Hello "THEY", and all,
Like all good deadlines, mine was delayed! I plan on returning in a few days.
I thought that we might have had some more posts from GE and LL. What happened to Laserlight?
How is the new venture, C2? I hope well, for you & family.
Ciao!
T.Roc
QUOTE ("THEY"+Oct 12 2007, 04:45 AM)
Where did everybody go?? <wimper>
Miss this thread...
They're playing on the monkey bars on the playground. I'm not kidding.
Miss this thread...
They're playing on the monkey bars on the playground. I'm not kidding.
Hi "THEY", "THEY2", TRoc, yquantum, Neil Farbstein, Laserlight, Confused2 et al,
I am still here, just lacking in inspiration. I have been able to dig some relevant information up which will be interesting to you all. I suspect this will also interest Neil in his endeavours. I am sure this will also be some interest to "THEY" as well...
I am still here, just lacking in inspiration. I have been able to dig some relevant information up which will be interesting to you all. I suspect this will also interest Neil in his endeavours. I am sure this will also be some interest to "THEY" as well...
QUOTE ("THEY"+)
Where did everybody go?? <wimper>
Miss this thread...
Miss this thread...
Thread still here and being watched but Confused2 is looking after his new business and there have been few interesting things to report on so I have switched attention to yquantum's thread "Particles have mass, HOW?". There were a couple of things I wanted to say "again" that were probably more relevant "over there". TRoc is also still around. I will be going on a few days leave next weekend to a quiet beach so there is an explanation for any break in the thread due to me during that period. 
In the meantime more elven musings have become mainstream... the symmetry of atomic orbitals in atoms have been independently manipulated showing that matter waves influence chemical bonding independently of electron charge and spin.
In some ground breaking experiments the orbital states have been manipulated to produce chemical bonding in molecules that are not natural enhancing or changing some of their chemical and physical properties.
... Click to enlarge...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71012095246.htm
http://dailyheadlines.uark.edu/11593.htm
Supporting online material available...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1149338/DC1
For the first time the matter wave shells of atoms have been shown to be independent of the electrons and influence bonding and thus the final properties of molecules. The "shells" are independently multiply inter-penetrating and spatially shared volumetric cavities in which all the electrons are resonantly trapped and can apparently be independently modified using nanomaterials leading to the different bonding types in molecules. Note that electrons are considered as "matter" while photons are "bosons" yet in the cavities many electrons can be hidden simultaneously in much of the same dimensional space. Why is there so little interaction between "mutually charged" electrons and how can they cohabit so easily?
Most of these "shells" are actually simply volumetric spaces which overlap each other traditionally representing the individual electron "probability density function". This shown that it must be in error in that the electrons and the "shells" represent independently manipulatable properties. I lack the ability to completely analyze this problem in space quantization of the electrons but I find it amazing you can stack so many "matter" particles into the one overall volume together. In "elven theory" these shells represent the hybridized bosonic supersymmetric twin of the nuclear fermion "ensemble" of matter particles. A massless shadow partner of the fermions. This is the inverse of the traditional view but this is because my view relates "reciprocal" states and tips this view on its head swapping sides in this diagram..
The bosons IMHO are the massless superpartners and the ferrmions have all the mass from "our point of view" (observer frame). The frantic search for supersymmetric partners was totally ignoring the "shells" as possible contenders. These "shells" accompany all fermions. For instance a single proton is not only a particle but it is also (and simultaneously...) an atomic ion (of Hydrogen... the original primal stuff of the Universe). It is both the fermion and the boson. You can take the "particle" out of the "atom" but you can't take the "atom" out of the"particle".
The relevance of this point is not lost in the Double Slit Experiment where we can also modify the shells in resonant states using the Aharanov-Bohm Effect. Passing a DC current through the separating bar between individual slits shifts the interference pattern seen. The pattern "seen" is a collective view of the propagating photons (or in this case a moving electrons) "side on" so these "shifts" in phase represent an altered cavity resonance.
... Click to enlarge...
Maybe if the AB influence is sufficiently energetic a higher excited state in photons could lead to "something very new and exciting (optically)" for the Double Slit Experiment? A close reading of the paper above might be interesting. Unfortunately the paper cannot be directly downloaded but a secondary (perhaps temporary) link is found below.
I would also like to remark that this illustration shows a "pure" Gaussian envelope instead of an Airy Disk, and I disagree with that interpretation. In the case of an electron some electron de Broglie wave would be possible to detect even though electrons represent a tighter and more highly confined packet and should exhibit a shorter wavelength.
In the meantime more elven musings have become mainstream... the symmetry of atomic orbitals in atoms have been independently manipulated showing that matter waves influence chemical bonding independently of electron charge and spin.
In some ground breaking experiments the orbital states have been manipulated to produce chemical bonding in molecules that are not natural enhancing or changing some of their chemical and physical properties.... Click to enlarge...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71012095246.htm
http://dailyheadlines.uark.edu/11593.htm
Supporting online material available...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1149338/DC1
For the first time the matter wave shells of atoms have been shown to be independent of the electrons and influence bonding and thus the final properties of molecules. The "shells" are independently multiply inter-penetrating and spatially shared volumetric cavities in which all the electrons are resonantly trapped and can apparently be independently modified using nanomaterials leading to the different bonding types in molecules. Note that electrons are considered as "matter" while photons are "bosons" yet in the cavities many electrons can be hidden simultaneously in much of the same dimensional space. Why is there so little interaction between "mutually charged" electrons and how can they cohabit so easily?
Most of these "shells" are actually simply volumetric spaces which overlap each other traditionally representing the individual electron "probability density function". This shown that it must be in error in that the electrons and the "shells" represent independently manipulatable properties. I lack the ability to completely analyze this problem in space quantization of the electrons but I find it amazing you can stack so many "matter" particles into the one overall volume together. In "elven theory" these shells represent the hybridized bosonic supersymmetric twin of the nuclear fermion "ensemble" of matter particles. A massless shadow partner of the fermions. This is the inverse of the traditional view but this is because my view relates "reciprocal" states and tips this view on its head swapping sides in this diagram..
The bosons IMHO are the massless superpartners and the ferrmions have all the mass from "our point of view" (observer frame). The frantic search for supersymmetric partners was totally ignoring the "shells" as possible contenders. These "shells" accompany all fermions. For instance a single proton is not only a particle but it is also (and simultaneously...) an atomic ion (of Hydrogen... the original primal stuff of the Universe). It is both the fermion and the boson. You can take the "particle" out of the "atom" but you can't take the "atom" out of the"particle".
The relevance of this point is not lost in the Double Slit Experiment where we can also modify the shells in resonant states using the Aharanov-Bohm Effect. Passing a DC current through the separating bar between individual slits shifts the interference pattern seen. The pattern "seen" is a collective view of the propagating photons (or in this case a moving electrons) "side on" so these "shifts" in phase represent an altered cavity resonance.
... Click to enlarge...
Maybe if the AB influence is sufficiently energetic a higher excited state in photons could lead to "something very new and exciting (optically)" for the Double Slit Experiment? A close reading of the paper above might be interesting. Unfortunately the paper cannot be directly downloaded but a secondary (perhaps temporary) link is found below.
I would also like to remark that this illustration shows a "pure" Gaussian envelope instead of an Airy Disk, and I disagree with that interpretation. In the case of an electron some electron de Broglie wave would be possible to detect even though electrons represent a tighter and more highly confined packet and should exhibit a shorter wavelength.
QUOTE (Abstract+)
Orbital Reconstruction and Covalent Bonding at an Oxide Interface
J. Chakhalian 1*, J. W. Freeland 2, H.-U. Habermeier 3, G. Cristiani 3, G. Khaliullin 3, M. van Veenendaal 4, B. Keimer 3
1 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.; Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany.
2 Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439, USA.
3 Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany.
4 Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439, USA.; Department of Physics, Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, IL 60115, USA.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Chakhalian , E-mail: jchakhal@uark.edu
Orbital reconstructions and covalent bonding must be considered as important factors in the rational design of oxide heterostructures with engineered physical properties. We have investigated the interface between high-temperature superconducting (Y,Ca)Ba2Cu3O7 and metallic La2/3Ca1/3MnO3 by resonant x-ray spectroscopy. A charge of about -0.2e is transferred from Mn to Cu ions across the interface and induces a major reconstruction of the orbital occupation and orbital symmetry in the interfacial CuO2 layers. In particular, the Cu d3z2-r2 orbital, which is fully occupied and electronically inactive in the bulk, is partially occupied at the interface. Supported by exact-diagonalization calculations, these data indicate the formation of a strong chemical bond between Cu and Mn atoms across the interface. Orbital reconstructions and associated covalent bonding are thus important factors determining the physical properties of oxide heterostructures.
http://www.fkf.mpg.de/keimer/Publist/PDF_2...akhalian_01.pdf
Cheers
PS: On a low note Robert W. Bussard passed away in the last couple of days. There goes a real pioneer in Fusion Research. I hope someone carries on his research but it is difficult to see the funding and the enthusiasm continuing without its chief protagonist.
J. Chakhalian 1*, J. W. Freeland 2, H.-U. Habermeier 3, G. Cristiani 3, G. Khaliullin 3, M. van Veenendaal 4, B. Keimer 3
1 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.; Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany.
2 Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439, USA.
3 Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany.
4 Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439, USA.; Department of Physics, Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, IL 60115, USA.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Chakhalian , E-mail: jchakhal@uark.edu
Orbital reconstructions and covalent bonding must be considered as important factors in the rational design of oxide heterostructures with engineered physical properties. We have investigated the interface between high-temperature superconducting (Y,Ca)Ba2Cu3O7 and metallic La2/3Ca1/3MnO3 by resonant x-ray spectroscopy. A charge of about -0.2e is transferred from Mn to Cu ions across the interface and induces a major reconstruction of the orbital occupation and orbital symmetry in the interfacial CuO2 layers. In particular, the Cu d3z2-r2 orbital, which is fully occupied and electronically inactive in the bulk, is partially occupied at the interface. Supported by exact-diagonalization calculations, these data indicate the formation of a strong chemical bond between Cu and Mn atoms across the interface. Orbital reconstructions and associated covalent bonding are thus important factors determining the physical properties of oxide heterostructures.
http://www.fkf.mpg.de/keimer/Publist/PDF_2...akhalian_01.pdf
Cheers
PS: On a low note Robert W. Bussard passed away in the last couple of days. There goes a real pioneer in Fusion Research. I hope someone carries on his research but it is difficult to see the funding and the enthusiasm continuing without its chief protagonist.
Hello Good Elf, et al.
This is just a thought but can we consider "orbitals" as "talbot carpets" generated by matter waves from oscillating/vibrating quarks within the proton. The carpet would provides low energy points around the nucleus that form repeating series.
This is just a thought but can we consider "orbitals" as "talbot carpets" generated by matter waves from oscillating/vibrating quarks within the proton. The carpet would provides low energy points around the nucleus that form repeating series.
Hi Montec,
QUOTE (Montec+)
This is just a thought but can we consider "orbitals" as "talbot carpets" generated by matter waves from oscillating/vibrating quarks within the proton. The carpet would provides low energy points around the nucleus that form repeating series.
Well done... It is not merely a "thought"... it is directly analogous. For sure it is realized that there is a strong relationship between the matter waves of trapped electrons and the electromagnetic waves of photons. I was hoping everyone was seeing this point. Unfortunately I cannot illustrate this Quantum Chromodynamic analogy since I am pretty sure this has not occurred to many that we are dealing with the next level of the Holographic Universe. I am sure that it is there but quantum theory was not designed to find these structures because these "carpets" are entirely a "neo-classical phenomena".
Sufficient experimental work has been done to show this relationship at the level of Quantum Electrodynamics and I must "wave my arms and make grand gestures" to say that this repeats within further dimensional sub-components and at lower levels. We can certainly see this initial relationship below. The quark is a particle with apparent mass. The probably density function of the quark is the only current way to interpret the data is one such difficulty. The development of this idea has not been with a view to simplify the concept in line with "elven theory". Pulling quarks apart to make "free quarks" is a difficult problem and I think it may relate to something more fundamental such as the three three dimensional elemental basis vectors. Still there will be aspects that relate to what we can measure at the scale of QED. It is important to understand that the word "seeing" being used is not a very good way to think of this phenomenon. This QCD aspect is probably not within our ability to measure at this point in time.
It is easier to deal with what we presently know about QED than to get too specific as to what the structures seen at the next level of the Universe might mean. I am prepared to let the HEP Guys handle the paradigms for the moment. Regarding QED... The atomic "shells" are the "reciprocal space" in which the particle or wave can play a role. An orbital "shell" can absorb both photons and electrons equally. Additionally an electron can absorb a photon in addition to the existing photon that composed it. Wheels within wheels... The dynamic "Talbot Carpet" is what happens in time to particles which evolve with time... They are particles with mass traveling less than the speed of light. Photons are also similar to the electron but they are not evolving in time because they are "events" that have no internal time progression (suffering 100% Time Dilation as a quantum) because they travel at the speed of light. They are simply evolving spatially as Talbot discovered.
Here is an animation created by Rochester University showing the electron wave evolving with time with a similar sequence to the Talbot Carpet.
Motion of a Circular Orbit Wave Packet
If you compare this with the Talbot carpets you will notice the exact same sequences of caustics spatially evolving there....
Quantum carpets, carpets of light
... The repeating sequence of maxima.
Consider that what the photon does by spatially spreading the electron does in time. Now the perspective the external observer brings to a particle is that it is "moving in time". Thus the electron exhibits this temporal change. The evolving pattern should also be seen as occupying a shell rather than a "plane orbit" as illustrated here. This same pattern seen from the internal perspective of "reciprocal space and reciprocal time" is the same perspective we see in the DSE as internal observes of the "internal resonant photon" that compose the reciprocal particle state seen on the outside.. The electron particle is a fermion (time evolution) and the photon (space spreading) is the boson. Both aspects exhibiting together but in different realms. The time domain (electron) and the frequency domain (photon)... This is because the electron is nothing but a photon "spreading at the speed of light" on the "inside" of a restricted particle membrane and seen from the outside at a velocity less than the speed of light and "confined".
Good one Montec...
Cheers
Well done... It is not merely a "thought"... it is directly analogous. For sure it is realized that there is a strong relationship between the matter waves of trapped electrons and the electromagnetic waves of photons. I was hoping everyone was seeing this point. Unfortunately I cannot illustrate this Quantum Chromodynamic analogy since I am pretty sure this has not occurred to many that we are dealing with the next level of the Holographic Universe. I am sure that it is there but quantum theory was not designed to find these structures because these "carpets" are entirely a "neo-classical phenomena".
Sufficient experimental work has been done to show this relationship at the level of Quantum Electrodynamics and I must "wave my arms and make grand gestures" to say that this repeats within further dimensional sub-components and at lower levels. We can certainly see this initial relationship below. The quark is a particle with apparent mass. The probably density function of the quark is the only current way to interpret the data is one such difficulty. The development of this idea has not been with a view to simplify the concept in line with "elven theory". Pulling quarks apart to make "free quarks" is a difficult problem and I think it may relate to something more fundamental such as the three three dimensional elemental basis vectors. Still there will be aspects that relate to what we can measure at the scale of QED. It is important to understand that the word "seeing" being used is not a very good way to think of this phenomenon. This QCD aspect is probably not within our ability to measure at this point in time.
It is easier to deal with what we presently know about QED than to get too specific as to what the structures seen at the next level of the Universe might mean. I am prepared to let the HEP Guys handle the paradigms for the moment. Regarding QED... The atomic "shells" are the "reciprocal space" in which the particle or wave can play a role. An orbital "shell" can absorb both photons and electrons equally. Additionally an electron can absorb a photon in addition to the existing photon that composed it. Wheels within wheels... The dynamic "Talbot Carpet" is what happens in time to particles which evolve with time... They are particles with mass traveling less than the speed of light. Photons are also similar to the electron but they are not evolving in time because they are "events" that have no internal time progression (suffering 100% Time Dilation as a quantum) because they travel at the speed of light. They are simply evolving spatially as Talbot discovered.
Here is an animation created by Rochester University showing the electron wave evolving with time with a similar sequence to the Talbot Carpet.
Motion of a Circular Orbit Wave Packet
If you compare this with the Talbot carpets you will notice the exact same sequences of caustics spatially evolving there....
Quantum carpets, carpets of light
... The repeating sequence of maxima.
Consider that what the photon does by spatially spreading the electron does in time. Now the perspective the external observer brings to a particle is that it is "moving in time". Thus the electron exhibits this temporal change. The evolving pattern should also be seen as occupying a shell rather than a "plane orbit" as illustrated here. This same pattern seen from the internal perspective of "reciprocal space and reciprocal time" is the same perspective we see in the DSE as internal observes of the "internal resonant photon" that compose the reciprocal particle state seen on the outside.. The electron particle is a fermion (time evolution) and the photon (space spreading) is the boson. Both aspects exhibiting together but in different realms. The time domain (electron) and the frequency domain (photon)... This is because the electron is nothing but a photon "spreading at the speed of light" on the "inside" of a restricted particle membrane and seen from the outside at a velocity less than the speed of light and "confined".
Good one Montec...
Cheers
I've been musing about the Holographic Principle and I wanted to throw an idea out there.
What if instead of thinking of our 3+1 dimensional world as a projection of 2+1 D space, we instead consider particles as a protrusion into our higer dimensional space from a lower one. Think of a photon as a packet of energy that is too dense for 2d space that bubbles into the third dimension of our space. What would appear to us as nonlocal behavior in 3+1 dimensions could be local within the underlying 2+1 dimensions.
Any thoughts?
What if instead of thinking of our 3+1 dimensional world as a projection of 2+1 D space, we instead consider particles as a protrusion into our higer dimensional space from a lower one. Think of a photon as a packet of energy that is too dense for 2d space that bubbles into the third dimension of our space. What would appear to us as nonlocal behavior in 3+1 dimensions could be local within the underlying 2+1 dimensions.
Any thoughts?
Hi Wulf,
QUOTE (Wulf+)
I've been musing about the Holographic Principle and I wanted to throw an idea out there.
What if instead of thinking of our 3+1 dimensional world as a projection of 2+1 D space, we instead consider particles as a protrusion into our higer dimensional space from a lower one. Think of a photon as a packet of energy that is too dense for 2d space that bubbles into the third dimension of our space. What would appear to us as nonlocal behavior in 3+1 dimensions could be local within the underlying 2+1 dimensions.
Any thoughts?
What if instead of thinking of our 3+1 dimensional world as a projection of 2+1 D space, we instead consider particles as a protrusion into our higer dimensional space from a lower one. Think of a photon as a packet of energy that is too dense for 2d space that bubbles into the third dimension of our space. What would appear to us as nonlocal behavior in 3+1 dimensions could be local within the underlying 2+1 dimensions.
Any thoughts?
The idea that everything is much "flatter" when seen from our space is very appealing but I would not stop at simply 2D+1 dimensions. With that in mind the two dimensional paradigm being on the boundary of our three dimensional world seems a logical extension with the ability to create something from nothing is also very appealing. The nearest analogy is the world of Alice and her Looking Glass Universe. The "2D +1 plane" of the looking glass Universe looks and behaves identically to the three dimensional world that exists on "our side" of the plane. It apparently occupies a three dimensional space but we also know that it is simply a surface with no actual extension to the interior of another world. Still it is every bit as valid as "our" Universe obeying all "our" laws in a "simulated spatial volume". However Alice's World is not actually obeying the physics of our world and it is simply a photonic image. The idea that particles as looking glass Universes reflecting the exterior apparently three dimensional Universe at first seems fanciful until we realize that in a quantum sense reflections of matter waves in unseen spherical surfaces of particles or sub-atomic particles can have all the solidity of real particles and looking glass atoms can even enter into chemical bonds with real "non-looking glass" atoms. The experiments were carried out over ten years ago and the whole facts are truly mind boggling. These are the Kondo Phantoms whose reality are dependent on some exterior reality through reflection. It is not a great step in imagination to understand that our Universe may also be a simple surface, a reflection of another even more exterior reality unseen with human eyes since the physics of such spaces are confined to the surface and the surface alone yet creating additional spatial volumes where originally there was none. This is a way of extending spacetime without any real spatial penalty. Obviously this is a form of holographic principle in a way I have "romanced" previously in these threads. You can "Google" this stuff if you like.
The two dimensional paradigm of the quantum corral and the associated Kondo Phantoms is just a starting point and reflecting surfaces everywhere in the quantum Universe at matter wavelengths, not optical wavelengths, are the reality behind perfect systems emulating the physics of other "apparently higher dimensional" realms. Do not confuse this idea with light reflections since light can never provide this "solidity"... this is the realm of de Broglie Matter Waves...
Quantum Mirages - Kondo Phantoms
... Click to enlarge...
Here we see the "quantum corral" where the image is a matter wave image at the opposite focus of an ellipse. The "matter wave mirages" are "reconstructing the source atoms" with significant wave function amplitudes even though the "corral" is hardly a real barrier to the space filling matter waves. These "phantom atoms" have all the chemical properties of the real atom with their associated Kondo orbitals and Kondo electrons etc... but only persist while the real atom persists as the "artist's model". It is like having "imaginary numbers" when you really know that there is really nothing "imaginary" about the root of minus 1 at all. These "critters" are no phantoms or mirages and respond to the laws of physics the same way as we do and they would even better emulate reality in systems where the reflections of matter waves are "perfect", "closed" and "unseen". Clearly they represent "matter resonances". You will need to "dig" to find this additional material and you will need resources to discover these additional points but you will be surprised to find out what lurks in "quantum shadows".
The principle must exist in other ways in matter wave reflections in the two dimensional relativistic surfaces of particles. Light waves cannot partake in these reconstructions but the much higher frequency matter waves can... as an unseen reality "guiding" the internal construction of these "crystal ball" Universes. Internally .... hidden from view there would be matter wave reconstructions of "everything" external to the particle in an internal "informational reciprocal space"... A reality behind the AdS/CFT Conjecture of Maldacena.
Introduction to the Maldacena Conjecture on AdS/CFT
... Though my interpretation differs slightly from a direct application as shown here.
Perhaps these are the parallel "looking glass" Universes needed by quantum theory... each subatomic particle a physical reflection of the unseen orthogonal external Universe each with a different aspect of the "original" exhibiting the different delays in travel time of light, and with the physics mimicry, each little Universe slightly different to any other since they all occupy different positions in space due to "space quantization".
Cheers
The two dimensional paradigm of the quantum corral and the associated Kondo Phantoms is just a starting point and reflecting surfaces everywhere in the quantum Universe at matter wavelengths, not optical wavelengths, are the reality behind perfect systems emulating the physics of other "apparently higher dimensional" realms. Do not confuse this idea with light reflections since light can never provide this "solidity"... this is the realm of de Broglie Matter Waves...
Quantum Mirages - Kondo Phantoms
... Click to enlarge...
Here we see the "quantum corral" where the image is a matter wave image at the opposite focus of an ellipse. The "matter wave mirages" are "reconstructing the source atoms" with significant wave function amplitudes even though the "corral" is hardly a real barrier to the space filling matter waves. These "phantom atoms" have all the chemical properties of the real atom with their associated Kondo orbitals and Kondo electrons etc... but only persist while the real atom persists as the "artist's model". It is like having "imaginary numbers" when you really know that there is really nothing "imaginary" about the root of minus 1 at all. These "critters" are no phantoms or mirages and respond to the laws of physics the same way as we do and they would even better emulate reality in systems where the reflections of matter waves are "perfect", "closed" and "unseen". Clearly they represent "matter resonances". You will need to "dig" to find this additional material and you will need resources to discover these additional points but you will be surprised to find out what lurks in "quantum shadows".
The principle must exist in other ways in matter wave reflections in the two dimensional relativistic surfaces of particles. Light waves cannot partake in these reconstructions but the much higher frequency matter waves can... as an unseen reality "guiding" the internal construction of these "crystal ball" Universes. Internally .... hidden from view there would be matter wave reconstructions of "everything" external to the particle in an internal "informational reciprocal space"... A reality behind the AdS/CFT Conjecture of Maldacena.
Introduction to the Maldacena Conjecture on AdS/CFT
... Though my interpretation differs slightly from a direct application as shown here.
Perhaps these are the parallel "looking glass" Universes needed by quantum theory... each subatomic particle a physical reflection of the unseen orthogonal external Universe each with a different aspect of the "original" exhibiting the different delays in travel time of light, and with the physics mimicry, each little Universe slightly different to any other since they all occupy different positions in space due to "space quantization".
Cheers
Hi Good Elf!
I've just posted something that might help you in what you are trying to say.
Its under "BOUNCE IS BETTER THAN BANG"
Its about the Schwarzschild radius.
Jal
I've just posted something that might help you in what you are trying to say.
Its under "BOUNCE IS BETTER THAN BANG"
Its about the Schwarzschild radius.
Jal
Good Elf (Posted Oct 13 2007, 11:55 PM):
Thanks for the links, trying to keep on the "content", your shifting double slit interference patterns i wanted to address, but first a look at some of the links.
http://www.fkf.mpg.de/keimer/Publist/PDF_2...akhalian_01.pdf
{{Orbital Reconstruction and Covalent Bonding at an Oxide Interface
J. Chakhalian 1*, J. W. Freeland 2, H.-U. Habermeier 3, G. Cristiani 3, G. Khaliullin 3, M. van Veenendaal 4, B. Keimer 3}}
[comments-rm: the above link gives one Figure, and I notice that the chemical molecule given, by the below Figure 1 description, the MnCuO10 is shown
{{Figure1: (A)Schematicoftheexperimental setupusedtoobtaintheXASandXLDdatain
TEYandFYmodes. DatasensitivetointerfacialCu(Mn)atomsweretakeninTEYmodewith
photonenergiesneartheCu(Mn)L-absorptionedge,onsampleswithLCMO(YBCO)capping
layers. Toobtainasizabledichroism, thefilmplanewas tiltedwithrespect tothephoton
beampropagationdirection. (B)AtomicpositionsneartheLCMO-YBCOinterface[16]. The
MnCuO10clusterusedfortheexact-diagonalizationcalculationsishighlighted. }}
as a two joined dual pentahedron with a common base of four Oxygen atoms, the bottom vertex of Oxygen of which is also the apex of a bottom pentahedron that has a base of four Oxygen atoms. The top dual pentahedron and the axially attached bottom pentahedron have centers, Mn on top, Cu on the bottom.
So the CuMnC10 or MnCuO10 if passing though a double slit with a current running through the center of the double slit would require the outer ten electrons to spread or converge if they are to move transerserly to the direction of the magnetic field surrounding the central "wire" that established the division between the slits.
Do I have the physics correct here?
The double slit descriptions continue to confuse me. Yes, in physics under division I and others did to the straight line construction through the two slits, meeting at the display plane, and did get to "see" the adding and subtraction effects.
So this is done for "photons" and for "electrons". No problem with the abstract of using pencil lines to represent the path of either photon or of electrons. Only a matter of wavelengths.
So you can imagine that I don't have problems with G-string conjectures and the Higgs Particles which appear to be universal gravity force connections.
Good Elf (Posted Oct 13 2007, 11:55 PM):
Thanks for the links, trying to keep on the "content", your shifting double slit interference patterns i wanted to address, but first a look at some of the links.
http://www.fkf.mpg.de/keimer/Publist/PDF_2...akhalian_01.pdf
{{Orbital Reconstruction and Covalent Bonding at an Oxide Interface
J. Chakhalian 1*, J. W. Freeland 2, H.-U. Habermeier 3, G. Cristiani 3, G. Khaliullin 3, M. van Veenendaal 4, B. Keimer 3}}
[comments-rm: the above link gives one Figure, and I notice that the chemical molecule given, by the below Figure 1 description, the MnCuO10 is shown
{{Figure1: (A)Schematicoftheexperimental setupusedtoobtaintheXASandXLDdatain
TEYandFYmodes. DatasensitivetointerfacialCu(Mn)atomsweretakeninTEYmodewith
photonenergiesneartheCu(Mn)L-absorptionedge,onsampleswithLCMO(YBCO)capping
layers. Toobtainasizabledichroism, thefilmplanewas tiltedwithrespect tothephoton
beampropagationdirection. (B)AtomicpositionsneartheLCMO-YBCOinterface[16]. The
MnCuO10clusterusedfortheexact-diagonalizationcalculationsishighlighted. }}
as a two joined dual pentahedron with a common base of four Oxygen atoms, the bottom vertex of Oxygen of which is also the apex of a bottom pentahedron that has a base of four Oxygen atoms. The top dual pentahedron and the axially attached bottom pentahedron have centers, Mn on top, Cu on the bottom.
So the CuMnC10 or MnCuO10 if passing though a double slit with a current running through the center of the double slit would require the outer ten electrons to spread or converge if they are to move transerserly to the direction of the magnetic field surrounding the central "wire" that established the division between the slits.
Do I have the physics correct here?
The double slit descriptions continue to confuse me. Yes, in physics under division I and others did to the straight line construction through the two slits, meeting at the display plane, and did get to "see" the adding and subtraction effects.
So this is done for "photons" and for "electrons". No problem with the abstract of using pencil lines to represent the path of either photon or of electrons. Only a matter of wavelengths.
So you can imagine that I don't have problems with G-string conjectures and the Higgs Particles which appear to be universal gravity force connections.
Thanks for your link. Checking out Maldacena ideas, is at same institute as Witten, Ladacena appears at Glascow Conference a couple years ago and spoke there also Hawkin. Malcacena posted his handwritten notes, neat parallel lines ",
"|***|***|***|" the stars, the particles, change with horizonal time, the discussion at the Glasco Conference to my mind "... was a black hole center electron?.
I have mixed ideas developed over the years,
electrons: if smallest of forms of matter we "experience", "measurre"... doing a social science, a torus has no end, it contains an imaginary center, what keeps the donut from swrinking to "nothing" is, at the least , spin.
higgs might favor unknown nature of infinity or it's recipical, so concepts like
positive vrs negative only requires a look at both.
Best, rmuldavin.
Thanks for the links, trying to keep on the "content", your shifting double slit interference patterns i wanted to address, but first a look at some of the links.
http://www.fkf.mpg.de/keimer/Publist/PDF_2...akhalian_01.pdf
{{Orbital Reconstruction and Covalent Bonding at an Oxide Interface
J. Chakhalian 1*, J. W. Freeland 2, H.-U. Habermeier 3, G. Cristiani 3, G. Khaliullin 3, M. van Veenendaal 4, B. Keimer 3}}
[comments-rm: the above link gives one Figure, and I notice that the chemical molecule given, by the below Figure 1 description, the MnCuO10 is shown
{{Figure1: (A)Schematicoftheexperimental setupusedtoobtaintheXASandXLDdatain
TEYandFYmodes. DatasensitivetointerfacialCu(Mn)atomsweretakeninTEYmodewith
photonenergiesneartheCu(Mn)L-absorptionedge,onsampleswithLCMO(YBCO)capping
layers. Toobtainasizabledichroism, thefilmplanewas tiltedwithrespect tothephoton
beampropagationdirection. (B)AtomicpositionsneartheLCMO-YBCOinterface[16]. The
MnCuO10clusterusedfortheexact-diagonalizationcalculationsishighlighted. }}
as a two joined dual pentahedron with a common base of four Oxygen atoms, the bottom vertex of Oxygen of which is also the apex of a bottom pentahedron that has a base of four Oxygen atoms. The top dual pentahedron and the axially attached bottom pentahedron have centers, Mn on top, Cu on the bottom.
So the CuMnC10 or MnCuO10 if passing though a double slit with a current running through the center of the double slit would require the outer ten electrons to spread or converge if they are to move transerserly to the direction of the magnetic field surrounding the central "wire" that established the division between the slits.
Do I have the physics correct here?
The double slit descriptions continue to confuse me. Yes, in physics under division I and others did to the straight line construction through the two slits, meeting at the display plane, and did get to "see" the adding and subtraction effects.
So this is done for "photons" and for "electrons". No problem with the abstract of using pencil lines to represent the path of either photon or of electrons. Only a matter of wavelengths.
So you can imagine that I don't have problems with G-string conjectures and the Higgs Particles which appear to be universal gravity force connections.
Good Elf (Posted Oct 13 2007, 11:55 PM):
Thanks for the links, trying to keep on the "content", your shifting double slit interference patterns i wanted to address, but first a look at some of the links.
http://www.fkf.mpg.de/keimer/Publist/PDF_2...akhalian_01.pdf
{{Orbital Reconstruction and Covalent Bonding at an Oxide Interface
J. Chakhalian 1*, J. W. Freeland 2, H.-U. Habermeier 3, G. Cristiani 3, G. Khaliullin 3, M. van Veenendaal 4, B. Keimer 3}}
[comments-rm: the above link gives one Figure, and I notice that the chemical molecule given, by the below Figure 1 description, the MnCuO10 is shown
{{Figure1: (A)Schematicoftheexperimental setupusedtoobtaintheXASandXLDdatain
TEYandFYmodes. DatasensitivetointerfacialCu(Mn)atomsweretakeninTEYmodewith
photonenergiesneartheCu(Mn)L-absorptionedge,onsampleswithLCMO(YBCO)capping
layers. Toobtainasizabledichroism, thefilmplanewas tiltedwithrespect tothephoton
beampropagationdirection. (B)AtomicpositionsneartheLCMO-YBCOinterface[16]. The
MnCuO10clusterusedfortheexact-diagonalizationcalculationsishighlighted. }}
as a two joined dual pentahedron with a common base of four Oxygen atoms, the bottom vertex of Oxygen of which is also the apex of a bottom pentahedron that has a base of four Oxygen atoms. The top dual pentahedron and the axially attached bottom pentahedron have centers, Mn on top, Cu on the bottom.
So the CuMnC10 or MnCuO10 if passing though a double slit with a current running through the center of the double slit would require the outer ten electrons to spread or converge if they are to move transerserly to the direction of the magnetic field surrounding the central "wire" that established the division between the slits.
Do I have the physics correct here?
The double slit descriptions continue to confuse me. Yes, in physics under division I and others did to the straight line construction through the two slits, meeting at the display plane, and did get to "see" the adding and subtraction effects.
So this is done for "photons" and for "electrons". No problem with the abstract of using pencil lines to represent the path of either photon or of electrons. Only a matter of wavelengths.
So you can imagine that I don't have problems with G-string conjectures and the Higgs Particles which appear to be universal gravity force connections.
Thanks for your link. Checking out Maldacena ideas, is at same institute as Witten, Ladacena appears at Glascow Conference a couple years ago and spoke there also Hawkin. Malcacena posted his handwritten notes, neat parallel lines ",
"|***|***|***|" the stars, the particles, change with horizonal time, the discussion at the Glasco Conference to my mind "... was a black hole center electron?.
I have mixed ideas developed over the years,
electrons: if smallest of forms of matter we "experience", "measurre"... doing a social science, a torus has no end, it contains an imaginary center, what keeps the donut from swrinking to "nothing" is, at the least , spin.
higgs might favor unknown nature of infinity or it's recipical, so concepts like
positive vrs negative only requires a look at both.
Best, rmuldavin.
maybe instead of measuring the electron directly, set your device to measure the effects the electron has on the molecules it passes through?
Hi RMuldavin,
First... I cannot see that file I do not know why.
I take it you are referring to the Aharonov-Bohm Effect. The essence of this experiment is the use of superconductors in that "bar" so that no "field" leaks out from the "core" into the slits, it is a quantum barrier and acts as a dislocation in spacetime that propagates to "infinity" away from the slits. The point of the experiment is not a glorified type of Kerr Cell Experiment but a non-local effect that is not due to any fields at all.
First... I cannot see that file I do not know why.
I take it you are referring to the Aharonov-Bohm Effect. The essence of this experiment is the use of superconductors in that "bar" so that no "field" leaks out from the "core" into the slits, it is a quantum barrier and acts as a dislocation in spacetime that propagates to "infinity" away from the slits. The point of the experiment is not a glorified type of Kerr Cell Experiment but a non-local effect that is not due to any fields at all.
QUOTE (Wikipedia+)
In general, the profound consequence of Aharonov-Bohm effects is that knowledge of the classical electromagnetic field acting locally on a particle is not sufficient to predict its quantum-mechanical behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov-Bohm_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov-Bohm_effect
The result has been confirmed by experiment.
QUOTE (RMuldavin+)
electrons: if smallest of forms of matter we "experience", "measurre"... doing a social science, a torus has no end, it contains an imaginary center, what keeps the donut from shrinking to "nothing" is, at the least , spin.
Conventionally the electron is a "true point source" or at least it is indistinguishable from it at very high energy. Yet this particle has an electric dipole moment and a mass. The paper by Williamson and Van der Mark show a torus "connection" but regardless of this "depiction" it still may occupy a spherical space in much the same way that a video game like Asteroids is "connected toroidally" yet exist on a flat rectangular closed space.
Play the actual game here...
http://www.squadron13.com/games/asteroids/asteroids.htm
May need to fiddle a little and follow the instructions a bit... It works though...
Picture of the "Asteroids toroidally connected two dimensional Universe"...
... Click to enlarge...
This is the simplest connection of a class of even more complex spatial connections. It is doubtful that spacetime is simply connected affinely. This is the result gleaned from the COBE and the WMAP Data...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/23009
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/.../1/PWcos3_09-05
This means our Universe is possibly a multiply toroidally connected Dodecahedral closed "spherical" space with a 36 degree "twist".
The electron may be higher dimensional embedded in our three dimensional space. I think of it a bit like the Mobius Transformation shown near the bottom of this article...
... Click to enlarge..
The electron is "embedded in a higher space" while the projection of the "object" exhibits a point like source divergence and a dipole moment as well. This picture above is a three dimensional sphere with a two dimensional surface "embedded" near to another two dimensional surface (four separate dimensions in all, two "closed" and two "open"). The projection of this object into the two dimensional "flatspace" is similar to a two dimensional (three dimensional?) equivalent of a point source with a magnetic dipole field of an electron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6bius_transformation
The electron has virtually no footprint in the "flatspace" but has "extension" in higher dimensions leading to the dipole moment. The "sphere" exhibits a compact source of dimensional space near to the two dimensional flatspace and the "connection" between dimensions is left undefined here but each realm may be energetically separate and the disconnect is the result of the nature of the embedding.
Cheers
Play the actual game here...
http://www.squadron13.com/games/asteroids/asteroids.htm
May need to fiddle a little and follow the instructions a bit... It works though...
Picture of the "Asteroids toroidally connected two dimensional Universe"...
... Click to enlarge...
This is the simplest connection of a class of even more complex spatial connections. It is doubtful that spacetime is simply connected affinely. This is the result gleaned from the COBE and the WMAP Data...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/23009
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/.../1/PWcos3_09-05
This means our Universe is possibly a multiply toroidally connected Dodecahedral closed "spherical" space with a 36 degree "twist".
The electron may be higher dimensional embedded in our three dimensional space. I think of it a bit like the Mobius Transformation shown near the bottom of this article...
... Click to enlarge..
The electron is "embedded in a higher space" while the projection of the "object" exhibits a point like source divergence and a dipole moment as well. This picture above is a three dimensional sphere with a two dimensional surface "embedded" near to another two dimensional surface (four separate dimensions in all, two "closed" and two "open"). The projection of this object into the two dimensional "flatspace" is similar to a two dimensional (three dimensional?) equivalent of a point source with a magnetic dipole field of an electron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6bius_transformation
The electron has virtually no footprint in the "flatspace" but has "extension" in higher dimensions leading to the dipole moment. The "sphere" exhibits a compact source of dimensional space near to the two dimensional flatspace and the "connection" between dimensions is left undefined here but each realm may be energetically separate and the disconnect is the result of the nature of the embedding.
Cheers
I have some question. Do can two photons interfere or only photon can interference with himself? For example, what distance was between two small holes in Young experiment? Smaller than light wave lenght (about 500 nm) or much bigger distance?
Hi DavidD,
QUOTE (DavidD+)
I have some question. Do can two photons interfere or only photon can interference with himself? For example, what distance was between two small holes in Young experiment? Smaller than light wave lenght (about 500 nm) or much bigger distance?
There are many controversial points here, I will supply an opinion. Two separate source coherent photons can interfere with each other under those exceptional circumstances but usually they only interfere with themselves. It is very difficult to produce source coherent simultaneous photons. One possible source is down converted and entangled photons. LASER sources normally do not produce this kind of radiation alone. The double slit interference occurs when single photons interfere with themselves and they 'spread" through both slits as waves, "unobserved". The size of the photons at the slits or at the pinholes cover both apertures but still manage to pass both perforations without being blocked.
If the slits themselves are smaller than the wavelength of the light, light can only get through within the evanescent region so it does not propagate past slits to any great extent. Your question (I think) was if the distance between the pinholes was less than a wavelength of the light then internal interference only occurs within the evanescent region and in the far field if the sum of the size of the pinholes is considerably larger than the wavelength you will see only an Airy Pattern. What this means is the light through a slot or pinhole in the far field is not disturbed by obstructions much smaller than the wavelength of (coherent) light.
Cheers
If the slits themselves are smaller than the wavelength of the light, light can only get through within the evanescent region so it does not propagate past slits to any great extent. Your question (I think) was if the distance between the pinholes was less than a wavelength of the light then internal interference only occurs within the evanescent region and in the far field if the sum of the size of the pinholes is considerably larger than the wavelength you will see only an Airy Pattern. What this means is the light through a slot or pinhole in the far field is not disturbed by obstructions much smaller than the wavelength of (coherent) light.
Cheers
Say we want make Yung experiment. We want see interference of light from sun or from Incandescent light bulb. We make two small pinholes and say distance between them is 10000 nm and sun light wave lenght is about 500 nm. So do we see light interference? Pinholes diameter is say a) 150 nm; b ) 1000 nm.
If distance between two pinholes can't be bigger than lenght of wave, then I think it's means, that light interference is each photon interfere with himself. And it's means, that two photons can't interfere with each over. Am I right?
If distance between two pinholes can't be bigger than lenght of wave, then I think it's means, that light interference is each photon interfere with himself. And it's means, that two photons can't interfere with each over. Am I right?
I think I understood. Photon can interfere with over photon. Photon can interfere with himself.
But what will be if there is thin glass or soap film, which is 125 nm thinkness and photon lenght is 500 nm. And flying one photon and one part photon is reflected from glass or film surface and another part photon is gpong trough glass and reflcted from another side of glass or soap film and shifted 180 degrees. So then photon will interfere with himself and will disapear ? Or photon from 4 times smaller 'obstacle' will be reflected without spliting into two parts?
But what will be if there is thin glass or soap film, which is 125 nm thinkness and photon lenght is 500 nm. And flying one photon and one part photon is reflected from glass or film surface and another part photon is gpong trough glass and reflcted from another side of glass or soap film and shifted 180 degrees. So then photon will interfere with himself and will disapear ? Or photon from 4 times smaller 'obstacle' will be reflected without spliting into two parts?
Hi DavidD,
QUOTE (DavidD (edited)+)
If the distance between two pinholes [is] bigger than the wavelength, then I think it's means, that [for] light interference each photon interferes with itself. And this means, that two photons don't usually interfere with each other. Am I right?
Umm... Yes... for self interference to occur the distance between slits must be significantly greater than a wavelength.
The Rayleigh Criterion
Though this is not usually applied to coherent sources. In the case of Young's Experiment the light from the sun was sufficiently source coherent due to this effect that photons of the one frequency will self interfere. I also believe there is a tendency for photons to clump along the wavefronts and when they are co-traveling for great distances will "assume" the same boson state of minimum action and be partially coherent for small angular displacements. Young's "Double Slit "Experiment was not a "double slit" at all, that came later, but performed with "a slip of card, about one thirtieth of an inch in breadth (thickness)" similar to this experiment...
http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/youngdoubleslit.html
To think such a simple experiment could be done so long ago that still has such profound ramifications today.
The Rayleigh Criterion
Though this is not usually applied to coherent sources. In the case of Young's Experiment the light from the sun was sufficiently source coherent due to this effect that photons of the one frequency will self interfere. I also believe there is a tendency for photons to clump along the wavefronts and when they are co-traveling for great distances will "assume" the same boson state of minimum action and be partially coherent for small angular displacements. Young's "Double Slit "Experiment was not a "double slit" at all, that came later, but performed with "a slip of card, about one thirtieth of an inch in breadth (thickness)" similar to this experiment...
http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/youngdoubleslit.html
To think such a simple experiment could be done so long ago that still has such profound ramifications today.
QUOTE (DavidD+)
think I understood. Photon can interfere with over photon. Photon can interfere with himself.
But what will be if there is thin glass or soap film, which is 125 nm thinkness and photon lenght is 500 nm. And flying one photon and one part photon is reflected from glass or film surface and another part photon is gpong trough glass and reflcted from another side of glass or soap film and shifted 180 degrees. So then photon will interfere with himself and will disapear ? Or photon from 4 times smaller 'obstacle' will be reflected without spliting into two parts?
But what will be if there is thin glass or soap film, which is 125 nm thinkness and photon lenght is 500 nm. And flying one photon and one part photon is reflected from glass or film surface and another part photon is gpong trough glass and reflcted from another side of glass or soap film and shifted 180 degrees. So then photon will interfere with himself and will disapear ? Or photon from 4 times smaller 'obstacle' will be reflected without spliting into two parts?
You can't get rid of photons that easily. There really is no such thing as "destructive interference". Local cancellation of the wavefronts may occur but the wavefronts will show up somewhere else. Photons cannot destroy themselves or other photons because they are "bosons" and bosons use Bose-Einstein Statistics not Fermi-Dirac Statistics.
Cheers
Cheers
just a thought
If you consider the photon 1 point unit it splits then time split for each half of the photon at the same moment. At that time it produced two whole lengths of time. However, if you think of the photon in two parts you do that as it relates to when the photon was whole. It is not possible to apprehend where the whole proton resided on each half of the time line at the same time because our minds can only percieve one line of time at a time. Therefore it could be that while the photon splits we can only percieve it in space as it takes on a single activity during a single moment of time.
If you consider the photon 1 point unit it splits then time split for each half of the photon at the same moment. At that time it produced two whole lengths of time. However, if you think of the photon in two parts you do that as it relates to when the photon was whole. It is not possible to apprehend where the whole proton resided on each half of the time line at the same time because our minds can only percieve one line of time at a time. Therefore it could be that while the photon splits we can only percieve it in space as it takes on a single activity during a single moment of time.
What is would be if two photons the same lenght and the same or not the same polarizations will fly one to over and would bounce to each over? Maybe some proton or hardron become?
What showing two slit experiment, difraction or interference? If difraction, then maybe just photon accidently bent over obstacle? And how become Newton rings? Or if photon reflecting from plate of glass or soap film and one photon reflecting from surface and another from ground and they interfere and the see niuton rings. But doesn't photon split into two parts and go in superposition? To me it's most clearsest and most provable experiment is when photon interfere with himself and in this sence choosing probability in which way go depending on what phase shift was.
I know one thing, photon can interfere with himself to change probability of going on or another direction dpending of one photon part phase shift.
And that two photons can interfere I don't know nothing. So what will be if two photons will strike to each over? And does it is possible two photons interence?
Probably photon to cansel himslef out to do is imposibe fromtechincal reasons...
Difraction is also to photons interference, but i just wondering how two photons diferent polarization can interfere? Photons is just somthing more than waves, becouse interfere even with arbitrary polarization. Okey it's now clear to me, photon can interfere with himself and photon can interfere with another photon.
What showing two slit experiment, difraction or interference? If difraction, then maybe just photon accidently bent over obstacle? And how become Newton rings? Or if photon reflecting from plate of glass or soap film and one photon reflecting from surface and another from ground and they interfere and the see niuton rings. But doesn't photon split into two parts and go in superposition? To me it's most clearsest and most provable experiment is when photon interfere with himself and in this sence choosing probability in which way go depending on what phase shift was.
I know one thing, photon can interfere with himself to change probability of going on or another direction dpending of one photon part phase shift.
And that two photons can interfere I don't know nothing. So what will be if two photons will strike to each over? And does it is possible two photons interence?
Probably photon to cansel himslef out to do is imposibe fromtechincal reasons...
Difraction is also to photons interference, but i just wondering how two photons diferent polarization can interfere? Photons is just somthing more than waves, becouse interfere even with arbitrary polarization. Okey it's now clear to me, photon can interfere with himself and photon can interfere with another photon.
Hi DavidD,
This is a controversial point I am sure but it has backing of experimental results. Matter waves in cavities are the natural extension of the standing waves in space found everywhere near sources of matter. Some wish to believe that the standing waves are the dynamic interaction of electromagnetic waves "bouncing around" in the cavity setting up those standing waves. This is not the case photons "do not bounce". What they do is proceed directly from source to sink ... no diversions. It appears clear to me that these standing waves are the direct extension of de Broglie Matter Waves in the cavity. These waves behave as a spatial template to the photons which are simply spreading in space from the source to the sink. So the photon traveling directly from source to sink is passing through a Matter Wave Field that is a hybridized superposition of the shells of atomic orbitals of all protons, electrons and neutrons in the cavity walls extending into the space at an almost stationary "velocity". De Broglie waves are the "low velocity end" of special relativity. As the velocity of a particle approaches zero the wavelength "approaches" infinity and fills all space with its waves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_hypothesis
where lambda is the wavelength and v is the velocity. Naturally you would ask what that v is relative to and I will leave your curiosity "play" with it.
You can read up on this phenomenon here ....
Good Elf on Matter Waves
This is an idea that I have been maintaining for more than a year ... You can see the history in this thread. Now it is a fact that the atomic orbitals of atoms are independent of the atom. Naturally the simplest "atom" is the proton which is the hydrogen nucleus. But you must also consider that "atoms" can be made of any shells even electrons and anti-electrons (positron) which is called positronium which also has shells if only for a very brief period. Naturally another interesting atom can be constructed from a proton and and an anti-proton.
Shells are not limited to actual atoms ... synthetic atoms can also be constructed and you can Google the topic of Circuit QED
http://www.stanford.edu/~jushen/device.html
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/lecture-and...colloquium/view
.... where pseudo-atoms of longer "radio" wavelength can be formed to specifically trap only photons using cryogenically cooled cavity QED systems. This we usually term this "resonance" but of course it obeys Schrodinger's Wave Equation in free space depending on the confining cavity.
Here is Schrodinger's wave equation in a microwave cavity and you can see the multiple cavities formed in the space, the "image" taken with an atomic force microscope...
... Here is the same cavity but at a different probe frequency...
These superpositions obey Schrodinger's Equation as a purely electromagnetic form...
Conventional Schrodinger's Wave Equation in a cavity showing only probability...
... and now the exact electromagnetic equivalent showing fields...
... Click any of the above to enlarge...
The time symmetry is broken by the block of ferrite seen in the second image. without this temporal symmetry breaking this pattern could not reveal itself.
Space can trap electrons and photons equally in "cavities"... forget the old notions about solid charges and charge trapping particles through "attraction"... think dynamic spatially changing fields and particles as complex topological objects formed from out of electromagnetic waves. These "solitons" obey CPT-Lorentz Symmetry and form stable particles including the concept of mass through a reciprocal space resonance as an extension of Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory.
All these features could be considered as "multiple occupancy" of space of bosons. This is a way to think of extra dimensional space if you wish... as "superpositions" in our dimensional space of just 4 dimensions. Any number of photons can occupy the one space and particles are just an extension of the concept of the photon. Photons are like ships "passing in the night", even passing directly through each other with no lasting effect other than the "interferences" revealing the structure of the space, hardly noticing each other as they quietly move between points in space connecting them and in the process defining the space itself by virtue of these compact dimensional matter wave cavities.
Cheers
QUOTE
And that two photons can interfere I don't know nothing. So what will be if two photons will strike to each over? And does it is possible two photons interence?.
Probably photon to cansel himslef out to do is imposibe fromtechincal reasons...
Difraction is also to photons interference, but i just wondering how two photons diferent polarization can interfere? Photons is just somthing more than waves, becouse interfere even with arbitrary polarization. Okey it's now clear to me, photon can interfere with himself and photon can interfere with another photon.
Two or more photons do "sum" instantaneously as they move through the "environment" as "unobserved quantum waves". This is why coherent photons moving directly from a source to a photographic plate can "pick up" interferences with the other waves in the space. A close examination of a holographic plate will immediately show the existence of standing waves inside the emulsion where matter waves repeat cycles of amplitude maxima and minima that exist throughout all cavity space and at all frequencies as superpositions. A hologram is just one example of the effect that a LASER will "detect" in space at just one frequency of this phenomena. While these photons instantaneously "sum" as they pass through each other they never "mix" and act entirely independently of all the other photons in space at the same time at all different EM band frequencies. They never mix because these individual photons are "quanta" which travel at the speed of light and exist outside of our time being subject to the most extreme form of time dilation and space contraction in the direction of motion. They are individually very robust but they can be "destroyed" or absorbed into a sink "tuned" to the excitation. This is a kind of resonance between the emitter and absorber "editing out" the intervening space and time due to propagation. Usually this "event" spreads in space connecting source and sink "instantly" in the reference frame of the photon. Quanta cannot partake in any dynamic event while they are in free space and will remain immune to any material changes in energy or until they are absorbed "whole". They do obey Special Relativity though and that allows us to compare events in different inertial frames of reference.Probably photon to cansel himslef out to do is imposibe fromtechincal reasons...
