Problem with the two slit experiment

janrinze

27th August 2007 - 07:17 PM

Hi LL and the rest..

Wikipedia reference of blackbody radiation

Planck's constant emerges here..

So let me rephrase the question.
How can we explain black body radiation with resonance and dipoles?

Jan Rinze.

Neil Farbstein

27th August 2007 - 07:45 PM

QUOTE (Laserlight+Aug 23 2007, 06:44 PM)

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

Very interesting LL.

Laserlight

28th August 2007 - 12:29 AM

Hi Jan,

QUOTE

So let me rephrase the question.
How can we explain black body radiation with resonance and dipoles?

Do you have an explanation or a conceptual model in mind? Are you up to the
challenge of formulating a theoretical model for group discussion/development
purposes?

Anyone?

LL

jal

28th August 2007 - 01:41 AM

Hi TRoc!
I want to keep out of interpretations ... for a while.

ref.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmer_series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman_series
----------------
When starting from

QUOTE

R = the 12th sq rt of 2 = 2^(1/12) = 1.0594630943592952645618252949463

does the 5.946309..% larger or smaller than the next value. land on the wave lengths that we have experimentally observed to exist?

Do you have a way of arriving at the following numbers? (Balmer_series, Lyman_series)
That would tell us if one of those numbers, as arrived by your starting number, would give us a "wave packet".
Then, for example, could we do a DSE with one of these numbers and we would have a different way of "seeing" what that "wave packet" is composed of and what it could be doing.
--------------
(I cannot line up the numbers therefore, go to the link)
The wavelengths (nm) in the Lyman series are all ultraviolet:

n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Wavelength (nm) 121.6 102.5 97.2 94.9 93.7 93.0 92.6 92.3 92.1 91.9
--------------------
The Balmer series
As the first spectral lines associated with this series are located in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum, these lines are historically referred to as "H-alpha", "H-beta", "H-gamma" and so on, where H is the element hydrogen.

Transition of n 3→2 4→2 5→2 6→2 7→2 8→2 9→2
Name H-α H-β H-γ H-δ H-ε H-ζ H-η
Wavelength (nm) 656.3 486.1 434.1 410.2 397.0 388.9 383.5
Color Red Blue-green Violet Violet Violet Violet (Ultraviolet)
-----------------
I hope that this is not too fast for a 12 year old.

jal

Laserlight

28th August 2007 - 01:46 AM

Re: Blackbodies

Just for grins, I will throw some conceptual gedanken "ideas" into the "ring"
to stimulate discussion.

1. Radiation arriving at the surface of a blackbody does not generate visible
photon emission until the electrons in the mass are highly thermally excited
and mobilized as internal electron current flow, within the atomic lattice.
This would infer high electrical resistance properties.

2. The blackbody represents a thermal mass that is capable of totally absorbing
incident EM radiation, up to a maximum absorption threshold/breakdown energy
level.

3. The physical structure of a black body is resonant to all EM frequencies
according to the physical layout of its atomic lattice structure. This infers that
there is an unlimited number of dipole frequency combinations to which the atomic
structure can resonantly tune itself. It would appear that a blackbody has a
dynamic frequency tuning capability, with unlimited tuning resonance/range.
This would represent a linear tuning response to all frequencies across the
full EM spectrum.

Let the arguments begin....
LL

Neil Farbstein

28th August 2007 - 02:08 AM

QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Aug 27 2007, 07:45 PM)

Very interesting LL.

Who's neo number 1, do you mean me? There's character named neo in the Matrix. He's superman he runs on walls. A stuntman taught the staff how to really run on walls, running horizontally. Centrifugal force.

Laserlight

28th August 2007 - 02:23 AM

Hi Neil,

Someone new, named NeoNo.1 posted this:

QUOTE

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

He averages 33.4 posts a day since joining last week.

Regards,
LL

Confused2

28th August 2007 - 10:12 AM

Hi Laserlight et al,

I hope it's ok if I dwell for a moment on the consequences of a 'one slit or the other but not both' approach...

If we agree that the amount of energy absorbed (a photon) is the same as the amount of energy transmitted then conservation of energy suggests that the photon either goes through the slit or it doesn't. In terms of electromagnetic waves this suggests the beam from the dipole will have to be very much more directional than the commonly accepted view. If we use the Sun as the source we can see that the beam-width must be .. very very narrow. The possibility of incorporating reflectors into our source has already been mentioned .. we could go on to look at the diameter of the reflectors (mounted on the surface of the Sun) required to create such a narrow beam. Should we do the calculation or maybe consider the possibilty of some other mechanism?

Best wishes - C2.

Laserlight

28th August 2007 - 01:27 PM

Hi C2,

QUOTE

If we use the Sun as the source we can see that the beam-width must be .. very very narrow. The possibility of incorporating reflectors into our source has already been mentioned .. we could go on to look at the diameter of the reflectors (mounted on the surface of the Sun) required to create such a narrow beam. Should we do the calculation or maybe consider the possibilty of some other mechanism?

I'm not sure where you are going with this. You apparently have something
in mind, but are being sarcastic and timid in your approach.

Which direction do photon's at the sun's surface move? Inward or outward, and
why?

Please continue.

Regards,
LL

Confused2

28th August 2007 - 02:10 PM

Hi Laserlight,

You have produced the only stable theory so far .. I am just exploring the implications..

I'm not quite sure what point I might be failing to make.. to get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible .. please say where you feel I have misunderstood your theory ..

1/ We can use sunlight as a source for the DSE (evidence Thomas Young used sunlight)
2/ A photon is received with the same energy as it is transmitted (evidence .. light doesn't get 'tired')
3/ To fit in with 2/ we accept that a photon is either received or it isn't .. no half measures
4/ To fit in with 3/ we accept that a photon (in it's entirety) must pass through a slit
5/ To fit in with 4/ the transmitter (dipole) must have sent a narrow enough beam to 'fit' through a slit
6/ We agree a dipole radiation pattern can be focussed by a lens or mirror
7/ If points 5/ and 6/ are agreed then we can calculate the approximate theoretical size of the required mirror/lens using the result that the radiation pattern of a transmitter will be the same as the radiation sensitivity pattern of a receiver
From Wiki ..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution
Just to get within a few orders of magnitude..
Single telescope case
Point-like sources separated by an angle smaller than the angular resolution cannot be resolved. A single optical telescope may have an angular resolution less than one arcsecond, but astronomical seeing and other atmospheric effects make attaining this very hard.
The angular resolution R of a telescope can usually be approximated by
R = λ/D
where
λ is the wavelength of the observed radiation
and D is the diameter of the telescope's objective
Resulting R is in radians. Sources larger than the angular resolution are called extended sources or diffuse sources, and smaller sources are called point sources.
--------------------
Wavelength of light is say 660nm. For a 0.5E-3 m slit at roughly 1.5E11 m we get
D = 660E-9 x 1.5E11/0.5E-3
= 66,000 kilometres
Where have I gone wrong?
Best wishes - C2.
Any comment on the 10^30 discrepancy between Laserlight and Einstein?

Good Elf

28th August 2007 - 04:01 PM

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

For a theoretical derivation of Planck's Law and how this correlates with Planck's Equation of E = hν....

QUOTE

Derivation of Planck's Formula <------------
http://www2.kutl.kyushu-u.ac.jp/seminar/Mi...on_Planck_E.htm

Wikipedia: Quantum harmonic oscillator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator

Wikipedia: Planck's law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law

The Discovery of Energy Quanta
http://www2.kutl.kyushu-u.ac.jp/seminar/Mi...y_quantum_E.htm

Wikipedia: Planck units
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

This is the "basis" of the quantum harmonic oscillator and to the emergence of the famous equation. As you all can see it is based on the principle of equipartition of energy and to cavity resonance of dipole resonators. "The law of equipartition (In classical harmonic systems the energy is equally distributed between Kinetic and Potential Energy each having KT/2) breaks down when the total thermal energy kT of an oscillator is significantly smaller than the spacing between atomic energy levels. K is Boltzmann's Constant. Equipartition no longer holds because it is a poor approximation to assume that the energy levels form a smooth continuum, which is required in the derivations of the equipartition theorem .... Historically, the failures of the classical equipartition theorem to explain specific heats and blackbody radiation were critical in showing the need for a new theory of matter and radiation, namely, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory."

"Good Elf" says that this is due entirely to limitations of the physical size of primary dipole radiators and the fact they are composed of fundamental "building Blocks". This is the quantum harmonic oscillator where the base energy is the lowest achievable energy is not zero, but $user posted image$ , which is called the "ground state energy" or zero-point energy. All other harmonics are related to the first by being related through a simple "ladder" with equally spaced rungs based on this lowest frequency... straight multiples of an integer n... $user posted image$

The upshot is as quoted from the Planck's Law source above...
The law is sometimes written in terms of the spectral energy density
$User posted image$

The spectral energy density can also be expressed as a function of wavelength:
$user posted image$
as shown in the derivation below.

Max Planck originally produced this law in 1900 (published[5] in 1901) in an attempt to improve upon an expression proposed by Wilhelm Wien which fit the experimental data at short wavelengths but deviated from it at long wavelengths. He found that the above function, Planck's function, fit the data for all wavelengths remarkably well. In constructing a derivation of this law, he considered the possible ways of distributing electromagnetic energy over the different modes of charged oscillators in matter. Planck's law emerged when he assumed that the energy of these oscillators was limited to a set of discrete, integer multiples of a fundamental unit of energy, E, proportional to the oscillation frequency ν:
$user posted image$
Planck made this quantization assumption five years before Albert Einstein hypothesized the existence of photons as a means of explaining the photoelectric effect. At the time, Planck believed that the quantization applied only to the tiny oscillators that were thought to exist in the walls of the cavity (what we now know to be atoms), and made no assumption that light itself propagates in discrete bundles or packets of energy. Moreover, Planck did not attribute any physical significance to this assumption, but rather believed that it was merely a mathematical device that enabled him to derive a single expression for the black body spectrum that matched the empirical data at all wavelengths.

Although Planck's formula predicts that a black body will radiate energy at all frequencies, the formula is only applicable when many photons are being measured. For example, a black body at room temperature (300 kelvin) with one square meter of surface area will emit a photon in the visible range once about once every thousand years or so, meaning that for most practical purposes, a black body at room temperature does not emit in the visible range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law

The next point that is to be made is this...

QUOTE (The Discovery of Energy Quanta+)

As explained on the page 3-5-A, if we consider that the energy of the harmonic oscillator, E, can take only an integral multiple of the energy quantum E = hν then the mean value would be given by the formula
user posted image

This is nothing but Planck's formula which is very well fit to experiment.
This concludes that the energy of a cavity radiation with a frequency ν can take only an integral multiple of the energy quantum hν. People have usually thought that the energy is a continuous quantity, but, since the discovery of energy quanta, the energy would be discontinuous and has an elementary unit hν. Thus, an epoch-making idea that the atomic nature in the natural world exists not only in the matter and in the electricity but also in the energy was brought us by Planck at the beginning of the 20th century (1900). This was just the opening of the new science of the new century.
http://www2.kutl.kyushu-u.ac.jp/seminar/Mi...y_quantum_E.htm

It is clear that we are dealing with resonant systems and these are at least "semi-classical" except that we have zero point energy instead of zero energy for the lowest state of any system. This energy cannot radiate away and "fill" any other system with a similar zero point energy because every other system in the Universe has that level always filled. According to "Good Elf's" interpretation of Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory this radiation cannot take place unless some site in the Universe can be found that will accept that zero point radiation (absorb that photon) and produce the matching advanced potential to "cancel the retarded photon emitted"... there are none anywhere so the emission cannot occur. The bosonic photon is the "exchange particle" of forces in our Universe. I can see no good reason to distinguish between "internal" inductive virtual photons and "external" propagating photons. propagating at the speed of light. The concept of the distance is ours and not one that the photons know at all due to Special Relativity.

Cheers

TRoc

28th August 2007 - 04:25 PM

Hi all,

I'm not sure where C2 & LL are going to find a "common ground", but I'm also not even sure exactly what the issue is.

I will say, to C2's last post, that in order for us to have the "system" in Optics that we do, it has to be made "relative" to something specific.

I can not say enough times, that there is no "white" light; the best that you can do is "transparent". That is what is in "the system" that makes this possible. QM has absolutely nothing to say about this, because of their "zeroing out" their calculations of ground state energy.

Our concept of "glass" is very general. We know, from a much more detailed point of view (QM or Chemistry), that we have a collection of oscillators, in an "equilibrium" type of state.

Our concept of "air" is no different. The "flat-earth" view is that "air" is "nothing", just like in outer space, where the "vacuum" exists. None of these concepts are valid, when you look at it from a "Fundamental" perspective, which means an over-arching Theory, from first principles.

In order for "mixed" light to "go through" a clear glass, unchanged, and produce consistent RI values, a "benchmark" is used.

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

QUOTE

The Abbe number V of a material is defined as

$user posted image$

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

So, three values are used, to give sort of an "average"; or, as this chart shows, just make the "color" of the glass relative to some visible wavelength:

Here they are using 587 nm.

So, the "glass" in your telescope, C2, by its reaction to light, was already used to figure the RI, and THAT is why the RI is wavelength dependent, because it has a "Fundamental" value built into it.

In order to predict the change, we have to say "compared to what".

jal is asking about the "simple case", of the "1 electron" atom (H). The answer is "yes", jal. However, just like the simple "Balmer~Bohr" models, they had to have greater "resolution" (scale) to continue to make predictions, as we add an increasing # of electrons, and in a specific geometrical way. So to does RT.

As a value goes into its' "cornu spiral", we lose the ability to "measure it", because the scale that we started with becomes invalid. Similar to, in S & GR, the "photon" experiences "no time", because we have nothing "faster" to measure it with.

In these atoms, if we look at the "next level" (the named series in QM; the "harmonic" or next octave +/- in RT), we find that the value "crosses over", into the next row.

IE 488nm in the Balmer series is a harmonic of 121nm, in the Lyman series. Before anyone "corrects" my math, just realize that we have our "linewidth" to contend with, and we can NOT measure (in this model) accurately "to the nanometer".

more later..

regards,

T.Roc

Confused2

28th August 2007 - 05:41 PM

Hi TRoc (LL),

QUOTE (TRoc+)

I'm not sure where C2 & LL are going to find a "common ground", but I'm also not even sure exactly what the issue is.

Hopefully the common ground is well established - how does the darn DSE thing work? Within LL theory it is unclear why a piece of paper bends light but an object with the mass of the moon doesn't. Also, if a photon is EM .. then how do you get the beam narrow enough to even go through a slit? I could say "Great theory Laserlight" .. in my book that's patronising and unhelpful. If he has answers he can post them .. if not .. he's up and ready to go again.
The whole thing is crazy .. if we get back to the delayed choice experiment LL is going to ask where the 66,000 km reflectors might suddenly be appearing from (yes?) .. and so it goes on.
If LL asks me to refrain from posting anything relevant to his ideas then I will (of course) respect his wishes.
Best wishes - C2.

yquantum

28th August 2007 - 06:34 PM

Hi everyone -- way to many names for such a great post,

July 3, 2007 paper.

Please everyone take care. (If I overlooked this being posted, it was unintentional).

It is worth the read.....

http://depts.uwc.edu/math/faculty/kryukov/files/twoSlit.pdf

I have read and it has given me fond memories of my younger years of institutional studies. I hope the above will give you some information that is current and based on the recent experiments yet true to the DSE as it was intended.

caio_
yquantum

Laserlight

28th August 2007 - 07:08 PM

Hi C2,

After reading your "commentary" a couple of times and not understanding what
you were attempting to do, it finally came out in your response to TRoc.

You were "designing" a parabolic reflector with a focal point relative to
the distance to the sun....Yes/No???? If so, you have completely missed the mark.

I'm short on time, but let me pose a question/scenario to you.

A large telescope looking out into a fixed point/galaxy in space, say 12B light
years distant requires many hours of observation to collect enough photon's to
render an image. The photon's arrive one at a time and an image is built up.
The longer the observation, the clearer and more detailed the image, and the
rendered structure of the galaxy is exactly reproduced, albeit a very small image.

If the waves are continuous waves, as in a ray from each atomic source, why are
we receiving a single photon hit at a time, (this is verified)?

Recall that the individual photon's could be hitting at any point on the parabolic
mirror and being spatially "reconstituted" to provide a clear image.

Out of time.....for now! I will address your other "comments" later.
LL

Guest_1more?

28th August 2007 - 07:35 PM

yquantum, I do not think that Laerslight wants to answer your question?[B]

Great source btw...

1more?

Confused2

28th August 2007 - 08:41 PM

Hi Laserlight,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)

You were "designing" a parabolic reflector with a focal point relative to the distance to the sun....Yes/No????

No. I do have some (not much) knowledge of optics. You seem to be missing the point that there is something quite fundamental about the 'resolving power' of a lens or mirror regardless of focal length or anything else. ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution ) The diameter of the lens/mirror for a given resolving power is generally given to be something like
D = 1.22 λ / sin θ
where θ is the angular resolution, λ is the wavelength of light, and D is the diameter of the lens. Using small angle approximations and dropping the 1.22 (how blurry is blurry) it may appear as D = λ /θ or variations on the theme.
Bigger is better is natures way of telling us that each single photon is seeing the whole of the lens/mirror .. not just a gnats-cock size bit of it. If a photon only saw a tiny bit of the lens/mirror then everybody would build lots of little telescopes and wait for the photons to build up instead of spending millions on huge mirrors ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keck_telescope ).. and coupling them together for higher resolution ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHARA_array ). Bigger is more than just faster .. it gives better angular resolution. I don't think there is any way to explain this unless each photon sees the whole lens/mirror/array.

With hindsight I do see that you may view photons as being scattered in the same way as a machine gun can scatter bullets over a wide range whilst each bullet may be very small. Please bear in mind the Ground-Hog day effect - I don't know whether any particular day will turn out to be an EM day or a bullet day or something else.

Why are we receiving a single photon at a time? Can you suggest a better alternative? (Preferably one that does not result in electrons spinning down into the nucleus within a few picoseconds)

Best wishes -C2.

janrinze

28th August 2007 - 10:42 PM

Hi GE,

cavity resonance .. yes
dipole resonance .. no..

unless you suggest that the blackbody radiation is a discontinuous function..

Jan Rinze.

Laserlight

28th August 2007 - 11:19 PM

Hi Jan,

QUOTE

cavity resonance .. yes
dipole resonance .. no..

Hmmmm, isn't a dipole considered a tuned resonant "cavity" that resonates/vibrates
at a specific frequency?

Also, dipoles can be tuned to operate across a wide bandwidth if there is a variable
local oscillator "pumping" it, like a capacitor or tank circuit.

LL

Laserlight

29th August 2007 - 12:33 AM

Hi again C2,

I now have some time available to respond to your sarcasm/criticism.

QUOTE

Within LL theory it is unclear why a piece of paper bends light but an object with the mass of the moon doesn't.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Within LL theory it is unclear why a piece of paper bends light but an object with the mass of the moon doesn't.

