design Invisible Tunnel: Electromagnetic "wormhole" results from turning invisible sphere inside out
If you doubt that this can be done I have heard that significant progress has already been made developing metamaterials in the optical range for a "cloaking device". Of course I have mentioned all of this before on this thread.
I challenge anyone to prove that photons are not spreading spatially as a single boson state on the wavefront from a coherent source. While E = hf and the temporal wavelength is constant (in the radial direction of propagation and in the far field), the spreading of the wavefront transverse to the direction of propagation spatially is "unlimited". And in the "far field" follows the ISL.
Cheers
On the other side of this problem is the intersection of two waves intersecting in three dimensional space with a difference in path length of 1/2 a temporal wavelength between them will mean nothing unless the source has extent and thus phase differences from either side of the small but extended source. In the case of the DSE I have demonstrated that if we have two pinholes separated by a small separation, this path difference is "globally significant" creating phase summations throughout that "vacuum" between secondary source and the screen. Any single source, as we have discussed, may be decomposed into smaller coherent sources separated by even smaller distances and even for a single photon propagating through even one small pinhole is really a special case of multiple slits/pinholes. This process of decomposition can be continued "downwards" until the size of the component sources reduce the transmission of the light to only an evanescent phenomenon which has no far field components. In this situation we see that any far field effect must be due solely to "another factor"... That is a near field acting in the far field.
This may seem a bit like "science fiction" but Allan Greenleaf working with ideas by John Pendry is presently assisting the development of optical wormholes in space... a further development of optical cloaking devices built inside out. These are source arising in the "far field" which have not direct optical connection with the near field other than a higher dimensional electromagnetic "wormhole". No vast energies needed but they will form "spontaneously" creating a spatial "voxel" points in our space from which coherent light can emerge as secondary sources originating from a primary source somewhere else in space connected by an optical wormhole.
Envision This: Mathematicians Design Invisible Tunnel: Electromagnetic "wormhole" results from turning invisible sphere inside out
QUOTE
arXiv.org > math-ph > arXiv:math-ph/0703059
Mathematical Physics
Title: Electromagnetic wormholes and virtual magnetic monopoles
Authors: Allan Greenleaf, Yaroslav Kurylev, Matti Lassas, Gunther Uhlmann
(Submitted on 20 Mar 2007)
Abstract: We describe new configurations of electromagnetic (EM) material parameters, the electric permittivity ε and magnetic permeability μ, that allow one to construct from metamaterials objects that function as invisible tunnels. These allow EM wave propagation between two points, but the tunnels and the regions they enclose are not detectable to EM observations. Such devices function as wormholes with respect to Maxwell's equations and effectively change the topology of space vis-a-vis EM wave propagation. We suggest several applications, including devices behaving as virtual magnetic monopoles.
PACS 41.20.Jb, 42.79.Ry
Cite as:
arXiv:math-ph/0703059v1
While "nothing" is happening in the wormholes as far as particle phenomena are concerned, the startling wave phenomena cannot be "ignored"... Shades of the Star Trek Holodeck!.. Or even Ming the Merciless Remote Viewscreens!! Mathematical Physics
Title: Electromagnetic wormholes and virtual magnetic monopoles
Authors: Allan Greenleaf, Yaroslav Kurylev, Matti Lassas, Gunther Uhlmann
(Submitted on 20 Mar 2007)
Abstract: We describe new configurations of electromagnetic (EM) material parameters, the electric permittivity ε and magnetic permeability μ, that allow one to construct from metamaterials objects that function as invisible tunnels. These allow EM wave propagation between two points, but the tunnels and the regions they enclose are not detectable to EM observations. Such devices function as wormholes with respect to Maxwell's equations and effectively change the topology of space vis-a-vis EM wave propagation. We suggest several applications, including devices behaving as virtual magnetic monopoles.
PACS 41.20.Jb, 42.79.Ry
Cite as:
arXiv:math-ph/0703059v1
If you doubt that this can be done I have heard that significant progress has already been made developing metamaterials in the optical range for a "cloaking device". Of course I have mentioned all of this before on this thread.I challenge anyone to prove that photons are not spreading spatially as a single boson state on the wavefront from a coherent source. While E = hf and the temporal wavelength is constant (in the radial direction of propagation and in the far field), the spreading of the wavefront transverse to the direction of propagation spatially is "unlimited". And in the "far field" follows the ISL.
Cheers
Hi GE,
I briefly scanned your most recent post, and will address specific topics later this
evening.
Re:
You can't have it both ways, if the photon package envelope is "fixed" in one plane,
it must also be fixed in all planes of existence. Time and space are inextricably
linked. A photon has a symmetrical field relationship that is developed equally
along a centerline vector direction. Anything that is developed along one side of
the centerline of the divided plane, develops an equal but opposite complement
on the other side, that is offset due to an inertial time shift, caused by
momentum/movement. Remember, we are talking about an energy impulse,
which cannot be distributed across space and still conserve its "whole" quantum
nature.
As far as we know, and can be observed, individual photon's do not spread their
discrete package energy. An argument that I will pick up again later.
Regards,
LL
its
I briefly scanned your most recent post, and will address specific topics later this
evening.
Re:
QUOTE
I challenge anyone to prove that photons are not spreading spatially as a single boson state on the wavefront from a coherent source. While E = hf and the temporal wavelength is constant (in the radial direction of propagation and in the far field), the spreading of the wavefront transverse to the direction of propagation spatially is "unlimited". And in the "far field" follows the ISL.
You can't have it both ways, if the photon package envelope is "fixed" in one plane,
it must also be fixed in all planes of existence. Time and space are inextricably
linked. A photon has a symmetrical field relationship that is developed equally
along a centerline vector direction. Anything that is developed along one side of
the centerline of the divided plane, develops an equal but opposite complement
on the other side, that is offset due to an inertial time shift, caused by
momentum/movement. Remember, we are talking about an energy impulse,
which cannot be distributed across space and still conserve its "whole" quantum
nature.
As far as we know, and can be observed, individual photon's do not spread their
discrete package energy. An argument that I will pick up again later.
Regards,
LL
its
Hi ALL!
Good Elf
That is what everyone is trying to do.
Remember our instruments have only been able to "see" down to 10^-14.
Look again .... at how much room there is to get down to the size of the quarks. (10^-18).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_mag...de_%28length%29
Maybe someone from CERN would be able to shed some light on particles and the parton model and how they are planning to "see" better and resolve individual events/particles/waves.
jal
inserted from an other discussion:
In Compton scattering, does the electron absorbs a photon and then emit another photon with another energy??
The derivation of wavelength shift in Compton scattering uses only the entrance and exit energies and momenta. It does not require a detailed understanding of the interaction. But the Feynman diagrams show an absorption and a re-emission.
This is true, because the S-matrix formalism of QFT (which uses Feynman diagrams) is a simplified description of reality. In this formalism we care only about entrance and exit states, and don't ask about what happens in the middle. This simplification is a good match for scattering experiments in high energy physics. However, we shouldn't forget that between entrance and exit states the system undergoes some non-trivial time evolution. This time evolution is not accessible by modern experimental techniques, but it may be accessible in the future.
------------
Good Elf
QUOTE
Consider all our physics of interactions and these all have an implicit assumption that particles interact as if they were nearly exact point sources. Only a theory that describes the geometry in this region can possibly correct the Standard Model.
That is what everyone is trying to do.
Remember our instruments have only been able to "see" down to 10^-14.
Look again .... at how much room there is to get down to the size of the quarks. (10^-18).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_mag...de_%28length%29
Maybe someone from CERN would be able to shed some light on particles and the parton model and how they are planning to "see" better and resolve individual events/particles/waves.
jal
inserted from an other discussion:
In Compton scattering, does the electron absorbs a photon and then emit another photon with another energy??
The derivation of wavelength shift in Compton scattering uses only the entrance and exit energies and momenta. It does not require a detailed understanding of the interaction. But the Feynman diagrams show an absorption and a re-emission.
This is true, because the S-matrix formalism of QFT (which uses Feynman diagrams) is a simplified description of reality. In this formalism we care only about entrance and exit states, and don't ask about what happens in the middle. This simplification is a good match for scattering experiments in high energy physics. However, we shouldn't forget that between entrance and exit states the system undergoes some non-trivial time evolution. This time evolution is not accessible by modern experimental techniques, but it may be accessible in the future.
------------
Hi, everyone,
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29893
I hope this helps on several levels.
ciao_
yquantum
No problem, Good Elf I was not concerned with Ll -- between you gentlemen and ladies that have contributed so much to this post, I am just proud to be included -- you just let me squeak in under the line I think.
It was for some [as we all know this open forum deals on many levels yet everyones opinions are valued] well most of them that might have misunderstood vacuum.
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29893
I hope this helps on several levels.
ciao_
yquantum
No problem, Good Elf I was not concerned with Ll -- between you gentlemen and ladies that have contributed so much to this post, I am just proud to be included -- you just let me squeak in under the line I think.
It was for some [as we all know this open forum deals on many levels yet everyones opinions are valued] well most of them
that might have misunderstood vacuum.
Hey GE, and All,
another point of contention....there will be more because your posts are so LONG!
The original question was directed at single discrete photons that cross the
empty cavity. In this case there are no coherent companion photons, and
yet individual photons strike the screen and form an interference pattern.
There is no superposition wave action of individual photons that occurs between
the slits and the detection screen.
This, by default, indicates that the individual photons have already experienced
the interference wave superposition phenomenon at the source,
which means that the individual, single, photons interfered with the matter waves
of the slits. Because this interference has already occurred, the vector direction
of the individual photons is established upon departing the slit cavities, and they
follow a "fixed" trajectory to the screen, as evidenced by the single photon
interference build up over time.
As an aside, I keep mentioning polaritons, of which there are many described
types, and you keep referring to them as plasmon's, which are only known to
be generated by certain metals. Henceforth, I will call all surface field phenomena
matter waves, since all physical matter exhibit these surface wave resonances,
which "couple" matter to "space".
http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~nats101/wave.html
More later.
LL
another point of contention....there will be more because your posts are so LONG!
QUOTE
I have previously discussed and quoted references to experiments that show where information can be transferred between propagating source coherent but independent wave states that "spatially mix" at some point between source and sinks (there is considerable repetition in this thread). This suggests very strongly even when or where there are no particles... information content is present and it can imprint other spatially coherent but separate sources. These experiments require LASERS that are synchronized by a common timebase but the lasing chambers are not allowed to communicate. The "waves" are allowed to cross and the information "mixes" through "superposition of the states". In such circumstances the propagating waves from both interfering sources carry information from the other source to their respective separate destinations..
The original question was directed at single discrete photons that cross the
empty cavity. In this case there are no coherent companion photons, and
yet individual photons strike the screen and form an interference pattern.
There is no superposition wave action of individual photons that occurs between
the slits and the detection screen.
This, by default, indicates that the individual photons have already experienced
the interference wave superposition phenomenon at the source,
which means that the individual, single, photons interfered with the matter waves
of the slits. Because this interference has already occurred, the vector direction
of the individual photons is established upon departing the slit cavities, and they
follow a "fixed" trajectory to the screen, as evidenced by the single photon
interference build up over time.
As an aside, I keep mentioning polaritons, of which there are many described
types, and you keep referring to them as plasmon's, which are only known to
be generated by certain metals. Henceforth, I will call all surface field phenomena
matter waves, since all physical matter exhibit these surface wave resonances,
which "couple" matter to "space".
http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~nats101/wave.html
More later.
LL
Hey LL et al.,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
There is no superposition wave action of individual photons that occurs between the slits and the detection screen.
There most certainly is "superposition wave action of individual photons.....between the slits and the detection screen". Feynman 101...
There most certainly is "superposition wave action of individual photons.....between the slits and the detection screen". Feynman 101...
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
This, by default, indicates that the individual photons have already experienced the interference wave superposition phenomenon at the source, which means that the individual, single, photons interfered with the matter waves of the slits. Because this interference has already occurred, the vector direction of the individual photons is established upon departing the slit cavities, and they follow a "fixed" trajectory to the screen, as evidenced by the single photon interference build up over time.
(emphasis added)
Also incorrect and shown so by nature of the Delayed Choice part of the experiment. The experimental evidence clearly indicates that the wave or particle aspect of a photon is manifest by the measurement, even when the choice of which measurement to make is made after the photon has passed the slits. Therefore, the interference pattern is not fundamentally dependant on the "matter waves" in the slit.
In all sincerity, I think C2's post with the sarcastic dialog (which I found quite humorous by the way) was a not so subtle way to encourage you to pull out Occam’s razor. Remove everything that is not fundamentally crucial to the experiment and work from there.
Also incorrect and shown so by nature of the Delayed Choice part of the experiment. The experimental evidence clearly indicates that the wave or particle aspect of a photon is manifest by the measurement, even when the choice of which measurement to make is made after the photon has passed the slits. Therefore, the interference pattern is not fundamentally dependant on the "matter waves" in the slit.
In all sincerity, I think C2's post with the sarcastic dialog (which I found quite humorous by the way) was a not so subtle way to encourage you to pull out Occam’s razor. Remove everything that is not fundamentally crucial to the experiment and work from there.
Laserlight, C2, Good Elf, jal, (you posted in so I must edit-- you are correct) Why Not?, "THEY" & 2, et all,
Why Not? is correct so I will not redundant on the issue -- so I will edit/erase my comment. You could also add if you like wave collapse which applies when the particle is observed.
ciao_
yquantum
Why Not? is correct so I will not redundant on the issue -- so I will edit/erase my comment. You could also add if you like wave collapse which applies when the particle is observed.
ciao_
yquantum
Hi WhyNot, YQ, and All,
I think you misinterpreted what I stated, which is probably my fault for not
being TOTALLY precise in the way I wrote my statement.
I am totally focusing on the single photon interference experimental
results, not a wavefront of multiple coherent photons.
When a single photon at a time is moving from the slits to the screen,
which means that each prior, and each subsequent, photon is separated by time
and distance, so that they are not able to interfere with one another enroute,
like bullets from a machine gun, THERE CAN BE NO INTERFERENCE ENROUTE.
Being a single photon, there is no entanglement, there is no coherency, there is no
wave superpositon, because there is no other coherent photon in the same space
at the same time.
Remember, my argument is predicated on the fact that E=hf, for each individual
photon. A wavefront of coherent photons can be divided into integral quantum
waves up to the point where only 1 photon remains. It cannot be divided
further. The least significant bit of a coherent wavefront is a single photon. This presents
a problem for the Inverse Square Law, which was a topic of prior discussion, about
the power/intensity/energy of an expanding spherical wavefront, over distance
from the source. At some point, E=hf takes precedence and the ISL runs out of
coherent energy, and all that remains are individual photons, that separate further
from each other over increasing distance. This is a major reason that far away objects
require very long exposure times to collect very dispersed photons, so that they
can develop an image pattern. We are receiving 1 photon at a time. I have seen
this individual photon collection event in large array telescopes, on astronomy
specials. I believe it was "Cosmos", by Carl Sagan.
A single photon wavelet, cannot be divided to a smaller energy level, according to
quantum mechanics, so explain how it can experience interference without another
coherent photon in the same space, at the same time, with which to interfere?]
I am open to your counter arguments, but I suggest that you re-read the past
several posts that I have made on this subject, so that you understand the
full implications of what I am saying.
Comments,
LL
QUOTE
QUOTE (Laserlight)
There is no superposition wave action of individual photons that occurs between the slits and the detection screen....
Whynot replied:
There most certainly is "superposition wave action of individual photons.....between the slits and the detection screen". Feynman 101...
There is no superposition wave action of individual photons that occurs between the slits and the detection screen....
Whynot replied:
There most certainly is "superposition wave action of individual photons.....between the slits and the detection screen". Feynman 101...
I think you misinterpreted what I stated, which is probably my fault for not
being TOTALLY precise in the way I wrote my statement.
I am totally focusing on the single photon interference experimental
results, not a wavefront of multiple coherent photons.
When a single photon at a time is moving from the slits to the screen,
which means that each prior, and each subsequent, photon is separated by time
and distance, so that they are not able to interfere with one another enroute,
like bullets from a machine gun, THERE CAN BE NO INTERFERENCE ENROUTE.
Being a single photon, there is no entanglement, there is no coherency, there is no
wave superpositon, because there is no other coherent photon in the same space
at the same time.
Remember, my argument is predicated on the fact that E=hf, for each individual
photon. A wavefront of coherent photons can be divided into integral quantum
waves up to the point where only 1 photon remains. It cannot be divided
further. The least significant bit of a coherent wavefront is a single photon. This presents
a problem for the Inverse Square Law, which was a topic of prior discussion, about
the power/intensity/energy of an expanding spherical wavefront, over distance
from the source. At some point, E=hf takes precedence and the ISL runs out of
coherent energy, and all that remains are individual photons, that separate further
from each other over increasing distance. This is a major reason that far away objects
require very long exposure times to collect very dispersed photons, so that they
can develop an image pattern. We are receiving 1 photon at a time. I have seen
this individual photon collection event in large array telescopes, on astronomy
specials. I believe it was "Cosmos", by Carl Sagan.
A single photon wavelet, cannot be divided to a smaller energy level, according to
quantum mechanics, so explain how it can experience interference without another
coherent photon in the same space, at the same time, with which to interfere?]
I am open to your counter arguments, but I suggest that you re-read the past
several posts that I have made on this subject, so that you understand the
full implications of what I am saying.
Comments,
LL
Hi Laserlight, yquantum, Why Not?, Confused2, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, TRoc, Jal et al,
QUOTE (laserlight+)
I will call all surface field phenomena matter waves, since all physical matter exhibit these surface wave resonances, which "couple" matter to "space".
Umm... No... Sorry laserlight the term "Matter Waves" has already been taken and cannot be used interchangeably with surface plasmons. It is also important to me and my theories that people understand what matter waves really are. De Broglie waves and plasmons are not the same... please lets not muddy the waters. I concur with what yquantum, Confused2 and "Why Not?" have said, the interference occurs in the space between the slits or pinholes and the screen in the "vacuum". One "spread" photon passes through both slits and is not absorbed by the slits because the "quantum of vorticity" carried by the photon did not find a suitable site as a sink. Because a photon can only be absorbed "all or nothing" there is a special point in the spreading photon that is the active site for absorption. Think of this like the eye of a hurricane or the center of a tornado. While the periphery of the spinning and spreading entity can "touch" vast areas of space as a wave, only the "source" actually carries the energy between sources and sinks. This is expressed in the laws of electromagnetism by Gauss' Law where the topology of the photon's spin is "divergent" and where it's curl is non-vanishing.... A vortex. With quanta the EM vortex cannot dissipate a small part of the energy no matter what it touches since it is absolutely all or nothing.
Whenever I am speaking about interference at two slits I am really saying interference photon by photon at the slits. We are seeing phase differences across the single photon mutually interfering with itself internally. This is all the pattern on the screen ultimately is ... a large number of individual photons interfering with themselves. While several photons cannot actually cancel each other they can spatially cancel in places instantaneously when opposite in phase as they move through each others influence. If the photons are source correlated they exist in the one Boson state and if they are not source coherent, yet are the same frequency, there is an opportunity for co-moving photons to become coherent through "clumping" or to temporarily mutually interfere in the time domain as they pass. Think of this like two different "Falaco Solitons" in a pool passing near each other, provided the 'sources" do not intersect, you will observe the two entities canceling in places and almost completely disappearing at times but when they move on they will be entirely intact and the effect is as if they never interfered at all. The vortices do not cancel or destruct. Yet the separate path they were following will be "Berry Phase" migrated. This phenomenon can be seen in some video sequences on the web. I am sure that such events have their exact parallel with real photons and real particles and their matter waves. Remember coherent photons are bosons in the one state and they are their own 'antiparticle" and do not annihilate due to their entirely predictable quantum properties.
Lets have a little "thinky" about interference. Recent experiments have shown that two identical matter particles (like electrons) that are not touching can interfere with each other and alter their mutual path through their matter waves. This is also a "Berry Phase" Phenomenon and it is a de Broglie Matter Wave effect. It is also suggested that two particle "correlations" can occur and thus they are actually "entangled" as well even though initially they were not correlated. Naturally this effect would not be seen if it was not measured... However the interference will have occurred before measurement for an effect to be measurable... capeci? The paths of "distant" particles are "potentially" influenced by "near field" or "Fresnel Zone" matter waves.
Opposites Interfere Physorg July 26, 2007
Not that this phenomenon was not "suspected" or "unexpected"... I have always "suspected" that it was true but now it is on firm experimental ground. It establishes the reality of "matter Waves" as true entities and they "operate" at a distance through their de Broglie matter waves. Now one step further is that if two particles are "entangled" as stated then the range of influence can be very great indeed. A recent test of photon entanglement was tested over distances of 200 kilometers in free air and this is just a teaser. I do not know what range electron entanglement can occur but I am certain it is not "trivial".
Equivalent "de Broglie" waves have been noted when two or more "partially correlated" photons interfere. This is the boson equivalent of the effect. Photons that are not correlated can become correlated when they are otehrwise "similar" and share similar nearby sources. This effect has been seen in astronomical sources andd has been known for decades. In fact the DSE as performed by Young requires this spontaneous "clumping" for it to work.
So lets not use the term "matter waves" for anything other than "real" de Broglie matter waves.
Cheers
Whenever I am speaking about interference at two slits I am really saying interference photon by photon at the slits. We are seeing phase differences across the single photon mutually interfering with itself internally. This is all the pattern on the screen ultimately is ... a large number of individual photons interfering with themselves. While several photons cannot actually cancel each other they can spatially cancel in places instantaneously when opposite in phase as they move through each others influence. If the photons are source correlated they exist in the one Boson state and if they are not source coherent, yet are the same frequency, there is an opportunity for co-moving photons to become coherent through "clumping" or to temporarily mutually interfere in the time domain as they pass. Think of this like two different "Falaco Solitons" in a pool passing near each other, provided the 'sources" do not intersect, you will observe the two entities canceling in places and almost completely disappearing at times but when they move on they will be entirely intact and the effect is as if they never interfered at all. The vortices do not cancel or destruct. Yet the separate path they were following will be "Berry Phase" migrated. This phenomenon can be seen in some video sequences on the web. I am sure that such events have their exact parallel with real photons and real particles and their matter waves. Remember coherent photons are bosons in the one state and they are their own 'antiparticle" and do not annihilate due to their entirely predictable quantum properties.
Lets have a little "thinky" about interference. Recent experiments have shown that two identical matter particles (like electrons) that are not touching can interfere with each other and alter their mutual path through their matter waves. This is also a "Berry Phase" Phenomenon and it is a de Broglie Matter Wave effect. It is also suggested that two particle "correlations" can occur and thus they are actually "entangled" as well even though initially they were not correlated. Naturally this effect would not be seen if it was not measured... However the interference will have occurred before measurement for an effect to be measurable... capeci? The paths of "distant" particles are "potentially" influenced by "near field" or "Fresnel Zone" matter waves.
