QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 14 2007, 01:20 AM)
Hi laserlight, TRoc et al,
QUOTE (laserlight+)
Care to tackle an explanation regarding my prior post re a laser beam not expanding as an omni-directional spherical wavefront?
It is a very cleaver case of a "phased array" in a field of "active antennas". The resonant cavity is one way to form a phased array by the population inversion followed by the "Mexican Wave" progressing along the tube reinforced by the boundary conditions where the walls are forced nodes and each atom is a microscopic dipole antenna.
Wikipedia: Phased Array
The phased array is a one shot in this case rather than simply continuous "beam steering" by modifying the delays in various antennas using line delays. In the laser tube the "line" is the traveling wave passing through the tube which triggers each primed atom into a directed one sided pulse along the direction wave.
The tubes side lobes are suppressed by having a spatial filter at the exit to the tube to reduce all but the primary transverse mode or even several spatial filters. These will suppress the side lobes even more. It is also conceivable that special pulse shaping is used in the military case to enhance the beam characteristics.
Wikipedia: Phased Array
The phased array is a one shot in this case rather than simply continuous "beam steering" by modifying the delays in various antennas using line delays. In the laser tube the "line" is the traveling wave passing through the tube which triggers each primed atom into a directed one sided pulse along the direction wave.
The tubes side lobes are suppressed by having a spatial filter at the exit to the tube to reduce all but the primary transverse mode or even several spatial filters. These will suppress the side lobes even more. It is also conceivable that special pulse shaping is used in the military case to enhance the beam characteristics.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
As for any "divergence", it was in the "translation" from me to you.
Apologies if there is no disagreement and I am being a bit too pedantic. Sorry about that. You all know I am "obsessive".
Cheers
Nobody minds.
Cheers
Nobody minds.
Hi all,
We have seen all the input from the "giants", whose shoulders we wish to collectively stand upon. It is a fantastic variety of solutions to the equally fantastic variety of problems. Question, experiment, answer... question, experiment, answer...
The Garden is Wondrously large, and varied. Literally "one of everything", for it contains all efforts. We humans have a bad habit of keeping specimens that we have decided are "weeds", for "reference" (nostalgia).
Then, we teach it in the order in which it was "discovered", to show the steps that were taken. If, a more "general" discipline is sought, the student's understanding of Physics may just have ended on a "node"
I think that this goes on quite a bit.
This is just an observation; I seek no remedy for the method. The bottom line is that, if we had a GREAT answer for the students question, in other words, some "unified way" to explain all phenomena, it would be taught FROM THE START, so that, even after one's education had ended, you could still apply those Fundamental Principles that you learned (and ended at any level) to understand "new" events.
We do not have such an answer.
We do have MANY very, VERY good ones. The biggest problem, is that they are growing in the wrong "order". They need to be re-organized, and FREE OF WEEDS. Weeds can be anything that had once been "assumed" to be "a guarantee", but later proves to be simply FALSE.
We can do mentally, what can not be done "literally". We can "imagine"; we can "postulate"; we can "inquire". The old saying, that "if I knew then, what I know now, ...".
We CAN easily IMAGINE going back to 1800's, armed with what we "know now", and RE-ASK the fundamental questions. This is the equivalent of "a classical explanation" of the "quantum reality"; it's not a new idea.
Not just "OBEY" the fundamental laws, but go INSIDE the minds that wrote them. There is a version of Buddhism that does this same thing.
HOW would WE "write" these laws? What words would WE use, that the original authors (who did NOT know what we do) would not have?
Great example: "Thermo-dynamics". Because of the "words" they use to describe the phenomena, we are left with the need to "interpret" this into our "modern" tongue.
Later, we learn that "heat" is not a "thing". (more an action)
So, it seems, we were obeying the law of Nothing Dynamics. Not so bad, considering that we later define "what exists between energy", as "Nothing", a zero singularity. [if "nothing" exists between 2 oscillators, they are not separate/they have NO difference]
If heat is now understood as "the difference" between 2 oscillations (energy levels), and the primary result is that the higher/hotter energy always transfers in the direction of the lower/colder energy, then THIS is our Fundamental Dynamic.
If we know now, that frequency is THE parameter that we can measure the best, and it is also a DIRECT connection to the energy level, then Frequency is our Fundamental Parameter.
The word "beat-frequency", just means "delta f", or the "difference" in those values.
We have evidence that matter behaves like waves, at the atomic level. (noticeably. Long waves are too slow to see)
At the time of the founding of these Thermodynamic laws, this was not understood.
They applied statistical analysis to "measure" a body of gas. This was done as "oscillators" (having frequency). To cut to the chase, one of the first "amendments" to Thermodynamics, is the "Equipartition of Energy".
At equilibrium, we have the LIMIT. In general terms, all of the oscillators have "settled down", to integer wavelength differences. No "beats". How can I say this, if a beat-frequency is "delta f"? Because "harmonics" fit in a nested curve set; if there is no difference in the fundamental (1st mode) frequencies of 2 oscillators, then there will be no difference in their harmonics.
This has a simple "visual", with concentric circles; the Unshifted Doppler "metric".
The Monochromatic Perfect Circle, and its Harmonics.
If we push 2 of these together (of exact same "rate" between lines), all of the intersections cross at "un-differentiable" points.
If we start with 2 DIFFERENT frequencies (rate between lines), then we will clearly see the difference, although, it will cross different lines, in different ways. You may say, "wait, that sounds hard to model", and it could be. Euler found a way through it, by taking only the "correlated" parts, the "coincidence of blows".
But, that was still when Music had not been "quantized". The intervals were not the same; not isotropic; not able to differentiate to the "monochrome", as it were.
He ended with just a much more complex version, of Pythagoras' conclusions, 2000 years prior! The INTEGER only approach, using the "harmonic series" was doomed. Why? Because WAVES are "complex", meaning "more than two components: you MUST have DISTANCE/TIME (wavelength), CYCLES/TIME (frequency), and their PRODUCT is CONSTANT. That's it.
If that CONSTANT has no integer square root, then it has an irrational relationship.
Fortunately (for studying patterns) light and sound fall into that category. Solve one, you solve them both.
It just simply extends from the fact that if we multiply an integer and an irrational number, then we will always get an irrational number. Translated into wave mechanics, we are saying that the distance parameter, when measured in "integer wavelengths", is being put into "natural units". Again, in music and optics, this is the meaning of the "fundamental frequency", so that "natural units" of THAT value are being measured.
In terms of energy, we have just created a problem: terming what came before the fundamental as ZERO. And what is between the "real" peaks, and the "imaginary nothing" that separates them is "zero" too.
However, measuring against the fundamental length is NOT bad, in itself.
Remember, we have THREE parameters: distance, time, velocity.
So, it is more important to state that if we measure from ONE integer, the other two parameters will be IRRATIONAL. Time is that integer parameter, that is ubiquitous to all experiments, that have a "start" and "end".
We have the possible answer that, "over every possible fractional unit of time", energy (the complex term) will have this inverse relationship: a distance parameter that "fluctuates" in space, and a cycle parameter that "jumps" in time.
Lets go back to the visual of our gas-medium in an equilibrium state. We'll follow our start, that this means "heat transfer" is no longer happening, there are no beat-frequencies being exchanged. The statistical knowledge that we have of this is very good. This is the "primary" evidence: Equipartition of Energy = isotropic lattice.
Imagine each atom as a relaxed state oscillator, at "rest" in terms of the average positions of its neighbors, and so being "evenly distributed". Each atom is a nested group of circles, that are related by an integer expansion of their radii. This is the Doppler set of circles, unperturbed, or shifted. Because of the linear/integer expansion of the radius relationship, these nested circles are directly compatible with a metric that is also integer based, namely "1 meter".
So, the medium has a great many of these concentric circle sets, equally spaced out, and their polarization states are independent of each other. The real deal is in 3D, but we can look at just the plane level with the slits. As soon as we have "light incident on this macro field", the field responds. THIS DOES NOT STOP DUE TO ANY CHANGE IN FREQUENCY OR ATTENUATION.
One thing that is definitely happening "in the 1 photon regime", is that the time between "pulses" is REGULAR. Because the relaxation time of the medium (field) is finite, and greater than this "pulse interval", we end up with a "modulated fluctuation pattern", that swings between these limits.
Recall the videos that I linked showing "cymatics": we could see the frequency specific fluctuation pattern of the independent bodies of "absorbers". It is not likely, that the same grain of sand will maintain even an "approximate" consistent position, as the frequency is changed (modulated).
So, in our lattice, in the energy regime of "one photon", we are going to get "one electron" doing the job of "absorb/re-emit". Once this job is performed, it DOES NOT take up its' original position, it gets "recycled" into near the "end of the line", because the "line" (fluctuation pattern) is frequency dependent too.
Because this body, or lattice, of gas is NO LONGER in equilibrium, it is COMMUNICATING via "heat", or "beat-frequencies". The WHOLE body contributes to the "revival" of this energy level. The "vacuum" does not contribute, it does not exist. THE MEDIUM CONTRIBUTES the energy, so that our observed conservation takes place.
Because of the difference in the modulation, between the relaxation (thermo limit) and the next input of energy, the "lead atom" (front man for the Talbot carpet) CAN NOT have EXACTLY the same energy as the one it replaced, and will send (via a difference in reaction) the next "photon" to a different place on the (envelope/fundamental dependent) same fringe pattern.
The reason that the pattern is still completed the same, as if we had sent all of the photons "back to back", is the timing of the envelope. It is based on "equal division" of the fundamental frequency. The field is responding to that input the WHOLE time, only the RATE in which the pattern can be "seen/perceived" changes. An equal division of the fundamental delivers a precise change in the unit of time to measure said rate (frequency) with. The original pattern was a rate over time, and the "one at a time" DSE is just the "same rate in more time". The period changed (the interval between events), but not the rate.
I went past the point that we needed to right now, just so that you can see ahead of time. that this is the ONLY logical answer, to the entire set of questions.
When we have the right answer for "basic phenomenon A", we will be able to also answer "complex phenomenon B" with the same method and model.
After all that, now I'm going to show the "reading list". As usual, it is not short; and it is not trivial. I do not have the time for a "full book report" on each one, and the references of each. If you want to know the way, especially in how it relates to the models that YOU personally (each reader) can relate to. We are all different in that respect.
HOT off the press, still to be published, "experimental confirmation":
Doppler Asymmetric Spatial Heterodyne Spectroscopy (DASH): Concept
and Experimental Demonstration
Christoph Englert, David Babcock, and John Harlander
Applied Optics - accepted 13 August 2007
http://ao.osa.org/DirectPDFAccess/0195CE70...FTOKEN=71488311
(this is free only for a short time; link may not work)
Line broadening affects the envelope of the interferogram; a broader
line corresponds to an envelope that decreases more rapidly with increasing path difference. In general, this envelope function causes the interferogram contrast, or visibility, to decrease with increasing optical path difference as shown for a purely temperature broadened line in Fig. 3. This effect competes with the increasing phase shift for increasing optical path difference (see Eq. (1)) so that there is an optimum path difference offset for which measuring the phase shift and thus the Doppler shift is most sensitive. We find this optimum path difference by
maximizing the envelope of the difference between the interferograms of a Doppler shifted and non-shifted line (see Fig. 3).
After subtraction of 2πκ0x+Φ0, which is also called the zero wind phase, we get the phase shift δϕ0 caused by the Doppler shift for this particular line. The speed between the emitter and the spectrometer can now be calculated using the phase shift δϕ0 and Eq. (1).
Note: this is what I mean by "lateral observers", measuring shifted velocities, AS seen by the "central" observer (axis ; a preferred frame). Following the diffraction angles back to the slit, you find the phase shift (in frequency) that matches the RI change in velocity. (RI is based on a particular frequency, so that its' velocity is "adjusted" to c , essentially)
(like the "1 at a time photon" from a laser beam)
(like the "1 at a time photon" from a laser beam)
The interferometer was vibrationally isolated from the optical bench and a top cover was used to suppress ambient and stray light contributions.
(because they are SERIOUS about accuracy)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/chao-dyn/pdf/9906/9906005v1.pdf
FINITE TIMES TO EQUIPARTITION IN THE THERMODYNAMIC LIMIT
J. De Luca, A. J. Lichtenberg, S. Ruffo
31 May 1999
The mechanism of a transition to more rapid energy transfer is that for energy above a threshold E ∝ N−1, interaction of neighboring low frequency modes will lead to a local super-period beat oscillation, of period TB ∝ N2/γEγ ,
that is stochastic. At a sufficiently high energy a resonance with high frequency modes leads to a transition to a fast diffusion regime which occurs above a critical energy E = Ec, independent of N.
..
In this paper we examine the relationship between initial conditions for which the energy is placed primarily in a single mode γ, which we call “mechanical” initial conditions, with initial condition for which the energy is placed in a finite δγ package of neighboring modes with δγ ∝ N, which we call “physical” initial conditions.
..
The main numerical tool we use is the calculation of the effective number of modes
n_eff containing the energy.
..
(Fig. 5), which indicated an extra volume filling factor, proportional to √N, when the
energy was placed primarily in a single low frequency mode, typically γ = 3. In this case the primary driving frequency is a beat B ∝ γE/N2, with γ = 3, such that the time for transferring energy is much longer than in the present situation. This allows the filling of the low frequency modes by successive excitations (see ref. [1]) to manifest itself in the additional √N dependence.
..
In the following we present an approximate theory of Hamiltonian diffusion to explain, qualitatively, the power law behavior at low energy densities. We start by assuming that there is an effective number of low-frequency modes δk that are responsible for stochastically transferring energy to the high-frequency modes, leading to equipartition.
..
Because of the nonlinear couplings among the low-frequency modes, the frequency of these modes is corrected by a beat that we approximate in the following way.
In (8) and below we set N + 1 ≃ N (large N) except where it appears in the selection rule. ¿From (3) ωi ≃ πi/N, for low frequency modes, and taking the beat frequency B, between ωi and a neighboring mode, to be of the order of the nonlinear frequency shift, we obtain, for any i (with i ≪ N), ..
..
As in our previous work [1] the notation h1 and h2 explicitly indicates that the energy transfer occurs only between low frequency beat oscillation and high frequency mode difference oscillations through the Arnold diffusion mechanism.
Since δk low frequency modes, assumed to have energy, couple to δh high frequency modes with δk = δh, the cross-couplings imply each high frequency mode is coupled on average to δk/4 low frequency modes. There are phases in the low frequency mode beat oscillations and in the high frequency difference oscillations that can affect the Arnold diffusion. This has only been studied for exponentially slow diffusion [12]. The effect of these phases when more than one driving term exists, for the case of strong Arnold diffusion, B <∼ δωh, has not been studied.
..
Furthermore, we expect that as the energy in the high frequency modes increases, other pathways become available for the energy distribution among the modes, to further justify holding the number of couplings constant in the integration.
..
Furthermore, n_eff is related to the evolution of the energy in the individual modes in a very complicated way. These dynamics lie beyond a simple mode-averaged theory. We also emphasize that the theory depends on having non-exponentially slow stochastic diffusion to high-frequency modes, being driven by local mode-mixing stochasticity among low-frequency modes [1].
Further reading on Arnold Diffusion:
http://www.turpion.org/php/full/getFT.phtm...6_355&x=107&y=5
ARNOLD DIFFUSION AND THE D’ALEMBERT PRECESSION PROBLEM
V.MASTROPIETRO
Universita’ Tor Vergata, Roma October 30, 2001
regards,
T.Roc
We have seen all the input from the "giants", whose shoulders we wish to collectively stand upon. It is a fantastic variety of solutions to the equally fantastic variety of problems. Question, experiment, answer... question, experiment, answer...
The Garden is Wondrously large, and varied. Literally "one of everything", for it contains all efforts. We humans have a bad habit of keeping specimens that we have decided are "weeds", for "reference" (nostalgia).
Then, we teach it in the order in which it was "discovered", to show the steps that were taken. If, a more "general" discipline is sought, the student's understanding of Physics may just have ended on a "node"
I think that this goes on quite a bit. This is just an observation; I seek no remedy for the method. The bottom line is that, if we had a GREAT answer for the students question, in other words, some "unified way" to explain all phenomena, it would be taught FROM THE START, so that, even after one's education had ended, you could still apply those Fundamental Principles that you learned (and ended at any level) to understand "new" events.
We do not have such an answer.
We do have MANY very, VERY good ones. The biggest problem, is that they are growing in the wrong "order". They need to be re-organized, and FREE OF WEEDS. Weeds can be anything that had once been "assumed" to be "a guarantee", but later proves to be simply FALSE.
We can do mentally, what can not be done "literally". We can "imagine"; we can "postulate"; we can "inquire". The old saying, that "if I knew then, what I know now, ...".
We CAN easily IMAGINE going back to 1800's, armed with what we "know now", and RE-ASK the fundamental questions. This is the equivalent of "a classical explanation" of the "quantum reality"; it's not a new idea.
Not just "OBEY" the fundamental laws, but go INSIDE the minds that wrote them. There is a version of Buddhism that does this same thing.
HOW would WE "write" these laws? What words would WE use, that the original authors (who did NOT know what we do) would not have?
Great example: "Thermo-dynamics". Because of the "words" they use to describe the phenomena, we are left with the need to "interpret" this into our "modern" tongue.
Later, we learn that "heat" is not a "thing". (more an action)
So, it seems, we were obeying the law of Nothing Dynamics. Not so bad, considering that we later define "what exists between energy", as "Nothing", a zero singularity. [if "nothing" exists between 2 oscillators, they are not separate/they have NO difference]
If heat is now understood as "the difference" between 2 oscillations (energy levels), and the primary result is that the higher/hotter energy always transfers in the direction of the lower/colder energy, then THIS is our Fundamental Dynamic.
If we know now, that frequency is THE parameter that we can measure the best, and it is also a DIRECT connection to the energy level, then Frequency is our Fundamental Parameter.
The word "beat-frequency", just means "delta f", or the "difference" in those values.
We have evidence that matter behaves like waves, at the atomic level. (noticeably. Long waves are too slow to see)
At the time of the founding of these Thermodynamic laws, this was not understood.
They applied statistical analysis to "measure" a body of gas. This was done as "oscillators" (having frequency). To cut to the chase, one of the first "amendments" to Thermodynamics, is the "Equipartition of Energy".
At equilibrium, we have the LIMIT. In general terms, all of the oscillators have "settled down", to integer wavelength differences. No "beats". How can I say this, if a beat-frequency is "delta f"? Because "harmonics" fit in a nested curve set; if there is no difference in the fundamental (1st mode) frequencies of 2 oscillators, then there will be no difference in their harmonics.
This has a simple "visual", with concentric circles; the Unshifted Doppler "metric".
The Monochromatic Perfect Circle, and its Harmonics.
If we push 2 of these together (of exact same "rate" between lines), all of the intersections cross at "un-differentiable" points.
If we start with 2 DIFFERENT frequencies (rate between lines), then we will clearly see the difference, although, it will cross different lines, in different ways. You may say, "wait, that sounds hard to model", and it could be. Euler found a way through it, by taking only the "correlated" parts, the "coincidence of blows".
But, that was still when Music had not been "quantized". The intervals were not the same; not isotropic; not able to differentiate to the "monochrome", as it were.
He ended with just a much more complex version, of Pythagoras' conclusions, 2000 years prior! The INTEGER only approach, using the "harmonic series" was doomed. Why? Because WAVES are "complex", meaning "more than two components: you MUST have DISTANCE/TIME (wavelength), CYCLES/TIME (frequency), and their PRODUCT is CONSTANT. That's it.
If that CONSTANT has no integer square root, then it has an irrational relationship.
Fortunately (for studying patterns) light and sound fall into that category. Solve one, you solve them both.
It just simply extends from the fact that if we multiply an integer and an irrational number, then we will always get an irrational number. Translated into wave mechanics, we are saying that the distance parameter, when measured in "integer wavelengths", is being put into "natural units". Again, in music and optics, this is the meaning of the "fundamental frequency", so that "natural units" of THAT value are being measured.
In terms of energy, we have just created a problem: terming what came before the fundamental as ZERO. And what is between the "real" peaks, and the "imaginary nothing" that separates them is "zero" too.
However, measuring against the fundamental length is NOT bad, in itself.
Remember, we have THREE parameters: distance, time, velocity.
So, it is more important to state that if we measure from ONE integer, the other two parameters will be IRRATIONAL. Time is that integer parameter, that is ubiquitous to all experiments, that have a "start" and "end".
We have the possible answer that, "over every possible fractional unit of time", energy (the complex term) will have this inverse relationship: a distance parameter that "fluctuates" in space, and a cycle parameter that "jumps" in time.
Lets go back to the visual of our gas-medium in an equilibrium state. We'll follow our start, that this means "heat transfer" is no longer happening, there are no beat-frequencies being exchanged. The statistical knowledge that we have of this is very good. This is the "primary" evidence: Equipartition of Energy = isotropic lattice.
Imagine each atom as a relaxed state oscillator, at "rest" in terms of the average positions of its neighbors, and so being "evenly distributed". Each atom is a nested group of circles, that are related by an integer expansion of their radii. This is the Doppler set of circles, unperturbed, or shifted. Because of the linear/integer expansion of the radius relationship, these nested circles are directly compatible with a metric that is also integer based, namely "1 meter".
So, the medium has a great many of these concentric circle sets, equally spaced out, and their polarization states are independent of each other. The real deal is in 3D, but we can look at just the plane level with the slits. As soon as we have "light incident on this macro field", the field responds. THIS DOES NOT STOP DUE TO ANY CHANGE IN FREQUENCY OR ATTENUATION.
One thing that is definitely happening "in the 1 photon regime", is that the time between "pulses" is REGULAR. Because the relaxation time of the medium (field) is finite, and greater than this "pulse interval", we end up with a "modulated fluctuation pattern", that swings between these limits.
Recall the videos that I linked showing "cymatics": we could see the frequency specific fluctuation pattern of the independent bodies of "absorbers". It is not likely, that the same grain of sand will maintain even an "approximate" consistent position, as the frequency is changed (modulated).
So, in our lattice, in the energy regime of "one photon", we are going to get "one electron" doing the job of "absorb/re-emit". Once this job is performed, it DOES NOT take up its' original position, it gets "recycled" into near the "end of the line", because the "line" (fluctuation pattern) is frequency dependent too.
Because this body, or lattice, of gas is NO LONGER in equilibrium, it is COMMUNICATING via "heat", or "beat-frequencies". The WHOLE body contributes to the "revival" of this energy level. The "vacuum" does not contribute, it does not exist. THE MEDIUM CONTRIBUTES the energy, so that our observed conservation takes place.
Because of the difference in the modulation, between the relaxation (thermo limit) and the next input of energy, the "lead atom" (front man for the Talbot carpet) CAN NOT have EXACTLY the same energy as the one it replaced, and will send (via a difference in reaction) the next "photon" to a different place on the (envelope/fundamental dependent) same fringe pattern.
The reason that the pattern is still completed the same, as if we had sent all of the photons "back to back", is the timing of the envelope. It is based on "equal division" of the fundamental frequency. The field is responding to that input the WHOLE time, only the RATE in which the pattern can be "seen/perceived" changes. An equal division of the fundamental delivers a precise change in the unit of time to measure said rate (frequency) with. The original pattern was a rate over time, and the "one at a time" DSE is just the "same rate in more time". The period changed (the interval between events), but not the rate.
I went past the point that we needed to right now, just so that you can see ahead of time. that this is the ONLY logical answer, to the entire set of questions.
When we have the right answer for "basic phenomenon A", we will be able to also answer "complex phenomenon B" with the same method and model.
After all that, now I'm going to show the "reading list". As usual, it is not short; and it is not trivial. I do not have the time for a "full book report" on each one, and the references of each. If you want to know the way, especially in how it relates to the models that YOU personally (each reader) can relate to. We are all different in that respect.
HOT off the press, still to be published, "experimental confirmation":
Doppler Asymmetric Spatial Heterodyne Spectroscopy (DASH): Concept
and Experimental Demonstration
Christoph Englert, David Babcock, and John Harlander
Applied Optics - accepted 13 August 2007
http://ao.osa.org/DirectPDFAccess/0195CE70...FTOKEN=71488311
(this is free only for a short time; link may not work)
QUOTE
To date, space based Doppler shift observations of atmospheric emission lines have been made from a few research satellites to obtain wind information. Since the measured Doppler shift contains only velocity information along the line of sight, measurements of horizontal wind speed and direction require the observation of the same location using two perpendicular viewing directions.
..
A limitation of stepped Michelson interferometers is that the isolation of a single atmospheric emission line typically requires an ultra narrow pre-filter with all its attendant difficulties and reduction in throughput. Further limitations are that the interferogram is only sampled at a few (typically four) optical path differences and instrument drifts cannot be monitored simultaneous with every atmospheric measurement, since only one line may be in the passband at any time.
DASH can be considered a combination of stepped FTS and Spatial Heterodyne Spectroscopy (SHS).
Typical atmospheric wind velocities cause atmospheric emission lines to be Doppler shifted by only a few parts in 10^8. This small wavelength shift results in a small frequency change in the interferogram as recorded by an SHS, DASH, or FTS instrument. Fig. 1 shows an ideal interferogram of a single, infinitely narrow spectral line versus optical path difference and the interferogram of a slightly Doppler shifted line. As is well known, the small frequency change in the interferogram has a negligible effect for small optical path differences; however, at longer path differences it appears predominantly as a phase shift. The main objective of DASH is to measure this phase shift, thus it is sufficient to measure the interferogram at high optical path differences. Note that the brightness of the interferogram and the fringe contrast contain information about the density of the emitter and the line shape, just like in the stepped FTS case.
..
A limitation of stepped Michelson interferometers is that the isolation of a single atmospheric emission line typically requires an ultra narrow pre-filter with all its attendant difficulties and reduction in throughput. Further limitations are that the interferogram is only sampled at a few (typically four) optical path differences and instrument drifts cannot be monitored simultaneous with every atmospheric measurement, since only one line may be in the passband at any time.
DASH can be considered a combination of stepped FTS and Spatial Heterodyne Spectroscopy (SHS).
Typical atmospheric wind velocities cause atmospheric emission lines to be Doppler shifted by only a few parts in 10^8. This small wavelength shift results in a small frequency change in the interferogram as recorded by an SHS, DASH, or FTS instrument. Fig. 1 shows an ideal interferogram of a single, infinitely narrow spectral line versus optical path difference and the interferogram of a slightly Doppler shifted line. As is well known, the small frequency change in the interferogram has a negligible effect for small optical path differences; however, at longer path differences it appears predominantly as a phase shift. The main objective of DASH is to measure this phase shift, thus it is sufficient to measure the interferogram at high optical path differences. Note that the brightness of the interferogram and the fringe contrast contain information about the density of the emitter and the line shape, just like in the stepped FTS case.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To date, space based Doppler shift observations of atmospheric emission lines have been made from a few research satellites to obtain wind information. Since the measured Doppler shift contains only velocity information along the line of sight, measurements of horizontal wind speed and direction require the observation of the same location using two perpendicular viewing directions. .. A limitation of stepped Michelson interferometers is that the isolation of a single atmospheric emission line typically requires an ultra narrow pre-filter with all its attendant difficulties and reduction in throughput. Further limitations are that the interferogram is only sampled at a few (typically four) optical path differences and instrument drifts cannot be monitored simultaneous with every atmospheric measurement, since only one line may be in the passband at any time. DASH can be considered a combination of stepped FTS and Spatial Heterodyne Spectroscopy (SHS). Typical atmospheric wind velocities cause atmospheric emission lines to be Doppler shifted by only a few parts in 10^8. This small wavelength shift results in a small frequency change in the interferogram as recorded by an SHS, DASH, or FTS instrument. Fig. 1 shows an ideal interferogram of a single, infinitely narrow spectral line versus optical path difference and the interferogram of a slightly Doppler shifted line. As is well known, the small frequency change in the interferogram has a negligible effect for small optical path differences; however, at longer path differences it appears predominantly as a phase shift. The main objective of DASH is to measure this phase shift, thus it is sufficient to measure the interferogram at high optical path differences. Note that the brightness of the interferogram and the fringe contrast contain information about the density of the emitter and the line shape, just like in the stepped FTS case. |
Line broadening affects the envelope of the interferogram; a broader
line corresponds to an envelope that decreases more rapidly with increasing path difference. In general, this envelope function causes the interferogram contrast, or visibility, to decrease with increasing optical path difference as shown for a purely temperature broadened line in Fig. 3. This effect competes with the increasing phase shift for increasing optical path difference (see Eq. (1)) so that there is an optimum path difference offset for which measuring the phase shift and thus the Doppler shift is most sensitive. We find this optimum path difference by
maximizing the envelope of the difference between the interferograms of a Doppler shifted and non-shifted line (see Fig. 3).
QUOTE
Using Eq. (7), the phase term can now be calculated from the ratio of its imaginary and the real part :
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Using Eq. (7), the phase term can now be calculated from the ratio of its imaginary and the real part : |
After subtraction of 2πκ0x+Φ0, which is also called the zero wind phase, we get the phase shift δϕ0 caused by the Doppler shift for this particular line. The speed between the emitter and the spectrometer can now be calculated using the phase shift δϕ0 and Eq. (1).
Note: this is what I mean by "lateral observers", measuring shifted velocities, AS seen by the "central" observer (axis ; a preferred frame). Following the diffraction angles back to the slit, you find the phase shift (in frequency) that matches the RI change in velocity. (RI is based on a particular frequency, so that its' velocity is "adjusted" to c , essentially)
QUOTE
In order to avoid aliasing, the highest fringe frequency may not exceed the Nyquist frequency, that is the number of fringes across the detector width may not exceed the number of detector pixels divided by two. This example illustrates that the heterodyning aspect of DASH is essential for achieving well separated fringe frequencies that can easily be sampled..
.. well separated also ensures that the envelope of the beat pattern from 2 or more lines in the passband, has a periodicity that is significantly smaller than the width of the detector.
This way the interferogram sampled by the detector can never be confined to a node or zero point of the beat pattern envelope..
.. well separated also ensures that the envelope of the beat pattern from 2 or more lines in the passband, has a periodicity that is significantly smaller than the width of the detector.
This way the interferogram sampled by the detector can never be confined to a node or zero point of the beat pattern envelope..
(like the "1 at a time photon" from a laser beam)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In order to avoid aliasing, the highest fringe frequency may not exceed the Nyquist frequency, that is the number of fringes across the detector width may not exceed the number of detector pixels divided by two. This example illustrates that the heterodyning aspect of DASH is essential for achieving well separated fringe frequencies that can easily be sampled.. .. well separated also ensures that the envelope of the beat pattern from 2 or more lines in the passband, has a periodicity that is significantly smaller than the width of the detector. This way the interferogram sampled by the detector can never be confined to a node or zero point of the beat pattern envelope.. |
(like the "1 at a time photon" from a laser beam)
The interferometer was vibrationally isolated from the optical bench and a top cover was used to suppress ambient and stray light contributions.
(because they are SERIOUS about accuracy)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/chao-dyn/pdf/9906/9906005v1.pdf
FINITE TIMES TO EQUIPARTITION IN THE THERMODYNAMIC LIMIT
J. De Luca, A. J. Lichtenberg, S. Ruffo
31 May 1999
QUOTE
We take the initial energy to be either in a single mode γ or in a package of low frequency modes centered at γ and of width δγ, with both γ and δγ proportional to N. These initial conditions both give, for finite energy densities E/N, a scaling in the thermodynamic limit (large N), of a finite time to equipartition which is inversely proportional to the central mode frequency times a power of the energy density (E/N). A theory of the scaling with (E/N) is presented and compared to the numerical results in the range 0.03 ≤ E/N ≤ 0.8.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We take the initial energy to be either in a single mode γ or in a package of low frequency modes centered at γ and of width δγ, with both γ and δγ proportional to N. These initial conditions both give, for finite energy densities E/N, a scaling in the thermodynamic limit (large N), of a finite time to equipartition which is inversely proportional to the central mode frequency times a power of the energy density (E/N). A theory of the scaling with (E/N) is presented and compared to the numerical results in the range 0.03 ≤ E/N ≤ 0.8. |
The mechanism of a transition to more rapid energy transfer is that for energy above a threshold E ∝ N−1, interaction of neighboring low frequency modes will lead to a local super-period beat oscillation, of period TB ∝ N2/γEγ ,
that is stochastic. At a sufficiently high energy a resonance with high frequency modes leads to a transition to a fast diffusion regime which occurs above a critical energy E = Ec, independent of N.
..
In this paper we examine the relationship between initial conditions for which the energy is placed primarily in a single mode γ, which we call “mechanical” initial conditions, with initial condition for which the energy is placed in a finite δγ package of neighboring modes with δγ ∝ N, which we call “physical” initial conditions.
..
The main numerical tool we use is the calculation of the effective number of modes
n_eff containing the energy.
..
(Fig. 5), which indicated an extra volume filling factor, proportional to √N, when the
energy was placed primarily in a single low frequency mode, typically γ = 3. In this case the primary driving frequency is a beat B ∝ γE/N2, with γ = 3, such that the time for transferring energy is much longer than in the present situation. This allows the filling of the low frequency modes by successive excitations (see ref. [1]) to manifest itself in the additional √N dependence.
..
In the following we present an approximate theory of Hamiltonian diffusion to explain, qualitatively, the power law behavior at low energy densities. We start by assuming that there is an effective number of low-frequency modes δk that are responsible for stochastically transferring energy to the high-frequency modes, leading to equipartition.
..
Because of the nonlinear couplings among the low-frequency modes, the frequency of these modes is corrected by a beat that we approximate in the following way.
In (8) and below we set N + 1 ≃ N (large N) except where it appears in the selection rule. ¿From (3) ωi ≃ πi/N, for low frequency modes, and taking the beat frequency B, between ωi and a neighboring mode, to be of the order of the nonlinear frequency shift, we obtain, for any i (with i ≪ N), ..
..
As in our previous work [1] the notation h1 and h2 explicitly indicates that the energy transfer occurs only between low frequency beat oscillation and high frequency mode difference oscillations through the Arnold diffusion mechanism.
Since δk low frequency modes, assumed to have energy, couple to δh high frequency modes with δk = δh, the cross-couplings imply each high frequency mode is coupled on average to δk/4 low frequency modes. There are phases in the low frequency mode beat oscillations and in the high frequency difference oscillations that can affect the Arnold diffusion. This has only been studied for exponentially slow diffusion [12]. The effect of these phases when more than one driving term exists, for the case of strong Arnold diffusion, B <∼ δωh, has not been studied.
..
Furthermore, we expect that as the energy in the high frequency modes increases, other pathways become available for the energy distribution among the modes, to further justify holding the number of couplings constant in the integration.
..
Furthermore, n_eff is related to the evolution of the energy in the individual modes in a very complicated way. These dynamics lie beyond a simple mode-averaged theory. We also emphasize that the theory depends on having non-exponentially slow stochastic diffusion to high-frequency modes, being driven by local mode-mixing stochasticity among low-frequency modes [1].
Further reading on Arnold Diffusion:
http://www.turpion.org/php/full/getFT.phtm...6_355&x=107&y=5
ARNOLD DIFFUSION AND THE D’ALEMBERT PRECESSION PROBLEM
V.MASTROPIETRO
Universita’ Tor Vergata, Roma October 30, 2001
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc and all,
Do you agree..
At various stages I think at least some of the regular posters have agreed that the pattern is the same as the superposition of two sinewaves. Then it goes horribly wrong .. instead of trying to explain how/why the pattern is indeed the sum of two continuous sinewaves there is a tendency to try to explain why this cannot be true and then go on to discuss other results and other experiments.
Best wishes - C2.
Do you agree..
At various stages I think at least some of the regular posters have agreed that the pattern is the same as the superposition of two sinewaves. Then it goes horribly wrong .. instead of trying to explain how/why the pattern is indeed the sum of two continuous sinewaves there is a tendency to try to explain why this cannot be true and then go on to discuss other results and other experiments.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi C2,
WHAT? I think everyone has agreed that the DSE interference pattern is a
wave superposition effect. IMO, the argument has to do with the "mechanics"
of the mechanism, and the nature of photons.
This argument has been ongoing for 200 years, we are just the latest who are
trying to bring in new information into the argument, that didn't exist previously.
A "conclusion" must satisfy ALL possible results/variables. If one fails the test,
then other alternatives must be explored.
LL
QUOTE
At various stages I think at least some of the regular posters have agreed that the pattern is the same as the superposition of two sinewaves. Then it goes horribly wrong .. instead of trying to explain how/why the pattern is indeed the sum of two continuous sinewaves there is a tendency to try to explain why this cannot be true and then go on to discuss other results and other experiments.
WHAT? I think everyone has agreed that the DSE interference pattern is a
wave superposition effect. IMO, the argument has to do with the "mechanics"
of the mechanism, and the nature of photons.
This argument has been ongoing for 200 years, we are just the latest who are
trying to bring in new information into the argument, that didn't exist previously.
A "conclusion" must satisfy ALL possible results/variables. If one fails the test,
then other alternatives must be explored.
LL
Maybe I missed out a few crucial words .. two continuous sinewaves of a single frequency
Hi Confused2, TRoc, "THEY", "THEY2" Laserlight, janrinze, Jal, Montec, yquantum, StevenA, "Why Not?", Siau, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, et al,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
At various stages I think at least some of the regular posters have agreed that the pattern is the same as the superposition of two sinewaves. Then it goes horribly wrong .. instead of trying to explain how/why the pattern is indeed the sum of two continuous sinewaves there is a tendency to try to explain why this cannot be true and then go on to discuss other results and other experiments. [...] Maybe I missed out a few crucial words .. two continuous sinewaves of a single frequency
While I "agree" that for two slits and for infinitely thin "ideal" pinholes/slits the result "resembles closely" interference between two continuous sinewaves... The truth is that there is a fine detail involved in the pattern due to the finite aperture of the pinholes/slits. There is a complex transform plane as shown in those devices I have linked previously between a "secondary source" and the screen "image".... The transform plane.
... Click to enlarge...
In this case the input plane is composed of an semi-infinite number of individual secondary sources which are all self-interfering.... photon by photon of monochromatic light from the LASER.
Pinholes (or slits) are just a limiting case of "lenses" with an extremely small aperture with all the optical distortions that optics of pinholes introduces. The pinhole is a camera obscura with a highly defined optical transfer function. This "theory" (if you can call it that) has no generalization to extended slits/pinholes or arbitrarily placed pinholes/slits in three dimensions. It cannot be simply extended to lenses either. This simplistic two wave concept explains nothing. It is easy to explain to children... that is its "virtue". I am expecting more from this group than this simple "explanation".
IMHO... This phenomenon can only be answered by harmonic solutions on the surface of a sphere or cavity of a resonant phenomena in space of standing waves. These standing waves are related to the physical "shape" of an associated connected cavity space.
The next point is there are the standing waves that need to have an answer... two progressive waves interfering produce a progressive wave solution... the real answer is not a progressive wave... it is a stationary pattern involving Talbot Carpets which are spatially non progressive. These patterns are a resonance not waves lapping on the beach. The actual phenomenon resembles this effect shown in zephir's electron diffraction image...
Slight modification is required for photons and their spreading. In the same way that this animation shows one electron interference through the wave passing through both slits the photon also passes through both or (all) slits... seeking all paths.
The next point is this/these patterns of all kinds, be they formed from one pinhole, two pinholes, three pinholes .... million pinholes ot any arbitrary size... placed in any position on the outside of an arbitrary shaped "cavity", with reflections and so on, have a general solution that is "per photon".... one photon at a time... even if they are separated by long periods in time. The standing waves are produced by some quantum effect that is not accounted for by the two wave theory. The patterns are due to geometry and to frequency of the photon... a combination of the two... Each photon frequency has a different effect and it is dependent solely on the physical geometry of the cavity. They form a superposition of possible solutions. You do not need two different sources of waves or two waves created by two separate photons to produce these standing waves.... each individual photon does it all by themselves.
Then we have the question posed by the original problem... "Observing later"... referring to the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. The solution I have proposed is a "one stop shop" that answers all of these points together .... no piecemeal answer but a full mechanism that provides a framework that is an answer to this quantum quandary. The answer does not involve only the particle solution but is mostly concerned with the wave solution.... I have demonstrated practically why quantum theory does not answer these problems and why an extended wave theory does explain these issues.... Why there are those fine excellent patterns and why holograms are not a chaos of random photons but a highly "orchestrated" and exacting interference pattern of standing waves in space. To the "observing later" question... the relativistic interpretation of the photon "in frozen time" and "contracted and rotated space" solves the quandary between entangled photons apparently having a "back action" back through time. The "fiction" is related to our frame of reference which discriminates between the single event which is happening is different regions of space at different times... when to the photon these apparently separated events are simply the one event that is neither distant nor separated in time from it's entangled partner.
Cheers
... Click to enlarge...
In this case the input plane is composed of an semi-infinite number of individual secondary sources which are all self-interfering.... photon by photon of monochromatic light from the LASER.
Pinholes (or slits) are just a limiting case of "lenses" with an extremely small aperture with all the optical distortions that optics of pinholes introduces. The pinhole is a camera obscura with a highly defined optical transfer function. This "theory" (if you can call it that) has no generalization to extended slits/pinholes or arbitrarily placed pinholes/slits in three dimensions. It cannot be simply extended to lenses either. This simplistic two wave concept explains nothing. It is easy to explain to children... that is its "virtue". I am expecting more from this group than this simple "explanation".
IMHO... This phenomenon can only be answered by harmonic solutions on the surface of a sphere or cavity of a resonant phenomena in space of standing waves. These standing waves are related to the physical "shape" of an associated connected cavity space.
The next point is there are the standing waves that need to have an answer... two progressive waves interfering produce a progressive wave solution... the real answer is not a progressive wave... it is a stationary pattern involving Talbot Carpets which are spatially non progressive. These patterns are a resonance not waves lapping on the beach. The actual phenomenon resembles this effect shown in zephir's electron diffraction image...
Slight modification is required for photons and their spreading. In the same way that this animation shows one electron interference through the wave passing through both slits the photon also passes through both or (all) slits... seeking all paths.
The next point is this/these patterns of all kinds, be they formed from one pinhole, two pinholes, three pinholes .... million pinholes ot any arbitrary size... placed in any position on the outside of an arbitrary shaped "cavity", with reflections and so on, have a general solution that is "per photon".... one photon at a time... even if they are separated by long periods in time. The standing waves are produced by some quantum effect that is not accounted for by the two wave theory. The patterns are due to geometry and to frequency of the photon... a combination of the two... Each photon frequency has a different effect and it is dependent solely on the physical geometry of the cavity. They form a superposition of possible solutions. You do not need two different sources of waves or two waves created by two separate photons to produce these standing waves.... each individual photon does it all by themselves.
Then we have the question posed by the original problem... "Observing later"... referring to the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. The solution I have proposed is a "one stop shop" that answers all of these points together .... no piecemeal answer but a full mechanism that provides a framework that is an answer to this quantum quandary. The answer does not involve only the particle solution but is mostly concerned with the wave solution.... I have demonstrated practically why quantum theory does not answer these problems and why an extended wave theory does explain these issues.... Why there are those fine excellent patterns and why holograms are not a chaos of random photons but a highly "orchestrated" and exacting interference pattern of standing waves in space. To the "observing later" question... the relativistic interpretation of the photon "in frozen time" and "contracted and rotated space" solves the quandary between entangled photons apparently having a "back action" back through time. The "fiction" is related to our frame of reference which discriminates between the single event which is happening is different regions of space at different times... when to the photon these apparently separated events are simply the one event that is neither distant nor separated in time from it's entangled partner.
Cheers
Hi all,
C2, you are asking for the affect of 2, same phase cycles, correct?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum
( And, the first matter wave resonance. Think of the "eigenstate", which represents the coupled systems' most energy conserving mode. In this case, the "setting" of the clocks is the perturbation, and the relax time is the period that it takes for them to become "beat free", no difference in their cyclic rate. )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odd_sympathy
( And, the first matter wave resonance. Think of the "eigenstate", which represents the coupled systems' most energy conserving mode. In this case, the "setting" of the clocks is the perturbation, and the relax time is the period that it takes for them to become "beat free", no difference in their cyclic rate. )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odd_sympathy
Huygens originally believed the synchronization was due to air currents shared between the two pendulums, but he dismissed the hypothesis himself after several tests. Huygens would later attribute sympathetic motion of pendulums to imperceptible movement in the beam from which both pendulums are suspended. This idea was later validated by researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology who tested Huygens' idea. [1]
Using instruments capable of registering movement too small to have been measured in Huygens' time, the Georgia Tech researchers chronicled the nature of the forces at work on the supporting beam. They found that if the pendulums are moving in the same direction, together they tend to move the beam the opposite direction, giving rise to frictional forces that resist motion in the same direction. If however, the pendulums are moving in opposite directions, these forces cancel each other out, causing the beam to remain motionless. Thus, motion, in this example, tends to be perfectly asynchronous.
If there is a medium of communication between the 2 oscillators, like in the example above, and their degrees of freedom are in 2 dimensions, the "movement" will be asynchronous; the energy will take up the fundamental form of node/anti-node/node, meaning from the center, out. (in both directions).
In the "photon", or quanta of energy, the result of the superposed resonant sine waves puts a PAIR of peaks in the same space and time. This causes the immediate creation of a node/zero point that must exist between them, so that they have separate existence. This can be interpreted either as "new photons", as a Doppler shifted "fundamental" frequency, or as Huygens principle.
The amplitude of the EM wave is interpreted as the electric field. However, because of the "symbiotic" relationship with the magnetic field, and their 90 deg geometry, it has been established that these definitions are only valid for particular frames. I do agree with the premise that charge and mass are secondary effects of the fundamental cause.
The EM wave can be modeled as a helice, and the property of phase singularities, the "vortex", is too. This is a Fundamental pattern: it is from this, that energy is transferred from "nothing", that consists of a barely perceptible redshift, by the absorber/emitter bodies that populate the "space" in question. A tiny, "infinitesimal" contribution by every "particle" in the Universe.
So, your question C2, which I think was too vague to give a definite answer, sounds like the SINGLE slit question. For the SSE, that is a true statement. For the DSE, that is not true. We went over this, and I thought were in agreement.
It can not answer the "1-at-a-time" question/dilemma, anyway.
To answer your question means we have to go though the "monochromatic" issue again. It was laid to rest. A single frequency has all its eggs in 1 basket: it ONLY exists on the zero or the y axis (infinitely). In 3D, it is "infinite curvature"; the loop. The single frequency, that had only ONE anti-node, between 2 nodes, is not moving, by definition. This is the orbit. If it is moving at c , then we have RDS in affect, and the frequency can not be monochromatic throughout the envelope.
The extremes, and the mean; the positive, negative, and neutral. We need three bodies for some geometric stability. 2 " r 's and 1 pi " (or 1 real r , 1 pi, and 1 imaginary phase -r ).
Was that any help?
regards,
T.Roc
C2, you are asking for the affect of 2, same phase cycles, correct?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum
QUOTE
Perhaps based upon the ideas of Galileo, in 1656 the Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens patented a mechanical clock that employed a pendulum to regulate the movement.[7] This approached proved much more accurate than previous time pieces, such as the hourglass. Following an illness, in 1665 Huygens made a curious observation about pendulum clocks. Two such clocks had been placed on his mantlepiece, and he noted that they had acquired an opposing motion. That is, they were beating in unison but in the opposite direction—an anti-phase motion. Regardless of how the two clocks were adjusted, he found that they would eventually return to this state, thus making the first recorded observation of a coupled oscillator.[8]
( And, the first matter wave resonance. Think of the "eigenstate", which represents the coupled systems' most energy conserving mode. In this case, the "setting" of the clocks is the perturbation, and the relax time is the period that it takes for them to become "beat free", no difference in their cyclic rate. )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odd_sympathy
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Perhaps based upon the ideas of Galileo, in 1656 the Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens patented a mechanical clock that employed a pendulum to regulate the movement.[7] This approached proved much more accurate than previous time pieces, such as the hourglass. Following an illness, in 1665 Huygens made a curious observation about pendulum clocks. Two such clocks had been placed on his mantlepiece, and he noted that they had acquired an opposing motion. That is, they were beating in unison but in the opposite direction—an anti-phase motion. Regardless of how the two clocks were adjusted, he found that they would eventually return to this state, thus making the first recorded observation of a coupled oscillator.[8] |
( And, the first matter wave resonance. Think of the "eigenstate", which represents the coupled systems' most energy conserving mode. In this case, the "setting" of the clocks is the perturbation, and the relax time is the period that it takes for them to become "beat free", no difference in their cyclic rate. )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odd_sympathy
Huygens originally believed the synchronization was due to air currents shared between the two pendulums, but he dismissed the hypothesis himself after several tests. Huygens would later attribute sympathetic motion of pendulums to imperceptible movement in the beam from which both pendulums are suspended. This idea was later validated by researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology who tested Huygens' idea. [1]
Using instruments capable of registering movement too small to have been measured in Huygens' time, the Georgia Tech researchers chronicled the nature of the forces at work on the supporting beam. They found that if the pendulums are moving in the same direction, together they tend to move the beam the opposite direction, giving rise to frictional forces that resist motion in the same direction. If however, the pendulums are moving in opposite directions, these forces cancel each other out, causing the beam to remain motionless. Thus, motion, in this example, tends to be perfectly asynchronous.
If there is a medium of communication between the 2 oscillators, like in the example above, and their degrees of freedom are in 2 dimensions, the "movement" will be asynchronous; the energy will take up the fundamental form of node/anti-node/node, meaning from the center, out. (in both directions).
In the "photon", or quanta of energy, the result of the superposed resonant sine waves puts a PAIR of peaks in the same space and time. This causes the immediate creation of a node/zero point that must exist between them, so that they have separate existence. This can be interpreted either as "new photons", as a Doppler shifted "fundamental" frequency, or as Huygens principle.
The amplitude of the EM wave is interpreted as the electric field. However, because of the "symbiotic" relationship with the magnetic field, and their 90 deg geometry, it has been established that these definitions are only valid for particular frames. I do agree with the premise that charge and mass are secondary effects of the fundamental cause.
The EM wave can be modeled as a helice, and the property of phase singularities, the "vortex", is too. This is a Fundamental pattern: it is from this, that energy is transferred from "nothing", that consists of a barely perceptible redshift, by the absorber/emitter bodies that populate the "space" in question. A tiny, "infinitesimal" contribution by every "particle" in the Universe.
So, your question C2, which I think was too vague to give a definite answer, sounds like the SINGLE slit question. For the SSE, that is a true statement. For the DSE, that is not true. We went over this, and I thought were in agreement.
