QUOTE (Laserlight+)
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. 
I see you just did not get it that this is only one electromagnetic theory that deals with everything, and "everything" is like a set of "Russian Dolls".
I am not trying to write "War and Peace"... but I needed to translate between different branches of Physics and then put it into "another language" which in the end is "human understandable". A few punctuation marks is the price of "future shock".
You know what Neils Bohr said...
... or alternatively...
... or alternatively...
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone."
- Bjarne Stroustrup [invented C++]
... or...
Do not worry, I will not be trying to ram further ideas down peoples throats... All people have to do is resist the urge to ask questions about why things are the way they are.
Cheers
I see you just did not get it that this is only one electromagnetic theory that deals with everything, and "everything" is like a set of "Russian Dolls".
I am not trying to write "War and Peace"... but I needed to translate between different branches of Physics and then put it into "another language" which in the end is "human understandable". A few punctuation marks is the price of "future shock".
You know what Neils Bohr said...
QUOTE
"We are all agreed that your theory is absolutely crazy. But what divides us is whether your theory is crazy enough."
- Neils Bohr on Wolfgang Pauli's unified theory
- Neils Bohr on Wolfgang Pauli's unified theory
... or alternatively...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "We are all agreed that your theory is absolutely crazy. But what divides us is whether your theory is crazy enough." - Neils Bohr on Wolfgang Pauli's unified theory |
... or alternatively...
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone."
- Bjarne Stroustrup [invented C++]
... or...
QUOTE
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
- Howard Aiken
- Howard Aiken
Do not worry, I will not be trying to ram further ideas down peoples throats... All people have to do is resist the urge to ask questions about why things are the way they are.
Cheers
Hi Yquantum,
I will put these in numerical order to keep them somewhat organized.
Some are DSE topics, others are more generalized.
General agreements:
1. We all agree that the standard formula for diffraction interference works,
mathematically.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...t/slits.html#c1
2. We all agree that wave superposition at the screen gives rise to line intensity
and cancellation bars on the screen.
3. We all agree that atom's emit and absorb EM waves in the form of photons
that at the propter quantum resonant frequencies.
4. We all agree that photons travel as EM waves, and behave like particles
when interacting with physical matter, in that they transfer momentum/energy
and cause displacement of electrons in a dipole arrangement, when the
resonant frequency is correct.
5. We all agree that photons convey information about their emission "source",
such as relative emission location, timestamp, energy level, frequency, etc.
6. We agree that photons in a coherent wavefront are energetically phase coupled
together. (not perfectly phase coherent, IMO)
7. We agree that resonance is the mode of coupling propagating EM energy, to and
from physical matter, and that resonance is a fundamental energy transfer
process.
8. I think we agree that the presence of matter is a requirement for signal
mixing of photon energy. No physical displacement, no energy/signal mixing.
General Disagreements:
1. We disagree on why, and how, diffraction physically operates to spread
a coherent wave passing thru a single or multiple slits.
2. Some believe that discrete photons of can interfere in the vacuum of space,
without the benefit of a catalytic physical mechanism.
3. We disagree about the physical EM field dimensions of propagating photons.
4. We disagree about the far field effects of wave/photon spreading via the ISL.
5. We disagree on the concept of an emitted photon filling the universe in all
directions from the source and FTL wave collapse at a point, as opposed to
photon wavefunction "directionality" along a vector direction.
6. We disagree on string theory and multi-dimensional existences.
7. Some believe the world is flat.
There are too many other disagreements to list.
All, feel free to add to or modify the lists.
LL∞
QUOTE
Would it be possible for someone to put out a summation/points/results -- on what everyone does agree on =>dealing with DSE?
I will put these in numerical order to keep them somewhat organized.
Some are DSE topics, others are more generalized.
General agreements:
1. We all agree that the standard formula for diffraction interference works,
mathematically.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...t/slits.html#c1
2. We all agree that wave superposition at the screen gives rise to line intensity
and cancellation bars on the screen.
3. We all agree that atom's emit and absorb EM waves in the form of photons
that at the propter quantum resonant frequencies.
4. We all agree that photons travel as EM waves, and behave like particles
when interacting with physical matter, in that they transfer momentum/energy
and cause displacement of electrons in a dipole arrangement, when the
resonant frequency is correct.
5. We all agree that photons convey information about their emission "source",
such as relative emission location, timestamp, energy level, frequency, etc.
6. We agree that photons in a coherent wavefront are energetically phase coupled
together. (not perfectly phase coherent, IMO)
7. We agree that resonance is the mode of coupling propagating EM energy, to and
from physical matter, and that resonance is a fundamental energy transfer
process.
8. I think we agree that the presence of matter is a requirement for signal
mixing of photon energy. No physical displacement, no energy/signal mixing.
General Disagreements:
1. We disagree on why, and how, diffraction physically operates to spread
a coherent wave passing thru a single or multiple slits.
2. Some believe that discrete photons of can interfere in the vacuum of space,
without the benefit of a catalytic physical mechanism.
3. We disagree about the physical EM field dimensions of propagating photons.
4. We disagree about the far field effects of wave/photon spreading via the ISL.
5. We disagree on the concept of an emitted photon filling the universe in all
directions from the source and FTL wave collapse at a point, as opposed to
photon wavefunction "directionality" along a vector direction.
6. We disagree on string theory and multi-dimensional existences.
7. Some believe the world is flat.
There are too many other disagreements to list.
All, feel free to add to or modify the lists.
LL∞
GE,
At least "War and Peace" had a theme.
LL
QUOTE
I am not trying to write "War and Peace"...
At least "War and Peace" had a theme.
LL
Hi LL,
Good start, pithy
.
C2 exceptions from "General agreements"
Good start, pithy
.C2 exceptions from "General agreements"
QUOTE (LL+)
2. We all agree that wave superposition at the screen gives rise to line intensity
and cancellation bars on the screen.
To an extent this follows from 1. but we may each and all have waves beyond the wildest imaginings of the other when we say 'waves'.
and cancellation bars on the screen.
To an extent this follows from 1. but we may each and all have waves beyond the wildest imaginings of the other when we say 'waves'.
QUOTE (LL+)
3. We all agree that atom's emit and absorb EM waves in the form of photons
that at the propter quantum resonant frequencies.
See 4.
that at the propter quantum resonant frequencies.
See 4.
QUOTE (LL+)
4. We all agree that photons travel as EM waves, and behave like particles
when interacting with physical matter, in that they transfer momentum/energy
and cause displacement of electrons in a dipole arrangement, when the
resonant frequency is correct.
C2 maintains that an EM wave only has any value (metaphorically and literally) when there are a large number of photons present. In the case of a single photon the EM concept can be useless or downright misleading. Also the terms 'dipole arrangement' and 'resonance' may hide some truth but should generally be treated as a red herrings.
when interacting with physical matter, in that they transfer momentum/energy
and cause displacement of electrons in a dipole arrangement, when the
resonant frequency is correct.
C2 maintains that an EM wave only has any value (metaphorically and literally) when there are a large number of photons present. In the case of a single photon the EM concept can be useless or downright misleading. Also the terms 'dipole arrangement' and 'resonance' may hide some truth but should generally be treated as a red herrings.
QUOTE (LL+)
5. We all agree that photons convey information about their emission "source",
such as relative emission location, timestamp, energy level, frequency, etc.
A photon seems to retain its original energy (subject to SR modification) and this seems to have a constant relationship with what we call its de Broglie wavelegth .. where 'de Broglie wavelength' may simply be a local consequence of something that is (basically) a non-local phenomenon. Beyond that a photon is a prduct of its environment (the rest of the universe).
such as relative emission location, timestamp, energy level, frequency, etc.
A photon seems to retain its original energy (subject to SR modification) and this seems to have a constant relationship with what we call its de Broglie wavelegth .. where 'de Broglie wavelength' may simply be a local consequence of something that is (basically) a non-local phenomenon. Beyond that a photon is a prduct of its environment (the rest of the universe).
QUOTE (LL+)
6. We agree that photons in a coherent wavefront are energetically phase coupled
together. (not perfectly phase coherent, IMO)
The mechanics of detecting a photon may (or may not) lead to 'indistinguishability' .. there are many (and deep) consequences of this.
together. (not perfectly phase coherent, IMO)
The mechanics of detecting a photon may (or may not) lead to 'indistinguishability' .. there are many (and deep) consequences of this.
QUOTE (LL+)
7. We agree that resonance is the mode of coupling propagating EM energy to and
from physical matter, and that resonance is a fundamental energy process.
As before .. the concepts may have some 'truth' but imo both hide far more than they reveal.
from physical matter, and that resonance is a fundamental energy process.
As before .. the concepts may have some 'truth' but imo both hide far more than they reveal.
QUOTE (LL+)
8. I think we agree that the presence of matter is a requirement for signal mixing of photon energy. No physical displacement, no energy/signal mixing.
I am not sure of the meaning of 'signal mixing of photon energy' (if any). An undetected photon is an undetected photon and a detected photon is a detected photon .. and even that isn't always clear.
I am not sure of the meaning of 'signal mixing of photon energy' (if any). An undetected photon is an undetected photon and a detected photon is a detected photon .. and even that isn't always clear.
Good Elf, C2, TRoc, Laserlight, "Why Not?", jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,
I am on a small sabbatical and thank you for all the effort on the list -- it is very appreciated.
Laserlight, everyone has a way of expressing there views and I am not here to be the mediator -- I noticed that you have contributed the most on this thread and then the list goes as you can check by replies with the appropriate click #. I know you have invested many hours to this post & I hope all will see something they have not thought of because of it.
I know Good Elf well enough to know he wants to cover all possibilities which can be difficult but that is the nature of the beast --- if you want to be painstakingly careful and accurate; "thorough research' it sometimes must be done.
I will respect this from anyone if they agree with me or not.
You need to read some of the papers I go over each day.
C2, I hope that after the list that has been provided by GE & yourself we can have a relaxed moment and think of something that has been overlooked. Breath deep gentlemen and ladies and maybe something can come of this.
I hope everyone will get the gist of what is being said and stay focused.
Best of respect and regards,
yquantum
I am on a small sabbatical and thank you for all the effort on the list -- it is very appreciated.
Laserlight, everyone has a way of expressing there views and I am not here to be the mediator -- I noticed that you have contributed the most on this thread and then the list goes as you can check by replies with the appropriate click #. I know you have invested many hours to this post & I hope all will see something they have not thought of because of it.
I know Good Elf well enough to know he wants to cover all possibilities which can be difficult but that is the nature of the beast --- if you want to be painstakingly careful and accurate; "thorough research' it sometimes must be done.
I will respect this from anyone if they agree with me or not.
You need to read some of the papers I go over each day.
C2, I hope that after the list that has been provided by GE & yourself we can have a relaxed moment and think of something that has been overlooked. Breath deep gentlemen and ladies and maybe something can come of this.
I hope everyone will get the gist of what is being said and stay focused.
Best of respect and regards,
yquantum
Hi TRoc,
What do you call a full cycle rotational movement of a circle about it's centerpoint
over a fixed period of 1 second?
It is one cycle (1 hz). What other frequencies do we observe in the case of
this simple rotational motion?
The angular velocity is constant, the sine wave oscillates over a reference
time base to yield the number of rotations per second.
If there were more than one frequency present, then the total energy must vary
according to E=hf, with h being a constant. For all intents and purposes, f must
be fixed, in the case of a single quantum photon.*
It is an impulse event.
E=(n)hf is representative of the number of cycles per unit time, with each
individual wave cycle containing a fixed amount of energy per rotation. The total
number of cycles per fixed time period (1 second) yields the total energy being
displaced/propagated at that frequency.
* In the case of a coherent wavefront, where photons are travelling together, but
slightly out of phase/timing, there are harmonics generated by the slight phase
mismatch which generate sidelobe frequencies that are harmonics of the "average"
frequency, which we call the fundamental frequency. Each discrete photon is
resonating at its own fixed frequency, but because they are slightly out of phase
with each other, they are also resonating relative to their neighboring photon
wavefunctions, thereby generating signal harmonics/mixing.
Recall that I have been a proponent of the idea, that because of electron current
latency and electron valence sharing in a fixed matrix, that surface dipole atoms
emit photons that are just slightly out of time sync, but which appear
perfectly time matched in a coherent wavefront as they average to a fundamental
frequency.
Comments,
LL
QUOTE
Did you forget everything we've talked about regarding the realistic measurement of frequency?
You can NOT have a wave of absolute single frequency.
You can NOT have a wave of absolute single frequency.
What do you call a full cycle rotational movement of a circle about it's centerpoint
over a fixed period of 1 second?
It is one cycle (1 hz). What other frequencies do we observe in the case of
this simple rotational motion?
The angular velocity is constant, the sine wave oscillates over a reference
time base to yield the number of rotations per second.
If there were more than one frequency present, then the total energy must vary
according to E=hf, with h being a constant. For all intents and purposes, f must
be fixed, in the case of a single quantum photon.*
It is an impulse event.
E=(n)hf is representative of the number of cycles per unit time, with each
individual wave cycle containing a fixed amount of energy per rotation. The total
number of cycles per fixed time period (1 second) yields the total energy being
displaced/propagated at that frequency.
* In the case of a coherent wavefront, where photons are travelling together, but
slightly out of phase/timing, there are harmonics generated by the slight phase
mismatch which generate sidelobe frequencies that are harmonics of the "average"
frequency, which we call the fundamental frequency. Each discrete photon is
resonating at its own fixed frequency, but because they are slightly out of phase
with each other, they are also resonating relative to their neighboring photon
wavefunctions, thereby generating signal harmonics/mixing.
Recall that I have been a proponent of the idea, that because of electron current
latency and electron valence sharing in a fixed matrix, that surface dipole atoms
emit photons that are just slightly out of time sync, but which appear
perfectly time matched in a coherent wavefront as they average to a fundamental
frequency.
Comments,
LL
Hi all,
LL-
Swinging a rope with a weight on the end, at 1 Hz.
The sine wave model works well with the maths, but it does not capture the full capabilities of the "photon".
LL-
Swinging a rope with a weight on the end, at 1 Hz.
The sine wave model works well with the maths, but it does not capture the full capabilities of the "photon".
LL-What other frequencies do we observe in the case of this simple rotational motion?
ANY that are higher or lower, that, after having their effects "summed", left us with the original " f ".
It would probably be better to use the word "phase" here, rather than frequency, since it can lead to confusion with the energy equation. Phase can be measured in "Hz" as well.
It is really the dynamics of the phases that I am talking about, that are interacting on the way, and will "revive" the fundamental frequency. This is following the geometric phase concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_modulation
Carson's rule
A rule of thumb, Carson's rule states that nearly all (~98%) of the power of a frequency-modulated signal lies within a bandwidth BT of
BT = 2(fΔ + fm)
where fΔ is the peak deviation of the instantaneous frequency f(t) from the center carrier frequency fc (assuming xm(t) is in the range ±1) and fm is the highest modulating frequency of xm(t).
Love the LIMIT.
If the green wave is our expected "photon" frequency, and other atomic/molecular vibrations are present in one form or another (they always are), then these are modulated onto our wave (the bottom, blue wave). This wave form would have different frequencies, depending on WHERE you measured it at, and then assuming that that was the constant, repeated cyclic rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_modulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_modulation_synthesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_modulation_synthesis
At the same time, the frequency of the modulating signal causes what are termed "sideband" frequencies to appear on either "side" of the carrier frequency. Therefore for each frequency component in the modulating signal, an "upper" sideband appears above Fc, and a "lower" sideband appears below Fc. Clearly a modulating waveform containing many frequencies (e.g. "partials") will create many FM sidebands.
So, most importantly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochrome
because
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency
because
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency
Frequency is the measurement of the number of occurrences of a repeated event per unit of time. It is also defined as the rate of change of phase of a sinusoidal waveform.
The starting f , and the detected f will be the same; energy is conserved.
regards
T.Roc
LL-
QUOTE
What do you call a full cycle rotational movement of a circle about it's centerpoint over a fixed period of 1 second?
Swinging a rope with a weight on the end, at 1 Hz.
The sine wave model works well with the maths, but it does not capture the full capabilities of the "photon".
LL-
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What do you call a full cycle rotational movement of a circle about it's centerpoint over a fixed period of 1 second? |
Swinging a rope with a weight on the end, at 1 Hz.
The sine wave model works well with the maths, but it does not capture the full capabilities of the "photon".
LL-What other frequencies do we observe in the case of this simple rotational motion?
ANY that are higher or lower, that, after having their effects "summed", left us with the original " f ".
It would probably be better to use the word "phase" here, rather than frequency, since it can lead to confusion with the energy equation. Phase can be measured in "Hz" as well.
It is really the dynamics of the phases that I am talking about, that are interacting on the way, and will "revive" the fundamental frequency. This is following the geometric phase concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_modulation
QUOTE
In this equation, is the instantaneous frequency of the oscillator and is the frequency deviation, which represents the maximum shift away from fc in one direction, assuming xm(t) is limited to the range ±1.
Although it may seem that this limits the frequencies in use to fc ± fΔ, this neglects the distinction between instantaneous frequency and spectral frequency. The frequency spectrum of an actual FM signal has components extending out to infinite frequency, although they become negligibly small beyond a point.
The harmonic distribution of a sine wave carrier modulated by a sine wave signal can be represented with Bessel functions - this provides a basis for a mathematical understanding of frequency modulation in the frequency domain.
Although it may seem that this limits the frequencies in use to fc ± fΔ, this neglects the distinction between instantaneous frequency and spectral frequency. The frequency spectrum of an actual FM signal has components extending out to infinite frequency, although they become negligibly small beyond a point.
The harmonic distribution of a sine wave carrier modulated by a sine wave signal can be represented with Bessel functions - this provides a basis for a mathematical understanding of frequency modulation in the frequency domain.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In this equation, is the instantaneous frequency of the oscillator and is the frequency deviation, which represents the maximum shift away from fc in one direction, assuming xm(t) is limited to the range ±1. Although it may seem that this limits the frequencies in use to fc ± fΔ, this neglects the distinction between instantaneous frequency and spectral frequency. The frequency spectrum of an actual FM signal has components extending out to infinite frequency, although they become negligibly small beyond a point. The harmonic distribution of a sine wave carrier modulated by a sine wave signal can be represented with Bessel functions - this provides a basis for a mathematical understanding of frequency modulation in the frequency domain. |
Carson's rule
A rule of thumb, Carson's rule states that nearly all (~98%) of the power of a frequency-modulated signal lies within a bandwidth BT of
BT = 2(fΔ + fm)
where fΔ is the peak deviation of the instantaneous frequency f(t) from the center carrier frequency fc (assuming xm(t) is in the range ±1) and fm is the highest modulating frequency of xm(t).
Love the LIMIT.
If the green wave is our expected "photon" frequency, and other atomic/molecular vibrations are present in one form or another (they always are), then these are modulated onto our wave (the bottom, blue wave). This wave form would have different frequencies, depending on WHERE you measured it at, and then assuming that that was the constant, repeated cyclic rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_modulation
QUOTE
Suppose that the signal to be sent, the modulating signal with frequency ωm and phase φm, is
(see link)
which shows how m(t) modulates the phase. Clearly, it can also be viewed as a change of the frequency of the carrier signal.
(see link)
which shows how m(t) modulates the phase. Clearly, it can also be viewed as a change of the frequency of the carrier signal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_modulation_synthesis
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Suppose that the signal to be sent, the modulating signal with frequency ωm and phase φm, is (see link) which shows how m(t) modulates the phase. Clearly, it can also be viewed as a change of the frequency of the carrier signal. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_modulation_synthesis
At the same time, the frequency of the modulating signal causes what are termed "sideband" frequencies to appear on either "side" of the carrier frequency. Therefore for each frequency component in the modulating signal, an "upper" sideband appears above Fc, and a "lower" sideband appears below Fc. Clearly a modulating waveform containing many frequencies (e.g. "partials") will create many FM sidebands.
So, most importantly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochrome
QUOTE
In physics, the word is used more generally to refer to electromagnetic radiation of a single wavelength. In the physical sense, no real source of electromagnetic radiation is purely monochromatic, since that would require a wave of infinite duration. Even sources such as lasers have some narrow range of wavelengths (known as the linewidth or bandwidth of the source) within which they operate.
because
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In physics, the word is used more generally to refer to electromagnetic radiation of a single wavelength. In the physical sense, no real source of electromagnetic radiation is purely monochromatic, since that would require a wave of infinite duration. Even sources such as lasers have some narrow range of wavelengths (known as the linewidth or bandwidth of the source) within which they operate. |
because
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency
Frequency is the measurement of the number of occurrences of a repeated event per unit of time. It is also defined as the rate of change of phase of a sinusoidal waveform.
QUOTE
An alternative method to calculate frequency is to measure the time between two consecutive occurrences of the event (the period) and then compute the frequency f as the reciprocal of this time:
f = 1/T
where T is the period.
A more accurate measurement takes many cycles into account and averages the period between each.
f = 1/T
where T is the period.
A more accurate measurement takes many cycles into account and averages the period between each.
The starting f , and the detected f will be the same; energy is conserved.
regards
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
Could you formalise your thing a bit so we can see if the effects exist elsewhere in nature? My attempt..
1. Start with photon of frequency f with envelope X
2. Mixes with thermal noise of distribution Y
3. Gives spread spectrum result Z
4. The consequence of the spread spectrum Z is that ????
5. The original photon of frequency f with envelope Y is recovered by (I assume)
6. a resonant aerial at frequency f which rejects most of the thermal noise and reconstructs (hopefully?) the original waveform.
Helpful?
Best wishes - C2.
Could you formalise your thing a bit so we can see if the effects exist elsewhere in nature? My attempt..
1. Start with photon of frequency f with envelope X
2. Mixes with thermal noise of distribution Y
3. Gives spread spectrum result Z
4. The consequence of the spread spectrum Z is that ????
5. The original photon of frequency f with envelope Y is recovered by (I assume)
6. a resonant aerial at frequency f which rejects most of the thermal noise and reconstructs (hopefully?) the original waveform.
Helpful?
Best wishes - C2.
Hi TRoc, C2, et al,
You are arguing by using a modulating signal. A pure photon is not a modulating
signal (as far as I know) it is a repetitive, cyclic, impulse event of absolute
"size", frequency, and angular rotation/phase angle change.
If it varied in any of of these attributes then I would agree with your argument.
However, under the above "absolute" circumstances for a pure photon, I can't.
Upon detection, a single photon displaces a single electron with no extra energy
component, or residual frequency remaining to perform a work function.
I stand by my previous argument, and will await the input of others on this topic.
C2 has postulated about thermal noise, but that is a different wavelength and frequency in the infra-red bandwidth, than say a pure blue, yellow, or red photon.
Comments? LL
You are arguing by using a modulating signal. A pure photon is not a modulating
signal (as far as I know) it is a repetitive, cyclic, impulse event of absolute
"size", frequency, and angular rotation/phase angle change.
If it varied in any of of these attributes then I would agree with your argument.
However, under the above "absolute" circumstances for a pure photon, I can't.
Upon detection, a single photon displaces a single electron with no extra energy
component, or residual frequency remaining to perform a work function.
I stand by my previous argument, and will await the input of others on this topic.
C2 has postulated about thermal noise, but that is a different wavelength and frequency in the infra-red bandwidth, than say a pure blue, yellow, or red photon.
Comments? LL
Hi all,
I don't have time to answer both (C2 & LL) questions.., so I'll take the shorter one.
more will follow...
T
I
M
E
(y axis)
.8_|....................|......................
.__|....................|......................
.6_|....................|......................
.__|....................|......................
.4_|....................|......................
.__|....................|......................
.2_|....................|......................
.__|....................|......................
-0-|_________________________
--0--___2___4___6___8___10___ Frequency (x axis)
There is an absolute single frequency.. of ~ 4Hz
The y axis has no change, so we can not get anything but "zero" for delta t. If t = 0 , then what is our period? 1/0 = 0
What is "oscillating"? Can this even be a "wave"?
What would be the wavelength, if t=0?
What would the velocity be, if t=0?
Could this even be a particle? No, it has no local extent; it goes on "forever".
That is the problem, and it applies to all waves: EM, sound, quantum, etc.
Space and time are too "involved" as concepts to be taken independently. Energy and mass "dance" to these co-dependent terms, which we then call "velocity" (which is constant). We then can only compare the ratios of these parameters. There are no "solo dances" out there. They/We are not separate.
ciao,
T.Roc
I don't have time to answer both (C2 & LL) questions.., so I'll take the shorter one.
more will follow...
T
I
M
E
(y axis)
.8_|....................|......................
.__|....................|......................
.6_|....................|......................
.__|....................|......................
.4_|....................|......................
.__|....................|......................
.2_|....................|......................
.__|....................|......................
-0-|_________________________
--0--___2___4___6___8___10___ Frequency (x axis)
There is an absolute single frequency.. of ~ 4Hz
The y axis has no change, so we can not get anything but "zero" for delta t. If t = 0 , then what is our period? 1/0 = 0
What is "oscillating"? Can this even be a "wave"?
What would be the wavelength, if t=0?
What would the velocity be, if t=0?
Could this even be a particle? No, it has no local extent; it goes on "forever".
That is the problem, and it applies to all waves: EM, sound, quantum, etc.
Space and time are too "involved" as concepts to be taken independently. Energy and mass "dance" to these co-dependent terms, which we then call "velocity" (which is constant). We then can only compare the ratios of these parameters. There are no "solo dances" out there. They/We are not separate.
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc
Sound very basic.
It's simple enough for a "First Principle"
I cannot find any reason to reject it.
jal
Sound very basic.
It's simple enough for a "First Principle"
I cannot find any reason to reject it.
jal
Troc,
Oddly today I posted this in response to this: "HI, Yquantum, buhk, Ivars, Laidback,
Yq, I have a simple question for you, why then have they not found AWT, if seems to exist to me.
Electromagnetic Waves must travel in some type of source?
I know what what is said when you search for in on the web, but can the vacuum act as a medium there must be something."
5-D reply:
"Hey Brain dude biggrin.gif perhaps they do not travel ..... only pass into higher geometry.
I call it energy transdimensionality. What manisfests as distance maybe as simple as the infinite transition from one singularity state to another? i.e point to circle, circle to sphere etc"
So our perception of time distance etc is utterly illusionary because of our dimensional restraints.
..... or is it a load of bollocks ?
Oddly today I posted this in response to this: "HI, Yquantum, buhk, Ivars, Laidback,
Yq, I have a simple question for you, why then have they not found AWT, if seems to exist to me.
Electromagnetic Waves must travel in some type of source?
I know what what is said when you search for in on the web, but can the vacuum act as a medium there must be something."
5-D reply:
"Hey Brain dude biggrin.gif perhaps they do not travel ..... only pass into higher geometry.
I call it energy transdimensionality. What manisfests as distance maybe as simple as the infinite transition from one singularity state to another? i.e point to circle, circle to sphere etc"
So our perception of time distance etc is utterly illusionary because of our dimensional restraints.
..... or is it a load of bollocks ?
Hi TRoc,
Your graph is "wrong", it should be time vs signal amplitude. Since the electrical
amplitude of the signal varies, not the frequency, we will get a sine wave that
oscillates according to a change in signal voltage. Correspondingly, to
completely describe the wave function, there must also be complementary charts
showing the relationship between the alternating electric and magnetic fields,
that correspond to the change in amplitude. Amplitude and signal "duration" are changing,
not the frequency.
Remember, f = 1/t
Comments? Anyone is welcome to chime in.
LL
Your graph is "wrong", it should be time vs signal amplitude. Since the electrical
amplitude of the signal varies, not the frequency, we will get a sine wave that
oscillates according to a change in signal voltage. Correspondingly, to
completely describe the wave function, there must also be complementary charts
showing the relationship between the alternating electric and magnetic fields,
that correspond to the change in amplitude. Amplitude and signal "duration" are changing,
not the frequency.
