.
Hi TRoc, everyone. Don't have much time. Just popped in to mention that some time back (last year?...earlier?) I happened to read some scientific paper somewhere that described 'passing' light through 'pinholes' that are SMALLER than the wavelengths of that light. The usefulness mentioned was that it would allow the use of ordinary light to be 'focused' into effectively shorter-wavelength-like beams that could 'resolve' small features/objects that would otherwise NOT be able to be resolved using such wavelengths (instead of being limited to already-shorter, but much more troublesome and/or 'destructive' gamma and X rays usually needed for that finer work out of reach of 'ordinary' lightwaves).
The principle/mechanism seems to be that the surfaces of the material/sheet wherein the pinhole is made is AWASH with the 'plasmon layer' sea of 'resonance' charges from the electron interactions near the surface and through the material (think of Zephir's "surface" and "under" water waves" analogy! hehehe). Anyhow, it appears that this plasmon sea washes back and forth and is NATURALLY CONCENTRATED at the EDGES of the pinhole (or any other "boundary" feature), and when the incident lightwave strikes the vicinity of the 'pinhole', these PRE-EXISTING 'charge carriers/medium) is STIMULATED in the SAME PATTERN of the incident lightwave BUT 'shrunk/focused' by the effect of the plasmon DENSITY/concentration around the pinhole, so that the original light is then 'TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE BODY surrounding the pinhole (think 'quantum tunnelling'!) of the material, to emerge as an EFFECTIVELY FOCUSED BEAM OF SMALLER CROSS-SECTION/WAVELENGTH than the original light beam was.
I haven't kept up to date on it. Does anyone know what I refer to?
Useful to anyone's considerations here in this thread? Hope so. Good luck.
Gotta go now. I'll speak to everyone again soon. Cheers!
RC.
.
Hi RealityCheck!
Would it be the Afshar's Experiment?
http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/Xafshar.html
INTERESTING!
JAL
Would it be the Afshar's Experiment?
http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/Xafshar.html
INTERESTING!
JAL
QUOTE (jal+Nov 17 2006, 05:17 AM)
Hi RealityCheck!
Would it be the Afshar's Experiment?
http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/Xafshar.html
INTERESTING!
JAL
HI jal! No, I don't think it had anything SPECIFICALLY to do with any such types of experiments/principles.
I think what I referred to was purely a TECHNOLOGICAL exercise/research involving just what I described...the plasmon layer and 'pinhole' concentration of same at its edges. I don't think anything about 'slit' experiments or anything else was discussed in that paper.
I'll let you know if I ever come across it again (and I also believe it got a write-up in NEW SCIENTIST magazine as well, if that's any help to anyone wanting/able to do a search of THEIR database on pinhole+plasmon+light and so on!). Cheers!
RC.
.
Would it be the Afshar's Experiment?
http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/Xafshar.html
INTERESTING!
JAL
HI jal! No, I don't think it had anything SPECIFICALLY to do with any such types of experiments/principles.
I think what I referred to was purely a TECHNOLOGICAL exercise/research involving just what I described...the plasmon layer and 'pinhole' concentration of same at its edges. I don't think anything about 'slit' experiments or anything else was discussed in that paper.
I'll let you know if I ever come across it again (and I also believe it got a write-up in NEW SCIENTIST magazine as well, if that's any help to anyone wanting/able to do a search of THEIR database on pinhole+plasmon+light and so on!). Cheers!
RC.
.
Hi Jal and Reality Check,
Do you mean this effect?
Quantum Imaging
Don't forget that negative refractive index materials can also offer a promise of massive increases in resolution over ordinary light microscopes.
Do you mean this effect?
Quantum Imaging
Don't forget that negative refractive index materials can also offer a promise of massive increases in resolution over ordinary light microscopes.
QUOTE (Boyd Lecture+)
Research in Quantum Imaging
Can images be formed with higher resolution or better sensitivity through use of quantum states of light?
Can we "beat" the Rayleigh criterion?
Quantum states of light: For instance, squeezed light or entangled beams of light.
Outline for this presentation
Progress in quantum lithography
Progress in ghost imaging
Review of nonlinear optical methods for super-resolution
Femtosecond Confocal Microscopy
Confocal microscope: Place pinhole in image plane to reject scattered light.
Measure light transmitted through pinhole and scan pinhole throughout microscope’s field of view.
Allows imaging through scattering media fs pulses allow nonlinear (two-photon) excitation of photoactive molecules in sample to be investigated, leading to an increased image contrast.
Curley et al., Optical and Quantum Electron. 24, 851
(1992)
Cheers
Can images be formed with higher resolution or better sensitivity through use of quantum states of light?
Can we "beat" the Rayleigh criterion?
Quantum states of light: For instance, squeezed light or entangled beams of light.
Outline for this presentation
Progress in quantum lithography
Progress in ghost imaging
Review of nonlinear optical methods for super-resolution
Femtosecond Confocal Microscopy
Confocal microscope: Place pinhole in image plane to reject scattered light.
Measure light transmitted through pinhole and scan pinhole throughout microscope’s field of view.
Allows imaging through scattering media fs pulses allow nonlinear (two-photon) excitation of photoactive molecules in sample to be investigated, leading to an increased image contrast.
Curley et al., Optical and Quantum Electron. 24, 851
(1992)
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
There seems to be some misunderstanding between us about what is and what is not an explanation.
From here:-
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
we get the formula
Eq 1. Wavelength = (Distance between fringes) x (Distance between slits) / (Distance to screen)
Since we already know the wavelength of our source we can recast this equation as ..
Eq 2. Distance between fringes = Wavelength * (Distance to screen) / (Distance between slits) **
There is a drawing showing 'brightness' which assumes the slits are narrow enough that the light is 'well-diffracted'.
From here..
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
looking at their Fig 4 we see the actual result of such an experiment. We aren't actually told the wavelength or the slit separation nor even the distance to the screen .. unless you wish to claim otherwise I hope we may agree that Eq 2. (above) will give a good 'fit' to the observed result.
Asssuming Eq 2. gives a good 'fit'
The two most obvious things to be accounted for with single photon and continuous wave excitation would seem to be ..
1/ Both slits are involved to give the observed result.
2/ Interference is observed over paths that differ by several wavelengths
So far you have shown ..
An animation of the electric field lines in first order symetrical TM rdiation from a dipole. I don't understand the relevence of this to anything thast follows.
You have mentioned "seek all paths" but this seems to be the main point :-
My view is that just because you can't see the photons illumination in the dark positions this is only because the vectors do not project onto the surface with a positive definite value. These are nodes in a sea of anti-nodes. What C2 might be confusing with wavelength are nodes and anti-nodes. These "entities" are eigenstates of the system at resonance. It is my conviction that these cancellations are part of the way in which the Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber fields "mix" to globally cancel outside the spatial and temporal zones of particles and standing waves. I would like you to look at this "inadequate" transform pair...
What I don't see is Why does your sea of nodes and antinodes give fringes separated by a distance given by Wavelength * (Distance to screen) / (Distance between slits) ? What is at resonance? Why should the the Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber fields "mix" to globally cancel outside the spatial and temporal zones of particles and standing waves at these particular points?
Can you clarify things a bit by giving some general statements about the relationship between wavelength and Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber fields ?.. are they related in any way? Can you give simpler illustrative examples where we see Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber fields mixing together?
-C2.
** Does this equation not give us the reason and the value for the fundamental spatial frequency of the spatial frequency transform for the two slits? Could this be the reason why simple consideration of path lengths gives the same result as the mixing of the Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber outside the spatial and temporal zones of particles and standing waves at these particular points?
"teach-ability" .. precisely so.
There seems to be some misunderstanding between us about what is and what is not an explanation.
From here:-
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
we get the formula
Eq 1. Wavelength = (Distance between fringes) x (Distance between slits) / (Distance to screen)
Since we already know the wavelength of our source we can recast this equation as ..
Eq 2. Distance between fringes = Wavelength * (Distance to screen) / (Distance between slits) **
There is a drawing showing 'brightness' which assumes the slits are narrow enough that the light is 'well-diffracted'.
From here..
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
looking at their Fig 4 we see the actual result of such an experiment. We aren't actually told the wavelength or the slit separation nor even the distance to the screen .. unless you wish to claim otherwise I hope we may agree that Eq 2. (above) will give a good 'fit' to the observed result.
Asssuming Eq 2. gives a good 'fit'
The two most obvious things to be accounted for with single photon and continuous wave excitation would seem to be ..
1/ Both slits are involved to give the observed result.
2/ Interference is observed over paths that differ by several wavelengths
So far you have shown ..
An animation of the electric field lines in first order symetrical TM rdiation from a dipole. I don't understand the relevence of this to anything thast follows.
You have mentioned "seek all paths" but this seems to be the main point :-
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
My view is that just because you can't see the photons illumination in the dark positions this is only because the vectors do not project onto the surface with a positive definite value. These are nodes in a sea of anti-nodes. What C2 might be confusing with wavelength are nodes and anti-nodes. These "entities" are eigenstates of the system at resonance. It is my conviction that these cancellations are part of the way in which the Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber fields "mix" to globally cancel outside the spatial and temporal zones of particles and standing waves. I would like you to look at this "inadequate" transform pair...
What I don't see is Why does your sea of nodes and antinodes give fringes separated by a distance given by Wavelength * (Distance to screen) / (Distance between slits) ? What is at resonance? Why should the the Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber fields "mix" to globally cancel outside the spatial and temporal zones of particles and standing waves at these particular points?
Can you clarify things a bit by giving some general statements about the relationship between wavelength and Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber fields ?.. are they related in any way? Can you give simpler illustrative examples where we see Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber fields mixing together?
-C2.
** Does this equation not give us the reason and the value for the fundamental spatial frequency of the spatial frequency transform for the two slits? Could this be the reason why simple consideration of path lengths gives the same result as the mixing of the Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber outside the spatial and temporal zones of particles and standing waves at these particular points?
"teach-ability" .. precisely so.
Hi Good Elf,
I think I'm starting to follow what you're saying (at last)
What I might call a wavefunction-psi you might call a Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber temporal/spatial path? Adding the wavefunctions at a particular point is equivalent to mixing the Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber path and while wavefunctions give us the probability of detection Elf theory gives us the spatial and temporal zones of particles and standing waves at particular points and/or eigenstates of the system at resonance.
As I understand the situation I only expect a result based on probability but Elf theory predicts a result based on (possibly) inadequate information which leaves the spatial and temporal zones of the particle (perhaps?) effectively 'random' and (perhaps?) very similar to the wavefunction-psi situation.
Good Elf theory gives a better insight into the structure of the photon than QM is able to do .. the Elf packet being intentionally compatible with Einstein's view that God does not play dice (but does play Wheeler-Feynman). The Elf packet consists of closely spaced frequencies which cannot be separated by (say) a prism. It appears to be the Wheeler-Feynman absorber properties of the Elf packet that enable it to (apparently) pass through both slits in the DSE.
The electric field lines of a dipole remain classical and are not subject to Wheeler-Feynman path analysis.
There is a Good Elf electron which (IMHO) might be a bit larger than some other electrons.
The relationship between Feynman's 'sum over paths' and the Wheeler-Feynman part of the theory remains unclear to me at this stage. Clarification would be welcome.
How I am doing?
-C2.
I think I'm starting to follow what you're saying (at last)
What I might call a wavefunction-psi you might call a Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber temporal/spatial path? Adding the wavefunctions at a particular point is equivalent to mixing the Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber path and while wavefunctions give us the probability of detection Elf theory gives us the spatial and temporal zones of particles and standing waves at particular points and/or eigenstates of the system at resonance.
As I understand the situation I only expect a result based on probability but Elf theory predicts a result based on (possibly) inadequate information which leaves the spatial and temporal zones of the particle (perhaps?) effectively 'random' and (perhaps?) very similar to the wavefunction-psi situation.
Good Elf theory gives a better insight into the structure of the photon than QM is able to do .. the Elf packet being intentionally compatible with Einstein's view that God does not play dice (but does play Wheeler-Feynman). The Elf packet consists of closely spaced frequencies which cannot be separated by (say) a prism. It appears to be the Wheeler-Feynman absorber properties of the Elf packet that enable it to (apparently) pass through both slits in the DSE.
The electric field lines of a dipole remain classical and are not subject to Wheeler-Feynman path analysis.
There is a Good Elf electron which (IMHO) might be a bit larger than some other electrons.
The relationship between Feynman's 'sum over paths' and the Wheeler-Feynman part of the theory remains unclear to me at this stage. Clarification would be welcome.
How I am doing?
-C2.
C2, just another perspective
(thanks to Zephir)
LL
(thanks to Zephir)
LL
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Yquantum, TRoc, Jal, bee, StevenA, AlphaNumeric, Laidback, zephir et al,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
I think I'm starting to follow what you're saying (at last) What I might call a wavefunction-psi you might call a Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber temporal/spatial path? Adding the wavefunctions at a particular point is equivalent to mixing the Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber path and while wavefunctions give us the probability of detection Elf theory gives us the spatial and temporal zones of particles and standing waves at particular points and/or eigenstates of the system at resonance.[..] How I am doing?
Yes ... I think you are starting to get it now (but you are missing a couple of the finer points... I think "finer points" is what actually makes the theory work). I would not call it an "Elf Packet or Theory" but it does describe quantum phenomena in "more detail" (if it was available). This is based on a close reading of Canonical Typicality of Sheldon Goldstein et al convinces me that there is a principle that "over conditions" quantum probability that even one by one photons do have "individual destinies" though we cannot know them "a priori". We can know them "a posteriori" by appropriate measurement (with some better instruments). Take for instance the fact that a one by one flash on a screen of coherent light from a "strong source" that has been highly attenuated, rather than a source of "one by one" photons as in Professor Chandra Roychoudhuri's case. The should maintain some "unseen connection" with the strong source that is on the other side of a "filter". The non-local nature of photon interactions "connects" with these events through Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory and also explains why the information about "which way" connections is able to be erased even in this instance does not erase the source connection. Canonical Typicality says that there is a "common dynamics" behind our Physics we are unable to measure because of our "lowered dimensionality" and the fact that our instruments record "events" through interactions.
Consider an optical maze of beam splitters, prisms and semi-reflecting surfaces that does not "interact" with the individual photons but like a prism "sorts them into various categories". This is like a triangular prism that sorts photons into their respective wavelengths through dispersion. We can afford to lose a couple of photons along the way (as Newton did) through absorption, but the remainder will execute an unseen path through the slab "exactly" sorted according to their individual basic wavelengths... not a statistical property... but depending on the size of the slit these photons head off in different directions, the "overlap and blurring of the slit spectrum is due to slit properties and source properties themselves though with distance photons prefer to assemble themselves into those continuous waves because if they can it is a path of least action (coherent boson waves from simple monochromatic sources). The next moment these photons are "sorted" according to another property such as spin (without interaction), then according to Orbital Angular momentum (as some experiments have already done). Using a Kerr Cell it would be possible to sort according to polarization. Then, using mirrors, "allowed" to impinge on an interference pair of slits to produce double interference fringes (one at a time). Potentially (in a Gedanken Experiment) we could have different instruments for each of these outcomes. Depending on which "instrument" the sorted photons arrive at, as long as we have not determined "which path" information along the way, those photons do have a vast amount of ancillary information associated with them. In the case of OAM, you could even write the Bible into one of them and provided you capture that information by an appropriate path in our maze the arrival would signify that this particular photon is carrying "a Bible". We would need to have just such a maze constructed to decode every mode that the photon was carrying and you would need to know that "a priori" so that "a posteriori" you could say ... ha... "the Bible". This was carried by a single "hard" photon.
This information is not all that useful as you may rightfully infer because of the many possibilities but in general... source information can be useful without path information. A pinhole "Camera Obscura" is an interference pattern on a white wall in a small otherwise completely darkened room (in which an observer may sit... not without some small disturbance though).
Wikipedia: Camera Obscura
What it reveals is the complete two dimensional "landscape" of the outside world in full color and even as "moving images". This was know by Leonardo da Vinci and it is know also by savvy photographers today. Each frequency in the "image" cast on that screen is a dynamic sum of packets (Sync functions... from "ideal sources") taken from those spatially distributed sources and each source, "slit, photon, edge, prism, mirror and absorber", a secondary informational "zone" in which the "screen" is recording as a single slit diffraction pattern, offset from its neighboring sources outside in the outer landscape by an angle and by a distance. Each individual photon from a source will produce its own (search every path) diffraction pattern on the back screen (distorted by path length differences) as long as it still contains its undisturbed qubit. That qubit will finally deposit on the screen at its "Hurricane Center" as a flash of "colored" light.
By the way when I refer to "point sources" I should actually say a distributed source...
Why a pinhole?... We find that a tiny circle aperture is the best imaging device known and it seems this is no coincidence is it? this gives a better image than a slit or any other "mask". Now you say what about that three dimensional information... that's easy... lets put a pinhole separated from the first somewhere else on the wall. This gives us stereoscopic information. Unfortunately this is now a double "slit" interference pattern (each slit being a single pinhole), and our puny brain cannot process it, especially if the separation distance is very small. Lets now sacrifice some of those photons and place crossed polaroids immediately in front or behind these slits and view the image on the wall with cardboard glasses with conjugately aligned polaroid plastic lenses... bingo ... stereo... how very lifelike.
Each of these individual photons that fall on the wall (each with its individual frequency) need to critically fall on a position on the wall "close" to the exact reference point that our minds tells us where a object is physically placed in the outer world. Remember the photons cannot interfere with photons from any other sources, only with itself. Sure... the photons are "statistically distributed" but given the size of the two slit diffraction pattern (an entire wall) the individual photons must cluster about the mean position this conformal mapping places individual items seen there in the outer world. This is what Canonical Typicality is telling us that Quantum Mechanics is not. In Young's double slit experiment we are attempting to control the number of sources and control the number of paths. Without "which path" information and only a single point source we wonder what is happening. Perhaps the photons are randomly distributed? Lets add one extra source (pinhole) some fixed distance from the first. What will now happen is we now have two interference patterns which overlap producing an offset light and dark zones on the screen at all the same frequencies. Now though all photons produce "apparent brightening" it is not the case that the photons are just statistically distributed since we can block one of other of these sources and distinguish photons by source (not actually by path). Also the case of distributed sources also distribute photons around the image plane not according to statistics but to spatial distribution of all distinguishable sources (... after all the photons actually come from those spatially distributed sources you are seeing "in position" on the screen). Indistinguishable sources exist within the one boson wave. The light and dark "zones" construct with complex phases "all the image". An appropriately configured optical system can "theoretically" reconstruct the rest of the total image plane from just one small portion of the image on the wall, part of the the raw image itself is after all still "holographic". Snap a corner off a glass hologram and it can reconstruct the entire scene not just the bit in that corner.
It is not "which path" information. It is equivalent to a particular resonance. As I have said before this information can only supply "source" information not "exact path" information. This is like a kidnap victim being taken from his bedroom while being gagged, blindfolded and forced to wear sound blocking earmuffs, placed in a van and "sedated" then taken to a "hideout" miles away, at which point he is released or escapes. He will have knowledge of where he has been ... his bedroom and he now knows something about where he is now... the hideout... but he does not possess any path information. Afterward when he escapes and contacts the authorities (the baddies are then captured) and he is able to look at a road map and surmises the route taken based on a path of least action (the shortest route). The times and circumstances seem to indicate this was probably what happened. Actually the trial of the kidnappers reveal that the baddies did not take the shortest route for a small unknown fact, they dropped bye Subway to pick up lunch on the way.
Good Elf, Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, Jal, bee, StevenA, AlphaNumeric, Laidback, zephir et al,
Nobody has explained why we should worry about the foundations of quantum mechanics better than John Bell:
* ... conventional formulations of quantum theory, and of quantum field theory in particular, are unprofessionally vague and ambiguous. Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better. Bohm has shown us a way.
J.S. BELL
Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics
ciao_
yquantum
I think you have the elephant by the tail, Good Elf. 
Consider an optical maze of beam splitters, prisms and semi-reflecting surfaces that does not "interact" with the individual photons but like a prism "sorts them into various categories". This is like a triangular prism that sorts photons into their respective wavelengths through dispersion. We can afford to lose a couple of photons along the way (as Newton did) through absorption, but the remainder will execute an unseen path through the slab "exactly" sorted according to their individual basic wavelengths... not a statistical property... but depending on the size of the slit these photons head off in different directions, the "overlap and blurring of the slit spectrum is due to slit properties and source properties themselves though with distance photons prefer to assemble themselves into those continuous waves because if they can it is a path of least action (coherent boson waves from simple monochromatic sources). The next moment these photons are "sorted" according to another property such as spin (without interaction), then according to Orbital Angular momentum (as some experiments have already done). Using a Kerr Cell it would be possible to sort according to polarization. Then, using mirrors, "allowed" to impinge on an interference pair of slits to produce double interference fringes (one at a time). Potentially (in a Gedanken Experiment) we could have different instruments for each of these outcomes. Depending on which "instrument" the sorted photons arrive at, as long as we have not determined "which path" information along the way, those photons do have a vast amount of ancillary information associated with them. In the case of OAM, you could even write the Bible into one of them and provided you capture that information by an appropriate path in our maze the arrival would signify that this particular photon is carrying "a Bible". We would need to have just such a maze constructed to decode every mode that the photon was carrying and you would need to know that "a priori" so that "a posteriori" you could say ... ha... "the Bible". This was carried by a single "hard" photon.
This information is not all that useful as you may rightfully infer because of the many possibilities but in general... source information can be useful without path information. A pinhole "Camera Obscura" is an interference pattern on a white wall in a small otherwise completely darkened room (in which an observer may sit... not without some small disturbance though).
Wikipedia: Camera Obscura
What it reveals is the complete two dimensional "landscape" of the outside world in full color and even as "moving images". This was know by Leonardo da Vinci and it is know also by savvy photographers today. Each frequency in the "image" cast on that screen is a dynamic sum of packets (Sync functions... from "ideal sources") taken from those spatially distributed sources and each source, "slit, photon, edge, prism, mirror and absorber", a secondary informational "zone" in which the "screen" is recording as a single slit diffraction pattern, offset from its neighboring sources outside in the outer landscape by an angle and by a distance. Each individual photon from a source will produce its own (search every path) diffraction pattern on the back screen (distorted by path length differences) as long as it still contains its undisturbed qubit. That qubit will finally deposit on the screen at its "Hurricane Center" as a flash of "colored" light.
By the way when I refer to "point sources" I should actually say a distributed source...
Why a pinhole?... We find that a tiny circle aperture is the best imaging device known and it seems this is no coincidence is it? this gives a better image than a slit or any other "mask". Now you say what about that three dimensional information... that's easy... lets put a pinhole separated from the first somewhere else on the wall. This gives us stereoscopic information. Unfortunately this is now a double "slit" interference pattern (each slit being a single pinhole), and our puny brain cannot process it, especially if the separation distance is very small. Lets now sacrifice some of those photons and place crossed polaroids immediately in front or behind these slits and view the image on the wall with cardboard glasses with conjugately aligned polaroid plastic lenses... bingo ... stereo... how very lifelike.
Each of these individual photons that fall on the wall (each with its individual frequency) need to critically fall on a position on the wall "close" to the exact reference point that our minds tells us where a object is physically placed in the outer world. Remember the photons cannot interfere with photons from any other sources, only with itself. Sure... the photons are "statistically distributed" but given the size of the two slit diffraction pattern (an entire wall) the individual photons must cluster about the mean position this conformal mapping places individual items seen there in the outer world. This is what Canonical Typicality is telling us that Quantum Mechanics is not. In Young's double slit experiment we are attempting to control the number of sources and control the number of paths. Without "which path" information and only a single point source we wonder what is happening. Perhaps the photons are randomly distributed? Lets add one extra source (pinhole) some fixed distance from the first. What will now happen is we now have two interference patterns which overlap producing an offset light and dark zones on the screen at all the same frequencies. Now though all photons produce "apparent brightening" it is not the case that the photons are just statistically distributed since we can block one of other of these sources and distinguish photons by source (not actually by path). Also the case of distributed sources also distribute photons around the image plane not according to statistics but to spatial distribution of all distinguishable sources (... after all the photons actually come from those spatially distributed sources you are seeing "in position" on the screen). Indistinguishable sources exist within the one boson wave. The light and dark "zones" construct with complex phases "all the image". An appropriately configured optical system can "theoretically" reconstruct the rest of the total image plane from just one small portion of the image on the wall, part of the the raw image itself is after all still "holographic". Snap a corner off a glass hologram and it can reconstruct the entire scene not just the bit in that corner.
It is not "which path" information. It is equivalent to a particular resonance. As I have said before this information can only supply "source" information not "exact path" information. This is like a kidnap victim being taken from his bedroom while being gagged, blindfolded and forced to wear sound blocking earmuffs, placed in a van and "sedated" then taken to a "hideout" miles away, at which point he is released or escapes. He will have knowledge of where he has been ... his bedroom and he now knows something about where he is now... the hideout... but he does not possess any path information. Afterward when he escapes and contacts the authorities (the baddies are then captured) and he is able to look at a road map and surmises the route taken based on a path of least action (the shortest route). The times and circumstances seem to indicate this was probably what happened. Actually the trial of the kidnappers reveal that the baddies did not take the shortest route for a small unknown fact, they dropped bye Subway to pick up lunch on the way.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
The electric field lines of a dipole remain classical and are not subject to Wheeler-Feynman path analysis.
There is a Good Elf electron which (IMHO) might be a bit larger than some other electrons.
The relationship between Feynman's 'sum over paths' and the Wheeler-Feynman part of the theory remains unclear to me at this stage. Clarification would be welcome.
There is a Good Elf electron which (IMHO) might be a bit larger than some other electrons.
The relationship between Feynman's 'sum over paths' and the Wheeler-Feynman part of the theory remains unclear to me at this stage. Clarification would be welcome.
What I am saying is that Feynman Quantum Electrodynamics is a simplified form of Complex plane Huygens Theory and uses a single parameter to provide "search all path" information. In reality the wave function is a particle version of the waves substituting a scalar Gaussian distribution for the Fourier pattern of the point source (a particle). Simple experiment reveals the actual truth about this well known phenomenon. You can get away with this by never calling a spade a spade and say do not identify the wavefunction of a photon with the electromagnetic field... "Shut up and calculate" the result is the answer. It is easier to calculate but has an "inner product" missing some essential "distributed" information that only the sync function (the transform of the point sources) can provide... with their added tiny little ripples than can extend to "infinity" in both time and space. These "tiny ripples" never fade away and are simply "globally nearly cancelled". The sync function is actually a truncated sine function (sine wave inside an envelope) which is a propagating wave. Truncation is like a shutter that reveals the source in time and in space and the wave will be everywhere though suppressed outside the light cone where it propagates to "instantly" and "non-locally"... along the "outer" tiny brane of our higher dimensional Universe. What we must not forget is just because a photon is an apparent long way from home, it is not "attenuated" and still has no inherent noise, source information is retained while path information is lost. Our recording instruments will have noise but not the actual photon. Photons "quantum tunnel" past intergalactic "noise" all the time by being on the brane of our Universe. The "path" information of the photon is erased but the individual events fill all space and all time according to Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory and are "bright matter solitons"... strings on the outer brane of our Universe.
This effect is shown by the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser where "dead" photons can be influenced by the future fate of its twin entangled photon. The informational layer of the Universe can be modified "apparently retrospectively" since event information is stored on the brane's outer surface as a hologram. A change in this event-scape will change the way the hologram "works" and a different "path of least action" will form modifying the current history for "particles". The seamless nature of this Continuous Wave Hologram changes our history to boot.
Imagine a hologram made up of very fine dark fringes on the surface of a liquid crystal screen. These "mimic" the interference fringes of a real hologram on a glass plate. This synthetic one could be dynamically modified to provide the "illusion" of life simply by dynamically altering the the pattern of lines of the surface of the LCD film. Lets say this is a reconstruction of the interior of a room as seen through a window on the outer wall of a house... Only in reality this LCD hologram is being generated by illuminating a "synthetic" pattern on the surface of this high resolution LCD Screen with a laser of the same frequency that the original glass plate hologram used to create the "still life" room. This "2D screen" is hung on a wall anywhere and people come by and look into this "synthetic" room. "Reconstruction" occurs by virtue of the "slit" source of a diverged laser beam (actually more like a perfect pinhole). A reconstructed room appears in a virtual space apparently behind the pane of the LCD Screen. This is an art gallery and there is nothing but a brick wall behind it. Changing the pattern for just one event "interferes with the entire sub-universe" inside that "flat panel world". That Universe has no "intrinsic memory" of the order of events... It is Cramer's Event Driven Interpretation of Feynman's Universe extended to Wheller-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory.
Wikipedia: Transactional interpretation
For that one frequency this Universe "looks" real. In reality our universe is made of much more than this as noted above, but the simple explanation is possible maybe even technically feasible. The glass hologram and the transparent LCD Panel is a convenience where we can see into the virtual Universe "through" the informational layer. Quantum phenomena in the real world are not as easily described but have strong parallels but extra "synthetic" dimensions... AdS/CF Theory.
As to your question about electrons... their 6D branes do not even intersect our space so have an almost zero 6D footprint. They do have "mass" and they leak "charge" and "spin" and those de Broglie waves from the reciprocal space into our "flat-space" as evanescent phenomena... as through a pinhole. These phenomena are locked in place by the "twist"... CPT Laws (Charge Parity and Time). To "leak" you would need for the particle to have an uncanceled wave in our flat-space as indicated through Wheeler-Feynman Theory. No way Jose. Supraluminal effects can only occur within a small range of the "source" and it is unreferenced to energy processes in our Universe. However they (the electrons as a total particle) are quite able to partake in other particle "events" in our Universe where the energy processes are "referenced".
Cheers
This effect is shown by the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser where "dead" photons can be influenced by the future fate of its twin entangled photon. The informational layer of the Universe can be modified "apparently retrospectively" since event information is stored on the brane's outer surface as a hologram. A change in this event-scape will change the way the hologram "works" and a different "path of least action" will form modifying the current history for "particles". The seamless nature of this Continuous Wave Hologram changes our history to boot.
Imagine a hologram made up of very fine dark fringes on the surface of a liquid crystal screen. These "mimic" the interference fringes of a real hologram on a glass plate. This synthetic one could be dynamically modified to provide the "illusion" of life simply by dynamically altering the the pattern of lines of the surface of the LCD film. Lets say this is a reconstruction of the interior of a room as seen through a window on the outer wall of a house... Only in reality this LCD hologram is being generated by illuminating a "synthetic" pattern on the surface of this high resolution LCD Screen with a laser of the same frequency that the original glass plate hologram used to create the "still life" room. This "2D screen" is hung on a wall anywhere and people come by and look into this "synthetic" room. "Reconstruction" occurs by virtue of the "slit" source of a diverged laser beam (actually more like a perfect pinhole). A reconstructed room appears in a virtual space apparently behind the pane of the LCD Screen. This is an art gallery and there is nothing but a brick wall behind it. Changing the pattern for just one event "interferes with the entire sub-universe" inside that "flat panel world". That Universe has no "intrinsic memory" of the order of events... It is Cramer's Event Driven Interpretation of Feynman's Universe extended to Wheller-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory.
Wikipedia: Transactional interpretation
For that one frequency this Universe "looks" real. In reality our universe is made of much more than this as noted above, but the simple explanation is possible maybe even technically feasible.
The glass hologram and the transparent LCD Panel is a convenience where we can see into the virtual Universe "through" the informational layer. Quantum phenomena in the real world are not as easily described but have strong parallels but extra "synthetic" dimensions... AdS/CF Theory.As to your question about electrons... their 6D branes do not even intersect our space so have an almost zero 6D footprint. They do have "mass" and they leak "charge" and "spin" and those de Broglie waves from the reciprocal space into our "flat-space" as evanescent phenomena... as through a pinhole. These phenomena are locked in place by the "twist"... CPT Laws (Charge Parity and Time). To "leak" you would need for the particle to have an uncanceled wave in our flat-space as indicated through Wheeler-Feynman Theory. No way Jose. Supraluminal effects can only occur within a small range of the "source" and it is unreferenced to energy processes in our Universe. However they (the electrons as a total particle) are quite able to partake in other particle "events" in our Universe where the energy processes are "referenced".
QUOTE
In a 1948 letter to Lincoln Barnett Einstein wrote "It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/√(1-v˛/c˛) of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
It is true of all energy processes not just mass... and you must then indicate the inertial frame of reference (not called this because it is "trendy")... He really meant a frame of reference in which all co-moving objects are at "rest".Cheers
Good Elf, Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, Jal, bee, StevenA, AlphaNumeric, Laidback, zephir et al,Nobody has explained why we should worry about the foundations of quantum mechanics better than John Bell:
* ... conventional formulations of quantum theory, and of quantum field theory in particular, are unprofessionally vague and ambiguous. Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better. Bohm has shown us a way.
J.S. BELL
Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics
ciao_
yquantum
I think you have the elephant by the tail, Good Elf.
QUOTE (quantum+Nov 18 2006, 04:38 AM)
...Nobody has explained why we should worry about the foundations of quantum mechanics better than John Bell...
Because of correspondence principle, which statues, each the theory is the particular case of other theories. By such way, is necessary to reconcile the quantum mechanic with both the relativity theory, both the Newtonian mechanic.
For such purpose, the Aether Wave theory (AWT) proposes an inertial environment concept of elastic foam, which is formed by density fluctuations of Aether particles/wave packets. The foam density is proportional to energy density, therefore the energy spreading in such foam follows the quantum wave equation, which describes the interference of energy wave with the corresponding wave of its energy density (i.e. so called the probability function - compare the DHTML applet herein).
Because of correspondence principle, which statues, each the theory is the particular case of other theories. By such way, is necessary to reconcile the quantum mechanic with both the relativity theory, both the Newtonian mechanic.
For such purpose, the Aether Wave theory (AWT) proposes an inertial environment concept of elastic foam, which is formed by density fluctuations of Aether particles/wave packets. The foam density is proportional to energy density, therefore the energy spreading in such foam follows the quantum wave equation, which describes the interference of energy wave with the corresponding wave of its energy density (i.e. so called the probability function - compare the DHTML applet herein).
Good Elf
QM, works as we have talked about, but WHY that is the mystery. As we discussed it is responsible for about one third of the technology in the world.
As you have so eloquently put, we need a better understanding and the is why Bell made the statement.
Great Job, Good Elf.
Just as an example of how productive it is using a simple law that some just do not understand.
Pauli explained that the reason elements have different chemical properties was due to the way their e- [e-, means electron in the mainline physics community that performs real science] occupied different quantum orbits, or shells. Each e- is described by the quantum numbers assigned to its wavefunction.
These define the values of its quantized energy, orbital angular momentum, and spin. The ‘exclusion principle’. Pointed out that two e-‘s in the same atom have the same quantum numbers. So a particular quantum state is ‘occupied’, the other e- must go to the next level.
This has been proven why e-‘s cannot be squashed down into the nucleus, and hence how matter exists in the form that it does.
Dmitri Mendeleev invented the now-familiar periodic table of the elements using the theory/concept by the, “Noble Prize Winner”, which was an Austrian prodigy whose name was Wolfgang Pauli and his famous, ‘exclusion principle’. Tested and proven by real data, [not pictures] and as history has stated it is not, [a postulate or conjecture] as some would foolishly say, but a fundamental law of Physics used even today.
The gauge principle unifies three of the forces. But still left with those two distinct entities: particles and forces. Their unification was the goal of two previous attempts, the aether theory and the unified-field theory & EACH FAILED.
So, as experiments’ have data to support results the exclusion principle is correct in stating that two fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state, unlike bosons which behave in the opposite way, they like to share states.
The record stands, the data is in, the experiments give predictable results.
Have a nice cup of tea to the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
ciao_
yquantum
Good Elf,
I hope you do not have anymore interruptions, your doing a great job. One day, there could be the Good Elf, [Using your Real Name], Principle in QM. You never know.
QM, works as we have talked about, but WHY that is the mystery. As we discussed it is responsible for about one third of the technology in the world.
As you have so eloquently put, we need a better understanding and the is why Bell made the statement.
Great Job, Good Elf.
Just as an example of how productive it is using a simple law that some just do not understand.
Pauli explained that the reason elements have different chemical properties was due to the way their e- [e-, means electron in the mainline physics community that performs real science] occupied different quantum orbits, or shells. Each e- is described by the quantum numbers assigned to its wavefunction.