It can not answer the "1-at-a-time" question/dilemma, anyway.
To answer your question means we have to go though the "monochromatic" issue again. It was laid to rest. A single frequency has all its eggs in 1 basket: it ONLY exists on the zero or the y axis (infinitely). In 3D, it is "infinite curvature"; the loop. The single frequency, that had only ONE anti-node, between 2 nodes, is not moving, by definition. This is the orbit. If it is moving at c , then we have RDS in affect, and the frequency can not be monochromatic throughout the envelope.
The extremes, and the mean; the positive, negative, and neutral. We need three bodies for some geometric stability. 2 " r 's and 1 pi " (or 1 real r , 1 pi, and 1 imaginary phase -r ).
Was that any help?
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc, Good Elf, "THEY", "THEY2" Laserlight, janrinze, Jal, Montec, yquantum, StevenA, "Why Not?", Siau, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, et al,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
The extremes, and the mean; the positive, negative, and neutral. We need three bodies for some geometric stability. 2 " r 's and 1 pi " (or 1 real r , 1 pi, and 1 imaginary phase -r ).
I don't think this is going to make any sense to me unless you give a 'worked example'.
Something like ..
A hot filament emits a photon ..
de dum de dum
two slits
de dum de dum
and so makes a bright spot on a photographic film at point 'X'.
Best wishes - C2.
Good Elf .. I don't think camera and telescope manufacturers take into account 'standing waves' .. does this lead to a problem or have I missed something?
I don't think this is going to make any sense to me unless you give a 'worked example'.
Something like ..
A hot filament emits a photon ..
de dum de dum
two slits
de dum de dum
and so makes a bright spot on a photographic film at point 'X'.
Best wishes - C2.
Good Elf .. I don't think camera and telescope manufacturers take into account 'standing waves' .. does this lead to a problem or have I missed something?
Hi Confused2, TRoc, "THEY", "THEY2" Laserlight, janrinze, Jal, Montec, yquantum, StevenA, "Why Not?", Siau, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, et al,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Good Elf .. I don't think camera and telescope manufacturers take into account 'standing waves' .. does this lead to a problem or have I missed something?
You are right... "It" (standing waves) is not a problem for camera and telescope manufacturers... This is like saying that the Theory of Relativity is not a problem for Bricklayers. It is true but missing the point. While it it quite right to say these kinds of enterprise would not necessarily benefit from an understanding of quantum theory or Relativity it is of prime concern to Physicists. It is physics that must account for the phenomenon observed.
A Theory of all phenomena will include this fact and it will be able to be incorporated in a complete Theory of Everything seamlessly. For me the spatial standing waves "fits" aspects of Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory.
+ 
= 
These are standing waves but you see advanced and retarded waves here. In the "real world" you do not "see" advanced waves. This is because they are waves that are running in the opposite way to causality. Still they are there and are producing standing waves... this is all the matter that exists in our Universe.... the matter waves are stationary in time but represent the confluence of advanced and retarded waves in space.... our space. What we are witnessing is the effect we are seeing in that animation...
What you see is the influence of matter as "stationary spatial states"... those matter standing waves... and the causally related retarded wave version of propagating and spreading photon packets which are forced to move under the influence of the matter waves. Each frequency of photon interacts with this matter wave field in a different but predictable way. We know that simple law for a double slit. There is another more competent solution and it deals with the wave equation for electromagnetism... an exact analog for the Schrodinger Wave Equation.
... and...
... Click to enlarge...
What we have here is a general solution for cavities with waves rather than cavities with particles.
Recall that a single photon cannot produce standing waves by "bouncing around a cavity resonantly" ... the single one off photon goes directly from source to sink... Yet this is a "resonance". The standing wave is already there defining the space and to capture the energy of the propagating photon. The DSE is as much of a cavity as is the resonating bell but it reacts in accordance with the advanced waves.
Everything is in a state of "resonance" even if it is only a one shot wonder. This is the "secret" behind everything. The cavity is always there and photons "feel" the space as a resonance without actually having to personally probe all the space as a particle. These are the "interferences".
Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory "fits" Cramer's Transactional Hypothesis and these show a way to interpret events occurring in the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment when we incorporate Special Relativity. It is the process of seeking a consistent view not a series of disconnected facts.
Milo Wolff has a similar theory but I disagree in the details about the internal energy flow of particles (See Williamson and Van Der Mark's paper). Still it is an allied concept. To me particles connect like Falaco Solitons in a swimming pool. The cores are not "bobbing up and down" but spinning. This creates its own space in which to move... additional dimensions derived from compact spatial dimensions being inflated. These interferences are "measured" using photon waves... they diffract through them the same way as they diffract through other matter such as X-Rays in crystalline matter... Bragg's Law... but the fine detail and cavity resonances are lost due to the nature of those interferences in the space being so much shorter in wavelength than light. The way photons behave with these interferences is as in a reciprocal space.
Cheers
A Theory of all phenomena will include this fact and it will be able to be incorporated in a complete Theory of Everything seamlessly. For me the spatial standing waves "fits" aspects of Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory.
+ = These are standing waves but you see advanced and retarded waves here. In the "real world" you do not "see" advanced waves. This is because they are waves that are running in the opposite way to causality. Still they are there and are producing standing waves... this is all the matter that exists in our Universe.... the matter waves are stationary in time but represent the confluence of advanced and retarded waves in space.... our space. What we are witnessing is the effect we are seeing in that animation...
What you see is the influence of matter as "stationary spatial states"... those matter standing waves... and the causally related retarded wave version of propagating and spreading photon packets which are forced to move under the influence of the matter waves. Each frequency of photon interacts with this matter wave field in a different but predictable way. We know that simple law for a double slit. There is another more competent solution and it deals with the wave equation for electromagnetism... an exact analog for the Schrodinger Wave Equation.
... and...
... Click to enlarge...
What we have here is a general solution for cavities with waves rather than cavities with particles.
Recall that a single photon cannot produce standing waves by "bouncing around a cavity resonantly" ... the single one off photon goes directly from source to sink... Yet this is a "resonance". The standing wave is already there defining the space and to capture the energy of the propagating photon. The DSE is as much of a cavity as is the resonating bell but it reacts in accordance with the advanced waves.
Everything is in a state of "resonance" even if it is only a one shot wonder. This is the "secret" behind everything. The cavity is always there and photons "feel" the space as a resonance without actually having to personally probe all the space as a particle. These are the "interferences".
Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory "fits" Cramer's Transactional Hypothesis and these show a way to interpret events occurring in the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment when we incorporate Special Relativity. It is the process of seeking a consistent view not a series of disconnected facts.
Milo Wolff has a similar theory but I disagree in the details about the internal energy flow of particles (See Williamson and Van Der Mark's paper). Still it is an allied concept. To me particles connect like Falaco Solitons in a swimming pool. The cores are not "bobbing up and down" but spinning. This creates its own space in which to move... additional dimensions derived from compact spatial dimensions being inflated. These interferences are "measured" using photon waves... they diffract through them the same way as they diffract through other matter such as X-Rays in crystalline matter... Bragg's Law... but the fine detail and cavity resonances are lost due to the nature of those interferences in the space being so much shorter in wavelength than light. The way photons behave with these interferences is as in a reciprocal space.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
Looking at the Zephiry gif..
Taking it 'as drawn'..
we see about 50% of the wave is reflected .. with 'real' slits it would probably be closer to 99%. Whatever 'wave' that doesn't go through the slits must be reflected because if it was absorbed it would be 'game over' for that particular photon. This does raise the question of .. what happens if we paint our barrier black .. why does it still play the part of a reflector?
Once a photon has been detected at the screen there is the problem of all those waves that were reflected from the barrier. Somehow the whole wave structure has to be cleared up. I don't see that it would be enough to throw the process into reverse from the point of detection because it's in the wrong place to cancel the waves from the source .. the cancellation has to happen from the source.. you agree? No part of the wave that is not 'local' to the point of detection can know a detection has occurred .. unless you have some sort of non-local phenomenon to connect the wave that is reflected to the wave that passes through the slits.
Looking at the Zephiry gif..
Taking it 'as drawn'..
we see about 50% of the wave is reflected .. with 'real' slits it would probably be closer to 99%. Whatever 'wave' that doesn't go through the slits must be reflected because if it was absorbed it would be 'game over' for that particular photon. This does raise the question of .. what happens if we paint our barrier black .. why does it still play the part of a reflector?
Once a photon has been detected at the screen there is the problem of all those waves that were reflected from the barrier. Somehow the whole wave structure has to be cleared up. I don't see that it would be enough to throw the process into reverse from the point of detection because it's in the wrong place to cancel the waves from the source .. the cancellation has to happen from the source.. you agree? No part of the wave that is not 'local' to the point of detection can know a detection has occurred .. unless you have some sort of non-local phenomenon to connect the wave that is reflected to the wave that passes through the slits.
QUOTE (GE+)
The standing wave is already there defining the space and to capture the energy of the propagating photon.
I'm not sure whether this is intended as an alternative or as part of Wheeler-Feynman. We can certainly agree that the DSE effect exists .. to say "Space does it" seems to be rather ducking the issue .. how do we calculate what space is going to do?
I'm not sure whether this is intended as an alternative or as part of Wheeler-Feynman. We can certainly agree that the DSE effect exists .. to say "Space does it" seems to be rather ducking the issue .. how do we calculate what space is going to do?
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Recall that a single photon cannot produce standing waves by "bouncing around a cavity resonantly"
I will certainly remember that.
Best wishes - C2.
I will certainly remember that.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
we see about 50% of the wave is reflected .. with 'real' slits it would probably be closer to 99%. Whatever 'wave' that doesn't go through the slits must be reflected because if it was absorbed it would be 'game over' for that particular photon. This does raise the question of .. what happens if we paint our barrier black .. why does it still play the part of a reflector?
Once a photon has been detected at the screen there is the problem of all those waves that were reflected from the barrier. Somehow the whole wave structure has to be cleared up. I don't see that it would be enough to throw the process into reverse from the point of detection because it's in the wrong place to cancel the waves from the source .. the cancellation has to happen from the source.. you agree?
Once a photon has been detected at the screen there is the problem of all those waves that were reflected from the barrier. Somehow the whole wave structure has to be cleared up. I don't see that it would be enough to throw the process into reverse from the point of detection because it's in the wrong place to cancel the waves from the source .. the cancellation has to happen from the source.. you agree?
Like I said "if you believe Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory" then this is all "prearranged", the source has negotiated for the future sink to send the advanced wave from the future. That source is the only source for that sink for that one event. After all, for individual photons this "full picture" cannot be observed... you can only detect the photon once and once only and you cannot gather any data in between. The effect of all this is to transfer the energy (particle) from source to sink .... no particles in between just these waves. The only way we know these things is by observing photons in large numbers... You can also produce a protective measurement which causes a partial collapse which restricts the path.... I guess it is possible to restrict it so much that it simply becomes a "ballistic" photon which no longer has interferences between source and sink. In fact it could become its own source and sink the same way that a large number of tiny aligned holes might potentially guide the photon from the source to the sink without this causing an interference? The photon forced to "fit through the holes" and to restart spreading over and over again restricts the path. I would not really know about that limiting case.
However the whole point is a single photon does have a path and a history that maps the source to the sink through the "resonant particle". The standing wave between "is" the space defined by the matter. There is nothing else there .... even the particles are just all standing waves.... De Broglie matter waves filling the space within and around collections of particles.... away from those matter sources the waves cancel dynamically in space to produce a null.
This is a demonstration of Mach's Principle. The acceleration of a matter particle will disturb that equilibrium in free space with particles and the globally canceled de Broglie matter wave fields at distance from all matter sources. This leaves a "hole" which causes a back action very similar to Lenz's Law. This is where mass comes in... it is simply a reluctance to acceleration... that is all. The distant stars causes the appearance of "mass" in otherwise massless particles of light.
Cheers
However the whole point is a single photon does have a path and a history that maps the source to the sink through the "resonant particle". The standing wave between "is" the space defined by the matter. There is nothing else there .... even the particles are just all standing waves.... De Broglie matter waves filling the space within and around collections of particles.... away from those matter sources the waves cancel dynamically in space to produce a null.
This is a demonstration of Mach's Principle. The acceleration of a matter particle will disturb that equilibrium in free space with particles and the globally canceled de Broglie matter wave fields at distance from all matter sources. This leaves a "hole" which causes a back action very similar to Lenz's Law. This is where mass comes in... it is simply a reluctance to acceleration... that is all. The distant stars causes the appearance of "mass" in otherwise massless particles of light.
Cheers
Hi TRoc, and All,
Are you inferring that charge and mass are forms of resonant standing waves
in a constructive interference superposition state? If so, I like this idea. It could
account for a method to understand how E or H "field" strength is developed based
upon resonance of superposed waves that are harmonically in phase within a mass.
This makes sense from a conservation of energy perspective. It would seem that
resonance is a fundamental property of waves, which also implies that
space must also have complementary fundamental resonant properties that
responds to a change of energy content. This allows fields to build and collapse
according to resonance conditions caused by wave superposition states.
This would be pure phase alignment phenomenon.
I must think about this concept some more.
Are you inferring that charge and mass are forms of resonant standing waves
in a constructive interference superposition state? If so, I like this idea. It could
account for a method to understand how E or H "field" strength is developed based
upon resonance of superposed waves that are harmonically in phase within a mass.
This makes sense from a conservation of energy perspective. It would seem that
resonance is a fundamental property of waves, which also implies that
space must also have complementary fundamental resonant properties that
responds to a change of energy content. This allows fields to build and collapse
according to resonance conditions caused by wave superposition states.
This would be pure phase alignment phenomenon.
I must think about this concept some more.
The EM wave can be modeled as a helice, and the property of phase singularities, the "vortex", is too. This is a Fundamental pattern: it is from this, that energy is transferred from "nothing", that consists of a barely perceptible redshift, by the absorber/emitter bodies that populate the "space" in question. A tiny, "infinitesimal" contribution by every "particle" in the Universe.
By helical, do you mean in the direction of travel, revolving along the centerline
vector. Or, helical in a lateral direction that is perpendicular to the direction of
wave expansion? This is a very important distinction. Please clarify, as it
establishes an explanation of wave-particle duality as it regards the concept of
a radiating/expanding wave front, or a "wavicle" (bubble/corpuscular photon).
If a photon "bubble" (wavicle) is propagating along a propagation "time vector
centerline", while simultaneously transcribing a helical path in 4 dimensions (3d+t),
the result displayed on an oscilloscope, which only plots/maps sinewave changes
on a vertical 2d plane, would be an oscillating sine wave time function in 2d
(amplitude and time). In this case "time" would represent the change of position
that is occuring as viewed on the x axis, while wave amplitude is the y axis.
If the actual EM fields are rotating helically around a centerpoint vector, with
one field "chasing" the other due to the 90 degree phase offset (one field
leading, the other field lagging), this conceptually follows electrical field theory for
capacitors and inductors.
It is a "corkscrew" action along a centerline of travel.
A 2d vertical plane cross section, viewed on an o-scope which displays the timing
of this "event", would only illustrate a sinewave on the screen as the helically
rotating wavefront passes thru the 2d plane of observation.
In 2d, the wave would build from the "zero" centerline time reference, to a
maximum "wave" amplitude. As it continues to rotate thru the helical function, the
observed 2d "wave" image would decrease in "amplitude" until it passes thru the
centerline axis of rotation where it at a phase angle that is 90 degrees to the
2d plane of observation, and therefore out of phase for measurement purposes.
As the helical rotation continues advancing along the "time function" x axis
centerline in 2d, the "wave" changes "polarity" according to the centerline
reference ("zero"/average). Because the "wavefunction" is rotating around a
centerline, it appears to change direction and crosses over the centerline of the
2d plane in the opposite direction as it rotates thru the "plane" of observation.
Conceptually, this model implies that a 2d "wave" is actually a helical rotating
energy "event" (corkscrew) that is occuring in 4d space. This has other
far reaching implications as to the nature of a photon and how they relate as
"waves" during superposition "events".
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
The amplitude of the EM wave is interpreted as the electric field. However, because of the "symbiotic" relationship with the magnetic field, and their 90 deg geometry, it has been established that these definitions are only valid for particular frames. I do agree with the premise that charge and mass are secondary effects of the fundamental cause....
Are you inferring that charge and mass are forms of resonant standing waves
in a constructive interference superposition state? If so, I like this idea. It could
account for a method to understand how E or H "field" strength is developed based
upon resonance of superposed waves that are harmonically in phase within a mass.
This makes sense from a conservation of energy perspective. It would seem that
resonance is a fundamental property of waves, which also implies that
space must also have complementary fundamental resonant properties that
responds to a change of energy content. This allows fields to build and collapse
according to resonance conditions caused by wave superposition states.
This would be pure phase alignment phenomenon.
I must think about this concept some more.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The amplitude of the EM wave is interpreted as the electric field. However, because of the "symbiotic" relationship with the magnetic field, and their 90 deg geometry, it has been established that these definitions are only valid for particular frames. I do agree with the premise that charge and mass are secondary effects of the fundamental cause.... |
Are you inferring that charge and mass are forms of resonant standing waves
in a constructive interference superposition state? If so, I like this idea. It could
account for a method to understand how E or H "field" strength is developed based
upon resonance of superposed waves that are harmonically in phase within a mass.
This makes sense from a conservation of energy perspective. It would seem that
resonance is a fundamental property of waves, which also implies that
space must also have complementary fundamental resonant properties that
responds to a change of energy content. This allows fields to build and collapse
according to resonance conditions caused by wave superposition states.
This would be pure phase alignment phenomenon.
I must think about this concept some more.
The EM wave can be modeled as a helice, and the property of phase singularities, the "vortex", is too. This is a Fundamental pattern: it is from this, that energy is transferred from "nothing", that consists of a barely perceptible redshift, by the absorber/emitter bodies that populate the "space" in question. A tiny, "infinitesimal" contribution by every "particle" in the Universe.
By helical, do you mean in the direction of travel, revolving along the centerline
vector. Or, helical in a lateral direction that is perpendicular to the direction of
wave expansion? This is a very important distinction. Please clarify, as it
establishes an explanation of wave-particle duality as it regards the concept of
a radiating/expanding wave front, or a "wavicle" (bubble/corpuscular photon).
If a photon "bubble" (wavicle) is propagating along a propagation "time vector
centerline", while simultaneously transcribing a helical path in 4 dimensions (3d+t),
the result displayed on an oscilloscope, which only plots/maps sinewave changes
on a vertical 2d plane, would be an oscillating sine wave time function in 2d
(amplitude and time). In this case "time" would represent the change of position
that is occuring as viewed on the x axis, while wave amplitude is the y axis.
If the actual EM fields are rotating helically around a centerpoint vector, with
one field "chasing" the other due to the 90 degree phase offset (one field
leading, the other field lagging), this conceptually follows electrical field theory for
capacitors and inductors.
It is a "corkscrew" action along a centerline of travel.
A 2d vertical plane cross section, viewed on an o-scope which displays the timing
of this "event", would only illustrate a sinewave on the screen as the helically
rotating wavefront passes thru the 2d plane of observation.
In 2d, the wave would build from the "zero" centerline time reference, to a
maximum "wave" amplitude. As it continues to rotate thru the helical function, the
observed 2d "wave" image would decrease in "amplitude" until it passes thru the
centerline axis of rotation where it at a phase angle that is 90 degrees to the
2d plane of observation, and therefore out of phase for measurement purposes.
As the helical rotation continues advancing along the "time function" x axis
centerline in 2d, the "wave" changes "polarity" according to the centerline
reference ("zero"/average). Because the "wavefunction" is rotating around a
centerline, it appears to change direction and crosses over the centerline of the
2d plane in the opposite direction as it rotates thru the "plane" of observation.
Conceptually, this model implies that a 2d "wave" is actually a helical rotating
energy "event" (corkscrew) that is occuring in 4d space. This has other
far reaching implications as to the nature of a photon and how they relate as
"waves" during superposition "events".
Comments?
LL
Hi all,
Confused2 Posted on Today at 8:28 AM
As long as you are still asking questions like this, after I have addressed the issue, and "pulled the weed", you not going to "believe" my answer, anyway. That is why i don't just blurt out, "42!".
As long as you are still asking questions like this, after I have addressed the issue, and "pulled the weed", you not going to "believe" my answer, anyway. That is why i don't just blurt out, "42!".
we see about 50% of the wave is reflected .. with 'real' slits it would probably be closer to 99%. Whatever 'wave' that doesn't go through the slits must be reflected because if it was absorbed it would be 'game over' for that particular photon. This does raise the question of .. what happens if we paint our barrier black .. why does it still play the part of a reflector?
That "java applet" is 99% more right that your "sine wave" question.
It's no surprise that I do not agree with the underlying postulates of QM, but I do not (and no one can) dispute the "accuracy" of their measurements.
Why are you NOT asking yourself, how this picture might mean your personal interpretation might be "off"?
You are the one who asks, "just tell me what you see". The "real" part going to the screen, and the "imaginary part", AN INVERSE FRACTION going the OPPOSITE direction (asynchronous motion). Together, these 2 phases create whole, measurable cycles. QM calls this the wavefunction, and deems it real. I agree that the net affect is "real".
I disagree with both C2 and GE, on this question:
(but GE and I agree on the "point") This (and every other metric in Science) does have the "natural unit-isation" effect: somewhere, a zero point is set. I showed this before, for the same reason as the "Fraunhoffer lines" are the benchmark for all of Chemistry, and orbital models. The lens (also a material of atoms) is no different.
The lens-makers equation, and the Abbe sine condition, are "built in".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbe_sine_condition
(but GE and I agree on the "point") This (and every other metric in Science) does have the "natural unit-isation" effect: somewhere, a zero point is set. I showed this before, for the same reason as the "Fraunhoffer lines" are the benchmark for all of Chemistry, and orbital models. The lens (also a material of atoms) is no different.
The lens-makers equation, and the Abbe sine condition, are "built in".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbe_sine_condition
the variables u, U are the angles (relative to the optic axis) of any two rays as they leave the object, and u’, U’ are the angles of the same rays where they reach the image plane (say, the film plane of a camera). For example, (u,u’) might represent a paraxial ray (i.e. a ray nearly parallel with the optic axis), and (U,U’') might represent a marginal ray (i.e a ray with the largest angle admitted by the system aperture); the condition is general, however, and does not only apply to those rays.
Put in words, the sine of the output angle should be proportional to the sine of the input angle.
I am not changing this principle, only the measured parameters. I use delta f, based on curvature (and change to that curve), to measure these "inverse proportions" (ratios, fractions). It is more simple, and more accurate.
I can't say it better than that.
That is why "frequency" ends up the same, told in yet another way.
That is why we must abandon the idea that, by injecting "time" in between envelopes modulated on a laser beam, we have created INDEPENDENT quanta, They are not separate; they can not have "singular" definition, or extent.
You just magnified the terms. The fringe pattern is still "on the way", but just slower in arrival, according to our frame (which expands when you inject time into the clock).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_%28optics%29
I can't say it better than that.
That is why "frequency" ends up the same, told in yet another way.
That is why we must abandon the idea that, by injecting "time" in between envelopes modulated on a laser beam, we have created INDEPENDENT quanta, They are not separate; they can not have "singular" definition, or extent.
You just magnified the terms. The fringe pattern is still "on the way", but just slower in arrival, according to our frame (which expands when you inject time into the clock).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_%28optics%29
Chromatic aberration is caused by the dispersion of the lens material, the variation of its refractive index n with the wavelength of light. Since from the formulae above f is dependent on n, it follows that different wavelengths of light will be focused to different positions. Chromatic aberration of a lens is seen as fringes of colour around the image. It can be minimized by using an achromatic doublet (or achromat) in which two materials with differing dispersion are bonded together to form a single lens. This reduces the amount of chromatic aberration over a certain range of wavelengths, though it does not produce perfect correction. The use of achromats was an important step in the development of the optical microscope.
The "fundamental" is "green", or the "peak / center" value.
It is those "standing wave" relations that the balance is weighed against. At a "half wave" distance from there (either direction), from the anti-node of green, we hit our limits, of the red/infra-red line on 1 side, and the violet/ultra-violet on the other. That is what allows us to "see" (focus linear) within non-linear boundaries.
The other part of C2's question, "what happens if we paint our barrier black .. why does it still play the part of a reflector", is asking a MACRO question, looking for a MICRO answer.
Black does not exist in the micro, C2. It is individual paths that are ALL on a "downward spiral", that are producing "black". If this is a "tight enough spiral", it forms a "black hole"; ZERO velocity singularity.
At the other end, is Light, moving on the "upward spiral", which has the limit of "INFINITE velocity", at the "closing of the spiral". The resonant transactional interpretation says that these two duals will "exchange" at the speed of light. The "node" between zero and infinite, is " c ".
The simple reason that "black" will not "absorb" a "single frequency" (even if we were really dealing with a single frequency), is that black is a "compound answer". It requires several different frequencies to produce the right "off phase" conditions. Because all "groups" of frequencies result in a NET frequency (the mean, or center f ), and THERE IS NO ATOMIC ABSORPTION LINE THAT IS "black", so that NET frequency can NOT be absorbed.
There ARE infra-red frequencies that will be available for absorption, below our threshold, and therefore "dark". This is why a "black body" heats up. It generates NEW photons, in the IR regime, from the "fundamental LOWERING" of the value. The beats, or NET frequency, are less than the mean input.
If the beats have the opposite relation to what I just said, the NET frequency is HIGHER than the original, we get BRIGHTER results, showing as "white".
This has direct "vibrational" connections to, saturation & intensity changes in hue, for the "color world", and the "sharp & flat note" in the "music world".
An artist must master lighting effects, to create "interest", and "remarkable reproduction", which we define as "beauty". The musician, even (especially) the lone harmonica, must also find periodic ways to generate "pleasing emotions" to the "observers"; playing the "blues" for example, purposefully uses "tone lowering" combinations that create "tension", based on their "dissonance". The musician must later (and predictably in general pattern) resolve this tension with the "release". That consists of an asynchronous movement, that is the inverse of the amount of dissonance used.
Just like our 2 clocks on a mantle. They dynamically self adjust, to relieve the "frictional force" that was generated by their resonant movements. Legend has it, that Tesla did this experiment, with "resonant atomic forces", with no "outlet" other than the "beam itself". I don't get caught up in the debate as to the authenticity of this. It is enough for me to watch an opera singer explode a glass with the right frequency, or to see sonolumination (light) happen from focused sound waves in a liquid medium.
Again, for simplicity, let's stay in 2 dimensions, for now. Tell me C2, how much "energy" (based on E=hf), is at the peak of a sine wave? (the real part)
All of it? yes or no
This is not rhetorical; I must have your answer to move forward.
ciao,
T.Roc
Confused2 Posted on Today at 8:28 AM
QUOTE
I don't think this is going to make any sense to me unless you give a 'worked example'.
As long as you are still asking questions like this, after I have addressed the issue, and "pulled the weed", you not going to "believe" my answer, anyway. That is why i don't just blurt out, "42!".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't think this is going to make any sense to me unless you give a 'worked example'. |
As long as you are still asking questions like this, after I have addressed the issue, and "pulled the weed", you not going to "believe" my answer, anyway. That is why i don't just blurt out, "42!".
we see about 50% of the wave is reflected .. with 'real' slits it would probably be closer to 99%. Whatever 'wave' that doesn't go through the slits must be reflected because if it was absorbed it would be 'game over' for that particular photon. This does raise the question of .. what happens if we paint our barrier black .. why does it still play the part of a reflector?
That "java applet" is 99% more right that your "sine wave" question.
It's no surprise that I do not agree with the underlying postulates of QM, but I do not (and no one can) dispute the "accuracy" of their measurements.
Why are you NOT asking yourself, how this picture might mean your personal interpretation might be "off"?
You are the one who asks, "just tell me what you see". The "real" part going to the screen, and the "imaginary part", AN INVERSE FRACTION going the OPPOSITE direction (asynchronous motion). Together, these 2 phases create whole, measurable cycles. QM calls this the wavefunction, and deems it real. I agree that the net affect is "real".
I disagree with both C2 and GE, on this question:
QUOTE
QUOTE (Confused2)
Good Elf .. I don't think camera and telescope manufacturers take into account 'standing waves' .. does this lead to a problem or have I missed something?
You are right... "It" (standing waves) is not a problem for camera and telescope manufacturers... This is like saying that the Theory of Relativity is not a problem for Bricklayers. It is true but missing the point.
Good Elf .. I don't think camera and telescope manufacturers take into account 'standing waves' .. does this lead to a problem or have I missed something?
You are right... "It" (standing waves) is not a problem for camera and telescope manufacturers... This is like saying that the Theory of Relativity is not a problem for Bricklayers. It is true but missing the point.
(but GE and I agree on the "point") This (and every other metric in Science) does have the "natural unit-isation" effect: somewhere, a zero point is set. I showed this before, for the same reason as the "Fraunhoffer lines" are the benchmark for all of Chemistry, and orbital models. The lens (also a material of atoms) is no different.
The lens-makers equation, and the Abbe sine condition, are "built in".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbe_sine_condition
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (Confused2) Good Elf .. I don't think camera and telescope manufacturers take into account 'standing waves' .. does this lead to a problem or have I missed something? You are right... "It" (standing waves) is not a problem for camera and telescope manufacturers... This is like saying that the Theory of Relativity is not a problem for Bricklayers. It is true but missing the point. |
(but GE and I agree on the "point") This (and every other metric in Science) does have the "natural unit-isation" effect: somewhere, a zero point is set. I showed this before, for the same reason as the "Fraunhoffer lines" are the benchmark for all of Chemistry, and orbital models. The lens (also a material of atoms) is no different.
The lens-makers equation, and the Abbe sine condition, are "built in".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbe_sine_condition
the variables u, U are the angles (relative to the optic axis) of any two rays as they leave the object, and u’, U’ are the angles of the same rays where they reach the image plane (say, the film plane of a camera). For example, (u,u’) might represent a paraxial ray (i.e. a ray nearly parallel with the optic axis), and (U,U’') might represent a marginal ray (i.e a ray with the largest angle admitted by the system aperture); the condition is general, however, and does not only apply to those rays.
Put in words, the sine of the output angle should be proportional to the sine of the input angle.
I am not changing this principle, only the measured parameters. I use delta f, based on curvature (and change to that curve), to measure these "inverse proportions" (ratios, fractions). It is more simple, and more accurate.
QUOTE
..another way of writing the Abbe sine condition, which simply reflects Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for Fourier transform pairs, namely that as the spatial extent of any function is expanded (by the magnification factor, M), the spectral extent contracts by the same factor, M, so that the space-bandwidth product remains constant.
I can't say it better than that.
That is why "frequency" ends up the same, told in yet another way.
That is why we must abandon the idea that, by injecting "time" in between envelopes modulated on a laser beam, we have created INDEPENDENT quanta, They are not separate; they can not have "singular" definition, or extent.
You just magnified the terms. The fringe pattern is still "on the way", but just slower in arrival, according to our frame (which expands when you inject time into the clock).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_%28optics%29
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ..another way of writing the Abbe sine condition, which simply reflects Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for Fourier transform pairs, namely that as the spatial extent of any function is expanded (by the magnification factor, M), the spectral extent contracts by the same factor, M, so that the space-bandwidth product remains constant. |
I can't say it better than that.
That is why "frequency" ends up the same, told in yet another way.
That is why we must abandon the idea that, by injecting "time" in between envelopes modulated on a laser beam, we have created INDEPENDENT quanta, They are not separate; they can not have "singular" definition, or extent.
You just magnified the terms. The fringe pattern is still "on the way", but just slower in arrival, according to our frame (which expands when you inject time into the clock).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_%28optics%29
Chromatic aberration is caused by the dispersion of the lens material, the variation of its refractive index n with the wavelength of light. Since from the formulae above f is dependent on n, it follows that different wavelengths of light will be focused to different positions. Chromatic aberration of a lens is seen as fringes of colour around the image. It can be minimized by using an achromatic doublet (or achromat) in which two materials with differing dispersion are bonded together to form a single lens. This reduces the amount of chromatic aberration over a certain range of wavelengths, though it does not produce perfect correction. The use of achromats was an important step in the development of the optical microscope.
The "fundamental" is "green", or the "peak / center" value.
It is those "standing wave" relations that the balance is weighed against. At a "half wave" distance from there (either direction), from the anti-node of green, we hit our limits, of the red/infra-red line on 1 side, and the violet/ultra-violet on the other. That is what allows us to "see" (focus linear) within non-linear boundaries.
The other part of C2's question, "what happens if we paint our barrier black .. why does it still play the part of a reflector", is asking a MACRO question, looking for a MICRO answer.
Black does not exist in the micro, C2. It is individual paths that are ALL on a "downward spiral", that are producing "black". If this is a "tight enough spiral", it forms a "black hole"; ZERO velocity singularity.
At the other end, is Light, moving on the "upward spiral", which has the limit of "INFINITE velocity", at the "closing of the spiral". The resonant transactional interpretation says that these two duals will "exchange" at the speed of light. The "node" between zero and infinite, is " c ".
The simple reason that "black" will not "absorb" a "single frequency" (even if we were really dealing with a single frequency), is that black is a "compound answer". It requires several different frequencies to produce the right "off phase" conditions. Because all "groups" of frequencies result in a NET frequency (the mean, or center f ), and THERE IS NO ATOMIC ABSORPTION LINE THAT IS "black", so that NET frequency can NOT be absorbed.
There ARE infra-red frequencies that will be available for absorption, below our threshold, and therefore "dark". This is why a "black body" heats up. It generates NEW photons, in the IR regime, from the "fundamental LOWERING" of the value. The beats, or NET frequency, are less than the mean input.
If the beats have the opposite relation to what I just said, the NET frequency is HIGHER than the original, we get BRIGHTER results, showing as "white".
This has direct "vibrational" connections to, saturation & intensity changes in hue, for the "color world", and the "sharp & flat note" in the "music world".
An artist must master lighting effects, to create "interest", and "remarkable reproduction", which we define as "beauty". The musician, even (especially) the lone harmonica, must also find periodic ways to generate "pleasing emotions" to the "observers"; playing the "blues" for example, purposefully uses "tone lowering" combinations that create "tension", based on their "dissonance". The musician must later (and predictably in general pattern) resolve this tension with the "release". That consists of an asynchronous movement, that is the inverse of the amount of dissonance used.
Just like our 2 clocks on a mantle. They dynamically self adjust, to relieve the "frictional force" that was generated by their resonant movements. Legend has it, that Tesla did this experiment, with "resonant atomic forces", with no "outlet" other than the "beam itself". I don't get caught up in the debate as to the authenticity of this. It is enough for me to watch an opera singer explode a glass with the right frequency, or to see sonolumination (light) happen from focused sound waves in a liquid medium.
Again, for simplicity, let's stay in 2 dimensions, for now. Tell me C2, how much "energy" (based on E=hf), is at the peak of a sine wave? (the real part)
All of it? yes or no
This is not rhetorical; I must have your answer to move forward.
ciao,
T.Roc
LL,
YES !!
This is why GE likes to say there is NO TIME in the photon, and why I say, that there is NO BEAT-FREQUENCY, between the "entangled"/ coupled E ~ M - wave.
When someone says "for the photon", or "to the photon", they are specifying the frame that is co-moving, and it must include spin. This gets into the Ehrnfest (sp?) paradox, where observers on equidistant points (on the rotating helice in cylindrical coordinates) would have relativistic Doppler shifted independent/different views of the same (simultaneous) focal point. (they couldn't agree on a world line)
I am trying my way around this, by having "equidistant" separation in ONE domain, space, while calculating an exponential (cork-screw spiral) in the other, via frequency changes (angular). This might sound more difficult, than it can be.
Simply put, with the Doppler method, I am saying that a shifted picture should NOT look like this:
because the "shifting" is continuous. This means that the rate on the right of this picture should be GROWING with every phase, AT THE SAME incremental rate that the left side is SHRINKING BY. The rate COMPOUNDS, just like at the bank.
This is what I am doing with 2^(1/12), and the VERY CLOSE set that approximates the harmonic series, or "integer expansion" in one dimension. EXACTLY HALF of the set (no matter how far you scale it, magnify it) will be INVERSE to the other half. "1+1" still gets to be 2, even if it is "really" 1+(-1) = 2 , in this resonant math. There is only one other number that I am using, " Z ", which would be the "minimal starting velocity", or red-shift value.
That give this "Doppler~Huygens like model" its non-symmetric starting position. That is where each line represents real phase, and that translates to delta f , in a non-linear measure of the "circular area".
regards,
T.Roc
ps. I forgot the most important part!
The other question (the part that you didn't answer yourself), was about "frame of reference", or axis. THE 2D DOPPLER PICTURE automatically shows the TRANSVERSE mode relationship is INDEPENDENT if this exponential shift of the fundamental axis. It will also have an inverse relationship with its opposite "phase", but will maintain a constant ratio with our original metric (on axis, integer).
This is the 3D view of the "clipping" of the transverse modes caused by the slits, which, in this model, BOTH PHASES CAN NOT ENTER THE SAME SLIT, AT THE SAME TIME. In the SSE, the phases MUST go through the one slit, at separate moments in time (their phase). In the DSE, each phase must go through DIFFERENT SLITS, thereby creating the seeds for "entanglement". They WILL (just as always) seek to "revive" their phase relationship, after exiting the barrier, INVERSELY. This is the cone of the interaction zone (the Talbot carpet), cast onto the 2D screen, with the phase separation in "black and white".
YES !!
This is why GE likes to say there is NO TIME in the photon, and why I say, that there is NO BEAT-FREQUENCY, between the "entangled"/ coupled E ~ M - wave.
When someone says "for the photon", or "to the photon", they are specifying the frame that is co-moving, and it must include spin. This gets into the Ehrnfest (sp?) paradox, where observers on equidistant points (on the rotating helice in cylindrical coordinates) would have relativistic Doppler shifted independent/different views of the same (simultaneous) focal point. (they couldn't agree on a world line)
I am trying my way around this, by having "equidistant" separation in ONE domain, space, while calculating an exponential (cork-screw spiral) in the other, via frequency changes (angular). This might sound more difficult, than it can be.
Simply put, with the Doppler method, I am saying that a shifted picture should NOT look like this:
because the "shifting" is continuous. This means that the rate on the right of this picture should be GROWING with every phase, AT THE SAME incremental rate that the left side is SHRINKING BY. The rate COMPOUNDS, just like at the bank.
This is what I am doing with 2^(1/12), and the VERY CLOSE set that approximates the harmonic series, or "integer expansion" in one dimension. EXACTLY HALF of the set (no matter how far you scale it, magnify it) will be INVERSE to the other half. "1+1" still gets to be 2, even if it is "really" 1+(-1) = 2 , in this resonant math. There is only one other number that I am using, " Z ", which would be the "minimal starting velocity", or red-shift value.
That give this "Doppler~Huygens like model" its non-symmetric starting position. That is where each line represents real phase, and that translates to delta f , in a non-linear measure of the "circular area".
regards,
T.Roc
ps. I forgot the most important part!
The other question (the part that you didn't answer yourself), was about "frame of reference", or axis. THE 2D DOPPLER PICTURE automatically shows the TRANSVERSE mode relationship is INDEPENDENT if this exponential shift of the fundamental axis. It will also have an inverse relationship with its opposite "phase", but will maintain a constant ratio with our original metric (on axis, integer).
This is the 3D view of the "clipping" of the transverse modes caused by the slits, which, in this model, BOTH PHASES CAN NOT ENTER THE SAME SLIT, AT THE SAME TIME. In the SSE, the phases MUST go through the one slit, at separate moments in time (their phase). In the DSE, each phase must go through DIFFERENT SLITS, thereby creating the seeds for "entanglement". They WILL (just as always) seek to "revive" their phase relationship, after exiting the barrier, INVERSELY. This is the cone of the interaction zone (the Talbot carpet), cast onto the 2D screen, with the phase separation in "black and white".
Hi TRoc,
IMO, as posed, this is a nonsensical question, and is "open" to interpretation.
LL
QUOTE
Again, for simplicity, let's stay in 2 dimensions, for now. Tell me C2, how much "energy" (based on E=hf), is at the peak of a sine wave? (the real part)
All of it? yes or no
All of it? yes or no
IMO, as posed, this is a nonsensical question, and is "open" to interpretation.
LL
TRoc,
To which particular question or model are you responding. I posed/proposed
alternatives regarding the helical nature of the photon spin/rotation around a
central "axis" of time/distance.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
LL,
YES !!
YES !!
To which particular question or model are you responding. I posed/proposed
alternatives regarding the helical nature of the photon spin/rotation around a
central "axis" of time/distance.
Regards,
LL
LL,
Well, you just said "one model", IMO. And you answered the only questions you asked, in your response, which was pure LOGIC. Good job. YES to EVERYTHING. This is the model of the dynamics that I am proposing. You have captured the essence. THIS FORM helps us make the "leap", from calculation, to postulate, of a "thing" that we can not measure by standard means.
On this:
Well, you just said "one model", IMO. And you answered the only questions you asked, in your response, which was pure LOGIC. Good job. YES to EVERYTHING. This is the model of the dynamics that I am proposing. You have captured the essence. THIS FORM helps us make the "leap", from calculation, to postulate, of a "thing" that we can not measure by standard means.
On this:
QUOTE
Again, for simplicity, let's stay in 2 dimensions, for now. Tell me C2, how much "energy" (based on E=hf), is at the peak of a sine wave? (the real part)
All of it? yes or no
IMO, as posed, this is a nonsensical question, and is "open" to interpretation.
Maybe you can help with restating this question, where we could avoid that?
What I am trying to get at, it the idea of "perfect superposition" of the "peaks" of 2 (formerly independent) EM waves. This is because that we know that there is another question, that will "pop up" from this "partial answer". Why isn't there an EXACT double change to the amplitude?
That is why I am asking for a "quantity" (you can answer in f , if you want) of the "apparent" energy, at a SINGLE point on the CURVE of the "rise and fall model". That is the DEFINITION of "peak". Does anyone think that ALL of the energy of the curve lies on any one point, or spread out? That is the key question I am trying to get to.
At some point, I MUST have a "translation" from my model and Theory, to the everyday words of everyday people. Right now, the discussion is primarily focused on "Physics", so that is the model I am trying to show has EQUIVALENTS to my principles, so that they may be thought of as "acceptable assumptions".
I am trying to get C2 out of his "preferred references". That is not easy (for any of us). I am not satisfied, unless this makes sense to everyone here.
regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE
To which particular question or model are you responding.
Well, you just said "one model", IMO. And you answered the only questions you asked, in your response, which was pure LOGIC. Good job. YES to EVERYTHING. This is the model of the dynamics that I am proposing. You have captured the essence. THIS FORM helps us make the "leap", from calculation, to postulate, of a "thing" that we can not measure by standard means.
On this:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To which particular question or model are you responding. |
Well, you just said "one model", IMO. And you answered the only questions you asked, in your response, which was pure LOGIC. Good job. YES to EVERYTHING. This is the model of the dynamics that I am proposing. You have captured the essence. THIS FORM helps us make the "leap", from calculation, to postulate, of a "thing" that we can not measure by standard means.
On this:
QUOTE
Again, for simplicity, let's stay in 2 dimensions, for now. Tell me C2, how much "energy" (based on E=hf), is at the peak of a sine wave? (the real part)
All of it? yes or no
IMO, as posed, this is a nonsensical question, and is "open" to interpretation.
Maybe you can help with restating this question, where we could avoid that?
What I am trying to get at, it the idea of "perfect superposition" of the "peaks" of 2 (formerly independent) EM waves. This is because that we know that there is another question, that will "pop up" from this "partial answer". Why isn't there an EXACT double change to the amplitude?
That is why I am asking for a "quantity" (you can answer in f , if you want) of the "apparent" energy, at a SINGLE point on the CURVE of the "rise and fall model". That is the DEFINITION of "peak". Does anyone think that ALL of the energy of the curve lies on any one point, or spread out? That is the key question I am trying to get to.
At some point, I MUST have a "translation" from my model and Theory, to the everyday words of everyday people. Right now, the discussion is primarily focused on "Physics", so that is the model I am trying to show has EQUIVALENTS to my principles, so that they may be thought of as "acceptable assumptions".
I am trying to get C2 out of his "preferred references". That is not easy (for any of us). I am not satisfied, unless this makes sense to everyone here.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,LL et al,
I'm working but can't resist the occasional look.
"how much "energy" (based on E=hf), is at the peak of a sine wave? (the real part)?"
Taken in the intended spirit this is a very good question .. certainly crazy enough to give a revealing answer.
I am trying to get C2 out of his "preferred references".
I should be finished in a few hours.
Best wishes - C2.
I'm working but can't resist the occasional look.
"how much "energy" (based on E=hf), is at the peak of a sine wave? (the real part)?"
Taken in the intended spirit this is a very good question .. certainly crazy enough to give a revealing answer.
I am trying to get C2 out of his "preferred references".
I should be finished in a few hours.
Best wishes - C2.
It would take me a long time to say why I can't help beyond suggesting 'look at the results of the DSE' .. I see a pattern but it doesn't make sense to me.
Hi TRoc, C2, et al,
From a 2d wave perspective, it takes a full sinewave to equal E=hf. From a
rotating helical 4d perspective it takes a full revolution of the "helical" function
around the center axis to yield E=hf. One is a 2d wave representation of the
actual 4d spin/rotation event.
From a "mechanical" point of view, the helical function is a perfectly logical
explanation of what characteristics a photon possesses.
Some thoughts: You are suggesting that the photon "corkscrews" thru the slits
which function as phase splitters/phase "separators", for the helical model photon.
You are also stating that the partially separated phases/fields reassemble in
reverse/inverse order in the evanescent zone just past the slits. Shouldn't this be
that they reassemble with a phase timing delay/helical shift, according to
geometrical relationship that exists between the photon frequency/size
and the slit geometries? (something I proposed long ago)
A question for you.
How do you explain the results of wide DSE slit spacing, or 3+ slits and
equal phase separation with your helical photon spin model?
LL
QUOTE
What I am trying to get at, it the idea of "perfect superposition" of the "peaks" of 2 (formerly independent) EM waves. This is because that we know that there is another question, that will "pop up" from this "partial answer". Why isn't there an EXACT double change to the amplitude?
That is why I am asking for a "quantity" (you can answer in f , if you want) of the "apparent" energy, at a SINGLE point on the CURVE of the "rise and fall model". That is the DEFINITION of "peak". Does anyone think that ALL of the energy of the curve lies on any one point, or spread out? That is the key question I am trying to get to.
That is why I am asking for a "quantity" (you can answer in f , if you want) of the "apparent" energy, at a SINGLE point on the CURVE of the "rise and fall model". That is the DEFINITION of "peak". Does anyone think that ALL of the energy of the curve lies on any one point, or spread out? That is the key question I am trying to get to.
From a 2d wave perspective, it takes a full sinewave to equal E=hf. From a
rotating helical 4d perspective it takes a full revolution of the "helical" function
around the center axis to yield E=hf. One is a 2d wave representation of the
actual 4d spin/rotation event.
From a "mechanical" point of view, the helical function is a perfectly logical
explanation of what characteristics a photon possesses.
Some thoughts: You are suggesting that the photon "corkscrews" thru the slits
which function as phase splitters/phase "separators", for the helical model photon.
You are also stating that the partially separated phases/fields reassemble in
reverse/inverse order in the evanescent zone just past the slits. Shouldn't this be
that they reassemble with a phase timing delay/helical shift, according to
geometrical relationship that exists between the photon frequency/size
and the slit geometries? (something I proposed long ago)
A question for you.
How do you explain the results of wide DSE slit spacing, or 3+ slits and
equal phase separation with your helical photon spin model?
LL
Hi Confused2, TRoc, "THEY", "THEY2" Laserlight, janrinze, Jal, Montec, yquantum, StevenA, "Why Not?", Siau, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, et al,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
It would take me a long time to say why I can't help beyond suggesting 'look at the results of the DSE' .. I see a pattern but it doesn't make sense to me.[...] "how much "energy" (based on E=hf), is at the peak of a sine wave? (the real part)?"
Since a wave packet is not a sine wave it cannot be expressed in such terms. The wave packet is a collection of harmonics with a base frequency of "f". The total packet has an energy of E = hf. The packet is "clustered" around a 1/2 wavelength of the fundamental frequency on the wavefront. naturally it does not matter how spread the packet is when it "collapses" all that energy goes to the sink. The reason why all the energy goes to the sink is simple... the sink can only absorb that quanta... the whole quanta... and nothing but the quanta. That quanta is all that the sink can hold. The photon can have ot4her modes of energy but as far as the wave aspect of the photon is concerned it will resonantly absorb only that amount of energy and any other energy (eg. OAM) will be absorbed by the system as something else (eg. linear or rotational momentum or kinetic or spin energy). The constant of proportionality for the primary quantum is in action units... an impulse per Hz.... Planck's Constant. I would also remind everyone that it does not need to be an integer number of hertz either. This energy has nothing to do with sinusoids it is a measurement of "packet content". The concept of sinusoids can only enter when we consider continuous sources of energy supplied to dipole radiators. This is a totally unnatural condition in general. The 'high energy" end of the electromagnetic spectrum is dominated by reducing options for the geometry of dipole radiators. The long end of the EM spectrum is occupied by the "machines" we build to make EM radiation and this includes the dipoles we use to generate them being almost anything we like. These involve solid state generators which can have quasi-continuous spectra. In the microcosm for individual atoms this is not the case. However continuous wave can be generated "by proxy".... Eg. CW LASERs.
The equation E = hf is very suggestive that if you have a source of frequency f .... that is after a time period of 1/2πf seconds the driving potential returns to a zero field and this condition repeats for every 1/2πf seconds, the energy has one of two things to be able to do. It can separate from the source when this happens or it can be "sucked back" into the source if the process is "taking to long to launch the photon wave". Remember the photon can only be launched all or nothing there is nothing in between. This "bubble" is launched by "nipping" off as the field "crosses" the zero and reverses sign. The energy is stored in those spatially extended electric and magnetic field lines which have now become continuously looped lines. Once launched the phase becomes continuous around the loop which is now a closed curve and traveling at the speed of light away from the source toward the sink. At the same time as this single loop is launched towards the sink, many other harmonics are also created and launched with the packet that limits the extent initially in space. None of these packets are truly "wrapping" in phase in a single wavelength. The packet has an extent that extends far beyond the average packet size in the near field of the packet and also into the Fresnel zone too. Some would say forever since the reemergence of the packet at the sink even light years away tells us that it is never absorbed by any other possible sinks. These source packets are targeted to a single sink.