Opposites Interfere Physorg July 26, 2007
Not that this phenomenon was not "suspected" or "unexpected"... I have always "suspected" that it was true but now it is on firm experimental ground. It establishes the reality of "matter Waves" as true entities and they "operate" at a distance through their de Broglie matter waves. Now one step further is that if two particles are "entangled" as stated then the range of influence can be very great indeed. A recent test of photon entanglement was tested over distances of 200 kilometers in free air and this is just a teaser. I do not know what range electron entanglement can occur but I am certain it is not "trivial".
Equivalent "de Broglie" waves have been noted when two or more "partially correlated" photons interfere. This is the boson equivalent of the effect. Photons that are not correlated can become correlated when they are otehrwise "similar" and share similar nearby sources. This effect has been seen in astronomical sources andd has been known for decades. In fact the DSE as performed by Young requires this spontaneous "clumping" for it to work.
So lets not use the term "matter waves" for anything other than "real" de Broglie matter waves.
Cheers
WhyNot and YQ,
Part 2-
In the case of the pure single photon DSE, the measurement is made
at the screen. If you introduce any measuring device in situ, you are introducing
interference in the form of physical objects, and that changes the intended result.
In the case of the pure single photon DSE, the measurement is made
at the screen. If you introduce any measuring device in situ, you are introducing
interference in the form of physical objects, and that changes the intended result.
In all sincerity, I think C2's post with the sarcastic dialog (which I found quite humorous by the way) was a not so subtle way to encourage you to pull out Occam’s razor. Remove everything that is not fundamentally crucial to the experiment and work from there.
I think we all agree that there are either inconsistencies or shortcomings to
QM/QCD/QED theories, or else we would already have all the answers. We can
either stay trapped inside the box of limitations, that these theories provide,
or we can choose to take another approach. Remember, we are after the truth,
and should not be bound by scientific dogma, that restricts creativity.
All great thinkers got that reputation because they questioned the doctrine practiced by the status quo and applied some original thought to find answers
to inconsistencies, unknowns, and physical mysteries.
You can either choose to wander around the inside of the box, or decide to
explore other possible options. Your choice.
Re: Occam's razor- Are we really looking at the simplest explanation, or have
really missed it, or chosen to ignore it? Perhaps, my proposal is the simplest
explanation.
With respect to all! Comments welcomed.
LL
Part 2-
QUOTE
(Laserlight)
This, by default, indicates that the individual photons have already experienced the interference wave superposition phenomenon at the source, which means that the individual, single, photons interfered with the matter waves of the slits. Because this interference has already occurred, the vector direction of the individual photons is established upon departing the slit cavities, and they follow a "fixed" trajectory to the screen, as evidenced by the single photon interference build up over time.
WhyNot replied:
Also incorrect and shown so by nature of the Delayed Choice part of the experiment. The experimental evidence clearly indicates that the wave or particle aspect of a photon is manifest by the measurement, even when the choice of which measurement to make is made after the photon has passed the slits. Therefore, the interference pattern is not fundamentally dependant on the "matter waves" in the slit.
This, by default, indicates that the individual photons have already experienced the interference wave superposition phenomenon at the source, which means that the individual, single, photons interfered with the matter waves of the slits. Because this interference has already occurred, the vector direction of the individual photons is established upon departing the slit cavities, and they follow a "fixed" trajectory to the screen, as evidenced by the single photon interference build up over time.
WhyNot replied:
Also incorrect and shown so by nature of the Delayed Choice part of the experiment. The experimental evidence clearly indicates that the wave or particle aspect of a photon is manifest by the measurement, even when the choice of which measurement to make is made after the photon has passed the slits. Therefore, the interference pattern is not fundamentally dependant on the "matter waves" in the slit.
In the case of the pure single photon DSE, the measurement is made
at the screen. If you introduce any measuring device in situ, you are introducing
interference in the form of physical objects, and that changes the intended result.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (Laserlight) This, by default, indicates that the individual photons have already experienced the interference wave superposition phenomenon at the source, which means that the individual, single, photons interfered with the matter waves of the slits. Because this interference has already occurred, the vector direction of the individual photons is established upon departing the slit cavities, and they follow a "fixed" trajectory to the screen, as evidenced by the single photon interference build up over time. WhyNot replied: Also incorrect and shown so by nature of the Delayed Choice part of the experiment. The experimental evidence clearly indicates that the wave or particle aspect of a photon is manifest by the measurement, even when the choice of which measurement to make is made after the photon has passed the slits. Therefore, the interference pattern is not fundamentally dependant on the "matter waves" in the slit. |
In the case of the pure single photon DSE, the measurement is made
at the screen. If you introduce any measuring device in situ, you are introducing
interference in the form of physical objects, and that changes the intended result.
In all sincerity, I think C2's post with the sarcastic dialog (which I found quite humorous by the way) was a not so subtle way to encourage you to pull out Occam’s razor. Remove everything that is not fundamentally crucial to the experiment and work from there.
I think we all agree that there are either inconsistencies or shortcomings to
QM/QCD/QED theories, or else we would already have all the answers. We can
either stay trapped inside the box of limitations, that these theories provide,
or we can choose to take another approach. Remember, we are after the truth,
and should not be bound by scientific dogma, that restricts creativity.
All great thinkers got that reputation because they questioned the doctrine practiced by the status quo and applied some original thought to find answers
to inconsistencies, unknowns, and physical mysteries.
You can either choose to wander around the inside of the box, or decide to
explore other possible options. Your choice.
Re: Occam's razor- Are we really looking at the simplest explanation, or have
really missed it, or chosen to ignore it? Perhaps, my proposal is the simplest
explanation.
With respect to all! Comments welcomed.
LL
Laserlight, et al
I posted this because I want contribute in some small way & also encourage friendly debate on creating a better model. I believe that is the reason for the success of this post.
This is what I mentioned:
This is just one example, I know QM/QCD/QED theories as tools are very reliable but much work is to be completed and frankly I know it will take many or one brilliant scientist to achieve this goal.
If not, we all know the two alternatives.
BTW, I just do not see with the technology as of 2007 how the DSE can really be explained to everyones satisfaction Laserlight.
ciao_
yquantum
I posted this because I want contribute in some small way & also encourage friendly debate on creating a better model. I believe that is the reason for the success of this post.
This is what I mentioned:
QUOTE
As you know the SM was formulated during the 70's (early) & I must mention that does not include the discovery that neutrinos have (M). 
I do not want to play both sides of this issue but I can be candid about the problem it has as you have pointed out, YOU NOT ALONE there are some in my humble view some problems that cannot be overlooked.
1. The constants [define constant in your mind] well they are adjustable but the surprise is that any value concerning the experiment will show the theory mathematically consistent. (You can read this about anywhere you might look when you study the SM.)
2. You know that there are about twenty constants -- hope you see the problem here for I will not go into detail.
I use it because it works and it is a great tool but anyone who works close with this model knows there has to be something more. But we all know this and working so hard to correct it around the world.
That is were I am, a REALIST by nature not just what I see lacking in the frame of reference I work in. I must say I hope that when LHC from CERN goes on line soon - it will cause chaos in particle physics because of new data which I hope will be a new turn in the world of physics as we know it up side down.
So keep pushing and stay focused -- someone one day will discover that there is a complete model or at least a better one --- or we just might find ourselves =>?.
caio_
yquantum
I do not want to play both sides of this issue but I can be candid about the problem it has as you have pointed out, YOU NOT ALONE there are some in my humble view some problems that cannot be overlooked.
1. The constants [define constant in your mind]
well they are adjustable but the surprise is that any value concerning the experiment will show the theory mathematically consistent. (You can read this about anywhere you might look when you study the SM.)2. You know that there are about twenty constants -- hope you see the problem here for I will not go into detail.
I use it because it works and it is a great tool but anyone who works close with this model knows there has to be something more. But we all know this and working so hard to correct it around the world.
That is were I am, a REALIST by nature not just what I see lacking in the frame of reference I work in. I must say I hope that when LHC from CERN goes on line soon - it will cause chaos in particle physics because of new data which I hope will be a new turn in the world of physics as we know it up side down.
So keep pushing and stay focused -- someone one day will discover that there is a complete model or at least a better one --- or we just might find ourselves =>?.
caio_
yquantum
This is just one example, I know QM/QCD/QED theories as tools are very reliable but much work is to be completed and frankly I know it will take many or one brilliant scientist to achieve this goal.
If not, we all know the two alternatives.
BTW, I just do not see with the technology as of 2007 how the DSE can really be explained to everyones satisfaction Laserlight.
ciao_
yquantum
Hey Laserlight, yquantum, Good Elf, and all,
LL, I have quickly read through your recent posts and instead of making replies to each of your comments I will say only two things.
1. I believe you are making yourself VERY clear and I believe you are wrong based on clear and convincing experimental evidence contrary to your position. We do need to question doctrine but we CANNOT ignore experimental evidence in the process.
2.
LL, I have quickly read through your recent posts and instead of making replies to each of your comments I will say only two things.
1. I believe you are making yourself VERY clear and I believe you are wrong based on clear and convincing experimental evidence contrary to your position. We do need to question doctrine but we CANNOT ignore experimental evidence in the process.
2.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
A single photon wavelet, cannot be divided to a smaller energy level, according to quantum mechanics, so explain how it can experience interference without another coherent photon in the same space, at the same time, with which to interfere?
I can’t! In fact, no one can! But that does not take away from the FACT that ALL experimental evidence to date shows that a SINGLE photon does indeed experience interference and by in large, only with itself. Your question cuts to the heart of QM. Now maybe you can understand why no one understands quantum mechanics!
Mahalo
EDIT*** LL, I feel the need to expand on number point number 2 a bit as I am sure that GE will. Point of fact, a photon will ONLY INTERFERE WITH ITSELF(with possible specially prepared exceptions - Can Two-Photon Interference be Considered the Interference of Two Photons?)
Mahalo
EDIT*** LL, I feel the need to expand on number point number 2 a bit as I am sure that GE will.
Point of fact, a photon will ONLY INTERFERE WITH ITSELF(with possible specially prepared exceptions - Can Two-Photon Interference be Considered the Interference of Two Photons?)
Hi GE,
The argument continues!
Hmmm, so you accept the idea that matter can interfere with matter, via field
interaction, which is an energy transfer/interference mechanism, but refuse
to accept that photons can interfere with matter fields, from which the
photons originated in the first place. This is highly illogical, IMO.
Matter is the storage point (source) of photon energy, and photons can transfer
the energy component that they contain, from one physical location to another.
Why is it so hard to accept, that if photons encounter the energetic proximity space
around matter, which illicits a change of refractive index "coupling effect" to space,
that there is no influence exerted on photons that pass thru this space?
Let's take this a little further. Would you agree that oppositely charged fermions
also experience wave interference?
If I am going too far off topic, it is for a reason. IMO, there is much at stake to
truly understand. If we don't try to understand the fine details, we are wasting
our collective time. If all we want is a general answer, then we have achieved
that objective, thousands of posts ago. There are lots of details about the
quantum world and its interactions that are not adequately understood, nor
explained. So, the question is, do we stay in the standard QM box, or do we
dare explore other possibilities and perhaps uncover some undiscovered truths?
Comments?
LL
The argument continues!
QUOTE
Lets have a little "thinky" about interference. Recent experiments have shown that two identical matter particles (like electrons) that are not touching can interfere with each other and alter their mutual path through their matter waves. This is also a "Berry Phase" Phenomenon and it is a de Broglie Matter Wave effect. It is also suggested that two particle "correlations" can occur and thus they are actually "entangled" as well even though initially they were not correlated. Naturally this effect would not be seen if it was not measured... However the interference will have occurred before measurement for an effect to be measurable... capeci? The paths of "distant" particles are "potentially" influenced by "near field" or "Fresnel Zone" matter waves.
Hmmm, so you accept the idea that matter can interfere with matter, via field
interaction, which is an energy transfer/interference mechanism, but refuse
to accept that photons can interfere with matter fields, from which the
photons originated in the first place. This is highly illogical, IMO.
Matter is the storage point (source) of photon energy, and photons can transfer
the energy component that they contain, from one physical location to another.
Why is it so hard to accept, that if photons encounter the energetic proximity space
around matter, which illicits a change of refractive index "coupling effect" to space,
that there is no influence exerted on photons that pass thru this space?
Let's take this a little further. Would you agree that oppositely charged fermions
also experience wave interference?
If I am going too far off topic, it is for a reason. IMO, there is much at stake to
truly understand. If we don't try to understand the fine details, we are wasting
our collective time. If all we want is a general answer, then we have achieved
that objective, thousands of posts ago. There are lots of details about the
quantum world and its interactions that are not adequately understood, nor
explained. So, the question is, do we stay in the standard QM box, or do we
dare explore other possibilities and perhaps uncover some undiscovered truths?
Comments?
LL
Hi Why Not, YQ, GE, C2, and All,
YNot replied:
I can’t! In fact, no one can! But that does not take away from the FACT that ALL experimental evidence to date shows that a SINGLE photon does indeed experience interference and by in large, only with itself. Your question cuts to the heart of QM. Now maybe you can understand why no one understands quantum mechanics!....
EDIT*** LL, I feel the need to expand on number point number 2 a bit as I am sure that GE will. Point of fact, a photon will ONLY INTERFERE WITH ITSELF(with possible specially prepared exceptions - Can Two-Photon Interference be Considered the Interference of Two Photons?)
That was an interesting paper. However, it did not demonstrate to me that a
single photon is interfering with itself. There was a requirement for 2 photon's
to interact to cause a dip in the detected signal. Each photon by itself yielded
no interference result, or change in signal amplitude, or phase, at the
detector. The different arrival time experiment result requires an explanation of
the mechanism dynamics.
The experiment was actually quite complex, with polarizers, quartz delay lines,
beam splitters, dual detectors, etc., used to manipulate the characteristics of each
specially routed SPDC photon enroute to the detector assy.
I am still thinking about their result, that even though two discrete SPDC photons
arrived at the detector at different times, wave interference was observed,
supporting the concept of the DCQE. I need to analyze their method closer to
conceptualize the setup of the apparatus used.
The lead in paragraph stated:
That was an interesting paper. However, it did not demonstrate to me that a
single photon is interfering with itself. There was a requirement for 2 photon's
to interact to cause a dip in the detected signal. Each photon by itself yielded
no interference result, or change in signal amplitude, or phase, at the
detector. The different arrival time experiment result requires an explanation of
the mechanism dynamics.
The experiment was actually quite complex, with polarizers, quartz delay lines,
beam splitters, dual detectors, etc., used to manipulate the characteristics of each
specially routed SPDC photon enroute to the detector assy.
I am still thinking about their result, that even though two discrete SPDC photons
arrived at the detector at different times, wave interference was observed,
supporting the concept of the DCQE. I need to analyze their method closer to
conceptualize the setup of the apparatus used.
The lead in paragraph stated:
"For this reason it is important to explicitly demonstrate that two-photon
interference cannot simply be pictured as the interference between two single photons".
Of course, this raises the questions of why, and how, separately arriving quantum
energy events can interfere. I am believing that the type 2 SPDC idler and
signal photons that were used as test vehicles, must always maintain some
information about their entangled,coherent nature, even though each photon was
physically manipulated to change rotation, orientation, and time of arrival.
If my suspicion is correct, then the result of the experiment just shows that
interference from cogenerated photons will always maintain some interference
characteristic between them, since they were spawned together from a common
source atom, that was triggered by a "specific" UV photon. Their internal
clock timing (coherency) will always be the same, regardless of distance,
orientation, or time of arrival.
This raises another question, are we merely misinterpreting the results of the
DCQE and SPDC experiments, because we are not tying some loose ends together
about what is happening at the emission source, and how cogenerated photons
maintain their absolute coherency across time and space?
EDIT added:
In effect, a single UV photon did interfere with itself, after generating 2 progeny
entangled IR photons in the down conversion process. If you think about it, there
was inteference between the original UV photon and the atom that was stimulated
to emit 2 orthogonal IR photons.
Comments?
LL
YNot replied:
QUOTE
I can’t! In fact, no one can! But that does not take away from the FACT that ALL experimental evidence to date shows that a SINGLE photon does indeed experience interference and by in large, only with itself. Your question cuts to the heart of QM. Now maybe you can understand why no one understands quantum mechanics!....
EDIT*** LL, I feel the need to expand on number point number 2 a bit as I am sure that GE will. Point of fact, a photon will ONLY INTERFERE WITH ITSELF(with possible specially prepared exceptions - Can Two-Photon Interference be Considered the Interference of Two Photons?)
That was an interesting paper. However, it did not demonstrate to me that a
single photon is interfering with itself. There was a requirement for 2 photon's
to interact to cause a dip in the detected signal. Each photon by itself yielded
no interference result, or change in signal amplitude, or phase, at the
detector. The different arrival time experiment result requires an explanation of
the mechanism dynamics.
The experiment was actually quite complex, with polarizers, quartz delay lines,
beam splitters, dual detectors, etc., used to manipulate the characteristics of each
specially routed SPDC photon enroute to the detector assy.
I am still thinking about their result, that even though two discrete SPDC photons
arrived at the detector at different times, wave interference was observed,
supporting the concept of the DCQE. I need to analyze their method closer to
conceptualize the setup of the apparatus used.
The lead in paragraph stated:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I can’t! In fact, no one can! But that does not take away from the FACT that ALL experimental evidence to date shows that a SINGLE photon does indeed experience interference and by in large, only with itself. Your question cuts to the heart of QM. Now maybe you can understand why no one understands quantum mechanics!.... EDIT*** LL, I feel the need to expand on number point number 2 a bit as I am sure that GE will. Point of fact, a photon will ONLY INTERFERE WITH ITSELF(with possible specially prepared exceptions - Can Two-Photon Interference be Considered the Interference of Two Photons?) |
That was an interesting paper. However, it did not demonstrate to me that a
single photon is interfering with itself. There was a requirement for 2 photon's
to interact to cause a dip in the detected signal. Each photon by itself yielded
no interference result, or change in signal amplitude, or phase, at the
detector. The different arrival time experiment result requires an explanation of
the mechanism dynamics.
The experiment was actually quite complex, with polarizers, quartz delay lines,
beam splitters, dual detectors, etc., used to manipulate the characteristics of each
specially routed SPDC photon enroute to the detector assy.
I am still thinking about their result, that even though two discrete SPDC photons
arrived at the detector at different times, wave interference was observed,
supporting the concept of the DCQE. I need to analyze their method closer to
conceptualize the setup of the apparatus used.
The lead in paragraph stated:
"For this reason it is important to explicitly demonstrate that two-photon
interference cannot simply be pictured as the interference between two single photons".
Of course, this raises the questions of why, and how, separately arriving quantum
energy events can interfere. I am believing that the type 2 SPDC idler and
signal photons that were used as test vehicles, must always maintain some
information about their entangled,coherent nature, even though each photon was
physically manipulated to change rotation, orientation, and time of arrival.
If my suspicion is correct, then the result of the experiment just shows that
interference from cogenerated photons will always maintain some interference
characteristic between them, since they were spawned together from a common
source atom, that was triggered by a "specific" UV photon. Their internal
clock timing (coherency) will always be the same, regardless of distance,
orientation, or time of arrival.
This raises another question, are we merely misinterpreting the results of the
DCQE and SPDC experiments, because we are not tying some loose ends together
about what is happening at the emission source, and how cogenerated photons
maintain their absolute coherency across time and space?
EDIT added:
In effect, a single UV photon did interfere with itself, after generating 2 progeny
entangled IR photons in the down conversion process. If you think about it, there
was inteference between the original UV photon and the atom that was stimulated
to emit 2 orthogonal IR photons.
Comments?
LL
Hey LL,
The paper I linked to in my last post was intended as an "exception" not the rule. Please Google "Single Photon Interference" and note the number of .edu's listed on the first page and then read one. (The first, from Harvard, is good. The last one, Single-photon interference experiment over 100 km... is good too, though not from a .edu.)
Quantum "weirdness" is the result of ONE object (read: photon, electron, Buckeyball...) being in multiple places (and thus interfering with itself) at the same time. This is THE central fact around which all of the puzzlement over QM revolves. This is the fact that I thought everyone was discussing for the last few hundred pages.
EDIT***
The paper I linked to in my last post was intended as an "exception" not the rule. Please Google "Single Photon Interference" and note the number of .edu's listed on the first page and then read one. (The first, from Harvard, is good. The last one, Single-photon interference experiment over 100 km... is good too, though not from a .edu.)
Quantum "weirdness" is the result of ONE object (read: photon, electron, Buckeyball...) being in multiple places (and thus interfering with itself) at the same time. This is THE central fact around which all of the puzzlement over QM revolves. This is the fact that I thought everyone was discussing for the last few hundred pages.
EDIT***
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
EDIT added:
In effect, a single UV photon did interfere with itself, after generating 2 progeny
entangled IR photons in the down conversion process. If you think about it, there
was inteference between the original UV photon and the atom that was stimulated
to emit 2 orthogonal IR photons.
You're killing me! That is correct, which is why I put "exception" in quotes above! The fact that a two-photon (should be called a bi-photon IMHO) can interfere is the cool part because two photons are not supposed to be able to interfere with one another.
In effect, a single UV photon did interfere with itself, after generating 2 progeny
entangled IR photons in the down conversion process. If you think about it, there
was inteference between the original UV photon and the atom that was stimulated
to emit 2 orthogonal IR photons.
You're killing me! That is correct, which is why I put "exception" in quotes above! The fact that a two-photon (should be called a bi-photon IMHO) can interfere is the cool part because two photons are not supposed to be able to interfere with one another.
Good Day all!
It appears that GE, yq nd now Why Not? would like to investigate the DSE without considering the "elements of time or distance".
How do you do that without getting involved in the the para and the meta?
How do you find "experimental evidence"? How do you separate experimental evidence from interpretation?
Were are the experiments that will bring your "universe" out from science fiction?
jal
It appears that GE, yq nd now Why Not? would like to investigate the DSE without considering the "elements of time or distance".
How do you do that without getting involved in the the para and the meta?
How do you find "experimental evidence"? How do you separate experimental evidence from interpretation?
Were are the experiments that will bring your "universe" out from science fiction?
jal
Hi "Why Not?", Laserlight, yquantum, Jal, Confused2, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, TRoc, et al,
QUOTE (Why Not?+)
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
A single photon wavelet, cannot be divided to a smaller energy level, according to quantum mechanics, so explain how it can experience interference without another coherent photon in the same space, at the same time, with which to interfere?