Remember, f = 1/t
Comments? Anyone is welcome to chime in.
LL
LL, hi
You have to realize that when you alter the amplitude of a uniform sine wave such that it is no longer uniform in amplitude, you cannot escape the fact that you have created slower and faster wave ramps. The result of this is that you have created additional frequency components.
You are right that the amplitude varies, but the result is the un-avoidable creation of frequency modulation.
This is very apparent in AM radio which requires a band separation due to the amplitude modulating of the fixed carrier wave. As it turns out, the frequency variation is a function of the amplitude modulation frenquency. Any amplitude modulation has a frenquency component descibing its wave and being added to the original carrier frequency.
You have to realize that when you alter the amplitude of a uniform sine wave such that it is no longer uniform in amplitude, you cannot escape the fact that you have created slower and faster wave ramps. The result of this is that you have created additional frequency components.
You are right that the amplitude varies, but the result is the un-avoidable creation of frequency modulation.
This is very apparent in AM radio which requires a band separation due to the amplitude modulating of the fixed carrier wave. As it turns out, the frequency variation is a function of the amplitude modulation frenquency. Any amplitude modulation has a frenquency component descibing its wave and being added to the original carrier frequency.
So I don't have to go back and read 3600+ posts, might someone be kind enough to state what hypothesis is currently under debate?
The OP seems to have been merely a confusion of concepts common in today's political environment and doesn't seem to relate to what is being currently discussed.
Thanks
The OP seems to have been merely a confusion of concepts common in today's political environment and doesn't seem to relate to what is being currently discussed.
Thanks
QUOTE (Laserlight+Aug 3 2007, 12:17 AM)
Hi Yquantum,
I will put these in numerical order to keep them somewhat organized.
Some are DSE topics, others are more generalized.
General agreements:
1. We all agree that the standard formula for diffraction interference works,
mathematically.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...t/slits.html#c1
2. We all agree that wave superposition at the screen gives rise to line intensity
and cancellation bars on the screen.
3. We all agree that atom's emit and absorb EM waves in the form of photons
that at the propter quantum resonant frequencies.
4. We all agree that photons travel as EM waves, and behave like particles
when interacting with physical matter, in that they transfer momentum/energy
and cause displacement of electrons in a dipole arrangement, when the
resonant frequency is correct.
5. We all agree that photons convey information about their emission "source",
such as relative emission location, timestamp, energy level, frequency, etc.
6. We agree that photons in a coherent wavefront are energetically phase coupled
together. (not perfectly phase coherent, IMO)
7. We agree that resonance is the mode of coupling propagating EM energy, to and
from physical matter, and that resonance is a fundamental energy transfer
process.
8. I think we agree that the presence of matter is a requirement for signal
mixing of photon energy. No physical displacement, no energy/signal mixing.
General Disagreements:
1. We disagree on why, and how, diffraction physically operates to spread
a coherent wave passing thru a single or multiple slits.
2. Some believe that discrete photons of can interfere in the vacuum of space,
without the benefit of a catalytic physical mechanism.
3. We disagree about the physical EM field dimensions of propagating photons.
4. We disagree about the far field effects of wave/photon spreading via the ISL.
5. We disagree on the concept of an emitted photon filling the universe in all
directions from the source and FTL wave collapse at a point, as opposed to
photon wavefunction "directionality" along a vector direction.
6. We disagree on string theory and multi-dimensional existences.
7. Some believe the world is flat.
There are too many other disagreements to list.
All, feel free to add to or modify the lists.
LL∞
Siau, welcome to a very relaxed forum as you can see, & greeting to all,
This is what has been given to me. you can also check on the post given by Good Elf, & C2.
caio_
yquantum
I will put these in numerical order to keep them somewhat organized.
Some are DSE topics, others are more generalized.
General agreements:
1. We all agree that the standard formula for diffraction interference works,
mathematically.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...t/slits.html#c1
2. We all agree that wave superposition at the screen gives rise to line intensity
and cancellation bars on the screen.
3. We all agree that atom's emit and absorb EM waves in the form of photons
that at the propter quantum resonant frequencies.
4. We all agree that photons travel as EM waves, and behave like particles
when interacting with physical matter, in that they transfer momentum/energy
and cause displacement of electrons in a dipole arrangement, when the
resonant frequency is correct.
5. We all agree that photons convey information about their emission "source",
such as relative emission location, timestamp, energy level, frequency, etc.
6. We agree that photons in a coherent wavefront are energetically phase coupled
together. (not perfectly phase coherent, IMO)
7. We agree that resonance is the mode of coupling propagating EM energy, to and
from physical matter, and that resonance is a fundamental energy transfer
process.
8. I think we agree that the presence of matter is a requirement for signal
mixing of photon energy. No physical displacement, no energy/signal mixing.
General Disagreements:
1. We disagree on why, and how, diffraction physically operates to spread
a coherent wave passing thru a single or multiple slits.
2. Some believe that discrete photons of can interfere in the vacuum of space,
without the benefit of a catalytic physical mechanism.
3. We disagree about the physical EM field dimensions of propagating photons.
4. We disagree about the far field effects of wave/photon spreading via the ISL.
5. We disagree on the concept of an emitted photon filling the universe in all
directions from the source and FTL wave collapse at a point, as opposed to
photon wavefunction "directionality" along a vector direction.
6. We disagree on string theory and multi-dimensional existences.
7. Some believe the world is flat.
There are too many other disagreements to list.
All, feel free to add to or modify the lists.
LL∞
Siau, welcome to a very relaxed forum as you can see, & greeting to all,
This is what has been given to me. you can also check on the post given by Good Elf, & C2.
caio_
yquantum
Hi Siau, yquantum, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "Why Not?", Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,
QUOTE (Siau+)
So I don't have to go back and read 3600+ posts, might someone be kind enough to state what hypothesis is currently under debate?
The OP seems to have been merely a confusion of concepts common in today's political environment and doesn't seem to relate to what is being currently discussed.
I hope that you can keep an open mind, this is not really a political debate. There is a reluctance to discuss ideas on their own merits. The thread is looking at almost anything to do with the Double Slit Experiment. Some believe that the college formula is sufficient to answer all the open questions. Others have private theories that involve the materials around the open slits. Others seem to be unable to accept the results of many documented experiments which seem rock solid to me but are in hot dispute here. On my part I am seeing it as a "vehicle" to exploit the finer details of the current "model" of quantum theory.
While quantum theory answers a lot of questions it does not answer the really important questions that describe single events, histories, paths etc. This is simply because of the "other worldly" approach through statistics. While statistics tell us a lot about a collection of events it cannot and is incapable of discussing individual events. A close viewing of this approach is the way in which many who are believing in the quantum mechanical approach are having a bit each way and attributing some experimental results to quantum mechanics when they relate to something quite a deal more than that.
I think there has always been a crack in quantum theory that has limited the scope of the theory to only a sub class of phenomena that relate only to the statistics. For instance when was the last time you were able to use a probability meter that measures the probability of events? The questions we want to ask are not questions about probability that suggests that you are very accurately defined as having a probability of 0.5 being a female and at the same time being 0.5 male. This may be "true" to a high degree of accuracy but the real question should be is this individual a male of a female. The questions we ask is can we predict anything more than that about individual events? I am certain we can and experiment indicates we can but traditional theory prevents adoption of new paradigms. There is more to it provided we are able to admit more dimensions, in my case I would like more physical dimensions. I have taken an approach that is a bit unpopular and this causes some people to want to close down discussion into these directions not because there is any experimental evidence against it but because of preconceptions that, in some cases, are not evidence based.
So I am not a believer in any "flat earth theory" nor do I find "Aether Theories" interesting but at the same time I think the answers handed out to "children" by their science teacher are also insufficient. I have "seen" more and I want more from a system that is not presently meeting the needs of "the masses". We need new paradigms to get new answers and there are some who just do not want to get any new answers since they are happy to "digest" what is offered up by current wisdom.
I am like "Oliver"... I want more please.
Cheers
PS: Since you are new... Here are some of the things I have discussed in the past...
Good Elf's previous posts
If you want to view them in "context" just click on the "Post Preview: #xxxxxxx" at the bottom of each post and it will take you to the thread and where the post is in that thread. Just keep an open mind. The Scientific Method is an interplay between the Theory and the Experiments... No experiments!!... then you have only "Philosophy" and my subsequent serious loss of interest.
The OP seems to have been merely a confusion of concepts common in today's political environment and doesn't seem to relate to what is being currently discussed.
I hope that you can keep an open mind, this is not really a political debate. There is a reluctance to discuss ideas on their own merits. The thread is looking at almost anything to do with the Double Slit Experiment. Some believe that the college formula is sufficient to answer all the open questions. Others have private theories that involve the materials around the open slits. Others seem to be unable to accept the results of many documented experiments which seem rock solid to me but are in hot dispute here. On my part I am seeing it as a "vehicle" to exploit the finer details of the current "model" of quantum theory.
While quantum theory answers a lot of questions it does not answer the really important questions that describe single events, histories, paths etc. This is simply because of the "other worldly" approach through statistics. While statistics tell us a lot about a collection of events it cannot and is incapable of discussing individual events. A close viewing of this approach is the way in which many who are believing in the quantum mechanical approach are having a bit each way and attributing some experimental results to quantum mechanics when they relate to something quite a deal more than that.
I think there has always been a crack in quantum theory that has limited the scope of the theory to only a sub class of phenomena that relate only to the statistics. For instance when was the last time you were able to use a probability meter that measures the probability of events? The questions we want to ask are not questions about probability that suggests that you are very accurately defined as having a probability of 0.5 being a female and at the same time being 0.5 male. This may be "true" to a high degree of accuracy but the real question should be is this individual a male of a female. The questions we ask is can we predict anything more than that about individual events? I am certain we can and experiment indicates we can but traditional theory prevents adoption of new paradigms. There is more to it provided we are able to admit more dimensions, in my case I would like more physical dimensions. I have taken an approach that is a bit unpopular and this causes some people to want to close down discussion into these directions not because there is any experimental evidence against it but because of preconceptions that, in some cases, are not evidence based.
So I am not a believer in any "flat earth theory" nor do I find "Aether Theories" interesting but at the same time I think the answers handed out to "children" by their science teacher are also insufficient. I have "seen" more and I want more from a system that is not presently meeting the needs of "the masses". We need new paradigms to get new answers and there are some who just do not want to get any new answers since they are happy to "digest" what is offered up by current wisdom.
I am like "Oliver"... I want more please.
Cheers
PS: Since you are new... Here are some of the things I have discussed in the past...
Good Elf's previous posts
If you want to view them in "context" just click on the "Post Preview: #xxxxxxx" at the bottom of each post and it will take you to the thread and where the post is in that thread. Just keep an open mind. The Scientific Method is an interplay between the Theory and the Experiments... No experiments!!... then you have only "Philosophy" and my subsequent serious loss of interest.
Hi Siau, and Welcome!
In a nutshell, we have been discussing and debating about everything that has to
do with the DSE, photons, waves, gravity, transmission and detection, diffraction,
Fourier theory, RF theory, color theory, all other EM energy and wave theories,
QED, QFT, QM, particle physics, the nature of space and time, and anything else
that might shed some light (pun intended), and provide an all encompassing
explanation, of why and how the photons interact to provide the DSE results.
There really has been some excellent discussion and good theories/proposals.
Then again there is the flat earth scenario.....
We look forward to your contributions.
LL
In a nutshell, we have been discussing and debating about everything that has to
do with the DSE, photons, waves, gravity, transmission and detection, diffraction,
Fourier theory, RF theory, color theory, all other EM energy and wave theories,
QED, QFT, QM, particle physics, the nature of space and time, and anything else
that might shed some light (pun intended), and provide an all encompassing
explanation, of why and how the photons interact to provide the DSE results.
There really has been some excellent discussion and good theories/proposals.
Then again there is the flat earth scenario.....
We look forward to your contributions.
LL
Well thk you each
I was hoping for something a bit more defined, but I know how these threads tend to get.
GE, I can understand your concern for "philosophy" but I have to say that logic and reasoning are really philosophy and without that element, Science gets all too messed. I believe that it is only the lack of proper reasoning (philosophical understanding) that Science has run into these confusions. Scientists are not logicians. But I certainly can agree that philosophers get all too carried away with bogus rationale without anything to backup what they dream up.
As I am new here, maybe I should intro myself just a little with a post I made just yesterday to perhaps give a sample of where I am coming from, (well, it won’t let me show the link so I will just repost it below. It is rather long ..sorry).
In a following post, I explained that all of the assertions given in the first post must be supported far more than I could do in that one post before anything could be validly accepted. So although I agree that without experiment or evidence of some kind, philosophies are just speculations, when you come across a philosophy that can truly put ALL of the missing pieces into harmony, you have to give it credit until something is found out of sync or contrary. All of Science is a philosophy that has merely added evidence to indicate its usefulness.
I have never found any evidence of contrary or missing understanding in most of what Science reveals, even though most people only get to hear what someone else says about Science and not the actual Science.
Thanks everyone
I was hoping for something a bit more defined, but I know how these threads tend to get.
GE, I can understand your concern for "philosophy" but I have to say that logic and reasoning are really philosophy and without that element, Science gets all too messed. I believe that it is only the lack of proper reasoning (philosophical understanding) that Science has run into these confusions. Scientists are not logicians. But I certainly can agree that philosophers get all too carried away with bogus rationale without anything to backup what they dream up.
As I am new here, maybe I should intro myself just a little with a post I made just yesterday to perhaps give a sample of where I am coming from, (well, it won’t let me show the link so I will just repost it below. It is rather long ..sorry).
In a following post, I explained that all of the assertions given in the first post must be supported far more than I could do in that one post before anything could be validly accepted. So although I agree that without experiment or evidence of some kind, philosophies are just speculations, when you come across a philosophy that can truly put ALL of the missing pieces into harmony, you have to give it credit until something is found out of sync or contrary. All of Science is a philosophy that has merely added evidence to indicate its usefulness.
I have never found any evidence of contrary or missing understanding in most of what Science reveals, even though most people only get to hear what someone else says about Science and not the actual Science.
Thanks everyone
This is from the Gravity an Magnetism thread currently being discussed. This forum wouldn't let me just provide a link to it for some reason. And not wanting to debate any of it that isn't related here...
Creation of All Things;
Creation of All Things;
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Greetings, I am currently attempting to theorise an explanation for the apparent relationship between gravity and magnetism. Both are a 'force' which acts over a distance, the strength of which declines the further from the source one gets. Typical questions one might ask: Are there particles for these forces, or is it something deeper? Please state your ideas, because I am interested in all kinds related to this topic, albeit I'd rather original theories, than regurgitated mainstream. ty in advance Well since you asked.. I'm going to try to explain this in a logical form although without pictures, it is difficult to communicate this type of thing. Hypothesis 1: Our universe is made entirely of a single substance currently called the "fabric of space" once called "ether". Hypothesis 2: This fabric or ether has the property of mutual repelling of every point within much like a huge cloud of electrons. But it is also 100% homogeneous having no particles within. Hypothesis 3: Variations in the density of the ether causes what we observe and call "electric charge". Hypothesis 4: Positive electric charge is created by an increase in density of the substance of space, ether. Negative electric charge is created by the relative decrease in density. Hypothesis 5: As density variations take place, they form a traveling wave of density variation. Hypothesis 6: The speed of the travel is limited due to the reluctance of the density to be altered. This reluctance to alteration is the result of the mathematical situation of every point in space as it is affected by all other points. This is what causes time. Hypothesis 7: The wave front ramp speed or acceleration rate of density change determines the inertia of the wave. The sharper or faster ramping the change in density, the more difficult it is to change it any faster. It is by this effect, that all things feel the encounter any other thing. Hypothesis 8: Electric charge waves, known as "electro-magnetic waves" are formed as the either density rises and lowers sequentially traveling across a space. The rise rate is slow enough that very little inertia is apparent. Hypothesis 9: Matter particles are created as waves of "ether charge" fall back into their own back wave creating a much faster density change rate. This is evident by their "spin" and increased inertia (inability to be affected). Light photons are just within the boundary of being stable particles and thus display both particle and wave attributes. Hypothesis 10: These spinning waves have specific distances required from wave front to wave tail for them to form a stable spin. Each harmonic of this distance forms another stable particle size. These are what creates the "quantum" effect of size constraints on stable particles. Hypothesis 11: The internal motion of the variations in density (often neutral in total density and charge) travel at the speed of light as they form a racing 3 dimensional envelope in pursuit of their own density back waves. Hypothesis 12: The spinning of the wave fronts within each particle creates a charge wave radiation effect extending outward from the particle epicenter. Due to the circling nature of the spin, this radiation is in the form of a 45 degree spiraling wave front of effect on all space surrounding the particle. No energy is lost from the particle because the spiral wave is not encountering opposition or doing work. Hypothesis 13: When a spiraling ether wave encounters a spinning ether object (all particles), the internal spin speed of the particle is affected such as to cause one side of the spin to necessarily be slower than the other. But due to the cycling of both the particle spin as well as the wave being encountered, the particle is impeded first in one direction such as to pull the particle at a 45 degree angle but then reversed such as to pull it at the opposite 45 degree angle. The result is that the particle moves directly toward the source of the radiant wave - gravity. Magnetism is formed by a similar means; Hypothesis 14: When the ether density variations form an overall increase or decrease in ether density, an electric charge is apparent. The electric effect is substantially greater than the ether density effect alone because it represents a total ether density change in space over a much larger area and strongly affects any other great density variation. The much smaller density variations creating the particles are confined to a very small area as they are filling their own back waves leaving a neutral overall density change as felt outside the particle. A particle with an overall variation in density has nothing to confine its density change effect. Hypothesis 15: When an electric charge races by another charge, it has a different affect as it approaches than as it leaves. This is similar to the Doppler effect of sound. The approaching charge affects the space of a second charge in an increasing rate of overall density change. This gives a stronger push or pull on the second charge particle than when it is leaving the second particle. Hypothesis 16: A series of charged particles racing by a target charged particle will continuously push the target particle - magnetism. Additional notes; Hypothesis 17: An increase in density can be more easily arranged than a decrease due to the fact that any decrease must be formed by the inherent willingness of the ether substance to disperse. It cannot be "pulled", but it can be "pushed". Hypothesis 18: A heavy or high inertia positive particle can be naturally formed more easily than a negative high inertial particle. As the wave front of the inner particle waves increases, the inertia of the particle increases due to the reluctance of density change. An increase in density change rate can be forced through compression of additional efforts to increase the density. But a decrease in density change by adding additional efforts to remove the substance is dependent on the speed at which the substance travels out of an area. This is why we find heavy positive particles (protons) occurring naturally and not heavy negative particles (negatons). Hypothesis 19: A negative charge, low ether density, particle occupies a different size of space. Although a heavy negative particle can be formed, it cannot be made stable due to the requirements of proximity of the leading and trailing wave ramps. Hypothesis 20: An electron is a different size and density dispersion than a positron. And protons have a much higher wave ramp dispermitting the electrons to merge with them. This is what yields "atoms - a single particle made by a negative charge field attempting to collapse into a heavier (more dense) positive charge wave. The Bohr atomic model has never been correct. Hypothesis 21: A nucleus of an atom is a single particle fixed at inertial states that are a harmonic of a single neutron particle. Protons combine into a single enveloping wave required to be stable at specific harmonic sizes. A nucleus is not "held together" but is a single wave formed by combining the waves of other particles into one - there is no "strong force". I could go on for more bits of interesting physics, but 21 concepts should be enough for now. You can simulate all of this with merely a PC and a large spreadsheet like Excel if you are very careful in choosing the exact right formula for "ether repelling force" or the reluctance for the density of the fabric of space to be altered. The resultant programming will allow you to see waves and particles forming along with their naturally occurring magnetic and gravitation effects even though you had not programmed those effects in. Enjoy |
Siau
READ THE FOLLOWING BLOG
Bee’s blog ON CONSISTENCY.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/07/consistency.html
JAL
QUOTE
Science gets all too messed. I believe that it is only the lack of proper reasoning (philosophical understanding) that Science has run into these confusions. Scientists are not logicians. But I certainly can agree that philosophers get all too carried away with bogus rationale without anything to backup what they dream up.
READ THE FOLLOWING BLOG
Bee’s blog ON CONSISTENCY.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/07/consistency.html
JAL
Hi Siau, and All,
Siau said:
Here is the crux of the current argument! A single photon has an explicit amount of
energy associated with it, according to E=hf. Planks constant "h" is fixed, likewise
the photon at a specific energy, has a fixed frequency/color, that does not vary.
The sine wave oscillates uniformly, with no variation other than cycling thru a 360
degree phase rotation, which is the EM wave signal. What is changing is the ratio
of the electric field component, as it relates to the magnetic component of the
EM wave as the wave propagates over a distance and time.
The signal amplitude changes as a consequence of its angular relationship to the
phase angle rotation as it periodically transcribes a circle, which has constant
timing.
There is no signal modulation of the fundamental frequency or the equation
E=hf would not be correct in expressing the content of a discrete photon's
quantum wave energy component.
Read about the last 25 posts, or you can click on a poster's name, which will
bring up his detail screen, and you can select to read all of his posts in regressive
order.
Comments?
LL
Siau said:
QUOTE
You have to realize that when you alter the amplitude of a uniform sine wave such that it is no longer uniform in amplitude, you cannot escape the fact that you have created slower and faster wave ramps. The result of this is that you have created additional frequency components.
You are right that the amplitude varies, but the result is the un-avoidable creation of frequency modulation.
You are right that the amplitude varies, but the result is the un-avoidable creation of frequency modulation.
Here is the crux of the current argument! A single photon has an explicit amount of
energy associated with it, according to E=hf. Planks constant "h" is fixed, likewise
the photon at a specific energy, has a fixed frequency/color, that does not vary.
The sine wave oscillates uniformly, with no variation other than cycling thru a 360
degree phase rotation, which is the EM wave signal. What is changing is the ratio
of the electric field component, as it relates to the magnetic component of the
EM wave as the wave propagates over a distance and time.
The signal amplitude changes as a consequence of its angular relationship to the
phase angle rotation as it periodically transcribes a circle, which has constant
timing.
There is no signal modulation of the fundamental frequency or the equation
E=hf would not be correct in expressing the content of a discrete photon's
quantum wave energy component.
Read about the last 25 posts, or you can click on a poster's name, which will
bring up his detail screen, and you can select to read all of his posts in regressive
order.
Comments?
LL
Hello Siau and welcome to this forum.
Physorg forum has a minimum post limit before you can post links. I'm not sure of the number but it is there to prevent spam advertising.
My view on the DSE is a little bit old school in that the energy (photon) is moved through space by stationary electric and magnetic fields that vary only in magnitude and each produces the other in a cyclic maner. So you have two components of light which are the energy (photon) and its associated wave.
Physorg forum has a minimum post limit before you can post links. I'm not sure of the number but it is there to prevent spam advertising.
My view on the DSE is a little bit old school in that the energy (photon) is moved through space by stationary electric and magnetic fields that vary only in magnitude and each produces the other in a cyclic maner. So you have two components of light which are the energy (photon) and its associated wave.
QUOTE (jal+Aug 4 2007, 12:28 AM)
Siau
READ THE FOLLOWING BLOG
Bee’s blog ON CONSISTENCY.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/07/consistency.html
JAL
Emm.. yes ..and??
READ THE FOLLOWING BLOG
Bee’s blog ON CONSISTENCY.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/07/consistency.html
JAL
Emm.. yes ..and??
QUOTE (Laserlight+Aug 4 2007, 12:35 AM)
Hi Siau, and All,
Siau said:
Here is the crux of the current argument! A single photon has an explicit amount of
energy associated with it, according to E=hf. Planks constant "h" is fixed, likewise
the photon at a specific energy, has a fixed frequency/color, that does not vary.
The sine wave oscillates uniformly, with no variation other than cycling thru a 360
degree phase rotation, which is the EM wave signal. What is changing is the ratio
of the electric field component, as it relates to the magnetic component of the
EM wave as the wave propagates over a distance and time.
The signal amplitude changes as a consequence of its angular relationship to the
phase angle rotation as it periodically transcribes a circle, which has constant
timing.
There is no signal modulation of the fundamental frequency or the equation
E=hf would not be correct in expressing the content of a discrete photon's
quantum wave energy component.
Read about the last 25 posts, or you can click on a poster's name, which will
bring up his detail screen, and you can select to read all of his posts in regressive
order.
Comments?
LL
Hey LL (again)
Well, perhaps I was wrong, but it appeared that TRoc was trying to express that in the real universe any wave is really amongst a background of other ratiation waves. The result of this would yield a non uniform sine function despite the fact that the photon wave never changed its energy level.
I didn't see why such was relevant to anything and perhaps it isn't. I was just pointing out that if any disturbance of a sine wave is present (and it always must be to some minute degree), the result will be as he stated in that the perfect sine wave, will not be perfect and never actually can be.
Sorry if I misunderstood what was being discussed.
Siau said:
Here is the crux of the current argument! A single photon has an explicit amount of
energy associated with it, according to E=hf. Planks constant "h" is fixed, likewise
the photon at a specific energy, has a fixed frequency/color, that does not vary.
The sine wave oscillates uniformly, with no variation other than cycling thru a 360
degree phase rotation, which is the EM wave signal. What is changing is the ratio
of the electric field component, as it relates to the magnetic component of the
EM wave as the wave propagates over a distance and time.
The signal amplitude changes as a consequence of its angular relationship to the
phase angle rotation as it periodically transcribes a circle, which has constant
timing.
There is no signal modulation of the fundamental frequency or the equation
E=hf would not be correct in expressing the content of a discrete photon's
quantum wave energy component.
Read about the last 25 posts, or you can click on a poster's name, which will
bring up his detail screen, and you can select to read all of his posts in regressive
order.
Comments?
LL
Hey LL (again)
Well, perhaps I was wrong, but it appeared that TRoc was trying to express that in the real universe any wave is really amongst a background of other ratiation waves. The result of this would yield a non uniform sine function despite the fact that the photon wave never changed its energy level.
I didn't see why such was relevant to anything and perhaps it isn't. I was just pointing out that if any disturbance of a sine wave is present (and it always must be to some minute degree), the result will be as he stated in that the perfect sine wave, will not be perfect and never actually can be.
Sorry if I misunderstood what was being discussed.
Hi Sian,
We have some useful experimental stuff here:- http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml and a result here:-
Note that the results are claimed to be for 'one photon at a time' though some dispute that this is correct. Note also the close match to the 'interference model' shown by the dotted line.
If it seems like any progress is being made we can start to look at the delayed choice quantum eraser here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
We are experimenting with a teamwork approach in the hope that frustration with the approach will force someone to produce a credible .. this, this , then this because of this .. with at least enough maths to establish plausibility.
In my own case the interference model (which I claim to be 'sum over paths') requires a continuous excitation .. a single photon is clearly not a continuous excitation so the model I favour is implausible.
You are probably aware that it is not immediately clear which (if any) of your 21 hypotheses (individually or in combination) might lead to a plausible model using these (or other) hypotheses. Your assistance towards developing a plausible model would be most welcome.
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. from your last post .. sinewaves seem to be all too relevent.
We have some useful experimental stuff here:- http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml and a result here:-
Note that the results are claimed to be for 'one photon at a time' though some dispute that this is correct. Note also the close match to the 'interference model' shown by the dotted line.
If it seems like any progress is being made we can start to look at the delayed choice quantum eraser here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
We are experimenting with a teamwork approach in the hope that frustration with the approach will force someone to produce a credible .. this, this , then this because of this .. with at least enough maths to establish plausibility.