These define the values of its quantized energy, orbital angular momentum, and spin. The ‘exclusion principle’. Pointed out that two e-‘s in the same atom have the same quantum numbers. So a particular quantum state is ‘occupied’, the other e- must go to the next level.
This has been proven why e-‘s cannot be squashed down into the nucleus, and hence how matter exists in the form that it does.
Dmitri Mendeleev invented the now-familiar periodic table of the elements using the theory/concept by the, “Noble Prize Winner”, which was an Austrian prodigy whose name was Wolfgang Pauli and his famous, ‘exclusion principle’. Tested and proven by real data, [not pictures] and as history has stated it is not, [a postulate or conjecture] as some would foolishly say, but a fundamental law of Physics used even today.
The gauge principle unifies three of the forces. But still left with those two distinct entities: particles and forces. Their unification was the goal of two previous attempts, the aether theory and the unified-field theory & EACH FAILED.
So, as experiments’ have data to support results the exclusion principle is correct in stating that two fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state, unlike bosons which behave in the opposite way, they like to share states.
The record stands, the data is in, the experiments give predictable results.
Have a nice cup of tea to the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
ciao_
yquantum
Good Elf,
I hope you do not have anymore interruptions, your doing a great job. One day, there could be the Good Elf, [Using your Real Name], Principle in QM. You never know.
Good Day all!
I think that you have done a good job of explaining the current accepted way of thinking.
Why are there still so may people trying to find another explanation?
They understand the current accepted way of thinking.
You left out some references which would affect your explanations.
Take the Afshar's Experiment at http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/Xafshar.html which demonstrates that ….
Heck with it … go read
http://www.analogsf.com/0410/altview2.shtml
John G. Cramer
I think that you have done a good job of explaining the current accepted way of thinking.
Why are there still so may people trying to find another explanation?
They understand the current accepted way of thinking.
You left out some references which would affect your explanations.
Take the Afshar's Experiment at http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/Xafshar.html which demonstrates that ….
Heck with it … go read
http://www.analogsf.com/0410/altview2.shtml
John G. Cramer
….However, it soon was demonstrated by Bohr and Heisenberg that while Schrödinger’s mathematics was valid, his underlying mass-wave picture was unworkable, and he was forced to abandon it. The net result was that the new quantum mechanics was left as a theory with no underlying picture or mechanism.
I now believe that the Copenhagen and Many-Worlds Interpretations (at least as they are usually presented) have been falsified by experiment.
…. which demonstrates the presence of complete interference in an unambiguous "which-way" measurement of the passage of light photons through a pair of pinholes.
But nevertheless, the rules of the game have changed. There is a way of distinguishing between interpretations of quantum mechanics. It will take some time for the dust to settle, but I am confident that when it does we will have interpretations of quantum mechanics that are on a sounder footing than the ones presently embraced by most of the physics community.
Good Elf, some of your arguments will have to be modified.
Also, your reference, http://www.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups...U-Q-Im_2006.pdf
Quantum Imaging: New Methods and Applications
By Robert W. Boyd
He then goes on to show how he does it.
He does it by treating the photon as a particle. Yet…. he get’s the wave to work with to improve the resolution.
What is the underlying picture or mechanism?
If the photon is treated as a particle, what mechanism makes the wave “picture”?
People are still searching for a mechanism.
You can get my views by reading my thread.
jal
QUOTE
yquantum
I think you have the elephant by the tail, Good Elf.
I think you have the elephant by the tail, Good Elf.
I think that you have done a good job of explaining the current accepted way of thinking.
Why are there still so may people trying to find another explanation?
They understand the current accepted way of thinking.
You left out some references which would affect your explanations.
Take the Afshar's Experiment at http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/Xafshar.html which demonstrates that ….
Heck with it … go read
http://www.analogsf.com/0410/altview2.shtml
John G. Cramer
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| yquantum I think you have the elephant by the tail, Good Elf. |
I think that you have done a good job of explaining the current accepted way of thinking.
Why are there still so may people trying to find another explanation?
They understand the current accepted way of thinking.
You left out some references which would affect your explanations.
Take the Afshar's Experiment at http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/Xafshar.html which demonstrates that ….
Heck with it … go read
http://www.analogsf.com/0410/altview2.shtml
John G. Cramer
….However, it soon was demonstrated by Bohr and Heisenberg that while Schrödinger’s mathematics was valid, his underlying mass-wave picture was unworkable, and he was forced to abandon it. The net result was that the new quantum mechanics was left as a theory with no underlying picture or mechanism.
I now believe that the Copenhagen and Many-Worlds Interpretations (at least as they are usually presented) have been falsified by experiment.
…. which demonstrates the presence of complete interference in an unambiguous "which-way" measurement of the passage of light photons through a pair of pinholes.
But nevertheless, the rules of the game have changed. There is a way of distinguishing between interpretations of quantum mechanics. It will take some time for the dust to settle, but I am confident that when it does we will have interpretations of quantum mechanics that are on a sounder footing than the ones presently embraced by most of the physics community.
Good Elf, some of your arguments will have to be modified.
Also, your reference, http://www.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups...U-Q-Im_2006.pdf
Quantum Imaging: New Methods and Applications
By Robert W. Boyd
QUOTE
Can images be formed with higher resolution or better sensitivity through use of quantum states of light?
He then goes on to show how he does it.
He does it by treating the photon as a particle. Yet…. he get’s the wave to work with to improve the resolution.
What is the underlying picture or mechanism?
If the photon is treated as a particle, what mechanism makes the wave “picture”?
People are still searching for a mechanism.
You can get my views by reading my thread.
jal
Good Elf and All,
That was very interesting and informative. Your explanation made sense....to a
point.... (pun intended). The hologram example works because it is a 3
dimensional interference phenomenon with a reference beam and a scan beam across
a 3D recording medium. The beams are continuously phase referenced
relative to each other and the target subject, across the holographic media and have 3 points of
spacial and temporal reference if you include the media itself.
This very much represents a spacial and temporal, wave function interaction,
relationship acting across a physical matter "catalyst" that records the phase
coherence relationship in time. The photon "point sources" are not only
referenced as to their physical spacial "location" but also are referenced to their
timing, "temporal offset", relative to each other. However, when a fine
resolution, high grain photographic film is used to capture an image, only
individual point sources of light are captured on each grain of silver emulsion in
the film, resulting in a "pixelated" 2D recorded image. The 2 D image only
locks in the "point source" information which includes attributes like planar
EM incidence angle, wavelength (color), and intensity of each photon that
comprises the 2D image. We do not see every grain of silver "pixel" on the
film emulsion recording identical information, the reason being that the
incident timing reference is missing.
The 2D film is only recording the localized "spacially oriented" point source
references over a single fixed time increment, as opposed to the hologram
which is using a longer scan temporal reference in combination with multiple angular
phase (scanned) reference point sources. More informational data available to
the hologram image over a longer time base provides a more complete
3D image reproduction.
The point being that a 2D plane of reference will only convey a 2D reproduction
of the image, whereas an XYZ reference + Time will provide a 3D image.
LL
That was very interesting and informative. Your explanation made sense....to a
point.... (pun intended). The hologram example works because it is a 3
dimensional interference phenomenon with a reference beam and a scan beam across
a 3D recording medium. The beams are continuously phase referenced
relative to each other and the target subject, across the holographic media and have 3 points of
spacial and temporal reference if you include the media itself.
This very much represents a spacial and temporal, wave function interaction,
relationship acting across a physical matter "catalyst" that records the phase
coherence relationship in time. The photon "point sources" are not only
referenced as to their physical spacial "location" but also are referenced to their
timing, "temporal offset", relative to each other. However, when a fine
resolution, high grain photographic film is used to capture an image, only
individual point sources of light are captured on each grain of silver emulsion in
the film, resulting in a "pixelated" 2D recorded image. The 2 D image only
locks in the "point source" information which includes attributes like planar
EM incidence angle, wavelength (color), and intensity of each photon that
comprises the 2D image. We do not see every grain of silver "pixel" on the
film emulsion recording identical information, the reason being that the
incident timing reference is missing.
The 2D film is only recording the localized "spacially oriented" point source
references over a single fixed time increment, as opposed to the hologram
which is using a longer scan temporal reference in combination with multiple angular
phase (scanned) reference point sources. More informational data available to
the hologram image over a longer time base provides a more complete
3D image reproduction.
The point being that a 2D plane of reference will only convey a 2D reproduction
of the image, whereas an XYZ reference + Time will provide a 3D image.
LL
Greetings
jal, I enjoyed reading what is on the www that you have posted, I do not get the chance when working on other projects. Well that is part of the reason but no need for TMI, thanks again! BTW, I cannot answer your question, but my feeling is like all of us we give many hours/days/years on a hunch then develop it into a concept but then we become blind to any constructive criticism, one must always be aware of this trap.
We know of some even on this forum, but all of us could be physics greatest offender, if we do not stay alert and open minded not only to the fundamental laws that have have tremendous predictive tools that bring results, but new ways of better insight will be needed, this should always be our goal.
I will after a run today try and look at your post. Hope all is well.
Good Elf, knowing the dynamics of the atom and the emptiness that is possesses we still deal with the many forces we both know are involved within as well as outside influence's [what affects our world/universe, development with new information/data, and condition of dealing with research that has been made after his death]. You have prepared yourself on David Bohm who has prepared the way until politics disrupted his efforts, but I understand completely your perspective in this matter. I hope you continue this to its fullest.
For those who do not know the man,
We need to have a better understanding of the underlining laws of QM, I agree.
How far we can go with his view, I just do not want the pendulum to swing to far the other way. We know QM works and I hope this subject continues my hope is that we can find some concept, yes even on this forum that will bring understanding and the ability to make prediction based on the premise presented by data to support what is given.
Laserlight, glad you in on this, I think you give balance to all that is said on both sides of the paradox.
There are so many on the other pages that I hope will join in on the informative discussion with, C2, Good Elf, jal, Laserlight, TRoc, and many others.
What is impressive is that we all what to toss around different aspects/views and still stay focus on the task at hand.
ciao_
yquantum
jal, I enjoyed reading what is on the www that you have posted, I do not get the chance when working on other projects. Well that is part of the reason but no need for TMI, thanks again! BTW, I cannot answer your question, but my feeling is like all of us we give many hours/days/years on a hunch then develop it into a concept but then we become blind to any constructive criticism, one must always be aware of this trap.
We know of some even on this forum, but all of us could be physics greatest offender, if we do not stay alert and open minded not only to the fundamental laws that have have tremendous predictive tools that bring results, but new ways of better insight will be needed, this should always be our goal.
I will after a run today try and look at your post. Hope all is well.
Good Elf, knowing the dynamics of the atom and the emptiness that is possesses we still deal with the many forces we both know are involved within as well as outside influence's [what affects our world/universe, development with new information/data, and condition of dealing with research that has been made after his death]. You have prepared yourself on David Bohm who has prepared the way until politics disrupted his efforts, but I understand completely your perspective in this matter. I hope you continue this to its fullest.
For those who do not know the man,
QUOTE
David Bohm (1917-94) was one of the foremost theoretical physicists of his generation and one of the most influential theorists of the emerging paradigm through which the world is increasingly viewed. Bohm's challenge to the conventional understanding of quantum theory has led scientists to re-examine what it is they are doing and to question the nature of their theories and their scientific methodology. He brought together a radical view of physics, a deeply spiritual understanding and a profound humanity. In the years before his death in 1992, Bohm lectured worldwide on the meaning of physics and consciousness.
We need to have a better understanding of the underlining laws of QM, I agree.
How far we can go with his view, I just do not want the pendulum to swing to far the other way. We know QM works and I hope this subject continues my hope is that we can find some concept, yes even on this forum that will bring understanding and the ability to make prediction based on the premise presented by data to support what is given.
Laserlight, glad you in on this, I think you give balance to all that is said on both sides of the paradox.
There are so many on the other pages that I hope will join in on the informative discussion with, C2, Good Elf, jal, Laserlight, TRoc, and many others.
What is impressive is that we all what to toss around different aspects/views and still stay focus on the task at hand.
ciao_
yquantum
Hi Jal, Yquantum, Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, Jal, bee, StevenA, AlphaNumeric, Laidback, zephir et al,
QUOTE (Yquantum+)
Great Job, Good Elf.
Just as an example of how productive it is using a simple law that some just do not understand.
Just as an example of how productive it is using a simple law that some just do not understand.
Thanks yquantum for the understanding. There has to be something simple in all this that othr people can understand and the simple transform is what might be able to be grasped. It is so gratifying when someone does "get it". It is not that easy making lucid arguments without having some very lucid questions. If anyone has a couple of those I would be very grateful. The better a question is put and the simpler the essentials, the easier it will be to pose answers ... that is if there are any to be had. Your confidence in this interpretation indicates others may also understand just what this is all about as well. I tried to pose a question lately but failed to do so, it was not able to capture the imagination. This thread seems to be better at the questions than other threads.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
That was very interesting and informative. Your explanation made sense....to a point.... (pun intended). [...] The 2D film is only recording the localized "spacially oriented" point source references over a single fixed time increment, as opposed to the hologram which is using a longer scan temporal reference in combination with multiple angular phase (scanned) reference point sources. More informational data available to the hologram image over a longer time base provides a more complete 3D image reproduction.
The point being that a 2D plane of reference will only convey a 2D reproduction of the image, whereas an XYZ reference + Time will provide a 3D image.
The point being that a 2D plane of reference will only convey a 2D reproduction of the image, whereas an XYZ reference + Time will provide a 3D image.
Yes you have a point there a standard Hologram will not record all that "additional data". An analogy is always an analogy when it all comes down to it. The glass plate Hologram and even the "dynamic" LCD Hologram are missing the extra data about other quantum properties. The real essence of the Holographic Universe is that it is in matter waves which are at far higher frequencies than optical frequencies where the simple Looking Glass World of Alice Liddell ends and Kondo Phantoms begin. Also the reciprocal nature of these spaces leads to an inverted sense of scale that is not conveyed by the "glass Hologram". Not only will these Holograms in higher dimensions be providing optical copies of real subjects in our "apparently real World" it also is providing real Physics as well. In this World the Physics is also duplicated by "optical effects" in the Holographic higher dimensional plane". The "strings" on the surface of a glass plate are not real "strings", they are arrangements of silver crystals. What I am proposing are dimensional hyper-surfaces on the bounding domains of light cones to provide these surfaces and tiny "deformations" in that "spacetime" surface which lead to the electric and magnetic effects we are seeing as "virtual photons" in our World... the forces. These events are on an unseen but immediately close brane wall of our Universe and give substance to our "reality". The boundary of the Universe is exceedingly "close" to us everywhere in "hyperspace". We are unable to actually see it directly. What we do see is that propagating electromagnetic "dual" wave that is like a "shadow on the wall" of our "empty spaces". It is difficult to show people this "wall" in the same way that the bug on the inside of a balloon keeps looking for a way out by walking in one direction or another forever.
QUOTE (Jal+)
I think that you have done a good job of explaining the current accepted way of thinking.
he he he... If what I am saying is the currently accepted way of thinking ... I will don saffron robes and head off into the mountains. 
It does give an alternative description to Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics using waves and not particles. This is not just a different "flavor", it is a way forward to view a "mechanism" behind the scenes that has always been there but not able to be immediately grasped. The complex Fourier Plane is very different from simple graphs on paper of sine and cosine waves. It has always been "lurking" in the background for a lot longer than any would care to admit. It is a difficult concept and no ordinary high school student would be able to adequately grasp it from the scholastic backgrounds that deliberately avoid this new level of complexity. Still it is able to be understood with the human mind. Maybe future schools will start with Fourier Theory and Holographic Theory and then move on to bigger and better things. For now we use one dimensional analogies and the concept of "forces" when what we may be able to grasp is actually geometry.
It does give an alternative description to Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics using waves and not particles. This is not just a different "flavor", it is a way forward to view a "mechanism" behind the scenes that has always been there but not able to be immediately grasped. The complex Fourier Plane is very different from simple graphs on paper of sine and cosine waves. It has always been "lurking" in the background for a lot longer than any would care to admit. It is a difficult concept and no ordinary high school student would be able to adequately grasp it from the scholastic backgrounds that deliberately avoid this new level of complexity. Still it is able to be understood with the human mind. Maybe future schools will start with Fourier Theory and Holographic Theory and then move on to bigger and better things. For now we use one dimensional analogies and the concept of "forces" when what we may be able to grasp is actually geometry.
QUOTE (Jal+)
Why are there still so may people trying to find another explanation?
They understand the current accepted way of thinking.
You left out some references which would affect your explanations.
Take the Afshar's Experiment at http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/Xafshar.html which demonstrates that ….
Heck with it … go read
They understand the current accepted way of thinking.
You left out some references which would affect your explanations.
Take the Afshar's Experiment at http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/Xafshar.html which demonstrates that ….
Heck with it … go read
You have a point and maybe I will need to modify a lot of what I am saying. This is only the first of what I suspect are many physical interpretations to come now that a possible physical interpretation is inspected by the bright minds out there. I see this part here is the hard bit which is the conceptual part that has been lacking in the past that has resulted in so much "mysticism" and "awe". Once we get over this awe and start to see the "woods for the trees" we will be able to sort out if that tree that has fallen in the forest without anyone noticing it really did fall after all.
I do not see any strong arguements refuting or supporting the esence of what I am saying in Afshar's Experiment. If you can point to a specific point I will respond.
Cheers
I do not see any strong arguements refuting or supporting the esence of what I am saying in Afshar's Experiment. If you can point to a specific point I will respond.
Cheers
Greetings!
The DSE is an experiment that splits our analysis .. our 'physics' into two paths and then allows those paths to merge again. Good Elf has spent a lot of time suggesting an explanation - in fairness to Good Elf, within my severe limitations, I am going to try to understand what he is saying.
I'll sum up some of my understanding of 'stuff' so all can see where I'm starting from. Please feel free to attack what I say .. none of it is 'my' theory .. I haven't got one.
To an extent we can use words to mean what they want them to mean but it is best to avoid confusion as far as possible. 'Wavefunction' has such an obvious meaning that I think it would be helpful if we try to be very clear about what we are talking about.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
In the formalism of quantum mechanics, the state of a system at a given time is described by a complex wave function (sometimes referred to as orbitals in the case of atomic electrons), and more generally, elements of a complex vector space . This abstract mathematical object allows for the calculation of probabilities of outcomes of concrete experiments. For example, it allows one to compute the probability of finding an electron in a particular region around the nucleus at a particular time. Contrary to classical mechanics, one cannot ever make simultaneous predictions of conjugate variables , such as position and momentum with arbitrary accuracy.
As yquantum has already suggested, perhaps we can call this the wavefunction-psi which is an abstract mathematical object which gives probabilities of outcomes .. it doesn't claim to do anything more or less than that. My understanding is that the wavefunction-psi has nothing to do with wave-particle duality, there is no photon in the wavefunction-psi .. all it does is predict the probability of interaction between (say) a photon and an electron. My understanding is that Fenman's 'sum over paths' at its limit is the prediction of the intensity at any point in the Universe due to an omnidirectional light source of brightness->infinity that remains 'on' forever. This is not counter to ordinary intuition in any way .. we would expect reflections and interferences from all sorts of odd sources to contribute to the result under those circumstances. What is counter to intuition is that a single photon source behaves in the same way. IMHO a laser is not an omnidirectional point source and I suspect we can consider that all probable paths lie pretty much in one dimension which greatly simplifies the path summation process.
We also have a Maxwell's equations type wave ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation
This (the EM-wave) does have a definite velocity. In the vicinity of the slits we are looking at here (as far as I know) most people admit there is a discontinuity which Huygens ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens-Fresnel_principle ) deals with so nicely that there is no point in trying to solve Maxwell's equations explicitly. The (Huygens) act of claiming a 'new source' (or any number of 'new sources' up to infinity) at a discontinuity loses the information about which way the wave is travelling. I've tried 'new sources' everywhere .. I'm told it should work but it doesn't work for me. I am very much against the use of 'spatial frequency' because it hides the underlying physics and the phase information which is the very thing we want when looking at (or for) interference.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman-Wheeler_theory
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics...an-lecture.html
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics...an-lecture.html
Suppose the source s surrounded by a spherical absorbing wall ten light seconds away, and that the test charge is one second to the right of the source. Then the source is as much as eleven seconds away from some parts of the wall and only nine seconds away from other parts. The source acting at time t=0 induces motions in the wall at time +10. Advanced effects from this can act on the test charge as early as eleven seconds earlier, or at t= -1. This is just at the time that the direct advanced waves from the source should reach the test charge, and it turns out the two effects are exactly equal and opposite and cancel out! At the later time +1 effects on the test charge from the source and from the walls are again equal, but this time are of the same sign and add to convert the half-retarded wave of the source to full retarded strength.
Thus, it became clear that there was the possibility that if we assume all actions are via half-advanced and half-retarded solutions of Maxwell's equations and assume that all sources are surrounded by material absorbing all the the light which is emitted, then we could account for radiation resistance as a direct action of the charges of the absorber acting back by advanced waves on the source.
First point .. I think Feynman-Wheeler is very strong medicine .. not to be taken lightly. I loosely spoke of a Wheeler-Feynman path to try to understand GE's point .. it might be helpful if GE defined : The Wheeler-Feynman path is:- in as few words as possible.
----------------------------
So far I'd say Feynman's 'sum over paths' comes out smiling. Poor old Maxwell has a bit of a problem with 'c' (too many many peaks).
-----------------------------
To Good Elf..
In reality the wave function is a particle version of the waves substituting a scalar Gaussian distribution for the Fourier pattern of the point source (a particle).
Please be specific when you write 'wave function' . Try Huygens out on a laser beam .. I couldn't keep my beam together.. how do you do it? I'm struggling with how and why of your spatial fourier transforms .. I think a point transforms to flat .. can you explain what happens when you replace this flat with a Gaussian .. and why?
-C2.
Edit.. AND another thing .. GE, please, once and for all, define what you mean by 'intensity'.
The DSE is an experiment that splits our analysis .. our 'physics' into two paths and then allows those paths to merge again. Good Elf has spent a lot of time suggesting an explanation - in fairness to Good Elf, within my severe limitations, I am going to try to understand what he is saying.
I'll sum up some of my understanding of 'stuff' so all can see where I'm starting from. Please feel free to attack what I say .. none of it is 'my' theory .. I haven't got one.
To an extent we can use words to mean what they want them to mean but it is best to avoid confusion as far as possible. 'Wavefunction' has such an obvious meaning that I think it would be helpful if we try to be very clear about what we are talking about.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
QUOTE (wiki+)
In the formalism of quantum mechanics, the state of a system at a given time is described by a complex wave function (sometimes referred to as orbitals in the case of atomic electrons), and more generally, elements of a complex vector space . This abstract mathematical object allows for the calculation of probabilities of outcomes of concrete experiments. For example, it allows one to compute the probability of finding an electron in a particular region around the nucleus at a particular time. Contrary to classical mechanics, one cannot ever make simultaneous predictions of conjugate variables , such as position and momentum with arbitrary accuracy.
As yquantum has already suggested, perhaps we can call this the wavefunction-psi which is an abstract mathematical object which gives probabilities of outcomes .. it doesn't claim to do anything more or less than that. My understanding is that the wavefunction-psi has nothing to do with wave-particle duality, there is no photon in the wavefunction-psi .. all it does is predict the probability of interaction between (say) a photon and an electron. My understanding is that Fenman's 'sum over paths' at its limit is the prediction of the intensity at any point in the Universe due to an omnidirectional light source of brightness->infinity that remains 'on' forever. This is not counter to ordinary intuition in any way .. we would expect reflections and interferences from all sorts of odd sources to contribute to the result under those circumstances. What is counter to intuition is that a single photon source behaves in the same way. IMHO a laser is not an omnidirectional point source and I suspect we can consider that all probable paths lie pretty much in one dimension which greatly simplifies the path summation process.
We also have a Maxwell's equations type wave ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation
This (the EM-wave) does have a definite velocity. In the vicinity of the slits we are looking at here (as far as I know) most people admit there is a discontinuity which Huygens ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens-Fresnel_principle ) deals with so nicely that there is no point in trying to solve Maxwell's equations explicitly. The (Huygens) act of claiming a 'new source' (or any number of 'new sources' up to infinity) at a discontinuity loses the information about which way the wave is travelling. I've tried 'new sources' everywhere .. I'm told it should work but it doesn't work for me. I am very much against the use of 'spatial frequency' because it hides the underlying physics and the phase information which is the very thing we want when looking at (or for) interference.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman-Wheeler_theory
QUOTE
In physics , Feynman-Wheeler theory is a nonlocal, Lorentz invariant , theory of electromagnetism in which charged particles do not act on themselves, but only on other particles. As a consequence, the motion of a charged particle depends on the past and future motions of all other charged particles. This fantastic theory avoids the problem of the self-mass of a charged particle, but requires considering future motions, and so is not commonly used.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics...an-lecture.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In physics , Feynman-Wheeler theory is a nonlocal, Lorentz invariant , theory of electromagnetism in which charged particles do not act on themselves, but only on other particles. As a consequence, the motion of a charged particle depends on the past and future motions of all other charged particles. This fantastic theory avoids the problem of the self-mass of a charged particle, but requires considering future motions, and so is not commonly used. |
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics...an-lecture.html
Suppose the source s surrounded by a spherical absorbing wall ten light seconds away, and that the test charge is one second to the right of the source. Then the source is as much as eleven seconds away from some parts of the wall and only nine seconds away from other parts. The source acting at time t=0 induces motions in the wall at time +10. Advanced effects from this can act on the test charge as early as eleven seconds earlier, or at t= -1. This is just at the time that the direct advanced waves from the source should reach the test charge, and it turns out the two effects are exactly equal and opposite and cancel out! At the later time +1 effects on the test charge from the source and from the walls are again equal, but this time are of the same sign and add to convert the half-retarded wave of the source to full retarded strength.
Thus, it became clear that there was the possibility that if we assume all actions are via half-advanced and half-retarded solutions of Maxwell's equations and assume that all sources are surrounded by material absorbing all the the light which is emitted, then we could account for radiation resistance as a direct action of the charges of the absorber acting back by advanced waves on the source.
First point .. I think Feynman-Wheeler is very strong medicine .. not to be taken lightly. I loosely spoke of a Wheeler-Feynman path to try to understand GE's point .. it might be helpful if GE defined : The Wheeler-Feynman path is:- in as few words as possible.
----------------------------
So far I'd say Feynman's 'sum over paths' comes out smiling. Poor old Maxwell has a bit of a problem with 'c' (too many many peaks).
-----------------------------
To Good Elf..
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
In reality the wave function is a particle version of the waves substituting a scalar Gaussian distribution for the Fourier pattern of the point source (a particle).
Please be specific when you write 'wave function' . Try Huygens out on a laser beam .. I couldn't keep my beam together.. how do you do it? I'm struggling with how and why of your spatial fourier transforms .. I think a point transforms to flat .. can you explain what happens when you replace this flat with a Gaussian .. and why?
-C2.
Edit.. AND another thing .. GE, please, once and for all, define what you mean by 'intensity'.
Good Day All!
If this keeps up ...
.......Where no man has gone before!.............
jal
If this keeps up ...
.......Where no man has gone before!.............
jal
Hi Confused2,
I will read your story tomorrow. I will have a bit of a sleep now. Any probing arguments are welcome... I am sure there will be some and I am sure there are valid points. Physics is my "hobby" since I am not being paid for this so I fit it in outside of everything else (... on the Brane wall). You are right about the wavefunction psi and its representation of probability. It is a very sore point. Any probability function will not be "physics" as I have pointed out before, it is a roll of the dice or it is the statistical action of large populations, it gives no sure individual actions. Yes they are waves of "nothing" and yet something has values that are changing like sinewaves in space. As I have also said you cannot map the space of quantum physics on top of the space we drive our cars over. They are basically incompatible, no yardsticks you see. This is why Bohmian Mechanics is so good with its configuration space. More later.
Cheers
I will read your story tomorrow. I will have a bit of a sleep now. Any probing arguments are welcome... I am sure there will be some and I am sure there are valid points. Physics is my "hobby" since I am not being paid for this so I fit it in outside of everything else (... on the Brane wall).
You are right about the wavefunction psi and its representation of probability. It is a very sore point. Any probability function will not be "physics" as I have pointed out before, it is a roll of the dice or it is the statistical action of large populations, it gives no sure individual actions. Yes they are waves of "nothing" and yet something has values that are changing like sinewaves in space. As I have also said you cannot map the space of quantum physics on top of the space we drive our cars over. They are basically incompatible, no yardsticks you see. This is why Bohmian Mechanics is so good with its configuration space. More later.Cheers
Good Elf, C2, T.Roc, Yquantum, Zephir, and All,
I propose that our model of a sine wave function is inadequate, because it is based on a 2D
representative value coordinate system. What am I inferring? We represent a wave function
as a 2D curved mathematical ratio process. However, the electron movement in an atom that
generates the photon wave function is moving in a complex 3D plane of existence over a time
interval.
How do you faithfully represent a 4D spacially oriented "volume" dislocation quantity
using a 2 dimensional (plus time=3D) vector based mathematical model?
The easiest way to illustrate what I am proposing is that in order to fully represent the spacial "volumetric"
quality of the relationship of the lateral displacement of the interacting electrical and magnetic
fields generated by a photon, is to use a 3D complex convex wave function that transforms into
a 3D complex concave wave function representation, over a wave length time interval. An easy to
understand analogy is that instead of representing the electric field as a piece of curved limp
spaghetti to represent a sine wave, is that we use a linearly bisected solid tube of very long limp
macaroni as a representation of a sine wave. Basically we get a 3 dimensional complex,
curved wave function with a helical twist as it approaches the zero line, that
represents the electrical and magnetic moments of the actual wave form "volumetric" displacement with time that is
also represented on the y plane and z plane as well as that represented on the x plane. After all,
can’t a fixed point in space that is referenced to an XYZ coordinate system be considered as a
linear time function (X), a vertical time function (Y), and lateral time function (Z) to represent
a volumetric displacement value when referenced to a zero time point of origin? You mathematicians can
chime in to correct any misconception on my part, but I think you see what I am trying to conceptualize.
We are not merely looking at a circular relationship, we
are looking at a spherical (volumetric) dislocation relationship of the EM fields
over time.
Does anyone have the graphics and mathematical skills to design such a 3D
curved, helically twisted, wave function, or have a gif that displays it?
Does what I’m proposing make sense, or is it already part of the EM field relationship equation?
Hmmmm, for some strange reason I’ve developed a ravenous desire for Italian food. LOL!
LL
I propose that our model of a sine wave function is inadequate, because it is based on a 2D
representative value coordinate system. What am I inferring? We represent a wave function
as a 2D curved mathematical ratio process. However, the electron movement in an atom that
generates the photon wave function is moving in a complex 3D plane of existence over a time
interval.
How do you faithfully represent a 4D spacially oriented "volume" dislocation quantity
using a 2 dimensional (plus time=3D) vector based mathematical model?
The easiest way to illustrate what I am proposing is that in order to fully represent the spacial "volumetric"
quality of the relationship of the lateral displacement of the interacting electrical and magnetic
fields generated by a photon, is to use a 3D complex convex wave function that transforms into
a 3D complex concave wave function representation, over a wave length time interval. An easy to
understand analogy is that instead of representing the electric field as a piece of curved limp
spaghetti to represent a sine wave, is that we use a linearly bisected solid tube of very long limp
macaroni as a representation of a sine wave. Basically we get a 3 dimensional complex,
curved wave function with a helical twist as it approaches the zero line, that
represents the electrical and magnetic moments of the actual wave form "volumetric" displacement with time that is
also represented on the y plane and z plane as well as that represented on the x plane. After all,
can’t a fixed point in space that is referenced to an XYZ coordinate system be considered as a
linear time function (X), a vertical time function (Y), and lateral time function (Z) to represent
a volumetric displacement value when referenced to a zero time point of origin? You mathematicians can
chime in to correct any misconception on my part, but I think you see what I am trying to conceptualize.
We are not merely looking at a circular relationship, we
are looking at a spherical (volumetric) dislocation relationship of the EM fields
over time.
Does anyone have the graphics and mathematical skills to design such a 3D
curved, helically twisted, wave function, or have a gif that displays it?
Does what I’m proposing make sense, or is it already part of the EM field relationship equation?
Hmmmm, for some strange reason I’ve developed a ravenous desire for Italian food. LOL!
LL
QUOTE (jal+Nov 18 2006, 04:33 PM)
Good Day All!
If this keeps up ...
.......Where no man has gone before!.............
jal
Where no Good Elf has gone before! ......
If this keeps up ...
.......Where no man has gone before!.............
jal
Where no Good Elf has gone before! ......
Hi LL,
Wavefunction .. (sniff) .. EM wave .. Elf packet?
I regret to suggest it .. but this might help..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=56843
The whole thread
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=56831
might be of interest .. do restart it if you wish.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Wavefunction .. (sniff) .. EM wave .. Elf packet?
I regret to suggest it .. but this might help..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=56843
The whole thread
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=56831
might be of interest .. do restart it if you wish.
Best wishes,
-C2.
QUOTE (Laserlight+Nov 18 2006, 10:39 PM)
.. sine wave function is inadequate, because it is based on a 2D representative value coordinate system..
The sine wave is inadequate simple because it's expecting the environment with constant density, which never exists in the Nature, in fact.. Whereas the quantum wave is the wave in the environment, where the mass density is proportional to wave energy density by E=mc^2 in each moment or location, i.e. like at the case of soap foam in vacuum or supercritical condensing vapor. Therefore, such foam is the result of another particle field fluctuations. And these particles are result of another foam fluctuations, recursively.
You can forget the holograms and other GoofElf's nonsences without problem, the explanation of quantum wave can be much more easier.
The sine wave is inadequate simple because it's expecting the environment with constant density, which never exists in the Nature, in fact.. Whereas the quantum wave is the wave in the environment, where the mass density is proportional to wave energy density by E=mc^2 in each moment or location, i.e. like at the case of soap foam in vacuum or supercritical condensing vapor. Therefore, such foam is the result of another particle field fluctuations. And these particles are result of another foam fluctuations, recursively.
You can forget the holograms and other GoofElf's nonsences without problem, the explanation of quantum wave can be much more easier.
I knew it was a mistake. 
Zephir,
Re-read my edited post. I tried to simplify my conceptualization.
Volumetric space electro-magnetic interactions require volumetric equations
to represent their spacial displacement relationship. Instead of using a
circle, we need to use a sphere to represent the spacial dislocation ratios.
C2
Re-read my edited post. I tried to simplify my conceptualization.
Volumetric space electro-magnetic interactions require volumetric equations
to represent their spacial displacement relationship. Instead of using a
circle, we need to use a sphere to represent the spacial dislocation ratios.
C2
I knew it was a mistake.
LL
QUOTE
The sine wave is inadequate simple because it's expecting the environment with constant density, which never exists in the Nature, in fact.. Whereas the quantum wave is the wave in the environment, where the density is proportional to wave energy density in each moment or location, i.e. like at the case of soap foam in soap or supercritical condensing vapor. Therefore, such foam is the result of another particle field fluctuations. And these particles are result of another foam fluctuations, recursively.
Re-read my edited post. I tried to simplify my conceptualization.
Volumetric space electro-magnetic interactions require volumetric equations
to represent their spacial displacement relationship. Instead of using a
circle, we need to use a sphere to represent the spacial dislocation ratios.
C2
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The sine wave is inadequate simple because it's expecting the environment with constant density, which never exists in the Nature, in fact.. Whereas the quantum wave is the wave in the environment, where the density is proportional to wave energy density in each moment or location, i.e. like at the case of soap foam in soap or supercritical condensing vapor. Therefore, such foam is the result of another particle field fluctuations. And these particles are result of another foam fluctuations, recursively. |
Re-read my edited post. I tried to simplify my conceptualization.
Volumetric space electro-magnetic interactions require volumetric equations
to represent their spacial displacement relationship. Instead of using a
circle, we need to use a sphere to represent the spacial dislocation ratios.
C2
I knew it was a mistake.
LL
Hi Jal, Yquantum, Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, Jal, bee, StevenA, AlphaNumeric, Laidback, zephir et al,
For a perspective on some of this please read this paper (I know I will
)...
The World as a Hologram: Leonard Susskind
This is someone that everyone should respect... the Father of String Theory. I do diverge from this idea since I have a "different interpretation" in respect of the connection between dimensions and reciprocal space and time do not lead to a "Planck Length" concept.
