QUOTE (Laserlight+Aug 19 2007, 08:11 PM)
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?
Hi LL,
I think you are missing the point that 1 second is merely an arbitrary measure.
the second is not a constant of nature it just is defined by the time light would take when it would travel 299792458 meters.
Whereas 1 meter is a similar arbitrary measure which will lead up to the definition of :
1 meter is the distance traveled by light in 1/299792458 second.
choose any other measurements and the numbers should linearly be adapted.
with those measures any physics formula would still remain consistent..
(as long as we apply the same scaling rules for other constants)
So I hardly understand why you assume that nature would comply to our arbitrarily chosen standards..
Jan Rinze.
P.S. Imagine Lorentz when he invented Lorentz invariance.. time and space are related by the constant of the speed of light..
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?
Hi LL,
I think you are missing the point that 1 second is merely an arbitrary measure.
the second is not a constant of nature it just is defined by the time light would take when it would travel 299792458 meters.
Whereas 1 meter is a similar arbitrary measure which will lead up to the definition of :
1 meter is the distance traveled by light in 1/299792458 second.
choose any other measurements and the numbers should linearly be adapted.
with those measures any physics formula would still remain consistent..
(as long as we apply the same scaling rules for other constants)
So I hardly understand why you assume that nature would comply to our arbitrarily chosen standards..
Jan Rinze.
P.S. Imagine Lorentz when he invented Lorentz invariance.. time and space are related by the constant of the speed of light..
Hi JanRinze,Laserlight..
I agree with you (JR) but I think it was conceptually simpler when a second was the length of 1900 (or whenever) divided by a large number inherited from a traditional way of measuring time and a metre was chosen from (roughly) the length of a French soldier's pace when marching. Linking time and distance to get 'c' might leave one wondering how the French soldiers chose their pace length to be exactly .. whatever .. when (clearly) they didn't.
(Sorry for the interruption)
Best wishes - C2
I agree with you (JR) but I think it was conceptually simpler when a second was the length of 1900 (or whenever) divided by a large number inherited from a traditional way of measuring time and a metre was chosen from (roughly) the length of a French soldier's pace when marching. Linking time and distance to get 'c' might leave one wondering how the French soldiers chose their pace length to be exactly .. whatever .. when (clearly) they didn't.
(Sorry for the interruption)
Best wishes - C2
We agree the French are to blame. My guess is that the metre is 'not a yard' (a yard being the length of an English soldiers pace) .. the rest is just an excuse for 'not the yard' :D .
Hi Jan, C2, and All,
Thanks for the explanation. Yes, I understand all that. I guess I am still
questioning how that relates to ALL frequencies. Maybe I am flailing
around in the dark
The meter is determined using the frequency of a "iodine-stabilized" helium neon
laser in vacuum. Other frequencies will travel the same 1 meter distance in the
same time interval, which is determined by the propagation speed of "c" in vacuum.
However, the integer wave count of other frequencies won't be evenly matched
to line up exactly at the 1 meter physical interval.
So Hertz, cycles per second, is also questionable, since we are using two fixed
"constants" that are not necessarily "calibrated". We've got the speed of light in
vacuum (a constant), the meter determined by the distance light travels in
1 second (a constant), and the second which is determined by the speed of light
(a constant). Then we have frequency, which changes accordng to the number
of FULL cycles that occur in one second. What about the partial cycles that
don't fit within the full cycle window? Is that the uncertainty?
Maybe h-bar (Dirac's constant) that computes by radians per second is more accurate in that regard.
f = 1/t ...therefore... ft = 1
t = 1/f ...therefore... ft = 1
1 =
GOD....... I'm going in circles......
Circular logic has no end!
LL
QUOTE
I think you are missing the point that 1 second is merely an arbitrary measure.
the second is not a constant of nature ......it just is defined by the
time light would take when it would travel 299792458 meters.
Whereas 1 meter is a similar arbitrary measure which will lead up to the definition of :
1 meter is the distance traveled by light in 1/299792458 second.
the second is not a constant of nature ......it just is defined by the
time light would take when it would travel 299792458 meters.
Whereas 1 meter is a similar arbitrary measure which will lead up to the definition of :
1 meter is the distance traveled by light in 1/299792458 second.
Thanks for the explanation. Yes, I understand all that. I guess I am still
questioning how that relates to ALL frequencies. Maybe I am flailing
around in the dark
The meter is determined using the frequency of a "iodine-stabilized" helium neon
laser in vacuum. Other frequencies will travel the same 1 meter distance in the
same time interval, which is determined by the propagation speed of "c" in vacuum.
However, the integer wave count of other frequencies won't be evenly matched
to line up exactly at the 1 meter physical interval.
So Hertz, cycles per second, is also questionable, since we are using two fixed
"constants" that are not necessarily "calibrated". We've got the speed of light in
vacuum (a constant), the meter determined by the distance light travels in
1 second (a constant), and the second which is determined by the speed of light
(a constant). Then we have frequency, which changes accordng to the number
of FULL cycles that occur in one second. What about the partial cycles that
don't fit within the full cycle window? Is that the uncertainty?
Maybe h-bar (Dirac's constant) that computes by radians per second is more accurate in that regard.
f = 1/t ...therefore... ft = 1
t = 1/f ...therefore... ft = 1
1 =
GOD....... I'm going in circles......
Circular logic has no end!
LL
Hi all,
C2-
Just a minor correction:
The units of frequency are [cycles] / [seconds]
This
Just a minor correction:
The units of frequency are [cycles] / [seconds]
This
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.
would change to "E has Integer (n) units of ([Joules]x[seconds])([cycles]/[seconds]) / [seconds], correct?
We can "cancel out" one pair of the seconds.
We need to "measure" in 1 sec units for this relation to hold. You can also say that we need distances "in the lab" to be in units of 299,792,458 meters. If you accept the "old" definitions, that a "reflection" is a continuation of "path length", then we can "bounce around" the light for a while, and say that we did cover our "fundamental unit of distance".
If you accept that the wave is absorbed/re-emitted (instead of "reflecting") at the mirror, then we have not performed the measurement "correct", IMO. (at least not "self-consistently").
That is probably "in another direction" right now, but we have covered that before.
A few snips, as a refresher:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_constant
I certainly agree with the first assumption, because I have done so (BB curve) with my set of harmonic oscillators, and a "sum and difference" method that only differs slightly from what is already accepted theory. Beat frequencies are also not a new concept, and was Schroedinger's favorite "interpretation". I believe that he only "failed" in the end (to have the Final answer), because of the "Monochromatic Assumption" (I'm now giving it full "Title"; MA) mentioned above.
Without the "3 Body Problem", which is our "standard" 2-body, plus the "hidden" parameter of the "background frequency", he could not "recover" from MA. How can you "borrow" from an empty account? If either the knowledge of Soliton (EM) waves, or the "Chord resonance" that I have described, were known to him, perhaps he could have countered "Boltzmann's last Stand".
Boltzmann pointed out that Schroedinger's wave had nothing to keep it from spreading. [read: space is dispersive] He also pointed out that" everything can not be described simply by the difference (beat) in eigenstates. Boltzmann may have foreseen "dark energy"? At any rate, there is more to it that "beats", because these beats interact in an "odd" way. They do follow logic, however: what is NOT measured is always larger than what IS. (there are more cycles NOT happening at the same time, than "beats", or coincidence in phase)
I certainly agree with the first assumption, because I have done so (BB curve) with my set of harmonic oscillators, and a "sum and difference" method that only differs slightly from what is already accepted theory. Beat frequencies are also not a new concept, and was Schroedinger's favorite "interpretation". I believe that he only "failed" in the end (to have the Final answer), because of the "Monochromatic Assumption" (I'm now giving it full "Title"; MA) mentioned above.
Without the "3 Body Problem", which is our "standard" 2-body, plus the "hidden" parameter of the "background frequency", he could not "recover" from MA. How can you "borrow" from an empty account? If either the knowledge of Soliton (EM) waves, or the "Chord resonance" that I have described, were known to him, perhaps he could have countered "Boltzmann's last Stand".
Boltzmann pointed out that Schroedinger's wave had nothing to keep it from spreading. [read: space is dispersive] He also pointed out that" everything can not be described simply by the difference (beat) in eigenstates. Boltzmann may have foreseen "dark energy"? At any rate, there is more to it that "beats", because these beats interact in an "odd" way. They do follow logic, however: what is NOT measured is always larger than what IS. (there are more cycles NOT happening at the same time, than "beats", or coincidence in phase)
The Planck constant is used to describe quantization. For instance, the energy (E) carried by a beam of light with constant frequency (ν) can only take on the values
.
If Dirac saw this, and his "revision" suggests an " h / 2 pi " as a minimum energy level, (working in radians) then it seems that there is a connection to the "exponential" value 1.054571628 , and the built in cyclical nature (limit) of the ratio of the circumference to the radius (measured with a dimensionless approach).
I have to pause..
regards,
T.Roc
C2-
QUOTE
The units of Planck's constant are [Joule]x[seconds]
The units of frequency are [number] / [seconds]
The units of energy are [Joules]
The units of frequency are [number] / [seconds]
The units of energy are [Joules]
Just a minor correction:
The units of frequency are [cycles] / [seconds]
This
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The units of Planck's constant are [Joule]x[seconds] The units of frequency are [number] / [seconds] The units of energy are [Joules] |
Just a minor correction:
The units of frequency are [cycles] / [seconds]
This
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.
would change to "E has Integer (n) units of ([Joules]x[seconds])([cycles]/[seconds]) / [seconds], correct?
We can "cancel out" one pair of the seconds.
We need to "measure" in 1 sec units for this relation to hold. You can also say that we need distances "in the lab" to be in units of 299,792,458 meters. If you accept the "old" definitions, that a "reflection" is a continuation of "path length", then we can "bounce around" the light for a while, and say that we did cover our "fundamental unit of distance".
If you accept that the wave is absorbed/re-emitted (instead of "reflecting") at the mirror, then we have not performed the measurement "correct", IMO. (at least not "self-consistently").
That is probably "in another direction" right now, but we have covered that before.
A few snips, as a refresher:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_constant
QUOTE
Origins of Planck's constant
The Planck constant, , was proposed in reference to the problem of black-body radiation. The underlying assumption to Planck's law of black body radiation was that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body could be modeled as a set of harmonic oscillators with quantized energy of the form:
is the quantized energy of the photons of radiation having frequency (Hz) of (nu) or angular frequency (rad/s) of (omega).
This model proved extremely accurate, but it provided an intellectual stumbling block for theoreticians who did not understand where the quantization of energy arose — Planck himself only considered it "a purely formal assumption". This line of questioning helped lead to the formation of quantum mechanics.
In addition to some assumptions underlying the interpretation of certain values in the quantum mechanical formulation, ..
The Planck constant, , was proposed in reference to the problem of black-body radiation. The underlying assumption to Planck's law of black body radiation was that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body could be modeled as a set of harmonic oscillators with quantized energy of the form:
is the quantized energy of the photons of radiation having frequency (Hz) of (nu) or angular frequency (rad/s) of (omega).
This model proved extremely accurate, but it provided an intellectual stumbling block for theoreticians who did not understand where the quantization of energy arose — Planck himself only considered it "a purely formal assumption". This line of questioning helped lead to the formation of quantum mechanics.
In addition to some assumptions underlying the interpretation of certain values in the quantum mechanical formulation, ..
I certainly agree with the first assumption, because I have done so (BB curve) with my set of harmonic oscillators, and a "sum and difference" method that only differs slightly from what is already accepted theory. Beat frequencies are also not a new concept, and was Schroedinger's favorite "interpretation". I believe that he only "failed" in the end (to have the Final answer), because of the "Monochromatic Assumption" (I'm now giving it full "Title"; MA) mentioned above.
Without the "3 Body Problem", which is our "standard" 2-body, plus the "hidden" parameter of the "background frequency", he could not "recover" from MA. How can you "borrow" from an empty account? If either the knowledge of Soliton (EM) waves, or the "Chord resonance" that I have described, were known to him, perhaps he could have countered "Boltzmann's last Stand".
Boltzmann pointed out that Schroedinger's wave had nothing to keep it from spreading. [read: space is dispersive] He also pointed out that" everything can not be described simply by the difference (beat) in eigenstates. Boltzmann may have foreseen "dark energy"? At any rate, there is more to it that "beats", because these beats interact in an "odd" way. They do follow logic, however: what is NOT measured is always larger than what IS. (there are more cycles NOT happening at the same time, than "beats", or coincidence in phase)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Origins of Planck's constant The Planck constant, , was proposed in reference to the problem of black-body radiation. The underlying assumption to Planck's law of black body radiation was that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body could be modeled as a set of harmonic oscillators with quantized energy of the form: is the quantized energy of the photons of radiation having frequency (Hz) of (nu) or angular frequency (rad/s) of (omega). This model proved extremely accurate, but it provided an intellectual stumbling block for theoreticians who did not understand where the quantization of energy arose — Planck himself only considered it "a purely formal assumption". This line of questioning helped lead to the formation of quantum mechanics. In addition to some assumptions underlying the interpretation of certain values in the quantum mechanical formulation, .. |
I certainly agree with the first assumption, because I have done so (BB curve) with my set of harmonic oscillators, and a "sum and difference" method that only differs slightly from what is already accepted theory. Beat frequencies are also not a new concept, and was Schroedinger's favorite "interpretation". I believe that he only "failed" in the end (to have the Final answer), because of the "Monochromatic Assumption" (I'm now giving it full "Title"; MA) mentioned above.
Without the "3 Body Problem", which is our "standard" 2-body, plus the "hidden" parameter of the "background frequency", he could not "recover" from MA. How can you "borrow" from an empty account? If either the knowledge of Soliton (EM) waves, or the "Chord resonance" that I have described, were known to him, perhaps he could have countered "Boltzmann's last Stand".
Boltzmann pointed out that Schroedinger's wave had nothing to keep it from spreading. [read: space is dispersive] He also pointed out that" everything can not be described simply by the difference (beat) in eigenstates. Boltzmann may have foreseen "dark energy"? At any rate, there is more to it that "beats", because these beats interact in an "odd" way. They do follow logic, however: what is NOT measured is always larger than what IS. (there are more cycles NOT happening at the same time, than "beats", or coincidence in phase)
The Planck constant is used to describe quantization. For instance, the energy (E) carried by a beam of light with constant frequency (ν) can only take on the values
.QUOTE
The Dirac constant or the "reduced Planck constant", , differs only from the Planck constant by a factor of 2π. The Planck constant is stated in SI units of measurement, joules per hertz, or joules per (cycle per second), while the Dirac constant is the same value stated in joules per (radian per second).
In essence, the Dirac constant is a conversion factor between phase (in radians) and action (in joule-seconds) as seen in the Schrodinger equation. The Planck constant is similarly a conversion factor between phase (in cycles) and action. All other uses of Planck's constant and Dirac's constant follow from that.
In essence, the Dirac constant is a conversion factor between phase (in radians) and action (in joule-seconds) as seen in the Schrodinger equation. The Planck constant is similarly a conversion factor between phase (in cycles) and action. All other uses of Planck's constant and Dirac's constant follow from that.
If Dirac saw this, and his "revision" suggests an " h / 2 pi " as a minimum energy level, (working in radians) then it seems that there is a connection to the "exponential" value 1.054571628 , and the built in cyclical nature (limit) of the ratio of the circumference to the radius (measured with a dimensionless approach).
I have to pause..
regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE (Laserlight+Aug 19 2007, 11:22 PM)
Then we have frequency, which changes according to the number
of FULL cycles that occur in one second. What about the partial cycles that
don't fit within the full cycle window? Is that the uncertainty?
Hi LL,
just a question, how many cycles does a 1.5 Hz signal do in 1 second ?
Hint: this has nothing to do what so ever with QM.. just imagine a pendulum swinging at 1.5 Hz..
Now consider this. An EM wave of 1.5 Hz .. Any QM related problems with that?
and why do you state 1 = C = ... .. ? if you want to show they are all constants then the '=' is unfortunately not used properly.
It is getting really late..
Take care! I will be following the thread
Jan Rinze.
of FULL cycles that occur in one second. What about the partial cycles that
don't fit within the full cycle window? Is that the uncertainty?
Hi LL,
just a question, how many cycles does a 1.5 Hz signal do in 1 second ?
Hint: this has nothing to do what so ever with QM.. just imagine a pendulum swinging at 1.5 Hz..
Now consider this. An EM wave of 1.5 Hz .. Any QM related problems with that?
and why do you state 1 = C = ... .. ? if you want to show they are all constants then the '=' is unfortunately not used properly.
It is getting really late..
Take care! I will be following the thread
Jan Rinze.
Hi Laserlight, "Why Not?", Siau, Confused2, TRoc, yquantum, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,
I am not going to "win" on this question but for what it is worth the Speed of Light has been "defined" in absolute units of time and distance which are based on each other... I have added the words "[exactly]" to emphasize the integer value of these figures and to the definition no longer being subject to "revision"...
I am not going to "win" on this question but for what it is worth the Speed of Light has been "defined" in absolute units of time and distance which are based on each other... I have added the words "[exactly]" to emphasize the integer value of these figures and to the definition no longer being subject to "revision"...
QUOTE (Wikipedia Metre+)
Today, it [Meter] is defined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures as the distance travelled by light in absolute vacuum in [exactly] 1/299,792,458 of a second.
.. and just so you cant argue with it a second of time has been defined as...
.. and just so you cant argue with it a second of time has been defined as...
QUOTE (Wikipedia Second+)
The second is the duration of [exactly] 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K.
It follows that the hyperfine splitting in the ground state of the caesium 133 atom is exactly 9 192 631 770 hertz, nu(hfs Cs) = 9 192 631 770 Hz.
Then the final straw is the Speed of Light is now defined as...
It follows that the hyperfine splitting in the ground state of the caesium 133 atom is exactly 9 192 631 770 hertz, nu(hfs Cs) = 9 192 631 770 Hz.
Then the final straw is the Speed of Light is now defined as...
QUOTE (Wikipedia Speed of Light+)
In metric units, c is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second (1,079,252,848.8 km/h)
... my emphasis...
This MEANS that the Speed of Light is no longer subject to measurement and is "absolutely defined" in terms of the former units of the second and the meter. The argument is defining © in terms of standards that do not reflect a varying precision of © can remove an experimental error from measurement ... the measurement of the physical speed of light... in favor or defined units. I go on record here to say that I am opposed to this definition since the Speed of Light cannot be used to discover certain properties of space and time independently any more. The value of certain physical constants has in the past been subject to revision and the Speed of Light should also be subject to further revision as techniques improve, and should not be defined as an "integer" just because it sounds "good".
I believe this is to hide certain features about the Planck Length (and other Planck Units) which is itself defined in terms of these quantities to then be "exact integers of certain fundamental constants"... thus "entrenching" a philosophical point that the basis of space quantization is a "happy" integer property of the Universe and therefore "natural". I do not believe that Planck Units signify anything "extra special" and we could be putting man once again at the center of "intelligent design" with all of the philosophical implications.
... my emphasis...
This MEANS that the Speed of Light is no longer subject to measurement and is "absolutely defined" in terms of the former units of the second and the meter. The argument is defining © in terms of standards that do not reflect a varying precision of © can remove an experimental error from measurement ... the measurement of the physical speed of light... in favor or defined units. I go on record here to say that I am opposed to this definition since the Speed of Light cannot be used to discover certain properties of space and time independently any more. The value of certain physical constants has in the past been subject to revision and the Speed of Light should also be subject to further revision as techniques improve, and should not be defined as an "integer" just because it sounds "good".
I believe this is to hide certain features about the Planck Length (and other Planck Units) which is itself defined in terms of these quantities to then be "exact integers of certain fundamental constants"... thus "entrenching" a philosophical point that the basis of space quantization is a "happy" integer property of the Universe and therefore "natural". I do not believe that Planck Units signify anything "extra special" and we could be putting man once again at the center of "intelligent design" with all of the philosophical implications.
QUOTE (Wikipedia Planck Units+)
With some exceptions (the Planck momentum and impedance, possibly the Planck mass and energy as well), base and derived Planck units are impractical for empirical science, engineering, and everyday use, unless rescaled by many orders of magnitude. In fact, 1 Planck unit often represents the largest or smallest value of a physical quantity that makes sense given the current understanding of physical theory. For instance:
* A Planck velocity of 1 equals the speed of light in a vacuum, a maximum;
* At lengths and times of less than about 1 Planck unit, quantum theory as presently understood no longer applies;
* At a Planck temperature of 1, the four fundamental forces unify and all symmetries broken since the start of the Big Bang are restored.
A nice Philosophy but it is not Science.
It reminds me of a 19 th Century Astronomer Royal for Scotland who went to the Great Pyramid of Giza and found that his theories of a Sacred Universal Ancient Cubit we not accurately reflected in the proportions of this mighty structure ... they were off by a very very small amount (1/1000 th of an inch). This became the center of his Science and drove him to make quite "extraordinary" claims for it. To me this is not "Science" it is something to be certified for.
* A Planck velocity of 1 equals the speed of light in a vacuum, a maximum;
* At lengths and times of less than about 1 Planck unit, quantum theory as presently understood no longer applies;
* At a Planck temperature of 1, the four fundamental forces unify and all symmetries broken since the start of the Big Bang are restored.
A nice Philosophy but it is not Science.
It reminds me of a 19 th Century Astronomer Royal for Scotland who went to the Great Pyramid of Giza and found that his theories of a Sacred Universal Ancient Cubit we not accurately reflected in the proportions of this mighty structure ... they were off by a very very small amount (1/1000 th of an inch). This became the center of his Science and drove him to make quite "extraordinary" claims for it. To me this is not "Science" it is something to be certified for.
QUOTE (Wikipedia Charles Piazzi Smyth+)
Smyth claimed, and presumably believed, that the pyramid inch was a God-given measure handed down through the centuries from the time of Israel, and that the architects of the pyramid could only have been directed by the hand of God. To support this Smyth said that, in measuring the pyramid, he found the number of inches in the perimeter of the base equalled one thousand times the number of days in a year, and found a numeric relationship between the height of the pyramid in inches to the distance from Earth to the Sun, measured in statute miles. He also advanced the theory that the Great Pyramid was a repository of prophecies which could be revealed by detailed measurements of the structure. Working upon theories by Taylor, he conjectured that the Hyksos were the Hebrew people, and that they built the Great Pyramid under the leadership of Melchizedek. Because the pyramid inch was a divine unit of measurement, Smyth, a committed proponent of British Israelism, used his conclusions as an argument against the introduction of the metric system in Britain. For much of his life he was a vocal opponent of the metric system, which he considered a product of the minds of atheistic French radicals, a position advocated in many of his works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Piazzi_Smyth
Later researchers have found that basic measurements were off by a considerable amount and saner minds prevailed. I do think that some of this "Scientific Mysticism" persists today in some corners of society and fuel bizarre religious beliefs to this day.
If you all think this is a storm in a teacup (coffee cup) then I would point to the recent individual photon tunneling velocities being clocked at speeds greater than light being a statistical phenomenon where individual photons can indeed be "clocked" at speeds FTL (see bottom). This hearkens back to other recent experiments which show tunneling can occur faster than light. For example John Pendy has shown the effects of Optical Anti-matter and quantum tunneling through empty space FTL in conjunction with Negative Refractive Index Materials (also reported here previously on this thread).
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-6/p37.html
Others have shown this phenomenon as well Robert Boyd at Rochester... It seems that individual wave packets can indeed travel FTL... a not unexpected effect but can be accounted for "statistically" if grouped with other more well behaved "slower/reflected" photons.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/0605...t_backward.html
Observe the animation for the "backward light pulse propagation",,, that while the canceling pulse goes backward for the light a transmitted pulse goes through the fiber... The transmitted pulse is "instantaneously" propagated at "superluminal velocity" and arrives at the far end of the fiber in advance of the impressed signal at the other end. In this process individual photons would need to propagate faster than light. While not all photons need to propagate at superluminal velocity some will and this is enough to carry individual photon qubit information one photon at a time to the far end. Clearly there is a "shortcut" through the fiber that quantum "tunneling" for individual photons is a possibility (especially for Negative Refractive Index Materials and other systems such as these) that cannot be predicted by QFT (because of its inherent statistical limitations). It is predicted by Photonics as I have been saying for quite a long time so it should not come as a surprise to all of you here.
Faster than Light again... Friday, August 17, 2007
As I have said this argument I cannot win and I would still caution all about making the numbers fit pet theories of origin of the Universe no matter how alluring these human theories may be... Specifically the "knocking the corners off the speed of light" to fit the Planck Length Unit.
Cheers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Piazzi_Smyth
Later researchers have found that basic measurements were off by a considerable amount and saner minds prevailed. I do think that some of this "Scientific Mysticism" persists today in some corners of society and fuel bizarre religious beliefs to this day.
If you all think this is a storm in a teacup (coffee cup) then I would point to the recent individual photon tunneling velocities being clocked at speeds greater than light being a statistical phenomenon where individual photons can indeed be "clocked" at speeds FTL (see bottom). This hearkens back to other recent experiments which show tunneling can occur faster than light. For example John Pendy has shown the effects of Optical Anti-matter and quantum tunneling through empty space FTL in conjunction with Negative Refractive Index Materials (also reported here previously on this thread).
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-6/p37.html
Others have shown this phenomenon as well Robert Boyd at Rochester... It seems that individual wave packets can indeed travel FTL... a not unexpected effect but can be accounted for "statistically" if grouped with other more well behaved "slower/reflected" photons.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/0605...t_backward.html
Observe the animation for the "backward light pulse propagation",,, that while the canceling pulse goes backward for the light a transmitted pulse goes through the fiber... The transmitted pulse is "instantaneously" propagated at "superluminal velocity" and arrives at the far end of the fiber in advance of the impressed signal at the other end. In this process individual photons would need to propagate faster than light. While not all photons need to propagate at superluminal velocity some will and this is enough to carry individual photon qubit information one photon at a time to the far end. Clearly there is a "shortcut" through the fiber that quantum "tunneling" for individual photons is a possibility (especially for Negative Refractive Index Materials and other systems such as these) that cannot be predicted by QFT (because of its inherent statistical limitations). It is predicted by Photonics as I have been saying for quite a long time so it should not come as a surprise to all of you here.
Faster than Light again... Friday, August 17, 2007
As I have said this argument I cannot win and I would still caution all about making the numbers fit pet theories of origin of the Universe no matter how alluring these human theories may be... Specifically the "knocking the corners off the speed of light" to fit the Planck Length Unit.
Cheers
Hi GE,
good to see that you are back and it looks like in full strength
Just to get back on the topic of constants:
Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s
if we change meters or seconds it would not really matter.
I cannot understand why we worry so much about the definitions of arbitrary values.
A second and a meter are really arbitrary values. they have been chosen and therefore have defined a reference frame for all to use.
if you would try to change the entire physics into (say) parsecs and furlongs.. nothing would really change..
You correctly point out however that if we claim that c is really constant and cesium is also emitting at a perfectly constant rate we might be mistaken. However there have been far worse reference methods for defining standards
Will go to sleep now..
I'll catch up with this thread later.
Jan Rinze.
good to see that you are back and it looks like in full strength
Just to get back on the topic of constants:
Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s
if we change meters or seconds it would not really matter.
I cannot understand why we worry so much about the definitions of arbitrary values.
A second and a meter are really arbitrary values. they have been chosen and therefore have defined a reference frame for all to use.
if you would try to change the entire physics into (say) parsecs and furlongs.. nothing would really change..
You correctly point out however that if we claim that c is really constant and cesium is also emitting at a perfectly constant rate we might be mistaken. However there have been far worse reference methods for defining standards
Will go to sleep now..
I'll catch up with this thread later.
Jan Rinze.
Hi Jan, et al,
1.5 cycles. I think I see where you are going with this.
An example: 13.56mhz = 7.3746312684365781710914454277286e-8 seconds per
wavelength. t = 1/f
So a pendulum transcribes 1-1/2 swings per second. And your point is?
I guess my argument is really about the accuracy/tolerance of a frequency, or the
number of decimal places used to describe frequency.
1.5 cycles. I think I see where you are going with this.
An example: 13.56mhz = 7.3746312684365781710914454277286e-8 seconds per
wavelength. t = 1/f
So a pendulum transcribes 1-1/2 swings per second. And your point is?
I guess my argument is really about the accuracy/tolerance of a frequency, or the
number of decimal places used to describe frequency.
Now consider this. An EM wave of 1.5 Hz .. Any QM related problems with that?
Not really.
quoted directly from wolfram mathematics site regarding a circle:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/equati...e/equation1.gif
A circle is unity, representing one...capital "C" in the equation relates to the
circumference of the circle, not the speed of light.
LL
QUOTE
just a question, how many cycles does a 1.5 Hz signal do in 1 second ?
Hint: this has nothing to do what so ever with QM.. just imagine a pendulum swinging at 1.5 Hz..
Hint: this has nothing to do what so ever with QM.. just imagine a pendulum swinging at 1.5 Hz..
1.5 cycles. I think I see where you are going with this.
An example: 13.56mhz = 7.3746312684365781710914454277286e-8 seconds per
wavelength. t = 1/f
So a pendulum transcribes 1-1/2 swings per second. And your point is?
I guess my argument is really about the accuracy/tolerance of a frequency, or the
number of decimal places used to describe frequency.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| just a question, how many cycles does a 1.5 Hz signal do in 1 second ? Hint: this has nothing to do what so ever with QM.. just imagine a pendulum swinging at 1.5 Hz.. |
1.5 cycles. I think I see where you are going with this.
An example: 13.56mhz = 7.3746312684365781710914454277286e-8 seconds per
wavelength. t = 1/f
So a pendulum transcribes 1-1/2 swings per second. And your point is?
I guess my argument is really about the accuracy/tolerance of a frequency, or the
number of decimal places used to describe frequency.
Now consider this. An EM wave of 1.5 Hz .. Any QM related problems with that?
Not really.
QUOTE
and why do you state 1 = C = ... .. ? if you want to show they are all constants then the '=' is unfortunately not used properly
quoted directly from wolfram mathematics site regarding a circle:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/equati...e/equation1.gif
A circle is unity, representing one...capital "C" in the equation relates to the
circumference of the circle, not the speed of light.
LL
Hi GE,
Glad to see you are recovered. Your argument floored me, it was not what
I expected from you!
Apparently, we are heretics who dare to question "doctrine".
Just keep saying this to yourself....
The world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat.....
Remember, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics".
LL
Glad to see you are recovered. Your argument floored me, it was not what
I expected from you!
Apparently, we are heretics who dare to question "doctrine".
Just keep saying this to yourself....
The world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat.....
Remember, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics".
LL
Hi Janrinze,
Like I said... I will not win this one...
Let's see, it's the absolute standard, but there is some uncertainty as to the
accuracy. "Let's make it an absolute integer value"
Like I said... I will not win this one...
QUOTE (Janrinze+)
if we change meters or seconds it would not really matter.
I cannot understand why we worry so much about the definitions of arbitrary values.
A second and a meter are really arbitrary values. they have been chosen and therefore have defined a reference frame for all to use.
if you would try to change the entire physics into (say) parsecs and furlongs.. nothing would really change..
You correctly point out however that if we claim that c is really constant and cesium is also emitting at a perfectly constant rate we might be mistaken. However there have been far worse reference methods for defining standards
I cannot understand why we worry so much about the definitions of arbitrary values.
A second and a meter are really arbitrary values. they have been chosen and therefore have defined a reference frame for all to use.
if you would try to change the entire physics into (say) parsecs and furlongs.. nothing would really change..
You correctly point out however that if we claim that c is really constant and cesium is also emitting at a perfectly constant rate we might be mistaken. However there have been far worse reference methods for defining standards
I am not worrying about the "absolute units of time and distance and their values" but I am worrying about defining an "enduring" value for © in terms of integers of the other units with a knock on Philosophical effect. I prefer to see the velocity of light to be "experimentally" derived from the defined units of distance and time (whatever they are) instead of simply stating for all time ... and this is the intention... that C = 299,792,458 metres per second (exactly an integer based on a historic value that has been "rounded off").
I realize that this may seem obsessive (and it is) but there are equally as many people that obsess over this point as "meaning" something fundamental... Believe me I have been very strongly rebuked... irrationally... by people about this point so it has "deep philosophical meaning" to some... similar to the ideas espoused by Charles Piazzi Smyth whose "mindless followers", holding strong religious convictions, have tried in the past to render the Pyramid of Giza to the exact proportions of the "Sacred Cubit" using a chisel. I am sure that Charles Piazzi Smyth did not intend to go that far but in a way it was "inevitable" once you introduced the idea as part of ones "faith". Never underestimate "belief" and its role in "meaning" in Human Affairs and in Science.
While you are right there have been "far worse" means of defining standards, we should be trying to provide philosophically unbiased interpretations of the information we hold in our possession so everyone (even non-Christians like "elves" and others) can understand Science without being confronted by an "irrational belief". These points when they arise will only lead to divisions such as the former desire to define the value of Pi to be exactly 3.2 (Wikipedia: Indiana Pi Billl) rather than to allow it to be "transcendental" and "non-rational".
Forgive the "obsession", I am not the first...
Cheers
I realize that this may seem obsessive (and it is) but there are equally as many people that obsess over this point as "meaning" something fundamental... Believe me I have been very strongly rebuked... irrationally... by people about this point so it has "deep philosophical meaning" to some... similar to the ideas espoused by Charles Piazzi Smyth whose "mindless followers", holding strong religious convictions, have tried in the past to render the Pyramid of Giza to the exact proportions of the "Sacred Cubit" using a chisel. I am sure that Charles Piazzi Smyth did not intend to go that far but in a way it was "inevitable" once you introduced the idea as part of ones "faith". Never underestimate "belief" and its role in "meaning" in Human Affairs and in Science.
While you are right there have been "far worse" means of defining standards, we should be trying to provide philosophically unbiased interpretations of the information we hold in our possession so everyone (even non-Christians like "elves" and others) can understand Science without being confronted by an "irrational belief". These points when they arise will only lead to divisions such as the former desire to define the value of Pi to be exactly 3.2 (Wikipedia: Indiana Pi Billl) rather than to allow it to be "transcendental" and "non-rational".
Forgive the "obsession", I am not the first...
Cheers
QUOTE
Standard wavelength of helium-neon laser light
To further reduce uncertainty, the seventeenth CGPM in 1983 replaced the definition of the metre with its current definition, thus fixing the length of the metre in terms of time and the speed of light:
The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.[1]
Note that this definition had the effect of fixing the speed of light in a vacuum at precisely 299,792,458 metres per second. Although the metre is now defined in terms of time-of-flight, actual laboratory realisations of the metre are still delineated by counting the required number of wavelengths of light along the distance. An intended byproduct of the 17th CGPM’s definition was that it enabled scientists to measure the wavelength of their lasers with one-fifth the uncertainty. To further facilitate reproducibility from lab to lab, the 17th CGPM also made the iodine-stabilised Helium-Neon laser "a recommended radiation" for realising the metre.[2] Today's best determination of the wavelength of this laser is λHeNe = 632.991 398 22 nm with an estimated relative standard uncertainty (U) of ± 2.5 × 10-11. This uncertainty is currently the limiting factor in laboratory realisations of the metre as it is several orders of magnitude poorer than that of the second (U = 5 × 10-16)[3]. Consequently, a practical realisation of the metre is usually delineated (not defined) today in labs as 1,579,800.298 728 ± 0.000 039 wavelengths of Helium-Neon laser light in a vacuum.
To further reduce uncertainty, the seventeenth CGPM in 1983 replaced the definition of the metre with its current definition, thus fixing the length of the metre in terms of time and the speed of light:
The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.[1]
Note that this definition had the effect of fixing the speed of light in a vacuum at precisely 299,792,458 metres per second. Although the metre is now defined in terms of time-of-flight, actual laboratory realisations of the metre are still delineated by counting the required number of wavelengths of light along the distance. An intended byproduct of the 17th CGPM’s definition was that it enabled scientists to measure the wavelength of their lasers with one-fifth the uncertainty. To further facilitate reproducibility from lab to lab, the 17th CGPM also made the iodine-stabilised Helium-Neon laser "a recommended radiation" for realising the metre.[2] Today's best determination of the wavelength of this laser is λHeNe = 632.991 398 22 nm with an estimated relative standard uncertainty (U) of ± 2.5 × 10-11. This uncertainty is currently the limiting factor in laboratory realisations of the metre as it is several orders of magnitude poorer than that of the second (U = 5 × 10-16)[3]. Consequently, a practical realisation of the metre is usually delineated (not defined) today in labs as 1,579,800.298 728 ± 0.000 039 wavelengths of Helium-Neon laser light in a vacuum.
Let's see, it's the absolute standard, but there is some uncertainty as to the
accuracy. "Let's make it an absolute integer value"
Hey TRoc, jal, Good Elf, Jan Rinze, Confused 2, Laserlight, and everyone else that is following along...
When we talk about "riding on a beam of light", it is clear that there is a upper limit, a "maximum" value for the spacetime interval, rate, “speed of light”. For a photon, emission and absorption occur simultaneously in time, but not necessarily in the same place in space. IMHO, there should be an equivalent for space. As you shrink the scale, there should come a point when even "co-moving" properties break down to the point where the only way "things" can be co-moving is if they are separated by less than a minimum spacetime interval, which for light would imply a minimum distance. Nothing measurable is ever quantified as infinite.
When we talk about "riding on a beam of light", it is clear that there is a upper limit, a "maximum" value for the spacetime interval, rate, “speed of light”. For a photon, emission and absorption occur simultaneously in time, but not necessarily in the same place in space. IMHO, there should be an equivalent for space. As you shrink the scale, there should come a point when even "co-moving" properties break down to the point where the only way "things" can be co-moving is if they are separated by less than a minimum spacetime interval, which for light would imply a minimum distance. Nothing measurable is ever quantified as infinite.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
If Dirac saw this, and his "revision" suggests an " h / 2 pi " as a minimum energy level, (working in radians) then it seems that there is a connection to the "exponential" value 1.054571628 , and the built in cyclical nature (limit) of the ratio of the circumference to the radius (measured with a dimensionless approach).
Exactly. The twelfth root of 2 defines the value of the 12 pieces of pi. As LL pointed out a few replies ago, this relationship also appears as the rms of a sine wave. Jal pointed out something interesting regarding the number of unit spheres that can be packed around a unit sphere way back when with the thread on Kissing Numbers. Good Elf pointed out that a photon always propagates spherically and continually reminds us of that there is no privileged frame.
Anyway, maybe a refresher is in order…
Concerning an Heuristic Point of View Toward the Emission and Transformation of Light
Exactly. The twelfth root of 2 defines the value of the 12 pieces of pi. As LL pointed out a few replies ago, this relationship also appears as the rms of a sine wave. Jal pointed out something interesting regarding the number of unit spheres that can be packed around a unit sphere way back when with the thread on Kissing Numbers. Good Elf pointed out that a photon always propagates spherically and continually reminds us of that there is no privileged frame.
Anyway, maybe a refresher is in order…
Concerning an Heuristic Point of View Toward the Emission and Transformation of Light
QUOTE (A. Einstein+ Bern, 17 March 1905)
A profound formal distinction exists between the theoretical concepts which physicists have formed regarding gases and other ponderable bodies and the Maxwellian theory of electromagnetic processes in so–called empty space. While we consider the state of a body to be completely determined by the positions and velocities of a very large, yet finite, number of atoms and electrons, we make use of continuous spatial functions to describe the electromagnetic state of a given volume, and a finite number of parameters cannot be regarded as sufficient for the complete determination of such a state. According to the Maxwellian theory, energy is to be considered a continuous spatial function in the case of all purely electromagnetic phenomena including light, while the energy of a ponderable object should, according to the present conceptions of physicists, be represented as a sum carried over the atoms and electrons. The energy of a ponderable body cannot be subdivided into arbitrarily many or arbitrarily small parts, while the energy of a beam of light from a point source (according to the Maxwellian theory of light or, more generally, according to any wave theory) is continuously spread an ever increasing volume.
The wave theory of light, which operates with continuous spatial functions,
has worked well in the representation of purely optical phenomena and will probably never be replaced by another theory. It should be kept in mind, however, that the optical observations refer to time averages rather than instantaneous values. In spite of the complete experimental confirmation of the theory as applied to diffraction, reflection, refraction, dispersion, etc., it is still conceivable that the theory of light which operates with continuous spatial functions may lead to contradictions with experience when it is applied to the phenomena of emission and transformation of light.
It seems to me that the observations associated with blackbody radiation, fluorescence, the production of cathode rays by ultraviolet light, and other related phenomena connected with the emission or transformation of light are more readily understood if one assumes that the energy of light is discontinuously distributed in space. In accordance with the assumption to be considered here, the energy of a light ray spreading out from a point source is not continuously distributed over an increasing space but consists of a finite number of energy quanta which are localized at points in space, which move without dividing, and which can only be produced and absorbed as complete units.
