Problem with the two slit experiment

Confused2

10th August 2007 - 09:01 PM

Hi LL,

a ) With slit A open and slit B closed we have 'interference prediction A'
b ) With slit B open and slit A closed we have 'interference prediction B'
c) With both slits open we have prediction A and prediction B together and we get 'interference prediction C'

A, B and C do not include any Laserlight effect.

Comparing the experimental results (dots) and 'interference prediction C' we notice the difference is very small:-

(click me)

This is a test of text book theory against reality .. Teachspin are selling to smart guys and gals .. if they lied they'd be caught out in no time. Does the Laserlight effect lie in the difference between the experimental result and predicted result or 'somewhere else'?

Best wishes -C2.

Howzabout every reference to an experiment counts as spotting a groundhog (I assume this is a good thing) .. Good Elf gets bonus groundhogs as and when required.

Montec

11th August 2007 - 12:47 AM

Hello Good Elf, Confused2, et al

Good Elf
Best wishes and a speedy recovery.

Confused2
Here is the Conceptual Tour that goes along with Techspin DSE device for those that want more info.

The Techspin web page for their DSE is http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_slit/index.shtml

This site gives a good rundown on photo diodes http://www.emergesemi.com/background.html

Laserlight

11th August 2007 - 02:11 AM

Hi TRoc,

QUOTE

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

What is one of the fundamental things that all DSE interference experiments
have in common to produce an interference pattern?
Answer: Multiple slits with the proper geometric relationship to change the
dynamics of waves, and generate multiple path lengths from a single wave, which
differentiate and produce an interference pattern.

See my response to C2 about solution sets and their unions, which yield composite
results, based upon interactions.

ALL MATTER, regardless of atomic structure, create matter waves
(fields) which couples it to "space". The kind of material involved is of no real
consequence, except that certain metals, are particularly efficient in how they
couple energy. This energy coupling that takes place between matter and space
is a resonance phenomenon, which also represents a refractive index of
proximity space.

When matter and energy "meet" there is always an energy exchange
that is observed as either absorption, reflection (re-emission), or refraction.

Why is this naturally occurring phenomenon so hard for people to grasp, as
it pertains to the DSE results? It is a cause and effect scenario that must be
included in the solution set. To ignore this would be like trying to go swimming
when there is no water in which to swim. It takes multiple coincidental factors
in order to produce a solution set result.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Exactly my point! An individual solution set of fixed, limited possibilities
(probablities), can only produce a "limited" response. When other external
variables are introduced, the solution set of possible results changes to reflect
where the individual closed sets overlap.

It takes multiple changing influences to yield an interference pattern from
singular events.

If the frequency of the photons doesn't change, photon to photon, then what other
external influencing factor can cause each subsequent identical photon to
move to a different location and form a repeating pattern of "hits"?
Yes, it is interference, but what is the ROOT CAUSE that creates the interference
effect? THAT IS THE QUESTION.

QUOTE

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".

This is kind of "inside the box" logic.
Time to venture outside of the box and view events from multiple, external perspectives.

Your example is just a matter of temporal relativity, as viewed by the observer.
Slow motion provides intricate details of sequential events, that would otherwise be
missed at full speed. It is like looking at the heavens and saying "Wow the
universe is big, and then looking thru a telescope at a nebula, and observing just
how intricate some of the finer details really are.

A change of perspective (and programmed thought processes), provides insights
that others, afraid to venture outside the box, miss. Expand your horizons.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

In order for there to be many, they must stem from one.
One is the fundamental unit! Even the most complex machine is
nothing more than an assemblage of individual simple parts and concepts.

QUOTE

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.

Very profound statement, with one different perspective. Harmonic series is
purely a repeating out of phase dependent relationship/situation.
1 + 1 = 2, unless they are "perfectly" and repetitively out of phase/timing.
It's either a linear response, or a non-linear repetitive response.

Comments? Discussion? Other opinions welcomed.
LL

Laserlight

11th August 2007 - 02:25 AM

Hi All,

This discovery might upset the HUP to some degree, however it will not
change "probability".

http://www.physorg.com/news105972993.html

Laserlight

11th August 2007 - 02:58 AM

Hi C2,

QUOTE

a ) With slit A open and slit B closed we have 'interference prediction A'

We have refraction pattern A

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

a ) With slit A open and slit B closed we have 'interference prediction A'

We have refraction pattern A

b ) With slit B open and slit A closed we have 'interference prediction B'

We have refraction pattern B

QUOTE

c) With both slits open we have prediction A and prediction B together and we get 'interference prediction C'

YES, agreed, we have INTERFERENCE PATTERN C.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

c) With both slits open we have prediction A and prediction B together and we get 'interference prediction C'

YES, agreed, we have INTERFERENCE PATTERN C.

A, B and C do not include any Laserlight effect.

Ignoring your personal attack mode once again, it is not a Laserlight effect,
it is physics. Mathematics and statistics is not physics...they are
analytical tools that provide the concept of "equality". Their results yield
predictable numerical solution sets.

Physics is the science of physical phenomena and how, and why, they
interact to produce observable results. In the case of the DSE, matter and
visible light interact to provide a physical result. Yes, it can be statistically
analyzed, but that won't explain the various mechanisms involved to produce the
final effect.

No slits, no interference.

You really should try to look over the top of the box, there is a whole new world
out here! You can bring your pet groundhog with you.

Laserlight

11th August 2007 - 03:43 AM

Hi C2, and TRoc,

I've modified the color chart? Perhaps it will better illustrate what I have
been discussing about overlapping solution sets. Let me know if the link
doesn't work.

http://www.geocities.com/jpecic/interference.jpg

LL

Confused2

11th August 2007 - 04:26 PM

Hi TRoc,Laserlight,Montec,Good Elf et al,

I apologise for the personal attack mode .. I am trying to find a way through this .. I am (obviously) not very good at it .. sorry.

I agree with TRoc's point that 'photons' etc are (somewhat) abstract concepts. Hopefully the game we are playing is to reduce the degree of 'abstraction' to the point where we can attach meanings to the words (where possible) and go on to make reasonably accurate predictions about any combination of photons/time/space/slits/electrons etc. (possibly a bit optimistic but never mind)

With a single experiment it is (apparently) very difficult to tell whether the DSE effects are the result of carefully crafted slits which can manipulate a photon with great precision OR the slits have allowed us to see some part of the properties of a photon that we would (apparently) rather not know about. If we look forwards in time (or backwards) to the delayed choice version of the DSE we can see that an entangled photon can switch the 'slit effect' between two entirely different modes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser ).

If anyone else agrees with the difficulty of drawing a conclusion from a single experiment .. could I suggest we deviate slightly and look at the mechanism of the MM interferometer?

Best wishes - C2.

Laserlight

11th August 2007 - 05:47 PM

Hi C2, TRoc, et All,

I don't think that we should get caught up in the argument about abstract
qualities. Being able to quantify an abstract concept provides
the necessary "substance" to maintain a formalized "structure". We can't
see sound, but we can perceive its influence on our physiology. It is the same
with other physiological "abstractions". We perceive their effects on the physical
world, and can predict their influence under specific and controlled conditions, and
that is enough to prove existence.

The fact that we are clever enough to provide "scale", with which to quantify their
operational ranges, makes these seeming abstractions into tangible/real influences.

I do agree that abstractions that we cannot quantify, or observe thru interactions,
should be discarded from the argument. It is either observable/measureable/quantifiable,
or it is not. That is the required criteria, IMO.

Single experiments offer clues/information and are only subsets of a much
larger phenomenon, like pieces of a puzzle. It is only when sufficient pieces are
all correctly assembled into a structured, connected pattern that the whole puzzle
collectively conveys all the necessary information to completely communicate
its elaborate nature.

Currently, we are still only looking at individual pieces and trying to fit them
all together. Unfortunately, IMO, some choose to toss out some key pieces because
they don't fit their preconceptions of what the final puzzle should look like.
Perhaps this is the reason the DSE puzzle is not completed....pieces are missing,
because they have been discarded as "unnecessary".

JMHO.
LL

TRoc

11th August 2007 - 07:20 PM

Hi all,

With so many "good thoughts" here, GE will be healed in no time.

LL,

First, let me point out our agreements, which are many. You are definitely "singing to the choir" here.

QUOTE

What is one of the fundamental things that all DSE interference experiments have in common to produce an interference pattern?
Answer: Multiple slits with the proper geometric relationship to change the dynamics of waves, and generate multiple path lengths from a single wave, which
differentiate and produce an interference pattern.

Agreed. I have said the same here. This does not make the slits "more special" than the OTHER 2 requirements: the screen (orthogonal plane/dimension change), and the distance (space) between them. Are you forgetting that if we change the distance, the pattern changes too? Are you forgetting, that if we angle the screen "oblique" to the a z axis (fundamental), the pattern also changes (for the "non-moving" observer)?

We need all 3 parameters, and let's not forget the wave-train, in order to have the DSE.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I couldn't agree more.

In our system, the electron is ALREADY "one". Any further quantization is redundant, IMO (and other theorists). The fields are not separate; everything is already connected. That is why the "2-way exchange" model is logical, even though we must re-interpret some "cause & effect" ideas (through a fundamental time).

QUOTE

If the frequency of the photons doesn't change, photon to photon, then what other external influencing factor can cause each subsequent identical photon to move to a different location and form a repeating pattern of "hits"?

We have no way of knowing, as of now, if the frequency does or does not change while "in flight". We simply know that it ends up the same. There is a slight, but important difference between those statements.

Personally, I have worked with frequency, and found a "pattern"; just as there are patterns in the "distance/wavelength", or "phasors", etc. These are mathematical models. They all make use of Pythagorean Theorem. My model does not use "imaginary numbers"; this does not make them "bad" to me. It is just that I have found the same ability to measure the "phase of the node" (imaginary) as the "sine wave" model, by simply measuring symmetric ratio beats of the "real" measurement, "frequency".

In fact, not only does this "dimensionless method" of measuring frequency create a spectrum that is more accurate than the current model, it automatically contains/produces the inverse: the measurement of wavelength.

If you are following with an open mind, or have heard me say this before, you have to realize that in order for what I'm saying to be true, then my model must also predict a constant "group" (wavelet combinations) velocity, and it MUST be " c ".

It does.

I hope, in the interest of the "pursuit of knowledge", everyone will forgive me for holding dearly onto this fact. I have done something that the Standard Model does NOT, and can not. Until that is done, I'm going to say "mine is better", in this context.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Exactly. Perhaps you misunderstood my point. The example I gave was not from my point of view; it was an analogy of the Current Model paradigm. This is how I see them "measuring".

They ALREADY made the "error" of assuming that we were seeing it with the clarity of "slow motion". Meaning, the rate of passage did not conceal any details; it was "one". "One" infers that no further "slowing down" is possible. That would be "fundamental". The "photon as a particle" (one) model is wrong. As an EM wave, it MUST have internal "components"; these components are "divisible". That is the end of the "photon"~"one"~"fundamental"~"indivisible" model, for me. It went off the logic track.

QUOTE

Yes, it is interference, but what is the ROOT CAUSE that creates the interference effect? THAT IS THE QUESTION.

The very simple answer is: WAVE Interaction.

The space between waves is ALWAYS filled with lessor waves, which can (sometimes "must") move much faster than the "group envelope".

We ALWAYS measure waves with resonance; it MUST be either equal, or at integer # of cycles. Therefore, we have NOT learned to measure "broad-band", at a sampling rate of < 2x . If the wavelets in question are GREATER than this limit, our detectors can not "receive" the signal. What lies near the "border" of these 2 regimes, is PURPOSEFULLY "tuned out", as "dark current". That is the nail in the coffin of truth/logic.

These wavelets do not have the same limits as the envelope. They can, and do, WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to recreate the fundamental, at the point of measurement. This phenomenon goes by several (surprise!) names; QM terms it "quantum revival". It is real. We have the camera as evidence of our understanding/predicting this effect.

The "single photon" interpretation IGNORES this fact.

The space between these "individuals" is filled with "harmonic copies" of the original. How can "injecting more time" (slow motion analogy) between "photons", and THEN, measuring over a longer period, give us any different result than our original, "normal speed" DSE?

If we "adjust" for the time difference, in measurement period, and "number of estimated photons", because these photons have a definite relation to "rate of cycles per TIME", we will find that the "frequency" is either adjusted, or our definition of "frequency" is changed. Take your pick.

The result is a "slow motion" DSE, whose results are the same as when we watched it in "real time". Forget the silly arguments about "which slit did it go through", and the subsequent argument that "a photon, then, only interfere's with itself". It is not, and never is, or can be, the only energy, or "photon" present.

Welcome to the age of light! The "dark ages" of Science are behind us now, save for the last of the "old-timers", and their old texts.

All energy is connected; it is the mass of bodies that create the illusion of separation.

Headlines of the day: (July issue of New Journal of Physics [1,2] and featured on the cover of Science (August 10, 2007), and physorg.com/news)

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Yes, it is interference, but what is the ROOT CAUSE that creates the interference effect? THAT IS THE QUESTION.

The unsaid is more important: we have NEVER seen a "single cycle" contain all of the energy of a "quanta" of radiation. E = hf works; it works because we SET UP to measure the single " f " in the equation. All other frequencies are relative to this (the speed of light is INPUT in this model of wave frequency).

QUOTE

This single, large amplitude, field oscillation is used to exert a well-controlled ultrastrong force on charged particles, such as electrons, allowing unprecedented precise control of their motion in and around atoms.

Notice they resisted calling that "one photon", even though it "walks and talks" like one.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Notice they resisted calling that "one photon", even though it "walks and talks" like one.

The ultra-strong, single wave cycle of the hypershort laser pulse, results in the emission of vastly different frequencies (colours) within the X-ray pulse.

Now, my argument that a "photon" has more than one cycle, each with a different frequency, will be even MORE difficult to understand, for those who choose not to "believe". Here is evidence that JUST one cycle can also contain more than one frequency. No matter how many wheels (phase nodes), no matter how many riders (energy), and no matter how many gears (frequency rate), we can only use one gear at a time. This is the "mechanics" that a model produces, by MEASURING at a time and place. It does not tell us about other places and times "on the way". Could our rider(s) have used other gears, when we weren't looking? Looking at the rise and fall of the amplitude, I think it is "safe" to say that "ALL" gears would be used, each creating some "potential path".

QUOTE

In the near future these X-ray pulses will allow researchers to take “freeze-frame” snapshots of electrons moving in molecules, allowing reconstruction of the motions that control information transfer on molecular scales as well as structural changes of both small and large (bio-) molecules [4].

But, not yet. Imagine how naive the picture was circa 1900? This is what the current model is built on. They thought that they had the "slowest motion" possible, because of the group velocity limit. Only much later, with better equipment, did we "prove" the phase velocity "exceptions" to that. We will not have "ultimate clarity" until this "freeze frame" picture is taken, and analyzed.

regards,

T.Roc

Confused2

11th August 2007 - 07:27 PM

Hi Laserlight,

By 'conventional' analysis all we need is two paths to the same point to get our interference pattern .. where o is the opening the slits can (for example) happily be

___o-------o __ or ----o__----o___

Would the results of a test with stepped slits be a fair test of LL theory? A path length analysis predicts the interference pattern might be slightly off centre by a distance no more than about half the distance between the peaks .. what does the LL theory predict?

Best wishes - C2

TRoc .. just seen your post .. I'll have to come back to it later.

TRoc

12th August 2007 - 03:23 AM

Hi all,

Just because I don't feel that I emphasized enough, that I fully agree that the slits play an integral role in the DSE pattern, let me add this..

Regardless of what we use as "slits", even things that are definitely not really "slits", like a diffraction grating, gravitational lensing, crystal symmetry, intense beams of light, etc., we have (IMO) the following "conditions":
[my hypothesis]

The energy, "passing in wave form", will be most dense, between the masses of the "slit edges" (or whatever is acting as a "barrier"). Conversely, the energy density will decrease as you approach the edge, and end at "zero" within the mass itself.

At the same time, the phase velocity is forced by the "shape" of the energy density, to follow exactly the same pattern: the velocity "just inside" the mass is zero, and gradually increases towards the center, where it is the highest.

We now have the seeds for the "curvature" of the slit being treated as a new source (near field is "refreshed"), along with the wavefront mechanics of Huygens principle.

The curvature of this energy density form creates a "virtual lens". By considering the mass~energy relationship, the "matter wave density" will be in an inverse form. The "matter waves" (or the advanced wave) will be the most dense at the slit edge, and the least in the center of the slit.

Alternatively, you could just say that the area around the slit constitutes a new medium. (if you don't agree to either "matter waves", or Wheeler-Feynman, Cramer's) This "local medium" would have the least affect (delta-RI) at the center (~the same as the rest of the medium), and the most at the slit edges.

Any way you want to slice it, we get the following "phase geometry", forming a virtual biconcave lens

also known as a diverging lens.

It diverges a wave, and that is the "phenomenon" we are describing. (at the slits)
User posted image

[For fun, imagine that we were looking at a laser beam under a "zoom lens", and "discovered" that it was NOT just "end to end" photons, but also "side by side". Imagine that, a collimated, coherent beam of light; that sounds like "more than one" is required! ]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_%28optics%29

There is still one more part to this, that I will include next time. Good, thoughtful questioning will possibly expose this other ground-hog.

regards,

T.Roc

Confused2

12th August 2007 - 08:30 AM

Hi TRoc, LL et al,

TRoc: A diverging lens turns a plane wave (in 3d) into a sort of spherical wave .. if you don't agree I'll try to find some references. The point is that the spherically expanding bit is all of one phase.

