To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Problem with the two slit experiment
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Physics > Physics General
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44

Duality
24th November 2006 - 01:31 AM
wink.gif Laserlight,

laugh.gif NO, on the gender issue, and your point was well made and I will comply to the flow of the post.

We do not agree on all views around here, but we do come to some agreement when the particles fly. wink.gif Look forward to the discussion and involvement by all, on this post.

Bye for now,
Duality/Lisa smile.gif

TRoc, you posted before and I did not get a chance to read till after the fact. There are many problems no matter how you attack this experiment, the detectors, devices, & you/me are all made up of atoms, and its sub particle constituents.

How do you know that the UCP is not in play, then there is spacetime dynamics all around us, it is not just were the stars resides and I say this with respect, because it is hard to show emotions on a screen.
Confused2
24th November 2006 - 01:55 AM
LL,
I think this is more of a mountain than an elephant. At the top of the mountain there might be a page torn out of the OEM spec. for the universe or maybe nothing - as far as I know nobody has actually got to the top of this particular mountain or if they have they've lost the plot so completely that nobody can really say for sure. Whatever might be at the top will only mean anything to other people who have climbed the mountain so there is no point in being there on your own or arriving first.
Personally I feel both honoured and humbled by the people who have helped me through the foothills (GE yq especially).
To reach Base Camp 1 I suggest we abandon our personal theories and try to describe what we think we see in the DSE.
I do not think we should underestimate Duality .. call me an old fool if you like but I reckon I can still sense power when I come across it.
-C2.
Laserlight
24th November 2006 - 02:13 AM
TRoc,

QUOTE
"If there is symmetry, there is no change in frequency or wavelength. A delta induced into some symmetrical property can cause a frequency change if
some of the energy or momentum is "lost" as it is converted to some other form.


Symmetry, by its nature is perfect balance on both sides of a mean.
Perfect balance means perfect frequency/timing of the components of the
wave function. The only way that frequency can change is if the perfect
symmetrical balance of a specific frequency is disrupted or changed (delta).

At that point there is a change in the energy components that make up the wave
function, and a relative centerpoint timing change occurs to restore balance
caused by the energy loss. If the centerpoint timing from the original
wave function shifts to a new location to restore wavefunction balance,
the frequency changes.


Beat (def)
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
"If there is symmetry, there is no change in frequency or wavelength. A delta induced into some symmetrical property can cause a frequency change if
some of the energy or momentum is "lost" as it is converted to some other form.


Symmetry, by its nature is perfect balance on both sides of a mean.
Perfect balance means perfect frequency/timing of the components of the
wave function. The only way that frequency can change is if the perfect
symmetrical balance of a specific frequency is disrupted or changed (delta).

At that point there is a change in the energy components that make up the wave
function, and a relative centerpoint timing change occurs to restore balance
caused by the energy loss. If the centerpoint timing from the original
wave function shifts to a new location to restore wavefunction balance,
the frequency changes.


Beat (def)

Acoustics the regularly recurring fluctuation in loudness of sound produced by two simultaneous tones of nearly equal frequency
.

QUOTE
Radio to combine two waves of different frequencies, thus producing an additional frequency equal to the difference between these



We are not in disagreement. One is with different frequencies, and one is
with the same frequency.

Regards,
LL

Laserlight
24th November 2006 - 02:33 AM
C2,

We can call it a mountain if you like, but it completely trashes the blind men
describing the elephant analogy.

I look at it differently. Many have gotten to the top of the mountain using the
the gondola, but they missed the detailed minutia and intricate beauty of the trip.
Yep, you can get to the top quickly, but do you know how or why you got there?
You can use a car without knowing how it functions, but can you explain how it
really works, or why?

I have tremendous respect for everyone on this board, but that doesn't
mean that I need to totally agree with their perspectives. However, I can use
some of the extremely useful tools and information that you all provide.
I am trying to filter out the "noise" and add together the useful information to
get a detailed picture of how the engine is assembled and works, not just that it does.

When troubleshooting or trying to solve a problem, it is necessary to eliminate
the wrong clues, that don't matter, and assemble only the right clues that do.
It requires knowing how filter out the noise and how to concentrate on the
right possible solutions. Enough right possible solutions summed together and
simplified will eventually yield the correct answer.

Many here are completely ignoring all of the right clues, which baffles me.

Regards,
LL
TRoc
24th November 2006 - 02:56 AM
C2,


laugh.gif touche' !


I didn't mean to come across condescending. You touched on a spiritual nerve for me. The "old guard" was determined to be gatekeepers to the higher ground; the new guard is determined that we all go up together. I am in agreement with the latter group.


I will ask that, if you want to understand my point of view (really), then please be more in the conversation with me. It seems every time that I give you support for a claim that you requested, you do not bother to reply, acknowledge, counter... whatever.

I'm not sure how to do a better job? I'm also sure that I can not explain any of it from a particle perspective.
sad.gif


LL,


OK, very good. I think we have uncovered some places of difference.

The symmetry that I am speaking of is NOT perfectly spherical. The ellipse would do better (like it did for Kepler). These "velocity" changes, or put the other way, the sequential arrival of higher to lower frequencies, have to satisfy the pattern inherent to Resonance. This pattern causes HUP. Any 1/2 distance unit decrease to the front of the wave, results in a 2 unit increase to the back of the wave (packet). This is a Doppler picture.

You are right then, about the semantics: technically, the beats that are of the same frequency, are usually called harmonics, or overtones. So, in the SSE (which I agree that we should stay at for now), you are right. They should not be "beats" until after the slit, where I am suggesting that the packet is temporarily broken up.

I think we are more clear now.


regards,

T.Roc



Good Elf
24th November 2006 - 02:59 AM
Hi TRoc, Duality, Laserlight, Confused2, Yquantum et al,

Let me point out the difference between a "ripple tank" and electromagnetic wave propagation other than the "ripple tank" being an undulating two dimensional surface and a three dimensional "surface". ....
user posted image
This image is due to the courteousness of Zephir. Consider this as being one photon or one particle as shown by that incoming "white blob" from the left. Why an incoming white blob?... because the frequencies are all mixed up in a packet... these "look" like a particle but are "composed" of waves you are not able to individually see. Now look at the interference fringes as a result of the "self interaction" of the slit. The "particle" whatever continues on through space "illuminating" a series of light and dark zones which are, for all intents and purposes, entirely static. The light areas show places where it is possible to measure a particle's presence and the dark areas is where a particle is unlikely to be detected (ever). It is like this "white blob" is just casting "light" on a hidden pattern hanging in space. The "white blob" continues on to eventually 'fill" the cavity (progressively seeking all paths) but is absorbed by the screen along light and dark zones along the right hand margin there. At that instant in time the continuing wave is 'hidden" from this picture by being made "invisible" throughout the rest of the Universe due to wave front cancellation ("wave function collapse") by virtue of Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory. Like the zones in the top animation which are already "dark", this "global dark zone" is simply "extended" to the rest of all space or until this meets with a suitable "mirror" where it may re-emerge.

The difference between this view and one in which we have continuous wave "illumination" rather than one photon at a time (seen here) is these "hanging patterns" are subject to a continuous "white blob" and the lines are permanently "illuminated". This is by taking many individual "white blob" particles and constructing this pattern...
User posted image
This construction is a "one dimensional representation" of what is occurring throughout all space. I have already indicated this is totally inadequate way to represent a real three dimensional wave that move in a complex domain. Sorry but not even Leonardo da Vinci could do that. Remember most of this is totally unseen.

The ripple tank involves progressive waves in the water medium. This means the waves actually travel toward the screen... that is the crests and troughs actually travel at a specific speed, these are indeed waves. Careful examination of the photon above... the picture shows the waves and troughs are a "fixed spatial pattern". So light is not a water ripple tank... surprise surprise!

This pattern here is the equivalent of the above... with one major exception. It does not show an intensity modulation ("white blobiness") that zephir's picture actually shows.
User posted image
This is the influence of the wave packet envelope. you can't simulate this in this picture... it is only a Huygen's construction done with a protractor. My contention is in a coherent wave the pattern created by every packet in the continuous wave have identical results as just one packet propagating alone as shown at the top of this post. The individual destinations the photons finally end up "impacting" cannot be individually predicted other than for large numbers of photons it follows the intensity pattern shown above for regions where it is "unmasked".

Do people understand now what the differences are? I think there are a lot of "water based analogies" and the idea of resonances will not work there.

Cheers
TRoc
24th November 2006 - 03:29 AM
GE,


I can only speak for my self, but the water wave analogy is not part of my resonance model. I have been trying to speak in those terms because of the picture that you posted, and C2 bringing it up.

I prefer the 3D model, that seems to only be creatable in our minds. I can barely draw in 2D!


I have no problem with the stance of your last post, save one:

In the top picture (of Zeph), in a ONE photon analogy, this does NOT explain the "randomness" of the hit by hit impact buildup of the pattern.


There is no diffraction pattern inherent in the electron lattice of the screen, right?

So, why should I believe that an electron "randomly" (by quantum unpredict) collapses the wave function, yet always in the same pattern that the Fresnel (simple) model creates? That is QM's stance, correct?


I think that, as we try to simplify our approach, as LL has suggested, to JUST the SSE, and "one photon at a time", we are going to get back to the "what is ONE photon" question.

Do you agree that the "spreading" of the packet DEMANDS that we CAN take a multiple frequency approach? (for the single photon)


regards,

T.Roc


Laserlight
24th November 2006 - 04:05 AM
TRoc, GE, and All,

Now we are getting somewhere, IMO. Leave water waves out of our discussion,
and let's focus on single events and single effects.

We have looked at, and discussed, a tremendous amount of direct and
circumstantial evidence and "conflicting" theories. We know the ultimate
result is always the same pattern.

The SSE radiates and generates a diffraction caused interference pattern.
The constant stream DSE generates an intense symmetrical descending wave
interference pattern.
The single photon DSE generates a symmetrical descending interference pattern.

In all cases above, the photons travelled thru both slits. What happens
if a stream of individual photons only travels thru 1 of the 2 slits while both slits
are open? Will it form a full interference pattern or only 1/2 of an interference
pattern? What will the final photon count be?

One of the observations made in both of the the single photon DSE's, was the
unexpected increase of 4x (+) count in photons above the theoretical total,
and the "interference" patterns were different. One pattern was clumped
into 3 separate groups of hits and the other was a symmetrical decling wave
shape.

TRoc- I'm proposing the DSE single photon experiment.

Thoughts?
LL
Laserlight
24th November 2006 - 04:59 AM
Bohr's Complementarity Principle Challenged After 80 Years

Described by Bohr's Complementarity Principle, wave-particle duality, which considers particle theory and wave theory to be equally valid, yet mutually exclusive, is being challenged after 80 years. No one since Einstein in his apparent loss to Bohr in their famous debate has been able to show both interference and which-way information in the same experiment—until now.

Shahriar S. Afshar, a visiting professor at Rowan University (Glassboro, NJ), carried out a novel version of the "double slit" single photon experiment initially conducted at the Institute for Radiation-Induced Mass Studies (IRIMS; Boston, MA) and Harvard University (Cambridge, MA) in the high-flux regime, which Afshar claims to show light behaving as both particles and waves at the same time. "Wave-particle duality as described by Bohr's Complementarity Principle is incorrect," Afshar explains. "The Measurement Theory must be updated to include non-perturbative measurement schemes. Specifically, the concept of wavefunction collapse and the role of the observer must be revised."

In the simple experiment, a converging lens focuses laser light from two pinholes onto two different photodetectors. A wire grid with wire spacings falling exactly on the dark fringes of the interference pattern from the two slits is positioned just before the lens, enabling an indirect measurement of the wave nature of light. Because there are no photons incident on the wires to be scattered into the wrong image, the photons falling on the detectors demonstrate that each of the photons originate in only one of the pinholes. Thus, one has measured in the same experiment both the complementary wave and particle nature of the light, violating Bohr's Complementarity Principle.

So far, the revised experiment has only been carried out with single photons, not electrons, neutrons, or other particles, and the results have yet to be peer-reviewed. The experiment may lead to applications in the development of interaction-free measurements of light.
—Phillip Espinasse

Article from OE magazine Jan 2005
http://www.oemagazine.com/fromTheMagazine/.../eyeontech.html
TRoc
24th November 2006 - 05:28 AM
Laserlight,


QUOTE
What happens if a stream of individual photons only travels thru 1 of the 2 slits while both slits are open? Will it form a full interference pattern or only 1/2 of an interference pattern? What will the final photon count be?



If they only go through one slit, then the results should be the same as for one slit. If this is "1 at a time", then NO difference could be seen in the "predictable random" build up of the diffraction pattern.

More "photons" should be detected than theory predicts. For the reason of "divisibility" that I have given.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
What happens if a stream of individual photons only travels thru 1 of the 2 slits while both slits are open? Will it form a full interference pattern or only 1/2 of an interference pattern? What will the final photon count be?



If they only go through one slit, then the results should be the same as for one slit. If this is "1 at a time", then NO difference could be seen in the "predictable random" build up of the diffraction pattern.

More "photons" should be detected than theory predicts. For the reason of "divisibility" that I have given.


One of the observations made in both of the the single photon DSE's, was the unexpected increase of 4x (+) count in photons above the theoretical total,
and the "interference" patterns were different. One pattern was clumped into 3 separate groups of hits and the other was a symmetrical declining wave shape.



This seems to verify my claim. The decline in the lobes is due to loss of angular momentum, imparted by the slit "sides" to the center frequency of the packet as it goes through the slit.


The detector at both sides of the slit should have been done a long time ago!

You are singing to the choir here.

wink.gif


I don't remember if I have given this link before.

Geometric Phase Associated with Mode Transformations of Optical Beams Bearing Orbital Angular Momentum

QUOTE
Abstract:
We present direct measurements of a new geometric phase acquired by optical beams carrying orbital angular momentum. This phase arises when the transverse mode of a beam is transformed following a closed path in the space of modes. The measurements were done via the interference of two copropagating optical beams that pass through the same interferometer parts but acquire different geometric phases. The method is insensitive to dynamical phases. The magnitude and sign of the measured phases are in excellent agreement with theoretical predictions.

..

These experiments can also be performed with a reference beam in a mode other than the LG00 mode, in which case the geometric phase of the reference beam will also need to be accounted [26]. This method is robust and may find applications in new forms of quantum computation. All of these geometric phases arose from transformations involving a change in the OAM of the modes. They support the conjecture that geometric phase arises from the exchange of angular momentum between the light and the optical system [13].

(emphasis added)


ciao,

T.Roc

Confused2
24th November 2006 - 01:46 PM
Laserlight,
OK, we meet elephants on our way to Base Camp 1. I agree .. short and sweet.

TRoc,
Yes, I see what you mean about never answering a question, sorry, I will try to do better.
QUOTE (TRoc+)

[C2 - Do frequencies change in a ripple tank? ]
Well (again from the SSE) I would say yes. ..  But the new circle-wave is smaller than before it goes through the slit.


Here is a ripple tank.
http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm (WOW!)

Are we happy with the idea that the frequency measured at a point is the reciprocal of the length of time between (say) positive peaks of potential? This would be contraversial (and possibly downright wrong) if there were more than one frequency present but since there isn't we don't need to worry about it. Please play and report.

Best wishes to all,

-C2.
Duality
24th November 2006 - 03:58 PM
C2, hi, to everyone,

C2, quoted...
QUOTE
But the new circle-wave is smaller than before it goes through the slit.


Not sure how you define this?

Just a question that needs clarification.

Bye for now,
Duality/Lisa dry.gif
Laserlight
24th November 2006 - 04:41 PM
Hi C2-

QUOTE
Are we happy with the idea that the frequency measured at a point is the reciprocal of the length of time between (say) positive peaks of potential? This would be contraversial (and possibly downright wrong) if there were more than one frequency present but since there isn't we don't need to worry about it. Please play and report.



Well, f = 1/t but only if t is the time of the actual frequency being measured.
In the case of the peaks of interference, they are far too wide to represent
actual time of the wavelength of light. Those interference peaks are some
harmonic of the wavelength, IMO. I suspect that TRoc will be able to
determine your contention to be a component of the beat frequency,
probably 1/2 the beat frequency. JMHO.

Regards,
LL
Good Elf
24th November 2006 - 05:32 PM
Hi TRoc, Confused2, Laserlight, Duality, Yquantum et al,

QUOTE (TRoc+)
Do you agree that the "spreading" of the packet DEMANDS that we CAN take a multiple frequency approach? (for the single photon)
Spreading of a packet has no influence on the internal frequencies that compose it. We agree on many things but show me just how the spreading of photons changes their frequency? The only effect you can make on frequency of a photon is to have a "significant" relative velocity relative to the source. This would then be Special Relativity. This is a desk top experiment and not a case of relative motion unless you introduce that into the experiment. I personally think it has become far to muddled with talk of Michelson-Morely, unequal arms on the Interferometer, DSE, DCQE etc.

The next point of concern is questions about bandwidth. I freely admit that all emissions of radiation involve bandwidth. I not only "admit" this I insist on it. This is because you cannot have a single frequency emitting radiation that has ever started in time and then finished some time later. To carry any energy at all it will need to have a finite bandwidth, once you do that it and the photon has been emitted this makes it "discrete" and "packetized". That finite bandwidth relationship to energy is defined by E = hf. Remember a single frequency is not just x Hz where x is an integer. No sir... x must be a real number but is almost also certainly not an integer.... to be single frequency needs accuracy of infinite precision to hundreds of trillions of significant figures. Such a source of radiation would need stability from the period of the big bang to not have been "packetized". Therefore all single frequency packets will necessarily be BY DEFINITION contain a number of internal sidebands because of the way it is generated discretely in time. You show me a source of single frequency energy which has not suffered "packetization" in time yet carries only a single frequency. This is patently simple Fourier Theory. This cannot be "exceeded" or broken by even "god". Every packet contains a fundamental frequency but also must contain other frequencies due to the way it is generated. This is what all photons fundamentally look like.
User posted image
It begins and ends and can be unraveled to this basic format. This is oversimplified but even in this form you can see it must contain internal frequencies other than the fundamental. Actually it really never ends as stated previously through Wheeler-Feynman Theory.... the tails never end in time... forward or backward.

IMHO think it is easy... photons leave the source with a certain basic frequency and they arrive with the same frequency. E = hf.... end of story. While propagating as a continuous wave of coherent light the sidebands are almost entirely suppressed. The word is "suppressed" not removed. In the same way that the light and dark bands in space due to standing waves does not mean that photons are "clumping" and "dispersing"... It simply means photons cannot be detected at "nodes" and are most likely detected at "anti-nodes". The actual waves are still propagating through the nodes and anti-nodes since the cavities fill with energy and propagation still occurs. Understand that because you cannot detect something does not mean that it is not there. Waves of energy can pass through "nodes" ... in fact cavity resonance insists on it. When photons are individually emitted they carry E = hf energy and when they are absorbed they will only be absorbed in a resonant cavity that will accept that specific frequency. What so hard about that? As a wave expands into space the wavefront expands on the surface of a sphere (it is called the inverse square law) In a direction perpendicular to that direction of expansion, the thickness of expanding shells remains the same... that relates to the wavelength and the frequency which is fixed. The relationship is C = fλ you all remember that and the velocity in a vacuum is a constant.

Continuous Wave Propagation is a boson wave where all photons share a common quantum state. This is natural as shown by my construction. Boson waves are no theory they are a fact. Photons can occupy the same space at the same time without any problems and this you must all get around and understand. There are no such things as "anti-photons".

The reason why the shape of the expanding "photon pancakes" all look the same is because they are all residing on the wall of the light-cone and this has a fixed shape when a photon is confined to that surface. Photons cannot travel slower than the speed of light and they cannot travel faster than the speed of light. This means they travel everywhere light can travel at exactly the speed of light so they all occupy the one "space".... that is the surface of an expanding sphere. They can only spread and not change shape in any other direction... full stop.