You may notice that in "my Universe" particles shrink in size as speed increases toward light speed (especially in the direction of motion for particles and for EM sources where their wavelength or their emissions shrinks to near zero as v -> ©)... if we consider photon wave packets in the lateral directions perpendicular to motion they spread as if on the surface of a sphere... And this is generally an expression of de Broglies Hypothesis in a reciprocal space or apparent flatspace respectively. The world lines of particles broaden as an observer comes close to the inertial frame of reference of a particle until they fill all local space when "at true rest" in the particle frame. Of course with light we are "always at rest" no matter what our state of motion and so this "particle" is continually "filling all local space" at the speed of light. I do not consider that light is "traveling" in space, its velocity is just an expression of the global geometry of the space. This is the "principle" of Einstein's Special Relativity. SR is a rotation in "hyperspace" away from our plane by up to π/2 radians and contracting apparent length and freezing time in the process. Here is de Broglie's relationship again.
... and this related paper...
You may notice that in "my Universe" particles shrink in size as speed increases toward light speed (especially in the direction of motion for particles and for EM sources where their wavelength or their emissions shrinks to near zero as v -> ©)... if we consider photon wave packets in the lateral directions perpendicular to motion they spread as if on the surface of a sphere... And this is generally an expression of de Broglies Hypothesis in a reciprocal space or apparent flatspace respectively. The world lines of particles broaden as an observer comes close to the inertial frame of reference of a particle until they fill all local space when "at true rest" in the particle frame. Of course with light we are "always at rest" no matter what our state of motion and so this "particle" is continually "filling all local space" at the speed of light. I do not consider that light is "traveling" in space, its velocity is just an expression of the global geometry of the space. This is the "principle" of Einstein's Special Relativity. SR is a rotation in "hyperspace" away from our plane by up to π/2 radians and contracting apparent length and freezing time in the process. Here is de Broglie's relationship again.
... and this related paper...
Black Hole Evaporation without Information Loss
Authors: C.R. Stephens, G. 't Hooft, B.F. Whiting
Comments: 35 pages (including Figures); TEX, 3 figures in postscript
Report-no: THU-93/20; UF-RAP-93-11
Journal-ref: Class.Quant.Grav. 11 (1994) 621-648
An approach to black hole quantization is proposed wherein it is assumed that quantum coherence is preserved. A consequence of this is that the Penrose diagram describing gravitational collapse will show the same topological structure as flat Minkowski space. After giving our motivations for such a quantization procedure we formulate the background field approximation, in which particles are divided into "hard" particles and "soft" particles. The background space-time metric depends both on the in-states and on the out-states. We present some model calculations and extensive discussions. In particular, we show, in the context of a toy model, that the $S$-matrix describing soft particles in the hard particle background of a collapsing star is unitary, nevertheless, the spectrum of particles is shown to be approximately thermal. We also conclude that there is an important topological constraint on functional integrals.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9310006
Of course I would also suggest reading the two Juan Maldacena references...
The Illusion of Gravity: Juan Maldacena, Scientific American
... and ...
Physorg... Are we inside a Black Hole: The elephant and the event horizon @ 26 October 2006 NS
Cheers
For a perspective on some of this please read this paper (I know I will
)...The World as a Hologram: Leonard Susskind
This is someone that everyone should respect... the Father of String Theory. I do diverge from this idea since I have a "different interpretation" in respect of the connection between dimensions and reciprocal space and time do not lead to a "Planck Length" concept.
QUOTE
The World as a Hologram
Authors: L. Susskind
Comments: SU-ITP-94-33, phyzzx, 33 pages and 5 figures (Some typos fixed and one reference added.)
Journal-ref: J.Math.Phys. 36 (1995) 6377-6396
According to 't Hooft the combination of quantum mechanics and gravity requires the three dimensional world to be an image of data that can be stored on a two dimensional projection much like a holographic image. The two dimensional description only requires one discrete degree of freedom per Planck area and yet it is rich enough to describe all three dimensional phenomena. After outlining 't Hooft's proposal I give a preliminary informal description of how it may be implemented. One finds a basic requirement that particles must grow in size as their momenta are increased far above the Planck scale. The consequences for high energy particle collisions are described. The phenomena of particle growth with momentum was previously discussed in the context of string theory and was related to information spreading near black hole horizons. The considerations of this paper indicate that the effect is much more rapid at all but the earliest times. In fact the rate of spreading is found to saturate the bound from causality. Finally we consider string theory as a possible realization of 't Hooft's idea. The light front lattice string model of Klebanov and Susskind is reviewed and its similarities with the holographic theory are demonstrated. The agreement between the two requires unproven but plausible assumptions about the nonperturbative behavior of string theory. Very similar ideas to those in this paper have been long held by Charles Thorn.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9409089
Authors: L. Susskind
Comments: SU-ITP-94-33, phyzzx, 33 pages and 5 figures (Some typos fixed and one reference added.)
Journal-ref: J.Math.Phys. 36 (1995) 6377-6396
According to 't Hooft the combination of quantum mechanics and gravity requires the three dimensional world to be an image of data that can be stored on a two dimensional projection much like a holographic image. The two dimensional description only requires one discrete degree of freedom per Planck area and yet it is rich enough to describe all three dimensional phenomena. After outlining 't Hooft's proposal I give a preliminary informal description of how it may be implemented. One finds a basic requirement that particles must grow in size as their momenta are increased far above the Planck scale. The consequences for high energy particle collisions are described. The phenomena of particle growth with momentum was previously discussed in the context of string theory and was related to information spreading near black hole horizons. The considerations of this paper indicate that the effect is much more rapid at all but the earliest times. In fact the rate of spreading is found to saturate the bound from causality. Finally we consider string theory as a possible realization of 't Hooft's idea. The light front lattice string model of Klebanov and Susskind is reviewed and its similarities with the holographic theory are demonstrated. The agreement between the two requires unproven but plausible assumptions about the nonperturbative behavior of string theory. Very similar ideas to those in this paper have been long held by Charles Thorn.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9409089
You may notice that in "my Universe" particles shrink in size as speed increases toward light speed (especially in the direction of motion for particles and for EM sources where their wavelength or their emissions shrinks to near zero as v -> ©)... if we consider photon wave packets in the lateral directions perpendicular to motion they spread as if on the surface of a sphere... And this is generally an expression of de Broglies Hypothesis in a reciprocal space or apparent flatspace respectively. The world lines of particles broaden as an observer comes close to the inertial frame of reference of a particle until they fill all local space when "at true rest" in the particle frame. Of course with light we are "always at rest" no matter what our state of motion and so this "particle" is continually "filling all local space" at the speed of light. I do not consider that light is "traveling" in space, its velocity is just an expression of the global geometry of the space. This is the "principle" of Einstein's Special Relativity. SR is a rotation in "hyperspace" away from our plane by up to π/2 radians and contracting apparent length and freezing time in the process. Here is de Broglie's relationship again.
... and this related paper...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The World as a Hologram Authors: L. Susskind Comments: SU-ITP-94-33, phyzzx, 33 pages and 5 figures (Some typos fixed and one reference added.) Journal-ref: J.Math.Phys. 36 (1995) 6377-6396 According to 't Hooft the combination of quantum mechanics and gravity requires the three dimensional world to be an image of data that can be stored on a two dimensional projection much like a holographic image. The two dimensional description only requires one discrete degree of freedom per Planck area and yet it is rich enough to describe all three dimensional phenomena. After outlining 't Hooft's proposal I give a preliminary informal description of how it may be implemented. One finds a basic requirement that particles must grow in size as their momenta are increased far above the Planck scale. The consequences for high energy particle collisions are described. The phenomena of particle growth with momentum was previously discussed in the context of string theory and was related to information spreading near black hole horizons. The considerations of this paper indicate that the effect is much more rapid at all but the earliest times. In fact the rate of spreading is found to saturate the bound from causality. Finally we consider string theory as a possible realization of 't Hooft's idea. The light front lattice string model of Klebanov and Susskind is reviewed and its similarities with the holographic theory are demonstrated. The agreement between the two requires unproven but plausible assumptions about the nonperturbative behavior of string theory. Very similar ideas to those in this paper have been long held by Charles Thorn. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9409089 |
You may notice that in "my Universe" particles shrink in size as speed increases toward light speed (especially in the direction of motion for particles and for EM sources where their wavelength or their emissions shrinks to near zero as v -> ©)... if we consider photon wave packets in the lateral directions perpendicular to motion they spread as if on the surface of a sphere... And this is generally an expression of de Broglies Hypothesis in a reciprocal space or apparent flatspace respectively. The world lines of particles broaden as an observer comes close to the inertial frame of reference of a particle until they fill all local space when "at true rest" in the particle frame. Of course with light we are "always at rest" no matter what our state of motion and so this "particle" is continually "filling all local space" at the speed of light. I do not consider that light is "traveling" in space, its velocity is just an expression of the global geometry of the space. This is the "principle" of Einstein's Special Relativity. SR is a rotation in "hyperspace" away from our plane by up to π/2 radians and contracting apparent length and freezing time in the process. Here is de Broglie's relationship again.
... and this related paper...
Black Hole Evaporation without Information Loss
Authors: C.R. Stephens, G. 't Hooft, B.F. Whiting
Comments: 35 pages (including Figures); TEX, 3 figures in postscript
Report-no: THU-93/20; UF-RAP-93-11
Journal-ref: Class.Quant.Grav. 11 (1994) 621-648
An approach to black hole quantization is proposed wherein it is assumed that quantum coherence is preserved. A consequence of this is that the Penrose diagram describing gravitational collapse will show the same topological structure as flat Minkowski space. After giving our motivations for such a quantization procedure we formulate the background field approximation, in which particles are divided into "hard" particles and "soft" particles. The background space-time metric depends both on the in-states and on the out-states. We present some model calculations and extensive discussions. In particular, we show, in the context of a toy model, that the $S$-matrix describing soft particles in the hard particle background of a collapsing star is unitary, nevertheless, the spectrum of particles is shown to be approximately thermal. We also conclude that there is an important topological constraint on functional integrals.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9310006
Of course I would also suggest reading the two Juan Maldacena references...
The Illusion of Gravity: Juan Maldacena, Scientific American
... and ...
Physorg... Are we inside a Black Hole: The elephant and the event horizon @ 26 October 2006 NS
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
Para 1)
We have a region of the universe which I will call region A .. it contains a source of light (eg a laser)
We have a region of the universe which I will call region B which is only connected to region A by a slit which I will call S1
We have a region of the universe which I will call region C which is only connected to region A by a slit which I will call S2
Region B = Region C
Para 2)
To determine the pattern of light on a screen in the B=C region it would seem we only need some simple mathematics and a knowledge of the wavelength of the source, the width of the slits, the distance between the slits and the distance from the slits ato the screen in region B=C. We may imagine ourselves as observers in the B=C region with an option to check out the A region if we wish.
Para 3)
Under the cirrcumstances Occam's razor must stand in for the Sword of Truth because the Sword of Truth is unavailable to us at this point in time.
Para 4)
Maxwells equations (by my analysis) would seem to fail tio predict the result correctly
By my analysis QM predicts the result correctly if (and only if) we are happy with a statistical result
Para 7)
GE theory does not yet seem to have addressed the problem in a way that the information given in Para 2) can be used to predict the observed effect. I suggest that the GE definition of intensity would be most helpful to us all and perhaps assist a wandering Elf to focus more closely on the DSE as described in my paras 1) and 2).
-C2.
Para 1)
We have a region of the universe which I will call region A .. it contains a source of light (eg a laser)
We have a region of the universe which I will call region B which is only connected to region A by a slit which I will call S1
We have a region of the universe which I will call region C which is only connected to region A by a slit which I will call S2
Region B = Region C
Para 2)
To determine the pattern of light on a screen in the B=C region it would seem we only need some simple mathematics and a knowledge of the wavelength of the source, the width of the slits, the distance between the slits and the distance from the slits ato the screen in region B=C. We may imagine ourselves as observers in the B=C region with an option to check out the A region if we wish.
Para 3)
Under the cirrcumstances Occam's razor must stand in for the Sword of Truth because the Sword of Truth is unavailable to us at this point in time.
Para 4)
Maxwells equations (by my analysis) would seem to fail tio predict the result correctly
By my analysis QM predicts the result correctly if (and only if) we are happy with a statistical result
Para 7)
GE theory does not yet seem to have addressed the problem in a way that the information given in Para 2) can be used to predict the observed effect. I suggest that the GE definition of intensity would be most helpful to us all and perhaps assist a wandering Elf to focus more closely on the DSE as described in my paras 1) and 2).
-C2.
QUOTE (wesden+May 18 2006, 02:08 AM)
I have a thought on the two slit experiment with an electron. What if I set up the two slit experiment so I indirectly measure whether an electron passes through one slit or the other slit, but rather than observing the measurement, I simply have the equipment record the result. After the experiment runs for a period of time I look at the screen recording the result of my experiment. The result will either be an interference pattern or it will indicate a result showing that the electrons discretely passed through one slit or the other slit.
If it is an interference pattern, I will then examine the results of my recording device. The recording device will have to show me that the electrons passed through one slit or the other, which then means I cannot have found an interference pattern. If it is a pattern showing the discrete passage of electrons through one slit or the other, then I destroy the record of my measurement equipment, which means that I will never have observed the results so that then I should have found an interference pattern on the screen.
How is this possible?
Dear Wesden,
I take my hat off to you, with only a single post you have started one of the largest threads.
We are dealing with random single events over a large period of time.
In quantum mechanics random single events over a large period of time - soon becomes an infinite number of single events because of quantum fluctuations.
Performing a quantum mechanics experiment with only a single sample set, provides no valid or constructive information.
There is nothing wrong with the physics, its the experiment which is flawed.
Regards
Terry Giblin
I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it........
If it is an interference pattern, I will then examine the results of my recording device. The recording device will have to show me that the electrons passed through one slit or the other, which then means I cannot have found an interference pattern. If it is a pattern showing the discrete passage of electrons through one slit or the other, then I destroy the record of my measurement equipment, which means that I will never have observed the results so that then I should have found an interference pattern on the screen.
How is this possible?
Dear Wesden,
I take my hat off to you, with only a single post you have started one of the largest threads.
We are dealing with random single events over a large period of time.
In quantum mechanics random single events over a large period of time - soon becomes an infinite number of single events because of quantum fluctuations.
Performing a quantum mechanics experiment with only a single sample set, provides no valid or constructive information.
There is nothing wrong with the physics, its the experiment which is flawed.
Regards
Terry Giblin
I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it........
HiConfused2,
The real function is a complex plane function and it extends to + and - infinity in all directions and looks something like this...
Only this is a inner product as shown and is not the true complex function. Notice though this is in two dimensions... like a sombrero with a really wide brim... So called point sources (which are really extended sources) are three dimensional equivalents ... still complex extending in additional complex directions of ijk as well as the well known xyz. A two dimensional case is the image on the screen of a dual slit experiment.
Three Experiments in One
What we see is a special form of this "adapted" for only the Y direction. This is like looking "down" on the slits from the Z direction while the light falls on the slit from the X direction.
We have this geometry for the slit...
Where b is the slit width and h is the slit spacing.
A more general approach is more complicated but possible.
FRESNEL-KIRCHHOFF DIFFRACTION THEORY.
What needs to be understood is not exactly what the terms all mean and when the approximations are relevant, it is the principle behind this process that is important and it is possible to show this in this part of the offering as above...
Diffraction and the Fraunhofer Plane
In this case the simplified result can be practically applied to a "landscape" (in principle) with as many sources as you would want and to a level of accuracy that adequately resolves the problem in question.
In the particular case we have for the DSE...
So, to solve this problem, we integrate over each slit individually and add them together which makes sense intuitively as well. The solution to this integral, with N number of slits of width b and separation h, is also similar to the solution of the single slit problem, with a few extra terms of course, and looks like this:
To provide the wavepackets required for this discussion you should use that web page described earlier...
Three Experiments in One
This contains the correct sync function to sum over any "normal" geometric problem adequately (see some gotchas below).
It can also be characterized by a Fourier integral and believe it or not it is the expression for the diffraction pattern at the Fraunhofer plane
... explained in the "Three Experiments in one" link above...
This is specialized for the conditions stated there. Note the theory is quite complex and there are zonal variation in treatment see this reference...
Scalar Diffraction Theory
You just got to simply accept that the calculations are not the important part. Physicists are not paid to calculate anymore they are supposed to think and let computers actually work out the details. What is important for practical physics professionals would be to use the tools that we have available. I do not have tools either so this is academic for me. In principle I understand what to do in a complex problem... that is good enough.
The principle is to have a general three dimensional complex function for the "template" relevant for the optical zone of interest and pick the scale of the function to use and then construct whatever it is that you require from "primitives" using the rules of construction. This is simply for the electrodynamic solutions and accuracy is required in all measurements. The construction from adjacent primitives in a three dimensional landscape will give the results you require knowing that appropriate complex aperture function. Remember you must sum all paths as far as possible since "resonances" will potentially affect the result anywhere. With large image planes keystoning effects and partial reflection will need to be accounted for. There may be secondary sources even within the cavity in practice. The more calculations done the better the result (in principle) but you do not get special brownie points for doing them personally. It is not that differnt from the exercise using the program with Feynman Electrodynamics, only for "real" conditions in three dimensions.
This is another reference from a similar source that you may find helpful.
Single Slit
To do this properly you need to actually spend a few hundred dollars on reprints in this area orthere may be some texts as well that may help or the benefit of a learned institution to boot with the correct "access".
Cheers
QUOTE
Para 1)
We have a region of the universe which I will call region A .. it contains a source of light (eg a laser)
We have a region of the universe which I will call region B which is only connected to region A by a slit which I will call S1
We have a region of the universe which I will call region C which is only connected to region A by a slit which I will call S2
Region B = Region C
Para 2)
To determine the pattern of light on a screen in the B=C region it would seem we only need some simple mathematics and a knowledge of the wavelength of the source, the width of the slits, the distance between the slits and the distance from the slits to the screen in region B=C. We may imagine ourselves as observers in the B=C region with an option to check out the A region if we wish.
Yes... and your point is? We have discussed how you do thins for this simple experiment. We have the complex version of this function in three dimensional space and its "projection on the screen".We have a region of the universe which I will call region A .. it contains a source of light (eg a laser)
We have a region of the universe which I will call region B which is only connected to region A by a slit which I will call S1
We have a region of the universe which I will call region C which is only connected to region A by a slit which I will call S2
Region B = Region C
Para 2)
To determine the pattern of light on a screen in the B=C region it would seem we only need some simple mathematics and a knowledge of the wavelength of the source, the width of the slits, the distance between the slits and the distance from the slits to the screen in region B=C. We may imagine ourselves as observers in the B=C region with an option to check out the A region if we wish.
The real function is a complex plane function and it extends to + and - infinity in all directions and looks something like this...
Only this is a inner product as shown and is not the true complex function. Notice though this is in two dimensions... like a sombrero with a really wide brim... So called point sources (which are really extended sources) are three dimensional equivalents ... still complex extending in additional complex directions of ijk as well as the well known xyz. A two dimensional case is the image on the screen of a dual slit experiment.
Three Experiments in One
What we see is a special form of this "adapted" for only the Y direction. This is like looking "down" on the slits from the Z direction while the light falls on the slit from the X direction.
We have this geometry for the slit...
Where b is the slit width and h is the slit spacing.
A more general approach is more complicated but possible.
FRESNEL-KIRCHHOFF DIFFRACTION THEORY.
What needs to be understood is not exactly what the terms all mean and when the approximations are relevant, it is the principle behind this process that is important and it is possible to show this in this part of the offering as above...
Diffraction and the Fraunhofer Plane
In this case the simplified result can be practically applied to a "landscape" (in principle) with as many sources as you would want and to a level of accuracy that adequately resolves the problem in question.
In the particular case we have for the DSE...
So, to solve this problem, we integrate over each slit individually and add them together which makes sense intuitively as well. The solution to this integral, with N number of slits of width b and separation h, is also similar to the solution of the single slit problem, with a few extra terms of course, and looks like this:
To provide the wavepackets required for this discussion you should use that web page described earlier...
Three Experiments in One
This contains the correct sync function to sum over any "normal" geometric problem adequately (see some gotchas below).
It can also be characterized by a Fourier integral and believe it or not it is the expression for the diffraction pattern at the Fraunhofer plane
... explained in the "Three Experiments in one" link above...
This is specialized for the conditions stated there. Note the theory is quite complex and there are zonal variation in treatment see this reference...
Scalar Diffraction Theory
You just got to simply accept that the calculations are not the important part. Physicists are not paid to calculate anymore they are supposed to think and let computers actually work out the details. What is important for practical physics professionals would be to use the tools that we have available. I do not have tools either so this is academic for me. In principle I understand what to do in a complex problem... that is good enough.
The principle is to have a general three dimensional complex function for the "template" relevant for the optical zone of interest and pick the scale of the function to use and then construct whatever it is that you require from "primitives" using the rules of construction. This is simply for the electrodynamic solutions and accuracy is required in all measurements. The construction from adjacent primitives in a three dimensional landscape will give the results you require knowing that appropriate complex aperture function. Remember you must sum all paths as far as possible since "resonances" will potentially affect the result anywhere. With large image planes keystoning effects and partial reflection will need to be accounted for. There may be secondary sources even within the cavity in practice. The more calculations done the better the result (in principle) but you do not get special brownie points for doing them personally. It is not that differnt from the exercise using the program with Feynman Electrodynamics, only for "real" conditions in three dimensions.
This is another reference from a similar source that you may find helpful.
Single Slit
To do this properly you need to actually spend a few hundred dollars on reprints in this area orthere may be some texts as well that may help or the benefit of a learned institution to boot with the correct "access".
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
Actually trying something can often be very helpful.
I'm not quite sure what I'm supposed to be doing here. Can we start with the simplest case .. no slit, just a flat piece of paper.. I couldn't make anything work except with a point source assumption .. which I don't think you agree with. Help please. As I understand it (could well be wrong) the photon arrives 'as sent' .. I can't see how to reclaim the original photon from the result on the screen or quite what the result now represents. Flat screen should help to clarify this.
Many thanks,
-C2.
Actually trying something can often be very helpful.
I'm not quite sure what I'm supposed to be doing here. Can we start with the simplest case .. no slit, just a flat piece of paper.. I couldn't make anything work except with a point source assumption .. which I don't think you agree with. Help please. As I understand it (could well be wrong) the photon arrives 'as sent' .. I can't see how to reclaim the original photon from the result on the screen or quite what the result now represents. Flat screen should help to clarify this.
Many thanks,
-C2.
Dear Good Elf,
As I also discovered there are two separate but accepted definitions of Quantum Tunneling, depending if are talking about QM or STM, which confused me greatly.
A local leading Prof. kindly explained the difference between the two definitions, using a similar diagram, Time and Spatial Domain and Frequency Domain.
In QM - Quantum Tunneling is a random process - Frequency domain
In STM - Quantum Tunneling is said to occur when an electron appears - Time Domain.
Frequency (Probability) Domain or Time (Binary) Domain, both result in an electron appearing.
The Time Domain, is a single event or a subset of the Frequency Domain.
Regards
Terry Giblin
As I also discovered there are two separate but accepted definitions of Quantum Tunneling, depending if are talking about QM or STM, which confused me greatly.
A local leading Prof. kindly explained the difference between the two definitions, using a similar diagram, Time and Spatial Domain and Frequency Domain.
In QM - Quantum Tunneling is a random process - Frequency domain
In STM - Quantum Tunneling is said to occur when an electron appears - Time Domain.
Frequency (Probability) Domain or Time (Binary) Domain, both result in an electron appearing.
The Time Domain, is a single event or a subset of the Frequency Domain.
Regards
Terry Giblin
Hi Confused2,
Case 2... replace this otherwise excellent converging lens with a very small pinhole any distance you like from the screen. The effect of the pinhole is to effectively "stop down" the lens you previously had until it is simply a tiny circular aperture at the center. Instead of "converging" rays from over an extended lens of large diameter, what we now have is a lens of small aperture of any focal length you choose (this is because the only rays that are passing it all pass through the center of this tiny pinhole "virtually" parallel... thus it "converges" anywhere apparently as "rays"). Put this tiny pinhole "lens" at the same distance from the backing screen as the previous big lens and it is naturally surrounded by a blocking mask extending through the entire plane. What do you see on the screen? You see an image of the source.... much fainter than the first since less light is being used but the same photons are being used at the center and none of the photons are used from any other position out from that center. The image is inverted but otherwise the same as if you were looking at that image outside. A close examination of the fine structure of these images will reveal a fraunhofer pattern a circularly symmetric zone of concentric rings.
Only a "perfectly circular" source that is very small will look much better than this 'actual" practical pinhole. still... any pinhole can be 'constructed' by a series of even smaller pinholes clustered within the first larger pinhole.
Case 3, place another source out there in that big vast universe without any other sources in both of the previous cases what will you see on the screen? Now you will see two images of the two different sources converged on the image plane. Provided the distance between them is large and the angular separation is relatively low, you will get two patterns like the one above. These are both independent sinc functions. Do you have a double slit experiment? No... because these are not the same source. What will it take to make this into a double slit experiment? Nothing less than either two perfectly synchronized coherent sources (phase in time and distance) or two pinholes in a card placed at the appropriate distance illuminated by one coherent source.
In the first case with two independent unrelated sources what happens when the angular separation is reduced?... nothing much until the sinc patterns overlap. They will not mutually interfere since each photon only interferes with itself, the other photons are also about their own business too. What happens is eventually it will reach the Rayleigh Criteria where the "intensity" of the first minima falls on the intensity of the other sources first central maxima. It becomes hard to tell them apart and since the screen only records "intensity" the images "merge".
In the second case we have two synchronized sources of photons (this experiment has actually been performed) instead of two separate photonic waves they are phase related and outside the "near field" behave as if coherent. You still see two sync circularly symmetric wavelets ringing the two sources. This time when you bring them closely together (maintaining phase relationships) we find that they are behaving as if they were coming from the one source (though highly separated) the large screen even large distances from the central position will already be showing some general effects almost globally. Now move the sources together "slowly" and what you see is a continuum of ever narrowing interference fringes on the screen with a roughly circular symmetry, but the "fringes" are running off in all directions but are basically parallel just between the two source images as the centers get closer together or approach. What is being seen on the screen? This is the way your eye could see this same event because it too is a lens.
So this is a kind of image of the sources too. Not the one we want to be normally looking at. Taken to an extreme situation it will result in a speckle pattern that you get when looking into a low intensity laser or the polychromatic speckle pattern you get when looking at an tiny incandescent light source in a darkened street at night from a great distance. same principle... more frequencies.
Now proliferate these different sources (correlated and uncollated) across the entire plane for all frequencies and at all distances and what do you see? The inverted image on the backing screen of the outer Universe of all possible visible sources.
Here is the rub... are you listening carefully? Forget the first pinhole and the surrounding mask. A very special detector that size and shape placed in that position is perfectly capable of "resonance detection" and is now a resonant image of the source... or is that sources plural. Now put the pinhole mask back. Block everything else that is what you can 'see" just behind that new source. It is now an image of the source... or is that sources... Now go to the screen and drill a tiny hole in it anywhere ... its a new pinhole and now view from behind that new pinhole. It is an image of that source which is an image of the first pinhole which is an image of the original source (or sources)..... so on ad infinitum....
"Big fleas have little fleas ,
On their backs to bite them,
And little fleas have littler fleas,
so on ad infinitum."
Or put another way...
"As above, so below".
It does not matter if we are speaking about three dimensional sources or two dimensional sources at any or all various distances (or pseudo one dimensional sources). It does not matter if it is a source or a sensor or a secondary source. One generalized (very complex function) does all. It does not matter if we are speaking about one photon at a time of many photons moving in a wave, each photon is totally independent except where the sources are correlated. A very special case are two separate but correlated photons (parametrically Down converted Entangled Photons) The patterns are the same but correlation will possibly vary as you can now see in a global way.
Cheers
QUOTE
Actually trying something can often be very helpful.
I'm not quite sure what I'm supposed to be doing here. Can we start with the simplest case
OK... this is what is happening... Let us take a very distant condensed source of spherically symmetric coherent (all in phase) monochromatic light (not a perfect "point source"... warning... this is very important) in an "empty" Universe with just that one source. At a very large distance I place a screen (flat white plane). I could converge the light from that source onto this plane using a lens at one focal length from the screen surrounded by a very large surrounding mask that completely blocks all other light. What do you see? An image of that one source on the screen... right? That is a converged almost ideal point.... given the exact definition of what I have said above. Not entirely true. The finite size of the lens will result in a very tiny diffraction pattern since the aperture is still finite.I'm not quite sure what I'm supposed to be doing here. Can we start with the simplest case
Case 2... replace this otherwise excellent converging lens with a very small pinhole any distance you like from the screen. The effect of the pinhole is to effectively "stop down" the lens you previously had until it is simply a tiny circular aperture at the center. Instead of "converging" rays from over an extended lens of large diameter, what we now have is a lens of small aperture of any focal length you choose (this is because the only rays that are passing it all pass through the center of this tiny pinhole "virtually" parallel... thus it "converges" anywhere apparently as "rays"). Put this tiny pinhole "lens" at the same distance from the backing screen as the previous big lens and it is naturally surrounded by a blocking mask extending through the entire plane. What do you see on the screen? You see an image of the source.... much fainter than the first since less light is being used but the same photons are being used at the center and none of the photons are used from any other position out from that center. The image is inverted but otherwise the same as if you were looking at that image outside. A close examination of the fine structure of these images will reveal a fraunhofer pattern a circularly symmetric zone of concentric rings.
Only a "perfectly circular" source that is very small will look much better than this 'actual" practical pinhole. still... any pinhole can be 'constructed' by a series of even smaller pinholes clustered within the first larger pinhole.
Case 3, place another source out there in that big vast universe without any other sources in both of the previous cases what will you see on the screen? Now you will see two images of the two different sources converged on the image plane. Provided the distance between them is large and the angular separation is relatively low, you will get two patterns like the one above. These are both independent sinc functions. Do you have a double slit experiment? No... because these are not the same source. What will it take to make this into a double slit experiment? Nothing less than either two perfectly synchronized coherent sources (phase in time and distance) or two pinholes in a card placed at the appropriate distance illuminated by one coherent source.
In the first case with two independent unrelated sources what happens when the angular separation is reduced?... nothing much until the sinc patterns overlap. They will not mutually interfere since each photon only interferes with itself, the other photons are also about their own business too. What happens is eventually it will reach the Rayleigh Criteria where the "intensity" of the first minima falls on the intensity of the other sources first central maxima. It becomes hard to tell them apart and since the screen only records "intensity" the images "merge".
In the second case we have two synchronized sources of photons (this experiment has actually been performed) instead of two separate photonic waves they are phase related and outside the "near field" behave as if coherent. You still see two sync circularly symmetric wavelets ringing the two sources. This time when you bring them closely together (maintaining phase relationships) we find that they are behaving as if they were coming from the one source (though highly separated) the large screen even large distances from the central position will already be showing some general effects almost globally. Now move the sources together "slowly" and what you see is a continuum of ever narrowing interference fringes on the screen with a roughly circular symmetry, but the "fringes" are running off in all directions but are basically parallel just between the two source images as the centers get closer together or approach. What is being seen on the screen? This is the way your eye could see this same event because it too is a lens.
So this is a kind of image of the sources too. Not the one we want to be normally looking at. Taken to an extreme situation it will result in a speckle pattern that you get when looking into a low intensity laser or the polychromatic speckle pattern you get when looking at an tiny incandescent light source in a darkened street at night from a great distance. same principle... more frequencies.
Now proliferate these different sources (correlated and uncollated) across the entire plane for all frequencies and at all distances and what do you see? The inverted image on the backing screen of the outer Universe of all possible visible sources.
Here is the rub... are you listening carefully? Forget the first pinhole and the surrounding mask. A very special detector that size and shape placed in that position is perfectly capable of "resonance detection" and is now a resonant image of the source... or is that sources plural. Now put the pinhole mask back. Block everything else that is what you can 'see" just behind that new source. It is now an image of the source... or is that sources... Now go to the screen and drill a tiny hole in it anywhere ... its a new pinhole and now view from behind that new pinhole. It is an image of that source which is an image of the first pinhole which is an image of the original source (or sources)..... so on ad infinitum....
"Big fleas have little fleas ,
On their backs to bite them,
And little fleas have littler fleas,
so on ad infinitum."
Or put another way...
"As above, so below".
It does not matter if we are speaking about three dimensional sources or two dimensional sources at any or all various distances (or pseudo one dimensional sources). It does not matter if it is a source or a sensor or a secondary source. One generalized (very complex function) does all. It does not matter if we are speaking about one photon at a time of many photons moving in a wave, each photon is totally independent except where the sources are correlated. A very special case are two separate but correlated photons (parametrically Down converted Entangled Photons) The patterns are the same but correlation will possibly vary as you can now see in a global way.
Cheers
Hi Terry Giblin,
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+)
A local leading Prof. kindly explained the difference between the two definitions, using a similar diagram, Time and Spatial Domain and Frequency Domain.
In QM - Quantum Tunneling is a random process - Frequency domain
In STM - Quantum Tunneling is said to occur when an electron appears - Time Domain.
Frequency (Probability) Domain or Time (Binary) Domain, both result in an electron appearing.
The Time Domain, is a single event or a subset of the Frequency Domain.
In QM - Quantum Tunneling is a random process - Frequency domain
In STM - Quantum Tunneling is said to occur when an electron appears - Time Domain.
Frequency (Probability) Domain or Time (Binary) Domain, both result in an electron appearing.
The Time Domain, is a single event or a subset of the Frequency Domain.
I can't speak for anyone other than us elves. I am not going to be "universally acclaimed" for what I am saying and this is not going to be the "last word" on anything. Tunneling is not really the same as the other theories which are current at the same time. Time domain and frequency domain have nothing "intrinsically" to do with Quantum Tunneling... it has to do with a mathematical description of the dual aspects of the way in which we are able to describe things in general... It is totally general and was around a long time before any Quantum Mechanics or String Theory or the Scanning Tunneling Microscope (STM). I have stated a couple of years ago on this site that it is conceptually possible to "teleport" electrons through space from one place to another using the Aharanov-Bohm Effect. This would be space tunneling without the particle processes of other similar, but not the same, teleportation schemes. Thankfully not like that scheme described in "The Prestige". IMHO that was a great movie and I sure liked David Bowie as Nicola Tesla and Hugh Jackman as the "evil" Magician, Michael Caine was also great too... He he he!
The Prestige
Nothing I am describing is "binary" or intrinsically discrete, it is simply the way phenomena occur in the universe. Everything seems to have beginning and then they have ends. This is the only quantization the universe ever uses as far as I am aware. Photons are the force carriers in our Universe and they travel at the speed of light but they are "impulses" of energy.
E = hf
Where E is the energy and h is the unit of impulse per Hz of frequency. IMHO electromagnetism arises from "stresses" in the light cone wall of our Universe. The electric and magnetic fields arise not out of charges, to me charges are not primary so when a photon passes bye the alternating electric and magnetic fields are not due to any "charges" but to topology of space. So called "permanent charges" are the result of confined photons reacting on the walls of the sub-universe it is "circulating" inside of what appears to be externally tiny spaces.
Back to Quantum Tunneling. How can a particle pass through a material barrier? The answer to this question is to say there is no barrier only fields. How far can a neutrino pass into a block of lead before it is stopped?... approximately 9 light years. That is an awfully big block of lead and it will only stop 1/2 of them. Why is this? Because there are no particle interactions occurring. This neutrino is tunneling through the lead because it is "insensitive to charge". Like photons I "guess" that Neutrinos can occupy the same space as other Neutrinos at the same time. I also guess that like photons they travel at the speed of light quite a lot of the time when they "oscillate" between different "mass states". Interesting enough is the fact that regardless of their mass or not having mass their trajectory is independent of the property of mass... just like the photon. Photons, neutrinos and rubber balls all "fall" in a gravity field at the same rate. The only difference are their respective initial velocities. The massless photon is equally affected by "gravity" as is neutrinos and everything else. Every atomic particle "apparently" falls at the same rate in a gravity field. The only difference seems to be the charge... neutrinos must not have any virtual charge on the brane wall due to "stresses" or at least these stresses are applied in such a way that charge does not seem to appear. These particles have an almost near infinite capacity for "tunneling". Neutrons do not have this ability and there may be some truth in the idea that even though they are composed of three quarks they behave like a proton "coated" in an electron... Only what is a "coat" in higher dimensions? What I will say is they can easily pass through many meters of solid metal shielding... not as good as Neutrinos but pretty good nevertheless.