Difraction is also to photons interference, but i just wondering how two photons diferent polarization can interfere? Photons is just somthing more than waves, becouse interfere even with arbitrary polarization. Okey it's now clear to me, photon can interfere with himself and photon can interfere with another photon.
This is a controversial point I am sure but it has backing of experimental results. Matter waves in cavities are the natural extension of the standing waves in space found everywhere near sources of matter. Some wish to believe that the standing waves are the dynamic interaction of electromagnetic waves "bouncing around" in the cavity setting up those standing waves. This is not the case photons "do not bounce". What they do is proceed directly from source to sink ... no diversions. It appears clear to me that these standing waves are the direct extension of de Broglie Matter Waves in the cavity. These waves behave as a spatial template to the photons which are simply spreading in space from the source to the sink. So the photon traveling directly from source to sink is passing through a Matter Wave Field that is a hybridized superposition of the shells of atomic orbitals of all protons, electrons and neutrons in the cavity walls extending into the space at an almost stationary "velocity". De Broglie waves are the "low velocity end" of special relativity. As the velocity of a particle approaches zero the wavelength "approaches" infinity and fills all space with its waves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_hypothesis
where lambda is the wavelength and v is the velocity. Naturally you would ask what that v is relative to and I will leave your curiosity "play" with it.
You can read up on this phenomenon here ....
Good Elf on Matter Waves
This is an idea that I have been maintaining for more than a year ... You can see the history in this thread. Now it is a fact that the atomic orbitals of atoms are independent of the atom. Naturally the simplest "atom" is the proton which is the hydrogen nucleus. But you must also consider that "atoms" can be made of any shells even electrons and anti-electrons (positron) which is called positronium which also has shells if only for a very brief period. Naturally another interesting atom can be constructed from a proton and and an anti-proton.
Shells are not limited to actual atoms ... synthetic atoms can also be constructed and you can Google the topic of Circuit QED
http://www.stanford.edu/~jushen/device.html
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/lecture-and...colloquium/view
.... where pseudo-atoms of longer "radio" wavelength can be formed to specifically trap only photons using cryogenically cooled cavity QED systems. This we usually term this "resonance" but of course it obeys Schrodinger's Wave Equation in free space depending on the confining cavity.
Here is Schrodinger's wave equation in a microwave cavity and you can see the multiple cavities formed in the space, the "image" taken with an atomic force microscope...
... Here is the same cavity but at a different probe frequency...
These superpositions obey Schrodinger's Equation as a purely electromagnetic form...
Conventional Schrodinger's Wave Equation in a cavity showing only probability...
... and now the exact electromagnetic equivalent showing fields...
... Click any of the above to enlarge...
The time symmetry is broken by the block of ferrite seen in the second image. without this temporal symmetry breaking this pattern could not reveal itself.
Space can trap electrons and photons equally in "cavities"... forget the old notions about solid charges and charge trapping particles through "attraction"... think dynamic spatially changing fields and particles as complex topological objects formed from out of electromagnetic waves. These "solitons" obey CPT-Lorentz Symmetry and form stable particles including the concept of mass through a reciprocal space resonance as an extension of Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory.
All these features could be considered as "multiple occupancy" of space of bosons. This is a way to think of extra dimensional space if you wish... as "superpositions" in our dimensional space of just 4 dimensions. Any number of photons can occupy the one space and particles are just an extension of the concept of the photon. Photons are like ships "passing in the night", even passing directly through each other with no lasting effect other than the "interferences" revealing the structure of the space, hardly noticing each other as they quietly move between points in space connecting them and in the process defining the space itself by virtue of these compact dimensional matter wave cavities.
Cheers
Just to add some spice to this topic.
Here is a link to a very interesting interview with Carver Mead. He is the proponent of the waves exclusively.
Here is an introductory exceprt from the site:
Central to Mead’s rescue project are a series of discoveries inconsistent with the prevailing conceptions of quantum mechanics. One was the laser. As late as 1956, Bohr and Von Neumann, the paragons of quantum theory, arrived at the Columbia laboratories of Charles Townes, who was in the process of describing his invention. With the transistor, the laser is one of the most important inventions of the twentieth century. Designed into every CD player and long distance telephone connection, lasers today are manufactured by the billions. At the heart of laser action is perfect alignment of the crests and troughs of myriad waves of light. Their location and momentum must be theoretically knowable. But this violates the holiest canon of Copenhagen theory: Heisenberg Uncertainty. Bohr and Von Neumann proved to be true believers in Heisenberg’s rule. Both denied that the laser was possible. When Townes showed them one in operation, they retreated artfully.
Mead does not banish the mystery from science. He declares that physics is vastly farther away from a fundamental grasp of nature than many of the current exponents of a grand unified theory imagine. But he believes he can explain the nature of the famous mysteries of quantum science, from the two slit experiment where “particles” go through two holes at once to the perplexities of “entanglement,” where action on a quantum entity at one point of the universe can affect entities at other remote points at speeds faster than the speed of light. In his new interpretation, quantum physics is united with electromagnetism and the venerable Maxwell Equations are found to be dispensable.
But Mead does not bow humbly before all of Einstein’s conceptions. He dismisses the photoelectric effect as an artifact of early twentieth century apparatus. He also believes that General Relativity conceals more than it illuminates about gravitation. “All the important details are smoothed over by Einstein’s curvature of space time.” Gravity remains shrouded in mystery.
Have a blast.
Here is a link to a very interesting interview with Carver Mead. He is the proponent of the waves exclusively.
Here is an introductory exceprt from the site:
Central to Mead’s rescue project are a series of discoveries inconsistent with the prevailing conceptions of quantum mechanics. One was the laser. As late as 1956, Bohr and Von Neumann, the paragons of quantum theory, arrived at the Columbia laboratories of Charles Townes, who was in the process of describing his invention. With the transistor, the laser is one of the most important inventions of the twentieth century. Designed into every CD player and long distance telephone connection, lasers today are manufactured by the billions. At the heart of laser action is perfect alignment of the crests and troughs of myriad waves of light. Their location and momentum must be theoretically knowable. But this violates the holiest canon of Copenhagen theory: Heisenberg Uncertainty. Bohr and Von Neumann proved to be true believers in Heisenberg’s rule. Both denied that the laser was possible. When Townes showed them one in operation, they retreated artfully.
Mead does not banish the mystery from science. He declares that physics is vastly farther away from a fundamental grasp of nature than many of the current exponents of a grand unified theory imagine. But he believes he can explain the nature of the famous mysteries of quantum science, from the two slit experiment where “particles” go through two holes at once to the perplexities of “entanglement,” where action on a quantum entity at one point of the universe can affect entities at other remote points at speeds faster than the speed of light. In his new interpretation, quantum physics is united with electromagnetism and the venerable Maxwell Equations are found to be dispensable.
But Mead does not bow humbly before all of Einstein’s conceptions. He dismisses the photoelectric effect as an artifact of early twentieth century apparatus. He also believes that General Relativity conceals more than it illuminates about gravitation. “All the important details are smoothed over by Einstein’s curvature of space time.” Gravity remains shrouded in mystery.
Have a blast.
Hi Majkl,
The correct approach to the problem will be Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory (which is not a particle theory in it's original format). This "particle error" crept in from observations made by the instruments at the time where measurements were forced to be made in a single plane (as in a photocell) instead of utilization of the understanding the wave nature of the standing waves of light caused by de Broglie Matter Waves and insist measurements must be made in depth, after the fashion of a hologram. The early success of particle theory led to a blind drive to interpret everything in terms of that paradigm. It has worked after a fashion since it has had a century to refine its arguments, while all other interpretations have been shunned. We are very homocentric in the way we view the Universe... I mean that very literally... our eyes are not holographic and cannot perceive additional dimensional elements in space. We fully understand this limitation in a technical sense but we have not been entirely capable as a species getting over that limitation theoretically. It has also led to the inability to view our Universe in anything but 4 dimensions.
While I am a strong proponent of Special Relativity and believe it to be the "high velocity end" of be Broglie's Matter Wave Hypothesis there is a unified concept there to be expanded upon. I accept that General Relativity has a lot missing from it (anyone who grasps some of it will quickly realize that it is incapable of handling large velocities) and linear theory is particularly inept in describing curved spacetime when anything but small deformations are involved. This is because of it's low velocity limitations and solution complexity the usual derivation contain no spin related terms. Real world solutions would be impossible in all but the most symmetric situations. Of course the non-symmetric cases are the most interesting since electromagnetism is an anti-symmetric theory. Neither Quantum Mechanics nor General Relativity have any capacity to deal with entanglement both theories being "local theories". This is nobody's fault but there is a strong "political" theme running through all papers dealing with these ideas hailing the "triumph" of quantum theory in dealing with entanglement. Even though Quantum Field Theory is a Local Theory it does not embody Canonical Typicality and it will never be possible to show that as a theory it any mathematically complete. This is the case to the present day and as Feynman had said it is a "wacky theory" and its only saving grace is it works.
On the other hand I very much respect Einstein's views especially when he refers to Special Relativity and I accept that aside from the limitations of of General Relativity this approach is simply one step along the way to a "Unified Field Theory" which he was never fully successful in completing. Mind you absolutely nobody could have completed it in that era and his close confident and co-worker, David Bohm, was closest later in history in getting to the core issues and the idea of a Holographic Universe best expresses this concept (stripped of the mysticism).
There are many other points I make in this thread and in others that show a strong divergence with particle theory and with quantum mechanics as it currently stands. The big issue is "particle theory works" in the estimates of what it does best. It was a theory in a time where calculation was difficult process and computers were scarce and humans were turned into a very slow "pencil abacus" with the adage "Shut up and calculate".
Particle theory requires that a scalar estimate of the vector cross product be substituted when dealing with the orthogonal measurables in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Then of course is "renormalization"... This creeps in because of the lack of appreciation of reciprocal space.
QUOTE
Here is a link to a very interesting interview with Carver Mead. He is the proponent of the waves exclusively.
Here is an introductory excerpt from the site:
Thanks for the tip. It would have been nice to have the link but I will find it. Perhaps you could post it for the convenience of any other viewers of this page. Recall that Einstein was the one who proposed the possibility of LASERS and is credited with their theoretical invention. Carver Mead sounds very similar in his tendencies to me. I agree with that assessment about LASERS and there is a flaw there which I have mentioned here many time in the past... individual "unobserved" photons will form into perfect wavelets when they are summed over large number of events and are definitely not statistical distributions. Additionally Quantum Theory is time symmetric and contains no history and result in very strong limitations in the way the theory should work (no individual quantum events with cause and effect that are demonstrated on the macro scale of physics). Proponents will always say it really doesn't matter and there is nothing to be found there... A total non-sequitur. You would expect this because it is only a statistical theory (... this is as good as it is). It is an excellent theory but QT will never reveal the underlying reality and dynamics in its complexity because of projection of conjugate variables into simple scalar "events".Here is an introductory excerpt from the site:
The correct approach to the problem will be Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory (which is not a particle theory in it's original format). This "particle error" crept in from observations made by the instruments at the time where measurements were forced to be made in a single plane (as in a photocell) instead of utilization of the understanding the wave nature of the standing waves of light caused by de Broglie Matter Waves and insist measurements must be made in depth, after the fashion of a hologram. The early success of particle theory led to a blind drive to interpret everything in terms of that paradigm. It has worked after a fashion since it has had a century to refine its arguments, while all other interpretations have been shunned. We are very homocentric in the way we view the Universe... I mean that very literally... our eyes are not holographic and cannot perceive additional dimensional elements in space. We fully understand this limitation in a technical sense but we have not been entirely capable as a species getting over that limitation theoretically. It has also led to the inability to view our Universe in anything but 4 dimensions.
While I am a strong proponent of Special Relativity and believe it to be the "high velocity end" of be Broglie's Matter Wave Hypothesis there is a unified concept there to be expanded upon. I accept that General Relativity has a lot missing from it (anyone who grasps some of it will quickly realize that it is incapable of handling large velocities) and linear theory is particularly inept in describing curved spacetime when anything but small deformations are involved. This is because of it's low velocity limitations and solution complexity the usual derivation contain no spin related terms. Real world solutions would be impossible in all but the most symmetric situations. Of course the non-symmetric cases are the most interesting since electromagnetism is an anti-symmetric theory. Neither Quantum Mechanics nor General Relativity have any capacity to deal with entanglement both theories being "local theories". This is nobody's fault but there is a strong "political" theme running through all papers dealing with these ideas hailing the "triumph" of quantum theory in dealing with entanglement. Even though Quantum Field Theory is a Local Theory it does not embody Canonical Typicality and it will never be possible to show that as a theory it any mathematically complete. This is the case to the present day and as Feynman had said it is a "wacky theory" and its only saving grace is it works.
On the other hand I very much respect Einstein's views especially when he refers to Special Relativity and I accept that aside from the limitations of of General Relativity this approach is simply one step along the way to a "Unified Field Theory" which he was never fully successful in completing. Mind you absolutely nobody could have completed it in that era and his close confident and co-worker, David Bohm, was closest later in history in getting to the core issues and the idea of a Holographic Universe best expresses this concept (stripped of the mysticism).
There are many other points I make in this thread and in others that show a strong divergence with particle theory and with quantum mechanics as it currently stands. The big issue is "particle theory works" in the estimates of what it does best. It was a theory in a time where calculation was difficult process and computers were scarce and humans were turned into a very slow "pencil abacus" with the adage "Shut up and calculate".
Particle theory requires that a scalar estimate of the vector cross product be substituted when dealing with the orthogonal measurables in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Then of course is "renormalization"... This creeps in because of the lack of appreciation of reciprocal space.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Here is a link to a very interesting interview with Carver Mead. He is the proponent of the waves exclusively. Here is an introductory excerpt from the site: |
Thanks for the tip. It would have been nice to have the link but I will find it. Perhaps you could post it for the convenience of any other viewers of this page. Recall that Einstein was the one who proposed the possibility of LASERS and is credited with their theoretical invention. Carver Mead sounds very similar in his tendencies to me. I agree with that assessment about LASERS and there is a flaw there which I have mentioned here many time in the past... individual "unobserved" photons will form into perfect wavelets when they are summed over large number of events and are definitely not statistical distributions. Additionally Quantum Theory is time symmetric and contains no history and result in very strong limitations in the way the theory should work (no individual quantum events with cause and effect that are demonstrated on the macro scale of physics). Proponents will always say it really doesn't matter and there is nothing to be found there... A total non-sequitur. You would expect this because it is only a statistical theory (... this is as good as it is). It is an excellent theory but QT will never reveal the underlying reality and dynamics in its complexity because of projection of conjugate variables into simple scalar "events".
The correct approach to the problem will be Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory (which is not a particle theory in it's original format). This "particle error" crept in from observations made by the instruments at the time where measurements were forced to be made in a single plane (as in a photocell) instead of utilization of the understanding the wave nature of the standing waves of light caused by de Broglie Matter Waves and insist measurements must be made in depth, after the fashion of a hologram. The early success of particle theory led to a blind drive to interpret everything in terms of that paradigm. It has worked after a fashion since it has had a century to refine its arguments, while all other interpretations have been shunned. We are very homocentric in the way we view the Universe... I mean that very literally... our eyes are not holographic and cannot perceive additional dimensional elements in space. We fully understand this limitation in a technical sense but we have not been entirely capable as a species getting over that limitation theoretically. It has also led to the inability to view our Universe in anything but 4 dimensions.
While I am a strong proponent of Special Relativity and believe it to be the "high velocity end" of be Broglie's Matter Wave Hypothesis there is a unified concept there to be expanded upon. I accept that General Relativity has a lot missing from it (anyone who grasps some of it will quickly realize that it is incapable of handling large velocities) and linear theory is particularly inept in describing curved spacetime when anything but small deformations are involved. This is because of it's low velocity limitations and solution complexity the usual derivation contain no spin related terms. Real world solutions would be impossible in all but the most symmetric situations. Of course the non-symmetric cases are the most interesting since electromagnetism is an anti-symmetric theory. Neither Quantum Mechanics nor General Relativity have any capacity to deal with entanglement both theories being "local theories". This is nobody's fault but there is a strong "political" theme running through all papers dealing with these ideas hailing the "triumph" of quantum theory in dealing with entanglement. Even though Quantum Field Theory is a Local Theory it does not embody Canonical Typicality and it will never be possible to show that as a theory it any mathematically complete. This is the case to the present day and as Feynman had said it is a "wacky theory" and its only saving grace is it works.
On the other hand I very much respect Einstein's views especially when he refers to Special Relativity and I accept that aside from the limitations of of General Relativity this approach is simply one step along the way to a "Unified Field Theory" which he was never fully successful in completing. Mind you absolutely nobody could have completed it in that era and his close confident and co-worker, David Bohm, was closest later in history in getting to the core issues and the idea of a Holographic Universe best expresses this concept (stripped of the mysticism).
There are many other points I make in this thread and in others that show a strong divergence with particle theory and with quantum mechanics as it currently stands. The big issue is "particle theory works" in the estimates of what it does best. It was a theory in a time where calculation was difficult process and computers were scarce and humans were turned into a very slow "pencil abacus" with the adage "Shut up and calculate".
Particle theory requires that a scalar estimate of the vector cross product be substituted when dealing with the orthogonal measurables in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Then of course is "renormalization"... This creeps in because of the lack of appreciation of reciprocal space.
"[Renormalization is] just a stop-gap procedure. There must be some fundamental change in our ideas, probably a change just as fundamental as the passage from Bohr's orbit theory to quantum mechanics. When you get a number turning out to be infinite which ought to be finite, you should admit that there is something wrong with your equations, and not hope that you can get a good theory just by doctoring up that number."
- Paul Dirac, Nobel laureate 1933
Cheers
PS: Come to think of it you better tell me the page since I can access only a couple of Carver Mead's pages... nothing with any content ... most of them are externally blocked (Error Code: 404). He seems to be hiding his intellectual "light" under a blanket security "bushel".
The correct approach to the problem will be Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory (which is not a particle theory in it's original format). This "particle error" crept in from observations made by the instruments at the time where measurements were forced to be made in a single plane (as in a photocell) instead of utilization of the understanding the wave nature of the standing waves of light caused by de Broglie Matter Waves and insist measurements must be made in depth, after the fashion of a hologram. The early success of particle theory led to a blind drive to interpret everything in terms of that paradigm. It has worked after a fashion since it has had a century to refine its arguments, while all other interpretations have been shunned. We are very homocentric in the way we view the Universe... I mean that very literally... our eyes are not holographic and cannot perceive additional dimensional elements in space. We fully understand this limitation in a technical sense but we have not been entirely capable as a species getting over that limitation theoretically. It has also led to the inability to view our Universe in anything but 4 dimensions.
While I am a strong proponent of Special Relativity and believe it to be the "high velocity end" of be Broglie's Matter Wave Hypothesis there is a unified concept there to be expanded upon. I accept that General Relativity has a lot missing from it (anyone who grasps some of it will quickly realize that it is incapable of handling large velocities) and linear theory is particularly inept in describing curved spacetime when anything but small deformations are involved. This is because of it's low velocity limitations and solution complexity the usual derivation contain no spin related terms. Real world solutions would be impossible in all but the most symmetric situations. Of course the non-symmetric cases are the most interesting since electromagnetism is an anti-symmetric theory. Neither Quantum Mechanics nor General Relativity have any capacity to deal with entanglement both theories being "local theories". This is nobody's fault but there is a strong "political" theme running through all papers dealing with these ideas hailing the "triumph" of quantum theory in dealing with entanglement. Even though Quantum Field Theory is a Local Theory it does not embody Canonical Typicality and it will never be possible to show that as a theory it any mathematically complete. This is the case to the present day and as Feynman had said it is a "wacky theory" and its only saving grace is it works.
On the other hand I very much respect Einstein's views especially when he refers to Special Relativity and I accept that aside from the limitations of of General Relativity this approach is simply one step along the way to a "Unified Field Theory" which he was never fully successful in completing. Mind you absolutely nobody could have completed it in that era and his close confident and co-worker, David Bohm, was closest later in history in getting to the core issues and the idea of a Holographic Universe best expresses this concept (stripped of the mysticism).
There are many other points I make in this thread and in others that show a strong divergence with particle theory and with quantum mechanics as it currently stands. The big issue is "particle theory works" in the estimates of what it does best. It was a theory in a time where calculation was difficult process and computers were scarce and humans were turned into a very slow "pencil abacus" with the adage "Shut up and calculate".
Particle theory requires that a scalar estimate of the vector cross product be substituted when dealing with the orthogonal measurables in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Then of course is "renormalization"... This creeps in because of the lack of appreciation of reciprocal space.
"[Renormalization is] just a stop-gap procedure. There must be some fundamental change in our ideas, probably a change just as fundamental as the passage from Bohr's orbit theory to quantum mechanics. When you get a number turning out to be infinite which ought to be finite, you should admit that there is something wrong with your equations, and not hope that you can get a good theory just by doctoring up that number."
- Paul Dirac, Nobel laureate 1933
QUOTE
"The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."
- Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate 1965
- Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate 1965
Cheers
PS: Come to think of it you better tell me the page since I can access only a couple of Carver Mead's pages... nothing with any content ... most of them are externally blocked (Error Code: 404). He seems to be hiding his intellectual "light" under a blanket security "bushel".
I apologize for not posting the link 
.
Here it is: http://laputan.blogspot.com/2003_09_21_laputan_archive.html
Basically what Good Elf said sums it up nicely.
.Here it is: http://laputan.blogspot.com/2003_09_21_laputan_archive.html
Basically what Good Elf said sums it up nicely.
This might not belong to this topic but it’s a short post.
Here is a possible clue people. This may be way out of acceptable but here it goes. The Schumann resonance (SR) is a set of spectrum peaks in the extremely low frequency (ELF) portion of the Earth's electromagnetic field spectrum.
ELF frequency range could be the key to gravity in my opinion. What do i imagine here? As a prototype idea its about phase locking of resonating. Since objects in a free fall, fall the same no matter what their characteristics are this could mean that they are phase locked. They resonate as gravity field tells them to. Basically smaller ELF resonances absolutely obey bigger ones. Something in this kind of spirit. Objects as their own spectra of resonances obeying bigger fields of such resonances. Kind of each object has a small amount of ELF spectra which aligns itself when in a big ELF field.
But the idea is that EM-spectra resonations shoould be the clue.
Edit add on- Basically resonation causes rotation and we are basically moving toward the center to go around but we cannot penetrate the solidity so we stay where we are. Something like that. I figured this from cymatics videos. Go figure.
Here is a possible clue people. This may be way out of acceptable but here it goes. The Schumann resonance (SR) is a set of spectrum peaks in the extremely low frequency (ELF) portion of the Earth's electromagnetic field spectrum.
ELF frequency range could be the key to gravity in my opinion. What do i imagine here? As a prototype idea its about phase locking of resonating. Since objects in a free fall, fall the same no matter what their characteristics are this could mean that they are phase locked. They resonate as gravity field tells them to. Basically smaller ELF resonances absolutely obey bigger ones. Something in this kind of spirit. Objects as their own spectra of resonances obeying bigger fields of such resonances. Kind of each object has a small amount of ELF spectra which aligns itself when in a big ELF field.
But the idea is that EM-spectra resonations shoould be the clue.
Edit add on- Basically resonation causes rotation and we are basically moving toward the center to go around but we cannot penetrate the solidity so we stay where we are. Something like that. I figured this from cymatics videos. Go figure.
Hi Majkl et al,
Wikipedia: Carver Mead
If ever there was a confluence of ideas this is one of them. To date this guy is closest to the way that I am thinking presently than anyone else I have seen. I will say that I nave never heard of Carver before but his background in electronics and his appreciation of Physics and of Einstein are spot on. If anyone reads anything at all and if appeals to an authority mean anything (...I have said that it did not in the past ... out of self-defense!), this glimpse into another man's mind is inspiring.
Of course almost everything he has said could be traced back onto these posts all of you have seen here in the past but I swear that I never read any of his stuff or even heard his name previously. I can only say "great minds think alike"... I say that with humility since he is a great achiever and I would not class myself as "one of those".
That being said I have strayed into ideas that he does not touch on and I think those who have been following this post will also pick up the strong differences there too. What I will be trying to do now is to purchase his book as soon as possible. It will be sitting on my bookshelf alongside the Holographic Universe by Talbot very soon. His views on the electron is slightly at variance with the standard view and I agree that an electron "tends" to occupy the volume it moves in but it should have limits being a fermion. Maybe it is in the concept of Cooper Pairs that the electron can occupy the entire "cavity" it is propagating inside. I will need to look into that mater.
I still hold that to really understand light and electrons as a single concept the ideas of reciprocal space needs to be taken into account and that resonance between states connects "events" instantly in the frame of the photon through both the advanced and retarded waves leading to those standing de Broglie matter waves.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia about Carver...
QUOTE
I apologize for not posting the link rolleyes.gif .
Here it is: http://laputan.blogspot.com/2003_09_21_laputan_archive.html
Boy... That was an eyeopener. Carver is a man after my own heart. He is definitely on my wavelength (or I am on his!!). That reference is certainly a "must". I would copy it here complete except that it would be a breach of Copyright and I would not do that.Here it is: http://laputan.blogspot.com/2003_09_21_laputan_archive.html
Wikipedia: Carver Mead
If ever there was a confluence of ideas this is one of them. To date this guy is closest to the way that I am thinking presently than anyone else I have seen. I will say that I nave never heard of Carver before but his background in electronics and his appreciation of Physics and of Einstein are spot on. If anyone reads anything at all and if appeals to an authority mean anything (...I have said that it did not in the past ... out of self-defense!), this glimpse into another man's mind is inspiring.
Of course almost everything he has said could be traced back onto these posts all of you have seen here in the past but I swear that I never read any of his stuff or even heard his name previously. I can only say "great minds think alike"... I say that with humility since he is a great achiever and I would not class myself as "one of those".
That being said I have strayed into ideas that he does not touch on and I think those who have been following this post will also pick up the strong differences there too. What I will be trying to do now is to purchase his book as soon as possible. It will be sitting on my bookshelf alongside the Holographic Universe by Talbot very soon. His views on the electron is slightly at variance with the standard view and I agree that an electron "tends" to occupy the volume it moves in but it should have limits being a fermion. Maybe it is in the concept of Cooper Pairs that the electron can occupy the entire "cavity" it is propagating inside. I will need to look into that mater.
I still hold that to really understand light and electrons as a single concept the ideas of reciprocal space needs to be taken into account and that resonance between states connects "events" instantly in the frame of the photon through both the advanced and retarded waves leading to those standing de Broglie matter waves.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia about Carver...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I apologize for not posting the link rolleyes.gif . Here it is: http://laputan.blogspot.com/2003_09_21_laputan_archive.html |
Boy... That was an eyeopener. Carver is a man after my own heart. He is definitely on my wavelength (or I am on his!!). That reference is certainly a "must". I would copy it here complete except that it would be a breach of Copyright and I would not do that.
Wikipedia: Carver Mead
If ever there was a confluence of ideas this is one of them. To date this guy is closest to the way that I am thinking presently than anyone else I have seen. I will say that I nave never heard of Carver before but his background in electronics and his appreciation of Physics and of Einstein are spot on. If anyone reads anything at all and if appeals to an authority mean anything (...I have said that it did not in the past ... out of self-defense!), this glimpse into another man's mind is inspiring.
Of course almost everything he has said could be traced back onto these posts all of you have seen here in the past but I swear that I never read any of his stuff or even heard his name previously. I can only say "great minds think alike"... I say that with humility since he is a great achiever and I would not class myself as "one of those".
That being said I have strayed into ideas that he does not touch on and I think those who have been following this post will also pick up the strong differences there too. What I will be trying to do now is to purchase his book as soon as possible. It will be sitting on my bookshelf alongside the Holographic Universe by Talbot very soon. His views on the electron is slightly at variance with the standard view and I agree that an electron "tends" to occupy the volume it moves in but it should have limits being a fermion. Maybe it is in the concept of Cooper Pairs that the electron can occupy the entire "cavity" it is propagating inside. I will need to look into that mater.
I still hold that to really understand light and electrons as a single concept the ideas of reciprocal space needs to be taken into account and that resonance between states connects "events" instantly in the frame of the photon through both the advanced and retarded waves leading to those standing de Broglie matter waves.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia about Carver...
"Collective Electrodynamics" approach to electromagnetism
Carver Mead has developed an approach he calls Collective Electrodynamics in which electromagnetic effects, including quantized energy transfer, derive from the interactions of the wavefunctions of electrons behaving collectively.[2] In this formulation, the photon is a non-entity, and Planck's energy–frequency relationship comes from the interactions of electron eigenstates. The approach is related to John Cramer's transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, to the Wheeler–Feynman electrodynamics, and to Gilbert N. Lewis's early description of electromagnetic energy exchange at zero interval in spacetime.
Wikipedia: Carver Mead
If ever there was a confluence of ideas this is one of them. To date this guy is closest to the way that I am thinking presently than anyone else I have seen. I will say that I nave never heard of Carver before but his background in electronics and his appreciation of Physics and of Einstein are spot on. If anyone reads anything at all and if appeals to an authority mean anything (...I have said that it did not in the past ... out of self-defense!), this glimpse into another man's mind is inspiring.
Of course almost everything he has said could be traced back onto these posts all of you have seen here in the past but I swear that I never read any of his stuff or even heard his name previously. I can only say "great minds think alike"... I say that with humility since he is a great achiever and I would not class myself as "one of those".
That being said I have strayed into ideas that he does not touch on and I think those who have been following this post will also pick up the strong differences there too. What I will be trying to do now is to purchase his book as soon as possible. It will be sitting on my bookshelf alongside the Holographic Universe by Talbot very soon. His views on the electron is slightly at variance with the standard view and I agree that an electron "tends" to occupy the volume it moves in but it should have limits being a fermion. Maybe it is in the concept of Cooper Pairs that the electron can occupy the entire "cavity" it is propagating inside. I will need to look into that mater.
I still hold that to really understand light and electrons as a single concept the ideas of reciprocal space needs to be taken into account and that resonance between states connects "events" instantly in the frame of the photon through both the advanced and retarded waves leading to those standing de Broglie matter waves.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia about Carver...
"Collective Electrodynamics" approach to electromagnetism
Carver Mead has developed an approach he calls Collective Electrodynamics in which electromagnetic effects, including quantized energy transfer, derive from the interactions of the wavefunctions of electrons behaving collectively.[2] In this formulation, the photon is a non-entity, and Planck's energy–frequency relationship comes from the interactions of electron eigenstates. The approach is related to John Cramer's transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, to the Wheeler–Feynman electrodynamics, and to Gilbert N. Lewis's early description of electromagnetic energy exchange at zero interval in spacetime.
So he too agrees that Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory is the underlying basis for electromagnetic phenomena... as I have been solidly maintaining for some time. I am not absolutely sure that he understands it in the same way as I do but I am sure that his view will be more mature than my own in these matters. He apparently knew Feynman personally and collaborated with him at times so it doesn't get any better than that... Insight directly into the mind of "the Man". These guys have had rare gifts that have been fertilized by the minds of some great thinkers. He suggests that even Feynman was afraid to go against the prevailing authority... Carver should know and this is an insight of historical dimension that we never see reported anywhere else... Though I have suspected that Feynman was holding back somewhere at times with QED.
For the many reasons I have stated in the past and for the reasons that Carver states in this discussion, all of you "followers" of this thread can be assured that you are not just hanging on to a tired old elf's antediluvian view of the World but is on the forefront of advanced thinking about the nature of the quantum and you are it's "leaders". The quantum as you may have recalled from my writings on this thread and in previous places are indeed "resonant" a-temporal transactions of events connecting together sources and sinks of the propagating photons (the exchange forces of our Universe). These transactions effectively predict the events ahead of time by virtue of the advanced waves. The event can't even happen if the event can't be predicted by that advanced wave since to have the advanced wave coming from the sink implies that the event has already been transacted in the future.
This results in a standing matter wave in space and this is the wave we can record when we make holograms at one of those frequencies provided we view the system in an "stationary state" where no components are in physical motion. The need to record the scene in holograms in "a dark environment" illuminated by only one frequency indicates what may be found at all other frequencies. Different frequencies of matter waves can be "synthesized" from the primary frequencies through the differing angles of approach of the illuminating light and the frequency presented through optical analog of Bragg's Law. Yo8 have all seen this effect in the lab through white light holograms. This can result in synthetically creating additional optical frequencies in the same space reusing the matter wave pattern from a single exposure.
That the quantum itself is formed from matched pairs of resonant cavities which can be anywhere in space ... and non-local. In many cases the photon could be in the evanescent region of the fermion leading to "electromagnetism" in wires and within the rest frames associated with them. These would leave the fields "attached to the sources" and inductive and non-radiative. Or they may be in the distant far field of interstellar space where the retarded wave traveling at the speed of light is matched by the advanced wave "returning from the future" to complete the transaction between the two particles ... the source and the sink then form a resonant pair in the rest frame of the photon. The quanta thus formed is "insulated" from time and all dynamic processes while waves pass between source and sink, while in the rest frame of the photon where time and contracted space has remained frozen for the event this appears as a single resonant exchange of energy within a cavity. Externally we see the wave "spreading through space" and interacting with the matter wave as it approaches the near field. Actually if we are honest we "see" nothing since the quantum transaction is entirely unseen and is a non-negotiable requirement for the transaction to proceed. Now we know why we cannot make measurements of the quantum system while the quantum is "apparently" in-transit. If we could this would change the quantum and cancel the original transaction between the original source and sink.
These two states of matter are conjoined at source as a "particle" fermion associated with the "shells" of a boson state that extends into the cavity space depending on the motion of the fermions involved. In the case of protons *which are actually hydrogen ions", the "shells" are extended overlapping cavity resonances of space linked to the reciprocal spaces of the fermions. They are "supersymmetric partners" conjoined in a reciprocal space "near" the fermion. I have argued this above and this view is borne out by recent experiments.
A lot of insight can be gleaned from the paper by Williamson and Van Der Mark...
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?
... or this...
"The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
Though Williamson is still not keen on the idea of higher dimensions. I think Carver is keen on higher dimensions from what I have seen of his statements (but I am not entirely sure yet). The holographic principle applying to different levels of our Universe like the way Russian Dolls are stacked inside each other seem to have some appeal to him... but I am only guessing here. Still... connections between dimensional spaces via Anti-de Sitter Universe's has not been hinted at here.
One of the most recent editions of New Scientist (21 Sept 2007... Parallel Universes make Quantum Sense by Zeeya Merali) provides support for the idea of Holographically stacked Universes may exist... though not through the concept of resonant cavities but "non-resonant" Black Holes...
For the many reasons I have stated in the past and for the reasons that Carver states in this discussion, all of you "followers" of this thread can be assured that you are not just hanging on to a tired old elf's antediluvian view of the World but is on the forefront of advanced thinking about the nature of the quantum and you are it's "leaders". The quantum as you may have recalled from my writings on this thread and in previous places are indeed "resonant" a-temporal transactions of events connecting together sources and sinks of the propagating photons (the exchange forces of our Universe). These transactions effectively predict the events ahead of time by virtue of the advanced waves. The event can't even happen if the event can't be predicted by that advanced wave since to have the advanced wave coming from the sink implies that the event has already been transacted in the future.
This results in a standing matter wave in space and this is the wave we can record when we make holograms at one of those frequencies provided we view the system in an "stationary state" where no components are in physical motion. The need to record the scene in holograms in "a dark environment" illuminated by only one frequency indicates what may be found at all other frequencies. Different frequencies of matter waves can be "synthesized" from the primary frequencies through the differing angles of approach of the illuminating light and the frequency presented through optical analog of Bragg's Law. Yo8 have all seen this effect in the lab through white light holograms. This can result in synthetically creating additional optical frequencies in the same space reusing the matter wave pattern from a single exposure.
That the quantum itself is formed from matched pairs of resonant cavities which can be anywhere in space ... and non-local. In many cases the photon could be in the evanescent region of the fermion leading to "electromagnetism" in wires and within the rest frames associated with them. These would leave the fields "attached to the sources" and inductive and non-radiative. Or they may be in the distant far field of interstellar space where the retarded wave traveling at the speed of light is matched by the advanced wave "returning from the future" to complete the transaction between the two particles ... the source and the sink then form a resonant pair in the rest frame of the photon. The quanta thus formed is "insulated" from time and all dynamic processes while waves pass between source and sink, while in the rest frame of the photon where time and contracted space has remained frozen for the event this appears as a single resonant exchange of energy within a cavity. Externally we see the wave "spreading through space" and interacting with the matter wave as it approaches the near field. Actually if we are honest we "see" nothing since the quantum transaction is entirely unseen and is a non-negotiable requirement for the transaction to proceed. Now we know why we cannot make measurements of the quantum system while the quantum is "apparently" in-transit. If we could this would change the quantum and cancel the original transaction between the original source and sink.
These two states of matter are conjoined at source as a "particle" fermion associated with the "shells" of a boson state that extends into the cavity space depending on the motion of the fermions involved. In the case of protons *which are actually hydrogen ions", the "shells" are extended overlapping cavity resonances of space linked to the reciprocal spaces of the fermions. They are "supersymmetric partners" conjoined in a reciprocal space "near" the fermion. I have argued this above and this view is borne out by recent experiments.
A lot of insight can be gleaned from the paper by Williamson and Van Der Mark...
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?
... or this...
"The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
Though Williamson is still not keen on the idea of higher dimensions. I think Carver is keen on higher dimensions from what I have seen of his statements (but I am not entirely sure yet). The holographic principle applying to different levels of our Universe like the way Russian Dolls are stacked inside each other seem to have some appeal to him... but I am only guessing here. Still... connections between dimensional spaces via Anti-de Sitter Universe's has not been hinted at here.
One of the most recent editions of New Scientist (21 Sept 2007... Parallel Universes make Quantum Sense by Zeeya Merali) provides support for the idea of Holographically stacked Universes may exist... though not through the concept of resonant cavities but "non-resonant" Black Holes...
QUOTE (New Scientist (21 Sept 2007... Parallel Universes make Quantum Sense by Zeeya Merali) +)
If, as Everett argued, quantum mechanics is applied to the whole universe, then it too should exist in a multitude of separate states. There would be a "multiverse" of parallel universes - one for every physical possibility. So when you open the box holding Schrödinger's cat, the universe splits, forming two new "yous" - one whose future involves viewing the live cat and the other who sees the dead cat.
Dismissed by the scientific establishment as ridiculous for decades, the many-worlds scenario may at last come in from the cold thanks to Deutsch's work.
The biggest criticism levelled at many worlds was that it seemed to make a puzzle about the outcomes of quantum experiments even worse. Physicists can predict the probability of getting a certain outcome from a quantum experiment from the square of its wave function, according to the Born rule. Nobody can explain why this rule works, it simply fits with experimental observations. The problem was there seemed to be no place for the Born rule in the multiverse. In fact, there didn't seem to be any space for any probabilities at all, says Deutsch.
"You toss a coin, but what does it mean to say that the probability of it coming up heads is 50 per cent?" Deutsch asks. "According to Everett, both outcomes must happen."
In the mid-1990s, Deutsch set out to put the uncertainty we see in quantum mechanical experiments back into the many-worlds scenario. Now, with additional work by Simon Saunders and David Wallace, also at Oxford, he believes they have succeeded. The trick is to examine a quantum experiment while excluding probability theory and accepting the many-worlds interpretation.
The multiverse has a branching structure, created as the universe splits into parallel versions of itself. The thickness of the branches can be calculated solely using deterministic equations, getting around the uncertainties usually associated with quantum physics. What the Oxford gang found is that the branching structure exactly reproduces the peculiar probabilities predicted by the Born rule. The branching also gives the illusion of probabilistic outcomes to measurements.
Deutsch believes this solves the problem of the origin of quantum probability once and for all. "Probabilities used to be regarded as the biggest problem for Everett, but ironically, they are now its most powerful success," he says.
"We've cleared up the obscurities and come up with a pretty clear verdict that Everett works," says Saunders, who is presenting the work with Wallace at the Many Worlds at 50 conference at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, this week. "It's a dramatic turnaround and it means that people now have to discuss Everett seriously."
Albrecht agrees that the work will shake up physicists' worlds. "Many people are uncomfortable about the probabilities at the heart of quantum mechanics and attempt to get rid of quantum mechanics because of it," he says. "But this greatly amplifies the fundamental place of quantum mechanics in our understanding of the physical world."
David Papineau, a philosopher of physics at King's College London, says that he has been converted from scepticism about many worlds to belief, based on its potential to one day solve this puzzle of quantum probabilities. He adds, though, that the work by Deutsch, Wallace and Saunders must now be scrutinised. "It's an ambitious claim and so we have to be careful," he says. For Papineau, the problem is whether a belief in parallel universes should affect the way we live our everyday lives (see "Just another universe").
Max Tegmark at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has long been a fan of the many-worlds scenario. But while he believes the new work on probability should help convince physicists of its reality, it will never be enough to win over die-hard sceptics. "The critique of many worlds is shifting from 'it makes no sense and I hate it' to simply 'I hate it'," he says.
Dismissed by the scientific establishment as ridiculous for decades, the many-worlds scenario may at last come in from the cold thanks to Deutsch's work.
The biggest criticism levelled at many worlds was that it seemed to make a puzzle about the outcomes of quantum experiments even worse. Physicists can predict the probability of getting a certain outcome from a quantum experiment from the square of its wave function, according to the Born rule. Nobody can explain why this rule works, it simply fits with experimental observations. The problem was there seemed to be no place for the Born rule in the multiverse. In fact, there didn't seem to be any space for any probabilities at all, says Deutsch.
"You toss a coin, but what does it mean to say that the probability of it coming up heads is 50 per cent?" Deutsch asks. "According to Everett, both outcomes must happen."
In the mid-1990s, Deutsch set out to put the uncertainty we see in quantum mechanical experiments back into the many-worlds scenario. Now, with additional work by Simon Saunders and David Wallace, also at Oxford, he believes they have succeeded. The trick is to examine a quantum experiment while excluding probability theory and accepting the many-worlds interpretation.
The multiverse has a branching structure, created as the universe splits into parallel versions of itself. The thickness of the branches can be calculated solely using deterministic equations, getting around the uncertainties usually associated with quantum physics. What the Oxford gang found is that the branching structure exactly reproduces the peculiar probabilities predicted by the Born rule. The branching also gives the illusion of probabilistic outcomes to measurements.
Deutsch believes this solves the problem of the origin of quantum probability once and for all. "Probabilities used to be regarded as the biggest problem for Everett, but ironically, they are now its most powerful success," he says.
"We've cleared up the obscurities and come up with a pretty clear verdict that Everett works," says Saunders, who is presenting the work with Wallace at the Many Worlds at 50 conference at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, this week. "It's a dramatic turnaround and it means that people now have to discuss Everett seriously."
Albrecht agrees that the work will shake up physicists' worlds. "Many people are uncomfortable about the probabilities at the heart of quantum mechanics and attempt to get rid of quantum mechanics because of it," he says. "But this greatly amplifies the fundamental place of quantum mechanics in our understanding of the physical world."
David Papineau, a philosopher of physics at King's College London, says that he has been converted from scepticism about many worlds to belief, based on its potential to one day solve this puzzle of quantum probabilities. He adds, though, that the work by Deutsch, Wallace and Saunders must now be scrutinised. "It's an ambitious claim and so we have to be careful," he says. For Papineau, the problem is whether a belief in parallel universes should affect the way we live our everyday lives (see "Just another universe").
Max Tegmark at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has long been a fan of the many-worlds scenario. But while he believes the new work on probability should help convince physicists of its reality, it will never be enough to win over die-hard sceptics. "The critique of many worlds is shifting from 'it makes no sense and I hate it' to simply 'I hate it'," he says.
We have looked into this problem on this thread previously and discussed how reciprocal spaces and lower dimensional "outer" surfaces can convert to higher dimensional inner spaces through the concept of the AdS/CFT Conjecture.. It really only makes sense if the spaces are indeed reciprocal and "resonantly joined" to our space through "frequency" ... the reciprocal of time. In this way the spaces can be fitted inside each other "holographically" and support the Physics through the use of "Kondo Phantoms".. Looking glass Universes duplicated on the basis of informational "cloning" but fully functional "worlds" of semi-infinite extent. The experiments are on the board. It is time to bring the ends of these "strings" together now.
QUOTE (Majkel+)
Here is a possible clue people. This may be way out of acceptable but here it goes. The Schumann resonance (SR) is a set of spectrum peaks in the extremely low frequency (ELF) portion of the Earth's electromagnetic field spectrum.
ELF frequency range could be the key to gravity in my opinion. What do i imagine here? As a prototype idea its about phase locking of resonating. Since objects in a free fall, fall the same no matter what their characteristics are this could mean that they are phase locked. They resonate as gravity field tells them to. Basically smaller ELF resonances absolutely obey bigger ones. Something in this kind of spirit. Objects as their own spectra of resonances obeying bigger fields of such resonances. Kind of each object has a small amount of ELF spectra which aligns itself when in a big ELF field.
But the idea is that EM-spectra resonations shoould be the clue.
Edit add on- Basically resonation causes rotation and we are basically moving toward the center to go around but we cannot penetrate the solidity so we stay where we are. Something like that. I figured this from cymatics videos. Go figure.
ELF frequency range could be the key to gravity in my opinion. What do i imagine here? As a prototype idea its about phase locking of resonating. Since objects in a free fall, fall the same no matter what their characteristics are this could mean that they are phase locked. They resonate as gravity field tells them to. Basically smaller ELF resonances absolutely obey bigger ones. Something in this kind of spirit. Objects as their own spectra of resonances obeying bigger fields of such resonances. Kind of each object has a small amount of ELF spectra which aligns itself when in a big ELF field.
But the idea is that EM-spectra resonations shoould be the clue.
Edit add on- Basically resonation causes rotation and we are basically moving toward the center to go around but we cannot penetrate the solidity so we stay where we are. Something like that. I figured this from cymatics videos. Go figure.
I think I agree... Are you speaking of a kind of Mach's Principle where the Universe is a cavity of gravitational matter wave resonances?... demarcated by de Broglie Matter Waves. Acceleration of a single particle within this field of free falling particles results in a "back EMF" very similar to Lenz's Law of Magnetic Induction? This is not a magnetic or electric effect but a gravitational effect caused by frame dragging. It is based on the idea that Gravity and Mass are "pseudo-forces" acting through an underlying electromagnetism in the same way as reaction forces. This then equates inertial and gravitational acceleration ... which underpins General Relativity in the Equivalence Principle. If anything is correct about General Relativity then this is the crux of the argument right there. This would link mass with electromagnetism in a kind of Gravito-magnetodynamics... exactly what Einstein was searching for all along. This is/was to be tested by Gravity Probe B and I am hoping strongly that this experiment has determined it in the affirmative. There is some concern that the experiment has been "botched" by underestimating the effects of surface charge on the spheres used in the experiment which related to the precession of gyroscopes in a gravity field of the earth.
Here is a short review by another reviewer of Carver's Book...
Any comments by anyone is very welcome...
Cheers
Here is a short review by another reviewer of Carver's Book...
QUOTE
Carver Mead, Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism
In Collective Electrodynamics, Carver Mead is out to convince the physics community that the electromagnetic vector and scalar potentials are more fundamental than the electric and magnetic fields. In addition, he supports the wave picture of electromagnetic interactions as being more fundamental than the particle view, and he endorses Einstein's criticisms of Bohr's (non-)interpretation of quantum mechanics. None of this would be worth mentioning except that Mead's arguments are fairly convincing, as he shows that his methods give the correct answers to well-known problems, and the non-existence of particles and fields eliminates any problems with infinite self-energies. Electromagnetic interactions are confusing when viewed from the point of view of the exchange of photons, he says, and simple when viewed as the accumulation of phase of electron wavefunctions. "The potentials A and V are not degrees of freedom on their own -- they are, as their name implies, the potential for interaction of the collective degrees of freedom of the electron system," he writes. Another fascinating section explains how the collective motion of electrons carries the energy and momentum typically ascribed to the electromagnetic fields. Even more interestingly, Mead introduces the "transactional" view of quantum mechanics in describing how a correct treatment of the problem of radiation damping leads inevitably to the conclusion that causality is a statistical property of the universe, not a fundamental law. Mead introduces the electrodynamic theory of Feynman and Wheeler, which treated advanced and retarded potentials on an equal footing, and which concluded that "if there were only a few chunks of matter in the universe . . . the future would, indeed, affect the past." To follow this fascinating discussion, the only prerequisites are an understanding of simple calculus and a vague recollection of undergraduate-level electrodynamics. After finishing Collective Electrodynamics, I'm anxious to read Time's Arrow Today, Cosmology and Action at a Distance Electrodynamics by Hoyle and Narlikar, and Schodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality by John Gribbin.
Read an interview with Mead about Collective Electrodynamics on the American Spectator website. Despite an introduction full of outrageous and ill-informed bombast ("Perhaps more than any other man, Mead has spent his professional life working on intimate terms with matter at the atomic and subatomic levels"), the interview itself is worth reading. (Thanks to David Haddon for the tip.) Mead's comments may make you consider whether Bohr's Correspondence Principle isn't after all a cultural construct, in keeping with the spirit of the times in the '20s and '30s.
http://www.wsrcc.com/alison/books/recommended.html
In Collective Electrodynamics, Carver Mead is out to convince the physics community that the electromagnetic vector and scalar potentials are more fundamental than the electric and magnetic fields. In addition, he supports the wave picture of electromagnetic interactions as being more fundamental than the particle view, and he endorses Einstein's criticisms of Bohr's (non-)interpretation of quantum mechanics. None of this would be worth mentioning except that Mead's arguments are fairly convincing, as he shows that his methods give the correct answers to well-known problems, and the non-existence of particles and fields eliminates any problems with infinite self-energies. Electromagnetic interactions are confusing when viewed from the point of view of the exchange of photons, he says, and simple when viewed as the accumulation of phase of electron wavefunctions. "The potentials A and V are not degrees of freedom on their own -- they are, as their name implies, the potential for interaction of the collective degrees of freedom of the electron system," he writes. Another fascinating section explains how the collective motion of electrons carries the energy and momentum typically ascribed to the electromagnetic fields. Even more interestingly, Mead introduces the "transactional" view of quantum mechanics in describing how a correct treatment of the problem of radiation damping leads inevitably to the conclusion that causality is a statistical property of the universe, not a fundamental law. Mead introduces the electrodynamic theory of Feynman and Wheeler, which treated advanced and retarded potentials on an equal footing, and which concluded that "if there were only a few chunks of matter in the universe . . . the future would, indeed, affect the past." To follow this fascinating discussion, the only prerequisites are an understanding of simple calculus and a vague recollection of undergraduate-level electrodynamics. After finishing Collective Electrodynamics, I'm anxious to read Time's Arrow Today, Cosmology and Action at a Distance Electrodynamics by Hoyle and Narlikar, and Schodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality by John Gribbin.
Read an interview with Mead about Collective Electrodynamics on the American Spectator website. Despite an introduction full of outrageous and ill-informed bombast ("Perhaps more than any other man, Mead has spent his professional life working on intimate terms with matter at the atomic and subatomic levels"), the interview itself is worth reading. (Thanks to David Haddon for the tip.) Mead's comments may make you consider whether Bohr's Correspondence Principle isn't after all a cultural construct, in keeping with the spirit of the times in the '20s and '30s.
http://www.wsrcc.com/alison/books/recommended.html
Any comments by anyone is very welcome...
Cheers
Hi Majkl et al,
Here is a reference to Carver Mead's Interview for the American Spectator
(American Spectator, Sep/Oct 2001, Vol. 34 Issue 7, p68)
http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/P.../CarverMead.htm
This seems to be the original source of the material... It dates from 2001.
Biography here...
http://www.technology.gov/Medal/2002/bios/Carver_A._Mead.pdf
Here is a reference to Carver Mead's Interview for the American Spectator
(American Spectator, Sep/Oct 2001, Vol. 34 Issue 7, p68)
http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/P.../CarverMead.htm
This seems to be the original source of the material... It dates from 2001.
Biography here...
http://www.technology.gov/Medal/2002/bios/Carver_A._Mead.pdf
QUOTE (Applications of the Wave Structure of Matter+)
Carver Meade, Professor emeritus at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), investigated electron waves in his 2000 book Collective Electrodynamics published by MIT Press. His work has been used and supported by the Intel Corporation. He recognized that the electron is not a point particle but a wave structure, and that e-m approximations, especially in magnetism, do not work at quantum dimensions. He used the measured effect of wave structure at low temperatures (termed the Quantum Halleffect) that the magnetic flux f in a closed loop of current takes only quantized values: Flux = nf, where n is an integer. This is because the waves of the circulating electrons must join together in phase, otherwise they cancel each other. He derived a vector potential to correct the flawed magnetic terms of Maxwell’s Equations, using measurements of electron waves in closed loops. Recall that Einstein pointed out the flaws of Maxwell’s Equations long ago but science had to wait 40 years before Meade corrected them. His book, very popular in Silicon Valley, shows correct ways to solve the electromagnetism of transistor circuits. MIT awarded him the Lemelson-MIT Prize ($500,000) in 1999. Meade felt that the failure of the physics community to recognize the WSM was a serious omission. He wrote: "It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be recorded in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics."