In a real slit it is the phase changes across the slit that cause the interference patterns. By modelling the slit as a diverging lens you have replaced the phase changes from the slit by a spherical wave .. this leads me to suspect that your subsequent analysis of a spherical wave will probably not give a viable explanation of the DSE effect.

Compare your analysis with LL's which seems to replace the slit by a lens that is somehow equivalent to the phase changes across the slit... this has the advantage of having the right answer built into it .. the debug process should involve testing the properties and plausibility of such a lens against other possible explanations.

Best wishes - C2.

Edit.. belatedly it occurs to me that a 'spherically expanding' wavefront won't produce any interference effects .. this might explain the need for 'cavities' (etc) to generate the missing ground-hog.

Laserlight

12th August 2007 - 02:32 PM

Hi TRoc, C2, JanRinze, GE, Montec, Wulf, et al,

Your post nearly brought a tear to my eye.

It seems that we are converging into a common focal point of the "mechanics"
of the DSE. I'm sure that we have some room for improvement, but we are
at least moving in the right direction, IMO.

What you have thus far described, which is nearly identical, in description, to a
post of mine in the Jan-Feb timeframe, only applies to a single slit, which is
the wave diffusing mechanism for diffraction, and how it creates a spherical wave
from a nearly planar source wave.

QUOTE

The energy, "passing in wave form", will be most dense, between the masses of the "slit edges" (or whatever is acting as a "barrier"). Conversely, the energy density will decrease as you approach the edge, and end at "zero" within the mass itself.

Please explain the highlighted text, it seems contradictory to the following,
which I agree with.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Please explain the highlighted text, it seems contradictory to the following,
which I agree with.

The curvature of this energy density form creates a "virtual lens". By considering the mass~energy relationship, the "matter wave density" will be in an inverse form. The "matter waves" (or the advanced wave) will be the most dense at the slit edge, and the least in the center of the slit.

Now, we have the basis for describing the mechanism (again) for different
path lengths of two overlapping spherical wavefronts who's products/superpositions
yield an interference pattern, that C2 has been fixated on for SOOOooo LOOonnng.

Hark! There is light at the end of the long dark tunnel.

And on the 323rd day, LL said "Let there be light" so that all can see!

Comments, and snide remarks welcomed!

Laserlight

12th August 2007 - 02:50 PM

Hi C2, TRoc, and All,

QUOTE

TRoc: A diverging lens turns a plane wave (in 3d) into a sort of spherical wave .. if you don't agree I'll try to find some references. The point is that the spherically expanding bit is all of one phase.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Exactly the point for a single diffracting slit, which is the model that
TRoc has provided. Now consider two slits producing two spherical wavefronts
that are "in phase"....Voila! Interference of the wavefronts at superposition points!

In a real slit it is the phase changes across the slit that cause the interference patterns. By modelling the slit as a diverging lens you have replaced the phase changes from the slit by a spherical wave .. this leads me to suspect that your subsequent analysis of a spherical wave will probably not give a viable explanation of the DSE effect.

Hmmm. It is the phase delays. caused by the interaction of the photons with
the matter waves (surface polaritons) that create the timing delays in the planar
wavefront (the lensing action), which produces the spherical wavefront.

QUOTE

Compare your analysis with LL's which seems to replace the slit by a lens that is somehow equivalent to the phase changes across the slit... this has the advantage of having the right answer built into it .. the debug process should involve testing the properties and plausibility of such a lens against other possible explanations.

I'm in shock! Did your pet groundhog bite you?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I'm in shock! Did your pet groundhog bite you?

Edit.. belatedly it occurs to me that a 'spherically expanding' wavefront won't produce any interference effects .. this might explain the need for 'cavities' (etc) to generate the missing ground-hog.

Perhaps my earlier statements will change your opinion on this mechanism.
Remember, we need to assemble ALL parts of the puzzle to produce a final
picture.

Comments?
LL

Laserlight

12th August 2007 - 03:25 PM

Hi All,

A new member of PhysOrg has proposed an alternative theory about how TIME
relates to mass and the Grand Unification Theory. While I don't necessarily totally
agree with his conceptualized GRID THEORY , his proposal offers some intriquing
questions about how we relate time to mass and space-time events. I have
commented some perspectives about his theory on that board, but some of the
ideas may be worthy topics of discussion and development on this board also,
since we have tried to incorporate all quantum theories into the fabric of our dialog.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry247022

The topic relates to space-time, and its relationship to mass, which I equate to
a gradient energy displacement of space, which surrounds massive objects.
Essentially, if space is warped, time must also be warped. In other words
it is not a linear function in close proximity to mass, and must also follow the
gradient tenets of the ISL, as does energy. I have proposed that time follows
an exponential curve that matches the energy curve of the ISL.

A possible reason that the Grand Unification Theory (GUT) has not been possible
is that science has been using the human conceptualization of a linear time
function, instead of a gradient exponential time function to try to model specific
phenomena from the quantum level and the macro universe, and tie them
together.

If time is relative, then there must be a way of scaling that temporal relativity so
that it fits the scale of the physical/energetic geometries with which it is
associated. This idea could open a whole new metric, and tie many loose ends
of QM, QED, QCD, Relativity, and Cosmology all together.

Thoughts? Comments?
LL

TRoc

12th August 2007 - 03:50 PM

Hi all,

WOW! This really is something. This looks JUST like some kind of conversation!

You BOTH read my post, saw my point, AND ran right to the hole that for sure, that groundhog is in!

YEE-HAAW!

C2-

QUOTE

A diverging lens turns a plane wave (in 3d) into a sort of spherical wave .. if you don't agree I'll try to find some references. The point is that the spherically expanding bit is all of one phase.

I agree on both points.
Huygens' principle states the wave-front will form "one" frequency or phase at the outer edge. Yes, we may have some "aberration" that stretches the vertical component a bit. I don't think this poses a problem; the pattern on the wall is also stretched in both dimensions. (wider and taller than the original image/slit)

C2-

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

A diverging lens turns a plane wave (in 3d) into a sort of spherical wave .. if you don't agree I'll try to find some references. The point is that the spherically expanding bit is all of one phase.

That's good too. That was covered by my stating: "..the slits play an integral role in the DSE pattern..", and "It diverges a wave, and that is the "phenomenon" we are describing. (at the slits)"

I see a specific lack of the word "spherical", in my post. The closest I came was "curved". Reason: fractals are my form of choice. I can not give too much on this now, but a couple of snips from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal.

QUOTE

A fractal as a geometric object generally has the following features:

It has a fine structure at arbitrarily small scales.
It is too irregular to be easily described in traditional Euclidean geometric language.
It is self-similar (at least approximately or stochastically).
It has a Hausdorff dimension which is greater than its topological dimension (although this requirement is not met by space-filling curves such as the Hilbert curve).
It has a simple and recursive definition.[2]

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Karl Weierstrass gave an example of a function with the non-intuitive property of being everywhere continuous but nowhere differentiable.

QUOTE

Georg Cantor also gave examples of subsets of the real line with unusual properties—these Cantor sets are also now recognized as fractals.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Georg Cantor also gave examples of subsets of the real line with unusual properties—these Cantor sets are also now recognized as fractals.

Objects in the phase space of a dynamical system can be fractals (see attractor).

and, more to the point, another example:

QUOTE

The Koch snowflake is the result of an infinite number of these iterations, and has an infinite length, while its area remains finite. For this reason, the Koch snowflake and similar constructions were sometimes called "monster curves."

Think about the properties of light, that we have all more or less agreed on, that (counter intuitively) suggest an "infinite expanding wavefront" that fills the space and seeks all paths, yet at the same time maintains a constant area, or "wave-length".

There is no other form that I know of that can satisfy the results of the experimental data that we are using.

Further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/f_noise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automata

As you can see, I've gone too far off-track.

Back to C2-

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Back to C2-By modeling the slit as a diverging lens you have replaced the phase changes from the slit by a spherical wave..

OK, first, I'm not sure that it is fair to describe this as "modeling". The geometry that I described IS the geometry of the slit. Now, certainly, there is room for "quibbling" here, but, as I see it, UNTIL we can have a literal "nano-view" of the slit edges, to confirm my suspicion that we will not find "smooth curves" there, but "jagged edges", I think that it is FAIR, and SAFE to say this:

There will ALWAYS be "less" matter at the center of the slit, than at the slit edge itself. There will ALWAYS be more energy at the center of the slit, and less at the slit edges.

These are the kind of statements that I can stand behind. They are too "simple" to find fault with.. provided they are not "too simple".

Since mass and energy are "interactive systems", and this experiment is not static, we also must see that this effect TAPERS off at the boundaries. There is no "abrupt edge". This is critical to the "virtual lens".

The other part of your statement talks about "replacing the phase changes at the slit", which I'm not sure if I understand what you mean.

IF I understand you correctly, then I disagree that I have "changed anything". We are allowed to treat the slit as a new source. Any "phase change" would have to be measured at different points on the screen (except for the central max, of course). This changing of position of measurement is what allows us to see the "whole wave length differences" contributing to the DSE pattern.

Let me post this, and answer LL separately, to keep the flow going.

ciao!

T.Roc

Laserlight

12th August 2007 - 04:42 PM

Hey TRoc, C2, et al,

QUOTE

There will ALWAYS be "less" matter at the center of the slit, than at the slit edge itself. There will ALWAYS be more energy at the center of the slit, and less at the slit edges.

Maybe it is semantics or just the way you said it vs what I interpret you to have
stated, but there is no matter at the center of the slit, since it is open.
Unless, you are speaking about the slit sidewalls of the rectangle that is
the structure of the slit, in which case the surface sidewalls expose less surface
area than the comparable area at the 90 degree corners of the slits.

Also, why wouldn't there be more energy concentrated along the surface planes
of the slit sidewalls than in the center of the slit? Unless you are inferring that
the focal properties of the matter waves are more concentrated in the center of
the slit. This would be directly proportional to the width of the slit, with narrower
slits concentrating more energy into the slit cavity per exposed surface area, since
the opposite sidewalls and associated matter fields are closer together, in
narrower slit geometries. This effect changes the refractive index, according to
local energy density within the slit cavity(ies).

Edit added: Also, as a side topic the quantum energy of different wavelengths
would interact differently with the qualities of the lensing action, based upon
deflection characteristics and the energy momentum of the wave. Longer
wavelengths will disperse more than more energetic shorter wavelengths that
have a higher energy "density" per unit area.
user posted image

http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/kap27...raction/app.htm

Comments, discussion?
LL

Confused2

12th August 2007 - 05:25 PM

Hi TRoc, LL et al,
Of lenses and slits .. I agree, not spherical .. a slit would be kinda cylindricalish whether actual lens or Huygens.
My objection to the lack of interference with a single wavefront was that diffraction does seem to involve interference. The path to (say) the screen is longer from one side of the slit than the other (except in the middle).. maybe this doesn't matter at this stage.
Looking at wiki and the path integral formulation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation ) .. it is a very tricky thing.

QUOTE (wiki+)

In calculating the amplitude for a single particle to go from one place to another in a given time, it would be correct to include histories in which the particle describes elaborate curlicues, histories in which the particle shoots off into outer space and flies back again, and so forth. The path integral includes them all.

I think I see where your space filling patterns are coming from .. it may be that they are 'not wrong' or even 'not wrong enough' - I don't know. To get to the point of some agreement on this thread I'm tempted to overlook some of the more bizarre paths and concentrate on those which contribute to a (near) classical optics result.

QUOTE (TRoc/me+)

"replacing the phase changes at the slit", which I'm not sure if I understand what you mean.

As we see from LL's last post .. he seems quite serious about a change of refractive index across the width of the slit. By 'refractive index' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index ) I'm pretty sure he means the speed of light.isn't constant across the slit. .. if you change the speed of light in some places and not others you get a phase change .. (back to the lens effect) . You could (if you wished) make a lens that would (directly) give either or both of the diffraction/double slit pattern. Is LL really serious about this? I can't tell. If groundhog day made sense it wouldn't be groundhog day.

I still maintain that the only phase changes are due to the differences in path lengths and that's all you need to know to get the right answer... but that's just my pet groundhog... I may as well be saying "Meet Gerald" .

Best wishes - C2.

QUOTE (Wiki+)

[ ..of "Groundhog day".. ] The character (played by Bill Murray ) is forced to relive the day over and over again until he can learn to give up his selfishness and become a better person.

TRoc

12th August 2007 - 05:40 PM

Hi all,

I see LL's subsequent post, and something were already addressed there.

One thing: LL is right in that I only suggested the geometry of ONE slit, but then referenced the "DSE". Just "double" my statement.

Let me re-iterate the difference between these 2 statements:

QUOTE

The energy, "passing in wave form", will be most dense, between the masses of the "slit edges" (or whatever is acting as a "barrier"). Conversely, the energy density will decrease as you approach the edge, and end at "zero" within the mass itself.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The curvature of this energy density form creates a "virtual lens". By considering the mass~energy relationship, the "matter wave density" will be in an inverse form. The "matter waves" (or the advanced wave) will be the most dense at the slit edge, and the least in the center of the slit.

One is "energy-wave density", which would be our groundhog, in "photons' clothing"; the other is "matter-wave density" which could be real, or we could just say that this form takes the opposite/inverse symmetry.

It is simply a container, and the "air" that it contains. (analogy) The air takes the form that the box allows. We are "quite sure" that the box is made of straight lines, but we KNOW that this is not true when we "crank up" the magnification. It would look much more like a sponge network of cavities.

Now, that analogy does not explain the whole picture, but I think you can see the point better with that picture in mind?

At this point, I will have to offer something "new", and "untested", AFAIK. That is why I saved it for last. It should not deter in understanding the basic phenomenon that I have described above.

Before, I do, let me also re-state why I don't think that the "interference" is happening at the slits, and that the slits just "set the stage" for that effect "on the way" to the screen.

The surface polaritons that you mention are in the lattice of the slit material, and move at MUCH slower velocities than light. I stated before that I don't think that there is reaction time (zone) for those waves to effect our passing light wave.

There is also the matter of coupling energies (frequency) being too far from each other to have "strong coupling" (fast).

Last, the polaritons behave (or not exist at all) differently in different materials. Just when we had made the painstaking calculations for the material in our experiment, we would have to start over for each different material. Atomically, all of the elements are different, having different energy, mass, absorption/emission, etc. and would couple differently (or not at all) to certain frequencies.

So, this "other" point (that was caught by both of you) is I left off a bit of the "geometry".

Two slits would, as LL pointed out, restore the "phase question" of C2, and also create the following (poor ASCII art):

...l..l...
...\./...
.........
.../.\...
...l..l...
...l..l...
...\./...
.........
.../.\...
...l..l...

[the ".." represent nothing, they are just for spacing of characters]

The "tooth" that I am always referring to, takes the FORM of a biconvex lens. The slits always (even in 3D, or aperture) take the form of biconcave lens.

We might think of the tooth being a lens for dark energy; alternatively, for the phase nodes (zero amplitude). (*there is something measurable there)

We also could think of the "dual" affects of the density forms that I mentioned, and LL questioned.

The energy-wave density-form, being convex for the reasons I gave, would converge the anti-node elements of the wave. At the same time (and slit), the "matter-wave density form", being concave for the reasons I gave, would diverge the node elements.

Because of the distance to slit parameter, these 2 causes could combine, and help understand why we have the different phenomenon of 1. The Talbot length "revivals", 2. The near field Fresnel model, and 3. The far field Fraunhoffer model. This is in addition to basic lens characteristics like focal length, the Abbe number (another place where the line is blurred between "human perception", and theoretical Physics). The Abbe number makes (inadvertent) use of the triad, and the working of the eye to set these parameters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbe_number

QUOTE

nD, nF and nC are the refractive indices of the material at the wavelengths of the Fraunhofer D-, F- and C- spectral lines (589.2 nm, 486.1 nm and 656.3 nm respectively).

[note: colors are yellow, cyan, and orange, respectively]

in this equation $user posted image$

I am trying to make use of virtual positive and negative lenses, to spread our positive and negative phased wave. The intensity does not matter; it is always focused to the center of the pattern. The intensity parameter is shaped by the energy-wave density-form (well known self-focusing). The bands of light and dark however, are all about "phases". Compare the 2 photos, and imagine a specific distance range, and the combined affect of the 2 phenomena that I am proposing:

User posted image

Here is a link to a very good article on Talbot.
Quantum Carpets
Michael Berry, Irene Marzoli and Wolfgang Schleich (June, 01)

This is very important, because it "carries through" the other 2 models (Fres/Fraun), even though they are not "complimentary" to each other (in their limits). It also measures the "russian doll ~ harmonics" at fractional revival lengths.

"On the way" is full of surprises!

regards,

T.Roc

Confused2

12th August 2007 - 07:00 PM

Hi TRoc,

I'm sorry .. I can't make any sense of your slits .../.\......l..l...
Two slits is normally something like ______ ______________ ________
Are you trying to draw light-pipes?