In my own case the interference model (which I claim to be 'sum over paths') requires a continuous excitation .. a single photon is clearly not a continuous excitation so the model I favour is implausible.
You are probably aware that it is not immediately clear which (if any) of your 21 hypotheses (individually or in combination) might lead to a plausible model using these (or other) hypotheses. Your assistance towards developing a plausible model would be most welcome.
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. from your last post .. sinewaves seem to be all too relevent.
Hi Siau, yquantum, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "Why Not?", Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,
Remember everything else depends on these basic assumptions. For instance to have partial spatial density variations in something which is 100% homogeneous (without parts) seems a contradiction.
If I started out with an assumption that every "action" in the Universe was attended to by "very small" intelligent pixies that just made things happen according to some kind of rule then you could not prove me wrong either. If you said that you could not see these pixies then I could provide a number of reasons ... almost without end... that could give a "plausible" excuse why... For instance you need some kind of magic spectacles to see them or some other "artifice". I could go on and say the same about "g*d" and a lot of other unproven and magical entities. What can be proven is the Scientific Method actually works and has resulted in devices and methods that result in control over many of the same things that were once thought to be the realm of pure magic and sorcery. While it is nice to have theories, you will need to have an experiment that shows you are correct. Conversely... and this is most important... there must be no solid verifiable experiment that proves you wrong... Not even one.
What I am saying is you may need to "refine" your ideas somewhat. If we use concepts that have been developed over the last couple of hundred years in science, this helps a lot if we use the same language.
Cheers
QUOTE
Hypothesis 1: Our universe is made entirely of a single substance currently called the "fabric of space" once called "ether".
Hypothesis 2: This fabric or ether has the property of mutual repelling of every point within much like a huge cloud of electrons. But it is also 100% homogeneous having no particles within.
I am not an "aether believer". There is a body of experimental evidence that indicates that an all pervading material substance throughout the Universe just does not exist... not a material one anyway. The only "reason" for its existence seems to be for the sole purpose of carrying the light waves through it and many believe that since we have light this "substance" must exist. You will need to be a lot clearer about how a "substance" can have no particles yet behave like a cloud of electrons. Also being "single" and a "substance without particles within" is also in need of explanation. Have you some evidence for this or what do you mean by substance... clearly define this with examples and possibly an experiment.Hypothesis 2: This fabric or ether has the property of mutual repelling of every point within much like a huge cloud of electrons. But it is also 100% homogeneous having no particles within.
Remember everything else depends on these basic assumptions. For instance to have partial spatial density variations in something which is 100% homogeneous (without parts) seems a contradiction.
If I started out with an assumption that every "action" in the Universe was attended to by "very small" intelligent pixies that just made things happen according to some kind of rule then you could not prove me wrong either. If you said that you could not see these pixies then I could provide a number of reasons ... almost without end... that could give a "plausible" excuse why... For instance you need some kind of magic spectacles to see them or some other "artifice". I could go on and say the same about "g*d" and a lot of other unproven and magical entities. What can be proven is the Scientific Method actually works and has resulted in devices and methods that result in control over many of the same things that were once thought to be the realm of pure magic and sorcery. While it is nice to have theories, you will need to have an experiment that shows you are correct. Conversely... and this is most important... there must be no solid verifiable experiment that proves you wrong... Not even one.
What I am saying is you may need to "refine" your ideas somewhat. If we use concepts that have been developed over the last couple of hundred years in science, this helps a lot if we use the same language.
Cheers
Please find some of my sharings on Siau's hypothesis.
Siau, I agree on your hypothesis. Seems like we have some common understanding. But I can only give comments on some hypothesis which I know. Please find below.
I am trying to put everything into a complete explanation so that you can have an overall picture instead of piece by piece as described here. Once you can see the overall picture, you will find that everything are inter-related and can be explained and understand easily.
Very happy to share some toughts here.
Siau, I agree on your hypothesis. Seems like we have some common understanding. But I can only give comments on some hypothesis which I know. Please find below.
I am trying to put everything into a complete explanation so that you can have an overall picture instead of piece by piece as described here. Once you can see the overall picture, you will find that everything are inter-related and can be explained and understand easily.
Very happy to share some toughts here.
QUOTE (Siau+Aug 2 2007, 04:45 PM)
I'm going to try to explain this in a logical form although without pictures, it is difficult to communicate this type of thing.
Hypothesis 1: Our universe is made entirely of a single substance currently called the "fabric of space" once called "ether".
[kokhaw] Agree. I am doing preparing a short write up on this issue which will be posted on my website later.
Hypothesis 2: This fabric or ether has the property of mutual repelling of every point within much like a huge cloud of electrons. But it is also 100% homogeneous having no particles within.
[kokhaw] totally agree, this is the main find out of my theory.
Hypothesis 3: Variations in the density of the ether causes what we observe and call "electric charge".
[kokhaw] as above.
Hypothesis 4: Positive electric charge is created by an increase in density of the substance of space, ether. Negative electric charge is created by the relative decrease in density.
[kokhaw] My hypothesis is the 'ether' is originally negative charge. This is the original 'build-in' energy that causes the big bang and become the universe. The positive charge are created during the process of big bang. Long story.
Hypothesis 5: As density variations take place, they form a traveling wave of density variation.
Hypothesis 6: The speed of the travel is limited due to the reluctance of the density to be altered. This reluctance to alteration is the result of the mathematical situation of every point in space as it is affected by all other points. This is what causes time.
[kokhaw] The speed of light is the limit and ultimate speed. My hypothesis is the reason of this speed is due to the expansion rate of big bang at time zero.
[kokhaw] The nett amount of time in this universe is nil. Time is created during big bang. Two type of time are create. One is the running time which is the current time everybody refer to (I named it as kinetic time). The second time is the potential time where the time is stored as mass/matter. The net summation of these two times are zero. The universe ends when potential time reaching zero.
[kokhaw] During big bang, the expansion of universe had set some rules, one is the speed of light, another one is the right-hand rule for M&E characteristic.
Hypothesis 7: The wave front ramp speed or acceleration rate of density change determines the inertia of the wave. The sharper or faster ramping the change in density, the more difficult it is to change it any faster. It is by this effect, that all things feel the encounter any other thing.
[kokhaw] My hypothesis is EM waves/light rerequire a vitual medium to travel. The virtual medium is the magnetic and electrin (M&E) field that exist in the universe. Light is a kind of energy (I named it as kinetic energy at time zero) which cannot be destroyed. The light travels within the boundary of the universe. Light is reflected when reaches the boundary of the universe.
Hypothesis 8: Electric charge waves, known as "electro-magnetic waves" are formed as the either density rises and lowers sequentially traveling across a space. The rise rate is slow enough that very little inertia is apparent.
Hypothesis 9: Matter particles are created as waves of "ether charge" fall back into their own back wave creating a much faster density change rate. This is evident by their "spin" and increased inertia (inability to be affected). Light photons are just within the boundary of being stable particles and thus display both particle and wave attributes.
[kokhaw] agree. please refer to my link www.greatians.com/physics/mass/pair%20production.htm electron is the smallest mass because it spins at the speed of light.
[kokhaw] photon is quantized EM wave, it possess fixed M&E 'amplitude'. The ratio of magnetic to electric field is the speed of light.
[kokhaw] The particles and EM wave reacts similarily due the energy level and the same cause the effect. There is a reason for the EM wave to undergo refraction, diffraction, interference and reflection. This is the effect deu to the M&E field of EM wave.
Hypothesis 10: These spinning waves have specific distances required from wave front to wave tail for them to form a stable spin. Each harmonic of this distance forms another stable particle size. These are what creates the "quantum" effect of size constraints on stable particles.
[kokhaw] stable particles possess quantized spin. For unstable particles, they possess un-quantized spin.
Hypothesis 11: The internal motion of the variations in density (often neutral in total density and charge) travel at the speed of light as they form a racing 3 dimensional envelope in pursuit of their own density back waves.
Hypothesis 12: The spinning of the wave fronts within each particle creates a charge wave radiation effect extending outward from the particle epicenter. Due to the circling nature of the spin, this radiation is in the form of a 45 degree spiraling wave front of effect on all space surrounding the particle. No energy is lost from the particle because the spiral wave is not encountering opposition or doing work.
[kokhaw] this is something what I mean by interference between photon. But for monochromatic photons, the dispersion of wavefront does not happen.
Hypothesis 13: When a spiraling ether wave encounters a spinning ether object (all particles), the internal spin speed of the particle is affected such as to cause one side of the spin to necessarily be slower than the other. But due to the cycling of both the particle spin as well as the wave being encountered, the particle is impeded first in one direction such as to pull the particle at a 45 degree angle but then reversed such as to pull it at the opposite 45 degree angle. The result is that the particle moves directly toward the source of the radiant wave - gravity.
Magnetism is formed by a similar means;
[kokhaw] The electric charge is caused by the transformation of electric field of EM wave. The photon is brought from speed of light to rest condition. The electric field of photon is deformed into a point charge and the magnetic field is deformed into the inner-merged toroidal pattern. When electron moves from one point to another point, the magnetic field moves together and creates the magnetic field of moving electron.
Hypothesis 14: When the ether density variations form an overall increase or decrease in ether density, an electric charge is apparent. The electric effect is substantially greater than the ether density effect alone because it represents a total ether density change in space over a much larger area and strongly affects any other great density variation. The much smaller density variations creating the particles are confined to a very small area as they are filling their own back waves leaving a neutral overall density change as felt outside the particle. A particle with an overall variation in density has nothing to confine its density change effect.
Hypothesis 15: When an electric charge races by another charge, it has a different affect as it approaches than as it leaves. This is similar to the Doppler effect of sound. The approaching charge affects the space of a second charge in an increasing rate of overall density change. This gives a stronger push or pull on the second charge particle than when it is leaving the second particle.
[kokhaw] The resulting magnetic field of moving electrons is the superposition of many many tiny magnetic field of moving electron.
Hypothesis 16: A series of charged particles racing by a target charged particle will continuously push the target particle - magnetism.
Additional notes;
Hypothesis 17: An increase in density can be more easily arranged than a decrease due to the fact that any decrease must be formed by the inherent willingness of the ether substance to disperse. It cannot be "pulled", but it can be "pushed".
Hypothesis 18: A heavy or high inertia positive particle can be naturally formed more easily than a negative high inertial particle. As the wave front of the inner particle waves increases, the inertia of the particle increases due to the reluctance of density change. An increase in density change rate can be forced through compression of additional efforts to increase the density. But a decrease in density change by adding additional efforts to remove the substance is dependent on the speed at which the substance travels out of an area. This is why we find heavy positive particles (protons) occurring naturally and not heavy negative particles (negatons).
Hypothesis 19: A negative charge, low ether density, particle occupies a different size of space. Although a heavy negative particle can be formed, it cannot be made stable due to the requirements of proximity of the leading and trailing wave ramps.
Hypothesis 20: An electron is a different size and density dispersion than a positron. And protons have a much higher wave ramp dispermitting the electrons to merge with them. This is what yields "atoms - a single particle made by a negative charge field attempting to collapse into a heavier (more dense) positive charge wave. The Bohr atomic model has never been correct.
[kokhaw] Agree, Bohr atomic model has weakness. I had put another atom model. refer to the link www.greatians.com/physics/mass/atom%20model.htm
Hypothesis 21: A nucleus of an atom is a single particle fixed at inertial states that are a harmonic of a single neutron particle. Protons combine into a single enveloping wave required to be stable at specific harmonic sizes. A nucleus is not "held together" but is a single wave formed by combining the waves of other particles into one - there is no "strong force".
[kokhaw] There is no strong force within nuclues. In fact, to my understanding, there is not nuclues within an atom (long story). Just look at electron, there is no nuclues for electron, but electron is matter. the 'nuclues' is created during big bang and due to the rapid change of M&E field during big bang with reference to time.
I could go on for more bits of interesting physics, but 21 concepts should be enough for now. You can simulate all of this with merely a PC and a large spreadsheet like Excel if you are very careful in choosing the exact right formula for "ether repelling force" or the reluctance for the density of the fabric of space to be altered. The resultant programming will allow you to see waves and particles forming along with their naturally occurring magnetic and gravitation effects even though you had not programmed those effects in.
Enjoy
Hypothesis 1: Our universe is made entirely of a single substance currently called the "fabric of space" once called "ether".
[kokhaw] Agree. I am doing preparing a short write up on this issue which will be posted on my website later.
Hypothesis 2: This fabric or ether has the property of mutual repelling of every point within much like a huge cloud of electrons. But it is also 100% homogeneous having no particles within.
[kokhaw] totally agree, this is the main find out of my theory.
Hypothesis 3: Variations in the density of the ether causes what we observe and call "electric charge".
[kokhaw] as above.
Hypothesis 4: Positive electric charge is created by an increase in density of the substance of space, ether. Negative electric charge is created by the relative decrease in density.
[kokhaw] My hypothesis is the 'ether' is originally negative charge. This is the original 'build-in' energy that causes the big bang and become the universe. The positive charge are created during the process of big bang. Long story.
Hypothesis 5: As density variations take place, they form a traveling wave of density variation.
Hypothesis 6: The speed of the travel is limited due to the reluctance of the density to be altered. This reluctance to alteration is the result of the mathematical situation of every point in space as it is affected by all other points. This is what causes time.
[kokhaw] The speed of light is the limit and ultimate speed. My hypothesis is the reason of this speed is due to the expansion rate of big bang at time zero.
[kokhaw] The nett amount of time in this universe is nil. Time is created during big bang. Two type of time are create. One is the running time which is the current time everybody refer to (I named it as kinetic time). The second time is the potential time where the time is stored as mass/matter. The net summation of these two times are zero. The universe ends when potential time reaching zero.
[kokhaw] During big bang, the expansion of universe had set some rules, one is the speed of light, another one is the right-hand rule for M&E characteristic.
Hypothesis 7: The wave front ramp speed or acceleration rate of density change determines the inertia of the wave. The sharper or faster ramping the change in density, the more difficult it is to change it any faster. It is by this effect, that all things feel the encounter any other thing.
[kokhaw] My hypothesis is EM waves/light rerequire a vitual medium to travel. The virtual medium is the magnetic and electrin (M&E) field that exist in the universe. Light is a kind of energy (I named it as kinetic energy at time zero) which cannot be destroyed. The light travels within the boundary of the universe. Light is reflected when reaches the boundary of the universe.
Hypothesis 8: Electric charge waves, known as "electro-magnetic waves" are formed as the either density rises and lowers sequentially traveling across a space. The rise rate is slow enough that very little inertia is apparent.
Hypothesis 9: Matter particles are created as waves of "ether charge" fall back into their own back wave creating a much faster density change rate. This is evident by their "spin" and increased inertia (inability to be affected). Light photons are just within the boundary of being stable particles and thus display both particle and wave attributes.
[kokhaw] agree. please refer to my link www.greatians.com/physics/mass/pair%20production.htm electron is the smallest mass because it spins at the speed of light.
[kokhaw] photon is quantized EM wave, it possess fixed M&E 'amplitude'. The ratio of magnetic to electric field is the speed of light.
[kokhaw] The particles and EM wave reacts similarily due the energy level and the same cause the effect. There is a reason for the EM wave to undergo refraction, diffraction, interference and reflection. This is the effect deu to the M&E field of EM wave.
Hypothesis 10: These spinning waves have specific distances required from wave front to wave tail for them to form a stable spin. Each harmonic of this distance forms another stable particle size. These are what creates the "quantum" effect of size constraints on stable particles.
[kokhaw] stable particles possess quantized spin. For unstable particles, they possess un-quantized spin.
Hypothesis 11: The internal motion of the variations in density (often neutral in total density and charge) travel at the speed of light as they form a racing 3 dimensional envelope in pursuit of their own density back waves.
Hypothesis 12: The spinning of the wave fronts within each particle creates a charge wave radiation effect extending outward from the particle epicenter. Due to the circling nature of the spin, this radiation is in the form of a 45 degree spiraling wave front of effect on all space surrounding the particle. No energy is lost from the particle because the spiral wave is not encountering opposition or doing work.
[kokhaw] this is something what I mean by interference between photon. But for monochromatic photons, the dispersion of wavefront does not happen.
Hypothesis 13: When a spiraling ether wave encounters a spinning ether object (all particles), the internal spin speed of the particle is affected such as to cause one side of the spin to necessarily be slower than the other. But due to the cycling of both the particle spin as well as the wave being encountered, the particle is impeded first in one direction such as to pull the particle at a 45 degree angle but then reversed such as to pull it at the opposite 45 degree angle. The result is that the particle moves directly toward the source of the radiant wave - gravity.
Magnetism is formed by a similar means;
[kokhaw] The electric charge is caused by the transformation of electric field of EM wave. The photon is brought from speed of light to rest condition. The electric field of photon is deformed into a point charge and the magnetic field is deformed into the inner-merged toroidal pattern. When electron moves from one point to another point, the magnetic field moves together and creates the magnetic field of moving electron.
Hypothesis 14: When the ether density variations form an overall increase or decrease in ether density, an electric charge is apparent. The electric effect is substantially greater than the ether density effect alone because it represents a total ether density change in space over a much larger area and strongly affects any other great density variation. The much smaller density variations creating the particles are confined to a very small area as they are filling their own back waves leaving a neutral overall density change as felt outside the particle. A particle with an overall variation in density has nothing to confine its density change effect.
Hypothesis 15: When an electric charge races by another charge, it has a different affect as it approaches than as it leaves. This is similar to the Doppler effect of sound. The approaching charge affects the space of a second charge in an increasing rate of overall density change. This gives a stronger push or pull on the second charge particle than when it is leaving the second particle.
[kokhaw] The resulting magnetic field of moving electrons is the superposition of many many tiny magnetic field of moving electron.
Hypothesis 16: A series of charged particles racing by a target charged particle will continuously push the target particle - magnetism.
Additional notes;
Hypothesis 17: An increase in density can be more easily arranged than a decrease due to the fact that any decrease must be formed by the inherent willingness of the ether substance to disperse. It cannot be "pulled", but it can be "pushed".
Hypothesis 18: A heavy or high inertia positive particle can be naturally formed more easily than a negative high inertial particle. As the wave front of the inner particle waves increases, the inertia of the particle increases due to the reluctance of density change. An increase in density change rate can be forced through compression of additional efforts to increase the density. But a decrease in density change by adding additional efforts to remove the substance is dependent on the speed at which the substance travels out of an area. This is why we find heavy positive particles (protons) occurring naturally and not heavy negative particles (negatons).
Hypothesis 19: A negative charge, low ether density, particle occupies a different size of space. Although a heavy negative particle can be formed, it cannot be made stable due to the requirements of proximity of the leading and trailing wave ramps.
Hypothesis 20: An electron is a different size and density dispersion than a positron. And protons have a much higher wave ramp dispermitting the electrons to merge with them. This is what yields "atoms - a single particle made by a negative charge field attempting to collapse into a heavier (more dense) positive charge wave. The Bohr atomic model has never been correct.
[kokhaw] Agree, Bohr atomic model has weakness. I had put another atom model. refer to the link www.greatians.com/physics/mass/atom%20model.htm
Hypothesis 21: A nucleus of an atom is a single particle fixed at inertial states that are a harmonic of a single neutron particle. Protons combine into a single enveloping wave required to be stable at specific harmonic sizes. A nucleus is not "held together" but is a single wave formed by combining the waves of other particles into one - there is no "strong force".
[kokhaw] There is no strong force within nuclues. In fact, to my understanding, there is not nuclues within an atom (long story). Just look at electron, there is no nuclues for electron, but electron is matter. the 'nuclues' is created during big bang and due to the rapid change of M&E field during big bang with reference to time.
I could go on for more bits of interesting physics, but 21 concepts should be enough for now. You can simulate all of this with merely a PC and a large spreadsheet like Excel if you are very careful in choosing the exact right formula for "ether repelling force" or the reluctance for the density of the fabric of space to be altered. The resultant programming will allow you to see waves and particles forming along with their naturally occurring magnetic and gravitation effects even though you had not programmed those effects in.
Enjoy
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 4 2007, 12:54 AM)
Hi Sian,
We have some useful experimental stuff here:- http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml and a result here:-
Note that the results are claimed to be for 'one photon at a time' though some dispute that this is correct. Note also the close match to the 'interference model' shown by the dotted line.
If it seems like any progress is being made we can start to look at the delayed choice quantum eraser here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
We are experimenting with a teamwork approach in the hope that frustration with the approach will force someone to produce a credible .. this, this , then this because of this .. with at least enough maths to establish plausibility.
In my own case the interference model (which I claim to be 'sum over paths') requires a continuous excitation .. a single photon is clearly not a continuous excitation so the model I favour is implausible.
You are probably aware that it is not immediately clear which (if any) of your 21 hypotheses (individually or in combination) might lead to a plausible model using these (or other) hypotheses. Your assistance towards developing a plausible model would be most welcome.
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. from your last post .. sinewaves seem to be all too relevent.
C2, can I explain this data in this way?
This is generally what people say interference. But to me, as I explained earlier, it is just another evidence on the diffraction of light. The general bell pattern is the result of diffraction of single slit, which people said the coherent source.
When the coherent source from single slit source is second diffracted by many tiny slits, it produces the second degree diffraction. The second degree diffraction produces few sub-fringes. When the slit is adjusted so that all the fringes are 'superimposed' to fall on the same position. It produces the pattern as shown in your figure.
The high density of photons at the center is due to the center high density of photon of first diffraction source.
But the photon is 'shot' one by one, how can the interference happen and produce such fringe? This is the pattern caused by second degree diffraction, not the interference of light. Photon does not superimpose to form constructive or destructive superposition which shows by particle wave such as water wave. Particle wave is two dimension, while EM wave is 3 dimension. The amplitude of EM wave does not superimpose or change value as particle wave.
As mentioned earlier, electron beam also able to produce 'interference', but it is not the actual interference which govern by constructive or destrucitve superposition. It is caused by the reaction of M&E field between EM wave or electron beam to the surrounding. They produce the same pattern and so called same wavelength as mentioned by De Broglie because they possess the same energy level. This doesn't mean particle is wave.
Further to this, Bohr atom model of wave atom model is not convincing. Moving electron produce magnetic field, but traveling EM wave doesn't produce magnetic field. The magnetic field of moving electron in atom will have effect to the positive charge 'nuclues'. there are many more weaknesses on the Borh/wave atom model.
This is just my personal thought. and I am in the process to put this onto a website to explain further. Will share with you once done. Thank you.
We have some useful experimental stuff here:- http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml and a result here:-
Note that the results are claimed to be for 'one photon at a time' though some dispute that this is correct. Note also the close match to the 'interference model' shown by the dotted line.
If it seems like any progress is being made we can start to look at the delayed choice quantum eraser here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
We are experimenting with a teamwork approach in the hope that frustration with the approach will force someone to produce a credible .. this, this , then this because of this .. with at least enough maths to establish plausibility.
In my own case the interference model (which I claim to be 'sum over paths') requires a continuous excitation .. a single photon is clearly not a continuous excitation so the model I favour is implausible.
You are probably aware that it is not immediately clear which (if any) of your 21 hypotheses (individually or in combination) might lead to a plausible model using these (or other) hypotheses. Your assistance towards developing a plausible model would be most welcome.
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. from your last post .. sinewaves seem to be all too relevent.
C2, can I explain this data in this way?
This is generally what people say interference. But to me, as I explained earlier, it is just another evidence on the diffraction of light. The general bell pattern is the result of diffraction of single slit, which people said the coherent source.
When the coherent source from single slit source is second diffracted by many tiny slits, it produces the second degree diffraction. The second degree diffraction produces few sub-fringes. When the slit is adjusted so that all the fringes are 'superimposed' to fall on the same position. It produces the pattern as shown in your figure.
The high density of photons at the center is due to the center high density of photon of first diffraction source.
But the photon is 'shot' one by one, how can the interference happen and produce such fringe? This is the pattern caused by second degree diffraction, not the interference of light. Photon does not superimpose to form constructive or destructive superposition which shows by particle wave such as water wave. Particle wave is two dimension, while EM wave is 3 dimension. The amplitude of EM wave does not superimpose or change value as particle wave.
As mentioned earlier, electron beam also able to produce 'interference', but it is not the actual interference which govern by constructive or destrucitve superposition. It is caused by the reaction of M&E field between EM wave or electron beam to the surrounding. They produce the same pattern and so called same wavelength as mentioned by De Broglie because they possess the same energy level. This doesn't mean particle is wave.
Further to this, Bohr atom model of wave atom model is not convincing. Moving electron produce magnetic field, but traveling EM wave doesn't produce magnetic field. The magnetic field of moving electron in atom will have effect to the positive charge 'nuclues'. there are many more weaknesses on the Borh/wave atom model.
This is just my personal thought. and I am in the process to put this onto a website to explain further. Will share with you once done. Thank you.
This is reminding me of the Marlyn Savant issue with Monty Hall.
Please realize that I wanted to post those hypothesies only to introduce the kind of thinking I am involved in concerning electric fields, magnetic fields, photons, and such. I don't subscribe to the standard, "magnetism just is" concept. But I am not proposing that those hypothesies resolve the current issues in any way. It was just intended for personal introduction.
GE, I agree that any such hypotesies must be substanciated with far more reasoning and/or experimenting than I had room to go into. I wouldn't mind, and would enjoy, getting into more of that discussion, but didn't propose it here as a solution to the current discussion, so it would be a bit divergent to get into any defense of the assertions.
I didn't intend to distract from the conversation to such a degree and preferred the post to be a mere link "if anyone was interested" concerning my personal approach methods (hardly an important issue).
Although I took every math course and type available in college, my claim to fame came from my weakness. I always had trouble remembering the formulae, so on tests, I always had to rederive formulae from scratch, then apply them. This often took too much time to allow me to finish many tests, but it ensured that I understood how understanding comes about. During my "Transmission Lines" class, I enjoyed bewildering my professor by never using math formulae to answer his test questions concerning the production, transmission, and reflection of signals, but instead used logic. I was one of the very few who ever aced all of his tests. But that was very long ago.
Appologies for the interruption.
--------
So I'm guessing now that the issue is one of understanding why the results of the slit experiment are affected by the method of observation as well as exactly how any interference really occurs anyway..?
Frankly I'm glad to hear about the Delay Eraser method. I was a bit tired of the long time false reasoning that yielded the idea that a person "could not know something if he knew something else". Science seems to keep getting into these "since I can't do it, it can never be done" mindsets (Maxwell and the 2nd law coming to mind).
Please realize that I wanted to post those hypothesies only to introduce the kind of thinking I am involved in concerning electric fields, magnetic fields, photons, and such. I don't subscribe to the standard, "magnetism just is" concept. But I am not proposing that those hypothesies resolve the current issues in any way. It was just intended for personal introduction.
GE, I agree that any such hypotesies must be substanciated with far more reasoning and/or experimenting than I had room to go into. I wouldn't mind, and would enjoy, getting into more of that discussion, but didn't propose it here as a solution to the current discussion, so it would be a bit divergent to get into any defense of the assertions.
I didn't intend to distract from the conversation to such a degree and preferred the post to be a mere link "if anyone was interested" concerning my personal approach methods (hardly an important issue).
Although I took every math course and type available in college, my claim to fame came from my weakness. I always had trouble remembering the formulae, so on tests, I always had to rederive formulae from scratch, then apply them. This often took too much time to allow me to finish many tests, but it ensured that I understood how understanding comes about. During my "Transmission Lines" class, I enjoyed bewildering my professor by never using math formulae to answer his test questions concerning the production, transmission, and reflection of signals, but instead used logic. I was one of the very few who ever aced all of his tests. But that was very long ago.
Appologies for the interruption.
--------
So I'm guessing now that the issue is one of understanding why the results of the slit experiment are affected by the method of observation as well as exactly how any interference really occurs anyway..?