The continuous wave of classical theory meets the packet theory by simply having all the packets on the wave crest summing. Since these packets are resonances anyway and represent a transfer of a photons worth of energy from sink to source... that is all there is to it.
The pattern makes sense if you see it as the product version of two spatially displaced airy functions.
Double slit with HeNe LASER
Single and Double Slit Comparison
Recall that intensity is the product of the two phases... thus you get twice the number of "bumps" than expected...
Pay no attention that many authorities only consider the envelope to be a Gaussian Distribution... that is only a "simplification" but in actual fact it is confusion to people... the "real" interference goes far out beyond the Gaussian envelope.... maybe it never ends... Just eyeball beyond the Gaussian in all "real" experiments and you will see smaller and smaller "bumps" far outside the Gaussian Envelope.
... Click to enlarge..
This shows the Aharonov-Bohm Phase shift of the wave due to an arbitrary wave through the double slit. This is the default condition. Notice the two displaced waves as shown... only our sensors convert this to "intensity". If you thread the inter-slit "bar" with a current carrying spacer you can change this phase offset of the two sync pulses using the electric field offset potentiometer... A simple slit interference changer... he he he! . Wind it up or wind it down as to what takes your fancy... This is diagram actually taken from an electron diffraction experiment... The same exists for a photon too... just a different order of magnitude. That would be the Optical Aharonov-Bohm Experiment.
Cheers
The equation E = hf is very suggestive that if you have a source of frequency f .... that is after a time period of 1/2πf seconds the driving potential returns to a zero field and this condition repeats for every 1/2πf seconds, the energy has one of two things to be able to do. It can separate from the source when this happens or it can be "sucked back" into the source if the process is "taking to long to launch the photon wave". Remember the photon can only be launched all or nothing there is nothing in between. This "bubble" is launched by "nipping" off as the field "crosses" the zero and reverses sign. The energy is stored in those spatially extended electric and magnetic field lines which have now become continuously looped lines. Once launched the phase becomes continuous around the loop which is now a closed curve and traveling at the speed of light away from the source toward the sink. At the same time as this single loop is launched towards the sink, many other harmonics are also created and launched with the packet that limits the extent initially in space. None of these packets are truly "wrapping" in phase in a single wavelength. The packet has an extent that extends far beyond the average packet size in the near field of the packet and also into the Fresnel zone too. Some would say forever since the reemergence of the packet at the sink even light years away tells us that it is never absorbed by any other possible sinks. These source packets are targeted to a single sink.
The continuous wave of classical theory meets the packet theory by simply having all the packets on the wave crest summing. Since these packets are resonances anyway and represent a transfer of a photons worth of energy from sink to source... that is all there is to it.
The pattern makes sense if you see it as the product version of two spatially displaced airy functions.
Double slit with HeNe LASER
Single and Double Slit Comparison
Recall that intensity is the product of the two phases... thus you get twice the number of "bumps" than expected...
Pay no attention that many authorities only consider the envelope to be a Gaussian Distribution... that is only a "simplification" but in actual fact it is confusion to people... the "real" interference goes far out beyond the Gaussian envelope.... maybe it never ends... Just eyeball beyond the Gaussian in all "real" experiments and you will see smaller and smaller "bumps" far outside the Gaussian Envelope.
... Click to enlarge..
This shows the Aharonov-Bohm Phase shift of the wave due to an arbitrary wave through the double slit. This is the default condition. Notice the two displaced waves as shown... only our sensors convert this to "intensity". If you thread the inter-slit "bar" with a current carrying spacer you can change this phase offset of the two sync pulses using the electric field offset potentiometer... A simple slit interference changer... he he he! . Wind it up or wind it down as to what takes your fancy... This is diagram actually taken from an electron diffraction experiment... The same exists for a photon too... just a different order of magnitude. That would be the Optical Aharonov-Bohm Experiment.
Cheers
A good 2 slit model should also work for a single slit .. treat it as two slits with no gap between them.. in fact it should be possible to subdivide the slit any number of times and the prediction should get better rather than worse. Unfortunately I have to work now .. maybe later.
-Best wishes - C2.
-Best wishes - C2.
Hi Confused2,
... Click to enlarge...
Note that sync functions showing the phase have only 1/2 the number of "peaks" that the intensity picture of the sync function has... this is because when you derive the inner product of the interference of the two sync functions you convert the double sided (positive and negative) phase diagram into a single sided (all positive) amplitude/intensity diagram... A scalar not a vector. Naturally it really is a vector but our eyes are just not phase sensitive but only intensity sensitive.
As you increase the number of slits (equal spacing) the individual lines become more and more discriminated.... If it were possible to place an infinite number of slits with an infinitely small gap between them then you get a spectrum of frequencies... of course there is a dimension that will not pass the wavelength of the light. We do have optical gratings.
Diffraction Grating: Hyperphysics
These are the exact analog of this latter case... Instead of smearing the frequencies out and together they become defined single lines with side bands.
This pattern is the vector inner product of the two slits (in in the latter case all the slits). If they are the exact same... as I have been saying all along... because they are bosons... they converge to exactly the same single slit. Providing the photons have been diverged sufficiently to span the entire grating, and provided the grating "aperture" is very large ... you can resolve frequencies down to the size of a single slit... in the case of a grating this is the diameter of the scratches.... they make images of the slit... each and every frequency creates images of the slits... that is ultimately what it is all about. In the DSE the slit images are "quite broad" and the resolution is correspondingly very low... the frequencies all merge together and the "Talbot Carpets" are similarly "merged".
So in the case of an infinite number of impulse functions (slits) then we are subjecting the light to a frequency comb as shown in this image...
... Click to enlarge...
Bottom Image ... number 4. This is nearly the equivalent of the Diffraction Grating. Impulses in and a large number of line spectra out.
It is very logical and shows that as long as you treat it "sensitively" you get all the answers. For more specialized arrangements of these secondary sources look here...
Three Experiments in One: Fraunhofer Diffraction
Cheers
QUOTE
A good 2 slit model should also work for a single slit .. treat it as two slits with no gap between them.. in fact it should be possible to subdivide the slit any number of times and the prediction should get better rather than worse.
Like I have been saying the same photon goes through both slits... as you reduce the gap between the slits then the diffraction pattern converges to a single Airy Disk/pattern. This is because the pattern is formed not by intensity but by inner product of the vectors from both "sub-sources"... These are sync functions (right image below).... Click to enlarge...
Note that sync functions showing the phase have only 1/2 the number of "peaks" that the intensity picture of the sync function has... this is because when you derive the inner product of the interference of the two sync functions you convert the double sided (positive and negative) phase diagram into a single sided (all positive) amplitude/intensity diagram... A scalar not a vector. Naturally it really is a vector but our eyes are just not phase sensitive but only intensity sensitive.
As you increase the number of slits (equal spacing) the individual lines become more and more discriminated.... If it were possible to place an infinite number of slits with an infinitely small gap between them then you get a spectrum of frequencies... of course there is a dimension that will not pass the wavelength of the light. We do have optical gratings.
Diffraction Grating: Hyperphysics
These are the exact analog of this latter case... Instead of smearing the frequencies out and together they become defined single lines with side bands.
This pattern is the vector inner product of the two slits (in in the latter case all the slits). If they are the exact same... as I have been saying all along... because they are bosons... they converge to exactly the same single slit. Providing the photons have been diverged sufficiently to span the entire grating, and provided the grating "aperture" is very large ... you can resolve frequencies down to the size of a single slit... in the case of a grating this is the diameter of the scratches.... they make images of the slit... each and every frequency creates images of the slits... that is ultimately what it is all about. In the DSE the slit images are "quite broad" and the resolution is correspondingly very low... the frequencies all merge together and the "Talbot Carpets" are similarly "merged".
So in the case of an infinite number of impulse functions (slits) then we are subjecting the light to a frequency comb as shown in this image...
... Click to enlarge...
Bottom Image ... number 4. This is nearly the equivalent of the Diffraction Grating. Impulses in and a large number of line spectra out.
It is very logical and shows that as long as you treat it "sensitively" you get all the answers. For more specialized arrangements of these secondary sources look here...
Three Experiments in One: Fraunhofer Diffraction
Cheers
Hi Confused2, TRoc, "THEY", "THEY2" Laserlight, janrinze, Jal, Montec, yquantum, StevenA, "Why Not?", Siau, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, et al,
There are those who believe that Science is nothing without Mathematics... I agree ... up to a point... The point I disagree with this analysis is outlined in this Review below by a staff member of New Scientist. It is a very short article and its purpose is to promote a book, so I hope that you can purchase a copy. To everyone... I hope this New Scientist Book Review summarizes to all my view of Science Rigor as well as Mathematical Rigor today... as described by Gregory Chaitin.... I apologize for quoting him in full but I think it is very important for this idea and this book to become more widely known. Since this is a very short article and now an older article and is getting older as we speak I will present it unabridged....
There are those who believe that Science is nothing without Mathematics... I agree ... up to a point... The point I disagree with this analysis is outlined in this Review below by a staff member of New Scientist. It is a very short article and its purpose is to promote a book, so I hope that you can purchase a copy. To everyone... I hope this New Scientist Book Review summarizes to all my view of Science Rigor as well as Mathematical Rigor today... as described by Gregory Chaitin.... I apologize for quoting him in full but I think it is very important for this idea and this book to become more widely known. Since this is a very short article and now an older article and is getting older as we speak I will present it unabridged....
QUOTE (New Scientist Book Review+)
Review: How Mathematicians Think by William Byers
* 25 July 2007
* NewScientist.com news service
* Gregory Chaitin
Mathematics is a wonderful, mad subject, full of imagination, fantasy and creativity that is not limited by the petty details of the physical world, but only by the strength of our inner light. Does this sound familiar? Probably not from the mathematics classes you may have attended. But consider the work of three famous earlier mathematicians: Leonhard Euler (18th century), Georg Cantor (19th century) and Srinivasa Ramanujan (20th century).
Euler, who created much of the mathematics used today, had never heard of the notion of mathematical rigour: he played happily with unruly divergent sums, was almost never led astray by his magnificent intuition, and made discovery after discovery.
Cantor, who developed a theory of the infinite in order to understand God better, remained unperturbed by the paradoxes he discovered along the way, unlike the other mathematicians of the day. He steadfastly insisted that the essence of mathematics resides in its freedom to imagine and create. Then there was Ramanujan, who never comprehended the idea of proof. He said that an equation is of value only if it expresses one of God's thoughts, and believed that his ideas were communicated to him by the goddess Namagiri.
So what of our own, unheroic age? Would Euler, Cantor and Ramanujan be welcome now? Definitely not. As William Byers points out in this courageous book, mathematics today is obsessed with rigour, and this actually suppresses creativity. Take a look at the fictional but humorously accurate portrait that Byers paints of a professor teaching a class. As Byers tells it, the students learn not to ask questions because, when they do, all they get in reply are the same formulae repeated again, more slowly, slightly louder.
What went wrong? Well, it started around the end of the 19th century with David Hilbert's vision of complete formalism, of proofs so thorough a computer could check them. It was a vision widely propagated by the French Bourbaki school of mathematics, which, strangely enough, preferred a rigid, Prussian vision of maths rather than their own more sensual tradition.
Twentieth-century mathematics decided to eschew words, ideas, diagrams, examples, explanations and applications in favour of formulae. This is a lawyer's vision of maths, where the main goal is the nit-picking avoidance of mistakes. But this, as Byers observes, is also rigour mortis: it is not creative, it leads nowhere. Not surprisingly, fewer and fewer students are now attracted to mathematics. The subject is quietly dying.
To create a new field of mathematics, you have to feel comfortable with paradox, with creative tension, with sloppy and dangerous new ideas, and you have to want to rock the boat, not conform slavishly. As Byers stresses, perfectly formalised ideas are dead, while ambiguous, paradoxical ideas are pregnant with possibilities and lead us in new directions: they guide us to new viewpoints, new truths.
It is time to free mathematical creativity from this prison. We need a radically new mathematics for our postmodern era, a mathematics of complexity, computation and information, a mathematics that applies to complex biological systems. In fact, Byers isn't content merely to rescue maths. His goals are even higher: he dares to oppose the entire zeitgeist. As he correctly points out, our view of maths spills over into our view of ourselves. To paraphrase his dramatic final chapter: if mathematicians think they are machines, they will behave like machines; if mathematicians think they are trivial, then they will be trivial.
We have computers now, so we don't need to have people imitating machines. The 21st century is beginning: time to throw off our chains and unleash the power of our imagination and creativity. We should be as unlike machines as possible. Bravo, Professor Byers, and my compliments to Princeton University Press for publishing this book. Can this mean that the tide is turning? I hope so.
For me Science (and Mathematics that relate to Science) must depend entirely on the results of experiment for it's legitimacy. It does not really matter how elegant the Maths... in the final analysis the Universe does not do Maths.... and there is a lot more Maths than there is Physics out there. Maybe there is a pithy one liner that one day may be emblazoned across our chests that sums up everything we know... but will it be mathematics?
Cheers
* 25 July 2007
* NewScientist.com news service
* Gregory Chaitin
Mathematics is a wonderful, mad subject, full of imagination, fantasy and creativity that is not limited by the petty details of the physical world, but only by the strength of our inner light. Does this sound familiar? Probably not from the mathematics classes you may have attended. But consider the work of three famous earlier mathematicians: Leonhard Euler (18th century), Georg Cantor (19th century) and Srinivasa Ramanujan (20th century).
Euler, who created much of the mathematics used today, had never heard of the notion of mathematical rigour: he played happily with unruly divergent sums, was almost never led astray by his magnificent intuition, and made discovery after discovery.
Cantor, who developed a theory of the infinite in order to understand God better, remained unperturbed by the paradoxes he discovered along the way, unlike the other mathematicians of the day. He steadfastly insisted that the essence of mathematics resides in its freedom to imagine and create. Then there was Ramanujan, who never comprehended the idea of proof. He said that an equation is of value only if it expresses one of God's thoughts, and believed that his ideas were communicated to him by the goddess Namagiri.
So what of our own, unheroic age? Would Euler, Cantor and Ramanujan be welcome now? Definitely not. As William Byers points out in this courageous book, mathematics today is obsessed with rigour, and this actually suppresses creativity. Take a look at the fictional but humorously accurate portrait that Byers paints of a professor teaching a class. As Byers tells it, the students learn not to ask questions because, when they do, all they get in reply are the same formulae repeated again, more slowly, slightly louder.
What went wrong? Well, it started around the end of the 19th century with David Hilbert's vision of complete formalism, of proofs so thorough a computer could check them. It was a vision widely propagated by the French Bourbaki school of mathematics, which, strangely enough, preferred a rigid, Prussian vision of maths rather than their own more sensual tradition.
Twentieth-century mathematics decided to eschew words, ideas, diagrams, examples, explanations and applications in favour of formulae. This is a lawyer's vision of maths, where the main goal is the nit-picking avoidance of mistakes. But this, as Byers observes, is also rigour mortis: it is not creative, it leads nowhere. Not surprisingly, fewer and fewer students are now attracted to mathematics. The subject is quietly dying.
To create a new field of mathematics, you have to feel comfortable with paradox, with creative tension, with sloppy and dangerous new ideas, and you have to want to rock the boat, not conform slavishly. As Byers stresses, perfectly formalised ideas are dead, while ambiguous, paradoxical ideas are pregnant with possibilities and lead us in new directions: they guide us to new viewpoints, new truths.
It is time to free mathematical creativity from this prison. We need a radically new mathematics for our postmodern era, a mathematics of complexity, computation and information, a mathematics that applies to complex biological systems. In fact, Byers isn't content merely to rescue maths. His goals are even higher: he dares to oppose the entire zeitgeist. As he correctly points out, our view of maths spills over into our view of ourselves. To paraphrase his dramatic final chapter: if mathematicians think they are machines, they will behave like machines; if mathematicians think they are trivial, then they will be trivial.
We have computers now, so we don't need to have people imitating machines. The 21st century is beginning: time to throw off our chains and unleash the power of our imagination and creativity. We should be as unlike machines as possible. Bravo, Professor Byers, and my compliments to Princeton University Press for publishing this book. Can this mean that the tide is turning? I hope so.
For me Science (and Mathematics that relate to Science) must depend entirely on the results of experiment for it's legitimacy. It does not really matter how elegant the Maths... in the final analysis the Universe does not do Maths.... and there is a lot more Maths than there is Physics out there. Maybe there is a pithy one liner that one day may be emblazoned across our chests that sums up everything we know... but will it be mathematics?
Cheers
Hi all,
I agree with the article that GE linked; too much reliance, on very complex mathematical systems modeling "simple, fundamental properties", is just not wise.
There is no time for "computation" at the speed of light. Whatever can be described by math, will reflect this property. An autopoeitic, self regeneration, that automatically produces constants, and not "invent them" as inputs. Although, a certain amount of "invention" must be used.
LL, while I am very happy that you are agreeing with "the helical function is a perfectly logical explanation of what characteristics a photon possesses", I am a little confused about the "timing". 250+ pages? OAM, spin polarity, phase vortex (node), helice, spiral, helicoid, double helix. It's been said every way that I can imagine, so I had no idea that the "overall concept" had not been communicated.
At any rate, yes, I agree with this:
I think you have to be careful to not start building a "particle scaffolding" for this wave. It is the appearance of a "virtual" helice being traced out by the moving, rotating "energy peaks". You will need one for each phase, so that they "meet the future at the same time". This is a duality, and we have to keep this in mind. From any ONE perspective on the circle, there is just ONE phase visible. If you could be at 2 places at once, you could see both phases (or from a centered third party).
If you could be at 2 more places, you could observe the simultaneous transverse phase modes, and so on. The more points we can "observe from", the better the picture becomes (to a limit). This is the basic reason for the request to include "more dimension parameters" by part of the Physics community.
It is too bad C2 doesn't see the value in the question I posed. I am not looking for something "to grade", based on a specific answer. I was just hoping to make a point, and perhaps it was made without the need for the "process".
On a parabola, or peak curve, the "pixel" at the peak, does NOT contain ALL the energy of the wave. This has been shown in several ways, including why lasers are not monochromatic, and why nothing can be.
There is some energy at the "rise", and at the "fall" as well. Not to mention, the required next step, into the "negative phase", or "imaginary part"; this is required as well. Then, we arrive at "E=(n)hf.
In a rotational frequency, or "angular momentum", we need to measure changes to the CURVATURE by change in frequency. The "pixel", or linewidth limit, has a ratio of pi as a "length". Regardless of the size, an "envelope" has a mixture of "peaks", and curves. The relativistic shifted (RDS) wave packet can NOT have its energy perfectly centered; every Doppler shift diagram shows this.
This is the SAME story, on a different axis. Moving, or cycling energy, does not stay in one place. The energy is most readily, and accurately measured by "frequency". The movement on the curvature represents movement on the frequency scale. However many times that you NEED to divide this, will deliver an equal amount of "new, different" frequencies (relative to the fundamental).
The ABSOLUTE minimum "number of times to divide this" is ONE. You end up with "2 phases", each having peaks that correspond to Maxwells' (fixed observer), 2D sine wave model.
The more that we divide this up, the more accurate we can get, up to a limit. That limit is 12; explained in one way, by "sphere packing" (relative radius/wavelength). There are several other reasons, that I won't go into; I have done so elsewhere, and, when you see the results, you find no reason to doubt its accuracy.
Dividing this packet 2 times, gives you 3 pieces. You can see the "node, anti-node, node" relationship now. (but not its inverse). We keep following this logical, mental process until we get to 12. You should see the similarity of other suggestions, that we need to "add parameters" to measure this.
You can "buy" these here, 12 for 1.
In the end, the "counter rotating" phase helice is equivalent to a "counter propagating" one. That is why Wheeler Feynman Cramer is "logical" in some ways. Any amount of thinking about these things, will lead you to the conclusion that ALL WAVES REQUIRE THE CONCEPT OF ASYNCHRONOUS MOVEMENT. Time is a self made "illusion" here. "Time" has never been seen to "go in reverse"; however, PHASE ALWAYS DOES, at the start of the wave.
regards,
T.Roc
I agree with the article that GE linked; too much reliance, on very complex mathematical systems modeling "simple, fundamental properties", is just not wise.
There is no time for "computation" at the speed of light. Whatever can be described by math, will reflect this property. An autopoeitic, self regeneration, that automatically produces constants, and not "invent them" as inputs. Although, a certain amount of "invention" must be used.
LL, while I am very happy that you are agreeing with "the helical function is a perfectly logical explanation of what characteristics a photon possesses", I am a little confused about the "timing". 250+ pages? OAM, spin polarity, phase vortex (node), helice, spiral, helicoid, double helix. It's been said every way that I can imagine, so I had no idea that the "overall concept" had not been communicated.
At any rate, yes, I agree with this:
QUOTE
You are also stating that the partially separated phases/fields reassemble in reverse/inverse order in the evanescent zone just past the slits. Shouldn't this be
that they reassemble with a phase timing delay/helical shift, according to geometrical relationship that exists between the photon frequency/size and the slit geometries? (something I proposed long ago)
that they reassemble with a phase timing delay/helical shift, according to geometrical relationship that exists between the photon frequency/size and the slit geometries? (something I proposed long ago)
I think you have to be careful to not start building a "particle scaffolding" for this wave. It is the appearance of a "virtual" helice being traced out by the moving, rotating "energy peaks". You will need one for each phase, so that they "meet the future at the same time". This is a duality, and we have to keep this in mind. From any ONE perspective on the circle, there is just ONE phase visible. If you could be at 2 places at once, you could see both phases (or from a centered third party).
If you could be at 2 more places, you could observe the simultaneous transverse phase modes, and so on. The more points we can "observe from", the better the picture becomes (to a limit). This is the basic reason for the request to include "more dimension parameters" by part of the Physics community.
It is too bad C2 doesn't see the value in the question I posed. I am not looking for something "to grade", based on a specific answer. I was just hoping to make a point, and perhaps it was made without the need for the "process".
On a parabola, or peak curve, the "pixel" at the peak, does NOT contain ALL the energy of the wave. This has been shown in several ways, including why lasers are not monochromatic, and why nothing can be.
There is some energy at the "rise", and at the "fall" as well. Not to mention, the required next step, into the "negative phase", or "imaginary part"; this is required as well. Then, we arrive at "E=(n)hf.
In a rotational frequency, or "angular momentum", we need to measure changes to the CURVATURE by change in frequency. The "pixel", or linewidth limit, has a ratio of pi as a "length". Regardless of the size, an "envelope" has a mixture of "peaks", and curves. The relativistic shifted (RDS) wave packet can NOT have its energy perfectly centered; every Doppler shift diagram shows this.
This is the SAME story, on a different axis. Moving, or cycling energy, does not stay in one place. The energy is most readily, and accurately measured by "frequency". The movement on the curvature represents movement on the frequency scale. However many times that you NEED to divide this, will deliver an equal amount of "new, different" frequencies (relative to the fundamental).
The ABSOLUTE minimum "number of times to divide this" is ONE. You end up with "2 phases", each having peaks that correspond to Maxwells' (fixed observer), 2D sine wave model.
The more that we divide this up, the more accurate we can get, up to a limit. That limit is 12; explained in one way, by "sphere packing" (relative radius/wavelength). There are several other reasons, that I won't go into; I have done so elsewhere, and, when you see the results, you find no reason to doubt its accuracy.
Dividing this packet 2 times, gives you 3 pieces. You can see the "node, anti-node, node" relationship now. (but not its inverse). We keep following this logical, mental process until we get to 12. You should see the similarity of other suggestions, that we need to "add parameters" to measure this.
You can "buy" these here, 12 for 1.
In the end, the "counter rotating" phase helice is equivalent to a "counter propagating" one. That is why Wheeler Feynman Cramer is "logical" in some ways. Any amount of thinking about these things, will lead you to the conclusion that ALL WAVES REQUIRE THE CONCEPT OF ASYNCHRONOUS MOVEMENT. Time is a self made "illusion" here. "Time" has never been seen to "go in reverse"; however, PHASE ALWAYS DOES, at the start of the wave.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc, et al,
On the contrary, you have deviated from a continuous "train" of thought and
bounced around from rainbow colors, magenta (what did magenta ever do to
you? ), harmonics, quantum carpets, and numerous other theories without
tying up the loose ends. Basically, open ended discussions, that you refer back to
sometimes weeks later, after several hundred other posts and discussions have
taken place. Perhaps it is your schedule, or we are all "talking over" one another,
trying to get other points/ideas across. Recently, you have been more available
to post, and at C2's urging, everyone let you finish describing your ideas.
Notice that I had to paraphrase what I thought you were saying, to make it
understandable for all. I really don't like "reading between the lines" to try to
interpret what needs be clearly and descriptively said in the first place.
Even though I recall some helical diagrams that you posted last winter,
I must admit that those recollections are "fuzzy". You still have not
directly answered my question regarding whether you are proposing that your
helical model is aligned along the vector direction of travel , or transverse
to the vector direction of motion (a spherical, expanding wavefront).
This must be answered before we proceed! The "solution" that you provide
mandates that a photon is either a corkscrewing "particle" (bubble), that can
be phase separated, within finite limits, or a spherical wavefront that expands
infinitely.
You need to make a commitment for one model or the other, and it must be
discussed and pass muster.
LL
QUOTE
LL, while I am very happy that you are agreeing with "the helical function is a perfectly logical explanation of what characteristics a photon possesses", I am a little confused about the "timing". 250+ pages? OAM, spin polarity, phase vortex (node), helice, spiral, helicoid, double helix. It's been said every way that I can imagine, so I had no idea that the "overall concept" had not been communicated.
On the contrary, you have deviated from a continuous "train" of thought and
bounced around from rainbow colors, magenta (what did magenta ever do to
you?
), harmonics, quantum carpets, and numerous other theories withouttying up the loose ends. Basically, open ended discussions, that you refer back to
sometimes weeks later, after several hundred other posts and discussions have
taken place. Perhaps it is your schedule, or we are all "talking over" one another,
trying to get other points/ideas across. Recently, you have been more available
to post, and at C2's urging, everyone let you finish describing your ideas.
Notice that I had to paraphrase what I thought you were saying, to make it
understandable for all. I really don't like "reading between the lines" to try to
interpret what needs be clearly and descriptively said in the first place.
Even though I recall some helical diagrams that you posted last winter,
I must admit that those recollections are "fuzzy". You still have not
directly answered my question regarding whether you are proposing that your
helical model is aligned along the vector direction of travel , or transverse
to the vector direction of motion (a spherical, expanding wavefront).
This must be answered before we proceed! The "solution" that you provide
mandates that a photon is either a corkscrewing "particle" (bubble), that can
be phase separated, within finite limits, or a spherical wavefront that expands
infinitely.
You need to make a commitment for one model or the other, and it must be
discussed and pass muster.
LL
TRoc,
There is an orthogonal relationship between the phases. What the
model should reflect, is that there are 2 parallel helixes that are
phase separated/offset. They each follow the same "tubular" helical outline,
with the same relative timing, but they have a 90 degree fixed offset from one another.
An analogy to provide conceptual "visualization". The fields are mutually
"connected" at the centerline vector axis (hub) at 90 degrees to one another.
As they advance in time along the vector direction of motion, the fields form a
helical pattern as they rotate/spin around the centerline. The effect is similar to a
propeller moving thru the water, which forms a helical path as it moves forward.
There is a "reverse thrust" or backwash to this forward motion, which I have
previously proposed as being gravity waves that move opposite to the
inertia/passage of energy. It is a spatial displacement "counter force".
There is an orthogonal relationship between the phases. What the
model should reflect, is that there are 2 parallel helixes that are
phase separated/offset. They each follow the same "tubular" helical outline,
with the same relative timing, but they have a 90 degree fixed offset from one another.
An analogy to provide conceptual "visualization". The fields are mutually
"connected" at the centerline vector axis (hub) at 90 degrees to one another.
As they advance in time along the vector direction of motion, the fields form a
helical pattern as they rotate/spin around the centerline. The effect is similar to a
propeller moving thru the water, which forms a helical path as it moves forward.
There is a "reverse thrust" or backwash to this forward motion, which I have
previously proposed as being gravity waves that move opposite to the
inertia/passage of energy. It is a spatial displacement "counter force".
In the end, the "counter rotating" phase helice is equivalent to a "counter propagating" one. That is why Wheeler Feynman Cramer is "logical" in some ways. Any amount of thinking about these things, will lead you to the conclusion that ALL WAVES REQUIRE THE CONCEPT OF ASYNCHRONOUS MOVEMENT. Time is a self made "illusion" here. "Time" has never been seen to "go in reverse"; however, PHASE ALWAYS DOES, at the start of the wave.
This is very ambiguous, and I cannot interpret what you are meaning. If I don't
understand it fully, can anyone else? Please elaborate!
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
I think you have to be careful to not start building a "particle scaffolding" for this wave. It is the appearance of a "virtual" helice being traced out by the moving, rotating "energy peaks". You will need one for each phase, so that they "meet the future at the same time". This is a duality, and we have to keep this in mind. From any ONE perspective on the circle, there is just ONE phase visible. If you could be at 2 places at once, you could see both phases (or from a centered third party).
There is an orthogonal relationship between the phases. What the
model should reflect, is that there are 2 parallel helixes that are
phase separated/offset. They each follow the same "tubular" helical outline,
with the same relative timing, but they have a 90 degree fixed offset from one another.
An analogy to provide conceptual "visualization". The fields are mutually
"connected" at the centerline vector axis (hub) at 90 degrees to one another.
As they advance in time along the vector direction of motion, the fields form a
helical pattern as they rotate/spin around the centerline. The effect is similar to a
propeller moving thru the water, which forms a helical path as it moves forward.
There is a "reverse thrust" or backwash to this forward motion, which I have
previously proposed as being gravity waves that move opposite to the
inertia/passage of energy. It is a spatial displacement "counter force".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think you have to be careful to not start building a "particle scaffolding" for this wave. It is the appearance of a "virtual" helice being traced out by the moving, rotating "energy peaks". You will need one for each phase, so that they "meet the future at the same time". This is a duality, and we have to keep this in mind. From any ONE perspective on the circle, there is just ONE phase visible. If you could be at 2 places at once, you could see both phases (or from a centered third party). |
There is an orthogonal relationship between the phases. What the
model should reflect, is that there are 2 parallel helixes that are
phase separated/offset. They each follow the same "tubular" helical outline,
with the same relative timing, but they have a 90 degree fixed offset from one another.
An analogy to provide conceptual "visualization". The fields are mutually
"connected" at the centerline vector axis (hub) at 90 degrees to one another.
As they advance in time along the vector direction of motion, the fields form a
helical pattern as they rotate/spin around the centerline. The effect is similar to a
propeller moving thru the water, which forms a helical path as it moves forward.
There is a "reverse thrust" or backwash to this forward motion, which I have
previously proposed as being gravity waves that move opposite to the
inertia/passage of energy. It is a spatial displacement "counter force".
In the end, the "counter rotating" phase helice is equivalent to a "counter propagating" one. That is why Wheeler Feynman Cramer is "logical" in some ways. Any amount of thinking about these things, will lead you to the conclusion that ALL WAVES REQUIRE THE CONCEPT OF ASYNCHRONOUS MOVEMENT. Time is a self made "illusion" here. "Time" has never been seen to "go in reverse"; however, PHASE ALWAYS DOES, at the start of the wave.
This is very ambiguous, and I cannot interpret what you are meaning. If I don't
understand it fully, can anyone else? Please elaborate!
Regards,
LL
Hi all,
I'll try my best.
You're right, the schedule does not permit continuity, and that goes for the "replies" as well. We were in the topic of "the field"; now were going into "form".
It's fine; flexibility is what keeps this thing going. C2 is busy right now, and we can come back to that later. I'm going to be in the "busy" mode for a week, so someone else can have a run.
You're right, the schedule does not permit continuity, and that goes for the "replies" as well. We were in the topic of "the field"; now were going into "form".
It's fine; flexibility is what keeps this thing going. C2 is busy right now, and we can come back to that later. I'm going to be in the "busy" mode for a week, so someone else can have a run.
You still have not directly answered my question regarding whether you are proposing that your helical model is aligned along the vector direction of travel , or transverse to the vector direction of motion (a spherical, expanding wavefront).
The overall picture is going to require both, but the answer is "along the vector axis". So that the E and M fields are locked at 90 deg, and "tracing out" their net affect, the helice. Yes, you can put one in for each, and they are like a "braid" (. However, there are more parameters that have to be "mapped". Let's just go to some pictures, and save me some typing!
http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/Optics/projec...inglePhotonOAM/
Beat-frequency 101: any cyclic measurement, that is a RATE of occurrences per time, or distance, or pi, or whatever model, states that value as "the frequency" of occurrence. When 2 rates are "mixed" (superposed), a third rate is produced. "Geometry", or movement through dimension, and forming "structure", is the result of this emergent dynamic. It is beat-frequency driven.
So, we have our 2D sine wave, and we can "overlap" them, and their superposition creates a "combined" geometry, with a net "angular beat-frequency". When you ask for the result of "interfering" 2 sine waves, of the same frequency", you have to be more specific, as to their states. But, here is one example, that answers questions of LL, and C2.
http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo4.htm
Beat-frequency 101: any cyclic measurement, that is a RATE of occurrences per time, or distance, or pi, or whatever model, states that value as "the frequency" of occurrence. When 2 rates are "mixed" (superposed), a third rate is produced. "Geometry", or movement through dimension, and forming "structure", is the result of this emergent dynamic. It is beat-frequency driven.
So, we have our 2D sine wave, and we can "overlap" them, and their superposition creates a "combined" geometry, with a net "angular beat-frequency". When you ask for the result of "interfering" 2 sine waves, of the same frequency", you have to be more specific, as to their states. But, here is one example, that answers questions of LL, and C2.
http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo4.htm
When two electromagnetic waves plane-polarized in two perpendicular planes are present simultaneously then the electric fields are added according to the rules of vector addition, a.k.a. 'parallelogram rule' (superposition). The properties of the resulting electromagnetic wave depend on the intensities and phase difference of the component waves.
The following animation presents the superposition of two waves that have the same amplitude and wavelength, are polarized in two perpendicular planes and oscillate in the same phase. Oscillating in the same phase means that the two waves reach their peaks and cross the zero line in the same moments. The superposing components are visualized with red and green color, respectively. The wave resulting from the superposition is shown in light blue.
When the intersecting plane is looked at from the front then the following image is seen:
However, if we superpose these same 2 frequencies, 90 deg off phase, we get the following result, which is our "classic photon", EM wave.
When the intersecting plane is looked at from the front then the following image is seen:
Let us NOT forget, our once "separate" concepts, of electric, and magnetic. When they "superpose", or co-exist in the same "phase space", we get our EM wave. This not not mean that these individual phenomenon do not have other "interactive" events. The "photon" is a reaction to other, pre-existing conditions. It is the "beat-frequency" of "zero"; there being no measurable difference between these 2 components.
continued..
T.Roc
I'll try my best.
QUOTE
..numerous other theories without
tying up the loose ends. Basically, open ended discussions, that you refer back to
sometimes weeks later, ..
tying up the loose ends. Basically, open ended discussions, that you refer back to
sometimes weeks later, ..
You're right, the schedule does not permit continuity, and that goes for the "replies" as well. We were in the topic of "the field"; now were going into "form".
It's fine; flexibility is what keeps this thing going. C2 is busy right now, and we can come back to that later. I'm going to be in the "busy" mode for a week, so someone else can have a run.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ..numerous other theories without tying up the loose ends. Basically, open ended discussions, that you refer back to sometimes weeks later, .. |
You're right, the schedule does not permit continuity, and that goes for the "replies" as well. We were in the topic of "the field"; now were going into "form".
It's fine; flexibility is what keeps this thing going. C2 is busy right now, and we can come back to that later. I'm going to be in the "busy" mode for a week, so someone else can have a run.
You still have not directly answered my question regarding whether you are proposing that your helical model is aligned along the vector direction of travel , or transverse to the vector direction of motion (a spherical, expanding wavefront).
The overall picture is going to require both, but the answer is "along the vector axis". So that the E and M fields are locked at 90 deg, and "tracing out" their net affect, the helice. Yes, you can put one in for each, and they are like a "braid" (. However, there are more parameters that have to be "mapped". Let's just go to some pictures, and save me some typing!
http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/Optics/projec...inglePhotonOAM/
QUOTE
SPIN
Spin eigenstates rotate: at each point, the polarization vector rotates in the transverse plane (in the movies below the beam is traveling from left to right). They possess angular momentum, in much the same way in which rotating masses do.
spin = -1 hbar per photon (right-hand circular polarization)
spin = +1 hbar per photon (left-hand circular polarization)
There is no spin eigenstate for spin 0. However, the two spin eigenstates can be superposed to give a spin-0 state. As one would expect of a state with no angular momentum, it doesn't rotate:
spin = 0 (linear polarization)
.gif)
Spin eigenstates rotate: at each point, the polarization vector rotates in the transverse plane (in the movies below the beam is traveling from left to right). They possess angular momentum, in much the same way in which rotating masses do.
spin = -1 hbar per photon (right-hand circular polarization)
spin = +1 hbar per photon (left-hand circular polarization)
There is no spin eigenstate for spin 0. However, the two spin eigenstates can be superposed to give a spin-0 state. As one would expect of a state with no angular momentum, it doesn't rotate:
spin = 0 (linear polarization)
Beat-frequency 101: any cyclic measurement, that is a RATE of occurrences per time, or distance, or pi, or whatever model, states that value as "the frequency" of occurrence. When 2 rates are "mixed" (superposed), a third rate is produced. "Geometry", or movement through dimension, and forming "structure", is the result of this emergent dynamic. It is beat-frequency driven.
So, we have our 2D sine wave, and we can "overlap" them, and their superposition creates a "combined" geometry, with a net "angular beat-frequency". When you ask for the result of "interfering" 2 sine waves, of the same frequency", you have to be more specific, as to their states. But, here is one example, that answers questions of LL, and C2.
http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo4.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| SPIN Spin eigenstates rotate: at each point, the polarization vector rotates in the transverse plane (in the movies below the beam is traveling from left to right). They possess angular momentum, in much the same way in which rotating masses do. spin = -1 hbar per photon (right-hand circular polarization) spin = +1 hbar per photon (left-hand circular polarization) There is no spin eigenstate for spin 0. However, the two spin eigenstates can be superposed to give a spin-0 state. As one would expect of a state with no angular momentum, it doesn't rotate: spin = 0 (linear polarization) |
Beat-frequency 101: any cyclic measurement, that is a RATE of occurrences per time, or distance, or pi, or whatever model, states that value as "the frequency" of occurrence. When 2 rates are "mixed" (superposed), a third rate is produced. "Geometry", or movement through dimension, and forming "structure", is the result of this emergent dynamic. It is beat-frequency driven.
So, we have our 2D sine wave, and we can "overlap" them, and their superposition creates a "combined" geometry, with a net "angular beat-frequency". When you ask for the result of "interfering" 2 sine waves, of the same frequency", you have to be more specific, as to their states. But, here is one example, that answers questions of LL, and C2.
http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo4.htm
When two electromagnetic waves plane-polarized in two perpendicular planes are present simultaneously then the electric fields are added according to the rules of vector addition, a.k.a. 'parallelogram rule' (superposition). The properties of the resulting electromagnetic wave depend on the intensities and phase difference of the component waves.
The following animation presents the superposition of two waves that have the same amplitude and wavelength, are polarized in two perpendicular planes and oscillate in the same phase. Oscillating in the same phase means that the two waves reach their peaks and cross the zero line in the same moments. The superposing components are visualized with red and green color, respectively. The wave resulting from the superposition is shown in light blue.
When the intersecting plane is looked at from the front then the following image is seen:
However, if we superpose these same 2 frequencies, 90 deg off phase, we get the following result, which is our "classic photon", EM wave.
When the intersecting plane is looked at from the front then the following image is seen:
Let us NOT forget, our once "separate" concepts, of electric, and magnetic. When they "superpose", or co-exist in the same "phase space", we get our EM wave. This not not mean that these individual phenomenon do not have other "interactive" events. The "photon" is a reaction to other, pre-existing conditions. It is the "beat-frequency" of "zero"; there being no measurable difference between these 2 components.
continued..
T.Roc
..continued
http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo8.htm
You can see that these last few images are "interchangeable", That last one in particular, show what I mean by "counter propagating, and counter rotating are equivalent". Look at the green and red waves: they can be going the same direction, opposite "handed" (rotation), or they could have the same "chiralness", and be moving in opposite directions. It shows, that while W,F-C may not be a "unique" solution, it is viable, and well within the "rules".
http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/Optics/projec...inglePhotonOAM/
You can see that these last few images are "interchangeable", That last one in particular, show what I mean by "counter propagating, and counter rotating are equivalent". Look at the green and red waves: they can be going the same direction, opposite "handed" (rotation), or they could have the same "chiralness", and be moving in opposite directions. It shows, that while W,F-C may not be a "unique" solution, it is viable, and well within the "rules".
http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/Optics/projec...inglePhotonOAM/
ORBITAL ANGULAR MOMENTUM (OAM)
The phase fronts of light beams in orbital angular momentum (OAM) eigenstates rotate, clockwise for positive OAM values, anti-clockwise for negative values. The phase front with 0 OAM doesn't rotate at all.
OAM = -1 hbar per photon (right-hand helical phase front)
OAM = 0 (plane wave)
OAM = +1 hbar per photon (left-hand helix)
(del image for space)
OAM = +2 hbar per photon (two-fold helix)
OAM = +3 hbar per photon (three-fold helix: fusilli)
Note the "dimensional" change, in both (OAM and spin) models, and their "zeros". The "plane wave", and the "linear polarization".
On another page of that same website:
http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/Optics/projects/AM/
(emphasis added)
(emphasis added)
(August 2004) One of the best known physical laws, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, states that the momentum and the position of a particle cannot be measured simultaneously with arbitrary precision. This sets a lower bound for the product of the uncertainties of these quantities. The uncertainty relation also applies to other pairs of physical quantities, known as conjugate variables. In particular, the angular uncertainty principle relates angular momentum and angular position. The first experimental verification of this was performed in our laboratory using light beams carrying orbital angular momentum and precise angular position filters.
(emphasis added)
Every Quantum question needs to be asked in Relative terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_vortex
(emphasis added)
Every Quantum question needs to be asked in Relative terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_vortex
An optical vortex (also known as a screw dislocation or phase singularity) is a zero of an optical field, a point of zero intensity. Research into the properties of vortices has thrived since a comprehensive paper by Nye and Berry, in 1974,[1] described the basic properties of 'dislocations in wave trains'. The research that followed became the core of what is now known as 'singular optics'.
Light can be twisted like a corkscrew around its axis of travel. Because of the twisting, the light waves at the axis itself cancel each other out. On a flat surface, an optical vortex looks like a ring of light, with a dark hole in the center. This corkscrew of light, with darkness at the center, is called an optical vortex.
The vortex is given a number, called the topological charge, according to how many twists the light does in one wavelength. The number is always an integer, and can be positive or negative, depending on the direction of the twist. The higher the number of the twist, the faster the light is spinning around the axis. This spinning carries orbital angular momentum with the wave train, and will induce torque on an electric dipole.
This orbital angular momentum of light can be observed in the orbiting motion of trapped particles. Interfering an optical vortex with a plane wave of light reveals the spiral phase as concentric spirals. The number of arms in the spiral equals the topological charge.
An optical singularity is a zero of an optical field. The phase in the field circulates around these points of zero intensity (giving rise to the name 'vortex'). Vortices are points in 2D fields and lines in 3D fields (as they have codimension two). Integrating the phase of the field around a path enclosing a vortex yields an integer multiple of 2π. This integer is known as the topological charge, or strength, of the vortex.
We also have the "Gouy phase", which is a longitudinal phase delay.
Plenty of options to create frequency specific geometries.
ciao,
T.Roc
http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo8.htm
QUOTE
As we have seen in the previous pages, two plane-polarized waves can meet. Of course, two circularly polarized waves can meet as well. In that case, the fields are added according to the rules of vector addition, just as with plane-polarized waves.
The superposition of two circularly polarized light beams can result in various outcomes. The most interesting result is obtained when a left circularly polarized wave and a right circularly polarized wave are added. Let's assume that the two light beams have equal amplitudes and wavelengths. The following animation shows this superposition and the resulting wave (red and green colors indicate the two superposing components and light blue indicates the resulting wave):
The superposition of two circularly polarized light beams can result in various outcomes. The most interesting result is obtained when a left circularly polarized wave and a right circularly polarized wave are added. Let's assume that the two light beams have equal amplitudes and wavelengths. The following animation shows this superposition and the resulting wave (red and green colors indicate the two superposing components and light blue indicates the resulting wave):
You can see that these last few images are "interchangeable", That last one in particular, show what I mean by "counter propagating, and counter rotating are equivalent". Look at the green and red waves: they can be going the same direction, opposite "handed" (rotation), or they could have the same "chiralness", and be moving in opposite directions. It shows, that while W,F-C may not be a "unique" solution, it is viable, and well within the "rules".
http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/Optics/projec...inglePhotonOAM/
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As we have seen in the previous pages, two plane-polarized waves can meet. Of course, two circularly polarized waves can meet as well. In that case, the fields are added according to the rules of vector addition, just as with plane-polarized waves. The superposition of two circularly polarized light beams can result in various outcomes. The most interesting result is obtained when a left circularly polarized wave and a right circularly polarized wave are added. Let's assume that the two light beams have equal amplitudes and wavelengths. The following animation shows this superposition and the resulting wave (red and green colors indicate the two superposing components and light blue indicates the resulting wave): |
You can see that these last few images are "interchangeable", That last one in particular, show what I mean by "counter propagating, and counter rotating are equivalent". Look at the green and red waves: they can be going the same direction, opposite "handed" (rotation), or they could have the same "chiralness", and be moving in opposite directions. It shows, that while W,F-C may not be a "unique" solution, it is viable, and well within the "rules".
http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/Optics/projec...inglePhotonOAM/
ORBITAL ANGULAR MOMENTUM (OAM)
The phase fronts of light beams in orbital angular momentum (OAM) eigenstates rotate, clockwise for positive OAM values, anti-clockwise for negative values. The phase front with 0 OAM doesn't rotate at all.
OAM = -1 hbar per photon (right-hand helical phase front)
OAM = 0 (plane wave)
OAM = +1 hbar per photon (left-hand helix)
(del image for space)
OAM = +2 hbar per photon (two-fold helix)
OAM = +3 hbar per photon (three-fold helix: fusilli)
Note the "dimensional" change, in both (OAM and spin) models, and their "zeros". The "plane wave", and the "linear polarization".
On another page of that same website:
http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/Optics/projects/AM/
QUOTE
(May 2007) The overlap of two laser beams creates both constructive and destructive interference. For Laguerre-Gaussian modes, the resulting patterns appear as a circular array of petals. We have now shown that it the beams are chosen correctly, the destructive interference forms a circular array of dark holes, ideal for trapping atoms at very low temperatures. Shifting the frequency between the beam causes the pattern to rotate, creating what we call an Optical Ferris Wheel.
(emphasis added)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (May 2007) The overlap of two laser beams creates both constructive and destructive interference. For Laguerre-Gaussian modes, the resulting patterns appear as a circular array of petals. We have now shown that it the beams are chosen correctly, the destructive interference forms a circular array of dark holes, ideal for trapping atoms at very low temperatures. Shifting the frequency between the beam causes the pattern to rotate, creating what we call an Optical Ferris Wheel. |
(emphasis added)
(August 2004) One of the best known physical laws, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, states that the momentum and the position of a particle cannot be measured simultaneously with arbitrary precision. This sets a lower bound for the product of the uncertainties of these quantities. The uncertainty relation also applies to other pairs of physical quantities, known as conjugate variables. In particular, the angular uncertainty principle relates angular momentum and angular position. The first experimental verification of this was performed in our laboratory using light beams carrying orbital angular momentum and precise angular position filters.
QUOTE
The Doppler effect is familiar to anyone who has heard a fire engine speed past — because the (sound) source is translated relative to the observer, its frequency is shifted. Ê If a (sound or light) source is rotated, an analogous frequency shift occurs.
This can be understood in terms of pasta spirals ("Fusilli"), which have the shape of the phase fronts of specific light beams that show the rotational Doppler effect, namely Laguerre-Gaussian (LG) beams with an azimuthal index l = 3.
First of all we can use pasta spirals to understand the normal Doppler effect. As the light propagates, the pasta spiral moves forwards. We now pick an "observation point", which the pasta spiral passes as it moves forward. At this point we can see the phase fronts (or intertwined helices that make up the pasta spiral) move past one by one. The frequency with which they move past corresponds to the optical frequency of the light beam. If we now move the observation point in the opposite direction of that in which the pasta spiral moves, then successive phase fronts are encountered more quickly, i.e. the frequency with which you encounter phase fronts has changed. This is exactly the normal Doppler effect.
We also encounter the phase fronts at a different frequency if we rotate the pasta spiral about its own axis as it moves forwards (or alternatively if we rotate the observation point around the axis of the pasta spiral). This is the rotational Doppler effect.
We can understand the rotational Doppler effect more completely by studying the time evolution of phase- and field cross sections. The two animations on the left show the time evolution of the phase (gray shading) and the electric field vectors in beams with different values of spin (hbar s) and orbital (hbar l) angular momentum.
The top beam has values l = 2 and s = 1, which implies that the distribution of the electric field has a (l + s = 3)-fold symmetry.
The bottom beam shows the case of l = 2 and s = -1, giving (l + s = 1)-fold symmetry to the resulting electric field.
Note that, although the phase distributions of the two beams rotate with the same frequency, the distributions of the electric field do not.
This can be understood in terms of pasta spirals ("Fusilli"), which have the shape of the phase fronts of specific light beams that show the rotational Doppler effect, namely Laguerre-Gaussian (LG) beams with an azimuthal index l = 3.
First of all we can use pasta spirals to understand the normal Doppler effect. As the light propagates, the pasta spiral moves forwards. We now pick an "observation point", which the pasta spiral passes as it moves forward. At this point we can see the phase fronts (or intertwined helices that make up the pasta spiral) move past one by one. The frequency with which they move past corresponds to the optical frequency of the light beam. If we now move the observation point in the opposite direction of that in which the pasta spiral moves, then successive phase fronts are encountered more quickly, i.e. the frequency with which you encounter phase fronts has changed. This is exactly the normal Doppler effect.