In the following I wish to present the line of thought and the facts which have led me to this point of view, hoping that this approach may be useful to some investigators in their research.
Do you think he heard Pandora opening her box?
Mahalo
The wave theory of light, which operates with continuous spatial functions,
has worked well in the representation of purely optical phenomena and will probably never be replaced by another theory. It should be kept in mind, however, that the optical observations refer to time averages rather than instantaneous values. In spite of the complete experimental confirmation of the theory as applied to diffraction, reflection, refraction, dispersion, etc., it is still conceivable that the theory of light which operates with continuous spatial functions may lead to contradictions with experience when it is applied to the phenomena of emission and transformation of light.
It seems to me that the observations associated with blackbody radiation, fluorescence, the production of cathode rays by ultraviolet light, and other related phenomena connected with the emission or transformation of light are more readily understood if one assumes that the energy of light is discontinuously distributed in space. In accordance with the assumption to be considered here, the energy of a light ray spreading out from a point source is not continuously distributed over an increasing space but consists of a finite number of energy quanta which are localized at points in space, which move without dividing, and which can only be produced and absorbed as complete units.
In the following I wish to present the line of thought and the facts which have led me to this point of view, hoping that this approach may be useful to some investigators in their research.
Do you think he heard Pandora opening her box?
Mahalo
Hi all,
jal Posted: Aug 17 2007, 09:03 PM
Yes, but try to resist giving "dimension" or units to these parts. We can not know how to "measure" which "domain" until the other part is measured. IE you are suggesting that the "distances" between these parts are equal because the series that I listed was in frequency. That is correct.
You could also, however, look at that same series, and decide that they represented wavelength, which would mean that we had divided "frequency domain" into equal parts, causing our lengths to expand by the same quanta/rate.
Yes, but try to resist giving "dimension" or units to these parts. We can not know how to "measure" which "domain" until the other part is measured. IE you are suggesting that the "distances" between these parts are equal because the series that I listed was in frequency. That is correct.
You could also, however, look at that same series, and decide that they represented wavelength, which would mean that we had divided "frequency domain" into equal parts, causing our lengths to expand by the same quanta/rate.
Can I say that the middle of those 12 parts is the square root of 2? (1.4142..)
Yes, but again, we need a little more detail in the measurement. The "middle" could be the center of values (mean), the center of a series of rates (harmonic mean), etc.
If we know "what kind of parts", then we can give a more definite answer.
I also just wanted to note agreement & appreciation for the following statements:
Why Not? Posted: Yesterday at 6:54 PM
janrinze Posted: Today at 1:36 AM
janrinze Posted: Today at 1:36 AM
EM is a form of 'self' induction. The 'self' induction implicitly generates both the frequency and the propagation speed.
Neil Farbstein Posted: Today at 1:54 AM
Some points I disagree on:
Why Not? Posted: Aug 17 2007, 08:41 PM
Some points I disagree on:
Why Not? Posted: Aug 17 2007, 08:41 PM
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.
Rate is more general than that. What you described is a rate, better known as velocity.
But we also have rates of cycles over units of time (Hz), and the rate of cycles over distance (wavelength).
I'm going to take a similar route to jan:
janrinze Posted on Today at 12:33 AM
I'm going to take a similar route to jan:
janrinze Posted on Today at 12:33 AM
Now consider this. An EM wave of 1.5 Hz .. Any QM related problems with that?
There are no quantum (EM) absorbers anywhere near that range. (?)
You can't measure what you are not resonant with.
So, while I understand the intent of WN?'s statement (that we can measure the "overage" of energy in the velocity of an ejected electron), I will say that "you won't, because there are NO work functions (1/2 ionize level) that will be met by those frequencies".
If you want to "scale" these numbers up to the WF level (of your choice), then my answer is still "you won't", because I have given you a "1-4-8 spread". Strictly speaking, and this was my intent, is that you can NOT measure all 3 of these superimposed waves. If "1" is the WF, then ionization happens at "2"; during that period of time the other frequencies are not measurable by that same detector.
This is what I mean by "superimposed waves having a combined amplitude".
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/s...erposition.html
We can only measure the resonant value. It doesn't matter how that value was met, AT THAT MOMENT in SPACE & TIME. This is totally different that saying that the energy is "cumulative" OVER time, which is all that the photoelectric effect "proves" to not happen.
regards,
T.Roc
jal Posted: Aug 17 2007, 09:03 PM
QUOTE
Can I say that you have divided the "distances" between 1 -> 2 into 12 parts?
Yes, but try to resist giving "dimension" or units to these parts. We can not know how to "measure" which "domain" until the other part is measured. IE you are suggesting that the "distances" between these parts are equal because the series that I listed was in frequency. That is correct.
You could also, however, look at that same series, and decide that they represented wavelength, which would mean that we had divided "frequency domain" into equal parts, causing our lengths to expand by the same quanta/rate.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Can I say that you have divided the "distances" between 1 -> 2 into 12 parts? |
Yes, but try to resist giving "dimension" or units to these parts. We can not know how to "measure" which "domain" until the other part is measured. IE you are suggesting that the "distances" between these parts are equal because the series that I listed was in frequency. That is correct.
You could also, however, look at that same series, and decide that they represented wavelength, which would mean that we had divided "frequency domain" into equal parts, causing our lengths to expand by the same quanta/rate.
Can I say that the middle of those 12 parts is the square root of 2? (1.4142..)
Yes, but again, we need a little more detail in the measurement. The "middle" could be the center of values (mean), the center of a series of rates (harmonic mean), etc.
If we know "what kind of parts", then we can give a more definite answer.
I also just wanted to note agreement & appreciation for the following statements:
Why Not? Posted: Yesterday at 6:54 PM
QUOTE
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.
janrinze Posted: Today at 1:36 AM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
janrinze Posted: Today at 1:36 AM
EM is a form of 'self' induction. The 'self' induction implicitly generates both the frequency and the propagation speed.
Neil Farbstein Posted: Today at 1:54 AM
QUOTE
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?
Some points I disagree on:
Why Not? Posted: Aug 17 2007, 08:41 PM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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? |
Some points I disagree on:
Why Not? Posted: Aug 17 2007, 08:41 PM
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.
Rate is more general than that. What you described is a rate, better known as velocity.
But we also have rates of cycles over units of time (Hz), and the rate of cycles over distance (wavelength). 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)?
(WN?) The amplitudes are 0, 2 and 8 respectively. We can differentiate the three by measuring their respective energies through the photoelectric effect.
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)?
(WN?) The amplitudes are 0, 2 and 8 respectively. We can differentiate the three by measuring their respective energies through the photoelectric effect.
I'm going to take a similar route to jan:
janrinze Posted on Today at 12:33 AM
QUOTE (->
| 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)? (WN?) The amplitudes are 0, 2 and 8 respectively. We can differentiate the three by measuring their respective energies through the photoelectric effect. |
I'm going to take a similar route to jan:
janrinze Posted on Today at 12:33 AM
Now consider this. An EM wave of 1.5 Hz .. Any QM related problems with that?
There are no quantum (EM) absorbers anywhere near that range. (?)
You can't measure what you are not resonant with.
So, while I understand the intent of WN?'s statement (that we can measure the "overage" of energy in the velocity of an ejected electron), I will say that "you won't, because there are NO work functions (1/2 ionize level) that will be met by those frequencies".
If you want to "scale" these numbers up to the WF level (of your choice), then my answer is still "you won't", because I have given you a "1-4-8 spread". Strictly speaking, and this was my intent, is that you can NOT measure all 3 of these superimposed waves. If "1" is the WF, then ionization happens at "2"; during that period of time the other frequencies are not measurable by that same detector.
This is what I mean by "superimposed waves having a combined amplitude".
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/s...erposition.html
We can only measure the resonant value. It doesn't matter how that value was met, AT THAT MOMENT in SPACE & TIME. This is totally different that saying that the energy is "cumulative" OVER time, which is all that the photoelectric effect "proves" to not happen.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc, Laserlight, "Why Not?", Siau, Confused2, yquantum, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,
I agree that the combined amplitude leads to instantaneous maxima depending on the instantaneous phase between the two superimposed waves. These respective "packets" have different "timestamps" and "source stamps" on them and they can instantaneously "mix" but not actually gain or lose any nett energy but they may "cross imprint" information from their respective sources being carried three dimensionally. In the end the absorption of the photons can still only occur one at a time for "atomic" absorbers. A single absorber site can only absorb one photon at a time. The energy must then be either re-emitted or redistributed as some other form of energy (plus possible lower energy photons).
The most instructive animation is the "Two sine waves traveling in opposite directions create a standing wave"... If the two "directions" are the past (retarded waves) and the future (advanced waves), there are various ways to view this "ensemble".
As also been stated the more sophisticated electromagnetic Feynman-Wheeler wave packet is two counter advancing waves as indicated in the model as shown in this paper (...or a first cut of this is similar to the one shown there). Check the figures in this paper...
I agree that the combined amplitude leads to instantaneous maxima depending on the instantaneous phase between the two superimposed waves. These respective "packets" have different "timestamps" and "source stamps" on them and they can instantaneously "mix" but not actually gain or lose any nett energy but they may "cross imprint" information from their respective sources being carried three dimensionally. In the end the absorption of the photons can still only occur one at a time for "atomic" absorbers. A single absorber site can only absorb one photon at a time. The energy must then be either re-emitted or redistributed as some other form of energy (plus possible lower energy photons).
The most instructive animation is the "Two sine waves traveling in opposite directions create a standing wave"... If the two "directions" are the past (retarded waves) and the future (advanced waves), there are various ways to view this "ensemble".
QUOTE
I would add that interference between stationary particles does occur and it is resulting in standing waves. These are waves from the future interfering with waves from the past...
That is what we get ... orbitals and spatial and dimensional cavities.
+ 
= 
Spherical wave in (advanced waves) plus spherical wave out (retarded waves) equals standing wave (dimensional cavities and spatial and temporal delimitation). This is a symmetric pattern which is time symmetric. We are causal creatures so we cannot notice the advanced waves from the future so we see a kind of partial enigma of matter waves being standing waves. It laid the grounds for Quantum Electrodynamics but I think this is the more elegant theory... Closer to the Holographic Universe.
These standing waves occur around everything and hybridize to produce Bragg's Law of X-Ray Diffraction and so on... Between two particles there will be standing waves along the ray connecting the two particles and these exist as a superposition of waves at all viable oscillator frequencies just waiting for the future to complete the pattern.
... Click to enlarge...
This is Richard Feynman and John Archibald Wheeler's Vision for our Universe.
Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory... see fig 1
Clearly these "matter waves" interfere and do not cancel around their origin in the evanescent field. This fine detail is not actually shown in the Wheeler Feynman Absorber theory as indicated above but a source where the particle is located is necessary in order that you have a primary emitter and a primary absorber. These standing waves are the particles themselves. If the picture shown above is the "Cramer Event Driven Universe" then the Feynman Perspective is the right one. What is also part of this view is that for real atoms etc. this picture must include all the primary "shells" in the atom as superpositions of state primed for events to happen.That is what we get ... orbitals and spatial and dimensional cavities.
+ = Spherical wave in (advanced waves) plus spherical wave out (retarded waves) equals standing wave (dimensional cavities and spatial and temporal delimitation). This is a symmetric pattern which is time symmetric. We are causal creatures so we cannot notice the advanced waves from the future so we see a kind of partial enigma of matter waves being standing waves. It laid the grounds for Quantum Electrodynamics but I think this is the more elegant theory... Closer to the Holographic Universe.
These standing waves occur around everything and hybridize to produce Bragg's Law of X-Ray Diffraction and so on... Between two particles there will be standing waves along the ray connecting the two particles and these exist as a superposition of waves at all viable oscillator frequencies just waiting for the future to complete the pattern.
... Click to enlarge...
This is Richard Feynman and John Archibald Wheeler's Vision for our Universe.
Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory... see fig 1
As also been stated the more sophisticated electromagnetic Feynman-Wheeler wave packet is two counter advancing waves as indicated in the model as shown in this paper (...or a first cut of this is similar to the one shown there). Check the figures in this paper...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I would add that interference between stationary particles does occur and it is resulting in standing waves. These are waves from the future interfering with waves from the past... That is what we get ... orbitals and spatial and dimensional cavities. + = Spherical wave in (advanced waves) plus spherical wave out (retarded waves) equals standing wave (dimensional cavities and spatial and temporal delimitation). This is a symmetric pattern which is time symmetric. We are causal creatures so we cannot notice the advanced waves from the future so we see a kind of partial enigma of matter waves being standing waves. It laid the grounds for Quantum Electrodynamics but I think this is the more elegant theory... Closer to the Holographic Universe. These standing waves occur around everything and hybridize to produce Bragg's Law of X-Ray Diffraction and so on... Between two particles there will be standing waves along the ray connecting the two particles and these exist as a superposition of waves at all viable oscillator frequencies just waiting for the future to complete the pattern. ... Click to enlarge... This is Richard Feynman and John Archibald Wheeler's Vision for our Universe. Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory... see fig 1 |
Clearly these "matter waves" interfere and do not cancel around their origin in the evanescent field. This fine detail is not actually shown in the Wheeler Feynman Absorber theory as indicated above but a source where the particle is located is necessary in order that you have a primary emitter and a primary absorber. These standing waves are the particles themselves. If the picture shown above is the "Cramer Event Driven Universe" then the Feynman Perspective is the right one. What is also part of this view is that for real atoms etc. this picture must include all the primary "shells" in the atom as superpositions of state primed for events to happen.
As also been stated the more sophisticated electromagnetic Feynman-Wheeler wave packet is two counter advancing waves as indicated in the model as shown in this paper (...or a first cut of this is similar to the one shown there). Check the figures in this paper...
A photon-like wavepacket with quantised properties based on
classical Maxwell’s equations
John. E. Carroll
A photon-like wavepacket based on novel solutions of Maxwell’s equations is
proposed. It is believed to be the first ‘classical’ model that contains so many
of the accepted quantum features. In this new work, novel solutions to
Maxwell’s classical equations in dispersive guides are considered where local
helical twists with an arbitrary angular frequency Ω modulate a classical mode
(angular frequency ω, group velocity vg). The modal field patterns are
unchanged, apart from the twist, provided that the helical velocity vh equals vg.
Pairs of resonating retarded and advanced waves with modal and helical
frequencies (ω,Ω) and (ω,−Ω) respectively, trap one temporal period of the
underlying classical mode forming a photon-like packet provided Ω =
(M+1/2)ω : ‘Schrödinger’ frequencies. This theory supports experimental
evidence that the photon velocity does not change with M in dispersive
systems. Promotion and demotion increase or decrease the helical frequencies
in units of ω. An energy of interaction between retarded and advanced waves
in the wave-packet is also proportional to these helical frequencies Ω
=(M+1/2)ω similar to Planck’s law. Group velocity and polarisation are
unaffected by the value of M. Advanced waves enable phase and polarisation
to be predicted along all future paths and may help to explain the outcomes of
experiments on delayed-choice interference and entanglement, without
causality being violated.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0609/0609156.pdf
As also been stated the more sophisticated electromagnetic Feynman-Wheeler wave packet is two counter advancing waves as indicated in the model as shown in this paper (...or a first cut of this is similar to the one shown there). Check the figures in this paper...
A photon-like wavepacket with quantised properties based on
classical Maxwell’s equations
John. E. Carroll
A photon-like wavepacket based on novel solutions of Maxwell’s equations is
proposed. It is believed to be the first ‘classical’ model that contains so many
of the accepted quantum features. In this new work, novel solutions to
Maxwell’s classical equations in dispersive guides are considered where local
helical twists with an arbitrary angular frequency Ω modulate a classical mode
(angular frequency ω, group velocity vg). The modal field patterns are
unchanged, apart from the twist, provided that the helical velocity vh equals vg.
Pairs of resonating retarded and advanced waves with modal and helical
frequencies (ω,Ω) and (ω,−Ω) respectively, trap one temporal period of the
underlying classical mode forming a photon-like packet provided Ω =
(M+1/2)ω : ‘Schrödinger’ frequencies. This theory supports experimental
evidence that the photon velocity does not change with M in dispersive
systems. Promotion and demotion increase or decrease the helical frequencies
in units of ω. An energy of interaction between retarded and advanced waves
in the wave-packet is also proportional to these helical frequencies Ω
=(M+1/2)ω similar to Planck’s law. Group velocity and polarisation are
unaffected by the value of M. Advanced waves enable phase and polarisation
to be predicted along all future paths and may help to explain the outcomes of
experiments on delayed-choice interference and entanglement, without
causality being violated.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0609/0609156.pdf
Hi all,
I had to go back and read through the last few pages again; a lot of good stuff, and we all seem to not only agree as to what we should talk about, but that there are, indeed, some "questionable Scientific assumptions" being made.
On one hand, we all know that the "simple" version of measuring waves works (f x w = c) , and throughout the early years, that it WAS a "measurement", and not a "plug-in".
Later, it was made a "constant", because no one ever measured anything else.
Until many years later; AFTER generations of entrenchment, etc.
The "standard" comeback now, is that the "information" has a speed limit, and nothing else. The problem there, is the same as in my last few posts: introducing "new" parameters, does not help us to better define existing ones. If we don't have a "Fundamental" understanding, then why throw more stuff on top?
I'll mention, again, that this HAS BEEN addressed already: in an attempt to "break out" of the circular logic trap, some folks invented the WAVENUMBER, who (basically) only differed by being the "inverse cm". I don't think that this helped our understanding much.
For all of the reasons that everyone here has been discussing over the last few pages, we are still locked into this circle, which (not too obviously) DEMANDS that we have several "fundamental" ONES in place at the same time. In other words, we have NO WAY of establishing some ORDER of importance to the various phenomenon that we are talking about.
Again, this has caused all of us (just in this thread alone) to "argue" over things that really were about "redundant definitions", and not "concepts". I think, at this point, that we all agree that the Speed of Light (SOL) has many different situations where it is not constant. Perhaps a smaller group of us will agree that "wavelength" is flexible, and can change to accommodate a variable wave speed.
However, down at the " bottom of the list" (of our agreement rate, IMO), is "frequency". At first, my own "ignorance" (innocence? haha), could NOT understand WHY no one wanted to agree that "frequency can change". Then, including a lot of help from Copenhagen, I realized that, JUST LIKE the SOL having been always measured constant, one will find too, that in all experiments, THAT is what is measured - the same frequency that "left" the sender is what is measured.
It took a lot more "digging" to come to the conclusion, that this "fact" is because we are using "quantum oscillators" that are "in tune" with each other. Tuning in always also means tuning out -- that which is NOT measured (by beats, or resonance) is always = or > than what is measured. This is in "whatever" terms you wish to impose.
This is why I insist on a deeper understanding (and re-defining) of "Resonance".
If we measure with more frequencies, we will get a different picture. "Spherical" in fact, rather than "planar". I will state my premise again, that "QM is a "monochromatic" theory", and that Relativity, and the "one observer" means, at the quantum scale, "one frequency". These 2 statements fit together. QM is all about "resonance", an action that requires the 2 bodies to have the same frequency, in order to "exchange energy". Relativity says that if you measure from one frequency (observer), you will get some aberration, Doppler shift, etc.
Of course, this is "oversimplification", but I am trying to just make the small point first. That, because the spherical nature of a wave requires phase difference, SO TO will an accurate measurement need to have some "spread" in frequency.
This could be accomplished by a group of oscillators of the same frequency but spread out in locations, or by a group of oscillators of small variation (discreet) in frequency, and in the same place.
I am out of time, again.
I will leave with the "answer", even though no one has asked a specific enough question to make it immediately applicable to something.
The minimum (unit), measurable by the limits created by cyclic behavior, is 1.0267092999..
Now the can of worms is gong to hit the fan!
regards,
T.Roc
I had to go back and read through the last few pages again; a lot of good stuff, and we all seem to not only agree as to what we should talk about, but that there are, indeed, some "questionable Scientific assumptions" being made.
On one hand, we all know that the "simple" version of measuring waves works (f x w = c) , and throughout the early years, that it WAS a "measurement", and not a "plug-in".
Later, it was made a "constant", because no one ever measured anything else.
Until many years later; AFTER generations of entrenchment, etc.
The "standard" comeback now, is that the "information" has a speed limit, and nothing else. The problem there, is the same as in my last few posts: introducing "new" parameters, does not help us to better define existing ones. If we don't have a "Fundamental" understanding, then why throw more stuff on top?
I'll mention, again, that this HAS BEEN addressed already: in an attempt to "break out" of the circular logic trap, some folks invented the WAVENUMBER, who (basically) only differed by being the "inverse cm". I don't think that this helped our understanding much.
For all of the reasons that everyone here has been discussing over the last few pages, we are still locked into this circle, which (not too obviously) DEMANDS that we have several "fundamental" ONES in place at the same time. In other words, we have NO WAY of establishing some ORDER of importance to the various phenomenon that we are talking about.
Again, this has caused all of us (just in this thread alone) to "argue" over things that really were about "redundant definitions", and not "concepts". I think, at this point, that we all agree that the Speed of Light (SOL) has many different situations where it is not constant. Perhaps a smaller group of us will agree that "wavelength" is flexible, and can change to accommodate a variable wave speed.
However, down at the " bottom of the list" (of our agreement rate, IMO), is "frequency". At first, my own "ignorance" (innocence? haha), could NOT understand WHY no one wanted to agree that "frequency can change". Then, including a lot of help from Copenhagen, I realized that, JUST LIKE the SOL having been always measured constant, one will find too, that in all experiments, THAT is what is measured - the same frequency that "left" the sender is what is measured.
It took a lot more "digging" to come to the conclusion, that this "fact" is because we are using "quantum oscillators" that are "in tune" with each other. Tuning in always also means tuning out -- that which is NOT measured (by beats, or resonance) is always = or > than what is measured. This is in "whatever" terms you wish to impose.
This is why I insist on a deeper understanding (and re-defining) of "Resonance".
If we measure with more frequencies, we will get a different picture. "Spherical" in fact, rather than "planar". I will state my premise again, that "QM is a "monochromatic" theory", and that Relativity, and the "one observer" means, at the quantum scale, "one frequency". These 2 statements fit together. QM is all about "resonance", an action that requires the 2 bodies to have the same frequency, in order to "exchange energy". Relativity says that if you measure from one frequency (observer), you will get some aberration, Doppler shift, etc.
Of course, this is "oversimplification", but I am trying to just make the small point first. That, because the spherical nature of a wave requires phase difference, SO TO will an accurate measurement need to have some "spread" in frequency.
This could be accomplished by a group of oscillators of the same frequency but spread out in locations, or by a group of oscillators of small variation (discreet) in frequency, and in the same place.
I am out of time, again.
I will leave with the "answer", even though no one has asked a specific enough question to make it immediately applicable to something.
The minimum (unit), measurable by the limits created by cyclic behavior, is 1.0267092999..
Now the can of worms is gong to hit the fan!
regards,
T.Roc
Hi G.E.,
pi is a ratio.. not some obscure chosen value
speed is strictly defined as distance divided over time. Each component here (distance and time) doesn't have some 'natural' reference. We simply choose one and stick to it so we can all use a single frame of reference for measurements. There are no objects with a constant length neither is there an infinite and universal constant metronome to measure time. So we resort to other definitions that come the closest to the requirements.
As for the choice of an integer. This is no more relevant to the definition of a meter as to the definition of time by a cesium atom.
in mathematics unity and integers have special properties. they are per definition infinitely precise. This in turn shifts the focus from the constants towards measurements. When doing physics we need to propagate errors when calculating with measured values. If we can assume a property to be infinitely precise (an integer) we can do much more calculations without losing accuracy.
I hope I have made my point and that it has come across..
There a three different kinds of constants:
1 : constants chosen to make things simple (like c )
2 : constants derived from mathematical rules (like e and pi )
3 : constants derived from measurements (like the mass of a proton or Planck's constant)
The latter will always be imprecise but as our knowledge and abilities improve we can improve the accuracy of those constants. It is in those constants that we learn about our universe .. not in the ones we have chosen..
If we can see the difference between each of these types of 'constants' we can more easily distinguish between problems in induction or reasoning versus the quality of measurements and the notions of something being 'constant'.
As for the numerologists amongst us.. There is no sacred number sequence only forms of steganographic tricks devised by men..
as an illustration: the number PI has indefinite (assumption here) digits and the chance of finding a work of Shakespeare hidden in these digits seems therefore logically one.
(as long I am on a roll I should just continue with the rest of my thoughts here..)
since 1 second and 1 meter are both arbitrary there is no real logic in assuming that f needs to be an integer in QM.. Frequency cannot be determined at a singular moment in time. The reason for this is that frequency relates to change over a period of time. Any measurement done over a period of time shorter than one period of a wave can hardly identify the presence or frequency of such a wave.
On top of all the commotion about Fourier transforms, we need to consider that resonance is a process not a mathematical ubiquitous fact. It is local and over a defined period of time. So any wave that is coherent within this locality and time span will interact with this resonant system anything the wave would look like outside the locality and time span would be of no consequence to the process itself. So anyone who loves to make waves mathematically 'perfect' far outside the domain of interest is merely trying to fill in non existing 'gaps' in theories.. Therefore the concept of a retarded wave i.m.h.o. is just some mathematical comforter without any physical meaning.
Yes a wave with an envelope will have more frequency characteristics but keep in mind that a single burst in itself is not a repetitious phenomenon so how can we say that there are more frequencies 'hidden'.. outside the 'burst' there are no frequencies at all to interact with and inside the 'burst' only the wave frequency is present. Here we can get back to the 'lock' and 'key' analogy mentioned before. Is there enough energy in one 'cycle' of a wave (like in the photo-electric effect) to make something happen? could it be that the only way that in QM interactions are realized that the number of cycles needed to 'do something' (work function) is some kind of integer?
enough ramblings from my part..
I don't have the answers I guess. But I can ask critical questions
Jan Rinze.
pi is a ratio.. not some obscure chosen value
speed is strictly defined as distance divided over time. Each component here (distance and time) doesn't have some 'natural' reference. We simply choose one and stick to it so we can all use a single frame of reference for measurements. There are no objects with a constant length neither is there an infinite and universal constant metronome to measure time. So we resort to other definitions that come the closest to the requirements.
As for the choice of an integer. This is no more relevant to the definition of a meter as to the definition of time by a cesium atom.
in mathematics unity and integers have special properties. they are per definition infinitely precise. This in turn shifts the focus from the constants towards measurements. When doing physics we need to propagate errors when calculating with measured values. If we can assume a property to be infinitely precise (an integer) we can do much more calculations without losing accuracy.
I hope I have made my point and that it has come across..
There a three different kinds of constants:
1 : constants chosen to make things simple (like c )
2 : constants derived from mathematical rules (like e and pi )
3 : constants derived from measurements (like the mass of a proton or Planck's constant)
The latter will always be imprecise but as our knowledge and abilities improve we can improve the accuracy of those constants. It is in those constants that we learn about our universe .. not in the ones we have chosen..
If we can see the difference between each of these types of 'constants' we can more easily distinguish between problems in induction or reasoning versus the quality of measurements and the notions of something being 'constant'.
As for the numerologists amongst us.. There is no sacred number sequence only forms of steganographic tricks devised by men..
as an illustration: the number PI has indefinite (assumption here) digits and the chance of finding a work of Shakespeare hidden in these digits seems therefore logically one.
(as long I am on a roll I should just continue with the rest of my thoughts here..)
since 1 second and 1 meter are both arbitrary there is no real logic in assuming that f needs to be an integer in QM.. Frequency cannot be determined at a singular moment in time. The reason for this is that frequency relates to change over a period of time. Any measurement done over a period of time shorter than one period of a wave can hardly identify the presence or frequency of such a wave.
On top of all the commotion about Fourier transforms, we need to consider that resonance is a process not a mathematical ubiquitous fact. It is local and over a defined period of time. So any wave that is coherent within this locality and time span will interact with this resonant system anything the wave would look like outside the locality and time span would be of no consequence to the process itself. So anyone who loves to make waves mathematically 'perfect' far outside the domain of interest is merely trying to fill in non existing 'gaps' in theories.. Therefore the concept of a retarded wave i.m.h.o. is just some mathematical comforter without any physical meaning.
Yes a wave with an envelope will have more frequency characteristics but keep in mind that a single burst in itself is not a repetitious phenomenon so how can we say that there are more frequencies 'hidden'.. outside the 'burst' there are no frequencies at all to interact with and inside the 'burst' only the wave frequency is present. Here we can get back to the 'lock' and 'key' analogy mentioned before. Is there enough energy in one 'cycle' of a wave (like in the photo-electric effect) to make something happen? could it be that the only way that in QM interactions are realized that the number of cycles needed to 'do something' (work function) is some kind of integer?
enough ramblings from my part..
I don't have the answers I guess. But I can ask critical questions
Jan Rinze.
Hi JanRinze et al,
Imagine we throw a cricket ball into soft ground. We remove the cricket ball and analyse the result .. eventually we conclude that the ball followed say parabola_A from the point it was thrown from to the point where it landed. Was the hole made by parabola_A? I say not, imo parabola_A is 'other information' .. the hole is the result of size/direction/momentum and soft ground.
If the path of a ball is determined by (say) the de Broglie wavelength, Schrodingers equation etc. is it inevitably true that the same information is linked (as you seem to claim) to both the path AND the cause/effect?
Best wishes -C2.
Imagine we throw a cricket ball into soft ground. We remove the cricket ball and analyse the result .. eventually we conclude that the ball followed say parabola_A from the point it was thrown from to the point where it landed. Was the hole made by parabola_A? I say not, imo parabola_A is 'other information' .. the hole is the result of size/direction/momentum and soft ground.
If the path of a ball is determined by (say) the de Broglie wavelength, Schrodingers equation etc. is it inevitably true that the same information is linked (as you seem to claim) to both the path AND the cause/effect?
Best wishes -C2.
Hi C2,
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 20 2007, 09:55 PM)
Hi JanRinze et al,
Imagine we throw a cricket ball into soft ground. We remove the cricket ball and analyse the result .. eventually we conclude that the ball followed say parabola_A from the point it was thrown from to the point where it landed. Was the hole made by parabola_A? I say not, imo parabola_A is 'other information' .. the hole is the result of size/direction/momentum and soft ground.
the nice thing is that if we know the size/direction/momentum we can calculate where it came from.. all because we know it was a parabola. you cannot separate the one from the other. They all belong to the variables defining/describing the event. In a sense in physics it does not really matter if a property belongs to a particle or to some describing behavior/trajectory.. they are just variables in a complex equation..
About the following:
If the path of a ball is determined by (say) the de Broglie wavelength, Schrodingers equation etc. is it inevitably true that the same information is linked (as you seem to claim) to both the path AND the cause/effect?
Best wishes -C2.
Actually I don't believe I have claimed anything but if you like: I do agree that If we can determinate size/direction/momentum and we know the laws of physics we can calculate trajectory and therefore calculate (in the case of the DSE) from which slit it originated.. (call me deterministic..)
Assumptions here are that light (even though it bends around corners) will travel in a straight line.. Or we could say the sum of the momenta of all possible routes should be used. Either way it should at least be one of the above.. I don't believe the answer to that question has yet been answered by any experiment yet.
Jan Rinze.
Imagine we throw a cricket ball into soft ground. We remove the cricket ball and analyse the result .. eventually we conclude that the ball followed say parabola_A from the point it was thrown from to the point where it landed. Was the hole made by parabola_A? I say not, imo parabola_A is 'other information' .. the hole is the result of size/direction/momentum and soft ground.
the nice thing is that if we know the size/direction/momentum we can calculate where it came from.. all because we know it was a parabola. you cannot separate the one from the other. They all belong to the variables defining/describing the event. In a sense in physics it does not really matter if a property belongs to a particle or to some describing behavior/trajectory.. they are just variables in a complex equation..
About the following:
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 20 2007, 09:55 PM)
If the path of a ball is determined by (say) the de Broglie wavelength, Schrodingers equation etc. is it inevitably true that the same information is linked (as you seem to claim) to both the path AND the cause/effect?
Best wishes -C2.
Actually I don't believe I have claimed anything but if you like: I do agree that If we can determinate size/direction/momentum and we know the laws of physics we can calculate trajectory and therefore calculate (in the case of the DSE) from which slit it originated.. (call me deterministic..)
Assumptions here are that light (even though it bends around corners) will travel in a straight line.. Or we could say the sum of the momenta of all possible routes should be used. Either way it should at least be one of the above.. I don't believe the answer to that question has yet been answered by any experiment yet.
Jan Rinze.
Hi Jan, GE, et al,
Jan,
First, good argument. It was well stated and succinct.
Exactly why a precise full wave cycle count, of a specific reference
frequency, should be the standard for 1 meter. For all intents and purposes,
a specific frequency is a constant. It will never change value, and it is also
bound by the speed of light in a vacuum, and it establishes time to an absolute
fixed reference.. A multi-redundant and perfect standard, IMO.
So we establish a time reference, a distance reference, a wavecount/frequency
reference, and the speed of light reference, that are all absolutes/constants.
Perhaps it is just my anal nature for perfection when viewed from any point of
reference.
Second,
Exactly why a precise full wave cycle count, of a specific reference
frequency, should be the standard for 1 meter. For all intents and purposes,
a specific frequency is a constant. It will never change value, and it is also
bound by the speed of light in a vacuum, and it establishes time to an absolute
fixed reference.. A multi-redundant and perfect standard, IMO.
So we establish a time reference, a distance reference, a wavecount/frequency
reference, and the speed of light reference, that are all absolutes/constants.
Perhaps it is just my anal nature for perfection when viewed from any point of
reference.
Second,
Assumptions here are that light (even though it bends around corners) will travel in a straight line.. Or we could say the sum of the momenta of all possible routes should be used.
Does light bend around corners, or do wavefronts
EXPAND or radiate around corners?
Maybe it's just a matter of semantics. Bending is a change of path from a straight
course, and has tangential characteristics. Radiating/expanding is associated
more with the the spherical,radiating model of EM energy that follows the ISL.
GE, for what it's worth, a standing wave doesn't "physically" exist, other
than as a concentration/displacement of energy as it relates to a fixed relative
postion in space-time. Two energy impulses travelling in opposite directions
synchronously superpose in time and space, but no energy transfer takes place
since there is no workfunction performed. I would assume, from a heuristic
point of view, that the refractive index of the local space-time would change, but
by itself, it is relatively a non-event, unless it affects matter in some
fashion.
JMHO,
LL
Jan,
First, good argument. It was well stated and succinct.
QUOTE
since 1 second and 1 meter are both arbitrary there is no real logic in assuming that f needs to be an integer in QM.. Frequency cannot be determined at a singular moment in time. The reason for this is that frequency relates to change over a period of time. Any measurement done over a period of time shorter than one period of a wave can hardly identify the presence or frequency of such a wave.
Exactly why a precise full wave cycle count, of a specific reference
frequency, should be the standard for 1 meter. For all intents and purposes,
a specific frequency is a constant. It will never change value, and it is also
bound by the speed of light in a vacuum, and it establishes time to an absolute
fixed reference.. A multi-redundant and perfect standard, IMO.
So we establish a time reference, a distance reference, a wavecount/frequency
reference, and the speed of light reference, that are all absolutes/constants.
Perhaps it is just my anal nature for perfection when viewed from any point of
reference.
Second,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| since 1 second and 1 meter are both arbitrary there is no real logic in assuming that f needs to be an integer in QM.. Frequency cannot be determined at a singular moment in time. The reason for this is that frequency relates to change over a period of time. Any measurement done over a period of time shorter than one period of a wave can hardly identify the presence or frequency of such a wave. |
Exactly why a precise full wave cycle count, of a specific reference
frequency, should be the standard for 1 meter. For all intents and purposes,
a specific frequency is a constant. It will never change value, and it is also
bound by the speed of light in a vacuum, and it establishes time to an absolute
fixed reference.. A multi-redundant and perfect standard, IMO.
So we establish a time reference, a distance reference, a wavecount/frequency
reference, and the speed of light reference, that are all absolutes/constants.
Perhaps it is just my anal nature for perfection when viewed from any point of
reference.
Second,
Assumptions here are that light (even though it bends around corners) will travel in a straight line.. Or we could say the sum of the momenta of all possible routes should be used.
Does light bend around corners, or do wavefronts
EXPAND or radiate around corners?
Maybe it's just a matter of semantics. Bending is a change of path from a straight
course, and has tangential characteristics. Radiating/expanding is associated
more with the the spherical,radiating model of EM energy that follows the ISL.
GE, for what it's worth, a standing wave doesn't "physically" exist, other
than as a concentration/displacement of energy as it relates to a fixed relative
postion in space-time. Two energy impulses travelling in opposite directions
synchronously superpose in time and space, but no energy transfer takes place
since there is no workfunction performed. I would assume, from a heuristic
point of view, that the refractive index of the local space-time would change, but
by itself, it is relatively a non-event, unless it affects matter in some
fashion.
JMHO,
LL
Hi Janrinze,
Like I said I do not think this argument can be won by me because it is not "compelling". Still I will point out a couple of your points and ask you "is this what you mean?"
Like I said I do not think this argument can be won by me because it is not "compelling". Still I will point out a couple of your points and ask you "is this what you mean?"
QUOTE (Janrinze+)
pi is a ratio.. not some obscure chosen value. Speed is strictly defined as distance divided over time. Each component here (distance and time) doesn't have some 'natural' reference. We simply choose one and stick to it so we can all use a single frame of reference for measurements. There are no objects with a constant length neither is there an infinite and universal constant metronome to measure time. So we resort to other definitions that come the closest to the requirements.
As for the choice of an integer. This is no more relevant to the definition of a meter as to the definition of time by a cesium atom.
As for the choice of an integer. This is no more relevant to the definition of a meter as to the definition of time by a cesium atom.
I am not trying to be "picky" but if I define a meter as "in the new SI system as equal to 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red emission line in the electromagnetic spectrum of the krypton-86 atom in a vacuum" then the distance of a meter is defined by interferometric technique according to "time" (or reciprocal frequency) so the velocity is in effect the ratio of two "times". Is this any different to the ratio of two distances (the value of pi).
An important aspect of pi is that it is transcendent and irrational... what if © was also a similar "number"? Is this any different from the Indiana Pi Bill in trying to "fix" the value of pi to be effectively a rational number? The "speed of light" is not simply some arbitrary number like the speed of sound at sea level it is a "Fundamental Property of the Universe" like pi. For instance the velocity of light is not only defined as a "speed" but as the vacuum properties of free space...
where...
and...
Which number is the more important.... © or pi? Is © transcendent or irrational? I can effectively vary pi by causing a simple plane disk to rotate and I know that the ratio of radius to circumference will change due to Relativity... not so © .... why not?
Cheers
An important aspect of pi is that it is transcendent and irrational... what if © was also a similar "number"? Is this any different from the Indiana Pi Bill in trying to "fix" the value of pi to be effectively a rational number? The "speed of light" is not simply some arbitrary number like the speed of sound at sea level it is a "Fundamental Property of the Universe" like pi. For instance the velocity of light is not only defined as a "speed" but as the vacuum properties of free space...
where...
and...
Which number is the more important.... © or pi? Is © transcendent or irrational? I can effectively vary pi by causing a simple plane disk to rotate and I know that the ratio of radius to circumference will change due to Relativity... not so © .... why not?
Cheers
Hi Laserlight, TRoc, "Why Not?", Siau, Confused2, yquantum, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
GE, for what it's worth, a standing wave doesn't "physically" exist, other than as a concentration/displacement of energy as it relates to a fixed relative postion in space-time. Two energy impulses travelling in opposite directions synchronously superpose in time and space, but no energy transfer takes place since there is no workfunction performed. I would assume, from a heuristic point of view, that the refractive index of the local space-time would change, but by itself, it is relatively a non-event, unless it affects matter in some fashion.
Please accept temporarily that in order to account for "one photon at a time" properties of the DSE it is essential that everyone understand that EM radiation is propagated as a resonant standing wave. You cannot account "in realistic terms" for the properties of the photon's self interference without it. Also you cannot account for Holography without it either. We can discuss this point later. Once again I am still riding this "old horse"... In the case of standing waves in spacetime created by advanced and retarded waves, we are unable to appreciate the advanced waves... this means that depending on circumstances you cannot observe both phases (advanced and retarded) simultaneously so we can only "see" the one retarded wave forming part of the pair of standing wave patterns.
In the case of light lets say the top waveform is the retarded waves (propagating from the past... what we normally see) and the middle waveform is the advanced waveform (propagating from the future... which we cannot see because of our predilection to "causality").
Lets not become involved in the overall "shape" of the bosons as they spread... using the analogy in the paper quoted previously which are photons confined to a waveguide so "fixed" in geometry...