Frankly I'm glad to hear about the Delay Eraser method. I was a bit tired of the long time false reasoning that yielded the idea that a person "could not know something if he knew something else". Science seems to keep getting into these "since I can't do it, it can never be done" mindsets (Maxwell and the 2nd law coming to mind).
C2,
I don't see anything that would clearly indicate whether they used a photon emiter or a continuous laser and I'm not sure that it would really matter. They used a photon detector on a stepper motor to scan the interference field.
The interference pattern was appearently assembled from data rather than "real time" observation. When they delete (erase) the detections that stimulate from the wrong source, they construct a different interference picture than would have been observed by the eye realtime.
From all I can see, it seems the result is merely that "yes, with the right equipment and thinking minds, you don't really have to be uncertain". But then intelligent people were never so certain of the uncertainty principle anyway.
I don't see anything that would clearly indicate whether they used a photon emiter or a continuous laser and I'm not sure that it would really matter. They used a photon detector on a stepper motor to scan the interference field.
The interference pattern was appearently assembled from data rather than "real time" observation. When they delete (erase) the detections that stimulate from the wrong source, they construct a different interference picture than would have been observed by the eye realtime.
From all I can see, it seems the result is merely that "yes, with the right equipment and thinking minds, you don't really have to be uncertain". But then intelligent people were never so certain of the uncertainty principle anyway.
GE,
It seems that kokhaw and I are going to discuss those hypothesies in detail on the Magnetism thread. Although I detect a degree of strong negative attitude, I would welcome your point of view to help me keep my rationale straight on that thread if you care to share. One objection at a time, please.
Oh and thks for reminding me that aether is spelled with an "a". It's been a long time for me.
Thanks
It seems that kokhaw and I are going to discuss those hypothesies in detail on the Magnetism thread. Although I detect a degree of strong negative attitude, I would welcome your point of view to help me keep my rationale straight on that thread if you care to share. One objection at a time, please.
Oh and thks for reminding me that aether is spelled with an "a". It's been a long time for me.
Thanks
Hi Chekhov et AL,
I think you will find interference and diffraction are the same thing.. so second order interference and second order diffraction will be the same thing.
To show this..
Go to http://www.accesscom.com/~lillge/pgc/
Working in mm ..
Click 'detach'
Set 'f=' t,(|e^(i * 2*pi*h/(B)) + e^(i *2*pi*k/(B)) |)^2 (this is the square of the sum of the two amplitudes or 'superposition')
Set 'Points' to 2000 instead of 200 .. this just gives a smooth plot
'h=' sqrt((t/1+a)^2+(1000)^2) (this is the length to a point at t on the screen from the left hand side of the slit)
'k=' sqrt((t/1-a)^2+(1000)^2) (this is the length to a point at t on the screen from the right hand side of the slit)
'a=' 0.06 (this is the slit width)
'b=' 5.0E-4 (this is the wavelength of light)
You should be seeing a sine wave type thing .. zoom in/out if not
As you add in more points (a central one is easiest) it starts to look more and more like the 'diffraction pattern' (because it is). Instead of summing point by point we really need to integrate across the slit .. this (somewhat coincidentally) gives us the Fourier transform of the slit. I've used Pythagoras to get the lengths of the paths (starting with two) .. to simplify the maths it is normal to ignore all except the first term or so of a series expansion of whatever means we use to derive the path lengths.. but hopefully this shows where its coming from.. I've ignored the inverse square law .. a good person would add it in but we can see that the difference in amplitude between two (or more) paths will be tiny once we're looking at the slit from a meter away.
Once you've got the Fourier transform of one slit we can take the Fourier transform of two slits .. and we get the interference pattern as seen in the experimental result. Or any of a zillion ways to achieve the same sort of prediction with varying degrees of accuracy.
Regrettably predicting and explaining don't seem to be the same thing .. especially when single photons are involved.
Best wishes - C2.
I think you will find interference and diffraction are the same thing.. so second order interference and second order diffraction will be the same thing.
To show this..
Go to http://www.accesscom.com/~lillge/pgc/
Working in mm ..
Click 'detach'
Set 'f=' t,(|e^(i * 2*pi*h/(B)) + e^(i *2*pi*k/(B)) |)^2 (this is the square of the sum of the two amplitudes or 'superposition')
Set 'Points' to 2000 instead of 200 .. this just gives a smooth plot
'h=' sqrt((t/1+a)^2+(1000)^2) (this is the length to a point at t on the screen from the left hand side of the slit)
'k=' sqrt((t/1-a)^2+(1000)^2) (this is the length to a point at t on the screen from the right hand side of the slit)
'a=' 0.06 (this is the slit width)
'b=' 5.0E-4 (this is the wavelength of light)
You should be seeing a sine wave type thing .. zoom in/out if not
As you add in more points (a central one is easiest) it starts to look more and more like the 'diffraction pattern' (because it is). Instead of summing point by point we really need to integrate across the slit .. this (somewhat coincidentally) gives us the Fourier transform of the slit. I've used Pythagoras to get the lengths of the paths (starting with two) .. to simplify the maths it is normal to ignore all except the first term or so of a series expansion of whatever means we use to derive the path lengths.. but hopefully this shows where its coming from.. I've ignored the inverse square law .. a good person would add it in but we can see that the difference in amplitude between two (or more) paths will be tiny once we're looking at the slit from a meter away.
Once you've got the Fourier transform of one slit we can take the Fourier transform of two slits .. and we get the interference pattern as seen in the experimental result. Or any of a zillion ways to achieve the same sort of prediction with varying degrees of accuracy.
Regrettably predicting and explaining don't seem to be the same thing .. especially when single photons are involved.
Best wishes - C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 4 2007, 09:36 AM)
I think you will find interference and diffraction are the same thing..
???
Defraction refers to the deflection of light travel.
Interference refers to the combining of EM effects such as to produce patterns of wave shift and phasing.
??
???
Defraction refers to the deflection of light travel.
Interference refers to the combining of EM effects such as to produce patterns of wave shift and phasing.
??
Hi Siau et al,
There is a choice of 'reasons' why light doesn't go in straight lines .. if you've rejected Huygens and Feynman's 'sum over paths' then perhaps we need to look at EM. If you imagine a plane wave after it has passed through a slit there are clearly discontinuities at either edge where the surface that the slit was cut in has absorbed the EM. The discontinuity is itself a new wave source. We can try to zap this with some field theory if you feel strong enough .. personally I'd prefer to say 'Huygens' and leave it at that for the present.
Clearly .. once you've got your light going round corners you need to predict the 'diffraction pattern' .. in the region of the edges the path differences are all comparable (within a wavelength) so the 'real' pattern is the result of interference of the paths in the region of the edge. See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html for an example of single slit diffraction.
Edit .. sorry that link doesn't go straight there .. follow Light and Vision and head for Fraunhofer single slit diffraction.
As in my previous post .. we need to integrate over the whole slit/edge/whatever .. choosing two paths just gives the clue that we are going to sum these paths to get the true diffraction/interference pattern.
Diffraction is an important thing on this thread .. Huygens, sum over paths and EM theory should all give very similar results since they share a common origin but they are certainly not the only explanations on offer on this thread. I'll leave 'them' to add their comments/links.
Comments most welcome
Best wishes - C2.
There is a choice of 'reasons' why light doesn't go in straight lines .. if you've rejected Huygens and Feynman's 'sum over paths' then perhaps we need to look at EM. If you imagine a plane wave after it has passed through a slit there are clearly discontinuities at either edge where the surface that the slit was cut in has absorbed the EM. The discontinuity is itself a new wave source. We can try to zap this with some field theory if you feel strong enough .. personally I'd prefer to say 'Huygens' and leave it at that for the present.
Clearly .. once you've got your light going round corners you need to predict the 'diffraction pattern' .. in the region of the edges the path differences are all comparable (within a wavelength) so the 'real' pattern is the result of interference of the paths in the region of the edge. See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html for an example of single slit diffraction.
Edit .. sorry that link doesn't go straight there .. follow Light and Vision and head for Fraunhofer single slit diffraction.
As in my previous post .. we need to integrate over the whole slit/edge/whatever .. choosing two paths just gives the clue that we are going to sum these paths to get the true diffraction/interference pattern.
Diffraction is an important thing on this thread .. Huygens, sum over paths and EM theory should all give very similar results since they share a common origin but they are certainly not the only explanations on offer on this thread. I'll leave 'them' to add their comments/links.
Comments most welcome
Best wishes - C2.
Well okay, perhaps it is common in your field to use the word "interfere" in reference to interfering with the travel path. That would make the 2 words identical.
I guess that I have a pertinent question;
Does everyone here believe that IF there was some way to pass a series of photons of similar spin along the EXACT same path into the slit, those photons would all defract the same?
Does everyone here believe that IF there was some way to pass a series of photons of similar spin along the EXACT same path into the slit, those photons would all defract the same?
QUOTE (Siau+)
Does everyone here believe that IF there was some way to pass a series of photons of similar spin along the EXACT same path into the slit, those photons would all defract the same?
I'd say that's a good thing to add to the list of things we agree/disagree about.
Personally I see a wavefunction-psi (the '-psi' added for clarity) as a sort of map of probability of detection with no hidden variables or anything else. In the light of the delayed choice experiment it looks like it can be snatched back and replaced by another .. imo this hardly makes it any worse than it was in the first place. Is a wavefunction-psi ever really detached from the source? The ability of an entangled particle to force a change suggests to me that it isn't.
Best wishes - C2.
I'd say that's a good thing to add to the list of things we agree/disagree about.
Personally I see a wavefunction-psi (the '-psi' added for clarity) as a sort of map of probability of detection with no hidden variables or anything else. In the light of the delayed choice experiment it looks like it can be snatched back and replaced by another .. imo this hardly makes it any worse than it was in the first place. Is a wavefunction-psi ever really detached from the source? The ability of an entangled particle to force a change suggests to me that it isn't.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi Siau,
QUOTE (Siau+)
GE,
It seems that kokhaw and I are going to discuss those hypothesies in detail on the Magnetism thread. Although I detect a degree of strong negative attitude, I would welcome your point of view to help me keep my rationale straight on that thread if you care to share. One objection at a time, please. smile.gif
Oh and thks for reminding me that aether is spelled with an "a". It's been a long time for me.
It seems that kokhaw and I are going to discuss those hypothesies in detail on the Magnetism thread. Although I detect a degree of strong negative attitude, I would welcome your point of view to help me keep my rationale straight on that thread if you care to share. One objection at a time, please. smile.gif
Oh and thks for reminding me that aether is spelled with an "a". It's been a long time for me.
Don't worry about me. I am not about to discourage anyone. I would like everyone that participates to understand each other. I am usually pretty "benign". You can spell ether/aether anyway you want I think we all know that we are not referring to "diethyl ether" here.
It is hard to gauge a level at which to pitch any point and not make someone feel a little uncomfortable. This form of communication is very impersonal even with smilies.
Cheers
It is hard to gauge a level at which to pitch any point and not make someone feel a little uncomfortable. This form of communication is very impersonal even with smilies.
Cheers
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 4 2007, 03:00 PM)
Personally I see a wavefunction-psi (the '-psi' added for clarity) as a sort of map of probability of detection with no hidden variables or anything else. In the light of the delayed choice experiment it looks like it can be snatched back and replaced by another .. imo this hardly makes it any worse than it was in the first place. Is a wavefunction-psi ever really detached from the source? The ability of an entangled particle to force a change suggests to me that it isn't.
So you're saying that if, for example, the slits and source were perhaps 10 billion lightyears from the detection eraser, then you could not merely alter the source, but affect it 10 billion years before you decided to do so because of a backpressure extending across the universe?
Wouldn't that kind of mess up things for the rest of the universe?
I'm sure it would play hell with my 401K.
So you're saying that if, for example, the slits and source were perhaps 10 billion lightyears from the detection eraser, then you could not merely alter the source, but affect it 10 billion years before you decided to do so because of a backpressure extending across the universe?
Wouldn't that kind of mess up things for the rest of the universe?
I'm sure it would play hell with my 401K.
Hi Siau,
QUOTE (Siau+)
So you're saying that if, for example, the slits and source were perhaps 10 billion lightyears from the detection eraser, then you could not merely alter the source, but affect it 10 billion years before you decided to do so because of a backpressure extending across the universe?
Wouldn't that kind of mess up things for the rest of the universe?
Wouldn't that kind of mess up things for the rest of the universe?
I doubt that is what Confused2 is saying at all... I do not think the Universe is subject to "back pressure". You must put this into context... this is no theory... it is an experimental fact. Your theory must fit the facts not the facts fit your theory. Remember the Universe actually knows best and so far it seems to be getting things right.
Cheers
Cheers
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 4 2007, 03:00 PM)
Is a wavefunction-psi ever really detached from the source? The ability of an entangled particle to force a change suggests to me that it isn't.2.
This part is what had led me to believe that he was talking about a "backpressure" effect, but perhaps that isn't what he meant. I am waiting for him to explain it. He knows what he meant best, not the universe.
..and so far, "my theory" isn't involved.
This part is what had led me to believe that he was talking about a "backpressure" effect, but perhaps that isn't what he meant. I am waiting for him to explain it. He knows what he meant best, not the universe.
..and so far, "my theory" isn't involved.
QUOTE (Siau+Aug 4 2007, 08:25 PM)
So you're saying that if, for example, the slits and source were perhaps 10 billion lightyears from the detection eraser, then you could not merely alter the source, but affect it 10 billion years before you decided to do so because of a backpressure extending across the universe?
Wouldn't that kind of mess up things for the rest of the universe?
I'm sure it would play hell with my 401K.
So that's where the spooky actions at a distance are coming from. Real interactions in the past that never stopped affecting each other. Entanglement now seems not like something bizarre and unknown as an extension of something familiar that has been taken to new levels. We normally expect interactions to trail off to zero as particles move away from each other. Maybe they were always asymptotically trailing off to zero without really closing off all entangling interactions. It reminds me of sheldrake's "the presence of the past" in that the past interaction of entangled particles is always remembered.
Wouldn't that kind of mess up things for the rest of the universe?
I'm sure it would play hell with my 401K.
So that's where the spooky actions at a distance are coming from. Real interactions in the past that never stopped affecting each other. Entanglement now seems not like something bizarre and unknown as an extension of something familiar that has been taken to new levels. We normally expect interactions to trail off to zero as particles move away from each other. Maybe they were always asymptotically trailing off to zero without really closing off all entangling interactions. It reminds me of sheldrake's "the presence of the past" in that the past interaction of entangled particles is always remembered.
Hi Neil,
Once a relationship is established, it will always remain viable, unless
something phsyically acts to change that relationship.
Twins will aways be twins, independent of where they are located. If you step this
up, to the scale of coherent waves, the coherency relationship between coherent
photons will always remain the same, while propagating in the same medium, until
the relationship is ended/changed by the process of detection, or the phase
relationship changes.
The implications of this phenomenon are, that the coherency of discrete photon
wavefunctions will exist, as long as their phase/timing relationship remains the
same. If the phase/timing relationship that exists between them is
changed/delayed, the out of phase photons are no longer "coherent", and their
wave energies will interfere when non-linearly superposed in the presence of a
physical signal mixing medium. This is the point of signal interference.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
Maybe they were always asymptotically trailing off to zero without really closing off all entangling interactions. It reminds me of sheldrake's "the presence of the past" in that the past interaction of entangled particles is always remembered.
Once a relationship is established, it will always remain viable, unless
something phsyically acts to change that relationship.
Twins will aways be twins, independent of where they are located. If you step this
up, to the scale of coherent waves, the coherency relationship between coherent
photons will always remain the same, while propagating in the same medium, until
the relationship is ended/changed by the process of detection, or the phase
relationship changes.
The implications of this phenomenon are, that the coherency of discrete photon
wavefunctions will exist, as long as their phase/timing relationship remains the
same. If the phase/timing relationship that exists between them is
changed/delayed, the out of phase photons are no longer "coherent", and their
wave energies will interfere when non-linearly superposed in the presence of a
physical signal mixing medium. This is the point of signal interference.
Comments?
LL
Hi Laserlight,
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
As far as I know the photons from a laser are in a very similar state .. but not entangled.
Best wishes - C2.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
QUOTE
Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other .. etc
As far as I know the photons from a laser are in a very similar state .. but not entangled.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi C2,
I see your point. I think the classical meaning of entanglement is a fixed timing
relationship that exists between opposite characteristics, like opposite spins.
Is there really a difference between entanglement and wave coherence?
Is one purely an inverse phase rotational relationship, and the other a direct
"in phase" rotational relationship?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_%28physics%29
It begs to ask why, if the spins are opposite, that the waves don't cancel each other out?
It would infer that entangled waves have an inverse phase relationship, with
common timing. The only way this could happen is if two adjacent atoms, with
opposite electron spins, emit photons at the same instant.
Just musing:
I envision an effect similar to a smoke ring, where on diametrically opposite sides
of the linked ring (180 degrees), the vorticies are spinning in opposite directions.
It is one energy entity spinning thru a torroidal shaped geometry.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
As far as I know the photons from a laser are in a very similar state .. but not entangled.
I see your point. I think the classical meaning of entanglement is a fixed timing
relationship that exists between opposite characteristics, like opposite spins.
Is there really a difference between entanglement and wave coherence?
Is one purely an inverse phase rotational relationship, and the other a direct
"in phase" rotational relationship?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_%28physics%29
It begs to ask why, if the spins are opposite, that the waves don't cancel each other out?
It would infer that entangled waves have an inverse phase relationship, with
common timing. The only way this could happen is if two adjacent atoms, with
opposite electron spins, emit photons at the same instant.
Just musing:
I envision an effect similar to a smoke ring, where on diametrically opposite sides
of the linked ring (180 degrees), the vorticies are spinning in opposite directions.
It is one energy entity spinning thru a torroidal shaped geometry.
Comments?
LL
Hi all,
LL-
I guess I chose the wrong analogy for you, sorry. I think you should possibly re-read my posts, because the underlying truth transcends the graph parameters that I chose. I could also use frequency & wavelength: IF you "take a picture"/measurement of a wave, you are "freezing time"; WHEN t=0 , we get a "smear" in location. This is part of WHY we have the HUP (uncertainty). We all KNOW, that if we increase the "capture speed" of the camera (or sample rate), we get better resolution for very fast movement/oscillation. [Copenhagen says we can NOT get a better camera]
So, mathematically, we will "tweak" our measurement: we will measure at the speed of light. What the hell do I mean? We will "force" the object to be "still", while we measure its' frequency. Lo, and behold, we find that our "frequency" is now smeared!
Look at our parameters for the EM wave: the values for permittivity and permissibility will NEVER "line up", or have integer relationship. The ONLY real integer in the WHOLE model, is the speed of light itself. This "smearing" is a consequence of this asymmetry: if we measure "one side of the duality" with an integer, the other parameter will ALWAYS be "irrational". This also produces "quantum jumps", as a byproduct, when measuring the distance with a metric set to "1 meter" (integer). (or, equivalently, 1 sec., since c is constant)
So, if you "make me" use a single frequency, I can simply say, "well, then I'll measure from 3 points: the center (mean), and the extremes." When I do this, only the center measurement, has a straight path (shortest route) to our detector. This is the "fundamental" part of the measurement. The other lines that I draw, from the extremes to the detector, are LONGER; what shall I do with them?
Increase velocity, which must match the result of the RI adjustment, which requires a frequency that is different from our fundamental. Or, you can calculate the extra distance into the extra time, which allows for more cycles in the same (fundamental) time, which increases, by definition, the frequency.
I guess I chose the wrong analogy for you, sorry. I think you should possibly re-read my posts, because the underlying truth transcends the graph parameters that I chose. I could also use frequency & wavelength: IF you "take a picture"/measurement of a wave, you are "freezing time"; WHEN t=0 , we get a "smear" in location. This is part of WHY we have the HUP (uncertainty). We all KNOW, that if we increase the "capture speed" of the camera (or sample rate), we get better resolution for very fast movement/oscillation. [Copenhagen says we can NOT get a better camera]
So, mathematically, we will "tweak" our measurement: we will measure at the speed of light. What the hell do I mean? We will "force" the object to be "still", while we measure its' frequency. Lo, and behold, we find that our "frequency" is now smeared!
Look at our parameters for the EM wave: the values for permittivity and permissibility will NEVER "line up", or have integer relationship. The ONLY real integer in the WHOLE model, is the speed of light itself. This "smearing" is a consequence of this asymmetry: if we measure "one side of the duality" with an integer, the other parameter will ALWAYS be "irrational". This also produces "quantum jumps", as a byproduct, when measuring the distance with a metric set to "1 meter" (integer). (or, equivalently, 1 sec., since c is constant)
So, if you "make me" use a single frequency, I can simply say, "well, then I'll measure from 3 points: the center (mean), and the extremes." When I do this, only the center measurement, has a straight path (shortest route) to our detector. This is the "fundamental" part of the measurement. The other lines that I draw, from the extremes to the detector, are LONGER; what shall I do with them?
Increase velocity, which must match the result of the RI adjustment, which requires a frequency that is different from our fundamental. Or, you can calculate the extra distance into the extra time, which allows for more cycles in the same (fundamental) time, which increases, by definition, the frequency.
Siau Posted: Yesterday at 12:51 AM
Well, perhaps I was wrong, but it appeared that TRoc was trying to express that in the real universe any wave is really amongst a background of other radiation waves. The result of this would yield a non uniform sine function despite the fact that the photon wave never changed its energy level.
I didn't see why such was relevant to anything and perhaps it isn't. I was just pointing out that if any disturbance of a sine wave is present (and it always must be to some minute degree), the result will be as he stated in that the perfect sine wave, will not be perfect and never actually can be.
It is very astute of you to have reached that conclusion (the background of other radiation), since this is only indirectly implied by what I am saying. The reason that I am (and have been since my first post 240 pages ago) demonstrating this principle, is that I have a model that uses frequency to calculate resonance, as a dynamic that occurs "on the way" from source to detector. People have a hard time with this, because of the assumption that "frequency never changes". [even though this breaks the fundamental definition of the symbiotic relationship between frequency, wavelength, and velocity of the wave]
The "frequency never changes" assumption is completely based on the SAME observer, our "fundamental, shortest distance/time". [as well as the fact that that is always what is measured, a fact not missed by Bohr, and the Copenhagen interpretation] Fourier does not help this situation, by measuring from the center, out, at equal time intervals; in effect, transposing the dimensions. This transform does NOT capture the longitudinal oscillations, their phase patterns, the "quantum fractional revivals", or the interaction/resonance of said phenomenon.
We will have to include fractals here, with their recursive, self-scaling, constant angle change properties. Luckily, the "math kids" have already done the work.
The second part is towards a post by GE, now back a few pages. ( link )
GE-
(these are not in any order)
The easiest first:
6,7.) ..there are no "colors" other than the base "color". (and) E = hf seems to be the rule until otherwise contradicted.
We are in agreement already on these. See previous/recent post to LL.
1.) 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.
First, I did not say (or imply, I hope) that Fourier transform relies on the RI. Furthermore, I also did not mean to imply that the RI must be the cause here. The main point was, that the extra time needed for waves to get to our first minimum, or second peak (off axis) is very tiny. Only a very tiny change in frequency is needed, and the RI for that frequency will “dilate” our measurement, or Doppler shift if you will, for observers AT our first minimum, and second peak; for them, these waves arrive simultaneously, creating indistinguishably, a pre-requisite for interference. This is (hopefully) a bridge that we can build to gap QM and SR. I am sorry, but I can not give any “references” for my idea here, other than “IT WORKS” (so far). I am saying that the RI allows (demands) for a velocity change, different for each frequency present,
3.) Removal of packet side bands from individual photons would change the character of the quanta in a way I cannot predict.
De-modulating will have no effect on the carrier wave; this is what allows us to make use of the effect. Even with “single photons”, models say that there is a spherical expansion. What we would call “the photon” is inside this space, completely “entangled” with its’ geometric phase pattern. That fact allows absorption/collapse anywhere along the spherical front, with the original information intact. The end frequency is reproduced… there is no conflict with E = (n) h f .
5.) The other important point is "plane waves" cannot partake in the ISL.
How about some relativity? Our screen is made up of MANY observers, all in ONE plane. Light from the “new source” (slits) will reach ALL points on the screen at the same time, in that model. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the spherical wave to NOT form into a plane wave, after being diffracted/spread at the slit. It is also impossible for every point measured at the screen to NOT have differing frequency, because we KNOW that the Refractive Index works, and the different velocities needed for “plane wave” / “simultaneous arrival” REQUIRE differing path lengths. These are all EXPERIMENTAL FACTS. The ISL is about INTENSITY / # of photons reducing over time / space; it says NOTHING about curvature or plane waves, from the measurement point of view (although implied). Plane waves ARE the expected result of a spherical wave, as measured by a “from the center out, orthogonal” line of observers. The relativistic corrections to velocity exactly correspond to the variation in frequency that I am stating exist in the envelope, and multiplied by the RI to give progressively longer paths to the screen. I have fully established that these frequencies exist in our lasers, because of “mechanical” limitations, as well as the fact that NO-ONE, in any experiment, has used “mono-chromatic” light that is naively built into ALL current models.
4.) It is a technical point since plane waves infer far field and really interference is a function of the nearer Fresnel source effect.
OK, we are in partial agreement there. The plane waves do infer the far field, but I can not agree with “just Fresnel” as the sole source for interference. Fresnel, like the Fraunhoffer model/method, has its’ limits. I also agree that in the near field, we have another “version” of this phenomenon, with its’ own rules. The thing is, is that ALL of these manage to re-create the information, and “exchange” dynamically, the “image” or bit. You have mentioned a “standing wave” like phenomenon, which is probably where we are the closest in perspective. (since the standing wave is an “illusion” or “result of” superimposed “moving” waves, that are in phase to some degree)
Here again, is where our “phase dynamics” occurs. In the near field, the inner “field lines” are infinite, and never quite “break off”. The “Russian doll” analogy is a good one; the only difference in our views is “semantic”. I call these dolls, “harmonics”; because these are waves, and the wavelength (size) gets smaller, as the energy (frequency) gets larger, the same “self-scaling” is present. While the frequency becomes higher and higher in this “center”, the area in which the energy “extends” becomes smaller and smaller. We do NOT get anything “infinite” here, other than an “infinite set of limiting cancellations”. A good “approximation” of a point.
This works to conserve energy, even though it might not immediately be apparent. Mathematically, we remember that our “infinitesimal sub-set” (the harmonic series) can never be larger than the set it belongs to. When we use “ideal approximations”, no matter HOW “great” they are, they all fail at “unity” (n=1): ISL , E=hf , etc. What we typically find, is that n must be >1 for the model to “kick in”, with some “sensible/usable” data. What I have found though, is that frequency and wavelength do not suffer this limitation. In fact, not only does this simple and fundamental model “transverse unity” without a glitch, it creates its’ own metric, where the constant “ c “ is produced through symmetry (an-harmonic symmetry). This takes a little preparation, and is analogous to a “Dirac/exponential frequency comb”.
But there is also another model, with a history of being “forgotten”. It was “picked up” by QM, rolled around a bit, re-named, and tossed back into the “classical” pile. This will be the subject of my next post.
regards,
T.Roc
Is there really a difference between entanglement and wave coherence?
Is one purely an inverse phase rotational relationship, and the other a direct
"in phase" rotational relationship?
It is my understanding that "entanglement" refers to photons that are created into a pair by one photon causing the exitation decay of an atom which then creates the second photon.
Two photons cannot occupy the same space. The entangled second photon is slightly delayed in its travel behind the initiating photon. The phase of their spin is probably predictable but irrelevant.