In an interview (American Spectator, Sep/Oct 2001, Vol. 34 Issue 7, p68), he stated:
"The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles. So we have to think of electron waves and proton waves and so on. Matter is 'incoherent' when all its waves have a different wavelength, implying a different momentum. On the other hand, if you take a pure quantum system - the electrons in a superconducting magnet, or the atoms in a laser - they are all in phase with one another, and they demonstrate the wave nature of matter on a large scale. Then you can see quite visibly what matter is down at its heart.”
http://www.quantummatter.com/_Media/_Appli..._of_the_WSM.pdf
Collective Electrodynamics I : Carver Mead
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/9...ourcetype=HWCIT
Download the full text pdf of the paper from here...
Enjoy.
In an interview (American Spectator, Sep/Oct 2001, Vol. 34 Issue 7, p68), he stated:
"The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles. So we have to think of electron waves and proton waves and so on. Matter is 'incoherent' when all its waves have a different wavelength, implying a different momentum. On the other hand, if you take a pure quantum system - the electrons in a superconducting magnet, or the atoms in a laser - they are all in phase with one another, and they demonstrate the wave nature of matter on a large scale. Then you can see quite visibly what matter is down at its heart.”
http://www.quantummatter.com/_Media/_Appli..._of_the_WSM.pdf
Collective Electrodynamics I : Carver Mead
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/9...ourcetype=HWCIT
Download the full text pdf of the paper from here...
Enjoy.
Hello Good Elf, Majki, et al.
Thanks for the info on Carver Mead. There is a lot of good information there.
On superconductors, here is superconduction without wires, if you haven't come across it yet. http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0268-1242/18/3/319
Thanks for the info on Carver Mead. There is a lot of good information there.
On superconductors, here is superconduction without wires, if you haven't come across it yet. http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0268-1242/18/3/319
Hi Montec et al,
QUOTE (Montec +)
Thanks for the info on Carver Mead. There is a lot of good information there.
On superconductors, here is superconduction without wires, if you haven't come across it yet.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0268-1242/18/3/319
On superconductors, here is superconduction without wires, if you haven't come across it yet.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0268-1242/18/3/319
I would have to throw substantial amounts of money to purchase that paper. I have found an article that extracts the essence of the discovery here...
The quest for Superconduction at room temperature - how close are we? Johan F. Prins
No... I had not come across that article... I like it and the reason given for superconductivity is very compelling. Of course I would look at the electrons not in terms of "charges" but in more general terms as encapsulated photon "waves". The fact that electrons can form "Cooper Pairs" at all indicates that charge is not as important as other features of the matter waves. The mass of the electron may also be tied to this process... it is very hard to see that such a flow as quanta could occur if the Cooper Pairs exhibited mass. It also begs a further question as to what might happen if the "line" was "terminated" in an appropriate "load". Yes... it is something to pause and give serious thought to..
And here is something completely different...
http://www.physorg.com/news113146663.html
Is this "really" a mass increase or is it something related to the system. For instance does the "material" actually gain weight/mass equal to the "electron mass increase"? Variable mass makes for an interesting property that may be possible to manipulate. As we have the manipulation of optical properties using the surprising features of negative refractive index why not the manipulation of mass using some property of matter?
Thanks Montec and Cheers
The quest for Superconduction at room temperature - how close are we? Johan F. Prins
No... I had not come across that article... I like it and the reason given for superconductivity is very compelling. Of course I would look at the electrons not in terms of "charges" but in more general terms as encapsulated photon "waves". The fact that electrons can form "Cooper Pairs" at all indicates that charge is not as important as other features of the matter waves. The mass of the electron may also be tied to this process... it is very hard to see that such a flow as quanta could occur if the Cooper Pairs exhibited mass. It also begs a further question as to what might happen if the "line" was "terminated" in an appropriate "load". Yes... it is something to pause and give serious thought to..
And here is something completely different...
http://www.physorg.com/news113146663.html
Is this "really" a mass increase or is it something related to the system. For instance does the "material" actually gain weight/mass equal to the "electron mass increase"? Variable mass makes for an interesting property that may be possible to manipulate. As we have the manipulation of optical properties using the surprising features of negative refractive index why not the manipulation of mass using some property of matter?
Thanks Montec and Cheers
Just an additional thought on ELF or longer waves spectra. I watched hutchinson effect and an idea came. A cranky one but it has an interesting twist. Basically an effect makes an objects float. So a kind of an idea is that you have to interrupt ELF wave to twist direction thus you get pulled upward instead downward. It may be of course much more complex interruption or twist of resonance but anyway.
Thus you are not repelled. You are attracted upward. You can reverse or change direction of flow. Thus you basically use the same wavelength but you just flip its polarity somehow. Thus one could say you use attraction to repel yourself. It would be an ironic truth if one considers that no one thought that the same force that pulls you down can pull you up as well. And no law is violated. Its gravity but having different direction.
Thus you are not repelled. You are attracted upward. You can reverse or change direction of flow. Thus you basically use the same wavelength but you just flip its polarity somehow. Thus one could say you use attraction to repel yourself. It would be an ironic truth if one considers that no one thought that the same force that pulls you down can pull you up as well. And no law is violated. Its gravity but having different direction.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Nov 6 2007, 12:46 AM)
Hi Montec et al,
I would have to throw substantial amounts of money to purchase that paper. I have found an article that extracts the essence of the discovery here...
The quest for Superconduction at room temperature - how close are we? Johan F. Prins
No... I had not come across that article... I like it and the reason given for superconductivity is very compelling. Of course I would look at the electrons not in terms of "charges" but in more general terms as encapsulated photon "waves". The fact that electrons can form "Cooper Pairs" at all indicates that charge is not as important as other features of the matter waves. The mass of the electron may also be tied to this process... it is very hard to see that such a flow as quanta could occur if the Cooper Pairs exhibited mass. It also begs a further question as to what might happen if the "line" was "terminated" in an appropriate "load". Yes... it is something to pause and give serious thought to..
And here is something completely different...
http://www.physorg.com/news113146663.html
Is this "really" a mass increase or is it something related to the system. For instance does the "material" actually gain weight/mass equal to the "electron mass increase"? Variable mass makes for an interesting property that may be possible to manipulate. As we have the manipulation of optical properties using the surprising features of negative refractive index why not the manipulation of mass using some property of matter?
Thanks Montec and Cheers
Interesting. Iead somewhere that highly excited plasma condcuts electricity ten times more efficiently than cooper and buckytubes. Is that correct?
I would have to throw substantial amounts of money to purchase that paper. I have found an article that extracts the essence of the discovery here...
The quest for Superconduction at room temperature - how close are we? Johan F. Prins
No... I had not come across that article... I like it and the reason given for superconductivity is very compelling. Of course I would look at the electrons not in terms of "charges" but in more general terms as encapsulated photon "waves". The fact that electrons can form "Cooper Pairs" at all indicates that charge is not as important as other features of the matter waves. The mass of the electron may also be tied to this process... it is very hard to see that such a flow as quanta could occur if the Cooper Pairs exhibited mass. It also begs a further question as to what might happen if the "line" was "terminated" in an appropriate "load". Yes... it is something to pause and give serious thought to..
And here is something completely different...
http://www.physorg.com/news113146663.html
Is this "really" a mass increase or is it something related to the system. For instance does the "material" actually gain weight/mass equal to the "electron mass increase"? Variable mass makes for an interesting property that may be possible to manipulate. As we have the manipulation of optical properties using the surprising features of negative refractive index why not the manipulation of mass using some property of matter?
Thanks Montec and Cheers
Interesting. Iead somewhere that highly excited plasma condcuts electricity ten times more efficiently than cooper and buckytubes. Is that correct?
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Nov 11 2007, 09:24 PM)
Interesting. Iead somewhere that highly excited plasma condcuts electricity ten times more efficiently than cooper and buckytubes. Is that correct?
That should be true. Why? "General law of resonance". This means that standing resonating object propagates transversally thorugh perpendicular resonance According to its length and speed combined. Its equally pushed as an entire thing in any direction prefered. It looks like discrete jumps.Thus plasma state has higher resonating-vibrating state and propagates electron wavelet faster. Additionally it follows the longer the wavelets the faster they will reach destination.
Edit add on- Imagine a wavelet 10km long traveling at light speed. Crazy.
If one calculates it will look crazy but what the heck.
10km*300000km/s=3000000 km^2/s. Well, go figure.
That should be true. Why? "General law of resonance". This means that standing resonating object propagates transversally thorugh perpendicular resonance According to its length and speed combined. Its equally pushed as an entire thing in any direction prefered. It looks like discrete jumps.Thus plasma state has higher resonating-vibrating state and propagates electron wavelet faster. Additionally it follows the longer the wavelets the faster they will reach destination.
Edit add on- Imagine a wavelet 10km long traveling at light speed. Crazy.
If one calculates it will look crazy but what the heck.
10km*300000km/s=3000000 km^2/s. Well, go figure.
Hi GE, et al..
I am settled in, and "online" again.
I will take some time to read, and catch up to date.
Majkl,
While we may find some support for slightly varying speeds amongst "photons", the speed of light remains constant, regardless of wavelength.
The reason is, that we must send, and receive the signal, to know that energy was "transferred" between 2 resonant electrons. For a signal to be fully received, the entire wave must be "measured".
If we have a salmon, and a whale, traveling at the same speed, the only difference we can perceive, is their rate of "wiggling". The salmon must move his body (wavelength) much faster, as a ratio of his body, than the whale. The whale uses less energy (per body size) than the salmon. This is analogous to a long wave "photon" (whale), and a short wavelength "photon" (salmon).
The "race" that you want to have would only be true if we could "see" the difference while "in flight", which we can NOT.
In order for us to know that we are measuring the "whale", we must wait for its' entire body (wavelength) to cross the finish line (the measurement). Otherwise, we may mistake it for a "shark", or something shorter.
This is my "layman's version" of the "relative" reason for the constant speed of light: the measurement process is symmetrically offset. Keep in mind that we have no evidence for "acceleration" of the "photon". In ~one cycle (wavelength), the wave is traveling at c .
A key part of this description/translation is that the term "resonant" implies that we are "in tune"; we must know the wavelength in order to set up the equipment to measure its arrival. The finite absorption time of the longer wavelength needs more time to complete than the short wave. Therefore, the "information" that tells us that we are measuring a "whale", like all measurements, must be from "head to tail" (node to node, with the anti-node as the "body").
A real world example is measuring the wavelength of a volcanic/seismic signal, which takes several MINUTES to measure the frequency.
ciao!
T.Roc
I am settled in, and "online" again.
I will take some time to read, and catch up to date.
Majkl,
While we may find some support for slightly varying speeds amongst "photons", the speed of light remains constant, regardless of wavelength.
The reason is, that we must send, and receive the signal, to know that energy was "transferred" between 2 resonant electrons. For a signal to be fully received, the entire wave must be "measured".
If we have a salmon, and a whale, traveling at the same speed, the only difference we can perceive, is their rate of "wiggling". The salmon must move his body (wavelength) much faster, as a ratio of his body, than the whale. The whale uses less energy (per body size) than the salmon. This is analogous to a long wave "photon" (whale), and a short wavelength "photon" (salmon).
The "race" that you want to have would only be true if we could "see" the difference while "in flight", which we can NOT.
In order for us to know that we are measuring the "whale", we must wait for its' entire body (wavelength) to cross the finish line (the measurement). Otherwise, we may mistake it for a "shark", or something shorter.
This is my "layman's version" of the "relative" reason for the constant speed of light: the measurement process is symmetrically offset. Keep in mind that we have no evidence for "acceleration" of the "photon". In ~one cycle (wavelength), the wave is traveling at c .
A key part of this description/translation is that the term "resonant" implies that we are "in tune"; we must know the wavelength in order to set up the equipment to measure its arrival. The finite absorption time of the longer wavelength needs more time to complete than the short wave. Therefore, the "information" that tells us that we are measuring a "whale", like all measurements, must be from "head to tail" (node to node, with the anti-node as the "body").
A real world example is measuring the wavelength of a volcanic/seismic signal, which takes several MINUTES to measure the frequency.
ciao!
T.Roc
Could the deviation from a straight line when passing through the slit have created a spin hall effect in whigh there would be a magnetic field pointing upwards and another downwards?
Hi Neil Farbstein, Majkl and TRoc et al,
Welcome back TRoc...
Welcome back TRoc...
QUOTE (Majkl+)
Just an additional thought on ELF or longer waves spectra. I watched hutchinson effect and an idea came. A cranky one but it has an interesting twist. Basically an effect makes an objects float. So a kind of an idea is that you have to interrupt ELF wave to twist direction thus you get pulled upward instead downward. It may be of course much more complex interruption or twist of resonance but anyway.
Thus you are not repelled. You are attracted upward. You can reverse or change direction of flow. Thus you basically use the same wavelength but you just flip its polarity somehow. Thus one could say you use attraction to repel yourself. It would be an ironic truth if one considers that no one thought that the same force that pulls you down can pull you up as well. And no law is violated. Its gravity but having different direction.
Thus you are not repelled. You are attracted upward. You can reverse or change direction of flow. Thus you basically use the same wavelength but you just flip its polarity somehow. Thus one could say you use attraction to repel yourself. It would be an ironic truth if one considers that no one thought that the same force that pulls you down can pull you up as well. And no law is violated. Its gravity but having different direction.
I think the idea is basically sound. Gravity and ultimately mass are the result of "matter waves" pervading space. These are actually standing waves not progressive waves. It seems to me that this is "Mach's Principle" in action. The "distant Universe" affects local matter via gravitation caused by a quasi static field of inertial mass. Our internal "Holographic Universe" would then be a collection of inertial "matter wave" fields in relative motion falling freely in our spacetime subject to Special Relativity and to de Broglie's Matter Wave Theory. These two principles governing the high velocity and low velocity realms of "particles". They are really one Law.
Electromagnetism is then an internal property of compact dimensional space and mass and gravity are the external property of the same bubbles embedded in the larger dimensional space. This is saying that electromagnetism is a phenomenon that propagates inside and entirely within the inner 3D surface confines of our global space and our entire Universe is within the inside surface of a single bosonic bubble. All the interesting stuff (us, planets, galaxies etc) are lying in the flatspace of that Universe around which electromagnetism propagates as the exchange force on its lower dimensional surface (... of three dimensions plus time) confined by the laws of the action principle and the Lagrangian. This gives our entire internal Universe a three dimensions plus time character in which electromagnetism predominates while on an even smaller scale (beginning with atoms) these particle "surfaces" represent the "outside" of further embedded compact dimensional spaces and exhibit a certain higher dimensional character and the property of mass.
This "mass" is the matter waves we see existing throughout all space. Look around you and observe the desk you are sitting on and your chair... these are "quasi-stationary" matter particles D6 branes interacting at very low frequencies with the matter waves of other "quasi-stationary" matter particles through their "Talbot Carpets" extended through space as matter resonances. Everything are waves. These are a template for electromagnetism to move through and at our level of observation appear as "solid matter wave objects" with electromagnetic forces interacting between them.
At much higher energy the interaction of "light" with matter is seen as the interaction of X-Rays with "hard crystalline matter" and the expression of this spatial matter standing wave interaction is Bragg's Law of diffraction. These high frequency Fourier components of matter waves are only "expressed" in the probing of matter using these shorter frequencies as we would do using X-Ray crystallography. Matter is a superposition of a large number of Fourier component frequencies. The high frequency components give the appearance of point particles when we probe with short wavelength electromagnetism and at lower frequency electromagnetism the size of a particle and it's wave exhibits a much fuzzier shell... that is at larger radius from a nucleus. At even lower energy are more shells at even greater radii from a nucleus.
This is because the "bubble" particles of matter have a subtle extension depending on the frequency. The lower frequency cut off of a matter wave particle depends on the size of the particle and this relates to approximately 1/2 a wavelength... Once again the size of its sync (sinc) function. The influence of this matter wave particle wavelet extends out from the particle even to the ends of the Universe as mass since the sync function is not a symmetric wavelet.
... Click to enlarge...
Note carefully the three dimensional sync function is not symmetrical above an below the coordinate zero point passing through its bulk. This is the broken symmetry of sin(x)/x... Yhis is the sync (sinc) function (normalized and not normalized)
... Click to enlarge...
You can read more about this function in Wikipedia here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinc_function
... Click to enlarge...
It is very important to understand how this function is special. "In both cases, the value of the function at the removable singularity at zero is sometimes specified explicitly as the limit value 1. The sinc function is analytic everywhere. The term "sinc" is a contraction of the function's full name, the sine cardinal or sinus cardinalis." The unnormalized sinc is the zeroth order spherical Bessel function of the first kind. The Bessel function is very special and they represent the solution of the Bessel differential equation.
Many other Bessel functions are also of great potential use but I am still trying to completely understand this simple solution first.
The Matter Waves of particles coalesce with the wavelets of the other particle matter wave fields through "intertia" as Einstein predicted and results in the Law of Equivalence of Inertial and Gravitational Acceleration. This solves the mystery of inertia as a back reaction when a particle is accelerated proportional to the mass... A kind of matter wave version of Lenz's Law of inductive reaction. It is impossible to distinguish the electromagnetic reaction due to forces from the gravitomagnetic inductive reaction of forces due to gravitational acceleration.
When you press with your finger against your desk this force is met with an equal but opposite force of reaction which is short range electromagnetic in origin due to the exchange of virtual photons. What Einstein's theory suggests is this is the same as the force of acceleration caused by matter falling freely in a gravity field being subjected to some acceleration. The confusion we have been subjected to has been due to looking at the desk and seeing it's ponderous nature (its mass) and thinking these are the major forces affecting it. Far greater forces are in play and these are the electromagnetic forces that hold the desk together in a "crystalline state" and these result in "matter waves" depending on the mutual acceleration. They are about 10^40 times greater than mass and gravity. The more the matter particle is subjected to acceleration the shorter the matter wave wavelength according to de Broglie's relationship.
This means that particles at or near rest will exhibit a longer de Broglie wavelength than particles in high relative velocity. A particle under atomic lattice resonance exhibits a shorter wavelength (on average) than a "free particle" at very low but unaccelerated velocity. For instance a single matter wave emitting particle (anything with mass... a fermion or collections of fermions) such as an electron, if subjected to sinusoidal motion of high frequency is on average physically "smaller" than a low velocity "free" electron. A quick check on the scale of these effects will tell us just how "slow" this free particle must be in order to exhibit a wavelength that can bridge significant gaps through this property of tunneling. This is because the property of rest mass really lags it down. It turns out it needs to be incredibly slow to exhibit long tunneling wavelengths. For instance an electron needs to have a velocity of about one hundred millionth of a meter per second to exhibit a wavelength of one meter. Heavier particles are incredibly shorter in their effective wavelength compared with electrons which are one of the lightest atomic particles. Carver Mead suggests bigger electron wavelengths than this but I have ordered his book and it will take 4 to 6 weeks to deliver to Australia by the fastest means available. I will be interested in his treatment.
Have a look at this reference from the Hyperphysics site...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../hydsch.html#c1
... The Hydrogen Atom and then the following articles on the same page.
Then this reference...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../bessel.html#c2
For Spherical Bessel Functions...
"A specific class of special functions called spherical Bessel functions arises in problems of spherical symmetry like the spherical potential well in quantum mechanics. The first three forms are.."
and every form can be generated from the first form thus...
... as you can see this is simply that sinc function. The solutions to the spherical potential well problem relate to this directly.
This is good help in dealing with these ideas...
http://www.dspguide.com/
See chap 11... Sinc function.
I am having a little trouble expressing these points so please bear with me for the moment. I hope TRoc picks up on what has been happening ASAP. Nice to have you back!
Cheers
Electromagnetism is then an internal property of compact dimensional space and mass and gravity are the external property of the same bubbles embedded in the larger dimensional space. This is saying that electromagnetism is a phenomenon that propagates inside and entirely within the inner 3D surface confines of our global space and our entire Universe is within the inside surface of a single bosonic bubble. All the interesting stuff (us, planets, galaxies etc) are lying in the flatspace of that Universe around which electromagnetism propagates as the exchange force on its lower dimensional surface (... of three dimensions plus time) confined by the laws of the action principle and the Lagrangian. This gives our entire internal Universe a three dimensions plus time character in which electromagnetism predominates while on an even smaller scale (beginning with atoms) these particle "surfaces" represent the "outside" of further embedded compact dimensional spaces and exhibit a certain higher dimensional character and the property of mass.
This "mass" is the matter waves we see existing throughout all space. Look around you and observe the desk you are sitting on and your chair... these are "quasi-stationary" matter particles D6 branes interacting at very low frequencies with the matter waves of other "quasi-stationary" matter particles through their "Talbot Carpets" extended through space as matter resonances. Everything are waves. These are a template for electromagnetism to move through and at our level of observation appear as "solid matter wave objects" with electromagnetic forces interacting between them.
At much higher energy the interaction of "light" with matter is seen as the interaction of X-Rays with "hard crystalline matter" and the expression of this spatial matter standing wave interaction is Bragg's Law of diffraction. These high frequency Fourier components of matter waves are only "expressed" in the probing of matter using these shorter frequencies as we would do using X-Ray crystallography. Matter is a superposition of a large number of Fourier component frequencies. The high frequency components give the appearance of point particles when we probe with short wavelength electromagnetism and at lower frequency electromagnetism the size of a particle and it's wave exhibits a much fuzzier shell... that is at larger radius from a nucleus. At even lower energy are more shells at even greater radii from a nucleus.
This is because the "bubble" particles of matter have a subtle extension depending on the frequency. The lower frequency cut off of a matter wave particle depends on the size of the particle and this relates to approximately 1/2 a wavelength... Once again the size of its sync (sinc) function. The influence of this matter wave particle wavelet extends out from the particle even to the ends of the Universe as mass since the sync function is not a symmetric wavelet.
... Click to enlarge...
Note carefully the three dimensional sync function is not symmetrical above an below the coordinate zero point passing through its bulk. This is the broken symmetry of sin(x)/x... Yhis is the sync (sinc) function (normalized and not normalized)
... Click to enlarge...
You can read more about this function in Wikipedia here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinc_function
... Click to enlarge...
It is very important to understand how this function is special. "In both cases, the value of the function at the removable singularity at zero is sometimes specified explicitly as the limit value 1. The sinc function is analytic everywhere. The term "sinc" is a contraction of the function's full name, the sine cardinal or sinus cardinalis." The unnormalized sinc is the zeroth order spherical Bessel function of the first kind. The Bessel function is very special and they represent the solution of the Bessel differential equation.
Many other Bessel functions are also of great potential use but I am still trying to completely understand this simple solution first.
The Matter Waves of particles coalesce with the wavelets of the other particle matter wave fields through "intertia" as Einstein predicted and results in the Law of Equivalence of Inertial and Gravitational Acceleration. This solves the mystery of inertia as a back reaction when a particle is accelerated proportional to the mass... A kind of matter wave version of Lenz's Law of inductive reaction. It is impossible to distinguish the electromagnetic reaction due to forces from the gravitomagnetic inductive reaction of forces due to gravitational acceleration.
When you press with your finger against your desk this force is met with an equal but opposite force of reaction which is short range electromagnetic in origin due to the exchange of virtual photons. What Einstein's theory suggests is this is the same as the force of acceleration caused by matter falling freely in a gravity field being subjected to some acceleration. The confusion we have been subjected to has been due to looking at the desk and seeing it's ponderous nature (its mass) and thinking these are the major forces affecting it. Far greater forces are in play and these are the electromagnetic forces that hold the desk together in a "crystalline state" and these result in "matter waves" depending on the mutual acceleration. They are about 10^40 times greater than mass and gravity. The more the matter particle is subjected to acceleration the shorter the matter wave wavelength according to de Broglie's relationship.
This means that particles at or near rest will exhibit a longer de Broglie wavelength than particles in high relative velocity. A particle under atomic lattice resonance exhibits a shorter wavelength (on average) than a "free particle" at very low but unaccelerated velocity. For instance a single matter wave emitting particle (anything with mass... a fermion or collections of fermions) such as an electron, if subjected to sinusoidal motion of high frequency is on average physically "smaller" than a low velocity "free" electron. A quick check on the scale of these effects will tell us just how "slow" this free particle must be in order to exhibit a wavelength that can bridge significant gaps through this property of tunneling. This is because the property of rest mass really lags it down. It turns out it needs to be incredibly slow to exhibit long tunneling wavelengths. For instance an electron needs to have a velocity of about one hundred millionth of a meter per second to exhibit a wavelength of one meter. Heavier particles are incredibly shorter in their effective wavelength compared with electrons which are one of the lightest atomic particles. Carver Mead suggests bigger electron wavelengths than this but I have ordered his book and it will take 4 to 6 weeks to deliver to Australia by the fastest means available. I will be interested in his treatment.
Have a look at this reference from the Hyperphysics site...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../hydsch.html#c1
... The Hydrogen Atom and then the following articles on the same page.
Then this reference...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../bessel.html#c2
For Spherical Bessel Functions...
"A specific class of special functions called spherical Bessel functions arises in problems of spherical symmetry like the spherical potential well in quantum mechanics. The first three forms are.."
and every form can be generated from the first form thus...
... as you can see this is simply that sinc function. The solutions to the spherical potential well problem relate to this directly.
This is good help in dealing with these ideas...
http://www.dspguide.com/
See chap 11... Sinc function.
I am having a little trouble expressing these points so please bear with me for the moment. I hope TRoc picks up on what has been happening ASAP. Nice to have you back!
Cheers
QUOTE (TRoc+Nov 12 2007, 10:41 PM)
If we have a salmon, and a whale, traveling at the same speed, the only difference we can perceive, is their rate of "wiggling". The salmon must move his body (wavelength) much faster, as a ratio of his body, than the whale. The whale uses less energy (per body size) than the salmon. This is analogous to a long wave "photon" (whale), and a short wavelength "photon" (salmon).
But what if both salmon and whale are carried together by the bigger wave?Thus their momentum is not directly deducable?Even though salmon wiggles faster than whale. We might get the impression that their speeds are related to their wiggling momentum but that is not so in given case. They both have momentum of bigger wave.
But what if both salmon and whale are carried together by the bigger wave?Thus their momentum is not directly deducable?Even though salmon wiggles faster than whale. We might get the impression that their speeds are related to their wiggling momentum but that is not so in given case. They both have momentum of bigger wave.
Hi all,
I am preparing a longer post, but it will take a while; so I'm responding to Majkl's question now.
The easy answer is, given my initial conditions, that the salmon and the whale will continue to travel at the same speeds, given the addition of a "current" in the water. But I suspect that this is not your "real" question.
It would be better to drop the "fishy" analogy, and ask the question in terms of a "photon". No inertia/mass; a constant measured velocity; no medium necessary. Shorter wavelength = greater "momentum". An "equivalent" amount of energy, focused into a smaller area. (distance between nodes)
Would you rather a fat guy bumped into you on the street, or be hit in the head with a flying golf ball? (given = momentum)
T.Roc
I am preparing a longer post, but it will take a while; so I'm responding to Majkl's question now.
The easy answer is, given my initial conditions, that the salmon and the whale will continue to travel at the same speeds, given the addition of a "current" in the water. But I suspect that this is not your "real" question.
It would be better to drop the "fishy" analogy, and ask the question in terms of a "photon". No inertia/mass; a constant measured velocity; no medium necessary. Shorter wavelength = greater "momentum". An "equivalent" amount of energy, focused into a smaller area. (distance between nodes)
Would you rather a fat guy bumped into you on the street, or be hit in the head with a flying golf ball? (given = momentum)
T.Roc
I noticed i twisted things upside down .
Basically the "correct" idea was that If you look at EM-spectra 2-D you can see the flat frequency at high “end” and flat wavelength at low “end”. Which are perpendicular to one another. Basically low end EM-spectra looks like space without time and high end spectra looks like time without space. Thus black hole is the ultimate high energy state it seems. Its a break point kind of. Its an extreme warp of space. Its an extreme high end of spectra thus it actually creates new universes. It’s a paradox it seems but the idea says that when you get extreme warp, flat frequency gradually becomes flat wavelength (space without time kind of) thus perpendicular to the one which it came from. It takes extremely long period of our time I guess but eventually a new universe would be formed from this process and the energy would be gradually relocated to a new temporary universe. Thus you have multitude of black hole states pulling the stuff around.
So basically gravity or curvature should come from extremely high energetic states.
.Basically the "correct" idea was that If you look at EM-spectra 2-D you can see the flat frequency at high “end” and flat wavelength at low “end”. Which are perpendicular to one another. Basically low end EM-spectra looks like space without time and high end spectra looks like time without space. Thus black hole is the ultimate high energy state it seems. Its a break point kind of. Its an extreme warp of space. Its an extreme high end of spectra thus it actually creates new universes. It’s a paradox it seems but the idea says that when you get extreme warp, flat frequency gradually becomes flat wavelength (space without time kind of) thus perpendicular to the one which it came from. It takes extremely long period of our time I guess but eventually a new universe would be formed from this process and the energy would be gradually relocated to a new temporary universe. Thus you have multitude of black hole states pulling the stuff around.
So basically gravity or curvature should come from extremely high energetic states.
Hi Majkl,
Let me "translate"... I think... There is a "winding" at zero relative velocity and the speed of light where at zero de Broglie frequency and zero relative velocity the physics invert to the physics at the speed of light and infinite de Broglie frequency. Like a strip or ribbon with a half twist joining 0 relative velocity objects and objects that travel at the speed of light (or higher). These are reciprocal relationships since 1/frequency in the case of zero frequency equals infinity and conversely at infinite frequency it's reciprocal is zero frequency. What seems to have happened is the curvature of spacetime has been inverted leading to reciprocal space and reciprocal time. One formal way to refer to this is T-Duality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-duality
I have mentioned it in this thread and others previously and is a string theory concept (one of the very few that has been verified in principle)...
Good Elf on this thread earlier about T-Duality
Clearly this is the quantum postulate where waves represent integer multiples of a wavelength (de Broglie Hypothesis) where the spatial matter wavelengths are concerned. It goes back to Carver Mead and his theories as well... though I did not know that then. It is regarding the "relativistic flipping" from a progressive light wave into a particle and the "flipping" at the velocity of the speed of light to a stationary trapped particle state where the photon become "internalized". Notice the change in scales from large to small distances through a reciprocal transform.
Let me "translate"... I think... There is a "winding" at zero relative velocity and the speed of light where at zero de Broglie frequency and zero relative velocity the physics invert to the physics at the speed of light and infinite de Broglie frequency. Like a strip or ribbon with a half twist joining 0 relative velocity objects and objects that travel at the speed of light (or higher). These are reciprocal relationships since 1/frequency in the case of zero frequency equals infinity and conversely at infinite frequency it's reciprocal is zero frequency. What seems to have happened is the curvature of spacetime has been inverted leading to reciprocal space and reciprocal time. One formal way to refer to this is T-Duality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-duality
I have mentioned it in this thread and others previously and is a string theory concept (one of the very few that has been verified in principle)...
Good Elf on this thread earlier about T-Duality
Clearly this is the quantum postulate where waves represent integer multiples of a wavelength (de Broglie Hypothesis) where the spatial matter wavelengths are concerned. It goes back to Carver Mead and his theories as well... though I did not know that then. It is regarding the "relativistic flipping" from a progressive light wave into a particle and the "flipping" at the velocity of the speed of light to a stationary trapped particle state where the photon become "internalized". Notice the change in scales from large to small distances through a reciprocal transform.
QUOTE (Wikipedia: T-Duality+)
Under the transformation, the radius R of that direction will be changed to 1/R, and "wrapped" string states will be exchanged with high-momentum string states in the dual theory.
In this theory the Special Theory of Relativity becomes de Broglie's Postulate at the low velocity end and visa versa.
Is this what you mean?
Cheers
In this theory the Special Theory of Relativity becomes de Broglie's Postulate at the low velocity end and visa versa.
Is this what you mean?
Cheers
Like said many times, that devil is in the details. I dont have any deeper knowledge of strings theory but superficially it looks like "T-duality" without knowing the specifics of dualities and to what they refer to when talking in strings or branes. It just an idea that EM-spectra holds flat resonance on both sides. Thus one side has flat frequency and other has flat wavelength. Thus one end is lets say horizontaly stronger and vertically weaker while other end is vice versa. And the way that it relates to relativity theory is that if a traveler accelerates towards light speed a traveller will flatten its resonance thus traveller will experience space contraction. A fixed observer would see expansion of traveller. As weird as it sounds traveller increases its wavelentgh (becoming flatter) thus going towards low end of spectra not the upper one. As to go towards upper end of spectra one needs to contract- Black hole for example is at the high end of spectra. Almost no space and infinite time dimension kind of. So basically one would expect that traveller that is going towards black hole state will be seen as contracting for a fixed observer. While traveller itself will experience huge expansion thus it is logicall as you contract that space becomes x-times bigger for you.
Edit add on-
Basically from this it follows that if you want black hole you have to increase frequency, decrease wavelength and acelerate towards light speed. And of course when thinking like this you get a feeling as if you are looking at a house just from the top with a slight peak sideways angle.
Edit add on-
Basically from this it follows that if you want black hole you have to increase frequency, decrease wavelength and acelerate towards light speed. And of course when thinking like this you get a feeling as if you are looking at a house just from the top with a slight peak sideways angle.
First I should apologize for polluting this topic with my ideas which don’t touch the double slit experiment and are completely off of any rational discussion. Thus it takes time to figure out that entire electromagnetic spectra is in relation to us a kind of “ high end” or massles electromagnetism. Thus electro-magnetic interferances. Now here i go with my last blunder here. At least it is about double slit experiment.
Interferances or photons are taken as consequences of masses interactions thus its like sound-air analogy. Sound doesn’t have mass. Thus universe is taken as some kind of large electromagnetic field or collective of such fields. Photons or interferences that travel like sound as waves propagate through the collective fields. Thus such an interference can disturb an atom and you get "atomic quake" kind of. Thus double slit experiment should basically be a wave expanding from emmiter towards target. A sound for example can have a point like beginning which spreads out. Why do we see points? Thus photon does have a charge? This can be explained by pro knowledge but I assume that massles interference is connected with electrostatics. It is basically the point you see on the target area. A kind of a “frozen spark”. Basically the idea is that it has to do with increased electrostatics of individual masses within the collective mass. Its like rubbing two fields against one another. Thus interference itself doesn’t have such property. Mass gets interrupted. Much like a sound wave doesn’t carry any of the properties of its medium except we can deduce what collision it could come from. Basically we either know from experience what exploded or collided or we make the connections in a controlled experiments or by careful observations of repetitive features.
Well i dont think photons are particles. We are talking in my opinion about electromagnetic interferances that propagate like waves and cause electrostatic sparks.
Edit add-on--Like you have different sound frequencies thus you have different photon frequencies and they can all propagate through collective electromagnetic field. Not very much is different between sound an photons. Its just the difference of densities of collisions or rubbing that caused them and through which they are accordingly propagated through.
Interferances or photons are taken as consequences of masses interactions thus its like sound-air analogy. Sound doesn’t have mass. Thus universe is taken as some kind of large electromagnetic field or collective of such fields. Photons or interferences that travel like sound as waves propagate through the collective fields. Thus such an interference can disturb an atom and you get "atomic quake" kind of. Thus double slit experiment should basically be a wave expanding from emmiter towards target. A sound for example can have a point like beginning which spreads out. Why do we see points? Thus photon does have a charge? This can be explained by pro knowledge but I assume that massles interference is connected with electrostatics. It is basically the point you see on the target area. A kind of a “frozen spark”. Basically the idea is that it has to do with increased electrostatics of individual masses within the collective mass. Its like rubbing two fields against one another. Thus interference itself doesn’t have such property. Mass gets interrupted. Much like a sound wave doesn’t carry any of the properties of its medium except we can deduce what collision it could come from. Basically we either know from experience what exploded or collided or we make the connections in a controlled experiments or by careful observations of repetitive features.
Well i dont think photons are particles. We are talking in my opinion about electromagnetic interferances that propagate like waves and cause electrostatic sparks.
Edit add-on--Like you have different sound frequencies thus you have different photon frequencies and they can all propagate through collective electromagnetic field. Not very much is different between sound an photons. Its just the difference of densities of collisions or rubbing that caused them and through which they are accordingly propagated through.
Additional add on to the previous post- These waves or resonances depending on their frequency cause a specific discharge of mass. Thus we can see these sparks all over the place. For example you can have a big mass collective discharge or minor of course.
Along the lines of thinking i proposed here, here are a very rough additional pointers.
Thermodynamics is a sub-set of electromagnetism. Heat is analogy to charging and discharging. Thus when you rub a match (rubbbing of em-collective small fields) it gets charged and when it burns-thus (air em-collective field propagates the interference) it discharges thus disperses into air. Pressure is basically the principle of charging and discharging. Thus heat is higher charge thus cold is lower charge thus discharge goes from higher to lower as when rubbing two em-fields.Basically electrostatics in action on different scales.
The key word is collective as Carver Mead puts it (collective electrodynamics) thus i translate that into act as one. What is mechanics then? Thus force is charge-discharge again.
Additionaly. When you make a closed circuit which flows from - to + you are basically making a magnetic field. Thus you make North and South polarity or vice versa, the direction in which collective em-field discharges for example.
Thermodynamics is a sub-set of electromagnetism. Heat is analogy to charging and discharging. Thus when you rub a match (rubbbing of em-collective small fields) it gets charged and when it burns-thus (air em-collective field propagates the interference) it discharges thus disperses into air. Pressure is basically the principle of charging and discharging. Thus heat is higher charge thus cold is lower charge thus discharge goes from higher to lower as when rubbing two em-fields.Basically electrostatics in action on different scales.
The key word is collective as Carver Mead puts it (collective electrodynamics) thus i translate that into act as one. What is mechanics then? Thus force is charge-discharge again.
Additionaly. When you make a closed circuit which flows from - to + you are basically making a magnetic field. Thus you make North and South polarity or vice versa, the direction in which collective em-field discharges for example.
Hi GE, Majkl, ...
I lost the post that I started, and also got "sidetracked" doing some work on earthquakes. (was given a nudge down here)
Thanks both of you for the links to the papers and articles by Carver Meade. I had heard the name often, and of his accomplishments, but not had the chance to read his work. Very good stuff, indeed. The wave approach, and having "permission" to ask questions is becoming more fashionable in the Physics world. More fuel and ammo for the Revolution against the Copenhagen Interpretation!
I'm going to focus on the thread "next door", which of course, you are welcome.
I'm not sure exactly what your onto GE, but my usual response is something like, "can we try an alternative to the sine wave"? This includes "abandoning" so much that most are reluctant, and that is understandable.
In the end, I feel strongly that we must leave the linear approximations behind, and go forward with the full nonlinear, dynamical approach. This has not been done for good reason: it's considered "intractable" by the old methods.
Just a few things I'll link, and hope that helps, or at least generates questions more rapidly answerable!
I read this review - "The Holographic Universe" Reviewed by Michael Kisor - and found it to be very interesting too. I see why you refer to it often. It rings well with me too.
I came across a "nonlinear laser theory", that has been around for quite a while. This matches my take on the resonance process going on inside lasers. I do not have a direct free link to his paper (Hermann Haken), but here is a few links that are directly accessed:
Institut für Theoretische Physik - there are some papers by his successors that can be accessed on archive.
a quote:
international journal Nonlinear Phenomena in Complex Systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergetics
Inspired by the laser theory and founded by Hermann Haken, synergetics is an interdisciplinary science explaining the formation and self-organization of patterns and structures in open systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium.
Self-organization requires a 'macroscopic' system, consisting of many nonlinearly interacting subsystems. Depending on the external control parameters (environment, energy-fluxes) self-organization takes place.
So, here we find a new path (and I have found several others), that allow us to ask questions about the gas in our DSE, and the far from equilibrium state that it goes into, as soon as the collimated light waves enter the cavity. Our Talbot patterns are the result; and the interference fringes the final answer. What happens "on the way" is of Fundamental importance to shedding the blinders of the "dark ages".
I think that Montec, and even gadfly, so long ago, had prompted chaos theory, game theory, and others; happily, I have found the time to read these ideas as well.
Majkl mentioned Von Neuman, and he is involved in these ideas as well.
Another gem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prigogine
Getting into the dissipative structures is about where I had previously (when consistently involved in this thread) left off. Jayme De Luca has done some work there, including (I think it was him, in the Brazilian Journal of Physics), on the dissipation/organization of bee pollen. Sounds "off topic", but it is the best thing I've seen to get close to asking "what if" we could sprinkle particles in the DSE, in a "protected measurement" idea, and SEE the Talbot "bunny".
This gets me back to David Lush, in the thread "next door". I am interested in talking with him, because he references J. De Luca in his recent paper, which seems to touch on the idea that I had posed somewhere in this thread, on the g-ratio being "harmonically constrained". He is asking why we have two answers: 1 and 2. Hmmm.. I have also discovered that Mandelbrot uses this "math" of "between 1 and 2" to produce his Fractals.
Ultimately, this should produce some interesting results when the "third harmonic" is seen to be separate from the integer progression that is currently defined as "resonance". If 1 and 2 are indeed the Fundamental primary resonance, 3 can not harmonically exist with them. Irrationals are the only way out!
ciao!
T.Roc
PS (and importantly) some links concerning GE's last inquiry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker%E2%...olation_formula
Getting into the dissipative structures is about where I had previously (when consistently involved in this thread) left off. Jayme De Luca has done some work there, including (I think it was him, in the Brazilian Journal of Physics), on the dissipation/organization of bee pollen. Sounds "off topic", but it is the best thing I've seen to get close to asking "what if" we could sprinkle particles in the DSE, in a "protected measurement" idea, and SEE the Talbot "bunny".
This gets me back to David Lush, in the thread "next door". I am interested in talking with him, because he references J. De Luca in his recent paper, which seems to touch on the idea that I had posed somewhere in this thread, on the g-ratio being "harmonically constrained". He is asking why we have two answers: 1 and 2. Hmmm.. I have also discovered that Mandelbrot uses this "math" of "between 1 and 2" to produce his Fractals.
Ultimately, this should produce some interesting results when the "third harmonic" is seen to be separate from the integer progression that is currently defined as "resonance". If 1 and 2 are indeed the Fundamental primary resonance, 3 can not harmonically exist with them. Irrationals are the only way out!
ciao!
T.Roc
PS (and importantly) some links concerning GE's last inquiry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker%E2%...olation_formula
Since a random process does not have a Fourier transform, the condition under which the sum converges to the original function must also be different. A stationary random process does have an autocorrelation function and hence a spectral density according to the Wiener–Khinchin theorem. A suitable condition for convergence to a sample function from the process is that the spectral density of the process be zero at all frequencies equal to and above half the sample rate.
Imagine this at the "Fundamental" level of 2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing
The Nyquist criterion presumes that the frequency content of the signal being sampled has an upper bound. Implicit in that assumption is that its duration has no upper bound. Similarly, the Whittaker–Shannon interpolation formula assumes instantaneous sampling and an interpolation filter with an unrealizable frequency response. These assumptions comprise a mathematical model that is only an idealized approximation, at best, to any realistic situation. The conclusion, that perfect reconstruction is possible, is mathematically correct for the model, but only an approximation for the real samples and the real signal.
Complex signals are signals whose samples are complex numbers, and the concept of negative frequency is necessary for such signals. In that case, the frequencies of the aliases are given by just: Therefore, as increases from to the image closest to 0 moves from up to 0.
Real-valued sinusoids have the same negative-frequency aliases as complex ones. The absolute value operator, is possible because there is always an equivalent sinusoid with a positive frequency. Therefore, as increases from to an image moves from down to 0. This creates a local symmetry about the frequency For example, a frequency component at has a "mirror" image at That effect is commonly referred to as folding. And another name for (the Nyquist frequency) is folding frequency.
(see the link for the equations)
If you read nothing else, read this:
http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/phase/Properties/one.htm#one
You will see why I asked C2 to think of answering how much voltage is at a small part of the sine. You must leave the comfort of the engineer training, and the world where you were told to "shut up and calculate". How these things are actually measured (then, and now), is entirely different. The "negative phase", "negative frequency", and the "counterpropagating transaction" are all just as real as the "real". Magenta DOES exist!
I lost the post that I started, and also got "sidetracked" doing some work on earthquakes. (was given a nudge down here)
Thanks both of you for the links to the papers and articles by Carver Meade. I had heard the name often, and of his accomplishments, but not had the chance to read his work. Very good stuff, indeed. The wave approach, and having "permission" to ask questions is becoming more fashionable in the Physics world. More fuel and ammo for the Revolution against the Copenhagen Interpretation!
I'm going to focus on the thread "next door", which of course, you are welcome.
I'm not sure exactly what your onto GE, but my usual response is something like, "can we try an alternative to the sine wave"? This includes "abandoning" so much that most are reluctant, and that is understandable.
In the end, I feel strongly that we must leave the linear approximations behind, and go forward with the full nonlinear, dynamical approach. This has not been done for good reason: it's considered "intractable" by the old methods.
Just a few things I'll link, and hope that helps, or at least generates questions more rapidly answerable!
I read this review - "The Holographic Universe" Reviewed by Michael Kisor - and found it to be very interesting too. I see why you refer to it often. It rings well with me too.
I came across a "nonlinear laser theory", that has been around for quite a while. This matches my take on the resonance process going on inside lasers. I do not have a direct free link to his paper (Hermann Haken), but here is a few links that are directly accessed:
Institut für Theoretische Physik - there are some papers by his successors that can be accessed on archive.
a quote:
international journal Nonlinear Phenomena in Complex Systems
QUOTE
First, Professor Haken is the founder of the new scientific discipline which he named synergetics, and which deals with complex systems and the emergence of spontaneous order in them - the phenomenon of the so called selforganization. His early work was about the laser theory, but in the course of his scientific thought, Professor Haken quickly realized that his approach to understanding and describing the selforganization in complex systems can be generalized to a vast variety of systems in many different branches of science, not only in physics and chemistry, but also in biology, physiology, sociology, demography and economics, perhaps even in politics (understanding the social political behaviour in different political systems, from democracy to totalitarian regimes and anything else in between). Professor Haken laid down the principles of the new science of synergetics, and he has shown us the way how to quantify and understand the underlying phenomena. Therefore he is probably one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the 20th and 21st centuries, especially as the science of complex systems will be ever expanding and never ending story. His work has helped us to fill the gap between the firm knowledge of mathematics and physics on the one hand, and the phenomenology of other sciences on the other hand, which - through Professor Haken - thus obtained their rigorous mathematical foundations. It is due to his immense scientific opus that studies of complex systems of all fields became quantitative sciences, using the mathematical language to analyze the underlying phenomena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergetics
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| First, Professor Haken is the founder of the new scientific discipline which he named synergetics, and which deals with complex systems and the emergence of spontaneous order in them - the phenomenon of the so called selforganization. His early work was about the laser theory, but in the course of his scientific thought, Professor Haken quickly realized that his approach to understanding and describing the selforganization in complex systems can be generalized to a vast variety of systems in many different branches of science, not only in physics and chemistry, but also in biology, physiology, sociology, demography and economics, perhaps even in politics (understanding the social political behaviour in different political systems, from democracy to totalitarian regimes and anything else in between). Professor Haken laid down the principles of the new science of synergetics, and he has shown us the way how to quantify and understand the underlying phenomena. Therefore he is probably one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the 20th and 21st centuries, especially as the science of complex systems will be ever expanding and never ending story. His work has helped us to fill the gap between the firm knowledge of mathematics and physics on the one hand, and the phenomenology of other sciences on the other hand, which - through Professor Haken - thus obtained their rigorous mathematical foundations. It is due to his immense scientific opus that studies of complex systems of all fields became quantitative sciences, using the mathematical language to analyze the underlying phenomena. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergetics
Inspired by the laser theory and founded by Hermann Haken, synergetics is an interdisciplinary science explaining the formation and self-organization of patterns and structures in open systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium.
Self-organization requires a 'macroscopic' system, consisting of many nonlinearly interacting subsystems. Depending on the external control parameters (environment, energy-fluxes) self-organization takes place.
So, here we find a new path (and I have found several others), that allow us to ask questions about the gas in our DSE, and the far from equilibrium state that it goes into, as soon as the collimated light waves enter the cavity. Our Talbot patterns are the result; and the interference fringes the final answer. What happens "on the way" is of Fundamental importance to shedding the blinders of the "dark ages".
I think that Montec, and even gadfly, so long ago, had prompted chaos theory, game theory, and others; happily, I have found the time to read these ideas as well.
Majkl mentioned Von Neuman, and he is involved in these ideas as well.
Another gem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prigogine
QUOTE
Prigogine is known best due to his definition of dissipative structures and their role in thermodynamic systems far from equilibrium, a discovery that won him the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977.
Dissipative structure theory led to pioneering research in self-organizing systems, as well as philosophic inquiries into the formation of complexity on biological entities and the quest for a creative and irreversible role of time in the natural sciences.
Dissipative structure theory led to pioneering research in self-organizing systems, as well as philosophic inquiries into the formation of complexity on biological entities and the quest for a creative and irreversible role of time in the natural sciences.
Getting into the dissipative structures is about where I had previously (when consistently involved in this thread) left off. Jayme De Luca has done some work there, including (I think it was him, in the Brazilian Journal of Physics), on the dissipation/organization of bee pollen. Sounds "off topic", but it is the best thing I've seen to get close to asking "what if" we could sprinkle particles in the DSE, in a "protected measurement" idea, and SEE the Talbot "bunny".
This gets me back to David Lush, in the thread "next door". I am interested in talking with him, because he references J. De Luca in his recent paper, which seems to touch on the idea that I had posed somewhere in this thread, on the g-ratio being "harmonically constrained". He is asking why we have two answers: 1 and 2. Hmmm.. I have also discovered that Mandelbrot uses this "math" of "between 1 and 2" to produce his Fractals.
Ultimately, this should produce some interesting results when the "third harmonic" is seen to be separate from the integer progression that is currently defined as "resonance". If 1 and 2 are indeed the Fundamental primary resonance, 3 can not harmonically exist with them. Irrationals are the only way out!
ciao!
T.Roc
PS (and importantly) some links concerning GE's last inquiry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker%E2%...olation_formula
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Prigogine is known best due to his definition of dissipative structures and their role in thermodynamic systems far from equilibrium, a discovery that won him the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977. Dissipative structure theory led to pioneering research in self-organizing systems, as well as philosophic inquiries into the formation of complexity on biological entities and the quest for a creative and irreversible role of time in the natural sciences. |
Getting into the dissipative structures is about where I had previously (when consistently involved in this thread) left off. Jayme De Luca has done some work there, including (I think it was him, in the Brazilian Journal of Physics), on the dissipation/organization of bee pollen. Sounds "off topic", but it is the best thing I've seen to get close to asking "what if" we could sprinkle particles in the DSE, in a "protected measurement" idea, and SEE the Talbot "bunny".
This gets me back to David Lush, in the thread "next door". I am interested in talking with him, because he references J. De Luca in his recent paper, which seems to touch on the idea that I had posed somewhere in this thread, on the g-ratio being "harmonically constrained". He is asking why we have two answers: 1 and 2. Hmmm.. I have also discovered that Mandelbrot uses this "math" of "between 1 and 2" to produce his Fractals.
Ultimately, this should produce some interesting results when the "third harmonic" is seen to be separate from the integer progression that is currently defined as "resonance". If 1 and 2 are indeed the Fundamental primary resonance, 3 can not harmonically exist with them. Irrationals are the only way out!
ciao!
T.Roc
PS (and importantly) some links concerning GE's last inquiry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker%E2%...olation_formula
Since a random process does not have a Fourier transform, the condition under which the sum converges to the original function must also be different. A stationary random process does have an autocorrelation function and hence a spectral density according to the Wiener–Khinchin theorem. A suitable condition for convergence to a sample function from the process is that the spectral density of the process be zero at all frequencies equal to and above half the sample rate.
Imagine this at the "Fundamental" level of 2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing
QUOTE
Sinusoids are an important type of periodic function, because realistic signals are often modeled as the summation of many sinusoids of different frequencies and different amplitudes. Understanding what aliasing does to the individual sinusoids is a big help in understanding what happens to their sum.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Sinusoids are an important type of periodic function, because realistic signals are often modeled as the summation of many sinusoids of different frequencies and different amplitudes. Understanding what aliasing does to the individual sinusoids is a big help in understanding what happens to their sum. |
The Nyquist criterion presumes that the frequency content of the signal being sampled has an upper bound. Implicit in that assumption is that its duration has no upper bound. Similarly, the Whittaker–Shannon interpolation formula assumes instantaneous sampling and an interpolation filter with an unrealizable frequency response. These assumptions comprise a mathematical model that is only an idealized approximation, at best, to any realistic situation. The conclusion, that perfect reconstruction is possible, is mathematically correct for the model, but only an approximation for the real samples and the real signal.
Complex signals are signals whose samples are complex numbers, and the concept of negative frequency is necessary for such signals. In that case, the frequencies of the aliases are given by just: Therefore, as increases from to the image closest to 0 moves from up to 0.
Real-valued sinusoids have the same negative-frequency aliases as complex ones. The absolute value operator, is possible because there is always an equivalent sinusoid with a positive frequency. Therefore, as increases from to an image moves from down to 0. This creates a local symmetry about the frequency For example, a frequency component at has a "mirror" image at That effect is commonly referred to as folding. And another name for (the Nyquist frequency) is folding frequency.