A photon-like wavepacket with quantised properties based on classical Maxwell’s equations:John. E. Carroll
While not observing the advanced waveform the energy is trapped all the same. Now recall the picture that I have used previously to illustrate the composition of a continuous wave of EM radiation composed of a "train" of sync functions... only in the "more realistic case" they are sync spirals propagating in the + direction.
... Click to enlarge...
Here we see seven of them (simplified versions of the spiral sync function) forming the simplest segment of continuous wave lets say also propagating as the retarded field on seven successive wavefronts from left to right. These would appear as seven "frozen" sync spiral packets hooked/summed up in a "train" and moving to the right and thus this would appear as a short segment of the top illustration/animation of the standing wave pattern. Unseen due to causality we do not "appreciate" the backward moving time symmetric pulse coming from the future to cancel the retarded forward progressing wave. I will explain later why there is a time reversed pulse.
So what we have is time symmetric phenomena... the emission of a photon and the absorption of a time reversed photon. These two together create permanent standing waves. These two can't be appreciated separately except in the evanescent zone of the retarded photon as it progresses through time as it "illuminates" the standing waves in its own personal evanescent zone as the perception of the retarded photon is a progressive phenomena in time. This can best be illustrated by this animated image (albeit for an electron) that Zephir has contributed to the forum.
You can see how the standing waves only exhibit in the evanescent zone of a "propagating particle"... in our case a photon... this is along the wavefront (which can exist in many places though spreading on the surface of the sphere) as time progresses. It is important to understand just how this process can be seen to work and still remain hidden to a world dominated by causality.
It is also important to realize that the actual spiral packet is "stationary" as it propagates though it is distorted in the way it responds to "spreading". The other point to really "get" is that the photon moves via a path of least action to the point at which it is absorbed and this is the path of least time... there is no need for the photon to "bounce around" to exhibit a full interference picture since the space is filled with an instantaneous standing wave pattern that already exists through which the photon moves "expediently" to the screen or to an emulsion where it finds a place in which to be absorbed in a direct relation to the standing waves in that space. Remember it does this in least time and this is the path of least action in flat spacetime. It cannot "bounce" around in space because the photon wave function collapses instantly along its entire wavefront wherever it may be when it is absorbed at the sink. It also means that all spatial interference with itself is permanently etched in the space it is passing through, everywhere end for all time... for just that one photon and for no other..
.. click to enlarge...
But there is the possibility that the wave may re-emerge in other places if the conditions are correct. You may see that example I previously quoted of faster than light tunneling in the light of this process as being advanced and retarded waves through media "transporting" a photon to "somewhere" that a reemergence might occur... with the use of special materials or conditions.
Animation of "Backward" (and forward) moving light...
If these "events" were on the opposite ends of a 100 Km optic fiber cable then you have potentially teleported a photon 100 Kms potentially faster than the speed of light ... at least a couple of these photons eh!! These "sources" and "sinks" have become new sources at the far end and are not necessarily absorbed. Functionally the opposite of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment where the "future" is affecting our "present".
One photon sees the entire interference pattern and it is always waiting for it when it passes through the intervening space, Recall the single photon collapses the wave function at the instant of absorption so there is never any time for the photon to "explore the Universe" after the wave function collapses. This is the same for each and every photon at every frequency that is possible and is a superposition of states, one of which each and every individual photon recognizes as its own "personal" set of standing waves that waits for it in space created by the Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory plus the Cramer Transactional Model which acts photon by photon.
Recapping... the advanced and retarded waves act photon by photon creating spatial standing waves in time... these are captured by the progressing "retarded" photon as it moves from left to right in that animation above. In actual fact the actual photon packet occupies only "about" one wavelength in the temporal direction not several "wavelets" as the animation shows. Individually they represent a single spindle packet carrying the spin but the internal Schrodinger harmonics are not progressing or changing with time, it is "frozen" against the light cone surface as it spreads through the space as it sees it. Remember at the speed of light no time passes from when it is emitted and it is absorbed, and space is all compressed to a single point ... or very close to it... A single evanescent zone for both source and sink for the photon... and in its frame of reference these two processes happen at the same instant and at the same evanescent point in its time. This maintains the separation of the wave and particle aspects as you can still see. Relativity separates them but cannot change the event in how it actually operates (I have recently discussed this point about relativity with "Why Not?" above). These "events" seem separated in our time but in the rest frame of the photon occur simultaneously and so these two time inverted photons are simply the expression of an impulsive transform with a instantaneous "reaction" from the other end (absorber) to this "emission" by a reverse wave that feeds from "our future" into the past where it meets the source. Remember this is the way we can understand the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment.... it is Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory and the emission and absorption are a single temporal event. It happens all before our very eyes but we are all too "stupid" to see it because of our causal nature.
Cheers
PS: You can now understand why "time stamping" and "coordinate stamping" of photons means that though photons can "add" instantaneously they cannot "cancel" since they will have different time and position stamps such that their advanced and retarded packets will not match any others because they represent "interferences" related to that solitary event and the one retarded photon "designed and created" by that one event through Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory. Event by event the Universe and time is constructed. Each retarded photon from a source has chosen the one sink in the Universe to proceed to at the instant of its creation.
In the case of light lets say the top waveform is the retarded waves (propagating from the past... what we normally see) and the middle waveform is the advanced waveform (propagating from the future... which we cannot see because of our predilection to "causality").
Lets not become involved in the overall "shape" of the bosons as they spread... using the analogy in the paper quoted previously which are photons confined to a waveguide so "fixed" in geometry...
A photon-like wavepacket with quantised properties based on classical Maxwell’s equations:John. E. Carroll
While not observing the advanced waveform the energy is trapped all the same. Now recall the picture that I have used previously to illustrate the composition of a continuous wave of EM radiation composed of a "train" of sync functions... only in the "more realistic case" they are sync spirals propagating in the + direction.
... Click to enlarge...
Here we see seven of them (simplified versions of the spiral sync function) forming the simplest segment of continuous wave lets say also propagating as the retarded field on seven successive wavefronts from left to right. These would appear as seven "frozen" sync spiral packets hooked/summed up in a "train" and moving to the right and thus this would appear as a short segment of the top illustration/animation of the standing wave pattern. Unseen due to causality we do not "appreciate" the backward moving time symmetric pulse coming from the future to cancel the retarded forward progressing wave. I will explain later why there is a time reversed pulse.
So what we have is time symmetric phenomena... the emission of a photon and the absorption of a time reversed photon. These two together create permanent standing waves. These two can't be appreciated separately except in the evanescent zone of the retarded photon as it progresses through time as it "illuminates" the standing waves in its own personal evanescent zone as the perception of the retarded photon is a progressive phenomena in time. This can best be illustrated by this animated image (albeit for an electron) that Zephir has contributed to the forum.
You can see how the standing waves only exhibit in the evanescent zone of a "propagating particle"... in our case a photon... this is along the wavefront (which can exist in many places though spreading on the surface of the sphere) as time progresses. It is important to understand just how this process can be seen to work and still remain hidden to a world dominated by causality.
It is also important to realize that the actual spiral packet is "stationary" as it propagates though it is distorted in the way it responds to "spreading". The other point to really "get" is that the photon moves via a path of least action to the point at which it is absorbed and this is the path of least time... there is no need for the photon to "bounce around" to exhibit a full interference picture since the space is filled with an instantaneous standing wave pattern that already exists through which the photon moves "expediently" to the screen or to an emulsion where it finds a place in which to be absorbed in a direct relation to the standing waves in that space. Remember it does this in least time and this is the path of least action in flat spacetime. It cannot "bounce" around in space because the photon wave function collapses instantly along its entire wavefront wherever it may be when it is absorbed at the sink. It also means that all spatial interference with itself is permanently etched in the space it is passing through, everywhere end for all time... for just that one photon and for no other..
.. click to enlarge...
But there is the possibility that the wave may re-emerge in other places if the conditions are correct. You may see that example I previously quoted of faster than light tunneling in the light of this process as being advanced and retarded waves through media "transporting" a photon to "somewhere" that a reemergence might occur... with the use of special materials or conditions.
Animation of "Backward" (and forward) moving light...
If these "events" were on the opposite ends of a 100 Km optic fiber cable then you have potentially teleported a photon 100 Kms potentially faster than the speed of light ... at least a couple of these photons eh!! These "sources" and "sinks" have become new sources at the far end and are not necessarily absorbed. Functionally the opposite of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment where the "future" is affecting our "present".
One photon sees the entire interference pattern and it is always waiting for it when it passes through the intervening space, Recall the single photon collapses the wave function at the instant of absorption so there is never any time for the photon to "explore the Universe" after the wave function collapses. This is the same for each and every photon at every frequency that is possible and is a superposition of states, one of which each and every individual photon recognizes as its own "personal" set of standing waves that waits for it in space created by the Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory plus the Cramer Transactional Model which acts photon by photon.
Recapping... the advanced and retarded waves act photon by photon creating spatial standing waves in time... these are captured by the progressing "retarded" photon as it moves from left to right in that animation above. In actual fact the actual photon packet occupies only "about" one wavelength in the temporal direction not several "wavelets" as the animation shows. Individually they represent a single spindle packet carrying the spin but the internal Schrodinger harmonics are not progressing or changing with time, it is "frozen" against the light cone surface as it spreads through the space as it sees it. Remember at the speed of light no time passes from when it is emitted and it is absorbed, and space is all compressed to a single point ... or very close to it... A single evanescent zone for both source and sink for the photon... and in its frame of reference these two processes happen at the same instant and at the same evanescent point in its time. This maintains the separation of the wave and particle aspects as you can still see. Relativity separates them but cannot change the event in how it actually operates (I have recently discussed this point about relativity with "Why Not?" above). These "events" seem separated in our time but in the rest frame of the photon occur simultaneously and so these two time inverted photons are simply the expression of an impulsive transform with a instantaneous "reaction" from the other end (absorber) to this "emission" by a reverse wave that feeds from "our future" into the past where it meets the source. Remember this is the way we can understand the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment.... it is Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory and the emission and absorption are a single temporal event. It happens all before our very eyes but we are all too "stupid" to see it because of our causal nature.
Cheers
PS: You can now understand why "time stamping" and "coordinate stamping" of photons means that though photons can "add" instantaneously they cannot "cancel" since they will have different time and position stamps such that their advanced and retarded packets will not match any others because they represent "interferences" related to that solitary event and the one retarded photon "designed and created" by that one event through Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory. Event by event the Universe and time is constructed. Each retarded photon from a source has chosen the one sink in the Universe to proceed to at the instant of its creation.
Hi Laserlight and others,
Umm.... seems there might be a problem directly accessing the "user posted image" above in my last post...
It is the animation that relates to the topic...
Two sine waves travelling in opposite directions create a standing wave
On this page...
Superposition of Waves:Dan Russell PhD
Animation courtesy of Dr. Dan Russell, Kettering University.
Sorry about that... I can't change it now.
Cheers
Umm.... seems there might be a problem directly accessing the "user posted image" above in my last post...
It is the animation that relates to the topic...
Two sine waves travelling in opposite directions create a standing wave
On this page...
Superposition of Waves:Dan Russell PhD
Animation courtesy of Dr. Dan Russell, Kettering University.
Sorry about that... I can't change it now.
Cheers
Hi GE,
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 21 2007, 07:15 AM)
Hi Janrinze,
Like I said I do not think this argument can be won by me because it is not "compelling". Still I will point out a couple of your points and ask you "is this what you mean?"
Like I said I do not think this argument can be won by me because it is not "compelling". Still I will point out a couple of your points and ask you "is this what you mean?"
QUOTE (Janrinze+)
pi is a ratio.. not some obscure chosen value. Speed is strictly defined as distance divided over time. Each component here (distance and time) doesn't have some 'natural' reference. We simply choose one and stick to it so we can all use a single frame of reference for measurements. There are no objects with a constant length neither is there an infinite and universal constant metronome to measure time. So we resort to other definitions that come the closest to the requirements.
As for the choice of an integer. This is no more relevant to the definition of a meter as to the definition of time by a cesium atom.
I am not trying to be "picky" but if I define a meter as "in the new SI system as equal to 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red emission line in the electromagnetic spectrum of the krypton-86 atom in a vacuum" then the distance of a meter is defined by interferometric technique according to "time" (or reciprocal frequency) so the velocity is in effect the ratio of two "times". Is this any different to the ratio of two distances (the value of pi).
Yes there is much difference. The value of pi is mathematically defined.
velocity is not a ratio of two times. Unfortunately it appears hard to grasp that it really does not matter which reference you would take to define a unit of a specific dimension. When we choose a reference it makes sense to do these choices based on knowledge about invariant features. With the assumption of the constant speed of light we can define both time and space at once. To implement such a definition we resort to using practical implementations which can be consistently reproduced.
It will be hard for most people to 'see' the difference between a constant and 'a constant of nature'. Any number I can pick can be defined a 'constant' ..
An important aspect of pi is that it is transcendent and irrational... what if © was also a similar "number"? Is this any different from the Indiana Pi Bill in trying to "fix" the value of pi to be effectively a rational number? The "speed of light" is not simply some arbitrary number like the speed of sound at sea level it is a "Fundamental Property of the Universe" like pi. For instance the velocity of light is not only defined as a "speed" but as the vacuum properties of free space...
where...
and...
Which number is the more important.... © or pi? Is © transcendent or irrational? I can effectively vary pi by causing a simple plane disk to rotate and I know that the ratio of radius to circumference will change due to Relativity... not so © .... why not?
Cheers
This is one of my favorites..
Notice that any value of pi will still yield a correct solution in the formula for c!
pi is a mathematical property of euclidean space (mathematical concept) so you might wonder why pi pops-up with the permeability and permittivity of space.
It is very closely related to the formula of the surface of a sphere.
I have no idea how your example of varying pi would work.. the effects of rotation are very hard to calculate in regard to relativity.. Non-euclidean space (like curved space-time) has obviously different results in regard to the circumference of a circle. This has nothing to do with the definition of pi! (pi is defined as 1/2 the circumference of a circle in euclidean space with unity radius..)
Jan Rinze.
P.S. even though this might look like side-tracking, having knowledge of mathematics is a prerequisite for physics..
As for the choice of an integer. This is no more relevant to the definition of a meter as to the definition of time by a cesium atom.
I am not trying to be "picky" but if I define a meter as "in the new SI system as equal to 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red emission line in the electromagnetic spectrum of the krypton-86 atom in a vacuum" then the distance of a meter is defined by interferometric technique according to "time" (or reciprocal frequency) so the velocity is in effect the ratio of two "times". Is this any different to the ratio of two distances (the value of pi).
Yes there is much difference. The value of pi is mathematically defined.
velocity is not a ratio of two times. Unfortunately it appears hard to grasp that it really does not matter which reference you would take to define a unit of a specific dimension. When we choose a reference it makes sense to do these choices based on knowledge about invariant features. With the assumption of the constant speed of light we can define both time and space at once. To implement such a definition we resort to using practical implementations which can be consistently reproduced.
It will be hard for most people to 'see' the difference between a constant and 'a constant of nature'. Any number I can pick can be defined a 'constant' ..
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 21 2007, 07:15 AM)
An important aspect of pi is that it is transcendent and irrational... what if © was also a similar "number"? Is this any different from the Indiana Pi Bill in trying to "fix" the value of pi to be effectively a rational number? The "speed of light" is not simply some arbitrary number like the speed of sound at sea level it is a "Fundamental Property of the Universe" like pi. For instance the velocity of light is not only defined as a "speed" but as the vacuum properties of free space...
where...
and...
Which number is the more important.... © or pi? Is © transcendent or irrational? I can effectively vary pi by causing a simple plane disk to rotate and I know that the ratio of radius to circumference will change due to Relativity... not so © .... why not?
Cheers
This is one of my favorites..
Notice that any value of pi will still yield a correct solution in the formula for c!
pi is a mathematical property of euclidean space (mathematical concept) so you might wonder why pi pops-up with the permeability and permittivity of space.
It is very closely related to the formula of the surface of a sphere.
I have no idea how your example of varying pi would work.. the effects of rotation are very hard to calculate in regard to relativity.. Non-euclidean space (like curved space-time) has obviously different results in regard to the circumference of a circle. This has nothing to do with the definition of pi! (pi is defined as 1/2 the circumference of a circle in euclidean space with unity radius..)
Jan Rinze.
P.S. even though this might look like side-tracking, having knowledge of mathematics is a prerequisite for physics..
Good Elf, Laserlight, TRoc, "Why Not?", Siau, Confused2, jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,
I hope this helps & I do not wish to intrude.
STILL THE BEST POST ON THIS SITE.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0701039
caio_
yquantum
I hope this helps & I do not wish to intrude.
STILL THE BEST POST ON THIS SITE.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0701039
caio_
yquantum
Good Elf, Laserlight, TRoc, "Why Not?", Siau, Confused2, jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al
It is just a thought but maybe everyone NEEDS TO STEP BACK AND RELAX by other activities for a few. In order to revise or renew one's assessment of the DSE.
It seems they have been overloaded dealing with the DSE problem....on the post.
ciao_
yquantum
It is just a thought but maybe everyone NEEDS TO STEP BACK AND RELAX by other activities for a few.
In order to revise or renew one's assessment of the DSE. It seems they have been overloaded dealing with the DSE problem....on the post.
ciao_
yquantum
yquantum Good Elf, Laserlight, TRoc, "Why Not?", Siau, jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al
Re Ashfar 'mystery' (many thanks yquantum) . The same effect can easily be demonstrated in the ripple tank at http://www.falstad.com/ripple/ . Use the setup for 2-slits .. set mouse to edit wall .. make a blob in an interference null (hardly any effect) and then block each of the slits in turn.
Conclusion?
Best wishes - C2.
Re Ashfar 'mystery' (many thanks yquantum) . The same effect can easily be demonstrated in the ripple tank at http://www.falstad.com/ripple/ . Use the setup for 2-slits .. set mouse to edit wall .. make a blob in an interference null (hardly any effect) and then block each of the slits in turn.
Conclusion?
Best wishes - C2.
Hi All..
Maybe yquantum has a point here..
everyone here is trying very hard. The DSE lies at the base of QM.. It has not been fully understood for more than a man's lifetime.. By pushing ourselves too hard we won't find answers.
In all,this topic is a joy to read and think about.
Jan Rinze.
P.S. i like the cartoon
Maybe yquantum has a point here..
everyone here is trying very hard. The DSE lies at the base of QM.. It has not been fully understood for more than a man's lifetime.. By pushing ourselves too hard we won't find answers.
In all,this topic is a joy to read and think about.
Jan Rinze.
P.S. i like the cartoon
C2, janrinze, you posted before me --->well said I find somewhere to get a banana split made with yogurt - then run a few miles around the facilities. So I will not feel guilty.
Your welcome. C2...
Not sure everyone will agree but at least you made them aware of it.
ciao_
yquantum
Remember please with QM as janrinze has mentioned.
Dealing with DSE using Quantum Physics is:
Quantum physics is a branch of science that deals with discrete, indivisible units of energy called quanta as described by the Quantum Theory. There are five main ideas represented in Quantum Theory:
1. Energy is not continuous, but comes in small but discrete units.
2. The elementary particles behave both like particles and like waves.
3. The movement of these particles is inherently random.
4. It is physically impossible to know both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. The more precisely one is known, the less precise the measurement of the other is.
5. The atomic world is nothing like the world we live in.
While at a glance this may seem like just another strange theory, it contains many clues as to the fundamental nature of the universe and is more important then even relativity in the grand scheme of things (if any one thing at that level could be said to be more important then anything else). Furthermore, it describes the nature of the universe as being much different then the world we see.
You know about this quote, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.
So I will not feel guilty.Your welcome. C2...
QUOTE
Ashfar 'mystery'. The same effect can easily be demonstrated in the ripple tank at http://www.falstad.com/ripple/ . Use the setup for 2-slits .. set mouse to edit wall .. make a blob in an interference null (hardly any effect) and then block each of the slits in turn.
=> EXCELLENT point.Not sure everyone will agree but at least you made them aware of it.
ciao_
yquantum
Remember please with QM as janrinze has mentioned.
Dealing with DSE using Quantum Physics is:
Quantum physics is a branch of science that deals with discrete, indivisible units of energy called quanta as described by the Quantum Theory. There are five main ideas represented in Quantum Theory:
1. Energy is not continuous, but comes in small but discrete units.
2. The elementary particles behave both like particles and like waves.
3. The movement of these particles is inherently random.
4. It is physically impossible to know both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. The more precisely one is known, the less precise the measurement of the other is.
5. The atomic world is nothing like the world we live in.
While at a glance this may seem like just another strange theory, it contains many clues as to the fundamental nature of the universe and is more important then even relativity in the grand scheme of things (if any one thing at that level could be said to be more important then anything else). Furthermore, it describes the nature of the universe as being much different then the world we see.
You know about this quote, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.
Hi Janrinze,
.
.
QUOTE (Janrinze+)
I have no idea how your example of varying pi would work.. the effects of rotation are very hard to calculate in regard to relativity..
I will drop the argument about the Speed of Light being a property that should not be rounded off. You have apparently not heard about the Ehrenfest Paradox and this is linked with the arguments I have been making about the "one observer" distortions of Special Relativity.
We will leave it at that for now... thanks for the discussion.
Cheers
I will drop the argument about the Speed of Light being a property that should not be rounded off. You have apparently not heard about the Ehrenfest Paradox and this is linked with the arguments I have been making about the "one observer" distortions of Special Relativity.
We will leave it at that for now... thanks for the discussion.
Cheers
Hi C2,
I see that you are taking the wall in the null/void area to heart. If you will recall
from a post long ago, even if you draw a wall, all the way along the null areas
to the slit wall, that the interference pattern stays the same, as long as you don't
touch the into the colored bar interference pattern area.
Such a wall, in the null zone, should have had an effect of blocking the
wave cancellation superpositions between the two wavefront zones, since the
theory says the cancelling waves can't superpose, but it doesn't.
Even if you put walls in all the null zones, all the way to the slit wall, the pattern
doesn't change.
So where is the interference taking place? This is a baited question. Anyone
want to change their position of where the interference is occuring?
Discussion? Comments?
LL
I see that you are taking the wall in the null/void area to heart. If you will recall
from a post long ago, even if you draw a wall, all the way along the null areas
to the slit wall, that the interference pattern stays the same, as long as you don't
touch the into the colored bar interference pattern area.
Such a wall, in the null zone, should have had an effect of blocking the
wave cancellation superpositions between the two wavefront zones, since the
theory says the cancelling waves can't superpose, but it doesn't.
Even if you put walls in all the null zones, all the way to the slit wall, the pattern
doesn't change.
So where is the interference taking place? This is a baited question. Anyone
want to change their position of where the interference is occuring?
Discussion? Comments?
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Even if you put walls in all the null zones, all the way to the slit wall, the pattern doesn't change.
As before .. a problem with the algorithm used in the simulation is that a 'wall' is a reflector .. failure to understand the consequences of this may lead to incorrect conclusions.
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. what you may be showing is that a reflection of a source has all the properties of the original source .. is this possible?
As before .. a problem with the algorithm used in the simulation is that a 'wall' is a reflector .. failure to understand the consequences of this may lead to incorrect conclusions.
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. what you may be showing is that a reflection of a source has all the properties of the original source .. is this possible?
C2, wait a minute....
Placing wires in the null zones of the actual DSE experiment should do the same
thing of blocking the waves, so that they can't superpose and cancel in that
localized location.
Remember, the algorithm of the ripple tank is modeled after the idea of
wave superposition/cancellation.
Comments?
LL
Edit added:
Time for your homebrew DSE (with slits) and a blocking wall in the null
interference zone?
Double edit added:
Of course you could be absolutely correct that the algoritm has limitations in
expressing reality, since it is a simulation.
Placing wires in the null zones of the actual DSE experiment should do the same
thing of blocking the waves, so that they can't superpose and cancel in that
localized location.
Remember, the algorithm of the ripple tank is modeled after the idea of
wave superposition/cancellation.
Comments?
LL
Edit added:
Time for your homebrew DSE (with slits) and a blocking wall in the null
interference zone?
Double edit added:
Of course you could be absolutely correct that the algoritm has limitations in
expressing reality, since it is a simulation.
Hi LL,
This is my version of the Ahfar wires
(click)
In all fairness 'but surely' hasn't worked very well over the last twelve months .. can we try to restrict ourselves to what we see?
If you set up the 'tank' like this do you see the same pattern displayed? .. then block one slit or the other and you see the 'wires' have a considerable effect? (bear in mind that walls in the tank are all reflectors rather than absorbers)
Best wishes - C2.
This is my version of the Ahfar wires
(click)
In all fairness 'but surely' hasn't worked very well over the last twelve months .. can we try to restrict ourselves to what we see?
If you set up the 'tank' like this do you see the same pattern displayed? .. then block one slit or the other and you see the 'wires' have a considerable effect? (bear in mind that walls in the tank are all reflectors rather than absorbers)
Best wishes - C2.
QUOTE (LL+)
Double edit added:
Of course you could be absolutely correct that the algoritm has limitations in
expressing reality, since it is a simulation.
Of course the Ashfar experiment might be showing that reality has the same limitations as the ripple tank .. and the ripple tank is shown to be a good model on this occasion. Imo.. why a simulation of a wave should produce the 'right answer' is the point of interest.
Best wishes - C2.
Of course you could be absolutely correct that the algoritm has limitations in
expressing reality, since it is a simulation.
Of course the Ashfar experiment might be showing that reality has the same limitations as the ripple tank .. and the ripple tank is shown to be a good model on this occasion. Imo.. why a simulation of a wave should produce the 'right answer' is the point of interest.
Best wishes - C2.
In a physics class we'd probably resolve the momentum into a component in the direction of interest and a component at right angles to this direction .. which would probably explain the result in three or four seconds.
Best wishes - C2.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi yquantum,TRoc, Laserlight, "Why Not?", Siau, Confused2, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,
QUOTE (Violation of Bohr’s Complementarity:Afshar+)
FIGURE 1. Wheeler’s experiment to demonstrate complementary wave and particle aspects of light. By placing a photosensitive surface at plane s1, an interference pattern can be observed. Alternatively, removing the detector at s1 allows unitary evolution, and spatial separation of the two beams farther downstream at plane s2 thus providing which-way information by virtue of the law of conservation of linear momentum. Note however, that now no evidence exists throughout the experiment of interference, seemingly confirming the validity of Complementarity.
Re Ashfar 'mystery'... Fig 1 is clearly an special case example of this "Fourier Optical Image processing device" I have used in many previous examples and you have all seen it and I hope understood it...
... Click to enlarge...
In relation to Afshar's Figure 1, Ψ1 and Ψ2 constitute an image input plane, a "transparency" with two point sources illuminated by parallel laser light as indicated in the above device... AS and s1 is a "circular aperture spatial filter" which is contained in the transform plane of the lens L (at its focus)...this is the plane of the "filtered" image of the transform of the two sources and is identical to the diagram. The filter applied is an extreme version of a simple low pass filter removing only the highest frequency components in the final restored image... What does Afshar expect to see by looking at the pinhole image (Camera Obscura) of this "filtered" image on the screen? He substitutes a "pinhole" for the secondary lens (focuses anywhere behind the "pinhole lens" out to infinity). The original image (input plane) contains only two point sources. This Fourier image processor is unremarkable in that removing some high frequency information from the "basically low frequency spatial image" does not alter the S2 plane information much at all. He is very careful to note/admit that there is a small distortion and this is where the whole problem is contained. "Essentially no interference term" is not the same as absolutely no interference term. The "devil" is in that detail. He does not correctly account for it as I have... it is a small amount of high frequency information that is to be found in the original sources.
I suggest that Ashftar simply replace the "screen" with an appropriate photographic emulsion and then note the image created on the developed plate after illuminating it with a parallel laser light of the same frequency. You will see interference fringes in the Hologram and a reconstruction of the two sources.
Break/cut this plate into two symmetrical pieces and you will find that each side will provide a secondary source image of the two pinholes. Repeat the experiment with only one source Ψ1 or Ψ2 at a time and the 1/2 plates will be different indicating there are interference effects.
The important point about Bohr’s Complementarity is not a bulk property of coherent light but a per photon property... if you like "a single quantum at a time" property. Each individual photon cannot exhibit wave and particle properties at the same time. His experiment shows that some photons can show a wave nature while other photons show a particle nature but not the same photons in both examples. The detection of a photon as a wave or as a particle is not the point... the image of the DSE is not a wave phenomenon it is a spatial phenomenon as I have stated. The detection of the photon in whatever pattern is a particle property not a wave property. What is really important is the lack of a measurement is not a measurement at all. Placing a wire in the dead zone indicates nothing about the experiment. If the photon is detected at s1 it is not available for detection at s2. If the photon is detected at s1 it "appears" to show the wave property but since the photons that are not detected still contain the entire, all or nothing qubit the detection at s2 will only show the focussed image plane subject to the spatial filter. The second "pinhole" lens provides the inverse Fourier Transform restoring the original image "less some filtered high frequency information" and nothing more. This is not a Bohr’s Complementarity Violation at all, just a misinterpretation of spatial filtering and in this case the limited effects of that spatial filtering.
Cheers
PS: For a primer on Fourier Optical Processing look at this and consider what you get with two point sources.... the DSE
An Intuitive Explanation of Fourier Theory
I would also point out that Afshar's Experiment is not without its critics... Myself among them...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment
It fails because the quantum postulate that photons have no individual history and are indistinguishable is wrong. Individual histories can be built up one photon in the instrument at a time wrecking the "no brainer" view of QFT. Perhaps Afshar's Experiments do have the virtue that they points out that simplistic statistical interpretation of QFT as simple statistics is dead wrong and I thank him for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)
... Click to enlarge...
In relation to Afshar's Figure 1, Ψ1 and Ψ2 constitute an image input plane, a "transparency" with two point sources illuminated by parallel laser light as indicated in the above device... AS and s1 is a "circular aperture spatial filter" which is contained in the transform plane of the lens L (at its focus)...this is the plane of the "filtered" image of the transform of the two sources and is identical to the diagram. The filter applied is an extreme version of a simple low pass filter removing only the highest frequency components in the final restored image... What does Afshar expect to see by looking at the pinhole image (Camera Obscura) of this "filtered" image on the screen? He substitutes a "pinhole" for the secondary lens (focuses anywhere behind the "pinhole lens" out to infinity). The original image (input plane) contains only two point sources. This Fourier image processor is unremarkable in that removing some high frequency information from the "basically low frequency spatial image" does not alter the S2 plane information much at all. He is very careful to note/admit that there is a small distortion and this is where the whole problem is contained. "Essentially no interference term" is not the same as absolutely no interference term. The "devil" is in that detail. He does not correctly account for it as I have... it is a small amount of high frequency information that is to be found in the original sources.
I suggest that Ashftar simply replace the "screen" with an appropriate photographic emulsion and then note the image created on the developed plate after illuminating it with a parallel laser light of the same frequency. You will see interference fringes in the Hologram and a reconstruction of the two sources.
Break/cut this plate into two symmetrical pieces and you will find that each side will provide a secondary source image of the two pinholes. Repeat the experiment with only one source Ψ1 or Ψ2 at a time and the 1/2 plates will be different indicating there are interference effects.
The important point about Bohr’s Complementarity is not a bulk property of coherent light but a per photon property... if you like "a single quantum at a time" property. Each individual photon cannot exhibit wave and particle properties at the same time. His experiment shows that some photons can show a wave nature while other photons show a particle nature but not the same photons in both examples. The detection of a photon as a wave or as a particle is not the point... the image of the DSE is not a wave phenomenon it is a spatial phenomenon as I have stated. The detection of the photon in whatever pattern is a particle property not a wave property. What is really important is the lack of a measurement is not a measurement at all. Placing a wire in the dead zone indicates nothing about the experiment. If the photon is detected at s1 it is not available for detection at s2. If the photon is detected at s1 it "appears" to show the wave property but since the photons that are not detected still contain the entire, all or nothing qubit the detection at s2 will only show the focussed image plane subject to the spatial filter. The second "pinhole" lens provides the inverse Fourier Transform restoring the original image "less some filtered high frequency information" and nothing more. This is not a Bohr’s Complementarity Violation at all, just a misinterpretation of spatial filtering and in this case the limited effects of that spatial filtering.
Cheers
PS: For a primer on Fourier Optical Processing look at this and consider what you get with two point sources.... the DSE
An Intuitive Explanation of Fourier Theory
I would also point out that Afshar's Experiment is not without its critics... Myself among them...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment
It fails because the quantum postulate that photons have no individual history and are indistinguishable is wrong. Individual histories can be built up one photon in the instrument at a time wrecking the "no brainer" view of QFT. Perhaps Afshar's Experiments do have the virtue that they points out that simplistic statistical interpretation of QFT as simple statistics is dead wrong and I thank him for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)
Re Ashfar:-
What I see is that the only way past the wire is by the interference effect (see ripple tank) .. and once the slits are (later) forced into one way or the other mode there is no longer any evidence of that interference effect.
Just saying what I see. Does anyone else see it too?
Best wishes - C2.
What I see is that the only way past the wire is by the interference effect (see ripple tank) .. and once the slits are (later) forced into one way or the other mode there is no longer any evidence of that interference effect.
Just saying what I see. Does anyone else see it too?
Best wishes - C2.
Hi all,
"Let's keep it to what we can see".
I agree with that, but with the caveat that "see" must be with more than our eyes. Even if we have to take 5,000 measurements, from every conceivable "path", what we can "piece together", through rigorous logic, can be the "answer".
All of the "Relativistic" ideas about moving observers can be left aside, in the DSE discussion. We really only need to be concerned with the relative difference of our "particle" (wave-center) phase speeds and positions.
GE has let another cat out of the bag (a little early). "..about the Ehrenfest Paradox and this is linked with the arguments I have been making about the "one observer" distortions of Special Relativity" , but , at least is seeing the connection I have been talking about, between "1 observer", and the very different DEFINITIONS that are used between our two main Theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
Again, we are NOT talking about "electrons" (having mass), and that means that the speed of " c " is the "norm" in our phase relationship. Because of the RI changes to velocity, we are going to also be dealing with OVER the limit interactions. This is NOT something you will find in the "text book", AFAIK.
How about co-moving observers? IE the phase nodes & anti-nodes, and their ability to "move past each other without crossing".
We get to our set of "observers"; the QM equivalent to a "harmonic series".
Again, we are NOT talking about "electrons" (having mass), and that means that the speed of " c " is the "norm" in our phase relationship. Because of the RI changes to velocity, we are going to also be dealing with OVER the limit interactions. This is NOT something you will find in the "text book", AFAIK.
How about co-moving observers? IE the phase nodes & anti-nodes, and their ability to "move past each other without crossing".
We get to our set of "observers"; the QM equivalent to a "harmonic series".
This frame was apparently first introduced (implicitly) by Paul Langevin in 1935; its first explicit use appears to have been by T. A. Weber, as recently as 1997! It is defined on the region 0 < R < 1/ω; this limitation is fundamental, since near the outer boundary, the velocity of the Langevin observers approaches the speed of light.
It obviously has been "lying around" for some time.
Max Born decided to make a chart out of the "potential answers" that these observers report. hmmmm..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_coordinates
Part of the helical world line of a typical Langevin observer (red curve), depicted in the cylindrical chart, with some future pointing light cones (gold) with the frame vectors assigned by the Langevin frame (black rods). In this figure, the Z coordinate is inessential and has been suppressed. The white cylinder shows a locus of constant radius; the dashed green line represents the symmetry axis R=0. The blue curve is an integral curve of the azimuthal unit vector .
(emphasis added)
Using different terminology, we are back to my previous point: now, it is the "timeline" that is being forced into the shoes of "an integer", comparing it to the "line of simultaneity", and not getting a "match".
This is exactly the problem of the scale, in music, before it was "quantized" with the chromatic scale.
If you have some "inconsistencies" in your Fundamental Definitions, you get "interpretations problems".
An attempt to define a notion of "space at a time" for our Langevin observers, depicted in the Born chart. This attempt is doomed to fail for at least two reasons! This figure depicts the region 0 < r < 1 when ω = 1/5, with a discontinuity at φ = π. The radial ray from which we have "grown" the integral curves to make the surface is at φ=0 (on the far side in this image).
(emphasis added)
Using different terminology, we are back to my previous point: now, it is the "timeline" that is being forced into the shoes of "an integer", comparing it to the "line of simultaneity", and not getting a "match".
This is exactly the problem of the scale, in music, before it was "quantized" with the chromatic scale.
If you have some "inconsistencies" in your Fundamental Definitions, you get "interpretations problems".
An attempt to define a notion of "space at a time" for our Langevin observers, depicted in the Born chart. This attempt is doomed to fail for at least two reasons! This figure depicts the region 0 < r < 1 when ω = 1/5, with a discontinuity at φ = π. The radial ray from which we have "grown" the integral curves to make the surface is at φ=0 (on the far side in this image).
Second, as the figure shows, our attempted hyperslice would lead to a discontinuous notion of "time" due to the "jumps" in the integral curves (shown as a coral colored discontinuity). Alternatively, we could try to use a multivalued time. Neither of these alternatives seems very attractive! This is evidently a global obstruction. It is of course a consequence of our inability to synchronize the clocks of the Langevin observers riding even a single ring---say the rim of a disk--- much less an entire disk.
Interestingly, I find that I am not having this problem, using a dimensionless method, where time is only defined as "a unit" (constant). This approach also leaves the "inverse parameters" with the ability to move in less than integer steps, which resolves where these legendary "jumps" in values are derived, causing great alarm, and the "need" to postulate.
Thus, in some sense, the geometry of a rotating disk is curved, as Theodor Kaluza claimed (without proof) as early as 1910. In fact, to fourth order in ω it has the geometry of the hyperbolic plane, just as Kaluza claimed.
Warning: as we have seen, there are many possible notions of distance which can be employed by Langevin observers riding on a rigidly rotating disk, so statements referring to "the geometry of a rotating disk" always require careful qualification.
Certainly, you will recall my references to the hyperbolic triangle?? GE, didn't like it, but for the wrong reasons. (constant ratios)
There is a metric, in which we can bridge the interpretations of QM and G/SR.
out of time..
some "further reading":
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9906/9906107v2.pdf
Unravelling quantum carpets: a travelling wave approach
Certainly, you will recall my references to the hyperbolic triangle?? GE, didn't like it, but for the wrong reasons. (constant ratios)
There is a metric, in which we can bridge the interpretations of QM and G/SR.
out of time..
some "further reading":
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9906/9906107v2.pdf
Unravelling quantum carpets: a travelling wave approach
Abstract
Generic channel and ridge structures are known to appear in the time-dependent position probability distribution of a one-dimensional quantum particle confined to a box. These structures are shown to have a detailed quantitative explanation in terms of a travelling-wave decomposition of the probability density, wherein each contributing term corresponds simultaneously to (i) a real wave propagating at
a quantised velocity and (ii) to the time-averaged structure of the position distribution along a quantised direction in spacetime. The approach leads to new predictions of channel locations, widths and depths, and is able to provide more structural details than earlier approaches based on partial interference and Wigner functions. Results are also applicable to light diffracted by a periodic grating, and to the quantum rigid rotator.
http://striky.ece.jhu.edu/~sasha/AEK.pubs/117.pdf
Fully Relativistic Theory of the Ponderomotive Force in an Ultraintense Standing Wave
regards,
T.Roc
"Let's keep it to what we can see".
I agree with that, but with the caveat that "see" must be with more than our eyes. Even if we have to take 5,000 measurements, from every conceivable "path", what we can "piece together", through rigorous logic, can be the "answer".
All of the "Relativistic" ideas about moving observers can be left aside, in the DSE discussion. We really only need to be concerned with the relative difference of our "particle" (wave-center) phase speeds and positions.
GE has let another cat out of the bag (a little early). "..about the Ehrenfest Paradox and this is linked with the arguments I have been making about the "one observer" distortions of Special Relativity" , but , at least is seeing the connection I have been talking about, between "1 observer", and the very different DEFINITIONS that are used between our two main Theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
QUOTE
The modern resolution of the "paradox" can be briefly summarized as follows:
Small distances measured by disk-riding observers are described by the Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric, which is indeed well approximated (for small angular velocity) by the geometry of the hyperbolic plane, just as Kaluza had claimed.
For physically reasonable materials, during the spin-up phase a real disk expands radially due to centrifugal forces; relativistic corrections partially counteract (but do not cancel) this Newtonian effect. After a steady-state rotation is achieved and the disk has been allowed to relax, the geometry "in the small" is approximately given by the Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric.
Small distances measured by disk-riding observers are described by the Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric, which is indeed well approximated (for small angular velocity) by the geometry of the hyperbolic plane, just as Kaluza had claimed.