The point to using this concept is that it provides a pair of photons for every detection. The pair is then used in such as way as to allow one of the pair to signal that there is another. This allows a non-destructive, non-interfering method of measuring the occurrance of the other of the pair.
The erasing then comes by using the information provided by the matched photon to ignore the detected photon and effectly erase the data and any interference pattern effect it would have had. It is a screening method for choosing what you want to look at and what you don't want interfering with your picture.
Or am I reading the wrong experiment?
LL-
QUOTE
Hi TRoc,
Your graph is "wrong", it should be time vs signal amplitude.
Your graph is "wrong", it should be time vs signal amplitude.
I guess I chose the wrong analogy for you, sorry. I think you should possibly re-read my posts, because the underlying truth transcends the graph parameters that I chose. I could also use frequency & wavelength: IF you "take a picture"/measurement of a wave, you are "freezing time"; WHEN t=0 , we get a "smear" in location. This is part of WHY we have the HUP (uncertainty). We all KNOW, that if we increase the "capture speed" of the camera (or sample rate), we get better resolution for very fast movement/oscillation. [Copenhagen says we can NOT get a better camera]
So, mathematically, we will "tweak" our measurement: we will measure at the speed of light. What the hell do I mean? We will "force" the object to be "still", while we measure its' frequency. Lo, and behold, we find that our "frequency" is now smeared!
Look at our parameters for the EM wave: the values for permittivity and permissibility will NEVER "line up", or have integer relationship. The ONLY real integer in the WHOLE model, is the speed of light itself. This "smearing" is a consequence of this asymmetry: if we measure "one side of the duality" with an integer, the other parameter will ALWAYS be "irrational". This also produces "quantum jumps", as a byproduct, when measuring the distance with a metric set to "1 meter" (integer). (or, equivalently, 1 sec., since c is constant)
So, if you "make me" use a single frequency, I can simply say, "well, then I'll measure from 3 points: the center (mean), and the extremes." When I do this, only the center measurement, has a straight path (shortest route) to our detector. This is the "fundamental" part of the measurement. The other lines that I draw, from the extremes to the detector, are LONGER; what shall I do with them?
Increase velocity, which must match the result of the RI adjustment, which requires a frequency that is different from our fundamental. Or, you can calculate the extra distance into the extra time, which allows for more cycles in the same (fundamental) time, which increases, by definition, the frequency.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hi TRoc, Your graph is "wrong", it should be time vs signal amplitude. |
I guess I chose the wrong analogy for you, sorry. I think you should possibly re-read my posts, because the underlying truth transcends the graph parameters that I chose. I could also use frequency & wavelength: IF you "take a picture"/measurement of a wave, you are "freezing time"; WHEN t=0 , we get a "smear" in location. This is part of WHY we have the HUP (uncertainty). We all KNOW, that if we increase the "capture speed" of the camera (or sample rate), we get better resolution for very fast movement/oscillation. [Copenhagen says we can NOT get a better camera]
So, mathematically, we will "tweak" our measurement: we will measure at the speed of light. What the hell do I mean? We will "force" the object to be "still", while we measure its' frequency. Lo, and behold, we find that our "frequency" is now smeared!
Look at our parameters for the EM wave: the values for permittivity and permissibility will NEVER "line up", or have integer relationship. The ONLY real integer in the WHOLE model, is the speed of light itself. This "smearing" is a consequence of this asymmetry: if we measure "one side of the duality" with an integer, the other parameter will ALWAYS be "irrational". This also produces "quantum jumps", as a byproduct, when measuring the distance with a metric set to "1 meter" (integer). (or, equivalently, 1 sec., since c is constant)
So, if you "make me" use a single frequency, I can simply say, "well, then I'll measure from 3 points: the center (mean), and the extremes." When I do this, only the center measurement, has a straight path (shortest route) to our detector. This is the "fundamental" part of the measurement. The other lines that I draw, from the extremes to the detector, are LONGER; what shall I do with them?
Increase velocity, which must match the result of the RI adjustment, which requires a frequency that is different from our fundamental. Or, you can calculate the extra distance into the extra time, which allows for more cycles in the same (fundamental) time, which increases, by definition, the frequency.
Siau Posted: Yesterday at 12:51 AM
Well, perhaps I was wrong, but it appeared that TRoc was trying to express that in the real universe any wave is really amongst a background of other radiation waves. The result of this would yield a non uniform sine function despite the fact that the photon wave never changed its energy level.
I didn't see why such was relevant to anything and perhaps it isn't. I was just pointing out that if any disturbance of a sine wave is present (and it always must be to some minute degree), the result will be as he stated in that the perfect sine wave, will not be perfect and never actually can be.
It is very astute of you to have reached that conclusion (the background of other radiation), since this is only indirectly implied by what I am saying. The reason that I am (and have been since my first post 240 pages ago) demonstrating this principle, is that I have a model that uses frequency to calculate resonance, as a dynamic that occurs "on the way" from source to detector. People have a hard time with this, because of the assumption that "frequency never changes". [even though this breaks the fundamental definition of the symbiotic relationship between frequency, wavelength, and velocity of the wave]
The "frequency never changes" assumption is completely based on the SAME observer, our "fundamental, shortest distance/time". [as well as the fact that that is always what is measured, a fact not missed by Bohr, and the Copenhagen interpretation] Fourier does not help this situation, by measuring from the center, out, at equal time intervals; in effect, transposing the dimensions. This transform does NOT capture the longitudinal oscillations, their phase patterns, the "quantum fractional revivals", or the interaction/resonance of said phenomenon.
We will have to include fractals here, with their recursive, self-scaling, constant angle change properties. Luckily, the "math kids" have already done the work.
The second part is towards a post by GE, now back a few pages. ( link )
GE-
QUOTE
1.) 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.
2.) 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
3.) Removal of packet side bands from individual photons would change the character of the quanta in a way I cannot predict.
4.) It is a technical point since plane waves infer far field and really interference is a function of the nearer Fresnel source effect.
5.) The other important point is "plane waves" cannot partake in the ISL.
6.) .. there are no "colors" other than the base "color".
7.) E = hf seems to be the rule until otherwise contradicted.
2.) 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
3.) Removal of packet side bands from individual photons would change the character of the quanta in a way I cannot predict.
4.) It is a technical point since plane waves infer far field and really interference is a function of the nearer Fresnel source effect.
5.) The other important point is "plane waves" cannot partake in the ISL.
6.) .. there are no "colors" other than the base "color".
7.) E = hf seems to be the rule until otherwise contradicted.
(these are not in any order)
The easiest first:
6,7.) ..there are no "colors" other than the base "color". (and) E = hf seems to be the rule until otherwise contradicted.
We are in agreement already on these. See previous/recent post to LL.
1.) 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.
First, I did not say (or imply, I hope) that Fourier transform relies on the RI. Furthermore, I also did not mean to imply that the RI must be the cause here. The main point was, that the extra time needed for waves to get to our first minimum, or second peak (off axis) is very tiny. Only a very tiny change in frequency is needed, and the RI for that frequency will “dilate” our measurement, or Doppler shift if you will, for observers AT our first minimum, and second peak; for them, these waves arrive simultaneously, creating indistinguishably, a pre-requisite for interference. This is (hopefully) a bridge that we can build to gap QM and SR. I am sorry, but I can not give any “references” for my idea here, other than “IT WORKS” (so far). I am saying that the RI allows (demands) for a velocity change, different for each frequency present,
3.) Removal of packet side bands from individual photons would change the character of the quanta in a way I cannot predict.
De-modulating will have no effect on the carrier wave; this is what allows us to make use of the effect. Even with “single photons”, models say that there is a spherical expansion. What we would call “the photon” is inside this space, completely “entangled” with its’ geometric phase pattern. That fact allows absorption/collapse anywhere along the spherical front, with the original information intact. The end frequency is reproduced… there is no conflict with E = (n) h f .
5.) The other important point is "plane waves" cannot partake in the ISL.
How about some relativity? Our screen is made up of MANY observers, all in ONE plane. Light from the “new source” (slits) will reach ALL points on the screen at the same time, in that model. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the spherical wave to NOT form into a plane wave, after being diffracted/spread at the slit. It is also impossible for every point measured at the screen to NOT have differing frequency, because we KNOW that the Refractive Index works, and the different velocities needed for “plane wave” / “simultaneous arrival” REQUIRE differing path lengths. These are all EXPERIMENTAL FACTS. The ISL is about INTENSITY / # of photons reducing over time / space; it says NOTHING about curvature or plane waves, from the measurement point of view (although implied). Plane waves ARE the expected result of a spherical wave, as measured by a “from the center out, orthogonal” line of observers. The relativistic corrections to velocity exactly correspond to the variation in frequency that I am stating exist in the envelope, and multiplied by the RI to give progressively longer paths to the screen. I have fully established that these frequencies exist in our lasers, because of “mechanical” limitations, as well as the fact that NO-ONE, in any experiment, has used “mono-chromatic” light that is naively built into ALL current models.
4.) It is a technical point since plane waves infer far field and really interference is a function of the nearer Fresnel source effect.
OK, we are in partial agreement there. The plane waves do infer the far field, but I can not agree with “just Fresnel” as the sole source for interference. Fresnel, like the Fraunhoffer model/method, has its’ limits. I also agree that in the near field, we have another “version” of this phenomenon, with its’ own rules. The thing is, is that ALL of these manage to re-create the information, and “exchange” dynamically, the “image” or bit. You have mentioned a “standing wave” like phenomenon, which is probably where we are the closest in perspective. (since the standing wave is an “illusion” or “result of” superimposed “moving” waves, that are in phase to some degree)
Here again, is where our “phase dynamics” occurs. In the near field, the inner “field lines” are infinite, and never quite “break off”. The “Russian doll” analogy is a good one; the only difference in our views is “semantic”. I call these dolls, “harmonics”; because these are waves, and the wavelength (size) gets smaller, as the energy (frequency) gets larger, the same “self-scaling” is present. While the frequency becomes higher and higher in this “center”, the area in which the energy “extends” becomes smaller and smaller. We do NOT get anything “infinite” here, other than an “infinite set of limiting cancellations”. A good “approximation” of a point.
This works to conserve energy, even though it might not immediately be apparent. Mathematically, we remember that our “infinitesimal sub-set” (the harmonic series) can never be larger than the set it belongs to. When we use “ideal approximations”, no matter HOW “great” they are, they all fail at “unity” (n=1): ISL , E=hf , etc. What we typically find, is that n must be >1 for the model to “kick in”, with some “sensible/usable” data. What I have found though, is that frequency and wavelength do not suffer this limitation. In fact, not only does this simple and fundamental model “transverse unity” without a glitch, it creates its’ own metric, where the constant “ c “ is produced through symmetry (an-harmonic symmetry). This takes a little preparation, and is analogous to a “Dirac/exponential frequency comb”.
But there is also another model, with a history of being “forgotten”. It was “picked up” by QM, rolled around a bit, re-named, and tossed back into the “classical” pile. This will be the subject of my next post.
regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE (Laserlight+Aug 5 2007, 04:03 PM)
Is there really a difference between entanglement and wave coherence?
Is one purely an inverse phase rotational relationship, and the other a direct
"in phase" rotational relationship?
It is my understanding that "entanglement" refers to photons that are created into a pair by one photon causing the exitation decay of an atom which then creates the second photon.
Two photons cannot occupy the same space. The entangled second photon is slightly delayed in its travel behind the initiating photon. The phase of their spin is probably predictable but irrelevant.
The point to using this concept is that it provides a pair of photons for every detection. The pair is then used in such as way as to allow one of the pair to signal that there is another. This allows a non-destructive, non-interfering method of measuring the occurrance of the other of the pair.
The erasing then comes by using the information provided by the matched photon to ignore the detected photon and effectly erase the data and any interference pattern effect it would have had. It is a screening method for choosing what you want to look at and what you don't want interfering with your picture.
Or am I reading the wrong experiment?
Hi TRoc,
I appreciate your "passion" in defending your position, but I still do not
necessarily agree with some of the proposals/statements that you have made.
When t=0, there will not be a smearing of location, because time and position
will aways maintain relavance between them. Time and location have
mutual dependencies, and will maintain a fixed linear ratio, in a linear environment.
Non-linear "influences" alter this ratio dynamic.
What is of fundamental importance, is the idea of ratio's. If the
mathematical relationships that create the fixed ratio's maintain a constant result
between them, then their numerical values can change, but the resultant ratio
will always remain the same.
This may be off topic, but I will use it to provide context. Mathematically, "Pi" is
always "pi" regardless of the circumference of a circle. The relationship that exists
between the circumference and the radius will always yield the ratio of pi.
"Pi" is relative to the geometry of a circle, regardless of the size of the circle
observed from any orthogonal centerpoint of reference, to the plane of the circle.
When there is a change in orientation from the normal (non-orthogonal), the
system becomes non-linear, because the relationship of the geometry changes,
and the ratio between circumference and radius is no longer constant, when
viewed from a different relative plane of orientation. The ratio changes,
according to the relative point of perspective.
Just musing:
LL
I appreciate your "passion" in defending your position, but I still do not
necessarily agree with some of the proposals/statements that you have made.
When t=0, there will not be a smearing of location, because time and position
will aways maintain relavance between them. Time and location have
mutual dependencies, and will maintain a fixed linear ratio, in a linear environment.
Non-linear "influences" alter this ratio dynamic.
What is of fundamental importance, is the idea of ratio's. If the
mathematical relationships that create the fixed ratio's maintain a constant result
between them, then their numerical values can change, but the resultant ratio
will always remain the same.
This may be off topic, but I will use it to provide context. Mathematically, "Pi" is
always "pi" regardless of the circumference of a circle. The relationship that exists
between the circumference and the radius will always yield the ratio of pi.
"Pi" is relative to the geometry of a circle, regardless of the size of the circle
observed from any orthogonal centerpoint of reference, to the plane of the circle.
When there is a change in orientation from the normal (non-orthogonal), the
system becomes non-linear, because the relationship of the geometry changes,
and the ratio between circumference and radius is no longer constant, when
viewed from a different relative plane of orientation. The ratio changes,
according to the relative point of perspective.
Just musing:
LL
Hi Siau,
You are about to get a lecture from Good Elf about boson states being able
to occupy the same space ad infinitum. I will let him explain.
Just keep in mind the idea of intensity. Intensity is a measurement of amplitude,
where multiple photon's (bosons) occupy the same space at the same time.
It is the point of constructive phase superposition of the waves.
Re: phase of their spin, the whole idea of "spooky action at a distance" (entanglement)
is that if you change the spin of one remotely entangled wave state, that the
other one changes in the opposite direction, even though they are not
physically connected.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
Two photons cannot occupy the same space. The entangled second photon is slightly delayed in its travel behind the initiating photon. The phase of their spin is probably predictable but irrelevant.
You are about to get a lecture from Good Elf about boson states being able
to occupy the same space ad infinitum. I will let him explain.
Just keep in mind the idea of intensity. Intensity is a measurement of amplitude,
where multiple photon's (bosons) occupy the same space at the same time.
It is the point of constructive phase superposition of the waves.
Re: phase of their spin, the whole idea of "spooky action at a distance" (entanglement)
is that if you change the spin of one remotely entangled wave state, that the
other one changes in the opposite direction, even though they are not
physically connected.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Aug 5 2007, 02:39 PM)
Hi Neil,
Once a relationship is established, it will always remain viable, unless
something physically acts to change that relationship.
Twins will aways be twins, independent of where they are located. If you step this
up, to the scale of coherent waves, the coherency relationship between coherent
photons will always remain the same, while propagating in the same medium, until
the relationship is ended/changed by the process of detection, or the phase
relationship changes.
The implications of this phenomenon are, that the coherency of discrete photon
wave functions will exist, as long as their phase/timing relationship remains the
same. If the phase/timing relationship that exists between them is
changed/delayed, the out of phase photons are no longer "coherent", and their
wave energies will interfere when non-linearly superposed in the presence of a
physical signal mixing medium. This is the point of signal interference.
Comments?
LL
If the particles that were correlated from past relationships interacted with particles with known quantum states that were all coherent, some of their phase properties might be remembered by the new system. If the same quantum spin were added to each particle it would be possible to figure out what spins they had in the past.
Is that how slow light works? A Bose Einstein condensate with known quantum properties interacts with the light ray in such a way that its' informational content is preserved?
Once a relationship is established, it will always remain viable, unless
something physically acts to change that relationship.
Twins will aways be twins, independent of where they are located. If you step this
up, to the scale of coherent waves, the coherency relationship between coherent
photons will always remain the same, while propagating in the same medium, until
the relationship is ended/changed by the process of detection, or the phase
relationship changes.
The implications of this phenomenon are, that the coherency of discrete photon
wave functions will exist, as long as their phase/timing relationship remains the
same. If the phase/timing relationship that exists between them is
changed/delayed, the out of phase photons are no longer "coherent", and their
wave energies will interfere when non-linearly superposed in the presence of a
physical signal mixing medium. This is the point of signal interference.
Comments?
LL
If the particles that were correlated from past relationships interacted with particles with known quantum states that were all coherent, some of their phase properties might be remembered by the new system. If the same quantum spin were added to each particle it would be possible to figure out what spins they had in the past.
Is that how slow light works? A Bose Einstein condensate with known quantum properties interacts with the light ray in such a way that its' informational content is preserved?
Minor point .. we have two delayed choice quantum eraser experiments in circulation
Here..
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm
and here
http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/
The Wiki entry now refers to the second one whereas it used to refer to the first one. This will cause confusion if one looks back at discussion of the 'DCQE' which reference the Wiki page 'cos it's changed.
Best wishes - C2.
To save duplication .. there's a quantum entanglement thread here:-
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=226346
Here..
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm
and here
http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/
The Wiki entry now refers to the second one whereas it used to refer to the first one. This will cause confusion if one looks back at discussion of the 'DCQE' which reference the Wiki page 'cos it's changed.
Best wishes - C2.
To save duplication .. there's a quantum entanglement thread here:-
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=226346
Hi Neil,
I agree. Isn't this effect, that you have stated, how spin direction is detected
by anaytical equipment? The arriving particle/wave imparts its spin and
phase information to the atom's of the detection apparatus/equipment that is doing
the detecting, and being amplified to observable levels. It is a quantum state
amplification "chain reaction".
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
If the particles that were correlated from past relationships interacted with particles with known quantum states that were all coherent, some of their phase properties might be remembered by the new system. If the same quantum spin were added to each particle it would be possible to figure out what spins they had in the past.
I agree. Isn't this effect, that you have stated, how spin direction is detected
by anaytical equipment? The arriving particle/wave imparts its spin and
phase information to the atom's of the detection apparatus/equipment that is doing
the detecting, and being amplified to observable levels. It is a quantum state
amplification "chain reaction".
Comments?
LL
Hi LL et al,
Try my post here..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=235652
.. If it gets through the polarisation is whatever and if it didn't it must have been the other .. hence we can know the state of the other photon
For even more fun I attempted to explain one of the delayed choice jobs here:-
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=235719
.. discussion welcome .. maybe on that thread though?
-Best wishes - C2.
Try my post here..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=235652
.. If it gets through the polarisation is whatever and if it didn't it must have been the other .. hence we can know the state of the other photon
For even more fun I attempted to explain one of the delayed choice jobs here:-
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=235719
.. discussion welcome .. maybe on that thread though?
-Best wishes - C2.
Hi all,
LL-
Well, that is the model that we have to work with. If you wish to make your own "kind" of measurement, to replace frequency and wavelength, that is your choice. If you want to work with the system that we have in place, you have to accept the basic parameters. IE. 1+1=2 That's about how basic this is; if you want to change it, it is possible, but you could not then say to someone else, who was using that system, that their answer was wrong. It is right, within the model.
1 cycle has a length between crests; this is our wave-length.
This distance is from point A to point B, let's say that distance is 700nm, "red" light.
The wave, as a "singular entity" extends over this 700nm, HOWEVER..
The single cycle consists of 2 phases, creating a node, and an anti-node.
THESE PHENOMENON DO NOT EXIST AT THE SAME TIME.
Frequency, therefore, ALSO is made from these 2 phases, of a single cycle.
Frequency and wavelength ALWAYS have an inverse relationship. If you consider one of them as "singular", the other one will have a dualistic "smear", because of the phase separation.
A "single frequency" wave IS spread over its' wavelength distance, 700nm in our example. It requires the WHOLE distance to exist; the 1/2 phase = 1/2 cycle = 2x frequency.
The inverse of this situation is clear:
A "single location in space", IE. a "wavelength" with no length, but a "point" in space-time, MUST have a change in frequency, otherwise we LOSE the consistent ratio that you agree that we also MUST have.
Let's try an example.
We can say that we have a "cavity" of some sort, that is much larger than our wave, and give it a set of coordinates. We are just going to "draw it" as a single cycle, near the center of the "box".
If the wavelength of the cycle extends from A at 2300nm, to B at 3000nm, and we have "1 nanometer resolution", we could then say (according to your suggestion) that the wave existed at a point "in between", C at 2650nm.
We are literally giving it a "one unit" limit, "forcing it to stay still", as I put it.
So, if you still agree that c = f x w , then what must the frequency be, in order to = c, when the wavelength is "1nm"?
2.99792458e+17
What was the frequency supposed to be?
4.2827494e+14
This is the sensible, and correct answer. If you "force" (in your mind) the wave to have "one point" in space, or time, you lose the workings of the model.
The wave-with-no-length is just as impossible as the frequency-with-no-rate. If there is no change in distance, there is no change in time: we have not made a measurement. The "frequency" of a wave of zero length is also zero. (as would be its' velocity) Plugging a "one" into it will not get us out of this mess either (gives the "other" infinity). This is the same limitation that ISL, and many other ideal models have.
This is not optional; it is the way that waves are measured.
ciao,
T.Roc
LL-
QUOTE
I appreciate your "passion" in defending your position, but I still do not
necessarily agree with some of the proposals/statements that you have made.
When t=0, there will not be a smearing of location, because time and position
will aways maintain relevance between them.
necessarily agree with some of the proposals/statements that you have made.
When t=0, there will not be a smearing of location, because time and position
will aways maintain relevance between them.
Well, that is the model that we have to work with. If you wish to make your own "kind" of measurement, to replace frequency and wavelength, that is your choice. If you want to work with the system that we have in place, you have to accept the basic parameters. IE. 1+1=2 That's about how basic this is; if you want to change it, it is possible, but you could not then say to someone else, who was using that system, that their answer was wrong. It is right, within the model.
1 cycle has a length between crests; this is our wave-length.
This distance is from point A to point B, let's say that distance is 700nm, "red" light.
The wave, as a "singular entity" extends over this 700nm, HOWEVER..
The single cycle consists of 2 phases, creating a node, and an anti-node.
THESE PHENOMENON DO NOT EXIST AT THE SAME TIME.
Frequency, therefore, ALSO is made from these 2 phases, of a single cycle.
Frequency and wavelength ALWAYS have an inverse relationship. If you consider one of them as "singular", the other one will have a dualistic "smear", because of the phase separation.
A "single frequency" wave IS spread over its' wavelength distance, 700nm in our example. It requires the WHOLE distance to exist; the 1/2 phase = 1/2 cycle = 2x frequency.
The inverse of this situation is clear:
A "single location in space", IE. a "wavelength" with no length, but a "point" in space-time, MUST have a change in frequency, otherwise we LOSE the consistent ratio that you agree that we also MUST have.
Let's try an example.
We can say that we have a "cavity" of some sort, that is much larger than our wave, and give it a set of coordinates. We are just going to "draw it" as a single cycle, near the center of the "box".
If the wavelength of the cycle extends from A at 2300nm, to B at 3000nm, and we have "1 nanometer resolution", we could then say (according to your suggestion) that the wave existed at a point "in between", C at 2650nm.
We are literally giving it a "one unit" limit, "forcing it to stay still", as I put it.
So, if you still agree that c = f x w , then what must the frequency be, in order to = c, when the wavelength is "1nm"?
2.99792458e+17
What was the frequency supposed to be?
4.2827494e+14
This is the sensible, and correct answer. If you "force" (in your mind) the wave to have "one point" in space, or time, you lose the workings of the model.
The wave-with-no-length is just as impossible as the frequency-with-no-rate. If there is no change in distance, there is no change in time: we have not made a measurement. The "frequency" of a wave of zero length is also zero. (as would be its' velocity) Plugging a "one" into it will not get us out of this mess either (gives the "other" infinity). This is the same limitation that ISL, and many other ideal models have.
This is not optional; it is the way that waves are measured.
ciao,
T.Roc
Hello Good Elf, Confused2, Laserlight, et al
Have a look at this thread http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=16730 (if you haven't done so already).
Could this experiment be explained by any known theories of light prorogation? (Other than a modified Huygens)
Have a look at this thread http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=16730 (if you haven't done so already).
Could this experiment be explained by any known theories of light prorogation? (Other than a modified Huygens)
Hi TRoc et al,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
Frequency and wavelength ALWAYS have an inverse relationship.
If we look at the plot of counts in the single photon DSE .. obviously all we see is counts. We can use 'wavelength' to predict the peaks or conversely we can use the DSE to actually measures wavelength. The counts (from memory) are in the region of a few hundred per second .. clearly this is not what you mean by the 'frequency of light'.
Can I suggest an interpretation of frequency and you tell me where you think I'm going wrong ..
When we find a relatively large number of photons at our detector we call this a 'one' and when we have relatively few we call this a 'zero'. If we had a great many photons and a fast enough detector and counter we could measure how many ones and zeros we get in the course of one second - and that would be the frequency of light. Obviously the photons have to be 'coherent' otherwise they'd arrive at random and we'd just be looking at noise with no discernable 'ones' and 'zeros'.
At radio frequencies we can actually count the 'ones' and 'zeros' as defined above. Most man-made radio sources produce 'coherent' waves .. (not much point in transmitting noise) .. so for a single frequency the number of photons varies cyclically with time .. Laserlight (et al) like to call the counts (say) a 'voltage' and he claims the 'voltage' varies with time .. hence he has an interpretation where the 'wave' is made up of alternating voltages which vary at the frequency of the wave. Only when you start to look at single photons does this 'count' interpretation of frequency become problematic.
Your interpretation of frequency?
Best wishes - C2.
If we look at the plot of counts in the single photon DSE .. obviously all we see is counts. We can use 'wavelength' to predict the peaks or conversely we can use the DSE to actually measures wavelength. The counts (from memory) are in the region of a few hundred per second .. clearly this is not what you mean by the 'frequency of light'.
Can I suggest an interpretation of frequency and you tell me where you think I'm going wrong ..
When we find a relatively large number of photons at our detector we call this a 'one' and when we have relatively few we call this a 'zero'. If we had a great many photons and a fast enough detector and counter we could measure how many ones and zeros we get in the course of one second - and that would be the frequency of light. Obviously the photons have to be 'coherent' otherwise they'd arrive at random and we'd just be looking at noise with no discernable 'ones' and 'zeros'.
At radio frequencies we can actually count the 'ones' and 'zeros' as defined above. Most man-made radio sources produce 'coherent' waves .. (not much point in transmitting noise) .. so for a single frequency the number of photons varies cyclically with time .. Laserlight (et al) like to call the counts (say) a 'voltage' and he claims the 'voltage' varies with time .. hence he has an interpretation where the 'wave' is made up of alternating voltages which vary at the frequency of the wave. Only when you start to look at single photons does this 'count' interpretation of frequency become problematic.
Your interpretation of frequency?
Best wishes - C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 6 2007, 04:08 PM)
When we find a relatively large number of photons at our detector we call this a 'one' and when we have relatively few we call this a 'zero'. If we had a great many photons and a fast enough detector and counter we could measure how many ones and zeros we get in the course of one second - and that would be the frequency of light. Obviously the photons have to be 'coherent' otherwise they'd arrive at random and we'd just be looking at noise with no discernable 'ones' and 'zeros'.