Recently photons have been found to posses interesting properties such as Electromagnetically Induced Transparency (EIT). A suitably "prepared" block of solid matter can open a resonant "window" in its "matter" under stimulation and allow other photons to pass through without resistance. This would have formerly been called "tunneling".
Wikipedia: Electromagnetically induced transparency
Love to talk about it but it is such a complex subject and this is not the thread to do so. Many other exciting phenomena have also been discovered in the widening field of Photonics. What we all must remember is the ideas of "condensed matter" vs Special Relativity and Spacetime are convergent disciplines. It would seem that the virtual photons are able to force some particles to "notice" other kinds of particles. The strange thing is photons themselves (in their raw state) are unable to notice their own intrinsic "charge"... light does not repel itself...
What is the final word on this? I do not know. Tunneling is apparently statistical up to a point but some things tunnel better than others like white rabbits down a "bunny hole".
Cheers
I am not going to be "universally acclaimed" for what I am saying and this is not going to be the "last word" on anything. Tunneling is not really the same as the other theories which are current at the same time. Time domain and frequency domain have nothing "intrinsically" to do with Quantum Tunneling... it has to do with a mathematical description of the dual aspects of the way in which we are able to describe things in general... It is totally general and was around a long time before any Quantum Mechanics or String Theory or the Scanning Tunneling Microscope (STM). I have stated a couple of years ago on this site that it is conceptually possible to "teleport" electrons through space from one place to another using the Aharanov-Bohm Effect. This would be space tunneling without the particle processes of other similar, but not the same, teleportation schemes. Thankfully not like that scheme described in "The Prestige". IMHO that was a great movie and I sure liked David Bowie as Nicola Tesla and Hugh Jackman as the "evil" Magician, Michael Caine was also great too... He he he! The Prestige
Nothing I am describing is "binary" or intrinsically discrete, it is simply the way phenomena occur in the universe. Everything seems to have beginning and then they have ends. This is the only quantization the universe ever uses as far as I am aware. Photons are the force carriers in our Universe and they travel at the speed of light but they are "impulses" of energy.
E = hf
Where E is the energy and h is the unit of impulse per Hz of frequency. IMHO electromagnetism arises from "stresses" in the light cone wall of our Universe. The electric and magnetic fields arise not out of charges, to me charges are not primary so when a photon passes bye the alternating electric and magnetic fields are not due to any "charges" but to topology of space. So called "permanent charges" are the result of confined photons reacting on the walls of the sub-universe it is "circulating" inside of what appears to be externally tiny spaces.
Back to Quantum Tunneling. How can a particle pass through a material barrier? The answer to this question is to say there is no barrier only fields. How far can a neutrino pass into a block of lead before it is stopped?... approximately 9 light years. That is an awfully big block of lead and it will only stop 1/2 of them. Why is this? Because there are no particle interactions occurring. This neutrino is tunneling through the lead because it is "insensitive to charge". Like photons I "guess" that Neutrinos can occupy the same space as other Neutrinos at the same time. I also guess that like photons they travel at the speed of light quite a lot of the time when they "oscillate" between different "mass states". Interesting enough is the fact that regardless of their mass or not having mass their trajectory is independent of the property of mass... just like the photon. Photons, neutrinos and rubber balls all "fall" in a gravity field at the same rate. The only difference are their respective initial velocities. The massless photon is equally affected by "gravity" as is neutrinos and everything else. Every atomic particle "apparently" falls at the same rate in a gravity field. The only difference seems to be the charge... neutrinos must not have any virtual charge on the brane wall due to "stresses" or at least these stresses are applied in such a way that charge does not seem to appear. These particles have an almost near infinite capacity for "tunneling". Neutrons do not have this ability and there may be some truth in the idea that even though they are composed of three quarks they behave like a proton "coated" in an electron... Only what is a "coat" in higher dimensions? What I will say is they can easily pass through many meters of solid metal shielding... not as good as Neutrinos but pretty good nevertheless.
Recently photons have been found to posses interesting properties such as Electromagnetically Induced Transparency (EIT). A suitably "prepared" block of solid matter can open a resonant "window" in its "matter" under stimulation and allow other photons to pass through without resistance. This would have formerly been called "tunneling".
Wikipedia: Electromagnetically induced transparency
Love to talk about it but it is such a complex subject and this is not the thread to do so. Many other exciting phenomena have also been discovered in the widening field of Photonics. What we all must remember is the ideas of "condensed matter" vs Special Relativity and Spacetime are convergent disciplines. It would seem that the virtual photons are able to force some particles to "notice" other kinds of particles. The strange thing is photons themselves (in their raw state) are unable to notice their own intrinsic "charge"... light does not repel itself...
What is the final word on this? I do not know. Tunneling is apparently statistical up to a point but some things tunnel better than others like white rabbits down a "bunny hole".
Cheers
Hi TRoc (mainly)
Edit .. nearly missed out the URL ( http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/spr/1999-03/msg0015396.html )
I hope you're still with us. I think this is relevent - it's a rather nice justification for the use of wavelet analysis as opposed to Fourier. (Not intended as a dig at GE - but possibly helpful).
Best wishes,
-C2.
Edit .. nearly missed out the URL ( http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/spr/1999-03/msg0015396.html )
I hope you're still with us. I think this is relevent - it's a rather nice justification for the use of wavelet analysis as opposed to Fourier. (Not intended as a dig at GE - but possibly helpful).
Best wishes,
-C2.
Good Elf,
I have admit to having failed to get to the nitty-gritty of an Elf Packet. At every turn a lens or a pinhole or another source or something else gets introduced to confuse the picture. No definition of intensity has been give. If I have time I'll calculate the proposed variation of frequency within the Elf packet on the assumption of (say) 5 cycles falling within the 'body' of the sinc function. If I have time I will apply these new frequencies to Fraunhofer (etc) diffraction to see what the result is. I anticipate 'smearing' but without any definition of intensity I can't see how this should be interpreted within GE theory. You have linked to many effects and clearly feel the cause is 'self-evident' - I feel we have both done our best.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I have admit to having failed to get to the nitty-gritty of an Elf Packet. At every turn a lens or a pinhole or another source or something else gets introduced to confuse the picture. No definition of intensity has been give. If I have time I'll calculate the proposed variation of frequency within the Elf packet on the assumption of (say) 5 cycles falling within the 'body' of the sinc function. If I have time I will apply these new frequencies to Fraunhofer (etc) diffraction to see what the result is. I anticipate 'smearing' but without any definition of intensity I can't see how this should be interpreted within GE theory. You have linked to many effects and clearly feel the cause is 'self-evident' - I feel we have both done our best.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
I have admit to having failed to get to the nitty-gritty of an Elf Packet. At every turn a lens or a pinhole or another source or something else gets introduced to confuse the picture. No definition of intensity has been given.
Sorry, I thought that I was helping by filling in the picture. Something is not actually "clicking" into place here. You seem to be missing some essential information. I can't do a practical calculation since I do not have a maths package capable of doing this calculation. I am trying to say the complex wave which is pretty much a sinc packet defines a simple single source. a simple source is a small bright "three dimensional spot" suspended in the "void"... A "Universe" with only one source of coherent spreading monochromatic radiation. This function is a pinhole or a simple source
This is the transform pair. On the left is a square wave "pulse" of finite height and finite width. Elsewhere in the plane the function is zero. Every optical source in the Universe can be considered as a "construction" of these "sources", correlated or not correlated. As you look out your window at night the night sky is full of apparent point sources... stars. as a first approximation this function above is an excellent approximation... It is just a three dimensional version of it. I can't draw it but a telescope will see this pattern when you look at it (a star).
If instead of this you looked through a telescope and saw something that was green and blue and white like the planet earth you could "simulate" that by having a sphere at a great distance covered in little overlapping "colored" patches like round pixels all looking exactly like the red blob above... just different primary colors. As a first approximation this would simulate the planet Earth (in color) as seen from a great distance. Each of these blobs would be different in size with different sized circular zones because light of different frequencies spread differently. This pattern is caused by the finite aperture of all imaging systems and the finite size of all sources.
In the case of single atoms we could theoretically image the emission of a single photon from an atom with this function. Then this red blob above could represent the emitted photon from the transition between two eigen states, emitting a photon. Not only would the function look like a 2D version of the pattern above as seen from the pinhole of the pinhole camera... it would have the same function in the radial direction toward you as a time "sequence". To evaluate just what you would "see" at the position of the pinhole you would divide up the area of the pinhole into thousands of tiny sampled areas enough to provide you with an image and then proceed to evaluate the complex function for each point in the pinhole plane by integrating (summing) all points in the external universe. In this case a synthetic Earth each path length and each phase would be evaluated at the target and then vectorially summed for all frequencies in the spectrum used. This would be repeated for all points in the image plane one at a time with a summation from each point that is a source for all visible space. As a first approximation you may assume no correlation between the different "pixels" that compose the source. The final result of this "massive" calculation would be a series of overlapping wavelets of different sizes (different frequencies) in the pinhole plane. These classically extend to infinity in all directions in the plane. Its a kind of hologram if calculated over the entire surface but we are only doing this over the area of the pinhole.
As previously stated in the "system" of source , pinhole, screen... a pinhole will bring to focus all light incident on the pinhole from the original source (the pinhole now becomes a secondary source of waves) to an image on the screen some distance behind the pinhole plane. What is seen there is an image of the original distributed sources in sharp focus. The pixelated version of Earth... this is the source... both the original and now the screen with a "tiny unseen hologram" in the empty space between them where the pinhole is situated. Clearly this could be recorded on a photographic plate if a tiny photographic plate was exposed there without a lens as a series of interference lines. actually if it was done with only one frequency of light then you will get interference fringes if the optic bench is stable enough. Do you now see where we are going here?
It is not unlike this optical system above.
As to your query about intensity.... Intensity is given in the previous reference "Single Slit".
This is "specific" for a single slit and is not a general rule.
Here we see that the function U = C' (sin β/β)
U is a sinc function for the "simple" slit.
where...
The intensity is simply the inner product... electric and magnetic fields which are "usually" orthogonal... so the simple square of it.
Cheers
Sorry, I thought that I was helping by filling in the picture. Something is not actually "clicking" into place here. You seem to be missing some essential information. I can't do a practical calculation since I do not have a maths package capable of doing this calculation. I am trying to say the complex wave which is pretty much a sinc packet defines a simple single source. a simple source is a small bright "three dimensional spot" suspended in the "void"... A "Universe" with only one source of coherent spreading monochromatic radiation. This function is a pinhole or a simple source
This is the transform pair. On the left is a square wave "pulse" of finite height and finite width. Elsewhere in the plane the function is zero. Every optical source in the Universe can be considered as a "construction" of these "sources", correlated or not correlated. As you look out your window at night the night sky is full of apparent point sources... stars. as a first approximation this function above is an excellent approximation... It is just a three dimensional version of it. I can't draw it but a telescope will see this pattern when you look at it (a star).
If instead of this you looked through a telescope and saw something that was green and blue and white like the planet earth you could "simulate" that by having a sphere at a great distance covered in little overlapping "colored" patches like round pixels all looking exactly like the red blob above... just different primary colors. As a first approximation this would simulate the planet Earth (in color) as seen from a great distance. Each of these blobs would be different in size with different sized circular zones because light of different frequencies spread differently. This pattern is caused by the finite aperture of all imaging systems and the finite size of all sources.
In the case of single atoms we could theoretically image the emission of a single photon from an atom with this function. Then this red blob above could represent the emitted photon from the transition between two eigen states, emitting a photon. Not only would the function look like a 2D version of the pattern above as seen from the pinhole of the pinhole camera... it would have the same function in the radial direction toward you as a time "sequence". To evaluate just what you would "see" at the position of the pinhole you would divide up the area of the pinhole into thousands of tiny sampled areas enough to provide you with an image and then proceed to evaluate the complex function for each point in the pinhole plane by integrating (summing) all points in the external universe. In this case a synthetic Earth each path length and each phase would be evaluated at the target and then vectorially summed for all frequencies in the spectrum used. This would be repeated for all points in the image plane one at a time with a summation from each point that is a source for all visible space. As a first approximation you may assume no correlation between the different "pixels" that compose the source. The final result of this "massive" calculation would be a series of overlapping wavelets of different sizes (different frequencies) in the pinhole plane. These classically extend to infinity in all directions in the plane. Its a kind of hologram if calculated over the entire surface but we are only doing this over the area of the pinhole.
As previously stated in the "system" of source , pinhole, screen... a pinhole will bring to focus all light incident on the pinhole from the original source (the pinhole now becomes a secondary source of waves) to an image on the screen some distance behind the pinhole plane. What is seen there is an image of the original distributed sources in sharp focus. The pixelated version of Earth... this is the source... both the original and now the screen with a "tiny unseen hologram" in the empty space between them where the pinhole is situated. Clearly this could be recorded on a photographic plate if a tiny photographic plate was exposed there without a lens as a series of interference lines. actually if it was done with only one frequency of light then you will get interference fringes if the optic bench is stable enough. Do you now see where we are going here?
It is not unlike this optical system above.
As to your query about intensity.... Intensity is given in the previous reference "Single Slit".
This is "specific" for a single slit and is not a general rule.
Here we see that the function U = C' (sin β/β)
U is a sinc function for the "simple" slit.
where...
The intensity is simply the inner product... electric and magnetic fields which are "usually" orthogonal... so the simple square of it.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
Thanks for that .. no time to read it in detail but what we are looking at is a quantum of (say) electromagnetism. The input isn't a continuous function (in time) and nor is the output. I don't see how you reclaim your photon to allow it to perform a 'quantum action' from the equations and graphs so far presented. For simplicity we might imagine an electron in a hydrogen atom drops to a lower energy level .. the resultant photon excites a similar hydrogen atom .. this time from the lower energy level back to the one the first electron started from. 1 transition.. 1 photon .. 1 (cancelling) transition. What are the chances of that happening (literally!). We might have a hydrogen line source and a photographic film .. the film responds to photons (?) .. how do they get relocalized at the detection end of things. Sorry .. work calls..
Best wishes,
-C2.
Thanks for that .. no time to read it in detail but what we are looking at is a quantum of (say) electromagnetism. The input isn't a continuous function (in time) and nor is the output. I don't see how you reclaim your photon to allow it to perform a 'quantum action' from the equations and graphs so far presented. For simplicity we might imagine an electron in a hydrogen atom drops to a lower energy level .. the resultant photon excites a similar hydrogen atom .. this time from the lower energy level back to the one the first electron started from. 1 transition.. 1 photon .. 1 (cancelling) transition. What are the chances of that happening (literally!). We might have a hydrogen line source and a photographic film .. the film responds to photons (?) .. how do they get relocalized at the detection end of things. Sorry .. work calls..
Best wishes,
-C2.
C2,
If I may interject....
You are assuming a photon is a singular (particle) entity with that scenario.
If, however, a photon is a toroidal EM wave emission from a radiating source
(like a dipole antenna) then the single H atom that has been stimulated by an external energy
field, will release its own toroidal photon field of the specific wavelength for hydrogen
The originating external EM energy wave will stimulate all surrounding atoms in 3 dimensions;
to a higher energy level in a donut shaped toroidal effect as it propagates thru them, and they will
in turn radiate photonic EM toroidal waves at their specific atomic harmonic frequency.
An example: have you seen the TV commercial of the guy dropping a single ping-pong ball into
a gymnasium filled with closely spaced mouse traps, each fitted with a single ping-pong ball?
One initial pp ball sets off an exponential chain reaction until eventually all the mousetraps have
been triggered and there are thousands of balls bouncing around. Maybe not the best analogy,
but gives an example of a simple cascade propagation effect. 1 source event stimulates other
event reactions to release their potential energy. Keep in mind that there is a time propagation
delay in this whole process which is analogous to the wave function.
Now imagine if this toroidal EM propagating energy front is the wave mechanism as it travels
thru a medium of identical matter, you build a wave front building in harmonic intensity and
duration until a peak level is achieved and the wave front passes a specific point in space.
Any comments, or opposing opinions welcome.
We can expand on this concept in 3 dimensions and the complex inverse propagation timing
delay interactions that occur in a medium as they generate inverse harmonic wave functions,
but that is off topic for this discussion.
LL
If I may interject....
QUOTE
the resultant photon excites a similar hydrogen atom .. this time from the lower energy level back to the one the first electron started from. 1 transition.. 1 photon .. 1 (cancelling) transition.
You are assuming a photon is a singular (particle) entity with that scenario.
If, however, a photon is a toroidal EM wave emission from a radiating source
(like a dipole antenna) then the single H atom that has been stimulated by an external energy
field, will release its own toroidal photon field of the specific wavelength for hydrogen
The originating external EM energy wave will stimulate all surrounding atoms in 3 dimensions;
to a higher energy level in a donut shaped toroidal effect as it propagates thru them, and they will
in turn radiate photonic EM toroidal waves at their specific atomic harmonic frequency.
An example: have you seen the TV commercial of the guy dropping a single ping-pong ball into
a gymnasium filled with closely spaced mouse traps, each fitted with a single ping-pong ball?
One initial pp ball sets off an exponential chain reaction until eventually all the mousetraps have
been triggered and there are thousands of balls bouncing around. Maybe not the best analogy,
but gives an example of a simple cascade propagation effect. 1 source event stimulates other
event reactions to release their potential energy. Keep in mind that there is a time propagation
delay in this whole process which is analogous to the wave function.
Now imagine if this toroidal EM propagating energy front is the wave mechanism as it travels
thru a medium of identical matter, you build a wave front building in harmonic intensity and
duration until a peak level is achieved and the wave front passes a specific point in space.
Any comments, or opposing opinions welcome.
We can expand on this concept in 3 dimensions and the complex inverse propagation timing
delay interactions that occur in a medium as they generate inverse harmonic wave functions,
but that is off topic for this discussion.
LL
Hi LL,
The original evidence of quantization of light didn't come from the DSE but it does give rather nice evidence of it . Good Elf has kindly taken us through nineteeenth century geometric optics and you would like us to go through nineteenth century EM theory .. I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with any of it as far as it goes.
BUT
Looking at yet another single photon DSE (they all give the same result)
http://www.physics.brown.edu/physics/demop...demo/7a5520.htm
Please see the dots, please see that these build up over time into regions of high and low intensity. The maxima are predicted by nineteenth century physics ** .. it is the dots that are the problem .. it is the dots that help to make the DSE is 'The beautiful experiment'.
Please LL , look at the dots .. they are there for the same reason that electrons don't spiral into the nucleus, lasers 'lase' and sooooooooooo many other things.
Best wishes,
-C2.
** see http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
The original evidence of quantization of light didn't come from the DSE but it does give rather nice evidence of it . Good Elf has kindly taken us through nineteeenth century geometric optics and you would like us to go through nineteenth century EM theory .. I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with any of it as far as it goes.
BUT
Looking at yet another single photon DSE (they all give the same result)
http://www.physics.brown.edu/physics/demop...demo/7a5520.htm
Please see the dots, please see that these build up over time into regions of high and low intensity. The maxima are predicted by nineteenth century physics ** .. it is the dots that are the problem .. it is the dots that help to make the DSE is 'The beautiful experiment'.
Please LL , look at the dots .. they are there for the same reason that electrons don't spiral into the nucleus, lasers 'lase' and sooooooooooo many other things.
Best wishes,
-C2.
** see http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
Hi .. all?
I think GE's misunderstanding of my understanding of wavelength might help .. or not! The DSE is effectively 'spreading out' the wavelength of the light by using the very small path difference between the two slits .. with a single photon DSE we see where the photon is located within the classical wavelength (this is the imprtance of the 'Young's slit equation' http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
) .. and we see that it can be just about anywhere .. (except at the points where the paths cancel) and only statistically do we get the maxima and minima associated with classical analysis. I think GE feels the dots are the size of a photon whereas I would suggest only that they represent the point where a photon has interacted with an electron to precipitate the chemistry which follows.
Single photon detection by photographic film
from http://www.cheresources.com/photochem.shtml
Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of the silver halide process. When light or radiation of appropriate wavelength strikes one of the silver halide crystals, a series of reactions begins that produces a small amount of free silver in the grain. Initially, a free bromine atom is produced when the bromide ion absorbs the photon of light:
Ag+Br- (crystal) + hv (radiation) ® Ag+ + Br + e-
The silver ion can then combine with the electron to produce a silver atom.
Ag+ + e- ® Ag0
Association within the grains produces species such as Ag2+, Ag20, Ag3+, Ag30, Ag4+, and Ag40. The free silver produced in the exposed silver halide grains constitutes what is referred to as the "latent image," which is later amplified by the development process.
Same source..
Same source..
The silver halide process is by far the most important of all of the radiation-sensitive photographic systems in use today. The principal reason for this superiority is the high sensitivity of the system - the amount of radiant energy required to produce a useful image – and the extreme flexibility of the system in terms of adjusting sensitivity, contrast, tonal range and other such aspects of the product. The impact of a single photon on a silver halide grain, for example, produces a nucleus of at least four silver atoms, and that effect can be amplified as much as a billion times by the action of a properly chosen reducing agent or "developer."
-C2.
I think GE's misunderstanding of my understanding of wavelength might help .. or not! The DSE is effectively 'spreading out' the wavelength of the light by using the very small path difference between the two slits .. with a single photon DSE we see where the photon is located within the classical wavelength (this is the imprtance of the 'Young's slit equation' http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
) .. and we see that it can be just about anywhere .. (except at the points where the paths cancel) and only statistically do we get the maxima and minima associated with classical analysis. I think GE feels the dots are the size of a photon whereas I would suggest only that they represent the point where a photon has interacted with an electron to precipitate the chemistry which follows.
Single photon detection by photographic film
from http://www.cheresources.com/photochem.shtml
QUOTE
Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of the silver halide process. When light or radiation of appropriate wavelength strikes one of the silver halide crystals, a series of reactions begins that produces a small amount of free silver in the grain. Initially, a free bromine atom is produced when the bromide ion absorbs the photon of light:
Ag+Br- (crystal) + hv (radiation) ® Ag+ + Br + e-
The silver ion can then combine with the electron to produce a silver atom.
Ag+ + e- ® Ag0
Association within the grains produces species such as Ag2+, Ag20, Ag3+, Ag30, Ag4+, and Ag40. The free silver produced in the exposed silver halide grains constitutes what is referred to as the "latent image," which is later amplified by the development process.
Same source..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of the silver halide process. When light or radiation of appropriate wavelength strikes one of the silver halide crystals, a series of reactions begins that produces a small amount of free silver in the grain. Initially, a free bromine atom is produced when the bromide ion absorbs the photon of light: Ag+Br- (crystal) + hv (radiation) ® Ag+ + Br + e- The silver ion can then combine with the electron to produce a silver atom. Ag+ + e- ® Ag0 Association within the grains produces species such as Ag2+, Ag20, Ag3+, Ag30, Ag4+, and Ag40. The free silver produced in the exposed silver halide grains constitutes what is referred to as the "latent image," which is later amplified by the development process. |
Same source..
The silver halide process is by far the most important of all of the radiation-sensitive photographic systems in use today. The principal reason for this superiority is the high sensitivity of the system - the amount of radiant energy required to produce a useful image – and the extreme flexibility of the system in terms of adjusting sensitivity, contrast, tonal range and other such aspects of the product. The impact of a single photon on a silver halide grain, for example, produces a nucleus of at least four silver atoms, and that effect can be amplified as much as a billion times by the action of a properly chosen reducing agent or "developer."
-C2.
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Jal, Yquantum, TRoc, Jal, bee, StevenA, AlphaNumeric, Laidback, zephir et al,
Alright... a lot of this is indeed 19th Century Physics.... but it is not the Physics of the 19th Century. We have come nearly one hundred years into the future and that is nearly the current age of Quantum Theory now... It has its origins in a theory that is nearly 100 years old. Nobody alive today is associated with the beginnings of QT it is so old. What the "so called" 19th Century Physics has going for it is that it has not advanced since the 19th Century while a massive effort has been expended in quantum theories. It is just "bangs for bucks"... It is natural with advances in technical calculation means that quantum theory would have advanced in those 100 years but using hindsight we can "revisit" the now aged quantum theory seeing that we went down this course when the most sophisticated computational tool available was two articulated wooden sticks known as a slide rule capable of a maximum of 1% "resolution".
The actual "point" where photons actually end up is just a convergence of the fields to a near point after the initial divergence from a near point. Now QM can't predict where individual photons go and neither can Classical Theory but Bohmian Mechanics says "After the event... you started here and you ended there and we draw a line between the two points in configuration space". It is no worse and it predicts the same results. Actually it is better than that. What I am saying about photons are they are "de Broglie" particles "spreading" as events in an orthogonal space to a "quantum space" (our space) in which every particle in our Universe is "apparently" at rest relative to light since everything is moving "perpendicular" to the photon.. light spreading as waves is then simply the result of the geometry of the space...
The "other end" of Special Relativity.
What I am saying is it is possible to think that since "19th Century Physics" can actually now accommodate quantum mechanics as a theory of a continuum and since it has been shown conclusively that without string theories current QM cannot unify "Gravity" and the other forces in the Universe.... Maybe there is another way to go and that is instead of quantizing the manifold of General Relativity to accommodate Quantum Mechanics (Quantum Gravity), we convert Quantum Mechanics to a continuum theory to accommodate General Relativity.
IMHO Blind Freddy could understand that quantum theory is a theory of eigen values of superimposed "resonant states" on a sphere. The eigen states are swell but they are a simplification of the actual standing waves on the sphere that generated the states in the first place.
Spherical Harmonics
Here is a real good Fresnel Simulation. Fiddle with the aperature scale and see how spread out things actully become when you try narrow slit/ aperatures or whatever.
Frenel Diffraction Simulation
And consider just where this simulation goes wrong when it arrives at quarks...
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/sc...of10/index.html
Cheers
QUOTE
The original evidence of quantization of light didn't come from the DSE but it does give rather nice evidence of it . Good Elf has kindly taken us through nineteenth century geometric optics and you would like us to go through nineteenth century EM theory .. I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with any of it as far as it goes.
BUT
Looking at yet another single photon DSE (they all give the same result)
http://www.physics.brown.edu/physics/demop...demo/7a5520.htm
Please see the dots, please see that these build up over time into regions of high and low intensity. The maxima are predicted by nineteenth century physics ** .. it is the dots that are the problem .. it is the dots that help to make the DSE is 'The beautiful experiment'.
Please LL , look at the dots .. they are there for the same reason that electrons don't spiral into the nucleus, lasers 'lase' and sooooooooooo many other things.
Best wishes,
BUT
Looking at yet another single photon DSE (they all give the same result)
http://www.physics.brown.edu/physics/demop...demo/7a5520.htm
Please see the dots, please see that these build up over time into regions of high and low intensity. The maxima are predicted by nineteenth century physics ** .. it is the dots that are the problem .. it is the dots that help to make the DSE is 'The beautiful experiment'.
Please LL , look at the dots .. they are there for the same reason that electrons don't spiral into the nucleus, lasers 'lase' and sooooooooooo many other things.
Best wishes,
Alright... a lot of this is indeed 19th Century Physics.... but it is not the Physics of the 19th Century. We have come nearly one hundred years into the future and that is nearly the current age of Quantum Theory now... It has its origins in a theory that is nearly 100 years old. Nobody alive today is associated with the beginnings of QT it is so old. What the "so called" 19th Century Physics has going for it is that it has not advanced since the 19th Century while a massive effort has been expended in quantum theories. It is just "bangs for bucks"... It is natural with advances in technical calculation means that quantum theory would have advanced in those 100 years but using hindsight we can "revisit" the now aged quantum theory seeing that we went down this course when the most sophisticated computational tool available was two articulated wooden sticks known as a slide rule capable of a maximum of 1% "resolution".The actual "point" where photons actually end up is just a convergence of the fields to a near point after the initial divergence from a near point. Now QM can't predict where individual photons go and neither can Classical Theory but Bohmian Mechanics says "After the event... you started here and you ended there and we draw a line between the two points in configuration space". It is no worse and it predicts the same results. Actually it is better than that. What I am saying about photons are they are "de Broglie" particles "spreading" as events in an orthogonal space to a "quantum space" (our space) in which every particle in our Universe is "apparently" at rest relative to light since everything is moving "perpendicular" to the photon.. light spreading as waves is then simply the result of the geometry of the space...
The "other end" of Special Relativity.
What I am saying is it is possible to think that since "19th Century Physics" can actually now accommodate quantum mechanics as a theory of a continuum and since it has been shown conclusively that without string theories current QM cannot unify "Gravity" and the other forces in the Universe.... Maybe there is another way to go and that is instead of quantizing the manifold of General Relativity to accommodate Quantum Mechanics (Quantum Gravity), we convert Quantum Mechanics to a continuum theory to accommodate General Relativity.
IMHO Blind Freddy could understand that quantum theory is a theory of eigen values of superimposed "resonant states" on a sphere. The eigen states are swell but they are a simplification of the actual standing waves on the sphere that generated the states in the first place.
Spherical Harmonics
Here is a real good Fresnel Simulation. Fiddle with the aperature scale and see how spread out things actully become when you try narrow slit/ aperatures or whatever.
Frenel Diffraction Simulation
And consider just where this simulation goes wrong when it arrives at quarks...
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/sc...of10/index.html
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
I edited in a bit in my last post while you were posting.
If we zap a peice of photographic film with a single photon .. what would you say was the minimum size of a dot?
-C2.
I edited in a bit in my last post while you were posting.
If we zap a peice of photographic film with a single photon .. what would you say was the minimum size of a dot?
-C2.
Good Day Everyone!
I'm waiting until you get to discussing
The people who do LQG.... string.... quantum geometry....Bohmian Mechanics and (of course ... me) etc. are trying to figure out the geometry of that space.
Your presentation, with your elf bits, is understandable, but not accepted by all. The part about .....the waves are individual "bubbles" that expand to infinity and that the information can get to and from there instantaneously.
I'll wait until everyone is ready to go to this level of discussion.
jal
I'm waiting until you get to discussing
QUOTE
Now QM can't predict where individual photons go and neither can Classical Theory but Bohmian Mechanics says "After the event... you started here and you ended there and we draw a line between the two points in configuration space". It is no worse and it predicts the same results. Actually it is better than that. What I am saying about photons are they are "de Broglie" particles "spreading" as events in an orthogonal space to a "quantum space" (our space) in which every particle in our Universe is "apparently" at rest relative to light since everything is moving "perpendicular" to the photon.. light spreading as waves is then simply the result of the geometry of the space...
The people who do LQG.... string.... quantum geometry....Bohmian Mechanics and (of course ... me) etc. are trying to figure out the geometry of that space.
Your presentation, with your elf bits,
is understandable, but not accepted by all. The part about .....the waves are individual "bubbles" that expand to infinity and that the information can get to and from there instantaneously.I'll wait until everyone is ready to go to this level of discussion.
jal
C2- I SEE THE DOTS! LOL! Now to put a wrinkle in your argument.
1. We have a radio tower that is broadcasting. Is it broadcasting waves or particles?
2. We are in the center of our house, in the bathroom with no windows, with the
door closed.
3. We have the radio in the bathroom playing, and we are listening to the radio
broadcast playing tunes.
Are we listening to particles or waves of energy? Logic says that if they were
particles they would have been totally absorbed by the walls of the house and
no energy would have reached the receiver antenna.
Keep in mind that a radio antenna broadcasts (radiates) long wavelengths
in all directions perpendicular to the length of the antenna that is designed so that it is tuned to the wavelength that it transmits.
The wavelength of the photon is the issue here, as I see it. How long is the
wavelength of the light hitting the target surface....for simplicity sake lets call it 600nM That is 600 BILLIONTHS of a meter. You can't see it with the naked
eye, but you will see it if it is amplified a million times by the CCD photon
intensifier. And you would see the effect of billions of them reacting with
the silver crystals of the film, acting as individual pixels to form a composit
picture. Consider the silver crystals as an antenna sensitive to the wavelength
and energy level of the visible light that strikes it. Which was my point in a
prior discussion with GE regarding the hologram image.
I do agree with your assessment that the photon energy does react with the
silver atoms of the film to release an electron and change the phase state
of the silver ions back to silver atoms.
Now how wide are the slits that the single photon wave is passing thru? Say 50uM
that is roughly 100 times wider than the wavelegth of the photon. So how is
the single photon influenced by the dual slit? If it is a massless uncharged particle
it should go straight thru with no flight deviation and generate no interference
pattern, but it does.
I take it you didn't like my analogy of the ping-pong balls and the cascade
"time duration" wavefront that resulted from a single event triggering numerous
other events?
LL
1. We have a radio tower that is broadcasting. Is it broadcasting waves or particles?
2. We are in the center of our house, in the bathroom with no windows, with the
door closed.
3. We have the radio in the bathroom playing, and we are listening to the radio
broadcast playing tunes.
Are we listening to particles or waves of energy? Logic says that if they were
particles they would have been totally absorbed by the walls of the house and
no energy would have reached the receiver antenna.
Keep in mind that a radio antenna broadcasts (radiates) long wavelengths
in all directions perpendicular to the length of the antenna that is designed so that it is tuned to the wavelength that it transmits.
The wavelength of the photon is the issue here, as I see it. How long is the
wavelength of the light hitting the target surface....for simplicity sake lets call it 600nM That is 600 BILLIONTHS of a meter. You can't see it with the naked
eye, but you will see it if it is amplified a million times by the CCD photon
intensifier. And you would see the effect of billions of them reacting with
the silver crystals of the film, acting as individual pixels to form a composit
picture. Consider the silver crystals as an antenna sensitive to the wavelength
and energy level of the visible light that strikes it. Which was my point in a
prior discussion with GE regarding the hologram image.
I do agree with your assessment that the photon energy does react with the
silver atoms of the film to release an electron and change the phase state
of the silver ions back to silver atoms.
Now how wide are the slits that the single photon wave is passing thru? Say 50uM
that is roughly 100 times wider than the wavelegth of the photon. So how is
the single photon influenced by the dual slit? If it is a massless uncharged particle
it should go straight thru with no flight deviation and generate no interference
pattern, but it does.
I take it you didn't like my analogy of the ping-pong balls and the cascade
"time duration" wavefront that resulted from a single event triggering numerous
other events?
LL
Hi LL,
Since you have been kind enough to admit that you can see the dots..
We can see that that the energy of an optical photon is high enough to break the bond in AgBr (photographic film) simply because it does. One electron is sufficient to detect the photon .. the spare electrons from the reaction just amplify the process and allow it to propagate (possibly) through the whole crystal. Pretty magical but the reaction wasn't selected by accident.
Let us take the example of a radio transmitter at (say) 1 MHz
We know the energy of a photon is E = hf .
since E is in Joules and electron Volts are a more convenient measure .. lets go for eV
1 eV = 1.6 E-19 J
Planck's constant = 6.62E-34 Js .
So for our 1Mhz
E = 1 E^6 x 6.62 E-34 /(1.6E-19)
= approx 10 E (6 -34 + 19) = 1 E-8 eV assuming I haven't made a mistake.
Looking here ( http://www.sfu.ca/~boal/mocex/Bextra1.pdf ) for sample chemical bond energies .. they're millions times higher so bricks and stuff like that which is mainly covalent will not absorb our radio photons. Wet bricks are a slightly different matter .. let's not go there now.
So what can be affected by our radio waves? .. you've got it .. conductors .. with a sea of electrons with virtually no bandgap for our radio photons to overcome. Sooo .. how do we set the quantum states for a lump of metal? I think you've guessed .. geometry. The wavelength of our 1Mhz signal is about 300 metres .. my little transistor radio used to pick up Medium Wave very nicely. By adding capacitors and inductors we can choose the photons our aerial will respond to, the energy level, if you like. We say our arial is resonant at (say) f. We look at E = h f and see we have set the QM energy states of our arial to match that of the photons we want to collect, exactly as we would expect. Because we are mostly in the game of communicating with the lowest possible energy we use coherent photons (like in a radio transmitter).. we notice that we are collecting zillions of photons and our aerial can only have one superposition of states over time (call it frequency if you like) and we are very happy. The exception to this rule is when the photons are not coherent .. that would be the radar you mentioned some time back . For radar you just want a raw photon count.. different strategy required .. this is where your parametric diode comes in .. we avoud superposition (tuning) so every returning photon contributes to changing the parameter of the diode .. and you get (effectively) a raw photon count.
That's the best I can do at present.