I can’t! In fact, no one can! But that does not take away from the FACT that ALL experimental evidence to date shows that a SINGLE photon does indeed experience interference and by in large, only with itself. Your question cuts to the heart of QM. Now maybe you can understand why no one understands quantum mechanics!
For goodness sake... Who says you can't? .. a photon propagates as a wave not a particle. Surely we can understand that waves can interfere with themselves. Perhaps a trip to the seaside is in order and watch the waves pass between the piers on a Jetty somewhere. The single difference between the waves at the beach and the waves in the sub-atomic realm is that everything comes in fixed sizes due to quantization and this is an expression of the CPT-Lorentz Symmetry. Once you are down at that scale the protons come in one size, the electrons come in one size, the neutrons come in one size, everything is made up of hybridizations of just these three elements. Even quarks come in fixed and limited sizes. There are no electrons "with the corners knocked off" so all resonant systems have only certain allowed configurations and these are "dictated" by the harmonics on the surface of "spheres" via quantum numbers. The photons can only be absorbed by a resonant "antenna" that is "just right" and matched to its specific "size" and "frequency"... anything bigger or smaller is "unsuitable". This is the "Goldilocks Syndrome"... everything must be "just right" before our Goldilocks photons find a place to "sleep".
When you move to frequencies above the sub-atomic realm resonators can be built to order using circuit boards or even huge towers that resonate and receive these longer wavelengths. There is a little imprecision in the size that mean that even if "slightly" off tune it can absorb some of these "slightly odd sized" photons from time to time. Another aspect is in the atomic realm photons are emitted and absorbed as "packets"... the states they enter can only hold the packet for a short time but while they are in that "holding pattern" the filled atom shells are "reflecting" or "transparent" because they are limited to hold only a single quanta of that energy. After absorption... anything goes... the energy may be transferred by deep inductive processes to change the remaining energy to other forms.
.. a photon propagates as a wave not a particle. Surely we can understand that waves can interfere with themselves. Perhaps a trip to the seaside is in order and watch the waves pass between the piers on a Jetty somewhere. The single difference between the waves at the beach and the waves in the sub-atomic realm is that everything comes in fixed sizes due to quantization and this is an expression of the CPT-Lorentz Symmetry. Once you are down at that scale the protons come in one size, the electrons come in one size, the neutrons come in one size, everything is made up of hybridizations of just these three elements. Even quarks come in fixed and limited sizes. There are no electrons "with the corners knocked off" so all resonant systems have only certain allowed configurations and these are "dictated" by the harmonics on the surface of "spheres" via quantum numbers. The photons can only be absorbed by a resonant "antenna" that is "just right" and matched to its specific "size" and "frequency"... anything bigger or smaller is "unsuitable". This is the "Goldilocks Syndrome"... everything must be "just right" before our Goldilocks photons find a place to "sleep". When you move to frequencies above the sub-atomic realm resonators can be built to order using circuit boards or even huge towers that resonate and receive these longer wavelengths. There is a little imprecision in the size that mean that even if "slightly" off tune it can absorb some of these "slightly odd sized" photons from time to time. Another aspect is in the atomic realm photons are emitted and absorbed as "packets"... the states they enter can only hold the packet for a short time but while they are in that "holding pattern" the filled atom shells are "reflecting" or "transparent" because they are limited to hold only a single quanta of that energy. After absorption... anything goes... the energy may be transferred by deep inductive processes to change the remaining energy to other forms.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Hmmm, so you accept the idea that matter can interfere with matter, via field interaction, which is an energy transfer/interference mechanism, but refuse to accept that photons can interfere with matter fields, from which the photons originated in the first place. This is highly illogical, IMO.
Hello... that has been one of my main points. Matter waves and electromagnetic waves are not quite the same. It is not "Good Elf" that accepts this premise but experimental science and it is not something that has not been known. The matter wave interaction between two electrons is not through an electromagnetic field since the electromagnetic properties are not directly associated with de Broglie Matter Waves. Matter waves exist for any "particle" that has mass and does not need to have any charge. The photon interacts with matter electromagnetically. Because the photon has no rest mass it has no "matter wave" directly. A collection of photons that mutually interfere has a collective de Broglie Wave. Individual photons have a "nominal de Broglie wave equal to their wavelength", but I think this is the electromagnetic wave.
The details of this are complex and I have tried to explain that. The matter wave is a property related to the mass of the particle through Special Relativity... as I have always said, de Broglie matter waves are the "low velocity end" of Special Relativity. Clearly the mass relates to the matter wave through a reciprocal field due to the reciprocal nature of the particle field. Like I said previously that the electromagnetic field of a photon seen in a frame of reference on the "inside" of a light cone closed spacetime like our Universe. Mass is a property seen on the "outside" of a particle which "could be composed of a internally trapped photon". The matter wave is a outer surface wave in the evanescent field of the particle which is tunneling through from the inside. Because of CPT-Lorentz Symmetry this internally trapped photon can't simply tunnel out like a normal photon in a potential well, it is held there inside the "particle field" which exhibits mass, charge, spin and the matter wave as parity.
We can see that if the inner surface wave were related to the outer surface wave directly any standing waves on the inner surface would reduce in spatial frequency as it's velocity increased. Say if a oscillating bob was bobbing at one cycle per second then it would produce waves with a spatial frequency of 1 Hz. If you move that source with a velocity the spatial frequency drops. What we see with matter waves is the spatial frequency rises according to this formula...
This is the effect of reciprocal time... the frequency. Alternatively the particle has a frequency according to Wikipedia equal to this...
Clearly these can't both be true at the same time since limiting value as v -> 0 of wavelength is infinity and the limiting value of the frequency is "quite a very large number" but not the required "zero".
The de Broglie Matter Wave is such an interesting thing here we can see an "analysis" of the electron as an "orbiting quanta". This is very compelling and it illustrates how it might be that the Fine Structure Constant (FSC) might arise and it takes on the hypothesis that the electron's photon "circulates" around its own Bohr trajectory in complex space. The FSC is then the mathematical ratio of the Bohr Orbital radius to the trapped photon self radius.
The Electron as an Orbiting Quantum
T. R. King does seem to embrace a functional idea here and these can be expressed probably more generally in other ways since the rest of the analysis is "problematic". I do not mean this as criticism I would more like to indicate that I do like the way the electron as a spiraling photon does have appeal since the helix path taken would project into two orthogonal sinusoids which may be considered as the electric and magnetic fields. The complex nature of this movement can be used to solve some problems and the internal wave of a solitary electron is a special case where a photon has a degenerate self orbit of the Hubius Spiral when "free" as mentioned in other posts.
Amazing: Good Elf comment
The other references are there. This can tie into other factors seen in this reference lately...
Physicists get ultra-sharp glimpse of electrons
He we can almost "glimpse" the internal structure of the electron itself (see my comments in the reference above). Naturally I would point to the fact that the stationary states are standing waves rather than "circulation" per se. Notice also the fact that the electrons are not "repulsive" as you may think but form into Cooper pairs then Cooper "sheets"... If the electron charge was "fundamental" I really do not think this could happen. Notice the states of electrons beyond the confines of a "surface" is what is otherwise "free space"... this has been noted previously in other experiments... the energy of these states is "very low".
Regardless of all the claims to the contrary, Quantum Physics cannot provide any information on individual quantum particle "trajectories" or "histories" as I have remarked previously. The statistics of these quanta are all very interesting and highly accurate but can't say a single thing about these phenomena. This is a kind of "Bohmian Mechanics" and it infers more dimensions than QM can presently accept.
You can see the animations regarding standing waves of the electron at this site in more detail ...
Stroud Wave Packet Home Rochester
These are different dynamic standing waves "changing between different eigen states through superposition". The complex values of the phase can be seen as "color" in some of the better animations. Recall I have mentioned this only recently.
Cheers
The details of this are complex and I have tried to explain that. The matter wave is a property related to the mass of the particle through Special Relativity... as I have always said, de Broglie matter waves are the "low velocity end" of Special Relativity. Clearly the mass relates to the matter wave through a reciprocal field due to the reciprocal nature of the particle field. Like I said previously that the electromagnetic field of a photon seen in a frame of reference on the "inside" of a light cone closed spacetime like our Universe. Mass is a property seen on the "outside" of a particle which "could be composed of a internally trapped photon". The matter wave is a outer surface wave in the evanescent field of the particle which is tunneling through from the inside. Because of CPT-Lorentz Symmetry this internally trapped photon can't simply tunnel out like a normal photon in a potential well, it is held there inside the "particle field" which exhibits mass, charge, spin and the matter wave as parity.
We can see that if the inner surface wave were related to the outer surface wave directly any standing waves on the inner surface would reduce in spatial frequency as it's velocity increased. Say if a oscillating bob was bobbing at one cycle per second then it would produce waves with a spatial frequency of 1 Hz. If you move that source with a velocity the spatial frequency drops. What we see with matter waves is the spatial frequency rises according to this formula...
This is the effect of reciprocal time... the frequency. Alternatively the particle has a frequency according to Wikipedia equal to this...
Clearly these can't both be true at the same time since limiting value as v -> 0 of wavelength is infinity and the limiting value of the frequency is "quite a very large number" but not the required "zero".
The de Broglie Matter Wave is such an interesting thing here we can see an "analysis" of the electron as an "orbiting quanta". This is very compelling and it illustrates how it might be that the Fine Structure Constant (FSC) might arise and it takes on the hypothesis that the electron's photon "circulates" around its own Bohr trajectory in complex space. The FSC is then the mathematical ratio of the Bohr Orbital radius to the trapped photon self radius.
The Electron as an Orbiting Quantum
T. R. King does seem to embrace a functional idea here and these can be expressed probably more generally in other ways since the rest of the analysis is "problematic". I do not mean this as criticism I would more like to indicate that I do like the way the electron as a spiraling photon does have appeal since the helix path taken would project into two orthogonal sinusoids which may be considered as the electric and magnetic fields. The complex nature of this movement can be used to solve some problems and the internal wave of a solitary electron is a special case where a photon has a degenerate self orbit of the Hubius Spiral when "free" as mentioned in other posts.
Amazing: Good Elf comment
The other references are there. This can tie into other factors seen in this reference lately...
Physicists get ultra-sharp glimpse of electrons
He we can almost "glimpse" the internal structure of the electron itself (see my comments in the reference above). Naturally I would point to the fact that the stationary states are standing waves rather than "circulation" per se. Notice also the fact that the electrons are not "repulsive" as you may think but form into Cooper pairs then Cooper "sheets"... If the electron charge was "fundamental" I really do not think this could happen. Notice the states of electrons beyond the confines of a "surface" is what is otherwise "free space"... this has been noted previously in other experiments... the energy of these states is "very low".
Regardless of all the claims to the contrary, Quantum Physics cannot provide any information on individual quantum particle "trajectories" or "histories" as I have remarked previously. The statistics of these quanta are all very interesting and highly accurate but can't say a single thing about these phenomena. This is a kind of "Bohmian Mechanics" and it infers more dimensions than QM can presently accept.
You can see the animations regarding standing waves of the electron at this site in more detail ...
Stroud Wave Packet Home Rochester
These are different dynamic standing waves "changing between different eigen states through superposition". The complex values of the phase can be seen as "color" in some of the better animations. Recall I have mentioned this only recently.
Cheers
Hi all,
The "success" of this post, by which I assume you mean its' longevity, is due entirely to our disagreements, and near refusal to change on any beliefs. There has been basically zero effort, as a group, to move forward. Let's not sugar-coat this.
You can't write a good book report, based on post cards that you have sent to the authors of that book.
Your "post cards" are nice, but you have not read this thread.
The "success" of this post, by which I assume you mean its' longevity, is due entirely to our disagreements, and near refusal to change on any beliefs. There has been basically zero effort, as a group, to move forward. Let's not sugar-coat this.
You can't write a good book report, based on post cards that you have sent to the authors of that book.
Your "post cards" are nice, but you have not read this thread.
Good Elf Posted: Yesterday at 12:06 PM
My argument for this is seeing how light can propagate for 13 billion years through "empty space" and still arrive on Earth, or more pertinently at the Hubble Telescope, "coherent" and pristine.
You are saying that the experimental data (of how many particles, not even including the "virtual" ones) is false. So, let's see how you support this with evidence, or calculations. How (or who) "parted the Red Sea" of space to allow the "special", uninterrupted path for your "photon". Clue: calculate the distance required for light to travel at c , and take 13 billion years (in centimeters). Then, multiply this by how many particles we know to be in each average cubic centimeter. This will give you the number of excuses that you have to come up with to explain your "idea".
Perhaps you are right here. Since this has NOT been done before, maybe you can seek funding for it? For the time being, let's stick to the ACTUAL parameters of the DSE, and run it in "gas", so that we may come to understand the mechanisms that CAUSE interference to behave so "harmonically symmetric".
Perhaps you are right here. Since this has NOT been done before, maybe you can seek funding for it? For the time being, let's stick to the ACTUAL parameters of the DSE, and run it in "gas", so that we may come to understand the mechanisms that CAUSE interference to behave so "harmonically symmetric".
Good Elf Posted: Yesterday at 11:38 PM
I concur with what yquantum, Confused2 and "Why Not?" have said, the interference occurs in the space between the slits or pinholes and the screen..
Don't forget Good Elf, the unlimited "editing of the past posts" has been eliminated on this Forum. Your old methods are likely to get you into trouble. I think everyone here can remember how many pages it took for this concept to "sink" in; and I find it rather odd that you left me out of this group.
While I certainly am not seeking a "pat on the back" for something, I also do not appreciate being shown the "middle finger".
and this:
It just seems that you change your mind like the temperature outside: constantly.
Again, this is NOT personal; this is seeking the truth, by Scientific method. You are correct, in that my respect for you has declined over the past year, by seeing so many examples like the 2 I just gave above. Arguing vehemently against something, only to later quietly inject it into your "theory", is not going to win anybody over.
regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE
yquantum Posted: Yesterday at 11:57 PM
.. friendly debate on creating a better model. I believe that is the reason for the success of this post.
.. friendly debate on creating a better model. I believe that is the reason for the success of this post.
The "success" of this post, by which I assume you mean its' longevity, is due entirely to our disagreements, and near refusal to change on any beliefs. There has been basically zero effort, as a group, to move forward. Let's not sugar-coat this.
You can't write a good book report, based on post cards that you have sent to the authors of that book.
Your "post cards" are nice, but you have not read this thread.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| yquantum Posted: Yesterday at 11:57 PM .. friendly debate on creating a better model. I believe that is the reason for the success of this post. |
The "success" of this post, by which I assume you mean its' longevity, is due entirely to our disagreements, and near refusal to change on any beliefs. There has been basically zero effort, as a group, to move forward. Let's not sugar-coat this.
You can't write a good book report, based on post cards that you have sent to the authors of that book.
Your "post cards" are nice, but you have not read this thread.
Good Elf Posted: Yesterday at 12:06 PM
My argument for this is seeing how light can propagate for 13 billion years through "empty space" and still arrive on Earth, or more pertinently at the Hubble Telescope, "coherent" and pristine.
You are saying that the experimental data (of how many particles, not even including the "virtual" ones) is false. So, let's see how you support this with evidence, or calculations. How (or who) "parted the Red Sea" of space to allow the "special", uninterrupted path for your "photon". Clue: calculate the distance required for light to travel at c , and take 13 billion years (in centimeters). Then, multiply this by how many particles we know to be in each average cubic centimeter. This will give you the number of excuses that you have to come up with to explain your "idea".
QUOTE
Good Elf Posted: Yesterday at 12:06 PM
It is very important to consider the DSE in a vacuum since this is where we can speak of the phenomenon without distractions such as surface plasmons for instance.
It is very important to consider the DSE in a vacuum since this is where we can speak of the phenomenon without distractions such as surface plasmons for instance.
Perhaps you are right here. Since this has NOT been done before, maybe you can seek funding for it? For the time being, let's stick to the ACTUAL parameters of the DSE, and run it in "gas", so that we may come to understand the mechanisms that CAUSE interference to behave so "harmonically symmetric".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Good Elf Posted: Yesterday at 12:06 PM It is very important to consider the DSE in a vacuum since this is where we can speak of the phenomenon without distractions such as surface plasmons for instance. |
Perhaps you are right here. Since this has NOT been done before, maybe you can seek funding for it? For the time being, let's stick to the ACTUAL parameters of the DSE, and run it in "gas", so that we may come to understand the mechanisms that CAUSE interference to behave so "harmonically symmetric".
Good Elf Posted: Yesterday at 11:38 PM
I concur with what yquantum, Confused2 and "Why Not?" have said, the interference occurs in the space between the slits or pinholes and the screen..
Don't forget Good Elf, the unlimited "editing of the past posts" has been eliminated on this Forum. Your old methods are likely to get you into trouble.
I think everyone here can remember how many pages it took for this concept to "sink" in; and I find it rather odd that you left me out of this group. While I certainly am not seeking a "pat on the back" for something, I also do not appreciate being shown the "middle finger".
and this:
QUOTE
Think of this like the eye of a hurricane or the center of a tornado
also seems to run contrary to your previous stance.It just seems that you change your mind like the temperature outside: constantly.
Again, this is NOT personal; this is seeking the truth, by Scientific method. You are correct, in that my respect for you has declined over the past year, by seeing so many examples like the 2 I just gave above. Arguing vehemently against something, only to later quietly inject it into your "theory", is not going to win anybody over.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi!
The picture of the electron makes it obvious that there is a structure to the electrons.
http://www.physorg.com/news104156028.html
It's also obvious that the electons are doing something so that they can be seen because that is not a picture at 10^-18 as indicated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_mag...de_%28length%29
jal
insert more info
http://www.4engr.com/research/catalog/209/index.html
Focus of research of Ashoori group
http://www.4engr.com/research/catalog/209/index.html
This experiment is technically demanding; large bandwidth signals (from around 1 kHz to 1 Ghz)
--------------
This would indicate that the electron has got to be big enough to absorb/reflect that bandwidth
The picture of the electron makes it obvious that there is a structure to the electrons.
http://www.physorg.com/news104156028.html
It's also obvious that the electons are doing something so that they can be seen because that is not a picture at 10^-18 as indicated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_mag...de_%28length%29
jal
insert more info
http://www.4engr.com/research/catalog/209/index.html
Focus of research of Ashoori group
http://www.4engr.com/research/catalog/209/index.html
This experiment is technically demanding; large bandwidth signals (from around 1 kHz to 1 Ghz)
--------------
This would indicate that the electron has got to be big enough to absorb/reflect that bandwidth
Come on.... give a try to answer....
It has to do with DSE .... it has to do with our understanding of what electrons and photons can or cannot do.
Is the electron size 10^-18 or more?
Is the pattern that was created a confirmation that there is a simple symmetrical structure at 10^-18 that is reflected in the position/structure of the electrons as shown by the Ashoori group?
The more you (I) learn the more are the questions?
jal
It has to do with DSE .... it has to do with our understanding of what electrons and photons can or cannot do.
Is the electron size 10^-18 or more?
Is the pattern that was created a confirmation that there is a simple symmetrical structure at 10^-18 that is reflected in the position/structure of the electrons as shown by the Ashoori group?
The more you (I) learn the more are the questions?
jal
TRoc, et al,
Please correct me if I am mistaken.
In 1801, English physicist Thomas Young performed an experiment that swung opinion away from Newton's particle theory of light and towards Huygens's wave theory. Young forced light to travel through two narrow slits and to land on a screen placed behind the slits. The diagram below illustrates Young's experimental layout.
The genius of Young's experiment lay in the fact that the pattern projected on the screen by the light coming from the two slits would, if it showed interference patterns, confirm that the light had at least a partial wave nature. On the other hand, if light traveled like particles, Young expected to see two bright lines or bands appear on the screen directly opposite the slits.
No book report needed, BTW did you get the DATE [1801] so I would not hold my breath on a resolution any time soon. I can see that the debate continues and that is PHYSICS at its best. This is not the first time physicist did not agree and I am sure that goes for the human race as well.
ciao_
yquantum
Please correct me if I am mistaken.
In 1801, English physicist Thomas Young performed an experiment that swung opinion away from Newton's particle theory of light and towards Huygens's wave theory. Young forced light to travel through two narrow slits and to land on a screen placed behind the slits. The diagram below illustrates Young's experimental layout.
The genius of Young's experiment lay in the fact that the pattern projected on the screen by the light coming from the two slits would, if it showed interference patterns, confirm that the light had at least a partial wave nature. On the other hand, if light traveled like particles, Young expected to see two bright lines or bands appear on the screen directly opposite the slits.
QUOTE
you can't write a good book report, based on post cards that you have sent to the authors of that book.
No book report needed, BTW did you get the DATE [1801] so I would not hold my breath on a resolution any time soon.
I can see that the debate continues and that is PHYSICS at its best. This is not the first time physicist did not agree and I am sure that goes for the human race as well. ciao_
yquantum
Hi TRoc et al,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
QUOTE (Good Elf Posted: Yesterday at 12:06 PM+)
My argument for this is seeing how light can propagate for 13 billion years through "empty space" and still arrive on Earth, or more pertinently at the Hubble Telescope, "coherent" and pristine.
You are saying that the experimental data (of how many particles, not even including the "virtual" ones) is false. So, let's see how you support this with evidence, or calculations. How (or who) "parted the Red Sea" of space to allow the "special", uninterrupted path for your "photon". Clue: calculate the distance required for light to travel at c , and take 13 billion years (in centimeters). Then, multiply this by how many particles we know to be in each average cubic centimeter. This will give you the number of excuses that you have to come up with to explain your "idea".
No... I am saying that I can see 13 Billion light years into the Hubble Deep Field, the light has been traveling for 13 Billion years in our direction. Each photon still carries it's original qubit. The fact that deep space is 'transparent" and not opaque is self evident. It is clear that any material out there is in a "dark state" and is not absorbing light or is of an inappropriate dimension to absorb at those optical frequencies. Obviously not every photon has to complete the journey but when one does the collapse of the state is a collapse globally to "precipitate" a "particle". The velocity of light is finite in the direction of propagation and it travels at ©, however in the perpendicular direction along the wavefront, the phase velocity can be infinite (as it can be within sources). The thesis is the photons move in our space as "frozen waves" relative to our time and when they arrive they result in the "transport of the particle". This concept as I have said is best understood as the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. The "particle" impulses exist only at the source and the sinks... between them is only standing waves on the surface of a hypothetical sphere. I must use more than one way to explain this or I will lose everyone here...
QUOTE (TRoc+)
QUOTE (Good Elf Posted: Yesterday at 12:06 PM+)
It is very important to consider the DSE in a vacuum since this is where we can speak of the phenomenon without distractions such as surface plasmons for instance.