That would be "photons per second"
Are you saying that the frenquency of a continuos light wave equally represtents the number of photons per second? One wave = one photon?
That would be "photons per second"
Are you saying that the frenquency of a continuos light wave equally represtents the number of photons per second? One wave = one photon?
Hi C2, TRoc, et al,
C2 said:
I can visualize Maxwell turning over in his grave....
C2, are you denying that the E component of an EM (Electro-Magnetic) represents
an oscillating voltage field? The voltage component "cycles"
since there is field "spin" as the photon rotates about its axis. The electric
field intensity varies, over time, otherwise it would be a DC voltage component and
there would not be a varying M complementary field component.
In the case of a photon sinewave, the DC component is the average centerline
reference point of the oscillating EM waves, that rides at some average DC value
above a ZPE ground reference relative to vacuum space. Physical matter
represents a quantum voltage sink, relative to space.
On an oscilloscope, we view the voltage field oscillations, over a time base to
see a sinewave. You know this already. Why is there a problem with a
single photon? After all, isn't the voltage amplitude of an EM wave just the
superposition of numerous, individual, coherent photons all summing together
to form a wave's signal intensity?
If it works in one direction, it also works when you regress the signal amplitude
down to the individual photon. Conservation of energy.
------
TRoc, I am waiting for input from others before commenting on your argument.
--------
Siau, you are correct. Big difference in photon's per second vs. wave frequency.
Comments?
LL
C2 said:
QUOTE
Laserlight (et al) like to call the counts (say) a 'voltage' and he claims the 'voltage' varies with time .. hence he has an interpretation where the 'wave' is made up of alternating voltages which vary at the frequency of the wave. Only when you start to look at single photons does this 'count' interpretation of frequency become problematic.
I can visualize Maxwell turning over in his grave....
C2, are you denying that the E component of an EM (Electro-Magnetic) represents
an oscillating voltage field? The voltage component "cycles"
since there is field "spin" as the photon rotates about its axis. The electric
field intensity varies, over time, otherwise it would be a DC voltage component and
there would not be a varying M complementary field component.
In the case of a photon sinewave, the DC component is the average centerline
reference point of the oscillating EM waves, that rides at some average DC value
above a ZPE ground reference relative to vacuum space. Physical matter
represents a quantum voltage sink, relative to space.
On an oscilloscope, we view the voltage field oscillations, over a time base to
see a sinewave. You know this already. Why is there a problem with a
single photon? After all, isn't the voltage amplitude of an EM wave just the
superposition of numerous, individual, coherent photons all summing together
to form a wave's signal intensity?
If it works in one direction, it also works when you regress the signal amplitude
down to the individual photon. Conservation of energy.
------
TRoc, I am waiting for input from others before commenting on your argument.
--------
Siau, you are correct. Big difference in photon's per second vs. wave frequency.
Comments?
LL
Hi Siau,Laserlight,
I'm sorry my post wasn't clear .. hopefully my reply to laserlight will clarify the point.
I'm sorry my post wasn't clear .. hopefully my reply to laserlight will clarify the point.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
After all, isn't the voltage amplitude of an EM wave just the superposition of numerous, individual, coherent photons all summing together to form a wave's signal intensity?
We sort of agree but somehow I don't think that will help very much. Can we agree that we have no way to extract any meaning from a 'voltage field' except by looking very closely at when (and where) we detect photons .. is there anything else we might be able to do? (I'm not denying the possibility but you are the expert on EM so I'll leave it to you to suggest it).
Let's say we have an EM wave of frequency (say) 1 Mhz. Taking your superposition argument as stated. Obviously if we are going to measure the distribution of photons within the wave we need to sample the wave very much faster than 1/F. Let's sample every ps .. a thousand samples over every wavelength. If we start at a peak then lets suggest the number the number of photons arriving during our 1ps sample is (say) 1,000. A quarter of a cycle later we expect 500 photons (give or take a factor of sqrt(2)). Half a cycle later (we're at zero here) we expect no photons .. agree .. or something else? During the negative voltage .. what? A negative number of photons? Opposite momentum? Spin?
Regardless of the meaning of the negative excursion we might agree that (within this model) the cycle repeats every 1us and it is this (cyclic) variation of photon counts that tells us the frequency.
The problem with a single photon is that it has no buddies following on behind in a nice coherent wave so no possibility of repetition so no rate of repetition.
Or do you propose something else?
Best wishes - C2.
Afterthought .. strangely .. in the DSE pattern .. even for a single photon .. there IS evidence of a repeated pattern .. but unless we can see it we stand no chance of explaining it.
We sort of agree but somehow I don't think that will help very much. Can we agree that we have no way to extract any meaning from a 'voltage field' except by looking very closely at when (and where) we detect photons .. is there anything else we might be able to do? (I'm not denying the possibility but you are the expert on EM so I'll leave it to you to suggest it).
Let's say we have an EM wave of frequency (say) 1 Mhz. Taking your superposition argument as stated. Obviously if we are going to measure the distribution of photons within the wave we need to sample the wave very much faster than 1/F. Let's sample every ps .. a thousand samples over every wavelength. If we start at a peak then lets suggest the number the number of photons arriving during our 1ps sample is (say) 1,000. A quarter of a cycle later we expect 500 photons (give or take a factor of sqrt(2)). Half a cycle later (we're at zero here) we expect no photons .. agree .. or something else? During the negative voltage .. what? A negative number of photons? Opposite momentum? Spin?
Regardless of the meaning of the negative excursion we might agree that (within this model) the cycle repeats every 1us and it is this (cyclic) variation of photon counts that tells us the frequency.
The problem with a single photon is that it has no buddies following on behind in a nice coherent wave so no possibility of repetition so no rate of repetition.
Or do you propose something else?
Best wishes - C2.
Afterthought .. strangely .. in the DSE pattern .. even for a single photon .. there IS evidence of a repeated pattern .. but unless we can see it we stand no chance of explaining it.
Hi Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, Siau, yquantum, "Why Not?", Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,
The "essence" of photons is they are "stationary states". While they are propagating they experience no "internal" changes (not even the passage of time) so no actual "process" can occur while they are propagating. The 'collapse of the "wavefunction" is the only time they can actually give up their internal qubits of information. I would go as far to say that there is absolutely no true particle property involved in any feature of the propagation process. It is true photons spread as part of a coherent boson state. All photons on the wavefront are in the one state because they share "Bose-Einstein Statistics". The spreading does not represent "change" but a gauge property of the Lorenz Gauge of Electromagnetism, this is a 'symmetry". A simplified view of a single elementary photon is the transform of the impulse function... the Sync function.
... Click to enlarge...
This is a result of the fact that all optical photons are the result of some "source impulse" in which individual photons are 'launched" from "elementary dipole radiators" in atomic shells. Some aspects of this "wavelet" are the area under the curve is not zero and classically it has not beginning and no end, it just trails off to imperceptible levels after long periods of time. What this means in practice is a photon's influence is not entirely localized around its "center" and this single photon could be detected at some distance from a source long before it arrives or long after it has passed... it actually depends on some property of the detector as to when it is actually detected.
Continuous Wave propagation is the vector sum of a large number of these "packets" co-moving and co-existing on the one wavefront. The voltage of the wave as detected by some probe will be a function of the intensity of the wave at a point where several photons are being summed to provide the "intensity envelope" of "several" photons being simultaneously absorbed. Successive wavefronts "sum" to a "Continuous wave" segment as shown in my illustration.
In the special case of one photon at a time on alternative wavefronts we have this possible arrangement where just one photon (individually date stamped) sum via the leading and trailing edges of the individual packet to a short segment of a sine wave. This illustration shows individually phase reversed photons in the summation.
... Click to enlarge...
For amplitude modulation of a "signal" several photons sum on the one wavefront to increase the amplitude or decrease the wavefront.
The other important fact to see is the actual photon packet in a vacuum does not actually vary with time... the variation in time we are seeing is like a bent coat hanger wire in the shape of a sync function being moved past the observer. The observer's sensor notices the voltage levels rise and fall in time but this is due to the way light is spreading at ©. Of course such fine detailed information about individual wave packets is not possible to know but the principle is correct and this behavior is seen in bulk properties of EM waves.
All photons superimpose their waveforms and the photons with the "same timestamp" are on the same wavefront together. What I am adding is that each photon shares "information" with all other photons on the same wavefront. The photons are spreading "along all available paths" but because they are in the one Boson state the impressed interferences from the distant reaches of the wavefront at one point on the wavefront "share" this information "holographically" with all of the other photons in that one wavefront with the "same timestamp". The result is a photon received anywhere is impressed with information about the deep regions elsewhere in the experiment. This is why the standing waves "impressed" in the emulsion of a photographic plate exposed using coherent light from a single coherent source contains much more information than just information of the source alone. It contains information from all points in the region of illumination of this light... including all sidelobes and modes.
This information 'modulates" the depth information as dynamic standing waves inside the photographic emulsion. If this information is also trapped as in holograms, information about the entire space can be recorded. The one difficulty is most of our sensor systems (including our eyes) do not record this depth information and so the way in which this complex phase information is recorded in a flat optical sensor has no depth information and therefore the detection of photons becomes a statistical function. All sensor systems other than holographic sensors have this attribute and out quantum theory has 'compressed" this additional information out of the data by forming cross products of the electric and magnetic fields at each of the detectors. These "projected" photons no longer contain any depth information and the depth information cannot be restored by any reverse process since the value of the complex quantity has been converted to a scalar intensity.
Recall quantum field theory has no path, no history nor individual event information. It is a theory of probabilities and the event is simply determined not by dynamics but the "throw of a die". One photon is as good as any other so it is not capable of recording this history or path of individual photons that lead to the standing waves you can see inside the emulsion of a hologram. With reference to the double Slit Experiment and what we can see at the screen... When you re-illuminate a hologram with coherent light of the same wavelength as the original light you do not get the simple pattern you see at the back screen. Certainly you do get "some of that" but more importantly you will also get the holographic information recovered through interferences from all other parts of the experiment.... Everything from all other paths. Yet this plate has been exposed through photons that travel "only" to the plate.
A more detailed investigation of this phenomenon could be seen here ....
A photon-like wavepacket with quantised properties based on classical Maxwell’s equations by John. E. Carroll (see figure 3 for a model)
Wed, 20 Sep 2006
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0609/0609156.pdf
Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory is required for a full understanding of this paper.
Cheers
The "essence" of photons is they are "stationary states". While they are propagating they experience no "internal" changes (not even the passage of time) so no actual "process" can occur while they are propagating. The 'collapse of the "wavefunction" is the only time they can actually give up their internal qubits of information. I would go as far to say that there is absolutely no true particle property involved in any feature of the propagation process. It is true photons spread as part of a coherent boson state. All photons on the wavefront are in the one state because they share "Bose-Einstein Statistics". The spreading does not represent "change" but a gauge property of the Lorenz Gauge of Electromagnetism, this is a 'symmetry". A simplified view of a single elementary photon is the transform of the impulse function... the Sync function.
... Click to enlarge...
This is a result of the fact that all optical photons are the result of some "source impulse" in which individual photons are 'launched" from "elementary dipole radiators" in atomic shells. Some aspects of this "wavelet" are the area under the curve is not zero and classically it has not beginning and no end, it just trails off to imperceptible levels after long periods of time. What this means in practice is a photon's influence is not entirely localized around its "center" and this single photon could be detected at some distance from a source long before it arrives or long after it has passed... it actually depends on some property of the detector as to when it is actually detected.
Continuous Wave propagation is the vector sum of a large number of these "packets" co-moving and co-existing on the one wavefront. The voltage of the wave as detected by some probe will be a function of the intensity of the wave at a point where several photons are being summed to provide the "intensity envelope" of "several" photons being simultaneously absorbed. Successive wavefronts "sum" to a "Continuous wave" segment as shown in my illustration.
In the special case of one photon at a time on alternative wavefronts we have this possible arrangement where just one photon (individually date stamped) sum via the leading and trailing edges of the individual packet to a short segment of a sine wave. This illustration shows individually phase reversed photons in the summation.
... Click to enlarge...
For amplitude modulation of a "signal" several photons sum on the one wavefront to increase the amplitude or decrease the wavefront.
The other important fact to see is the actual photon packet in a vacuum does not actually vary with time... the variation in time we are seeing is like a bent coat hanger wire in the shape of a sync function being moved past the observer. The observer's sensor notices the voltage levels rise and fall in time but this is due to the way light is spreading at ©. Of course such fine detailed information about individual wave packets is not possible to know but the principle is correct and this behavior is seen in bulk properties of EM waves.
All photons superimpose their waveforms and the photons with the "same timestamp" are on the same wavefront together. What I am adding is that each photon shares "information" with all other photons on the same wavefront. The photons are spreading "along all available paths" but because they are in the one Boson state the impressed interferences from the distant reaches of the wavefront at one point on the wavefront "share" this information "holographically" with all of the other photons in that one wavefront with the "same timestamp". The result is a photon received anywhere is impressed with information about the deep regions elsewhere in the experiment. This is why the standing waves "impressed" in the emulsion of a photographic plate exposed using coherent light from a single coherent source contains much more information than just information of the source alone. It contains information from all points in the region of illumination of this light... including all sidelobes and modes.
This information 'modulates" the depth information as dynamic standing waves inside the photographic emulsion. If this information is also trapped as in holograms, information about the entire space can be recorded. The one difficulty is most of our sensor systems (including our eyes) do not record this depth information and so the way in which this complex phase information is recorded in a flat optical sensor has no depth information and therefore the detection of photons becomes a statistical function. All sensor systems other than holographic sensors have this attribute and out quantum theory has 'compressed" this additional information out of the data by forming cross products of the electric and magnetic fields at each of the detectors. These "projected" photons no longer contain any depth information and the depth information cannot be restored by any reverse process since the value of the complex quantity has been converted to a scalar intensity.
Recall quantum field theory has no path, no history nor individual event information. It is a theory of probabilities and the event is simply determined not by dynamics but the "throw of a die". One photon is as good as any other so it is not capable of recording this history or path of individual photons that lead to the standing waves you can see inside the emulsion of a hologram. With reference to the double Slit Experiment and what we can see at the screen... When you re-illuminate a hologram with coherent light of the same wavelength as the original light you do not get the simple pattern you see at the back screen. Certainly you do get "some of that" but more importantly you will also get the holographic information recovered through interferences from all other parts of the experiment.... Everything from all other paths. Yet this plate has been exposed through photons that travel "only" to the plate.
A more detailed investigation of this phenomenon could be seen here ....
A photon-like wavepacket with quantised properties based on classical Maxwell’s equations by John. E. Carroll (see figure 3 for a model)
Wed, 20 Sep 2006
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0609/0609156.pdf
Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory is required for a full understanding of this paper.
Cheers
Hi C2,
I see where you are going, but you need to rethink your model.
If we start at a positive AC voltage PEAK, then 1/4 cycle later we will be at the
zero volts AC reference "centerline". 1/2 cycle after the first peak puts us at the negative AC voltage peak.
That technicality aside, 1st recall that a sinewave represents an alternating signal,
with phase angle dependency. Also, recall RMS DC voltage value of an alternating
sinewave voltage.
I am open to the interpretation/explanation of others, regarding what follows.
Wave amplitude is determined by the number of photons whose phase angles are
aligning into an additive superposition state at a specific instant in the timing
of the wave cycle. The total energy of the sinewave is located under the area of
the positive and negative sinewave curve excursions, over a 360 degree phase
angle rotation.
Starting from the DC reference average voltage line (zero volts AC), the sinewave
energy increases from the reference DC component RMS baseline level (zero volts
AC), which floats above some "absolute" zero DC voltage level reference.
From an AC voltage perspective, that DC volts average RMS baseline
represents [B]zero volts AC. As you know AC excursions above the DC
average voltage centerline are considered positive voltages, and excursions below
are considered negative voltages, from the perspective of the DC reference
centerline. These AC excursions represent phase angle "polarity" alignment
summations, that are referenced from the DC voltage centerline "x" axis, which
bisects a circle. Voltages above the x axis are considered positive voltages, and
any below the x axis is considered negative, from a Cartesian coordinate
perspective.
The Cartesian "x" axis represents the zero volts AC level. The Cartesian
"y" axis, where it crosses the x axis at coordinates (0,0) represents the
start of cycle time, zero time at "zero" volts AC.
You know this...just a refresher to keep things in perspective.
I see where you are going, but you need to rethink your model.
If we start at a positive AC voltage PEAK, then 1/4 cycle later we will be at the
zero volts AC reference "centerline". 1/2 cycle after the first peak puts us at the negative AC voltage peak.
That technicality aside, 1st recall that a sinewave represents an alternating signal,
with phase angle dependency. Also, recall RMS DC voltage value of an alternating
sinewave voltage.
I am open to the interpretation/explanation of others, regarding what follows.
Wave amplitude is determined by the number of photons whose phase angles are
aligning into an additive superposition state at a specific instant in the timing
of the wave cycle. The total energy of the sinewave is located under the area of
the positive and negative sinewave curve excursions, over a 360 degree phase
angle rotation.
Starting from the DC reference average voltage line (zero volts AC), the sinewave
energy increases from the reference DC component RMS baseline level (zero volts
AC), which floats above some "absolute" zero DC voltage level reference.
From an AC voltage perspective, that DC volts average RMS baseline
represents [B]zero volts AC. As you know AC excursions above the DC
average voltage centerline are considered positive voltages, and excursions below
are considered negative voltages, from the perspective of the DC reference
centerline. These AC excursions represent phase angle "polarity" alignment
summations, that are referenced from the DC voltage centerline "x" axis, which
bisects a circle. Voltages above the x axis are considered positive voltages, and
any below the x axis is considered negative, from a Cartesian coordinate
perspective.
The Cartesian "x" axis represents the zero volts AC level. The Cartesian
"y" axis, where it crosses the x axis at coordinates (0,0) represents the
start of cycle time, zero time at "zero" volts AC.
You know this...just a refresher to keep things in perspective.
Half a cycle later (we're at zero here) we expect no photons .. agree .. or something else? During the negative voltage .. what? A negative number of photons? Opposite momentum? Spin? Regardless of the meaning of the negative excursion we might agree that (within this model) the cycle repeats every 1us and it is this (cyclic) variation of photon counts that tells us the frequency.
The photons are travelling coherently together. It is their phase angle
relationships as they rotate, at any given point in time of the wavefunction, that
determines the wave amplitude.
Recall the idea about summing the photon's when they are in phase(constructive
interference). The phase angles, of the photons in the coherent wave, are rotating
nearly synchronously, as the wavefront propagates. Now consider what happens
when the photons cycle out of phase with one another, after a peak summation
level has been reached.
The photons are still propagating as components of the wavefunction, and are
present at the AC zero volts reference point! It is just that their superpositions
are summing to zero volts AC (destructive interference), because all their phase
angles are out of phase with one another, and cancelling the total AC energy
component of the wave. However, the DC voltage level component is still there.
Basically, they are all "out of phase" with each other, and sum to zero volts AC,
at that instant of x axis crossover, until the "leaders" of the slightly out of phase
photons (recall my proposed "photon's slightly out of phase" propagating
wavefront model) start rotating into the negative quadrant below the "x"
axis, that represents a negative voltage.
The wave's phase rotation continues, constantly cycling in and out of phase
alignment, according to the phase relationships of the photons that comprise the
wavefunction.
This is true for a "chopped" ray, or individual photon wavelets, that have interrupted "flow".
Comments? Other opinions, discussion welcomed.
LL
QUOTE
Let's sample every ps .. a thousand samples over every wavelength. If we start at a peak then lets suggest the number the number of photons arriving during our 1ps sample is (say) 1,000. A quarter of a cycle later we expect 500 photons (give or take a factor of sqrt(2)).
I see where you are going, but you need to rethink your model.
If we start at a positive AC voltage PEAK, then 1/4 cycle later we will be at the
zero volts AC reference "centerline". 1/2 cycle after the first peak puts us at the negative AC voltage peak.
That technicality aside, 1st recall that a sinewave represents an alternating signal,
with phase angle dependency. Also, recall RMS DC voltage value of an alternating
sinewave voltage.
I am open to the interpretation/explanation of others, regarding what follows.
Wave amplitude is determined by the number of photons whose phase angles are
aligning into an additive superposition state at a specific instant in the timing
of the wave cycle. The total energy of the sinewave is located under the area of
the positive and negative sinewave curve excursions, over a 360 degree phase
angle rotation.
Starting from the DC reference average voltage line (zero volts AC), the sinewave
energy increases from the reference DC component RMS baseline level (zero volts
AC), which floats above some "absolute" zero DC voltage level reference.
From an AC voltage perspective, that DC volts average RMS baseline
represents [B]zero volts AC. As you know AC excursions above the DC
average voltage centerline are considered positive voltages, and excursions below
are considered negative voltages, from the perspective of the DC reference
centerline. These AC excursions represent phase angle "polarity" alignment
summations, that are referenced from the DC voltage centerline "x" axis, which
bisects a circle. Voltages above the x axis are considered positive voltages, and
any below the x axis is considered negative, from a Cartesian coordinate
perspective.
The Cartesian "x" axis represents the zero volts AC level. The Cartesian
"y" axis, where it crosses the x axis at coordinates (0,0) represents the
start of cycle time, zero time at "zero" volts AC.
You know this...just a refresher to keep things in perspective.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Let's sample every ps .. a thousand samples over every wavelength. If we start at a peak then lets suggest the number the number of photons arriving during our 1ps sample is (say) 1,000. A quarter of a cycle later we expect 500 photons (give or take a factor of sqrt(2)). |
I see where you are going, but you need to rethink your model.
If we start at a positive AC voltage PEAK, then 1/4 cycle later we will be at the
zero volts AC reference "centerline". 1/2 cycle after the first peak puts us at the negative AC voltage peak.
That technicality aside, 1st recall that a sinewave represents an alternating signal,
with phase angle dependency. Also, recall RMS DC voltage value of an alternating
sinewave voltage.
I am open to the interpretation/explanation of others, regarding what follows.
Wave amplitude is determined by the number of photons whose phase angles are
aligning into an additive superposition state at a specific instant in the timing
of the wave cycle. The total energy of the sinewave is located under the area of
the positive and negative sinewave curve excursions, over a 360 degree phase
angle rotation.
Starting from the DC reference average voltage line (zero volts AC), the sinewave
energy increases from the reference DC component RMS baseline level (zero volts
AC), which floats above some "absolute" zero DC voltage level reference.
From an AC voltage perspective, that DC volts average RMS baseline
represents [B]zero volts AC. As you know AC excursions above the DC
average voltage centerline are considered positive voltages, and excursions below
are considered negative voltages, from the perspective of the DC reference
centerline. These AC excursions represent phase angle "polarity" alignment
summations, that are referenced from the DC voltage centerline "x" axis, which
bisects a circle. Voltages above the x axis are considered positive voltages, and
any below the x axis is considered negative, from a Cartesian coordinate
perspective.
The Cartesian "x" axis represents the zero volts AC level. The Cartesian
"y" axis, where it crosses the x axis at coordinates (0,0) represents the
start of cycle time, zero time at "zero" volts AC.
You know this...just a refresher to keep things in perspective.
Half a cycle later (we're at zero here) we expect no photons .. agree .. or something else? During the negative voltage .. what? A negative number of photons? Opposite momentum? Spin? Regardless of the meaning of the negative excursion we might agree that (within this model) the cycle repeats every 1us and it is this (cyclic) variation of photon counts that tells us the frequency.
The photons are travelling coherently together. It is their phase angle
relationships as they rotate, at any given point in time of the wavefunction, that
determines the wave amplitude.
Recall the idea about summing the photon's when they are in phase(constructive
interference). The phase angles, of the photons in the coherent wave, are rotating
nearly synchronously, as the wavefront propagates. Now consider what happens
when the photons cycle out of phase with one another, after a peak summation
level has been reached.
The photons are still propagating as components of the wavefunction, and are
present at the AC zero volts reference point! It is just that their superpositions
are summing to zero volts AC (destructive interference), because all their phase
angles are out of phase with one another, and cancelling the total AC energy
component of the wave. However, the DC voltage level component is still there.
Basically, they are all "out of phase" with each other, and sum to zero volts AC,
at that instant of x axis crossover, until the "leaders" of the slightly out of phase
photons (recall my proposed "photon's slightly out of phase" propagating
wavefront model) start rotating into the negative quadrant below the "x"
axis, that represents a negative voltage.
The wave's phase rotation continues, constantly cycling in and out of phase
alignment, according to the phase relationships of the photons that comprise the
wavefunction.
QUOTE
The problem with a single photon is that it has no buddies following on behind in a nice coherent wave so no possibility of repetition so no rate of repetition.
This is true for a "chopped" ray, or individual photon wavelets, that have interrupted "flow".
Comments? Other opinions, discussion welcomed.
LL
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 6 2007, 11:27 PM)
The "essence" of photons is they are "stationary states". While they are propagating they experience no "internal" changes (not even the passage of time) so no actual "process" can occur while they are propagating. The 'collapse of the "wavefunction" is the only time they can actually give up their internal qubits of information. I would go as far to say that there is absolutely no true particle property involved in any feature of the propagation process.
That's quite a speculation isn't it?
From what I can tell, Quatum physics embraces 2 funamental concepts.
1) the quantum packeting of energy required for transfers
2) statistical views to emphasize uncertanty and what you cannot know and thus should look no further.
That's quite a speculation isn't it?
From what I can tell, Quatum physics embraces 2 funamental concepts.
1) the quantum packeting of energy required for transfers
2) statistical views to emphasize uncertanty and what you cannot know and thus should look no further.
Hi Siau,
QUOTE (Siau+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
[...]The "essence" of photons is they are "stationary states". While they are propagating they experience no "internal" changes (not even the passage of time) so no actual "process" can occur while they are propagating.[...]
That's quite a speculation isn't it?...
That's quite a speculation isn't it?...
If it is a speculation then it is one that I heard Roger Penrose make on a Radio Broadcast a fortnight ago. Of course I have been saying these things for quite some time.
Hi Siau, GE, and all,
I have previously made the comment that, the act of propagation is the wave
nature of a photon, while detection is the particle nature of the photon.
In one case energy is radiating thru space, there is no physical interaction,
and there is no work function being performed.
In the other case, when radiation detected, by dislocating "matter" and
transferring its momentum (energy) component, there is a physical work function
that can be measured.
Comments.
LL
I have previously made the comment that, the act of propagation is the wave
nature of a photon, while detection is the particle nature of the photon.
In one case energy is radiating thru space, there is no physical interaction,
and there is no work function being performed.
In the other case, when radiation detected, by dislocating "matter" and
transferring its momentum (energy) component, there is a physical work function
that can be measured.
Comments.
LL
Hi Laserlight, Siau et all,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I have previously made the comment that, the act of propagation is the wave nature of a photon, while detection is the particle nature of the photon.
In one case energy is radiating thru space, there is no physical interaction, and there is no work function being performed.
In the other case, when radiation detected, by dislocating "matter" and transferring its momentum (energy) component, there is a physical work function that can be measured.
In one case energy is radiating thru space, there is no physical interaction, and there is no work function being performed.
In the other case, when radiation detected, by dislocating "matter" and transferring its momentum (energy) component, there is a physical work function that can be measured.
I have to agree with that although I reserve the idea of "matter" for future discussion. A read of the reference I have used above shows that stationary waves are created through Wheeler Feynman Absorber theory. This would need to be interpreted in the same vein as spirals frozen against the light cone wall instead of a pure sync function. The function described in the paper is a three dimensional spiral version of a sync function. This is demonstrated in figure 5 of the reference.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0609/0609156.pdf
If you can see what I mean by this... Zephir used this illustration previously... This is a favorite of mine too...