These patterns in space are interference patterns. They are solutions for Schrodinger's Wave Equation in free space with obstructions which are absorbers and reflecting and refracting surfaces and have different solutions for the same geometry for each separate frequency of light in that one space. There are simple equations for this...
User posted image
This is coincidently the same as the solution for an electromagnetic wave equation.
User posted image
There is a second complex plane equation describing B as well. The solutions for the same cavity are symultaneously different. Go figure! One equation a scalar wave equation and the other a complex wave equation. Here is the tricky bit... they are one and the same equation... nothing up my sleeves and nothing under my beanie. wink.gif They give "exactly" the same answers in the same cavities. Read my lips... Schrodinger and Electromagnetism solve for the same "measurables" only one is not measurable and deals in a purely mathematical space and the other one are measurables and deals with "real" space. The other point is psi is not a vector and the electric and magnetic fields are. The E and B fields are "related" and are described by Euler's equations. Nothing less can describe it. Not my fault ... accept that one theory has dropped these points off to simplify the equations and to force "locality". The truth is the Universe has been proven non-local. We must live with that... otherwise go and get your Nobel Prize now with the defining experiment.

There is a definite difference when you get down to the nitty-gritty. Tell me what velocity does "probability" propagate at? I think this is a stupid question. I can tell you what is the velocity of light and it "propagates" and light does not behave like marbles in a box, it is much more complex and ordered than that.

Cheers
jal
24th November 2006 - 06:25 PM
Good day!
QUOTE
This means they travel everywhere light can travel at exactly the speed of light so they all occupy the one "space"....  that is the surface of an expanding sphere

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
This means they travel everywhere light can travel at exactly the speed of light so they all occupy the one "space"....  that is the surface of an expanding sphere

As a wave expands into space the wavefront expands on the surface of a sphere (it is called the inverse square law) In a direction perpendicular to that direction of expansion, the thickness of expanding shells remains the same... that relates to the wavelength and the frequency which is fixed.

Just wanted to make the comment that those above statements have not been experimentally verified. This presumption and concept could be a cause of missunderstanding. smile.gif
jal
TRoc
24th November 2006 - 06:39 PM
Hi all,


Dual, That comment was about a specific picture, on a web site that C2 linked. It has no bearing on the conversation in general. We are trying to get away from an over-simplistic view, such as the "water wave analogy", because we may miss important details about the phenomenon that we are trying to describe/discuss.



C2, As LL just said, true enough for the general definition, but don't get too far from the complete picture. Frequency and Wavelength are NOT separable, on their own terms. In this EM wave discussion, F * W = c , that ALWAYS must be accounted for. You can't give one more weight than the other, it just doesn't make sense. Using one or the other in textbooks, lectures, classes, etc. is for CONVENIENCE.


So, this is the basic theory, and it is used for the PERFECT situation, which, in fact DOES NOT EXIST. This is very common in Science. The foundations are built on generalizations. Quantum mechanics (the study of the FUNDAMENTAL nature of the smallest, "indivisibles") has changed this "standard" practice because the GENERALIZATIONS can no longer be used.

Getting somewhere with QM requires that we start from the ground up, yet it was built with "inputs" down, so to speak. This is why the generalizations made about the SSE & DSE are wrong. There is nothing "spooky", or non-local, or non-causal going on here. It is just that, a from the ground up, all inclusive explanation has not been given yet. I think that is what we are trying to do here.


We have more or less agreed to follow LL's start: the Single Slit Experiment (SSE), with One photon at a time. Let's keep one thing on the table at a time, and agree to (either/or both) offer our opinions (postulates), and give others feedback on theirs.


For me, these "rules" are academic. If you want to "play", then you agree to the rules. If you propose something, you should respect the feedback given to you by the people who you proposed to. If they offer evidence that does not agree with your postulate, that evidence must be dealt with - BEFORE going on to the next proposal or postulate. There must be a willingness to be proved wrong, and to be willing to prove why you think someone else is wrong. All of this should be presented and responded to logically. All of us are intelligent enough to get through this, so lets try!


regards,

T.Roc



Laserlight
24th November 2006 - 07:44 PM
Good Elf,

That was an excellent post. You made several arguments and defended them
well. Kudo's to you.

QUOTE
The E and B fields are "related" and are described by Euler's equations.


The E and B fields relationsionship should be directly proportional, since they
are co-dependent. Their instantaneous null solution is time/distance on the x axis.

LL
Confused2
24th November 2006 - 07:49 PM
Hi TRoc,

I've got my ripple tank ( http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm ) set up for diffraction. On the basis of how many cycles per second would be sensed by a thing dipped into the 'water' (or possibly even a frequency counter in an electromagnetic field) .. only one frequency seems to be present. Jumping the gun a bit .. I do agree that it can be difficult to believe that beneath interference patterns there can be two waves of the same frequency and wavelength travelling in different directions .. it requires great faith in the principle of superposition. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle )

All else in your last post is agreed with..

except..

QUOTE (TRoc+)

This is why the generalizations made about the SSE & DSE are wrong. There is nothing "spooky", ..


Hmmm..

Best wishes,

-C2.
Laserlight
24th November 2006 - 08:04 PM
TRoc,

QUOTE
We have more or less agreed to follow LL's start: the Single Slit Experiment (SSE), with One photon at a time. Let's keep one thing on the table at a time, and agree to (either/or both) offer our opinions (postulates), and give others feedback on theirs.


I said the Dual Slit Experiment with one photon at a time, since there is no
apparent interference pattern exhibited by the SSE, only refrative pattern.

Regards,
LL

TRoc
24th November 2006 - 08:14 PM
GE,



Very good! Although we still use some different terms, I take from your last post that we are in agreement.

Note that I did not say that the spreading of the wave changes the frequency. All I am saying is that there is a packet frequency (E=hf), and inside the packet are AT LEAST 3 other, determinable frequencies.

While you did not say that directly, you did agree that there MUST BE more that 1 frequency per bandwidth, packet, HUP smear, whatever.

I can also infer from your last post (and others), that since you agree that the packet can be Doppler shifted, you agree that the packet is "FLEXIBLE" or changeable over time. It is "suppressed" while in flight. For me, that means that I have the right to "unbundle" this pent up stress at, for example, a collision with matter.

So, if I'm not mistaken, C2 is the one for whom the majority of your post was directed? I have not stated anything contrary to your opinion to this point. (a few are below). I think that we need a consensus to move forward from here. If everyone agrees with these points above, then we are fine. If you say nothing now, you can't ask next week, "why are you including more than 1 frequency, .. where are you getting that from?", etc.

If I am mistaken, then I must question your approach GE. You seem to NEVER be able to make an agreement (with me) directly. You come from the angle that you are making a "correction" to something that was never said. Often, you use my own words, and statements as "evidence" to what I'm saying, or vice versa. Some would say "putting words in my mouth", etc. , and I don't care for that. smile.gif



OK, now for a few "disagreements" on you last post, towards the end. Probably, this is not a "true" disagreement, just semantics, as these last few pages have shown exist, and can be easily cleared up by simple, respectful, 2-way "arguments". Just communication + willingness to restate what you might have thought "obvious".

QUOTE
"The other point is psi is not a vector and the electric and magnetic fields are. The E and B fields are "related" and are described by Euler's equations. "


I have no problem with that. The packet has 2 different, inherent properties. Please note here, that I am not using SWE (Schroedinger wave equation), and I am certainly not using "probabilities". (again, who are you directing this to?)

The "spin" of the packet is orthogonal, on the axis parallel with propagation, and contains the EM vectors. TAKE NOTE EVERYONE: chopping up the packet DOES NOT need to change the EM vectors. This is like saying that cutting a snake in half does NOT change its' cylindrical shape, right? Just its' "snakelength".

I am not asking for "new Science" here. This is conservation of angular momentum.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
"The other point is psi is not a vector and the electric and magnetic fields are. The E and B fields are "related" and are described by Euler's equations. "


I have no problem with that. The packet has 2 different, inherent properties. Please note here, that I am not using SWE (Schroedinger wave equation), and I am certainly not using "probabilities". (again, who are you directing this to?)

The "spin" of the packet is orthogonal, on the axis parallel with propagation, and contains the EM vectors. TAKE NOTE EVERYONE: chopping up the packet DOES NOT need to change the EM vectors. This is like saying that cutting a snake in half does NOT change its' cylindrical shape, right? Just its' "snakelength".

I am not asking for "new Science" here. This is conservation of angular momentum.

"The truth is the Universe has been proven non-local."


This one I directly disagree with; I would propose a modification. It has been proven non-local with an ad hoc method, and only under certain conditions, and perspectives. Therefore, it has no reason, and is not FUNDAMENTALLY true. If a better method is used, and a logical path is shown for causality, then that statement if now FALSE.

We already agree that forces like gravity, and charge are not predicted to "end". This means things are "connected". Wheeler/Feynman and later Cramer, and even Wolff all have said this (actually MANY others have said this too).

It seems to me, GE, that you are arguing from both sides of the fence here. Do you believe these things are local (2 way, continuous communication), or non-local (1 way "clumps")?



Like it or not, waves are also predicted to be the "carriers" involved. I am using wave "mechanics" of a different sort; and, one that I might add, predates SWE, and the "probabilities" of QM, AND is not "incomplete". No disagreements, all "forces" included, predictable, etc. This is "music", or at least a system for wave mixing (matter included). It has ALSO been ad hoc; but no longer. I am simply postulating: derive one, derive both. (music & QM)


So, questions like this:
QUOTE
"Tell me what velocity does "probability" propagate at? I think this is a stupid question"


are to be answered by whom? I can't state more emphatically, that I think the "probabilities" method is not Scientific, and foolish.

The reason it's a stupid question is because of the stupid answers that preceded it (QM).


ciao,

T.Roc


Confused2
24th November 2006 - 08:16 PM
Hi Good Elf,

If we look at the graph http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ( from htttp://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_slit/experiments.shtml ) we see that the number of counts in the 'bright' bits has increased (I'd say) by roughly the amount of counts that have been lost from the dark bits... do you see anything like that too? Instead of being lost or invisible .. these photons might be turning up under our very noses .. exactly where Feynman (QED) predicted they would be.

The reason for introducing experiments other than the DSE is to assist us to see which theories can analyse one experiemnt but not another.. it's a quick cross check. For example see See Kennedy thorndike experiment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy-thorndike_experiment ) .. I don't see how the Elf packet can deal with that. I could discard the Elf packet without explaining why .. but (hopefully) that isn't why we're all posting on this thread.

QUOTE (Good Elf+)
what velocity does "probability" propagate at?

I suggest we should try to get to Base Camp 1 first .. from there we might at least be able to see the problem.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Duality
24th November 2006 - 08:21 PM
Hello, TRoc, Confused2, Laserlight, Good Elf, Yquantum et al, {BTW, where the heck is Yq?} ph34r.gif

TRoc, thanks, I understand and I will try and explain from a different view, which is just one opinion OK, everyone. I hope it will, open up a can of QM worm's?

Guys, I wish I knew everything, but I unfortunately I just know how little I really do know. But that will become very obvious in after you read this. blink.gif I am going toss a few ideas for you to consider, if you do not mind?

Dealing with the 3D/our view of our reality approach is so difficult for me, mathematical tools do not present this problem, it is the nature of the electron/photon and how it relates in our reality, that is the main crux of what I am about to present as best as possible.

I never have the time to explain in detail because of work, Good Elf, I am jealous but this is the right approach in order to explain you platform.

Guys, perhaps the greatest justification for the maintenance of the path-integral interpretation of quantum mechanics is supplied by the single particle variant of Thomas Young’s classic double-slit experiment, which everyone has been basically has been on the same page for some time now..

The paradox of the continued appearance of interference fringes even if see this strange nature in this version of the experiment is normally taken as confirmation that the path integral interpretation of quantum mechanics in which the particle is interpreted as traversing every possible path simultaneously, effectively “interfering with itself” and creating interference fringes in the process is correct, if you do not agree I am sure I will hear from you.

However, this is not the most efficient possible interpretation. Here is something different that most of you have read, I hope just a reminder of all those text books in the good old days of the phenomenon of single particle interference fringes is that they represents the UN-intuitive at experimental confirmation of the existence of the which I have not mentioned, yet it must be dealt with.

1. Casimir force and the Lamb shift.
2. Dirac equation and also from the uncertainty principle.
3. "Virtual particles predicted by the Dirac equation in the 1930s.
4. I will not bring up space-time again unless you want to, but guess what speed
these particles/sub-particles are traveling. wink.gif
&
5. Nevertheless, if we were to conceive of an experiment designed to test the reality of the quantum weirdness, none better than the single particle double-slit experiment could be imagined.

Duality/Lisa wub.gif
Laserlight
24th November 2006 - 08:50 PM
C2-

Let's define harmonic as it pertains to sin waves:

Harmonics (Def)

QUOTE
an alternating-current voltage or current or a component of such voltage or current, whose frequency is some integral multiple of a fundamental frequency

2 any of the pure tones making up a composite tone, including the fundamental and its upper partials or overtones; partial tone


Do you accept these definitions? Are integral multiples the pure frequency or
partial sub-frequencies?

There is a difference between integral multiples and "tones" (tones indicates
different frequecies, with different peak to peak timing). The fundamental
frequency has the same "tone" it does not change unless it is somehow deformed
by interacting with a similar frequency tone or matter. Remember my
discussion about "fidelity", which is the perfect reproduction of a signal?

I think that is TRocs contention. The pure frequency "tone" that enters the slits is
clipped or deformed by passing thru the cavities of the slits and as it tries to
recombine, post slits, it has a different tonal "quality" and relative timing
differences between the frequency components that does not exactly reproduce
the same pure frequency that entered the slits. The signal fidelity and timing
recombine but are deformed (to me, the timing and frequency should be
lengthened by the signal delay). The overlapping, recombining/mixing signals set
up constructive and destrutive harmonic "nodes" in 3 dimensions with low and high
points. This is the interference pattern projected on the 2d screen.

This works for me with a continuous parallel photon signal stream, but I cannot
comprehend how this occurs with a single serial photon "stream".

I'm still awaiting someone to provide an alternative suggestion to the
theory that I proposed.

LL
TRoc
24th November 2006 - 09:03 PM
All,



C2, sorry, I forgot to talk about your link. That was a very good animation. With this simple picture, I understand why you find it hard to see more that 1 frequency. That is why I am not using THAT picture to explain. Neither is GE. This is not either of our IDEAS, it is accepted by all sides, as far as I can tell. (wave packet)

I am going to do it again: In the link that you gave, PLEASE NOTE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PATTERN in the simple "circle" waves WHEN YOU INCLUDE (click the button) THE CONTAINER. These simple waves ALWAYS take the form of the container in the end. And there is our PATTERN again.. WITHOUT ANY SLITS.


LL, I was a little confused from your recent post
QUOTE
"The SSE radiates and generates a diffraction caused interference pattern.  The constant stream DSE generates an intense symmetrical descending wave interference pattern.  The single photon DSE generates a symmetrical descending interference pattern.

In all cases above, the photons traveled through both slits. "


You are right though, start with DSE, with the "right" to close off one slit for further understanding.
wink.gif


Duality, ( this is also for everyone else)
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
"The SSE radiates and generates a diffraction caused interference pattern.  The constant stream DSE generates an intense symmetrical descending wave interference pattern.  The single photon DSE generates a symmetrical descending interference pattern.

In all cases above, the photons traveled through both slits. "


You are right though, start with DSE, with the "right" to close off one slit for further understanding.
wink.gif


Duality, ( this is also for everyone else) "the experiment is normally taken as confirmation that the path integral interpretation of quantum mechanics in which the particle is interpreted as traversing every possible path simultaneously, effectively “interfering with itself” and creating interference fringes in the process is correct,"


QUOTE
However, this is not the most efficient possible interpretation


Absolutely! I am not saying the math behind it is wrong, just the model used to interpret it. Fraunhof method of arbitrary division of wavelength is NO DIFFERENT than the newer method of frequency multiplication (within Limit). The same for "all paths", that is saying more or less the same thing.

THEY ALL AGREE in the DIVISIBILITY of the packet, the latter 2 agree that there is a "summation" in the end that produces, the former uses geometry alone. The problem with "all paths", as I see it, is WHAT makes the "decision" for the location of the collapse? If "probability" is the answer, then I want a second opinion.

I concur with "God does not play dice".



ciao!

T.Roc

Laserlight
24th November 2006 - 09:19 PM
C2-

QUOTE
we see that the number of counts in the 'bright' bits has increased (I'd say) by roughly the amount of counts that have been lost from the dark bits.


Some things to note about the placement of the single photon "hits". If you
connect the top dots of each lobe with a curved line, a fundamental wave is outlined.
If you draw a cuved line between dots of relative position, between lobes, you also
get proportional increasing "waves" from top to bottom that lie within the
confines of the fundamental wave. I suspect these represent the 3D harmonic
interactions between waves, but I am still baffled by the mechanism that
generates the result. http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif

These harmonics could only be generated in the resonant cavities of the slits,
IMO. There is no other spacial location where the signals could interact or
mix before or after the slits.

Anyone else have an idea? Probabilities don't enter into this since it is a "serially"
generated signal and there are no timing or physical interactions before or after
the slits.

LL
Confused2
24th November 2006 - 10:16 PM
Hi LL,
I'm sorry if this is already obvious.
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
We don't have much information about this experiment .. let us assume they are using green light with a wavelength of about 500nm. From http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif we see that the peaks are (very roughly) 1mm apart. I'm going to guess that the distance between the slits and the screen is about 2 metre. So the slit spacing is about 2 x 500E-9 x 1E-3 = 1.0 mm . This may be reverse engineering but the equation has worked for the last hundred years or more so it should be OK for the next day or two.
Looking at http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter.../derivation.jpg AND the equation we see that the brightest bits occur where the path difference is equal to a whole wavelength and the darkest bits occur where the path difference is equal to half a wavelength.
To pass through both slits we see that Good Elf et al are claiming that a single photon is well over a millimetre across. The resolving power would be??? Does this fit with your intuition?
Are you familiar with QED (the book) and Feynman's 'sum over paths'?
-C2.
Good Elf
24th November 2006 - 10:31 PM
Hi TRoc,

Sorry that I am not specifically answering individual questions all the time. Each day I log in I see so many posts I am completely "overwhelmed" by the sheer volume. I do not have as much free time as I had previously so I tend to answer the group of individuals trying to clarify some points I believe are partially misunderstood.

QUOTE (TRoc to GE+)
Very good! Although we still use some different terms, I take from your last post that we are in agreement.
Yes... absolutely. Sometimes I see something I can become "obsessive compulsive" about... not belligerent I hope. I think you all understand I can answer questions far better than I can propose them. The purpose of "detail" is to understand "mechanism". For understanding you initially need "detail" so that you see the real mechanism then you can simplify. What is happening in the educational systems is they are simplifying without understanding "why" and thus the mechanism is lost (perhaps to history). The students are then reassured that "nothing important" was in the details anyway. In the meantime a lot of witchcraft and magic are performed by sorcerers. What should "children" believe with such "magic", it is no longer science to them but it becomes a magic. Well one magic is as good as any other and superstitions evolve... even in science... if you tell a lie often enough it becomes "the truth".

QUOTE (TRoc to GE+)
While you did not say that directly, you did agree that there MUST BE more that 1 frequency per bandwidth, packet, HUP smear, whatever.
I was being a bit obsessive about that and I mean that there cannot be only one frequency in any truncated waveform. The act of truncation in adds the additional frequencies. In the case of the emission of a single photon the "primitive" waveform of a sinc function is created from the field lines "clipping out" a short segment of EM wave (both the electric and magnetic fields) at every 1/2 cycle when the electric field lines "cross" at the source. Once the field lines at the source cross they "cut" and instantly mend as "field loops". The loop of electric field intensity cannot dissipate the energy it has at that moment of mending except if the loop is once again "grounded" on a "sink" then the extended loop which may have stretched who knows how far across the Universe contracts expending the enclosed energy into that "sink". In between the loop expands into space at the speed of light but always carries the fixed amount of energy it had at the moment that a complete loop was formed inside the source. The blue animation shows this instant when the source charges (or their centers) cross "snipping off" the loop like a shears. This act "snaps" the field line in the near field at speeds greater than light speed to connect the ends. At the same moment at the source the field is returned to zero and a new "loop" begins to form. This is all in the center of this diagram.
user posted image
I would add that since charges in my point of view are "derivative" the field line is far more important than the charge "particle" and is topology of the source. This topology propagates outward at ©.

QUOTE (TRoc to GE+)
I can also infer from your last post (and others), that since you agree that the packet can be Doppler shifted, you agree that the packet is "FLEXIBLE" or changeable over time. It is "suppressed" while in flight. For me, that means that I have the right to "unbundle" this pent up stress at, for example, a collision with matter.
The "suppression" of frequencies does not mean any interior packet frequencies are removed this is due to the bosonic wave nature of the photon. I have not attempted to take the next step in this matter with all of you... I can see that would be "magic" so I am waiting for everyone to be at the same level. I will give you a look ahead and say that the plane polarized wave is identical to two circularly polarized waves propagating in opposite senses like this...
User posted image
Read about it here first to understand...
Optical Activity
I pose a question to you... does this mean each photon has "split" into two new photons?