(see the link for the equations)
If you read nothing else, read this:
http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/phase/Properties/one.htm#one
You will see why I asked C2 to think of answering how much voltage is at a small part of the sine. You must leave the comfort of the engineer training, and the world where you were told to "shut up and calculate". How these things are actually measured (then, and now), is entirely different. The "negative phase", "negative frequency", and the "counterpropagating transaction" are all just as real as the "real". Magenta DOES exist!
Hi TRoc, Majkl, yquantum et al,
Nice to see a substantial contribution coming into this thread. Thanks for contributions by Majkl and TRoc.
Nice to see a substantial contribution coming into this thread. Thanks for contributions by Majkl and TRoc.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
I'm not sure exactly what your onto GE, but my usual response is something like, "can we try an alternative to the sine wave"? This includes "abandoning" so much that most are reluctant, and that is understandable.
In the end, I feel strongly that we must leave the linear approximations behind, and go forward with the full nonlinear, dynamical approach. This has not been done for good reason: it's considered "intractable" by the old methods.
In the end, I feel strongly that we must leave the linear approximations behind, and go forward with the full nonlinear, dynamical approach. This has not been done for good reason: it's considered "intractable" by the old methods.
EM Waves are composed of individual photons .... that is the bottom line. Individual photons spread, and all photons on the same wavefront spread equally and fill the "single boson state" multiply. I have never advocated anything to do with "sinewaves" since "sinewaves" cannot really exist in nature... every process begins and ends so there cannot be true sinewaves propagating in time. Replace sine waves with periodic functions that have frequency and repeat in time. These DO exist in nature... resonance for instance (...and also the Quantum Zeno Effect). We have a dichotomy of processes that form "coherent and monochromatic" photons.
1. One is where photons come from "one shot sources" such as quantum dots or excited single atoms.
2. The other sources have "internal sources of power" such as radio antenna driven by power sources of resonant energy.
3. There are other non-coherent sources such as from black body radiation which "looks" continuous but is after all composed of individual photons from "single accelerated sources" (read: Hot atoms).
There are a variety of other possible radiators and each must be thought of as separate such as LASERS and Cherenkov Radiation and many other odd and rare processes not to be explicitly discussed here. What I can say is each photon is ultimately a single "perfect packet" emitted from a single radiator source and destined for a single resonant sink. Along the way absolutely nothing can happen to them other than the "interferences" because they are "indestructible" being a representation of a frozen moment in time and occupying only a single temporal instant in time measured in the photons frame of reference. Being a fixed event they cannot be altered no matter what and it "anticipates" everything you might think to do to intercept that transaction. If you happen to interrupt a single transaction that was always going to happen ever since the photon was transacted to be emitted. It "knows" it's own future.... It's been there "already" through its advanced potential..
These different emitters are possibly under different amounts of thermal agitation and have undergone Doppler shift and line spreading due to their emitters (source) motions. Each photon emitted though is not frequency spread but Doppler shifted but a large collection would appear frequency spread and each individual photon represents a single emitted frequency but possibly slightly Doppler shifted from the motion of the source. The first above produces single coherent space coherent photons. The second above produces copious photons in waves. The last produces "almost" white noise. In all cases single photons of limited extent are emitted and these are "transacted" to be absorbed "somewhere" in advance. Without those sinks the sources could not emit and even stars would cease to burn. These truncated functions lead directly to Fourier Decomposition which is periodic so are frequency related not temporal related. This is because frequencies "wrap" on the longest natural period and all other frequencies do likewise. A Sine wave has infinite extent temporally so has no practical realization. This is what is the basis of Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory. You have see this many times but here it is again a "limited/truncated strip of sine wave" composed of "pulses" or sync functions.
... Click to enlarge...
This illustration is two dimensional but in actual fact the "sinc functions" are limited in extent by natural pattern of spreading and the "mode" of the source but the idea is correct. In three dimensions these individual photons are propagating spindles of field loops whose nature are transacted individually with individual sinks found in "our future". You can see the symmetric wave is the result of antisymmetric wave packets arranged along the wavefronts. Bosons like photons can stack as many of these "units" into the same space as needed without any "space quantization" restriction (Bose Einstein Statistics). This the wave can be "modulated".
I would call Majkl to notice that the photon wave packet has fields but no sources. This is the nature of the Universe ... it is without charge sources in the end. It is also without "magnetic monopoles too.
The ideas of "emergent phenomena" that you identify as Synergetics is part of the way nature works and I agree that it is a very important idea. But it is very general statement and I have a preference for concrete Physics. This is where I have some problems with Talbot's Book - The Holographic Universe... It is in the elevation to a overarching principle... an almost "spiritual" process which immediately brings it into disrepute because it is no longer relying on the Physics driving the investigation by proposing that our emotions are to be used as a guiding principle and it is "feel good" science... "Use the force Luke!". I agree in some ways this will be an overarching and guiding concept that conditions the outputs but beneath the apparent chaos is the underlying order that then produces that eventual emergent behavior.
I think that it is important to all that you see my contributions as being related only with continuum physics in a quantum context not in a quantum particle context which I believe is in error. The emission and absorption of quanta in Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory are "transactions" made with the future event state of an emitted photon as well as the retarded state of the same event. As I have stated this is a resonance in the near field not in the far field since that is all we can see of the phenomenon. These two create a spatial standing wave not a progressive temporal one.
I understand this is going to be very hard to grasp but while it is "progressive" in one very limited sense it has no progression in time only in space as waves of interference. That means that the photon energy is spreading at the speed of light through a stationary spatial field of matter wave interferences. This is why you can take "holographic pictures" using one photon at a time (weak coherent sources). Imagine an extremely dark room in which the only source of photons is a one shot quantum dot laser (a source of single photons on demand). This is used to fire photons one at a time and this may have long indeterminate intervals between each photon but as long as the cavity (dark room out to infinity) state is physically stationary and the LASER source is fixed the spatial coherence of each photon will build up a picture on a suitably placed "thick" emulsion and a complete picture of the cavity will result. This is despite the fact that only one photon at a time hits the emulsion somewhere in the plate and exposes one speck (crystal) in depth at a time. The end result over a long time, where each and every single emitted photon went directly from the laser to the emulsion via a least action path... the straightest line from source to sink... had no opportunity for any other photons to affect it (because th room is otherwise "entirely dark"... is a picture of the room from which no light has progressed from those all areas due to the one LASER source. This means that the photon that came from the laser directly to the emulsion has picked up a spatial granularity that "forces" the photon to be absorbed at a standing wave "antinode" and not a "node". It does this with the perfection of the final result you can see when you develop the plate and pass a LASER with the same frequency through it.
You must grasp the experimental nature of this fact, it is staggering and has implications that say space is filled with interference information that already exists there all the time due to the "matter waves". The "resonance" is not temporal but spatial and does not require time to propagate through the "cavity" as photons... like the ringing of a bell for instance related to the speed of sound... the standing wave is "always there" as a property of the spatial cavity.
It is not "Good Elf" saying this, it is a vast body of experiment which shows that one photon at a time will produce standing waves in any cavity, this obviously relates to LASER chambers but also to the space outside the LASER chamber in a room for instance where space is effused with interferences. This includes double slits and the general positioning of objects in the room. This is aside from the fact that one photon at a time which strikes a photographic emulsion plate cannot have time or have opportunity to probe an otherwise dark laboratory space since we are allowing only one photon at a time in this experiment. Yet one photon at a time creates the complete picture of "everything" in range and all of this will imprint on that hologram as standing wavelets in the emulsion when the photon is finally absorbed there.
The other misconception seems to be that you need gas and plasmons in that gas for phenomenon to exist as interferences. This is not so... early experiments in vacuum chambers does not appreciably modify any aspect of interference experiments. Electromagnetic Vortices are not related directly to plasmons. They are separate entities that can occur in a vacuum far from the slits or the holes. Plasmons can only occur when the slits or holes are made of metals of a particular kind and the light is of a sufficiently short wavelength to excite the gas.
I read a little of the material that you have placed on that post. The bit you said that I must read was Geophysics 101 when I went to University years ago. It was a great refresher and pointed to other more interesting subjects (at least I thought so). I am seeing you simply referencing different technologies and mathematics but I have little time to read mathematics that is not related to the main problem. I also confess that I can't see the need for a lot of maths since it is all been done anyway. Not everything is helpful and without your guidance in expressly stating what it is you see it leads to no direct use to me. I know you have something in your mind but this does not help me see it.... Help me and spell it out, just an "elf" here... no great genius. As with many of your posts in the past I miss your point. I am sure I do exactly the same thing but unless someone asks a specific question it is difficult to determine what any of us is on about.
Just an interesting aside please look at this article just published on PhysicsWorld... It indicates that Berry Phase is directly related to the mechanism behind quantum bits (Qubits) and entanglement. Once again the quantum nature of "particles" show an underlying spin or rotational enfoldment where information can go in and later be extracted without apparent loss.
They can argue all they like but quantum physics has no "path" and this is one of the basic tenants required for it to work... it is a purely statistical theory and we are seeing "history" related events. Here they are reiterating that path is essential to understanding the inner nature of the qubit entanglement... this probably refers to that particle history as well.
1. One is where photons come from "one shot sources" such as quantum dots or excited single atoms.
2. The other sources have "internal sources of power" such as radio antenna driven by power sources of resonant energy.
3. There are other non-coherent sources such as from black body radiation which "looks" continuous but is after all composed of individual photons from "single accelerated sources" (read: Hot atoms).
There are a variety of other possible radiators and each must be thought of as separate such as LASERS and Cherenkov Radiation and many other odd and rare processes not to be explicitly discussed here. What I can say is each photon is ultimately a single "perfect packet" emitted from a single radiator source and destined for a single resonant sink. Along the way absolutely nothing can happen to them other than the "interferences" because they are "indestructible" being a representation of a frozen moment in time and occupying only a single temporal instant in time measured in the photons frame of reference. Being a fixed event they cannot be altered no matter what and it "anticipates" everything you might think to do to intercept that transaction. If you happen to interrupt a single transaction that was always going to happen ever since the photon was transacted to be emitted. It "knows" it's own future.... It's been there "already" through its advanced potential..
These different emitters are possibly under different amounts of thermal agitation and have undergone Doppler shift and line spreading due to their emitters (source) motions. Each photon emitted though is not frequency spread but Doppler shifted but a large collection would appear frequency spread and each individual photon represents a single emitted frequency but possibly slightly Doppler shifted from the motion of the source. The first above produces single coherent space coherent photons. The second above produces copious photons in waves. The last produces "almost" white noise. In all cases single photons of limited extent are emitted and these are "transacted" to be absorbed "somewhere" in advance. Without those sinks the sources could not emit and even stars would cease to burn. These truncated functions lead directly to Fourier Decomposition which is periodic so are frequency related not temporal related. This is because frequencies "wrap" on the longest natural period and all other frequencies do likewise. A Sine wave has infinite extent temporally so has no practical realization. This is what is the basis of Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory. You have see this many times but here it is again a "limited/truncated strip of sine wave" composed of "pulses" or sync functions.
... Click to enlarge...
This illustration is two dimensional but in actual fact the "sinc functions" are limited in extent by natural pattern of spreading and the "mode" of the source but the idea is correct. In three dimensions these individual photons are propagating spindles of field loops whose nature are transacted individually with individual sinks found in "our future". You can see the symmetric wave is the result of antisymmetric wave packets arranged along the wavefronts. Bosons like photons can stack as many of these "units" into the same space as needed without any "space quantization" restriction (Bose Einstein Statistics). This the wave can be "modulated".
I would call Majkl to notice that the photon wave packet has fields but no sources. This is the nature of the Universe ... it is without charge sources in the end. It is also without "magnetic monopoles too.
The ideas of "emergent phenomena" that you identify as Synergetics is part of the way nature works and I agree that it is a very important idea. But it is very general statement and I have a preference for concrete Physics. This is where I have some problems with Talbot's Book - The Holographic Universe... It is in the elevation to a overarching principle... an almost "spiritual" process which immediately brings it into disrepute because it is no longer relying on the Physics driving the investigation by proposing that our emotions are to be used as a guiding principle and it is "feel good" science... "Use the force Luke!". I agree in some ways this will be an overarching and guiding concept that conditions the outputs but beneath the apparent chaos is the underlying order that then produces that eventual emergent behavior.
I think that it is important to all that you see my contributions as being related only with continuum physics in a quantum context not in a quantum particle context which I believe is in error. The emission and absorption of quanta in Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory are "transactions" made with the future event state of an emitted photon as well as the retarded state of the same event. As I have stated this is a resonance in the near field not in the far field since that is all we can see of the phenomenon. These two create a spatial standing wave not a progressive temporal one.
I understand this is going to be very hard to grasp but while it is "progressive" in one very limited sense it has no progression in time only in space as waves of interference. That means that the photon energy is spreading at the speed of light through a stationary spatial field of matter wave interferences. This is why you can take "holographic pictures" using one photon at a time (weak coherent sources). Imagine an extremely dark room in which the only source of photons is a one shot quantum dot laser (a source of single photons on demand). This is used to fire photons one at a time and this may have long indeterminate intervals between each photon but as long as the cavity (dark room out to infinity) state is physically stationary and the LASER source is fixed the spatial coherence of each photon will build up a picture on a suitably placed "thick" emulsion and a complete picture of the cavity will result. This is despite the fact that only one photon at a time hits the emulsion somewhere in the plate and exposes one speck (crystal) in depth at a time. The end result over a long time, where each and every single emitted photon went directly from the laser to the emulsion via a least action path... the straightest line from source to sink... had no opportunity for any other photons to affect it (because th room is otherwise "entirely dark"... is a picture of the room from which no light has progressed from those all areas due to the one LASER source. This means that the photon that came from the laser directly to the emulsion has picked up a spatial granularity that "forces" the photon to be absorbed at a standing wave "antinode" and not a "node". It does this with the perfection of the final result you can see when you develop the plate and pass a LASER with the same frequency through it.
You must grasp the experimental nature of this fact, it is staggering and has implications that say space is filled with interference information that already exists there all the time due to the "matter waves". The "resonance" is not temporal but spatial and does not require time to propagate through the "cavity" as photons... like the ringing of a bell for instance related to the speed of sound... the standing wave is "always there" as a property of the spatial cavity.
It is not "Good Elf" saying this, it is a vast body of experiment which shows that one photon at a time will produce standing waves in any cavity, this obviously relates to LASER chambers but also to the space outside the LASER chamber in a room for instance where space is effused with interferences. This includes double slits and the general positioning of objects in the room. This is aside from the fact that one photon at a time which strikes a photographic emulsion plate cannot have time or have opportunity to probe an otherwise dark laboratory space since we are allowing only one photon at a time in this experiment. Yet one photon at a time creates the complete picture of "everything" in range and all of this will imprint on that hologram as standing wavelets in the emulsion when the photon is finally absorbed there.
The other misconception seems to be that you need gas and plasmons in that gas for phenomenon to exist as interferences. This is not so... early experiments in vacuum chambers does not appreciably modify any aspect of interference experiments. Electromagnetic Vortices are not related directly to plasmons. They are separate entities that can occur in a vacuum far from the slits or the holes. Plasmons can only occur when the slits or holes are made of metals of a particular kind and the light is of a sufficiently short wavelength to excite the gas.
I read a little of the material that you have placed on that post. The bit you said that I must read was Geophysics 101 when I went to University years ago. It was a great refresher and pointed to other more interesting subjects (at least I thought so). I am seeing you simply referencing different technologies and mathematics but I have little time to read mathematics that is not related to the main problem. I also confess that I can't see the need for a lot of maths since it is all been done anyway. Not everything is helpful and without your guidance in expressly stating what it is you see it leads to no direct use to me. I know you have something in your mind but this does not help me see it.... Help me and spell it out, just an "elf" here... no great genius. As with many of your posts in the past I miss your point. I am sure I do exactly the same thing but unless someone asks a specific question it is difficult to determine what any of us is on about.
Just an interesting aside please look at this article just published on PhysicsWorld... It indicates that Berry Phase is directly related to the mechanism behind quantum bits (Qubits) and entanglement. Once again the quantum nature of "particles" show an underlying spin or rotational enfoldment where information can go in and later be extracted without apparent loss.
They can argue all they like but quantum physics has no "path" and this is one of the basic tenants required for it to work... it is a purely statistical theory and we are seeing "history" related events. Here they are reiterating that path is essential to understanding the inner nature of the qubit entanglement... this probably refers to that particle history as well.
QUOTE (PhysicsWorld+)
Berry’s phase seen in solid-state qubit
Berry’s phase is a “geometrical” effect that occurs in the abstract space defined by the orthogonal quantum states of a system. A key property of Berry’s phase is that it is not dependent on the path taken through this space, but only on the area enclosed by the loop. It turns out that this could be very useful to those designing quantum computers in which data are stored and processed in terms of quantum bits (or qubits) of information.
This is because phase plays an important role in quantum information, and manipulating the phase of a qubit corresponds to performing a logical operation. By cycling the system around a closed loop, Berry’s phase, and hence geometry, can be used to perform calculations. [..]A shaky hand
The manipulation of any qubit requires contact with the outside world. No matter how carefully this is done, the qubit is subjected to small amounts of noise, which could eventually destroy the quantum nature of the qubit, rendering it useless. However, the effect of noise on manipulating the Berry’s phase of a qubit can be likened to drawing a circle with a shaky hand – as long as the curve joins up and encloses the correct area, the manipulation of the qubit will be sound.
Quantum operations based on Berry’s phase have already been achieved in nuclear magnetic resonance and trapped-ion systems. However, these are large and unwieldy technologies and many physicists believe that it will be difficult to assemble them into practical quantum computers. However, solid-state qubits based on superconductors could, in principle, someday be miniaturized and mass-produced.
Berry’s phase is a “geometrical” effect that occurs in the abstract space defined by the orthogonal quantum states of a system. A key property of Berry’s phase is that it is not dependent on the path taken through this space, but only on the area enclosed by the loop. It turns out that this could be very useful to those designing quantum computers in which data are stored and processed in terms of quantum bits (or qubits) of information.
This is because phase plays an important role in quantum information, and manipulating the phase of a qubit corresponds to performing a logical operation. By cycling the system around a closed loop, Berry’s phase, and hence geometry, can be used to perform calculations. [..]A shaky hand
The manipulation of any qubit requires contact with the outside world. No matter how carefully this is done, the qubit is subjected to small amounts of noise, which could eventually destroy the quantum nature of the qubit, rendering it useless. However, the effect of noise on manipulating the Berry’s phase of a qubit can be likened to drawing a circle with a shaky hand – as long as the curve joins up and encloses the correct area, the manipulation of the qubit will be sound.
Quantum operations based on Berry’s phase have already been achieved in nuclear magnetic resonance and trapped-ion systems. However, these are large and unwieldy technologies and many physicists believe that it will be difficult to assemble them into practical quantum computers. However, solid-state qubits based on superconductors could, in principle, someday be miniaturized and mass-produced.
In actual fact Berry Phase is related to geometry in a simple way...
Berry's geometric phase: a review
I have referenced this about a year ago and this is of deep concern with resonant systems. Once again the resonant state is critical to quantum states and their stationary nature is absolutely essential. They are spin related though "entanglement". Of course this implies that the states of separate entangled photons may drift with time but reading one entangled state ensures that the other state is conjoined and related. The solutions of Schrodinger's Equation for waves in a box will lead to these conditions where for static systems these phases vary spatially in some fixed way... I have mentioned previously a very interesting experiment I witnessed on TV decades ago with ink in a drum of glycerin.
... Click to enlarge...
In this case we are discussing the phenomenon with relation to the qubit itself and what it basically is. This "historical" enfoldment occurs (as in the description) with many spin related systems and these spin related systems are related to non-local quantum entanglement.
Just a short note. This is the exact same thing you can see in Cymatics videos in action upclose. Like article implies it is as if it had a memory of states. Something like it dances according to resonances involved. Thus resonances are a kind of absolute template for realization of any emergent state. I know how it sounds .
Berry's geometric phase: a review
I have referenced this about a year ago and this is of deep concern with resonant systems. Once again the resonant state is critical to quantum states and their stationary nature is absolutely essential. They are spin related though "entanglement". Of course this implies that the states of separate entangled photons may drift with time but reading one entangled state ensures that the other state is conjoined and related. The solutions of Schrodinger's Equation for waves in a box will lead to these conditions where for static systems these phases vary spatially in some fixed way... I have mentioned previously a very interesting experiment I witnessed on TV decades ago with ink in a drum of glycerin.
... Click to enlarge...
In this case we are discussing the phenomenon with relation to the qubit itself and what it basically is. This "historical" enfoldment occurs (as in the description) with many spin related systems and these spin related systems are related to non-local quantum entanglement.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
You will see why I asked C2 to think of answering how much voltage is at a small part of the sine. You must leave the comfort of the engineer training, and the world where you were told to "shut up and calculate". How these things are actually measured (then, and now), is entirely different. The "negative phase", "negative frequency", and the "counterpropagating transaction" are all just as real as the "real". Magenta DOES exist!
I agree with everything except the last sentence which is a non-sequitur with me... I know this has had a lot to do with your musical scale theory bit I have never really understood since the basic premiss is strange to me.
Cheers
Cheers
QUOTE
I have referenced this about a year ago and this is of deep concern with resonant systems. Once again the resonant state is critical to quantum states and their stationary nature is absolutely essential.
Just a short note. This is the exact same thing you can see in Cymatics videos in action upclose. Like article implies it is as if it had a memory of states. Something like it dances according to resonances involved. Thus resonances are a kind of absolute template for realization of any emergent state. I know how it sounds
.
Hi Majkl,
QUOTE (Majkl+)
This is the exact same thing you can see in Cymatics videos in action upclose. Like article implies it is as if it had a memory of states....[...]...Thus resonances are a kind of absolute template for realization of any emergent state. I know how it sounds
Resonant systems are really OK... I have a couple of bronze Tibetan Singing Bowls. Much the same kind of situation.... Beautiful things and functional too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_bowl
Mine are much smaller but wonderfully decorated. Given the correct "encouragement" they exhibit wonderful "overtones" when they "sing". In this way they provide rich "emergent behavior"... An auditory Talbot Carpet if you wish.
This situation with quantum Qubits... It is very likely that these systems can enfold usable information as shown in this illustration...
Writing on atoms
This comes from the Stroud group's Wavepackets Home Page...
http://www.optics.rochester.edu/~stroud/
This is the site that illustrates how those Talbot Carpets find their way into the "electron orbitals" of atoms. This one is a moving carpet which repeats periodically and the situation with gratings is a stationary carpet where the variation is entirely spatial and not moving. Here is a Talbot Carpet evolving over 30 Kepler Periods (color indicates phase).
Motion of a circular Hydrogen Orbit State of the spreading electron cloud.
Being these are standing waves too it is "likely" that the "motion" is not exactly as shown. There is a lot in the specific interpretation. Naturally this representation should be three dimensional and "spreading" not a periodic one dimensional illustration. It does illustrate the idea of periodicity rather than sinusoidal wave motion which is "linear" closed under a major period "oscillation". Does everyone understand what the differences are here? You know the quantum dictate that the periodicity must always be an integer number of basic periods. To use the idea of wavelengths "distracts" from the Fourier nature of this problem which is periodic and "closed".
Naturally the Tibetans themselves say that the "Universe" itself is a resonant system... like the bowls... and without becoming too metaphysical I can truly believe it.
Cheers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_bowl
Mine are much smaller but wonderfully decorated. Given the correct "encouragement" they exhibit wonderful "overtones" when they "sing". In this way they provide rich "emergent behavior"... An auditory Talbot Carpet if you wish.
This situation with quantum Qubits... It is very likely that these systems can enfold usable information as shown in this illustration...
Writing on atoms
This comes from the Stroud group's Wavepackets Home Page...
http://www.optics.rochester.edu/~stroud/
This is the site that illustrates how those Talbot Carpets find their way into the "electron orbitals" of atoms. This one is a moving carpet which repeats periodically and the situation with gratings is a stationary carpet where the variation is entirely spatial and not moving. Here is a Talbot Carpet evolving over 30 Kepler Periods (color indicates phase).
Motion of a circular Hydrogen Orbit State of the spreading electron cloud.
Being these are standing waves too it is "likely" that the "motion" is not exactly as shown. There is a lot in the specific interpretation. Naturally this representation should be three dimensional and "spreading" not a periodic one dimensional illustration. It does illustrate the idea of periodicity rather than sinusoidal wave motion which is "linear" closed under a major period "oscillation". Does everyone understand what the differences are here?
You know the quantum dictate that the periodicity must always be an integer number of basic periods. To use the idea of wavelengths "distracts" from the Fourier nature of this problem which is periodic and "closed".Naturally the Tibetans themselves say that the "Universe" itself is a resonant system... like the bowls... and without becoming too metaphysical I can truly believe it.
Cheers
When talking about waves - their interferences - resonances etc etc-
I would like to imagine that a wave is made up of points harmonously signaling with a delay time from point to point, and I would like to imagine that a wave as such requires a medium.
Now - what is the underlying mechanism behind signaling - can we imagine that direction can be changed not necessarily because of so-called interference or interacting with another wave - but simply on basis of directional signal shift in a point -
I would like to imagine that a wave is made up of points harmonously signaling with a delay time from point to point, and I would like to imagine that a wave as such requires a medium.
Now - what is the underlying mechanism behind signaling - can we imagine that direction can be changed not necessarily because of so-called interference or interacting with another wave - but simply on basis of directional signal shift in a point -
Hi bukh,
QUOTE (bukh+)
When talking about waves - their interferences - resonances etc etc-
I would like to imagine that a wave is made up of points harmonously signaling with a delay time from point to point, and I would like to imagine that a wave as such requires a medium.
I would like to imagine that a wave is made up of points harmonously signaling with a delay time from point to point, and I would like to imagine that a wave as such requires a medium.
Very good question... Waves are a distributed phenomenon. IMHO There are no such things as "point sources" that is where things tend to infinity. Take for instance the equation for electric forces where we have two "point" charges...
As r -> 0 ... F -> ∞
The same happens with Gravity when discussing attraction between a point source of mass and a point test particle. In a practical sense there are no points.... why use them, that is just looking for trouble? It has led to a "point" particle theory where I believe there are numerous "difficulties".
It has led to some very complicated mathematics over the years but you can't solve any real problems effectively with "points" and it has led to some of the most disruptive concepts in Physics (eg. renormalization to remove the infinities). The exception is the way QED and QCD have resulted in some exceptional results but at a "cost" to the Physics. It is clear that Charges and Mass must obey Gauss's Law so waves must obey Gauss's Law too. Some incredible dumb things have been the result of extrapolation of functions from "points". If you can tell me what a "point" is as physical reality I may consider it but coordinates are the only entities and to say "points" signal between each other implies "singularities". Do you agree?
The other idea you have placed there is that there are delay times along a single wavefront in electromagnetic propagation... check it out ... there is none... they are in communication instantly within a mode and the same phase. The next idea is that the photons all occupy the one quantum state because they are bosons they obey Bose-Einstein Statistics and no space quantization principle (the photons occupy the same volume as millions of other photons). Unlike fermions which have Fermi Dirac Statistics with space quantization... no two particles can occupy the same space with a couple of exceptions such as when electron quantum numbers add up correctly in Cooper Pairs for instance or even in atomic assemblages such as Bose-Einstein Condensates. If they are "source coherent" they all occupy the same spatial volume inside the mode... then there is nowhere to communicate "to". The idea that there can be signaling from one wave front to another is "impossible" because of the limiting aspects of the velocity of light (in a vacuum). Light can neither travel faster nor slower than light (... the exceptions are when it is trapped in a "loop" in a quantum state and the photon circulates such that 2πr = nλ in a trapped quantum state). The photon is the exchange force in our Universe... they connect sources and sinks in their evanescent zones "instantly" in the photons frame of reference as a single resonance. The photons are quanta which "means" there can be no temporal changes to the packets (no "modifications" to energy or any property until an interaction) until there is a boson to particle interaction (absorption) ... the transactions are negotiated source to sink and nothing happens to them in between. Capisci?
That was very instructive and I had forgotten about explaining those facts for some time... Thanks
Cheers
As r -> 0 ... F -> ∞
The same happens with Gravity when discussing attraction between a point source of mass and a point test particle. In a practical sense there are no points.... why use them, that is just looking for trouble? It has led to a "point" particle theory where I believe there are numerous "difficulties".
It has led to some very complicated mathematics over the years but you can't solve any real problems effectively with "points" and it has led to some of the most disruptive concepts in Physics (eg. renormalization to remove the infinities). The exception is the way QED and QCD have resulted in some exceptional results but at a "cost" to the Physics. It is clear that Charges and Mass must obey Gauss's Law so waves must obey Gauss's Law too. Some incredible dumb things have been the result of extrapolation of functions from "points". If you can tell me what a "point" is as physical reality I may consider it but coordinates are the only entities and to say "points" signal between each other implies "singularities". Do you agree?
The other idea you have placed there is that there are delay times along a single wavefront in electromagnetic propagation... check it out ... there is none... they are in communication instantly within a mode and the same phase. The next idea is that the photons all occupy the one quantum state because they are bosons they obey Bose-Einstein Statistics and no space quantization principle (the photons occupy the same volume as millions of other photons). Unlike fermions which have Fermi Dirac Statistics with space quantization... no two particles can occupy the same space with a couple of exceptions such as when electron quantum numbers add up correctly in Cooper Pairs for instance or even in atomic assemblages such as Bose-Einstein Condensates. If they are "source coherent" they all occupy the same spatial volume inside the mode... then there is nowhere to communicate "to". The idea that there can be signaling from one wave front to another is "impossible" because of the limiting aspects of the velocity of light (in a vacuum). Light can neither travel faster nor slower than light (... the exceptions are when it is trapped in a "loop" in a quantum state and the photon circulates such that 2πr = nλ in a trapped quantum state). The photon is the exchange force in our Universe... they connect sources and sinks in their evanescent zones "instantly" in the photons frame of reference as a single resonance. The photons are quanta which "means" there can be no temporal changes to the packets (no "modifications" to energy or any property until an interaction) until there is a boson to particle interaction (absorption) ... the transactions are negotiated source to sink and nothing happens to them in between. Capisci?
That was very instructive and I had forgotten about explaining those facts for some time... Thanks
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Nov 26 2007, 09:13 AM)
If you can tell me what a "point" is as physical reality I may consider it but coordinates are the only entities and to say "points" signal between each other implies "singularities". Do you agree?
A while ago i was thinking about points as if you looked at line "from the top". I saw this mentioned in some other post too. Now if you have gazillions of such lines and if you look at them from "the top" you can see them as a plane- aka flat space. Thus singularities are infinite lines (absolutely compactly packed)kind of and its all in the way you intersect them or move through them. The motion that we know of, it seems is always perpendicular to these lines - singularities. Basically if one thinks about it universe-plane basically exists perpendicularly to these lines. And these lines are black holes it seems. This would be nothing surprising i guess. Zero point fields, vacuum. Not just a coincidence. And black holes are connected with time travel as well. Waves propagation and stuff. These lines intersect themselves somehow like letter G for example. If you continued in G fashion using S twists you get planes.
A while ago i was thinking about points as if you looked at line "from the top". I saw this mentioned in some other post too. Now if you have gazillions of such lines and if you look at them from "the top" you can see them as a plane- aka flat space. Thus singularities are infinite lines (absolutely compactly packed)kind of and its all in the way you intersect them or move through them. The motion that we know of, it seems is always perpendicular to these lines - singularities. Basically if one thinks about it universe-plane basically exists perpendicularly to these lines. And these lines are black holes it seems. This would be nothing surprising i guess. Zero point fields, vacuum. Not just a coincidence. And black holes are connected with time travel as well. Waves propagation and stuff. These lines intersect themselves somehow like letter G for example. If you continued in G fashion using S twists you get planes.
Addition to last post.
Or they sit one one another in S fashion. Sounds like an amateur in land of self enclosed super-long strings. Or is it just one self-enclosed enfolded gazillion times over?. I think this is where rational ends for me.
Add on-- Its phantom atoms experiments and wave propagation "mirror-time kind of" that gives it away.
But still...resonation remains silent .
I just had another crazy thought. As you have phantom atoms you can have phantom universes thus multiverse.
Now who said we cannot all be kings and queens? Thus one that serves to you is the one that you serve.
Or they sit one one another in S fashion. Sounds like an amateur in land of self enclosed super-long strings.
Or is it just one self-enclosed enfolded gazillion times over?. I think this is where rational ends for me.Add on-- Its phantom atoms experiments and wave propagation "mirror-time kind of" that gives it away.
But still...resonation remains silent
.I just had another crazy thought. As you have phantom atoms you can have phantom universes thus multiverse.
Now who said we cannot all be kings and queens? Thus one that serves to you is the one that you serve.
Hi Good Elf
QUOTE: "If you can tell me what a "point" is as physical reality I may consider it but coordinates are the only entities"
How do you imagine dimensionality and space made out of non-volume structures?
And how do you imagine the very act of motion if you have no points taking a volume - I mean how do you define the smallest step - or how do we get from one "point" to another "point"
Do you accept the concept of void ?
Having no dimensionality pointwise creates more questions than answers.
And now you ask: "what a point is as physical reality"? - then I would like to know how you define a physical reality - yes - exactly what is a physical reality - are there such a thing in existance - or is everything a mind-invention, physicality being bound up onto the observer.
This is the simple background for proposing the merge of smallest informational bit with smallest dimension / volume, and accepting that smallest volume goes infinitely small AND at the same time being in existance. A true dilemma - Yes - but perhaps a necessary dilemma to get a true dynamic dimensional space - space-time The rest is the 3D pixel universe - you know.
QUOTE: "The other idea you have placed there is that there are delay times along a single wavefront in electromagnetic propagation... check it out ... there is none... they are in communication instantly within a mode and the same phase."
How do you define instantly - I can imagine that "sub-atomic" or "pre-physical" communication speeds being much faster than speeds belonging to what we call our physical Universe. In our Universe speed of light is the fastest propagation and in my optic being defined by pixel size x signal-delay time. But informational waves from one pixel to the next - directly via the membrane from one pixel to next - could be many-fold quicker- much smaller structured waves with much smaller inertia, as compared to the inertia inbuild in the pixel delay time. Totally unsubstantiated - yes - but a possibility. I like to think that instantaneous is not a belonging to Universe.
QUOTE: "the transactions are negotiated source to sink and nothing happens to them in between. Capisci?"
I would say: A LOT is happening in between - Capisci -
QUOTE: "If you can tell me what a "point" is as physical reality I may consider it but coordinates are the only entities"
How do you imagine dimensionality and space made out of non-volume structures?
And how do you imagine the very act of motion if you have no points taking a volume - I mean how do you define the smallest step - or how do we get from one "point" to another "point"
Do you accept the concept of void ?
Having no dimensionality pointwise creates more questions than answers.
And now you ask: "what a point is as physical reality"? - then I would like to know how you define a physical reality - yes - exactly what is a physical reality - are there such a thing in existance - or is everything a mind-invention, physicality being bound up onto the observer.
This is the simple background for proposing the merge of smallest informational bit with smallest dimension / volume, and accepting that smallest volume goes infinitely small AND at the same time being in existance. A true dilemma - Yes - but perhaps a necessary dilemma to get a true dynamic dimensional space - space-time
The rest is the 3D pixel universe - you know. QUOTE: "The other idea you have placed there is that there are delay times along a single wavefront in electromagnetic propagation... check it out ... there is none... they are in communication instantly within a mode and the same phase."
How do you define instantly - I can imagine that "sub-atomic" or "pre-physical" communication speeds being much faster than speeds belonging to what we call our physical Universe. In our Universe speed of light is the fastest propagation and in my optic being defined by pixel size x signal-delay time. But informational waves from one pixel to the next - directly via the membrane from one pixel to next - could be many-fold quicker- much smaller structured waves with much smaller inertia, as compared to the inertia inbuild in the pixel delay time. Totally unsubstantiated - yes - but a possibility. I like to think that instantaneous is not a belonging to Universe.
QUOTE: "the transactions are negotiated source to sink and nothing happens to them in between. Capisci?"
I would say: A LOT is happening in between - Capisci -
Hi bukh, Majkl, TRoc, yquantum et al,
QUOTE (bukh+)
QUOTE: "the transactions are negotiated source to sink and nothing happens to them in between. Capisci?"
I would say: A LOT is happening in between - Capisci -
I would say: A LOT is happening in between - Capisci -
Well that is the "distinctive feature" in what I am saying. Photons travel at the speed of light and are special. In point of fact if an interaction occurs "between" source and sink then something is wrong and this is not a quanta.
QUOTE (bukh+)
And how do you imagine the very act of motion if you have no points taking a volume - I mean how do you define the smallest step - or how do we get from one "point" to another "point"
Not for photons... their influence is demonstrably "non-local". The wave phenomenon applies to light... particle "motion" apples to particles. Photons are not actually "moving" they are "propagating and spreading" and occupying space.
QUOTE (bukh+)
And now you ask: "what a point is as physical reality"? - then I would like to know how you define a physical reality - yes - exactly what is a physical reality - are there such a thing in existence - or is everything a mind-invention, physicality being bound up onto the observer.
Sure... there is existence (it is a valid experience) but your experience of physical reality is through the "information" stream that you are interpreting. You have no direct experience of anything beyond your eye and Relativity can play tricks on this aspect of our awareness and these events in your eye are your "reality". It seems that "reality" is something you can "touch" or "see". Of course "touch" is actually electromagnetic force and "touch" is an emotional description of our experience of reality.... but so is what we "see".
Scientists restore nerve sensation from amputated limb in chest
Our experience of reality is dependent on our sensory input. it is not impossible to think that a mechanical prosthesis or one day even an entire body may be "wired" up to provide a human with the external experience of "reality" from simple sensory devices connected into our nervous system.
The mind does play a very important part in how we perceive "reality" but we must not think that this is the only definition of "reality".
Scientists restore nerve sensation from amputated limb in chest
Our experience of reality is dependent on our sensory input. it is not impossible to think that a mechanical prosthesis or one day even an entire body may be "wired" up to provide a human with the external experience of "reality" from simple sensory devices connected into our nervous system.
The mind does play a very important part in how we perceive "reality" but we must not think that this is the only definition of "reality".
QUOTE (bukh+)
How do you define instantly - I can imagine that "sub-atomic" or "pre-physical" communication speeds being much faster than speeds belonging to what we call our physical Universe.
When concerned with aspects of relativity "instantly" means that there are no temporal events occurring at all in a single "instant". Where there is no progress in time there can be no "dynamics". This means that photons cannot age, dissipate or lose energy (these processes all take time ... and space). This is directly from Special Relativity. The photon is the special case of the most extreme case of time dilation and length contraction... the Null Geodesic... no passage of time in the frame of the photon and no experience of space or separation as far as the "wave " spreads in the frame of the photon, this is your "reality" but this "reality" does not exist for a photon. This is my concept of the quantum. Once it is propagating in space or at the speed of light it cannot be interfered with. The setup for any interactions must therefore be confined entirely to the evanescent region of the emitting system and the absorbing system in which there is a perfect resonance. The "phenomenon" between is "unobserved". The wave nature of light can only be observed with the way that space and the matter waves "mold" space as a template.
No "dynamics" means no possibility for energy transfers. Photons during propagation in free space do not experience time. The confusion occurs where we try to match up an eventspace that we ascribe to photons with our "reality"... This cannot be done. We are fermions and photons are bosons. One experiences time and events and "separation" in space the other does not. The emission and the absorption of a photon are both part of a single process. A propagating photon does not operate in time it is the practical definition of an event (without time).
Bosons and fermions are related like the inside and the outside surfaces of a bubble... respectively. The photons "spread" on the inner surface of a "bubble" without limit at the speed of light. On the outside this is seen as matter waves which are "resonant" and confined in space with a low external velocity. You can think of this as something (eg. an electron) moving from zero velocity where it is spread everywhere with an infinite wavelength to shrinking in size as V -> C to zero wavelength to form a small orthogonal rotation through an angle of arcsin(V/C)
Cheers
No "dynamics" means no possibility for energy transfers. Photons during propagation in free space do not experience time. The confusion occurs where we try to match up an eventspace that we ascribe to photons with our "reality"... This cannot be done. We are fermions and photons are bosons. One experiences time and events and "separation" in space the other does not. The emission and the absorption of a photon are both part of a single process. A propagating photon does not operate in time it is the practical definition of an event (without time).
Bosons and fermions are related like the inside and the outside surfaces of a bubble... respectively. The photons "spread" on the inner surface of a "bubble" without limit at the speed of light. On the outside this is seen as matter waves which are "resonant" and confined in space with a low external velocity. You can think of this as something (eg. an electron) moving from zero velocity where it is spread everywhere with an infinite wavelength to shrinking in size as V -> C to zero wavelength to form a small orthogonal rotation through an angle of arcsin(V/C)
Cheers
Hej Good Elf
Quote: "Our experience of reality is dependent on our sensory input. it is not impossible to think that a mechanical prosthesis or one day even an entire body may be "wired" up to provide a human with the external experience of "reality" from simple sensory devices connected into our nervous system."
Yes - that is probably why we have this brain-blood barriere. Once upon a time brain invented body to support itsself.
QUOTE: "The mind does play a very important part in how we perceive "reality" but we must not think that this is the only definition of "reality".
Well - everything won't dissapear if human mind disappear - but I think we have to be pragmatic and define / explain our Universe out from human mind perceptions - mentally AND physically.
QUOTE: "And how do you imagine the very act of motion if you have no points taking a volume - I mean how do you define the smallest step - or how do we get from one "point" to another "point"
Not for photons..."
OK not for photons, fair enough - as long as they are physically non-expressed. Then what about fermions ? How would you best describe the "void" in between - when down-scaling ? and their dynamics in space-time ?.
QUOTE: "The photon is the special case of the most extreme case of time dilation and length contraction... the Null Geodesic... no passage of time in the frame of the photon and no experience of space or separation as far as the "wave " spreads in the frame of the photon, this is your "reality" but this "reality" does not exist for a photon."
Yes - it is easy to accept as long as the photon is not being expressed physically - and in this context I like to paint a frame of what I think "pre-physical" is. As you know my model is 3D Pixel Universe - where I imagine that photon is propagating over the 3D Pixel Grid physically non-expressed, and via the pixel-to-pixel informational network. And as you say, photon is physically expressed only at source and sink.
QUOTE: "You can think of this as something (eg. an electron) moving from zero velocity where it is spread everywhere with an infinite wavelength to shrinking in size as V -> C to zero wavelength to form a small orthogonal rotation through an angle of arcsin(V/C)"
Yes - not a bad picture about how EM (or what to call it) transforms into matter waves, essentially it is about how frequencies transform from propagating into standing systems via resonnances / interferences - or what ?
Quote: "Our experience of reality is dependent on our sensory input. it is not impossible to think that a mechanical prosthesis or one day even an entire body may be "wired" up to provide a human with the external experience of "reality" from simple sensory devices connected into our nervous system."
Yes - that is probably why we have this brain-blood barriere. Once upon a time brain invented body to support itsself.
QUOTE: "The mind does play a very important part in how we perceive "reality" but we must not think that this is the only definition of "reality".
Well - everything won't dissapear if human mind disappear - but I think we have to be pragmatic and define / explain our Universe out from human mind perceptions - mentally AND physically.
QUOTE: "And how do you imagine the very act of motion if you have no points taking a volume - I mean how do you define the smallest step - or how do we get from one "point" to another "point"
Not for photons..."
OK not for photons, fair enough - as long as they are physically non-expressed. Then what about fermions ? How would you best describe the "void" in between - when down-scaling ? and their dynamics in space-time ?.
QUOTE: "The photon is the special case of the most extreme case of time dilation and length contraction... the Null Geodesic... no passage of time in the frame of the photon and no experience of space or separation as far as the "wave " spreads in the frame of the photon, this is your "reality" but this "reality" does not exist for a photon."
Yes - it is easy to accept as long as the photon is not being expressed physically - and in this context I like to paint a frame of what I think "pre-physical" is. As you know my model is 3D Pixel Universe - where I imagine that photon is propagating over the 3D Pixel Grid physically non-expressed, and via the pixel-to-pixel informational network. And as you say, photon is physically expressed only at source and sink.
QUOTE: "You can think of this as something (eg. an electron) moving from zero velocity where it is spread everywhere with an infinite wavelength to shrinking in size as V -> C to zero wavelength to form a small orthogonal rotation through an angle of arcsin(V/C)"
Yes - not a bad picture about how EM (or what to call it) transforms into matter waves, essentially it is about how frequencies transform from propagating into standing systems via resonnances / interferences - or what ?
Hi bukh,
I think you have gotten most of it except that I think everything is (in the final analysis) just photons moving "around" at the speed of light in "quantum states".
Naturally we understand how to account for a particle in a box with a certain velocity using Schrodinger's Wave Equation.
The moment the electron is forced to move anywhere it shrinks to a very localized point according to the actual velocity of the electron relative to the enclosing "measuring" cavity. Of course this "cavity" is the "measuring object"... In this theory "people" as observers are not necessary but a "protective measurement" will be made on any matter particle when it is forced into a transition from one state to another. For instance when an electron (or even a photon) is 'compelled" to pass through a single hole. The boundary of the "hole" is instantaneously a cavity. This "protective measurement" fixes the size of the electron and at the same time this imposes a specific velocity on the particle. It can't just sit there with a particular wavelength that "fits" that "hole" it gets a momentum kick. This establishes a Quantum Zeno reset of the existing quantum state.
In the case of the electron or even a photon they must both 'shrink" in dimension to pass through that orifice. This effectively restarts the spreading of the particle all over again starting from a minimum size that fits the hole. This "moves" the electron through that hole into "presumably" lower dynamic state on either side of the hole in a larger cavity. This is diffraction of the electron or the photon due to the size of the aperture according to already well known formula. The photon (or electron) has it's quantum state reset when it passes in or out of a cavity depending on the orifice size. This is th same as "periodicity" for continuous resets after a cavity period... a resonance. This is covered by concepts of a reciprocal space. The photon is not "moving" since this standing wave exists always in cavities and is "resonating" with the initial quantum emission state of the photon with the final quantum sink state in a Wheeler-Feynman Absorber "Transaction". In the case of the electron this is "actually moving" since it is part of the Matter Wave Cavity itself. Of course the photon is fixed to "move" or more correctly "propagate" at the speed of light and always to propagate and spread in the "forward direction" of the wavefront but otherwise it is the similar as the electron dynamically in that respect.
The higher the velocity the fermion particle has due to the protective measurement the greater the momentum the particle has in that sub-cavity. In the case of an electron it will attempt to dissipate some of it's momentum in the extended cavity through further protective measurements. Some of these boosts will result in a lowering of the overall momentum due to the fact that it can occupy a larger cavity. The larger cavity means that the product of the particle's position and momentum in the case of the electron are a lower figure so it's position in the bigger cavity is "more uncertain". Make a weak protective measurement of the particle its wave function will shrink and the product of it's position and momentum will be "larger" but it's position will be more certain. A strong protective measurement of the particles position and momentum (using a hard source of probing EM radiation) will result in a very good fix of the position but will boost the electron 'out of the ball park" with a huge momentum boost. The secret is to find ways to make protective measurements on the electron to allow us to estimate the position more accurately and to reduce th momentum to a very small figure. This can be done using low temperatures and "optical molasses"... using LASER cooling for instance.
Protective measurements in Quantum Mechanics
Quantum Zeno Effect
Cheers
I think you have gotten most of it except that I think everything is (in the final analysis) just photons moving "around" at the speed of light in "quantum states".
QUOTE
QUOTE: "You can think of this as something (eg. an electron) moving from zero velocity where it is spread everywhere with an infinite wavelength to shrinking in size as V -> C to zero wavelength to form a small orthogonal rotation through an angle of arcsin(V/C)"
Yes - not a bad picture about how EM (or what to call it) transforms into matter waves, essentially it is about how frequencies transform from propagating into standing systems via resonnances / interferences - or what ?
...Except that this is the description of the electron which is the simplest kind of matter particle. According to de Broglie Matter Wave Theory when a particle of matter is stationary it can effectively occupy all local space. This means that the evanescent zone of the electron "swells" to occupy the entire "cavity" it is residing inside. If it is sitting in a closed wooden box then in theory it expands such that its matter wave 'fills" to the internal dimensions of the box.Yes - not a bad picture about how EM (or what to call it) transforms into matter waves, essentially it is about how frequencies transform from propagating into standing systems via resonnances / interferences - or what ?
Naturally we understand how to account for a particle in a box with a certain velocity using Schrodinger's Wave Equation.
The moment the electron is forced to move anywhere it shrinks to a very localized point according to the actual velocity of the electron relative to the enclosing "measuring" cavity. Of course this "cavity" is the "measuring object"... In this theory "people" as observers are not necessary but a "protective measurement" will be made on any matter particle when it is forced into a transition from one state to another. For instance when an electron (or even a photon) is 'compelled" to pass through a single hole. The boundary of the "hole" is instantaneously a cavity. This "protective measurement" fixes the size of the electron and at the same time this imposes a specific velocity on the particle. It can't just sit there with a particular wavelength that "fits" that "hole" it gets a momentum kick. This establishes a Quantum Zeno reset of the existing quantum state.
In the case of the electron or even a photon they must both 'shrink" in dimension to pass through that orifice. This effectively restarts the spreading of the particle all over again starting from a minimum size that fits the hole. This "moves" the electron through that hole into "presumably" lower dynamic state on either side of the hole in a larger cavity. This is diffraction of the electron or the photon due to the size of the aperture according to already well known formula. The photon (or electron) has it's quantum state reset when it passes in or out of a cavity depending on the orifice size. This is th same as "periodicity" for continuous resets after a cavity period... a resonance. This is covered by concepts of a reciprocal space. The photon is not "moving" since this standing wave exists always in cavities and is "resonating" with the initial quantum emission state of the photon with the final quantum sink state in a Wheeler-Feynman Absorber "Transaction". In the case of the electron this is "actually moving" since it is part of the Matter Wave Cavity itself. Of course the photon is fixed to "move" or more correctly "propagate" at the speed of light and always to propagate and spread in the "forward direction" of the wavefront but otherwise it is the similar as the electron dynamically in that respect.
The higher the velocity the fermion particle has due to the protective measurement the greater the momentum the particle has in that sub-cavity. In the case of an electron it will attempt to dissipate some of it's momentum in the extended cavity through further protective measurements. Some of these boosts will result in a lowering of the overall momentum due to the fact that it can occupy a larger cavity. The larger cavity means that the product of the particle's position and momentum in the case of the electron are a lower figure so it's position in the bigger cavity is "more uncertain". Make a weak protective measurement of the particle its wave function will shrink and the product of it's position and momentum will be "larger" but it's position will be more certain. A strong protective measurement of the particles position and momentum (using a hard source of probing EM radiation) will result in a very good fix of the position but will boost the electron 'out of the ball park" with a huge momentum boost. The secret is to find ways to make protective measurements on the electron to allow us to estimate the position more accurately and to reduce th momentum to a very small figure. This can be done using low temperatures and "optical molasses"... using LASER cooling for instance.
Protective measurements in Quantum Mechanics
Quantum Zeno Effect
Cheers
Sorry... Bit of a "typo" there... read "The larger cavity means that the product of the particle's position and momentum in the case of the electron are a lower figure" as "The larger cavity means that the product of the uncertain change in the particle's position and the uncertain change in momentum in the case of the electron are a lower figure". Of course this is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle... Change it wherever it occurs in the last post above...
Or h/4π (the reduced Planck's Constant) where this "spread" is related to the arc on the circumference of a circle radius r from a source through "electromagnetic spreading". Where a circumference enscribed at r about the electron is equal to 2πr the uncertainty product exceeds hr. As a working idea the uncertainty in a cavity is the uncertainty in the volume of a spherical cavity given by 4πr²... the surface of a sphere
You can use this link here to illustrate how this works...
Optical Analog of Uncertainty Principle - single slit diffraction
.... Click to enlarge...
The uncertainty in a cavity is due to "spreading" as indicated above at that Harvard Link of a particle in three separate dimensions. I would point out this "spreading" is not a statistical process though it may be argued that the individual position the photons on absorption are scattered transversely on a screen is statistical but very "precise"... if you understand what that means here. A very close microscopic examination of a holographic plate exposed at the same position of the screen will show that the position of each tiny exposed flash will be accurately located in depth on optical wavefronts in the emulsion with a precision of less than a fraction of an optical wavelength allowing "holographic reconstruction" of the scene. Transversely the pattern of intensity will reflect a random placing of absorbed photons which are individual transactions taken from the single spreading energy of the boson state one wavefront at a time... each wavefront having an exact position as a standing matter wave in space. The photons being absorbed at the maximum amplitude of the standing matter wave where the potential gradient of the field is a maximum. The larger the cavity the larger the physical spread. ... It is clear to me (at least) this spread is not a function of statistics but of "precise optics".... such is the accuracy of the pattern.
This transverse pattern does not look like "statistical scattering of little billiard balls at a hole" does it? There is an underlying physical mechanism that produces this exact pattern and it is a cavity matter wave resonance. The only problem with the descriptions in books on quantum theory is the forcing of a particle description on to a wave. Only a wave can pass through two slits simultaneously as it would do it we were examining two slit diffraction or interference. The "particle" is the collapse of the wave state (the ultimate quantum demolition event) and that is the tiny little flashes on the screen. There can be no observation of particles (or waves) before it strikes the screen. That would lead to incoherent photons and disruption of the wave state. IMHO the wave state of scattered photons and scattered electrons is the reaction to spatial matter waves in the vicinity of "obstacles".