Where did you ever come up with that twisted line of logic. I NEVER said, or
inferred, any such nonsense as you are currently spouting.

I have been abundantly clear that a change of refractive index of space can
bend/redirect light. Do you have a problem with that?

Also, if a photon is EM .. then how do you get the beam narrow enough to even go through a slit? I could say "Great theory Laserlight" .. in my book that's patronising and unhelpful. If he has answers he can post them .. if not .. he's up and ready to go again.

C2-The argument is: "How big is a photon?" I have proposed that a photon is
a "corpuscular" wavelike entity with finite containment boundaries. I refuse
to believe that a photon spreads its energy (E= hf) across the universe, and then
collapses to a point instantaneously. Is this what you believe?

Please, clearly state your position on this subject, and quit tapdancing around the
issue(s).

A corpuscular photon model implies that a photon is a self contained energy
"entity" that operates within the "volume" it's EM field boundaries, which
range outward from the "centerline" according to the frequency at which it
propagates. This means that a photon has "extent", or limited spatial distribution,
within its maximum EM field boundaries/limits.

This concept/model still allows for photons to have EM phase and timing coherency
with other photons that have been emitted from a common "source" mass, and
which can propagate together as a coherent EM wave at some total wave energy
amplitude. It also follows the model of the "wavefunction", which is the
operational range of probability, where it can expect be generally "located".

This "model" follows the concept of wave-particle duality. It propagates as a wave,
and can transfer its momentum/energy as a particle. Conversely, a pure wave
distributes its energy across the entire wave front. Photon's do not.

QUOTE

The whole thing is crazy .. if we get back to the delayed choice experiment LL is going to ask where the 66,000 km reflectors might suddenly be appearing from (yes?) .. and so it goes on.

Now you are being facetious.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The whole thing is crazy .. if we get back to the delayed choice experiment LL is going to ask where the 66,000 km reflectors might suddenly be appearing from (yes?) .. and so it goes on.

Now you are being facetious.

If LL asks me to refrain from posting anything relevant to his ideas then I will (of course) respect his wishes.

On the contrary, if you have useful or meaningful comments I expect you to
contribute or provide counter arguments, as in a dialog/discussion. If you
disagree, then speak your mind, just make sure that it isn't closed.

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with my "analysis" on this
topic, as long as they have a reasonable and intellectual counter argument.

What drives me (us) crazy is your meandering, capricious, "beating around the
bush". Say what you mean, without us having to try to interpret just what the
hell you are trying to say. For cripes sake, be a man...take a position, and make
clear concise statements! Subtlety is one thing, a milquetoast approach is
another.

Sorry to be so blunt, but consider it constructive criticism.

I think your groundhog has rabies.
How many days ago did he bite you?

LL

Laserlight

29th August 2007 - 12:39 AM

Hi Yquantum,

guest_1more posted:

QUOTE

yquantum, I do not think that Laerslight wants to answer your question?[B]

Did you ask me a question? If so I missed it. I have yet to read the link you
provided but will do so later tonite.

LL

Laserlight

29th August 2007 - 01:38 AM

Yquantum,

Good paper! I very much enjoyed the concepts presented. It made
sense. The author skirted around the topic of EM field theory, making those
energy characteristics "intangible" superposition characteristics, as opposed to
finite measurables. The wavefunction collapse proposal was
especially "refreshing".

Thanks for posting it.

LL

Laserlight

29th August 2007 - 02:21 AM

HI C2,

I would like to address your topics of contention.

QUOTE

Bigger is better is natures way of telling us that each single photon is seeing the whole of the lens/mirror .. not just a gnats-cock size bit of it. If a photon only saw a tiny bit of the lens/mirror then everybody would build lots of little telescopes and wait for the photons to build up instead of spending millions on huge mirrors ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keck_telescope ).. and coupling them together for higher resolution ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHARA_array ). Bigger is more than just faster .. it gives better angular resolution. I don't think there is any way to explain this unless each photon sees the whole lens/mirror/array.

Ok, I agree...bigger is better! Now,........why?

More area, collects more widely scattered photons, faster! and provides
better resolution and scaling. There are several reasons/issues why.

1. The local atmosphere varies with temperature and weather phenomena (clouds,
water content, density, etc.) Speed of photon collection is essential.
2. The rotation of the earth limits viewing/data collection time.
3. Newer telescopes use more mirrors, to increase the exposed surface area to gather more scattered photons.
4. Smaller mirrors can be more easily "flexed"/distorted to cancel atmospheric
abberations/distortions to provide better image clarity.
5. All the discrete mirrors are aligned to a common focal plane/point which
brings coherent, but dispersed, photons back into coherent wave "alignment".
6. Bigger total mirror size provides a bigger amplification factor, and larger
image size, thus more details can be observed.
7. The longer the "exposure", the better the resolution/clarity of the image.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

EM "bullets"...."corpuscular" wave nature. The size and frequency of the
"wavefunction" determines the size/extent and energy content of the photon.

You seem to be hung up on the concept of water waves...that wave concept is fine
for a coherent wavefront that is made up of discrete photon "corpuscles"
all travelling "in phase".

But, you seem to be having difficulty formulating
what form a single photon exhibits.

QUOTE

Why are we receiving a single photon at a time? Can you suggest a better alternative? (Preferably one that does not result in electrons spinning down into the nucleus within a few picoseconds)

Because they are generated as single energy "packets", one at a time, as the
electron cycles between energy shells.

Now, a challenge for you!

Can you explain, or model, how the ISL works over extreme distances? I would
like to discuss how your "conceptual model" deals with a coherent wave dispersing
over distance and time.

Just for the sake of argument. You can use a 1 watt flashlight beam and
aim it into space for 1 year. How much energy reaches a detection
point 1 LY away. How much mirror area would you need to capture enough
photons to be able to see the flashlight beam.

How is Gerald feeling? Is he afraid of water?...Foaming at the mouth?

Fiz

29th August 2007 - 04:26 AM

I find the double slit experiments bizarre and confusing, but when I cross my eyes when looking at the 2 slit interference patterns, it appears less confusing. Now if I only had three eyeballs,

I could probably cross them too, to view a 3 slit pattern... which leaves me to think there is some sort of stereoscopic phenomena occuring there, except at this time it only a hunch...

Confused2

29th August 2007 - 09:47 AM

Hi Laserlight,

Einstein's General Relativity is a theory about the changing refractive index of space. OK .. now we say the speed of light is constant within 'bent' space but this is a later interpretation which results from looking inside the bent space. Seen from the outside the speed of light isn't constant and is a refractive index effect just as in Laserlight space. I don't understand how you can fail to acknowledge any connection between GR and your claim that the refractive index of space is changed by the presence of the slits .. If not mass/energy then what is causing this effect? Why is it not seen anywhere else?

Fair enough .. what do I think a photon is ..

These are selected out-of-context quotes which collectively express my 'view':-
( taken from Physicsforums http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=181159 )
I don't think you can correlate individual photons with specific configurations of electric and magnetic fields. Photons are not tiny localized "bundles" of E and B fields that propagate independently through space. Neither can you take a classical electromagnetic wave, from a light bulb for example, chop it up into lots of little pieces, and call those pieces "photons."
I think that quantum-mechanical explanation is more fundamental. In the limit of very low intensity light (when photons can be counted one-by-one) the quantum theory still works well. However, the classical description of light by continuous electromagnetic waves fails.. . Maxwell's equations in free space can be regarded as surrogate quantum equations for photon's wavefunctions. It also follows that wave properties of light (diffraction, interference, Newton rings, etc.) are, in fact, quantum properties of photons. Grimaldi, Huygens, Newton, Young, Fresnel, Maxwell, et al. were doing quantum mechanics without knowing it.
One thing that is important to realize is that a "particle" may have other properties even if it has no mass or charge: momentum, energy, spin (and color and other quantum numbers if we go beyond photons and electrons). In classical, non-relativistic physics having no mass implies no particle (no momentum, no energy, etc). This is not so in relativity.
The way we define an electric of a magnetic field in classical physics is through the *interaction* they have with charged particles. Nobody has ever seen an E field or a B field. what we see are charges reacting to E and B fields.
In quantum physics, the photon is a massless spin 1 particle and it turns out that the way it interacts with charged particles (like an electron) leads to an interaction which reproduces the effect classical E and B fields have on charged particles.
Very roughly speaking, the electromagnetic wave of classical physics is the probability wave of photons.
However, I think it is also fair to say that the interpretation of Maxwell's equations as analogs of the Schroedinger equation for photons (with probability interpretation and all that) is not well-understood yet.

(My thanks to the contributors to Physicsforums from whom I have pinched those quotes)

---------------------------------------------------------
To distinguish between photon models (eg corpuscle and wavefunction) we need to look at experiments where the models predict different results. The DSE is the classic 'evidence' but (fair enough) you have taken it to show evidence of 'something else'.

You propose

QUOTE (LL+)

You can use a 1 watt flashlight beam and aim it into space for 1 year. How much energy reaches a detection point 1 LY away. How much mirror area would you need to capture enough photons to be able to see the flashlight beam.

This doesn't distinguish between a wavefunction and a corpuscle .. a wavefunction would be affected by the whole of a mirror whereas a corpuscle would only see a part of it .. but the counts would be the same. Can you suggest an experiment where the models would give different results so we could see which gives the best approximation to reality?
Best wishes - C2.

Laserlight

29th August 2007 - 01:44 PM

Hi C2, et al,

QUOTE

Seen from the outside the speed of light isn't constant and is a refractive index effect just as in Laserlight space. I don't understand how you can fail to acknowledge any connection between GR and your claim that the refractive index of space is changed by the presence of the slits .. If not mass/energy then what is causing this effect? Why is it not seen anywhere else?

I have proposed that the concentration of matter waves, emanating from the
surface edges of the slits (polariton field effect), are concentrated in the slit cavities
which changes the index of refraction within the slits. You know the rest of my
proposal. It is possible that this phenomenon has implications that are tied to
GR, or SR, and how matter affects the space immediately adjacent to it via an
energy coupling effect to, and from, "space".

As for the comment that it is "not seen anywhere else", in fact, it is observed
within gravitational wells, or anywhere that light changes its path due to a change
of refractive index.

A change of refractive index is due to a change of the energy density of local
space that is directly caused by the influence of matter fields, which can be
considered a change in the energy concentration of local space. This could also
be a form of resonance, but that concept requires additional development.

IMO, the effect of changing the energy density of space is also is the
primary mechanism which describes how gravity "works", by displacing "normal"
"undensified" space with high concentrations of energy, which is a result of
the presence of physical objects possessing mass.
It is a spatial displacement effect due to energy density.

FWIW, I enjoyed reading the rest of your answer. It was direct, clear, and
well stated! Kudo's.

Regards,
LL

TRoc

29th August 2007 - 04:45 PM

Hi all,

Jal, here is an example that you asked for (I have a little more time now).

Keep in mind, that my model is bound by the same "natural laws" of the Periodic Table of Elements, and all electron "orbitals". Modeling the "Perfect Circle" is going to be the simple case, and it gains complexity from there.

My "Balmer series" is not as "accurate" as the estimates made of wave-lengths, but then, the current model gets to "start" at its own "non-zero, >1.0" (the mass of carbon divided into 12 parts), and go from there. If I am using a different starting value, then the "answers" (measurements) will not be the same as the current model, without being "wrong". It is the PATTERN that I am speaking of.

Perhaps a different analogy of "this group of numbers", that might be interpreted as a matrix, or an exponential frequency comb, is a "topological map". I am identifying "peaks and valleys" in the terrain. This is analogous to the "nodes and anti-nodes" of a dynamically interacting region of energy in space. The only real premise of what my own interpretation is, that the numbers show "where natural boundaries" might be. I can give good "map coordinates", but, I can NOT tell you which tree may have fallen over the trail, etc. That is where the "software" comes in; HOW these "phase boundaries" interact, to form what has been called "resonance" is empirical.

Balmer { 656.3, 486.1, 434.1, 410.2, 397.0, 388.9, 383.5 }

Z / R^247 = 6.5350174529720977700920323498988e-7
Z / R^252 = 4.895731448650360107421875e-7
Z / R^254 = 4.3616008719619521976389427133058e-7
Z / R^255 = 4.1168030252149626700875056343673e-7
Z / R^256 = 3.8857446258706893915793214398102e-7

the "limit" is reached, from the "visible band"/octave, which started at

Z / R^244 = 7.7714892517413787831586428796203e-7

which is the "boundary" for red~infra-red, and exactly 1/2 of the value, 12 steps down (256-244=12), so that, when we go past the high value "boundary" (violet~ultra-violet), at step 255, we are in affect, starting the harmonic effect of "fine structure", as the beat-frequencies reduce to zero.

Where RT lacks in some "accuracy", it makes up for with simplicity, and "depth":

Z x R^584 = 4.5874775455506482161401399644166e+14
Z x R^589 = 6.1235478579111344450712729719218e+14
Z x R^591 = 6.8734500715114052289709370400905e+14
Z x R^592 = 7.2821666816875927020695147270534e+14
Z x R^593 = 7.7151868462208981100266413050047e+14

so that we are able to "self consistently", and without ANY other parameters, give the Balmer series in frequencies, that have the product of c .

RT also will give the the "boundary values" of the Hydrogen, stated in self consistent terms:

Z^2 x R^930 = 2.2527845328121252849589182004219e+23

where NIST = 2.269967390 Hz = 9.387830200 eV = 1.007825032 AMU

Good Elf Posted: Aug 26 2007, 02:23 PM

QUOTE

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...

Well GE, if you've not heard me once, then you've not heard me dozens of times, say that this is NOT a "musical model", it is a mathematical model, that captures the "essence" of a Natural pattern that has yet to be seen by modern Science.

The Logarithmically-spaced Dirac comb is INFINITE.

This, "http://www.netalive.org/tinkering/shepard-effect/", is "4 notes" played at a patterned change in volume (INTENSITY).

There is NO connection. (if you know of one, then please state)

If you think there is a "trick" in there, then you are not understanding these things.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

It is the starting value. That's it. It is the first value (and only), when multiplied by the constant metric " R ", gives the metric itself.

More importantly, it is the "harmonic" of " 2 ".

So, while we might need a reminder, that when Euler (or others) FIRST put forth these notions that e i pi = -1 , and e i pi + 1 = 0 , they were not "accepted" without great discomfort to the "status quo".

TRoc says " 1 = 2 ".

VOLUME 88, NUMBER 7 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 18 FEBRUARY 2002

Ultraprecise Measurement of Optical Frequency Ratios
Jörn Stenger, Harald Schnatz, Christian Tamm, and Harald R. Telle
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Bundesallee 100, 38116 Braunschweig, Germany (Received 29 August 2001; published 5 February 2002)

We developed a novel technique for frequency measurement and synthesis, based on the operation of a femtosecond comb generator as transfer oscillator. The technique can be used to measure frequency ratios of any optical signals throughout the visible and near-infrared part of the spectrum. Relative
uncertainties of 10218 for averaging times of 100 s are possible. Using a Nd:YAG laser in combination with a nonlinear crystal we measured the frequency ratio of the second harmonic f_SH at 532 nm to the fundamental f_0 at 1064 nm, f_SH / f_0 = 2.000 000 000 000 000 001 .

With this kind of accuracy, you should not have a problem that I divided this "harmonic" by 2 , to get 1 as a starting point.

As a matter of "self consistency", I am only ever explaining what can go on "in between" these values.

On linewidth limit:

A phase locked, fiber laser-based frequency comb: limit on optical linewidth*
B. R. Washburn, S. A. Diddams, and N. R. Newbury
National Institute of Standards and Technology, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305
J. W. Nicholson and M. F. Yan
OFS Laboratories, 700 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974
C. G. Jørgensen
OFS Fitel Denmark I/S, Priorparken 680, 2605 Brøndby, Denmark

Abstract: A phase-locked fiber laser-based frequency comb is presented. Despite the broad linewidth of the measured carrier-envelope offset frequency, the linewidth of a single line near the center of the frequency comb is ≤ 6 kHz.
6000 Hz (in the optical range) IS ACCURATE!

So, before I continue, I'd like to ask (especially janrinze) about these dualistic concepts: + / - "charge" and "Hydrogen = 1 ; Helium = 2".

Asking about the "dipole ~ resonance" connection, can you accept a model of " - & + " as " 1 and 2 "?

If we want to have a good discourse on this, I suggest this link as both "primer" and "pump".

http://www.ece.nus.edu.sg/stfpage/elezhucx...olarization.pdf

and, for a visual aid:

Double ionization in a one-cycle laser pulse
Martin D¨orr Max-Born-Institut, D-12489 Berlin, Germany

Abstract: The time-dependent Schr¨odinger equation is solved for a 1Dx1D two-electron model helium atom subject to a low-frequency short, intense laser pulse. A half-cycle pulse leads to strong single but no double ionization.A full-cycle pulse leads to double ionization which begins precisely at the classical return time for the first ejected electron. When the excursion range for the first electron is truncated, the double ionization at later times, corresponding to longer excursions, disappears. When the field near the nucleus is turned off during the return of the first electron, double ionization persists.
©2000 Optical Society of America

User posted image

(link to animation)

QUOTE

Fig. 2. Probability contours during the first half of a single-cycle laser pulse showing the distorted and singly ionized wavepacket at peak electric field, t = 76. The log contour scale is given on the left-hand side.

(link to animation)

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

(link to animation)
Fig. 3. Probability contours during the second half of a single-cycle laser pulse. The first sign of a double ionization jet (in the direction of the arrows) appears at t = 130.

more later..

T.Roc

Laserlight

30th August 2007 - 01:10 AM

Hi C2, et al,

C2 said, regarding the flashlight beam recommended "experiment":

QUOTE

This doesn't distinguish between a wavefunction and a corpuscle .. a wavefunction would be affected by the whole of a mirror whereas a corpuscle would only see a part of it .. but the counts would be the same. Can you suggest an experiment where the models would give different results so we could see which gives the best approximation to reality?

My proposal was extreme to exacerbate the effect of the Inverse Square Law (ISL),
to try to demonstrate how spread out the energy of the beam would be over
an extreme distance, from a relatively weak emission source.

Just off the top of my head, let's use a 10M mirror, vs a 100M mirror, for image
gathering comparative purposes.

In your wave scenario, the images should be identical in intensity and clarity, since
a wave would impact both mirrors and release the full EM content of the
wave with the same relative energy level, according to E=hf. The reasoning being
that each photon is a wave of fixed EM energy content that collapses to a
point upon detection.

So, the image should resolve the same, regardless of mirror size, since the
wave "sees" the whole mirror surface equally, according to you.

Recall, you can not receive partial photon wave energy, it is all or
nothing. So, regardless of the exposed surface area, the same number of photons
(waves) should be seen across the surface of both mirrors, thus the total photon
energy collected should be the same, and the image size and intensity should be
the same.
-------

Now, with a "corpuscular", self contained photon/wave model, a smaller mirror
will collect individually "dispersed" photons that follows a ratio, according to the
total exposed mirror area. So, a 10M mirror might collect 1000 photons
to produce an image of the source, whereas a 100M mirror would collect a
million dispersed photons, and resolve a much more detailed and
more intense image.