QUOTE (TRoc to GE+)
The "spin" of the packet is orthogonal, on the axis parallel with propagation, and contains the EM vectors. TAKE NOTE EVERYONE: chopping up the packet DOES NOT need to change the EM vectors. This is like saying that cutting a snake in half does NOT change its' cylindrical shape, right? Just its' "snakelength".

I am not asking for "new Science" here. This is conservation of angular momentum.
I am asking for new science since spin is a new level of dimensional understanding and is or will be the "key" to why this phenomenon is occurring. I have needed to concentrate on fundamentals but have a little thinky about this.

QUOTE (TRoc to GE+)
QUOTE (GE+)
"The truth is the Universe has been proven non-local."
This one I directly disagree with; I would propose a modification. It has been proven non-local with an ad hoc method, and only under certain conditions, and perspectives. Therefore, it has no reason, and is not FUNDAMENTALLY true. If a better method is used, and a logical path is shown for causality, then that statement if now FALSE.
We already agree that forces like gravity, and charge are not predicted to "end". This means things are "connected". Wheeler/Feynman and later Cramer, and even Wolff all have said this (actually MANY others have said this too).

It seems to me, GE, that you are arguing from both sides of the fence here. Do you believe these things are local (2 way, continuous communication), or non-local (1 way "clumps")?
OK... let me qualify this... it is non-local in three dimensions. It is local in higher dimensions. All the theories above are three dimensional plus time theories (actually spacetime theories). These are limited by the bounding cavity of the local Universe... not just the one you surmise is 15 Billion Light Years away but the most immediate boundary that is linked to the "topological surfaces" of all sub-atomic particles and also in the other sense of our "macrocosm" too. It is a shortcut to the "outer side of our Universe" through "strings". Local theories say that influences must be physically "close" to the "effects" so cause and effects are "subluminal". There is a way in which the supraluminal effects can occur and that is across the brane surface where photons are in higher dimensions "above" our three dimensional space. An orthogonal space to our spacetime linked "harmonically to our "normal" space but energetically separate except for "harmonic process" which can enter it. When you include those extra dimensions ... everything becomes "local"... anywhere in our Universe... and that is why the DCQE Experiment "works". IMHO this is what is happening to Wheeler-Feynman waves that are masked by time... they are the strings on the surface of our resonant Universe.
QUOTE
o, questions like this:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
o, questions like this:
"Tell me what velocity does "probability" propagate at? I think this is a stupid question" are to be answered by whom? I can't state more emphatically, that I think the "probabilities" method is not Scientific, and foolish.

The reason it's a stupid question is because of the stupid answers that preceded it (QM).
Yes!

Cheers
Confused2
24th November 2006 - 10:55 PM
As Good Elf pointed out .. if a source of EM is switched on at any time then there will be extra frequencies present. I have tried to draw attention to the way that even the single photon DSE seems to produce the interference pattern of a steady state source - are others seeing something in the data that I am not?
-C2.
Good Elf
24th November 2006 - 11:04 PM
Hi Laserlight,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)
The E and B fields are "related" and are described by Euler's equations.

The E and B fields relationship should be directly proportional, since they
are co-dependent. Their instantaneous null solution is time/distance on the x axis.
Actually the internal energy flows are shown by the field lines are quite different for the electric and magnetic fields...

Here is a three dimensional pie section cut from an electromagnetic dipole.
User posted image
click on it for more detail. Blue = Magnetic field red = Electric field. These "fields" are the directions that tiny charged test particles would be forced to move along if free to do so so they show "interesting" detail you do not normally find in texts which have dumbed things way way down to a point people think there is "nothing of consequence there". There is maths on the page below for the near-field retarded potential solutions. This is only 1/2 of the Wheeler-Feynman Solutions. WF would have "advanced" solutions as well ... coming from the direction of the future.
Read here for the full details...
Radiation from a short dipole
Have a read of this and then comment if you think that the electric and magnetic fields are "the same". Field lines for the electric field run in concentric loops in the plane of the dipole for radiating energy while packets are "bound" by "magnetic strings" in the solenoidal directions "threading" the cores of the packets as fiber bundles that "loop".

I would also say that my previous post to TRoc would be of great assistance to you and Confused2 to help see the various points that may soon emerge.

Cheers
Laserlight
24th November 2006 - 11:50 PM
C2-

According to the experiment:

QUOTE
1. Using time of flight measurements: A photon traveling 3x108m/s will navigate the one meter path from single slit to detector


The distance from the source to the detector is 1M. The dual slits are
1/2 way so, they are located 1/2M from the detector.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
1. Using time of flight measurements: A photon traveling 3x108m/s will navigate the one meter path from single slit to detector


The distance from the source to the detector is 1M. The dual slits are
1/2 way so, they are located 1/2M from the detector.

I'm going to guess that the distance between the slits and the screen is about 2 metre. So the slit spacing is about 2 x 500E-9 x 1E-3 = 1.0 mm .


Hmmm, I get 1nm for the answer, something isn't right with your formula or my calculator.

QUOTE
Are you familiar with QED (the book) and Feynman's 'sum over paths'?


No. not directly. What is your point?

Regards,
LL



Good Elf
25th November 2006 - 12:01 AM
Hi Confused2,

QUOTE (C2+)
To pass through both slits we see that Good Elf et al are claiming that a single photon is well over a millimetre across. The resolving power would be??? Does this fit with your intuition?
Are you familiar with QED (the book) and Feynman's 'sum over paths'?
There is more... these "shadows" from "quantum space" can stretch over thousands of light years given the distance some photons "apparently" travel. They undergo "pancakeification"... While maintaining their constant "thickness" which is "between" 1/2 to 1 wavelength they are spreading on the surface of a sphere. Each field line fiber retains the energy that originally was required to make it. The fiber is a mental construct but it indicates direction of energy flow and energy density as noted in my last post. This is for photons only. Of course this is almost everything we know see and touch so it is quite considerable.

For completeness the image shown by Zephir is for an electron type of particle and it happens to also be the idea stuck in many peoples mind about photons too (little round balls of particles). The difference is photons spread on the surface of an expanding sphere inside of a cavity while the electron is a photon in a cavity as seen from "outside".
user posted image
This spreading is the expression of the projection from higher orthogonal spaces on to the "hyper-surface of our internal cavity ... the Universe". Once again this "interference" are like light caustics in volumetric space. We have a phenomenon in Australia called the "Min Min" light. These "apparitions" form spatial 3D images which can stand as free objects in the landscape as flickering lights. They are usually a very bright light similar to propane mantle lights only there are no sources there at the spot it is seen. They originate from light sources hundreds of miles away sometimes and they resonantly appear scaring the natives and some tourists to near insanity. Approaching them changes the "tune" and they jump to other locations along the general illumination path. It requires special conditions, a lot of sand, and very flat wet regions after rain but close examination shows they are cavity excitations and move that way too.
http://www.abc.net.au/northcoast/stories/s1012973.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s818193.htm
They have a parallel in the mid west of the US where they are called "ghost lights".

Tesla knew all these things and in the movie "The Prestige" we see Tesla using the earths resonance to light incandescent globes many kilometers away in space without the need to connect wires. That part of the movie was a true story.

QUOTE (C2+)
If we look at the graph http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ( from htttp://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_slit/experiments.shtml ) we see that the number of counts in the 'bright' bits has increased (I'd say) by roughly the amount of counts that have been lost from the dark bits... do you see anything like that too? Instead of being lost or invisible .. these photons might be turning up under our very noses .. exactly where Feynman (QED) predicted they would be.

The reason for introducing experiments other than the DSE is to assist us to see which theories can analyze one experiment but not another.. it's a quick cross check. For example see See Kennedy thorndike experiment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy-thorndike_experiment ) .. I don't see how the Elf packet can deal with that. I could discard the Elf packet without explaining why .. but (hopefully) that isn't why we're all posting on this thread.
That article on the Kennedy-Thorndike Experiment is a little light on C2! biggrin.gif (no pun intended) Unequal arm MM Interferometers are resonant "chambers" in special directions. That is what those static light and dark fringes mean. But even though along the length of the adjustable arm we can focus on successive fringes one at a time you cannot deny that between successive bright zones we have successive dark zones and these are constantly dark. But we know for sure the energy passes those points to the next bright patch. In the MM Experiment the distance between nodes is one wavelength because we are measuring along the wavefronts within the instrument. Been there... done that... bought the tee shirt. What I am saying is where you have standing waves (which is what these are) nodes represent "forbidden zones" where photons cannot be detected easily (anti-eigen states). This is a form of tunneling by our universe. The photons pass there just that you can't detect them. In three dimensions a small particle placed at that node is "transparent" to the wave. The energy flow is through the point but is not able to absorbed at that point. This is similar to a skin-effect with RF energy. The resonance fills the cavity as I have said. It is a static pattern in space and is "a-temporal" since the event is also frozen in time as well for individual photons. That pattern that extends "everywhere", truncated only by Wheeler-Feynman rules is a timeless "painting" being "brushed" into place by the Universe itself, each individual one of them, event by event, of the individual photons "executing" a-temporally in space. Carefully examine this animation at top above by Zephir and understand this important point.

Cheers
jal
25th November 2006 - 12:08 AM
Good Elf!
You are going way ahead of the experimental evidence with the "theory".
I cannot find the "evidence" to support your theory.
jal
Confused2
25th November 2006 - 12:25 AM
Hi LL,
This is quite an important point!
Sorry I missed the 1 metre in the blurb
Are you happy with the derivation in http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html?
slit separation = (wavelength) x (Distance to screen) / (distance between maxima)
1) = ( 0.000 000 500 ) x (1 ) /( 0.001) metres
2) = ( 0.000 500 x 1 ) metres
3) = 0.5 mm ???
4) 0.5 mm photons still seem a bit on the large side
Where do you think I have gone wrong?
C2.

Sorry .. I misread again .. the slits are a quarter of a mm apart .. still a lot for a single photon to cover ..
Good Elf
25th November 2006 - 12:38 AM
Hi Jal, (and I guess a lot of others too.. )

QUOTE (Jal+)
Good Elf!
You are going way ahead of the experimental evidence with the "theory".
I cannot find the "evidence" to support your theory.
jal
Sorry you feel that way though I realize why you are saying that. I could say "trust me" but that would be "magic" wouldn't it? While I am not about to launch a point by point dissection of my assertions on this forum right now, I have carefully considered the whole and this is the conclusion. All the experimental evidence is there, and I have spoken about all the various points of order. If you do not see the "Big Picture" you would need to look back over all my posts in the last few years to see that I do not make this claim lightly.

For "evidence" look here...
All Good Elf Posts
There are currently 113 very long web pages of this information representing 2823 posts, most of which are individually quite long and tedious to some. Some images and sites have become "stale" and so no longer can be used by you to reconstruct "everything" as it was. I apologize but this is the nature of the Web as you all know. I have not actually contradicted any of the things I have been saying here but I have "polished" a few points up by way of presentation ... that is all. If you have a specific point I will answer it for you. Just ask and I will support it with as much documentation as possible. I am not about to answer too many questions though... I no longer have the time. I am truly sorry about that (I would rather do this than work but ... you know). wink.gif

I can also say that I am a qualified Physicist and I have spent "a lifetime" in technical instrumentation and high energy engineering equipment where I have seen these things first hand. I lean heavily on the practical and I am "aware" of the theoretical... But I am not an "academic".

Cheers
Laserlight
25th November 2006 - 12:59 AM
Good Elf,

RE: Min Min lights....see Marfa lights link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marfa_lights
Confused2
25th November 2006 - 01:02 AM
Hi Good Elf,

What do you think the slit separation is?

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml

-C2.
Good Elf
25th November 2006 - 01:10 AM
Hi Laserlight,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Good Elf,
RE: Min Min lights....see Marfa lights link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marfa_lights
Marfa Lights ... Yes same thing. They are a little more "seasonal" in Australia. A friend of mine was a science master from a College on a trip into the "Outback" in Central Queensland about 20 years ago. The "kids" played all night with them on the flats of a wide dry stream bed... these are up to 1 Km wide composed of fine quartz sand. You can approach these "lights" to about 50 meters and throw things at them which disrupts the "image" and causes it to waver and regroup nearby on the flats. They tend to execute a vertical simple harmonic motion at about 10 Hz with a few added "overtones". Throwing sand into the midst of them causes them to disperse and jump to another locality. It is a "resonance" but obviously "excited" by some distant source over the horizon... a la Tesla.

I have seen a lot of other "stuff" as well through my Geophysical Background but that is another story. "More things in heaven and earth.... Horatio"

Cheers
Laserlight
25th November 2006 - 01:22 AM
C2-

QUOTE
I misread again .. the slits are a quarter of a mm apart .. still a lot for a single photon to cover ..


That is better, I agree. Slit spacing is .25mm

I think it was you who linked the applet that allowed the user to change
the slit spacing to see the effect of the interference patterns.

LL
Laserlight
25th November 2006 - 01:55 AM
GE-
Off topic....

QUOTE
They tend to execute a vertical simple harmonic motion at about 10 Hz with a few added "overtones". Throwing sand into the midst of them causes them to disperse and jump to another locality. It is a "resonance" but obviously "excited" by some distant source over the horizon... a la Tesla.


Kind of a "quantum" energy mirage.... Interesting phenomenon.

LL
Good Elf
25th November 2006 - 01:58 AM
Hi Confused2,

QUOTE (Confused2+)
Hi Good Elf,

What do you think the slit separation is?
You can see with your applet some effects at different frequencies are also shown. Tick the show dimensions box. The separation of lines on a screen really depends not only on the slit width, the separation, the frequency of the light but "critically" on the distance to the screen as well. This separation is a "free choice". For low levels of light you need to "up the brightness"... you can see the light spread over any field of view and the pattern never ends only gets fainter.
http://www.falstad.com/diffraction/
When it comes to data... aside from "eyeballing" this applet for double slit case... Garbage in garbage out... I have no idea what they originally did.

Try a slit width of 2mm and then zoom way back and slowly "up the brightness". I think those theories which have tiny photons should be "smaller" than 2 mm. The pattern itself could be expanded to fill a room ... or not.

Cheers
Duality
25th November 2006 - 02:21 AM
Hi everyone,

If you might be thinking in terms of particles or waves there is a question I would like to ask.

First I do not have the answer, sorry can anyone really comprehend the size of this particle? You could use mm, etc. but truth be know, I am afraid it will all come to the consensus that we must approach this as Good Elf has stated if you need some answer.

I am ashame to say that we are no better off than we were thirty years ago in understanding QM, but it works and it also develops better technology in which I hope makes a better world to live in.

I give others a hard time on other post, but all it seems is for them to use some data to support there theory or how else can we make an intelligent assessment. It is only in fun, not to harm.

Everyone has a right to there opinion, just give us something to work with is all most would ask. This is what T. Young has presented to us, would you not say...

In the case of Young's DDE, all I see is what I saw so many years ago as a teenager growing up in this field. Speculation's, so go with David Bohm if you need closure because I am afraid we do not have the technology to really answer this question.

There, I just tossed out the baby with the bath water.

Duality/Lisa
jal
25th November 2006 - 02:30 AM
Duality!
QUOTE
I am afraid we do not have the technology to really answer this question.

You answered my question. smile.gif
I'm going to put my bet on the bath water. biggrin.gif
jal
Duality
25th November 2006 - 02:55 AM
jal, biggrin.gif

Please do not underestimate the ability of the human mind. You or anyone else can reach far greater goals than the technology we have as of to date. You do not have to be a physicist, or a expert in a field. Just have some data, concepts that have been proven, and some brilliant way to test your theory.

How does it go?

QUOTE
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.  Niels Bohr


We will not even bring up, A. Einstein & what he did without the technology. wink.gif biggrin.gif A.E. gave us a warning --remember the concept should be able to be understood by a child-- he also gave us some way to test his ideas, which gave validity to his concepts.

There is a disclaimer here, he forgot to tell us how to understand QM. laugh.gif I think I understand better now than ever why he considered it incomplete. That one is for you C2, & Good Elf.

The real test of a first-rate intelligence for everyone is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. Not sure I am have reached this place.

Best,
Duality/Lisa
Laserlight
25th November 2006 - 03:36 AM
Duality/Lisa,

QUOTE
We will not even bring up, A. Einstein & what he did without the technology.  A.E. gave us a warning --remember the concept should be able to be understood by a child-- he also gave us some way to test his ideas, which gave validity to his concepts.


Good point! Anything we can imagine, that has a basis in reality, we can
construct or explain easily. The main issue is understanding what is reality, and
keeping it pure and simple.

LL

TRoc
25th November 2006 - 05:49 AM
Hi everyone,


What a great job! Very good posts from everyone, and all "hovering" around a common point (or 2).


I'm going to address LL here, from a question of his a few pages back. He asked for feedback on this:
QUOTE
    What I'm proposing isn't an optical cavity in the conventional mirror/lens configuration. I'm thinking of it as an optical "transformer". I'm suggesting that is an "induction" process caused by the interaction of EM fields in the presence of matter. (Consider it like electrons flowing thru the geometric center of a loop of coiled wire transformer). (I know that electrons have charge and are "matter") The point being that the localized EM proximity charges inherent in the matter of the walls of the specific cavity are interacting with the EM charges of the passing photons. This causes field interactions in the atoms in the walls of the cavity and they are"ringing" due to the induced charge interactions.
    I am proposing that this "atomic ringing" is setting up a harmonic field oscillation
that is being coupled into the other cavity thru the "ringing" atoms of the center
post. The second cavity is reflecting and amplifying the induced ringing "energy field" and a twin photon is being generated due to the transformer field harmonic amplification effect.
    Remember my explanation of how the magnetron works...which is using electrons and tuned cavities to generate harmonic photonic energy fields. I'm proposing a similar photon generated harmonic energy field effect.
    We know that EM energy fields in photons and matter interact.  We know that matter converts photon energy to different forms of energy.  We know how electrons act when interacting with EM energy fields."



I agree with this in principle very much. I was trying to leave some things "off" of the table right now, especially given that to PROVE this requires a new & special set-up. So, for the sake of this conversation, that seems like "too much". Taken as a WHOLE, any term of Resonance will always include all the other parameters that are NOT producing the resonance. You cant have one without the other; this is Nature's Bayesian logical reduction of the "impossible" (dissonant). Those signals are excluded from the effect, but not the cause.

As I mentioned before, I don't give the "photon" independent existence. It always exists as a transaction between masses. So, for my idea of wave mixing, the cavity must be a part of the equation, because it dictates several key behaviors of the movement of energy. Just as we thought that lightning "struck" the ground, until super-slow-motion cameras revealed that the Earth sends a charge out to "greet" the bolt of lightning, which never technically touches the ground.

Definitely, in the 1 at a time photon runs, the cavity "ringing" plays the key role in imparting "predictably random" bits of angular momentum, which translates into the random build-up of the screen pattern. Each new "photon" enters into a slightly different, but limited set of modes of the cavity (pre-slit side). The end result is predictable (and consistent.. never showing some "quantum wrong turn"); how it gets there "seems random" because of NO monitoring of the cavity modes. No information means "magic" to those who don't realize what's missing.


ciao!,

T.Roc

Laserlight
25th November 2006 - 08:19 AM
TRoc and All,

Thanks for the honest feedback. I'm sure there are more fine "details" if this
is really a workable quantum+physical mechanism, but the concept seems
like it should theoretically work. I think that the width, geometry, and proximity of each
slit is significant, both in how the quantum fields interact and also in how the
side walls act as reflectors to sustain and amplify the atomic "ringing" or signal
mixing.

It seems somewhat apparent that a single slit cavity has an effect on a
serial stream of individual photons because a small wave arc pattern is generated
by each slit intdividually, and they are displaced or offset from each other, but
both exhibit a similar wave shape. There is a fixed photon count thru each
individual slit when the other slit is closed, which is consistent over the sampling
time. However, when both slits are open and the same sample time is registered,
there is a squaring of the total photon count and the interference pattern becomes
a mirror image, full interference pattern, with nearly symmetrical opposing photon
placement on each 1/2 of the pattern. Keep in mind that this is still a serial
photon stream, however the individual photons can travel thru either slit cavity.