For physically reasonable materials, during the spin-up phase a real disk expands radially due to centrifugal forces; relativistic corrections partially counteract (but do not cancel) this Newtonian effect. After a steady-state rotation is achieved and the disk has been allowed to relax, the geometry "in the small" is approximately given by the Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric.
Again, we are NOT talking about "electrons" (having mass), and that means that the speed of " c " is the "norm" in our phase relationship. Because of the RI changes to velocity, we are going to also be dealing with OVER the limit interactions. This is NOT something you will find in the "text book", AFAIK.
How about co-moving observers? IE the phase nodes & anti-nodes, and their ability to "move past each other without crossing".
We get to our set of "observers"; the QM equivalent to a "harmonic series".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The modern resolution of the "paradox" can be briefly summarized as follows: Small distances measured by disk-riding observers are described by the Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric, which is indeed well approximated (for small angular velocity) by the geometry of the hyperbolic plane, just as Kaluza had claimed. For physically reasonable materials, during the spin-up phase a real disk expands radially due to centrifugal forces; relativistic corrections partially counteract (but do not cancel) this Newtonian effect. After a steady-state rotation is achieved and the disk has been allowed to relax, the geometry "in the small" is approximately given by the Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric. |
Again, we are NOT talking about "electrons" (having mass), and that means that the speed of " c " is the "norm" in our phase relationship. Because of the RI changes to velocity, we are going to also be dealing with OVER the limit interactions. This is NOT something you will find in the "text book", AFAIK.
How about co-moving observers? IE the phase nodes & anti-nodes, and their ability to "move past each other without crossing".
We get to our set of "observers"; the QM equivalent to a "harmonic series".
This frame was apparently first introduced (implicitly) by Paul Langevin in 1935; its first explicit use appears to have been by T. A. Weber, as recently as 1997! It is defined on the region 0 < R < 1/ω; this limitation is fundamental, since near the outer boundary, the velocity of the Langevin observers approaches the speed of light.
It obviously has been "lying around" for some time.
Max Born decided to make a chart out of the "potential answers" that these observers report. hmmmm..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_coordinates
Part of the helical world line of a typical Langevin observer (red curve), depicted in the cylindrical chart, with some future pointing light cones (gold) with the frame vectors assigned by the Langevin frame (black rods). In this figure, the Z coordinate is inessential and has been suppressed. The white cylinder shows a locus of constant radius; the dashed green line represents the symmetry axis R=0. The blue curve is an integral curve of the azimuthal unit vector .
QUOTE
Each integral curve of the timelike unit vector field appears in the cylindrical chart as a helix with constant radius (such as the red curve in the figure at right). Suppose we choose one Langevin observer and consider the other observers who ride on a ring of radius R which is rigidly rotating with angular velocity ω. Then if we take an integral curve (blue helical curve in the figure at right) of the spacelike basis vector , we obtain a curve which we might hope can be interpreted as a "line of simultaneity" for the ring-riding observers. But as we see from the figure, ideal clocks carried by these ring-riding observers cannot be synchronized. This is our first hint that it is not as easy as one might expect to define a satisfactory notion of spatial geometry even for a rotating ring, much less a rotating disk!
(emphasis added)
Using different terminology, we are back to my previous point: now, it is the "timeline" that is being forced into the shoes of "an integer", comparing it to the "line of simultaneity", and not getting a "match".
This is exactly the problem of the scale, in music, before it was "quantized" with the chromatic scale.
If you have some "inconsistencies" in your Fundamental Definitions, you get "interpretations problems".
An attempt to define a notion of "space at a time" for our Langevin observers, depicted in the Born chart. This attempt is doomed to fail for at least two reasons! This figure depicts the region 0 < r < 1 when ω = 1/5, with a discontinuity at φ = π. The radial ray from which we have "grown" the integral curves to make the surface is at φ=0 (on the far side in this image).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Each integral curve of the timelike unit vector field appears in the cylindrical chart as a helix with constant radius (such as the red curve in the figure at right). Suppose we choose one Langevin observer and consider the other observers who ride on a ring of radius R which is rigidly rotating with angular velocity ω. Then if we take an integral curve (blue helical curve in the figure at right) of the spacelike basis vector , we obtain a curve which we might hope can be interpreted as a "line of simultaneity" for the ring-riding observers. But as we see from the figure, ideal clocks carried by these ring-riding observers cannot be synchronized. This is our first hint that it is not as easy as one might expect to define a satisfactory notion of spatial geometry even for a rotating ring, much less a rotating disk! |
(emphasis added)
Using different terminology, we are back to my previous point: now, it is the "timeline" that is being forced into the shoes of "an integer", comparing it to the "line of simultaneity", and not getting a "match".
This is exactly the problem of the scale, in music, before it was "quantized" with the chromatic scale.
If you have some "inconsistencies" in your Fundamental Definitions, you get "interpretations problems".
An attempt to define a notion of "space at a time" for our Langevin observers, depicted in the Born chart. This attempt is doomed to fail for at least two reasons! This figure depicts the region 0 < r < 1 when ω = 1/5, with a discontinuity at φ = π. The radial ray from which we have "grown" the integral curves to make the surface is at φ=0 (on the far side in this image).
Second, as the figure shows, our attempted hyperslice would lead to a discontinuous notion of "time" due to the "jumps" in the integral curves (shown as a coral colored discontinuity). Alternatively, we could try to use a multivalued time. Neither of these alternatives seems very attractive! This is evidently a global obstruction. It is of course a consequence of our inability to synchronize the clocks of the Langevin observers riding even a single ring---say the rim of a disk--- much less an entire disk.
Interestingly, I find that I am not having this problem, using a dimensionless method, where time is only defined as "a unit" (constant). This approach also leaves the "inverse parameters" with the ability to move in less than integer steps, which resolves where these legendary "jumps" in values are derived, causing great alarm, and the "need" to postulate.
QUOTE
Even in flat spacetime, it turns out that accelerating observers (even linearly accelerating observers; see Rindler coordinates) can employ various distinct but operationally significant notions of distance. Perhaps the simplest of these is radar distance.
..
Thus, while radar distance has a simple operational significance, it is not even symmetric.
..
By requiring that the line segments connecting these events be null, we obtain an equation which in principle we can solve for Δ s. It turns out that this procedure gives a rather complicated nonlinear equation, so we simply present some representative numerical results. With R0 = 1, Φ = π/2, and ω = 1/10, we find that the radar distance from A to B is about 1.308, while the distance from B to A is about 1.505. As ω tends to zero, both results tend toward
.
Despite these possibly discouraging discrepancies, it is by no means impossible to devise a coordinate chart which is adapted to describing the physical experience of a single Langevin observer, or even a single arbitrarily accelerating observer in Minkowski spacetime. Pauri and Vallisneri have adapted the Märzke-Wheeler clock synchronization procedure to devise adapted coordinates they call Märzke-Wheeler coordinates (see the paper cited below). In the case of steady circular motion, this chart is in fact very closely related to the notion of radar distance "in the large" from a given Langevin observer.
..
Thus, while radar distance has a simple operational significance, it is not even symmetric.
..
By requiring that the line segments connecting these events be null, we obtain an equation which in principle we can solve for Δ s. It turns out that this procedure gives a rather complicated nonlinear equation, so we simply present some representative numerical results. With R0 = 1, Φ = π/2, and ω = 1/10, we find that the radar distance from A to B is about 1.308, while the distance from B to A is about 1.505. As ω tends to zero, both results tend toward
.Despite these possibly discouraging discrepancies, it is by no means impossible to devise a coordinate chart which is adapted to describing the physical experience of a single Langevin observer, or even a single arbitrarily accelerating observer in Minkowski spacetime. Pauri and Vallisneri have adapted the Märzke-Wheeler clock synchronization procedure to devise adapted coordinates they call Märzke-Wheeler coordinates (see the paper cited below). In the case of steady circular motion, this chart is in fact very closely related to the notion of radar distance "in the large" from a given Langevin observer.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Even in flat spacetime, it turns out that accelerating observers (even linearly accelerating observers; see Rindler coordinates) can employ various distinct but operationally significant notions of distance. Perhaps the simplest of these is radar distance. .. Thus, while radar distance has a simple operational significance, it is not even symmetric. .. By requiring that the line segments connecting these events be null, we obtain an equation which in principle we can solve for Δ s. It turns out that this procedure gives a rather complicated nonlinear equation, so we simply present some representative numerical results. With R0 = 1, Φ = π/2, and ω = 1/10, we find that the radar distance from A to B is about 1.308, while the distance from B to A is about 1.505. As ω tends to zero, both results tend toward .Despite these possibly discouraging discrepancies, it is by no means impossible to devise a coordinate chart which is adapted to describing the physical experience of a single Langevin observer, or even a single arbitrarily accelerating observer in Minkowski spacetime. Pauri and Vallisneri have adapted the Märzke-Wheeler clock synchronization procedure to devise adapted coordinates they call Märzke-Wheeler coordinates (see the paper cited below). In the case of steady circular motion, this chart is in fact very closely related to the notion of radar distance "in the large" from a given Langevin observer. |
Thus, in some sense, the geometry of a rotating disk is curved, as Theodor Kaluza claimed (without proof) as early as 1910. In fact, to fourth order in ω it has the geometry of the hyperbolic plane, just as Kaluza claimed.
Warning: as we have seen, there are many possible notions of distance which can be employed by Langevin observers riding on a rigidly rotating disk, so statements referring to "the geometry of a rotating disk" always require careful qualification.
QUOTE
Summary
Observers riding on a rigidly rotating disk will conclude from measurements of small distances between themselves that the geometry of the disk is non-Euclidean. Regardless of which method they use, they will conclude that the geometry is well approximated by a certain Riemannian metric, namely the Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric. This is in turn very well approximated by the geometry of the hyperbolic plane (with the constant negative curvature -3 ω2). But if these observers measure larger distances, they will obtain different results, depending upon which method of measurement they use! In all such cases, however, they will most likely obtain results which are inconsistent with any Riemannian metric. In particular, if they use the simplest notion of distance, radar distance, owing to various effects such as the asymmetry already noted, they will conclude that the "geometry" of the disk is not only non-Euclidean, it is non-Riemannian.
Observers riding on a rigidly rotating disk will conclude from measurements of small distances between themselves that the geometry of the disk is non-Euclidean. Regardless of which method they use, they will conclude that the geometry is well approximated by a certain Riemannian metric, namely the Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric. This is in turn very well approximated by the geometry of the hyperbolic plane (with the constant negative curvature -3 ω2). But if these observers measure larger distances, they will obtain different results, depending upon which method of measurement they use! In all such cases, however, they will most likely obtain results which are inconsistent with any Riemannian metric. In particular, if they use the simplest notion of distance, radar distance, owing to various effects such as the asymmetry already noted, they will conclude that the "geometry" of the disk is not only non-Euclidean, it is non-Riemannian.
Certainly, you will recall my references to the hyperbolic triangle?? GE, didn't like it, but for the wrong reasons.
(constant ratios)There is a metric, in which we can bridge the interpretations of QM and G/SR.
out of time..
some "further reading":
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9906/9906107v2.pdf
Unravelling quantum carpets: a travelling wave approach
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Summary Observers riding on a rigidly rotating disk will conclude from measurements of small distances between themselves that the geometry of the disk is non-Euclidean. Regardless of which method they use, they will conclude that the geometry is well approximated by a certain Riemannian metric, namely the Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric. This is in turn very well approximated by the geometry of the hyperbolic plane (with the constant negative curvature -3 ω2). But if these observers measure larger distances, they will obtain different results, depending upon which method of measurement they use! In all such cases, however, they will most likely obtain results which are inconsistent with any Riemannian metric. In particular, if they use the simplest notion of distance, radar distance, owing to various effects such as the asymmetry already noted, they will conclude that the "geometry" of the disk is not only non-Euclidean, it is non-Riemannian. |
Certainly, you will recall my references to the hyperbolic triangle?? GE, didn't like it, but for the wrong reasons.
(constant ratios)There is a metric, in which we can bridge the interpretations of QM and G/SR.
out of time..
some "further reading":
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9906/9906107v2.pdf
Unravelling quantum carpets: a travelling wave approach
Abstract
Generic channel and ridge structures are known to appear in the time-dependent position probability distribution of a one-dimensional quantum particle confined to a box. These structures are shown to have a detailed quantitative explanation in terms of a travelling-wave decomposition of the probability density, wherein each contributing term corresponds simultaneously to (i) a real wave propagating at
a quantised velocity and (ii) to the time-averaged structure of the position distribution along a quantised direction in spacetime. The approach leads to new predictions of channel locations, widths and depths, and is able to provide more structural details than earlier approaches based on partial interference and Wigner functions. Results are also applicable to light diffracted by a periodic grating, and to the quantum rigid rotator.
http://striky.ece.jhu.edu/~sasha/AEK.pubs/117.pdf
Fully Relativistic Theory of the Ponderomotive Force in an Ultraintense Standing Wave
QUOTE
A relativistic field-gradient (ponderomotive) force in a laser standing wave ceases to exist in a familiar form; e.g., the adiabatic Hamiltonian is not separable into kinetic and potential energies for electrons moving in the antinode planes. We show that the force in the direction across the initial motion of an electron reverses its sign and makes the high-field areas attractive for electrons, opposite to a regular ponderomotive force. The reversal occurs at a relativistic-scale incident momentum, and represents the only effect known so far that pins down a distinct borderline between relativistic and nonrelativistic motion.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi Hi Confused2, yquantum,TRoc, Laserlight, "Why Not?", Siau, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,
QUOTE (Violation of Bohr’s Complementarity:Afshar - Conclusion+)
The null measurement achieved by the passive presence of the wire(s) demonstrates for the first time that one can make meaningful measurements without an interaction or quantum entanglement with the measuring device i.e. the wire(s). This observation necessitates a revision of the current theory of measurement in which a measurement always leads to a change in the quantum state of the detector, which will be fully addressed elsewhere.
A null measurement is not a measurement at all. You must actually measure a property of the photon to collapse the wave function. There are plenty of places where there will be no detections simply because the wave function is close to zero there... these non-detections actually prove nothing other than nothing was measured in those places. Until you actually measure the position of the photon it will not collapse the wave function. A photon detector always measures particle properties of photons so the "brightness or intensity" of a double slit interference pattern at s1 represents nothing other than photons being detected as particles.... you know ... click, click, click... etc. This is the same at S2.... click, click, click... etc. These are detecting particles not waves.
There is no intrinsic difference between the input plane, the transform plane and the image plane other than they represent (in order) source, Fourier transform of source, the Inverse Fourier transform of the Fourier transform of the source which is simply the source again. This Fourier transform of the source is simply subjected to a low pass filter then converted back into the source with a slight loss in the high frequencies. One unintended side issue is the sources are subjected to magnification as all pinhole camera obscura images are... to restore interference patterns you need to proceed to restore the same physical scale of the sources as indicated further below.
The transform plane contains absolutely nothing until you detect something there. Once you detect something there the wave function for that one photon being detected collapses globally. It does not follow that this is demonstrating wave properties of light only the interference between the two sources. For the actual frequency of light used these actual wavelengths are not resolved by the DSE.
Come on folks... this is "easy peezy". Doesn't everyone see this?
Cheers
Hi GE,
the way waves interfere and the results can become inverse Fourier is not new and has been discussed in this thread many times...
This however does not account for the 'particle' properties ..
Jan Rinze.
janrinze, I am to blame => my intentions were have everyone step back & rethink all that has been said.
As you see it did not work.
caio_
yquantum
There is no intrinsic difference between the input plane, the transform plane and the image plane other than they represent (in order) source, Fourier transform of source, the Inverse Fourier transform of the Fourier transform of the source which is simply the source again. This Fourier transform of the source is simply subjected to a low pass filter then converted back into the source with a slight loss in the high frequencies. One unintended side issue is the sources are subjected to magnification as all pinhole camera obscura images are... to restore interference patterns you need to proceed to restore the same physical scale of the sources as indicated further below.
The transform plane contains absolutely nothing until you detect something there. Once you detect something there the wave function for that one photon being detected collapses globally. It does not follow that this is demonstrating wave properties of light only the interference between the two sources. For the actual frequency of light used these actual wavelengths are not resolved by the DSE.
QUOTE (Violation of Bohr’s Complementarity:Afshar - Conclusion+)
These results also highlight the inadequacy of classical language of waves and particles in describing seemingly simple experiments, for if we insist on using the wave picture to describe the lack of reduction of radiant flux and beam profile resolution by the wire(s), then we are forced to describe the pattern observed at plane s2 as an interference pattern without any fringes as evidence of the interference.
:Afshar does understand that the first transform converts the source to an "interference pattern" in a reciprocal space and the next transform on the interference pattern converts it back into a magnified version of a secondary source by doing a reciprocal of the reciprocal space again reforming the original twin sources through a finite sized pinhole (Camera Obscura). Of course you cant explain this with the simple DSE equations Confused2 is so fond of... you need to use Fourier theory and to admit this is the process involved.
Afshar is saying absence of evidence is evidence... I say absence of evidence is evidence of absence only when we are concerned with quanta. There is absolutely nothing "novel" in this experiment and nulls at the position of the wires show nulls in the spreading boson wave packets. "Particles" are not there unless you actually "force" detection.
Come on Confused2, show how your DSE equations handle this one eh? Explain please... You have always said that that one equation is all you need.
You can completely restore the interference effect in Asfsar's experiment once again by placing another lens of the same focal length as "L" to the right of the "large pinhole - spatial filter" spaced further away to the right of my illustration. This will recreate the transform plane image in a 1:1 magnification in place of the S2 plane at a distance of 2F to the right. In other words this whole system can be duplicated once again with further lenses and the interference pattern will once again appear a distance of 2F distance from the original inverse transform plane.... as a "secondary reconstructed source".
... Click to enlarge...
Just set another image plane and then a transform plane (which you can allow to fall on a screen ... or not if you want) to the right of the rightmost "image plane" above. Finish off with a "pinhole" if you like... Believe me this is the same experiment. Now you will see the mutual interference again between identical sized dual sources as originally noted in the leftmost "Input plane". We can keep adding lenses and so on till the cows come home and the interference will still exist interspersed with sources... as long as there are photons with qubits to space and as long as we maintain the same scale since this interference pattern will not be duplicated exactly unless the dimensions remain the same. You can't get "between" virtual secondary sources without further matching intervening transform planes.
For reference here is another similar device ... perhaps it being redrawn may help understanding...
.. Click to enlarge...
Here we see "diffraction pattern" and "mask" being used to filter a scan line artifact from a full picture (transparency or raster scan image created on a high res transparent LCD) illuminated with a collimated spread laser beam that covers the entire "scene"... we have at (A) a DSE in the interference pattern with a superimposed circular mask removing (clipping) the higher frequencies from the image (the DSE pattern) with those "Vees"... note we are altering the spatial image not altering any primary frequency. The rest of the image is blocked.... Low frequency spatially filtered. The pristine image is shown to the right with the scan line artifact removed through removal of the spatial frequencies related to that artifact... these run north south in the transform while the scan line artifact runs east west in the original image.
Come on folks... this is "easy peezy". Doesn't everyone see this?
Cheers
Afshar is saying absence of evidence is evidence... I say absence of evidence is evidence of absence only when we are concerned with quanta. There is absolutely nothing "novel" in this experiment and nulls at the position of the wires show nulls in the spreading boson wave packets. "Particles" are not there unless you actually "force" detection.
Come on Confused2, show how your DSE equations handle this one eh? Explain please... You have always said that that one equation is all you need.
You can completely restore the interference effect in Asfsar's experiment once again by placing another lens of the same focal length as "L" to the right of the "large pinhole - spatial filter" spaced further away to the right of my illustration. This will recreate the transform plane image in a 1:1 magnification in place of the S2 plane at a distance of 2F to the right. In other words this whole system can be duplicated once again with further lenses and the interference pattern will once again appear a distance of 2F distance from the original inverse transform plane.... as a "secondary reconstructed source".
... Click to enlarge...
Just set another image plane and then a transform plane (which you can allow to fall on a screen ... or not if you want) to the right of the rightmost "image plane" above. Finish off with a "pinhole" if you like... Believe me this is the same experiment. Now you will see the mutual interference again between identical sized dual sources as originally noted in the leftmost "Input plane". We can keep adding lenses and so on till the cows come home and the interference will still exist interspersed with sources... as long as there are photons with qubits to space and as long as we maintain the same scale since this interference pattern will not be duplicated exactly unless the dimensions remain the same. You can't get "between" virtual secondary sources without further matching intervening transform planes.
For reference here is another similar device ... perhaps it being redrawn may help understanding...
.. Click to enlarge...
Here we see "diffraction pattern" and "mask" being used to filter a scan line artifact from a full picture (transparency or raster scan image created on a high res transparent LCD) illuminated with a collimated spread laser beam that covers the entire "scene"... we have at (A) a DSE in the interference pattern with a superimposed circular mask removing (clipping) the higher frequencies from the image (the DSE pattern) with those "Vees"... note we are altering the spatial image not altering any primary frequency. The rest of the image is blocked.... Low frequency spatially filtered. The pristine image is shown to the right with the scan line artifact removed through removal of the spatial frequencies related to that artifact... these run north south in the transform while the scan line artifact runs east west in the original image.
Come on folks... this is "easy peezy". Doesn't everyone see this?
Cheers
Hello Good Elf, et al.
The way I see it is that each point from the "input scene" generates a cone of light (lens diameter) that is focused to a diffraction pattern at the focal point of the lens. Putting a filter at the focal point can remove unwanted diffraction induced information from the "input scene". Diffraction requires an input pattern (embedded in the "input scene) for it to develop at a focal point. Different filters will remove different patterns from the "input scene".
Basically the wires, in the Afshar experiment, are a filter that does not filter any information from the "input scene" (two pinholes).
Comments or discussion welcome.
The way I see it is that each point from the "input scene" generates a cone of light (lens diameter) that is focused to a diffraction pattern at the focal point of the lens. Putting a filter at the focal point can remove unwanted diffraction induced information from the "input scene". Diffraction requires an input pattern (embedded in the "input scene) for it to develop at a focal point. Different filters will remove different patterns from the "input scene".
Basically the wires, in the Afshar experiment, are a filter that does not filter any information from the "input scene" (two pinholes).
Comments or discussion welcome.
Good Elf, C2, TRoc, Laserlight, "Why Not?", Siau, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,
I was hoping a different perspective would show you that you are the the only ones working on the problem and they like most are working towards the same goal. I did not expect a war of opinions.
No one can explain the DSE, if you could then I would be reading about you in the next PJ.
Please step back and look at the original test, this is just plain 101 the type I would show "THEY2" & "THEY" most likely has already tried this for her.
My desire is that everyone can find a common category of events distinguished by some common characteristic or quality of DSE then work from there.
http://www.cavendishscience.org/phys/tyoung/tyoung.htm
Good Elf, if you will look when my remark was made I was just trying to keep all the punches above the waist.
As much as mathematics is required of me personally each day, I sometimes just need look & understand what I am trying to achieve. Math can become abstract so much -- you can lose focus but in QM it is a must.
Plain & simple=> in my work there seems never a time for such extravagance.
I have never found it that simple when dealing with QM/weirdness. SORRY!
caio_
yquantum
I was hoping a different perspective would show you that you are the the only ones working on the problem and they like most are working towards the same goal. I did not expect a war of opinions.
No one can explain the DSE, if you could then I would be reading about you in the next PJ.
Please step back and look at the original test, this is just plain 101 the type I would show "THEY2" & "THEY" most likely has already tried this for her.
My desire is that everyone can find a common category of events distinguished by some common characteristic or quality of DSE then work from there.
http://www.cavendishscience.org/phys/tyoung/tyoung.htm
Good Elf, if you will look when my remark was made I was just trying to keep all the punches above the waist.
As much as mathematics is required of me personally each day, I sometimes just need look & understand what I am trying to achieve. Math can become abstract so much -- you can lose focus but in QM it is a must.
Plain & simple=> in my work there seems never a time for such extravagance.
QUOTE
Come on folks... this is "easy peezy". Doesn't everyone see this?
=>GEI have never found it that simple when dealing with QM/weirdness. SORRY!
caio_
yquantum
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 22 2007, 04:22 PM)
Come on folks... this is "easy peezy". Doesn't everyone see this?
Cheers
Hi GE,
the way waves interfere and the results can become inverse Fourier is not new and has been discussed in this thread many times...
This however does not account for the 'particle' properties ..
Jan Rinze.
QUOTE
:Afshar
janrinze, I am to blame => my intentions were have everyone step back & rethink all that has been said.
As you see it did not work.
caio_
yquantum
Hi Janrinze, Montec, yquantum, Confused2,TRoc, Laserlight, "Why Not?", Siau, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2" et al,
No "war" going on here, just a friendly discussion. I have been hoping that someone would engage me on this topic... it is awful having no feedback at all...
No "war" going on here, just a friendly discussion. I have been hoping that someone would engage me on this topic... it is awful having no feedback at all...
QUOTE (Janrinze+)
the way waves interfere and the results can become inverse Fourier is not new and has been discussed in this thread many times...
This however does not account for the 'particle' properties ..
This however does not account for the 'particle' properties ..
If this explanation has not "accounted for particle properties" someone will need to define how many particle properties you need to define and what these might be. Do you mean the Standard Model Particle Properties? As far as I see it Adshar detects a photon at a point in a plane with a simple optical sensor.... that is it! Some places the photon is detected as a particle and at others it is not able to be detected as a particle.
QUOTE (yquantum+)
As much as mathematics is required of me personally each day, I sometimes just need look & understand what I am trying to achieve. Math can become abstract so much -- you can lose focus but in QM it is a must.
Maths is a must but this maths can be found in simple texts as being stated by Yquantum. Just trying to keep it very simple. This only means that it is relatively easy to understand. This is an experiment and maths already accounts for Fourier transformations of "images" (which are just large collections of sources that are all correlated. In this case, as Montec has stated, the "image or source" is simply two distributed correlated sources... the DSE pinhole sources.Careful examination of the optical system of Asfshar's experiment indicate it is a special case of a Fourier image processor as stated. In the second illustration above it is thousands of distributed sources of differing intensity and distribution (a transparency of a "real scene"), but all correlated due to illumination by the single parallel and diverged coherent source... This makes for a fully correlated "image composed of a large number of distributed secondary sources".
The detection of a photon, at either the transform plane S1 or the reconstructed image (source) plane S2, is a particle detection.... we are using a particle (photon) detector. Are we agreed on this we are determining particle properties at the detectors and not wave properties? We "infer" wave properties for photons when we see that this pattern can only be caused by propagating waves... and not by particles... Yes?
The time domain impulse properties of the photon are the particle properties and the transform in the frequency domain are the wave properties (the sync packet) that you really cannot detect simultaneously. This I believe is the real meaning of Bohr’s Complementarity... Photon by photon you cannot measure both the wave and the particle properties without the wave function collapse. Or for that matter you can't measure both position and momentum (or a number of other conjugate variables) at the same time... these are also in conjugate (reciprocal) domains as well ... this is the real meaning of HUP (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). You do not need quantum theory to derive this relationship... it just so happens that there is a quantum theory version of this which should be a simple mathematical fact/consequence and not a quantum "postulate". As Janrinze has stated I have already dealt with this issue previously on this thread as the meaning of HUP not as "errors"in position and momentum but as conjugate domain parameters.
...Click to enlarge...
You all know the one dimensional function of Fourier Transforms.. This is a two dimensional function in Bessel Functions which can be further extended to three dimensions (as required). There exist papers that can already show this being a seamless and lossless transform in any number of dimensions. Particle properties are resident in the impulse in the time domain and the wave properties are found in the frequency domain.... conjugates. As you all know there is only a small hop from here to Schrodinger's Wave Equation.
I would like someone to define what it is that is "missing" from this picture. Just a friendly question here to explain the result of a relatively simple experiment... Right? No need for anger or panic or to "call out the guard".
All responses are happily accepted with the best possible good humor... Finally a good pithy discussion.
Cheers
The detection of a photon, at either the transform plane S1 or the reconstructed image (source) plane S2, is a particle detection.... we are using a particle (photon) detector. Are we agreed on this we are determining particle properties at the detectors and not wave properties? We "infer" wave properties for photons when we see that this pattern can only be caused by propagating waves... and not by particles... Yes?
The time domain impulse properties of the photon are the particle properties and the transform in the frequency domain are the wave properties (the sync packet) that you really cannot detect simultaneously. This I believe is the real meaning of Bohr’s Complementarity... Photon by photon you cannot measure both the wave and the particle properties without the wave function collapse. Or for that matter you can't measure both position and momentum (or a number of other conjugate variables) at the same time... these are also in conjugate (reciprocal) domains as well ... this is the real meaning of HUP (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). You do not need quantum theory to derive this relationship... it just so happens that there is a quantum theory version of this which should be a simple mathematical fact/consequence and not a quantum "postulate". As Janrinze has stated I have already dealt with this issue previously on this thread as the meaning of HUP not as "errors"in position and momentum but as conjugate domain parameters.
...Click to enlarge...
You all know the one dimensional function of Fourier Transforms.. This is a two dimensional function in Bessel Functions which can be further extended to three dimensions (as required). There exist papers that can already show this being a seamless and lossless transform in any number of dimensions. Particle properties are resident in the impulse in the time domain and the wave properties are found in the frequency domain.... conjugates. As you all know there is only a small hop from here to Schrodinger's Wave Equation.
I would like someone to define what it is that is "missing" from this picture. Just a friendly question here to explain the result of a relatively simple experiment... Right?
No need for anger or panic or to "call out the guard".All responses are happily accepted with the best possible good humor... Finally a good pithy discussion.
Cheers
Good Elf
I'm no good at paraphasing so I just point you into a direction for you to evaluate.
Some of your question can be answered in this paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2935
Loss of entanglement in quantum mechanics due to the use of realistic measuring rods
Authors: Rodolfo Gambini, Rafael A. Porto, Jorge Pullin
(Submitted on 21 Aug 2007)
jal
I'm no good at paraphasing so I just point you into a direction for you to evaluate.
Some of your question can be answered in this paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2935
Loss of entanglement in quantum mechanics due to the use of realistic measuring rods
Authors: Rodolfo Gambini, Rafael A. Porto, Jorge Pullin
(Submitted on 21 Aug 2007)
jal
Hey Good Elf, Janrinze, Montec, yquantum, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, Neil Farbstein, "THEY" and "THEY2" et al,
Excellent! Just one question, what is the reciprocal of the space domain?
Mahalo.
Excellent! Just one question, what is the reciprocal of the space domain?
Mahalo.
All,
Below is a quote from rpenner that I copied from another thread (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=17290&hl=). It is certainly relevant to the discussion at hand and I thought it might be helpful for those following this thread.
Below is a quote from rpenner that I copied from another thread (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=17290&hl=). It is certainly relevant to the discussion at hand and I thought it might be helpful for those following this thread.
QUOTE (rpenner+)
3) While E = mc² is often quoted by people, it is not the central part of Relativity. It is not a postulate of Special Relativity. It appears nowhere in Einstein's 2 initial 1905 papers which develop Special Relativity. What does exist is a specialized derivation of Δm = ΔE/c² in a specific circumstance.
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...icles/e_mc2.pdf
4) From the above equation it's sufficient to to infer from the rest masses of the reactants and products of a nuclear reaction what the energy change is. This may account for the popularity of "E=mc²" -- it's very visual.
5) An earlier 1905 paper of Einstein's had more general statements. Such as W (Kinetic Energy) = mc² ( √(1/(1 - v²/c²)) - 1 )
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...les/specrel.pdf
6) And so the total energy of an object is E = (Rest Energy + Kinetic Energy) = mc² / √(1 - v²/c²)
7) This equation generalizes to a relation between E, p, and m: E² = (mc²)² / (1 - v²/c²) = (mc²)² + (mvc)² / (1 - v²/c²) = (mc²)² + (pc)² , where p = mv / √(1 - v²/c²)
8) While this definition of p = mv / √(1 - v²/c²) is generally recognized as a correction to Newton's definition of "quantity of motion" i.e. momentum in Definition II of Book One, Einstein himself in the paper expressed the pressure exerted by a beam of light as the energy density times 2 times the cosine of the angle of incidence. Since for a particle theory of pressure this generalizes as p = E/c for a light particle. Indeed, in another 1905 paper, Einstein argues that light does consist of particles with E proportional to frequency.
(In this paper, β = Planck's constant / Boltzmann's constant, which is measured today at 4.799237 × 10^-11 Kelvin-seconds -- the values of N, Avogadro's number are subject to similar uncertainties at this time. Since Boltzmann's constant = R, the universal gas constant, divided by N, then the formula E = (R/N)βν = k (h/k) ν = hν in modern notation.)
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...les/eins_lq.pdf
9) Thus Einstein argues that for photons, p = hν/c
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
In 1908, Minkowski put all this together, with the invariant interval (Δs)² = (cΔt)² - (Δx)² - (Δy)² - (Δz)², and the invariant mass (mc²)² = E² - (pc)² as quantities that any observer would agree on. It is this relation which the practicing physicist uses all the time -- the Pythagorean equation for a non-Euclidean space-time.
(Sorry, can't find a link to this paper, but here's a cheap paperback with it: http://www.amazon.com/Principle-Relativity...s/dp/0486600815 )
Theoretically, m=0 for all photons, because Einstein and Planck trusted Maxwell's equations. Experimentally, any mass would show up in deviations from the predictions based on this theory. We can calculate how Maxwell's equations change if the photon has a mass. So the experiments so far can show (with reasonable confidence) that the mass of the photon, if not zero, is less than 6 × 10^-17 eV/c² (10^-52 kg). Einstein and Planck were probably correct to rely on Maxwell -- it turns out to be an excellent approximation of the truth.
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/listings/s000.pdf
Einstein was slow to warm to the idea, but Minkowski's contribution was to return physics back to geometry, if not the familiar geometry of Euclid. Later, Einstein would use this geometry to solve the problems of Universal Gravitation in relativistic terms.
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...icles/e_mc2.pdf
4) From the above equation it's sufficient to to infer from the rest masses of the reactants and products of a nuclear reaction what the energy change is. This may account for the popularity of "E=mc²" -- it's very visual.
5) An earlier 1905 paper of Einstein's had more general statements. Such as W (Kinetic Energy) = mc² ( √(1/(1 - v²/c²)) - 1 )
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...les/specrel.pdf
6) And so the total energy of an object is E = (Rest Energy + Kinetic Energy) = mc² / √(1 - v²/c²)
7) This equation generalizes to a relation between E, p, and m: E² = (mc²)² / (1 - v²/c²) = (mc²)² + (mvc)² / (1 - v²/c²) = (mc²)² + (pc)² , where p = mv / √(1 - v²/c²)
8) While this definition of p = mv / √(1 - v²/c²) is generally recognized as a correction to Newton's definition of "quantity of motion" i.e. momentum in Definition II of Book One, Einstein himself in the paper expressed the pressure exerted by a beam of light as the energy density times 2 times the cosine of the angle of incidence. Since for a particle theory of pressure this generalizes as p = E/c for a light particle. Indeed, in another 1905 paper, Einstein argues that light does consist of particles with E proportional to frequency.
(In this paper, β = Planck's constant / Boltzmann's constant, which is measured today at 4.799237 × 10^-11 Kelvin-seconds -- the values of N, Avogadro's number are subject to similar uncertainties at this time. Since Boltzmann's constant = R, the universal gas constant, divided by N, then the formula E = (R/N)βν = k (h/k) ν = hν in modern notation.)
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...les/eins_lq.pdf
9) Thus Einstein argues that for photons, p = hν/c
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
In 1908, Minkowski put all this together, with the invariant interval (Δs)² = (cΔt)² - (Δx)² - (Δy)² - (Δz)², and the invariant mass (mc²)² = E² - (pc)² as quantities that any observer would agree on. It is this relation which the practicing physicist uses all the time -- the Pythagorean equation for a non-Euclidean space-time.
(Sorry, can't find a link to this paper, but here's a cheap paperback with it: http://www.amazon.com/Principle-Relativity...s/dp/0486600815 )
Theoretically, m=0 for all photons, because Einstein and Planck trusted Maxwell's equations. Experimentally, any mass would show up in deviations from the predictions based on this theory. We can calculate how Maxwell's equations change if the photon has a mass. So the experiments so far can show (with reasonable confidence) that the mass of the photon, if not zero, is less than 6 × 10^-17 eV/c² (10^-52 kg). Einstein and Planck were probably correct to rely on Maxwell -- it turns out to be an excellent approximation of the truth.
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/listings/s000.pdf
Einstein was slow to warm to the idea, but Minkowski's contribution was to return physics back to geometry, if not the familiar geometry of Euclid. Later, Einstein would use this geometry to solve the problems of Universal Gravitation in relativistic terms.
Hi yquantum,
Looking for "common ground" here, we can discuss any of the points you like about the basic DSE.
Looking for "common ground" here, we can discuss any of the points you like about the basic DSE.
QUOTE (yquantum+)
Please step back and look at the original test, this is just plain 101 the type I would show "THEY2" & "THEY" most likely has already tried this for her.
My desire is that everyone can find a common category of events distinguished by some common characteristic or quality of DSE then work from there.
http://www.cavendishscience.org/phys/tyoung/tyoung.htm
Good Elf, if you will look when my remark was made I was just trying to keep all the punches above the waist.
My desire is that everyone can find a common category of events distinguished by some common characteristic or quality of DSE then work from there.
http://www.cavendishscience.org/phys/tyoung/tyoung.htm
Good Elf, if you will look when my remark was made I was just trying to keep all the punches above the waist.
No problem lets talk about this pattern if you wish. I have already done Young's experiment in my high school years using a monochromatic light source... a Sodium Vapor Lamp... and smoked glass etched with a razor blade. Probably again as an undergrad and a workbook to properly record the results from a more professional setup. Recently I have duplicated this experiment using a laser pointer... here are my recent results... I had them on this thread some time ago in answer to "THEY"'s question at this link..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=223869
and here...
They are not too bad considering the materials used.
I have used this reference page as a resource to make a fair go of it....
http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/SIM/experiment_1.cfm
I have looked at the simplified version, presented by yquantum, of the DSE using a card. It seems to work but it is harder to photograph. Masking of a bright source seems difficult. Some slightly off center diffraction patterns seem to produce results but can be mixed up with the main beam.
If people do not want to discuss controversial aspects of quantum theory then we can go back to this point and see what we have missed. I do not want to be a "spoiler".
Cheers
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=223869
and here...
They are not too bad considering the materials used.
I have used this reference page as a resource to make a fair go of it....
http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/SIM/experiment_1.cfm
I have looked at the simplified version, presented by yquantum, of the DSE using a card. It seems to work but it is harder to photograph. Masking of a bright source seems difficult. Some slightly off center diffraction patterns seem to produce results but can be mixed up with the main beam.
If people do not want to discuss controversial aspects of quantum theory then we can go back to this point and see what we have missed. I do not want to be a "spoiler".
Cheers
Hi "Why Not?",
QUOTE (Mahalo+)
Excellent! Just one question, what is the reciprocal of the space domain?
A picture is worth a thousand words...
Two dimensional picture of space...
A twoi dimensional picture of the real component of reciprocal space for the same image (I think)...
Space is "Complex" so it is a difficult idea to grasp with only these flat images with time frozen.
The top image shows spatial distributions of objects in a simple two dimensional plane and the second image shows these as spatial frequencies in a two dimensional plane.... the transform plane... zero spatial frequency in the center with other frequencies increasing from the center outwards.
Our "real" space is three dimensional to start with and we also have time as well.
Cheers
Two dimensional picture of space...
A twoi dimensional picture of the real component of reciprocal space for the same image (I think)...
Space is "Complex" so it is a difficult idea to grasp with only these flat images with time frozen.
The top image shows spatial distributions of objects in a simple two dimensional plane and the second image shows these as spatial frequencies in a two dimensional plane.... the transform plane... zero spatial frequency in the center with other frequencies increasing from the center outwards.
Our "real" space is three dimensional to start with and we also have time as well.
Cheers
Hi GE,
it seems to me that you keep referring to all 'classical' wave theory solutions.
Where in the part of your optical Fourier transforms do you account for the disappearance of interference due to the detection of particles?
Maybe i am barking up the wrong tree here but I for certain cannot see the point in all your elaborate explanations the link with the duality aspect particle/wave ..
QM shows that as long as we don't try to detect a photon or try to determine its path, all the classical wave theories apply. Once we start gathering information about the 'which way' the wave interference patterns disappear and everything will become different.
Jan Rinze.
it seems to me that you keep referring to all 'classical' wave theory solutions.
Where in the part of your optical Fourier transforms do you account for the disappearance of interference due to the detection of particles?
Maybe i am barking up the wrong tree here but I for certain cannot see the point in all your elaborate explanations the link with the duality aspect particle/wave ..