QUOTE (Laserlight+)

The intensity parameter is shaped by the energy-wave density-form (well known self-focusing).

Well known? Is that the effect that requires super-high power lasers .. powerful enough to warm the air so its refractive index changes?
Best wishes - C2

Laserlight

12th August 2007 - 10:25 PM

Hi C2,

???? You quoted me as the source of this statement, when it was TRoc.

QUOTE

QUOTE (Laserlight)
The intensity parameter is shaped by the energy-wave density-form (well known self-focusing).

Well known? Is that the effect that requires super-high power lasers .. powerful enough to warm the air so its refractive index changes?

Confused2

12th August 2007 - 10:52 PM

Sorry about that.
Best wishes - C2.

Any prediction on the stepped slit front?

CODE

-------- ________ -----------

and ---------- ______------- _________

Zarabtul

12th August 2007 - 10:59 PM

QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 11 2007, 04:26 PM)

It just again brings me back to our solar system reminding me a lot of our chemical make-up. It also definatly makes me look at biology closely. Everything has some reason though.

Laserlight

12th August 2007 - 11:24 PM

Troc, C2, and All, (Where is everyone else?)

TRoc quotes:

QUOTE

Before, I do, let me also re-state why I don't think that the "interference" is happening at the slits, and that the slits just "set the stage" for that effect "on the way" to the screen.

The surface polaritons that you mention are in the lattice of the slit material, and move at MUCH slower velocities than light. I stated before that I don't think that there is reaction time (zone) for those waves to effect our passing light wave.

IMO, the polaritons are responsible for coupling the matter waves/fields to
the adjacent proximity space. There should be a latency delay time for photons to
interact when they couple their energy component to matter. IMO, it is the same
energy coupling effect. Any EM wave energy that "grazes" the sidewalls is being
distorted/delayed by this wave/energy coupling latency action. Shouldn't this
latency phase delay phenomenon be considered wave interference? This sets the
stage for the optical lensing effect.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Hmmm, for the reason given above, this would be a form of oblique photon
reflection, where the normally straight path is deflected at a critical angle. I know
this technique is used for x-ray steering, so why wouldn't it work equally well
for less energetic photons in the visible spectrum?

QUOTE

Last, the polaritons behave (or not exist at all) differently in different materials. Just when we had made the painstaking calculations for the material in our experiment, we would have to start over for each different material. Atomically, all of the elements are different, having different energy, mass, absorption/emission, etc. and would couple differently (or not at all) to certain frequencies.

There may some validity to this statement, unless one considers that
all matter couples energy to and from space via a similar phenomenon.

Even if the ambient space is unlighted by photons in the visible spectrum, there
is energy coupling between matter and space, in the form of unseen matter
waves (and IR frequencies). I have proposed that this coupling is produced by the
surface polaritons/fields, that are created by electron-positron dipole antenna
elements that reside at the surface of all matter, and physically couple
energy to and from immediate proximity space via wave resonance.

When visible spectrum photons irradiate, and couple, their quantum EM energy
"component" into these surface dipole elements, an energy transfer takes place
and the energy is either resonantly absorbed, reflected, or refracted, according to
the wavelength/frequency of the photons, and the resonance qualities of the
surface dipoles of the matter being irradiated.

This is why we observe different textures, colors, and visual characteristics
according to the different types and resonance qualities of the specific matter
being irradiated.

Keep in mind that the slits are being irradiated by photons in the visible spectrum
and an energy transfer must be occuring, or else we would not be seeing the
matter that makes up the slits.

Again, I reiterate that we cannot just discard puzzle pieces out of convenience,
if we really want to develop a complete puzzle model.

I think C2 will be happy if the puzzle turns out to be a picture of his pet groundhog.

Comments? Discussion? Other opinions?
LL

Laserlight

12th August 2007 - 11:31 PM

Hey C2,

QUOTE

Any prediction on the stepped slit front?

I think the pattern sequence/separation will be distorted, or offset, from
a typical "barred" interference pattern that is typically observed.

The reason that I say this is that we have changed the symmetry of the slit
geometries, and the relative wave timing relationships. Those changes should
change the wave phasing, and the diffraction qualities, of the offset slit walls.

Perhaps this can be simulated on one of our applets. ???

Your comments, predictions?
LL

Laserlight

12th August 2007 - 11:54 PM

Just to provide a basis for understanding in discussions.

From Wikipedia - Polariton

QUOTE

In physics, polaritons are quasiparticles resulting from strong coupling of electromagnetic waves with an electric or magnetic dipole-carrying excitation. They are an expression of the common quantum phenomenon known as level repulsion, also known as the anti-crossing principle. Polaritons describe the crossing of the dispersion of light with any interacting resonance.

Thus, a polariton is the result of the mixing of a photon with an excitation of a material. The most discussed types of polaritons are phonon-polaritons, resulting from coupling of an infrared photon with an optic phonon; exciton-polaritons, resulting from coupling of visible light with an exciton; and surface plasmon-polaritons, resulting from coupling of surface plasmons with light (the wavelength depends on the substance).

Of interest:
http://www.nscl.msu.edu/~brown/beauty/Spacing/spacing.html

Laserlight

13th August 2007 - 01:01 AM

TRoc

13th August 2007 - 03:08 AM

Hi all,

C2, I understand your confusion. My chart was not labeled at all!

Let me try again.

This is a "top, down" look at the DSE. The " \ " and " / " are "knife edges", and the straight parts, " l " are the perpendicular slit wall. Where there is just " ... ", there is nothing, IE the center of the slit.

...l..l...
...\./...
......... { center of 1st "virtual biconcave lens"
.../.\...
...l..l...
...l..l... { the "tooth" is a virtual biconvex lens (dark energy, - frequency..)
...\./...
......... { 2nd virtual biconcave lens; center of the slit
.../.\...
...l..l...

------->>> direction of light

LL-

QUOTE

Maybe it is semantics or just the way you said it vs what I interpret you to have stated, but there is no matter at the center of the slit, since it is open.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. There is "no matter" (I'll use the value >0, since we're in a medium) in the center of the slits, and that is why we will find the highest level of energy (relative to this locality) there, too.

I do think that we have agreed to this "lens explanation" at one time or another. The "knife edge causes diffraction" was not in question, to my knowledge.

We are still addressing the core issue, IMO: interference - when and where does it happen. I am going back to the slit to try again to show that it (the final answer) can NOT be "computed" there (at the slits). It needs time to "develop", as it were.

With the polariton argument, I'm still not sure you have a big enough understanding of the whole picture. I'm not sure that I do either, but I keep running into "limitations", and I'm not finding the direct connection between "matter and free space", as you've described.

This is vibrations IN the lattice or solid, like a crystal. The light needs to be inside the (transparent?) solid for the coupling to take place.

I gave this link before, to a Thesis on Polaritonics. It is actually the source now for the wiki link that you gave. At 400+ pages, it is certainly more "thorough".

Polaritonics: An intermediate regime between Electronics and Photonics

It is (apparently) not allowed to quote from this PDF, so I'll have to direct to the reading of pages 45 & 46. I see, in an outline of "possibilities", these following materials that allow these "quasi-particle" interactions: 1. ferromagnetic solid , 2. semiconductor , and 3. a ferroelectric crystal. I am not seeing (nor have) a way for these quasi-particles to interact directly with "free space", or "photons" therein. "Guidance" of the wave is a requirement for the phenomenon to happen (read that: limit degrees of freedom). We have no such control over our beam of light; it has the potential to "take all paths".

regards,

T.Roc

Laserlight

13th August 2007 - 04:09 AM

Hi TRoc, C2, and All,

QUOTE

We are still addressing the core issue, IMO: interference - when and where does it happen. I am going back to the slit to try again to show that it (the final answer) can NOT be "computed" there (at the slits). It needs time to "develop", as it were.

Let me give you something to think about that should be a similar analogy to
our slit lens hypothesis.

Consider a movie projector lens. You can move the screen from some far
away fixed position and reposition it closer to the lens, and still get the same,
but smaller sized, image being projected. You can get a perfect image all the
way up to the focal point just beyond the lens....If you move past the focal
point into the nearfield region, all the way up to the surface of the
lens, you will get a non-inverted out of focus image, depending upon the
configuration/style of the lens.

If you consider that an image is nothing more than wave interference, and we
are taking a plane wave and converting it into a spherical wavefront within the
confines of slit cavities, then we must conclude that the slits are where the
signal mixing (interference) is taking place, and raditating spherically from the
trailing edge focal point of the slits/virtual lens.
-----

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Let me simplify the concept. With no illuminating photons, matter is still connected
to space via dipole resonances that are at some "minimal" energetic vibrational
level. We cannot see physical matter in this "non-energized" state because it is
not reflecting energy.

If we now apply photons in the visible spectrum (irradiate/illuminate), we
resonantly energize these dipoles to a higher level and they respond by coupling in
the applied energy. Some of the energy is absorbed, and some is reemitted
depending upon the frequencies irradiating the target. The reemitted energy
will reflect an image, according to the resonance pattern determined by the
resonant atomic structure of the surface. We can then see/detect the result of this
resonant energy coupling, that occurs between matter and the visible spectrum of
light. The colors reflected from the surfaces are rejected/re-emitted, while
other colors are absorbed.

So, it would seem that most physical matter (I can't say all) must possess
specific frequency resonance absorption and rejecion "bands" according to the
atomic resonances available at the surface dipoles.

This should provide proof of concept about matter coupling EM energy to and from
"space".

Yes, matter energetically "vibrates" at the atomic level, but it doesn't end at the
surface interface. Recall a previous discussion about a guitar string plucked
in a vacuum. There is no medium to physically transfer the vibrations across
space, but the string is still vibrating and releasing energy to space, in the
form of IR/heat, so there is still coupling of energy going on.

Comments? Discussion?
LL

TRoc

13th August 2007 - 04:08 PM

Hi all,

C2-

QUOTE

Well known? Is that the effect that requires super-high power lasers .. powerful enough to warm the air so its refractive index changes?

No, no, no. I have explained before, C2, that the example that I gave of "white light supercontinuum" from "high power" lasers is a FUNDAMENTAL process.

If we turn down the power (sound familiar?), we get the "same pattern", just at different energy/frequency. The next octave down (reduce by 1/2), would produce a "near infra-red continuum"; turn it down still further, and we would get a "far infra-red supercontinuum", and so on.

The experimental evidence, over the last 15+ years, shows that, when we actually "draw all paths", we find that nature creates geometric pictures. You need to follow (for a while) in the footsteps of M.Berry, where he took the concept of "geometric phase" to another level. This culminates (for him) at "quantum carpets", which are "woven" by the dynamical relationship of the change in phase. They use the terms "canals" and "ridges" for the "straight lines" that are always formed by the evolving wave-center (as opposed to the wave-front). This is what I am trying to explain. "Caustics" was used early on, but appears to have been changed.

Of course, a bunch of changing lines are going to take geometrical form, and there are distinct patterns inside this area. The patterns can be described by math as well, of course.

I implore you, and everyone who is interested, to read up on this phenomenon.

Caustics, Mutiply Reconstructed by Talbot Interference

Multi-mode Interference: Highly Regular Pattern Formation In Quantum Wave Packets

Multi-mode Interference - Identifying Canals and Ridges in Quantum Probability Distributions

There are many, many more.

The "other well known focusing effect" goes all the way back (I believe) to Nineveh, and the "fire stones" that they ground and polished until they could light FIRE with this "lens".

FOCUSING is a "run-away" effect. The process "keeps growing" until "something gives" (changes state). Ionization WILL take place, and THAT is what "changes" the medium. Temperature is not the dominant feature.

RI is wave-length DEPENDENT. Every frequency present in the envelope WILL be traveling at different velocities. This can cause spreading. Yes, there are "other ways" of describing this; I prefer to work with "frequency".

LL,

You are talking about effects "within" the solid. I am talking about effects OUTSIDE of the solid. This has been the case from the beginning. The "cause" you are seeking lies in the MEDIUM, not the slits. The MEDIUM is what connects the solid with the light waves. When we "change" gears, from "photon" to "whatever-ton", we are CHANGING energy levels. This STRICTLY means, that the emission of the original frequency is not possible. There is loss there, too. So, yes, they can have some effect, but it is WAY down the chain. Probably, there is a way to incorporate both, but I'm not aware of it.

You have described the "interference" at the slit. How then, could we get a different "interference" effect, by just adding more slits? The ONLY way, is for some other part of the process to be involved with the "final answer".

A question for you and C2: why/how would "whole path-lengths" have one effect, when just one slit is used, and the OPPOSITE when both slits are used? In other words, for more than one slit, we CHANGE effects when we go from 1/2 wavelength difference, to whole wavelength difference.

regards,

T.Roc

Laserlight

13th August 2007 - 06:37 PM

Yo TRoc, C2, and anyone else standing in the shadows,

QUOTE

You have described the "interference" at the slit. How then, could we get a different "interference" effect, by just adding more slits? The ONLY way, is for some other part of the process to be involved with the "final answer".

I think you are misreading/misinterpreting my explanation of the origination of
the interference effect. The slits are the start point for the whole
interference mechanism to proceed. Phase shifting starts within the slit cavities.
This is not to say that wave superposition, after the fact, due to phase/timing
"signal overlap" occurring in the far field, is not a continuation of the total
interference model. We can't have one without the other. It is a
progressive geometric effect, with the origin of interference starting within the slit
cavities, which are the locus for the wave expansion/interference detection result.

More slits, just adds more complexity to the final result. You just can't throw
out pieces of the puzzle that you don't want, for the sake of convenience.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

You can't have 1/2 a wavelength. It is all or nothing. That would be like trying
to grow 1/2 an apple.

The whole interference issue has to do with wave/energy symmetry, and how
those symmetries interact to yield whole integer numbers.

There is the issue of wave superpostion, as it relates to phase "overlap", which is a
wave intensity summation result. Remember we are talking about squaring
the amplitude to get the intensity.

I am not sure where you are going with this question, and am not even sure
that I understand what you are asking. Can you rephrase/clarify your question?

LL

Confused2

13th August 2007 - 08:36 PM

Hi TRoc, Laserlight et al,

QUOTE (TRoc+)

Using this drawing http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...sinslit.html#c1

For convenience assume a uniform plane wave entering from the left..
The width of the slit is a , distance to screen is D which is large (see later) and we're going to sum at point y on the screen. The letters he uses could hardly have been less convenient but it's a pretty diagram.

Rashly I'm going to use 'x' to scan over the slit .. where x runs from the bottom of the slit to the top (as drawn) .. it would have been nice if the point on the screen hadn't been called 'y' because here x and y are not orthogonal .. but there it is.
Let x=0 be in the middle of the slit .. so the slit runs from -a/2 to +a/2
For a small but finite number I'd normally use D (or Delta) but the diagram has hijacked this as the distance to the screen so I'm going to use 'd' .

Let's look at a very narrow bit of the slit .. a section at x with a width d.x where d is a very small number.. .. what we want to do is find the phase of the wave when it gets from this region to our point y on the screen.
We hit our first problem .. intensity is defined in Watt/m^2 .. y is a point with no area whatsoever and the bit of slit we've chosen has a length d.x which doesn't give exactly give us an area either. What now? Let's make the assumption that we're looking at a slice of the thing of thickness t, also that the width of the 'point' at y is d.y where d.y =d.x
The area of our chosen bit of the slit is now t.d.x (where '.' is just multiplication) and the area of our 'point' on the screen is now t.d.y . As before we're going to add all the little t.d.x bits to produce a final result at 'y'. Hopefully we can see the distance between x and y changes as we scan (adding) across the slit .. we need to work out the phase of the wave as it arrives at 'y' for every position across the slit. Lets use L for the length of the path from x to y. From Pythagoras we can see that
L = sqrt( D^2 + (y-x)^2)
Now we know L we can calculate the phase of a wave from x as it arrives at y.

Any problems so far? Should I carry on or give up?

Best wishes - C2.

Advance notice .. if we had two slits we'd sum the amplitude and phase from two slits in exactly the same way.

Edit .. If anyone spots any horrible errors .. don't hesitate to point them out... I know I make mistakes (this could be one..)

Confused2

13th August 2007 - 09:56 PM

Gerald, my 'sum over paths' groundhog, has just bitten me.

d.x = d.y ? What nonsense is that ? .. all I meant was that the width of both elements is the same and very small .. I might even let it tend towards infinitely small if I carry on with this.

Gerald won't give up .. he's right. It's over 35 years since I had to do this sort of thing from first principles ..

We take a small number 'd' .. our element runs from x to x+d .. it will work out fine in the end .. honest.

Wulf

14th August 2007 - 01:05 AM

Woot, it looks like this tread is on track again. I can't wait untill I have time to spare to look over some the latest ideas.

It is nice to see everyone looking at how their ideas and viewpoints converge rather than differ.

TRoc

14th August 2007 - 01:56 AM

Hi all,

LL-

QUOTE

The slits are the start point for the whole interference mechanism to proceed.

me-

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The slits are the start point for the whole interference mechanism to proceed.

me-The ONLY way, is for some other part of the process to be involved with the "final answer".