We also encounter the phase fronts at a different frequency if we rotate the pasta spiral about its own axis as it moves forwards (or alternatively if we rotate the observation point around the axis of the pasta spiral). This is the rotational Doppler effect.
We can understand the rotational Doppler effect more completely by studying the time evolution of phase- and field cross sections. The two animations on the left show the time evolution of the phase (gray shading) and the electric field vectors in beams with different values of spin (hbar s) and orbital (hbar l) angular momentum.
The top beam has values l = 2 and s = 1, which implies that the distribution of the electric field has a (l + s = 3)-fold symmetry.
The bottom beam shows the case of l = 2 and s = -1, giving (l + s = 1)-fold symmetry to the resulting electric field.
Note that, although the phase distributions of the two beams rotate with the same frequency, the distributions of the electric field do not.
(emphasis added)
Every Quantum question needs to be asked in Relative terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_vortex
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Doppler effect is familiar to anyone who has heard a fire engine speed past — because the (sound) source is translated relative to the observer, its frequency is shifted. Ê If a (sound or light) source is rotated, an analogous frequency shift occurs. This can be understood in terms of pasta spirals ("Fusilli"), which have the shape of the phase fronts of specific light beams that show the rotational Doppler effect, namely Laguerre-Gaussian (LG) beams with an azimuthal index l = 3. First of all we can use pasta spirals to understand the normal Doppler effect. As the light propagates, the pasta spiral moves forwards. We now pick an "observation point", which the pasta spiral passes as it moves forward. At this point we can see the phase fronts (or intertwined helices that make up the pasta spiral) move past one by one. The frequency with which they move past corresponds to the optical frequency of the light beam. If we now move the observation point in the opposite direction of that in which the pasta spiral moves, then successive phase fronts are encountered more quickly, i.e. the frequency with which you encounter phase fronts has changed. This is exactly the normal Doppler effect. We also encounter the phase fronts at a different frequency if we rotate the pasta spiral about its own axis as it moves forwards (or alternatively if we rotate the observation point around the axis of the pasta spiral). This is the rotational Doppler effect. We can understand the rotational Doppler effect more completely by studying the time evolution of phase- and field cross sections. The two animations on the left show the time evolution of the phase (gray shading) and the electric field vectors in beams with different values of spin (hbar s) and orbital (hbar l) angular momentum. The top beam has values l = 2 and s = 1, which implies that the distribution of the electric field has a (l + s = 3)-fold symmetry. The bottom beam shows the case of l = 2 and s = -1, giving (l + s = 1)-fold symmetry to the resulting electric field. Note that, although the phase distributions of the two beams rotate with the same frequency, the distributions of the electric field do not. |
(emphasis added)
Every Quantum question needs to be asked in Relative terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_vortex
An optical vortex (also known as a screw dislocation or phase singularity) is a zero of an optical field, a point of zero intensity. Research into the properties of vortices has thrived since a comprehensive paper by Nye and Berry, in 1974,[1] described the basic properties of 'dislocations in wave trains'. The research that followed became the core of what is now known as 'singular optics'.
Light can be twisted like a corkscrew around its axis of travel. Because of the twisting, the light waves at the axis itself cancel each other out. On a flat surface, an optical vortex looks like a ring of light, with a dark hole in the center. This corkscrew of light, with darkness at the center, is called an optical vortex.
The vortex is given a number, called the topological charge, according to how many twists the light does in one wavelength. The number is always an integer, and can be positive or negative, depending on the direction of the twist. The higher the number of the twist, the faster the light is spinning around the axis. This spinning carries orbital angular momentum with the wave train, and will induce torque on an electric dipole.
This orbital angular momentum of light can be observed in the orbiting motion of trapped particles. Interfering an optical vortex with a plane wave of light reveals the spiral phase as concentric spirals. The number of arms in the spiral equals the topological charge.
An optical singularity is a zero of an optical field. The phase in the field circulates around these points of zero intensity (giving rise to the name 'vortex'). Vortices are points in 2D fields and lines in 3D fields (as they have codimension two). Integrating the phase of the field around a path enclosing a vortex yields an integer multiple of 2π. This integer is known as the topological charge, or strength, of the vortex.
We also have the "Gouy phase", which is a longitudinal phase delay.
Plenty of options to create frequency specific geometries.
ciao,
T.Roc
Interesting, no counter arguments. Reassessments/digestion ongoing.
Troc,
The silence is a good thing. It means that everyone is evaluating the
information and trying to rationalize how it will change their preconceptions.
From 2d wave theory, to resonance in 4d.
Excellent site.
http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo0.htm
http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/
LL
Troc,
The silence is a good thing. It means that everyone is evaluating the
information and trying to rationalize how it will change their preconceptions.
From 2d wave theory, to resonance in 4d.
Excellent site.
http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo0.htm
http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/
LL
Hi Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "THEY", "THEY2" janrinze, Jal, Montec, yquantum, StevenA, "Why Not?", Siau, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, et al,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Interesting, no counter arguments. Reassessments/digestion ongoing.
Not so quick... I have a few points to advance...
Firstly I would like to give some kudos to TRoc with his excellent web page site that he has found. It says it all regarding circular dichroism and circular polarization in materials.
Circular Dichroism and Circular Polarization
Firstly I would like to give some kudos to TRoc with his excellent web page site that he has found. It says it all regarding circular dichroism and circular polarization in materials.
Circular Dichroism and Circular Polarization
QUOTE (TRoc on Optical Doppler Shift+)
...First of all we can use pasta spirals to understand the normal Doppler effect. As the light propagates, the pasta spiral moves forwards. We now pick an "observation point", which the pasta spiral passes as it moves forward. At this point we can see the phase fronts (or intertwined helices that make up the pasta spiral) move past one by one. The frequency with which they move past corresponds to the optical frequency of the light beam. If we now move the observation point in the opposite direction of that in which the pasta spiral moves, then successive phase fronts are encountered more quickly, i.e. the frequency with which you encounter phase fronts has changed. This is exactly the normal Doppler effect.
I would like to clear up this point since it is essential to understand Special Relativity. Doppler Shift with respect to light is different to Doppler shift with respect to sound. Unlike sound the frequency is not affected by "relative movement in a medium" that has a fixed propagation velocity. You can actually exceed the velocity of sound in air. Sound travels through air at a fixed velocity so movement away from source relative to the "motionless" air results in the sound being received at a lower relative velocity than if source and observer were both at rest. This means the "pitch" of the sound is lower... Sound is just the alternating longitudinal pressure waves in the atmosphere as they impact our eardrums.
Regarding light the velocity is always measured as being C relative to all observers everywhere in whatever state of relative motion. What changes is the "optical pitch". "Optical Pitch" (frequency) is simply the number of optical wavefronts that pass the observer per second (NOTE: ... of the observers time relative to an observer clock). If you compare clocks (difficult) the actual "relative rate" of the observer and the source clock times are running at different rates dependent only on the relative velocity. All observers think their own clocks run at a fixed constant rate. As a point of truth they all do but comparisons with that observer clock of relatively moving clocks will always show other clocks marking time differently.
Now there is an absolute effect and there is an observational effect. Moving clocks "always" run slow (they all lose time relative to "stationary" unaccelerated clocks) but when we are talking about the frequency (color) of light the relative timing of clocks can "visibly" be running fast or slow depending on the "sign" (+ve or -ve) of the velocity of the moving frame relative to the observer (and his "standard" clock). This often confuses people. Special Relativity can lead to a real loss of synchronization between clocks whereas with sound we insist that clocks remain synchronized. As a rule of thumb you can always tell which clock is running slow by referring to the clocks history since initial synchronization... the accelerated clock will have always "lost ticks". If both clocks are brought back into the same inertial frame again and a local measurement made, both clocks will have the same "ongoing" rate of time with a loss of synchronization provided there is nothing mechanically wrong with them.
That comparison between different time scales is what causes the difference in pitch. The different pitch/frequency can lead to differential aging on round trips at high velocity. If an observer clock appears "slow" relative to a relatively moving source then the "pitch" of the light being emitted is raised relative to the observer. ... The source clocks all seem to be running at a higher/faster rate when the source is approaching. This is seen in such effects as the Jet from M87 (probably due to a black hole). What is happening is light emitted from M87 over a period of 6 hours is received on earth over a period of one hour. The speed of that light is always measured as constant but the pitch of the light is raised correspondingly since the jet is moving toward the earth at "almost" the speed of light. The light wavefronts are correspondingly "crushed together" in the direction of the earth.
What is not happening is the source traveling at 6 times the speed of light though this is what "appears" to be happening. A particle in that "jet stream" would visually appear to cover six times the distance that light traveling at C would travel in the same time. The source (where the illumination is coming from) is moving close to the speed of light in our general direction but is closely "following" the previously emitted light and continually emitting new wavefronts. We (observers) receive them as if they were from a source at rest in our frame of rest at 6 times the emitted frequency. However this is not the case and the source is moving rapidly towards us near the speed of light. Each "new" wavefront is emitted from a translated "origin" (read dipole source) ... this "origin" is continuously moving closer and closer to earth so successive wavefronts are "crowded" together.
So regarding the pasta spiral analogy above... the 'speed" of the pasta spiral is unchanged but the length of the pasta spirals are changed due to time dilation, the crests are closer together in our observer frame of reference. This is because the fundamental dipoles that created these "spirals" are moving toward the observer at an appreciable proportion of the speed of light effectively moving the point of origin toward the observer and providing him with a view that appears as an increase in source frequency.
The next point I would like to make is that light is not "moving" as in traveling in time. The photons are all "frozen in time"... Due to our relative "movement in time" the photons appear to be moving but they are simply wavefronts that are passing our observer position. The "need" to describe light moving is a cultural one and does lead to confusion. Light spreads not moves like a "wriggledly snake" which needs the benefit of the passing of time to do that trick. This light is like a dead "bent" snake, with a severe case of rigor mortis, being dragged past the observer. If there is no passage of time there can be no movement... also there can be no "dynamics".
The illustration TRoc supplies of the superposition of two electrically polarized waves is a very interesting analogy. Dichroism is "supposed" to be describing two (or more) colors (frequency) in materials when light is split according to frequency. Another meaning (meant to confuse but the more appropriate definition in this case) is the same word used to describe a chiral polarization states in a material dependent on the "handedness" of the atoms that compose it. There are left handed and right handed "optically active" materials. Some organic chemicals and even some inorganic chemicals have this property such as sucrose solution for instance. They absorb/block one type of chirality and not the other. This indicates that even "simple" plane polarized light can be a superposition of a left handed chirality and a right handed chirality both at the same time since plane polarized light can be broken down into two counter chiral states that 'sum" to a plane polarization. We see that principle in the animations provided by TRoc.
While this effect is very interesting it is actually not the topic we are discussing. The discussion is not about continuous wave electromagnetism in different states of polarization it is about individual photons which possess chiral properties that constitute individual wavepackets. The question is what kind of chirality individual wavepackets of light possess?
A continuously excited electromagnetic dipole radiator always produces a plane polarized wave. It is "apparently" composed of equal amounts of left hand circularly polarized light and right hand circularly polarized light... Both at the same time. I can only assume that this means that each packet can be either left hand circularly polarized or right hand circularly polarized at the one time but that two different photons one left and one right circularly polarized "sum" to make plane polarized "continuous wave" light. Alternatively does each wavepacket of light have both left and right circularly polarized light in it? I can only assume the former position since a circular polarizer will reduce the beam intensity by half. This means that 1/2 the photons are left circularly polarized and half are right circularly polarized in a plane polarized beam. I think what is actually happening is that if you use a polarizer this "forces" the photons to be absorbed or be transmitted with a particular polarization. It just so happens only 1/2 the photons can get through a (perfect) polarizer. The other 1/2 are absorbed (blocked). Those that get through now all have that exact polarization through a forced alignment of the electric field vector. Since photons are quanta and are either absorbed or not .... 1/2 are absorbed as particles and the others will undergo the "indignity" of realignment without loss of integrity in the wave state. So 1/2 the intensity of the beam is lost. This polarization would occur regardless of what type of polarization is applied... if plane polarization is applied a further orthogonal plane polarizer will block all those 'aligned" photons. Conversely if left circularly polarized a right circularly polarizer will block all the remaining photons. If left circularly polarized and a plane polarizer applied the beam brightness will drop by 1/2 while half will be absorbed again.and the light will be plane polarized again. You would be able to repeat this operation as many times as you wish with the brightness dropping correspondingly. This operation is similar to that when a Holographic template is used to transfer OEM to a photon. The photons are not simply selected from photons statistically, they are modified by the template since the OEM is not in the photon originally. In a likewise manner the photons that pass into various polarizers (linear and circular polarizers) some photons are modified through "interferences".
The next important point issue is getting back to the single photon... it must contain usually an arbitary polarization or in the case of a single dipole atomic excitation, a fixed polarization angle aligned along the axis of the radiators (the primary alignment of the electron "jump" between the two shells). In the case of a gaseous LASER radiator it is probably "natively" non-aligned because of random motions in the gas (yet still coherent) or it may indeed be aligned due to the population inversion process forcing a particular polarization. I will be guided on what people think about that process. Internal to single photons we have a single polarization state which should be linear aligned to the primary radiator. This may be composed of one retarded wavelet that is "circularly polarized". An identical phase reversed and time reversed "circularly polarized" photon from the future (advanced wavelet) will "capture" and move with the single photon's retarded wavelet as a resonance between the past and the future. The sum of these two wavelets is a single plane polarized retarded photon packet.
Polarizers will not be able to separate those two "Wheeler Feynman" internal advanced and retarded photon packets since they are actually one and the same and not separate events.
Now to the "mysteries" of topological charge. Electromagnetic vortices exhibit this phenomenon. That is the EM wave is wrapping around itself and according to the amount of this twist can exert a force on charge dipoles. This is therefore a kind of synthetic electric charge created by the dynamic of the EM wave when it becomes knotted. Recall electromagnetic waves contain no charge in the vacuum but instantaneously or through resonances the electric field can have a pattern that can externally be seen as charge. These usually need Laguerre Gaussian Modes. Still another possible use for the topological charge is in creating the electronic charge for fundamental particles. See "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" by Williamson and Van Der Mark
... Click to enlarge...
...and of course "The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?: by Williamson and Van Der Mark
The nature of the electron: Qiu-Hong Hu
In general I am very pleased with what TRoc has said but as you see there are some "nit picky" points to clear up. Other input welcome... criticisms etc... all welcome.
Cheers
Regarding light the velocity is always measured as being C relative to all observers everywhere in whatever state of relative motion. What changes is the "optical pitch". "Optical Pitch" (frequency) is simply the number of optical wavefronts that pass the observer per second (NOTE: ... of the observers time relative to an observer clock). If you compare clocks (difficult) the actual "relative rate" of the observer and the source clock times are running at different rates dependent only on the relative velocity. All observers think their own clocks run at a fixed constant rate. As a point of truth they all do but comparisons with that observer clock of relatively moving clocks will always show other clocks marking time differently.
Now there is an absolute effect and there is an observational effect. Moving clocks "always" run slow (they all lose time relative to "stationary" unaccelerated clocks) but when we are talking about the frequency (color) of light the relative timing of clocks can "visibly" be running fast or slow depending on the "sign" (+ve or -ve) of the velocity of the moving frame relative to the observer (and his "standard" clock). This often confuses people. Special Relativity can lead to a real loss of synchronization between clocks whereas with sound we insist that clocks remain synchronized. As a rule of thumb you can always tell which clock is running slow by referring to the clocks history since initial synchronization... the accelerated clock will have always "lost ticks". If both clocks are brought back into the same inertial frame again and a local measurement made, both clocks will have the same "ongoing" rate of time with a loss of synchronization provided there is nothing mechanically wrong with them.
That comparison between different time scales is what causes the difference in pitch. The different pitch/frequency can lead to differential aging on round trips at high velocity. If an observer clock appears "slow" relative to a relatively moving source then the "pitch" of the light being emitted is raised relative to the observer. ... The source clocks all seem to be running at a higher/faster rate when the source is approaching. This is seen in such effects as the Jet from M87 (probably due to a black hole). What is happening is light emitted from M87 over a period of 6 hours is received on earth over a period of one hour. The speed of that light is always measured as constant but the pitch of the light is raised correspondingly since the jet is moving toward the earth at "almost" the speed of light. The light wavefronts are correspondingly "crushed together" in the direction of the earth.
What is not happening is the source traveling at 6 times the speed of light though this is what "appears" to be happening. A particle in that "jet stream" would visually appear to cover six times the distance that light traveling at C would travel in the same time. The source (where the illumination is coming from) is moving close to the speed of light in our general direction but is closely "following" the previously emitted light and continually emitting new wavefronts. We (observers) receive them as if they were from a source at rest in our frame of rest at 6 times the emitted frequency. However this is not the case and the source is moving rapidly towards us near the speed of light. Each "new" wavefront is emitted from a translated "origin" (read dipole source) ... this "origin" is continuously moving closer and closer to earth so successive wavefronts are "crowded" together.
So regarding the pasta spiral analogy above... the 'speed" of the pasta spiral is unchanged but the length of the pasta spirals are changed due to time dilation, the crests are closer together in our observer frame of reference. This is because the fundamental dipoles that created these "spirals" are moving toward the observer at an appreciable proportion of the speed of light effectively moving the point of origin toward the observer and providing him with a view that appears as an increase in source frequency.
The next point I would like to make is that light is not "moving" as in traveling in time. The photons are all "frozen in time"... Due to our relative "movement in time" the photons appear to be moving but they are simply wavefronts that are passing our observer position. The "need" to describe light moving is a cultural one and does lead to confusion. Light spreads not moves like a "wriggledly snake" which needs the benefit of the passing of time to do that trick. This light is like a dead "bent" snake, with a severe case of rigor mortis, being dragged past the observer. If there is no passage of time there can be no movement... also there can be no "dynamics".
The illustration TRoc supplies of the superposition of two electrically polarized waves is a very interesting analogy. Dichroism is "supposed" to be describing two (or more) colors (frequency) in materials when light is split according to frequency. Another meaning (meant to confuse but the more appropriate definition in this case) is the same word used to describe a chiral polarization states in a material dependent on the "handedness" of the atoms that compose it. There are left handed and right handed "optically active" materials. Some organic chemicals and even some inorganic chemicals have this property such as sucrose solution for instance. They absorb/block one type of chirality and not the other. This indicates that even "simple" plane polarized light can be a superposition of a left handed chirality and a right handed chirality both at the same time since plane polarized light can be broken down into two counter chiral states that 'sum" to a plane polarization. We see that principle in the animations provided by TRoc.
While this effect is very interesting it is actually not the topic we are discussing. The discussion is not about continuous wave electromagnetism in different states of polarization it is about individual photons which possess chiral properties that constitute individual wavepackets. The question is what kind of chirality individual wavepackets of light possess?
A continuously excited electromagnetic dipole radiator always produces a plane polarized wave. It is "apparently" composed of equal amounts of left hand circularly polarized light and right hand circularly polarized light... Both at the same time. I can only assume that this means that each packet can be either left hand circularly polarized or right hand circularly polarized at the one time but that two different photons one left and one right circularly polarized "sum" to make plane polarized "continuous wave" light. Alternatively does each wavepacket of light have both left and right circularly polarized light in it? I can only assume the former position since a circular polarizer will reduce the beam intensity by half. This means that 1/2 the photons are left circularly polarized and half are right circularly polarized in a plane polarized beam. I think what is actually happening is that if you use a polarizer this "forces" the photons to be absorbed or be transmitted with a particular polarization. It just so happens only 1/2 the photons can get through a (perfect) polarizer. The other 1/2 are absorbed (blocked). Those that get through now all have that exact polarization through a forced alignment of the electric field vector. Since photons are quanta and are either absorbed or not .... 1/2 are absorbed as particles and the others will undergo the "indignity" of realignment without loss of integrity in the wave state. So 1/2 the intensity of the beam is lost. This polarization would occur regardless of what type of polarization is applied... if plane polarization is applied a further orthogonal plane polarizer will block all those 'aligned" photons. Conversely if left circularly polarized a right circularly polarizer will block all the remaining photons. If left circularly polarized and a plane polarizer applied the beam brightness will drop by 1/2 while half will be absorbed again.and the light will be plane polarized again. You would be able to repeat this operation as many times as you wish with the brightness dropping correspondingly. This operation is similar to that when a Holographic template is used to transfer OEM to a photon. The photons are not simply selected from photons statistically, they are modified by the template since the OEM is not in the photon originally. In a likewise manner the photons that pass into various polarizers (linear and circular polarizers) some photons are modified through "interferences".
The next important point issue is getting back to the single photon... it must contain usually an arbitary polarization or in the case of a single dipole atomic excitation, a fixed polarization angle aligned along the axis of the radiators (the primary alignment of the electron "jump" between the two shells). In the case of a gaseous LASER radiator it is probably "natively" non-aligned because of random motions in the gas (yet still coherent) or it may indeed be aligned due to the population inversion process forcing a particular polarization. I will be guided on what people think about that process. Internal to single photons we have a single polarization state which should be linear aligned to the primary radiator. This may be composed of one retarded wavelet that is "circularly polarized". An identical phase reversed and time reversed "circularly polarized" photon from the future (advanced wavelet) will "capture" and move with the single photon's retarded wavelet as a resonance between the past and the future. The sum of these two wavelets is a single plane polarized retarded photon packet.
Polarizers will not be able to separate those two "Wheeler Feynman" internal advanced and retarded photon packets since they are actually one and the same and not separate events.
Now to the "mysteries" of topological charge. Electromagnetic vortices exhibit this phenomenon. That is the EM wave is wrapping around itself and according to the amount of this twist can exert a force on charge dipoles. This is therefore a kind of synthetic electric charge created by the dynamic of the EM wave when it becomes knotted. Recall electromagnetic waves contain no charge in the vacuum but instantaneously or through resonances the electric field can have a pattern that can externally be seen as charge. These usually need Laguerre Gaussian Modes. Still another possible use for the topological charge is in creating the electronic charge for fundamental particles. See "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" by Williamson and Van Der Mark
... Click to enlarge...
...and of course "The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?: by Williamson and Van Der Mark
The nature of the electron: Qiu-Hong Hu
In general I am very pleased with what TRoc has said but as you see there are some "nit picky" points to clear up. Other input welcome... criticisms etc... all welcome.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf, TRoc, Laserlight and all,
Sorry I don't have time to put this better.. a variation on what Good Elf is saying ..
Apparently Einstein said..
Much the same applies to snakes.
If we have a fast moving train going through a station..
Two passengers use walkie-talkies to talk to each other across the carriage. From the station PoV the EM snake appears to be going somewhat sideways. Does this make sense? The pictures of fields only make sense in the context of source/detector (at least without a lot more relativity than I am capeable of).
EM is a can of worms too.
Best wishes - C2.
Sorry I don't have time to put this better.. a variation on what Good Elf is saying ..
Apparently Einstein said..
QUOTE
The wireless telegraph is not difficult to understand. The ordinary telegraph is like a very long cat. You pull the tail in New York, and it meows in Los Angeles. The wireless is the same, only without the cat.
Much the same applies to snakes.
If we have a fast moving train going through a station..
Two passengers use walkie-talkies to talk to each other across the carriage. From the station PoV the EM snake appears to be going somewhat sideways. Does this make sense? The pictures of fields only make sense in the context of source/detector (at least without a lot more relativity than I am capeable of).
EM is a can of worms too.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi Troc!
Very good!
If everyone agrees to use these pictures/references
http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo8.htm
This is a very good base to start to do the analysis.
Now we should be able to do your analysis (divide up the pattern into 12 harmonics.)
After this has been done we should be able to analyse Good Elf's statement.
"Due to our relative "movement in time" the photons appear to be moving but they are simply wavefronts that are passing our observer position."
jal
Very good!
If everyone agrees to use these pictures/references
http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo8.htm
This is a very good base to start to do the analysis.
Now we should be able to do your analysis (divide up the pattern into 12 harmonics.)
After this has been done we should be able to analyse Good Elf's statement.
"Due to our relative "movement in time" the photons appear to be moving but they are simply wavefronts that are passing our observer position."
jal
All,
You will end up in Alice Wonderland if you go by this person.
This is his level of skillfulness by virtue of possessing special knowledge of DNA Binding Protein prediction.
http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo0.htm
Regards,
maybe
You will end up in Alice Wonderland if you go by this person.
This is his level of skillfulness by virtue of possessing special knowledge of DNA Binding Protein prediction.
http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo0.htm
Regards,
maybe
DNA Binding Protein prediction
This server predicts whether a protein is DNA-binding from its structure and/or sequence. The algorithm is described in the following paper:
Szilagyi A, Skolnick J:
Efficient prediction of nucleic acid binding function from low-resolution protein structures.
J Mol Biol. 2006 May 5;358(3):922-33. Epub 2006 Mar 10. PubMed
Important note: The method was essentially developed to predict DNA binding ability from the three-dimensional structure of a protein. Although it can predict DNA binding from the protein sequence alone, pure sequence-based prediction was only validated on a very small set of sequences (all of them belonging to structures in the Protein Data Bank). Therefore, the actual false positive and false negative rates of purely sequence-based predictions could be higher than the estimate indicated here. A three-dimensional structure should be used as input to the server whenever possible.
By András Szilágyi (szia (at) enzim (dot) hu)
Comments and suggestions welcome!
LOL
maybe
This server predicts whether a protein is DNA-binding from its structure and/or sequence. The algorithm is described in the following paper:
Szilagyi A, Skolnick J:
Efficient prediction of nucleic acid binding function from low-resolution protein structures.
J Mol Biol. 2006 May 5;358(3):922-33. Epub 2006 Mar 10. PubMed
Important note: The method was essentially developed to predict DNA binding ability from the three-dimensional structure of a protein. Although it can predict DNA binding from the protein sequence alone, pure sequence-based prediction was only validated on a very small set of sequences (all of them belonging to structures in the Protein Data Bank). Therefore, the actual false positive and false negative rates of purely sequence-based predictions could be higher than the estimate indicated here. A three-dimensional structure should be used as input to the server whenever possible.
By András Szilágyi (szia (at) enzim (dot) hu)
Comments and suggestions welcome!
LOL
maybe
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Much the same applies to snakes.
If we have a fast moving train going through a station..
Two passengers use walkie-talkies to talk to each other across the carriage. From the station PoV the EM snake appears to be going somewhat sideways. Does this make sense? The pictures of fields only make sense in the context of source/detector (at least without a lot more relativity than I am capable of).
EM is a can of worms too.
If we have a fast moving train going through a station..
Two passengers use walkie-talkies to talk to each other across the carriage. From the station PoV the EM snake appears to be going somewhat sideways. Does this make sense? The pictures of fields only make sense in the context of source/detector (at least without a lot more relativity than I am capable of).
EM is a can of worms too.
Easy primer on Special Relativity (bits from Wikipedia... but not all)... The relative positions of origins of the two Inertial Frames (observer and observed frame) in relative motion is an important consideration. This little discussion is to emphasize the difference between where events are and what is seen by an observer..... And of course what is the difference. There is a special direction in Special Relativity. This is the direction of the relative velocity vector, it is "different" from the other coordinate directions. Special Relativity does not affect the orthogonal directions so align the two frames (observer and observed frame) such that both origins are selected to be "in" the initial position of the point of interest in the relatively moving observed frame at t=0.
The motion of the observer should be thought of as being at rest regardless of any "trick" that describes the state of motion. Remember all observers can be considered at rest in their own inertial frame. This actual frame extends to infinity in all directions (in the absence of gravity fields) so we can pick an arbitrary origin for both inertial frames that includes both the observer and the point of interest in the moving frame and still align the preferred frame along the mutual velocity vector. Now we have the two frames with the observer, in general, displaced from this origin of its own frame by this fixed position vector.
Special Relativity (without corrections) describes single sets of coordinate transforms between the two coincident frames (which coincide with the "point of interest" at t=0). The x axis must also coincide since it is a "preferred direction" along the velocity vector.... most important point.
So for an event in the unprimed frame p with coordinates
the coordinates in the primed frame (observer frame)
... where...
This transform will give you "new coordinates" in the other frame for the same event. Just plug in the values of v,x,y,z,t in the moving frame and the equations churn out 0,x',y',z',t' in the observer frame (in this scheme the primed coordinates indicate the observer frame in which the observer is at rest). This is an "event" in the moving frame at t=t. This event is "witnessed" by the observer with coordinates (p',q',r') relative to the observer frame origin. By calculating this t' and adding the time of propagation from the event for light to reach the observer (expanding on the surface of a sphere)... This is...
sqrt[ (x'-p')^2 + (y'-q')^2 + (z'-r')^2]/C = t".
This is simply the time light takes the event at (x,y,z,t) in the "moving" frame and consequentially at (x',y',z'.t') in the observer frame to propagate to (p',q',r') where the observer is physically located. So the new time coordinate as measured by the observer is (t'+t") and thus the event as seen in the observer frame is (x',y',z',(t'+t")) from the observers position and time at (p',q',r',(t'+t")). This could be a single flash of light... an event. In the simple case it would be convenient to locate the observer at the origin but obviously this is not possible in the general case. So this is what is "seen" and the event is "observed" at (x',y',z',t'+t") and the event itself is what "occurs" is located at (x',y',z',t'). To work out all kinds of stuff you need to know what you "see" and what/where the event "is" as being logically separate.
The other point is what is "seen" is what the observer senses as being all at the same instant in time at the observer position. This is a difficult problem in practice so a computer would be needed since it is the inverse of the problem above. To watch a particular set of points (say on the vertices of a moving cube in the observed frame), what you see at a particular instant must be corrected for propagation delay so that the light from events at all 8 vertices arrive at the observer at the same calculated time according to the observer frame clock... I suggest the easiest way would be for you to derive a world line for all 8 vertices for a large number of times as seen from the observer position and then match up the position of the 8 points with the exact same time index. This would indicate what is being "seen" at a particular instant at the observer position... A position for all 8 points for the same sequential instants in time. Do people understand what I am saying here and I hope I am not sounding patronizing?
I would also add that in the real world things are happening far too fast for human eyes to actually notice anything at all.Some simulations on the web slow the speed of light down to a couple of kms per hour... Pretty unrealistic but you need that to 'see" anything at all... After all we are talking about "the speed of light" here.
There is a further complication... "Nailing up your own local set of coordinates". In general the preferred observer frame is not the coordinate frame of choice by people who want to ask "silly questions" of position relative to a "local road map". This coordinate orientation may not be convenient for the observer if the observer has chosen a special local coordinate system (perhaps relative to the surface of the Earth for instance). This set of coordinates we have derived would need to be subject to a translation and a rotation in three space to coincide with the local coordinates which may need to center on the observer. We are now using another point as the origin of the new local coordinate system. We have done all the hard work of converting the original event into "preferred" observer frame coordinates, we now need only "rotate and translate the preferred coordinate system" into coincidence with the new local coordinate frame using the Euler Angles. These are usually quoted using the directional cosines between the the three orthogonal principal basis axes expressed in the anticlockwise direction. Please note that signs for everything such as the positive and negative axes and velocities and in this case how to define the coordinate frames (left hand or right hand) and the Euler Angles between them... Important conventions if you want the right answers.
So this translation is simply the difference in the origin of the "preferred observer coordinate system" and the origin of the "local coordinate system".That is the translation bit. So we subtract that from the present preferred coordinates leaving the position vectors of the "preferred coordinates" relative to the new local origin. Now using this 'vector" operate on it with the rotation matrix to get the final coordinates relative to the local coordinate system.
http://anorganik.uni-tuebingen.de/klaus/nm...er/rotmatto.gif
Where the angular directions are alpha, beta and gamma.
Assuming we have these two coordinate systems in the one inertial frame of reference. The first coordinate system is a "specially selected" orthogonal coordinate system. The next coordinate system is the "local" coordinate system that could have an arbitrary relationship with the first observer frame of reference. Like I say a computer is the way to go.
Generalized coordinates cannot be used as they can in General Relativity. The main "flaw" in General Relativity is to assume that you can use generalized coordinates... you can... only if velocities are small relative to the speed of light. This is OK for calculating geodesics in a very "slow" Universe but Special Relativity is still the method of choice in a "high speed" Universe. I have seen another attempt recently where GR has been used to calculate a high speed Universe and some pretty unconvincing results seems to come out of it... still it may be worth looking at.
Physicist to Present New Exact Solution of Einstein's Gravitational Field Equation
http://www.physorg.com/news10789.html
Interesting reference...
http://anorganik.uni-tuebingen.de/klaus/nm...uler/euler.html
Hope this helps...
Cheers
The motion of the observer should be thought of as being at rest regardless of any "trick" that describes the state of motion. Remember all observers can be considered at rest in their own inertial frame. This actual frame extends to infinity in all directions (in the absence of gravity fields) so we can pick an arbitrary origin for both inertial frames that includes both the observer and the point of interest in the moving frame and still align the preferred frame along the mutual velocity vector. Now we have the two frames with the observer, in general, displaced from this origin of its own frame by this fixed position vector.
Special Relativity (without corrections) describes single sets of coordinate transforms between the two coincident frames (which coincide with the "point of interest" at t=0). The x axis must also coincide since it is a "preferred direction" along the velocity vector.... most important point.
So for an event in the unprimed frame p with coordinates
the coordinates in the primed frame (observer frame)
... where...
This transform will give you "new coordinates" in the other frame for the same event. Just plug in the values of v,x,y,z,t in the moving frame and the equations churn out 0,x',y',z',t' in the observer frame (in this scheme the primed coordinates indicate the observer frame in which the observer is at rest). This is an "event" in the moving frame at t=t. This event is "witnessed" by the observer with coordinates (p',q',r') relative to the observer frame origin. By calculating this t' and adding the time of propagation from the event for light to reach the observer (expanding on the surface of a sphere)... This is...
sqrt[ (x'-p')^2 + (y'-q')^2 + (z'-r')^2]/C = t".
This is simply the time light takes the event at (x,y,z,t) in the "moving" frame and consequentially at (x',y',z'.t') in the observer frame to propagate to (p',q',r') where the observer is physically located. So the new time coordinate as measured by the observer is (t'+t") and thus the event as seen in the observer frame is (x',y',z',(t'+t")) from the observers position and time at (p',q',r',(t'+t")). This could be a single flash of light... an event. In the simple case it would be convenient to locate the observer at the origin but obviously this is not possible in the general case. So this is what is "seen" and the event is "observed" at (x',y',z',t'+t") and the event itself is what "occurs" is located at (x',y',z',t'). To work out all kinds of stuff you need to know what you "see" and what/where the event "is" as being logically separate.
The other point is what is "seen" is what the observer senses as being all at the same instant in time at the observer position. This is a difficult problem in practice so a computer would be needed since it is the inverse of the problem above. To watch a particular set of points (say on the vertices of a moving cube in the observed frame), what you see at a particular instant must be corrected for propagation delay so that the light from events at all 8 vertices arrive at the observer at the same calculated time according to the observer frame clock... I suggest the easiest way would be for you to derive a world line for all 8 vertices for a large number of times as seen from the observer position and then match up the position of the 8 points with the exact same time index. This would indicate what is being "seen" at a particular instant at the observer position... A position for all 8 points for the same sequential instants in time. Do people understand what I am saying here and I hope I am not sounding patronizing?
I would also add that in the real world things are happening far too fast for human eyes to actually notice anything at all.Some simulations on the web slow the speed of light down to a couple of kms per hour... Pretty unrealistic but you need that to 'see" anything at all... After all we are talking about "the speed of light" here.
There is a further complication... "Nailing up your own local set of coordinates". In general the preferred observer frame is not the coordinate frame of choice by people who want to ask "silly questions" of position relative to a "local road map". This coordinate orientation may not be convenient for the observer if the observer has chosen a special local coordinate system (perhaps relative to the surface of the Earth for instance). This set of coordinates we have derived would need to be subject to a translation and a rotation in three space to coincide with the local coordinates which may need to center on the observer. We are now using another point as the origin of the new local coordinate system. We have done all the hard work of converting the original event into "preferred" observer frame coordinates, we now need only "rotate and translate the preferred coordinate system" into coincidence with the new local coordinate frame using the Euler Angles. These are usually quoted using the directional cosines between the the three orthogonal principal basis axes expressed in the anticlockwise direction. Please note that signs for everything such as the positive and negative axes and velocities and in this case how to define the coordinate frames (left hand or right hand) and the Euler Angles between them... Important conventions if you want the right answers.
So this translation is simply the difference in the origin of the "preferred observer coordinate system" and the origin of the "local coordinate system".That is the translation bit. So we subtract that from the present preferred coordinates leaving the position vectors of the "preferred coordinates" relative to the new local origin. Now using this 'vector" operate on it with the rotation matrix to get the final coordinates relative to the local coordinate system.
http://anorganik.uni-tuebingen.de/klaus/nm...er/rotmatto.gif
Where the angular directions are alpha, beta and gamma.
Assuming we have these two coordinate systems in the one inertial frame of reference. The first coordinate system is a "specially selected" orthogonal coordinate system. The next coordinate system is the "local" coordinate system that could have an arbitrary relationship with the first observer frame of reference. Like I say a computer is the way to go.
Generalized coordinates cannot be used as they can in General Relativity. The main "flaw" in General Relativity is to assume that you can use generalized coordinates... you can... only if velocities are small relative to the speed of light. This is OK for calculating geodesics in a very "slow" Universe but Special Relativity is still the method of choice in a "high speed" Universe. I have seen another attempt recently where GR has been used to calculate a high speed Universe and some pretty unconvincing results seems to come out of it... still it may be worth looking at.
Physicist to Present New Exact Solution of Einstein's Gravitational Field Equation
http://www.physorg.com/news10789.html
Interesting reference...
http://anorganik.uni-tuebingen.de/klaus/nm...uler/euler.html
Hope this helps...
Cheers
Hi Good Elf and all,
A while back I thought I had solved the twin paradox .. it is 'obvious' that the twin taking the longest path will end up being the youngest. Pride comes before a fall. .. to save myself embarrassment I won't point out the actual post .. the kind response lead me to see that my 'solution' defies ordinary logic and is in itself paradoxical . The transforms give the 'right answer' but give no insight into HOW/WHY .
I suspect the HOW/WHY of QM and the HOW/WHY of relativity (edit 'spacetime') must be intimately linked ** .. but just HOW and WHY I have no idea.. nor (I suspect) does anyone else.
Best wishes C2.
Wireless is the same, only without the cat. <- !
Edit ** .. after reading my own post I'm not even sure of this QM/SR/GR link .. those remarkably clever people with the Standard Model would probably have done it already if it were possible ..
A while back I thought I had solved the twin paradox .. it is 'obvious' that the twin taking the longest path will end up being the youngest. Pride comes before a fall. .. to save myself embarrassment I won't point out the actual post .. the kind response lead me to see that my 'solution' defies ordinary logic and is in itself paradoxical . The transforms give the 'right answer' but give no insight into HOW/WHY .
I suspect the HOW/WHY of QM and the HOW/WHY of relativity (edit 'spacetime') must be intimately linked ** .. but just HOW and WHY I have no idea.. nor (I suspect) does anyone else.
Best wishes C2.
Wireless is the same, only without the cat. <- !
Edit ** .. after reading my own post I'm not even sure of this QM/SR/GR link .. those remarkably clever people with the Standard Model would probably have done it already if it were possible ..
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
I suspect the HOW/WHY of QM and the HOW/WHY of relativity (edit 'spacetime') must be intimately linked ** .. but just HOW and WHY I have no idea.. nor (I suspect) does anyone else.
They are and you are right... Special Relativity is the high velocity end of de Broglie wavelength. They are reciprocally related and literally "wrap on the speed of light" and "zero velocity" respectively. For particles as V -> C the wavelength λ -> 0 and as V -> 0 the wavelength λ -> ∞
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_wavelength
A careful examination of Special Relativity and de Broglie Theory lead to a reciprocal relationship as I have mentioned a number of times before. These transformations are rotations on the surface of a "sphere".... the angle of rotation is arcsin (V/C), this is Special Relativity.
This is the surface of the light cone and as V -> C it undergoes a rotation on the surface of the lightcone away from the direction of initial propagation to an orthogonal direction as V approaches C. It is like a conker on a string where the force of application is now centripetal (orthogonal) rather than collinear.... Putting it another way "spin" rather than "thrust" in a highly curved space. If flatspace has become curved then there are additional dimensions to flatspace since this is telling us "something lies beneath" the veneer of spacetime..
Cheers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_wavelength
A careful examination of Special Relativity and de Broglie Theory lead to a reciprocal relationship as I have mentioned a number of times before. These transformations are rotations on the surface of a "sphere".... the angle of rotation is arcsin (V/C), this is Special Relativity.
This is the surface of the light cone and as V -> C it undergoes a rotation on the surface of the lightcone away from the direction of initial propagation to an orthogonal direction as V approaches C. It is like a conker on a string where the force of application is now centripetal (orthogonal) rather than collinear.... Putting it another way "spin" rather than "thrust" in a highly curved space. If flatspace has become curved then there are additional dimensions to flatspace since this is telling us "something lies beneath" the veneer of spacetime..
Cheers
Hi all,
Good Elf Posted on Yesterday at 7:36 AM
Those are certainly better off "addressed", than "ignored". Any potential errors should be pointed out, as they are noticed. This helps us all grow.
I don't see any "serious" problem; I think it is the usual semantic nature of definitions, and habits formed by specialization.
Those are certainly better off "addressed", than "ignored". Any potential errors should be pointed out, as they are noticed. This helps us all grow.
I don't see any "serious" problem; I think it is the usual semantic nature of definitions, and habits formed by specialization.
Doppler Shift with respect to light is different to Doppler shift with respect to sound. Unlike sound the frequency is not affected by "relative movement in a medium" that has a fixed propagation velocity.
This is worth "checking out". No disagreement there, GE. The relationship of the "time evolution of phase and field cross sections" is definitely not the same as sound in a medium. The relativistic Doppler shift (RDS) is not the same, and it is what I, and the links are referring to.
What you are concerned with, is that I am "constructing scaffolding", with which to establish a preferred reference system. Don't worry, I'm not that clever. Fortunately for me, the concept of "beat-frequencies" already does this for me.
I am using the term "scaffold" to mean "temporary geometry", aka, "phase geometry", and several other names. Even if this only happens for a few cycles, it is enough to cause self interference, and dictate the shape of the envelope, from the inside, out. This is a true emergent dynamic.
The fact is, that 2 waves that are "moving" at c ("photons"), are moving (of course) at the same, constant velocity. Therefore, any difference in the ratio of that constant, divided by its wavelength (recursive distance) is ABSOLUTE. It is independent of either source, because it starts from a wavefront. (node)
What didn't I say there, that needs "filling in"? The 2 waves are the same frequency, and they are superimposed, so on the same axis as well.
They will not "spread" here, because there is no impulse, no energy, 0 frequency difference to cause this.
However, any difference in frequency (with the other parameters unchanged) will create an absolute self-referential metric, stemming first from the fundamental axis that is inherent to Doppler/Lorentz/Einstein modeling. Secondly, the "world lines" that are used create definite lines connecting the geometry of the shape under question, to the sink, also are establishing reference points, as well as center of symmetries.
In the end, Resonance Theory (RT) asks for such small, and logical changes to the "interpretations" of these existing "giants", that I think people will have no problem in making the small mental trek.
RT is more a set of "software updates", than a true "new Theory". At the heart, yes, there is "new Physics", that must be understood before the "final answer" will really make sense. After a very logical, and "tabula rasa" beginning, the "giants" are seen to be "more realistic", and without conflict.
The Bridge does exist. We must hammer the last nail into the coffin of "Monochromatic Assumption" first.
We also must "pull weeds": "timing" is not subject to "contraction", without a symmetrical accompanying of a "change in rhythm". If you change the denominator in a "rate", then you are only allowed to use integer ratios with the numerator. Time is the common denominator in this relationship (frequency-wavelength). If that parameter changes, the both of the others do. If you find that the "frequency stayed the same" when you measure, then you can either believe that "space-time contracted", without any explanation, and in disregard to conservation of energy (based on the QM zero point "fact").
Or, you can see that it is our "measurement" that changes. That measurement is "frequency", and there are additional "frequencies" that are contributed by the medium (Space), that are the cause for Conservation of Energy that is the final result. "Contracting" Space AND Time is asking Energy to "go away". Contracted into where? Other dimensions? Hmmm, I'm going to hold out for the Logical approach. Answer the more pressing questions/problems first, and see where we get. Conservation of Energy DEMANDS NON-Linear methodology. The linear approach is a disaster, when looked at closely; it CAN NOT support the Laws of Thermodynamics.
There is NO QUESTION as to the FALSENESS of the "vacuum = nothing" premise.
There is NO QUESTION as to the FALSENESS of the "monochromatic nature" of light, except as some form of "mean" frequency.
There is NO QUESTION as to the FALSENESS that "Time" can be stopped, or reversed. Only the "concept" of the abstraction can have imaginary properties.
There is NO QUESTION as to the FALSENESS of the "constancy of the speed of light". See #1 above. THERE IS NO VACUUM for light to travel "c " in. This value is a measurement result, and WILL NOT WORK unless MODIFIED with the Refractive Index of the REAL medium (average position of atoms at equilibrium). What IS constant is the RATIO, with TIME unchanging as the denominator.
If "Space" is treated as a "real vacuum", then "clever methods" of conserving energy must be used. Unfortunately, those methods are not logical, nor self-consistent. "True" velocities MUST be calculated, and this takes the path through "transverse" modes.
When you get to the "Transverse Doppler Shift", the "method" runs out of steam.
That is what you are asking (C2), with the "side view" questioning. It is a "bad question", because we can not "collapse" from that angle. To what are you inferring that needs "contracting"? You can't "contract nothing", unless your math has become Science Fiction.
NOTHING with MASS can travel at the speed of light. This includes (for those Science fiction fans, and I am not one) "observers riding on 'photons'". Non-questions give non-answers.
IF you are "basing everything" on this "gedanken", then you are writing Science Fiction. This is NOT the Holistic picture. "Consciousness" requires mass, reflecting pure thought. Yes, there are certain benefits from "God meditations", but you can not be of service to others in this state.
You must bring back what you "imagine", and then apply reason, and logic to it, to get a "story" in which to share. This is the way to help others realize the "unknown".
Bottom line: you MUST INCLUDE the perspective of ALL of the electrons involved with this transaction (light energy). IF you TRY to accelerate an electron so that it has the same "perspective" as "Albert riding on a photon", then the electron will DUMP Mr Einstein off at the nearest "relaxation station", THROUGH ASYNCHRONOUS (inverse symmetric) MOVEMENT. This is how Energy is conserved. The "photon" continues on the path, WITHOUT any "riders" (mass), AND the electron changes direction, shedding the velocity induced extra mass (rider) too.
Saying that the "photon", from its own perspective, does not experience time, and therefore, can not have time based dynamics, doesn't lead anywhere. The time based dynamic requires electrons to count, and fortunately, they DO experience "time", in the form of "trapped energy". That is why our concepts of "velocity", "frequency", and "wavelength" work together: because there is a FIXED ratio of time between energetic events/exchanges. (those are between electrons, of course)
In fact, the "timeless" imaginings for the "photon" are completely incongruent with the way in which they (waves) are measured. Time is required for the measurement. The only value that this "mental exercise" has, is to give a LIMIT to which the exchange of energy can take place in. Since THIS is what we MEASURE WITH, we LOSE "lines on the metric", from this perspective. Now TRANSLATE and INTERPRET those "lines": time changes, or the frequencies that balance the energy exchange? [if E=hf measures energy without "time", then changes in energy would require only changes in "hf", also without time.]
regards,
T.Roc
Good Elf Posted on Yesterday at 7:36 AM
QUOTE
In general I am very pleased with what TRoc has said but as you see there are some "nit picky" points to clear up.
Those are certainly better off "addressed", than "ignored". Any potential errors should be pointed out, as they are noticed. This helps us all grow.
I don't see any "serious" problem; I think it is the usual semantic nature of definitions, and habits formed by specialization.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In general I am very pleased with what TRoc has said but as you see there are some "nit picky" points to clear up. |
Those are certainly better off "addressed", than "ignored". Any potential errors should be pointed out, as they are noticed. This helps us all grow.
I don't see any "serious" problem; I think it is the usual semantic nature of definitions, and habits formed by specialization.
Doppler Shift with respect to light is different to Doppler shift with respect to sound. Unlike sound the frequency is not affected by "relative movement in a medium" that has a fixed propagation velocity.
This is worth "checking out". No disagreement there, GE. The relationship of the "time evolution of phase and field cross sections" is definitely not the same as sound in a medium. The relativistic Doppler shift (RDS) is not the same, and it is what I, and the links are referring to.
What you are concerned with, is that I am "constructing scaffolding", with which to establish a preferred reference system. Don't worry, I'm not that clever. Fortunately for me, the concept of "beat-frequencies" already does this for me.
I am using the term "scaffold" to mean "temporary geometry", aka, "phase geometry", and several other names. Even if this only happens for a few cycles, it is enough to cause self interference, and dictate the shape of the envelope, from the inside, out. This is a true emergent dynamic.
The fact is, that 2 waves that are "moving" at c ("photons"), are moving (of course) at the same, constant velocity. Therefore, any difference in the ratio of that constant, divided by its wavelength (recursive distance) is ABSOLUTE. It is independent of either source, because it starts from a wavefront. (node)
What didn't I say there, that needs "filling in"? The 2 waves are the same frequency, and they are superimposed, so on the same axis as well.
They will not "spread" here, because there is no impulse, no energy, 0 frequency difference to cause this.
However, any difference in frequency (with the other parameters unchanged) will create an absolute self-referential metric, stemming first from the fundamental axis that is inherent to Doppler/Lorentz/Einstein modeling. Secondly, the "world lines" that are used create definite lines connecting the geometry of the shape under question, to the sink, also are establishing reference points, as well as center of symmetries.
In the end, Resonance Theory (RT) asks for such small, and logical changes to the "interpretations" of these existing "giants", that I think people will have no problem in making the small mental trek.
RT is more a set of "software updates", than a true "new Theory". At the heart, yes, there is "new Physics", that must be understood before the "final answer" will really make sense. After a very logical, and "tabula rasa" beginning, the "giants" are seen to be "more realistic", and without conflict.
The Bridge does exist. We must hammer the last nail into the coffin of "Monochromatic Assumption" first.
We also must "pull weeds": "timing" is not subject to "contraction", without a symmetrical accompanying of a "change in rhythm". If you change the denominator in a "rate", then you are only allowed to use integer ratios with the numerator. Time is the common denominator in this relationship (frequency-wavelength). If that parameter changes, the both of the others do. If you find that the "frequency stayed the same" when you measure, then you can either believe that "space-time contracted", without any explanation, and in disregard to conservation of energy (based on the QM zero point "fact").