QM shows that as long as we don't try to detect a photon or try to determine its path, all the classical wave theories apply. Once we start gathering information about the 'which way' the wave interference patterns disappear and everything will become different.
Jan Rinze.
Hi Good Elf et al,
One of the problems with the Fourier Transform is that few of us understand its properties. It is (by definition) a summation .. if you keep the summation explicit then we can all see what is going on. We have no particular need of the power of optical transforms on this thread .. in fact it would seem to be concealing far more than it is revealing.
Looking at an FT page ( My personal favourite FT page is here :- http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FourierTransform.html )
we can see that the function we are interested in is 'The slits'. A while back we showed that the FT does actually give the right answer .. it involved the introduction of a 'shift' to synthesise the second slit - by my standards this is pretty heavy duty maths. At the time we were attempting a 'proof in principle' and made no attempt to examine any implicit assumptions we were making about the excitation function. We can avoid many implicit assumptions (and other problems) by keeping the summation explicit.
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. as I think JanRinze is pointing out .. a classical wave analysis excludes the possibility that we might not be dealing with a classical wave.
One of the problems with the Fourier Transform is that few of us understand its properties. It is (by definition) a summation .. if you keep the summation explicit then we can all see what is going on. We have no particular need of the power of optical transforms on this thread .. in fact it would seem to be concealing far more than it is revealing.
Looking at an FT page ( My personal favourite FT page is here :- http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FourierTransform.html )
we can see that the function we are interested in is 'The slits'. A while back we showed that the FT does actually give the right answer .. it involved the introduction of a 'shift' to synthesise the second slit - by my standards this is pretty heavy duty maths. At the time we were attempting a 'proof in principle' and made no attempt to examine any implicit assumptions we were making about the excitation function. We can avoid many implicit assumptions (and other problems) by keeping the summation explicit.
Best wishes - C2.
Edit .. as I think JanRinze is pointing out .. a classical wave analysis excludes the possibility that we might not be dealing with a classical wave.
I can see your point... But this is not so when a physical interaction is complete. A photon, for instance, without being disrupted, can travel across the galaxy many ways... It is only when an observation is made on that quanta of light can a path be made for it. However, if the particle makes it to the screen, [as in the double slit experiment], then a collapse has been made for the particle, or wave...
NeoNo.1
NeoNo.1
Hi NeoNo.1,
Welcome.
Hmmm, it is a wave enroute, and only exhibits particle behavior when the
energy/momentum that it is transporting displaces physical "matter" (detection).
It's not really a "collapse" of the wavefunction, but more of a wave energy transfer
mechanism, that energetically displaces "dipole" tuned electrons from the ground
state, or overwhelms the atomic shell structure and ionizes a detecting atom.
Just another perspective.
LL
Welcome.
QUOTE
However, if the particle makes it to the screen, [as in the double slit experiment], then a collapse has been made for the particle, or wave...
Hmmm, it is a wave enroute, and only exhibits particle behavior when the
energy/momentum that it is transporting displaces physical "matter" (detection).
It's not really a "collapse" of the wavefunction, but more of a wave energy transfer
mechanism, that energetically displaces "dipole" tuned electrons from the ground
state, or overwhelms the atomic shell structure and ionizes a detecting atom.
Just another perspective.
LL
Hi All,
I've refrained from weighing in on the recent round of arguments just to observe
responses.
One thing that we must all keep in mind. The DSE is a PHYSICAL response to
a cause and effect scenario.
Can you say causation?...How about causality?
Trying to explain it using mathematical models is fine, as far as it goes, but it
really doesn't satisfactorily explain the physical mechanisms/interactions involved.
Equations quantify the characteristics of the processes involved, but does that
really describe the nature of the beast?
I believe that we have done the proper physical analysis long ago, and are just
rehashing old ideas/concepts.
The horse is dead, time for the barbeque!
JMHO
LL
I've refrained from weighing in on the recent round of arguments just to observe
responses.
One thing that we must all keep in mind. The DSE is a PHYSICAL response to
a cause and effect scenario.
Can you say causation?...How about causality?
Trying to explain it using mathematical models is fine, as far as it goes, but it
really doesn't satisfactorily explain the physical mechanisms/interactions involved.
Equations quantify the characteristics of the processes involved, but does that
really describe the nature of the beast?
I believe that we have done the proper physical analysis long ago, and are just
rehashing old ideas/concepts.
The horse is dead, time for the barbeque!
JMHO
LL
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (LL+)
It's not really a "collapse" of the wavefunction, but more of a wave energy transfer mechanism, that energetically displaces "dipole" tuned electrons from the ground state, or overwhelms the atomic shell structure and ionizes a detecting atom.
We seem to agree** that the wavefunction-psi can pass through two slits or can even tracel across the Galaxy for many years spread over 'any distance' and time .. and yet when it is detected this occurs at something very close to a point (if not actually a point) and then there is no energy, no momentum .. nothing detected anywhere else. Imho the change from 'could be detected anywhere' to 'has been detected at a point' is quite dramatic .. hence the word 'collapse'. If you think in terms of EM (and I'm pretty sure you do) you have to explain what happenned to the rest of that wave .. how did it vanish instantly?
Best wishes - C2.
** Edit .. in fairness Laserlight might be an exception to the rule.
We seem to agree** that the wavefunction-psi can pass through two slits or can even tracel across the Galaxy for many years spread over 'any distance' and time .. and yet when it is detected this occurs at something very close to a point (if not actually a point) and then there is no energy, no momentum .. nothing detected anywhere else. Imho the change from 'could be detected anywhere' to 'has been detected at a point' is quite dramatic .. hence the word 'collapse'. If you think in terms of EM (and I'm pretty sure you do) you have to explain what happenned to the rest of that wave .. how did it vanish instantly?
Best wishes - C2.
** Edit .. in fairness Laserlight might be an exception to the rule.
QUOTE (yquantum+Aug 22 2007, 11:27 AM)
Please step back and look at the original test, this is just plain 101 the type I would show "THEY2" & "THEY" most likely has already tried this for her.
My desire is that everyone can find a common category of events distinguished by some common characteristic or quality of DSE then work from there.
http://www.cavendishscience.org/phys/tyoung/tyoung.htm
ooooooooooooooo time to get the laser out again!
LL - hold off on the BBQ for now. I am not sure the horse is dead, but definitely dead tired from being beat! As yq said, no one here is going to "solve" the DSE mystery, so maybe we should quit plowing the same field and put the poor horse out to pasture to rest. Too bad I completely missed everyone's answers to what you all agree on. Were there any gems that could be polished?
My desire is that everyone can find a common category of events distinguished by some common characteristic or quality of DSE then work from there.
http://www.cavendishscience.org/phys/tyoung/tyoung.htm
ooooooooooooooo time to get the laser out again!
LL - hold off on the BBQ for now. I am not sure the horse is dead, but definitely dead tired from being beat! As yq said, no one here is going to "solve" the DSE mystery, so maybe we should quit plowing the same field and put the poor horse out to pasture to rest. Too bad I completely missed everyone's answers to what you all agree on. Were there any gems that could be polished?
QUOTE ("THEY"+Aug 23 2007, 07:36 PM)
ooooooooooooooo time to get the laser out again!
"THEY', let us know if you want to reply on this tired old DSE horse.
Please tell us how "2" views it, from the mouth of a child!
caio_
yquantum
"THEY', let us know if you want to reply on this tired old DSE horse.
Please tell us how "2" views it, from the mouth of a child!
caio_
yquantum
SIX PHASES OF A PROJECT
1. Enthusiasm
2. Disillusionment
3. Panic
4. Search for the guilty
5. Punishment of the innocent
6. Praise & honours for the non-participants
1. Enthusiasm
2. Disillusionment
3. Panic
4. Search for the guilty
5. Punishment of the innocent
6. Praise & honours for the non-participants
C2,
my ideas of a project really differ here..
although there are environments where your view is genuinely practiced.
Jan Rinze.
P.S. I don't think we really have started yet ;-) this was only the warming-up!
my ideas of a project really differ here..
although there are environments where your view is genuinely practiced.
Jan Rinze.
P.S. I don't think we really have started yet ;-) this was only the warming-up!
Hi C2 and All,
C2 said:
This is where I totally disagree with "theory". This whole idea seems ludicrous
when considered from a single photon standpoint, however, in the case
of a coherent wavefront and the ISL, I consider it a nearly correct wave
function theory.
A single photon has a specific quantum of energy, that cannot be "distributed"
beyond the confines of the photon "package" impulse and still maintain its
"integrity". If this were possible, then the photon could be detected at any
angle along the expanding wavefront where the energy collapse would occur.
This concept is completely antithetical to laser directionality, and "confinement",
and would totally eliminate directional "predictability" of where a photon is
likely to be detected.
I am not aware of any experiment that quanitatively or qualitatively proves
that an individual photon uniformly spreads across space and time and can
be detected at any point in space. A photon can only be detected long a vector
propagation direction that contains the discrete photon wave package.
The idea that an individual photon's energy is spread across the universe and then
instantaneously collapses at some fixed point in space, without regard to time
defies the concept of relativity, IMO. The "rest of the wave" is an integral
part of the photon's wavefunction energy package, and has finite extremes,
which establishes limits to the spread of the wave, and prevents it from
"dissipating" across space and time.
Recall that a photon's wave is a composite waveform consisting of an electrical,
and a magnetic energy component, both of which can only propagate at the speed
of light. According to relativity and all that we know about
propagating/expanding energy fields, this cannot be violated.
People need to accept that the earth is not flat, despite the collective wisdom of
the theological "experts".
JMHO,
LL
C2 said:
QUOTE
We seem to agree** that the wavefunction-psi can pass through two slits or can even tracel across the Galaxy for many years spread over 'any distance' and time .. and yet when it is detected this occurs at something very close to a point (if not actually a point) and then there is no energy, no momentum .. nothing detected anywhere else. Imho the change from 'could be detected anywhere' to 'has been detected at a point' is quite dramatic .. hence the word 'collapse'. If you think in terms of EM (and I'm pretty sure you do) you have to explain what happenned to the rest of that wave .. how did it vanish instantly?
This is where I totally disagree with "theory". This whole idea seems ludicrous
when considered from a single photon standpoint, however, in the case
of a coherent wavefront and the ISL, I consider it a nearly correct wave
function theory.
A single photon has a specific quantum of energy, that cannot be "distributed"
beyond the confines of the photon "package" impulse and still maintain its
"integrity". If this were possible, then the photon could be detected at any
angle along the expanding wavefront where the energy collapse would occur.
This concept is completely antithetical to laser directionality, and "confinement",
and would totally eliminate directional "predictability" of where a photon is
likely to be detected.
I am not aware of any experiment that quanitatively or qualitatively proves
that an individual photon uniformly spreads across space and time and can
be detected at any point in space. A photon can only be detected long a vector
propagation direction that contains the discrete photon wave package.
The idea that an individual photon's energy is spread across the universe and then
instantaneously collapses at some fixed point in space, without regard to time
defies the concept of relativity, IMO. The "rest of the wave" is an integral
part of the photon's wavefunction energy package, and has finite extremes,
which establishes limits to the spread of the wave, and prevents it from
"dissipating" across space and time.
Recall that a photon's wave is a composite waveform consisting of an electrical,
and a magnetic energy component, both of which can only propagate at the speed
of light. According to relativity and all that we know about
propagating/expanding energy fields, this cannot be violated.
People need to accept that the earth is not flat, despite the collective wisdom of
the theological "experts".
JMHO,
LL
Hi all,
Confused2 Posted on Yesterday at 10:45 PM
janrinze Posted on Yesterday at 11:11 PM
janrinze Posted on Yesterday at 11:11 PM
P.S. I don't think we really have started yet ;-) this was only the warming-up!
me too!
I have not emptied my "bag of tricks", yet.
Onward!!
What is it, about the methods that DO work, that we can find out about WHAT is "inside the envelope"?
Is there something MORE "Fundamental" than either QM or GR? An interaction that has been "missed"? Something that explains things better, and in a way that makes these two have a better "fit"?
Most people think so.
ciao!
T.Roc
Confused2 Posted on Yesterday at 10:45 PM
QUOTE
SIX PHASES OF A PROJECT
1. Enthusiasm
2. Disillusionment
3. Panic
4. Search for the guilty
5. Punishment of the innocent
6. Praise & honours for the non-participants
1. Enthusiasm
2. Disillusionment
3. Panic
4. Search for the guilty
5. Punishment of the innocent
6. Praise & honours for the non-participants
janrinze Posted on Yesterday at 11:11 PM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| SIX PHASES OF A PROJECT 1. Enthusiasm 2. Disillusionment 3. Panic 4. Search for the guilty 5. Punishment of the innocent 6. Praise & honours for the non-participants |
janrinze Posted on Yesterday at 11:11 PM
P.S. I don't think we really have started yet ;-) this was only the warming-up!
me too!
I have not emptied my "bag of tricks", yet.
Onward!!
What is it, about the methods that DO work, that we can find out about WHAT is "inside the envelope"?
Is there something MORE "Fundamental" than either QM or GR? An interaction that has been "missed"? Something that explains things better, and in a way that makes these two have a better "fit"?
Most people think so.
ciao!
T.Roc
Hi Janrinze, Montec, yquantum, Confused2,TRoc, Laserlight, "Why Not?", Siau, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2" et al,
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
I would like someone to define what it is that is "missing" from this picture.
Translated Answer: What in Hell is Good Elf talking about starting at the first post on this thread 258 pages ago.
I apologize again for the length of this post but some questions can only be answered by placing them into context. This may involve quite a bit of the sort of things you may already know (you are all smart people). This is not the first time I have explained this query and probably it will not be the last. I know that most people will not bother to even read it. This is strictly for those who are are prepared to read it.
I apologize again for the length of this post but some questions can only be answered by placing them into context. This may involve quite a bit of the sort of things you may already know (you are all smart people). This is not the first time I have explained this query and probably it will not be the last. I know that most people will not bother to even read it. This is strictly for those who are are prepared to read it.
QUOTE (Janrinze+)
it seems to me that you keep referring to all 'classical' wave theory solutions.
Where in the part of your optical Fourier transforms do you account for the disappearance of interference due to the detection of particles?
Maybe i am barking up the wrong tree here but I for certain cannot see the point in all your elaborate explanations the link with the duality aspect particle/wave ..
Where in the part of your optical Fourier transforms do you account for the disappearance of interference due to the detection of particles?
Maybe i am barking up the wrong tree here but I for certain cannot see the point in all your elaborate explanations the link with the duality aspect particle/wave ..
I fully realize that what I am going on about is very perplexing initially, I am sorry about that... I think I have explained why the wavefunction collapses in this post...
Good Elf on Time and coordinate stamping of photons
... Just look at the "PS" at the bottom.
What I have not explained is why this explains it once and for all. Individual Photons are emitted and absorbed only once as part of a single Wheeler Feynman Absorber time symmetric Event. After they are absorbed the energy can be redistributed but while the photon is in "transit"(which is zero time and also zero spacial distance (in the rest frame of a photon) it is a "stationary state" due entirely to the fact it is "frozen" on the surface of the light cone wall by the Theory of Relativity and causality.
If this is all you need and you find this an adequate answer ... you may stop right there at that one post and you will not need to read any further.
Now the rest of this query... If you mean by "classical theory" the spiraling of electrons into the nucleus due to radiation of the energy of the electron motion.. You would be very wrong. The word "classical" can be used as a derogatory term when it is compared with a discrete theory of particles such as quantum mechanics. What I am referring to is not that at all but a simple accounting for all the quantum attributes using a continuous theory. String Theory is a kind of continuous theory for instance.
There has been only two main directions (three if you count LQG) of "exploration" for Unified Field Theories (I am aware of recently)... The first approach has always been to take the quantum statistical theory and to quantize the manifold of General Relativity thereby unifying the standard model with Gravitation. Those who follow this attempt would have to admit this approach has little or no hope of direct success for very basic mathematical reasons most of these have been at least documented here on this thread. I have accepted that it is not possible to quantize the manifold.
A second approach is String Theory where a structure below the Planck Length affects the nature of the entire Universe from the bottom up. Below a certain short distance this spacetime continuum theory breaks down into a seething "foam" that leads to a underling basis for the quantum process in "compact extra dimensions" at that level of the Universe. The idea of tiny vibrating "strings" or in some theories "branes" so small that it "slips through below" the actual manifold woof and weave where this new structure orchestrates everything "from the bottom up". Let me stress that nobody anywhere or at anytime will ever know what is at the "bottom" of the Universe. I think it was Leonard Susskind who said (paraphrase) that the number of theories that are contenders "down there beneath the Planck Length" is like trying to find one single needle in a googleplex of "haystacks" made of equally plausible needles. With no specific knowledge way down there and trying to extrapolate our current knowledge to those levels of the Universe seems far beyond any current or future ability of even "enlightened" mankind.
There is one big flaw in this idea that there is any solution in such theories at all (according to most who are commenting on the idea)... the energy necessary to observe/test any aspects of this "winning" theory are many orders of magnitude greater than the sum total amount of energy mankind will ever have under its control for at least several millions of years... staggering amounts of energy would be required... enough to actually form a small Universe from the energy alone. While it is intellectually and philosophically"stimulating" to consider the possibility of such structures or theories, it can never be "Physics" since all Physics need to be finally tested in experiments to actually become "science". I find this also "underwhelming" to say the least. There is always far more mathematics than there will ever be Physics... Nature is "most probably" very conservative "way down at the base of things"....
But to mankind's hubris Mathematics does offer one clear path to "immortality". Since no theory at that level of the universe can be tested, it is axiomatic that once proposing such a theory no one can effectively challenge it... thus forever quarantining it as a "Mathematical Theory" of such elegance that explains "everything" without any hope of proof forever... a religion for scientists... a belief in something "beyond" the knowable... perhaps that one place for the believing scientist to place an alter a very small "god of the gaps" far from the prying eyes of the maddening crowd. Many may want such a theory and even I would like such a theory. However it would be intellectually dishonest for me if I am prepared to accept one just to find some kind of "rest"... It's not for me. If a mathematical argument is convincing enough it does have the "wonderful property" that it can be used as a final "excuse" to "put the lid on science" for all time and to prevent further innovation. Liebestraum at last.
There is yet another third possibility and that is Loop Quantum Gravity which is a hybrid of these two approaches and occasionally swaps ideas from the former two directions above and incorporates them into its own matrix. It suggest that at a very small scale Gravity becomes much stronger than it is on our present scale of investigation and this interaction would increase by the requisite orders of magnitude, indicated in String Theory, to give this gravity the power to confine particles through the force of gravity alone. Despite all the optimism and sometimes claims by such people as Lee Smolin, it appears to be a "doomed path". There are many reasons for this and I suggest you can Google this yourselves. Usually they resort to Aether Theories at some point and seem to be vehemently anti-Einstein in their motivation. I sympathize with some of this attempt (not the anti-Einstein bit) but there are also very good reasons why this is never going to be testable or usable for the same basic reasons String Theory is not testable or usable.
There is another approach that backtracks this entire process and takes the view that spacetime is actually continuous to the smallest scales and not a boiling quantum foam and the processes "on" it are simply discrete in their nature due to limited natural variability at the sub-atomic level. No quantizing of the manifold and quantum processes are simply the limiting case of the quantum harmonic oscillator acting in a continuous though limited framework ("resonant" quantum "bubbles" embedded in a vacuum continuum as "stationary states"). This incorporates the idea that Gravity is not a separate force at all but like the other three forces are a symmetric expression of electromagnetism which in almost all other ways is anti-symmetric. This was a path that Einstein once took and failed. In Einstein's view Gravity was not a separate force at all but only a pseudo-force. This concept, as far as it goes, is experimentally verifiable since it is in accord with Special and General Relativity which has been extensively tested. Unfortunately General Relativity cannot be easily tested at the quantum level because the quanta of gravitation (graviton) is far smaller by 27 orders of magnitude than the quanta of electromagnetism (photons). Once again a testing problem.. pun intended.
Every photon packet known is anti-symmetric. What if photons came in a different flavor... a symmetric packet? This would then be a way to exhibit gravity (or at least mass)... the missing force. It just so happens that there is an existing "Classical" Theory of Electromagnetism that symmetrizes the photon packet through a "resonance" in time... The Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory. This same theory was "refined" into a non-time symmetric theory that became Quantum Electrodynamics, the most successful theory in Physics of all time. I would point out that there is "nothing wrong" with Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory except for the fact that it has seldom been advanced beyond it's early incarnation by Wheeler and Feynman. Particle Theorists accept that this wave analysis is "equivalent" in almost every way to the quantum particle theory but it is very difficult to explain just how it could fit with particle theory itself which is in turn built on Quantum Electrodynamics.. the particle view of photon interactions.
IMHO the quantum particle theory of light (Quantum Electrodynamics) is the shortcut that Feynman used to achieve initial success with quantum theory simply because "Physics" and the World was not ready for a time symmetric view of our Universe in the 1940's. Maybe even Feynman himself, for one reason or another, was also not ready. This strategy worked through reducing a continuum theory to a statistical particle theory answered almost all the questions that were proposed in the intervening years... almost. The losses and the gains of the theory in the method of working only with particles interactions as disconnected causal statistical events has some benefits. IMHO the idea of particles as being composed of its statistical properties alone is wrong by stressing a disconnectedness of the particle that we are actually seeing in nature. The particle theory stresses that events are devoid of any history and identical particles are the same identical particle from the point of view of the theory. It has logically led to a view that there are really no particles outside of the events at all.
In a holographic view of the Universe, what we call particles are actually holographically linked to other particles in our Universe in a way that is gauge invarient. Since String Theory indicates that the entire Standard Model may be built up from primary "causal" photons (see illustration) this may be the answer to the whole problem.
...Click to enlarge...
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
Dimensionally it is not possible to simply connect "compact" simple folded dimensions into our model in most of the visible Universe because if this was true we would have seen them if they were big enough to see or measure ... that is unless they were smaller than the Planck Length. Many still punt on the Planck Length answer but I have supplied many sound reasons why I am in disagreement with this view and they are in this thread.
IMHO the way photons behave is the full answer to all the problems of String Theory and of the other theories by linking the so called force of gravity with the "symmetric" time resonant photon. Since we only observe 1/2 of the full wave packet being causal creatures, we are not able to see the immediate effects of this symmetry. We have developed three disconnected theories which are all related to electromagnetism. This is an extra symmetry in the Universe. Separately the "four forces" are not an answer to this bigger "holographic" problem. As part of a Wheeler Feynman Absorber Interpretation... one transaction at a time.... Cramer's Transactional Hypothesis... we can establish a fully time and space symmetric Theory of Everything containing just one extra symmetry leading to additional physical dimensions that are compact and resonantly linked to our spacetime. These symmetries are already known and used in quantum theory. Add the concept of an event being relativistically rotationally symmetric in time (and sometimes in space) we have a working concept. These resonances can be connected spatially or temporally leading to all particles and to all particle properties. This is because Quantum Chromodynamics is "simply" an extended version of Quantum Electrodynamics.
It is a big ask but it is easily testable since this is a theory of photons not of strings or gravity as forces. This means that we may already have the mathematical basis of a complete Theory of Everything staring us in the face which starts with a "holographically connected Universe" based on symmetric Wheeler Feynman Absorber photon interactions. These interactions, as I have previously noted above, connect photon sources with photon sinks as part of a single event in their own frames of reference connected by null time (and in some cases null space) symmetric advanced and retarded photons. Each individual event linked through space and time to its own time symmetric anti-event which meets up to complete itself... even if these two "ends" appear to be thousands of light years apart when viewed from our personal "external" frames of reference and our time. I have referred to this being "Fourier Transforms" but in additional dimensions these are standing waves on the surface of a compact six dimensional hypersphere connected to our four dimensional spacetime through "resonance", These resonances are the spherical harmonics responsible for "the atomic theory of photon interactions" their associated Bessel Functions solutions to the "shells". These "rotations in complex space" are entirely relativistic in nature and in part lead to individual causal particle walls on the inner surface of light cones spanning a space altogether different to that on the reciprocal outer wall of the symmetric particle which may be sub-atomic in size when viewed from the "reverse" side and where (causal) time is converted into (cyclical) frequency. These are resonantly connected anti-deSitter Spaces, one kind of Hilbert Space. The DSE is a simple functional case of this problem in simple 4D spacetime and atoms and their electron transitions and Schrodinger's Wave Equation are another case in higher dimensional connected "cavities". These are all "resonant cavities" embedded in reciprocal Anti-deSitter Spaces. Check out ...
AdS/CFT correspondence.
As you can "infer" String Theory is a an extra step that connects a new layer in the Universe that shows photons being the fundamental building block of all sub-atomic particles in the Quantum Chromodynamics Theory as well as being the basis of Quantum Electrodynamics.
That is it and our Universe in a nutshell. This is not a replacement for 258 pages of a post, it is a "shell" into which those 258 pages (at least my part of them) fits.
Cheers
PS:An idea worth investigating...
Good Elf on Time and coordinate stamping of photons
... Just look at the "PS" at the bottom.
What I have not explained is why this explains it once and for all. Individual Photons are emitted and absorbed only once as part of a single Wheeler Feynman Absorber time symmetric Event. After they are absorbed the energy can be redistributed but while the photon is in "transit"(which is zero time and also zero spacial distance (in the rest frame of a photon) it is a "stationary state" due entirely to the fact it is "frozen" on the surface of the light cone wall by the Theory of Relativity and causality.
If this is all you need and you find this an adequate answer ... you may stop right there at that one post and you will not need to read any further.
Now the rest of this query... If you mean by "classical theory" the spiraling of electrons into the nucleus due to radiation of the energy of the electron motion.. You would be very wrong. The word "classical" can be used as a derogatory term when it is compared with a discrete theory of particles such as quantum mechanics. What I am referring to is not that at all but a simple accounting for all the quantum attributes using a continuous theory. String Theory is a kind of continuous theory for instance.
There has been only two main directions (three if you count LQG) of "exploration" for Unified Field Theories (I am aware of recently)... The first approach has always been to take the quantum statistical theory and to quantize the manifold of General Relativity thereby unifying the standard model with Gravitation. Those who follow this attempt would have to admit this approach has little or no hope of direct success for very basic mathematical reasons most of these have been at least documented here on this thread. I have accepted that it is not possible to quantize the manifold.
A second approach is String Theory where a structure below the Planck Length affects the nature of the entire Universe from the bottom up. Below a certain short distance this spacetime continuum theory breaks down into a seething "foam" that leads to a underling basis for the quantum process in "compact extra dimensions" at that level of the Universe. The idea of tiny vibrating "strings" or in some theories "branes" so small that it "slips through below" the actual manifold woof and weave where this new structure orchestrates everything "from the bottom up". Let me stress that nobody anywhere or at anytime will ever know what is at the "bottom" of the Universe. I think it was Leonard Susskind who said (paraphrase) that the number of theories that are contenders "down there beneath the Planck Length" is like trying to find one single needle in a googleplex of "haystacks" made of equally plausible needles. With no specific knowledge way down there and trying to extrapolate our current knowledge to those levels of the Universe seems far beyond any current or future ability of even "enlightened" mankind.
There is one big flaw in this idea that there is any solution in such theories at all (according to most who are commenting on the idea)... the energy necessary to observe/test any aspects of this "winning" theory are many orders of magnitude greater than the sum total amount of energy mankind will ever have under its control for at least several millions of years... staggering amounts of energy would be required... enough to actually form a small Universe from the energy alone. While it is intellectually and philosophically"stimulating" to consider the possibility of such structures or theories, it can never be "Physics" since all Physics need to be finally tested in experiments to actually become "science". I find this also "underwhelming" to say the least. There is always far more mathematics than there will ever be Physics... Nature is "most probably" very conservative "way down at the base of things"....
But to mankind's hubris Mathematics does offer one clear path to "immortality". Since no theory at that level of the universe can be tested, it is axiomatic that once proposing such a theory no one can effectively challenge it... thus forever quarantining it as a "Mathematical Theory" of such elegance that explains "everything" without any hope of proof forever... a religion for scientists... a belief in something "beyond" the knowable... perhaps that one place for the believing scientist to place an alter a very small "god of the gaps" far from the prying eyes of the maddening crowd. Many may want such a theory and even I would like such a theory. However it would be intellectually dishonest for me if I am prepared to accept one just to find some kind of "rest"... It's not for me. If a mathematical argument is convincing enough it does have the "wonderful property" that it can be used as a final "excuse" to "put the lid on science" for all time and to prevent further innovation. Liebestraum at last.
There is yet another third possibility and that is Loop Quantum Gravity which is a hybrid of these two approaches and occasionally swaps ideas from the former two directions above and incorporates them into its own matrix. It suggest that at a very small scale Gravity becomes much stronger than it is on our present scale of investigation and this interaction would increase by the requisite orders of magnitude, indicated in String Theory, to give this gravity the power to confine particles through the force of gravity alone. Despite all the optimism and sometimes claims by such people as Lee Smolin, it appears to be a "doomed path". There are many reasons for this and I suggest you can Google this yourselves. Usually they resort to Aether Theories at some point and seem to be vehemently anti-Einstein in their motivation. I sympathize with some of this attempt (not the anti-Einstein bit) but there are also very good reasons why this is never going to be testable or usable for the same basic reasons String Theory is not testable or usable.
There is another approach that backtracks this entire process and takes the view that spacetime is actually continuous to the smallest scales and not a boiling quantum foam and the processes "on" it are simply discrete in their nature due to limited natural variability at the sub-atomic level. No quantizing of the manifold and quantum processes are simply the limiting case of the quantum harmonic oscillator acting in a continuous though limited framework ("resonant" quantum "bubbles" embedded in a vacuum continuum as "stationary states"). This incorporates the idea that Gravity is not a separate force at all but like the other three forces are a symmetric expression of electromagnetism which in almost all other ways is anti-symmetric. This was a path that Einstein once took and failed. In Einstein's view Gravity was not a separate force at all but only a pseudo-force. This concept, as far as it goes, is experimentally verifiable since it is in accord with Special and General Relativity which has been extensively tested. Unfortunately General Relativity cannot be easily tested at the quantum level because the quanta of gravitation (graviton) is far smaller by 27 orders of magnitude than the quanta of electromagnetism (photons). Once again a testing problem.. pun intended.
Every photon packet known is anti-symmetric. What if photons came in a different flavor... a symmetric packet? This would then be a way to exhibit gravity (or at least mass)... the missing force. It just so happens that there is an existing "Classical" Theory of Electromagnetism that symmetrizes the photon packet through a "resonance" in time... The Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory. This same theory was "refined" into a non-time symmetric theory that became Quantum Electrodynamics, the most successful theory in Physics of all time. I would point out that there is "nothing wrong" with Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory except for the fact that it has seldom been advanced beyond it's early incarnation by Wheeler and Feynman. Particle Theorists accept that this wave analysis is "equivalent" in almost every way to the quantum particle theory but it is very difficult to explain just how it could fit with particle theory itself which is in turn built on Quantum Electrodynamics.. the particle view of photon interactions.
IMHO the quantum particle theory of light (Quantum Electrodynamics) is the shortcut that Feynman used to achieve initial success with quantum theory simply because "Physics" and the World was not ready for a time symmetric view of our Universe in the 1940's. Maybe even Feynman himself, for one reason or another, was also not ready. This strategy worked through reducing a continuum theory to a statistical particle theory answered almost all the questions that were proposed in the intervening years... almost. The losses and the gains of the theory in the method of working only with particles interactions as disconnected causal statistical events has some benefits. IMHO the idea of particles as being composed of its statistical properties alone is wrong by stressing a disconnectedness of the particle that we are actually seeing in nature. The particle theory stresses that events are devoid of any history and identical particles are the same identical particle from the point of view of the theory. It has logically led to a view that there are really no particles outside of the events at all.
In a holographic view of the Universe, what we call particles are actually holographically linked to other particles in our Universe in a way that is gauge invarient. Since String Theory indicates that the entire Standard Model may be built up from primary "causal" photons (see illustration) this may be the answer to the whole problem.
...Click to enlarge...
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
Dimensionally it is not possible to simply connect "compact" simple folded dimensions into our model in most of the visible Universe because if this was true we would have seen them if they were big enough to see or measure ... that is unless they were smaller than the Planck Length. Many still punt on the Planck Length answer but I have supplied many sound reasons why I am in disagreement with this view and they are in this thread.
IMHO the way photons behave is the full answer to all the problems of String Theory and of the other theories by linking the so called force of gravity with the "symmetric" time resonant photon. Since we only observe 1/2 of the full wave packet being causal creatures, we are not able to see the immediate effects of this symmetry. We have developed three disconnected theories which are all related to electromagnetism. This is an extra symmetry in the Universe. Separately the "four forces" are not an answer to this bigger "holographic" problem. As part of a Wheeler Feynman Absorber Interpretation... one transaction at a time.... Cramer's Transactional Hypothesis... we can establish a fully time and space symmetric Theory of Everything containing just one extra symmetry leading to additional physical dimensions that are compact and resonantly linked to our spacetime. These symmetries are already known and used in quantum theory. Add the concept of an event being relativistically rotationally symmetric in time (and sometimes in space) we have a working concept. These resonances can be connected spatially or temporally leading to all particles and to all particle properties. This is because Quantum Chromodynamics is "simply" an extended version of Quantum Electrodynamics.
It is a big ask but it is easily testable since this is a theory of photons not of strings or gravity as forces. This means that we may already have the mathematical basis of a complete Theory of Everything staring us in the face which starts with a "holographically connected Universe" based on symmetric Wheeler Feynman Absorber photon interactions. These interactions, as I have previously noted above, connect photon sources with photon sinks as part of a single event in their own frames of reference connected by null time (and in some cases null space) symmetric advanced and retarded photons. Each individual event linked through space and time to its own time symmetric anti-event which meets up to complete itself... even if these two "ends" appear to be thousands of light years apart when viewed from our personal "external" frames of reference and our time. I have referred to this being "Fourier Transforms" but in additional dimensions these are standing waves on the surface of a compact six dimensional hypersphere connected to our four dimensional spacetime through "resonance", These resonances are the spherical harmonics responsible for "the atomic theory of photon interactions" their associated Bessel Functions solutions to the "shells". These "rotations in complex space" are entirely relativistic in nature and in part lead to individual causal particle walls on the inner surface of light cones spanning a space altogether different to that on the reciprocal outer wall of the symmetric particle which may be sub-atomic in size when viewed from the "reverse" side and where (causal) time is converted into (cyclical) frequency. These are resonantly connected anti-deSitter Spaces, one kind of Hilbert Space. The DSE is a simple functional case of this problem in simple 4D spacetime and atoms and their electron transitions and Schrodinger's Wave Equation are another case in higher dimensional connected "cavities". These are all "resonant cavities" embedded in reciprocal Anti-deSitter Spaces. Check out ...
AdS/CFT correspondence.
As you can "infer" String Theory is a an extra step that connects a new layer in the Universe that shows photons being the fundamental building block of all sub-atomic particles in the Quantum Chromodynamics Theory as well as being the basis of Quantum Electrodynamics.
That is it and our Universe in a nutshell. This is not a replacement for 258 pages of a post, it is a "shell" into which those 258 pages (at least my part of them) fits.
Cheers
PS:An idea worth investigating...
QUOTE
A photon-like wavepacket with quantised properties based on
classical Maxwell’s equations
John. E. Carroll
A photon-like wavepacket based on novel solutions of Maxwell’s equations is
proposed. It is believed to be the first ‘classical’ model that contains so many
of the accepted quantum features. In this new work, novel solutions to
Maxwell’s classical equations in dispersive guides are considered where local
helical twists with an arbitrary angular frequency Ω modulate a classical mode
(angular frequency ω, group velocity vg). The modal field patterns are
unchanged, apart from the twist, provided that the helical velocity vh equals vg.
Pairs of resonating retarded and advanced waves with modal and helical
frequencies (ω,Ω) and (ω,−Ω) respectively, trap one temporal period of the
underlying classical mode forming a photon-like packet provided Ω =
(M+1/2)ω : ‘Schrödinger’ frequencies. This theory supports experimental
evidence that the photon velocity does not change with M in dispersive
systems. Promotion and demotion increase or decrease the helical frequencies
in units of ω. An energy of interaction between retarded and advanced waves
in the wave-packet is also proportional to these helical frequencies Ω
=(M+1/2)ω similar to Planck’s law. Group velocity and polarisation are
unaffected by the value of M. Advanced waves enable phase and polarisation
to be predicted along all future paths and may help to explain the outcomes of
experiments on delayed-choice interference and entanglement, without
causality being violated.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0609/0609156.pdf
classical Maxwell’s equations
John. E. Carroll
A photon-like wavepacket based on novel solutions of Maxwell’s equations is
proposed. It is believed to be the first ‘classical’ model that contains so many
of the accepted quantum features. In this new work, novel solutions to
Maxwell’s classical equations in dispersive guides are considered where local
helical twists with an arbitrary angular frequency Ω modulate a classical mode
(angular frequency ω, group velocity vg). The modal field patterns are
unchanged, apart from the twist, provided that the helical velocity vh equals vg.
Pairs of resonating retarded and advanced waves with modal and helical
frequencies (ω,Ω) and (ω,−Ω) respectively, trap one temporal period of the
underlying classical mode forming a photon-like packet provided Ω =
(M+1/2)ω : ‘Schrödinger’ frequencies. This theory supports experimental
evidence that the photon velocity does not change with M in dispersive
systems. Promotion and demotion increase or decrease the helical frequencies
in units of ω. An energy of interaction between retarded and advanced waves
in the wave-packet is also proportional to these helical frequencies Ω
=(M+1/2)ω similar to Planck’s law. Group velocity and polarisation are
unaffected by the value of M. Advanced waves enable phase and polarisation
to be predicted along all future paths and may help to explain the outcomes of
experiments on delayed-choice interference and entanglement, without
causality being violated.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0609/0609156.pdf
Hi GE,
I still have some notion that a retarded wave will make the ability to have 'interference' impossible..
specially since the retarded wave is obliged to travel all possible paths..
But that just may be me..
Jan Rinze.
P.S. a helical solution in Maxwell's equations as the base for a photon has been on my mind for a very long time. The pdf you mention comes very close to what I was contemplating. The reason was the principle of induction and the way that such a wave only would effectively radiate in one direction...
I still have some notion that a retarded wave will make the ability to have 'interference' impossible..
specially since the retarded wave is obliged to travel all possible paths..
But that just may be me..
Jan Rinze.
P.S. a helical solution in Maxwell's equations as the base for a photon has been on my mind for a very long time. The pdf you mention comes very close to what I was contemplating. The reason was the principle of induction and the way that such a wave only would effectively radiate in one direction...
Hi all,
Your "overview" of the Universe is nice, GE. I think that some of the "semantics" are going away, and we have turned up a few "redundant definitions" and "exposed" them, so that we can find more agreement.
These are my "favorites":
I think that I have seen his "tracks" a few times, on the path that I am on.
I think that I have seen his "tracks" a few times, on the path that I am on.
Every photon packet known is anti-symmetric. What if photons came in a different flavor... a symmetric packet? This would then be a way to exhibit gravity (or at least mass)... the missing force. It just so happens that there is an existing "Classical" Theory of Electromagnetism that symmetrizes the photon packet through a "resonance" in time... The Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory. This same theory was "refined" into a non-time symmetric theory that became Quantum Electrodynamics, ..
I am surprised (a little) that no one is commenting on that paper (A photon-like wavepacket with quantized properties based on classical Maxwell’s equations - John. E. Carroll), it is quite good.
That, and my "snips" from above, are all things that I regularly say, in a slightly different assemblage of words, when explaining "RT" (Resonance Theory). [I've dropped the "V"].
I think that I can summarize our main difference, and segway into a question, with this:
You are using "one transaction at a time", with "single and pair" dynamics, that comprise our Physics today. Doing it that way requires you to have more "dimensions" to solve the problem. What I mean here, and try to say all the time, is that we are looking at an "ideal case", and trying to build from there. I think that that is a mistake.
There is NO vacuum; and there can NEVER be an "isolated" wave (or "particle"). Even at the next improvement, and measuring an INTERACTION between 2 bodies, is excluding the "background". The "background" is NEVER zero (that is explanatory of why we have no vacuum). Everything is connected; we are not separate.
We KNOW that we will have x number of "particles" per cubic centimeter of space, representing mass and energy, and we also KNOW that there are countless (OK, near infinite) "photons" existing IN BETWEEN their source and receiver (space), at ANY given "billionth of a second" in time.
These are indisputable facts.
Limiting the "problems" of WF-C to just this topic, and your post (GE), we find a need to explain something. Since we have all of this energetic activity in Space, we would find a "near infinite" amount of "advanced waves" filling all of space, and providing a "background path" to "follow" to sink. Furthermore, you state that we can also look at gravity with this same model, realizing that everything is in continuous "communication".