We are in agreement, then. My only opposition is to the " one way trips" that these new (quanta of energy) "quasi-particles" make, into the lattice. We need bound electrons to be resonantly excited, in order to produce "photons" in the standard model. The excitations in the lattice are moving through the lattice, never again (at least in anything resembling a DSE) to return as a "photon". It is a "one time coupling" (from photon to a polariton), and that is why it is "not stable", or "virtual". This does not preclude the idea that the Standard Model could be improved upon, at the expense of "strong belief" in the "photon" as something "indivisible", by just describing energy as it moves through different media.

LL-

QUOTE

(quoting me) A question for you and C2: why/how would "whole path-lengths" have one effect, when just one slit is used, and the OPPOSITE when both slits are used? In other words, for more than one slit, we CHANGE effects when we go from 1/2 wavelength difference, to whole wavelength difference.

LL-

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

LL-(response to above) You can't have 1/2 a wavelength. It is all or nothing. That would be like trying to grow 1/2 an apple.

I agree. I can't argue with a straw man. I just am talking about a measurement that is = to a half wave of the incident light.

From http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...sindoub.html#c1
User posted image

Notice in the title, "single slit diffraction, and double slit interference". I recall C2 mentioning this question recently. With Fraunhoffer, and its' "infinite source distance and plane wave assumption", is not as accurate as Fresnel's model. Fresnel goes up in complexity on the scale of mathematics. However, one key difference, and I have mentioned this before, is that the Amplitude does NOT go to zero in this "more accurate model".

It seems to me, that the interpretation used in that title above, does not take this into consideration. I believe that we have a Fundamental phenomenon occurring in BOTH of these experiments, the main difference is only that there are LESS paths interfering in the SSE, than in the DSE (for obvious reasons).

At any rate, this

User posted image

<click to enlarge>

shows what I mean. The condition for a Minimum in the SSE, is a condition for Maximum in the DSE. The "measurement" in the DSE condition is from outside edges of both slits, treating it as one, as I tried to diagram in ASCII form earlier.

Fresnel has a "wild" assumption too, "The usual geometry assumes a monochromatic slit source and the problem is set up in terms of a parameter v as defined below. This parameter is used with the Cornu spiral or a table of elliptical integrals. "

I don't think that we'll find the "final answer" by continuing to use models that are built on assumptions that are now known to be false (flat earth theories).

Also from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...fresgeo.html#c1

QUOTE

In the Fraunhofer diffraction case where the source wavefront was assumed to be planar, the different elements of the wavefront had a constant phase difference and the incremental amplitude elements added to form the arc of a circle. In the Fresnel diffraction case where the curvature of the wavefront is included, the relative phase is not constant and the amplitude elements bend into the spiral curve.

So, you can see another source of some of our "arguments" which, (as Siau mentioned recently) are always about these vague definitions (given to us by "them") that we are using, and mixing models and terms in ways they are not meant to be used.

The cornu spiral "does it's thing" because of phase difference. It ends up like a set of "Russian dolls", or perhaps could be modeled as "harmonics" of the outer diameter (v parameter), wouldn't you say?

regards,

T.Roc

Laserlight

14th August 2007 - 02:39 AM

Hi TRoc, et all,

QUOTE

The cornu spiral "does it's thing" because of phase difference. It ends up like a set of "Russian dolls", or perhaps could be modeled as "harmonics" of the outer diameter (v parameter), wouldn't you say?

I want to agree, but something about a cornu spiral really represents a form of
progressive scaling, similar to logarithms. It is reminiscent of a progressive
decibel level increase or a Fibonacci series. Conversely, harmonics are "fixed"
orders of magnitude or powers of a fundamental frequency, or mixed frequencies.

Do you see my point?
LL

TRoc

14th August 2007 - 03:56 AM

Hi all,

I thought of a "p.s.", but then thought it better for a new post.

It's a very interesting thing, how in the Fraunhoffer model, the constant phase difference creates a circle with the "rotation of the amplitude elements", and in the Fresnel model, the relative phase is not constant, and the "amplitude elements bend into a spiral curve".

There is a strange phenomenon, that I ponder, about connecting the "straight line" and the "spiral". There must be some angle, at some speed, at which, the "outward" turning spiral would, to an observer on the furthest (expanding) point, appear by all measurements, to be "straight".

The same kind of illusion that a "level" gives the user, in the construction of a building, on a round planet. Scale means everything.

This "straight line", put together, perhaps, by "discreet, linear points" of a quantum particle model, then might find an "entrance" into the "curved space" of a relativistic interpretation.

GE (and a few others) have asked "aren't you just quantizing time (or space)?"
Previously, my response was a convincing "I don't think so".

Now, I have perhaps, a more convincing reply: No. What I am doing is taking measurements at discreet intervals of time, and finding that I can measure the change in frequency or wavelength, in integer units (of irrational/exponential intervals).

This is closer to the intent of the concept of a "frequency comb".

That is, from one constant(^2), "presumed" to be analogous to a zero point energy interpretation, or cosmic background radiation, and then measuring at discreet, irrational/exponential intervals, you can measure an integer # of "steps", up to the "scale" that you are interested (like 5.4e+14), and you will find, that this value, divided by c , will give you a value that is also an integer # of steps from where you started.

In "matrix form", with the center set by the number of rows between "optical frequencies", these integer # of steps are equal. All symmetric pairs produce c . The spread captures the "entire spectrum" of the visible band.

Everything that I've mentioned, from 1 constant, and a recursive metric.

This metric allows for simultaneous, symmetric measurement, in discreet units, of frequency and wavelength. That is why I have hopes that it will have value in "predicting" these "phase weaves" (quantum carpets), produced from the slits to the screen. Simultaneous, symmetric measurement seems to be the "seed" for both "resonance", and "geometry".

regards,

T.Roc

Laserlight

14th August 2007 - 04:26 AM

Hi TRoc,

QUOTE

There is a strange phenomenon, that I ponder, about connecting the "straight line" and the "spiral". There must be some angle, at some speed, at which, the "outward" turning spiral would, to an observer on the furthest (expanding) point, appear by all measurements, to be "straight".

We are using linear time to measure a non-linear geometry, and the result is
a spiral.

If you consider my prior post about non-linear time, as a function of energy
density, and apply that concept to your cornu spiral for phase variance, I think
you will get a straight line. In other words, the ratio of linear time vs the
energy gradient over distance is producing a space-time curvature.

You would need to use a non-linear time scale to get a straight line from a
non-linear geometry. This should yield a linear ratio from all reference points,
generate and a straight line function.

Comments?
LL

jal

14th August 2007 - 04:44 AM

Hi everyone! Best wishes for full recovery for Good Elf!
Troc
The paper that you refered to has new information that should be considered.
http://striky.ece.jhu.edu/~sasha/AEK.pubs/108.pdf
Multimode interference: Highly regular pattern formation in quantum wave-packet evolution
A. E. Kaplan, I. Marzoli, W. E. Lamb, Jr., and W. P. Schleich
~Received 19 July 1999; published 9 February 2000!
Abstract
Highly regular spatiotemporal or multidimensional patterns in the quantum mechanical probability or classical field intensity distributions can appear due to pair interference between individual eigenmodes of the system, thus forming the so-called intermode traces. These patterns are strongly pronounced in any anharmonic potential, provided that the traces are multidegenerate; they may occur in many areas of wave physics.
--------------
Maybe you will want to come back to it later.
jal

TRoc

14th August 2007 - 04:19 PM

Hi all,

LL-

QUOTE

We are using linear time to measure a non-linear geometry, and the result is a spiral. .. You would need to use a non-linear time scale to get a straight line from a non-linear geometry. This should yield a linear ratio from all reference points, generate and a straight line function.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Interesting point; as well as the energy density & "curvature of space". I just try to be careful not to ascribe "characteristics to the parameter" that are likely to be "characteristics of observation/measurements". More often than not, some LIMIT is placed on the "answer", that might not be there, or change, from another perspective (or several).

Remember that I said that I am using "measurements taken at specific intervals", rather than ascribing some "quantum property" to space or time.

LL-I want to agree, but something about a cornu spiral really represents a form of progressive scaling, similar to logarithms. .. Conversely, harmonics are "fixed" orders of magnitude or powers of a fundamental frequency, or mixed frequencies.

OK. If that is your only objection, then maybe I can sway you with this "interesting interpretation" that I have done. Really, "time" is not directly used in my matrix, because it is interpreted as "wave measurements" (frequency & wavelength) over constant units of time AND space. This is possible because Hz is standard, with cycles per 1 sec, and the meter is defined by the same 1 sec of time taken by an EM wave, to travel the constant 299,792,458 meters.

What "seeds" all of these "measurement values", is pure, physical quantity. Starting with the obvious "fundamental number", ONE; this 1 is defined as the difference between 1 and 2, rather than "what happens right after zero" in our current paradigm. A very "subtle" difference, but it allows "existence" a priori (as One), and all subsequent measurements are Relative to that.

There can be NO zero in this physical "counting". Never 0 frequency , 0 wavelength, 0 energy, even by the "background". This ties these things together in a way that can't be done with "standard mathematics". This system is MADE to measure "resonance".

Further, defining the exponential increment as "the 12th root of 2", what we are doing, in affect, is giving the "Fundamental value" divisibility. It will take 12 "clicks" to calculate a "harmonic" (Fundamental x2 or /2 ). This is setting the "windings" of the spiral to the "steady rhythm" of harmonics, capturing their "fixed values", that you mentioned correctly.

Because, as you also said recently, we can't have "1/2 an apple" growing from our fundamental tree, so it MUST be for harmonics. The current (Physics) paradigm measures harmonics as integer multiples of the Fundamental (One), which sounds perfect, but it tragically WRONG. This is NOT how music performs the measurement, and it is from music that the principle was "borrowed" from. The power series is much better, but needs to start "irrationally" to get "in tune".

Strictly speaking, the harmonics from 1 are: {1, 2, 4, 8, ..}, obviously leaving out some "important" numbers; primes, etc. By having 12 sub-parts available, that incrementally produce the harmonic series, these critical beginning values can be included. IE {1.5, 3, 6, 12,..}

If we put a oscillator of 1.5f between 2 other oscillators, 1 & 2 , the 1.5 value will "take energy" from the higher value, and transfer it to the lower value. This follows Thermodynamics, where the "hotter" body always transfers energy to the colder body. The net result of this interaction, is 2 , and can be simply modeled as (2-1.5)+(1.5-1)+ (2-1) = 2 ; my "beat frequency" method. Look at the equation that experimental results of Four-Wave Mixing have produced, and you will see the similarity. (f1 - f2) + (f2 - f3) + (f3 - f1) = f4 ; f4 = f3, when the right "conditions" are met. Rather automatic, with a beam splitter, which produces a pair of harmonics from the Fundamental frequency.

In Physics, we are making very Fundamental use of a constant velocity (a rate), Frequency (a rate), and Wavelength (a rate). It is supposed to be well known, that we MUST use a different method to calculate the "averages" when using a set of rates. This is NOT being done, folks. The "crack" that this point has "fallen through", is that, in the limit of 2 (oscillators for example), the formulas are "virtually identical". However, the MORE oscillators (rate values) you have the MORE WRONG you answer will be. This, and the paragraph above, have caused HUGE problems, IMO, in the understanding of Resonance, and its' use in Physics.

So, taking measurements at discreet (constant) intervals, is indeed, A RATE itself, and can adequately capture the subtle interactions that happen WITHIN the octave (less than Nyquist sampling), and it does NOT get "off track" when you increase the scale.

You can see, that I have developed a THIRD alternative, based on the above. "..in the Fraunhoffer model, the constant phase difference creates a circle with the "rotation of the amplitude elements", and in the Fresnel model, the relative phase is not constant, and the "amplitude elements bend into a spiral curve". The actual phase difference is still "not constant", and jumps by progressive steps, just like Planck's hypothesis, yet, I am also not using the "monochromatic assumption" (integer values, harmonics) of Fresnel, where the curvature is produced by an evenly dispersed, single frequency wave.

In my model, (like deBroglie's pilot wave) the curvature is caused by velocity distribution of a "bandwidth" of energy, separated by a constant interval. The curve still ends as a circle, but develops as a spiral, and travels in straight lines. A Parker spiral moving at c , with the center as the y axis, and the arms orthogonal to that. Of course, this is a helix (or some similar form) when viewed from the side.

I am, in effect, just putting "new numbers" on the "face of the clock". Think of the phasor model, without additional parameters such as "radians", or "degrees", but rather, "discreet steps", or a constant rate of change in frequency.

The current models seem to be preoccupied with "drawing" the wave. While I find nothing inherently "wrong" with that, because we can not see these things, except by modeling, it seems "premature". All I am doing is focusing on "measuring" the outcome, relative to the start, and FILLING IN THE MATHEMATICAL BLANKS "in between" these events. Conserving energy with Resonance.

enough for now..

regards,

T.Roc

555Joshua

14th August 2007 - 05:21 PM

I looked at this thread and thought, that looks like a nice little read. 250 pages??!!! Holly @#$@!

This is quite a topic!

"THEY"

14th August 2007 - 06:19 PM

Best thread in this forum! They2 even gets in to it from time to time. It encouraged her to do a class science project on the Double Slit Experiment.

Laserlight

15th August 2007 - 12:11 AM

Hi TRoc, and All,

QUOTE

We must remember that time is relative to the observer. This is a key element of
Einstein's theories of Special and General relativity. Immediately, it raises the
question, "are we measuring and assigning our timeline perspective to observations
that are really not relative to the phenomena that we are observing/studying?"

This might explain a lot of the paradoxes in regards to how the universe functions,
from the subatomic to the macro scale, where the energy density of space, which
surrounds discrete systems, is purely a localized effect. So, time would be
relative to the energy source, and any external energy source, from a different
relative timeline, that enters into that gradient energy sphere of influence does
not have the same relative frame of perspective.

We use the speed of light as our temporal reference, because measurements in
our frame of reference tell us that it is constant. And yet, propagating light can be
slowed when it follows along geodesic curves in the presence of high gravitational
fields (energy gradient), or passes thru transparent media that have an index of
refraction that is higher than vacuum. So it would appear that the speed of
light is not constant according to the local energy environment thru which it passes.
This would make time non-linear from other relative points of observation.

If, as I suggest, the energy density of space varies along gradient curves
(energy wells) that are radiating from energy sources which are "coupling" to
space, then time is only relative to the energy source point of origin, and
must be "scaled" in order to match the energy concentration gradient of the
local environment.

Edit added:
We are measuring using flat spacetime (our frame of reference), when actually
the universe uses curved spacetime, which is non-linear.

Comments? Discussion?
LL

Why Not?

15th August 2007 - 01:07 AM

Hey TRoc and Good Elf,

GE, Get well and best wishes.

TRoc,

I am in the, "aren't you just quantizing time (or space)?" camp. I like you model, but your interpretation is "lacking", IMHO. Your matrix does not quantize space or time, it quantizes the spacetime interval and thus establishes space and time as conjugate variables. It says that (and provides a value for) the quantum amount of spacetime that can exist between events. It provides a number (and I am making no claims of its correctness

) for the minimum hyper-volume of GE's "effervescent zone". Think about what a light cone would look like from the perspective of an object traveling on the wall of the cones. It works easier (for me anyway) if you swap axises so that time is horizontal and space is vertical. When you do so, an individual photon graphs vertically. A group of photons traveling on the same wave front graphs as a cylinder. A progression of events travels along this cylinder wall in a helical fashion.

By the way, wouldn't it be cool if our choice of distance and/or time units lead to c = 284397458849.49 m/s? When you define a minimum (quantum) spacetime interval, the units established to define space and time aren't so important anymore... no? The "quantum" is not in the minimum difference in spacetime interval between events, it is the minimum harmonic step difference between events. This makes the "quantum" scale invariant thus allowing the differences to scale accordingly...

Laserlight

15th August 2007 - 03:08 AM

Hi All,

Interesting read:

User posted image

http://www.physorg.com/news106330597.html

http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/gallery.html
------

"THEY"....thanks for the virtual brownies!

Neil Farbstein

15th August 2007 - 03:51 AM

QUOTE (Laserlight+Aug 15 2007, 03:08 AM)

Hi All,

Interesting read:

User posted image

http://www.physorg.com/news106330597.html

http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/gallery.html
------

"THEY"....thanks for the virtual brownies!

It looks like the textbooks were right!

Laserlight

15th August 2007 - 04:29 AM

Hi Neil,

QUOTE

It looks like the textbooks were right!

How so?

LL

Confused2

15th August 2007 - 11:52 AM

Hi laserlight,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)

This might explain a lot of the paradoxes in regards to how the universe functions, from the subatomic to the macro scale, where the energy density of space, which surrounds discrete systems, is purely a localized effect.

Can you clarify what you mean by 'energy density'?
If we look at the Schwarzchild radius ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius ) we see the radius where light is neither escapes nor falls into a black hole is given by 2Gm/c^2 .. or 1.48×10−27 m/kg.
To get an idea of the orders of magnitude involved we could try to build a small gravitational lens out of black holes. If we start with two black holes of radius (say) 1mm and place them (say) 5mm apart we should get a reasonable 'biconvex' lens.
For each BH we want a radius of 10E-3 m so we will need two masses of about 10^24 kg. Is this the sort of energy density you are referring to?
Best wishes - C2.

Palle

15th August 2007 - 12:06 PM

Laserlight 1009
Confused2 721
Good Elf 574
TRoc 283
jal 215
Montec 121

Confused2, Laserlight, Good Elf, TRoc, jal, Montec, and all,

Have we reached a conclusion on just a few concepts?