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml

There appears to be at least 3 effects ongoing with both slits open, there may
be more.

1. There is signal "amplification" as evidenced by the increased size of the
interference pattern, when compared to either single slit pattern.

2. There is a squaring of the photon count....where did the extra photons come
from? Were they generated due to the ringing of the second cavity that acted
like a tuned cavity signal amplifier by concentrating the energy and propagating a
slightly delayed spontaneous photon wave emission with opposite integer spin
to the original photon?

QUOTE
At the central maximum, going from one to two sits quadruples not doubles, the count rate. And, contrary to the logic of classical particles, at either minimum, opening a second slit markedly reduces the count rate.


3. If the effect in step 2 did occur, it would explain the apparent "mirror"
symmetry and photon hit correlation of the resultant interference pattern.

Comments, opinions, disagreements, different mechanisms welcome.

Does anyone want to develop/discuss this further?

LL
Confused2
25th November 2006 - 09:17 AM
Hi LL,

Attempting a rough integreation over the pattern of http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml

From the downward pointing arrow curve..

Treating it as a triangle

Base = 6, Height = 700

Area (roughly) = 1/2 x 6 x 700 = 2100
Ditto for the other slit

Area under slit 1 + slit 2 = (approx) 4,200

Area under both slit curve

Base of each 'triangle' is approx 0.9

Starting at '3'
1/2 x 0.9 x ( 700 + 1500 + 2100 + 2400 + 2100 + 1500 + 700)
= 11,000 x 0.45 = 4950

Very roughly ..
sum of slits individually = 4300
sum of both slits open = 4950

I suspect the idea that the total photon count might be the same in both cases has already been rejected - if so then I won't attempt a better integration.

Best wishes,

-C2.
Confused2
25th November 2006 - 04:28 PM
Ready or not..

A rather tedious square counting process gives a total of

106 for one slit
112 for the other slit
----
218 Total

209 for both slits open

I'd say the 5% error could easily be the result my poor square counting.

So it looks like photons migrate from the darke regions into the bright regions .. hence the the intensity is squared (1 + 1) + (1 + 1) = 4!

At some point we should perhaps look at what happens if one of Good Elf's giant photons does not score a direct hit exactly half way between the slits. I suspect the littler photons go everywhere and yet everybody sees a nice pattern even without trying to line up all of the giant photons.

The point of experiment is not so much to preserve a theory as show what happens in reality - theory comes later.

In my mind we all reach ' Base Camp 1 ' when we realize that we don't know how the DSE works.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Duality
25th November 2006 - 06:04 PM
C2,

I would suggest that you check into the dynamics/characteristic's of the boson's/photon.

Just to give a better perspective/approach to counting of this element.

Duality/Lisa wub.gif
Laserlight
25th November 2006 - 06:05 PM
C2- and ALL,

If you read the whole experiment again, you should find that the students used
a photomultiplier and a frequency counter to count the photons. The photon
graph at the bottom of the experiment shows photon count per second.


C2 said,
QUOTE
At some point we should perhaps look at what happens if one of Good Elf's giant photons does not score a direct hit exactly half way between the slits. I suspect the littler photons go everywhere and yet everybody sees a nice pattern even without trying to line up all of the giant photons.

The point of experiment is not so much to preserve a theory as show what happens in reality - theory comes later.

In my mind we all reach ' Base Camp 1 ' when we realize that we don't know how the DSE works.


IMO, if you consider wavelength and amplitude of photon EM fields, each frequency of
photon is a different size, relatively speaking. You know that antennas are
designed to be some equal fractional portion of the photons that they are radiating
or receiving, either full wavelength, 1/2 wavelength, 1/4 wavelength....The
antennas inside your eyes (rods & cones) are designed to pick up photons in the
visible spectrum and are relatively tiny. They reject infrared, as can be
seen in "red-eye" photographs that have silver crystals sensitive to IR.

Consider the geometry of the DSE as a "tuned" receiving antenna with a built in
oscillator-amplifer cavity. It could be considered kind of like a photonic
version of a "cat's whisker" radio diode where a crystal is sensitive to radio
photons and acts as a cavity oscillator whose frequencies are detected by a
tungsten filament wire. In that example there is an interaction between
photons and matter where the crystal wall facets reflect the received RF signals
internally inside the cavity and set up an amplified harmonic oscillation that can be
detected.

I see some possible theoretical similarity in mechanisms between the two
examples.

Your thoughts?

LL
TRoc
25th November 2006 - 06:14 PM
Hi all,


LL,


Yes, let's just go through this. First, let me throw in my "usual" questions, because this experiment takes place on a University, and we know that words and statements can be ... exaggerated?

IE : monochromatic, one photon, there's no beer in here, I love you


So, before we do too much work "counting" their "counts", lets examine their WORDS vs THEORY LAWS, and ENGINEERED REALITIES. We shouldn't find any beer cans. tongue.gif


First, in case you didn't read this before, HERE is a link to my post to C2. This is the same web site that you are talking about. There are good reasons to doubt the description of the experiment, that is: WHAT it is they are doing is an interpretation itself.

QUOTE
The photodiode is connected to a voltmeter through a current-to-voltage converter. ..  the output voltage (which is proportional to the light intensity)


First question: what is this "voltage to light intensity" RATIO? Would that be an additive process? Counting 1+1 doesn't need multiplication, so the only proportion that is solvable, by 1+1 method, is 1/1, or 1. Anything more than that wouldn't be a 1+1 count would it?


The "rules" of QM do NOT require a single interpretation of the "photon". Energy is a process; already itself, a complex ratio of information. What is single Energy? Is that even a valid question? Now, let's add superposition to the equation: this principle states clearly that more than one "photon" can exist at the same time, in the same place. What does that do to the Energy of any single place and time? How confident are our measurements of Energy to "photon" count conversion? My confidence in it is null.


I hope this last paragraph has an effect on you. E=hf is stating this: the CHANGE in Energy = an integer # of cuts, each 6.626e-34 parts of the ratio of the speed of light to the cycle distance. In order to get f , you need to divide 299,792,458 by the wavelength. Then, you multiply this typically large number, by the very small value for h . This is the same mathematical statement as saying "divide the RATIO of cycles to velocity into 6.626e-34 parts. That statement does not speak of "singleness" to me.


That is the "photon" side of the argument, now lets' go to the electron point of perspective.

Down in the "bowels" of the measuring device, we have a p-n junction. The incoming EM wave is said to force an electron from the valence band to the conduction band, where it can be measured (by voltage across the p-n). Atomic transitions are MUCH more rigorously defined than the handful of metals that display the photoelectric effect. So, I'm going to stick with the idea of a requirement of a specific quanta of Energy being needed to make the electron "jump". There is no kinetic energy being employed in this calculation, and we must ALLOW for superposition of "photons". This quite clearly means that the counter can NOT distinguish superimposed Energies. It just "clicks" when E=hf. IT DOES NOT SAY, NOR CAN IT SAY, ANYTHING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF "PHOTONS".


Science does NOT have ANY explanation, or clear mathematical rules for Resonance. It is commonly defined as either the 1:1, or 1:2 ratio. Nothing else. Pythagoras paved the way for a further explanation, but a satisfactory one has never been given. This is why I am suggesting my method for further understanding. There are a clear set of mathematical, and geometrical rules that can be applied to "beat-frequencies", or differences in ratios. This explanation is required for an understanding of Energy superpositions, which will explain the affect that we are describing. How Energy can combine its' force on a given area, at an arbitrary moment in time. (without being permanently coupled)



That should suffice for a start.


T.Roc



Laserlight
25th November 2006 - 06:55 PM
TRoc,

Good argument! Keep in mind that a PMT amplifies the energy of a photon
by 1M+ times and individual photon "hits" appear as bright flashes which
can be counted by detecting the voltage increase at the detector from some
threshold ambient, non-stimulated, voltage plateau.

It is true that there could be coincidental photons impacting at near simultaneous
time intervals, but that should appear in the average of all measurements or
voltage increase "counts", whether it be only 1 slit or both slits open. My point
being that there will be a close correlation to the accuracy of counts in both
cases since both are being done in the same fashion. Consider it "averaged"
counts as opposed to absolute counts.

Yes we, as outside observers of their data, can only try to interpret what they
are reporting. There is a finite information set and we do not know how
accurate or complete their interpretations are, but we can also apply correlating
information from other similar experiments to attempt to validate their methods
and results.

Unfortunately, we are at the mercy of circumstances beyond our control and must
make subjective conclusions or predictions based upon the evidence presented.
Such is the quest for knowledge as we seek the truth.

Regards,
LL
Confused2
25th November 2006 - 06:56 PM
Hi Duality,

I suspect that dealing with things that do not explain the DSE may be every bit as difficult as dealing with the DSE itself.

Maybe we'll see that the 'wavepacket' has many of the properties of an entire wavefront .. maybe even more than one wavefront .. maybe we'll see a lot of things .. maybe we won't.

If we continue to apply simple concepts and they continue to fail .. then maybe we might try a more complicated concept.. or maybe not.

If anyone thinks I've miscounted the squares or that the 'extra' events are not in some way related to the 'missing' events .. we may learn something. I assure you the square counting is 'honest' (and tedious).

Best wishes,

-C2.



Laserlight
25th November 2006 - 07:22 PM
C2 and All,

QUOTE
Maybe we'll see that the 'wavepacket' has many of the properties of an entire wavefront .. maybe even more than one wavefront .. maybe we'll see a lot of things .. maybe we won't.


Are we absolutely certain that the wavefront and wave tail "oscillations" observed
in a pulse on an o-scope, aren't just artifacts caused by the "ringing" of the atoms
of the matter of the detector itself as they are stimulated out of their normal
orbits by the leading edge of the incoming pulse? The tail oscillations might be
"relaxation" delay ringing as the electrons fall back into their steady state orbits
after the primary energy pulse passes and transitions back toward zero at the tail?
"Ringing" is a natural phenomenon of atomic movement in the presence of
energy.

My quesiton is posed because a sin wave is a pure undistorted mathematical
representation of pure energy as it relates to pi or a ratio of lenths and angles of
a circle.
A pulse should also be pure energy, until it interacts with matter that has
a different energy wave frequency signature. The combination of both energy frequency signatures
would cause some distortion as the differing energy frequencies mix.

Just a thought, but I think I'm right about this.

Comments?
LL
Duality
25th November 2006 - 07:52 PM
LL, C2, TR, and all,

I think this is getting to the enigma of the problem now, we know that what ever we measure with, it is made up of atoms that are very active, energy of some source, etc.

This has always been on my mind how to make this test sterile in the sense you would not have entanglement but then you would have to deal with so many other aspects of this DSE and that is just on or 3D surface, what is going on in the QM world is to make one, well not there yet. wacko.gif


QUOTE
Maybe we'll see that the 'wave packet' has many of the properties of an entire wavefront .. maybe even more than one wavefront .. maybe we'll see a lot of things


From my view this is were you begin to have a better understanding of the QM dynamics.

D/L
Confused2
25th November 2006 - 08:17 PM
Hi LL and ALL,

If you take a peek at ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_dynami...a_single_photon
you'll maybe get an idea of where I'm coming from. I can't do the maths either but I can do bits of it well enough to see whether we're heading in a direction that might yield a useful/interesting result

Another peek at ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field...ory#What_QFT_is
then it looks like you have to throw away most of what you thought you knew as a result of understanding the first reference. Life!

QUOTE ( Last reference+)
particles only emerge as localized excitations (aka quanta  aka quasiparticles ) of the ground state  (aka the vacuum)

I am certainly not committed to QM .. if any sensible alternative comes up then I'll go with that .. but it has to be sensible. A theory that requires you to say "It's yea big now.. and then it's another yea big, and now it's something else" .. not science in my opinion.

EM and photons:-. almost by definition photons MUST (en masse) duplicate classical electrodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle

If we look at a ripple tank DSE we see all the waves out in the open.. multiple wavefronts meeting and interfering and so on. We do it with light .. pretty much the same equations .. multiple wavefronts .. same pattern. And then you do it with one photon .. same pattern.. this stuff about photons it isn't just a theory .. a single photon REALLY DOES IT - multiple wavefronts and all, these little pigs really can fly.

If you see any part of what I see then "How big is a photon?" ... the answer isn't going to help.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Confused2
25th November 2006 - 08:25 PM
Hi All (again),
My last post was probably a bit unhelpful but I had to do it, I'm human too, sorry.
If nothing else (IMHO) RIPPLE TANK = GOOD
Resonances .. can we look at a ripple tank DSE .. where are they? Interference - yes. Spreading from a point -yes. Resonance .. not unless you feed something back .. why would we do that (deliberately). If it was a reflection in optics then we'd move it or paint it black.
Resonance.. where?
-C2.
TRoc
25th November 2006 - 09:07 PM
Hi all,


LL, Great! Just so that we have a "reference point", that says we are not dealing with "exact", or "absolute" quantity, and we will be speaking of the "generalized" event. If a later argument needs to assume "more than 1 photon", then we shouldn't have a problem.

Now, let's bring the photoelectric data back in, with this "mental adjustment". Let's talk about the interaction of light and matter a little.

QUOTE
"It is true that there could be coincidental photons impacting at near simultaneous time intervals, but that should appear in the average of all measurements or voltage increase "counts", .."


We know that ALL the Energy that arrives at the "counter" is not counted. The electron jumps only when a resonant frequency is applied, or in the QM terms, the Energy quanta exceeds the work function. Frequencies below this threshold are not counted, and frequencies above the threshold add kinetic Energy, or velocity, to the ejected electron, and still counted as 1.

So, strictly speaking, our mechanical counter counts only "full cups" taken from the flow. Like counting cups held under a waterfall: pulling out 10 cups does not say much about the volume of water in the flow.

In real QM terms, we get a "new" set of vibrations to deal with. The frequencies that are NOT EQUAL to the threshold are conserved through lattice vibrations. The mix of solitons, heating, etc. These matter vibrations can be considered as non-linear, cumulative, and following the same rules of resonance and superposition.

I mentioned to GE a short while back, that there is not a pattern inherent to the lattice that would create the same pattern that the DSE produces. There is, however, a pattern to the superposition principle: it allows for 2 types. The first is the 1:1, and 1:2 ratio, where the Bf either equals zero, or the fundamental (1). This is AS simple as Resonance gets. There is another level though. The first describes the superposition of TWO states, or frequencies. The second applies to THREE, or more!, frequencies. This is the Triad, and it dominates Physics only second to this Fundamental Resonance.

This "other" type of resonance is completely unknown to Physics. Not to say that it hasn't been measured, just that there is no theory for it. The empirical formulation of the rules for 4-wave mixing, SHG, etc, are CAUSED by it.

This "other" type of resonance IS well know to Music, yet has remained UNMEASURED, and without mathematical theory to explain it. It has been taught on an ad hoc basis for centuries, and the correctness of the Teachers was enough to justify their demand: SHUT UP AND VIBRATE, when asked "WHY?"

Does this sound familiar? Can you estimate what the odds are for such an occurrence in the REAL and WHOLE World? For two independent, and specialized fields to have both missed this "obvious" answer? What at first glance might appear to be "extraordinary", actually is rather "normal".


The bottom line here is that a single "photon" can cause MANY reactions to either 1, or many electrons. These reactions can sum to produce false counts in the naive "photon" counting apparatus.

Some references to prove this point:

Quantum noise and correlations in resonantly enhanced wave mixing based on atomic coherence
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
"It is true that there could be coincidental photons impacting at near simultaneous time intervals, but that should appear in the average of all measurements or voltage increase "counts", .."


We know that ALL the Energy that arrives at the "counter" is not counted. The electron jumps only when a resonant frequency is applied, or in the QM terms, the Energy quanta exceeds the work function. Frequencies below this threshold are not counted, and frequencies above the threshold add kinetic Energy, or velocity, to the ejected electron, and still counted as 1.

So, strictly speaking, our mechanical counter counts only "full cups" taken from the flow. Like counting cups held under a waterfall: pulling out 10 cups does not say much about the volume of water in the flow.

In real QM terms, we get a "new" set of vibrations to deal with. The frequencies that are NOT EQUAL to the threshold are conserved through lattice vibrations. The mix of solitons, heating, etc. These matter vibrations can be considered as non-linear, cumulative, and following the same rules of resonance and superposition.

I mentioned to GE a short while back, that there is not a pattern inherent to the lattice that would create the same pattern that the DSE produces. There is, however, a pattern to the superposition principle: it allows for 2 types. The first is the 1:1, and 1:2 ratio, where the Bf either equals zero, or the fundamental (1). This is AS simple as Resonance gets. There is another level though. The first describes the superposition of TWO states, or frequencies. The second applies to THREE, or more!, frequencies. This is the Triad, and it dominates Physics only second to this Fundamental Resonance.

This "other" type of resonance is completely unknown to Physics. Not to say that it hasn't been measured, just that there is no theory for it. The empirical formulation of the rules for 4-wave mixing, SHG, etc, are CAUSED by it.

This "other" type of resonance IS well know to Music, yet has remained UNMEASURED, and without mathematical theory to explain it. It has been taught on an ad hoc basis for centuries, and the correctness of the Teachers was enough to justify their demand: SHUT UP AND VIBRATE, when asked "WHY?"

Does this sound familiar? Can you estimate what the odds are for such an occurrence in the REAL and WHOLE World? For two independent, and specialized fields to have both missed this "obvious" answer? What at first glance might appear to be "extraordinary", actually is rather "normal".


The bottom line here is that a single "photon" can cause MANY reactions to either 1, or many electrons. These reactions can sum to produce false counts in the naive "photon" counting apparatus.

Some references to prove this point:

Quantum noise and correlations in resonantly enhanced wave mixing based on atomic coherence
We investigate the quantum properties of fields generated by resonantly enhanced wave mixing based on atomic coherence in Raman systems. We show that such a process can be used for generation of pairs of Stokes and anti-Stokes
fields with nearly perfect quantum correlations, yielding almost complete (i.e. 100%) squeezing without the use of a cavity. We discuss the extension of the wave mixing interactions into the domain of a few interacting light quanta.


AIP Physics News and Graphics
QUOTE
Schematic drawing of a C-60 molecule being excited by an incoming photon into a special “plasmon” state in which all 240 valence electrons in the molecule participate.  .. A graph showing the two different types of plasmon states that can be excited, depending on the incoming photon energies.


Two distinct modes of collective oscillation, EITHER of which can eject an electron.


Second harmonic generation in suspensions of spherical particles
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Schematic drawing of a C-60 molecule being excited by an incoming photon into a special “plasmon” state in which all 240 valence electrons in the molecule participate.  .. A graph showing the two different types of plasmon states that can be excited, depending on the incoming photon energies.


Two distinct modes of collective oscillation, EITHER of which can eject an electron.


Second harmonic generation in suspensions of spherical particles
.. The interplay of disorder and nonlinearity can lead to qualitatively different results depending on their relative strength.  ..  In this case, the nonlinear
phenomena develop before the scattering destroys the initial beam and thus can be studied in the framework of paraxial (or parabolic) approximation, providing an adequate description of light propagation at short distances z from the source of radiation (z << l* but z > lNL).


Efficient Nonlinear Frequency Conversion with Maximal Atomic Coherence
QUOTE
In this Letter, we present experimental results which show how one may create a sufficiently large nonlinear polarization so as to allow efficient frequency conversion within a single (non-phase matched) coherence length.  ..  When jr12j ­ 0.5, every atom in the sample is phase coherent with the other atoms in the sample and has equal probability amplitudes in states j1l and j2l, and no probability amplitude in state j3l. The phase coherent atoms may be viewed as a strong atomic local oscillator. The spectral components of a third laser beam beat with the local oscillator and are converted to a corresponding spectrum of sum or difference frequencies.



One can see that better "resolution" is being attempted by mode locking. The closer the 2 frequencies, the better this becomes. I have clearly demonstrated the presence of "other" frequencies in a laser. Being very close is actually causal to high energy beat frequencies. When these beats are integrated by the "tooth and slit" apparatus, the NLM mixing takes place. The pattern on the screen is just the "full absorption (resonant) clicks" separated by the gradual (Brownian) buildup of the next click along the surface of the lattice.