Anyone is invited to participate in this discussion. Any other points of view on this
topic, or arguments for either model?? Any astronomer's out there?

LL

TRoc

30th August 2007 - 02:40 AM

Hi all,

Some other "classical" input, on the EM wave:

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

QUOTE

Permittivity is a physical quantity that describes how an electric field affects and is affected by a dielectric medium, and is determined by the ability of a material to polarize in response to the field, and thereby reduce the total electric field inside the material. Thus, permittivity relates to a material's ability to transmit (or "permit") an electric field.

..

In general, permittivity is not a constant, as it can vary with the position in the medium, the frequency of the field applied, humidity, temperature, and other parameters. In a nonlinear medium, the permittivity can depend on the strength of the electric field. Permittivity as a function of frequency can take on real or complex values.

..

Vacuum permittivity also appears in Coulomb's law as a part of the Coulomb force constant, $user posted image$ , which expresses the force between two unit charges separated by unit distance in vacuum.
The linear permittivity of a homogeneous material is usually given relative to that of vacuum, as a relative permittivity (also called dielectric constant, although this sometimes only refers to the static, zero-frequency relative permittivity).

..

The permittivity and magnetic permeability μ of a medium together determine the phase velocity v of electromagnetic radiation through that medium:
$user posted image$

..

As opposed to the response of a vacuum, the response of normal materials to external fields generally depends on the frequency of the field. This frequency dependence reflects the fact that a material's polarization does not respond instantaneously to an applied field. The response must always be causal (arising after the applied field). For this reason permittivity is often treated as a complex function of the frequency of the applied field..

..

User posted image

A dielectric permittivity spectrum over a wide range of frequencies. E' and E" denote the real and the imaginary part of the permittivity, respectively. Various processes are labeled on the image: ionic and dipolar relaxation, and atomic and electronic resonances at higher energies.

At the high-frequency limit, the complex permittivity is commonly referred to as ε∞. At the plasma frequency and above, dielectrics behave as ideal metals, with electron gas behavior. The static permittivity is a good approximation for altering fields of low frequencies, and as the frequency increases a measurable phase difference δ emerges between D and E. The frequency at which the phase shift becomes noticeable depends on temperature and the details of the medium.

..

The complex permittivity is usually a complicated function of frequency ω, since it is a superimposed description of dispersion phenomena occurring at multiple frequencies. The dielectric function must have poles only for frequencies with positive imaginary parts, and therefore satisfies the Kramers-Kronig relations. However, in the narrow frequency ranges that are often studied in practice, the permittivity can be approximated as frequency-independent or by model functions.
..

In general, the absorption of electromagnetic energy by dielectrics is covered by a few different mechanisms that influence the shape of the permittivity as a function of frequency:

Relaxation effects associated with permanent and induced molecular dipoles. At low frequencies the field changes slowly enough to allow dipoles to reach equilibrium before the field has measurably changed. For frequencies at which dipole orientations cannot follow the applied field due to the viscosity of the medium, absorption of the field's energy leads to energy dissipation. The mechanism of dipoles relaxing is called dielectric relaxation and for ideal dipoles is described by classic Debye relaxation.

Resonance effects, which arise from the rotations or vibrations of atoms, ions, or electrons. These processes are observed in the neighborhood of their characteristic absorption frequencies.
The above effects often combine to cause non-linear effects within capacitors.

..

In terms of quantum mechanics, permittivity is explained by atomic and molecular interactions.

At low frequencies, molecules in polar dielectrics are polarized by an applied electric field, which induces periodic rotations.

At moderate frequencies, the energy is too high to cause rotation, yet too low to affect electrons directly, and is absorbed in the form of resonant molecular vibrations.

At high frequencies (such as UV and above), molecules cannot relax, and the energy is purely absorbed by atoms, exciting electron energy levels.

While carrying out a complete ab initio (that is, first-principles) modeling is now computationally possible, it has not been widely applied yet.
Thus, a phenomological model is accepted as being an adequate method of capturing experimental behaviors.

..

The dielectric constant of a material can be found by a variety of static electrical measurements. The complex permittivity is evaluated over a wide range of frequencies by using different variants of dielectric spectroscopy, covering nearly 21 orders of magnitude from 10^−6 to 10^15 Hz.

In order to study systems for such diverse exciting fields, a number of measurement setups are used, each adequate for a special frequency range.

(emphasis added)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_...tromagnetism%29

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

(emphasis added)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_...tromagnetism%29

..very small magnetic units working together called domains. Domains are not always aligned, and they often act against each other to reduce the strength of the net magnetic field.

..

Permeability varies with flux density. Values shown above are approximate and valid only at the flux densities shown. Moreover, they are given for a zero frequency; in practice, the permeability is generally a function of the frequency.

In a "monochromatic theory", all of these idealizations would not be a problem, until you get out of the range of frequencies that are actually being used. This means that it has a "scaling problem" (sounds itchy!).

I'll post this one again, please have a look at the diagram on page 4:

Atomic Polarization and the Hanle Effect

QUOTE

Consider first the observation of the “north solar pole”, where we have
assumed in Fig. 1 that there is no magnetic field (i.e. there is no Lorentz force
influencing the motion of the oscillating electron). Under these circumstances
the atom can be represented by three independent linear oscillators vibrating at
angular frequency ω0 along the axes of the reference system. As indicated in Fig. 1, only the x and y oscillators are excited by the incident beam. The two excited oscillators radiate independently and decay radiatively with a damping constant γ = 1/t_life. If we observe along the direction of the incident beam (forward scattering case) we find that the radiation is obviously unpolarized. However, observing at 90◦ one finds that the radiation is linearly polarized along the x axis, simply because the y-oscillator is seen pole-on. If we choose the positive reference direction for the Stokes Q parameter along the x-axis, we find Q = I and U = 0. Note that the same conclusion is obviously reached if the vibration of the x-oscillator is considered as that resulting from the coherent superposition of two counter-rotating circular oscillators, which are oscillating in phase with respect to each other at frequency ω0 in the x−z plane.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Consider now the observations of the “south solar pole”, where we have
assumed in Fig. 1 the presence of a weak magnetic field parallel to the solar
surface and orientated along the y-axis. We have now to take into account the
influence of the Lorentz force on the motion of the bound electron. The result
is that the atom cannot be interpreted as three independent linear oscillators,
but as a linear oscillator parallel to the magnetic field and two counter-rotating
circular oscillators in the x−z plane oscillating at angular frequencies ω0 + ωL
and ω0 −ωL, where ωL = 8.79 ×106 B(gauss) is the Larmor angular frequency

QUOTE

If the Zeeman splitting is sufficiently large so as to have ωL ≫ 1/t_life (which can occur having still ω_L≪ω_line) the oscillation axis can rotate several times before the oscillation amplitude is affected by the damping.

Under these circumstances we will see totally unpolarized radiation for the 90 degree scattering case (i.e. for observation at the limb), but the maximum possible amount of linear polarization along the y-axis for forward scattering (i.e. for disc-centre observation).
However, when the Zeeman splitting is similar to the natural width of the
atomic level (i.e. when ωL≈1/t_life) the oscillation axis rotates through an angle
α within the characteristic damping time.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

..feel optimistic because the quest for understanding the physical origin of the “second solar spectrum” is now becoming one of the success stories of astrophysics. We had the theory (cf. Landi Degl’Innocenti 1983). We had the observations (cf. Stenflo and Keller 1997; Stenflo et al. 2000). And now we have the self-consistent radiative transfer modeling, which is the essential link between theory and observations.

Just food for thought. The atom is not the only thing that has these qualities.

http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/s...erposition.html

QUOTE

Two waves of equal amplitude are traveling in the same direction. The two waves have different frequencies and wavelengths, but they both travel with the same wave speed. Using the principle of superposition, the resulting particle displacement may be written as: user posted image

This resulting particle motion is the product of two traveling waves. One part is a sine wave which oscillates with the average frequency f = ½(f1 + f2). The other part is a cosine wave which oscillates with the difference frequency f = ½(f1 - f2).

user posted image

In the movie at left two waves with slightly different frequencies are traveling to the right. The resulting wave travels in the same direction and with the same speed as the two component waves. The "beat" wave oscillates with the average frequency, and its amplitude envelope varies according to the difference frequency.

What happens to our "average" frequency, when there are more than 2 waves? This is why I say that the "approximation" is only useful in the "ideal case". I am unable to envision a scenario (real), where there are so few "bits of energy" being exchanged. Rates, such as frequency, do not follow such a simple method of "averaging".

The same goes for the cosine. "1/2 of the difference frequency" is supposed to be the "inverse" of the sine (average frequency)? This is taking the harmonic of the beat frequency, and setting the limit. What happens when the beat frequency is ALREADY a harmonic itself? It's a little redundant to model it that way, IMO.

If we model with more than 2 oscillators, the beats happen at the same time. This puts them into superposition, which creates an interaction zone. Within that zone, the beats are "real". Certain ratios create beats (and their harmonics) that serve to constructively reinforce one of the oscillators. This "measures" as an increase in intensity, for that particular frequency. The other frequencies' intensity will not change.

This change in frequency parameters then will also effect the RI, permittivity/permeability, absorption via resonance, etc.

regards,

T.Roc

Montec

30th August 2007 - 03:21 AM

Hello Laserlight, et al.

How does one differentiate between photons that where emitted at the same time (phase) and frequency from a point source? ie a star light years away.

Would not the photons tend to have constructive interference as in DSE?

So the light we see from another star could be constructed out of many dipole radiated spherical waves of energy that constructively interfere in the far field. Energy is energy. E=hf relates to the emission and absorption of energy and not to the transportation of energy. One to many and many to one describes photons to a tee.

Just some observations.

Laserlight

30th August 2007 - 03:53 AM

Hi Montec,

QUOTE

How does one differentiate between photons that where emitted at the same time (phase) and frequency from a point source? ie a star light years away.

Would not the photons tend to have constructive interference as in DSE?

So the light we see from another star could be constructed out of many dipole radiated spherical waves of energy that constructively interfere in the far field. Energy is energy. E=hf relates to the emission and absorption of energy and not to the transportation of energy. One to many and many to one describes photons to a tee.

Interesting idea. Now a counterpoint to your proposal.

You are assuming that a distant star/galaxy is emitting coherent light across its
entire exposed radiating surface that is "perpendicular" to the observer.

What about the full "elemental" spectrum that is being radiated randomly across
the many thousands of miles (or light years) of exposed "surface" area?

The point being that the atomic photon sources are spatially and temporally
separated/isolated, and there are many different spectral lines in the visible
spectrum. The likelihood of a perfect wave synchronization/superposition
cancellation point at the point of observation, with the scales involved, is
impossible IMO.

Somehow, I am "missing" your misquote of Dumas ("The Three Musketeers") as it applies to photons.

Comments? Opinions?
LL

Montec

30th August 2007 - 04:09 AM

Hello Laserlight, et al.

I was thinking of the probabilities for the untold number of emission points on a sun being able to generate a coherent source (in the far field) for every frequency in its repertoire at any solid angle.

Laserlight

30th August 2007 - 04:33 AM

Hey Montec,

Just think how small that angle of surface exposure is at 10B light years
distance. By increasing the mirror size we widen the angle of incidence/exposure.

With closer "radiating"/reflecting objects there is considerable angle of incidence or
exposure area. Larger angle of incidence = more visible area = more photons
within the radius of exposure.

If individual photons were "ever expanding" wavefronts, per the dipole model,
it would seem that there would always be a consistent photon count, regardless
of distance from the source. Each collection time interval of radiating photon
wavefronts would always be detected with the same count and same energy content,
whether the antenna were 2" or 2 miles across. The energy collected
should still be E=hf according to the wave model, but it scales with geometry/angle.

Am I missing something fundamental?

LL

Montec

30th August 2007 - 05:56 AM

Hello Laserlight, et al.

If the wavefront can be considered as mutually supporting photons (constructive interference) then the area of an aperture will gather all the energy that falls/reflects or passes through it and disregard the energy that is outside of the aperture. There is no size aspect to a photon only a wavelength and a Poynting vector. A Poynting vector is derived from planar or spherical fields. The aperture collects the energy contained in the fields it allows to pass.

If you chop up or block a portion of a field then the new edges of the fields (that still contain energy) now have more curvature. This curvature is frequency dependent and comes from the idea of how electric field shapes behave. This is how I see it since I believe that every wavefront is generated by the previous wavefronts and the energy (photon) is passed back and forth between the magnetic and electric fields. This is very analogous to the Huygens wave model. This is how the energy (photon) is moved through space.

The discrete energy "photon" relates to harmonic interactions involving matter.

Confused2

30th August 2007 - 10:22 AM

Hi Montec et al,
I think we have a prediction..

QUOTE (Montec+)

How does one differentiate between photons that where emitted at the same time (phase) and frequency from a point source? ie a star light years away. Would not the photons tend to have constructive interference as in DSE?
So the light we see from another star could be constructed out of many dipole radiated spherical waves of energy that constructively interfere in the far field. Energy is energy. E=hf relates to the emission and absorption of energy and not to the transportation of energy. One to many and many to one describes photons to a tee.

From http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/astro/starsiz.htm

QUOTE

The light falling on the apertures becomes less and less coherent as this [ moving apart ] takes place. This simple observation shows the basis for determining stellar diameters by interferometry. We only have to find the limits of the region where the light from the star is coherent, using interference, and this is directly related to the apparent angular extent of the source. We take apertures farther and farther apart, and find out where the fringes disappear.

One interpretation (mine) is that that a point source can only be in one state at any given time so such a source cannot emit 'incoherent' waves. Only when the star is no longer resolved as a point can there be multiple states .. since the multiple states are unrelated there will no longer be an interference pattern.
Imho the HBT effect is quite different ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbury-Brown_and_Twiss_effect ) and (almost) unrelated.
Ignoring my interpretation .. does the result agree with the prediction?
Best wishes - C2.

Confused2

30th August 2007 - 11:35 AM

Hi Laserlight et al,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)

If individual photons were "ever expanding" wavefronts, per the dipole model, it would seem that there would always be a consistent photon count, regardless of distance from the source.

Imagine we have an omnidirectional source (synthesized out of dipoles if it makes anyone feel happier).
Lets say the source emits 1 photon per second.
We surround the source by a black sphere of radius r.
The probability of detecting any photons emitted by the source is 100% so somewhere on the sphere a photon will be detected every second. The surface area of a sphere is 4 pi r^2 so in a unit area we'd expect to detect 1/(4 pi r ^2) photons/m^2/s . Note that the total number of photons we expect to detect per second is one but the rate per m^2/s falls off as r^2 .. which agrees with the inverse square law.
Clearly if the total surface area of the sphere is less than 1m^2 we would generate an apparent count of >1/m^2/s .. some common sense may be required to interpret this situation correctly.
Best wishes - C2.

Laserlight

30th August 2007 - 01:50 PM

Hi Montec, C2, et al,

Others are conspicously quiet on this issue.

Montec stated:

QUOTE

There is no size aspect to a photon only a wavelength and a Poynting vector. A Poynting vector is derived from planar or spherical fields. The aperture collects the energy contained in the fields it allows to pass.

So, you are not considering wavelength a "size" for a photon. This is exactly what
I am basing my argument on. Wavelength establishes the timing/extent for a
photon, whereas the amplitude of the wavelength sets the power of the
photon/wave. According to theory a propagating photon wavefunction it cannot
drop below a power level of E=hf.

If the power contained in a coherent wavefront falls off from the source, according
to the ISL, a single photon that has been "inversely squared" out of the
propagating wavefront cannot be reduced below E=hf.

The Poynting vector represents the centerline reference (average) of the
wavelength, which provides directionality to the photon. Energy must
be equally balanced along the vector direction.

Propagating EM fields must "range" in power at equal distances as they
propagate along the centerline of travel or else they would lose wave coherency
and be distributed to space. The fields are mutually "bound" to each other, thru
complementary "generation" and cannot extend beyond the point of mutual
dependency. They have finite "operational" boundaries, within which they must
reside.

Doesn't this argument bode for a "size", or limit to the extent where a discrete
photon can exist as a wavefunction? If the argument is correct, this would tend to
support the idea of a corpuscular nature of a photon wavefunction.

Comments? Anyone?
LL

Confused2

30th August 2007 - 02:20 PM

Hi Laserlight,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)

According to theory a propagating photon wavefunction it cannot drop below a power level of E=hf.

Which theory are you referring to? As far a I know QM only ever equates a wavefunction to probability .. are you referring to another theory?

Best wishes - C2.

jal

30th August 2007 - 03:32 PM

Good Day all!

QUOTE

Imagine we have an omnidirectional source (synthesized out of dipoles if it makes anyone feel happier).
Lets say the source emits 1 photon per second.
We surround the source by a black sphere of radius r.
The probability of detecting any photons emitted by the source is 100% so somewhere on the sphere a photon will be detected every second. The surface area of a sphere is 4 pi r^2 so in a unit area we'd expect to detect 1/(4 pi r ^2) photons/m^2/s . Note that the total number of photons we expect to detect per second is one but the rate per m^2/s falls off as r^2 .. which agrees with the inverse square law.
Clearly if the total surface area of the sphere is less than 1m^2 we would generate an apparent count of >1/m^2/s .. some common sense may be required to interpret this situation correctly.Best wishes - C2.

This reminds me of our discussions, back in the old days, of my thread on inverse square law.
It would be better to find out the photons pattern (land on some pixels). This could be achieved by being able to reduce the time frame 1 sec. ==> fsec
---------
The classical picture/explanation of the DSE must be analysed by quantum experiments if you are attributing quantum causes.
You got to move on into the realm of the quarks.
I guess we will get some interesting results from CERN.
jal

Montec

30th August 2007 - 04:30 PM

Hello Laserlight, Confused2, et al.

LL
If we can claim the the minimum energy in a photon or wave front cycle is E=hf then we must also imply a mechanism to uphold this claim. There are two mechanisms that may be used, that I know of, to "uphold" E=hf as a minimum energy.

The first is to make the photon have a size (or more specifically a volume) that is retained (by some means - new physics here) as the photon travels through space.

The second is to say that constructive interference of wave fronts prevents the energy in the wave from ever falling below the E=hf minimum.

Both are possible theories. The question is which is more likely given the current state of information available.

If photons are packets of energy why would we need to concentrate them to form images of far away places. E=hf would cause a change in the emulsion or detector without any concentration.

C2

QUOTE

This is a valid interpretation as long as you realize that wavefront coherency is relative to the size of the aperture (real or virtual).

Laserlight

30th August 2007 - 06:26 PM

Hi C2, Montec, et al,

QUOTE

QUOTE (Laserlight)
According to theory a propagating photon wavefunction it cannot drop below a power level of E=hf.....

(Quote C2)
Which theory are you referring to? As far a I know QM only ever equates a wavefunction to probability .. are you referring to another theory?

Yeah, technically I "merged" theories. Let me rephrase the statement.