Perhaps you are right here. Since this has NOT been done before, maybe you can seek funding for it? For the time being, let's stick to the ACTUAL parameters of the DSE, and run it in "gas", so that we may come to understand the mechanisms that CAUSE interference to behave so "harmonically symmetric".
Perhaps you are right here. Since this has NOT been done before, maybe you can seek funding for it? For the time being, let's stick to the ACTUAL parameters of the DSE, and run it in "gas", so that we may come to understand the mechanisms that CAUSE interference to behave so "harmonically symmetric".
These issues have already been investigated. Early Michelson Morley Inteferometers were constructed in the vacuum so interference occurs in a vacuum. Surface plasmons occur with certain bright metals in contact with a liquid or a gas and particular wavelengths of light. When I did the DSE at High School as a kid we used glass slides and lampblack with fine etched slits. No metals involved. We also used incandescent monochromatic sodium halogen vapor sources not LASERS.... Still "partial coherence" was seen. It would seem nowadays kids in high school have not graduated from plasticine.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
Don't forget Good Elf, the unlimited "editing of the past posts" has been eliminated on this Forum. Your old methods are likely to get you into trouble. I think everyone here can remember how many pages it took for this concept to "sink" in; and I find it rather odd that you left me out of this group.
While I certainly am not seeking a "pat on the back" for something, I also do not appreciate being shown the "middle finger".
While I certainly am not seeking a "pat on the back" for something, I also do not appreciate being shown the "middle finger".
You are not left out TRoc and you are exaggerating the severity of my rebuke, I was not happy with a few things you were saying and I was not well at the time. I was not able to handle your personal retorts. I wholeheartedly apologize. I would appreciate future clarity in your replies so I can at least understand what it is you are saying... For instance you are being "quite clear right now as you were in your retorts then", this clarity could be used whenever we discuss any subject. I too am only here for the Science so you will forgive me when this flaming occurs because I am not willing to directly engage you on it. You are welcome to participate as long as we are not saying things which only "play the man and not the ball".
QUOTE (TRoc+)
QUOTE (Goor Elf+)
Think of this like the eye of a hurricane or the center of a tornado
also seems to run contrary to your previous stance.
It just seems that you change your mind like the temperature outside: constantly.
It just seems that you change your mind like the temperature outside: constantly.
I may be continually refining the way I am telling the story and I have added some points. I always reserve the right to modify any theory I may hold at the drop of a hat(or beanie). However you will see that analogy of a "hurricane" repeated for the last year in my posts especially when mentioning Berry Phase, this goes way back to when we were on a former thread about "bubbles", surely you recall? I do not think I have used "Tornado" before but usually it is in reference to Berry Phase. I invite you to check it out. This is my way I am able to have the photons "disperse" on the surface of the hypersphere as a result of Geometric or Berry phase. I have also used this analogy many times since that period. Clearly this wave phenomenon is not how photon "particles" are "moving" but it does explain the distribution within the single boson state of co-moving photons as "waves" and why the photons do not all end up at a single point on the screen.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
Again, this is NOT personal; this is seeking the truth, by Scientific method. You are correct, in that my respect for you has declined over the past year, by seeing so many examples like the 2 I just gave above. Arguing vehemently against something, only to later quietly inject it into your "theory", is not going to win anybody over.
I have "shifted" a little in the way I have recently explained "interference" simply because nobody will accept that photons are the result of impulses in the time domain resulting in waves in the frequency domain. I have resorted to using Confused2's favored method of "explanation" to show that interference can occur inside a single "spread" photon. It is not that Confused2's idea is "wrong" .... we know it gives the right result what it does not provide is the reason why a photon can go through two slits at the same time and interfere one photon at a time. I insist that we understand the underlying reason why things occur rather than the simplest reason that gives no explanation. For instance why do waves exist at all?... My "reason" for waves still remains as the one for transforms between two reciprocal domains leading to the duality of particle and wave. As a consequence of of this the standing waves and resonances and everything else follows. Part of that story is that path differences result in interference but it is clear that the photon propagates directly from source to sink and the interferences the photons experiences imprint from the surrounding "dark universe" when you make a Hologram which shows up those standing waves.
Just remember why I am here and you are here... It is for the Science; and on my part to try and show why we need to introduce more dimensions; and what the nature of these dimensions; are and how to find them. I have also pointed out the deficiencies in Quantum Theory and why it cannot provide the extra detail to questions people want to ask about single events. Originally I was only discussing Special and some General Relativity on this site and "dabbled" in quantum theory. I, like everyone else, am coming up to speed and I have had to do this alone without the benefit of much assistance. If I get a good penetrating question I am very pleased, when I am flamed by some I can only be displeased. I also support my theories with other papers where possible. That is my style. Others often assert things without any experimental justification (not just you TRoc... a lot of people). When I see no experimental backing supplied I feel less inclined to agree. The onus is on the one placing the idea to justify them. I have seen no serious challenges to my ideas based on experiment, only ad hominem slights. I am not about to respond to those, they are a waste of time. Sorry about being dismissive but I am not the Dalai Lama, I am a "grumpy elf". You are no "aggrieved saint" in these matters either... that is how we are.
Cheers
Just remember why I am here and you are here... It is for the Science; and on my part to try and show why we need to introduce more dimensions; and what the nature of these dimensions; are and how to find them. I have also pointed out the deficiencies in Quantum Theory and why it cannot provide the extra detail to questions people want to ask about single events. Originally I was only discussing Special and some General Relativity on this site and "dabbled" in quantum theory. I, like everyone else, am coming up to speed and I have had to do this alone without the benefit of much assistance. If I get a good penetrating question I am very pleased, when I am flamed by some I can only be displeased. I also support my theories with other papers where possible. That is my style. Others often assert things without any experimental justification (not just you TRoc... a lot of people). When I see no experimental backing supplied I feel less inclined to agree. The onus is on the one placing the idea to justify them. I have seen no serious challenges to my ideas based on experiment, only ad hominem slights. I am not about to respond to those, they are a waste of time. Sorry about being dismissive but I am not the Dalai Lama, I am a "grumpy elf". You are no "aggrieved saint" in these matters either... that is how we are.
Cheers
Ohhh well! ..... I'm used to it..... another observation, citation, unanswered question for my summary 
Hi GE, WN, YQ, Jal, TRoc, and All,
GE said:
I think that we all agree that an individual photon has wave properties, but I
am questioning the concept of a full sperical wave properties dispersed throughout
the universe. A position which you have expressed numerous times. This concept
makes absolutely no sense.
I am supporting the concept of a "wavicle", where there is, more or less, a
semi-confined "spherical boundary region" of EM operation around a central focal
point or "core", which you refer to as the "eye of the hurricane". This concept
allows for EM wave action within an limited, flexible, enclosed, spherical, energy
envelope around the "eye".
A crude analogy would be a comparison of a photon, and a very flexible water
balloon that can be deformed, or can become conformal, within limits, and pass
thru openings smaller than its extended envelope, or wrap around small
geometries that obstruct its path. Once past the opening, the water balloon, and a
photon, will expand back to its normal, flexible, "spherical" shape.
I hear you laughing, but let me explain why. Maybe my argument will open the
lid to the "box". All I ask, is that you keep an open mind.
Magnetic, electric, and charge fields have "extent", as to how far they can project
their energy influence from the "point" of origin, up to the limits of being
measurable. At some distance from the source, the field energy merges into the
background noise level, where it cannot be detected, or measured, up to the point
where it has minimal, or no, influence on other field emitting sources. This is
the extreme coupling limit of the energy field envelope. Beyond this point, there
is virtually no field influence on matter, or other fields, that exist outside of this
energetic sphere of influence.
This energy field "fall off" corresponds to the ISL, and is determined by the
intensity of the field vs. square of the distance from the source. The size and
shape of the energy fields can be shaped, controlled, and directed, under the
right conditions, which is why we have such marvelous technologies at our disposal.
IF the EM fields of an individual photon wavelet had unlimited wave
boundary extent, that would imply that a single photon could be detected at
any point along the extended spherical wavefront, in any direction from the source,
WHICH DOES NOT HAPPEN! What this implies, is that if we pointed a laser
at a right angle to the slits of the DSE, that all the photons (or a single photon
would be detected beyond the slits. We know this won't happen, but we do know
that photons have a directional vector component, momentum, energy
content, and can be directionalized. So, these characteristics seem to place
limitations on what a photon is and can do, to some extent.
Comments?
LL
GE said:
QUOTE
For goodness sake... Who says you can't? .. a photon propagates as a wave not a particle. Surely we can understand that waves can interfere with themselves. Perhaps a trip to the seaside is in order and watch the waves pass between the piers on a Jetty somewhere. The single difference between the waves at the beach and the waves in the sub-atomic realm is that everything comes in fixed sizes due to quantization and this is an expression of the CPT-Lorentz Symmetry. Once you are down at that scale the protons come in one size, the electrons come in one size, the neutrons come in one size, everything is made up of hybridizations of just these three elements. Even quarks come in fixed and limited sizes.
I think that we all agree that an individual photon has wave properties, but I
am questioning the concept of a full sperical wave properties dispersed throughout
the universe. A position which you have expressed numerous times. This concept
makes absolutely no sense.
I am supporting the concept of a "wavicle", where there is, more or less, a
semi-confined "spherical boundary region" of EM operation around a central focal
point or "core", which you refer to as the "eye of the hurricane". This concept
allows for EM wave action within an limited, flexible, enclosed, spherical, energy
envelope around the "eye".
A crude analogy would be a comparison of a photon, and a very flexible water
balloon that can be deformed, or can become conformal, within limits, and pass
thru openings smaller than its extended envelope, or wrap around small
geometries that obstruct its path. Once past the opening, the water balloon, and a
photon, will expand back to its normal, flexible, "spherical" shape.
I hear you laughing, but let me explain why. Maybe my argument will open the
lid to the "box". All I ask, is that you keep an open mind.
Magnetic, electric, and charge fields have "extent", as to how far they can project
their energy influence from the "point" of origin, up to the limits of being
measurable. At some distance from the source, the field energy merges into the
background noise level, where it cannot be detected, or measured, up to the point
where it has minimal, or no, influence on other field emitting sources. This is
the extreme coupling limit of the energy field envelope. Beyond this point, there
is virtually no field influence on matter, or other fields, that exist outside of this
energetic sphere of influence.
This energy field "fall off" corresponds to the ISL, and is determined by the
intensity of the field vs. square of the distance from the source. The size and
shape of the energy fields can be shaped, controlled, and directed, under the
right conditions, which is why we have such marvelous technologies at our disposal.
IF the EM fields of an individual photon wavelet had unlimited wave
boundary extent, that would imply that a single photon could be detected at
any point along the extended spherical wavefront, in any direction from the source,
WHICH DOES NOT HAPPEN! What this implies, is that if we pointed a laser
at a right angle to the slits of the DSE, that all the photons (or a single photon
would be detected beyond the slits. We know this won't happen, but we do know
that photons have a directional vector component, momentum, energy
content, and can be directionalized. So, these characteristics seem to place
limitations on what a photon is and can do, to some extent.
Comments?
LL
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I think that we all agree that an individual photon has wave properties, but I am questioning the concept of a full sperical wave properties dispersed throughout the universe. A position which you have expressed numerous times. This concept makes absolutely no sense.
let me say that according to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity emitted photons as seen from any observer in any relative inertial frame of motion will always see spherical expanding waves from a source apparently as if on the surface of a sphere. Forget what you "know" and accept the principle of relativity. This is Einsteins Principle of Special Relativity..... That is the way the Universe actually exists and that is the way physical experiment has always verified that it is behaving.
Read this carefully...
"Relativity" Speaking PhysOrg
As I am always saying this is the way in which the shape of our Universe is actually in when light propagates. The light cone wall is all that is to our Universe, it defines everything including the real shape. You cannot apply "common sense" to this idea. It actually is "common sense" since no matter what the source velocity is the photons being released from a source will always appear to be expanding on the surface of a sphere if you consider yourself to be the observer "at rest". In actual fact Special Relativity works for all observers in all inertial frames in any sort of "freely falling" motion. I have stressed this many times. This must be extrapolated into the area of General Relativity as well and realize that space is curved ... just throw a ball across the room and understand that is the straightest line you can draw in "spacetime".
IF the EM fields of an individual photon wavelet had unlimited wave boundary extent, that would imply that a single photon could be detected at any point along the extended spherical wavefront, in any direction from the source, WHICH DOES NOT HAPPEN!
Read this carefully...
"Relativity" Speaking PhysOrg
As I am always saying this is the way in which the shape of our Universe is actually in when light propagates. The light cone wall is all that is to our Universe, it defines everything including the real shape. You cannot apply "common sense" to this idea. It actually is "common sense" since no matter what the source velocity is the photons being released from a source will always appear to be expanding on the surface of a sphere if you consider yourself to be the observer "at rest". In actual fact Special Relativity works for all observers in all inertial frames in any sort of "freely falling" motion. I have stressed this many times. This must be extrapolated into the area of General Relativity as well and realize that space is curved ... just throw a ball across the room and understand that is the straightest line you can draw in "spacetime".
QUOTE
“ The implausible assumption is that the speed of light remains perceptually constant, regardless of the frame of reference or the speed of that reference frame. Baierlein compares it to having a laser in a lab, and having two observers moving at different speeds. “Say you are in a lab,” he says, “and you point a laser and you measure the speed of the light emitted by it. If I’m moving away from your lab at half the speed of light, I’ll get the same numerical value you do, even though I am running away at the speed I am.” This is counterintuitive to most ideas of how measurements work. However, it is true of measuring light.
In 1905, Einstein made two plausible assumptions,” says Baierlein. “He assumed, first, that the laws of physics are the same in all uniformly moving frames of reference and, second, that the motion of the source of light has no effect on the speed of light itself. The second assumption is what he called ‘the constancy of the speed of light.’ From the two assumptions, Einstein derived the logical conclusion that, in the laser situation above, you and I will both measure the same numerical value for the speed of the laser light.”
In many current textbooks, however, the assumption is simply made that all uniformly moving observers measure the same speed of light. On top of that, the authors imply that Einstein made that assumption. While Baierlein’s article doesn’t change the fact that light measurements in such cases would be the same, it does propose a way to get back to Einstein’s original postulates and teach relativity in a manner that makes more sense.
“I’m suggesting that some of the textbook writers go back and see how Einstein actually derived his results. Instead of assuming that all observers measure the same speed for light, it is better to start with a plausible assumption that light operates independently of its source. If you do this, you set up something that is easier to believe.”
In 1905, Einstein made two plausible assumptions,” says Baierlein. “He assumed, first, that the laws of physics are the same in all uniformly moving frames of reference and, second, that the motion of the source of light has no effect on the speed of light itself. The second assumption is what he called ‘the constancy of the speed of light.’ From the two assumptions, Einstein derived the logical conclusion that, in the laser situation above, you and I will both measure the same numerical value for the speed of the laser light.”
In many current textbooks, however, the assumption is simply made that all uniformly moving observers measure the same speed of light. On top of that, the authors imply that Einstein made that assumption. While Baierlein’s article doesn’t change the fact that light measurements in such cases would be the same, it does propose a way to get back to Einstein’s original postulates and teach relativity in a manner that makes more sense.
“I’m suggesting that some of the textbook writers go back and see how Einstein actually derived his results. Instead of assuming that all observers measure the same speed for light, it is better to start with a plausible assumption that light operates independently of its source. If you do this, you set up something that is easier to believe.”
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “ The implausible assumption is that the speed of light remains perceptually constant, regardless of the frame of reference or the speed of that reference frame. Baierlein compares it to having a laser in a lab, and having two observers moving at different speeds. “Say you are in a lab,” he says, “and you point a laser and you measure the speed of the light emitted by it. If I’m moving away from your lab at half the speed of light, I’ll get the same numerical value you do, even though I am running away at the speed I am.” This is counterintuitive to most ideas of how measurements work. However, it is true of measuring light. In 1905, Einstein made two plausible assumptions,” says Baierlein. “He assumed, first, that the laws of physics are the same in all uniformly moving frames of reference and, second, that the motion of the source of light has no effect on the speed of light itself. The second assumption is what he called ‘the constancy of the speed of light.’ From the two assumptions, Einstein derived the logical conclusion that, in the laser situation above, you and I will both measure the same numerical value for the speed of the laser light.” In many current textbooks, however, the assumption is simply made that all uniformly moving observers measure the same speed of light. On top of that, the authors imply that Einstein made that assumption. While Baierlein’s article doesn’t change the fact that light measurements in such cases would be the same, it does propose a way to get back to Einstein’s original postulates and teach relativity in a manner that makes more sense. “I’m suggesting that some of the textbook writers go back and see how Einstein actually derived his results. Instead of assuming that all observers measure the same speed for light, it is better to start with a plausible assumption that light operates independently of its source. If you do this, you set up something that is easier to believe.” |
IF the EM fields of an individual photon wavelet had unlimited wave boundary extent, that would imply that a single photon could be detected at any point along the extended spherical wavefront, in any direction from the source, WHICH DOES NOT HAPPEN!
Just do the simple experiments as suggested above (Falaco Solitons) or view the movie and then force the concept that photons can only be absorbed "whole" or not at all.
Cheers
Cheers
Hi Jal.
Many of my pointed questions go unanswered too, but I am not exactly sure
what direct, non-ambiguous, question that you asked.
I'm assuming one of two things when questions go unanswered. Either,
I am being ignored, or the recipient of the question has no answer, or no one
wants to contradict their preferred "position", or they just don't know how to
answer.
What was your question? Ask it in specific terms, and address it to an
individual, if appropriate. Clarity of thought, is the essence of communication.
Ohhh well! ..... I'm used to it..... another observation, citation, unanswered question for my summary
The link to the electron "pattern", that you and GE referenced, would seem to be a
standing wave pattern along a material surface. So, we are looking at a coherent
energy field of matter, in "stasis". This would likely affirm, that energy can take
on a fixed structure when the forces involved are in balance.
What more are you looking for?
Regards,
LL
Many of my pointed questions go unanswered too, but I am not exactly sure
what direct, non-ambiguous, question that you asked.
I'm assuming one of two things when questions go unanswered. Either,
I am being ignored, or the recipient of the question has no answer, or no one
wants to contradict their preferred "position", or they just don't know how to
answer.
What was your question? Ask it in specific terms, and address it to an
individual, if appropriate. Clarity of thought, is the essence of communication.
QUOTE
Come on.... give a try to answer....
It has to do with DSE .... it has to do with our understanding of what electrons and photons can or cannot do.
Is the electron size 10^-18 or more?
Is the pattern that was created a confirmation that there is a simple symmetrical structure at 10^-18 that is reflected in the position/structure of the electrons as shown by the Ashoori group?
The more you (I) learn the more are the questions?
jal
It has to do with DSE .... it has to do with our understanding of what electrons and photons can or cannot do.
Is the electron size 10^-18 or more?
Is the pattern that was created a confirmation that there is a simple symmetrical structure at 10^-18 that is reflected in the position/structure of the electrons as shown by the Ashoori group?
The more you (I) learn the more are the questions?
jal
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Come on.... give a try to answer.... It has to do with DSE .... it has to do with our understanding of what electrons and photons can or cannot do. Is the electron size 10^-18 or more? Is the pattern that was created a confirmation that there is a simple symmetrical structure at 10^-18 that is reflected in the position/structure of the electrons as shown by the Ashoori group? The more you (I) learn the more are the questions? jal |
Ohhh well! ..... I'm used to it..... another observation, citation, unanswered question for my summary
The link to the electron "pattern", that you and GE referenced, would seem to be a
standing wave pattern along a material surface. So, we are looking at a coherent
energy field of matter, in "stasis". This would likely affirm, that energy can take
on a fixed structure when the forces involved are in balance.
What more are you looking for?
Regards,
LL
Hi Jal,
I concur with Laserlight on this matter... Remember "this is a long distance call". I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to communicate. Your message does not have enough data to transfer the thoughts you are holding. Needs a context as well as the disjointed facts. Provide some reference as well to support your ideas. Surely you can "Google a page" that has the background we need to get your point. Please do not simply quote your own previous accounts unless you do have it clearly described there too.
For instance "electron size" does not relate to a "true size" since you are not able to physically measure that... If you are referring to electrons as waves then size is not easy to define and you will need to establish "why" you have a legitimate need to know... You know ... how big is an electromagnetic wave? Pointless question by itself.
Cheers
I concur with Laserlight on this matter... Remember "this is a long distance call". I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to communicate. Your message does not have enough data to transfer the thoughts you are holding. Needs a context as well as the disjointed facts. Provide some reference as well to support your ideas. Surely you can "Google a page" that has the background we need to get your point. Please do not simply quote your own previous accounts unless you do have it clearly described there too.
For instance "electron size" does not relate to a "true size" since you are not able to physically measure that... If you are referring to electrons as waves then size is not easy to define and you will need to establish "why" you have a legitimate need to know... You know ... how big is an electromagnetic wave? Pointless question by itself.
Cheers
Hi Laserlight,
Fair doos .. taking your example .. we have a laser beam firing horizontally. The Feynman claim is that there is an amplitude to detect a photon off axis but the 'above' amplitude cancels the 'below' amplitude (an interference effect) and the two cancel out. Let us put a vertical barrier below the beam and gradually raise it until it just grazes the laser beam. We do (of course) get 'diffraction'. The Feynman claim is that by removing the 'lower' path the off-axis amplitudes no longer cancel and we see what we see. The Feynman type analysis has the advantage that it seems to work everywhere and (in the extreme) gives answers that (elsewhere) agree with experiment to umpteen decimal places. The consequence of the predictive ability of Feynman's analysis is that one (me anyway) is left with the distinct impression that Feynman might well have been on to something pretty fundamental.
Casual observation of the ongoing Laserlight claim that light is attracted to surfaces reveals that it does not give the right answers. In a harsh world where predictive power is everything it seems likely that the Laserlight claim is destined for obscurity.
Best wishes, C2.
Fair doos .. taking your example .. we have a laser beam firing horizontally. The Feynman claim is that there is an amplitude to detect a photon off axis but the 'above' amplitude cancels the 'below' amplitude (an interference effect) and the two cancel out. Let us put a vertical barrier below the beam and gradually raise it until it just grazes the laser beam. We do (of course) get 'diffraction'. The Feynman claim is that by removing the 'lower' path the off-axis amplitudes no longer cancel and we see what we see. The Feynman type analysis has the advantage that it seems to work everywhere and (in the extreme) gives answers that (elsewhere) agree with experiment to umpteen decimal places. The consequence of the predictive ability of Feynman's analysis is that one (me anyway) is left with the distinct impression that Feynman might well have been on to something pretty fundamental.