Electromagnetic bubbles: subcycle near-femtosecond and subfemtosecond field solitons
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
In this Letter, we present experimental results which show how one may create a sufficiently large nonlinear polarization so as to allow efficient frequency conversion within a single (non-phase matched) coherence length.  ..  When jr12j ­ 0.5, every atom in the sample is phase coherent with the other atoms in the sample and has equal probability amplitudes in states j1l and j2l, and no probability amplitude in state j3l. The phase coherent atoms may be viewed as a strong atomic local oscillator. The spectral components of a third laser beam beat with the local oscillator and are converted to a corresponding spectrum of sum or difference frequencies.



One can see that better "resolution" is being attempted by mode locking. The closer the 2 frequencies, the better this becomes. I have clearly demonstrated the presence of "other" frequencies in a laser. Being very close is actually causal to high energy beat frequencies. When these beats are integrated by the "tooth and slit" apparatus, the NLM mixing takes place. The pattern on the screen is just the "full absorption (resonant) clicks" separated by the gradual (Brownian) buildup of the next click along the surface of the lattice.


Electromagnetic bubbles: subcycle near-femtosecond and subfemtosecond field solitons
Contemporary optics usually operates with almost harmonic, multi-cycle oscillations modulated by an envelope much longer than a single cycle of the oscillations. In fact, any narrow-line radiation is an envelope signal, be it a coherent radiation of a laser or an incoherent light filtered through a spectroanalyzer.


(that was for C2)

QUOTE
.. mode-locked laser pulses_2 owing to multimode cavity interaction with a laser medium, and optical-fiber solitons_3 owing to Kerr nonlinearity described by a nonlinear Schro¨dinger equation._4 To describe any of those pulses, slowly varying envelope approximations are used in both the propagation (by reduction of Maxwell equations to a parabolic partial differential equation) and the material response (rotating-wave approximation in constitutive equations).  Because of the availability of very short laser pulses (down to ;6-fs length_5) with just a few laser cycles, efforts are made to improve the envelope approximation at least for linear propagation (see, e.g., Ref. 6).



This can not be "learned", within the existing framework, very easily. Some reading is in order. huh.gif


T.Roc


TRoc
25th November 2006 - 09:47 PM
All,


A comment on C2's point about Dirac's quote:
QUOTE
.. Suppose we have a beam of light consisting of a large number of photons split up into two components of equal intensity. On the assumption that the beam is connected with the probable number of photons in it, we should have half the total number going into each component. If the two components are now made to interfere, we should require a photon in one component to be able to interfere with one in the other. Sometimes these two photons would have to annihilate one another and other times they would have to produce four photons. This would contradict the conservation of energy. The new theory, which connects the wave function with probabilities for one photon gets over the difficulty by making each photon go partly into each of the two components. Each photon then interferes only with itself. Interference between two different photons never occurs.



This is clearly a "handwaving trick". "The new theory, which connects the wave function with probabilities for one photon gets over the difficulty by making each photon go partly into each of the two components. Each photon then interferes only with itself. Interference between two different photons never occurs." This is placing 2 different bets that the "probability" will occur in 1 of 2 places. Good gambling; bad Science!

Dividing the wave into 2 parts makes 2 parts. That's all. Refusal to admit that does not justify the statement that 2 photons never interfere (because the new "theory" still calls it one.) BS!


This is exactly what I mean by Physics having just one kind of resonance at their disposal. This makes them ASSUME that you get EITHER no "photons", or 4 photons. This is absolutely wrong. So is the better, but still naive FWM. They can not explain it, so they can not figure out how to conserve the Energy. They are advancing on this principle very quickly, though. When they get there, they will find a very old Greek sitting there, saying "What took you so long?!"


Second Harmonic Generation and Recreation of the Fundamental are exactly the same thing. This is conservation of Energy. nE in , nE out . These are the "clicks".

The reason for Quanta of Energy has NOTHING to do with h. Yes, it works statistically, but that is its' limit. It was never intended, or accepted (by Planck or Einstein) to EXPLAIN the quanta. Just measure it, from large quantities.


ciao!

T.Roc

Confused2
25th November 2006 - 10:39 PM
Hi TRoc,

I have already given the DSE equation to the point of boredom. The analysis 'works' on the assumption of a single frequency .. all the counts are in the right place and I have checked that they add up to the right number of counts (+-10%). Is it the +-10% you seek to explain? The maths looks simple and conclusive . if there were frequency doubling (or changes) then the result would be different.

Last post .. only one type of resonance .. I'm not sure I follow what you mean by this .. would you mind spelling out details of 'resonance'?

LL,
Harmonics .. (from memory) the harmonic is given by N where N is the multiple of the fundamental. The first harmonic is simply the fundamental. The second harmonic .. f=2 .. etc. In my world (electronics) harmonics (N>1) are introduced by non-linearity .. where superposition applies there will be no harmonics generated. As far as I know there is no reason to suppose that everything in the DSE is not operating well within its linear range. I can't comment on a short blast from a MW laser .. but that is not the normal condition.
Photomultipliers, PIN diodes, CCD's all detect single photons with varying degrees of efficieny. As far as I know the efficiency does not sunstantially alter the pattern from that obtained in a ripple tank .. in the experiment where I have integrated the counts there doesn't seem to be much lost (<10%?). The DSE equation looks good, the pattern looks good, the counts look good and the photons look about as probable as flying pigs .. what do you see?

Duality,
I was getting a bit worried about you. I suspect you might be batting for both sides.
-C2.
Laserlight
25th November 2006 - 11:10 PM
C2 and All,

QUOTE
If we look at a ripple tank DSE we see all the waves out in the open.. multiple wavefronts meeting and interfering and so on. We do it with light .. pretty much the same equations .. multiple wavefronts .. same pattern. And then you do it with one photon .. same pattern.. this stuff about photons it isn't just a theory .. a single photon REALLY DOES IT - multiple wavefronts and all, these little pigs really can fly.


Ok, you keep referencing the ripple tank and applying it to photons.
But yet, you claim that a photon is a particle. There is some inconsistency
in the logic of your argument, as I see it, but perhaps I am misunderstanding
what you are "seeing" compared to what I'm seeiing. (Back to the blind men
and elephant analogy)

Would you agree that the energy waves in a ripple tank radiate in all directions
from the source of agitation? Is the energy being radiated a particle or a wave?
Photons radiate their energy fields the same way as water waves but the energy
is balanced and contained by the interaction of the E and H energy fields.
Consider a radio antenna. It is radiating a continuous EM wave in all directions
from the source, but the EM wave is just an energy carrier that is modulated
to convey information. So an antenna is radiating energy as a continuous photon
of specific frequency. An alien with the right equipment could pick up a radiated
radio signal billions of miles away. He is not receiving particles, he is receiving
waves.

By its very nature, energy cannot be a particle, but when it interacts with
matter energy changes the steady state energy level of the matter in a
reactionary way. This interaction can resemble the collisions of 2 physical
particles due to the kinetic displacement that occurs in matter during the EM
energy transfer but it is purely the conservation of energy.

So would you agree that energy waves radiate in all directions from a point source
and only change their balanced energy state when they interact with matter?
Consider that the rest of the wave that did not contact matter is still radiating
outward as it propagates, until it interacts with matter. If this is true, then a portion
of an energy wave will propagate forever until it goes to ground by interacting
with matter.

So, just how big is a photon?

Comments, disagreements, opposing arguments welcome.

LL
Laserlight
25th November 2006 - 11:39 PM
C2 and All,

QUOTE
Resonance .. not unless you feed something back .. why would we do that (deliberately). If it was a reflection in optics then we'd move it or paint it black.
Resonance.. where?


Any time two similar kinds of signals mix, there is some form of resonance
of the energy that they are carrying.

Would you agree that the center post and slits, of the wave DSE, are dividing the
incoming wave energy front into smaller energy wave fronts? These wavefronts
are carrying energy that tries to recouple back into a continuous wave
after leaving the slits, but there is a timing delay and 2nd order harmonics form
due to the delay. Isn't harmonics another form of resonance?

I'll make a definitve statement.
[SIZE=7]All free energy radiates and propagates as waves.[SIZE=1]

LL
Laserlight
26th November 2006 - 12:04 AM
duplicate response
Laserlight
26th November 2006 - 12:06 AM
TRoc and All,

QUOTE
The bottom line here is that a single "photon" can cause MANY reactions to either 1, or many electrons. These reactions can sum to produce false counts in the naive "photon" counting apparatus.


You are completely ignoring the timing coincidence and resolution of the
photomultiplier tube. Yes there will be some coincident electron interactions
in nearby atoms, but the reaction timing is so close that the equipment cannot
resolve the difference. Any such reaction will just be reported as a single
event. That is why the equipment voltage operating threshold is adjusted to
reduce secondary emission generation and saturation. The voltage is
adjusted to prevent multiple events caused by secondary electrons that don't
have the right energy signature/amplitude.
If it were otherwise the PMT wouldn't work and we would only see spurious
random noise.

IMO, the rest of your quotes relate to signal mixing across some physical
matter and how that generates additional resonant or harmonic frequencies.
Beat frequencies....yes? wink.gif

Regards,
LL
Laserlight
26th November 2006 - 12:27 AM
C2,

QUOTE
in the experiment where I have integrated the counts there doesn't seem to be much lost (<10%?). The DSE equation looks good, the pattern looks good, the counts look good and the photons look about as probable as flying pigs .. what do you see?


I see order and a fairly good representation of symmetry caused by individual
photon events that have no concidental common timing or phase relationship.

Probability, is a mathematical concept/model to describe the liklihood of a specific event occuring over a
time interval. It is a gaussian function of an infinite set, IMO. Try selecting the
specific events so that they exactly fall periodically along only the extreme bounds
of the bell curve in sequential order. To achieve that accomplishment is
impossible. So IMO, there is another simpler equation that generates the
solution by cancelling all incorrect solutions that are available. To me
harmonic interaction of signals by constructive and destructive interference
does just that. I see no other solution by using probabilites.

Comments?
LL
Good Elf
26th November 2006 - 06:22 AM
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, Duality, Yquantum et al,

Let me say that the base problem we all have is the inability to explain these phenomenon and have them actually work in three dimensions (plus time). I do not care who you are we are all trapped by our relatively hard line educational systems. They do not encourage people to think independently ... not anyones fault but it traps us in a "time warp" that keeps us revisiting "retro" theories over and over wanting it to work when a new approach is actually required. Some of you will disagree violently with this proposition because your backgrounds has so imprinted a view of the way things work that it has become impossible for some to see things in any other way. This leads to obsessively attempting to fit the incongruous data into the same old worn out "molds". Even Feynman himself said that his theory was crazy... It just has the benefit of working.

Question: Do we have free space resonances or not? A ripple tank is not a resonant system... Do we all understand this, resonance is a cavity wide phenomenon. A ripple tank is a "wave" tank. The waves are all "progressive". Sure they "bounce around" and all... but do not reflect in any correct way the nature of EM waves in free space and "interfere" to create standing waves. A wave tank cannot "emulate" a single photon particle spreading "easily". I would say maybe a Falaco Soliton is the exception but even that is not a very good exception. This might provide an "imperfect" but reasonable model of an electron. Unfortunately you cannot produce just one Falaco Soliton, they come in pairs. That aspect of the Falaco Soliton is excellent for illustrating particle antiparticle behavior but is still "imperfect".

The free space EM wave is more complex than the way ripples spread on the surface of a pond. Two oscillating "sources" on the surface of a ripple tank do show "something" which resembles the standing waves in space of Zephir's animation.
user posted image
As Maxwell Smart would say ... "Missed it by that much". This is because this illustration could be a snapshot of a ripple tank or it could be a "hypothetical time exposure" of the progression of a photon (ignore that I maintain it is a "giant pancake" for the moment)
User posted image
Click on it for detail.
Now realize that our Universe is a cavity and a photon excitation of that cavity will "expose that timeless pattern at that instant as seen from the perspective of a single photon. To ask people to visualize higher dimensions is a "toughie".... I am going to try and ask you to do that now.

If what I am saying is the truth and as I see it I can see no other alternative, the photons are "higher dimensional" and the waves on any surface cannot provide even the most simplistic "emulation" of photons. I have said this many time before... this "spreading" you are seeing on the wave tank surface IS NOT like a real photon spreading, the photon in a higher space (quantum space or hyperspace??) and it exposes an existing pattern in our space (through the inner product) which is like a "snapshot" which cannot be changed even if the landscape of the "universe" is modified as this pattern "spreads" at the speed of light. This is because this "event" cannot be modified by time. This is the experimental consequences of the DCQE Experiment. The photon is not even there in real space, think in terms of Bohm's "Configuration Space" if you must. QM says there is no such space since these are "waves of nothing" and standing waves are just non-physical. If this spreading pattern was a "photon", it would be of enormous size in some instances but it is a representation of the photon "as if we could see it" as a projection into our three dimensional space. This is Wheeler-Feynman Theory of waves acting in a volumetric space of waves, what we see of it is three dimensions plus time... there is more. The "final" pattern occupies all space and all time but the influence of "measurables" does not extend beyond its light-cone. The so called absorption of a photon is signaled by the collapse of the "wave-function" globally (as indicated ... along the wavefront). This may extend thousands of light years through space. But I reiterate this does not "destroy" this function, it simply "suppresses it" and potentially may re-emerge somewhere else where this "mask" does not reach. In the case of the sinc or sync function this means that the "sine(x) wave" is "clipped" by a 1/x function that is an "envelope that suppresses the sine wave outside the zone you see...
To some extent my "construction" indicates something of this effect where we see a continuous wave "clipped" to a couple of cycles and the "little wiggles" on the end indicate that 1/x function of the last photon in the wave "masking" the waves in the future and the first instance of the waves the "Little wiggles " on that other end suppresses the wave for time prior to the beginning of the wave.
User posted image
This ties in with Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of Wheeler Feynman Theory...
User posted image
See fig 1 of this simple article...
2. Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory
It leads naturally to this mechanism once you get around the idea that time is an impenetrable barrier and working "beyond" CPT constraints...
User posted image
Images with captions here...

A single photon "moving" in space in three dimensions "appears" to "expose" an existing pattern hanging in space and frozen in time. I think we can all realize that this is because in the frame of a single photon, time is not passing and therefore this pattern represents a single frozen "instant" or "event". This is because waves in water are not true "spreading particles" whereas photons are. A tuned cavity certainly is a resonant system. In our version of this enigma the walls of the cavity and the rest of the Universe will form extensions to the "simple" cavity.

Remember this is actually a "String Theory"... not your average String Theory but an different String Theory with many of the same consequences but in "reciprocal space" and connecting higher dimensions through "resonances" (and in a way this type of Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory).

So this leads us for the umpteenth time to where are these resonances coming from in space since this seems to be the only "stuff" that inhabits our otherwise empty Universe? This is a "no matter" and "no mass" theory of space time where these ideas come from "pure geometry" and the AdS/CFT Interpretations of Juan Maldacena as previously discussed (one of the most highly quoted String Theory interpretations of the last decade which is a kind of "Holographic Universe"). The main differences seen here are this "resonant connection" that is the root of the way in which I see this actually occurring in practice. Now you have seen these illustrations before (click for detail)...
User posted image
Wikipedia: Möbius transformation
Consider this a two dimensional case of a much higher dimensional case. What this is actually showing... "These images show Möbius transformations stereographically projected onto the Riemann sphere. Note in particular that when projected onto a sphere, the special case of a fixed point at infinity looks no different to having the fixed points in an arbitrary location." This could be "particles " mapped on the surface of the sphere and then reprojected from higher dimensional space on to two dimensions as curves and trajectories. For instance these may be interpreted as "forces" such as those due to gravity.

The other point is this is also the 'venue" for the quantum states of Bessel Function Oscellations and excitations on the "surface" of a sphere as the angular quantum numbers m l and n. The java applet I have linked on many occasions and its complex nature is very well understood.... the quantum states within any system.

The particles in question are photons and even electrons that are not "on" our spacetime but have projections "from complex space" into our spacetime. Being an orthogonal space relative to our "spacetime" the distance in some "Configuration Space" from our spacetime Universe is of the order of a very short distance that cannot be bridged using "brute force" but can only be bridged using "harmonic" means. The analogy I have used in the past was a shadow cast from a single incandescant bulb on a very dark night of our shadows on the pavement as we move away from this light.

To a particular photon a "cavity" will be accessible if the excitation has the right frequency. I would ask you all to suspend your disbelief and consider a hyperspace some short distance from our "Universe"... Connected harmonically to that space by its reciprocal transforms. Think about an analogy of the camera obscura where a distant three dimensional source "excites a cavity (this could be a slit) where its image is the original source. This is a Fourier transform of the source as described before. Behind that new source is a screen. The new source is a second Fourier transform of that source and the screen now contains an inverted image of the "slit". A small hole in the screen .... anywhere will be the next "source" and it will create an inverted image of the slit source as well on that next screen... so on and on. The slits are new "two dimensional" Fourier plane sources" and screens behind them are new inverted images "projected" as live images of the sources on the screens. The next point I point out is these "images" of the sources ultimately lead to the real Universe of real particles and everything we know and cherish as well as the outer Universe of Galaxies and Stars.

Consider that the imaging system of our Universe is a higher dimensional "hypersphere" based on fundamental particle "surfaces" imaging de Broglie "matter waves" from this elevated "hyperplane" some short "distance" harmonically from our Universe from a perspective where the entire Universe is that short distance away from every single point in our Universe at that frequency. This then forms a resonant cavity with our entire Universe and is setting the "stage" for that frozen instant in time to propagate in other dimensions .... our three spacetime dimensions... through time. Do you see this point?

Optical analog of a similar system (without higher dimensions).
User posted image
These "machines" we can build and they can be built to image matter waves as well. The pinholes are substituted with "optical lenses" (a general concept) and the holographic information is found on the Fourier planes filtered by a "mask"... Something like this image processor used to enhance spacecraft images...
Optical Fourier Transform Image Processor using "mask"

Some background references...

Teaching Sum-Over-Paths Feynman Theory

Sorry but I have "hit the wall" of 7 images maximum on this Forum. I hope this has been sufficient to evaluate the idea.

Cheers
Good Elf
26th November 2006 - 07:03 AM
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, Duality, Yquantum et al,

I would repeat the "volumetric space" that the cavity of our Universe (the light cone walls in higher dimensional space - our Hyper-surface) have interesting dimensional cavity excitations ... at least one or more (up to six... as measured in "reciprocal" units) of these higher dimensions is of the order of a wavelength of the excitation and the other dimensions are the size of our Universe. This is because the surface of our Universe is tiny... extremely tiny when seen from the outer Light Cone Brane wall. The interior space is huge (just look out your window at the sky at night) and thus takes a heap of time for our "shadow" to map that instant across the entire surface.

Just a little more to indicate some additional facts about "excitations" in particular this one is excitation of a particle in a two dimensional circular well. Underneath the pretty image you will see all possible quantum state excitations on the "surface of a sphere" which is also a two dimensional surface and could be considered a "Hologram".
The behavior of a particle in a two dimensional circular square well.
Choose a state from those empty states shown below or click above the image to show eigen states as "lines". Add or remove them as needed. Use "stopped" function to see just what is developing. Now increase the phasor count to a few hundred and use your mouse to describe a "blob" inside the boundary and look at the "stopped" phases in the screen below (a block of them light up)... think about that... it is very interesting. I will leave you to determine the consequences.

This is not presented to you as some kind of "eye candy" but for your "philosophical interest" as described by Juan Maldacena. It needs to be "mentally mapped" using CFT to the 2D surface of a sphere. The "warning" is this is a Gaussian simulation not a Complex Fourier simulation which would supply a slightly different "complexion" to this picture that would not easily be displayed here. You should then consider this as a "source" and the entry point for the next layer of higher dimensional space where an image of this "source" is our Universe as indicated previously. This does not do this any justice to the entire concept other than two dimensional strings on a two dimensional "brane" in a "reciprocal" Fourier transform space.