Love the post most of the time and thanks.

Palle

Laserlight

15th August 2007 - 01:52 PM

Hi C2, Palle, TRoc, and All,

QUOTE

Can you clarify what you mean by 'energy density'?

I thought that I had been thorough in explaining how this local energy gradient
manifests itself via the coupling process, the result of which, at higher orders,
exhibits gravitational attraction. Recall the concept of matter displacing space,
according to the energy component that it contains (mass-energy equivalence),
that is being "coupled" to space, which distorts the fabric of spacetime. This follows
the ISL, which is an energy gradient effect. So, the energy density
that surrounds objects varies inversely with distance from the source.

All physical objects warp the fabric of space to some degree, according to their
mass and the energy that they radiate via the coupling process. Also, recall the
conversations about the Zero Point Energy (ZPE) of space that has the
characteristics of impedance and permittivity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_Papers

Palle, IMO we have not come to a final conclusion but are focusing in
on a general concensus, after much discussion of ideas and concepts. Stay tuned!
Hope to see you contribute!

LL

yquantum

15th August 2007 - 02:27 PM

LL, C2, Good Elf REST, TRoc, Montec, "THEY" now I need milk,

NF, Why Not?, Palle, et al,

I agree with "THEY", this is a great "think" post. I must agree with Palle & might just add one bit of advice that might be of assistance.

Occam's razor

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.

In my humble opinion would help all "involved".

ciao_
yquantum

jal

15th August 2007 - 03:11 PM

Good Day!
Palle
QUOTE

Laserlight 1009
Confused2 721
Good Elf 574
TRoc 283
jal 215
Montec 121

Confused2, Laserlight, Good Elf, TRoc, jal, Montec, and all,

Have we reached a conclusion on just a few concepts?

I still what to hear TRoc explain what is inside the "wave packet"
I wish we would stop changing the subject and discuss his explanations.
jal

TRoc

15th August 2007 - 04:40 PM

Hi all,

(me)-

QUOTE

LL-

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

LL-We must remember that time is relative to the observer. .. Immediately, it raises the question, "are we measuring and assigning our timeline perspective to observations that are really not relative to the phenomena that we are observing/studying?"

It looks to me as if we are in agreement there.

WN?-

QUOTE

Your matrix does not quantize space or time, it quantizes the spacetime interval and thus establishes space and time as conjugate variables. It says that (and provides a value for) the quantum amount of spacetime that can exist between events.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The "quantum" is not in the minimum difference in spacetime interval between events, it is the minimum harmonic step difference between events.

I'm not sure how you are getting your interpretation. The "space-time" interval is not constant in my model, it is the "rate of change" that is constant. The primary parameters that are being "quantized" are frequency, and wavelength; the primary "symmetry" (the products) is the speed of light. There are NO inputs, other than one constant.

When you have a system, such as the Standard Model, where everything is input, and then you "quantize part of it, you are quantizing ALL of it, like it or not. This is ON TOP of the fact that our mathematics is already "quantized", too; we have a "discreet" interval of "one" between digits. This is why I am always referring to the practice (unconscious) of combining the our math quanta, with the quanta of QM. It will not stay "in tune", for precisely the same reasons musicians found it impractical to expand their "2 body mentality" (1 instrument, 1 singer: easy to keep in tune). Thank god that they didn't just "renormalize", and a mathematician saved the day with the "chromatic scale", and Music was "quantized".

The "discovery", at the beginning of the 20th century, that resonance is progressive, and the parameters used to measure waves with (f & w), will have larger and larger steps between values, is practically a "hoax", AFAIC. The beginning of the "dark age of Science", as Carver Meade put it in recent times.

As we all well know, you can NOT just "add" these parameters. Whether you agree with my model, or not, we know that simple addition/subtraction does not capture the phenomenon.

Why, then, do they insist on pursuing the "evenly divisible" idea? That method will always bring you to a "one" integer. If you can not sum the parts, they also can not be "separated" by integer division. You must multiply your way through this phenomenon, and therefore, the "starting point" (CMB; ZPE) can NOT be "one", or you'll never get anywhere.

You have to measure a rate with a rate.

By having a standard rate of change, all the other parameters "fall into place". Time will have its' relativity, because of the consistent ratios that are maintained by an EQUAL rate of change in frequency and wavelength. Since we are using the constant as our measurement "metric", it is easy to see what is "missing" from this constant velocity. The "time contraction" concept is just some missing beats; length contraction is missing "wavelets". Distance contraction, or lessening, is an obvious inroad to our concept of gravitational attraction, via resonance.

But that is another topic!

The DSE. If we take "measurements" at a constant rate of change in time or distance, we find that the "image" reproduces itself at these points. This is called the Talbot distance, given by slit spacing^2 / wavelength.

In between these revivals, are "fractional revivals", which I model as harmonics. The "lines" that connect these points (the canals and ridges of that model) from patterns, made from the nodes & antinodes of the phase.

The same "phenomenon" has been modeled by "brownie masters" (that means you have a degree in Music, and Mathematics), to model a scale (or voice leading) in "phase space".

IMO, this is the approach that will "come to the rescue" of the inability, at this point, to predict these "energy fluctuations" that Boltzmann found to "tinker with the probabilities" of his Equipartition of Energy Theorem. You will note a glaring problem with "equipartition of energy", and "energy coming in quanta that grows exponentially". I do not believe that Planck's " h " does anything more than tell us (what we want to hear) the quanta of energy, in J or eV , which is just "another input" in the system.

regards,

T.Roc

PS. WN?, I don't get the "cool" part about "c = 284397458849.49 m/s?". Were you just setting up the next sentance, or did I miss something? I do agree that it "doesn't matter" what the units are, once established.

Why Not?

15th August 2007 - 05:57 PM

Hey TRoc and all,

I am sorry that I am not being clear. I understand that you have one constant. I understand that you take two values (one associated with wavelength = distance component and one associated with frequency = time component) and I understand that you combine them symmetrically to produce ("output") a second constant. The minimum spacetime distance between values is 13 steps of the constant input value. The step values are constant ("standard rate of change") so that as long as you maintain the proper symmetry the result is always a constant value measured in spacetime interval units as the output. All combinations equal the same interval, regardless of the number of steps to get there.

QUOTE (TRoc+)

Remember that I said that I am using "measurements taken at specific intervals", rather than ascribing some "quantum property" to space or time.

Every interval between two symmetric points is identical and every interval is "n" number of equal steps. You can't have smaller or larger sized steps and "n" is always an interger value. "Quantum" = "indivisible unit". Z = 12th root of 2 ~ 1.0594... = the minimum specific interval = an interval quanta.

I am wondering if, by quantizing spacetime (instead quantizing space or time or both) and by establishing a minimum spacetime interval, you can avoid many of the difficulties with making the continuum of GR jive with the discreet chunks of QM.

QUOTE (TRoc+)

I don't get the "cool" part about "c = 284397458849.49 m/s?".

Your R would equal 1 instead of 1.026709.... I was trying to emphasis the point that it makes no fundamental difference as long as the interval/symmetry is constant. And it makes the first column nice and neat besides.

Palle

15th August 2007 - 07:06 PM

jal Laserlight Why Not Confused2 to many on this post oh Yquantum

QUOTE

I still what to hear TRoc explain what is inside the "wave packet"
I wish we would stop changing the subject and discuss his explanations.
jal

Jal, I think they are still working out the kink's because everything is made of waves according to the information that has been published in this year from laboratories that have made there experiment's public.

Regards,
Palle

I want to really get involved in this Laser light but until you narrow it down I know someone will be upset and then it becomes a vicious cycle.

Laserlight

15th August 2007 - 07:16 PM

Hi WN, TRoc, and All,

QUOTE

I am wondering if, by quantizing spacetime (instead quantizing space or time or both) and by establishing a minimum spacetime interval, you can avoid many of the difficulties with making the continuum of GR jive with the discreet chunks of QM.

How do you standardize to one constant value when space-time changes
according to the local energy density of space around a mass? In other words,
if space-time is not constant, because different masses warp space
according to a ratio of mass to energy, what we need is way to equate E=mc^2 to time.

The factor "C^2" does not seem to provide the ratio necessary to understand how
much space/time warp mass exerts on proximity space. This mass to energy
ratio should provide a non-linear scale. IMO, the gravitational equivalent that
is assigned to mass should provide the space-time warp ratio.

Not enough time to develop this right now....other comments, ideas welcomed.

LL

yquantum

15th August 2007 - 07:32 PM

Ll, TRoc, Palle, jal, Good Elf, better be resting, C2, et al,

Palle, your welcome and what is amazing is when it was published. Not sure that AE was from this planet.

Ll, you are correct in your statement (not picking sides just experimental evidence) that fixed points in spacetime is a very Classical Newtonian. perspective.

AE, paper's that were published in the early 1900's SR/GR demonstrated that there were no fixed points in a fluctuating universe which supported Maxwell's equation & others.

ciao_
yquantum

"THEY"

15th August 2007 - 07:33 PM

QUOTE (jal+Aug 15 2007, 08:11 AM)

I still what to hear TRoc explain what is inside the "wave packet"
I wish we would stop changing the subject and discuss his explanations.
jal

QUOTE

Posted on Today at 12:06 PM
I want to really get involved in this Laser light but until you narrow it down I know someone will be upset and then it becomes a vicious cycle.

You guys could take turns... Spend one week (or more, or less if required) allowing one person to post his/her ideas and answer questions. Everyone would have to refrain from the "but I like my model better, it works like this:..." until its your turn. Just get the theory out in the open, and everybody's input on whether the bucket holds water (or light) or if there are far too many holes. Then once everyone is satisfied the theory has been fully probed, you move on to the next person's theory.

Only problem with this, I have worked on teams before, and I know how hard it is to check one's ego at the front door. We have the tendency to keep it with us and it gets in the way.

Not to say that there are egos in this room

So continue as normal! Although it WOULD be nice to let each individual develop their ideas, I also know you guys well enough to......... well..... erm...... Everyone enjoying their brownies???

(naw, I'm not hiding anything)

Montec

15th August 2007 - 07:44 PM

Hello all

There are two things that happen when light interacts with a opaque barrier edge (or slits in a barrier).

The light (photon) interacts with the surface of the barrier and the light does not interact with the light (photon) blocked by the barrier. I believe both effects contribute to the DSE pattern observed.

Comments, discussion welcome.

yquantum

15th August 2007 - 07:58 PM

"THEY", Ll, TRoc, Palle, jal, Good Elf, C2, Montec, et al,

QUOTE

Only problem with this, I have worked on teams before, and I know how hard it is to check one's ego at the front door. We have the tendency to keep it with us and it gets in the way.

Not to say that there are egos in this room

So continue as normal! Although it WOULD be nice to let each individual develop their ideas, I also know you guys well enough to......... well..... erm...... Everyone enjoying their brownies???

(naw, I'm not hiding anything)

"THEY", please give '2' a hello for me, & I think you just served some very cold HUMBLE PIE for us all.

Gentlemen/Ladies, I think we need to elect "THEY" as the MOM of this post.

caio_
yquantum

Confused2

15th August 2007 - 08:38 PM

QUOTE

I think we need to elect "THEY" as the MOM of this post.

I second the motion.

-C2 ( maker of snide remarks and proud owner of Gerald the imaginary 'sum over paths' groundhog ).

Why Not?

15th August 2007 - 09:40 PM

Hey LL, TRoc and all,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)

How do you standardize to one constant value when space-time changes according to the local energy density of space around a mass? In other words, if space-time is not constant, because different masses warp space
according to a ratio of mass to energy, what we need is way to equate E=mc^2 to time.

ds^2=c^2dt^2 - dx^2

A spacetime interval is generally considered to be continuous but I think TRoc's matrix may provide insight into a possible way to "chunk it up". Quantizing a continuum may then provide some insight as to why we sometimes see waves and other times see particles. Further, by quantizing the spacetime interval, space (by itself) and time (by itself) can be assigned any arbitrary value (continuous). Only when combined must they obey some quantum rule. Kind of like the relationship between energy, time and 1/2h-bar, only with time, space and "s" instead. Have you ever noticed the value you get when you divide the Plank Length by the Plank Time?

TRoc, Whoops! I screwed up the decimal point in "c = 284397458849.49 m/s" a couple of posts back. It should read 284397458.849490 (probably makes more sense with the correct number.

)

"THEY"

16th August 2007 - 12:26 AM

Oh for pete's sake, you gentlemen have gone and made me blush......

Okay, so maybe I did serve some cold humble pie, but it WAS served with love equally to all!

yquantum

16th August 2007 - 12:48 AM

"THEY", et al,

QUOTE

"The mother's heart is the child's schoolroom."
-- Henry Ward Beecher

We all act like children sometimes because we are just, MEN "THEY".

ciao_
yquantum

Confused2

16th August 2007 - 01:59 AM

Hi Why Not?, TRoc and all,

You (WN) write..
1/ ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dx^2
I have some 'thoughts', not because it is 'wrong' but because..
If we write
2/ r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2
then I suspect most of us will be happy .. it's Euclidean geometry which we all did at school (??)
It we 'go relativity' we might write
3/ s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - c^2t^2
.. the stuff they taught us at school wasn't 'wrong' .. we can normally ignore the c^2t^2 bit because it makes a negligible contribution so r and s are the same for all practical purposes..until you start to get anywhere near 'c' .
Except in the most exceptional of cases (can't think of any) the data for the more sophisticated model is going to lie (possibly hidden) in the data that produced the old model.
Looking at 3/ again
There are an infinite number of solutions in x,y,z,t that give s which is very close to r and all could escape notice within the existing experimental data. I'm not suggesting this is 'the answer' .. just .. as you read it.

Best wishes -C2.

Why Not?

16th August 2007 - 02:28 AM

Hey Confused2,

If it walks like a goundhog and talks like a groundhog it is porbably Gerald.

TRoc

16th August 2007 - 04:26 PM

Hi all,

One thing about "a bunch of numbers", whether they are in some pattern (IE matrix), or not, is that there probably are as many interpretations of what they could mean as there are numbers.

While I'm sure that a "quantization of space and/or time could be modeled with these "resonant values" that I have contrived, that is not my interpretation. Fortunately, it is more simple than ascribing those parameters to "space", as fixed points, or that time, somehow, manages to "click" in such an odd way. I am just making the "lines" on our (new, alternate) "measuring stick" so that they are NOT able to be added, one by one, because each value is separated by a constant rate.

This exponential growth still functions "philosophically" the same: the initial difference between values does not change; everything else is relative to that. The math that I used is much less sophisticated than the math that is used today. There is no zero, there are no negative numbers (this is made more relevant because it measures "waves", or vibration so well, and without imaginary space). "Smaller" just means dividing something into more pieces, the same as in our "results" (meaning the way we record data).

Newton, Young, and others, "measured" (estimated) the wavelength of light with this method. All of our "units" are put forth this way, we just put words or symbols to represent how many zeros (1/10th, 1/100th, etc) come before or after the "decimal point". The decimal point is actually open for a little interpretation as well; this little device keeps the door open mathematically, replacing the "zero point" with a choice. We can stop there, at 0.0 , and say we have "nothing", but only "abstractly". We can not be physically counting things, and end at zero, unless we "focus" on only one pile. In reality, we are ALWAYS dealing with more than one pile, IE the one being "taken from", and the one "added to". In this type of counting, "conservation" is AUTOMATIC: no values have arbitrary input, what we start with is considered the Total, and our answer must come back to that. That is a fundamental logic that drives mathematics.

This is lacking in our "modern" approach to the solution. Since we do not "know" the starting point (any parameters), we can not build "from the beginning", especially with parameters we have "measured" way out here, at the "end of the spiral". Conversely, we do not know the "end" parameter, so we find ourselves (in the now/present) at the beginning of an unknown spiral as well (the future).

This philosophy of ours, like the decimal point, places us at this "crossroads" of the counter-rotating time-spirals. It could be "infinite" (like zero), or "One" on a "sliding scale", as it were: "now" just "keeps existing", recreating itself by borrowing a moment from the future "pile", and simultaneously giving one back to the "past pile".

This "One" is nice, I'll agree, but it is not mathematically valid, of course. We can't have the value of one based on such a changing parameter, can we? It has become to be known as "Time".

If we just had some "constant", in which to measure by. Well, you all know the story: among a "supporting cast", AE stepped forward as the "leading man", and put out a metric based on this constant. Velocity, a rate of distance over time, combined these 2 concepts, and gives us set units to work with.

A "dimensionless" approach does not require the units be known ahead of time. Later on, after many years of measuring, improving technique all the while, and developing detailed and accurate Theories, we arrive at "~21 parameters", and a way to compensate for Relativity.

Why have these 2 Theories (QM/SR) not been able to be "put together" without problems? My answer is: they are "monochromatic" theories. Now, this is a gross contraction, not meant to say much on its' own. Besides everything that I've already said, let me point out the specific detail.

QM REQUIRES a resonant interaction to take place for energy to exchange; the exact frequency that is absorbed, will be re-emitted.

SR requires corrections to the perspective of a SINGLE observer, in one location.

Strictly speaking, QM has a "One observer Limit" built into it. It assumes a monochromatic source (by recursively making the wave smaller, by division), a monochromatic detector (orbital), and, of course, the output also requires "a single frequency" to be used for E = h f .