Light does travel in "waves" when emitted from driven sources as noted previously. It is not the natural state of ordinary light to be emitted as coherent waves and it is an accident of history that we discovered "waves" before "particles" at about the time of Tesla. The photons will have a natural tendency to arrange themselves on wavefronts when source coherent. You can see this effect if you take the extreme example of this by having source coherent photons individually emitted randomly from a single photon source such as a "pumped" quantum dot. The pattern will still occur even though these are certainly no longer continuous waves when one photon at a time is being emitted. Again light from the Sun is partially "source coherent" because the photons of the same frequency are co-traveling to the earth and there is a slight tendency for them to arrange on wavelets again providing the viewing angle is restricted. I hope this argument is making some sense and this is a very important point to understand what this coherence really means. There is a little of this source coherence going on when you look at a sodium vapor street lamp in the distance at night and you see that speckle pattern ... an analogous pattern to the one you see from a laser but not as crisp and sharp.
Sorry again about those typographical errors.
Cheers
Or h/4π (the reduced Planck's Constant) where this "spread" is related to the arc on the circumference of a circle radius r from a source through "electromagnetic spreading". Where a circumference enscribed at r about the electron is equal to 2πr the uncertainty product exceeds hr. As a working idea the uncertainty in a cavity is the uncertainty in the volume of a spherical cavity given by 4πr²... the surface of a sphere
You can use this link here to illustrate how this works...
Optical Analog of Uncertainty Principle - single slit diffraction
.... Click to enlarge...
The uncertainty in a cavity is due to "spreading" as indicated above at that Harvard Link of a particle in three separate dimensions. I would point out this "spreading" is not a statistical process though it may be argued that the individual position the photons on absorption are scattered transversely on a screen is statistical but very "precise"... if you understand what that means here. A very close microscopic examination of a holographic plate exposed at the same position of the screen will show that the position of each tiny exposed flash will be accurately located in depth on optical wavefronts in the emulsion with a precision of less than a fraction of an optical wavelength allowing "holographic reconstruction" of the scene. Transversely the pattern of intensity will reflect a random placing of absorbed photons which are individual transactions taken from the single spreading energy of the boson state one wavefront at a time... each wavefront having an exact position as a standing matter wave in space. The photons being absorbed at the maximum amplitude of the standing matter wave where the potential gradient of the field is a maximum. The larger the cavity the larger the physical spread. ... It is clear to me (at least) this spread is not a function of statistics but of "precise optics".... such is the accuracy of the pattern.
This transverse pattern does not look like "statistical scattering of little billiard balls at a hole" does it? There is an underlying physical mechanism that produces this exact pattern and it is a cavity matter wave resonance. The only problem with the descriptions in books on quantum theory is the forcing of a particle description on to a wave. Only a wave can pass through two slits simultaneously as it would do it we were examining two slit diffraction or interference. The "particle" is the collapse of the wave state (the ultimate quantum demolition event) and that is the tiny little flashes on the screen. There can be no observation of particles (or waves) before it strikes the screen. That would lead to incoherent photons and disruption of the wave state. IMHO the wave state of scattered photons and scattered electrons is the reaction to spatial matter waves in the vicinity of "obstacles".
Light does travel in "waves" when emitted from driven sources as noted previously. It is not the natural state of ordinary light to be emitted as coherent waves and it is an accident of history that we discovered "waves" before "particles" at about the time of Tesla. The photons will have a natural tendency to arrange themselves on wavefronts when source coherent. You can see this effect if you take the extreme example of this by having source coherent photons individually emitted randomly from a single photon source such as a "pumped" quantum dot. The pattern will still occur even though these are certainly no longer continuous waves when one photon at a time is being emitted. Again light from the Sun is partially "source coherent" because the photons of the same frequency are co-traveling to the earth and there is a slight tendency for them to arrange on wavelets again providing the viewing angle is restricted. I hope this argument is making some sense and this is a very important point to understand what this coherence really means. There is a little of this source coherence going on when you look at a sodium vapor street lamp in the distance at night and you see that speckle pattern ... an analogous pattern to the one you see from a laser but not as crisp and sharp.
Sorry again about those typographical errors.
Cheers
Hi bukh, Majkl, TRoc, yquantum et al,
This article has just appeared on the site...
This paper I can't seem to get my hand on presently...
Siviloglou, G. A., Broky, J., Dogariu, A., and Christodoulides, D. N. “Observation of Accelerating Airy Beams.” Physical Review Letters 99, 213901 (2007).
This article has just appeared on the site...
This paper I can't seem to get my hand on presently...
Siviloglou, G. A., Broky, J., Dogariu, A., and Christodoulides, D. N. “Observation of Accelerating Airy Beams.” Physical Review Letters 99, 213901 (2007).
QUOTE (PhysOrg News+)
Scientists make first observation of Airy optical beams
By Lisa Zyga
Scientists have made the first observation of an unusual class of optical waves called Airy beams. Unlike most types of light waves, Airy beams have the ability to resist diffraction over long distances, and can also freely accelerate during propagation. [..] In contrast to Bessel beams and other non-spreading waves, Airy beams do not result from conical superposition. Rather, the researchers generated Airy beams by using a computer-controlled spatial light modulator, which modulated the phase of a Gaussian beam, which was then imaged on a CCD camera. The scientists used different phase masks to generate either one- or two-dimensional Airy beams.
The researchers observed that the local intensity features of the Airy beams tended to freely accelerate. This is because these beams are analogous to the probability wave function of a quantum mechanical particle when observed in a free-falling reference frame. Despite the beam’s center of mass remaining constant, the beam’s local intensity features follow a bent parabolic trajectory over distances up to 25-30 cm before experiencing diffraction. By contrast, a normal Gaussian beam of the same size would have expanded 24 times in this distance. [..] “These beams have the ability to freely accelerate or self-bend during propagation while remaining invariant in shape,” Christodoulides explained. “Light is known to travel along straight paths. In contrast, in our case, the intensity features of Airy waves, follow parabolic or ballistic trajectories, very much like those of a projectile (fired from a canon) moving under the action of gravity.”
http://www.physorg.com/news115556629.html
By Lisa Zyga
Scientists have made the first observation of an unusual class of optical waves called Airy beams. Unlike most types of light waves, Airy beams have the ability to resist diffraction over long distances, and can also freely accelerate during propagation. [..] In contrast to Bessel beams and other non-spreading waves, Airy beams do not result from conical superposition. Rather, the researchers generated Airy beams by using a computer-controlled spatial light modulator, which modulated the phase of a Gaussian beam, which was then imaged on a CCD camera. The scientists used different phase masks to generate either one- or two-dimensional Airy beams.
The researchers observed that the local intensity features of the Airy beams tended to freely accelerate. This is because these beams are analogous to the probability wave function of a quantum mechanical particle when observed in a free-falling reference frame. Despite the beam’s center of mass remaining constant, the beam’s local intensity features follow a bent parabolic trajectory over distances up to 25-30 cm before experiencing diffraction. By contrast, a normal Gaussian beam of the same size would have expanded 24 times in this distance. [..] “These beams have the ability to freely accelerate or self-bend during propagation while remaining invariant in shape,” Christodoulides explained. “Light is known to travel along straight paths. In contrast, in our case, the intensity features of Airy waves, follow parabolic or ballistic trajectories, very much like those of a projectile (fired from a canon) moving under the action of gravity.”
http://www.physorg.com/news115556629.html
The article states that these "truncated" Airy Packets are the only photon packets that do not spread... or at least they spread much less than ordinary packets. This carries on from a recent description I have placed on this thread about Bessel Beams which resist diffraction or interruption and carry "ideally" infinite energy.
Good Elf on Bessel Beams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessel_beam
or this place ...
Or Good Elf on Bessel Beams here ...
Here is a site (MV Berry's Homepage) where the seminal paper "Nonspreading Wave Packets" this study was developed from...
M. V. Berry and N. L. Balazs, "Nonspreading Wave Packets," Am. J. Phys. 47, 264 (1979).
This paper describes the various properties of the beam and the ability to steer the beam through space by its internal "forces" that continually accelerate the packet along the line of caustics that define the envelope of worldlines. Note these are photon packets behaving as if they want to go in "circles" ... like Carver Mead has predicted in his theory (though I still can't comment since I have not yet received his book "Collective Electrodynamics"). This is analogous to the way a mass particle may exhibit spacetime curvature though the Airy Packet itself still has no rest mass and propagates at the speed of light... still it moves along a caustic formed by the worldlines just like a Talbot Carpet in a cavity. These worldlines "effectively" define the spacetime curvature ... curved spacetime is one way to define a source of "mass".
The packet is a truncated Airy Packet such that it exhibits only one half part of the full sinc packet and it appears to want to circulate in free space without the need for a refractive "medium". Apparently they were predicted in 1979 by MV Berry and was completely ignored till now when someone has actually created them. The Discussion at the conclusion of the paper says that
Good Elf on Bessel Beams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessel_beam
or this place ...
Or Good Elf on Bessel Beams here ...
Here is a site (MV Berry's Homepage) where the seminal paper "Nonspreading Wave Packets" this study was developed from...
M. V. Berry and N. L. Balazs, "Nonspreading Wave Packets," Am. J. Phys. 47, 264 (1979).
This paper describes the various properties of the beam and the ability to steer the beam through space by its internal "forces" that continually accelerate the packet along the line of caustics that define the envelope of worldlines. Note these are photon packets behaving as if they want to go in "circles" ... like Carver Mead has predicted in his theory (though I still can't comment since I have not yet received his book "Collective Electrodynamics"). This is analogous to the way a mass particle may exhibit spacetime curvature though the Airy Packet itself still has no rest mass and propagates at the speed of light... still it moves along a caustic formed by the worldlines just like a Talbot Carpet in a cavity. These worldlines "effectively" define the spacetime curvature ... curved spacetime is one way to define a source of "mass".
The packet is a truncated Airy Packet such that it exhibits only one half part of the full sinc packet and it appears to want to circulate in free space without the need for a refractive "medium". Apparently they were predicted in 1979 by MV Berry and was completely ignored till now when someone has actually created them. The Discussion at the conclusion of the paper says that
QUOTE (MV Berry conclusion of "Nonspreading Wave Packets" 1979+)
...It's [The Airy Packet] unfamiliar properties, apparently contradicts "folklore" and provides a non-trivial illustration of the fact that the wave function corresponds to a family of orbits and not to a single particle. Its unique non-spreading property is easily related to the unique shape of curve which is unaltered (apart from translation) as the classical motion shears the phase space. Moreover, the role played by the caustic shows dramatically how features of wave functions can be dominated by forms (envelopes of families of orbits, which can accelerate, even in empty space) rather than things (individual particles, which are constrained to move with constant velocity).
Notice that Berry even back then in 1979 has stated that this behavior will occur in "empty" space and this acceleration (rotation) could be likened to certain types of bright matter solitons (Elf extrapolation here) which are non-spreading wave packets propagating along the inner surface of a light cone as caustic. Clearly Berry appears to be highly sympathetic to interpretation of these Airy Packets and by inference that all Photon Packets as being "internally" entirely wavelike and not particlelike and propagate through their own caustics defining the geometry of the inner wall of "Particle Space" as if it were a cavity. "Matter tells spacetime how to curve. Curved spacetime tells matter how to move"... JA Wheeler.
It is not hard to speculate that these "split" Packets are the result of entire packets being split into two symmetric halves which have two opposite senses of rotation against the lightcone walls (forming particles and antiparticles through CPT - Lorentz Symmetry). What do people think about that logical extension? Perhaps "nature" performs this operation "naturally" in certain symmetry breaking circumstances. If this was true it is not that unreasonable to suggest that single particle creation events may be possible, perhaps all particle creation events may be possible as indicated by string theory (below), that is if we are provided with the right kind of Truncated Airy Packet and the appropriate conditions in which to propagate (boosts and spins).
... Click to enlarge...
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
Comment invited...
Cheers
It is not hard to speculate that these "split" Packets are the result of entire packets being split into two symmetric halves which have two opposite senses of rotation against the lightcone walls (forming particles and antiparticles through CPT - Lorentz Symmetry). What do people think about that logical extension? Perhaps "nature" performs this operation "naturally" in certain symmetry breaking circumstances. If this was true it is not that unreasonable to suggest that single particle creation events may be possible, perhaps all particle creation events may be possible as indicated by string theory (below), that is if we are provided with the right kind of Truncated Airy Packet and the appropriate conditions in which to propagate (boosts and spins).
... Click to enlarge...
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
Comment invited...
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Nov 30 2007, 08:09 AM)
This paper describes the various properties of the beam and the ability to steer the beam through space by its internal "forces" that continually accelerate the packet along the line of caustics that define the envelope of worldlines. Note these are photon packets behaving as if they want to go in "circles" ... like Carver Mead has predicted in his theory (though I still can't comment since I have not yet received his book "Collective Electrodynamics"). This is analogous to the way a mass particle may exhibit spacetime curvature though the Airy Packet itself still has no rest mass and propagates at the speed of light... still it moves along a caustic formed by the worldlines just like a Talbot Carpet in a cavity. These worldlines "effectively" define the spacetime curvature ... curved spacetime is one way to define a source of "mass".
Check the first part of Cymatics video 2/3. Here is the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxOZ--igANs&feature=related
Formation of eddies. Always as doublets.
Its a perfect analogy i think and you can see it in action.
Check the first part of Cymatics video 2/3. Here is the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxOZ--igANs&feature=related
Formation of eddies. Always as doublets.
Its a perfect analogy i think and you can see it in action.
I took the following excerpt from the following site:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1401...laboratory.html
Excerpt:
If the lasers are of lower intensities, two of them, accurately separated in frequency, are needed to generate an intense plasma wave, called a beat wave.
This can be observed in cymatics videos. Hans Jenny uses two frequencies I think to generate pulsating phenomena. If laser experiments are true they fit the phenomena on much smaller power scales generated through sound-resonance , which is basically periodical pulses it seems.
And this is an article from 1993.
Additionally the article talks about pulses. Pulses that basically leave no time for matter to even "think" what to do next. This stuff exactly reminds on what Tesla was talking about. He was i think most curious about the instantaneous very powerful pulse that he observed many times during his experiments.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1401...laboratory.html
Excerpt:
If the lasers are of lower intensities, two of them, accurately separated in frequency, are needed to generate an intense plasma wave, called a beat wave.
This can be observed in cymatics videos. Hans Jenny uses two frequencies I think to generate pulsating phenomena. If laser experiments are true they fit the phenomena on much smaller power scales generated through sound-resonance , which is basically periodical pulses it seems.
And this is an article from 1993.
Additionally the article talks about pulses. Pulses that basically leave no time for matter to even "think" what to do next. This stuff exactly reminds on what Tesla was talking about. He was i think most curious about the instantaneous very powerful pulse that he observed many times during his experiments.
Additional short note. Sound is a discrete phenomena it seems. Its composed out of periodic pulses thus they appear like continous waves. Wave packets kind of.
Found another interesting correlation.
Taken from Soho Nasa site on Helio-seismeology.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/Hel...ogy/mdi010.html
short excerpt:
MDI/SOI measures vertical motions due to sound waves reverberating through the Sun, at a million points on the visible surface. VIRGO detects the solar oscillations by rhythmic variations in the Sun's brightness. From long-lasting observations by these instruments, scientists deduce information about the Sun's interior precise enough to put the theories of how the Sun works to a severe test. In red coloured layers, sound travels faster than predicted by the theories, implying that the temperature is higher then expected.
Taken from the following site:
http://netowne.com/technology/important/
Lets assume that Tesla was actually observing plasma state and he thought this is aether.
Excerpt:
He recounted how he had developed a "new form of vacuum tube" in 1896 (which I call the "Tesla bulb"), "...capable of being charged to any desired potential, and operated it with effective pressures of about 4,000,000 volts." He described how purplish coronal discharges about the bulb when in use, verified the existence of "particles smaller than air", and a gas so light that an earth-sized volume would weigh only 1/20 pound. He further said sound waves moved at the velocity of light through this medium.
Thus if one connects the dots it would be waves and plasma state of matter. Slightly more accurately (speculation): repetitive pulses and plasma state.
As additional sci-fi speculation: Those repetitive pulses might be vacuum pulses of different inital "momentum". Thus instanteneous long range or short range effect in corelation with the parameters of the pulse. For example Vacuum pulse could be specifically focused on target region non-localy. Thus Its like acting at a distance instanteneously. Thus local or non-local pulse. Localized would be seen as continous waves for example thus stream of vacuum pulses. Non-local (effects) are seen by quantum-mechanics. Thus everything could be surounded by vacuum which is basically the "instanteneous medium". Absolute compression, thus absolutely connected thus absolutely rigid. It does make some kind of sense i think.
Taken from Soho Nasa site on Helio-seismeology.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/Hel...ogy/mdi010.html
short excerpt:
MDI/SOI measures vertical motions due to sound waves reverberating through the Sun, at a million points on the visible surface. VIRGO detects the solar oscillations by rhythmic variations in the Sun's brightness. From long-lasting observations by these instruments, scientists deduce information about the Sun's interior precise enough to put the theories of how the Sun works to a severe test. In red coloured layers, sound travels faster than predicted by the theories, implying that the temperature is higher then expected.
Taken from the following site:
http://netowne.com/technology/important/
Lets assume that Tesla was actually observing plasma state and he thought this is aether.
Excerpt:
He recounted how he had developed a "new form of vacuum tube" in 1896 (which I call the "Tesla bulb"), "...capable of being charged to any desired potential, and operated it with effective pressures of about 4,000,000 volts." He described how purplish coronal discharges about the bulb when in use, verified the existence of "particles smaller than air", and a gas so light that an earth-sized volume would weigh only 1/20 pound. He further said sound waves moved at the velocity of light through this medium.
Thus if one connects the dots it would be waves and plasma state of matter. Slightly more accurately (speculation): repetitive pulses and plasma state.
As additional sci-fi speculation: Those repetitive pulses might be vacuum pulses of different inital "momentum". Thus instanteneous long range or short range effect in corelation with the parameters of the pulse. For example Vacuum pulse could be specifically focused on target region non-localy. Thus Its like acting at a distance instanteneously. Thus local or non-local pulse. Localized would be seen as continous waves for example thus stream of vacuum pulses. Non-local (effects) are seen by quantum-mechanics. Thus everything could be surounded by vacuum which is basically the "instanteneous medium". Absolute compression, thus absolutely connected thus absolutely rigid. It does make some kind of sense i think.
Hi Majkl et al,
I am a great "fan" of Tesla. The speed of evanescent phenomena can be up to an infinite velocity. Many of Tesla's Transmitters are "inductive" in nature and so are within an evanescent range.
I tend not to think of needing a medium for the transmission of "influence". I know that aether was an idea that I like to steer clear of because of the emotional attachments to some of these concepts. I accept Einstein's Ideas as a theoretician and I believe in the results of Tesla's experiments. There are some problems trying to connect these two together since they were so far apart in life. Today we have the hindsight of over a hundred years of experiment and I think we do know more now than we knew then.
Cheers
I am a great "fan" of Tesla. The speed of evanescent phenomena can be up to an infinite velocity. Many of Tesla's Transmitters are "inductive" in nature and so are within an evanescent range.
I tend not to think of needing a medium for the transmission of "influence". I know that aether was an idea that I like to steer clear of because of the emotional attachments to some of these concepts. I accept Einstein's Ideas as a theoretician and I believe in the results of Tesla's experiments. There are some problems trying to connect these two together since they were so far apart in life. Today we have the hindsight of over a hundred years of experiment and I think we do know more now than we knew then.
Cheers
Hi, I am back. As I promised, I come back without empty hand. I have prepared a website to share my thoughts and understandings on photon. Below is the link.
http://www.greatians.com/physics/wave.htm
or you can visit a short video clip introduction at
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WKqwbhGz2Nc
Let me brief a bit here. First must understanding about the structure of photon. Then, must know the reason for photon to act in such a way.
Let me share some interesting question here. It is commonly known that the momentum of photon is p = h/wavelength where h = plank's constant. When photon from air medium enters into a glass medium, the photon wavelength is reduced with reduced speed. The energy is conserved which is equivalent to E=hf where f = frequency of photon. But the momentum is not conserved because the wavelength reduced. So, is there something wrong with the theory? Yes it is.
Second question. To the photon, what is the different between water medium, air medium, glass medium, diamond medium, black object? It was generally explained that the density. When photon enters into medium with different density, it is bent, its speed and wavelength reduced, it is refracted.
third question. What is the actual things at the edge of an object, edge of pin hole and the edge of slit? When the photon enters into a triangular glass medium, its travel direction before and after the glass medium is different. This is the diffraction. In another word, the diffraction is caused by the refraction of photon when passes through a medium with different shape.
You may enjoy the tour. Please do not hesitate to post more questions here. Thank you.
Regards,
KokHaw
http://www.greatians.com/physics/wave.htm
or you can visit a short video clip introduction at
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WKqwbhGz2Nc
Let me brief a bit here. First must understanding about the structure of photon. Then, must know the reason for photon to act in such a way.
Let me share some interesting question here. It is commonly known that the momentum of photon is p = h/wavelength where h = plank's constant. When photon from air medium enters into a glass medium, the photon wavelength is reduced with reduced speed. The energy is conserved which is equivalent to E=hf where f = frequency of photon. But the momentum is not conserved because the wavelength reduced. So, is there something wrong with the theory? Yes it is.
Second question. To the photon, what is the different between water medium, air medium, glass medium, diamond medium, black object? It was generally explained that the density. When photon enters into medium with different density, it is bent, its speed and wavelength reduced, it is refracted.
third question. What is the actual things at the edge of an object, edge of pin hole and the edge of slit? When the photon enters into a triangular glass medium, its travel direction before and after the glass medium is different. This is the diffraction. In another word, the diffraction is caused by the refraction of photon when passes through a medium with different shape.
You may enjoy the tour. Please do not hesitate to post more questions here. Thank you.
Regards,
KokHaw
A few additional thoughts.
For anyone that didnt know like me - what you can see in cymatics
videos is officialy called Faraday waves. A kind of vertical waves or oscilations. This stuff should explain a lot. I think its a big part of the puzzle.
Speculation: There are possible ideas to play with. One possibility is that space-plasma inherently vibrates. It is not contained in anything thus everything around it, is absolute anti-pressure thus "nothing". This could act as a homogenous or uniform solid to vibrating plasma. A kind of self-stimulating interactions. Thus you have horizontal and vertical oscilations of space-plasma. The kinematics of plasma or its fundamental vibrating is what could constitute motion through this frequency or "gliding" on top of it which would constitute time.
Another possibility of course is that vibration comes from outside the plasma which then is out of possible observation since we cannot observe it with anything except some undirect detection. A very rough idea is that we would be sending powerful or specific parameters configured vertical pulse into "nothing" and see if anything comes back localy.
Somehow i get a feeling we wont understand much without these vertical waves-pulses.
This stuff is considered small scale-phenomena. The idea is that it works on mega proportions too.
For anyone that didnt know like me - what you can see in cymatics
videos is officialy called Faraday waves. A kind of vertical waves or oscilations. This stuff should explain a lot. I think its a big part of the puzzle.
Speculation: There are possible ideas to play with. One possibility is that space-plasma inherently vibrates. It is not contained in anything thus everything around it, is absolute anti-pressure thus "nothing". This could act as a homogenous or uniform solid to vibrating plasma. A kind of self-stimulating interactions. Thus you have horizontal and vertical oscilations of space-plasma. The kinematics of plasma or its fundamental vibrating is what could constitute motion through this frequency or "gliding" on top of it which would constitute time.
Another possibility of course is that vibration comes from outside the plasma which then is out of possible observation since we cannot observe it with anything except some undirect detection. A very rough idea is that we would be sending powerful or specific parameters configured vertical pulse into "nothing" and see if anything comes back localy.
Somehow i get a feeling we wont understand much without these vertical waves-pulses.
This stuff is considered small scale-phenomena. The idea is that it works on mega proportions too.
Addition to the post.
Excerpt taken from wikipedia in connection to Faraday waves-oscilons.
Excerpt:
Astonishingly, oscillons of opposite phase will attract over short distances and form 'bonded' pairs. Oscillons of like phase repel. Oscillons have been observed forming 'molecule' like structures and long chains.
Excerpt taken from wikipedia in connection to Faraday waves-oscilons.
Excerpt:
Astonishingly, oscillons of opposite phase will attract over short distances and form 'bonded' pairs. Oscillons of like phase repel. Oscillons have been observed forming 'molecule' like structures and long chains.
Majkl, all..
You are doing a good job of path-finding.
Faraday, an "uneducated" researcher who first postulated "force fields" that ultimately led to Maxwell's success, was following a path made by others (in the idea of wave modes in liquid).
The first "recorded" work of this nature was done by Robert Hooke in 1680.
Ernst Chladni was the first person to apply mathematics to this phenomenon, after developing "Chladni Plates", which he drew a violin bow across to cause sand/salt to move into their characteristic patterns, through mode "harmonics". (over 100 years later)
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chladni%27s_law
and here http://www.phy.davidson.edu/StuHome/derekk.../pages/menu.htm , for 2D wave equations, and further "updated" work.
By far, the best (IMO) is done by Paul Bourke: http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/surf...adni/index.html
One can see why I have been stating that music/sound have led the way for progress in mathematics, and quantum physics, since the very beginning. For whatever reason, some people (and elves) are "threatened" by such a thought.
regards,
T.Roc
You are doing a good job of path-finding.
Faraday, an "uneducated" researcher who first postulated "force fields" that ultimately led to Maxwell's success, was following a path made by others (in the idea of wave modes in liquid).
The first "recorded" work of this nature was done by Robert Hooke in 1680.
Ernst Chladni was the first person to apply mathematics to this phenomenon, after developing "Chladni Plates", which he drew a violin bow across to cause sand/salt to move into their characteristic patterns, through mode "harmonics". (over 100 years later)
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chladni%27s_law
and here http://www.phy.davidson.edu/StuHome/derekk.../pages/menu.htm , for 2D wave equations, and further "updated" work.
By far, the best (IMO) is done by Paul Bourke: http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/surf...adni/index.html
One can see why I have been stating that music/sound have led the way for progress in mathematics, and quantum physics, since the very beginning. For whatever reason, some people (and elves) are "threatened" by such a thought.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc, Majkl et al,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
One can see why I have been stating that music/sound have led the way for progress in mathematics, and quantum physics, since the very beginning. For whatever reason, some people (and elves) are "threatened" by such a thought.
Not at all... the subject of "Chladni Plates" and Cymatics was on this thread quite a while ago I doubt that I feel any "threat" from that corner. What I see is there is little comparison between the non-temporally propagating packets of transverse vector waves of electromagnetism with the scalar longitudinal temporal (dynamic) pressure waves of the movement of molecules of gas as sound. There are some points in common and as I am saying here light "propagates" as a packet phenomenon (quanta) while sound propagates through pure bulk displacement. The points in common are they both have a finite propagation velocity, they both can undergo resonance, and they can both have interferences. Beyond that they are non-equivalent. You can't reproduce true quantum phenomena in sound waves, sound does not travel along null geodesics in spacetime. This is also why I am harping about the way particle theory has hit a rock and sunk on particle concepts too. The early success of local theories of particles and their accompanying scalar theories fail when you look at them too carefully. It is unfortunate that our Science still must limp along with lame ideas and patches to the physics to make this method work. IMHO Particle Theory is a failed theory that produces some very good statistical approximations but that is all. We have learned as much as we can from that quarter and we must move on.
TRoc I know you are harping on something but you are too cryptic. I understand all the films and illustrations on the Web regarding these concepts but I still do not get what you mean by a "music" tie in except with the classical idea of the "Music of the Spheres"... I do not subscribe to that mysticism any more than to "epicycles" of that the orbits of the Planets are related to the Platonic Solids. I also do not ascribe to the notion that our eyes are the source of beams of light and nothing is seen or happens if it is not seen... that is another ancient idea that has been given modern interpretations with Bohr's "Quantum Theory" Copenhagen Interpretation. I can even see the efforts of many pushing "Intelligent Design" and the "Anthropic Principle"... All sad attempts to dress up Religion as Science. These "pure ideas" in total philosophical abstraction are not "bad" ideas but they are not "good" scientific ideas. This is also the same breeding grounds for those Aether Cranks on this forum. There is an emphasis of belief over science and it is impossible for me or anyone to convince them that you can't be in both camps at the same time. The Scientific Method is a "system" not a "belief". You must abandon "belief" for belief's sake and listen to the results of experiments.
Some ideas have been around a very long time but they are non-scientific. You may as well point to Hinduism or Buddhism and other religious beliefs for "inspiration" but as sound as some of the moral instruction in them can be they are "belief systems" not science. They are like fairy stories where the individual who originally wrote them was a allegorist who certainly knew what he was doing but those who repeat the stories down through the generations have almost forgotten what the stories were all about... Still they believe in faeries. There is no experimental basis on which the ideas are tested. People who hold to ideas more than they hold with experiment are dogmatic and only get upset when you point out that the Universe "disagrees with them".
As to "chords" and such as been stated by TRoc on a few occasions I understand Fourier Decomposition of waveforms into their component packet harmonics but once again in the context of wave theory these "components" have nothing to do with "music" except that every sound can be broken down into harmonic components. If there is something I am missing here please tell me what it is... Just come right out and say it instead of stating all these analogies... where it can be finally analyzed. I know I have asked you this question several times before and I still have not been able to get any "straight" answer from you TRoc.... Just what are you getting at? I really have no idea just what it is you are trying to say? Try phrasing this "idea" as a sentence or a paragraph.
Cheers
PS: TRoc... You also have a strange idea about "color mixing" as well ... I still do not get that point either. The psychological aspect of color is not to be confused with the science of color. What do you mean by "magenta" and why it does not exist?
TRoc I know you are harping on something but you are too cryptic. I understand all the films and illustrations on the Web regarding these concepts but I still do not get what you mean by a "music" tie in except with the classical idea of the "Music of the Spheres"... I do not subscribe to that mysticism any more than to "epicycles" of that the orbits of the Planets are related to the Platonic Solids. I also do not ascribe to the notion that our eyes are the source of beams of light and nothing is seen or happens if it is not seen... that is another ancient idea that has been given modern interpretations with Bohr's "Quantum Theory" Copenhagen Interpretation. I can even see the efforts of many pushing "Intelligent Design" and the "Anthropic Principle"... All sad attempts to dress up Religion as Science. These "pure ideas" in total philosophical abstraction are not "bad" ideas but they are not "good" scientific ideas. This is also the same breeding grounds for those Aether Cranks on this forum. There is an emphasis of belief over science and it is impossible for me or anyone to convince them that you can't be in both camps at the same time. The Scientific Method is a "system" not a "belief". You must abandon "belief" for belief's sake and listen to the results of experiments.
Some ideas have been around a very long time but they are non-scientific. You may as well point to Hinduism or Buddhism and other religious beliefs for "inspiration" but as sound as some of the moral instruction in them can be they are "belief systems" not science. They are like fairy stories where the individual who originally wrote them was a allegorist who certainly knew what he was doing but those who repeat the stories down through the generations have almost forgotten what the stories were all about... Still they believe in faeries. There is no experimental basis on which the ideas are tested. People who hold to ideas more than they hold with experiment are dogmatic and only get upset when you point out that the Universe "disagrees with them".
As to "chords" and such as been stated by TRoc on a few occasions I understand Fourier Decomposition of waveforms into their component packet harmonics but once again in the context of wave theory these "components" have nothing to do with "music" except that every sound can be broken down into harmonic components. If there is something I am missing here please tell me what it is... Just come right out and say it instead of stating all these analogies... where it can be finally analyzed. I know I have asked you this question several times before and I still have not been able to get any "straight" answer from you TRoc.... Just what are you getting at? I really have no idea just what it is you are trying to say? Try phrasing this "idea" as a sentence or a paragraph.
Cheers
PS: TRoc... You also have a strange idea about "color mixing" as well ... I still do not get that point either. The psychological aspect of color is not to be confused with the science of color. What do you mean by "magenta" and why it does not exist?
Hi Majkl,
That is an interesting article on Faraday Waves but I would point out that this is a discussion on Matter Waves in Bose-Einstein Condensates. These are complex emergent phenomena... similar to Talbot Carpets but in a different context. It must not be assumed that there is any simple analogy linking this process with "Chladni Plates" and Cymatics other than they all represent standing waves in more than one dimension.
As to "smoothness" of the functions I am convinced that we are dealing with complex interferences in space and the solutions are also "Complex" in behavior and in function. The Bose-Einstein Condensates are collections of atoms... This will mean they exhibit some bosonic character and also some fermionic character simultaneously. In particular some aspects of space quantization and observing these patterns as particles will cause it to "spoil". I have seen statements which suggest that these functions are fractals... I think that is partially true since fractals are emergent scale invariant patterns. However fractals can be composed from many type of primitives which are acted on recursively. In some respects this is exactly what nature does in some "stationary quantum states" as resonance. The behavior of these systems are in a "Complex space" acting under the influence of attractors which behave like the "Principle of Least Action". For instance the Lorentz Attractor is very close to the supposed flow of energy inside of electrons and may also be responsible for the Talbot Carpets in diffraction experiments.
... Bigger image here...
Wikipedia: Lorentz Attractor
I am not sure "exactly" what the function is but it could easily be any one of a number of candidates that are possible.
Cheers
That is an interesting article on Faraday Waves but I would point out that this is a discussion on Matter Waves in Bose-Einstein Condensates. These are complex emergent phenomena... similar to Talbot Carpets but in a different context. It must not be assumed that there is any simple analogy linking this process with "Chladni Plates" and Cymatics other than they all represent standing waves in more than one dimension.
As to "smoothness" of the functions I am convinced that we are dealing with complex interferences in space and the solutions are also "Complex" in behavior and in function. The Bose-Einstein Condensates are collections of atoms... This will mean they exhibit some bosonic character and also some fermionic character simultaneously. In particular some aspects of space quantization and observing these patterns as particles will cause it to "spoil". I have seen statements which suggest that these functions are fractals... I think that is partially true since fractals are emergent scale invariant patterns. However fractals can be composed from many type of primitives which are acted on recursively. In some respects this is exactly what nature does in some "stationary quantum states" as resonance. The behavior of these systems are in a "Complex space" acting under the influence of attractors which behave like the "Principle of Least Action". For instance the Lorentz Attractor is very close to the supposed flow of energy inside of electrons and may also be responsible for the Talbot Carpets in diffraction experiments.
... Bigger image here...
Wikipedia: Lorentz Attractor
I am not sure "exactly" what the function is but it could easily be any one of a number of candidates that are possible.
Cheers
The important thing in my opinion is that we are in agreement about what matter is. The idea of this topic as i understand it, first wants to establish what are we dealing with or how should we be dealing with what we are experiencing. The path lead towards waves and now we have different angles on the same matter. But there is no disagreement as far as i can see. I think that we have the right puzzle (general picture) in our hands and all that is left is putting the pieces contextually together.
Here are my additional two cents on the matter. Its a blunder most porbably but from what i have seen on footages about electrons and pictures of atoms it somehow resembles roughly.
The more real model of atom should be connected with oscillon in my opinion. This is a kind of like looking at negative photo of matter. The center has the highest positive-negative peak. Protons and electrons would basically represent positive and negative peaks of a spinning oscillon. Thus if you spin an oscillon it looks like those positive and negative peaks are particles which spin. But what would really be happening is that those peaks reflect a surface of standing wave(s) spinning.
The entire puzzle it seems, revolves around these inverse geometrical shapes. Positive and negative (inverse) geometry which are positive and negative peaks of spining waves and they are symmetrical which additionaly points to being two faces of a single wave.
Here are my additional two cents on the matter. Its a blunder most porbably but from what i have seen on footages about electrons and pictures of atoms it somehow resembles roughly.
The more real model of atom should be connected with oscillon in my opinion. This is a kind of like looking at negative photo of matter. The center has the highest positive-negative peak. Protons and electrons would basically represent positive and negative peaks of a spinning oscillon. Thus if you spin an oscillon it looks like those positive and negative peaks are particles which spin. But what would really be happening is that those peaks reflect a surface of standing wave(s) spinning.
The entire puzzle it seems, revolves around these inverse geometrical shapes. Positive and negative (inverse) geometry which are positive and negative peaks of spining waves and they are symmetrical which additionaly points to being two faces of a single wave.
I posted the following allready in another topic but it fits here as addition to the previous speculation. I have to use would, could and all the speculative words because its a speculation of course.
Oscilon - standing wave that spins. Its very elastic as all standing waves are. Thus electrons and protons could be small positive and negative peaks that can be temporarily disturbed and this disturbance would then be carried throughout chains of oscilons. That's how you would basically transport signals. Through spin. Its almost like a flexible watch mechanism. Thus it doesn't get disturbed by small distortions. Spinning wheels kind of.
This might be even more ridiculus speculation but here it goes:
Why does signal have sinusoid shape? First oscilon carries disturbance on top and then second oscilon carries it under and so on. Exactly like wheels in a watch. Thus oscilons would be kind of like shaped as ellipsoids (like galaxy for example-not the spiral but the underlining proto-shape) if we were talking about long wavelengths. Two chained oscilons would spin in opposite direction thus as i allready said in 2-D signal would have sinusoid shape. In 3-D signal would have spiral shape. That would mean that it circles around oscilon thus propagating forward in a spiral like fashion. This means that oscilon as a whole for example has at least two simultaneous spins.
Additional idea is that oscilons exist as inverse geometrical fields as well which is basically what i attributed to electron-proton. The same thing could explain the inverse geometrical shape of galaxy for example. Thus galaxy would be like a giant oscilon with inverse geometry.
Oscilon - standing wave that spins. Its very elastic as all standing waves are. Thus electrons and protons could be small positive and negative peaks that can be temporarily disturbed and this disturbance would then be carried throughout chains of oscilons. That's how you would basically transport signals. Through spin. Its almost like a flexible watch mechanism. Thus it doesn't get disturbed by small distortions. Spinning wheels kind of.
This might be even more ridiculus speculation but here it goes:
Why does signal have sinusoid shape? First oscilon carries disturbance on top and then second oscilon carries it under and so on. Exactly like wheels in a watch. Thus oscilons would be kind of like shaped as ellipsoids (like galaxy for example-not the spiral but the underlining proto-shape) if we were talking about long wavelengths. Two chained oscilons would spin in opposite direction thus as i allready said in 2-D signal would have sinusoid shape. In 3-D signal would have spiral shape. That would mean that it circles around oscilon thus propagating forward in a spiral like fashion. This means that oscilon as a whole for example has at least two simultaneous spins.
Additional idea is that oscilons exist as inverse geometrical fields as well which is basically what i attributed to electron-proton. The same thing could explain the inverse geometrical shape of galaxy for example. Thus galaxy would be like a giant oscilon with inverse geometry.
I few additional thoughts. Things just keep poping out and there are very interesting implications.
It follows from oscilons that all planets and the sun have same axial rotation direction of spin. Something like all planets and the sun are rotating clockwise.
I know about Venus retrograde spin and I have thought about it. Is it possible that Venus is a planet that is turned upside down? Because it must have the same direction of spin fundamentally otherwise it would be attracted to all planets and sun according to repulsion and attraction of oscilons. Take a ball an keep its direction of rotation intact. Mark the poles and tilt it on its head and there it is. Venus.
Since it is an exception it is more likely that the planet is standing on its head?
If Venus was a planet on its head then answers such as –
Why planets don’t fall into a sun would have a nice answer. Thus all planets repel each other and the sun because they all have the same direction of axial spin. Why doesn’t Moon fall on Earth would amount to having the same direction of spin thus repulsion.
Why planets don’t escape the sun valley? They could if they had the speed. Each planet could escape sun valley if given a boost.
Additionaly. When you would exit the sun valley you would enter interstellar space which is an enormous oscilon thus it would get even flatter.
It all seems like nested oscilons.
It follows from oscilons that all planets and the sun have same axial rotation direction of spin. Something like all planets and the sun are rotating clockwise.
I know about Venus retrograde spin and I have thought about it. Is it possible that Venus is a planet that is turned upside down? Because it must have the same direction of spin fundamentally otherwise it would be attracted to all planets and sun according to repulsion and attraction of oscilons. Take a ball an keep its direction of rotation intact. Mark the poles and tilt it on its head and there it is. Venus.
Since it is an exception it is more likely that the planet is standing on its head?
If Venus was a planet on its head then answers such as –
Why planets don’t fall into a sun would have a nice answer. Thus all planets repel each other and the sun because they all have the same direction of axial spin. Why doesn’t Moon fall on Earth would amount to having the same direction of spin thus repulsion.
Why planets don’t escape the sun valley? They could if they had the speed. Each planet could escape sun valley if given a boost.
Additionaly. When you would exit the sun valley you would enter interstellar space which is an enormous oscilon thus it would get even flatter.
It all seems like nested oscilons.
QUOTE (Majkl+Dec 8 2007, 02:44 PM)
I posted the following allready in another topic but it fits here as addition to the previous speculation. I have to use would, could and all the speculative words because its a speculation of course.
Oscilon - standing wave that spins. Its very elastic as all standing waves are. Thus electrons and protons could be small positive and negative peaks that can be temporarily disturbed and this disturbance would then be carried throughout chains of oscilons. That's how you would basically transport signals. Through spin. Its almost like a flexible watch mechanism. Thus it doesn't get disturbed by small distortions. Spinning wheels kind of.
This might be even more ridiculus speculation but here it goes:
Why does signal have sinusoid shape? First oscilon carries disturbance on top and then second oscilon carries it under and so on. Exactly like wheels in a watch. Thus oscilons would be kind of like shaped as ellipsoids (like galaxy for example-not the spiral but the underlining proto-shape) if we were talking about long wavelengths. Two chained oscilons would spin in opposite direction thus as i allready said in 2-D signal would have sinusoid shape. In 3-D signal would have spiral shape. That would mean that it circles around oscilon thus propagating forward in a spiral like fashion. This means that oscilon as a whole for example has at least two simultaneous spins.
Additional idea is that oscilons exist as inverse geometrical fields as well which is basically what i attributed to electron-proton. The same thing could explain the inverse geometrical shape of galaxy for example. Thus galaxy would be like a giant oscilon with inverse geometry.
Oscilon - standing wave that spins. Its very elastic as all standing waves are. Thus electrons and protons could be small positive and negative peaks that can be temporarily disturbed and this disturbance would then be carried throughout chains of oscilons. That's how you would basically transport signals. Through spin. Its almost like a flexible watch mechanism. Thus it doesn't get disturbed by small distortions. Spinning wheels kind of.
This might be even more ridiculus speculation but here it goes:
Why does signal have sinusoid shape? First oscilon carries disturbance on top and then second oscilon carries it under and so on. Exactly like wheels in a watch. Thus oscilons would be kind of like shaped as ellipsoids (like galaxy for example-not the spiral but the underlining proto-shape) if we were talking about long wavelengths. Two chained oscilons would spin in opposite direction thus as i allready said in 2-D signal would have sinusoid shape. In 3-D signal would have spiral shape. That would mean that it circles around oscilon thus propagating forward in a spiral like fashion. This means that oscilon as a whole for example has at least two simultaneous spins.
Additional idea is that oscilons exist as inverse geometrical fields as well which is basically what i attributed to electron-proton. The same thing could explain the inverse geometrical shape of galaxy for example. Thus galaxy would be like a giant oscilon with inverse geometry.
QUOTE (Majkl+Dec 8 2007, 05:39 PM)
I few additional thoughts. Things just keep poping out and there are very interesting implications.
It follows from oscilons that all planets and the sun have same axial rotation direction of spin. Something like all planets and the sun are rotating clockwise.
I know about Venus retrograde spin and I have thought about it. Is it possible that Venus is a planet that is turned upside down? Because it must have the same direction of spin fundamentally otherwise it would be attracted to all planets and sun according to repulsion and attraction of oscilons. Take a ball an keep its direction of rotation intact. Mark the poles and tilt it on its head and there it is. Venus.
Since it is an exception it is more likely that the planet is standing on its head?
If Venus was a planet on its head then answers such as –
Why planets don’t fall into a sun would have a nice answer. Thus all planets repel each other and the sun because they all have the same direction of axial spin. Why doesn’t Moon fall on Earth would amount to having the same direction of spin thus repulsion.
Why planets don’t escape the sun valley? They could if they had the speed. Each planet could escape sun valley if given a boost.
Additionaly. When you would exit the sun valley you would enter interstellar space which is an enormous oscilon thus it would get even flatter.
It all seems like nested oscilons.
nonsense, Maliki
It follows from oscilons that all planets and the sun have same axial rotation direction of spin. Something like all planets and the sun are rotating clockwise.
I know about Venus retrograde spin and I have thought about it. Is it possible that Venus is a planet that is turned upside down? Because it must have the same direction of spin fundamentally otherwise it would be attracted to all planets and sun according to repulsion and attraction of oscilons. Take a ball an keep its direction of rotation intact. Mark the poles and tilt it on its head and there it is. Venus.
Since it is an exception it is more likely that the planet is standing on its head?
If Venus was a planet on its head then answers such as –
Why planets don’t fall into a sun would have a nice answer. Thus all planets repel each other and the sun because they all have the same direction of axial spin. Why doesn’t Moon fall on Earth would amount to having the same direction of spin thus repulsion.
Why planets don’t escape the sun valley? They could if they had the speed. Each planet could escape sun valley if given a boost.
Additionaly. When you would exit the sun valley you would enter interstellar space which is an enormous oscilon thus it would get even flatter.
It all seems like nested oscilons.
nonsense, Maliki
Its a pitty if its non-sense. Because its beautiful and simple. Electro-magnetism looks like some super clock wheels-mechanism. Everything keeps spining..coming and going. Cycling. Entire solar system starts making sense. Entire galaxy starts making sense. Its all nested standing spining waves. I will keep working on this though until predictions can be made. This stuff and the predicitions it makes should be all testable because it is connected entirely with stuff that has a factual existence (oscilons and their dynamic geometry on larger scales are asumption) and a very elegant contextual explanation of electro-magnetism. If however nothing of speculative parts is true i will keep it as a trophy of my "search for truth" .
.
Wesden: you have raised a great question! I do not believe that "measurement" is not somehow crucial to this process, but I have also come to think that the answer someone else gave above is correct: Namely, "Somtimes the matter-wave is not there"! This is at least a paradox, if not a contradiction, and I have grappled with it myself: I have concluded provisionally that the answer lies in the "periodicity" of matter—in other words, the atomic nucleus and its associated electrons and positrons are alternatively making an energy/mass conversion—thus explaining why we cannot measure both "position" and "velocity" simultaneously—as indicated by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: if this is true, it bears out what the respondent said: somtimes, for a brief second, the energy is energy in the vacuum of space, while the conversion takes place. (see my essays on these topics in the "Quantum Physics forum"). Great issue—absolutely fundamental: this issue prompted the great giant of 20th century physics to make one of his profoundest comments:"if thought through, at a fundamental level, the consequences of the quantum theory are in a sense deducible from the behavior of light and matter in the double-slit experiment"—but, importantly also Feymann said, "if you understand quantum physics, then you don't understand it"—and my favourite of all and most humbling: "A good scientist makes every mistake first before he gets it right!"—which I take to mean, however well you think you may understand a theory, always keep thinking, and be your own most severe critic, because in science its not about proving our own "pet theories," its about interpreting "nature" correctly or with the greatest degree of exactitude we can muster—that is the goal, and if we depart from it, as humans we must for it is a fact that we are most weded to"our" truths—but science is an attempt to overcome this in order to achieve understanding and share that understanding with a broader scientific community: thereby opening ourselves up to the sometimes ruthless criticism of others, but in the hope that, ultimately, we will glimpse the true nature of man and world.
hi, i do not pretend to understand any of this, i only did "Higher Physics" at school about twenty years ago. But i do love reading laymans books on the stuff. one book being by an author of the name john gribbin, "in search of schrodinger's cat". he talks of the problem of the photon being both a particle and a wave at the same time. is this what the topic is about , because i have only stumbled across it while trying to google a problem i have with photography. has physics found out more about the electron and its "gyre" as gribbin puts it. he says that it may not actually spin as they say. " the slythey tove" he calls it , from the book Jabberwocky. to look at the electron , you have to interact with it, as i understand, and thus you interfere with its life so to speak therefore it does not carry on as it would have done so into its future. parallel worlds and the like.
ignore this for its nonsense, but i do take a bit of interest in these kind of things to see how science progresses in the world.
ps. if you didnt see the question, it was do scientists know the final structure of all atomic particles yet, or is that an impossibility?
(i think that is what i was trying to ask)
thanks colin g
ignore this for its nonsense, but i do take a bit of interest in these kind of things to see how science progresses in the world.
ps. if you didnt see the question, it was do scientists know the final structure of all atomic particles yet, or is that an impossibility?
(i think that is what i was trying to ask)
thanks colin g
hi again,
it should be subatomic particles, rather, that i am asking about
colin g
it should be subatomic particles, rather, that i am asking about
colin g
Hi colin_g, TRoc, Majkl, Neil Farbstein, yquantum, Jeffrey Neuzil et al,
QUOTE (colin_g+)
Do scientists know the final structure of all atomic particles yet, or is that an impossibility? [...] it should be subatomic particles, rather, that i am asking about
It is actually an "impossibility" since there is very good "philosophical" reasons for not knowing any answers to any "ultimate questions". However we can be happy to know that through the virtue of experiment our theories can better address the answers to the questions we pose because we are able to know more accurately the right questions to ask. So though we can never know the answer to any "ultimate question" we certainly have an "infallible way" to achieve better answers to all of our questions through the Scientific Method. Any theory that quotes only theoretical models of physics will always end up being wrong as are most of todays String Theories and Loop Quantum Gravity Theories... This is because they work from the unknown end of Physics... the infinitely small... and try to work "upwards"... This approach can have no direct experimental basis because it is a "bottom up" approach from what we cannot know to what is known (small to the big). It has been shown that there are an infinity of solutions to this general problem ... all of them are valid mathematically but only one of them will be related to the "true" answer in physical actuality... but which one? But if the theory is based on experimental results and there are no contradictions known to these results then you can be assured that the theory is a better one than all former theories because it answers more questions. This is a top down approach from what is known "down" to what is not known. If you are seeking answers then you must have a top down approach... the bottom up approach is a "religion" based on a prior knowledge of the operation of our Universe (I would dispute that anyone truthfully knows that approach at all and some researchers are wasting their funding and their time on it).
This is an endless recursive process of theory and experiment and it's results can be gradual or they can be a discontinuous process leading to incremental increases in knowledge or massive jumps respectively depending on the new paradigms adopted. Physics is quite obviously at one of those points that could suddenly make a big leap forward. The tools of the past were inadequate for the questions of today and there has been great strides ahead in technical fields leading to more subtler tools.
Depending on whom you discuss this point with on this forum you will either strike a group of spoilers whose only activity is to enforce their views on others and that view is the kind learned in first year and undergraduate courses. They have never exercised their minds. Alternatively you may find a lot of difference in opinion with the remainder of the people on this forum. If you ask me you will get one answer and if you ask others you will get another answer. This is as it should be and don't let anyone tell you that all "i's" are dotted and "t's" crossed in Physics. There is substantial inconsistency and an lack of interdisciplinary cross referencing going on. You can rest assured that for any foreseeable future what has been discovered is only the tip of an "iceberg" of knowledge. More has been learned in the last ten years than has been learned in nearly the previous 50 years and the rate of increase in this new knowledge is not about to slow or cease (except in the minds of the "Trolls" on this site).
As an opinion on a couple of the points you have put forward... I believe that it is not the case that elementary entities are "both" particle and wave... It is more like they are particle or wave depending on the interactions. Particle interactions can only "reveal" particles while the "interferences" can only produce waves and their effects. They are separate "domains" which are not subject to simultaneous determinations except when the sensor or recorder is able to capture spatial phase. Most sensors are not able to do that so information is lost. There are some exceptions to this rule where it is possible to record these interferences as "patches" within the emulsion of a photographic plate... Of course I am speaking of "Holography" and the Hologram is a paradigm that has many uses and I suggest that it is a way to view the Universe at all levels whose time is about to come. These plates contain both wave and particle attributes for large quantities of photons for instance. They are not recording the individual phases of photons but because the hologram is recording waves as a result of the placement of matter wave sources, provided the matter wave sources remain relatively motionless relative to the coherent source of light, it is possible to record phase overall.
The hologram is the unique situation where the source coherent light waves "illuminate" the quasi-stationary matter wave sources which extend into the surrounding space as standing waves. What is meant by "matter waves" are simply the "de Broglie Matter Waves" and these collectively hybridize in amplitude and phase and reflect the concentration of mass in these cavities as walls and as apertures in walls. Our entire Universe is such a cavity and a box with a hole in it is also a cavity. The result is a pattern of exposure inside the plates which shows these standing waves captured "frozen" in space. Throughout that plate we are viewing the differential absorption of photons into sites where the photon packet is accepted easily and other sites where the packet is rejected due entirely to the matter wave phase. The pattern of standing waves are "solutions" to Schrodinger's Wave Equation for "cavities" (more accurately represented by Dirac's Wave Equation).