Here is a link to the spherical harmonics applet to compare and contrast...
Spherical Harmonics
It is important you consider the meaning of the various functions shown there. I fully realize this is supposed to indicate "Quantum Physics" but identical functions exist in "Configuration Space" and also as the Bessel Harmonic Functions on the surface of continuum space as well. Some of the the eigen states are shown here...
User posted image
User posted image
Wolfram MathWorld: Spherical Harmonics

The "harmonic" nature of the universe and the way in which states evolve can be described "semi-classical" using a kind of string theory using reciprocal spaces and "optics". Quantum theory becomes an inner product space. Unfortunately it does not fully explain these standing waves in our space other than all standing waves must be resonant conditions inside a cavity. Our Universe is a cavity and it has dimensions which are wildly dependent on the excitation frequencies of the "impulses" ... in this case photons but in general any particle. The photons "apparent" spreading wavefront in our spacetime (which we can never see but can estimate) by sampling a number of photons of "similar" origin (coherent photons) we can get an idea of this phenomenon and "plot it" like this as an animation...
user posted image
It is a standing wave pattern (as supplied by zephir), and each photon on the same wavefront will describe not only the source but the absorber in one frozen instant as described by Wheeler-Feynman Theory. My only beef with this as a photon is the shape of the wavefronts...
user posted image
Naturally you can modify this packet "shape" by suppressing various modes in the source, you can "force" some of the photon to express in a particular direction such as in a pencil beam from a CW laser source using mirrors or directors in antenna theory. This is a little unnatural though and the blue image is the main way in which photons emit.
user posted image
Put a "reflector" to the left and then the packets will be confined to the right forward direction, sculptured by additional "modes". As before, as in my "construction", these modes do not remove any actual frequencies from the beams, they just change its character by suppressing some "lobes".
TRoc
26th November 2006 - 08:19 AM
Hi all,


C2,

I'm not too sure what you mean
QUOTE
"..given the DSE equation to the point of boredom.."
?

Just to remind you: my method is not going to have any big advantage over the existing method at this stage, meaning explaining the interference pattern. Later, when things "spooky", the same simple frequency method, will help explain the DSE better than the current theory. (I hope!)


I have worked up an alternate analogy and method to describe this (Resonance) with the basic geometry of a triangle. Explaining it in musical terms (according to you) won't help you. I haven't tried it out, or gave it enough thought. I think it has the potential for more than I have wrung out of it so far. Give me another day (or so) to put it in post-able form.



GE,

Kudos for putting together the "high end" approach. We may "meet in the middle" yet. That link for the " particle in a two dimensional circular square well" was something!



regards,

T.Roc

Good Elf
26th November 2006 - 08:49 AM
Hi TRoc,

QUOTE (TRoc+)
We may "meet in the middle" yet
I am certain we will. wink.gif

The " particle in a two dimensional circular square well" is just a tool but a very interesting tool. In the end "Holograms" conform to this geometry generally just conformed "simplistically" to the surface of a sphere (a 2D surface). That is "real" Holograms not just "interference lines of silver crystals on a glass plate". This is also how those "Black Hole" descriptions by Juan Maldacina, Stephen Hawking and Ed Witten are all heading. If Stephen Hawking is prepared to "pay up" on these principles... I am sure we are heading in the general direction of the truth.
Wikipedia: Thorne-Hawking-Preskill bet: The Black Hole Information Paradox
Wikipedia: Black hole information paradox
They will need to incorporate the resonant concept to use these Spatial and Temporal Transform Pairs and to "bring it in from the cold" from pure theory to well understood Physics. String theory is in the doldrums despite the early success ... it is because the choice of domain is incorrect ... a particle domain rather than a wave domain. Unfortunately everyone in these fields are using particle paradigms. After all a "Black Hole" is just a description of an "2D aperture" of a potentially 6D object... a mighty complex and big aperture but taken to the simple end of the road in principle I think we can understand it now as a surface expression of this applet. People should not read too much into the color though... that is only a representation of the phase (you really can't draw or even color these "stringy" things adequately)... The black hole still looks pretty black overall... He he he!

The other point I would make is Quantum Electrodynamics and Atomic Theory is "hand wavingly" covered by this Holographic Principle, the "devil is surely in the very complex detail". We elves only want to "understand" how things work, not to do the horrific calculations. ohmy.gif It is also a very "scary" concept to some that the Universe is "nothing" yet it is also "everything". The "Holographic Concept " is packing Universes within Universes ... potentially on and on forever... without a quantum limit at the Planck scale due to "reciprocality". Everything just "matter wave images" held in place by CPT.
Wikipedia: Holographic principle
I am bucking for the "weak principle"... it is so much nicer to think about. "The Universe" ... coming to a "screen" near you. biggrin.gif Come the day when we travel to other worlds through pan-dimensional "optics".


Cheers to everyone else as well.
TRoc
26th November 2006 - 09:22 AM
LL,


QUOTE
You are completely ignoring the timing coincidence and resolution of the
photomultiplier tube. Yes there will be some coincident electron interactions
in nearby atoms, but the reaction timing is so close that the equipment cannot
resolve the difference. Any such reaction will just be reported as a single
event. That is why the equipment voltage operating threshold is adjusted to
reduce secondary emission generation and saturation. The voltage is
adjusted to prevent multiple events caused by secondary electrons that don't
have the right energy signature/amplitude."



Maybe I've got things wrong here. I think you know more about this than I do. wink.gif

The adjustment to the voltage takes place at the dynodes, correct? I agree that this does what you say. The secondary electrons that don't have the right energy are prevented. These are generated at each at each dynode (increasingly) on the way, and secondary in the device (PMT).

My argument was for the cumulative effect to be summed at the primary electron generation, .. at the photocathode itself. This would be the initial "burst" that triggers the cascade through the dynodes (and into the "controllable" area).

The superposition of a group of "photons" at the photocathode would follow the photoelectric effect rule, and eject a higher velocity electron than predicted/accounted for. This initial "extra kinetic energy" would slightly increase each cascade step, perhaps accounting for your "extra photons" too? (squared)

What do you think?


Yes, most of my last links included signal mixing & beat frequencies. I was trying to show more "matter" involvement.


Here are a few more.

http://mste.laser.physik.uni-muenchen.de/stania.pdf
Quantum Chaotic Scattering in Atomic Physics: Ericson Fluctuations in Photoionization


http://www.physorg.com/news74272106.html
Research Paper Illuminates How Light Pushes Atoms
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You are completely ignoring the timing coincidence and resolution of the
photomultiplier tube. Yes there will be some coincident electron interactions
in nearby atoms, but the reaction timing is so close that the equipment cannot
resolve the difference. Any such reaction will just be reported as a single
event. That is why the equipment voltage operating threshold is adjusted to
reduce secondary emission generation and saturation. The voltage is
adjusted to prevent multiple events caused by secondary electrons that don't
have the right energy signature/amplitude."



Maybe I've got things wrong here. I think you know more about this than I do. wink.gif

The adjustment to the voltage takes place at the dynodes, correct? I agree that this does what you say. The secondary electrons that don't have the right energy are prevented. These are generated at each at each dynode (increasingly) on the way, and secondary in the device (PMT).

My argument was for the cumulative effect to be summed at the primary electron generation, .. at the photocathode itself. This would be the initial "burst" that triggers the cascade through the dynodes (and into the "controllable" area).

The superposition of a group of "photons" at the photocathode would follow the photoelectric effect rule, and eject a higher velocity electron than predicted/accounted for. This initial "extra kinetic energy" would slightly increase each cascade step, perhaps accounting for your "extra photons" too? (squared)

What do you think?


Yes, most of my last links included signal mixing & beat frequencies. I was trying to show more "matter" involvement.


Here are a few more.

http://mste.laser.physik.uni-muenchen.de/stania.pdf
Quantum Chaotic Scattering in Atomic Physics: Ericson Fluctuations in Photoionization


http://www.physorg.com/news74272106.html
Research Paper Illuminates How Light Pushes Atoms
"Unlike water, which speeds up as it passes through a small nozzle, photons of light have less momentum at the center of a focused laser beam," says Kurt Gibble, an associate professor of physics at Penn State University..


QUOTE
Gibble's discovery provides an important new understanding of what happens to an atom that is pummeled by photons coming from the different directions of these multiple intersecting light waves. "You might think that an atom would absorb a photon randomly from only one of the beams, but this paper shows that the atom feels the effect of the photons from all of the beams simultaneously ..



http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0207/0207116.pdf
Work functions, ionization potentials, and in-between: Scaling relations based on the image charge model

(JAL, you should like that one)


This one no link, sorry. sad.gif

Laser-Assisted Photoelectric Effect from Surfaces
L. Miaja-Avila, C. Lei, M. Aeschlimann, J. L. Gland, M. M. Murnane, H. C. Kapteyn, and G. Saathoff Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 113604 (issue of 15 September 2006)

Quoted snip from an article
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Gibble's discovery provides an important new understanding of what happens to an atom that is pummeled by photons coming from the different directions of these multiple intersecting light waves. "You might think that an atom would absorb a photon randomly from only one of the beams, but this paper shows that the atom feels the effect of the photons from all of the beams simultaneously ..



http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0207/0207116.pdf
Work functions, ionization potentials, and in-between: Scaling relations based on the image charge model

(JAL, you should like that one)


This one no link, sorry. sad.gif

Laser-Assisted Photoelectric Effect from Surfaces
L. Miaja-Avila, C. Lei, M. Aeschlimann, J. L. Gland, M. M. Murnane, H. C. Kapteyn, and G. Saathoff Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 113604 (issue of 15 September 2006)

Quoted snip from an article
Ultraviolet light can eject electrons from a solid surface, a phenomenon known as the photoelectric effect. Albert Einstein got his only Nobel Prize for explaining it a century ago. Now, in the 15 September PRL, researchers report that intense infrared light can work with the ultraviolet to boost or retard the emitted electrons.


QUOTE
With just a UV pulse, the ejected electrons formed narrow peaks in the energy spectrum, with each peak corresponding to an energy level in the atoms. But with a synchronized infrared pulse present, each electron could pick up or lose the energy of an infrared photon as it emerged from its atom. These new possibilities generate two small "sideband" peaks to the right and left of each main peak in the spectrum of emitted electrons--one peak with slightly more energy and one with slightly less energy than the UV-only peak.




ciao!,

T.Roc

Confused2
26th November 2006 - 10:56 AM
LL,
You say of the single photon DSE
QUOTE (LL+)

I see order and a fairly good representation of symmetry caused by individual
photon events that have no concidental common timing or phase relationship.

This seems to be a way of avoiding saying that the counts give the 'amplitide of the wave' as if there had been zillions of photons present (your electromagnetic wave/light). To make a wave we would (by definition) have given lots of photons a common timing and phase relationship and they would have emerged with a common timing and phase relationship. From time to time we mention that photons don't interfere with other photons .. in fact they ignore each other. The only difference the number of photons would make is how quickly the pattern (count) builds up.
I think your comment remains relevent..
QUOTE (LL+)
To achieve that accomplishment is impossible.

I can only ask you to look at the graph of counts again .. maybe the ripple tank picture that Good Elf posts from time to time. One photon .. same pattern. More photons, same pattern, Ripple tank, same pattern. Impossible!
At the bottom of Duality's posts she puts
"Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
-C2.
kaneda
26th November 2006 - 12:17 PM
Confused2. What good is an experiment which when you try to check on what is going on, it does not work? I agree with Nick that it's just a phenomenon. Everything has to be exact, otherwise it doesn't work.
Laserlight
26th November 2006 - 03:35 PM
C2,

QUOTE
(LL)
To achieve that accomplishment is impossible.  (Note:Using probability)

(C2)
I can only ask you to look at the graph of counts again .. maybe the ripple tank picture that Good Elf posts from time to time. One photon .. same pattern. More photons, same pattern, Ripple tank, same pattern. Impossible!


You took what I said out of context so it lost its meaning. I also said that
I disagree with the idea of all the possible solutions, that probability provides
to give a final answer, that only provides a solution that outlines the bounds of a
qaussian curve progressively. I favor of an equation that provides
only the correct solutions and excludes all wrong solutions provided by probability.

To my mind this is where resonance and harmony come into the solution since
there is a "progressive" mirror nature to the photon pattern in the x and
y planes. There is nothing "random" about the pattern projected on the screen.
The main center lobe is the high power "full note" point of maximum
coupled resonant energy, while each symmetrical side lobe in turn loses energy
which appears to indicate 3/4 note, 1/2 note, 1/4 note power levels on each
side of the full note.

This phenomenon is not probability. I'm not a mathmetician, but I think this
is a quadradic type of equation, solving for the area under each lobe provides
the solution set. Perhaps someone can correct me if my assumption is
incorrect.
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif

Comments, corrections, other opinions welcome.

Regards,
LL
Laserlight
26th November 2006 - 06:33 PM
Good Elf and All,

QUOTE
A single photon "moving" in space in three dimensions "appears" to "expose" an existing pattern hanging in space and frozen in time. I think we can all realize that this is because in the frame of a single photon, time is not passing and therefore this pattern represents a single frozen "instant" or "event".


A photon can be considered a single "on" bit of specific energy information
(it represents 1 digitally), that is radiating and propagating in all directions from
the originating source event. Basically, it says that a point event occurred where
energy was converted from one form to another form at some point in time.
It represents some energy level in time.

The "1" bit is "locally" decoded if it interacts with an atom of matter, but the rest
of the 1 bit information being carried by the wave continues unobstructed until
it is absorbed, reflected, or refracted by interaction with other matter. So the
wave collapse is a purely local phenomenon that occurs when the EM polarities
of the wave energy, and the atom it is interacting with, are exactly phase and
timing coincident. This would be the harmonic mixing frequency between
energy levels. This is the mechanism for detection to take place.
This has some potential implications in that it suggests that adjoining atoms in a
matrix of matter are slightly out of electromagnetic and time phase due to their
atomic charge interactions. Since electron charges oppose each other, the atoms
in non single crystal lattices are out of phase alignment.

This would explain why the randomly oriented silver crystals in photographic film are selective
in detecting discrete parts of the photon energy of the radiating wave, and not the
entire energy of the wave. The lattice orientation of the silver atoms in each
crystal, assuming each crystal is randomly oriented, only detect the part of the
EM photon wave that is exactly oriented with the EM phasing of the silver lattice
in the crystal. The full photon wave is striking the surface of the film,
but only properly phase aligned atoms are responding to and detecting the
spread out (distributed) energy of the wavefront. It is all about EM field alignments
and harmonic interaction.

I am suggesting that this localized effect is the same in all matter and that the
localized atomic EM field phasing displacements, and the plane orientation of their
charges, determine the sensitivity to the incoming EM enery photon field.
If the EM fields between the arriving photon wavefront and an atom are in phase,
detection (absorption) takes place. When detection takes place, the energy of
the photon's EM wave is absorbed, and the byproduct is radiated away as infrared
radiation. The electrons in the absorbing atoms rise to a higher energy state and
become more mobile between adjacent atoms causing ionization of the atoms,
and potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. Heat is the byproduct.

If the incoming EM fields of the photon wavefront are out of phase with the atoms
that they strike, rejection/reflection of the photon wavefront energy takes place
with little direct interaction.

Comments, opinions, corrections, discussion welcomed by all. Be ready to defend
your position.

LL
jal
26th November 2006 - 07:01 PM
Laserlight
QUOTE
If the incoming EM fields of the photon wavefront are out of phase with the atoms
that they strike, rejection/reflection of the photon wavefront energy takes place
with little direct interaction.

Sound plausible to me.
Someone must have tried some experiment to verify this "idea".
TRoc

user posted image
It’s a gem!! You came late for the party but you are making it real!
I’m going to enter it into the discussion and summary. smile.gif
jal
Confused2
26th November 2006 - 10:35 PM
Hi LL, jal, TRoc, GE, Duality et al,

Mostly to LL,

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif

The height of the peaks we see is the result of the number of photons available in the region of interest .. we derived it some time back from the diffraction effect of each slit individually ( formula here -> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...pt/mulslid.html in the plot of results (the triangles) - from the results supplied and the diffraction equations we can work out the width of each slit if that is in any doubt.

Opening both slits didn't add or subtract any photons (checked within 10% but probably true to the nth degree of accuracy.) .

To calculate the distribution of the photons available after the diffraction effect has been taken into consideration we have the DSE formula -> http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html . In reality this has not taken account of the sinusoidal nature of the waveform .. a more sophisticated approach would give the sin^2 result that we observe.

The above predictions suggest there is certainly nothing random about the curve. The same equations work for DSE's in ripple tanks and other places. I don't understand what you mean by 3/4 note, 1/2 note and 1/4 note power levels.. do they predict the same distribution?
Any (almost) curve can be represented by a power series .. it is a general rule but not in general a predictive rule.

One thing we don't know is how wide the aperture of the detector is .. obviously when it is one position it will only count photons within its detection zone. By joining up the dots we make a prediction about the number of photons the counter would count even if it is not actually in a particular position.

QUOTE (LL+)
This phenomenon is not probability.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this .. do you accept that for any given photon there is a very high probability that it will end in the a place where the detector will not detect it? Since there is only one detector and it covers a very small part of the total region we have to make some assumptions about what happens in the rest of the region of interest. Do you think it is reasonable to assume that the same number of photons end up in a particular region whether or not the detector is not there to detect them?
-C2.

Edit- Some edits to get the links to work properly
Laserlight
27th November 2006 - 12:23 AM
Hi C2 and All,

C2, it is obvious that we are describing very different parts of the same elephant. I
believe that I'm holding the trunk and you are holding the tail....but then
again it could be the other way around. LOL!

QUOTE
LL - This phenomenon is not probability.

C2-
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this .. do you accept that for any given photon there is a very high probability that it will end in the a place where the detector will not detect it? Since there is only one detector and it covers a very small part of the total region we have to make some assumptions about what happens in the rest of the region of interest. Do you think it is reasonable to assume that the same number of photons end up in a particular region whether or not the detector is not there to detect them?


Earlier on in the discussion, you were suggesting that the photon
interference patterns of the DSE followed the theory of probability. I was
arguing against that. According to probability, the photons could arrive
anywhere in the area of the solution set. My argument was that no, the pattern
outlined by the photon hits was not a matter of probability but of a finite and
predictable solution set. That was the point that I was trying to make.

Regarding the comment about the detector position. It was my understanding that
it was optimized to insure that all arriving photons would be detected within
its optical field of view, (except perhaps for some on the x periphery). I'm betting
that if the detector "focal length" from the slits was increased the pattern
size would increase correspondingly by virtue of the ISL.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
LL - This phenomenon is not probability.

C2-
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this .. do you accept that for any given photon there is a very high probability that it will end in the a place where the detector will not detect it? Since there is only one detector and it covers a very small part of the total region we have to make some assumptions about what happens in the rest of the region of interest. Do you think it is reasonable to assume that the same number of photons end up in a particular region whether or not the detector is not there to detect them?


Earlier on in the discussion, you were suggesting that the photon
interference patterns of the DSE followed the theory of probability. I was
arguing against that. According to probability, the photons could arrive
anywhere in the area of the solution set. My argument was that no, the pattern
outlined by the photon hits was not a matter of probability but of a finite and
predictable solution set. That was the point that I was trying to make.

Regarding the comment about the detector position. It was my understanding that
it was optimized to insure that all arriving photons would be detected within
its optical field of view, (except perhaps for some on the x periphery). I'm betting
that if the detector "focal length" from the slits was increased the pattern
size would increase correspondingly by virtue of the ISL.

The height of the peaks we see is the result of the number of photons available in the region of interest


Hmmm, I recall counting the number of photons on each of the DSE wave patterns
and commented that there were 15 photon hits on the edge of each subsequent
wave and each sidelobe wave is a different mirrored height. I agree that the
single slit curves are a diffraction pattern scattering effect, caused by the delay
time difference created by the diffracted angle of flight.

QUOTE
I don't understand what you mean by 3/4 note, 1/2 note and 1/4 note power levels..


My comment about the full, 3/4, 1/2, and 1/4 power levels as a function of
the area of the waves should relate to power functions, which are basically
harmonics of the fundamental. The sidelobes look like they are following
standard predictable harmonic power levels, which can be associated with
notes in music.

Do you have an explanation for the amplitude increase of the center wave,
and the decreasing amplitudes of each subsequent side lobe, that is different
from my assertion? Do you have an explanation for why individual photons
arriving one after the other still exhibit a wave interference phenomenon, when
it is obvious that they are not interfering with each other?

The common element here is the center post of the DSE, which as a whole, is
acting like an oscillator cavity and signal amplifier, IMO. unsure.gif

Comments, alternative logic welcome. We are seeking the truth about just
what an elephant is, but first we must agree what we all are "seeing" is the
same part of the elephant.