Theory says a photon has a minimum sustainable energy of E=hf. Then in order
to sustain the minimum quantum of energy, it must propagate as a wavefunction,
and the energy it is transporting must be confined within the volume of the
package/envelope.

This is a bit nebulous, because energy fields have no specific identifiable
location, and are themselves "probability gradients" that occupy space.

Comments?
LL

Laserlight

30th August 2007 - 07:02 PM

Hi Montec, C2, et al,

Montec posted:
[QUOTE]If we can claim the the minimum energy in a photon or wave front cycle is E=hf then we must also imply a mechanism to uphold this claim. There are two mechanisms that may be used, that I know of, to "uphold" E=hf as a minimum energy.

The first is to make the photon have a size (or more specifically a volume) that is retained (by some means - new physics here) as the photon travels through space.[/QUOTE]

Self interference seems a likely candidate for this "model". Conceivably, a photon
transfers energy to space, via self generated fields, and the energy is returned
from space on alternating wave/phase cycles as the intensity of the field collapses.
It would be a "self induction" dynamic phenomenon, with space acting as a
capacitance. We know that space has infinite capacity.

[QUOTE]The second is to say that constructive interference of wave fronts prevents the energy in the wave from ever falling below the E=hf minimum.

Both are possible theories. The question is which is more likely given the current state of information available.[/QUOTE]

What about destructive interference, there is a constant rebalancing going on
as the wavefront propagates. So, there is an even amount of constructive and
destructive wave superposition elements, until the point of detection.

Keep in mind that from a relativistic perspective of distant bodies, separated
by light years of time/distance, both the transmitting and the
detecting atoms are in constant motion, moving toward or away from each other at
high velocity, which should provide a continuous doppler shift effect.

So, "standing waves" should not exist between distant moving bodies. The timing
required to do so would have to be extremely precise in order to be sustainable
and maintain a phase relationship over extreme distances.

If photons are packets of energy why would we need to concentrate them to form images of far away places. E=hf would cause a change in the emulsion or detector without any concentration. [/QUOTE]

Because the packets are "spread out" with some distance/gap between them due to
the effects of the ISL over distance from the source. They need to be spatially (and temporally) "realigned" because they are following the geodesics/curvature
of space.

Lenses and focusing mirrors are curved to establish a focal point, which
compensates for the curvature of space. Spreading occurs as the photon packets
disperse/separate along the expanding curvature of the spherical wavefront that is
radiating from the source and which follows the ISL.

Comments, other opinions?
LL

Neil Farbstein

30th August 2007 - 07:17 PM

QUOTE (Montec+Aug 30 2007, 04:09 AM)

Ingenious, maybe you could control starlight emissions with lasers that are amplified by the stellar magnetosphere or maybe radio waves could do it.

Confused2

30th August 2007 - 08:25 PM

Background info so others know what we're talking about ..

A wave function is a mathematical tool that quantum mechanics uses to describe any physical system. The values of the wave function are probability amplitudes (complex numbers) the squares of the absolute values of which give the probability distribution that the system will be in any of the possible states.

(From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function )

Confused2

30th August 2007 - 08:42 PM

The Sun weighs about 2,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes and light grazing its surface is deflected by about 0.00049 degrees
Sources http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/deflection-delay.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

Confused2

30th August 2007 - 10:28 PM

‘We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.’ - Niels Bohr to Wolfgang Pauli, 1957.

Laserlight

31st August 2007 - 12:06 AM

Hi Jal,

I was reviewing recent posts and your comment got me to thinking about the DSE,
of all things.

QUOTE

If we apply a fixed sample time, to count the number of coherent photons that
create the banding pattern of the DSE, we should always count nearly the same
number of photons in each fixed test interval.

Keeping the sample time constant, while incrementally moving the detection
screen toward, or away from the slits in stages, will still maintain the same photon
count. All that will change is the number of bands observed, their widths, the
sharpness of the bands, and their intensity.

So, effectively, all we are changing is the focal length between the slits and the
screen. By changing the focal length, we are also changing the superposition
points of the overlapping/interfering wavefunctions, which changes the intensity
and the energy "spread", which follows the ISL.

http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/ccss/ed...bin/projApp.htm

LL

TRoc

31st August 2007 - 01:18 AM

Hi all,

Laserlight Posted on Today at 6:26 PM

QUOTE

This is a bit nebulous, because energy fields have no specific identifiable
location, and are themselves "probability gradients" that occupy space.

I partially agree with you, LL.

"Specific" may be very hard, indeed, but I do believe that we can find a more general pattern that will identify the orthogonal field alignments.

Recall the picture that GE posted a while back, that showed a picture distorted into a "sphere", and on the floor were black and white tiles. This is a great place to start, in 2D: the B & W checkerboard. The "normal" perspective, is that is is a B/W pattern, in an alternating, linear fashion. This captures the essence of our EM wave.

However, just as valid is the "orthogonal" (diagonal) perspective. In that, we see that the "dominant" pattern is the 45 deg angle, and the B/W "phases" run at 90 deg to this line.

So, in this analogy, in order to "move forward" (at c ), we need to always alternate B, then W. However, our black lines (the diagonals), nor their counterparts, the unbroken white lines (opposite phase), do not have this limitation (phase velocity).

For arguments sake, let's call each "column", or linear B & W sequence, a "photon", and each pair (B&W) a single cycle. Now, in order to have our checkerboard realistic, each side by side cycle is "off phase" by half a cycle. As long as all of the "photons" are going the same speed (monochromatic), this pattern is maintained.

If we allow the different "photons" to move at slightly different phase velocities, through the medium (controlled by the RI for the "fundamental" frequency/axis), then our pattern is "shifting", by discreet units. The standard, linear BW sequence is NOT affected by this (group velocity). However, our diagonals are no longer in place.

This means that, in the areas where the pattern has shifted by whole cycles, the orthogonal relationship for the "standard" propagation FAILS. I think that we all agree on the consequence of say, bringing the electric or magnetic components of the field together: they repel. The only place that they can be "squeezed into", is superimposed onto an existing line of "normal" propagation.

When you consider more than one source, each with a variation in frequency that causes incremental dispersion, due to the frequency dependent RI, the changes in angles (measured by the velocity requirement) would be the same from each source (slit), and cause a symmetrical pattern, with an intensity peak in the center.

But, let's not reinvent the wheel. What I am describing (sans the velocity part) is already well described by "quantum carpets". We can start here, and if there are no major objections, we can go to the next step.

Integer, Fractional, and Fractal Talbot Effects
MV Berry, S Klein
Journal of Modern Optics, 1996

regards,

T.Roc

PS. C2, I forgot to mention that the series that I am using is valid for "path lengths" as well.

jal

31st August 2007 - 02:12 AM

Hi TRoc!
You brought in the heavy hitters with that link.
Look at the publication list of M. V. Berry.
http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/people/berry_mv/publications.html

The tech readers will have to supply their expertise on these papers .... then the thread will be able to advance.
(If you (all) ignore these papers you (all) will be wasting time)
jal

TRoc

31st August 2007 - 05:25 AM

Hi jal,

"Prolific", as well as ingenious, is Sir Berry.

The link that I gave before, to the article "Quantum Carpets" (Physics World, I think), was also by him.

Also, this is worth noting: when you do a search by subject (which is typical), often times, the paper that you find has a fee, by the publisher. However, if you take that info, and search by author, often times, you will find that the authors have their own web sites, and host (for free) all of their publications. This link is a good example.

There are many papers that are relevant to what I'm saying, but I think we should not put too many on the table at once.

Mainly, I would like to show that there are ways at which, we can look at the "in between" pattern, and derive an explanation. The model can work for classical, quantum, and relative interpretations.

ciao,

T.Roc

TRoc

31st August 2007 - 08:38 PM

Hi all,

I had wanted to include this identity in my last response to GE, but forgot. (near my " 1=2 " comment).

Quantum carpets, carpets of light
Michael Berry, Irene Marzoli and Wolfgang Schleich

QUOTE

At the heart of the rather complicated mathematical explanation
of this remarkable phenomenon is the simple identity
(–1)n^2=(–1)n , where n is an integer that labels the contributing
wavelets.The application of this identity greatly simplifies the
sums over the contributing wavelets.

Also from that article:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Also from that article:

Perfect reconstruction is an artefact of the paraxial approximation, in which the deflections θ of all relevant diffracted beams are assumed to be small, so that cosθ~1– θ2/2. Deviations from this approximation get smaller as the ratio λ/a decreases, that is in the short-wave limit, or for coarse gratings.The blurring in both the transverse and longitudinal directions is of the order of √(aλ). However, the blurring in z is much smaller relative to the periodicity in the pattern because the detail is stretched over the Talbot distance,which greatly exceeds the slit spacing.

These blurrings should not be confused with the more familiar Fresnel diffraction of light from a single edge of a slit, which would be of order a in the transverse direction at z=zT. An alternative way to state the Talbot effect is that the Fresnel blurring from the edges of all the slits is cancelled by the coherent interference of the waves.

In the quantum case, the perfection of the revivals is degraded by an effect that seems different but is mathematically very similar. Analogous to the paraxial approximation is the assumption that the energy can be approximated by
terms that are both linear and quadratic functions of the quantum number n, over the range of energies included in the initial state. (If the variation were merely linear, then the wave packet would not spread at all.)

(emphasis added)

QUOTE

Paradoxical limits

Quantum and optical carpets provide a dramatic illustration of how limits in physics that seem familiar can in fact be complicated and subtle. It is no exaggeration to say that perfect Talbot images, and infinite detail in the Talbot fractals, are
emergent phenomena: they emerge in the paraxial limit as λ/a approaches zero.

At first this seems paradoxical, because the short-wave approximation is usually regarded as one in which interference can be neglected, whereas the Talbot effect depends entirely on interference. The paradox is dissolved by noting that the Talbot distance increases as the wavelength approaches zero, so here we are dealing with the combined limit of short wavelength and long propagation distance: in the short-wavelength limit, the Talbot reconstructed images recede to infinity.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Even within the paraxial approximation, a clash of limits can generate very rich phenomena.
..
In the geometrical-optics approximation, light rays passing through the grating are deflected so that they are normal to the sinusoidal wavefront that is generated immediately beyond the grating.These rays generate the pattern shown in figure
6a, which is dominated by caustics, i.e. curves onto which the light is focused and in which the intensity is concentrated.

Pairs of caustics join at cusps located near the centres of
curvature of the wavefronts.
..
This means that the geometrical caustics, including the cusps for distances much
less than the Talbot distance, at must be regenerated both
integer multiples and fractional multiples of zT.
..
It is worth emphasizing what a remarkable phenomenon this regeneration is:
geometrical-optics caustics have been constructed entirely by interference, in regions where there are no focusing rays. They are the ghosts of caustics.

(emphasis added)

No single paper, that I've come across, ties in as many concepts that are premises for "Resonance Theory" (RT) as

Integer, Fractional, and Fractal Talbot Effects
MV Berry, S Klein
Journal of Modern Optics, 1996

Link

I don't think that I'll take "silence" as to mean "this is acceptable Physics". Can I at least get some "smiley faces"?

regards,

T.Roc

Neil Farbstein

31st August 2007 - 09:43 PM

QUOTE (TRoc+Aug 31 2007, 08:38 PM)

Hi all,

I had wanted to include this identity in my last response to GE, but forgot. (near my " 1=2 " comment).

Quantum carpets, carpets of light
Michael Berry, Irene Marzoli and Wolfgang Schleich

Also from that article:

(emphasis added)

(emphasis added)

No single paper, that I've come across, ties in as many concepts that are premises for "Resonance Theory" (RT) as

Integer, Fractional, and Fractal Talbot Effects
MV Berry, S Klein
Journal of Modern Optics, 1996

Link

I don't think that I'll take "silence" as to mean "this is acceptable Physics". Can I at least get some "smiley faces"?

regards,

T.Roc

What's a caustic?

TRoc

31st August 2007 - 10:58 PM

Hi Neil,

Wikipedia give a single reference,

Born, Max; and Wolf, Emil (1999). Principles of Optics: Electromagnetic Theory of Propagation, Interference and Diffraction of Light, 7th Edition, Cambridge University Press.

for this definition:

QUOTE

In optics, a caustic is the envelope of light rays reflected or refracted by a curved surface or object, or the projection of that envelope of rays on another surface. Caustic can also refer to the curve to which light rays are tangent, defining a boundary of an envelope of rays as a curve of concentrated light. Therefore in the image to the right, the caustics can be the patches of light or their bright edges. These shapes often have cusp singularities.

Such concentration of light, especially sunlight, can burn. The word caustic, in fact, comes from the Greek καυστός, burnt, via the Latin causticus, burning. A common situation where caustics are visible is when light shines on a drinking glass. The glass casts a shadow, but also produces a curved region of bright light.

There is also this:

Caustics, multiply reconstructed by Talbot interference
http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/people/berry_mv/...rs/Berry304.pdf

where they give this definition:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

There is also this:

Caustics, multiply reconstructed by Talbot interference
http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/people/berry_mv/...rs/Berry304.pdf

where they give this definition:

In the geometrical optics approximation, valid for small ¸, propagation is
determined by the normals to the wavefronts (rays) and is dominated by caustics
[3]; these are the envelopes of the rays, or, alternatively stated, loci of centres of
curvature of W.
..
Although we choose to present these reconstruction phenomena as optics, they
can also be interpreted quantum-mechanically, because the time-dependent
SchroÈ dinger equation in one space dimension is the same as the paraxial wave
equation in two dimensions. Reconstructions are an unfamiliar kind of `quantum
revival’ [15± 18], in which caustics generated by an initial state of particles on an
infinite line, or in a box, where the position dependence is uniform and the
momentum varies sinusoidally, get periodically reborn.

Caustics, Catastophes, and Quantum Chaos

Berry-

QUOTE

The aim is to sew Quantm flesh on Classical bones.

A little start on theta functions too:

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

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The aim is to sew Quantm flesh on Classical bones.

A little start on theta functions too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_zeta_function
In mathematics, the Riemann zeta function, named after German mathematician Bernhard Riemann, is a function of great significance in number theory because of its relation to the distribution of prime numbers. It also has applications in other areas such as physics, probability theory, and applied statistics.

[Berry referred to this distribution as "the Music of the Primes"]

QUOTE

Although mathematicians regard the Riemann zeta function as being primarily relevant to the "purest" of mathematical disciplines, number theory, it also occurs in applied statistics (see Zipf's law and Zipf-Mandelbrot law), physics, and the mathematical theory of musical tuning.

During several physics-related calculations, one must evaluate the sum of the positive integers; paradoxically, on physical grounds one expects a finite answer. When this situation arises, there is typically a rigorous approach involving much in-depth analysis, as well as a "short-cut" solution relying on the Riemann zeta-function. The argument goes as follows: we wish to evaluate the sum 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + · · ·, but we can re-write it as a sum of reciprocals:

$User posted image$

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The multiple zeta functions are defined by

$User posted image$

One can analytically continue these functions to the n-dimensional complex space. The special values of these functions are called multiple zeta values by number theorists and have been connected to many different branches in mathematics and physics.

Also this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobi_theta_function

QUOTE

In mathematics, theta functions are special functions of several complex variables. They are important in several areas, including the theories of abelian varieties and moduli spaces, and of quadratic forms. They have also been applied to soliton theory. When generalized to a Grassmann algebra, they also appear in quantum field theory, specifically string theory and D-branes.

The most common form of theta function is that occurring in the theory of elliptic functions. With respect to one of the complex variables (conventionally called z), a theta function has a property expressing its behavior with respect to the addition of a period of the associated elliptic functions, making it a quasiperiodic function.

..

The Jacobi theta function is the unique solution to the one-dimensional heat equation with periodic boundary conditions at time zero. This is most easily seen by taking z = x to be real, and taking τ = it with t real and positive. Then we can write $User posted image$
which solves the heat equation $user posted image$

That this solution is unique can be seen by noting that at t = 0, the theta function becomes the Dirac comb: $user posted image$

where δ is the Dirac delta function. Thus, general solution can be specified by convolving the (periodic) boundary condition at t = 0 with the theta function.

regards,

T.Roc

Laserlight

1st September 2007 - 12:02 AM

Hi TRoc,

Can you explain it to your grandmother?

Confused2

1st September 2007 - 12:09 AM

Hi TRoc,Laserlight, Niel Farbstein, jal, Good Elf , yquantum et al,

Excellent

. I must admit this Talbot interference hasn't quite jumped out and grabbed me in quite the same way as the Ashfar experiment did. .. possibly because I haven't seen any actual measurements.

Best wishes - C2.

Laserlight

1st September 2007 - 12:39 AM

Hi Montec,

Deja vu.

QUOTE

If photons are packets of energy why would we need to concentrate them to form images of far away places. E=hf would cause a change in the emulsion or detector without any concentration.

I think the key is bringing separated photon packages back into spatial and
temporal coherency.

A piece of photo sensitive film that is exposed to an ambient scene, without
the benefit of some sort of focusing lens to realign the timing, and reestablish the
spatial orientation, just goes white. There are no details of a scene that can be
recorded, because the photons are randomized across the film emulsion, and form
no recognizable pattern. There is no spatial, or temporal, relevance to the arriving
photons without the focal properties provided by a lens. Keep in mind that a
"scene" is patterns of interference.

From a physiological perspective, if we had no lenses in our eyes we would
perceive no fine details just light and dark areas.

E=hf, is a "fixed" energy value for a specific frequency photon, according to
quantum mechanics.

A photon, by itself, is just a quanta of energy, a "bit" or pixel of information,
with numerous degrees of "freedom", or complexity, that helps to structure a
scene.

In order for a scene/image pattern to be established, and to make the image
information relevant, there must be many bits that superpose and interfere to
provide phase, timing, amplitude, and frequency (color) details to the scene.

LL

Good Elf

1st September 2007 - 01:46 AM

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

I am quite impressed TRoc with that reference. Thank you.

QUOTE (TRoc+)

No single paper, that I've come across, ties in as many concepts that are premises for "Resonance Theory" (RT) as

Integer, Fractional, and Fractal Talbot Effects
MV Berry, S Klein
Journal of Modern Optics, 1996
[...]
I don't think that I'll take "silence" as to mean "this is acceptable Physics". Can I at least get some "smiley faces"?

I agree...Once again the lack of acceptance of phenomena by this group is "underwhelming". As stated on this thread people just will not accept anything other than pure accepted theory on these matters. Science is not just theory but it is also experiment... and all Physics Theory must answer all the Experiments or Observations. This is an "Inconvenient Truth" for some. If standard quantum theory has nothing to say on the matter then for some it simply does not exist. While you can subject this result to statistical analysis and gain some agreement with quantum theory , quantum theory will not predict this pattern. It needs a classical wave theory to complete this picture that has many "non-local" features. These "fringes" result in the fine detail of our Universe and it is not purely particulate in nature.