Now I would ask you to count how many maxima you see.
Best wishes,
-C2.
If you look at the diffraction pattern of some of the links to single photon interference you can check that the slits really are in the region of a wavelength wide (check out GE's geometric optics if in doubt.)
Since you have been kind enough to admit that you can see the dots..
We can see that that the energy of an optical photon is high enough to break the bond in AgBr (photographic film) simply because it does. One electron is sufficient to detect the photon .. the spare electrons from the reaction just amplify the process and allow it to propagate (possibly) through the whole crystal. Pretty magical but the reaction wasn't selected by accident.
Let us take the example of a radio transmitter at (say) 1 MHz
We know the energy of a photon is E = hf .
since E is in Joules and electron Volts are a more convenient measure .. lets go for eV
1 eV = 1.6 E-19 J
Planck's constant = 6.62E-34 Js .
So for our 1Mhz
E = 1 E^6 x 6.62 E-34 /(1.6E-19)
= approx 10 E (6 -34 + 19) = 1 E-8 eV assuming I haven't made a mistake.
Looking here ( http://www.sfu.ca/~boal/mocex/Bextra1.pdf ) for sample chemical bond energies .. they're millions times higher so bricks and stuff like that which is mainly covalent will not absorb our radio photons. Wet bricks are a slightly different matter .. let's not go there now.
So what can be affected by our radio waves? .. you've got it .. conductors .. with a sea of electrons with virtually no bandgap for our radio photons to overcome. Sooo .. how do we set the quantum states for a lump of metal? I think you've guessed .. geometry. The wavelength of our 1Mhz signal is about 300 metres .. my little transistor radio used to pick up Medium Wave very nicely. By adding capacitors and inductors we can choose the photons our aerial will respond to, the energy level, if you like. We say our arial is resonant at (say) f. We look at E = h f and see we have set the QM energy states of our arial to match that of the photons we want to collect, exactly as we would expect. Because we are mostly in the game of communicating with the lowest possible energy we use coherent photons (like in a radio transmitter).. we notice that we are collecting zillions of photons and our aerial can only have one superposition of states over time (call it frequency if you like) and we are very happy. The exception to this rule is when the photons are not coherent .. that would be the radar you mentioned some time back . For radar you just want a raw photon count.. different strategy required .. this is where your parametric diode comes in .. we avoud superposition (tuning) so every returning photon contributes to changing the parameter of the diode .. and you get (effectively) a raw photon count.
That's the best I can do at present.
Now I would ask you to count how many maxima you see.
Best wishes,
-C2.
If you look at the diffraction pattern of some of the links to single photon interference you can check that the slits really are in the region of a wavelength wide (check out GE's geometric optics if in doubt.)
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
If we zap a piece of photographic film with a single photon .. what would you say was the minimum size of a dot?
Simple Answer: The size of a single silver halide crystal. It will critically depend on the wavelength of light though... This is because the photoelectric effect is not the same at all frequencies so the size of silver halide crystals in the emulsion affects the sensitivity at different frequencies. You will need a "lot" of those photons to significantly darken a single crystal. Additionally the chemical transition will only occur "if" the absorbing crystal is larger than 1/2 a wavelength of light "and" is sensitive to the impacting photons at the "excitation frequency". The 1MHz "light" will not be effective on a photographic plate. This is Einstein's Photoelectric Effect in action. If the silver halide crystals were much smaller than 1/2 wavelength in size the incident photons would not be able to notice their existence and tunnel right past them regardless of the frequency. It is a "resonance". Now a question for you...
QUOTE (Confused2+)
I think GE's misunderstanding of my understanding of wavelength might help .. or not! The DSE is effectively 'spreading out' the wavelength of the light by using the very small path difference between the two slits .. with a single photon DSE we see where the photon is located within the classical wavelength
(My emphasis) What "color" do you think the "spread out wavelength" of light appears on the backing screen? If I had a 660 nm CW laser as the source of illumination? Does this affect one bit the actual frequency of the "spread out" light you are seeing on the screen? (Oops! two questions... )
Cheers
)Cheers
High Good Elf,
On some points we may just have to agree to differ unless we can find an experiment to cut one way or the other. Since I believe a photon is a bit of the SM which deals with EM interaction .. my money is on virtually no size. A big crystal would (obviously) have a better chance of detecting a photon .. without a new state available I don't think anything happens regardless of wavelength and with it then one electron is enough. We've been here before with hyperfine transitions .. that only took 1 atom to make an umpteen centimetre microwave (sloooowly!).
The 'colour' of the light on the backing screen is given by the energy of the photon. One photon doesn't have a frequency or a wavelength .. the words may be convenient when dealing with many photons but they both need to be treated with caution, we should abandon tradition and concentrate on energy.
-C2.
On some points we may just have to agree to differ unless we can find an experiment to cut one way or the other. Since I believe a photon is a bit of the SM which deals with EM interaction .. my money is on virtually no size. A big crystal would (obviously) have a better chance of detecting a photon .. without a new state available I don't think anything happens regardless of wavelength and with it then one electron is enough. We've been here before with hyperfine transitions .. that only took 1 atom to make an umpteen centimetre microwave (sloooowly!).
The 'colour' of the light on the backing screen is given by the energy of the photon. One photon doesn't have a frequency or a wavelength .. the words may be convenient when dealing with many photons but they both need to be treated with caution, we should abandon tradition and concentrate on energy.
-C2.
C2- I agree with most of your basic premise. My problem is with the
"particle" aspect of your argument. To misquote Shakespear's McBeth:
"Photon, it a wave or is it a particle? THAT is the question." (To be....or, not to be?) OK enough melodrama...
First, a receiving antenna receives ALL radio signal frequencies that correspond to
its resonant tuning "length". The antenna and receiver hardware are tuned to
the specific harmonic resonant frequency to filter out or shunt all non-desired
RF signals to ground. This is the resonant cavity optimized for the desired
frequency. We agree on this point. Now what about the antenna that is
located 10 miles in the other direction of the antenna. It is picking up the
exact same frequency wave and "photon" and the process is reproduced there.
But wait....if it is a particle, how could it be in both places at the same time?
Second,
Radar frequencies are coherent. They are transmitted at a specific frequency
(there are some that use multiple frequencies) at a specific wavelength.
They are precision tuned but they are focused and directionalized at relatively
high power levels. It is the phase and timing difference between the transmitted
pulse and the target return pulse that is detected and compared to yield the
distance and location information. The detection electronics just compares and
amplifies the phase and timing differences between the outgoing and incoming
signals, and cancels out "in phase" or "constant frequency" signal returns to
prevent return signal "saturation" from fixed objects. The transmittted signal is
also circularly polarized to eliminate clouds and rain reflections so the signal
can pass thru them with minimal return interference. Tuning is a HUGE part
of radar physics both on the transmission and receiving systems. That is where
the parametric amplifier comes in. It is the 1st "phase shift" signal detector,
its output is amplified and from there the phase comparison electronics kicks in.
Third,
Radar frequencies are coherent. They are transmitted at a specific frequency
(there are some that use multiple frequencies) at a specific wavelength.
They are precision tuned but they are focused and directionalized at relatively
high power levels. It is the phase and timing difference between the transmitted
pulse and the target return pulse that is detected and compared to yield the
distance and location information. The detection electronics just compares and
amplifies the phase and timing differences between the outgoing and incoming
signals, and cancels out "in phase" or "constant frequency" signal returns to
prevent return signal "saturation" from fixed objects. The transmittted signal is
also circularly polarized to eliminate clouds and rain reflections so the signal
can pass thru them with minimal return interference. Tuning is a HUGE part
of radar physics both on the transmission and receiving systems. That is where
the parametric amplifier comes in. It is the 1st "phase shift" signal detector,
its output is amplified and from there the phase comparison electronics kicks in.
Third,
Now I would ask you to count how many maxima you see.
By maxima, I assume that you are referring to the 3 elliptical interference pattern bands
described by the dots? The next question, that we have beaten to death, but
still not beaten a confession out of, is how are discrete photon (waves), each
arriving at a different tiime, create what appears to be mutual interference by
traveling thru the geometry of the slits? The patterns formed are in the horizontal
and vertical orientations, because we have vertical displacement and horizontal
displacement differences between each individual photon and we have interference nulls between photon hit patterns. GE has given some
very long and thoughtful answers to these issues, but there are still voids or
inconsistencies in the theory, there are some fundamental optical mixing
properties as light inteacts with matter that affect this experiment, IMO.
Regards,
LL
"particle" aspect of your argument. To misquote Shakespear's McBeth:
"Photon, it a wave or is it a particle? THAT is the question." (To be....or, not to be?) OK enough melodrama...
First, a receiving antenna receives ALL radio signal frequencies that correspond to
its resonant tuning "length". The antenna and receiver hardware are tuned to
the specific harmonic resonant frequency to filter out or shunt all non-desired
RF signals to ground. This is the resonant cavity optimized for the desired
frequency. We agree on this point. Now what about the antenna that is
located 10 miles in the other direction of the antenna. It is picking up the
exact same frequency wave and "photon" and the process is reproduced there.
But wait....if it is a particle, how could it be in both places at the same time?
Second,
QUOTE
The exception to this rule is when the photons are not coherent .. that would be the radar you mentioned some time back . For radar you just want a raw photon count..
Radar frequencies are coherent. They are transmitted at a specific frequency
(there are some that use multiple frequencies) at a specific wavelength.
They are precision tuned but they are focused and directionalized at relatively
high power levels. It is the phase and timing difference between the transmitted
pulse and the target return pulse that is detected and compared to yield the
distance and location information. The detection electronics just compares and
amplifies the phase and timing differences between the outgoing and incoming
signals, and cancels out "in phase" or "constant frequency" signal returns to
prevent return signal "saturation" from fixed objects. The transmittted signal is
also circularly polarized to eliminate clouds and rain reflections so the signal
can pass thru them with minimal return interference. Tuning is a HUGE part
of radar physics both on the transmission and receiving systems. That is where
the parametric amplifier comes in. It is the 1st "phase shift" signal detector,
its output is amplified and from there the phase comparison electronics kicks in.
Third,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The exception to this rule is when the photons are not coherent .. that would be the radar you mentioned some time back . For radar you just want a raw photon count.. |
Radar frequencies are coherent. They are transmitted at a specific frequency
(there are some that use multiple frequencies) at a specific wavelength.
They are precision tuned but they are focused and directionalized at relatively
high power levels. It is the phase and timing difference between the transmitted
pulse and the target return pulse that is detected and compared to yield the
distance and location information. The detection electronics just compares and
amplifies the phase and timing differences between the outgoing and incoming
signals, and cancels out "in phase" or "constant frequency" signal returns to
prevent return signal "saturation" from fixed objects. The transmittted signal is
also circularly polarized to eliminate clouds and rain reflections so the signal
can pass thru them with minimal return interference. Tuning is a HUGE part
of radar physics both on the transmission and receiving systems. That is where
the parametric amplifier comes in. It is the 1st "phase shift" signal detector,
its output is amplified and from there the phase comparison electronics kicks in.
Third,
Now I would ask you to count how many maxima you see.
By maxima, I assume that you are referring to the 3 elliptical interference pattern bands
described by the dots? The next question, that we have beaten to death, but
still not beaten a confession out of, is how are discrete photon (waves), each
arriving at a different tiime, create what appears to be mutual interference by
traveling thru the geometry of the slits? The patterns formed are in the horizontal
and vertical orientations, because we have vertical displacement and horizontal
displacement differences between each individual photon and we have interference nulls between photon hit patterns. GE has given some
very long and thoughtful answers to these issues, but there are still voids or
inconsistencies in the theory, there are some fundamental optical mixing
properties as light inteacts with matter that affect this experiment, IMO.
Regards,
LL
C2,
TIME OUT!
.
Frequency is number of 360 degree cycles over time (per second)
.
Wavelength is the measurement of 1 cycle over distance (meters).
.
Energy is momentum at the speed of light and is determined by the
amplitude of the frequency(Electron Volts).
.
Intensity is the number of photons per unit area (Lumens)
.
Color is determined by frequency as it relates to other frequencies (colors) on
a color scale (Chroma)
Each photon has a specific frequency of periodic cycle rotation per second,
as EM fields interact. The wavelength is a linear measure of 1 cycle/meter.
Other opinions, definitions welcome
LL
QUOTE
The 'colour' of the light on the backing screen is given by the energy of the photon. One photon doesn't have a frequency or a wavelength .. the words may be convenient when dealing with many photons but they both need to be treated with caution, we should abandon tradition and concentrate on energy.
TIME OUT!
.
Frequency is number of 360 degree cycles over time (per second)
.
Wavelength is the measurement of 1 cycle over distance (meters).
.
Energy is momentum at the speed of light and is determined by the
amplitude of the frequency(Electron Volts).
.
Intensity is the number of photons per unit area (Lumens)
.
Color is determined by frequency as it relates to other frequencies (colors) on
a color scale (Chroma)
Each photon has a specific frequency of periodic cycle rotation per second,
as EM fields interact. The wavelength is a linear measure of 1 cycle/meter.
Other opinions, definitions welcome
LL
Hi Laserlight and Confused2,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
GE has given some very long and thoughtful answers to these issues, but there are still voids or inconsistencies in the theory, there are some fundamental optical mixing properties as light interacts with matter that affect this experiment, IMO.
You are dead right there about "voids" but I think you may be wrong about the "inconsistencies". Remember we "elves" are all ears on where you may think there are actual inconsistencies. As to the "voids"... well it is a big Universe for a "sound byte"... I cannot cover all the bases at once. Remember that the halide particles suspended in an emulsion is for a rather easy to explain purpose... You are dead right about resonant systems and the relative importance of these phenomena. The scale of the resonant systems vary across the entire range and size of the Universe from the sub-nuclear to RF waves in the single figure Hz... they are all the same phenomena. Mostly I am recently concentrating on far field phenomena but near field phenomena can also be dealt with as well... the maths get a little more difficult though. "Elves" do not like actually doing the maths. but "cash resourced" Universities, Institutions and their staff have access to "tools" we elves do not possess.
I am sticking with my semi-classical wave theory until someone can actually find an inconsistency. Remember just pointing to classical theory's inability to nail where an individual photon actually ends up is a problem with all theories. The problems above have all been dealt with using old style classical concepts and without some new concepts do look inadequate. But this simply requires expanding to "semi-classical" concepts. I do not need to resort to a roulette wheels or games of chance to provide answers. "God does not play dice with man"... This does not mean that man does not like to play dice with God.
LOL
Cheers
but "cash resourced" Universities, Institutions and their staff have access to "tools" we elves do not possess.I am sticking with my semi-classical wave theory until someone can actually find an inconsistency. Remember just pointing to classical theory's inability to nail where an individual photon actually ends up is a problem with all theories. The problems above have all been dealt with using old style classical concepts and without some new concepts do look inadequate. But this simply requires expanding to "semi-classical" concepts. I do not need to resort to a roulette wheels or games of chance to provide answers. "God does not play dice with man"... This does not mean that man does not like to play dice with God.
LOLCheers
Laserlight .. I'm posting this because it's ready to go.. we may (or may not) come back to it.
Your call for TIME OUT is more important.
Your call for TIME OUT is more important.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I agree with most of your basic premise.. My problem is with the
"particle" aspect of your argument.
Um.. I thought "particle" was my basic premise .. never mind.
"particle" aspect of your argument.
Um.. I thought "particle" was my basic premise
.. never mind.QUOTE (LL+)
what about the antenna that is located 10 miles in the other direction of the antenna. It is picking up the exact same frequency wave and "photon" and the process is reproduced there, But wait....if it is a particle, how could it be in both places at the same time?
At 1 Mhz a 1 Watt transmitter would be spitting out 1/ (hf) or about 10^27 photons per second .. give or take an order of magnitude. There are plenty to go round.
At 1 Mhz a 1 Watt transmitter would be spitting out 1/ (hf) or about 10^27 photons per second .. give or take an order of magnitude. There are plenty to go round.
QUOTE (LL+)
Radar frequencies are coherent. They are transmitted at a specific frequency
The amplitude and phase of the 'bounce' is not coherent. The difference between [one ship here] and [one ship there with another ship behind it] exists only in the time domain. The point is interesting but possibly beyond the scope of the present discussion.
Counting maxima..
This one ..
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
MUST be more than three on this one .. the last ones were a bit faint .. running out of the good diffraction zone .. but this little beauty .. you must give me at least five maxima.. surely?
In the unlikely event that we agree that there are more than three maximums AND there is only one photon AND the effect is the result of the difference in path length .. then there is a problem with 'c'.
TIME OUT......
The amplitude and phase of the 'bounce' is not coherent. The difference between [one ship here] and [one ship there with another ship behind it] exists only in the time domain. The point is interesting but possibly beyond the scope of the present discussion.
Counting maxima..
This one ..
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
MUST be more than three on this one .. the last ones were a bit faint .. running out of the good diffraction zone .. but this little beauty .. you must give me at least five maxima.. surely?
In the unlikely event that we agree that there are more than three maximums AND there is only one photon AND the effect is the result of the difference in path length .. then there is a problem with 'c'.
TIME OUT......
Hi LL,GE et al,
I'm in LL's TIME OUT.
Personally I can only report what I see.
The DSE enables us to spread a 'wavelength' out and what I see is more photons being detected at the positive and negative peaks and none at the +- transition. I conclude that wavelength is an artifact of photon behaviour in time and space. I confess I have no idea what the difference is between a photon in the positive part of the waveform and a photon in the negative part of the waveform.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was only ever an indication of probability .. for de Broglie to have taken uncertainty and turned it into 'frequency' seems like a very dubious step. If we take de Broglie's frequency and use it to derive a wavelength .. then fire that wavelength into a DSE .. the 'probability' aspect emerges (IMHO) as clear as day.
If we look at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html ..
Edit:- seems you have to click on the Quantum Physics bubble first
I think we see that Good Elf inclines to the left and the Wave-Particle Duality and I incline to the right with the wavefunction and the Schrodinger Equation as the best description of what we are looking at.
The battle for souls continues.
Ready to play?
-C2.
I'm in LL's TIME OUT.
Personally I can only report what I see.
The DSE enables us to spread a 'wavelength' out and what I see is more photons being detected at the positive and negative peaks and none at the +- transition. I conclude that wavelength is an artifact of photon behaviour in time and space. I confess I have no idea what the difference is between a photon in the positive part of the waveform and a photon in the negative part of the waveform.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was only ever an indication of probability .. for de Broglie to have taken uncertainty and turned it into 'frequency' seems like a very dubious step. If we take de Broglie's frequency and use it to derive a wavelength .. then fire that wavelength into a DSE .. the 'probability' aspect emerges (IMHO) as clear as day.
If we look at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html ..
Edit:- seems you have to click on the Quantum Physics bubble first
I think we see that Good Elf inclines to the left and the Wave-Particle Duality and I incline to the right with the wavefunction and the Schrodinger Equation as the best description of what we are looking at.
The battle for souls continues.
Ready to play?
-C2.
Hi Confused2,
Frequency is number of 360 degree cycles over time (per second)
LL,
I visualize photonic frequency to be a 720 degree cycle; 360 positive, 360 negative.
TRoc, LL, C2, GE, JAL, YQ, WN?,
TRoc, due to the fact I just read sites of interest I felt that maybe it was time to get involved in a few.
Because I am a late comer, I do not expect anyone to really give much attention to my comments which I feel is just.
One explanation it seems to me is we are dealing with a superposition state, but if you just think about this aspect of the experiment it seems to give some indication to the complexity that Young has presented.
Everyone, trying to express in 3D terms something that I feel goes to a deeper level seems futile, but if you think about just the geometry of this DSE, you can see that the greater the spacing between the slits, the smaller is the spacing between the bright bands of the interference pattern.
POINT: is that the interference pattern spacing depends on the slit spacing. So the interference pattern shows that the light wave ----MONOCHROMATIC which can and is done over a long duration--- if that is what is being used has to come from both slits.
As far as the Beats, again thinking in 3D terms which is all I can do, is that the wave nature or crests and troughs are just lines, not beats--- if you can imagine looking down on the experiment using the concept that has been presented by some on this post.
This is just based on my understanding of the term BEATS & all that it implies as far as the fundamental characteristic's of its usage, please correct me if I am wrong.
Dual
QUOTE (Confused2+)
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was only ever an indication of probability ..
Just a point of order and maybe one where many are finding difficulty. "Uncertainty" and "Probability" are not related terms. HUP has a very physical interpretation and it is the magnitude in measurement of one correlated property (measurable) to another correlated property (measurable) whereas "probability" depends on chance and is not measurable. In the case of a double or single slit... HUP is a measure of the uncertainty in transverse momentum imparted by the slit to the particle.
HUP is all about any sampling of a measurable affects the value of the other measurable in a very defined way. Many cases are such that the sampling is made in such a way to determine one of the measurables to a high degree of accuracy. This does not have to be the case. It has been shown that several small measurements of a system result in quantum back action and these measurements can be used to stipulate a better value of both measurables as a 'suite" of gentle processes. It has been proposed that a quantum process may be potentially defined as a system that exhibits such "back action" and systems that cannot exhibit any "back action" are not true quantum states. So this is not strictly "statistics". While the "position" or other property may be now a statistical function and subject to probability the quanta of uncertainty is able to be determined by the way a system is measured. Some systems can actually violate HUP... HUP is no intrinsic property of quanta... it is an effect in systems where quantum states are 'collapsed" catastrophically by a single measurement.
Cheers
HUP is all about any sampling of a measurable affects the value of the other measurable in a very defined way. Many cases are such that the sampling is made in such a way to determine one of the measurables to a high degree of accuracy. This does not have to be the case. It has been shown that several small measurements of a system result in quantum back action and these measurements can be used to stipulate a better value of both measurables as a 'suite" of gentle processes. It has been proposed that a quantum process may be potentially defined as a system that exhibits such "back action" and systems that cannot exhibit any "back action" are not true quantum states. So this is not strictly "statistics". While the "position" or other property may be now a statistical function and subject to probability the quanta of uncertainty is able to be determined by the way a system is measured. Some systems can actually violate HUP... HUP is no intrinsic property of quanta... it is an effect in systems where quantum states are 'collapsed" catastrophically by a single measurement.
Cheers
C2,
You misinterpreted what I said. Radar works by phase shifting between
the "in phase" incident (transmitted bearm) and the out of phase return signal.
Out of phase is the key element here....that implys incoherence between
the incident and reflected signals, which is the basis of radar. As for the
detection of distance that is pure timing from the start of signal flight time which
is departure reference time + delay time for the reflected signal to be detected
*speed of light/2. So you are computing the round trip transit time of the signal
which computes to distance traveled. Signal amplitude has nothing to do with
coherence. It is purely the strength (power) of the signal. I agree that the
return bounce can have multiple out of phase timing elements which is a function
of physical dimensions of the "painted" target.
There are 7 maxima in the DSE experiment that you linked. Each data point plot
represents a single photon (EM wave) hit. As for your suggestion of a
problem with 'c', I disagree. If it were only a problem with 'c' then all of
the single photon waves would hit at the same point, but they don't. There
is some phenomenon, yet to be properly explained, that affects individual photons
arriving at different times to deviate from their linear path and form an interference pattern of
maxima and minima. What I want to know is the sequence
of the photon hits on the target. Is it a linear progression from left to right, right
to left, or does it alternate from left to right or from center outward to the
periphery? That might be a big clue as to the nature of the "interference"
mechanism.
Edit - added: If you count the number of individual photon hits on the 7 maxima
you will find that there are 15 hits on each individual wave. There is something
regarding symmetry in that observation. Also if you bissect the tall center wave
right down the middle you have mirror symmetry of the signals to each side
of the centerline.
Just another tidbit from the DSE linked by C2, if you double the area you
square the "intensity". It all fits.
LL
QUOTE
The amplitude and phase of the 'bounce' is not coherent. The difference between [one ship here] and [one ship there with another ship behind it] exists only in the time domain.
You misinterpreted what I said. Radar works by phase shifting between
the "in phase" incident (transmitted bearm) and the out of phase return signal.
Out of phase is the key element here....that implys incoherence between
the incident and reflected signals, which is the basis of radar. As for the
detection of distance that is pure timing from the start of signal flight time which
is departure reference time + delay time for the reflected signal to be detected
*speed of light/2. So you are computing the round trip transit time of the signal
which computes to distance traveled. Signal amplitude has nothing to do with
coherence. It is purely the strength (power) of the signal. I agree that the
return bounce can have multiple out of phase timing elements which is a function
of physical dimensions of the "painted" target.
There are 7 maxima in the DSE experiment that you linked. Each data point plot
represents a single photon (EM wave) hit.
As for your suggestion of aproblem with 'c', I disagree. If it were only a problem with 'c' then all of
the single photon waves would hit at the same point, but they don't. There
is some phenomenon, yet to be properly explained, that affects individual photons
arriving at different times to deviate from their linear path and form an interference pattern of
maxima and minima. What I want to know is the sequence
of the photon hits on the target. Is it a linear progression from left to right, right
to left, or does it alternate from left to right or from center outward to the
periphery? That might be a big clue as to the nature of the "interference"
mechanism.
Edit - added: If you count the number of individual photon hits on the 7 maxima
you will find that there are 15 hits on each individual wave. There is something
regarding symmetry in that observation. Also if you bissect the tall center wave
right down the middle you have mirror symmetry of the signals to each side
of the centerline.
Just another tidbit from the DSE linked by C2, if you double the area you
square the "intensity". It all fits.
LL
TIME IN....Do we have agreement as to the definitions of the measurable
quantities?
That was the reason for the time out....just to set the ground rules for the
"game".
LL
quantities?
That was the reason for the time out....just to set the ground rules for the
"game".
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Nov 21 2006, 11:25 PM)
Frequency is number of 360 degree cycles over time (per second)
LL,
I visualize photonic frequency to be a 720 degree cycle; 360 positive, 360 negative.
Hi LL, GE, 5D et al,
Whan radar came up I had a wizzo idea that you'd get better resolution by using individual photons .. I now suspect I've been caught out by my own logic, the HUP (which IS the wavelength (I claim) ) will prevent this from working. If we look at the fundamental resolution of a radar we should at least be able to make some comment about the GE photon .. too many cycles?
I think the 'not going straight through the slit' quesion is answered by diffraction .. which just introduces another can of worms .. maybe later?
As to whether the photons land randomly or not .. I suggest we assume it is (say) not random and look at the consequences .. then try the other assumption.
-C2.
Whan radar came up I had a wizzo idea that you'd get better resolution by using individual photons .. I now suspect I've been caught out by my own logic, the HUP (which IS the wavelength (I claim) ) will prevent this from working. If we look at the fundamental resolution of a radar we should at least be able to make some comment about the GE photon .. too many cycles?
I think the 'not going straight through the slit' quesion is answered by diffraction .. which just introduces another can of worms .. maybe later?
As to whether the photons land randomly or not .. I suggest we assume it is (say) not random and look at the consequences .. then try the other assumption.
-C2.
Fivedonut and All,
I think that only applies if you consider the E and M fields as separate
180 degree cycles on each side of their respective zero reference lines.
Isn't it conventional to consider the Y plane P-P maxima along the X plane of
time reference as a cycle? (or from zero start thru 360 degrees angular rotation,
or one circumference of a circle back to zero).
Do you have another definition of Hz?
LL
QUOTE
I visualize photonic frequency to be a 720 degree cycle; 360 positive, 360 negative.
I think that only applies if you consider the E and M fields as separate
180 degree cycles on each side of their respective zero reference lines.
Isn't it conventional to consider the Y plane P-P maxima along the X plane of
time reference as a cycle? (or from zero start thru 360 degrees angular rotation,
or one circumference of a circle back to zero).
Do you have another definition of Hz?
LL
Hi Confused2,
The frequency of a photon in optical experiments relates to color. Interference does not change wavelength, as noted in all sources interference is within a single photon at a time. The next point is optical frequencies are far shorter than resonant effects in space and are too short for the human eye to see, what the human eye sees is intensity.
While path length can vary by integer and 1/2 integer wavelengths (along the direction of propagation) what you are "seeing" in interference are spatial variation in intensity produced in the space (light and dark)... Not temporal variations in space due to changes in frequency. Temporal variations or "Beats " can be produced if temporal variation in source frequency occur subjecting the "cavity" to a series of "moving" maxima and minima. For instance a string of a guitar when plucked have non-linear effects depending on the amplitude of the string resonance and this can lead to "beats", a rather pleasant effect which gives a musical instrument a certain "quality" which sets it apart from "relatively pure sources" of frequency like a tuning fork. "Beats" is where the spatial variation in amplitude of a cavity varies when the source frequency varies with time. This is a phase phenomenon modulated by variations in excitation frequency.
With laser light the source frequency does not vary so you do not usually have "beats". What you still have is spatial variation in amplitude due to standing waves in the cavity (see illustration). This also includes the screen wall (which is an absorber). That wall records a static pattern of spatial intensity and passes through spatial maxima and minima transverse to the direction of propagation of the light. These maxima and minima are not representing actual wavelengths in that direction... wavelengths are measured ONLY in the direction of propagation which is perpendicular to that direction and these variations are resonances of the cavity and represent the variation in the standing waves perpendicular to the direction of propagation and are spatial phase relationships.. These are very many times larger than the wavelength of the light that is producing it. In the image you see spatial variations in intensity CDEF which are much larger than the wavelength which is the distance between successive crests along the direction of propagation. The light that produces it does not vary in frequency at all and remains the same frequency (color).
Click on image...
This goes to the heart of the Electromagnetic Wave-packet. It is a fact which you will need to establish that with light (photon - bosons) in a vacuum the group velocity and the phase velocity are the same... the speed of light. The light pattern is "frozen in time" along with its photons. This goes way back to the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. With particles the group velocity must always be less than the speed of light and the phase velocity will always exceed the speed of light. This results in a dynamically moving spatial pattern in the direction of propagation within group velocity of the envelope of the packet. Of course for fermion particles the group velocity determines how fast a packet as a whole may travel (and its energy) and is always subluminal.
The phase velocity can be measured in more than one direction both along the direction of propagation and transverse to the direction of propagation. For particles these velocities can always exceed the speed of light, they can even be infinite. For light this velocity is fixed along the direction of propagation at © but can be infinite perpendicular to the direction of propagation along the wavefront. An illustration of transverse phase velocity is the apparent velocity that a flashlight "spot" can move along a wall when a person quickly flicks it from one angular position to another quite different angular position. The "spot" can be made to move many times faster than the longitudinal speed of light. The truth is light is confined to travel "along the beam from flashlight to wall" (the group velocity) and nothing is actually "traveling" along the actual wall itself. A laser pointer aimed at one limb of the moon can be moved with a very small rapid deflection through a small angle to move the spot to the far limb of the moon in such a short time that this may represent a speed of hundreds of times the speed of light. The "energy" though is confined to move with the photons which is traveling from the flashlight to the moon at "only" the speed of light, photon by photon.
This is the very same mechanism whereby a spreading photon packet the size of a galaxy can almost instantly shrink along its own wavefront to a point and be a tiny localized flash. Phase velocity vs group velocity.
Cheers
The frequency of a photon in optical experiments relates to color. Interference does not change wavelength, as noted in all sources interference is within a single photon at a time. The next point is optical frequencies are far shorter than resonant effects in space and are too short for the human eye to see, what the human eye sees is intensity.
While path length can vary by integer and 1/2 integer wavelengths (along the direction of propagation) what you are "seeing" in interference are spatial variation in intensity produced in the space (light and dark)... Not temporal variations in space due to changes in frequency. Temporal variations or "Beats " can be produced if temporal variation in source frequency occur subjecting the "cavity" to a series of "moving" maxima and minima. For instance a string of a guitar when plucked have non-linear effects depending on the amplitude of the string resonance and this can lead to "beats", a rather pleasant effect which gives a musical instrument a certain "quality" which sets it apart from "relatively pure sources" of frequency like a tuning fork. "Beats" is where the spatial variation in amplitude of a cavity varies when the source frequency varies with time. This is a phase phenomenon modulated by variations in excitation frequency.
With laser light the source frequency does not vary so you do not usually have "beats". What you still have is spatial variation in amplitude due to standing waves in the cavity (see illustration). This also includes the screen wall (which is an absorber). That wall records a static pattern of spatial intensity and passes through spatial maxima and minima transverse to the direction of propagation of the light. These maxima and minima are not representing actual wavelengths in that direction... wavelengths are measured ONLY in the direction of propagation which is perpendicular to that direction and these variations are resonances of the cavity and represent the variation in the standing waves perpendicular to the direction of propagation and are spatial phase relationships.. These are very many times larger than the wavelength of the light that is producing it. In the image you see spatial variations in intensity CDEF which are much larger than the wavelength which is the distance between successive crests along the direction of propagation. The light that produces it does not vary in frequency at all and remains the same frequency (color).
Click on image...
This goes to the heart of the Electromagnetic Wave-packet. It is a fact which you will need to establish that with light (photon - bosons) in a vacuum the group velocity and the phase velocity are the same... the speed of light. The light pattern is "frozen in time" along with its photons. This goes way back to the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. With particles the group velocity must always be less than the speed of light and the phase velocity will always exceed the speed of light. This results in a dynamically moving spatial pattern in the direction of propagation within group velocity of the envelope of the packet. Of course for fermion particles the group velocity determines how fast a packet as a whole may travel (and its energy) and is always subluminal.
The phase velocity can be measured in more than one direction both along the direction of propagation and transverse to the direction of propagation. For particles these velocities can always exceed the speed of light, they can even be infinite. For light this velocity is fixed along the direction of propagation at © but can be infinite perpendicular to the direction of propagation along the wavefront. An illustration of transverse phase velocity is the apparent velocity that a flashlight "spot" can move along a wall when a person quickly flicks it from one angular position to another quite different angular position. The "spot" can be made to move many times faster than the longitudinal speed of light. The truth is light is confined to travel "along the beam from flashlight to wall" (the group velocity) and nothing is actually "traveling" along the actual wall itself. A laser pointer aimed at one limb of the moon can be moved with a very small rapid deflection through a small angle to move the spot to the far limb of the moon in such a short time that this may represent a speed of hundreds of times the speed of light. The "energy" though is confined to move with the photons which is traveling from the flashlight to the moon at "only" the speed of light, photon by photon.
This is the very same mechanism whereby a spreading photon packet the size of a galaxy can almost instantly shrink along its own wavefront to a point and be a tiny localized flash. Phase velocity vs group velocity.
Cheers
C2 and All,
I have given some thought to the single photon interference pattern and have
some possible scenarios of how an orderly displacement of individual photons,
each of which are arriving at a different time, occurs.
Please feel free to embellish or disagree with my ideas, or provide your own
concept. They are not set in concrete. We are seeking the truth, so all
possibilities are open to scrutiny, until a final correct solution that passes
muster, emerges.
Possibilities:
1. The angular momentum of individual arriving photons is somehow
seqentially "modified" by some "memory" phenomenon generated by the dual slit
geometry. Each arriving photon wave packet, somehow adds to the "energy"
level or natural atomic oscillating frequecy of the reonant cavities of the dual slits,
changing their harmonic "tuning", which changes its refractive optical frequency
relative to subsequent arriving photons.
2. The E or M field amplitude (or both) of each individual sequential photon is
disrupted or displaced by some refractive optical phenomenon of the DSE.
3. There is a timing phase shift or spin timing shift of each photon created by the
geometry of the DSE.
4. There is a cavity resonance (ringing) generated by the passage of each
photon thru the dual slits, that interacts with each subsequent incoming photon.
If the delay time between photon arrival is increased the interference pattern
peak locations will change as the ringing energy of the slits dissipates over time.
Feel free to comment...
LL
I have given some thought to the single photon interference pattern and have
some possible scenarios of how an orderly displacement of individual photons,
each of which are arriving at a different time, occurs.
Please feel free to embellish or disagree with my ideas, or provide your own
concept. They are not set in concrete. We are seeking the truth, so all
possibilities are open to scrutiny, until a final correct solution that passes
muster, emerges.
Possibilities:
1. The angular momentum of individual arriving photons is somehow
seqentially "modified" by some "memory" phenomenon generated by the dual slit
geometry. Each arriving photon wave packet, somehow adds to the "energy"
level or natural atomic oscillating frequecy of the reonant cavities of the dual slits,
changing their harmonic "tuning", which changes its refractive optical frequency
relative to subsequent arriving photons.
2. The E or M field amplitude (or both) of each individual sequential photon is
disrupted or displaced by some refractive optical phenomenon of the DSE.