You have just described an "Ether", and you argued against this concept, until you are blue in the face. What gives?
If we can get back to the DSE, we need to tie these things together. Everyone agrees now, that there are some problems with the circular reasoning that are inherent to our system, and that even defining "One" is problematic, especially when you want to make it "indivisible".
It seems that we are all in agreement about " c " being a coincidence tied to the meter and the second, but it is "what we have to work with", so let's make the best of it.
Nobody here (or anywhere else, TMK), besides me, is offering a derivation of " c ". The best one so far, is Maxwell's EM wave, propagating "in vacuo". If the vacuum existed, it would be much more palatable. Relativity does not do any better at explaining "why", but shows "how" in geometric terms. C is measured constant. It is something in the act of HOW we measure that provides the clue. THAT is why I am re-establishing such "basic" parameters".
We ALL know, that the act of measuring (we use waves), at the very tiny "quantum" level, disturbs/changes the thing that we are trying to measure. This is because we are using CLUMSY, IGNORANT methods to "measure" these things with. If we use the SAME quanta that nature uses, the changes would be PREDICTABLE, and the "problem" is solved.
Nature uses Resonance. No one here has offered the slightest word to challenge my statement.
We have debated "quantizing" the second (time), the meter (distance), but most are against this, so that we may have a "continuous background" to work with.
We do NOT need to "add" any more parameters to this, IMO.
The ONLY thing that is necessary to "quantize", is "frequency", or the CYCLE, in terms of measuring. Time and Space can remain constant units.
All this means is that SOMETHING is happening "in between" those whole cycles, even though those whole cycles may need to be complete to satisfy a definition.
This SIMPLE postulate, measured on an "exponential" scale, PRODUCES the wave model in scalar space (dimensionless). Frequency, Wavelength, and the Speed of Light, in terms of symmetric nodes/anti-nodes, are PRODUCED from this simple measurement of ONE STEP, from ONE CODE, or instruction.
How about the "near field"? HOW is this defined by Physics? To what extent does it exist, relative to the "wave center"?
Is the concept of "velocity" valid here?
How does this tie into the Talbot distance?
One possible interpretation of RT is this:
1.0267092999.. of any emission "quanta" is due to a background contribution.
1.0267092999.. of any absorption "quanta" is due to a background contribution.
1.0267092999^2 becomes a "constant". ( Z^2 = 1.0541319..)
The "fine structure" or "line width" is established by the small difference between this value, and the 12th rt of 2, 1.05946309.. = R
[note that Dirac's constant falls in between these values]
I am surprised (a little) that no one is commenting on that paper (A photon-like wavepacket with quantized properties based on classical Maxwell’s equations - John. E. Carroll), it is quite good.
That, and my "snips" from above, are all things that I regularly say, in a slightly different assemblage of words, when explaining "RT" (Resonance Theory). [I've dropped the "V"].
I think that I can summarize our main difference, and segway into a question, with this:
You are using "one transaction at a time", with "single and pair" dynamics, that comprise our Physics today. Doing it that way requires you to have more "dimensions" to solve the problem. What I mean here, and try to say all the time, is that we are looking at an "ideal case", and trying to build from there. I think that that is a mistake.
There is NO vacuum; and there can NEVER be an "isolated" wave (or "particle"). Even at the next improvement, and measuring an INTERACTION between 2 bodies, is excluding the "background". The "background" is NEVER zero (that is explanatory of why we have no vacuum). Everything is connected; we are not separate.
We KNOW that we will have x number of "particles" per cubic centimeter of space, representing mass and energy, and we also KNOW that there are countless (OK, near infinite) "photons" existing IN BETWEEN their source and receiver (space), at ANY given "billionth of a second" in time.
These are indisputable facts.
Limiting the "problems" of WF-C to just this topic, and your post (GE), we find a need to explain something. Since we have all of this energetic activity in Space, we would find a "near infinite" amount of "advanced waves" filling all of space, and providing a "background path" to "follow" to sink. Furthermore, you state that we can also look at gravity with this same model, realizing that everything is in continuous "communication".
You have just described an "Ether", and you argued against this concept, until you are blue in the face. What gives?
If we can get back to the DSE, we need to tie these things together. Everyone agrees now, that there are some problems with the circular reasoning that are inherent to our system, and that even defining "One" is problematic, especially when you want to make it "indivisible".
It seems that we are all in agreement about " c " being a coincidence tied to the meter and the second, but it is "what we have to work with", so let's make the best of it.
Nobody here (or anywhere else, TMK), besides me, is offering a derivation of " c ". The best one so far, is Maxwell's EM wave, propagating "in vacuo". If the vacuum existed, it would be much more palatable. Relativity does not do any better at explaining "why", but shows "how" in geometric terms. C is measured constant. It is something in the act of HOW we measure that provides the clue. THAT is why I am re-establishing such "basic" parameters".
We ALL know, that the act of measuring (we use waves), at the very tiny "quantum" level, disturbs/changes the thing that we are trying to measure. This is because we are using CLUMSY, IGNORANT methods to "measure" these things with. If we use the SAME quanta that nature uses, the changes would be PREDICTABLE, and the "problem" is solved.
Nature uses Resonance. No one here has offered the slightest word to challenge my statement.
We have debated "quantizing" the second (time), the meter (distance), but most are against this, so that we may have a "continuous background" to work with.
We do NOT need to "add" any more parameters to this, IMO.
The ONLY thing that is necessary to "quantize", is "frequency", or the CYCLE, in terms of measuring. Time and Space can remain constant units.
All this means is that SOMETHING is happening "in between" those whole cycles, even though those whole cycles may need to be complete to satisfy a definition.
This SIMPLE postulate, measured on an "exponential" scale, PRODUCES the wave model in scalar space (dimensionless). Frequency, Wavelength, and the Speed of Light, in terms of symmetric nodes/anti-nodes, are PRODUCED from this simple measurement of ONE STEP, from ONE CODE, or instruction.
How about the "near field"? HOW is this defined by Physics? To what extent does it exist, relative to the "wave center"?
Is the concept of "velocity" valid here?
How does this tie into the Talbot distance?
One possible interpretation of RT is this:
1.0267092999.. of any emission "quanta" is due to a background contribution.
1.0267092999.. of any absorption "quanta" is due to a background contribution.
1.0267092999^2 becomes a "constant". ( Z^2 = 1.0541319..)
The "fine structure" or "line width" is established by the small difference between this value, and the 12th rt of 2, 1.05946309.. = R
[note that Dirac's constant falls in between these values] In essence, the Dirac constant is a conversion factor between phase (in radians) and action (in joule-seconds) as seen in the Schrodinger equation. The Planck constant is similarly a conversion factor between phase (in cycles) and action. All other uses of Planck's constant and Dirac's constant follow from that.
So, Z^2 x R = 1.1168139362816172739403522624364..
28 true harmonics from here (not integer series), we arrive at " c ".
1.11681393628.. x 2^28 = 2.9979245825291087734765537636774e+8
In "1/12th" of a cycle, "one step", we have the "information" that is identical to 337 steps.
Z^2 x R^337 = 299792458.25291087734765537636774
THIS is how the "helical world-line" of "ring riding observers" can have clocks that are synchronized in a "constant velocity" Universe
We need to ADD to our "fundamental" constant curves (radius), the "genus one helicoid", with a "handle" as a marker.
337 discreet "clicks" of incremental rotation, and we pass our "handle" 28 times.
This FORM also "accommodates" the 2-way, double spiral staircase, which would be "nice" to use for the retarded/advanced wave relationship.
out of time..
regards,
T.Roc
Your "overview" of the Universe is nice, GE. I think that some of the "semantics" are going away, and we have turned up a few "redundant definitions" and "exposed" them, so that we can find more agreement.
These are my "favorites":
QUOTE
There is another approach that backtracks this entire process and takes the view that spacetime is actually continuous to the smallest scales and not a boiling quantum foam and the processes "on" it are simply discrete in their nature due to limited natural variability at the sub-atomic level. No quantizing of the manifold and quantum processes are simply the limiting case of the quantum harmonic oscillator acting in a continuous though limited framework ("resonant" quantum "bubbles" embedded in a vacuum continuum as "stationary states"). This incorporates the idea that Gravity is not a separate force at all but like the other three forces are a symmetric expression of electromagnetism which in almost all other ways is anti-symmetric. This was a path that Einstein once took and failed.
I think that I have seen his "tracks" a few times, on the path that I am on.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is another approach that backtracks this entire process and takes the view that spacetime is actually continuous to the smallest scales and not a boiling quantum foam and the processes "on" it are simply discrete in their nature due to limited natural variability at the sub-atomic level. No quantizing of the manifold and quantum processes are simply the limiting case of the quantum harmonic oscillator acting in a continuous though limited framework ("resonant" quantum "bubbles" embedded in a vacuum continuum as "stationary states"). This incorporates the idea that Gravity is not a separate force at all but like the other three forces are a symmetric expression of electromagnetism which in almost all other ways is anti-symmetric. This was a path that Einstein once took and failed. |
I think that I have seen his "tracks" a few times, on the path that I am on.
Every photon packet known is anti-symmetric. What if photons came in a different flavor... a symmetric packet? This would then be a way to exhibit gravity (or at least mass)... the missing force. It just so happens that there is an existing "Classical" Theory of Electromagnetism that symmetrizes the photon packet through a "resonance" in time... The Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory. This same theory was "refined" into a non-time symmetric theory that became Quantum Electrodynamics, ..
QUOTE
IMHO the way photons behave is the full answer to all the problems of String Theory and of the other theories by linking the so called force of gravity with the "symmetric" time resonant photon. Since we only observe 1/2 of the full wave packet being causal creatures, we are not able to see the immediate effects of this symmetry. We have developed three disconnected theories which are all related to electromagnetism. This is an extra symmetry in the Universe. Separately the "four forces" are not an answer to this bigger "holographic" problem. As part of a Wheeler Feynman Absorber Interpretation... one transaction at a time.... Cramer's Transactional Hypothesis... we can establish a fully time and space symmetric Theory of Everything containing just one extra symmetry leading to additional physical dimensions that are compact and resonantly linked to our spacetime. These symmetries are already known and used in quantum theory
I am surprised (a little) that no one is commenting on that paper (A photon-like wavepacket with quantized properties based on classical Maxwell’s equations - John. E. Carroll), it is quite good.
That, and my "snips" from above, are all things that I regularly say, in a slightly different assemblage of words, when explaining "RT" (Resonance Theory). [I've dropped the "V"].
I think that I can summarize our main difference, and segway into a question, with this:
You are using "one transaction at a time", with "single and pair" dynamics, that comprise our Physics today. Doing it that way requires you to have more "dimensions" to solve the problem. What I mean here, and try to say all the time, is that we are looking at an "ideal case", and trying to build from there. I think that that is a mistake.
There is NO vacuum; and there can NEVER be an "isolated" wave (or "particle"). Even at the next improvement, and measuring an INTERACTION between 2 bodies, is excluding the "background". The "background" is NEVER zero (that is explanatory of why we have no vacuum). Everything is connected; we are not separate.
We KNOW that we will have x number of "particles" per cubic centimeter of space, representing mass and energy, and we also KNOW that there are countless (OK, near infinite) "photons" existing IN BETWEEN their source and receiver (space), at ANY given "billionth of a second" in time.
These are indisputable facts.
Limiting the "problems" of WF-C to just this topic, and your post (GE), we find a need to explain something. Since we have all of this energetic activity in Space, we would find a "near infinite" amount of "advanced waves" filling all of space, and providing a "background path" to "follow" to sink. Furthermore, you state that we can also look at gravity with this same model, realizing that everything is in continuous "communication".
You have just described an "Ether", and you argued against this concept, until you are blue in the face. What gives?
If we can get back to the DSE, we need to tie these things together. Everyone agrees now, that there are some problems with the circular reasoning that are inherent to our system, and that even defining "One" is problematic, especially when you want to make it "indivisible".
It seems that we are all in agreement about " c " being a coincidence tied to the meter and the second, but it is "what we have to work with", so let's make the best of it.
Nobody here (or anywhere else, TMK), besides me, is offering a derivation of " c ". The best one so far, is Maxwell's EM wave, propagating "in vacuo". If the vacuum existed, it would be much more palatable. Relativity does not do any better at explaining "why", but shows "how" in geometric terms. C is measured constant. It is something in the act of HOW we measure that provides the clue. THAT is why I am re-establishing such "basic" parameters".
We ALL know, that the act of measuring (we use waves), at the very tiny "quantum" level, disturbs/changes the thing that we are trying to measure. This is because we are using CLUMSY, IGNORANT methods to "measure" these things with. If we use the SAME quanta that nature uses, the changes would be PREDICTABLE, and the "problem" is solved.
Nature uses Resonance. No one here has offered the slightest word to challenge my statement.
We have debated "quantizing" the second (time), the meter (distance), but most are against this, so that we may have a "continuous background" to work with.
We do NOT need to "add" any more parameters to this, IMO.
The ONLY thing that is necessary to "quantize", is "frequency", or the CYCLE, in terms of measuring. Time and Space can remain constant units.
All this means is that SOMETHING is happening "in between" those whole cycles, even though those whole cycles may need to be complete to satisfy a definition.
This SIMPLE postulate, measured on an "exponential" scale, PRODUCES the wave model in scalar space (dimensionless). Frequency, Wavelength, and the Speed of Light, in terms of symmetric nodes/anti-nodes, are PRODUCED from this simple measurement of ONE STEP, from ONE CODE, or instruction.
How about the "near field"? HOW is this defined by Physics? To what extent does it exist, relative to the "wave center"?
Is the concept of "velocity" valid here?
How does this tie into the Talbot distance?
One possible interpretation of RT is this:
1.0267092999.. of any emission "quanta" is due to a background contribution.
1.0267092999.. of any absorption "quanta" is due to a background contribution.
1.0267092999^2 becomes a "constant". ( Z^2 = 1.0541319..)
The "fine structure" or "line width" is established by the small difference between this value, and the 12th rt of 2, 1.05946309.. = R
[note that Dirac's constant falls in between these values]
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| IMHO the way photons behave is the full answer to all the problems of String Theory and of the other theories by linking the so called force of gravity with the "symmetric" time resonant photon. Since we only observe 1/2 of the full wave packet being causal creatures, we are not able to see the immediate effects of this symmetry. We have developed three disconnected theories which are all related to electromagnetism. This is an extra symmetry in the Universe. Separately the "four forces" are not an answer to this bigger "holographic" problem. As part of a Wheeler Feynman Absorber Interpretation... one transaction at a time.... Cramer's Transactional Hypothesis... we can establish a fully time and space symmetric Theory of Everything containing just one extra symmetry leading to additional physical dimensions that are compact and resonantly linked to our spacetime. These symmetries are already known and used in quantum theory |
I am surprised (a little) that no one is commenting on that paper (A photon-like wavepacket with quantized properties based on classical Maxwell’s equations - John. E. Carroll), it is quite good.
That, and my "snips" from above, are all things that I regularly say, in a slightly different assemblage of words, when explaining "RT" (Resonance Theory). [I've dropped the "V"].
I think that I can summarize our main difference, and segway into a question, with this:
You are using "one transaction at a time", with "single and pair" dynamics, that comprise our Physics today. Doing it that way requires you to have more "dimensions" to solve the problem. What I mean here, and try to say all the time, is that we are looking at an "ideal case", and trying to build from there. I think that that is a mistake.
There is NO vacuum; and there can NEVER be an "isolated" wave (or "particle"). Even at the next improvement, and measuring an INTERACTION between 2 bodies, is excluding the "background". The "background" is NEVER zero (that is explanatory of why we have no vacuum). Everything is connected; we are not separate.
We KNOW that we will have x number of "particles" per cubic centimeter of space, representing mass and energy, and we also KNOW that there are countless (OK, near infinite) "photons" existing IN BETWEEN their source and receiver (space), at ANY given "billionth of a second" in time.
These are indisputable facts.
Limiting the "problems" of WF-C to just this topic, and your post (GE), we find a need to explain something. Since we have all of this energetic activity in Space, we would find a "near infinite" amount of "advanced waves" filling all of space, and providing a "background path" to "follow" to sink. Furthermore, you state that we can also look at gravity with this same model, realizing that everything is in continuous "communication".
You have just described an "Ether", and you argued against this concept, until you are blue in the face. What gives?
If we can get back to the DSE, we need to tie these things together. Everyone agrees now, that there are some problems with the circular reasoning that are inherent to our system, and that even defining "One" is problematic, especially when you want to make it "indivisible".
It seems that we are all in agreement about " c " being a coincidence tied to the meter and the second, but it is "what we have to work with", so let's make the best of it.
Nobody here (or anywhere else, TMK), besides me, is offering a derivation of " c ". The best one so far, is Maxwell's EM wave, propagating "in vacuo". If the vacuum existed, it would be much more palatable. Relativity does not do any better at explaining "why", but shows "how" in geometric terms. C is measured constant. It is something in the act of HOW we measure that provides the clue. THAT is why I am re-establishing such "basic" parameters".
We ALL know, that the act of measuring (we use waves), at the very tiny "quantum" level, disturbs/changes the thing that we are trying to measure. This is because we are using CLUMSY, IGNORANT methods to "measure" these things with. If we use the SAME quanta that nature uses, the changes would be PREDICTABLE, and the "problem" is solved.
Nature uses Resonance. No one here has offered the slightest word to challenge my statement.
We have debated "quantizing" the second (time), the meter (distance), but most are against this, so that we may have a "continuous background" to work with.
We do NOT need to "add" any more parameters to this, IMO.
The ONLY thing that is necessary to "quantize", is "frequency", or the CYCLE, in terms of measuring. Time and Space can remain constant units.
All this means is that SOMETHING is happening "in between" those whole cycles, even though those whole cycles may need to be complete to satisfy a definition.
This SIMPLE postulate, measured on an "exponential" scale, PRODUCES the wave model in scalar space (dimensionless). Frequency, Wavelength, and the Speed of Light, in terms of symmetric nodes/anti-nodes, are PRODUCED from this simple measurement of ONE STEP, from ONE CODE, or instruction.
How about the "near field"? HOW is this defined by Physics? To what extent does it exist, relative to the "wave center"?
Is the concept of "velocity" valid here?
How does this tie into the Talbot distance?
One possible interpretation of RT is this:
1.0267092999.. of any emission "quanta" is due to a background contribution.
1.0267092999.. of any absorption "quanta" is due to a background contribution.
1.0267092999^2 becomes a "constant". ( Z^2 = 1.0541319..)
The "fine structure" or "line width" is established by the small difference between this value, and the 12th rt of 2, 1.05946309.. = R
[note that Dirac's constant falls in between these values] In essence, the Dirac constant is a conversion factor between phase (in radians) and action (in joule-seconds) as seen in the Schrodinger equation. The Planck constant is similarly a conversion factor between phase (in cycles) and action. All other uses of Planck's constant and Dirac's constant follow from that.
So, Z^2 x R = 1.1168139362816172739403522624364..
28 true harmonics from here (not integer series), we arrive at " c ".
1.11681393628.. x 2^28 = 2.9979245825291087734765537636774e+8
In "1/12th" of a cycle, "one step", we have the "information" that is identical to 337 steps.
Z^2 x R^337 = 299792458.25291087734765537636774
THIS is how the "helical world-line" of "ring riding observers" can have clocks that are synchronized in a "constant velocity" Universe
We need to ADD to our "fundamental" constant curves (radius), the "genus one helicoid", with a "handle" as a marker.
337 discreet "clicks" of incremental rotation, and we pass our "handle" 28 times.
This FORM also "accommodates" the 2-way, double spiral staircase, which would be "nice" to use for the retarded/advanced wave relationship.
out of time..
regards,
T.Roc
Troc!
Do you think that you covered enough steps so that "THEY2" would be able to follow?
Again .... How did you get that number?
GE
Reuter makes a few bold assertions http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.1769v1.pdf
It can be shown in general that if a gravitational FP exists, Newton’s constant will have an anomalous dimension equal to two [10],
In this letter we present for the first time evidence that in pure gravity the UV critical surface is finite dimensional.
The most important new result of our calculation is that in all truncations the operators from R3 upwards are irrelevant.
With a finite dimensional critical surface, one can make definite predictions in quantum gravity.
jal
Do you think that you covered enough steps so that "THEY2" would be able to follow?
QUOTE
1.0267092999.. of any emission "quanta" is due to a background contribution.
Again .... How did you get that number?
GE
Reuter makes a few bold assertions http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.1769v1.pdf
It can be shown in general that if a gravitational FP exists, Newton’s constant will have an anomalous dimension equal to two [10],
In this letter we present for the first time evidence that in pure gravity the UV critical surface is finite dimensional.
The most important new result of our calculation is that in all truncations the operators from R3 upwards are irrelevant.
With a finite dimensional critical surface, one can make definite predictions in quantum gravity.
jal
Hello TRoc, et al.
Is there any possibility that the resonance you are describing could be the result of a delay in the energy transfer back and forth across an interface between two (or more) M-branes?
Is there any possibility that the resonance you are describing could be the result of a delay in the energy transfer back and forth across an interface between two (or more) M-branes?
Hey TRoc and all,
I think you are getting too caught up in the number 299,792,458 instead of focusing on what it represents. I am good with "R". The 12th root of 2 is dimensionless (like pi). But "Z" is not. Z is 100% dependant on the units used to derive it (m/s).
I am going to go old school for a bit and define the speed of light in vacuum as EXACTLY 186,282.397 miles/second. In any experiment we choose to measure the speed on light in vacuum, as long as we know the conversion factors between the units you use and the units I use, we will always agree that the speed of light is the same. Correct?
So by going old school, my Z equals ~.0255931093919. R remains the same. Does the matrix math still work? If yes, then you are good to go. If no, then you forgot to apply the conversion factor.
Some pages back I said something like, "Wouldn't it be cool if the units we choose to measure the speed of light in resulted in a speed of light of 284,397,458.84949 whatever’s per whatever?" Doing so would make Z = 1.
What’s the square root of the speed of light divided by 284,397,458.84949?
If you keep the same line of reasoning but focus on what the speed of light represents instead of the number 299,792,458, I think you will see the light!
Mahalo
I think you are getting too caught up in the number 299,792,458 instead of focusing on what it represents. I am good with "R". The 12th root of 2 is dimensionless (like pi). But "Z" is not. Z is 100% dependant on the units used to derive it (m/s).
I am going to go old school for a bit and define the speed of light in vacuum as EXACTLY 186,282.397 miles/second. In any experiment we choose to measure the speed on light in vacuum, as long as we know the conversion factors between the units you use and the units I use, we will always agree that the speed of light is the same. Correct?
So by going old school, my Z equals ~.0255931093919. R remains the same. Does the matrix math still work? If yes, then you are good to go. If no, then you forgot to apply the conversion factor.
Some pages back I said something like, "Wouldn't it be cool if the units we choose to measure the speed of light in resulted in a speed of light of 284,397,458.84949 whatever’s per whatever?" Doing so would make Z = 1.
What’s the square root of the speed of light divided by 284,397,458.84949?
If you keep the same line of reasoning but focus on what the speed of light represents instead of the number 299,792,458, I think you will see the light!
Mahalo
HI GE and All,
From a relativistic point of view of a photon, which is an energy impulse that
exists in time and space, there is no "internal" passage of time, but it does
possess external frames of reference, which was the start time...its birth/genesis,
and its inertial position in space, relative to where it started from. This gives
it time relativity, as it relates to space.
Remember, we are talking strictly about dynamic energy when discussing
the "merits" of a photon. It has certain quantifiable characteristics that can
be "scaled" and compared to other similar forms of energy, but in the long
run, all dynamic forms of propagating energy obey the same laws of nature/rules.
We are still trying to establish exactly what ALL those laws are. It is likely that
we have not yet identified some key laws, but we seem to be skirting around the
edges by trying to understand the phenomenon of resonance. Energy responds
to localized changes in space and time via the process of resonance, which is
an energy coupling phenomenon.
I think TRoc is on the right trail, but we need to further develop exactly what
properties of space and time are necessary/responsible for iniating resonance.
From a relativistic point of view of a photon, which is an energy impulse that
exists in time and space, there is no "internal" passage of time, but it does
possess external frames of reference, which was the start time...its birth/genesis,
and its inertial position in space, relative to where it started from. This gives
it time relativity, as it relates to space.
Remember, we are talking strictly about dynamic energy when discussing
the "merits" of a photon. It has certain quantifiable characteristics that can
be "scaled" and compared to other similar forms of energy, but in the long
run, all dynamic forms of propagating energy obey the same laws of nature/rules.
We are still trying to establish exactly what ALL those laws are. It is likely that
we have not yet identified some key laws, but we seem to be skirting around the
edges by trying to understand the phenomenon of resonance. Energy responds
to localized changes in space and time via the process of resonance, which is
an energy coupling phenomenon.
I think TRoc is on the right trail, but we need to further develop exactly what
properties of space and time are necessary/responsible for iniating resonance.
This means that we may already have the mathematical basis of a complete Theory of Everything staring us in the face which starts with a "holographically connected Universe" based on symmetric Wheeler Feynman Absorber photon interactions. These interactions, as I have previously noted above, connect photon sources with photon sinks as part of a single event in their own frames of reference connected by null time (and in some cases null space) symmetric advanced and retarded photons. Each individual event linked through space and time to its own time symmetric anti-event which meets up to complete itself... even if these two "ends" appear to be thousands of light years apart when viewed from our personal "external" frames of reference and our time. I have referred to this being "Fourier Transforms" but in additional dimensions these are standing waves on the surface of a compact six dimensional hypersphere connected to our four dimensional spacetime through "resonance",
Again, I will point out the inconsistency in this conceptualization of source/sink
dependency using a real life example.
Our sun emits photons that radiate in a spherical pattern from the source. Some
of those emitted photon's will never be detected because they will never
encounter a physical energy sink. The "universe"/vacuum of space
IS THE SINK . It "operates" at a lower net energy value than the initiating
energy source (the sun), and the light that is emitted, which will never be detected,
will propagate forever, following all the released radiation that has preceded it
from the begining of the universe. In effect, energy is the foundation of the
universe, and how "space" changes according to it's energy content, is the nature
of time.
True, some of the energy (photons) will couple to a resonant energy
receptor, and a "physical" energy displacement or energy transfer will take place,
but it is not a requirement that there be a detector "available" insitu for energy
to propagate into space.
Comments? Opposing viewpoints?
LL
QUOTE
Event. After they are absorbed the energy can be redistributed but while the photon is in "transit"(which is zero time and also zero spacial distance (in the rest frame of a photon) it is a "stationary state" due entirely to the fact it is "frozen" on the surface of the light cone wall by the Theory of Relativity and causality.
From a relativistic point of view of a photon, which is an energy impulse that
exists in time and space, there is no "internal" passage of time, but it does
possess external frames of reference, which was the start time...its birth/genesis,
and its inertial position in space, relative to where it started from. This gives
it time relativity, as it relates to space.
Remember, we are talking strictly about dynamic energy when discussing
the "merits" of a photon. It has certain quantifiable characteristics that can
be "scaled" and compared to other similar forms of energy, but in the long
run, all dynamic forms of propagating energy obey the same laws of nature/rules.
We are still trying to establish exactly what ALL those laws are. It is likely that
we have not yet identified some key laws, but we seem to be skirting around the
edges by trying to understand the phenomenon of resonance. Energy responds
to localized changes in space and time via the process of resonance, which is
an energy coupling phenomenon.
I think TRoc is on the right trail, but we need to further develop exactly what
properties of space and time are necessary/responsible for iniating resonance.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Event. After they are absorbed the energy can be redistributed but while the photon is in "transit"(which is zero time and also zero spacial distance (in the rest frame of a photon) it is a "stationary state" due entirely to the fact it is "frozen" on the surface of the light cone wall by the Theory of Relativity and causality. |
From a relativistic point of view of a photon, which is an energy impulse that
exists in time and space, there is no "internal" passage of time, but it does
possess external frames of reference, which was the start time...its birth/genesis,
and its inertial position in space, relative to where it started from. This gives
it time relativity, as it relates to space.
Remember, we are talking strictly about dynamic energy when discussing
the "merits" of a photon. It has certain quantifiable characteristics that can
be "scaled" and compared to other similar forms of energy, but in the long
run, all dynamic forms of propagating energy obey the same laws of nature/rules.
We are still trying to establish exactly what ALL those laws are. It is likely that
we have not yet identified some key laws, but we seem to be skirting around the
edges by trying to understand the phenomenon of resonance. Energy responds
to localized changes in space and time via the process of resonance, which is
an energy coupling phenomenon.
I think TRoc is on the right trail, but we need to further develop exactly what
properties of space and time are necessary/responsible for iniating resonance.
This means that we may already have the mathematical basis of a complete Theory of Everything staring us in the face which starts with a "holographically connected Universe" based on symmetric Wheeler Feynman Absorber photon interactions. These interactions, as I have previously noted above, connect photon sources with photon sinks as part of a single event in their own frames of reference connected by null time (and in some cases null space) symmetric advanced and retarded photons. Each individual event linked through space and time to its own time symmetric anti-event which meets up to complete itself... even if these two "ends" appear to be thousands of light years apart when viewed from our personal "external" frames of reference and our time. I have referred to this being "Fourier Transforms" but in additional dimensions these are standing waves on the surface of a compact six dimensional hypersphere connected to our four dimensional spacetime through "resonance",
Again, I will point out the inconsistency in this conceptualization of source/sink
dependency using a real life example.
Our sun emits photons that radiate in a spherical pattern from the source. Some
of those emitted photon's will never be detected because they will never
encounter a physical energy sink. The "universe"/vacuum of space
IS THE SINK . It "operates" at a lower net energy value than the initiating
energy source (the sun), and the light that is emitted, which will never be detected,
will propagate forever, following all the released radiation that has preceded it
from the begining of the universe. In effect, energy is the foundation of the
universe, and how "space" changes according to it's energy content, is the nature
of time.
True, some of the energy (photons) will couple to a resonant energy
receptor, and a "physical" energy displacement or energy transfer will take place,
but it is not a requirement that there be a detector "available" insitu for energy
to propagate into space.
Comments? Opposing viewpoints?
LL
Hi Laserlight, Janrinze et al,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Again, I will point out the inconsistency in this conceptualization of source/sink dependency using a real life example.
Our sun emits photons that radiate in a spherical pattern from the source. Some of those emitted photon's will never be detected because they will never encounter a physical energy sink. The "universe"/vacuum of space IS THE SINK .
Our sun emits photons that radiate in a spherical pattern from the source. Some of those emitted photon's will never be detected because they will never encounter a physical energy sink. The "universe"/vacuum of space IS THE SINK .
I really do not think you are picking up on this point... "Never" might be a very long time to you but to a photon it is absolutely no time at all and all source emissions are directly and instantly "connected" to the sink in it's frame of reference. Think of it like a small impulse "spark" crossing an infinitesimal gap between source and sink. Consider how many individual points in the universe that exist as potential sinks for a particular photon if the distance and the elapsed time to them were null... every possible point capable of "connecting" with this source. If our entire Universe was the size of a D6 subatomic particle on the outside then "everywhere" inside is almost instantly accessible. It then "picks the first available sink that crops up, automatically ignoring all "filled" sites, and because this is not dependent on any other external frames of reference other than that one interaction ... nothing else matters to that single event. You are "out of the loop with that particular quantum reaction and you have no way to ever even enter the loop since it has "created" the advanced wave the instant the the retarded wave exists in it's own frame where the actual interaction will actually occur.
This is a theory of connections and not a theory of "lonely isolated particles". Your external point of view "means nothing" to the photon since you will absolutely never see it and you will absolutely never interact with it.... That is what being a quantum means. You cannot even know that it is there at all. These are experimentally derived results not a guess by Good Elf. This is the "meaning" of being a quantum.
I can see that you are not quite picking up these points... The photon arrives at the sink exactly the way it was created at the source... be it a micron distance or a hundred billion light years distance... no difference. A completely Stationary Energy State. This is not a theory (this part) it is an experimental fact. The emission and the absorption form only one resonant cavity and one and only one particle event and in between there are absolutely no particles to be found only the advanced and retarded waves which cannot be directly viewed.. We really only know of them through their "interferences"...
The photons are time stamped and coordinate stamped and are matched pairs and there is nothing in our Universe that can happen in the time between (since there is actually no time between so all particle properties are always in "mutual contact" no matter where this appears to be from other coordinate spaces). We have discussed already how this appears in other relativistic frames... none of them can alter any of the events in the rest frame of the "particles" where everything actually happens (source + sink). This is similar to how I formerly discussed the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment where two entangled photons remain similarly time and coordinate stamped and what happens to one determines the fate of the other. Once again an experimental result where we already know that external "local" time has little or no meaning to the "event".
Cheers
This is a theory of connections and not a theory of "lonely isolated particles". Your external point of view "means nothing" to the photon since you will absolutely never see it and you will absolutely never interact with it.... That is what being a quantum means. You cannot even know that it is there at all. These are experimentally derived results not a guess by Good Elf. This is the "meaning" of being a quantum.
I can see that you are not quite picking up these points... The photon arrives at the sink exactly the way it was created at the source... be it a micron distance or a hundred billion light years distance... no difference. A completely Stationary Energy State. This is not a theory (this part) it is an experimental fact. The emission and the absorption form only one resonant cavity and one and only one particle event and in between there are absolutely no particles to be found only the advanced and retarded waves which cannot be directly viewed.. We really only know of them through their "interferences"...
The photons are time stamped and coordinate stamped and are matched pairs and there is nothing in our Universe that can happen in the time between (since there is actually no time between so all particle properties are always in "mutual contact" no matter where this appears to be from other coordinate spaces). We have discussed already how this appears in other relativistic frames... none of them can alter any of the events in the rest frame of the "particles" where everything actually happens (source + sink). This is similar to how I formerly discussed the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment where two entangled photons remain similarly time and coordinate stamped and what happens to one determines the fate of the other. Once again an experimental result where we already know that external "local" time has little or no meaning to the "event".
Cheers
Hi GE, et al,
I get the point perfectly! I just believe that it is WRONG, or wrongly
stated/inferred, or wrongly interpreted and presented by you. The universe, theoretically, is
expanding ad infinitum. This means that it is an energetic expansion process,
that could not occur if the energy that enables the expansion were restricted and
guaranteed to be absorbed by a detector. There is a lot of nothing at the
extreme edges of the universe, except for energy. No sinks, no physical
material of any kind to which energy can sink. The void/universe is the energy
sink! It just is not a resonant energy exchange mechanism, which is
only produced by, and around, physical matter.
I get the point perfectly! I just believe that it is WRONG, or wrongly
stated/inferred, or wrongly interpreted and presented by you. The universe, theoretically, is
expanding ad infinitum. This means that it is an energetic expansion process,
that could not occur if the energy that enables the expansion were restricted and
guaranteed to be absorbed by a detector. There is a lot of nothing at the
extreme edges of the universe, except for energy. No sinks, no physical
material of any kind to which energy can sink. The void/universe is the energy
sink! It just is not a resonant energy exchange mechanism, which is
only produced by, and around, physical matter.
You are "out of the loop with that particular quantum reaction and you have no way to ever even enter the loop since it has "created" the advanced wave the instant the the retarded wave exists in it's own frame where the actual interaction will actually occur.
Retarded waves are conjecture to explain a theoretical closed loop process. While
this may actually occur in a particle to particle energy transfer within a
physical/matter matrix, it is not necessarily a requirement for distant
energy transfer from a source to a sink. Energy is moving in one direction,
away from the source! There does not have to be a reverse energy
exchange to accomodate this energy transfer over large distances. Resonance
is a localized effect of space and time.
It is not necessary for everything to be "connected" from source to sink. All
matter and energy is "connected" to space and time, which is the common
vessel/receptical that contains everything.
It is not necessary for everything to be "connected" from source to sink. All
matter and energy is "connected" to space and time, which is the common
vessel/receptical that contains everything.
I can see that you are not quite picking up these points... The photon arrives at the sink exactly the way it was created at the source... be it a micron distance or a hundred billion light years distance... no difference. A completely Stationary Energy State. This is not a theory (this part) it is an experimental fact. The emission and the absorption form only one resonant cavity and one and only one particle event and in between there are absolutely no particles to be found only the advanced and retarded waves which cannot be directly viewed.. We really only know of them through their "interferences"...
Condescending comments aside....I get all the points, I just emphatically disagree
with them in the way they are being presented by you, as being absolutely factual.
It is theory, and there are obvious theoretical inconsistencies, that
you seem to choose to ignore, when confronted with them, which is
unfortunate.
See, again you are making blanket statements that are not quite accurate,
and presume too much.
Consider what happens when a photon is reflected, or changes direction thru
interacting with non-absorbent matter, as in glass or a lens.
The photon experiences a change of refractive index, slows while in the medium,
and "transfers" energy, but does not lose the qubit information that it is
transporting. It has energetically interacted with matter, but there is limited
decomposition of the original signal, and in fact the energy of the signal can be
reconstructed or condensed (focused) to spatially realign the pattern
information that has been spread over distance.
My point being that blanket statements of fact always have exceptions that
we cannot choose to ignore.
Other perspectives, comments, opinions?
LL
QUOTE
I really do not think you are picking up on this point... "Never" might be a very long time to you but to a photon it is absolutely no time at all and all source emissions are directly and instantly "connected" to the sink in it's frame of reference.
I get the point perfectly! I just believe that it is WRONG, or wrongly
stated/inferred, or wrongly interpreted and presented by you. The universe, theoretically, is
expanding ad infinitum. This means that it is an energetic expansion process,
that could not occur if the energy that enables the expansion were restricted and
guaranteed to be absorbed by a detector. There is a lot of nothing at the
extreme edges of the universe, except for energy. No sinks, no physical
material of any kind to which energy can sink. The void/universe is the energy
sink! It just is not a resonant energy exchange mechanism, which is
only produced by, and around, physical matter.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I really do not think you are picking up on this point... "Never" might be a very long time to you but to a photon it is absolutely no time at all and all source emissions are directly and instantly "connected" to the sink in it's frame of reference. |
I get the point perfectly! I just believe that it is WRONG, or wrongly
stated/inferred, or wrongly interpreted and presented by you. The universe, theoretically, is
expanding ad infinitum. This means that it is an energetic expansion process,
that could not occur if the energy that enables the expansion were restricted and
guaranteed to be absorbed by a detector. There is a lot of nothing at the
extreme edges of the universe, except for energy. No sinks, no physical
material of any kind to which energy can sink. The void/universe is the energy
sink! It just is not a resonant energy exchange mechanism, which is
only produced by, and around, physical matter.
You are "out of the loop with that particular quantum reaction and you have no way to ever even enter the loop since it has "created" the advanced wave the instant the the retarded wave exists in it's own frame where the actual interaction will actually occur.
Retarded waves are conjecture to explain a theoretical closed loop process. While
this may actually occur in a particle to particle energy transfer within a
physical/matter matrix, it is not necessarily a requirement for distant
energy transfer from a source to a sink. Energy is moving in one direction,
away from the source! There does not have to be a reverse energy
exchange to accomodate this energy transfer over large distances. Resonance
is a localized effect of space and time.
QUOTE
This is a theory of connections and not a theory of "lonely isolated particles". Your external point of view "means nothing" to the photon since you will absolutely never see it and you will absolutely never interact with it.... That is what being a quantum means. You cannot even know that it is there at all.
It is not necessary for everything to be "connected" from source to sink. All
matter and energy is "connected" to space and time, which is the common
vessel/receptical that contains everything.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is a theory of connections and not a theory of "lonely isolated particles". Your external point of view "means nothing" to the photon since you will absolutely never see it and you will absolutely never interact with it.... That is what being a quantum means. You cannot even know that it is there at all. |
It is not necessary for everything to be "connected" from source to sink. All
matter and energy is "connected" to space and time, which is the common
vessel/receptical that contains everything.
I can see that you are not quite picking up these points... The photon arrives at the sink exactly the way it was created at the source... be it a micron distance or a hundred billion light years distance... no difference. A completely Stationary Energy State. This is not a theory (this part) it is an experimental fact. The emission and the absorption form only one resonant cavity and one and only one particle event and in between there are absolutely no particles to be found only the advanced and retarded waves which cannot be directly viewed.. We really only know of them through their "interferences"...
Condescending comments aside....I get all the points, I just emphatically disagree
with them in the way they are being presented by you, as being absolutely factual.
It is theory, and there are obvious theoretical inconsistencies, that
you seem to choose to ignore, when confronted with them, which is
unfortunate.
QUOTE
The photons are time stamped and coordinate stamped and are matched pairs and there is nothing in our Universe that can happen in the time between (since there is actually no time between so all particle properties are always in "mutual contact" no matter where this appears to be from other coordinate spaces). We have discussed already how this appears in other relativistic frames... none of them can alter any of the events in the rest frame of the "particles" where everything actually happens (source + sink).