SR, on the other hand, having ONLY curvature, can NEVER be "monochromatic". The single frequency wave is PLANAR, for one. The other, is the premise that the corrections are required for the fixed "single observer".

We need to define Observer as "having an inherent frequency (eigenstate)", and therfore, only able to "resonate" with that one frequency, as well. This means that we are measuring that frequency, at the expense of others. We NEED to use MORE observers to catch the whole picture. I don't think, at least in my "dimensionless model", that we need more "dimensions" to do this, just more observers, each having a different inherent resonant frequency. We can "regain" our 3D/t by the "sphere" that this specific, cyclical (octave) bandwidth creates.

We have this Theory, that has support of the experiments, that the speed of light, for a "slow moving" observer is always measured at c . We also have many other Theories, backed by experimental data, that tell us we have a Refractive Index, that adjusts this speed, based on frequency, and that phase velocity is "separate" from this requirement, that only when we have some phase difference, could we get "curvature" (either Fraunhoffer's circle, or Fresnel's spiral).

The end result, and a key Principle in my Theory, is that "The single observer will ALWAYS have a bandwidth of frequency incident to it", and "The interactions of this bandwidth produce the constant group velocity."

The SAME phenomenon causes BOTH the velocity, and the frequency to have "constant" starting, and ending measurement values, that MUST "fluctuate to propagate", and conserve energy (pay back what is borrowed, on the way).

This phenomenon, Resonance, will be REQUIRED to be fully understood and used, in order to "bridge" QM and SR. I'll say again, that taking the average of a rate, like velocity, the more values (oscillators) that are used, the further off the answer will be, if you are using the wrong method. [numeric mean~harmonic mean~geometric mean]

Conversely, if we were "unconsciously" using many oscillators, and calling them "one", then the less values used, the more accurate we would be. If we used a "monochromatic approach", then nothing but " c " will ever be measured.

You should notice the similarity in concept, to this constant velocity that we measure, and the mass~energy relationship. Only when the rate of velocity is very high (comparable to the average of a large body of oscillators) does contraction begin. A moving mass is an "average" of fixed points, like the "electron cloud" concept.

~time to go for now..

ciao!

T.Roc

jal

16th August 2007 - 05:44 PM

Hi TRoc!
Keep going. When you get into the details, (if you make a mistake), there might be someone here to come up with a possible solution.

jal

Confused2

16th August 2007 - 05:52 PM

Hi TRoc,

Are you still reading off your matrix? .. if so it has been some time since it was seen .. could we have the method again please?

Best wishes - C2.

Laserlight

16th August 2007 - 07:02 PM

Hi TRoc, and All,

That logical argument was beautiful! A true joy to read. I agree 100%.

QUOTE

This philosophy of ours, like the decimal point, places us at this "crossroads" of the counter-rotating time-spirals. It could be "infinite" (like zero), or "One" on a "sliding scale", as it were: "now" just "keeps existing", recreating itself by borrowing a moment from the future "pile", and simultaneously giving one back to the "past pile".

I like this idea, because the decimal point is NOT ZERO, but just an infinite
reciprocal extension of infinity back to some arbitrary point of beginning. Not only is
this an exponential numerical function but it can also represent a TIME function
that is directly proportional to a mass-energy spatial displacement of warped
space. KUDO's!!!!! You have taken a basic concept from previous
posts/discussions of a conceptual idea, and made a workable model, IMO.

The concept of inverse spirals, with the "decimal point" fullfilling the function of
being merely a point of demarcation between positive number values and an infinite
range of "negative" fractional values, is especially appealing. It works! The only question
is whether it should be limited to our base 10 number system? By extension it
should apply to any number system. The larger the "base" the more "accurate"
the result, from a pure "scaling" perspective.

Now can we assign this exponential scaling model to a chart, or graph, whose
scale changes according to the power with which we are working?

I hope others see the larger implications of this theory/postulation.

Comments?
LL

Why Not?

16th August 2007 - 08:20 PM

Hey TRoc, LL, C2, GE (hopefully), and all,

So do the different models jive with Special Relativity? QM does quite well (in the form of QFT's). I propose an experiment to find out how the others do...

We start with Einstein's train. The observer on the train sets up an M&M interferometer with equal length arms and with one of the arms pointing in the direction of motion. I am sure we will all agree that, as long as the train is moving at a constant speed, the observer on the train will see the same interference pattern, regardless of the speed of the train. The question is, what does the observer on the platform see? The answer is an interfenernece pattern that varies with the speed of the train (identical to the interference pattern variation witnessed in an interfeometer with one fixed length and one adjustiable length arm). The observer on the train will always see constructive interference while the observer on the platform will see either constrcutive, destrcutive or a combination of both, (depending on the choosen speed of the train) while observing the same screen as the observer on the train. Using your favorite model, can you explain how this occurs?

Mahalo

Guest_John

16th August 2007 - 08:44 PM

KLINE'S BOTTLE

Eveyone that has been apart of this great post,

We are just running up numbers now, look at what has happen SQUARE ONE!

John

Laserlight

16th August 2007 - 11:37 PM

Hi WN, TRoc, Guest_John, C2, and All,

QUOTE

The observer on the train will always see constructive interference while the observer on the platform will see either constrcutive, destrcutive or a combination of both, (depending on the choosen speed of the train) while observing the same screen as the observer on the train. Using your favorite model, can you explain how this occurs?

For the stationary observer he is always in the same frame of reference, so
he observes interference as a local effect, according to a change in phase shift
from a common reference start point. He is not observing a relative time, or
distance shift, because they are "fixed" from his stationary perspective.

In the case of the "remote" observer, he sees a doppler effect, either a reddening
or blueing, of the interference pattern, depending if the train is moving toward
or away from his "fixed", relative point of reference. He is observing a phase
and timing shift from his perspective. Distance, phase, and timing are
all observables, that change from his vantage point.

Guest_John, being a Yank, your "Klines bottle" (I'm assuming that is some kind of
salutation/"toast") defies me. Please explain. Also, Square one?

Other opinions, discussion welcomed. Aloha!
LL

Laserlight

17th August 2007 - 12:05 AM

Yo TRoc, et All,

QUOTE

The concept of inverse spirals, with the "decimal point" fullfilling the function of
being merely a point of demarcation between positive number values and an infinite
range of "negative" fractional values, is especially appealing. It works! The only question
is whether it should be limited to our base 10 number system? By extension it
should apply to any number system. The larger the "base" the more "accurate"
the result, from a pure "scaling" perspective.

Now can we assign this exponential scaling model to a chart, or graph, whose
scale changes according to the power with which we are working?

Another reason that I like this model is that it is an ANALOG scaling function,
as is the Universe, at all levels. In giving some thought to the metrics
used to describe quantum effects, they are being viewed using a form of digital
"off-on", "all or nothing", metric. Maybe that is the wrong working model, which
has complicated our understanding of how the quantum universe all ties together.

If you think about it resonance is not "all or nothing" but is itself an analog
scaling effect. So, from a theoretical perspective, a major reason for science
being unable to formalize a model of "grand unification" is because we are using two
different models/bases and trying to make the pieces fit. It seems that we must
change the current QM model from a "digital format" to an analog format using
an exponential scale to "equalize" the mathematical bases being used. In other
words we need a "Quantum Rosetta Stone" to translate/combine the separate
languages so that they can be deciphered and merged. This is how I see
this model.

Comments?
LL

Palle

17th August 2007 - 03:29 AM

List is to long to type everyone in,

A mathematician named Klein
Thought the Möbius band was divine.
Said he: "If you glue
The edges of two,
You'll get a weird bottle like mine."

It can also be constructed by folding a Möbius strip in half lengthwise and attaching the edge to itself.

http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~fiedorow/math655/Klein2.html

Cannot answer the square one statement unless someone feels a need to vent there frustration on not getting there point across.

Guest_John hang in there everyone on this post is working hard on the problem.

Regards,
Palle

Thank you THEY...

Laserlight

17th August 2007 - 03:54 AM

Hi Palle,

Ahh, very good! Thanks for the explanation.

LL

Why Not?

17th August 2007 - 05:27 AM

Aloha LL, TRoc, C2, GE and all,

LL,

We're agree on what the observer on the train will see.

As to the second part, I disagree with the statement I made in my last reply...

QUOTE (Why Not?+)

The question is, what does the observer on the platform see? The answer is an interference pattern that varies with the speed of the train (identical to the interference pattern variation witnessed in an interferometer with one fixed length and one adjustable length arm).

Complete rubbish! I had only considered the relativistic effects in one of the arms.

So the following is attempt number 2...

One of the arms of the interferometer is pointing in the direction of motion of the train. The observer on the platform is generally considered to be orthogonal to the direction of motion. Thus, the length of the arm contracts and the light in that arm has a shorter distance to travel in the same amount of time. (Or does it appear blue shifted on the way out and red shifted on the way back in and the two cancel?)

The other arm of the interferometer can be pointing in any direction perpendicular to the direction of motion of the train. So let’s say it is pointing up. To the observer on the platform, the light will appear to travel a hyperbolic path (if visioned as a ping pong ball, or as blue shifted on the 45 out and red shifted on the 45 on the way in). The path length does not change, just the amount of time the light spends in that path.

So (relative to the observer on the platform), will the length distances cancel so that the two observers see the same interference pattern? That is, will the contraction distance plus the path time increase always equal the light’s wavelength? Or stated another way, the light travels a shorter distance in the arm pointed in the direction of motion and for a longer time in the other arm but in an inversely proportional way?

Mahalo

Laserlight

17th August 2007 - 01:33 PM

Hi WN, and All,

QUOTE

The path length does not change, just the amount of time the light spends in that path.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The path length does not change, just the amount of time the light spends in that path.

This cannot happen, time and distance must coincide. They are directly
proportional, since "c" is a constant. Relative to the external observer, the
light would appear to travel a hyperbolic path, according to the speed of the
train, as you have stated. However, the time of "flight" would still be the same,
and the interference pattern, being a fixed point in time and space, would
remain the same, IMO. The blue shift would be observed as the train approaches
the platform observer, and everything would be equally contracted from that
fixed perspective. We are looking at two "fixed" points of relative perspective,
and one of them is moving (they appear to be "closing" the distance
between them at a constant rate). So, from each opposite perspective, the other
fixed point is contracted into the blue as viewed from either fixed point.

So (relative to the observer on the platform), will the length distances cancel so that the two observers see the same interference pattern? That is, will the contraction distance plus the path time increase always equal the light’s wavelength? Or stated another way, the light travels a shorter distance in the arm pointed in the direction of motion and for a longer time in the other arm but in an inversely proportional way?

It might be easier to visualize it this way...as the train closes on the observer.
Consider what the platform observer would see, if there were 2 balls. One of the
balls is stationary (fixed), and the other bal is thrown straight up into the air,
above the stationary ball.

From the observers point of view they are moving at the same forward speed,
but the distance between them is increasing. They blue shift (contract) at the
same frequency, no difference, since they have the same forward speed, relative
to the platform. However, the remote observer might see the upward moving ball
as having a flattened leading edge (compression), and a stretched trailing edge,
according to the parabolic upward movement, but this is speculation, since
the leading and trailing edges are moving at the same relative speed

Anyone else care to express an opinion?
LL

Good Elf

17th August 2007 - 04:19 PM

Hi Siau, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, yquantum, "Why Not?", Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al (sorry if I am missing anyone at this point)

I have been watching and I have been trying to follow the conversation. I am not yet up to a real session here yet but I will soon and I will be able to spend time seated as an "intelligent ape" rather than a "fish" at the keyboard. I am very much "one eyed" on the Theory of Special Relativity at the moment!

Just a short comment here regarding Special Relativity. The laws of electromagnetism are not altered by motion so relativistically approaching and receding "MM Interferometers" will appear to have blue shifted light and red shifted light respectively in the experiments. The laws of physics are not altered by the motion the "physical pattern" is a spatial pattern (as I have been at pains to suggest all along) is not altered by the motion of the instruments relative to observers. This is "corrected " by a relativistic length contraction (rotation or spatial distortion in 3D) only in the direction of relative motion. SR leaves all other directions without any need for "corrections".Now recall this is not the Youngs Double Slit Experiment and people should be very aware that what you can see in a MM Interferometer are only a series of concentric lines separated by a certain gap dependent on wavelength of the light. If this is a "blue shifted gap" so be it and when receding it will be a "red shifted gap". That is all the MM Interferometer will be showing the (moving) observers. So correct for the relativistic motion and you will find the experiment is physically and spatially unaltered at any velocity.

The DSE is interesting... regardless of the "distortions" due to velocity of the Instrument (rotation away from all observers in all relatively moving frames)... the diffraction pattern is an entirely "spatial" pattern not a frequency pattern dependent on the relativistic Doppler Effect. Sure... the color of the light being used is blue or red shifted... the actual pattern will appear the same to all observing frames of reference .... internal or external... once length contraction(rotations) are applied to compare the patterns in the two systems, whichever the two reference frames may be. They will appear "identical" as patterns to all relatively moving systems and it is the same as seen in the rest frame. This is a tenant of Special Relativity... that the Laws of Physics are the same in all frames of reference.

Gedanken Proof: Consider a light sensor/detector capable of triggering an event, with a broad spectral response placed in a spatial node in the interference pattern of the DSE (or even pointing at one of the "between points at nodes" in the MM Interferometer interference lines pattern). The sensor cannot trigger while photons do not get detected in the rest frame while the sensor is in that position. Believe me this sensor can be adjusted "very accurately" indeed and you can arrange things to be a very near true optical null where you place the sensor. The fringes are the same position relative to the detector to all velocities as seen from all other relatively moving frames of reference otherwise different Physical Laws would be noticed at different relative velocities between some frames if the fringes were to appear to "move" simply due to relative velocity... The sensor would trigger an event in one case and not in the other case... Different laws of Physics. This also "proves" their "spatial nature" rather than "frequency nature" as well if you have not believed it previously. You would literally see different physics and events, and sequence of events happening at a point from a variety of different perspectives.. One set of Physics is happening in the rest frame and so only one set of physics will be observed in all other moving "observer" frames.

Why do I believe this .... Special Relativity is the most thoroughly tested theory of them all, and there is absolutely no discrepancies on this point. You can have all the theories you want but in the end it must match reality and the results of absolutely all experiments.. No exceptions on this point ... Capisci??

Cheers and see you all ( I hope) later!

yquantum

17th August 2007 - 04:27 PM

Good Elf, et al,

User posted image

One of the first to say glad your doing better!

Now back to work.

SR, as of today as ---> you have stated can stand any assault.

ciao_
yquantum

Good Elf

17th August 2007 - 04:36 PM

Hi Siau, yquantum, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "Why Not?", Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al (sorry if I am missing anyone at this point)

Thanks yquantum and thank you all for your kind words. I will be able to read from a seated position (continually) as of Sunday (Australian time)... Thank you you all for your kind wishes and I am very touched by your concern. And thanks for the "Virtual Brownies" "THEY"!!!

they did help!

I must literally get some "shut eye " now.

Cheers

Laserlight

17th August 2007 - 06:30 PM

Ahoy GE,

Thougth that I'd inject some nautical humor, since I viusalize you wearing
a patch over one eye. Hope all is well. Good to see you posting again.

All you need is a parrot standing on your shoulder.....that is, unless elves afraid of
parrots?

TRoc

17th August 2007 - 07:59 PM

Hi all,

LL, thank you for the compliment. I must say that it feels great to be "understood". I know that this is as much (or more) because of my "delivery" as anything. Through consistently "re-trying", and with the patience of C2 and GE, I have been getting better at the "delivery". This thread has also pushed me forward, too. C2 once asked me, "what can you do with it?", and that gave me a push, too. What can we do with it??

LL-

QUOTE

Now can we assign this exponential scaling model to a chart, or graph, whose scale changes according to the power with which we are working?

That is basically, "the matrix" form; arranging the "fractal" harmonic series without a zero, and instead (of 10_ten), having the "return" (how many symbols used before the first one is used again, with modification) based on resonance, or the 1:2 relation, and creating "sub-steps" between that fundamental principle. "2" is just a "scaled extension" of "1"; a harmonic.

C2 is asking, "am I still reading from my matrix". Yes, and no. It is just logical, simple math that makes the matrix, and I am using that logic. This is similar (perhaps) to WN? 's earlier questions/perspective.

The matrix is not going to "answer", it is a tool to use, and we need to construct "questions" in order to use it. It is like the "hardware" of a computer: it needs software (instructions) to actually "do something".

It would be more instructive (IMO), and keeping closer to the thread topic, if we just look at the traditional "harmonic series", and a recursive "command" that will create it. This is also the "command line", or "quantitative" starting point of the values that can be extended to "matrix" form, although, for those who might have missed this before, it is not a "standard matrix" by any means. It is like combining a frequency comb, with a matrix. This description may still be "lacking", though.

We can start with the harmonic series. As is typical, we'll have to "sort through" a few different definitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_%28music%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_seri...8mathematics%29

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Now can we assign this exponential scaling model to a chart, or graph, whose scale changes according to the power with which we are working?

This is why I refer to our standard decimal system, as a "+1" progression (integer). This is deeper than "what base to use", it is tied to the number of symbols used for the concept of "numbers", and physical counting. Similar to what WN? said recently, " it really doesn't matter what units we use..".