3. There is a timing phase shift or spin timing shift of each photon created by the
geometry of the DSE.
4. There is a cavity resonance (ringing) generated by the passage of each
photon thru the dual slits, that interacts with each subsequent incoming photon.
If the delay time between photon arrival is increased the interference pattern
peak locations will change as the ringing energy of the slits dissipates over time.
Feel free to comment...
LL
Hello everyone,
I understand how much I do not know, and I also realize there is plenty of information on this forum because of you and your kindness to help me have a better grip on certain experiment's?
I have been reading this and a few other threads in which I found out can go many different directions or tangents at any time. So I hope this is a valid question?
1. How do we know that this is a EM free environment?
2. All of the different ways to see this experiment, I see no way that it is isolated from interference from other elements. This is not a controlled atmosphere, is this a correct view?
Dual
I understand how much I do not know, and I also realize there is plenty of information on this forum because of you and your kindness to help me have a better grip on certain experiment's?
I have been reading this and a few other threads in which I found out can go many different directions or tangents at any time. So I hope this is a valid question?
1. How do we know that this is a EM free environment?
2. All of the different ways to see this experiment, I see no way that it is isolated from interference from other elements. This is not a controlled atmosphere, is this a correct view?
Dual
Hi Good Elf, LaserLight , 5Doughnut et al,
Good Elf:-
I'm still not convinced that a single event can have a frequency. If you choose to define frequency on the basis of f = E/h then of course you you have a frequncy, we are all agreed that E doesn't change so frequency doesn't change (by definition). I am suggesting the DSE (or even a single slit) spreads the wavelength out - like the way your shadow gets longer when the sun is low in the sky but your arms are still a quarter (?) of the way down the shadow. If photons (like arms) were always in the same place in the wave then they should always turn up in the same place in the DSE ..we see that they don't. If you work the DSE equation ( http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html ) backwards then (to me) it looks like the probability of being detected on the screen maps 1 -> 1 back into a probability of being found in the original 'wave'. If you sit a lot of C2-photons on top of each other then everything goes back to looking classical .. the frequency is there, the wavelength is there and the waveform looks 'right'. The number of maxima suggest to me that a photon is not even localised on a particular wavefront. I am pretty sure that if you play the simple geometry backwards in time you will get a pretty good insight into what originally hit the slits.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Good Elf:-
I'm still not convinced that a single event can have a frequency. If you choose to define frequency on the basis of f = E/h then of course you you have a frequncy, we are all agreed that E doesn't change so frequency doesn't change (by definition). I am suggesting the DSE (or even a single slit) spreads the wavelength out - like the way your shadow gets longer when the sun is low in the sky but your arms are still a quarter (?) of the way down the shadow. If photons (like arms) were always in the same place in the wave then they should always turn up in the same place in the DSE ..we see that they don't. If you work the DSE equation ( http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html ) backwards then (to me) it looks like the probability of being detected on the screen maps 1 -> 1 back into a probability of being found in the original 'wave'. If you sit a lot of C2-photons on top of each other then everything goes back to looking classical .. the frequency is there, the wavelength is there and the waveform looks 'right'. The number of maxima suggest to me that a photon is not even localised on a particular wavefront. I am pretty sure that if you play the simple geometry backwards in time you will get a pretty good insight into what originally hit the slits.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Duality,
Fair questions. We are trying to understand the base underlying mechanism
that creates this interference standing wave phenomenon. Many have
been applying historically accepted theoretical arguments and mathematical
applications to solve the problem. IMO, we are analyzing and describing the
result rather than understanding the root cause that creates the mechanism
for the phenomenon. That is what I am seeking....causality. What is the
physical interaction between light and matter that creates the result.
To answer your questions:
1. We do know that light interacts with matter via the EM energy conservation/conversion interaction. How it applies to this experiment is
still unsolved.
2. There are unknown variables or influences which are being overlooked
or ignored, IMO.
We can only apply the information set that we know and speculate as to the
root cause. It will take someone with the tools to do the experiments to
prove or disprove the theories. We don't have access to the tools and must
rely on the work of others to seek a true solution. This is our
biggest problem, IMO.
LL
QUOTE
1. How do we know that this is a EM free environment?
2. All of the different ways to see this experiment, I see no way that it is isolated from interference from other elements. This is not a controlled atmosphere, is this a correct view?
2. All of the different ways to see this experiment, I see no way that it is isolated from interference from other elements. This is not a controlled atmosphere, is this a correct view?
Fair questions. We are trying to understand the base underlying mechanism
that creates this interference standing wave phenomenon. Many have
been applying historically accepted theoretical arguments and mathematical
applications to solve the problem. IMO, we are analyzing and describing the
result rather than understanding the root cause that creates the mechanism
for the phenomenon. That is what I am seeking....causality. What is the
physical interaction between light and matter that creates the result.
To answer your questions:
1. We do know that light interacts with matter via the EM energy conservation/conversion interaction. How it applies to this experiment is
still unsolved.
2. There are unknown variables or influences which are being overlooked
or ignored, IMO.
We can only apply the information set that we know and speculate as to the
root cause. It will take someone with the tools to do the experiments to
prove or disprove the theories. We don't have access to the tools and must
rely on the work of others to seek a true solution. This is our
biggest problem, IMO.
LL
C2-
Am I to infer from your argument above that you are reconsidering your
prior argument regarding the particle nature of a photon? Are you now
considering a discrete photon as actually being a wave? Or, is your statement
arguing that the actual angular reference position of each photon, as it passes the
geometry of the slits, is different and refracts differently as it passes thru the
slit cavities?
In the case of a lengthening shadow, that is due to the angle of incidence of Y
relative to X. It is not a right angle perpendicular relationship it is angularly
geometric. There are acute angles involved which changes the linear result
if compared to a right angle relationship.
If you change the wavelength, you change the frequency.
Please comment if I misunderstood your argument or logic.
LL
QUOTE
I am suggesting the DSE (or even a single slit) spreads the wavelength out - like the way your shadow gets longer when the sun is low in the sky but your arms are still a quarter (?) of the way down the shadow. If photons (like arms) were always in the same place in the wave then they should always turn up in the same place in the DSE
Am I to infer from your argument above that you are reconsidering your
prior argument regarding the particle nature of a photon? Are you now
considering a discrete photon as actually being a wave? Or, is your statement
arguing that the actual angular reference position of each photon, as it passes the
geometry of the slits, is different and refracts differently as it passes thru the
slit cavities?
In the case of a lengthening shadow, that is due to the angle of incidence of Y
relative to X. It is not a right angle perpendicular relationship it is angularly
geometric. There are acute angles involved which changes the linear result
if compared to a right angle relationship.
If you change the wavelength, you change the frequency.
Please comment if I misunderstood your argument or logic.
LL
Laserlight,
Thank you for your answer it is very much appreciated.
I now need to read again what has been said, and think on just this mechanism and data that has supported the experiment starting with the prodigy Young.
If you live in the USA, Happy Thanksgiving. Try and not over do it in the eating department.
Dual/Lisa
Thank you for your answer it is very much appreciated.
I now need to read again what has been said, and think on just this mechanism and data that has supported the experiment starting with the prodigy Young.
If you live in the USA, Happy Thanksgiving. Try and not over do it in the eating department.
Dual/Lisa
LL, C2, GE, JAL, YQ, WN? , et al..
I have been trying to catch up from where we were. I must admit, I was a little confused about who was saying what between GE and C2. These last 2 pages, at least, present the “angle” in which they are coming from.
C2, I had no idea you were a “particle” believer! It’s no wonder you could not have a conversation with me. I guess these are the times in life where you just have to “ignore” the views of others, if you want to get along. In this conversation, we might as well be from different Planets. So, unless you can offer some kind of evidence that could prove a particle definition for the “photon” in the DSE, I’ll just “let it slide”. Same for questioning frequency, while maintaining a wavelength argument??
In the other corner, we have Good Elf, hanging on to QM’s crowning achievement, QED, which does NOT predict the interaction of “photons”. Therefore, GE must ignore the evidence to the contrary. This is what students of the theory, as well as the professors who teach the course must do, so at least he’s in good company.
1. Yes, GE, the SOURCE (laser) IS NOT MONOCHROMATIC; Prove otherwise.
2. Amplitude is not caused by resonance, or beats.
3. You have a mismatch: you state that "wavelength is the distance between successive crests ONLY along the direction of propagation", and you show a picture of a "water wave" analogy (2D spherical). What about the other directions? The symmetry tells us something different than you are saying.
4. Standing waves have NO beats.
5. Interference DOES change wavelength (& frequency). Please measure the wavelength on the screen and note that it is NOT the same as the source (state).
(also note the picture that you submitted: at the "focal plane", you see the "virtual" NLM, and the beat summation process clearly demonstrated)
INTERFER - OMETRY ! What a concept! It (the interference) allows us to measure things, which we wouldn't be able to do otherwise.
Such a mess! All these observations, pieced together to form some kind of “theory”. At least that way it is “teachable”, even if it is not understandable, or logical. This is, at least, still producing people who can go forth into the field, and hope to find a solution. It would be so much easier, given human nature, if they just admitted the flaws, by openly discussing them in class. Of course, the teacher would be soon removed, if that were the case.
From as far back as 1954, experimenters have been proving this theory wrong. (here, I do NOT mean all of QED) I think that the “establishment” is beginning to pave the way for the changing of the guard. Copenhagen is about to fall! The Nobel Prize in 2005, was ALSO given (shared) to Roy Glauber for his contributions to “what CAN be measured”. Bohr was right in that aspect, at least. Einstein was ALSO right, in saying that it “can be predicted”, IF we have the correct information. Mr. Glauber also shared in the 2006 Willis E. Lamb Award for Laser Science and Quantum Optics.
http://www.physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/glauber.html
In R. Glauber’s 1964 book “Quantum Optics and Electronics”, his analysis of QED opened the door for the possibility of interactions, or BEATS within the framework of that theory. If you want to know how this can happen, I suggest you start there. Of course, if you had never learned QED, you would not have to bother with this “rethinking”.
Readers Digest version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_optics
Second Trip to the Thanksgiving Table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_tensor , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_decomposition
I see that we have been joined by “duality/Lisa”: welcome!
Your first question is absolutely correct, not even close to “everything” has been accounted for in this experiment. It makes talking about (without that realization) rather pointless. What you are witnessing here is a debate as to the QUESTION, not the ANSWER. We can not hope to approach the answer if we can not even agree on what it is we are looking at, and asking about.
regards,
T.Roc
I have been trying to catch up from where we were. I must admit, I was a little confused about who was saying what between GE and C2. These last 2 pages, at least, present the “angle” in which they are coming from.
C2, I had no idea you were a “particle” believer! It’s no wonder you could not have a conversation with me. I guess these are the times in life where you just have to “ignore” the views of others, if you want to get along. In this conversation, we might as well be from different Planets. So, unless you can offer some kind of evidence that could prove a particle definition for the “photon” in the DSE, I’ll just “let it slide”. Same for questioning frequency, while maintaining a wavelength argument??
In the other corner, we have Good Elf, hanging on to QM’s crowning achievement, QED, which does NOT predict the interaction of “photons”. Therefore, GE must ignore the evidence to the contrary. This is what students of the theory, as well as the professors who teach the course must do, so at least he’s in good company.
1. Yes, GE, the SOURCE (laser) IS NOT MONOCHROMATIC; Prove otherwise.
2. Amplitude is not caused by resonance, or beats.
3. You have a mismatch: you state that "wavelength is the distance between successive crests ONLY along the direction of propagation", and you show a picture of a "water wave" analogy (2D spherical). What about the other directions? The symmetry tells us something different than you are saying.
4. Standing waves have NO beats.
5. Interference DOES change wavelength (& frequency). Please measure the wavelength on the screen and note that it is NOT the same as the source (state).
(also note the picture that you submitted: at the "focal plane", you see the "virtual" NLM, and the beat summation process clearly demonstrated)
INTERFER - OMETRY ! What a concept! It (the interference) allows us to measure things, which we wouldn't be able to do otherwise.
Such a mess! All these observations, pieced together to form some kind of “theory”. At least that way it is “teachable”, even if it is not understandable, or logical. This is, at least, still producing people who can go forth into the field, and hope to find a solution. It would be so much easier, given human nature, if they just admitted the flaws, by openly discussing them in class. Of course, the teacher would be soon removed, if that were the case.
From as far back as 1954, experimenters have been proving this theory wrong. (here, I do NOT mean all of QED) I think that the “establishment” is beginning to pave the way for the changing of the guard. Copenhagen is about to fall! The Nobel Prize in 2005, was ALSO given (shared) to Roy Glauber for his contributions to “what CAN be measured”. Bohr was right in that aspect, at least. Einstein was ALSO right, in saying that it “can be predicted”, IF we have the correct information. Mr. Glauber also shared in the 2006 Willis E. Lamb Award for Laser Science and Quantum Optics.
http://www.physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/glauber.html
In R. Glauber’s 1964 book “Quantum Optics and Electronics”, his analysis of QED opened the door for the possibility of interactions, or BEATS within the framework of that theory. If you want to know how this can happen, I suggest you start there. Of course, if you had never learned QED, you would not have to bother with this “rethinking”.
Readers Digest version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_optics
Second Trip to the Thanksgiving Table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_tensor , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_decomposition
I see that we have been joined by “duality/Lisa”: welcome!
Your first question is absolutely correct, not even close to “everything” has been accounted for in this experiment. It makes talking about (without that realization) rather pointless. What you are witnessing here is a debate as to the QUESTION, not the ANSWER. We can not hope to approach the answer if we can not even agree on what it is we are looking at, and asking about.
regards,
T.Roc
T.Roc,
We are in philosophical agreement on many fronts.
I am curious how you explain the single photon "interference" pattern, where
discrete photons individually traverse the cavity of the slits but produce a second
order and 3rd order, etc., harmonic "beat" result . IMO, there is insufficient
time coincident signal mixing to account for a harmonic interaction or
signal recombination as we know it.
I think we have been beating around the bush, but are finally zeroing in on the
right direction to proceed. We are asking the right questions, and analyzing the
evidence, but IMO we are interpreting the evidence incorrectly. We are
quantum sleuths, seeking the answer from the evidence.
We could equate this to Quantum Forensics.....
Up to the challenge? LOL
LL
We are in philosophical agreement on many fronts.
I am curious how you explain the single photon "interference" pattern, where
discrete photons individually traverse the cavity of the slits but produce a second
order and 3rd order, etc., harmonic "beat" result . IMO, there is insufficient
time coincident signal mixing to account for a harmonic interaction or
signal recombination as we know it.
I think we have been beating around the bush, but are finally zeroing in on the
right direction to proceed. We are asking the right questions, and analyzing the
evidence, but IMO we are interpreting the evidence incorrectly. We are
quantum sleuths, seeking the answer from the evidence.
We could equate this to Quantum Forensics.....
Up to the challenge? LOL
LL
TRoc, LL, C2, GE, JAL, YQ, WN?,TRoc, due to the fact I just read sites of interest I felt that maybe it was time to get involved in a few.
Because I am a late comer, I do not expect anyone to really give much attention to my comments which I feel is just.
One explanation it seems to me is we are dealing with a superposition state, but if you just think about this aspect of the experiment it seems to give some indication to the complexity that Young has presented.
Everyone, trying to express in 3D terms something that I feel goes to a deeper level seems futile, but if you think about just the geometry of this DSE, you can see that the greater the spacing between the slits, the smaller is the spacing between the bright bands of the interference pattern.
POINT: is that the interference pattern spacing depends on the slit spacing. So the interference pattern shows that the light wave ----MONOCHROMATIC which can and is done over a long duration--- if that is what is being used has to come from both slits.
As far as the Beats, again thinking in 3D terms which is all I can do, is that the wave nature or crests and troughs are just lines, not beats--- if you can imagine looking down on the experiment using the concept that has been presented by some on this post.
This is just based on my understanding of the term BEATS & all that it implies as far as the fundamental characteristic's of its usage, please correct me if I am wrong.
Dual
Hey C2, GE, LL, TRoc, Duality, 5D, jal, yq, et al.
I’ve been trying to catch up over the last few days, excellent stuff all around!
If I can offer an observation or two... It seems to me that the current issue revolves around everyone trying to come to grips with (explain) what the photons do in a single photon DSE. Everyone agrees with the experimental evidence; each photon will land at or close to the maxima and avoid landing at or close to the minima and do so according to the interference pattern that can be derived from the maths of wave interference. The disagreement seems to be whether the individual photon follows all paths and lands at a determinable location as a result of following all paths, or if it follows only one of the probable paths determined by the wave function. The former suggests that the "collapse" of the wave function at a particular location is determined (that is, not subject to HUP) because all paths are traveled. The latter suggests that only one path is traveled and while we can determine the possible paths (as a result of the wave function) we cannot determine which of the possible paths any given photon will take (randomness governed by probability). Regardless of the approach chosen, if we know the geometry of the experiment, we can accurately predict the outcome of the experiment without ever sending photons through the slits. Agreed? If so, then it seems that the geometry (in 3D+T, or more if you are so inclined) is the important factor, especially the T part. As evident in the DCQE experiment, the experiment must be run from start to finish and any alteration of the geometry of the experiment in between the start and finish must be taking into account when computing the time independent probability. Bohmian Mechanics addresses this with pilot waves, W-F Theory with advanced waves, and QM with a psi... Is there any empirically independent evidence for any of these? Can we “see” a pilot wave, advanced wave or a nothing wave? No. They are all constructs to explain the same empirical evidence. That being the case, is there any empirical evidence that weakens the claims of any of the three?
LL, if I could add one more to your list of possibilities…
5. The actual/real/physical geometry of spacetime though which the photon can travel is determined by the actual/real/physical geometry of the experiment. Photons tend toward the maxima and avoid the minima because those are the allowed (and not allowed) paths through the geometry of spacetime that they can travel.
I’ve been trying to catch up over the last few days, excellent stuff all around!
If I can offer an observation or two... It seems to me that the current issue revolves around everyone trying to come to grips with (explain) what the photons do in a single photon DSE. Everyone agrees with the experimental evidence; each photon will land at or close to the maxima and avoid landing at or close to the minima and do so according to the interference pattern that can be derived from the maths of wave interference. The disagreement seems to be whether the individual photon follows all paths and lands at a determinable location as a result of following all paths, or if it follows only one of the probable paths determined by the wave function. The former suggests that the "collapse" of the wave function at a particular location is determined (that is, not subject to HUP) because all paths are traveled. The latter suggests that only one path is traveled and while we can determine the possible paths (as a result of the wave function) we cannot determine which of the possible paths any given photon will take (randomness governed by probability). Regardless of the approach chosen, if we know the geometry of the experiment, we can accurately predict the outcome of the experiment without ever sending photons through the slits. Agreed? If so, then it seems that the geometry (in 3D+T, or more if you are so inclined) is the important factor, especially the T part. As evident in the DCQE experiment, the experiment must be run from start to finish and any alteration of the geometry of the experiment in between the start and finish must be taking into account when computing the time independent probability. Bohmian Mechanics addresses this with pilot waves, W-F Theory with advanced waves, and QM with a psi... Is there any empirically independent evidence for any of these? Can we “see” a pilot wave, advanced wave or a nothing wave? No. They are all constructs to explain the same empirical evidence. That being the case, is there any empirical evidence that weakens the claims of any of the three?
LL, if I could add one more to your list of possibilities…
5. The actual/real/physical geometry of spacetime though which the photon can travel is determined by the actual/real/physical geometry of the experiment. Photons tend toward the maxima and avoid the minima because those are the allowed (and not allowed) paths through the geometry of spacetime that they can travel.
Hi All,
Just a "quick" one .... Be very clear... wavelength is measured perpendicular to the wavefront (along the direction of propagation) and in no other direction. It is that measurement that determines the "individual color" of a photon. A photon can have many internal frequencies that make up a simple packet but as shown by my construction previously a sequence of packets in time 'stitch together" to form Continuous Waves suppressing the other higher frequencies in the packet but contributing to the boson waves "influence".. This is the principle of least action being involved...
click on link...
Waves can reflect around cavities especially where there are perfectly reflecting walls and the Poynting Vector will also follow that normal around so does not always follow a perfect sphere of expansion. Remember this is a "cavity". This does not change the way we measure the wavelength in a vacuum which is always perpendicular to the local wavefront and this parameter remains constant in a vacuum. Of course in material mediums with differing refractive indices such as glass, you need to account for changing velocity of light and thus changing wavefront heading.
I really thought that everyone understood the basics about waves... Oh well... back to the drawing board.
Cheers
Just a "quick" one .... Be very clear... wavelength is measured perpendicular to the wavefront (along the direction of propagation) and in no other direction. It is that measurement that determines the "individual color" of a photon. A photon can have many internal frequencies that make up a simple packet but as shown by my construction previously a sequence of packets in time 'stitch together" to form Continuous Waves suppressing the other higher frequencies in the packet but contributing to the boson waves "influence".. This is the principle of least action being involved...
click on link...
Waves can reflect around cavities especially where there are perfectly reflecting walls and the Poynting Vector will also follow that normal around so does not always follow a perfect sphere of expansion. Remember this is a "cavity". This does not change the way we measure the wavelength in a vacuum which is always perpendicular to the local wavefront and this parameter remains constant in a vacuum. Of course in material mediums with differing refractive indices such as glass, you need to account for changing velocity of light and thus changing wavefront heading.
I really thought that everyone understood the basics about waves... Oh well... back to the drawing board.
Cheers
WhyNot and all,
My argument to this is that the "collapse" (or deformation/stretching) of any
component of the wavefunction should immediately change the photon to some
other less energetic form of photonic energy. That implies that there would be
a frequency change as C2 is suggesting. The result should be a "loss" or
transfer of energy as it is converted to IR. This would present a real dillema
unless the geometry of the DSE acts as a quantum "transformer" or signal
splitter.
This still doesn't address the mirror interference pattern unless the quantum energy
content of the incident photon "splits" and diffracts into 2 lower energy photons
that travel at 2 different angular vectors as they depart the tuned cavity of the
slits. This would suggest that from 1 photon of x energy that 2 photons of lesser
1/2x energy were generated and their integer spins are in opposite directions.
Is this even theoretically possible?
Edit added: This could explain the unexpected squaring of the number of
photons detected when the number of slits doubled.
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
My argument to this is that the "collapse" (or deformation/stretching) of any
component of the wavefunction should immediately change the photon to some
other less energetic form of photonic energy. That implies that there would be
a frequency change as C2 is suggesting. The result should be a "loss" or
transfer of energy as it is converted to IR. This would present a real dillema
unless the geometry of the DSE acts as a quantum "transformer" or signal
splitter.
This still doesn't address the mirror interference pattern unless the quantum energy
content of the incident photon "splits" and diffracts into 2 lower energy photons
that travel at 2 different angular vectors as they depart the tuned cavity of the
slits. This would suggest that from 1 photon of x energy that 2 photons of lesser
1/2x energy were generated and their integer spins are in opposite directions.
Is this even theoretically possible?
Edit added: This could explain the unexpected squaring of the number of
photons detected when the number of slits doubled.
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
LL, if I could add one more to your list of possibilities…
5. The actual/real/physical geometry of spacetime though which the photon can travel is determined by the actual/real/physical geometry of the experiment. Photons tend toward the maxima and avoid the minima because those are the allowed (and not allowed) paths through the geometry of spacetime that they can travel.
OK, we should add this.
Back to my basic questions. Why is there a geometric wave pattern "mirror
images" generated by the passage of individual photons thru the slits? Why do
individual photons, without any physical or timing relationship to each other,
respond to some unknown phenomenon to generate symmetry?
Any comments or ideas welcome.
LL
QUOTE
The disagreement seems to be whether the individual photon follows all paths and lands at a determinable location as a result of following all paths, or if it follows only one of the probable paths determined by the wave function. The former suggests that the "collapse" of the wave function at a particular location is determined (that is, not subject to HUP) because all paths are traveled. The latter suggests that only one path is traveled and while we can determine the possible paths (as a result of the wave function) we cannot determine which of the possible paths any given photon will take (randomness governed by probability).
My argument to this is that the "collapse" (or deformation/stretching) of any
component of the wavefunction should immediately change the photon to some
other less energetic form of photonic energy. That implies that there would be
a frequency change as C2 is suggesting. The result should be a "loss" or
transfer of energy as it is converted to IR. This would present a real dillema
unless the geometry of the DSE acts as a quantum "transformer" or signal
splitter.
This still doesn't address the mirror interference pattern unless the quantum energy
content of the incident photon "splits" and diffracts into 2 lower energy photons
that travel at 2 different angular vectors as they depart the tuned cavity of the
slits. This would suggest that from 1 photon of x energy that 2 photons of lesser
1/2x energy were generated and their integer spins are in opposite directions.
Is this even theoretically possible?
Edit added: This could explain the unexpected squaring of the number of
photons detected when the number of slits doubled.
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The disagreement seems to be whether the individual photon follows all paths and lands at a determinable location as a result of following all paths, or if it follows only one of the probable paths determined by the wave function. The former suggests that the "collapse" of the wave function at a particular location is determined (that is, not subject to HUP) because all paths are traveled. The latter suggests that only one path is traveled and while we can determine the possible paths (as a result of the wave function) we cannot determine which of the possible paths any given photon will take (randomness governed by probability). |
My argument to this is that the "collapse" (or deformation/stretching) of any
component of the wavefunction should immediately change the photon to some
other less energetic form of photonic energy. That implies that there would be
a frequency change as C2 is suggesting. The result should be a "loss" or
transfer of energy as it is converted to IR. This would present a real dillema
unless the geometry of the DSE acts as a quantum "transformer" or signal
splitter.
This still doesn't address the mirror interference pattern unless the quantum energy
content of the incident photon "splits" and diffracts into 2 lower energy photons
that travel at 2 different angular vectors as they depart the tuned cavity of the
slits. This would suggest that from 1 photon of x energy that 2 photons of lesser
1/2x energy were generated and their integer spins are in opposite directions.
Is this even theoretically possible?
Edit added: This could explain the unexpected squaring of the number of
photons detected when the number of slits doubled.
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
LL, if I could add one more to your list of possibilities…
5. The actual/real/physical geometry of spacetime though which the photon can travel is determined by the actual/real/physical geometry of the experiment. Photons tend toward the maxima and avoid the minima because those are the allowed (and not allowed) paths through the geometry of spacetime that they can travel.
OK, we should add this.
Back to my basic questions. Why is there a geometric wave pattern "mirror
images" generated by the passage of individual photons thru the slits? Why do
individual photons, without any physical or timing relationship to each other,
respond to some unknown phenomenon to generate symmetry?
Any comments or ideas welcome.
LL
Good Elf,Please forget theory for a moment or two.
Looking at
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
You need to look at the difference of path length caused by the separation of the slits and the angle to the screen, nothing more, nothing less. Do you agree that most photons are counted where the wavelengths add up to an integer and the least are found where the wavelengths add up to an integer + 1/2. If 'yes' then you are looking at the same thing as me and apparently a few others.
Hi LL,
I apologise if I appear to have suggested the frequency changes in the DSE. I have suggested that the wavelength is no more than the distribution of the most likely place of finding the photon. I do think the DSE has magnified the wavelength greatly and enabled us to see where the photon lives in it .
Part of my reasoning for suggesting that the photon frequency is pretty meaningless and we should look at photon energy is that we can spread the wavelength (distribution of the photon) out in this way without changing the properties of the photon in any way.
Why Not?
I'm still trying to take in what I'm looking at .. too soon for me to have any idea of 'why'.
Troc,
Yep, I seem to be a particle man, it had to come out sooner or later.
Best to all,
-C2.
Looking at
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
You need to look at the difference of path length caused by the separation of the slits and the angle to the screen, nothing more, nothing less. Do you agree that most photons are counted where the wavelengths add up to an integer and the least are found where the wavelengths add up to an integer + 1/2. If 'yes' then you are looking at the same thing as me and apparently a few others.
Hi LL,
I apologise if I appear to have suggested the frequency changes in the DSE. I have suggested that the wavelength is no more than the distribution of the most likely place of finding the photon. I do think the DSE has magnified the wavelength greatly and enabled us to see where the photon lives in it .
Part of my reasoning for suggesting that the photon frequency is pretty meaningless and we should look at photon energy is that we can spread the wavelength (distribution of the photon) out in this way without changing the properties of the photon in any way.
Why Not?
I'm still trying to take in what I'm looking at .. too soon for me to have any idea of 'why'.
Troc,
Yep, I seem to be a particle man, it had to come out sooner or later.
Best to all,
-C2.
Hey LL, et al.
From what I have read in the DSE experimental data, the frequency of each photon does not change. A photon is emitted from the source at a certain frequency and wavelength and some time later is absorbed at the screen. The energy of emission is equal to (within the bounds of h) the amount of energy at absorption. As such, the photon does not split in half. The mirror symmetry is a function of the wave mechanics. Each photon does not hit the screen in two different places.
In the case of photons, I believe the collapse in this case is a conversion of energy. The non-local (at least within the size and time constraints of the frequency and wavelength) gets converted into momentum of the absorbing electron. The "frequency" literally collapses in the conversion process. The speed of the collapse can be nearly instantaneous - the whole phase velocity thing.
I am not entirely certain I am tracking your question correctly… But it seems to me that the symmetry is a result of the geometry of the apparatus. If source is not centered between the two slits, the mirror symmetry will be lost.
From what I have read in the DSE experimental data, the frequency of each photon does not change. A photon is emitted from the source at a certain frequency and wavelength and some time later is absorbed at the screen. The energy of emission is equal to (within the bounds of h) the amount of energy at absorption. As such, the photon does not split in half. The mirror symmetry is a function of the wave mechanics. Each photon does not hit the screen in two different places.
QUOTE
My argument to this is that the "collapse" (or deformation/stretching) of any component of the wave function should immediately change the photon to some other less energetic form of photonic energy.
In the case of photons, I believe the collapse in this case is a conversion of energy. The non-local (at least within the size and time constraints of the frequency and wavelength) gets converted into momentum of the absorbing electron. The "frequency" literally collapses in the conversion process. The speed of the collapse can be nearly instantaneous - the whole phase velocity thing.
I am not entirely certain I am tracking your question correctly… But it seems to me that the symmetry is a result of the geometry of the apparatus. If source is not centered between the two slits, the mirror symmetry will be lost.
C2, see my added edit to my prior post...re: the squaring of the photon count
by doubling the area....
LL
by doubling the area....
LL
Hi LL,
I was rather hoping nobody would notice this effect .. if I suggested that the photons in the interference regions hop over into the bright zones you'd probably think I was crazy. I'm only saying what I think see. The same data is in front of all of us.
-C2 .
I was rather hoping nobody would notice this effect .. if I suggested that the photons in the interference regions hop over into the bright zones you'd probably think I was crazy. I'm only saying what I think see. The same data is in front of all of us.
-C2
.
WhyNot,
There is a "progression" to the pattern. The photons are not just randomly
oriented or scattered, they are balanced in the vertical and horizontal planes, and
there are the same number of photons on each "lobe". Remember that
each photon arrived at a different time from every other photon and travelled
thru 1 or the other of the 2 slits, but they still generate a geometric pattern.
If they arrived randomly and had no interaction or phase relationship, then they
should be randomly scattered and not been balanced in their pattern.
They have what looks like a timing generated deflection coincidence, or a
uniform/balanced deflection offset, even though they arrived at completely
different times. Also, notice that there are photons in the direct centerline of
the center slit post.
I'm still mulling over the squaring of the photon count issue by doubling the
slit exposure area, even though when each slit was individually opened the
count was 1/4 that of both slits open. The count didn't double, it squared.
Come on guys we have some important clues but everyone seems afraid to
explore the unexplainable. Where is your sense of curiosity and adventure?
LL
QUOTE
I am not entirely certain I am tracking your question correctly… But it seems to me that the symmetry is a result of the geometry of the apparatus. If source is not centered between the two slits, the mirror symmetry will be lost.
There is a "progression" to the pattern. The photons are not just randomly
oriented or scattered, they are balanced in the vertical and horizontal planes, and
there are the same number of photons on each "lobe". Remember that
each photon arrived at a different time from every other photon and travelled
thru 1 or the other of the 2 slits, but they still generate a geometric pattern.
If they arrived randomly and had no interaction or phase relationship, then they
should be randomly scattered and not been balanced in their pattern.
They have what looks like a timing generated deflection coincidence, or a
uniform/balanced deflection offset, even though they arrived at completely
different times. Also, notice that there are photons in the direct centerline of
the center slit post.
I'm still mulling over the squaring of the photon count issue by doubling the
slit exposure area, even though when each slit was individually opened the
count was 1/4 that of both slits open. The count didn't double, it squared.
Come on guys we have some important clues but everyone seems afraid to
explore the unexplainable. Where is your sense of curiosity and adventure?
LL
Hi LL,
How are you getting on with my suggestion that photons hop over into the most probable regions?
-C2
How are you getting on with my suggestion that photons hop over into the most probable regions?
-C2
Guys, I have a theory....so keep an open mind and comment accordingly.
The dual slit is a dual complementary tuned cavity to the energy of the photons.
What does this mean?
It means that as a single photon is passing thru a single cavity, the cavity harmonically
resonates due to the geometry of its shape. This harmonic frequency that is set
up in one cavity is resonantly coupled into the other cavity because they
are symmetrical in geometry. The second harmonic resonating cavity "recreates"
or duplicates the energy pattern being coupled to it and it generates a "twin"
photon that is out of phase and of opposite integer spin to the initial photon.
Crazy?? Maybe, but this would explain several clues that I have elaborated upon
previously. It would explain the photon squaring issue. It would explain the
mirror image issue. It would explain the energy "lobe" placement phenomenon
and it would explain the photon symmetry count issue per lobe.
Comments? Or should I be on the lookout for some men bringing me a white
coat with sleeves that tie in the back?
LL
The dual slit is a dual complementary tuned cavity to the energy of the photons.
What does this mean?
It means that as a single photon is passing thru a single cavity, the cavity harmonically
resonates due to the geometry of its shape. This harmonic frequency that is set
up in one cavity is resonantly coupled into the other cavity because they
are symmetrical in geometry. The second harmonic resonating cavity "recreates"
or duplicates the energy pattern being coupled to it and it generates a "twin"
photon that is out of phase and of opposite integer spin to the initial photon.
Crazy?? Maybe, but this would explain several clues that I have elaborated upon
previously. It would explain the photon squaring issue. It would explain the
mirror image issue. It would explain the energy "lobe" placement phenomenon
and it would explain the photon symmetry count issue per lobe.
Comments? Or should I be on the lookout for some men bringing me a white
coat with sleeves that tie in the back?
LL
C2-
How do you explain the mechanism for how this should occur, and how do you
explain the apparent symmetry issue, and the squaring of the photon count?
I am having a problem visualizing how your suggestion could work.
LL
QUOTE
How are you getting on with my suggestion that photons hop over into the most probable regions?
How do you explain the mechanism for how this should occur, and how do you
explain the apparent symmetry issue, and the squaring of the photon count?
I am having a problem visualizing how your suggestion could work.
LL
Let me offer a real life example of induced resonances.
Consider how a tuning fork works. If you strike 1 tine of the fork it vibrates and
sets up vibrations in the other fork tine and the 2 tines "harmonize" in timing
and form resonances that form beat frequencies. If you expose a tuning fork
to the specific harmonic frequency from an external source, it will start
vibrating at the same frequency even though it is not in direct contact with the
frequency source.
This follows fourier analysis and the resultant interference waves of Michaelson interferometry.
I'm proposing that coupled tuned cavities will resonate in harmony, like a
quantum harmonic "transformer".
Who can explain this better. Does it fit QM or QCD theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform_spectroscopy
LL
Consider how a tuning fork works. If you strike 1 tine of the fork it vibrates and
sets up vibrations in the other fork tine and the 2 tines "harmonize" in timing
and form resonances that form beat frequencies. If you expose a tuning fork
to the specific harmonic frequency from an external source, it will start
vibrating at the same frequency even though it is not in direct contact with the
frequency source.
This follows fourier analysis and the resultant interference waves of Michaelson interferometry.
I'm proposing that coupled tuned cavities will resonate in harmony, like a
quantum harmonic "transformer".
Who can explain this better. Does it fit QM or QCD theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform_spectroscopy
LL
Hi Laserlight,
I think we would agree that it is not easy to make an optical cavity .. by definition I think it requires multiple reflections. The apparatus usd to demonstrate the two slit effect varies from classroom walls to some of the ones we've looked at where lenses are used .. also some (DCQE http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm ) where the difference in time between detections is effectively measured .. this would seem to eliminate the possibility of any sort of optical cavity effect.