See, again you are making blanket statements that are not quite accurate,
and presume too much.
Consider what happens when a photon is reflected, or changes direction thru
interacting with non-absorbent matter, as in glass or a lens.
The photon experiences a change of refractive index, slows while in the medium,
and "transfers" energy, but does not lose the qubit information that it is
transporting. It has energetically interacted with matter, but there is limited
decomposition of the original signal, and in fact the energy of the signal can be
reconstructed or condensed (focused) to spatially realign the pattern
information that has been spread over distance.
My point being that blanket statements of fact always have exceptions that
we cannot choose to ignore.
Other perspectives, comments, opinions?
LL
Hi all,
jal Posted on Yesterday at 6:47 PM
Not knowing THEY2, or what it is you mean by "covered enough to follow", I can't answer that. I haven't given a DSE "answer", just the philosophy behind the method. The answer will only cause arguing over the same principles that we are doing prior to disclosure.
I do know that, since the advent of the piano, where the symmetry of the scale is most easily accessed (compared to all instruments), and perceived, and without having been "indoctrinated" into placing "reason" higher than "instinct", that we have many (MANY) examples of child "prodigies" sitting down and displaying MASTER skill levels, without any real "training".
I may then suppose that if our Science was built on the same principles, that we may see examples of "prodigies" in Physics, that we have never seen before. The Physics prodigies of today are more likely to "disband" from "the system", than they are at realizing some great Truth from within the system. (IE Wolfram: after leaving the system, his first proclamation was to set the goal of "describing every phenomenon of the Universe from one (or a few) simple recursive codes)
Not knowing THEY2, or what it is you mean by "covered enough to follow", I can't answer that. I haven't given a DSE "answer", just the philosophy behind the method. The answer will only cause arguing over the same principles that we are doing prior to disclosure.
I do know that, since the advent of the piano, where the symmetry of the scale is most easily accessed (compared to all instruments), and perceived, and without having been "indoctrinated" into placing "reason" higher than "instinct", that we have many (MANY) examples of child "prodigies" sitting down and displaying MASTER skill levels, without any real "training".
I may then suppose that if our Science was built on the same principles, that we may see examples of "prodigies" in Physics, that we have never seen before. The Physics prodigies of today are more likely to "disband" from "the system", than they are at realizing some great Truth from within the system. (IE Wolfram: after leaving the system, his first proclamation was to set the goal of "describing every phenomenon of the Universe from one (or a few) simple recursive codes)
1.0267092999.. of any emission "quanta" is due to a background contribution.
Again .... How did you get that number?
Well, WN? has pointed out, in explaining the point that he thought I might be "dwelling" on the number "299,792,458" too much, that indeed, I have "created" Z with the goal of " c " in mind.
What is not being said there, is that I had already arrived at a value very near Z, by ANOTHER example of "from integer" measurements. Specifically, that the tuning in Music is set at "440" Hz, and THEN, all other values are calculated.
Because of our biological LIMITS, the ideal set was created. This goes for Sound and Light; our methods, and "self-relative" thinking are identical. Since we can not "hear" sounds (with our ears) below ~20 Hz, musicians (founders of the system) never had reason to "quantify" below that level. They also has no reason to identify a "Universal Fundamental" value, like "One"; they allowed their instinct to guide them, with a little "help" from the lessons of Pythagoras, and Euler.
440/R^105 = 1.0219748644554634167103515372004
Which leads me to make the drastic, far reaching statement, that "Mankind developed an evolving system, based on sound perception, that predicted the "symmetry" of a constant velocity, to within 0.99538..% of 299,792,458, in the era from Huygens to Newton."
I only had to give it a little "nudge" to get the "accuracy" up to the current 0.999999999156..% level.
With that in mind, can you see why I don't agree on the view that Z is completely arbitrary, and is more an issue of the concept of measuring, and accuracy.
Remember, a key principle in RT is that there are "imaginary quadrants" created at the decimal point, and Z is the first value = or > than 1 . This replaces the need for negative numbers, and " i ", which allows us to get an alternative view to the "sine wave".
That is just one interpretation. The "matrix form" is another. The "imaginary quadrants" now find symmetry as Fundamental, rather than "quantity". The center, x y junction, is found in the "amazingly coincidental" boundaries of the highest set of frequencies perceivable by human ear, and the lowest set of frequencies "perceivable" by standard EM means. [elf/ulf require "inverse" methods/directionality]
A more "accurate" placement of where this "imaginary" (theoretical) border-line would be "the square root of c ", which falls between whole steps:
Z x R^168.5 = 17314.515817660047983788339758525,
squared = 299792457.99999999999999999999919,
= 0.999999999999999999999999999997..% accurate.
Hey! Just like Dirac, I've "dipped below the level line" (set by others), and used a harmonic to measure more accurately, but without actually increasing the "energy" (changing the thing measured).
Some might say that I "changed dimensions", when going from Z^2 to Z , but others would see "dropping off the powers" as a standard, established method. No "dippy processes" here; I'm sure that Feynman and Dirac would approve of what I am doing.
Montec Posted on Yesterday at 8:57 PM
Yes, that is a possibility.
Why Not? Posted on Yesterday at 9:08 PM
Yes, that is a possibility.
Why Not? Posted on Yesterday at 9:08 PM
Does the matrix math still work?
Affirmative.
The main reason that I am offering these results, is so that I may gain credibility among my peers here. I want you to see that my method "is accurate", so that when I explain the DSE in terms that "no one has ever heard", they will UNDERSTAND the answer that I give. It is pointless to do it the other way around.
For sure, WN?, you recall that the pattern extends to the "other" key areas of Science? I have given examples before, of Elements and SM particles, for the same reason: to make you say "hmmm", maybe something IS there.
continued..
ciao!
T.Roc
jal Posted on Yesterday at 6:47 PM
QUOTE
Do you think that you covered enough steps so that "THEY2" would be able to follow?
Not knowing THEY2, or what it is you mean by "covered enough to follow", I can't answer that. I haven't given a DSE "answer", just the philosophy behind the method. The answer will only cause arguing over the same principles that we are doing prior to disclosure.
I do know that, since the advent of the piano, where the symmetry of the scale is most easily accessed (compared to all instruments), and perceived, and without having been "indoctrinated" into placing "reason" higher than "instinct", that we have many (MANY) examples of child "prodigies" sitting down and displaying MASTER skill levels, without any real "training".
I may then suppose that if our Science was built on the same principles, that we may see examples of "prodigies" in Physics, that we have never seen before. The Physics prodigies of today are more likely to "disband" from "the system", than they are at realizing some great Truth from within the system. (IE Wolfram: after leaving the system, his first proclamation was to set the goal of "describing every phenomenon of the Universe from one (or a few) simple recursive codes)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you think that you covered enough steps so that "THEY2" would be able to follow? |
Not knowing THEY2, or what it is you mean by "covered enough to follow", I can't answer that. I haven't given a DSE "answer", just the philosophy behind the method. The answer will only cause arguing over the same principles that we are doing prior to disclosure.
I do know that, since the advent of the piano, where the symmetry of the scale is most easily accessed (compared to all instruments), and perceived, and without having been "indoctrinated" into placing "reason" higher than "instinct", that we have many (MANY) examples of child "prodigies" sitting down and displaying MASTER skill levels, without any real "training".
I may then suppose that if our Science was built on the same principles, that we may see examples of "prodigies" in Physics, that we have never seen before. The Physics prodigies of today are more likely to "disband" from "the system", than they are at realizing some great Truth from within the system. (IE Wolfram: after leaving the system, his first proclamation was to set the goal of "describing every phenomenon of the Universe from one (or a few) simple recursive codes)
1.0267092999.. of any emission "quanta" is due to a background contribution.
Again .... How did you get that number?
Well, WN? has pointed out, in explaining the point that he thought I might be "dwelling" on the number "299,792,458" too much, that indeed, I have "created" Z with the goal of " c " in mind.
What is not being said there, is that I had already arrived at a value very near Z, by ANOTHER example of "from integer" measurements. Specifically, that the tuning in Music is set at "440" Hz, and THEN, all other values are calculated.
Because of our biological LIMITS, the ideal set was created. This goes for Sound and Light; our methods, and "self-relative" thinking are identical. Since we can not "hear" sounds (with our ears) below ~20 Hz, musicians (founders of the system) never had reason to "quantify" below that level. They also has no reason to identify a "Universal Fundamental" value, like "One"; they allowed their instinct to guide them, with a little "help" from the lessons of Pythagoras, and Euler.
440/R^105 = 1.0219748644554634167103515372004
Which leads me to make the drastic, far reaching statement, that "Mankind developed an evolving system, based on sound perception, that predicted the "symmetry" of a constant velocity, to within 0.99538..% of 299,792,458, in the era from Huygens to Newton."
I only had to give it a little "nudge" to get the "accuracy" up to the current 0.999999999156..% level.
With that in mind, can you see why I don't agree on the view that Z is completely arbitrary, and is more an issue of the concept of measuring, and accuracy.
Remember, a key principle in RT is that there are "imaginary quadrants" created at the decimal point, and Z is the first value = or > than 1 . This replaces the need for negative numbers, and " i ", which allows us to get an alternative view to the "sine wave".
That is just one interpretation. The "matrix form" is another. The "imaginary quadrants" now find symmetry as Fundamental, rather than "quantity". The center, x y junction, is found in the "amazingly coincidental" boundaries of the highest set of frequencies perceivable by human ear, and the lowest set of frequencies "perceivable" by standard EM means. [elf/ulf require "inverse" methods/directionality]
A more "accurate" placement of where this "imaginary" (theoretical) border-line would be "the square root of c ", which falls between whole steps:
Z x R^168.5 = 17314.515817660047983788339758525,
squared = 299792457.99999999999999999999919,
= 0.999999999999999999999999999997..% accurate.
Hey! Just like Dirac, I've "dipped below the level line" (set by others), and used a harmonic to measure more accurately, but without actually increasing the "energy" (changing the thing measured).
Some might say that I "changed dimensions", when going from Z^2 to Z , but others would see "dropping off the powers" as a standard, established method. No "dippy processes" here; I'm sure that Feynman and Dirac would approve of what I am doing.
Montec Posted on Yesterday at 8:57 PM
QUOTE
Is there any possibility that the resonance you are describing could be the result of a delay in the energy transfer back and forth across an interface between two (or more) M-branes?
Yes, that is a possibility.
Why Not? Posted on Yesterday at 9:08 PM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is there any possibility that the resonance you are describing could be the result of a delay in the energy transfer back and forth across an interface between two (or more) M-branes? |
Yes, that is a possibility.
Why Not? Posted on Yesterday at 9:08 PM
Does the matrix math still work?
Affirmative.
The main reason that I am offering these results, is so that I may gain credibility among my peers here. I want you to see that my method "is accurate", so that when I explain the DSE in terms that "no one has ever heard", they will UNDERSTAND the answer that I give. It is pointless to do it the other way around.
For sure, WN?, you recall that the pattern extends to the "other" key areas of Science? I have given examples before, of Elements and SM particles, for the same reason: to make you say "hmmm", maybe something IS there.
continued..
ciao!
T.Roc
Hi TRoc!
I glad that I was near the computer and can ask questions right away.
That sound like a reasonable place to start. If it works.
Explain the formula
R?... and ^105?
That sound like a reasonable place to start. If it works.
Explain the formula
R?... and ^105?
Which leads me to make the drastic, far reaching statement, that "Mankind developed an evolving system, based on sound perception, that predicted the "symmetry" of a constant velocity, to within 0.99538..% of 299,792,458, in the era from Huygens to Newton."
Haaaa, yes .... the speed of light 299,792,458
(I'm wanting you to pretend that we are 12 years old and that you got to explain every step for us to understand.)
Save the explanation of the second part until everyone has understood the first part and discussed it.
Second part...
jal
I glad that I was near the computer and can ask questions right away.
QUOTE
Specifically, that the tuning in Music is set at "440" Hz, and THEN, all other values are calculated.
440/R^105 = 1.0219748644554634167103515372004
440/R^105 = 1.0219748644554634167103515372004
That sound like a reasonable place to start. If it works.
Explain the formula
R?... and ^105?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Specifically, that the tuning in Music is set at "440" Hz, and THEN, all other values are calculated. 440/R^105 = 1.0219748644554634167103515372004 |
That sound like a reasonable place to start. If it works.
Explain the formula
R?... and ^105?
Which leads me to make the drastic, far reaching statement, that "Mankind developed an evolving system, based on sound perception, that predicted the "symmetry" of a constant velocity, to within 0.99538..% of 299,792,458, in the era from Huygens to Newton."
Haaaa, yes .... the speed of light 299,792,458
(I'm wanting you to pretend that we are 12 years old and that you got to explain every step for us to understand.)
Save the explanation of the second part until everyone has understood the first part and discussed it.
Second part...
QUOTE
A more "accurate" placement of where this "imaginary" (theoretical) border-line would be "the square root of c ", which falls between whole steps:
Z x R^168.5 = 17314.515817660047983788339758525,
squared = 299792457.99999999999999999999919,
= 0.999999999999999999999999999997..% accurate.
Z x R^168.5 = 17314.515817660047983788339758525,
squared = 299792457.99999999999999999999919,
= 0.999999999999999999999999999997..% accurate.
jal
Hi jal,
R = the 12th sq rt of 2 = 2^(1/12) = 1.0594630943592952645618252949463
That is the "metric"; the lines on our measuring tape are separated by a constant rate, and not by a simple integer count, of "1, 2, 3, .." that our "normal" measuring tapes/rods/sticks have.
Each value is 5.946309..% larger or smaller than the next value.
Therefore, we are measuring with a constant rate.
Since, in our "wave model", ALL of the parameters are RATES (frequency, wavelength, and velocity), and the sq rt of c is "irrational", frequency and wavelength (whose product = c ) will not display "integer symmetry".
The " ^ " is the "keyboard-physics" symbol for an exponential.
2^2 = 2 squared, or 2 x 2
so
2^3 = 2 x 2 x 2
2^4 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2
etc.
and
R^3 = R x R x R
if " /R " is used,
/R^3 = R / R / R
etc.
This is a simple, recursive "command", that creates the "metric".
So, what this means, "440/R^105 = 1.0219748644554634167103515372004"
is "how many "clicks, steps, or lines on our rod", down, from 440 Hz, would we go to get to "the starting point", which we would want to be as close to the integer of One, as possible (but not <1 ).
This can be interpreted as a "background rate"; as such, it is within the tolerance that I stated, without any further assumptions, to the constant, " c ".
The pattern that I am describing transcends the "differences" in Sound and Light waves, and is quantitatively inherent to the cyclic process, in general.
regards,
T.Roc
R = the 12th sq rt of 2 = 2^(1/12) = 1.0594630943592952645618252949463
That is the "metric"; the lines on our measuring tape are separated by a constant rate, and not by a simple integer count, of "1, 2, 3, .." that our "normal" measuring tapes/rods/sticks have.
Each value is 5.946309..% larger or smaller than the next value.
Therefore, we are measuring with a constant rate.
Since, in our "wave model", ALL of the parameters are RATES (frequency, wavelength, and velocity), and the sq rt of c is "irrational", frequency and wavelength (whose product = c ) will not display "integer symmetry".
The " ^ " is the "keyboard-physics" symbol for an exponential.
2^2 = 2 squared, or 2 x 2
so
2^3 = 2 x 2 x 2
2^4 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2
etc.
and
R^3 = R x R x R
if " /R " is used,
/R^3 = R / R / R
etc.
This is a simple, recursive "command", that creates the "metric".
So, what this means, "440/R^105 = 1.0219748644554634167103515372004"
is "how many "clicks, steps, or lines on our rod", down, from 440 Hz, would we go to get to "the starting point", which we would want to be as close to the integer of One, as possible (but not <1 ).
This can be interpreted as a "background rate"; as such, it is within the tolerance that I stated, without any further assumptions, to the constant, " c ".
The pattern that I am describing transcends the "differences" in Sound and Light waves, and is quantitatively inherent to the cyclic process, in general.
regards,
T.Roc
EXCELLENT!!!!
Now we wait for the questions.
Here is one
Why use 440 Hz?
Why down and not up?
(Well... 2 questions)
jal
Now we wait for the questions.
Here is one
QUOTE
is "how many "clicks, steps, or lines on our rod", down, from 440 Hz,
Why use 440 Hz?
Why down and not up?
(Well... 2 questions)
jal
Hi Jal,
Good questions! If forces TRoc to reitterate and simplify discussions/topics from
numerous posts over a LONG period of time into bitesize chunks.
He has been focused on the 12 note musical scale from a mathematical perspective
and is associating that to quantify energy "ratios".
Musical middle "c" is at the center of the scale and represents a ratio of 1.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A440
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(music)
Hope this helps in the discussion/explanation.
LL
Edit added: from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A440
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(music)
Hope this helps in the discussion/explanation.
LL
Edit added: from Wikipedia
Scales
The relative pitches of individual notes in a scale may be determined by one of a number of tuning systems. In the west, the twelve-note chromatic scale is the most common method of organization, with equal temperament now the most widely used method of tuning that scale. In it, the pitch ratio between any two successive notes of the scale is exactly the twelfth root of two (or about 1.05946). In well-tempered systems (as used in the time of Johann Sebastian Bach, for example), different methods of musical tuning were used. Almost all of these systems have one interval in common, the octave, where the pitch of one note is double the frequency of another. For example, if the A above middle C is 440 Hz, the A an octave above that will be 880 Hz (info).
so ...
R = the 12th sq rt of 2 = 2^(1/12) = 1.0594630943592952645618252949463
----------------
So, what this means, "440/R^105 = 1.0219748644554634167103515372004"
is "how many "clicks, steps, or lines on our rod", down, from 440 Hz, would we go to get to "the starting point", which we would want to be as close to the integer of One, as possible (but not <1 ).
------------
So... which of those two number number is the beginning/starting number?
Sorry to be so nitte-pickky
jal
Good questions! If forces TRoc to reitterate and simplify discussions/topics from
numerous posts over a LONG period of time into bitesize chunks.
He has been focused on the 12 note musical scale from a mathematical perspective
and is associating that to quantify energy "ratios".
Musical middle "c" is at the center of the scale and represents a ratio of 1.
From Wikipedia:
QUOTE
A440 is the 440 Hz tone that serves as the standard for musical pitch. A440 is the musical note A above middle C (A4).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A440
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(music)
Hope this helps in the discussion/explanation.
LL
Edit added: from Wikipedia
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A440 is the 440 Hz tone that serves as the standard for musical pitch. A440 is the musical note A above middle C (A4). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A440
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(music)
Hope this helps in the discussion/explanation.
LL
Edit added: from Wikipedia
Scales
The relative pitches of individual notes in a scale may be determined by one of a number of tuning systems. In the west, the twelve-note chromatic scale is the most common method of organization, with equal temperament now the most widely used method of tuning that scale. In it, the pitch ratio between any two successive notes of the scale is exactly the twelfth root of two (or about 1.05946). In well-tempered systems (as used in the time of Johann Sebastian Bach, for example), different methods of musical tuning were used. Almost all of these systems have one interval in common, the octave, where the pitch of one note is double the frequency of another. For example, if the A above middle C is 440 Hz, the A an octave above that will be 880 Hz (info).
Hi all,
Yes, thanks for the questions, jal; and thanks for the help, LL. I am about out of time for today.
The establishment of "A-440 Hz" can be argued to have been evolving over a full 2500 years, from (at least the time of Pythagoras). From some unknown combination of events, not fully recorded/disseminated by History, the letter A was used for a position towards the end of the scale, and the scale instead begins with C.
C happens to be a harmonic of the "beginning" ( my Z constant), meaning the closest value (possible in the series) to "One".
I believe that Pythagoras was using this "basic" logic, to reduce down the "system", that would bud, and blossom to the Music that we know today.
2^n, n+1
1, 2, 4, 6, 16, 32, 64, 132, 262
262 Hz would be a "starting point" for a "Fundamental" approach. However, if you limit yourself to "whole fractions" or integer ratios, you will run into problems. Much later (1000+ yrs), the "anti-symmetric" interval approach was evidence that the problem still lingered.
Finally, in the late 1600's, the "equidistant scale" (chromatic) was introduced, making "doppler-free measurements" & interactions possible.
Technically then, "262" as an integer, was not good enough.
From 440, "9 steps back" (440/R^9) = 261.6255653005986346778499935233 Hz, which becomes our more "accurate" C note.
Note the irony, using the same type of "trial and error", that the measurement of the speed of light took. Years of empirical data, showing "near 299,792,458 m/s" velocity (but not "exactly"), and then finally, "let's just "round off" the constant to the nearest integer velocity". An act made possible by the existence of the work of AE, and the success of his constant velocity theory.
and to "Why down and not up?"
That is just simply getting smaller, or larger, in scale. The rate of change is constant. We were looking for the "origination point", from a physical point of view, that only requires "one" to be "at least one, but less than 2".
Just like our ages, counted in Birthdays, create an initial period when we are "not one" yet, we are technically "zero-point-something", which we like to just use "months", a subset of the "yearly cycle" of "birthdays".
With waves, however, we want AT LEAST one cycle to have existed, so that we may say that THAT value is "the beginning".
AFTER that point (and philosophically from ALL points), the "subset" becomes critical; the values between whole cycles.
There's more to life than just "Birthdays", right?
How many "nows" can exist between Birthdays?
regards,
T.Roc
Yes, thanks for the questions, jal; and thanks for the help, LL. I am about out of time for today.
The establishment of "A-440 Hz" can be argued to have been evolving over a full 2500 years, from (at least the time of Pythagoras). From some unknown combination of events, not fully recorded/disseminated by History, the letter A was used for a position towards the end of the scale, and the scale instead begins with C.
C happens to be a harmonic of the "beginning" ( my Z constant), meaning the closest value (possible in the series) to "One".
I believe that Pythagoras was using this "basic" logic, to reduce down the "system", that would bud, and blossom to the Music that we know today.
2^n, n+1
1, 2, 4, 6, 16, 32, 64, 132, 262
262 Hz would be a "starting point" for a "Fundamental" approach. However, if you limit yourself to "whole fractions" or integer ratios, you will run into problems. Much later (1000+ yrs), the "anti-symmetric" interval approach was evidence that the problem still lingered.
Finally, in the late 1600's, the "equidistant scale" (chromatic) was introduced, making "doppler-free measurements" & interactions possible.
Technically then, "262" as an integer, was not good enough.
From 440, "9 steps back" (440/R^9) = 261.6255653005986346778499935233 Hz, which becomes our more "accurate" C note.
Note the irony, using the same type of "trial and error", that the measurement of the speed of light took. Years of empirical data, showing "near 299,792,458 m/s" velocity (but not "exactly"), and then finally, "let's just "round off" the constant to the nearest integer velocity". An act made possible by the existence of the work of AE, and the success of his constant velocity theory.
and to "Why down and not up?"
That is just simply getting smaller, or larger, in scale. The rate of change is constant. We were looking for the "origination point", from a physical point of view, that only requires "one" to be "at least one, but less than 2".
Just like our ages, counted in Birthdays, create an initial period when we are "not one" yet, we are technically "zero-point-something", which we like to just use "months", a subset of the "yearly cycle" of "birthdays".
With waves, however, we want AT LEAST one cycle to have existed, so that we may say that THAT value is "the beginning".
AFTER that point (and philosophically from ALL points), the "subset" becomes critical; the values between whole cycles.
There's more to life than just "Birthdays", right?
How many "nows" can exist between Birthdays?
regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE
With waves, however, we want AT LEAST one cycle to have existed, so that we may say that THAT value is "the beginning".
so ...
R = the 12th sq rt of 2 = 2^(1/12) = 1.0594630943592952645618252949463
----------------
So, what this means, "440/R^105 = 1.0219748644554634167103515372004"
is "how many "clicks, steps, or lines on our rod", down, from 440 Hz, would we go to get to "the starting point", which we would want to be as close to the integer of One, as possible (but not <1 ).
------------
So... which of those two number number is the beginning/starting number?
Sorry to be so nitte-pickky
jal
Hi Jal,
Good question! I am perplexed because TRoc is equating a harmonic series
to a decimal system, which introduces an error factor, IMO.
I would think that the 12th root of 2 would be exactly 1, from a harmonic
perspective. Using a decimal system to equate a harmonic series defeats the
accuracy of the scale, wouldn't you think?
Perhaps, it is a necessity to try to use numbers that relate to our normal
decimal numerical "scale".
TRoc?? Got an explanation?
LL
QUOTE
So... which of those two number number is the beginning/starting number?
Sorry to be so nitte-pickky
Sorry to be so nitte-pickky
Good question! I am perplexed because TRoc is equating a harmonic series
to a decimal system, which introduces an error factor, IMO.
I would think that the 12th root of 2 would be exactly 1, from a harmonic
perspective. Using a decimal system to equate a harmonic series defeats the
accuracy of the scale, wouldn't you think?
Perhaps, it is a necessity to try to use numbers that relate to our normal
decimal numerical "scale".
TRoc?? Got an explanation?
LL
Hi Laserlight,
I also understand your point of view so do not take this as any personal criticism...
I also understand your point of view so do not take this as any personal criticism...
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
I really do not think you are picking up on this point... "Never" might be a very long time to you but to a photon it is absolutely no time at all and all source emissions are directly and instantly "connected" to the sink in it's frame of reference.
I get the point perfectly! I just believe that it is WRONG, or wrongly stated/inferred, or wrongly interpreted and presented by you. The universe, theoretically, is expanding ad infinitum. This means that it is an energetic expansion process, that could not occur if the energy that enables the expansion were restricted and guaranteed to be absorbed by a detector. There is a lot of nothing at the extreme edges of the universe, except for energy. No sinks, no physical material of any kind to which energy can sink. The void/universe is the energy sink! It just is not a resonant energy exchange mechanism, which is only produced by, and around, physical matter.
Emery is simply the capacity to do work... nothing more ... it can't "pile up" at the edge of the Universe. Think about it... there can be no energy if there is nothing "to do work on". I have a very strong opinion that Science is not a private belief system like Religions or Philosophy. You can test Science with an experiment and if the test is thoughtfully devised it can answer the "underlying theoretical question" placed to it. IMHO unless we accept testing as the ultimate arbiter of Scientific Theory then we can make no progress with our hubris.
If you think you are so right about your theory and I am so wrong there will probably be an existing experiment that can indicate the "resolution". In my case the testing of Special Relativity and the testing of Quantum Postulates indicate to me there is no need to postulate "stationary states" in Quantum Theory... these states really exist and they are imposed through Relativistic Time Dilation. I have noted that almost in every case of "misinterpretation" of the Laws of Physics the single worst error is the ignoring of the "natural rest frame " of the event. In that frame "everything" happens that can be observed in all other frames. All that Relativity then does is "correct" for the errors in the observation in transforming the coordinates from the rest frame of the event to other relativistically moving frames such as ours. The real problem is understanding that our human frame of reference is not preferred in some way. The next problem is not seeing that the Theory of Relativity has that low velocity end that extends down to a zero relative velocity... de Broglie Matter Waves... The property of the "particle" in low relative motion.
At one time "man" was on a planet at the center of the Universe and, according to belief, everything revolved around us as the pinnacle of "G*ds" Creation. Naturally nothing in "G*d's" Creation in mankind's inflated self image could rival us except "G*d" himself. Through history it has been a great inconvenience to mankind to find that there are other "g*ds" like ours and so we found it necessary to purge those "g*ds" from other cultures. This "purging" continues to this very day. For those who believe... In the end there can only be one.
I thank the day that a new tool was found to investigate the nature of our Universe... Science. This has saved and preserved more lives than any human "g*d" that we have ever invented. If you do not believe me ... just count heads. The price for this "protection" is our humility. IMHO there are many places that have forfeited this protection by way of their deeply held unproven beliefs. Our former status at the center of the Universe was all hubris and (after a few burnings at the stake) scientific experiment showed we were wrong about our primacy in creation. Now most of us take for granted that we are not at the center of the Universe and our Planet revolves around an ordinary Sun, one of very many similar suns indeed. One day I am certain that we will even discover evidence that our planet is not special in any significant way too. This "event" is simply waiting for the right "experiment".
Still many want to believe in many things that still hold our understanding back. The power of belief cannot be underestimated. We still want to be "special" and that we are at the center of something really big, a divine right of mankind, a special destiny. This is unfortunately procedurally built into our existing science from the bottom up. Einstein has finally shown that this belief is also wrong, but this message is taking a very long time to be understood and believed by the majority of mankind. You only need to read some of the other threads to find that many (if not most) of the correspondence on this Forum still cannot accept the frequently proven results of experiment. How much will it take and how many experiments to prove the results of Quantum Theory? Mankind is not even the center of the scale of things. We are cosmically insignificant. I hope we will learn finally that we are only what we actually make of ourselves... It remains to be seen if we are truly "bigger" than the way nature has formed us as brute aggressive animals.
In all things Scientific let the Experiment interpret our Theories and not the Theories the Experiment. There is only one Science for us as there was formerly only one "g*d" for the ancients. The theory that answers all experimental results is the best current theory until new contradictory experiments indicate a new theory is required. Belief alone is not enough to gain any kind of knowledge of "g*ds" or of nature.
Cheers
If you think you are so right about your theory and I am so wrong there will probably be an existing experiment that can indicate the "resolution". In my case the testing of Special Relativity and the testing of Quantum Postulates indicate to me there is no need to postulate "stationary states" in Quantum Theory... these states really exist and they are imposed through Relativistic Time Dilation. I have noted that almost in every case of "misinterpretation" of the Laws of Physics the single worst error is the ignoring of the "natural rest frame " of the event. In that frame "everything" happens that can be observed in all other frames. All that Relativity then does is "correct" for the errors in the observation in transforming the coordinates from the rest frame of the event to other relativistically moving frames such as ours. The real problem is understanding that our human frame of reference is not preferred in some way. The next problem is not seeing that the Theory of Relativity has that low velocity end that extends down to a zero relative velocity... de Broglie Matter Waves... The property of the "particle" in low relative motion.
At one time "man" was on a planet at the center of the Universe and, according to belief, everything revolved around us as the pinnacle of "G*ds" Creation. Naturally nothing in "G*d's" Creation in mankind's inflated self image could rival us except "G*d" himself. Through history it has been a great inconvenience to mankind to find that there are other "g*ds" like ours and so we found it necessary to purge those "g*ds" from other cultures. This "purging" continues to this very day. For those who believe... In the end there can only be one.
I thank the day that a new tool was found to investigate the nature of our Universe... Science. This has saved and preserved more lives than any human "g*d" that we have ever invented. If you do not believe me ... just count heads. The price for this "protection" is our humility. IMHO there are many places that have forfeited this protection by way of their deeply held unproven beliefs. Our former status at the center of the Universe was all hubris and (after a few burnings at the stake) scientific experiment showed we were wrong about our primacy in creation. Now most of us take for granted that we are not at the center of the Universe and our Planet revolves around an ordinary Sun, one of very many similar suns indeed. One day I am certain that we will even discover evidence that our planet is not special in any significant way too. This "event" is simply waiting for the right "experiment".
Still many want to believe in many things that still hold our understanding back. The power of belief cannot be underestimated. We still want to be "special" and that we are at the center of something really big, a divine right of mankind, a special destiny. This is unfortunately procedurally built into our existing science from the bottom up. Einstein has finally shown that this belief is also wrong, but this message is taking a very long time to be understood and believed by the majority of mankind. You only need to read some of the other threads to find that many (if not most) of the correspondence on this Forum still cannot accept the frequently proven results of experiment. How much will it take and how many experiments to prove the results of Quantum Theory? Mankind is not even the center of the scale of things. We are cosmically insignificant. I hope we will learn finally that we are only what we actually make of ourselves... It remains to be seen if we are truly "bigger" than the way nature has formed us as brute aggressive animals.
In all things Scientific let the Experiment interpret our Theories and not the Theories the Experiment. There is only one Science for us as there was formerly only one "g*d" for the ancients. The theory that answers all experimental results is the best current theory until new contradictory experiments indicate a new theory is required. Belief alone is not enough to gain any kind of knowledge of "g*ds" or of nature.
Cheers
Hey TRoc,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
I'm sure that Feynman and Dirac would approve of what I am doing.
No offence intended, but if either Feynman or Dirac were alive today, I seriously doubt either would give any credence to or invest any time on Physorg. If, by chance they did, I am 99.9999995268% sure that they would favor Good Elf's analysis. I honestly believe that if you really read what GE has to say, you would see that your matrix fits in very well.
Narcissus' fate should be a signal to all. But who I am I anyway...
Narcissus' fate should be a signal to all. But who I am I anyway...
energy piles in capacitors.
Hey GE,
If you are off your lecture "soapbox" now, we can continue our discourse.
So, I'm assuming that you don't consider the expansion of the universe a
work function? It is a change of energy "state".
As it pertains to moving physical matter, your statement is correct, but
keep in mind that energy can manifest itself as a potential, or kinetic form.
The act of changing the steady state dielectric permittivity characteristics, and the
refractive index of space, is implementing a change of state, and has the same
attributes as E or M field energy. A magnetic or electric field, that occupies and
changes the steady state characteristics of space, represents a potential
energy "work" function. Think about that. It possesses the ability to do work.
Energy at the edge of the universe is not "piling up" it is dispersing via the ISL.
You cannot deny this fundamental law of physics, despite your protestations.
I agree that experimental evidence establishes a factual basis to theory, but a
limited data set is only showing part of the story. We try to extrapolate
the rest of the story from the limited data that is available. That does not
mean our assertions are necessarily correct, and may in fact be totally wrong.
Sometimes, hard factual evidence cannot be collected and analyzed, which
leads to multiple theories and conceptualizations by notable scientists, who
have different opinions or a scientific basis for their beliefs/theories. This does
not mean that any of them are necessarily absolute. Usually, the actual answer
is a composite blending of ideas, or a completely unique solution. Scientists are
not infallible and being human, make human mistakes because they make
assumptions based on flimsy/unclear evidence, or are locked into their
formal educational training and belief system. One must always keep an open mind,
and be willing to change it based upon new, reliable and factual information.
Let's agree to leave "God" out of the argument. There is no place for theology
in science, or politics. Similarly, scientific "doctrine" should be flexible enough to
change according to new factual information.
Questioning experimental results, "authority" figures, and the results of analytical
data is an absolute necessity. We should take nothing for granted, even if a Nobel
laureate is the source of the information/theory. A theory, and experimental
results, must pass all the tests , and peer review, to be considered "valid".
LL
If you are off your lecture "soapbox" now, we can continue our discourse.
QUOTE
Emery is simply the capacity to do work... nothing more ... it can't "pile up" at the edge of the Universe. Think about it... there can be no energy if there is nothing "to do work on".
So, I'm assuming that you don't consider the expansion of the universe a
work function? It is a change of energy "state".
As it pertains to moving physical matter, your statement is correct, but
keep in mind that energy can manifest itself as a potential, or kinetic form.
The act of changing the steady state dielectric permittivity characteristics, and the
refractive index of space, is implementing a change of state, and has the same
attributes as E or M field energy. A magnetic or electric field, that occupies and
changes the steady state characteristics of space, represents a potential
energy "work" function. Think about that. It possesses the ability to do work.
Energy at the edge of the universe is not "piling up" it is dispersing via the ISL.
You cannot deny this fundamental law of physics, despite your protestations.
I agree that experimental evidence establishes a factual basis to theory, but a
limited data set is only showing part of the story. We try to extrapolate
the rest of the story from the limited data that is available. That does not
mean our assertions are necessarily correct, and may in fact be totally wrong.
Sometimes, hard factual evidence cannot be collected and analyzed, which
leads to multiple theories and conceptualizations by notable scientists, who
have different opinions or a scientific basis for their beliefs/theories. This does
not mean that any of them are necessarily absolute. Usually, the actual answer
is a composite blending of ideas, or a completely unique solution. Scientists are
not infallible and being human, make human mistakes because they make
assumptions based on flimsy/unclear evidence, or are locked into their
formal educational training and belief system. One must always keep an open mind,
and be willing to change it based upon new, reliable and factual information.
Let's agree to leave "God" out of the argument. There is no place for theology
in science, or politics. Similarly, scientific "doctrine" should be flexible enough to
change according to new factual information.
Questioning experimental results, "authority" figures, and the results of analytical
data is an absolute necessity. We should take nothing for granted, even if a Nobel
laureate is the source of the information/theory. A theory, and experimental
results, must pass all the tests , and peer review, to be considered "valid".
LL
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
See, again you are making blanket statements that are not quite accurate, and presume too much.
Consider what happens when a photon is reflected, or changes direction thru interacting with non-absorbent matter, as in glass or a lens.
The photon experiences a change of refractive index, slows while in the medium, and "transfers" energy, but does not lose the qubit information that it is transporting. It has energetically interacted with matter, but there is limited decomposition of the original signal, and in fact the energy of the signal can be reconstructed or ondensed (focused) to spatially realign the pattern information that has been spread over distance.
My point being that blanket statements of fact always have exceptions that we cannot choose to ignore.
Consider what happens when a photon is reflected, or changes direction thru interacting with non-absorbent matter, as in glass or a lens.
The photon experiences a change of refractive index, slows while in the medium, and "transfers" energy, but does not lose the qubit information that it is transporting. It has energetically interacted with matter, but there is limited decomposition of the original signal, and in fact the energy of the signal can be reconstructed or ondensed (focused) to spatially realign the pattern information that has been spread over distance.
My point being that blanket statements of fact always have exceptions that we cannot choose to ignore.
I make statements as guides on principle. Before you make such sweeping statement yourself you must consider other possibilities. Primarily I have been discussing vacuum properties of photons for the sake of simplicity. It does not mean that there are no exceptions and that I can always think of exceptions to every rule that you can think of too. Of course writing these all down would be a lifelong occupation. The statements I have made represent only single photon emissions and absorptions and this is what I referred to almost exclusively. The Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory would need to be reinterpreted for resonant cyclical systems such as solitons but I do not think this is too difficult. I have discussed these points before.
If you look back over my former statements on quantum non-demolition protective measurements we encounter the Quantum Zeno Effect. The current interpretation of this phenomenon is that a "single" photon, under special circumstances of "resonance" can have its time stamp and its coordinate stamp "reset". So instead of the photon passing from source to a sink only in one single resonant process .... this "sink" becomes a secondary "source" for some other tertiary "sink". In some highly resonant systems such as Solitons, Optical Vortices or Plasmons, the photon will sacrifice its original identity to remain coherent (resonant... correlated). In these instances the photon is localized as a semi-particle in space and is executing a closed path (perhaps still at the local speed of light) and it now has de Broglie Matter Wave Properties, a wavelength and a frequency as a "particle" as an obvious standing wave where as a first approximation 2πr = nλ. Consider this as a similar process to the passing of photons through an optical aperture, the aperture behaves as a secondary source. In a similar process co-moving photons will also sacrifice some of their date and time stamping to become coherent with a common source. They will however retain much of the information of the original source through their interferences.
The qubit of information may be retained if we are involved with resonant optical systems. In these cases the photons have adopted particle properties through the Quantum Zeno Effect and have exchanged frequency for time.... the properties of the systems become less dependent on time and become particulate and reset on each cycle and become "harmonic". What I mean by this is the "future" (as observed by us) of the harmonic "particle" may be predicted, and repeatedly predicted, whereas the future of this time dependent phenomena cannot be predicted beyond the source-sink connection event. Reflection and even lossless transmission are part of this general process where an original photon is losslessly re-identified with a new "secondary" source. The photons that are actually "lost" in this coherent quantum process are obviously absorbed along the way and the qubit lost.
Wikipedia: Quantum Zeno effect
Cheers
If you look back over my former statements on quantum non-demolition protective measurements we encounter the Quantum Zeno Effect. The current interpretation of this phenomenon is that a "single" photon, under special circumstances of "resonance" can have its time stamp and its coordinate stamp "reset". So instead of the photon passing from source to a sink only in one single resonant process .... this "sink" becomes a secondary "source" for some other tertiary "sink". In some highly resonant systems such as Solitons, Optical Vortices or Plasmons, the photon will sacrifice its original identity to remain coherent (resonant... correlated). In these instances the photon is localized as a semi-particle in space and is executing a closed path (perhaps still at the local speed of light) and it now has de Broglie Matter Wave Properties, a wavelength and a frequency as a "particle" as an obvious standing wave where as a first approximation 2πr = nλ. Consider this as a similar process to the passing of photons through an optical aperture, the aperture behaves as a secondary source. In a similar process co-moving photons will also sacrifice some of their date and time stamping to become coherent with a common source. They will however retain much of the information of the original source through their interferences.