If a 200 year old classical theorist suffers obscurity for 200 years and then is rediscovered by M. Berry (known for "Berry Phase" and other scientific discoveries) but promptly disappears back into the woodwork without a single whimper it means that science has a blindspot for the things that are the most revealing for future discovery.
user posted image

"All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again..." I must admit that Talbot Carpets had passed under my radar but now that it is clear that they have a long experimental history I can simply state this point without having to convince people that they are actually there. To this point in time it has been just stonewalled with universal silence or just downright skepticism. So if people just accept that these phenomena really do exist in "free space" then we can advance the discussion further. Clearly they are indirectly responsible for the standing waves in photographic emulsions that result in holograms. Also we know/understand that these standing waves are there as one off phenomena and match single photons of a particular wavelength. That these individual coherent photons interfere with only themselves and build up those spatial interference patterns we see for the DSE, and that the DSE being a two slit "extreme example" of the more visually interesting extreme of infinite numbers of slits.

As the article in Physics World,Quantum carpets, carpets of light: June 5th, 2001, indicates there are limitations in this simple approach. What I would say is this paper by Berry on which this investigation of Talbot Carpets is dependent is "early" in the 1990's and does not take in all the subsequent Physics that relate to recent Photonics experiments such as Negative Refractive index materials etc. That is fine but remember when the paper was written none of the really recent advances in Physics had begun. I would also say that I am not able to determine the actual significance of the fractal nature of this phenomena. It is easy to see how this has arisen but it is not easy to see its truly basic meaning. I will need to think more on that bit.

There are phenomena that relate to the evanescent field that a quantum "manipulates" at source that are not normally present in the radiated field. We are observing the properties of large numbers of correlated photons and not usually individual correlated photons. What we know from another classic DSE experiment is that individual correlated photons are "self contained" quanta that carry "perfect information" from their source. The information is "passed" to the sink through its evanescent field. The intervening "space" being one indication of the non-local nature of information not seen in our "intervening " spacetime. There is an absence of the information of the inductive evanescent field there that is restored in several instances .... protective measurements, resetting of quantum "stamping" through resonance (Quantum Zeno Effect), and other perfect spatial quantum transfers such as the production of Photographic Holograms. What is a constant is the reciprocal nature of the more common optical phenomena leading to spatial properties and not to the "dynamic" wavelength or frequency of the photon.

I would not be wrong if I said that space in and around surfaces and cavities and any apertures is filled with interferences for all incident wavelengths and that they are a kind of standing non-progressive wave filling space.... Is there still people that want to say this is bunk? The Talbot carpet is simply the limiting case of the Young's Double Slit Experiment where the number of "slits" is a "semi-infinite" number. We have all discussed how a grating is a special case of the DSE and to remind people that this is the case look at the Hyperphysics Site..
Multiple Slit Interference: Hyperphysics

When TRoc says that this is "resonance theory" he is also right... the Physics World Article fingers the Fourier Series and quantum emergent states due to coherence phenomena as being the reason for this influence.
Quantum carpets, carpets of light: June 5th, 2001

QUOTE (PhysicsWorld MV Berry article+)

This "Talbot effect" - the repeated self-imaging of a diffraction grating - was forgotten for nearly half a century until it was rediscovered by Lord Rayleigh in 1881. Rayleigh showed that the so-called Talbot distance, zT, is given by a2/L, where a is the slit spacing of the grating and L is the wavelength of the light. For red light with a wavelength of 632.8 nm and a grating with 50 slits per inch (a = 0.508 mm) the Talbot distance is 407.8 mm. Rayleigh pointed out that the Talbot effect could be employed practically to reproduce diffraction gratings of different sizes by exposing photographic film to a Talbot-reconstructed image of an original grating. Then the Talbot effect was forgotten again.

Recent investigations have revealed that the Talbot effect is far more than a mere optical curiosity. First, the effect is one of a class of phenomena involving the extreme coherent interference of waves. Second, these phenomena have deep and unexpected roots in classical number theory. And third, they illustrate something we are starting to appreciate more and more, namely the rich and intricate structure of limits in physics.[...]There is a phenomenon in quantum physics that is closely related to the Talbot effect. A quantum wave packet - representing an electron in an atom, for example - can be constructed from a superposition of highly excited stationary states so that it is localized near a point on the electron's classical orbit. If the packet is released, it starts to propagate around the orbit. This propagation is guaranteed by the correspondence principle: for highly excited states, quantum and classical physics must agree. The packet then spreads along the orbit, and eventually fills it. (It also spreads transversely - that is away from the orbit - but that is not important in this context.)

All these facts are stating is there is a phenomenon in empty space that is "periodic" in azimuth and distance. It is also stated that it is also declination dependent though this point is not stressed in this article. Taken together it is a cavity phenomenon being discussed. I have illustrated this "revival" of the wave packet as a gif animation.
Motion of a Circular Orbit Wave Packet
Here is a "strobed" electron showing temporal revivals. You will all realize that in the confined case of a "orbital shell" in an atom the electron "wave" does not "fade away or degrade because the electron is a quantum as much as a photon is also a quantum so it is capable of being in "flux" but a protective measurement would re-focus the packet spatially. The full animation (without strobing) has been removed from the site...

Here is a one dimensional wavepacket showing "revivals" in the simplest quantum well...
Gaussian Wave Packet in the Infinite Square Well
These are temporal revivals that will occur with all quantum systems. Quantum Talbot Carpets is not the entire story since the wavepacket is either absorbed whole or it is not absorbed at all. It is very important to distinguish individual photons that are correlated but not necessarily originating in time and coordinate position at the same "stamping". This square well is the simplest case of a resonant emergent phenomena. In any real situation the emergent phenomena are far more complex. In the case of the DSE the photons are not "bouncing around" the "box" they are individually resonating in the space... slight differences in "stamping" of the quanta will result in subtlely different results. In the end the photon is either absorbed as a whole or is subject to a "protective measurement" that concentrates the packet as a primary revival ... the Quantum Zeno effect.

QUOTE (Physics World Article+)

The optical field behind a coherently illuminated diffraction grating, and the quantum particle in a box with uniform initial state, are two of the most venerable and widely studied systems in physics. It was quite unexpected to discover such richness hidden in them, and also to see it displayed by such a wide range of physical systems. Further exploration of these intricate manifestations of the coherent addition of waves is a fitting way to celebrate the bicentenary of Thomas Young's great discovery of the interference of waves of light.

Is it too hard for people who read this thread to "connect" the quantum standing waves in the DSE to the standing waves in atoms and "beyond" to a holographic universally connected phenomena? This article at least by MV Berry does make the connection at least in the associated paper. What I am saying is to look at all this in a different way and see that there is a common non-random pattern that is not statistical that runs far beyond the quantum statistical theory that gives no indication of these processes.

If the intervening space is a Special Relativistic effect and this results in separating the "source" from the "sinks" from our point of view, then the loss of evanescent "details" in the wave aspect of the "connecting photon wave packet" is the "projection" from an orthogonal space into our plane which "loses" this information "temporarily" until the other end of this resonant event is "connected" to complete the entire sequence. The photon carrying the qubit delivers the "payload" to the future to add to the retarded wave as a Wheeler Feynman Absorber Packet, completing the total event as a complete 'evanescent" resonance.

QUOTE (Physics World article: Paradoxical limits+)

Quantum and optical carpets provide a dramatic illustration of how limits in physics that seem familiar can in fact be complicated and subtle. It is no exaggeration to say that perfect Talbot images, and infinite detail in the Talbot fractals, are emergent phenomena: they emerge in the paraxial limit as L/a approaches zero.

At first this seems paradoxical, because the short-wave approximation is usually regarded as one in which interference can be neglected, whereas the Talbot effect depends entirely on interference. The paradox is dissolved by noting that the Talbot distance increases as the wavelength approaches zero, so here we are dealing with the combined limit of short wavelength and long propagation distance: in the short-wavelength limit, the Talbot reconstructed images recede to infinity.

In a similar way, perfect quantum revivals emerge from the semi-classical limit of highly excited states. Again it might seem paradoxical that an interference effect persists in a semi-classical limit (and indeed emerges perfectly in that limit). The dissolution of the paradox is analogous to that in the Talbot case: the semi-classical limit here is combined with the long time limit (recall that Tr ~ nTc), so the revivals occur in the infinite future.

Even within the paraxial approximation, a clash of limits can generate very rich phenomena. Consider a transparent phase grating, that is a diffraction grating that transmits light with uniform amplitude but introduces a sinusoidal phase variation with period a.
Talbot reconstructed caustics
Figure 6 http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/133/1/pw1406076

In the geometrical-optics approximation, light rays passing through the grating are deflected so that they are normal to the sinusoidal wavefront that is generated immediately beyond the grating. These rays generate the pattern shown in figure 6a, which is dominated by caustics, i.e. curves onto which the light is focused and in which the intensity is concentrated.

Pairs of caustics join at cusps located near the centres of curvature of the wavefronts. The resulting pattern of rays is not periodic in z, and is thus discordant with the notion that the pattern of waves must repeat with period zT for the Talbot effect to occur. Again the paradox is dissolved by the observation that the Talbot distance is of the order of 1/L, and so recedes to infinity in the geometrical-optics limit where L tends to zero.

However, when L/a is small but non-zero, both the caustics and the Talbot repetitions must coexist. This means that the geometrical caustics, including the cusps for distances much less than the Talbot distance, must be regenerated at both integer multiples and fractional multiples of zT. Figures 6b and c show the Talbot carpet for this sinusoidal grating, with apparently no trace of the geometrical-optics caustics and their cusps.

However, appropriate magnification shows that the original and regenerated caustics (and associated diffraction fringes associated with a single sinusoid) are indeed hidden in the detail of the carpet (figures 6d and e). It is worth emphasizing what a remarkable phenomenon this regeneration is: geometrical-optics caustics have been constructed entirely by interference, in regions where there are no focusing rays. They are the ghosts of caustics. There is a curious analogy between these "caustics without rays" and Moiré patterns, which are "fringes without waves".

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/133

Not only that... it is essential to realize (as indicated in the article) that the wavepacket is actually spreading over the entire space even though the "event" of emission and absorption is simply progressing from "evanescent" source to "evanescent" sink.

QUOTE (Reiterating above...+)

The paradox is dissolved by noting that the Talbot distance increases as the wavelength approaches zero, so here we are dealing with the combined limit of short wavelength and long propagation distance: in the short-wavelength limit, the Talbot reconstructed images recede to infinity.

In a similar way, perfect quantum revivals emerge from the semi-classical limit of highly excited states. Again it might seem paradoxical that an interference effect persists in a semi-classical limit (and indeed emerges perfectly in that limit). The dissolution of the paradox is analogous to that in the Talbot case: the semi-classical limit here is combined with the long time limit (recall that Tr ~ nTc), so the revivals occur in the infinite future.

Notice that this caustic "function" spans all time and all space... that is "on" the "hyper-surface" of our entire Universe. This is an argument for Advanced waves in the construction of these caustics. Perfect "revivals" will occur photon by photon if we care to pick up on that point.

Cheers

Laserlight

1st September 2007 - 05:53 AM

Hi GE, et al,

QUOTE

Some of us are busy and have not had time to read all the papers that everyone
links. Perhaps this weekend....

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Some of us are busy and have not had time to read all the papers that everyone
links. Perhaps this weekend....

I would not be wrong if I said that space in and around surfaces and cavities and any apertures is filled with interferences for all incident wavelengths and that they are a kind of standing non-progressive wave filling space.... Is there still people that want to say this is bunk?

I read this statement 5x. It has been point of "contention" since last November.
A change of heart?

Hmmm, what do we call this phenomenon of localized areas of spatial energy
distortion? What causes them? ( That is a rhetorical question)

QUOTE

Resonance to resonance energy transmission, source to sink.
(frequency to frequency conversion)

Emission, is the departure of energy from an energetic source to less
energetic space (Zero Point Energy).

Emission is a "one way" transmission event.

"Space" fits the technical description of an energy sink, since it is less energetic
than matter, and has infinite capacitance. Localized space that has been
energetically "charged" by EM field energy is no longer in the ZPE state.

Recall that space has infiinite capacitance, and stores all energy contained
within its "boundaries". The energy that it "stores"/holds exists as either
a potential or kinetic form, and can manifest itself physically in dense
concentrations (matter), or as fields (E/M energy).

Detection, represents a "ground" state sink point for energy fields that
are at a higher net energy level, and which have the proper "key" resonance
characteristics (energy level/frequency) to stimulate the resonant properties
of the sink.

The sink "ground" represents a temporary energy storage location, and becomes
a medium for energy transport. The process of detection entails energy
conversion from a potential form (fields), to a kinetic form (motion/displacment).

The energy that is absorbed by the sink, will either fill an energy "void" in the
mass matrix and be converted into heat (IR), or electrical current across a
"potential well", or it can be rejected/reemitted, in toto, as a new photon back into
space, if the energy of the matrix is energetically "full".

Energy, propagating at a frequency that is non-resonant to matter, either passes
thru the matter, or is rejected/reflected without being absorbed into the mass,
depending upon the frequency/energy of the photon.
--------

Evanecence is just another term for proximity resonance, aka energy gradient
density.
-----
Photons "spreading over the entire space" vs. propagating thru spacetime?
That IS the question! (Sorry, McBeth!)

Hmmm, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, did it make a noise?

LL

StevenA

1st September 2007 - 07:54 AM

QUOTE (TRoc+)

Integer, Fractional, and Fractal Talbot Effects http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/people/berry_mv/...rs/Berry274.pdf

I forgot to say thank you for the link, TRoc. Definitely good stuff

I've been messing around with a lot of similar ideas. There are properties inherent in probabilities themselves.

I think you can see a 0-D object as a discrete state - absolute and invariable and similarly physically undetectable as it has no change or contrast.

A 1-D object then becomes a range of values that can represent either time or data, but not both simultaneously. So you can pick a 1-D object to be an observation perspective by using as one axis of time by which to sample or compare with other 1-D values, but without a common time reference between them then these values, when used as data, inherently represent random samples over the evolution of a system.

(I say 1-D, but in order to observe something as 1-D you need a 2-D interface to it, as you've got to sample it using your time reference, and this dimensional compression could be seen as a fractal mapping from 1-D to 2-D) ... anyway dimensionality isn't a subject that should be left up to vagueries.

Anyway, it ends up being that the coherent elements arise from integer ratios or rational numbers presented as probabilities. These can appear in a fractal form depending upon how dimensional representations are transformed by the observations. Common divisors or similarly harmonics can also create fractal effects as multiples of some fundamental or subharmonics can interact with characteristics similar to other proportional integer relationships, so you can see similar properties mirrored on many scales of space and time.

Another observation I had similar to this link was that there can be seen to be an equivalent spectrum of probability as to an approximate "mass" of an object depending upon the ratio of probabilities it generates. If we assume pure information is given as an even distribution of all possible detected states, then biases in this can actually give clues as to the underlying process and size of the system biasing it.

For example, if a deterministic system is driven by a binary source of information that's 50/50 in each state, generating a probability of 25/75 is very simple, but generating a probability close to 1/3 or 2/3rds from this information can't be done except approximately (you can easily construct a deterministic system that generates a probability close to 1/3rd but it requires recursion and hence if it's detected in a stochastic manner, then either time references aren't in sync or if they are synced and it still appears stochastic, then the system must be very large as j/2^k!=1/3 ... using 1/3rd divisions for probability measurements would be a great reference for mass (notice also that this naturally segregates things into 3 "dimesional" categories from 0 to 1/3, 1/3 to 2/3rds and 2/3 to 1. It also would appear correlated to +2/3, -1/3 spin and I've seen evidence presented of a correlation between spin and mass ... I forget where I saw it but I remember seeing plots of some function of spin versus the mass of an object and they appeared correlated). There's an effective probability sprectrum for various ratios that could be seen to indicate how likely or how large a system would need to be in order to generate it ... if recursion within a system is allowed, this can alter the probability "sprectrum", but generating something like a ratio of ~9/11ths takes a bit of work whether or not recursion is allowed and so likely a statistical measure of some equivalent "mass" of a system should likely be constructable like this).

Good Elf

1st September 2007 - 08:07 AM

Hi Laserlight,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)

Resonance to resonance energy transmission, source to sink.
(frequency to frequency conversion)

Emission, is the departure of energy from an energetic source to less
energetic space (Zero Point Energy).

Emission is a "one way" transmission event.

I have discussed the Zero Point Energy "Transaction" previously.
Post in which a zero point transaction is explained: Good Elf
I have made no claims without some pretty convincing experiments to back it up. I also think that other less convincing conventional explanations just do not work... including some of your own suggestions to this point in time. I am no fan of the "Shutup and calculate" Fraternity. I may "shut up" but I refuse to be simply a biological calculating machine. There are really fast machines that can do all that so much better than human beings. I am not prepared to go all over each and every point again just because others will not even consider the possibility without outright rejecting it. I have not got that amount of time or energy to waste.

I suggest that you have a look at Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory and the ideas put forward by Cramer Transactional Hypothesis and there is a substantial basis for a complete answer to a holographic quantum process... Not just for quantum electrodynamics but also for the more difficult quantum chromodynamics.

If you are able to consider that the two evanescent zones of two separated particles (one a source and the other a sink... with available empty "shells") as being "relativistically and resonantly linked" through time and space then I am willing to discuss it sometime. For the moment I am not into peddling "faiths", either for myself or for others... I am just "reading" this stuff straight from the research and insisting that it be internally consistent and human understandable. People must ultimately choose their level of complexity and tolerance and then that is the high watermark that defines the limits they can go for anything they can understand. So far and no further...

Taken to the extreme this image describing a single position in a world of high velocity relativistic motion a photon is a step further than even that proposed by this illustration...
user posted image

look here for that thread...
Visual Effects near the speed of light... Good Elf
Remember if as you approach the speed of Light the extremum of this field of view "contracts" to a single energetic point that occupies the "entire universe" due to length contraction and "all time" due to time dilation as a single stationary state quantum event , connecting "all potential events together", the photon to be emitted is able to "pick and choose" by an exchange process "from the future" with the advanced wave from all possible sites. If no suitable sites exist from which an resonant exchange can be made then no transactions are possible simply on energy grounds alone... Go figure! It answers a lot of questions that existing standard physics cannot answer.

Cheers

Laserlight

1st September 2007 - 04:09 PM

Hi GE, et al,

QUOTE

Remember if as you approach the speed of Light the extremum of this field of view "contracts" to a single energetic point that occupies the "entire universe" due to length contraction and "all time" due to time dilation as a single stationary state quantum event , connecting "all potential events together", the photon to be emitted is able to "pick and choose" by an exchange process "from the future" with the advanced wave from all possible sites. If no suitable sites exist from which an resonant exchange can be made then no transactions are possible simply on energy grounds alone... Go figure! It answers a lot of questions that existing standard physics cannot answer.

This concept seems contradictory from a relativistic and causal perspective.

If, as you have proposed, time "stops" via time dilation and length contraction,
then there is no past or future relative to the event. Under those
relativistic circumstances, causally generated "responses" can never occur
because there are no dimensions of time, or distance. This leads to
a paradoxical situation in which time has stopped and therefore travel across a
distance cannot occur, since it requires an external temporal reference.

The dimensions of time and distance are directly, and causally, energetically
linked. We call this the spacetime continuum.