Or, you can see that it is our "measurement" that changes. That measurement is "frequency", and there are additional "frequencies" that are contributed by the medium (Space), that are the cause for Conservation of Energy that is the final result. "Contracting" Space AND Time is asking Energy to "go away". Contracted into where? Other dimensions? Hmmm, I'm going to hold out for the Logical approach. Answer the more pressing questions/problems first, and see where we get. Conservation of Energy DEMANDS NON-Linear methodology. The linear approach is a disaster, when looked at closely; it CAN NOT support the Laws of Thermodynamics.
There is NO QUESTION as to the FALSENESS of the "vacuum = nothing" premise.
There is NO QUESTION as to the FALSENESS of the "monochromatic nature" of light, except as some form of "mean" frequency.
There is NO QUESTION as to the FALSENESS that "Time" can be stopped, or reversed. Only the "concept" of the abstraction can have imaginary properties.
There is NO QUESTION as to the FALSENESS of the "constancy of the speed of light". See #1 above. THERE IS NO VACUUM for light to travel "c " in. This value is a measurement result, and WILL NOT WORK unless MODIFIED with the Refractive Index of the REAL medium (average position of atoms at equilibrium). What IS constant is the RATIO, with TIME unchanging as the denominator.
If "Space" is treated as a "real vacuum", then "clever methods" of conserving energy must be used. Unfortunately, those methods are not logical, nor self-consistent. "True" velocities MUST be calculated, and this takes the path through "transverse" modes.
When you get to the "Transverse Doppler Shift", the "method" runs out of steam.
That is what you are asking (C2), with the "side view" questioning. It is a "bad question", because we can not "collapse" from that angle. To what are you inferring that needs "contracting"? You can't "contract nothing", unless your math has become Science Fiction.
NOTHING with MASS can travel at the speed of light. This includes (for those Science fiction fans, and I am not one) "observers riding on 'photons'". Non-questions give non-answers.
IF you are "basing everything" on this "gedanken", then you are writing Science Fiction. This is NOT the Holistic picture. "Consciousness" requires mass, reflecting pure thought. Yes, there are certain benefits from "God meditations", but you can not be of service to others in this state.
You must bring back what you "imagine", and then apply reason, and logic to it, to get a "story" in which to share. This is the way to help others realize the "unknown".
Bottom line: you MUST INCLUDE the perspective of ALL of the electrons involved with this transaction (light energy). IF you TRY to accelerate an electron so that it has the same "perspective" as "Albert riding on a photon", then the electron will DUMP Mr Einstein off at the nearest "relaxation station", THROUGH ASYNCHRONOUS (inverse symmetric) MOVEMENT. This is how Energy is conserved. The "photon" continues on the path, WITHOUT any "riders" (mass), AND the electron changes direction, shedding the velocity induced extra mass (rider) too.
Saying that the "photon", from its own perspective, does not experience time, and therefore, can not have time based dynamics, doesn't lead anywhere. The time based dynamic requires electrons to count, and fortunately, they DO experience "time", in the form of "trapped energy". That is why our concepts of "velocity", "frequency", and "wavelength" work together: because there is a FIXED ratio of time between energetic events/exchanges. (those are between electrons, of course)
In fact, the "timeless" imaginings for the "photon" are completely incongruent with the way in which they (waves) are measured. Time is required for the measurement. The only value that this "mental exercise" has, is to give a LIMIT to which the exchange of energy can take place in. Since THIS is what we MEASURE WITH, we LOSE "lines on the metric", from this perspective. Now TRANSLATE and INTERPRET those "lines": time changes, or the frequencies that balance the energy exchange? [if E=hf measures energy without "time", then changes in energy would require only changes in "hf", also without time.]
regards,
T.Roc
Hi all,
OK, we can "re-group" around the "response of the field".
Just for "argument's sake", we will treat the "input field" (light waves), and the "response field" (matter waves) in an "interference" experiment, as ONE system.
We want an answer that includes the source, the first slit, the slit wall: slit width and slit separation, the medium: state and statistical positions between atoms, and finally, the image on the screen: includes intensity, phase "fringe pattern".
It would seem that, either an "on the way" explanation, using the parameters of "detection", intensity and phase, would be sensible, or, possibly an "at the detector" explanation, that used the parameters of "the field". Some "translating" is in order.
At the start of the thread, I suggested "wave transforms" as a alternative to Fourier. Whatever we do, I agree with the idea, that we need MORE INPUT to truly understand (solve) this problem. More observers, more measurements, more data..
This seems similar enough with the concept of "protective measurements", or even just "extrapolation and inference" by reductionary logic. If the behavior of the interaction of light and matter, in the DSE set up, is VERY PREDICTABLE, and regular, then "inference" is NOT "guessing". If we repeat the experiment 1000 times, each time FROM A DIFFERENT FRAME, and we compile the results, we get a "snapshot" of the true, holistic-non-linear event. I believe this to be EQUIVALENT to the 'inverse' idea, that THROUGH the linear approach, ADDITIONAL dimensions will have to be added to "capture the essence".
We are fortunate to live in the "computer age". Modeling, based on theory, and its equations, is becoming a new "method" for Physics. There are quite a few different areas in which this is happening, which makes it a little harder to pursue. Not only can we learn from their successes, but from each different methods weakness, too. Again, we need to "line up" our parameters, so that our detector is giving the same measurements as we can calculate for the field. We need to be able to "transform" parameters: like frequency/velocity, intensity/cycle count, amplitude/transverse wavelength. We also need to be able to understand "re-radiation", the refractive index, direction change, polarization, apparent velocity change, and resonance of the relative frequencies, in a seamless way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_coherence_tomography
Optical coherence tomography tomogram of a fingertip.
100nm, in the visible light band, is "equivalent" to 1/4 octave. The whole band, is from ~400nm to ~770nm; just less than a full octave, 2f. 1/4 distance in change of wavelength is equivalent to the "peak of the real phase", so they have a good comparison between the "movement~change in position", and the "center of that movement". The energy of that "pixel", or crossing of parameters (node) is easy to "isolate", by change in relative frequency. The frequency comb utilizes this idea, which is no more than an "imaginary" measuring tape, with lines based on "known" frequencies. By reducing the "unknown" to "within an octave" of the known, we are establishing a simple, logarithmic limit, based on 2. Every time we divide this space in half, we increase "resolution", down to the "single parameter". This is why RT can take "phase space", and divide it into 12 equal parts: when any 9 "divisions" are made, we end up with 3 parameters "sharing space" at a common junction. Conversely, if we have any 3 values, within an octave bandwidth (Nyquist), they will have 3 potential "alignments", that will change their "average position". Either we get the "peak" alignment", from the perfect phase match, or we get "walk off" to either direction; higher or lower than our "starting value".
If that starting value is a position, then we have "push and pull" as the force results. This can be followed by charge, magnetism, and gravity, as well as intensity, superposition, and constructive/destructive interference, and into Pauli exclusion principle/spin. The electron (node) will never be "phase aligned" with the "photon" (anti-node). This is a hint at the "pay off" of RT; breadcrumbs for the weary travelers to find their next meal, and sustaining the journey.
100nm, in the visible light band, is "equivalent" to 1/4 octave. The whole band, is from ~400nm to ~770nm; just less than a full octave, 2f. 1/4 distance in change of wavelength is equivalent to the "peak of the real phase", so they have a good comparison between the "movement~change in position", and the "center of that movement". The energy of that "pixel", or crossing of parameters (node) is easy to "isolate", by change in relative frequency. The frequency comb utilizes this idea, which is no more than an "imaginary" measuring tape, with lines based on "known" frequencies. By reducing the "unknown" to "within an octave" of the known, we are establishing a simple, logarithmic limit, based on 2. Every time we divide this space in half, we increase "resolution", down to the "single parameter". This is why RT can take "phase space", and divide it into 12 equal parts: when any 9 "divisions" are made, we end up with 3 parameters "sharing space" at a common junction. Conversely, if we have any 3 values, within an octave bandwidth (Nyquist), they will have 3 potential "alignments", that will change their "average position". Either we get the "peak" alignment", from the perfect phase match, or we get "walk off" to either direction; higher or lower than our "starting value".
If that starting value is a position, then we have "push and pull" as the force results. This can be followed by charge, magnetism, and gravity, as well as intensity, superposition, and constructive/destructive interference, and into Pauli exclusion principle/spin. The electron (node) will never be "phase aligned" with the "photon" (anti-node). This is a hint at the "pay off" of RT; breadcrumbs for the weary travelers to find their next meal, and sustaining the journey.
OCT is based on low-coherence interferometry.[4][5][6] In conventional interferometry with long coherence length (laser interferometry), interference of light occurs over a distance of meters. In OCT, this interference is shortened to a distance of micrometres, thanks to the use of broadband light sources (sources that can emit light over a broad range of frequencies). Light with broad bandwidths can be generated by using superluminescent diodes (superbright LEDs) or lasers with extremely short pulses (femtosecond lasers). White light is also a broadband source with lower powers.
Light in an OCT system is broken into two arms -- a sample arm (containing the item of interest) and a reference arm (usually a mirror). The combination of reflected light from the sample arm and reference light from the reference arm gives rise to an interference pattern, but only if light from both arms have traveled the "same" optical distance ("same" meaning a difference of less than a coherence length). By scanning the mirror in the reference arm, a reflectivity profile of the sample can be obtained (this is time domain OCT). Areas of the sample that reflect back a lot of light will create greater interference than areas that don't. Any light that is outside the short coherence length will not interfere. This reflectivity profile, called an A-scan contains information about the spatial dimensions and location of structures within the item of interest. A cross-sectional tomograph (B-scan) may be achieved by laterally combining a series of these axial depth scans (A-scan). En face imaging (C-scan) at an acquired depth is possible depending on the imaging engine used.
In frequency domain OCT the broadband interference is acquired with spectrally separated detectors (either by encoding the optical frequency in time with a spectrally scanning source or with a dispersive detector, like a grating and a linear detector array).
..
This feature improves imaging speed dramatically, while the reduced losses during a single scan improve the signal to noise proportional to the number of detection elements. The parallel detection at multiple wavelength ranges limits the scanning range, while the full spectral bandwidth sets the axial resolution.
TEFD-OCT tries to combine some of the advantages of standard TD and SEFD-OCT. Here the spectral components are not encoded by spatial separation, but they are encoded in time. The spectrum either filtered or generated in single successive frequency steps and reconstructed before Fourier-transformation. By accommodation of a frequency scanning light source (i.e. frequency scanning laser) the optical setup (see Fig. 5) becomes simpler than SEFD, but the problem of scanning is essentially translated from the TD-OCT reference-arm into the TEFD-OCT light source. Here the advantage lies in the proven high SNR detection technology, while swept laser sources achieve very small instantaneous bandwidths (=linewidth) at very high frequencies (20-200 kHz). Drawbacks are the nonlinearities in the wavelength, especially at high scanning frequencies. The broadening of the linewidth at high frequencies and a high sensitivity to movements of the scanning geometry or the sample (below the range of nanometers within successive frequency steps)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiresolution_analysis
A multiresolution analysis of the space consists of a sequence of nested subspaces
that satisfies certain self-similarity relations in time/space and scale/frequency, as well as completeness and regularity relations.
Self-similarity in time demands that each subspace Vk is invariant under shifts by integer multiples of 2-k. That is, for each _ there is a _with _.
Self-similarity in scale demands that all subspaces _ are time-scaled versions of each other, with scaling respectively dilation factor 2l-k. I.e., for each _ there is a _ with _. If f has limited support, then the support of g gets smaller, the resolution of the l-th subspace is higher than the resolution of the k-th subspace.
Regularity demands that the model subspace V0 be generated as the linear hull (algebraically or even topologically closed) of the integer shifts of one or a finite number of generating functions φ or _. Those integer shifts should at least form a frame for the subspace , which imposes certain conditions on the decay at infinity. The generating functions are also known as scaling functions or father wavelets. In most cases one demands of those functions to be piecewise continuous with compact support.
Completeness demands that those nested subspaces fill the whole space, i.e., their union should be dense in , and that they are not too redundant, i.e., their intersection should only contain the zero element.
(emphasis added; see link for full equations)
RT meets all these requirements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelet_transform
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelet_transform
In mathematics, a wavelet series is a representation of a square-integrable (real- or complex-valued) function by a certain orthonormal series generated by a wavelet. This article provides a formal, mathematical definition of an orthonormal wavelet and of the integral wavelet transform.
Unlike the Fourier transform, which is an integral transform in both directions, the wavelet series is an integral transform in one direction, and a series in the other, much like the Fourier series.
The canonical example of an orthonormal wavelet, that is, a wavelet that provides a complete set of basis elements for L^2® , is the Haar wavelet.
CLICK for larger image
Again, a picture is worth a thousand words. But you have to ask a question to begin the process of "putting it into words", and the chances are, that you'll have to ask many questions to get the whole answer.
Besides what it is intended for, I find that this Haar wavelet TOTALLY visualizes my PRIMARY premise, the fundamental conclusion of RT. We ARE NOT measuring a "fundamental value" of ONE to ONE ratio. If the "real part" of this fundamental wave has an amplitude of +1, and the "imaginary part" has -1, the current system "reduces" this value to ONE, and just counts that.
If the "amplitude", or movement through the curve (angular momentum~frequency in 3D helice) is NOT "primary" or "fundamental", as the "one wavelength" = "the distance from zero to one" model suggests, then what is? One wavelength MUST have several parts, to accurately describe. It is not the fundamental "starting point". If we just go one step further, into the "binary-like" (& bifurcation) model of the "Node and Anti-node" relationship, where any "one" must be surrounded (asynchronously bounded) by two of the other, as a set, or Triad.
RT gives a simple alternative to the "variation in 2 dimensions" of the "zero point" of the current model, as shown in the above diagram. On one axis, we have the fluctuation (curve) between "-1 and +1", and on the other (orthogonal) axis, from "zero to +1". Can you see the QUESTION, begging to be answered, just to the LEFT of this "zero starting point"?
It suggests that we are taking a "linear snip" out of a "non-linear process". The "change in time" can be measured from zero, but we are NOT actually measuring from "Time Zero", which we have defined in the framework of Science, as "the big bang", or the "big bounce". In all experiments, "start time" is a fixed, preferred reference point", to which "end time" is absolutely dependent upon. The "snip" is an image in an interval of time; no matter HOW you magnify this image, its ratio to the "flow of time" will not change.
The holistic view only says, "what is good for the observer (sink) is good for the sender (source)", which means any "Doppler shift" experienced by one, will be inversely experienced by the other. So, if time is "contracted" inversely, then the "rhythm" doesn't change. [ 2:1 = 4:2, etc] The only "meaningful" interpretation, is to take the RATE of the signal (cyclic) difference, which stands "outside of time" while superposed in space. That is, the beat-frequency is locally dependent (interaction zone of integer wavelengths) on the input signals, but independent of their source places OR times. The two signals, within the "time-frame" of the experiment, are ALWAYS coherent, on at least one axis.
Look at the Haar wavelet diagram again, and change the scale. From (x axis) "0 to 1" will get replaced with "from 1 to 2", and the FUNDAMENTAL change of "ONE UNIT" does not change. What does change, is the relationship of the "amplitude" to the "movement in distance": they become "synchronized" into a "discreet value". This is also equivalent to saying "from the center, out", starting from "1/2" and moving asynchronously to zero, in one direction, and to one, in the other. RT would say, "from 1.5 to 1, and from 1.5 to 2", again, those are the same intervals as the current model, but with different (real) values.
One and Two have to be understood in Resonant terms: they are the Fundamental ratio. They are the "book ends" that contain a "hinge point" like "positive and negative", or "yin/yang", "forward/backward", between dualistic terms. There is only ONE other ratio, that supersedes it, and that is of course, 1:1. That ratio is not differentiable, and 1:2 only offers "slightly better" chance of detecting the difference of less than one. You are starting, and ending ALL measurements on these "nodes". What happens "in between" is the "anti-node", or peak change in energy; simply put, a value that is NEITHER of the inputs, but EXACTLY their mean. Note that this is a limit, because, as we go higher than 2, we must use "harmonic mean", instead of arithmetic mean. The relationships between arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic mean were laid out by Pythagoras, over 2000 years ago. When you understand wave resonance, you will find that this is the logical equivalent to the Uncertainty Principle. There will be a "difference in location" of the point determined by geometric mean (spacial coherence), and the point determined by harmonic mean (frequency coherence).
The Wavelet Tutorial
by
ROBI POLIKAR
OVERVIEW: WHY WAVELET TRANSFORM?
FUNDAMENTALS: THE FOURIER TRANSFORM AND THE SHORT TERM FOURIER TRANSFORM
MULTIRESOLUTION ANALYSIS & THE CONTINUOUS WAVELET TRANSFORM
MULTIRESOLUTION ANALYSIS: THE DISCRETE WAVELET TRANSFORM
This is a must read, for those seeking "new Physics".
regards,
T.Roc
OK, we can "re-group" around the "response of the field".
Just for "argument's sake", we will treat the "input field" (light waves), and the "response field" (matter waves) in an "interference" experiment, as ONE system.
We want an answer that includes the source, the first slit, the slit wall: slit width and slit separation, the medium: state and statistical positions between atoms, and finally, the image on the screen: includes intensity, phase "fringe pattern".
It would seem that, either an "on the way" explanation, using the parameters of "detection", intensity and phase, would be sensible, or, possibly an "at the detector" explanation, that used the parameters of "the field". Some "translating" is in order.
At the start of the thread, I suggested "wave transforms" as a alternative to Fourier. Whatever we do, I agree with the idea, that we need MORE INPUT to truly understand (solve) this problem. More observers, more measurements, more data..
This seems similar enough with the concept of "protective measurements", or even just "extrapolation and inference" by reductionary logic. If the behavior of the interaction of light and matter, in the DSE set up, is VERY PREDICTABLE, and regular, then "inference" is NOT "guessing". If we repeat the experiment 1000 times, each time FROM A DIFFERENT FRAME, and we compile the results, we get a "snapshot" of the true, holistic-non-linear event. I believe this to be EQUIVALENT to the 'inverse' idea, that THROUGH the linear approach, ADDITIONAL dimensions will have to be added to "capture the essence".
We are fortunate to live in the "computer age". Modeling, based on theory, and its equations, is becoming a new "method" for Physics. There are quite a few different areas in which this is happening, which makes it a little harder to pursue. Not only can we learn from their successes, but from each different methods weakness, too. Again, we need to "line up" our parameters, so that our detector is giving the same measurements as we can calculate for the field. We need to be able to "transform" parameters: like frequency/velocity, intensity/cycle count, amplitude/transverse wavelength. We also need to be able to understand "re-radiation", the refractive index, direction change, polarization, apparent velocity change, and resonance of the relative frequencies, in a seamless way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_coherence_tomography
Optical coherence tomography tomogram of a fingertip.
QUOTE
Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an interferometric, non-invasive optical tomographic imaging technique offering millimeter penetration (approximately 2-3 mm in tissue) with micrometer-scale axial and lateral resolution. The technique was first demonstrated in 1991 with ~30µm axial resolution. Since then, OCT has achieved sub-micrometre resolution in 2001 due to introduction of wide bandwidth light sources (sources emitting wavelengths over a ~100 nm range). By now OCT has found its place as a widely accepted imaging technique, especially in ophthalmology, other biomedical applications and art conservation.
100nm, in the visible light band, is "equivalent" to 1/4 octave. The whole band, is from ~400nm to ~770nm; just less than a full octave, 2f. 1/4 distance in change of wavelength is equivalent to the "peak of the real phase", so they have a good comparison between the "movement~change in position", and the "center of that movement". The energy of that "pixel", or crossing of parameters (node) is easy to "isolate", by change in relative frequency. The frequency comb utilizes this idea, which is no more than an "imaginary" measuring tape, with lines based on "known" frequencies. By reducing the "unknown" to "within an octave" of the known, we are establishing a simple, logarithmic limit, based on 2. Every time we divide this space in half, we increase "resolution", down to the "single parameter". This is why RT can take "phase space", and divide it into 12 equal parts: when any 9 "divisions" are made, we end up with 3 parameters "sharing space" at a common junction. Conversely, if we have any 3 values, within an octave bandwidth (Nyquist), they will have 3 potential "alignments", that will change their "average position". Either we get the "peak" alignment", from the perfect phase match, or we get "walk off" to either direction; higher or lower than our "starting value".
If that starting value is a position, then we have "push and pull" as the force results. This can be followed by charge, magnetism, and gravity, as well as intensity, superposition, and constructive/destructive interference, and into Pauli exclusion principle/spin. The electron (node) will never be "phase aligned" with the "photon" (anti-node). This is a hint at the "pay off" of RT; breadcrumbs for the weary travelers to find their next meal, and sustaining the journey.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an interferometric, non-invasive optical tomographic imaging technique offering millimeter penetration (approximately 2-3 mm in tissue) with micrometer-scale axial and lateral resolution. The technique was first demonstrated in 1991 with ~30µm axial resolution. Since then, OCT has achieved sub-micrometre resolution in 2001 due to introduction of wide bandwidth light sources (sources emitting wavelengths over a ~100 nm range). By now OCT has found its place as a widely accepted imaging technique, especially in ophthalmology, other biomedical applications and art conservation. |
100nm, in the visible light band, is "equivalent" to 1/4 octave. The whole band, is from ~400nm to ~770nm; just less than a full octave, 2f. 1/4 distance in change of wavelength is equivalent to the "peak of the real phase", so they have a good comparison between the "movement~change in position", and the "center of that movement". The energy of that "pixel", or crossing of parameters (node) is easy to "isolate", by change in relative frequency. The frequency comb utilizes this idea, which is no more than an "imaginary" measuring tape, with lines based on "known" frequencies. By reducing the "unknown" to "within an octave" of the known, we are establishing a simple, logarithmic limit, based on 2. Every time we divide this space in half, we increase "resolution", down to the "single parameter". This is why RT can take "phase space", and divide it into 12 equal parts: when any 9 "divisions" are made, we end up with 3 parameters "sharing space" at a common junction. Conversely, if we have any 3 values, within an octave bandwidth (Nyquist), they will have 3 potential "alignments", that will change their "average position". Either we get the "peak" alignment", from the perfect phase match, or we get "walk off" to either direction; higher or lower than our "starting value".
If that starting value is a position, then we have "push and pull" as the force results. This can be followed by charge, magnetism, and gravity, as well as intensity, superposition, and constructive/destructive interference, and into Pauli exclusion principle/spin. The electron (node) will never be "phase aligned" with the "photon" (anti-node). This is a hint at the "pay off" of RT; breadcrumbs for the weary travelers to find their next meal, and sustaining the journey.
OCT is based on low-coherence interferometry.[4][5][6] In conventional interferometry with long coherence length (laser interferometry), interference of light occurs over a distance of meters. In OCT, this interference is shortened to a distance of micrometres, thanks to the use of broadband light sources (sources that can emit light over a broad range of frequencies). Light with broad bandwidths can be generated by using superluminescent diodes (superbright LEDs) or lasers with extremely short pulses (femtosecond lasers). White light is also a broadband source with lower powers.
Light in an OCT system is broken into two arms -- a sample arm (containing the item of interest) and a reference arm (usually a mirror). The combination of reflected light from the sample arm and reference light from the reference arm gives rise to an interference pattern, but only if light from both arms have traveled the "same" optical distance ("same" meaning a difference of less than a coherence length). By scanning the mirror in the reference arm, a reflectivity profile of the sample can be obtained (this is time domain OCT). Areas of the sample that reflect back a lot of light will create greater interference than areas that don't. Any light that is outside the short coherence length will not interfere. This reflectivity profile, called an A-scan contains information about the spatial dimensions and location of structures within the item of interest. A cross-sectional tomograph (B-scan) may be achieved by laterally combining a series of these axial depth scans (A-scan). En face imaging (C-scan) at an acquired depth is possible depending on the imaging engine used.
QUOTE
In time domain OCT the pathlength of the reference arm is translated longitudinally in time. A property of low coherence interferometry is that interference, i.e. the series of dark and bright fringes, is only achieved when the path difference lies within the coherence length of the light source. This interference is called auto correlation in a symmetric interferometer (both arms have the same reflectivity), or cross-correlation in the common case. The envelope of this modulation changes as pathlength difference is varied, where the peak of the envelope corresponds to pathlength matching.
..
..where Δν represents the spectral width of the source in the optical frequency domain, and ν0 is the centre optical frequency of the source. In equation (2), the Gaussian envelope is amplitude modulated by an optical carrier. The peak of this envelope represents the location of sample under test microstructure, with an amplitude dependent on the reflectivity of the surface. The optical carrier is due to the Doppler effect resulting from scanning one arm of the interferometer, and the frequency of this modulation is controlled by the speed of scanning. Therefore translating one arm of the interferometer has two functions; depth scanning and a Doppler-shifted optical carrier are accomplished by pathlength variation. In OCT, the Doppler-shifted optical carrier has a frequency expressed as
where ν0 is the central optical frequency of the source, vs is the scanning velocity of the pathlength variation, and c is the speed of light.
The axial and lateral resolutions of OCT are decoupled from one another; the former being an equivalent to the coherence length of the light source and the latter being a function of the optics.
..
..where Δν represents the spectral width of the source in the optical frequency domain, and ν0 is the centre optical frequency of the source. In equation (2), the Gaussian envelope is amplitude modulated by an optical carrier. The peak of this envelope represents the location of sample under test microstructure, with an amplitude dependent on the reflectivity of the surface. The optical carrier is due to the Doppler effect resulting from scanning one arm of the interferometer, and the frequency of this modulation is controlled by the speed of scanning. Therefore translating one arm of the interferometer has two functions; depth scanning and a Doppler-shifted optical carrier are accomplished by pathlength variation. In OCT, the Doppler-shifted optical carrier has a frequency expressed as
where ν0 is the central optical frequency of the source, vs is the scanning velocity of the pathlength variation, and c is the speed of light.
The axial and lateral resolutions of OCT are decoupled from one another; the former being an equivalent to the coherence length of the light source and the latter being a function of the optics.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In time domain OCT the pathlength of the reference arm is translated longitudinally in time. A property of low coherence interferometry is that interference, i.e. the series of dark and bright fringes, is only achieved when the path difference lies within the coherence length of the light source. This interference is called auto correlation in a symmetric interferometer (both arms have the same reflectivity), or cross-correlation in the common case. The envelope of this modulation changes as pathlength difference is varied, where the peak of the envelope corresponds to pathlength matching. .. ..where Δν represents the spectral width of the source in the optical frequency domain, and ν0 is the centre optical frequency of the source. In equation (2), the Gaussian envelope is amplitude modulated by an optical carrier. The peak of this envelope represents the location of sample under test microstructure, with an amplitude dependent on the reflectivity of the surface. The optical carrier is due to the Doppler effect resulting from scanning one arm of the interferometer, and the frequency of this modulation is controlled by the speed of scanning. Therefore translating one arm of the interferometer has two functions; depth scanning and a Doppler-shifted optical carrier are accomplished by pathlength variation. In OCT, the Doppler-shifted optical carrier has a frequency expressed as where ν0 is the central optical frequency of the source, vs is the scanning velocity of the pathlength variation, and c is the speed of light. The axial and lateral resolutions of OCT are decoupled from one another; the former being an equivalent to the coherence length of the light source and the latter being a function of the optics. |
In frequency domain OCT the broadband interference is acquired with spectrally separated detectors (either by encoding the optical frequency in time with a spectrally scanning source or with a dispersive detector, like a grating and a linear detector array).
..
This feature improves imaging speed dramatically, while the reduced losses during a single scan improve the signal to noise proportional to the number of detection elements. The parallel detection at multiple wavelength ranges limits the scanning range, while the full spectral bandwidth sets the axial resolution.
QUOTE
SEFD-OCT extracts spectral information by distributing different optical frequencies onto a detector stripe (line-array CCD or CMOS) via a dispersive element (see Fig. 4). Thereby the information of the full depth scan can be acquired within a single exposure. However, the large signal to noise advantage of FD-OCT is reduced due the lower dynamic range of stripe detectors in respect to single photosensitive diodes, resulting in an SNR (signal to noise ratio) advantage of ~10 dB at much higher speeds. The drawbacks of this technology are found in a strong fall-off of the SNR, which is proportional to the distance from the zero delay and a sinc-type reduction of the depth dependent sensitivity because of limited detection linewidth. (One pixel detects a quasi-rectangular portion of an optical frequency range instead of a single frequency, the Fourier-transform leads to the sinc(z) behavior). Additionally the dispersive elements in the spectroscopic detector usually do not distribute the light equally spaced in frequency on the detector, but mostly have an inverse dependence. Therefore the signal has to be resampled before processing, which can not take care of the difference in local (pixelwise) bandwidth, which results in further reduction of the signal quality.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| SEFD-OCT extracts spectral information by distributing different optical frequencies onto a detector stripe (line-array CCD or CMOS) via a dispersive element (see Fig. 4). Thereby the information of the full depth scan can be acquired within a single exposure. However, the large signal to noise advantage of FD-OCT is reduced due the lower dynamic range of stripe detectors in respect to single photosensitive diodes, resulting in an SNR (signal to noise ratio) advantage of ~10 dB at much higher speeds. The drawbacks of this technology are found in a strong fall-off of the SNR, which is proportional to the distance from the zero delay and a sinc-type reduction of the depth dependent sensitivity because of limited detection linewidth. (One pixel detects a quasi-rectangular portion of an optical frequency range instead of a single frequency, the Fourier-transform leads to the sinc(z) behavior). Additionally the dispersive elements in the spectroscopic detector usually do not distribute the light equally spaced in frequency on the detector, but mostly have an inverse dependence. Therefore the signal has to be resampled before processing, which can not take care of the difference in local (pixelwise) bandwidth, which results in further reduction of the signal quality. |
TEFD-OCT tries to combine some of the advantages of standard TD and SEFD-OCT. Here the spectral components are not encoded by spatial separation, but they are encoded in time. The spectrum either filtered or generated in single successive frequency steps and reconstructed before Fourier-transformation. By accommodation of a frequency scanning light source (i.e. frequency scanning laser) the optical setup (see Fig. 5) becomes simpler than SEFD, but the problem of scanning is essentially translated from the TD-OCT reference-arm into the TEFD-OCT light source. Here the advantage lies in the proven high SNR detection technology, while swept laser sources achieve very small instantaneous bandwidths (=linewidth) at very high frequencies (20-200 kHz). Drawbacks are the nonlinearities in the wavelength, especially at high scanning frequencies. The broadening of the linewidth at high frequencies and a high sensitivity to movements of the scanning geometry or the sample (below the range of nanometers within successive frequency steps)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiresolution_analysis
QUOTE
A multiresolution analysis (MRA) or multiscale approximation (MSA) is the design method of most of the practically relevant discrete wavelet transforms (DWT) and the justification for the algorithm of the fast wavelet transform (FWT). It was introduced in this context in 1988/89 by Stephane Mallat and Yves Meyer and has predecessors in the microlocal analysis in the theory of differential equations (the ironing method) and the pyramid methods of image processing as introduced in 1981/83 by Peter J. Burt, Edward H. Adelson and James Crowley.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A multiresolution analysis (MRA) or multiscale approximation (MSA) is the design method of most of the practically relevant discrete wavelet transforms (DWT) and the justification for the algorithm of the fast wavelet transform (FWT). It was introduced in this context in 1988/89 by Stephane Mallat and Yves Meyer and has predecessors in the microlocal analysis in the theory of differential equations (the ironing method) and the pyramid methods of image processing as introduced in 1981/83 by Peter J. Burt, Edward H. Adelson and James Crowley. |
A multiresolution analysis of the space consists of a sequence of nested subspaces
that satisfies certain self-similarity relations in time/space and scale/frequency, as well as completeness and regularity relations.
Self-similarity in time demands that each subspace Vk is invariant under shifts by integer multiples of 2-k. That is, for each _ there is a _with _.
Self-similarity in scale demands that all subspaces _ are time-scaled versions of each other, with scaling respectively dilation factor 2l-k. I.e., for each _ there is a _ with _. If f has limited support, then the support of g gets smaller, the resolution of the l-th subspace is higher than the resolution of the k-th subspace.
Regularity demands that the model subspace V0 be generated as the linear hull (algebraically or even topologically closed) of the integer shifts of one or a finite number of generating functions φ or _. Those integer shifts should at least form a frame for the subspace , which imposes certain conditions on the decay at infinity. The generating functions are also known as scaling functions or father wavelets. In most cases one demands of those functions to be piecewise continuous with compact support.
Completeness demands that those nested subspaces fill the whole space, i.e., their union should be dense in , and that they are not too redundant, i.e., their intersection should only contain the zero element.
(emphasis added; see link for full equations)
RT meets all these requirements.
QUOTE
Important conclusions
In the case of one continuous (or at least with bounded variation) compactly supported scaling function with orthogonal shifts, one may make a number of deductions. The proof of existence of this class of functions is due to Ingrid Daubechies.
..
..one can see that the space
, which is defined as the linear hull of the mother wavelets integer shifts, is the orthogonal complement to V0 inside V1. Or put differently, V1 is the orthogonal sum of W0 and V0. By self-similarity, there are scaled versions Wk of W0 and by completeness one has 
In the case of one continuous (or at least with bounded variation) compactly supported scaling function with orthogonal shifts, one may make a number of deductions. The proof of existence of this class of functions is due to Ingrid Daubechies.
..
..one can see that the space
, which is defined as the linear hull of the mother wavelets integer shifts, is the orthogonal complement to V0 inside V1. Or put differently, V1 is the orthogonal sum of W0 and V0. By self-similarity, there are scaled versions Wk of W0 and by completeness one has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelet_transform
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Important conclusions In the case of one continuous (or at least with bounded variation) compactly supported scaling function with orthogonal shifts, one may make a number of deductions. The proof of existence of this class of functions is due to Ingrid Daubechies. .. ..one can see that the space , which is defined as the linear hull of the mother wavelets integer shifts, is the orthogonal complement to V0 inside V1. Or put differently, V1 is the orthogonal sum of W0 and V0. By self-similarity, there are scaled versions Wk of W0 and by completeness one has |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelet_transform
In mathematics, a wavelet series is a representation of a square-integrable (real- or complex-valued) function by a certain orthonormal series generated by a wavelet. This article provides a formal, mathematical definition of an orthonormal wavelet and of the integral wavelet transform.
QUOTE
..with convergence of the series understood to be convergence in the norm. Such a representation of a function f is known as a wavelet series. This implies that an orthonormal wavelet is self-dual.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ..with convergence of the series understood to be convergence in the norm. Such a representation of a function f is known as a wavelet series. This implies that an orthonormal wavelet is self-dual. |
Unlike the Fourier transform, which is an integral transform in both directions, the wavelet series is an integral transform in one direction, and a series in the other, much like the Fourier series.
The canonical example of an orthonormal wavelet, that is, a wavelet that provides a complete set of basis elements for L^2® , is the Haar wavelet.
CLICK for larger imageAgain, a picture is worth a thousand words. But you have to ask a question to begin the process of "putting it into words", and the chances are, that you'll have to ask many questions to get the whole answer.
Besides what it is intended for, I find that this Haar wavelet TOTALLY visualizes my PRIMARY premise, the fundamental conclusion of RT. We ARE NOT measuring a "fundamental value" of ONE to ONE ratio. If the "real part" of this fundamental wave has an amplitude of +1, and the "imaginary part" has -1, the current system "reduces" this value to ONE, and just counts that.
If the "amplitude", or movement through the curve (angular momentum~frequency in 3D helice) is NOT "primary" or "fundamental", as the "one wavelength" = "the distance from zero to one" model suggests, then what is? One wavelength MUST have several parts, to accurately describe. It is not the fundamental "starting point". If we just go one step further, into the "binary-like" (& bifurcation) model of the "Node and Anti-node" relationship, where any "one" must be surrounded (asynchronously bounded) by two of the other, as a set, or Triad.
RT gives a simple alternative to the "variation in 2 dimensions" of the "zero point" of the current model, as shown in the above diagram. On one axis, we have the fluctuation (curve) between "-1 and +1", and on the other (orthogonal) axis, from "zero to +1". Can you see the QUESTION, begging to be answered, just to the LEFT of this "zero starting point"?
It suggests that we are taking a "linear snip" out of a "non-linear process". The "change in time" can be measured from zero, but we are NOT actually measuring from "Time Zero", which we have defined in the framework of Science, as "the big bang", or the "big bounce". In all experiments, "start time" is a fixed, preferred reference point", to which "end time" is absolutely dependent upon. The "snip" is an image in an interval of time; no matter HOW you magnify this image, its ratio to the "flow of time" will not change.
The holistic view only says, "what is good for the observer (sink) is good for the sender (source)", which means any "Doppler shift" experienced by one, will be inversely experienced by the other. So, if time is "contracted" inversely, then the "rhythm" doesn't change. [ 2:1 = 4:2, etc] The only "meaningful" interpretation, is to take the RATE of the signal (cyclic) difference, which stands "outside of time" while superposed in space. That is, the beat-frequency is locally dependent (interaction zone of integer wavelengths) on the input signals, but independent of their source places OR times. The two signals, within the "time-frame" of the experiment, are ALWAYS coherent, on at least one axis.
Look at the Haar wavelet diagram again, and change the scale. From (x axis) "0 to 1" will get replaced with "from 1 to 2", and the FUNDAMENTAL change of "ONE UNIT" does not change. What does change, is the relationship of the "amplitude" to the "movement in distance": they become "synchronized" into a "discreet value". This is also equivalent to saying "from the center, out", starting from "1/2" and moving asynchronously to zero, in one direction, and to one, in the other. RT would say, "from 1.5 to 1, and from 1.5 to 2", again, those are the same intervals as the current model, but with different (real) values.
One and Two have to be understood in Resonant terms: they are the Fundamental ratio. They are the "book ends" that contain a "hinge point" like "positive and negative", or "yin/yang", "forward/backward", between dualistic terms. There is only ONE other ratio, that supersedes it, and that is of course, 1:1. That ratio is not differentiable, and 1:2 only offers "slightly better" chance of detecting the difference of less than one. You are starting, and ending ALL measurements on these "nodes". What happens "in between" is the "anti-node", or peak change in energy; simply put, a value that is NEITHER of the inputs, but EXACTLY their mean. Note that this is a limit, because, as we go higher than 2, we must use "harmonic mean", instead of arithmetic mean. The relationships between arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic mean were laid out by Pythagoras, over 2000 years ago. When you understand wave resonance, you will find that this is the logical equivalent to the Uncertainty Principle. There will be a "difference in location" of the point determined by geometric mean (spacial coherence), and the point determined by harmonic mean (frequency coherence).
The Wavelet Tutorial
by
ROBI POLIKAR
OVERVIEW: WHY WAVELET TRANSFORM?
FUNDAMENTALS: THE FOURIER TRANSFORM AND THE SHORT TERM FOURIER TRANSFORM
MULTIRESOLUTION ANALYSIS & THE CONTINUOUS WAVELET TRANSFORM
MULTIRESOLUTION ANALYSIS: THE DISCRETE WAVELET TRANSFORM
This is a must read, for those seeking "new Physics".
regards,
T.Roc
I've been working on the interactions of laser light with molecular dipole antennas.
This might lead to some real breakthroughs. Visa Vis the frequency combs; they are very real devices that synthesize waveforms from much shorter discrete wave pulses on the femtosecond time scale.
This might lead to some real breakthroughs. Visa Vis the frequency combs; they are very real devices that synthesize waveforms from much shorter discrete wave pulses on the femtosecond time scale.
Neil,
Are there any giblets you can share? Or is it still in the "but then I'd have to kill you" phase????
Are there any giblets you can share? Or is it still in the "but then I'd have to kill you" phase????
NF, et al,
In the early 1990s, a big step in terahertz technology was made by the advent of reliable femtosecond lasers for the generation and detection of terahertz pulses.
The oldest and probably most popular scheme involves photoconductive dipole antennas that are gated by the femtosecond pulses. These antennas consist of a semiconducting substrate onto which a metallic antenna structure is deposited by photolithography techniques.
An external bias is applied to the antenna structure, which comprises a small gap to prevent a short. Current can only flow under the action of a laser pulse that optically excites the semiconducting antenna substrate in the gap.
The generated electron-hole pairs are accelerated in the bias field and cause a short current pulse with a subpicosecond rise time. According to Maxwell’s law, this is the source for a short, and hence, broadband terahertz pulse.
If an unamplified Ti:sapphire laser is used for excitation, the continuous-wave (CW) power level is in the microwatt range.
This is not what your working on by chance, NF?
caio_
yquantum
In the early 1990s, a big step in terahertz technology was made by the advent of reliable femtosecond lasers for the generation and detection of terahertz pulses.
The oldest and probably most popular scheme involves photoconductive dipole antennas that are gated by the femtosecond pulses. These antennas consist of a semiconducting substrate onto which a metallic antenna structure is deposited by photolithography techniques.
An external bias is applied to the antenna structure, which comprises a small gap to prevent a short. Current can only flow under the action of a laser pulse that optically excites the semiconducting antenna substrate in the gap.
The generated electron-hole pairs are accelerated in the bias field and cause a short current pulse with a subpicosecond rise time. According to Maxwell’s law, this is the source for a short, and hence, broadband terahertz pulse.
If an unamplified Ti:sapphire laser is used for excitation, the continuous-wave (CW) power level is in the microwatt range.
This is not what your working on by chance, NF?
caio_
yquantum
You mean minds are actually catching up to themselves....
[removed]
Obviously that last post was by someone whose mind is unable of reaching these speeds like the rest of the world....Only because he is too lazy to put forth the effort.
Hi Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "THEY", "THEY2" janrinze, Jal, Montec, yquantum, StevenA, "Why Not?", Siau, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, et al,
QUOTE (TRoc commenting on the Wavelet Transform and Robi Polikar+)
IMPORTANT(!) The information provided by the integral, corresponds to all time instances, since the integration is from minus infinity to plus infinity over time. It follows that no matter where in time the component with frequency "f" appears, it will affect the result of the integration equally as well. In other words, whether the frequency component "f" appears at time t1 or t2 , it will have the same effect on the integration. This is why Fourier transform is not suitable if the signal has time varying frequency, i.e., the signal is non-stationary. If only the signal has the frequency component "f" at all times (for all "t" values), then the result obtained by the Fourier transform makes sense.
Note that the Fourier transform tells whether a certain frequency component exists or not. This information is independent of where in time this component appears. It is therefore very important to know whether a signal is stationary or not, prior to processing it with the FT.
Note that the Fourier transform tells whether a certain frequency component exists or not. This information is independent of where in time this component appears. It is therefore very important to know whether a signal is stationary or not, prior to processing it with the FT.
I disagree entirely. It is a useful transform but unlike the Fourier Transform (FT) it does not have an inverse. In fact the FT is not only time symmetric and conservative in that it can be performed any number of times without losses. This can't be done with the Wavelet Transform (WT). The FT has been used in physics simply because it is so useful. Because it is "harmonic" it is essential to Quantum Theory. It treats time and other dimensions with an even hand and converts from the time domain to the frequency domain as well as from space to reciprocal space. Being causal beings we have a natural affinity for the time domain but the other complementary description is equally valid. Because these descriptions are "Complex" each description contains all the information from either domain so the statement above is very wrong and at the same time this argument is critical to Robi's point of view. You can indeed swap domains and recover the spatial and temporal information as needed performing the Inverse FT on the data.
This all works provided that we retain the Complex Plane Information intact. Projecting the data into a plane of Reals reduces the information content "significantly". This is precisely why particle theory is missing essential complex data and why it sometimes appears "meaningless" or even "magical". The FT is the transform of choice in physics and is useful in any number of dimensions. IMHO it overcomes certain problems related to tensor treatment of curved manifolds and curved manifolds is what electromagnetism is all about... the only problem has been the use of tensors fails once you reach a certain level of deformation where the linear approximation no longer holds while the FT works all the way to a reciprocal description and back again. Being harmonic it is also a "natural description" of waves. The integration limits for the FT usually range over the surface of a "sphere" as in the case of solutions in Quantum Theory of atoms.
Theory of relations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This all works provided that we retain the Complex Plane Information intact. Projecting the data into a plane of Reals reduces the information content "significantly". This is precisely why particle theory is missing essential complex data and why it sometimes appears "meaningless" or even "magical". The FT is the transform of choice in physics and is useful in any number of dimensions. IMHO it overcomes certain problems related to tensor treatment of curved manifolds and curved manifolds is what electromagnetism is all about... the only problem has been the use of tensors fails once you reach a certain level of deformation where the linear approximation no longer holds while the FT works all the way to a reciprocal description and back again. Being harmonic it is also a "natural description" of waves. The integration limits for the FT usually range over the surface of a "sphere" as in the case of solutions in Quantum Theory of atoms.
QUOTE (Robi Polikar above+)
Note that the Fourier transform tells whether a certain frequency component exists or not.
It is a full and complete description of the components (any components) and it indicates the context in full unlike the Wavelet Transform.
For the time being I prefer to stay with the FT for very good sound reasons.
Cheers
For the time being I prefer to stay with the FT for very good sound reasons.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
I can't find a good reference to explain spatial fourier transforms. Since I am short of time I fall for the temptation to thrust the burden onto you.
Starting with a single slit opening .. what is contributing to the spatial fourier transform. What exactly are we integrating?
Best wishes - C2.
( Excuse for absence .. I've bought a new business
)
I can't find a good reference to explain spatial fourier transforms. Since I am short of time I fall for the temptation to thrust the burden onto you.
Starting with a single slit opening .. what is contributing to the spatial fourier transform. What exactly are we integrating?
Best wishes - C2.
( Excuse for absence .. I've bought a new business
)
QUOTE
The theory of relations treats the subject matter of relations in its combinatorial aspect, as distinguished from, though related to, its more properly logical study on one side and its more generally mathematical study on another.
A relation, as conceived in the combinatorial theory of relations, is a mathematical object that in general can have a very complex type, the complexity of which is best approached in several stages, as indicated next.
In order to approach the combinatorial definition of a relation, it helps to introduce a few preliminary notions that can serve as stepping stones to the general idea.
A relation in mathematics is defined as an object that has its existence as such within a definite context or setting. It is literally the case that to change this setting is to change the relation that is being defined.
A relation, as conceived in the combinatorial theory of relations, is a mathematical object that in general can have a very complex type, the complexity of which is best approached in several stages, as indicated next.
In order to approach the combinatorial definition of a relation, it helps to introduce a few preliminary notions that can serve as stepping stones to the general idea.
A relation in mathematics is defined as an object that has its existence as such within a definite context or setting. It is literally the case that to change this setting is to change the relation that is being defined.
Theory of relations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi GE,
Fourier transform is a transformation into a reciprocal space.
This does not mean that wavelet transforms are useless or even non-invertible.
actually the wavelets are just a specific form of Fourier..
They are much more suitable for wave packets.
there is a big misunderstanding about frequency and time.. apparently people tend to believe that one frequency means implicitly that it extends into infinity. (inverse FT will imply such a thing..)
But if a frequency changes over time starts/stops or is only briefly there then the Fourier transform of the signal over infinite space will yield an almost 0 value for that frequency.. (which is correct from the point of view in average energy..)
So, while in mathematics FT is a very useful tool the use of FT in physics largely stretches up until the sample window has been filled by measurement apparatus. The measurement window is then being used as a repeated frame in the discrete Fourier transforms.
So in a way in Physics we 'bend' rules in respect to real infinities. this seems correct if we look at the results..
Jan Rinze.
Fourier transform is a transformation into a reciprocal space.
This does not mean that wavelet transforms are useless or even non-invertible.
actually the wavelets are just a specific form of Fourier..
They are much more suitable for wave packets.
there is a big misunderstanding about frequency and time.. apparently people tend to believe that one frequency means implicitly that it extends into infinity. (inverse FT will imply such a thing..)
But if a frequency changes over time starts/stops or is only briefly there then the Fourier transform of the signal over infinite space will yield an almost 0 value for that frequency.. (which is correct from the point of view in average energy..)
So, while in mathematics FT is a very useful tool the use of FT in physics largely stretches up until the sample window has been filled by measurement apparatus. The measurement window is then being used as a repeated frame in the discrete Fourier transforms.
So in a way in Physics we 'bend' rules in respect to real infinities. this seems correct if we look at the results..
Jan Rinze.
Hi Janrinze,Good Elf and all,
QUOTE (Janrinze+)
there is a big misunderstanding about frequency and time.. apparently people tend to believe that one frequency means implicitly that it extends into infinity. (inverse FT will imply such a thing..)
My motive for going into detail about the FT is that the results of the single photon DSE suggest (to me) that the single photon really does 'extend into infinity' .. I (alone?) see the correspondence between the FT predicted result and the experimental result as a sort of 'proof' of this extension into infinity. It remains to be shown whether the e^(ikx) is bent to give the right answer or whether e^(ikx) is actually the right answer.
Best wishes - C2.
The ? after 'alone' was edited in .. maybe I am not alone..
My motive for going into detail about the FT is that the results of the single photon DSE suggest (to me) that the single photon really does 'extend into infinity' .. I (alone?) see the correspondence between the FT predicted result and the experimental result as a sort of 'proof' of this extension into infinity. It remains to be shown whether the e^(ikx) is bent to give the right answer or whether e^(ikx) is actually the right answer.
Best wishes - C2.
The ? after 'alone' was edited in .. maybe I am not alone..
Hi all,
I agree with JR. I am not asking for a "vote" against Fourier; just that we "update" the historic method, with new computing techniques. If for no other reason, just so that the measurement is "not on a single frame", axis of reference. Not to mention the thought of breaking the Uncertainty Principle, in measuring from a "fixed" angular momentum perspective. If we do that, the result is is "smearing" of accuracy in the other axis, or conjugate variable.
http://users.rowan.edu/~polikar/WAVELETS/WTpart1.html
Although FT is probably the most popular transform being used (especially in electrical engineering), it is not the only one. There are many other transforms that are used quite often by engineers and mathematicians. Hilbert transform, short-time Fourier transform (more about this later), Wigner distributions, the Radon Transform, and of course our featured transformation , the wavelet transform, constitute only a small portion of a huge list of transforms that are available at engineer's and mathematician's disposal. Every transformation technique has its own area of application, with advantages and disadvantages, and the wavelet transform (WT) is no exception.