Also, LL posted this:

QUOTE

If you think about it resonance is not "all or nothing" but is itself an analog scaling effect. So, from a theoretical perspective, a major reason for science being unable to formalize a model of "grand unification" is because we are using two different models/bases and trying to make the pieces fit. It seems that we must change the current QM model from a "digital format" to an analog format using an exponential scale to "equalize" the mathematical bases being used.

That is precisely my position; that the math that we use normally is meant to be easy and convenient, and says nothing about "resonance". The concept of frequency as a rate of vibration, and as the "first use of abstract math", goes back (at least) to Pythagoras. He tried (in vain) to describe "consonance" with whole fractions. This was from a "fear" of irrational numbers (they actually though them to be "illogical", and untidy). Of course, if they had our calculators, I can guarantee that he would have embraced them. You see, when you combine "math and religion", as they did, your "holiness" would be judged by your ability to throw around answers to mathematical questions. Everyone looks rather dull, when calculating an irrational number by hand!!

Like most religiously inspired "bad guys", things not easily explained are better "demonized", so as not to make the "leader" look bad. This is human nature, and Physics has not escaped the same mentality.

Finding an exponential, that will approximate the harmonic series, is a much better use of your time. That is what I presume went through the mind of the gentleman (sorry, I can't recall his name) who's job it was to "make the harpsichord bigger". There is (hopefully, obvious) more to the story than that, but it suffices to say that musicians wanted the "keys" to be in some ordered (and reachable) fashion, and that means that the "inverse" had to be applied to the length of the strings, which would require very odd, and large instruments (harp). Some sort of "symmetrical balance" had to be achieved, and it required a new look at the interval used to divide "harmonic space". [for those history buffs, I think that the scale was written first, but literally, there were no instruments capable of taking advantage of it]

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

There is a key factor: frequency is NOT evenly spaced around the integer division of space.

The speed of light constant, along with the 1 meter, and the 1 second, create "integer space". When we use evenly divided space such as that, we get JUMPS in their inverse, "frequency". Think about the "foundational equations" of QM, taking integer PATH lengths, and measuring the energy by " E = h f ".

"you mean we don't need a "quantum" postulate"? No, it is a mathematical consequence of measuring energy first by integer wavelengths, and then "converting" to the inverse, and calculating by frequency. The concept of "wavelength" is not "simple" integer, it is whole fractions, whose inverse are exponents (when converted to decimal).

The most basic example is 1:2 , and its inverse, 2:1 . If we measure the "minimum fundamental" of 1 wavelength, we calculate the frequency by dividing c by wavelength. This has a certain energy. Now, if we wish to "increase the magnification", and try to measure the next wavelength down, we find that we need "twice the energy" (2f), and so on.

As we learned to probe the atom, and learned about "resonance" the "hard way", we found that only specific frequencies interacted with an atom. We also found a "limit", where the energy changed what we were measuring (ionize). This limit, for every element, is 2 x the fundamental frequency, or "eigenstate" .

So, you see that we can NOT "go down to the next level of accuracy", without changing what it is that we are measuring. This is a "resonant" explanation for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

you mean that there really is no uncertainty in measurement?" No, not unless you try to measure a "complex" value (a rate) with only an integer. We need to measure RATE with RATE.

If we measured with "fractional wavelengths" (wavelets), we can then see an "integer pattern" form in the frequency spread. This just pushes the problem into another corner, however. QM has tried to "side-step" the problem, with the invention of "wavenumber" to get around the "inverse relation" that created "circular logic" with the system of inputs.

Music did not fare much better, arriving at their own "ad hoc" explanation of what was going on. Look at this:

QUOTE

Because of the self-filtering nature of resonance, these frequencies are mostly limited to integer multiples of the lowest possible frequency, and such multiples form the harmonic series.
..
As the reflected waves interact, frequencies whose wavelengths do not divide evenly into the length of the string or air column are suppressed, and the vibrations that persist are called harmonics. Their wavelengths are 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, etc. of the length of the string or air column. To better understand this, see node.

Theoretically, these wavelengths produce vibrations at frequencies that are 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. times the fundamental frequency. Physical characteristics of the vibrating medium and/or the resonator against which it vibrates often alter these frequencies. However, those alterations are small, and except for precise, highly specialized tuning, it is reasonable to think of the frequencies of the harmonic series as integer multiples of the fundamental frequency.

You'll pardon me, if I say that it is "reasonable" for "quantum mechanics", which claims to be very accurate, to go ahead and adopt a "highly specialized tuning".

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

You'll pardon me, if I say that it is "reasonable" for "quantum mechanics", which claims to be very accurate, to go ahead and adopt a "highly specialized tuning".

Please note: this does not mean, nor am I saying, that QM is "wrong". I am seeking to remove the "ad hoc" part of the telling of the tale. It will make the story "nice" to us, and make sense. Isn't that still the goal? Not in Copenhagen!

The harmonic series is an arithmetic series (2×f, 3×f, 4×f, 5×f, ...). In terms of frequency (measured in cycles per second, or hertz (Hz)), the difference between consecutive harmonics is therefore constant. But because our ears respond to sound logarithmically, we perceive higher harmonics as "closer together" than lower ones. On the other hand, the octave series is a geometric progression (2×f, 4×f, 8×f, 16×f, ...), and we hear these distances as "the same" in all ranges. In terms of what we hear, each octave in the harmonic series is divided into increasingly "smaller" and more numerous intervals.

Here, they changed gears very quickly (this is the next sentence, continued from the quote above). But, you can still see the pattern: if we look at frequency, at integer differences, the "detection" of the wave is "contracted".

In music, also "ad hoc", they get around the "logic" with this:

QUOTE

(continued from above) The second harmonic, twice the frequency of the fundamental, sounds an octave higher; the third harmonic, three times the frequency of the fundamental, sounds a perfect fifth above the second. The fourth harmonic vibrates at four times the frequency of the fundamental and sounds a perfect fourth above the third (two octaves above the fundamental).

You see the 2nd harmonic = 2f = 1 octave, and the 4th harmonic = 4f = 2 octaves, but the 3rd harmonic is "a perfect fifth above the second", which still follows mathematically, with 3f, but is NOT in the 3rd octave. It is mid point between "2 and 4", in the second octave. By definition (in the first sentence), we said that an octave = 2f . Whoops! Music just went off the logic track! With the "correct application" of an abstract math & model, developed by trial and error, Music survived being "ad hoc".

If you would like a dose of logic, just to feel good, think about this: a value like "1.5", when counting "whole" things, like cycles, is ABSTRACT. To make it "real", we need the concept of "averaging", and we need more than "one" to do that. In conservation terms (those "piles") terms, 2 MUST exist before 1.5 can exist. (LL noted this about cyclic nature)

Does the Math of QM fare any better?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

$user posted image$

QUOTE

Its name derives from the concept of overtones, or harmonics, in music: the wavelengths of the overtones of a vibrating string are 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, etc. of the string's fundamental wavelength (see harmonic series (music)). Every term of the series after the first is the harmonic mean of the neighboring terms; the term "harmonic mean" also is derived ultimately from music.

They're "borrowing" the story from music, so.. we stay "ad hoc".

They certainly take the Math up a few notches, though. Very "good stuff", realizing that "Every term of the series after the first is the harmonic mean of the neighboring terms". It takes a bit of thought, to realize that this need NOT be limited to a "single oscillator" progression, but also mathematically can be a "many body problem" inversely affecting the "average" frequency.

How do we tell the difference between the amplitude of a 8 Hz "single photon", and 2 "4 Hz single photons", or 8 "1 Hz photons", if they arrive at the same time and place (superimpose)?

OK, this has gotten very long..

The simple, elegant beauty of the "12th root of 2"

R = 1.0594630943592952645618252949463 = 2^(1/12)

Start with ANY "fundamental value"

1

multiply recursively by R, 12 times, to create a "fractal/resonant series"

1.059..
1.122..
1.189..
1.259..
1.334..
1.4142..
1.498..
1.587..
1.681..
1.781..
1.887..
2

You will note that, at "half-way through" this progression, we have the sq rt of 2 ; sort of a "short cut" (at the phase node) to the resonant value/harmonic 2f.

You will also note, that we have the closest approximation possible (while minimizing the terms), of the inverse of a "harmonic series". Not an exact
replica of that series, but "including" the important values, none-the-less.

1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5

When you've gone that far, "between 1 and 2", you don't need to go further, because we are already starting to "converge", because 1/4 is a harmonic of 1/2, and 1/6 would be the harmonic of 1/3, and so on.

Moreover, if we divide by R, we reverse direction, we will naturally produce the inverse set, also irrational, but forever maintaining the original, "fundamental" relation of 1:2 . We are just measuring "cycles", and allowing "frequency and wavelength" to change by less than integer values, yet still in "discreet chunks".

One cycle = 2 parts, however, One part (phase) can never = 2 cycles. This gives us "direction", that would only be "reversible" from the perspective of the detector/observer, and the "transactional interpretation".

This is the simple mathematics that are at work inside "quantum mechanics", that have gone unnoticed, perhaps because the group that they borrowed from had yet to realize this as well.

regards,

T.Roc

PS. rest well, good elf <:)

Why Not?

17th August 2007 - 08:10 PM

Hey Good Elf, LL, et al.,

Good Elf,

Thank you for the response. I can only imagine the effort it takes to type like a one-eyed fish!

I must be missing something and I appreciate your efforts in trying to clear up the MM interferometer on the train. But I am still confused.

QUOTE ( Good Elf+)

The laws of physics are not altered by the motion the "physical pattern" is a spatial pattern (as I have been at pains to suggest all along) is not altered by the motion of the instruments relative to observers. This is "corrected" by a relativistic length contraction (rotation or spatial distortion in 3D) only in the direction of relative motion. SR leaves all other directions without any need for "corrections".

So will the interference pattern seen by the observer on the train and the observer on the platform always be identical, regardless of the speed of the train or will the interference pattern vary with the speed of the train because length contraction occurs only in the direction of motion? I have tried the "shut up and calculate" approach but am honestly confused in how to calculate the time and distance for the arm pointing up. This arm is parallel to the observer on the platform and perpendicular to the direction of motion so it should not need correction. But if it is uncorrected then we get different results, which imply different laws…

Mahalo

Why Not?

17th August 2007 - 08:41 PM

Hey TRoc,

QUOTE (TRoc+)

We are just measuring "cycles", and allowing "frequency and wavelength" to change by less than integer values, yet still in "discreet chunks".

Is there a minimum size to the "discreet chunks"? If "yes", then your quote above is what I was trying to express all along. A rate is a "spacetime interval". By definition, rate = distance divided by time. Relativity sets a the maximum value. Does TRoc theory set a minimum? If "no" then the chunks are not discreet.

Mahalo again...

EDIT** Ps,

QUOTE (TRoc+)

How do we tell the difference between the amplitude of a 8 Hz "single photon", and 2 "4 Hz single photons", or 8 "1 Hz photons", if they arrive at the same time and place (superimpose)?

The amplitudes are 0, 2 and 8 respectively. We can differentiate the three by measuring their respective energies through the photoelectric effect.

jal

17th August 2007 - 09:03 PM

Hi TRoc!
I'm going to be straight man (ask questions for clarifications).

QUOTE

multiply recursively by R, 12 times, to create a "fractal/resonant series"

1.059..
1.122..
1.189..
1.259..
1.334..
1.4142..
1.498..
1.587..
1.681..
1.781..
1.887..
2

You will note that, at "half-way through" this progression, we have the sq rt of 2 ; sort of a "short cut" (at the phase node) to the resonant value/harmonic 2f.

Can I say that you have divided the "distances" between 1 -> 2 into 12 parts?

Can I say that the middle of those 12 parts is the square root of 2? (1.4142..)

Why Not?
Don't take it too fast

There are some readers who are just learning how to use a calculator.
(I'm sure that "THEY2" IS NOT IN THAT CATEGORY.

)
JAL

Laserlight

18th August 2007 - 12:46 AM

Hi Jal, TRoc, WN, and All,

QUOTE

QUOTE
multiply recursively by R, 12 times, to create a "fractal/resonant series"

1.059..
1.122..
1.189..
1.259..
1.334..
1.4142..
1.498..
1.587..
1.681..
1.781..
1.887..
2

You will note that, at "half-way through" this progression, we have the sq rt of 2 ; sort of a "short cut" (at the phase node) to the resonant value/harmonic 2f.

Jal, the reciprocal of 1.4142 is ~ 0.707.

For those with an electronics background, you will notice that we are looking at the
RMS (Root Mean Square) value of a sinewave, which is used to compute power
functions of an oscillating wave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square

Comments?
LL

Laserlight

18th August 2007 - 01:15 AM

Hi WhyNot, et al,

QUOTE

It should be a "sliding" scale that adjusts for the differences in spacetime
according to the energy content that occupies that space. Remember, it is an
exponential analog scale that follows a gradient.

An analogy. If you stand next to a ringing bell, you hear a fixed energy tone
at a fixed/maximum energy level.

If you move away from that ringing bell and measure at discrete distances, the
tone (frequency) remains the same, but the energy of the tone diminishes with
distance (it follows the ISL). As you continue to move away you continue to hear
the tone, until at some distance you can no longer detect the frequency, because it
falls into the background noise and cannot be discriminated.

Now if you stand next to a bigger bell, of the same frequency, and perform the
same measurement exercise, you will be able to detect the frequency/energy at a
further distance.

All that has changed is the power scale. It has moved from one location on the
scale to another location on the same scale, to compensate for the difference
in energy at a fixed point in space/time. The distance vs measured energy level
represents the energy gradient.

So, it is a graduated magnitude scale, whose minimum value is the detection
threshold (quantum noise limit) of the energy for the frequency being measured.

TRoc, please correct me if I am not clear or incorrect.

LL

Good Elf

18th August 2007 - 03:18 PM

Hi "Why Not?", Siau, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, yquantum, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,

QUOTE (Mahalo ("Why Not?")+)

Good Elf,

Thank you for the response. I can only imagine the effort it takes to type like a one-eyed fish!

I must be missing something and I appreciate your efforts in trying to clear up the MM interferometer on the train. But I am still confused.

QUOTE (Good Elf+)

I can understand your confusion. I should "add" that the shapes of objects "seen" by moving observers is unaltered by motion in the main... This is not quite true since movement along a primary axis of relative motion in SR is "privileged". What is measured using synchronized clocks in a different inertial observer frame of reference is "data" that needs correction when this data is "interpreted" by a single observer vantage point, since the speed of light is such a large number it is outside of our normal "perception".

The human perception of "now" is always interpreted "psychologically" as all events being observed by a single observer at one point relative to the observer's time and space coordinates. We "know" this is not right since light even from the other side of a room takes time to reach an observer and this light was "propagated" from an event at an earlier instant in the observer history. An extreme example of this is a star like Eta Carinae may already have gone Supernova and life on earth may "functionally" be doomed already yet for us life goes on until the event finally reaches us sometime in the future... our future. When we look into space we are looking back into the past and because the past holds events that have "actually" already happened, predestine us to a future we may already predict if only we knew enough about the laws of physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eta_Carinae

The binary system, Eta Carinae, is a giant cosmic Russian Roulette Table that could discharge its "round" in our direction even within our lifetimes, and extinct all life as it goes "Super or Hyper Nova". "Luckily" this spin gives us a "sporting chance" and it may direct the explosion away from us by sheer chance. Already it is possible that this "bullet" is rushing toward the cradle of mankind and could arrive "before lunch" today or it may be as much as a million years in our collective future... But it will happen sometime with consequences that are potentially already able to be predicted.

The position and timing of events are also subject to relativistic motion and I have often quoted the relativistic Jet from M87 as another interesting object. The Jet is "roughly" in our general direction and probably indicates there is a Black Hole source at the heart of M87.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_87
Here is a picture of the object...

That Blue color is due to relativistic motion toward us of this Jet of gaseous "matter", currently "clocked" at six times the speed of light. I can assure you it is a "subluminal" velocity but the light that was emitted in the past is arriving at the vicinity of the Earth only slightly ahead of the matter that is the source of this light.

Since the object is 52 mly distant it took 52 Million Years for "first light" from this object to reach us for the first time. For that entire period all we currently see of this jet was "invisible" to us and in our future. Now that we see it this light being emitted by this gas, it's sources are "frequency bunched up" in the direction of motion and is being "replayed" to us on Earth at six times the rate of the events that originally created this light from that gas in the first place. Each photon emitted toward the earth by each event in that cloud of gas expanding on the surface of a perfect sphere toward us. Successive "photon emission" events from this gas occurring at equal "short" time intervals all equally exhibiting a source frequency Relativistically Doppler shifted in the direction of motion to the "blue end" of the spectrum. The centers of these spherically expanding waves are sequentially displaced toward us at nearly the speed of light such that successive 'flashes" are "transported" along the "beam" almost with the light that was emitted originally such that successive flashes from one point in the "cloud" emit similar events of photon emission much closer to us than would otherwise have been if there was no proper motion of the source.... thus almost keeping pace with the original flash's wavefront. The "frequency" of successive flashes of photons from this light appears higher than the original flash rate for "blue" light (which is its internal frequency of a stationary "blue" source). The speed of light from these "moving sources" is not changed, light still expands on the surface of a sphere, but due to source movement the frequency is increased by way of "length contraction"... a perception of shortened elementary dipole oscillator dimensions in the direction of motion. Due to this "motion" a spatial rotation has occurred of nearly π/2 radians such that the light now approaches us from what appears to be a foreshortened radiator of higher frequency and from an "unexpected nearly orthogonal direction" as we are seeing it on Earth ... As mentioned before Special Relativity is "about" the Laws of Physics being always unchanged relative to all observers.