Casual observation of the ongoing Laserlight claim that light is attracted to surfaces reveals that it does not give the right answers. In a harsh world where predictive power is everything it seems likely that the Laserlight claim is destined for obscurity.
Best wishes, C2.
HI C2,
Do you have experimental "proof" of this theory?
How far do the fields extend from the main concentrated focal axis of the laser
beam? There must be some maximum radiation field limit. (This is a rhetorical
question?)
How does this apply to a single photon, where E=hf, and all of the energy of the
wave is contained within the wave envelope package? Remember, a stream of
single photons will form an interference pattern at prescribed energy density
locations on the screen. If it were merely a side-lobe cancellation effect where the
fields would become unbalanced on each photon, every photon would hit in the
same spot.....which they don't. So, there is more to this interference effect than
what you describe.
If the theory is correct, how does it reconcile the diffraction when the vertical
barrier is just below, and not touching the laser beam? No diffraction occurs
. Consider that a laser beam could be fired down the center of a U shaped
narrow channel and no distortion of the beam would be observed.
The key requirement seems to be the physical TOUCHING of the obstacle and
the laser beam, in order for diffraction to occur.
----
Do you have experimental "proof" of this theory?
How far do the fields extend from the main concentrated focal axis of the laser
beam? There must be some maximum radiation field limit. (This is a rhetorical
question?)
How does this apply to a single photon, where E=hf, and all of the energy of the
wave is contained within the wave envelope package? Remember, a stream of
single photons will form an interference pattern at prescribed energy density
locations on the screen. If it were merely a side-lobe cancellation effect where the
fields would become unbalanced on each photon, every photon would hit in the
same spot.....which they don't. So, there is more to this interference effect than
what you describe.
If the theory is correct, how does it reconcile the diffraction when the vertical
barrier is just below, and not touching the laser beam? No diffraction occurs
. Consider that a laser beam could be fired down the center of a U shaped
narrow channel and no distortion of the beam would be observed.
The key requirement seems to be the physical TOUCHING of the obstacle and
the laser beam, in order for diffraction to occur.
----
The Feynman type analysis has the advantage that it seems to work everywhere and (in the extreme) gives answers that (elsewhere) agree with experiment to umpteen decimal places. The consequence of the predictive ability of Feynman's analysis is that one (me anyway) is left with the distinct impression that Feynman might well have been on to something pretty fundamental.
Casual observation of the ongoing Laserlight claim that light is attracted to surfaces reveals that it does not give the right answers. In a harsh world where predictive power is everything it seems likely that the Laserlight claim is destined for obscurity.
Remember this conversation!
Sometimes, even seemingly obscure claims are proven correct, even though
the "experts" pooh-pooh the original claim as preposterous. Even if I am only
1/2 right, that would be quite a coup. Just remember to capitalize Laserlight
on that Nobel prize.
LL
QUOTE
The Feynman claim is that there is an amplitude to detect a photon off axis but the 'above' amplitude cancels the 'below' amplitude (an interference effect) and the two cancel out. Let us put a vertical barrier below the beam and gradually raise it until it just grazes the laser beam. We do (of course) get 'diffraction'. The Feynman claim is that by removing the 'lower' path the off-axis amplitudes no longer cancel and we see what we see.
Do you have experimental "proof" of this theory?
How far do the fields extend from the main concentrated focal axis of the laser
beam? There must be some maximum radiation field limit. (This is a rhetorical
question?)
How does this apply to a single photon, where E=hf, and all of the energy of the
wave is contained within the wave envelope package? Remember, a stream of
single photons will form an interference pattern at prescribed energy density
locations on the screen. If it were merely a side-lobe cancellation effect where the
fields would become unbalanced on each photon, every photon would hit in the
same spot.....which they don't. So, there is more to this interference effect than
what you describe.
If the theory is correct, how does it reconcile the diffraction when the vertical
barrier is just below, and not touching the laser beam? No diffraction occurs
. Consider that a laser beam could be fired down the center of a U shaped
narrow channel and no distortion of the beam would be observed.
The key requirement seems to be the physical TOUCHING of the obstacle and
the laser beam, in order for diffraction to occur.
----
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Feynman claim is that there is an amplitude to detect a photon off axis but the 'above' amplitude cancels the 'below' amplitude (an interference effect) and the two cancel out. Let us put a vertical barrier below the beam and gradually raise it until it just grazes the laser beam. We do (of course) get 'diffraction'. The Feynman claim is that by removing the 'lower' path the off-axis amplitudes no longer cancel and we see what we see. |
Do you have experimental "proof" of this theory?
How far do the fields extend from the main concentrated focal axis of the laser
beam? There must be some maximum radiation field limit. (This is a rhetorical
question?)
How does this apply to a single photon, where E=hf, and all of the energy of the
wave is contained within the wave envelope package? Remember, a stream of
single photons will form an interference pattern at prescribed energy density
locations on the screen. If it were merely a side-lobe cancellation effect where the
fields would become unbalanced on each photon, every photon would hit in the
same spot.....which they don't. So, there is more to this interference effect than
what you describe.
If the theory is correct, how does it reconcile the diffraction when the vertical
barrier is just below, and not touching the laser beam? No diffraction occurs
. Consider that a laser beam could be fired down the center of a U shaped
narrow channel and no distortion of the beam would be observed.
The key requirement seems to be the physical TOUCHING of the obstacle and
the laser beam, in order for diffraction to occur.
----
The Feynman type analysis has the advantage that it seems to work everywhere and (in the extreme) gives answers that (elsewhere) agree with experiment to umpteen decimal places. The consequence of the predictive ability of Feynman's analysis is that one (me anyway) is left with the distinct impression that Feynman might well have been on to something pretty fundamental.
Casual observation of the ongoing Laserlight claim that light is attracted to surfaces reveals that it does not give the right answers. In a harsh world where predictive power is everything it seems likely that the Laserlight claim is destined for obscurity.
Remember this conversation!
Sometimes, even seemingly obscure claims are proven correct, even though
the "experts" pooh-pooh the original claim as preposterous. Even if I am only
1/2 right, that would be quite a coup. Just remember to capitalize Laserlight
on that Nobel prize.
LL
Salutations GE,
let me say that according to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity emitted photons as seen from any observer in any relative inertial frame of motion will always see spherical expanding waves from a source apparently as if on the surface of a sphere. Forget what you "know" and accept the principle of relativity. This is Einsteins Principle of Special Relativity..... That is the way the Universe actually exists and that is the way physical experiment has always verified that it is behaving.
I'm not sure that you stated this correctly, or if you added your own "twist" to
the theory of SR.
I have a different interpretation of this, than what you ascribe to Einstein's theory
of SR. Photons will radiate from central focal point in 4D space, when viewed from
any inertial frame of reference along the circumference of a sphere. This does
not imply that a photon will radiate as spherical expanding wave energy, only that
a self contained photon wave (corpuscle) will radiate outward from a source along
a curved path, since the source and the observer are both in motion relative
to one another.
I'm not sure that you stated this correctly, or if you added your own "twist" to
the theory of SR.
I have a different interpretation of this, than what you ascribe to Einstein's theory
of SR. Photons will radiate from central focal point in 4D space, when viewed from
any inertial frame of reference along the circumference of a sphere. This does
not imply that a photon will radiate as spherical expanding wave energy, only that
a self contained photon wave (corpuscle) will radiate outward from a source along
a curved path, since the source and the observer are both in motion relative
to one another.
Read this carefully...
"Relativity" Speaking PhysOrg
As I am always saying this is the way in which the shape of our Universe is actually in when light propagates. The light cone wall is all that is to our Universe, it defines everything including the real shape. You cannot apply "common sense" to this idea. It actually is "common sense" since no matter what the source velocity is the photons being released from a source will always appear to be expanding on the surface of a sphere if you consider yourself to be the observer "at rest".
The light cone wall is a concept as it applies to an observer's frame of reference to an event in space or time, depending upon the distance and time from the
occurance. And your point is?????
LL
QUOTE
let me say that according to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity emitted photons as seen from any observer in any relative inertial frame of motion will always see spherical expanding waves from a source apparently as if on the surface of a sphere. Forget what you "know" and accept the principle of relativity. This is Einsteins Principle of Special Relativity..... That is the way the Universe actually exists and that is the way physical experiment has always verified that it is behaving.
I'm not sure that you stated this correctly, or if you added your own "twist" to
the theory of SR.
I have a different interpretation of this, than what you ascribe to Einstein's theory
of SR. Photons will radiate from central focal point in 4D space, when viewed from
any inertial frame of reference along the circumference of a sphere. This does
not imply that a photon will radiate as spherical expanding wave energy, only that
a self contained photon wave (corpuscle) will radiate outward from a source along
a curved path, since the source and the observer are both in motion relative
to one another.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
let me say that according to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity emitted photons as seen from any observer in any relative inertial frame of motion will always see spherical expanding waves from a source apparently as if on the surface of a sphere. Forget what you "know" and accept the principle of relativity. This is Einsteins Principle of Special Relativity..... That is the way the Universe actually exists and that is the way physical experiment has always verified that it is behaving. |
I'm not sure that you stated this correctly, or if you added your own "twist" to
the theory of SR.
I have a different interpretation of this, than what you ascribe to Einstein's theory
of SR. Photons will radiate from central focal point in 4D space, when viewed from
any inertial frame of reference along the circumference of a sphere. This does
not imply that a photon will radiate as spherical expanding wave energy, only that
a self contained photon wave (corpuscle) will radiate outward from a source along
a curved path, since the source and the observer are both in motion relative
to one another.
Read this carefully...
"Relativity" Speaking PhysOrg
As I am always saying this is the way in which the shape of our Universe is actually in when light propagates. The light cone wall is all that is to our Universe, it defines everything including the real shape. You cannot apply "common sense" to this idea. It actually is "common sense" since no matter what the source velocity is the photons being released from a source will always appear to be expanding on the surface of a sphere if you consider yourself to be the observer "at rest".
The light cone wall is a concept as it applies to an observer's frame of reference to an event in space or time, depending upon the distance and time from the
occurance. And your point is?????
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Sometimes, even seemingly obscure claims are proven correct,
QM + the Standard Model is claimed to give good and accurate predictions for 'most things' .. I have no reason to doubt this.
All that is required is that you show some predictive power for your claim. At present it seems you can predict a three hump pattern.. which is seldom if ever seen. If you attempt a combination of Laserlight peaks and interference then you need to explain how the Laserlight peaks are suppressing (exactly) the interference peaks to give the same result as though the contribution from the Laserlight effect is insignificant ... the simplest conclusion being that the Laserlight effect actually IS insignificant.
See the dotted line 'The interference model prediction' which closely matches the experimental result here:-
NASA (and Good Elf) have pioneered a DSE where the slits are cut in a reflective material:- it seems edge effects really are important. Analysis of the interference effects suggests that this makes little difference to the actual results .. the edges are just extra sources on either side of each slit .. since they are radiating from virtually the same position as the slits themselves the interference analysis gives virtually the same result whether they are there or not.
Obviously it is possible to make a DSE with really crazy slits and the sides of the slits will have a significant impact on the result .. do you think this really helps to increase our understanding of the DSE effect itself?
Best wishes - C2
QM + the Standard Model is claimed to give good and accurate predictions for 'most things' .. I have no reason to doubt this.
All that is required is that you show some predictive power for your claim. At present it seems you can predict a three hump pattern.. which is seldom if ever seen. If you attempt a combination of Laserlight peaks and interference then you need to explain how the Laserlight peaks are suppressing (exactly) the interference peaks to give the same result as though the contribution from the Laserlight effect is insignificant ... the simplest conclusion being that the Laserlight effect actually IS insignificant.
See the dotted line 'The interference model prediction' which closely matches the experimental result here:-
NASA (and Good Elf) have pioneered a DSE where the slits are cut in a reflective material:- it seems edge effects really are important. Analysis of the interference effects suggests that this makes little difference to the actual results .. the edges are just extra sources on either side of each slit .. since they are radiating from virtually the same position as the slits themselves the interference analysis gives virtually the same result whether they are there or not.
Obviously it is possible to make a DSE with really crazy slits and the sides of the slits will have a significant impact on the result .. do you think this really helps to increase our understanding of the DSE effect itself?
Best wishes - C2
Hi Laserlight, "Why Not?", yquantum, Jal, Confused2, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, TRoc, et al,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I'm not sure that you stated this correctly, or if you added your own "twist" to the theory of SR. I have a different interpretation of this, than what you ascribe to Einstein's theory of SR. Photons will radiate from central focal point in 4D space, when viewed from any inertial frame of reference along the circumference of a sphere.
I am only stating the bare facts and I am sure it is correct. Remember it is not my interpretation. The other aspect of all measurement is it's local nature. You can really only measure things from the observer position, otherwise you must correct for propagation delays.
This is not the place to discuss Special Relativity but as V -> C the most important aspect of Special Relativity is not the way to correct for single points and times but the way different points and times in a distributed moving frame arrive at the observer when you have this global property of one inertial frame affects the observation of the global property of observation of another frame through a "rotation" of the distributed points in the frame. What has been termed "length contraction" appears as a spatial rotation and displacement along the line of sight for particles dispersed in the other frame of reference. What appears to happen is from all nearby observers watching the high speed object it appears to "go around an invisible corner" relative to all observers in the conjugate frame and the position of the points "distorted" along the line of sight both forward and aft of the observer "stereoscopically". This is usually called "stellar aberration" from relativistic proper motion. You may view the consequences here...
Seeing Relativity: ANU
This is the optical geometry of the moving frame.
This is not the place to discuss Special Relativity but as V -> C the most important aspect of Special Relativity is not the way to correct for single points and times but the way different points and times in a distributed moving frame arrive at the observer when you have this global property of one inertial frame affects the observation of the global property of observation of another frame through a "rotation" of the distributed points in the frame. What has been termed "length contraction" appears as a spatial rotation and displacement along the line of sight for particles dispersed in the other frame of reference. What appears to happen is from all nearby observers watching the high speed object it appears to "go around an invisible corner" relative to all observers in the conjugate frame and the position of the points "distorted" along the line of sight both forward and aft of the observer "stereoscopically". This is usually called "stellar aberration" from relativistic proper motion. You may view the consequences here...
Seeing Relativity: ANU
This is the optical geometry of the moving frame.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
The light cone wall is a concept as it applies to an observer's frame of reference to an event in space or time, depending upon the distance and time from the occurance. And your point is?????
Seeing is not believing while light appears to still be propagating on the surface of a sphere the spatial delays "means" that it is approaching from directions and has frequencies that are not normally observed in a mutual rest frame. This is a mapping on the surface of a rotated sphere.
Cheers
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
..no matter what the source velocity is the photons being released from a source will always appear to be expanding on the surface of a sphere if you consider yourself to be the observer "at rest".
This point arises every once in a while and I probably ask the same question (not checked). We notice that there is more than one peak in the DSE pattern. Clearly the path length through both slits cannot be the same at each and every peak .. so is the expanding surface of the sphere on the longer or shorter path (or neither) .. or doesn't it matter?
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. photons as corpuscles dates back to about 1905 .. we have moved on since then.
This point arises every once in a while and I probably ask the same question (not checked). We notice that there is more than one peak in the DSE pattern. Clearly the path length through both slits cannot be the same at each and every peak .. so is the expanding surface of the sphere on the longer or shorter path (or neither) .. or doesn't it matter?
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. photons as corpuscles dates back to about 1905 .. we have moved on since then.
Hi all,
I'll try for a less grumpy post this time!
I appreciate the grace of your response, GE. (Hopefully), we are all learning still, because there will always be something left "out there", after we have added the latest bit to some memorable pattern in our noggin. In this sense, "change" is good; if we are changing our approach based on some new data, we do it as an improvement.
In my numerous dialogs with LL, I have learned that the "vacuum" misnomer must be addressed PRIOR to the speaking of interference of our EM waves, and I had it "randomly" placed on my list of "errors" still used in definitions.
In the end, I (and everybody, I think) get frustrated at not having a "flow" to work with on the thread. Perhaps we should nominate C2 as a "host/moderator", just to better keep us on track? Note that we don't have to give him a "gun", just a "badge".
YQ is right, this is a "human struggle", in that we must learn to cooperate most, when we are aware of our differences. It goes well beyond Science, and this thread.
Vacuum.
The "modern" definition is equivalent to "space". We do not imagine it as "empty". Even in the most extreme conditions, say between electrons and nucleus in an atom, we find "virtual photons" communicating the force that our entire model is based on. The same goes for gravity. We have not been able to detect these (force carriers) directly yet, but, ever since Newton, have had nothing but an equation that works to guide us. The WHY still eludes us.
So, when we look at the "all paths" model (QED), what it is telling us is that every possible interaction between source and receiver DOES take place. Countless collisions, pair productions, re-emissions, etc. happen "on the way", each one arriving with a different "path length". These are, in the model, used to calculate the probability amplitudes, which ultimately end up looking like a "phasor". This is basing the Cycle on Pi. This is one of the "sticky points" that I always am referring to. Pi is not "necessary" to model the vibration. However, when you DO use it, I think you are moving into a "non-linear" area, that the linear equations are not equipped to deal with.
Fortunately, as you get away from the Fundamental Axis (my term), the "coincidences in blows" (Euler's term) drop off exponentially, and these outer "path possibilities" cancel out. This is "standard" QED. The LIMIT saves this model. Otherwise, QED (even now, with our computing ability) must term these "infinite" interactions as "intractable".
Time IS included in the final analysis, and ends up adjusting the path length. What I do in my model is really no different. GE is correct in his last post about the fact that the phase velocity (which is driving these "all path" interactions) can be "whatever"; as long as the group velocity behaves according to AE's plan.
In the end, the model says a lot, and then changes almost all of it to "nothing", and just goes with the "quasi-straight path" (it's wiggly) between sender and receiver. If something doesn't go exactly as planned, the "probabilities" (QED's own brand of statistical analysis) then can be used to say "well, we told you so". In effect, they "predict" the straight line, but with the caveat that "everything" happened on the way, and then "didn't happen" (canceled out). This loophole allows ANY answer to be "correct".
That, and a 20 sided die, will get you into the Dungeons and Dragons club as a "Sorcerer of Physics".
So, now we're back to this point: GE is looking at these patterns in the phases (at least he sees them) and calling them "stationary". This is where I disagree, but also, realize that there is a measure of "semantics" here, that maybe we can clear up.
If we measured from any STATIONARY point (except the observers), indeed these should appear as stationary too. This can be seen by actually drawing some of the "possible paths" in the DSE. Again, this is not different from my approach.
In the QED+ model, these are called "caustics" (by Berry, I think), and form patterns with the nodes and anti-nodes. I did indeed find modern experimental "proof" of my hypothesis that we would find some smaller version of filamentation at the visible (optical frequencies) level. Here, they are called "ridges & canals"; everyone here knows how I feel about REDUNDANT terms.
Clearly we just have more names for the same 2 dualistic parts of the concept of a wave, or vibration.
I don't have time right now for a full explanation, but everyone is free to look these thing up: caustics, quantum revivals, quantum carpets, the Talbot effect, the inverse (fractional) of those as well. This is all exactly what my Resonance model predicts. I will provide links upon request.
BTW,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson_interferometer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson_interferometer
In the late 1800s, the interference pattern was obtained by using a gas discharge lamp, a filter, and a thin slot or pinhole. In one version of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the interferometer used starlight as the source of light. Starlight is temporally incoherent light, but since it is a point source of light it has spatial coherence and will produce an interference pattern.
No vacuum there.
Remember too: if it is a man made "vacuum", it has LESS particles/matter than in air, but NEVER even close to ZERO. So, when you DO find interference experiments that are "in vacuum", it is NOT happening in the ABSENCE of matter. Just like LL always says. Note though, LL, that this NON-ABSENCE of matter IS THE SAME as a "medium", and light WILL interfere there.
Last point: GE says there are no plane waves.
Problem: Phase velocity being greater that group velocity (over time) will cause the "lobes" to straighten out. The distance or time needed for this to develop is the difference between near & far field wave form. It seems that you do agree with these last 2 parts, so I have a hard time seeing why you want to exclude the plane wave concept?
The RI causes "spreading" (after the near field/interaction zone), because of the inherent NON-monochromatic nature of all waves, other than the soliton form. When a lower frequency "side-lobe" gets a velocity boost (compared to the straight line fundamental, which measures at c ) we are making a sort of "relativistic correction", because we are creating the plane wave, from wavelets "traveling" at different speeds. This allows (from the observers prospective) the SIMULTANEOUS arrival of these waves; this is a measurement of a CONSTANT speed of light.
From the SLIT perspective, we see the spreading. The angles are NATURALLY created, when we ask (and answer) this question: how much longer would our path have to be, for this (side lobe) frequency, multiplied by the wavelength specific RI, to get to the screen at the SAME time (and interfere).
Strangely enough, we find that because of the constant ratios involved, comparing wavelength to slit width, with distance to screen and slit separation, these new angles, that match certain RI coefficients, will make "clicks" at whole or half-wavelength distances, as measured by the (orthogonal) screen/observer. Then we are in to Fourier territory.
enough for now..
please comment as you see fit.
regards,
T.Roc
I cannot open his paper .... money.
I would assume that he took care of your concern and still came up with an actual size and location for the electron.
Maybe you can open up his paper and report back.
Any citation of this paper would also help.
jal
I'll try for a less grumpy post this time!
I appreciate the grace of your response, GE. (Hopefully), we are all learning still, because there will always be something left "out there", after we have added the latest bit to some memorable pattern in our noggin. In this sense, "change" is good; if we are changing our approach based on some new data, we do it as an improvement.
In my numerous dialogs with LL, I have learned that the "vacuum" misnomer must be addressed PRIOR to the speaking of interference of our EM waves, and I had it "randomly" placed on my list of "errors" still used in definitions.
In the end, I (and everybody, I think) get frustrated at not having a "flow" to work with on the thread. Perhaps we should nominate C2 as a "host/moderator", just to better keep us on track? Note that we don't have to give him a "gun", just a "badge".
YQ is right, this is a "human struggle", in that we must learn to cooperate most, when we are aware of our differences. It goes well beyond Science, and this thread.
Vacuum.
The "modern" definition is equivalent to "space". We do not imagine it as "empty". Even in the most extreme conditions, say between electrons and nucleus in an atom, we find "virtual photons" communicating the force that our entire model is based on. The same goes for gravity. We have not been able to detect these (force carriers) directly yet, but, ever since Newton, have had nothing but an equation that works to guide us. The WHY still eludes us.
So, when we look at the "all paths" model (QED), what it is telling us is that every possible interaction between source and receiver DOES take place. Countless collisions, pair productions, re-emissions, etc. happen "on the way", each one arriving with a different "path length". These are, in the model, used to calculate the probability amplitudes, which ultimately end up looking like a "phasor". This is basing the Cycle on Pi. This is one of the "sticky points" that I always am referring to. Pi is not "necessary" to model the vibration. However, when you DO use it, I think you are moving into a "non-linear" area, that the linear equations are not equipped to deal with.