For a better understanding of the need for the WT let's look at the FT more closely. FT (as well as WT) is a reversible transform, that is, it allows to go back and forward between the raw and processed (transformed) signals. However, only either of them is available at any given time. That is, no frequency information is available in the time-domain signal, and no time information is available in the Fourier transformed signal. The natural question that comes to mind is that is it necessary to have both the time and the frequency information at the same time?
As we will see soon, the answer depends on the particular application, and the nature of the signal in hand. Recall that the FT gives the frequency information of the signal, which means that it tells us how much of each frequency exists in the signal, but it does not tell us when in time these frequency components exist. This information is not required when the signal is so-called stationary .
Let's take a closer look at this stationarity concept more closely, since it is of paramount importance in signal analysis. Signals whose frequency content do not change in time are called stationary signals . In other words, the frequency content of stationary signals do not change in time. In this case, one does not need to know at what times frequency components exist , since all frequency components exist at all times !!! .
http://users.rowan.edu/~polikar/WAVELETS/WTpart2.html
http://users.rowan.edu/~polikar/WAVELETS/WTpart2.html
Let's have a short review of the first part.
We basically need Wavelet Transform (WT) to analyze non-stationary signals, i.e., whose frequency response varies in time. I have written that Fourier Transform (FT) is not suitable for non-stationary signals, and I have shown examples of it to make it more clear. For a quick recall, let me give the following example.
Suppose we have two different signals. Also suppose that they both have the same spectral components, with one major difference. Say one of the signals have four frequency components at all times, and the other have the same four frequency components at different times. The FT of both of the signals would be the same, as shown in the example in part 1 of this tutorial. Although the two signals are completely different, their (magnitude of) FT are the SAME !. This, obviously tells us that we can not use the FT for non-stationary signals.
In the above equation, t stands for time, f stands for frequency, and x denotes the signal at hand. Note that x denotes the signal in time domain and the X denotes the signal in frequency domain. This convention is used to distinguish the two representations of the signal. Equation (1) is called the Fourier transform of x(t), and equation (2) is called the inverse Fourier transform of X(f), which is x(t).
..
The signal x(t), is multiplied with an exponential term, at some certain frequency "f" , and then integrated over ALL TIMES !!! (The key words here are "all times" , as will explained below).
Note that the exponential term in Eqn. (1) can also be written as:
Cos(2.pi.f.t)+j.Sin(2.pi.f.t).......(3)
The above expression has a real part of cosine of frequency f, and an imaginary part of sine of frequency f. So what we are actually doing is, multiplying the original signal with a complex expression which has sines and cosines of frequency f. Then we integrate this product. In other words, we add all the points in this product. If the result of this integration (which is nothing but some sort of infinite summation) is a large value, then we say that : the signal x(t), has a dominant spectral component at frequency "f". This means that, a major portion of this signal is composed of frequency f. If the integration result is a small value, than this means that the signal does not have a major frequency component of f in it. If this integration result is zero, then the signal does not contain the frequency "f" at all.
It is of particular interest here to see how this integration works: The signal is multiplied with the sinusoidal term of frequency "f". If the signal has a high amplitude component of frequency "f", then that component and the sinusoidal term will coincide, and the product of them will give a (relatively) large value. This shows that, the signal "x", has a major frequency component of "f".
However, if the signal does not have a frequency component of "f", the product will yield zero, which shows that, the signal does not have a frequency component of "f". If the frequency "f", is not a major component of the signal "x(t)", then the product will give a (relatively) small value. This shows that, the frequency component "f" in the signal "x", has a small amplitude, in other words, it is not a major component of "x".
Now, note that the integration in the transformation equation (Eqn. 1) is over time. The left hand side of (1), however, is a function of frequency. Therefore, the integral in (1), is calculated for every value of f.
IMPORTANT(!) The information provided by the integral, corresponds to all time instances, since the integration is from minus infinity to plus infinity over time. It follows that no matter where in time the component with frequency "f" appears, it will affect the result of the integration equally as well. In other words, whether the frequency component "f" appears at time t1 or t2 , it will have the same effect on the integration. This is why Fourier transform is not suitable if the signal has time varying frequency, i.e., the signal is non-stationary. If only the signal has the frequency component "f" at all times (for all "t" values), then the result obtained by the Fourier transform makes sense.
Note that the Fourier transform tells whether a certain frequency component exists or not. This information is independent of where in time this component appears. It is therefore very important to know whether a signal is stationary or not, prior to processing it with the FT.
It would seem appropriate, to designate both "Wheeler-Feynman" & Cramer Transactional" and any symmetrical separation in Huygens~Doppler sources (2 slit , or multiple grating) wave modeling, as "Non Stationary".
To only look at it from the perspective of the "infinite time line", where "no time" is experienced by the exchange, misses out of the real time that is measured in the experiment, and the constant velocity that the "free space dynamics" produce.
C2 didn't want to get into answering "how much energy is in the curve", perhaps because he knew that the better his answer was, the more uncertain we would be as to "angular frequency" (momentum), thus proving my point of this having a frequency shift.
The window function can NOT be "certain", without a loss of resolution elsewhere. In this case, a dynamical change in frequency, happening " in between" the lines of the "integer harmonics".
The wavelet transform uses a changing window, so that it measures "intervals". These are scalable. The "infinite curve" of the log spiral provides the changing scale, that never converges.
RT gives a similar method; 12 equidistant intervals that nest perfectly in the "near field" (from 1 unit distance, to 2). After this first order, this symmetry is broken, due to the "third harmonic". This is concealed by the standard Fourier transform; it treats it as "equal" to the integer series of mathematical "harmonics", rather than by the principle of the octave, which gives more of a Power relationship, 2_. The "3rd harmonic" should be seen as equvalent to the creation of a new "node" (phase singularity), caused by the "first order, 2:1" resonance, a symmetrical angular momentum exchange that creates the spin induced vortex at this "center" (equidistant) space.
regards,
T.Roc
I agree with JR. I am not asking for a "vote" against Fourier; just that we "update" the historic method, with new computing techniques. If for no other reason, just so that the measurement is "not on a single frame", axis of reference. Not to mention the thought of breaking the Uncertainty Principle, in measuring from a "fixed" angular momentum perspective. If we do that, the result is is "smearing" of accuracy in the other axis, or conjugate variable.
http://users.rowan.edu/~polikar/WAVELETS/WTpart1.html
QUOTE
Most of the signals in practice, are TIME-DOMAIN signals in their raw format. That is, whatever that signal is measuring, is a function of time. In other words, when we plot the signal one of the axes is time (independent variable), and the other (dependent variable) is usually the amplitude. When we plot time-domain signals, we obtain a time-amplitude representation of the signal. This representation is not always the best representation of the signal for most signal processing related applications. In many cases, the most distinguished information is hidden in the frequency content of the signal. The frequency SPECTRUM of a signal is basically the frequency components (spectral components) of that signal. The frequency spectrum of a signal shows what frequencies exist in the signal.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Most of the signals in practice, are TIME-DOMAIN signals in their raw format. That is, whatever that signal is measuring, is a function of time. In other words, when we plot the signal one of the axes is time (independent variable), and the other (dependent variable) is usually the amplitude. When we plot time-domain signals, we obtain a time-amplitude representation of the signal. This representation is not always the best representation of the signal for most signal processing related applications. In many cases, the most distinguished information is hidden in the frequency content of the signal. The frequency SPECTRUM of a signal is basically the frequency components (spectral components) of that signal. The frequency spectrum of a signal shows what frequencies exist in the signal. |
Although FT is probably the most popular transform being used (especially in electrical engineering), it is not the only one. There are many other transforms that are used quite often by engineers and mathematicians. Hilbert transform, short-time Fourier transform (more about this later), Wigner distributions, the Radon Transform, and of course our featured transformation , the wavelet transform, constitute only a small portion of a huge list of transforms that are available at engineer's and mathematician's disposal. Every transformation technique has its own area of application, with advantages and disadvantages, and the wavelet transform (WT) is no exception.
For a better understanding of the need for the WT let's look at the FT more closely. FT (as well as WT) is a reversible transform, that is, it allows to go back and forward between the raw and processed (transformed) signals. However, only either of them is available at any given time. That is, no frequency information is available in the time-domain signal, and no time information is available in the Fourier transformed signal. The natural question that comes to mind is that is it necessary to have both the time and the frequency information at the same time?
As we will see soon, the answer depends on the particular application, and the nature of the signal in hand. Recall that the FT gives the frequency information of the signal, which means that it tells us how much of each frequency exists in the signal, but it does not tell us when in time these frequency components exist. This information is not required when the signal is so-called stationary .
Let's take a closer look at this stationarity concept more closely, since it is of paramount importance in signal analysis. Signals whose frequency content do not change in time are called stationary signals . In other words, the frequency content of stationary signals do not change in time. In this case, one does not need to know at what times frequency components exist , since all frequency components exist at all times !!! .
QUOTE
Once again please note that, the FT gives what frequency components (spectral components) exist in the signal. Nothing more, nothing less.
When the time localization of the spectral components are needed, a transform giving the TIME-FREQUENCY REPRESENTATION of the signal is needed.
..
The uncertainty principle, originally found and formulated by Heisenberg, states that, the momentum and the position of a moving particle cannot be known simultaneously. This applies to our subject as follows:
The frequency and time information of a signal at some certain point in the time-frequency plane cannot be known. In other words: We cannot know what spectral component exists at any given time instant. The best we can do is to investigate what spectral components exist at any given interval of time. This is a problem of resolution, and it is the main reason why researchers have switched to WT from STFT. STFT gives a fixed resolution at all times, whereas WT gives a variable resolution as follows:
Higher frequencies are better resolved in time, and lower frequencies are better resolved in frequency. This means that, a certain high frequency component can be located better in time (with less relative error) than a low frequency component. On the contrary, a low frequency component can be located better in frequency compared to high frequency component.
When the time localization of the spectral components are needed, a transform giving the TIME-FREQUENCY REPRESENTATION of the signal is needed.
..
The uncertainty principle, originally found and formulated by Heisenberg, states that, the momentum and the position of a moving particle cannot be known simultaneously. This applies to our subject as follows:
The frequency and time information of a signal at some certain point in the time-frequency plane cannot be known. In other words: We cannot know what spectral component exists at any given time instant. The best we can do is to investigate what spectral components exist at any given interval of time. This is a problem of resolution, and it is the main reason why researchers have switched to WT from STFT. STFT gives a fixed resolution at all times, whereas WT gives a variable resolution as follows:
Higher frequencies are better resolved in time, and lower frequencies are better resolved in frequency. This means that, a certain high frequency component can be located better in time (with less relative error) than a low frequency component. On the contrary, a low frequency component can be located better in frequency compared to high frequency component.
http://users.rowan.edu/~polikar/WAVELETS/WTpart2.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Once again please note that, the FT gives what frequency components (spectral components) exist in the signal. Nothing more, nothing less. When the time localization of the spectral components are needed, a transform giving the TIME-FREQUENCY REPRESENTATION of the signal is needed. .. The uncertainty principle, originally found and formulated by Heisenberg, states that, the momentum and the position of a moving particle cannot be known simultaneously. This applies to our subject as follows: The frequency and time information of a signal at some certain point in the time-frequency plane cannot be known. In other words: We cannot know what spectral component exists at any given time instant. The best we can do is to investigate what spectral components exist at any given interval of time. This is a problem of resolution, and it is the main reason why researchers have switched to WT from STFT. STFT gives a fixed resolution at all times, whereas WT gives a variable resolution as follows: Higher frequencies are better resolved in time, and lower frequencies are better resolved in frequency. This means that, a certain high frequency component can be located better in time (with less relative error) than a low frequency component. On the contrary, a low frequency component can be located better in frequency compared to high frequency component. |
http://users.rowan.edu/~polikar/WAVELETS/WTpart2.html
Let's have a short review of the first part.
We basically need Wavelet Transform (WT) to analyze non-stationary signals, i.e., whose frequency response varies in time. I have written that Fourier Transform (FT) is not suitable for non-stationary signals, and I have shown examples of it to make it more clear. For a quick recall, let me give the following example.
Suppose we have two different signals. Also suppose that they both have the same spectral components, with one major difference. Say one of the signals have four frequency components at all times, and the other have the same four frequency components at different times. The FT of both of the signals would be the same, as shown in the example in part 1 of this tutorial. Although the two signals are completely different, their (magnitude of) FT are the SAME !. This, obviously tells us that we can not use the FT for non-stationary signals.
QUOTE
In the above equation, t stands for time, f stands for frequency, and x denotes the signal at hand. Note that x denotes the signal in time domain and the X denotes the signal in frequency domain. This convention is used to distinguish the two representations of the signal. Equation (1) is called the Fourier transform of x(t), and equation (2) is called the inverse Fourier transform of X(f), which is x(t).
..
The signal x(t), is multiplied with an exponential term, at some certain frequency "f" , and then integrated over ALL TIMES !!! (The key words here are "all times" , as will explained below).
Note that the exponential term in Eqn. (1) can also be written as:
Cos(2.pi.f.t)+j.Sin(2.pi.f.t).......(3)
The above expression has a real part of cosine of frequency f, and an imaginary part of sine of frequency f. So what we are actually doing is, multiplying the original signal with a complex expression which has sines and cosines of frequency f. Then we integrate this product. In other words, we add all the points in this product. If the result of this integration (which is nothing but some sort of infinite summation) is a large value, then we say that : the signal x(t), has a dominant spectral component at frequency "f". This means that, a major portion of this signal is composed of frequency f. If the integration result is a small value, than this means that the signal does not have a major frequency component of f in it. If this integration result is zero, then the signal does not contain the frequency "f" at all.
It is of particular interest here to see how this integration works: The signal is multiplied with the sinusoidal term of frequency "f". If the signal has a high amplitude component of frequency "f", then that component and the sinusoidal term will coincide, and the product of them will give a (relatively) large value. This shows that, the signal "x", has a major frequency component of "f".
However, if the signal does not have a frequency component of "f", the product will yield zero, which shows that, the signal does not have a frequency component of "f". If the frequency "f", is not a major component of the signal "x(t)", then the product will give a (relatively) small value. This shows that, the frequency component "f" in the signal "x", has a small amplitude, in other words, it is not a major component of "x".
Now, note that the integration in the transformation equation (Eqn. 1) is over time. The left hand side of (1), however, is a function of frequency. Therefore, the integral in (1), is calculated for every value of f.
IMPORTANT(!) The information provided by the integral, corresponds to all time instances, since the integration is from minus infinity to plus infinity over time. It follows that no matter where in time the component with frequency "f" appears, it will affect the result of the integration equally as well. In other words, whether the frequency component "f" appears at time t1 or t2 , it will have the same effect on the integration. This is why Fourier transform is not suitable if the signal has time varying frequency, i.e., the signal is non-stationary. If only the signal has the frequency component "f" at all times (for all "t" values), then the result obtained by the Fourier transform makes sense.
Note that the Fourier transform tells whether a certain frequency component exists or not. This information is independent of where in time this component appears. It is therefore very important to know whether a signal is stationary or not, prior to processing it with the FT.
It would seem appropriate, to designate both "Wheeler-Feynman" & Cramer Transactional" and any symmetrical separation in Huygens~Doppler sources (2 slit , or multiple grating) wave modeling, as "Non Stationary".
To only look at it from the perspective of the "infinite time line", where "no time" is experienced by the exchange, misses out of the real time that is measured in the experiment, and the constant velocity that the "free space dynamics" produce.
C2 didn't want to get into answering "how much energy is in the curve", perhaps because he knew that the better his answer was, the more uncertain we would be as to "angular frequency" (momentum), thus proving my point of this having a frequency shift.
The window function can NOT be "certain", without a loss of resolution elsewhere. In this case, a dynamical change in frequency, happening " in between" the lines of the "integer harmonics".
The wavelet transform uses a changing window, so that it measures "intervals". These are scalable. The "infinite curve" of the log spiral provides the changing scale, that never converges.
RT gives a similar method; 12 equidistant intervals that nest perfectly in the "near field" (from 1 unit distance, to 2). After this first order, this symmetry is broken, due to the "third harmonic". This is concealed by the standard Fourier transform; it treats it as "equal" to the integer series of mathematical "harmonics", rather than by the principle of the octave, which gives more of a Power relationship, 2_. The "3rd harmonic" should be seen as equvalent to the creation of a new "node" (phase singularity), caused by the "first order, 2:1" resonance, a symmetrical angular momentum exchange that creates the spin induced vortex at this "center" (equidistant) space.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi janrinze, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "THEY", "THEY2" janrinze, Jal, Montec, yquantum, StevenA, "Why Not?", Siau, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, et al,
QUOTE (janrinze+)
Fourier transform is a transformation into a reciprocal space.
This does not mean that wavelet transforms are useless or even non-invertible. actually the wavelets are just a specific form of Fourier.. They are much more suitable for wave packets.
This does not mean that wavelet transforms are useless or even non-invertible. actually the wavelets are just a specific form of Fourier.. They are much more suitable for wave packets.
I never said it was useless ... in fact I said that it was useful (check it out), but I find it less useful regarding these Physics matters "so far". I have an open mind but I do not have an argument to convince me to use it. I realize that is what you say that this is a useful technique but think that to be able to justify that statement you need to have a few concrete examples that show where FT's are not suitable and Wavelet Transforms are. The invertibility of FT is known to me the invertibility of WT is not and was not presented in those references by TRoc to Robi Polikar. I am not going to be the interpreter for others.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=264513
I am not comfortable with wavelet Theory and that is the bottom line. There may be a better presentation of these matters but I do not know of it. I recall something about their use in Wireless World about 20 years ago but I have long since disposed of those back issues.
For me at least the Fourier Transform speaks about basic underlying principles and it is not just a convenient mathematical technique. Particle and wave descriptions are both described by the Fourier paradigm and represents the conjugate nature of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relationship in the best way we know how.
TRoc... I would prefer that you give more interpretation for your heavy quoting from that source. Quotes are only useful if they support some argument you are presenting. I see no convincing argument so far. It is definitely not "Resonance Theory".... Rectangular waves are not a resonance... This amplitude treatment is not relevant since it requires a phase treatment.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=264513
I am not comfortable with wavelet Theory and that is the bottom line. There may be a better presentation of these matters but I do not know of it. I recall something about their use in Wireless World about 20 years ago but I have long since disposed of those back issues.
For me at least the Fourier Transform speaks about basic underlying principles and it is not just a convenient mathematical technique. Particle and wave descriptions are both described by the Fourier paradigm and represents the conjugate nature of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relationship in the best way we know how.
TRoc... I would prefer that you give more interpretation for your heavy quoting from that source. Quotes are only useful if they support some argument you are presenting. I see no convincing argument so far. It is definitely not "Resonance Theory".... Rectangular waves are not a resonance... This amplitude treatment is not relevant since it requires a phase treatment.
QUOTE (TRoc quoting polikar (I assume)+)
The frequency spectrum of a signal shows what frequencies exist in the signal.
So what I really do not care about the "intensity"... The phase is the more important aspect . I see that an insistence on knowing every bit of information at the same time would be a foolish pursuit. This information is constrained by the HUP or by the nature of conjugate variables as discussed previously. If you have a point state it rather than quoting at length.
Cheers
Cheers
Hi All,
Sorry I'm not keeping up .. doing my best ..
For the origin of the FT wiki is a bit helpful
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffraction
also (better)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens-Fresnel_principle
Sorry I'm not keeping up .. doing my best ..
For the origin of the FT wiki is a bit helpful
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffraction
also (better)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens-Fresnel_principle
QUOTE (Wiki+)
Huygens principle follows formally from the fundamental postulate of quantum electrodynamics – that wavefunctions of every object propagate over any and all allowed (unobstructed) paths from the source to the given point. It is then the result of interference (addition) of all path integrals that defines the amplitude and phase of the wavefunction of the object at this given point, and thus defines the probability of finding the object (say, a photon) at this point.
I can't claim to grok it yet but the seeds are there.
Still in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens-Fresnel_principle
psi( r )= e^(ikr) / 4pi r <<<-- this has the look of a psi that extends 'everywhere' rather than just on a 'front' (until detection?) .. personally I think this is what we are seeing in the DSE. Need more maths (and more time)
Best wishes -C2.
I can't claim to grok it yet but the seeds are there.
Still in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens-Fresnel_principle
psi( r )= e^(ikr) / 4pi r <<<-- this has the look of a psi that extends 'everywhere' rather than just on a 'front' (until detection?) .. personally I think this is what we are seeing in the DSE. Need more maths (and more time)
Best wishes -C2.
Hi all,
GE-
I gave the examples in the "lengthy posts", ( here , or here ). I thought that tying the reason for needing "more" than what Fourier offers, with the explanation of why
Fourier doesn't "cover everything" was clear enough.
It would seem that the recent personal experience, of having the Talbot effect "sneak under your radar", would demonstrate this quite directly. You can not even begin to see what is "between the integers" of the FT. There are fractional, and fractal revivals going on "collectively" in the spherical expansion. (not just "longitudinal", nor symmetrical "x and y axis)
If you do not understand the need for WT, then I think you have a misconception about FT, somewhere, but I do not know. It shouldn't need more explaining, when considering these waves in the context of a ">1" RI; the "degree of quasi-monochromaticity" will force the independent parts of this envelope to travel at different velocities. Their relationship is no longer "stationary", it is "non-stationary". FT can not give us a 3D "map" of the "in between" portion of the DSE (slit wall to screen distance), the phase space tomography & geometry, the Talbot carpet.
In the end, if you want to know more about WT, then you can read the 4 parts that I linked, or any other source you choose. The time is required, regardless of the method. You have seen that it is reversable, and that was part of the last lengthy post, as well.
The interval is the best "window" to look through. This method captures the inherent limitations of HUP, in an area large enough to contain the variance; a happy medium or equilibrium in accuracy, in measuring the conjugate variables involved. (regardless of method / parameters) This gets you through "WT 101".
Resonance Theory uses a discreet interval that allows simultaneous production of a "harmonic series" (integer fractions), and the inverse, "equispaced frequencies" set, giving the capability of an exponential (Dirac) frequency comb. In effect, giving the "apparent location", in complex phase space, of "Maximum Uncertainty", or equivalently, the phase singularity, or "node" between the "Inverse, Maximum Known, with Certainty", anti-nodes.
ciao,
T.Roc
GE-
QUOTE
I realize that is what you say that this is a useful technique but think that to be able to justify that statement you need to have a few concrete examples that show where FT's are not suitable and Wavelet Transforms are.
I gave the examples in the "lengthy posts", ( here , or here ). I thought that tying the reason for needing "more" than what Fourier offers, with the explanation of why
Fourier doesn't "cover everything" was clear enough.
It would seem that the recent personal experience, of having the Talbot effect "sneak under your radar", would demonstrate this quite directly. You can not even begin to see what is "between the integers" of the FT. There are fractional, and fractal revivals going on "collectively" in the spherical expansion. (not just "longitudinal", nor symmetrical "x and y axis)
If you do not understand the need for WT, then I think you have a misconception about FT, somewhere, but I do not know. It shouldn't need more explaining, when considering these waves in the context of a ">1" RI; the "degree of quasi-monochromaticity" will force the independent parts of this envelope to travel at different velocities. Their relationship is no longer "stationary", it is "non-stationary". FT can not give us a 3D "map" of the "in between" portion of the DSE (slit wall to screen distance), the phase space tomography & geometry, the Talbot carpet.
In the end, if you want to know more about WT, then you can read the 4 parts that I linked, or any other source you choose. The time is required, regardless of the method. You have seen that it is reversable, and that was part of the last lengthy post, as well.
The interval is the best "window" to look through. This method captures the inherent limitations of HUP, in an area large enough to contain the variance; a happy medium or equilibrium in accuracy, in measuring the conjugate variables involved. (regardless of method / parameters) This gets you through "WT 101".
Resonance Theory uses a discreet interval that allows simultaneous production of a "harmonic series" (integer fractions), and the inverse, "equispaced frequencies" set, giving the capability of an exponential (Dirac) frequency comb. In effect, giving the "apparent location", in complex phase space, of "Maximum Uncertainty", or equivalently, the phase singularity, or "node" between the "Inverse, Maximum Known, with Certainty", anti-nodes.
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc,
As far as I am concerned dealing with FT's is far more consistent than implementing Wavelet Theory. Those lengthy posts were mainly quotations from Polikar's Web Pages. The quotes were "context free" so it was not relevant for me to interpret some specific context for that information. As an ex-geophysicist I feel that I am aware enough about the issues involved so FT101 is not required... I am a little rusty but given the incentive I am sure that I could produce the goods.
As an aside what do you think a photon wave packet actually "looks" like from "atomic sources"?... I will give you a hint... have a look at the Airy Disk for a pinhole diffraction experiment involving 'monochromatic" coherent light... a one hole version of the DSE. Why the need for Wavelet Theory?
I also disagree with your interpretation of the way photons travel in free space. You are invoking dispersive media. I am concerned with only free space propagation for simplicity sake. Once you start saying "Look here... No here... Over there... back there..." things become too confusing. Lets keep this in a vacuum. Absolutely everything interesting that occurs in the DSE that interests me occurs in a vacuum we do not need to introduce the effects of a dispersive medium.
Cheers
As far as I am concerned dealing with FT's is far more consistent than implementing Wavelet Theory. Those lengthy posts were mainly quotations from Polikar's Web Pages. The quotes were "context free" so it was not relevant for me to interpret some specific context for that information. As an ex-geophysicist I feel that I am aware enough about the issues involved so FT101 is not required... I am a little rusty but given the incentive I am sure that I could produce the goods.
As an aside what do you think a photon wave packet actually "looks" like from "atomic sources"?... I will give you a hint... have a look at the Airy Disk for a pinhole diffraction experiment involving 'monochromatic" coherent light... a one hole version of the DSE. Why the need for Wavelet Theory?
I also disagree with your interpretation of the way photons travel in free space. You are invoking dispersive media. I am concerned with only free space propagation for simplicity sake. Once you start saying "Look here... No here... Over there... back there..." things become too confusing. Lets keep this in a vacuum. Absolutely everything interesting that occurs in the DSE that interests me occurs in a vacuum we do not need to introduce the effects of a dispersive medium.
Cheers
Hi GE,
I am not questioning your ability to perform a Fourier Transform. It is that, if we do FT on 2 very similar waves, we will get the same answer, not revealing a specific parameter that we know to be there.
IE. http://users.rowan.edu/~polikar/WAVELETS/WTpart1.html
The idea is, that we all agree that we have to deal with curvature, at the source (slits), and then mostly agree that a close approximation to a plane wave is hitting the screen.
While that curvature is "straightening out", we have a scaling function to contend with, which functions as a transverse Doppler shift. This is what is proposed to "shift" the frequencies back to their "proper" state. At any rate, there is most certainly, relative phase shifts to contend with, so this is NOT a stationary wave.
The bottom plot is the zoomed version of the top plot, showing only the range of frequencies that are of interest to us. Note the four spectral components corresponding to the frequencies 10, 25, 50 and 100 Hz
The idea is, that we all agree that we have to deal with curvature, at the source (slits), and then mostly agree that a close approximation to a plane wave is hitting the screen.
While that curvature is "straightening out", we have a scaling function to contend with, which functions as a transverse Doppler shift. This is what is proposed to "shift" the frequencies back to their "proper" state. At any rate, there is most certainly, relative phase shifts to contend with, so this is NOT a stationary wave.
The bottom plot is the zoomed version of the top plot, showing only the range of frequencies that are of interest to us. Note the four spectral components corresponding to the frequencies 10, 25, 50 and 100 Hz
Now, compare the Figures 1.6 and 1.9. The similarity between these two spectrum should be apparent. Both of them show four spectral components at exactly the same frequencies, i.e., at 10, 25, 50, and 100 Hz. Other than the ripples, and the difference in amplitude (which can always be normalized), the two spectrums are almost identical, although the corresponding time-domain signals are not even close to each other. Both of the signals involves the same frequency components, but the first one has these frequencies at all times, the second one has these frequencies at different intervals. So, how come the spectrums of two entirely different signals look very much alike? Recall that the FT gives the spectral content of the signal, but it gives no information regarding where in time those spectral components appear . Therefore, FT is not a suitable technique for non-stationary signal, with one exception:
FT can be used for non-stationary signals, if we are only interested in what spectral components exist in the signal, but not interested where these occur. However, if this information is needed, i.e., if we want to know, what spectral component occur at what time (interval) , then Fourier transform is not the right transform to use.
Good Elf Posted on Today at 10:25 PM
I'm sorry, but I can not abide by this request. I am "invoking reality" here; nothing more, and nothing less. The DSE is not in any vacuum, space is not even a "good" one. "For simplicities sake" is too idealistic for getting to the fundamental root of this. We need to introduce the "hidden parameters" that are masking something larger, IMO. The "cosmological constant" was "his biggest blunder". Will we find that leaving in the concept of "the refractive index of space = 1", even after later determining that there is ALWAYS energy present, in a given area in space (not even including "Dark energy", the new, unplanned addition), was "the next biggest blunder"?
When this "weed" is pulled, things can be brought together, more logically. Why is the RI wavelength dependent? Why does FT not allow the Talbot revivals? What are the properties of the wave, that are not being measured? etc.
regards,
T.Roc
I am not questioning your ability to perform a Fourier Transform. It is that, if we do FT on 2 very similar waves, we will get the same answer, not revealing a specific parameter that we know to be there.
IE. http://users.rowan.edu/~polikar/WAVELETS/WTpart1.html
QUOTE
Contrary to the signal in Figure 1.5, the following signal is not stationary. Figure 1.7 plots a signal whose frequency constantly changes in time. This signal is known as the "chirp" signal. This is a non-stationary signal.
Figure 1.7
Let's look at another example. Figure 1.8 plots a signal with four different frequency components at four different time intervals, hence a non-stationary signal. The interval 0 to 300 ms has a 100 Hz sinusoid, the interval 300 to 600 ms has a 50 Hz sinusoid, the interval 600 to 800 ms has a 25 Hz sinusoid, and finally the interval 800 to 1000 ms has a 10 Hz sinusoid.
Figure 1.8
And the following is its FT:
Figure 1.9
Do not worry about the little ripples at this time; they are due to sudden changes from one frequency component to another, which have no significance in this text. Note that the amplitudes of higher frequency components are higher than those of the lower frequency ones. This is due to fact that higher frequencies last longer (300 ms each) than the lower frequency components (200 ms each). (The exact value of the amplitudes are not important).
Figure 1.7
Let's look at another example. Figure 1.8 plots a signal with four different frequency components at four different time intervals, hence a non-stationary signal. The interval 0 to 300 ms has a 100 Hz sinusoid, the interval 300 to 600 ms has a 50 Hz sinusoid, the interval 600 to 800 ms has a 25 Hz sinusoid, and finally the interval 800 to 1000 ms has a 10 Hz sinusoid.
Figure 1.8
And the following is its FT:
Figure 1.9
Do not worry about the little ripples at this time; they are due to sudden changes from one frequency component to another, which have no significance in this text. Note that the amplitudes of higher frequency components are higher than those of the lower frequency ones. This is due to fact that higher frequencies last longer (300 ms each) than the lower frequency components (200 ms each). (The exact value of the amplitudes are not important).
The idea is, that we all agree that we have to deal with curvature, at the source (slits), and then mostly agree that a close approximation to a plane wave is hitting the screen.
While that curvature is "straightening out", we have a scaling function to contend with, which functions as a transverse Doppler shift. This is what is proposed to "shift" the frequencies back to their "proper" state. At any rate, there is most certainly, relative phase shifts to contend with, so this is NOT a stationary wave.
The bottom plot is the zoomed version of the top plot, showing only the range of frequencies that are of interest to us. Note the four spectral components corresponding to the frequencies 10, 25, 50 and 100 Hz
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Contrary to the signal in Figure 1.5, the following signal is not stationary. Figure 1.7 plots a signal whose frequency constantly changes in time. This signal is known as the "chirp" signal. This is a non-stationary signal. Figure 1.7 Let's look at another example. Figure 1.8 plots a signal with four different frequency components at four different time intervals, hence a non-stationary signal. The interval 0 to 300 ms has a 100 Hz sinusoid, the interval 300 to 600 ms has a 50 Hz sinusoid, the interval 600 to 800 ms has a 25 Hz sinusoid, and finally the interval 800 to 1000 ms has a 10 Hz sinusoid. Figure 1.8 And the following is its FT: Figure 1.9 Do not worry about the little ripples at this time; they are due to sudden changes from one frequency component to another, which have no significance in this text. Note that the amplitudes of higher frequency components are higher than those of the lower frequency ones. This is due to fact that higher frequencies last longer (300 ms each) than the lower frequency components (200 ms each). (The exact value of the amplitudes are not important). |
The idea is, that we all agree that we have to deal with curvature, at the source (slits), and then mostly agree that a close approximation to a plane wave is hitting the screen.
While that curvature is "straightening out", we have a scaling function to contend with, which functions as a transverse Doppler shift. This is what is proposed to "shift" the frequencies back to their "proper" state. At any rate, there is most certainly, relative phase shifts to contend with, so this is NOT a stationary wave.
The bottom plot is the zoomed version of the top plot, showing only the range of frequencies that are of interest to us. Note the four spectral components corresponding to the frequencies 10, 25, 50 and 100 Hz
Now, compare the Figures 1.6 and 1.9. The similarity between these two spectrum should be apparent. Both of them show four spectral components at exactly the same frequencies, i.e., at 10, 25, 50, and 100 Hz. Other than the ripples, and the difference in amplitude (which can always be normalized), the two spectrums are almost identical, although the corresponding time-domain signals are not even close to each other. Both of the signals involves the same frequency components, but the first one has these frequencies at all times, the second one has these frequencies at different intervals. So, how come the spectrums of two entirely different signals look very much alike? Recall that the FT gives the spectral content of the signal, but it gives no information regarding where in time those spectral components appear . Therefore, FT is not a suitable technique for non-stationary signal, with one exception:
FT can be used for non-stationary signals, if we are only interested in what spectral components exist in the signal, but not interested where these occur. However, if this information is needed, i.e., if we want to know, what spectral component occur at what time (interval) , then Fourier transform is not the right transform to use.
Good Elf Posted on Today at 10:25 PM
QUOTE
I also disagree with your interpretation of the way photons travel in free space. You are invoking dispersive media. I am concerned with only free space propagation for simplicity sake. Once you start saying "Look here... No here... Over there... back there..." things become too confusing. Lets keep this in a vacuum. Absolutely everything interesting that occurs in the DSE that interests me occurs in a vacuum we do not need to introduce the effects of a dispersive medium.
I'm sorry, but I can not abide by this request. I am "invoking reality" here; nothing more, and nothing less. The DSE is not in any vacuum, space is not even a "good" one. "For simplicities sake" is too idealistic for getting to the fundamental root of this. We need to introduce the "hidden parameters" that are masking something larger, IMO. The "cosmological constant" was "his biggest blunder". Will we find that leaving in the concept of "the refractive index of space = 1", even after later determining that there is ALWAYS energy present, in a given area in space (not even including "Dark energy", the new, unplanned addition), was "the next biggest blunder"?
When this "weed" is pulled, things can be brought together, more logically. Why is the RI wavelength dependent? Why does FT not allow the Talbot revivals? What are the properties of the wave, that are not being measured? etc.
regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE (TRoc+Sep 25 2007, 12:49 AM)
Hi GE,
I am not questioning your ability to perform a Fourier Transform. It is that, if we do FT on 2 very similar waves, we will get the same answer, not revealing a specific parameter that we know to be there.
IE. http://users.rowan.edu/~polikar/WAVELETS/WTpart1.html
The idea is, that we all agree that we have to deal with curvature, at the source (slits), and then mostly agree that a close approximation to a plane wave is hitting the screen.
While that curvature is "straightening out", we have a scaling function to contend with, which functions as a transverse Doppler shift. This is what is proposed to "shift" the frequencies back to their "proper" state. At any rate, there is most certainly, relative phase shifts to contend with, so this is NOT a stationary wave.
The bottom plot is the zoomed version of the top plot, showing only the range of frequencies that are of interest to us. Note the four spectral components corresponding to the frequencies 10, 25, 50 and 100 Hz
Good Elf Posted on Today at 10:25 PM
I'm sorry, but I can not abide by this request. I am "invoking reality" here; nothing more, and nothing less. The DSE is not in any vacuum, space is not even a "good" one. "For simplicities sake" is too idealistic for getting to the fundamental root of this. We need to introduce the "hidden parameters" that are masking something larger, IMO. The "cosmological constant" was "his biggest blunder". Will we find that leaving in the concept of "the refractive index of space = 1", even after later determining that there is ALWAYS energy present, in a given area in space (not even including "Dark energy", the new, unplanned addition), was "the next biggest blunder"?
When this "weed" is pulled, things can be brought together, more logically. Why is the RI wavelength dependent? Why does FT not allow the Talbot revivals? What are the properties of the wave, that are not being measured? etc.
regards,
T.Roc
Space is avacuum I agree with good Elf.
I am not questioning your ability to perform a Fourier Transform. It is that, if we do FT on 2 very similar waves, we will get the same answer, not revealing a specific parameter that we know to be there.
IE. http://users.rowan.edu/~polikar/WAVELETS/WTpart1.html
The idea is, that we all agree that we have to deal with curvature, at the source (slits), and then mostly agree that a close approximation to a plane wave is hitting the screen.
While that curvature is "straightening out", we have a scaling function to contend with, which functions as a transverse Doppler shift. This is what is proposed to "shift" the frequencies back to their "proper" state. At any rate, there is most certainly, relative phase shifts to contend with, so this is NOT a stationary wave.
The bottom plot is the zoomed version of the top plot, showing only the range of frequencies that are of interest to us. Note the four spectral components corresponding to the frequencies 10, 25, 50 and 100 Hz
Good Elf Posted on Today at 10:25 PM
I'm sorry, but I can not abide by this request. I am "invoking reality" here; nothing more, and nothing less. The DSE is not in any vacuum, space is not even a "good" one. "For simplicities sake" is too idealistic for getting to the fundamental root of this. We need to introduce the "hidden parameters" that are masking something larger, IMO. The "cosmological constant" was "his biggest blunder". Will we find that leaving in the concept of "the refractive index of space = 1", even after later determining that there is ALWAYS energy present, in a given area in space (not even including "Dark energy", the new, unplanned addition), was "the next biggest blunder"?
When this "weed" is pulled, things can be brought together, more logically. Why is the RI wavelength dependent? Why does FT not allow the Talbot revivals? What are the properties of the wave, that are not being measured? etc.
regards,
T.Roc
Space is avacuum I agree with good Elf.
QUOTE (TRoc+Sep 25 2007, 12:49 AM)
Hi GE,
I am not questioning your ability to perform a Fourier Transform. It is that, if we do FT on 2 very similar waves, we will get the same answer, not revealing a specific parameter that we know to be there.
IE. http://users.rowan.edu/~polikar/WAVELETS/WTpart1.html
The idea is, that we all agree that we have to deal with curvature, at the source (slits), and then mostly agree that a close approximation to a plane wave is hitting the screen.
While that curvature is "straightening out", we have a scaling function to contend with, which functions as a transverse Doppler shift. This is what is proposed to "shift" the frequencies back to their "proper" state. At any rate, there is most certainly, relative phase shifts to contend with, so this is NOT a stationary wave.
The bottom plot is the zoomed version of the top plot, showing only the range of frequencies that are of interest to us. Note the four spectral components corresponding to the frequencies 10, 25, 50 and 100 Hz
Good Elf Posted on Today at 10:25 PM
I'm sorry, but I can not abide by this request. I am "invoking reality" here; nothing more, and nothing less. The DSE is not in any vacuum, space is not even a "good" one. "For simplicities sake" is too idealistic for getting to the fundamental root of this. We need to introduce the "hidden parameters" that are masking something larger, IMO. The "cosmological constant" was "his biggest blunder". Will we find that leaving in the concept of "the refractive index of space = 1", even after later determining that there is ALWAYS energy present, in a given area in space (not even including "Dark energy", the new, unplanned addition), was "the next biggest blunder"?
When this "weed" is pulled, things can be brought together, more logically. Why is the RI wavelength dependent? Why does FT not allow the Talbot revivals? What are the properties of the wave, that are not being measured? etc.
regards,
T.Roc
Space is a vacuum I agree with good Elf. And the rellativistic mass equivalent of vacuum fluctuation energy is not significant.
I am not questioning your ability to perform a Fourier Transform. It is that, if we do FT on 2 very similar waves, we will get the same answer, not revealing a specific parameter that we know to be there.
IE. http://users.rowan.edu/~polikar/WAVELETS/WTpart1.html
The idea is, that we all agree that we have to deal with curvature, at the source (slits), and then mostly agree that a close approximation to a plane wave is hitting the screen.
While that curvature is "straightening out", we have a scaling function to contend with, which functions as a transverse Doppler shift. This is what is proposed to "shift" the frequencies back to their "proper" state. At any rate, there is most certainly, relative phase shifts to contend with, so this is NOT a stationary wave.
The bottom plot is the zoomed version of the top plot, showing only the range of frequencies that are of interest to us. Note the four spectral components corresponding to the frequencies 10, 25, 50 and 100 Hz
Good Elf Posted on Today at 10:25 PM
I'm sorry, but I can not abide by this request. I am "invoking reality" here; nothing more, and nothing less. The DSE is not in any vacuum, space is not even a "good" one. "For simplicities sake" is too idealistic for getting to the fundamental root of this. We need to introduce the "hidden parameters" that are masking something larger, IMO. The "cosmological constant" was "his biggest blunder". Will we find that leaving in the concept of "the refractive index of space = 1", even after later determining that there is ALWAYS energy present, in a given area in space (not even including "Dark energy", the new, unplanned addition), was "the next biggest blunder"?
When this "weed" is pulled, things can be brought together, more logically. Why is the RI wavelength dependent? Why does FT not allow the Talbot revivals? What are the properties of the wave, that are not being measured? etc.
regards,
T.Roc
Space is a vacuum I agree with good Elf. And the rellativistic mass equivalent of vacuum fluctuation energy is not significant.
Anything that isn't resonant couldn't possibly be the right theory for trying to figure to balance something. This with my electronics experience I spent much time with different resonace projects and it is a very key factor i n physics that many people leave out. Even in the computer industry you are sold this very huge processor, but they never mention it doesn't work at perfect performance unless your RAM is the exact same amount or frequency(speed). Doing many tests on resonance has taught me the importance of this work in any field relating to physics or math in general. Even everyday life and the I Ching..
Re:FT v. wavelet
It is a (fairly) well established fact that one audio 'system' can sound better (or just different) than another even though both have similar specifications. Wavelet analysis allows us ('them') to determine where and when resonances occur and enables one to test a 'system' in any room .. the 'when' information allows resonances of the room to be subtracted leaving only the different resonances of the audio 'systems' ; this is not possible with Fourier analysis of the signal. If there were resonances involved then I think wavelet analysis would be the one to go for.
Re: RI of 'space'
Among many .. http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/ast18may99_1.htm .. In free space the speed of light (RI)would seem to be constant regardless of frequency (wavelength).
If you look at a map of the distribution of polar bears it doesn't tell you where the polar bears actually are. Similarly I don't think the 'sinewaves' we look at are quite as helpful as we would like them to be.
Best wishes -C2.
It is a (fairly) well established fact that one audio 'system' can sound better (or just different) than another even though both have similar specifications. Wavelet analysis allows us ('them') to determine where and when resonances occur and enables one to test a 'system' in any room .. the 'when' information allows resonances of the room to be subtracted leaving only the different resonances of the audio 'systems' ; this is not possible with Fourier analysis of the signal. If there were resonances involved then I think wavelet analysis would be the one to go for.
Re: RI of 'space'
Among many .. http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/ast18may99_1.htm .. In free space the speed of light (RI)would seem to be constant regardless of frequency (wavelength).
If you look at a map of the distribution of polar bears it doesn't tell you where the polar bears actually are. Similarly I don't think the 'sinewaves' we look at are quite as helpful as we would like them to be.
Best wishes -C2.
Hi Confused2,
As soon as I provide you with a general photon packet (one variety is the Bessel packet) up to a couple of years ago there was no understanding of these waves since they contain OAM. While photons can contain OAM usually they do not and I think that dealing with a simple spreading source is the key to analyzing a problem that has dogged science for a couple of centuries. If you guys do have a mature theory (and I know that none exist that have been fully confirmed to a couple of years ago), that includes every possible packet and has been shown to work every time then I will be happy to go along. Remember you will be increasing the level of complexity by an order of magnitude to generalize wave propagation. I suggest that we may have to give up long before we get to an answer. recall we do not even believe that photons can travel on waves but still "arrive" as a statistical process... This might mean that a "theory" might be based entirely on statistics and we need to look up an a set of random number tables to determine if something is going to happen... In that case what do we really know at all?
I am still of the opinion that certain atomic processes generate "pretty standard" packets. If we can't rely on that then what can we rely on as "a physics process". What I mean is how do you generate all those "odd" packets and why do they behave like the simple sync pulse? Are you trying to say that everything is random despite how much can be explained by "mechanism". This is a Universe designed by a mathematician and not one that supports life as we know it.
If you truly believe this then "Show me the money". Simplify the problem especially when we do not know what the problem really is. a generalized wavelet theory is not a simplification, it is the theory you have when you run out of theory.
Cheers
QUOTE
Re:FT v. wavelet
It is a (fairly) well established fact that one audio 'system' can sound better (or just different) than another even though both have similar specifications. Wavelet analysis allows us ('them') to determine where and when resonances occur and enables one to test a 'system' in any room .. the 'when' information allows resonances of the room to be subtracted leaving only the different resonances of the audio 'systems' ; this is not possible with Fourier analysis of the signal. If there were resonances involved then I think wavelet analysis would be the one to go for.
While the general approach is fine for the more difficult possibilities, it seems to me that we still do not understand the basics of propagation through slits/pinholes. The "shadow on the wall" cast by a single pinhole tells me what the individual 'monochromatic" packets resemble... They resemble the Sync function. You can generalize this to all sorts of packets all the way to Bessel waves and back again. Since we do not truly understand these general properties yet to any great level of insight, we can approximate the single photon wavepacket from a single "atomic source" as being that sync function.... The response to a single primitive impulse. If we know that then we know an awful lot about the photon.It is a (fairly) well established fact that one audio 'system' can sound better (or just different) than another even though both have similar specifications. Wavelet analysis allows us ('them') to determine where and when resonances occur and enables one to test a 'system' in any room .. the 'when' information allows resonances of the room to be subtracted leaving only the different resonances of the audio 'systems' ; this is not possible with Fourier analysis of the signal. If there were resonances involved then I think wavelet analysis would be the one to go for.
As soon as I provide you with a general photon packet (one variety is the Bessel packet) up to a couple of years ago there was no understanding of these waves since they contain OAM. While photons can contain OAM usually they do not and I think that dealing with a simple spreading source is the key to analyzing a problem that has dogged science for a couple of centuries. If you guys do have a mature theory (and I know that none exist that have been fully confirmed to a couple of years ago), that includes every possible packet and has been shown to work every time then I will be happy to go along. Remember you will be increasing the level of complexity by an order of magnitude to generalize wave propagation. I suggest that we may have to give up long before we get to an answer. recall we do not even believe that photons can travel on waves but still "arrive" as a statistical process... This might mean that a "theory" might be based entirely on statistics and we need to look up an a set of random number tables to determine if something is going to happen... In that case what do we really know at all?
I am still of the opinion that certain atomic processes generate "pretty standard" packets. If we can't rely on that then what can we rely on as "a physics process". What I mean is how do you generate all those "odd" packets and why do they behave like the simple sync pulse? Are you trying to say that everything is random despite how much can be explained by "mechanism". This is a Universe designed by a mathematician and not one that supports life as we know it.
If you truly believe this then "Show me the money". Simplify the problem especially when we do not know what the problem really is. a generalized wavelet theory is not a simplification, it is the theory you have when you run out of theory.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf and all,
Best I can do in the time available..
Best I can do in the time available..
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Are you trying to say that everything is random despite how much can be explained by "mechanism". This is a Universe designed by a mathematician and not one that supports life as we know it.
If we go back to the original spec. ..
If we don't quantize then electrons spiral into the nucleus .. to have 'life' we have to avoid this .. 'solution A' is to quantize charge/charge interaction ... as demonstrated by black body radiation etc.
Having quantized 'at source' we have the problem of dealing with the consequences of 'solution A' for everything else. We observe that 'quanta' don't get tired (we can see distant stars) so (IMHO) we're left to find a way to let a single 'quanta' condense back out of space so that we can make a sensible and consistent 'physics' out of it. From a design PoV the most obvious solution is something like a 'bullet' but (unless you are Laserlight) the interference pattern we see in the DSE suggests this is not the chosen option. Once you discard the bullet you are left (in general) with an infinite number of ways to get any particular result and an infinite number of ways to get any other result chosen from an infinite number of possible results. The infinities are potentially uncontrollable - there is every chance of a design failure where quanta are just too difficult to find and too 'picky' and as a result nothing ever happens.
Experiment suggests that reality can't distinguish between identical quanta .. doesn't make sense but must be a clue
Experiment suggests that the source/detect process can run through many (infinite?) stages of source/virtual detect/virtual source/virtual detect/virtual source/real detect (eg lenses) and STILL give the 'right answer'. .. doesn't make sense but must be a clue.
Time does not permit me to comment on the delayed choice results.. I'd be here for days.
More immediately ..
My own 'version' is that the source event apparently fills all space with a sinewave (probability function) .. a process which stops when the source event is 'detected'. I think this is hardly distinguishable from your (Good Elf) view that the source event sets up standing waves which 'stand' until detection occurs - the differences set in when we try to rationalise this - in your case into a source that is an impulse - IMHO this cannot 'fill space' and is therefore the 'wrong answer'.
Must go.
Best wishes - C2.
If we go back to the original spec. ..
If we don't quantize then electrons spiral into the nucleus .. to have 'life' we have to avoid this .. 'solution A' is to quantize charge/charge interaction ... as demonstrated by black body radiation etc.
Having quantized 'at source' we have the problem of dealing with the consequences of 'solution A' for everything else. We observe that 'quanta' don't get tired (we can see distant stars) so (IMHO) we're left to find a way to let a single 'quanta' condense back out of space so that we can make a sensible and consistent 'physics' out of it. From a design PoV the most obvious solution is something like a 'bullet' but (unless you are Laserlight) the interference pattern we see in the DSE suggests this is not the chosen option. Once you discard the bullet you are left (in general) with an infinite number of ways to get any particular result and an infinite number of ways to get any other result chosen from an infinite number of possible results. The infinities are potentially uncontrollable - there is every chance of a design failure where quanta are just too difficult to find and too 'picky' and as a result nothing ever happens.