The qubit of information may be retained if we are involved with resonant optical systems. In these cases the photons have adopted particle properties through the Quantum Zeno Effect and have exchanged frequency for time.... the properties of the systems become less dependent on time and become particulate and reset on each cycle and become "harmonic". What I mean by this is the "future" (as observed by us) of the harmonic "particle" may be predicted, and repeatedly predicted, whereas the future of this time dependent phenomena cannot be predicted beyond the source-sink connection event. Reflection and even lossless transmission are part of this general process where an original photon is losslessly re-identified with a new "secondary" source. The photons that are actually "lost" in this coherent quantum process are obviously absorbed along the way and the qubit lost.
Wikipedia: Quantum Zeno effect
Cheers
Is this why we use a binary code instead of a trinary code due to the missing photon. it would make sense that losing the third sub-set would make for a loss of information and also begin to prove others at the same time.
Hi all,
jal, LL, here is the "set" again:
1
1.0594630943592952645618252949463
1.1224620483093729814335330496792
1.1892071150027210667174999705605
1.2599210498948731647672106072782
1.3348398541700343648308318811845
1.4142135623730950488016887242097
1.4983070768766814987992807320298
1.5874010519681994747517056392723
1.6817928305074290860622509524664
1.781797436280678609480452411181
1.8877486253633869932838263133351
2
This is our "metric", or the lines on a measuring tape/rod.
Perhaps you are not realizing that Resonance treats the powers of 2 as the same. There are 12 "notes" or oscillators, to the chromatic scale, There are 13 numbers in the set above. 1 and 2 are "harmonics", fractals, revivals, whatever you would like to say, to represent that these 2 values are actually the "same", but with a change in scale. A reproduction of an image.
For the keys on a piano, or the chromatic scale, we have these "labels" for the frequency, just like, in the visible band, we also have additional "labels" for the frequencies, aka "color".
C', C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B, C''
The note C'' has twice the frequency of C' .
Every value in this system that is either 1/2f or 2f of C is also a C, but with a different tone.
Back to the "set". You see that this measuring tape does start with one, like all measurements. The part that we need to adjust, and differs from the postulate of QM, is that the background energy of the Universe is NOT one, nor is it zero.
So, our "transactions" between electrons, arise from an elevated energy level, that is also NOT one, or zero. They (atoms) all have an intrinsic energy, and frequency. The assumption, from Mach's principle, is that "all masses are connected", and from Wolff, that the electron has a stability that is formed by the parameters of space. Planck also had the original hypothesis for the "zero point energy", that is NOT zero. It is called that because that is all the energy that the atom can lose; always ending at the same ground state. In their methods, this "zeros out" the energy (so that they can avoid problems in the interpretation).
Because of these existing ideas, and because it gives us the correct constant velocity, that is used in both Quantum Mechanics, and G/S Relativity, as well as Maxwell's classic EM wave, I am using Z for the "starting value" for which all others are relative to. Again, this is standard practice in Music: "what key are we playing in" tells everybody how to APPLY their common scale.
Because step one = 1, then 1 x whatever value we wish to "plug in", becomes the "fundamental" note. In the exponential series, we multiply steps, and we always start from "step one", and actually have to go 13 steps, to "arrive back at the start" (which is semantic in Music, because the frequency has doubled, but the "name" is the same).
Why Not? Posted on Today at 1:43 AM
None taken; my point was perhaps more subtle than that. Feynman was "against" his (their) own solutions used in their model, calling their math, "a dippy process". So, I was inferring that he would "approve" of the more simple approach, that avoided those pitfalls. Dirac is not so subtle. I found that the term "exponential frequency comb" was more or less invented by him, and bears his name. Since that is what I have made, I can not doubt that he would approve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmical...aced_Dirac_comb
None taken; my point was perhaps more subtle than that. Feynman was "against" his (their) own solutions used in their model, calling their math, "a dippy process". So, I was inferring that he would "approve" of the more simple approach, that avoided those pitfalls. Dirac is not so subtle. I found that the term "exponential frequency comb" was more or less invented by him, and bears his name. Since that is what I have made, I can not doubt that he would approve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmical...aced_Dirac_comb
Like the standard Dirac comb, the logarithmically-spaced Dirac comb consists of an infinite sequence of Dirac delta functions. In the case of the logarithmically-spaced comb, these are spaced in octave intervals, i.e., the delta functions are placed at positions 2kf0, for all integers k.
In musical applications, this type of Dirac comb can be used to create a 12-note scale that spans the infinite space of octaves.
You must realize that I am "applying for a job" here. There are times in life that you must "sell yourself", or your ideas. This is one of them. I have apologized on numerous occasions for the potential for others to mistake my confidence as arrogance. I can't possibly imagine that you would have more respect for what I am saying, if I began sentences/posts with "um, I'm pretty sure that this stuff is bogus, dude", although, surely, you would not think me a narcissist.
And, yes, WN?, I realize that GE's recent posts are quite similar, in many ways to what I am saying. What you should probably do, for a little more perspective, is read through his posts, and find what he has to say about my theory. [if you, I, and others see it, perhaps he does too] You may also want to compare his recent ideas with those last year, or the year before, then you might be in a better position to make that judgment.
LL, the harmonic series is a "hold over" from the methods of Pythagoras, who had a "fear" of irrationals. The "integer step" series has been replaced by the "irrational/exponential series".
Have a look at this, to see how difficult the system CAN be, when a master of complexity takes a crack at it (and failed). The list of people who have tried to solve this problem reads like a "who's who" in Science history: Descartes, Galileo, Mersenne, Leibniz, Euler, d'Alembert ..
Music translated into Mathematics: Leonhard Euler
until next time..
regards,
T.Roc
jal, LL, here is the "set" again:
1
1.0594630943592952645618252949463
1.1224620483093729814335330496792
1.1892071150027210667174999705605
1.2599210498948731647672106072782
1.3348398541700343648308318811845
1.4142135623730950488016887242097
1.4983070768766814987992807320298
1.5874010519681994747517056392723
1.6817928305074290860622509524664
1.781797436280678609480452411181
1.8877486253633869932838263133351
2
This is our "metric", or the lines on a measuring tape/rod.
Perhaps you are not realizing that Resonance treats the powers of 2 as the same. There are 12 "notes" or oscillators, to the chromatic scale, There are 13 numbers in the set above. 1 and 2 are "harmonics", fractals, revivals, whatever you would like to say, to represent that these 2 values are actually the "same", but with a change in scale. A reproduction of an image.
For the keys on a piano, or the chromatic scale, we have these "labels" for the frequency, just like, in the visible band, we also have additional "labels" for the frequencies, aka "color".
C', C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B, C''
The note C'' has twice the frequency of C' .
Every value in this system that is either 1/2f or 2f of C is also a C, but with a different tone.
Back to the "set". You see that this measuring tape does start with one, like all measurements. The part that we need to adjust, and differs from the postulate of QM, is that the background energy of the Universe is NOT one, nor is it zero.
So, our "transactions" between electrons, arise from an elevated energy level, that is also NOT one, or zero. They (atoms) all have an intrinsic energy, and frequency. The assumption, from Mach's principle, is that "all masses are connected", and from Wolff, that the electron has a stability that is formed by the parameters of space. Planck also had the original hypothesis for the "zero point energy", that is NOT zero. It is called that because that is all the energy that the atom can lose; always ending at the same ground state. In their methods, this "zeros out" the energy (so that they can avoid problems in the interpretation).
Because of these existing ideas, and because it gives us the correct constant velocity, that is used in both Quantum Mechanics, and G/S Relativity, as well as Maxwell's classic EM wave, I am using Z for the "starting value" for which all others are relative to. Again, this is standard practice in Music: "what key are we playing in" tells everybody how to APPLY their common scale.
Because step one = 1, then 1 x whatever value we wish to "plug in", becomes the "fundamental" note. In the exponential series, we multiply steps, and we always start from "step one", and actually have to go 13 steps, to "arrive back at the start" (which is semantic in Music, because the frequency has doubled, but the "name" is the same).
Why Not? Posted on Today at 1:43 AM
QUOTE
No offence intended, but if either Feynman or Dirac were alive today, I seriously doubt either would give any credence to or invest any time on Physorg.
None taken; my point was perhaps more subtle than that. Feynman was "against" his (their) own solutions used in their model, calling their math, "a dippy process". So, I was inferring that he would "approve" of the more simple approach, that avoided those pitfalls. Dirac is not so subtle. I found that the term "exponential frequency comb" was more or less invented by him, and bears his name. Since that is what I have made, I can not doubt that he would approve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmical...aced_Dirac_comb
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No offence intended, but if either Feynman or Dirac were alive today, I seriously doubt either would give any credence to or invest any time on Physorg. |
None taken; my point was perhaps more subtle than that. Feynman was "against" his (their) own solutions used in their model, calling their math, "a dippy process". So, I was inferring that he would "approve" of the more simple approach, that avoided those pitfalls. Dirac is not so subtle. I found that the term "exponential frequency comb" was more or less invented by him, and bears his name. Since that is what I have made, I can not doubt that he would approve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmical...aced_Dirac_comb
Like the standard Dirac comb, the logarithmically-spaced Dirac comb consists of an infinite sequence of Dirac delta functions. In the case of the logarithmically-spaced comb, these are spaced in octave intervals, i.e., the delta functions are placed at positions 2kf0, for all integers k.
In musical applications, this type of Dirac comb can be used to create a 12-note scale that spans the infinite space of octaves.
You must realize that I am "applying for a job" here. There are times in life that you must "sell yourself", or your ideas. This is one of them. I have apologized on numerous occasions for the potential for others to mistake my confidence as arrogance. I can't possibly imagine that you would have more respect for what I am saying, if I began sentences/posts with "um, I'm pretty sure that this stuff is bogus, dude", although, surely, you would not think me a narcissist.
And, yes, WN?, I realize that GE's recent posts are quite similar, in many ways to what I am saying. What you should probably do, for a little more perspective, is read through his posts, and find what he has to say about my theory. [if you, I, and others see it, perhaps he does too] You may also want to compare his recent ideas with those last year, or the year before, then you might be in a better position to make that judgment.
LL, the harmonic series is a "hold over" from the methods of Pythagoras, who had a "fear" of irrationals. The "integer step" series has been replaced by the "irrational/exponential series".
Have a look at this, to see how difficult the system CAN be, when a master of complexity takes a crack at it (and failed). The list of people who have tried to solve this problem reads like a "who's who" in Science history: Descartes, Galileo, Mersenne, Leibniz, Euler, d'Alembert ..
Music translated into Mathematics: Leonhard Euler
until next time..
regards,
T.Roc
Hi Laserlight et al,
I hope it's ok if I draw attention to a few results from experiments of the last 200 years or so.
The wavelength of light has been known to be about 600nm for about 200 years ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment ).
The size of an atom has been known to be about 200pm for many years ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius )
If we accept that the wavelength of light is over a thousand times greater than the size of an atom :- simple geography suggests that any dipoles within an atom will be 'short' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna#Short_dipole ) . Note that a dipole doesn't radiate in one direction with greater accuracy .. it goes everywhere. I find no indications of 'expediently directed dipole radiation' except within this thread.
Here a brief note about a test of General Relativity http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/...nfirm-einsteins .. I have to guess that they didn't use (say) a piece of paper to confirm the 'bending of light' by mass/energy because the magnitude of the effect would fall far below the limit where it could be measured ( by a factor in the region of 10^31)
Comments welcome.
Best wishes - C2.
I hope it's ok if I draw attention to a few results from experiments of the last 200 years or so.
The wavelength of light has been known to be about 600nm for about 200 years ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment ).
The size of an atom has been known to be about 200pm for many years ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius )
If we accept that the wavelength of light is over a thousand times greater than the size of an atom :- simple geography suggests that any dipoles within an atom will be 'short' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna#Short_dipole ) . Note that a dipole doesn't radiate in one direction with greater accuracy .. it goes everywhere. I find no indications of 'expediently directed dipole radiation' except within this thread.
Here a brief note about a test of General Relativity http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/...nfirm-einsteins .. I have to guess that they didn't use (say) a piece of paper to confirm the 'bending of light' by mass/energy because the magnitude of the effect would fall far below the limit where it could be measured ( by a factor in the region of 10^31)
Comments welcome.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi TRoc,
The Logarithmically-spaced Dirac comb and its associated musical "scale" is an interesting "artifact" but it is an acoustic trick...
http://www.netalive.org/tinkering/shepard-effect/
... I like "tricks" but unlike Magicians I am prepared to reveal what is up the sleeve...
The Logarithmically-spaced Dirac comb and its associated musical "scale" is an interesting "artifact" but it is an acoustic trick...
http://www.netalive.org/tinkering/shepard-effect/
... I like "tricks" but unlike Magicians I am prepared to reveal what is up the sleeve...
QUOTE (TRoc+)
And, yes, WN?, I realize that GE's recent posts are quite similar, in many ways to what I am saying. What you should probably do, for a little more perspective, is read through his posts, and find what he has to say about my theory. [if you, I, and others see it, perhaps he does too] You may also want to compare his recent ideas with those last year, or the year before, then you might be in a better position to make that judgment.
I am not specifically endorsing any of your ideas about some of those "music" related concepts so far. I am saying that truncating the value for the Speed of Light was a bad idea in the long term. I am totally unconcerned about units other than the problem of defining one set of units in terms of another. I just think there is something special about the Speed of Light in any number system or base you care to nominate. The number in MKS Units is irrelevant. This does not mean that I know what it is that is so special about it other than it should be...
I look at your sequence above and I can't see how you can possibly get "1" as the first member of that sequence. I am not worried that it is not part of that sequence either. The next point is one raised to any positive integer power will always be one in any number system you choose. Even if it did I am unable to understand what that really means in terms of actual Physics. It seems to be like trying to trisect the angle or something .... a problem in mathematical futility unless there is something behind it that will lead to some insight. I am not questioning your point but I actually do not see what it is.
If you want to dwell on something really cool and close to home on this topic this equation is the most interesting, coolest and it is independent of all number systems too...
... or even better...
The meaning of which is summarized in an argand diagram indicating that when you rotate a unit vector through a negate pi radians it equals the value of minus one relative to the original vector.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_identity
This is true "everywhere"... A single expression that involves e, zero, one, pi and the square root of minus one... everything in one succinct expression... Euler's Identity. The Universe is quite naturally "Complex".
Cheers
I look at your sequence above and I can't see how you can possibly get "1" as the first member of that sequence. I am not worried that it is not part of that sequence either. The next point is one raised to any positive integer power will always be one in any number system you choose. Even if it did I am unable to understand what that really means in terms of actual Physics. It seems to be like trying to trisect the angle or something .... a problem in mathematical futility unless there is something behind it that will lead to some insight. I am not questioning your point but I actually do not see what it is.
If you want to dwell on something really cool and close to home on this topic this equation is the most interesting, coolest and it is independent of all number systems too...
... or even better...
The meaning of which is summarized in an argand diagram indicating that when you rotate a unit vector through a negate pi radians it equals the value of minus one relative to the original vector.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_identity
This is true "everywhere"... A single expression that involves e, zero, one, pi and the square root of minus one... everything in one succinct expression... Euler's Identity. The Universe is quite naturally "Complex".
Cheers
Hi TRoc!
Every value in this system that is either 1/2f or 2f of C is also a C, but with a different tone.
Let see if I got this right....
Going back ....
Okay!.... I used the calculator and yes I can add 5.946309..% to the first number and I get the next bigger number.
next step...
Okay!.... I used the calculator and yes I can add 5.946309..% to the first number and I get the next bigger number.
next step...
This is a simple, recursive "command", that creates the "metric".
So, what this means, "440/R^105 = 1.0219748644554634167103515372004"
is "how many "clicks, steps, or lines on our rod", down, from 440 Hz, would we go to get to "the starting point", which we would want to be as close to the integer of One, as possible (but not <1 ).
So, 440 Hz is experimentally tried/selected ("trial and error") and you divide it up into steps which are different by 5.946309..%.
Coooolllll DUD!
I can see that .... dumb deeedeee dumb "To be or not to be"
and that gives us our starting number "440/R^105 = 1.0219748644554634167103515372004"
to play with
hehehe
Wait a minute .... That gives me 105 numbers
How I am I going to organize those numbers so that it will reveal patterns that could make sense?
jal
QUOTE
jal, LL, here is the "set" again:
1
1.0594630943592952645618252949463
1.1224620483093729814335330496792
1.1892071150027210667174999705605
1.2599210498948731647672106072782
1.3348398541700343648308318811845
1.4142135623730950488016887242097
1.4983070768766814987992807320298
1.5874010519681994747517056392723
1.6817928305074290860622509524664
1.781797436280678609480452411181
1.8877486253633869932838263133351
2
1
1.0594630943592952645618252949463
1.1224620483093729814335330496792
1.1892071150027210667174999705605
1.2599210498948731647672106072782
1.3348398541700343648308318811845
1.4142135623730950488016887242097
1.4983070768766814987992807320298
1.5874010519681994747517056392723
1.6817928305074290860622509524664
1.781797436280678609480452411181
1.8877486253633869932838263133351
2
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| jal, LL, here is the "set" again: 1 1.0594630943592952645618252949463 1.1224620483093729814335330496792 1.1892071150027210667174999705605 1.2599210498948731647672106072782 1.3348398541700343648308318811845 1.4142135623730950488016887242097 1.4983070768766814987992807320298 1.5874010519681994747517056392723 1.6817928305074290860622509524664 1.781797436280678609480452411181 1.8877486253633869932838263133351 2 |
Every value in this system that is either 1/2f or 2f of C is also a C, but with a different tone.
Let see if I got this right....
Going back ....
QUOTE
R = the 12th sq rt of 2 = 2^(1/12) = 1.0594630943592952645618252949463
That is the "metric"; the lines on our measuring tape are separated by a constant rate, and not by a simple integer count, of "1, 2, 3, .." that our "normal" measuring tapes/rods/sticks have.
Each value is 5.946309..% larger or smaller than the next value.
Therefore, we are measuring with a constant rate.
That is the "metric"; the lines on our measuring tape are separated by a constant rate, and not by a simple integer count, of "1, 2, 3, .." that our "normal" measuring tapes/rods/sticks have.
Each value is 5.946309..% larger or smaller than the next value.
Therefore, we are measuring with a constant rate.
Okay!.... I used the calculator and yes I can add 5.946309..% to the first number and I get the next bigger number.
next step...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| R = the 12th sq rt of 2 = 2^(1/12) = 1.0594630943592952645618252949463 That is the "metric"; the lines on our measuring tape are separated by a constant rate, and not by a simple integer count, of "1, 2, 3, .." that our "normal" measuring tapes/rods/sticks have. Each value is 5.946309..% larger or smaller than the next value. Therefore, we are measuring with a constant rate. |
Okay!.... I used the calculator and yes I can add 5.946309..% to the first number and I get the next bigger number.
next step...
This is a simple, recursive "command", that creates the "metric".
So, what this means, "440/R^105 = 1.0219748644554634167103515372004"
is "how many "clicks, steps, or lines on our rod", down, from 440 Hz, would we go to get to "the starting point", which we would want to be as close to the integer of One, as possible (but not <1 ).
So, 440 Hz is experimentally tried/selected ("trial and error") and you divide it up into steps which are different by 5.946309..%.
Coooolllll DUD!
QUOTE
With waves, however, we want AT LEAST one cycle to have existed, so that we may say that THAT value is "the beginning".
I can see that .... dumb deeedeee dumb "To be or not to be"
and that gives us our starting number "440/R^105 = 1.0219748644554634167103515372004"
to play with
hehehe
Wait a minute .... That gives me 105 numbers
How I am I going to organize those numbers so that it will reveal patterns that could make sense?
jal
Hi C2, et al,
You must keep in mind that a wavelength is actually a linear measurement of
time for a wave cycle to occur. This means the cycle time that it took for an
electron to be displaced from its ground state level, to a higher energy band level,
and then back to the ground level. For a 600nm wavelength the frequency is
or 499654096666666.66666666666666667 hz. (roughly 499.654 Thz)
Using T= 1/f we get a time cycle that is 2.0013845711889122974534602868495e-15
seconds per wavelength, at 600nm.
You must keep in mind that a wavelength is actually a linear measurement of
time for a wave cycle to occur. This means the cycle time that it took for an
electron to be displaced from its ground state level, to a higher energy band level,
and then back to the ground level. For a 600nm wavelength the frequency is
or 499654096666666.66666666666666667 hz. (roughly 499.654 Thz)
Using T= 1/f we get a time cycle that is 2.0013845711889122974534602868495e-15
seconds per wavelength, at 600nm.
Note that a dipole doesn't radiate in one direction with greater accuracy .. it goes everywhere. I find no indications of 'expediently directed dipole radiation' except within this thread.
I would think that you, with your radar background, could relate a radiating
dipole emitted from an energetic mass, to be like a reflector style of antenna,
where the physical surface plane acts as a the reflecting surface, which provides
directionality to the energy being emitted. The surface atoms are all being
stimulated together and, depending upon the physical geometry of the
antenna, will radiate in a specific geometric pattern from the antenna surface.
If you recall your RF training, the energy of the radiation pattern can be "tailored"
to be focused, directed in a specific direction, or widely dispersed depending upon
the antenna geometry used.
If we consider the case of an individual atom, where specific electrons "range"
within the fixed geometric boundaries of a specific electron cloud region, it seems
likely (this is speculation) that the stimulated electron will jump from one "fixed"
cloud orientation to a higher fixed cloud orientation (due to atomic charge
distribution/equalization), and then fall back into the original electron shell cloud
orientation. This would provide a discrete energy operating range, and
a fixed geometric plane of orientation, which would also provide directionality to the
photon radiation pattern.
If I am not mistaken, crystal orientation of a lattice can provide directionality to
photon emission, but I will leave that topic for the experts in crystalography to
explain...or anyone else familiar with the topic. Also, consider that solid state laser
beams can be extremely directionalized, as in your homebrew DSE laser pointer.
LL
QUOTE
If we accept that the wavelength of light is over a thousand times greater than the size of an atom :- simple geography suggests that any dipoles within an atom will be 'short' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna#Short_dipole ) . Note that a dipole doesn't radiate in one direction with greater accuracy .. it goes everywhere. I find no indications of 'expediently directed dipole radiation' except within this thread.
You must keep in mind that a wavelength is actually a linear measurement of
time for a wave cycle to occur. This means the cycle time that it took for an
electron to be displaced from its ground state level, to a higher energy band level,
and then back to the ground level. For a 600nm wavelength the frequency is
or 499654096666666.66666666666666667 hz. (roughly 499.654 Thz)
Using T= 1/f we get a time cycle that is 2.0013845711889122974534602868495e-15
seconds per wavelength, at 600nm.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If we accept that the wavelength of light is over a thousand times greater than the size of an atom :- simple geography suggests that any dipoles within an atom will be 'short' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna#Short_dipole ) . Note that a dipole doesn't radiate in one direction with greater accuracy .. it goes everywhere. I find no indications of 'expediently directed dipole radiation' except within this thread. |
You must keep in mind that a wavelength is actually a linear measurement of
time for a wave cycle to occur. This means the cycle time that it took for an
electron to be displaced from its ground state level, to a higher energy band level,
and then back to the ground level. For a 600nm wavelength the frequency is
or 499654096666666.66666666666666667 hz. (roughly 499.654 Thz)
Using T= 1/f we get a time cycle that is 2.0013845711889122974534602868495e-15
seconds per wavelength, at 600nm.
Note that a dipole doesn't radiate in one direction with greater accuracy .. it goes everywhere. I find no indications of 'expediently directed dipole radiation' except within this thread.
I would think that you, with your radar background, could relate a radiating
dipole emitted from an energetic mass, to be like a reflector style of antenna,
where the physical surface plane acts as a the reflecting surface, which provides
directionality to the energy being emitted. The surface atoms are all being
stimulated together and, depending upon the physical geometry of the
antenna, will radiate in a specific geometric pattern from the antenna surface.
If you recall your RF training, the energy of the radiation pattern can be "tailored"
to be focused, directed in a specific direction, or widely dispersed depending upon
the antenna geometry used.
If we consider the case of an individual atom, where specific electrons "range"
within the fixed geometric boundaries of a specific electron cloud region, it seems
likely (this is speculation) that the stimulated electron will jump from one "fixed"
cloud orientation to a higher fixed cloud orientation (due to atomic charge
distribution/equalization), and then fall back into the original electron shell cloud
orientation. This would provide a discrete energy operating range, and
a fixed geometric plane of orientation, which would also provide directionality to the
photon radiation pattern.
If I am not mistaken, crystal orientation of a lattice can provide directionality to
photon emission, but I will leave that topic for the experts in crystalography to
explain...or anyone else familiar with the topic. Also, consider that solid state laser
beams can be extremely directionalized, as in your homebrew DSE laser pointer.
LL
Hi All,
Just a tidbit of info from Wikipedia:
Emphasis added by me.
LL
Just a tidbit of info from Wikipedia:
QUOTE
When waves travel from one medium to another, their frequency remains exactly the same — only their wavelength and speed change.
Apart from being modified by the Doppler effect or any other nonlinear process, frequency is an invariant quantity in the universe. That is, it cannot be changed by any linearly physical process unlike velocity of propagation or wavelength.
Apart from being modified by the Doppler effect or any other nonlinear process, frequency is an invariant quantity in the universe. That is, it cannot be changed by any linearly physical process unlike velocity of propagation or wavelength.
Emphasis added by me.
LL
Hi Laserlight,
The other way to produce light at any wavelength is by Cerenkov Radiation. Does anyone know any others?
Cheers
...... deformation of piezoelectric materials?
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
When waves travel from one medium to another, their frequency remains exactly the same — only their wavelength and speed change.
Apart from being modified by the Doppler effect or any other nonlinear process, frequency is an invariant quantity in the universe. That is, it cannot be changed by any linearly physical process unlike velocity of propagation or wavelength.
Apart from being modified by the Doppler effect or any other nonlinear process, frequency is an invariant quantity in the universe. That is, it cannot be changed by any linearly physical process unlike velocity of propagation or wavelength.
Quite right. Of course there are non-linear processes such as parametric up and down conversion that can even retain the qubit from the source yet alter the frequency of the photons by splitting or combining. Light does not normally change its "color" or "get tired" no matter how far it travels. It can alter frequency if absorbed and energy dissipated in some process like momentum exchange etc. then re-emitted once again at a lower frequency. This is fluorescence.
Atomic dipole radiators do not usually have any capacity for tailoring the wave packet like you can with large transmitting radio frequency sources. They are limited by virtue of the limited hybridization available to the atomic shells. It is like having a Lego Block Building Kit that has fixed blocks in order to fashion all the possible oscillators at the atomic scale. These "frequency numbers" are quite a lot more variable than Lego but they are not infinite. Recently a process was discovered that can affect the limited variablilty of a wave packet emission at these frequencies using mass resonances in certain materials.
Scientists tailor light waves to desired frequencies
This is not a "natural process" but it works so this is another way to create light to order at any selectable frequency. It seems that it is easier to absorb photons at any frequency that it is to create them.
The other way to produce light at any wavelength is by Cerenkov Radiation. Does anyone know any others?
Cheers
Atomic dipole radiators do not usually have any capacity for tailoring the wave packet like you can with large transmitting radio frequency sources. They are limited by virtue of the limited hybridization available to the atomic shells. It is like having a Lego Block Building Kit that has fixed blocks in order to fashion all the possible oscillators at the atomic scale. These "frequency numbers" are quite a lot more variable than Lego but they are not infinite. Recently a process was discovered that can affect the limited variablilty of a wave packet emission at these frequencies using mass resonances in certain materials.
Scientists tailor light waves to desired frequencies
This is not a "natural process" but it works so this is another way to create light to order at any selectable frequency. It seems that it is easier to absorb photons at any frequency that it is to create them.
The other way to produce light at any wavelength is by Cerenkov Radiation. Does anyone know any others?
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 27 2007, 03:25 AM)
The other way to produce light at any wavelength is by Cerenkov Radiation. Does anyone know any others?
Cheers
...... deformation of piezoelectric materials?
Hi GE,
Any wavelength, or any visible spectrum wavelength?
If it is the latter, varying the current flow thru the filament of a common light bulb
can range from infra-red to all visible spectral colors/frequencies, as is evidenced
by being able to see all possible visible colors on a color wheel/chart in a bulb
lighted room. Of course you cannot selectively tune to a specific color/frequency
as the colors/frequencies are mixed as white light.
LL
QUOTE
The other way to produce light at any wavelength is by Cerenkov Radiation. Does anyone know any others?
Any wavelength, or any visible spectrum wavelength?
If it is the latter, varying the current flow thru the filament of a common light bulb
can range from infra-red to all visible spectral colors/frequencies, as is evidenced
by being able to see all possible visible colors on a color wheel/chart in a bulb
lighted room. Of course you cannot selectively tune to a specific color/frequency
as the colors/frequencies are mixed as white light.
LL
Hi Laserlight, Janrinze, Montec, yquantum, Confused2,TRoc, "Why Not?", Siau, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2" et al,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Any wavelength, or any visible spectrum wavelength?
If it is the latter, varying the current flow thru the filament of a common light bulb
can range from infra-red to all visible spectral colors/frequencies, as is evidenced
by being able to see all possible visible colors on a color wheel/chart in a bulb
lighted room. Of course you cannot selectively tune to a specific color/frequency
as the colors/frequencies are mixed as white light.
If it is the latter, varying the current flow thru the filament of a common light bulb
can range from infra-red to all visible spectral colors/frequencies, as is evidenced
by being able to see all possible visible colors on a color wheel/chart in a bulb
lighted room. Of course you cannot selectively tune to a specific color/frequency
as the colors/frequencies are mixed as white light.
Hmm... forgot about that one, the most important one. I think I will fill in some details for those who have forgotten about this general process or for general "edification"... including my own. I have steered away from condensed matter phases since they are a real "complication". There are still finite numbers of individual lines even in the so called continuous spectrum of incandescent light.
Technically similar generation to laser light or other visible emission frequencies only the spectrum is not composed of a single emission line but many thousands of broad emission lines all over the visible spectrum. The broadening is due to the condensed matter phase producing the "illusion" of a continuous spectrum due to broadening of the individual lines from thermal collisions. Broadening is due to individual emission lines clustering around a central prominent emission line. Each photon emission is technically a single "instantaneous" line, a large number of these instantaneous lines cluster and form a broader wider line due to thermal agitation and other jostling processes due to heating. But certainly there are a large number of discrete frequencies to choose from there in a tungsten bulb but it is not truly a continuous spectrum anywhere, they are all individually "discrete lines" that have been broadened by originating from "condensed matter" hot black body emission. The number and the specific wavelengths are actually still limited and a good dispersing optical spectrometer would separate this "apparently" continuous spectrum into thousands of discrete instantaneous frequencies since they are all part of the "disturbed" quantum harmonic oscillator and the modes of emission linked to the degrees of freedom in the individual atoms.
This all goes back to the image of the source. If the 'source" is formed by an optically accurate very fine slit of a very hot radiant gas which is not condensed matter then you can separate the spectrum into thousands of very fine unperturbed images of that slit depending on the particular gas being excited... all very fine discrete emission lines. If you allow the "slit" to be too wide then you cannot separate these slit or pinhole images and the frequencies of the separate images of the slit will overlap giving the appearance of a "continuous spectrum".
... Click to enlarge...
You can "tune" for a specific frequency using the emission from gas discharge (hot gas) using a precision spectrometer which is a very sophisticated "prism or grating splitting the image of a fine slit source through dispersion", and then blocking all unwanted frequencies which show as images of the slit. It is even partially spatially coherent if you choose a small collimated pinhole or slit part of the source.
... Click to enlarge...
Usually they use a slit and not a pinhole and mostly they use high quality replica diffraction gratings instead of prisms. They separate the lines better.
Of course we have the opposite effect when we take the spectrum of the Sun, what we are seeing there are absorption lines of the cooler elements in the outer atmosphere absorb the resonant lines out of the "almost" continuous spectrum of the condensed matter phase of the Sun's visible surface.
Image:High Resolution Solar Spectrum.jpg
Cheers
Technically similar generation to laser light or other visible emission frequencies only the spectrum is not composed of a single emission line but many thousands of broad emission lines all over the visible spectrum. The broadening is due to the condensed matter phase producing the "illusion" of a continuous spectrum due to broadening of the individual lines from thermal collisions. Broadening is due to individual emission lines clustering around a central prominent emission line. Each photon emission is technically a single "instantaneous" line, a large number of these instantaneous lines cluster and form a broader wider line due to thermal agitation and other jostling processes due to heating. But certainly there are a large number of discrete frequencies to choose from there in a tungsten bulb but it is not truly a continuous spectrum anywhere, they are all individually "discrete lines" that have been broadened by originating from "condensed matter" hot black body emission. The number and the specific wavelengths are actually still limited and a good dispersing optical spectrometer would separate this "apparently" continuous spectrum into thousands of discrete instantaneous frequencies since they are all part of the "disturbed" quantum harmonic oscillator and the modes of emission linked to the degrees of freedom in the individual atoms.
This all goes back to the image of the source. If the 'source" is formed by an optically accurate very fine slit of a very hot radiant gas which is not condensed matter then you can separate the spectrum into thousands of very fine unperturbed images of that slit depending on the particular gas being excited... all very fine discrete emission lines. If you allow the "slit" to be too wide then you cannot separate these slit or pinhole images and the frequencies of the separate images of the slit will overlap giving the appearance of a "continuous spectrum".
... Click to enlarge...
You can "tune" for a specific frequency using the emission from gas discharge (hot gas) using a precision spectrometer which is a very sophisticated "prism or grating splitting the image of a fine slit source through dispersion", and then blocking all unwanted frequencies which show as images of the slit. It is even partially spatially coherent if you choose a small collimated pinhole or slit part of the source.
... Click to enlarge...
Usually they use a slit and not a pinhole and mostly they use high quality replica diffraction gratings instead of prisms. They separate the lines better.
Of course we have the opposite effect when we take the spectrum of the Sun, what we are seeing there are absorption lines of the cooler elements in the outer atmosphere absorb the resonant lines out of the "almost" continuous spectrum of the condensed matter phase of the Sun's visible surface.
Image:High Resolution Solar Spectrum.jpg
Cheers
Hi all !
GE
Nice to see that you are in good form.
TRoc
My question
"How I am going to organize those numbers so that it will reveal patterns that could make sense?"
Can I add one more question?
Since you started with a specific wave length, (440 Hz) does the 5.946309..% larger or smaller than the next value. land on the wave lengths that we have experimentally observed to exist?
hummmmm I wonder why???? (That's not a question!)
jal
GE
Nice to see that you are in good form.
TRoc
My question
"How I am going to organize those numbers so that it will reveal patterns that could make sense?"
Can I add one more question?
Since you started with a specific wave length, (440 Hz) does the 5.946309..% larger or smaller than the next value. land on the wave lengths that we have experimentally observed to exist?
hummmmm I wonder why????
(That's not a question!)jal
Hi All..
for a source of light.. try the black-body radiation..
will yield all frequencies..
Jan Rinze.
P.S. can anyone explain that with a dipole and resonant system?
for a source of light.. try the black-body radiation..
will yield all frequencies..
Jan Rinze.
P.S. can anyone explain that with a dipole and resonant system?
Hi all,
jal-
The thing is jal, we don't need to for this conversation, and it would be "too far" off the immediate subject. I understand that you are trying to "reveal" something from your line of questioning.
The set that I have given is recursive in "both directions" (larger/smaller). It repeats itself over and over, with an ever expanding "quantity" between "measurements" or values. The arbitrary (yet distinctly human) placement of "440 Hz" falls in one of these "rows"; it accurately "resolves" a mathematical scale that greatly simplifies the "mixing" of sound waves.
Further up, in this same pattern, is our "visible spectrum", and further still is our "mass spectrum" (particle zoo). This gets us into other subjects.
The initial ratios are all that we need to develop a method to "measure" a wave that has "hit a wall", and "reformed" at an aperture. The "semi-spherical" result is represented as a spread in frequency.
The thing is jal, we don't need to for this conversation, and it would be "too far" off the immediate subject. I understand that you are trying to "reveal" something from your line of questioning.
The set that I have given is recursive in "both directions" (larger/smaller). It repeats itself over and over, with an ever expanding "quantity" between "measurements" or values. The arbitrary (yet distinctly human) placement of "440 Hz" falls in one of these "rows"; it accurately "resolves" a mathematical scale that greatly simplifies the "mixing" of sound waves.
Further up, in this same pattern, is our "visible spectrum", and further still is our "mass spectrum" (particle zoo). This gets us into other subjects.
The initial ratios are all that we need to develop a method to "measure" a wave that has "hit a wall", and "reformed" at an aperture. The "semi-spherical" result is represented as a spread in frequency.
hummmmm I wonder why???? (That's not a question!)
Actually, I am interested in your interpretation. We can not afford to make "assumptions" that everyone "will know", if it seems obvious to ourselves.
more later..
ciao,
T.Roc
jal-
QUOTE
"How I am going to organize those numbers so that it will reveal patterns that could make sense?"
The thing is jal, we don't need to for this conversation, and it would be "too far" off the immediate subject. I understand that you are trying to "reveal" something from your line of questioning.
The set that I have given is recursive in "both directions" (larger/smaller). It repeats itself over and over, with an ever expanding "quantity" between "measurements" or values. The arbitrary (yet distinctly human) placement of "440 Hz" falls in one of these "rows"; it accurately "resolves" a mathematical scale that greatly simplifies the "mixing" of sound waves.
Further up, in this same pattern, is our "visible spectrum", and further still is our "mass spectrum" (particle zoo). This gets us into other subjects.
The initial ratios are all that we need to develop a method to "measure" a wave that has "hit a wall", and "reformed" at an aperture. The "semi-spherical" result is represented as a spread in frequency.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "How I am going to organize those numbers so that it will reveal patterns that could make sense?" |
The thing is jal, we don't need to for this conversation, and it would be "too far" off the immediate subject. I understand that you are trying to "reveal" something from your line of questioning.
The set that I have given is recursive in "both directions" (larger/smaller). It repeats itself over and over, with an ever expanding "quantity" between "measurements" or values. The arbitrary (yet distinctly human) placement of "440 Hz" falls in one of these "rows"; it accurately "resolves" a mathematical scale that greatly simplifies the "mixing" of sound waves.
Further up, in this same pattern, is our "visible spectrum", and further still is our "mass spectrum" (particle zoo). This gets us into other subjects.
The initial ratios are all that we need to develop a method to "measure" a wave that has "hit a wall", and "reformed" at an aperture. The "semi-spherical" result is represented as a spread in frequency.
hummmmm I wonder why???? (That's not a question!)
Actually, I am interested in your interpretation. We can not afford to make "assumptions" that everyone "will know", if it seems obvious to ourselves.
more later..
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi Jan, et al,
Off the top of my head, it would seem that a black body, that "ideally" absorbs all
visible frequencies incident upon it, represents a full spectral series of randomized
atomic harmonic oscillators thru the visible bandwidth. I think the amorphous
(randomness) nature of the atomic matrix is a key factor, since the atoms are
randomized, specific banwidth spectral colors of light cannot phase syncronize
which is necessary to provide color "coherency".
We see black because no colors are being reflected, they are all resonantly
absorbed into the surface of the "mass" and are converted to IR (heat)
which is above our visual detection threshold.
In the case of a "white body", which is a perfect light scattering surface, the
opposite effect occurs. All visible frequencies are rejected from the surface atoms
and are randomly scattered back into "space", which also prevents frequency
phase alignment and color coherency. Again, an amorphous atomic surface
structure randomizes the photon frequencies that strike it.
In a nutshell, black and white surfaces perform opposite functions. One is
absorbent to visible spectrum frequencies, while the other rejects the visible
spectrum frequencies and randomly scatters the incident light that strikes it.
JMHO,
LL
QUOTE
P.S. can anyone explain that with a dipole and resonant system?
Off the top of my head, it would seem that a black body, that "ideally" absorbs all
visible frequencies incident upon it, represents a full spectral series of randomized
atomic harmonic oscillators thru the visible bandwidth. I think the amorphous
(randomness) nature of the atomic matrix is a key factor, since the atoms are
randomized, specific banwidth spectral colors of light cannot phase syncronize
which is necessary to provide color "coherency".
We see black because no colors are being reflected, they are all resonantly
absorbed into the surface of the "mass" and are converted to IR (heat)
which is above our visual detection threshold.
In the case of a "white body", which is a perfect light scattering surface, the
opposite effect occurs. All visible frequencies are rejected from the surface atoms
and are randomly scattered back into "space", which also prevents frequency
phase alignment and color coherency. Again, an amorphous atomic surface
structure randomizes the photon frequencies that strike it.
In a nutshell, black and white surfaces perform opposite functions. One is
absorbent to visible spectrum frequencies, while the other rejects the visible
spectrum frequencies and randomly scatters the incident light that strikes it.
JMHO,
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.