This "distortion" is only seen from the perspective of the single Earth observer. Multiple observers placed along the path of the passage of the M87 Jet still in "our" Earth's inertial frame of reference will measure the passage and timing as observers being "johnny on the spot" as nearly the speed of light and the color of the light being "blue shifted". Interestingly it is subjected to several spatial distortions and called "Stellar Aberration", Chromatic Aberration and a "intensity bunching" forward and red shifting aft of such scenes. Here is one place you can download software to simulate these effects but you could also look at these Gallery shots which also illustrate the events as well...
http://wwwvis.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/relativity/
and gallery shots showing the distortions ...
http://www.vis.uni-stuttgart.de/relativity/gallery/

Physical rotations and distortions are graphically illustrated by the picture of the Eiifel Tower at 99%©.
user posted image

Spatial distortions and rotations Doppler Shift and Intensity Brightening at 90%© toward center of field of motion and view of several objects arranged in a "scene".
user posted image

QUOTE (Caption+)

This video shows completely relativistic rendering of geometry and illumination. The overall illumination is reduced to one thousandth compared to that in other two movies. Due to the transformation of radiance the objects ahead are extremely bright. The observer is moving with 90 percent of the speed of light (Mpeg, 2.5 Mb)

Notice the "tunnel vision" effect... look carefully at the checkerboard "rectilinear" arrangement of floor tiles.

There are other examples there as well that show these effects seen by single observers. Of course in this case the speed of light is so high and these actual scenes "small" compared with the speed of light that it is obvious that human eyes would not see anything at all... Yet a high speed SLR Camera could record a picture as seen in these scenes. More likely what human eyes would actually see is similar to the "Stargate" scene in 2001 A Space Odyssey.

These effects are "entirely symmetric" this scenery could be moving past a "stationary observer" or a "moving observer" is moving past a "stationary scene"... It does not really matter. What is important is to realize the objects in the forward direction "appear" to a single point observer to be rotated away from them by up to an angle of π/2 radians... This rotation angle in radians is equal to arcsin (V/C)... You "seem" to be peering around the back of the relatively moving objects.... This imposes a very special "dynamic" in the observation and electromagnetism of events by a single observer frame of reference.

I would stress these visual effects are solely due to a perspective "enjoyed" by a single observer. This is not usually what Special Relativity is "all about" as taught in schools and first year University. The "data" collected within a single frame of reference from all observers using synchronized clocks is distorted if you only have a single "one eyed" view of this effect. A "picture" can only make sense if you collect and correct the locally gathered data then using the transformation equations of special relativity put them all back to their respective positions as they would be seen in the rest frame of the observed phenomena. I stress this cannot be done usually from a single data collection point of view unless you are able to adjust all these parameters for propagation delays which really are quite "bewildering" and in general not actually fully known... In the end, corrections for special relativity will give the right answers and they will show that at all relative velocities these optical distortions are an "illusion" of perspective and velocity and present the same position when corrected to all observers. We should be trying to determine the events in the rest frame of sources for intelligent interpretation to be possible.

Ultimately there is no physical distortions and no physical rotations but it is like looking at the world through "anamorphic eyes" subjected to time dilation. Given the right set of data and correct distances and times to events (in the laboratory rest frame) What I would also stress is that the meaning of "illusion" is the same meaning that a mirage in a desert is an "illusion"... not a psychological process... a real image like the Fata Morgana in North Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_%28mirage%29
... Real objects seen through the distortion of a "lens". They are objectively "real" though represent an optical distortion.

In some respects our entire world are such "illusions" but we come to think of this as "real" in the sense that what is "seen" is what the phenomena "is". In one sense of this meaning it is indeed very real since electromagnetism is the very nature of the electromagnetic force, our rooms and the shape of our world we view is subject to optics every bit as much as as the influence of Relativity. The size and shape and physical displacement of everything we measure is subject to the speed of light defining the geometry of the space under investigation. This is one good reason why we are unable to accept the existence of more dimensions simply because we are unable to "see" them while objectively we are able to calculate them.

QUOTE ("Why Not?"+)

The answer is there is a distortion for the observer viewing a relatively moving frame of reference but this will look very much like a "rotation" in space away from all observers and when he corrects for motion using the Theory of Relativity, he will arrive at the same DSE experiment with all elements and positions correctly in place as would be expected in the rest frame of that experiment "on the train". Seen by external observers a distorted visual perspective will be seen but will be no different interference patterns just rotated and crushed into the forward position with brightening and chromatic aberration but despite the color of the light due to Doppler Effect the same pattern will be seen with the same maxima and minima in the same "relative" physical positions if the optical distortions are removed. This is in a way similar to the Cylinder Mirror Optical Illusion as seen in this series.
http://www.moillusions.com/2006/05/cylinde...l-illusion.html
In older times a saucer with an anamorphic design like these would be reflected in the vase showing a fully corrected "scene"... The problem of the reverse transform is an exercise in 'Conformal Field Theory" with a large number of initially unknown parameters which needs to be inverted. While the distorted "images" has only one "true image" in the inertial frame of the observed system... other frames in relative motion produce similar distortions as seen from these frames. The DSE is a distortion but it is a conformal distortion in Special Relativity so that there are no functional differences between systems other than the illusion of the distortions. The number and amplitude of the pattern is retained and the relative maxima and minima but it can be distorted due to the choice of relative motion of the observer.

In a practical system we "know" the movement of particles relative to one inertial frame of reference and we want to know the motion of these particles in its own special "rest frame" or from another velocity regime. Another problem is only seeing the distorted "signal" from an observer frame of reference (say M87 and its apparent hyperluminal motion) predict what this looks like in its own internal frame of reference (of co-moving particles...) with respect to the Jet. Luckily we have Special Relativity eh?

PS: I will be sitting up normally tomorrow.

Only one more "sleep" he he he! I took all day to do this post in bits and pieces.

Cheers

Laserlight

18th August 2007 - 03:41 PM

Hi TRoc and All,

I am still a bit uncertain about what is considered an absolute minimum
detectable energy level, as it pertains to your model.

Each different frequency photon has a minimum discrete energy package that
gives rise to a detectable wavefunction that operates at that specific frequency.
This follows E=hf.

Longer wavelengths (lower frequencies) are less energetic than higher frequency
wavelengths because of the time factor that is associated with each wave that
is propagated. So naturally, each wavelength has a different minimum power
level that is necessary to generate, and sustain, that wavefunction.

Shouldn't resonance have an inverse relationship to wave propagation?

One phenomenon, stimulated emission, stimulates a photon to be released at some
minimum threshold energy level, while the complementary phenomenon,
resonance/detection, is stimulated by that minimum threshold energy level.

Something is missing...and I can't put my finger on what it is.

I am visualizing GE's sync function model, which illustrates the leading and trailing
harmonic frequencies that "bracket" the main sync pulse, as the phase matching
components that are responsible for stimulating resonance phase matching at the
quantum/atomic level.

Following GE's sync function model, it would seem that a cornu spiral for an
individual photon EM pulse should actually be comprised of two reciprocal
spirals, one for the leading edge harmonic energy build up, and the other for the
trailing edge harmonic relaxation of the main sync fucntion impulse.

So, I see two different models. One follows the ISL for a coherent wave that
represents a maximum energy pulse, which eventually "flat lines" at some
minimum sustainable energy level. The other, is a resonance that exists at the
atomic level, that is created by naturally occuring atomic vibrations of the "lattice",
or by unstimulated "dipole moments", which represents the minimum possible
atomic energy level, or harmonic sensitivity level.

The atomic resonance level then, is dependent upon the structure and energy
that resides within each discrete element. This is the atomic vibration or
minimum energy level that is sensitive to a specific frequency or spectrum, in
the outer valence band. But what of the inner electron bands?

We must also realize that a complex atomic element, which is comprised of
many electrons in multiple energy bands, also internally resonates at multiple
frequencies and contains multiple dipole moments, and associated resonances,
that are in harmonic balance within the structure of the atom. We observe this
in the multi-colored (frequency) spectral response that is the signature of each
discrete element.

Therefore, we must consider that each discrete element possesses an electron shell
structure that has different energy levels, that each represent a resonant
bandwidth range of operation, according to the total charge energy
density contained within it's atomic structure.

So, what in this vibrating atomic structure, is the minimum detectable threshold
energy resonance level? Is it the innermost dipole moment of the atomic structure?

Anyone?

LL

Why Not?

18th August 2007 - 06:54 PM

Hey Good Elf and everyone,

Thank you for pointing out that when looking at the relativistic forest, one must correct for the position of ALL of trees!

By playing around with the MM interferometer on the train, I found that by applying the time element associated with one of the arms to the distance element associated with the other arm (and vise versa) you always wind up with the same answer, which happens to match the answer generated in the rest frame of the experiment. The rotation through me a curve. Thank you for clarifying. That the rotation = 1/2pi at c and zero at rest makes some sense to me now.

Applied to the DSE, it seems that "sum over all paths" is REQUIRED if you want to get the "right answer" (interference pattern). It also looks like if you “rotate” “sum over all paths” you get Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory.

Enjoy sitting up!

Mahalo nui loa!

janrinze

19th August 2007 - 01:36 AM

QUOTE (Laserlight+Aug 18 2007, 03:41 PM)

Something is missing...and I can't put my finger on what it is.

<....>

Anyone?

LL

Hi LL,

EM is a form of 'self' induction.
The 'self' induction implicitly generates both the frequency and the propagation speed.

now what would happen if a resonant system would be in a field that is cycling at its resonant frequency.. it would simply tune in..

Maybe I am over simplifying things here (I have a lot of reading to catch up with..)

Jan Rinze.

GE: nice to read your last post :-) good to see you have been able to follow the thread!

Neil Farbstein

19th August 2007 - 01:54 AM

QUOTE (Why Not?+Aug 18 2007, 06:54 PM)

If you shrink the mirror or reduce its size there are less paths to sum over. What do you expect to occur if smaller mirrors are used? Is there a limit where bizarre measurements are observed by the observer on the train?

Laserlight

19th August 2007 - 02:24 AM

Hi Jan, and All, Too many names to address!

QUOTE

now what would happen if a resonant system would be in a field that is cycling at its resonant frequency.. it would simply tune in..

I am visualizing a quantum lock and key arrangement, (someone coined that
phrase some months back, I think it was you) that is similar to a
type of synchronous frequency and phase locking (PLL- phased lock loop?) arrangement.

The resonant atom acts like the "lock" in the form of a tuned "cavity", and the
arriving EM frequency sync pulse "leader" matches with the cavity, making it "ring"
at the resonant frequency, which makes it responsive to the full energy of the
arriving EM sync pulse.

User posted image

The leading wavelets in GE's sync pulse, that act as leader (and trailer) pulses,
are "ordered" harmonics that persist at some energy level that is considerably
lower than the total energy of the photon impulse which is denoted by E=hf.
Yes, the total energy of the photon follows theory, but the ordered harmonics
are "part and parcel" of the total photon energy package, which is a point that
TRoc has stressed, for a long time.

These 2nd, 3rd, 4th... order harmonic frequencies are the "bumps" in the key
that "unlock" an atom that is vibrating at the correct resonance frequency.

TRoc's cornu spiral exponential power function describes these harmonic
frequency orders, that exist at an energy that is lower than the total photon
energy level.

Comments? Discussion? Alternative views?
LL

Why Not?

19th August 2007 - 04:50 AM

Hey TRoc, LL, NF, and all,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)

So, it is a graduated magnitude scale, whose minimum value is the detection threshold (quantum noise limit) of the energy for the frequency being measured.

QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+)

I think there is a minimum, but I am waiting on TRoc's response before I reply further.

TRoc?

TRoc

19th August 2007 - 04:07 PM

Hi all,

I'm typing as fast as I can; sorry for the delay!

While I'm doing so, the main question "on the board" seems to be "what is the minimum?

Good question, but in what form shall I answer?

To how many observers?

In how many positions?

Without some frame work, there is "no minimum". Units and numbers are pretty flexible!

It would seem that the foundational quantum postulates are based on the "ideal" case: one electron, limited (by average, or probable) to a "cloud" form of possible positions, and a fixed "speed"/frequency around the nucleus. These parameters all have an effect on the "scale" that constitutes the resonant frequencies (absorption/emission bands).

Then we invoke the "photon" concept, existing "in between" the sending and receiving electron.

The receiving electron's behavior, relative to the sending one, is what we base our assumptions of the "photon" about.

So, if you want an "electromagnetic minimum", we need to "set up" this gedanken, and exactly define WHAT we are going to measure with.

Are we going to measure with a single H atom?
(etc)

ciao!

T.Roc

PS. let me give an example, very relevant to our entire discussion. The "minimum" energy, in joules, stated in terms of frequency, is One (Hz), which means (in yet another term) one cycle of vibration.

Also note, that this was later "modified" to say "bar-h", and divided by 2. This means we MUST change the "fundamental", to the next octave down. This is the way that we find the "root" of 3f , as a harmonic at 1.5f . In other words, in order to "maintain our integer series of measuring", we will have to keep adding new values to the "chart", so that they "fit into the harmonic scheme". It is like a "dance of the primes", and remember that the sq rt of c is irrational. Trying to find that "symmetry" in the product of the wave measurement (f & W) with a whole number is not going to work. Unless we want to dance like Frankenstein on stilts.

janrinze

19th August 2007 - 04:37 PM

QUOTE (TRoc+Aug 19 2007, 04:07 PM)

let me give an example, very relevant to our entire discussion. The "minimum" energy, in joules, stated in terms of frequency, is One (Hz), which means (in yet another term) one cycle of vibration.

Hi TRoc,

E = h.f must ring a bell.. no restrictions on f given..

one cycle is not 1Hz.. one cycle is a period of 1/f sec.

Sincerely,

Jan Rinze.

TRoc

19th August 2007 - 05:45 PM

Hi Jan,

QUOTE

E = h.f must ring a bell.. no restrictions on f given

Yes, but perhaps you and I are alone in this interpretation. Right now, QM says that there are MANY restrictions on " f " , which is why we have had so many debates on their nature.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

E = h.f must ring a bell.. no restrictions on f given

Yes, but perhaps you and I are alone in this interpretation. Right now, QM says that there are MANY restrictions on " f " , which is why we have had so many debates on their nature.

one cycle is not 1Hz.. one cycle is a period of 1/f sec

You are technically correct, of course.

The units, as I should have written, are J / s

which means, for the example that I gave, that " 1 cycle, per 1 second = 1 Hz", so that the intent of my statement is correct? Right?

The minimum energy (h), in Joules per second, stated in Hz, is One cycle per One second, or 1 Hz.

Now, add my "PS" from above. QM is saying that the "1/2 wave" is Fundamental. If this is true, then EVERYTHING that we measure is a RESULT of an interaction that happens below the threshold of our measurement, and "sums" to produce the values that we work with. This follow the "third harmonic argument": 3f can NOT arise from an integer progression, following 1, and 2, even though this is "mathematically valid". If we got to "2" by other than "+1" (which we did), then let's stick to this "rule".

more is coming..

regards,

T.Roc

Confused2

19th August 2007 - 07:18 PM

Hi TRoc et al,

The units of Planck's constant are [Joule]x[seconds]
The units of frequency are [number] / [seconds]
The units of energy are [Joules]

So hf has the units [Joules]x[seconds] x [number] / [seconds] ..
the units of time (seconds) 'cancel' so we get [number]x[Joules]
or in words
"a number of Joules"
which is the units Energy is measured in .. a number of Joules.

AND I've enjoyed reading some excellent posts

Best wishes - C2. (Especially to Good Elf)

Laserlight

19th August 2007 - 08:11 PM

Hi C2, TRoc, Jan, and All,

QUOTE

The units of Planck's constant are [Joule]x[seconds]
The units of frequency are [number] / [seconds]
The units of energy are [Joules]

This brings some questions to the fore....that might have consequences regarding
what exactly is the value Plank's constant, which assumes perfect wave symmetry
falling within a specified 1 second time interval. Perhaps it is not as cut and dried
as has been assumed/believed.

Plank's constant is predicated on the idea that an EXACT number of full
wave cycles will fit EXACTLY into a 1 second timeframe. I am assuming
that actually we are not accurately counting the number of partial cycles
that fall within the "per second" window scale, but which are rounded into
the total. Wouldn't this "inaccuracy" of partial wave addition into the total
equation change the actual "h" value?

It would seem that there should be some "tollerance" in "h"according to the
partial wave energy equivalent. If we are not using an "absolute" frequency
measurement, because of partial wave inclusion into the equation, then it would
seem that the actual energy at specific frequencies is a bit inaccurate, because
we are using a fixed time interval, and an integer plus a partial wave
frequency "count".

I am open to other opinions, discussion on this topic. I'm not trying to trash
100 years of QM theory...but then again.....there are "inconsistencies" that must
be addressed, IMO.

LL

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.