There is a way to view this phenomenon that is not conventional but it is entirely correct. Now I realize that many illustrations and web applets show "progressive" waves in space but actually the waves are quasi-stationary and are the long wavelength equivalents of "Bragg Planes" filling all cavity space and at all frequencies (the matter wave spatial interferences). The photons are simply passing through this cavity as an "excitation". The photons themselves are simply spreading through space due to the Inverse Square Law and in other respects are "frozen in time" due to travel at the local speed of light (and Relativistic Time Dilation) and have also undergone the most extreme form of length contraction such that in its frame of reference "everything" has contracted to a single event in the forward direction of time. This is a null geodesic and connects the source with the sink "instantly" in the frame of reference of the photon which sees this as a pure "resonance". In the case of electrons there is little difference other than the limited spreading of the electron wave packet. The electron obeys the same dynamics as the photon but it has a sub-luminal velocity and progressively fills the same cavity in it's frame of reference as if it was a Hilbert Envelope under constraint of the matter wave cavity through which it passes instantaneously.
Here is "food for thought"...
This is an endless recursive process of theory and experiment and it's results can be gradual or they can be a discontinuous process leading to incremental increases in knowledge or massive jumps respectively depending on the new paradigms adopted. Physics is quite obviously at one of those points that could suddenly make a big leap forward. The tools of the past were inadequate for the questions of today and there has been great strides ahead in technical fields leading to more subtler tools.
Depending on whom you discuss this point with on this forum you will either strike a group of spoilers whose only activity is to enforce their views on others and that view is the kind learned in first year and undergraduate courses. They have never exercised their minds. Alternatively you may find a lot of difference in opinion with the remainder of the people on this forum. If you ask me you will get one answer and if you ask others you will get another answer. This is as it should be and don't let anyone tell you that all "i's" are dotted and "t's" crossed in Physics. There is substantial inconsistency and an lack of interdisciplinary cross referencing going on. You can rest assured that for any foreseeable future what has been discovered is only the tip of an "iceberg" of knowledge. More has been learned in the last ten years than has been learned in nearly the previous 50 years and the rate of increase in this new knowledge is not about to slow or cease (except in the minds of the "Trolls" on this site).
As an opinion on a couple of the points you have put forward... I believe that it is not the case that elementary entities are "both" particle and wave... It is more like they are particle or wave depending on the interactions. Particle interactions can only "reveal" particles while the "interferences" can only produce waves and their effects. They are separate "domains" which are not subject to simultaneous determinations except when the sensor or recorder is able to capture spatial phase. Most sensors are not able to do that so information is lost. There are some exceptions to this rule where it is possible to record these interferences as "patches" within the emulsion of a photographic plate... Of course I am speaking of "Holography" and the Hologram is a paradigm that has many uses and I suggest that it is a way to view the Universe at all levels whose time is about to come. These plates contain both wave and particle attributes for large quantities of photons for instance. They are not recording the individual phases of photons but because the hologram is recording waves as a result of the placement of matter wave sources, provided the matter wave sources remain relatively motionless relative to the coherent source of light, it is possible to record phase overall.
The hologram is the unique situation where the source coherent light waves "illuminate" the quasi-stationary matter wave sources which extend into the surrounding space as standing waves. What is meant by "matter waves" are simply the "de Broglie Matter Waves" and these collectively hybridize in amplitude and phase and reflect the concentration of mass in these cavities as walls and as apertures in walls. Our entire Universe is such a cavity and a box with a hole in it is also a cavity. The result is a pattern of exposure inside the plates which shows these standing waves captured "frozen" in space. Throughout that plate we are viewing the differential absorption of photons into sites where the photon packet is accepted easily and other sites where the packet is rejected due entirely to the matter wave phase. The pattern of standing waves are "solutions" to Schrodinger's Wave Equation for "cavities" (more accurately represented by Dirac's Wave Equation).
There is a way to view this phenomenon that is not conventional but it is entirely correct. Now I realize that many illustrations and web applets show "progressive" waves in space but actually the waves are quasi-stationary and are the long wavelength equivalents of "Bragg Planes" filling all cavity space and at all frequencies (the matter wave spatial interferences). The photons are simply passing through this cavity as an "excitation". The photons themselves are simply spreading through space due to the Inverse Square Law and in other respects are "frozen in time" due to travel at the local speed of light (and Relativistic Time Dilation) and have also undergone the most extreme form of length contraction such that in its frame of reference "everything" has contracted to a single event in the forward direction of time. This is a null geodesic and connects the source with the sink "instantly" in the frame of reference of the photon which sees this as a pure "resonance". In the case of electrons there is little difference other than the limited spreading of the electron wave packet. The electron obeys the same dynamics as the photon but it has a sub-luminal velocity and progressively fills the same cavity in it's frame of reference as if it was a Hilbert Envelope under constraint of the matter wave cavity through which it passes instantaneously.
Here is "food for thought"...
QUOTE (Collective Electrodynamics "Review" by Conrad.Schneiker of Munir F. Bhatti's critique of Carver Mead's Book+)
Collective Electrodynamics — by Carver Mead
http://www.athenalab.com/
Back in the early-mid 1980s, I had the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to repeatedly see Richard Feynman and Carver Mead over the course of several months—both were very down-to-earth but awesome minds. Carver Mead is one of the great technical and entrepreneurial pioneers of VLSI design technology and silicon “neural networks”, among other things. I think Carver’s latest book is a huge (albeit partial) step towards an improved (more realistic) quantum electrodynamics.
Here is one of the Amazon.com reviews “Collective Electrodynamics”, written by Munir F. Bhatti (Los Angeles, CA), with minor {formatting changes, spelling corrections}:
“Despite his preface upbraiding physicists for their work of the past 50–75 years, the main text makes reasonable claims based upon well-founded experimental and theoretical results. The book endorses earlier work of Einstein, Feynman, Riemann, Lorentz, Maxwell, Planck, and others while making computational and conceptual adjustments to accommodate modern experimental results.
Also in the text, Bohr and other die-hard quantum statisticians are continually under attack for their poo-pooing of possible phenomena, algorithms, and concepts behind the observed quantum behavior. Bohr and his clan, apparently, claimed that the statistics made up the whole baseball team of quantum physics—and that we should not, and could not, look further.
In refuting this micro-labotomic approach of Bohr, Dr. Mead makes reference to systems—macroscopic in size—that exhibit quantum behaviors. While he mentions lasers, masers, semiconductors, superconductors, and other systems in the text, the primary results of the book hinge upon experimental results from the field of superconductors. He points out that physics can be split into several areas:
· Classical Mechanics explains un-coherent, uncharged systems such as cannon balls, planets, vehicles, etc.
· Classical Electrodynamics explains un-coherent, charged systems such as conductors, currents, and their fields.
· Thermodynamics explains how macroscopic statistics, such as temperature and entropy, guide the time evolution of systems.
· Modern Quantum Mechanics tries to explain coherent, charged systems.
Here 'coherent' refers to quantum coherency, where many particles/atoms march to the same drum such as the photons in a laser, or the electrons in a superconductor, or any isolated one or two particles. Another description of coherency is that the states are quantum entangled; their time-evolution depends upon each other.
The thrust of Carver's book: QM applies to all matter—not just small systems or isolated particles—is well made. He brings up experimental data from superconductors to illustrate that the phenomenon of coherent quantum entanglement can, and does, occur at macroscopic scales; and that such behavior is very quantum. Thus he proves, quite convincingly, that quantum mechanics applies to all coherent systems.
He then closes by making some very important points.
(1) He shows that quantum behavior of such systems can be expressed in quantum language (wave function), relativistic language (four-vectors), or electrodynamics (vector potential, scalar potential) in an equivalent fashion. This is important, as it proves that a superconductor is macroscopic, exhibits quantum behavior, and that these quantitative results agree with those found from the other approaches.
(2) He makes the point that the quantum and relativistic equations show that electromagnetic phenomena consist of two parts: one traveling forward in time; the other backward in time. Feynman and others have said this for a long time, and he shows how thermodynamics (or un-coherent behavior) forces what we see as only time-evolution in one direction in un-coherent systems.
(3) He illustrates, modeling single atoms as tiny superconducting resonators, that two atoms that are coherently linked will start exchanging energy. This causes an exponential, positive-feedback loop that ends with each atom in a quantum eigenstate. Thus quantum collapse is neither discontinuous, nor instantaneous; and in fact makes a lot of sense.
(4) He explains, using four-vectors, that all points on a light-cone are near each other in four space. This point—together with (2)—shows that there's no causality contradiction between relativity and quantum mechanics. For example, he explains that two entangled particles, such as photons light years apart, can affect each other immediately if one falls into an eigenstate, since the four-dimensional distance between them (R1 dot R2) is zero. Although separated in three space, they're neighbors in four space. Through these demonstrations and proofs, he successfully suggests that there is a way to further develop the 'behavior of charged, coherent systems' such that quantum mechanics and relativity will agree—but the conceptual changes he suggests are necessary and must be further developed. Also, he admits that a better, more appropriate mathematical and computational methods will be needed, since the complexity of coherent systems runs as n^2.
Pleasantly, then, the book makes elegant, defensible, mathematical and conceptual steps to resolve some nagging points of understanding. Also, the narrative gives the best introduction to electrodynamics and quantum mechanics that I've ever seen. Since the theoretical criticisms and experimental data are quite valid, his proposed resolutions are eye-opening and valuable. The methods he suggests greatly simplify thinking about complicated quantum/classical problems. New approaches for future theoretical research are also suggested. Despite the dark tone in the preface, the book is positive, enlightening, and well anchored to accepted, modern experimental results and theoretical work.
It's a short book, about 125 pages, and well worth the read. Familiarity with classical and quantum physics, and special relativity, is required to get the most out of it. As you can tell, I enjoyed it tremendously.”
Cheers
http://www.athenalab.com/
Back in the early-mid 1980s, I had the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to repeatedly see Richard Feynman and Carver Mead over the course of several months—both were very down-to-earth but awesome minds. Carver Mead is one of the great technical and entrepreneurial pioneers of VLSI design technology and silicon “neural networks”, among other things. I think Carver’s latest book is a huge (albeit partial) step towards an improved (more realistic) quantum electrodynamics.
Here is one of the Amazon.com reviews “Collective Electrodynamics”, written by Munir F. Bhatti (Los Angeles, CA), with minor {formatting changes, spelling corrections}:
“Despite his preface upbraiding physicists for their work of the past 50–75 years, the main text makes reasonable claims based upon well-founded experimental and theoretical results. The book endorses earlier work of Einstein, Feynman, Riemann, Lorentz, Maxwell, Planck, and others while making computational and conceptual adjustments to accommodate modern experimental results.
Also in the text, Bohr and other die-hard quantum statisticians are continually under attack for their poo-pooing of possible phenomena, algorithms, and concepts behind the observed quantum behavior. Bohr and his clan, apparently, claimed that the statistics made up the whole baseball team of quantum physics—and that we should not, and could not, look further.
In refuting this micro-labotomic approach of Bohr, Dr. Mead makes reference to systems—macroscopic in size—that exhibit quantum behaviors. While he mentions lasers, masers, semiconductors, superconductors, and other systems in the text, the primary results of the book hinge upon experimental results from the field of superconductors. He points out that physics can be split into several areas:
· Classical Mechanics explains un-coherent, uncharged systems such as cannon balls, planets, vehicles, etc.
· Classical Electrodynamics explains un-coherent, charged systems such as conductors, currents, and their fields.
· Thermodynamics explains how macroscopic statistics, such as temperature and entropy, guide the time evolution of systems.
· Modern Quantum Mechanics tries to explain coherent, charged systems.
Here 'coherent' refers to quantum coherency, where many particles/atoms march to the same drum such as the photons in a laser, or the electrons in a superconductor, or any isolated one or two particles. Another description of coherency is that the states are quantum entangled; their time-evolution depends upon each other.
The thrust of Carver's book: QM applies to all matter—not just small systems or isolated particles—is well made. He brings up experimental data from superconductors to illustrate that the phenomenon of coherent quantum entanglement can, and does, occur at macroscopic scales; and that such behavior is very quantum. Thus he proves, quite convincingly, that quantum mechanics applies to all coherent systems.
He then closes by making some very important points.
(1) He shows that quantum behavior of such systems can be expressed in quantum language (wave function), relativistic language (four-vectors), or electrodynamics (vector potential, scalar potential) in an equivalent fashion. This is important, as it proves that a superconductor is macroscopic, exhibits quantum behavior, and that these quantitative results agree with those found from the other approaches.
(2) He makes the point that the quantum and relativistic equations show that electromagnetic phenomena consist of two parts: one traveling forward in time; the other backward in time. Feynman and others have said this for a long time, and he shows how thermodynamics (or un-coherent behavior) forces what we see as only time-evolution in one direction in un-coherent systems.
(3) He illustrates, modeling single atoms as tiny superconducting resonators, that two atoms that are coherently linked will start exchanging energy. This causes an exponential, positive-feedback loop that ends with each atom in a quantum eigenstate. Thus quantum collapse is neither discontinuous, nor instantaneous; and in fact makes a lot of sense.
(4) He explains, using four-vectors, that all points on a light-cone are near each other in four space. This point—together with (2)—shows that there's no causality contradiction between relativity and quantum mechanics. For example, he explains that two entangled particles, such as photons light years apart, can affect each other immediately if one falls into an eigenstate, since the four-dimensional distance between them (R1 dot R2) is zero. Although separated in three space, they're neighbors in four space. Through these demonstrations and proofs, he successfully suggests that there is a way to further develop the 'behavior of charged, coherent systems' such that quantum mechanics and relativity will agree—but the conceptual changes he suggests are necessary and must be further developed. Also, he admits that a better, more appropriate mathematical and computational methods will be needed, since the complexity of coherent systems runs as n^2.
Pleasantly, then, the book makes elegant, defensible, mathematical and conceptual steps to resolve some nagging points of understanding. Also, the narrative gives the best introduction to electrodynamics and quantum mechanics that I've ever seen. Since the theoretical criticisms and experimental data are quite valid, his proposed resolutions are eye-opening and valuable. The methods he suggests greatly simplify thinking about complicated quantum/classical problems. New approaches for future theoretical research are also suggested. Despite the dark tone in the preface, the book is positive, enlightening, and well anchored to accepted, modern experimental results and theoretical work.
It's a short book, about 125 pages, and well worth the read. Familiarity with classical and quantum physics, and special relativity, is required to get the most out of it. As you can tell, I enjoyed it tremendously.”
Cheers
Good Elf, all,
Amazed continually at how many have detail explanations, it is the best way to be clear with your idea it you have the time.
Have you ever checked into what John A. Wheeler had to say about the double slit experiment dealing with delayed choice which included the splitter? I believe you would find it of interest now I must return to what I doing.
Check back if I do not cause anymore problems with 4Dguy and Dallas?
dawn
Amazed continually at how many have detail explanations, it is the best way to be clear with your idea it you have the time.
Have you ever checked into what John A. Wheeler had to say about the double slit experiment dealing with delayed choice which included the splitter? I believe you would find it of interest now I must return to what I doing.
Check back if I do not cause anymore problems with 4Dguy and Dallas?
dawn
Hi, May I have a request? I guess everyone knows about cathode tube. Can someone do few simple experiments for me?
In cathode tube, the bending of electrons incident beam is acchieved by the electric deflector or electric field.
If the electrons incident beam is changed to light beam, will the light beam be deflected?
If this experiment shows that electrons incident beam possible but light beam not possible, can we first conclude that electrons do not travel as light?
Atoms consist of positive charges which similar to the deflector, therefore, when electrons incident beam passes through the slit, the beam will be deflected.
Then, we can proceed to the second experiment on the same set up. When the electrons incident beam is bent by the deflector or the electric field, will it emit EM wave? Yes, it is. Then if we exert a magnetic field perpendicular to the electric field to make the electrons incident beam deflect the opposite direction, where the electrons incident beam do not change the travel direction, will the electrons incident beam produces EM wave? If it does not, can we conclude that when the magnetic and electric forces are balanced, electrons incident beam do not produce EM wave?
Third, if we make the electric deflector into a rod or circular instead of plate and the magnetic deflector is perpendicular to the electric deflector. Something like a mangetic field 'cake' with an electric 'candle' in the center. Will the electrons incident beam circulates around the 'candle' perpetually? provided that the apparatus is fully vacuum, no other external strong M&E field and the velocity of the electrons is matches to the strength of the M&E field.
If these experiments produce positive results? We may conclude that the electrons circulate in an atom in this way, the particle-model way, not the wave-model way.
Interesting!! Thank you.
Regards,
KokHaw
In cathode tube, the bending of electrons incident beam is acchieved by the electric deflector or electric field.
If the electrons incident beam is changed to light beam, will the light beam be deflected?
If this experiment shows that electrons incident beam possible but light beam not possible, can we first conclude that electrons do not travel as light?
Atoms consist of positive charges which similar to the deflector, therefore, when electrons incident beam passes through the slit, the beam will be deflected.
Then, we can proceed to the second experiment on the same set up. When the electrons incident beam is bent by the deflector or the electric field, will it emit EM wave? Yes, it is. Then if we exert a magnetic field perpendicular to the electric field to make the electrons incident beam deflect the opposite direction, where the electrons incident beam do not change the travel direction, will the electrons incident beam produces EM wave? If it does not, can we conclude that when the magnetic and electric forces are balanced, electrons incident beam do not produce EM wave?
Third, if we make the electric deflector into a rod or circular instead of plate and the magnetic deflector is perpendicular to the electric deflector. Something like a mangetic field 'cake' with an electric 'candle' in the center. Will the electrons incident beam circulates around the 'candle' perpetually? provided that the apparatus is fully vacuum, no other external strong M&E field and the velocity of the electrons is matches to the strength of the M&E field.
If these experiments produce positive results? We may conclude that the electrons circulate in an atom in this way, the particle-model way, not the wave-model way.
Interesting!! Thank you.
Regards,
KokHaw
QUOTE (kokhaw+Dec 23 2007, 02:57 AM)
Hi, May I have a request? I guess everyone knows about cathode tube. Can someone do few simple experiments for me?
In cathode tube, the bending of electrons incident beam is acchieved by the electric deflector or electric field.
If the electrons incident beam is changed to light beam, will the light beam be deflected?
If this experiment shows that electrons incident beam possible but light beam not possible, can we first conclude that electrons do not travel as light?
Atoms consist of positive charges which similar to the deflector, therefore, when electrons incident beam passes through the slit, the beam will be deflected.
Then, we can proceed to the second experiment on the same set up. When the electrons incident beam is bent by the deflector or the electric field, will it emit EM wave? Yes, it is. Then if we exert a magnetic field perpendicular to the electric field to make the electrons incident beam deflect the opposite direction, where the electrons incident beam do not change the travel direction, will the electrons incident beam produces EM wave? If it does not, can we conclude that when the magnetic and electric forces are balanced, electrons incident beam do not produce EM wave?
Third, if we make the electric deflector into a rod or circular instead of plate and the magnetic deflector is perpendicular to the electric deflector. Something like a mangetic field 'cake' with an electric 'candle' in the center. Will the electrons incident beam circulates around the 'candle' perpetually? provided that the apparatus is fully vacuum, no other external strong M&E field and the velocity of the electrons is matches to the strength of the M&E field.
If these experiments produce positive results? We may conclude that the electrons circulate in an atom in this way, the particle-model way, not the wave-model way.
Interesting!! Thank you.
Regards,
KokHaw
Interesting.
In cathode tube, the bending of electrons incident beam is acchieved by the electric deflector or electric field.
If the electrons incident beam is changed to light beam, will the light beam be deflected?
If this experiment shows that electrons incident beam possible but light beam not possible, can we first conclude that electrons do not travel as light?
Atoms consist of positive charges which similar to the deflector, therefore, when electrons incident beam passes through the slit, the beam will be deflected.
Then, we can proceed to the second experiment on the same set up. When the electrons incident beam is bent by the deflector or the electric field, will it emit EM wave? Yes, it is. Then if we exert a magnetic field perpendicular to the electric field to make the electrons incident beam deflect the opposite direction, where the electrons incident beam do not change the travel direction, will the electrons incident beam produces EM wave? If it does not, can we conclude that when the magnetic and electric forces are balanced, electrons incident beam do not produce EM wave?
Third, if we make the electric deflector into a rod or circular instead of plate and the magnetic deflector is perpendicular to the electric deflector. Something like a mangetic field 'cake' with an electric 'candle' in the center. Will the electrons incident beam circulates around the 'candle' perpetually? provided that the apparatus is fully vacuum, no other external strong M&E field and the velocity of the electrons is matches to the strength of the M&E field.
If these experiments produce positive results? We may conclude that the electrons circulate in an atom in this way, the particle-model way, not the wave-model way.
Interesting!! Thank you.
Regards,
KokHaw
Interesting.
Hi dawn, Neil Farbstein, kokhaw et al,
QUOTE (dawn+)
Have you ever checked into what John A. Wheeler had to say about the double slit experiment dealing with delayed choice which included the splitter? I believe you would find it of interest now I must return to what I doing.
Yes this was one of the original reasons for the starting of this thread and the main reason for my sticking with it. The subtitle of this thread is "observing later". This was a direct reference to the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. Previous to this thread I was answering many of the same questions on other threads...
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism"
Particles have mass, HOW?, Higgs or ?
The altering of time
I am also interested in Special Relativity and its explanation.
I have coincidently today answered another question utilizing just such an answer using the Wheeler-Feynman Interpretation of quantum events.
Bringing Back Schrodinger's Cat To Life!
The double slit and all quantum processes should not be interpreted as linear progressing wavelike photons but more like resonant bi-location of the photon at both the source and the sink. This is because the photon which is "apparently" moving at the speed of light is not progressing in time. This is the only case of a phenomenom that is not being "afflicted" by the passage of time because it is a quanta. Observers of optical phenomena who are indeed progressing in time measure events related to light from a non-inertial frame with regard to time and to space. The phenomena are all subject to time dilation and length contraction. These effects are not as obvious as you may think. A theory that JA Wheeler himself introduced called Geometrodynamics attempts to reduce all "matter", space and time to pure geometry and photons constrained to move in limited dimensional environments as particles. String Theories are also attempting to do the same...
... Click to enlarge...
This indicates all the sub-atomic particles of hte Standard Model represented as photons subjected to boosts and spins with respect ot "mirrors"... the mirrors being ligntcone walls. This excerpt is taken from P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach.
Thus we can have two separate ways to view the photon (in it's own spreading "flatspace" or from the outside of that dimensionally closed flatspace which is seen as "particles" ... regions of highly curved spacetime ... de Broglie Matter Waves. These two entities have a common origin but they occupy two different kinds of space ... symultaneously... The first is a "flatspace" and the second is a sub-atomic particle space where the photon is "constrained spatially as a resonant phenomena... standing waves.
Recaputulating... Photons can be viewed by observers from two kinds of "perspective"...
1. As the simple ISL expanding and spreading packet in a largely flat or negatively curved spacetime and spreading in an observer time at the speed of light.
2. As a spatially confined light speed photon packet entirely within a highly curved spacetime ... like a fermion. The photon is then "circulating" as a standing wave within a lightcone envelope exhibiting frequency from the standpoint of an external observer.
The former "boson packet" has no mass and is continually apparently undergoing Inverse Square Law (ISL) spreading and the latter "fermion packet" exhibits mass according to my extension of this theory and does not undergo spreading because they are solutions to a cavity oscillation problem and is confined to a cavity since from an external observer point of view these form compact "bubble dimensional spaces" defined by the "internal" Lagrangian. The propagation of massless electromagnetic packets (photons) on the inner negatively curved walls of a "boson" (constrained by the lightcone walls) being reciprocally related to the "outside" of the same lightcone walls as a "fermion" and exhibiting the positive curvature as mass externally. The former space related to the latter space being reciprocal and related by being at one and the same instance being "observed" from within a negative and positive curvatures of spacetime respectively.
Another point of note is that reciprocal space and conventional space depends on which phenomenon you are about to measure. These two spaces share our four dimensional spacetime. Electromagnetism propagates along the inside "hypersurface" of "our Universe" as inside of a cavity while "mass" and mutual Gravatation between particles (which possess mass) propagates through the "exterior" space of particles as de Broglie Matter waves. These two spaces are cohabiting. We usually reference our Universe through the position of "matter" which as I have said are the external geometry of certain lightcone boundaries while photons are moving in several ways through a series of internal cavities ... the primary one is the Universe itself and then through smaller and smaller cavities as they are "localized" by matter wave boundaries in space. They are then moving in a local reciprocal space sharing both characteristics simultaneously as well as some of our "confused" measurements.
This entire collective phenomenon of electromagnetism and of matter have separate particle and wave descriptions in the time domain and in the frequency domain. They are describable through Fourier Theory and Fourier theory is the underlying connection between the conjugate properties attempting to be measured when we deal with moving from the outside of a closed dimensional space to the inside of a closed dimensional space. Richard Feynman in his famous lecture on Quantum Electrodynamics admitted to his audience that what we are seeing in these "waves"... as he put it the "thing that rotates the amplitudes" of the "apparently moving photon" is not a property of the light itself as it moves since the photon probably never goes to many of the places the "seeing all paths" behavior of the wave appears to exhibit, it is a stationary property of the space caused bu the position of all the matter in the Universe. On cleaver experiment that shows this most convincingly is the placement of two parallel transparent surfaces a short distance apart (upper and lower boundary of glass for instance) where the distance can be chosen such that for a source at some fixed angle of incidence to the first surface and a photomultiplier at some equal angle of reflection to the same surface can be made to read no counts at all. This is because the the "thing that is rotating it way through space" (he hesitates to call this "phase") can be arranged to cancel at the photomultiplier where the two possible paths coincide. You would then think that was the end of the story since light is known to move along the shortest distance between two points... So the light if any would pass from source to sink via the shortest path and can be timed if you wish. You would expect that the photon that returns to the detector never really penetrates the first surface because of this phenomenon. He was at pains to show that a third surface possibly many kilometers away aligned just right will instantly turn this reflection back on again.... the photon once again "reflects" off the front surface. The time of travel is not related to the distance to the third surface but to the path of least action... from the front surface. This "proves"... at least to Feynman... that this timing is telling us that the movement of light has nothing to do with this "turning property" which is in the space itself ... the resultant being the summation of all possible ways. This light path property has been proven by experiment over several meters and is no way diminished by distance... though the amplitude of the "property" certainly does diminish with distance. This phenomenon shows that space is filled with de Broglie Matter Waves and these "force" photons to move through the space influenced by Matter Wave interferences even from great distances. QED is his theory though his interpretation is not the most "favored"... one wonders why? Feynman then states in the lecture that the emission of the photon and it's absorption is a resonance in space.
This fact connected with the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory clinches the manner in which space and spacetime is connected. I do not know why Feynman has never made the connection himself as a single principle and seems to advocate the "shutup and calculate" paradigm where this phenomenon is not understood as a physical mechanism. I suspect that his QED theory needed to be made acceptable to his "peers". Too much physics involve waves and photons actually moving from source to sink as "particles" to toss it out the window. Too many illustrations show photons being "shot" like BB's at slits to suggest that the cavity is a resonance and that a "BB" is not actually exploring all paths but is sensing the matter phase "hanging in space". There would be a complete roar from much of the science community to accept this radical picture of the way space (and even time) really works.
The coworkers on the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory where (and still are) great men. Another man who interacted with Feynman as a coworker is Carver Mead. He also supports a resonant theory of space in which particles like electrons "fill space" effectively creating resonant cavities in which the particles are dispersed. Because of "mass" this effect is actually an effect that goes clear out to "infinity" or at least to the boundary of our Universe filling it with the "thing that rotates the amplitudes". These properties hybridize and form the "empty space of our Universe" while the "chunky bits" are regions of high electromagnetic localization "in cavities".
It is my suggestion that these points be investigated much more adequately by an open minded elite of physics to determine these "wonders" that are invisible to us in space. Though you can see them adequately by just placing a thick photographic emulsion in a strategically placed position and expose it to a diverged source of coherent light from a single "point source" and then investigate the developed plate to see these stationary artifacts as standing waves in the emulsion. The light is just adding the quanta of energy to the "sites" which are showing de Broglie Matter Waves.
You will find more here on this thread and other material on the other threads above over the years now that support these issues. Actually I have corresponded on many threads as many will testify and all of this has been a slowly evolving "journey" for me and it is comforting to see that other great minds agree with my interpretation in part and when you add up the parts there is a complete whole that is a unified theory to explain not just the electromagnetism but the matter waves as well.
On a more seasonal note... click to enlarge...
Cheers from Santa's Workshop from one of the "seasonal workers".
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism"
Particles have mass, HOW?, Higgs or ?
The altering of time
I am also interested in Special Relativity and its explanation.
I have coincidently today answered another question utilizing just such an answer using the Wheeler-Feynman Interpretation of quantum events.
Bringing Back Schrodinger's Cat To Life!
The double slit and all quantum processes should not be interpreted as linear progressing wavelike photons but more like resonant bi-location of the photon at both the source and the sink. This is because the photon which is "apparently" moving at the speed of light is not progressing in time. This is the only case of a phenomenom that is not being "afflicted" by the passage of time because it is a quanta. Observers of optical phenomena who are indeed progressing in time measure events related to light from a non-inertial frame with regard to time and to space. The phenomena are all subject to time dilation and length contraction. These effects are not as obvious as you may think. A theory that JA Wheeler himself introduced called Geometrodynamics attempts to reduce all "matter", space and time to pure geometry and photons constrained to move in limited dimensional environments as particles. String Theories are also attempting to do the same...
... Click to enlarge...
This indicates all the sub-atomic particles of hte Standard Model represented as photons subjected to boosts and spins with respect ot "mirrors"... the mirrors being ligntcone walls. This excerpt is taken from P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach.
Thus we can have two separate ways to view the photon (in it's own spreading "flatspace" or from the outside of that dimensionally closed flatspace which is seen as "particles" ... regions of highly curved spacetime ... de Broglie Matter Waves. These two entities have a common origin but they occupy two different kinds of space ... symultaneously... The first is a "flatspace" and the second is a sub-atomic particle space where the photon is "constrained spatially as a resonant phenomena... standing waves.
Recaputulating... Photons can be viewed by observers from two kinds of "perspective"...
1. As the simple ISL expanding and spreading packet in a largely flat or negatively curved spacetime and spreading in an observer time at the speed of light.
2. As a spatially confined light speed photon packet entirely within a highly curved spacetime ... like a fermion. The photon is then "circulating" as a standing wave within a lightcone envelope exhibiting frequency from the standpoint of an external observer.
The former "boson packet" has no mass and is continually apparently undergoing Inverse Square Law (ISL) spreading and the latter "fermion packet" exhibits mass according to my extension of this theory and does not undergo spreading because they are solutions to a cavity oscillation problem and is confined to a cavity since from an external observer point of view these form compact "bubble dimensional spaces" defined by the "internal" Lagrangian. The propagation of massless electromagnetic packets (photons) on the inner negatively curved walls of a "boson" (constrained by the lightcone walls) being reciprocally related to the "outside" of the same lightcone walls as a "fermion" and exhibiting the positive curvature as mass externally. The former space related to the latter space being reciprocal and related by being at one and the same instance being "observed" from within a negative and positive curvatures of spacetime respectively.
Another point of note is that reciprocal space and conventional space depends on which phenomenon you are about to measure. These two spaces share our four dimensional spacetime. Electromagnetism propagates along the inside "hypersurface" of "our Universe" as inside of a cavity while "mass" and mutual Gravatation between particles (which possess mass) propagates through the "exterior" space of particles as de Broglie Matter waves. These two spaces are cohabiting. We usually reference our Universe through the position of "matter" which as I have said are the external geometry of certain lightcone boundaries while photons are moving in several ways through a series of internal cavities ... the primary one is the Universe itself and then through smaller and smaller cavities as they are "localized" by matter wave boundaries in space. They are then moving in a local reciprocal space sharing both characteristics simultaneously as well as some of our "confused" measurements.
This entire collective phenomenon of electromagnetism and of matter have separate particle and wave descriptions in the time domain and in the frequency domain. They are describable through Fourier Theory and Fourier theory is the underlying connection between the conjugate properties attempting to be measured when we deal with moving from the outside of a closed dimensional space to the inside of a closed dimensional space. Richard Feynman in his famous lecture on Quantum Electrodynamics admitted to his audience that what we are seeing in these "waves"... as he put it the "thing that rotates the amplitudes" of the "apparently moving photon" is not a property of the light itself as it moves since the photon probably never goes to many of the places the "seeing all paths" behavior of the wave appears to exhibit, it is a stationary property of the space caused bu the position of all the matter in the Universe. On cleaver experiment that shows this most convincingly is the placement of two parallel transparent surfaces a short distance apart (upper and lower boundary of glass for instance) where the distance can be chosen such that for a source at some fixed angle of incidence to the first surface and a photomultiplier at some equal angle of reflection to the same surface can be made to read no counts at all. This is because the the "thing that is rotating it way through space" (he hesitates to call this "phase") can be arranged to cancel at the photomultiplier where the two possible paths coincide. You would then think that was the end of the story since light is known to move along the shortest distance between two points... So the light if any would pass from source to sink via the shortest path and can be timed if you wish. You would expect that the photon that returns to the detector never really penetrates the first surface because of this phenomenon. He was at pains to show that a third surface possibly many kilometers away aligned just right will instantly turn this reflection back on again.... the photon once again "reflects" off the front surface. The time of travel is not related to the distance to the third surface but to the path of least action... from the front surface. This "proves"... at least to Feynman... that this timing is telling us that the movement of light has nothing to do with this "turning property" which is in the space itself ... the resultant being the summation of all possible ways. This light path property has been proven by experiment over several meters and is no way diminished by distance... though the amplitude of the "property" certainly does diminish with distance. This phenomenon shows that space is filled with de Broglie Matter Waves and these "force" photons to move through the space influenced by Matter Wave interferences even from great distances. QED is his theory though his interpretation is not the most "favored"... one wonders why? Feynman then states in the lecture that the emission of the photon and it's absorption is a resonance in space.
This fact connected with the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory clinches the manner in which space and spacetime is connected. I do not know why Feynman has never made the connection himself as a single principle and seems to advocate the "shutup and calculate" paradigm where this phenomenon is not understood as a physical mechanism. I suspect that his QED theory needed to be made acceptable to his "peers". Too much physics involve waves and photons actually moving from source to sink as "particles" to toss it out the window. Too many illustrations show photons being "shot" like BB's at slits to suggest that the cavity is a resonance and that a "BB" is not actually exploring all paths but is sensing the matter phase "hanging in space". There would be a complete roar from much of the science community to accept this radical picture of the way space (and even time) really works.
The coworkers on the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory where (and still are) great men. Another man who interacted with Feynman as a coworker is Carver Mead. He also supports a resonant theory of space in which particles like electrons "fill space" effectively creating resonant cavities in which the particles are dispersed. Because of "mass" this effect is actually an effect that goes clear out to "infinity" or at least to the boundary of our Universe filling it with the "thing that rotates the amplitudes". These properties hybridize and form the "empty space of our Universe" while the "chunky bits" are regions of high electromagnetic localization "in cavities".
It is my suggestion that these points be investigated much more adequately by an open minded elite of physics to determine these "wonders" that are invisible to us in space. Though you can see them adequately by just placing a thick photographic emulsion in a strategically placed position and expose it to a diverged source of coherent light from a single "point source" and then investigate the developed plate to see these stationary artifacts as standing waves in the emulsion. The light is just adding the quanta of energy to the "sites" which are showing de Broglie Matter Waves.
You will find more here on this thread and other material on the other threads above over the years now that support these issues. Actually I have corresponded on many threads as many will testify and all of this has been a slowly evolving "journey" for me and it is comforting to see that other great minds agree with my interpretation in part and when you add up the parts there is a complete whole that is a unified theory to explain not just the electromagnetism but the matter waves as well.
On a more seasonal note... click to enlarge...
Cheers from Santa's Workshop from one of the "seasonal workers".
Hi kokhaw, dawn, Neil Farbstein et al,
I am going to try and keep the answers "simple" and without the detail that might fill several book... I am also interpreting what you are saying and it may be incorrect...
I am going to try and keep the answers "simple" and without the detail that might fill several book... I am also interpreting what you are saying and it may be incorrect...
QUOTE (kokhaw+)
In cathode tube, the bending of electrons incident beam is achieved by the electric deflector or electric field. If the electrons incident beam is changed to light beam, will the light beam be deflected?
Forget the cathode tube.. Yes... Look at the DC Kerr Effect. You will not be able to see it if you use a "cathode tube", it is a much subtler effect.
Wikipedia: Kerr Effect
Wikipedia: Kerr Effect
QUOTE (kokhaw+)
If this experiment shows that electrons incident beam possible but light beam not possible, can we first conclude that electrons do not travel as light?
Electrons are not light... electrons are fermions (... they are discrete particles engaging in space quantization and obeying Fermi-Dirac Statistics) and light are composed of bosons (...all with the same quantum state and obeying Bose-Einstein Statistics)... Therefore electrons do not "travel as light". The internal photons (apparently always moving at the speed of light) in the fermion electron is traveling in a reciprocal space so the faster the external velocity of the electron the higher the frequency the "particle" is going to exhibit. This "external" matter wave frequency is a "quasi-standing wave" not a progressive wave (due to Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory). The "retarded" phases are mixing with the unseen "advanced" waves coming from the future to produce truly stationary wavelets associated with the matter source.
Think of a cork bobbing on the surface of water with a simple fixed harmonic motion... the faster it is transported through the water the longer the apparent external wavelength appears. This is not what happens with de Broglie Matter Waves... the faster the particle is transported through the vacuum the higher is the frequency and the shorter the wavelength... this is a reciprocal relationship where the internal light velocity of the photon is converted into a frequency in a reciprocal space and lengths in reciprocal space are converted into reciprocal lengths. The difference is this reciprocal apparent motion of the internal photon is not "seen" but is hidden in the reciprocal space in the same way that light through a lens hides the spatial image executing in time as reciprocal frequencies. A simple "optical machine" can illustrate this effect in a truly simplified manner using a transparency as the input plane and a diverged and parallel laser as a source of illumination. It is an analog of the way space and our Universe works on different scales.
... Click to enlarge..
This is an Optical Fourier Processor ... the parallel of the same digital process used by spies to enhance images ... only this can be done with a small laser pointer and a few optical elements... the simplest of optical devices using natural Fourier processing. You have seen the way they teach optics in schools using rays... this is a complete fiction and the paradigm of "rays" cannot show how light really operates. A lens (or a pinhole or slit) converts spatial distances and relationships into frequencies (reciprocal time) and reciprocal space. Yet the phenomenon can be related to our space since it shares four common dimensions with us. The reciprocal plane in this device is not "magic" but it does contain a lot more complex plane information than taught in schools. The action of lenses is a very interesting device and processing of everything in nature is through some kind of "lens" or "optical processing" that depends on all frequencies from zero to infinity. A single laser "samples" only one single frequency aspect of this complex holographic pattern.
Think of a cork bobbing on the surface of water with a simple fixed harmonic motion... the faster it is transported through the water the longer the apparent external wavelength appears. This is not what happens with de Broglie Matter Waves... the faster the particle is transported through the vacuum the higher is the frequency and the shorter the wavelength... this is a reciprocal relationship where the internal light velocity of the photon is converted into a frequency in a reciprocal space and lengths in reciprocal space are converted into reciprocal lengths. The difference is this reciprocal apparent motion of the internal photon is not "seen" but is hidden in the reciprocal space in the same way that light through a lens hides the spatial image executing in time as reciprocal frequencies. A simple "optical machine" can illustrate this effect in a truly simplified manner using a transparency as the input plane and a diverged and parallel laser as a source of illumination. It is an analog of the way space and our Universe works on different scales.
... Click to enlarge..
This is an Optical Fourier Processor ... the parallel of the same digital process used by spies to enhance images ... only this can be done with a small laser pointer and a few optical elements... the simplest of optical devices using natural Fourier processing. You have seen the way they teach optics in schools using rays... this is a complete fiction and the paradigm of "rays" cannot show how light really operates. A lens (or a pinhole or slit) converts spatial distances and relationships into frequencies (reciprocal time) and reciprocal space. Yet the phenomenon can be related to our space since it shares four common dimensions with us. The reciprocal plane in this device is not "magic" but it does contain a lot more complex plane information than taught in schools. The action of lenses is a very interesting device and processing of everything in nature is through some kind of "lens" or "optical processing" that depends on all frequencies from zero to infinity. A single laser "samples" only one single frequency aspect of this complex holographic pattern.
QUOTE (kokhaw+)
Atoms consist of positive charges which similar to the deflector, therefore, when electrons incident beam passes through the slit, the beam will be deflected.
No... Atoms are neutral and are "coated" with electrons which are negative. The wavelength of the electron will determine the "range" at which interaction occurs and this is far above the atomic "size" for any reasonable velocity where the interference effects are responsible.
QUOTE (kokhaw+)
Then, we can proceed to the second experiment on the same set up. When the electrons incident beam is bent by the deflector or the electric field, will it emit EM wave? Yes, it is. Then if we exert a magnetic field perpendicular to the electric field to make the electrons incident beam deflect the opposite direction, where the electrons incident beam do not change the travel direction, will the electrons incident beam produces EM wave? If it does not, can we conclude that when the magnetic and electric forces are balanced, electrons incident beam do not produce EM wave?
If you mean a double slit or single slit diffraction experiment (is this what you mean?)You have made some conclusions that may not apply, diffraction is not the result of electric charges affecting electrons or photons. The same experiment can be performed with lamp black on a slide or as slits in metal or as light diffracting around a single human hair... it makes no difference.
QUOTE (kokhaw+)
Third, if we make the electric deflector into a rod or circular instead of plate and the magnetic deflector is perpendicular to the electric deflector. Something like a magnetic field 'cake' with an electric 'candle' in the center. Will the electrons incident beam circulates around the 'candle' perpetually? provided that the apparatus is fully vacuum, no other external strong M&E field and the velocity of the electrons is matches to the strength of the M&E field.
This seems to be alluding to the Right Hand Rule...
Right-hand rule
Actually only one of the right hand rules applies... dreadful and confusing arguments everywhere...
The relationship between the "force" to the field and the current.... is to take the thumb and the next two fingers and arrange them at right angles to each other such that they are all "orthogonal". Believe me this can be done in only one way... then the relationship between these three fingers is the same as the directions of the magnetic force, the field and the electric current for a Poynting Vector.
I am afraid they won't... the arrangement will continually dissipate energy... High Energy Electron beams which are "deflected" emit radiation as Chrenkov Light. This dissipates energy as an almost continuous spectrum of "white light". I think you are describing a "betatron"?
What happens if based on what happens to the first screen, you add or remove the detector from the second?
Right-hand rule
Actually only one of the right hand rules applies... dreadful and confusing arguments everywhere...
The relationship between the "force" to the field and the current.... is to take the thumb and the next two fingers and arrange them at right angles to each other such that they are all "orthogonal". Believe me this can be done in only one way... then the relationship between these three fingers is the same as the directions of the magnetic force, the field and the electric current for a Poynting Vector.
I am afraid they won't... the arrangement will continually dissipate energy... High Energy Electron beams which are "deflected" emit radiation as Chrenkov Light. This dissipates energy as an almost continuous spectrum of "white light". I think you are describing a "betatron"?
QUOTE (kokhaw+)
If these experiments produce positive results? We may conclude that the electrons circulate in an atom in this way, the particle-model way, not the wave-model way.
Sorry it will not "produce positive results"... in either particle or wave theory ... No go! The electrons in atoms would "spiral into the nucleus"... this does not happen so we can conclude this is not the mechanism.
I would also like to comment on the experimental premise which are not the one used for atoms and they are not at the same scale or strength such as the Kerr Effect.
In order for a quantum event to occur (so called orbits in atoms or tunneling through barriers or the emission and "resonant" absorption of photons) then you need a quantum state. Electrons don't "move" in orbits nor do photons "travel" they resonate. Assuming you are trying to remove the concept of a quantum state from the atomic orbital theory of Bohr then this just does not work. Even Bohr's Theory just does not work either. It is actually neither a particle nor a wave and it is resonance and emergent phenomena in which the emission and absorption occur "simultaneously" in the rest frame of the photon but from other non-inertial frames we see the two events separate and connected by "waves".... in actuality we see nothing of waves either this is the phenomenon we interpret from sampling the space with "event sampling". This is because quanta cannot be "partially" observed without at least "partially" collapsing the state. It is a delicate operation to not collapse the state. In terms of observables we have a photon emitted and absorbed from source to sink as a single "instant" operation in the frame of the photon but a distributed phenomenon in time to observers like us. This distributed phenomena is due to de Broglie Matter Waves already existing in space and the photon obeys the rule of shortest time from source to the sink yet still accounts for the interferences in the rest of our entire Universe. These we are not able to actually see with our instruments with any high degree of accuracy yet they are clearly visible as phenomena in X-Rays (high frequency electromagnetic radiation) through Bragg Planes but this same "influence" must exist into much subtler zones of "matter" into regions we think of as empty space... In fact the de Broglie Matter Waves effectively "fills" empty space as "mass" and it's influence extends "out to infinity" such that an individual atom on the Earth has some small influence on the motion of the distant planets and beyond through its extended state as an infinite sequence of hybridized wave phenomena that have influence at all wavelengths and frequencies. The overall particle influence is the shape of a multidimensional impulse function... the higher dimensional equivalent of the sinc function. This retains the property that mass is concentrated near the origin but some small influence extends to infinity as a pseudo-scalar effect.
... Click to enlarge...
Questions and further subtle points are accepted... I will answer all of them with the results of past experiment and not with "conjecture". It is difficult to connect the ideas of light propagation using the concepts that we have learned over a lifetime. Because they are wrong it is hard to describe them in any other terms than those that were used previously to describe them since it is necessary to connect with former ideas and "correct them". I would emphasize that knowing the mechanism behind propagation does not change the results of calculations in Quantum Electrodynamics but it leads to things that are not described in Quantum Electrodynamics... That is why we need to expand the concept. It is clear to me that we need to have more dimensions to have a full theory.
Cheers
I would also like to comment on the experimental premise which are not the one used for atoms and they are not at the same scale or strength such as the Kerr Effect.
In order for a quantum event to occur (so called orbits in atoms or tunneling through barriers or the emission and "resonant" absorption of photons) then you need a quantum state. Electrons don't "move" in orbits nor do photons "travel" they resonate. Assuming you are trying to remove the concept of a quantum state from the atomic orbital theory of Bohr then this just does not work. Even Bohr's Theory just does not work either. It is actually neither a particle nor a wave and it is resonance and emergent phenomena in which the emission and absorption occur "simultaneously" in the rest frame of the photon but from other non-inertial frames we see the two events separate and connected by "waves".... in actuality we see nothing of waves either this is the phenomenon we interpret from sampling the space with "event sampling". This is because quanta cannot be "partially" observed without at least "partially" collapsing the state. It is a delicate operation to not collapse the state. In terms of observables we have a photon emitted and absorbed from source to sink as a single "instant" operation in the frame of the photon but a distributed phenomenon in time to observers like us. This distributed phenomena is due to de Broglie Matter Waves already existing in space and the photon obeys the rule of shortest time from source to the sink yet still accounts for the interferences in the rest of our entire Universe. These we are not able to actually see with our instruments with any high degree of accuracy yet they are clearly visible as phenomena in X-Rays (high frequency electromagnetic radiation) through Bragg Planes but this same "influence" must exist into much subtler zones of "matter" into regions we think of as empty space... In fact the de Broglie Matter Waves effectively "fills" empty space as "mass" and it's influence extends "out to infinity" such that an individual atom on the Earth has some small influence on the motion of the distant planets and beyond through its extended state as an infinite sequence of hybridized wave phenomena that have influence at all wavelengths and frequencies. The overall particle influence is the shape of a multidimensional impulse function... the higher dimensional equivalent of the sinc function. This retains the property that mass is concentrated near the origin but some small influence extends to infinity as a pseudo-scalar effect.
... Click to enlarge...
Questions and further subtle points are accepted... I will answer all of them with the results of past experiment and not with "conjecture". It is difficult to connect the ideas of light propagation using the concepts that we have learned over a lifetime. Because they are wrong it is hard to describe them in any other terms than those that were used previously to describe them since it is necessary to connect with former ideas and "correct them". I would emphasize that knowing the mechanism behind propagation does not change the results of calculations in Quantum Electrodynamics but it leads to things that are not described in Quantum Electrodynamics... That is why we need to expand the concept. It is clear to me that we need to have more dimensions to have a full theory.
Cheers
QUOTE
An even more remarkable experiment is
the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
Now this can be performed by photons but the result will be the same as when using electrons except the slits would need to be very much closer to notice diffraction. Here we see as noted in our time frame an event that has occurred long after the "destruction" of a photon affects the result of the "destroyed" photon being part of a diffraction pattern or not. Using entangled pairs of "matched" photons if the slit one of the entangled photons passed through is known, it's "twin" will "de-cohere" and form part of an "ensemble" of photons that contain no interference pattern. This "test" can occur long after the original photon impacted on the screen. From an observer point of view this means that an "event" that happens later in "history" can affect the past. This is like saying that filling out a questionnaire today can affect the result of a poll that was counted and published in 1900.-Good Elf
the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
Now this can be performed by photons but the result will be the same as when using electrons except the slits would need to be very much closer to notice diffraction. Here we see as noted in our time frame an event that has occurred long after the "destruction" of a photon affects the result of the "destroyed" photon being part of a diffraction pattern or not. Using entangled pairs of "matched" photons if the slit one of the entangled photons passed through is known, it's "twin" will "de-cohere" and form part of an "ensemble" of photons that contain no interference pattern. This "test" can occur long after the original photon impacted on the screen. From an observer point of view this means that an "event" that happens later in "history" can affect the past. This is like saying that filling out a questionnaire today can affect the result of a poll that was counted and published in 1900.-Good Elf
What happens if based on what happens to the first screen, you add or remove the detector from the second?
Hi solidon, Neil Farbstein, yquantum, kokhaw, dawn, colin_g, Jeffrey Neuzil et al,
QUOTE (solidon+)
What happens if based on what happens to the first screen, you add or remove the detector from the second?
I am not quite sure just what you are getting at here but I think you are trying to say what happens to the "event" if we have no way of tracking both photons coming from the same entangled source? Umm... Is that what you mean? I know I was "quite sloppy" with the way I answered the question previously. This is a complicated problem and I am sure that it has no simple answer. If we do not know something then that is all there is to the story as far as science is concerned. If the interference pattern is not there to record then there really is no information we can extract since guessing regarding this process is not a good idea. All photons are essentially the same be they entangled or not so what we know about entangled photon couples "should" apply in general to ordinary disentangled photons. Though we can't prove it like we can with Wheeler's Thought Experiment (or the Practical result of the "improved design" Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment).
Since there are actually several experiments which have been actually done, here is one important and most convincing reference in Wikipedia (to the best experimental setup so far)...
Wikipedia: Delayed choice quantum eraser
The image is here ... click to enlarge...
Now recall that this experiment is best done under low levels of light... that the flux is so low a level that we can be assured that only one pair of entangled photons at a time is passing through the instrument.
I have placed (in a certain context of "time travel" a post here)...
Explanation Of Time Passage, time does not exist... Good Elf's input
This entire series of articles should be examined but the important point is this special diagram that I have placed there based on a Lecture Richard Feynman gave in New Zealand in 1979. I have "always" thought that this was true but it has been difficult to show that it is true. This concept of interferences is a complex one and it is a function not of the propagation of light of a particular wavelength (as everyone has been taught) but of the arrangement of "planes of matter" and their spatial arrangements.
... Click to enlarge...
You must know something about Feynman's Many Path Method of QED for this to be fully understandable and it is very helpful to also know something about Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. Some "reminders" are placed there as to how this relatively conceptually simple method works but you should purchase his very readable book... QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.
The idea is that "events" in time are separated by influences due to relative motion of the various sources. In the "rest frame" of "propagating" photons, if such a frame can exist, time is completely "at rest". You can approximate this phenomenon by observing the passage of time in "normal systems" and light as velocity increases toward the speed of light a progressive phenomenon can be tracked until (in the absence of rest mass) the particle of traveler is then moving at the speed of light. This is then the extremum of time dilation and length contraction... There is no progress in time because of the effects of time dilation, and no extension of space due to length contraction... The particle is then moving (in the limit) along a null geodesic. That is what is "seen" (actually not seen) from external moving frames in relative motion. You can reverse this scenario an say from that primal raw stuff of light where there is no space and no time comes forth space and time and matter in which we can view "events" inside of measurable space with our stopwatchs measuring measurable time.... All this made possible due to the presence of "mass".
Of course in the actual frame of the photon "nothing at all is happening" since without time there can literally be no time for the passage of even a single tick of a clock... not even for a nanosecond. With no time there can be no exchanges of energy or exchange of anything ... it is a quantum. The photon can propagate "forever" through apparently empty space in our time without aging an instant yet space and time for that photon have shrunk to a "singularity". The moment it is "born" isthe moment it is "absorbed". This could be considered from the point of view of the photon as a resonance... without any "travel" in time or space at all. All that matters is where the energy "was" and now where the energy "is". This is the total emission and the absorption "history", or lack of it, of a photon. However the lack of history for a photon is the very reason why we can experience it with our mass, time and space.