Fortunately, as you get away from the Fundamental Axis (my term), the "coincidences in blows" (Euler's term) drop off exponentially, and these outer "path possibilities" cancel out. This is "standard" QED. The LIMIT saves this model. Otherwise, QED (even now, with our computing ability) must term these "infinite" interactions as "intractable".
Time IS included in the final analysis, and ends up adjusting the path length. What I do in my model is really no different. GE is correct in his last post about the fact that the phase velocity (which is driving these "all path" interactions) can be "whatever"; as long as the group velocity behaves according to AE's plan.
In the end, the model says a lot, and then changes almost all of it to "nothing", and just goes with the "quasi-straight path" (it's wiggly) between sender and receiver. If something doesn't go exactly as planned, the "probabilities" (QED's own brand of statistical analysis) then can be used to say "well, we told you so". In effect, they "predict" the straight line, but with the caveat that "everything" happened on the way, and then "didn't happen" (canceled out). This loophole allows ANY answer to be "correct".
That, and a 20 sided die, will get you into the Dungeons and Dragons club as a "Sorcerer of Physics".
So, now we're back to this point: GE is looking at these patterns in the phases (at least he sees them) and calling them "stationary". This is where I disagree, but also, realize that there is a measure of "semantics" here, that maybe we can clear up.
If we measured from any STATIONARY point (except the observers), indeed these should appear as stationary too. This can be seen by actually drawing some of the "possible paths" in the DSE. Again, this is not different from my approach.
In the QED+ model, these are called "caustics" (by Berry, I think), and form patterns with the nodes and anti-nodes. I did indeed find modern experimental "proof" of my hypothesis that we would find some smaller version of filamentation at the visible (optical frequencies) level. Here, they are called "ridges & canals"; everyone here knows how I feel about REDUNDANT terms.
Clearly we just have more names for the same 2 dualistic parts of the concept of a wave, or vibration.
I don't have time right now for a full explanation, but everyone is free to look these thing up: caustics, quantum revivals, quantum carpets, the Talbot effect, the inverse (fractional) of those as well. This is all exactly what my Resonance model predicts. I will provide links upon request.
BTW,
QUOTE
Good Elf Posted: Yesterday at 11:11 PM
These issues have already been investigated. Early Michelson Morley Interferometers were constructed in the vacuum so interference occurs in a vacuum. Surface plasmons occur with certain bright metals in contact with a liquid or a gas and particular wavelengths of light.
These issues have already been investigated. Early Michelson Morley Interferometers were constructed in the vacuum so interference occurs in a vacuum. Surface plasmons occur with certain bright metals in contact with a liquid or a gas and particular wavelengths of light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson_interferometer
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Good Elf Posted: Yesterday at 11:11 PM These issues have already been investigated. Early Michelson Morley Interferometers were constructed in the vacuum so interference occurs in a vacuum. Surface plasmons occur with certain bright metals in contact with a liquid or a gas and particular wavelengths of light. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson_interferometer
In the late 1800s, the interference pattern was obtained by using a gas discharge lamp, a filter, and a thin slot or pinhole. In one version of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the interferometer used starlight as the source of light. Starlight is temporally incoherent light, but since it is a point source of light it has spatial coherence and will produce an interference pattern.
No vacuum there.
Remember too: if it is a man made "vacuum", it has LESS particles/matter than in air, but NEVER even close to ZERO. So, when you DO find interference experiments that are "in vacuum", it is NOT happening in the ABSENCE of matter. Just like LL always says.
Note though, LL, that this NON-ABSENCE of matter IS THE SAME as a "medium", and light WILL interfere there.Last point: GE says there are no plane waves.
Problem: Phase velocity being greater that group velocity (over time) will cause the "lobes" to straighten out. The distance or time needed for this to develop is the difference between near & far field wave form. It seems that you do agree with these last 2 parts, so I have a hard time seeing why you want to exclude the plane wave concept?
The RI causes "spreading" (after the near field/interaction zone), because of the inherent NON-monochromatic nature of all waves, other than the soliton form. When a lower frequency "side-lobe" gets a velocity boost (compared to the straight line fundamental, which measures at c ) we are making a sort of "relativistic correction", because we are creating the plane wave, from wavelets "traveling" at different speeds. This allows (from the observers prospective) the SIMULTANEOUS arrival of these waves; this is a measurement of a CONSTANT speed of light.
From the SLIT perspective, we see the spreading. The angles are NATURALLY created, when we ask (and answer) this question: how much longer would our path have to be, for this (side lobe) frequency, multiplied by the wavelength specific RI, to get to the screen at the SAME time (and interfere).
Strangely enough, we find that because of the constant ratios involved, comparing wavelength to slit width, with distance to screen and slit separation, these new angles, that match certain RI coefficients, will make "clicks" at whole or half-wavelength distances, as measured by the (orthogonal) screen/observer. Then we are in to Fourier territory.
enough for now..
please comment as you see fit.
regards,
T.Roc
Hello all
Since a diffraction grating is just a souped up double slit then we must also understand the operation a VPH Grating.
Just something to think about.
Since a diffraction grating is just a souped up double slit then we must also understand the operation a VPH Grating.
QUOTE
...VPH grating diffracts light by fringes of refractive index variations within the volume of the grating.
Just something to think about.
Greetings, Good Elf, C2, jal, (still reading?) "THEY" & 2, Laserlight, TRoc => we all have been there done that and I second the motion with C2, et al,
Hi Montec, hope all is well?
Just a reminder and review of sorts.....
http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~yalabik/applets/collapse.html
It also give you references to other issues.
Just another saga in the mix.
caio_
yquatum
Hi Montec, hope all is well?
Just a reminder and review of sorts.....
http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~yalabik/applets/collapse.html
It also give you references to other issues.
Just another saga in the mix.
caio_
yquatum
http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~yalabik/applets/collapse.html
Remember that the electron itself is a very small particle, less in size than the size of a point (a pixel) in the figure. However, the "wavefunction" associated with the particle typically may extend over a scale of tens of nanometers. At any time, the square magnitude of the wavefunction plotted in the figure would be proportional to the probability of detecting the particle at that point, if the whole plane was covered with electron detectors which would be activated at that instant in time. Only one of those detectors would then "click", with the corresponding probability. The wavefunction will then instantly lose its meaning and is said to "collapse".
How the electron itself moves (whether it passes through one of the slits or both - or how the wavefunction is related to the actual electron) is a question that is not well defined in quantum mechanics - some would say that it is not a valid question.
In the following presentation
http://electron.mit.edu/scanning/
the Ashoori group is claiming to have a picture of the ACTUAL energy density. (NOT the "wavefunction" associated with the particle).
Something does not add up. We should not be able to “see” the energy density of something as small as 10^-18.
Remember that the electron itself is a very small particle, less in size than the size of a point (a pixel) in the figure. However, the "wavefunction" associated with the particle typically may extend over a scale of tens of nanometers. At any time, the square magnitude of the wavefunction plotted in the figure would be proportional to the probability of detecting the particle at that point, if the whole plane was covered with electron detectors which would be activated at that instant in time. Only one of those detectors would then "click", with the corresponding probability. The wavefunction will then instantly lose its meaning and is said to "collapse".
How the electron itself moves (whether it passes through one of the slits or both - or how the wavefunction is related to the actual electron) is a question that is not well defined in quantum mechanics - some would say that it is not a valid question.
In the following presentation
http://electron.mit.edu/scanning/
the Ashoori group is claiming to have a picture of the ACTUAL energy density. (NOT the "wavefunction" associated with the particle).
Something does not add up. We should not be able to “see” the energy density of something as small as 10^-18.
jal, et al,
You are not the first to ask so this might help with the site I gave to you above, jal.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/question...ility_wave.html
caio_
yquantum
You are not the first to ask so this might help with the site I gave to you above, jal.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/question...ility_wave.html
caio_
yquantum
Hi yquantum
I knew that.
You missed the point.
In the following presentation
http://electron.mit.edu/scanning/
the Ashoori group is claiming to have a picture of the ACTUAL energy density. (NOT the "wavefunction" associated with the particle).
I knew that.
You missed the point.
In the following presentation
http://electron.mit.edu/scanning/
the Ashoori group is claiming to have a picture of the ACTUAL energy density. (NOT the "wavefunction" associated with the particle).
jal
Let me go find a janitor.
There is still probability involved, The distribution of a fixed amount of energy among a number of identical particles depends upon the density of available energy states and the probability that a given state will be occupied.
jal, the probability that a given energy state will be occupied is given by the distribution function, but if there are more available energy states in a given energy interval, then that will give a greater weight to the probability for that energy interval.
I am still looking for the guy with the mop, maybe I should change occupations.
ciao_
yquantum
Let me go find a janitor.
There is still probability involved, The distribution of a fixed amount of energy among a number of identical particles depends upon the density of available energy states and the probability that a given state will be occupied.
jal, the probability that a given energy state will be occupied is given by the distribution function, but if there are more available energy states in a given energy interval, then that will give a greater weight to the probability for that energy interval.
I am still looking for the guy with the mop, maybe I should change occupations.
ciao_
yquantum
I cannot open his paper .... money.
I would assume that he took care of your concern and still came up with an actual size and location for the electron.
Maybe you can open up his paper and report back.
Any citation of this paper would also help.
jal
I found it …. Don’t forget to look at page 16.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1686v1.pdf
High-resolution spectroscopy of two-dimensional electron
systems
O. E. Dial_, R. C. Ashoori_, L. N. Pfei_ery, K. W. Westy
July 11, 2007
My nose tells me that someone is about to become famous and filthy rich.
More of their work is at
http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/as/Ashoori
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1686v1.pdf
High-resolution spectroscopy of two-dimensional electron
systems
O. E. Dial_, R. C. Ashoori_, L. N. Pfei_ery, K. W. Westy
July 11, 2007
My nose tells me that someone is about to become famous and filthy rich.
More of their work is at
http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/as/Ashoori
Hi TRoc and All,
You said a mouthful, better than I could have.
What do politician's, lawyers, and statistics, have in common?
.
.
.
.
They all bend the truth, so that no one understands what the hell they are saying.
You said a mouthful, better than I could have.
What do politician's, lawyers, and statistics, have in common?
.
.
.
.
They all bend the truth, so that no one understands what the hell they are saying.
This well-known saying is part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularized in the U.S. by Mark Twain:
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_..._and_statistics
Statistically, I exist in the solution set of the universe. Now, that's what I call
precision, it can never be wrong. (said with much sarcasm)
LL
QUOTE
In the end, the model says a lot, and then changes almost all of it to "nothing", and just goes with the "quasi-straight path" (it's wiggly) between sender and receiver. If something doesn't go exactly as planned, the "probabilities" (QED's own brand of statistical analysis) then can be used to say "well, we told you so". In effect, they "predict" the straight line, but with the caveat that "everything" happened on the way, and then "didn't happen" (canceled out). This loophole allows ANY answer to be "correct".
You said a mouthful, better than I could have.
What do politician's, lawyers, and statistics, have in common?
.
.
.
.
They all bend the truth, so that no one understands what the hell they are saying.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In the end, the model says a lot, and then changes almost all of it to "nothing", and just goes with the "quasi-straight path" (it's wiggly) between sender and receiver. If something doesn't go exactly as planned, the "probabilities" (QED's own brand of statistical analysis) then can be used to say "well, we told you so". In effect, they "predict" the straight line, but with the caveat that "everything" happened on the way, and then "didn't happen" (canceled out). This loophole allows ANY answer to be "correct". |
You said a mouthful, better than I could have.
What do politician's, lawyers, and statistics, have in common?
.
.
.
.
They all bend the truth, so that no one understands what the hell they are saying.
This well-known saying is part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularized in the U.S. by Mark Twain:
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_..._and_statistics
Statistically, I exist in the solution set of the universe. Now, that's what I call
precision, it can never be wrong. (said with much sarcasm)
LL
Hi C2,
It is just a descriptive term that is still in limited use. Corpuscle = wavefunction,
both describe a self contained energy field component and possess limited
operational "extremes".
LL
QUOTE
Edit .. photons as corpuscles dates back to about 1905 .. we have moved on since then.
It is just a descriptive term that is still in limited use. Corpuscle = wavefunction,
both describe a self contained energy field component and possess limited
operational "extremes".
LL
I feel the thread is already in good hands. I aspire to to do no more than post when I feel I have something to contribute.
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Corpuscle = wavefunction, both describe a self contained energy field component and possess limited operational "extremes".
I'd like to start with a monopole but we don't like them so I'll go for a dipole. The radiation pattern of a dipole is the interference pattern of two monopoles. Let's say our galaxy is about 100,000 light years across. We put a dipole in the middle .. assuming a photon (corpuscle) from the dipole hasn't been detected after 50,000 years we have the situation where the probability of detection in the up and down direction is zero as a result of the interference phenomenon and there is an equal probability of detection in the left and right hand regions of the galaxy (the actual distribution being the result of the well know corpuscle interference pattern which Good Elf regularly posts) . If the photon (corpuscle) is detected after (say) 50,000 years in the left hand side of the galaxy then its corpuscular distribution in the right hand side of the galaxy instantly falls to zero because we know the same corpuscle can't be detected in two places:- this is the well-known 'collapse of the corpuscle' phenomenon. Precisely how the corpuscle instantly conveys information across (say) 100,000 light years is unknown but fits in with corpuscular theory.. which is just another name for wavefunction theory (QM). At least we've sorted that one out.. any ideas as to how this process works or are you (just a guess) in denial mode?
Best wishes - C2.
I'd like to start with a monopole but we don't like them so I'll go for a dipole. The radiation pattern of a dipole is the interference pattern of two monopoles. Let's say our galaxy is about 100,000 light years across. We put a dipole in the middle .. assuming a photon (corpuscle) from the dipole hasn't been detected after 50,000 years we have the situation where the probability of detection in the up and down direction is zero as a result of the interference phenomenon and there is an equal probability of detection in the left and right hand regions of the galaxy (the actual distribution being the result of the well know corpuscle interference pattern which Good Elf regularly posts) . If the photon (corpuscle) is detected after (say) 50,000 years in the left hand side of the galaxy then its corpuscular distribution in the right hand side of the galaxy instantly falls to zero because we know the same corpuscle can't be detected in two places:- this is the well-known 'collapse of the corpuscle' phenomenon. Precisely how the corpuscle instantly conveys information across (say) 100,000 light years is unknown but fits in with corpuscular theory.. which is just another name for wavefunction theory (QM). At least we've sorted that one out.. any ideas as to how this process works or are you (just a guess) in denial mode?
Best wishes - C2.
QUOTE (jal+Aug 1 2007, 11:07 PM)
I found it …. Don’t forget to look at page 16.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1686v1.pdf
High-resolution spectroscopy of two-dimensional electron
systems
O. E. Dial_, R. C. Ashoori_, L. N. Pfei_ery, K. W. Westy
July 11, 2007
My nose tells me that someone is about to become famous and filthy rich.
More of their work is at
http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/as/Ashoori
Please do not hold your breath.
I wish it was true but I have a problem with some key points, but I will keep up with it.
ciao_
yquantum
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1686v1.pdf
High-resolution spectroscopy of two-dimensional electron
systems
O. E. Dial_, R. C. Ashoori_, L. N. Pfei_ery, K. W. Westy
July 11, 2007
My nose tells me that someone is about to become famous and filthy rich.
More of their work is at
http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/as/Ashoori
Please do not hold your breath.
I wish it was true but I have a problem with some key points, but I will keep up with it.
ciao_
yquantum
C2,
I am never in denial mode. Denial is a river in Egypt.
However, I do question "conventional" thinking, when logic dictates that accepted
truths are "flawed", or incomplete in their explanation. I am offering
viable alternatives. It is up to you to decide if you accept, or reject them.
Just because everyone insists that the world is flat, why should I tacitly agree?
I wonder how those "flatworlder's" dealt with having their belief system crushed?
"They be snakes, and monsters, and sich at the edge of the world".
Just an observation, you are becoming "crotchety" in your old age.
LL
QUOTE
At least we've sorted that one out.. any ideas as to how this process works or are you (just a guess) in denial mode?
I am never in denial mode. Denial is a river in Egypt.
However, I do question "conventional" thinking, when logic dictates that accepted
truths are "flawed", or incomplete in their explanation. I am offering
viable alternatives. It is up to you to decide if you accept, or reject them.
Just because everyone insists that the world is flat, why should I tacitly agree?
I wonder how those "flatworlder's" dealt with having their belief system crushed?
"They be snakes, and monsters, and sich at the edge of the world".
Just an observation, you are becoming "crotchety" in your old age.
LL
yquantum!
Yes, I can see that a lot of people would have trouble with it.
The glass is 1/2 full.
It helps Good Elf, LL, C2, TRoc and ME.
Relax ..... read a couple of papers from an icon of mine.
Reading Gerard 't Hooft’s papers is like reading a corporate statement or a vision statement. Well worth the effort.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4572
The Grand View of Physics
Gerard 't Hooft
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4568
Emergent Quantum Mechanics and Emergent Symmetries
Gerard 't Hooft
Yes, I can see that a lot of people would have trouble with it.
The glass is 1/2 full.
It helps Good Elf, LL, C2, TRoc and ME.
Relax ..... read a couple of papers from an icon of mine.
Reading Gerard 't Hooft’s papers is like reading a corporate statement or a vision statement. Well worth the effort.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4572
The Grand View of Physics
Gerard 't Hooft
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4568
Emergent Quantum Mechanics and Emergent Symmetries
Gerard 't Hooft
Hi TRoc, Laserlight, "Why Not?", yquantum, Jal, Confused2, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,
I am glad we are on good terms again... I have been a bit of a "grouchy garden gnome" lately rather than 'good elf". Your statement...
I am glad we are on good terms again... I have been a bit of a "grouchy garden gnome" lately rather than 'good elf". Your statement...
QUOTE (TRoc+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
In the late 1800s, the interference pattern was obtained by using a gas discharge lamp, a filter, and a thin slot or pinhole. In one version of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the interferometer used starlight as the source of light. Starlight is temporally incoherent light, but since it is a point source of light it has spatial coherence and will produce an interference pattern.
No vacuum there.
I agree but I was relying on the fact that many laboratory instruments have interferometers inbuilt into them and the use of gratings and slits under "hard" vacuums only improve the reproducibility of the effect. For instance one really big and obvious case of an "evacuated" Michelson Morley Interferometer is this one...
How cryogenics improves the detection of gravitational waves
These use evacuated MM Interferometers to track the distortions in space time through the instrument. These distortions are of the order of sensitivity around ∆x / x ~ 10^-24. You got to admit if there was a problem it would show up there. Now this is not the DSE but I do not expect that to be any problem ... it is simply just another optical interference experiment and I have seen "hard" evacuated systems with etched silvered glass gratings work "very well" and a grating is just a replication of a single DSE a very large number of times...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...pt/gratcal.html
One of the first problems Michelson and Morley would have asked is if the material "Aether" could be pumped out of a vessel... obviously it cannot be but an investigation of that aspect would have occurred "first up". The argument was the Aether material was "too fine" to simply pump out of a system since it was made of something "much finer" and "lighter" than a gas and could pass through the walls of all vessels effortlessly.
How cryogenics improves the detection of gravitational waves
These use evacuated MM Interferometers to track the distortions in space time through the instrument. These distortions are of the order of sensitivity around ∆x / x ~ 10^-24. You got to admit if there was a problem it would show up there. Now this is not the DSE but I do not expect that to be any problem ... it is simply just another optical interference experiment and I have seen "hard" evacuated systems with etched silvered glass gratings work "very well" and a grating is just a replication of a single DSE a very large number of times...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...pt/gratcal.html
One of the first problems Michelson and Morley would have asked is if the material "Aether" could be pumped out of a vessel... obviously it cannot be but an investigation of that aspect would have occurred "first up". The argument was the Aether material was "too fine" to simply pump out of a system since it was made of something "much finer" and "lighter" than a gas and could pass through the walls of all vessels effortlessly.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
Last point: GE says there are no plane waves.[...] I have a hard time seeing why you want to exclude the plane wave concept?
It is a technical point since plane waves infer far field and really interference is a function of the nearer Fresnel source effect. The slits/pinholes are close to the the screen and there is considerable curvature in the wavefronts there. In such a case we have interference since the distances from one slit and the other slit are sufficient to create "vacuoles" in the space as I have stated. If the waves were plane waves in the very far field the differences between the paths will no longer be able to be different by 1/2 a wavelength.... the vacuoles "disappear" in "empty vacuous space" far from matter sources in the way way out far field. Another way to look at this phenomenon is through Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory but since we can't see waves approaching from the future (even if they are there) a good story includes a retarded wave explanation. The approaching waves from the primary source side also have vacuoles due to 1/2 wavelength differences in paths due to extended sources. Of course these effects in the "open space" are not a part of the DSE, being blocked by the "non-slit" regions, so we can forget these influences for now. In any "free standing primary sources are used then we will need a better story. The other important point is "plane waves" cannot partake in the ISL.
You have said that RI (refractive Index of a vacuum) is the cause for spreading but I do not accept that believing it is the influence of a primary or secondary source. This Fourier transform does not rely on RI. The spreading is due to this transform and finite aperture of the slit/pinhole or lens.... or it may be due to optical focusing effects as well. In the case of pinholes it is due only to the transform originating from the secondary source plane (imperfect as it is). You are right about the side lobes radiating from the (secondary or primary) sources. No emitter of radiation can actually suppress them altogether. While I agree that "wave packets" contain higher frequencies of radiation which "sculpt" the photon and truncate it in the time domain, these additional "packet" frequencies cannot be separately dispersed when you apply a prism to the light and they are incorporated/bundled in the equation E = hf. The dispersion you are seeing in the DSE is spatial not temporal so unless you are deliberately using/creating several different frequency photons there are no "colors" other than the base "color".
These extra frequencies will be there as upper sidebands clustering around the base "harmonic". I think this will appear as line broadening when a "free" photon and exhibit "fine structure" when a "trapped" photon. This point is of interest to me if anyone should know more about this finer point please say so (with a reference). I would point to the recent post in which I discuss the fine structure constant as part of an overall theory. The reason I believe that you cannot "disperse" these "packet" components is in the limiting case of a fine optical grating the base frequency (lets say red) photons would appear at different screen positions to the higher internal components of green and blue Fourier components. The photon will always absorb as a single total photon. Removal of packet side bands from individual photons would change the character of the quanta in a way I cannot predict. E = hf seems to be the rule until otherwise contradicted. I am all ears on legitimate evidence to the contrary. In this case "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".