We MUST keep in mind that EACH separate causal energy event
has its own reference timestamp, and each one is unique to itself, from a
relativistic perspective. Spacetime is the "glue" that links events together, it
is the energetic response to a progressive series of disparate events.

Does an "event" that occurs necessarily require an ending? Reference my
tree falling analogy. An event occured, but was not observed or detected.
That doesn't mean nothing happened. It simply means that, that specific energetic
event had no direct influence, on other systems because it was never, and
never will be, detected.

In the case of a photon, energy has been released (the event), due to causal
factors that led up to the event. There is no requirement for that event to
necessarily sponsor another event, which would represent a continuous closed
loop energy interaction. For this reason, IMO, the universe is expanding because it
is an "open ended" sequence of separate energy events that do not have
"closure". Energy generating events that occurred, at some past point in time,
are seeking an interaction where none is to be found, thus we have an energetic
expansion of time and space. Under this scenario, the universe will
eventually "dissipate" its energy across spacetime, as it continues to expand.
From the "Big Bang", to the "Big Sigh"..... it will just eventuall "peter out" over
time and distance as it continues to expand ad infinitum.

The past is moving into the future via transmission of energy thru space. If
the "past" happens to encounter a responsive resonant sink enroute,
the "past" releases its energy content, its qubit information, and the relativistic
timestamp it is conveying , and at that instant of energetic release, becomes
the "present", and a causal event has transpired.

Comments?
LL

Confused2

1st September 2007 - 05:37 PM

Hi TRoc et al,

Going to here http://www.falstad.com/mathphysics.html and clicking on the 2-D waves applet gives us a new toy and with it we can weave our own Talbot carpet.

(Click to enlarge)

Fascinating though it is..

Since we can generate a Talbot carpet by superposition of waves I am left wondering whether there is any physics in it that is not already in the 2 slit version.

Best wishes - C2.

Edit .. yes there is some new physics in it

.. amazing! Well done TRoc

Good Elf

2nd September 2007 - 12:00 AM

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

QUOTE (Laserlight+)

QUOTE (Good Elf+)

I have proposed that time is a dimension that has the possibility for "stationary states" which are responsible for the quantum process. I am only proposing that light alone can travel at the speed of light (of course we already know this) and from its frame of reference everything becomes instantaneously connected in its "rest frame". The rest is Special Relativity and all events observed in the rest frame are simply transferred to the moving frames by way of "Relativistic Conformal Field Theory" anamorphic deformations (as previously noted). This results in the stretching and twisting of the "single event" into what we are seeing as time and space... all time and all space. What I am then saying is for a single event time is non-progressive. The event is the source to sink emission and absorption via Wheeler-Feynman Retarded and Advanced packets. Since our Universe is virtually composed of photon "energy exchanges" for dynamics to proceed then this process is what we call time. This covers all the normal primary forces since they are either in fact the one force in a different realm (Electromagnetism and the Electroweak Force) or there is a strong possibility that they might be (Electromagnetism or QCD/QED and a Electrostrong Force) . This leaves only "Gravity " to explain and as far as I can see gravity and mass are potentially explainable through some residual weak unbalanced reaction through the symmetry of this packet as seen from the inside of the space as compared with the outside of the space (positive or negative spatial curvature)

.. Click to enlarge...
Just depends on how you "measure" R... Which is "trivially" true extrapolated from de Broglie Relationships. The result being related to the reciprocal spatial relationship between the two as it appears to be for the reciprocal relationship of de Broglie Wavelength of trapped photons.. Lorentz-CPT "soliton" particles.

IMHO a "nice speculation" would be that this reciprocal spatial relationship not only leads to mass for normal particles but also an explanation for the neutrino mass oscillations as well for the "propagating" solar neutrinos as they undergo harmonic "spreading" and "contraction" phases due to photon-like and particle-like "resonance" in space... Their extra 1/2 spin quanta contributing to this phenomenon in some way exchanging/flipping their collective Fermi-Dirac Statistical property (compact phase) for a Bose-Einstein statistical property (spreading phase)... A kind of equipartition of energy between the zero point energy of the quanta and the kinetic/potential energy... leading to mass when it becomes potential energy (Fermi-Dirac ) and then back to "velocity" when it becomes kinetic energy (Bose-Einstein).

QUOTE (Confused2+)

Going to here http://www.falstad.com/mathphysics.html and clicking on the 2-D waves applet gives us a new toy and with it we can weave our own Talbot carpet.[...]Fascinating though it is..

Since we can generate a Talbot carpet by superposition of waves I am left wondering whether there is any physics in it that is not already in the 2 slit version.
Best wishes - C2.

Edit .. yes there is some new physics in it.. amazing! Well done TRoc.

He he he... are you going to accept that these "interferences" are going to lead to standing waves in space too instead of those "progressive" waves? That would indeed be a welcome change of heart.

About the inconsistency in standpoints (everyone should think carefully about this)... I want everyone to now explain this "artifact" in some way... why do you suppose that Talbot Carpets are NOT progressive??? You have all heard my explanation for several months now (always unacceptable). If you are about to accept this phenomenon which substantiates the standing wave theory... and that you also accept that interferences can be built one coherent photon at a time.... what is you explanation? Do you doubt that photons go directly from source to final "target" in the screen plane, or is there something else that you want to put in its place? There is a problem with the standard quantum mechanical answer here... the answer being it really does not matter since QM does not deal with individual photons only their collective statistics, and that individual photons have no "history" and provide no further insight. Forgive me for saying this but it is simply intellectual blindsight. The Berry paper above makes some interesting observations indeed about the nature of this quasi-classical "optical" process. That is is directly related to the Fourier components of the packet as it does in the closely allied phenomenon of the resonant state in atoms (periodic "revivals" in the spreading of packets as seen in electrons in confined "shells"), and that in the case of an individual photon wave packet, it spreads over the entire affected "carpet". This is obeying the Bose Einstein Statistics for photons and answering those questions about "how big is a photon?". Is this just another case of "coughing up" with the standard "shut up and calculate" answer here too?

If you are expecting me to agree I expect to see you at least "waving your arms about excitedly" as well.

Cheers

Good Elf

2nd September 2007 - 01:47 AM

Hi All,

The previous post "closed" before I could add that regarding the points made about relativity above and the spatial and temporal "scaling" due to our "anthropically preferred" observer frame, all photons should be treated as equals... both virtual photons and propagated photons. The only frame of reference that truly "counts" is the "home frame"... for electromagnetism this is the rest frame of the photon in which single events per single exchanged photon occur. The movement of individual particles may involve the interaction of many photons at very many different frequencies being transferred from source to sink this denoting "electromagnetic forces". None of these photons are directly observed owing to their quantum nature, neither "in transit" nor in their "rest state". We only observe their influences such as the wavelike interferences or as individual absorption events through a single photon excitation entirely within our eyes. Alternatively we may notice electromagnetic forces such as electric fields magnetic fields, magnetic dipoles and elementary charges (topological charge).

This is where we can see the emergence of EM forces such as electric and magnetic fields through the influence of these virtual (unobserved) photons entirely within their evanescent region. The differences between virtual and the propagated photons being only in the anthropic frame of virtual photons being entirely within a "preferred evanescent zone" which is connected to the larger far field propagated zone. Distance is not the connection but relative motion is the connection. In the former case of a single "anthropically preferred" rest frame we see "The World" as composed of "stationary evanescent" particles (standing waves) at rest relative to us all (see de Broglie Theory... particles at rest have an infinite wavelength so we are within their evanescent zone)... and in the latter case of other "less preferred" relatively moving frames, we observe particles in relative motion and conforming to Special Relativistic Coordinate Transform "distortions" as I have noted above and also here below in the quote. The "anthropically preferred" evanescent Universe is simply the collection of co-moving particles and virtual photons that have resulted in the forces we can see and measure locally. "The two "ends" to The Special Theory of Relativity... Einstein and de Broglie... provide us with the entire dynamic of space and time. In one way this is stating the obvious... In another way it is reducing everything to a single holographic phenomenon that is electromagnetically "indivisible".

QUOTE (Good Elf above...+)

So from a simple single evanescent zone our global space is a deformation as seen from our "anthropically preferred" observer frame and all other objects take up a place as other relatively moving sub-atomic particles. Some of these are progressive... such as moving particles in other frames of linear translational movement and even others are moving particles in spin rotational relativistic movement. Of course most things have many degrees of freedom in which this movement must be decomposed into several types of motion. Both of these create their own specific closed Rindler Horizons. Our Universe would be "closed" if its size was 13.5 BLY across and the extremity need only have a transverse velocity of C for closure within a light cone wall... and this would mean it rotate only once in 42 billion years. Considering all the spin we see there must be something left there you would think. The Universe would "expand" into additional Rindler Foliations not into "extra space".

This is due to Ehrenfest Paradox. The rotation speed of a quanta is defined by the size of the particle. The photon spins faster as it gets smaller with greater quantized particle energy. Conversely the energy of an energetically "smaller" photon the spin rate lowered because the physical size is much larger.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-05/7-05.htm
Our total space is composed of both relativistically generated space and additional unobserved Rindler Foliations. Much of the additional dimensional space is still primary sub-atomic particles and their interiors which are compact dimensional spaces relative to our own spaces. Their potential as fully fledged spaces in their own right is simply a case for individual investigation.

I needed to say that... Cheers

oracle1

2nd September 2007 - 05:32 AM

Could there be a subsurface associated with the convective flow of lightor perhaps a time differential created by an incline in the magnetic field?

Good Elf

2nd September 2007 - 07:34 AM

Hi oracle1,

QUOTE (oracle1+)

Could there be a subsurface associated with the convective flow of light or perhaps a time differential created by an incline in the magnetic field?

I am only describing what I believe to be is the quantum phenomena. In some ways anything "could" be possible. So the answer is "I don't know".

Cheers

Zarabtul

2nd September 2007 - 08:48 AM

yes

Confused2

2nd September 2007 - 12:14 PM

QUOTE (Good Elf+)

I want everyone to now explain this "artifact" in some way...

An excellent idea. Could I add .. please describe what you see before you start the explanation.so it might be a little bit clearer what you are actually explaining.
----------------------------
What I see..
Essentially the effect is that a diffraction grating produces a virtual diffraction grating at the Talbot length .. this produces another virtual diffraction grating at the next multiple of the Talbot length .. and so on.
-----------------------
The pattern generated by the applet is purely the superposition of waves ( this is the only algorithm implemented in the applet ).
Referring to the results of the wave applet as shown in this post ( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=255829 ) .. the picture shows a Talbot length's worth of 'pattern'.. as far as I can tell this is a good representation of the "Talbot effect" . Hopefully we can get a hold of the idea that a plane wave source would be nice but the effect won't fall apart if it is a bit 'spherical'.

Rather than attempt to preach to the unconvertable I'm going to predict an effect which will help to distinguish between current theories .. ( the good, the bad and the ugly? )

If we look at the repeating pattern we might see that for a single photon is is pretty much like a pinball machine. The effect requires that a photon has an equal probability of passing through each of the 'real' slits .. this produces an equal probability of the photon being detected at any of the virtual slits. (Edit .. (almost) all of the photons that pass through the 'real slits' will end up at the virtual slits)

Appendix 1
Since the effect is wavelength dependent it would be convenient to consider only monochromatic light. To generate the effect 'in reality' I think it would be important to ensure that the light from the source is spread over the slits (20 in my example) so that the slit are illuminated with equal intensity. By 'equal intensity' what I really mean is that a photon from the source must have a (roughly) equal probability of passing through any of the slits. There is another restriction .. the source (wave/photon) must arrive with roughly the same phase at all/any of the slits (roughly a plane wave). The plane wave concept doesn't introduce any new or abstract physics .. just if it isn't 'plane' (say it is a bit 'spherical') the pattern will be somewhat distorted. The applet gives a good indication of the type of distortion to be expected with a non-plane wave if you change the 'angle of incidence' slider. If the diffraction grating is (say) 3mm long then I'd guess a narrow slit at (say) 500mm from the grating would produce as close an approximation to a 'plane wave' as any reasonable person might wish for. The effect is 'robust' .. it will degrade gradually as you increase the number and magnitude of the errors.

Best wishes - C2.

jal

2nd September 2007 - 03:10 PM

Hi Good Elf!
Your reference (which you have used before)
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-05/7-05.htm
7.5 Packing Universes In Spacetime

"Interestingly, beginning with R1 and R2 we can construct a perfect tetrahedral packing of eight epsilon-complete lightspheres by placing six more spheres in a hexagonal ring about the z axis with centers in the xy plane, such that each sphere just touches R1 and R2 and its two adjacent neighbors in the ring. Each of these six spheres represents a region reachable from P with speeds less than u1 relative to one of six worldlines whose speeds are (1 - 4e ) relative to W0. The normalized boundaries of these six ellipsoids on a time-slice t are given by...."
-------------
Before you can pack universes you got to pack at the minimum scale (big bang??)then you got to find a mechanism for expansion (which has not been experimentally found).
So.... since you want hex packing of universes then you will have no trouble understanding how our own universe is of quantum hex. packing involving minimum length and the same structure as shown in your reference.

jal
ps. Go check my summarry if you forgot.
Think small

Think 10^-18 (quark scale)

Good Elf

2nd September 2007 - 03:37 PM

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

QUOTE

An excellent idea. Could I add .. please describe what you see before you start the explanation.so it might be a little bit clearer what you are actually explaining.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

An excellent idea. Could I add .. please describe what you see before you start the explanation.so it might be a little bit clearer what you are actually explaining.

I thought that you would be as tired of my explanations as I am at giving them. If there is anything you are unsure of please feel free to ask a specific question so that I can give you the specific answer you require.
What I see..
Essentially the effect is that a diffraction grating produces a virtual diffraction grating at the Talbot length .. this produces another virtual diffraction grating at the next multiple of the Talbot length .. and so on.
-----------------------
The pattern generated by the applet is purely the superposition of waves ( this is the only algorithm implemented in the applet ).
Referring to the results of the wave applet as shown in this post ( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=255829 ) .. the picture shows a Talbot length's worth of 'pattern'.. as far as I can tell this is a good representation of the "Talbot effect" . Hopefully we can get a hold of the idea that a plane wave source would be nice but the effect won't fall apart if it is a bit 'spherical'.

Rather than attempt to preach to the unconvertable I'm going to predict an effect which will help to distinguish between current theories .. ( the good, the bad and the ugly? )

If we look at the repeating pattern we might see that for a single photon is is pretty much like a pinball machine. The effect requires that a photon has an equal probability of passing through each of the 'real' slits .. this produces an equal probability of the photon being detected at any of the virtual slits. (Edit .. (almost) all of the photons that pass through the 'real slits' will end up at the virtual slits)

I think it is a lot more than that simple "revival" of the clear image of the slit. Between source and the secondary "revival" of the source are stepped versions of this temporal function...
Circular Orbit Wave packet Rochester U
These "revivals" are smoothly continuous equivalents of the spatial function you see in this illustration...
Talbot Carpets and Mountains
The main difference being the "source function". In the case of the the electron in Bohr Orbit it is a continuous smooth function rather than a discrete step function and the revivals are in time rather than in space. In both cases of atomic revivals and in spatial revivals the functions are the same "carpet".

As to the idea that we are dealing with a pinball machine, I suggest you read MV Berry's Paper for his interpretation to see what is said there. He is "independent" of my influence and is a famous "living" modern interpretation of the phenomenon.
Integer, Fractional, and Fractal Talbot Effects MV Berry, S Klein: Journal of Modern Optics, 1996
Quantum carpets, carpets of light Physics World June 5 2001

Cheers

Good Elf

2nd September 2007 - 03:58 PM

Hi Jal,

Gave up using Mecanno sets and Lego Blocks long ago. Yes... I use some references over and over when I can. I am respectful of your close packing structures but I can only think in my own terms. I want to keep to the results of experimental physics as far as possible and to relate to Physics concepts that have a common touchstone. I also want to answer as many questions as possible using one kind of "language". Relativity is one of the simpler "languages" that can be used. While i have alluded to physical changes in geometry I do not want to tie myself to any specific mechanical model as did Maxwell. I would prefer to speak about symmetry.

It is an interesting thing about expansion. It depends on measuring rods to tell if we are expanding or we are actually contracting. What if the length of rods of any kind depend on some local continuously variable parameter? All of our attempts to examine the distant Universe could be way off and out simple models a load of bunk. Not so easy to tell the difference. My simple adage is "As above... So below". In the case of the Universe and its perceived expansion we must be ever aware we are looking into the past with our telescopes and we have no direct evidence to say where we are presently at now. It is really down to that Cosmological Constant that Einstein thought was the worst mistake of his life. What if space was reciprocal then the expansion into a Reciprocal Hilbert Space would simply be causing the extremities to parametrically "shrink" being the subject to anamorphic relativistic deformation... who really knows and until we have some real data it is a question we may not be able to answer reliably.

Cheers

jal

2nd September 2007 - 04:13 PM

Hi Good Elf!
Keep reading from Kevin Brown
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-08/7-08.htm
7.8 Global Interpretations of Local Experience
Obviously we're free to construct a geometrical picture in our minds of any gauge theory, just as we can form a geometrical picture in any arbitrary kind of "space", e.g., the phase space of a system, but this is nothing like what Einstein, Weyl, Kaluza, Weinberg, etc. were talking about. The original (and perhaps naive) hope was to eliminate all other fields besides the metric field of the spacetime manifold itself, to reduce physics to this one primitive entity (and its metric).
In fact, many (perhaps most) theoretical physicists today consider it likely that general relativity is really just an approximate consequence of some underlying structure, similar to how continuum fluid mechanics emerges from the behavior of huge numbers of elementary particles.
The point is that we can always postulate a set of physical laws that will make our observations consistent with just about any geometry we choose (even a single monadal point!), because we never observe geometry directly. We only observe physical processes and interactions. Geometry is inherently an interpretative aspect of our understanding. It may be that one particular kind of geometrical structure is unambiguously the best (most economical, most heuristically robust, most intuitively appealing, etc), and any alternative geometry may require very labored and seemingly ad hoc "laws of physics" to make it compatible with our observations, but this simply confirms Poincare's dictum that no geometry is more true than any other - only more convenient.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/conclusion/conclusion.htm
Conclusion

…Of course, it's entirely possible that the theory of relativity is simply wrong on some fundamental level where quantum mechanics "takes over". In fact, this is probably the majority view among physicists today …
------------------------
My conclusions See my summary
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...35&#entry255384
and remember that there is no proof that the expansion is caused by an unidentified force. (LL gave us his idea … needs verification of course)
Of course my idea … just add more units.
jal

Confused2

2nd September 2007 - 05:40 PM

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

Unfortunately Berry and Klein do not discuss sigle photon excitation so we are left 'in the dark' as to what they might predict under those circumstances.

Anyone else willing to play describe and predict?

Or any other comments about my description and/or prediction?

Best wishes - C2.

jal

2nd September 2007 - 07:12 PM

Good Day All!