However what you are going to read here is not in his book but is only briefly mentioned in his original lecture. I have brought this information together and interpreted it here so that this can be fully understood. The next point is this is a very subtle concept so do not immediately think that this is easy to fully understand. For instance the interferences can vary with the position of sources and with frequency of the coherent radiation. It is also assumed to see this effect we need to understand what this looks like at all frequencies and from all standpoints which is actually a little confusing to think along that line. These properties are seen in Bragg Diffraction planes in matter but understand that actual matter along Bragg Planes is not necessary as long as there are some symmetry along certain planes. When you understand Bragg Diffraction you then need to understand what this means in free space and at lower frequency. Empty space is filled with these interferences and they are the hybridized resultant of these sinc pulse wavelets seen as only the retarded wavelets. This is seen to causal creatures like us as not just dynamic standing waves but through Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory as quasi-stationary standing waves in space... that means they are wavelets that are not moving in time. Their only dynamic property is through the de Broglie Hypothesis as they transform when they move at velocity according to the equation...
which could be interpreted as the low velocity behavior of the Special Theory of Relativity.
Since there are actually several experiments which have been actually done, here is one important and most convincing reference in Wikipedia (to the best experimental setup so far)...
Wikipedia: Delayed choice quantum eraser
The image is here ... click to enlarge...
Now recall that this experiment is best done under low levels of light... that the flux is so low a level that we can be assured that only one pair of entangled photons at a time is passing through the instrument.
I have placed (in a certain context of "time travel" a post here)...
Explanation Of Time Passage, time does not exist... Good Elf's input
This entire series of articles should be examined but the important point is this special diagram that I have placed there based on a Lecture Richard Feynman gave in New Zealand in 1979. I have "always" thought that this was true but it has been difficult to show that it is true. This concept of interferences is a complex one and it is a function not of the propagation of light of a particular wavelength (as everyone has been taught) but of the arrangement of "planes of matter" and their spatial arrangements.
... Click to enlarge...
You must know something about Feynman's Many Path Method of QED for this to be fully understandable and it is very helpful to also know something about Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. Some "reminders" are placed there as to how this relatively conceptually simple method works but you should purchase his very readable book... QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.
The idea is that "events" in time are separated by influences due to relative motion of the various sources. In the "rest frame" of "propagating" photons, if such a frame can exist, time is completely "at rest". You can approximate this phenomenon by observing the passage of time in "normal systems" and light as velocity increases toward the speed of light a progressive phenomenon can be tracked until (in the absence of rest mass) the particle of traveler is then moving at the speed of light. This is then the extremum of time dilation and length contraction... There is no progress in time because of the effects of time dilation, and no extension of space due to length contraction... The particle is then moving (in the limit) along a null geodesic. That is what is "seen" (actually not seen) from external moving frames in relative motion. You can reverse this scenario an say from that primal raw stuff of light where there is no space and no time comes forth space and time and matter in which we can view "events" inside of measurable space with our stopwatchs measuring measurable time.... All this made possible due to the presence of "mass".
Of course in the actual frame of the photon "nothing at all is happening" since without time there can literally be no time for the passage of even a single tick of a clock... not even for a nanosecond. With no time there can be no exchanges of energy or exchange of anything ... it is a quantum. The photon can propagate "forever" through apparently empty space in our time without aging an instant yet space and time for that photon have shrunk to a "singularity". The moment it is "born" isthe moment it is "absorbed". This could be considered from the point of view of the photon as a resonance... without any "travel" in time or space at all. All that matters is where the energy "was" and now where the energy "is". This is the total emission and the absorption "history", or lack of it, of a photon. However the lack of history for a photon is the very reason why we can experience it with our mass, time and space.
However what you are going to read here is not in his book but is only briefly mentioned in his original lecture. I have brought this information together and interpreted it here so that this can be fully understood. The next point is this is a very subtle concept so do not immediately think that this is easy to fully understand. For instance the interferences can vary with the position of sources and with frequency of the coherent radiation. It is also assumed to see this effect we need to understand what this looks like at all frequencies and from all standpoints which is actually a little confusing to think along that line. These properties are seen in Bragg Diffraction planes in matter but understand that actual matter along Bragg Planes is not necessary as long as there are some symmetry along certain planes. When you understand Bragg Diffraction you then need to understand what this means in free space and at lower frequency. Empty space is filled with these interferences and they are the hybridized resultant of these sinc pulse wavelets seen as only the retarded wavelets. This is seen to causal creatures like us as not just dynamic standing waves but through Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory as quasi-stationary standing waves in space... that means they are wavelets that are not moving in time. Their only dynamic property is through the de Broglie Hypothesis as they transform when they move at velocity according to the equation...
which could be interpreted as the low velocity behavior of the Special Theory of Relativity.
QUOTE (From Good Elf on the effects and reason for Interferences and the way photons "move" in the thread "Explanation Of Time Passage+ time does not exist")
[see the diagram above] Observe a "source" at A and a sink at X. In this case a photomultiplier but in general an other atomic resonant state similar to the one at the source. The photons in the LHS diagram have two possible ways to travel to X. A -> B -> X and A -> C -> X. One could be the front surface of glass and the other could be the back surface of glass. The "contributions" at X are a phasor whose amplitude is some value and whose phase is another value as if some kind of rotating hand on a clock determines the direction of each of these phases. The rate of rotation "spatially" depends on the speed of light so it 's rate is slower inside the glass and there is a 180 degree phase change off the rear surface. These two contributions in direction and amplitude are added and provided that the distance between the two surfaces is chosen in an exact way can be made to exactly cancel the reflections at the sink X by way of vector addition.
According to the theory of the path of least action the energy "appears" to travel according to external observers not directly from A -> X because there is an obstruction purposely placed there but will go from A -> B -> X by the shortest path. The other path A -> C -> X partakes in this sum used to calculate probability but this is not the path that the light takes at all... In truth the photons never go there since they never have time to. The "energy" passes only from A -> B -> X in a time related to the speed of light in that medium. Now if as I have stated the distance is chosen just right the probability of detection at X can be made to be be actually zero. No photons will ever be reflected to X so the photons "never arrive".
On the other hand a third plane can be placed as shown in green providing a path A -> D -> X in the presence of the other two paths A -> B -> X and A -> C -> X where these two former paths originally totally cancel. Now we can arrange this third path to provide the same level of reflection detected at X as it would be for a maximum of reflection from the front surface at B. This third plane could be up to thousands of kilometers away and have been practically demonstrated up to around 50 meters, yet the photon once again goes by the path of least action A -> B -> X the shortest available path. The other paths contribute but the photons "never go actually go there". This is referred to as "seeking all paths"... well they "seek nothing... the photons energy travels resonantly from A -> X by only one path.
So this has nothing to do with photons "moving" and "bouncing" off surfaces at all. Feynman said in his original lecture that this was due to matter waves resulting from the positioning of the reflecting planes in space... the interferences then condition the space. These "arrivals of photons guided by the matter wave interferences"are what are recorded in holographic plates not "light waves". It just so happens the pattern is very different for different positions of sources and for different distant planes of matter. A small imprecision in position will disturb this spatial matter wave pattern such that it will be totally lost. This is no theory it is a fact and is thoroughly confirmed by experiment. The "waves" in space are not light waves moving but are stationary matter waves "caused" by the arrangement of particles in space and are quasi-stationary. They are the empty space equivalent of Bragg Planes in X-Ray Diffraction continued into the longer optical frequencies.
So the photons of light "moving in its own frame" (and measured in its own frame) instantly transported by the shortest path in space to the sink at an "infinite speed" as reckoned in its own frame (see above). Seen from the lab observer frame of reference the photons appear to be "moving through space in waves". Well in actual fact Feynman said that it was a spatial resonance... I believe him... These "waves" are due to the presence of distant matter. The photon is "bi-located" at the moment of emission in the frame of the photon (due to infinite time dilation and infinite length contraction bringing source and sink into perfect resonant coincidence in the frame of the photon). The reconciliation of this in lab frames is that we "see waves in space" and this is outside of that primary "stuff"... the light... we have a Universe of space and time that no photon is aware of. At the instant of the "Big Bang" light would have been the primary "stuff"... without the initial formation of "matter"... there would have been no space and no time until "mass" and hence "matter waves" formed. A singularity as far as we can understand it. Yet time somehow began and this was due to the "precipitation" of mass in some form.... A "quantum demolition" event resulting in that mass. From that point in time this mass phenomena would spread as "multidimensional carpets" (Talbot Carpets) through the expanding space and time that was simultaneously produced in that event. It is clear that almost all matter will form through particle and anti-particle creation events. If we assume the Cramer's Event Driven Universe in which Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory is operating then anti-particles are simply particles traveling back in time. At the instant of the Big Bang half of all the matter will travel backwards in time to the point before the Big Bang in a Universe that was "uncreated" relative to our Universe.... That was the only place it could go since all of time had not started till that point so any backward time travel would result in a separation/sorting of the primary matter into the two forms separated by the barrier of causality and time's zero point. This solves the problem where all the anti-matter went soon after the Big Bang... You just need to accept Cramer's Event Driven Universe in which Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory Operates. If you do not accept this theory then you are left with a "big problem"... just where did all that antimatter go? You choose which is acceptable and which is not and which theory fits the experimental data that we have on hand.
The photons still have no mass but the energy of the photon is the reality of the photon as a moving and spreading non-dynamic packet.
According to the theory of the path of least action the energy "appears" to travel according to external observers not directly from A -> X because there is an obstruction purposely placed there but will go from A -> B -> X by the shortest path. The other path A -> C -> X partakes in this sum used to calculate probability but this is not the path that the light takes at all... In truth the photons never go there since they never have time to. The "energy" passes only from A -> B -> X in a time related to the speed of light in that medium. Now if as I have stated the distance is chosen just right the probability of detection at X can be made to be be actually zero. No photons will ever be reflected to X so the photons "never arrive".
On the other hand a third plane can be placed as shown in green providing a path A -> D -> X in the presence of the other two paths A -> B -> X and A -> C -> X where these two former paths originally totally cancel. Now we can arrange this third path to provide the same level of reflection detected at X as it would be for a maximum of reflection from the front surface at B. This third plane could be up to thousands of kilometers away and have been practically demonstrated up to around 50 meters, yet the photon once again goes by the path of least action A -> B -> X the shortest available path. The other paths contribute but the photons "never go actually go there". This is referred to as "seeking all paths"... well they "seek nothing... the photons energy travels resonantly from A -> X by only one path.
So this has nothing to do with photons "moving" and "bouncing" off surfaces at all. Feynman said in his original lecture that this was due to matter waves resulting from the positioning of the reflecting planes in space... the interferences then condition the space. These "arrivals of photons guided by the matter wave interferences"are what are recorded in holographic plates not "light waves". It just so happens the pattern is very different for different positions of sources and for different distant planes of matter. A small imprecision in position will disturb this spatial matter wave pattern such that it will be totally lost. This is no theory it is a fact and is thoroughly confirmed by experiment. The "waves" in space are not light waves moving but are stationary matter waves "caused" by the arrangement of particles in space and are quasi-stationary. They are the empty space equivalent of Bragg Planes in X-Ray Diffraction continued into the longer optical frequencies.
So the photons of light "moving in its own frame" (and measured in its own frame) instantly transported by the shortest path in space to the sink at an "infinite speed" as reckoned in its own frame (see above). Seen from the lab observer frame of reference the photons appear to be "moving through space in waves". Well in actual fact Feynman said that it was a spatial resonance... I believe him... These "waves" are due to the presence of distant matter. The photon is "bi-located" at the moment of emission in the frame of the photon (due to infinite time dilation and infinite length contraction bringing source and sink into perfect resonant coincidence in the frame of the photon). The reconciliation of this in lab frames is that we "see waves in space" and this is outside of that primary "stuff"... the light... we have a Universe of space and time that no photon is aware of. At the instant of the "Big Bang" light would have been the primary "stuff"... without the initial formation of "matter"... there would have been no space and no time until "mass" and hence "matter waves" formed. A singularity as far as we can understand it. Yet time somehow began and this was due to the "precipitation" of mass in some form.... A "quantum demolition" event resulting in that mass. From that point in time this mass phenomena would spread as "multidimensional carpets" (Talbot Carpets) through the expanding space and time that was simultaneously produced in that event. It is clear that almost all matter will form through particle and anti-particle creation events. If we assume the Cramer's Event Driven Universe in which Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory is operating then anti-particles are simply particles traveling back in time. At the instant of the Big Bang half of all the matter will travel backwards in time to the point before the Big Bang in a Universe that was "uncreated" relative to our Universe.... That was the only place it could go since all of time had not started till that point so any backward time travel would result in a separation/sorting of the primary matter into the two forms separated by the barrier of causality and time's zero point. This solves the problem where all the anti-matter went soon after the Big Bang... You just need to accept Cramer's Event Driven Universe in which Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory Operates. If you do not accept this theory then you are left with a "big problem"... just where did all that antimatter go? You choose which is acceptable and which is not and which theory fits the experimental data that we have on hand.
The photons still have no mass but the energy of the photon is the reality of the photon as a moving and spreading non-dynamic packet.
QUOTE (sparkiii+)
Otherwise why does a massless particle follow the bends mass creates in space?
This is because it follows the interferences created in space just like in the diagram above. It moves along the shortest path between two points the same that matter does in spacetime ... along a null geodesic. There is far mode "character" in that de Broglie wave Background than initially believed... it is not only the matter wave it is the source of matter...
.. Click to enlarge...
It is the sinc function. Notice that the sync function is a one sided function and has a nett contribution at the center region. Photons are impulses of energy and this is their form.... as a "pulse" in the time domain (particles) and as a wave in the frequency domain. These two descriptions actually describe the one and the same thing from different domains ... or in this case "frames of reference". The rest frame of light sees an impulse. The relatively moving laboratory frame sees the wave. Two conjugate aspects of the one phenomenon.
I hope that clears up your points but ask questions if something still remains. I have used Richard Feynman's QED Book and his actual videotaped lectures as a reference for this exposition so I believe that this is what he would have said in hindsight. There is some "refinements" required to treat this subject with the full explanation since matter and space are relatively continuous entities but the answers are still the same regardless if this "simple" treatment is used or a more thorough and more complex process of integration is used for all possible routes a photon may take between A and X.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=295854
This is because it follows the interferences created in space just like in the diagram above. It moves along the shortest path between two points the same that matter does in spacetime ... along a null geodesic. There is far mode "character" in that de Broglie wave Background than initially believed... it is not only the matter wave it is the source of matter...
.. Click to enlarge...
It is the sinc function. Notice that the sync function is a one sided function and has a nett contribution at the center region. Photons are impulses of energy and this is their form.... as a "pulse" in the time domain (particles) and as a wave in the frequency domain. These two descriptions actually describe the one and the same thing from different domains ... or in this case "frames of reference". The rest frame of light sees an impulse. The relatively moving laboratory frame sees the wave. Two conjugate aspects of the one phenomenon.
I hope that clears up your points but ask questions if something still remains. I have used Richard Feynman's QED Book and his actual videotaped lectures as a reference for this exposition so I believe that this is what he would have said in hindsight. There is some "refinements" required to treat this subject with the full explanation since matter and space are relatively continuous entities but the answers are still the same regardless if this "simple" treatment is used or a more thorough and more complex process of integration is used for all possible routes a photon may take between A and X.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=295854
So you now see that the photon takes into account all the interferences in order to determine where the energy of the photon is to end up and the energy will "move" directly from the source to the sink by way of the "path" of least action which is by way of "interferences". The energy of the photon does not move along longer paths in space without a reason. The concept that the photon interaction in the "future" influences the photon interferences in "past" must be seen in that context. Here is an animation "in time" that show a spherical standing wave. With regards to Matter Wave Interferences these are the hybridization of every particle sync wave from our local neighborhood all the way to the "distant stars"... Mach's Principle. Of course the local contributions are the most important and much of it is in the fine detail of "Talbot Carpets spreading through that space".
Quantum carpets, carpets of light
So what we have are photons that utilize these interferences to relocate their energy from point to point... through the de Broglie Matter Waves as "resonances" in zero time (in the photon's rest frame) across null geodesics in spacetime connecting source with sink in single "events" which are the actions that mitigate the "ticking" of our time. In the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment the two entangled photons are a single "entangled" event with two "connected" photons. They are created and destroyed at the exact same time no matter how far in Laboratory time they are separated and no matter how far in space they appear separated. This means that the destruction of one photon is linked indivisibly with the state of the other one no matter how far "apart" they appear to be in the Laboratory ... not only in space but in time. Whatever is decided by an event (at a later point in our history) the previous associated and entangled event will reflect it's state even after it has been destroyed. It will not break with causality but it comes pretty close because of the way we measure time.
The double slit experiment is a special case of resonance in an open cavity with special boundary conditions and very short wavelength radiation. This problem may be difficult to solve in general but it is easy to extract the basics of the solutions by other means. One way to work with this problem is Feynman's QED and other way would be the simple geometry exercises in high school Physics involving diffraction. They are discussed in detail here on this thread but all the details have taken some time.
Hope that helps bring some of these points together and fill in some of the details of this thread over the long period it has been developing (with the help of some good friends of course). As you can see photons are always traveling in time ... at least a 1/2 a dimension in it where the segment length is zero.... Photons are the exchange forces of our Universe and time is what keeps everything from happening all at once in the one place through the action of mass. These other points I have explained elsewhere and you can find them on this Forum on other threads under my name.
Cheers
QUOTE
Wheeler Feynman Absorber Advanced waves like this...
+ 
= 
Advanced Wave + Retarded Wave = Standing Wave.
Naturally the dynamic aspect of the standing waves are lost because we can't appreciate the Wheeler Feynman Advanced Wave as causal creatures so we see only stationary de Broglie matter waves. One extremum of these Matter Waves are Bragg's Laws of diffraction and another more subtle influence are Talbot Carpets and the way light moves through them.... a further example are the interference patterns you can see inside the emulsion of ordinary holograms and so on... all due to matter waves. There are many many experiments that substantiate these standing waves in space and these waves are the sources of "matter". Mass is simply the interpretation we give to the curvature of spacetime and "frozen waves in space" contain geometric sources of what appears to be mass. Actually they are the reciprocal extension of propagating electromagnetism from inside [the surfaces of] spacetime "bubbles" that define every kind of particle from the sub-atomic all the way up to the entire Universe and beyond.
+ = Advanced Wave + Retarded Wave = Standing Wave.
Naturally the dynamic aspect of the standing waves are lost because we can't appreciate the Wheeler Feynman Advanced Wave as causal creatures so we see only stationary de Broglie matter waves. One extremum of these Matter Waves are Bragg's Laws of diffraction and another more subtle influence are Talbot Carpets and the way light moves through them.... a further example are the interference patterns you can see inside the emulsion of ordinary holograms and so on... all due to matter waves. There are many many experiments that substantiate these standing waves in space and these waves are the sources of "matter". Mass is simply the interpretation we give to the curvature of spacetime and "frozen waves in space" contain geometric sources of what appears to be mass. Actually they are the reciprocal extension of propagating electromagnetism from inside [the surfaces of] spacetime "bubbles" that define every kind of particle from the sub-atomic all the way up to the entire Universe and beyond.
Quantum carpets, carpets of light
So what we have are photons that utilize these interferences to relocate their energy from point to point... through the de Broglie Matter Waves as "resonances" in zero time (in the photon's rest frame) across null geodesics in spacetime connecting source with sink in single "events" which are the actions that mitigate the "ticking" of our time. In the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment the two entangled photons are a single "entangled" event with two "connected" photons. They are created and destroyed at the exact same time no matter how far in Laboratory time they are separated and no matter how far in space they appear separated. This means that the destruction of one photon is linked indivisibly with the state of the other one no matter how far "apart" they appear to be in the Laboratory ... not only in space but in time. Whatever is decided by an event (at a later point in our history) the previous associated and entangled event will reflect it's state even after it has been destroyed. It will not break with causality but it comes pretty close because of the way we measure time.
The double slit experiment is a special case of resonance in an open cavity with special boundary conditions and very short wavelength radiation. This problem may be difficult to solve in general but it is easy to extract the basics of the solutions by other means. One way to work with this problem is Feynman's QED and other way would be the simple geometry exercises in high school Physics involving diffraction. They are discussed in detail here on this thread but all the details have taken some time.
Hope that helps bring some of these points together and fill in some of the details of this thread over the long period it has been developing (with the help of some good friends of course). As you can see photons are always traveling in time ... at least a 1/2 a dimension in it where the segment length is zero.... Photons are the exchange forces of our Universe and time is what keeps everything from happening all at once in the one place through the action of mass. These other points I have explained elsewhere and you can find them on this Forum on other threads under my name.
Cheers
Good Elf, all,
You seem to be involved more than most, and you have survived. I would very much like to be involved on a few post if possible (time is limited because of many responsibilities) from my title I am a Newbie so do you require a person to be an Advance member?
Would it also be acceptable to agree that we will not always agree and not post pictures that shows age and not ones IQ's, sure that will not go over well but I just had to type it most likely because the way my head feels right now.
Just a question I wanted to ask before I started to read all that is said on this post and not sure I can accomplish this quest but at least I will do my best to encapsulate the common thought.
dawn
You seem to be involved more than most, and you have survived. I would very much like to be involved on a few post if possible (time is limited because of many responsibilities) from my title I am a Newbie so do you require a person to be an Advance member?
Would it also be acceptable to agree that we will not always agree and not post pictures that shows age and not ones IQ's, sure that will not go over well but I just had to type it most likely because the way my head feels right now.
Just a question I wanted to ask before I started to read all that is said on this post and not sure I can accomplish this quest but at least I will do my best to encapsulate the common thought.
dawn
Hi dawn,
QUOTE (dawn+)
You seem to be involved more than most, and you have survived.
I have had a long involvement compared to some.... Well I would not talk too soon about survival... What I can say is there has been some very destructive acts performed on this Forum lately and it has decimated the interest in what is being written here.
QUOTE (dawn+)
I would very much like to be involved on a few post if possible (time is limited because of many responsibilities) from my title I am a Newbie so do you require a person to be an Advance member?
All welcome and being an advanced member only means that I have been around this site for a long time and posted reasonably often, it is fundamentally unsuitable for long technical detail and I lack that approach. I offer some interesting Theories based on Science but they are not pure speculation and they are not things you will find in a text book. By and large they are ideas that I have developed myself and I am still seeking support for these ideas from more "respected sources".
QUOTE (dawn+)
Would it also be acceptable to agree that we will not always agree and not post pictures that shows age and not ones IQ's, sure that will not go over well but I just had to type it most likely because the way my head feels right now
As long as it is constructive and not aggressive I am very happy to listen to what you have to say and to provide feedback. As to age and not IQ... can't promise that.... That is a matter for individual "taste" and assessment. I probably have the lion's share of the 'age".
QUOTE (dawn+)
Just a question I wanted to ask before I started to read all that is said on this post and not sure I can accomplish this quest but at least I will do my best to encapsulate the common thought.
I would not want to read all that and that is only a small contribution of my total contribution and I would also like to say that I apologize in advance for all typo's. I would like to say that the most recent posts are the most relevant since I am improving (I think) with some of this material in it's presentation. If you click on my name to the top left of each of my posts and then on the link on my page underneath "Find all posts by this member" you will see everything I am doing in LIFO format (you must be logged in to do this).
Welcome on board.
Cheers
Welcome on board.
Cheers
Good Elf, all,
Thank you, I am just trying to read up on the high points made by so many. It would be very unwise to comment until I understand at least the direction it is heading. I believe you know better than anyone this post has taken a few turns.
dawn
Thank you, I am just trying to read up on the high points made by so many. It would be very unwise to comment until I understand at least the direction it is heading. I believe you know better than anyone this post has taken a few turns.
dawn
Hi dawn et al,
These quotes may assist. Rather than to try and work out from the start what is happening you think about these quotes from Carver Mead's Book "Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of electromagnetism".
These quotes may assist. Rather than to try and work out from the start what is happening you think about these quotes from Carver Mead's Book "Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of electromagnetism".
QUOTE (Einstein 1905 p.86 in Ref.55+)
According to the assumptions to be contemplated here , when a ray of light is spreading from a point , the energy is not distributed continuously over ever increasing spaces, but consists of a finite number of energy quanta that are localized in points in space, move without dividing , and can be absorbed or generated only as a whole. [...] Would it not be possible to replace the hypothesis of light quanta by another assumption that would also fit the known phenomena? If it is necessary to modify the elements of the theory, would it not be possible to retain at least the equations of propagation of radiation and conceive only of the elementary processes of emission and absorption differently than they have been until now? [...] by a route described in that study [1905], I was led to the view that light ... can only be absorbed or emitted in quanta of energy
and here...
and here...
QUOTE (Einstein 1909 (overview talk)+)
According to the prevailing theory, an oscillating ion produces an outwardly propagated spherical wave. The opposite process does not exist as an elementary process. It is true that the inwardly propagated spherical wave is mathematically possible , however it's approximate realization requires an enormous amount of emitting structures. Thus the elementary process of light radiation as such does not possess the character of reversibility. Here, I believe , our wave theory is off the mark.
In other words the elementary radiation process seems to proceed such that it does not, as the wave theory would require, distribute and scatter energy of the primary electron in a spherical wave propagating in all directions. Rather , it seems that at least in a large part of this energy is available at some location... the elementary process of radiation seems to be directed.
This is the premise behind Carver Mead's Book as described in the epilogue (... a tribute to Prof. Lewis)...
In other words the elementary radiation process seems to proceed such that it does not, as the wave theory would require, distribute and scatter energy of the primary electron in a spherical wave propagating in all directions. Rather , it seems that at least in a large part of this energy is available at some location... the elementary process of radiation seems to be directed.
This is the premise behind Carver Mead's Book as described in the epilogue (... a tribute to Prof. Lewis)...
QUOTE (Prof. Gilbert N. Lewis Uni. of Calif. at Berkley 1926+)
It is generally assumed that a radiating body emits light in every direction quite regardless of whether there are near or distant objects which may ultimately absorb that light; in other words that it radiates "into space"...
I am going to make the contrary assumption that an atom never emits light except to another atom...
I propose to eliminate the idea of mere emission of light and substitute the idea the idea of transmission or a process of exchange of energy between two definite atoms... both atoms must play coordinate and symmetrical parts in the process of exchange...
In a pure geometry it would surprise us to find that a true theorem becomes false when the page open which our figure is drawn is turned upside down. a dissymmetry alien to the pure geometry of relativity has been introduced by our notion of causality.
Since Prof. Lewis' statement was way before Wheeler-Feynman's Absorber Theory (and even the Copenhagen Interpretation) it only "anticipated" what was to come. Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics is built on his earlier Emitter Absorber Paradigm with time symmetry "stripped out"... At that time it was "more acceptable to the Scientific Community (Why?). It is clear (to me) in retrospect that that Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory combined with Cramer's Interpretation of Quantum Theory is a way to proceed with some modifications from Carver Mead's book. Time symmetry in quantum processes are 'everywhere" and though time symmetry is nothing like the comic book and science fiction accounts it is clear that an event driven Universe is the way in which things are really happening. Antiparticles are time traveling ordinary particles "traveling back in time". I have placed some of these ideas here and in other threads where you can easily grasp the essence of what it is all about and that the quasi-stationary waves in space (which is what we can see in experiment) have come from this theory and that the superposition of stationary states is the way in which these entities move through resonant cavities. These phenomena are not part of current Quantum Theory and obviously they need to be there if we are ever to get a full description of our Universe.
These "pieces of a jigsaw" are slowly coming together in a framework that recognizes we have been wandering down a long and dark tunnel for nearly a century and only now is it possible to see a "light" at this tunnel's end.
Cheers
PS: Please forgive typos.
I am going to make the contrary assumption that an atom never emits light except to another atom...
I propose to eliminate the idea of mere emission of light and substitute the idea the idea of transmission or a process of exchange of energy between two definite atoms... both atoms must play coordinate and symmetrical parts in the process of exchange...
In a pure geometry it would surprise us to find that a true theorem becomes false when the page open which our figure is drawn is turned upside down. a dissymmetry alien to the pure geometry of relativity has been introduced by our notion of causality.
Since Prof. Lewis' statement was way before Wheeler-Feynman's Absorber Theory (and even the Copenhagen Interpretation) it only "anticipated" what was to come. Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics is built on his earlier Emitter Absorber Paradigm with time symmetry "stripped out"... At that time it was "more acceptable to the Scientific Community (Why?). It is clear (to me) in retrospect that that Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory combined with Cramer's Interpretation of Quantum Theory is a way to proceed with some modifications from Carver Mead's book. Time symmetry in quantum processes are 'everywhere" and though time symmetry is nothing like the comic book and science fiction accounts it is clear that an event driven Universe is the way in which things are really happening. Antiparticles are time traveling ordinary particles "traveling back in time". I have placed some of these ideas here and in other threads where you can easily grasp the essence of what it is all about and that the quasi-stationary waves in space (which is what we can see in experiment) have come from this theory and that the superposition of stationary states is the way in which these entities move through resonant cavities. These phenomena are not part of current Quantum Theory and obviously they need to be there if we are ever to get a full description of our Universe.
These "pieces of a jigsaw" are slowly coming together in a framework that recognizes we have been wandering down a long and dark tunnel for nearly a century and only now is it possible to see a "light" at this tunnel's end.
Cheers
PS: Please forgive typos.
Hi all,
Good Elf, did you get the C. Mead book that you were waiting for? It looks like it; do you know if that is his only book? I read somewhere that he is working on re-organizing (pulling weeds!) current texts so that students can get a better grasp of these things; I think that is great.
I also find it comforting to read statements like these, from you:
GE-
I would like to say that the most recent posts are the most relevant since I am improving (I think) with some of this material in it's presentation.
These go a long way toward telling the story; much easier on the eyes than the "Sinatra version". I think that your recent renditions are getting closer to the mark; some weeds have been pulled. That is great. I think that I may be able to continue with this conversation; you are about the only one left. It is only fun for a while, to have fundamental disagreements, and not make any progress. When I get some time, I will try to answer some of your last questions, that were left "hanging".
Appreciate your time taken to transcribe some quotes from your new book; it is better than a review.
Regards,
T.Roc
Good Elf, did you get the C. Mead book that you were waiting for? It looks like it; do you know if that is his only book? I read somewhere that he is working on re-organizing (pulling weeds!) current texts so that students can get a better grasp of these things; I think that is great.
I also find it comforting to read statements like these, from you:
QUOTE
GE-
Actually I have corresponded on many threads as many will testify and all of this has been a slowly evolving "journey" for me and it is comforting to see that other great minds agree with my interpretation in part ..
Actually I have corresponded on many threads as many will testify and all of this has been a slowly evolving "journey" for me and it is comforting to see that other great minds agree with my interpretation in part ..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| GE- Actually I have corresponded on many threads as many will testify and all of this has been a slowly evolving "journey" for me and it is comforting to see that other great minds agree with my interpretation in part .. |
GE-
I would like to say that the most recent posts are the most relevant since I am improving (I think) with some of this material in it's presentation.
QUOTE
GE-
..some of the details of this thread over the long period it has been developing (with the help of some good friends of course).
..some of the details of this thread over the long period it has been developing (with the help of some good friends of course).
These go a long way toward telling the story; much easier on the eyes than the "Sinatra version".
I think that your recent renditions are getting closer to the mark; some weeds have been pulled. That is great. I think that I may be able to continue with this conversation; you are about the only one left. It is only fun for a while, to have fundamental disagreements, and not make any progress. When I get some time, I will try to answer some of your last questions, that were left "hanging".Appreciate your time taken to transcribe some quotes from your new book; it is better than a review.
Regards,
T.Roc
Good Elf, TRoc, all,
So many names why not just use the one your mother gave you. Just kidding, this book TRoc mentioned, I have not read it and I had a few questions but I deleted them because now I think I am truly lost.
I have nerve it might seem to jump in so late, but the DSE has always been a thorn in my side so are we discussing for instance, interference effects arising from the overlap of beams say rubidium atoms passing though two slits. Or are you passed that and wanting to give the EM wave a new definition in its dynamics like a pilot wave. Was that not the physicist David Bohm who died in ninety-three not sure.
Have I lost out on this and so far behind it would be better to just read and not comment, feelings would not be hurt resulting from the length of this post & I am just a Newbie.
dawn
So many names why not just use the one your mother gave you.
Just kidding, this book TRoc mentioned, I have not read it and I had a few questions but I deleted them because now I think I am truly lost. I have nerve it might seem to jump in so late, but the DSE has always been a thorn in my side so are we discussing for instance, interference effects arising from the overlap of beams say rubidium atoms passing though two slits. Or are you passed that and wanting to give the EM wave a new definition in its dynamics like a pilot wave. Was that not the physicist David Bohm who died in ninety-three not sure.
Have I lost out on this and so far behind it would be better to just read and not comment, feelings would not be hurt resulting from the length of this post & I am just a Newbie.
dawn
Hi dawn, TRoc, yquantum, Neil Farbstein, kokhaw, colin_g, Jeffrey Neuzil et al,
QUOTE (dawn+)
So many names why not just use the one your mother gave you
Only one name for me .... "Good Elf", I have no other. I know that those who are a little green about these matters would think this seems excessive. Believe me it is not. Solves having to fend off anonymous "threats". Everyone who reads this Forum should be able to access some slight level of anonymity because we all have families and Jobs and would not be able to continue if there were anonymous smearing in the workplace or others were able to easily identify me or my family. To those who actually want to know who I am they already know and I don't really hide. I readily accept the PM system provided by this board. It ensures that an anonymous email can't be sent or my email address is not made a target for certain "exploits" through this means or placed on some kind of a "list". There are some other good reasons too.
QUOTE (dawn+)
this book TRoc mentioned, I have not read it and I had a few questions but I deleted them because now I think I am truly lost.
I suspect you mean the book I mentioned above.... "Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of electromagnetism by Carver Mead". One of the few "living" treasures on this planet. I doubt if anyone on this thread has read it.. it is unconventional. but if you doubt Carver Mead's credentials you should Google him or look at some of the references I have made earlier on this thread.
Wikipedia: Carver Mead
As to TRoc's question ... yes I have just received CM's book yesterday and I have not been able to do too much yet but I really like the quotes... His book is full of quotes.
here is another reference to carver Mead...
http://laputan.blogspot.com/2003_09_21_laputan_archive.html
This link will let you "understand" the kind of man he is and is a very important read.
here is another reference to carver Mead...
http://laputan.blogspot.com/2003_09_21_laputan_archive.html
This link will let you "understand" the kind of man he is and is a very important read.
I have nerve it might seem to jump in so late, but the DSE has always been a thorn in my side so are we discussing for instance, interference effects arising from the overlap of beams say rubidium atoms passing though two slits. Or are you passed that and wanting to give the EM wave a new definition in its dynamics like a pilot wave. Was that not the physicist David Bohm who died in ninety-three not sure.
Wikipedia: Carver Mead
As to TRoc's question ... yes I have just received CM's book yesterday and I have not been able to do too much yet but I really like the quotes... His book is full of quotes.
QUOTE
A review of Carver's Book Collective Electrodynamics is here...
What a Universe! by Conrad Schneiker
http://www.athenalab.com/
Collective Electrodynamics — by Carver Mead
Back in the early-mid 1980s, I had the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to repeatedly see Richard Feynman and Carver Mead over the course of several months—both were very down-to-earth but awesome minds. Carver Mead is one of the great technical and entrepreneurial pioneers of VLSI design technology and silicon “neural networks”, among other things. I think Carver’s latest book is a huge (albeit partial) step towards an improved (more realistic) quantum electrodynamics.
Here is one of the Amazon.com reviews “Collective Electrodynamics”, written by Munir F. Bhatti (Los Angeles, CA), with minor {formatting changes, spelling corrections}:
“Despite his preface upbraiding physicists for their work of the past 50–75 years, the main text makes reasonable claims based upon well-founded experimental and theoretical results. The book endorses earlier work of Einstein, Feynman, Riemann, Lorentz, Maxwell, Planck, and others while making computational and conceptual adjustments to accommodate modern experimental results.
Also in the text, Bohr and other die-hard quantum statisticians are continually under attack for their poo-pooing of possible phenomena, algorithms, and concepts behind the observed quantum behavior. Bohr and his clan, apparently, claimed that the statistics made up the whole baseball team of quantum physics—and that we should not, and could not, look further.
In refuting this micro-labotomic approach of Bohr, Dr. Mead makes reference to systems—macroscopic in size—that exhibit quantum behaviors. While he mentions lasers, masers, semiconductors, superconductors, and other systems in the text, the primary results of the book hinge upon experimental results from the field of superconductors. He points out that physics can be split into several areas:
· Classical Mechanics explains un-coherent, uncharged systems such as cannon balls, planets, vehicles, etc.
· Classical Electrodynamics explains un-coherent, charged systems such as conductors, currents, and their fields.
· Thermodynamics explains how macroscopic statistics, such as temperature and entropy, guide the time evolution of systems.
· Modern Quantum Mechanics tries to explain coherent, charged systems.
Here 'coherent' refers to quantum coherency, where many particles/atoms march to the same drum such as the photons in a laser, or the electrons in a superconductor, or any isolated one or two particles. Another description of coherency is that the states are quantum entangled; their time-evolution depends upon each other.
The thrust of Carver's book: QM applies to all matter—not just small systems or isolated particles—is well made. He brings up experimental data from superconductors to illustrate that the phenomenon of coherent quantum entanglement can, and does, occur at macroscopic scales; and that such behavior is very quantum. Thus he proves, quite convincingly, that quantum mechanics applies to all coherent systems.
He then closes by making some very important points.
(1) He shows that quantum behavior of such systems can be expressed in quantum language (wave function), relativistic language (four-vectors), or electrodynamics (vector potential, scalar potential) in an equivalent fashion. This is important, as it proves that a superconductor is macroscopic, exhibits quantum behavior, and that these quantitative results agree with those found from the other approaches.
(2) He makes the point that the quantum and relativistic equations show that electromagnetic phenomena consist of two parts: one traveling forward in time; the other backward in time. Feynman and others have said this for a long time, and he shows how thermodynamics (or un-coherent behavior) forces what we see as only time-evolution in one direction in un-coherent systems.
(3) He illustrates, modeling single atoms as tiny superconducting resonators, that two atoms that are coherently linked will start exchanging energy. This causes an exponential, positive-feedback loop that ends with each atom in a quantum eigenstate. Thus quantum collapse is neither discontinuous, nor instantaneous; and in fact makes a lot of sense.
(4) He explains, using four-vectors, that all points on a light-cone are near each other in four space. This point—together with (2)—shows that there's no causality contradiction between relativity and quantum mechanics. For example, he explains that two entangled particles, such as photons light years apart, can affect each other immediately if one falls into an eigenstate, since the four-dimensional distance between them (R1 dot R2) is zero. Although separated in three space, they're neighbors in four space. Through these demonstrations and proofs, he successfully suggests that there is a way to further develop the 'behavior of charged, coherent systems' such that quantum mechanics and relativity will agree—but the conceptual changes he suggests are necessary and must be further developed. Also, he admits that a better, more appropriate mathematical and computational methods will be needed, since the complexity of coherent systems runs as n^2.
Pleasantly, then, the book makes elegant, defensible, mathematical and conceptual steps to resolve some nagging points of understanding. Also, the narrative gives the best introduction to electrodynamics and quantum mechanics that I've ever seen. Since the theoretical criticisms and experimental data are quite valid, his proposed resolutions are eye-opening and valuable. The methods he suggests greatly simplify thinking about complicated quantum/classical problems. New approaches for future theoretical research are also suggested. Despite the dark tone in the preface, the book is positive, enlightening, and well anchored to accepted, modern experimental results and theoretical work.
It's a short book, about 125 pages, and well worth the read. Familiarity with classical and quantum physics, and special relativity, is required to get the most out of it. As you can tell, I enjoyed it tremendously.”
What a Universe! by Conrad Schneiker
http://www.athenalab.com/
Collective Electrodynamics — by Carver Mead
Back in the early-mid 1980s, I had the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to repeatedly see Richard Feynman and Carver Mead over the course of several months—both were very down-to-earth but awesome minds. Carver Mead is one of the great technical and entrepreneurial pioneers of VLSI design technology and silicon “neural networks”, among other things. I think Carver’s latest book is a huge (albeit partial) step towards an improved (more realistic) quantum electrodynamics.
Here is one of the Amazon.com reviews “Collective Electrodynamics”, written by Munir F. Bhatti (Los Angeles, CA), with minor {formatting changes, spelling corrections}:
“Despite his preface upbraiding physicists for their work of the past 50–75 years, the main text makes reasonable claims based upon well-founded experimental and theoretical results. The book endorses earlier work of Einstein, Feynman, Riemann, Lorentz, Maxwell, Planck, and others while making computational and conceptual adjustments to accommodate modern experimental results.
Also in the text, Bohr and other die-hard quantum statisticians are continually under attack for their poo-pooing of possible phenomena, algorithms, and concepts behind the observed quantum behavior. Bohr and his clan, apparently, claimed that the statistics made up the whole baseball team of quantum physics—and that we should not, and could not, look further.
In refuting this micro-labotomic approach of Bohr, Dr. Mead makes reference to systems—macroscopic in size—that exhibit quantum behaviors. While he mentions lasers, masers, semiconductors, superconductors, and other systems in the text, the primary results of the book hinge upon experimental results from the field of superconductors. He points out that physics can be split into several areas:
· Classical Mechanics explains un-coherent, uncharged systems such as cannon balls, planets, vehicles, etc.
· Classical Electrodynamics explains un-coherent, charged systems such as conductors, currents, and their fields.
· Thermodynamics explains how macroscopic statistics, such as temperature and entropy, guide the time evolution of systems.
· Modern Quantum Mechanics tries to explain coherent, charged systems.
Here 'coherent' refers to quantum coherency, where many particles/atoms march to the same drum such as the photons in a laser, or the electrons in a superconductor, or any isolated one or two particles. Another description of coherency is that the states are quantum entangled; their time-evolution depends upon each other.
The thrust of Carver's book: QM applies to all matter—not just small systems or isolated particles—is well made. He brings up experimental data from superconductors to illustrate that the phenomenon of coherent quantum entanglement can, and does, occur at macroscopic scales; and that such behavior is very quantum. Thus he proves, quite convincingly, that quantum mechanics applies to all coherent systems.
He then closes by making some very important points.
(1) He shows that quantum behavior of such systems can be expressed in quantum language (wave function), relativistic language (four-vectors), or electrodynamics (vector potential, scalar potential) in an equivalent fashion. This is important, as it proves that a superconductor is macroscopic, exhibits quantum behavior, and that these quantitative results agree with those found from the other approaches.
(2) He makes the point that the quantum and relativistic equations show that electromagnetic phenomena consist of two parts: one traveling forward in time; the other backward in time. Feynman and others have said this for a long time, and he shows how thermodynamics (or un-coherent behavior) forces what we see as only time-evolution in one direction in un-coherent systems.
(3) He illustrates, modeling single atoms as tiny superconducting resonators, that two atoms that are coherently linked will start exchanging energy. This causes an exponential, positive-feedback loop that ends with each atom in a quantum eigenstate. Thus quantum collapse is neither discontinuous, nor instantaneous; and in fact makes a lot of sense.
(4) He explains, using four-vectors, that all points on a light-cone are near each other in four space. This point—together with (2)—shows that there's no causality contradiction between relativity and quantum mechanics. For example, he explains that two entangled particles, such as photons light years apart, can affect each other immediately if one falls into an eigenstate, since the four-dimensional distance between them (R1 dot R2) is zero. Although separated in three space, they're neighbors in four space. Through these demonstrations and proofs, he successfully suggests that there is a way to further develop the 'behavior of charged, coherent systems' such that quantum mechanics and relativity will agree—but the conceptual changes he suggests are necessary and must be further developed. Also, he admits that a better, more appropriate mathematical and computational methods will be needed, since the complexity of coherent systems runs as n^2.
Pleasantly, then, the book makes elegant, defensible, mathematical and conceptual steps to resolve some nagging points of understanding. Also, the narrative gives the best introduction to electrodynamics and quantum mechanics that I've ever seen. Since the theoretical criticisms and experimental data are quite valid, his proposed resolutions are eye-opening and valuable. The methods he suggests greatly simplify thinking about complicated quantum/classical problems. New approaches for future theoretical research are also suggested. Despite the dark tone in the preface, the book is positive, enlightening, and well anchored to accepted, modern experimental results and theoretical work.
It's a short book, about 125 pages, and well worth the read. Familiarity with classical and quantum physics, and special relativity, is required to get the most out of it. As you can tell, I enjoyed it tremendously.”
here is another reference to carver Mead...
http://laputan.blogspot.com/2003_09_21_laputan_archive.html
This link will let you "understand" the kind of man he is and is a very important read.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A review of Carver's Book Collective Electrodynamics is here... What a Universe! by Conrad Schneiker http://www.athenalab.com/ Collective Electrodynamics — by Carver Mead Back in the early-mid 1980s, I had the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to repeatedly see Richard Feynman and Carver Mead over the course of several months—both were very down-to-earth but awesome minds. Carver Mead is one of the great technical and entrepreneurial pioneers of VLSI design technology and silicon “neural networks”, among other things. I think Carver’s latest book is a huge (albeit partial) step towards an improved (more realistic) quantum electrodynamics. Here is one of the Amazon.com reviews “Collective Electrodynamics”, written by Munir F. Bhatti (Los Angeles, CA), with minor {formatting changes, spelling corrections}: “Despite his preface upbraiding physicists for their work of the past 50–75 years, the main text makes reasonable claims based upon well-founded experimental and theoretical results. The book endorses earlier work of Einstein, Feynman, Riemann, Lorentz, Maxwell, Planck, and others while making computational and conceptual adjustments to accommodate modern experimental results. Also in the text, Bohr and other die-hard quantum statisticians are continually under attack for their poo-pooing of possible phenomena, algorithms, and concepts behind the observed quantum behavior. Bohr and his clan, apparently, claimed that the statistics made up the whole baseball team of quantum physics—and that we should not, and could not, look further. In refuting this micro-labotomic approach of Bohr, Dr. Mead makes reference to systems—macroscopic in size—that exhibit quantum behaviors. While he mentions lasers, masers, semiconductors, superconductors, and other systems in the text, the primary results of the book hinge upon experimental results from the field of superconductors. He points out that physics can be split into several areas: · Classical Mechanics explains un-coherent, uncharged systems such as cannon balls, planets, vehicles, etc. · Classical Electrodynamics explains un-coherent, charged systems such as conductors, currents, and their fields. · Thermodynamics explains how macroscopic statistics, such as temperature and entropy, guide the time evolution of systems. · Modern Quantum Mechanics tries to explain coherent, charged systems. Here 'coherent' refers to quantum coherency, where many particles/atoms march to the same drum such as the photons in a laser, or the electrons in a superconductor, or any isolated one or two particles. Another description of coherency is that the states are quantum entangled; their time-evolution depends upon each other. The thrust of Carver's book: QM applies to all matter—not just small systems or isolated particles—is well made. He brings up experimental data from superconductors to illustrate that the phenomenon of coherent quantum entanglement can, and does, occur at macroscopic scales; and that such behavior is very quantum. Thus he proves, quite convincingly, that quantum mechanics applies to all coherent systems. He then closes by making some very important points. (1) He shows that quantum behavior of such systems can be expressed in quantum language (wave function), relativistic language (four-vectors), or electrodynamics (vector potential, scalar potential) in an equivalent fashion. This is important, as it proves that a superconductor is macroscopic, exhibits quantum behavior, and that these quantitative results agree with those found from the other approaches. (2) He makes the point that the quantum and relativistic equations show that electromagnetic phenomena consist of two parts: one traveling forward in time; the other backward in time. Feynman and others have said this for a long time, and he shows how thermodynamics (or un-coherent behavior) forces what we see as only time-evolution in one direction in un-coherent systems. (3) He illustrates, modeling single atoms as tiny superconducting resonators, that two atoms that are coherently linked will start exchanging energy. This causes an exponential, positive-feedback loop that ends with each atom in a quantum eigenstate. Thus quantum collapse is neither discontinuous, nor instantaneous; and in fact makes a lot of sense. (4) He explains, using four-vectors, that all points on a light-cone are near each other in four space. This point—together with (2)—shows that there's no causality contradiction between relativity and quantum mechanics. For example, he explains that two entangled particles, such as photons light years apart, can affect each other immediately if one falls into an eigenstate, since the four-dimensional distance between them (R1 dot R2) is zero. Although separated in three space, they're neighbors in four space. Through these demonstrations and proofs, he successfully suggests that there is a way to further develop the 'behavior of charged, coherent systems' such that quantum mechanics and relativity will agree—but the conceptual changes he suggests are necessary and must be further developed. Also, he admits that a better, more appropriate mathematical and computational methods will be needed, since the complexity of coherent systems runs as n^2. Pleasantly, then, the book makes elegant, defensible, mathematical and conceptual steps to resolve some nagging points of understanding. Also, the narrative gives the best introduction to electrodynamics and quantum mechanics that I've ever seen. Since the theoretical criticisms and experimental data are quite valid, his proposed resolutions are eye-opening and valuable. The methods he suggests greatly simplify thinking about complicated quantum/classical problems. New approaches for future theoretical research are also suggested. Despite the dark tone in the preface, the book is positive, enlightening, and well anchored to accepted, modern experimental results and theoretical work. It's a short book, about 125 pages, and well worth the read. Familiarity with classical and quantum physics, and special relativity, is required to get the most out of it. As you can tell, I enjoyed it tremendously.” |
here is another reference to carver Mead...
http://laputan.blogspot.com/2003_09_21_laputan_archive.html
This link will let you "understand" the kind of man he is and is a very important read.
I have nerve it might seem to jump in so late, but the DSE has always been a thorn in my side so are we discussing for instance, interference effects arising from the overlap of beams say rubidium atoms passing though two slits. Or are you passed that and wanting to give the EM wave a new definition in its dynamics like a pilot wave. Was that not the physicist David Bohm who died in ninety-three not sure.
TRoc, Confused2 and some others have contributed to this thread. I have never been able to exactly make out the musical scales theory that TRoc has been offering as an alternative but he does go way back to previous threads on which we have discussed many other points before this thread. I do suggest that my concept oft he DSE does involve the action of resonant cavities and the concept of Wheeler-Feynman absorber Theory, This idea does not sit well with most people but if it was not for WFAT there would never have been the Feynman many path method of Quantum Electrodynamics.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
These go a long way toward telling the story; much easier on the eyes than the "Sinatra version". I think that your recent renditions are getting closer to the mark; some weeds have been pulled. That is great. I think that I may be able to continue with this conversation; you are about the only one left. It is only fun for a while, to have fundamental disagreements, and not make any progress. When I get some time, I will try to answer some of your last questions, that were left "hanging".
Umm... the Sinatra version... does that mean 'My Way or the Highway"? I must say that it is difficult to provide the framework in the absence of any useful feedback. a lot of feedback has been a little nebulous. It wasn't until I saw some references to carver Mead that I realized that other than Cramer's Transactional Quantum Theory that uses Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory there was little in the way of "big names" to support the idea. There is little constructive criticism to build on and if I can't see something that others are saying I need it to be explained. That is what TRoc has been commenting on... I think... The idea that musical chords have some relationship to this problem or that there are some colors that do not actually exist such as magenta? That classical color mixing is a fact. These points need to be explained since I do not understand. In most other respects TRoc and I are in agreement.
It has taken a long time to show in a convincing way that de Broglie matter waves are standing waves in space. There is so much wrong on the internet by way of applets showing moving waves in space... It just does not actually occur when the system is at rest. A heap of energy has gone into that direction and people are just not convinced about this "fact".... Experiment or otherwise people will usually prefer to accept "conventional wisdom". I have not read Carver Mead's view yet but it appears that movement of particles or waves is via superposition of stationary states as resonances in cavities.
I would like to reiterate that quanta still exist and they can be either absorbed or emitted as whole units and there are no such thing as protons propagating through space and slowly losing energy. A lot of what Carver Mead is reporting is what is going to happen in the solid state... I have tended to veer away from this area because of the difficulties.
As I pick up on points in the book I will report what is there and others can comment.
I realize that i am about the only one left with anything of a radical nature on this Forum. That is not my fault and certainly not my doing.
Hoping to hear from all of you in the near future.
Cheers
It has taken a long time to show in a convincing way that de Broglie matter waves are standing waves in space. There is so much wrong on the internet by way of applets showing moving waves in space... It just does not actually occur when the system is at rest. A heap of energy has gone into that direction and people are just not convinced about this "fact".... Experiment or otherwise people will usually prefer to accept "conventional wisdom". I have not read Carver Mead's view yet but it appears that movement of particles or waves is via superposition of stationary states as resonances in cavities.
I would like to reiterate that quanta still exist and they can be either absorbed or emitted as whole units and there are no such thing as protons propagating through space and slowly losing energy. A lot of what Carver Mead is reporting is what is going to happen in the solid state... I have tended to veer away from this area because of the difficulties.
As I pick up on points in the book I will report what is there and others can comment.
I realize that i am about the only one left with anything of a radical nature on this Forum. That is not my fault and certainly not my doing.
Hoping to hear from all of you in the near future.
Cheers
I am in on the wave case as well. I am not much of a contributor but from what i have seen and read waves are the thing to go after. I followed cymatics which lead to oscilons, Faraday waves, solitons and sine wave sumation thus superposition of waves. Then i also found out about Carve Meade and i found some additional pointers as well.