Cheers
You have said that RI (refractive Index of a vacuum) is the cause for spreading but I do not accept that believing it is the influence of a primary or secondary source. This Fourier transform does not rely on RI. The spreading is due to this transform and finite aperture of the slit/pinhole or lens.... or it may be due to optical focusing effects as well. In the case of pinholes it is due only to the transform originating from the secondary source plane (imperfect as it is). You are right about the side lobes radiating from the (secondary or primary) sources. No emitter of radiation can actually suppress them altogether. While I agree that "wave packets" contain higher frequencies of radiation which "sculpt" the photon and truncate it in the time domain, these additional "packet" frequencies cannot be separately dispersed when you apply a prism to the light and they are incorporated/bundled in the equation E = hf. The dispersion you are seeing in the DSE is spatial not temporal so unless you are deliberately using/creating several different frequency photons there are no "colors" other than the base "color".
These extra frequencies will be there as upper sidebands clustering around the base "harmonic". I think this will appear as line broadening when a "free" photon and exhibit "fine structure" when a "trapped" photon. This point is of interest to me if anyone should know more about this finer point please say so (with a reference). I would point to the recent post in which I discuss the fine structure constant as part of an overall theory. The reason I believe that you cannot "disperse" these "packet" components is in the limiting case of a fine optical grating the base frequency (lets say red) photons would appear at different screen positions to the higher internal components of green and blue Fourier components. The photon will always absorb as a single total photon. Removal of packet side bands from individual photons would change the character of the quanta in a way I cannot predict. E = hf seems to be the rule until otherwise contradicted. I am all ears on legitimate evidence to the contrary. In this case "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".
Cheers
Hi Montec,
QUOTE (Montec+)
Since a diffraction grating is just a souped up double slit then we must also understand the operation a VPH Grating.
QUOTE
...VPH grating diffracts light by fringes of refractive index variations within the volume of the grating.
Just something to think about.I have not seen these things but obviously they are what are used in Aircraft HUD's. These are in depth gelatin Holographic Gratings rather than the old Relief Gratings (scratched lines) I have usually been dealing with.
What I am really interested in is how these gratings or rather how holograms could be "exposed" as a series of exact fringes for light in space if light was not forming a series of standing waves with spatial maxima interspersed with spatial minima.
Cheers and thanks
What I am really interested in is how these gratings or rather how holograms could be "exposed" as a series of exact fringes for light in space if light was not forming a series of standing waves with spatial maxima interspersed with spatial minima.
Cheers and thanks
Hi GE, TRoc, et al,
Packet sidebands??? HUH???
If a photon represents the minimum energy equivalent of a quantum impulse,
which has a fixed time interval, and a fixed amplitude, there can be no other
frequencies in the package. Frequency denotes a repetitive oscillation over time,
secondary frequencies represent harmonics of the fundamental and can be
separated/isolated from the fundamental.
IF E=hf, then there can be no other frequencies in a photon packet, otherwise we
violate the energy equation. Likewise, there can be no sidebands, because those
are considered "parasitic" elements of an EM wave, which represent energy
dissipation/spread, and energy loss, which cannot happen if E=hf
at the quantum level.
Am I missing something?
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
The reason I believe that you cannot "disperse" these "packet" components is in the limiting case of a fine optical grating the base frequency (lets say red) photons would appear at different screen positions to the higher internal components of green and blue Fourier components. The photon will always absorb as a single total photon. Removal of packet side bands from individual photons would change the character of the quanta in a way I cannot predict. E = hf seems to be the rule until otherwise contradicted. I am all ears on legitimate evidence to the contrary. In this case "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".
Packet sidebands??? HUH???
If a photon represents the minimum energy equivalent of a quantum impulse,
which has a fixed time interval, and a fixed amplitude, there can be no other
frequencies in the package. Frequency denotes a repetitive oscillation over time,
secondary frequencies represent harmonics of the fundamental and can be
separated/isolated from the fundamental.
IF E=hf, then there can be no other frequencies in a photon packet, otherwise we
violate the energy equation. Likewise, there can be no sidebands, because those
are considered "parasitic" elements of an EM wave, which represent energy
dissipation/spread, and energy loss, which cannot happen if E=hf
at the quantum level.
Am I missing something?
Comments?
LL
Hi all,
LL, WHAT???
Did you forget everything we've talked about regarding the realistic measurement of frequency?
You can NOT have a wave of absolute single frequency.
It's "release", or emission time is a finite length, that has a natural "linewidth".
You were just asking about the "dynamical" approach to the electrons' change in position at the time of excitation. The electron has spin, and is orbiting the atom (in a classical view). Even in the QM view, these are both still CYCLICAL: they are rates of oscillation that will be "modulated" onto the frequency of the "photon". [ and that is just the simple Hydrogen atom; each electron in an atom contributes "blocking" or screening that can modulate the wave-form]
The "string" that represents our wave, has a beginning and end that correspond to the beginning and end of the emission, and is known as an "envelope". This is because it contains something; namely these other perturbations.
The evolution~propagation~spread of the wave form generates a mean, or center frequency that is what we toss around as a label for it's cyclic rate.
The "beginning" and "end" points contain the "information", and follow the maximum group velocity speed limit of c . The internal part of the wave has its' own phase velocity, and contains other frequencies. (sometimes called side lobes / bands)
We are not talking about variations in f that are greater than ~6%.
You have to realize that, for example, what we would call "yellow" light @ 5.12e+14 Hz, and what we would call "green" light @ 5.43e+14 Hz, are separated by 3.1e+13 Hz. There is PLENTY of linewidth to "play with" before something as "drastic" as noticeable color change occurs.
Last, but NOT least:
Where in the equation " E = h f " do you see a rule that says this is representing some MINIMUM / indivisible energy?
For an alternative view, to change your perspective, look at it this way:
" h " is the only constant in that equation, and only one of the others are INPUT.
h = 6.626e-34 Joules per sec of ENERGY
per
1 Hz ( f per sec )
So, when we have MANY Hz, we have MANY h . It is worth noting that the equation should read E = (n) h f , and the "n" number of "quanta" the size of " h " is REPLACED by our measuring system standard "n" number of cycles per sec (Hz).
Here again, we find a mathematical LIMIT "saves the day" for a theory that would prove "intractable" otherwise. [ e-34 digits is FAR, FAR beyond our current accurate to 12 digit calculations ]
ciao,
T.Roc
LL, WHAT???
Did you forget everything we've talked about regarding the realistic measurement of frequency?
You can NOT have a wave of absolute single frequency.
It's "release", or emission time is a finite length, that has a natural "linewidth".
You were just asking about the "dynamical" approach to the electrons' change in position at the time of excitation. The electron has spin, and is orbiting the atom (in a classical view). Even in the QM view, these are both still CYCLICAL: they are rates of oscillation that will be "modulated" onto the frequency of the "photon". [ and that is just the simple Hydrogen atom; each electron in an atom contributes "blocking" or screening that can modulate the wave-form]
The "string" that represents our wave, has a beginning and end that correspond to the beginning and end of the emission, and is known as an "envelope". This is because it contains something; namely these other perturbations.
The evolution~propagation~spread of the wave form generates a mean, or center frequency that is what we toss around as a label for it's cyclic rate.
The "beginning" and "end" points contain the "information", and follow the maximum group velocity speed limit of c . The internal part of the wave has its' own phase velocity, and contains other frequencies. (sometimes called side lobes / bands)
We are not talking about variations in f that are greater than ~6%.
You have to realize that, for example, what we would call "yellow" light @ 5.12e+14 Hz, and what we would call "green" light @ 5.43e+14 Hz, are separated by 3.1e+13 Hz. There is PLENTY of linewidth to "play with" before something as "drastic" as noticeable color change occurs.
Last, but NOT least:
Where in the equation " E = h f " do you see a rule that says this is representing some MINIMUM / indivisible energy?
For an alternative view, to change your perspective, look at it this way:
" h " is the only constant in that equation, and only one of the others are INPUT.
h = 6.626e-34 Joules per sec of ENERGY
per
1 Hz ( f per sec )
So, when we have MANY Hz, we have MANY h . It is worth noting that the equation should read E = (n) h f , and the "n" number of "quanta" the size of " h " is REPLACED by our measuring system standard "n" number of cycles per sec (Hz).
Here again, we find a mathematical LIMIT "saves the day" for a theory that would prove "intractable" otherwise. [ e-34 digits is FAR, FAR beyond our current accurate to 12 digit calculations ]
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi LL,
I like to think of myself as a finely tuned receiver and processor of ideas .. the results may subsequently be transmitted. 'Crotchety' is probably also a fair description. As history records it there is a major step forward about once every ten years... the steps have already been taken .. we can read about them (though perhaps not understand them) in a few days if we want to.
Max Planck (1900) and a solution to the black body problem .. apparently somewhat accidentally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck#Black-body_radiation
Einstein (1905) and Laserlight (2007)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric...n:_light_quanta
Einstein (1909) .. Laserlight (2011 ? )
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Developm...ce_of_Radiation
Anyway, this conception seems to me the most natural: that the manifestation of light's electromagnetic waves is constrained at singularity points, like the manifestation of electrostatic fields in the theory of the electron. It cannot be ruled out that, in such a theory, the entire energy of the electromagnetic field could be viewed as localized in these singularities, just like the old theory of action-at-a-distance. I imagine to myself, each such singular point surrounded by a field that has essentially the same character of a plane wave, and whose amplitude decreases with the distance between the singular points. If many such singularities are separated by a distance small with respect to the dimensions of the field of one singular point, their fields will be superimposed, and will form in their totality an oscillating field that is only slightly different from the oscillating field in our present electromagnetic theory of light. Of course, it need not be emphasized that such a picture is worthless unless it leads to an exact theory. I only wished to illustrate that the two structural properties of radiation according to Planck's formula (oscillation structure and quantum structure) should not be considered incompatible with one another.
Einstein again (1920)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einste...versus_Einstein
The story continues..
Comments most welcome ..
Best wishes - C2.
I like to think of myself as a finely tuned receiver and processor of ideas .. the results may subsequently be transmitted. 'Crotchety' is probably also a fair description. As history records it there is a major step forward about once every ten years... the steps have already been taken .. we can read about them (though perhaps not understand them) in a few days if we want to.
Max Planck (1900) and a solution to the black body problem .. apparently somewhat accidentally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck#Black-body_radiation
Einstein (1905) and Laserlight (2007)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric...n:_light_quanta
Einstein (1909) .. Laserlight (2011 ? )
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Developm...ce_of_Radiation
Anyway, this conception seems to me the most natural: that the manifestation of light's electromagnetic waves is constrained at singularity points, like the manifestation of electrostatic fields in the theory of the electron. It cannot be ruled out that, in such a theory, the entire energy of the electromagnetic field could be viewed as localized in these singularities, just like the old theory of action-at-a-distance. I imagine to myself, each such singular point surrounded by a field that has essentially the same character of a plane wave, and whose amplitude decreases with the distance between the singular points. If many such singularities are separated by a distance small with respect to the dimensions of the field of one singular point, their fields will be superimposed, and will form in their totality an oscillating field that is only slightly different from the oscillating field in our present electromagnetic theory of light. Of course, it need not be emphasized that such a picture is worthless unless it leads to an exact theory. I only wished to illustrate that the two structural properties of radiation according to Planck's formula (oscillation structure and quantum structure) should not be considered incompatible with one another.
Einstein again (1920)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einste...versus_Einstein
The story continues..
Comments most welcome ..
Best wishes - C2.
Hello everyone, so many now which is great,
Would it be possible for someone to put out a summation/points/results -- on what everyone does agree on =>dealing with DSE?
ciao_
yquantum
Would it be possible for someone to put out a summation/points/results -- on what everyone does agree on =>dealing with DSE?
ciao_
yquantum
Hi yquantum and all,
I'm not aware of any overlap of ideas . Perhaps if we tried a ten line (maximum) abstract of our current ideas we could try to deal with each in turn .. just a thought.
Best wishes - C2.
I'm not aware of any overlap of ideas
. Perhaps if we tried a ten line (maximum) abstract of our current ideas we could try to deal with each in turn .. just a thought.Best wishes - C2.
Confused2
Everybody is afraid to leave their own street light and step into the dark.
Except me.
------------
I've pointed out that GE can have part of his cake (tornado) with the fact that an electron is doing something and its energy density can be seen at
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1686v1.pdf
High-resolution spectroscopy of two-dimensional electron
systems
O. E. Dial_, R. C. Ashoori_, L. N. Pfei_ery, K. W. Westy
July 11, 2007
------------
Troc can have a basement for his approach. (minimum length, drip line and quark sea)
-----------
LL can have a finite size range for the electron and photon.
------------
C2 gets a reason for his path lengths.
------------------
yquantum gets an explanation for UNCERTAINTY – SPIN - CONFINEMENT.
-------------
I'm in the dark by myself and nobody can see me.
-----------
jal
Everybody is afraid to leave their own street light and step into the dark.
Except me.
------------
I've pointed out that GE can have part of his cake (tornado) with the fact that an electron is doing something and its energy density can be seen at
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1686v1.pdf
High-resolution spectroscopy of two-dimensional electron
systems
O. E. Dial_, R. C. Ashoori_, L. N. Pfei_ery, K. W. Westy
July 11, 2007
------------
Troc can have a basement for his approach. (minimum length, drip line and quark sea)
QUOTE
So, when we have MANY Hz, we have MANY h . It is worth noting that the equation should read E = (n) h f , and the "n" number of "quanta" the size of " h " is REPLACED by our measuring system standard "n" number of cycles per sec (Hz).
-----------
LL can have a finite size range for the electron and photon.
------------
C2 gets a reason for his path lengths.
------------------
yquantum gets an explanation for UNCERTAINTY – SPIN - CONFINEMENT.
-------------
I'm in the dark by myself and nobody can see me.
-----------
jal
Hi Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "Why Not?", yquantum, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
I'd like to start with a monopole but we don't like them so I'll go for a dipole. The radiation pattern of a dipole is the interference pattern of two monopoles. Let's say our galaxy is about 100,000 light years across. We put a dipole in the middle .. assuming a photon (corpuscle) from the dipole hasn't been detected safter 50,000 years we have the situation where the probability of detection in the up and down direction is zero as a result of the interference phenomenon and there is an equal probability of detection in the left and right hand regions of the galaxy (the actual distribution being the result of the well know corpuscle interference pattern which Good Elf regularly posts) . If the photon (corpuscle) is detected after (say) 50,000 years in the left hand side of the galaxy then its corpuscular distribution in the right hand side of the galaxy instantly falls to zero because we know the same corpuscle can't be detected in two places:- this is the well-known 'collapse of the corpuscle' phenomenon. Precisely how the corpuscle instantly conveys information across (say) 100,000 light years is unknown but fits in with corpuscular theory.. which is just another name for wavefunction theory (QM). At least we've sorted that one out.. any ideas as to how this process works or are you (just a guess) in denial mode?
I have an answer to your question and I am sure that when you hear it you will be really horrified. Yet it is all in the figures.... there will be only a couple of them and yet I should be able to make the story "compelling".
First consider this reference.... I consider this paper "rock solid" and very complete. Einstein did consider this problem and he intuitively believed this was indeed true... if you cannot believe Einstein's Intuition then accept the maths.
Consider a rotating disk like our Galaxy but much larger ... 10 Billion light years in circumference. If it rotated once a year the rim would need to travel at 10 Billion times the speed of light to keep up. We know this is impossible so lets slow this rotation down to allow the rim to be speeding along at just under the speed of light. This would mean the disk would rotate once every 10 Billion years. From the standpoint of any observers placed near the rim or at the center of rotation this very low angular velocity is not able to be measured using present technology. Since the points on the rim and the point at the center of rotation are effectively in the same inertial frame of reference and appear at rest relative to each other at a separation of 10^9/2π Light Years. This is a fairly large distance of separation and spacetime is not likely to be flat over such distances. It is conceivable that spacetime is folded over such vast distances into Rindler Foliations or closed so it would be difficult to determine where forces would appear. It may simply show up as a universal expansion or as "dark energy"...
What I do know is if I was situated beyond this "spinning disk" I would see it moving relative to observers at just under the speed of light. A "length contraction" along the direction of tangential motion would occur (along with a spatial rotation) and the circumference of the disk would be as short as you want it to be depending only on the difference in velocity between the rim velocity and the speed of light. This length will be variable between a value of zero circumference if the rim was actually moving at the speed of light, and 10 Billion Light Years if the rate of rotation was zero. The internal difference between these states would be at the limits of observation. The internal rate of rotation is so small (one rotation every 10 billion years or even less) that from an internal observer it is debatable if any rotation would ever be seen at all. From the point of view of an internal observer the size of the disk is the full 10 Billion Light Years around. A difference in the rate of rotation of one second in 10 billion years would be sufficient to enable a finite size for this disk which was very small yet internally the spin rate difference would not even be noticeable. We have an equation for particle formation and it is E = hf. Perhaps h (Planck's Constant) is just a measure of this small size of the particle when we relate the final size of photon "particles" to the speed of light. This is a difference in scale seen from the inside which appears pseudo-stationary and "huge" and as seen externally a tiny spinning disk of diminishing circumference somewhere between zero and any size you can pick. The external small particle will exhibit a high rotational frequency due to its small circumference while on the inside it will be an almost limitless void bounded by a standing waves on the surface of the everywhere bounded spacetime. These are two separate domains in the Fourier plane if you only consider rotation "on a circle". Of course we understand that such "sub-atomic particles" actually show some kind of spherical symmetry and instead of Fourier decomposition on a circle it is really Spherical Harmonics on the surface of a hypersphere and these are in an additional 6 dimensions.
Effectively this will be a rotation and enfolding along three orthogonal planes which are demarcated by light cone walls. With six extra dimensions in which to spin a solid sphere could rotate around all three axes "shrinking" the external circumference to an arbitrary small sub-atomic particle dimension and simultaneously exhibit an external high frequency while still being quasi-stationary as viewed on the inside. I can see no objection to a very large "small Universe", 10 Billion Light Years (or more) in internal circumference, in an unbounded but closed space. It would have an apparently infinitesimally small rotation in 6 extra dimensions (barely perceptible internally) that leads to a shrinking to the size of a rapidly rotating sub-atomic particle "wave" externally. These objects exhibit both temporal (reciprocal time - frequency and time dimensions) and spatial reciprocity (reciprocal space and space dimensions) on the surface of a closed spherical like surface bounded by the light cone.
I am convinced with all the visible rotation occurring inside our Universe that it could be a lot bigger than this minimal size and still be any external size on the outside as demarcated by a light cone wall. These complementary views of our universe provide a very small communicating external surface available for matter waves (reciprocal electromagnetic waves) to propagate upon with almost instantaneous access to the entire "small outer surface" through a reciprocal tunneling process (de Broglie waves). On the inside of this surface the quasi-stationary nature results in standing wave patterns as seen from an internal observer where 2πr = nλ... Where n is the primary quantum number. The other quantum numbers are provided by Spherical Harmonics and by external particle spin quanta. Naturally no one is going to believe this but I think this is very plausible and all the circumstantial evidence indicates it is possible.
Therefore we end up with an electromagnetic basis for compact dimensional space wherever any sub-atomic particles are to be found. They can even be created spontaneously in free space through particle creation. Perhaps entire Universes like our own are single tiny rotating particles. If it were so it would explain the basis of atomic theory and Quantum Electrodynamics and also matter waves and de Broglie phenomena. The emergence of mass is a function of the external surface curvature of this reciprocal space, since spacetime curvature is already known to be geometrically the basis of mass and of gravity. A very neat idea that we can apparently already see at our scale of the Universe.
The instantaneous collapse of the wave function is simply a reciprocal optical phenomenon on the "outside" of the light cone akin to a shallow spherical pond that is the surface of a "sphere" where a "source" impulse at one point causes waves to propagate around the surface to "focus" at a "sink". The wave does not "carry a particle", it is the reciprocal domains expressions of the outer surface of this "sphere".... Just like Kondo Phantoms. The point of focus will depend on purely optical elements acting on waves.... see reference below...
Consider a rotating disk like our Galaxy but much larger ... 10 Billion light years in circumference. If it rotated once a year the rim would need to travel at 10 Billion times the speed of light to keep up. We know this is impossible so lets slow this rotation down to allow the rim to be speeding along at just under the speed of light. This would mean the disk would rotate once every 10 Billion years. From the standpoint of any observers placed near the rim or at the center of rotation this very low angular velocity is not able to be measured using present technology. Since the points on the rim and the point at the center of rotation are effectively in the same inertial frame of reference and appear at rest relative to each other at a separation of 10^9/2π Light Years. This is a fairly large distance of separation and spacetime is not likely to be flat over such distances. It is conceivable that spacetime is folded over such vast distances into Rindler Foliations or closed so it would be difficult to determine where forces would appear. It may simply show up as a universal expansion or as "dark energy"...
What I do know is if I was situated beyond this "spinning disk" I would see it moving relative to observers at just under the speed of light. A "length contraction" along the direction of tangential motion would occur (along with a spatial rotation) and the circumference of the disk would be as short as you want it to be depending only on the difference in velocity between the rim velocity and the speed of light. This length will be variable between a value of zero circumference if the rim was actually moving at the speed of light, and 10 Billion Light Years if the rate of rotation was zero. The internal difference between these states would be at the limits of observation. The internal rate of rotation is so small (one rotation every 10 billion years or even less) that from an internal observer it is debatable if any rotation would ever be seen at all. From the point of view of an internal observer the size of the disk is the full 10 Billion Light Years around. A difference in the rate of rotation of one second in 10 billion years would be sufficient to enable a finite size for this disk which was very small yet internally the spin rate difference would not even be noticeable. We have an equation for particle formation and it is E = hf. Perhaps h (Planck's Constant) is just a measure of this small size of the particle when we relate the final size of photon "particles" to the speed of light. This is a difference in scale seen from the inside which appears pseudo-stationary and "huge" and as seen externally a tiny spinning disk of diminishing circumference somewhere between zero and any size you can pick. The external small particle will exhibit a high rotational frequency due to its small circumference while on the inside it will be an almost limitless void bounded by a standing waves on the surface of the everywhere bounded spacetime. These are two separate domains in the Fourier plane if you only consider rotation "on a circle". Of course we understand that such "sub-atomic particles" actually show some kind of spherical symmetry and instead of Fourier decomposition on a circle it is really Spherical Harmonics on the surface of a hypersphere and these are in an additional 6 dimensions.