Kevin Brown has presented material for the high school and college level.
I have found that the more that I learn that I have more questions.
Good Elf, you present your material as if you have no more questions. Kevin Brown does not do that. The physic community does not do that.
You are coming across as a “cherry picking” to continue to support an outdated and college level interpretation of the DSE.
I’m sure that you want to come across as having an open mind to new ideas and interpretations.
Look at alternative explanations that are being presented at the university level.
You have probably already read the links from the Home page of Alexey A. Kryukov http://depts.uwc.edu/math/faculty/kryukov/

------------
The EPR experiment: A paradox-free definition of reality,
June 2007
The double-slit experiment: A paradox-free kinematic description,
June 2007
Geometric Derivation of Quantum Uncertainty
Submitted, March 2007
On the Measurement Problem for a Two-Level Quantum System
Found. Phys. 37, Jan. 2007
Quantum Mechanics on Hilbert Manifolds: The Principle of Functional Relativity
Found. Phys. 36 (2006) 175
Linear Algebra and Differential Geometry on Abstract Hilbert Space
Int. Journ. Math. & Math. Sci. 14 (2005) 2241
On the Problem of Emergence of Classical Space–Time: The Quantum-Mechanical Approach
Found. Phys. 34 (2004) 1225
Coordinate Formalism on Hilbert Manifolds
Mathematical Physics Research at the Cutting Edge
(Nova Science, New York, 2004)
The Emergence of the Macroworld: A Study of Intertheory Relations in Classical and Quantum Mechanics (with Malcolm Forster)Philosophy of Science 70 (2003) 1039
Coordinate Formalism on Abstract Hilbert Space: Kinematics of a Quantum Measurement
Found. Phys. 33 (2003) 407
Conformal Transformations of Space-Time as Vector Bundle Automorphisms
PhilSci Archive (2001)
----------------------
Remember the words of Kevin Brown, “. We only observe physical processes and interactions. Geometry is inherently an interpretative aspect of our understanding.
If you cannot put it into a precise wording (math) then it cannot be analysed.
Secondly, just because it is in a precise wording (math) does not mean that it corresponds to observations (reality.)
Now, LL idea of a photon not finding a receiver is similar to my idea of adding more “units” to explain expanding universe. However, it would need to formulated in a more precise language (math) to discover if there are inconsistencies and to discover if it agrees with observation (falsifiable).
Perhaps C2 and TRoc can find some acceptable explanations in the Home page of Alexey A. Kryukov

--------------
See
http://depts.uwc.edu/math/faculty/kryukov/...uncertainty.pdf
Geometric derivation of quantum uncertainty
A. Kryukov
Department of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin Colleges
(Dated: February 25, 2007)
One is faced then with a new point of view on quantum mechanics that makes that theory quite similar to Einstein’s general relativity, but considered on a manifold of states rather than on space-time. The approach turns out to be extremely fruitful in explaining various paradoxical results in quantum theory via the geometry of the manifold of states. Moreover, the formalism allows one to naturally embed the physics of macroscopic particles on the classical Riemannian space into the theory (see Ref. [8]). In light of this, the provided geometric derivation of the uncertainty relation and the uncertainty identity is another piece of the puzzle falling into place.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.3306v1.pdf
Quantum mechanics on Hilbert manifolds: The principle of functional relativity
Alexey A. Kryukov _
April 25, 2007

"… the geometry of the classical space and the dynamics of particles on the space have
been shown to be “encoded" into the geometry of an appropriate Hilbert space of
functions of abstract parameters. In particular, the formalism eliminates the need
for a pre-existing classical space in quantum theory."
--------------
jal

Good Elf

3rd September 2007 - 12:33 AM

Hi Jal,

QUOTE (Jal+)

In fact, many (perhaps most) theoretical physicists today consider it likely that general relativity is really just an approximate consequence of some underlying structure, similar to how continuum fluid mechanics emerges from the behavior of huge numbers of elementary particles.

I agree entirely. Believe it or not I put most stress on Special Relativity (SR). General Relativity (GR) can only be used in the most symmetric of systems and since you can always choose an inertial frame or a piecemeal inertial frame, SR is far more convenient and understandable. GR is dealing only with symmetric gravity and mass and cannot deal with issues involving the interaction of the continuum and the anti-symmetric electromagnetic field. As I often say... Gravity is a pseudo-force as Einstein had stated. You may conclude that I believe in a true continuum and not the proposed quantum foam you want me to investigate (I could justify this ... but not here). The other point is GR as it is usually quoted omits affine torsion or other treatments of spin on the manifold and is "incomplete" and I think there may be some "errors" in that area as it is usually applied. You can Google these points if required and these issues have been reported much earlier on this thread by me.

I agree that the connection between spacetime and any additional compact physical dimensions I use is not the usual one that others employ which is wholly theoretical. It is an experimentally derived connection we see all the time from experiments and is resonantly connected to our space. Spacetime "likes" triplets of spatial coordinates and these are energetically separated/coupled to other spatial triplets. The nature of reciprocal space (a spatial triplet) and reciprocal time (frequency) does not allow simple linear extensions similar to Kaluza-Klein Theory. Theory will fail using any linear process like tensors. The proposal is the coupling is "perfect" as resonances on the surface of a hypersphere and we already know what these are as being "Fourier Harmonics" in the additional dimensions.

I do not need to place the maths into this page. It is entirely unsuitable for this process here since only a maximum of six images may be used in any single post nothing important can be shown here... Anyway all the relevant maths and analysis has been done by others. I do not think this is an accident. The other point is I have already supplied all the necessary information to allow anyone to do their own research through the references I have supplied. If people do not read them I am not going to read them on their behalf... I simply state in words what they have already proposed/stated but I pick and choose how and where and in what order to quote. If you want kudos you need to do some of the work... not me... I am not being paid for it.

When I state that Special Relativity is used or that certain transforms are required go to the associated papers. I only quote from papers that I have been able to download.

Cheers

PS:

QUOTE (Jal+)

"… the geometry of the classical space and the dynamics of particles on the space have been shown to be “encoded" into the geometry of an appropriate Hilbert space of functions of abstract parameters. In particular, the formalism eliminates the need for a pre-existing classical space in quantum theory."

Pure "conjecture"... I have my own "experimentally proven conjectures".... IMHO Quantum Theory does not employ "classical space" so there is no direct relationship there so you can't "quantize" the manifold.

oracle1

3rd September 2007 - 04:21 AM

ok. Don't hate me if this sounds stupid but......could there be a hologram where the interference pattrn are scattered along a subsurface stored not in the charge of the electron but the magnetic field of it's spin which is twisted into helixes?

Good Elf

3rd September 2007 - 06:11 AM

Hi Confused2,

QUOTE (From P2141 MV Berry and S Klein+)

A class of different physical effects with the same underlying mathematics is the integer and fractional revivals of electron wavepackets in Rydberg atoms [9—111]. Instead of distance from the grating, there is time in the evolution of the electron wave; the periodic coordinate across the grating and in the Talbot observation planes is replaced by the angle round the ring near which the electron wave is confined; instead of the wave immediately beyond the grating, there is the initial electron wave packet. It is possible that the analysis presented here can be usefully applied to Rydberg revivals.

IMHO I suggest that the description here refers to single electron wavepackets not "ensembles" of electron wavepackets. So the "analogy" will not be referring to ensembles of photon wavepackets but to single photon wavepackets. The main difference being in the temporal evolution of the figures being replaced by the spatial evolution of the figures.

Later Berry indicates in the Physics World Article that packets span all available space since each and every packet is responsible for the revivals. We also understand that these interferences individually build up the entire interference picture everywhere. It is very hard to imagine that these "carpets" composed of these continuous space spanning linear features can be "generated in a piecemeal fashion" by short segments provided by one photon "pinball" at a time.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/133/1/pw1406073
That is a "big ask".

The next point is are you appear to infer that individual photons in the Quantum Carpet have "histories" when dealing with the underlying quantum mechanics. Quantum Statistics cannot "play" pinball with photons because this would imply that individual photons are moving in an irregular fashion in the free space from source to sink and that this is "composed" of a "history" that cannot be part of the quantum analogy. Photons move directly from source to sink and do not go off physically "exploring" all hte "nooks and crannies" in space. The way photons explore all paths is through their interferences. These interferences are there all the time and are established by the grating. The grating is a "matter wave" grating acting on the photons that always exists while th grating exists. I am also sure that there are more patterns out there than just this simple repeated etching... anything probably goes with the available "richness" of potential "odd carpets" woven through space.

There are a number of papers that deal with what quantum mechanics can and cannot do. The next point is Cononical Typicality where photons in Quantum Theory must exhibit "locality" so there cannot be "global" photon trajectories ending up "globally" distributed. Photons emitted towards a target will end up in close proximity to the target. The photons will not suddenly emerge from the "Dark Side of the Moon". Quantum Theory says that the photons can indeed emerge anywhere. I know it is a flaw but it is because of these flaws that Quantum Theory is incorrect. For instance you can show "locality" by restricting the photons spread on a diffraction grating by a simple central mask. What you then find is the distribution of photons become more centralized. Nothing too flash but not obvious with quantum theory where every photon must be "identical" and have the same spatial probability everywhere.

There we have three arguments... My proposal is the photon wavepackets occupy the entire state. That means that they spread as expected.... Individually and collectively.
user posted image

Cheers

Good Elf

3rd September 2007 - 08:00 AM

Hi Oracle1,

QUOTE

I don't hate you for asking questions as long as I think I can answer them I will still give them a try.

I believe in "topological charge" being formed from stressors in the continuum. IMHO charge arises from from the topology of the photon deformed to move in a dimensionally embedded "loop". These papers can be of some interest...
"Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?":J.G. Williamson(a) and M.B. van der Mark(

"The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
These are normal space theories and do not employ additional dimensions. Mine is a little different and employs extra dimensions for elementary particles such as the electron. So in my hybrid theory the electric and magnetic fields are simply arising from deformations of the continuum.

Back to your question... Regarding "holograms" I need to guess what you are meaning by the magnetic field effects in the "emulsion" of the plate? For standard holograms recorded in glass plates with thick fine grained emulsions, I can only assume that a suitable "photon sink" matches the incoming photon in every respect the same way a resonant line matches the generator to the load. For the transfer of an electron in the silver halide crystal it only requires that this is a "Goldilocks Scenario" where the crystal being "exposed" to the absorption of a photon is "just right" so the photon is 100% resonantly matched. In reality that "corkscrew" wavepacket is neither an electric nor a magnetic field but composed of primary stressors caused by an impulse at the other end of that "line". We see these properties as electric and magnetic fields only because that is what we choose to measure and these are orthogonal properties similar to position and momentum for a purely particle interpretation (which I imply is "wanting" in some detail).

It is that spin that is generating the "helix" and the helix exhibits as electric and magnetic fields which I believe are fundamentally "sourceless". This provides a great simplification to Maxwell's Equations. But remember that though the wave appears to carry spin, it does not actually spin as it propagates as a quantum at the speed of light. The spin is a particle property that can be measured when it is absorbed at the sink. Like an ice skater, the more energetic the photon the greater the spin rate and the smaller the footprint when absorbed.

Cheers

Confused2

3rd September 2007 - 11:51 AM

Hi Good Elf,

With hindsight my pinball analogy wasn't very good but I suspect it has uncovered the physics that we are both interested in.
For once I'll try not to lose anything .. place holders for your points
1/ The time evolution of an electron (with mass) vs the spatial evolution of a photon (no mass)
2/ Photon 'history' .. paths vs exploration by interference
3/ Quantum Theory says that the photons can indeed emerge anywhere. I know it is a flaw but it is because of these flaws that Quantum Theory is incorrect.

The time evolution of an electron (with mass) vs the spatial evolution of a photon (no mass)
To me this appears immensely powerful .. if this is the point you've been trying to make for the last year .. I must seem/be very stupid. I need time to consider this point .. to me it looks like it is at the very heart of the problem and possibly the solution.

Gone for a think.

Best wishes - C2.

Good Elf

3rd September 2007 - 12:49 PM

Hi Confused2, TRoc et al,

QUOTE (Confused2+)

The time evolution of an electron (with mass) vs the spatial evolution of a photon (no mass)
To me this appears immensely powerful .. if this is the point you've been trying to make for the last year .. I must seem/be very stupid. I need time to consider this point .. to me it looks like it is at the very heart of the problem and possibly the solution.

I could not have put it any better myself... Relativistic Space everywhere connected resonantly and reciprocally with other resonant dimensional spaces. And you are not stupid... I just can't explain it clearly.

A lot of Kudos is due to TRoc since that "stuff" about Talbot Carpets I really had no knowledge about them. Matter waves are very elusive things and I really did not think they could be that easy to detect.

Cheers

Montec

3rd September 2007 - 05:09 PM

Hello GoodElf, Confused2, et al.

I wonder how much of effect the Smith-Purcell effect could have on the electron DSE.

Here are a couple more interesting articles.
http://www.bessy.de/fel2006/proceedings/PAPERS/TUPPH048.PDF
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getd...ac-pub-4161.pdf

Interesting stuff.

Good Elf

4th September 2007 - 12:26 AM

Hi Montec,

QUOTE (Montec+)

I wonder how much of effect the Smith-Purcell effect could have on the electron DSE.

Here are a couple more interesting articles.
http://www.bessy.de/fel2006/proceedings/PAPERS/TUPPH048.PDF
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getd...ac-pub-4161.pdf

Interesting stuff.

It is interesting. It has to be related... the electron matter wave is interacting with the stationary "comb" producing "spatial resonances". I will think about that... Of course the electrons are not all "source coherent" even though they are all the same velocity and the same wavelength. The effect is a particle by particle... effect shedding a single photon.

Cheers

Laserlight

4th September 2007 - 01:09 AM

Hi GE, Montec, et al,

GE said:

QUOTE

It would seem that the "spatial resonances" should surround all physical matter,
since atoms of matter have electrons as constituent parts, and which
possess electrical and magnetic field components.

In effect we have "fixed"/stationary EM matter fields being cut across by high
energy EM fields moving at a consistent, accelerated velocity.

The result is mechanical "movement", which causes the EM fields to cross at right
angles to each other. It is, in effect, linear field motion past a fixed set
of equally spaced stators, each having a polarity. Sharp edges/corners on the
comb "teeth" enhance the local field polarization, while the size and spacing of the
teeth affect field strength and frequency.

Sounds like a generator to me, and because of the speed of field/phase crossing,
puts it into the RF generator category. The output of an RF generator
is......photons.

Extend this concept to photons crossing resonant matter fields of the DSE....per
previous proposals.

Edits added

Comments?
LL

Good Elf

4th September 2007 - 01:42 AM

Hi laserlight, Montec, Confused2 et al,

QUOTE

That is correct... A matter wave "comb" function is a series of equally spaced impulses and according to this feature outputs a series of harmonically related optical frequencies...

... Click to enlarge...
Check out the last transform pair we see a series of equally timed (time domain) spatial impulses (electrons intercepting the ruled lines on the grating) and the transform is 1/T = frequency... equally spaced line spectra (frequency domain) at "discrete optical harmonically related frequencies" as noted in the article on Smith-Purcell effect. Note that these are entirely lossless symmetric phenomena very suitable for resonance. While a Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory Explanation is possible it is a complication that is not needed to explain this effect.

The big picture concept is that while some frames of reference force the photon emission and absorption to be wholly evanescent (virtual) and thus within the "inductive field", relative motion of various kinds change the perception of this "internalized" virtual photon exchange event from being entirely "evanescent" to two spatially separated phenomena that occupy different points in space larger than the sub-wavelength separation that they have in certain frames (separating the sources from the sinks in that one event). The point is this is the actual space that we take for granted that separates particles in our Universe. It is initially hard to see that two apparently separated events, or what appears as two separated events, as actually being only one virtual photon event as seen from some frame of reference that has a common rest frame that is related to the relatively "moving photon". This rest frame is not one we can actually see unless we are in that frame ... as we sometimes are when we measure electric and magnetic "forces" in bench experiments. This emission-absorption event is separated from our space by virtue of the loss of the evanescent "signal" in the expanse between. This then becomes a propagation event. Space is virtually relativistically stretched from the source to the sink across the perceived distance. The quasi-stationary matter waves between causing the interferences, some of these are those stationary Talbot Carpets and other less well understood spatial matter wave interferences. This photon rest frame is a "distance" from our spacetime and thus appears as normal interference (... less the evanescent waves that are retained by sources and by sinks). This evanescent signal is restored in the sink where it is once again reunited in that rest frame with the 'source" as the resonance after the passage of "time". Photons are the exchange force particle of our Universe.

It begs the question that with new materials like negative refractive index metameterials, and so on, much more can be done to investigate these 'additional" spaces. We could glimpse "inside" this evanescent field at some distance "physically" outside the evanescent field from either the source or the sink.

Cheers

Laserlight

4th September 2007 - 01:47 AM

GE,

Just saw your response. See prior post for added comments.

Good Elf

4th September 2007 - 06:06 AM

Hi Laserlight, Montec, Confused2, TRoc et al,

QUOTE

GE,

Just saw your response. See prior post for added comments.

Points taken... I think of those "teeth" being part of resonant cavities which become sources. Using an analogy... This is like a woodwind instrument like a flute and the electrons are "mechanical excitations" just like air is a mechanical excitation to a flute... it makes for a cavity resonance. But you are right in that the photons are created in matter sources primarily when the electron strikes the 'teeth" walls. The energy is carried by the electron however it must spallate on the walls emitting a photon. This photon then "sees" the cavity as it's resonant chamber confining the "packet" as it would in the DSE.

Commenting further on the role of matter and mass.... IMHO Particles are composed of confined photons, confined to move in a compact closed resonant space. This results in an externally perceived frequency which is the external de Broglie frequency related to the particle mass and the relative velocity. Mass is the result as seen from outside of that curved bubble space which we are calling "particles". This "mass" is a kind of rest mass for the particle, not directly a relativistic mass. On the inside the component photon is "apparently" massless moving along an internal flatspace. It is resonant on the "inside of that "bubble space" and these stressors are seen as waves of electric and magnetic disturbance. From that perspective (from the inside) the photon is seen as massless.

Using the simple relationship E = hf... and also the de Broglie relationship for a particle, where the frequency is proportional to the mass (see image below)... The smaller the radius of that external surface (higher the de Broglie frequency) the more rest mass energy it appears to have so if a particle appears to have a large rest mass energy content it is actually physically very small (as seen from the outside)... a very small external particle diameter with high surface curvature.

Conversely internal observers see a flatspace, the "flatter" the bigger it appears to be, so the energy of the particle (as seen from the inside) has an almost infinite diameter (virtually no internal spatial curvature) so the internally reckoned energy of E = hf is approaching "zero". This is the condition of the confining boson that makes up our entire Universe... it looks very large and has no measurable mass and a very low spin rate. Thus we can see the internal "clock" for our Universe is running very very slow when compared to external 'clocks" which see the 'external" particle with a small radius, high curvature and with a high spin rate. The respective clocks (internal vs. external) are differentially relativistically slowed. Externally the particle exhibits a high frequency while internally, inside the reciprocal geometry, measurement is turned on its head and one period becomes an "eternity" in time and distances become almost flat reciprocal space.