Here is an interesting link with additional pointers:
http://www.quantummatter.com/_Media/_Appli..._of_the_WSM.pdf
Some short excerpts:
-Using the WSM it is now possible to calculate and understand the binding
between different atoms and molecules, due to resonant joining of wave structures
between them
-Mike Weber working on a USN submarine, created a mathematically accurate and beautiful graphic3D view of the in-out waves (a standing resonance) of the electron:
http://ryanhagan.net/mike/StandingWave3D/StandingWave3D.htm
As you can see GoodElf things are slowly opening up. Quantum physics and string theory is on the case as well i think.
Tiny speculation. Standing waves maybe could have "alternating current or phase" kind of thing but one wonders which direction that would apply to.
Here is an interesting link with additional pointers:
http://www.quantummatter.com/_Media/_Appli..._of_the_WSM.pdf
Some short excerpts:
-Using the WSM it is now possible to calculate and understand the binding
between different atoms and molecules, due to resonant joining of wave structures
between them
-Mike Weber working on a USN submarine, created a mathematically accurate and beautiful graphic3D view of the in-out waves (a standing resonance) of the electron:
http://ryanhagan.net/mike/StandingWave3D/StandingWave3D.htm
As you can see GoodElf things are slowly opening up. Quantum physics and string theory is on the case as well i think.
Tiny speculation. Standing waves maybe could have "alternating current or phase" kind of thing but one wonders which direction that would apply to.
Good Elf, all,
Conrad.Schneiker@Gmail.com
No rely on the E-mail and I would have to oder the book to understand his lecture with a critical remark about what you described.
In the book does it list any papers that he has published, I do have access if they are reputable which only you could evaluate, if so would it be too much trouble to pass along.
dawn
Conrad.Schneiker@Gmail.com
No rely on the E-mail and I would have to oder the book to understand his lecture with a critical remark about what you described.
In the book does it list any papers that he has published, I do have access if they are reputable which only you could evaluate, if so would it be too much trouble to pass along.
dawn
Hi Dawn et al,
Conrad Schneiker is a Blogger (does not sell books) and the "link" and direct quote there is from his Blog Page http://www.athenalab.com/ where there is a review of Carver Mead's Book, Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism — by Carver A. Mead 2000. I quoted that review in full to give you a taste of the contents. To get the Book you may need to contact MIT Press Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142.
To examine this book at the publishers click on this following link...
MIT Press - Digital Minds
Then in the search box at the top type "Mead" and then you will see the book is listed about 5 from the top. If you click on the link which is in the title - Collective Electrodynamics you will get a short description page. The cost of the paperback book (cloth out of print) is only $20US (plus postage) and can be ordered on-line there. Alternatively you could order it on-line through Amazon Books Amazon.com, In the search category type "Collective Electrodynamics". Another possibility is you could probably roll on up to your local Bookstore and I am sure they will get it in for you.
Note: I am not insisting that anyone buy it but I think that for someone with a bit of Technical Physics Background this is not a "hard" book to read. This is not a book for someone without at least some undergraduate Physics Background.
Hope this helps...
Cheers
Conrad Schneiker is a Blogger (does not sell books) and the "link" and direct quote there is from his Blog Page http://www.athenalab.com/ where there is a review of Carver Mead's Book, Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism — by Carver A. Mead 2000. I quoted that review in full to give you a taste of the contents. To get the Book you may need to contact MIT Press Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142.
To examine this book at the publishers click on this following link...
MIT Press - Digital Minds
Then in the search box at the top type "Mead" and then you will see the book is listed about 5 from the top. If you click on the link which is in the title - Collective Electrodynamics you will get a short description page. The cost of the paperback book (cloth out of print) is only $20US (plus postage) and can be ordered on-line there. Alternatively you could order it on-line through Amazon Books Amazon.com, In the search category type "Collective Electrodynamics". Another possibility is you could probably roll on up to your local Bookstore and I am sure they will get it in for you.
Note: I am not insisting that anyone buy it but I think that for someone with a bit of Technical Physics Background this is not a "hard" book to read. This is not a book for someone without at least some undergraduate Physics Background.
Hope this helps...
Cheers
I read that double slit or single slit experiment is performed in crystal, where slits is holes between atoms of crystal. I would doubt about this experiment, but optical experiment with photons saying the same thing...
Good Elf, all,
I have so much respect for MIT because it is very particular in choosing staff members this is not breaking news to you, but some do let unqualified professors have tenure in other universities.
From my perspective f you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. He can and does understand his field and all the nuances that one individual can, I have never heard anyone say that he is arrogant or esoteric in his delivery. I did not know of any paper written on the DSE by him this explains my curiosity. (That is the reason I wanted to know whether it listed a paper just dealing with the DSE experiment because I unable to find it.)
Keep it simple so that a child could at least understand the idea, this seems to be common among many educators, but not all and then those you dodge.
Let's talk about it and like DavidD, keep it simple knowing the complexity of the issue it has been around long enough, would you not say.
dawn
QUOTE
In this book Carver Mead offers a radically new approach to the standard problems of electromagnetic theory. Motivated by the belief that the goal of scientific research should be the simplification and unification of knowledge, he describes a new way of doing electrodynamics--collective electrodynamics--that does not rely on Maxwell's equations, but rather uses the quantum nature of matter as its sole basis. Collective electrodynamics is a way of looking at how electrons interact, based on experiments that tell us about the electrons directly. (As Mead points out, Maxwell had no access to these experiments.)
MIT NLI have so much respect for MIT because it is very particular in choosing staff members this is not breaking news to you, but some do let unqualified professors have tenure in other universities.
From my perspective f you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. He can and does understand his field and all the nuances that one individual can, I have never heard anyone say that he is arrogant or esoteric in his delivery. I did not know of any paper written on the DSE by him this explains my curiosity. (That is the reason I wanted to know whether it listed a paper just dealing with the DSE experiment because I unable to find it.)
Keep it simple so that a child could at least understand the idea, this seems to be common among many educators, but not all and then those you dodge.
Let's talk about it and like DavidD, keep it simple knowing the complexity of the issue it has been around long enough, would you not say.
dawn
Hi, Good Elf and all, sorry for late respond. busy lately.
With regards to your reply, correct me if I'm wrong. My explanation here may slightly deviate from this topic, but the whole physics is inter-related. one must understand the fundamental in order to explain more complicated stuffs.
Usually, one experiment result can have many different explanations. The same phenomenon can have many different explanations. sometimes, it is difficult to judge which one is convincing or not. I always like to interpret and explain things in the most fundamental way so that I can minimize the dispute or go too far beyond fascinations. I would like to use the word alternative theory instead of forcing people to accept the theory. and I wish that people can have another additional choice to think and widen thier mind.
To my understanding, photon and particle are two different substances but inter-related. Both possess the same ingredients, but in different form. photon in vacuum (or traveling at the speed of light) is neutral in charge and in balance of the Magnetic & electric (M&E) fields. Particle are another form of M&E field, or a rest photon in linearity. Due to the imbalance of the M&E field, particle shows obviously the properties of M&E. In my alternative atom model, there is not nuclues that contain protons of neutrons, the whole atom is a lump M&E field with the small electrons moving in the M&E field. If not mistaken, no one still able to distinguish clearly the nuclues of atom. The nuclues is just an imagination which to me, it is misleading. You may visit the link below for the alternative atom model.
http://www.greatians.com/physics/mass/atom%20model.htm
Many years ago till today, scientists were only emphasize on the electric effect in atom, but ignore the magnetic effect where the magnetic dipole moment of particles actually shows clearly that magnetic effect plays important role in atom.
Yes, you are right, electron is fermion. Fermion is the smallest particle due to the reason that it spins at the speed of light, but rest in linearity. You may visit the link below for the formation of the electron through pair production process. the properties of electrons are developed too.
http://www.greatians.com/physics/mass/pair%20production.htm
To eliminate electrons, you need a positron. But positron is positive charge, how can one machine uses electric potential to accelerate both positrons and electrons in the same direction? Then, in this case, how can the annihilation takes place to poduce interference fringe of the electron incident beam?
With regards to your reply, correct me if I'm wrong. My explanation here may slightly deviate from this topic, but the whole physics is inter-related. one must understand the fundamental in order to explain more complicated stuffs.
Usually, one experiment result can have many different explanations. The same phenomenon can have many different explanations. sometimes, it is difficult to judge which one is convincing or not. I always like to interpret and explain things in the most fundamental way so that I can minimize the dispute or go too far beyond fascinations. I would like to use the word alternative theory instead of forcing people to accept the theory. and I wish that people can have another additional choice to think and widen thier mind.
To my understanding, photon and particle are two different substances but inter-related. Both possess the same ingredients, but in different form. photon in vacuum (or traveling at the speed of light) is neutral in charge and in balance of the Magnetic & electric (M&E) fields. Particle are another form of M&E field, or a rest photon in linearity. Due to the imbalance of the M&E field, particle shows obviously the properties of M&E. In my alternative atom model, there is not nuclues that contain protons of neutrons, the whole atom is a lump M&E field with the small electrons moving in the M&E field. If not mistaken, no one still able to distinguish clearly the nuclues of atom. The nuclues is just an imagination which to me, it is misleading. You may visit the link below for the alternative atom model.
http://www.greatians.com/physics/mass/atom%20model.htm
Many years ago till today, scientists were only emphasize on the electric effect in atom, but ignore the magnetic effect where the magnetic dipole moment of particles actually shows clearly that magnetic effect plays important role in atom.
Yes, you are right, electron is fermion. Fermion is the smallest particle due to the reason that it spins at the speed of light, but rest in linearity. You may visit the link below for the formation of the electron through pair production process. the properties of electrons are developed too.
http://www.greatians.com/physics/mass/pair%20production.htm
To eliminate electrons, you need a positron. But positron is positive charge, how can one machine uses electric potential to accelerate both positrons and electrons in the same direction? Then, in this case, how can the annihilation takes place to poduce interference fringe of the electron incident beam?
Forget the cathode tube.. Yes... Look at the DC Kerr Effect. You will not be able to see it if you use a "cathode tube", it is a much subtler effect.
Wikipedia: Kerr Effect
The Kerr effect has different working principle than cathode tube. The Kerr effect once again, shows that photon can interact with M&E field. Similar to Faraday effect or pockels effect. All these effects are the observed phenomena.
Do you know why photon can be refracted or diffracted? It is due to the different of the pattern of the M&E field of the medium, which can be generally interpreted that it is the reaction of photon upon the M&E field. I had tried to lump all the phenomena with one theory base on the structure of photon. You may visit the link below.
http://www.greatians.com/physics/wave/kong%20vector.htm
photon requires a virtual medium to travel, the virtual medium is the M&E field.
In the DC Kerr effect, without varying the electric field, are you able to bend the light incident beam? When you bending the light incident beam, will the light produces EM wave? However, when you using the same method, without varying the electric field of the deflector of cathode tube, the electrons incident beam can be bent, then, the change of direction of electrons incident beam produces EM wave. Can we say that electrons incident beam is different from the light incident beam? In this Kerr effect, does he consider the conservation of momentum of the bent light incident beam.
This is an Optical Fourier Processor ... the parallel of the same digital process used by spies to enhance images ... only this can be done with a small laser pointer and a few optical elements... the simplest of optical devices using natural Fourier processing. You have seen the way they teach optics in schools using rays... this is a complete fiction and the paradigm of "rays" cannot show how light really operates. A lens (or a pinhole or slit) converts spatial distances and relationships into frequencies (reciprocal time) and reciprocal space. Yet the phenomenon can be related to our space since it shares four common dimensions with us. The reciprocal plane in this device is not "magic" but it does contain a lot more complex plane information than taught in schools. The action of lenses is a very interesting device and processing of everything in nature is through some kind of "lens" or "optical processing" that depends on all frequencies from zero to infinity. A single laser "samples" only one single frequency aspect of this complex holographic pattern.
Again, back the fundamental, the light is reacting upon the external M&E field that it passess through. The same effects also applies to the 'gravity' effect to light. The light is not 'attracted' by the 'gravity', but reacting or bending upon the M&E field of the densed object.
When light passess through a pin hole or slit, the diffraction is caused by the resultant of the refractions at different incident normal. Therefore, light is said 'bent'.
Again, back the fundamental, the light is reacting upon the external M&E field that it passess through. The same effects also applies to the 'gravity' effect to light. The light is not 'attracted' by the 'gravity', but reacting or bending upon the M&E field of the densed object.
When light passess through a pin hole or slit, the diffraction is caused by the resultant of the refractions at different incident normal. Therefore, light is said 'bent'.
No... Atoms are neutral and are "coated" with electrons which are negative. The wavelength of the electron will determine the "range" at which interaction occurs and this is far above the atomic "size" for any reasonable velocity where the interference effects are responsible.
Atoms are neutral ideally. object such as the tip of the lightning arrestor has higher density of charges. similarily to the edge of slit or pin hole, where when an object is heated up, the heat stress concentration at the edge of pin hole is high and emit EM wave. Remember the emmision of EM wave is produced by the vibration of charge particles.
If you mean a double slit or single slit diffraction experiment (is this what you mean?)You have made some conclusions that may not apply, diffraction is not the result of electric charges affecting electrons or photons. The same experiment can be performed with lamp black on a slide or as slits in metal or as light diffracting around a single human hair... it makes no difference.
Back to the fundamental, the diffraction of particles or light is due to the reaction upon the M&E field.
Back to the fundamental, the diffraction of particles or light is due to the reaction upon the M&E field.
Third, if we make the electric deflector into a rod or circular instead of plate and the magnetic deflector is perpendicular to the electric deflector. Something like a magnetic field 'cake' with an electric 'candle' in the center. Will the electrons incident beam circulates around the 'candle' perpetually? provided that the apparatus is fully vacuum, no other external strong M&E field and the velocity of the electrons is matches to the strength of the M&E field.
I am afraid they won't... the arrangement will continually dissipate energy... High Energy Electron beams which are "deflected" emit radiation as Chrenkov Light. This dissipates energy as an almost continuous spectrum of "white light". I think you are describing a "betatron"?
Sorry it will not "produce positive results"... in either particle or wave theory ... No go! The electrons in atoms would "spiral into the nucleus"... this does not happen so we can conclude this is not the mechanism.
It is proven by cathode tube that when the electrons incident beam is deflected by the electric deflector to the right, the magnetic field is able to pull the electrons incident beam back to the left to produce a straight line. This is how they set up the experiment to measure the mass of electron.
Similarily, just to row the electric deflector into a rod instead of plate, the same principle applies. Theoritically, the electrons shall circulate the rod perpetually due to the balance of M&E forces.
Due to the balance of M&E forces in atom,
1) the quantum atom shows the notation of electron state. The notation of electrons is due to the reaction of the magnetic dipole moment of electron to the magnetic field of the atom.
2) the quantity of electrons per energy level can be explained and determined.
3) the electrons do not clash with each other and so on.
But using wave atom model, still many observations are unable to be explained.
It is proven by cathode tube that when the electrons incident beam is deflected by the electric deflector to the right, the magnetic field is able to pull the electrons incident beam back to the left to produce a straight line. This is how they set up the experiment to measure the mass of electron.
Similarily, just to row the electric deflector into a rod instead of plate, the same principle applies. Theoritically, the electrons shall circulate the rod perpetually due to the balance of M&E forces.
Due to the balance of M&E forces in atom,
1) the quantum atom shows the notation of electron state. The notation of electrons is due to the reaction of the magnetic dipole moment of electron to the magnetic field of the atom.
2) the quantity of electrons per energy level can be explained and determined.
3) the electrons do not clash with each other and so on.
But using wave atom model, still many observations are unable to be explained.
In order for a quantum event to occur (so called orbits in atoms or tunneling through barriers or the emission and "resonant" absorption of photons) then you need a quantum state. Electrons don't "move" in orbits nor do photons "travel" they resonate. Assuming you are trying to remove the concept of a quantum state from the atomic orbital theory of Bohr then this just does not work. Even Bohr's Theory just does not work either. It is actually neither a particle nor a wave and it is resonance and emergent phenomena in which the emission and absorption occur "simultaneously" in the rest frame of the photon but from other non-inertial frames we see the two events separate and connected by "waves".... in actuality we see nothing of waves either this is the phenomenon we interpret from sampling the space with "event sampling".
Can experiment proves this?
Bohr's theory is partially correct where he did not consider the magnetic effect. This is how the Bohr radius and state energy are obtained using Bohr's theory. Moseley X-ray spectrum experiments had proven the state energy without arguement, he will be awarded the Noble Prize if he can life slightly longer.
Cheers.
QUOTE
I am going to try and keep the answers "simple" and without the detail that might fill several book... I am also interpreting what you are saying and it may be incorrect...
With regards to your reply, correct me if I'm wrong. My explanation here may slightly deviate from this topic, but the whole physics is inter-related. one must understand the fundamental in order to explain more complicated stuffs.
Usually, one experiment result can have many different explanations. The same phenomenon can have many different explanations. sometimes, it is difficult to judge which one is convincing or not. I always like to interpret and explain things in the most fundamental way so that I can minimize the dispute or go too far beyond fascinations. I would like to use the word alternative theory instead of forcing people to accept the theory. and I wish that people can have another additional choice to think and widen thier mind.
To my understanding, photon and particle are two different substances but inter-related. Both possess the same ingredients, but in different form. photon in vacuum (or traveling at the speed of light) is neutral in charge and in balance of the Magnetic & electric (M&E) fields. Particle are another form of M&E field, or a rest photon in linearity. Due to the imbalance of the M&E field, particle shows obviously the properties of M&E. In my alternative atom model, there is not nuclues that contain protons of neutrons, the whole atom is a lump M&E field with the small electrons moving in the M&E field. If not mistaken, no one still able to distinguish clearly the nuclues of atom. The nuclues is just an imagination which to me, it is misleading. You may visit the link below for the alternative atom model.
http://www.greatians.com/physics/mass/atom%20model.htm
Many years ago till today, scientists were only emphasize on the electric effect in atom, but ignore the magnetic effect where the magnetic dipole moment of particles actually shows clearly that magnetic effect plays important role in atom.
Yes, you are right, electron is fermion. Fermion is the smallest particle due to the reason that it spins at the speed of light, but rest in linearity. You may visit the link below for the formation of the electron through pair production process. the properties of electrons are developed too.
http://www.greatians.com/physics/mass/pair%20production.htm
To eliminate electrons, you need a positron. But positron is positive charge, how can one machine uses electric potential to accelerate both positrons and electrons in the same direction? Then, in this case, how can the annihilation takes place to poduce interference fringe of the electron incident beam?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am going to try and keep the answers "simple" and without the detail that might fill several book... I am also interpreting what you are saying and it may be incorrect... |
With regards to your reply, correct me if I'm wrong. My explanation here may slightly deviate from this topic, but the whole physics is inter-related. one must understand the fundamental in order to explain more complicated stuffs.
Usually, one experiment result can have many different explanations. The same phenomenon can have many different explanations. sometimes, it is difficult to judge which one is convincing or not. I always like to interpret and explain things in the most fundamental way so that I can minimize the dispute or go too far beyond fascinations. I would like to use the word alternative theory instead of forcing people to accept the theory. and I wish that people can have another additional choice to think and widen thier mind.
To my understanding, photon and particle are two different substances but inter-related. Both possess the same ingredients, but in different form. photon in vacuum (or traveling at the speed of light) is neutral in charge and in balance of the Magnetic & electric (M&E) fields. Particle are another form of M&E field, or a rest photon in linearity. Due to the imbalance of the M&E field, particle shows obviously the properties of M&E. In my alternative atom model, there is not nuclues that contain protons of neutrons, the whole atom is a lump M&E field with the small electrons moving in the M&E field. If not mistaken, no one still able to distinguish clearly the nuclues of atom. The nuclues is just an imagination which to me, it is misleading. You may visit the link below for the alternative atom model.
http://www.greatians.com/physics/mass/atom%20model.htm
Many years ago till today, scientists were only emphasize on the electric effect in atom, but ignore the magnetic effect where the magnetic dipole moment of particles actually shows clearly that magnetic effect plays important role in atom.
Yes, you are right, electron is fermion. Fermion is the smallest particle due to the reason that it spins at the speed of light, but rest in linearity. You may visit the link below for the formation of the electron through pair production process. the properties of electrons are developed too.
http://www.greatians.com/physics/mass/pair%20production.htm
To eliminate electrons, you need a positron. But positron is positive charge, how can one machine uses electric potential to accelerate both positrons and electrons in the same direction? Then, in this case, how can the annihilation takes place to poduce interference fringe of the electron incident beam?
Forget the cathode tube.. Yes... Look at the DC Kerr Effect. You will not be able to see it if you use a "cathode tube", it is a much subtler effect.
Wikipedia: Kerr Effect
The Kerr effect has different working principle than cathode tube. The Kerr effect once again, shows that photon can interact with M&E field. Similar to Faraday effect or pockels effect. All these effects are the observed phenomena.
Do you know why photon can be refracted or diffracted? It is due to the different of the pattern of the M&E field of the medium, which can be generally interpreted that it is the reaction of photon upon the M&E field. I had tried to lump all the phenomena with one theory base on the structure of photon. You may visit the link below.
http://www.greatians.com/physics/wave/kong%20vector.htm
photon requires a virtual medium to travel, the virtual medium is the M&E field.
In the DC Kerr effect, without varying the electric field, are you able to bend the light incident beam? When you bending the light incident beam, will the light produces EM wave? However, when you using the same method, without varying the electric field of the deflector of cathode tube, the electrons incident beam can be bent, then, the change of direction of electrons incident beam produces EM wave. Can we say that electrons incident beam is different from the light incident beam? In this Kerr effect, does he consider the conservation of momentum of the bent light incident beam.
QUOTE
This is an Optical Fourier Processor ... the parallel of the same digital process used by spies to enhance images ... only this can be done with a small laser pointer and a few optical elements... the simplest of optical devices using natural Fourier processing. You have seen the way they teach optics in schools using rays... this is a complete fiction and the paradigm of "rays" cannot show how light really operates. A lens (or a pinhole or slit) converts spatial distances and relationships into frequencies (reciprocal time) and reciprocal space. Yet the phenomenon can be related to our space since it shares four common dimensions with us. The reciprocal plane in this device is not "magic" but it does contain a lot more complex plane information than taught in schools. The action of lenses is a very interesting device and processing of everything in nature is through some kind of "lens" or "optical processing" that depends on all frequencies from zero to infinity. A single laser "samples" only one single frequency aspect of this complex holographic pattern.
Again, back the fundamental, the light is reacting upon the external M&E field that it passess through. The same effects also applies to the 'gravity' effect to light. The light is not 'attracted' by the 'gravity', but reacting or bending upon the M&E field of the densed object.
When light passess through a pin hole or slit, the diffraction is caused by the resultant of the refractions at different incident normal. Therefore, light is said 'bent'.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
This is an Optical Fourier Processor ... the parallel of the same digital process used by spies to enhance images ... only this can be done with a small laser pointer and a few optical elements... the simplest of optical devices using natural Fourier processing. You have seen the way they teach optics in schools using rays... this is a complete fiction and the paradigm of "rays" cannot show how light really operates. A lens (or a pinhole or slit) converts spatial distances and relationships into frequencies (reciprocal time) and reciprocal space. Yet the phenomenon can be related to our space since it shares four common dimensions with us. The reciprocal plane in this device is not "magic" but it does contain a lot more complex plane information than taught in schools. The action of lenses is a very interesting device and processing of everything in nature is through some kind of "lens" or "optical processing" that depends on all frequencies from zero to infinity. A single laser "samples" only one single frequency aspect of this complex holographic pattern. |
Again, back the fundamental, the light is reacting upon the external M&E field that it passess through. The same effects also applies to the 'gravity' effect to light. The light is not 'attracted' by the 'gravity', but reacting or bending upon the M&E field of the densed object.
When light passess through a pin hole or slit, the diffraction is caused by the resultant of the refractions at different incident normal. Therefore, light is said 'bent'.
No... Atoms are neutral and are "coated" with electrons which are negative. The wavelength of the electron will determine the "range" at which interaction occurs and this is far above the atomic "size" for any reasonable velocity where the interference effects are responsible.
Atoms are neutral ideally. object such as the tip of the lightning arrestor has higher density of charges. similarily to the edge of slit or pin hole, where when an object is heated up, the heat stress concentration at the edge of pin hole is high and emit EM wave. Remember the emmision of EM wave is produced by the vibration of charge particles.
QUOTE
If you mean a double slit or single slit diffraction experiment (is this what you mean?)You have made some conclusions that may not apply, diffraction is not the result of electric charges affecting electrons or photons. The same experiment can be performed with lamp black on a slide or as slits in metal or as light diffracting around a single human hair... it makes no difference.
Back to the fundamental, the diffraction of particles or light is due to the reaction upon the M&E field.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
If you mean a double slit or single slit diffraction experiment (is this what you mean?)You have made some conclusions that may not apply, diffraction is not the result of electric charges affecting electrons or photons. The same experiment can be performed with lamp black on a slide or as slits in metal or as light diffracting around a single human hair... it makes no difference. |
Back to the fundamental, the diffraction of particles or light is due to the reaction upon the M&E field.
Third, if we make the electric deflector into a rod or circular instead of plate and the magnetic deflector is perpendicular to the electric deflector. Something like a magnetic field 'cake' with an electric 'candle' in the center. Will the electrons incident beam circulates around the 'candle' perpetually? provided that the apparatus is fully vacuum, no other external strong M&E field and the velocity of the electrons is matches to the strength of the M&E field.
QUOTE
I am afraid they won't... the arrangement will continually dissipate energy... High Energy Electron beams which are "deflected" emit radiation as Chrenkov Light. This dissipates energy as an almost continuous spectrum of "white light". I think you are describing a "betatron"?
Sorry it will not "produce positive results"... in either particle or wave theory ... No go! The electrons in atoms would "spiral into the nucleus"... this does not happen so we can conclude this is not the mechanism.
It is proven by cathode tube that when the electrons incident beam is deflected by the electric deflector to the right, the magnetic field is able to pull the electrons incident beam back to the left to produce a straight line. This is how they set up the experiment to measure the mass of electron.
Similarily, just to row the electric deflector into a rod instead of plate, the same principle applies. Theoritically, the electrons shall circulate the rod perpetually due to the balance of M&E forces.
Due to the balance of M&E forces in atom,
1) the quantum atom shows the notation of electron state. The notation of electrons is due to the reaction of the magnetic dipole moment of electron to the magnetic field of the atom.
2) the quantity of electrons per energy level can be explained and determined.
3) the electrons do not clash with each other and so on.
But using wave atom model, still many observations are unable to be explained.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I am afraid they won't... the arrangement will continually dissipate energy... High Energy Electron beams which are "deflected" emit radiation as Chrenkov Light. This dissipates energy as an almost continuous spectrum of "white light". I think you are describing a "betatron"? Sorry it will not "produce positive results"... in either particle or wave theory ... No go! The electrons in atoms would "spiral into the nucleus"... this does not happen so we can conclude this is not the mechanism. |
It is proven by cathode tube that when the electrons incident beam is deflected by the electric deflector to the right, the magnetic field is able to pull the electrons incident beam back to the left to produce a straight line. This is how they set up the experiment to measure the mass of electron.
Similarily, just to row the electric deflector into a rod instead of plate, the same principle applies. Theoritically, the electrons shall circulate the rod perpetually due to the balance of M&E forces.
Due to the balance of M&E forces in atom,
1) the quantum atom shows the notation of electron state. The notation of electrons is due to the reaction of the magnetic dipole moment of electron to the magnetic field of the atom.
2) the quantity of electrons per energy level can be explained and determined.
3) the electrons do not clash with each other and so on.
But using wave atom model, still many observations are unable to be explained.
In order for a quantum event to occur (so called orbits in atoms or tunneling through barriers or the emission and "resonant" absorption of photons) then you need a quantum state. Electrons don't "move" in orbits nor do photons "travel" they resonate. Assuming you are trying to remove the concept of a quantum state from the atomic orbital theory of Bohr then this just does not work. Even Bohr's Theory just does not work either. It is actually neither a particle nor a wave and it is resonance and emergent phenomena in which the emission and absorption occur "simultaneously" in the rest frame of the photon but from other non-inertial frames we see the two events separate and connected by "waves".... in actuality we see nothing of waves either this is the phenomenon we interpret from sampling the space with "event sampling".
Can experiment proves this?
Bohr's theory is partially correct where he did not consider the magnetic effect. This is how the Bohr radius and state energy are obtained using Bohr's theory. Moseley X-ray spectrum experiments had proven the state energy without arguement, he will be awarded the Noble Prize if he can life slightly longer.
Cheers.
Hi All,
Please be patient a bit because I need to prepare something. I will answer your questions soon.
Cheers
Please be patient a bit because I need to prepare something. I will answer your questions soon.
Cheers
Hi kokhaw, dawn, TRoc, yquantum, Neil Farbstein, colin_g, Jeffrey Neuzil et al,
It is almost impossible to answer such a general question in this Forum fully. The "real" answer is you need to collect a library of books and find the root of all those theories that is without contradiction. I am not saying that anyone is lacking in an in depth approach but what I am saying is we owe too much deference to some persons in some areas of investigation and insufficient deference to other persons in those same areas. According to Carver A. Mead the first person mentioned is Niels Bohr and the second person is Albert Einstein. It appears to be the sole purpose of some to try and "bring Einstein down" on this Forum yet it is Einstein who has the greatest insight of them all. This "blindness" has a cost and the cost is a loss of objectivity (as Niels Bohr found). It was Einstein's way to not be so combative in his discussions with Bohr and the "winning" of the classic argument was a triumph for Bohr and a loss of face for Einstein. The rest is "history" and we have not recovered.
The effort to service the theories in the past has led to a theory of everything that in the final analysis is a theory of nothing other than a statistical treatment of our reality without the means to understand it. All along the winding thread of history there have been great people such as Einstein, Dirac, Schrodinger and others who protested at this "path" but to no avail. Since when did argument and debate settle any issue about the real nature of our Universe?... Questions such as these cannot be settled "finally" without reference to the defining experiment and then to every other defining experiment from the point of departure onwards.
It is a "Theory of Chaos" in which the underlying order is suppressed in favor of a piecemeal treatment of the World as a large number of "stories" that are mutually inconsistent. It is like watching a movie in which we suspend our judgment when something ever so small and wrong is allowed to happen as "poetic license" or as an unfortunate directors cut. We have more at stake than the price of a admission ticket to a source of entertainment here, it is the way we are beginning to treat the World around us as being random and irrational and that "anything goes" in the way we treat others and the way we should value knowledge we obtain from them. We do not have such liberty when we consider the value of truth in the real world and the Laws of Physics are not able to be suspended as they sometimes do in cartoon shows or in movies about super heroes. The human will needs to defer to the underlying law. That law has been around and known for some time but it has been hidden by our hubris.
Such a lack of direction and cohesion has led to chaos in our Science and an emphasis on the destructive over the constructive and also an emphasis on the maximum extreme of energy and their interactions rather than the a careful unification based on the infinitesimal expressions of energy which lead to an alternative treatment of the quanta. This is not to say that some clues about the inner nature of matter and energy is not obtained from reaching toward larger and larger "quantum hammers" to apply to the "sub-atomic pocket watches". However in the end all we end up with is a lot of small "pocket watch fragments" which can be divided almost without limit using more and more energy. This seems to be a way to proceed if you want to know about pocket watches and we are "children", but usually "children" learn to advance toward more subtle means to investigate the pocket watch using less force and more subtle tools. Experience shows that unless you move from this destructive stage of inquiry to a more thoughtful and contemplative stage you remain somebody that sees everything in terms of brute energy to solve all problems at the sub-atomic level.
It is almost impossible to answer such a general question in this Forum fully. The "real" answer is you need to collect a library of books and find the root of all those theories that is without contradiction. I am not saying that anyone is lacking in an in depth approach but what I am saying is we owe too much deference to some persons in some areas of investigation and insufficient deference to other persons in those same areas. According to Carver A. Mead the first person mentioned is Niels Bohr and the second person is Albert Einstein. It appears to be the sole purpose of some to try and "bring Einstein down" on this Forum yet it is Einstein who has the greatest insight of them all. This "blindness" has a cost and the cost is a loss of objectivity (as Niels Bohr found). It was Einstein's way to not be so combative in his discussions with Bohr and the "winning" of the classic argument was a triumph for Bohr and a loss of face for Einstein. The rest is "history" and we have not recovered.
The effort to service the theories in the past has led to a theory of everything that in the final analysis is a theory of nothing other than a statistical treatment of our reality without the means to understand it. All along the winding thread of history there have been great people such as Einstein, Dirac, Schrodinger and others who protested at this "path" but to no avail. Since when did argument and debate settle any issue about the real nature of our Universe?... Questions such as these cannot be settled "finally" without reference to the defining experiment and then to every other defining experiment from the point of departure onwards.
It is a "Theory of Chaos" in which the underlying order is suppressed in favor of a piecemeal treatment of the World as a large number of "stories" that are mutually inconsistent. It is like watching a movie in which we suspend our judgment when something ever so small and wrong is allowed to happen as "poetic license" or as an unfortunate directors cut. We have more at stake than the price of a admission ticket to a source of entertainment here, it is the way we are beginning to treat the World around us as being random and irrational and that "anything goes" in the way we treat others and the way we should value knowledge we obtain from them. We do not have such liberty when we consider the value of truth in the real world and the Laws of Physics are not able to be suspended as they sometimes do in cartoon shows or in movies about super heroes. The human will needs to defer to the underlying law. That law has been around and known for some time but it has been hidden by our hubris.
Such a lack of direction and cohesion has led to chaos in our Science and an emphasis on the destructive over the constructive and also an emphasis on the maximum extreme of energy and their interactions rather than the a careful unification based on the infinitesimal expressions of energy which lead to an alternative treatment of the quanta. This is not to say that some clues about the inner nature of matter and energy is not obtained from reaching toward larger and larger "quantum hammers" to apply to the "sub-atomic pocket watches". However in the end all we end up with is a lot of small "pocket watch fragments" which can be divided almost without limit using more and more energy. This seems to be a way to proceed if you want to know about pocket watches and we are "children", but usually "children" learn to advance toward more subtle means to investigate the pocket watch using less force and more subtle tools. Experience shows that unless you move from this destructive stage of inquiry to a more thoughtful and contemplative stage you remain somebody that sees everything in terms of brute energy to solve all problems at the sub-atomic level.
QUOTE (kokhaw+)
With regards to your reply, correct me if I'm wrong. My explanation here may slightly deviate from this topic, but the whole physics is inter-related. one must understand the fundamental in order to explain more complicated stuffs.[..] Usually, one experiment result can have many different explanations. The same phenomenon can have many different explanations. sometimes, it is difficult to judge which one is convincing or not. I always like to interpret and explain things in the most fundamental way so that I can minimize the dispute or go too far beyond fascinations. I would like to use the word alternative theory instead of forcing people to accept the theory. and I wish that people can have another additional choice to think and widen thier mind.
I am sympathetic with that point of view but there comes a point where everything in Physics becomes a series of compartmentalized bits of information. In these circumstances no scientist then has the ability to solve new problems and are simple functionaries told to "shut up and calculate". This is fine if you consider yourself as a simple human abacus but I have a much higher option of man and his destiny. The diversity of solutions indicate a lack of attention to these details as mentioned above. The scientific method does not admit the ultimate dissociation of of mechanisms one from another. There is no "ultimate knowledge" in science but there are "relative truths"... Scientists should be interested in these "relative truths" and evaluate them.
QUOTE (kokhaw+)
To my understanding, photon and particle are two different substances but inter-related. Both possess the same ingredients, but in different form. photon in vacuum (or traveling at the speed of light) is neutral in charge and in balance of the Magnetic & electric (M&E) fields. Particle are another form of M&E field, or a rest photon in linearity. Due to the imbalance of the M&E field, particle shows obviously the properties of M&E. In my alternative atom model, there is not nuclues that contain protons of neutrons, the whole atom is a lump M&E field with the small electrons moving in the M&E field. If not mistaken, no one still able to distinguish clearly the nuclues of atom. The nuclues is just an imagination which to me, it is misleading. You may visit the link below for the alternative atom model.
http://www.greatians.com/physics/mass/atom%20model.htm
http://www.greatians.com/physics/mass/atom%20model.htm
I understand why you see that another model is a way to proceed... It is not a good idea in my mind to adopt new models without showing compelling reasons why they need to be adopted. We must disconnect the idea of calculation and expediency from the way in which our theoretical emphasis is trying to create an underlying "oneness" through a "Theory of Everything".
I do not want to comment on every theory on the Web and if the theories were compelling the results would have been used by now. As an example of woolly thinking I will show where it starts in this one case (I think all the rest of this analysis is fine but is simply a recapitulation of other well known sources)
I do not want to comment on every theory on the Web and if the theories were compelling the results would have been used by now. As an example of woolly thinking I will show where it starts in this one case (I think all the rest of this analysis is fine but is simply a recapitulation of other well known sources)
QUOTE (THE KONG FREQUENCY AND THE KONG WAVELENGTH+)
As mentioned above, De Broglie wavelength is not able to describe that moving particle is photon. But it is an alternative terminology to define the energy of particles. The moving particles can be expressed in terms of frequency and wavelength. In this chapter, we develop the properties of moving particles and show the relationship between photons and moving particles. [..]For moving particles, the velocity of moving particle can be expressed in terms of frequency and wavelength as follows:-...
This is the premiss behind this new theory... that de Broglie matter wave theory does not describe photons. Um... I think that it does if you use the full theory and this red herring may be leading people astray. The relationship shown is simply stating for a photon that velocity equals frequency times wavelength. This is not new. For me at least it is folly to run after ideas that cannot assist in unification that begin by saying that something we all know from the lower grades is not contained in the present physics. This is not a comment on it's correctness but an observation on the logical process used in this analysis.
It is very clear that matter waves explain everything we know about the grosser aspects of our World other than "nuclear resonances... radioactivity" and "Gravitation". It is not only accurate but is "perfectly accurate" as far as the calculation aspect is concerned which are inculcated in the theory of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics). It is not important to know how to calculate in practice since computers are very capable instruments for doing these repetitive functions, but when we derive a "Theory of Everything" we need to know why we calculate. This is the missing piece of the Jigsaw. All the separate and disparate theories that you will find in all the Physics books written on Planet Earth can be summarized in three (four) Laws as stated by Feynman...
1. Photons have an "Amplitude" to go from place to place.
2. Electrons have an "Amplitude" to go from place to place.
3. Electrons can Interact with Photons
All this can be summarized in Feynman Diagrams and the full collection of "maps" which are the number of ways in which these states occur. So the entire problem as a statistical problem has been reduced to a calculation of an 'Amplitude". A further step can be added to loosely incorporate "almost everything else" (except Gravity and Mass)...
4. Particles have an "Amplitude" to go from place to place... And this can be calculated and it does not depend in the path or the number of steps but depends only on ensuring that all possible paths are calculated. The only differences between photons, electrons and other particles are the value of the coupling constant which depends on mass. The calculations are complex but the rules are simple... Very very simple. This is the total number of Laws that are in the Universe other than Gravity and this incorporates the "mystery of mass" in which this mystery is revealed to those who wish to know.
I will agree Feynman's QED is a particle theory and it is my contention that Feynman couched his work in a particle theory because this is the way in which the outcomes were able to be best expressed without recourse to a knowledge of the future of individual events. Just remember that every event does have a future and therefore an outcome and every theory must explain that future to be useful rather than just "statistical". Underpinning this theory and underpinning all of Feynman's work is Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. This is the "genesis" of QED and contains the basis of his Time and Space Quantum Theory... Photon and Particle resonances of all kinds. While it is not possible to reverse time in all circumstances there are significant systems in which time is reversible and these can relate to the quanta.
QUOTE
Do you know why photon can be refracted or diffracted? It is due to the different of the pattern of the M&E field of the medium, which can be generally interpreted that it is the reaction of photon upon the M&E field. I had tried to lump all the phenomena with one theory base on the structure of photon. You may visit the link below.
http://www.greatians.com/physics/wave/kong%20vector.htm
photon requires a virtual medium to travel, the virtual medium is the M&E field.
This theory starts with the premiss that charges are point sources and that Electromagnetism require a medium for transmission. I do not agree. Yes we do know why a photon and an electron can be diffracted and you need look no further (in some respects) than a theory of wave optics. I have already discussed the theory of diffraction recently and is part of the Quantum Electrodynamic view of a "Theory of Everything". Photons "resonate" and not "move" through spatial matter wave interferences. This perception of movement must occur in the stage of time itself. The photon in it's own from of reference is without time and without spatial separation between source and sinks. It is through the addition of time and therefore mass that "resonance" and frequency occurs. This mutual dependence of time and space we already know as Relativity and keeps things from all happening at once.http://www.greatians.com/physics/wave/kong%20vector.htm
photon requires a virtual medium to travel, the virtual medium is the M&E field.
It is very clear that matter waves explain everything we know about the grosser aspects of our World other than "nuclear resonances... radioactivity" and "Gravitation". It is not only accurate but is "perfectly accurate" as far as the calculation aspect is concerned which are inculcated in the theory of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics). It is not important to know how to calculate in practice since computers are very capable instruments for doing these repetitive functions, but when we derive a "Theory of Everything" we need to know why we calculate. This is the missing piece of the Jigsaw. All the separate and disparate theories that you will find in all the Physics books written on Planet Earth can be summarized in three (four) Laws as stated by Feynman...
1. Photons have an "Amplitude" to go from place to place.
2. Electrons have an "Amplitude" to go from place to place.
3. Electrons can Interact with Photons
All this can be summarized in Feynman Diagrams and the full collection of "maps" which are the number of ways in which these states occur. So the entire problem as a statistical problem has been reduced to a calculation of an 'Amplitude". A further step can be added to loosely incorporate "almost everything else" (except Gravity and Mass)...
4. Particles have an "Amplitude" to go from place to place... And this can be calculated and it does not depend in the path or the number of steps but depends only on ensuring that all possible paths are calculated. The only differences between photons, electrons and other particles are the value of the coupling constant which depends on mass. The calculations are complex but the rules are simple... Very very simple. This is the total number of Laws that are in the Universe other than Gravity and this incorporates the "mystery of mass" in which this mystery is revealed to those who wish to know.
I will agree Feynman's QED is a particle theory and it is my contention that Feynman couched his work in a particle theory because this is the way in which the outcomes were able to be best expressed without recourse to a knowledge of the future of individual events. Just remember that every event does have a future and therefore an outcome and every theory must explain that future to be useful rather than just "statistical". Underpinning this theory and underpinning all of Feynman's work is Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. This is the "genesis" of QED and contains the basis of his Time and Space Quantum Theory... Photon and Particle resonances of all kinds. While it is not possible to reverse time in all circumstances there are significant systems in which time is reversible and these can relate to the quanta.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you know why photon can be refracted or diffracted? It is due to the different of the pattern of the M&E field of the medium, which can be generally interpreted that it is the reaction of photon upon the M&E field. I had tried to lump all the phenomena with one theory base on the structure of photon. You may visit the link below. http://www.greatians.com/physics/wave/kong%20vector.htm photon requires a virtual medium to travel, the virtual medium is the M&E field. |
This theory starts with the premiss that charges are point sources and that Electromagnetism require a medium for transmission. I do not agree. Yes we do know why a photon and an electron can be diffracted and you need look no further (in some respects) than a theory of wave optics. I have already discussed the theory of diffraction recently and is part of the Quantum Electrodynamic view of a "Theory of Everything". Photons "resonate" and not "move" through spatial matter wave interferences. This perception of movement must occur in the stage of time itself. The photon in it's own from of reference is without time and without spatial separation between source and sinks. It is through the addition of time and therefore mass that "resonance" and frequency occurs. This mutual dependence of time and space we already know as Relativity and keeps things from all happening at once.
It is very clear that matter waves explain everything we know about the grosser aspects of our World other than "nuclear resonances... radioactivity" and "Gravitation". It is not only accurate but is "perfectly accurate" as far as the calculation aspect is concerned which are inculcated in the theory of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics). It is not important to know how to calculate in practice since computers are very capable instruments for doing these repetitive functions, but when we derive a "Theory of Everything" we need to know why we calculate. This is the missing piece of the Jigsaw. All the separate and disparate theories that you will find in all the Physics books written on Planet Earth can be summarized in three (four) Laws as stated by Feynman...
1. Photons have an "Amplitude" to go from place to place.
2. Electrons have an "Amplitude" to go from place to place.
3. Electrons can Interact with Photons
All this can be summarized in Feynman Diagrams and the full collection of "maps" which are the number of ways in which these states occur. So the entire problem as a statistical problem has been reduced to a calculation of an 'Amplitude". A further step can be added to loosely incorporate "almost everything else" (except Gravity and Mass)...
4. Particles have an "Amplitude" to go from place to place... And this can be calculated and it does not depend in the path or the number of steps but depends only on ensuring that all possible paths are calculated. The only differences between photons, electrons and other particles are the value of the coupling constant which depends on mass. The calculations are complex but the rules are simple... Very very simple. This is the total number of Laws that are in the Universe other than Gravity and this incorporates the "mystery of mass" in which this mystery is revealed to those who wish to know.
I will agree Feynman's QED is a particle theory and it is my contention that Feynman couched his work in a particle theory because this is the way in which the outcomes were able to be best expressed without recourse to a knowledge of the future of individual events. Just remember that every event does have a future and therefore an outcome and every theory must explain that future to be useful rather than just "statistical". Underpinning this theory and underpinning all of Feynman's work is Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. This is the "genesis" of QED and contains the basis of his Time and Space Quantum Theory... Photon and Particle resonances of all kinds. While it is not possible to reverse time in all circumstances there are significant systems in which time is reversible and these can relate to the quanta.
Ernst Mach wrote (p. 596 in Ref. 27): The view that makes mechanics the basis of the remaining branches of physics, and explains all physical phenomena by mechanical ideas, is in our judgment a prejudice. . . The mechanical theory of nature, is, undoubtedly, in a historical view, both intelligible and pardonable; and it may also, for a time, have been of much value. But, upon the whole, it is an artificial conception.
... and here is another similar point of view...
It is very clear that matter waves explain everything we know about the grosser aspects of our World other than "nuclear resonances... radioactivity" and "Gravitation". It is not only accurate but is "perfectly accurate" as far as the calculation aspect is concerned which are inculcated in the theory of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics). It is not important to know how to calculate in practice since computers are very capable instruments for doing these repetitive functions, but when we derive a "Theory of Everything" we need to know why we calculate. This is the missing piece of the Jigsaw. All the separate and disparate theories that you will find in all the Physics books written on Planet Earth can be summarized in three (four) Laws as stated by Feynman...
1. Photons have an "Amplitude" to go from place to place.
2. Electrons have an "Amplitude" to go from place to place.
3. Electrons can Interact with Photons
All this can be summarized in Feynman Diagrams and the full collection of "maps" which are the number of ways in which these states occur. So the entire problem as a statistical problem has been reduced to a calculation of an 'Amplitude". A further step can be added to loosely incorporate "almost everything else" (except Gravity and Mass)...
4. Particles have an "Amplitude" to go from place to place... And this can be calculated and it does not depend in the path or the number of steps but depends only on ensuring that all possible paths are calculated. The only differences between photons, electrons and other particles are the value of the coupling constant which depends on mass. The calculations are complex but the rules are simple... Very very simple. This is the total number of Laws that are in the Universe other than Gravity and this incorporates the "mystery of mass" in which this mystery is revealed to those who wish to know.
I will agree Feynman's QED is a particle theory and it is my contention that Feynman couched his work in a particle theory because this is the way in which the outcomes were able to be best expressed without recourse to a knowledge of the future of individual events. Just remember that every event does have a future and therefore an outcome and every theory must explain that future to be useful rather than just "statistical". Underpinning this theory and underpinning all of Feynman's work is Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. This is the "genesis" of QED and contains the basis of his Time and Space Quantum Theory... Photon and Particle resonances of all kinds. While it is not possible to reverse time in all circumstances there are significant systems in which time is reversible and these can relate to the quanta.
Ernst Mach wrote (p. 596 in Ref. 27): The view that makes mechanics the basis of the remaining branches of physics, and explains all physical phenomena by mechanical ideas, is in our judgment a prejudice. . . The mechanical theory of nature, is, undoubtedly, in a historical view, both intelligible and pardonable; and it may also, for a time, have been of much value. But, upon the whole, it is an artificial conception.
... and here is another similar point of view...
QUOTE (From Collective Electrodynamics by Carver A. Mead+)
I feel that it is a delusion to think of the electrons and the fields as two physically different, independent entities.
Since neither can exist without the other, there is only one reality to be described,
which happens to have two different aspects; and the theory ought to recognize this from the start instead of doing things twice.
—Albert Einstein1
In atomic theory we have fields and we have particles. The fields and the particles are not two different things. They are two ways of describing the same thing— two different points of view.
—P.A.M. Dirac2
Since neither can exist without the other, there is only one reality to be described,
which happens to have two different aspects; and the theory ought to recognize this from the start instead of doing things twice.
—Albert Einstein1
In atomic theory we have fields and we have particles. The fields and the particles are not two different things. They are two ways of describing the same thing— two different points of view.
—P.A.M. Dirac2
QUOTE (kokhaw+)
Again, back the fundamental, the light is reacting upon the external M&E field that it passess through. The same effects also applies to the 'gravity' effect to light. The light is not 'attracted' by the 'gravity', but reacting or bending upon the M&E field of the densed object.
When light passess through a pin hole or slit, the diffraction is caused by the resultant of the refractions at different incident normal. Therefore, light is said 'bent'.
When light passess through a pin hole or slit, the diffraction is caused by the resultant of the refractions at different incident normal. Therefore, light is said 'bent'.
The reason that gravity and light work the same is they are the same from a particlular point of view. That light that is "trapped resonantly" will spontaneously create time and space through the appearance of mass in the manifold. The appearance of mass is simply the individual velocity sensitive matter waves as mentioned in de Broglie's theory...
From this you can immediately recognize the intimate relationship between Special Relativity... And de Broglie's Hypothesis as the low velocity end of Special Relativity.
From this you can immediately recognize the intimate relationship between Special Relativity... And de Broglie's Hypothesis as the low velocity end of Special Relativity.
QUOTE (kokhaw+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
In order for a quantum event to occur (so called orbits in atoms or tunneling through barriers or the emission and "resonant" absorption of photons) then you need a quantum state. Electrons don't "move" in orbits nor do photons "travel" they resonate. Assuming you are trying to remove the concept of a quantum state from the atomic orbital theory of Bohr then this just does not work. Even Bohr's Theory just does not work either. It is actually neither a particle nor a wave and it is resonance and emergent phenomena in which the emission and absorption occur "simultaneously" in the rest frame of the photon but from other non-inertial frames we see the two events separate and connected by "waves".... in actuality we see nothing of waves either this is the phenomenon we interpret from sampling the space with "event sampling".
Can experiment proves this?
Yes it can... it is a fully consistent point of view and the emission and absorption of a photon can be explained by this mechanism. What I will add is that other points of view that are very "popular" are equally unable to be completely verified under all circumstances. They are interpretations based on historical paradigms such as the "mechanical theory of nature" mentioned above by Mach which "fail" in some respect. You must take the "whole" as a full consistent theory to understand all the parts... we should not think that because of the treatment of the parts we understand the whole if that whole is internally inconsistent. The way Particle Theories have accounted for these anomalies is through a number of Quantum Postulates which are totally unnecessary if we were able to "roll back" this process to a period before "modern Particle Theory" to an underlying Wave Theory that consistently addresses the anomalies in this Particle Theory. Carver A. Mead does this under some restricted conditions and his way is "part of the answer", the rest is partially found "here" in this thread. His Book Collective Electrodynamics Shows how macroscopic quantum systems are inconsistent with Bohr's Theory and the way in which "argument" has replaced "experiment" in Modern Physics, as would be fitting of a modern "priest" rather than an "inquiring scientist". The outcome of this "conflict" has been chaos and not enlightenment... I mean that literally as well as figuratively... Physics has "lost it's way" led by a modern "Pied Piper" and your children have already left your villages following it's nihilistic "song".
I must remind everyone that all and every one of our theories will eventually be replaced with a better theory given the correct analysis and followed up by experiment... It is just that some of our most cherished ideas and theories are wrong, not when dealt with in a piecemeal fashion but when we see this as a whole. We have not "paid the piper" and sent him on his way and corrected what was wrong. Time now to pay up or suffer the "intellectual" consequences.
Cheers
I must remind everyone that all and every one of our theories will eventually be replaced with a better theory given the correct analysis and followed up by experiment... It is just that some of our most cherished ideas and theories are wrong, not when dealt with in a piecemeal fashion but when we see this as a whole. We have not "paid the piper" and sent him on his way and corrected what was wrong. Time now to pay up or suffer the "intellectual" consequences.
Cheers
Specific to this experiment:
Has anyone considered the slit itself as the 'cause' of interference, as opposed to the thing that's moving through it?
Has anyone considered the slit itself as the 'cause' of interference, as opposed to the thing that's moving through it?
QUOTE (phyti+Feb 6 2008, 02:34 AM)
Specific to this experiment:
Has anyone considered the slit itself as the 'cause' of interference, as opposed to the thing that's moving through it?
yeah,
Has anyone considered the slit itself as the 'cause' of interference, as opposed to the thing that's moving through it?
yeah,
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.