Experiment suggests that reality can't distinguish between identical quanta .. doesn't make sense but must be a clue
Experiment suggests that the source/detect process can run through many (infinite?) stages of source/virtual detect/virtual source/virtual detect/virtual source/real detect (eg lenses) and STILL give the 'right answer'. .. doesn't make sense but must be a clue.
Time does not permit me to comment on the delayed choice results.. I'd be here for days.
More immediately ..
My own 'version' is that the source event apparently fills all space with a sinewave (probability function) .. a process which stops when the source event is 'detected'. I think this is hardly distinguishable from your (Good Elf) view that the source event sets up standing waves which 'stand' until detection occurs - the differences set in when we try to rationalise this - in your case into a source that is an impulse - IMHO this cannot 'fill space' and is therefore the 'wrong answer'.
Must go.
Best wishes - C2.
Hi Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "THEY", "THEY2" janrinze, Jal, Montec, yquantum, StevenA, "Why Not?", Siau, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, et al,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Experiment suggests that reality can't distinguish between identical quanta .. doesn't make sense but must be a clue Experiment suggests that the source/detect process can run through many (infinite?) stages of source/virtual detect/virtual source/virtual detect/virtual source/real detect (eg lenses) and STILL give the 'right answer'. .. doesn't make sense but must be a clue.
Time does not permit me to comment on the delayed choice results.. I'd be here for days.
Time does not permit me to comment on the delayed choice results.. I'd be here for days.
I know you are busy with your new business but spare a moment to think about this "carefully". It is a "clue"... Let me say this as clearly as it is possible to make it so even a child should be able to understand... I am not trying to talk down to people but for "g**s sake" get this and you will get it all... Throw off what those people who have no clue have told you in the past, ignore "unreal" quantum pictures which are based on statistical interpretations... consider the picture of one photon at a time... and focus on what I am talking about and listen up. It is very important to get this concept... the one concept that I have been drumming relentlessly over and over... month after month... This "idea" gives the whole picture and it gives the one at a time photon picture as indicated by the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment.
Coherent monochromatic light when it passes through a single pinhole is a recreation of a source locally at that pinhole. Now the relative velocity between humans and light is C. This is always the case regardless what you "think" your velocity might be. This means we humans are looking at "light packets", even one at a time, that are traveling at C relative to us so a construction of what this will look like according to all constructions you can google on the net (and I have given you two of them recently) is according to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity a "Length Contraction"... This is a fiction according to all external observers, what they will actually see is a rotation through an angle of arcsin(V/C) where V = C so the angle of rotation for light packets away from all observers is pi/2 radian or 90 degrees in the old measure. This means every single photon is being seen "side on" to the velocity vector. They "hit" the screen and leave their mark like a bug on the windscreen of a car.... side on. Every packet comes from the same source and every packet has the same shape and every packet leaves their mark on the screen... they build up a picture of what all "identical coherent" packets look like from that one source. Thus the Airy Disk is the intensity version of the wave packet for all the "identical photons" passing through the pinhole template. It is the spreading which is actually a "magnified image " by the distance to the screen of a single distant coherent source. It is exactly the same for the Camera Obscura... we are taking side on pictures of photons emanating from a source.
Here is an "ideal" Airy Disk...
This is produced through a single pinhole... It is a "picture " of what all photons look like "side on" when produced by a LASER source. This has twice as many peaks as the sync function because humans "see" only intensity and the Airy Disk is an intensity picture. If we could see the phase then we would see only 1/2 the number of peaks and half of them would be negative like this...
... Click to enlarge...
You never see the Sync function you see the first order bessel function instead...
Airy Disk - Wolfram Research
Which is the single sided version of this...
Fraunhofer Diffraction--Single Slit - Wolfram Research
Which is....
... Click to enlarge...
Sinc (sync) Function - Wolfram Research
Which is the square of the sync (sinc) function.... Yes!! .... The intensity...
Take that "one photon" and let it pass through two slits and it interferes with its own packet and produces the DSE...
... Click to enlarge...
Here we see the single packet now interfering with itself and while it is in this mode the packet has this "shape" along the direction of propagation.... You see the complex packet side on... got it??
... Click to enlarge...
This is identical to you traveling at near the speed of light past the Eiffel Tower or these artifacts, it is rotated away from the observer by 90 degrees, for light it is always rotated by 90 degrees to all observers since there is no "angle" where the velocity appears less than C the "scene as seen by us traveling at the relative speed of light relative to light" is filled by the one photon rotation everywhere. What I mean by this is for all light we (all observers everywhere and at whatever speed) are always at a relative speed of C to the traveling packets of light, if these were "boxcars " we would be seeing them side on.... Notice the "picture" does not change no matter how far away from the secondary source you go simply because it is traveling at the speed of light and that is the speed that is seen by all observers no matter what angle or what observer... This is the Principle of Relativity. The photons are "frozen" on the light cone wall... the interior component frequencies are not in relative motion.
So here is single slit "pictures" of photons rotated and exposing a plate as an "intensitygram". We can only see intensity but we "experience" phase as the reality behind the intensity in Holograms.
The wider the slit or the bigger or the pinhole the worse the "resolvance" of the image on the screen. That is the whole story about the Single slit or pinhole or the double slit or pinhole or for that matter any number of apertures for a diverged source this produces an image of the interfered photon.
You then say "ha!... look at those photons with funny packets"... These are simply "resonances" inside that cavity... Well now put a pinhole in the back screen and let the photons that fall through those pinholes fall on to another screen and lo... the single pinhole diffraction pattern is restored for single photons... All you need is the sync function and that describes almost every kind of packet that is interesting about the the DSE..
References to the appearance of things at near the speed of light follows...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=249885
http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/
Cheers
Coherent monochromatic light when it passes through a single pinhole is a recreation of a source locally at that pinhole. Now the relative velocity between humans and light is C. This is always the case regardless what you "think" your velocity might be. This means we humans are looking at "light packets", even one at a time, that are traveling at C relative to us so a construction of what this will look like according to all constructions you can google on the net (and I have given you two of them recently) is according to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity a "Length Contraction"... This is a fiction according to all external observers, what they will actually see is a rotation through an angle of arcsin(V/C) where V = C so the angle of rotation for light packets away from all observers is pi/2 radian or 90 degrees in the old measure. This means every single photon is being seen "side on" to the velocity vector. They "hit" the screen and leave their mark like a bug on the windscreen of a car.... side on. Every packet comes from the same source and every packet has the same shape and every packet leaves their mark on the screen... they build up a picture of what all "identical coherent" packets look like from that one source. Thus the Airy Disk is the intensity version of the wave packet for all the "identical photons" passing through the pinhole template. It is the spreading which is actually a "magnified image " by the distance to the screen of a single distant coherent source. It is exactly the same for the Camera Obscura... we are taking side on pictures of photons emanating from a source.
Here is an "ideal" Airy Disk...
This is produced through a single pinhole... It is a "picture " of what all photons look like "side on" when produced by a LASER source. This has twice as many peaks as the sync function because humans "see" only intensity and the Airy Disk is an intensity picture. If we could see the phase then we would see only 1/2 the number of peaks and half of them would be negative like this...
... Click to enlarge...
You never see the Sync function you see the first order bessel function instead...
Airy Disk - Wolfram Research
Which is the single sided version of this...
Fraunhofer Diffraction--Single Slit - Wolfram Research
Which is....
... Click to enlarge...
Sinc (sync) Function - Wolfram Research
Which is the square of the sync (sinc) function.... Yes!! .... The intensity...
Take that "one photon" and let it pass through two slits and it interferes with its own packet and produces the DSE...
... Click to enlarge...
Here we see the single packet now interfering with itself and while it is in this mode the packet has this "shape" along the direction of propagation.... You see the complex packet side on... got it??
... Click to enlarge...
This is identical to you traveling at near the speed of light past the Eiffel Tower or these artifacts, it is rotated away from the observer by 90 degrees, for light it is always rotated by 90 degrees to all observers since there is no "angle" where the velocity appears less than C the "scene as seen by us traveling at the relative speed of light relative to light" is filled by the one photon rotation everywhere. What I mean by this is for all light we (all observers everywhere and at whatever speed) are always at a relative speed of C to the traveling packets of light, if these were "boxcars " we would be seeing them side on.... Notice the "picture" does not change no matter how far away from the secondary source you go simply because it is traveling at the speed of light and that is the speed that is seen by all observers no matter what angle or what observer... This is the Principle of Relativity. The photons are "frozen" on the light cone wall... the interior component frequencies are not in relative motion.
So here is single slit "pictures" of photons rotated and exposing a plate as an "intensitygram". We can only see intensity but we "experience" phase as the reality behind the intensity in Holograms.
The wider the slit or the bigger or the pinhole the worse the "resolvance" of the image on the screen. That is the whole story about the Single slit or pinhole or the double slit or pinhole or for that matter any number of apertures for a diverged source this produces an image of the interfered photon.
You then say "ha!... look at those photons with funny packets"... These are simply "resonances" inside that cavity... Well now put a pinhole in the back screen and let the photons that fall through those pinholes fall on to another screen and lo... the single pinhole diffraction pattern is restored for single photons... All you need is the sync function and that describes almost every kind of packet that is interesting about the the DSE..
References to the appearance of things at near the speed of light follows...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=249885
http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/
Cheers
Good Day All!
Good Elf
You have graduated to a new approach of trying to explain how a photon can give us the experimental observations that we do get and how it could be put together.
Good!
jal
Good Elf
QUOTE
.... what they will actually see is a rotation through an angle of arcsin(V/C) where V = C so the angle of rotation for light packets away from all observers is pi/2 radian or 90 degrees in the old measure. This means every single photon is being seen "side on" to the velocity vector. They "hit" the screen and leave their mark like a bug on the windscreen of a car.... side on....
You have graduated to a new approach of trying to explain how a photon can give us the experimental observations that we do get and how it could be put together.
Good!
jal
Hi Jal, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "THEY", "THEY2" janrinze, Montec, yquantum, StevenA, "Why Not?", Siau, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, et al,
QUOTE (Jal+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
.... what they will actually see is a rotation through an angle of arcsin(V/C) where V = C so the angle of rotation for light packets away from all observers is pi/2 radian or 90 degrees in the old measure. This means every single photon is being seen "side on" to the velocity vector. They "hit" the screen and leave their mark like a bug on the windscreen of a car.... side on....
You have graduated to a new approach of trying to explain how a photon can give us the experimental observations that we do get and how it could be put together.
Good!
Good!
Not at all. There is nothing new here. The photon is a boson so they all have the same "footprint" on the wall because they all exit in the one quantum state of Bose-Einstein Statistics. The spreading pattern of a single photon matches the spreading pattern of many separately propagating photons and is the spreading pattern of the photon as always as seen in continuous wave propagation from an antenna.... The "collection" provides the same "footprint" because the "collection" is composed of identical wave packets all co-moving toward the screen.
... Click to enlarge...
The problem is in two parts... First you have the photon traveling at the speed of light and it is a high velocity relativistic effect. The other part is the matter waves which "condition" space and spacetime... The Talbot Carpets. I think it was Confused2 who suggested that the photon "bounced" like a small ball bearing along this "rough" landscape of spatial undulation between the two slits/pinholes in the cavity to find the screen wall, like some complicated "photon pinball game". This is "almost" correct.
The LASER photon spreads and represent identical source photons which are coherent, so unless you actually make a "protective measurement" on it such as passing it through a slit/pinhole confining its extent again, and thus redefining a new secondary source, then the photon retains this spreading but does undergo Berry Phase rotation through that intervening space. This is because space itself is not entirely "flat" to that radiation, so in that sense it is sensing "undulation" of a kind that suggests "higher dimensions", they are caustics.... light is speeding up and slowing down by taking shortcuts through spacetime like some crazy "White Rabbit" carrying a fob watch saying "I'm late! I'm late". The photon always arrives on time traveling the most direct path from source to sink yet it picks up spatial information encoded in the Berry Phase about the intervening space as "standing waves". The photon is passing directly from source to sink obeying the Legrangian path of Least Action.
The original source is a LASER and the final sink is a tiny "spot" on the screen. In between the photon is spreading into space and sees corrugations due to "features" of sporadic spatial "granularity" that is normally totally invisible to us unless we examine the space very carefully. These effects are due entirely to matter waves. These are the secondary phenomena that are usually viewed "at rest" relative to the photon light spreading through it. It is clear that the Talbot Length which repeats "periodically" throughout that space is due to a resonance at the frequency of the light and responds specifically differently at different frequencies and is an emergent behavior in the space. This behavior is quite rightly connected to "spreading" behavior of electrons in orbits in atoms and is due to the same process... spatial resonance in cavities where we have emergent patterns recurring throughout space at the Talbot Length (Zt) from a grating.
Zt = a² / L
.... where a is the slit spacing in the grating and L is the frequency of light. This is happening at each and every frequency that probes space and it represents a complex spatial resonance effect in the cavity. The resonance repeating at distances of Zt.
Read about it in this article...
Quantum carpets, carpets of light: Physics World
Henry Fox Talbot, a co-inventor of Photography discovered them around 1836 by investigating the caustics produced by simple gratings which show these effects most convincingly. The grating as you recall is a repeated matter barrier composed of blocking and absorbing "lines" interspersed with clear transparent identical "slits" in this mask. The grating is simply an extreme example of the double slit experiment where the number of slits are increased to nearly infinity. It is indeed a cavity resonance where this causes a spatial dispersion of the photon. The slits having a similar effect on space as the holes in a flute has on the vibration of column of air in a flute.
This effect (Talbot Carpet) must also occur to a diminished effect with just two slits or pinholes. Indeed this effect occurs with similar effects with random cavity shapes and perforations because this is a "solution" to Schrodinger's Wave Equation for a complex cavity.
These relate to Shen's Paper mentioned many times here and to the Classical Wave Equations of Electromagnetism...
... and mirrors the Schrodinger version exactly ...
... mirroring it term for term. However I would caution the use of Schrodingers Equation which cannot show these effects because only the electromagnetic equations can show these phenomena because of the complex phase interplay in the space that you see with the waveguide above. These effects are entirely "classical" in nature and are not predicted using quantum mechanics. The strong effects of "Talbot Carpets" would manifest in Bragg's Law with incoherent X-Ray radiation in matter. Unfortunately the correlation is "unclear" because we do not currently have coherent X-Ray radiation readily available and a means to probe "empty" space at those frequencies... But this is simply just an extension of this phenomena to a different band of frequencies that extend into the continuous matter state.... A very difficult area to investigate.
I repeat... The spreading electron wave of an electron in an orbital cavity around an atom mirrors the spreading photon wave of the photon in a box (see link below). The rotation of the photon spatially by Π/2 radians is a consequence of our viewing this photon as a bystander in relative motion at the speed of light observing the photon packet. Einstein does not discriminate against us viewing light at a relative velocity of the speed of light since it is the one ting that we humans can effectively do. These photons are spreading to a large size as shown as an airy disk in the previous post and then when they hit the wall are absorbed at a single point on the screen and are re-emitted as a flash of light. It takes millions of these flashes to define that "bug blatt in the windscreen" since the original pattern is lost due to the collapse in the wavefunction. The dispersion is due to the photons undergoing Berry Phase rotations "on the sphere" due to Talbot Carpets.
Here is the Talbot Dynamic for a simple electron in circular motion in the Bohr Orbit around an atom .... Talbot carpets for electrons are a similar process in space for photons (just a smaller reciprocal space)... The photons are doing nothing but following a geodesic and spreading but the matter wave pattern in space are "standing waves".
http://www.optics.rochester.edu/~stroud/an.../cowporbit.html
Cheers
PS: When dealing with Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory and time and space resonant photons, you must extend this concept to "spiral" wave packets which are "time symmetric" in advanced and retarded potentials.
+ =
... Click to enlarge...
The problem is in two parts... First you have the photon traveling at the speed of light and it is a high velocity relativistic effect. The other part is the matter waves which "condition" space and spacetime... The Talbot Carpets. I think it was Confused2 who suggested that the photon "bounced" like a small ball bearing along this "rough" landscape of spatial undulation between the two slits/pinholes in the cavity to find the screen wall, like some complicated "photon pinball game". This is "almost" correct.
The LASER photon spreads and represent identical source photons which are coherent, so unless you actually make a "protective measurement" on it such as passing it through a slit/pinhole confining its extent again, and thus redefining a new secondary source, then the photon retains this spreading but does undergo Berry Phase rotation through that intervening space. This is because space itself is not entirely "flat" to that radiation, so in that sense it is sensing "undulation" of a kind that suggests "higher dimensions", they are caustics.... light is speeding up and slowing down by taking shortcuts through spacetime like some crazy "White Rabbit" carrying a fob watch saying "I'm late! I'm late". The photon always arrives on time traveling the most direct path from source to sink yet it picks up spatial information encoded in the Berry Phase about the intervening space as "standing waves". The photon is passing directly from source to sink obeying the Legrangian path of Least Action.
The original source is a LASER and the final sink is a tiny "spot" on the screen. In between the photon is spreading into space and sees corrugations due to "features" of sporadic spatial "granularity" that is normally totally invisible to us unless we examine the space very carefully. These effects are due entirely to matter waves. These are the secondary phenomena that are usually viewed "at rest" relative to the photon light spreading through it. It is clear that the Talbot Length which repeats "periodically" throughout that space is due to a resonance at the frequency of the light and responds specifically differently at different frequencies and is an emergent behavior in the space. This behavior is quite rightly connected to "spreading" behavior of electrons in orbits in atoms and is due to the same process... spatial resonance in cavities where we have emergent patterns recurring throughout space at the Talbot Length (Zt) from a grating.
Zt = a² / L
.... where a is the slit spacing in the grating and L is the frequency of light. This is happening at each and every frequency that probes space and it represents a complex spatial resonance effect in the cavity. The resonance repeating at distances of Zt.
Read about it in this article...
Quantum carpets, carpets of light: Physics World
Henry Fox Talbot, a co-inventor of Photography discovered them around 1836 by investigating the caustics produced by simple gratings which show these effects most convincingly. The grating as you recall is a repeated matter barrier composed of blocking and absorbing "lines" interspersed with clear transparent identical "slits" in this mask. The grating is simply an extreme example of the double slit experiment where the number of slits are increased to nearly infinity. It is indeed a cavity resonance where this causes a spatial dispersion of the photon. The slits having a similar effect on space as the holes in a flute has on the vibration of column of air in a flute.
This effect (Talbot Carpet) must also occur to a diminished effect with just two slits or pinholes. Indeed this effect occurs with similar effects with random cavity shapes and perforations because this is a "solution" to Schrodinger's Wave Equation for a complex cavity.
These relate to Shen's Paper mentioned many times here and to the Classical Wave Equations of Electromagnetism...
... and mirrors the Schrodinger version exactly ...
... mirroring it term for term. However I would caution the use of Schrodingers Equation which cannot show these effects because only the electromagnetic equations can show these phenomena because of the complex phase interplay in the space that you see with the waveguide above. These effects are entirely "classical" in nature and are not predicted using quantum mechanics. The strong effects of "Talbot Carpets" would manifest in Bragg's Law with incoherent X-Ray radiation in matter. Unfortunately the correlation is "unclear" because we do not currently have coherent X-Ray radiation readily available and a means to probe "empty" space at those frequencies... But this is simply just an extension of this phenomena to a different band of frequencies that extend into the continuous matter state.... A very difficult area to investigate.
I repeat... The spreading electron wave of an electron in an orbital cavity around an atom mirrors the spreading photon wave of the photon in a box (see link below). The rotation of the photon spatially by Π/2 radians is a consequence of our viewing this photon as a bystander in relative motion at the speed of light observing the photon packet. Einstein does not discriminate against us viewing light at a relative velocity of the speed of light since it is the one ting that we humans can effectively do. These photons are spreading to a large size as shown as an airy disk in the previous post and then when they hit the wall are absorbed at a single point on the screen and are re-emitted as a flash of light. It takes millions of these flashes to define that "bug blatt in the windscreen" since the original pattern is lost due to the collapse in the wavefunction. The dispersion is due to the photons undergoing Berry Phase rotations "on the sphere" due to Talbot Carpets.
Here is the Talbot Dynamic for a simple electron in circular motion in the Bohr Orbit around an atom .... Talbot carpets for electrons are a similar process in space for photons (just a smaller reciprocal space)... The photons are doing nothing but following a geodesic and spreading but the matter wave pattern in space are "standing waves".
http://www.optics.rochester.edu/~stroud/an.../cowporbit.html
Cheers
PS: When dealing with Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory and time and space resonant photons, you must extend this concept to "spiral" wave packets which are "time symmetric" in advanced and retarded potentials.
+ =
Hi Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "THEY", "THEY2" janrinze, Jal, Montec, yquantum, StevenA, "Why Not?", Siau, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, et al,
Continuation: Leftover question from the next to last previous post by me to Confused2...
Continuation: Leftover question from the next to last previous post by me to Confused2...
QUOTE (Confused2+)
If we don't quantize then electrons spiral into the nucleus .. to have 'life' we have to avoid this .. 'solution A' is to quantize charge/charge interaction ... as demonstrated by black body radiation etc.
We have discussed the quantization of photons and their emission and absorption previously. With photons at the scale of the atom (with very few ... but important... exceptions), photons are emitted by atomic processes by fixed "optical radio antennas"... they can only emit and absorb at a relatively few frequencies... A large number but "few" when compared with "infinity". In that paradox lies the so called ultraviolet catastrophe... resolved by having only a finite number of radiators and absorbers in the Universe and leading to the number h (Planck's Constant being different from 0). Technology can overcome some of these barriers but nature is not as "ingenious" as we humans can be.
The photon cannot spiral into the nucleus simply because there is no atom or particle in the universe that is "willing" to bater a transaction with it in Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory - Cramer's Transactional Model. Recall that the photon is only emitted if there is a suitable sink able to receive it "in the future". This becomes a resonant transaction with that future sink by an exchange of Advanced and retarded photon packets which are two sides of the photon transaction. We see only the retarded packet and the advanced packet can only be understood as a resonance in our Universe where the process is "periodic in time".... even if the actual process is a one off transaction. This is the underlying reason why the quantum field theory and other quantum processes are all time symmetric (... though lacking an individual history). It is a failure in the theory... Understandable when you consider when the theory was formulated and the pressures to develop a "complete" theory in the absence of experimental results.
Experiments such as the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser show that we are lacking in a non-local interpretation of the theory... that non-local aspect "connects" processes instantly across time, we know this through the experiments of Alain Aspect, however time is required (from our laboratory frame of reference) to complete the transaction so advanced signaling is "usually" forbidden (though even here there appears to be some exceptions). This also is the justification behind quantum entanglement also being non-local. Instantaneous connectivity across space beyond time.... a resonance. Remember this picture taken of BBO entangled photons "spreading" from a common source (color coded and filtered for clarity, not for frequency, and separated by being the Extraordinary and the Ordinary Rays of the birefringent crystal)...
First Photographs of the Entangled Photon Source
Iconic Images...Entangled photons (1161kb pdf file or click image for smaller image with discussion)
Notice how the zeroth order Airy Disk has been subtracted for dramatic effect (read the technical paper associated) and if I am right the two wave packets have linked fields (side on image of the two wave packets built up over thousands of entangled packets). Recall that both entangled photons are orthogonally polarized relative to each other so the fields link. As we become more distant from the source... This "impression" will continue at any distance from source... even thousands of kilometers if necessary. Like I have stated previously this is like Lenz's Law of induction if we "detect" one of the two photons the other photon is immediately linked to its twin "beyond time" resonantly and the state of the twin is then "fixed" by the collapse of the wavepacket (we have also discussed this previously). Mere "distance propagated" cannot separate these individually spreading photons "linked" across the wavefront at infinite speed. They could be both going to opposite ends of the Universe and yet they will still be linked. Surely you can see that BBO down converted entangled photons are resonantly linked to each other here? It explains a lot of mysteries that cannot be predicted by quantum field theory and shows what happens with the DCQEE.
"Billard Ball" photon particles cannot explain this phenomenon due to the locality of "billiard balls". Spreading wave packets does explain why this communication occurs... Not only that... you can actually "see it".
As a total "aside" to this conversation... this argument can be extended to particles and to non-local entanglement of them as well through their matter waves.
Getting back to your statement above (and we have been over this before) the zero point energy transaction cannot occur since all energy processes must be referred to some base "level" and the emission of photons will not and cannot occur without a transaction being set up and there is no available set up in the universe that will accept the process where the electron spirals into the nucleus and the energy cannot radiate away bit at a time because it is a completely "packetized" process. It will emit a packet or it will emit nothing. Similarly the source will absorb a packet or it will absorb nothing.
There are some processes where a photon can be absorbed into the nucleus but that is a totally different story.
Cheers
The photon cannot spiral into the nucleus simply because there is no atom or particle in the universe that is "willing" to bater a transaction with it in Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory - Cramer's Transactional Model. Recall that the photon is only emitted if there is a suitable sink able to receive it "in the future". This becomes a resonant transaction with that future sink by an exchange of Advanced and retarded photon packets which are two sides of the photon transaction. We see only the retarded packet and the advanced packet can only be understood as a resonance in our Universe where the process is "periodic in time".... even if the actual process is a one off transaction. This is the underlying reason why the quantum field theory and other quantum processes are all time symmetric (... though lacking an individual history). It is a failure in the theory... Understandable when you consider when the theory was formulated and the pressures to develop a "complete" theory in the absence of experimental results.
Experiments such as the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser show that we are lacking in a non-local interpretation of the theory... that non-local aspect "connects" processes instantly across time, we know this through the experiments of Alain Aspect, however time is required (from our laboratory frame of reference) to complete the transaction so advanced signaling is "usually" forbidden (though even here there appears to be some exceptions). This also is the justification behind quantum entanglement also being non-local. Instantaneous connectivity across space beyond time.... a resonance. Remember this picture taken of BBO entangled photons "spreading" from a common source (color coded and filtered for clarity, not for frequency, and separated by being the Extraordinary and the Ordinary Rays of the birefringent crystal)...
First Photographs of the Entangled Photon Source
Iconic Images...Entangled photons (1161kb pdf file or click image for smaller image with discussion)
Notice how the zeroth order Airy Disk has been subtracted for dramatic effect (read the technical paper associated) and if I am right the two wave packets have linked fields (side on image of the two wave packets built up over thousands of entangled packets). Recall that both entangled photons are orthogonally polarized relative to each other so the fields link. As we become more distant from the source... This "impression" will continue at any distance from source... even thousands of kilometers if necessary. Like I have stated previously this is like Lenz's Law of induction if we "detect" one of the two photons the other photon is immediately linked to its twin "beyond time" resonantly and the state of the twin is then "fixed" by the collapse of the wavepacket (we have also discussed this previously). Mere "distance propagated" cannot separate these individually spreading photons "linked" across the wavefront at infinite speed. They could be both going to opposite ends of the Universe and yet they will still be linked. Surely you can see that BBO down converted entangled photons are resonantly linked to each other here? It explains a lot of mysteries that cannot be predicted by quantum field theory and shows what happens with the DCQEE.
"Billard Ball" photon particles cannot explain this phenomenon due to the locality of "billiard balls". Spreading wave packets does explain why this communication occurs... Not only that... you can actually "see it".
As a total "aside" to this conversation... this argument can be extended to particles and to non-local entanglement of them as well through their matter waves.
Getting back to your statement above (and we have been over this before) the zero point energy transaction cannot occur since all energy processes must be referred to some base "level" and the emission of photons will not and cannot occur without a transaction being set up and there is no available set up in the universe that will accept the process where the electron spirals into the nucleus and the energy cannot radiate away bit at a time because it is a completely "packetized" process. It will emit a packet or it will emit nothing. Similarly the source will absorb a packet or it will absorb nothing.
There are some processes where a photon can be absorbed into the nucleus but that is a totally different story.
Cheers
Good Elf, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "THEY", "THEY2" janrinze, Jal, Montec, StevenA, "Why Not?", Siau, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, et al,
Hope everyone is doing well been very busy, sure the same goes for everyone else. Has this been given as a source? I still think as of 2007 this will not be solved, but wanted to at least share my humble opinion.
"THEY" & "2" hope your classes are coming alone and I am sure Mom is very proud. Hang in there and please enjoy everyday, there is no rush what ever subject you might choose to examine or consider with attention and in detail.
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInte...DoubleSlit.html
caio_
yquantum
Hope everyone is doing well been very busy, sure the same goes for everyone else. Has this been given as a source? I still think as of 2007 this will not be solved, but wanted to at least share my humble opinion.
"THEY" & "2" hope your classes are coming alone and I am sure Mom is very proud. Hang in there and please enjoy everyday, there is no rush what ever subject you might choose to examine or consider with attention and in detail.
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInte...DoubleSlit.html
caio_
yquantum
Hi Yquantum, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "THEY", "THEY2" janrinze, Jal, Montec, StevenA, "Why Not?", Siau, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, et al,
Good to hear from you again. I have a question... I notice in that reference you quoted we have a Gaussian distribution for particles and a Gaussian distribution for waves as well. Is there a suggestion that there is a Gaussian distribution in both cases, not just for the "pure" particle interpretation?.... Then if this is the case why do you think the author has illustrated this function in this way when we know that the actual result is an Airy Disk distribution from each "wavelike" source, both separately and together? In the case where they are together they should interfere if mutually coherent.
I agree... this problem is not about to be "solved" if it is not possible to classify what is actually happening at a slit or pinhole. It is highly confusing to those who are being exposed to this for the first time.... Is it a "particle" or is it a "wave"? Here we see a wave behaving as a particle.... literally
... Click to enlarge...
Surely this is logically incorrect?
Cheers
Good to hear from you again. I have a question... I notice in that reference you quoted we have a Gaussian distribution for particles and a Gaussian distribution for waves as well. Is there a suggestion that there is a Gaussian distribution in both cases, not just for the "pure" particle interpretation?.... Then if this is the case why do you think the author has illustrated this function in this way when we know that the actual result is an Airy Disk distribution from each "wavelike" source, both separately and together? In the case where they are together they should interfere if mutually coherent.
I agree... this problem is not about to be "solved" if it is not possible to classify what is actually happening at a slit or pinhole. It is highly confusing to those who are being exposed to this for the first time.... Is it a "particle" or is it a "wave"? Here we see a wave behaving as a particle.... literally
... Click to enlarge...
Surely this is logically incorrect?
Cheers
Set up a double slit experiment. Put photon detectors above both of the slits, they will have a light that goes on if a photon has gone through a particular slit. Now fire one photon at a time at the slits. The detectors will tell you which slit each photon goes through.
With this setup, you will not get an interference pattern, ie the photons behave as particles.
Now, put a piece of black paper in front of both the indicator lights of the photon detectors, ie so you can no longer see which path each photon takes, and repeat the experiment.
With this setup you will get an interference pattern.
This means the awareness of what is happening to the indicator lights alters the results of the experiment. In other words, conscious awareness is altering reality. I believe this is the first glimpse, pardon the pun, of a very interesting field of study.
With this setup, you will not get an interference pattern, ie the photons behave as particles.
Now, put a piece of black paper in front of both the indicator lights of the photon detectors, ie so you can no longer see which path each photon takes, and repeat the experiment.
With this setup you will get an interference pattern.
This means the awareness of what is happening to the indicator lights alters the results of the experiment. In other words, conscious awareness is altering reality. I believe this is the first glimpse, pardon the pun, of a very interesting field of study.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 1 2007, 03:58 AM)
Hi Yquantum, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "THEY", "THEY2" janrinze, Jal, Montec, StevenA, "Why Not?", Siau, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, et al,
Good to hear from you again. I have a question... I notice in that reference you quoted we have a Gaussian distribution for particles and a Gaussian distribution for waves as well. Is there a suggestion that there is a Gaussian distribution in both cases, not just for the "pure" particle interpretation?.... Then if this is the case why do you think the author has illustrated this function in this way when we know that the actual result is an Airy Disk distribution from each "wavelike" source, both separately and together? In the case where they are together they should interfere if mutually coherent.
I agree... this problem is not about to be "solved" if it is not possible to classify what is actually happening at a slit or pinhole. It is highly confusing to those who are being exposed to this for the first time.... Is it a "particle" or is it a "wave"? Here we see a wave behaving as a particle.... literally
... Click to enlarge...
Surely this is logically incorrect?
Cheers
Good Elf, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "THEY", "THEY2" janrinze, Jal, Montec, StevenA, "Why Not?", Siau, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, Tim ©, et al,[/B]
I must confess I wanted this post to continue by adding a thought from someone we all miss (I do know he was larger than life -RPF-, and stayed out of the box => I learned this from him) and respect.
Good Elf, did you click on the CLICK ME boxes. It is just a perspective I was hoping would be used. He did not understand it, and as you read what David M. Harrison, Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Toronto described you can see he is searching as well.
As far as your question, we have tried to look at this from many Mathematical views, yet as I stated (first let me express I will not assume to understand the underpinning of QM) no one can explain using any tool/mathematical to explain.
What I have read on this post is that you stay close to the laws, yet venture out of the norm to which from my "frame of reference" causes you to use the gifts given dealing with the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Someone just might explain, to be honest I think maybe "THEY"2 will be the one.
caio_
yquantum
BTW, I believe that all QM matter are just waves but you have read this from me so long ago. Just keep the gray matter running, but please use what tools we have to build on. You must have data to support your ideas and if it is so crazy in your explanation about the DSE ---> then you might be getting warm.
Good to hear from you again. I have a question... I notice in that reference you quoted we have a Gaussian distribution for particles and a Gaussian distribution for waves as well. Is there a suggestion that there is a Gaussian distribution in both cases, not just for the "pure" particle interpretation?.... Then if this is the case why do you think the author has illustrated this function in this way when we know that the actual result is an Airy Disk distribution from each "wavelike" source, both separately and together? In the case where they are together they should interfere if mutually coherent.
I agree... this problem is not about to be "solved" if it is not possible to classify what is actually happening at a slit or pinhole. It is highly confusing to those who are being exposed to this for the first time.... Is it a "particle" or is it a "wave"? Here we see a wave behaving as a particle.... literally
... Click to enlarge...
Surely this is logically incorrect?
Cheers
Good Elf, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "THEY", "THEY2" janrinze, Jal, Montec, StevenA, "Why Not?", Siau, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, Tim ©, et al,[/B]
I must confess I wanted this post to continue by adding a thought from someone we all miss (I do know he was larger than life -RPF-, and stayed out of the box => I learned this from him) and respect.
Good Elf, did you click on the CLICK ME boxes. It is just a perspective I was hoping would be used. He did not understand it, and as you read what David M. Harrison, Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Toronto described you can see he is searching as well.
As far as your question, we have tried to look at this from many Mathematical views, yet as I stated (first let me express I will not assume to understand the underpinning of QM) no one can explain using any tool/mathematical to explain.
What I have read on this post is that you stay close to the laws, yet venture out of the norm to which from my "frame of reference" causes you to use the gifts given dealing with the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Someone just might explain, to be honest I think maybe "THEY"2 will be the one.
caio_
yquantum
BTW, I believe that all QM matter are just waves but you have read this from me so long ago. Just keep the gray matter running, but please use what tools we have to build on. You must have data to support your ideas and if it is so crazy in your explanation about the DSE ---> then you might be getting warm.
Hi yquantum,
There is no doubt that I miss Richard Feynman "a lot". I really wish I could discuss this with him but I can't. I hope "THEY 2" does solve the problem ... I hope anyone solves the problem. You probably sense my frustration, I agree with the idea that I am unable to see it as anything other than what it seems. Length contraction is "real" but it is not what most people think... It is most certainly "seen" as a rotation. So an Airy Disk is an expression of a photon "painted" by very many events on the screen wall ... side on.
Whipping out my copy of the Feynman Lectures in Physics Book 3 Chapter 1... I see that the Gaussian Envelope is exactly what he drew. I am "disturbed"... Did he really mean it or was this simply just a "mud map" drawn on the blackboard as a simple visual cue? It is the kind of thing that stops me "dead in my tracks". My obsessive character will not let it go since "alarm bells" are ringing in my head. Or maybe it is just Tinnitus.
There is no doubt that I miss Richard Feynman "a lot". I really wish I could discuss this with him but I can't. I hope "THEY 2" does solve the problem
... I hope anyone solves the problem. You probably sense my frustration, I agree with the idea that I am unable to see it as anything other than what it seems. Length contraction is "real" but it is not what most people think... It is most certainly "seen" as a rotation. So an Airy Disk is an expression of a photon "painted" by very many events on the screen wall ... side on.Whipping out my copy of the Feynman Lectures in Physics Book 3 Chapter 1... I see that the Gaussian Envelope is exactly what he drew. I am "disturbed"... Did he really mean it or was this simply just a "mud map" drawn on the blackboard as a simple visual cue? It is the kind of thing that stops me "dead in my tracks". My obsessive character will not let it go since "alarm bells" are ringing in my head. Or maybe it is just Tinnitus.
QUOTE (yquantum+)
BTW, I believe that all QM matter are just waves but you have read this from me so long ago. Just keep the gray matter running, but please use what tools we have to build on. You must have data to support your ideas and if it is so crazy in your explanation about the DSE ---> then you might be getting warm.
I think QM matter are just waves too... I think waves of electromagnetism and not probability. Probability is not "stuff", and I do not know of a "probability meter" that directly makes single physical measurements like a field strength meter. So Richard got a little sloppy with his drawings... how could I criticize that? He would have known a single pinhole diffraction pattern would result in an Airy Disk.
The ideas that I have placed here about the photon "image" is a very strongly supported one in Physics experiments. Not only one photon at a time but as a degenerate state of bosons on the wavefront all obeying Bose-Einstein Statistics. Is this the image of each and every photon in that single boson state?... I think so. The photon packet is an "object" just like a particle and it is different side on as it is front on but it is certainly subject to a "relativistic optical rotation". I know it is not "customary" to consider us in relative motion near the speed of light to a "stationary" wavepacket but it seemed such a good idea for Einstein... then it seems that its durability lies in such thought experiments. Using the idea that Einstein proposed to elucidate Special Relativity was "chasing a beam of light". What about the beam of light being the stationary object and us and our laboratory in relative motion? SR says it should be the same... Right? All inertial frames are equivalent. This "image" of a single pinhole is the magnified spreading template of all the spreading photons. This means we are looking deeply into the photon structure in only two dimensions. Let these photons impinge into a thick sensitive photographic emulsion and wavefronts are preserved where the amplitude of the standing waves are the greatest with a very high degree of precision.
Cheers
The ideas that I have placed here about the photon "image" is a very strongly supported one in Physics experiments. Not only one photon at a time but as a degenerate state of bosons on the wavefront all obeying Bose-Einstein Statistics. Is this the image of each and every photon in that single boson state?... I think so. The photon packet is an "object" just like a particle and it is different side on as it is front on but it is certainly subject to a "relativistic optical rotation". I know it is not "customary" to consider us in relative motion near the speed of light to a "stationary" wavepacket but it seemed such a good idea for Einstein... then it seems that its durability lies in such thought experiments. Using the idea that Einstein proposed to elucidate Special Relativity was "chasing a beam of light". What about the beam of light being the stationary object and us and our laboratory in relative motion? SR says it should be the same... Right? All inertial frames are equivalent. This "image" of a single pinhole is the magnified spreading template of all the spreading photons. This means we are looking deeply into the photon structure in only two dimensions. Let these photons impinge into a thick sensitive photographic emulsion and wavefronts are preserved where the amplitude of the standing waves are the greatest with a very high degree of precision.
Cheers
Good Elf,
I knew about his perspective but remember the date/papers -- and how much has been gained in knowledge sense then, let me put it another way, tweaked!
I have a call and message I must return, will try and get back soon.
Good to hear from you and please take care, best to the family.
ciao_
yquantum
I knew about his perspective but remember the date/papers -- and how much has been gained in knowledge sense then, let me put it another way, tweaked!
I have a call and message I must return, will try and get back soon.
Good to hear from you and please take care, best to the family.
ciao_
yquantum
Gravity is an observed effect that is apparently caused by matter, more specifically the ability of matter to warp space. Space and time are essentially two aspects of the same concept. So, if we have a state of matter that warps space, then why not also have a state of matter that warps time.
What kind of properties would a state of matter have that could warp time. It could not have exact values for its properties because then we could predict the measurement of any property before doing the measurement, and that would mean we could set up time paradoxes. Instead, it would have to have probabilistic properties, so that the best prediction we could make prior to a measurement would be a probablility. When we actually do the measurement the property would lock into a single value that avoids all potential prior, and future, paradox.
When I say "avoids all potentisl paradox", it is important to remember this is in relation to the awareness of the observer. I know it sounds very strange to have the awareness of an observer alter the outcome of an experiment, but isn't this exactly what we see with the double slit experiment? Moreover, the awareness of an observer can alter the outcome of the double slit experiment across time. In other words, this seems to indicate that there is indeed a form of matter that can warp time, ie can effect changes temporally as well as spatially.
I realise this is all very "out there", but does it match up with the observerd results, ie does this mean there is a state of matter so dense, that it addition to warping space, it can also warp time?
What kind of properties would a state of matter have that could warp time. It could not have exact values for its properties because then we could predict the measurement of any property before doing the measurement, and that would mean we could set up time paradoxes. Instead, it would have to have probabilistic properties, so that the best prediction we could make prior to a measurement would be a probablility. When we actually do the measurement the property would lock into a single value that avoids all potential prior, and future, paradox.
When I say "avoids all potentisl paradox", it is important to remember this is in relation to the awareness of the observer. I know it sounds very strange to have the awareness of an observer alter the outcome of an experiment, but isn't this exactly what we see with the double slit experiment? Moreover, the awareness of an observer can alter the outcome of the double slit experiment across time. In other words, this seems to indicate that there is indeed a form of matter that can warp time, ie can effect changes temporally as well as spatially.
I realise this is all very "out there", but does it match up with the observerd results, ie does this mean there is a state of matter so dense, that it addition to warping space, it can also warp time?
Hi Tim C,
I am pretty "cool" to the idea that an observer is required to make things happen. What happened several billion years ago when there were no observers on the Earth? You then would need to postulate a "G*d" to do all the observing. Once you have that you no longer need observers like us to make anything happen at all. You can choose to introduce a "Intelligent design" but this idea pays a pretty solid price for it when you then ask what is the purpose of the observer now? It would appear that we are simply part of the observed experiment and cannot play any role in the outcome of events. I think it is best that we consider a Universe without the idea of a "G*d" whose use seems to be simply to fill in when we are not around. The DSE does not need observers as such and our instruments observe much better than any of our natural senses. If observers were important wouldn't the quality of the observer affect the actual outcome of the observations? It does not seem that way, the results are not altered by better observations .... We just seem to learn more about things. In fact our instruments can be used to detect faulty observers. If we are faulty observers then we may conclude that the outcomes of events are "magical" and dependent on this aspect. We then are in the World of Harry Potter... He he he! I wish we were in that world, but wishing for it will not make it happen.
With the problems of Global warming and so on we really need to get a grip of reality and try and make it give up its secrets rather than think that reality will go away if we wish enough for it. In the end it was Arthur C. Clarke who said that to primitives a truly advanced civilization would be indistinguishable from magic. While magic does not work the subtlety is technology is not magic but it can be just as good.
Cheers
QUOTE
Gravity is an observed effect that is apparently caused by matter, more specifically the ability of matter to warp space. Space and time are essentially two aspects of the same concept. So, if we have a state of matter that warps space, then why not also have a state of matter that warps time.[..] When I say "avoids all potential paradox", it is important to remember this is in relation to the awareness of the observer. I know it sounds very strange to have the awareness of an observer alter the outcome of an experiment, but isn't this exactly what we see with the double slit experiment? Moreover, the awareness of an observer can alter the outcome of the double slit experiment across time. In other words, this seems to indicate that there is indeed a form of matter that can warp time, ie can effect changes temporally as well as spatially.
It is an idea that may be worth pursuing. I think that matter could exist in two alternative forms related to each other through a reciprocal relationship. Why a reciprocal relationship? ... Because this is the relationship of functions to their Fourier transforms and probably extended to additional spatial and reciprocal spatial dimensions. This "connection" could allow for a kind of resonance relationship that other conceptual ideas do not have. Natural harmonic dual spaces seem a very natural spatial and temporal connection. You may need to look back over some of this thread to get the idea A reciprocal space and reciprocal time (frequency) relationship leads to harmonically related functions that repeat endlessly on a scale outside of time without causality. The time functions conditioned by boundary conditions in the frequency domain.I am pretty "cool" to the idea that an observer is required to make things happen. What happened several billion years ago when there were no observers on the Earth? You then would need to postulate a "G*d" to do all the observing. Once you have that you no longer need observers like us to make anything happen at all. You can choose to introduce a "Intelligent design" but this idea pays a pretty solid price for it when you then ask what is the purpose of the observer now? It would appear that we are simply part of the observed experiment and cannot play any role in the outcome of events. I think it is best that we consider a Universe without the idea of a "G*d" whose use seems to be simply to fill in when we are not around. The DSE does not need observers as such and our instruments observe much better than any of our natural senses. If observers were important wouldn't the quality of the observer affect the actual outcome of the observations? It does not seem that way, the results are not altered by better observations .... We just seem to learn more about things. In fact our instruments can be used to detect faulty observers. If we are faulty observers then we may conclude that the outcomes of events are "magical" and dependent on this aspect. We then are in the World of Harry Potter... He he he! I wish we were in that world, but wishing for it will not make it happen.
With the problems of Global warming and so on we really need to get a grip of reality and try and make it give up its secrets rather than think that reality will go away if we wish enough for it. In the end it was Arthur C. Clarke who said that to primitives a truly advanced civilization would be indistinguishable from magic. While magic does not work the subtlety is technology is not magic but it can be just as good.
Cheers
I may be gone for some time (new business to look after) - Best wishes to all.
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
I may be gone for some time (new business to look after) - Best wishes to all.
Best wishes in your enterprise. I have enjoyed your company on this and other threads. Send me a PM when you get a moment.
Cheers
Cheers
Helo Good Elf,
You put the question, "what happened when there were no observers billions of years ago at the universe beginning?" - or words to that effect. My thinking is that no observer is required, because there is nothing wrong with the events remaining probabilistic until an observer comes along later to see the remnants of those events.
I hypothesise that the universe is fundamentally a probability based system, and that as our awareness, by observation, of the arrangement of matter during these early events (or any other events for that matter) becomes more accurate, we slowly reduce the range of possible arrangements. In addition, as the range reduces, the probability of each possible arrangement increases, ultimately if we became completely aware of all the events then the range would be reduced to just one, and the probability of that arrangement would also become 1.
I realise this is perhaps a novel idea, so i will try another way of explaining it.
If we assume that the universe started with a big bang, we have not really reduced (by much) the range of arrangements of matter that could still possibly have existed. That is, we do not know the exact position of every particle duriing the first couple of million years (or even now), we just have a general idea of what was, or is, going on. This in no way diminishes the huge leaps we have made in our understanding of the early universe, the point I am making is that the exact details are still only known as statistical probabilities.
As a demonstration, our awareness of the path taken by a single photon fired at the double slit arrangement is a very simple, perhaps the most simple, case of our awareness reducing the range of possible arrangements. Spcifically we reduce the range of possiblities to one, which also has a probability of one.
Now, back to the early universe. In order to reduce the number of possible arrangements of matter down to one, we would, at least, have to become aware of the exact placement of every particle at one time. Given that we are unlikely to ever know this, I therefor hypothesise that the universe is fundamentally a probability based system, and, that we are only able to force a probability of one for very localised regions in this system, eg the double slit experiment. Further, it is our awareness of the system that is causing the reduction, and, this can occur temporally as well as spatially.
Again, this is all hypothesis, but I like to think about things that are somtimes quite out of the box
You put the question, "what happened when there were no observers billions of years ago at the universe beginning?" - or words to that effect. My thinking is that no observer is required, because there is nothing wrong with the events remaining probabilistic until an observer comes along later to see the remnants of those events.
I hypothesise that the universe is fundamentally a probability based system, and that as our awareness, by observation, of the arrangement of matter during these early events (or any other events for that matter) becomes more accurate, we slowly reduce the range of possible arrangements. In addition, as the range reduces, the probability of each possible arrangement increases, ultimately if we became completely aware of all the events then the range would be reduced to just one, and the probability of that arrangement would also become 1.
I realise this is perhaps a novel idea, so i will try another way of explaining it.
If we assume that the universe started with a big bang, we have not really reduced (by much) the range of arrangements of matter that could still possibly have existed. That is, we do not know the exact position of every particle duriing the first couple of million years (or even now), we just have a general idea of what was, or is, going on. This in no way diminishes the huge leaps we have made in our understanding of the early universe, the point I am making is that the exact details are still only known as statistical probabilities.
As a demonstration, our awareness of the path taken by a single photon fired at the double slit arrangement is a very simple, perhaps the most simple, case of our awareness reducing the range of possible arrangements. Spcifically we reduce the range of possiblities to one, which also has a probability of one.
Now, back to the early universe. In order to reduce the number of possible arrangements of matter down to one, we would, at least, have to become aware of the exact placement of every particle at one time. Given that we are unlikely to ever know this, I therefor hypothesise that the universe is fundamentally a probability based system, and, that we are only able to force a probability of one for very localised regions in this system, eg the double slit experiment. Further, it is our awareness of the system that is causing the reduction, and, this can occur temporally as well as spatially.
Again, this is all hypothesis, but I like to think about things that are somtimes quite out of the box
Hi Tim C,
So you are saying that even a single observation "now" can retro-causally affect the Universe such as it can do in the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. Only you have also "implied" that even just one observation "now" could potentially "cause" the Big Bang and set in train a series of subsequent events that lead inevitably to the present Universe and it's configuration?
What that would mean is we really only need that one observation somewhere in the fullness of time and everything could potentially happen as a consequence since the Universe and everything in it is one such outcome from all the possibilities. Maybe this is your personal Universe?
Actually that is not such a bad idea. It is just crazy enough to be possible.
... Click to enlarge...
This is a variant of the Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory with the Cramer Transactional Hypothesis tagged on. If I could convince you that none of this needs to be "chance" then this is almost what I have been saying all along.