In this post http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=141440 .. Why Not? gives a link to an MM where the time of flight of the photon is used .. unfortunately with entangled photons but even so I think it's clear neither photon has had time to make multiple passes through either leg.
I would certainly agree that even the possibility of multiple reflections might influence the outcome .. looking at a classic MM there are half silvered mirrors and multiple reflections involved .. the Q of any cavity cavity would seem to be 'not a lot' ((zero?) and I'm pretty sure any ghostly fringes would have been noticed before now.
A few years ago I was challenged to demonstrate the DSE and it took me very little time to cut two suitable slits in a piece of foil. With the aid of a laser pointer I successfully demonstrated the effect. Unfortunately a variation of the Peach Brandy effect caused me to lose control of the scalpel I was using and I cut myself rather badly while preparing the slits. I was conspicuously losing increasing amounts of blood as the demonstration progressed. The only time I tried to draw the attention of the audience to the physics involved it (for some reason) dissolved into fits of laughter which I felt was both unkind and unhelpful.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I think we would agree that it is not easy to make an optical cavity .. by definition I think it requires multiple reflections. The apparatus usd to demonstrate the two slit effect varies from classroom walls to some of the ones we've looked at where lenses are used .. also some (DCQE http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm ) where the difference in time between detections is effectively measured .. this would seem to eliminate the possibility of any sort of optical cavity effect.
In this post http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=141440 .. Why Not? gives a link to an MM where the time of flight of the photon is used .. unfortunately with entangled photons but even so I think it's clear neither photon has had time to make multiple passes through either leg.
I would certainly agree that even the possibility of multiple reflections might influence the outcome .. looking at a classic MM there are half silvered mirrors and multiple reflections involved .. the Q of any cavity cavity would seem to be 'not a lot' ((zero?) and I'm pretty sure any ghostly fringes would have been noticed before now.
A few years ago I was challenged to demonstrate the DSE and it took me very little time to cut two suitable slits in a piece of foil. With the aid of a laser pointer I successfully demonstrated the effect. Unfortunately a variation of the Peach Brandy effect caused me to lose control of the scalpel I was using and I cut myself rather badly while preparing the slits. I was conspicuously losing increasing amounts of blood as the demonstration progressed. The only time I tried to draw the attention of the audience to the physics involved it (for some reason) dissolved into fits of laughter which I felt was both unkind and unhelpful.
Best wishes,
-C2.
HI Confused2, Laserlight, Why Not?, Good Elf,, TRoc, & ones I have missed
quoted by Good Elf,
I am not sure I understand this concept, again using 3D terminology it would be like turning on a light bulb in the middle of the room and we know the photon does not go in just one direction. QM, seem to use the analogy of dropping a stone in the middle of the pond to show direction. If I have misunderstood please correct me because I do not think I understood your view on this Sir?
Confulsed2, and Laserlight, you have a valid point it truly would be very difficult if not impossible if the cavity was solid.
This is where the UCT, shows its power of concept best! No matter where you measure the wave function, the wave collapse where ever the detector is place, even if it was on one of the slits front or behind.
The two-slit experiment neatly underlines a basic feature of Quantum theory, these consequences seem so strange to me, if you test for particles, you find particles.
If you test for waves, then you find waves. Quantum Fundamental Physics is so strange at best. But I do think most of us are thinking or presenting the same paradox to this experiment in its conceptual begging.
I just hope if there is a pilot wave involved in this world of quantum mechanics, then our technology will improve in order to test for it. But as of yet, this is not the case.
Dual/Lisa
quoted by Good Elf,
QUOTE
Be very clear... wavelength is measured perpendicular to the wavefront (along the direction of propagation) and in no other direction.
I am not sure I understand this concept, again using 3D terminology it would be like turning on a light bulb in the middle of the room and we know the photon does not go in just one direction. QM, seem to use the analogy of dropping a stone in the middle of the pond to show direction. If I have misunderstood please correct me because I do not think I understood your view on this Sir?
Confulsed2, and Laserlight, you have a valid point it truly would be very difficult if not impossible if the cavity was solid.
This is where the UCT, shows its power of concept best! No matter where you measure the wave function, the wave collapse where ever the detector is place, even if it was on one of the slits front or behind.
The two-slit experiment neatly underlines a basic feature of Quantum theory, these consequences seem so strange to me, if you test for particles, you find particles.
If you test for waves, then you find waves. Quantum Fundamental Physics is so strange at best. But I do think most of us are thinking or presenting the same paradox to this experiment in its conceptual begging.
I just hope if there is a pilot wave involved in this world of quantum mechanics, then our technology will improve in order to test for it. But as of yet, this is not the case.
Dual/Lisa
Hi Laserlight and Confused2,
Laserlight seems to be "leaning" toward the resonance concept while Confused2 seems to insist that we are speaking about paths and particles "hopping" around... you seem to have come to an internal absurdity... this is what it means in particle theories ... not only are you insisting on "clumping" of particles in space and time but also dynamically altering the individual paths of those particles so they "clump". I just do not buy it since Confused2 is only offering "philosophy" not an experimental verification. Mind you this is just the sort of thing you need to examine and consider to see ultimately what it is that is the problem. We all need internal consistancy of our ideas in order that this makes some sense.
I believe strongly in the principle that experiment must verify any of our theories. If any theory is in conflict with any multiply replicated experiment (even if that is just one experiment like this DSE) then the theory (as stated) must be wrong. There is no other way to proceed logically. I have always been an "ultra rationalist". I do not believe in things for which there is absolutely no evidence, at least publicly. It is a simple philosophy and it has worked for science for quite a long time. What it has accomplished is a relentless progression in human knowledge. We have a rational system and I have seen some who abandon a rational system and go "wandering in the jungle at night and never return". Other philosophies cannot agree on the time of day let alone what is the correct version of truth that individuals pursue. The Scientific Method is the only means I know of rational debate in which some people can simultaneously agree while initially having two diametrically opposed points of view... This is because an impartial experiment can be designed to choose between them and that simply settles the matter.
This is a highly "democratic" method... your view must be 100% consistent with the way the Universe "works" and MUST explain ultimately the results of all experiments. I am convinced that this should be the one and only approach.
Laserlight seems to be "leaning" toward the resonance concept while Confused2 seems to insist that we are speaking about paths and particles "hopping" around... you seem to have come to an internal absurdity... this is what it means in particle theories ... not only are you insisting on "clumping" of particles in space and time but also dynamically altering the individual paths of those particles so they "clump". I just do not buy it since Confused2 is only offering "philosophy" not an experimental verification. Mind you this is just the sort of thing you need to examine and consider to see ultimately what it is that is the problem. We all need internal consistancy of our ideas in order that this makes some sense.
I believe strongly in the principle that experiment must verify any of our theories. If any theory is in conflict with any multiply replicated experiment (even if that is just one experiment like this DSE) then the theory (as stated) must be wrong. There is no other way to proceed logically. I have always been an "ultra rationalist". I do not believe in things for which there is absolutely no evidence, at least publicly.
It is a simple philosophy and it has worked for science for quite a long time. What it has accomplished is a relentless progression in human knowledge. We have a rational system and I have seen some who abandon a rational system and go "wandering in the jungle at night and never return". Other philosophies cannot agree on the time of day let alone what is the correct version of truth that individuals pursue. The Scientific Method is the only means I know of rational debate in which some people can simultaneously agree while initially having two diametrically opposed points of view... This is because an impartial experiment can be designed to choose between them and that simply settles the matter.This is a highly "democratic" method... your view must be 100% consistent with the way the Universe "works" and MUST explain ultimately the results of all experiments. I am convinced that this should be the one and only approach.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Good Elf,Please forget theory for a moment or two. Looking at
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
You need to look at the difference of path length caused by the separation of the slits and the angle to the screen, nothing more, nothing less. Do you agree that most photons are counted where the wavelengths add up to an integer and the least are found where the wavelengths add up to an integer + 1/2. If 'yes' then you are looking at the same thing as me and apparently a few others.
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
You need to look at the difference of path length caused by the separation of the slits and the angle to the screen, nothing more, nothing less. Do you agree that most photons are counted where the wavelengths add up to an integer and the least are found where the wavelengths add up to an integer + 1/2. If 'yes' then you are looking at the same thing as me and apparently a few others.
Lets be very picky about "language"... if we speak the same language then the words all have the same meaning to both of us. If you use a different "language" from me where the words you are using have a different meaning to the way I use them, then we are most certainly are not looking at the same things together. IMHO we are not counting actual photons, we are counting flashes of light (this is when photons we think are involved in some kind of particle interaction). You seem to forget that when one wave is canceled by the phase of another counter phased wave for that one photon, what happens is that we cannot count photons there at all. They "disappear". Our space diagrams indicate not photons, since one detection will instantly destroy a photon, but represent interactions densities we might alternatively measure throughout space (actually a map of alternative sites in which an individual photon may be volumetrically detected). Further on along the apparent direction of propagation in a straight line from that point the phases of the photons reinforce again... They become visible to experiment again if you were to place a screen there. This is no surface of the sea with water waves since all detected photons "ends" their individual "seeking of all paths" action right then.
I say NO photons actually exist in these intermediate areas of space... they exist in a different space and what you are looking at are "shadows"... patches of light and dark on "screens". The effects on screens can only occur if the photons are involved in interactions. For our purposes that individual interaction "destroys them". IMHO your view of the photon as tiny billiard balls is actually untenable but I will try and show what I think you are saying here.
"The photon is really tiny sphere probably proportional to the amount of energy they carry. They neither grow nor spread but are tiny little projectiles whose average velocity is the speed of light. Because they are little particles they can be described by statistics as indicated by quantum mechanics. These statistics are modifiers of the trajectory of the photon and "magically" work through unknowable phenomena which are "very mysterious" and results in amazing paradoxes that the human mind is unable to comprehend. They propagate by "probability waves". Amazingly this process results in the physics we know on the larger scale of the Universe yet on the small scale everything is dominated more and more by "noise". This "noise" itself is the source of the quantum and increases as we approach the "Dirac Sea". At a rather "magical" number, for which there is no experimental justification, the Universe cavitates into chaos below that realm. These really "tiny" photons around the size of those flashes you can see and "redistributed" in the space according to "probability" such that their density function mimics the intensity we are seeing with our eyes." Is this close?
To my alternative way of understanding this phenomenon, the photon is the result of the most primitive of all actions... The impulse on the brane of the Universe, like plucking a string on a guitar.
E = hf
The "emission" event begins and it will end, time truncates the otherwise continuous wave and creates "packets". A packet of energy occurs through the process of moving charges of opposite electrostatic centers. While executing simple harmonic motion (mostly with regard to the light electrons). The field lines cross each other nipping off a field loop. Each consecutive loop is only 1/2 wavelength between itself and the the next loop. As far as our world is concerned the newly created photon immediately enters a form of hyperspace ... beyond our dimensional space... no measurement can be made on the system in that space and though it is possible to trigger the photon to "precipitate" from this space, this cannot happen unless an interaction occurs.
Being an orthogonal space means that everything in our Universe is "stationary" with respect to the "coordinates" of all those created photons in Hyperspace. By virtue of de Broglie's Hypothesis these "individual photon particles" will expand (at the speed of light) to fill its cavity. These are the "figure" of the waves we think we "see" expanding at the speed of light. If we sample sufficient photons and plot these numbers as an intensity this is what it appears to look like in two dimensions.
Click to enlarge...
The photons cannot change their wavelength because that defines the constant speed of this influence... But they "spread" to fill a "interior" surface of the cavity that "seeks all paths". It has the curious property that no matter what direction we move in and whatever the speed relative to all other particles, this relative speed remains unchanged . It is our lack of appreciation of higher dimensions that has "frozen our brains" so we are unable to appreciate this is a hyper-dimensional phenomena. So like a shadow on a wall, the figure on the wall of our universe in higher dimensions is a three dimensional version of this picture above that fills all volumetric space everywhere that can be reached by every individual photon packet and the interference pattern is happening for each and every individual photon since every photon is filling the space through spreading. The nodes and anti-nodes (dark and bright patches "hanging" in space) are "hypothetical" volumetric regions where the photon may be detected (or not). An intersection of a surface in space with this volumetric space is the absorber screen plane. One by one the photons select from the overall volumetric pattern a single point to "execute" their flash. Exactly where this is unable to be predicted "a priori" but it will follow four rules...
1) Absorbers (where interactions are guaranteed to occur) eg. screens.
2) Reflectors (where interactions are guaranteed not to occur) eg. mirrors
3) bit of both (partial reflector or absorber) individual photons can be absorbed or not depending on "chance"
4)neither... photon continues to propagate unimpeded in higher dimensions
Every photon from the same coherent source is a standing wave pattern as shown above in the illustration but generalized to occupy all space within the cavity not just a two dimensional plane as shown. The density of lines in the construction illustrate our ability to detect the particle at that point. Remember this is a "standing wave pattern" that does not change or "move" in time... it is a static pattern if the geometry is constant.
This view is consistent with experiment.
Cheers
I say NO photons actually exist in these intermediate areas of space... they exist in a different space and what you are looking at are "shadows"... patches of light and dark on "screens". The effects on screens can only occur if the photons are involved in interactions. For our purposes that individual interaction "destroys them". IMHO your view of the photon as tiny billiard balls is actually untenable but I will try and show what I think you are saying here.
"The photon is really tiny sphere probably proportional to the amount of energy they carry. They neither grow nor spread but are tiny little projectiles whose average velocity is the speed of light. Because they are little particles they can be described by statistics as indicated by quantum mechanics. These statistics are modifiers of the trajectory of the photon and "magically" work through unknowable phenomena which are "very mysterious" and results in amazing paradoxes that the human mind is unable to comprehend. They propagate by "probability waves". Amazingly this process results in the physics we know on the larger scale of the Universe yet on the small scale everything is dominated more and more by "noise". This "noise" itself is the source of the quantum and increases as we approach the "Dirac Sea". At a rather "magical" number, for which there is no experimental justification, the Universe cavitates into chaos below that realm. These really "tiny" photons around the size of those flashes you can see and "redistributed" in the space according to "probability" such that their density function mimics the intensity we are seeing with our eyes." Is this close?
To my alternative way of understanding this phenomenon, the photon is the result of the most primitive of all actions... The impulse on the brane of the Universe, like plucking a string on a guitar.
E = hf
The "emission" event begins and it will end, time truncates the otherwise continuous wave and creates "packets". A packet of energy occurs through the process of moving charges of opposite electrostatic centers. While executing simple harmonic motion (mostly with regard to the light electrons). The field lines cross each other nipping off a field loop. Each consecutive loop is only 1/2 wavelength between itself and the the next loop. As far as our world is concerned the newly created photon immediately enters a form of hyperspace ... beyond our dimensional space... no measurement can be made on the system in that space and though it is possible to trigger the photon to "precipitate" from this space, this cannot happen unless an interaction occurs.
Being an orthogonal space means that everything in our Universe is "stationary" with respect to the "coordinates" of all those created photons in Hyperspace. By virtue of de Broglie's Hypothesis these "individual photon particles" will expand (at the speed of light) to fill its cavity. These are the "figure" of the waves we think we "see" expanding at the speed of light. If we sample sufficient photons and plot these numbers as an intensity this is what it appears to look like in two dimensions.
Click to enlarge...
The photons cannot change their wavelength because that defines the constant speed of this influence... But they "spread" to fill a "interior" surface of the cavity that "seeks all paths". It has the curious property that no matter what direction we move in and whatever the speed relative to all other particles, this relative speed remains unchanged . It is our lack of appreciation of higher dimensions that has "frozen our brains" so we are unable to appreciate this is a hyper-dimensional phenomena. So like a shadow on a wall, the figure on the wall of our universe in higher dimensions is a three dimensional version of this picture above that fills all volumetric space everywhere that can be reached by every individual photon packet and the interference pattern is happening for each and every individual photon since every photon is filling the space through spreading. The nodes and anti-nodes (dark and bright patches "hanging" in space) are "hypothetical" volumetric regions where the photon may be detected (or not). An intersection of a surface in space with this volumetric space is the absorber screen plane. One by one the photons select from the overall volumetric pattern a single point to "execute" their flash. Exactly where this is unable to be predicted "a priori" but it will follow four rules...
1) Absorbers (where interactions are guaranteed to occur) eg. screens.
2) Reflectors (where interactions are guaranteed not to occur) eg. mirrors
3) bit of both (partial reflector or absorber) individual photons can be absorbed or not depending on "chance"
4)neither... photon continues to propagate unimpeded in higher dimensions
Every photon from the same coherent source is a standing wave pattern as shown above in the illustration but generalized to occupy all space within the cavity not just a two dimensional plane as shown. The density of lines in the construction illustrate our ability to detect the particle at that point. Remember this is a "standing wave pattern" that does not change or "move" in time... it is a static pattern if the geometry is constant.
This view is consistent with experiment.
Cheers
Good Elf, I guess you do not like my comments for this I do understand.
I knew I wanted to add something for everyone to think about, if it needs corrections please do.
According to quantum theory, electromagnetic radiation does not always consist of continuous waves; instead it must be viewed under some circumstances as a collection of particle-like photons, the energy and momentum of each being directly proportional to its frequency (or inversely proportional to its wavelength, the photons still possessing some wavelike characteristics). This is where I was stating that if you want particles you get.... well I do not want to be redundant.
Conversely, electrons and other objects that appear as particles in classical physics are endowed by quantum theory with wavelike properties as well, such a particle's quantum wavelength being inversely proportional to its momentum.
In both instances, the proportionality constant is the characteristic quantum of action (action being defined as energy time)--that is to say, Planck's constant h.
This is the thorn-atom-electron-photon, in my flesh dealing with this concept.
What surprises me is no one has even brought up space-time and the effects that this could have as well. Or do you even think it might?
Dual/Lisa
I knew I wanted to add something for everyone to think about, if it needs corrections please do.According to quantum theory, electromagnetic radiation does not always consist of continuous waves; instead it must be viewed under some circumstances as a collection of particle-like photons, the energy and momentum of each being directly proportional to its frequency (or inversely proportional to its wavelength, the photons still possessing some wavelike characteristics). This is where I was stating that if you want particles you get.... well I do not want to be redundant.
Conversely, electrons and other objects that appear as particles in classical physics are endowed by quantum theory with wavelike properties as well, such a particle's quantum wavelength being inversely proportional to its momentum.
In both instances, the proportionality constant is the characteristic quantum of action (action being defined as energy time)--that is to say, Planck's constant h.
This is the thorn-atom-electron-photon, in my flesh dealing with this concept.
What surprises me is no one has even brought up space-time and the effects that this could have as well. Or do you even think it might?
Dual/Lisa
Hi C2,
Yeah, I know it sounds far fetched, but examine my logic of the possible
mechanism involved before just throwing the idea out the window. I may not
be totally correct, but I might be partially correct. Then again, the proof is
in the pudding.
What I'm proposing isn't an optical cavity in the conventional mirror/lens
configuration. I'm thinking of it as an optical "transformer". I'm
suggesting that is an "induction" process caused by the interaction of EM fields in
the presence of matter. (Consider it like electrons flowing thru the geometric
center of a loop of coiled wire transformer). (I know that electrons have charge
and are "matter") The point being that the localized EM proximity charges inherent
in the matter of the walls of the specific cavity are interacting with the EM charges
of the passing photons. This causes field interactions in the atoms in the walls of
the cavity and they are"ringing" due to the induced charge interactions.
I am proposing that this "atomic ringing" is setting up a harmonic field oscillation
that is being coupled into the other cavity thru the "ringing" atoms of the center
post. The second cavity is reflecting and amplifying the induced ringing "energy field"
and a twin photon is being generated due to the transformer field
harmonic amplification effect.
Remember my explanation of how the magnetron works...which is using electrons
and tuned cavities to generate harmonic photonic energy fields. I'm proposing a
similar photon generated harmonic energy field effect.
We know that EM energy fields in photons and matter interact.
We know that matter converts photon energy to different forms of energy.
We know how electrons act when interacting with EM energy fields.
There are many physical phenomena that we don't know how to properly explain
either because we don't understand the mechanisms involved or don't have
the analytical tools to view and measure the phenomena.
I'm just proposing a theory. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
than are drempt of in your philosophy." Shakespeare- Hamlet
Regards,
LL
Yeah, I know it sounds far fetched, but examine my logic of the possible
mechanism involved before just throwing the idea out the window. I may not
be totally correct, but I might be partially correct. Then again, the proof is
in the pudding.
What I'm proposing isn't an optical cavity in the conventional mirror/lens
configuration. I'm thinking of it as an optical "transformer". I'm
suggesting that is an "induction" process caused by the interaction of EM fields in
the presence of matter. (Consider it like electrons flowing thru the geometric
center of a loop of coiled wire transformer). (I know that electrons have charge
and are "matter") The point being that the localized EM proximity charges inherent
in the matter of the walls of the specific cavity are interacting with the EM charges
of the passing photons. This causes field interactions in the atoms in the walls of
the cavity and they are"ringing" due to the induced charge interactions.
I am proposing that this "atomic ringing" is setting up a harmonic field oscillation
that is being coupled into the other cavity thru the "ringing" atoms of the center
post. The second cavity is reflecting and amplifying the induced ringing "energy field"
and a twin photon is being generated due to the transformer field
harmonic amplification effect.
Remember my explanation of how the magnetron works...which is using electrons
and tuned cavities to generate harmonic photonic energy fields. I'm proposing a
similar photon generated harmonic energy field effect.
We know that EM energy fields in photons and matter interact.
We know that matter converts photon energy to different forms of energy.
We know how electrons act when interacting with EM energy fields.
There are many physical phenomena that we don't know how to properly explain
either because we don't understand the mechanisms involved or don't have
the analytical tools to view and measure the phenomena.
I'm just proposing a theory. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
than are drempt of in your philosophy." Shakespeare- Hamlet
Regards,
LL
Hi Duality, Confused2, Laserlight et al,
QUOTE (Duality+)
QM, seem to use the analogy of dropping a stone in the middle of the pond to show direction. If I have misunderstood please correct me because I do not think I understood your view on this Sir?
Thanks for you input there. You have not put your point in the last post but left it up to peoples imagination to determine your exact position on matters. This is OK but it leaves a lot of guessing to be made by me to determine what you mean. Quantum Mechanics says the particles cannot exist between observations so this "pattern" shown above has no fundamental reality at all. QM does not attempt to indicate "where" particles "are" at any intermediate point in time, only the probability of finding them in a volume of space if an attempt was made at an interaction there. So what do you think wavelength means? The superposition of states may exist but this has no "physical" significance in itself since it cannot be measured.
My view on wavelength is quite clear and IMHO is not controversial. I find it hard to understand what it is that others find so difficult about how to measure wavelength. It is the minimum crest to crest distance. This means the shortest distance between crests in the wave. You can use "probability waves" but I prefer to use the relationship of E = hf. You can determine the wavelength "independently" and you can discover the interference fringes do not measure wavelength but path length differences. The pattern you see above in my previous post is not like waves lapping on the edge of the shore... they are standing waves not traveling waves.... they do not move. These crests and troughs are not wavelengths they are interference fringes. Other directions will not measure wavelength and certainly will not relate to the frequency of the light which is a straight calculation...
C = fλ (λ = C/f) C = speed of light
I cannot see that if light everywhere from a particular source has a particular frequency (color), other ways to measure this wavelength where you get a different answer in any direction you choose should indicate anything at all. Wavelength and frequency are related through the "constant" ©... sorry that is it... final and absolute when done in a vacuum. This sounds like a store attendant who measures the length of cloth as the diagonal rather than the length. All right the shop attendant can charge more for a bolt of cloth and silly people may find this acceptable but I am unable to see the science in this.
The relationship between packets and continuous waves is shown in my construction above...
Continuous Wave Construction: Good Elf
This is only an illustration but indicates the method in which the construction may be performed in general. This illustrates a number of features about bosons and I think it is correct.
Thanks for you input there.
You have not put your point in the last post but left it up to peoples imagination to determine your exact position on matters. This is OK but it leaves a lot of guessing to be made by me to determine what you mean. Quantum Mechanics says the particles cannot exist between observations so this "pattern" shown above has no fundamental reality at all. QM does not attempt to indicate "where" particles "are" at any intermediate point in time, only the probability of finding them in a volume of space if an attempt was made at an interaction there. So what do you think wavelength means? The superposition of states may exist but this has no "physical" significance in itself since it cannot be measured.My view on wavelength is quite clear and IMHO is not controversial. I find it hard to understand what it is that others find so difficult about how to measure wavelength. It is the minimum crest to crest distance. This means the shortest distance between crests in the wave. You can use "probability waves" but I prefer to use the relationship of E = hf. You can determine the wavelength "independently" and you can discover the interference fringes do not measure wavelength but path length differences. The pattern you see above in my previous post is not like waves lapping on the edge of the shore... they are standing waves not traveling waves.... they do not move. These crests and troughs are not wavelengths they are interference fringes. Other directions will not measure wavelength and certainly will not relate to the frequency of the light which is a straight calculation...
C = fλ (λ = C/f) C = speed of light
I cannot see that if light everywhere from a particular source has a particular frequency (color), other ways to measure this wavelength where you get a different answer in any direction you choose should indicate anything at all. Wavelength and frequency are related through the "constant" ©... sorry that is it... final and absolute when done in a vacuum. This sounds like a store attendant who measures the length of cloth as the diagonal rather than the length. All right the shop attendant can charge more for a bolt of cloth and silly people may find this acceptable but I am unable to see the science in this.
The relationship between packets and continuous waves is shown in my construction above...
Continuous Wave Construction: Good Elf
This is only an illustration but indicates the method in which the construction may be performed in general. This illustrates a number of features about bosons and I think it is correct.
QUOTE (Duality+)
Conversely, electrons and other objects that appear as particles in classical physics are endowed by quantum theory with wavelike properties as well, such a particle's quantum wavelength being inversely proportional to its momentum.
In both instances, the proportionality constant is the characteristic quantum of action (action being defined as energy time)--that is to say, Planck's constant h.
This is the thorn-atom-electron-photon, in my flesh dealing with this concept.
In both instances, the proportionality constant is the characteristic quantum of action (action being defined as energy time)--that is to say, Planck's constant h.
This is the thorn-atom-electron-photon, in my flesh dealing with this concept.
Only David Bohm has had the temerity to suggest that particles or photons have existence outside of the times they are being interacted with as particles. I find this Copenhagen Interpretation "too esoteric" and mathematically inconsistent. The references for this are given previously. The point you made about the fact that where you place the detector... that is where the superposition collapses is "interesting" but it is also "circular". Are you suggesting this fact is "meaningful"?
Cheers
Cheers
Good Elf and all,
If you pluck a string in the vacuum of space, doesn't it still release the kinetic
energy being generated as heat (infrared) photonic waves that vary in intensity
to the harmonic wave function? I'm betting so.
In the case of your example of mirrors and the statement that no interactions
between matter and light are occurring. Hmmmm, perhaps you have forgotten
about the issue of refraction. Light is interacting with matter, it is just being
energetically "rejected". JMHO.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
To my alternative way of understanding this phenomenon, the photon is the result of the most primitive of all actions... The impulse on the brane of the Universe, like plucking a string on a guitar.
If you pluck a string in the vacuum of space, doesn't it still release the kinetic
energy being generated as heat (infrared) photonic waves that vary in intensity
to the harmonic wave function? I'm betting so.
In the case of your example of mirrors and the statement that no interactions
between matter and light are occurring. Hmmmm, perhaps you have forgotten
about the issue of refraction. Light is interacting with matter, it is just being
energetically "rejected". JMHO.
Regards,
LL
Hi all,
This is a very diverse group of opinions! One of everything, it seems. This is a strong sign that the “textbook” model is inadequate: it does not explain things well enough for an easy consensus.
Onward!
If possible, we all need to SPECIFY what part of the DSE that we are talking about, each time we post. There are many times I think people are talking about different. IE. A.) single slit diffraction pattern, B.) double slit pattern, C.) changing from 2 to 1 slit, D.) “1 at a time” through 1 slit, E . “1 at a time” through 2 slits, F.) “continuation” and re-measurement, or “erased path”. I know that I have been guilty in just saying “DSE” when writing.
GE, I am not disagreeing with you about the way that we MEASURE the wavelength of an EM wave ON THE EQUIPMENT we are using to “visualize” the wave.
Remember, the “photon” can not be seen in “flight”. This means, quite obviously, that we ARE NOT actually measuring the “photon” at all, we can only measure the representation that Fourier gives us. This is why I ask to remove that device from our THEORY development. The theorist does not tell the experimentalist how to do the job of measuring the expectations. There are ways to do this, and mine is not the only one.
Dual is right to the point about this: what does this mean in 3D?
This is going to lead us to discussing the "form" of the EM wave, but not quite yet.
I am very reasonable; I think that you will find that I can change my mind rather quickly, if shown hard evidence. Until then, I am more like a goat.
Any one is free to submit a link, or whatever, to contradict these things (not just GE).
1. The SOURCE (laser) IS NOT MONOCHROMATIC
2. Amplitude is not caused by resonance, or beats.
3. wavelength is the distance between successive crests ONLY along the direction of propagation", analogy (2D spherical/sinusoidal). What about the other directions? They reveal Doppler shift.
4. Standing waves have NO beats.
5. “Interference” DOES change wavelength (& frequency). This can be seen by Doppler shift, and a relativistic calculation. (if you change 1, you change the other, in the limit of c, and the phase, or packet)
The end result, on the screen, is a reproduction of the slit geometry, in relation to the wavelength. This geometry breaks up the wave the SAME way, regardless of frequency of the source. The ratios are constant, as measured (or "collapsed") at the screen.
I realized that I should change my wording. I am (& maybe others too) using “interference” like a noun. I think “interaction” might be a better term, although it still “assumes” an effect. The point is that in SOME cases, the interaction produces NO effect, or no interference, ON THE ORIGINAL FREQUENCY. Those cases are superposition, and standing waves; two key terms in Resonance. If the right ratios to either of these are present, a phenomenon occurs where a NEW frequency is produced. In Optics, they term this Four-wave mixing (FWM), and Second Harmonic Generation (SHG), to name 2. The term FWM is misleading, because JUST 2 frequencies are required to initiate the effect. THE RELATIONSHIP OF THESE NEW FREQUENCIES TO THE INITIAL FREQUENCIES IS PREDICTABLE. That is the one sentence I want people to see.
Dual, the term “monochromatic” is loosely thrown around. You can read my post back a few pages HERE to see this.
I’m not sure that I understand the problem. Beats are what is between the lines; if you have any lines, you create distance between them.
TBC ...
T.Roc
This is a very diverse group of opinions! One of everything, it seems. This is a strong sign that the “textbook” model is inadequate: it does not explain things well enough for an easy consensus.
Onward!
If possible, we all need to SPECIFY what part of the DSE that we are talking about, each time we post. There are many times I think people are talking about different. IE. A.) single slit diffraction pattern, B.) double slit pattern, C.) changing from 2 to 1 slit, D.) “1 at a time” through 1 slit, E . “1 at a time” through 2 slits, F.) “continuation” and re-measurement, or “erased path”. I know that I have been guilty in just saying “DSE” when writing.
GE, I am not disagreeing with you about the way that we MEASURE the wavelength of an EM wave ON THE EQUIPMENT we are using to “visualize” the wave.
Remember, the “photon” can not be seen in “flight”. This means, quite obviously, that we ARE NOT actually measuring the “photon” at all, we can only measure the representation that Fourier gives us. This is why I ask to remove that device from our THEORY development. The theorist does not tell the experimentalist how to do the job of measuring the expectations. There are ways to do this, and mine is not the only one.
Dual is right to the point about this: what does this mean in 3D?
This is going to lead us to discussing the "form" of the EM wave, but not quite yet.
I am very reasonable; I think that you will find that I can change my mind rather quickly, if shown hard evidence. Until then, I am more like a goat.
Any one is free to submit a link, or whatever, to contradict these things (not just GE).
1. The SOURCE (laser) IS NOT MONOCHROMATIC
2. Amplitude is not caused by resonance, or beats.
3. wavelength is the distance between successive crests ONLY along the direction of propagation", analogy (2D spherical/sinusoidal). What about the other directions? They reveal Doppler shift.
4. Standing waves have NO beats.
5. “Interference” DOES change wavelength (& frequency). This can be seen by Doppler shift, and a relativistic calculation. (if you change 1, you change the other, in the limit of c, and the phase, or packet)
The end result, on the screen, is a reproduction of the slit geometry, in relation to the wavelength. This geometry breaks up the wave the SAME way, regardless of frequency of the source. The ratios are constant, as measured (or "collapsed") at the screen.
I realized that I should change my wording. I am (& maybe others too) using “interference” like a noun. I think “interaction” might be a better term, although it still “assumes” an effect. The point is that in SOME cases, the interaction produces NO effect, or no interference, ON THE ORIGINAL FREQUENCY. Those cases are superposition, and standing waves; two key terms in Resonance. If the right ratios to either of these are present, a phenomenon occurs where a NEW frequency is produced. In Optics, they term this Four-wave mixing (FWM), and Second Harmonic Generation (SHG), to name 2. The term FWM is misleading, because JUST 2 frequencies are required to initiate the effect. THE RELATIONSHIP OF THESE NEW FREQUENCIES TO THE INITIAL FREQUENCIES IS PREDICTABLE. That is the one sentence I want people to see.
Dual, the term “monochromatic” is loosely thrown around. You can read my post back a few pages HERE to see this.
QUOTE
“As far as the Beats, again thinking in 3D terms which is all I can do, is that the wave nature or crests and troughs are just lines, not beats—”
I’m not sure that I understand the problem. Beats are what is between the lines; if you have any lines, you create distance between them.
TBC ...
T.Roc
TRoc,
Beats are what is between the lines; if you have any lines, you create distance between them.
Aren't beats harmonic timing generated interactions between energy wave field
crests. Let's call it additive wave crest timing overlap between signals of
different timing. In other words there are 2 different waves, generated at
different relative times, that are merging at their wave crests. This is my
understanding of beat.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
Beats are what is between the lines; if you have any lines, you create distance between them.
Aren't beats harmonic timing generated interactions between energy wave field
crests. Let's call it additive wave crest timing overlap between signals of
different timing. In other words there are 2 different waves, generated at
different relative times, that are merging at their wave crests. This is my
understanding of beat.
Comments?
LL
Good Elf, Confused2, Laserlight, Why Not?, TRoc, & all,
I hope this post is coming to I am right and you are wrong? I was under the impression that all comments were welcomed and as you know this has not been solved.
I feel pretty comfortable in saying it will not be on this post anytime soon.
I think what you have said about, I believe it was you that the Copenhagen interpretations has much to be desired. But remember we have come a long ways sense the early 1900's.
This is a site that is as simple/basic as I can find, to give a construct to build on, David Bohm was a pioneer before his time, but I am sure he would be disappointed in the fact we still do not understand the dynamics. BTW, moving waves, I was talking about kinetic energy I believe I said from a 3D view looking down you would see lines and that is just the progression of the wave.
http://www.hi.is/~hj/QuantumMechanics/quantum.html
And yes, white light is the compilation of all colors and light also as we know runs from radio to gamma. And there is another concept that has not been mentioned due to the UCP, and should not until we have a understanding of the basic wave function.
I disagree with respect that our application of the wave is not successful or esoteric in fact as much as I do not understand the nuances we all know that quantum mechanics predicts with 100% accuracy, I beg you to prove me wrong on this when it come to technology in 2006 because it will show validly to what I have stated Good Elf as you very well know.
I just want this to become a investigation not a debate on the strangeness of QM behavior.
Dual/Lisa
TRoc, you just posted and I have already put this down, let me read what your have said in depth I believe the spirit of you post is to find some common ground in which to build, wise advice I will step back and think before I comment I hope I have not cause a riff on this great post, just wanting answers, as so many seem to desire on this post. 
Thank you for your insight.
I hope this post is coming to I am right and you are wrong? I was under the impression that all comments were welcomed and as you know this has not been solved.
I feel pretty comfortable in saying it will not be on this post anytime soon.