Effectively this will be a rotation and enfolding along three orthogonal planes which are demarcated by light cone walls. With six extra dimensions in which to spin a solid sphere could rotate around all three axes "shrinking" the external circumference to an arbitrary small sub-atomic particle dimension and simultaneously exhibit an external high frequency while still being quasi-stationary as viewed on the inside. I can see no objection to a very large "small Universe", 10 Billion Light Years (or more) in internal circumference, in an unbounded but closed space. It would have an apparently infinitesimally small rotation in 6 extra dimensions (barely perceptible internally) that leads to a shrinking to the size of a rapidly rotating sub-atomic particle "wave" externally. These objects exhibit both temporal (reciprocal time - frequency and time dimensions) and spatial reciprocity (reciprocal space and space dimensions) on the surface of a closed spherical like surface bounded by the light cone.
I am convinced with all the visible rotation occurring inside our Universe that it could be a lot bigger than this minimal size and still be any external size on the outside as demarcated by a light cone wall. These complementary views of our universe provide a very small communicating external surface available for matter waves (reciprocal electromagnetic waves) to propagate upon with almost instantaneous access to the entire "small outer surface" through a reciprocal tunneling process (de Broglie waves). On the inside of this surface the quasi-stationary nature results in standing wave patterns as seen from an internal observer where 2πr = nλ... Where n is the primary quantum number. The other quantum numbers are provided by Spherical Harmonics and by external particle spin quanta. Naturally no one is going to believe this but I think this is very plausible and all the circumstantial evidence indicates it is possible.
Therefore we end up with an electromagnetic basis for compact dimensional space wherever any sub-atomic particles are to be found. They can even be created spontaneously in free space through particle creation. Perhaps entire Universes like our own are single tiny rotating particles. If it were so it would explain the basis of atomic theory and Quantum Electrodynamics and also matter waves and de Broglie phenomena. The emergence of mass is a function of the external surface curvature of this reciprocal space, since spacetime curvature is already known to be geometrically the basis of mass and of gravity. A very neat idea that we can apparently already see at our scale of the Universe.
The instantaneous collapse of the wave function is simply a reciprocal optical phenomenon on the "outside" of the light cone akin to a shallow spherical pond that is the surface of a "sphere" where a "source" impulse at one point causes waves to propagate around the surface to "focus" at a "sink". The wave does not "carry a particle", it is the reciprocal domains expressions of the outer surface of this "sphere".... Just like Kondo Phantoms. The point of focus will depend on purely optical elements acting on waves.... see reference below...
Quantum Mirages: The Coherent Projection of Electronic Structure
H. C. Manoharan, C. P. Lutz, D. M. Eigler (IBM Research Division, Almaden Research Center, 650 Harry Rd., San Jose, CA 95120)
While the correlated electron physics underlying the varied manifestations of magnetism have long been studied via macroscopic behavior, only recently have novel local probes opened the door to a new class of studies on the nanometer length scale. On top of these technological advances, the advent of controlled atomic and molecular manipulation has provided us with a unique opportunity not only to detect magnetism at atomic length scales, but to manipulate it as well. In this talk we present new results that exploit these techniques using low-temperature scanning tunneling microscopy. Using the detection of the Kondo resonance localized around an isolated magnetic moment on a surface, we demonstrate that the electronic structure around an atom may be sampled and projected to a distant location by means of a surrounding 2D electron gas confined in an engineered nanostructure. The "quantum mirage'' cast by a single magnetic atom can be refocused with coherent phase at a distinct point where it is detected as a phantom atom around which the electronic structure mimics that at the real atom.
^1H. C. Manoharan et al., to appear in Nature (1999).
After arranging a few dozen cobalt atoms as an ellipse on a copper surface and imaging the assembly (purple ring on orange, bottom), IBM researchers use a complimentary imaging technique to show that when a single cobalt atom is placed at one of the focus points of the ellipse, certain electronic properties (such as spin, indicated by spheres with arrows) are detected in the vicinity of the focus-point atom (large peak, top curve). A lower-intensity projection of those properties appears as a phantom atom at the other ellipse, even though that position is vacant.
First consider this reference.... I consider this paper "rock solid" and very complete. Einstein did consider this problem and he intuitively believed this was indeed true... if you cannot believe Einstein's Intuition then accept the maths.
QUOTE
The Curvature of the Relativistic Rotating Disk
Brian Keating
Mentor: Dr. Teymour Darkhosh
1. Introduction
The case of a rigid disk rotating at relativistic speeds raises a number of interesting paradoxes and has long been plagued with misunderstandings. According to special relativity, measuring rods laid out along the rim of the disk will be Lorentz contracted according to the usual formula, but those laid out along the radius will not, as these are perpendicular to the (instantaneous) direction of motion. Thus, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of the disk will no longer be pi. This paradox was first introduced in 1909 by Paul Ehrenfest, and is referred to as Ehrenfest’s paradox [1].
The Ehrenfest paradox was known to Einstein, and he actually used the case of a rotating disk in his seminal 1916 paper to introduce the necessity for non-Euclidian geometry in general relativity (GR) [2]. However, he never published a paper directly addressing the rotating disk. Other physicists, such as Strauss [3], argued that if the measuring rods were contracted, then so were the distances they were measuring, so the ratio C/D would still be pi. [...] The best way to view the paradoxes of the rotating disk is as a variant on the twin paradox. It is in the changing from inertial frame to inertial frame that time is “lost.”
In the words of Rizzi and Tartaglia [5],
“…a rotating disk does not admit a well defined `proper frame’; rather, it should be regarded as a class of an infinite number of local proper frames, considered in different points at different times, and glued together according to some convention.”
http://www.smcm.edu/nsm/physics/SMP03S/KeatingB.doc.pdf
Brian Keating
Mentor: Dr. Teymour Darkhosh
1. Introduction
The case of a rigid disk rotating at relativistic speeds raises a number of interesting paradoxes and has long been plagued with misunderstandings. According to special relativity, measuring rods laid out along the rim of the disk will be Lorentz contracted according to the usual formula, but those laid out along the radius will not, as these are perpendicular to the (instantaneous) direction of motion. Thus, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of the disk will no longer be pi. This paradox was first introduced in 1909 by Paul Ehrenfest, and is referred to as Ehrenfest’s paradox [1].
The Ehrenfest paradox was known to Einstein, and he actually used the case of a rotating disk in his seminal 1916 paper to introduce the necessity for non-Euclidian geometry in general relativity (GR) [2]. However, he never published a paper directly addressing the rotating disk. Other physicists, such as Strauss [3], argued that if the measuring rods were contracted, then so were the distances they were measuring, so the ratio C/D would still be pi. [...] The best way to view the paradoxes of the rotating disk is as a variant on the twin paradox. It is in the changing from inertial frame to inertial frame that time is “lost.”
In the words of Rizzi and Tartaglia [5],
“…a rotating disk does not admit a well defined `proper frame’; rather, it should be regarded as a class of an infinite number of local proper frames, considered in different points at different times, and glued together according to some convention.”
http://www.smcm.edu/nsm/physics/SMP03S/KeatingB.doc.pdf
Consider a rotating disk like our Galaxy but much larger ... 10 Billion light years in circumference. If it rotated once a year the rim would need to travel at 10 Billion times the speed of light to keep up. We know this is impossible so lets slow this rotation down to allow the rim to be speeding along at just under the speed of light. This would mean the disk would rotate once every 10 Billion years. From the standpoint of any observers placed near the rim or at the center of rotation this very low angular velocity is not able to be measured using present technology. Since the points on the rim and the point at the center of rotation are effectively in the same inertial frame of reference and appear at rest relative to each other at a separation of 10^9/2π Light Years. This is a fairly large distance of separation and spacetime is not likely to be flat over such distances. It is conceivable that spacetime is folded over such vast distances into Rindler Foliations or closed so it would be difficult to determine where forces would appear. It may simply show up as a universal expansion or as "dark energy"...
What I do know is if I was situated beyond this "spinning disk" I would see it moving relative to observers at just under the speed of light. A "length contraction" along the direction of tangential motion would occur (along with a spatial rotation) and the circumference of the disk would be as short as you want it to be depending only on the difference in velocity between the rim velocity and the speed of light. This length will be variable between a value of zero circumference if the rim was actually moving at the speed of light, and 10 Billion Light Years if the rate of rotation was zero. The internal difference between these states would be at the limits of observation. The internal rate of rotation is so small (one rotation every 10 billion years or even less) that from an internal observer it is debatable if any rotation would ever be seen at all. From the point of view of an internal observer the size of the disk is the full 10 Billion Light Years around. A difference in the rate of rotation of one second in 10 billion years would be sufficient to enable a finite size for this disk which was very small yet internally the spin rate difference would not even be noticeable. We have an equation for particle formation and it is E = hf. Perhaps h (Planck's Constant) is just a measure of this small size of the particle when we relate the final size of photon "particles" to the speed of light. This is a difference in scale seen from the inside which appears pseudo-stationary and "huge" and as seen externally a tiny spinning disk of diminishing circumference somewhere between zero and any size you can pick. The external small particle will exhibit a high rotational frequency due to its small circumference while on the inside it will be an almost limitless void bounded by a standing waves on the surface of the everywhere bounded spacetime. These are two separate domains in the Fourier plane if you only consider rotation "on a circle". Of course we understand that such "sub-atomic particles" actually show some kind of spherical symmetry and instead of Fourier decomposition on a circle it is really Spherical Harmonics on the surface of a hypersphere and these are in an additional 6 dimensions.
Effectively this will be a rotation and enfolding along three orthogonal planes which are demarcated by light cone walls. With six extra dimensions in which to spin a solid sphere could rotate around all three axes "shrinking" the external circumference to an arbitrary small sub-atomic particle dimension and simultaneously exhibit an external high frequency while still being quasi-stationary as viewed on the inside. I can see no objection to a very large "small Universe", 10 Billion Light Years (or more) in internal circumference, in an unbounded but closed space. It would have an apparently infinitesimally small rotation in 6 extra dimensions (barely perceptible internally) that leads to a shrinking to the size of a rapidly rotating sub-atomic particle "wave" externally. These objects exhibit both temporal (reciprocal time - frequency and time dimensions) and spatial reciprocity (reciprocal space and space dimensions) on the surface of a closed spherical like surface bounded by the light cone.
I am convinced with all the visible rotation occurring inside our Universe that it could be a lot bigger than this minimal size and still be any external size on the outside as demarcated by a light cone wall. These complementary views of our universe provide a very small communicating external surface available for matter waves (reciprocal electromagnetic waves) to propagate upon with almost instantaneous access to the entire "small outer surface" through a reciprocal tunneling process (de Broglie waves). On the inside of this surface the quasi-stationary nature results in standing wave patterns as seen from an internal observer where 2πr = nλ... Where n is the primary quantum number. The other quantum numbers are provided by Spherical Harmonics and by external particle spin quanta. Naturally no one is going to believe this but I think this is very plausible and all the circumstantial evidence indicates it is possible.
Therefore we end up with an electromagnetic basis for compact dimensional space wherever any sub-atomic particles are to be found. They can even be created spontaneously in free space through particle creation. Perhaps entire Universes like our own are single tiny rotating particles. If it were so it would explain the basis of atomic theory and Quantum Electrodynamics and also matter waves and de Broglie phenomena. The emergence of mass is a function of the external surface curvature of this reciprocal space, since spacetime curvature is already known to be geometrically the basis of mass and of gravity. A very neat idea that we can apparently already see at our scale of the Universe.
The instantaneous collapse of the wave function is simply a reciprocal optical phenomenon on the "outside" of the light cone akin to a shallow spherical pond that is the surface of a "sphere" where a "source" impulse at one point causes waves to propagate around the surface to "focus" at a "sink". The wave does not "carry a particle", it is the reciprocal domains expressions of the outer surface of this "sphere".... Just like Kondo Phantoms. The point of focus will depend on purely optical elements acting on waves.... see reference below...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Curvature of the Relativistic Rotating Disk Brian Keating Mentor: Dr. Teymour Darkhosh 1. Introduction The case of a rigid disk rotating at relativistic speeds raises a number of interesting paradoxes and has long been plagued with misunderstandings. According to special relativity, measuring rods laid out along the rim of the disk will be Lorentz contracted according to the usual formula, but those laid out along the radius will not, as these are perpendicular to the (instantaneous) direction of motion. Thus, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of the disk will no longer be pi. This paradox was first introduced in 1909 by Paul Ehrenfest, and is referred to as Ehrenfest’s paradox [1]. The Ehrenfest paradox was known to Einstein, and he actually used the case of a rotating disk in his seminal 1916 paper to introduce the necessity for non-Euclidian geometry in general relativity (GR) [2]. However, he never published a paper directly addressing the rotating disk. Other physicists, such as Strauss [3], argued that if the measuring rods were contracted, then so were the distances they were measuring, so the ratio C/D would still be pi. [...] The best way to view the paradoxes of the rotating disk is as a variant on the twin paradox. It is in the changing from inertial frame to inertial frame that time is “lost.” In the words of Rizzi and Tartaglia [5], “…a rotating disk does not admit a well defined `proper frame’; rather, it should be regarded as a class of an infinite number of local proper frames, considered in different points at different times, and glued together according to some convention.” http://www.smcm.edu/nsm/physics/SMP03S/KeatingB.doc.pdf |
Consider a rotating disk like our Galaxy but much larger ... 10 Billion light years in circumference. If it rotated once a year the rim would need to travel at 10 Billion times the speed of light to keep up. We know this is impossible so lets slow this rotation down to allow the rim to be speeding along at just under the speed of light. This would mean the disk would rotate once every 10 Billion years. From the standpoint of any observers placed near the rim or at the center of rotation this very low angular velocity is not able to be measured using present technology. Since the points on the rim and the point at the center of rotation are effectively in the same inertial frame of reference and appear at rest relative to each other at a separation of 10^9/2π Light Years. This is a fairly large distance of separation and spacetime is not likely to be flat over such distances. It is conceivable that spacetime is folded over such vast distances into Rindler Foliations or closed so it would be difficult to determine where forces would appear. It may simply show up as a universal expansion or as "dark energy"...
What I do know is if I was situated beyond this "spinning disk" I would see it moving relative to observers at just under the speed of light. A "length contraction" along the direction of tangential motion would occur (along with a spatial rotation) and the circumference of the disk would be as short as you want it to be depending only on the difference in velocity between the rim velocity and the speed of light. This length will be variable between a value of zero circumference if the rim was actually moving at the speed of light, and 10 Billion Light Years if the rate of rotation was zero. The internal difference between these states would be at the limits of observation. The internal rate of rotation is so small (one rotation every 10 billion years or even less) that from an internal observer it is debatable if any rotation would ever be seen at all. From the point of view of an internal observer the size of the disk is the full 10 Billion Light Years around. A difference in the rate of rotation of one second in 10 billion years would be sufficient to enable a finite size for this disk which was very small yet internally the spin rate difference would not even be noticeable. We have an equation for particle formation and it is E = hf. Perhaps h (Planck's Constant) is just a measure of this small size of the particle when we relate the final size of photon "particles" to the speed of light. This is a difference in scale seen from the inside which appears pseudo-stationary and "huge" and as seen externally a tiny spinning disk of diminishing circumference somewhere between zero and any size you can pick. The external small particle will exhibit a high rotational frequency due to its small circumference while on the inside it will be an almost limitless void bounded by a standing waves on the surface of the everywhere bounded spacetime. These are two separate domains in the Fourier plane if you only consider rotation "on a circle". Of course we understand that such "sub-atomic particles" actually show some kind of spherical symmetry and instead of Fourier decomposition on a circle it is really Spherical Harmonics on the surface of a hypersphere and these are in an additional 6 dimensions.
Effectively this will be a rotation and enfolding along three orthogonal planes which are demarcated by light cone walls. With six extra dimensions in which to spin a solid sphere could rotate around all three axes "shrinking" the external circumference to an arbitrary small sub-atomic particle dimension and simultaneously exhibit an external high frequency while still being quasi-stationary as viewed on the inside. I can see no objection to a very large "small Universe", 10 Billion Light Years (or more) in internal circumference, in an unbounded but closed space. It would have an apparently infinitesimally small rotation in 6 extra dimensions (barely perceptible internally) that leads to a shrinking to the size of a rapidly rotating sub-atomic particle "wave" externally. These objects exhibit both temporal (reciprocal time - frequency and time dimensions) and spatial reciprocity (reciprocal space and space dimensions) on the surface of a closed spherical like surface bounded by the light cone.
I am convinced with all the visible rotation occurring inside our Universe that it could be a lot bigger than this minimal size and still be any external size on the outside as demarcated by a light cone wall. These complementary views of our universe provide a very small communicating external surface available for matter waves (reciprocal electromagnetic waves) to propagate upon with almost instantaneous access to the entire "small outer surface" through a reciprocal tunneling process (de Broglie waves). On the inside of this surface the quasi-stationary nature results in standing wave patterns as seen from an internal observer where 2πr = nλ... Where n is the primary quantum number. The other quantum numbers are provided by Spherical Harmonics and by external particle spin quanta. Naturally no one is going to believe this but I think this is very plausible and all the circumstantial evidence indicates it is possible.
Therefore we end up with an electromagnetic basis for compact dimensional space wherever any sub-atomic particles are to be found. They can even be created spontaneously in free space through particle creation. Perhaps entire Universes like our own are single tiny rotating particles. If it were so it would explain the basis of atomic theory and Quantum Electrodynamics and also matter waves and de Broglie phenomena. The emergence of mass is a function of the external surface curvature of this reciprocal space, since spacetime curvature is already known to be geometrically the basis of mass and of gravity. A very neat idea that we can apparently already see at our scale of the Universe.
The instantaneous collapse of the wave function is simply a reciprocal optical phenomenon on the "outside" of the light cone akin to a shallow spherical pond that is the surface of a "sphere" where a "source" impulse at one point causes waves to propagate around the surface to "focus" at a "sink". The wave does not "carry a particle", it is the reciprocal domains expressions of the outer surface of this "sphere".... Just like Kondo Phantoms. The point of focus will depend on purely optical elements acting on waves.... see reference below...
Quantum Mirages: The Coherent Projection of Electronic Structure
H. C. Manoharan, C. P. Lutz, D. M. Eigler (IBM Research Division, Almaden Research Center, 650 Harry Rd., San Jose, CA 95120)
While the correlated electron physics underlying the varied manifestations of magnetism have long been studied via macroscopic behavior, only recently have novel local probes opened the door to a new class of studies on the nanometer length scale. On top of these technological advances, the advent of controlled atomic and molecular manipulation has provided us with a unique opportunity not only to detect magnetism at atomic length scales, but to manipulate it as well. In this talk we present new results that exploit these techniques using low-temperature scanning tunneling microscopy. Using the detection of the Kondo resonance localized around an isolated magnetic moment on a surface, we demonstrate that the electronic structure around an atom may be sampled and projected to a distant location by means of a surrounding 2D electron gas confined in an engineered nanostructure. The "quantum mirage'' cast by a single magnetic atom can be refocused with coherent phase at a distinct point where it is detected as a phantom atom around which the electronic structure mimics that at the real atom.
^1H. C. Manoharan et al., to appear in Nature (1999).
After arranging a few dozen cobalt atoms as an ellipse on a copper surface and imaging the assembly (purple ring on orange, bottom), IBM researchers use a complimentary imaging technique to show that when a single cobalt atom is placed at one of the focus points of the ellipse, certain electronic properties (such as spin, indicated by spheres with arrows) are detected in the vicinity of the focus-point atom (large peak, top curve). A lower-intensity projection of those properties appears as a phantom atom at the other ellipse, even though that position is vacant.
The phantom matter wave amplitude can be as much as 60% the amplitude of the source atom even in this imperfect configuration. This process works so well with these corrals that chemical bonding with "phantoms atoms" and real atoms is possible, oxides have actually been constructed of the phantom. Imagine if instead of these two dimensional corrals a fully closed system (a "Universe") in which "impulses" at sources create wavelike "photon packets" at one point in spacetime on the outer surface of this sphere and the source influence is perfectly conducted with no diminution to the sink without any delivery of a particle between. This is done by this packet "spreading" like a ripple on a pond curved into a hypersphere. If this can be done for single photons then why not "trapped photons"... matter particles etc...?
All this may seem improbable to some but I could show you all a host of experiments in which these "principles" hold for a very wide range of "applications" as real phenomena. What initially seems like "quantum weirdness" seems to me like "quantum optics" within a greater holographic Universe.
Cheers
All this may seem improbable to some but I could show you all a host of experiments in which these "principles" hold for a very wide range of "applications" as real phenomena. What initially seems like "quantum weirdness" seems to me like "quantum optics" within a greater holographic Universe.
Cheers
greater holographic Universe.
Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "Why Not?", Good Elf, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,
There was a time that I would as a friend challenged this hypothesis, but it is plausible if one was to use the complex means in which the mind works. I would not count it out as impossible -- Good Elf.
Example, for those who might be physicians that are on this post have studied how the eyes function, where the optic nerve connects to back of the eye which causes a blind spot due to the connection of the nerve so the brain extrapolates the information that it sees <=important to fill in the blind spot & you see a -- "complete view".
ciao_
yquantum
Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "Why Not?", Good Elf, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,
QUOTE
"quantum optics" within a greater holographic Universe.
There was a time that I would as a friend challenged this hypothesis, but it is plausible if one was to use the complex means in which the mind works. I would not count it out as impossible -- Good Elf.
Example, for those who might be physicians that are on this post have studied how the eyes function, where the optic nerve connects to back of the eye which causes a blind spot due to the connection of the nerve so the brain extrapolates the information that it sees <=important to fill in the blind spot & you see a -- "complete view".
ciao_
yquantum
Hi GE,
A suggestion. Instead of mixing everything from the macro realm, to the
subatomic realm in one HUGE, all encompassing post, full of dislocated/disjointed
theories, how about broaching each individual subject as an individual post, with
a common theme.
Too many topics, with different "elf theories", in one post, is not really productive,
and jumps around too much, IMO. When trying to make a point, maintain
focus on that topical argument. Comma's are nice too.
Excuse me........I need to wipe the glaze from my eyes.
LL
A suggestion. Instead of mixing everything from the macro realm, to the
subatomic realm in one HUGE, all encompassing post, full of dislocated/disjointed
theories, how about broaching each individual subject as an individual post, with
a common theme.
Too many topics, with different "elf theories", in one post, is not really productive,
and jumps around too much, IMO. When trying to make a point, maintain
focus on that topical argument. Comma's are nice too.
Excuse me........I need to wipe the glaze from my eyes.
LL
I agree with Laserlight1905 .. pithy posts are best.
C2.
I don't hold your lack of vision against you. Myopia is a treatable condition.
Just don't fall over the edge!
Laserlight ∞(ad infinitum)
I don't hold your lack of vision against you. Myopia is a treatable condition.
Just don't fall over the edge!
Laserlight ∞(ad infinitum)
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.