Our entire universe is a "closed space"... An internal apparently very large closed space. What we really do not know is the scale of the outer surface of this closed space compared with the externally perceived "particle" space... most probably will not match our experience of the internal space due to D6 particle spin and the Ehernfest Paradox.

This spin is the same regardless of the size (energy) of a quantum.

Conversely internal to the "particles" the photons are moving in a "flatspace" forced to "loop" their little internal Universes in reciprocal frequency... "time". This external resonance leads to standing waves on either the external or the internal surface of the hypersphere, they are inversely related. These photons being internal to the "Universe" they are circulating inside and exhibit no internal mass because they appear to be moving inside a predominantly flat 4D spacetime and continue to move at the internal speed of light.

Thus the de Broglie Matter waves are the low speed end of Special Relativity. The high speed end is usually reserved for massless photons and most of the rest are those mass carrying "particles".

I would not want you to think this is just a change of "habitat" ... these two realms are related through the spherical harmonics on the surface of a sphere or Fourier harmonics on a circle or the extrapolation to more dimensions and they can be very difficult to recognize those Complex relationships since they are converting from spatial distance and time to reciprocal space and spatial frequencies. It depends which domain we are making comparative relativistic observations between.

Always remember that these "patterns" and "revivals" are harmonic resonances on the surface of "spheres" defined by light cone walls. They are effectively limiting cases of this... as seen from outside the rotating frame of reference of a particle.
user posted image

This is "linear" motion. In the case of particle spin this is parametrically "shrunk".

Cheers

jal

4th September 2007 - 02:56 PM

QUOTE

Good Elf
.... so if a particle appears to have a large rest mass energy content it is actually physically very small (as seen from the outside)... a very small external particle diameter with high surface curvature.
Conversely internal observers see a flatspace, the "flatter" the bigger it appears to be, so the energy of the particle (as seen from the inside) has an almost infinite diameter (virtually no internal spatial curvature) so the internally reckoned energy of E = hf is approaching "zero". This is the condition of the confining boson that makes up our entire Universe... it looks very large and has no measurable mass and a very low spin rate. Thus we can see the internal "clock" for our Universe is running very very slow when compared to external 'clocks" which see the 'external" particle with a small radius, high curvature and with a high spin rate. The respective clocks (internal vs. external) are differentially relativistically slowed. Externally the particle exhibits a high frequency while internally, inside the reciprocal geometry, measurement is turned on its head and one period becomes an "eternity" in time and distances become almost flat reciprocal space.
Our entire universe is a "closed space"..

I cannot remember how many times that you have put me down for using planck scale.
You use infinite large (R ) and infinite small (1/R) but you do not allow anyone else to use the concept.
You use concepts (internal space) which can never be tested but everyone else has got to use concepts that can be tested.
You use other dimensions but then you say that the universe is closed.
How are you going to test it? (CERN uses the particle parton model)
You use the word, geometry, but you will not stop to try to figure out what it looks like.
It's there in your face .... photons arrange themselves in geometric patterns.
Photons do not make chaotic or random patterns.
Don't you see that you implying the concept of minimum length?
It would even apply to the "distance" "separation" to the next dimensions that you keep using in your explanations.
Why don't you try to explain why we have the geometric patterns and why we do not have random or chaotic patterns.
What is there at the quantum level that make the geometric patterns in classical space?

jal

Montec

4th September 2007 - 04:35 PM

Hello GoodElf, Laserlight, Confused2, et al.

Synchrotron radiation is generated by the acceleration (current theory) of a charged particle using a magnetic or electric fields. The radiation pattern is that of a dipole with the antenna axis along the acceleration vector. However due to SR this radiation pattern is skewed in the direction of the charged particle before it was accelerated. This is the "headlight effect".

Using the above and applying it to the Smith-Purcell effect (SPE) then the electron must be undergoing acceleration forces. The SPE can cause either the loss or gain (direction of the RF energy) of momentum for the electron. The SPE also has a headlight effect that is orientated with the electrons direction. However the electron's overall direction does not change. So the electron must follow a sinusoidally path or undergo acceleration/deceleration across the grating. The RF radiation is also limited to the normal-plane of the grating. The only thing that makes sense (using current theory) is a standing wave interference patten that alternately pushes and pulls the electron and also generates a far field radiation pattern that is confined to the grating's normal.

This could also explain why shining a light on the electron DSE will cause the pattern to disappear because the "standing wave interference" is disrupted.

Comments or discussion welcome.

Confused2

4th September 2007 - 05:20 PM

Hi Montec,
If you imagine a stationary electron with a grating moving past it .. when a conductive bit of the grating is at it's closest there will be a field (say e1) between the conductive bits of the grating and the electron .. a bit later, when a non-conductive bit of the grating is closest to the electron there will be a field (say e2) between the electron and the nearest bits of the grating. Since e1 != e2 we have the condition for radiation. The grating is also a mirror .. so radiation will be perpendicular to it. Does this analysis fit the experimental result?
Best wishes - C2.

Laserlight

4th September 2007 - 06:40 PM

Hi Jal,

I feel your "pain"!

QUOTE

What is there at the quantum level that make the geometric patterns in classical space?

IMO, if you consider that geometry has infinite "extension" that "radiates" from
set, or fixed angles of incidence, it would seem that the issue is merely a matter
of scale.

For example a 30 degree angle is the same regardless of the scale that is used.
It can scale from a "zero" reference point unto infinity. The geometric relationship
is always constant, anywhere in space.

So, in that respect geometry provides an absolute reference/constant in
Cartesian space, whereas time is relative to the observer, who's perspective of
temporal events is considered to be the "rest state". Everything is relative to
the perspective (timeline) of the observer.

When, and where, geometries overlap (superposition) a summation of "values"
takes place, a complex "composite" is the result.

Comments,
LL

Laserlight

4th September 2007 - 07:04 PM

Hi Montec, et al,

QUOTE

Synchrotron radiation is generated by the acceleration (current theory) of a charged particle using a magnetic or electric fields. The radiation pattern is that of a dipole with the antenna axis along the acceleration vector. However due to SR this radiation pattern is skewed in the direction of the charged particle before it was accelerated. This is the "headlight effect".

You can accelerate an electron using "charge" differentials (plate/grids), or by
electric and magnetic fields. Magnetic fields cause the electron to spiral helically,
if they are strong enough.

Wouldn't the "headlight effect" gyrate off axis, like the headlight of a train?
Electron spin should also be affected by field intensity.

[QUOTE]Using the above and applying it to the Smith-Purcell effect (SPE) then the electron must be undergoing acceleration forces. The SPE can cause either the loss or gain (direction of the RF energy) of momentum for the electron. The SPE also has a headlight effect that is orientated with the electrons direction. However the electron's overall direction does not change. So the electron must follow a sinusoidally path or undergo acceleration/deceleration across the grating. The RF radiation is also limited to the normal-plane of the grating. The only thing that makes sense (using current theory) is a standing wave interference patten that alternately pushes and pulls the electron and also generates a far field radiation pattern that is confined to the grating's normal.[/QUOTE]

The grating "comb" geometry should produce "hills and valleys" in the matter
energy field thru which the electrons are travelling.
The grating "teeth" are the energy hills, the cavities are the energy valleys.
The equal gap spacing would represent an "on-off-on-off-on-off....." periodicity to
the normal DC level that the electron charge represents. This produces a
harmonic oscillating "tone" or frequency which is modulated by the speed of the
electron as it passes thru the matter fields.

Out of time.

Comments?
LL

Montec

4th September 2007 - 07:47 PM

Hello Confused2, Laserlight, et al.

The "hill and valley" or changing field strength as electron moves at a relative speed across the grating can generate an EM field if the changes are rapid enough but they cannot by themselves generate the 120 deg angle of the emitted photons with respect to the grating's normal. Any electric field or magnetic field will perturb the electrons motion through space unless the force [1] acts along the electrons movement vector or [2] causes a harmonic movement at right angles to the movement vector. Simple changes in the field strength will not do this. There has to be a reversal in field polarities.

The headlight effect of synchrotron radiation is coherent in nature. Highly directional and of a singular frequency (abet with some Doppler shift).

The energy used in the Smith-Purcell effect comes from the electron's momentum loss which is the same as the loss of momentum in the generation of synchrotron radiation.

Now if we want to say that the RF radiation does not come from the acceleration of charged particles then we must come up with a theory that applies to all cases of EM radiation.

Why Not?

4th September 2007 - 08:17 PM

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

When I look at a Talbot carpet, I see iterations ("revivals") of the interference pattern and am lead back to the "limit". I am not convinced that there is a minimum distance but I am convinced that there is a minimum spacetime interval. Regardless, I have something that may (or may not) be relevant to the discussion at hand that I would like to share.

I have been "painting a picture" using AutoCAD off and on for about a year (much more off than on). After a discussion with jal regarding kissing numbers and Planck units, I decided to see if I could find patterns in propagation on a lattice of hexagonically packed unit circles. I found some fascinating structure and an intriguing link to prime numbers…

Here is the “meat and potatoes”. This shows the structure without any of the background.

Here is the “whole picture”…

And here is a “close up” of the center…

Let me know if you would like more explanation. In the mean time, the fact that such patterns appear in geometry seem to suggest that they should appear in nature as well.

Mahalo

Confused2

4th September 2007 - 08:52 PM

Hi Montec, et al (inc Why Not?)

I think you need a wiggler to get coherent monochromatic radiation from a sychrotron ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiggler_(synchrotron) )

I agree it isn't obvious whether the EM is the result of the accelerating charge (electron) or the field the electron creates.

Looking at wiki on electromagnetism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism )

QUOTE

A changing magnetic field produces an electric field (this is the phenomenon of electromagnetic induction , ... Similarly, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field. Because of this interdependence of the electric and magnetic fields, it makes sense to consider them as a single coherent entity—the electromagnetic field.

Introduce a periodic change in the E or H field (can't do one without the other) and you get a periodic wave launched regardless of the absolute potential 'V' or magnetic field 'H'.
In Maxwell's equations ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations ) 'Q' ( which would at best approximate a charged electron ) only appears in Gauss's Law .. as

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I am am not qualified to attempt to explain how 'real' electrons fit in with displacement charge and/or displacement current, not least because I'm not sure how 'real' electrons actually are .. they're the things that do what electrons do. They might well not be quite what we'd expect of nice point-like particle with a mass and a charge of 'e' Coulombs. The de Broglie wavelength of a free particle has already been mentioned on this thread .. this is a 'not-so-free' particle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_displacement_field
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_broglie_wavelength
The idea of changing fields generating waves may not be 'good' .. but I suspect it has the quality of being consistently bad .. and it will predict the right answers within the limits of its applicability .. could be wrong of course.
Best wishes, C2.

jal

4th September 2007 - 09:05 PM

Hi Why Not?
Open up a thread called spacetime structure in this forum.
I'd like to hear more and exchange ideas. Maybe the thinkers of this thread will also participate.
--------
Hi LL!
I’ll address “scaling” first.
We have observations from experiments from which we have drawn a line, renormalizing. We don’t know what is below that line. We do know that if we use the numbers generated from observations that the present “formulas” work to give us reliable predictions.
CERN is about to give us more experimental information. It could make it possible to redraw the line at 10^-18. We might even discover that the experimental observation that we have been putting in by hand work because there is nothing below the line. The results from CERN, will force our theories to change but will not change the particle parton model by very much.
Now, for more comments on “What is there at the quantum level that make the geometric patterns in classical space?”
Think of what is being said about the quantum world …. Cannot determine position and momentum … things are entangled …. Things are all over the place and nowhere ….things are complex , superimposed, etc
In other words …. chaotic, random, unpredictable and complex
So the very valid question, “What is there at the quantum level that make the geometric patterns in classical space?”
What is mechanism is there at the quantum level that removes the Chaos … Randomness …. Complexity … Unpredictability?
Maybe none of those things are there. Maybe it’s just our interpretation that is wrong.
Look for that answer and you will find that DSE will fall into the realm of “understood”.
jal

maybe

4th September 2007 - 09:27 PM

Hi,

I am new but would love to jump in I promise that I am no crazier than most on this site.

Unpredictability?

That is what QM is to me when I try & do all the math they teach us and we end up with probability which I have already read this on this subject.

OH, I am "maybe", I have read some different questions on this pf and I only like a few, I just could not believe that someone was taking this old test ON. May I join, my background is most likely not as deep as yours.

Jal, space time that is a very technical in the real sense, space is what separates time puts a place on your location.

Heck, you could place a basketball on you desk and call it the forth dimension if you wanted to
because it is in our 3Ds & the ball would be fourth dimension because it give your
location. maybe?

maybe

Confused2

4th September 2007 - 11:58 PM

Hi maybe,

Welcome. As you can see there are already several ideas competing for attention .. another one or two would probably make little difference.

Best wishes - C2.

Laserlight

5th September 2007 - 01:14 AM

Hi WhyNot,

I see the packing sphere's in the bottom drawing (after zooming in). The geometry
of the spheres should be analogous to the atomic matrix of a material as
you might expect to observe in a crystal lattice structure. So the geometry is
established by the organization of the atomic matrix, and extends from that
geometric basis, IMO. Atoms in a "solid" elemental material will align themselves
to a packing density according to the energy level/bonding of the atoms that
make up the matrix structure. This would represent a single crystal lattice
arrangement.

Then there are the amorphous materials that possess a randomized atomic
structure and no periodic geometric structure.

JMHO,
LL

maybe

5th September 2007 - 01:40 AM

Confused, all, {thanks I think}

Not sure that means stay out, but that will be fine there are others I am sure. But let me leave you with this in hopes it will help with your question about the electron cloud and the DSE you guys seem to want to deal with.

The strong magnetic-field electron motion will be like spiral (with electric field) with acceleration in longitudinal direction and drift with velocity v = cE/B in transverse directions. The "radius" of this spiral is inverse proportional to B.

If this radius is much less then radius of say a pipe then most electrons keeps from hitting the wall or the detector.

Otherwise, the density dynamic will be very similar to the case when the magnetic field are absent (the saturation value of electrons can be smaller because the probability of hitting the wall will increase, Confused).

The case with count of primary electrons 8.812 sec-1 m-1 and dipole field 0.01 T .

maybe (have fun)

Laserlight, great explanation below but everything you have mentioned is classical or old quantum mechanics. I think you were better off with laser or fiber optics to emit the one e per/sec through the slits. We had better results do to control.

Good Elf

5th September 2007 - 01:46 AM

Hi Jal,

QUOTE (Jal+)

I am not "putting you down" Jal any more than you are putting me down. While I do agree with T-Duality I do not agree on the scale of that duality. String Theories currently place the scale below the Planck Length. The next point you stress is "infinitely small", that is a "bridge too far" for me. I have said that any process at that level of the Universe is conjecture and untestable. Science is about testing. I believe that the only way in which the theory can be tested is to completely ignore the "infinitely small" since physics at that range is impossible to prove. The existence of T-Duality does not necessarily imply that measurement will be independent of scale. As with the quantum itself, there are limits to measuring 'smallness".

regarding Cern... The Cern Project implies that measurement is independent of scale... IMHO that is a conjecture that needs some proving. What I can say is we can measure things on the benchtop and I think this is the best (and cheapest) way to go at present. We elves are very very cheap. This is not to say I want to throw a wet blanket on Cern. The adage that bigger is better has some value but a lot can still be done (and is being done) with very simple "benchtop" experiments. I watch these very carefully. You just can't beat basic science. There is a lot of "basic science" that is not being done and to believe that you can really just charge ahead without doing that basic research is a real folly. I am not one to wait on the sidelines and allow high priests to decide the fate of physics through concentrating on only one aspect of the science. There is always a tendency to entrench old ideas by "grabbing the high ground" in the "debate" and to stifle dissent by the wee small voices using "power" credentials. You need only look at the disconnect between the High Energy Fraternity and the other areas of physics such as Photonics. You would think they came from different worlds.

You made some comments about my interpretation of physics and you have drawn conclusions that are unfortunately wrong. This is because you have assumed a particle nature for everything and this is in isolation and separate to the wave nature which is in a totally different direction toward a Holographic Interpretation. A. Aspect's experiment shows that the Universe is not all "particulate" and local but is substantially non-local.

QUOTE (Jal+)

You use other dimensions but then you say that the universe is closed. How are you going to test it?

Yes... but connection to other dimensions is resonant. This is the quantum, the stationary state, and it can move between systems that are closed to normal energy transfers through resonant jumps. The testing can be done on the benchtop. IMHO the greater the energy used the less a highly tuned system can resonantly respond to an excitation. You can't force a particle across a null boundary such as the speed of light.

Using an analogy.. You can "use the bigger hammer" but all you get is smaller pieces. There comes a time when it would be nice to take the "gold fob watch" apart using the jewelers screwdriver and not simply get bigger and bigger hammers. The big hammer approach is the sign of "frustration" at not having all the answers that such expensive hammers can provide. If money can buy answers then this "tool" must be the best tool in the Universe. Also all other tools must be made to appear ineffective because they are far too "cheap". This expense must then be justified by challenging that all other tools will not provide any further insight. The fear is that there are other answers that provide alternatives to this "big hammer". This can be "intolerable".

QUOTE (Jal+)

(CERN uses the particle parton model) You use the word, geometry, but you will not stop to try to figure out what it looks like.

This Parton Model uses point distributions and this is basically incompatible with wave theory that I am attempting to interpret. Additional dimensions means that the parton model does not apply. But if this model does not apply at the Planck Length and below it does not apply at the level of radiowaves and above.... and everything in between. There can't be a theory that is half parton and half wave. Any theory that attempts to answer the "big question" can only be consistent if it deals entirely with "particles" that are not point sources. They must be distributed sources which remain finite and approximations to point sources lead to infinities. So the particles must go in order to explain this linkage between "particles".

QUOTE (Jal+)

So the very valid question, “What is there at the quantum level that make the geometric patterns in classical space?” What is mechanism is there at the quantum level that removes the Chaos … Randomness …. Complexity … Unpredictability?
Maybe none of those things are there. Maybe it’s just our interpretation that is wrong.
Look for that answer and you will find that DSE will fall into the realm of “understood”.

I know this is what you mean Jal... In your opinion the answer does not lie here. You have said previously that I am wasting my time on this point but in the end while you are following the "strong scent" in a different direction where the trail is still "hot", I am attempting to backtrack to where this all started and check out if the old trails that have long since gone cold are not trails that lead to the true "quarry". It is not easy to convince anyone with strong "conventional convictions" and a strong "herd instinct" that there is any value in this at all. Along that less frequently traveled path are not just a few dissenting "classic geniuses" that were ignored because they were pointing in the 'wrong direction" to the "excitable mob". They are probably all ghosts now. Maybe they were wrong but it appears to me to be worth a "new look-see". This one thread is where a dissenting point of view can be expressed. There are plenty of threads you are able to join that accept the conventional viewpoint and you can help out on this one too. If nothing else IMHO this alternative view gives a life to this thread that otherwise would be pretty ordinary.... right or wrong. I don't think the topic is dead yet. It still seems to bring new points to light such as "Talbot's Carpets".

Cheers

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.