I think what you have said about, I believe it was you
that the Copenhagen interpretations has much to be desired. But remember we have come a long ways sense the early 1900's.This is a site that is as simple/basic as I can find, to give a construct to build on, David Bohm was a pioneer before his time, but I am sure he would be disappointed in the fact we still do not understand the dynamics. BTW, moving waves, I was talking about kinetic energy I believe I said from a 3D view looking down you would see lines and that is just the progression of the wave.
http://www.hi.is/~hj/QuantumMechanics/quantum.html
And yes, white light is the compilation of all colors and light also as we know runs from radio to gamma. And there is another concept that has not been mentioned due to the UCP, and should not until we have a understanding of the basic wave function.
I disagree with respect
that our application of the wave is not successful or esoteric in fact as much as I do not understand the nuances we all know that quantum mechanics predicts with 100% accuracy, I beg you to prove me wrong on this when it come to technology in 2006 because it will show validly to what I have stated Good Elf as you very well know.I just want this to become a investigation not a debate on the strangeness of QM behavior.
Dual/Lisa
TRoc, you just posted and I have already put this down, let me read what your have said in depth I believe the spirit of you post is to find some common ground in which to build, wise advice I will step back and think before I comment I hope I have not cause a riff on this great post, just wanting answers, as so many seem to desire on this post. Thank you for your insight.
LL,
OK. We start with : the quanta of energy, at the velocity of c, MUST exist spread over a finite amount of space, when a “picture” is taken. This is a frozen moment in time, and because we are talking about a vibration, the only other parameter, the distance, becomes less defined. HUP states this clearly.
In this frozen picture, the RATE of vibration must be measured in THREE parts: the lead, the center, and the tail. The “phase” picture. This is why & where you MUST calculate the presence of 3 frequencies. If we were to measure right there (collapse the wavefunction), they will SUM to the phase frequency. I am not speaking specifically to phase here, just in analogy. It is still the ONE at a time quanta of energy.
The wave is NOT divided into 3 EQUAL parts. MOST of the energy, the shortest wavelength, is at the wave front. This can be viewed as a pilot wave, or whatever you’d like. At this proximity (< ˝ wavelength), the center frequency has more “amplitude”, and a harmonic mean frequency.
You don’t have to imagine this process, you just have to look at the 2D geometrical representation (like the one GE has shown). It is clear that, ON THE WAY to the screen, a mixing process is occurring. In 3D, this is occurring in ALL directions inside the “DSE box”. Of course the highest “probability” is in the direction of propagation, but there are actions taking place in the other directions too.
Time is not a factor: the 1/c time (3.3356e-9 s) per meter can be divided as many times as necessary. Time is “frozen” for the in-flight “photon”. The SYMMETRY (which no one seems to mention) is ALWAYS conserved: the velocity is ALWAYS the same, so the change in frequency is symmetric to the change in wavelength, and their product is always c. These waves will do “whatever” is necessary to comply with this. The same basic, simple process is repeated over and over.
It is EXACTLY the same as the creation of the EM wave in the first place: a change in E field CREATES a new B field, and they SUM to create the EM wave that we later measure. Once COUPLED, they are ONE; any subsequent changes (geometry of matter) can only “cut” the wave into smaller, coupled EM pieces. Everybody needs to remember the other way to demonstrate this is upon reflection. BOTH (coupled) parts can NOT exist immediately after a 90 degree turn, the orthogonal symmetry will not allow this. This is like a “stutter step”; a folding back onto a line as well as “phase shift”. The wave is at square one again: a change in field, creates the other field. The near field “anomalies” also demonstrate this.
I see your new post. Yes, you are right. Whatever the "line" represents in our "picture": a crest, energy peaks, frequencies...
If you clap your hands, the clapping sound is NOT the beat, the space (or time here) between them IS. How do you change "clapping"? The ONLY way is to change the distance between them. (space-time) Not including "loudness", or intensity, which doesn't affect the timing.
The "merging" is not technically a beat any longer. Beat is the difference; when summed, or merged, that definition is lost. I sometimes refer to this as "BeatSum".
Ciao!
T.Roc
QUOTE
“I am curious how you explain the single photon "interference" pattern, where discrete photons individually traverse the cavity of the slits but produce a second order and 3rd order, etc., harmonic "beat" result . IMO, there is insufficient
time coincident signal mixing to account for a harmonic interaction or signal recombination as we know it.”
time coincident signal mixing to account for a harmonic interaction or signal recombination as we know it.”
OK. We start with : the quanta of energy, at the velocity of c, MUST exist spread over a finite amount of space, when a “picture” is taken. This is a frozen moment in time, and because we are talking about a vibration, the only other parameter, the distance, becomes less defined. HUP states this clearly.
In this frozen picture, the RATE of vibration must be measured in THREE parts: the lead, the center, and the tail. The “phase” picture. This is why & where you MUST calculate the presence of 3 frequencies. If we were to measure right there (collapse the wavefunction), they will SUM to the phase frequency. I am not speaking specifically to phase here, just in analogy. It is still the ONE at a time quanta of energy.
The wave is NOT divided into 3 EQUAL parts. MOST of the energy, the shortest wavelength, is at the wave front. This can be viewed as a pilot wave, or whatever you’d like. At this proximity (< ˝ wavelength), the center frequency has more “amplitude”, and a harmonic mean frequency.
You don’t have to imagine this process, you just have to look at the 2D geometrical representation (like the one GE has shown). It is clear that, ON THE WAY to the screen, a mixing process is occurring. In 3D, this is occurring in ALL directions inside the “DSE box”. Of course the highest “probability” is in the direction of propagation, but there are actions taking place in the other directions too.
Time is not a factor: the 1/c time (3.3356e-9 s) per meter can be divided as many times as necessary. Time is “frozen” for the in-flight “photon”. The SYMMETRY (which no one seems to mention) is ALWAYS conserved: the velocity is ALWAYS the same, so the change in frequency is symmetric to the change in wavelength, and their product is always c. These waves will do “whatever” is necessary to comply with this. The same basic, simple process is repeated over and over.
It is EXACTLY the same as the creation of the EM wave in the first place: a change in E field CREATES a new B field, and they SUM to create the EM wave that we later measure. Once COUPLED, they are ONE; any subsequent changes (geometry of matter) can only “cut” the wave into smaller, coupled EM pieces. Everybody needs to remember the other way to demonstrate this is upon reflection. BOTH (coupled) parts can NOT exist immediately after a 90 degree turn, the orthogonal symmetry will not allow this. This is like a “stutter step”; a folding back onto a line as well as “phase shift”. The wave is at square one again: a change in field, creates the other field. The near field “anomalies” also demonstrate this.
I see your new post. Yes, you are right. Whatever the "line" represents in our "picture": a crest, energy peaks, frequencies...
If you clap your hands, the clapping sound is NOT the beat, the space (or time here) between them IS. How do you change "clapping"? The ONLY way is to change the distance between them. (space-time) Not including "loudness", or intensity, which doesn't affect the timing.
The "merging" is not technically a beat any longer. Beat is the difference; when summed, or merged, that definition is lost. I sometimes refer to this as "BeatSum".
Ciao!
T.Roc
Good Elf,
Have I wandered into a world where tape measures have acquired philosphical significance?
We read the wavelength off the side of our light source/filter.
We measure the distance between the slits.
We measure the distance between the slits and the screen
We see bright bits repeating and the distance between the bright bits is given by
Distance between bright bits = (wavelength read from label on source) x (Distance between slits and screen) / (Slit separation)
(see http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html )
Please .. accept that I am really very stupid .. where does philosophy come into it?
Duality
I'm sorry I haven't addressed your points directly .. I take notice but I'm not sure we're ready for them until we can at least agree on what we see on a screen, once we have done that we might be able to move on to discussing what a 'photon counter' is counting and more.. I had not expected my rash assumption that they count 'photons' to be quite so contraversial. UCT ?
Troc.. thinking!
Best wishes, (all)
C2.
Have I wandered into a world where tape measures have acquired philosphical significance?
We read the wavelength off the side of our light source/filter.
We measure the distance between the slits.
We measure the distance between the slits and the screen
We see bright bits repeating and the distance between the bright bits is given by
Distance between bright bits = (wavelength read from label on source) x (Distance between slits and screen) / (Slit separation)
(see http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html )
Please .. accept that I am really very stupid .. where does philosophy come into it?
Duality
I'm sorry I haven't addressed your points directly .. I take notice but I'm not sure we're ready for them until we can at least agree on what we see on a screen, once we have done that we might be able to move on to discussing what a 'photon counter' is counting and more.. I had not expected my rash assumption that they count 'photons' to be quite so contraversial. UCT ?
Troc.. thinking!
Best wishes, (all)
C2.
Hi all,
I think it is a good time to talk about the FORM of the EM wave. It should be stated here, that we can not really see the “photon” in flight, so we can only use empirical data, and logic, to make assumptions.
This is why I believe the sinusoid representation is NOT complete:
In this discussion of DSE, it is IMPERATIVE that we account for the wave in 3 dimensions. For now I am talking about the SINGLE SLIT experimental setup.
The wavelength is traditionally looked at as GE has stated: from crest to crest in the direction of propagation. I want to take a SYMMETRICAL look at the SAME wave from the FRONT (or back). The SIDE to SIDE movement will approximate this same wavelength that was measured from the side.
This is the helical, coupled, orthogonal EM wave.
Very simply, I am seeing that the “pilot wave”, or smaller wavelength leading the packet, will GO THROUGH the slit UNIMPEDED. The lead wavelength is smaller than the slit. Immediately followed by the larger amplitude, center (harmonic mean) frequency, that is CLIPPED by the sides forming the slit. This is a change to the angular momentum, which can be “mapped” by arbitrary division of the slit distance, and measured as side lobes on the screen.
This explains the DIFFRACTION PATTERN of the single slit. Intensity (count!) is maximum at the center, where portions of ALL 3 frequencies overlap, or sum. The lobes are the portions with angular momentum change. The null points are catching the beat frequency process “in the act”.
I don’t see anything unaccounted for here. I do see a logical explanation for the pattern. Most importantly, this simple explanation sets the stage for a similarly simple explanation for the double slit pattern, trying to determine “which slit”, and “changing” (erasing) the side path. No hocus-pocus.
Ciao,
T.Roc
I think it is a good time to talk about the FORM of the EM wave. It should be stated here, that we can not really see the “photon” in flight, so we can only use empirical data, and logic, to make assumptions.
This is why I believe the sinusoid representation is NOT complete:
In this discussion of DSE, it is IMPERATIVE that we account for the wave in 3 dimensions. For now I am talking about the SINGLE SLIT experimental setup.
The wavelength is traditionally looked at as GE has stated: from crest to crest in the direction of propagation. I want to take a SYMMETRICAL look at the SAME wave from the FRONT (or back). The SIDE to SIDE movement will approximate this same wavelength that was measured from the side.
This is the helical, coupled, orthogonal EM wave.
Very simply, I am seeing that the “pilot wave”, or smaller wavelength leading the packet, will GO THROUGH the slit UNIMPEDED. The lead wavelength is smaller than the slit. Immediately followed by the larger amplitude, center (harmonic mean) frequency, that is CLIPPED by the sides forming the slit. This is a change to the angular momentum, which can be “mapped” by arbitrary division of the slit distance, and measured as side lobes on the screen.
This explains the DIFFRACTION PATTERN of the single slit. Intensity (count!) is maximum at the center, where portions of ALL 3 frequencies overlap, or sum. The lobes are the portions with angular momentum change. The null points are catching the beat frequency process “in the act”.
I don’t see anything unaccounted for here. I do see a logical explanation for the pattern. Most importantly, this simple explanation sets the stage for a similarly simple explanation for the double slit pattern, trying to determine “which slit”, and “changing” (erasing) the side path. No hocus-pocus.
Ciao,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
5. “Interference” DOES change wavelength (& frequency). This can be seen by Doppler shift, and a relativistic calculation. (if you change 1, you change the other, in the limit of c, and the phase, or packet)
Looking at a ripple tank (eg http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInte...DoubleSlit.html ) can you say whether you think frequncies change in the riple tank version of the DSE (or plain diffraction) or is the frequency change specific to electromagnetic radiation.?
There is an accidental sting in the tail of the question because in ripple tank experiments there is (for me at least) an assumption of 'steady state'.
Do you agree that the classical analysis of the DSE steady state requires as few or as many extra frequencies as were required to explain the ripple tank steady state result?
I am a bit worried that your analysis will lose the significance of the advance 'thing' by failing to distinguish between steady state and establishing a new state. In the case of steady state I suspect your advanced and retarded 'things' will cancel out so the thing you are (maybe?) trying to establish the existence of will escape analysis.
Since we already know the steady state result from either the ripple tank or 'real' electromagnetic waves we find the new thing to be explained is how the little dots of light appear to know what the steady state would be as if it had already been established even though it may never have been reached and may never in the future be reached. I suspect you need an advance 'thing' of enormous (infinite?) analytic power to explain 'that which is to be explained'.
If Good Elf could explain what it is that he is explaining without falling into a loop of explanations .. he might be further forwards.
As Alice said "I've often seen a cat without a smile but I've never seen a smile without a cat"
-C2.
QUOTE
5. “Interference” DOES change wavelength (& frequency). This can be seen by Doppler shift, and a relativistic calculation. (if you change 1, you change the other, in the limit of c, and the phase, or packet)
Looking at a ripple tank (eg http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInte...DoubleSlit.html ) can you say whether you think frequncies change in the riple tank version of the DSE (or plain diffraction) or is the frequency change specific to electromagnetic radiation.?
There is an accidental sting in the tail of the question because in ripple tank experiments there is (for me at least) an assumption of 'steady state'.
Do you agree that the classical analysis of the DSE steady state requires as few or as many extra frequencies as were required to explain the ripple tank steady state result?
I am a bit worried that your analysis will lose the significance of the advance 'thing' by failing to distinguish between steady state and establishing a new state. In the case of steady state I suspect your advanced and retarded 'things' will cancel out so the thing you are (maybe?) trying to establish the existence of will escape analysis.
Since we already know the steady state result from either the ripple tank or 'real' electromagnetic waves we find the new thing to be explained is how the little dots of light appear to know what the steady state would be as if it had already been established even though it may never have been reached and may never in the future be reached. I suspect you need an advance 'thing' of enormous (infinite?) analytic power to explain 'that which is to be explained'.
If Good Elf could explain what it is that he is explaining without falling into a loop of explanations .. he might be further forwards.
As Alice said "I've often seen a cat without a smile but I've never seen a smile without a cat"
-C2.
TRoc,
Maybe our interpretation of what constitutes a wave is lost in semantics.
Perhaps we have different perspectives (opinions) of the same elephant.
What is a pure wave? A wave is a summation all of the energy available to propagate
with 100% efficiency. A wave does not "instantaneously" propagate. It builds up
in amplitude (intensity, power), and declines over a fixed time interval (freqency),
over a fixed distance (wavelength, trough to trough). It is pure energy transfer
of all the subharmonic power "orders" that add above a zero reference line and
peak at 180 degrees (pure wave function, not a sin wave function), and decline
back to zero energy.
What is a pure wave? A wave is a summation all of the energy available to propagate
with 100% efficiency. A wave does not "instantaneously" propagate. It builds up
in amplitude (intensity, power), and declines over a fixed time interval (freqency),
over a fixed distance (wavelength, trough to trough). It is pure energy transfer
of all the subharmonic power "orders" that add above a zero reference line and
peak at 180 degrees (pure wave function, not a sin wave function), and decline
back to zero energy.
It is clear that, ON THE WAY to the screen, a mixing process is occurring. In 3D, this is occurring in ALL directions inside the “DSE box”.
You are referring to constant source of photons, I am referring to a single photon. There is no mixing or beat frequency or standing wave visible in the
cavity. I'm talking about the single photon DSE experiment. Different elephant.
If there is symmetry, there is no change in frequency or wavelength. A delta
induced into some symmetrical property can cause a frequency change if
some of the energy or momentum is "lost" as it is converted to some other
form. This can only occur in the presence of matter, or its EM fields, or gravity.
There has to be a conservation of energy, if frequency changes, energy
level changes during the frequency conversion process. There will be some
energy radiation "byproduct".
If there is symmetry, there is no change in frequency or wavelength. A delta
induced into some symmetrical property can cause a frequency change if
some of the energy or momentum is "lost" as it is converted to some other
form. This can only occur in the presence of matter, or its EM fields, or gravity.
There has to be a conservation of energy, if frequency changes, energy
level changes during the frequency conversion process. There will be some
energy radiation "byproduct".
BOTH (coupled) parts can NOT exist immediately after a 90 degree turn, the orthogonal symmetry will not allow this. This is like a “stutter step”; a folding back onto a line as well as “phase shift”. The wave is at square one again: a change in field, creates the other field. The near field “anomalies” also demonstrate this
Good point! There is still some energy lost (transformed) during this operation.
Any interaction with matter generates secondary power losses. There is not 100%
conversion efficiency. The secondary byproduct of the interaction is infrared
photons generated by the displacement of electrons in matter.
Not what I said at all. The "beat signal" is a second order phenomenon that is the
additive overlapping of separate wave peaks that were generated at different
initial time reference points. Two distinct and separate wavefunctions that have
additively mixed at a point in time or distance from the different source locations.
Consider a plucked string. There are numerous waves propagating along the
length of the string. Each wave on the string is generating a radiating and
independent wavefunction of sound energy. When these radiating sound
wavefunctions overlap, a beat signal of higher intensity is
generated due to the addiive interaction of 2 separate energy levels mixing to
form a composite signal.
Other comments, clarifications, definitions welcome.
LL
Maybe our interpretation of what constitutes a wave is lost in semantics.
Perhaps we have different perspectives (opinions) of the same elephant.
QUOTE
The wave is NOT divided into 3 EQUAL parts. MOST of the energy, the shortest wavelength, is at the wave front. This can be viewed as a pilot wave, or whatever you’d like. At this proximity (< ˝ wavelength), the center frequency has more “amplitude”, and a harmonic mean frequency.
What is a pure wave? A wave is a summation all of the energy available to propagate
with 100% efficiency. A wave does not "instantaneously" propagate. It builds up
in amplitude (intensity, power), and declines over a fixed time interval (freqency),
over a fixed distance (wavelength, trough to trough). It is pure energy transfer
of all the subharmonic power "orders" that add above a zero reference line and
peak at 180 degrees (pure wave function, not a sin wave function), and decline
back to zero energy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The wave is NOT divided into 3 EQUAL parts. MOST of the energy, the shortest wavelength, is at the wave front. This can be viewed as a pilot wave, or whatever you’d like. At this proximity (< ˝ wavelength), the center frequency has more “amplitude”, and a harmonic mean frequency. |
What is a pure wave? A wave is a summation all of the energy available to propagate
with 100% efficiency. A wave does not "instantaneously" propagate. It builds up
in amplitude (intensity, power), and declines over a fixed time interval (freqency),
over a fixed distance (wavelength, trough to trough). It is pure energy transfer
of all the subharmonic power "orders" that add above a zero reference line and
peak at 180 degrees (pure wave function, not a sin wave function), and decline
back to zero energy.
It is clear that, ON THE WAY to the screen, a mixing process is occurring. In 3D, this is occurring in ALL directions inside the “DSE box”.
You are referring to constant source of photons, I am referring to a single photon. There is no mixing or beat frequency or standing wave visible in the
cavity. I'm talking about the single photon DSE experiment. Different elephant.
QUOTE
The SYMMETRY (which no one seems to mention) is ALWAYS conserved: the velocity is ALWAYS the same, so the change in frequency is symmetric to the change in wavelength, and their product is always c.
If there is symmetry, there is no change in frequency or wavelength. A delta
induced into some symmetrical property can cause a frequency change if
some of the energy or momentum is "lost" as it is converted to some other
form. This can only occur in the presence of matter, or its EM fields, or gravity.
There has to be a conservation of energy, if frequency changes, energy
level changes during the frequency conversion process. There will be some
energy radiation "byproduct".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The SYMMETRY (which no one seems to mention) is ALWAYS conserved: the velocity is ALWAYS the same, so the change in frequency is symmetric to the change in wavelength, and their product is always c. |
If there is symmetry, there is no change in frequency or wavelength. A delta
induced into some symmetrical property can cause a frequency change if
some of the energy or momentum is "lost" as it is converted to some other
form. This can only occur in the presence of matter, or its EM fields, or gravity.
There has to be a conservation of energy, if frequency changes, energy
level changes during the frequency conversion process. There will be some
energy radiation "byproduct".
BOTH (coupled) parts can NOT exist immediately after a 90 degree turn, the orthogonal symmetry will not allow this. This is like a “stutter step”; a folding back onto a line as well as “phase shift”. The wave is at square one again: a change in field, creates the other field. The near field “anomalies” also demonstrate this
Good point! There is still some energy lost (transformed) during this operation.
Any interaction with matter generates secondary power losses. There is not 100%
conversion efficiency. The secondary byproduct of the interaction is infrared
photons generated by the displacement of electrons in matter.
QUOTE
If you clap your hands, the clapping sound is NOT the beat, the space (or time here) between them IS. How do you change "clapping"? The ONLY way is to change the distance between them. (space-time) Not including "loudness", or intensity, which doesn't affect the timing.
The "merging" is not technically a beat any longer. Beat is the difference; when summed, or merged, that definition is lost. I sometimes refer to this as "BeatSum".
The "merging" is not technically a beat any longer. Beat is the difference; when summed, or merged, that definition is lost. I sometimes refer to this as "BeatSum".
Not what I said at all. The "beat signal" is a second order phenomenon that is the
additive overlapping of separate wave peaks that were generated at different
initial time reference points. Two distinct and separate wavefunctions that have
additively mixed at a point in time or distance from the different source locations.
Consider a plucked string. There are numerous waves propagating along the
length of the string. Each wave on the string is generating a radiating and
independent wavefunction of sound energy. When these radiating sound
wavefunctions overlap, a beat signal of higher intensity is
generated due to the addiive interaction of 2 separate energy levels mixing to
form a composite signal.
Other comments, clarifications, definitions welcome.
LL
duplicate post.
LL
LL
Hi Good Elf,
I'll try again..
What I see is
Guy, & gals,- had to put that in sorry guys,
It is always hard for a women, [young] to say sorry, well I am, you guys were doing fine, leave it to the opposite sex to bring chaos. 
This was my point, and I work with the question asked as far as single slit experiment or SSE.
"The fact that quantum mechanics is strange does not mean that quantum mechanics is unsuccessful. On the contrary, quantum mechanics is the most successful theory that humanity has ever developed; the brightest jewel in our intellectual crown.
Quantum mechanics underlies our understanding of atoms, molecules, solids, and nuclei. It is vital for explaining aspects of stellar evolution, chemical reactions, and the interaction of light with matter. It underlies the operation of lasers, transistors, magnets, and superconductors. I could cite reams of evidence backing up these assertions, but I will content myself by describing a single measurement.
One electron will be stripped away from a helium atom that is exposed to ultraviolet light below a certain wavelength. This threshold wavelength can be determined experimentally to very high accuracy: it is
50.425 929 9 ± 0.000 000 4 nanometers.
The threshold wavelength can also be calculated from quantum mechanics: this prediction is
50.425 931 0 ± 0.000 002 0 nanometers.
The agreement between observation and quantum mechanics is extraordinary. If you were to predict the distance from New York to Los Angeles with this accuracy, your prediction would be correct to within the width of your hand.
In contrast, classical mechanics predicts that any wavelength of light will strip away an electron, that is, that there will be no threshold at all."
I will confess that we are going to run into problems ahead, but I will follow everyone's lead.
Duality/Lisa
I'll try again..
What I see is
QUOTE (me+)
the little dots of light appear to know what the steady state would be as if it had already been established even though it may never have been reached and may never in the future be reached.
The steady state pattern is well described by the equation which I have repeated many times.
I have NOT GIVEN AN EXPLANATION .. only described what I see. I (clearly) incline towards wavefunctions and to understand what they imply I suggest we both need to read a lot more - I suspect it is slightly more complex than ping pong balls. Please, describe again what YOU see .. unless you can describe it without recursively mixing it up with your explanation I am left with NO CLUE as to what you are actually describing.
-C2.
The steady state pattern is well described by the equation which I have repeated many times.
I have NOT GIVEN AN EXPLANATION .. only described what I see. I (clearly) incline towards wavefunctions and to understand what they imply I suggest we both need to read a lot more - I suspect it is slightly more complex than ping pong balls. Please, describe again what YOU see .. unless you can describe it without recursively mixing it up with your explanation I am left with NO CLUE as to what you are actually describing.
-C2.
Guys,
From my perspective, the elephant is getting really UGLY!
No wonder there is so much disagreement in the world! To quote the
warden in the movie Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here is a
failure to communicate!"
I am as guilty as anyone. I am "listening" but I am not necessarily "hearing"
or understanding what the intended message is. Maybe I'm just dense.
We need to agree what we are attempting to understand and solve.
There are 2 fundamental experiments that we are discussing and we are
intermixing them, which is confusing the issue.
Let's agree to select 1 experiment, either the single photon DSE or
the constant photon stream DSE. My preference is the single photon DSE
since it is easier to quantify, has finite bounds, and should be representative
of the constant photon stream experiment. Solve for one and the other
should also be solved, or at least better understood. You choose, I am
merely a contributor, but I insist that we stay on course. I find it perfectly
acceptable to discuss theory and other phenomena that may be similar to or
further the understanding of the topic(s) of discussion.
Also, we are arguing in a circle about how to interpret results. Let's agree
that the results are always the same regardless of methodology used to
analyze or mathematically express them. I am more interested in
causality. WHAT PHYSICAL MECHANISM or PHOTON/MATTER INTERACTION
IS CAUSING THE RESULT THAT WE ALL SEE. If we don't understand the
essential basics of what PHYSICALLY creates the phenomenon we will never
reach a mutual understanding of the phenomenon.
Can we also be brief and clear in our statements. This is so we don't confuse the
immediate topic or idea of discussion with additional variables. Introduce
other variables individually so everyone can discuss or comment as necessary.
TIA,
LL
From my perspective, the elephant is getting really UGLY!
No wonder there is so much disagreement in the world! To quote the
warden in the movie Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here is a
failure to communicate!"
I am as guilty as anyone. I am "listening" but I am not necessarily "hearing"
or understanding what the intended message is. Maybe I'm just dense.
We need to agree what we are attempting to understand and solve.
There are 2 fundamental experiments that we are discussing and we are
intermixing them, which is confusing the issue.
Let's agree to select 1 experiment, either the single photon DSE or
the constant photon stream DSE. My preference is the single photon DSE
since it is easier to quantify, has finite bounds, and should be representative
of the constant photon stream experiment. Solve for one and the other
should also be solved, or at least better understood. You choose, I am
merely a contributor, but I insist that we stay on course. I find it perfectly
acceptable to discuss theory and other phenomena that may be similar to or
further the understanding of the topic(s) of discussion.
Also, we are arguing in a circle about how to interpret results. Let's agree
that the results are always the same regardless of methodology used to
analyze or mathematically express them. I am more interested in
causality. WHAT PHYSICAL MECHANISM or PHOTON/MATTER INTERACTION
IS CAUSING THE RESULT THAT WE ALL SEE. If we don't understand the
essential basics of what PHYSICALLY creates the phenomenon we will never
reach a mutual understanding of the phenomenon.
Can we also be brief and clear in our statements. This is so we don't confuse the
immediate topic or idea of discussion with additional variables. Introduce
other variables individually so everyone can discuss or comment as necessary.
TIA,
LL
Guy, & gals,- had to put that in sorry guys, It is always hard for a women, [young] to say sorry, well I am, you guys were doing fine, leave it to the opposite sex to bring chaos. This was my point, and I work with the question asked as far as single slit experiment or SSE.
"The fact that quantum mechanics is strange does not mean that quantum mechanics is unsuccessful. On the contrary, quantum mechanics is the most successful theory that humanity has ever developed; the brightest jewel in our intellectual crown.
Quantum mechanics underlies our understanding of atoms, molecules, solids, and nuclei. It is vital for explaining aspects of stellar evolution, chemical reactions, and the interaction of light with matter. It underlies the operation of lasers, transistors, magnets, and superconductors. I could cite reams of evidence backing up these assertions, but I will content myself by describing a single measurement.
One electron will be stripped away from a helium atom that is exposed to ultraviolet light below a certain wavelength. This threshold wavelength can be determined experimentally to very high accuracy: it is
50.425 929 9 ± 0.000 000 4 nanometers.
The threshold wavelength can also be calculated from quantum mechanics: this prediction is
50.425 931 0 ± 0.000 002 0 nanometers.
The agreement between observation and quantum mechanics is extraordinary. If you were to predict the distance from New York to Los Angeles with this accuracy, your prediction would be correct to within the width of your hand.
In contrast, classical mechanics predicts that any wavelength of light will strip away an electron, that is, that there will be no threshold at all."
I will confess that we are going to run into problems ahead, but I will follow everyone's lead.
Duality/Lisa
Duallity(Lisa),
Guys included everyone....even gals! It was not meant to be gender specific,
more of a group connotation. Do you really want to be segregated by gender?
LOL!
We have been in heated but friendly discussion about the DSE, physics, atomic
theory, GR, SR, etc., for many weeks now, and I believe we have all learned some
fascinating information and touched on various quantum, and string, theories.
We have looked at the SSE, interferometry, and various iterations of the DSE
performed differently with different apparatus, but all yielding the same
general result.
IMO we have much agreement on many topics, countered by disagreements
in interpretation. We are looking at pieces of the final evidence presented,
but are not putting all the puzzle pieces (variables) all together to simplify
the real picture of cause and effect.
I want to look at the basic mechanics of how the DSE "projector" works. I am on a
mission, hopefully it is not "Mission Impossible". If we understand the basic
"mechanical theory" of the device everything else can be understood and
predicted. We have the evidence (results) and the theory, but we are not focusing
in on the root cause of the phenomenon at the sub atomic level.
Regards,
LL
Guys included everyone....even gals! It was not meant to be gender specific,
more of a group connotation. Do you really want to be segregated by gender?
LOL!
We have been in heated but friendly discussion about the DSE, physics, atomic
theory, GR, SR, etc., for many weeks now, and I believe we have all learned some
fascinating information and touched on various quantum, and string, theories.
We have looked at the SSE, interferometry, and various iterations of the DSE
performed differently with different apparatus, but all yielding the same
general result.
IMO we have much agreement on many topics, countered by disagreements
in interpretation. We are looking at pieces of the final evidence presented,
but are not putting all the puzzle pieces (variables) all together to simplify
the real picture of cause and effect.
I want to look at the basic mechanics of how the DSE "projector" works. I am on a
mission, hopefully it is not "Mission Impossible". If we understand the basic
"mechanical theory" of the device everything else can be understood and
predicted. We have the evidence (results) and the theory, but we are not focusing
in on the root cause of the phenomenon at the sub atomic level.
Regards,
LL
C2,
Well (again from the SSE) I would say yes. Even in the 2D water wave analogy, you are DEFINITELY changing the radius, so the cycles, in terms of circumference, will change too. If you look at the shading in that picture you linked, you see that the original circle wave is "ghosting" through the post-slit area. But the new circle-wave is smaller than before it goes through the slit.
LL,
Well (again from the SSE) I would say yes. Even in the 2D water wave analogy, you are DEFINITELY changing the radius, so the cycles, in terms of circumference, will change too. If you look at the shading in that picture you linked, you see that the original circle wave is "ghosting" through the post-slit area. But the new circle-wave is smaller than before it goes through the slit.
LL,
"You are referring to constant source of photons, I am referring to a single photon.. "
Right, sorry about that. It was an easy reference because it was "fresh" on the table.
This doesn't change my stance, though.
I'll have to refer the question back to you..
Can you represent a moving wave with a single circle?
My opinion is no. The same argument applies that I mentioned before: you need a MINIMUM of 3 "lines" to represent this phenomenon. With these 3 lines, I can re-produce, and predict the experiment.
I don't understand the first line. Can you restate for me?
I agree with all else, except for the REQUIREMENT of mass. I think the empirical data speaks for itself. I cited these references already, and they continue to this day. Perhaps you are right with the "neighboring" cavity energy exchange, that is not far enough off my mark for me to squabble. There are processes that we are not accounting for.
I will also say that my method does not disagree with the light/mass interactions. They are quanta too, and follow the same pattern. If these higher energies are taking place, and causing or at least helping the interference we see, then my argument is still valid. The frequency mixing process will STILL get you the answer. However, these upper harmonics are going to be well UNDER the photoelectric threshold, and we are not going to see any photonic effects. (as if we see them in flight anyway!) It's all about "the collapse". That is the only thing we can measure.
This argument is the same that Bohr and Einstein had, and never resolved. Bohr was determined that we could not explain what was physically happening, because we had no way to measure it. Einstein was equally determined that our ability (or lack) to measure it CAN NOT preclude its' existence. (the intereference)
The HUGE difference here is: NOW we have much superior technology, and methods than they did then. We are SEEING what's going on in many of these experiments, AS they happen. IE prior to collapse. They are recreations, but built entirely from real conditions.
It does seem we are at odds with the definition of "beat frequency" though. In my definition, any time there is "overlap", there is a summation. If the experiment was set up a certain way, we could "catch" them, but they are too far from the set up parameters to force a "click". Cumulatively, however, they can cause an addition to the intensity on a node.
ciao!
T.Roc
QUOTE
"..can you say whether you think frequencies change in the riple tank version of the DSE (or plain diffraction) or is the frequency change specific to electromagnetic radiation.?"
Well (again from the SSE) I would say yes. Even in the 2D water wave analogy, you are DEFINITELY changing the radius, so the cycles, in terms of circumference, will change too. If you look at the shading in that picture you linked, you see that the original circle wave is "ghosting" through the post-slit area. But the new circle-wave is smaller than before it goes through the slit.
LL,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "..can you say whether you think frequencies change in the riple tank version of the DSE (or plain diffraction) or is the frequency change specific to electromagnetic radiation.?" |
Well (again from the SSE) I would say yes. Even in the 2D water wave analogy, you are DEFINITELY changing the radius, so the cycles, in terms of circumference, will change too. If you look at the shading in that picture you linked, you see that the original circle wave is "ghosting" through the post-slit area. But the new circle-wave is smaller than before it goes through the slit.
LL,
"You are referring to constant source of photons, I am referring to a single photon.. "
Right, sorry about that. It was an easy reference because it was "fresh" on the table.
This doesn't change my stance, though.
I'll have to refer the question back to you..
Can you represent a moving wave with a single circle?
My opinion is no. The same argument applies that I mentioned before: you need a MINIMUM of 3 "lines" to represent this phenomenon. With these 3 lines, I can re-produce, and predict the experiment.
QUOTE
"If there is symmetry, there is no change in frequency or wavelength. A delta induced into some symmetrical property can cause a frequency change if
some of the energy or momentum is "lost" as it is converted to some other form. This can only occur in the presence of matter, or its EM fields, or gravity. There has to be a conservation of energy, if frequency changes, energy level changes during the frequency conversion process. There will be some energy radiation "byproduct". "
some of the energy or momentum is "lost" as it is converted to some other form. This can only occur in the presence of matter, or its EM fields, or gravity. There has to be a conservation of energy, if frequency changes, energy level changes during the frequency conversion process. There will be some energy radiation "byproduct". "
I don't understand the first line. Can you restate for me?
I agree with all else, except for the REQUIREMENT of mass. I think the empirical data speaks for itself. I cited these references already, and they continue to this day. Perhaps you are right with the "neighboring" cavity energy exchange, that is not far enough off my mark for me to squabble. There are processes that we are not accounting for.
I will also say that my method does not disagree with the light/mass interactions. They are quanta too, and follow the same pattern. If these higher energies are taking place, and causing or at least helping the interference we see, then my argument is still valid. The frequency mixing process will STILL get you the answer. However, these upper harmonics are going to be well UNDER the photoelectric threshold, and we are not going to see any photonic effects. (as if we see them in flight anyway!) It's all about "the collapse". That is the only thing we can measure.
This argument is the same that Bohr and Einstein had, and never resolved. Bohr was determined that we could not explain what was physically happening, because we had no way to measure it. Einstein was equally determined that our ability (or lack) to measure it CAN NOT preclude its' existence. (the intereference)
The HUGE difference here is: NOW we have much superior technology, and methods than they did then. We are SEEING what's going on in many of these experiments, AS they happen. IE prior to collapse. They are recreations, but built entirely from real conditions.
It does seem we are at odds with the definition of "beat frequency" though. In my definition, any time there is "overlap", there is a summation. If the experiment was set up a certain way, we could "catch" them, but they are too far from the set up parameters to force a "click". Cumulatively, however, they can cause an addition to the intensity on a node.
ciao!
T.Roc
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.