This is an electron but you can see the stationary waves 'illuminated" as the photon (or in this case an electron) moves through them. The photon spreads a lot more. The photon or electron is detected only once regardless of this "spreading" of the wave.
I would point out the paper linked has satisfied a couple of tests already and has passed muster so far. The electric and magnetic fields would be projections on to a plane and this leads to an interesting view of the electric and magnetic fields being orthogonal and Complex and their projections displaced by pi/2 phasewise in the plane of Reals.
Cheers
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0609/0609156.pdf
If you can see what I mean by this... Zephir used this illustration previously... This is a favorite of mine too...
This is an electron but you can see the stationary waves 'illuminated" as the photon (or in this case an electron) moves through them. The photon spreads a lot more. The photon or electron is detected only once regardless of this "spreading" of the wave.
I would point out the paper linked has satisfied a couple of tests already and has passed muster so far. The electric and magnetic fields would be projections on to a plane and this leads to an interesting view of the electric and magnetic fields being orthogonal and Complex and their projections displaced by pi/2 phasewise in the plane of Reals.
Cheers
Everything gets detected the same way of transfering its momentum or inertia depending on your reference.
The difference in a photon is that it cannot remain idle like other particles. It has no rest mass state because it cannot rest. It cannot rest because it has too slow of a wave rise time.
Given enough energy, if you could do that, it would become a particle and no wave would be evident because it could no longer travel free of particle enveloping.
A photon is merely a slow wave particle. Being slow, it cannot spin itself into a higher mass state and form an idle spin or envelope.
The difference in a photon is that it cannot remain idle like other particles. It has no rest mass state because it cannot rest. It cannot rest because it has too slow of a wave rise time.
Given enough energy, if you could do that, it would become a particle and no wave would be evident because it could no longer travel free of particle enveloping.
A photon is merely a slow wave particle. Being slow, it cannot spin itself into a higher mass state and form an idle spin or envelope.
Hi Siau, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, yquantum, "Why Not?", Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,
QUOTE (Siau+)
Everything gets detected the same way of transfering its momentum or inertia depending on your reference.
In general you are right with the exception of thick fine grained photographic emulsions used for making Holograms. The thick emulsion contains a dispersed quantity of a sensitive silver halide salt crystal in the gelatin. The standing waves generated by coherent photons inside the plate have a maximum at anti-nodes inside the emulsion and zeros between anti-nodes. The absorption of a photon will tend to occur at the maximum excursion points in the standing wave field where the instantaneous voltages are sufficient to change the oxidization state of the silver anion and transfer an electron in the tiny dispersed "translucent " crystals by a process similar to Einstein's Photoelectric Effect. On developing these plates the interior of the emulsions become a negative of the actual brightness levels and act as the template when we reverse the process by passing coherent light back through the plate recreating the scene in its entirety. There are some artifacts due to this processing. One artifact is the problem mentioned that you have a negative and not a positive and since this is an in-depth interference fringe effect cannot be simply reverse printed to make a positive. Another problem is the tendency to form a double "ghost" image at the wavelength level. Recent advances in processing can improve this phenomenon through digital means.
The record in the film itself is not amplitude but is actually still intensity. This leads to some "unintended artifacts". Since intensity records the gradient of the field and not the field there are nulls at maxima and minima and inflection points. The illumination of the plate with a source LASER leads to not the original scene if you wish to be exact about it (and being "exact" is very important when we wish to understand). The wave functions of the first derivative lead to a very fine "double image" in the Hologram at the level that most observers do not notice. Recently I have seen an algorithm that is able to reprocess holographic information to remove that "false ghost" in some meaningful way. This would "potentially" restore the hologram in some respects to a more faithful reproduction as an amplitude record plus some depth information due to phase, but I still think some phase information might be lost. Naturally if a computer technique such as this can re-process the hologram "in depth" then it can also make a "positive" as well.
In the case of a simple CMOS sensor (or even a Zinc Sulphide Screen, sheet of white paper or other material) this device is simply a plane of sensors which cannot record this in-depth information at all and "forces" a "sampling" at the surface of the device. The next problem is the problem of coincidence detection and also statistical effects due to taking the inner product of the Electric and Magnetic fields at the time of wavefunction collapse. The CMOS sensor (and our eyes) are imperfect devices to record this holographic information, yet all quantum theory uses only this kind of sensor for collecting data. As you may expect this will result in considerable loss in the amount of data that is possible to collect from the photons that are arriving at and in the plate.
Cheers
The record in the film itself is not amplitude but is actually still intensity. This leads to some "unintended artifacts". Since intensity records the gradient of the field and not the field there are nulls at maxima and minima and inflection points. The illumination of the plate with a source LASER leads to not the original scene if you wish to be exact about it (and being "exact" is very important when we wish to understand). The wave functions of the first derivative lead to a very fine "double image" in the Hologram at the level that most observers do not notice. Recently I have seen an algorithm that is able to reprocess holographic information to remove that "false ghost" in some meaningful way. This would "potentially" restore the hologram in some respects to a more faithful reproduction as an amplitude record plus some depth information due to phase, but I still think some phase information might be lost. Naturally if a computer technique such as this can re-process the hologram "in depth" then it can also make a "positive" as well.
In the case of a simple CMOS sensor (or even a Zinc Sulphide Screen, sheet of white paper or other material) this device is simply a plane of sensors which cannot record this in-depth information at all and "forces" a "sampling" at the surface of the device. The next problem is the problem of coincidence detection and also statistical effects due to taking the inner product of the Electric and Magnetic fields at the time of wavefunction collapse. The CMOS sensor (and our eyes) are imperfect devices to record this holographic information, yet all quantum theory uses only this kind of sensor for collecting data. As you may expect this will result in considerable loss in the amount of data that is possible to collect from the photons that are arriving at and in the plate.
Cheers
Impressive detail, but I don't see how the emulsion example gets around momentum transfer. In fact, I know that it is a physical impossibility for anything to be detected without a momentum transfer being involved. You can get around such a statement by defining the words differently, but regardless, the effect of momentum or intertia must be present for anything to affect anything in any way at all.
Perhaps you mean that one photon affects another energy level which affects something else and so on, but that doesn't get around the fact that the photon had to impart its momentum to whatever got changed.
But I guess this is diverging from the topic. (pls, forgive my momentum)
Perhaps you mean that one photon affects another energy level which affects something else and so on, but that doesn't get around the fact that the photon had to impart its momentum to whatever got changed.
But I guess this is diverging from the topic. (pls, forgive my momentum)
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
QUOTE (Confused2+)
The problem with a single photon is that it has no buddies following on behind in a nice coherent wave so no possibility of repetition so no rate of repetition.
This is true for a "chopped" ray, or individual photon wavelets, that have interrupted "flow".
That last sentence represents a possible connection between Laserlight and a thread in the Quantum Mechanics section which is discussing the behaviour of a single photon when it is confronted by a pair of slits .. welcome!
Best wishes - C2.
This is true for a "chopped" ray, or individual photon wavelets, that have interrupted "flow".
That last sentence represents a possible connection between Laserlight and a thread in the Quantum Mechanics section which is discussing the behaviour of a single photon when it is confronted by a pair of slits .. welcome!
Best wishes - C2.
Hi C2,
You need to catch up. The world is not flat. Quantum Mechanics encompasses
all quantum phenomena, and processes. You cannot just focus on one and claim
to understand the rest. That would be like reading the first chapter of a good
mystery novel and assuming that you know the rest of the story, and the
conclusion.
LL
QUOTE
That last sentence represents a possible connection between Laserlight and a thread in the Quantum Mechanics section which is discussing the behaviour of a single photon when it is confronted by a pair of slits .. welcome!
You need to catch up. The world is not flat. Quantum Mechanics encompasses
all quantum phenomena, and processes. You cannot just focus on one and claim
to understand the rest. That would be like reading the first chapter of a good
mystery novel and assuming that you know the rest of the story, and the
conclusion.
LL
Hi Siau,
QUOTE (Siau+)
Impressive detail, but I don't see how the emulsion example gets around momentum transfer.
I was indicating the Photoelectric Effect because nothing happens with photon absorption until the work function is exceeded. This can be expressed in electron volts. It is at that point a chemical change can occur... the transfer of a charge. While a photon may be present at a particular place and time and a particular wavelength all photons from a LASER will carry a fixed amount of momentum and energy, if the periodic surface potential is not favorable it will not be absorbed. This is because photons are absorbed wholly and not in part. Otherwise if photons were absorbed just anywhere in the emulsion it would not be forming interference fringes "depthwise" as we know it does in a Hologram.
The emphasis I was showing is there is two sides to photon absorption, the first is the available photon of the appropriate wavelength, momentum, energy and the next point is a suitable site to be absorbed. In the latter case not all sites must be suitable and the photon picks a spot among thousands of apparently equally suitable silver halide crystals to be absorbed but finally picks a site that is on a particular interference fringe somewhere inside the emulsion rather than the first crystal the photon meets on the way through... A subtle point that is generally overlooked.
The next subtle point is this is a standing wave not a progressive wave. Almost every applet on the internet and in all the Physics textbooks show progressive waves for the DSE. It is impossible to explain this feature "photon by photon" unless there is a permanent and "predictive" standing matter wave pattern, not only in space, but in the emulsion. The standing wave's antinode is where the instantaneous voltages are varying maximally.
Cheers
The emphasis I was showing is there is two sides to photon absorption, the first is the available photon of the appropriate wavelength, momentum, energy and the next point is a suitable site to be absorbed. In the latter case not all sites must be suitable and the photon picks a spot among thousands of apparently equally suitable silver halide crystals to be absorbed but finally picks a site that is on a particular interference fringe somewhere inside the emulsion rather than the first crystal the photon meets on the way through... A subtle point that is generally overlooked.
The next subtle point is this is a standing wave not a progressive wave. Almost every applet on the internet and in all the Physics textbooks show progressive waves for the DSE. It is impossible to explain this feature "photon by photon" unless there is a permanent and "predictive" standing matter wave pattern, not only in space, but in the emulsion. The standing wave's antinode is where the instantaneous voltages are varying maximally.
Cheers
Hi TRoc,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
1.) 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.
First, I did not say (or imply, I hope) that Fourier transform relies on the RI. Furthermore, I also did not mean to imply that the RI must be the cause here. The main point was, that the extra time needed for waves to get to our first minimum, or second peak (off axis) is very tiny. Only a very tiny change in frequency is needed, and the RI for that frequency will “dilate” our measurement, or Doppler shift if you will, for observers AT our first minimum, and second peak; for them, these waves arrive simultaneously, creating indistinguishably, a pre-requisite for interference. This is (hopefully) a bridge that we can build to gap QM and SR. I am sorry, but I can not give any “references” for my idea here, other than “IT WORKS” (so far). I am saying that the RI allows (demands) for a velocity change, different for each frequency present,
First, I did not say (or imply, I hope) that Fourier transform relies on the RI. Furthermore, I also did not mean to imply that the RI must be the cause here. The main point was, that the extra time needed for waves to get to our first minimum, or second peak (off axis) is very tiny. Only a very tiny change in frequency is needed, and the RI for that frequency will “dilate” our measurement, or Doppler shift if you will, for observers AT our first minimum, and second peak; for them, these waves arrive simultaneously, creating indistinguishably, a pre-requisite for interference. This is (hopefully) a bridge that we can build to gap QM and SR. I am sorry, but I can not give any “references” for my idea here, other than “IT WORKS” (so far). I am saying that the RI allows (demands) for a velocity change, different for each frequency present,
While I agree that there are standing waves in the DSE they are of an order that is below the resolution of a simple experiment, Standing waves in the longitudinal direction are of a wavelength equivalent to the frequency of the light (approx 660 nm). The DSE pattern we are looking at so carefully is on a much larger scale. RI variations is an example of velocity change and it can cause lensing effects in a medium. Taco Visser suggests that RI change can occur in free space without a gas due to other quanta such as OAM resulting in EM vortices. The main visible pattern is a series of spatial interferences. These depend on the size of the slits and spacing. They are composed of the same light from the LASER since they have the same "color" throughout
The pattern for the larger DSE interference pattern can be directly related to the transform from the "pseudo-planar" waves in the far field (primary source side) of the slit to the spherically divergent waves on the screen side near field and fresnel zone of the slits (from the secondary source). The slits can be considered as an "array" of two "pinholes" and each pinhole is one half of a coherent pair of single source interference patterns that sum in the spatial domain in the space on the screen side of the slits. These exhibit considerable curvature. The square of this vector sum is the Intensity. That is what we see on the screen and it is a square of a sync function (in an ideal case).
In an evacuated vessel situation, the pattern will not be appreciably affected since the RI of the atmosphere is uniform throughout as would be the RI of the vacuum. Since the pattern is not directly dependent on RI, this primary pattern is not affected and since we use only one type of photon at one frequency there is no dispersion of any other frequencies. This is probably also what you believe. In addition, with certain types of mode of propagation over and above the individual photon energy can carry additional "Orbital Angular Momentum" (OAM). This usually does not exhibit any frequency effect (does not have any influence on absorption) but it does carry quantized energy that effects other aspects of the system that absorbs it. These quanta involve 'spatial dislocations" or vortices. They can exhibit topological charge and they can also carry excess angular momentum. One example of the use of this energy can be used as "optical tweezers" to "grasp" particles at a distance and even manipulate them. The way I see it the absorption of the quanta is independent of the OAM but if the photon is absorbed then it transfers the quanta of spin or orbital angular momentum to the absorber.
The pattern for the larger DSE interference pattern can be directly related to the transform from the "pseudo-planar" waves in the far field (primary source side) of the slit to the spherically divergent waves on the screen side near field and fresnel zone of the slits (from the secondary source). The slits can be considered as an "array" of two "pinholes" and each pinhole is one half of a coherent pair of single source interference patterns that sum in the spatial domain in the space on the screen side of the slits. These exhibit considerable curvature. The square of this vector sum is the Intensity. That is what we see on the screen and it is a square of a sync function (in an ideal case).
In an evacuated vessel situation, the pattern will not be appreciably affected since the RI of the atmosphere is uniform throughout as would be the RI of the vacuum. Since the pattern is not directly dependent on RI, this primary pattern is not affected and since we use only one type of photon at one frequency there is no dispersion of any other frequencies. This is probably also what you believe. In addition, with certain types of mode of propagation over and above the individual photon energy can carry additional "Orbital Angular Momentum" (OAM). This usually does not exhibit any frequency effect (does not have any influence on absorption) but it does carry quantized energy that effects other aspects of the system that absorbs it. These quanta involve 'spatial dislocations" or vortices. They can exhibit topological charge and they can also carry excess angular momentum. One example of the use of this energy can be used as "optical tweezers" to "grasp" particles at a distance and even manipulate them. The way I see it the absorption of the quanta is independent of the OAM but if the photon is absorbed then it transfers the quanta of spin or orbital angular momentum to the absorber.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
3.) Removal of packet side bands from individual photons would change the character of the quanta in a way I cannot predict.
De-modulating will have no effect on the carrier wave; this is what allows us to make use of the effect. Even with “single photons”, models say that there is a spherical expansion. What we would call “the photon” is inside this space, completely “entangled” with its’ geometric phase pattern. That fact allows absorption/collapse anywhere along the spherical front, with the original information intact. The end frequency is reproduced… there is no conflict with E = (n) h f .
De-modulating will have no effect on the carrier wave; this is what allows us to make use of the effect. Even with “single photons”, models say that there is a spherical expansion. What we would call “the photon” is inside this space, completely “entangled” with its’ geometric phase pattern. That fact allows absorption/collapse anywhere along the spherical front, with the original information intact. The end frequency is reproduced… there is no conflict with E = (n) h f .
Continuous Wave is just a special case of a large number of coherent individual photons. There is no such thing as "pure" CW since all CW must start and stop sometime. That imposes an overall packet on the co-moving photon trains. You know that I believe that photons on the same wavefront all exist in the same boson state and one photon has the same fate as a million photons with the exception of the individual Berry Phase/Geometric Phase due to standing waves in space scattering the individual paths of individual photons. It has occurred to me that it might not be Berry Phase but the spin centers may disperse themselves in the wavefront according to their density through mutual repulsion the way separate eddies in water can repel each other, once again I am thinking of Falaco Solitons and the way they appear to behave.
Actually additional packet frequencies can be used to prevent packet spreading (eg. Bessel Beams), conversely removing some of the packet frequencies from a "tight" packet probably increases the amount of spreading the packet will perform.
Cheers
Actually additional packet frequencies can be used to prevent packet spreading (eg. Bessel Beams), conversely removing some of the packet frequencies from a "tight" packet probably increases the amount of spreading the packet will perform.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 7 2007, 02:39 PM)
Hi TRoc,
Continuous Wave is just a special case of a large number of coherent individual photons. There is no such thing as "pure" CW since all CW must start and stop sometime. That imposes an overall packet on the co-moving photon trains. You know that I believe that photons on the same wavefront all exist in the same boson state and one photon has the same fate as a million photons with the exception of the individual Berry Phase/Geometric Phase due to standing waves in space scattering the individual paths of individual photons. It has occurred to me that it might not be Berry Phase but the spin centers may disperse themselves in the wavefront according to their density through mutual repulsion the way separate eddies in water can repel each other, once again I am thinking of Falaco Solitons and the way they appear to behave.
Actually additional packet frequencies can be used to prevent packet spreading (eg. Bessel Beams), conversely removing some of the packet frequencies from a "tight" packet probably increases the amount of spreading the packet will perform.
Cheers
what's in the pool? What are those spots?
Continuous Wave is just a special case of a large number of coherent individual photons. There is no such thing as "pure" CW since all CW must start and stop sometime. That imposes an overall packet on the co-moving photon trains. You know that I believe that photons on the same wavefront all exist in the same boson state and one photon has the same fate as a million photons with the exception of the individual Berry Phase/Geometric Phase due to standing waves in space scattering the individual paths of individual photons. It has occurred to me that it might not be Berry Phase but the spin centers may disperse themselves in the wavefront according to their density through mutual repulsion the way separate eddies in water can repel each other, once again I am thinking of Falaco Solitons and the way they appear to behave.
Actually additional packet frequencies can be used to prevent packet spreading (eg. Bessel Beams), conversely removing some of the packet frequencies from a "tight" packet probably increases the amount of spreading the packet will perform.
Cheers
what's in the pool? What are those spots?
Those dark spots on the bottom result from the refraction of light near the surface by very small surface whirlpools. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong though.
Hi Neil,
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)
what's in the pool? What are those spots?
As the information in the post says these are Falaco Solitons.... They are made with a Frisbee in still water!
... Click to enlarge...
Everybody has seen them at some point in time. They are a model for long lasting solitons and they come in pairs and last several minutes. They are also connected by a one dimensional structure beneath the surface. They are the everyday equivalent of vortex pairs similar to those seen with light.
http://www22.pair.com/csdc/car/carfre10.htm
http://www.ussdiscovery.com/FalacoSolitonMagnetic001.htm
http://www22.pair.com/csdc/pdf/falaco97.pdf
I have mentioned them several times in the past. There is a movie on the web (above) showing how they interact and they are amazingly resilient. I suppose what is the most important point of note is this is not a case of "surface whirlpools" but something far more interesting.... A model for cosmic strings. I suppose you have all noticed the discovery of what appears to be a structure in space that matches this object...
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/03/wmap-and...ic-strings.html
Cheers
... Click to enlarge...
Everybody has seen them at some point in time. They are a model for long lasting solitons and they come in pairs and last several minutes. They are also connected by a one dimensional structure beneath the surface. They are the everyday equivalent of vortex pairs similar to those seen with light.
http://www22.pair.com/csdc/car/carfre10.htm
http://www.ussdiscovery.com/FalacoSolitonMagnetic001.htm
http://www22.pair.com/csdc/pdf/falaco97.pdf
I have mentioned them several times in the past. There is a movie on the web (above) showing how they interact and they are amazingly resilient. I suppose what is the most important point of note is this is not a case of "surface whirlpools" but something far more interesting.... A model for cosmic strings. I suppose you have all noticed the discovery of what appears to be a structure in space that matches this object...
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/03/wmap-and...ic-strings.html
QUOTE
Cosmologists spot a 'knot' in space-time
* 13 July 2007
* NewScientist.com news service
* Zeeya Merali
A GIANT knot may have been found in the fabric of space-time - almost a decade after cosmologists abandoned the idea that such objects might exist.
Known as "topological defects", such esoteric entities were first proposed in the 1970s, when physicists realised that the processes that gave rise to particles and forces in the early universe could also fracture space, creating twists and knots, dubbed textures, or "cosmic strings" that stretch across the universe.[...] But now it seems that cosmologists may have turned their back on defects prematurely. String theorists have recently discovered a small selection of models predicting that topological defects exist and could leave imprints on the CMB. "Finding evidence of defects will really help us rule out a vast number of our models," says string theorist Renata Kallosh of Stanford University in California.
Just such evidence may now have been found. Even more precise measurements of temperature fluctuations in the CMB by NASA's WMAP satellite have revealed a perplexingly large "cold spot". Marcos Cruz at Cantabria University in Spain and colleagues calculated the probability of the spot occurring by chance as less than 2 per cent. The team then noticed that in 1989 Turok had predicted that a space-time texture would produce a cold spot of exactly this size, and so they joined Turok to create computer models to show how the texture could indeed create such a cold spot as it unravels. Turok presented the findings at a conference on particles, strings and cosmology at Imperial College London last week.[...]"Turok's idea is really cool," says Hiranya Peiris, a member of the WMAP collaboration at the University of Chicago in Illinois. But she cautions that the cold spot could just be a blip in the WMAP data. "I'm glad Turok's making predictions for Planck. He's making an extraordinary claim and it will take extraordinary evidence to support it."
It could just be a "blip" but you never know...* 13 July 2007
* NewScientist.com news service
* Zeeya Merali
A GIANT knot may have been found in the fabric of space-time - almost a decade after cosmologists abandoned the idea that such objects might exist.
Known as "topological defects", such esoteric entities were first proposed in the 1970s, when physicists realised that the processes that gave rise to particles and forces in the early universe could also fracture space, creating twists and knots, dubbed textures, or "cosmic strings" that stretch across the universe.[...] But now it seems that cosmologists may have turned their back on defects prematurely. String theorists have recently discovered a small selection of models predicting that topological defects exist and could leave imprints on the CMB. "Finding evidence of defects will really help us rule out a vast number of our models," says string theorist Renata Kallosh of Stanford University in California.
Just such evidence may now have been found. Even more precise measurements of temperature fluctuations in the CMB by NASA's WMAP satellite have revealed a perplexingly large "cold spot". Marcos Cruz at Cantabria University in Spain and colleagues calculated the probability of the spot occurring by chance as less than 2 per cent. The team then noticed that in 1989 Turok had predicted that a space-time texture would produce a cold spot of exactly this size, and so they joined Turok to create computer models to show how the texture could indeed create such a cold spot as it unravels. Turok presented the findings at a conference on particles, strings and cosmology at Imperial College London last week.[...]"Turok's idea is really cool," says Hiranya Peiris, a member of the WMAP collaboration at the University of Chicago in Illinois. But she cautions that the cold spot could just be a blip in the WMAP data. "I'm glad Turok's making predictions for Planck. He's making an extraordinary claim and it will take extraordinary evidence to support it."
Cheers
Let us imagine we have a source of single photons.
One question might be .. Is the photon radiated equally in all directions? .. if you think of photons as bullets which are fired in a particular direction then this would be a foolish question. We could get some clues about the answer by putting a mirror (say) to the left of the source so that the path to the left now meets up with the path to the right .. with a little more refinement we could see if we get an interference pattern between the 'whatever' that went to the left and the direct path to the right .. if we do then clearly the photon 'whatever' goes to the left and to the right so we can no longer claim a photon is like a bullet that is fired in a particular direction.
The closest to 'proof' that a photon goes both ways might be a Michelson-Morley type interferometer ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment ) where the half-silvered mirror plays the part of the photon source and we see that we do indeed get an interference pattern between paths that are 180 degrees apart. Unfortunately I can't immediately find a single photon version of the MM experiment so we can argue about whether or not it would work until one (or something just as good) is found.
The results of a single photon DSE are here:-
This is what I see when I look at those results:-
The pattern (of counts) is exactly the same as the pattern we were lead to expect at school when we looked at superposition of waves .. giving constructive and destructive interference. Unfortunately it does seem that the concept of wave 'amplitude' was not well explained in some schools. Here is a rather nice refresher :- http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/s...erposition.html . Looking at the "Two sine waves travelling in the same direction" simulation we see that the 'null' is (obviously) a 'null' but the 'wave' part of the standing wave is still varying with time at (of course) the same frequency as the two sinewaves that created it. We have the problem of deciding how 'big' a thing is when it varies with time. Electrical engineers would us the RMS value ( eg http://www.ee.unb.ca/tervo/ee2791/vrms.htm ) .. later we might want to try something fancier .. but not now. The 'power' at a particular point is going to be given by the square of the RMS value .. we don't want to square the time varying thing directly because that would give us a 'power' that varied with time which would confuse us considerably.
Are we still looking at the DSE? We certainly are (I hope) .. we see that the number of photons counted follows the same distribution as the 'power' we would expect if we were looking at the interference pattern of our school book waves. If we increase the brightness of the (monochromatic) source to the point where we can't count the photons individually .. it seamlessly becomes a 'wave' interference pattern where we interpret the intensity as a measure of the height of the superposed waves. The 'intensity' and the probability of finding a photon would seem to be one and the same thing. Dirac (I think) drew attention to the way the distribution is given by the probability of finding a particular photon .. with single photons this automatically gives us the wavefunction-psi (did I write that?) without having to worry about anything else.
Something we might like to notice while looking at the single photon version .. the photon can interfere with itself across wavefronts .. not only is it not 'local' (like a bullet) in direction it is also not 'local' at a particular point in the sort of wave we drew at school wave.. we might interpret this as meaning a photon is not localised in time (but that would be an interpretation rather than an observation).
If EM waves were made out of photons and photons were like bullets then Maxwell's equations would be totally trivial .. firing range type stuff. But photons aren't like bullets so Maxwell's equations aren't trivial. QED.
Does anyone else see what I see? Or anything remotely like it?
Best wishes - C2.
One question might be .. Is the photon radiated equally in all directions? .. if you think of photons as bullets which are fired in a particular direction then this would be a foolish question. We could get some clues about the answer by putting a mirror (say) to the left of the source so that the path to the left now meets up with the path to the right .. with a little more refinement we could see if we get an interference pattern between the 'whatever' that went to the left and the direct path to the right .. if we do then clearly the photon 'whatever' goes to the left and to the right so we can no longer claim a photon is like a bullet that is fired in a particular direction.
The closest to 'proof' that a photon goes both ways might be a Michelson-Morley type interferometer ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment ) where the half-silvered mirror plays the part of the photon source and we see that we do indeed get an interference pattern between paths that are 180 degrees apart. Unfortunately I can't immediately find a single photon version of the MM experiment so we can argue about whether or not it would work until one (or something just as good) is found.
The results of a single photon DSE are here:-
This is what I see when I look at those results:-
The pattern (of counts) is exactly the same as the pattern we were lead to expect at school when we looked at superposition of waves .. giving constructive and destructive interference. Unfortunately it does seem that the concept of wave 'amplitude' was not well explained in some schools. Here is a rather nice refresher :- http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/s...erposition.html . Looking at the "Two sine waves travelling in the same direction" simulation we see that the 'null' is (obviously) a 'null' but the 'wave' part of the standing wave is still varying with time at (of course) the same frequency as the two sinewaves that created it. We have the problem of deciding how 'big' a thing is when it varies with time. Electrical engineers would us the RMS value ( eg http://www.ee.unb.ca/tervo/ee2791/vrms.htm ) .. later we might want to try something fancier .. but not now. The 'power' at a particular point is going to be given by the square of the RMS value .. we don't want to square the time varying thing directly because that would give us a 'power' that varied with time which would confuse us considerably.