LL
Confused2
27th November 2006 - 01:25 AM
Hi LL,
I would be happy to attempt an alternative analysis on the basis of the introduction of harmonics .. but you'll have to explain how you would like me to start because the ripple tank seems to be single frequency, the DSE seems to be single frequency, the predictions look pretty exact RIPPLE TANK = GOOD .. how can I help?
There are often practical compromises in real experiments. In the case of the DSE there is a compromise between making each slit so narrow that you have very few photons to count and making them wide enough that the overlap of the diffraction zone still leaves you (say) 5 to 7 good and identifiable peaks. The centre post is where the path lengths from both slits add up to an integer and the number of photons from each slit is at its greatest (diffraction equation and graph here -> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...pt/mulslid.html )
QUOTE (LL+)

Do you have an explanation for why individual photons
arriving one after the other still exhibit a wave interference phenomenon, when
it is obvious that they are not interfering with each other?

The basis for much that has gone before is that photons do not interfere with each other. A single photon is quite enough for interference to occur. Single photons, ONE AT A TIME build up to the same pattern as the STEADY STATE RIPPLE TANK (!). RIPPLE TANK = GOOD. EXPERIMENT =GOOD. PHOTON = VERY VERY VERY BAD!
I know it is mpossible .. please.. focus on http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif .. the experiment is fine, the results are fine .. IT IS THE PHOTONS THEMSELVES - THEY DO IT INDIVIDUALLY - BY THEMSELVES.
This is the DSE ... an experiment.. I am not expecting you (or even me) to believe the result .. just look at it and see what it shows. It's a showstopper .. it's a nightmare .. the greatest brains on the planet have ground to a halt on this one. It can be analysed 'made sense of' .. but we (both) will have to start very sloooooowly.
-C2.
Laserlight
27th November 2006 - 03:13 AM
C2,

Yep, I've studied the multiple slit diffraction patterns of constant wavefronts.
I see the same result that you do and am satisfied by the results...partially!
I want the fine details of the interaction of the slits with the energy wave of
the photons, and am strongly supporting the harmonic theory proposed by
TRoc, but I believe there is more to it than just signal mixing in the secondary
cavity.

As for the single photon experiment, the single photon is being interfered with by
the cavity comprised of the center post and slit geometry. I would be willing to
bet that if you only allowed 1 photon thru every 10s that the pattern would be
much different and be a dispersion of points scattered around a central point.

Why do I say that? My contention is that the oscillations, which I suspect are
being induced into the cavities by the photons as they traverse the slits, are
increasing in power and intensity sequentially, with additional energy being
provided by each passing photon. IMO, the trailing photons are being influenced
by the increasing intensity of the oscillations, as they enter close behind the previous
photon, which changes the signal mixing ratio in a harmonic way.
The increase in available energy affects each subsequent photon in a non-linear
fashion, which causes the decreasing mirror image diffraction lobe results.
I suspect that there is a maximum power point or "saturation level" that occurs
in the cavities at some point, but the experiment, as conducted, doesn't provide any evidence of that.

Comments? Anyone is welcome to provide their 2c.
LL
Good Elf
27th November 2006 - 11:07 AM
Hi Laserlight and Confused2 et al,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I would be willing to bet that if you only allowed 1 photon thru every 10s that the pattern would be much different and be a dispersion of points scattered around a central point.
I think you are right and this was the basis of a previous theory discussed earlier in this thread. The differences in interpretation is very important. It is my view that if you use a very attenuated coherent laser source such that only one photon every 10 seconds would pass the slit then "unseen" photons will still provide a framework for the individual "real" photon passing the slit and "exciting the chamber". What I would also like to point out is the time of passing through the chamber has no influence on the chamber excitation. The chamber is "already excited" as the photon begins its journey and any physical changes to the chamber does not alter this pattern. This may seem "enigmatic" but I would say that the event already knows just what will be happening independent of time. The information (as it were ) is processed asynchronously. So while you change the configuration of the chamber between when the photon is released and when it is absorbed, it has already taken this phenomenon into account the moment the event started in our time. This principle can be extended to the chamber as well because it will harmonically resonate if photons are absorbed. nevertheless the waves in the chamber are fixed for individual photons even though the walls are possibly flexing in time.

I still maintain that this is no "ripple tank" where every part of the tank is subjected to successive progressive modification. In a "ripple tank" the waves themselves alter the way in which the chamber reacts. For any standing waves the waves must "bounce around" and this does take time. For light it has two aspects... the propagating photon and the standing wave pattern. Neither of these phenomena can we actually see. The propagating photon part seems to conform to the envelope we usually call the particle and the standing wave pattern may be "preexisting" at all frequencies as a superposition (if you get my drift). This physical series of slits and cavities behave totally differently at different frequencies. Each of these frequencies are "independent" solutions of the cavity states existing in the same space at the same time. Indeed if you changed the frequency of your photons you would see just that even if you made no changes to any other component. A static pattern exists for all frequencies. They may not be used but they exist in potential. These cavities will dynamically change the "light and dark" zones. The interesting zones are the dark zones. These are regions where it is unlikely to detect a photon of the nominated frequency if such photons did exist. It is also interesting to note that all the photons move independently of each other in the cavity with different light and dark zones for each uncorrelated source. This means that while the brightness zones for each internally correlated source are predictable, a nearby uncorrelated source can occupy the same space with a displaced pattern while the two patterns sum spatially, not as vectors, but as pure scalars.

If you take two sources displaced from each other by a small distance and are uncorrelated, the patterns simply "merge" even if they are at the same frequency. The patterns displaced "approximately" by the angular displacement. Because photons do not interfere with each other... they 'coexist" in the same space. In this case "fractionally" displaced from each other. I think this gives insight into the process of "superposition of states" and potentially just what the collapse of a state may mean.

As additional data I would like you to see these images which were taken as two dimensional slices across a microwave waveguide illustrating the standing waves found there. This is definitely a cavity excitation and you can see this at microwave frequencies. Here are "Schrodinger Solutions"...
QUOTE (arXiv:chao-dyn/9806023 v1 24 Jun 1998+)
A Scanned Perturbation Technique For Imaging Electromagnetic Standing Wave Patterns of Microwave Cavities
Ali Gokirmak, Dong-Ho Wu, J. S. A. Bridgewater, and Steven M. Anlage
Center for Superconductivity Research, Department of Physics, University of
Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-4111
Abstract
We have developed a method to measure the electric field standing wave distributions in a microwave resonator using a scanned perturbation technique. Fast and reliable solutions to the Helmholtz equation (and to the Schrodinger equation for two dimensional systems) with arbitrarily-shaped boundaries are obtained. We use a pin perturbation to image primarily the microwave electric field amplitude, and we demonstrate the ability to image broken time-reversal symmetry standing wave patterns produced with a magnetized ferrite in the cavity. The whole cavity, including areas very close to the walls, can be imaged using this technique with high spatial resolution over a broad range of frequencies.
User posted image
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/chao-dyn/pdf/9806/9806023.pdf

(Click on image) This article was originally discovered by Jal and the thread can be picked up here...

Jal's Original Reference to this technology
There are other images you can download from the archive. These are cavity standing wave solutions to Schrodinger Equations in 2D. For further edification here are Atomic Schrodinger standing waves recently imaged as well for comparison.
Single atom shells imaged for the first time using STM.
user posted image
It is noted that these actual STM Images show "unknown" orbitals and this is still subject to "investigation". wink.gif Once again "standing waves".

Cheers
Confused2
27th November 2006 - 01:51 PM
Hi Good Elf, Laserlight et al,

Once again I feel 'explanations' are obscuring the field.

The experimental result is that http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif is the same curve as for a ripple tank with steady state excitation by a single frequency.

At this stage my only claim is that the result is there for all to see. IMHO anyone attempting to explain anything else has lost track of the way explanations should relate to what we actually see rather than what we like to see.

In his post GE shows another experiment using microwaves and standing waves. The wavefunction-psi is mapped by counting photons exactly as in the single photon DSE we have been looking at for some time.

Playing with the ripple tank ( http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm ) gives much the same patterns as the photon counts GE has shown .. we know photons don't interact (do we?) so each and every photon must somehow 'know' the steady state solution for a single frequency.

Once we have established what we are trying to explain things might start to get clearer .. or maybe not.

Hugely powerful lasers can be used to force air into a non-linear mode such that laser beams (photons) will interact .. as far as I know this is not possible in a vacuum. Smart optical materials can be used to give some very odd photon effects. This is why I think it would be best to consider a low power experiment using ordinary materials. Any reflections can be reduced to practically zero by the application of black paint to the offending item. The accuracy with which the results agree with theory suggest that reflections are not a problem.

Hopefully we may agree that the DSE we have discussed in some detail does not contain any exotic materials and the effect does not rely on the presence of such materials.

The Michaelson-Morley experiment would have detected 'memory' in space .. it didn't .. so within the limits of accuracy of the MM perhaps we can discard 'space memory' as a possible explanation?

Best wishes,

C2.
Good Elf
27th November 2006 - 02:10 PM
Hi Confused2,

QUOTE (C2+)
The experimental result is that http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif is the same curve as for a ripple tank with steady state excitation by a single frequency.
At this stage my only claim is that the result is there for all to see. IMHO anyone attempting to explain anything else has lost track of the way explanations should relate to what we actually see rather than what we like to see.
OK I agree... You still have not explained why the "ripple tank" (applet) shows "progressive" ripples for a dual slit experiment which would result in "continuous illumination" of the fields as opposed to the actual EM case where we have standing waves with the same pattern where these patterns are effectively "stopped" while our photon packet is "progresive". This is the crucial point. It must be explained.

It is not that "space" has memory... that is "absurd". It is also contrary to Special Relativity. It is that space is "harmonic". We live in "harmonic" space and these are "cavity excitations". These would lead naturally all the way up to "matter wave" frequencies. We can't see them but "IMHO they are there".

Cheers
Confused2
27th November 2006 - 02:37 PM
Hi Good Elf,

I'm only trying to say what I see .. that the distribution of counts of the single photon DSE matches that of a ripple tank with continuous excitation at a single frequency. That is an observation not an explanation.

I regret that what I see does not explain the wavepacket you have described and the wavepacket you have described does not explain what I see. Sorry sad.gif .

Best wishes,

-C2.
jal
27th November 2006 - 04:08 PM
Hi good elf!
Thanks for remembering that link. (and me). smile.gif
I didn’t know then and don’t know now if it helps the discussion.

There is a common point that has been mentioned/raised that should be investigated to see if there is a correlation.
QUOTE
Good Elf
….The chamber is "already excited" … (I would say,….. by the first photon that entered)
….It is not that "space" has memory... that is "absurd  (Now… now… be nice … stay with the evidence. )
…It is that space is "harmonic". We live in "harmonic" space and these are "cavity excitations”

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Good Elf
….The chamber is "already excited" … (I would say,….. by the first photon that entered)
….It is not that "space" has memory... that is "absurd  (Now… now… be nice … stay with the evidence. )
…It is that space is "harmonic". We live in "harmonic" space and these are "cavity excitations”

Laserlight
…..I am strongly supporting the harmonic theory proposed by TRoc …
…. the trailing photons are being influenced by the increasing intensity of the oscillations, as they enter close behind the previous photon, which changes the signal mixing ratio in a harmonic way.


QUOTE
Confused2
…..Once again I feel 'explanations' are obscuring the field….
….so each and every photon must somehow 'know' the steady state solution for a single frequency.
….. The Michaelson-Morley experiment would have detected 'memory' in space .. it didn't .. so within the limits of accuracy of the MM perhaps we can discard 'space memory' as a possible explanation? (I don’t agree. Two different kinds of “memory” are involved)

How can you verify or rule out/discard the possibility that the chamber is "already excited"/has a 'memory' in space/ in "harmonic" space?
????By using different set ups/frequencies and seeing/finding the changes/variations????
jal smile.gif
Laserlight
27th November 2006 - 05:50 PM
Good Elf and All,


GE
QUOTE
It is my view that if you use a very attenuated coherent laser source such that only one photon every 10 seconds would pass the slit then "unseen" photons will still provide a framework for the individual "real" photon passing the slit and "exciting the chamber". What I would also like to point out is the time of passing through the chamber has no influence on the chamber excitation


That agrees with my "model". We know that there are infrared photons
in the cavity and slit area even in a completely closed and dark environment.
They are radiated by ambient heat from atomic interactions of matter of fthe
chamber itself. IR energy exists everywhere in the universe, otherwise there
would be absolute zero temperature in any region where no energy exists.
Also, the slits are closely spaced cavities that are sensitive to their own
oscillating/radiating EM energy fields. This is a matter of geometry scaling. If you pass photons
thru slits that are 6 inches wide, there would be no observable interference
pattern generated because there would be no harmonic interaction between
the EM fields of the photons with the EM fields of the cavity walls.

The close spacing of the slit sidewalls, in the DSE, concentrates and amplifies the
EM field energy being radiated by the atoms that make up the matter of the slits.
I will call this harmonic localized ambient radiation. In order for any
interaction to occur between the EM energy of the slits and the EM energy of the
photons they must have some common harmonic frequency and phase relationship that
exists as some ratio between the EM energy waves. Otherwise, no EM field phasing
and no diffraction or harmonic interaction should occur.

I do disagree with your last statement. IMO, there is extra energy added to the
atoms of the cavity induced by the EM fields of the passing photons. I believe
that this added energy slightly displaces the cavity electrons from their normal
orbits which affects the normal ambient atomic oscillating frequency. When
the electrons are displaced from their normal orbits, they acquire potential energy.
As they fall back into their normal orbits, after the interacting EM fields separate,
the electrons "ring" as they realign to their orbits and the potential energy is
converted to kinetic energy. That ringing kinetic energy is amplified by the
geometry of the dual slit cavity, and is a harmonic of the frequency of the passing
photon that caused it.

If this were not the case the photons would always hit the target in nearly the
same spot. Additional added energy from the passing photons is changing the
harmonic oscillation enegy level of the cavities. This would explain why a
symmetrical interference pattern can be generated by a stream of individual
photons. Each photon is adding some energy component to the cavity which
affects the intensity of the cavity oscillations, which affects the mixing of the
signals of the cavity and the subsequent photons. Something is changing to
create a difference in the "trajectory" of each subsequent photon which yields
a scaling interference pattern. It has to be the energy in the cavity oscillaitions, which affects the harmonic mixing, IMO.

Comments, other alternative explanations welcome. Let's discuss it.

LL
Laserlight
27th November 2006 - 06:12 PM
All,

I forgot one mechanism in my model. If a photon is indeed an EM wavefront,
then the portion of the wavefront that is absorbed by the blocking walls and post
of the DSE will excite the wall and post atoms to a higher energy level. This
energy should be converted from kinetic energy, to potential energy, and then
back to kinetic energy, in the form of IR (heat), and may contribute to the
localized atomic energy that is present.

If the wavefront is reflected back by the walls and slits, there will still be some
small quantum energy contribution during the rejection (reflection) process, IMO.

Edit:
I may have found a flaw in my logic that may change the dynamics of my model
which may actually support C2's wave model, TRoc's harmonic mixing
model, and GE's photon wave model, and my harmonic cavity model.

If a photon is an extended EM wavefront then, there being 2 slits, each slit must
transmit (pass) an equal portion of the wavefront thru their respective cavities.
This gets us way back in the conversation where C2 questioned whether the photon
is split and passes thru both cavities, like a water wave does. This
seems entirely plausible, if a photon is indeed a wavefront. This would also
explain the mirror image interference pattern and the signal mixing as it
tries to reassemble past the geometry of the slits. This is the interference
of the photon with "itself. Actually it is the interference of the separate energy
fields interacting as they try to restablish a phase timing relationship.
This would work with a single
photon wavefront equally well as with a continous photon flow. I still believe
that the slits themselves are also a part of the resonance energy amplification
scenario, or no variation or pattern would emerge in the single photon experiment.


Lets discuss it. Comments welcome.


LL
TRoc
27th November 2006 - 06:38 PM
Hi all,



LL, maybe you missed this question from me at the end of the last page. I'll repeat here. I know it has the possibility of being a "dumb question", but it could be the "right answer" too.

QUOTE
The adjustment to the voltage takes place at the dynodes, correct? I agree that this does what you say. The secondary electrons that don't have the right energy are prevented. These are generated at each at each dynode (increasingly) on the way, and secondary in the device (PMT).

My argument was for the cumulative effect to be summed at the primary electron generation, .. at the photocathode itself. This would be the initial "burst" that triggers the cascade through the dynodes (and into the "controllable" area).

The superposition of a group of "photons" at the photocathode would follow the photoelectric effect rule, and eject a higher velocity electron than predicted/accounted for. This initial "extra kinetic energy" would slightly increase each cascade step, perhaps accounting for your "extra photons" too? (squared)



Overall, I think that the DSE is just NOT a very good experiment. It is SO old, predating our technological ability to understand it. Adding the laser to it didn't help much. Other changes, and versions can and should be done, but haven't. Two lasers should be brought together through the slit, both a fairly close (in frequency) pair, and a pair about 1/2 an octave apart (50%). The entire "box" containing the experiment should ran with different materials, and specific monitoring as well. Some "acoustic" absorbing material vs mirror sides should produce a measurable difference. The "bare bones", no walls, out in the middle of the desert at night version would relax a few concerns as well.

Another thing, that MANY other experiment similar enough to the DSE (but very NEW in design) use Active Vibration Canceling Systems to cancel out normal vibrations inherent to the building. The Earth's Schumann Resonance is ever present, a natural harmonic, and large enough to have affects on lens, alignments, and pre-existing standing wave patterns. And totally ignored in the DSE.


We have our disagreements, which is fine, but I also think that, since we are having a "scientific" conversation, trying to change each other's views is very acceptable, and even required. Anytime someone says "I don't think this is true", they should give as full of a reason why as time will allow.

I'm going to recap some of our differences. Just 4 names here, there are more people involved, but not giving these distinct opinions. More are welcome!


C2: Photons are particles, and do NOT interact with each other.
GE: Photons are waves, and do NOT interact with each other.
LL: Photons are waves, and DO interact with each other.
TRc: Photons are waves, and DO interact with each other.

These next ones, I'm not positive about, so correct where needed.

C2 : One at a time particle is happening in the DSE.
GE : One at a time wave packet is happening in the DSE, but "other connections" are possible?
LL : One at a time wave packet is happening in the DSE, but "other connections" are possible?
TRc : One at a time wave packet is NOT possible with a laser. There is NEVER a time where the "pilot wave" of an envelope is not interfering with the preceding wave packet. Cavity equilibrium is not reached between pulses.


I have taken quite a bit of time citing references, and links to demonstrate the photons CAN interfere with each other. I know what the Text says, but I would like some empirical sources to substantiate the idea that they CAN"T. I can show "TEXT" that says they do, but we don't need to have a "name" contest. Let's look at the data gathered over the years.


Again, trying to clear the air of semantics may be useful here.

What does "interference" mean to you? Give an example(s):

FOR ME: Superposition, Doppler, Beats, Summation, Second (or more) Harmonic Generation, Raman Scattering, Stokes (& anti-) Scattering, Brillouin Scattering, Fluorescence, Rayleigh Scattering, Absorption, Reflection, Emission, ALL speak of an interaction.

You might say that some (or all) of these are MATTER caused, but I will ask for proof. There probably isn't any: in order to SEE (measure) these, we need to use mass. This does not guarantee that the changes are not taking place prior to the measurement. (nor does my theory of reducing mass and light down to their common denominator, VIBRATION, assure us that it IS) Fair enough?


I have made clear before, my opposition to the Copenhagen interpretation, and to large degree, the arguments of Bohr. This does not mean I think that this guy was not VERY intelligent. There is limitation to what we can measure. Fortunately, this changes with technology, and newer theories to re-explain old phenomena.

The existing QM/QED gives an "explanation" that I do not agree with in many cases. However, it DOES the same thing: take starting data, and make predictions. What happens in between is not CRITICAL to the arguments' correctness. So, in this sense, what I am saying is NO different: give me some data, and I can make a prediction. Do not overly concern yourself with "what happens in between" at this point, would be my suggestion.


C2 has a very good point, which I will restate here. SOMETHING "similar" is inherent in the "1-at-a-time" photon, and the stream of photons. This similarity, I say, is ALSO present in the laser itself. This similarity is present in the long list of phenomenon that I presented above. This similarity is present in ALL things.

The similarity is Resonance (surprise!).

Three things can happen to a wave, or Energy: absorb and emit UNCHANGED, absorb and emit CHANGED, and total absorption. I have the suspicion that just as much SEMANTIC-ISM is present in defining those things, like reflect, refract, diffract, etc.