I suppose the difference of opinion is the need for a "primary observer". In your variant of this theory each and every Universe that was or ever will be needs an observer (at least one) some time in the billions of years these Universes last ... It could be any one or anything. Would one single celled amoeba be sufficient? If so then this single celled amoeba would have been sufficient to be the Creator of the entire Universe. There is still no direct evidence that the quality of an observer changes the outcome of any single event. Are you suggesting that we set up the Holy Church or the Amoeba or are you suggesting yourself as the Creator of all things or (as some would have it) a certain inhabitant of Jerusalem in the years 0 CE onwards that has since left this realm? Other religions will "nominate" their own "feel good" primary cause to justify their belief system... Naturally War will be the only way to settle this squabble... In the end there will really be only "one primary observer" left just before he/she/it fades back into obscurity or passes on... He he he!
Now you could introduce the idea of "Intelligent Design" but why are we so intelligent? What about a human descendant from a billion years in the future be the ultimate cause? Surely such a fine specimen of "self selected" genetic engineering would be the perfect candidate?
I don't think so. Soon many will gather in meeting places to speculate about this fine "Harry Potter" like individual and will start to nominate this individuals attributes such as his/her/its miracle cures, the ability to walk on water and to fly and who this individual votes for in the Presidential Elections... Ha! Any feel good speculation will be acceptable as long as a majority of this "Church" agree to a common "feel good" picture. One example is the many portraits of Jesus in Catholic Churches portraying his blond blue eyed Aryan features being sadly and brutally scarred by a hoard of ugly Roman Centurions and watched by a jeering crowd of really "distasteful" looking Jews... Of course this "picture" varies depending on the ethnic group it is pitched at ... In Japan Jesus has a distinctly "oriental" appearance and in Southern Africa he has a very "Afro" look and feel.
For me I still like the idea that observers are not required even though retro-causality may be possible. Any comments? Have you any Scientific Proof? Is this the sort of thing we have an "innate need" to prove?
We have been down this road and it did not solve any real problems. I admit that morality is a possible benefit except where that morality is turned on its head to destroy the infidel or unbeliever or justify our pogroms. I hear that even chimpanzees can exhibit a kind of simple morality and show remorse and encourage altruism... Yet chimps do not attend church. Our genetic code is 98.5 % the same as chimps... maybe we should worship them for their simple beliefs rather than embracing complex exclusiveism in our beliefs that lead naturally to conflicts. Science has greater benefits to offer and a choice of a way out of this hopeless dilemma. I choose hope rather than a trust in "g*ds" to work out our problems..
Cheers
So you are saying that even a single observation "now" can retro-causally affect the Universe such as it can do in the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. Only you have also "implied" that even just one observation "now" could potentially "cause" the Big Bang and set in train a series of subsequent events that lead inevitably to the present Universe and it's configuration?
What that would mean is we really only need that one observation somewhere in the fullness of time and everything could potentially happen as a consequence since the Universe and everything in it is one such outcome from all the possibilities. Maybe this is your personal Universe?
Actually that is not such a bad idea. It is just crazy enough to be possible.
... Click to enlarge...
QUOTE
Figure 2: Minkowski diagram showing an open-ended emission transaction. The conventions used here are the same as those used in Fig. 1. The advanced waves propagate backward in time to the T=0 origin, where they are subject to a reflection boundary condition. The reflected wave arising from the boundary condition cancels the advanced wave up to the emission event, and at times after emission it reinforces the retarded wave from the emitter.
Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory
Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory
This is a variant of the Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory with the Cramer Transactional Hypothesis tagged on. If I could convince you that none of this needs to be "chance" then this is almost what I have been saying all along.
I suppose the difference of opinion is the need for a "primary observer". In your variant of this theory each and every Universe that was or ever will be needs an observer (at least one) some time in the billions of years these Universes last ... It could be any one or anything. Would one single celled amoeba be sufficient? If so then this single celled amoeba would have been sufficient to be the Creator of the entire Universe. There is still no direct evidence that the quality of an observer changes the outcome of any single event. Are you suggesting that we set up the Holy Church or the Amoeba or are you suggesting yourself as the Creator of all things or (as some would have it) a certain inhabitant of Jerusalem in the years 0 CE onwards that has since left this realm? Other religions will "nominate" their own "feel good" primary cause to justify their belief system... Naturally War will be the only way to settle this squabble... In the end there will really be only "one primary observer" left just before he/she/it fades back into obscurity or passes on... He he he!
Now you could introduce the idea of "Intelligent Design" but why are we so intelligent? What about a human descendant from a billion years in the future be the ultimate cause? Surely such a fine specimen of "self selected" genetic engineering would be the perfect candidate?
I don't think so. Soon many will gather in meeting places to speculate about this fine "Harry Potter" like individual and will start to nominate this individuals attributes such as his/her/its miracle cures, the ability to walk on water and to fly and who this individual votes for in the Presidential Elections... Ha! Any feel good speculation will be acceptable as long as a majority of this "Church" agree to a common "feel good" picture. One example is the many portraits of Jesus in Catholic Churches portraying his blond blue eyed Aryan features being sadly and brutally scarred by a hoard of ugly Roman Centurions and watched by a jeering crowd of really "distasteful" looking Jews... Of course this "picture" varies depending on the ethnic group it is pitched at ... In Japan Jesus has a distinctly "oriental" appearance and in Southern Africa he has a very "Afro" look and feel.For me I still like the idea that observers are not required even though retro-causality may be possible. Any comments? Have you any Scientific Proof? Is this the sort of thing we have an "innate need" to prove?
We have been down this road and it did not solve any real problems. I admit that morality is a possible benefit except where that morality is turned on its head to destroy the infidel or unbeliever or justify our pogroms. I hear that even chimpanzees can exhibit a kind of simple morality and show remorse and encourage altruism... Yet chimps do not attend church. Our genetic code is 98.5 % the same as chimps... maybe we should worship them for their simple beliefs rather than embracing complex exclusiveism in our beliefs that lead naturally to conflicts. Science has greater benefits to offer and a choice of a way out of this hopeless dilemma. I choose hope rather than a trust in "g*ds" to work out our problems..
Cheers
Good Elf, Tim C, et al,
GE, I wanted to quote your post dealing with the question given. We have as I have said many times (you have been hear much longer) see things (pun?) from a different perspective.
I respect your views and until the technology has improved and I do not see CERN/LHC, Fermi, etc.
putting this on the top of the list of experiment's to be made you will need to keep this post going until all (well most) are satisfied.
Is that possible?
Best to the family,
yquantum
Almost forgot, C2 best wishes if you read this. ciao.......
GE, I wanted to quote your post dealing with the question given. We have as I have said many times (you have been hear much longer) see things (pun?) from a different perspective.
I respect your views and until the technology has improved and I do not see CERN/LHC, Fermi, etc.
putting this on the top of the list of experiment's to be made
you will need to keep this post going until all (well most) are satisfied. Is that possible?
Best to the family,
yquantum
Almost forgot, C2 best wishes if you read this. ciao.......
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 4 2007, 11:01 PM)
So you are saying that even a single observation "now" can retro-causally affect the Universe such as it can do in the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. Only you have also "implied" that even just one observation "now" could potentially "cause" the Big Bang and set in train a series of subsequent events that lead inevitably to the present Universe and it's configuration?
Theoretically yes, but in practice no. The distinction is due to our inability to know the exact arrangement of all particles in the entire universe at one time. However, we can know the exact arrangement in a localised region of spacetime, ie the double slit experiment. Which is why we are able to expose the link between consciousness and quantum mechanics in the double slit experiment, but remain free from the paradox where multiple observervations of the early universe, made at different times by different people, may appear to all cause the big bang. That is, our observations of the early universe are not accurate enough to cause the paradox. No personal universe is required.
Theoretically yes, but in practice no. The distinction is due to our inability to know the exact arrangement of all particles in the entire universe at one time. However, we can know the exact arrangement in a localised region of spacetime, ie the double slit experiment. Which is why we are able to expose the link between consciousness and quantum mechanics in the double slit experiment, but remain free from the paradox where multiple observervations of the early universe, made at different times by different people, may appear to all cause the big bang. That is, our observations of the early universe are not accurate enough to cause the paradox. No personal universe is required.
Hi Tim C, yquantum et al,
I am not sure how many people are still following this thread?
I am not sure how many people are still following this thread?
QUOTE (yquantum +)
I respect your views and until the technology has improved and I do not see CERN/LHC, Fermi, etc.
putting this on the top of the list of experiment's to be made you will need to keep this post going until all (well most) are satisfied.
Is that possible?
putting this on the top of the list of experiment's to be made you will need to keep this post going until all (well most) are satisfied.
Is that possible?
He he he... If I do I may be simply be talking to myself in the end. I doubt that would impress anyone. The Double Slit Experiment is crucial to all of quantum mechanics and I realize this topic is the one that requires the greatest efforts. Still... I still think this approach has worth and the merits of it should not be judged by my frustration with it. I would have wished for cogent arguments to the contrary but there has been insufficient constructive feedback lately and this has led to this point.
I will keep it going a little longer to see if there is any further interest but there are other topics that I can add my two cents worth to.
I will answer Tim C's answer soon.... hang on... I have a few domestic things to arrange.
Cheers
I will keep it going a little longer to see if there is any further interest but there are other topics that I can add my two cents worth to.
I will answer Tim C's answer soon.... hang on... I have a few domestic things to arrange.
Cheers
On the spot GoodElf " What about the beam of light being the stationary object and us and our laboratory in relative motion? SR says it should be the same... Right? All inertial frames are equivalent. " You are seeing the photon as a inertial object as it has no acceleration. Quite nice :)
And i agree with this too " that are traveling at C relative to us so a construction of what this will look like according to all constructions you can google on the net (and I have given you two of them recently) is according to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity a "Length Contraction"... This is a fiction according to all external observers, what they will actually see is a rotation through an angle of arcsin(V/C) where V = C so the angle of rotation for light packets away from all observers is pi/2 radian or 90 degrees in the old measure. This means every single photon is being seen "side on" to the velocity vector. They "hit" the screen and leave their mark like a bug on the windscreen of a car.... side on. " In fact i think it has great relevance to what i posted about a thought experiment involving a strudel recently :)
And Tim C, even though i agree with the universe most probably existed before 'our' consciousness i still believe that there exist an extremely strong connection between consciousness and the universe. It may be that it is our ideas of what constitutes a consciousness that needs to be reconsidered. we deem the universe from were we stand, but as we accumulate more and more ideas our perceptions slowly change.
((Ahh :) reading your earlier posting i see that we are not so different in thinking as i first thought. Do you have a link to that double slit experiment?)
Hey, did i hear the word religion ::)) Don't think so.
And perhaps a better description for what i mean would be 'self awareness'.
That doesn't necessarily couple it to emotion or intelligence or any of those things we expect, it may not even be aware of time as we are. Just 'self aware'
And i agree with this too " that are traveling at C relative to us so a construction of what this will look like according to all constructions you can google on the net (and I have given you two of them recently) is according to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity a "Length Contraction"... This is a fiction according to all external observers, what they will actually see is a rotation through an angle of arcsin(V/C) where V = C so the angle of rotation for light packets away from all observers is pi/2 radian or 90 degrees in the old measure. This means every single photon is being seen "side on" to the velocity vector. They "hit" the screen and leave their mark like a bug on the windscreen of a car.... side on. " In fact i think it has great relevance to what i posted about a thought experiment involving a strudel recently :)
And Tim C, even though i agree with the universe most probably existed before 'our' consciousness i still believe that there exist an extremely strong connection between consciousness and the universe. It may be that it is our ideas of what constitutes a consciousness that needs to be reconsidered. we deem the universe from were we stand, but as we accumulate more and more ideas our perceptions slowly change.
((Ahh :) reading your earlier posting i see that we are not so different in thinking as i first thought. Do you have a link to that double slit experiment?)
Hey, did i hear the word religion ::)) Don't think so.
And perhaps a better description for what i mean would be 'self awareness'.
That doesn't necessarily couple it to emotion or intelligence or any of those things we expect, it may not even be aware of time as we are. Just 'self aware'
Hi yor_on, Tim C, yquantum et al,
QUOTE (yor_on+)
Hey, did i hear the word religion :) Don't think so.
And perhaps a better description for what i mean would be 'self awareness'.
That doesn't necessarily couple it to emotion or intelligence or any of those things we expect, it may not even be aware of time as we are. Just 'self aware'
) Don't think so.And perhaps a better description for what i mean would be 'self awareness'.
That doesn't necessarily couple it to emotion or intelligence or any of those things we expect, it may not even be aware of time as we are. Just 'self aware'
You don't need to mention "Religion" to know "Intelligent Design" when you see it. Tim C is probably not into Intelligent design and so are a lot of people, but once you accept an unsubstantiated premiss as a fact that underpins everything else then anything goes.
Science is an operational process and not an absolute process. There is no "absolute understanding" in science it is a self recursive iterative process. We test and then we theorize and then we match the theories against the tests. Then we repeat this loop always matching these two stories to each other. Once we say there are things for which this process is exempt we are speaking about beliefs. Call beliefs what you like in the end it is what people willingly die for. Where is the experiment that shows that self awareness means that we are co-creators in a Universe? It is the nature of human beliefs to propose different versions of this story where they are contradictory and based on our hubris. Show me one religion that is "Scientific" in anything other than its name or in a peculiar adoption of techniques that are anything but personal and idiosyncratic.
Science is an operational process and not an absolute process. There is no "absolute understanding" in science it is a self recursive iterative process. We test and then we theorize and then we match the theories against the tests. Then we repeat this loop always matching these two stories to each other. Once we say there are things for which this process is exempt we are speaking about beliefs. Call beliefs what you like in the end it is what people willingly die for. Where is the experiment that shows that self awareness means that we are co-creators in a Universe? It is the nature of human beliefs to propose different versions of this story where they are contradictory and based on our hubris. Show me one religion that is "Scientific" in anything other than its name or in a peculiar adoption of techniques that are anything but personal and idiosyncratic.
QUOTE (yor_on+)
And Tim C, even though i agree with the universe most probably existed before our consciousness i still believe that there exist an extremely strong connection between consciousness and the universe. It may be that it is our ideas of what constitutes a consciousness that needs to be reconsidered.
I can understand the way that people believe that what some people want they can get by application of "influence" or by money or by brute naked force. To raise this even higher to a god given ability beyond our "instrumentality" is "magic". Show me the repeatable experiment that shows that consciousness can alter the outcome of an experiment through the application of that consciousness alone. What people often do is they "join the dots" between the disconnected events in their life and try and find a connection to our wills. If there is no definitive experiment to demonstrate this connection in a purely repeatable scientific experiment it is not through the want of trying. Maybe if we redefine consciousness in some way that removes the personal g*ds and individualism from this process we might be able to agree.
What we are seeing in the Universe is true connection between events such as entanglement and simple physics of interactions. It is a big step to move from that to include human consciousness in this loop in any way other than the most trivial connection. We have heard that "If a tree falls in a forest, without an observer it may exist in a superposition of unresolved quantum states". Experiment shows that we cannot observe that superposition of quantum states... it is a conundrum created by those who like word games. It is like saying the far side of the moon did not really exist until a spacecraft was sent there to photograph it. The observation is what determines the outcome of experiment and the lack of actual observation of events does not change the outcomes of the consequences of the unobserved event. For instance a dead cat in a box will not suddenly become a live cat in a box just because you close the box and open it again to see if it is still dead. Experiment must agree with with theory. Here we have a theory without the defining experiment. We are left to "believe" soon we would be having wars over this unresolved "red herring".
What we are seeing in the Universe is true connection between events such as entanglement and simple physics of interactions. It is a big step to move from that to include human consciousness in this loop in any way other than the most trivial connection. We have heard that "If a tree falls in a forest, without an observer it may exist in a superposition of unresolved quantum states". Experiment shows that we cannot observe that superposition of quantum states... it is a conundrum created by those who like word games. It is like saying the far side of the moon did not really exist until a spacecraft was sent there to photograph it. The observation is what determines the outcome of experiment and the lack of actual observation of events does not change the outcomes of the consequences of the unobserved event. For instance a dead cat in a box will not suddenly become a live cat in a box just because you close the box and open it again to see if it is still dead. Experiment must agree with with theory. Here we have a theory without the defining experiment. We are left to "believe" soon we would be having wars over this unresolved "red herring".
QUOTE (Tim C+)
Theoretically yes, but in practice no. The distinction is due to our inability to know the exact arrangement of all particles in the entire universe at one time. However, we can know the exact arrangement in a localised region of spacetime, ie the double slit experiment.
Tell me any observer that knows the exact arrangement of anything ... even one thing in the Universe... and I will award him the "Harry Potter Prize" for breaking all the Laws of Physics at once. This influence you are speaking of is not "knowledge" or "knowing" it is our physical interaction with the outcome. Close your eyes and start describing each and every atom in the room and in which quantum state it is presently occupying. You could not do this for even one atom let alone "exactly" for even small regions of our immediate environment. Our internal "picture" of the external Universe is at best highly flawed and at worst nothing more than the barest outline of features. Tell me what color your wife top was this morning, you saw it but do you still remember it? As soon as we agree this vague definition cannot be what you mean we begin to bater about what it is you "want to believe"... or what quality of "awareness" that makes us all such "good observers". Eventually we will come down to it... we are humans and therefore we are special in all of creation and supreme in grace, style, knowledge and in all manner of centrality, anointed by g*d(s). We are the Center of our own Universe, of course we think this is the action of our own awareness. The ancients believed that light was made of beams that emanated from our eyes so that we saw only what really exists, how wonderful that made us... everything we observed was "illuminated" by our personal grace!!!. From that point of view then everything visible must revolve around our own individual central awareness. To many a couple of thousand years ago this was a great story.
It was pointed out by Pythagoras (I think) that you should go outside and stare at the sun for an hour or so and realize that light proceeds from the outside world into our bodies and can even burn them irretrievably blinding us. If we are the source of this "light" what the hell is now wrong with your eyes? The same principle exists here, we do not illuminate the universe with our "wisdom" making all of it happen. The ancients have known this (at least the smarter ones knew) why have we revisited this strange "religion" at this point in history? The tree falls in the forest because of physical laws and the consequences of thousands of trees and a host of plants provide us with forests which we can then see. We do not create events, events create us.
Back to you guys on this one.
Cheers
It was pointed out by Pythagoras (I think) that you should go outside and stare at the sun for an hour or so and realize that light proceeds from the outside world into our bodies and can even burn them irretrievably blinding us. If we are the source of this "light" what the hell is now wrong with your eyes?
The same principle exists here, we do not illuminate the universe with our "wisdom" making all of it happen. The ancients have known this (at least the smarter ones knew) why have we revisited this strange "religion" at this point in history? The tree falls in the forest because of physical laws and the consequences of thousands of trees and a host of plants provide us with forests which we can then see. We do not create events, events create us.Back to you guys on this one.
Cheers
Aah :) goodElf, i'm arguing that you can't take consciousness of the play :)
What you do writing those words are using the exact same process that you find the universe to make without, the same as you have done when reaching your conclusions. Maybe we don't need consciousness for the universe to work. Maybe our definitions of consciousness sucks, maybe there is not needed any self awareness for a universe to be created, but once reaching some level of complexity i would be very surprised if self awareness didn't show up there :) And it do seem as our existence have influence on QM.
And no, intelligent design is not what i'm thinking of, it's more in the manner of a fractal that from a small seed evolves into complicated patterns (no Ego involved). Intelligent Design reminds me of what a friend called those that believed that war was a Darwinist proccess, 'vulgar Darwinism' :) Doesn't sound quite as good in english ::))
What you do writing those words are using the exact same process that you find the universe to make without, the same as you have done when reaching your conclusions. Maybe we don't need consciousness for the universe to work. Maybe our definitions of consciousness sucks, maybe there is not needed any self awareness for a universe to be created, but once reaching some level of complexity i would be very surprised if self awareness didn't show up there :) And it do seem as our existence have influence on QM.
And no, intelligent design is not what i'm thinking of, it's more in the manner of a fractal that from a small seed evolves into complicated patterns (no Ego involved). Intelligent Design reminds me of what a friend called those that believed that war was a Darwinist proccess, 'vulgar Darwinism' :) Doesn't sound quite as good in english ::))
Hi to all,
Many of us - mostly silent readers of this thread - are still here, Good Elf, et al. And while there has been a temporary excursion here into metaphysics, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes, such introspection can ultimately result in a good mental housecleaning or even new ideas!
On events vs. observers: It seems to me that every particle is both actor and observer in any physical system. Conveyor/Receptor. Source/Sink. And each continues on it's own merry way of probabilistic existence, unknowingly running into it's neighbors (or visa versa), in it's own frame of reference for as long as major transformations do not impact it and fundamentally change it. So, every interaction has an observer or there's no interaction!
Could the universe in which we interact in order to observe, actually be the sum of nearly infinite particle sub-universes? Continuity would be probabilistically maintained (including particle entanglement) and all the laws of physics would emerge as an apparent continuum.
Once again, thanks to all for making this forum one to revisit often! ~Jim
Many of us - mostly silent readers of this thread - are still here, Good Elf, et al. And while there has been a temporary excursion here into metaphysics, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes, such introspection can ultimately result in a good mental housecleaning or even new ideas!
On events vs. observers: It seems to me that every particle is both actor and observer in any physical system. Conveyor/Receptor. Source/Sink. And each continues on it's own merry way of probabilistic existence, unknowingly running into it's neighbors (or visa versa), in it's own frame of reference for as long as major transformations do not impact it and fundamentally change it. So, every interaction has an observer or there's no interaction!
Could the universe in which we interact in order to observe, actually be the sum of nearly infinite particle sub-universes? Continuity would be probabilistically maintained (including particle entanglement) and all the laws of physics would emerge as an apparent continuum.
Once again, thanks to all for making this forum one to revisit often! ~Jim
Hi Aerohead!
Then you won't mind if I include what I think is the best story of all. You can finish it.
------------
In the beginning, some 15 billion years ago, there was a terrible event that changed the peaceful existence of what we call quarks.
In those old bygone days, the quarks filled the whole universe with their slow moving dance. There is no way of knowing for sure what their life was like. They were the only living thing in the universe.
In those days quarks were not those tiny, 10^-15 spinning particles hiding behind an energy screen that we call protons and neutrons. By our reckoning, it took only 300,000 years for all of the quarks to hide in the protons.
What was it that caused this change? Was it their environment?
What could have possibly happened to make the quarks shrink to their present size and leave the universe empty? Even to this day, quarks will not venture out from their hiding places.
Quarks are very long lived. As long as their spinning configuration in the proton is not breached they could live forever.
I wonder, if the quarks that are seen in the neutrons are degenerate protons? Are they on their last breath of existence? Have they given up hope of a return to their previous life?
Or, perhaps, they are sacrificing themselves so that the protons can have sustenance: Sacrificing themselves for the greater good.
That terrible event that changed everything for the quarks made it possible for the evolution of life as we know it.
Thinking from our perspective maybe all wrong. It could also be that those 10^80 particles are just part of a greater whole. Those 10^80 particles could be just a few tourist enjoying a brief moment of spinning existence within a sphere of energy that we call protons and neutrons.
If we could, would it be a good idea to reproduce the conditions that would entice the quarks to return to their former size and existence? Let us not forget that we are parasites that have evolved from the present state/condition of the quarks. Would we be releasing an alien presence into our midst that would cascade into a totally alien universe that is not favorable to life as we know it?
What would be our last memory?
A blast of radiation? ……… A sucking sound? ………..
……… to be continued ………. (by the readers)
---------------
jal
Then you won't mind if I include what I think is the best story of all. You can finish it.
------------
In the beginning, some 15 billion years ago, there was a terrible event that changed the peaceful existence of what we call quarks.
In those old bygone days, the quarks filled the whole universe with their slow moving dance. There is no way of knowing for sure what their life was like. They were the only living thing in the universe.
In those days quarks were not those tiny, 10^-15 spinning particles hiding behind an energy screen that we call protons and neutrons. By our reckoning, it took only 300,000 years for all of the quarks to hide in the protons.
What was it that caused this change? Was it their environment?
What could have possibly happened to make the quarks shrink to their present size and leave the universe empty? Even to this day, quarks will not venture out from their hiding places.
Quarks are very long lived. As long as their spinning configuration in the proton is not breached they could live forever.
I wonder, if the quarks that are seen in the neutrons are degenerate protons? Are they on their last breath of existence? Have they given up hope of a return to their previous life?
Or, perhaps, they are sacrificing themselves so that the protons can have sustenance: Sacrificing themselves for the greater good.
That terrible event that changed everything for the quarks made it possible for the evolution of life as we know it.
Thinking from our perspective maybe all wrong. It could also be that those 10^80 particles are just part of a greater whole. Those 10^80 particles could be just a few tourist enjoying a brief moment of spinning existence within a sphere of energy that we call protons and neutrons.
If we could, would it be a good idea to reproduce the conditions that would entice the quarks to return to their former size and existence? Let us not forget that we are parasites that have evolved from the present state/condition of the quarks. Would we be releasing an alien presence into our midst that would cascade into a totally alien universe that is not favorable to life as we know it?
What would be our last memory?
A blast of radiation? ……… A sucking sound? ………..
……… to be continued ………. (by the readers)
---------------
jal
Perhaps our problem is one of perspective. When looking at space perhaps what is really there is only an illusion of solidity and light has multiple vanishing points within the same plane creating a duality of suface and subsurface .
I envision a kind of negative space with interlocking bands that leave and come into the plane. A play on the brains ability to compensate for what it should be seeing vs what is actually on a plane. (A curvelinear subsurface on an angle expressed in foreground, background, light,shadow and opacity)
Could there be such a thing as interlocking planes with bands of light that come in and out of our perspective based on our viewpoint and ability to see that lights frequency?
I envision a kind of negative space with interlocking bands that leave and come into the plane. A play on the brains ability to compensate for what it should be seeing vs what is actually on a plane. (A curvelinear subsurface on an angle expressed in foreground, background, light,shadow and opacity)
Could there be such a thing as interlocking planes with bands of light that come in and out of our perspective based on our viewpoint and ability to see that lights frequency?
Wow and i thought i was reaching here :)
Interlocking bands? Sounds exotic? And you're not playing on our minds here are you?
And yeah, i reckon there are some serious posters left, even i know how to be serious sometimes. Like when i hit my toe on some obstacle.
Oh yes, that's serious, try it and see.
Interlocking bands? Sounds exotic? And you're not playing on our minds here are you?
And yeah, i reckon there are some serious posters left, even i know how to be serious sometimes. Like when i hit my toe on some obstacle.
Oh yes, that's serious, try it and see.
Hi yor_on, Aerohead, Jal, Tim C, oracle1, yquantum, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "THEY", "THEY2" janrinze, Montec, StevenA, "Why Not?", Siau, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, et al,
QUOTE (Aerohead+)
Many of us - mostly silent readers of this thread - are still here, Good Elf, et al.
Thanks for that... It is good to see that some folks are still reading this thread. I must admit that I sometimes think everyone is better employed elsewhere. What keeps me thinking about these points is good questions. I would appreciate some really good questions that push the concept to the limits to see if there are any loopholes.
The "metaphysics" is an interesting concept to "wander around" from time to time. Jal's thinking quarks is "one I have not heard before". He he he... Good one! If I believe in Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory I am "sort of" priming everyone for a belief in consciousness retrospectively altering the past... Maybe even setting you all up for a "new religious belief". This is definitely not what I want to do. I do not accept Intelligent Design but if not intelligent design... what?. As to the existence of a "g*d" science should not be a search for "ultimate answers to questions". We have a primitive impulse to answer all questions for which there is no immediate answer with the blanket explanation of "G*d". This response leads to superstition and an end to seeking answers. This process started long before Galileo asked the cardinals of Rome to look into his telescope and see the "Worlds beyond"... the cardinals went through the motions of looking and replied they saw "nothing". Not very much has changed.
Every good question needs a good answer and the quality of the answer is a true measure of the level of understanding we collectively have. When the answer to every question ultimately is the word "G*d" then we have become a senile species and are just waiting for a collective cultural death. When we say that the answer to what is happening in the Universe is just an externalization of what is happening in us and seek nothing further then this is also a "g*d".
Science gives only relative answers to questions... very good and searching answers that are of great benefit and insight as well as potential danger. There are many who think we should not search for these solutions even though we know that some of these solutions are the answers the future of our species urgently need. So the question about g*d is not our responsibility. Our responsibility is to our fellow beings and how we relate to our World here and now and not to a search for "ultimate final solutions" which are not the provenance of science.
The "metaphysics" is an interesting concept to "wander around" from time to time. Jal's thinking quarks is "one I have not heard before". He he he... Good one! If I believe in Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory I am "sort of" priming everyone for a belief in consciousness retrospectively altering the past... Maybe even setting you all up for a "new religious belief". This is definitely not what I want to do. I do not accept Intelligent Design but if not intelligent design... what?. As to the existence of a "g*d" science should not be a search for "ultimate answers to questions". We have a primitive impulse to answer all questions for which there is no immediate answer with the blanket explanation of "G*d". This response leads to superstition and an end to seeking answers. This process started long before Galileo asked the cardinals of Rome to look into his telescope and see the "Worlds beyond"... the cardinals went through the motions of looking and replied they saw "nothing". Not very much has changed.
Every good question needs a good answer and the quality of the answer is a true measure of the level of understanding we collectively have. When the answer to every question ultimately is the word "G*d" then we have become a senile species and are just waiting for a collective cultural death. When we say that the answer to what is happening in the Universe is just an externalization of what is happening in us and seek nothing further then this is also a "g*d".
Science gives only relative answers to questions... very good and searching answers that are of great benefit and insight as well as potential danger. There are many who think we should not search for these solutions even though we know that some of these solutions are the answers the future of our species urgently need. So the question about g*d is not our responsibility. Our responsibility is to our fellow beings and how we relate to our World here and now and not to a search for "ultimate final solutions" which are not the provenance of science.
QUOTE (Aerohead+)
Could the universe in which we interact in order to observe, actually be the sum of nearly infinite particle sub-universes? Continuity would be probabilistically maintained (including particle entanglement) and all the laws of physics would emerge as an apparent continuum.
It seems to be the case that our self awareness, according to some folk in the field of psychology, is due to a reflexive process... Like an artist painting a picture of himself painting a picture of a landscape. An examination of each picture, in each sub-scene of each image of himself would reveal an even smaller image of the artist in his landscape painting his picture and so on and on. I really believe that there are parallel universes and tests of the parallel universe theory are already providing some answers which are affirmative. I am a fan of David Deutsch and of his parallel universe theories. Does this mean "g*d"? No it does not. Does it mean awareness? Could be! Like I said in my last post "We do not create events, events create us." It seems to me that individual events are not aware... it takes time to be aware... events do not execute in time (see previous posts)... We are "aware" and we are the sum of all "preceding events" playing out in time.
... Click to enlarge...
As a "believer" in Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory it seems plausible that we are unaware of many levels of information which seems to be part of this process. As you see in the image above simple "resonant" optical recursion. It is an optical process in this simple "hall of mirrors". To be "aware" might be to reflexively be the viewer as well as the subject of this image, not literally but allegorically speaking. The universe will certainly have recursive processes that are related to "more" than just these bandwidth limited optical phenomena. It is not too difficult to accept that there are natural laws (Like Quantum Talbot Carpets mentioned previously) where quantum revivals restore "something like the original" image over and over again as "real" Quantum Kondo Phantoms. I and others have discussed these points previously in this thread. These entities are not just optical images but also enter into the same atomic and subatomic electronic processes as real atoms and molecules. It could be that without this piece for the jigsaw the "whole" does not make a lot of sense. In the same sense each of the sub-images in this example of recursion as seen in the illustration above are not "smaller" but are simply suffering from the influence of optical perspective. These influences are not unrelated to the processes involved in some virtual photon interactions. When you create this "hall of mirrors" there really are no extra photons involved but where are all these images coming from? The information is not always exactly the same and yet in some sense there is a repeated "motif".
... Click to enlarge...
As a "believer" in Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory it seems plausible that we are unaware of many levels of information which seems to be part of this process. As you see in the image above simple "resonant" optical recursion. It is an optical process in this simple "hall of mirrors". To be "aware" might be to reflexively be the viewer as well as the subject of this image, not literally but allegorically speaking. The universe will certainly have recursive processes that are related to "more" than just these bandwidth limited optical phenomena. It is not too difficult to accept that there are natural laws (Like Quantum Talbot Carpets mentioned previously) where quantum revivals restore "something like the original" image over and over again as "real" Quantum Kondo Phantoms. I and others have discussed these points previously in this thread. These entities are not just optical images but also enter into the same atomic and subatomic electronic processes as real atoms and molecules. It could be that without this piece for the jigsaw the "whole" does not make a lot of sense. In the same sense each of the sub-images in this example of recursion as seen in the illustration above are not "smaller" but are simply suffering from the influence of optical perspective. These influences are not unrelated to the processes involved in some virtual photon interactions. When you create this "hall of mirrors" there really are no extra photons involved but where are all these images coming from? The information is not always exactly the same and yet in some sense there is a repeated "motif".
QUOTE (Oracle1+)
Perhaps our problem is one of perspective. When looking at space perhaps what is really there is only an illusion of solidity and light has multiple vanishing points within the same plane creating a duality of surface and subsurface .
Quite true... It is all part of the natural world. We do not need to dream these things up because they already exist and we can experience them with the right equipment. The meaning of all this should not be locked in and we should allow the science to define the meaning for us rather than using humanistic interpretation.
Getting back to the Double Slit Experiment we have exciting new discoveries that vindicate the reality of many of these wild theories. In the last week investigations of some of the consequences of quantum theory lead to profound insight into natural process. With the caveats I have spoken of previously regarding the statistical interpretation of QM, here is a paper that suggests that there are other ways to teleport "matter" through space.
www.arxiv.org/abs/0709.0985
Matterwave Transport Without Transit
This appeared first in a New Scientist Article...
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam...ilosophers.html
This is a strong supporting argument for the interpretation of quantum processes proposed here as resonance between sources and sinks rather than "tunneling" of particles. This is a three interconnected chambered system in which a BEC can be transported from chamber one to chamber three without a statistically significant "existence" in the intervening space. Clearly a resonance between the sources in the first BEC and the sinks in the target "transported" BEC. This is only an analysis of the problem at this stage but you can see that non-destructive transport through space and even barriers can indeed occur. The BEC is "matter" and the transport is a interfering "wave" through the space. This is only a problem for the philosophers if you still want to believe that "matter" and "particles" are the reality and the "waves" are the illusion. Here we can clearly see that the waves are the only essence that make up the BEC in the first place.
Another article recently slipped through the news services but also appeared in New Scientist was this one...
Gold rings create first true invisibility cloak: NS 02 Oct 2007
Here is the first actual demonstration of actual invisibility at optical wavelengths. It is also very interesting to see the lack of statistics used in these quantum processes where the "history" of individual photons are critical to the success. They are "holographic" processes and seem to be related to David Bohme's "Holographic Universe". Optical Holographic Templates and their matter wave influences (like optical gratings, the Double Slit Experiment and many other photonic's phenomena such as EIT and Negative Refractive Metamaterials) define the "new physics". There is a new awareness afoot regarding the laws of physics and of nature where almost anything we can conceive of can be made to happen if we are willing to do the groundwork. I know that if you had foolishly proposed these ideas just a few short years ago regarding the results of some of these recent experiments, addressed to the most knowledgeable pundits in the field, they would certainly have laughed you out of the faculty and heaped burning scorn on you for it. You would be lucky to get a job washing dishes. We are in the same position today with Quantum Physics that Victorian Science was in more than 100 years ago when the Royal Academy authoritatively stated that everything that was important to know about the Universe was already known and that all science and scientists needed to do was clean up a "couple of loose ends"... and that was it for physics. We could write Physics up in a book and put it on a shelf to gather dust... an end to physical knowledge... we would then know everything ... what a lot of arrant nonsense! I do not know how many times this has been indirectly stated in recent years but you all know why nobody "does physics" anymore... it is because the pundit have said "Nothing to see here... move along!"
The research has been shrunk down to a couple of massive projects that employ the collective genius of the physics community in cleaning up a "couple of loose ends". What I am saying is this is not the end if we do not want it to be, it is just the beginning. Also... It is not the beginning of the end, it is the end of the beginning. Many have asked and pleaded that we should end this search for more and more knowledge ... Like the Beaver and the Butcher in "The Hunting of the Snark" Lewis Carroll/Dodgson knew what was happening but could not speak his mind in that Victorian World.... "Shut up and calculate" or you will all fade away into nothingness in your quest.
... Click to enlarge...
It is very difficult to exorcise those "daemons" in our mind. All our false "g*ds" and "daemons" are slowly being lost... along with our "immortality". Luckily we elves do not have a soul "to save" and have no immortality to worry about. For those who have these urgings it will be a readjustment of their own values to find something of substance worth saving (believe me when I say there are values truly worth saving). So in that sense consciousness and self awareness does play a role in what happens in the world. Not a "Harry Potter" World but equally as interesting with far more to happen in the future than has already happened in the past.
Back to you...
Cheers
Getting back to the Double Slit Experiment we have exciting new discoveries that vindicate the reality of many of these wild theories. In the last week investigations of some of the consequences of quantum theory lead to profound insight into natural process. With the caveats I have spoken of previously regarding the statistical interpretation of QM, here is a paper that suggests that there are other ways to teleport "matter" through space.
www.arxiv.org/abs/0709.0985
Matterwave Transport Without Transit
This appeared first in a New Scientist Article...
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam...ilosophers.html
This is a strong supporting argument for the interpretation of quantum processes proposed here as resonance between sources and sinks rather than "tunneling" of particles. This is a three interconnected chambered system in which a BEC can be transported from chamber one to chamber three without a statistically significant "existence" in the intervening space. Clearly a resonance between the sources in the first BEC and the sinks in the target "transported" BEC. This is only an analysis of the problem at this stage but you can see that non-destructive transport through space and even barriers can indeed occur. The BEC is "matter" and the transport is a interfering "wave" through the space. This is only a problem for the philosophers if you still want to believe that "matter" and "particles" are the reality and the "waves" are the illusion. Here we can clearly see that the waves are the only essence that make up the BEC in the first place.
Another article recently slipped through the news services but also appeared in New Scientist was this one...
Gold rings create first true invisibility cloak: NS 02 Oct 2007
Here is the first actual demonstration of actual invisibility at optical wavelengths. It is also very interesting to see the lack of statistics used in these quantum processes where the "history" of individual photons are critical to the success. They are "holographic" processes and seem to be related to David Bohme's "Holographic Universe". Optical Holographic Templates and their matter wave influences (like optical gratings, the Double Slit Experiment and many other photonic's phenomena such as EIT and Negative Refractive Metamaterials) define the "new physics". There is a new awareness afoot regarding the laws of physics and of nature where almost anything we can conceive of can be made to happen if we are willing to do the groundwork. I know that if you had foolishly proposed these ideas just a few short years ago regarding the results of some of these recent experiments, addressed to the most knowledgeable pundits in the field, they would certainly have laughed you out of the faculty and heaped burning scorn on you for it. You would be lucky to get a job washing dishes. We are in the same position today with Quantum Physics that Victorian Science was in more than 100 years ago when the Royal Academy authoritatively stated that everything that was important to know about the Universe was already known and that all science and scientists needed to do was clean up a "couple of loose ends"... and that was it for physics. We could write Physics up in a book and put it on a shelf to gather dust... an end to physical knowledge... we would then know everything ... what a lot of arrant nonsense! I do not know how many times this has been indirectly stated in recent years but you all know why nobody "does physics" anymore... it is because the pundit have said "Nothing to see here... move along!"
The research has been shrunk down to a couple of massive projects that employ the collective genius of the physics community in cleaning up a "couple of loose ends". What I am saying is this is not the end if we do not want it to be, it is just the beginning. Also... It is not the beginning of the end, it is the end of the beginning. Many have asked and pleaded that we should end this search for more and more knowledge ... Like the Beaver and the Butcher in "The Hunting of the Snark" Lewis Carroll/Dodgson knew what was happening but could not speak his mind in that Victorian World.... "Shut up and calculate" or you will all fade away into nothingness in your quest.
... Click to enlarge...
It is very difficult to exorcise those "daemons" in our mind. All our false "g*ds" and "daemons" are slowly being lost... along with our "immortality". Luckily we elves do not have a soul "to save" and have no immortality to worry about. For those who have these urgings it will be a readjustment of their own values to find something of substance worth saving (believe me when I say there are values truly worth saving). So in that sense consciousness and self awareness does play a role in what happens in the world. Not a "Harry Potter" World but equally as interesting with far more to happen in the future than has already happened in the past.
Back to you...
Cheers
Interesting links, just a Q " Smolyaninov's cloak consists of a two-dimensional pattern of concentric gold rings coated in a plastic called polymethyl methacrylate " how do they see it as two dimensional? then there should be one dimension taken away, no?
I think i can see how a wave might be in two dimensions, even though that would mean as far as i understand that at some angle of sight it would 'not exist'. But two dimensional restmass? Is that possible? Do we have experiments proving that concept?
I think i can see how a wave might be in two dimensions, even though that would mean as far as i understand that at some angle of sight it would 'not exist'. But two dimensional restmass? Is that possible? Do we have experiments proving that concept?
Hi yor_on,
Been a little busy but I will give a short answer here. The paper says "gold rings"... the archive paper suggests that this is not the case. The pictures in the linked paper give a better idea with the accompanying description. "Polymethyl methacrylate" is ordinary "acrylic"! This is the simplicity of the experiment. I am guessing here... Two dimensional in the fact that it is a single layer of gold with the annular acrylic circles imprinted on the gold surface like a "sheet of paper" with writing on it... the acrylic is the "writing" and not presently extended further... So the rings are made of acrylic on the gold...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0709/0709.2862.pdf
It is only an initial experiment where we see the acrylic circles in fig 1A. There is an imperfection directly to the front of the oncoming light waves. Any object flat enough to fit into the tiny region in the center of these "circles" will be invisible to light "injected" along the surface of the gold sheet. They use gold because visible light spontaneously form surface plasmons that then travel over the surface carrying the photons still in a perfectly preserved quantum state. It is a case of "watching this space" for improvements.
Two dimensional restmass is an interesting concept...
The Illusion of Gravity: Scientific American
We live in three dimensions (plus time) and yet particles connect to our universe of "space" through a two dimensional spherical surface (as a first approximation anyway). This is like Abbott's Flatland. When dealing with dimensional spaces it is possible to derive a working idea that has three (or more) dimensional space as a function of a two dimensional surface ... and be completely enclosed within it. Think of it like a black hole that is "all surface" in which that surface is in higher dimensions. Mass and Gravity would exist within that surface and the interior of the sphere that seems to be the entire object is dimensionally "unreachable". We could be existing entirely within a "flatspace" and the appearance to us is a higher dimensional space. So external observers see a high dimensional flatspace while denizens within see a three dimensional volumetric space.
Cheers
Been a little busy but I will give a short answer here. The paper says "gold rings"... the archive paper suggests that this is not the case. The pictures in the linked paper give a better idea with the accompanying description. "Polymethyl methacrylate" is ordinary "acrylic"! This is the simplicity of the experiment. I am guessing here... Two dimensional in the fact that it is a single layer of gold with the annular acrylic circles imprinted on the gold surface like a "sheet of paper" with writing on it... the acrylic is the "writing" and not presently extended further... So the rings are made of acrylic on the gold...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0709/0709.2862.pdf
It is only an initial experiment where we see the acrylic circles in fig 1A. There is an imperfection directly to the front of the oncoming light waves. Any object flat enough to fit into the tiny region in the center of these "circles" will be invisible to light "injected" along the surface of the gold sheet. They use gold because visible light spontaneously form surface plasmons that then travel over the surface carrying the photons still in a perfectly preserved quantum state. It is a case of "watching this space" for improvements.
Two dimensional restmass is an interesting concept...
The Illusion of Gravity: Scientific American
We live in three dimensions (plus time) and yet particles connect to our universe of "space" through a two dimensional spherical surface (as a first approximation anyway). This is like Abbott's Flatland. When dealing with dimensional spaces it is possible to derive a working idea that has three (or more) dimensional space as a function of a two dimensional surface ... and be completely enclosed within it. Think of it like a black hole that is "all surface" in which that surface is in higher dimensions. Mass and Gravity would exist within that surface and the interior of the sphere that seems to be the entire object is dimensionally "unreachable". We could be existing entirely within a "flatspace" and the appearance to us is a higher dimensional space. So external observers see a high dimensional flatspace while denizens within see a three dimensional volumetric space.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf!
Glad you liked that science fiction story. I'll put it in my thread so others won't need to dig to read it.
Your last post is demonstrating that you are finally starting to understand what I have been doing and saying.
Of course, you prefer another concept.
jal
Glad you liked that science fiction story. I'll put it in my thread so others won't need to dig to read it.
Your last post is demonstrating that you are finally starting to understand what I have been doing and saying.
Of course, you prefer another concept.
jal
Good Day!
Now for something interesting and serious.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/22746
jal
Now for something interesting and serious.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/22746
QUOTE
These two experiments demonstrate the phenomenon of evanescent-wave refocusing and prove that the superlens is much more than a theoretical curiosity. But superlensing does come at a cost because the object, lens and image are all very close together, spaced over a distance considerably less than one wavelength. In other words, to image the near-field it is necessary to remain in the near-field, otherwise those components of light that contain the sub-wavelength spatial details decay to the point that they cannot be recovered.
jal
Awh now i'm lost again :) " Think of it like a black hole that is "all surface" in which that surface is in higher dimensions. Mass and Gravity would exist within that surface and the interior of the sphere that seems to be the entire object is dimensionally "unreachable". We could be existing entirely within a "flatspace" and the appearance to us is a higher dimensional space. So external observers see a high dimensional flatspace while denizens within see a three dimensional volumetric space. "
A 'black hole' as a surface?
Its very hard for me to imagine, when i think of a black hole i see something wrung 'out and in' Do you mean that the surface would be 'unreachable' and unseen from the flatlanders :) but how could two dimensions contain three? Even if only seen from the inside? Would it be real for those denizens, those three dimensions?
If you say that it would, i would have to ask what you believe reality to consist of ::)) And if measurable experiments made inside there would give consistent proof of three dimensions i would be forced to say that there would be three dimensions there, not two. Which in its turn would probably mean that my whole idea of what dimensions consists of would be wrong :::))) Awh, what's new :)
Also if two can contain three as seen from 'inside' why not four five etc. This concept seem to differ from string theory as they suggest 'hidden' strings at Planck size whereas this idea allows for fully 'expanded' even if 'not there' as seen from outside, dimensions.
My universe is becoming frightfully complicated here :)
Just another Q could the two slit experiments different sides be a matter of scales?
Which would you say represented the smallest scale the photon as a wave or seen as a 'particle', or is they the same scale?
A particle is supposed to be three dimensional no? And a wave? one dimensional waves, that would be strings right?
A 'black hole' as a surface?
Its very hard for me to imagine, when i think of a black hole i see something wrung 'out and in' Do you mean that the surface would be 'unreachable' and unseen from the flatlanders :) but how could two dimensions contain three? Even if only seen from the inside? Would it be real for those denizens, those three dimensions?
If you say that it would, i would have to ask what you believe reality to consist of ::)) And if measurable experiments made inside there would give consistent proof of three dimensions i would be forced to say that there would be three dimensions there, not two. Which in its turn would probably mean that my whole idea of what dimensions consists of would be wrong :::))) Awh, what's new :)
Also if two can contain three as seen from 'inside' why not four five etc. This concept seem to differ from string theory as they suggest 'hidden' strings at Planck size whereas this idea allows for fully 'expanded' even if 'not there' as seen from outside, dimensions.
My universe is becoming frightfully complicated here :)
Just another Q could the two slit experiments different sides be a matter of scales?
Which would you say represented the smallest scale the photon as a wave or seen as a 'particle', or is they the same scale?
A particle is supposed to be three dimensional no? And a wave? one dimensional waves, that would be strings right?
Good Elf, hi yor_on, jal, et al,
I wanted to answer a quote you made with some type of diplomacy, and I think I have found a way?
You made a comment about the universe being like a bubble, if I understood correctly =>(if not please correct me).
So do a friend a favor please, check into this site so you can wrap you mind around the information given and just might help you in you perspective.
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1405/features/toolkit.htm
caio_
yquantum
I wanted to answer a quote you made with some type of diplomacy, and I think I have found a way?
You made a comment about the universe being like a bubble, if I understood correctly =>(if not please correct me).
So do a friend a favor please, check into this site so you can wrap you mind around the information given and just might help you in you perspective.
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1405/features/toolkit.htm
caio_
yquantum
..... that the waves are the only essence that make up the BEC ...
waves of what?
waves of what?
Hi yquantum,
QUOTE (yquantum+)
You made a comment about the universe being like a bubble, if I understood correctly =>(if not please correct me).
So do a friend a favor please, check into this site so you can wrap you mind around the information given and just might help you in you perspective.
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1405/features/toolkit.htm
So do a friend a favor please, check into this site so you can wrap you mind around the information given and just might help you in you perspective.
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1405/features/toolkit.htm
Yes I did make that statement. The Universe is "like" a bubble .... the "two dimensional" surface of a common bubble but possibly a lot more dimensions for an object like our Universe, and not the less logical three dimensional interior of the "bubble". Is that point a problem?. A dimensional "flatland". I then like to consider the inside and the outside of this "surface" depending on which aspect is of interest.
http://homepage.mac.com/photomorphose/documents/qpdf.pdf
This probably relates to the statements I am making in that other thread of yours...
"Particles have mass, HOW? Higgs or ?"
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3947
Is that a start? I will put some additional data on your thread ASAP. Thanks for the reference ... Could you please point out any particular issue you may have so I can give a better answer. Don't worry about my sensitivity... I am more upset with myself than I am with anyone else for my vagueness.
Cheers
http://homepage.mac.com/photomorphose/documents/qpdf.pdf
This probably relates to the statements I am making in that other thread of yours...
"Particles have mass, HOW? Higgs or ?"
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3947
Is that a start? I will put some additional data on your thread ASAP. Thanks for the reference ... Could you please point out any particular issue you may have so I can give a better answer. Don't worry about my sensitivity... I am more upset with myself than I am with anyone else for my vagueness.
Cheers
Good Elf, will post on the other site Higgs ----> do not want to disrupt this site causing a tangent or different direction in thought.
We know how easy that can be, and the other has covered about everything but, so no harm will come of it. I will need to make it quick due to visitors here and questions that need to be explained ect.
ciao_
yquantum
We know how easy that can be, and the other has covered about everything but,
so no harm will come of it. I will need to make it quick due to visitors here and questions that need to be explained ect.ciao_
yquantum
Where did everybody go?? <wimper>
Miss this thread...
Miss this thread...
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.