Are we still looking at the DSE? We certainly are (I hope) .. we see that the number of photons counted follows the same distribution as the 'power' we would expect if we were looking at the interference pattern of our school book waves. If we increase the brightness of the (monochromatic) source to the point where we can't count the photons individually .. it seamlessly becomes a 'wave' interference pattern where we interpret the intensity as a measure of the height of the superposed waves. The 'intensity' and the probability of finding a photon would seem to be one and the same thing. Dirac (I think) drew attention to the way the distribution is given by the probability of finding a particular photon .. with single photons this automatically gives us the wavefunction-psi (did I write that?) without having to worry about anything else.
Something we might like to notice while looking at the single photon version .. the photon can interfere with itself across wavefronts .. not only is it not 'local' (like a bullet) in direction it is also not 'local' at a particular point in the sort of wave we drew at school wave.. we might interpret this as meaning a photon is not localised in time (but that would be an interpretation rather than an observation).
If EM waves were made out of photons and photons were like bullets then Maxwell's equations would be totally trivial .. firing range type stuff. But photons aren't like bullets so Maxwell's equations aren't trivial. QED.
Does anyone else see what I see? Or anything remotely like it?
Best wishes - C2.
Oops .. when I referred (above) to two sine waves travelling in the same direction what I actually meant was two sinewaves travelling in the opposite direction. ( http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/s...erposition.html )
The animation of two sinewaves in the [b]same[b] direction actually shows two sinewaves which are not the same frequency .. hence the beat.
The animation of two sinewaves in the [b]same[b] direction actually shows two sinewaves which are not the same frequency .. hence the beat.
Hi C2,
Good links!
Are you doubting my previous discussion about the phase angle relationship
between multiple superposed signals, and how that relationship affects the
composite signal amplitude?
Are you doubting my previous discussion about the phase angle relationship
between multiple superposed signals, and how that relationship affects the
composite signal amplitude?
The photons are travelling coherently together. It is their phase angle
relationships as they rotate, at any given point in time of the wavefunction, that
determines the wave amplitude.
Remember, coherent photons in a wave each have identical amplitudes according to E=hf.
LL
Good links!
QUOTE
The pattern (of counts) is exactly the same as the pattern we were lead to expect at school when we looked at superposition of waves .. giving constructive and destructive interference. Unfortunately it does seem that the concept of wave 'amplitude' was not well explained in some schools.
Are you doubting my previous discussion about the phase angle relationship
between multiple superposed signals, and how that relationship affects the
composite signal amplitude?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The pattern (of counts) is exactly the same as the pattern we were lead to expect at school when we looked at superposition of waves .. giving constructive and destructive interference. Unfortunately it does seem that the concept of wave 'amplitude' was not well explained in some schools. |
Are you doubting my previous discussion about the phase angle relationship
between multiple superposed signals, and how that relationship affects the
composite signal amplitude?
The photons are travelling coherently together. It is their phase angle
relationships as they rotate, at any given point in time of the wavefunction, that
determines the wave amplitude.
Remember, coherent photons in a wave each have identical amplitudes according to E=hf.
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Are you doubting my previous discussion about the phase angle relationship between multiple superposed signals, and how that relationship affects the composite signal amplitude?
It's like Groundhog Day .. if I agree with your proposal am I agreeing that the slits are firing photons at the correct angles to simulate the effects of interference? [and we wake up and find.. ta da Groundhog Day] Or what?
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. you edited. We get to the wavefunction-psi towards the afternoon of Groundhog Day .. then we reject it and go round again (I remember that one) .. I think we should try sticking with the wavefunction-psi concept for another twenty minutes .. it's the thing you see in the pattern of the single photon DSE .. if you try to explain how it happens too soon it will be .. [ ta da Groundhog Day] again. If we could just get five minutes further on every time round .. up to you.
Edit again ..
How many photons is one? [ta da we wake up and it's Groundhog Day]
It's like Groundhog Day .. if I agree with your proposal am I agreeing that the slits are firing photons at the correct angles to simulate the effects of interference? [and we wake up and find.. ta da Groundhog Day] Or what?
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. you edited. We get to the wavefunction-psi towards the afternoon of Groundhog Day .. then we reject it and go round again (I remember that one) .. I think we should try sticking with the wavefunction-psi concept for another twenty minutes .. it's the thing you see in the pattern of the single photon DSE .. if you try to explain how it happens too soon it will be .. [ ta da Groundhog Day] again. If we could just get five minutes further on every time round .. up to you.
Edit again ..
QUOTE
Remember, coherent photons in a wave each have identical amplitudes according to E=hf.
How many photons is one? [ta da we wake up and it's Groundhog Day]
C2-
I'm missing your point. I know that Groundhog day is important to you, because
we have relived the topic of this discussion over and over.
There really is a hell....we're in it.
Do you wear a red cape?
LL
I'm missing your point. I know that Groundhog day is important to you, because
we have relived the topic of this discussion over and over.
There really is a hell....we're in it.
Do you wear a red cape?
LL
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 9 2007, 11:48 PM)
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Are you doubting my previous discussion about the phase angle relationship between multiple superposed signals, and how that relationship affects the composite signal amplitude?
It's like Groundhog Day .. if I agree with your proposal am I agreeing that the slits are firing photons at the correct angles to simulate the effects of interference? [and we wake up and find.. ta da Groundhog Day] Or what?
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. you edited. We get to the wavefunction-psi towards the afternoon of Groundhog Day .. then we reject it and go round again (I remember that one) .. I think we should try sticking with the wavefunction-psi concept for another twenty minutes .. it's the thing you see in the pattern of the single photon DSE .. if you try to explain how it happens too soon it will be .. [ ta da Groundhog Day] again. If we could just get five minutes further on every time round .. up to you.
I'm confused.
It's like Groundhog Day .. if I agree with your proposal am I agreeing that the slits are firing photons at the correct angles to simulate the effects of interference? [and we wake up and find.. ta da Groundhog Day] Or what?
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. you edited. We get to the wavefunction-psi towards the afternoon of Groundhog Day .. then we reject it and go round again (I remember that one) .. I think we should try sticking with the wavefunction-psi concept for another twenty minutes .. it's the thing you see in the pattern of the single photon DSE .. if you try to explain how it happens too soon it will be .. [ ta da Groundhog Day] again. If we could just get five minutes further on every time round .. up to you.
I'm confused.
LL .. pppplllleeeeeaaaasssseeee see my last edit to the last post .. how many photons is one?
C2,
It would be so much more efficient if your posts weren't "cryptic" and wrapped in
vague innuendo. If you are trying to make a point, make it! Quit beating around
the bush. Your attempts to be "witty", are falling flat. Maybe, they are over our
heads..........or not.
Regards,
LL
It would be so much more efficient if your posts weren't "cryptic" and wrapped in
vague innuendo. If you are trying to make a point, make it! Quit beating around
the bush. Your attempts to be "witty", are falling flat. Maybe, they are over our
heads..........or not.
Regards,
LL
Hi C2,
One, singular, uno, ein!
FYI-
http://www.recipeland.com/facts/Wavefunction_collapse
LL
QUOTE
how many photons is one?
One, singular, uno, ein!
FYI-
http://www.recipeland.com/facts/Wavefunction_collapse
LL
Single photon DSE result
X
X
QUOTE (LL+)
The photons are travelling coherently together. It is their phase angle relationships as they rotate, at any given point in time of the wavefunction, that determines the wave amplitude.
How many of them travelling together is ONE .. how many do you need to find the wavefunction of ONE photon? Answer .. you need to repeat the experiment many times and only then do you get the wavefunction .. it is statistical. The result for the single photon DSE is a wavefunction .. it has been repeated many times with a SINGLE photon .. anything else is suspect.
Best wishes -C2.
How many of them travelling together is ONE .. how many do you need to find the wavefunction of ONE photon? Answer .. you need to repeat the experiment many times and only then do you get the wavefunction .. it is statistical. The result for the single photon DSE is a wavefunction .. it has been repeated many times with a SINGLE photon .. anything else is suspect.
Best wishes -C2.
HI C2,
Why didn't you say so in the first place. We were talking (arguing) about 2
completely different topics.
See, that wasn't so hard.
The "undertone" of your original comment, which I questioned, led to this
whole misunderstanding.
LL
Why didn't you say so in the first place. We were talking (arguing) about 2
completely different topics.
See, that wasn't so hard.
The "undertone" of your original comment, which I questioned, led to this
whole misunderstanding.
LL
Hey C2,
And your assessment of how and why they statistically arrange themselves to
form a composite wavefunction is????
LL
QUOTE
The How many of them travelling together is ONE .. how many do you need to find the wavefunction of ONE photon? Answer .. you need to repeat the experiment many times and only then do you get the wavefunction .. it is statistical. The result for the single photon DSE is a wavefunction .. it has been repeated many times with a SINGLE photon .. anything else is suspect.
And your assessment of how and why they statistically arrange themselves to
form a composite wavefunction is????
LL
QUOTE (LL+)
And your assessment of how and why they statistically arrange themselves to form a composite wavefunction is????
I'm a bit suspicious of this 'composite' .. maybe you don't see the wavefunction. IF you do .. I have to admit I have no idea how it happens .. to me it makes no sense whatsoever .. the implications and consequences of what I see are impossible.
Best wishes C2.
I'm a bit suspicious of this 'composite' .. maybe you don't see the wavefunction. IF you do .. I have to admit I have no idea how it happens .. to me it makes no sense whatsoever .. the implications and consequences of what I see are impossible.
Best wishes C2.
Hi Siau, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, yquantum, "Why Not?", Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,
Sorry to inform that I will be indisposed for a week or two. I had to have urgent surgery for a detached retina. I will not be following this thread for a time. If all is OK I will be back as soon as I am allowed to. At the moment I am in a prone positoion from daylight to dark and then some. I can only spend a few minutes at a time here.
I promise I will be back,
Cheers
Sorry to inform that I will be indisposed for a week or two. I had to have urgent surgery for a detached retina. I will not be following this thread for a time. If all is OK I will be back as soon as I am allowed to. At the moment I am in a prone positoion from daylight to dark and then some. I can only spend a few minutes at a time here.
I promise I will be back,
Cheers
GE,
Get well. We'll be waiting.
LL
Get well. We'll be waiting.
LL
Hi C2,
I probably should have said "composite interference pattern" rather than
wavefunction.
If you don't like "composite", how about the term "complex wavefunction"?
But in this case, composite indicates a build up of distinct parts to make up
an interference pattern.
Back to the original question. What influences occur at the slits to make
individual photons, arriving at different times, arrange themselves into
an interference pattern? If I recall, from very early in the single photon
discussion, the interference pattern will form regardless of the time delay
interval between photon arrivals.
If true, then something about the slits is changing some common characteristic
about each newly arriving photon. I have already stated my position, but
for some reason everyone seems afraid to agree, or are looking for some other
answer. In this case Occam's razor, is probably (no pun intended) the
right approach, IMO.
Comments? Discussion?
LL
QUOTE
I'm a bit suspicious of this 'composite' .. maybe you don't see the wavefunction. IF you do .. I have to admit I have no idea how it happens .. to me it makes no sense whatsoever .. the implications and consequences of what I see are impossible.
I probably should have said "composite interference pattern" rather than
wavefunction.
If you don't like "composite", how about the term "complex wavefunction"?
But in this case, composite indicates a build up of distinct parts to make up
an interference pattern.
Back to the original question. What influences occur at the slits to make
individual photons, arriving at different times, arrange themselves into
an interference pattern? If I recall, from very early in the single photon
discussion, the interference pattern will form regardless of the time delay
interval between photon arrivals.
If true, then something about the slits is changing some common characteristic
about each newly arriving photon. I have already stated my position, but
for some reason everyone seems afraid to agree, or are looking for some other
answer. In this case Occam's razor, is probably (no pun intended) the
right approach, IMO.
Comments? Discussion?
LL
Hi Laserlight,
What makes your explanation untenable is that it predicts a pattern that doesn't match the observed result .. this is a major flaw.
In 1915 Einstein publishes a paper which predicts gravitational lensing ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens ) .. the effect is unlikely to be detectable using slits made out of any known material.
Comments and/or groundhog sightings welcome.
Best wishes (especially to the the poorly Elf) - C2.
What makes your explanation untenable is that it predicts a pattern that doesn't match the observed result .. this is a major flaw.
In 1915 Einstein publishes a paper which predicts gravitational lensing ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens ) .. the effect is unlikely to be detectable using slits made out of any known material.
Comments and/or groundhog sightings welcome.
Best wishes (especially to the the poorly Elf) - C2.
Hi C2,
The pattern is, what it is. I don't have to predict it, the results speak for
themselves. The issue is, what effect causes the results we see for single photons?
LL
QUOTE
What makes your explanation untenable is that it predicts a pattern that doesn't match the observed result .. this is a major flaw.
The pattern is, what it is. I don't have to predict it, the results speak for
themselves. The issue is, what effect causes the results we see for single photons?
LL
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (LL+)
The issue is, what effect causes the results we see for single photons?
From:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_hypothesis
"The de Broglie relations [.. for a particle any particle ..] show that the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum of a particle and that the frequency is directly proportional to the particle's kinetic energy . "
Clearly there are problems measuring the wavelength of a single particle .. the term has no meaning BUT we CAN see the consequences of the wavelength of the photon in the pattern produced by the single photon DSE.
Is it really possible that the slits themselves somehow manipulate the trajectory of individual photons to simulate a perfect interference pattern from which we can measure the wavelength of a photon? The DSE works for electron, neutrons and other stuff I can't be bothered to find references for .. and in every case we get the answer predicted by de Broglie (the interference pattern) :- can this just be coincidence? I don't understand your apparent claim that whatever slits are used (with photons/electrons/neutrons) the result will always simulate an interference pattern without interference actually being the cause of the pattern.
From:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_hypothesis
"The de Broglie relations [.. for a particle any particle ..] show that the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum of a particle and that the frequency is directly proportional to the particle's kinetic energy . "
Clearly there are problems measuring the wavelength of a single particle .. the term has no meaning BUT we CAN see the consequences of the wavelength of the photon in the pattern produced by the single photon DSE.
Is it really possible that the slits themselves somehow manipulate the trajectory of individual photons to simulate a perfect interference pattern from which we can measure the wavelength of a photon? The DSE works for electron, neutrons and other stuff I can't be bothered to find references for .. and in every case we get the answer predicted by de Broglie (the interference pattern) :- can this just be coincidence? I don't understand your apparent claim that whatever slits are used (with photons/electrons/neutrons) the result will always simulate an interference pattern without interference actually being the cause of the pattern.
QUOTE (LL+)
what effect causes.. ?
Please can you try to help me to see what you feel I am unable to see?
Best wishes - C2.
Please can you try to help me to see what you feel I am unable to see?
Best wishes - C2.
Hi all,
Well put, C2.
LL, "sometimes" is not a good place to start looking for Fundamental answers. The phenomenon need to be ALWAYS. Everyone here, has offered examples of when, where or why your idea can not be that Fundamental property. Yes, there are some examples, basically limited to metal slits, at SUB-wavelength slits, which is the opposite of the >wave sized slits in the DSE.
Here is the interpretation that I am offering:
LL-
LL, "sometimes" is not a good place to start looking for Fundamental answers. The phenomenon need to be ALWAYS. Everyone here, has offered examples of when, where or why your idea can not be that Fundamental property. Yes, there are some examples, basically limited to metal slits, at SUB-wavelength slits, which is the opposite of the >wave sized slits in the DSE.
Here is the interpretation that I am offering:
LL-The issue is, what effect causes the results we see for single photons?
"single" is abstract,
"photon" is abstract,
"energy" is abstract,
"electric" is abstract,
"magnetic" is abstract,
"electron" is abstract,
ALL of these terms (and there are MANY more) will REQUIRE more than "one" to have ANY meaning.
The idea of "single photons" stemming from lots of electrons, and lots of energy, both of which produce loads of photons, is nothing more than INTERPRETATION. Both require manipulation of TIME, another abstract term. At once, current theory requires us to view the "photon" as "experiencing no time", making time "un-real"; and, requiring that we believe it to be real, and comparable to an UNCHANGING rate of cycles. [we now measure time by the speed of light, alone]
To me, this is like watching a movie clip, where a cyclist runs into a wall. Then, we watch the clip in SLOW MOTION, and then are surprised and amazed when, after a period of time, the same result happens. Then, we proceed to invent wild hypotheses to explain this new "phenomenon". We end up with something that "works": it predicts that the cyclist will crash into the wall. In order to make this prediction, we have to "combine" the mechanical elements: the (non-linear) wheel(s), the sprocket, the chain, and the legs of the rider, now, all EQUAL "ONE moving bike".
You noted this about our conversation recently. It is absolutely true: we have been doing nothing other than those before us: INTERPRETING. Quantum mechanics, with their statistical, probable approach, have done nothing more than that.
QM says there are "singular bikes", which SOME people have interpreted as being "Fundamental".
The problem is, that over the years, other experiments have shown some interesting combinations, which CAN NOT fit the "single bike hypothesis".
IE. One rider, with THREE wheels. Two wheels, with ONE rider. FOUR wheels, with Zero riders. A set of gears, that won't come apart. Infinite wheels, with three riders. OK, you get the point.
All of my analogies above have REAL counterparts in QM today.
E = (n)hf is ONLY about the measurement. We have two conflicting (apparently) FACTS: the frequency sent is the frequency measured, and, "anything is possible" on the way (like phase velocity >> c , "all paths", etc)
MANY interpretations are available. You could choose B fields, momentum, charge, force, whatever. I am choosing "frequency". That's it.
The ENTIRE CONCEPT of a "single photon" is only an interpretation.
It can not provide any answers; only more questions.
The DC-DSE is a great example of this bad interpretation. The "decision" is not happening "in the past", it is happening "on the way". Only by illogically tweaking the concept of the flow of time, and turning "slow motion" into "separating events into singular bits" (and calling them "one"), can this work.
When you ALREADY have ONE, any further dissection operates as DIVISION. Steady, incremental division produces a HARMONIC SERIES. When the "one" thing that you started with, has an "inverse property" (like frequency and wavelength), then your harmonic series has an inverse: the EXPONENTIAL series. The difference between these "measurements" (mathematically) will form "steps", or "discreet jumps" between the ANSWERS (the measurement). The answers are NOT the cause, as I'm sure we would all agree.
regards,
T.Roc
Well put, C2.
QUOTE
..the result will always simulate an interference pattern without interference actually being the cause of the pattern.
LL, "sometimes" is not a good place to start looking for Fundamental answers. The phenomenon need to be ALWAYS. Everyone here, has offered examples of when, where or why your idea can not be that Fundamental property. Yes, there are some examples, basically limited to metal slits, at SUB-wavelength slits, which is the opposite of the >wave sized slits in the DSE.
Here is the interpretation that I am offering:
LL-
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ..the result will always simulate an interference pattern without interference actually being the cause of the pattern. |
LL, "sometimes" is not a good place to start looking for Fundamental answers. The phenomenon need to be ALWAYS. Everyone here, has offered examples of when, where or why your idea can not be that Fundamental property. Yes, there are some examples, basically limited to metal slits, at SUB-wavelength slits, which is the opposite of the >wave sized slits in the DSE.
Here is the interpretation that I am offering:
LL-The issue is, what effect causes the results we see for single photons?
"single" is abstract,
"photon" is abstract,
"energy" is abstract,
"electric" is abstract,
"magnetic" is abstract,
"electron" is abstract,
ALL of these terms (and there are MANY more) will REQUIRE more than "one" to have ANY meaning.
The idea of "single photons" stemming from lots of electrons, and lots of energy, both of which produce loads of photons, is nothing more than INTERPRETATION. Both require manipulation of TIME, another abstract term. At once, current theory requires us to view the "photon" as "experiencing no time", making time "un-real"; and, requiring that we believe it to be real, and comparable to an UNCHANGING rate of cycles. [we now measure time by the speed of light, alone]
To me, this is like watching a movie clip, where a cyclist runs into a wall. Then, we watch the clip in SLOW MOTION, and then are surprised and amazed when, after a period of time, the same result happens. Then, we proceed to invent wild hypotheses to explain this new "phenomenon". We end up with something that "works": it predicts that the cyclist will crash into the wall. In order to make this prediction, we have to "combine" the mechanical elements: the (non-linear) wheel(s), the sprocket, the chain, and the legs of the rider, now, all EQUAL "ONE moving bike".
You noted this about our conversation recently. It is absolutely true: we have been doing nothing other than those before us: INTERPRETING. Quantum mechanics, with their statistical, probable approach, have done nothing more than that.
QM says there are "singular bikes", which SOME people have interpreted as being "Fundamental".
The problem is, that over the years, other experiments have shown some interesting combinations, which CAN NOT fit the "single bike hypothesis".
IE. One rider, with THREE wheels. Two wheels, with ONE rider. FOUR wheels, with Zero riders. A set of gears, that won't come apart. Infinite wheels, with three riders. OK, you get the point.
All of my analogies above have REAL counterparts in QM today.
E = (n)hf is ONLY about the measurement. We have two conflicting (apparently) FACTS: the frequency sent is the frequency measured, and, "anything is possible" on the way (like phase velocity >> c , "all paths", etc)
MANY interpretations are available. You could choose B fields, momentum, charge, force, whatever. I am choosing "frequency". That's it.
The ENTIRE CONCEPT of a "single photon" is only an interpretation.
It can not provide any answers; only more questions.
The DC-DSE is a great example of this bad interpretation. The "decision" is not happening "in the past", it is happening "on the way". Only by illogically tweaking the concept of the flow of time, and turning "slow motion" into "separating events into singular bits" (and calling them "one"), can this work.
When you ALREADY have ONE, any further dissection operates as DIVISION. Steady, incremental division produces a HARMONIC SERIES. When the "one" thing that you started with, has an "inverse property" (like frequency and wavelength), then your harmonic series has an inverse: the EXPONENTIAL series. The difference between these "measurements" (mathematically) will form "steps", or "discreet jumps" between the ANSWERS (the measurement). The answers are NOT the cause, as I'm sure we would all agree.
regards,
T.Roc
GOOD ELF!!! Best of luck to a speedy and good recovery!
Hi C2, and All,
Simulated interference pattern???....Not at all, it is an "absolute" interference
pattern. The slits must have a specific operational geometric "range" (which
makes them "range bound") in order to create an interference pattern.
Think of it this way, the width geometry of the slits is a solution set, the
gap distance between the slits is another solution set, the wavelengths of light
that fall under the influence of the slits is yet another solution set.
The working solution for a given set of circumstances, is only in the locations
where all of the solution sets partially, or totally overlap, ("union" function of
solution sets). An analogy would be similar to a RGB color chart, where the
overlapping colors create a solution set to create specific colors by combining
their individual spectral attributes into a composite color.
The areas where the set unions overlap, is a solution set result.
There must be causality for interference to occur, and it can occur when specific
criteria merge to provide a solution set.
Simulated interference pattern???....Not at all, it is an "absolute" interference
pattern. The slits must have a specific operational geometric "range" (which
makes them "range bound") in order to create an interference pattern.
Think of it this way, the width geometry of the slits is a solution set, the
gap distance between the slits is another solution set, the wavelengths of light
that fall under the influence of the slits is yet another solution set.
The working solution for a given set of circumstances, is only in the locations
where all of the solution sets partially, or totally overlap, ("union" function of
solution sets). An analogy would be similar to a RGB color chart, where the
overlapping colors create a solution set to create specific colors by combining
their individual spectral attributes into a composite color.
The areas where the set unions overlap, is a solution set result.
There must be causality for interference to occur, and it can occur when specific
criteria merge to provide a solution set.
I don't understand your apparent claim that whatever slits are used (with photons/electrons/neutrons) the result will always simulate an interference pattern without interference actually being the cause of the pattern.
The point I have been trying to impress on everyone, is that there is interference
happening between the arriving photons and the slits. No slits.....no interference
pattern.
The energy interaction that occurs between the slits and the arriving photons is the
foundation of the DSE interference result. The photons change their
character/nature due to the influence of the slits, which is why we get a refraction
interference response from a single slit, and a dual refraction response from
2 slits. The photons are experiencing interference with the matter fields of the
slits.
TRoc, I will address your comments later.
LL
QUOTE
Is it really possible that the slits themselves somehow manipulate the trajectory of individual photons to simulate a perfect interference pattern from which we can measure the wavelength of a photon? The DSE works for electron, neutrons and other stuff I can't be bothered to find references for .. and in every case we get the answer predicted by de Broglie (the interference pattern) :- can this just be coincidence?
Simulated interference pattern???....Not at all, it is an "absolute" interference
pattern. The slits must have a specific operational geometric "range" (which
makes them "range bound") in order to create an interference pattern.
Think of it this way, the width geometry of the slits is a solution set, the
gap distance between the slits is another solution set, the wavelengths of light
that fall under the influence of the slits is yet another solution set.
The working solution for a given set of circumstances, is only in the locations
where all of the solution sets partially, or totally overlap, ("union" function of
solution sets). An analogy would be similar to a RGB color chart, where the
overlapping colors create a solution set to create specific colors by combining
their individual spectral attributes into a composite color.
The areas where the set unions overlap, is a solution set result.
There must be causality for interference to occur, and it can occur when specific
criteria merge to provide a solution set.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is it really possible that the slits themselves somehow manipulate the trajectory of individual photons to simulate a perfect interference pattern from which we can measure the wavelength of a photon? The DSE works for electron, neutrons and other stuff I can't be bothered to find references for .. and in every case we get the answer predicted by de Broglie (the interference pattern) :- can this just be coincidence? |
Simulated interference pattern???....Not at all, it is an "absolute" interference
pattern. The slits must have a specific operational geometric "range" (which
makes them "range bound") in order to create an interference pattern.
Think of it this way, the width geometry of the slits is a solution set, the
gap distance between the slits is another solution set, the wavelengths of light
that fall under the influence of the slits is yet another solution set.
The working solution for a given set of circumstances, is only in the locations
where all of the solution sets partially, or totally overlap, ("union" function of
solution sets). An analogy would be similar to a RGB color chart, where the
overlapping colors create a solution set to create specific colors by combining
their individual spectral attributes into a composite color.
The areas where the set unions overlap, is a solution set result.
There must be causality for interference to occur, and it can occur when specific
criteria merge to provide a solution set.
I don't understand your apparent claim that whatever slits are used (with photons/electrons/neutrons) the result will always simulate an interference pattern without interference actually being the cause of the pattern.
The point I have been trying to impress on everyone, is that there is interference
happening between the arriving photons and the slits. No slits.....no interference
pattern.
The energy interaction that occurs between the slits and the arriving photons is the
foundation of the DSE interference result. The photons change their
character/nature due to the influence of the slits, which is why we get a refraction
interference response from a single slit, and a dual refraction response from
2 slits. The photons are experiencing interference with the matter fields of the
slits.
TRoc, I will address your comments later.
LL
Good Elf,
take care, hopefully you will recover soon.
Jan Rinze.
take care, hopefully you will recover soon.
Jan Rinze.
Good Elf,
Urgent surgery for a detached retina -- I am so sorry you must go though this. 
My friend please take care and if possible PLEASE have someone inform us how your recovery is coming.
Prayers from my family to yours, I know you view religion/faith from a different perspective but we all much walk our own path.
Take care & God bless,
ciao_
yquantum
Urgent surgery for a detached retina -- I am so sorry you must go though this.
My friend please take care and if possible PLEASE have someone inform us how your recovery is coming.
Prayers from my family to yours, I know you view religion/faith from a different perspective but we all much walk our own path.
Take care & God bless,
ciao_
yquantum
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.