I have SIMPLIFIED this in my theory to a mathematical nature:

Quantity can only do one of 3 things: increase, decrease, or be the same at measurement, as it was when produced. My Fundamental quantity is rate of Vibration; translating all data into Hz is a CRITICAL step to seeing the pattern that is in ALL things.


So will "translating" each others perceptions, and definitions, into some common ground.


regards,

T.Roc

Laserlight
27th November 2006 - 07:26 PM
TRoc,

That was a good post, and good argument. I agree with the majority of your
intent.

I would like to correct your interpretation my position.

QUOTE
LL: Photons are waves, and DO interact with each other.


My position: Photons are discrete EM waves of energy at a specific frequency.
Energy interacts with matter, which acts as an energy calatalyst, and is converted
to different forms of energy by it. "Massive" quantities of discrete photons
can generate large field interactions constructively or destructively. tongue.gif


Regarding your "question" or assertion of the photoelectric affect in a PMT.
What you assert could conceivably occur, but I would expect it to also occur
with only a single slit sample too. If it happens in both instances, SSE and DSE,
then there should be a proportional average of these spurious events that are
registered in the count. If they are indeed spurious secondary electron emissions
then they shouldn't necessarily fall exactly on the borders of the pattern generated
and should fall inside or outside the outline of the pattern and be recognized.
If you keep the threshold voltage high in the PMT then you do indeed get spurious
secondary electron generation and random noisy phosphor bursts all over the
screen. This was experienced in one of the earlier posted PMT experiments
and it was necessary for the experimenters to turn the PMT voltage down to
minimize this effect. JMHO.

Do you agree?

Edit added:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
LL: Photons are waves, and DO interact with each other.


My position: Photons are discrete EM waves of energy at a specific frequency.
Energy interacts with matter, which acts as an energy calatalyst, and is converted
to different forms of energy by it. "Massive" quantities of discrete photons
can generate large field interactions constructively or destructively. tongue.gif


Regarding your "question" or assertion of the photoelectric affect in a PMT.
What you assert could conceivably occur, but I would expect it to also occur
with only a single slit sample too. If it happens in both instances, SSE and DSE,
then there should be a proportional average of these spurious events that are
registered in the count. If they are indeed spurious secondary electron emissions
then they shouldn't necessarily fall exactly on the borders of the pattern generated
and should fall inside or outside the outline of the pattern and be recognized.
If you keep the threshold voltage high in the PMT then you do indeed get spurious
secondary electron generation and random noisy phosphor bursts all over the
screen. This was experienced in one of the earlier posted PMT experiments
and it was necessary for the experimenters to turn the PMT voltage down to
minimize this effect. JMHO.

Do you agree?

Edit added:
FOR ME: Superposition, Doppler, Beats, Summation, Second (or more) Harmonic Generation, Raman Scattering, Stokes (& anti-) Scattering, Brillouin Scattering, Fluorescence, Rayleigh Scattering, Absorption, Reflection, Emission, ALL speak of an interaction.

You might say that some (or all) of these are MATTER caused, but I will ask for proof. There probably isn't any: in order to SEE (measure) these, we need to use mass. This does not guarantee that the changes are not taking place prior to the measurement. (nor does my theory of reducing mass and light down to their common denominator, VIBRATION, assure us that it IS) Fair enough?


All of the effects in your 1st sentence are artifacts of some interaction with matter.
They do not occur spontaneously in free space without some influence caused
by interaction with matter. Because of matter we have photonic free energy
quantum conversion to timing and phase coincident interactive energy fields. I agree that it is wholly to do
with vibration/frequency/harmonic interactions. You are correct that we use
matter to resolve the effects observed. Unfortunately, that will forever remain
a variable. We should consider it a constant since we are using matter to
define and measure energy.

LL
TRoc
27th November 2006 - 07:54 PM
LL,

QUOTE
"If a photon is an extended EM wavefront then, there being 2 slits, each slit must transmit (pass) an equal portion of the wavefront thru their respective cavities. "




That was certainly part of my reasoning for saying that, if you take out half of the interaction area (by post slit BLOCKING or measuring), a NEW result appears: the single, centered "dot" lit up on the screen.

That did not occur with just one slit (diffraction), ONLY two slit interference, with the ability to interfere REMOVED, does that.

This is TOTALLY logical.

ONLY by ASSUMING that "photons" do NOT interfere, are any "quantum weird" explanations required.

The single spot appears this way EITHER from 1-at-a-time, or a stream.

To me, this result is CLEAR:

The single packet can self interfere, the stream can "jointly" interfere, IF they are SEPARATED, and then ALLOWED to come together again. If they are not allowed to come together again, we can NOT expect interference.



ciao,

T.Roc

PS. sorry, I have to go. I will respond to your last post later.
Confused2
27th November 2006 - 08:37 PM
Hi jal,Good Elf, Laserlight et al,

jal,GE,
Space memory .. firstly the problem with the MMX .. next .. light from distant stars gets to us with the same energy it left the star (ignoring red shift), hence we can tell how hot it is and what elements are on the surface. I suspect it would take energy to set up 'space' ready for the next photon... same goes for resonances that persist after the photon has passed... photons don't seem to get tired.

Troc,

Reflections .. check mirror .. mine shows all frequencies present and correct, no new frequencies. Lots of mirrors might selectively absorb some frequencies but do not make any new ones.

Absorption .. absorbs frequencies .. often selectively but does not make any new frequencies. Some very special materials under special circumstances can make new frequencies. The DSE detectives have combed the building where the DSE is located and found no suspect materials.

The equations used to predict the result are hundreds of years old ..we need the width of each slit and the distance between them. I have never heard of any suggestion that there should be one diffraction equation for bright light and another for dim light. The fact that we only need one equation for bright AND dark may be a consequence of the way the DSE detectives remove megawatt lasers and active optical elements from the field of battle before the DSE experiment is performed. The other equation, the 'DSE equation' uses the distance between the slits. The results suggest that this distance will remain sufficiently constant during the afternoon that no special sound absorbing material or vibration cancellation is required. To a great extent the experiment is 'self checking' .. if it didn't work we would need to find out why it didn't work.. wipe the coffee off it, draw the curtains, find someone sober who is clever enough to fiddle about with the technical stuff so we don't make a complete balls up of it .. etc.

TRoc: Photons are waves, and DO interact with each other. Not sure what you mean .. Details/evidence please.

TRoc : One at a time wave packet is NOT possible with a laser. There is NEVER a time where the "pilot wave" of an envelope is not interfering with the preceding wave packet. Cavity equilibrium is not reached between pulses.

A laser is not required .. monochromatic (non-coherent) light will suffice. The only reason for using a laser is that they are an easy way (nowadays) to get monochromatic light. The experiment we have been looking at may well have been carried out using a light bulb with a green filter in front.

TRoc: I have taken quite a bit of time citing references, and links to demonstrate the photons CAN interfere with each other.
The DSE is the best evidence that photons do not interfere with each other .. the pattern does not depend on the intensity of light - only the width of the slits and the distance between them. That will hold good unless you vapourise the whole thing with a 500 kW laser.

TRoc: Interpretation: we don't seem to agree that what we are seeing is even there to be seen (C2)
Whatever appears common to all things may turn out to be the result of wearing tinted sunglasses.

...the photoelectric affect in a PMT.
The way to test this is to count the photons from the results of the actual experiment, you cannot check this by discussion. I have done this check (graphically) .. of the total number of photons detected .. it looks 'right'. Please feel free to repeat the process and report.

-C2.
Confused2
27th November 2006 - 08:46 PM
There is an error in my analysis which I think Duality has already spotted. It is more interesting to see who else spots it than to admit it.
-C2 smile.gif
Laserlight
27th November 2006 - 09:34 PM
TRoc and All,


TRoc said:

QUOTE
To me, this result is CLEAR:

The single packet can self interfere, the stream can "jointly" interfere, IF they are SEPARATED, and then ALLOWED to come together again. If they are not allowed to come together again, we can NOT expect interference.


I would modify this a bit....we are talking about energy phase, amplitude,
and timing here. Each "1/2" portion of each individual photon will interfere only
with itself, whether alone or "en masse" as an indivdual part of a large energy
wave. The issue is relative phase timing. I have written a separate scenario
that explains this as simply as possible and when the tiime is right I will
post it. Basically, it has to do with the latent "cycle time" for an electron in a
single atom to change energy states. Each individual electron displacement from its
normal energy level takes time, and each full cycle generates a photon energy
pulse that is delayed from the ones that occur before it.
All subsequent photon energy release "pulses" have this cycle time photon generation
latency. Now consider how the latency of 1 electron in a matrix or mass,
compares to the latency of its neighbors. They cannot be in a perfect phase
or time relationship due to the atomic distance and arbitrary uncertainty position
of the individual electrons that comprise the mass. They are all separated by
some finite distance and therefore their timing is different relative to each other.
The electrons and atoms are not "time synchronous", they are offset from a timing
perspective, if even by a femto-second. My point being that no 2 photons are
ever generated perfectly relative to their timing or phasing. There will
always be some time latency offset.

IMO, this is why a photon can never interact with another photon. To put it simply,
they are never in phase.....UNLESS they are "signal divided" by interacting with matter. The energy that a photon contains can be spit, but each
fractional part of the originating photon retains their mutual timing and phase
relationship, since they were radiated at the same time.

It is possible to take the same phase and timing relationship of a single photon
and by delaying and inverting it you can get it to cancel itself.

This is a fundamental technique used in radar to cancel out any reflections of
energy that are fixed (not moving), so that only objects that are moving can
be detected by constant phase changes from the transmitted pulse. If you make
the pulses time coincident and inversed in polarity, they cancel out in the
circuitry where the time coincidence and signal phasing and amplitude
is manipulated. Remember that the transmitted incident energy pulse will
maintain the same relative timing and phase relationship since it comes from
the same source and is synchronized in frequency and timing.

Comments welcome.

LL
Laserlight
27th November 2006 - 09:57 PM
C2 and All,

QUOTE
light from distant stars gets to us with the same energy it left the star (ignoring red shift), hence we can tell how hot it is and what elements are on the surface
]

Same quantum energy state, but it arrives at a much reduced intensity/power
level, since there are fewer photons per unit area. According to ISL !


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
light from distant stars gets to us with the same energy it left the star (ignoring red shift), hence we can tell how hot it is and what elements are on the surface
]

Same quantum energy state, but it arrives at a much reduced intensity/power
level, since there are fewer photons per unit area. According to ISL !


Absorption .. absorbs frequencies .. often selectively but does not make any new frequencies.


I disagree with this, the act of absorption generates infrared by converting
higher energy levels (at the atomic level where they are excited to a higher
kinetic energy state and ) into a different frequency of energy that is radiated as
heat. The higher the energy level provided to an absorber the shorter the
secondary wavelenth that is re-radiated. Consider carbon, as energy is added
it radiates heat. As more energy is added the wavelenth changes proportionally
with the energy absorbed. That is why it goes from warm, to hot, to red hot, to
white hot, etc. Even black holes radiate energy (gravity) and you can't get any more absorbant than that.

QUOTE

To a great extent the experiment is 'self checking' .. if it didn't work we would need to find out why it didn't work.. wipe the coffee off it, draw the curtains, find someone sober who is clever enough to fiddle about with the technical stuff so we don't make a complete balls up of it .. etc.


Valid points on all counts... The experiment is "self relative" to its environment.
The wild card variable is the experimenter and his competency to conduct the
experiment scientifically.

LL










Laserlight
27th November 2006 - 10:34 PM
Just to put things into perspective...

Enjoy!
http://dingo.care2.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf

LL
Confused2
27th November 2006 - 10:49 PM
Hi LL,

QUOTE (me+)

Absorption .. absorbs frequencies .. often selectively but does not make any new frequencies.


Yes I agree .. what I meant was that absorption removes 'them' from the field of play that (for the sake of sanity) I would like to see restricted to the width of the slits and the distance between them. NOT whether the apparatus is on ball bearings or sat out in the middle of a desert.

When I joined this thread I had one way to approach this problem .. I now have two (I certainly didn't expect that).

When you bang a drum you get the whole shmooting match of drum .. Good Elf is 'sort of' there .. Troc is 'sort of' there .. I am not 'there' but I am doing my best to stop us getting lost in the desert.

Best wishes,

-C2.
Laserlight
27th November 2006 - 11:29 PM
C2-

QUOTE
Good Elf is 'sort of' there .. Troc is 'sort of' there .. I am not 'there' but I am doing my best to stop us getting lost in the desert.


Well you've gotta admit, there has been a tremendous amount of information,
conceptualization, interpretation, and different investigative techniques (and
motives) shared on our cerebral "investigative" journey. My curiosity has been
satisfied in ways well beyond what I ever envisioned, and I'm the better for it.

I feel that we are coming to closure on this DSE topic, but we have opened a
virtual "can of worms" in other areas of associated phenomena that can be
explored, developed, and interpreted.

Off topic- I just started reading Jal's board http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5203]symmetrically%20structured%20spacetime
and I'm intriqued. Some very interesting stuff there, and I've only just begun.

So, where do we go from here? We have such a congenial, opinionated, and
smart group of individuals, it would be ashamed to disband once we all have agreed to the underlying root cause of the DSE results.

LL
Confused2
27th November 2006 - 11:46 PM
Hi LL,

I agree about the quality of the people. Thanks to all for tolerating me.

We haven't even scratched the surface of the DSE.

A single frequency steady state should take about ... hmm ... forever? to evolve. And yet you hit the DSE with a single photon and what do you get?

Hopefully Good Elf will be back shortly and there may be others..

There is a lot more madness in this yet..

Best wishes,

-C2.
yquantum
28th November 2006 - 02:33 AM
Hi guys,

FYI, C2 I replied to Duality. laugh.gif

I just read a few post, but it occurred to me and it is just a hunch, but how does the photoelectric effect dynamics & the photon effect on the slits, play into this experiment.

I will let you Goggle the prospect. It is late and might not have any relevance just thinking out loud and looking for something that has not been looked into to my knowledge.

Disclaimer: There might be some research into this, but I have not heard of it? I know how much I do not know, so just consider the source. laugh.gif I like going out on a limb when it does not cost me too much. biggrin.gif Besides I would like to know if it does, would that not be something. Eh!

BTW, here is a site you can do some experiments that will not cost you concerning a visual tool.

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/twoslitsa.html

Carpe Diem,
yquantum
yquantum
28th November 2006 - 02:57 AM
C2, LL, et al,

Now I know why it struck a nerve, had to find out before I leave. I must really be tired but here is a paper you might want to read, then you might have progressed beyond this. Hope I did not insult anyone.sad.gif

This is what happens when you enter late in the game. blink.gif

http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/quantum.html

Carpe Diem,
yquantum
TRoc
28th November 2006 - 08:44 AM
Hi all,


C2, I have already offered the information that you are requesting again. In a gentleman's' argument, the rules are: if you haven't refuted it, you bought it. No more going back, eh? smile.gif



In all of this, we have the parameters of the experiment, and the compilation of data from the results. Interpreting the results is indeed tricky, but logic will see its' way through this.


I am going to say again, the same thing that most people have, after a great deal of study. These are the facts:


1. The "photon" concept can not be measured more than once.
2. The "photon" concept can not be measured, in any way, between its' origination, and its' destination. Doing so ends its' existence.

This means, that what I am proposing can NOT be seen, and must be inferred.

It is extremely important then, to point out that NONE of the 3 QM explanations can be seen either: THEY MUST BE INFERRED.

Because MEASUREMENT interacts, or interferes with the thing being measured, the traditional form of measurement has reached its' zenith. We have no way of measuring what is going on without changing what happens.


Everyone must make a choice as to which explanation they believe is better. If I have not established that interference, or interaction (including superposition or modulation) does not occur on the way to measurement, it is for those reasons I gave above. It does not rule my explanation out, however.

So, here is the choice in explaining the interactions that we measure:

A. They happen on the way there, OR
B. They happen when they get there.

There are NO other alternatives.

My choice, "A. The interactions happen on the way there" is CAUSAL. It can be explained very simply, and logically, from existing, "classical" Science. Yes, it is a "new" way of looking at this, but it does NOT require any great leap of faith. It has a HUGE amount of experimental verification, and follows every day logic and experience.

Choice "B. The interactions happen when they get there" has no explanation for the results. Three different approaches have been developed, each shown to be "equivalent" to each other, yet NONE having straightforward logic. They have been continually "updated", to match new results that come in against predictions. This has been going on for more than 40 years, and still NO satisfactory answer. QM has no reason at its' foundation, and no conclusion at its end.


You will have to choose the way that fits you best.

I will try one more time, to establish undeniably, that the interactions happen ON THE WAY.

QM began around 1905, and was firmly established by the mid 1920's. Sure, more has come since then, but I am speaking of the beginning. It is important sometimes, to look at the World that existed at the time a theory, or experiment came about.

At that time, AM radio was the ONLY radio. AM is, as you know, "amplitude modulated". Sound waves are translated into the proper form, and modulated, or superposed over a carrier wave, of steady frequency. Varying the power with the variation in intensity of the sound wave is what makes the amplitude vary.

The basic AM signal (EM wave) has its power concentrated at a center, carrier frequency, and 2 side bands, each a mirror of the other. (just like I describe a "photon") For better transmission (less wasted power), they can suppress the carrier wave. Then they regenerate the carrier at the receiver (measurement) in a "beat frequency oscillator", and then, a demodulator is used to separate the 2 signals.

I must pause here for some HARD questions (to those who do not believe):

1. Modulation is an interaction between 2 (or more) waves. YES or NO ?
This will not work if you do not use just the right signal, so my terms of Resonance predict this interaction.

2. They can send this signal (a frequency) WITHOUT the carrier wave. READ that again. What is "carrying" the other wave then? So, BOTH waves are able to move at c to the receiver, with or without each other, and EITHER can convey the information sent from the station. (emission)

3. What is the purpose for the beat frequency? They are able to RECREATE the carrier signal from the interaction with a beat frequency. Hard to get around that one!

4. What is it that causes INTERFERENCE that degrades the AM Radio signal on the way to the receiver? Why doesn't the wave "collapse" (if your answer was "mass")? Does the conditions in the ionosphere (cavity) play a role in this?

5. What happens to an AM signal, if different stations broadcast too close in frequency together? The signals INTERFERE, varying directly in proportion to their degree of Resonance. Please explain this "on the way" interference.

6. What happens to a signal (wave) if the modulation index is 100% (the variation in the amplitude is equal to the original level) ? That sounds an awful lot (OK, exactly) like pure Resonance, and/or SHG. Modulation indexes give less "problems" from 100% down, meaning the INTERACTION is "graduated". Please explain in QM terms.


Later, around 1935, FM radio was presented to "radio engineers". It's a good thing that it wasn't presented to the Copenhagen crowd. They would have told them "that is not possible".

This new radio, and the special case of FM, phase modulation, use ANGULAR superposition to modulate the signals. Interesting.

It would seem that the DSE experiment is AM radio, all over again. Decreasing the intensity DOES NOT change the frequency. If the frequency does not change, then there are, for example in a 730nm wave, 4x10e+14 cycles, each spaced 730nm apart, from the laser to the screen. It does NOT matter then, if the secondary, modulated "phase" is 1Hz ("one photon at a time"). The carrier signal, the laser frequency, STILL exists INSIDE the envelope.

THE RESULTS:

Double Slit
The line between the 2 slits cuts the envelope in 1/2, AND each 1/2 gets cut again at the edge, by hitting the side of the slit. They (4 pc) interact with each other, and hit the screen in the INTERFERENCE pattern. More light/dark bands, decreasing in intensity out from the center. Increasing distance between slits creates a LARGER "tooth", and reflects back Energy into the cavity; decreases number of bands on the screen, until (with the slits far apart) ALL the Energy comes from the same angles (angular momentum) to a single spot.

"Observing" one Slit
Catching (measuring) one 1/2 of the envelope PREVENTS interaction. The other 1/2 envelope hits the screen in a single spot.

Single Slit
ONE slit does not "tear" the envelope in 1/2. It tears off the ends, and most of the envelope hits in the center, with 2 lobes, decreasing in intensity. The DIFFRACTION pattern.


ALL the conditions and results of the DSE. No counter-intuitive, non-causal, dualistic, illogical explanations are necessary. Unless..

you choose to still believe that INTERFERENCE CAN NOT HAPPEN on the way. (something that can not be proved, or disproved)

Change the term "one photon"; it is ambiguous, and not necessary as a conceptual "unit" for E=hf . We do not use "phase" in that equation!



regards,

T.Roc

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.